University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Some Correlates Of Friction: A Study Of Staff-Line Relations

(USC Thesis Other)

Some Correlates Of Friction: A Study Of Staff-Line Relations

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 68— 10 ,2 4 1 MEADE, M arvin, 1926- SOME CORRELATES OF FRICTION: A STUDY OF STA FF-LIN E RELATIONS. U niversity of Southern C alifornia, Ph.D ., 1968 P o litical Science, public adm inistration University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, M ichigan SOME CORRELATES O F FRICTION: A STUDY OF STA FF-LIN E RELATIONS by M arvin Meade A D issertatio n P re se n te d to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In P a rtia l F ulfillm ent of the R equirem ents for the D egree DOCTOR O F PHILOSOPHY (Public A dm inistration) Ja n u ary , 1968 UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N CALIFORNIA T H E GRADUATE SC H O O L U N IV ER SITY PARK LOS A N G ELES, C A L IFO R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by .MARVIN..MEADE under the direction of hks.... Dissertation C om mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y Dean D ate January....1968 COMMITTEE Chairman ACKNOW LEDGM ENTS The r e s e a rc h fo r th is d is s e rta tio n w as done a s p a rt of a la rg e r study c a rr ie d out u n der au sp ice s of the C en ter fo r R e se a rc h on U tilization of Scien- » tific Knowledge, Institute fo r Social R e se a rc h , The U n iv ersity of M ichigan. The author w ishes to acknow ledge the encouragem ent and a ssista n c e of h is co lleag u es who p a rtic ip a te d in the la rg e r study, p a rtic u la rly F ra n k lin W. Neff, fo rm e rly p ro g ra m a sso c ia te on the C en ter staff and d ire c to r of the la rg e r studty. A ppreciation is also due a ll th o se o ffic e rs and staff of the o rg an iz a tion studied, who g enerously provided in fo rm atio n used in th is study. Acknow ledgm ent is a lso g ratefu lly m ade to The U niversity of M ichi g a n 's In stitu te of P ublic A d m in istratio n , which provided financial support o v er m uch of the p e rio d during which the re s e a rc h and w riting of th is d isse rta tio n w ere c a r rie d on. The study would have been im p o ssib le w ithout th at support. A sp ecial note of thanks is due P ro fe s s o r W illiam B. Storm , c h airm an of the a u th o r's d is s e rta tio n com m ittee, not only fo r h is advice and guidance but also fo r h is ch eerfu l acceptance of additional b u rd en s im posed by the a u th o r's o ff-site re sid e n c e during the p re p a ra tio n of th is d isse rta tio n . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A CK N O W LED G M EN TS................................................................................................ ii LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... iv C hapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE S T U D Y ........................................................ 1 II. A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY OF ST A FF-L IN E R E L A T IO N S ...................................................................... 22 III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND M E T H O D S .................................................. 60 IV. THE F I N D I N G S ............................................................................................. 80 V. SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S IO N S ....................................................................135 B IB L IO G R A P H Y ..................................................................................................................153 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. A nalysis of V ariance of Mean S cores of Staff Unit F ric tio n with P ro g ra m B ureaus and with O ther Staff U n i t s ..................... 82 2. C o rrela tio n of P erfo rm an ce F a c to rs with Amount of Staff-L ine and Staff-Staff F r i c t i o n ..................................................... 91 3. Rank O rd e r C o rrela tio n s Between P ro g ra m B ureau and Staff R espondents' R ankings of 25 Staff U nits on P e rfo r m ance F a c t o r s .............................................................................................. 97 4. C o rrelatio n of Interaction F a c to rs with Amount of Staff- Line and Staff-Staff F r i c t i o n ......................................................................100 5. Rank O rd er C o rrela tio n s betw een P ro g ra m B ureau and Staff R espondents' R ankings of 25 Staff U nits on In ter action F a c t o r s ................................................................................................ 107 6. C o rrela tio n of Staff Unit C h a ra c te ris tic s with Amount of Staff-L ine and Staff-Staff F r i c t i o n ........................................................... 113 7. Rank O rd e r C o rrela tio n s betw een P ro g ram B ureau and Staff R espondents' R ankings of 25 Staff Units on Unit C h a ra c te ris tic s F a c t o r s ........................................................................... 119 8. C o rrela tio n of Selected Interaction F a c to rs with Amount of Staff-L ine F rictio n : E valuations of P ro g ra m B ureaus by T arg e t Staff Unit M e m b e r s .................................................................127 9. Sum m ary of F a c to rs R elated to Amount of F rictio n : Staff- Line and Staff-Staff E valuations ........................................................... 130 iv 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY The re s e a rc h which is re p o rte d in the follow ing pages co n stitu tes an ex p lo rato ry fie ld study of re la tio n s betw een c e rta in su b -u n its of a com plex o rg an izatio n , and of fa c to rs a sso c ia te d w ith the quality of those re la tio n s. M ore sp ecifically , the re la tio n s exp lo red a re betw een so -c a lle d "sta ff" and "lin e" u n its in a cab in et-lev e l d ep artm en t of the fe d e ra l governm ent. F o r p u rp o se s of p re lim in a ry definition, the te rm "lin e" is u se d h e re in its tra d itio n a l sen se to r e f e r to those u n its d ire c tly engaged in the p roduc tion and d istrib u tio n of an o rg an izatio n ’s p rim a ry p ro d u cts o r s e rv ic e s . In b u sin e ss o r in d u stria l e n te rp ris e s , those u n its actually p erfo rm in g the m anu fa c tu re , fab ric atio n , and assem b ly of the e n te rp ris e ’s product would be de fined a s "lin e " d e p artm e n ts, a s would u n its re sp o n sib le fo r sellin g and d is tr i buting th a t product. In an o rg an izatio n such as a h o sp ital, the p rin cip al line ele m e n ts would include m ed ical and n u rsin g staffs dispensing m ed ical c a re to p atien ts. In governm ental se ttin g s w here the "product" is m o re lik ely to be s e rv ic e s than goods, the line would be defined to include those o rg an izatio n al su b -u n its d ire c tly e n tru ste d w ith ad m in isterin g and im plem enting specific p ro g ra m s o r a c tiv itie s assig n ed to the agency. T hus, fo r in stan c e, a u n it p ro viding se rv ic e s to ch ild ren w ithin a p a re n t w elfare d ep artm en t would 2 c o n stitu te a line unit of th at d ep artm en t, as would the D epartm ent of S tate’s geographic b u reau s and o v e rse a s e m b a ssie s resp o n sib le for d ay -to -d ay im plem entation of U nited States fo reig n policy. In c o n tra st, "sta ff” is used to r e f e r to those units g en erally u n d e r stood, at le a s t in th eo ry , to be e stab lish ed fo r th e p u rp o se of providing a s s is tan ce, su p p o rt, o r co o rd in ativ e s e rv ic e s of v ario u s kinds not only to the line but to the o rg an iz atio n 's top lev el m anagem ent c o rp s. T opical of such units would be those re sp o n sib le fo r re c ru itin g , em ploying, and train in g p erso n n el fo r w ork in line d e p artm e n ts. The te rm "sta ff" would also apply to units p ro viding e x p e rt tech n ical advice to line m an ag ers and em ployees; p ro cu rin g , sto rin g , and d istrib u tin g supplies to line units; auditing p e rfo rm an c e a n d /o r financial re c o rd s of line o r production units; devising m o re efficient p ro c e d u res fo r handling the o rg an iz atio n 's p ap erw o rk flow; o r engaging in long- ran g e planning fo r the o rg an iz atio n 's fu tu re grow th and change. ^ A dm ittedly th e re a re shadowy a re a s of o rg an izatio n al activity which a re d ifficu lt to c la ssify as e ith e r "lin e" o r " s ta ff," and o b se rv e rs do not a l ways a g re e as to w hether a given activity is c le a rly one o r the o th er. The b asic d istin ctio n , n e v e rth e le ss, is th at "sta ff" is not in the d ire c t line of p ro duction and o rd e r-g iv in g m anagem ent, but supplem ental to it. 1 The types of sta ff functions found in m o d ern -d ay org an izatio n s a re ex p lo red in m o re d e ta il la te r in this c h ap ter. B ackground of the Study N either extended w ork ex p erien ce in la rg e , m u ltip le-p u rp o se o rg an iz a tions n o r lengthy exp o su re to the lite ra tu re of o rganization and a d m in istratio n is re q u ire d to reco g n ize th at in terg ro u p com petition and co n flict a re p e rv a siv e facts of org an izatio n al life. R easons fo r th is co n flict a re m any and v a rie d , but a m ajo r underlying fa c to r is the b a sic o rganizing p re m ise of la rg e -s c a le e n te rp ris e s : the division of lab o r and ta sk s am ong groups of people. Schein notes th at the v e ry fac t of dividing functions am ong d ep artm en ts o r groups in tro d u ces a b ias tow ard in te rg ro u p com petition fo r re s o u rc e s and re w a rd s fro m su p e ro rd in a te authority. T ypical re s u lts of this com petition a re d e c re a se d in te rac tio n and com m unication betw een g ro u p s, re su ltin g in a tendency to d is to rt and ste re o ty p e expectations; in c re a s e d su sp icio n and h o stility ; and fo s- 2 te rin g of w in -lo se confrontations betw een com peting g ro u p s. T hese effects feed back upon th em selv es to fu rth e r heighten tension betw een g roups. W ithin this g e n eral conflict sy ste m , the sp e c ia l c a se of sta ff-lin e f r ic tion is a ubiquitous and p a rtic u la rly vexing so u rc e of tension. Koontz and O'Donnel, fo r in stan c e, have w ritten th at th e re is probably no o th e r sin g le a re a of m anagem ent w hich c au ses m o re fric tio n o r m o re lo ss of tim e and ef- 3 fec tiv e n ess. The s h e e r volum e of com m ent on the su b je ct in the lite ra tu re of 2 E d g ar H. Schein, O rganizational Psychology (Englewood C liffs, N. J . : P re n tic e -H a ll, Inc. , 1965), pp. 81, 85. 3 H arold Koontz and C y ril O 'D onnel, P rin c ip le s of M anagem ent (New Y ork: M cG raw -H ill, 1959), p. 155. 4 ad m in istratio n and m anagem ent is indicative th a t Koontz and O'D onnel have h ard ly o v e r-s ta te d the c a se . The p a ssa g e of tim e has not functioned to a m e lio ra te this s ta te of a ffa irs. The re c o rd e d chronology of co n cern w ith s ta ff-lin e conflict, not to m ention p re s c rip tio n s to a llev iate it, extends through the lite ra tu r e fo r m any y e a rs , y et rem a in s a r e c u rr e n t preo ccu p atio n of sc h o la rs and p ra c titio n e rs of m anagem ent. In the view of so m e, the p ro b lem has in ten sified in re c e n t y e a rs with the rap id grow th of o rg an izatio n al needs fo r in te lle c tu a l, p ro fe ssio n a l, and sp e cia lty sk ills to cope w ith the on ru sh of m o re so p h istica ted and com plex 4 tech n o lo g ies. The obvious question a t this point ap p ears sim p le: W hat accounts for the p e rs iste n c e of sta ff-lin e p ro b lem s ? The s c h o la r's faith su g g ests th at to u n d erstan d the p roblem is to so lv e it, y et c le a r u n d erstan d in g s, not to m ention sim p le, satisfy in g so lu tio n s, have proven h a rd to com e by. If one tu rn s to the lite ra tu re of sta ff-lin e re la tio n s, one finds m any a ttem p ts a t explanation, none of which a re wholly sa tis fa c to ry o r u n iv ersally applicable. At the r is k of o v ersim p lificatio n , m o st explanations of sta ff-lin e fric tio n in the lite ra tu re appear to be of two kinds: those w hich a ttrib u te the conflict to differing c h a ra c te ris tic s of people and those which a ttrib u te it to sy stem d efects. In the f ir s t c a se , people occupying sta ff positions a re be lieved to d iffer fro m people in line jobs in ways th at fo s te r conflict. In the 4 V ictor A. Thom pson, M odern O rganization (New Y ork: A lfred A. Knopf, I n c ., 1961), 197 pp. 5 second categ o ry , conflict is a sc rib e d to difficulties in h ere n t in accom m odating the sta ff ro le o r function to org an izatio n s s tru c tu re d and o p e ra ted on the b a sis of trad itio n a l th eo ries and p rin cip le s of o rganization. Conceding som e v a li dity to th e se conceptions, both su ffe r from d eficien cies which lim it th e ir pow er of explanation. They a re c o n sid ere d m o re fully in the follow ing pages in o rd e r to c la rify the m otivation and ratio n ale fo r the p re s e n t re s e a rc h . D ifferen tial C h a ra c te ris tic s of Staff and L ine People As u se d h e re , the te rm "d iffe ren tial c h a ra c te ris tic s " of sta ff and line people has re fe re n c e to s e v e ra l types of tr a its p resu m ed to affect b ehavior, including p erso n ality a ttrib u te s such as a g g re ssiv e n e ss, am bition, in tro v e r sion, o r p e rso n a l in se c u rity ; dem ographic fa c to rs such as age, sex, education, m obility, and p ro fe ssio n a l affiliations; and even so c ia l tra its su ch as h ab its of d re s s and groom ing. Som e w rite rs ap p ear to p lace m o st em phasis on p e rso n ality tra its , holding th at d ifferen ces in m otivation le v e ls, a g g re ssiv e n e ss, o r need to achieve re s u lt in d ifferen tial beh av io rs th at lead to frictio n . O ther authors rely m o re heavily on d ifferen ces in age o r in lev els and types of education to account fo r frictio n -in d u cin g b e h a v io rs. Still o th ers ap p ear to in te rm ix 5 This is not to say th at the two c a te g o rie s of explanation a re wholly d isc re te . In som e w ritings th e re is recognition th at sta ff ro le p ro b lem s and the c h a ra c te ris tic s of people in those ro le s a re linked in the cau satio n of ten sion . They a re se p a ra te d h e re p rim a rily fo r an aly tical p u rp o se s, although it is tru e th at m any w rite rs tend to em p h asize one o r the o th er ra th e r than both of the c a te g o rie s. 6 p e rso n a lity , dem ographic, and so c ia l tr a its in d e scrib in g d ifferen ces betw een sta ff and line people. In re a lity it is often d ifficult to hold to rig o ro u s d istin c tions betw een th ese c la s s e s of c h a ra c te ris tic s , esp ecially sin c e th e ir effects on behavior m ay be jo in t and in te ra c tiv e . In any event, it is not the p u rp o se of this study to in q u ire into the cau sa l and in terv en in g rela tio n sh ip s betw een th e se types of fa c to rs. R ath er the objective is sim p ly to point out how som e w rite rs have a ttrib u te d sta ff-lin e fric tio n to individual, p e rso n a l d ifferen ces involving som e o r a ll of the above- nam ed a ttrib u te s. So fa r as this study is concerned, the im p o rtan t point is that sta ff-lin e frictio n is se en by so m e to be p rim a rily p e rso n -b a se d , as d is tin ct from an a lte rn a tiv e explanation th a t fric tio n re s u lts fro m defects in o r ganizational sy ste m o r s tru c tu re , a p a rt from the p e rso n al c h a ra c te ris tic s of individuals who m an sta ff-lin e positions in the o rganization. T h ere fo re , for p u rp o ses of the follow ing d iscu ssio n , "d iffe ren tial c h a ra c te ris tic s " of sta ff and line people has re fe re n c e not only to p e rso n ality but also to so c ia l and dem o grap hic d ifferen ces. With this in m ind, it is ap p ro p ria te to begin the d iscu ssio n by re fe rrin g to a study which is widely and approvingly c ited in the lite ra tu re , testify in g to its influence on o th er w rite rs in the sta ff-lin e re a lm . This is D alton's exam i nation into the in d u stria l sociology of th re e fa c to rie s and a d ep artm en t s to re . In the c o u rse of this study he undertook to analyze the c au se s of s ta ff-lin e frictio n . Dalton p re fa c e d h is analysis by acknowledging the ex isten ce of a g e n eral conflict sy ste m in o rg an izatio n s, but he concluded that in addition to such g e n eralize d com petition, fric tio n betw een lin e and sta ff re la te d to re a l d ifferen ces betw een sta ff and line fu n ctio n aries. He noted education, age, so c ial tr a its , and p ro fe ssio n a l co n scio u sn ess as a re a s of d ifferen ces leading g to p e rso n a lity c la sh e s betw een the two g roups. In D alton's fo rm u latio n , sta ff people w ere distinguishable fro m line colleagues by such p e rso n ality a ttrib u te s as a g g re ssiv e n e ss, d riv e, e n te r p ris e , and dynam ism . A ccording to h im , sta ff people exhibited th ese q u alities to a g r e a te r extent than did line o ffic e rs, and he explained th ese d ifferen ces p rim a rily on the b a sis of age and education. As a re s u lt of th e ir g re a te r edu cation, sta ff o fficers w ere c h a ra c te riz e d as being m o re e n te rp ris in g and m o re im patient fo r quick rew ard . They also exhibited g re a te r v e rb a l facility and a d eg ree of sm ugness about th e ir s u p e rio r education. Such p e rso n a lity and be h a v io ra l c h a ra c te ris tic s , according to Dalton, inhibited com m unication with line p e rso n n el and induced fric tio n o r p e rso n ality c lash es with them . In re g a rd to age, Dalton o b serv ed th at sta ff people in his su b je c t o r ganizations w ere significantly younger than lin e o ffic e rs. One of the co n se quences of this d ifferen tial was th a t sta ff p e rso n s w ere le s s w ell e stab lish ed in m a te ria l accu m u latio n s, occupational ran k , and job se c u rity . T h eir disadvan taged position enhanced the p ro p en sity of staff o ffice rs to exhibit a stro n g e r g M elville Dalton, "C o n flicts B etw een Staff and L ine M anagerial O ffic e rs ," A m erican Sociological R eview , XV (June, 1950), 342-351. The com plete a c count of D alton's b ro a d e r study a p p e a rs in h is M en Who M anage (New Y ork: W iley, 1959). H e re a fte r, re fe re n c e s to h is findings w ill c ite the la tte r volum e. 8 7 d riv e fo r su c c e ss than th e ir line c o u n te rp a rts. Dalton also o b serv ed notable so c ia l d ifferen ces betw een sta ff and line people in su ch m a tte rs as d re s s , p e rso n al groom ing, p o ise, fluency in c o n v er- g satio n , e a se in m eeting s tr a n g e rs , and re c re a tio n a l in te re s ts . Again, he re la te d th ese d ifferen ces to age, education, and p ro fessio n al co n scio u sn ess grow ing out of sp e c ia liz e d train in g . Dalton contended th a t these d ifferen ces tended to r a is e b a r r ie r s which d isco u rag ed easy and in form al tie s betw een sta ff and line g roups, p rev en ted sta ff people fro m getting close to line o p e ra to rs , and d isposed both groups to d raw u n flatterin g ste reo ty p es of each o th er. Such d ifferen ces becam e im p o rtan t c o n trib u to rs to p erso n ality c la sh e s betw een 9 sta ff and lin e fu n ctio n aries in th e ir in te rac tio n on the job. O ther w rite rs have em p h asized p e rso n a lity , background, and behav io ra l d ifferen ces w hich affect re la tio n s betw een line and staff, although they have not alw ays su g g ested th at th ese d ifferen ces w ere outcom es of age and education. N igro, fo r exam ple, typified sta ff people as o v e rly -a g g re ssiv e , pushing too h a rd to im plem ent th e ir ideas and o b je c tiv e s, although he a ttr i buted th ese beh av io rs to sta tu s u n certain ty and job in se c u rity in h eren t in le ss w ell e stab lish ed sta ff ro le s in o rg an izatio n s. Like Dalton, he d e sc rib e d sta ff o fficers as tending to look down on line people b ecau se of the f o rm e r’s 7 D alton, Men Who M anage, pp. 87-90. 8Ibid. , pp. 93-94. 9Ibid. 9 su p e rio r education, and he attrib u ted to them a tendency to becom e unduly negative and rig id in outlook, to lack flexibility in dealing with the line. T hese c h a ra c te ris tic s se rv e to engender tension and conflict betw een staff and line. ^ O ther tr a it d ifferen tials betw een sta ff and line people have also been cited, as when staff personnel a re d e sc rib e d as being m o re iso lativ e, m o re in tro v erted , m o re individualistic, o r m o re th eo re tic al and bookish than line o ffic e rs .11 C a re e r o rien tatio n is another p e rso n al c h a ra c te ris tic believed to have a negative effect on the ability of sta ff and line officers to in te ra c t w ithout ten sion. The conception of this fac to r as a co n trib u to r to sta ff-lin e frictio n has been sta te d in v ario u s ways by d ifferen t w rite rs , but e ssen tially the ratio n ale c e n te rs about the allegation that a p ro fessio n al sta ff m an 's basic allegiance is to his p ro fessio n o r sp ecialty ra th e r than to the em ploying organization of the m om ent. This o rien tatio n to p ro fessio n d isp o ses its holders to view c a re e r advancem ent as lying outside ra th e r than w ithin a specific firm , resu ltin g in g re a te r physical and psychological m obility and lesse n ed dependence on the organization. In this re g a rd , Dimock and Dimock have likened sta ff perso n n el to guild groups which exhibit an intensely p aro ch ial concern with th e ir own sp e cia lties and tend to m agnify the im portance and se p a ra te identity of those F elix A. Nigro, M odern Public A dm inistration (New York: H arp er and Row, 1965), pp. 94-102. Cf. also John M. P fiffner, The Supervision of P erso n n el (Englewood C liffs, N. J . : P re n tic e -H a ll, In c ., 1958), p. 178. John M. P fiffner and F ran k P. Sherwood, A dm inistrative O rganiza tion (Englewood C liffs, N. J . : P re n tic e-H all, Inc. , 1960), p. 186. 10 12 en d eav o rs. Dalton likew ise pointed out th at sta ff o ffice rs m o re often e n te r industry as c o lle g e -tra in e d sp e c ia lists than do line o ffic e rs, thereby bringing a view of the firm and a p ro fe ssio n a l co n scio u sn ess unlike th at of line people in 13 the sa m e o rg an izatio n . O thers have com m ented s im ila rly on d isp a ra te p ro fe ssio n a l and c a r e e r foci which re s u lt in differing lo y alties as w ell as differing p e rsp e c tiv e s about o rg an izatio n al ro le s and re sp o n sib ilitie s, thereby c o n trib u - 14 ting to tension and co n flict betw een sta ff and line. To su m m a riz e , the nub of the arg u m en t se e m s to be th at d ifferen ces in p e rso n al tr a its o r q u a litie s, so m etim es attrib u te d to d ifferen ces in age, edu cation, and p ro fessio n al o rien tatio n , re s u lt in sta ff p eo p le's behaving in ways which g e n erate conflict with line incum bents who p o sse ss the sam e a ttrib u te s to a le s s e r d eg ree o r not at all. M oreover, fo r Dalton at le a st, such d iffe r ences a re re in fo rc e d in the eyes of line people by v isib le so c ial d istin ctio n s in d re s s , groom ing, and o th er e x te rn a l sym bols a sso c ia te d with h o ld ers of staff p o sitio n s. As su ggested e a r lie r , how ever, th e re a re p ro b lem s with this explana tion of sta ff-lin e conflict. In p a rtic u la r, not all o b se rv e rs a g re e th a t behavior 12 M arsh all E . Dim ock and G ladys O. Dim ock, Public A dm inistration (New Y ork: Holt, R ineh ard & W inston, In c ., 1964), p. 276. 13 D alton, Men Who M anage, pp. 91-92, 107-108. 14 See Douglas M cG regor, "T he R ole of Staff in M odern In d u stry ," M anagem ent O rganization and the C o m p u ter, eds. G eorge P. Shultz and Thom as L. W hisler (Glencoe, 111. : The F re e P r e s s , 1960), p. 113; and P e te r Blau and W. R. Scott, F o rm a l O rganizations (San F ra n c isc o : C handler Pub lish in g Com pany, 1962), p. 174. 11 re su ltin g in fric tio n is a function of d ifferen ces in individual p e rso n ality o r background tr a its p e r s e . T h ere a re those who c la im th at interchanging of ro le s re s u lts in sta ff p e o p le 's behaving like line people and v ic e - v e r s a , su g g esting th at b eh av io r is a function of the situ atio n r a th e r than of individual differen ces in p e rso n a lity o r so c ia l background c h a ra c te ris tic s . Dim ock and Dim ock, fo r in stan ce, contend th a t the c lo s e r sta ff m en com e to the o p eratin g sid e of the o rg an izatio n , i. e . , the n e a re r they approach the action sta g e of p ro g ra m s, the m o re they re s e m b le th e ir line colleagues in behavior and the le s s do they re se m b le the sta ff ste re o ty p e of in te lle ctu ality , in tro v e rsio n , iso - 15 lation, o r inflexible ad h eren ce to p reco n ceiv ed id eas o r so lu tio n s. M ore o v er, Dalton h im self, in a m o re re c e n t study of an e le c tro n ic s firm , re p o rte d th at in c o n tra s t to the situ atio n in his e a r lie r study, sta ff p erso n n el w ere o ld er than th e ir line co lleag u es, th e re was no sig n ifican t d ifferen ce in lev els of edu cation betw een the two g ro u p s, th e re was m o re so c ia l in te ra c tio n betw een the two, and th e re was m uch le s s of the tu rn o v er he had p rev io u sly a sc rib e d to 16 sta ff people’s youth, education, and c a r e e r d riv e. In this re g a rd it m ay be noted th a t D alton's e a r lie r study, in which he em phasized d istin ctio n s in d re s s , age, education, p ro fe ssio n a l outlook, p oise, and fluency, was c a r r ie d out p rim a rily in in d u stria l production o rg an izatio n s. In those site s the sta ff groups w ere c o m p rise d of ch em ists and in d u stria l 15 D im ock and Dimock, op. c i t . , p. 288. 16 M elville D alton, "C hanging S taff-L ine R e la tio n sh ip s," P e rso n n e l A d m in istra tio n , XXIX (M arch-A pril, 1966), 40. 12 en g in eers who m ight be expected to d iffer in such a ttrib u te s fro m fo rem en and m iddle lev el su p e rv iso rs on the production flo o r. In c o n tra st, o b serv atio n in o th er organizations (such as the cab in et d ep artm en t which is the focus of the study re p o rte d in th ese pages) would produce little evidence to d istin g u ish staff and line p e rso n n el along such dim ensions as d re s s , age, fluency, o r education. All of this is not to say th at d ifferen ces in p e rso n a l, so c ia l, and p ro fe s sio n al background c h a ra c te ris tic s , re su ltin g in differen t sty le s o r m odes of b ehavior, in no way co n trib u te to sta ff-lin e fric tio n in specific situ a tio n s. One can accept th at th ese fa c to rs w ere influential in D alton's in d u stria l o rg an iz a tions and m ay be in o th er s ite s . The difficulty is in the g en erality , o r m o re p re c ise ly , the g en eraliza b ility of th ese findings as explanations fo r the e x is tence of lin e -sta ff fric tio n in all o r even v ery m any c a s e s . The exceptions m ay w ell outnum ber v alid applications of the explanation. M oreover, the re la tiv e im p o rtan ce of such fa c to rs as c au ses of conflict m ay be sp ecific not only to given organizations but to given types of sta ff func tions and p erso n n el within a sin g le o rganization. T hat is to sa y , the tendency of o th er w rite rs to p ro je c t D alton's conclusions to the sta ff-lin e a re n a g e n er ally may overlook today's in cre asin g ly bro ad range of functions lab e lle d staff. M ore w ill be sa id about this problem in the follow ing section. Suffice it to say h e re that c h e m ists, en g in eers, o r re s e a rc h s c ie n tis ts m ay indeed d iffer from production fo rem en o r su p e rv iso rs in im p o rtan t w ays, but it becom es m ore difficult to d ifferen tiate p erso n n el m an ag ers o r p ro g ra m rev iew sp e c ia lists from m an ag ers of lin e o p eratio n s, at le a s t in governm ental ag en cies, on the 13 b a sis of the kinds of p e rso n al o r dem ographic v a ria b le s review ed in the p r e ceding d iscu ssio n . One additional re s e rv a tio n needs to be e x p re sse d . Unlike the foregoing re m a rk s , this re s e rv a tio n does not sp e ak to the conceptual utility of the view that s ta ff-lin e fric tio n is explainable as the r e s u lt of differin g p e rso n a l o r p ro fessio n al c h a ra c te ris tic s of people. R a th e r it co n cern s the p ra c tic a l action im plications to be draw n from such a view . F ro m the standpoint of the expla n atio n 's u tility as a b a sis fo r the induction of change, it would ap p ear that a m an ag er d esiro u s of im proving s ta ff-lin e re la tio n s in h is o rg an izatio n faces a difficult dilem m a. If it is accepted th at co n flict is p rim a rily a r e s u lt of d iffe r ences in p e rso n a l a ttrib u te s of sta ff and line p e rso n n el, the m an ag er seeking change presu m ab ly would be faced with attem pting w holesale exchanges of p re s e n t p e rso n n el fo r o th ers with m o re com patible backgrounds and a ttrib u te s, o r in stitu tin g m ajo r re -tra in in g , re -e d u c a tio n , and r e -s tru c tu rin g of p e rso n ality configurations am ong his p re s e n t em ployees. The p ra c tic a lity and su c c e ss of e ith e r stra te g y se em doubtful, to say the le a st. With this com m ent, attention sh ifts to the sy ste m -b a se d explanation of sta ff-lin e frictio n . This is a m a tte r of so m e com plexity but of co n sid erab le im portance; m uch h as been m ade of it in the lite ra tu re , and c e rta in ly it b e a rs on the re s e a rc h to be re p o rte d h e re in . The Staff R ole as a P ro b lem in O rganization T heory and P ra c tic e P u t su ccin ctly , the b a sis of this explanation fo r the p rev alen ce of sta ff- line fric tio n is the difficulty of defining and a rtic u la tin g the sta ff ro le , 14 o rig in ally conceived as a n o n -authority ro le , within the com m and o r authority s tru c tu re of tra d itio n a l W eberian m odels of b u re a u c ra tic organization. The sta ff ro le concept was adapted fro m m ilita ry ex p erien ce w here its theory and 17 p ra c tic e w ere apparently com patible and reaso n ab ly su c ce ssfu l. H ow ever, d e sig n ers of n o n -m ilita ry o rg an izatio n s have encountered p e rs is te n t p ro b lem s in attem pting to accom m odate the ro le to th e ir o rg an izatio n s, o r in achieving p e rfo rm an c e of the ro le c o n siste n t with the theory underlying it. Much of the d isc u ssio n of sta ff-lin e re la tio n s in the lite ra tu re is re p re se n ta tiv e of attem pts to in te lle ctu alize a sa tis fa c to ry reso lu tio n of th ese p ro b lem s, i. e . , to develop a ra tio n a l and w orkable exposition of the sta ff ro le , including its op eratio n al and authority re la tio n sh ip s to o th er ro le s in the organization. P a rt of the difficulty in s a tis fa c to rily defining and a rtic u la tin g the sta ff function in p ra c tic e ste m s fro m lin g erin g ideology o rig in ally d eriv ed from m ilita ry theory and p ra c tic e . This held th a t the sta ff function is , o r ought to be, an ad v iso ry , su stain in g , o r fac ilitatin g ro le endowed with no fo rm al au th o rity ov er o th e r o ffice rs o r p a rts of the o rganization. As G olem biew ski has d e sc rib e d it, the tra d itio n a l ideology re le g a te d sta ff to the sta tu s of a "n eu tral 18 and in fe rio r in s tru m e n t." At sta k e in m aintaining this ideology a re at le a s t two c h e rish e d 17 P fiffn er and Sherwood, op. c i t . , pp. 172-73; Dimock and Dim ock, op. c it. , p. 275. 18 R o b e rt T. G olem biew ski, "T ow ard the New O rganization T h eo ries: Some Notes on 'S ta ff '," M idw est Jo u rn a l of P o litic a l S cience, V (August, 1961), 239-40 . 15 " p rin c ip le s" of o rg an izatio n — unity of com m and and co m m en su rab ility of r e - 19 sp o n sib ility and au th o rity . If sta ff o fficers not d ire c tly accountable fo r accep tab le p e rfo rm an c e of line functions a re p e rm itte d to issu e o rd e rs to those who do have such resp o n sib ility , and to expect that those o rd e rs w ill be a c cepted as a u th o rita tiv e and obeyed, unity of com m and and the m atching of r e - t spo n sib ility and authority a re contravened, sa y s the argum ent. L ine officials find th em selv es se rv in g not one but m u ltip le su p e rio rs , and what is w o rse, s u p e rio rs who u ltim ately cannot be held accountable fo r sa tis fa c to ry p e rfo r m ance of the lin e 's assig n ed ta s k s. W hatever its "p rin c ip le s" o r th e o re tic a l underpinnings, in p ra c tic e it has not p roved p o ssib le fo r o rg an izatio n al p lan n ers o r m an ag ers to p re s e rv e th is p ris tin e conception of the sta ff ro le . The lite ra tu re is re p le te with in stan ces of this fa c t and of conflict alleged to grow out of sta ff attem p ts to e x e rc is e authority in one way o r another. The p ro b lem has becom e m o re acute w ith grow ing needs in m o d ern o rg an izatio n s fo r s p e c ia lis t o r e x p e rt 20 a ssista n c e of v a rio u s kinds and in in c re a sin g am ounts. The attem p ts of w rite rs to deal w ith th is anom aly, to ra tio n a liz e the re a l-life p ra c tic e of the sta ff function in the face of p e rs is tin g ideology s u r rounding the sta ff ro le , a re c h a ra c te riz e d by developing d isa g ree m e n ts over w hat the sta ff ro le re a lly is o r ought to be. Views on th is m a tte r ran g e fro m 19 M cG regor, op. c i t . , p. 107. 20 F o r an ex ten siv e an aly sis of this p ro b lem , s e e T hom pson, op. c it. , 197 pp. o u trig h t denial th at th e re is a sta ff function in industry to attem pts to d iffe r en tiate am ong kinds of au th o rity and to identify those which a re leg itim ate fo r 22 sta ff to e x e rc is e . T hus, fo r exam ple, "functional" authority, the authority to issu e o rd e rs in a sta ff m an 's a re a of reco g n ized technical com petence; "co n c u rrin g " au th o rity , the authority of approval b efo re c e rta in actions a re taken, as leg al approval p rio r to signing of c o n tra c ts; and "in d ire c t" au th o rity , issu an ce of o rd e rs ov er the sig n a tu re of the top m an ag er o r executive, have a ll been ra tio n a liz e d as som ething o th er than g e n e ra l com m and authority and, as such, ju stifie d fo r u se by staff. This p a p e r cannot su m m a riz e all the ways in which th is difficulty has been e x p re ss e d in the lite ra tu re , n o r rev iew the v a rie d p re sc rip tio n s fo r hand- 23 ling the p ro b lem . The aim of the foregoing re m a rk s has been to em p h asize that the ro o t pro b lem of defining and o p eratio n alizin g the sta ff ro le in o rg an i zations has rec e iv e d m uch atten tio n as an explanation fo r the com m on phe nom enon of sta ff-lin e fric tio n . F re q u en t r e s o r t to this explanation provides stro n g p resu m p tio n in favor of its validity as an underlying c au se of sta ff-lin e 21 P e te r F , D rucker, The P ra c tic e of M anagem ent (New Y ork: H a rp er and B ro th e rs, 1954), p. 241. 22 Among o th e rs, s e e E rn e s t D ale, Planning and Developing the Com pany O rg an izatio n , R e se a rc h R ep o rt No. 20 (New Y ork: A m erican M anage m ent A ssociation, 1952), pp. 71ff; W illiam H. Newman and C h a rle s E. Sum m er, J r . , The P ro c e s s of M anagem ent: C oncepts, B ehavior, and P ra c tic e (Englewood C liffs, N. J . : P re n tic e -H a ll, In c ., 1961), pp. 87-88. 23 The re a d e r is re f e r r e d p a rtic u la rly to the su m m a rie s in Dalton, Men Who M anage, pp. 71-71; and P fiffn er and Sherwood, op. c i t . , pp. 170-88. 17 fric tio n . T h ere a re , how ever, grounds fo r le s s than com plete sa tisfa c tio n with this explanation. A p rin c ip a l re s e rv a tio n is th at the explanation se e m s to r e s t on a sin g le, u ndifferentiated m odel of sta ff ro le s o r functions. T his m odel was ex trap o lated orig in ally fro m the m ilita ry concept of sta ff, and it h as been p erp etu ated in the face of e m p iric a lly d em o n strab le expansion and changes in the content and p ra c tic e of sta ff ro le s . Indeed, p re se n t-d a y usage c le a rly in d icates th at the conceptual c a te gory of sta ff h as grow n to e m b ra ce a b ro ad ran g e of functions and offices in o rganization. This range includes p rin c ip a l " a s s is ta n ts to" o r a lte r egos of a chief executive; consultants o r re s id e n t ex p erts in a v a rie ty of tech n ical and sp ecialty field s; o rg an izatio n al tro u b le -sh o o te rs; and p e rso n s engaged in ad m in istra tiv e re s e a rc h and planning. The sta ff designation is also com m only applied to au x iliary o r housekeeping functions such as the o p eratio n of c e n tra l s to re s o r w areh o u ses, m o to r pools, d ata p ro c e ssin g in sta lla tio n s, p ro c u re m ent, co n tractin g , and o th er s e rv ic e s . A dditionally, the conceptual category of sta ff em b ra ce s the tra d itio n a l p erso n n el m anagem ent, budget, accounting, auditing, and organizatio n and m ethods analysis (O&M) functions com m on to alm ost all la rg e o rg an izatio n s. The ex isten ce of d istin ctiv e a re a s o r types of sta ff functions has not gone unrecognized. P fiffner and Sherwood, fo r exam ple, have noted such d is tinctions and suggested th a t sta ff s p e c ia lists be c la s s ifie d into g e n e ra l, tech n i c al, co ordinative, and a u x iliary c a te g o rie s, with the la tte r two being 18 24 reco g n ized as e x e rc isin g functional authority in th e ir a re a s of com petence. Newman and Sum m er have noted th at sta ff m ay p e rfo rm a wide v a rie ty of ad m in istra tiv e ro le s , and th at in som e c a s e s , a sta ff o fficer and his colleagues 25 m ay in fa c t be functioning in both sta ff and o p eratin g ro le s . In o th er w ords, the v a rie ty of activ itie s th a t have com e to be lab elled and accepted as "sta ff" h as f a r outgrow n the c la s s ic a l m odel of the sta ff ro le as it was o rig in ally conceived and in co rp o ra te d into o rg an izatio n al theory and p rin c ip le s. It se e m s obvious th at today m any sta ff o fficers and units a re e x e r cising authority in th e ir functional o r sp e c ia l a re a s , and th at this is an accepted fa c t of life in o rg an iz atio n s, even though acceptance of the fac t m ay 26 not have se rv e d to allev iate sta ff-lin e conflict. D espite recognition th at v e ry d ifferen t types of sta ff functions have com e into e x iste n ce , th e re is a p e rs is te n t tendency in the lite ra tu re to r e v e rt to o ld er concepts of u n d ifferen tiated sta ff m odels when the p ro b lem of s ta ff- line fric tio n is analyzed. One is h a rd put to d isc o v e r w hether som e sta ff groups in fac t ex p erien ce good re la tio n s with the line and if so , why they do. C onceivably, b e tte r o r p o o re r rela tio n s m ay re la te to d ifferen ces in the type of sta ff functions th em se lv e s, such as p e rso n n el m anagem ent v s . re s e a rc h v s. 24 P fiffn er and Sherwood, op. c it . , pp. 178-81. 25 Newman and Sum m er, op. c it . , pp. 90-91. O thers who m ake ex p licit d istin ctio n s include M cG regor, op. c it. , p. 109; D ale, op. c it . , pp. 71-73; and Dim ock and Dim ock, op. c it. , pp. 278-79. O c P fiffn er and Sherw ood, op. c i t . , pp. 180, 188. 19 p ro g ra m rev iew or fin an cial auditing. A ltern ativ ely , it is conceivable th at sta ff groups p e rfo rm in g n e a rly id en tical functions m ay e x p erien ce quite d iffe r ent lev els of tension with the line. In sh o rt, the c la s s ic a l p ro b lem of defining and a rtic u la tin g sta ff ro le s w ithin h ie ra rc h ic a l authority s tru c tu re s typical of m o st o rg an izatio n s m ay r e tain som e validity as an explanation of sta ff-lin e conflict, but o v e r-re lia n c e on this explanation m ay s e rv e to o b scu re o th e r fa c to rs of im p o rtan ce which de s e rv e recognition and study. A potential re w a rd fro m such study would be m o re knowledge than is now available about sta ff-lin e fric tio n , enhancing the p o ssib ility of dealing with the p ro b lem su c ce ssfu lly . L acking such knowledge, a m an ag er d e siro u s of im proving h is o rg an iz atio n 's sta ff-lin e rela tio n s con fro n ts a d iscouraging p ro sp e c t. If he re lie s on the c u sto m a ry explanation that incom patibilities betw een o rg an izatio n al authority s tru c tu re and the sta ff ro le a re resp o n sib le fo r fric tio n , he m u st c re a te an o rg an izatio n al s tru c tu re th at would elim in ate this p ro b lem . Not only would the ta sk be enorm ous from the p ra c tic a l standpoint, but su ch a m an ag er would find h im se lf w orking with little in the way of new th e o rie s of o rg an izatio n to in s tru c t h is e ffo rts. A final p ro b lem w hich applies to all c u rre n t explanations of sta ff-lin e conflict m u st be m entioned. This is the d e arth of e m p iric a l re s e a r c h designed to te s t the rela tio n sh ip betw een sta ff-lin e fric tio n and fa c to rs p resu m ed to affect it, o r to te s t the p rio r p ro p o sitio n th at rela tio n sh ip s m ay d iffer sig n ifi cantly when d ifferen t sta ff groups a re com pared. T hese re m a rk s hold w hether one is speaking of individual p e rso n a lity and dem ographic d ifferen ces betw een 20 staff and line incum bents, o r of sy ste m -b a se d v a ria b le s such as the e x e rc ise of authority by supposedly no n -au th o ritativ e sta ff fu n ctio n aries. T hese lim itations offered the challenge and ratio n ale fo r the re s e a rc h re p o rte d h erein . They suggested the potential usefulness of a pilot, field ex ploration in the sta ff-lin e dom ain to d isco v er w hether som e sta ff groups do have b e tte r relatio n s w ith th e ir line colleagues than o th e rs, o r w hether frictio n is u n iv ersal at rela tiv e ly s im ila r levels a c ro ss varying types of sta ff functions. The gaps in p re se n t understanding of sta ff-lin e fric tio n g en erated two com panion challenges: (1) to te s t c e rta in p rev a len t notions in the lite ra tu re re la tive to sta ff-lin e phenom ena; and (2) to se e w hether m o re g e n eralize d notions of intergroup conflict apply equally to the sp ecialized a re a of sta ff-lin e r e la tions . T here is , of c o u rse, the added challenge of contributing to change and im provem ent in sta ff-lin e re la tio n s, of m oving beyond cognitive c la rificatio n to the p rag m atic act of contributing knowledge which m ay be used to induce change. In this context, one could take as giver - :he underlying and difficult- to-change facto rs d isc u sse d in this ch ap ter and s e t out to d isco v er w hether th ere a re additional fa c to rs, m o re a cc essib le and am enable to m anipulation, that contribute to fric tio n betw een staff and line groups. This also is an objec tive of the study. C hapter II se ts fo rth the attem p t to m eet the challenges a t the concep tual level. C hapter III outlines the re s e a rc h design form ulated to te s t the con ceptualizations, and C hapter IV p re se n ts findings derived fro m field re s e a rc h and an aly sis of d ata d eriv ed th e re fro m . F inally, C h ap ter V p re se n ts g e n e ra l su m m ary plus conclusions draw n fro m the study. 22 CHAPTER II A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY O F STA FF-LIN E RELATIONS The conceptual m odel fo r th is study of sta ff-lin e conflict d e riv e s fro m the an aly sis and critiq u e of lite ra tu re cited in C hapter I. Although th at c r i tique im plied th at m o st attem pts to explain sta ff-lin e fric tio n a re le s s than sa tisfa c to ry , the w ritings w ere su g g estiv e of c e rta in n e c e ssa ry elem ents of a conceptual fram ew o rk for the proposed an aly sis. In p a rtic u la r, the tendency in the lite ra tu re to tr e a t "staff" as an u n d ifferen tiated phenom enon so fa r as sta ff-lin e fric tio n is concerned led to developm ent of an in itia l, tw o -p a rt hypo th esis to be tested : H ypothesis 1-1. The am ount of fric tio n betw een sta ff and line is ex pected to v a ry from sta ff unit to sta ff unit. H ypothesis 1-2. S taff-line fric tio n is expected to v a ry even when types of units a re held constant. In o th er w ords, frictio n m ay be, but is not n e c e s s a rily , a function of type of staff unit. "T ype" has re fe re n c e h e re to c la s s e s of activ itie s o r func tions p e rfo rm e d by staff units, su ch as housekeeping v s. coordinative func tions. Thus the hypothesis is th at units of the sam e b a sic type m ay ex p erien ce significantly d ifferen t am ounts of fric tio n with line. H ypothesis 1-1, statin g th at sta ff groups a re expected to v a ry in the 23 am ount of fric tio n they ex p erien ce with line, is a sim p le enough notion; a te s t of it poses no m a jo r conceptual o r m ethodological p roblem s. S im ilarly, testin g fo r d ifferen ces b a sed on types of units would be com paratively uncom plicated, assum ing th at a su itab le c la ssifica tio n of types was available o r could be form ulated. H ow ever, the a sse rtio n th at significant v a ria tio n in frictio n would be found even when com paring b asically s im ila r types of units m akes the proposed an aly sis both m o re in te re stin g and m o re com plex, sin ce it im m ediately brings to the fo re the question of w hat fac to rs o th er than type of unit a re resp o n sib le fo r d ifferen ces. To an sw er th is, a m odel o r fram ew ork fo r re s e a rc h m u st be developed which sp e c ifie s, on th eo re tic al a n d /o r e m p irical grounds, what those fac to rs m ight be. This is the conceptual task faced in this study. In approaching this task , analysis of sta ff-lin e lite ra tu re rev e ale d de ficiencies alread y outlined in C hapter I, but it yielded another conclusion im p o rtan t to the conceptual fram ew ork developed fo r the study: th at explanatory v a ria b le s u tilized in two p rin cip al c ateg o ries d escrib ed in C hapter I failed to deal d irec tly and explicitly with im p o rtan t aspects o r dynam ics of the in te r actional relatio n sh ip betw een sta ff and line groups. To illu stra te , in one explanatory c ateg o ry , sta ff-lin e frictio n was laid to an e sse n tia lly s tru c tu ra l problem of in teg ratin g the staff function o r ro le into trad itio n al org an izatio n al sy ste m s of authority ro les and relatio n sh ip s. Even though this ro le in teg ratio n problem m ay help to explain som e frictio n betw een staff and lin e, the fact that som e organizational groups do not su ffe r 24 the sa m e ro le p ro b le m s, y et ex p erien ce conflict w ith o th er g ro u p s, suggested th a t th e re a re additional fa c to rs in the ongoing in terp lay betw een groups which the ro le in te g ratio n explanation overlooks o r fails to explicate c le a rly . The sam e logic is applicable w here fric tio n is explained by d ifferen ces in p e rso n ality o r dem ographic c h a ra c te ris tic s betw een line and sta ff p erso n n el. The ex isten ce of co n flict in in te rg ro u p se ttin g s w here such d ifferen ces a re not p re s e n t o r not p o stu lated again leads to the conclusion th a t o th e r fa c to rs, o p e ra tiv e in in te ra c tio n a l rela tio n sh ip s betw een g ro u p s, have an im pact on in terg ro u p frictio n . P u rsu in g this line of reaso n in g , explanations of the type d e scrib e d above seldom ask the follow ing q u estio n s: What e ffect does the quality o r p ro ficiency of sta ff group p e rfo rm an c e have on fric tio n ? Do so m e staff units p e r fo rm b e tte r than o th e rs in re g a rd to quality of output, tim e lin ess of actions, o r adequacy of re sp o n se s to the needs of o th e r o rg an izatio n al groups ? If so , does the d ifferen tial quality of p e rfo rm an c e p e r se m ake a d ifferen ce so fa r as in te rg ro u p fric tio n is co n cern ed ? Com m on se n se su g g ests th at re g a rd le s s of o rg an izatio n al acceptance of the sta ff ro le , good o r poor p e rfo rm a n c e by sta ff units m ight, of itse lf, func tion to le s se n o r heighten fric tio n betw een g ro u p s. If sta ff unit A is p e rc eiv e d by o th e r units to be o v e r-ste p p in g its leg itim ate ro le and m issio n , rela tio n s betw een clien ts and u n it A m ight be p re d ic te d to be le s s s tre s s fu l w here th at unit p e rfo rm s p ro ficien tly . C o n v ersely , re la tio n s m ay be p o o re r with sta ff u nit B, which is seen to be equally o v er-am b itio u s but which also is slow to 25 act, u n reliab le, and tu rn s out a po o r quality of product. In addition to how w ell a sta ff group p e rfo rm s its ta s k s , the m an n er in which a sta ff unit goes about in te rre la tin g o r in te ra c tin g with o th e r groups in p e rfo rm in g its ro le m ay have an im p act on fric tio n . In a se n se , th is is an a sp e c t of p e rfo rm an c e , but fo r an aly tical p u rp o se s it is se p a ra te d h e re to focus upon the how as d istin c t fro m the how w ell. T his su g g ests a com plem ent of the hypothetical situ a tio n envisioned in the p reced in g p a ra g rap h : in the p ro c e ss of re la tin g th em selv es to one an o th er, groups m ay p e rfo rm w ith com p a ra b le p ro ficien cy but they m ay d iffer in th e ir behaviors o r m odes of adapta tion to the in te rac tio n a l rela tio n sh ip . G roup A m ay be p e rc eiv e d as m o re open, m o re rec ep tiv e, m o re understanding, o r le s s dom inant in the in te ra c tion situ atio n than G roup B, even though both a re equally p ro ficien t p e rfo r m e rs of th e ir re sp e c tiv e c ra fts , and th ese d ifferen ces m ay affect fric tio n dif fe re n tia lly . W ithin this fram ew o rk , then, p e rfo rm a n c e and in te ra c tio n a l fa c to rs w ere c o n sid ered , at le a s t fo r an aly tical p u rp o se s, to be d istin c t c la s s e s o r c a te g o rie s of v a ria b le s which im p act on sta ff-lin e frictio n . In addition, p ercep tio n s and cognitions of groups about each o th er w ere conceived to have an effect on in te rg ro u p re la tio n s . T his th ird categ o ry of fac to rs was labelled, fo r convenience, unit c h a ra c te ris tic s . F a c to rs o r v a r i ables in th is categ o ry w ere conceived to have a le s s d ire c t in te ra c tio n connota tion than the o th er two c a te g o rie s, but w ere se en as re p re se n tin g su m m arizin g p ercep tio n s o r understandings which groups develop about each o th e r's 26 q u a litie s. T hese function, as p ercep tio n s o r beliefs a re wont to do, to condi tion behaviors and re sp o n se s to in te ra c tio n events betw een groups. The ex p e rie n c e -b a s e d p ercep tio n that sta ff group A, fo r exam ple, is p o sse sse d of low technical com petence m ay condition line group B to be u n recep tiv e to actions p ro p o sed by A, leading to in c re a se d fric tio n in the in te rac tio n betw een the two. The conceptual foundations and content of this and the o th er two c ate g o rie s of v a ria b le s a re e la b o rated se p a ra te ly in succeeding pages. T h eo retical and e m p iric a l su p p o rt fo r the g e n eral conceptual approach re la te d above, as w ell as the elab o ratio n s which follow, drew heavily on th ree so u rc e s . On the th e o re tic a l sid e , the volum inous lite ra tu re of sta ff-lin e r e la tions w as extensively review ed. The lim itatio n s of that lite ra tu re , esp ecially with re fe re n c e to group in te rac tio n dynam ics, su g g ested the potential utility of b eh av io ral scien ce stu d ies of o rg an izatio n s, draw ing upon rele v an t findings which th ese stu d ies have g en erated . * With re s p e c t to b eh av io ral stu d ies, it should be noted that little e m p iri cal re s e a rc h and h y p o th esis-te stin g has been done on re la tio n s betw een w ork units o r d ep artm en ts in o rg an izatio n s. Instead, behavioral sc ie n tists typically have focussed on w ithin-group conditions in organizations — e .g . , on s u p e r v iso r-su b o rd in a te re la tio n s, on em ployee attitudes tow ard job and w ork * F o r exam ple, the stu d ies c a rrie d out by the O rganizational B ehavior P ro g ra m of The U niversity of M ichigan’s In stitu te fo r Social R e se a rc h . Many of th ese stu d ies a re re p o rte d and sy n th esized in R ensis L ik e rt, New P a tte rn s of M anagem ent (New Y ork: M cG raw -H ill Book Co. , 1961), C hapters 2, 3, and 4 p a rtic u la rly . 27 conditions, in te rp e rso n a l rela tio n s am ong p e e rs in the w ork group, sty le s of su p e rv isio n o r le a d e rsh ip , d ecisio n -m ak in g and com m unications p ro c e s s e s , em ployee sa tisfac tio n , m otivation, and m o ra le . Given this w ithin-group focus, the relev an ce and application of findings fro m b eh av io ral stu d ies was often in d ire c t, re q u irin g p ro jec tio n o r e x tra p o la tion to the in te rg ro u p o r in te r-u n it lev el. N ev erth eless, as w ill be shown at a p p ro p ria te points in the d iscu ssio n , findings fro m b eh av io ral re s e a rc h in organizations w ere often sug g estiv e o r su p p o rtiv e of conceptions in co rp o rated in this study. On the e m p iric a l sid e , fo rm u latio n of som e b asic ideas and concepts in this study drew heavily upon p re lim in a ry interview s with a sam p le of both sta ff and line unit m em b ers w ithin the su b je c t o rganization. The in terv iew s a re d e sc rib e d in C hapter III, but the contributions of those interview s to the con ceptual developm ent of the study a re outlined at re le v a n t points in subsequent se c tio n s. It is su fficien t to say at this point th at one of the p u rp o ses of the in terview s was to develop inform ation about the dynam ics of the sta ff-lin e in te r action p ro c e ss , thereby a s s is tin g in identification of fa c to rs to be included in the study. P e rfo rm a n c e F a c to rs in S taff-L ine F ric tio n To re tu rn to the su ggestio n th at ro le p e rfo rm a n c e is c e n tra l to the p ro c e s s e s of in te rac tio n betw een g ro u p s, it could be arg u ed th at quality of p e rfo r m ance is p a rtic u la rly c ritic a l in the c a se of sta ff ro le s , sin ce th e se a re 28 in teractio n al ro les v is-£ -v is o th er organizational groups. M oreover, given this n atu re of sta ff ro le s, what m ay be m o st im portant in the relatio n sh ip of p erfo rm an ce to frictio n a re the p erceptions o r evaluative judgm ents of p e rfo r m ance a rriv e d at by those who a re recip ien ts of staff functions o r activ ities. The lite ra tu re is larg e ly s ile n t on how perceptions of the quality of p e r form ance affect relatio n s betw een groups. T here a re re fe re n c e s to sta ff’s need fo r specific kinds of com petences, consulting sk ills o r technical sk ills of v ario us kinds, fo r instance, but apparently few attem pts have been m ade to evaluate and com pare p erfo rm an ce p e r se to d eterm in e w hether o v erall p e r form ance o r p a rtic u la r aspects of it m ake a difference in intergroup rela tio n s. It is conceivable th at two units p erfo rm in g the sam e o r v ery s im ila r functions m ay be judged quite differently as to how w ell they a re perform ing. They m ay also exhibit d ifferen tial d eg rees of frictio n with o th er groups, suggesting a p o ssib le relatio n sh ip betw een quality of p erfo rm an ce and b e tte r o r p o o rer r e lations. In sup p o rt of this conception, F a r r is , in a study of scien tific p e rfo r m ance in the la b o ra to rie s of a la rg e in d u stria l organization, found that sc ien tis ts ' p erfo rm an ce had a p erv asiv e cau sal influence on a la rg e num ber of 2 organizational facto rs including m em b ers' influence on w ork goals. What is p a rtic u la rly in te restin g about this study is that F a r r is ' findings re p re se n te d a re v e rs a l of the cau sa l d irectio n ality o rd in arily assum ed in behavioral scien ce 2 G eorge F. F a r r is , "A C ausal A nalysis of Scientific P e rfo rm a n c e ." Unpublished Ph. D. d isse rta tio n , I h e U niversity of M ichigan, 1966, pp. 67-103. 29 stu d ies of the re la tio n sh ip betw een o rg an izatio n al p e rfo rm an c e and such fac to rs as m em b er m otivation, involvem ent, influence, su p e rv iso ry p e rfo rm an c e , and o th e rs. M ost su ch stu d ies have assu m ed quality o r quantity of p e rfo r- 3 m ance to be a r e s u lt of those fa c to rs ra th e r than the re v e rs e . F a r r i s ' findings len t c re d en c e to the idea th at sin c e sta ff units a re g en erally understood, a t le a s t in th eo ry , to be e sta b lish e d to a s s is t the o rg a n izatio n in accom plishing its m ain p ro g ram o r function, th ese units can be looked upon as doing things fo r o r to those p a rts of the o rg an izatio n which a re engaged in producing the o rg an iz atio n 's p rim a ry product, w hether that product be goods o r s e rv ic e s . It was hypothesized, then, th at how w ell o r how poorly the sta ff units a re adjudged to be doing th ese things, i. e. , how w ell they a re se en as p e rfo rm in g v is -a -v is th e ir clien ts in the organization, w ill affect r e la tions betw een lin e and staff. Irre s p e c tiv e of the kinds of functions being p e r form ed by a given sta ff unit, it would be anticipated th at p e rfo rm an c e judged to be incom petent o r u n sa tisfac to ry by re c ip ie n ts of th at p erfo rm an ce would be a sso c ia te d with p o o re r re la tio n s betw een groups. Having hypothesized the link betw een p e rfo rm an c e and fric tio n , the p ro b lem becam e one of choosing the v a ria b le elem en ts o r asp ects of p e rfo r m ance to te s t. Intuitively it seem ed likely th a t people who deal continuously with a sta ff unit o v e r tim e develop a g e n eral, su m m ary im p re ssio n o r judg m ent of that u n it's to tal p e rfo rm an c e . T his kind of a p p ra isa l is re fle c te d in 3 See esp ecially the c a u sa l-in te rv e n in g -re su lta n t fa c to r m odel pro p o sed by L ik e rt, oj). c it . , pp. 196-206. 30 the everyday e x p re ssio n th a t p e rso n A o r group B "does a good job" on w hat e v e r he is doing. On this b a s is , an o v e ra ll c lien t o r c u sto m e r a p p ra isa l of how w ell the sta ff units p e rfo rm th e ir jobs was included in the study. U lti m ately this g e n e ra l a p p ra isa l w as divided into two such m e a su re s on the grounds th at the v ario u s a c tiv itie s c a r r ie d on by sta ff units u n der study could be c la ss ifie d roughly as being of two types — s e rv ic e -s u p p o rt and co o rd in a- tiv e -c o n tro l. Since m o st of those sta ff units a p p eared to p e rfo rm varying m ixes of the two a c tiv itie s, u se of s e p a ra te m e a su re s would m ake it p o ssib le fo r e v alu ato rs of p e rfo rm a n c e to m ake d istin ctio n s betw een good p erfo rm an ce of one c la ss of function and p o o re r p e rfo rm an c e of the o th er c la s s . E xam ples 4 of the kinds of activ itie s included in each categ o ry w ere as follow s: Type A: S erv ice-S u p p o rt P ro v isio n of tech n ical s e rv ic e s such as the design of new sy ste m s o r p ra c tic e s , conducting tra in in g o r in stru c tio n a l a c tiv itie s, etc. P ro v isio n of g e n e ra l consultation and advice, as w ell as tro u b le-sh o o tin g help on individual p ro b lem s. P ro v isio n o f'a u x ilia ry inform ation s e r v ic e s such as g e n e ra l re p o rts on o p eratio n s o r background conditions, o r the actions of outside agencies such as the B ureau of the Budget and C ivil S erv ice C om m ission. P e rfo rm a n c e of re g u la r housekeeping types of a ctiv i tie s such as production of p a y ro lls, handling of supply o p e ra tio n s, o r o p eratio n of com m unications sy ste m s. 4 T hese exam ples w ere d eriv ed fro m g en eraliza tio n of the wide range of activ itie s actually p e rfo rm e d by the sta ff units which w ere the ta rg e ts of this study. Type B: C o o rd in ativ e-C o n tro l D evelopm ent of a d m in istrativ e policy and guidelines applicable to all segm ents of the organization. D evelopm ent and im plem entation of re q u ire d ad m in is tra tiv e p ro c e d u re s o r sta n d ard s of p e rfo rm an c e fo r all p a rts of the sy ste m . S upervision o r d irectio n of a d m in istrativ e actions and p ro ce d u res c a r r ie d out w ithin the v ario u s subdivisions of the organization. E x e rc ise of p r io r approval of a d m in istrativ e actions by all p a rts of the o rganization, e . g . , p erso n n el actio n s, unit re o rg a n iz a tio n s, and budget su b m issio n s. The a p p ra isa ls of p e rfo rm an c e w ere p e rc ep tu a l m e a su re s, b ased on c lien t o r c u sto m e r evaluations, as distin g u ish ed from so -c a lle d h a rd , objec tive p e rfo rm an c e m e a su re s. O ther stu d ies of org an izatio n al p erfo rm an ce have p rovided evidence th at such p e rc ep tu a l m e a su re s c o rre la te w ell with objective 5 m e a su re s when the la tte r a re available. The p rin cip le ju stificatio n fo r th e ir u se in this study was th at re g a rd le s s of the extent to which su ch c lie n t p e rc e p tions m ight acco rd with independent, h a rd c r ite r ia of sta ff unit p erfo rm an ce, how rec ip ie n ts p e rc e iv e and adjudge the p e rfo rm an c e is likely to be the m o re sig n ifican t fac t so fa r as effect on fric tio n is co ncerned. O perational m ea su re s of all fac to rs included in the study a re of this p e rc ep tu a l kind, and the sam e ratio n ale is applicable to them . In addition to evaluation of o v e ra ll p e rfo rm an c e , it was rea so n e d that g B a sil S. G eorgopoulos and A rnold S. Tannenbaum , "A Study of O rga nizational E ffectiv en ess, " A m erican Sociological R eview , XXII (1957), 536- 539. 32 sp ecific a sp ects of p e rfo rm an c e of the two types of a ctiv itie s m ight be im p o r tantly re la te d to frictio n in re la tio n s betw een line and staff, hi p a rtic u la r, tim ely re sp o n se to re q u e sts fo r s e rv ic e s is likely to be an im p o rtan t elem ent of how w ell clien ts feel se rv ic e -s u p p o rt functions a re p e rfo rm ed , and p e r ceived quality of p ro d u ct is likely to be an im p o rtan t v a ria b le in the p e rfo r m ance of co o rd in a tiv e -c o n tro l functions. In the la tte r c a se , fo rm u latio n and issu an ce of departm ent-w ide p o lic ie s, sta n d a rd s, and p ro c e d u re s w ere a r e sponsibility of v ary in g m agnitude am ong the sta ff units stu d ied , and how well this resp o n sb ility was d isch arg ed could be m e a su re d in p a r t by the c la rity and u n derstandability of d irec tiv e s tra n sm itte d fro m sta ff to lin e, and by the ade quacy of guidance provided by th ese d ire c tiv e s. A nother p e rfo rm an c e asp ec t of the policy form ulation and im plem enta tion function conceived to have a p o ten tial im p act on fric tio n was the extent to which sta ff units a re p e rc eiv e d as able to s e c u re com pliance w ith th e ir policy and sta n d ard s issu a n c e s. This fa c to r was c o n sid ere d to p o sse ss two p o ssib le a lte rn a tiv e links to fric tio n , one being th at a u n it’s p e rc eiv e d ability to achieve com pliance is a m e a su re of good p e rfo rm a n c e , and good p e rfo rm an c e p e r se is expected to be a sso c ia te d w ith le s s fric tio n . On the o th er hand, if the line is re s is ta n t to co o rd in a tiv e -c o n tro l effo rts by sta ff, and sp e cifica lly to attem pts to prom ulgate policy d ire c tiv e s, then su c c e ss in achieving com pliance with those d ire c tiv e s m ay be accom panied by heightened fric tio n o r conflict. In sum , six fa c to rs w ere conceptualized as a sp ects of sta ff unit p e rfo r m ance which m ay be im p o rtan tly re la te d to s ta ff-lin e fric tio n in the su b je ct 33 o rganization. Given the e x p lo ra to ry n a tu re of this study, it is a p p ro p ria te to s ta te hypotheses of rela tio n sh ip betw een th e se s ix fa c to rs and fric tio n w ithout specifying d irec tio n o r m agnitude of re la tio n sh ip s, as follow s: H ypothesis II. Am ount of fric tio n betw een sta ff and line groups m ay be re la te d to c e rta in asp ects of sta ff u n it p e rfo rm an c e . S pecifically, fric tio n m ay be re la te d to: I I - l. How w ell sta ff units p e rfo rm s e rv ic e -s u p p o rt (Type A) func tions fo r c lie n t units. II— 2. How w ell sta ff units p e rfo rm c o o rd in a tiv e -c o n tro l (Type B) functions affecting c lie n t u n its. II-3. How rap id ly sta ff units resp o n d to re q u e sts fro m c lie n t units fo r a ssista n c e . II-4. The adequacy of guidance provided by sta ff unit d irec tiv e s to c lien t u n its. II— 5. C la rity and u n d erstan d ab ility of d ire c tiv e s issu e d by staff units to c lie n t groups. II-6. How su c c e ssfu l sta ff units a re in se c u rin g com pliance with th e ir p o lic ie s, p ro c e d u re s, and sta n d a rd s. The o p erational m e a su re s of th ese fa c to rs a re rep ro d u ced in C hapter III, as a re m e a su re s of fa c to rs in two additional c a te g o rie s to be d iscu ssed . In teractio n F a c to rs in S taff-L ine F ric tio n The seco n d group of fa c to rs hypothesized to affect fric tio n levels was re f e r r e d to e a r lie r as "in te ra c tio n fa c to rs. " The underlying assum ption in r e g a rd to th ese fa c to rs was th at fric tio n m ay be a p ro d u ct of how groups go about re la tin g to each o th er, p a rtic u la rly if te rm s of the rela tio n sh ip a re not highly sp ecified and understood. If th e re is validity in the c o m m o n ly -ex p ressed 34 a s s e rtio n th at the sta ff ro le has been difficult to define and in te g ra te within typical b u re a u c ra tic o rg an izatio n al s tru c tu re s , then it can be conceived that m uch of the tim e the ro le becom es o p eratio n ally defined through the ongoing in te rac tio n betw een sta ff and line groups. If this is so , then how sta ff groups go about p erfo rm in g th e ir functions, how they behave v is - a - vis lin e groups in estab lish in g a rela tio n sh ip , and how line groups p e rc e iv e this in te ra c tiv e rela tio n sh ip , could be expected to have an im pact on the d e g re e of co n flict betw een the two groups. In c o n crete te rm s , d ifferen t sta ff groups m ay hold d ifferen t view s of th e ir rela tio n sh ip to line ag en cies, and exhibit d ifferen tial tre a tm e n t of the line. A lso, the am ount of influence which one o r another staff group is se en as having m ay d iffer, o r, re c ip ro c a lly , line groups m ay p e rc eiv e th em selv es as having g re a te r influence with som e sta ff units than w ith o th e rs. T his in tu rn m ay have an effect on frictio n , p a rtic u la rly if the sta ff-lin e in te rfa c e is in p a rt g a stru g g le fo r pow er and influence. F u rth e r, if w in -lo se com petitive situ a tions a re d e stru c tiv e of co operation and good re la tio n s, as som e o rg an iz a- 7 tional psychologists b eliev e, the ex ten t to which one p a rty is p e rc e iv e d as being able to ’'g et its way" when issu e s a ris e m ay affect the am ount of frictio n in th e ir relatio n sh ip . g Douglas M cG regor, "T he Role of Staff in M odern Industry, " M anage m ent O rganization and the C o m p u ter, eds. G eorge P. Shultz and Thom as L. W hisler (Glencoe, 1 1 1 . : The F re e P re s s , 1960), p. 108. 7 E dgar H. Schein, O rganizational Psychology (Englewood C liffs, N. J . : P re n tic e -H a ll, Inc. , 1965), pp. 80-82. 35 Findings fro m b eh av io ral sc ie n c e stu d ies of o rg an izatio n al w ork groups a p p ear to su p p o rt the notion th at the above kinds of fa c to rs m ay be a sso c iated with sta ff-lin e conflict. In h is sy n th e sis of m any of th ese stu d ie s, L ik e rt su g g e sted th at em ployee attitu d es tow ard, and sa tisfa c tio n w ith, su p e rv iso rs and w ork groups a re re la te d to su ch things as having o n e 's p ro b lem s and view s h e a rd , feeling th at one h as influence w ith his s u p e rio rs , being tre a te d consid e ra te ly and in a su p p o rtiv e fashion, p e rc eiv in g th at one has an opportunity to p a rtic ip a te in d ecisions affecting o n e 's own w ork, and having o n e's job o r w ork g needs und ersto o d by p e e rs and su p e rio rs . T hese p ro jectio n s fro m the lite ra tu r e w ere re in fo rc e d by interview s with both sta ff and line incum bents in the su b je ct o rg an izatio n . Interview ee resp o n se s to questions about re la tio n s betw een line and sta ff groups w ere ana lyzed to identify and e x tra c t r e c u r re n t th em es, and so m e of those so identified w ere c o n siste n t w ith the notions e x p re ss e d above. As a re s u lt, a d ecision was m ade to include m e a su re s of eight fa c to rs c a teg o rize d as im p o rtan t v a ria b le s in the in te ra c tio n betw een sta ff and line: (a) The extent to which sta ff units u n d ertak e to g et the view s of groups affected by the fo rm e r's a c tiv itie s. As noted, re s e a rc h on w ork groups has d e m o n stra te d th at people like to feel they have som e say in m a tte rs which affect th e ir jobs and w ork environm ent. Since m any sta ff functions a re d e signed to s e rv e all segm en ts of an o rg an izatio n , and sin ce sta ff g ro u p s, by the Q L ik e rt, op. c i t . , C h ap ters 2-4 and pp. 166-170. 36 n a tu re of th e ir functions, a re often in the positio n of in itiatin g actions o r changes involving o th er p a rts of the o rg anization, the hypothesis th at rela tio n s with the line m ight be affected by the extent to which lin e groups feel they a re given a chance to a ir th e ir view s on pro p o sed actions affecting them appears rea so n a b le. P re lim in a ry in terv iew s with rec ip ie n ts of sta ff actions seem ed to su p p o rt this conception, indicating som e feeling th a t m any p ro b lem s with sta ff units could be avoided if only the la tte r would preview th e ir pro p o sed actions b efo re im plem enting them . (b) A second v a ria b le to be included m ay be te rm e d , fo r sak e of b rev ity , co n sid era te trea tm e n t. A rough content analysis of p re lim in a ry in terv iew s am ong sta ff c lien ts indicated a ran g e of p o ssib le behaviors which sta ff units m ay exhibit in th e ir in te rac tio n with o th e r g roups. On one hand, sta ff o fficers m ay tend to ru n roughshod over o th e rs, in the m an n er of an in se n sitiv e policem an dealing w ith m isc re a n ts o r w ould-be v io la to rs of com m u nity ru le s and reg u la tio n s. In o th er c a s e s , tre a tm e n t m ay not be so o v ertly crude o r c a v a lie r; ra th e r clien ts m ay be tre a te d sim ply as in fe rio rs , lacking the com petence and ratio n ality of th e ir b e tte rs , the sta ff sp e c ia lists. At the o th er end of the sp e c tru m , people in sta ff units m ay behave tow ard line colleagues as though the la tte r w ere equal p a rtn e rs in the e n te r p ris e , com petent and co n cern ed with p erfo rm in g so as to m axim ize the o rg a nizatio n ’s in te re s ts . In sum , w hat was involved h e re could be d e sc rib e d as w hat o th er groups se e as typical m odes o r sty le s of sta ff u n it b eh av io rs in the in te rac tio n 37 situ atio n . The conception of this v a ria b le , again, was congruent w ith findings fro m stu d ies of su p e ro rd in a te -su b o rd in a te and w ork group p e e r re la tio n s. (c) A th ird fa c to r, influence, was su b -d iv id ed into th re e com ponents fo r the study. In the in te ra c tio n betw een sta ff and lin e g ro u p s, the am ount of influence each p a rty is p e rc eiv e d as having on the o th e r ap p eared likely to have an im p act on re la tio n s betw een the p a rtie s . T his conception was su g g es ted in p a rt by re s e a rc h on w ork g roups, which has shown th at em p lo y ees’ s a t isfactio n is re la te d to th e ir p e rc eiv e d influence with su p e rio rs on m a tte rs g which affect th e ir w ork. In this study, it was rea so n e d th a t fric tio n m ig h t v a ry on the b a sis of d ifferen tial am ounts of influence which d ifferen t sta ff units a re seen as e x e r cisin g o v er the a ffa irs of line c lien ts, and secondly, by the extent to which the line groups se e th em selv es as able to influence the v a rio u s sta ff units. So fa r as sta ff unit influence was co n cern ed , the in itia l objective was sim ply to d e te rm in e w hether the absolute am ount of influence, la rg e o r sm a ll, was im portantly re la te d to fric tio n . On refle ctio n , it ap p eared p o ssib le that p ercep tio n s of la rg e (or sm all) am ounts of influence m ight not n e c e ssa rily be the m o st c ru c ia l dim ension. L arg e am ounts of influence m ight be se en as a p p ro p ria te fo r som e sta ff u n its, given th e ir p a rtic u la r functions, o r the con v e rs e m ight be tru e . T h e re fo re , a d ecisio n w as m ade to include as a th ird dim ension the a p p ro p ria te n e ss of influence p o s s e s s e d by sta ff u n its, i. e. , 9 L ik e rt, oj>. c it. , pp. 16-19. 38 w hether the am ount e x e rc ise d by a unit was se e n as too m uch, too little , o r a p p ro p ria te in am ount. The categ o ry of in te rac tio n v a ria b le s thus included th re e a sp ects of p e rc eiv e d influence. (d) A nother v a ria b le expected to be re le v a n t in the in te ra c tio n betw een sta ff and line involved the outcom e of d isa g re e m e n ts on issu e s which a ris e be tw een the p a rtie s . As alread y m entioned, p sychologists studying th e effects of com petition betw een groups have show n th at when com petition eventuates in one group actually winning out o v e r o th e rs, the net effect often is h ig h er in te r group ten sio n than w as the c a se b e fo re com petition began. ^ T h ere fo re it appeared u seful to d e term in e the ex ten t to which m em b ers of c lien t groups in te ra c tin g w ith sta ff units saw th em selv es w inning o r lo sin g when issu e s b e tw een the two w ere re so lv e d , and w hether o r not th e se outcom es re la te d to lin e -sta ff frictio n . (e) L astly , the difficulty of defining the sta ff ro le in op eratio n al fo rm su g g ested th at lack of re c ip ro c a l u n d erstan d in g by sta ff and line groups of each o th e r's needs and p ro b lem s m ight im pede w orking out a sa tis fa c to ry re la tio n ship and red u ctio n of ten sio n betw een the two. Such lack of understanding, with its b eh av io ral consequences, is im plied in the lite ra tu re . P fiffn er and P re sth u s, fo r exam ple, have contended th a t the difficulty of line and sta ff in understanding each o th e r is due a t le a s t in p a rt to th e n a tu re of th e ir 10Schein, op. c it . , pp. 80-82. A lso R . R . B lake and Ja n e S. Mouton, "R eactions to In terg ro u p C om petition U nder W in-L ose C o n d itio n s," M anage m en t Science, VII (1961), 420-435. 39 resp ec tiv e ro le s , ** and th is view is supported by a study of tw elve com panies, in only one of which did sta ff and line groups appear to know exactly what to 12 expect of each o th er. Thus the dual dim ensions of how w ell sta ff u n d er stands its clien ts and how w ell clien ts understand the sta ff w ere hypothesized as p e rtin en t to frictio n betw een the groups, and w ere th e re fo re included in the stucty. All of die foregoing v a ria b le s w ere c ateg o rize d as ''in te ra c tio n fa c to rs" and linked to frictio n as the stu d y 's th ird m ajo r s e t of hypotheses: H ypothesis in . Am ount of frictio n betw een sta ff and line groups m ay be re la te d to c e rta in asp ects of how sta ff units in te ra c t w ith line. Specifically, fric tio n m ay be re la te d to: III— 1. The extent to which staff unit m em b ers so lic it the view s of clien t unit m em b ers reg a rd in g actions affecting the la tte r. in-2. The extent to which sta ff unit m em bers tr e a t clien ts with co n sid eratio n . HI-3. Amount of influence sta ff units e x e rt on c lie n t u n its. I ll- 4. C lient perceptions of ap p ro p riaten ess of the am ount of in fluence e x e rte d by sta ff u n its. IH -5. Am ount of influence clien ts a re able to e x e rt on sta ff units. H I-6. E xtent to which one sid e o r the o th er p re v a ils when issu e s betw een sta ff a n d c lien t units a ris e . HI-7. How well sta ff unit p erso n n el u n derstand the w ork needs and problem s of c lie n ts . 11 John M. P fiffner and R obert V. P re s th u s, Public A dm inistration (New Y ork: The Ronald P r e s s C o ., 1960), p. 143. 12 D. N. U lrich and D. R. Booz, E xecutive Action (Boston: H arv ard U niversity G raduate School of B usiness A dm inistration, 1951), p. 155. 40 III-8. How w ell c lien ts u n d e rstan d the w ork needs and p roblem s of sta ff u n its. Staff U nit C h a ra c te ris tic s The th ird c ateg o ry of fa c to rs expected to re la te to fric tio n betw een line and s ta ff was te rm e d , e a r lie r in this c h a p te r, "unit c h a ra c te ris tic s . " T hese fa c to rs re p re s e n t p e rc ep tio n s and u nderstandings which develop out of in te r action betw een groups and tend to influence sub seq u en t behaviors and re la tio n s betw een those g ro u p s. * * * The foci of th e se p ercep tio n s and understandings w e re conceived to be such group q u alities o r a ttrib u te s as v a rio u s kinds of com petence, attitu d e s, and group o rien tatio n s tow ard o rg an izatio n al ro le and m issio n . As such, it can be se en th at th ese a ttrib u te s a re som ew hat analogous to the p e rso n ality o r dem ographic a ttrib u te s em ployed by so m e w rite rs to d e sc rib e d ifferen ces b e tw een individuals in line and sta ff p o sitio n s and to account fo r conflict betw een the tw o .14 W hether o r not such d ifferen ces am ong individuals have an effect on sta ff-lin e fric tio n , the fa c t th at individuals p o ss e s s distinguishing c h a ra c te ris tics does not sp eak to the point th at groups and o rg an izatio n al units m ay a lso be conceived to develop d istin c tiv e q u a litie s o r a ttrib u te s which a re v isib le to o th e rs. F ro m the p e rsp e c tiv e of individuals o r groups view ing an 13 S u p ra , pp. 25-26. 14 S u p ra , C h ap ter I, pp. 5-10. 41 o rg an izatio n al unit fro m outside, a unit m ay take on a s e t of disting uishing c h a ra c te ris tic s which gives it a group identity in the eyes of o th e rs. T his con ception has e m p iric a l re fe rre n ts in everyday ex p erien ce, as when the United States D epartm ent of S tate is d e sc rib e d by o th ers as a ’’ bowl of je lly " — diffi cult to m ake resp o n siv e, to change, o r to induce to develop c re a tiv e new r e spo n ses to changing situ atio n s. C o n tra riw ise , the P e a ce C orps com es to be se e n as dynam ic, innovative, flexible, adaptive to its env iro n m en t and to the needs of the tim e. What is im p o rtan t about th ese a sc rib e d q u alities of a group o r unit is th e ir potential im p act on re la tio n s betw een that u n it and o th ers with which it d e als. To r e ite r a te an e a r lie r o b serv atio n , the hypothesis would be th a t r e la tions betw een groups a re likely to be conditioned by p ercep tio n s which one group holds of another and of p a rtic u la r q u alities o r c h a ra c te ris tic s a sc rib e d to that group. G roup B m ay be d isposed to be u n recep tiv e to the in itiativ es of G roup A if the la tte r is p e rc eiv e d to be poorly sk ille d , behind the tim e s, o r se lf-s e rv in g to the exclusion of b ro a d e r org an izatio n al co n cern s and in te re s ts . C onceptually, such unit c h a ra c te ris tic s m ay function as underlying o r conditioning v a ria b le s. T hat is , they m ay have a le s s d ire c t im p act on in te r group fric tio n than do p e rfo rm an c e o r in te ra c tio n fa c to rs which involve activ e beh av io rs in the p ro c e ss of groups in te rre la tin g with each o th er. A nother way of view ing the com plex s e t of in te rre la tio n sh ip s am ong fa c to rs e m b ra ce d in this study is th a t unit c h a ra c te ris tic s m ay be m o re d ire c tly re la te d to p e rfo r m ance and in te rac tio n beh av io rs than to sta ff-lin e fric tio n , th at th ese 42 a ttrib u te s a re in the n a tu re of underlying fa c to rs which condition p e rfo rm an c e and the p ro c e s s e s of in te rac tio n . If so , one would p re d ic t that in s ta tis tic a l te s ts of a sso c iatio n , p e rfo rm an c e and in te ra c tio n v a ria b le s would account fo r m o re of the v a ria n c e in fric tio n than would the u n it c h a ra c te ris tic s . In any event, the b a sic p ro p o sitio n w ith re g a rd to the fa c to rs in this th ird c ateg o ry is th at sta ff units w hose re la tio n s with the line a re d e sc rib e d d ifferen tially w ill a lso be d e sc rib e d d ifferen tially on th ese unit c h a ra c te ris tic v a ria b le s. If so , additional inform ation about b a se s of sta ff-lin e fric tio n will have been gained. B efore d e sc rib in g th e se v a ria b le fa c to rs individually, the re a d e r is rem in d ed th a t sin c e the d ire c tio n a l focus of this study is , by design, on a group of sta ff u n its and th e ir re la tio n s w ith the lin e, r a th e r than the re v e rs e , the c h a ra c te ris tic s to be in v estig ated a re th o se a sc rib e d to sta ff units by o th er groups in the organization. L astly , it is w orth noting th a t although the lite ra tu re was su g g estiv e of so m e of th ese v a ria b le s, m any of them had ro o ts in ex p lo rato ry interview s c a rrie d out in the su b je ct o rganization. Interview data in d icated th at v e ry often, such c h a ra c te ris tic s w e re re f e r r e d to by resp o n d en ts in d e scrib in g sta ff units held in m o re o r le s s e ste e m , o r around which m o re o r le s s conflict seem ed to c e n te r. C h a ra c te ris tic s fo rm u la te d fo r inclusion in the study a re tre a te d individually in the p a ra g ra p h s im m ed iately follow ing. 43 U nit C om petence o r Skills The need fo r com petence and s k ill, although applicable to all segm ents of an o rg an izatio n , h as often been u rg ed even m o re stro n g ly fo r sta ff people, on the grounds th at an u n c ertain o r allegedly in fe rio r au th o rity sta tu s m ay be com pensated fo r by d em o n stratin g high levels of sk ill which help to leg itim ate the e x e rc is e of sta ff functions in the eyes of o th e rs. T his re p re s e n ts , of c o u rse , the fa m ilia r "au th o rity of e x p e rtis e " notion. In som e c a s e s , em phasis in the lite ra tu re h as been on a g e n e ra l need fo r co n su ltativ e o r in te rp e rso n a l s k ills in o rd e r fo r sta ff s p e c ia lists to gain 15 acceptance and red u ce ten sio n in dealing with the line. To so m e extent, th ese kinds of sk ills ap p ear to be akin to so m e of the in te ra c tio n b eh av io rs o r fa c to rs d isc u sse d e a r lie r , and thus w ill not be re p e a te d h e re . O ther w rite rs have em phasized the need fo r high com petence in func- 16 tional o r sp ecialty a re a s , e. g . , in the leg a l field, o r in budget an aly sis o r d ata p ro ce ssin g . T his em phasis w as su p p o rted in ex p lo rato ry in terv iew s con ducted in the su b ject organization, w here it w as not unusual fo r line o fficers to point to a p e rc eiv e d p re se n c e o r absence of com petence am ong m em b ers of one o r an o th er sta ff unit. M ost often, the com petence r e f e r r e d to was of a 15 See, fo r exam ple, M cG regor, o£. c i t . , pp. 111-12; M arsh all E. Dim ock and Gladys O. Dim ock, P ublic A d m in istratio n (New Y ork: Holt, R in eh ard & W inston, I n c ., 1964), p. 287; and O rdw ay T ead, The A rt of M anagem ent (New Y ork: M cG raw -H ill Book C o ., 1951), p. 104. 16 W illiam H. Newman and C h a rle s E. Sum m er, J r . , The P ro c e s s of M anagem ent: C oncepts, B ehavior, and P ra c tic e (Englewood C liffs, N. J . : P re n tic e -H a ll, I n c ., 1961), p. 91. tech n ical kind, aligned with sp e c ia l functions o r s e rv ic e s p e rfo rm e d by the s ta ff units in question. In addition, com m ent w as also m ade freq u en tly about a s k ill a re a which se em e d to re la te to the ability of sta ff units to do a good job of planning th e ir w ork and c a rry in g out th e ir a ctiv itie s in such a way as to hold to sch ed u les and m e e t announced d ead lin es. Follow ing M ann's lead , this sk ill categ o ry was 17 lab elled "a d m in istra tiv e sk ill. " The tendency to d istin g u ish se p a ra b le sk ill o r com petence a re a s was congruent, in cid en tally , with M ann's findings fro m b eh av io ral re s e a rc h on su p e rv iso ry and m a n a g e ria l le a d e rsh ip , w h erein he identified a "trilo g y " of hum an re la tio n s , tec h n ic al, and a d m istra tiv e sk ills 18 e x e rc is e d in v ary in g p ro p o rtio n s o r m ixes by s u p e rv is o rs and m an a g ers. In any event, it se em e d c le a r th a t sta ff un its w e re p e rc e iv e d by o th ers to d iffer in the lev el of tech n ical o r a d m in istra tiv e com petence w hich they p o s sessed.^ T hese a sc rib e d q u alities of com petence w ere m entioned a p a rt fro m re fe re n c e s to d ire c t p e rfo rm a n c e b e h av io rs, and seem ed to be se e n as r e s i dent c h a ra c te ris tic s differing am ong u n its, although c le a rly they would be ex p ected to be c o rre la te d w ith p e rfo rm a n c e . M oreover, it did not ap p ear to fol low that a sta ff unit d e sc rib e d as high in tech n ical com petence would n e c e s s a rily a lso be ra te d high in a d m in istra tiv e sk ill. T h e re fo re both c la s s e s of 17 Floyd C. Mann, "T ow ard an U nderstanding of the L ea d ersh ip R ole in F o rm a l O rg a n iz a tio n s,1 1 in R. Dubin, G. C. H om ans, F. C. Mann, and D. C. M iller, L ead ersh ip and P ro d u ctiv ity (San F ra n c isc o : C handler P ublishing C o ., 1965), pp. 68-103. 45 sk ills w ere included am ong the sta ff unit c h a r a c te ris tic s to be in v estig ated in re la tio n to lin e -sta ff frictio n . Specialty v s. D epartm ental O rientation In re c e n t y e a rs , som e so c ial s c ie n tis ts have fo cu ssed re s e a rc h a tten tion on a "co sm o p o litan -lo ca l" o r " p ro fe ssio n a l-in stitu tio n a list" dichotom y in 19 the p rim a ry c a r e e r o r w ork o rie n ta tio n s of o rg an izatio n m em b ers. In th is schem a, cosm opolitans o r p ro fe ssio n a ls a r e d e sc rib e d a s being o rien ted m o re tow ard th e ir p ro fe ssio n a l field than tow ard th e ir im m ediate em ploying o rg an i zation. L o cals o r in stitu tio n a lists, on the o th er hand, a r e seen a s identifying m o re c lo sely with the im m ed iate em p lo y er. T hese d iv erg en t o rien tatio n s a re held to have im p o rtan t im p lica tio n s fo r o rg an izatio n m e m b e rs' p rim a ry loyal tie s , th e ir so u rc e s of m otivation and re w a rd , and attitu d e s tow ard authority. A s alread y noted in C h ap ter I, such d iv erg en t o rien tatio n s have also been a ttrib u te d to staff and line incum bents, with staff people d e scrib e d as m o re likely to be cosm opolitans o r p ro fe ssio n a ls, o rie n te d tow ard p ro fessio n o r su b ject m a tte r sp e cia lty , highly c a r e e r m obile, having le s s identification w ith and loyalty to the o rg an izatio n , and b ein g m o re in te re s te d in p ra c tic in g 20 th e ir sp e c ia ltie s than in se rv in g the o rg a n iz a tio n 's im m ediate in te re s ts . 19 See p a rtic u la rly A lvin W. G ouldner, "C osm opolitans and L ocals: T o w ard an A nalysis of L aten t Social R o les - I, n," A d m in istrativ e Science Q u ar te r ly , 11(1957-1958), 281-306, 444-80; and Dwaine M arvick, C a re e r P e rs p e c tiv e s in a B u re a u c ra tic S etting, M ichigan G overnm ental Studies No. 27 (Ann A rb o r: In stitu te of Public A d m in istratio n , U n iv ersity of M ichigan, 1954), 150 pp. 20 M elville D alton, Men Who M anage (New Y ork: W iley, 1959), pp. 87- 94; M cG regor, oj>. c it . , p. 113; and D im ock and Dim ock, o£. c it. , p. 276. 46 D espite the fa c t th at o th e r w rite rs have arg u ed th a t m any sta ff sp e c ia l tie s , such as p erso n n el m anagem ent, o rg an izatio n and m ethods analysis (O&M), and budget m anagem ent a re not accepted sp e cia liz atio n s o r p ro fessio n s 21 in the sam e se n se that en gineering o r the n a tu ra l o r biological sc ien c es a re , the conclusion was draw n th at sta ff groups g e n e ra lly , and som e m o re than o th e rs, m ay be se en by th e ir line colleagues as being m o re in te re s te d in p ra c ticing th e ir sp e c ia ltie s than in se rv in g the d ep artm en t. Although not heavily em phasized, th e re seem ed to be som e se n se of this d ifferen tiatio n in the e x p lo ra to ry in terv iew s, and it was judged w orthw hile to te s t the hypothesis th at sta ff-lin e fric tio n m ay be a sso c ia te d with such dif ferin g o rie n ta tio n s. F ro m the standpoint of effects on in te rg ro u p frictio n in an o rganization, it could be arg u ed th at w hat is im p o rtan t is how sta ff units a re p e rc eiv e d by o th ers in te rm s of sp e c ia lty -d e p a rtm e n ta l d ifferen tiatio n . If no such d istin ctio n is se en by o th e rs, then p resu m ab ly w hether a sta ff unit is actually o rie n te d in one d ire c tio n o r the o th er should have little effect on f r ic tion. A gain, the co n cern in this study is with a c h a ra c te ris tic which is p e r ceived and a sc rib e d by o th e rs, as d istin c t fro m e ith e r an objective a sse ss m e n t o r a s e lf-d e sc rip tio n by m em b ers of the sta ff u n its. 21 H e rb e rt A. Sim on, Donald W. Sm ithburg, and V icto r A. Thom pson, P ublic A d m in istratio n (New Y ork: A lfred A. Knopf, In c ., 1950), pp. 302-3. 47 A daptability and F lexibility The conceptualization of adaptability and flexibility as additional dim en sions along which sta ff units m ay be d escrib ed d ifferen tially was developed p a rtia lly out of ex p loratory interview s with organizational m em b ers, although s im ila r v a ria b le s have been studied by o th ers as c o rre la te s of organizational 22 effectiveness in governm ental agencies. In the p re se n t study, it was not uncom m on to h e a r statem en ts by in te r view ees to the effect that one o r another staff unit failed to keep up with changes in technology o r in policies and objectives of the p a re n t d epartm ent or outside agencies such as C ongress. T his failu re was alleged to le sse n the quality of advice o r technical a ssista n c e offered by a staff unit and to lead to rejectio n of that a ssista n c e . Such rejectio n , in tu rn , would be expected to contribute to conflict o r tension betw een the staff and line. This com plaint suggested th at an im portant a ttrib u te of a sp ecialized staff unit is the ability over tim e to keep up to date in its sp ecial field as well as to respond in a tim ely way to environm ental changes affecting the content and m ethods of its work. F u rth e r con sid eratio n of this dim ension led to a con ceptual refinem ent: adaptability m ay have a s h o rt-ru n as w ell as a lo n g -term com ponent. T hat is, th ere a re likely to be v ery s h o rt-te rm events, perhaps o ccu rrin g on alm ost a c ris is b a sis, which re q u ire non-routine and rapid 22 R eference h e re is to se v e ra l unpublished studies by staff m em bers of the Institute fo r Social R esearch of The U niversity of M ichigan. Those studies have d ealt with scien tific agencies of the fed e ral governm ent and with adm inis tra tiv e units of a governm ental space agency. 48 resp o n se s on the p a rt of an organizational su b -u n it. Included a re such things as unexpected in c re a s e s in w ork load or som e sudden and unanticipated need of a line agency. A sta ff u n it's c h a ra c te ris tic ability to respond to such events m ay have an im pact on rela tio n s with the line. Follow ing this reaso n in g , the adaptability fa c to r was divided so as to include both the long and s h o rt-te rm a sp e c ts. In this study, the la tte r dim ension was te rm e d flexibility. C oordination As organizations in c re a s e in siz e and com plexity, one o b serv ab le r e su lt is a c o rresp o n d in g in c re a se in the extent of ta sk o r functional sp e c ia liz a tion. T ask and functional re sp o n sib ilitie s a re su c c e ssiv e ly refin ed , subdi vided, and often allocated to p rev io u sly n o n -ex isten t org an izatio n al en tities and u n its. T his p ro c e ss of subdividing task s and m ultiplying the num ber of units needed to p e rfo rm them g e n erate s an in c re a sin g need fo r coordination if the o rg an iz atio n 's to tal effo rts a re to re s u lt in achievem ent of e ith e r its p ro x i m ate o r u ltim ate goals. One of the outcom es of inadequate coordination m ay be to induce o r r a is e the lev el of frictio n betw een units of an interdependent org an izatio n al sy ste m . Thus the division of re la te d sta ff functions am ong a s e t of se m i-in d e pendent en titie s m ay re s u lt in ta sk o v e rla p s, duplications, o r in stan c es of w orking at c ro s s p u rp o se s. In the o rg an izatio n under study, fo r exam ple, v ario u s asp ects of p e rso n n el m anagem ent su ch as em ploym ent, c la ssific a tio n , train in g , and em ployee u tilizatio n a re c le a rly in te rre la te d , and in tu rn all a re 49 re la te d to budget ad m in istratio n and also to sp ace m anagem ent and to the de sign of w ork p ro c e d u re s, m ethods, and in te rn al su b -u n it organization. Deduction of a th eo re tic al need fo r coordination in such situations ap p e a re d to have a b asis in re a lity , fo r respondents in the ex p lo rato ry interview s not infrequently com plained about uncoordinated o r co n trad icto ry policies o r actions on the p a rt of sta ff units w orking in re la te d functional a re a s such as those ju s t m entioned. W hile interview ees conceded th at a la rg e m ea su re of resp o n sib ility fo r in te r-u n it coordination belonged to upper level m anagem ent, it was c le a r th at c lien ts of sta ff units fe lt th at those units had som e s e lf resp o n sib ility fo r coordination and th at in p ra c tic e som e units appeared le ss able o r le ss inclined to coordinate th e ir w ork w ith th at of othei units c a rry in g on re la te d activ ities. H ere again, the ability o r inclination to coordinate, although expected to be re la te d to p erfo rm an ce, was not conceived to be a p erfo rm an ce v a ria b le in the action se n se , but ra th e r an underlying o r in h ere n t c h a ra c te ristic dif fering among sta ff units. Internal Goal A greem ent A nother facto r o r unit c h a ra c te ris tic , which b e a rs som e kinship to the coordination fa c to r ju s t d iscu ssed , was conceptualized fro m inform ation g ath ered in the exploratory interview s and labelled "in te rn al goal a g re e m e n t." In d iscu ssin g problem s of w orking w ith the sta ff u n its, interview ees in som e c a se s e x p re ssed a b elief that m em b ers of given sta ff units w ere not alw ays in 50 a cc o rd with each o th er in re g a rd to the sp ecific aim s and p u rp o ses of th e ir own units — th at th e re e x iste d e ith e r d isc rep a n t in te rp re ta tio n s o r o u trig h t lack of ag reem en t am ong m em b ers of a sta ff unit re g a rd in g the goals fo r th at unit. Such lack of ag reem en t w as sa id to re s u lt in the issu an ce of in co n sis tent o r c o n tra d ic to ry co m m u n icatio n s, p o lic ies, d ire c tiv e s, o r advice, th e re by leaving c lie n ts in the position of having to d e te rm in e which of the c o n tra d ic to ry inputs of inform ation to accep t as "official. " In so m e se n se , lack of a g re em e n t am ong a sta ff u n it's m em b ers se em e d to re p re s e n t an inability to achieve coordination in te rn ally , but this c h a ra c te ris tic w as analytically se p a ra b le fro m a u n it's ability to co o rd in ate ex tern ally w ith o th er g ro u p s, even though the two c h a ra c te ris tic s m ight p rove to be highly re la te d to each o th er. H ow ever, sin c e conceptually they need not n e c e s s a rily be re la te d , the in te rn a l goal ag reem en t c h a ra c te ris tic w as se p a ra te d fro m the e x te rn al coordination fa c to r and both w ere included in the u n it c h a ra c te ris tic categ o ry . E fficiency The notion of "efficiency" was another dim ension su g g ested by the ex p lo ra to ry in terv iew s. In those in te rv ie w s, th e re was so m e tendency to d e s c rib e sta ff units having c o n sid erab le co n flict with line groups as also being le s s efficient. Although it w as not alw ays p re c ise ly c le a r what in terv iew ees m eant by " e ffic ie n c y ," they se em e d to be re fe rrin g to the ability to p roduce a m axim um {even though undefined) quantity of goods o r s e rv ic e s , given the siz e 51 of staff and budgetary support available to a sta ff unit. Com m ents w ere likely to be couched in te rm s such a s, " F o r the num ber of people it h as, Unit A ought to do a lo t m o re than it does. . . " o r "They do a re a l job w ith th e ir lim i ted re s o u rc e s. . ." F o r this study, then, efficiency was defined to m ean the ability to achieve m axim um output fo r the re s o u rc e s available. At f ir s t glance, effi ciency, lik e the ability to coordinate, m ight seem to belong p ro p erly to the p erfo rm an ce category of v a ria b le s. On reflectio n , how ever, while having con ceptual o r th eo re tic al linkages w ith p erfo rm an ce, efficiency as defined does not appear to be an action v a ria b le in the se n se of being a p erform ance a c t o r event. R ath er it appears to convey the idea of a c h a ra c te ristic o r quality which could affect the behavior o r p erfo rm an ce of a staff unit and thereby its relatio n s w ith line groups — e. g . , the la tte r could ex p erien ce d issa tisfac tio n over the p erceiv ed inability of a sta ff unit to conduct its affa irs and m anage its re so u rc e s so as to m eet the quantity and quality needs of its clien ts. Q uality of Staff P lans and Ideas Still another v a ria b le which had p erfo rm an ce overtones but was deem ed d istin ct fro m p erfo rm an ce p e r s e was the quality of plans and ideas upon which sta ff units b ased th e ir actions. In the lite ra tu re of line and staff, line func tio n a rie s a re so m etim es quoted as d escrib in g sta ff peo p le's id eas, suggestions, o r d irectiv es in such co lo rfu l te rm s as "iv o ry -to w er stuff, " " v isio n a ry ," 52 23 " h a lf-b a k e d ," o r, m o re fo rm ally , aa im p ra c tic a l o r ill-co n ceiv ed . In the in itia l in terv iew s which p rec ed e d this study, such view s w ere re in fo rc e d by lin e o ffic e rs who e x p re sse d d issa tisfa c tio n with sta ff units whose m em b ers w e re p ro n e to p ro ce ed on the b a sis of p o lic ie s, id ea s, o r plans of action p e rc e iv e d by the line to be ill-co n c e iv e d and w ithout adequate a p p re c ia tion fo r o rg an izatio n -w id e re p e rc u ssio n s o r im p licatio n s. This p e rcep tio n a p p ea rs to lin k w ith the in te rac tio n behavior previously d e sc rib e d as sta ff so lic ita tio n of lin e view s on m a tte rs affecting the la tte r. H ow ever, it d iffers in not having the sam e action connotation, and it seem s also to re p re s e n t som ething akin to ability o r sk ill in planning p rio r to in itia ting action. Thus, a sta ff u n it could be p e rc e iv e d as lacking the ability to plan w ell the su b stan ce of its p o lic ies o r a c tiv itie s d esp ite a b eh av io ral tendency to so lic it the view s of o th e rs. This c h a ra c te ris tic is subsequently re fe rre d to, fo r the sak e of b re v ity , as "planning sk ill, " and in th at se n se , it could be con s id e re d an addition to the tech n ical and ad m in istrativ e com ponents of unit com petence d e sc rib e d p rev io u sly . S ervice v s. C ontrol O rien tatio n The next fa c to r is of p a rtic u la r in te re s t in th is study, involving as it does the p ercep tio n s of o th e rs as to the positioning of sta ff units along a 23 Among o th er so u rc e s , cf. D alton, Men Who M anage, pp. 87-88; John M. P fiffn er, The S upervision of P e rso n n e l (Englewood C liffs, N. J . : P re n tic e -H a ll, I n c ., 1960), p. 159; and F e lix A. N igro, M odern Public A d m in istratio n (New Y ork: H a rp e r and Row, 1965), p. 102. 53 se rv ic e -c o n tro l continuum . As the lite ra tu re rev iew in C h ap ter I indicated, the p e rs is tin g ideology of the sta ff function as fa c ilita tiv e , ad v iso ry , o r s e r v ice , w ithout leg itim ate h ie ra rc h ic a l authority o v er o th e r units in the o rg an i zation, has often been at odds with the re a litie s of o rg an izatio n al life. The view is re g u la rly e x p re sse d th a t s ta ff-lin e co n flict grow s out of lin e 's r e s i s - 24 tance to sta ff co n tro ls which a re view ed as lacking legitim acy. M oreover, although the num ber and types of functions calle d "sta ff" have in c re a s e d and d iv e rsifie d o v e r tim e, with som e of th ese functions now ad m itted to be coordinative o r c o n tro l in n a tu re , little a ttem p t h as been m ade to exam ine w hether c o n tro l-o rie n te d sta ff units n e c e ssa rily and alw ays engender fric tio n w ith the line (or a t le a s t m o re frictio n than do units p e rc eiv e d as non co n tro l o rie n te d ), o r w hether p erh ap s o th er fa c to rs a re equally o r m o re im p o rta n t co n trib u to rs to fric tio n . T h erefo re, it se em e d im p e rativ e in this study to a s s e s s the extent to which sta ff units a re p e rc e iv e d by c lien ts to be m o re o r le ss c o n tro l o rien ted , and to te s t the a sso c iatio n betw een this c h a ra c te ris tic and the am ount of f r ic tion. This is again a c a se w here the im p o rtan t dim ension ap p ears to be how the c lie n t sy ste m positions the sta ff uiits on this continuum , re g a rd le s s of the extent to which th e se p ercep tio n s m ight be co n g ru en t w ith an objective m ea s u re of the co n tro l o rien tatio n . 24 The re a d e r is r e f e r r e d to the so u rc e s c ite d in C hapter I. 54 C oncern with Follow ing Policy and P ro c ed u re An additional fac to r suggested by ex p lo rato ry interview s was staff unit co n cern with adhering to e stab lish ed policies and p ro c e d u re s. Although not so frequently m entioned as w ere som e of the o th er fac to rs already d iscussed, som e interview ees did d ifferen tiate staff units on the b a sis of how s tric tly they tended to ad h ere, and to re q u ire o th ers to adhere, to estab lish ed policies and p ro c e d u re s. To an extent, this re p re se n te d som ething of a b u rea u cra tic " re d - tape” fac to r, but it also had connotations of inventiveness o r the lack of it, of a flexible p ro b lem -so lv in g approach v e rsu s m o re rig id , p attern ed resp o n ses to in teractio n s with the line. C oncern with following estab lish ed policy and p ro ced u re was believed to differ from the p rev io u sly -d e sc rib e d adaptability fac to r which denoted a capacity to absorb and u tilize new techniques, tre n d s, o r inputs from the en vironm ent. C oncern with policy, in c o n tra st, is conceived to embody a p re d i lection for adhering to form ally estab lish ed ru le s , reg u latio n s, and channels of action in p ro ce ssin g the tran sactio n s betw een line and staff. This c h a ra c te ris tic was conceived to differ also fro m the flexibility c h a ra c te ristic in that the la tte r has re fe re n c e to ability of a unit to m obilize its re s o u rc e s to handle unexpected and rapidly developing dem ands placed on it. Staff Unit C en trality o r Im portance The la s t c h a ra c te ristic to be d isc u sse d in th is category had its concep tual origins in a proposition form ulated by Hom ans, to the effect th at p erso n s 55 25 who in te ra c t freq u en tly with one an o th er tend to like one an o th er. Com m on se n se su g g ested th at am ong the r o s te r of sta ff units included in the study, so m e would be m o re im p o rtan t than o th e rs in the sch em e of things, a t le a s t in the se n se of having m o re in te ra c tio n with lin e g ro u p s. The e x p lo ra to ry in te r view s rein fo rce d th is assum ption when it w as found th a t so m e sta ff units w ere, indeed, fa m ilia r to few er lin e o ffic e rs than w ere o th e rs . L ine groups sim p ly had few er dealings with them . H ow ever, ra th e r than form u latin g a v a ria b le on the b a sis of frequency of in te ra c tio n , an assum ption was m ade th a t in the c a s e of su b -u n it re la tio n ships w ithin an o rganization, frequency of in te ra c tio n is likely to be a function of th e c e n tra lity o r sa lie n c e of one u n it fo r another. T h e re fo re the im p o rtan t underlying dim ension is c e n tra lity , not sim p ly the frequency of in te ra c tio n p e r s e . On th is b a s is , sta ff units se e n by o th e r groups to be highly c e n tra l o r im p o rtan t to accom plishm ent of the la tte r 's m issio n s w ere p o stu lated to ex p e rie n c e d ifferen t rela tio n s w ith those groups than do sta ff units of le s s e r o r m arg in al im p o rtan ce. W hether th e se d ifferen t re la tio n s would be in the d ire c tion of m o re o r le s s fric tio n w as c o n sid ere d to be le s s c e rta in , fo r high cen tra lity o r sa lie n c e m ight ste m fro m g r e a te r co n tro l o r d ire c tiv e n e ss and r e - 26 su it in m o re r a th e r than le s s frictio n . 25 G eorge C. H om ans, The Hum an G roup (New Y ork: H a rco u rt, B race and W orld, 1950), p. 111. 26 T his conception is congruent w ith H om ans' c o ro lla ry p ro p o sitio n th at stre n g th of liking v a rie s in v ersely w ith the frequency w ith which one p e rso n ini tia te s in te rac tio n fo r the o th e r,!, e. , h as authority o v er h im . Op. c i t . , p. 247. 56 W hatever the an sw er to this la tte r question, th e re seem ed to be su f ficien t th e o re tic a l grounds fo r believing th a t a sc rib e d im p o rtan ce o r c e n tra lity m ight have an influence on re la tio n s betw een sta ff and line. C o n sid eratio n of the c e n tra lity fa c to r com pletes the d isc u ssio n of indi vidual fa c to rs subsum ed u n der the heading of "sta ff u n it c h a ra c te ris tic s . " S um m arizing the b asic p ro p o sitio n involving th ese fa c to rs, it can be sa id th at sta ff units w hose re la tio n s w ith the line a re d e sc rib e d d ifferen tially a re also expected to be d e sc rib e d d ifferen tially with re g a rd to th e se u n it c h a ra c te ris tic s . F ro m this su m m a ry p ro p o sitio n is d eriv ed the fourth m a jo r s e t of hypo th eses fo r the study: H ypothesis IV. Am ount of fric tio n betw een sta ff and c lie n t units m ay be re la te d to c e rta in c h a ra c te ris tic s a sc rib e d to sta ff u n its. S pecifically, fric tio n m ay be re la te d to: IV -l. D egree of tech n ical com petence of sta ff u n it p erso n n el. IV -2. D egree of a d m in istra tiv e sk ill of sta ff unit p erso n n el. IV -3. Specialty v s. d ep artm en tal o rien tatio n of sta ff u n its. IV -4. A daptability of sta ff units to changing conditions and r e q u irem en ts . IV -5. F lex ib ility of sta ff units in responding to unanticipated situ atio n s and lin e u n it needs. IV -6. A bility of sta ff units to c o o rd in ate a ctiv itie s so as to avoid duplication of effo rt, conflicting actions, etc. IV -7, E xtent of in te rn a l a g re em e n t am ong sta ff unit m em b ers on u n it goals and p u rp o se s. IV -8. Staff unit efficiency in m axim izing output w ith available re s o u rc e s . 57 IV -9. Staff unit ability to develop and a ct on the b asis of w ell thought out plans and id e a s . IV-10. S ervice vs. c o n tro l o rien tatio n of staff units. IV -11. D eg ree of sta ff unit co n cern w ith adhering to e sta b lish ed po licies and p ro c e d u re s. IV-12. C e n trality of im p o rtan ce of sta ff u n its' w ork fo r c lie n t groups. Staff-Staff R elations: A N eglected A rea of Study With re fe re n c e to all th re e c a te g o rie s of fa c to rs explicated in the p re ceding pages, it can be sa id th at the conceptual m odel fo r analysis orig in ated and "g rew u p ," in a m an n er of speaking, in the context of sta ff-lin e p roblem s as an a re a of n early u n iv ersal concern in the field of a d m in istrativ e o rg an iz a tion and m anagem ent. In thinking about th ese p roblem s and attem pting to th eo rize about kinds of fac to rs im portantly re la te d to fric tio n betw een sta ff groups and the line, one was led to w onder about re la tio n s betw een sta ff groups th em selv es, i. e. , to ponder w hether sta ff-s ta ff rela tio n s d iffer su b sta n tia lly , if at all, from sta ff- line re la tio n s; w hether co m p arab le lev els of fric tio n ex ist; and w hether dif fere n t fac to rs a re im p o rtan t when sta ff groups re la te to o th er sta ff groups in an organization. The lite ra tu re has alm o st nothing to say on th ese m a tte rs. In the organization involved in the p re s e n t study, sta ff units had m uch the sam e functional rela tio n sh ip to each o th er as they did to line agencies. They provided the sa m e s e rv ic e s to, o r e x e rc ise d the sam e co n tro ls o v er, each o th er as they did in rela tio n to line u n its. T h erefo re, broadening the 58 study to include re la tio n s betw een th ese sta ff un its o ffered the p o ssib ility of exploring su ch q u estio n s as w hether m e m b e rs of u n its sh a rin g an o rg a n iz a tional id en tificatio n in the se n se of a ll being " s ta f f ," in addition to sh a rin g d irec tio n by a com m on s u p e rio r (an A ssista n t S e c re ta ry a t the h ead of the O ffice of A d m in istratio n ), tended to d e sc rib e re la tio n s w ith th e ir fellow sta ff units s im ila rly o r d ifferen tly than did m e m b e rs of line u n its. P u t in som ew hat d ifferen t te rm s , the q u estio n w as w hether sta ff u n its, when they re la te to each o th e r, e x p erien c e c o n flict o r fric tio n to the sa m e ex ten t as do lin e units re la tin g to the sa m e sta ff u n its, o r w hether sta ff g roups, by v irtu e of s h a re d o rie n ta tio n s, id en tificatio n s, o r o rg an izatio n al ro le s , p e r ceiv e each o th e r d ifferen tly and r e la te d ifferen tly to each o th e r than do line u n its in te ra c tin g w ith staff. Since th is study pro v id ed an opportunity to p robe th ese q u estio n s, the application of the m odel developed fo r a n aly sis of sta ff-lin e re la tio n s was broadened to look a t the s ta ff-s ta ff rela tio n sh ip w ithin the sam e conceptual fram ew o rk . To r e - s ta te th is fram ew o rk in b rie f p ro p o sitio n al fo rm , sta ff units p e rfo rm in g a v a rie ty of functions affecting o th e r units o r groups in an o rganization m ay be expected to en co u n ter v a ry in g am ounts of fric tio n in th e ir re la tio n s with o th er g ro u p s. D ifferences in the am ount of fric tio n ex p erien ced by d ifferen t sta ff units a re hypothesized to be a sso c ia te d with fa c to rs e la b o ra ted in this c h a p te r and c a te g o riz e d u n d er the headings of p ro ficien cy of sta ff unit p e rfo rm an c e , a sp ec ts of in te ra c tio n betw een g ro u p s, and c e rta in a ttr i butes o r c h a ra c te ris tic s of sta ff units th em se lv e s. It is fu rth e r p ro p o sed th at this conceptual fram ew o rk is applicable not only to the an aly sis of sta ff-lin e re la tio n s but equally to the analysis of sta ff- sta ff re la tio n s. The re s e a rc h design and m ethods fo r an e m p iric a l te s t of th ese conceptualizations a re recounted in C h ap ter m . 60 CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This ch ap ter review s d etails of the re s e a rc h design and m ethods em ployed in the study. A d escrip tio n of the s ite organization, including its staff u n its, is supplied. The n atu re and so u rc e s of data, the in stru m en t u sed for collection, individual m e a su re s developed fo r the study, and m ethods used in the analysis of data a re s e t forth. The Site O rganization The re s e a rc h re p o rte d in th ese pages was c a rr ie d out in a cab in et- level dep artm en t of the fe d e ra l governm ent. W ithin th at departm ent, p rin cip al ta rg e ts of the study w ere tw enty-five sta ff units of the "overhead" kind d e s crib e d by Simon, Sm ithburg and Thom pson: units located n e a r the top of the organizational pyram id and c a rry in g out c en tralize d sta ff functions on behalf of the d e p artm e n t's top m anagem ent.^ T hese tw enty-five units co m p rised the constituent elem ents of the de p a rtm e n t's c e n tra l Office of A dm inistration, headed by an A ssistan t S ecretary fo r A dm inistration. O rganizationally located th u s, the units w ere not ^H erbert A. Simon, Donald W. Sm ithburg, and V ictor A. Thom pson, Public A dm inistration (New Y ork: A lfred A. Knopf, I n c ., 1950), pp. 280-281. 61 2 in te g ra te d s u b -p a rts of the o rg an iz atio n 's line o r p ro g ra m b u rea u s. C ounter p a rt sta ff o ffice rs w ere lo cated w ithin the p ro g ra m b u re a u s, but th is study was co n cern ed only with those c e n tra l sta ff units d e scrib e d above, and th e ir r e la tions w ith the p ro g ra m b u rea u s. F ro m the standpoint of functional re s p o n sib ilitie s, the tw enty-five cen tr a l units w ere not atypical of the ran g e of sta ff u n its found in m o st la rg e governm ental o rg an izatio n s. They included: (a) units dealing with asp ects of p e rso n n el m anagem ent: em ploym ent, c la ssific a tio n , train in g , executive de velopm ent, su p e rv iso ry developm ent, em ployee u tilizatio n , su itab ility in v e sti gatio n s, and em ployee-m anagem ent re la tio n s. Some of th ese units provided p erso n n el se rv ic e s d ire c tly to o th er p a rts of the d ep artm en t, e. g. , r e c r u it m ent, c la ssific a tio n , and em ploym ent, w hile o th ers w ere engaged in settin g uniform p o lic ies, sta n d a rd s, and p ro ce d u res applicable to p e rso n n el m anage m en t throughout the d ep artm en t; (b) units c a rry in g out fisc a l functions, in cluding c e n tra l budget p re p a ra tio n and ad m in istratio n , developm ent of finan c ia l sy ste m s, accounting and p ay ro llin g , and financial audit functions; <c) units providing a d m in istra tiv e o r au x iliary s e rv ic e s : office sp ace m anage m ent, d ata p ro c e ssin g , c e n tra l w arehousing and supply, p rin tin g and re p ro duction, p ro c u re m e n t and co n tractin g , and coordination of th ese s e rv ic e s to 2 The line units r e f e r r e d to in this study included agencies v a rio u sly lab elled (in the sta n d a rd lexicon of the fe d e ra l b u reau cracy ) b u re a u s, offices o r a d m in istra tio n s. F o r co n sisten cy and c la rity in this study, th ese line agen c ie s w ill be re f e r r e d to as "p ro g ram b u rea u s, " sin c e they c a r r y out m ajo r p ro g ra m s fo r which the d ep artm en t is p re se n tly resp o n sib le. 62 field offices; (d) an o rg an izatio n and m ethods an aly sis unit (O&M); (e) an office of p ro g ram analysis and evaluation; and (f) the d ep artm en tal lib ra ry . In the b ro a d groupings of functions which th ese units c a r r ie d on in r e la tion to th e re m a in d e r of the d ep artm en t, one could identify p ro v isio n of techni cal s e rv ic e s , a ssista n c e o r advice; o p eratio n of c e n tra l au x iliary o r h ouse keeping s e rv ic e s ; the e x e rc is e of v a rio u s kinds of checks and c o n tro ls ov er c e rta in o p eratio n s of the p ro g ram b u reau s and o th e r sta ff units; and the p ro m ulgation and im plem entation of uniform p o lic ie s, p ro c e d u re s, and p ra c tic e s governing p e rso n n el, fin an cial, and o th e r a sp ec ts of d e p artm e n tal o p eratio n s. The R e se a rc h D esign and M ethods To study the quality of re la tio n s of the sta ff units with th e ir clien ts o r c u sto m e rs in the s ite o rg an izatio n , two independent groups of resp o n d en ts w ere asked to provide id en tical types of inform ation about re la tio n s w ith those sta ff units. T hese two groups w ere: (1) s e le c te d p e rso n n el fro m tw elve p rin cip al p ro g ra m b u rea u s of die s ite o rg an izatio n . T hese respondents w ere chosen fro m am ong p e rso n s identified as being know ledgeable about the func tioning of one o r m o re of the ta rg e t sta ff u n its; and (2) a ll p ro fessio n al m em b e rs of those sta ff u n its. T hese la tte r resp o n d en ts w ere asked to provide inform ation about re la tio n s with th e ir fellow sta ff u n its. The su b stan tiv e re a so n s fo r including sta ff-s ta ff re la tio n s in the study have a lre ad y been outlined in C hapter II. M ethodologically, this design had the added advantage of providing d ata fro m two independent so u rc e s about the 63 d eg ree of conflict o r frictio n betw een sta ff units and th e ir c lie n ts, as w ell as two independent s e ts of d ata re la tiv e to fa c to rs hypothesized to be a sso c iated with m o re o r le s s frictio n . The value of the study was co n sid ered to be en hanced by being able to co m p are d ata fro m m o re than one so u rc e of evalua tions. This was p resu m ed to red u ce the p o ssib ility of reje ctin g findings on grounds of a b u ilt-in bias if, fo r exam ple, only re p re se n ta tiv e s of p ro g ram bu reau s had provided the evaluative data. Selection of R espondents As noted above, respondents fro m the d e p artm e n t's p ro g ram bureaus w ere se le c te d on the b a sis of th e ir fa m ilia rity with and knowledge of one o r m o re of the tw enty-five c e n tra l sta ff u n its. Identification and se lec tio n p ro c e d u res used w ere as follow s: a d m in istrativ e o fficers of each of the tw elve p ro g ram bureaus w ere contacted and the study was explained. E ach a d m in istra tive o fficer was given the lis t of sta ff units and asked to nom inate those p e r sons in his bu reau who could, on the b a sis of th e ir own knowledge ra th e r than h e a rsa y , evaluate the w ork of one o r m o re units and the rela tio n s of h is own bureau with each one. In addition, the d ire c to r and one o r two key subordi - n ates of each sta ff unit w ere asked to identify p ro g ram bureau o fficers with whom they had co n sid erab le contact and who could provide evaluations of that p a rtic u la r sta ff unit. Names of all p e rso n s nom inated from th ese two so u rc e s w ere consoli dated in a sin g le ro s te r, from which p ro g ram bureau respondents fo r each of 64 the tw enty-five ta rg e t sta ff units w ere se le c te d . Selection w as governed by th re e b asic c r ite r ia : (1) each sta ff u n it w as to be evaluated by re p re se n ta tiv e s of as m any of the tw elve p ro g ra m b u reau s as p o ssib le; (2) no one b u reau was to provide a d isp ro p o rtio n ate s h a re of evaluations of any one ta rg e t sta ff unit; and (3) no one resp o n d en t was to be ask ed to evaluate m o re than fo u r sta ff u n its . In o th e r w o rd s, the o b jectiv es w ere to sp re a d the evaluations of each sta ff unit as broadly a c ro s s the tw elve p ro g ra m b u reau s as p o ssib le ,-a n d to avoid b ias th at m ight be in jected if m u ltip le respondents fro m any one bu reau evaluated a given sta ff unit. In this la tte r c a se , it w as d e sire d to p reclu d e d isto rtio n b ased on a "p a rty lin e" which m ight e x ist w ithin a given bureau tow ard one o r an o th er of th e sta ff u n its. The nam es of approxim ately 145 p ro g ram b u reau resp o n d en ts ap p eared on the o rig in a l r o s te r of nom inees. A pplication of the se le c tio n c r ite r ia d e s c rib e d above re su lte d in se lec tin g 97 respondents fro m the r o s te r , each of whom was asked to evaluate fro m two to four u n its. U ltim ately 93 of th e se 97 nom inees p a rtic ip a te d in the study, so th at the resp o n se ra te was a s a tis fa c to ry 96 p e rc e n t. G enerally speaking, each sta ff u n it was evaluated by fro m sev en to tw elve p ro g ram b u reau resp o n d en ts. T urning now to se lec tio n of sta ff unit p e rso n n el to respond about th e ir fellow sta ff g ro u p s, the b a sic pool of respondents was com posed of all p ro fe s sio n a l m em b ers of the tw enty-five u n its. The definition of "p ro fe ssio n a l" in th is c a se was larg e ly a rb itra ry , but w as judged to be ap p ro p ria te fo r this study. E x p lo rato ry in terv iew s in the sta ff un its had led to a tentative 65 conclusion th at a fa irly n a tu ra l b reaking point cam e at the G. S. 11 position c la ssific a tio n level. H iat is, p e rso n s c la ssifie d as G. S. 11 o r above w ere in positions which brought them into su fficien t contact with o th er sta ff groups to enable them to provide inform ed evaluations of those groups. T his conclusion was checked with the d ire c to rs of each of the units with re g a rd to his own p e r sonnel, and was generally affirm ed by the d ire c to rs . T h ere w ere a few excep tions fo r sp ecial c a se s, but fo r the m o st p a rt, the pool of knowledgeable r e spondents in the sta ff units included p erso n s at the G. S. 11 level o r higher. The ex p lo rato ry interview s had also indicated th at contacts and in te r action betw een p ro fessio n als in the tw enty-five units w ere v ery w idespread, in c o n tra st to a m o re lim ited p a tte rn of contacts betw een sta ff unit and p ro g ram bureau p erso n n el. As a re s u lt, the sy stem of nom inations used with p ro g ram bureau respondents was not em ployed with sta ff unit respondents. Instead, each sta ff unit p ro fessio n al was random ly p re -a ss ig n e d four staff units o th er than his own to evaluate. The num ber of p ro fessio n al m em b ers of the tw enty-five sta ff units, excluding individuals on leave o r too new to the organization to w a rra n t inclu sion, totalled 115. N inety-six p e rc e n t of this total, o r 110, p a rticip a te d in the study and provided evaluations. E ach sta ff unit was evaluated by from twelve to twenty m em b ers of the o th er tw enty-four units. Conduct of E xploratory Interview s In C hapter II, it was sta te d that the conceptual fram ew ork for the study 66 was draw n fro m re le v a n t lite r a tu r e in th e fie ld , su p p le m e n te d by p re lim in a ry e x p lo ra to ry in te rv ie w s w ith p e rs o n n e l fro m both s ta ff and lin e u n its of the s ite o rg a n iz a tio n . A fu lle r d e s c rip tio n of th o se in te rv ie w s is w a rra n te d s in c e they c o n stitu te d an im p o rta n t s te p in th e p ro c e s s of g e n e ra tin g e le m e n ts of th e b a sic c o n cep tu al fra m e w o rk fo r an aly zin g s ta ff-lin e fric tio n . In th e sta ff u n its, individual in te rv ie w s w e re co n d u cted w ith d ire c to rs of th e tw elve o ffices into w hich th e tw en ty -fiv e s ta ff u n its w e re g ro uped. In addition, e ith e r individual o r g ro u p in te rv ie w s w e re conducted w ith tw enty top lev e l su b o rd in a te s of th e office d ir e c to r s , w ith m o s t of th e s e in d iv id u als being d iv isio n o r b ra n c h c h ie fs. T he in te rv ie w s w e re s e m i- s tr u c tu r e d in th a t they fo c u sse d on a s e t of p re -d e te rm in e d b u t o p en -en d ed q u e stio n s w hich ask ed about: (1) th e n a tu re of functions p e rfo rm e d by th e re s p e c tiv e s ta ff u n its; (2) the n u m b er and kinds of c o n ta c t e a c h h ad w ith p ro g ra m b u re a u s and w ith o th e r s ta ff u n its; (3) how w ell th e s e c o n ta cts w orked out; (4) w h eth er th e re w e re n o tab le d iffe re n c e s in how w ell they w orked out, depending upon w hich u n its w e re involved; (5) w hat e x p ec ta tio n s w e re h e ld in r e g a r d to a c tiv itie s o r re s p o n s ib ilitie s of each u n it c o n ta cted ; (6) w hat fa c to rs fa c ilita te d o r im p ed ed w orking re la tio n sh ip s betw een p a rtie s ; and (7) w hat changes could be m ad e to im p ro v e re la tio n sh ip s betw een u n its. In the p ro g ra m b u re a u s, fa c e -to -fa c e in te rv ie w s w e re cond ucted w ith one to two p e rs o n s in each b u re a u . The h ie r a r c h ic a l p o sitio n of th e s e in te r v iew ees w as d e lib e ra te ly v a rie d to gain a s e n s e of how re la tio n s w e re p e r c eiv ed fro m v a rio u s le v e ls in th e h ie ra rc h y . T hus, in te rv ie w e e s in clu d ed 67 b u reau chiefs and d ep u ties; a d m in istra tiv e o ffic e rs w hose job it w as to o v e rse e the p e rso n n e l, fis c a l, and o th e r a d m in istra tiv e functions in the p ro g ra m bu re a u s ; and such; p e rso n s as budget o ffic e rs , p e rso n n e l d ire c to rs , and m an ag e m en t an aly sts who w e re, in effect, p ro g ra m b u rea u c o u n te rp a rts of s p e c ia lis ts in the o v erh ead sta ff u n its. In g e n e ra l, q u estio n s u se d in b u rea u in te rv ie w s w e re c o m p a rab le to those u sed w ith sta ff unit re sp o n d e n ts, the only changes being th o se m ade in o rd e r to accom m odate th e changed p e rs p e c tiv e of p ro g ra m b u reau p e rso n n el evaluating w orking re la tio n s w ith sta ff u n its. A side fro m the g e n e ra l function of providing fa m ilia riz a tio n w ith the situation, the p re lim in a ry in terv iew s w e re im p o rta n t in su p p lem en tin g and su p p o rtin g in sig h ts and conceptual notions draw n e a r lie r fro m the lite ra tu r e of s ta ff-lin e re la tio n s. The d isc u ssio n in C h ap ter II in d icated co n trib u tio n s which the in te rv ie w d ata m ade to the co n cep tu alizatio n and su b seq u en t con stru c tio n of a m e a su re m e n t in stru m e n t to be u se d in the study. T he M easu rem en t In stru m e n t F o r this study, a q u e stio n n a ire s im ila r to the su rv e y re s e a rc h in s tru m en ts developed by the Survey R e se a rc h C e n te r, In stitu te fo r Social R e se a rc h , U n iv ersity of M ichigan, was c o n stru c te d . T his is a fix e d -a lte rn a tiv e q u estio n n a ire in w hich th e resp o n d en t is p re s e n te d w ith a qu estio n follow ed by a lte rn a tive re s p o n se s. The resp o n d en t is asked to choose th a t re sp o n se w hich m o st n e a rly d e sc rib e s h is own attitu d e , opinion, o r situ atio n . The re sp o n se 68 a lte rn a tiv e s a re ran g ed along a L ik e rt-ty p e sc a le of th re e o r m o re in te rv a l i p oints. U sing th is fo rm a t, o p eratio n al m e a su re s w ere developed fo r each inde pendent v a ria b le in the p e rfo rm a n c e , in te rac tio n , and staff u n it c h a ra c te ris tic c a te g o rie s , as w ell as fo r the dependent v a ria b le m e a su re , the sta te of r e la tions betw een g ro u p s. F o r m o st of th e se m e a s u re s , a fiv e-p o in t resp o n se s c a le w as em ployed, with re sp o n se c a te g o rie s ran g in g along a continuum from low est to h ig h est, le a s t to m o st, o r p o o re st to b e st, hi a v e ry few c a s e s , th re e -p o in t sc a le s w ere u sed . A ctual m e a su re s d ev ised fo r each of the v a r i ab les in the study a re rep ro d u ced below . M easu res of p e rfo rm an c e The m e a su re s of o v e ra ll p e rfo rm an c e on two c a te g o rie s of functions, s e rv ic e -s u p p o rt and c o o rd in a tiv e -c o n tro l, w ere id en tical in fo rm . E ach m e a su re w as p rec ed e d by a lis t of exam ples of what w ere designated, re s p e c - 3 tively, Type A (se rv ic e-su p p o rt) and TyPe B (coordinative-control) functions, follow ed by the question: The m e a su re s of fo u r sp ecific a sp ec ts of p e rfo rm an c e w ere fo rm u lated as Thinking about the w ork th at each of the designated staff units actually does on all Type A [B] functions, how w ell does it p e rfo rm them ? It does them v e ry w ell Q uite w ell F a irly w ell Not so w ell It does not do them at all w ell 3 T h ese exam ples w ere rep ro d u c ed above in C hapter II. 69 fo llo w s: Rapidity of resp o n se: Do the designated staff units usually respond to your r e quests for a ssista n c e as rapidly as se em s reaso n ab le (although perhaps not as rapidly as you'd like) ? V ery rapidly Not so rapidly Quite rapidly _N ot at all rapidly F a irly rapidly Adequacy of policies and d irec tiv e s: C onsider the a re a of activ ities in which each of the d esig nated sta ff units is resp o n sib le for a ssistin g in the de velopm ent of departm ental p o licies, p ro ce d u res, and sta n dard s. Would you say th at the p o licies, p ro ce d u res, and stan d ard s which p resen tly e x ist provide adequate guidance and d irectio n for you ? Do not provide n early enough guidance and directio n Do not provide enough Do provide adequate guidance and directio n P rovide a b it too m uch P rovide en tirely too m uch guidance and direction C larity of policies and stan d ard s: In gen eral, would you say that the p o licies, p ro ce d u res, and stan d ard s provided by each of the designated staff units a re c le a r and understandable when they com e to you? A lm ost never c le a r and understandable Seldom Som etim es U sually Always c le a r and understandable Success in getting com pliance: So fa r as you know, how su ccessfu l is each of the d esig nated staff units in getting v ario u s p a rts of the departm ent to com ply with its p o licies, p ro ce d u res, and stan d ard s ? 70 V ery su c ce ssfu l Not too su ccessfu l Q uite su ccessfu l Not at all su ccessfu l F a irly su ccessfu l M easures of in te rac tio n fa c to rs M easures of each of the eight in te rac tio n v a ria b le s w ere form u lated as follow s: Solicit view s of o th e rs : Do the people in each of the designated sta ff units g e n e ra l ly try h a rd to get the view s of people in your unit p rio r to adopting new o r changed po licies and p ro ce d u res which affect yo u r unit ? They alm o st alw ays try h a rd to g et o u r view s U sually Som etim es C onsiderate treatm en t: In your w orking relatio n sh ip s with each of the designated staff u n its, would you say th a t people in those units g e n er ally tre a t you and your a sso c iates with the consideration due ratio n al and com petent people ? They always tr e a t us with co n sid eratio n U sually Som etim es Influence (three m easu res): How m uch influence is each of the designated sta ff units su ccessfu l in ex ertin g on the way things a re done in your unit? It e x e rts a g re a t deal Not m uch of influence ____ It e x e rts alm o st no Quite a b it influence Some Seldom They alm o st n ev er tr e a t us with con sid e ratio n Seldom They alm o st n ev er try h a rd to g et our view s 71 C onsidering the o v e ra ll m issio n and re sp o n sib ilitie s of the designated sta ff units in the d ep artm en t, would you say the am ount of influence which people in each of those units have on the way things a re done in your u n it is too m uch, too little , o r about rig h t? They have too m uch They ought to have influence som ew hat m o re Som ew hat too m uch They ought to have About the rig h t am ount m uch m o re influence To what extent do you feel you o r people in y o u r u n it a re able to influence those activ itie s of the desig n ated sta ff groups which affect your unit ? We a re able to influence them a v e ry g re a t deal Q uite a b it Som e Issu e reso lu tio n : When issu e s betw een your unit and the designated sta ff groups a ris e and a re subsequently reso lv ed , how do the d ecisio n s g en erally g o ? The d ecisio n s alm o st alw ays go the way we want them to M ore often go our way than th e irs Both sid es g et th e ir way about equally M ore often go th e ir way than o u rs The decisions alm o st n ev er go the way we w ant them to U nderstanding (two m ea su re s): How w ell do you feel people in the designated sta ff units w ith whom you m u st w ork u n d erstan d y o u r w ork p ro b lem s and needs ? They have little u n d e r- C o nsiderable s ta nding of o u r w ork They have com plete p roblem s and needs understanding of Some our w ork p ro b lem s M oderate am ount and needs Not m uch We a re not able to influence them at all 72 How w ell do you feel you understand the w ork problem s and needs of the people with whom you w ork in the desig nated staff units ? M easures of sta ff unit c h a ra c te ris tic s M easures of the tw elve staff unit c h a ra c te ris tic s d escrib ed in C hapter II w ere developed as follow s: Efficiency: Thinking about all the functions the designated staff units p e rfo rm , does each unit seem to get as m uch output as it should from the re s o u rc e s it has av ailab le? Q gpgidering its re s o u rc e s , it produces: A v e ry 'g re a t deal ____ Some A g re a t deal Very little Quite a lot Internal goal integration: Do all m em b ers of each of the designated staff units seem to be w orking together tow ard com m on goals ? The m em bers w ork tow ard com m on goals: To a v ery g re a t extent To som e extent To a g re a t extent To a v ery lim ited To a co nsid erable extent o r no extent A daptability: How well does each of the designated sta ff units do in adapting its objectives and ways of w orking to changing conditions ? F o r exam ple, how w ell does it do in adapting to technological changes, new leg islatio n , executive o rd e rs , I have com plete u n d er standing of th e ir w ork problem s and needs C onsiderable M oderate am ount I have little u n d er standing of th e ir w ork problem s and needs Some 73 o r to o rg an izatio n al tren d s such as c e n tra liz a tio n and d ece n tra liz atio n ? It adapts to changes in opportunities and re q u ire m e n ts : F a irly w ell F lexibility: How w ell does each of the d esignated staff units handle unexpected overloads o r changes which re q u ire im m ediate and extensive action w ithout c re a tin g o th e r p ro b lem s ? All things c o n sid ere d , it handles unexpected situ atio n s: E x trem ely w ell Not so w ell V ery w ell Not at all w ell F a irly w ell C oordination: How w ell does each of the designated sta ff units do in handling its w ork so th at it fits in w ell with the activ itie s of o th er sta ff u n its , helping ra th e r than h in d erin g th e ir effo rts ? It handles its work: E x trem ely w ell Not so w ell V ery w ell Not at all well F a irly w ell Salience o r im portance: How im p o rtan t is the w ork of each of the designated sta ff units to y o u r g ro u p 's getting its job done? T h e ir w ork is of the u t- Slight im portance m o st im p o rtan ce to o u r ____ T h eir w ork is of g ro u p 's getting its w ork little o r no im p o r- done tance to o u r g ro u p 's G re a t im p o rtan ce getting its w ork Some im p o rtan ce done E x trem ely well V ery w ell Not so w ell Not at all w ell 74 Planning sk ill: As you s e e it, do the people in the d esig n ated sta ff units g en erally tend to act on the b a sis of w ell thought-out plans and ideas ? They a lm o st alw ays a c t on the b a sis of w ell thought out plans and ideas U sually Som etim es C oncern w ith p o lic y : In g e n e ra l, how co n cern ed a re the people ip each of the designated sta ff units with follow ing policy and p ro c e d u re ? They a re not a t all co n cern ed w ith follow ing policy and p ro ce d u re Not too con cerned M oderately co n cern ed Much co n cern ed They a re v ery co n cern ed w ith follow ing policy and p ro ce d u re Specialty v s. d ep artm en tal o rien tatio n : P eople can s e e a d m in istrativ e sta ff jobs in s e v e ra l w ays. On one hand, a d m in istra tiv e sta ff jobs can be se e n as an opportunity to p ra c tic e sp e c ia l sk ills and train in g , re g a rd le ss of the em ploying o rg an izatio n . On the o th er hand, ad m in istrativ e staff people can be m o re in te re s te d in se rv in g the o rg an izatio n fo r which they w ork. In te rm s of th ese two o rien tatio n s, how do each of the d esig n ated sta ff units behave ? M ore in te re s te d in applying sp e c ia l sk ills and train in g M ore in te re s te d in helping the d ep artm en t fulfill its m issio n Both of th ese a re given equal em phasis S ervice v s. c o n tro l o rientation: Seldom They a lm o st n e v er a c t on the b a sis of w ell thought-out plans and ideas Some people se e a d m in istrativ e sta ff jobs as providing 75 advice o r s e rv ic e to help the line organization; o th e ra se e th ese jobs as developing c o n tro ls in o rd e r to m o re ade quately s e rv e the D epartm ent as a whole. In te rm s of th ese two d im en sio n s, how do each of the designated sta ff units behave ? M ore involved in providing advice and s e rv ic e M ore involved in developing c o n tro ls, p o licies and p ra c tic e s Involved in both of th ese to an equal d eg ree T echnical sk ill: In th e ir w ork w ith yo u r unit, how w ell do the people in each of the d esig n ated sta ff units handle the tech n ical sid e of th e ir jobs — fo r exam ple, g e n e ra l e x p e rtn e ss, ad ep tn ess, technical sk ills needed in th e ir p ro fe s sio n ? They handle the tech n ical sid e of th e ir jobs: E x tre m e ly w ell Not so w ell Well Not a t all w ell A dequately A d m in istrativ e sk ill: In th e ir w ork w ith y o u r unit, how w ell do the people in each of the designated sta ff u n its handle the a d m in istra tiv e sid e of th e ir jobs — fo r exam ple, planning and scheduling of w ork, m eeting deadlines, etc. ? They handle the a d m in istra tiv e side: E x tre m e ly w ell Well A dequately M easure of the dependent v a ria b le The dependent v a ria b le in this stu d y , re la tio n s betw een sta ff units and th e ir c lie n t g ro u p s, w as m e a su re d in te rm s of a fric tio n sc a le , in which r e spondents w ere asked: Not so w ell Not a t a ll w ell 76 How would you say rela tio n s a re betw een your group and each of the desig n ated sta ff units ? The resp o n se a lte rn a tiv e s w ere: Ou r re la tio n s a re frequently ten se — we ex p erien ce co n sid erab le fric tio n O ccasional fric tio n R elations a re okay A lm ost alw ays sm ooth O ur re la tio n s a re e x trem ely good P re te s t of the M easures Follow ing co n stru ctio n of the q u e stio n n a ire m e a s u re s , a p re te s t was c a rrie d out with a sm a ll group of respondents fro m p ro g ra m b u reau s in o rd e r to d isc o v er p ro b lem s of am biguity o r lack of c la rity in individual ite m s, as w ell as to te s t the assu m p tio n th at types of inform ation being sought w ere m eaningful and w ithin the scope of knowledge of respondents who would p a r ti cip ate in the study. One individual fro m each of five b u reau s was se le c te d in purposive fashion so as to se c u re re sp o n se s about all tw enty-five of the c e n tra l staff u n its. The five p re te s te e s w ere assem b led as a group and the q u estio n n aire was a d m in istered . Im m ediately a fterw ard , each p e rso n w as interview ed indi vidually to e lic it p ro b lem s encountered in responding to each ite m and to get suggestions fo r c la rific a tio n and rem o v a l of am biguities. S everal such sug gestions w ere receiv ed , and changes in item w ording w ere subsequently m ade. H ow ever, none of the item s p roved to have se v e re p ro b lem s and reasonably good v a ria n c e fo r the sm a ll sam p le was obtained. As a re s u lt, all of the 77 m e a su re s w ere re ta in e d in the fin al q u estio n n aire. A d m in istratio n of the Q u estionnaire A d m in istratio n of the q u e stio n n a ire a t the s ite in W ashington, D. C. , was done in group se ssio n s during a p e rio d of one w eek. E ight se p a ra te group ad m in istratio n s w ere done — th re e fo r p ro g ra m bu reau resp o n d en ts and five fo r c e n tra l sta ff u n it p ro fe ssio n a ls. Size of the groups ran g ed fro m roughly twenty to th irty . The u se of m u ltip le a d m in istra tio n s involving sm a ll groups was n e c e ssita te d by the s iz e of assem b ly ro o m s av ailab le, d ifficu lties of scheduling com patible tim e s and p lac es fo r a ll o r even la rg e seg m en ts of the total study population, and the n e c e ssity to avoid absenting all m em b ers of a unit fro m th e ir jobs at the sa m e tim e. A nalysis M ethods B asic objectives of the study la rg e ly dictated the p rin c ip a l an aly sis m ethods used. To re s ta te th o se b a sic o b jectiv es, they w ere to d e term in e w hether re la tio n s betw een a d iv e rs e group of c e n tra l sta ff units and th e ir clien ts v a rie d significantly w here d ifferen t sta ff units w ere co ncerned, and to te s t the hypothesis of a rela tio n sh ip betw een fric tio n and tw en ty -six indepen dent v a ria b le s divided am ong p e rfo rm an c e , in te rac tio n , and sta ff unit c h a ra c te r is tic s c a te g o rie s. To te s t the f i r s t assum ption, individual resp o n d en ts' evaluative s c o re s fo r each of the tw enty-five c e n tra l sta ff units on the dependent v a ria b le w ere sum m ed and a m ean s c o re c a lc u la te d as a m e a su re of th at u n it's re la tio n s with 78 o th er groups. This o p eratio n was p e rfo rm e d se p a ra te ly fo r data fro m each of the two groups of e v alu ato rs — p ro g ra m bu reau respondents who provided evaluations of one o r m o re sta ff u n its, and sta ff unit p e rso n n el evaluating fe l low sta ff u n its. Two se ts of tw enty-five m ean s c o re s on the dependent v a ria b le w ere thereby obtained, and a one-w ay an aly sis of v a ria n c e was com puted fo r each s e t to te s t w hether the tw enty-five unit m ean s c o re s on this v a ria b le w ere significantly d ifferen t. The an aly sis of v a ria n c e te st, in effect, p e rm its one to d eterm in e the probability th at d ifferen ces found a re chance v a ria tio n s w ithin a hom ogeneous population, o r th at they do in fa c t re p re s e n t " re a l" differences among the u n its. The second p a rt of the an aly sis — to te s t the rela tio n sh ip betw een the aforem entioned independent v a ria b le s and the am ount of fric tio n betw een staff and line — involved calcu latio n of sta ff unit m ean s c o re s on each of the p e rfo r m ance, in te rac tio n , and sta ff u n it c h a ra c te ris tic v a ria b le s. As in the c a se of the dependent v a ria b le , this was done by sum m ing individual respondent evalu ations of each sta ff unit on each of the tw en ty -six independent v a ria b le s, then com puting a m ean fo r each unit. Again, this p ro c e d u re was done se p a ra te ly fo r the two s e ts of evaluations. The p rin cip al s ta tis tic used to te s t the a sso c iatio n betw een the depen dent v a ria b le and each of the independent v a ria b le s was the P e a rso n product m om ent c o rre la tio n coefficient (r). The sam e s ta tis tic was u sed to te s t the extent of a sso ciatio n betw een independent v a ria b le s. As an additional an aly sis, it was p ro p o sed to te s t the extent of 79 ag re em e n t betw een p ercep tio n s of the two s e ts of e v alu ato rs — th at i s , the am ount of a g re em e n t betw een p ro g ra m b u reau resp o n d en ts and sta ff unit p ro fessio n als in th e ir independent rankings of the sa m e s e t of c e n tra l sta ff units on a ll v a ria b le s included in the study. The p u rp o se of this an aly sis w as to provide in fo rm atio n as to w hether the two groups of e v alu ato rs w ere m o re o r le ss a g re ed on w hich sta ff units w ere p e rc e iv e d to have high fric tio n in th e ir re la tio n s w ith o th er groups and a lso the extent to which the two groups of ev alu ato rs a g re ed in th e ir p ercep tio n s of how the units ran k ed on each of the tw en ty -six independent v a ria b le s. If re la tiv e ly good a g re em e n t w ere shown, this could be taken as su p p o rt fo r the sta b ility of findings and fo r the u n d e r lying conceptions on which the study w as based. The above w e re p rin c ip a l elem en ts of the an aly sis design o rig in ally p ro p o sed fo r this study. As w ill be se e n in the p re se n ta tio n of findings, lim ite d additional an aly ses w ere in co rp o ra te d to deal w ith questions of in te re s t which a ro s e during an aly sis of the data. T hese study findings a re re p o rte d in the follow ing ch ap ter. 80 CHAPTER IV FINDINGS T his c h a p te r p re s e n ts findings fro m the an aly sis of d ata co llected by m eans of the p rev io u sly d e sc rib e d q u estio n n aire in stru m en t. D iscussion focuses f ir s t on the p ro p o sitio n th a t s ta ff-c lie n t fric tio n v a rie s significantly from staff unit to sta ff unit, and th at it v a rie s even when type of sta ff unit is held co n stan t (Hypotheses 1-1 and 1-2). R elationships betw een fric tio n and each fa c to r in the p e rfo rm an c e , in te rac tio n , and sta ff unit c h a ra c te ris tic s c a te g o rie s a re then taken up. Staff-L ine and Staff-Staff F ric tio n I h e dependent v a ria b le chosen fo r this study was the am ount of p e r ceived fric tio n betw een sta ff units and th e ir c lie n t groups. As d e scrib e d in the preceding c h ap ter, am ount of fric tio n was m e a su re d by a question which asked: How would you say rela tio n s a re betw een your group and the follow ing sta ff units ? A five-point fric tio n sc a le was devised, with p o ssib le resp o n se s ranging from "O ur re la tio n s a re ex trem ely good’' to "O ur re la tio n s a re frequently ten se — we ex p erien ce c o n sid era b le fric tio n " at opposite ends of the sc a le . This q uestion was asked of p ro g ram b u reau respondents about d e sig nated sta ff units w ith whom they in te ra c te d , and it was also asked of staff 81 group p ro fessio n als about o th er sta ff units. This p ro ce d u re provided two se ts of m ultiple evaluations of each of tw enty-five ta rg e t sta ff u n its. ^ The m ultiple evaluations w ere sum m ed fo r each ta rg e t unit and a m ean s c o re com puted as the m e a su re of th at u n it's re la tio n s with o th er groups. This op eratio n was p e rfo rm e d se p a ra te ly fo r d ata fro m p ro g ram bu reau s and sta ff unit p ro fe s sionals . To te s t H ypothesis 1-1, which sta te d that the am ount of fric tio n betw een sta ff u n its and th e ir c lie n t groups is expected to v a ry fro m sta ff unit to sta ff unit, both s e ts of m ean fric tio n s c o re s w ere su b jected to one-w ay analyses of v a ria n c e . The re s u lts of the ANOVA's a re su m m a riz e d in T able 1. In the c a se of both the p ro g ra m b u reau and sta ff p ro fe ssio n a ls' evalua tio n s, analyses of v a ria n c e yielded F ra tio s sig n ifican t beyond the . 001 level. T hese indicated th a t d ifferen ces betw een sta ff units on the dependent v a ria b le a re su b sta n tia l and highly unlikely to re s u lt fro m chance. H ypothesis 1-1 is thus supported. The second p a rt of o u r f i r s t m ajo r hypothesis sp ecified th at d ifferences in fric tio n a re not n e c e ssa rily a function of type of staff unit. T hat is , fric tio n is expected to v a ry even when type of unit is held co n stan t (Hypothesis 1-2). A m ethodological p ro b lem involved in testin g this hypothesis was the need to devise a su itab le schem e fo r classify in g units as to type. One m ight ^■To help m ain tain c la rity in the d iscu ssio n , the tw enty-five sta ff units evaluated w ill be re fe rre d to frequently as " ta rg e t" u n its, sin c e the focus of the study was on them and th e ir re la tio n s w ith o th er g roups. They w ere the " ta rg e ts " of the evaluation. 82 TABLE 1 ANALYSIS O F VARIANCE OF MEAN SCORES OF STAFF UNIT FRICTION WITH PROGRAM BUREAUS AND WITH OTHER STAFF UNITS PROGRAM BUREAU EVALUATIONS OF STAFF UNITS: Sum of D egrees of Mean F S q u ares F reedom Squares T otal 347 374 "Within*' 281.12 350 .803 "B etw een" 6 5 .88 24 2.740 3.412 STAFF PROFESSIONALS' EVALUATIONS OF OTHER ST A FF UNITS: T otal 328.50 170 "W ithin" 206.45 146 1.414 "B etw een" 122.05 24 5.085 3.596 c o n sid e r that units involved in a sp e c ts of b asically s im ila r kinds of w ork re p re s e n t a c la s s . F o r in stan ce, units c a rry in g out p e rso n n el m anagem ent functions m ight be held to re p re s e n t a type o r c la ss; units dealing in an asp ect of fisc a l m a tte rs another "type"; and so on. H ow ever, such a c la ssific a tio n schem e would te ll little about the underlying c r ite r ia o r c h a ra c te ris tic s which distinguish one c la s s fro m another and which m ay affect d ifferen ces betw een u n its so fa r as frictio n is concerned. A ltern ativ ely , one m ight r e s o r t to categ o ry c la s s e s of g e n eral, tech n i c a l, co ordinative, and au x iliary staff functions as su ggested by P fiffn er and 2 Sherw ood. T his typology, while not p o sse sse d of the sam e w eakness as the 2 John M. P fiffn er and F ra n k P. Sherw ood, A d m in istrativ e O rganization 83 f ir s t schem e, does have a disadvantage in re la tio n to the p re s e n t study: m o st of the sta ff un its u n der c o n sid era tio n w ere not p u re types but m ix tu res of the four c la s s e s , so m etim es p e rfo rm in g two, th re e , o r a ll of the types of func tions re p re se n te d in th at typology. At b e st, assig n m en t of units to one o r an o th er of those c la s s e s would be a rb itra ry and open to debate, p a rtic u la rly if assig n m en ts w ere done by an outside o b s e rv e r (such as the re s e a rc h e r). F o r th e se re a s o n s , it was decided to u se the rough c la ssific a tio n schem e built into the study in the form of a staff unit c h a ra c te ris tic d e sc rib e d in C hapter II — a se rv ic e v e rs u s c o n tro l o rien tatio n . T his c rite rio n fo r d is tinguishing ’'ty p es" of units ap p eared to be one of the underlying d ifferen tia tions involved in such categ o riza tio n s as the g e n e ra l-te c h n ic a l-c o o rd in a tiv e - au x iliary typology re f e r r e d to above. By utilizing the stu d y 's m e a su re of th is se rv ic e -c o n tro l fa c to r, c la s s i fication of units was p e rfo rm e d by the two groups of resp o n d en ts (line r e p r e sen tativ es and staff unit p ro fessio n als) whose p ercep tio n s of ta rg e t staff units on the se rv ic e -c o n tro l dim ension w ere p ro d u cts of th e ir own in te rac tio n and ex p erien ce with those u n its. In th at se n se , th e ir c la ssific a tio n of ta rg e t staff units could be said to p o ss e s s a re a lity o r validity which m ight be m issin g from an o u ts id e r's attem p t at c la ssific a tio n . Since th e se rv ic e v s. co n tro l m e a su re o rig in ally was c o n stru c te d as a th re e -p o in t in te rv al sc a le , the staff u n its' m ean in te rv a l sc o re s could be co n v erted into a nom inal th re e -fo ld (Englewood C liffs, N. J . : P re n tic e -H a ll, Inc. , 1960), pp. 78-81. 84 c la ssific a tio n . T hat is, un its with m ean s c o re s in the 1-2 ran g e could be c la s s e d as m o re involved in providing s e rv ic e and advice, th o se with m ean s c o re s in the 2-3 range could be c la ss e d as m o re involved in developing con tro ls to se rv e the d ep artm en t as a whole, and un its w ith m ean s c o re s of exactly 2, which w as the f,both se rv ic e and c o n tro l equally" position on the o rig in al sc a le , could be so c la ssifie d . Inspecting the d ata fo r d ifferen c e s in am ount of fric tio n by un its c la s s i fied in th is fashion involved a rra y in g the tw enty-five un its on the b a s is of th e ir m ean fric tio n s c o re s , ranging fro m th o se units ra te d as having the le a s t f r ic tion to those ra te d as having the m o st, and then adding to each unit in the a rra y the c la ssific a tio n assig n ed it on the b a sis of the se rv ic e -c o n tro l m ea su re . Since the two m e a su re s, am ount of fric tio n and s e rv ic e -c o n tro l o rie n tation, w ere c o rre la te d in the c a se of both p ro g ra m b u reau m e m b e rs' and staff p ro fe ssio n a ls' evaluations (P earso n p ro d u ct m om ent c o rre la tio n s of . 64 for p ro g ram b u reau re sp o n se s and . 55 fo r staff p ro fe s sio n a ls' re sp o n se s), it was c le a r th at th e re would be som e p a ttern in g in how units w e re nom inally c la s s i fied in re la tio n to how they ran k ed on the fric tio n sc a le , but th at the m atch would not be p e rfe c t. T his was indeed the c a se . Em ploying a q u a rtile sp lit of the tw enty-five u n its, th e re w as c o n sid erab le co n sisten cy in both the top and bottom q u a rtile s . T hat is , m o st but not a ll un its d e sc rib e d as having the le a s t fric tio n in th e ir rela tio n s with o th er groups w ere also d e sc rib e d as being m o re involved in providing s e rv ic e and advice. S im ila rly , m o st but not a ll units 85 d e scrib e d as having the m o st frictio n w ere also d e sc rib e d as being m o re in volved in developing co n tro ls. On the o th er hand, if a m edian sp lit w ere em ployed, dividing the tw enty-five un its into ju s t two groups — high and low on the fric tio n sc a le — the o v e ra ll p ic tu re w as m uch m o re m ixed. In g e n e ra l, re s u lts of th is an aly sis can be su m m arized by saying that, b a sed on a th re e -fo ld c la ssific a tio n of s e rv ic e -o rie n te d , c o n tro l-o rie n te d , o r equally se rv ic e and co n tro l, type of unit ap p eared to be im portantly re la te d to the am ount of fric tio n ex p erien ced by staff units in th e ir re la tio n s with line and o th er staff u n its, but th at the relatio n sh ip w as not a p e rfe c t one. In the c a se of staff p ro fe s sio n a ls1 evaluations of o th e r staff u n its, fo r in stan ce, two of six un its having the m o st fric tio n with o th e r groups w ere c la ss e d as p rim a rily se rv ic e -o rie n te d . In the m edium low and m edium high, i . e . , the m iddle, q u a rtile s of the fric tio n m e a su re , th e re was even m o re m ixing of units by type. T hese re s u lts provided support fo r H ypothesis 1-2, th at d ifferen ces in frictio n m ay be, but a re not n e c e ssa rily , a function of staff unit type, using in th is c a se the se rv ic e -c o n tro l typology. The question then becam e: w hat o th er fa c to rs a re im portantly a sso c iated with frictio n , re g a rd le s s of type of u n it? B efore taking up th at question, an additional m a tte r of in te re s t r e garding sta ff unit rankings on the fric tio n sc ale was d ealt with in th is f ir s t stage of the a n aly sis. T hat was the question of how m uch ag reem en t ex isted betw een p ro g ram bureau resp o n d en ts and staff p ro fe ssio n a ls in how they ran k - o rd e re d the tw enty-five staff units on the am ount of fric tio n ex p erien ced with 86 those units. Since the evaluations w ere independent of each o th er, to what extent did the two groups ag ree on which u n its ranked high and which ranked low on the frictio n sc a le ? Although no form al hypotheses w ere advanced in th is re g a rd , the qu es tion was of in te re s t in determ ining the extent to which p ercep tio n s of the two se ts of e v alu ato rs m atched. M ore than that, if good ag reem en t w ere found, it would support the contention that th e re is consistency in the d ifferen ces b e tw een staff units reg a rd in g frictio n with two se p a ra te se ts of clien t groups, th at the sam e u n its, by and la rg e , a re p erceiv ed by independent groups of e v alu ato rs to gen erate m o re o r le s s frictio n in th e ir re la tio n s with o th ers. To te s t th is notion, the tw enty-five staff u n its w ere ra n k -o rd e re d tw ice, based on th e ir m ean sc o re s on the frictio n sc ale , once fo r s c o re s de riv ed from pro g ram bureau ev alu ato rs and once fo r staff p ro fessio n als' evalu- 3 ations, and a ran k o rd e r c o rre la tio n coefficient was com puted. The coeffi cient thus d eriv ed w as r = . 58, which, while re fle c tin g considerably le s s $ than p e rfe c t agreem ent, was significant (p < .01). In effect, the probability of getting th at m uch agreem ent by chance w as le s s than 1 in 100. As expected when com paring ratin g s of a la rg e num ber of objects, agreem ent tends to be g re a te r at the high and low ends of the scale. That is, it is e a s ie r to identify the b e st and w o rst, m ost and le a st, and so on; th e re fore the likelihood of ag reem en t betw een independent judges o r r a te r s on 3 The sta tistic used w as S p earm an 's Rho: r g. 87 e x tre m e c a s e s is g re a te r. Again em ploying a q u a rtile sp lit of the tw enty-five u n its, it w as found th at th e re w as c o n sid erab le ag re em e n t betw een the two groups a s to which staff u n its w ere placed in the top six p o sitio n s (those u n its having the le a s t frictio n ) and those which w ere p laced in the bottom six — i.e . , those u n its having the m o st fric tio n in th e ir re la tio n s. P ro g ra m bureau resp o n d en ts ag re ed with th e ir staff unit c o u n te rp a rts on four of the u n its ra te d in the top six p o sitio n s, and on th re e u n its ra te d in the bottom six. Among in te rm e d iate p o sitio n s betw een top and bottom , th e re w as co n sid erab ly m o re sc ram b lin g in the o rd e r of ran k in g s betw een the two s e ts of ev alu ato rs. T his, of c o u rse, had the effect of reducing the size of the c o rre la tio n coefficient. O v erall, then, testin g two s e ts of e v alu ato rs in th e ir ranking of tw enty- five staff u n its on the fric tio n scale indicated good ag reem en t a s to which u n its ranked h ig h est and low est, but le s s ag reem en t in two m iddle c a te g o rie s. The size of the c o rre la tio n coefficient fo r the two ran k in g s of all tw enty-five units indicated th at ag reem en t betw een the two w as, sta tistic a lly , not a ttrib u ta b le to chance. F a c to rs R elated to F ric tio n B etw een Staff U nits and T h eir C lien ts T urning now to the h e a rt of the a n aly sis, identification of fa c to rs a sso c iated with m o re o r le s s fric tio n in re la tio n s betw een ta rg e t staff units and o rg an izatio n al groups with which they in te ra c t, som e im p o rtan t p refa to ry re m a rk s a re re q u ire d . 88 T he f i r s t of th e se h a s to do w ith the c r i t e r i a fo r d ecid in g w h e th e r a p a r tic u la r fa c to r o r v a ria b le b o re a stro n g enough re la tio n sh ip to fric tio n to m e r it fu rth e r e m p iric a l in v estig atio n . T h at is , w hat d e g re e of a s s o c ia tio n w as to be a c c e p te d a s ev id en ce of a r e a l re la tio n s h ip b etw een the dependent v a ria b le and any one o r m o re of the independent v a ria b le s em ployed in th is study ? T he c r i te rio n adopted w as th a t only th o se re la tio n s h ip s w hose p ro b a b ility of o c c u r re n c e by ch an ce alo n e is fiv e p e rc e n t o r le s s w ould be a c c e p te d a s r e a l and sig n ific an t re la tio n s h ip s . W ith a sa m p le N of 25 u n its , th is m e a n t th a t a P e a rs o n p ro d u c t-m o m e n t c o e ffic ie n t of not le s s th an . 40 w as re q u ire d . A c o e ffic ie n t of th a t m agnitude o r la r g e r w as tak en a s ev id en ce of a m ean in g fu l re la tio n sh ip . A dm ittedly, e sta b lis h m e n t of th is c r ite r io n e n ta ile d th e r i s k of o v e r looking re la tio n s h ip s not s ta tis tic a lly sig n ific a n t a t p re -d e te rm in e d le v e ls , but w hich m ay be of r e a l a n d /o r th e o re tic a l im p o rt in re la tio n to o th e r v a ria b le s m o re stro n g ly a s s o c ia te d w ith th e dependent v a ria b le . T h is is a p o te n tia l p ro b le m in r e s e a r c h on o rg a n iz a tio n s, w h e re a m u ltip lic ity of so c ia l-p sy c h o lo g ic al v a ria b le s is a t w ork, and individual v a ria b le s m ay a cc o u n t fo r only a sm a ll p a r t of the v a ria n c e in the dependent v a ria b le . T h e re fo re , although the a b o v e -sta te d ru le w as adopted, re la tio n s h ip s sig n ific a n t a t the . 10 le v e l, often r e f e r r e d to a s " tre n d s " o r " te n d e n c ie s, " a r e re p o rte d a s a m a tte r of in te r e s t and ad d itio n al in fo rm a tio n . H ow ever, . 10 le v e l re la tio n s h ip s w e re not a c c e p t ed a s ev id en ce of m eaningful re la tio n s h ip s . One o r two co m m en ts a r e n e c e s s a ry w ith r e s p e c t to the fo rm a t to be follow ed in the p re s e n ta tio n of fin d in g s. In ta b le s show ing re la tio n s h ip s 89 betw een the dependent v a ria b le and each p erfo rm an ce, in teractio n , and staff unit c h a ra c te ris tic s fac to r , the following convention w as adopted: in addition to displaying actual coefficients of c o rre la tio n , stren g th of asso ciatio n is indi cated by the following sym bols: +++ = P e a rso n r of . 51 o r higher (p < _ . 01) ++ - P e a rso n r of . 40 to . 50 (p . 05) + - P e a rso n r of . 34 to . 39 (p .1 . 10) 0 = P e a rso n r le s s than . 34 (p > .10) Use of th ese sym bols h a s the advantage of conveying at a glance the d e sire d inform ation about re la tiv e m agnitudes a s well as sta tistic a l signifi cance of rela tio n sh ip s betw een v a ria b le s. T w o-tailed te s ts of significance w ere used since d irectio n of relatio n sh ip s was not p red icted in th is ex p lo ra tory study. R elationship of P erfo rm an ce F a c to rs to Staff-C lient F ric tio n In C hapter II, H ypothesis II stated that frictio n betw een staff units and th e ir clien t groups m ay be re la te d to six a sp ec ts of staff unit perform ance, including: II-1. How w ell staff units p erfo rm se rv ic e -su p p o rt (Type A) functions for clien t units. II-2. How w ell staff units p e rfo rm co o rd in ativ e-co n tro l (Type B) functions affecting c lien t units. II-3. How rapidly staff u n its respond to re q u e sts from clien t units for a ssista n c e . 90 II— 4. The adequacy of guidance provided by staff unit d ire c tiv e s to c lien t u n its. II— 5. C larity and u n d erstan d ab ility of d ire c tiv e s issu e d by sta ff units to c lie n t groups. II-6. How su c ce ssfu l staff un its a re in secu rin g com pliance w ith th e ir p o lic ies, p ro c e d u re s, and sta n d ard s. R e su lts of te s ts of th ese hy p o th eses a re su m m arize d in T able 2. In th at table, the colum n en titled "S taff-L ine F ric tio n " show s the rela tio n sh ip of the six p e rfo rm an c e v a ria b le s to fric tio n betw een staff u n its and p ro g ra m b u rea u s. The rig h t-h an d colum n, lab elled "S taff-S taff F ric tio n , " show s com p a ra b le re la tio n sh ip s w here staff unit p ro fe ssio n a ls w ere evaluating th e ir fellow staff groups. T his tw o-colum n m ode of p re se n ta tio n is follow ed w here a p p ro p ria te in succeeding tab les. To fa c ilita te d isc u ssio n , the te rm " sta ff- lin e" is often used to r e fe r to findings in the f ir s t of the two colum ns, and " s ta ff-s ta ff" is used to r e f e r to the situation w here staff p ro fe ssio n a ls w ere evaluating o th er staff units. Findings A s Table 2 show s, H ypotheses II-1, 2 , 3, and 6 w e re confirm ed both by the sta ff-lin e and sta ff-sta ff data, which indicated a stro n g , in v e rse r e la tionship betw een fric tio n and proficiency on fo u r dim en sio n s of p erfo rm an ce. T hat is , low fric tio n w as a sso c ia te d with high o r p ro ficien t staff unit p e rfo r m ance of Type A and Type B functions, m o re ra p id staff resp o n se to clien t re q u e sts fo r a ssista n c e , and g re a te r su c c e ss of staff u n its in secu rin g com pli ance with th e ir policy and sta n d ard s d ire c tiv e s. 91 T A B L E 2 CORRELATION OF PERFORMANCE FACTORS WITH AMOUNT OF STA FF-LIN E AND ST A FF-ST A FF FRICTION Dependent V ariable: Staff-L ine F ric tio n Staff-Staff F rictio n Independent V ariable Signifi cance L evela Coefiji- cien t Signifi cance L evela Coeffi cient P e rfo rm a n ce of se rv ic e - support functions (II-l) ++ -. 50 +++ - . 80 P e rfo rm a n ce of coordina- tiv e -co n tro l functions (If-2) ++ - . 46 +++ -. 78 Rapidity of re sp o n se s to re q u e sts fo r a ssista n c e (H-3) +++ -. 61 +++ - . 79 Adequacy of policy guid ance (II— 4) 0 . 06 0 -.1 8 C larity of p o licies and p ro ce d u res (II-5) + -.3 8 ++-+ -. 83 Success in secu rin g com pliance with p o licies and sta n d ard s (II-6) ++ -.4 2 +++ -. 90 Key: + + + - + + = + = 0 = p < ^ . 01 p < _ . 05 p £ .10 p > . 10 T his sam e sym bol convention is u sed in succeeding ta b le s without fu rth e r notation. P e a rso n product-m om ent coefficients based on c o rre la te d m ean sc o re s of staff units on dependent and independent v a ria b le s. N of m ean sc o re s in each c a se = 25. The sam e is tru e of com parable tab les which follow. 92 H ypothesis II-5, which p o stu lated a rela tio n sh ip betw een fric tio n and c la rity of staff unit d ire c tiv e s, w as supported by the sta ff-s ta ff findings, but only weakly by the sta ff-lin e d ata. In both c a s e s , the d em o n strated re la tio n ships w ere in v e rse : g re a te r c la rity w as a sso c ia te d with low er frictio n . P r o g ra m b u reau re s p o n se s showed a tendency (p < . 10) to a sso c ia te the two, but the coefficient w as not la rg e enough to m e e t the c rite rio n fo r acceptance as evidence of a confirm ed rela tio n sh ip . T h ere fo re H ypothesis II-5 can be accepted a s only p a rtia lly supported. The hypo th esis of rela tio n sh ip betw een fric tio n and adequacy of guid ance provided by staff unit policy d ire c tiv e s (II— 4) w as not confirm ed by e ith e r sta ff-lin e o r sta ff-sta ff data, and w as th e re fo re re je c te d . D iscussion As T able 2 in d icates, re la tio n sh ip s betw een v a ria b le s w ere g en erally stro n g e r w here staff p ro fe ssio n a ls’ evaluations w ere concerned, and th is fact is tru e with re s p e c t to m any re la tio n sh ip s exam ined in succeeding sectio n s. In som e c a se s, c o rre la tio n co efficien ts w ere n early tw ice a s high a s those b a sed on p ro g ram bureau re sp o n se s. In fact, som e co efficien ts w ere s u r p risin g ly high fo r re s e a rc h of th is kind. Inspection of staff p ro fe ssio n a ls' resp o n se d ata rev e ale d no c o n sisten t indication of "halo" o r resp o n se b ia s, nor w as th is to be expected sin ce d ifferen t staff u n its w ere evaluated by fro m tw elve to tw enty staff p ro fe ssio n a ls random ly assig n ed to do the evaluating. T h erefo re, the explanation fo r th is phenom enon w as not im m ediately c le a r. 93 It m ay be th at h ig h er co efficien ts in the sta ff-s ta ff d ata w ere due in p a rt to g r e a te r fa m ilia rity and knowledge (and thus m o re co n sisten cy in the evaluations) which staff p ro fe s sio n a ls had of each o th e r 's u n its and th e ir p e r fo rm an ce. Even though p ro g ra m bu reau resp o n d en ts w ere se le c te d on the b a s is of th e ir knowledge of sp ecific sta ff u n its, th e re w as som e indication in p re lim in a ry in te rv ie w s th at p ro g ra m b u re a u s sh a re few er c o n ta cts and d a y -to - day in te ra c tio n w ith staff u n its than the la tte r do am ong th em se lv e s. In som e c a s e s , p ro g ra m b u re a u s w ere lo cated g eo g rap h ically at som e d istan c e fro m staff u n its. In addition, p ro g ra m b u re a u s w ere not u n d er the le a d e rsh ip of the sam e a d m in istra to r a s the staff u n its, w ith the im p licatio n s which th a t fac t m ay have fo r in c re a se d in te ra c tio n , fa m ilia rity , and sh a re d p e rc ep tio n s. In any c a se , to re tu rn to fu rth e r c o n sid e ra tio n of findings p re se n te d in Table 2, se v e ra l o th er su m m arizin g com m ents a re in o rd e r. F ir s t, as noted, the one p e rfo rm an c e v a ria b le evidencing no rela tio n sh ip to fric tio n in e ith e r the sta ff-lin e o r sta ff-sta ff d ata w as the extent to which staff unit p o lic ies, p ro c e d u re s and sta n d ard s pro v id ed adequate guidance and d irec tio n to o th er gro u p s. T h is finding w as som ew hat s u rp risin g , given an expectation th at if staff u n its provided e ith e r too m uch o r too little guidance, th is would be r e flec te d in the am ount of fric tio n ex p erien ced in the rela tio n sh ip . Inspection of the ran g e of m ean s c o re s on th is v a ria b le did not re v e a l a lack of v a ria n c e which m ight have accounted sta tistic a lly fo r the ab sen ce of a c o rre la tio n . H ow ever, even when the six p e rfo rm a n c e v a ria b le s w ere in te rc o rre la te d am ong th em se lv e s, producing g en erally high co efficien ts, th is v a ria b le w as 94 le a s t highly c o rre la te d with o th er p erfo rm an ce ite m s. T hus the conclusion m u st be th at am ong p e rfo rm an c e fa c to rs specified in the study, adequacy of policy guidance and d ire c tio n w as sim ply not a fa c to r in the am ount of fric tio n betw een u n its. R eferen ce w as m ade above to the fac t that individual p erfo rm an ce v a ri ab les w ere highly in te rc o rre la te d am ong th em se lv e s, although adequacy of policy guidance w as le a s t highly re la te d to the o th er five. In th is re g a rd , it should be noted th at the high in te rc o rre la tio n s w ere not unexpected, since it w as not conceived th at th e se o p eratio n al m e a su re s w ere wholly independent of each o th er. R a th e r, they w ere conceived and designed to m e a su re a sp e c ts of a single underlying dim ension — p e rfo rm an c e . F u rth e r im p licatio n s of the fac t of th is non-independence of v a ria b le s is d isc u sse d a t a la te r point in th is an aly sis. A nother fact w orthy of com m ent reg a rd in g the findings in th is category of fa c to rs w as the d ifferen ce betw een sta ff-lin e and sta ff-sta ff d ata with re g a rd to the b e st single p re d ic to r of fric tio n am ong p e rfo rm an c e fa c to rs. In the c a se of p ro g ram b u reau resp o n d en ts, rap id ity of resp o n se to re q u e sts fo r a ssista n c e b o re the stro n g e st in v e rse rela tio n sh ip to the fric tio n m e a su re (r = -. 61, p < . 01). In c o n tra st, the stro n g e st rela tio n sh ip d e sc rib e d by staff p ro fe s sio n a ls' re sp o n se s w as a n 'in v e rse one betw een fric tio n and staff unit su c c e ss in secu rin g com pliance with p o licies, p ro c e d u re s and sta n d ard s. The m agnitude of th is la tte r rela tio n sh ip (r = - . 90) w as som ew hat sta rtlin g . By way of co m p ariso n , fo r th is sam e v a ria b le , p ro g ram b u reau resp o n d en ts 95 indicated a re la tio n s h ip of 42, sig n ifican t a t the . 05 lev el but le s s than half the size of the coefficient d eriv ed fro m s ta ff-s ta ff data. Again, the d ata th em se lv e s provided no definitive explanation fo r th is d ifferen ce, but one explanation which could be h a za rd e d re la te s to the v ita l m a tte r of d ifferen tial p e rc ep tio n s of ro le and m issio n . It could be arg u ed fro m the data th a t p ro g ra m b u re a u s em phasized m o re strongly the se rv ic e side of staff u n it o p eratio n s a s re p re se n te d e sp ecially in the high in v e rse r e la tionship betw een fric tio n and rap id ity of resp o n se to re q u e s ts fo r a ssista n c e . Staff unit p ro fe ssio n a ls, in c o n tra st, em phasized m uch m o re stro n g ly , even in p re lim in a ry in terv iew s, the ro le of p e rfo rm in g coordinative and co n tro l ta sk s fo r the d ep artm en t a s a whole — e .g . , devising p o lic ies and sta n d a rd s fo r dep artm en t-w id e application. Thus it would be p o ssib le fo r staff p ro fe ssio n a ls to have fe lt th a t the m o re su c c e ss a unit had in secu rin g com pliance with its sta n d ard s and p o lic ies, the le s s fric tio n w as encountered. A m o re p lau sib le explanation m ay be the re v e rs e , since cau sa l d ire c tion is not known h e re : the le s s fric tio n , the g re a te r the su c c e ss in secu rin g com pliance. T his would re p re s e n t a c a se w here fric tio n w as actually the inde pendent v a ria b le in the p a ir. Rank o rd e r ag reem en t One additional a n aly sis c a r r ie d out with re g a rd to the six p e rfo rm an c e m e a su re s was designed to te s t the extent of ag reem en t betw een p ro g ram bureau m em b ers and staff unit p ro fe ssio n a ls in how they ra n k -o rd e re d the 96 tw e n ty -fiv e sta ff u n its on each of the six v a ria b le s . T he ra n k - o r d e r c o effi c ie n ts p ro v e d to be p o sitiv e and high on five of the six v a ria b le s , ran g in g fro m . 45 to . 86, w ith fo u r being sig n ific a n t beyond the . 01 le v e l and th e fifth sig n i fic a n t a t the . 05 lev el. A g re e m e n t b etw een the two g ro u p s of e v a lu a to rs on how u n its ra n k e d w as g r e a te s t fo r p e rfo rm a n c e of s e rv ic e -s u p p o rt (Type A) fu n ctio n s and w as a lso v e ry high fo r p e rfo rm a n c e of c o o rd in a tiv e -c o n tro l (Type B) fu n ctio n s. T h is w as not s u rp ris in g , given th a t th e se two m e a s u re s could be c o n s id e re d th e m o st d ir e c t and global m e a s u re s of p e rfo rm a n c e , w hile th e o th e r fo u r tap p ed a t m o re sp e c ific a s p e c ts of o v e ra ll p e rfo rm a n c e . The one v a ria b le on w hich th e re w as v irtu a lly no a g re e m e n t w as the ra p id ity of re s p o n s e to re q u e s ts fo r a s s is ta n c e . The two s e ts of e v a lu a to rs w e re in a g re e m e n t in a s s o c ia tin g ra p id re s p o n s e with low fric tio n , but th e re w as little a g re e m e n t a s to w hich u n its w e re d e sc rib e d a s p e rfo rm in g b e s t o r m o s t p o o rly on th is m e a s u re . In fa c t, th e ra n k in g s w ere re m a rk a b ly d is p a ra te in m any c a s e s . The e x te n t of a g re e m e n t b etw een the two g ro u p s of e v a lu a to rs on how th e tw e n ty -fiv e ta r g e t u n its w e re ra n k e d on each of th e p e rfo rm a n c e fa c to rs is su m m a riz e d in T ab le 3. S um m ary To re c a p itu la te th e m a jo r fin d in g s in th is se c tio n , p ro g ra m b u rea u re s p o n d e n ts and sta ff u n it p ro fe s s io n a ls w e re in a g re e m e n t in in d icatin g a re la tiv e ly stro n g , in v e rs e re la tio n s h ip betw een fric tio n and fo u r of six 97 TABLE 3 RANK ORDER CORRELATIONS BETW EEN PROGRAM BUREAU AND STA FF RESPONDENTS' RANKINGS OF 25 STA FF UNITS ON PERFORM ANCE FACTORS F a c to r C oefficient of R ank O rd er A greem ent Significance L evel P e rfo rm a n c e of se rv ic e -s u p p o rt functions . 86 +++ P e rfo rm a n c e of co o rd in ativ e- co n tro l functions .6 4 R apidity of re s p o n se s to re q u e sts fo r a ssista n c e . 22 0 Adequacy of policy guidance . 57 +++ C larity of p o lic ies and p ro c e d u re s . 45 ++ S uccess in secu rin g com pliance with p o lic ies and sta n d ard s . 70 +++ a Spearm an Rho. p e rfo rm an c e m e a su re s: p ro ficien t p e rfo rm an c e of Type A and Type B func tio n s, rap id resp o n se to re q u e sts fo r a ssista n c e , and su c c e ss in getting com p liance with p o lic ies, p ro c e d u re s and sta n d a rd s prom ulgated by the staff units (H ypotheses I I - l, 2, 3, and 6). Among staff unit p ro fe ssio n a ls evaluating th e ir fellow u n its, th e re was, in addition, a stro n g in v e rse rela tio n sh ip betw een fric tio n and c la rity of policy d ire c tiv e s issu e d by staff groups (H ypothesis II-5). Among p ro g ra m bureau ev alu ato rs, th e re w as a tendency tow ard such a rela tio n sh ip , but it w as not sufficiently stro n g to m eet the stu d y 's c rite rio n fo r acceptance as evidence of 98 an a sso c ia tio n betw een the two. No su p p o rt w as found fo r H ypothesis II-4 which p ro je c te d a re la tio n sh ip betw een fric tio n and adequacy of guidance p ro vided by staff u n its to th e ir c lie n t groups. F in ally , th e re w as good a g re em e n t betw een the two groups of evalua to r s in th e ir ra n k o rd e rin g of the tw enty-five u n its on five of the six p e rfo r m ance m e a su re s. R elationship of In teractio n F a c to rs to F ric tio n Betw een Staff U nits and C lient G roups In addition to the p e rfo rm a n c e fa c to rs d isc u sse d above, eight " in te r action" fa c to rs w ere hypothesized to affect fric tio n betw een staff u n its and th e ir c lie n t groups. A s the re a d e r w ill re c a ll, a p rim a ry re a so n fo r including th ese fa c to rs in the study w as the c o m m o n ly -e x p resse d view th at staff ro le s a re difficult to define o p eratio n ally in re la tio n to line and authority ro le s in o rg an izatio n s. In C h ap ter II, it w as held th at if th is view is c o rre c t, it sug g e sts th a t in p ra c tic e the rela tio n sh ip of staff to lin e is defined at the in te rfac e betw een the two, i. e. , in ongoing in te ra c tio n s betw een staff u n its and th e ir c lien t groups. B ased on th is reaso n in g , a th ird m a jo r hypothesis, with eight sub p a rts , w as developed: H ypothesis III. Am ount of fric tio n betw een staff and c lie n t groups m ay be re la te d to c e rta in a sp e c ts of how sta ff u n its in te ra c t with c lie n ts. Specifically, frictio n m ay be re la te d to: II I-l. The extent to which staff unit m e m b e rs so lic it the view s of c lien t unit m e m b e rs re g a rd in g actio n s affecting the la tte r. 99 III-2. The extent to which staff unit m e m b e rs tr e a t c lie n ts with co n sid eratio n . Ill— 3. Am ount of influence staff units e x e rt on clien t units. Ill— 4. C lient p e rc ep tio n s of a p p ro p ria te n e ss of the am ount of influence e x e rte d by staff units. III-5. Amount of influence c lie n ts a re able to e x e rt on staff units. Ill— 6. E xtent to which one side o r the o th er p re v a ils when issu e s betw een staff and c lie n t u n its a ris e . I ll- 7. How w ell staff unit p e rso n n el u n d erstan d the w ork needs and p ro b lem s of clien ts. I ll- 8. How w ell c lie n ts u n d erstan d the w ork needs and p ro b lem s of staff units. Findings Table 4 su m m a riz e s the findings re la tiv e to those eight hypotheses. A s indicated th e re , H ypotheses III-2, 5, and 7 w ere supported both by sta ff- line and sta ff-sta ff d ata in the form of su b stan tial in v e rse rela tio n sh ip s. Low frictio n w as a sso c iated with m o re c o n sid era te tre a tm e n t of c lie n ts by staff u n its, high c lien t group influence on staff u n its, and high staff unit u n d er standing of c lie n ts' w ork needs and p ro b lem s. P a rtia l co nfirm ation of H ypotheses 1II-4, 6, and 8 w as also provided. F ric tio n w as d irec tly re la te d to in ap p ro p riate am ounts of influence e x e rc ise d by staff u n its (H ypothesis IH-4), but th is rela tio n sh ip h eld only fo r the sta ff- line data. It w as not supported by the sta ff-sta ff data. C onversely, fric tio n in sta ff-sta ff re la tio n s, but not in sta ff-lin e r e la tio n s, w as shown to be in v ersely re la te d to how w ell c lie n ts u n d erstan d the 100 TABLE 4 CORRELATION OF INTERACTION FACTORS WITH AMOUNT OF STA FF-LIN E AND ST A FF-ST A FF FRICTION Dependent V ariab le Staff-L ine F ric tio n Staff-Staff F ric tio n Independent V ariab le Signifi cance Level Coeffi cien t Signifi cance Level C oeffi cient E xtent to which staff unit so lic its c lie n ts' view s (III-l) 0 15 0 -.2 2 E xtent to which staff unit tr e a ts c lie n ts with c o n sid e ra tion (IU-2) +++ -.6 5 +++ -. 79 Amount of staff unit influence on c lien t un its (in-3) 0 -. 10 0 -. 08 A p p ro p riaten ess of am ount of staff unit influence (III-4) +++ .5 9 a 0 -.0 7 Amount of c lie n ts' influence on staff units (III-5) ++ -.4 7 ++ -.4 3 Extent to which is s u e s r e solved in favor of staff units (in-6 ) + -. 35 -. 53 E xtent of staff unit u n d er standing of c lie n t p ro b lem s (III-7) +++ -. 58 +++ - . 88 E xtent of c lien t understanding of staff u n its' p ro b lem s (III-8) 0 -. 22 +++ -. 58 Due to scale d irectio n ality in th is instance, high fric tio n is a sso c iated with p e rceiv ed in ap p ro p riaten ess of the am ount of staff unit influence. 101 w ork p ro b lem s and needs of staff u n its (H ypothesis III-8). T hat is , low f r ic tion w as a sso c ia te d with high c lien t understanding of staff unit p ro b lem s and needs. The h ypothesis (III-6) th at fric tio n is re la te d to how often one side o r the o th e r p re v a ils in d ecisio n s reso lv in g is s u e s betw een them w as also con firm e d by the sta ff-sta ff data. W eaker sup p o rt fo r th is hypo th esis (p < . 10) w as provided by the sta ff-lin e data. In both c a se s, the rela tio n sh ip w as in v e rs e : the m o re often is s u e s a re decided in fav o r of clien t g ro u p s, the low er is fric tio n with staff u n its. The rem ain in g two hypotheses of rela tio n sh ip , III-l and III-3, w ere not confirm ed by e ith e r sta ff-lin e o r sta ff-sta ff data. F ric tio n betw een staff and c lie n ts w as not found to be re la te d to staff unit so licitatio n of c lie n ts' view s n o r to the am ount of staff unit influence on the a ffa irs of c lie n t groups. D iscussion A s the foregoing sum m ary su g g ests, findings re la tiv e to v a ria b le s in the in te ra c tio n categ o ry g en erally supported the th e o re tic a l conceptions u n d e r lying the inclusion of those fa c to rs in the study. Data from p ro g ram bureau resp o n d en ts and from staff unit p ro fe ssio n a ls showed good ag reem en t with re s p e c t to which v a ria b le s w ere m o st strongly a sso c iated with fric tio n , but th e re w ere som e d ifferen c e s, a s w ell as som e s u rp ris e s in the findings. One s u rp ris e in the data involved the fac to r d e scrib e d a s the extent to which staff u n its so lic it view s of c lien t gro u p s b efore prom ulgating new o r 102 changed p o lic ies and p ro c e d u re s which affect those g roups. R e se a rc h on su p er o rd in ate-su b o rd in a te re la tio n s w ithin w ork groups had suggested th at sa tisfac tio n with su p e rv iso rs is often re la te d , d ire c tly o r in d ire c tly , to the extent to which a su p e rv iso r so lic its and lis te n s to the view s of h is su b o rd i nates. ^ T h is finding from o rg an izatio n al re s e a rc h seem ed to be re in fo rc e d at the level of in te r group re la tio n s by p re lim in a ry in terv iew s, p a rtic u la rly with p ro g ram bu reau resp o n d en ts. S everal of the la tte r v e rb a liz ed , in one s e t of w ords o r an o th er, the follow ing feeling: "T hose people [i.e., in a given staff unit] n ev er b o th er to check with u s b efo re m oving ahead with som e new plan o r schem e which d o e sn 't m ake sen se in our situation, o r which w orks a re a l hard sh ip on u s in try in g to com ply with th e ir re q u ire m e n ts . . . " T hus it w as expected th at a m e a su re of th is b eh av io ral tendency would be re la te d to f r ic tion, but th is w as not the c a se with e ith e r the sta ff-lin e o r sta ff-sta ff data. D espite the range of unit m ean s c o re s on th is v a ria b le , from "T hey seldom try to get our view s" to "T hey usually try . . . ," a d ifferen ce of two points on the resp o n se sc a le , d ifferen c e s w ere not a sso c ia te d with d ifferen c e s in am ount of frictio n . A pparently those u n its which m o st often attem pted to so licit view s of o th e rs did not ex p erien ce appreciably le s s fric tio n than those who seldom m ade the attem pt. O ther fa c to rs apparently cancel out d ifferen c e s betw een staff u n its on th is dim ension. 4 R e n sis L ik e rt, New P a tte rn s of M anagem ent (New York: M cG raw - H ill Book Co. , 1961), pp. 52-55. 103 The th re e influence v a ria b le s a lso p re se n te d in te re stin g c o n tra sts. In the b ase of both p ro g ra m b u reau m e m b e rs and staff unit p ro fe ssio n a ls, the am ount of influence which staff u n its w ere able to e x e rt ov er c lien t groups w as not a sso c ia te d with in te r group frictio n ; in both c a s e s , c o rre la tio n coefficients w ere n e arly z e ro . H ow ever, both gro u p s of e v alu ato rs indicated a re la tiv e ly stro n g rela tio n sh ip betw een the ex isten ce of fric tio n and the extent to which they could influence a c tiv itie s of staff u n its. T hat is , the m o re they felt able to influence staff u n its, the le s s fric tio n they p e rc eiv e d with those units. In re la tio n to in terg ro u p fric tio n , then, the im p o rtan t dim ension so fa r a s re c ip ie n ts of staff u n its' functions w ere co n cern ed w as the fo r m e r 's ability to e x e rt influence on those staff u n its. The am ount of influence which the la tte r w as able to e x e rt e ith e r on line u n its o r o th er sta ff un its ap p eared to be unim portant so fa r as fric tio n betw een groups w as concerned. M utuality o r re c ip ro c a lity of influence w as thus not a fa c to r in fric tio n le v e ls, a s m ight have been p re d ic te d on the b a s is of such m odels as L ik e rt's in flu e n ce -in te r a c - 5 tion system in o rg an izatio n s. H ow ever, the foregoing w as not the whole sto ry . While absolute am ounts of influence which d ifferen t staff u n its w ere p e rc eiv e d to e x e rt w ere u n rela te d to am ounts of fric tio n , a p p ro p ria te n e ss of the am ount e x e rc ise d by d ifferen t u n its w as ra th e r strongly re la te d to fric tio n in the e y es of p ro g ram b u reau resp o n d en ts (r = . 59, p < .01). T his finding, in conjunction with the 5 L ik e rt, oj). c it. , pp. 178-191. 104 finding of no rela tio n sh ip betw een fric tio n and am ount of influence a ttrib u te d to staff u n its, m ay seem confusing at f ir s t glance. It is believed, how ever, th at the explanation lie s in the o rig in a l re a so n fo r inclusion of the a p p ro p ria te n e ss g m e a su re in the study. T hat is , p ro g ram bu reau re p re s e n ta tiv e s seem ed to be saying that w hile d ifferen t staff u n its w ere able to e x e rt differing am ounts of influence ov er them , sim ply the am ount of influence e x e rc is e d had no n e c e ssa ry r e la tionship to frictio n . In o th e r w ords, it m ight be deem ed a p p ro p ria te fo r som e u n its to e x e rt la rg e am ounts of influence, and o th e rs le s s ; but when asked to evaluate individual u n its a s to w hether they e x e rc is e d too m uch, too little , o r about the rig h t am ount of influence, som e units w ere seen a s having too m uch, and m o re fric tio n w as ex p erien ced with those u n its. Staff unit p ro fe ssio n a ls, in c o n tra st, w ere m uch m o re likely to d e s c rib e staff gro u p s a s having about the rig h t am ount of influence, o r to say they ought to have som ew hat m o re. The ran g e of unit m ean s c o re s on th is item w as m uch m o re c o n stric te d fo r sta ff-sta ff d ata than fo r sta ff-lin e data. The extent of staff unit understanding of w ork p ro b lem s and needs of line groups and of o th er staff groups exhibited a high in v e rse rela tio n sh ip to fric tio n — the g re a te r the understanding, the le s s fric tio n w as encountered. T his w as the stro n g e st rela tio n sh ip am ong the eight so fa r a s d ata fro m staff unit p ro fe ssio n a ls w as co ncerned, and it w as stro n g indeed (r = - . 88). g S upra, C hapter II, pp. 37-38. 105 How ever, the re c ip ro c a l of th is v a ria b le , p ro g ram bureau p erso n n el and staff p ro fessio n als' understanding of the w ork needs and p roblem s of people in the ta rg e t staff units, p resen te d a slightly d ifferen t p ictu re. As Table 4 in d icates, th ere w as a re la tiv e ly strong, in v erse relatio n sh ip in the sta ff-sta ff data, but no relatio n sh ip in the p ro g ram b u rea u s' re sp o n se s. In o th er w ords, staff p ro fe ssio n a ls in effect said that the m o re understanding they th em selv es had of o th er staff u n its' needs, the le s s fric tio n they experienced in th e ir re la tio n s with those units. P ro g ra m bureau m em b ers apparently felt that th e ir u n d er standing of staff unit p ro b lem s had little to do with frictio n . The la s t v ariab le to be co n sid ered in the in teractio n categ o ry w as one designed to re fle c t, in a sen se, p ercep tio n s of re la tiv e pow er — the extent to which one side o r the o th er is able to get its way in resolving issu e s which a ris e betw een staff u n its and th e ir c lie n ts. T able 4 again shows som e d iffer entiation betw een the two se ts of evaluations. Among staff unit p ro fessio n als, th e re w as a c le a r relatio n sh ip (r = -. 53): the m o re they felt th at the decisions went th e ir way in the reso lu tio n of issu e s, the le s s frictio n they p erceiv ed in rela tio n s with staff units. Among p ro g ram bureau resp o n d en ts, th e re w as a tendency in the sam e d irec tio n (p < . 10), but the relatio n sh ip did not rea ch the c rite rio n level estab lish ed for th is study. Rank o rd e r agreem ent In th is categ o ry of in teractio n fa c to rs, as in the c a se of the p erfo rm an ce v a ria b le s, it was of in te re s t to te s t ag reem en t betw een the two se ts of 106 e v alu ato rs in th e ir ra n k o rd e rin g s of the tw enty-five ta rg e t staff u n its. In g e n eral, ag reem en t w as again quite high. On five of eight m e a s u re s , rank o rd e r co efficien ts ranged fro m . 53 to . 67, all of them significant beyond the . 01 level. On a sixth m e a su re — how d ecisio n s go in the reso lu tio n of issu e s — a g re em e n t w as sig n ifican t a t the . 05 level. On the rem ain in g two v a ria b le s, th e re w as p ra c tic a lly no ag reem en t. One of th ese, the extent to which staff u n its so lic it the view s of c lie n ts, w as not re la te d to the fric tio n v a ria b le a s noted above. In the c a se of clients* ability to influence the staff u n its, although both p ro g ram bu reau m e m b e rs and staff unit p ro fe ssio n a ls a sso c ia te d th is v a ria b le with frictio n , the two w ere not in ag re em e n t as to those staff units which they fe lt m o st able to influence. In fact, the unit receiv in g the h ig h est m ean sc o re on th is item from staff p ro fe s sio n als w as the sam e unit rec eiv in g the low est m ean sc o re from p ro g ram bureau ev alu ato rs. As a g e n eral p roposition, how ever, the ran k o rd e r c o rre la tio n s in th is categ o ry re in fo rc e d the view th at the two groups of e v alu ato rs tended to sh a re p e rc ep tio n s of the tw enty-five staff u n its and to a g re e in th e ir ran k in g s of those un its to a co n sid erab ly g re a te r extent than would be expected by chance alone. T hese findings a re su m m arized in T able 5. Sum m ary B riefly su m m arizin g the ab o v e-rep o rte d findings, the data from both p ro g ram bu reau p e rso n n el and p ro fessio n al m e m b e rs of staff u n its supported 107 TABLE 5 RANK ORDER CORRELATIONS BETW EEN PROGRAM BUREAU AND STAFF RESPONDENTS' RANKINGS OF 25 STA FF UNITS ON INTERACTION FACTORS F a c to r C oefficient of R ank O rd er A greem ent Significance Level E xtent to which staff unit so lic its . 10 0 c lie n ts' view s E xtent to which staff unit tr e a ts . 58 +++ c lie n ts with co n sid eratio n Am ount of staff unit influence on . 53 l i i c lie n t units TTT A p p ro p riate n ess of am ount of staff unit influence . 55 +++ Amount of c lie n ts' influence on . 12 0 staff u n its E xtent to which is s u e s reso lv ed . 42 1 t in favor of staff (or client) units TT E xtent of staff unit understanding of c lie n t p ro b lem s . 67 +++ E xtent of clien t understanding of . 58 +++ staff u n its' p ro b lem s £ L Spearm an Rho conclusions that: (a) M ore c o n sid e ra te tre a tm e n t of c lie n ts by staff u n its is a sso c ia te d with low fric tio n (H ypothesis III-2); (b) High c lien t influence o v er staff u n its is accom panied by low fric tio n (H ypothesis III-5); and (c) G re a te r staff unit understanding of the w ork p ro b lem s and needs of c lie n ts is accom panied by low fric tio n (H ypothesis III— 7 ). 108 D ata fro m staff p ro fe ssio n a ls only indicated that: (a) The m o re often is s u e s a re re so lv ed in fav o r of c lie n ts {as a g ain st the ta rg e t staff units), the lo w er the fric tio n in re la tio n s with staff u n its (H ypothesis III-6; sta ff-lin e d ata also supported th is finding, but m o re weakly: p < . 10); and (b) G re a te r c lie n t understanding of ta rg e t sta ff unit needs and p ro b lem s is a sso c ia te d with le s s fric tio n (H ypothesis ni-8). Data fro m p ro g ram b u reau resp o n d en ts only indicated that: (a) High fric tio n is d ire c tly re la te d to undue o r inappro p ria te am ounts of influence e x e rc ise d by staff u n its over m a tte rs affecting c lie n t u n its (H ypothesis III-4). F o r both se ts of e v alu ato rs, th e re w as no rela tio n sh ip betw een fric tio n and: (a) E xtent to which staff u n its so lic it view s of c lien ts (H ypothesis III-l); and (b) Am ount of influence which staff un its a re su ccessfu l in e x e rtin g on c lie n ts (H ypothesis III-3). L astly , th e re w as c o n sid era b le a g re em e n t betw een the two groups of resp o n d en ts on how they ranked the tw enty-five staff u n its on six of eight in te r action fa c to rs. T h ere w as lack of ag re em e n t a s to which u n its a re m o st su s ceptible to influence by o th e rs, a s w ell a s which un its try h a rd e st to obtain clien t view s. R elationship of Staff Unit C h a ra c te ris tic s to F ric tio n Betw een Staff U nits and C lient G roups A s d e sc rib e d in C hapter II, the v a ria b le s included under the heading of "staff unit c h a ra c te ris tic s " d iffered fro m those in the p reced in g two c a te g o rie s in se v e ra l re s p e c ts . Among o th er things, v a ria b le s in th is th ird grouping 109 w ere conceived to d e sc rib e v a rio u s a ttrib u te s o r q u a litie s of sta ff u n its a s such — in a w ord, a s e t of c h a ra c te ris tic s seen by o th e rs a s identifying a unit and p e rh a p s distinguishing it fro m o th e r u n its. The d istin ctio n , it should be noted, is not b ased solely o r even p rim a rily on the p re se n c e o r absence of such q u a litie s, but r a th e r on d iffe re n tia l am ounts of a c h a ra c te ris tic p o s s e s s e d fay one u n it a s co m p ared to an o th er; i. e. , U nit X m ay be seen a s having m o re o r le s s of th is a ttrib u te o r of th a t one. C onceptually, th ese a ttrib u te s o r q u a litie s seem ed fu rth e r rem o v ed fro m d ire c t a c ts o r ev en ts than m o st of the p e rfo rm an c e and in te ra c tio n fa c to rs . T hus it ap p eared th a t they m ight have a le s s d ire c t im p act on staff r e la tio n s w ith o th e r g roups. A s suggested in C h ap ter II, it w as c o n sid ere d p o ssib le th at th e se p a rtic u la r v a ria b le s m ight be re la te d m o re d ire c tly to p e r fo rm an ce and in te ra c tio n fa c to rs , th at they would function a s conditioning v a ria b le s w ith a m o re d ire c t im p act on p e rfo rm a n c e and in te ra c tio n and a le s s d ire c t effect on fric tio n betw een groups. N e v erth ele ss, staff unit c h a ra c te r is tic s w ere expected to be re la te d to fric tio n , how ever in d ire ctly . H ypothesis IV, w ith its s u b -p a rts , sp ecified the re la tio n sh ip s a s follow s: H ypothesis IV. A m ount of fric tio n betw een sta ff and c lie n t u n its m ay be re la te d to c e rta in c h a ra c te r is tic s a sc rib e d to sta ff u n its. Specifically, fric tio n m ay be re la te d to: IV -1. D egree of tech n ical com petence of sta ff unit p e rso n n el. IV -2. D egree of a d m in istra tiv e sk ill of sta ff unit p e rso n n e l. IV -3. Specialty v s. d e p artm e n tal o rien tatio n of staff unit p e rso n n el. 110 IV -4. A daptability of staff u n its to changing conditions and re q u ire m e n ts. — IV -5. F lex ib ility of staff u n its in resp o n se to unanticipated situ atio n s and c lie n t unit needs. IV -6. A bility of staff u n its to co o rd in ate a c tiv itie s so a s to avoid duplication of e ffo rt and conflicting actions. IV -7. E xtent of in te rn a l ag re em e n t am ong a staff u n it's m em b e rs re g a rd in g g o als and p u rp o se s. IV -8. Staff unit efficiency in m axim izing output with available re s o u rc e s . IV -9. Staff unit ability to develop and act on the b a s is of well thought out p lan s and id eas. IV-10. S ervice v s. co n tro l o rien tatio n of staff units. IV-11. D egree of staff unit co n cern with adhering to e stab lish ed p o lic ies and p ro c e d u re s. IV-12. C e n trality o r im p o rtan ce of staff u n it's w ork fo r clien t groups. Findings Table 6 re p o rts findings re la tiv e to the foregoing hypotheses. As shown th e re , both sta ff-lin e and sta ff-sta ff d ata provided co nfirm ation fo r nine of tw elve hypothesized re la tio n sh ip s. In eight c a s e s , the re la tio n sh ip s w ere in v e rse ; thus low fric tio n w as significantly a sso c iated with: High tech n ical com petence (H ypothesis IV-1) High a d m in istra tiv e sk ill (H ypothesis IV-2) G re a te r adaptability to changing conditions (H ypothesis IV-4) G re a te r flexibility in handling unexpected situ atio n s (Hypo th e s is IV -5) I l l High coordinative ability (H ypothesis IV--6) High goal ag reem en t betw een m e m b e rs of a unit (H ypothesis IV-7) High efficiency (H ypothesis IV-8) G re a te r tendency to b ase actions on w ell thought out p lan s (H ypothesis IV -9) In the ninth c a se , the rela tio n sh ip w as d ire c t ra th e r than in v e rse , due to d irec tio n a lity of the sc a le s. Low fric tio n w as significantly re la te d to high staff unit involvem ent in se rv ic e (as opposed to control) a c tiv itie s (H ypothesis IV-10). Only lim ited sup p o rt w as provided for the p o stu lated a sso c iatio n be tween fric tio n and staff unit o rien tatio n tow ard sp ecialty o r d ep artm en t (Hypo th e s is IV-3). In th is c a se , low fric tio n w as a sso c ia te d with a d ep artm en tal ra th e r than a specialty o rien tatio n (p < .05). H ow ever, th is rela tio n sh ip h eld only fo r the sta ff-sta ff data. L astly, no sup p o rt w as found in e ith e r sta ff-lin e o r sta ff-sta ff d ata for the hypotheses th at fric tio n would be re la te d to staff unit co n cern with adhering to e stab lish ed policy (H ypothesis IV-11) and to the c e n tra lity o r im portance of a staff u n it's w ork fo r clien t groups (H ypothesis IV -12). All of the above findings a re co n sid ered in m o re d etail in subsequent p a ra g ra p h s. D iscussion E xam ining th ese findings in m o re d etail, it can be seen that the v a ri ables exhibiting the stro n g e st re la tio n sh ip s both to sta ff-lin e and sta ff-sta ff 112 fric tio n w ere: (a) In tern al goal in te g ra tio n , i. e. , the extent to which m e m b e rs of a staff unit w ere p e rc eiv e d to sh a re com m on g o als, r a th e r than p u rsu in g d iv e rs e and p e rh a p s conflicting ones. (b) A daptability — the extent to which a staff unit is p e rc eiv e d to be adaptable to changing conditions and re q u ire m e n ts. (c) F lex ib ility — the ability of a staff u n it to handle un expected o v erlo ad s o r changes re q u irin g im m ediate and ex ten siv e action. <d) S ervice o rien tatio n — the extent to which a staff unit is seen a s being m o re involved in providing se rv ic e and advice than in developing c o n tro ls. In the above c a s e s , low fric tio n w as a sso c ia te d with high goal in te g ra tion, g re a te r adaptability and flexibility, and g r e a te r se rv ic e o rien tatio n . As T able 6 show s, c o rre la tio n co efficien ts fo r the sta ff-sta ff d ata on th ese four fa c to rs ranged from .55 to - .8 7 , a ll of them sig n ifican t beyond the . 01 level. The stro n g e st rela tio n sh ip w as betw een fric tio n and flexibility. F o r the staff- line data, co efficien ts w ere som ew hat sm a lle r (with one exception), ranging fro m -. 52 to -. 68 (p < . 01 fo r a ll four), and again the stro n g e st relatio n sh ip w as betw een low fric tio n and high flexibility. F o r both groups of e v a lu a to rs, ability to handle unexpected ov erlo ad s o r changes w as an im p o rtan t c o rre la te of red u ced fric tio n in the relatio n sh ip . T his is not su rp risin g , given th at the ta rg e t staff u n its' functional ro le s in volved, in v ary in g d e g re e s, re sp o n se s to o th er o rg an izatio n al u n its' re q u e sts for a ssista n c e of one kind o r another. R eq u ests included p ro c e ssin g p erso n n el 113 TABLE 6 CORRELATION OF STAFF UNIT CHARACTERISTICS FACTORS WITH AMOUNT OF STAFF-LINE AND ST A FF-STA FF FRICTION Staff-L ine Dependent V ariable; F ric tio n Staff-Staff F rictio n Independent V ariable Signifi cance Level Coeffi cien t Signifi cance Level C oeffi cien t Staff unit technical com petence (IV-1) ++ 50 +++ -. 73 Staff unit ad m in istrativ e skill (IV-2) ++ -. 48 +++ -. 65 Staff u n its' departm ental vs. skill o rien tatio n (IV-3)a 0 - . 28 ++ -. 42 Staff unit adaptability to changing conditions (IV-4) +++ -. 57 +++ -. 71 Staff unit flexibility in handling unexpected situations (IV-5) +++ -. 68 +++ - . 87 Staff unit ability to coordinate with o th er staff units (IV-6) ++ 47 +++ - . 85 E xtent of in te rn al goal a g re e m ent among staff unit m em b ers (IV-7) +++ -. 52 +++ - . 76 Staff unit efficiency (IV-8) ++ -. 48 +++ - . 80 Staff unit ability to act on the b a sis of w ell thought out plans (IV-9) ++ -.4 7 +++ -. 65 Staff unit involvem ent in se rv ice vs. co n tro l functions (IV-IO)'3 +++ .64 +++ . 55 114 TABLE 6 — Continued Dependent V ariable: Staff-L ine F ric tio n Staff-Staff F ric tio n Independent V ariable Signifi cance Level C oeffi cien t Signifi cance Level C oeffi cien t Staff unit concern with ad h erin g to policy and p ro ced u re (IV-11) 0 - . 22 0 - .2 8 Im portance of staff u n it's w ork to o th er organizational units (IV-12) 0 -. 17 0 -. 06 E t N egative coefficient in d icates that low frictio n is a sso c iated with g re a te r departm ental orientation. P ositive coefficient in d icates that low frictio n is a sso ciated with g re a te r involvem ent in se rv ic e functions. actions, p ro cu rin g supplies, prin tin g o r reproducing m a te ria ls , and o th ers. Of the four fa c to rs enum erated above, p ro g ram bureau respondents indicated a stro n g e r relatio n sh ip to frictio n than did the staff unit p ro fessio n als on only one — the se rv ice v s. control orientation. Low frictio n w as strongly a sso ciated with a g re a te r o rien tatio n tow ard providing se rv ic e and advice (r = . 64). Again th is was not p a rtic u la rly su rp risin g , fo r it seem ed reaso n ab le to expect that m em b ers of staff u n its, th em selv es involved in e x ercisin g con tro ls over the line, would place le s s em phasis on th is asp ect of intergroup re la tio n s. N ev erth eless, staff p ro fessio n als did asso c iate le s s frictio n with a se rv ice o rientation, though the asso ciatio n was som ew hat w eaker (r = . 55) 115 than it w as fo r th e ir p ro g ram bureau colleagues. T h ere w ere, a s a glance at T able 6 re v e a ls , five additional fa c to rs in the unit c h a ra c te ris tic s categ o ry which w ere highly re la te d to frictio n , a l though at d ifferen t le v e ls of significance fo r the two gro u p s of ev alu ato rs. In a ll five c a s e s , the c o rre la tio n coefficients d eriv ed fro m sta ff-sta ff d ata w ere enough la rg e r than those fro m sta ff-lin e d ata to be significant at the . 01 ra th e r than the . 05 level. T hese five v a ria b le m e a su re s w ere: (a) E fficiency — the am ount of output a staff unit achieves in re la tio n to re s o u rc e s it h a s available. (b) C oordination — the ability of a staff unit to fit its a c tiv itie s in w ell w ith a ctiv itie s of o th er staff units. (c) P lanning sk ill — the tendency of a staff unit to base its actions on w ell thought out p lan s and ideas. (d) T echnical com petence o r s k ill. (e) A d m in istrativ e sk ill — doing a good job of planning and scheduling w ork, m eetin g d eadlines, etc. F o r p ro g ra m bureau resp o n d en ts and even m o re m arkedly fo r staff unit p ro fe ssio n a ls, le s s frictio n p re v a ile d in re la tio n s with staff un its seen as m o re efficient, b e tte r able to coordinate, and having g re a te r tech n ical, adm in is tra tiv e and planning sk ill. P a re n th e tic a lly , it should be noted th at in te rc o rre la tio n of the th re e skill ite m s in th is set, tech n ical, a d m in istrativ e , and planning, indicated th at th ese sk ill a re a s w ere not independent but probably o v er-lap p in g since the th re e w ere highly in te rc o rre la te d . In o th er w ords, th e re w as co n sid erab le support fo r the contention th at the th re e ite m s w ere tapping a g en eral 116 u n d erly in g co m p eten ce fa c to r. N e v e rth e le s s , se p a ra tio n into th e com ponent s k ill ite m s is b e liev e d to have b een ju s tifie d in th is in itia l e m p iric a l e x p lo ra tio n , fo r p re lim in a ry in sp e ctio n of in te rc o rre la tio n s betw een th e se th re e ite m s and a ll o th e r v a ria b le s in th e study in d ic ate d th a t in so m e c a s e s th e th re e b ehaved d iffe re n tly in c o r re la tio n w ith so m e o th e r v a ria b le s . T he u se of a ll th re e p o ten tially could p ro vide m o re in fo rm a tio n than could a sin g le g e n e ra l c o m p e te n ce fa c to r o r an index c o n stru c te d fro m th e th re e . T he la tte r p ro c e d u re s p ro b ab ly w ould be ju s tifie d in fu tu re r e s e a r c h , p a rtic u la rly in the in te r e s t of p a rsim o n y . T u rn in g now to c o n sid e ra tio n of the re m a in in g th re e v a ria b le s in th is c a te g o ry , T ab le 6 r e v e a ls th a t no re la tio n s h ip w as found to e x is t betw een f r i c tion and th o se fa c to r s d e s c rib e d a s a sta ff u n it's c o n c e rn w ith follow ing policy and p ro c e d u re and the im p o rta n c e (salien ce) of a u n it's w ork fo r the lin e o r o th e r sta ff g ro u p s in the o rg a n iz a tio n . The th e o re tic a l b a s is fo r e x p ectin g the im p o rta n c e fa c to r to be a r e l e v a n t one w as o u tlin ed in C h a p te r II. H ow ever, in th is study, not only w as im p o rta n c e o r s a lie n c e not re la te d to fric tio n , but it w as fo r p ra c tic a l p u r p o s e s u n re la te d to any o th e r v a ria b le in the p r e s e n t c a te g o ry . In fa c t, of the to ta l of fifty -fo u r v a ria b le s u se d (i. e. , tw e n ty -sev e n v a ria b le s fo r both the sta ff-lin e and s ta ff-s ta ff a n a ly se s), it re la te d to only th re e a t th e .0 5 lev el o r b e tte r. S alience th u s p ro v ed to be of v e ry little re le v a n c e to th is study. T he ite m re g a rd in g sta ff u n its ' c o n c e rn w ith a d h erin g to e s ta b lis h e d po licy and p ro c e d u re w as d e riv e d p rin c ip a lly fro m in fo rm a tio n p ro v id ed by 117 line and staff in te rv ie w e es in p re lim in a ry sta g e s of the study. M ore than one of th ese in fo rm an ts seem ed to d istin g u ish staff u n its on the b a s is of o v e r-c o n c e rn w ith s tr ic t ad h eren ce to policy and p ro ce d u re r a th e r than a c re a tiv e , p ro b lem -so lv in g approach to ta s k im plem entation. On in tro sp ectio n , it ap p e a re d th at such a distin ctio n m ight be a v alid one, re fle c tin g a t the unit level 7 the rig id ity often a ttrib u te d in the lite ra tu re to staff p erso n n el. Inspection of staff unit m ean s c o re s on th is item indicated a lim ite d ran g e of s c o re s , with all staff u n its seen a s som ew hat m o re than m o d erately co n cern ed with fo llo w ing policy and p ro ce d u re. The outcom e m ay have been an a rtifa c t of the way in which the item w as c o n stru cted and p re se n te d in the survey in stru m en t. If so, the conceptual b a s is fo r the item m ay s till have validity, but w as not ade quately te ste d in the p re s e n t study. The la s t v a ria b le to be c o n sid ere d is one su m m arized a s a sp e c ia list vs. d ep artm en tal o rien tatio n . The in te re s t of so c ial sc ie n tis ts in th is o r sim ila r dichotom izations of o rg an izatio n al m e m b e rs w as outlined in C hapter II. In the p re s e n t study, c h a ra c te riz a tio n of staff unit m e m b e rs along th is dim en sion w as not a sso c iated with sta ff-lin e fric tio n by p ro g ra m bu reau resp o n d en ts. H ow ever, fo r staff unit p ro fe ssio n a ls it w as a sso c ia te d , although le s s strongly than m any o th er v a ria b le s in the study (r = - . 42, p < . 05). In th is c a se the n atu re of the rela tio n sh ip w as of in te re s t. In effect, staff p ro fe ssio n a ls said that m e m b e rs of those sta ff u n its with which low fric tio n w as ex p erien ced w ere 7 See the d isc u ssio n of p e rso n a l c h a ra c te ris tic s of staff people in C hapter I. 118 m o re in te re s te d in helping the d ep artm en t fulfill its m issio n than in p ra c tic in g th e ir sp ecial sk ills o r train in g . Although m o st p ro fessio n al p e rso n n el of staff un its a re s p e c ia lists of one kind o r another — in p e rso n n el m anagem ent, f is cal m a tte rs , d ata p ro c e ssin g , lib ra rie s , p rin tin g , and so on — staff re sp o n dents in th is stucfy apparently p e rc eiv e d a g re a te r in te re s t in serv in g the de p a rtm e n t on the p a rt of those u n its with which le s s frictio n w as encountered. The ra n k -o rd e r c o rre la tio n s Moving now to the question of how w ell the two groups of ev alu ato rs a g re ed in th e ir ran k in g s of the tw enty-five un its on tw elve staff unit c h a ra c te ris tic s , once again it appeared that the two groups sh a red p ercep tio n s of the ta rg e t staff u n its to a m ark ed d eg ree. On eight of tw elve ite m s, the extent of ag reem en t on ran k o rd e r of u n its w as significant beyond the . 01 lev el, with co efficien ts ranging from . 52 to . 79. T h ere w as also ag reem en t at the . 05 level on one additional v a ria b le and w eaker ag reem en t a t the . 10 level on another. The two ite m s on which th e re w as v irtu a lly no ag reem en t w ere the salien ce v a ria b le and, in te restin g ly , the sp e c ia list v s. d ep artm en tal o rie n ta tion item . T his la tte r in d icates th at p ro g ram bu reau people a ttrib u te the de p a rtm e n ta l o rien tatio n to quite d ifferen t un its than do staff unit p ro fe ssio n a ls. T able 7 show s the ra n k o rd e r coefficients fo r each of the tw elve staff unit c h a ra c te ris tic s . 119 TABLE 7 RANK ORDER CORRELATIONS BETW EEN PROGRAM BUREAU AND STAFF RESPONDENTS' RANKINGS OF 25 STAFF UNITS ON UNIT CHARACTERISTICS FACTORS F acto r C oefficient of Rank O rder A greem ent Significance Level Staff unit technical com petence .63 + + + Staff unit ad m in istrativ e skill . 42 + + Staff unit d ep artm en t vs. skill . 15 o orientation \ J Staff unit adaptability to changing conditions .64 + + + Staff unit flexibility in handling unexpected situations . 60 +++ Staff unit ability to coordinate with o th er staff units . 67 E xtent of in te rn al goal agreem ent am ong staff unit m em b ers . 57 + + + Staff unit efficiency . 65 + + + Staff unit ability to act on the b a sis . 52 +++ of w ell thought out plans Staff unit involvem ent in se rv ice . 79 4-4-4- vs. co n tro l functions T 1 1 Staff unit concern with adhering to policy and p ro ced u re . 36 + Im portance of staff u n it's w ork . 28 0 to other organizational units ESpearm an Rho. 120 U nit c h a ra c te ris tic s : rela tio n sh ip to p e rfo rm an c e and in te rac tio n fa c to rs In e a r lie r d isc u ssio n s of conceptual a sp e c ts of th ese staff unit c h a ra c te r is tic s , it w as said that intuitively they seem ed fu rth e r rem oved fro m d ire c t a cts o r events in the in te rre la tio n a l p ro c e s s betw een groups than m o st of the p e rfo rm an c e and in te rac tio n fa c to rs. It ap p eared th at unit c h a ra c te ris tic fac to rs m ight, a t le a s t in a th e o re tic a l m odel of rela tio n sh ip s, function as condi tio n e rs of p e rfo rm an c e and in te ra c tio n v a ria b le s and thus be m o re strongly a sso c ia te d with th ese v a ria b le s than with the fric tio n v a ria b le itself. Inspection of the c o rre la tio n a l d ata did not re v e a l conclusive evidence on th is m a tte r. E xam ination of c o rre la tio n co efficien ts betw een fric tio n and all re la te d fa c to rs in each of the th re e c a te g o rie s show ed th at in g e n e ra l the co efficien ts betw een frictio n and staff unit c h a ra c te ris tic s w ere no sm a lle r than those betw een fric tio n and p erfo rm an ce and in te rac tio n fa c to rs. T his fact c o n trad icted speculation th at unit c h a ra c te ris tic s fa c to rs m ight, by re a so n of a le s s d ire c t relatio n sh ip to frictio n , show w eaker a sso c ia tio n s in the form of lo w er c o rre la tio n co efficien ts with the fric tio n m e a su re . W hile it w as g en erally tru e th at unit c h a ra c te ris tic s w ere in m any c a s e s highly c o rre la te d with p e rfo rm an c e and in te rac tio n fa c to rs, th ese c o r r e latio n s w ere not u n iv ersally h ig h er than those betw een fric tio n and unit c h a ra c te ris tic s . T h ere w ere enough exceptions to p reclu d e g e n eraliza tio n th at the la tte r fa c to rs w ere m o re strongly o r d ire c tly a sso c ia te d with p e rfo rm an c e and in te rac tio n fa c to rs than with frictio n . 121 O bviously, a v e ry com plex s e t of in te rre la tio n sh ip s e x iste d betw een th ese tw enty-seven v a ria b le s, and re s o u rc e s w ere not available to sy ste m a ti- g cally s o rt out th ese in te rre la tio n sh ip s. A s a v e ry lim ite d p robe in th is d irec tio n , f ir s t- o r d e r p a rtia l c o rre la tio n s w ere com puted fo r a few th re e - v a ria b le c a s e s to explore the re la tio n sh ip s betw een th o se s e ts of th re e v a r i ables. T hus, fo r in stan c e, if the in v e rse rela tio n sh ip betw een the flexibility fac to r and frictio n , r = -. 68, is due la rg e ly to fle x ib ility 's m o re d ire c t r e la tionship to the p e rfo rm a n c e fa c to r of ra p id resp o n se to re q u e sts fo r a ssista n c e (r = . 60), which is also in v ersely re la te d to fric tio n (r = - . 61), then " p a rtia l - ling out" o r co n tro llin g fo r the effect of the rap id re sp o n se fa c to r should appreciably red u ce the c o rre la tio n betw een flexibility and frictio n . O r, if the re v e rs e is tru e , if the rela tio n sh ip of ra p id re sp o n se to fric tio n is p rim a rily "cau sed " by the underlying fa c to r of flex ib ility , then co n tro llin g fo r flexibility by m eans of a p a rtia l c o rre la tio n p ro ce d u re should ap p reciab ly red u ce the c o rre la tio n betw een rap id resp o n se and frictio n . In both of the above in stan ces, som e red u ctio n o c c u rre d , w ith som ew hat m o re o c c u rrin g when fle x i bility w as co n tro lled , th ereb y red u cin g the am ount of v a ria n c e in fric tio n which w as explained by the ra p id re sp o n se fa c to r. N e v erth ele ss, la rg e enough c o rre la tio n s rem a in e d in both in sta n c e s to g C om plex co m p u ter a n aly sis of the data, e. g. , com putation of th ird and fourth o rd e r p a rtia l c o rre la tio n s , o r two o r th ree -w ay a n aly ses of v a ria n c e would have been re q u ire d . 122 suggest that flex ib ility and ra p id resp o n se independently have an effect on f r ic tion, as w ell a s to g eth er having an in te ra c tiv e effect on frictio n b ecau se of th e ir own in te rre la tio n sh ip . H ow ever, in the absence of extended a n aly sis of re la tio n sh ip s betw een these two v a ria b le s and a ll o th e rs in the study with which they w ere in te rre la te d , th is in te rp re ta tio n can be advanced only v ery tentatively and cautiously. S im ilar p a rtia l c o rre la tio n s w ere com puted fo r two o th er s e ts of th re e v a ria b le s, and b a sica lly s im ila r re s u lts w ere found. W ithout attem pting the lengthy ta sk of te stin g a ll p o ssib le in te rre la tio n sh ip s am ong the tw enty-seven v a ria b le s in the study, it can be said that, sta tistic a lly a t le a st, the th e o re ti cal assum ption of le s s d ire c t rela tio n sh ip s betw een the staff unit c h a ra c te r is tic s fa c to rs and fric tio n w ere not supported. The v e ry lim ited testin g of p a rtia l c o rre la tio n a l re la tio n sh ip s r e f e r r e d to above suggested, at m o st, that fo r a t le a s t som e of the unit c h a ra c te ris tic fa c to rs, the rela tio n sh ip to fric tio n is probably a s stro n g and d ire c t a s it is fo r th e in te ra c tio n and p erfo rm an ce v a ria b le s. A lso, those fa c to rs in the th re e c a te g o rie s which w ere highly in te rre la te d with each o th er probably account jointly o r in te rac tiv e ly fo r som e of the v a ria n c e in frictio n . F inally, it should be em p h asized th at the above c o n sid era tio n s w ere not c e n tra l to the m ajo r aim of the study, which w as to explore and identify fac to rs a sso c iated with m o re o r le s s fric tio n , th ereb y adding to available know ledge of b a se s of fric tio n betw een staff un its and o th er g roups. The dem on stra tio n th at som e but not o th e rs of the staff u n it c h a ra c te ris tic s w ere re la te d 123 to fric tio n contributed to th at aim , re g a rd le s s of th e ir p o sitio n in a th e o re ti cal m odel of in te rre la tio n sh ip s am ong fa c to rs affecting frictio n . As an a re a of fu tu re re s e a rc h , an extended ex p lo rato ry a n a ly sis of th ese in te rre la tio n sh ip s m ight be w orthw hile. Sum m ary B riefly, eight of tw elve staff unit c h a ra c te ris tic s w ere found to have a high in v e rse relatio n sh ip to fric tio n betw een staff u n its and o th er o rg an iz a tio n a l groups. T hese eight, sta te d in sum m ary w ords o r p h ra s e s , w ere: effi ciency, in te rn al goal in teg ratio n , adaptability, flex ib ility , coordination, p la n ning sk ill, technical sk ill, and a d m in istra tiv e sk ill. A ninth fa c to r, o rie n ta tion to se rv ic e ra th e r than to co n tro l, w as positively a sso c ia te d with low f r ic tion. T hese stro n g rela tio n sh ip s held fo r both gro u p s of e v a lu a to rs — p ro g ram bureau p e rso n n el and staff p ro fe ssio n a ls. So fa r a s staff p ro fe ssio n a ls w ere concerned, a d ep artm en tal o r in s ti tutional o rien tatio n w as accom panied by le s s fric tio n (p < . 05), but no such relatio n sh ip e x iste d in re s p o n se s from line p e rso n n el. In n e ith e r sta ff-lin e nor sta ff-sta ff d ata w as th e re a rela tio n sh ip betw een fric tio n and the rem ain in g two v a ria b le s, salien ce and co n cern with policy and p ro c e d u re . With re s p e c t to ag reem en t on how staff u n its ran k ed on each of the tw elve v a ria b le s, ag reem en t w as high and tended to re in fo rc e the conclusion th at independent s e ts of e v a lu a to rs p e rc e iv e staff u n its quite sim ila rly on m o st dim ensions co v ered in th is study. T h e re w as lack of ag re em e n t on only two 124 c h a ra c te ristic s, and agreem ent at the . 10 level of probability on a third. A greem ent was high on the rem aining nine v a ria b le s in the category. Staff Unit Views of F ric tio n and Its C o rre la te s To this point the data and findings rep o rted have been those derived from : (a) line p e rso n n e l's evaluations of tw enty-five ta rg e t staff units; and (b) staff p ro fessio n als' evaluations of those sam e units. C om parisons have been m ade of findings from the two groups of respondents in o rd e r to discover w hether th ere was sufficient consistency betw een diem to strengthen what m ight otherw ise have been a le s s p ersu asiv e case for the findings. T here was a third se t of data derived from the study which has not been m entioned h ereto fo re in o rd e r to avoid confusion. As has been de- scribed, staff p ro fessio n als w ere asked to evaluate staff units other than th eir own on a random assignm ent b a sis, and these evaluations constituted one of the two se ts to which the analysis has re fe rre d thus far. In addition, these sam e staff pro fessio n als w ere asked to evaluate the am ount of frictio n between th e ir own resp ectiv e staff units and specified p rogram bureaus with which th e ir units had considerable interaction. They w ere also asked to evaluate those p ro g ram bureaus on five of the tw eiity-six independent v a ria b le s used in the p rev io u sly -rep o rted p a rt of the study. The num ber of independent v a ri ables was lim ited in this case in o rd e r to keep the study within m anageable lim its and to tfeduce the response burden placed On staff unit pro fessio n als. All five independent v a ria b le s fo r th is segm ent w ere chosen from the 125 in te rac tio n categ o ry . T his w as done p rim a rily on the grounds th at p ro g ram b u reau s did not p e rfo rm se rv ic e o r co n tro l functions fo r staff u n its, thus ru lin g out evaluation of p ro g ra m b u reau p e rfo rm an c e . Secondly, since it w as believed p o ssib le th at v a ria b le s in the unit c h a ra c te ris tic s categ o ry m ight im pinge le s s d irec tly on sta ff-c lie n t fric tio n , it ap p eared th at v a ria b le s in the in te rac tio n categ o ry would be m o st useful and in te re stin g fo r providing a th ird p e rsp e c tiv e on fa c to rs a sso c ia te d w ith sta ff-lin e fric tio n — that of staff p ro fe ssio n a ls looking a t re la tio n s w ith line b u reau s. The five v a ria b le s se lec te d w ere: (1) C o n sid e raten e ss — the extent to which p ro g ra m bureau p e rso n n el tr e a t staff unit people w ith the co n sid eratio n due ra tio n a l and com petent people; (2) Staff Unit Influence — the staff u n its' p e rc ep tio n s of th e ir ability to influence a c tiv itie s of p ro g ram b u reau s; (3) Issu e R esolution — the extent to which d ecisio n s re s o l ving is s u e s betw een staff u n its and p ro g ra m b u rea u s a re p e rceiv ed to favor one p a rty o r the other; (4) B ureau U nderstanding — the extent to w hich p ro g ram b u reau p erso n n el a re p e rc e iv e d to u n d erstan d staff unit w ork p ro b lem s and needs; and (5) Staff Unit U nderstanding — the extent to which staff unit p e rso n n el believe they u n d erstan d p ro g ra m bu reau w ork p ro b lem s and needs. E valuative s c o re s of all p ro fe ssio n a l m e m b e rs of a staff unit w ere aggregated and a m ean com puted fo r th at u n it on the five independent v a ria b le s a s w ell as the dependent v a ria b le — am ount of p e rc eiv e d fric tio n with those p ro g ra m b u rea u s evaluated. P ro d u ct m om ent c o rre la tio n s w ere then 126 com puted betw een independent and dependent v a ria b le s. Although a s e t of fo rm a l hy p o th eses w ere not fo rm u lated fo r th is seg m ent of the study, obviously the underlying g e n eral hypo th esis is of an ex pected a sso c iatio n betw een fric tio n and the five v a ria b le s outlined above. Findings F indings fo r th is p a rt of the a n a ly sis a re su m m arized in T able 8. A s can be seen , all five v a ria b le s exhibit high, in v e rse re la tio n sh ip s to fric tio n betw een staff and line. Two of the five re la tio n sh ip s w ere significant at the . 01 lev el and th re e a t the . 05 lev el. In a w ord, low fric tio n w as a sso c ia te d with m o re c o n sid e ra te tre a tm e n t of staff un its by p ro g ra m bureau p erso n n el, g re a te r staff unit influence on p ro g ra m b u reau a c tiv itie s, m o re freq u en t re s o lution of is s u e s in favor of sta ff u n its, and g re a te r re c ip ro c a l u n derstanding by both p a rtie s of each o th e rs ' w ork p ro b lem s and needs. With one exception, th ese findings p a ra lle le d those re p o rte d e a r lie r fo r line evaluations of re la tio n s with staff u n its and fo r staff m e m b e rs' evaluations of re la tio n s with o th er staff u n its. The one exception is th a t line resp o n d en ts evidenced no rela tio n sh ip betw een fric tio n and th e ir u n derstanding of staff unit w ork p ro b le m s and needs. The im p o rtan ce of th ese findings w as th at they offered fu rth e r support for the conceptual p o sitio n th at fric tio n betw een staff and line is im portantly re la te d to fa c to rs in the in te ra c tio n betw een p a rtie s to the sta ff-lin e re la tio n ship. P u t another way, th re e groups independently co n firm ed the ex isten ce of 127 a stro n g rela tio n sh ip betw een in te rg ro u p fric tio n and (with the exception a l read y noted) the five in te ra c tio n v a ria b le s. TABLE 8 CORRELATION OF SELECTED INTERACTION FACTORS WITH AMOUNT O F STA FF-LIN E FRICTION: EVALUATIONS OF PROGRAM BUREAUS BY TARGET STA FF UNIT MEMBERS D ependent V ariable: S taff-L ine F ric tio n Independent V ariab le Significance L evel C oefficient E xtent to which p ro g ram bureau m e m b e rs tr e a t staff u n its with co n sid eratio n ++ -.4 6 E xtent to which staff unit is able to influence p ro g ra m b u reau s +++ - .6 4 E xtent to which is s u e s reso lv ed in favor of p ro g ra m b u reau s +++ 61 E xtent of p ro g ram bu reau u n d er standing of sta ff unit p ro b lem s ++ - .4 5 E xtent of staff unit understanding of p ro g ra m bureau p ro b lem s ++ -. 47 G en eral Sum m ary of M ajor F indings Sum m arizing the r e s u lts re p o rte d in p reced in g p ag es, the stu d y 's find ings co n firm ed H ypothesis 1-1 th at am ount of fric tio n betw een staff u n its and th e ir c lie n t groups v a rie s significantly from staff unit to staff unit. Support w as also provided for H ypothesis 1-2, which sta te d th at fric tio n m ay v ary even when type of staff unit is held constant. C ategorizing staff u n its as 128 s e rv ic e -o rie n te d , c o n tro l-o rie n te d , o r equally s e rv ic e and c o n tro l, the d ata indicated th at type of unit is so m etim es but not alw ays an im p o rtan t fa c to r influencing am ount of fric tio n betw een staff u n its and c lie n t g ro u p s. L ack of a high, c o n siste n t relatio n sh ip betw een type of unit and fric tio n indicated th at o th er fa c to rs a re equally o r m o re im p o rtan tly re la te d to fric tio n lev e ls. In re g a rd to th ese " o th e r" fa c to rs, a n aly sis of sta ff-lin e d ata dem on s tra te d th at seventeen of tw en ty -six independent v a ria b le s had an im p o rtan t relatio n sh ip to sta ff-lin e fric tio n . E ight of these re la tio n sh ip s w ere sig n ifi cant a t the . 01 lev el o r b e tte r, and nine at the . 05 level. R e fe rrin g to the g en eral c a te g o rie s em ployed in th is study, four of six p e rfo rm an c e fa c to rs w ere significantly re la te d to fric tio n , a s w ere four of eight in te rac tio n fa c to rs, and nine of tw elve staff unit c h a ra c te ris tic s . In sta ff-lin e re la tio n s, the fa c to r m o st highly re la te d to low fric tio n w as staff unit flexibility (r = - . 68), follow ed by c o n sid e ra te tre a tm e n t (r - -. 65), se rv ic e o rien tatio n (r - . 64), and rap id ity of resp o n se to re q u e sts for a ssista n c e (r - -.6 1 ). The w eakest rela tio n sh ip , although s till significant (p < . 05), w as betw een low fric tio n and su c c e ss in secu rin g com pliance with d ire c tiv e s (r = - . 42), follow ed by p ro ficien t p e rfo rm a n c e of co o rd in ativ e- co n tro l (Type B) functions (r = -. 46). C om paring re s u lts fro m the s ta ff-s ta ff data, twenty of tw en ty -six v a r i ab les w ere strongly a sso c iated with the m e a su re of fric tio n , including five of six p erfo rm an ce v a ria b le s, five of eight in te ra c tio n v a ria b le s, and ten of tw elve staff unit c h a ra c te ris tic s . E ighteen of twenty re a c h e d the . 01 level of 129 significance o r b e tte r, and the rem aining two w ere significant a t the . 05 level. M ost strongly re la te d to low frictio n w ere su c c e ss in securing com pliance (r = - . 90), staff u n its' understanding of w ork p ro b lem s and needs of o th ers (r = 88), flexibility (r = 87), and ability to coordinate w ork with a ctiv ities of o th er staff units (r = - . 85). W eakest a sso ciatio n s w ere with the d ep artm en ta l orientation fac to r (r = 42) and ability of staff p ro fessio n als to influence the ta rg e t staff u n its (r = 43). The two independent groups of ev alu ato rs w ere in ag reem en t that six teen of tw enty-six independent v a ria b le s w ere highly re la te d to the frictio n m easu re, and the two groups w ere d isc rep a n t on five o th e rs, w ith one o r an o th er but not both groups rep o rtin g an asso ciatio n . Table 9 lis ts , fo r each group of ev alu ato rs, fa c to rs asso c iated with am ount of frictio n at the . 05 level of significance o r b e tte r. F a c to rs a re liste d in o rd e r of size of coefficients of c o rre la tio n with the frictio n v ariab le. O verall, these larg ely congruent se ts of findings from two independent groups of ev alu ato rs confirm ed m any of the individual hypotheses stated in C hapter II, thereby supporting the m o re g en eral conceptualizations on which the hypotheses w ere based. T hese re s u lts provide evidence th at how well staff * units p e rfo rm v is -a -v is th e ir c lien ts and how they in te ra c t with clien t groups a re im p o rtan t fa c to rs in how m uch frictio n is encountered betw een staff and c lien t groups. It ap p ears, also, that c e rta in p erceiv ed a ttrib u te s of staff u n its, such as flexibility, adaptability, efficiency, and v a rio u s kinds of com p eten cies o r sk ills m ake a difference in rela tio n s betw een staff and c lien ts. 130 TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF FACTORS RELA TED TO AMOUNTS O F FRICTION: STA FF-LIN E AND S T A F F-S T A FF EVALUATIONS*1 F a c to rs in S taff-L ine F ric tio n F a c to rs in Staff-Staff F ric tio n (1) Staff unit flexibility (2) C o n sid erate tre a tm e n t by staff un its (3) Staff unit involvem ent in se rv ic e v s. c o n tro l functions (4) R apidity of staff unit re sp o n se to re q u e sts fo r a ssista n c e (5) A p p ro p riate n ess of am ount of staff u n it influence (6) Staff unit understanding of p ro g ram bureau p ro b lem s and needs (7) Staff unit adaptability (8) Staff unit tech n ical com petence {9) Staff unit p e rfo rm an c e of s e r v ic e -su p p o rt functions (10) Staff unit efficiency (11) Staff unit a d m in istra tiv e sk ill (1) Staff unit su c c e ss in secu rin g com pliance (2) Staff unit u n derstanding of staff p ro fe s sio n a ls' p ro b le m s and needs (3) Staff unit flexibility (4) Staff unit coordination with o th er staff g ro u p s (5) C la rity of staff unit p o lic ies and sta n d a rd s (6) Staff u n it p e rfo rm an c e of s e r - vic e-su p p o rt functions (7) Staff unit efficiency (8) R apidity of sta ff unit re sp o n se to re q u e s ts fo r a ssista n c e (9) C o n sid erate tre a tm e n t by staff u n its (10) Staff unit p e rfo rm an c e of co o rd in a tiv e -c o n tro l functions (11) In tern al goal ag re em e n t am ong staff u n it m e m b e rs (12) Staff unit planning sk ill (12) Staff unit tech n ical com petence 131 TA BLE 9— C ontinued F a c to rs in S taff-L in e F ric tio n F a c to rs in S taff-S taff F ric tio n (13) Staff u n it c o o rd in atio n w ith (13) Staff u n it adaptability o th e r staff g ro u p s (14) E xtent of p ro g ra m b u rea u (14) Staff u n it a d m in istra tiv e sk ill influence o v e r sta ff g ro u p s (15) Staff u n it p e rfo rm a n c e of (15) Staff u n it planning sk ill c o o rd in a tiv e -c o n tro l functions (16) Staff u n it su c c e s s in se cu rin g (16) Staff p ro fe s s io n a ls ' u n d e r co m p lian ce standing of sta ff u n it p ro b le m s and n eed s (17) Staff unit involvem ent in s e r v ice v s. c o n tro l functions (18) E xtent to w hich is s u e s a re re s o lv e d in fa v o r of c lie n ts (or staff units) (19) E x ten t of sta ff p ro fe s s io n a ls ' influence o v e r staff u n its (20) Staff u n it o rie n ta tio n to d e p a rt m en t r a th e r than to sk ills 3. F a c to rs lis te d in d escending o rd e r of siz e of c o efficien ts of c o rre la tio n w ith fric tio n . A t the sa m e tim e , it m u st be rec o g n ize d th a t th e high p ro p o rtio n of the tw en ty -six fa c to rs o r v a ria b le s w hich w e re found to be sig n ifican tly re la te d to fric tio n is a function, in p a rt, of the in terd ep en d en t n a tu re of som e of the m ea s u re s em ployed. T hat is , the s o -c a lle d independent v a ria b le s c le a rly w ere not, in a ll c a s e s , independent of each o th e r. On th e o re tic a l g ro u n d s it is often 132 to be expected that a se t of m e a su re s p resu m ed to be re la te d to a specific de pendent v a ria b le w ill exhibit a m o d erate d eg ree of c o rre la tio n . However, the in te rc o rre la tio n s betw een som e of the m e a su re s used in th is study a re suffi ciently high as to indicate that they a re tapping a com m on underlying dim en sion o r th at they a re a ltern a tiv e m e a su re s of the sam e dim ension. T his w as not unexpected in a f irs t, exploratory study of th is kind, nor was it accidental in all c a se s. A s noted e a r lie r in the study, it w as a n tici pated that item s c o n stru cted to m e a su re v a rio u s a sp ec ts of perfo rm an ce would be highly in te rre la te d sim ply by v irtu e of the fac t th at they w ere a ll m easu rin g a com m on underlying dim ension — p erfo rm an ce. T h is p ro ced u re w as, in fact, co n sid ered to be d e sira b le fo r a t le a s t two re a so n s. To begin with, use of m ultiple m e a su re s of p erfo rm an ce, i.e . , of d ifferen t com ponents o r a sp ec ts of p erform ance, h a s the advantage of providing m o re inform ation, thus m o re knowledge and understanding, than a single sum m ary perfo rm an ce m easu re. In creased knowledge and understanding, presum ably a m ajo r aim of re s e a rc h , is th ere fo re a ju stificatio n in itself. A second, alb eit rela te d , rea so n is that if re s e a rc h findings a re to be useful and in fact utilized, m ultiple a s opposed to single m e a su re s can provide m ore action inform ation relev an t to change and im provem ent. C onsider, for exam ple, a m anager inform ed th at p erfo rm an ce h as an im pact on re la tio n s b e tween groups and that, in the eyes of top m anagem ent o r of c u sto m er groups, h is d e p a rtm e n t's o v erall p erfo rm an ce ran k s in the m iddle o r low er th ird of a group of dep artm en ts. T hat m uch inform ation h a s lim ited value in telling the 133 m an ag er what specific kinds of things m ight be done in o rd e r to im prove p e r fo rm an ce. C om pare th is with the situation in which the m an ag er can le a rn that ra p id ity of re sp o n se , c la rity of tra n s m iss io n o r com m unication of knowledge, and o th e r specific a sp e c ts of p e rfo rm an c e have an effect on in terg ro u p r e la tions, and w here the m an ag er can a lso le a rn how h is d ep artm en t stan d s r e la tive to o th er d e p artm e n ts on th ese dim ensions. The im p licatio n s fo r action to im prove p e rfo rm an c e would seem to be ap p reciab ly augm ented by additional in form ation pro v id ed in the la tte r situation. The point to be s tre s s e d is th at overlapping m e a s u re s of a b asic condi tion o r dim ension a re not p e r se u n d e sirab le, e ith e r fro m the standpoint of re s e a rc h designed to enhance u n derstanding o r fro m the standpoint of deriving im p licatio n s fo r application in re a l-life situ atio n s. Having said th is, a few additional com m ents about in te rre la te d n e s s of the independent v a ria b le s a re w orthw hile. The high in te rc o rre la tio n s am ong som e of the p e rfo rm an c e m e a su re s have beep s tre s s e d . In the in te rac tio n categ o ry , the in te r c o r re la tio n s w ere few er and co n sid erab ly low er in both sta ff-lin e and s ta ff-s ta ff data, indicating th at th ese m e a su re s w ere re la tiv e ly independent of each o th er. In the staff u n it c h a ra c te ris tic s categ o ry , m any individual fa c to rs w ere highly in te rc o r re la te d . T h is w as probably due to the fa c t th at m any of th ese ite m s w ere conceived to d eal with underlying q u a litie s o r a ttrib u te s which w ere likely to be m o re diffuse in n a tu re than m o re specific in te ra c tio n fa c to rs. 134 It could be expected, for exam ple, that the q u alities of flexibility and adapt ability would be highly re la te d to each o th er, since it w as assum ed that they w ere likely to be tapping a sp ects of a com m on underlying dim ension. The flexibility and adaptability v a ria b le s re p re se n te d , conceptually and by intent, broad sum m ary m e a su re s of a quality which m ay find ex p ressio n in a num ber of a sp ects of behavior, p erfo rm an ce, o r o th er p erceiv ed c h a ra c te ris tic s of groups. T h erefo re, those two v a ria b le s could be expected to be ra th e r highly re la te d to o th er fa c to rs included in th is study. Again, th is w as not co n sid ered to be disadvantageous, since the net re s u lt was to provide m ore inform ation than is usually available about c o rre la te s of frictio n betw een staff and client groups in organizations. Indeed, to take the flexibility v a ria b le again a s an exam ple, it could be considered that o th er fa c to rs highly c o rre la te d with flexibility help to define the n atu re and m ultiple dim ensions of flexibility as a v a ria b le co n stru ct. However th is m ay be, an exhaustive exam ination and rep o rtin g of in te rre la tionships betw een all v a ria b le s fo r both se ts of data would re q u ire m uch m ore space than is w arranted, given the m ajo r aim of the study, which was to identify, in tentative and exploratory fashion, kinds of fa c to rs a sso ciated with frictio n betw een staff groups and th e ir c lien ts in an organization. Having said th is, the next task is to set forth conclusions draw n from th is study, p a rtic u la rly from findings re p o rte d in th is ch ap ter. T hat task is undertaken next. 135 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Having re p o rte d in som e d etail the findings d eriv ed from a n aly sis of data, the final ta sk s a re to su m m arize m ajo r learn in g s fro m the study, draw conclusions th ere fro m , and attem pt to m ake an o v erall a sse ssm e n t of the stu d y 's contribution. In approaching th ese ta sk s, it is useful to co n sid er potential lim itatio n s of the study not h e re to fo re d ealt with specifically. In p a rtic u la r, it is d e sira b le to m ake som e clarify in g com m ents about causal im putations o r assum ptions reg ard in g the data and findings, as w ell as the gen eralizab ility of findings beyond th is single study. The second m ajo r section of the ch ap ter c o n sid e rs the study1 s c o n tri butions to in c re a se d knowledge and understanding g en erally , and its u tiliz - ability a s a source of inform ation for effecting change and im provem ent in re la tio n s betw een staff units and th e ir clien ts. C ausal A ssum ptions The question of cau sality , o r its im putation, is often a difficult one to deal with in quantitative re s e a rc h designed to te s t hypothesized relatio n sh ip s betw een v a ria b le s. Even language borrow ed from the controlled ex p erim en ts of "h a rd sc ien c es" — fo r exam ple, the labelling of v a ria b le s as "independent" and "dependent" — w hile useful fo r th eo re tic al o r conceptual p u rp o ses in a 136 study such as th is, m ay im ply m o re than the re s e a rc h e r w ishes to claim about cau sality and cau sal d irectio n . So fa r as the p re s e n t study is concerned, it m u st be recognized that re g a rd le s s of language em ployed, rela tio n sh ip s d em o n strated by m eans of c o r rela tio n a l m ethods cannot, generally, be taken as evidence of causal connec tions betw een v a ria b le s. * One cannot say with a ssu ra n ce that facto r A caused fac to r B, o r the re v e rs e , sim ply on the b a sis of a strong relatio n sh ip , i. e. , a high c o rre la tio n coefficient, betw een the two. N ev erth eless, it is not uncom m on in studies using sim ila r analysis m ethods and techniques to assum e cau sal linkages, and m o re p a rtic u la rly , cau sal directio n ality , although th is assum ption m ay not alw ays be form ally 2 stated. W here such assum ptions a re m ade, they a re usually based, explic itly o r im plicitly, on p e rsu asiv e th eo retical grounds o r logic ra th e r than solely on sta tistic a l rela tio n sh ip s shown to e x ist at one point in tim e. In the p re se n t study, it is not po ssib le to offer conclusive proof of The qualification "g en erally " is used advisedly. See H ubert M. B lalock, Social S tatistics (New York: M cG raw -H ill Book Com pany, I n c ., 1960), pp. 337-393, fo r exceptions to th is g en eralizatio n . A lso, G eorge F. F a rr is , "A C ausal A nalysis of Scientific P erfo rm an ce. " Unpublished Ph. D. d isse rta tio n , The U niversity of M ichigan, 1966, 156 p p ., is a study in which tim e -la gged c o rre la tio n s a re used to te s t cau sal d irectio n on the p re m ise that an effect cannot p reced e its cause in tim e. 2 F o r exam ples w here the assum ption is stated o r the choice is c le arly left to the re a d e r, see David G. B ow ers and Stanley E . S eashore, "P red ictin g O rganizational E ffectiveness with a F o u r-F a c to r Theory of L e a d e rsh ip ," A dm inistrative Science Q u a rte rly , XI (Septem ber, 1966), 238-262. Also R en sis L ik ert, New P a tte rn s of M anagem ent (New York: M cG raw -H ill Book C o ., I n c ., 1961), especially pp. 196-203. 137 cau sa l connections, even though th e re m ay be stro n g th e o re tic a l o r logical p resu m p tio n s in favor of c a u sa l in te rp re ta tio n s of the rela tio n sh ip betw een fric tio n and one o r another of the independent v a ria b le s. C onsidering the v e ry com plex s e t of in te rre la tio n sh ip s betw een v a ria b le s in th is study, the re a lity is likely to be th at in som e c a s e s the c a u se -e ffe c t rela tio n sh ip is two-way: fa c to r A is a p a rtia l cau se of fa c to r B, and fa c to r B is a lso a p a rtia l cau se of fa c to r A. F o r exam ple, g re a te r understanding of o th e rs ' p ro b lem s m ay lead to le s s fric tio n , but le s s fric tio n m ay also lead to g re a te r understanding. M oreover, th e re m ay even be in sta n c e s w here the dependent v a ria b le is , in re a lity , a fa c to r causing v a ria n c e in one o r m o re of the o th e r v a ria b le s in the study. In C hapter IV, fo r exam ple, in the d isc u ssio n of the sta ff-sta ff data, the high coefficient of c o rre la tio n (-. 90) betw een fric tio n and a staff u n it's su c c e ss in secu rin g com pliance w ith its policy d ire c tiv e s w as pointed out, and it w as suggested th at the cau sa l d irec tio n in th is in stan ce m ight w ell ru n from the dependent to the independent v a ria b le — i. e . , th at le s s fric tio n re su lte d in g re a te r su c c e ss in secu rin g com pliance. T his in te rp re ta tio n ap p eared to be a t le a s t a s p lau sib le a s the re v e r s e one, which would sta te th at g re a te r su c c e ss re su lte d in le s s frictio n . The point of th is is sim ply th a t cau satio n cannot be d em o n strated con clusively fo r the re la tio n sh ip s d isco v ered in th is study. Although th is fac t m ight be in te rp re te d a s a lim itatio n of the study, it should be kept in m ind that few re s e a rc h e ffo rts in the social sc ie n c e s have succeeded in a rriv in g at scien tific proof of c au sa lity o r c a u sa l d irec tio n , and th is study had no 138 p reten tio n s in that re g a rd . Instead it w as conceived and designed to accom p lish the le s s am bitious purpose of testin g the proposition that lev els of f r ic tion betw een staff u n its and o th er organizational groups m ight be shown to be strongly asso ciated with staff unit d ifferen ces on a v a rie ty of p erfo rm an ce, in teractio n , and unit c h a ra c te ristic fa c to rs. The realm of rela tio n s betw een staff and o th er groups is one which h as been little exploited by quantitative re s e a rc h designed to m ea su re rela tio n sh ip s, and the operating assum ption was that findings from a p re lim in a ry , explorato ry investigation such as this could be useful as a b a sis fo r fu rth e r conceptual developm ent and testin g in o th er site s. In addition, it w as believed th at estab lish in g the ex istence of such r e lationships, re g a rd le ss of com plex cau sal interconnections, could have p ra g m atic value fo r the p ra c titio n e r, organizational diagnostician, o r change agent seeking sy stem atic inform ation to a s s is t in dealing with p ro b lem s of staff-lin e rela tio n s. T his consideration is taken up in m o re detail la te r in (he chapter. G eneralizability of the Study In C hapter I of th is study, re se rv a tio n s w ere e x p re ssed re la tiv e to the tendency in the lite ra tu re to o v e r-g e n e ra liz e about staff-lin e frictio n and its cau ses. Q uite often, it appeared, g en eralizatio n s about staff-lin e frictio n w ere based e ith e r on observation of a very sm all num ber of staff units, p e r haps no m ore than two o r th ree; on observation of a v ery lim ited range of types of u n its, often only a single type; a n d /o r on theorizing based on the 139 concept of a single m odel of staff functions o r ro le s . Having questioned th is tendency in o th e r w ritin g s, it is a p p ro p ria te to ra is e the sam e question in re g a rd to the p re s e n t study. T hat is , how m ight one a s s e s s the g en eraliza b ility of th is study beyond the single c a se of the o rg a nization in which the re s e a rc h w as c a rr ie d o u t? C o nsidering f ir s t som e potential lim itin g a sp e c ts, it m u st be re c o g nized th at the staff u n its studied w ere not in clu siv e of a ll p o ssib le types of staff functions, sk ills, o r ro le s which m ay be found in the w orld of o rg a n iz a tio n s. The u n its studied did not include, fo r exam ple, what a re so m etim es re f e rr e d to a s g e n e ra l staff o ffic e rs — those who a re not functional sp e c ia l is ts but ra th e r g e n e ra list a d v iso rs o r a s s is ta n ts to the m anagem ent of a firm . M issing also w ere the highly p ro fessio n alize d , high sta tu s groups such as m edical sta ffs, leg al d e p a rtm e n ts, o r r e s e a rc h groups such a s eco n o m ists o r m ark e t a n aly sts, o r sc ie n tis ts and en g in e ers engaged in p ro d u ct re s e a rc h o r testin g . P e rh a p s o th er types of sta ff functions o r groupings could be nam ed w hich a re not re p re se n te d in the p re s e n t study, but it is enough to say th at the u n its studied cannot be claim ed to re p re s e n t ev ery conceivable v a rie ty of staff sp ecialty o r function. It is p o ssib le, then, to contend th a t findings of the study m ight not n e c e ssa rily be g e n eraliza b le to all types of staff u n its n o r to a wide range of sta ff-lin e co n flict situ atio n s. P e rh a p s a potentially m o re se rio u s lim itatio n is th at no m a tte r how m any u n its a n d /o r types of u n its w ere co v ered , the p re s e n t re s e a rc h w as 140 c a rrie d out w ithin a single governm ental organization. A m ore p e rsu asiv e c a se could be m ade, p erh ap s, fo r the findings from a study which sam pled sta ff-c lie n t frictio n a c ro ss m any organizations. In th is sense, the p re se n t study re p re se n ts another case study of the kind p rev alen t in m uch re s e a rc h on o rganizations, and th is m ay be co n sid ered to be a c o n stra in t on the g en erality of the findings. On the o th er hand, it is tru e that in c o n tra st to o th er studies, th is one had as its ta rg e ts an unusually larg e num ber of se p ara te staff u n its (twenty- five), rep re se n tin g a v a rie ty of functional types. In th is la tte r re g a rd , if the / Pfiffner-Sherw ood c la ssific a tio n of staff agencies into g en eral, technical, coordinative, and auxiliary types is used a s a distinguishing c rite rio n , the units in th is study exem plify all but the p u re g en eral type, and even h e re som e of the u n its studied did com bine coordinative functions with the o v erall policy, planning, and advisory a c tiv itie s em b raced by the g en eral staff agency type. In re a lity , the functional types which w ere the ta rg e ts of th is re s e a rc h re p r e sented m o st of those com m only found in la rg e -sc a le organizations, and on th is b a sis, the study w as m ore broadly b ased than m o st of those rep o rte d in the lite ra tu re . T his stren g th en s its claim to g re a te r g en eralizab ility than those studies. A nother point w orth m aking reg ard in g the findings of th is study is that they a re reasonably congruent, at the in te r-u n it o r in terg ro u p level, with findings from behavioral re s e a rc h studies of w ork groups, and these la tte r studies have spanned a wide range of organizations and organizational types. 141 T hese points of congruence offer additional support fo r the belief th at the p re se n t re s e a rc h h a s produced d ata and findings g en eralizab le beyond the boundaries of the single organization encom passed by it. On balance, then, the potential lim itatio n s on the g en erality of the find ings rep o rte d h e re in a re believed to be le ss strin g en t than they m ight appear at f ir s t glance. T his is not to argue, how ever, that it would not be useful to te s t th is conclusion by rep licatin g the p re se n t study in other organizational site s in o rd e r to provide confirm ing o r belying evidence. The concepts and hypotheses of th is study m ight be gen eralized , a s w ell, to situations w here the p a rtie s to an in te r-u n it relatio n sh ip a re , none of them , staff groups, in o rd e r to te s t the applicability of the findings to in tergroup re la tio n s in g en eral. C ontributions of the Study T urning now to the contributions of th is re s e a rc h , it should be noted f ir s t that two p rin cip al m otivations guided th is study, and these m ight be d e scrib ed v ery sim ply as a d e sire to know and a need to know m ore about an im portant problem a re a in organizations. A ctually, the two a re closely in te r related . In the f ir s t instance, sta ff-c lie n t frictio n is c le arly an im p o rtan t o rg a nizational problem , as w itness its ubiquity and re sista n c e to solution, both of which se rv e to g en erate in tellectu al cu rio sity and to challenge the student of organizations to attem pt to understand b e tte r th is v ery knotty phenom enon of organizational life. F ro m a p urely sch o larly standpoint, the potential payoff 142 fo r productive re s e a rc h into sta ff-c lie n t p ro b lem s is an addition to available knowledge. The d e s ire to know fo r its own sake is thus a m otivating fo rce . At the sam e tim e, the p e rs is te n c e and o m n ip resen ce of the problem su g g est th at e x istin g knowledge h a s not been adequate to the ta s k of reso lv in g it, and if re a l im provem ent in sta ff-c lie n t re la tio n s is to be achieved, it is e sse n tia l to know and u n d erstan d m o re about the b a se s of fric tio n and fa c to rs which w ork to in c re a s e o r red u ce it. The in tro d u cto ry p a ra g ra p h s of th is study introduced the view that the usual explanations of sta ff-c lie n t conflict a re deficient in se v e ra l w ays, not the le a s t of which is th e ir inability to p ro vide inform ation of a kind which can re a d ily be put to u se to b rin g change and im provem ent in sta ff-c lie n t re la tio n s. T hus new in c re m e n ts of u sab le know ledge a re a re q u ire d antecedent of action to red u ce sta ff-c lie n t fric tio n in o rg an izatio n s. In the context of th ese two m otivating objectives, how m ight one a s s e s s the p re s e n t study ? To what extent h as it co n trib u ted additional knowledge about sta ff-c lie n t re la tio n s, and to what extent do th ese lea rn in g s have poten tia l fo r use in o rg an izatio n s to red u ce fric tio n betw een staff groups and th e ir o rg an izatio n al c lie n ts ? T aking up the question of additions to knowledge and understanding f ir s t, it w ill be re c a lle d th at an in itia l assum ption of the study w as that f r ic tion with c lie n ts is not equally d istrib u te d am ong a ll staff u n its, but ra th e r that fric tio n can be expected to v a ry significantly in the c a se of d ifferen t staff u n its. The study bo re out th is sim ple but b asic pro p o sitio n , fo r a n a ly se s of 143 v a ria n c e of staff unit m ean s c o re s on the fric tio n m e a su re showed that, staff u n its did in fac t d iffer significantly with re s p e c t to th is m e a su re . If, then, a ll staff u n its did not ex p erien ce s im ila r le v e ls of frictio n w ith th e ir c lie n ts, w hat is it th at d istin g u ish es high fric tio n u n its fro m low fric tio n o n e s? To the extent th at the lite ra tu re c o n sid ered such d ifferen tia tio n s, th e re w as som e suggestion that the d ifferen c e s m ight be due to types of un its o r, m o re p re c ise ly , ty p es of functions p e rfo rm e d by d ifferen t u n its. In d elineating ty p es of functions, som e w rite rs re s o rte d to grouping staff agen c ie s into those p erfo rm in g p rim a rily g e n e ra l staff functions (policy, planning, and advisory a ctiv ities); tech n ical s e rv ic e s; coordinative functions; and auxil ia ry (housekeeping) a c tiv itie s. A nalysis of d ata from the p re s e n t study indi cated no c o n sisten t and o v e r-rid in g p a tte rn of d ifferen c e s betw een groupings of th is kind. Both high and low fric tio n units a re found am ong units p erfo rm in g a u x iliary functions, and the sam e w as tru e of u n its p e rfo rm in g p rim a rily co o rdinative o r tech n ical functions. To push th is p a rtic u la r a n aly sis fu rth e r, the groupings d e scrib e d above w ere, in effect, co llap sed into two b ro ad types on the b a sis of w hether they w ere d e sc rib e d by o th e rs a s being m o re involved in (a) developing con tro ls o r (b) providing advice and se rv ic e . The lite ra tu re h as frequently sug g e sted th at staff agencies engaged in e x e rc isin g coordination o r co n tro l over o th er o rg an izatio n u n its a re likely to ex p erien ce m o re fric tio n than those engaged in m o re stric tly ad visory o r se rv ice -p ro v id in g a c tiv itie s. U sing co n tro l vs. se rv ic e a s the b a s is of a type d ifferen tiatio n , th e re 144 w ere again d ifferen c e s in staff unit fric tio n s c o re s which could not be ex plained as a re s u lt of th is c la ssific a tio n . F o r in stan ce, it m ight have been p re d ic te d that th e c e n tra l budget office of the d e p artm en t studied would, by the n a tu re of its function — c o n tro l over the budgetary su b m issio n s of all o rg an i zational u n its — be ra te d high on c o n tro l and high on the am ount of fric tio n it ex p erien ced with its c lie n ts. The d ata showed th a t the c e n tra l budget office w as, in fact, ran k ed by the p ro g ram b u rea u s a s fourth h ig h est am ong the tw enty-five un its in the extent of its involvem ent in developing c o n tro ls. Staff group p ro fe ssio n a ls co rresp o n d in g ly ran k ed it fifth h ig h est. At the sam e tim e, how ever, the budget office w as am ong the seven o r eight un its ra te d a s e x p e ri encing the le a s t fric tio n with o th er units. In c o n tra st, the o rg an izatio n and m ethods (O&M) unit w as ran k ed by all resp o n d en ts a s being am ong the top th re e so fa r as c o n tro l o rien tatio n w as concerned, and it w as a lso ranked a t o r n e a r the top of the tw enty-five u n its in the am ount of fric tio n it ex p erien ced with o th e r g ro u p s. Again, som e of the predom inantly se rv ic e u n its in the study proved, unexpectedly, to be high fric tio n units. In sh o rt, although o v e ra ll th e re w as a sig n ifican t s ta tis tic a l re la tio n ship betw een c o n tro l o rien tatio n and am ount of fric tio n , th e re w ere notable exceptions which indicated th at type of function, defined in te rm s of se rv ic e vs. co n tro l, w as by no m ea n s the only o r the m o st im p o rtan t fa c to r so fa r as fric tio n betw een staff u n its and o th e r groups w as concerned. In the c a se of sta ff-sta ff re la tio n s, the c o n tro l o rien tatio n v a ria b le could account fo r only 145 30 p e rc en t of the v a ria n ce in frictio n , and in the sta ff-lin e c a se , it could account fo r at m o st 41 p e rc en t. The c a s e s of individual staff units which devi ated m arkedly from th is relatio n sh ip supported the view th at fa c to rs in addi tion to the se rv ic e -c o n tro l typology m ade significant d ifferen ces in sta ff-c lie n t frictio n . Obviously, the foregoing ste p s in the a n aly sis produced lim ited in c re m ental knowledge and understanding of sta ff-c lie n t re la tio n s. They re p r e sented, ra th e r, te s ts of som e g en eral hypotheses gleaned fro m the lite ra tu re . They w ere n e c e ssa ry f ir s t step s, how ever, fo r if staff u n its had not differed in lev e ls of frictio n , o r if they had and type of unit could be shown to be an adequate explanation for the different lev els, it would have been u n n ecessary to continue the se a rc h fo r m o re inform ation a s to what o th er fa c to rs d istin guish high from low frictio n staff units. A dditions to Knowledge: F a c to rs R elated to F ric tio n C hapter n d escrib ed in detail the substantive content and conceptual deriv atio n s of tw enty-six fa c to rs which w ere hypothesized to be re la te d to frictio n . Many of those fa c to rs w ere ones which o rd in arily have not been identified in d isc u ssio n s of the b a ses of sta ff-c lie n t conflict, and thus the p rin cipal substantive contribution of th is study to in c re a se d knowledge o r u n d er standing lie s in the dem onstration th at som e of th ese fa c to rs w ere, in fact, a sso ciated with h ig h er o r low er lev els of sta ff-c lie n t fric tio n in the o rg an iza tion studied. F o r the tw enty-five staff units which w ere the ta rg e ts fo r th is 146 study, it w as p o ssib le to d e sc rib e and d istinguish high fric tio n and low fric tio n u n its m o re p re c ise ly and m o re extensively than would have been p o ssib le on the b a sis of p rev io u s knowledge. B efore review ing the in cre m e n tal d e s c rip tive knowledge re p re se n te d in th ese findings, one o th er addition to knowledge of sta ff-c lie n t fric tio n should be reem p h asized . H ereto fo re, stu d ies of sta ff-c lie n t re la tio n s have d ealt exclusively with the sta ff-lin e a sp ect, and the re s e a r c h e r w as h a rd put to find any re fe re n c e s in the lite ra tu re to re la tio n s betw een staff groups th em selv es. In c o n tra st, th is study w as designed to p robe both the sta ff-lin e and sta ff-sta ff dim ensions and to co m p are the two. The re s u lts tended to v erify the h ypothesis that p ro b le m s a sso c ia te d with the e x e rc is e of staff functions in o rg an izatio n s a re not due solely to the p e c u lia r and p e rh a p s ill-d efin e d o rg an izatio n al re la tio n sh ip s of staff to line. Even when staff u n its re la te to one another, frictio n e n su es, and the p re s e n t study showed th a t frictio n in th is rela tio n sh ip w as a sso c iated with m o st of the sam e fa c to rs which w ere re la te d to sta ff-lin e frictio n . Thus the tra d itio n a l view th at sta ff-c lie n t conflict ste m s fro m poor a rticu la tio n of staff with line functions in an o rganization is seen to be too n arro w and, in its g e n erality , to o b scu re the op eratio n of o th er fa c to rs which a re im p o rtan t in in terg ro u p rela tio n sh ip s. It m ay w ell be th at fa c to rs im p o rtan t in any in te r group situation, w hether involving staff o r not, a re a lso the m o re im p o rtan t ones in the sta ff-c lie n t context. A side fro m the above, w hat added le a rn in g s have been g en erated fro m th is study, o r how h a s p rev io u s understanding been sharpened and pinpointed? 147 In c o n tra s t to p rev io u s stu d ies which have given p rim a ry em p h asis to d iffe r en ces in individual c h a ra c te ris tic s o r to am b ig u ities of the staff ro le in o rg a n izatio n s, the findings of th is study showed a g re e m e n t am ong both staff and line c lie n t groups that low fric tio n staff u n its w ere m o re p ro fic ie n t along se v e ra l dim ensions of p erfo rm an ce. S pecifically, th ese u n its could be d e s c rib e d as: Doing a b e tte r job, w hether in the p e rfo rm an c e of se rv ic e - support o r co o rd in a tiv e -c o n tro l a ctiv itie s; R esponding m o re rap id ly to re q u e s ts fo r a ssista n c e of a se rv ic e -s u p p o rt n atu re; Being m o re su ccessfu l in secu rin g com pliance w ith the p o li c ie s and sta n d a rd s which they fo rm u lated and im plem ented. Thus it ap p eared th at no m a tte r what types of functions w ere p e r form ed, w hether of a se rv ic e o r a control n a tu re , if the functions w ere p e r form ed w ell in the eyes of o th e rs, le s s fric tio n w as likely to be found in r e la tions betw een staff and c lie n ts. A dditionally the study show ed th at a sp e c ts of how staff u n its in te rre la te with o th e r groups ai;e im portantly re la te d to frictio n . Low fric tio n u n its w ere those which: U nderstood b e tte r the w ork p ro b lem s and needs of c lien ts; T rea te d c lie n ts in a c o n sid era te m an n er; W ere m o re open to influence by th e ir c lie n ts. Finally, th e re w as ag reem en t am ong both line and staff c lie n ts that low fric tio n staff u n its w ere: 148 M ore efficien t in the u se of re s o u rc e s ; M ore adaptable to changes; M ore flexible in the face of unexpected events; T echnically m o re com petent; M ore com petent in the a d m in istra tiv e sphere; B e tte r able to co o rd in ate with o th et staff units; M ore adept at planning th e ir a c tiv itie s w ell; B e tte r coo rd in ated in te rn ally a s fa r a s unit goals and o b jectiv es w ere concerned; O riented m o re tow ard se rv ic e than tow ard co n tro l ac tiv itie s. At the sam e tim e, the findings m ade c le a r th a t th e re w ere a few dif fe re n c e s betw een staff and line c lie n ts in re g a rd to som e of the fa c to rs includ ed in the study. Line c lie n ts, fo r exam ple, p e rc eiv e d low fric tio n u n its as e x e rc isin g am ounts of influence a p p ro p ria te to th e ir functions, w hile staff c lie n ts m ade no d istin ctio n betw een high and low frictio n u n its in th is re g a rd . A lso, staff c lie n ts additionally d e sc rib e d low fric tio n staff u n its as: Developing c le a r e r p o lic ies and sta n d ard s fo r guidance of clien ts; Having a g re a te r in te re s t in serv in g the d e p artm e n t than in p ra c tic in g th e ir sp e c ia ltie s. Staff u n its also fe lt th at they, th em se lv e s, had m o re understanding of the w ork p ro b lem s and needs of low fric tio n staff u n its, and they fu rth e r felt th at the low fric tio n u n its le s s often "won the d e cisio n s” when is s u e s o r 149 d isa g re e m e n ts a ro s e betw een staff g ro u p s and th e ir c lie n ts. Since it is probably m o re im p o rtan t to know w hat fa c to rs w ere a s s o c i ated with fric tio n than to know which ones w ere not, the la tte r a re not sum m a riz e d h e re . They can be a sc e rta in e d by a rev iew of C hapter IV. U tilizab ility of Findings: the A ction Im plications If the a b o v e-su m m arize d findings do indeed re p re s e n t additions to g e n eral knowledge about sta ff-c lie n t fric tio n , to w hat extent a re they also of p o ten tial use in the red u ctio n of fric tio n ? The a n sw e rs to th is question a re both g e n eral and sp ecific. In the g e n e ra l categ o ry , it is w orthw hile to con sid e r a point which h a s not been s tre s s e d thus fa r, nam ely, that although th e re w as extensive a g re em e n t betw een staff and line c lie n ts in re g a rd to which fa c to rs seem ed to m ake a differen ce in the am ount of frictio n , th ese two s e ts of c lie n ts w ere not in p e rfe c t ag re em e n t as to which of the ta rg e t staff u n its ranked high o r low on each of the fa c to rs re la te d to frictio n . O verall th e re w as sta tistic a lly significant a g reem en t, but it w as n ev er p e rfe c t, and in a few in stan c es, th e re w as a lm o st no ag reem en t. In addition, the evaluations o ffered by individual line and staff resp o n d en ts v a rie d to som e extent. The point to be m ade in th is re g a rd is th at the good o v e ra ll ag reem en t obtained in th e study should not be allow ed to o b sc u re the fact th at differen t individuals and d ifferen t groups ex p erien ced v a rio u s a sp e c ts of th e ir re la tio n s w ith the ta rg e t staff u n its d ifferen tially . A given staff unit, fo r exam ple, w as not n e c e ssa rily alw ays p e rc eiv e d 150 by both line and staff ev alu ato rs, o r by all m em b ers of e ith e r group of evalu a to rs, to be lacking in co n sid eratio n of o th ers. The data th em selv es cannot explain why th e re w ere such d ifferen ces in any p a rtic u la r case , but the re a so n fo r s tre ssin g the point is that it suggests th at b eh av io rs (or fo r that m a tte r, o th e rs' p ercep tio n s and expectations) a re not im m utably fixed and th ere fo re that change and im provem ent a re p o ssib le. It re in fo rc e s the belief, also , that the kinds of fa c to rs d em o n strated to be im portantly re la te d to frictio n in th is study a re of a kind which a re a cc essib le to m anipulation and change in o rd e r to im prove re la tio n s betw een staff u n its and th e ir clien ts. Moving now to m o re specific co n sid eratio n s, it is believed that the learn in g s from th is study have co n sid erab le potential for application in the re a l w orld of the organizational m anager, the in-house change agent, o r the outside consultant called upon to find rem e d ie s fo r sta ff-c lie n t ills. In p a r tic u la r, the findings help to pinpoint specific a sp ects of perfo rm an ce and in te r actional b ehaviors, a s w ell as attitudes and p ercep tio n s, which seem much m o re susceptible to d ire c t confrontation and change than a re the m o re usual explanations b ased on th eo re tic al conceptions of how the staff ro le ought to fit within b u rea u cra tic o rganizations, o r the h ard -to -ch an g e individual d iffer en ces in age, education, c a r e e r o rientation, etc. , which have been held out a s the b a sis of frictio n betw een line and staff. Thus, fo r instance, the staff unit m an ag er bent on im proving re la tio n s with h is c lie n ts could conclude, on the b a sis of th is study, th at h is u n it's co- ordinative or control re sp o n sib ilitie s do not p e r se d e cree th at it m ust 151 experience high levels of frictio n with clien t groups, even though a stro n g con tro l o rien tatio n m ay be a fac to r to be reckoned with. He m ay, instead, find it fruitful to explore a sp e c ts of h is u n it's p erfo rm an ce as h is clien ts experience and p e rceiv e it. He m ay also co n sid er the extent to which h is u n it's perso n n el re a lly understand clien t p ro b lem s and the d egree to which h is unit could im prove w orking re la tio n s by being open and recep tiv e to c lie n t's view s of th e ir own needs and how b e st they m ay -carry out th e ir p a rtic u la r m issio n s and contributions to the o rg an iz atio n 's achievem ent of its o v erall goals. The staff m anager m ight tu rn h is attention, as w ell, to potential weak n e sse s in coordination of h is u n it's a ctiv itie s with those of o th er functionally- re la te d units. T hese a re only a few exam ples of how the findings of th is study m ight be used to in stru c t the p ro c e ss of attem pting to im prove re la tio n s and iro n out trouble spots betw een staff groups and th e ir c lien ts. W hether the p ro b lem s a re based in re a lity o r re s u lt from m isp ercep tio n s, m isu n d er standings, o r failu re to com m unicate freely and fully, the findings of th is study provide som e "h a n d le s," som e specific a sp ec ts of behavior o r p e rc e p tions which can be focussed upon and which a re am enable to change and im provem ent. T his, it m ay be said, is a useful contribution of th is study. C onclusion To sum up the re s u lts of th is re s e a rc h in v ery b rie f and stra ig h t forw ard fashion, the findings of the study, view ed a s a totality, indicated that sta ff-c lie n t frictio n involved a com plex system of in ter-co n n ected fa c to rs and 152 re la tio n sh ip s, m any of which a re not d ealt w ith a t all o r e lse a re o b sc u red by the o v e r-g e n e ra lity and lim ite d applicability of m o st explanations in the lite r a tu re . It is believ ed th at the findings co n trib u te to e x istin g knowledge of fac to r s which m ake a d ifferen ce in sta ff-c lie n t re la tio n s, and th at they a re also useful in specifying p o ten tial a re a s for change and im provem ent w ithin the re a c h of o rg an izatio n al m a n a g e rs o r change agents. In th is la tte r re g a rd , it m ight be said th at u tilizatio n of the findings fro m th is study to b rin g change need not aw ait com plete cognitive understanding of the com plex in te rre la tio n ships betw een a ll of the fa c to rs d em o n strated to be re la te d to fric tio n . Indeed, m anipulation of som e o r a ll of th ese fa c to rs in the attem p t to induce change and im p ro v em en t in sta ff-c lie n t re la tio n s m ight help to u n rav el som e of the in te rre la tio n sh ip s, or a t le a s t to suggest som e of the sp ecificatio n s of a m odel fo r fu rth e r study of cau sal linkages and d ire c tio n s. 153 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books B lalock, H ubert M. , J r . C ausal In feren ces in N onexperim ental R e s e a rc h . C hapel Hill: The U niversity of N orth C aro lin a P r e s s , 1964. B lalock, H ubert M. , J r . Social S ta tis tic s . New Y ork: M cG raw -H ill Book Co. , Inc. , 1960. Blau, P e te r, and Scott, W. R. F o rm a l O rg an izatio n s. San F ra n cisco : C handler P ublishing C o ., 1962. Brown, W ilfred. E x p lo ratio n s in M anagem ent. T oronto: H einem ann, 1960. Dale, E rn e st. P lanning and D eveloping the Company O rganization S tru c tu re . R e se a rc h R ep o rt No. 20. New Y ork: A m erican M anagem ent A sso c i ation, 1952. Dalton, M elville. Men Who M anage. New Y ork: W iley, 1959. Dill, W. R. "B u sin e ss O rganizations, " in M arch, J . G. (e d .), Handbook of O rg an izatio n s. Chicago: R and-M cN ally, 1965. — Dim ock, M arsh all E. The E xecutive in A ction. New Y ork: H a rp e r & B ro th e rs, 1945. Dim ock, M arshall E . , and Dim ock, G ladys O. Public A d m in istratio n . New Y ork: Holt, R in eh a rt and W inston, Inc. , 1964. D rucker, P e te r F. The P ra c tic e of M anagem ent. New Y ork: H a rp e r & B ro th e rs, 1954. E dw ards, A llen L. S ta tistica l M ethods fo r the B ehavioral S cien ces. New Y ork: R in eh ard & Co. { 1954. E tzioni, A m itai. M odern O rg an izatio n s. Englewood C liffs, N. J. : P re n tic e - H all, Inc. , 1964. H om ans, G eorge C. The Hum an G roup. New Y ork: H a rco u rt, B race & W orld, 1950. 154 Koontz, H arold, and O'Donnel, C y ril. P rin c ip le s of M anagem ent. New York: M cG raw -H ill Book Co. , 1959. L ik ert, R en sis A. New P a tte rn s of M anagem ent. New York: M cG raw -H ill Book Co. , 1961. M cG regor, Douglas. "T he R ole of Staff in M odern In d u stry ," in Shultz, G eorge P. and W hisler, Thom as L. (ed s.). M anagem ent O rganization and the C om puter. G lencoe, 1 1 1 . : The F re e P re s s , 1960. Mann, Floyd C. "T ow ard an U nderstanding of the L eadership Role in F o rm al O rg a n iz atio n s," in Dubin, R . , H om ans, G. C ., Mann, Floyd C. , and M iller, D. C. L eadership and P ro d u ctiv ity . San F ran cisco : C handler Publishing Co. , 1965. M arvick, Dwaine. C a re e r P e rsp e c tiv e s in a B u reau cratic Setting. Michigan G overnm ental Studies, No. 27. Ann A rbor, M ichigan: Institute of Public A dm inistration, U niversity of M ichigan, 1954. Newman, W illiam H. , and Sum m er, C h a rle s E. , J r . The P ro c e s s of M anagem ent: C oncepts, B ehavior, and P ra c tic e . Englewood C liffs, N. J. : P re n tic e-H all, Inc. , 1961. N igro, F elix A. M odern Public A dm inistration. New York: H arp er & Row, 1965. P fiffner, John M. The Supervision of P e rso n n e l. Englewood C liffs, N. J. : P re n tic e-H all, Inc. , 1958. P fiffner, John M. , and P re sth u s, R obert V. Public A dm inistration. New York: The Ronald P r e s s Co. , 1960. P fiffner, John M. , and Sherwood, F rank P. A dm inistrative O rganization. Englewood C liffs, N. J. : P re n tic e -H a ll, Inc. , 1960. Sam pson, R o b ert C. The Staff R ole in M anagem ent. New York: H arp er & B ro th ers, 1955. Schein, E dgar H. O rganizational Psychology. Englewood C liffs, N. J. : P re n tic e-H all, I n c ., 1965. Simon, H e rb ert A ., Sm ithburg, Donald W. , and Thom pson, V ictor A. Public A dm inistration. New York: A lfred A. Knopf, In c ., 1959. 155 S try k e r, P e r r in . A G uide to M odern M anagem ent M ethods. New Y ork: M cG raw -H ill Book Co. , 1954. T ead, O rdw ay. The A rt of A d m in istra tio n . New Y ork: M cG raw -H ill Book Co. , 1951. T hom pson, V ic to r A. M odern O rg a n iz a tio n . New Y ork: Knopf, 1961. U lric h , D. N. , and Booz, D. R. E x ecu tiv e A ctio n . B oston: H a rv a rd U n iv e r sity G ra d u ate School of B u sin e ss A d m in istra tio n , 1951. P e rio d ic a ls B lake, R. R. , and M outon, Ja n e S. " R e a c tio n s to In te rg ro u p C om petition U n d er W in -L o se C o n d itio n s ," M anagem ent S c ien c e , VII (1961), 420- 435. B o w e rs, D avid G. , and S e a sh o re , Stanley E. " P re d ic tin g O rg a n iz atio n al E ffe c tiv e n e ss w ith a F o u r -F a c to r T h eo ry of L e a d e rsh ip , " A d m in is tra tiv e S cience Q u a rte rly , XI (S ep tem b er, 1966), 238-263. D alton, M elville. "C hanging S ta ff-L in e R e la tio n sh ip s, " P e rso n n e l A d m in is tr a tio n , XXIX (M a rc h -A p ril, 1966), 3 -5 , 40-48. D alton, M elville. "C o n flic ts B etw een Staff and L ine M an ag erial O f f ic e r s ," A m e ric a n S ociological R ev iew , XV (June, 1950), 342-351. E tz io n i, A m itai. "A u th o rity S tru c tu re and O rg a n iz atio n al E ffe c tiv e n e s s ," A d m in istra tiv e S cience Q u a r te r ly , IV (June, 1959), 43-67. G eo rg o p o u lo s, B a sil S. , and T annenbaum , A rnold S. "A Study of O rg a n iz a tio n a l E ffe c tiv e n e s s ," A m e ric a n S ociological R ev iew , XXII (O ctober, 1957), 534-540. G o lem b iew sk i, R o b e rt T. "T o w ard the New O rg a n iz atio n T h e o rie s: Som e N otes on 'S ta ff', " M idw est J o u rn a l of P o litic a l S c ien c e , V (A ugust, 1961), 239-40. G ouldn er, A lvin W. "C o sm o p o lita n s and L o ca ls: T ow ard an A n a ly sis of L a te n t Social R o le s - I, I I ," A d m in is tra tiv e S cience Q u a rte rly , II (1957-1958), 281-306, 444-480. Stahl, O. G lenn. "M o re on th e N etw ork of A u th o rity , " P u b lic A d m in istra tio n R eview , XX (W inter, 1960), 35-37. 156 R e p o rts F a r r is , G eorge F. M A C ausal A nalysis of Scientific P e rfo rm a n ce . ” Unpub lish ed Ph. D. d isse rta tio n , The U niversity of M ichigan, 1966. G olem biew ski, R o b ert T. "A New Staff Model: A S ynthesis fro m B ehavioral R e se a rc h . " P a p e r p re p a re d fo r d eliv ery at A m erican P o litic al Science A ssociation Annual M eeting, Septem ber, 1963. (M imeo graphed. )

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Project Management And The Use Of Authority: A Study Of Structure, Role, And Influence Relationships In Public And Private Organizations

PDF

Urban Executive Leadership Development For Black Professionals: A Research Evaluation Of An Applied Behavioral Science Program

PDF

A Survey Of Executive Development Program Evaluation

PDF

Organizational Evaluation And The Government Laboratory

PDF

A Typology Of Search For The Contextual Variables Surrounding Public Administrative Policy-Making

PDF

Patterns Of Legislator Incumbency In Independent Taxing Non-School Special Districts Of California

PDF

The Significance And Problems Of Civil Service Reform In A Developing Nation: The Experience Of Iran

PDF

A Comparison Of The Conceptual Basis, Organization, And Planning, Programming, And Budgeting Activities Of The National And Local Defense Establishments In The United States

PDF

Program Direction Through Systems Integration: A New Frontier For Management

PDF

Changing Patterns In British Administration In Pakistan And India: A Study In Bureaucratic Attitudes

PDF

Bureaucracy And The One-Party State: Politics And Administrative Transformation In Ghana

PDF

Toward A Non-Bureaucratic Organization For Development Assistance: Insights From A Study Of Aid Technical Advisers

PDF

A Study Of Process And Content Of Public Policy In American States: With Reference To The Medicaid Program

PDF

Organization Development In A Public Agency: The Strategy Of Organizational Devolution

PDF

A Systematic Analysis Of San Diego County'S Fire System: A Special Reference To The Status Of Local Government In The United States

PDF

Coordination And Control Of Computer Technology In State Government: Constraints And Strategies

PDF

A Study Of Occupational Values Of College And Graduate Students At Tehranuniversity

PDF

Water Utility Performance: Some Factors Related To Water Resource Management In A Small City

PDF

Systems Theory And Organizational Change

PDF

Social Change And Development: A Sociological Analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Meade, Marvin (author)

Core Title Some Correlates Of Friction: A Study Of Staff-Line Relations

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Public Administration

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Political Science, public administration

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Storm, William Bruce (committee chair), Empey, Lamar T. (committee member), Gardner, Neely (committee member), Siegel, Gilbert (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-610718

Unique identifier UC11360164

Identifier 6810241.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-610718 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6810241.pdf

Dmrecord 610718

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Meade, Marvin

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA