University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Situational Analysis: A Methodology For The Study And Practice Of Administrative Change

(USC Thesis Other)

Situational Analysis: A Methodology For The Study And Practice Of Administrative Change

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed a s received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 75-1046 BELLONE, Carl Joseph., 1946- SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS: A METHODOLOGY FOR THE STUDY AND PRACTICE OF AEMINISTRATIVE CHANGE. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1974 Political Science, public administration Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 © Copyright by Carl Joseph Bellone 1974 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS: A METHODOLOGY FOR THE STUDY AND PRACTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE by Carl Joseph Bellone A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Public Administration) August 1974 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA T H E G R A D U A TE S C H O O L U N IV E R S IT Y PARK LO S A N G E LE S , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by C arl Joseph B ellon e under the direction of hLs... Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirements of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y Dean T)ate DISSERTATION COMMITT Chairman ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many individuals who aided me in the preparation of this dissertation. I would like to thank my chairman, teacher, and friend Dr. William J. Williams, and the rest of my committee, Dr. Eli Glogow and Dr. Alan Kreditor, for providing much appreciated guidance. Dr. Marc Lindenberg and Dr. Alex McEachern gene rously gave of their time to aid in the empirical research of this work. Dr. Lindenberg especially spent long hours at the computer center with the author. Garry Hare, Dr. Michael Sparks, Dr. Ronald Gilbert, Dr. Jack Cocks, Mr. Robert Siecke, Miss Betty Delaney, Mr. Ray Olsen, and Mr. Robert Brown all helped to distribute the Situational Change Survey presented in this disserta tion . I also wish to thank Dr. Lloyd Nigro and Ethan Singer for contributing many helpful comments to the author. And finally I wish to thank my wife Susan for sup porting me through the many hours it took to complete this project. ii TABLE OP CONTENTS LIST OP CHARTS v LIST OP TABLES vi INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter I. LITERATURE REVIEW: APPROACHES TO CHANGE . .. 10 Structure vs. Process The Situation as a Unit of Analysis II. A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: TEN PROPOSITIONS OF A SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS FOR THE STUDY OP Proposition I: A Situation is a Momentary Context of Meaning Contained Within a Specific Space-Time Segment of Our Actions Proposition II: Behavioral Experiences Occur In and Through a Series of Situations Proposition III: Change Appears In and Through a Series of Situations Proposition IV: Situational Behavior is Circular in Nature Proposition V: Situational Analysis is a Micro-Level Look at Administrative Action Proposition VI: Effective Administrative Leadership is in Part a Function of the Situation Proposition VII: Variations in Managerial Perceptions of Potential Change Situ ations Lead to Variations in Managerial Responses to Change Proposition VIII: Multiple Possibility Situations Provide an Opportunity for Change ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE 97 iii Page III. IV. Proposition IX: Managerial Actions Take Place Within a Situational Field Proposition X: Situational Analysis Emphasizes the Here and Now METHODOLOGY: THE SITUATIONAL CHANGE SURVEY . . 152 Operationalization of Terms Sample Population Data Design REPORT OF FINDINGS: INNOVATORS AND INCRE MENTAL! STS ....................................163 The Scales The Interpersonal Change Scale The Task Change Scale The Combined Situational Change Scale The Combined Human Elements Scale The Combined Physical Elements Scale The Combined Conceptual Elements Scale Validity Analysis Summary CONCLUSIONS: TOWARDS A SITUATIONAL MODEL FOR THE STUDY AND PRACTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE ..................... 287 Situational Analysis The Situational Change Survey as a Diagnostic Instrument The Situational Perspective in Administrative Theory APPENDICES 315 APPENDIX A. Part I: Situational Change Questionnaire.......... 316 B. Part II: Situational Change Questionnaire (Validity Questionnaire) .......... 328 BIBLIOGRAPHY 332 iv LIST OP CHARTS Chart Page I. Theories of Social Systems ..................... 14 II. The Metaforce Field of a Situation................108 III. The Situational F i e l d ............................ 142 IV. Situational Change Grid (innovators, Incre- mentalists, Traditionalists) ................. 163 V. Situational Scales .............................. 182 VI. Situational Change Grid (Police vs. Probation) . 198 VII. Situational Change Grid (Combined Police and Probation Scores) ........................... 202 v LIST OP TABLES Table Page 1. General Characteristics of Sample ............. 178 2. Cross Tabulation of Identification Number by Interpersonal Change Scale .............. 184 3. Cross Tabulation of Identification Number by Interpersonal Change Scale (Combined Scores)..................................... 188 4. Cross Tabulation of Identification Number by Task Change S c ale....................... 191 5. Cross Tabulation of Identification Number by Task Change Scale (Combined Scores) . . . 194 6 . Cross Tabulation of Identification Number by Combined Situational Scales ............ 196 7. Cross Tabulation of Identification Number by Combined Situational Scale (Combined Scores)..................................... 207 8 . Cross Tabulation of Identification Number by Combined Human Elements Scale ............ 210 9. Cross Tabulation of Identification Number by Combined Human Elements Scale (Combined Scores) ........................... 217 10. Cross Tabulation of Identification Number by Combined Physical Elements Scale ........ 220 11. Cross Tabulation of Identification Number by Combined Physical Elements Scale (Combined Scores) ........................... 228 12. Cross Tabulation of Identification Number by Combined Conceptual Elements Scale .... 231 vi Table Page 1 3. Cross Tabulation of Identification Number by Combined Conceptual Elements Scale (Combined Scores) ........................... 236 14. _t-Test Scores of Combined Situational Change Scale....................................... 243 1 5. _t-Test Scores of Interpersonal Change Scale . . 245 16. t_-Test Scores of Task Change Scale........... 247 17. Cross Tabulation of Interpersonal Change Scale by Age of Manager........................... 249 18. Cross Tabulation of Task Change Scale by Age of Manager............................. 251 1 9. Cross Tabulation of Interpersonal Change Scale by Management Level ......................... 254 20. Cross Tabulation of Task Change Scale by Management Level ........................... 256 21. Cross Tabulation of Interpersonal Change Scale by Job Satisfaction Controlling for Perceived Personnel Changes (No Change Took Place) . . 258 22. Cross Tabulation of Interpersonal Change Scale by Job Satisfaction Controlling for Perceived Personnel Changes (Change Took Place) .... 260 2 3. Cross Tabulation of Interpersonal Change Scale by Job Satisfaction......................... 262 24. Cross Tabulation of Task Change Scale by Job Satisfaction Controlling for Perceived Functional Change (No Change Took Place) . . 263 2 5. Cross Tabulation of Task Change Scale by Job Satisfaction Controlling for Perceived Functional Change (Change Took Place) .... 265 26. Cross Tabulation of Task Change Scale by Job Satisfaction........................... 267 2 7. Cross Tabulation of Interpersonal Change Scale by Initiation of Behavioral Change ........ 269 28. Cross Tabulation of Task Change Scale by Initiation of Task Change................... 272 vil Table Page 2 9. Cross Tabulation of Interpersonal Change Scale by Perception of Natural L a w .............. 274 30. Cross Tabulation of Task Change Scale by Perception of Natural L aw................... 276 3 1. Cross Tabulation of Interpersonal Change Scale by Perception of Moral L a w ................. 278 3 2. Cross Tabulation of Task Change Scale by Perception of Moral L aw..................... 280 vill INTRODUCTION Thomas Kuhn, in his book The Structure of Scien tific Revolutions, discussed the importance of paradigms for organizing thought and research. Revolutions in our conceptualizations of the empirical world come from para digmatic shifts in thinking. 1 A paramount assumption of this dissertation is that change in administrative organi zations is difficult to study and to practice in part because we have been trapped in a stability paradigm. Floyd Matson* in The Broken Image, explained that the search for perfect order and explanation in the study of man reached a peak in the fusion of the Saint-Simonians and the Newtonians. Their vision was of a society wholly made over in the image of the new mechanics--technically rational ized in every detail, predictable in every activity, and hence brought under total scientific management. The religion of science was a faith in the existence of an objective Reason, impersonal and mechanical, harmonious and determinate, existing entirely apart from individual men and indifferent to their purpose.2 The first half of Chapter I is an examination of the dialectic between two paradigms concerning the nature of reality in our culture. One is the dominant stability paradigm; the other is the less popular process paradigm. Our discussion traces this division in philosophy between 1 Heraclitus and Paremenides, in sociology between the structural-functionalists and the conflict theorists, in science between the Newtonians and the Post-Newtonians, and in linguistics through an examination of the Sapir- Whorfian theory of linguistic relativity. The researcher will attempt to show that our Western culture biases us to. look for stability, not process, in our social systems and hence to treat change not as an endogenous factor of social life but as an exogenous force intruding upon otherwise stable social systems. Early philosophers worried that a world which was characterized by process would not permit empirical study. Thus, to propose a reality that was in constant process or flux was a dangerous thing. But the physical sciences, especially physics, have shown us that with the proper methodological tools empirical research can still be car ried out on phenomena that are most accurately character ized as process. With the proper methodological approach, the same is true of administrative phenomena. This study argues that process is the nature of administrative phe nomena and that the situational analysis described herein is one such adequate methodological tool to study that process. The second half of Chapter I is a literature review of several important authors in a variety of fields who have used the situation as an analytical concept for the study of behavior which they believed to be process and not structure. Mary Parker Follett* in her study of manage ment* consistently stressed the importance of the situation for viewing human behavior. For example* she stated that We cannot study the "psychology" of the workman* the "psychology" of the situation. . . . We must study the workman and the employer in their relation to the facts— and then the facts themselves become as active as any other part of the total situation.3 In Follett's Creative Experience and the collection of some of her papers entitled Dynamic Administration, she was constantly striving for a gestalt-based method that takes into account simultaneously the worker* the manager* and the environment* all of which she brings together in the context of the situation. To a large extent Follett proposed a situational management theory which predated contemporary contingency management theory. Lowell Carr's book* Situational Analysis: An Ob servational Approach to Introductory Sociology, is also examined in Chapter I. Carr is a sociologist who was in fluenced by Kurt Lewin and the gestaltists. His book is an attempt at outlining the methodology of a situational approach to the observation of group behavior. Although written as a college introductory sociology text* Carr gives us valuable definitions and refinements about a situ ational analysis that are useful to the study of adminis trative action and change. 4 Kurt Lewin developed what might be called a situ ational psychology. Lewin's typographical psychology Is situational In nature. The concepts of life space,, the "here and now" emphasis In the study of behavior, force field analysis, and his famous formula B = f (p, e) (be havior is a function of the person and the environment) are all situational. As with Follett and Carr, one can see a gestalt Influence in Lewin's work. Most simply stated, Lewin be lieved that behavior, including change behavior, is derived from a totality of forces that impinge upon a person's life space at any given time. These forces change from situa tion to situation. Hence, Lewin came to write about be havior being a function of the total situation. Lewin also gave us several constructs for a situa tional analysis such as the concepts of background situa tions, overlapping situations, and valences. Herbert Blumer is reviewed as representative of the symbolic interactionist approach in sociology which is also situational in perspective. From George H. Mead on down, symbolic interactionists have stressed the importance of the situation-at-hand in the determination of an individu al's behavior. Human action is forged in the context of a concrete situation. The process of interpretation of the environmental happenings-at-the-moment is a crucial step in the final selection of a course of action to be followed by an individual. Symbolic interactionists believe that change occurs in and through a series of situations* and it is this perspective that makes the symbolic interac- tionist approach in sociology important for our description of a situational analysis for the study of administrative change. Chapter II sets out a theoretical framework for a situational analysis by proposing ten propositions of a situational analysis. Two are of special importance. First is Proposition I* which sets out the definition of a situation as "a momentary context of meaning contained within a specific space-time segment of our actions." A situation is further defined as being comprised of six component parts: (l) people* (2) place* (3) things* (4) organizational or institutional environment* (5) ideas and ( 6) time. Second is Proposition VII: "Variations in Managerial Perceptions of Potential Change Situations Lead to Variations in Managerial Responses to Change." This proposition was empirically tested with results reported in Chapter IV. This proposition was chosen for study because many authors* especially those dealing in the contingency man agement area* postulate that a manager should behave dif ferently in different situations and that to do so is a key to managerial success. However, rarely is the basic question of how a manager perceives the situation around him addressed. The whole contingency school is predicated upon the assumption that managers can define the critical differences in the situations they are confronted with. This study proposes that this is a gratuitous assumption and that one can discern at least three major and different perceptual approaches to potential change situations in organizations. The purpose of listing several propositions of a situational analysis was to further clarify what is meant by this type of analysis. It is not enough to simply state that management or behavior is situational. One may legit imately ask, "What does that mean?" Thus, Chapter II lists some specific hypotheses for the study of behavior and change in administrative organizations that grow out of a situational approach. Chapter III describes the study's research method ology and Chapter IV reports the empirical findings. The research instrument was the Situational Change Survey, developed by the author, which was administered to seventy police personnel and fifty-six probation officers. The survey tested a manager's perception of potential change situations. In general, a respondent's perception of potential change situations could be grouped into one of three categories: (l) an innovator, one who sees the mul tiple possibilities inherent in a potential change situa tion and wants to bring about some change; (2) an incre- mentalist, one who sees some possibilities for change but who is also very concerned about systems maintenance and wants to change only in a way that is not too upsetting; or (3) a traditionalist, one who wants to continue doing things the way they have been done before regardless of the nature of the new situation. The data are analyzed in terms of six scales: The Combined Human Element Scale (the people part of a situa tion), The Combined Physical Elements Scale (place and objects), The Combined Conceptual Elements Scale (organi zational or institutional environment, the context of ideas, and time), The Interpersonal Change Scale, The Task Change Scale, and The Combined Situational Change Scale. The instrument measures two dimensions: concern for interper sonal change and concern for task change. A Situational Change Grid was developed to help a manager graphically view his situation change style. Results of the data demonstrated a statistically significant difference between police and probation on most of the scales and variability among and between groups on the three situational styles. A validity test indicated that the instrument was valid when one used the same validity test utilized by Blake and Mouton for their Mana gerial Grid. Hopefully the findings will be of benefit to police and probation management development programs. Thus, The Situational Change Survey is proposed as a managerial diagnostic tool that hopefully will enable the manager to accurately assess his behavior and propensity towards innovation when he is confronted with potential change situations. In conclusion, this dissertation, after review of various authors who have viewed the situation as an ana lytical category, proposes to the student of administration a situational analysis for the study and practice of ad ministrative change. Situational analysis is not presented as the only way to study change, but as a particularly use ful and adequate approach because it avoids the stability bias that affects so much of our Western culture; it allows for a true examination of the nature of change which is process; it permits, by its very nature, a wide range of applicability to various organizational events; it encom passes a multiplicity of variables and stimuli; and finally it avoids the "one best way" trap often found in management literature. 9 FOOTNOTES 1 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revo lution, Vol. II (2nd ed. : Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), pp. 92-110. 2 Floyd W. Matson, The Broken Image: Man, Science and Society (New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1964), p. 17. ^Mary Parker Follett, Creative Experience (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 192471 p. 6 9. CHAPTER I LITERATURE REVIEW: APPROACHES TO CHANGE Structure vs. Process The Philosophical Debate Centuries ago in ancient Greece, philosophers argued over the nature of reality and change. The result of this discussion has set the stage for the philosophical development of Western culture and modern administrative theory. Because of this historical linkage, it is neces sary to briefly reexamine this ancient philosophical debate before proposing an effective methodology for the study of administrative change. A few early philosophers argued that reality is continually in process, the only constant being ceaseless change. This school of thought, known as the flowing philosophy, had as its leader Heraclitus, whose most re membered statement is, "You could not step twice in the same rivers; for other and yet waters are ever flowing on."'1 ' This is generally interpreted as indicating Heraclitus' belief that reality is in constant process and neither repeats itself nor allows itself to be completely captured. 10 11 Heraclitus and his views, however, have never dominated Western thought. There are several reasons why Heraclitus and his orientation did not take hold. His main disciple Cratylus took his change philosophy to such an extreme that he finally gave up talking to others. Craty lus believed that since everything was changing so greatly and so rapidly it was foolish to even communicate with others. So, according to Aristotle, he eventually stopped 2 speaking, and only moved his finger when spoken to. Secondly, Heraclitus' change-process orientation was interpreted as ruling out empirical observations of the world. Aristotle in his Metaphysics, relating Plato's comments on Heracliteanism, stated, "Observing that all this indeterminate substance is in motion, and that no true prediction can be made of that which changes, they supposed that it is impossible to make any true statement about that which is in all ways and entirely changeable."-^ It was necessary for most of the early Greek philosophers, who were beginning to record observations of the world around them, as it was for latter day mathematicians and scien tists, to observe a reality that could be codified and that was stable enough to permit utilitarian predictions. Heracliteanism, as interpreted by Plato and Aristotle, denied this for them. Thus, Heracliteanism lacked early important dis- 12 ciples, was carried to absurdity by its principal disciple Cratylus, and seemed to rule out further pursuits of knowl edge about the surrounding world. Heraclitus' main philosophical opposition around this same period came from Paremenides and others such as Xenophanes, Zeno and Melissus. These philosophers formed the Eleatic School. Their main belief was that Being Is, and importantly for our analysis, Being is substantially unchanging. Where Heraclitus was arguing process, Pare menides and others argued stability. The reasoning, most simply, was that Being is and Not Being is not. For Being to change it must change to something else, but since it 4 Is everywhere, it cannot substantially change. A scholar once remarked that all Western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato. There is little doubt that Western thought was founded in its basic forms by Plato and his student Aristotle. Plato was impressed by Heracli tus, but the Paremenidian influence was strongest. Thus Plato "attributes the unique Paremenidian quality, perma nency or unchangeability to whatever is truly real."'* Therefore, the change-process orientation of Heraclitus was overshadowed by Plato's idealism and sta bility orientation early in the development of modern Western thought.^ Western thought tends to see reality as structure. Aristotelian logic, with its static rules and mutually exclusive categories, has set the stage for how we have conceptualized reality and hence change for cen turies. Therefore, change and more specifically for us, administrative change, are generally viewed as exogenous factors intruding themselves upon an otherwise stable system. The Social Systems Debate If we analyze the view of change major social systems theorists have taken, the orientation towards sta bility becomes even clearer. Two points are important for us in the study of change. One, do theorists of social systems see change as exogenous or endogenous? And two, do they see society as inherently stable or unstable? Chart I is a simple four-celled matrix that permits us to analyze several social theorists’ views of change. While these cells are not necessarily dichotomous, they are presented here as discrete solely for purposes of explana tion with respect to these dimensions. These variables are important because they reveal philosophical and norma tive orientations to change and stability. Theorists concerned with equilibrium and permanence see change as exogenous to their systems: something that occurs outside the boundaries of otherwise stable systems. Change is an external category for these theorists, of less importance than stability or continuity concerns. Those who see 14 CHART I THEORIES OF SOCIAL SYSTEMS CHANGE Exogenous Endogenous (Plato-Aristotle) Evolutionary Theorists Talcott Parsons— Charles Darwin Structural Func Auguste Comte STABLE tionalism Herbert Spencer Lewis Morgan Rise & Fall Theorists Herbert Spengler Petrim Sorokin (Heraclitus) UNSTABLE Conflict Theorists Karl Marx Max Weber 15 change as endogenous believe that society (or reality) carries within itself the seeds of its own change. Change is not something intruding from the outside, but an in herent part of society's paradigms. Likewise, social system theorists can be placed into a category that views societies as basically stable groups capable of change, but mostly characterized by a return to an equilibrium, or a category that sees conflict and change as the basic qualities of society and stability as only a temporary condition. In Chart I we have, in the first cell, the case of those who see change as exogenous and society as stable. This is the dominant view of Western sociology, for it is the orientation of the structural-functionalists led by Talcott Parsons. Alvin Gouldner, in his The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, criticized Parsons' functionalism most severely. Gouldner stated: The Parsonsian social system is one whose equilibrium, once established is conceived to be perpetual,* whose essential reality is believed to be its inner coher ence, rather than the conflicts, tensions, and dis orders that are usually considered secondary dis turbances or aberrations and that are never seen to derive from the necessary and inevitable requirements of social life; whose "actors" are, like fresh blotters, ready and willing to absorb the ink of an imprinting socialization, and who therefore' need never be constrained, for they always act willingly, out of an inward motivation. . . . If, as Parsons as sumes, a stable system of Interaction once estab lished, tends to "remain unchanged," then logically he also tends to assume that changes in a social 16 system arise from eternal pressures that have somehow overwhelmed or penetrated the system's defenses, or from pressures that are random— In their origin If not In their permeation— relative to the system's essential characteristics.7 Thus Parsons and structural-functional analysis have carried forth Plato's and Aristotle's conceptualiza tions of reality as applied to society. Stability and permanence are paramount and change and temporariness are treated as residual categories of less importance. Returning to Chart I and moving right, we come upon a group of social theorists who view change as endogenous to their conceptualizations of social systems, but who still see society as basically a stable system. This view of society is perhaps best typified by the evolutionary theorists such as Charles Darwin, Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer and Lewis Morgan. Richard P. Appelbaum, in an excellent little book, Theories of Social Change, deline ates the major concepts of the evolutionary theorists of society. Referring to Comte, one of the pioneers in the field of sociology, Appelbaum stated: If Comte saw the development of civilization as evo lutionary in the sense of uniform progress toward human perfection, he also saw it as evolutionary in the sense of smooth, continuous change. The laws of social change were seen as merely a form of the great principle, which of the two great constituent elements of Positive Sociology - Order and Progress - makes the second the result and consequence of the first, ac cording to the maxim: - Progress is the Development of Order ."o 17 Most of the evolutionists developed unilinear the ories of development for society that stressed, of course, the Western model as the ideal stage.^ Thus, these theo rists saw change as endogenous to society, an inherent and a necessary part of it for its continued evolution, but not as upsetting society to a significant degree. Therefore, their societal models remain basically stable with smooth, continuous change. Through this "smooth" change, the evolutionists see society developing to greater differen tiation and complexity much as Durkheim postulated in the nineteenth century. Two rise and fall theorists are included in this stable-endogenous cell: Herbert Spengler and Petrim Sorokin. Rise and fall theorise postulate that change is an inherent part of society, but that societies or civili- lizations do not develop in a linear fashion: rather they grow to a high point of achievement and then collapse or decline. Sorokin views societal change as neither perma nently linear nor permanently cyclical (repetition of old patterns) but rather as varying recurrently with incessant modifications on previous patterns."^ Rise and fall theories have never been very popular in sociology. However, they are important for us here be cause of their blending of the general stability of society with the concept that a society carries within itself the 18 seeds of change. The difference between the evolutionists and the rise and fall theorists is that the former see this smooth societal change as linear and leading to greater cultural differentiation, while the latter see this change as nonlinear and leading to a cyclical effect on societal growth. Moving to the cell that posits change as endogenous and society as unstable, one discovers that had Heraclitus been a sociologist living in the nineteenth century, he most probably would have represented this view. The posi tion that society is basically unstable and that the change process in society is an inherent part of any civilization is basic to the conflict theorists such as Karl Marx. Marx, the sociologist, saw change as an eminent part of society. All theories of societal superstructures we have examined so far— equilibrium theory, evolutionary theory, and rise and fall theory— are organismic. Each sees soci ety, according to Appelbaum, "as a set of mutually inter dependent structures that operate in a functional (or dysfunctional) fashion for one another."'*'’ * ' While these theories see stability everywhere, conflict theories see structural change everywhere. Hence their basic view of society is one of instability. Ralf Dahrendorf, writing about Marx's view of capitalistic society in Class and Class Conflict in In dustrial Society, succinctly stated that: 19 For Marx, society is not primarily a smoothly func tioning order of the form of a social organism* a social system* or a static social fabric. Its dom inant characteristic* is* rather* the continuous change of not only its elements but its very struc tural form. This change* in turn* bears witness to the presence of conflicts as an essential feature of every society. Conflicts are not random; they are a systematic product of the structure of society it self. According to this image* there is no order except in the regularity of change.12 It is interesting to note how close Marx's concept that the regularity of change is society's only order comes to Heraclitus' view that ceaseless change is the nature of reality. Structural change for Marx* of course* is tied to the friction between socioeconomic classes. This conflict is pervasive in societies throughout history* but will "pass away" in a final utopian stage. The main proposi tion* from our perspective* is that Marx sees capitalistic society as inherently conflict-generating rather than conflict-reducing as viewed by evolutionary and equilibrium theories. Rolf Dahrendorf* in an article entitled* "Towards a Theory of Social Conflict*" contrasts the four major assumptions of structural-functionalism (equilibrium the ory) with those of the conflict model. 20 Equilibrium Theory 1) Every society is a relatively persisting configuration of elements. 2) Every society is a well inte grated configuration of elements. 3) Every element in society con tributes to its functioning. A) Every society rests on the consensus of its members. Conflict Theory 1) Every society is subjected at every moment to change; social change is ubiquitous. 2) Every society experiences at every moment social conflict; social conflict is ubiquitous. 3) Every element in society con tributes to its change. b) Every society rests on con straint of some of its members by others.- * - 3 It Is easy to see the vast difference In what Alvin Gouldner would call the domain assumptions of the equilibrium theorists, who see society as stable and change exogenous; and the conflict theorists, who see society as unstable and change endogenous. Max Weber's grand view of society makes him harder to categorize than some of the other theorists we have examined. Weber's theory of social change derives from his thoughts regarding the authority-legitimization func tion of certain social orders. Thus, in studying his ..view of social change, one immediately confronts his three ideal types of authority patterns: traditional, legal- rational, and charismatic. "Weber's theory of social change envisions an oscillation between the three kinds 21 n ' 14 of authority, according to Appelbaum. Each of these three types derives from the inherent conditions and con straints of human society. Thus, Weber clearly sees social change as endogenous. In addition, Weber sees society as unstable. He postulates a switching back and forth amongst his three inherently unstable categories of authority in society. His traditional type of authority is most stable; however, it is seen as breaking down in Western society and the legal-rational variety of authority rising due to a general rationalization trend in industrial states. Rational < • authority, on the other hand, tends to break down because the segregation required by this type between the imper sonal use of influence through bureaucratization and the personal use of power is difficult to maintain. Thus, there is a tendency for the charismatic type of authority to emerge. Legal-rational authority imposes psychological strain in any system around the usage of power and there- 15 fore is not inherently stable. ^ Charismatic authority is unstable because it is linked to the psychological power attributed to one man. This power can easily dissipate either through changes in the mass psychology of the followers of a charismatic figure which render his authority nil, or through the death of the charismatic leader. 22 Appelbaum summed up Weber's view of society as being Inherently unstable by remarking that: Weber sees a long run evolution in the direction of Increasing rationalization In all areas of life* a process which Includes Increasing rationalization of social organization. But rational-legal authority Is seen as less stable than traditional authority, susceptible to both traditionalization in specific areas and to the appeal of charismatic movements. The prognosis, then, would appear to be substantial instability and not infrequent shifts between the three types of authority. 16 Both Weber and Marx attempt to deal with endogenous change and unstable social systems simultaneously in their models. Our last cell is blank because it is difficult to imagine a theory that could logically posit an unstable view of society coupled with an exogenous view of change. Any theory that postulates change as an external intru- sionary variable would quite naturally view society as inherently stable. Thus, there are no major theories or theorists to fit this category. Our discussion of social systems theories illus trates a strong stability orientation. Conflict theorists have never dominated Western sociology. Consciously or unconsciously, our sociology has trained us to look for stability in social systems and to treat change as an external variable. This prejudices our thinking about the nature of change in administrative systems, which are, in essence, micro-social systems. 23 The Scientific Debate Science once was the keeper of a view of a rather static and stable world that, when science had progressed sufficiently, could be entirely predictable. Once was is the proper qualifier., for the present state of physics and astronomy causes one to rethink the strict determinism and causality that were a major part of yesterday's science. Science underwent a basic revolution in the early 1900's with the advent of quantum theory. Quantum theory shattered the myth of determinism which had previously presented a stable, unrandom universe. Leon Brillouin, in Scientific Uncertainty and Information, a detailed but readable book for the layman, baldly stated that "there is no strict determinism in classical mechanics, especially when we keep in mind the most important fact: the system is not 'given' but 'measured with limited accuracy' over periods of time.""^ The new discoveries in physics not only shattered determinacy but they also shattered the static Greek phi losophies that stressed ideal types and an orderly uni verse. Brillouin stated: We owe [much] to the Greek philosophers, from whom we inherited many fundamental ideas. These concepts have been extremely useful, but we have now reached a point where we must revise them drastically. The scientist used to step back into the role of an ex ternal observer, and to assume the existence of a "real objective world around us," governed by accu- 24 rate mathematical laws (The laws of nature), accord ing to which it would proceed unperturbed, whether we observe it or not. . . . The assumption of accu rate laws of nature is gratuitous; it is a philo sophical creed, but it is not supported by experi mental facts. All we can prove is the existence of certain correlations; given the result of a certain experiment, we are able to predict (within certain limits) the possible outcome of a later experiment. . . . In many cases, strict causality must be re placed by statistical probabilities; a scientist may or may not believe in determinism. It is a matter of creed, and belongs to metaphysics. 18 How the movement from a stable universe to one spoken of in terms of randomness and probabilities came about is worth noting, for it required scientists to not only seek out new frontiers of knowledge, but also to cast aside old cultural patterns of thought. Scientific re search is complicated, and we will attempt only a simple explanation which hopefully will suffice. Scientific research begins simply by a scientist asking himself a question. Then he attempts to state that question with precision and apply it to a problem that he can isolate from the outside world. Classically, he will attempt to work with one variable at a time. Next he attempts to measure this variable. This is a crucial step, for the "experimental apparatus must be protected from unknown perturbations which would disturb the observation ttlQ and the results. These are the ideal conditions. Naturally, the astronomer cannot isolate one star, so he acts "as if" it were isolated. The isolation is also impossible in geology and biology., and of course in all of the social sciences. The physicist-chemist, though, has a distinct advantage because he can choose his problem, isolate it, and protect against outside perturbations; if feasible, he can repeat the experiment several times to check his measurements. However, as Brillouin stated: The strict concordance of the observed results is an unrealizable fiction. It is impossible, even with the best isolated apparatus in the world, to avoid accidental errors of observation and all sorts of unpredictable perturbations. Empirical results are therefore represented by a law of probabilities, and are translated into statistical rules of distribu tion. 20 There are two types of isolation necessary for a p-rfect experiment: isolation of the experimental variable from the rest of the world and isolation between the ob server and his measuring apparatus. The first type of isolation is impossible in most fields of science; the latter type, according to Heisenberg, is impossible in principle in all areas of science. In 1927* Heisenberg, a German physicist, put forth his "Principle of Uncer tainty. There is an interaction between the observer and the observed in physics. At first this was thought to be very small and unimportant, but as Brillouin stated, quantum theory has completed revised scientific thought. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle stated 26 that it is impossible with any of the principles now known to science to determine the position and the velocity of an election at the same time— to state confidently that an election is "right here at this spot" and is moving at "such and such a speed." For by the very act of observing its position, its veloc ity is changed; and, conversely, the more accurately its velocity is determined, the more indefinite its position becomes. 22 Thus we can never be certain of the exact placement of an electron at an exact moment in time. When measure ments are made, the mathematical margin of uncertainty in an electron's position and velocity is always a function 2^ of Planck's constant. Max Planck in 1903 calculated his quantum theory formula of E = hu; where E is energy, u is oh frequency of radiation, and h is Planck's constant. All forms of radiant energy, light, heat, and x-rays, travel through space in separate and discontinuous quanta.2^ Whenever one looks at a small atomic object, it can only become visible if a few quanta, hu, are received from it. This, however, changes the nature of the object before it is observed. There is a coupling between the observer and the observed. As Brillouin stated, It is impossible to make any observation without per turbing the object. . . . Observation and perturba tion inevitably go together, and the world around us is in a perpetual flux, because we observe it. 26 Heisenberg and Planck rather clearly showed that the microscopic world around us is neither stable nor deterministic. 27 Neils Bohr also offered a revealing principle to explain what had developed into a major scientific riddle: "Is light composed of particles or waves?" Bohr's novel answer, put forth in his principle of complementarity, was that it is both. Historically, some of the explorations into the nature of light supported the Newtonian corpuscular theory of light particles, yet other experiments could be inter preted only in terms of propagating waves. Seemingly the two theories contradicted each other. Light must be either particles or waves. Yet Bohr argued science out of this Aristotelian either/or trap and proposed that these two theories must be considered as complementary, each con taining only a part of the truth, making it necessary to employ both theories in order to explain the nature of light. 27 Brillouin, in explaining Bohr's complementarity, offered us the following account: We may introduce a comparison: let us take a snapshot of a landscape using an infrared screening filter. Then, we take another picture with an ultraviolet screen. Both pictures will have much in common, but they also exhibit strong differences. We may call them complementary, and the actual situation is rather similar to the one described by Bohr. The "complemen tary" double image underlined one aspect or the other of a reality which our language, and our images, can not fully describe. 28 28 Brillouin's last point about the inadequacy of our language and images to explain the reality of quantum physics is worth further analysis and will be examined briefly in the section to follow. One can hardly examine modern science, or physics in particular, without looking at its towering genius, Einstein. His Special Theory of Relativity has had a pro found effect upon physics and modern thought in general. Einstein discarded the concept of absolute time. Time, like the sense of color, is a form of perception. There is no such thing as a fixed interval of time independent of the system to which it refers. Time, or more accurately 29 perhaps, our perception of it, is situational. ^ Thus, Einstein shattered one of our firmest con cepts of a stable universe: the absoluteness of time. His theory of relativity not only posits a relativity of time, SO but a relativity of mass and distance. Einstein's formulations broke the Western cultural model that viewed space and time as separate and unrelated categories or "ideal types." As Barnett stated, In our minds we tend to separate these dimensions; we have an awareness of space and an awareness of time. But the separation is purely subjective and as the Special Theory of Relativity showed, space and time separately are relative quantities which vary with individual observers.31 While Einstein's conceptualizations about the physical universe are complicated and technical* our pur- puses here are served by abstracting the change in basic semantic and intellectual concepts around the areas of time* space* mass* and distance. From the Greek philoso phers to the average man in the street today* these con cepts are thought of as stable* measurable* absolutes of nature. Yet modern science* from Einstein forward* has consistently shown them to be relative* variable quanti ties* characteristics of a universe in great transition and flux. Einstein showed the world around us to be change-process oriented* not stable and static. Our exploration into modern physics has painted a world of flexibility. "There is an indeterminacy about all the events of the atomic universe which refinement of measurement and observation can never dispel.Lincoln Bennett summarized some of Einstein's breakthroughs by stating that the most remarkable of these [Einstein's] assumptions is that the universe is not a rigid and immutable edi fice where independent matter is housed in independent space and time; it is on the contrary an amorphous continuum* without any fixed architecture* plastic and variable* constantly subject to change and distortion.33 As previously mentioned* the work of Heisenberg (and Bohr also) led to the development of mathematical formulations that permit description of quantum phenomena in terms of either particles or waves. 30 The idea behind their system had a profound influence on the philosophy of science. They maintained it is pointless for a physicist to worry about the proper ties of a single electron; in the laboratory he works with beams or showers of electrons, each containing billions of individual particles (or waves); he is concerned therefore only with mass behavior, with statistics and the laws of probability and chance.3^ This sounds surprisingly more like a study of human behavior in the social sciences than the behavior of ultra-small particles in physics. Yet, as Heisenberg and Bohr clearly demonstrated, the physicist must deal with mass behavior and probabilities, just as the social sci entist does. We cannot expect in the physical or natural sciences to come up with what is deterministically true, only with what is statistically probable. The most important point for us in the study of human behavior in organizations is that the uncertainty or flux of reality in science has not meant, as Paremenides thought it necessarily must, the abandonment of empirical research. Therefore, the argument that reality either has to be stable, and thus available for empirical research; or unstable, and thus impossible for empirical research, is a false dichotomy. We can study reality, even though reality is constantly in flux. Science deals with the flux and constant change of reality through probability and complementary theorems. This movement away from a deterministic view to a proba- 31 bilistic model, or in our terms to a more situational per spective, parallels the movement in public administration away from the "principles of management" theories of the 1 9 2 0's and 1 9 3 0's to a more contingency or situational approach today. The underlying assumption relevant for this study is that scientific research needs methodological tools and techniques to deal with the newly discovered, uncertain nature of microscopic particles. This was provided to science by men such as Planck and his calculation of a constant function present in the universe; Heisenberg and his Principle of Uncertainty; Neils Bohr and his Principle of Complementarity; and, of course, Albert Einstein and his Special Theory of Relativity. Methodologically, how ever, the social sciences (including public administration) have not developed any such tools or techniques of their own. (Multivariate analysis may be an exception.) There fore, situational analysis is proposed here as one such tool, developed for the practice and study of management, which can aid the researcher, practitioner, and managerial diagnostician in dealing with the nature of administra tion— which is change. The Linguistics Debate The final area we will examine in this section is the nature of our language. Cultural anthropologists have 32 come to define culture as a system comprised of "all those historically created designs for living, explicit and implicit, rational, irrational, and non-rational, which exist at any given time as potential guides for the behav- i f ^ 5 ior of men. This relatively new view of culture as an integrated system also defines language as part of the cultural system and functionally interrelated with it, as opposed to it being a separate system overlayed upon the cultural sphere.^ Three major concepts are of concern for us. (l) Language is an interrelated, functionally interdependent part of culture. (2) People who speak in significantly different language structures actually live in signifi cantly different worlds of reality. And (3), the language patterns of Western cultures are stability-oriented, in adequate to deal with the world discovered by modern sciences, most notably physics. These premises cannot be "proved" by empirical tests because no such absolute proofs exist. However, several linguistic scholars have undertaken descriptive and empirical studies that reach some general tentative conclusions regarding the effect of language patterns upon our thought processes. The study of language as an integrated part of culture has no precise name in anthropology. Sometimes one hears "ethnolinguistics" or "metalinguistics." Outside . 33 of anthropology, one may hear the term general semantics or epistemics, although a study of language forms is only part of general semantics or epistemics activities. But there Is a general agreement among anthropologists and seman- ticists that the language system of a culture Is not separate from that culture but an Interrelated part of It. 37 Harry Hoijer is representative of the anthropolo gists who take this view. He stated: What the human learns. In the process of encultura- tion, is an organized (or structured) set of ways of behaving, which he abstracts from and applies to sit uations of his daily experience as they arise. . . . Language fits into this conception of culture without difficulty. Just as culture consists of all ways of behaving that are historically derived, structured, and tending "to be shared by all or specially desig nated members of a group" so does a language include ways of speaking (a segment of behaving) with pre cisely the same attributes. A language, like the rest of culture, is acquired by learning, not dis creet utterances, . . . but frames in which all meaningful utterances may be fitted. 38 Edward Sapir, in work completed in the first half of this century, vigorously argued that language is an interpenetrated part of culture. This is especially evident in his book Language published in 1921. Benjamin Lee Whorf also made the same argument in his works, some of which are compiled in an edition entitled Language, Thought and Reality. Both Sapir and Whorf are notable for their develop 34 ment of the hypothesis that differences in language struc tures are correlated with differences in perceptions of reality. This is referred to as the Sapir-Whorfian theory of linguistic relativity. As Edward Sapir stated: Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the par ticular language which has become the medium of ex pression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is mere ly an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the "real world" is to a large extent unconscious ly built up on the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be con sidered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached.39 Benjamin Whorf, a follower of Sapir, examined this hypothesis in various studies done on the languages of the American Indian, most notably the Hopi and Shawnee. Whorf's studies led him to conclude that the form of a person's thoughts [is] controlled by inexorable laws of pattern of which he is unconscious. These patterns are the unperceived intricate system atizations of his own language . . . and every language is a vast pattern-system, different from others, in which are culturally ordained the forms and categories by which the personality not only communicates, but also analyzes nature, notices or neglects types of relationship and phenomena, channels his reasoning, and builds the house of his c o n s c i o u s n e s s .40 Whorf does not mean to imply that all of one's thoughts are in words per se, for often when we think we unconsciously manipulate whole paradigms, word classes, 35 4i and grammatical orders. However, the most intricate processes of our thinking are a function of our language patterns and their limitations. Clyde Kluckhohn also hypothesized this correlation between language and perceptions of reality. Kluckhohn wrote in 19^9, shortly before his death, that: Every language is a special way of looking at the world and interpreting experience .... One sees and hears what the grammatical system of one's lan guage has made one sensitive to, has trained one to look for in experience. This bias is the more insidi ous because everyone is so unconscious of his native language as a system. To one brought up to speak a certain language, it is part of the very nature of things.^2 Samual Bois, a general semanticist, or more prop erly an epistemitician, explores this question at length in his Art of Awareness. One of the tenets of general seman tics is the belief that our linguistic and grammatical patterns shape our thoughts in a real and yet unconscious manner. As Bois stated, the common sense of our own language is above question or examination. For example, SAE languages (Standard Average European) break time up through their verb tenses into past, present, and future actions. This conceptual model is taken for granted. Yet when we look at other languages, such as Hopi, we find that they get along very well, planning, organizing, and commu nicating without our verb tense patterns. The Hopi 36 language sees time as a continuum, a continually becoming. 4^ There is no basis for objectified time in Hopi. What is "logical" for users of SAE languages may not be "logical" for members of a divergent culture. Our language, our notions of "common sense" and "logic" as well as all of our thought processes, are culturally acquired and learned behaviors. Recognition of this is a first step towards breaking out of our cultural walls and gaining a new level of existence and knowing, according to Bois. Margot Astrov and Harry Hoijer studied the Navajo with similar theoretical conclusions. Demetracopoulon Lee studied the Trobriand language with the same results. Other theorists, anthropologists, and linguists who sup port their conclusion include A. L. Kroeber, Eugene Nida, 44 David Olmsted, Claude Levi-Strauss, and Charles Hockett. The relevant question for this study that proceeds from this discussion is whether our English language pre pares us to interact in a world that is basically stable or a world that is basically process. The answer seems to be clear that the structure of our English language which, accepting the Whorfian-Sapir hypothesis, affects the way we conceptualize the world around us, heavily biases us to look for a world of stability, a world where change is an exogenous variable intruding upon rigid grammatical pat terns. Change is upsetting to us because, in part, we do 37 not have the semantic and linguistic tools to effectively cope with it. As we saw earlier,, science in the early 1900's began to break through conceptual barriers and discover a micro world of reality that was much more uncertain and process-oriented than anything imagined by science before. Whorf writes, in his various studies, that our old language patterns do not "fit" the new paradigms discovered by sci ence. Our language colors man's scientific pursuits because a scientist writes, talks, and most frequently thinks within the linguistic and grammatical structures of his language. If these structures are unable to deal with the "true" nature of his scientific world, then he becomes weighted down with an unnecessary load, as an Olympic 45 swimmer would be with a lead belt. ^ The static nature of the SAE languages can be seen most clearly when they are contrasted with a process- oriented language such as Hopi. There are three dimensions of our language structure we will examine and contrast with the Hopi: (l) noun and verb interactions, and grammatical patterns; (2) container-content formulations; and (3) the linguistic view of time and space. SAE languages are comprised of sentences that have two basic parts: nouns and verbs. The distinction that there must always be a substantive, or an actor doing 38 something, is a function of the particulistic grammatical patterns of our language. It is not drawn from nature, 'and other languages do not grammatically break up reality into objects and actions. And pursuant again to grammar the notion became in grained that one of these classes of entities can exist in its own right (nouns) but that the verb class cannot exist without an entity of the other class, the "thing" class, as a peg to hang on. ^6 This dichotomization of reality into either substantives (stable quantities) or verbs (process actions) is not sup- 2 ported by physical examination of reality. E = me says exactly the opposite, as well as field theory conceptuali zations in quantum mechanics. The Hopi language, on the other hand, can have verbs without subjects. To describe the event of thunder in Hopi, one can simply say "thunder ing" and have a complete sentence, not an exclamatory phrase. For a complete sentence in English we must say, "It is thundering." What is "it"? The actor and action are the same thing and the substantive is in process when we notice it, yet we linguistically divide this unitary 47 event into two parts— noun and verb. The content-container pattern is similar in essence. The SAE languages distinguish between two kinds of nouns. One represents clearly bounded substances such as dog, stick, and tree. The other represents unbounded masses reflective of indefinite forms continued without 39 outlines such as water, air, and milk. The tendency, how ever, is to put boundaries around these unbounded nouns, or in other words to put them in a container. This gives us a binomial frame composed of the individual noun (the con tainer) and the mass noun (the contents) with the reflector "of." Thus, according to Whorf, SAE languages feature "analogies . . . which . . . build the concept of existence O as duality of formless item and form." Hopi languages, however, do not refer to noun sub stances in a binomial sense. They can leave subs.tances unbounded and without definite form. Hence, there is less of a tendency in Hopi to artificially break up reality into the dualism of content and container. Some substances are unbounded qualities in reality (water, air, coffee) and 4q the Hopi more clearly reflects this. The importance and influence of the content- container frame was explained by Hoijer: The form-substance dichotomy supports, in Whorf's view, much of Western philosophy, at least that which holds a dualistic view of the universe, and it simi larly supports traditional Newtonian physics. Other philosophies (involving, for example, monistic, holistic, and relativistic views of reality) and the physics of relativity, though formulable in our cul ture, "are badly handicapped for appealing to the 'common sense' of the Western average man. This is not because nature herself refutes them . . . but because they must be talked about in what amounts to a new language." Newtonian conceptions of space, time and matter, on the other hand, find ready ac ceptance in our "common sense" for: "They are recepts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them. "50 40 Thus, the SAE language's view of matter through the content-container binomial frame 111 prepares us for talk ing about and conceptualizing the nature of reality as discovered by twentieth-century physics. Our linguistic view of reality is more static than real, and thus biases us towards looking for matter "contained in" something rather than matter in process. The dimension of time is another good example of the static nature of our language as compared to the process-oriented Hopi. SAE languages objectify time, di viding it into either past, present, or future categories through the tense structure of their verbs. Yet time is a subjective experience of "getting later" or "changing manner." SAE languages pattern time into a strict and divisible linear progression. This is partly why Einstein's work on the relativity of time is so hard for us to comprehend. Our linguistic patterns have difficulty in expressing the notion of a circularity and variability of time. On the other hand, the Hopi language has no ob jectified time. Hopi verbs make note of duration, i.e., "getting later," but there is not a linear division of time. In the language of the Hopis, as Whorf related: Verbs have no "tenses" like ours, but have validity— forms ("assertions"), aspects, and clause-linkage forms (modes), that yield even greater precision of speech. The validity-forms denote that the speaker (not the subject) reports the situation (answering 41 to our past and present) or that he expects it (answering to our future) or that he makes a nomic statement (answering to our nomic present). ... There Is no more basis for an objectified time in Hopi verbs than in other Hopi patterns; although this does not in the least hinder the verb forms and other patterns from being closely adjusted to the pertinent realities of actual situations.51 We can conclude, then, that the Hopi language deals with at least three major linguistic categories in a more process-oriented manner than our standard English: noun-verbs, content-container frames (mass), and time. Our English language, in the opinion of the author, affects the way we view the situations that occur around us. Our language cues us to look for stability, not process. The process-oriented, uncertain world of quantum theory in physics sounds strange and alien to us. Einstein's rela tivity theory sounds positively impossible. This is due, in part, to our language prejudicing us to look for some thing that is not there. The key point is simply that our SAE language is stability-oriented and this causes us to unduly look for stability in all of our relations with others in organizations. Thus, change always appears as an exogenous dimension that takes us by surprise. Hence the study of change is difficult in our bureaucratic organizations that are purposely structured to be stable. Conclusion There is a dominant debate or dialectic running through much of Western thought between stability or process as the basic nature of reality. We have examined this dialectic along four major dimensions of Western cultural endeavor: philosophy, sociology (concepts of social systems), science, and linguistics. (The same is true of psychology, which was not analyzed here.) In each area, save science, concern for stability has far out weighed concern for process. Most of our philosophical, sociological, and linguistic tools predispose us to look for stability. Only through the latest discoveries in physics have we begun to see a real process orientation. It is one of our hypotheses that the stability orientation of so much of Western culture is responsible for change in organizations being such a problem today. Administrative theorists are consistently explaining that 52 how organizations change is a major problem. This is usually followed by lengthy discussions of "how to" change administrative structures. Our subject in this paper is on a more basic level. Why is change hard for us to con ceptualize? Part of the "problem" of change in organiza tions is our cultural inability to perceive and then deal with change situations. It is the stated purpose of this paper to clarify the conceptual nature of change. Recog nition of change possibilities, which occur in and through differing situations, is a key to the bringing about and study of administrative change. The Situation as a Unit of Analysis Recognition of the intrinsic process nature of reality does not leave us, as Paremenides believed, on a sea of change with no method available for the study of the empirical world. Physicists have developed methodologies for the study of non-classical quantum mechanics. The social sciences must now develop methodologies for the study of our changing social realities. In our particular case, this means the development of methodological tools that will enable us to correctly diagnose and then direct administrative change. The basis of the methodology proposed herein is not a new idea; only its conception as a full fledged methodol ogy for administrative theory is new. Several theorists have utilized, in one form or another, some type of analy sis that could be called situational. We are proposing in this study that the way to analyze administrative change is to view the situation as a unit of analysis in and of it self. A few of the major authors who have viewed the situation in this light will be examined in order to demonstrate the historical linkages of such an analysis, and to give greater insight into its theoretical assump tions . 44 Mary Parker Follett— Situ ational Management One of the most original thinkers in the field of administration was a woman, Mary Parker Follett. Perhaps her most outstanding work was Creative Experience, in which she examined how man acts and how he creates. The "new public administration" is fond of pointing out that man is not merely a reactive animal. The "new P.A." tells us man can be proactive, that organizations should be designed to bring out man's proactive nature instead of merely treating him as a reactive being. However "new" we believe this to be today, Mary Parker Follett was saying the same thing in 1924. The thesis of her above-mentioned book is that man does not simply adjust to situations; instead he has an integrative experience with each new situation that puts him somewhere beyond where he was before. It is reaching this new level that allows him to have a creative experi ence . Integration is an important concept for Follett. Integrative behavior is achieved when purposes and goals, ends and means are integrated together for an individual. Many administrative theorists have a segmented model of man. Man-at-work is different from man-at-leisure. Most administrative theories deal only with man-at-work. The non-work part of human behavior is left out of their paradigm. When administrative behavior is dealt with as something different from non-administrative behavior* we often see attempts to shorten the time-at-work, which is unpleasant-time* and lengthen the time-at-leisure* which is fun-time. Follett attacked this kind of segmented thinking about man* believing that it gives us a kind of time-theory of salvation: keep the debasing influences of industry to certain hours of the day* employ the others in some educational way* and if the race is keenly enough run the spiritualizing influ ences will win out. But we cannot split ourselves up like this* the eight-hour influences will continue into the leisure period; it is the eight-hour influ ences themselves that we must reckon with.53 Thus Follett argues* as do the symbolic interac- tionists* that we must see man's reactions to his world as an integrated whole. An individual does not break up his actions into specific parts* e.g.* administrative* polit ical* psychological* and sociological, that conform to university departmentalization. Behavior for the individual is an integrative experience. And Follett* carrying this forward in a prescriptive sense* claimed that proper realization of this fact can transfer what is normally an integrative experience into a creative experience. Follett also believed that behavioral experience occurs in and through a series of situations. Thus she uses the situation as a unit of analysis* positing several characteristics of situations. Situations help influence 46 i behavior. In any human interaction the situation-at-hand ! is a constituent part of the behaving process. She stated, Often, for instance, we see the head of an industrial plant trying to solve a situation by studying his men rather than by considering men and situation, and the reciprocal effect of one on the other.55 Thus in social situations two processes are going on together, the relating of man to man, and the relating of man and the situation.56 Throughout Creative Experience, Follett is saying that we must study the total situation. Otherwise we tend to "cut up" behavior into neat packages that facilitate our study of man, but not our understanding of how man himself views his life process. By studying the total situation we are able to see the important interrelationships that occur in the situation. We cannot study the "psychology" of the workman, the "psychology" of the employer, and then the "facts" of the situation, as so often seems to be the process of investigation. We must study the workman and the employer in their relation to the facts— and then the facts themselves become as active as any other part of the "total situation." We can never understand the total situation without taking into account the evolv ing situation. And when a situation changes we have not a new variation under old fact, but a new fact. 57 Facts, people, and the situation are neither objec ts tive nor stationary. All three change and vary together. This is Follett's definition of social process and it is 47 the author's conclusion that Follett's paradigm is a useful one for studying administrative change. There is a parallel between Follett's conception of the situation and Einstein's relativity of time-space. Einstein posits relativity in the universe,, while Follett posits relativity in the situation. In a situation,, the facts are relative, the situation is relative, and the rate of change is relative. Change and process are the nature go of behavior. ^ The influence of the gestaltists is evident in Follett's writings. Gestalt psychology was still new when she was integrating her thoughts about human behavior. In accordance with the gestaltists, she believed that social scientists must look at "wholes, 1 1 for the whole is genu inely different from the mere sum of its parts. Not only must one study wholes but also "the whole a-making; this involves a study of whole and parts in their active and continuous relation to each other.Both the environ ment and the situation are "whole a-making," i.e., both are 61 in a process of continual renewal. A key point throughout Follett's writings, and for this study as well, is that the situation is the setting which gives interpersonal relations their meaning and value. Psychological processes of analysis that divorce the study of behavior from the situation in which they 48 62 occur do great harm to the study of these relations. They create what Michael Beldoch would call a "false psy chology. " Beldoch, a psychiatrist, criticizes encounter groups for taking people out of all normal circumstances, using special devices such as warm water pools, sleep deprivation, touching, and the like to get people to behave differently. The way people then act is in some way supposed to be the Truth. After hours of sleep depri vation, the True Self emerges. After hours in a manipu lated group environment where the tension is high for "something to happen" (after all, that's why everyone came), the True Self is supposed to come forth. Beldoch says this is a fallacy. People placed in those exciting circum stances will behave differently, but this does not mean it is any more a person's true self than the way he behaves every day at work.^ This lack of understanding of the importance of situational contexts for a person's actions is one reason why people generally feel good in the group (everything is love), but revert back to familiar patterns once the experience is over. Not only do the same behav ioral pressures continue outside the group, but the encounter group itself creates a special, atypical situa tion and certain types of behavior in that situation cannot be guaranteed to occur in totally different situations. 49 It is interesting to note on this same subject that Skinnerians always deal with behavioral changes in the real context of the behavior. If you went to a Skinnerian psy chologist with a fear of snakes, your treatment would not be to lie on a couch in an office discussing your child hood. Instead the therapy would take place in the presence of the feared object. Mary Parker Follett also postulated the circularity of behavior. People do not simply respond to a crystallized stimulus of the past. People respond instead to a rela tionship in a situation. This situation is changing while the actor is in the process of responding to it. In addi tion, because of his response, the whole original situation 64 is changed still further, creating a new situation. As Follett stated, "When you get into a situation it becomes what it was plus you; you are responding to the situation plus yourself, that is, to the relation between it and yourself. " Our responses then are never linear and never static. A does not just respond to B, and B to A; rather A responds to the relationship between A and B and B to A and to the total situational environment that is turbulent or changing.^ All situations in social transactions are dynamic. ^ We are always part of the situation we are in. Follett held that subject-object or actor-action dichoto mies were false. We each help to create the situation to which we are responding. This is of vital importance for the administrator, for it underscores the proactive poten tialities inherent in any situation. Whether we recognize it or not, our administrative actions help to create every "outside" situation we face. We are not passive-reactive observers to external stimuli, however; our behavior may become characterized by reactiveness and passivity if we do not recognize the opportunity for proactive behavior inherent in each new situation. It is an aim of situa tional analysis to help us see the potentialities for change that are ever present in administrative processes. As Follett stated, "The real leader, then, will have suf ficient insight not only to meet the next situation, but fiR to make the next situation." One of Follett's most remembered concepts is her notion of the "law of situation." Orders, she believed, should be depersonalized. The process should not be one of a subordinate taking orders from a superior, but rather both taking orders or cues from the situation. Thus, a worker is not under orders from a hierarchy, but the entire organization is interacting with a situation. Workers are not under superiors but with superiors in concrete situa tions. This, of course, is an early statement of the current organizational development technique of team building as an effective method for interaction with a 51 changing environment. Follett believed that external orders from management could never keep workers up with the changing environment. Only orders taken from the context of the situation itself could be adequate responses to such an environment. An organizational plan must always be a 6q function of the situation. ^ Although all of Follett's writings are change- oriented., she had some specific views on change that are vital for a situational analysis. With behavior seen as a function of the relating of behavior and environment, it becomes apparent that administrative change is not simply brought about by changes in environmental conditions, but rather by how an individual or organization perceives the environmental stimuli in the situation-at-hand. Therefore, one method of achieving administrative change is not to attempt a change in the stimuli or in an individual's or an organization's value system, both of which are quite difficult,’ but rather to attempt a change in the situation in which the behavior takes place. Frequently groups with in an organization will be placed in competitive win-lose situations. Placing groups in a situation where they com pete for the same organizational rewards elicits certain types of behavior from each. Edgar Schein related that the group that wins increases its cohesiveness, becomes more complacent, decreases its concern for task accomplishment, 52 and stereotypes itself as a winner and the other group as a loser. The group that loses tends to deny the reality of the situation and put the blame on bad luck. If the loss is accepted the group tends to break up; a tense atmosphere begins to develop; cooperation begins to decrease. A recognized loss can only make the group better if it is TO able to "learn from the past mistakes."' Schein and others clearly demonstrate, then, that the situation itself is a variable in administrative change. Another key concept about change is that a changing situation changes us also. As Follett explained, Moreover, if taking a responsible attitude toward the experience involves recognizing the evolving situation, a conscious attitude toward experience means that we note the change which the developing situation makes in ourselves: the situation does not change without changing us.71 Thus, our interactions in situations not only change the environment, but ourselves as well. A change in a person's value system is important, for our values are precursors of our actions. Therefore, a normative or value change for an individual is a vital step in the process of long-range behavioral change. Follett saw value changes occurring through four processes: 1. Changes in the situation which make me see my interests differently. 2. Changes in myself caused by the situation. 3. Other things which may give me a deeper under standing of this situation. 4. Values when put together look differently from the same values considered separately.72 53 In summary* six major points can be drawn from Follett's views on human action and change: 1. Behavior is both internally and externally con ditioned . 2. Behavior is a function of the interweaving be tween the activity of the organism and the activity of the environment* that is* the re sponse is to a relating. 3. The environment is changing and not static. 4. Through the interlocking activity of organisms and environment* each is creating itself anew. 5. The relating function may be continually modi fied by itself* i.e.* the activity of the boy going to school may change the activity of the boy going to school (principle of circularity of behavior). 6. Thus the evolving situation is created* i.e.* the next situation that is rising out of the present situation.73 Lowell Carr--Situ- ational Analysis The only work devoted solely to an attempt at establishing a situational analysis is that of Lowell J. Carr* a professor of sociology "at Michigan* who in 1948 wrote Situational Analysis: An Observational Approach to Introductory Sociology. As the title implies* Carr's effort was directed toward establishing a methodology for sociological inquiry on the college introductory level. Carr stated* "In general* Situational Analysis is an intro duction to sociology as a method of discovery by the ii74 observation of group phenomena. 1 He did not address himself to the question of administrative change as this 54 study does, However, his emphasis on a type of analysis that is situational is valuable. Carr listed three major objectives of his situa tional analysis. 1. To break down any situation into its component elements and processes. 2. To determine and ultimately to measure the rela tionships among the problem phenomena, the situ ation, and its conditioning variables. 3- To discover laws, i.e., (a) invariant uniformities of coexisting relationships, and (b) invariant uniformities of succession, or phases, and trends.75 Carr clearly achieved his first objective and we shall examine his findings below. However, the remaining two objectives raise some questions. Carr gave us some examples of how to relate relationships among phenomena, situations, and conditioning variables, but he conducted no empirical testing of these supposed relationships. He offered instead only descriptive accounts of examples where he felt his situational analysis is useful, such as in studies of urbanization.^ Regarding his third objective, it would be quite presumptuous to conclude that he has discovered "laws" of human relationships or trends and phases. Such "laws" probably will never exist in the social sciences. However, he did present listings of general typographical categories that will be discussed below. The objective Carr more clearly achieves is the 55 development of an Introductory sociology text for a college student that stresses an observational and situational approach to social phenomena. Carr's definition of the situation is* of course, of Interest to us. He stated* "A situation Is a focalized pattern of social relationships regarded as a source of r j r j actual or potential experience."1' Thus* Carr saw a situ ation as a focused pattern of social relationships which result ultimately In experience for the participants. He defined the elements of a situation as a pattern of rela tionships of (l) people* (2) ideas* (3) groups* (4) cul- r^O tural traits* and (5) things.' Carr made some interesting observations about how Important our perceptions of situations are for our sub sequent individual and collective actions. Distant situ ations are usually defined for us by "experts": newspaper reporters* authors* and television film editors. By the time we become aware of them* they have been prepackaged 7Q for us. This colors our reaction to the event. v Language is also seen as an encapsulator of experi ence. Carr* echoing many semanticists and anthropologists* stated that most of us most of the time are prisoners of the language we use. All of which amounts to this: for most of the routine situations in life your culture* mainly through language presents you with ready made definitions. 80 56 In brief, Carr is saying that we are victims of selective perceptions and therefore we see what we want to see, or have been conditioned to see, in specific situa tions. Since how we define a.situation is vital to sub sequent action, if we can make a personal situation be seen as a collective societal situation in need of some correc tive action, then we are well on the way toward bringing about social change. Naderism, as it relates to consumer affairs, is in part defining what had previously been personal situations (I have a defective car) into collec tive situations (Detroit has built defective cars endan gering the lives of us all). Defining personal problem situations as collective problem situations, a process often referred to as "consciousness raising," is a neces sary prelude to a collective action phase where some O " j^ societal change can occur. It is a hypothesis of this dissertation that some managers will define a situation as requiring collective and corrective social action, while others will see it as only a personal or isolated occurrence about which little or nothing can be done. This difference in definition can have dramatic consequences in subsequent actions. Carr stated one of the purposes of any situational analysis. 57 In most practical activities from household manage ment to the Presidency of the United States there is no more valuable quality than the ability to estimate appropriate life situations completely and compre hensively. Most of us most of the time* however, approach such a task naively and with little appreciation of what a systematic, scientific attack on the problem would involve.82 Hopefully this study will go far in aiding adminis trators to develop a systematic and comprehensive view of the situations that confront them as public managers. A central concept of Carr's book is the notion of the life situation and the situational field. The life situation refers to all that is going on at the moment in a person's life: his past experiences, his current activi ties, and his future plans. Each person possesses his own particular life situation. These life situations intersect in social interactions.^ Carr defined a person's life situation as "the pattern formed by himself and the sum total of all the factors to which he must adjust at a given 84 time." Essentially there is no difference between Carr's use of the term life situation and Kurt Lewin's concept of life space. Carr acknowledged Lewin in his Preface; how ever, he never referred to Lewin in the text of his book, even when what he said is heavily borrowed from topograph ical psychology. Carr defined the situational field as follows: 58 The field surrounding any situation,, like the situation itself, contains three kinds of factors which structure and condition the situation itself. 1. People in patterns of relationship, i.e., groupings. 2. Culture. oj- 3. Forces and objects of the physical world. Thus, Carr broke down any given situation into three major components. These component parts are similar to the ones we shall propose later. (See Chapter II, p. 101. ) The situational field is important, for every new 86 situation develops in and out of a situational field. The situational field is also important as a key to our role-playing behavior. The notion of a social role is situational, for "a social role is a specific pattern of attitude and behavior which one assumes for a specific situation. It is evident by now to most students of Lewin that Carr, through his use of the concept of the situational field, was introducing his students to Lewin's force field analysis. A review of Lewin1s force field analysis later on in this study will more clearly delineate similarities in these two concepts. Multiple Possibility Situations Perhaps Carr's most valuable contribution to the body of literature that deals either directly or indirectly 59 with the subject of situational analysis is his distinction between a routine situation and a dramatic or multiple possibility situation. Carr described the division between the two types as follows: Something always comes out of a situation - not necessarily something exciting or dramatic., but some thing. We must distinguish, therefore, between the routine situation that most of us encounter most of the time, and the tension-charged, uncertain situa tion, the multiple-possibility situation.88 The first question one must ask, according to Carr, in analyzing any situation is whether or not the situation is routine, i.e., one with a perceived minimum of uncer tainty, or is it a dramatic situation, i.e., one with a 8q multiplicity of perceived outcomes. v This distinction has great relevance for the study of administrative change. Recognition of a situation as possessing multiple possibilities is a key variable in the administrative change process. A manager who continually views all situations as routine exhibits the style of leadership we would characterize as conservative-tradi tional, which is maintenance-oriented. The perception of the managerial experience as being one of a continual flow of routine situations almost totally negates the potential for change by management in the organization. The only possibility for change is if an external environmental stimulus presents itself that is too different and novel 60 to be perceived as a routine situation. Then possibly there would be some administrative change brought about by managerial input. On the other hand., a manager or management team that is alert to the inherent potentialities for change in what Carr calls dramatic situations can be proactive and create change within the organizational structure. A key variable here is how individuals, or managers more spe cifically, perceive situations. For example, in organiza tion X, an assistant manager, who was not liked and did not perform well, quit and took another job in a different organization. One managerial response would be to define this situation as routine, a simple replacement of the person who left. This response would either pay no atten tion to the negative feelings some had about the previous experience of a person in this position, or would assume that with a new person in the role the old problems would not recur. A distinctly different response by management would be to see this situation as possessing multiple pos sibilities. One could redefine the functions previously stated for this position. A total reshuffling of duties might be in order. The position could be defined as having less organizational status. Any number of possibilities could emerge that would make sense in this situation. The point simply is that the labeling of a situation as routine 61 shuts the door on the possibilities for change occurring. The labeling of a situation as dramatic or as a multiple possibility situation opens the door for a variety of strategic maneuvers by management that could lead to sig nificant changes in the organization. One of the hypotheses of this paper is that certain managers see nearly all but the most obvious change situ ations as routine. These managers rarely bring about change in their organizations. Other managers frequently perceive situations as multiple possibility situations. These managers consider a wider range of strategic alter natives in any situation and are more likely to choose a proactive alternative that will be adaptive to turbulent environmental conditions and likely to bring about lasting changes in the administrative structure and behavior of their organizations. A reading of Carr indicates that he made a three- way distinction in the intensity of situations as per ceived by individuals. A situation can be seen as (l) routine* (2) dramatic (multiple possibilities)* or (3) problematic.^0 The distinction is that in the routine situation the old adjustment patterns or ways of doing things will work and may be the administration's only rational choice. In the dramatic situation* the old routine response may still function* but there is a variety 62 or multiplicity of responses that could he made that would also be rational, and in addition foster change within the organization. A problem situation is one where the old adjustment patterns of behavior will not rationally work. The manager must give a different response or suffer obvi ous negative consequences. It is this author’s contention that many adminis trators function only in the two extremes, i.e., they either see situations as routine and behave according to established expectations and thereby stifle most change, or they see situations as problematic: where they know a routine response is incorrect but where they may be at a loss for an appropriate response. This mode of behavior is typified by the manager who admits something is a problem but does not work at providing a solution, often letting time resolve the problem for him. Hopefully, this study will help managers to see the third course of action open to them: that is, to view it as a multiple-possibility situation. In a multiple-possibility situation a manager can have some say over the outcome of the situation by strategically viewing the variety of responses he can make and, as Follett says, he can actively help to create the next situation. By aiding in the crea tion of the next situation, the likelihood of being faced with a problem situation is diminished. 63 A key to change in organizations is the recognition of multiple-possibility situations, and the knowledge that most situations are of this type if we would only perceive them as such. Managers who fall into the routine-problem situation syndrome will bring about little change, and then only the change that is reactively imposed upon them by necessity from a hostile environment. Situational Adjustment Carr continually stressed the need for the individu al to adjust or readjust to a new situation. On the sur face, it seems as though Carr had a very reactive model of behavior in mind. This is not exactly the case, for cer tain of his readjustment categories do allow for proactive types of behavior. However, Carr never distinguished between proactive behavior and reactive behavior. Basi cally, he emphasized adjustment. He never quite saw Follett*s point that a successful leader needs to create the next situation. Thus, while Follett saw situational behavior as a proactive, creative experience, Carr saw situational behavior largely as reactive. This is one of qi Carr's weaker points. In one place he admitted that people react to the 92 environment plus themselves. However, he did not carry this idea further and conclude, as Follett did, that there- 64 fore people can help create the next situation they will find themselves in. Nor did he come to her principle of the circularity of behavior. Carr did list, however, three phases of the psycho logical process he termed situational adjustment. They were: 1. Gestalt awareness. Realization that some kind of focalized pattern of relationships exists and must be dealt with. 2. Definition of the situation. Ascription of mean- ing to the pattern: "What is this thing that faces me?" The pattern usually becomes a design, i.e., a pattern imbued with purpose. 3* Assumption of role. On some terms one must re late himself to the situation as defined: "Shall I withdraw? Shall I remain and look on? Shall I participate, and if so, in what way?"93 It is important for us to remember Carr's three- part analysis of an individual's behavior in a situation: gestalt awareness, definition of the situation, and the taking of a role. The second phase is of great importance for a practicing manager and can be subject to behavior modification. The other two phases can also be influenced by training. Our responses to situations at the awareness, definitional, and action stages are all learned behaviors. Bringing about change in any one phase is a method for bringing about social change. Oftentimes white, middle- class managers may not be aware that a particular situation is discriminatory in nature. Thus, raising the level of 65 initial awareness can become a key to bringing about change in the third action phase. Pour types of adjustment to problem situations were also delineated in Carr's book. Problem situations, as defined earlier., are those situations where old patterns of adjustment will no longer work. An individual then has the following options for readjustment: (l) Readjustment by acceptance. This can include increasing efforts to over come the difficulty, the sublimation of one’s desires, the transferring of one's desires, rationalizing one's posi tion, or the redefining of one's values so that the problem situation is no longer a problem; (2) Readjustment by non- acceptance and creative modification. This includes changing political, social, or organizational patterns; (3) Readjustment by non-acceptance and escape. This in cludes both physical and psychological escape methods, e.g., relocating, alcoholism; (4) Readjustment by non- acceptance and overt conflict. Conflict can be a func- 94 tional method for dealing with a tense problem situation. Which method of response is best depends of course upon the situation-at-hand and one's individual values. Escape, however, would not be seen as a healthy response because it does not deal with the cause of the problem and leads merely to substituting a new problem for an old one. The method of response we would like to stress here is readjustment by creative modification. This type of "read justment" is really proactive behavior. When faced with a problem situation, managers generally have the opportunity to creatively modify the situation to a point that permits a functional response. Too often administrators slip into patterns of behavior characterized by unwilling acceptance, unhealthy escape, or dysfunctional overt conflict. Ap proaching administrative change from a situational per spective will hopefully enable the administrator to more clearly see the potential for responding to a problem situation by creative modification. A manager oriented to change must learn to behave proactively in difficult prob lem situations. Approach to Change Carr's analysis approaches change basically as a situational phenomenon, i.e., like Herbert Blumer, Carr believed that change occurs in and through a series of situations. He explained this in part as a process whereby "social changes produce new situations and new situations make a choice of alternative roles imperative. Sometimes one must work out an entirely new conception of his r o l e . Thus, the concept of the situation becomes vi tally important in the study of societal and organizational change. 67 Carr presented his own definition of social change, which is worth our examination. He stated: Social changes are observable differences between the conditions of a specific set of social background factors at one time, as compared with their condition at some previous time. In other words, social changes are significant differences from one time to another in population, in interaction, in grouping, in culture. They are lasting alterations in the human and social factors that condition and control immediate situa tions . 96 Of special note to us is the importance of the time dimension. Time is a necessary category for a discussion of change. Change and time are inextricably related. Without a movement in time there is no change. Differing and lasting patterns of human and social factors that occur from one time period to the next constitute change. There fore, one can extrapolate that administrative change is a significant alteration in human and social factors, in cluding interactional patterns and structural arrangements, that have a controlling and conditioning effect upon imme diate situations. A situational analysis, then, has a great deal to say about administrative change, for a conceptual and re fined analysis of the situation can aid us in the study and practice of administrative change. Understanding the situ ational nature of change is imperative for a student of administrative change. Carr's book is vital as a first effort to bring together several insights into a solitary 68 attempt to create a situational analysis. Its main draw back for our purposes is that Carr wrote the book as an introductory sociology text. Therefore, it does not go far enough for us. Hopefully this paper will justifiably further his work and arrive at a situational analysis that will truly aid the researcher and practitioner in the study and practice of administrative change. Kurt Lewin— Situa tional Psychology Kurt Lewin is a major figure in the development of psychology. He began his career in Germany, studying and teaching in Berlin, and later emigrated to the United States in the 1930's. His impact upon psychology has been profound. Such familiar concepts as group dynamics, action research, sensitivity training and field theory were orig inated by Lewin. His pioneering work in psychology and social psychology is important for this study, for Lewin1s conceptualizations are situational in nature. Like Mary Parker Follett, Lewin was influenced by the early gestaltists. Lewin later broke from this school, but the perception of the total immediate situation plays a major part in his postulations. Lewin's goal was to dis cover a theory that would encompass all of psychology. He wished to understand and predict the inner determinants of individual behavior. 69 This desire led Lewin to create the concept of field theory around 1 9 2 2. Lewin borrowed the idea of field theory for psychology from the physicists who used the con cept of energy fields as a more accurate and adequate explanatory device for analyzing physical phenomena. Gestalt psychologists had also begun to think in terms of fields of energy. Lewin took these concepts and broadened them into a system for psychology that included all of the psychological activity of an actor. Simply stated., Field theory postulates that a person's behavior is derived from a totality of coexisting facts. The multitude of data from any event provides a dynamic "field" in which all facts are interdependent with all others.97 This dynamic field changes from event to event or from situation to situation for the individual. Behavior then becomes a function of the person and the environment (where the environment is the situation or event, and the facts in that situation are both psychological and non- qo psychological). Changes in the field would then produce changes in individual behavior. A complex list of assumptions and hypotheses sprang from Lewin's theory. The idea of tensions as precursors of action was one. Lewin held that tensions arise when there is a need or want. . . . The forces which Lewin postulated are in the psychic field, not the physical. Thus, to understand or predict behavior, one must deal with psychic tensions operating in a psychic field.99 70 Tension states are not situations of undesirable stress as the term is frequently used; instead, Lewin uses the term to denote a general state of readiness for action. Tensions arise from stimuli conditions such as: (l) a new personal intention or desire, (2) an increase in tension of a previously held intention, i.e., the stimulus gains valence power, and (3) a reduction of tension to a lower level, which creates a high negative valence for that tension. Tensions and the valences that are attached to them can be either positive or negative. Perhaps the interaction between tension states, fields of energy, and action can best be explained by reference to the following example that Lewin often used to describe his concept. The example is one of a child at play who suddenly discovers a ball at the bottom of a hole too deep for him to reach. The per ception of the ball creates a tension with a positive valence. The behavior of the child becomes limited to such actions as may bring his attainment of the ball nearer. He makes numerous attempts to reach it. Unsuccessful, he obtains a long stick but still cannot get the ball out of the hole. Finally, he calls to an adult, who recovers it for him. The goal reached, the child's tension is released. He perceives some other toy, and the process starts over again. The totality of the field forces resulting from the positive and negative valences of the objects in the field, exert ing influences of an attractive or repulsive nature, steer the child's behavior to particular goals.101 Thus, because of a felt need a person builds up a tension to behave in a certain manner. This eventually leads to an expenditure of energy on his part. His 71 tensions form and act in a force field composed of numerous positive and negative valences. His tension state disturbs the equilibrium. Upon release of the tension* the equi- 102 librium is re-established. Another situational concept developed by Lewin is the notion of life space. Lewin uses the term life space to refer to the person plus his total psychological envi ronment which he subjectively experiences. The area out side this life space is the non-psychological world of either social or physical phenomena. Thus* where P = person and E = environment* Non-Psychological E (P) E Non-Psychological Life Space The concept of life space was important for Lewin for he believed that in it "person and environment are re lated and individual behavior is always derived from the relation of the concrete individual to the concrete situ ation . Lewin soon began to diagram his field theory con cepts in mathematical terms. He believed that more spe cific references were needed for terms like "goals*" "friendship*" "moods*" and the like. His mathematical 72 representation of the valences and vectors of his field theory is known as psychological topology. Topology quickly became an important and, often for the layman, a confusing part of Lewin's psychology. Lewin's topological representation are drawings of all the forces interacting on a person in a specific situation. Behavior then becomes a function of the person plus his environment (i.e., the situation-at-hand). Lewin represented this postulation in the formula B = F(p,e) where B is behavior, F is function, p is the person and e 104 is the environment. Lewin's emphasis in the study of behavior was on "the here and now," or in other words, the emphasis in the determination and prediction of behavior belongs neither to the past nor to the future, but rather to the present field 10^ or current situation the person finds himself in. ^ This emphasis on the here and now, of course, parallels B. P. Skinner's approach to behavior modification while conflict ing with Preud's psychoanalytical constructs which stress the importance of the past. Although Kurt Lewin never identified it as such, from our perspective he has proposed a situational psy chology. Not only in his field theory situational by 73 nature,, but Lewin frequently used the situation as an analytical category in describing human behavior. One of Lewin's last papers before his death is of particular significance for us. Coming near the end of his life, it shows he never faltered from his situational ap proach to behavior. In the article "Behavior and Develop ment as a Function of the Total Situation," Lewin described the importance of the situation as follows: The novelist who tells the story behind the be havior and development of an individual gives us de tailed data about his parents, his siblings, his character, his intelligence, his occupation, his friends, his status. He gives us these data in their specific interrelation, that is as part of the total situation. Psychology has to fulfill the same task with scientific instead of poetic means. The method should be analytical in that the different factors which influence behavior have to be specifically dis tinguished. In science, these data have also to be represented in their particular setting with the specific situation. A totality of coexisting facts which are conceived of as mutually interdependent is called a field (Einstein, 1933)• Psychology has to view the life space, including the person and his en vironment as one field.106 Lewin frequently repeats the same basic message: behavior must be understood as a function of the person and the environment. The environment or the situation is an integral, vital part of the behavior. It is this orienta tion, supported by Lewin and his topolographical followers, that is at the heart of the situational analysis proposed here for public administration. 74 Alfred Marrow, a student of Lewin and his biog rapher, commented on Lewin1s concept of the situation as follows: In Lewin1s view, the study of environmental factors had to start from a consideration of what he called "the total situation." He denied the possibility of an "average" environment, for the same environment may assume a different quality depending on a number of characteristics, all of which reflect the immediate circumstance surrounding the child.107 Lewin believed that the behavior of a person could be predicted, if his total psychological field was known in 10 8 a concrete situation-at-hand. Thus, the prediction of human behavior is inextricably bound to a knowledge of situational factors. In Lewin1s analysis of group be havior, the situation is just as important; for group behavior "is a function of both the individual person and the social situation. Even Lewin's definition of objectivity in observa tions has a situational emphasis. Lewin stated, "Objec tivity in psychology demands representing the field cor rectly as it exists for the individual in question at that . . - i . . n 110 particular time. Whether it be individual behavior, group behavior, or even stages of development in early childhood, Lewin clearly stated again and again that the data one finds are useful only if they are tied to the concrete environmental situation surrounding the individual, the group, or the 75 child at a particular time.'^'*' The study of psychology must be situational. Likewise., this author contends that the study of administrative change must be situational also. Besides offering us the general constructs that the situation is one of the two main components of behavior, Lewin gave us several specifics on how the situation and different types of situations affect behavior. An example is Lewin1s concept of the potency of the situation, which refers to the weight a certain area of life space has for the individual. This idea becomes clear when we view it in conjunction with his definition of overlapping situations. Lewin explained the two concepts as follows: Frequently the person finds himself at the same time in more than one situation. The simplest example is that of divided attention: A child in the classroom listens to the teacher but also thinks about the ball game after school. The amount to which the child is involved in either of these two situations, Si and S2, is called their relative potency, Po(Sl) and Po(S2). The effect a situation has on behavior depends upon the potency of that situation: In particular, the ef fect a force has on behavior is proportional to the potency of the related situation.112 Lewin uses his concepts of overlapping situations and the potency of the situation to explain the phenomenon of choice in human behavior. A choice or decisional situ ation is viewed as a set of two or more overlapping situa tions . 76 D = decision area 51 = situation 1 52 = situation 2 When a decision is finally reached, one of the situ ations in the set assumes the dominant potency perma- 114 nently. Lewin puts into topographical terms what many management theorists have frequently stated, namely that management decisions are made with reference to specific situations. Following Lewin's analysis, one can conclude that a manager who is not aware of all the possible overlapping situations in a choice situation is more likely to make an unwise decision than a manager who is attuned to the entire situational field surrounding him. Lewin's views on how to effectuate change are of interest as well. Lewin was impressed by the success of one of his student's experiments on change. J. D. Frank, in 19^^} found that a step-by-step approach was more efficient in getting a person to eat something he was resistant to than attempting to make him go all the way toward overcoming the resistance in one step. Lewin 77 related, "The effectiveness of the step-by-step method seems to be based on the gradual acceptance of the situa tion in which the person finds himself so that he resists less the making of the next step. This is the same basic approach Skinnerians use in overcoming resistance to change. The important point for the development of a situ ational analysis is that change can and does occur through a series of step situations. The category of the situation is a vital element in understanding and effectuating change. It follows from this, of course, that a change in environment or situational context may have great effect on behavior. The change in behavior that occurs as a result of environmental changes produces a reaction in the indi vidual that will change his reaction to all later situa tions . The idea of valences and forces mentioned earlier is important in the change process. When a particular situation achieves a final potency and resistance to change is overcome, it is due to the push of psychological valence of factors in that dominant situation. The forces in the field are competing and in the process one set of forces tends to achieve a temporary permanence. Lewin described the process as follows: The structure of the life space determines what locomotions are possible at a given time. What change actually occurs depends on the constellation of psy 78 chological forces. The construct force characterizes* for a given point of life space* the direction and strength of the tendency to change.HT How an individual perceives the situations around him then becomes an important variable in the change process. His perception of the surrounding situations aids in the determination of the psychological forces defined in those situations. Opening a person up to new possibilities or alternative actions* in effect* is adding new forces to the field the person is in at any given moment. Frequently Lewin used the metaphors of freezing and unfreezing to explain change. When a person overcomes a resistance to change he "unfreezes" his behavioral pat terns. He "moves" to a new level of behavior and then "refreezes" into the pattern until later situations cause ll8 the process to start over again. Like most metaphors* this one has some qualities to recommend it and some that are disturbing. What this author finds disturbing is the impression given that a person's behavior is ever statically frozen at any one time. Behavior and the situational fac tors that surround it are dynamic. Concepts such as "freezing" and "homeostatics" are artificial concepts used to aid in the explication of behavior. We should not assume that behavior can be frozen or homeostatic in a literal sense. In addition to the concepts of overlapping situa- tions and potency of the situation, Lewin introduced the concepts of the "immediate situation" and the "background situation." These terms refer to the scope of the situa tion. The immediate situation denotes the concrete situa tion that is occurring at the moment. As the name implies, it is the foreground event that is the focal point of action for the individual. The background situation refers to the more historical situation-at-large and thus sets the context in which the immediate situation tran spires. A background of frustration may color the behavior of an individual in a specific immediate situation even though there are no frustrating factors in that immediate situation. The total situation, as Lewin calls it, is comprised of the background situation plus the immediate situation. The background and immediate situations may overlap with each other and several immediate situations and several background situations may overlap with them selves. The final behavior, then, will be a result of which situation achieves final potency in this situational force field. Conclusion Lewin and Mary Parker Follett have a good deal in common. They each were: (l) influenced by the early German gestaltists, (2) involved in the early stages of psycho logical study of man-at-work, (3) placed emphasis on the situation as an analytical category, and (4) professed what Follett labeled the circularity of behavior. Fol- let's concept of circularity, explained earlier, finds its way into Lewin1s thinking also. Lewin stated, "Any be havior resulting from a certain situation alters the situ- 120 ation to some degree." Thus, one's behavior in a situ ation affects the situation and our overall reaction to it. It is intriguing that Lewin's biographer, Alfred Marrow, never mentions that Follett and Lewin met, and one may assume that they never did. However, the similarity and importance of their work for understanding human behavior in organizations and for the development of a situational analysis cannot be underestimated. In summary, Lewin is a paramount figure among the orists who stress the importance of situational factors in the understanding of human behavior because his main the oretical contribution, field theory, and the resulting process of force field analysis are by definition situa tional. And secondly, he is important because he treated the concept of the situation as an analytical category and developed several constructs such as overlapping situa tions, background and immediate situations, the potency of the situation, and the step-by-step situational approach to effectuating change. 81 It Is for these reasons that Lewin's thoughts stand as one of the major cornerstones of this paper's effort to develop a full-fledged situational analysis for the study and practice of administrative change. Herbert Blumer— Situ ational Sociology The symbolic interactionist trend in sociology led by G. H. Mead, John Dewey, W. I. Thomas, Robert E. Park, William James, Charles H. Cooley, and Herbert Blumer is only a minority opinion in the field. The dominant form of American sociological analysis is structural functional- 121 ism. Symbolic interactionism, unlike structural func tionalism's static systems analysis, is situational and concerned with the process of human action as a category of analysis in its own right. Structural functional analysis, as reviewed in this chapter, tends to see human action as arising out of insti tutional or systemic variables such as social status, culture, economic class, and so forth. Symbolic interac- tionists believe that human actions do not automatically arise out of the requirements of our models of social systems. Instead people act because of the way they define the situations that are before them and in which they have to act. The social system is only the framework within 122 which this interpretation takes place. 82 Herbert Blumer, former Chairman of the Sociology Department at the University of California at Berkeley, coined the term symbolic interactionism. He Is the leading exponent of this approach today and offers us a good sum mary of symbolic interactionism1s basic constructs. The three major premises of symbolic Interactionism are: (l) humans act toward objects and people on the basis of the meanings that the objects and Interactions have for them, (2) those meanings are derived from or arise out of the social Interaction one has with others In society, and (3) those meanings are handled in, and modified through, an Interpretative process used by the person In the inter- 12^ actional situation. Symbolic interactionism proposes that the meanings of the objects around us, Including people, are Interpreted by the Individual through a process of social and self- indication. Thus, different objects or Interactional patterns can have different meanings for different indi viduals. The symbolic Interactionists argue further that these Individual and social meanings develop through a process of self-interaction made in light of particular situations. George H. Mead, the founder of this sociological approach, formulated the concept of self-indication or self-role sending. It is Mead's hypothesis that an indi- vidual can send a role to himself, or in other words, be the object of his actions. As Mead stated: It is the characteristic of the self as an object to itself that I want to bring out. The characteristic is represented in the word "self," which is a reflex ive, and indicates that which can be both subject and object. This type of object is essentially different from other objects, and in the past it has been dis tinguished as conscious, a term which indicates an experience with, an experience of one's self. It was assumed that consciousness in some way carried this capacity of being an object to itself.124 The interspective process always occurs in terms of concrete situations in which humans have to act. In typ ical sociological schemes, social interaction is taken for granted. It is merely a medium through which the deter minants of behavior (constructs like status, class, eco nomic level, and so forth) pass to produce the resultant behavior. However, Blumer argues that these abstract concepts by themselves are insufficient to explain behavior. The social interaction process itself is a major determi nant of behavior and needs to be studied in its own right. It never makes sense to speak of behavior without taking into account the specific situation in which the behavior takes place. Thus, in order to understand behavior, especially administrative behavior in our case, one must be aware of the situation in which it takes place and the meanings the objects and people in the situation have for the actor. 84 One must also realize that the meanings one attaches to his environment are Influenced In specific situations by the nature of the situations themselves. It follows from this analysis that one way to change administrative behavior is to alter the situation in which it normally occurs and thus influence a person's epistemological base— the way he sees the world. Symbolic interactionism1s view of change is basic to the analysis of administrative change presented here. Blumer criticizes structural functionalists when they study change because they place all their emphasis on external factors and little or no emphasis on the interpretive process of the individual actor. Take* .for example, the case of an economic depression increasing solidarity in families of working men. The line of reasoning here is that an external variable, economic depression, causally effected a behavioral change in working men's families. Interpretation of the situation by the families is not dealt with. Change becomes a reactive process for the family, and behavioral change then is not seen as possess- 126 ing proactive possibilities. Blumer stated his position on change as follows: I wish to point out that any line of social change, since it involves change in human action, is neces sarily mediated by interpretation on the part of the people caught up in the change— the change appears in the form of new situations in which people have to 85 construct new forms of action. Also, in line with what has been said previously, interpretations of new situations are not predetermined by conditions ante cedent to the situations but depend on what is taken into account and assessed in the actual situations in which behavior is formed. Variations in interpreta tion may readily occur as different acting units cut out different objects in the situation, or give dif ferent weight to the objects which they note, or piece objects together in different patterns. In formulating propositions of social change, it would be wise to recognize that any given line of such change is medi ated by acting units interpreting the situation with which they are confronted.127 Blumer's assumption that there are variations in the interpretation of new situations, and that these vari ations affect the nature of our behavior with respect to change, is empirically tested in Chapter IV. Situational analysis, following Blumer1s reasoning, attempts to place the study of administrative change on the situation and the interpretation by the actors of the situations confronting them. In summary, the symbolic interaction!st view of change is based on two assumptions. One, change appears in the form of new situations in which people must devise new forms of action. This can be a proactive process. And two, change is a "continuous indigenous process in human group life instead of an episodic result of extraneous 1 Pft facts playing on established structure." 86 View of Organizations Blumer in his writings devotes some time to a symbolic interactionist view of organizations. Prom his perspective organizations must "be seen, studied and ex plained in terms of the process of interpretation engaged in by the acting participants as they handle the situa- 12Q tions at their respective positions in the organization." y Therefore, when studying organizations one must study what the participants do. This will not lead to dysfunctional reduction!sm, but rather it will lead properly to the macro-level from an accurate assessment of behavior on the micro-level. Processes, not just norms and rules of or ganizational behavior, must be analyzed. By studying large-scale organizations from the standpoint of the participants we are able to "catch the process" of their actions. Traditional social science research lists several steps deemed appropriate to take before coming into contact with the data or people under study. For example, if one were to propose studying the attitudes of poor people in regard to low cost housing, the traditional procedure would be to formulate a research design, make up a hypothesis, find the people to test it on, and so forth. After one has devised this complete design, inside the comfort of a uni versity no doubt, then the researcher goes out to verify 87 the design, or what often happens to find the data that will fit the design. Thus, empirical events are looked at after a design has already been made which was formed on the hunches of a researcher as to what is really "out there. " 130 Blumer proposes to replace this procedure with a two-step process of exploration and inspection. If one truly believes that people determine the meanings of life around them and the form of the actions they will take in the context of concrete situations, then one must have a methodology that gets at this process. The researcher must be able to "catch the process" of their actions— what those actions mean to them. Returning to our example of poor people's attitudes towards low cost housing, the researcher would go out into the field without preconceived ideas or designs and attempt to "catch the process" of the meanings poor people have regarding life and housing. Prom this exploration of how they define their lives and the housing question, the re searcher would then attempt to devise his research design. The second part of Blumer's analysis, inspection, is where the researcher goes about traditional hypothesis generation, research design formulation, and data gather ing, with some modifications about not attempting to operationalize or measure everything. 88 The point for a situational analysis is that we can never hope to understand or analyze what life means to other individuals by arm-chairing methodologically correct research designs. What is important in studying people "out there" is to determine how those people make the mean ings for their lives in the process of their daily exist ence. We must "catch the process" of their lives, i.e., try to understand what is going on from their standpoint. Then and only then should we go back and apply the tools and techniques of behavioral science. This also means that the social researcher has to be a sensitive person, capable of experiencing empathy and understanding the feelings of others. The good social scientist must have social as well as technical competence. A final point on the study of organizational be havior is that our emphasis on the present situation should not lead us to forget the importance of historical linkages for determining behavior. Blumer warned us that the designations and interpretations through which people form and maintain their organized relations are always in degree a carry-over from their past. To ignore this carry-over sets a genuine risk for the scholar. On this point the methodological pos ture of symbolic interactionism is to pay heed to the historical linkages of what is being studied.131 The symbolic interactionist approach is situational in that it asserts that behavior is a function of interpre tation by the individual of events that are occurring around 89 people in specific situations. Change arises from indi viduals' devising new patterns of action to meet new situ ations. The interpretative process itself is an important variable for the study of administrative and social change; thus, this sociological perspective gives crucial insight into the development of a situation-based analysis of administrative change. It also supports the methodological position of this study, that variations in the perceptions of situations lead to variations in the response to pos sible change situations. In Chapter I, we have analyzed the debate between stability and process orientations along four dimensions: philosophy, sociology, science, and semantics. With the exception of modern science, we discovered a stability bias in each of these which prejudices one to see adminis trative systems as stable micro-social systems and the phenomenon of change as an exogenous variable. Also in this chapter, we examined the possibilities inherent in viewing the situation as an analytical category for the study of change. We explored the writings of four authors, representing three different fields of study: Mary Parker Follett, management; Kurt Lewin, psychology; and Lowell Carr and Herbert Blumer, sociology. Their thoughts along with others, including those of the author, are integrated in the following chapter and form 10 90 propositions of a situational analysis for the study of administrative change. These propositions are not proposed as inviolate laws* but rather as tentative statements about the situational nature of behavior in organizations. 91 FOOTNOTES T. V. Smith* ed., Philosophers Speak for Themselves from Thales to Plato (2nd ed.j Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1956)'> P• H • 2Ibid.; p. 1 3. ^Ibid. ^Ibid., p. 1 6. ^Ibid., p. 1 7 9. 6 Democritus, of the Greek Atomistic School; proposed a compromise between Heraclitus' change and Paremenides' stability orientation which utilized the concept of primary particles; atoms; that were in constant flux. Although this paradigm comes remarkably close to the discoveries of twentieth century physics; the influence of the Atomist School in Greece eventually faded and was also overshadowed by Plato and Aristotle. For a more complete explanation see Smith; Chapter IV, especially p. 3 6. 7 Alvin Gouldner; The Coming Crisis of Western Soci ology (New York and London: Basic Books, 1970); pp. 352-5 3. o Richard P. Appelbaum, Theories of Social Change' (Chicago: Markham Publishing Co., 1970), V~. 20. ^Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim are exceptions to unilinear development models. For a full explanation see Appelbaum, p. 3 0. 10Ibid., p. 1 0 3. 11Ibid> ., p. 8l. 12 Rolf Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Indus- trial Society (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1959), P. 28. 1^Rolf Dahrendorf, "Towards a Theory of Social Con flict," in Social Change, ed. by Amitai and Eva Etzioni (New York: Basic Books, 1964), p. IO3. 14 Appelbaum, p. 111. 15Ibid., p. 1 1 2. l6Ibid., p. 1 1 5. 92 17 'Leon Brillouin, Scientific Uncertainty and Informa tion (New York and London: Academic Press* 19o4), p. I3 6. ~^8Ibid., p. 9 0. ^Ibad., p. 2 5. 20-r, . , Ibid. 21 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (2nd rev. ed.; New York: Bantam Books, 1957)* p. 335 22Ibid., p. 34. 23Ibid. 24 The numerical value of Plank's constant is .00000000000000000000000006624 and is one of the most fundamental constants in nature. 25 ^Barnett, pp. 23-24. 28Brillouin, p. 52. 27Ibid., p. 55. 28Ibid., P- 53- 2Q ■iBarnett, pp. 46-48. 30Ibid., pp. 54, 61 31Ibid., p. 7 0. 32Ibid., P- 32. 33Ibid., p. 8 5. 3^Ibid., P- 30. 75 i r J Clyde Kluckhohn and William Kelly, The Concept of Culture," in The Science of Man in the World Crisis, ed. by Ralph Linton (New York: Columbia University Press, 1945K P- 97. 38Harry Hoijer, "The Relation of Language to Culture," in Anthropology Today: Selections, ed. by Sol Tax (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1 9 6 2), p. 2 5 8. This view of culture as a system is only about thirty-five years old. 3^Ibid., pp. 2 5 8-6 0. Here you will find a criticism of this viewpoint by C. P. Voegelin and Holder's rejoinder. 38Ibid., p. 260. ■^Edward Sapir, "The Status of Linguistics as a Sci ence, " in Selected Writings of Edward Sapir (Berkeley and Los Angeles: The University of California Press, 1949)> p. 162. 93 Z i f ) Benjamin Lee Whorf, Language, Thought, and Reality. Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, ed. by John B. Carroll (BostonJ New York, and London: Published jointly by The Technology Press of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [Boston], John Wiley & Sons [New York], and Chapman & Hall, Ltd. [London], 1 9 5 6), p. 2 5 2. ^1Ibid. Zip / Clyde Kluckhohn, Mirror for Man (New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1949), p. 1 5 9. ^3j. Samuel Bois, The Art of Awareness (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1 9 6 6), p. 157. ^Hoijer, pp. 275-76. ^Whorf, pp. 220-21. ^6Ibid., p. 241. 47 'For a fuller explanation of the verb-noun problem see Whorf, pp. 242-45. ZjQ Benjamin Lee Whorf, "The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language," in Four Articles on Metalinguistics (Washington, D.C.: Foreign Service Insti tute, Department of State, 1949), p. 30* ^Hoijer, p. 2 6 7. ^ Ibid., p. 270, with quotes from Whorf, "The Rela tion of Habitual Thought," p. 8 8. -^Whorf, "The Relation of Habitual Thought," pp. 144- 45. S2 ^ Warren G. Bennis, Changing Organizations: Essays on the Development and Evolution of Human Organizations (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1 9 6 6). -^Mary Parker Follett, Creative Experience (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1924"J1 pp. 87-88. -^Ibid., p. 136. 55Ibid., p. 6 5. ^Ibid., p. 1 2 2. -^Ibid., p. 6 9. 58Ibid., p. 6 7. 59Ibid., p. 70. 60 T, . , Ibxd., p. 1 0 2. 94 8^A simple statement of gestalt theory is that indi vidual reactions are in relation to a total perceptual field. Sensory inputs are not added together one plus one, but rather form a what that is both objectively and experi- entially real for the individual. This whole takes into account one's pre-perceptual states as well. 6o Follett, p. 60. 6 ^ ^Michael Beldoch, "The False Psychology of Encounter Groups," Intellectual Digest, October, 1971* PP. 8 5-8 9. 8^Follett, pp. 6 3-6 4. ^Ibid., p. I3 3. 88See F. E. Emery and E. L. Trist, "The Causal Tex ture of Organizational Environments," in Systems Thinking, ed. by F. E. Emery (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1 9 6 9)* for a full explanation of turbulent fields. 67Follett, p. 70. 68 Mary Parker Follett, Dynamic Administration. The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, ed. by Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwick (New York: Harper & Row, 1940), p. 28. 89Ibid., pp. 59* 6 3, 6 5* and Follett, Creative Experi ence, p. 1 5 1. 70 Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Psychology (Engle wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1 9 6 5)* PP. 82, 0 5-8 6. ^Follett, Creative Experience, p. 6 5. 72Ibid., p. 1 7 1. 73Ibid., p. 8 9. 74 Lowell Juilliard Carr, Situational Analysis: An Observational Approach to Introductory Sociology (New York: Harper & Bros., 1948), p. ix. 75Ibid., p. 10. 76Ibid. See especially Chapters VII and VIII. 77Ibid., PP. 5* 90. 78Ibid., P. xiii. 79Ibid., pp. 22, 2 7. 80Ibid., P. 23. 81-rv^ Ibid., p. 124. 82Ibid., P. 40. 83Ibid., p. 12. 8^Ibid., P. 38. 95 "ibid., P. 17 and also P. 45. 86Ibid., P. r - 6 1 — 1 "ibid., P- 32. 88Ibid., P- 5. 8 9Ibid., P. 1 1. 90Ibid., PP . 1 1, 1 2 2. 91Ibid., P. 119. 92Ibid., P- CO ro 93Ibid., P. 0 OJ "ibid., PP• 136-37. "ibid., P. 3^. "ibid., P. 1 0 1. "Alfred J. Marrow, The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewln (New York: Basic Books, 1 9 6 9)j p. 3 4. 9 8Ibid., pp. 29-39. " ibid. , pp. 3O-3I. 1Q0Ibid., p. 3 1. 101Ibid., pp. 3I-3 2. 102 Ibid., p. 33- 103 -'For a fuller explanation of the concept of life space, see Marrow, pp. 29-39- 1Q^Ibid., p. 3 6. 105Ibid., p. 3 5. " 8Kurt Lewin, "Behavior and Development as a Function of the Total Situation," in Manual of Child Psychology, ed. by L. Carmichael (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1946)7 p. 919. " "^Marrow , P . 6 0. 108Ibid., p. 5 9. 109Ibid., P- 171. ■'■"Lewin, p. 9 2 0. 111 Ibid., P. 9 2 1. 112Ibid., p. 943. ll3Ibid. 114 Ibid. " 9Ibid., P- 927. "^Marrow, p. 6 3. ■''"Lewin, P. 932. *1 -1 O Marrow, p. 2 2 3. " 9Lewin, p. 944. 120Ibid., p. 945. 1 2 1™ For a lengthy criticism of this approach, see Gouldner, The Coming Crisis. 1 PP Herbert Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism: Perspec- tlve and Method (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969), P. 19. 123Ibid., p. 3. ■'■^George H. Mead, Mind, Self, and Society (Chicago: Phoenix edition, The University of Chicago Press, 1934), P. 137. "'■^Blumer, p. 8 9. 728Ibid., p. 88. 127Ibid., p. 89- 128Ibid., p. 77. 129Ibid., p. 58. 130Ibid., pp. 39-47. 13lIbld., p. 6 0. CHAPTER II A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: TEN PROPOSITIONS OF A SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS FOR THE STUDY OF ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE This chapter will outline ten propositions of a suggested situational analysis. The purpose of these propositions is to provide a framework for a situational analysis and to relate this analytical approach to the study and practice of administrative change. The propositions presented draw upon the literature review of the preceding chapter. One of the propositions., Number VII* is empiri cally tested with results presented in Chapter IV. The situational approach to behavior in general and administrative change in particular is an attempt to simul taneously view human action as comprised of two determi- nables, the social and the individual. More generally, it is an endeavor to construct the pattern of social action by means of an analytical schema whose categories constitute at the same time the empirical structure of events. The unit of analysis is "situation," an expression suggesting the presence in behavior of momentary contexts, ever changing but always imperative.! A situation is, in part, a momentary context of behavior. The behavior of a person is always in relation 97 98 to, as Meadows stated, an "uninterrupted commerce with his environment," which is comprised of a complex causal tex- 2 ture. The situational approach, then, springs from the overarching assumption that in order to explain behavior one must deal at the same time with both the individual and the surrounding environment. To do less is to fall into the danger of "picking out one or another isolated element within a situation, the importance of which cannot be judged without consideration of the situation as a whole. The individual experiences his interrelation with the en vironment as a whole. It is a configurative interacting process for him. An analysis of this process cannot be reductionistic and still purport to be accurate. We need to examine the behaving process in the context of the situ ations in which it takes place. The following ten proposi tions of a situational analysis are a step in this direc tion . Proposition I (A Situation is a Momentary Context of Meaning Contained Within a Specific Space-Time Segment of Our Actions) In proposing a situational analysis, two items are of immediate importance: (l) What is a situation? and (2) What are the variables that comprise a situation? A situ ation is defined here as a momentary context of meanings 99 contained within a specific space-time segment of our actions. Time is an important element of our definition. Human actions are a continuous process, however; for ana lytical purposes we need to "take a picture" of the ongoing action for examination. A situation is a momentary context of action that should be analyzed, not in isolation from what things have gone on in the past or what will occur in the future, but rather in relation to them. As Paul Meadows related, Experience is a whole whose units are situations. And situations are analytical space-time "stills" in a moving picture, momentary patterns within a temporal sequence Life and the environment around us are primarily process. Structure arises out of this process. Action never solidifies totally into a static concept of structure and we can never hope to capture all of the complexities of reality in our analysis of it. What we can do, however, is break up this process into specific space-time frames. This is essentially what the situational approach attempts. It asks us to add a fourth dimension to our analysis of social processes much as Einstein's work in physics added a fourth dimension to the paradigm in the physical sciences. This approach also asks us to view all of the psy chological, non-psychological, and individualistic vari ables that comprise social action and hence social change 100 as corning together in concrete situations. These variables form a definite gestalt that makes a situation. The focusing nature of a situation is also of paramount importance. Lowell Carr defined a situation, as reported earlier, as a "focalized pattern of social rela tionships regarded as a source of actual or potential experience. Carr is not the only author who defines the situation in terms of a space-time frame where actions or meanings are focalized. Meadows explained that the momen tary contexts are "meaning-situations." Past, present, and future enter into dynamic inter play in the moment which we call the "meaning situa tion." More precisely, related in the situation are "things," "terms," and "objects" of knowledge: that is to say, every situation has its metaphysics, its logic, and its epistemology.7 The "situation" then, becomes the ultimate matrix of action. The meaning of the situation is always a function of the ends and the norms. That is, the situation is always relative to the point of view.8 Meadows' hypothesis is of great importance for a situational analysis. The meanings we attach to the hap penings around us, and the actions we subsequently take, are focalized in concrete situations. The situation is the ultimate matrix of our actions. More broadly defined, then, a situation is a space time segment comprised of a momentary context of meanings, focusing our social and non-social interrelations into the ultimate matrix of our actions. 101 Social change, therefore, must be studied In rela tion to specific situations. SItu Is the Latin root for place. A situation Is the "place" where change occurs: the human Interactional "place," the environmental "place," the physical "place," the meaning "place," and the time "place." Ths discussion leads us to the following corollary: A Situation is Comprised of (l) People, (2) Place, (3) Things, (4) Organizational or Insti tutional Environment, (5) Ideas, and (6) Time. Although several authors writing about situations have proposed lists of the component parts of a situation, the most complete list comes from Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Toffler briefly listed six variables that comprise a situation. He did not build upon this analysis or elaborate on it to any great extent, however; each variable is important for the development of a o situational analysis and worthy of attention. The following six factors comprise the major vari ables Toffler (and this author) see comprising situations. 1. People The cast of characters that comprise and interact in a situation is of vital importance. How we interpret the actions of others in a situation will determine to a large degree how we will act towards them. Thus, who the 102 others are and how many of them there are are significant for effecting a change in our behavior. For example* the addition of a third person to a couple engaged in intimate discussion can create a whole new situation. We do not add arithmetically more people to a situation; rather it is geometric progression* i.e.* not two plus one equals three* but two plus one equals a new structural relationship. It is to this concept that J. Samuel Bois gave the name the structural more. The number of people in a situation can create a whole new structure or situation of their own.10 2. Place Place refers to the physical location or arena in which the situation occurs. The location of a situation can have both a psychological impact11 and/or a physical 12 impact. Thus* the place where an action occurs can have a bearing on one's orientation to change and the likelihood of changing. Very little attention has been paid in the organi zational development and administrative change literature on the effect physical setting in organizations has on change. In one of the few articles on the subject* Fred I. Steele explained: One frequently overlooked segment of organizations that vitally influences their health is the spatial arrangement of the system. In a sense* the source of the "social architecture" metaphor has lost* and 103 we have tended not to be aware of the Impact that physical life-space may have on the nature of life and of growth within a system. Such simple effects as the size of an office limiting the kinds of gath erings that can take place, or the proximity of two offices allowing their Inhabitants to observe who Is visiting the other, tend to come about more by de fault than from conscious problem-solving about what kinds of Interactions or moods could and should be promoted by the environment.13 Steele's hypothesis is that the physical archi tecture of an organization can be, In certain cases, as vital as the "social architecture" for determining the ability of the organization to change. Steele charac terized the physical environment as having four effects: (1) instrumental, helping or hindering task performance, (2) symbolic, communicating messages such as high or low status ("come in," "stay out"), (3) pleasure, relating feelings of beauty and comfort, and (4) growth, serving as a force for learning about one's self and as a climate for 14 experimentation. Therefore, the physical place where a situation occurs can be an important variable for either facilitating or hindering an administrative change process. Also, a locational change can be an important occurrence for an organization both because the choices made can have a major influ ence on how well the system uses its resources in the future, and because the data about where people see themselves in the system may be more visible during the moving phase than at other more stable times.15 104 3. Things Things refers to the objects, either man-made or natural, that are associated with a situation. Objects or things do not have objective meanings of their own. They have the meanings that we subjectively give to them. Thus, the same object or set of objects can have different mean ings for different individuals.^ The world of objects that comprise a given situation can be vitally important in terms of how an individual will react to that situation. In some instances the meanings a person has given to the objects that make up a particular situation can aid the process of change; at other times these meanings will inhibit change. The variables of place and things are closely re lated because the objects in a place help determine the reaction one has to the entire physical setting of a transaction. Thus, many o.f the points mentioned earlier under the variable of place hold here as well. For ex ample, the status message that comes across from having a large desk or an office by a window can be of importance in determining how people will interact with each other. The physical objects can also have the four effects mentioned by Steele earlier: i.e., instrumental, symbolic, pleasure, or growth. Two dimensions of the objects variable that are 105 important for change potentialities are: (l) do people in the organization feel free enough to influence the space around them by putting up personal objects, i.e., calen dars, pictures, and so forth; and (2) how were the major decorative and functional objects chosen in the organiza tion, i.e., by top management or through some form of 1 participation? 4. Organizational or Institu tional Environment Where the activity takes place in the web of society impacts on the nature of the situation. This environment could be a loosely structured friendship meet ing, or a highly structured interaction in a military role. This variable then refers to the location of the situation in the organization of the total society. Whether or not the environment of a situation is formal or informal, within a subset organization (like a business organization) or within the general society (a meeting on the street), can be of great consequence to how people behave and how likely they are to change the past patterns of their behavior. The literature of behavior in complex organizations details the importance of the organizational climate and its relation to changes in organizational behavior and 19 does not need repeating here. 5. Ideas Each situation takes place within a 'certain context of ideas. Following Herbert Blumer's analysis, a situation can be seen as a loci of meanings. In a situation, there is a matrix of ideas or meanings people have at that moment. They may be different from the ideas they had before and may be different from the meanings or ideas they will have later. Seeing situations as a momentary point in the process of one's personal development of ideas can be a key variable to get people to change their behavior. It Is for this reason that organizations will un dertake major organizational developmental efforts to change the philosophical bases of the organization, re alizing that once the major goals and directions of the organization are changed, the behavior of people in the organization is likely to change as well. 6 . Time Each situation not only takes place within a spe cific time-frame, but the duration of this time-frame it self varies. The length of the interaction, then, becomes another component part of our analysis of situations. The duration of the time-frame can change the meaning and the content of a situation. Just as a movie-maker can shoot a scene with many quick jerky cuts from camera to camera to 107 give us a feeling of action and excitement, situations that transpire rapidly affect us both mentally and physically In more different ways than situations that are long in dura tion. It Is the speeding up of the sequence of situations that Toffler believes is at the heart of our feeling that things are changing faster today. Toffler thinks that this commonly held notion is true because the duration of situ ations that confront us now is shorter in time and greater in number. Hence we are in danger of the psychosomatic disease of future shock. As Toffler stated, "The acceleration of change . . . shortens the duration of many situations. This not only drastically alters their 'flavor,' but hastens their 20 passage through the experiential channel." This increase in the flow of situations complicates the structure of our life for it forces us to play more roles and make more choices. We should also remember that one's perception of time can vary from individual to individual, echoing Einstein's point that time is relative. In conclusion, then, each situation can be viewed along six dimensions: 108 CHART II THE METAFORCE FIELD OF A SITUATION Things Physical Place Societal Organizational Environment People Ideas Time Proposition II (Behavioral Experiences Occur In and Through a Series of Situations) One of the messages of Mary Parker Follett, Kurt Lewin, Herbert Blumer, and Lowell Carr (described in Chap ter I) is that individuals experience and formulate their reactions to the environment in the context of concrete situations. An individual's life is a process of meeting a series of situations. This assumption is of vital im portance as a rationale for a type of analysis that is situational in nature. One can trace this assumption to the gestalt psychologists. This proposition has three corollaries that aid in its explanation. 109 Corollary 1 The Situation is the Setting that Gives Inter personal and Intrapersonal Relations Their Meaning and Value. Follett believed that an analysis which separated the study of behavior from the situation in which it occurs is inadequate. As stated earlier, it is precisely the context of the particular situation that gives meaning and value to our actions. Changes in the situations around us, or as Lewin would relate, the life-space force field, may 21 necessitate changes in our perspectives and values. Corollary 2 Situational Interpretation and Definition are Active, Self-Indicative, and Continual Processes. Several of the authors we have previously reviewed support the position that our interpretations of situations are active (or proactive in some cases), self-indicative, and continual. One of Follett's major theses, in her Creative Experience, is that man does not simply react to situations but instead actively interprets them. This allows him to have an integrative experience with each new situation which puts him somewhere beyond where he was 22 previously. This position is also supported by the symbolic interactionist approach in sociology. Herbert Blumer explains, as reported in Chapter I of this paper, that 110 human actions do not automatically arise out of the require ments of our models of social systems. People act the way they do because they actively define the situations in 23 which they find themselves at any given moment. Included in the symbolic interactionist approach is G. H. Mead's notion that the definition of the situation can be self-indicative: i.e., we can be the objects of our own actions. This is important for understanding our re- 24 actions to certain situations. Kurt Lewin also saw that the process of an indi vidual's behavior in the total situation is tied to his interpretation of the forces in his life space. This is a continual process constantly subject to new influencing 2R factors. ^ Lewin's entire formulation of force field analysis, explained earlier, supports this corollary. Lowell Carr's view of this phenomenon, also de scribed earlier, is three-pronged. He uses the term situational adjustment, although not necessarily in a re active way, to describe the psychological processes one goes through upon confrontation of a new situation: (l) gestalt awareness of the patterns of relationship in the situation, (2) definition of the situation, i.e., descrip tion of meaning to the pattern, and lastly (3) assumption of role, i.e., how shall I react to this situation? The last phase, assumption of role, can be a proactive process. Ill The definition we give a situation determines the action 26 we will take in regards to that situation. Paul Meadows., in his article "The Dialectic of the Situation, Some Notes on Situational Psychology," lends further support. Meadows explained that: Thought originates in problem-situations, it arises only under conditions of stress and strain, and in situations which cause the breaking down of habitual modes of response and which render them inoperative.27 Meadows describes a definition of the situation in terms of the Thomas-Znaniecki formula of behavior which focuses on three variables: attitude, value, and situation. W. I. Thomas related that the attitude is the tendency to act, representing the drive, the affective states, the wishes. The value represents the goal or object derived, and the situ ation represents the configuration of the actors con ditioning the behavior reaction. 28 These three factors form a definition of the situation and, as Thomas stated in another work, "Preliminary to any self- determined act of behavior there is always a stage of examination and deliberation which we call the definition of the situation. Paul Meadows perhaps best summarized the support for this corollary when he wrote: The doctrine of the situation ("situational psychol ogy") places at the center of collective behavior . . . the human personality as an event-structure (culture), both of which determine and are deter mined by (that is, interact with) the ends of the personality (his "definitions" of the situation.) 112 Prom the standpoint of situational psychology, the process of behavior may be phrased as a situational dialectic whose first term Is the objective world (culture), whose second term Is a subj'ectlve phase (motivation), and whose third term is situational definition. The dynamics of collective behavior may be found in the act thus regarded as a situation- process . 3° Corollary 3 Language is an Encapsulator of Our Experience in Situations. In Carr's phases of gestalt awareness and defini tion of the situation, language plays a maj'or role. The Sapir-Whorfian theory of linguistic relativity states that we see reality the way our cultural linguistic patterns have pre-packaged it for us. Thus, the gestalt awareness and definition of a situation would be vastly different for a Hopi, who linguistically sees the world as process, as opposed to a Westerner who linguistically sees the world in terms of static or semi-static structures. As Carr states, most of the definitions we have of routine situations come to us with ready-made definitions.31 Thus, our language itself affects the way we perceive and then define the situations that occur around us. A manager must be aware that his language patterns can be and often are an inhibitor of change. Proposition III (Change Appears In and Through a Series of Situations) Lowell Carr, Kurt Lewin, and Herbert Blumer each postulated that social and individual change occur through a series of situations. It is the necessity of responding to a new situation that brings about a change in one's behavior. Carr, as described earlier, explains that new situ- ations make a choice of alternative roles imperative. - * Meeting these new situations creates new behavioral pat terns. Social changes, for Carr, are significant differ ences from one time to another in either population, inter actions, groupings, or culture. As these situational factors change over time, our responses to them take on a different character. Understanding this situational nature of change is valuable for the study of administrative change. Earlier, Kurt Lewin's approach to change was de scribed in terms of a step-by-step process. Rather than trying to get an individual to overcome a resistance to change all at once, Lewin spoke of a gradual step-by-step procedure. One would attempt to overcome resistance to change through a series of succeeding situations, each bringing one closer to a total triumph over his previous resistance. 114 Lewin also spoke of a process of "freezing" and "unfreezing" In behavioral change. In his force field theory, change Is effectuated when the valences of new forces achieve a final potency and move the person from his previous life-space situation to a new life-space situation. This new situation or life space then becomes dominant, temporarily. Thus, our behavior Is "frozen" at point A. New psychological forces Impinge upon our life space and we "unfreeze" our behavior, move to a new constellation of forces at point B, and "refreeze" our behavioral patterns until the next change process occurs. Herbert Blumer and the symbolic Interaction!sts also approach change as a situational phenomenon. Blumer's position on change Is described at more length on pages 84- 85- A summary of his thoughts reveals that he believes sociologists do not spend enough time on studying the man ner In which Individuals determine and Interpret the situ ations In which they find themselves. As he stated, "In formulating propositions of social change, it would be wise to recognize that any given line of such change Is mediated by acting units Interpreting the situation with which they are confronted."^ Blumer proposes that change appears In the form of new situations In which people must devise new forms of actions, and secondly that change is a continuous indige ne nous process In human life.^ 115 Like Carr and Lewin, Blumer sees change coming about when an individual is confronted with a new situation in which he must take a new role. Corollary 1 Value Change Occurs In and Through a Series of Situations. It follows that if we can speak of change occurring in and through a series of situations, normative change must also be in part a situational phenomenon. Follett speaks of value change as a four-step situational process, described earlier, and repeated here only briefly. An individual's values change when: (l) there is a change in a situation which leads one to see his interests differ ently, (2) some changes brought on by the situation occur in an individual, (3) other factors come into play that give one a deeper understanding of the situation at hand, and (4) when one puts values together in a situation, they may appear differently than when considered separately.^ Value change and formation, like most of behavior, is a function of the person interacting in a situation. Understanding the situational nature of our value processes is a step in the direction of greater effectiveness in effectuating value change in administrative contexts. Proposition IV (Situational Behavior is Circular in Nature) In the section on Mary Parker Follett in this paper* there is a discussion of her hypothesis that be havior is circular in nature. Stated most simply by Follett* "When you get into a situation it becomes what it was plus you; you are responding to the situation plus yourself* that is* to the relation between it and your self. There is a similarity between this position and Mead's self-indicative process. Fol-lett believes that when you are in the act of doing* you are influenced by your perception of yourself engaged in the process of doing. Thus our behavior is never simply linear* stimulus ------- ► person --------► response or even linear with a feedback loop. stimulus Indeed* we need to break out of these linear schemes. Our behavior is much more complex* for we transact not just with a stimulus (e.g.* a person)* but with the stimulus* the situation* and with the relationship between the two 117 which we have in part created.Our behavior then goes beyond mere dyadinal relationships to an evolving triadinal relation between the stimuli, (e.g., people) and the situ ation . Where AU = acting unit (a person) S = situation we have '' ' N ^ Si S2 S3 S4 /V y'V 7V ^ au2 Nk. au2 au2 +< X au2 We need note the evolving nature of the situation. Situa tion-^ is evolving into situationg, which is different; situationg is evolving into situation^, and so on to situation,^. Even this diagram is too simplistic, for each of the acting units is changing and new stimuli can inter cede and create radically new situations or add new people to the interaction. Lewin also believed that behavior resulting from a QQ situation, changes that situation. ^ Our behavior in situ ations is a dynamic process permitting proactive adjust ments to situations that we have created in part by our 118 Initial behavioral responses. Behavior in situations is a dynamic* circular process. Proposition V (Situational Analysis is a Micro-Level Look at Administrative Action) In comparison to contingency and contextual theo ries* to which it is akin* situational analysis is a more micro-level look at administrative change. This means it is in part reductionistic* although hopefully not dysfunc- tionally so. This section will address briefly macro micro approaches to administrative change in terms of con tingency and contextual theories* and will briefly examine the reductionism issue inherent in any purportedly micro level look at social action. Paul R. Laurence and Jay W. Lorsch have been at the forefront of the development of a contingency theory of organization. Most managers are using a theory of organi zation that is a disjointed combination of classical and human relations theories* according to Laurence and Lorsch. Laurence and Lorsch attempt to organize the management literature (and thus incidentally the administrative change literature) around a contingency model. Their contingency model* most simply stated* means that one variable(s) is contingent upon the effect of another variable (s) For example* productivity is contingent upon the nature of the 119 environmental demands. Another example would be that the effectiveness of participation in an organization is con tingent upon the personality predisposition of the workers. Several studies have supported this participation proposi tion, such as Victor H. Vroom's Some Personality Determi- 41 nants of the Effects of Participation and Joseph A. Alutto and James A. Belasco's "A Typology for Participation .,42 in Organizational Decision Making. The major distinction between a contingency and a non-contingency model of organization is one of beginning assumptions and emphases. The non-contingency theory states a relationship between two or more variables as fact, even though this fact may be tentative. The con tingency model states that variable Af i is contingent upon variable Bn: the operationalization of a contingency theory depends upon the situation. Lorsch and Laurence's work tries "to understand and explain how organizations function under different condi tions."^ They strongly support the notion that there can be no one best way to organize a business, public or 44 private. For purposes of our discussion here, this is defined as a macro-level look at organizational structure and action which has as its focus, not managerial percep tions of situational phenomena, but organizational per ceptions of environmental demands, usually external, but 120 possibly Internal (such as employee value predisposition). The aim of our situational analysis is to examine the process of how organizational managers go about determining environmental demands* i.e.* how do they perceive and act in the situations that proceed before them? This is de fined as a micro-level approach. Contingency theory gen erally does not deal with this interpretive process. Thus* while contingency theory advocates manipulation of the organizational structure based upon external and internal environmental needs* little attention is given to how per ceptions of these needs are formulated. Our development of situational analysis attempts to examine this question and demonstrate that managers perceive the world differently in situational contexts and these differences in perceptions lead to differences in managerial actions. Contextual theory building is analytically akin to contingency theory and a distinction between them is per haps artificial. While there is a beginning literature around contingency theory* contextual modeling is more a state of mind. Theories are purposeful abstractions of the empirical world usually stated in universalistic terms. This leads many practitioners and theorists to ascribe universal applicability of a theory in all situations. Contextual theorists argue that this is an act of extreme 121 simplification which ignores the extent to which situa tional contexts differ from each other in structure and meaning. Thus, the manager or theorist who does not con- textualize his theory to the situation runs the risk of operational failure. Effective contextual strategists reverse this pat tern, using concepts to better define and understand the opportunities and constraints operating in any given con text. Theories are created to explain and predict events within specific environments. By using the logic of the situation to guide the construction of contextual theories, an administrator is able to devise responses which promote 4b the attainment of desired ends. ^ The simplistic approach is one that moves mechanis tically from general theories to global strategies. When diagrammed it looks as follows: General Theory Global Strategy Consequences What is missing from this diagram is an absolutely necessary transactional relationship between theory and situation. This transaction generates contextual theories 122 and strategies adapted to the situation. Feedback loops between contextual theories, situations, and consequences are also needed. The following represents the writer's attempt to symbolize this system. General Theory Situation Consequences Contextual Theory Strategy Contextual theories, like contingency theories, look at the macro-question of how to relate specific the ories of organization to specific situations and environ mental demands. Perceptions of the situations and demands are not dealt with adequately and this is where a developed micro-level situational analysis can be of aid. A criticism can be made that this micro-level analysis is dysfunctionally reductionistic, leaving out system considerations. As Robert M. Maclver stated, "It is not enough to identify situations, making the situation itself a unit. We want also as sociologists to study it as a system."^ The intent of our exposition of an 123 analysis of the situation Is not In any way to rule out the consideration of social or organizational system designs and analyses. Some early work by social psychologists in the 193°'sj as they tried to operationalize a research posture for gestalt psychology, did appear to de-emphasize 47 and at worst overlook system concerns. 1 It would be dys functional to concentrate solely upon this basically micro approach for determining the nature of administrative change and organizational action. However,, the proposed situational analysis presented here is not dysfunctionally reductionistic because (l) larger system concerns, such as the background situation, are built into this methodology, and (2) this approach in no way attempts to supplant other levels of administrative analysis. Situational analysis is not presented as the only way to study organizations, but rather as an additional method that has particular utility in addressing questions of administrative change. Often analyses of phenomena, social or physical, are best served by a combination of macro- and micro theories, even though at present we may be unable to integrate them into a grand inclusive theory. Some micro macro theories, such as those in economics, or certain cases in physics, can act in a complementary fashion, each helping to explain the phenomenon in question. Hiesen- burg1s principle of complementarity has relevance for the social as well as the physical sciences. 124 Situational analysis, then, is closely related to the contingency and contextual approach, but it operates on a micro-level while the contingency and contextual the ories are more concerned with macro-phenomena. Proposition VI (Effective Administrative Leadership is in Part a Function of the Situation) Many current leadership studies are arriving at the conclusion that effective leadership is situational. There is no one style of leadership that will work in all situ ations . Leadership studies can be divided into two general classes, those that stress the personality traits of the leader and those that stress the situation in which the leader is in. These two approaches parallel the debate in history over whether great men make history, or history 48 makes great men. Early leadership research focused primarily upon the trait approach. This led to a multitude 49 of good leadership traits lists. v However, two authors who reviewed over 100 studies in this area were unable to find more than 5 percent commonality in traits reported in 80 four or more of the studies. Empirically, then, the trait school of leadership is running into increasing difficulty in maintaining its position. Except for a few very general characteristics, 125 there seems to he little evidence to support this approach as a useful method of arriving at a study of effective 51 leadership. Thus, many researchers have turned to a situational approach which assumes that the traits and characteristics of a good leader will vary from situation to situation. Differences in situations call forth differences in ef- 52 fective leadership behavior. As one researcher, William Lassey, stated, In recent years researchers in the behavioral sci ences have become increasingly certain that we could not understand the nature of leadership by examining only the behavior of the designated "leader,*" actions of the persons "led" are also key factors affecting leader behavior, as is the structure and environment of the group or organizational "situation" or "envi ronment; " that is, the type of leader or leadership required depends upon the situation.53 Fred E. Fiedler's leadership research at the Uni versity of Illinois' Group-Effectiveness Research Labora tory has led him to a similar conclusion. Dr. Fiedler recently stated in Psychology Today that his "studies show that it makes no sense to speak of a good leader or a poor leader. There are only leaders who perform well in one i r 54 situation but not well in another. ^ John K. Hemphill, after consideration of several leadership studies, in cluding his own, concluded in his monograph Situational Factors in Leadership that the effectiveness of a leader's behavior is related to the social or organizational situ- 126 ation.-^ The situational approach to leadership is firmly established in the literature. Is this the best approach? It would be unwise to fall into the trap of looking for the one best approach to the study of leadership, just as it is unwise to look for the one best style for all situations. A more useful tack is to view leadership from an interactionalist perspective, in which leadership is seen as an interrelated function of forces in the person, forces in the followers, and forces in the situation. This is basically the approach taken by Douglas McGregor in The Human Side of Enterprise. McGregor stated in this book that research findings to date suggest . . . that it is more fruitful to consider leadership as a relation between the leader and the situation than as a uni versal pattern of characteristics possessed by cer tain people. 56 Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt, in an excellent little article entitled "How to Choose a Leadership Pat tern, " also found that leadership is an interaction between the forces in the leader, the followers, and the situa tion.-^ A complete definition of leadership must include both characteristics of the leader and the characteristics of the social situation (which includes the characteristics of the followers). Effective leadership is the proper interaction between the forces in the leader and the forces 127 in the situation. Much discussion in leadership analysis has stressed only the forces in the leader but this is an incomplete analysis. Effective leadership in administra te tive organizations is in part a function of the situation/ For our purposes in this study* we shall explore further the aspect of this interactional approach that is of the greatest concern for us: the situation. What does it mean to say that leadership is in part situational? What leadership styles work best in what types of situa tions? Can leaders be trained* if leadership is situa tional? To say that leadership is in part situational does not mean we cannot speak further about what leadership is* nor does it mean that we cannot train leaders. It does mean* however* that leadership is always specific to the situation. Tannenbaum and Schmidt maintained that the successful manager of men can be primarily char acterized neither as a strong leader nor as a permis sive one. Rather* he is one who maintains a high batting average in accurately assessing the forces that determine what his most appropriate behavior at any given time should be and in actually being able to behave accordingly.59 Gordon Lippitt also stressed a situational fit between the leader's behavior and the situation in his Organizational Renewal. Research on leadership indicates that there is no one concept or simple set of rules for effectiveness. It is increasingly obvious that the manager must examine 128 each situation; and the persons in that situation* to determine the appropriate action.60 Thus* a situational accounting of leadership means that a manager must possess the flexibility to alter his behavior to best fit the leadership situation as he per ceives it. "The likelihood of a universal all-purpose leadership style fitting all situations* or even a single situation at all times* is astronomically improbable. George S. Odiorne* writing in his Management De cisions by Objectives* criticizes modern decision theory because it ignores the situational nature of the manager and his acts. In reality* decision theory is bounded by: (l) the situationality of the manager ("He no sooner escapes one situation than he is caught in another. The manager* like all men* is always in a dynamic case study* from which he can never escape")* (2) luck* (3) struggle and conflict* (4) inescapable guilt (he must fail some- 62 times)* and (5) his own personal death. The manager cannot escape from the situational nature of his activity. To the extent that his leadership style fits the requirements of the situation he is in* he will be judged a successful leader.^ gr^g situationality of the behavior of the manager need not be extended to the point where all the manager's behavioral values are situa tional. Specific behavior in specific situations can be 129 different from what one would regard as personally optimal as long as It is In accord with a person's meta-values. Meta-values are the overarching values a person chooses to live by, i.e., honesty, frankness, a sense of humanity, and so forth. A manager may wish to exhibit Theory Y charac teristics of non-directiveness and trust, but in a specific 64 situation need to act in a Theory X manner. This is not hypocritical if two conditions are met: (l) it is a tem porary strategy designed to move the interaction to a more desired position sometime in the future, and (2) it does not violate one's meta-values, i.e., it is not inhumane or dishonest activity. Stating that successful managerial behavior is situational is not the same as stating that managerial ethics are situational or nonexistent. Concluding our answer to what it means to say that leadership is situational, is Gordon Lippitt's thought that not only is it too much to expect that one leadership style will work in all situations, it is also too much to expect that one planned organizational change strategy will work in all situations. Lippitt uses the concept of the situa tion as the focal point of his circular process of organi zational renewal. His definition of a situation is vague and elementary, yet he does realize that it is through a process of situational coping that managers and organiza- 130 tlons assess the success or failure of their actions* which 6s is a necessary step in the process of renewal. ^ Our second question* What leadership styles work best in what types of situations?* has rarely been ad dressed. However* there is agreement that the lead-off point to choosing a leadership style that fits a particular situation is a sophisticated understanding of the situation- 66 at-hand. One of the goals of this study is to increase this situational understanding. Fred E. Fiedler has perhaps done the most extensive research on what types of leadership styles work best in what types of situations. Fiedler had his associates use two types of leadership: task-oriented (Theory X) and re lationship-oriented (Theory Y). He divided the specific situations into those in which the leader had a great deal of influence and power* and those in which he had little influence and power. He summed up his findings as follows: The results show that a task-oriented leader performs best in situations at both extremes - those in which he has a great deal of influence and power* and also in situations where he has no influence and power over the group members. . . . Relationship-oriented leaders tend to perform best in mixed situations where they have only moderate influence over the group. A number of subsequent studies by us and others have confirmed these findings. . . . The results show that we cannot talk about simply good leaders or poor leaders. A leader who is effective in one situation may or may not be effective in another. 67 131 Other work on the leadership-situation fit gen erally assumes that in a group situation where the members are close-knit, ready for self-actualizing experiences, and are self-starters on task functions, a Theory Y approach is best.^® Empirically demonstrating what styles are most effective in what situations is an important endeavor, for unless some relationships are established we are left with the sterile conclusion that leadership is situational and 6q nothing more can be said about it. Fortunately, however, as has been described above, this is not necessarily the case. Finally, if leadership is situational, can we train people to be leaders? Fiedler's work is again helpful. He makes the observation that research has failed to show that 70 leadership training makes organizations more effective. He then criticizes most leadership training as follows: Lewis Terman wrote in 1904 that leadership per formance depends on the situation as well as on the leader. We have repeated similar statements for years without taking them seriously in planning leadership training. To my knowledge all formal training pro grams try to change the person. They implicitly as sume that there is one best way to lead, or that there is one best type of leader personality, and most training programs try to mold the individual into a pattern that approximates this ideal leader.71 Fiedler proposes that the constraints and possi bilities of the situation play a major role in training programs. Leadership training should show the interrela- 132 tionshlps between managerial style and the situation-at- hand. Leaders should be trained not to use the same style all the time. Leaders should be moved when their style does not fit the situation. It Is easier to switch the situation than spend the time and money necessary to alter one's basic personality. Leaders can be trained to some extent, but effectiveness depends entirely upon the situa tion. ^ 2 Douglas McGregor, who most people Incorrectly Interpret as having advocated a Theory Y style of manage ment In all situations, recognized the Importance of a situational approach In leadership training. He stated that one of the Important lessons from research and experi ence In this field Is that the attempt to train super visors to adopt a single leadership "style" yields poorer results than encouraging them to create the essential conditions In their Individual ways and with due regard for their own particular situations.73 While there are still many questions to be answered about how much leadership training adds to organizational effectiveness, It seems clear that leadership training that Is not specific to situations, and that advocates one best style, will be Ineffective and perhaps damaging to the organization's attainment of Its goals. Leadership train ing must take Into account the concept of the situation. "The manager of tomorrow will be required to understand 133 the dynamics of behavior, to diagnose causes, and to im prove the appropriate problem-solving skills needed in particular situations. In conclusion we agree with Fielder, who remarked on training leaders: The leader himself can be taught to recognize the situations that best fit his style. A man who is able to avoid situations in which he is likely to fail, and seek out situations that fit his leadership style, will probably become a highly successful and effective leader. Also, if he is aware of his strengths and weaknesses, the leader can try to change his group situation to match his leadership style.75 Proposition VII (Variations in Managerial Perceptions of Potential Change Situations Lead to Variations in Managerial Re sponses to Change) Corollary 1 A Change in the Managerial Definition of a Situ ation Can Lead to Administrative Change. Human behavior is seldom a direct response to the environment. Our actions are influenced by how we per ceive reality. This perceptual process involves interpre tations of "objective" phenomena. Me attach meanings to objects and behavior in the world around us, and thus reality takes on symbolic import for us.^ This symbolic interpretation process is ubiquitous in our interactions with reality. Douglas McGregor real 134 ized the importance and pervasiveness of this process for the manager. He wrote: A common expression is: "that's not the way I see it." However, we tend to think of this phenomenon as being restricted to ambiguous situations. . . . It is not easy to accept the fact that even our perceptions of relatively simple aspects of physical reality are me diated by the selectivity of our perception, by our capacity to see what we expect to see, by the theory we have developed about the nature of the world (our Cosmology), and by our needs and wishes or our fears and anxieties. It is to a large extent our perception of reality, not reality itself, that influences and determines behavior.77 Thus, a manager's view of reality, which he per ceives and interprets in concrete situations, influences and formulates his subsequent administrative action. This process of situational definition is vital for the under standing and practice of administrative change. The diagnostic instrument presented in Chapter III, and the empirical results reported in Chapter IV, test the hypoth esis that variations in managerial perceptions of potential change situations leads to variations in managerial re sponses to change. It is specifically hypothesized that a manager who sees many possibilities for change in situa tions will be an administrator who makes frequent change interventions in his organization and that his organization will be characterized by a high rate of change. The man ager who sees little possibility for change in potential change situations will not make many strategic change 135 interventions and his organization will be characterized by a low rate of change. The ability to distinguish between what Carr has called routine and dramatic situations is vital to the change process. Inability to recognize multiple possi bility situations breeds inaction and administrative stag nation. The diagnostic instrument developed in this study will hopefully enable managers to examine how they perceive potential change situations. As the corollary to this proposition states* it is assumed that a change in the definitional processes of how a manager views potential change situations will lead to behavioral changes in his approach to change. The manager's view of reality exerts profound effects upon his every managerial act. His acts in turn af fect the achievement of both his own goals and those of the organization of which he is a m e m b e r .78 Proposition VIII (Multiple Possibility Situations Provide an Opportunity for Change) The recognition and subsequent labeling of a situ ation as non-routine is of major importance for adminis trative change. As we revealed in our discussion of Lowell Carr* situations can be divided into two major types: routine and non-routine. The routine situations call forth a previous response that insures stability for the adminis 136 trative system. The non-routine situation, however, pro vides a complex of multiple possibilities. Management has the opportunity to define and then follow a variety of new paths which will result in some form of administrative change. The Weberian model of bureaucracy is a routiniza- tion of the processes of administrative operations. This routinization process has several anticipated and unantici pated consequences. One consequence, which we have come to anticipate, is a resistance to change and a predisposition toward the status quo. There are several variables that account for this, not the least of which is the labeling of most situations as routine. A shift in the definitions and hence the subsequent responses to administrative situ ations can affect the manner and degree in which an ad ministrative system is able to change. It is easy to imagine that a system which defines all situations as routine will change very little. The non-routine or dramatic situation always car- 7Q ries within itself multiple possibilities for change. v Whether or not we perceive a situation as routine or dra matic is also important. A manager who is confronted with a situation of hiring two new staff members can react to it as either a routine situation: a call to the personnel department and a search for the right people to fill in 137 the old slots* or as a multiple possibility situation which may result in a re-examination of his entire office staff organization* resulting in the hiring of one to three people or a shifting of duties to different sub-organiza tions with no new staff members hired. As stated earlier* the labeling of a situation as dramatic or as a multiple possibility situation opens the door for a variety of strategic maneuvers by management that can lead to admin istrative change. Since dramatic situations have a variety of possi ble outcomes* they become key variables in the process of change. The proactive* self-indicative response of a mana ger to a situation can result in a number of responses to that situation* none of which could be called routine. Corollary 1 A Successful Manager Must Make the Next Situation* Not Simply Meet It. This idea comes directly from Mary Parker Nollett. It logically follows that if administrative definitions of actions are conceived of in situations* then the success ful proactive manager should not just meet the next situa- o0 tion* but help make the next situation. This is a caution against "painting oneself in a corner" in an ad ministrative system. One need not be at the mercy of the series of continuing organizational situations. Planning 138 and analysis can aid one In helping to create the next situation In which one has to devise a plan of action. Understanding of the situational nature of change can aid the administrator in engaging in actions that will result in the creation of succeeding situations. Proposition IX (Managerial Actions Take Place Within a Situational Field) Lowell Carr and Kurt Lewin hoth propose the hy pothesis, as reported in Chapter I, that interpersonal 81 action takes place with a situational field. By logical inclusion, then, we arrive at our ninth proposi tion: Managerial Actions Take Place Within a Situational Field. This field concept, taken from Lewin's field the ory, can be viewed in terms of eight constituent parts. The situational field a manager finds himself in is comprised of his own life space. Lewin defines life space as the person plus his total psychological environ ment which is subjectively experienced for the most part. The area outside an individual's life space is the non- psychological world of either social or physical phenomena. The interrelationship of the person and his psychological environment forms his life space. Second, people in patterns of relationships add to the situational field. The social groupings that surround 139 a manager at any one given point in time, both those pre scribed by the formal organizational structuring and those arising from informal organizational patterns,, comprise a major part of the situational field experienced by a man ager. Third,, we find culture. The overarching cultural patterns of the society in which the administrator and his organization are located impact upon his situational force field. Culture is a pervasive variable affecting both the nature and kind of social relations practiced and even the language and thought processes utilized. Thus, the cul tural variable is an important although often taken for granted background variable in managerial situations. Fourth, we turn to the forces and objects in the physical world. These are the forces that lie outside of Lewin1s psychological definition of life space. As Steele points out, the physical architecture of an organization, which includes physical objects, is often as important in determining patterns of behavior and interactions as the 82 social architecture of the organization. Physical layout and facts in an organization are part and parcel of the situational field of managerial action. Fifth, we have the concept of the immediate situa tion. Within the situational field, the immediate situa tion is the concrete event that is happening-at-this- 140 moment. For example, one of your employees has been caught falsifying his time report. Thus, the immediate situation is the major foreground event or stimulus that demands your action as a manager. Sixth and logically is the notion of the background situation as part of the managerial situational field. This refers not to events in the immediate situation, but events or histories in past situations which may affect behavior in the immediate situation. Thus, an individual in an immediate situation may not be experiencing failure, but his actions in this immediate situation may be colored by past histories of failure experiences. Therefore, the previous failure experiences comprise a background situa tion against which the new immediate situation is played out. As a manager, you may attempt to treat an employee fairly and in a trusting manner, but if the background situation in the organization has been a history of untrusting and unfair actions against the employees, you may have a difficult time overcoming this feeling in the immediate situation. This point, then, brings us to our seventh con struct: overlapping situations. Contained in the situa tional field one may find overlapping situations; i.e., background situations may be overlapping with immediate or foreground situations. There will frequently be a blurring l4l between past socializing events in an organization and the particular situation that is transpiring at the moment. This will results according to Lewin* in an overlapping situation.^ (See Chart III.) In an overlapping situation* the eighth component of the situational field becomes paramount. The potency of each situation will determine which situation will have the greatest impact upon an individual's behavior. There fore* the potency or valence of a situation* acting as a force in a force field, is a vital element in the determi nation of human behavior. Lewin argues that knowledge of the relative valences of forces or situations confronting an individual at a specific time in a specific situation leads to prediction of the direction of his behavior in that situation. The valence power of overlapping deci sional situations faced by a manager will determine the outcome of his final action. One situation or set of situational factors will achieve dominance and dictate his 84 behavior in a specific situation. Managerial actions arise out of a set of continual interactions* many of them unconscious* with a particular situational field. A variety of variables and forces is active in any administrative decisional process. The con cept of a situational field adds greater clarity and rigor to our analysis and hopefully prediction of managerial actions. CHART III. THE SITUATIONAL FIELD Cultural Patterns Background Situation + The Immediate Situation Life Space of Manager Patterns of People in Relationships Objects Time + Background Situation Background Situation Cultural Patterns Shaded area = Overlapping situations (+) pluses, (-) minuses = Valences of situations Proposition X (Situational Analysis Emphasizes the Here and Now) Kurt Lewin1s force field analysis emphasizes the importance of the here and now for the determination of behavior. The proposed situational analysis presented in this paper also emphasizes this orientation. One needs to quickly point out, however, that neither Lewin nor this author is denying the importance of historical and ante cedent events. The question is rather one of emphasis and utility in explaining human behavior, including managerial behavior. Our past socialization and maturation condition, to a large extent, our current behavioral patterns. But our behavior is always focused upon events occurring in the present. Our past experiences thus are focused through a lens aimed at the present. It is the concrete situation at the moment that sets the stage for our actions. The past is always viewed in light of the present. Lewin and B. P. Skinner share, although independ ently, this orientation to the here and now. It affects their methodology for altering behavior. Both Lewin and Skinner's step-by-step approach to behavioral change shows a high concern for beginning with the individual where he is now and progressing, through a series of situations, to 144 the desired change state. A lower concern is placed on antecedent events, which are dealt with only as they directly affect the present situation. Freudian psycho analysis takes a polar approach. Its first look in bring ing about behavioral change is to the past. What is it about a person's past socialization, often his early child hood, that makes him behave in the manner he does today? When this question is resolved to the satisfaction of the clinician, then change is attempted for the future. Skinner is quite vocal in his opposition to this orientation. He is not concerned with a post hoc determi nation, utilizing what he would call explanatory fictions, of why a person is resistant to a particular change. His concern is with taking that person from where he is now and helping him to move to where he (or perhaps others) would like himself to be. The orientation then is to the person behaving in the present, not to prior possible 8b socialization factors. ^ Situational analysis is aware of and must pay heed to historical linkages. However, the orientation in analyzing and practicing administrative change processes is, like Lewin and Skinnerian models, on the here and now. Historical linkages are always viewed by actors capable of symbolic interpretation in the context of the present con crete situation. Thus, analysis of the present and move ment to the future are of the highest concern. 146 FOOTNOTES ■^Paul Meadows, "The Dialectic of the Situation: Some Notes on Situational Psychology, " Philosophy and Phenome nological Research, V (March, 194571 354. 2Ibid. ^Kurt Lewin, Field Theory in Social Science, ed. by Dorwin Cartwright (New York: Harper & Bros., 1951)> P* 6 3. 4 Meadows, p. 356* 9Alvin Toffler, Future Shock (New York: Bantam Books, 1971)> PP* 32-33* ^Lowell Juilliard Carr, Situational Analysis: An Observational Approach to Introductory Sociology (New~York: Harper & Bros., 1948), pp. 5! 90I "^Meadows, p. 3 6 1. ^Ibid., pp. 3 6 2-6 3. 9Toffler, p. 33* ^J. Samuel Bois, The Art of Awareness (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1966), pp. 101-106. "^For example, a ghetto environment is psychologically crippling; see Vernon L. Allen, ed., Psychological Factors in Poverty (Chicago: Markham Publishing Co., 1970). 12 For example, standing outside on a cold windy day inhibits normal conversation. 13pred Steele, "Physical Settings and Organiza tional Development," in Social Intervention: A Behavioral Science Approach, ed. by Harvey Hornstein, Barbara B. Bunker, ¥. Warner Burke, Marion Gindes, and Roy J. Lewick (New York: The Free Press, Collier-Macmillan Ltd., 1971)* P* 245* l4Ibid., pp. 246-47* 15Ibid., p. 249* ■^Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckman, The Social Con struction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowl edge (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1 9 6 6)7 1 7Steele, p. 247- 147 l8Ibid., p. 248. 19 ^However, for a brief look Into the subject, see Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1 9 6 6), Chapter 5, A Typology of Organizations," pp. 110-48. 2^Toffler, p. 3 3. 21 Mary Parker Follett, Creative Experience (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 192471 p. 60. 22Ibid., p. 1 3 6. 25 -'Herbert Blumer, Symbolic Interactionlsm: Perspec- tlve and Method (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentlce-Hall, 1989), P. 19. 24 George H. Mead, Mind, Self, and Society, ed. and Introduction by Charles W. Morris (Chicago: Phoenix edi tion, The University of Chicago Press, 193^), P- 137. 23Alfred J. Marrow, The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin (New York: Basic Books, 19&9), PP• 59-80. 26 Lowell Jullllard Carr, Situational Analysis: An Observational Approach to Introductory Sociology (New York: Harper & Bros., 19^-8), p3 20. ^Meadows, p. 3 6 2. 28 W. I. Thomas, "The Behavior Pattern and the Situa tion, " Publications of the American Sociological Society, XXII (n.m., 1928), 1. 29W. I. Thomas, The Unadjusted Girl (Boston: Little Brown, 1927), p. 42. ^Meadows, p. 3^4. ^Carr, p. 2 3. 32Ibld., p. 34. 33Kurt Lewin, "Behavior and Development as a Function of the Total Situation," in Manual of Child Psychology, ed. by L. Carmichael (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1948), p. 927. 3^Blumer, p. 8 9. 38Follett, p. 1 7 1. 35Ibid., p. 7 7. 37Ibid., p. I3 3. 148 Mary Parker Follett, Dynamic Administration. The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, ed. by Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwick (New York: Harper & Row, 1940), pp. 45-49. ^Lewin, "Behavior as a Function," p. 945- 40 Paul R. Laurence and Jay W. Lorsch, Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration (Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, 1969)s P^ 186. 41 Victor H. Vroom, Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, i9 6 0). 42 i r Joseph A. Alutto and James A. Belasco, A Typology for Participation in Organizational Decision Making," Administrative Science Quarterly, XVII (March, 1972), 117- 25. -(Laurence and Lorsch, p. 1 8 6. 44 Ibid., p. 191. 45 ^The author is indebted for these points to Dr. Lloyd G. Nigro of The Maxwell School, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York. 46 Robert Maclver, "Statistical Methodology Applicable to the Study of the 'Situation,'?" Social Forces, IX (June, 1931), 479. 47 Frank J. Bruno, The Situational Approach— A Reac tion to Individualism," Social Forces, IX (June, 1931)^ 482-83 and Stuart A. Queen, "Some Problems of the Situa tional Approach," Social Forces, IX (June, 1931)j 480-81. James B. Spotts, "The Problem of Leadership: A Look at Some Recent Findings of Behavioral Science Research," in Leadership and Social Change, ed. by William R. Lassey (Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates Press, 1971), p. 2 5 6. ^See 0. Tead, The Art of Leadership (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1935)I 07 J. Barnard, The Function of the Executive (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948); R. M. Wald and R. A. Doty, "The Top Executive: A First Hand Profile," Harvard Business Review, XXXII (July/ August, 1954), 45-54; and W. EL Henry, "Executive Person ality and Job Success," American Management Association, Personnel Series, No. 120, 1948. 149 5°C. Bird, Social Psychology (New York: Appleton- Century, 1940); R~ iYL Stogdill, Personal Factors Associ ated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature," Journal of Psychology, XXV (January, 1948), 35-71. -^Spotts, p. 257. 3gSee F. M. Thrasher, The Gang (Chicago: The Uni versity of Chicago Press, 1 9 2 7); W.F. Whyte, Street Corner Society (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1943); M. EL Dunkerly, "A Statistical Study of Leadership Among College Women," Studies in Psychology and Psychiatry, LI (n.m., 1955), 1 8-3 0; and B. Bass, Leadership, Psychol- ogy and Organization Behavior (New York: Harper & Bros., 1980). 5S -'-’ William R. Lassey, ed., Leadership and Social Change (Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates Press, 1971), P- 5- -^Fred E. Fiedler, "The Trouble With Leadership Training Is That It Doesn't Train Leaders," Psychology Today, February, 1973, P- 26. -'•'John K. Hemphill, Situational Factors in Leader ship (Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1948), p^ lOl. -^Douglas McGregor, "An Analysis of Leadership," in Leadership and Social Change, ed. by William R. Lassey (Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates Press, 1971), p. 22. -^Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt, "How to Choose a Leadership Pattern," in Leadership and Social Change, ed. by William R. Lassey (Iowa City, Iowa: Uni- versity Associates Press, 1971), pp. 2 6-3 9. -^Hemphill, p. 5- -^Tannenbaum and Schmidt, p. 40. ^Gordon L. Lippitt, Organizational Renewal (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Meredith Division, 1969), p. 2 2. ^George S. Odiorne, Management Decisions by Objec- tives (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1 9 6 9), P^ 104. 6 2Ibid., pp. 178-79. 6 3Hemphill, p. 5. 150 i 64 For an explanation of Theory X and Theory Y mana gerial behavior patterns* see Douglas McGregor* The Human Side of Enterprise (New York: The McGraw-Hill Book Co.* I960)* especially pp. 33-48. 88Lippitt* pp. 11-16. 88Lassey* p. 4. 87Fred E. Fiedler* "Style or Circumstance: The Leadership Enigma*" In Leadership and Social Change, ed. by William R. Lassey (Iowa City* Iowa: University Associates Press* 1971), P. 281. 88Felix A. Nigro and Lloyd G. Nigro* Modern Public Administration (3rd ed.; New York: Harper & Row* 1973)j pp. 240-55. ^Hemphill* p. v. ^Fiedler* "The Trouble With Leadership Training*" P. 2 3. 71Ibid.* p. 2 5. 7 2Ibid.* p. 9 2. 78McGregor* "An Analysis of Leadership*" p. 21. 7^Lippitt* p. 2 3. 78Fiedler* "Style or Circumstance*" p. 284. 78Blumer* p. 2. 77 'Douglas McGregor* "The Organizational Leader's View of Reality*" in Leadership and Social Change, ed. by William R. Lassey (Iowa City* Iowa: University Associates Press* 1971)* p. 131* 7 8Ibid.* p. 145. 7 9Carr* p. 5- o0 Follett* Dynamic Administration* p. 28. O -j Carr* pp. 17* 45* and Kurt Lewin* Field Theory in Social Science, ed. by Dorwin Cartwright (New York: Harper & Bros.* 1951)* P* 6 3. 8 2Steele* p. 245. 88Lewin* "Behavior and Development," p. 943- 8^Ibid.* p. 932. ^See B. P. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity (New York: Bantam Books, 1971). CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY: THE SITUATIONAL CHANGE SURVEY One of the preceding propositions was selected for empirical testing in order to lend greater support to the argument made here for a situational analysis. This par ticular proposition was chosen because of its usefulness to this study. The hypothesis is Proposition VII: "Varia tions in Managerial Perceptions of Potential Change Situ ations Lead to Variations in Managerial Responses to Change"; and its corollary: "A Change in the Managerial Definition of a Situation Can Lead to Administrative Change." Certainly there is a wealth of studies which demonstrate that people perceive reality differentially and then act upon their differing perceptions.'*' However, the specific attempt here is to show that perceptions of potential change situations in managerial contexts affect in managerial responses to change. As stated earlier, there is a process that intervenes between a manager and his response to the environment. This process is his per ception of that environment. Contingency management theory emphasizes the necessity of the manager reacting strate- 152 153 gically to environmental inputs. However, contingency management generally does not address the issue of mana gerial perceptions of the environment. How is a manager to know when to use one style as opposed to another, or to follow strategy A as opposed to strategy B? It is the con tention of this study that a manager perceives his environ ment in the context of the situations that occur around him and that this situational perception process colors his response and hence propensity to engage in behaviors that may lead to administrative change. In Chapter I, an explanation was given of Lowell Carr's distinction between routine and dramatic (or multi possibility) situations. In other words, the first question to ask in analyzing any situation is this: Is this a routine situation, one with a minimum of uncertainty in it, or is it a dramatic situation, one with many possibilities?^ Perceiving the uncertainty in a situation charges it with a multiplicity of possible outcomes. Failure to recognize any inherent uncertainty increases the proba bility that a routine response will be made with little or no resulting change. Thus, the Situational Change Survey presents a series of managerial situations that contain some degree of uncertainty. Each is a potential change situation. The person taking the questionnaire is given 154 several alternative responses for each question. Analysis of the ones he selects permits a measurement of his situa tional change style. Thus, the Situational Change Survey attempts to take some of the hypotheses of the authors reviewed in Chapter I, such as Follett, Carr, Lewin, and Blumer, and others such as McGregor and Tannenbaum, and put them to an empirical test. If change occurs in and through a series of situations, then a questionnaire which uses the situa tion as its base should demonstrate his supposition. The Situational Change Survey is a diagnostic instrument. It is designed to aid a manager in determining and diagnosing his perception and responses to potential change situations. It enables a manager to place himself on a Situational Change Grid and to analyze his response patterns to change situations on a number of different dimensions. Perhaps the most well-known of the management diag nostic instruments which lead to a grid-type analysis of managerial styles is Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid. Developed about ten years ago, the Managerial Grid has been used and copied widely. It deals with two main managerial dimensions, concern for people and concern for task. A manager places himself upon a grid whose axes are composed of these two dimensions, and falls into one of five styles: 155 ! ■(1,1) low concern for people and task, (1,9) low concern for task, high for people, (9,1) high concern for task, low for people, (5,5) medium concern for people and task, and (9,9) high concern for task and people. Blake and Mouton make some evaluation as to which styles are better than others, and claim that 9 ,9 Is best. They do recognize the importance of the situation for the manager, and in fact state that the situation itself may be the determining or over riding factor dictating which set of managerial as sumptions are employed to deal with it. Management of people in the crisis of an explosion situation is likely to be different than it would be under circum stances that are routine.^- However, Blake and Mouton fail to define what they mean by the term situation, and they take the perception of a situation by a manager to be given. Thus, they state that a competent manager must be able "to select the best course of action for any given situation from among a num ber of possibilities."^ But the situation is never really "given." It is always affected by the manager's perception of it. Thus, how the manager tends to perceive the situa tions he is confronted with, determines which course of action he will attempt in that situation. The Situational Change Survey, which also deals in part with the managerial dimensions of people and task, can be seen as a supplement ing diagnostic instrument to the Managerial Grid. 156 The grid approach to the study of managerial phe nomena has gained a mild wave of popularity. Jay Hall, Vincent O'Leary, and Martha Williams formed a decision making grid;^ Michael M. Harmon specified a policy forma- 'J tion grid in 1969; and recently Blake and Mouton have O released a second book entitled The Marriage Grid. However, probably the most prolific of the grid analysis people have been Jay Hall and Martha Williams of Telemetries, Inc., who have collaborated on several surveys, such as "The Styles of Leadership" and "The Work Motivation 9 Inventory." The value of these surveys, including the one pre sented here, is to aid the manager in diagnosing a specific part of his behavior in an organization. Usually these surveys are given in management training sessions by a professional and then processed by him or her and the group. To the extent that such surveys can accurately point out the manner in which a manager behaves, they are extremely valuable. Awareness and analysis of one's behavioral pat terns is a vital step in helping one determine where he is at present and where he would like to be in the future. In an imprecise "science" such as management, tools like diag nostic instruments must necessarily form an important part of our analysis of managerial behavior and change. The Situational Change Survey was constructed 157 around the six constituent parts of a situation: people* place* things* organizational or institutional environment, ideas* and time. These six elements of a situation were collapsed into three scales: human elements* physical ele ments, and conceptual elements. These three scales, out lined below* formed the basis around which questions were written to test the hypothesis that the perception of change is situational. The Situation Scales Component Parts 1. Human Elements 2. Physical Elements 3. Conceptual Elements People Objects* Place Organizational Environment* Context of Ideas* Time Three questions were written for each of the three scales* making a total of nine different questions. Each question is a stimulus situation that contains some poten tialities for change. For example* under the human elements scale one question states* The organization you are with is having some personnel problems. The director suggested that rather than firing some people, they be relocated so that new work groups would form. You feel that . . . Three courses of action are then presented. The respondent 158 is asked to rank order these three different courses of action, placing a 1 by his first choice, a 2 by his second, and a 3 by his third choice. This generates ordinal data for each question. The order in which the questions were asked and the order of the response alternatives were randomized to avoid biasing effects. The survey measures situational change styles on two dimensions, concern for interpersonal change and con cern for task change. In order to accomplish this, each of the nine questions is asked twice. However, the response sets for each are different. One set of responses refers to interpersonal change orientations; the second refers to task change orientation. Therefore, each of the three scales (human, physical, conceptual) is measured upon a task and interpersonal dimension. The sets of responses are keyed to three general situational change styles: the innovator, the incremental- ist, and the traditionalist. These three styles describe the major orientations to change purportedly measured by this instrument. They are described as follows: Style I--The Innovator Characteristics.— The innovator believes that each significantly new organizational situation carries with it multiple possibilities for interpersonal and task-oriented 159 change. When a new situation arises, the Innovator attempts not simply to add to, but rather to creatively integrate old patterns of behavior with new behavioral patterns brought about by the new situation. This creative integration is a proactive activity that can move the organization to a higher level of behavioral and functional development. The chief characteristics of this style are proactivity and frequent change interventions. Perception of new situations.— The innovator sees new organizational situations as keys to change. New or ganizational events often create an environment that is ripe for a change intervention. New organizational situa tions are thus not seen as merely additional organizational problems, but rather as organizational opportunities for change and innovation. Response to new situations.— The innovator responds to new organizational events by looking for ways to crea tively integrate past experiences into the requirements of the changed environmental context. He strives not to react to change, but to proactively design his response to the immediate situation and to help create the next situation. Question.— The question the innovator asks himself, when confronted with a new organizational situation, is i6o "How can I take advantage of this situation to aid the organization in its development?" Style II— The Incrementalist Characteristics.— The incrementalist1s chief con cern., when confronted with a significantly new situation, is systems maintenance. He looks for ways to adjust the organization to the new situation that will not greatly disturb the organizational equilibrium. Thus, any change that results from this style is moderate and incremental. The incrementalist makes little or even no change inter ventions in his organization, even in the face of a series of changing environmental or internal situations. His change strategy is one of incremental adjustments where necessary to new situations. Perceptions of new situations.— Changing situations are seen as necessitating new organizational adjustments but not as requiring significant alterations in the organi zation's functions. Thus, new situations are perceived as fostering moderate incremental change. Response to new situations.— The response to new situations is reactive. The incrementalist attempts to adjust to the new situation by simply expanding old pat terns of operating to cover the new contingencies brought 161 about by changed organizational situations. Thus* his pattern is one of reactively expanding old methods of behavior to cover new situations. The resulting change that occurs is generally small enough so as not to disturb the organizational status quo. Question.— The question the incrementalist asks himself when confronted with a new situation is "How can I best adjust the organization, without producing too much strain, to this new situation?" Style III--The Traditionalist Characteristics.— The traditionalist, when con fronted by a new situation, fails to see any possibilities for change in the organization. He has given up on at tempting to change the organization. This acts as a self- fulfilling prophecy and his inaction serves to aid the organization in maintaining its status quo. A manager who follows this style does not act proactively, rarely engages in innovative operations, and never makes change interven tions in the organization. He may be a successful manager if his organization is interacting with a stable environ ment both internally and externally. However, his attitude places him at a distinct disadvantage for dealing with internally and externally turbulent environmental fields. 162 The traditionalist is trapped by organizational patterns of accounting and is unable and unwilling to break out of them. Perception of new situations.— The traditionalist does not view new situations as possessing possibilities for change or innovation. Instead he sees each new situa tion as just more of the same old thing. He believes that the organizational monolith is rarely dented by a new situ ation . Response to new situations.— The traditionalist's response to a new situation is not to change his behavior,, but rather to act in the same manner as he had before the new situation occurred. Question.--The traditionalist really does not ask himself a question when a new situation arises, since he has already made up his mind that organizational change is impossible. Instead he thinks, "So what! It doesn't mat ter what happens. There is no way to change things around here. The best thing is just to survive as best you can." These three main styles, however, are not the only possible placements for a person responding to the ques tionnaire. When one graphs the possible responses on the Situational Change Grid (see Chart IV), a respondent can fall into one of nine cells. The axes of the grid are concern for interpersonal change and concern for task CONCERN FOR INTERPERSONAL CHANGE 163 CHART IV SITUATIONAL CHANGE GRID (innovators, Incrementalis t s, Traditionalists) I, III Innovator- Traditionalist I, II Innovator- Incrementalist 1,1 Innovator- Innovator II,III II Incrementalist- Traditionalist II, II Incrementalist- Incrementalist II, I Incrementalist- Innovator III,III III Traditionalist- Traditionalist III,II Traditionalist- Incrementalist III, I Tradit ionali st - Innovator III II CONCERN FOR TASK CHANGE 164 change. A person can tell at a glance where his situa tional style places him along these two dimensions. A manager can be a (I,I) innovator, (II,II) incre mentalist, or (III,III) traditionalist on both the inter personal and task dimensions. Or, he can fall into one of the following six categories: (II,III) interpersonal incre- mentalist-task traditionalist, (I,II) interpersonal innovator-task incrementalist, (II,I) interpersonal incre- mentalist-task innovator, (I,III) interpersonal innovator- task traditionalist, (ill,I) interpersonal traditionalist- task innovator, or (III,II) interpersonal traditionalist- task incrementalist. Placement on the Situational Change Grid should aid a manager in diagnosing his response to potential change situations as they affect people and production. In order to check the validity of the questionnaire, an internal validation process was designed. Managers responding to the survey were asked to answer twelve ques tions at the end of the survey. If certain hypothesized correlations materialized, then the instrument could be considered valid. The validity questions are listed in Appendix B. Validity is an indication of the extent an instru ment measures what it purports to measure. Thus, the hypotheses around the validity questions are "if, then" 165 statements which hypothesize that if the instrument is really measuring what it claims to measure, then the answer to a particular validity question should be predictable. Seven hypotheses were tested in order to check the instrument's validity. The hypotheses were as follows: 1. The greater the situational style orientation for interpersonal change, the lower the job satisfaction in an organization that is per ceived by the individual to have little inter personal change. Although there could be a multitude of intervening variables in this case, and in the others to follow below, it is hypothesized that if the survey accurately measures an individual as an interpersonal innovator and he is in an organization that he perceives has low interpersonal change, then he should not be experiencing high satisfaction with his job. 2. The greater the situational style orientation for task change, the lower the job satisfaction in an organization that is perceived by the individual to have little task change. The same reasoning holds true for this hypothesis on task-oriented change as for the previous hypothesis on interpersonal-oriented change. 3. The more favorable MAQ Managerial Achievement Quotient, the more likely the person's style will tend toward (I,I) interpersonal and task innovator. Blake and Mouton used what they called the Mana gerial Achievement Quotient to help validate their Mana- gerial Grid Questionnaire. Their formula has been adopted to test our survey. A logical question to ask of any mana gerial styles study is which style is best. Although it is precisely an assumption of this study that due to the situ ational nature of the managerial environment* no one pattern of behavior is best save that one which "fits" the situa- tion-at-hand* one of the styles of the situational change survey can be ranked as best because it is the style that is most open to and concerned with change. This style does not propose a specific manner of action in all situations* but rather an openness to the change potentialities inher ent in the variety of task and interpersonal situations a manager is confronted with daily. This is the (I*I) inno vator style. Likewise* Blake and Mouton see their (9,9) high concern for people and task as best."^ If the 1*1 innovator style is "best*" then a man ager who uses it should be more successful than those who operate under a different* less change-oriented set of assumptions. The MAQ is a mathematical formula for arriv ing at a measure of managerial success. Success is opera tionalized as job level in the organization. Thus* a more successful manager is seen as one who has achieved a higher managerial level than others. Naturally* this is somewhat simplistic* for it assumes that successful managerial behavior is associated with promotions. However* this is 167 not an unreasonable assumption. The formula controls for age (older managers would tend to be at a higher level than younger managers) and results in a score that measures man agerial achievement. The higher the score, the higher the achievement level. The MAQ formula adopted from Blake and Mouton Is: ■ Age8t c l L o X 100 Where L is managerial level (scale of 1 to 5* 1 is highest) Age is a manager's age in the 20 to 50 range subtracted, from 50 The managerial level Is derived from the response to question four of the validity questionnaire. Level Is measured from lower management (5) to upper management (l). The number six Is one plus the number of possible levels. Thus, the highest a person could rate here is 1 (6 minus 5). The number eight is derived from the number of levels (five) divided into a forty-year career span. Thus, if an individual entered at the lowest level at age 20 and pro gressed ideally at one level every eight years, he or she would be at the highest level by age 60. The dominator is figured as an indicator of the seniority factor. Age 20 is taken as an entry age and 5° is posited as a ceiling 12 beyond which age is not an influencing factor. The 168 higher the score an Individual gets on this measurement, the greater the likelihood that he is a successful manager and will fall into the (I,I) innovator situational style. 4. The greater the interpersonal situational style orientation to change, the greater the likeli hood that the individual has initiated or worked closely to bring about interpersonal change in his organization. If a person exhibits an interpersonal innovator style he is more likely to respond that he has taken part in or initiated interpersonal change in his organization than people who rank as interpersonal incrementalists or traditionalists. 5. The greater the task situational style orienta tion to change, the greater the likelihood that the individual has initiated or worked closely to bring about task change in his organization. The same reasoning holds true for this hypothesis on the task dimension as for hypothesis number four above. 6. The greater the situational style orientation for change, the less rigid will be the individu al's perception of the laws of nature. The style of management used by an individual is an outgrowth of his assumptions, conscious or unconscious, about management and human behavior. Thus, a situational style of (l,l) innovator belies a set of assumptions that permits change. An innovator is quick to see the change potentials inherent in the situations around him. An innovator is not likely to see rigidities In the world 169 around him. Question number eleven of the validity ques tionnaire (see Appendix B) solicits a reaction to a ques tion which posits a set of immutable laws of nature. An innovator is hypothesized as less likely to agree that we are ruled by such immutable laws. 7. The greater the situational style orientation for change* the less rigid will be the indi vidual's perception of moral laws. The reasoning behind this hypothesis is the same as that for hypothesis number six above* the only difference being a perception of a rigid morality as opposed to a per ception of a set of rigid laws of nature. The findings of the validity check for this instru ment will be presented and discussed in Chapter IV. Operationalization of Terms The two main terms in this study* situation and change* have been defined earlier. However* their defini tions will be repeated here briefly because of their impor tance to the methodology of this study. For purposes of this study* a situation will be defined as a momentary context of meaning contained within a specific space-time segment of our actions. A situation is comprised of the following six variables: people* place* things* organizational or institutional environment* ideas* and time. Our actions are focalized into concrete time 170 frames or "stills" of a moving picture. These time-frame segments are situations. (For a fuller definition of what is meant by the term situation, see pp. 9 8-1 0 1.) Administrative change is defined in this study as significant alterations in human, social, and physical factors, including interactional patterns and structural arrangements that have a controlling and conditioning ef fect upon immediate situations. Change and time are inex tricably related. Differing and lasting patterns of action that occur from one time period to another constitute change. (For a more complete explanation, see p. 6 7.) Several other terms are of less importance, but bear some attention. Management is taken to mean people who have responsibility and authority over others and are engaged in a process of meeting organizational goals. They are managing both people and production. Perception is the process of interpretation that takes place between the observation of an external event or object and the meaning which we finally attach to that event or person. People can perceive the same "objective" event quite differently. Managerial action is viewed in the questionnaire as a reac tion to the stimulus situations presented. After each stimulus situation, three responses are presented. Each response commits the manager to do something. For pur poses of this study a response that basically maintains 171 the status quo is viewed as a choice action. A decision not to act upon new information is a decision nonetheless and commits a manager to a specific course of action. Thus, both a decision to do something and a decision not to do something will be viewed as manifesting managerial action. Sample Population The Situational Change Survey was administered to sixty-eight police and fifty-six probation personnel. Members of the criminal justice system were selected as a test group for this study because of the increasing impor tance and sophistication the study of our U.S. criminal justice system has received lately. This entire system is attempting to change and renew itself, and hence a study of the situational change perceptions of a sample of its membership will hopefully be of some benefit in this endeavor. Finally, members of the criminal justice system formed a readily accessible group for testing. Two groups were selected instead of just one in order to permit a more thorough and complex test of the instrument. Police and probation were chosen as the two groups because of their documented differences. Police and probation personnel deal with different aspects of the criminal problem, work under different conditions, dress 172 IS differently, and frequently are at odds with one another. It was thought that a comparison of these two groups would yield valuable data for analysis. The police group represented a state-wide Califor nia sample of police personnel in various levels of manage ment. It was not a true random sample. Randomness is not necessary in this study because our aim is not to state that all police perceive situations in a certain typology of styles, but rather that a study group exhibited a cer tain set of managerial characteristics. Again the purpose of the test of the instrument was to show that it can be a useful managerial diagnostic instrument, and not to neces sarily prove anything specific about a total occupational group. The sample police group represented police person nel who were attending one of the many management training sessions conducted by the School of Public Administration's Center for Training and Development at the University of 14 Southern California. The probation sample was comprised of probation personnel from Los Angeles and Orange counties. The Orange County sample was facilitated through the office of Miss Betty Delaney of the Orange County Probation Department. Twenty-four questionnaires were from Orange County. The remaining questionnaires were from Los Angeles County and 173 were administered to two groups of probation officers who were attending a training session in West Covina. This was coordinated through Mr. Robert Sieke, Training Office, Eastern Division, Los Angeles County Probation. In sum, then, the survey was administered to sixty- eight police officers representing cities throughout the state and fifty-six probation officers representing two large metropolitan counties. Data Design Basic presentation of the data generated will be accomplished by use of six situational scales: the Inter personal Change Scale, the Task Change Scale, the Combined Situational Scale, the Combined Human Elements Scale, the Combined Physical Elements Scale, and the Combined Concep tual Elements Scale. These scales are described at length in the following chapter. Although the majority of the data was analyzed in terms of our six scales, several other correlations were of interest and were analyzed separately. Most of this data pertains to possible differences between demographic fac tors and situational styles of management. Thus, a chi- square was run to determine if there were any significant differences between situational styles of management and the following variables: age, level of managerial position, 174 degree of job satisfaction, perception of personal turnover rates, and perception of task and behavioral change rates. With one exception, all of the statistical analysis utilized In the following chapter is chi-square. The data generated by the Situational Change Survey was basically rank ordering or ordinal-type data. Thus, the non parameter statistical procedure of chi-square tables was 15 appropriate. The exception is a t test run with the MAQ (Managerial Achievement Quotient) scores and three of the scales. MAQ means were generated for innovators and non innovators and thus a t-test difference between means on grouped data was appropriate.1^ The following chapter reports the results of the data collected from our questionnaire. 175 FOOTNOTES See for example Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luck- mann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise In the Sociology of Knowledge (Garden City, N.Y. : Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co., i9 6 0). 2 Lowell Juilliard Carr, Situational Analysis: An Observational Approach to Introductory Sociology (New York: Harper & Bros., 1948), p~! 11. ^Robert R. Blake and Jane Srygley Mouton, The Mana gerial Grid (Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Co., 1964). ^Ibid., p. 14. 5Ibid., p. 1 2. ^Jay Hall, Vincent O'Leary, and Martha Williams, "The Decision Making Grid: A Model of Decision Making Styles," California Management Review, VII (Winter, 1964), 43-54. 7 Michael M. Harmon, "Administrative Policy Formula tion and the Public Interest," Public Administration Review, September/October, 1969; PP- 483-91• O Robert R. Blake and Jane Srygley Mouton, The Mar riage Grid (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971). ^For a longer list of these surveys, one can contact Telemetries, Inc. In Dallas, Texas. ■^Blake and Mouton, The Managerial Grid, Chapter IV, pp. 142-91. 11Ibid., p. 2 2 9. 12Ibid. ^Robert M. Carter and Leslie T. Wilkins, eds., Pro bation and Parole: Selected Readings (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1970). 14 Two of these sessions were Police Management Insti tutes conducted by Garry Hare. A second grouping was a Police Executive Institute conducted by Dr. Michael Sparks. This second grouping included some responses by a matched set of people who were not at the actual sessions. Each attendee was asked to select someone in a position similar to his own in his agency and have him fill out the survey. 176 "^Hubert M. Blalock, Jr., Social Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 19607^ pp. 187-88. l6Ibid., pp. 144-49. CHAPTER IV REPORT OF FINDINGS: INNOVATORS AND INCREMENTALISTS Results of the analysis of the data generated by the Situational Change Survey are presented in this chapter. The basic hypothesis of this survey, which is that mana gerial perceptions of potential change situations vary, was supported by the data. Our analysis showed a significant difference between police and probation personnel in their selection of situational change styles. Thus, the instru ment was shown to have the ability to distinguish between several different styles to a significant degree. Before taking a detailed look at the scores on the survey, we will briefly look at the characteristics of each group. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the police and probation groups along five variables: (l) age, (2) number of years in present organization, (3) number of promotions in present organization, (4) management level (on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is the highest level), and (5) level of job satisfaction on a scale from 1 to 5 where 5 is the highest level. Mean scores are reported for each of these measurements. 177 178 TABLE 1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLE Police Probation Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Age of Manager Number of Years in Present Org. Number of Promotions Management Level (Scale of 1 to 5; where 1 is highest) Job Satisfaction (Scale of 1 to 5; where 5 is highest) in.5 14.70 2.6 2.15 4.20 7-39 7.30 I.36 1.16 l.l 6 37.43 8.91 2.07 4.16 3-59 7.00 5.62 1.29 1.28 0.86 179 The police group was slightly older than the proba tion group: 41.5 years compared to 37.43 years. On the average, the police had been in their current organization almost six years longer than the probation people: 14.70 years compared to 8.91 years. As one would expect, then, the police had received more promotions on the average than probation people. However, the number of promotions for each group was close: 2 .6 0 for police and 2 .0 7 for proba tion. The greatest difference between the two groups was at the management level. The mean level for the police was upper middle management (2.1 5), whereas it was lower middle management (4.16) for probation personnel. The reason for this was that most of the surveyed probation people were P.O.'s, probation officers, who did the "legwork" of the organization in terms of meeting with and reporting on probationees. The police surveyed were generally not line patrolmen, but rather people who had risen to some level of management in the organization. The police were slightly more satisfied in their jobs than the probation people, perhaps because of their generally higher managerial positions. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 indicates highly satisfied, the police had a mean score of 4.20, while the probation group had a score of 3.59. Even though there was a difference, both groups were 180 fairly satisfied with their jobs. Table 1 shows the standard deviation for each group on this variable. Thus, except for managerial level, the general char acteristics of both of these groups were similar. The question then becomes: Was the Situational Change Survey able to detect a difference in situational styles between these two groups? The Scales As noted in the preceding chapter, the data were analyzed in terms of six scales. Chart V below shows Situ ational Scales and diagrams of how the six scales are com prised. The Situational Change Survey measures responses to three major elements of a situation: human, physical, and conceptual. Each of these three element areas is measured along two dimensions: concern for interpersonal change and concern for task change. When the scores from the concern for interpersonal change dimension on the human, physical, and conceptual elements scales are added together, we get the Interper sonal Change Scale (Scale A). When the scores from the concern for task change dimension of the human, physical, and conceptual elements scales are added together, we get the Task Change Scale (Scale B). The addition of the scores from the Interpersonal Change Scale and the Task 181 Change Scale gives us the Combined Situational Scale (Scale C) . The Interpersonal Change Scale measures a manager's response to change along all the elements of a situation as they pertain to interpersonal change issues. Likewise, the Task Change Scale measures a manager's response to change along all the elements of a situation as they pertain to the task change issue. The Combined Situational Scale gives an overall measure of a manager's propensity to engage in change oriented behavior along all the elements of a situation and both the task and interpersonal dimen sions. Thus, it is an important summary score. There are also three scales for the three major categories of a situation: human, physical, and conceptual. The addition of a respondent's scores on the interpersonal and task dimensions of the human elements scales results in the Combined Human Elements Scale (Scale CH). This scale measures a manager's propensity to engage in change ori ented behavior pertaining to the human elements of a situ ation. The addition of a respondent's scores on the inter personal and task dimensions of the physical elements scales results in the Combined Physical Elements Scale (Scale CP). This scale measures a manager's propensity to engage in change oriented behavior pertaining to the physi cal elements of a situation. The addition of a respondent's 182 CHART V SITUATIOML SCALES Dimensions Concern for Concern Elements Interpersonal for of a Situation Change Task Change Human Physical Conceptual A I +A2 I +A3 1 ♦ +B I +B2 I +B3 I Combined Interpersonal Change Scale (§)Task Change Scale CH Combined Human Elements Scale CP Combined Physical Elements Scale CC Combined Conceptual Elements Scale © Combined Situational Scale 183 scores on the Interpersonal and task dimensions of the con ceptual elements scales results in the Combined Conceptual Elements Scale (Scale CC). This scale measures a manager's propensity to engage in change oriented behavior pertaining to the conceptual elements of a situation. Thus, the data will be presented in terms of six scales: the Interpersonal Change Scale, the Task Change Scale, the Combined Situational Scale, the Combined Human Elements Scale, the Combined Physical Elements Scale, and the Combined Conceptual Elements Scale. The statistical procedure used was chi-square because, as explained earlier, we were dealing with ordinal data.'1 ' The tables set up for the six scales comparing police and probation, then, are chi-square tables. Com parison of police and probation personnel along most scales did result in statistically significant differences. This was important because it sustains the hypothesis of this paper that the situation can be used as an analytical and useful category for the study of change, and the claim of the survey that it could distinguish between different situational styles. The Interpersonal Change Scale Table 2 is a comparison of police and probation on the Interpersonal Change Scale. There is a significant TABLE 2 CROSS TABULATION OF IDENTIFICATION NUMBER BY INTERPERSONAL CHANGE SCALE COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT ID IINNOVATO IR I 1 .00 I 41 I 65. 1 I 64. 1 I 36.0 I 23 I 45. 1 I 35.9 I 20.2 64 56. 1 Police Probation COLUMN TOTAL INCRCMEN TALI ST 2 .001 22 I 34.9 I 44. 0 I 19.3 I PS I 54.9 I 56. 0 I 24 .6 I 50 43.9 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE = 3.79451 PHI = 0.18244 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = KENDALL'S TAU B = 0.2002? KENDALL'S TAU C = 0.19760 GAMMA = 0.38815 SOMER'S D = 0.20062 ROW TOTAL 63 55.3 51 44.7 114 1 00.0 WITH 1 DEGREE OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.17948 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0007 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0008 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 1 0 0.0514 184 185 difference at the .0 5 level on chi-square analysis between police and probation. Police scored most frequently as Innovators, while the probation group were more frequently incrementalists. While 6 5.1 percent of the police were Innovators, 54.9 percent of the probation people scored as Incrementalists. Only 34.9 percent of the police scored as Incrementalists while 45.1 percent of the probation people scored as innovators. The traditionalist category was collapsed Into the incremental category, after analysis revealed that there were not enough cases In the traditionalist category to make It a useful chi-square cell. There are probably two reasons for this occurring on this particular scale and on some other ones as well. One, most of the police and pro bation people surveyed were involved In some type of train ing activity which stressed the need for change oriented behavior on interpersonal and task oriented problems. Two, the traditionalist alternative was probably not presented as an attractive enough alternative for people to select even though it may have been the most accurate choice for them. Much training money and much philosophical emphasis have been placed upon change in the law enforcement field 2 recently. Espousing a non-change oriented philosophy is not popular. This coupled with a questionnaire that prob ably presented the traditionalist style in too harsh terms 186 would account for the scarcity of individuals who fell into this category. Examination of what police and probation people do including their past on-the-job experiences helps to ex plain why police selected the innovator style more often than probation officers on the Interpersonal Change Scale. Police* especially those on patrol* must react to a wide variety of situations. Years on the force would expose a man or woman to interactions with a varied group of people under varied circumstances. Those in adminis trative positions have had this prior experience. Also* the police department must at times react to crises. Al though much of its work is administratively routine* crises and changes do occur. Those policemen who have risen from the patrol ranks to management positions are probably the ones who are best able to deal with people in a variety of situations. Hence* they are likely to be interpersonal innovators. While a strict dichotomous comparison with proba tion would be unfair* it is probably accurate to charac terize the probation officer's role as less varied. A probation officer's function is to meet with* help* and write reports on people who are on probation. Report writ ing takes up a considerable amount of their time. Many officers claim that they spend most of their time writing. i87: Another frequent complaint is that the case loads are too high to permit sustained interpersonal interactions with probationers. Thus, the finding that police are more fre quently interpersonal innovators and that probation officers are more frequently interpersonal incrementalists is explainable. It can be noted, however, that it is disturbing to not find more probation officers selecting an innovator style on the Interpersonal Change Scale, since their major task is to aid people who have committed a crime to change their behavior so they will not engage in socially deviant behavior again. One would hope that such a job would be held by people who see the potential for change in situa tions that have interpersonal change possibilities. If further analysis supports the conclusion that probation officers are less likely to see these potential interper sonal change possibilities than police or other groups, then a logical recommendation would be for probation train ing programs to focus on this area. Table 3 shows what happens when we combine both the police and probation scores on the Interpersonal Change Scale. Out of the 114 useable cases, 64 or 5 6.1 percent scored as innovators while 50 individuals or 43.9 percent scored as incrementalists. The explanation for most of the individuals scoring TABLE 3 CROSS TABULATION OF IDENTIFICATION NUMBER BY INTERPERSONAL CHANGE SCALE (Combined Scores) COUNT ROW PCT A I IINNOVATO INCREMEN ROW COL PCT IR T AL1ST TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 .001 2.001 1 .00 I 64 I 50 I 1 14 I 56. 1 I 43.9 I I 00.0 I I I- 100.0 I 56.1 I 100.0 I 43.q i COLUMN 64 50 1 14 TOTAL 56. 1 43.9 1 00.0 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 189 as Innovators along the Interpersonal dimensions probably lies In the fact that the majority of the people surveyed were Involved to some extent in a training program. Most of these training programs, certainly those conducted by the University of Southern California Center for Training and Development, devoted some effort to talk about the need for paying attention to interpersonal interactions and the need to improve or change these interactions when that 4 seems desirable. Had the sample been drawn from a group that was not involved in training programs, such a large percentage of innovators might not show up. Another reason which might help to account for the large percentage of interpersonal innovators is the general popularity of the notion of change. Recent behavioral re search that is now filtering down to law enforcement agen cies, with the monetary help of the Law Enforcement Assist ance Agency, places a favorable normative connotation upon change. Although a manager may find it difficult to engage in change oriented interpersonal behaviors, he may be reluctant to admit that since it is his perception that a non-change orientation is bad or old-fashioned. The law enforcement field is attempting to lose the "dumb cop" image. Many people in law enforcement now, especially those engaged in training and/or educational programs, are most anxious to take advantage of the latest 190 behavioral science techniques for catching and interacting with criminals as well as for managing their own organiza tions. It is not surprising* then, to find in our study that a majority of the individuals surveyed were interpersonal innovators. The Task Change Scale A comparison of police and probation on the Task Change Scale (Table 4) reveals an even more pronounced dis tinction between the two groups. The significance level of the data remains the same (.0 5), but 7 6 .6 percent of the police scored as innovators while 57.4 percent of the pro bation officers scored as innovators. Only 23.4 percent of the police scored as incrementalists while 42.6 percent of the probation people were incrementalists. Thus the police were more innovative oriented in potential change situa tions than probation officers on the Task Change Scale. Again the traditionalist category was collapsed into the incrementalist category because of the scarcity of responses in this category. The hypothesized reasons for the scarcity given above for the Interpersonal Change Scale would logically fit here as well. Since most of the work probation officers do is people related,including the filling out of routine reports on probationees, it is not surprising that the police, who TABLE k CROSS TABULATION OF IDENTIFICATION NUMBER BY TASK CHANGE SCALE ID COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT Police Probation COLUMN TOTAL B INNOVATO INCREMEN R T AL 1ST 1 .001 2.001 49 I 15 I 76.6 I 23.4 I 64.5 I 42.9 I 44.1 I 13.5 I 27 I 20 I 57.4 I 42.6 I 35.5 I 57.1 I 24.3 I 18.0 I 76 35 68.5 31.5 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE - 3.74399 PHI = 0.18366 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = KENDALL'S TAU B = 0.20328 KENDALL'S TAU C = 0.18667 GAMMA = 0.41516 SOMFR'S D = 0.21617 ROW TOTAL 64 57.7 47 42.3 1 1 I 1 00.0 WITH 1 DEGREE OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.18064 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0007 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0017 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 1 3 0.0530 t —1 VO 192; deal with more hardware and a greater variety of techniques for arrest and processing, would score as task Innovators to a greater extent than probation officers. A good deal of federal money has gone Into police agencies through the Law Enforcement Assistance Agency for Improvements In equipment, processing techniques, and data collection and dissemination. The probation function has not received an equal amount of technical assistance. Therefore, It Is a logical extension of these cir cumstances to witness more police selecting an Innovative style on the Concern for Task Change Scale than probation officers. 'What Is surprising, however, is to discover that a majority of probation officers surveyed selected an inno vator style on the task dimension, while a majority se lected an incrementalist style on the interpersonal dimen sion. Why would a group that primarily deals in inter personal interactions be more prone to be innovative on the task dimension, but incrementalist on the interpersonal dimension? The question deserves further study which could benefit probation. One speculative factor comes to mind, however. Much attention is given in probation literature to the need for controlling behavior. A probation officer is not necessarily as concerned with changing a person's behavior as he is with controlling the behavior of a person who is not now engaged in criminal activity. This may have 193 an affect on his overall view of interpersonal situations.^ Combining police and probation scores on the Task Change Scale, we find that over two-thirds of the respond ents are task innovators while only one-third are task incrementalists. Table 5 shows that 76 cases or 6 8 .5 per cent of the total group were innovators and 35 cases or 3I .5 percent were incrementalists. A larger percentage of the total group scored as task innovators than as inter personal innovators. In part, this difference can be explained as an extension of the fascination man has cur rently with technological change. As described earlier in discussing the combined police-probation scores on the Interpersonal Change Scale, managers do not want to appear "old fashioned" and be against interpersonal change. The same is true to even a greater extent about technological change. The trade magazine Police Chief, for example, car ries many advertisements touting the latest in police equipment. Most of us, whether we are in law enforcement or not, find technological change pertaining to task perform ance less threatening than interpersonal change. Rightly or wrongly, we feel we can control task change to a greater degree and that it necessarily will lead to greater effi ciency and effectiveness. We can never be quite as sure about the outcome and/or control of behavioral change. TABLE 5 CROSS TABULATION OF IDENTIFICATION NUMBER BY TASK CHANGE SCALE (Combined Scores) B COUNT I ROW PCT 1INNOVATO INCREMEN ROW COL PCT IR T AL1ST TOTAL TOT PCT I 1.001 2.001 I o o • I 76 I .15 I 1 1 1 I 68.5 I 31.5 I 1 00.0 I 100.0 I 100.0 I I f _ 68.5 I 31 .5 I I COLUMN 4 76 35 4 1 1 1 TOTAL 68.5 31 .5 100.0 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 195; Because of the large amounts of money spent by federal agencies on the police and probation function and the desire to modernize on the part of law enforcement In urban areas, It Is not surprising to find such a high per centage of task Innovators. The Combined Situational Change Scale Perhaps the most important scale for analysis in this study is the Combined Situational Scale (Table 6). The reason for this is the summary nature of the scale. It combines the scores earned on the interpersonal and task dimensions. The respondent, then, can fall into one of nine categories. Always stating the interpersonal change style first and the task change style second, a manager can be an innovator-innovator, innovator-incrementalist, innovator-traditionalist, incrementalist-innovator, incrementalist-incrementalist, incrementalist-traditional ist, traditionalist-innovator, traditional!st-incremen- talist, or traditionalist-traditionalist. The score on this scale tells the manager at a glance how he reacts to potential change situations in terms of interpersonal and task concerns. Table 6 shows the distribution of scores for police and probation. A significance level of .05 was reached on this matrix. The same data are presented in Chart VI: The Situational Change TABLE 6 CROSS TABULATION OF IDENTIFICATION NUMBER BY COMBINED SITUATIONAL SCALES COUNT I ROW PCT I COC PCT I TOT PCT I I Police i i — i i Probation i I -i COLUMN TOTAL INNOVATO R-INNOVA 1 .00 38 55. 9 65.5 30.6 INNOVATO R-INCREM I 2.00 INNOVATO INCREMEN INCREMEN INCPEMEN TPADITIO TRADITIO TRADIT10 ROW R-TRADIT T AL I ST—I TALIST-I TALIST-T NALIST-I N4LIST-I NALIST- TOTAL I 3.001 4.001 S.001 6.001 7.001 8.001 9.001 2 2.9 50.0 1 .6 20 35. 7 34. 5 16. 1 I I I I •I- I 2 I 3.6 I 50. 0 I 1.6 I 1 I 1.5 I 50.0 I 0.8 -I------- I 1 I 1.8 I 50.0 I 0.8 58 46.8 4 3.2 ■ I 3 4.4 42.9 2.4 5 7.4 1 0 0 .0 4.0 3 1 . 6 CHI SOUARE = 15.32151 WITH CRAMER'S V = 0.35151 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = 0.3316? KENDALL'S TAU B = 0.17528 SIGNIFICANCE = KENDALL'S TAU C = 0.20708 SIGNIFICANCE » GAMMA = 0.28757 SOMER'S O = 0.14697 1------ 6 1 13 8.8 I 19.1 46.2 I 43.3 4.8 I 10.5 1------ 7 1 17 12.5 I 30.4 53.8 I 56.7 5.6 I 13.7 1------ 13 30 7 5 10.5 24.2 5.6 4.0 SIGNIFICANCE . 4 7.1 57.1 3.2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • I - 0 I 0 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 o.o i o.o •I- 1 1.8 100.0 0.8 1 0.8 4 7. 1 100.0 3.2 8 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 0.0532 0.0018 0.0003 1.00 = 1,1 2.00 = I, II 3.00 ~ I, III 4.00 = II, I 5-00 = II, II 6.oo = II,III 7.00 III, I 8.00 = III,II 9.00 111,111 -I 1 68 I 54.8 I I ■I I I I 1 -I 56 45.2 4 3.2 124 100.0 LEGEND Innovator-Innovator Innovator-Incremental!st Innovator-Traditionalist Incrementalist-Innovator Incrementalist-Incrementalist Incremental!st-Tradit ionali st Traditionalist-Innovator Traditionali st-Incremental!st Tradit ionali st-Traditionali st 197 Grid. The transfer from a table presentation to a grid presentation was made in order to present the data in a form that was congruent with that of several other studies of managerial styles such as Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid. In processing this data with a group in a managerial training session, a grid-type presentation would be clearer and more meaningful to the individual than a table presen tation . Police and probation personnel were found to differ significantly on the Combined Situational Scale and the results were as follows: 1,1: Innovator-Innovator The style we would have to describe as "best," although the point of this study is that there is no one best style for all situations, is the 1,1 or innovator- innovator because it is the style that allows for the greatest potentiality for change in interpersonal and task concerns. While 55«9 percent of the police (or 38 cases) fell into this style, only 35*7 percent of the probation personnel (or 20 cases) fit into this style. This was, however, the largest single category for both groups. Since the scores for this scale were arrived at by combin ing the previously discussed Interpersonal and Task Change scales, the same general factors explaining those phenomena are at work here as well. CONCERN FOR INTERPERSONAL CHANGE 198 CHART VI SITUATIONAL CHANGE GRID (Police vs. Probation) I, III I,II 1.5# Police 2.9$ Police 1.8$ Probation 3*6$ Probation 1,1 55.9$ Police 37.5$ Probation II,III II 4.4$ Police 7.1$ Probation II, II 19.1$ Police 30.4$ Probation II, I 8.8$ Police 12.5$ Probation 111,111 III 0.0$ Police 7.1$ Probation III,II 0.0$ Police 1.8$ Probation III, I 7*4$ Police 0.0$ Probation III II CONCERN FOR TASK CHANGE 199 The police group* possibly because of its generally higher managerial level and more varied background in deal ing with a wide variety of situations* was more prone to a 1*1 innovator-innovator situational style. This may be due also in part to the larger share of federal training money 7 that the police have received over probation agencies. ' The amount of paper work probation officers must fill out may also contribute to their lower change orientation than police. Since many probation officers feel resentful of this routine requirement* they probably see less potential for change in certain situations than they would if their g on-the-job experience were less routinized. An inter esting sidelight of this issue would be to conduct a study on the effect of routinization on perception of potential change situations. Although this was not in the mind of the author when this study began* it now seems clear* after discussions with probation personnel and an examination of their work lives* that the process of routinization has played a major part in their orientation toward potential change situations. One may hypothesize* for further study* that professions which can be characterized by a high degree of routinization in their interpersonal and task relationships will be less sensitive to potential change situations than those professions which are not so charac terized. This police-probation study is especially inter 200 esting and enlightening in this area because both groups are in the same field: law enforcement. However, the functions of one group, probation officers, have become routinized in both task and interpersonal areas because of the requirements for uniform reporting process and the volume of case loads, both of which push the probation officer to deal with his environment in a routine, con trolled manner. He normally does not have the time to have the quality and quantity of interpersonal interactions with his probationers that he would like. The police, however, have not yet had to routinize their work lives to the extent that the probation officers have: hence, the finding of more police than probation officers in the 1,1 innovator- innovator style. I,II: Innovator-Incrementalist Very few cases fell into this interpersonal inno vator and task incrementalist category. There were no significant differences between police and probation in this style. Only two police and two probation officers scored in this cell. The data on these nine-celled tables disperses into a pattern that suggests congruency in the task and inter personal styles of the manager. Thus, cells such as the one in question here, which are a mixture of styles, were 201 selected less frequently than cells that contained two similar styles such as 1,1 innovator-innovator and II,II incrementalist-incrementalist. This points to a correla tion between the perception of potential change situations along the task and interpersonal dimensions. A person's general propensity to engage in innovative or incremental ist behavior in potential change situations cuts across these two dimensions. This suggests a possible carryover effect for training programs. Training which would help the task incrementalist become a task innovator is likely to aid him to become an interpersonal innovator as well. The Situational Change Grid (Chart VII) graphically shows that the data are clustered on this Combined Situa tional Scale around the 1,1 and II,II styles. These two styles represent 71 percent of the data. I,III: Innovator- Traditionalist Only one person in the police sample and one in the probation sample scored as this style. Thus, there was no difference between the two groups here. The congruency reasons mentioned above explain the lack of cases in this category. The two individuals in this category represent the rather unusual case of someone who is an innovator in interpersonal relations but traditional when it comes to task change. CONCERN FOR INTERPERSONAL CHANGE 202 CHART VII SITUATIONAL CHANGE GRID (Combined Police and Probation Scores) I, II I, III k6. II, II H , I II,III II III, I III,II III,III III I II III CONCERN FOR TASK CHANGE 203 II,I: Incrementalist- Innovator This was a more popular style than the preceding two, but still it represents only a small percentage of the total and there is almost no difference between the two groups. Six cases or 8.8 percent of the police fit into this category, while 7 cases or 12.5 percent of the proba tion officers are in this cell. This was the third most popular style, however, for both groups and represents the case of an interpersonal incrementalist and a task inno vator. II,II: Incrementalist- Incrementali st While 30*^ percent of the probation officers selected this style (17 cases), only 19-1 percent of the police fit into this category (13 cases). This was the second most popular style for both groups. These data demonstrate what was found on the Interpersonal and Task Change scales, namely that probation officers are more incrementalist-oriented than the police. Since this scale is a combination of the Task and Interpersonal Change scales explained earlier, the reasons for the incrementalist orien tation of probation given earlier logically extend to this category. Being an incrementalist does not mean that one misses all the opportunities for change in specific situa- 204 tions, but it does mean that the manager takes a cautious "let's not rock the boat" attitude towards many potential change interventions. II,III: Incrementalist- Traditionalist Once again, this mixed style category finds only a small number of police or probation selecting it as their overall change style. Three police personnel or 4.4 per cent fell into this category, while 4 probation personnel or 7*1 percent selected this style combination. There were no differences then between police and probation in terms of this style. Because of the strong correlation between the task and interpersonal dimensions, few cases fell into mixed style categories. When they did, it evidently was no more likely that police rather than probation people would select them. Perhaps factors other than those sug gested above account for the similarity between groups along these mixed styles. More cases would have to fall into these cells, however, before one could make valid statements about differences between groups. III,I: Traditionalist- Innovator Logic dictates that few people would exhibit a man agement style characterized by a low change traditionalist orientation toward interpersonal change and a high change 205 innovator style toward task change. The data bear this out. Only five cases fell into this category. Interest ingly., however, all five were police {7.bfo of the police total). No probation officers selected this category. This can be explained by the much higher orientation to innovate task change the police had in comparison with probation officers on the Task Change Scale. Thus, even the police, who have traditionalist interpersonal leanings, are likely to be task innovators. There were no other police cases in the final two traditionalist cells. Ill,II: Traditionalist- Incrementalist There were no police in this category and only 1 probation case (1.8% of the probation total). This again points out the task interpersonal dimension, correlation and the general unpopularity of mixed styles. 111,111: Traditionalist- Traditionalist Although this is not a mixed style, it still is not popular because of the aforementioned factors explaining the general lack of enthusiasm for the traditionalist cate gory. The negative connotations given to someone who is closed off to any change possibilities and the fact that most of the individuals sampled were involved in some type 206 of training that stressed an open orientation to change account for the paucity of cases in this cell. The III,III traditionalist style, where 7.1 percent of the probation officers and 0 percent of the police offi cers fell, adds to the general conclusion that the police tend toward the upper end of the orientation to change scale and the probation tend toward the middle and even lower end of the scale. Combined Police and Proba tion Scores When we combine the scores for police and probation on the Combined Situational Scale, we can graphically see the clustering of scores mentioned above. Table 7 and Chart VII both give the results of a combination of scores from the two groups. The 1,1 innovator-innovator style clearly emerges as the most popular style, selected by 46.8 percent of the respondents. This reflects the cor relation between the task and interpersonal dimensions and the factors mentioned above which would push this sample group to an innovative approach to potential change situa tions. The second most popular category was the II,II incrementalist-incrementalist: 24.2 percent of the cases were in this category. This again is due to the correla tion between the two dimensions measured in this instrument. TABLE 7 CROSS TABULATION OF IDENTIFICATION NUMBER BY COMBINED SITUATIONAL SCALES (Combined Scores) c COUNT I ROW PCT IINNOVATO INNOVATO INNOVATO INCREMEN COL PCT IR-INNOVA R-INCREM R-TRADIT TALIST-I TOT PCT I . 1.001 2.001 3.001 A.001 --------I--------- 1--------I-------- 1--------1 I 58 I 4 1 2 1 13 I I 46.8 I 3.2 I 1.6 I 10.5 I I 100.0 I 100.0 I 100.0 I 100.0 I I 46.8 1 3.2 I 1.6 I 10.5 I -I---------1-------- I---------1--------1 COLUMN 5 8 4 2 13 TOTAL 46.8 3.2 1.6 10.5 INCREMEN INCREMEN TRADITin TRADITIO TRADITID ROW Al. I ST-I TALIST-T NALIST-I NALIST — I NALIST- TOTAL 5.001 6.001 7.00 8.001 9.001 30 I 7 I 5 1 I 4 1 124 24.2 I 5.6 I 4.0 0.8 I 3.2 I 100.0 100.0 r 100.0 I 100.0 100.0 I 100.0 I 24.2 1 5.6 I 4.0 0.8 I 3.2 I 1 30 7 5 1 4 124 24.2 5.6 4.0 0.8 3.2 100.0 LEGEND 1.00 = 1,1 Innovator-Innovator 2.00 = I, II Innovator-Incrementalist 3.00 = I, III Innovator-Traditionalist k.00 = 11,1 Incrementalist-Innovator 5.00 = II, II Incrementalist-incrementalist 6.00 = II,III Incrementalist-Traditionalist 7.00 = III, I Traditionalist-Innovator 8.00 = III,II Tradit ionali st-Incrementali st 9.00 = 111,111 Traditionalist-Traditionalist ro o 208 A compromising and systems maintenance orientation kept these individuals in the II,II category. The 1,1 and II,II styles account for 71 percent of the data in this scale. This means that the instrument discriminates best between these two styles, but that the rest of the data is somewhat scattered. Perhaps a larger sample would give clearer indications of additional differences. The II,I incrementalist-innovator style is the third most popular and accounts for 10.5 percent of the data. This is an incrementalist approach to interpersonal change combined with an innovative approach to task change. Assuming that task change is generally less threatening to a manager than behavior change, this is a logical style to find people in. The remaining 18.5 percent of the data is fairly well scattered among the remaining seven cells. In de scending order of popularity, we have: II,III incremental- ist-traditionalist with 5-6 percent; III,I traditionalist- innovator with 4 percent; I,II innovator-incrementalist and 111.111 traditionalist-traditionalist each with 3.2 percent; 1.111 innovator-traditionalist with 1.6 percent; and III,II traditionalist-innovator with .8 percent. In these smaller categories, most of the data (1 3.6$) are below the II,II incrementalist-incrementalist style. Only 4.8 percent are above the II,II style. 209 While 74.2 percent of the respondents picked unmixed combined styles (I,I; II,II; or III,III), only 25.8 percent picked a mixed combined style. This, of course, underlies the correlation between the interpersonal and task dimensions. Although it may be difficult to explain why a per son falls into one of these less popular mixed style cate gories, they are still very useful for the person who is taking the instrument. Remembering that the goal of the instrument is to be a helpful diagnostic tool for a manager to view his predisposition towards change in a series of situations, a score that falls into any one of these nine styles can be particularly useful to the holder of that score in telling him where he is at in relation to his situational change orientation. The Combined Human Elements Scale Table 8 presents the data for the Combined Human Elements Scale. This scale was arrived at by combining the human elements subscore of a manager on the interpersonal and task dimensions. Thus, this table tells us how our two groups reacted to potential change situations involving only people along the interpersonal and task dimensions. Chi-square analysis of this table reveals that TABLE 8 CROSS TABULATION OF IDENTIFICATION NUMBER BY COMBINED HUMAN ELEMENTS SCALE CH COUNT I ROW PCT IINNOVATO INNOVATO INNOVATO INCRFWEN INCREMEN INCREMEN TRAD1TIO TRADITI 0 ROW COL PCT IR-INNOVA R-INCRFM R-TRAOn TALIST-I T AL I ST-I T ALI ST—T NALIST—I NALIST- TOTAL TOT PCT I * _ 1 .00 2 . 00 3. 00 4.00 5.001 6.00 8.001 9.001 I “ I 1 6 6 0 8 25 I 0 1 1 0 I 56 Police I 28.6 10.7 0.0 14.3 44 .6 I 0.0 1.8 I 0.0 I 57.1 I 61.5 75.0 0.0 50.0 58.1 I 0.0 50.0 I 0.0 I I 16.3 6. 1 0.0 8.2 25.5 I 0.0 1 .0 I 0.0 I — I - I 1 0 2 1 8 1 8 I 1 1 I 1 I 42 Probation I 23. 8 4. 8 2.4 19.0 42.9 I 2.4 2.4 I 2.4 I 42. 9 I 38.5 25.0 I 00.0 50.0 41.9 I 100.0 50.0 1 100.0 I I 1 0.2 2.0 1 .0 8.2 18.4 I 1 .0 1.0 1 1.0 I — I- COLUMN 26 S 1 16 43 I * 2 1 98 TOTAL 26.5 8.2 1.0 16.3 43.9 1 .0 2.0 1.0 100.0 CHI SQUARE = 5.63923 WITH 7 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.5824 CRAMER•S V = 0.23988 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = 0.23326 KENDALL•S TAU B = 0.073A6 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.1392 KENDALL'S TAU C = 0.08621 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.1017 Gamma = 0.12432 SOMER'S D = 0.06132 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 26 LEGEND 1.00 = 1,1 Innovator-Innovator 2.00 = I,II Innovator-Incrementalist 3.00 = I,III Innovator-Traditionalist Ij-.OO = II, I Incrementalist-Innovator 5.00 = II,II Incrementalist-incrementalist 6.00 = II,III Incrementalist-Traditionalist 7.00 = III,I Traditionalist-Innovator . 8.00 = III,II Traditionalist-Incrementalist 9.00 = 111,111 Traditionalist-Traditionalist 211 there were no significant differences between police and probation In their response to this scale. The signifi cance level was .5 8. The Combined Situational Scale did show a significant difference, as just described. The value of these three subelements scales, human, physical, and conceptual, Is to point out where, in terms of the component parts of a situation, these differences are most likely to occur. Analysis of this human elements scale indicates then that there is no great difference between police and probation as they perceive the human components of a potential change situation. Both police and probation spend time dealing with people both criminal and non-criminal who comprise their client systems as well as coworkers in their office envi ronments. The difference of routinization in the probation work cited above as a phenomenon explaining some of the differences between the two groups, does not seem to be a controlling factor when we deal only with the human compo nent of potential change situations. In spite of dissimilar experience and work processes, both groups tended to see about the same change potentialities on this scale. 1,1: Innovator-Innovator Slightly more police picked this style than proba tion officers, which is in keeping with our previous analy 212 sis. While 28.6 percent or 16 police picked this style, only 23.8 percent or 10 probation picked the 1,1 style. In both Instances, approximately one-quarter of the respond ents scored as Interpersonal and task Innovators In terms of the human or people components of a potential change situation. Hiring new people, firing or relocating others, forming new work groups: all these are not too difficult to see as situations where behavioral and task changes are likely to occur. The combined Situational Physical Ele ments Scale by contrast has less than 7 percent of the total choosing the 1,1 style. I,II: Innovator-Incrementalist In keeping with our previously discovered phenome non of a correlation between the task and interpersonal dimensions, few respondents selected this mixed style. Six police or 10.7 percent and 2 probation officers, or 4.8 percent, chose this I,II style. The difference again is not significant, but it is in the direction that supports our previous conclusion of the police being more innova- tively oriented than probation. I,II: Innovator- Traditionalist It is not surprising to find only one case in this cell. He was a probation person representing 2.4 percent 213 of that sample. This style represents someone who takes an Innovative approach to interpersonal change but a tra ditional approach to task change, involving people in situ ations. Since these two styles are opposite in character, one would not expect many individuals to fall into this category. II,I: Incrementalist- Innovator An equal number of police and probation individuals selected this style. Eight police, or 14.3 percent, and 8 probation officers, or 19 percent, are represented by this style. The incrementalist innovator is a person who sees incremental change as possible only in terms of the inter personal dimension but great change in the task dimension when personnel changes occur in a situation. II,II: Incrementalist- incrementalist This II,II style was most popular on this scale among both police and probation. A total of 44.6 percent of the police are in this category (25 cases), and 42.9 percent of the probation officers (18 cases). Thus, there was no real difference between the groups. What is most interesting is that this proved to be the most popular style. In terms of people in situations, it seems that both groups, either because of what has happened before or 214 through some fear of changing too rapidly and too much, are most comfortable with a style that Is oriented only towards Incremental change when new people are added or old people removed In specific work situations. Some of this reluctance to proceed with large scale change when the people In a situation change Is due to a rather rational argument that merely changing people will not necessarily change an entire situation. There are other variables, such as those listed In this study, that may have a controlling effect as well. However, the key point here Is not that a human element change will neces sarily change an overall situation, but that It has the potential to do so. The Individuals who selected this II, II style were reluctant to accept this Idea. When a change occurs In the cast of characters of a situation and a new situation Is created, as Dr. Bols explains, they are un willing to make the crucial change interventions that would o permit a new level of Integration for the organization. Instead, they content themselves with more of a systems maintenance or incrementalist approach. II,III: Incrementalist- Traditionalist Once again we come across the unpopularity of the mixed style category. Only one probation officer fits this 215 style. He represents 2.4 percent of that sample. This Is a person who takes an Incremental!st approach to change on the human elements scale with respect to the Interpersonal dimension* but a traditionalist approach with respect to the task dimension. Traditionalist- Innovator No one fits into this rather incongruous style, so the cell was dropped from the chi-square analysis repre sented in Table 8 . It would be unusual to find someone who felt that a change in the people involved in a situa tion would bring about little interpersonal change but great task change. Ill,II: Traditionalist- Incrementalist Only 1 police manager (1.8$) and 1 probation offi cer (2.4$) fit into this category. This again attests to the general unattractiveness of the traditionalist style which has been previously explained. 111,111: Traditionalist- Traditionalist There were no police in this category, but there was 1 probation officer who selected this style (2.4$). Although this table did not show a statistically significant difference between police and probation on the 216: Combined Situational Human Elements Scale, the general direction of the data does support the conclusions of the previous tables that the police are more Innovative oriented and the probation officers more incrementalist oriented. Since there were no significant differences between groups on this table (Table 8), the data In Table 9 become of Increased Importance. This table combines the scores for both police and probation and thus shows how they as a whole selected styles along the Human Elements Scale. Table 9 shows that when we combine police and pro bation scores, a clear preference for a II,II incremental- ist-incrementalist style on the Combined Human Elements Scale emerges. Because 43.9 percent of the respondents chose this II,II style, this indicates a certain cautious ness or concern for equilibrium In terms of potential change situations Involving people In particular situations. A total of 71-4 percent of the respondents selected a style that had incrementalism as at least one part of the overall style, and 6 1 .2 percent of the respondents scored as inter personal incrementalists. Thus, the preference for an incremental approach to behavioral change Issues In situ ations Is clearly established in these two groups. Because 35-7 percent of the respondents chose a style that was characterized by an Innovative interpersonal style, it would be interesting to test whether or not groups TABLE 9 CROSS TABULATION OF IDENTIFICATION NUMBER BY COMBINED HUMAN ELEMENTS SCALE (Combined Scores) 10 COUNT CH ROW PCT IINNOVATO INNOVATO INNOVATO INCREMEN INC.PEMEN INCREMEN TRAOITIO TRAOITIO ROW COL PCT IR—INNOVA R-1NCREM R-TRAOIT TALI ST — I TAL 1ST-I TALIST-T NAI. 1ST—I NALI ST- TOTAL TOT PCT I 1.001 2.001 3. 00 4.001 5.001 • 6.00 8.00 9.001 I 26 I 8 1 1 16 I 43 I 1 2 1 I 98 I 26.5 I 8.2 I 1.0 16.3 I 43.9 I 1 .0 2.0 1 .0 1 100.0 I 100.0 I 100.0 I 1 00.0 100.0 I 100.0 I 100.0 100.0 100.0 I I r 26.5 I 8.2 I 1.0 16.3 I 43.9 I 1 .0 2.0 1 .0 I COLUMN 1 — —^ J ■ ■ ■ -w » T tu tw-w j 26 8 1 16 43 1 2 1 98 TOTAL 26.5 8.2 1.0 16.3 43.9 1 .0 2.0 1 .0 100.0 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 26 LEGEND 1.00 = 1,1 Innovator-Innovator 2.00 = I,II Innovator-Incrementalist 3.00 = I,III Innovator-Traditionalist 4.00 = II,I Incrementalist-Innovator 5.00 = II,II Incrementalist-Incrementalist 6.00 = II,III Inerementalist-Traditionalist 7.00 = III,I Traditionalist-Innovator 8.00 = III,II Traditionalist-Incrementalist 9.00 = 111,111 Traditionalist-Traditionalist 217 218 outside law enforcement are more or less prone toward the Innovator Interpersonal style on the Human Elements Scale. These two law enforcement groups are clearly saying that their approach to potential change situations along the Human Elements Scale Is best characterized by the incre- mentalist style. Although the 11,11 style was most popular, the second most popular style was 1,1 Innovator-Innovator with 26.5 percent of the data. This was due In part to the cor relation found between the two dimensions measured. The third most popular style in Table 9 was II, I incrementalist-innovator, with 16.3 percent of the respond ents selecting it. It is interesting that this group saw more potential for great change in terms of task functions than behavioral phenomena when confronted with personnel changes in situations. Only 8.2 percent of the respondents selected a I, II innovator-lncrementalist style. The rest of the data was split among the other categories with only 1 percent or 2 percent in each. The distribution of this data seems to indicate that with respect to changes in people's behavior in spe cific situations, there was a reluctance by a majority of members in both groups to take full advantage of these potential change situations and engage in proactive 219 behaviors that would bring about significant change. Both groups seemed to be saying that once someone leaves their organization or a new member Is added to their work group, there would be some change, but generally things would remain pretty much the same. This type of preconceived notion hinders managerial action that could take advantage of a personnel turnover situation and make It Into some thing that would bring about change needed in the organi zation . The Combined Physical Elements Scale One of the latest trends in the organizational development literature is the discussion of the affect physical settings have upon the behavior of people in organizations. As discussed in Chapter II, Fred I. Steele has been a leader in advocating the linkage between the physical and social dimensions of organizational develop ment. The data in Table 10, which measure the perceptions of managers confronted with potential change situations involving place and objects, indicate a general lack of awareness of the hypothesized physical settings-behavior linkage. The chi-square significance on this table was at the .02 level. Analysis of the data shows that few police or pro bation selected an innovator style on the interpersonal dimension (21.6$). Selection of an innovator interpersonal TABLE 10 CROSS TABULATION OF IDENTIFICATION NUMBER BY COMBINED PHYSICAL ELEMENTS SCALE CP COUNT I ROW PCT IINNOVATO INNOVATO INNOVATO INCREMFN INCREMFN INCRcMEN TPADIT10 TRADIT10 T PAD11 in ROW COL PCT 1R-INN0VA H-INCREM R-TRADIT TALIST—I TAL 1ST— I TALIST-T N&LIST-1 NALIST-! NALIST- TOT AL TOT PCT 1 1.001 2.001 3.001 4.00 I 5.001 6. on 7.00 8.00 9.001 I 2 I 6 1 0 I 45 I 2 I 0 0 0 0 i I 55 Police I 3.6 1 10.9 I 0.0 I 81 .8 I 3.6 I 0.0 ' 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 53.9 I 40.0 I 37.5 I 0.0 I 67.2 I 40.0 I 9.C 0.0 0.0 0.0 I I 2.0 1 5.9 I 0.0 I 44 . 1 I 2.0 I 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.O I — I I 3 I 10 I 1 I 22 I 3 I 1 1 2 4 1 47 _. 1 • I 6.4 I 21.3 I ?. 1 1 46.0 I 6.4 I 2.1 2.1 4.3 8.5 I 46.1 xrOD&'Olon I 60.0 I 62.5 I 100.0 I 32.8 I 60.0 I ■ 1 00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 I I 2.9 I 9.8 I 1.0 I 21.6 I 2.9 I 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.9 I — I COLUMN 5 16 1 67 5 1 1 2 4 10? TOTAL 4.9 15.7 1 .0 65.7 4.9 i.O 1.0 2.0 3.9 100.0 SQUARE = 17.7774? WITH 8 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0230 CRAMER'S V = 0.41748 CONTINGENT COEFFICIENT = 0.38525 KENDALL'S TAU 8 = 0.03089 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.3209 KENDALL'S TAU C = 0.03191 SIGNIFICANCE a 0.3154 GAMMA a 0.0S4S0 SOMSR'S D * 0.02972 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS a .22 LEGEND 1.00 = 1,1 Innovator-Innovator 2.00 = I, II Innovator-Incrementalist 3.00 = I, III Innovat or-Traditionali st k.00 = II, I Incrementali st-Innovator 5.00 = II, II Incrementalist-Incrementalist 6.00 = II,III Incrementali st-Traditionalist 7.00 = 5 III, I Tradit ionali st-Innovator 8.00 = III,II Traditionalist-Incrementalist 9.00 = 111,111 Tradit ionalist-Tradit ionalist 221 style on this scale would Indicate a manager who was aware of the potential for behavioral change brought about by changes in physical locations or surrounding physical objects. Only 14.5 percent of the police selected an innovator interpersonal style (3-6$ in 1,1; 10.9$ in IjII; and 0$ in I,III), while 30-8 percent of the probation offi cers selected an innovator interpersonal style (6.4$ in 1,1; 21.3$ in I,II; and 2.1$ in I,III). The reason for this low percentage of individuals in these categories is, as Steele explains, the lack of attention and research given to the effect of the physical dimension in organizations on behavior.^"0 Managers and training programs for managers tend to overlook this dimen sion . I,II: Innovator-Incrementalist The greatest difference between police and proba tion in these three style categories (I,I; I,II; and I,III) is in the I,II innovator-incremental style where 10.9 per cent of the police and 21.3 percent of the probation offi cers were found. The fact that the probation officers were more likely to see the interpersonal innovative potentiali ties of the physical elements of situations than police is perhaps explained by the differing experiences these two groups have in the law enforcement area. Probation offi- cers interact with individuals who have been found guilty in a court of law of some criminal behavior. Frequently, the probation officer will visit the probationee at his residence. Criminology studies have linked environmental conditions, including housing, to deviant behavior. By logical extension, one can assume that a probation officer would be struck by visiting his cases in surroundings that most probably could be characterized as high crime areas. Consciously or unconsciously, the probation officer has made some linkage between physical environments and be havior. The police have a similar experience, but not to the same extent as the probation officers. All of the probation officer's contact with his client group is with people who have been convicted of a crime. A policeman's contact with his client group, the citizenry, is not neces sarily with criminal offenders. Much of police work is with traffic violators, family disputes, or other such non-criminal instances in a wide range of environments. It is somewhat surprising to find people choosing this particular style (interpersonal innovator, task incre- mentalist) on the Combined Physical Elements Scale. These managers are saying that a change in the physical environ ment is more likely to bring about behavioral rather than task change. It is reasonable to assume that due to the limited attention given the correlation between the 223 physical environment and organizational behavior* most managers would be prone to see that changes in the physical environment of their organizations would lead to task rather than interpersonal changes. Social scientists have examined the relationship between the physical environment and social behavior* such as the relationship between crime and ghetto conditions* but little attention has been paid to the affect of physi cal conditions in an organization on the behavior of the members of that organization until recently.^ I*III: Innovator- Traditionalist No police and only 1 probation officer (2.1$ of the total) selected this style. Someone in this category sees high behavior change potentialities when physical changes occur but almost no change potentialities for how the task gets done. II,I: Incrementalist- Innovator Forty-five police for a total of 81.8 percent sampled and 22 probation officers for a total of 46.8 per cent of those sampled selected this style combination. This by far was the most popular style for either group* as Table 10 clearly indicates. On the other scales we have examined* we found that the interpersonal and task dimen 224 sions were related so that the I., I and II,II styles were generally the most popular. Yet on this scale a mixed style, II,I, was selected most often by both groups. This Indicates that with respect to the physical elements of a situation, people tend to see a distinction between the interpersonal and task dimensions. The behavioral aspects of our surroundings have been so neglected in the litera ture and in the consciousness of managers that a person who is an innovator on the task dimension is not at all likely to be so on the interpersonal dimension. In fact, in the police group, 81.8 percent, as cited above, scored as innovators on the task dimension, but only as incre- mentalists on the interpersonal; one must remember, this was with a group that on the Combined Situational Scale scored mainly as innovators. The reason for the difference between police and probation here is again a function of the work experience of each group. Probation officers deal almost entirely with people. Technology and hardware play a minor role in the main activity of the probation officer. Police offi cers and managers also deal with people, but technology and hardware play a much larger role in their day-to-day lives. Much federal monies and research have recently gone into 12 technological improvements for police. Thus, it is not surprising to find that almost twice as many police as 225 probation select the 11,1 style on the Physical Elements Scale. Police as a group have been influenced to a larger extent than probation to look for great task change arising from physical innovations. This means that many potentialities for dramatic behavioral changes go unnoticed and unattended when the physical elements of a situation change significantly. Moving an employee to a new office, letting him participate in the design of the space around him, and permitting him the freedom to bring personal objects to work (calendars, pictures) can all have a bearing upon the behavior of that IS person. J Failure to recognize this means that the manager may miss opportunities for innovating changes in the be havior of his employees. Finding so many respondents in this II,I category is not surprising, but it does point up the need for greater awareness on the part of the manage ment of the socio-physical environment in the organization. II,II: Incrementalist- Incrementalist Although this unmixed style has consistently been one of the most popular, here it was decidedly unpopular. Only 2 police (3-6$) and 3 probation officers (6.4$) selected it. There are two reasons for this occurrence. One is the lack of correlation between the interpersonal and task dimensions on this scale that was explained above. 226 The second reason is the unpopularity of selecting an incrementalist or traditionalist style on the task dimen sion. Most of the respondents (71.6$) selected an inno vator style on the task dimension. Thus* while there was a high percentage of innovative task styles, there was a low percentage of innovative interpersonal styles (21.6$). Both police and probation, then, tended to avoid this II, II style. II,III: Incrementalist- Traditionalist No police and only 1 probation officer selected this style (2.1$). This was due in part to the unpopular ity of being a traditionalist on the Physical Elements Scale. III,I: Traditionalist- Innovator Here again, no police and only 1 probation officer selected this style (2.1$). This style indicates someone who sees little interpersonal change potentialities from physical changes, but great task change potentialities. Ill,II: Traditionalist- Incrementalist No police and only 2 probation officers chose this style (4.3$). This underlines the low popularity of a traditionalist style. 227 111,111: Traditionalist- Traditionalist No police and 4 probation officers selected this style (8.5$)- Although the percentage of probation offi cers who showed as 111,111 was only 8.5 percent, it is surprising to find even that large a percentage of people saying that physical changes in an organization have virtually no task or behavioral change potentialities. Table 11 shows the distribution of the data when the police and probation scores are combined. It is imme diately striking that 6 5 .7 percent of the data is in the II,I cell. As mentioned earlier, this is evidence of the difficulty managers have in seeing the innovative potenti alities of physical changes on interpersonal behavior. However, innovative change potentialities on the task dimension are fairly easy to perceive. There is not the correlation between the two dimensions that has been evi dent on earlier scales. While 71-6 percent of the respondents picked a style that was innovative on the task dimension, only 21.6 percent picked a style that was innovative on the inter personal dimension. Thus, these data clearly support the contention found in recent literature that the socio physical environment, as a unified whole, has been neg lected in the minds of managers and in the organizational 14 development literature. By far, then, most respondents TABLE 11 CROSS TABULATION OF IDENTIFICATION NUMBER BY COMBINED PHYSICAL ELEMENTS SCALE (Combined Scores) 10 CP COUNT I ROW PCT IINNOVATO INNOVATO INNOVATO INCREMEN INCREMFN INCREMFN TRAOITIO TRAOITIO TRADITIO COL PCT IP-INNOVA R-INCREM R-TRAOIT TALIST-I TALIST-I T ALI ST—T NAL1ST —I NALIST — I NALI ST — TOT PCT ROW TOTAL COLUMN TOTAL NUM8ER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS I 1 .001 2.001 3.001 4.001 5.001 6.001 7. 001 a. 001 9.001 I I 5 I 1 6 I 1 I 67 I 5 I 1 I 1 I •2 I 4 I 102 I 4.9 I 15.7 I 1.0 I 65.7 I 4.9 I 1 .0 I 1.0 I 2.0 r 3.9 I 100.0 I 100. 0 I 100. 0 I 100.0 I 100.0 I 100.0 I 100.0 I 100.0 I 100.0 i 100.0 I I 4.9 I 15.7 I 1.0 I 65.7 I 4.9 I 1.0 I 1.0 I 2.0 i 3.9 1 I 5 16 I 67 5 1 1 2 4 102 4*9 15.7 1 .0 65.7 4.9 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 100.0 22 LEGEND 1.00 = 1,1 Innovator-Innovator 2.00 = I,II Innovator-Incrementalist 3.00 = I,III Innovator-Traditionalist 00 = II,I Inerementalist-Innovator 5.00 = II,II Incrementalist-Incrementalist 6.00 = II,III Incrementalist-Traditionalist 7.00 = III,I Traditionalist-Innovator 8.00 = III,II Traditionalist-Incrementalist 9.00 = 111,111 Traditionalist-Traditionalist ro ro oo 229 saw themselves as real Innovators on the task dimension, hut only as Incrementallsts on the Interpersonal dimension when confronted with changes In the physical environment of specific situations. The task innovator style was popular because of the connection managers make between the physical and changes in work performance. It is a popular notion in the litera ture that technological changes lead to changes in how the 1*5 work gets done. Thus, finding a lot of task innovators on the physical elements scale is not surprising. The next most popular style came in a distant second. The style of I,II interpersonal innovator, task incrementalist represents only 15-7 percent of the data. Most of these people, as mentioned earlier, were probation officers who have an explainable tendency to be more ori ented to people than task requirements. Only a relatively small amount of the sample felt that physical changes in the situation have more potentialities for interpersonal than task change. Only 16 out of 102 respondents selected this style. No other style had more than 4.9 percent of the data. The 1,1 style had only 4.9 percent, which supports the low perceived correlation between the interpersonal and task dimensions and the lowly perceived possibility of an innovative interpersonal style on this scale. Style II,II 230 also received only 4.9 percent of the data, again pointing out the low correlation between the two measured dimensions. Style 111,111 traditionalist-traditionalist was next in line with 3 .9 percent of the data, pointing out the unpopu larity of the traditionalist approach on the physical ele ments scales. The III,II traditionalist-incrementalist style had 2 percent of the data and the styles of I,III innovator-traditionalist; II,III incrementalist-tradi- tionalist; and III,II traditionalist-incrementalist each had only 1 percent of the data. The Combined Conceptual Elements Scale Table 12 is a representation of the data on the Combined Conceptual Elements Scale. This scale was formed by combining the conceptual elements subscale on the inter personal and task dimensions. The result is a scale that indicates how a manager looks at potential change situa tions as they pertain to the context of ideas and the vari able of time along the interpersonal and task dimensions. Chi-square statistical analysis did not reveal a significant difference between the two groups although the significance level was fairly high— .12. While statistical significance was not achieved, the direction of the data supports the general findings that police are more innovative oriented than probation officers. At the conceptual level, however, both groups TABLE 12 CROSS TABULATION OF IDENTIFICATION NUMBER BY COMBINED CONCEPTUAL ELEMENTS SCALE cc COUNT I HOW PCT IINNOVATO INNOVATO INNOVATO INCREMEN INCREMEN INCREMEN TRAOITIO ROW COL PCT IR-INNOVA R-INCREM R-TRADIT TALIST-I TALIST-I T ALI ST —T NALI ST- TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 .001 2.001 3.001 4.001 5.001 6.001 9.001 Police I 45 I 0 I 0 I 12 I 2 I 1 I 0 I 60 I 75.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 20.0 I 3.3 1 1 .7 I 0.0 I 58.8 I 66.2 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 57. 1 I 28.6 1 50.0 I 0.0 I I 44.1 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 11.3 I 2.0 I 1 .0 I 0.0 I — I- ------- 1--------1.------- 1- -I- Probation I I 23 I 54.8 I 1 I 2.4 I 2 I 4.8 I 9 I 21.4 I 5 11.9 I I 1 I 2.4 I 1 I 2.4 I 42 41.2 I 33.8 I 100.0 I 100.0 I 42.9 I 71 .4 I 50.0 1 100.0 I I 22.5 1 1.0 I 2.0 1 8.8 I 4.9 I 1 .0 I 1.0 I I - COLUMN 68 1 2 21 7 2 1 102 TOTAL 66.7 1.0 2.0 20.6 6.9 2.0 1.0 100.0 CHI SOUAPE = 9.96581 WITH 6 DEGREES Op FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.1261 CRAMER'S V = 0.31258 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = 0.29834 KENDALL'S TAU 8 = 0.20238 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0012 KENDALL'S TAU C = 0.20069 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0013 GAMMA = 0.38214 SOMER'S D = 0.19773 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 22 LEGEND 1.00 = I;I Innovator-Innovator 2.00 = I . , II Innovator-Incrementalist 3.00 = I,III Innovator-Traditionalist J k OO = II,I Incrementalist-Innovator 5.00 = II,II Incrementalist-Incrementalist 6.00 = II,III Incrementalist-Traditionalist 7*00 = III,I Tradit ionalist-Innovator 8.00 = III,II Traditionalist-incrementalist 9-00 = 111,111 Traditionalist-Traditionalist . 232 are quite innovative oriented. Perhaps this is due to the positive value attached to change and innovation in manage ment. These norms become clear at the conceptual elements of a situation. 1,1: Innovator-Innovator The biggest difference between the two groups on this scale occurred in this cell. While 75 percent or 45 police officers scored as 1,1 style managers, only 54.8 percent or 23 probation officers selected this style. The high percentage of police in this cell is indicative of the innovation orientation we have found elsewhere in this study. On this particular Combined Conceptual Elements Scale, this finding is explained most accurately by recall ing that most of the police officers studied in this sample were involved in management training programs. In these training programs, innovative and proactive behaviors were stressed as desired patterns of action. Thus, at the con ceptual level, we find many police managers choosing a 1,1 style. The probation officers sampled were not as involved in management training programs. This, coupled with the routinization factor in their work experience described earlier, explains the lower percentage of probation respondents than police who selected this style. 233 I,II: Innovator-Incrementalist Only 1 probation officer scored in this category (2.4# of the total) and no police personnel. This style indicates someone who is an innovator on the interpersonal dimension but an incrementalist on the task dimension. The low respondent selection here is illustrative of a correla tion between the task and interpersonal dimensions on the Conceptual Elements Scale. I,III: Innovator- Traditionalist No police personnel and only 2 probation personnel (4.8# of the total) selected this style. Again, a mixed style category proved to be unpopular. The two respondents here saw low potentialities for task change, but high potentialities for interpersonal change when confronted with situations that held change possibilities in the con ceptual elements that make up a situation. II,I: Incrementalist- Innovator Almost the same percentage of police and probation people selected this style: 20 percent of the police (12 cases) and 21.4 percent of the probation officers (9 cases). These individuals were quicker to recognize the change pos sibilities inherent in potential change situations along the task dimension than the interpersonal dimension on this 234 conceptual elements scale. The emphasis given to the value of Innovation and change on a theoretical level In manage ment literature and training probably accounts for both groups' responding In a general Innovative manner to the Conceptual Elements Scale. II,II: Incrementalist- Incrementalist A total of 11.9 percent of the probation personnel (5 cases) and 3 .3 percent of the police (2 cases) selected this style. As we move to the traditionalist end of the table, we begin to find more of the probation than police sample represented, although the difference here is small. Most of the data for both police and probation Is In the more Innovative categories. The direction of the data In this cell, however, is supportive of the general conclusion that police are more innovative oriented than probation. II,III: Incrementalist- Traditionalist Only 1 police case (1.7$) and 1 probation case (2.4$) are in this category. This points up the similarity between police and probation personnel on this scale and the general unpopularity of categories at the low change end of the scale. 235 Traditionalist- Innovator No cases fell into this rather incongruous style, and hence this cell was not printed out by the computer. Ill,II: Traditionalist- Incrementali st Again this low end of the change scale cell saw no cases represented. 111,111: Traditionalist- Traditionalist This unmixed style saw only one case represented. It was from the probation sample (2.4$). No police scored in this cell. Combined Police and Proba tion Scores Table 13 gives a representation of the data on the Combined Conceptual Elements Scale when the police and pro bation. scores are combined. It becomes readily apparent that the 1,1 innovator-innovator style was most popular: 66.7 percent of the data is represented in this category (68 cases). As explained earlier, many of the respondents in this study were involved or have been involved in some form of management training. Management training today stresses innovation and change. It is not surprising to find this taking hold at the conceptual level to a high degree. TABLE 13 CROSS TABULATION OF IDENTIFICATION NUMBER Bi' COMBINED CONCEPTUAL ELEMENTS SCALE (Combined Scores) cc COUNT I ROW PCT IINNOVATO INNOVATO INNOVATO INCREMFN INCREMEN INCREMEN TRADIT10 ROW COL PCT IR-INNOVA R— INCREM R-TPAOIT TALIST-I TALIST-I T ALI ST—T NALI ST- TOTAL TOT PCT I 1.001 2.00 3.00 4.001 5.001 6. 00 9.001 ID I I 63 I 1 2 21 I 7 I 2 1 I 102 I 66.7 I 1.0 2.0 20.6 I 6.9 I 2.0 1 .0 I 100.0 I 100.0 I 100.0 1 00. 0 100.0 I 100.0 I 1 00 .0 100.0 I I 66.7 I 1.0 2.0 20.6 I 6.9 I 2.0 1.0 I -I--------- 1---------- I COLUMN 68 1 2 21 7 2 1 102 TOTAL 66.7 1.0 2.0 20.6 6.9 2.0 1.0 1 00. 0 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 22 LEGEND 1.00 = 1,1 Innovator-innovator 2.00 = I,II Innovator-Inerementalist 3.00 = I,III Innovator-Traditionalist 4.00 = II,I Incrementalist-Innovator 5-00 = II,II Incrementalist-Incrementalist 6.00 = II,III Incrementalist-Traditionalist 7.00 = III,I Traditionalist-Innovator 8.00 = III,II Traditionalist-incrementalist 9.00 = 111,111 Traditionalist-Traditionalist ro u> o\ 237: This becomes dramatic when one looks at the results in the 1,1 category for the other two elements scales in this study. Only 2 6 .5 percent of the respondents fit into this category on the Combined Human Elements Scale. An even smaller percentage, 4.5 percent, fit into the 1,1 category on the Combined Physical Elements Scales. This indicates that it is easier for managers to see change potentialities that pertain to the more abstract constructs of a situation. Perhaps more time should be spent in training sessions dealing with concrete applications of how a manager can be innovative or creative and less time 17 spent on general exhortations to change. The second most popular category was a mixed style cell, the II,I or incrementalist-innovator, where 20.6 percent (21 cases) of the total was recorded. These respondents were quicker to recognize a high change poten tiality on the task dimension than on the interpersonal dimension. Between these two cells, the 1,1 and the II,I, 8 7 .3 percent of all the data is represented. These two cells are toward the high change end of the scale, which indicates a predisposition to be aware of change potenti alities regarding the conceptual elements of a situation. The II,II unmixed incrementalist-incrementalist style, which was generally popular throughout this study, received only 6 .9 percent (7 cases) of the total on this 238 scale. This was due to the unwillingness to view the task dimension In anything other than Innovative terms. In toto* 87-3 percent of the respondents selected a cell that was characterized by an innovative style on the task dimension. The rest of the cells received very little data. The I,III innovator-traditionalist and II,III incremen- talist-traditionalist each received 2 percent of the total (two cases). The I,II innovator-incrementalist and 111,111 traditionalist-traditionalist each received 1 percent of the data (one case). No cases were recorded in the III,I traditionalist-innovator and III,II traditionalist- incrementalist categories. To indicate how strong the orientation to innova tion was on this conceptual elements scale, one finds that 9 0.3 percent of the data is in categories that have one or more dimensions characterized by a I style (I,I; I,II; I, III; II,I), while only 9-9 percent of the data is in cells that contain no Style I selections (II,II; II,III; III, III). On the Combined Human Elements Scale, 42 percent of the data is in cells characterized by at least one Style I orientation (I,I; I,II; I,III; II,I), while 47.9 percent is in cells not characterized by a Style I orientation (II,II; II,III; III,II; III,III). The Combined Physical Elements Scale more closely resembles the Combined Conceptual Ele 239 ments Scale In this analysis. On the physical elements scale, 8 8 .3 percent of the data Is In cells representative of a Style I orientation (I,I; I,II; I,III; II,I; III,I), while 11.8 percent of the data Is In cells not representa tive of a Style I orientation (II,II; II,III; III,II; III, III). Thus, respondents tended to be highly innovatively oriented on the Conceptual and Physical Elements scales, while less than half were Innovatively oriented on the Human Elements Scale. As hypothesized earlier, changes involving people, such as firing someone or moving him out of one office into another, are more difficult precisely because they involve people and the personal feelings one may have about them. We may be quicker to recognize poten tial change situations when they mainly involve changes in ideas or physical elements precisely because they are impersonal. Validity Analysis As explained in Chapter III, validity is a measure of the extent an instrument actually measures what it pur ports to measure. Seven major hypotheses were devised to test the validity of this instrument. A separate validity portion of the questionnaire was administered to each indi- l8 vidual. Analysis of the results of the validity test revealed that the instrument can be declared valid on the 240 same measurement utilized by Blake and Mouton for their Managerial Grid* but that additional validity measurements were not significant. Blake and Mouton in Chapter 10 of their book The Managerial Grid discuss the general procedure they employed to test the validity of their instrument. They postulated that if their 9,9 style of management was best overall and their instrument accurately discriminated between the styles they set out* then managers who scored as 9,9's would be more successful than those who did not. This is a simple yet powerful test of an instrument's validity and the logic of one's analysis. In order to measure this, they employed a Managerial Achievement Quotient (MAQ), which is an algebraic formula they devised for measuring managerial success.^ The MAQ measures organizational position while controlling for age. The formula controls for age since there is a natural correlation between age and management level. (See Chapter III, pp. 165-68 for a fuller explanation.) Blake and Mouton found that the 9>9 managers had a higher MAQ than managers characterized by 20 other styles. It should be noted that the scores of different styles were not based upon data collected from the Managerial Grid questionnaire itself, but rather from participant rankings of each other according to the Grid descriptions. It would seem that a more powerful validity 241 check would have been to use the style designations from the questionnaire itself. MAQ scores were gathered for each individual in our situational change study. They were compared with the situational style scores received on the Situational Change Survey. The validity hypothesis tested here is listed as number three in the previous chapter and is as follows: 3. The more favorable MAQ Managerial Achievement Quotient, the more likely the person's style will tend toward (I,I) interpersonal and task innovator. Analysis of this hypothesis was carried out for three of our scales: the Combined Situational Scale, the Interpersonal Change Scale, and the Task Change Scale. The Combined Situational Scale is comprised of the Interpersonal Change and Task Change scales and is the main summary scale of the Situational Change Survey. A crucial test of the instrument's validity, then, is whether or not innovators on this scale were more likely to have higher MAQ scores than non-innovators. A Managerial Achievement Quotient was computed for each individual. The sample population was then divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of those individuals who on the Combined Situational Change Scale tended toward a 1,1 innovative-innovative style. This was defined as all those who scored as 1,1 (fifty-eight cases); I,II (four 242 cases); I,III (two cases); II,I (thirteen cases); and III,I (five cases). Group 2 consisted of all those styles that did not contain any Style I innovative elements. Group 2, non-innovators, was comprised of styles II,II (thirty cases); II,III (seven cases); III,II (one case); and III, III (four cases). The MAQ scores for individuals in this study ranged from a high of 252.63 to a low of 42.11. Table 14 indicates the results of this test. A t_-test difference between means was utilized to analyze the data. The mean MAQ score for Group 1 innovators was 144.08. The mean for Group 2 non-innovators was 117.53* Standard deviation for both groups was about the same: 72.29 for Group 1 and 71.51 for Group 2. t_-test computa tions for both pooled variance and separate variance esti mates revealed a two-tailed probability of .05. Thus, the difference between these two groups is statistically sig nificant at the .05 level. This is the single most important test of the instrument's validity. In its simplest terms, it says that individuals who had a combined score containing at least one innovative style element were significantly more suc cessful in their organizations than those individuals who had no such innovative elements in their summary style scores. Although one can never speak in terms of absolute TABLE Ik t-TEST SCOHES OF COMBINED SITUATIONAL CHANGE SCALE GROUP 1 - C GROUP 2 - C VARIABLE MAO £0 EO NUMRER OF CASES 1*00 2*00 MfANf STANDAPO DEV I AT I ON STANDARD ERROR F 2-TAIL VALUE PROS. 1.02 0.960 POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE ♦ SFPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE T DEGRESS OF 2-TAIL * VALUE FPEFDDM PROB. * T VALUE OEGREES OF FREEDOM 2-TAIL PROS. GROUP I GROUP 2 62 A? -144.0824 -117.5385 72.297 71.515 7.984 11.035 * 1 .94 122 4 4 • 054 4 4 4 •1.95 63.57 0.065 LEGEND Group 1 = Innovators Group 2 = Non-innovators ro , ; <jO 244 certainty in statistical research, it is reasonable to conclude on the strength of this test and its results that the Situational Change Survey has validity. The same t_-test analysis was conducted for the two scales that comprise the Combined Situational Change Scale, the Interpersonal Change Scale and the Task Change Scale. The Interpersonal Change Scale (see Table 2) is already divided into innovative individuals (sixty-four cases) and incrementalist styles (fifty cases). Table 15 shows that the mean MAQ for Group 1 innovators was 141.24, while for Group 2 incrementalists it was 129.59* Although this is in the desired direction, i.e., innovators were more suc cessful than incrementalists, further analysis does not reveal this to be a significant difference. (The standard deviation for Group 1 was 73*88 and for Group 2, 74.18.) The t_ test for both pooled variance and separate variance estimates on two-tailed analysis is significant at only the .40 level. Thus, on the Interpersonal Change Scale, there is not a statistically significant difference between innovators and incrementalists and their record of managerial achievement. Interpersonal relations is a com plex phenomenon involving personal feelings for individuals apart from the feelings one may have about them in their organizational roles. Any number of interpersonal vari- TABLE 15 t-TEST SCORES OF INTERPERSONAL CHANGE SCALE GROUP 1 - A FO 1.00 GROUP 2 - A EO 2.00 * P004 ED VARIANCE EST1NATF 4 SEPARATE VARIANQE estimate VARIABLE NUM0ER standard STANDARD F 2-TAIL * T DEGREFS OF 7-TAIL 4 T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL OF CASES MEAN 0EV1ATI0N ERROR VALUE PROB* 4 VALUE FREEDOM PftOQ. 4 VALUE FREEDOM PROB. MAG * 4 GROUP S 64 *141.2454 73.680 9.235 4 4 1.01 0.967 4 -o.ai 112 0.406 4 — 0. 63 105.32 0.406 GROUP 2 50 *129.5929 74.104 10.491 4 4 4 4 LEGEND Group 1 = Innovators Group 2 = Incrementalists 246 ables could Intervene In this case and detrimentally affect the significance of this measure. The Task Change Scale, however, did show a signifi cant difference between the two groups. Table 16 reveals that Group 1 innovators (seventy-six cases) had a mean MAQ of 148.47, while Group 2 incrementalists had a MAQ of 116.98. (See Table 4 for Task Change Scale data.) When a difference between _t-test means was conducted on the data, a two-tailed pooled variance estimate of .038 was recorded and a two-tailed separate variance estimate of .043 was achieved. Thus, this validity measure was significant at approximately the .04 level. Individuals who scored as innovators on this task dimension were more successful managers than incrementalists. Any managerial survey, such as the one presented here, assumes to do at least two things. One is to dis tinguish between various styles or approaches to managerial action. This survey did achieve variability between styles and statistically significant variability between groups. Two, a survey or questionnaire that lists several alterna tives assumes that one is, to some extent, best or desired, and that the survey can accurately measure the respondent's orientation to that alternative. The data just presented indicate that this instrument has achieved these goals. A further analysis of these data was carried out TABLE 16 t-TEST SCORES OF TASK CHARGE SCALE GROUP I - B EO t.OO GROUP 2 - 0 EO 2*00 pooled variance estimate A $ SEPARATE variance ESTIMATE VARIABLE NUMBER STANDARD STANDARD F 2-TAIL T DEGREES OF 2-TAIl 4 T degrees of 2-TAIL OP CASES MEAN DEVIATION ERROR VALUE PROS* VALUE FREEDOM PROS* 4 VALUF FREEDOM PROS. MAO 4 GROUP t 76 -145.4707 71.666 8.244 4 1.12 0.671 -2*11 109 0.038 4 -2.06 62*90 0.043 GROUP 2 35 -116.9635 76.045 12.854 4 * LEGEND Group 1 = Innovators Group 2 = Incrementalists ro - £ ■ - < ] 248 under two additional corollaries to Hypothesis 3. Corol lary 1 states: "The younger managers (under 30 years of age) and the older managers (over 50 years of age) will tend more towards the 1 ,1 interpersonal and task innovative style." The data showed that part of this relationship was statistically significant. Table 17 relates the age of the manager with inno vator and incrementalist styles on the Interpersonal Change Scale. This chi-square table is significant at the .01 level. It indicates that managers who are under 30 are significantly more likely to be incrementalists than inno vators: 18.0 percent were incrementalists while only 3-1 21 percent were innovators. It was hypothesized that the younger individuals would be more change oriented since one frequently views them as the group that calls the loudest for change. However, in this study we are measuring per ception of potential change situations and although organi zational members under 30 may be vocal about change, they may also lack the experience that permits them to see the potentialities for change. Thus, the influencing variable here with age may be experience. The under-30 individuals lack the necessary experience that would enable them to take advantage of potential change situations. This explains the rest of the table as well. Managers in the 30-to-40 age bracket showed no TABLE 17 CROSS TABULATION OF INTERPERSONAL CHANGE SCALE BY AGE OF MANAGER COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT AGE LESS THA 30 TO 40 40 TO 50 50 TO 60 N 30 2. 001 ROW TOTAL 1 .00 3.00 ---------1- 1.00 I 2 I 28 I 22 12 I 64 INNOVATOR I 3. 1 I 43.8 I 34.4 18.8 I 56. 1 I 18.2 I 58.3 I 55. 0 80. 0 I I 1 .8 I 24 .6 I 19.3 10.5 I — I --------- 1 -I- -I 2.00 I 9 I 20 I 18 3 I 50 INCREMENT ALI ST I 18.0 I 40 .0 I 36.0 6.0 I 43.9 I 81.3 I 41.7 1 45.0 20.0 I I 7.9 I 17.5 I 15.8 2.6 I — I - ---------1 -1- -I COLUMN 1 1 48 40 15 11 4 TOTAL 9.6 42.1 35. 1 13.2 100.0 4 .001 CHI SQUARE V= CRAMER*S V = CONTINGENCY KENDALL* S KENDALL* S 10.01969 WITH 0.29647 COEFFICIENT = TAU B = -0.19194 TAU 3 DEGREES OF FREEDOM C = -0.22099 gamma = SOMER•S -0.32785 D = -0.16419 0.28424 SIGNIFICANCE =* 0.0011 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0002 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0184 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 10 249 250 difference between innovative and incrementalist styles: 43.8 percent of this group were innovators and 40.0 percent were incrementalists. The 40-to-50 age bracket also failed to show a distinction: 34.4 percent in this age bracket were innovators while 36.0 percent were incrementalists. However* at the upper end of the scale* individuals in the 50-to-60 age bracket were more likely to be innovators: 18.8 percent of the individuals in this group were inno vators while only 6.0 percent were incrementalists. The experience one gains as he grows older helps him to per ceive possible interpersonal change potentialities in new situations. The same findings hold true for the age of the man ager correlated with the Task Change Scale* as Table 18 shows. The chi-square significance for this table was at the .003 level* which indicates a very strong relationship. The under-30 age group tended quite strongly to be incre mentalists rather than innovators. While 22.9 percent of this age bracket scored as incrementalists* only 3-9 per cent scored as innovators. The lack of experience in work task matters that are associated with a young person played a significant part in this finding. The under-30 age group did not perceive many innovative task change potentialities in new situations. The experience factor carried through the other TABLE 18 CROSS TABULATION OF TASK CHANGE SCALE BY AGE OF MANAGER AGE COUNT I ROW PCT ILESS THA 30 o o 40 TO 50 50 TO 60 ROW COL PCT IN 30 TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 .001 2.001 3. 001 4.001 I- I — I - I — 1 .00 I 3 I 30 I 30 I 13 I 76 INNOVATOR I 3.9 I 39. 5 I 39.5 I 17.1 I 68.5 I 27.3 I 63.8 I 78.9 I 86.7 I I 2.7 I 27. 0 I 27.0 I 11.7 I — I- I — I- I — 2.00 I 8 I 1 7 I 3 I 2 I 35 INCREMENTAL!ST I 22.9 I 43.6 I 22.9 I 5.7 I 31 .5 I 72.7 I 36.2 I 21 . 1 I 13.3 I I 7.2 I 15.3 I 7.2 I 1 .8 I — I- I — I- I — COLUMN 1 1 47 38 15 1 1 1 TOTAL 9.9 42.3 34.2 13.5 100.0 CHI SOUARE = 13.34910 WITH 3 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE * CRAMER•S V = 0.34679 CONTINGFNCY COEFFICIENT = 0.32765 KENDALL•S TAU 8 = -0.29397 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0000 KENDALL'S TAU C = -0.31751 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0000 GAMMA = -0.52581 SOMFR'S D = -0.23504 0.0039 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 13 252: three cells of Table 18. The 30-to-40 age group still finds the majority of respondents In the incrementalist category: 48.6 percent of the respondents In this age bracket were Incrementalists while 39-5 percent were inno vators. As we move up to the 40-to-50 age bracket, the innovative category becomes dominant: 39-5 percent of the respondents were innovators while only 22.9 percent were incrementalists. Finally, in the oldest category (50-to- 60 years old), 17.1 percent scored as innovators while only 5.7 percent scored as incrementalists. Thus, on both the interpersonal and task dimen sions, we see a tendency for experience to play a factor in aiding the manager to perceive change potentialities in potential change situations. This relationship adds to the establishment of the validity of this instrument. A second corollary tested stated that, "The higher the organizational position a person occupies, the greater the likelihood that he will be characterized by a 1,1 innovative interpersonal and task style." Chi-square analysis significantly indicated that this was a valid assumption. Here organizational position is being used as a measure of success, and we are testing the assumption that if the 1,1 innovator-innovator style is best, then more people at the highest levels of management should be 1,1 people than other styles. -253 Table 19 displays these data In terms of the Inter personal Change Scale. Respondents categorized themselves as upper management* upper middle management* middle man agement* lower middle management* or lower management. These categories were collapsed into three main groups: 22 upper* middle* and lower. The significance level for Table 19 is at the .05 level. The data on this table clearly show that the people in upper management are more likely to be innovators than incrementalists. a total of 42.4 percent of the inno vators was in the upper management column. This means that almost half of all the people who scored as innovators were in upper management. Only 26.0 percent of all the people who scored as incrementalists made it into upper management. Thus* it would seem that the 1*1 style is a key to organizational success. Almost an equal percentage of innovators and incrementalists showed up in middle man agement: 20.3 percent of those who are innovators are in this middle management category and 20.0 percent of the incrementalists fit here also. The middle management cate gory is a transitional organizational position that is occupied equally by both innovators and incrementalists. However* as we just demonstrated* a higher proportion of innovators made it out of here to upper management than did incrementalists. In the lower management category* we find TABLE 19 CROSS TABULATION OF INTERPERSONAL CHANGE SCALE BY MANAGEMENT LEVEL DHGPOS COUNT ROW PCT UPPER MIDDLE LOWER ROW COL PCT TOTAL TOT PCT 0 . O 1 . 00 2. 00 3.001 1 .00 0 27 1 3 24 I 64 INNOVATOR 0.0 42.2 20. 3 37.5 I 56. 1 0.0 67.5 56.5 51 . 1 I 0.0 23.7 11.4 21.1 I 2.00 4 1 3 1 0 23 I 50 INCREMENTAL I ST 8. 0 26.0 20.0 46.0 I 43.9 100.0 32.5 43.5 48.9 I 3.5 11.4 8.8 20.2 I COLUMN 4 40 23 47 114 total 3. 5 35. 1 20.2 41 .2 100.0 CHI SQUARE = 7.70955 WITH CRAMER'S V = 0.2 60 05 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = KENDALL'S TAU B = 0.05728 KENDALL'S TAU C = 0.06556 GAMMA = 0.09829 SOMER'S D -= 0.04929 3 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 0.25168 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.1800 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.1482 SIGNIFICANCE = NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 10 0.0524 ro 255 a greater percentage of incrementalists than innovators: 46.0 percent of all who scored as incrementalists on the Interpersonal Change Scale were in lower management. This means that almost half of all the incrementalists on this scale are in lower management: 37-5 percent of the respond ents answering as innovators were in the lower management category. The correlation between organizational position and innovative and incrementalist styles on the Task Change Scale is very similar to the results just explained on the Interpersonal Change Scale. Table 20 displays the data with a chi-square significance at the .03 level. Again the same hypothesis is confirmed. People in upper management are more likely to be innovators than incrementalists. A total of 44.7 percent of all persons responding as inno vators were in upper management. This was nearly half of all the innovators. Only 22.9 percent of all persons responding as incrementalists were in upper management. Thus, on the Task Change Scale an innovator is more likely to be in a top management position than an incrementalist. In the middle management area, the score for both groups was about equal: 19-7 percent of the innovators were in this category and 17.1 percent of the incrementalists. Middle management is a transitionary position for some people and holds about equal percentages of innovators and incrementalists. TABLE 20 CROSS TABULATION OF TASK CHANGE SCALE BI MANAGEMENT LEVEL ORGPOS COUNT ROW PCT UPPER MIDDLE LOWER ROW COL PCT TOTAL TOT PCT O . o I 1.001 2.001 3.001 I — I 1 .00 1 I 34 I 15 1 26 I 76 INNOVATOR 1.3 I 44.7 I 19.7 I 34 .2 I 68.5 25.0 I 81.0 I 71 .4 I 59.1 I 0.9 I 30.6 I 13.5 I 23.4 I — I — I 2.00 3 I 8 I 6 I 18 I 35 INCRFMFNT AL1ST 8.6 I 22.9 I 1 7. 1 I 51 .4 I 31.5 75. 0 I 19.0 I 28.6 I 40.9 I 2.7 I 7.2 I 5.4 I 16.2 I — I — I COLUMN 4 42 21 44 1 1 1 TOTAL 3.6 37.8 18.9 39.6 100.0 CHI SQUARE = 8*41022 WITH 3 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE CRAMER'S V = 0.27526 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = 0.26539 KENDALL'S TAU B = 0.12412 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0256 KENDALL'S TAU C = 0.13278 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0185 GAMMA = 0.22386 SOMER'S D ® 0.10020 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS * 13 257 The lower management level, however, Is another story: 51*4 percent of the Incrementalists were In this category. Thus, over half of the Individuals who have an Incrementalist style on the Task Change Scale are In lower management. This Indicates that It Is not a very success ful style. A total of 34.2 percent of the Innovators were In the lower management category. Thus, both the Interpersonal and Task Change scales point out the correlation between organizational position and situational styles of management. This is an important relationship in the establishment of this instrument's validity. Several other measures which went beyond Blake and Mouton1s method of validity testing were attempted in this study. Unfortunately, they were not found to be signifi cant. Two reasons can account for this. One, there were too many intervening variables affecting these measure ments. And two, the validity tests were just not well enough defined. The first of seven validity hypotheses offered in Chapter III was: The greater the situational style orientation for interpersonal change, the lower the job satisfaction in an organization that is per ceived by the individual to have little inter personal change. Table 21 shows the correlation between innovator and incre- TABLE 21 CROSS TABULATION OF INTERPERSONAL CHANGE SCALE BY JOB SATISFACTION CONTROLLING FOR PERCEIVED PERSONNEL CHANGES (NO CHANGE TOOK PLACE) SAT COUNT ROW PCT I COL PCT I TOT PCT I A --------- 1 =LOW 1 . 00 H I GH 2.001 ROW TOT AL 1.00 I 7 7 I 14 INNOVATOR I I I 50. 0 77.8 30.4 50. 0 I 50.0 I 30.4 I 60.9 2.00 I 2 7 I 9 INCREMENTALIST I I I 22. 2 22.2 8.7 77.8 I 50.0 I 30.4 I 39. 1 COLUMN 9 1 4 23 TOTAL 39. 1 60.9 1 00 .0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE = 0 .80006 WITH PH[ = 0,18651 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = KENDALL'S TAU 9 = 0.27778 KENDALL'S TAU C = 0.25465 GAMMA = 0.55556 SOMER'S D = 0.27778 1 DEGREE OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.3711 0.18335 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0260 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0320 259 mentalist scores on the Interpersonal Change Scale and job satisfaction for people who perceived no personnel changes as having occurred in their organizations recently. Hypo thetically, innovators should be less satisfied than incre mentalists, because innovators are change oriented, and if they are in organizations where they perceive low change, 24 they should not be very satisfied. Table 21 does not show this, however. The table is not significant (.37$ level), and just as many innovators had high satisfaction as low satisfaction (50$ and 50$). The results for incre mentalists, however, were in the predicted direction: 77.8 percent said they had high satisfaction, while 22.2 percent had low satisfaction in this "no change" organization. Table 22 is set up in the same manner, except that it is comprised of people who perceived a lot of personnel changes. Here we would expect the data to show that the innovators were more satisfied than the incrementalists. This is again not the case. Both groups were relatively satisfied and the table is not statistically significant. While 20 percent of the innovators and 24.3 percent of the incrementalists experienced low job satisfaction, 80 per cent of the innovators and 75-7 percent of the incremen talists experienced high job satisfaction. Any validity measurement using the variable of job satisfaction turned out to be a poor measuring device in TABLE 22 CROSS TABULATION OF INTERPERSONAL CHANGE SCALE El JOB SATISFACTION CONTROLLING FOR PERCEIVED PERSONNEL CHANGES (CHANGE TOOK PLACE) SAT COUNT ROW PCT I I =LOW HIGH ROW COL PCT TOT PCT I I 1.001 2.001 TOTAL --------- I----------I- 1 .00 I 10 I 40 I 50 INNOVATOR I 20. 0 I 80.0 I 57.5 I 52.6 I 11.5 I 1 I- 58.8 I 46.0 I 2.00 I 9 I 28 I 37 INCREMENTAL!ST I 24.3 I 75.7 I 42.5 I 47.4 I 10.3 I I I- 41.2 I 32.2 I COLUMN 1 9 68 87 TOTAL 21.8 78.2 1 00.0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE = 0.04849 PHI = 0.02361 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = 0.02360 KENDALL'S TAU B = -0.05175 SIGNIFICANCE = KENDALL•S TAU C = -0.04228 SIGNIFICANCE = GAMMA = -0.12500 SOMER•S D = -0.06192 WITH 1 DEGREE OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE 0. 0< 2361 2785 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 14 261' our study because about three-fourths of both the inno vators and incrementalists on the Interpersonal Change Scale were satisfied with their jobs. Table 23 illustrates this finding. A lot of factors make up the variable of job satisfaction: interpersonal relations* psychological re- 2h wards* and monetary rewards, to name a few. The factor of being happy with the rate of interpersonal change is not a controlling one that affects overall job satisfaction. Thus* this was not a good validity measure. (Table 23 fails to show any statistically significant differences between incrementalists and innovators.) Due to the general correlation between the inter personal and task dimensions* the same results were found on the Task Change Scale when perceptions of task change in the organization were related to job satisfaction. Table 24 shows the cross tabulation of scores achieved on the Task Change Scale and the job satisfaction question. The results presented control for the item on the survey that asked whether or not a lot of functional 26 changes have taken place recently in the organization. One would expect that the incrementalists would be more satisfied than the innovators in an organization where little functional change was perceived to have occurred. However* data analysis reveals that only nine cases out of seventy-one stated they had low job satisfaction and the TABLE 23 CROSS TABULATION OF INTERPERSONAL CHANGE SCALE BI JOB SATISFACTION SAT COUNT I ROW PCT =LOW HIGH ROW COL PCT TOT PCT 1 .001 . O O TOTAL A --------- ---------1 I .00 17 I 47 I 64 INNOVATOR 26.6 I 73.4 I 58.2 60.7 I 57.3 15.5 I 42 .7 2.00 1 1 I 35 I 46 INCREMENTAL I ST 23.9 I 76 . I I 41.8 39.3 I 10.0 I 42. 7 31 .8 COLUMN 28 82 1 1 0 TOTAL 25.5 74.5 1 00.0 CORRECTED CHI SOUARF = 0.00861 W ITH 1 PHI = 0.00885 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = 0.00885 KENDALL'S TAU B = 0.03000 SIGNIFICANCE = KFNDALL* S TAU C = 0.02579 SIGNIFICANCE = DEGREE OF FREEDOM 0.3194 0.3433 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.9261 GAMMA = 0.07014 SOMER•S D = 0.03397 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 14 262 TABLE 2k CROSS TABULATION OF TASK CHANGE SCALE BT JOB SATISFACTION CONTROLLING FOR PERCEIVED FUNCTIONAL CHANGE (NO CHANGE TOOK PLACE) SAT COUNT I ROW PCT I=LQW HIGH ROW COL PCT TOT PCT I I 1 .001 2.001 TOTAL _I_--------1 --------- 1 1 .00 I 5 I 48 I S3 INNOVATOR I 9.4 I 90.6 I 74.6 2.00 I I -I- I 55.6 I 7.0 I 4 I 77.4 I 67 .6 I 1 4 I 1 8 INCREMENTALIST I 22.2 I 77.8 1 as. 4 COLUMN I I -I- 44.4 I 5.6 I 9 22.6 I 1 9.7 I 62 71 TOTAL 12.7 97.3 1 00. 0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE = 0.99795 WITH 1 PHI = 0.11856 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = 0*11771 KENDALL'S TAU B = -0.16721 SIGNIFICANCE = KENDALL'S TAU C = -0.09681 SIGNIFICANCE = GAMMA = -0.46565 SOMFR'S D = -0.21864 DEGREE OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.3178 0.0181 0.1126 263 264 significance level was .31* Thus, there was no significant difference between innovators and incrementalists on this measurement. Innovators were even more satisfied than incrementalists in such an organizational situation: 90.6 percent of the innovators were high in job satisfaction and 9.4 percent low, while 77-8 percent of the incrementalists were high in job satisfaction and 22.2 percent were low. Again the number of possible intervening variables that comprise the variable of job satisfaction make this a poor test of the instrument's validity. Also, too many cases expressed high satisfaction in their jobs to make this question a good item of discrimination. Table 25 shows the same analysis, except this time it is controlling for the group that answered the perceived functional change question by indicating that some change did take place. These were the individuals who answered the question in the categories of some, much, or very much. Interestingly enough, only thirty-six individuals fit into this category and even more amazing, the data in each of the top two and bottom two cells of the four-celled matrix of Table 25 are the same. Eleven innovators on the Task Change Scale in an organization in which they said task change had occurred were low on job satisfaction and eleven were high. The same is true for incrementalists. Under the same circumstances, seven incrementalists were low on TABLE 25 CROSS TABULATION OF TASK CHANGE SCALE BI JOB SATISFACTION CONTROLLING FOR PERCEIVED FUNCTIONAL CHANGE (CHANGE TOOK PLACE) SAT COUNT ROW PCT I I=LOW HIGH ROW COL PCT TOT PCT I I ! .001 2.001 TOTAL I I- I O O • *4 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 22 INNOVATOR I 50.0 I 50.0 I 61 • 1 I I I 61. 1 30.6 I I I- 61 . 1 30.6 I I I 2.00 I 7 I 7 I 14 INCREMENTAL!ST I 50. 0 I 50.0 I 38.9 I I 38.9 19.4 I I 38.9 19.4 I I — I I- I COLUMN TOTAL 18 50.0 18 50.0 36 100.0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE = PHI = 0.05698 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = KENDALL'S TAU B = 0.0 KENDALL* S TAU C = 0.0 GAMMA - 0.0 SOMER *S D = 0.0 0.11688 WITH 1 DEGREE OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.7324 0.05689 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.5000 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.5000 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 17 Ul 266 job satisfaction and seven were high. The chi-square sig nificance level was .73- Thus, there were no differences in job satisfaction between task innovators and incre- mentalists in organizations that had undergone functional changes in their recent past. Again the variable of job satisfaction, for the reasons cited above, did not turn out to be a good validity measurement. Illustrative of this, Table 26 shows that there was no significant difference between job satisfaction and innovators and incrementalists on the Task Change Scale. (The chi-square significance level was .2 3.) Thus, as on the Interpersonal Change Scale, both Innovators and incre mentalists appeared almost equally satisfied with their jobs. While 21.3 percent of the innovators and 3^-^ per cent of the incrementalists experienced low job satisfac tion, 7 8 .7 percent of the innovators and 6 5 .6 percent of the incrementalists experienced high job satisfaction. Once again the various intervening variables that make up the variable of job satisfaction evidently overshadow the one part of it we attempted to correlate with innovator and Incrementalist styles here. Also, because there is a cer tain element of danger In police and probation work, it Is not surprising to find that most of the people surveyed TABLE 26 CROSS TABULATION OF TASK CHANGE SCALE B S C JOB SATISFACTION SAT COUNT ROW PCT =LOW HIGH ROW COL PCT TOTAL TOT PCT 1 .00 2.001 1 .00 16 59 I 75 INNOVATOR 21.3 78.7 I 70.1 59.3 73.8 I 1 5.0 55. 1 I 2.00 1 1 21 I 32 INCREMENTAL I ST 34.4 65.6 I 29.9 40.7 26.3 I 10.3 19.6 I COLUMN 27 80 107 total 25.2 74.6 1 00. 0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE = 1.36993 PHI = 0.11397 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = 0.11324 KENDALL'S TAU B = -0.13747 SIGNIFICANCE - KENDALL * S TAU C - -0.10935 SIGNIFICANCE = GAMMA = -0.31777 SOMER* S D = -0.14491 WITH 1 DEGREE OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.2384 0 .0 170 0.0458 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS » 1 7 ro <y\ -q 268 were satisfied with their jobs. Those that were not have probably left the profession. In summary, then, measurements of job satisfaction were found not to be a significant test of the instrument's validity. Validity Hypothesis 4 listed in Chapter III, The greater the interpersonal situational style orientation to change, the greater the likeli hood that the individual has initiated or worked closely to bring about interpersonal change in his organization, was also tested. This hypothesis predicts that innovators on the Interpersonal Change Scale are more likely to have initiated behavioral change in their organizations than incrementalists. Once again, the traditionalist category was dropped due to a lack of cases. Table 27 shows the results of this test. While the direction of the data was in part as predicted, the find ings were not statistically significant. A significance level of only .35 was achieved for this chi-square. People who scored as innovators were almost evenly split over whether they had initiated little or much behavioral change: while 53*1 percent reported little initiation, 46.9 percent 27 reported much. Individuals who scored as incrementalists came out in the direction anticipated. While 6 3 .8 percent were categorized as having initiated little behavioral change, only 36.2 percent were categorized as having initiated much. TABLE 27 CROSS TABULATION OF INTERPERSONAL CHANGE SCALE BY INITIATION OF BEHAVIORAL CHANGE COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT INNOVATOR 1 .0 0 INITBEH I ILITTLE I I 1.001 I----------1 MUCH a . oo 34 53. 1 53. 1 30.6 30 46.9 63. B 27.0 2.00 INCREMENTAL I ST COLUMN TOTAL I 30 I 17 I 63.8 I 36.2 I 46.9 I 36.2 I 27.0 I 15.3 64 47 57.7 42.3 ROW TOTAI 64 57.7 47 42. 3 1 1 1 1 00. o CORRECTED CHI SQUARE = 0.87129 WITH | DEGREE OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.3506 PHI = 0.08860 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = 0.08825 KENDALL * S TAU B = -0.10705 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0463 KENDALL* S TAU C = -0.10454 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0502 GAMMA = -0.21786 SOMER■S D = -0.10705 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 1 3 270 This did not turn out to be a good measure of the instrument's validity because of an important intervening variable that was overlooked in the original hypothesis formulation. While it is accurate to assume that inter personal innovators would be initiating more behavioral change than incrementalists, one can expect this to be true only if everyone in the study has an equal opportunity to make a change intervention in his organization. Since the sample included a range of management levels, it is likely that innovators at the lower levels were blocked from making change interventions in their organizations, not because of their perceptions of the situations around them, but because of their low organizational positions. Thus, both innovators and incrementalists at the lower organiza tional levels would be unlikely to have initiated behav ioral changes in their organizations. This could also be true for organizational members at the upper levels of management where a strong conservative boss blocked most attempts at change. Validity Hypothesis 5 presented in Chapter III, The greater the task situational style orienta tion to change, the greater the likelihood that the individual has initiated or worked closely to bring about task change in his organization, is a counterpart of the previous hypothesis that dealt with the interpersonal dimension. This hypothesis, like the 271 previous one, was not found to be statistically signifi cant. A significance level of .65 was recorded. Table 28 displays the data. The same reasoning that accounted for the failure of substantiating Hypothesis 4 is applicable here. The intervening variable of organizational position, which we are treating here as affecting in part the opportunity for initiation of task change, hinders this as a useful measure of the instrument's validity. Of all those who responded as innovators on the Task Change Scale, 60 percent scored as having initiated little task change while 40 percent scored as having initiated much. This is almost the same split as for the incrementalists, who scored at 6 6 .7 percent in the little column and 33-3 percent in the much column. Thus, there was no significant difference between those who were inno vators or incrementalists on the Task Change Scale and the likelihood of their having initiated task changes in their organizations. Validity Hypothesis 6, which was, The greater the situational style orientation for change, the less rigid will be the individu al's perception of the laws of nature, was also not found to be a good measure of the instrument's validity. It was hypothesized (see pp. 168-6 9* Chapter III) that an innovator on the Interpersonal or Task Change TABLE 28 CROSS TABULATION OP TASK CHANGE SCALE BT INITIATION OF TASK CHANGE INITT ASK COUNT I ROW PCT ILITTLE MUCH ROW COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 . 001 2.001 I- I I 1 .00 I 45 I 30 I 75 INNOVATOR I 60. 0 I 40. 0 I 69.4 I 67.2 I 73.2 I I T 41.7 I T 27.8 I T 2.00 I I 22 1 I 1 1 1 I 33 INC REMENT AL1ST I 66.7 I 33 .3 I 30 .6 I 32.8 I 26.8 I I f _ 20.4 I y 10.2 I y COLUMN I 67 1 41 I 108 TOTAL 62.0 38. 0 1 00.0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE = 0.19572 WITH 1 DEGREE OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE PHI = 0.04257 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = 0.04253 KENDALL'S TAU B = -0.06328 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.1634 KENDALL'S TAU C = -0.05658 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.1903 GAMMA = -0.14286 SOMER'S D = -0.06007 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 16 273 scales would be a person who did not see the world as made up of rigid laws of nature. A relationship between strongly held* rigid views In terms of the laws of nature and perception of potentialities for change was postulated. However, as Tables 29 and 30 Indicate, for both dimensions of this study this was not the case. Table 29 Is a matrix consisting of the innovators and Incrementalists on the Interpersonal Change Scale and their perceptions of natural laws. Again, the tradition alist category was dropped due to lack of cases. The responses to the Item In the survey on perception of natu ral laws consisted of five possible responses. These were then collapsed Into three categories: flexible, undecided, 28 and rigid. The same process was followed for Validity Hypothesis 7, the explanation of which follows. As Table 29 indicates, there was no significant difference between innovators and incrementalists on this dimension. (The chi-square significance level was .17-) While 37-5 percent of the innovators and 48.9 percent of the incrementalists had flexible views, 1 0.9 percent of the innovators and 17 percent of the incrementalists were unde cided. A total of 51.6 percent of the innovators and 34 percent of the incrementalists had rigid views. Even though the data were not statistically significant, one can understandably be puzzled over why the incrementalists TABLE 29 CROSS TABULATION OF INTERPERSONAL CHANGE SCALE BY PERCEPTION OF NATURAL LAW COUNT ROW PCT PNAT FLEXI8LE UNDECIDE RIGID ROW COL PCT 0 TOTAL TOT PCT 1.001 2.001 3.001 ———————— ————————J————————| | 1.00 24 I 7 1 33 I 64 INNOVATOR 37.5 I 10.9 I 51.6 I 57 .7 51.1 21 .6 I 46.7 I 67.3 I I 6.3 I 29.7 I 2.00 23 I 8 1 16 1 47 INCREMENTALIST 48.9 I 17.0 I 34.0 I 42.3 48.9 20. 7 I 53.3 I 32.7 I I 7.2 I 14.4 I I--------- I----------I COLUMN 47 15 49 1 1 1 TOTAL 42. 3 13.5 44.1 1 00.0 CHI SOUARE = 3.46354 WITH CRAMER'S V = 0.17664 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = KENDALL'S TAU B = -0.14702 KENDALL'S TAU C = -0.16103 GAMMA = -0.26496 SOMER'S D = -0.13251 2 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 0.17395 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0101 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0057 SIGNIFICANCE = NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 13 0.1770 274 275 tended to have more flexible views than the innovators. The answer is probably to be found in the character of the incrementalist1s views. When a potential change situation occurs in an organization, an incrementalist wants to com promise. He or she wants to change, but not dramatically enough to seriously damage the status quo. Thus, the incrementalist is in part a compromiser. Perhaps it is this compromising attitude, which implies a certain flexi bility, that accounts for more incrementalists than inno vators being in the flexibility column of this table. Whatever the case, the relationship between percep tion of potential change situations in organizations and perceptions of the laws of nature is too spurious to be of use in this study. Due to the correlation between the interpersonal and task dimensions of this study, the data with respect to perception of the laws of nature for the Task Change Scale look pretty much the same as those just reported for the Interpersonal Change Scale. Table 30 displays the data on this measurement. Again it is not statistically signifi cant (.2 5 level). A glance at the table reveals that 42.7 percei of the innovators were flexible, while 57-6 percent of the incrementalists scored as having flexible views. While 13-3 percent of the innovators were undecided, 15-2 percent of the incrementalists were undecided. While 44 TABLE 30 CROSS TABULATION OF TASK CHANGE SCALE El PERCEPTION OF NATURAL LAW PNAT COUNT ROW PCT IFLEXIBLE UNDECIDE RIGID ROW COL PCT D TOTAL TOT PCT I I.001 2.001 3. 001 B -------- I--------- 1---------1- — I I.00 I 32 I 10 I 33 I 75 INNOVATOR I 42.7 I 13.3 1 44 .0 I 69.4 I 62.7 I 66.7 I 78.6 I I 29.6 I 9.3 I 30.6 I T 2.00 I 19 1 5 I 9 1 I 33 INCREMENTAL I ST I 57.6 I 15.2 I 27. 3 I 30.6 I 37.3 I 33 . 3 I 21.4 I I 17.6 I 4.6 I 8.3 I — I--------- 1 ---------1- — i COLUMN 51 15 42 108 TOTAL 4 7.2 13.9 38.9 1 00 .0 CHI SQUARE = 2.70209 WITH 2 DEGREES OF FREEDOM CRAMER•S V = 0.16050 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT - 0.15847 KENDALL'S TAU B = -0.15006 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0100 KENDALL'S TAU C = -0.15226 SIGNIFICANCE = 0• 0091 gamma - SOMEP'S -0.29211 0 - -0.12553 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.2468 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 16 ro - > ] CT\ 277 percent of the innovators had rigid views, 27-3 percent of the incrementalists came out as having rigid perceptions. The direction of the data for this scale is the same as.for the previously reported interpersonal scale. The reasoning cited above, explaining the general compromising nature of incrementalists and the possible correlation with a flex ible view of the laws of nature, is valid here as well. In sum, however, the relationship between these two variables is too influenced by intervening variables and too spurious to be of much use in validating the Situational Change Survey. Table 31 reveals the results of the correlation between the situational style on the Interpersonal Change Scale and the manager's perception of the rigidity of moral law. These data represent a test of Validity Hypothesis 7: The greater the situational style orientation for change, the less rigid will be the individual's perception of moral law. No significant correlation, however, was found in the data. Each respondent replied to a statement concerning his per ception of the rigidity of moral law (see Appendix B, p. 331)* Responses were on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The data were subsequently collapsed into three categories: flexible, undecided, and rigid, as done for Hypothesis 6. No significant difference was found to exist TABLE J1 CROSS TABULATION OF INTERPERSONAL CHANGE SCALE BI PERCEPTION OF MORAL LAW COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT PMOR I I FLEXIBLE I UNOECIDE D RIGID ROW TOT AL TOT PCT I 1 .001 2.001 3.1001 1 .00 I 25 I 6 I 33 I 64 INNOVATOR I 39. 1 I 9.4 I 51.6 I 57.7 I 61 .0 I 50.0 I 56.9 I I 22. 5 I 5.4 I 29. 7 I — I- I- l- — I 2.00 I 1 6 I 6 I 25 I 4 7 INCREMENTALIST I 34.0 I 12.8 I 53. 2 I 42.3 I 39.0 I 50.0 I 43. 1 I I f _ 14.4 I f _ 5.4 I F — 22.5 I __1 COLUMN 1 “ 41 1 12 1 58 1 1 i 1 total 36.9 10.8 52.3 1 00.3 CHI SQUARE = 0.48687 WITH CRAMER'S V = 0.06623 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = KENDALL'S TAU B = 0.03145 KENDALL'S TAU C = 0.03344 GAMMA = 0.05896 SOMER'S O = 0.02888 2 DEGREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE = 0.06608 SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE 0.3106 0.2996 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 1 3 0.7839 0 0 279 between innovators and incrementalists on the Interpersonal Change Scale and their perception of the rigidity of moral laws. The chi-square significance level was .78. It was predicted that innovators would hold a less rigid view of moral law than incrementalists or traditionalists. Table 31 indicates, however, that 39-1 percent of the innovators held a flexible view and 34 percent of the incrementalists held a flexible view— nearly the same percentage. The same is true for the undecided category, where 9-4 percent of the innovators and 12.8 percent of the incrementalists scored. And lastly, in the rigid category one finds 51*8 percent of the innovators and 53*2 percent of the incre mentalists. A person's perception of morality is influenced by many variables, such as religious upbringing, and thus a measurement which attempts to correlate perceptions of rigid morality with perceptions of change in managerial situations without somehow taking into account these other variables is inadequate. Thus, the results here show that this proposed relationship is too spurious and affected by intervening variables to be of use in validating the instru ment . The same holds true for this measure on the Task Change Scale. Table 32 shows the results when Hypothesis 7 was tested on the Task Change Scale. No significant dif- TABLE 52 CROSS TABULATION OF TASK CHANGE SCALE BY PERCEPTION OF MORAL LAW PMOR COUNT ROW PCT I FLEXIBLE UNDECIDE RIGID ROW COL PCT I D TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 .00 2.001 3. 001 B -------- -1- ---------------------1 _ — I 1 .00 I 30 8 I 37 I 75 INNOVATOR I 40.0 10.7 I 49.3 I 69.4 I 65. 2 88.9 I 69. 8 I I 27.8 7.4 I 34.3 I -1- -------------------- 1 - — I 2.00 I 1 6 1 I 16 I 33 INCREMENTALIST I 48.5 3.0 I 48 .5 I 30 .6 I 34. 8 11.1 I 30.2 I I 14.8 0.9 I 14.8 I -I- -------------------- 1- — I COLUMN 46 9 53 1 08 TOTAL 42.6 8.3 49. 1 100.0 CHI SQUARE = 1.99435 WITH 2 DEGREES OF FREEDOM CRAMFR * S V = 0. I 35B9 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT = 0.13465 KENDALL'S TAU B = — 0.04146 S IGNIFICANCF = 0.2603 KENDALL'S TAU C = — 0.04081 SIGNIFICANCE = 0.2635 GAMMA - SOMER•S -0, O = 08530 -0.03575 SIGNIF ICANCE NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 16 281 ference was found to exist between innovators and incre mentalists on the Task Change Scale and their perception of the rigidity of moral law. A chi-square significance level of only .36 was achieved. Again, the split between innovators and incrementalists was almost even. In all, 40 percent of the innovators expressed a flexible view on moral laws, while 48.5 percent of the incrementalists were in the flexible column. Of the inno vators, 10.7 percent were undecided, and .3 percent of the incrementalists scored as undecided. And lastly, 49-3 per cent of the innovators and 48.5 percent of the incremen talists were in the rigid column. Thus, this proved to be a poor indication of the instrument's validity. But, like the explanation given for the Interpersonal Change Scale for this hypothesis, it would not be accurate to call the instrument's validity into serious question because of it. Due to the interven ing variables that affect one's perception of moral laws but are not necessarily related to one's managerial percep tions, the relationship between the two is spurious. In essence, this measure proved to be a poor test of the instrument's true validity. Summary This chapter has presented the major empirical findings of this study. The results of the Situational Change Survey given to police and probation groups have been presented. The data were analyzed along six scales. The Interpersonal Change Scale found the police to be more innovatively oriented than probation. The same was true for the Task Change Scale. The Combined Situational Change Scale revealed the police to be more 1,1 innovator- innovator oriented than probation. The Combined Human Ele ments Scale did not show a statistically significant dif ference between the two groups. The Combined Physical Elements Scale showed that the police were more innovatively oriented on the task dimension of the scale, while proba tion personnel were more innovatively oriented on the in terpersonal dimension. The Combined Conceptual Elements Scale did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Analysis of the data demonstrated that the instru ment has the ability to distinguish between perceptions of potential change situations and show variability between groups. The instrument was validated by use of a Managerial Achievement Quotient (MAQ) that measured managerial posi tion while controlling for age. Innovators on the Combined 283 Situational Change and the Task Change scales had signifi cantly higher MAQ scores than non-innovators. MAQ, scores on the Interpersonal Change Scale between innovators and non-innovators were not significantly different. Validity measures related to job satisfaction, perception of rigid moral and natural laws, and perception of initiation of change in the organization were found not to be significant, not because of inherent weaknesses in the instrument but rather because of the unsatisfactory nature of these meas urements which were influenced by uncontrolled intervening variables, as explained in detail earlier. 284 FOOTNOTES ^Hubert M. Blalock, Jr., Social Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., i960), pp. 212-14. 2 Office of the Attorney General, The Police in the California Community, A Report of the Attorney General's Advisory Commission on Community-Police Relations (Sacra- mento: Office of the Attorney General, State of California, March 31, 1973)j Chapter 10, Training and Education, pp. 10-1 to IO-6 5. ^One probation officer told the author that he some times fulfills his obligation of contacting his probation ers by driving by where they work or live and waving to them from his car. While he does not approve of this practice, he claimed that it is about all he has time for given his heavy case load. Some probation or parole of ficers have case loads of around 120 people. A See Office of the Attorney General. 5 ^For an example of the difference between money given to police and money given to corrections from the federal government, see Law Enforcement Assistance Adminis tration, LEAA 5th Annual Report of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration Fiscal Year 1973 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973)• ^Daniel Glaser, Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System (abridged ed.; New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969). 7 See Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. O For a discussion of the various routine reports a probation officer must fill out, see Robert M. Carter and Leslie T. Wilkins, eds., Probation and Parole (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1970), especially Section I: Probation, pp. 1-176. ^J. Samuel Bois, The Art of Awareness (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1 9 6 6), pp. 101-106. "^Fred I. Steele, Physical Settings and Organization Development (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1973), P. 6. 285 Fred I. Steele, "Physical Settings and Organiza tional Development," In Social Intervention; A Behavioral Science Approach, ed. by Harvey Hornsteln, Barbara B. Bunker, W. Warner Burke, Marlon Glndes, and Roy J. Lewick (New York: The Free Press, Collier-Macmillan Ltd., 1971)* P. 245. 12 See Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. "^Steele, "Physical Settings," p. 245- 14 Ibid. ^Victor C. Ferkiss, Technological Man, The Myth and The Reality (New York: Mentor Books! 1970). "^For example, see Warren G. Bennis, Organization Development: Its Nature, Origins and Prospects (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1969)• 1 7 Jerry B. Harvey, "Organization Development As a Religious Movement," Training and Development Journal, XXVIII (March, 1974), 24-27. 1 See Appendix B for the validity portion of the questionnaire. ■^Robert R. Blake and Jane Srygley Mouton, The Mana- gerial Grid (Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Co., 1964), p. 2 2 9. 20Ibid., pp. 231-44. 21 The traditionalist category was dropped due to a lack of cases as explained earlier. 22 The categories of upper and upper middle management were grouped and recoded as upper management. The category of middle management was left the same. The categories of lower middle management and lower management were grouped and recoded as lower management. 2^The traditionalist category was dropped for reasons cited earlier. 24 The items on the questionnaire that asked about perceived changes, either personnel, behavioral, or func tional, contained five response categories: very little, little, some, much, and very much. The responses for each 286 item were recoded as follows: The very little, little, and some categories were grouped and recoded as little, and the much and very much categories were grouped and recoded as much. ^Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychol ogy of Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 196671 pp. 370-73- 26 Responses to this question were recoded as ex plained above in footnote 24. 27 'The item on the questionnaire that asked how much behavioral change the respondent had initiated contained five response categories: very little, little, some, much, and very much. These categories were recoded as follows: The very little, little, and some categories were grouped and recoded as little, and the much and very much cate gories were grouped and recoded as much. 28 This item was a statement that presented a view of the world as governed by a set of immutable laws of nature. The five response categories were: strongly disagree, dis agree, undecided, agree, and strongly agree. These were recoded as follows: The strongly disagree and disagree categories were grouped and recoded as flexible. The undecided category was left unchanged, and the agree and strongly agree categories were grouped and recoded as rigid. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS: TOWARDS A SITUATIONAL MODEL FOR THE STUDY AND PRACTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE Situational Analysis Throughout this study we have purposely referred to our proposed methodology as situational analysis, and not as a situational theory. A strict definition of the term theory does not seem appropriate to describe our situa tional study at this time. A theory is a system that relates general statements in an orderly manner. It is a hierarchical system designed to explain reality. A theory, then, should put empirical statements about the world into a related system of general statements so that these gen eral statements can explain some social or physical phe nomena . General statements are universal (all A is B), probabilistic (n percent of A is B), or tendency (some A is B).^ A generalization does more than just state a fact; it explains some part of reality because it attributes a particular property to an entity or group of entities. Eugene Meehan, in The Theory and Method of Political 287 288 Analysis, has identified four major types of theory: deductive, based upon universal or probabilistic general izations; probabilistic, based upon probabilistic general statements only; concatenated, based upon general state ments that are related in a non-deductive manner; and factor, based upon enumeration of the factors -which lead 2 to a particular event in a non-deductive manner. Although some of the propositions outlined in this study fit into Meehan's class of concatenated or factor theories, the situational approach has not yet progressed far enough to warrant its being called situational theory. A more accurate and still adequate description is situa tional analysis. Theory is a multi-ordinal term and as such it can be used in a variety of contexts.^ However, in a strict sense it is more accurate to speak of our work here as the development of a situational analysis. Further study and testing may lead to the theory label in a re stricted sense, but it is not necessary. Situational analysis is not presented as the only way to view behavior in organizations, but rather as one useful approach. It is the sensitizing of managers to this approach that is most important. Likewise, while it is tempting to claim that this study has ushered in a whole new paradigm for the study of administrative change, it probably would be an overstate 289 ment. Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolu tions, at one point defines paradigm as an achievement that can attract an enduring group of adherents away from com peting modes of thought and simultaneously leave all sorts 4 of problems for this new group of adherents to tackle. Kuhn actually defines paradigm in several different ways, and in a later edition of his book he has added a post script in which he tries to clear up the confusion. Situ ational analysis is not currently winning over hordes of adherents and thus fails to qualify for this sociological part of Kuhn's definition of a paradigm. However, this study began by analyzing the per vasiveness of the stability paradigm in our culture. This stability paradigm has affected philosophy, sociology, linguistics, psychology, and science. Situational analysis proposes a break from this tradition and movement to a paradigm that is change oriented. The stability paradigm has outlived its usefulness, especially in our turbulent times. It is the often unconscious acceptance of this stability paradigm that causes us so much consternation when we study and attempt to direct change in administra tive organizations. We unconsciously look for stability when we should be looking for change. If adherence to a situational perspective can lead us towards a change-process orientation, then it has the 290 capability of bringing about a significant paradigmatic shift in the manner in which we approach change. For now, however, we can content ourselves by building towards a situational model, a framework that takes the situation into account as an integral unit of analysis of our actions in organizations. All theories or areas of study have a particular focus or unit of analysis. Some, like Parson's sociolog ical theories, use the unit act; others, like Marx's the ories, use economic activity.^ Whatever the unit, every theory has a basic building block. A theorist may quite logically use one unit of analysis for one particular theory and another unit of analysis for another theory. In this study, we tried to point out the usefulness of using the situation as a unit of analysis for theories of change, especially administrative change. Selection and awareness of one's unit of analysis pertaining to a particular area of study are of critical importance. Consciously or unconsciously, our theories always have a particular unit of analysis. When we deal with the question and explanation of administrative change, what unit of analysis is most powerful in an explanatory and heuristic sense? That is the question this dissertation attempted to 291 answer. The situation was proposed as such a unit of analysis when dealing with administrative change because of the following advantages: (l) It avoids the stability bias affecting so much of our Western culture; (2) it allows for a true examination of the nature of change, which is process; (3) by its very nature it permits a wide range of applicability to various organizational events; (4) it encompasses a multiplicity of variables and stimuli; and (5) it avoids the "one best way" trap frequently found in management literature. Several authors were reviewed in Chapter I to give a historical perspective of the use of the situation as a unit of analysis in the study of human behavior, especially as it pertains to administrative change. Mary Parker Follett is important to our study because of her management orientation and her theoretical emphasis on the situation as a constituent part of the behavior process of people in 7 organizations. In her Creative Experience and the collec tion called Dynamic Administration, she points out the necessity of studying man and the situation. We need to study man's behavior in the context of the total situa- O tional field he is in at any given moment. Kurt Lewin postulates the same theoretical framework for the study of behavior through his force field analysis. Both authors 292 reflect an early gestaltist Influence. The gestalt para digm is evident in most situational analysis hypotheses. Follett's study of man in organizations is also an attempt to study process as opposed to, but not to the exclusion of, structure. At the heart of her writings is a shift from the stability bias that runs through so much of Western thought as analyzed in the beginning of this dissertation. Follett was able to proceed to a paradigm that views process as an endogenous phenomenon in organi zations while permitting an empirical study of behavior through the use of the situation as an analytical concept. Like Blumer and the symbolic interactionists, Follett sees the situation as the setting that gives inter personal relations their meaning and value.^ And following this, she reaches the conclusion that situations carry within themselves potentialities for change. The movement from a reactive posture when confronted with new situa tions, to a proactive posture when confronted with new situations, means that one must not just meet the next situation, but help to create it.1^ And finally, Follett is perhaps best remembered, in terms of her views about situations, for her law of the situation. Although this is probably the most popular of her concepts, it only forms the top of the iceberg, so to speak, about her conceptualization of the importance of the 293 situation, as this examination of Follett's writings has revealed. In thoughts resembling current team building efforts and management by objectives techniques, Follett states that a subordinate should not simply take orders from a superior, but rather they should both work together and take orders or cues from the situation. This process is better suited for keeping pace with external environ mental demands and for bridging the superior-subordinate dichotomy. Lowell Carr is effective in attempting to introduce the concept of the situation as an aid in the study of group behavior. Most of his discussion of the situation is done in terms of a relationship to group phenomena. Hence a situation is defined as a focalized pattern of social 12 relations. Like Follett and Lewin, there is a gestalt influence. A person's life situation, the pattern formed by a person and the sum total of all the factors he is responding to at a given moment, comprise the context out IQ of which individual and group behavior arise. J Thus, to adequately understand and study behavior, we must analyze the situation in which it takes place. Behavior is always contextual, and people, as the symbolic interactionists 14 contend, always behave in terms of specific situations. Carr contributes several concepts to a situational analysis. The situational field, similar to Lewin's force 294 field, is defined by Carr as people in patterns of rela tionships, culture, and forces and objects of the physical 15 world. The situational field of an actor needs to be taken into account in the explanation of individual and group behavior. Routine, problematic, and dramatic (multiple pos sibility) situations are concepts also introduced by Carr. A routine situation is one where old patterns of behavior will work and no change potentialities are perceived. A problematic situation is one where the old patterns of behavior will not rationally work, thus calling for new behavioral patterns. And finally, a dramatic situation is one where the old patterns of behavior may work but where, in addition, there exists a multiplicity of possibilities for new patterns to emerge, hence giving rise to change and innovation. Using the criterion of rationality, we might diagram the distinction as follows: Types of Situations Types of Behavioral Patterns Routine Problematic Dramatic Old Rational Choice Ron-Rational Choice Rational Choice Rew Ron-Rational Choice Rational Choice Rational Choice 295 In the dramatic situation, both the old pattern of behavior and a possible new approach would be rational 16 selections. However, the dramatic situation has the potentialities for change that can lead to innovative behavior if one perceives their presence. The problematic situation forces change because a new course of action is the only rational choice. The dramatic situation, however, presents a different choice because the old way of behaving will still work and if one is not attuned to looking for multi-possibilities of response, it may be the only choice perceived. The crux of the Situational Change Survey was to inventory the likelihood of a manager perceiving a multiplicity of choices in what Carr calls a dramatic situ ation. If he does not see that this type of situation has the potentiality for new patterns of behavior, then he is missing out on significant possibilities for change in his organization. Carr also proposes three phases of adjustment to a situation: (l) gestalt awareness, (2) definition of the situation, and (3) assumption of role.^ Through these three processes one either reactively or proactively adjusts to each new situation. And finally Carr, as Blumer and other symbolic interactionists postulate, explains that change occurs when someone must work out a new role when confronted with a new 296 situation that makes the selection of a new role imperative or at least possible."^ It is impossible to know what Kurt Lewin's reaction would be if we suggested to him that he proposed in essence a situational psychology. However, it is hard to imagine him not agreeing with us. Lewin's force field analysis is intrinsically situational. Prom a gestaltist influence that stressed the importance of taking into account all the forces impinging upon an individual at any particular moment, Lewin formulated his force field analysis position. His field theory simply postulates that a person's behavior is derived from a totality of coexisting forces surrounding him. These forces come together in the contexts of con- 19 crete situations. Each person has a particular life space that is defined as the person plus his total psychological environ ment which he subjectively experiences. The concept of life space is important, for it is in this context that a person relates to his environment. This relating is behav ior and it is always carried out in terms of concrete situ- 20 ations. From this comes Lewin1s basic formula, B = F (p, e). (That is, behavior is a function of the person plus his environment.) The environment comprises all of the forces present in the concrete situation the person is in at the moment: 297 hence,, the logic of the title of the Lewin article described earlier: "Behavior and Development as a Function of the Total Situation." Thus, according to Lewin, if we are going to be able to predict behavior, we must take into account the person interacting in the total situation, or 21 force field, which surrounds him at any given moment. The situation, then, is an important analytical concept in Lewin1s psychology. Lewin's belief in the importance of the situation is further buttressed by his emphasis on the "here and now," i.e., the situation-at-hand, for explaining behavior as opposed to teleological explanations. Like Carr, Lewin also gives us several situational concepts to work with. He discusses the potency of the situation, which is a measure of the valence power a par ticular situation holds for an individual. He also describes an overlapping situation as occurring when an individual finds himself at the same time in more than one discrete situation. The potency of each situation in this case is important for the determination of behavior. Lewin explains the step-by-step situational approach to change as one where resistance to change is best overcome by a series of situations, each moving the individual a little closer to the desired end behavior as opposed to a process whereby the resistance to change is attempted to be overcome in one step. 298 In addition, Lewin discusses the immediate situa tion which is the concrete situation happening at the moment, and the background situation which refers to the general historical situation that has occurred in the past and which sets the context in which the immediate situation transpires. The total situation, then, is comprised of the 22 immediate and background situations. G. H. Mead's writings on social psychology (and Herbert Blumer's later labeling of this orientation as symbolic interactionism) are significant for a situational analysis. The symbolic interactionists also hypothesize that people behave by interpreting and then interacting with the concrete situations they are in. Abstract socio logical concepts may be important, but basically a person's behavior is a result of his interpretation of the situation 2^ he finds himself in at any given moment. Blumer writes most clearly and forcefully about this and he was reviewed at some length in Chapter I. The interpretative process put forth by the sym bolic interactionists also means that behavior does not have to be a mere reactive response to external determi nates. An individual can define his situation for himself and behave in a proactive manner. This orientation is vital to the goals of the Situ ational Change Survey, which attempts to illustrate for the 299 respondent his current orientation to potential change situations with the implication that if his behavior is reactive or non-innovative, it need not be. A new defini tion of the situations that confront him, a different symbolic interpretation, can lead him into new and more innovative patterns of behavior. These four major authors, representing various dis ciplines, each in his or her own way utilizes the category of the situation as a useful analytical construct for the study of behavior. We believe it to be of particular prac ticality for the study of behavior (and especially adminis trative behavior) because it automatically takes into account all the variables that affect individuals, it emphasizes a here-and-now orientation, it is applicable to any context, it is a proactive approach to human behavior, and it is process oriented. These are important recommenda tions for any analytical schema that attempts to aid in the explanation and prediction of administrative behavior. Chapter II suggested ten propositions of a theo retical framework for a situational analysis. These ten propositions can be of great help for the student and practitioner of administrative change. All ten proposi tions need not be repeated here, but a few highlights are worth mentioning. A situation was defined as a momentary context of 300 meaning contained within a specific space-time segment of our action. A situation is comprised of six elements: (l) people,, (2) place, (3) things, (4) organizational or insti tutional environment, (5) ideas and (6) time. These six component parts of a situation were used as a basis for the construction of the Situational Change Survey. If the theoretical analysis of the characteristics of a situation was accurate, then a questionnaire based upon these six elements should provide us with a valid survey of an indi vidual's response to potential change situations. This was the case, as Chapter IV described. Perhaps the most interesting of the component parts of a situation listed were the variables of place and objects. The socio-physical elements of organizational behavior are a new area of study whose importance can be predicted from our analysis of the situation. The relationship of situational analysis to con tingency and contextual theory modeling was also discussed in Chapter III. It is important to see the useful and further defining role a situational perspective can have on contingency and contextual theories. A situational orien tation is inextricably tied to the contingency and con textual perspectives. Thus, further analysis of what a situation is and how the situation has been utilized as a unit of analysis in the literature can only be of further 301 support and clarification for contingency theory. Contin gency and situational theories are particularly well suited for dealing with the turbulent environments that character ize the nature of organizations today. The situational approach to administrative leader ship was also examined. The trend from the trait approach to leadership in the literature to an approach that takes into account a number of variables in the leadership situ ation was also discussed. Many researchers on the subject of leadership have arrived at the conclusion reached by Dr. Fiedler of Illinois: there are no good or poor leaders; there are only leaders who work well in one situation but 2 4 poorly in another. Leadership is best viewed from an interactionist perspective which takes into account forces in the person, the followers, and the situation. The situation is an integral part of any leadership study. Leadership trea tises that leave out the situation are overlooking a vital and necessary part of the phenomenon of leadership. Even though leadership is specific to the situa tion, we can still speak and study it intelligently, we can train leaders to be situational, and we explore, through empirical studies, what leadership styles work best in what types of situations: situational analysis holds great promise for making leadership studies more accurate and the training of leaders more effective. 302 And finally, Chapter II outlined the proposition tested by the Situational Change Survey that variations in perceptions of potential change situations lead to varia tions in managerial actions. A manager who perceives potential change situations as providing a multiplicity of possibilities for change is more likely to engage in inno vative oriented activity than a manager who does not per ceive these potentialities. The Situational Change Survey as a Diagnostic Instrument Chapter IV reported the empirical findings of the Situational Change Survey. This survey, which was adminis tered to two law enforcement groups, police and probation, was able to distinguish at least two basic approaches to potential change situations. The survey was constructed around the six component parts of a situation. These components were formed into three scales: the Human Elements Scale, consisting of the variable of people; the Physical Elements Scale, consisting of the variables of place and objects; and the Conceptual Elements Scale, consisting of the variables of the context of ideas, institutional or organizational environment, and time. The survey measured these scales along two dimen sions, concern for interpersonal change and concern for task change. Hence three additional scales were created: the Interpersonal Change Scale which is a combination of 303 the interpersonal dimension of the Human, Physical, and Conceptual Elements scales; the Task Change Scale, which is a combination of the concern for the task change dimension of the Human, Physical, and Conceptual Elements scales; and the Combined Situational Change Scale which is a combina tion of the Interpersonal and Task Change scales. Individuals taking the questionnaire were asked to respond to stimuli situations involving the human, physi cal, or conceptual elements of a situation. Their responses were also keyed to either the interpersonal or task dimension of the potential change situation. Three alternative choices were offered for each stimulus situa tion and respondents were asked to rank order these alter natives. The alternatives corresponded to an innovative, incremental!st, or traditionalist approach to change. (For a full explanation, see pp. 15 8-6 2.) Thus, in his percep tion of potential change situations, a respondent could be scored as an interpersonal or task innovator, incremental- ist, or traditionalist, or any combination thereof for each of the six scales listed above. When data from the two groups were analyzed, sig nificant differences between groups emerged on most scales, which indicates the instruments' ability to discriminate among styles and groups. The police group was more inno vative than the probation group on the Interpersonal Change Scale. Likewise, a significantly greater number of police 304 than probation were more innovative oriented on the Task Change Scale. Similarly the eighteen-celled matrix of the Combined Situation Change Scale indicated a significant difference between police and probation responses, with the police being the more innovatively oriented. The Physical Elements Scale revealed the police were more likely to be innovators on the task dimension of this scale, while probation people were more likely to be innovators on the interpersonal dimension. Significant differences between the two groups were not achieved on either the Human or Conceptual Elements Scale. It is, of course, the contention of the instrument that the differing perceptions of potential change situa tions affect the managerial actions of the respondents. If this could be shown to be the case, the instrument would have validity and would achieve its purpose of being a useful managerial diagnostic instrument. Although the "one best way" approach is logically avoided in this study, the innovative approach to potential change situations is naturally judged best because it specifically opens the door for a wide variety of responses to new and differing situations. If this line of reasoning is accurate, then one would expect that innovators would experience more managerial success than non-innovators. Blake and Mouton utilize a similar logic in 305 ascribing validity to their Managerial Grid. With the 9^9 style (high concern for people and task) rated as best,, they discovered empirically that 9 .>9 managers were indeed more likely to be successful than those employing other styles. They measured managerial success in terms of organizational position. Those in the highest positions were more successful than those who never rose to the top. They developed a Managerial Achievement Quotient which is an algebraic formula that measures managerial success while controlling for age., since one would naturally expect older managers to be in higher organizational positions than 25 younger managers. MAQ scores were figured for each of the 128 re spondents to our questionnaire. These scores were then analyzed in terms of responses to three of the scales: the Combined Situational Change Scale, the Interpersonal Change Scale, and the Task Change Scale. The Combined Situational Change Scale is the most important one for analysis since it is the main summary scale of the instrument. When responses to the scale were divided up into innovators and non-innovators and a Jb-test was conducted with the MAQ scores, a significant difference at the .0 5 level was revealed between the two groups. Innovators were shown to be more successful than non innovators at the .05 level. The most successful people 30 6 in organizations are those who are able to perceive the possibilities for change in potential change situations. The Task Change Scale also revealed a significant difference between MAQ scores., innovators, and non innovators. On this scale, the people with high MAQ scores were more likely to be innovators than non-innovators. This was true at the .04 level. The Interpersonal Change Scale, however, failed to show a statistically significant difference between MAQ scores and innovators and non innovators. Other validity measures which were not tied to managerial age or organizational position did not turn out to be significant, mainly because of intervening variables that affected these measurements. This was explained at length in Chapter IV. One can assume, however, with some assurance that the instrument is valid because managerial achievement was shown to be correlated with the predicted results achieved on the instrument. What this means in terms of the instrument's use fulness and the logic of this dissertation is an important question. To begin with, the purpose of a diagnostic instrument of this type is to aid a manager in examining his behavior in an accurate manner. In order to do this, an instrument must be able to distinguish between several styles or behavioral patterns and, of course, be a valid 307 indicator of what it sets out to measure. The empirical results presented in Chapter IV supported the usefulness of the Situational Change Survey along both of these criteria. Variability in perception styles was shown to exist within groups and also between groups to a significant extent. One style grouping* innovators* was shown to be signifi cantly related to managerial success when compared to a non-innovator style grouping. This instrument* then* can be given to groups of individuals with the confidence that there will appear a variety of response sets and that these response sets are tied in a valid way to their managerial actions. Thus* they can be assured that results achieved on the Situational Change Survey are a valid indicator of their perceptions of and hence responses to potential change situations in their organizations. The findings presented in Chapter IV supported the hypotheses and general line of argument presented in chap ters I and II. The Survey demonstrated the utility of viewing the situation as a unit of analysis in the study of change. This study has moved from a theoretical discus sion of change and the situational perspective to an em pirical testing of the situational approach in the Situa tional Change Survey. The situational perspective was 308 shown here to have real-world benefits In terms of the diagnosis of managerial action. The Situational Perspective in Administrative Theory The situational perspective in the study of admin istrative change has been presented in this dissertation as a conceptual improvement and empirically accurate addition to administrative theory. The situational analysis ap proach has several advantages as cited throughout this study. Situational analysis deals with process. Change is process and a methodology that is not stability oriented has a distinct advantage for dealing with change. Situational analysis avoids the trap of proposing one best way of managing or one best set of activities or characteristics for leadership. Successful policy-making and leadership in organizations depend upon the nature of the situation-at-hand. A leadership or managerial approach that best fits the situation is the most beneficial. There can be no static formulas as to which is best. Utilization of the situation as a unit of analysis in the study of change is an approach in keeping with the tradition of the gestalt psychologists, management writers like Mary Parker Follett, social psychologists like George Herbert Mead, sociologists like Herbert Blumer and Lowell 309 Carr, and psychologists like Kurt Lewin. Situational analysis is a method for applying their insights into the nature of human perception and action into the study and practice of change in organizations. Situational analysis allows for a proactive view of human behavior. The approach presented here avoids the conceptual trap of viewing man and his organizational actions as simply reactions to preset rules of the system. Situational analysis takes into account the interpretive capability of man in influencing his life situation. Situational analysis is theoretically consistent with contingency management and contextual modeling. It is presented here as lending greater support and hopefully further conceptual clarity and rigor to those two ap proaches. Contingency and contextual theories are by nature situational and our examination of the situation as a unit of analysis should be of benefit to contingency and contextual thought in the literature. Situational analysis is also a particular approach to policy-making. Although the emphasis throughout this dissertation has been on the subject of administrative change., the situational approach also has some obvious inputs to make into the general area of policy-making. Policy, to be effective and possible for implementation, must take variables of the situation into account. New 310 policy, or changes in policy, arises, like change itself, when an organization or its policy-makers are confronted with a new situation in which old patterns of action are no longer adequate. The policy-makers must devise a new role or set of policies for the organization to follow, much as an individual must work out a new conception of role when confronted with a significantly different situa tion. Situational changes in organizations, then, quite naturally affect organizational policy-making processes. Administrative change and the link that has to organiza tional policy-making make much of what is presented here applicable to the policy process. In sum, the situation itself is a variable in the study of change. If one wishes to bring about change in an organization, one must be aware of all the key leverage points necessary to successfully institute a change process. The situation is one such key to change. Some times it is easier to change the situation by changing one of the elements of the situation such as the people, place, and so forth, than to attempt to change the personalities of the individuals involved. Perhaps a leader Is doing poorly because he is placed in a situation where his leader ship style is unworkable and he needs, not training that attempts long-term personality alteration, but simply to be 26 placed in another, more compatible, situation. In addi- 311 tion* we may not be correct in assuming that a particular strategy or individual will never work properly simply because it has not worked in one particular situation. It is a frightening thought to some to think* as Fiedler says* that there are no good leaders or bad leaders* only some that are successful in some situations* but not in others. And it is equally frightening to some to think* as Lorsch and Lawrence and other contingency theorists state* there there are no perfect managerial strategies* only some that will work well in some situations but not in others. However* we need not take this to heart to the extent that Cratylus did and retreat to a cave and cease all meaningful dialogue with the external world. Nor do we need to flee from the implications of change to the extent that Paremenides and others have and construct an artifi cial reality that is based upon the myth of stability. Post-Newtonian physical sciences have developed a methodol ogy that is able to deal with process and change* which are the true nature of the physical world* and yet still make empirical observations and predictions about the physical world. Likewise in the social sciences* dealing with reality as process does not mean that we are lost on a sea of change. The situational approach presented here is a 312 meaningful way for us in the "business of studying and writ ing about administrative theory to deal with change in an accurate, empirical, and adequate manner. Hopefully, this study has advanced our conceptualization about and practice of change in public organizations. 313 FOOTNOTES ■'"Eugene Meehan, The Theory and Method of Political Analysis (Homewood, IllTl The Dorsey Press, 1 9 6 5), pp. 91- 92. 2Ibid., pp. 134-54. 3J. Samuel Bols, The Art of Awareness (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1 9 6 6), pp. 90-96. 4 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revo lutions, II (2nd ed.; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970), 10. ^Meehan, p. 149. 6 See Talcott Parsons., The Structure of Social Action (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1937)j and Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto (Chicago: A Gateway edition, Henry Regnery Co., 1954). 7 Mary Parker Follett, Creative Experience (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 192471 p. 60. ®Ibid., p. 6 9. ^Ibid., p. 6 0. ^Mary Parker Follett, Dynamic Administration. The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, ed. by Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwlck (New York: Harper & Row, 1940), p. 28. ^ Ibid., pp. 59j 6 3, 65 and Follett, Creative Experi ence, p. 1 5 1- 12 Lowell Juilliard Carr, Situational Analysis: An Observational Approach to Introductory Sociology (New York: Harper & Bros., 1948), pp. 5l 907 l3Ibld., p. 3 8. 1^Ibld_., p. 3 2. 13Ibld., p. 1 7. "^Rationality is defined here as a choice which ad vances the organization or Individual to a set of desired goals. ^ Carr* p. 20. ^Ibld., p. 34. "^Alfred J. Marrow., The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin (New York: Basic Books, 195973 p3 20Ibid., pp. 2 9-3 9. 21Ibid., p. 1 7 1. 22 Kurt Lewin, "Behavior and Development as a Function of the Total Situation," in Manual of Child Psychology, ed. by L. Carmichael (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1946), p. 944. 23 -^Herbert Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism: Perspec- tive and Method (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969), P. 8 9. 04 Fred E. Fiedler, The Trouble With Leadership Training Is That It Doesn't Train Leaders," Psychology Today, February, 1973* p. 26. 25 ^Robert R. Blake and Jane Srygley Mouton, The Mana- gerial Grid (Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Co., 1964), p. 2 2 9. 26 Fred E. Fiedler, "Style or Circumstance: The Leader ship Enigma," in Leadership and Social Change, ed. by William R. Lassey (Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates Press, 1971)j p. 28l. APPENDICES 315 APPENDIX A PART I 316 S I T U A T I O N A L CHANGE Q U E S T I O N N A I R E A survey of the styles of managerial perceptions and responses to situa tional phenomena in organizations. Carl J. Bellone Assistant Dean School of Public Administration University of Southern California Note: Not for citation or reproduction without written permission of the author. 317 318; Situational Change Questionnaire Purpose Managers are continually confronted with a series of new situa tions. Some of these new situations may lead to change while others may not. A manager's perception and response to these situations is of crucial importance. This questionnaire is designed to aid the practicing manager in diagnosing how he or she reacts to a variety of situations. The determination of a manager's style of response and the impli cation of that particular style should he beneficial in helping a manager deal with situational experiences in organizations. How to Answer the Questionnaire Nine situations are presented in the questionnaire for your response. Each situation is presented twice, making a total of 18 questions in all. Thus, questions 1 and 2 are the same, 3 and 4 the same, 5 and 6 the same, and so on. Although the questions are repeated in pairs, the response statements for each of the 18 questions are different. Three responses are presented for each question. You are asked to rank order these responses by placing a number 1 by the statement you agree with the most, a number 2 by the statement you next agree with, and a number 3 "by the statement you agree with the least. Place the number on the line to the left of the statement. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers to this questionnaire. You should simply rank the statements in the order that best reflects your feelings as a practicing manager, about each situation. Attempts to give a "correct" or "ideal" answer will only hinder the ability of the questionnaire to give you helpful information about your style of perceiving and responding to managerial situations. 319 QUESTIONS 1. Your organization has just hired a new assistant director from outside the organization. How would you view this situation? (Please rank the following statements by placing a number 1 by the statement you agree with most, a number 2 by the state ment you next agree with, and a number 3 hy the statement you agree with the least. Rank each of the following questions in the same manner) a. Often times a new man will come in with new ideas, but the best thing is for everyone to behave as before. The new person will soon learn there was a reason for things to have been done a certain way and will come around to this viewpoint in short time. b. The addition of a new top level manager will naturally bring about some behavioral changes in the organization as it adjusts to meet this new situation. However, since most of the old people will still be around, much behavior will remain the same. c. A new man at the level of assistant director means great changes in the organization's behavior. He will come in with new ideas and everyone will have to change to meet this new situation. 2. Your organization has just hired a new assistant director from outside the organization. How would you view this situation? (Please rank order the following) a. A new manager joining an organization may want some work done differently, but other work will be done in the same manner. The most one can ordinarily hope for is moderate change. b. Organizations have momenturns of their own. New people come and go but the organization outlives them all in its same old form. c. When a new top manager comes on the scene, he wants to prove himself by making the work more efficient and productive. This is an opportune time, then, for suggesting new improve ments in work patterns. 320 3. The organization you are with is having some personnel problems. The director suggested that rather than firing some people, they be relocated so that new work groups would form. You feel that.... (Please rank order the following) a. Relocating people from one work group to another can be a method for solving interpersonal problems, but one must be careful not to view it as a cure-all for the organization's problems. The transferred person will bring with him or her the same personality and past socialization experience that made him or her a problem in the first place. There will be a give-and-take, but no dramatic behavioral changes. b. The climate of a work group greatly affects the behavior of its members. Transferring someone from one work group to another can elicit genuinely different behavior from that person. A new situation can be created for that person which may entail new behavior on his or her part. c. Moving a problem employee from one group to another rarely solves a personnel problem. The same old problems will just crop up again in the new group. 4. The organization you are with is having some personnel problems. The director suggested that rather than firing some people, they be relocated so that new work groups would form. You feel that... (Please rank order the following) a. While different work groups have varying rates of produc tivity, the mere shifting of people from work group to work group cannot be expected to produce more than moderate changes in the organization's overall functioning. b. An individual's productivity and efficiency in work groups are in part a reaction to the surrounding environment. Chang ing the environment through relocation can result in signifi cantly different behavior on the part of the relocated person. c. Organizations are always reorganizing work at regular intervals. The only fact one can be sure of is that all work groups have functional problems and always will have. 321 5. An agency just got rid of an organizational member who was generally inefficient, disruptive, and unpopular with bis co-workers. As top management, bow would you view tbis situation? (Please rank order the following) a. A new work climate will emerge that can change the way the people who remain accomplish their organizational tasks. Many functional tasks can be done more efficiently. b. The loss of an inefficient and unpopular worker will aid the accomplishment of the organization's tasks, but one cannot expect the simple loss of one person to solve the remaining generic problems of efficiency and productivity. c. While work may become more efficient upon first losing a disliked and inefficient employee, the change is only tran sitory. The same organizational factors that made him or her unpleasant and inefficient will probably act upon the new per son taking his or her place. Thus nothing will be gained in the final analysis. 6. An agency just got rid of an organizational member who was generally inefficient, disruptive, and unpopular with his co-workers. As top management, how would you view this situation? (Please rank order the following) a. The departure of a disruptive co-worker can bring about significant changes in the total work environment. Management should take this opportunity to improve the work climate. b. Losing one disruptive co-worker is never a cure-all for the organization's behavioral problems. Interpersonal relation ships will change for the better, but after a few months pass, dramatic changes will fail to materialize. c. A disruptive co-worker causes problems, but most organiza tions are full of interpersonal problems. Getting rid of one only means that several others will take its place. 322 7- A fire burned out the offices of an agency. After a few weeks, money was available to remodel and start functioning again. As top management, how would you view this situation? (Please rank order the following) a. Redoing the old office may mean that the work environment can be altered. However, employee behavior in the remodelled office will be about the same as in the old pre-fire office days. b. This is a significant development for the organization. The remodelled office and layoff from work mean that the opportunity exists to change some worker behavior and solve some old interpersonal problems. c. Organizations are so powerful that even fires don't make much difference. There will be a backlog of work, and some new furniture around, but with the same staff back, the same behavior patterns will surface. 8. A fire burned out the offices of an agency. After a few weeks, money was available to remodel and start functioning again. As top management, how would you view this situation? (Please rank order the following) a. This is a situation loaded with many possibilities. Hew work arrangements can be made. Hew office designs can be implemented. Old space problems can be worked out. In brief, an entirely new functional work pattern can be created. b. Hew working conditions created by a remodelled office will alter some functional work patterns, but much of the work division and processes will remain the same. c. The most important task for a manager in this situation is to get everyone back into production just like they were before the fire. In a month or so after the reopening every thing will be back to normal. 323 9. An organization moved from a downtown office building to a one-story building located in a country-like suburban com munity. How would you view this development? (Please rank order the following) a. Work is work. People are not going to be any more produc tive just because they can look out of windows and see trees. Locational changes alone do not significantly affect productiv ity or efficiency. b. The locational change can make for many functional work changes. These changes can significantly affect the work output. A manager must be aware that relocating is an impor tant occurrence. c. A locational change carries with it the possibility for moderate improvement in work output, but normally one would not expect dramatic productivity gains. 10. An organization moved from a downtown office building to a one-story building located in a country-style suburban com munity. How would you view this development? (Please rank order the following) a. Changing geographical location will bring about little or no behavioral changes. The same behavioral patterns will be around in the new location that were present in the old. b. A change in the physical and locational environment of a work area can alter the patterns of behavior of the workers. There are many hidden potentialities for behavioral change in this type of relocation. c. Some behavioral relationships may change because of a location move, but by and large the behavior in the new loca tion will not be greatly different from that of the old. 324 11. People attach individual meanings to the physical objects around them such as: size of the desk they have, placement near a window, quality of equipment, etc. Thus, a change in these objects is likely to.... (Please rank order the following) a. aid job performance significantly. People work better when surrounded by good equipment and pleasing objects. b. help performance only moderately. The physical work environment is only one of the variables that affect job performance. c. make little difference. The newness of better equipment or furniture wears off rather quickly and one is left with the same old situation. 12. People attach individual meanings to the physical objects around them such as: size of the desk they have, placement near a window, quality of equipment, etc. Thus, a change in these objects is likely to.... (Please rank order the following) a. make no real change. People will just continue with the same ingrained patterns of behavior. b. dramatically change the way people behave, because the individual meanings we attach to the objects around us are important spurs to our actions. c. bring about slight change perhaps, but not a dramatic change in behavior. 325 1J. After a year of hard work, the new governing body of your organization succeeded in changing the general philosophy and purpose of the organization. As top management, how would you view this new situation? (Please rank order the following) a. If you ask people what they think the general philosophy and purpose of the organization are you get as many different answers as people you ask. Therefore, a change made by man agement in the general philosophy and purpose of the organiza tion won't mean much. b. Some work reorganization and functional changes may come out of this shift in philosophical emphasis, but most work will remain about the same as before. c. With the major philosophy and purpose of the organization changed, top management should take advantage of this oppor tunity for functional changes. General work organization, the type of work, and the nature of the task performed can undergo transformation. 14. After a year of hard work, the new governing body of your organization succeeded in changing the general philosophy and purpose of the organization. As top management, how would you view this new situation? (Please rank order the following) a. A change in the general organizational philosophy creates a significant opportunity for a change in the way in which people behave in the organization. Top management should plan to take advantage of this new situation. b. A manager does not really need to be too concerned. The high level philosophies of the organization really do not have that much of an affect on everyday behavior in the organiza tion. Therefore, a manager can generally go along managing as he has before with little worry. c. Naturally a change in the general philosophy and purpose of an organization will create some behavioral changes in the organization, but a manager should not expect that everything will change. Many familiar behavioral patterns within the organization will continue. 15• Within the past six months a particular organization has undergone more change than it has seen in previous years. As top management, how would you view the effects of this in creased rate of change upon your workers? (Please rank order the following) a. Workers may he confused with the changes, and management should have concern for their feelings, hut management should take advantage of this situation to make needed task improve ments. h. Workers will see all these changes as just another means hy the organization for getting more work out of them. Thus, there will he little change in productivity rates. c. Workers may fluctuate in their outputs, hut as soon as the rate of change decreases, the productivity of the workers will return to a point that is near normal. 16. Within the past six months a particular organization has undergone more change that it has seen in previous years. As top management, how would you view the effects of this in creased rate of change upon your workers? (Please rank order the following) a. There will he some behavioral effects to he sure. Some people are struck hy rapid change, while others will take it in stride. Management should try to keep a calm and reassur ing stance in this volatile period. h. Management need not worry, for most employees will continue to hehave as they have in the past, which is best. c. Management must he sensitive to employees' wants and fears during this time. This type of situation carries with it the potentiality of bringing about many psychological and inter personal changes in the organizational membership. 327 17- After working with, an outside managerial consulting group, an organization succeeded in changing the general social interactional patterns of the organization (i.e., an increase in the level of teamwork, less hierarchical patterns, and less status differentiation). As top manage ment, how would you view this new situation? (Please rank order the following) a. Some behavioral changes will naturally take place, hut management must also he aware of "backsliding," i.e., people will tend to revert hack to the way they behaved before the management consultants were called. b. Now that the successful consulting program has been com pleted, management can expect major interpersonal changes to occur and should be prepared to take advantage of needed changes. c. After a few months have passed, everyone will revert back to their familiar patterns of behavior. Thus, the whole effort will really accomplish little or nothing. 18. After working with an outside managerial consulting group, an organization succeeded in changing the general social inter actional patterns of the organization (i.e., an increase in the level ofkteamwork, less hierarchical patterns, and less status differentiation). As top management how would you view this new situation? (Please rank order the following) a. Management can expect no real change. The workers can easily figure out that management intends to accomplish, through the use of outside consultants, greater productivity. Workers may cooperate for a while, but there will be no real task-oriented changes for the benefit of management by the workers. b. More cohesive work groups can lead to improvements in out put, but one still must monitor productivity. One can only expect moderate change. c. This is a situation loaded with many possibilities for changing the way work is carried out in the organization. For example, a feeling of teamwork can lead to higher rates of productivity and efficiency in the organization. APPENDIX B PART II 328 S I T U A T I O N A L CHANGE Q U E S T I O N N A I R E (VALIDITY QUESTIONNAIRE) INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete the questions in Part II by writing in the appropriate number for questions 1 to 3, and by placing a check mark ( / ) on the appropriate line for questions 4 through 1 2. 329 330 Situational Change Questionnaire PART II 1. Age 2. Number of years you have worked in your current organization 3. Number of promotions you have received in this organization_ 4. I would classify my current position in this organization as Lower Mgmt Lower Middle Mgmt Upper Upper Mgmt Middle Mgmt Middle Mgmt 5. Taking all things into account, the satisfaction I experience in my job is..... Very Low Low Medium High Very High 6. Over the past few years my organization has undergone some major changes in personnel. Strongly Dis- 'Disagree • Undecided Agree Strongly Agree agree 7. There have been a lot of changes in the way people behave in my organization over the past few years. Strongly Dis- Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree agree 8. There has been very little change in the manner in which we carry out our work functions in my organization over the past several years. Strongly Dis- Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree agree 331 9- How much behavioral or personnel change would you say you have initiated or worked closely to bring about in your organization? Very Little Little Some Much Very Much 10. How much technical or task-oriented change would you say you have initiated or worked closely to bring about in your organization? Very Little Little Some Much Very Much 11. Would you please react to the following paragraph. There is an ordered universe held together by the laws of nature in a definite pattern. The progress of man has been to discover these physical laws of nature. Man, in order to meet his survival needs, must not transgress these laws. Strongly Dis- Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree agree 12. Would you please react to the following paragraph. There are certain moral absolutes in nature that man must not ignore. They must be obeyed in all situations by all men if we are to live in a civilized world. Strongly Dis- Disagree agree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree BIBLI OGRAPHY 332 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Allen, Vernon L., ed. Psychological Factors in Poverty. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co., 1970. Appelbaum, Richard P. Theories of Social Change. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co., 1970. Barnard, C. J. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 194b. Barnett, Lincoln. The Universe and Dr. Einstein. 2nd rev. ed. New York: Bantam Books, 1957- Bass, B. Leadership Psychology and Organization Behavior. New York: Harper and Bros., i9 6 0. Bennis, Warren G. Changing Organizations: Essays on the Development and Evolution of Human Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1 9 6 6. Bennis, Warren G. Organization Development: Its Nature, Origins and Prospects. Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley Publishing Co., 19^9- Berger, Peter L., and Luckmann, Thomas. The Social Con struction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co., 1 9 6 6. Bird, C. Social Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century, 19307 Blake, Robert R., and Mouton, Jane Srygley. The Managerial Grid. Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Co., 1 9 6 4. Blake, Robert R., and Mouton, Jane Srygley. The Marriage Grid. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971. Blalock, Hubert M., Jr. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., I960. 333 334 Blumer, Herbert. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Bois, J. Samuel. The Art of Awareness. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1966. Bonner, Hubert. On Being Mindful of Man: Essay Toward a Proactive Psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1965- Brillouin, Leon. Scientific Uncertainty and Information. New York and London: Academic Press, 1964. Carr, Lowell Juilliard. Situational Analysis: An Observa tional Approach to Introductory Sociology. New York: Harper & Bros., 1948. Carter, Robert M., and Wilkins, Leslie T., eds. Probation and Parole: Selected Readings. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1970. Dahrendorf, Rolf. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1959. Dahrendorf, Rolf. "Towards a Theory of Social Conflict." Social Change. Edited by Amitai and Eva Etzioni. New York: Basic Books, 1964. Douglas, McGregor. "The Organizational Leader's View of Reality." Leadership and Social Change. Edited by William R. Lassey. Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates Press, 1971- Emery, F. E., and Trist, E. L. "The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments." Systems Thinking. Edited by F. E. Emery, i ' London: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1969. Ferkiss, Victor C. Technological Man, The Myth and The Reality. New York: Mentor Books, 1970. Fiedler, Fred E. "Style or Circumstance: The Leadership Enigma." Leadership and Social Change. Edited by William R. Lassey. Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates Press, 1971. Fletcher, Joseph F. Situational Ethics: The New Morality. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1 9 6 6. 335 Follett, Mary Parker. Creative Experience. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1924. Follett, Mary Parker. Dynamic Administration. The Col lected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. Edited by Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwick. New York: Harper & Row, 19^0. Glaser, Daniel. Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System. Abridged ed. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969. Gouldner, Alvin. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York and London: Basic Books, 1970. Hemphill, John K. Situational Factors in Leadership. Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1943. Hoijer, Harry. "The Relation of Language to Culture." Anthropology Today: Selections. Edited by Sol Tax. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1 9 6 2. Hoijer, Harry, ed. Language in Culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 195^-• Katz, Daniel, and Kahn, Robert L. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966. Kluckhohn, Clyde. Mirror for Man. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1 9 W ' Kluckhohn, Clyde, and Kelly, William. "The Concept of Culture." The Science of Man in the World Crisis. Edited by Ralph Linton. New York: Columbia Univer sity Press, 19^5* Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Vol. II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970. Lassey, William R., ed. Leadership and Social Change. Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates Press, 1971. Laurence, Paul R., and Lorsch, Jay W. Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integra tion . Homewood, IllT: Richard D. Irwin, 1969* 336 Lewin, Kurt. "Behavior and Development as a Function of the Total Situation." Manual of Child Psychology. Edited by L. Carmichael. New York: John Wiley & Sons* 1946. Lewin, Kurt. Field Theory in Social Science. Edited by Dorwin Cartwright. New York: Harper & Bros.,, 1951- Lippitt, Gordon L. Organizational Renewal. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Meredith Division, 1 9 6 9. McGregor, Douglas. "An Analysis of Leadership." Leader ship and Social Change. Edited by William R. Lassey. Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates Press, 1971. McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., I960. McGregor, Douglas. "The Organizational Leader's View of Reality." Leadership and Social Change. Edited by William R. Lassey. Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates Press, 1971- Marrow, Alfred J. The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin. New York: Basic Books, 1 9 6 9. Marx, Karl. Communist Manifesto. Chicago: A Gateway edi tion, Henry Regnery Co., 1954. Matson, Floyd W. The Broken Image: Man, Science and Soci- ety. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co., 1964. Mead, George H. Mind, Self, and Society. Edited and in troduction by Charles W. Morris. Chicago: Phoenix edition, The University of Chicago Press, 1934. Meehan, Eugene J. The Theory and Method of Political Analysis. Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press, 1965- Nigro, Felix A., and Nigro, Lloyd G. Modern Public Admin istration . 3rd ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1973* Odiorne, George S. Management Decisions by Objectives. Englewood Cliffsj N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1 9 6 9. 337 Parsons, Talcott. The Structure of Social Action. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1937- Sapir, Edward. "The Status of Linguistics as a Science." Selected Writings of Edward Sapir. Berkeley and Los Angeles: The University of California Press, 1949. Schein, Edgar H. Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 19&5- Skinner, B. P. Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: Bantam Books, 1971. Smith, T. V., ed. Philosophers Speak for Themselves from Thales to Plato. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1956. Spotts, James B. "The Problem of Leadership: A Look at Some Recent Findings of Behavioral Science Re search." Leadership and Social Change. Edited by William R. Lassey. Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates Press, 1971. Steele, Fred I. Physical Settings and Organization Devel opment . Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1973. Steele, Fred I. "Physical Settings and Organizational Development." Social Intervention: A Behavioral Science Approach. Edited by Harvey Hornstein, Barbara B. Bunker, W. Warner Burke, Marion Gindes, and Roy J. Lewick. New York: The Free Press, Collier-Macmillan Ltd., 1971. Tannenbaum, Robert, and Schmidt, Warren H. "How to Choose a Leadership Pattern." Leadership and Social Change. Edited by William R. Lassey. Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates Press, 1971- Tead, 0. The Art of Leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1935. Thomas, W. I. The Unadjusted Girl. Boston: Little Brown, 1927. Thrasher, F. M. The Gang. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1927. Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock. New York: Bantam Books,, 1971- Vroom, Victor H. Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, I960. Whorf, Benjamin Lee. Language, Thought, and Reality. Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Edited by John B. Carroll. Boston, New York, and London: Published jointly by The Technology Press of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Boston), John Wiley & Sons (New York), and Chapman & Hall, Ltd. (London), 1956. Whorf, Benjamin Lee. "The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language." Four Articles on Metalin guistics. Washington, D.C.: Foreign Service Insti tute, Department of State, 194-9. Whyte, W. F. Street Corner Society. Chicago: The Univer sity of Chicago Press, 1943• Journals and Magazines Alutto, Joseph A., and Belasco, James A. "A Typology for Participation in Organizational Decision Making." Administrative Science Quarterly, XVII (March, 1972), 117-25. Beldoch, Michael. "The False Psychology of Encounter Groups." Intellectual Digest, October, 1971* PP. 8 5-8 9. Bruno, Frank J. "The Situational Approach— A Reaction to Individualism." Social Forces, IX (June, 1931), 482-83. Dunkerly, M. D. "A Statistical Study of Leadership Among College Women." Studies in Psychology and Psychi atry, LI (n.m., 1955)* 1 8-3 0. Fiedler, Fred E. "The Trouble With Leadership Training Is That It Doesn't Train Leaders." Psychology Today, February, 1973* PP. 2 3, 2 5-2 6, 3 0. 339 Hall, Hay; O'Leary, Vincent; and Williams, Martha. "The Decision Making Grid: A Model of Decision Making Styles." California Management Review, VII (Winter, 1964j, 43-54. Harmon, Michael M. "Administrative Policy Formulation and the Public Interest." Public Administration Review, XXIX (September/October, 19&9), 483-91. Harvey, Jerry B. "Organization Development As a Religious Movement." Training and Development Journal, XXVIII (March, 1974), 24-27. Henry, W. E. "Executive Personality and Job Success." American Management Association, Personnel Series, No. 120, 1948. Maclver, Robert. "Statistical Methodology Applicable to the Study of the 'Situation'?" Social Forces, IX (June, 1931), ^79. Meadows, Paul. "The Dialectic of the Situation: Some Notes on Situational Psychology." Philosophy and Phe nomenological Research, V (March, 1945)* 35^-64. Queen, Stuart A. "Some Problems of the Situational Ap proach." Social Forces, IX (June, 1931), 480-81. Stogdill, R. M. "Personal Factors Associated with Leader ship: A Survey of the Literature." Journal of Psychology, XXV (January, 1948), 35-71. Thomas, W. I. "The Behavior Pattern and the Situation." Publications of the American Sociological Society, XXII (n.m., 1928), 1-17. Wald, R. M., and Doty, R. A. "The Top Executive: A First Hand Profile." Harvard Business Review, XXXII (July/August, 1954), 45-54. Public Documents Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. LEA A 5 th Annual Report of the Law Enforcement Assistance Adminis tration Fiscal Year 1973« Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973- 340 Office of the Attorney General. The Police in The Cali fornia Community, A Report of the Attorney Gen eral's Advisory Commission on Community-Police Relations. Sacramento: Office of the Attorney General* State of California* March 31* 1973-

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Social Change And Development: A Sociological Analysis

PDF

The Administrative Process And Decision-Making

PDF

The new guerrillas: public administration in the new industrial state

PDF

Reemployment Of Unemployed Scientists And Engineers From Aerospace Industries To Urban Government

PDF

The Action Research Approach To Organization Development

PDF

Effecting Behavioral Change In A Medical Care Institution

PDF

A Participatory Planning Model For Voluntary Associations

PDF

Getting It On With Jesus: A Study Of Adult Socialization

PDF

A Study Of The Reorganization Of Local Government Structure: A Special Reference To The Consolidation Referendum Of The City Of Bristol And Washington County, Virginia

PDF

Sympathetic Attitude And Perceived Effectiveness: Changing The Change Agent

PDF

A comparative analysis of management control in public and private health care administrative organizations

PDF

A Social Systems Evaluation Methodology: A Case Study Of The Relocation Of Families And Individuals In The Urban Renewal Process

PDF

Systems Theory And Organizational Change

PDF

A Cybernetic Law Enforcement Information System For Los Angeles County

PDF

The College Administration And Faculty: A Study Of Administrative Functions And Roles

PDF

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

PDF

The Administrative Man In A Research And Development Environment

PDF

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

PDF

Toward A Systems Analysis Approach To Engineering Education; A Heuristic Model For The Scheduling Of Subject Matter

PDF

An Analysis Of Position Ambiguity And Its Consequences In A Research And Development Organization

Asset Metadata

Creator Bellone, Carl Joseph (author)

Core Title Situational Analysis: A Methodology For The Study And Practice Of Administrative Change

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

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

Advisor Williams, William J. (committee chair), Glogow, Eli (committee member), Kreditor, Alan (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-737563

Unique identifier UC11356051

Identifier 7501046.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-737563 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7501046.pdf

Dmrecord 737563

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Bellone, Carl Joseph

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