Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Organizational Capacity For Change And Adaptation: An Exploration In A Public Research And Development Organization
(USC Thesis Other)
Organizational Capacity For Change And Adaptation: An Exploration In A Public Research And Development Organization
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 70-341 BILLER, Robert Paul, 1936- ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY FOR CHANGE AND ADAPTATION: AN EXPLORATION IN A PUBLIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1969 P olitical Science, public administration University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY FOR CHANGE AND ADAPTATION: AN EXPLORATION IN A PUBLIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION by Robert Paul Biller 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) June 1969 UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N CA LIFORNIA T H E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L U N I V E R S I T Y P A R K L O S A N G E L E S . C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by ROBERT PAUL BILLER under the direction of h Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Gradu ate School, in partial fulfillment of require ments of the degree of D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y Dean Date.__ RTAT PREFACE This dissertation represents the attempt to conceptualize and measure the capacity of organizations for change and adaptation, and to investigate certain hypothesized correlates of this capacity. The re search grew out of a concern that the development of such capacity may he a more critical problem than the causing of particular organizational changes, and the observation that some organizations appear to find it more possible to change than others. In the completion of this research I wish to acknowledge my ap preciation for the counsel and support of Professors William B. Storm, Frank P.. Sherwood and Edward C. McDonagh. The remaining faults of the work are, of course, mine. For those that were avoided or rectified, I owe much to these three persons. To Professor Storm I am indebted for first stimulating me to undertake graduate work in Public Administration, and for providing much of the subsequent advice and help that made this research possible, To Professor Sherwood I am particularly indebted for many long and critical conversations about the questions of organizational change and development. For the support provided in conducting this research, I also wish to express my aprreciation to the personnel of the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, California. Many people contributed their time, suggestions and advice. I wish, however, to acknowledge particularly ii the consideration and encouragement provided by Mr. H. G, Wilson, the Associate Technical Director and Mr. Raymond Harrison, then the Head of the Personnel Department. To Dr. Robert W. Stephenson I am indebted for both encouragement and technical advice. Finally, for maintaining her own equilibrium and mine, and for providing unusual understanding and encouragement, I wish to express my appreciation to my wife, Yvonne. 1X1 TABLE OP CONTENTS i Page; i ; l EREFACE...................................................... ii; I i |LIST OF TABLES......................................... vii; ! 1 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.......................................... viii: Chapter ! I. INTRODUCTION....................................... ' . li The Background of the Research Problem ............ li The Objectives of the Research................. 10 II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND PERSPECTIVES.................. l^i A Systems Model of Organization..................... 15! The Defining Dimensions 17 i The Problem of Reification..................... 20; Analytical Perspectives 23 i Equilibrium Assumption ................. 26- The Concepts of Adaptation, Change and Changefulness . 33; Change and Stability Assumptions............... 331 Definitions and Measurement............... 36’ Summary............................................. l ( - 0 III. THE RESEARCH FOCUS: A REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE. . . k2[ Organizational Effectiveness and Adaptability....... * 13; Traditional Effectiveness Models ................ ^5j Systems Effectiveness Models .............. ^ f - 7 Organizational Adaptiveness and Change.............. 5*+: Models of Change 55 j Characteristics of Adaptive Organizations........ 69; Institutionalized Change Processes and Adaptiveness. . 7^1 Formulation of Major Hypotheses..................... 79i IV. THE RESEARCH APPROACH................................. 8li The Research Site........................... 81; The Sampling Plan................................... 82; Data Collection. 87 i Analysis Plan................................. 97, iv Chapter Page: Survey Research and Statistical Analysis......... 97j | Specific Assumptions and Procedures.............. 110. Summary........... . .............. 11^1 j ,! 1 V. THE RESEARCH FINDINGS................................. Il6| ' Organizational Adaptiveness......................... 117j j Primary Indexes................................ 128: | Secondary Indexes.............................. 13^1 Independence Assumptions........................ 1351 Organizational Self-Initiation of Change............. 1^11 Primary Indexes................................ lUl Secondary Indexes.............................. lM+ Organizational Effectiveness........................ lWv ! Primary Indexes............................ 1^5; Secondary Indexes.............................. 148s. ■ The Dependent Variables............................ 155: Reliability and Validity........................ 157; Internal-External Congruency.................... 159: Interrelationships of the Dependent Variables . . . l60: The Independent Variables .......................... l66j i Environmental Variables........................ 170! Organizational Variables............. 175f Individual Variables.................... 187! Summary......................... 195| ; t I VI. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.......................... 197i I Summary and Review of the Research Findings.......... 198' The Dependent Variables— Adaptiveness........... 19& The Independent Variables— Correlates of Adaptiveness................................. - 200; The Nature of Research and Development Work .... 203: Some Limitations of the Findings.................. 210, Theoretical Implications............................ 212; Methodological Implications ....................... 2l6: Policy Implications................................ 219: j Action Implications................................. 222j Conclusions...................................... 226! i ; 1 .j. APPENDIX A .................................................. 229 | ; [APPENDIX B .................................................. 231 i i APPENDIX C .................................................. 235[ j ! [APPENDIX D .................................................. 2^2; APPENDIX E I APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H BIBLIOGRAPHY Table ! i. i ! 2. 3. i ! ! 5. 6. j 7. LIST OF TABLES Bage Externally Perceived Adaptiveness Index: Intercorrela- tions of Component Measures.......................... 129 Internally Perceived Balance of Change Index: Intercor relations of Component Measures 131 Self-Initiation of Change Index: Intercorrelations of Component Measures. ............... 1 Internally Perceived Effectiveness Index: Intercorrela tions of Component Measures 1^7 Identity Index; Intercorrelations of Component Measures. . 152 Intercorrelations of Dependent-Variable Indexes .......... l6l The Evolution of Research and Development Work: The Adaptation Dilemma.................................... 209 I | LIST OP ILLUSTRATIONS j j ! Figure Page, ! [ 1. Assumptions about Organizational Equilibrium............ 27 2. Assumptions about Change and Stability . . 3^ 3. Linkages among the Dependent-Variable Indexes. ........ 1561 Selected Dependent Variables: Some Relationships between Major Concepts by Data Sources........................ 167 5. Some Hypothesized Characteristics of the; Research and ! Development Continuum................................. 206; viii 1 ; CHAPTER I i | ! INTRODUCTION j The Background of the Research Problem To posit the concepts of stability and change, either as a di chotomy or as the basis of a continuum, may more accurately reflect the i poverty of our language than the character of reality. To dichotomize stability and change is to assume that they are separable attributes. To use them as the basis of a continuum is to assume that they are in- i jversely related. Neither assumption may be useful. Stability and |change are closely intertwined rather than separable in common usage. i Since we lack any absolute measurement standards, we tend to attribute change to those phenomena which we apprehend as relatively less stable than others to which we compare them. Such usage tends to fulfill the prophecy that stability and change are inversely related. i Until recently, the social sciences have focused primarily on i j ithat end of the assumed continuum anchored by the concept of stability. i jThis emphasis was perfectly understandable in terms of the analytic sim plicity it allowed. Some of the implicit assumptions which derived from it, however, are questionable. We came to perceive reality as if sta bility were normal, while change represented some form of abnormality or discontinuity. We came to expect stability and looked for the causes of change, rather than expecting change and looking for the causes of sta- | I | bility. j _____ It is now difficult to disentangle to what extent this emphasis j 2 upon stability was an attribute of the assumptions and coding processes j iused rather than of reality. It is clear, however, that alternative as- i I ! |sumptions need to be tested and their implications explored. Whether ! stability is in some sense more "normal1 ' than change, and whether sta- i jbility and change axe separable and inversely-related phenomena, are { |questions better answered empirically than assumptively. Such a re examination is particularly warranted given our quickening interest in jthose phenomena to which we attach an intuitive meaning of change. Much of the world appears caught up in massive, far-reaching, jand possibly accelerating changes that affect many of our fundamental [ ; lvalues, attitudes, expectations, behaviors, and institutions. The con- i [cepts of "change" and "development", with their many modifiers and syno nyms, have come increasingly to serve as a central locus of interest in i jthe study of human behavior. Concern with changes in cultural and so- Icial patterns and values, political institutions and processes, economic i 'patterns and relationships, organizational forms and styles, and per sonal expectations and motivations reflect some of the issues that have t jemerged forcefully in the last twenty years. j There have been increasingly frequent attempts at understanding jand predicting the causes, dynamics, and consequences of change pro- t I [cesses as well as attempts to harness and manage them in order to i achieve valued ends. Issues related to the planning of political, so cial, economic, institutional, organizational, and individual change and, development are of concern to an increasing number of politicians, ad ministrators, educators, researchers and citizens. j 1 One of the areas of human activity that has been subject to j 3 ; particularly rapid change is that of science and technology. It is es- : |timated that the rate at which scientific innovation and technological jdevelopment occur has been accelerating at an exponential rate since I jthe late 17th century, with over 90$ of the scientists in history at ! jwork today. The number of periodical contributions to the scientific jand technological literature, as well as the number of journals and ab- j ;stract journals, have likewise tended to increase in logarithmic fashion. 1 i These rapid developments in science and technology have far- reaching consequences. Jacques Ellul has in fact suggested that the (relationships between emergent science and technology and other aspects |of culture have fundamentally changed: | Since Technique has become the new 'milieu1, all social phenomena i are situated in it. It is incorrect to say that economic, politics, j and the sphere of the cultural are influenced or modified 'by' Technique: they are rather situated 'in' it, a novel situation S modifying all traditional social concepts. Politics, for example, j is not modified by Technique as one factor among others which oper- | ate upon it; the political world is today 'defined' through its re- | lation to the technological society. Traditionally, politics formed a part of a larger social whole; at the present the converse is the j case. t One of the early explorations of the consequences of technologi-i cal change was made by William F. Ogburn in 1922 through his concept of The discussion of this exponential growth rate by D. J. de j Solla Price is particularly pointed, as he proceeds to examine the con- isequences of a probable flattening of these rate of growth curves within (the next thirty to sixty years. Little Science, Big Science (New York: (Columbia University Press, 1963). An interesting counterpoint to Price's view is presented by G. M. Dobrov who tends toward a more optimistic po sition on the possibility of continued exponential growth. "Predicting : the Development of Science,” Minerva, IV (Winter, 1966), 218-30. 2 * Jacques Ellul, "Ideas of Technology: The Technological Order,'' trans. by John Wilkenson in The Technological Order: Proceedings of the Encyclopedia Britanniea Conference, ed. by Carl F. Stover (Detroit: ! 'cultural lag. Ogburn hypothesized that technological change, as a i [striking example of a number of possible change areas, causes strains in i 'the political, social, economic and other elements of a culture with which the particular technology is related. Time lags tend then to oc cur between the technical innovation and the adaptation of the other jcultural elements* Though Pitirim Sorokin has demonstrated that this concept is not universally applicable, it does provide an effective means for visualizing some of the tensions inherent in rapid technolog i c real change. ; Warren G. Bennis has proposed a stimulating hypothesis that is I 5 |implicitly an extension of Ogburn*s model. Bennis suggests that the jrapid rate of technological change, among other factors, is producing a jset of imperatives that make traditional forms of organization based on i j ^bureaucratic models inadequate. He suggests that a bureaucratic model j was well suited to the relative stability of markets, purposes, and work i forces that emerged from the industrial revolution. He proposes that such models are less useful for organizations that attempt to deal with Increasing complexity, environmental instability, and rapidity of change 3 [ A succinct review of this theoretical position is provided by: [William F. Ogburn, "Cultural Lag as Theory," William F. Ogburn: On [Culture and Social Change, ed. by Otis Dudley Duncan (Chicago: The Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 1964), 86-95. Hornell Hart has made particu larly exciting use of the theory in his models of log-log cultural ac celeration: "Social Theory and Social Change," Symposium on Sociologi cal Theory, ed. by Llewellyn Gross (Evanston: Row, Peterson, 1959), 196-238. ^Pitirim A. Sorokin, Society, Culture and Personality (New York: Harper and Row, 1947), Ch. 44. ^This hypothesis is summarized in his: "Beyond Bureaucracy," Trans - action.*- Il_£jTxlysAugust.^-19-65.) - , - . . 3 1 - 5 . . . . . . in the problems they attempt to solve. He suggests that more adaptive organizational models are now coming into existence that are more hos- | pi table to the requirements of rapid change. I ! He sees such organizations emerging particularly in the research I jand development laboratories that are in closest proximity to the rapid j jchanges occurring in science and technology. He argues that these 'newer, more flexible, and adaptive organizational forms will, over the inext several generations, come to replace the forms of bureaucracy which best served the needs of the industrial revolution. Thus he suggests jthat the current organizational models emerging in research and develop- jment laboratories constitute the leading edge of a process of organiza- 1 jtional evolution. The key element in this hypothesized model is the (capability for adaptation that will characterize such organizations. This hypothesis is consistent with recent organizational theo rizing which suggests that adaptability is one of the most critical com ponents of organizational effectiveness. Efficiency was the most im- i portant criterion for organizations built on the assumptions of the in- jdustrial revolution that were explicated by the scientific-management jmovement of the early 20th century. The critical criterion for the jameliorative efforts of the human-relations movement of the late 1920s jto mid-1950s was employee satisfaction. The significant criterion for . j • organizations now emerging tends to be a more encompassing concept of effectiveness that has adaptability as one of its most important com ponents . An industrializing or post-industrial society tends to become i an organizational society. People tend to spend most of their lives j I . 6 [within the context of a variety of organizations, particularly those in ! I 7 [which they "work". The form and character of these organizations may i ;have a profound effect upon the lives of members. If rapid technologi- * |cal change is in fact likely to produce organizations with the need to jadapt to new technologies, goals, processes, relationships, and other [related factors, and if such organizations may come to serve as models i of organizational development over the next several decades, then dis covering conditions likely to facilitate the capacity for adaptation could be of major significance in achieving the kinds and levels of iflexibility desired. There is reason to believe that research and de velopment organizations may constitute one of the leading edges of growth in these directions; that is, in the creation of organizations with increased capacity for adaptation. Such organizations thus appear to be particularly desirable sites in which to investigate both how one j [might measure such a capacity and the conditions affecting this poten tial organizational transition. Research and development organizations thus appear to offer a i [particularly apt arena for such research, both because of their [ Many authors have commented on this point, and there is now ex pensive literature on it. Two examples which in turn refer to much of !the other work are: Chris Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the j Organization (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 19^), and Robert jPresthus, The Organizational Society (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962). 7 Quotation marks are used around the word "work" because the meaning of this concept appears to be changing, again largely under the impact of rapid technological changes. These changes make different kinds of work possible (where "play" may be as accurate a description as "work"), as well as greater leisure time that may involve second jobs, profitable hobbies or voluntary activity (where "work" may be as rele vant a description as "play"). The discussion by Bennis is pertinent to this__pointj llBeyond^Bureaucracy,,'^?-._______________________________ J jproximity to rapid technological change, and their potential status as i j jone of the leading edges of organizational form and style changes. In | jaddition, they are a desirable research site because of their presumed I [organizational commitment to change (that is, scientific innovation and ! itechnological development), the presumed individual commitments of the I jprofessional staff to innovation and development, and the presumed in creasing centrality of their consequences to the societies of both in- i ;dustrializing and post-industrial societies. Conducting this inquiry within research and development organi- jzations in the public sector offers the possibility of further sharpen- jing this focus on organizational adaptability. Such public research and i development organizations embody a number of potential paradoxes that may be relevant to the question of organizational adaptability. Some i I have suggested that their separation from such constraints as the profit i motive provides the opportunity for greater innovation, freer pursuit of (ideas and,more organizational flexibility than is generally possible in (the private corporation. Others have suggested that their being em- j jbedded within large bureaucratic structures causes an opposite effect Wore characterized by routinization, minimization of risk taking, and i ^organizational rigidity. 1 ! At a more theoretical level one might expect that their exist- i ence in a highly pluralistic political system that places high value upon responsiveness would lead towards the support of organizational adaptability. On the other hand, their publicness might result in the values of accountability or steadfastness of purpose being more strongly operative, leading to the inhibition of the deviations or aberrations j 8 initially implied by organizational adaptability and change. Theoreti- i i jcally it would appear that the full range of possibilities from very jhigh adaptiveness to rather complete rigidity or ossification could con- i iceivably exist within public research and development organizations, jwhile the particular effects of publicness upon an organization's abil- Jity to adapt remains an empirical question. 8 The capacity of an organization to modify and change its objec tives, processes, functions, technology, structure, and relationships (both internally and with its environment) is a capacity often thought ;to be desirable. This is to suggest neither the utility of change for jchange’s sake, nor that there are no requirements for stability and con stancy. It is rather to suggest that to achieve valued ends there are •circumstances in which the attempt to institutionalize an effective 'Change and adaptation process may be critical. Just as political sys- I items which have no mechanism for their own change apart from revolution jare felt to be ineffective, so organizations so rigid that they are •unable to meet new needs and circumstances are thought to be ineffec tive . I It is paradoxical that while the value placed on organizational S [adaptability in this society is broadly shared, relatively little empir- [ical data is available to suggest the conditions under which it is most Q The particular definition of "organization" used in this re search is discussed in Chapter II. It should he noted here, however, that one must be cautious not to reify this concept. For purposes of brevity the term "organization" is used to refer to the interactions of 1 persons within certain designated boundaries. When, as an abbreviational convention, a possessive pronoun is substituted for this concept, there j is no intent to imply an organismic concept of organization that is in | some way independent from the interactions of the persons that compose i t ; . 9 likely to be realized. Theoretical models have been developed for vis- I ualizing various kinds of change processes. Ideas have been advanced on I jhow adaptiveness might be encouraged. Research has been conducted on I how organizations can be changed. In these researches the focus of con cern has been on the strategy of accomplishing particular changes. [Either explicitly or implicitly much of this work has attached value to i iorganizational adaptiveness. Assumptions have been made and hypotheses j jproposed on how adaptiveness might be encouraged in organizations. Relatively little has been done, however, in empirically testing those | conditions which might facilitate continuing adaptation and change as |opposed to the accomplishing of unique, specific and particular changes. j | This gap is particularly evident in the planned organizational change literature. Planned organizational change strategies usually in- Svolve the intervention of some change agent external to a particular organizational system. His intervention is supposed to accomplish both a particular change and the latent objective of increasing the proba bility that future changes will be accomplished on the initiative of the I Organization without requiring further external assistance. While the [relative success of the planned manifest change has often been analyzed ! ; Jand evaluated, very little has been done in analyzing the accomplishment; jof the latent objective of increasing the capacity of the organization ;to institutionalize an effective and continuous adaptation process. The accomplishment of this latent objective would appear to de- pend upon information about what conditions are likely to support such ; a continuous change capability. The research reported here attempts to [ deal with this prior question of what affects an organizations capacity to adapt and change. The research attempts to provide empirically sound and relevant information in terms suggested by a theoretical framework j which visualizes change processes to be inherent in an ecologically j 'based, developmentally oriented, systems model. i The Objectives of the Research | ! The capacity for change and adaptation is one of the most im portant attributes of an organization. It is also one of the least well understood. This dissertation investigates the issue, made critical by the combination of importance and lack of knowledge, of the capacity of lorganizations for change and adaptation. i ; In relation to this primary issue the research is directed jtoward the accomplishment of five objectives. These objectives derive t i ■from a consideration of a set of interrelated theoretical, methodologi cal, empirical, policy, and action problems. These problems imply cer- i i jtain central questions. The task of dealing with these questions re sulted in a set of propositions and hypotheses that are analyzed and Investigated in this research. The five objectives, with their related major propositions and hypotheses, are reviewed below. j ! The first objective is a theoretical one. The proposition is ! [advanced that a theoretical model of organizations can be conceptualized i that gives as much primacy to change assumptions as to stability as sumptions . The analysis suggests that organization theory has been in- ■ formed by models that are based primarily on stability assumptions and only secondarily on change assumptions. The analysis further suggests j that such models are neither accurate as representations of reality nor j 11 organization, system, change, stability, and adaptation are analyzed in ! jsome depth. I i The second objective is a methodological one that derives from , I I \ jthe .prior theoretical analysis. The propositions are advanced that one ■may model change and adaptation capacity as a finite and measurable or- I Iganizational attribute, expect to find it to be differentially distribu- ! ; ted among organizations, and develop a set of procedures for assessing ;the extent to -which any organization exhibits it. In addition, one may develop procedures for assessing the extent to which any organization is |effective, has members who self-initiate their organization's change ! |(that is, actively scan and anticipate rather than passively react to jchange) and is characterized by those attributes or conditions which the i -available literature suggest as being productive of change and adapta tion within organizations. To accomplish this overall objective a re- I view of available literature is undertaken and a research design de- ^veloped. i j j The third objective is an empirical one that derives from the iprior theoretical and methodological analysis. The hypotheses are ad vanced that an organization’s capacity for change and adaptation is positively related to two other dependent variables (organizational ef-^ fectiveness^ and self-initiation of change) and certain independent ! g ^As will become clear in Chapter II it was important to separate analytically the concepts of adaptiveness and effectiveness. Retaining , the independence of these two variables would facilitate the recognition, for example, of an organization that was unusually "adaptive" despite j the fact that because of resource limitations absolutely beyond its con-* trol it was unable to become unusually "effective." 1 jvariables. To test these hypotheses requires the comparative analysis i ■ j of data from a sample of organizations. This required an extensive data I |collection and analysis effort. j ! The fourth objective concerns the policy implications of the I janalysis and findings derived from the completion of the prior three I i [phases. The proposition is advanced that choices are available concern- i ,;ing the form and character of organizations. Certain decision rules are ; explored that may be employed to increase the probability of organiza tional effectiveness, given information about the degrees of change and j'uncertainty likely to be encountered by a given organization. The fifth objective concerns the action implications of the ! janalysis and findings derived from the completion of the prior four f [phases. The proposition is advanced that choices are available concern ing the assumptions, strategies and tactics employed in attempting to cause or to prevent change. Certain decision rules are explored that may be employed to vary both the probability of error in regard to any 'given organization’s change and the probability of rigidity likely to be jencountered in that organization’s subsequent change. i The presentation of the analysis and research follows the se- jquence in which these major objectives have been identified. Chapter II Jintroduces the theoretical framework employed in the research as well as; analyzing the possibility that organizations may be as inherently j changeful as they are stabilizing. Chapter III discusses the literature; that constitutes the intellectual roots for the variables subsequently : used in hypothesis testing. The meaning of organizational adaptability,! j effectiveness and self-initiated change are explored in relation to the j ! relevant literature. The characteristics of adaptive organizations which are later used as the basis for some modest testing of independent variables in relation to organizational adaptiveness are also introduced in this chapter. Chapter IV describes the research approach that was | jused to generate and analyze data. Included in this chapter are a dis- ! jcussion of the research site, the methodological approach, the sampling ;plan, and the data analysis plan. Chapter V and VI present the primary findings of the research. Chapter V describes the indexes constructed in the process of making joperational the concepts of organizational adaptiveness, effectiveness jand self-initiation of change. This chapter also presents the empirical |findings concerning the observed relationships between adaptiveness and jeffectiveness, self-initiated change and the independent variables. |Chapter VI summarizes and interprets the findings of the total research i jin terms of theoretical, methodological, policy and action implications. j 1U j j : j CHAPTER II j THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND PERSPECTIVES I Because of its inherent complexity we do not apprehend reality j directly. We employ a number of abstracting and simplifying devices to make this complexity manageable in imputing structure and meaning to what we apprehend. We use assumptions, semantic approximations, con ceptual models, theoretical frameworks and other such symbolic devices j as guides both to what it is important to look for and see, and in the iinterpretation of what ? : • ? . have seen. One of the central objectives of i ; 'intellectual inquiry is to construct increasingly accurate approxima- i j tions of reality in these symbolic forms. There is, therefore, a clear jimperative to make these conceptual models as explicit as possible in order that they may be tested, rejected, or refined to bring them into [greater congruence with reality. i In exploring the five objectives introduced in the previous chapter, questions must be asked of “reality". The quality of the ques tions asked and the understandings that may result from data generated by these questions is dependent upon the theoretical framework employed ! — with its constituent assumptions, definitions, and models. One would ihope to employ a theoretical framework that is congruent with reality, i suggestive of the questions and parameters most likely to be critical to ] the understanding of the issues being explored, subject to operationali-! zation, and economical. j ] This chapter explicates some of the theoretical considerations, ] 15 choices, and assumptions used in this research. It argues that certain biases have been normally built into theoretical models with the con sequence that our perception of reality has been systematically skewed. We have come to see organizations as if they were inherently stabiliz ing, tangible systems in which the extent of change could be seen, meas ured and assessed by comparison with observed stability. Each of these elements may be at least partially wrong. A Systems Model of Organization There have been a variety of classificatory schema, models, and theoretical systems developed in the study of organizations. While in some degree most of these approaches have utility for the study of or ganizational adaptation, a systems model of organization offers one of the most encompassing perspectives for comparative research on this question.^ At its most abstract level a system may be defined simply as "any entity, conceptual or physical, which consists of interdependent parts." In one sense "organization" and "system" are synonymous. The essential conceptual root of both terms lies in the concept of parts whose arrangement and operations are not random. The patterns of inter action and interdependence are assumed to be at least minimally unifying ^Succinct reviews of some of the major theoretical approaches in the study of organizations may be found in Theodore Caplow, Principles of Organization (New York: Hair court, Brace and World, 1964), Ch. 1, and Peter M. Blau and Richard W. Scott, Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing^ 1962), Ch. 1 and 2. 2Russell L. Ackoff, "Systems, Organizations and Interdisciplin ary Research," General Systems Yearbook, V (New York: The Society for Systems Research. I960), 1. ______________________________ 16 in their consequences. While the concept of system has become wide- jspread in the biological sciences and various engineering fields, the theoretical model/: of most utility for the study of organizational ques- j itions have developed in the social sciences with the concept of the so- 3 dial system. The characteristics of this model are reflected in the [definition that: "social systems are going concerns through which ac- I . [tors adapt to their environment, attain goals, integrate their activi st ties, maintain boundaries and manage tensions. Organizational systems are typically defined by the following .characteristics. They are composed of interacting and interdependent 'subsystems or elements. They are differentiated from other systems by i [the presence of boundaries. Through these boundaries they interact with i other systems, including the suprasystems of which they are a part. These interactions take the form of transactions, whereby inputs are [ jreceived, converted through internal processing, and outputs are pro duced. These transactions and processes are subject to feedback mechan- i |isms which work towards the maintenance of a dynamic equilibrium within I l 'the system, and between the system and other systems with which it is in i [ A number of authors have focused on the implications of this [model in the study of organizations. Particularly lucid discussions are [found in: Chadwick J. Haberstroh, "Organization Design and Systems [Analysis," in Handbook of Organizations, ed. by James G. March (Chicago: Band McNally, 1965)> 1171; Daniel Katzand Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966); James D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967); Richard A. Johnson, Fremont E. Kast, and James E. Rosenzweig, The Theory and Management of Systems (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963)* ^Charles P. Loomis, "Social Change and Social Systems," in Soci ological Theory, Values and Sociocultural Change: Essays in Honor of Pitirim A. Sorokin, ed. by E. A» Tiryakian (New York: The Free Press, 1 9&3J.,.. 185*215-*- ___________________________________________ _____ I 17 i i interaction. The system is considered as a whole, with emphasis being I placed on the internal and external interactions and relationships. It » 1 . is essentially the patterning of these interactions and relationships Which make up and define the system. ! Because of the interdependent nature of a system, a working def inition of an organization which chooses to focus on a particular set of definitional characteristics will be both partial and arbitrary. At this point in time, however, we do not possess the skill necessary to i deal artfully with complex interdependent "wholeness". We have little insight into the analytical and measurement procedures by which we might comprehend or replicate it. ' Therefore, for those analytic purposes associated with measure- I ment, a specification of particular parts or aspects of the systemic '"wholes" of organizations are necessary. The following six-part defini tion was adopted. ! I The Defining Dimensions | For the purpose of this comparative research each organization i I was assumed to be a system defined by these six characteristics. Each characteristic was assumed to be common to all of the organizational systems involved in the research. These characteristics or dimensions jof organizational systems were assumed to be mutually interdependent. That is, the systems were considered to be interacting wholes, where interdependences would be subject to feedback mechanisms. The six char acteristics or dimensions were employed for analytical leverage rather than to suggest that these dimensions were in some manner precisely 18 abstract fashion. Environmental Relationships | Each organization was assumed to exist within some larger envi ronmental context. It was further assumed that an admittedly arbitrary boundary might be drawn between people who were classified as "in" an organization and those who, for purposes of this research, might be classified as "out" of a particular organization. Though the specifica tion of the boundary layer of an organizational system was not a simple task, it was susceptible to operational definition. It was finally as sumed that interactions occurred between those classified as "in" and l"out" of an organization across this boundary. » ! Inputs It was assumed that the organization was the recipient of vari ous kinds of support from its environment: funds, information, technol- I ogy, personnel, ideas, willingness to cooperate or maintain an adversary relationship, or other such possibilities. These inputs were in a sense j the grist for the mill of the "going concerns" described above by Loomis. Outputs i It was assumed that the organization "produced" something for jits host environment. These outputs were not necessarily tangible in iform. They might have been in the form of hardware, designs, or re ports; or they might have been in the form of informally transmitted in-; formation, ideas, or such intangible products as political support. i 19 j Internal structure | It was assumed that there would be regular relationships between ■the members of the organizational system which would be reflected in both the formal and informal patterning of interaction between organiza tional members. These structures might be situationally specific (that I 'is, a different relational structure might exist for different issues or circumstances), but it was assumed that they would exist in patterned I jfashion. That is, interaction was assumed to be non-random. Internal processes I I I It was assumed that there would be procedures by which the mem- I ] bers of an organizational system, patterned in the structural networks ^outlined in the paragraph above, would go about the business of trans- jlating inputs into outputs. These again might be situationally specific i but it was assumed that there would be patterns of communicating, de cision-making, and other such process phenomena. These internal pro- i Icesses were of course inextricably related to the structural relation ships outlined above. These processes were visualized as the dynamic expressions of those phenomena which, in aggregate form, might be used r ito infer structural relationships. This structure/process distinction is akin to the status/role distinction in which the structural notion (status) is distinguished from the dynamic behavior (role) of the oc- cupant of that position. Purposiveness It was assumed that the organizational system as defined by the : first five dimensions was not random. It was assumed that such a system jcoheres in ways that may be described as purposive. This purposiveness } [was not assumed to be identical with the formal goals by which the or- ganization was chartered. It did encompass the notion of goal orienta tion or directionality, even though these purposes may not be explicit, j perfectly integrated, or well understood. While not identified as a separate dimension the role of feedback mechanisms is particularly ap- i I parent in this sixth definitional idea. It was assumed, for example, ! .that for survival the organization needs to maintain some perception of equity on the part of its host environment between inputs received and joutputs produced, and that this fact will tend to produce the assumed I jsense of purposiveness. Even assuming organizations committed to non- jsurvival (that is, terminal objectives) this commitment pre-supposes i jpurposiveness. 1 The theoretical framework, then, is one in which organizations e treated as systems with six definitional characteristics in common: [environmental relationships, inputs, outputs, internal structure, inter- i J inal process, and purposiveness. Some of the analytic advantages and i 'constraints implied by this model may now be discussed. i I The Problem of Reification s f S A systems model is by definition an abstraction and in this ab straction lies one of its more important advantages. This abstraction allows the comparison of the superficially incomparable. For example, one organization may have as its product a specific design or bit of technology, while another organization may have as its product basic research the output of which is intangible. This model allows us to compare two such organizations on the basis that both have the production I " | 21 :of some output as a common feature and that this output is systemati cally related to other characteristics such as the internal structure i or environmental relationships of each organization. One may then begin to examine the commonalities that may characterize the systematic rela- j tionships between the features of organizations, even though the empiri- | ical data from which these relationships have been inferred take quite i > ^different forms. This abstraction should not, however, be used as a justification for the model's reification. In one sense, as W. I. Thomas would point put, "organizations" are "real" because "they" are perceived by involved actors to be real in their consequences. In another sense, however, I ^'organizations" do not exist in any empirically "real" sense. People iand their relationships with each other and with physical reality exist, but an "organization" is simply a shorthand way of expressing the cumu lative effect of these relationships and expectations. An organization, for example, may be eternal in the sense that ;"it" may outlive any of the current members, yet the use of such a pro noun as "it" can lead to an intellectual cul-de-sac. There is nothing ifor the "it" to refer to except the real, discrete and specific individ- j [uals, both inside and outside of the organization, whose understandings, } I ^expectations, and patterned relationships (based on a sense of time that includes past, present and future) are simply abstracted into an agree ment that there is some independent "it". It needs to be clearly under stood, therefore, that the use of such personal pronouns to refer to the concept of an "organizational system" is meant as a convenient form of shorthand rather than as an assumption about the reification of the I 22 inodel.^ I | This paradox is related to the ract that organizations may be i itreated as both "concrete" and "abstracted" systems as defined by Miller. A concrete system is assumed to have tangible referents as a ;"non-random accumulation of matter-energy in a region in physical space- | jtime, which is non-randomly organized into coacting, interrelated sub- | 6 systems or components" which are in turn themselves concrete. An ab stracted system is composed of units whose tangibility of reference is less and whose relationships are "abstracted or selected by an observer in the light of his interests, theoretical viewpoint, or philosophical ( jbias. Some relationships may be empirically determinable by some opera tion carried out by the observer, but others are not, being only his j 7 (concepts." i 1 j An example may clarify this distinction. A concrete organiza- i jtional system would be reflected in the statement that: in organization X, the supervisor is ho years old. An abstracted organizational system would be reflected in a statement that: in organization X, the leader ship role played by the supervisor tends to be participant oriented. In i this research it is assumed that the study of organizations is likely to s be better informed by interweaving the concrete and abstracted models I t ibhan by assuming that either alone is sufficiently descriptive. £ 1 r R I Cf., Chris Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the Organi zation (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 196*0, 15^-6* ^ James G. Miller, "Living Systems: Basic Concepts,” Behavioral Science, X (July, 1965)3 193-237* 7Ibid., 204-5. j 23 j A second paradox imbedded in the abstract character of this model is that there is a trade-off between abstraction which allows com- i [parison and abstraction which makes operationalization difficult. Step ping back from the specific phenomena associated with an organization allows one to compare it with other organizations whose tasks, criteria | ;of effectiveness, personnel, and other features may be quite dissimilar. I This moving to a higher common denominator implies severe difficulties, however, in developing operational measurements that can be applied to apparently different phenomena. This abstraction, however, is rich in ^suggestions and potential hypotheses about the processes and relation- i [ships that may be common, though disguised in different forms and ex- j [press ions. Analytical Perspectives Treating organizations as systems suggests a minimum of three analysis perspectives necessary for studying the questions outlined in [Chapter I. The definition of what is encompassed within any given or- i jganizational system is in large measure at the discretion of the ob server. To meet the test of the definition of system, however, we know ) [that any organization must be composed of interacting subsystems and be j | g !set within an encompassing host or suprasystem. The immediate 8 At this point in human Tinder standing it would be possible to visualize the known universe as a subsystem of an unknown larger whole, or the smallest nuclear particle as composed of as yet unknown but even more infinitesimal units of energy. One of the difficulties experienced in operationalizing an organizational systems model is that interactions could be theoretically traced out to infinity - much in the form of the ■ stone dropped into the pool of water. One can assume, however, that these interactional effects tend to attenuate rather quickly. The ques- tion--then-becomes-one-o£-optimizing..the -tradaT-offlbetween distance significance of this point is that to understand a particular organiza tional system one would want to focus not only on the organization as the unit of analysis but also upon the relationships between that organ ization and the adjacent higher (encompassing systems) and lower (encom- Ipassed subsystems) levels of analysis. It would, therefore, be diffi- jcult to study adequately an organizational phenomenon such as adaptation i jto change without considering three levels of analysis. Let us consider [briefly the characteristics and implications of each of these. The encompassing or host suprasystem is of course the environ ment or ecological setting of the organizational system being studied. i jTo emphasize the importance of environmental or ecological factors as conditioners of organizational adaptation is simply to re-emphasize the i jfact that organizations cannot be considered in isolation. In one of |the more careful explications of the implications of such an ecological i ; i jperspective, Duncan and Schnore have suggested the utility of visualiz- -ing an "eco-system" as having the four highly interrelated elements of Q [population, organization, environment and technology.^ Within this Inodel an organization may in fact be visualized as the way in which a i jgroup of people adapt to, and manage their relationship with, their en- i jvironment. While the model encompasses the total set of interactions between all elements of the eco-system, in this portion of the discus sion we are concerned primarily with the nature of the environment with traveled in the exploration of interactional effects, and the relevance of these effects for the study of the question at hand. ^Otis Dudley Duncan and Leo F. Schnore, "Cultural,Behavioral, and Ecological Perspectives in the Study of Social Organization," The hnerican Journal of Sociology, LXV (September, 1959)» 135-6._________ _ which an organization articulates, and the effects this may have on the requirements and capacities for organizational adaptation. The impor tance of this environmental perspective to the study of organizational |adaptability is summarized by Sofer: j Every change within the organization will, in greater or lesser ] degree, affect its capacity to draw upon, and provide for, its en- I vironment. Every change in the environment (whether in the supply | of the men or materials the organization needs or in the goods and ' services it provides) will display the internal facets of the organ- i ization in an altered light. Organization and environment permeate j each other. The second perspective of analysis focuses on the organizational |system. It is primarily concerned with the internal configuration of I jthe organization. Here one is led to ask about the effects of organi- i jzational structure, leadership styles, communication patterns, organiza tional climate and other such factors upon the adaptability of the or- jganization. Most organizational research has focused on this analytical perspective. j The third perspective of analysis focuses upon the constitutent i [subsystems or elements of the organization. Typically, one would need i ito address here the smaller formal and informal suborganizations within i jthe organization being studied. Since this research has focused on i relatively small primary organizations or teams, however, the subsystem perspective was not formulated in this fashion. Rather the encompassed elements refer simply to the individual members of the organization. This third perspective of analysis assures that hypotheses are recog nized as relevant that deal with the individual characteristics of a i i 10Cyril Sofer, The Organization from Within (London: The j Tavistock Press, 19&L). 153._____________________________ i 26 person that are thought to make him more or less adaptive, and to ques tion whether or not such more or less adaptive individuals are likely to create more or less adaptive organizations. Equilibrium Assumptions The final dilemma or paradox imbedded in this theoretical frame work has to do with the assumption that organizational systems are char acterized by dynamic equilibrium "seeking". This dilemma is particu larly important when the subject under investigation includes adaptation and change. Though the equilibrium-seeking nature of an organizational system is defined as dynamic, one is led toward the assumption that such systems "naturally" seek order and stability in preference to disorder and change. That is, in using this assumption one tends to expect to define stability as normal and change as in some way anomalous. While there is compelling evidence for the equilibrating charac teristics of an organizational system this would seem to be inadequate as the sole explanation for the observed phenomena. That is, one could cbserve an organizational system continuously re-establishing stability and describe it as "naturally" seeking equilibrium. Since this observed process is continuous (that is, "dynamic," with perfect stability never being attained), however, one could logically infer quite a different conclusion which has significant consequences for the way change pro cesses are visualized. In this alternative explanation organizational systems could be "naturally" seen as continuously changing or disequilibrating. This changefulness would then become as primary a defining characteristic as stability and integration of patterning. In this case, change would be 27 seen not as abnormality, deviation, or the result of* some unusual cir cumstance either inside or outside of the organization, but rather as normal and expected. Thus, it might be that an approach to more nearly perfect stability would be seen as the unusual case rather than as the primary basis upon which "normalcy" for the organization was to be de fined. There is compelling evidence that the former rather than the latter assumption tends to have been predominant in social science re search. One is, for example, more likely to encounter writing on "how to overcome resistance to change" rather than "how to overcome resist ance to stability." An examination of the hypothetical example contained in Figure1 FIGURE 1 ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ORGANIZATIONAL EQUILIBRIUM High Operational Character istic or Behavior Low Range of measurements assumed to represent the area of dynamic equilibrium T1 J T2 ’ T3‘ Equilibrating change -T Time n * -j^ Disequilibrating change 28 : may clarify this distinction. This figure depicts a two-dimensional graph in which the ordinate represents some organizational characteris- j tic or behavior which one has measured. The measurements are taken over time as indicated by the abcissa. The solid line indicates a change of . the measured characteristic or behavior through time. The dotted lines ■ indicate that range of the characteristic or behavior which is most often encountered that is referred to as the area of dynamic equilib rium. In depicting this range it must be recognized that one has per- I i formed a statistical aggregation process in which continuous change has | i been summarized by measures of central tendency and variability. In the example shown we have assumed that a mean of the measurements was taken i and the boundary lines were drawn to indicate that range encompassed by j I one standard deviation. The figure does not attempt to show the possi bility that this area of dynamic equilibrium may itself change over time. One may be tempted to reify the statistical range approximation indicated in Figure 1 in a way that de-emphasizes both the continuous nature of the change phenomena and the alternating change in direction ality of that movement. If such a reification results in the establish ment of an expectation for a stable base in the phenomena measured, it is little wonder that most attention would be paid to those segments of the solid line depicting movement back towards the dynamic equilibrium area or range. Having computed a mean for these data, however, it woulc appear equally logical to infer that at any randomly chosen point in time the characteristic or behavior would be as likely to be going out of equilibrium ( to'be disequilibrating or moving away from the mean 29 value) as moving towards equilibrium. Hence, to assume that organizational systems are somehow best characterized as stable and that the change phenomenon which they do jreflect are somehow unusual or anomalous is at best a very partial 1 statement. Dahrendorf has aptly commented upon some of the implications | jof employing such a limited set of assumptions about change phenomena: | ! ... many sociologists seem convinced that, in order to explain j processes of change, they have to discover certain special circum- | stances which set these processes in motion, implying that, in i society, change is an abnormal, or at least an unusual, state that has to be accounted for in terms of deviations from a "normal", equilibrated system. I think that in both these respects we shall | have to revise our assumptions radically. A Galilean turn of S thought is required which makes us realize that all units of social organization are continuously changing, unless same force intervenes to arrest this change. It is our task to identify the factors in- j terfering with the normal process of change rather than to look for j variables involved in bringing about change. Moreover, change is ! ubiquitous not only in time but also in space, that is to say, every j part of society is constantly changing, and it is impossible to dis tinguish between "change within" and "change without" of, "micro- | scopic" and "macroscopic" change.H | This is not to suggest that equilibrium processes in organiza- ! 'tional systems cannot be described as naturally "seeking" stability, but rather to suggest that this cannot be a complete basis for a theoretical i model, particularly when one wishes to focus on such questions as change f and adaptation. One needs to recognize and account for the paradox that j jthere may be both negative and positive equilibrium feedback processes I at work: the former moving an organization towards stability, the lat- rter moving an organization towards change. Each would be recognized as I "naturally" possible. Which of the two was more descriptive of any i:LRalf Dahrendorf, "Out of Utopia: Toward a Reorientation of Sociological Analysis," The American Journal of Sociology, LXIV (Septem-: bezy-1958), 123. .----------------------------- — ------ --- organization at a particular point in time would, thus become an empiri cal question rather than one whose answer was implied by the theoretical model. ! Such positive feedback mechanisms have been discussed by Mara- jyama. He has suggested that the feedback principle developed by cyber- | jnetics has been an inappropriately constrictive one. He suggests the •typical construct is of a feedback loop defined consistently with the Second Law of Thermodynamics; that is, as a negatively entropic, equi librium-seeking, loop. He proposes that a variety of systems (men, cities, nations, and other such self-organizing systems including, in- jferentially, organizations) are not immediately subject to this equi librium-seeking process since evidence points to the ability of such I bystems to use positive feedback loops that tend to accentuate the pro- * | o jcess of change, development, growth, and differentiation. | Such an amendment to the assumptions about the nature of equi libria processes is particularly important when investigating organiza tions set in the milieu of scientific research and engineering develop ment where high value is often placed on reformulation and change. As i jSjoberg points out: i the demand for deviation is far more noticeable in the scientific | system than in most social orders. Thus the strains, or conflicts, ! between the proponents of deviation and those pressing for conform- ! ity will have quite different implications in the scientific system i than in some other social order.^3 ^Magorah Marayama, "The Second Cybernetics," Industrial Re search, VI (July-August, 196h), ^8-56. TO ^Gideon Sjoberg, "Contradictory Functional Requirements and Social Systems," Conflict Resolution, IV (June, i960), 205. In allowing for the possibility of positive feedback processes,' | • i I organizational systems are assumed to be "open-systems" in the sense | ! i ■ defined by Miller. Open systems are one class of concrete systems hav- ; . I • ing the possibility of decreasing as well as increasing entropy. I > Most concrete systems have boundaries which are at least partially I i permeable, permitting sizeable magnitudes of at least certain sorts J of matter-energy or information transmissions to cross them. Such j a system is an "open-system". In open-systems entropy may increase^ remain in steady state, or decrease.!^ To replace the assumption that organizations are relatively | ! closed and stable systems with one that allows, with equal theoretical I i | support, the possibility of organizations being open, positively entro- I | pic, and changeful phenomena is to make a rather fundamental change. i One is led to an additional set of questions that offer quite interest-, ( i ' i ' ing promise. How are patterns of relationships changing in addition to! I S : how can. they be described in the present? What is the emergent or "be-J j coming" nature of the organization as well as what is it now? What arej i the directions of change as well as the patterns of stability? What | are the "leading edges" of change as well as what are the best descrip-! i . j | tions of the present? What change processes are likely to be subject ; | to positive feedback mechanisms as well as what are the likely outcomes] | of currently operative negative feedback loops? What developmental j ! S models, directions, current states, forms of progression, impinging j forces and potentialities can be ascertained relative to the organiza- i j 1 5 , ] tional system? j j ; "^Miller, "Living Systems," 203. ' ■^1 am indebted in my consideration of these alternative ques-! tions to the discussion by Robert Chin, "The Utility of System Models ] i 32 I j Rather than assuming organizations are systems in which change j |is unique if not extraordinary, where the planning of change requires a ^significant investment of resources simply to break into a stabilizing inertia, one is now in a position to inquire into how organizations pos sibly best characterized by changeful inertia can channel such change in i jdesirable ways. Rather than assuming that organizational systems are naturally stable and resist change one can begin to inquire about the relative capacities of different organizations for changefulness. The questions now likely to become theoretically important are whether given Organizations are sufficiently changeful, and whether this changefulness ^capacity finds expression in particular changes and adaptations that are .desirable rather than ones that are irrelevant or undesirable. Thus: ; Organizations can be understood as learning and adapting, as being I and becoming. If one takes this view, then changes are to be under stood in terms of development, and regression, of health and ill- i ness, or adaptive and mal-adaptive processes.-I" We have now discussed some of the characteristics of the theo retical framework employed in dealing with the organizations studied in this research. An organizational systems model with six definitional j 'characteristics has been discussed, along with some of the strengths jand dilemmas encountered with the use of such a systems model. The fun- ! jdamental question addressed by this research is what critical factors, conditions, or characteristics facilitate or inhibit the ability of such and Developmental Models for Rractloners" in The Planning of Change, ed. by Warren Bermis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (New York: . Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962), 208-11. ^Herbert A. Shepard, "Changing Interpersonal and Intergroup Relationships in Organizations" in Handbook of Organizations, ed. by JamesG.March( Chicago:— Rand-McNaHy-r-1985-J^-1118.' . ------- I 33 i 'organizational systems, particularly in a research and development inileu, to adapt and change, and how these are related to the questions |of organizational effectiveness and the possibilities of institutions1- jizing an internally generated change process. We must now then address more specifically the question of what is meant by the concepts of i .'change and adaptation. j The Concepts of Adaptation, Change and Changefulness In the preceding discussion it has been emphasized that the meaning of change and adaptation within organizational systems may be j jquite different than is commonly assumed. That is, they may be as de- i Iscriptive and "normal" a part of organizational reality as non-change ! and non-adaptability. There is another aspect to this question, how- iever. The analysis of equilibria processes was based on the assumptions ithat we could usefully distinguish change from stability and further | 'that they are inversely related. As was indicated earlier in this dis sertation both of these assumptions need to be tested. i I Change and Stability Assumptions f | If stability and change were separable and inversely related jconcepts one would have a stability-change continuum. In simplified iform such a continuum is represented by Cells A and D in Figure 2. If f one further assumed that stability was normal and change unusual, then one would assume that Cell A phenomena would, over time, tend to convert into Cell D phenomena. If one assumed stability and change to be situ- | ationally determined outcomes, neither more normal than the other, then one would assume phenomena in neither cell to be more transitory than 3^ FIGURE 2 ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT CHANGE AND STABILITY High Change Low Phenomena Measured Stability the other. If one assumed it to he an inherently changing world then one would expect Cell D phenomena to convert into Cell A. Given only these assumptions one would not tend to conceptualize other possibili- i ties. There is, however, another set of assumptions that may open cer tain interesting theoretical possibilities. If stability and change were assumed to be necessarily neither separable nor inversely related, but rather intertwined and related orthogonally, then one would have the potential represented by the four cells of Figure 2. Cells A and D ■:ould retain their prior meaning. Phenomena would be classified in them that were changing with little evidence of stability (A) or stable with little evidence of change (D). Cell C might be categorized as sluggish but fragile— neither very changing nor very stable. Cell B may represent the most interesting area. Phenomena would be classified here which were found to be both stable over time while dynamically A Change B Dynamic Stability Sluggish Fragility C Stability D Low High ............ 35 ; changing. Such a conceptualization would suggest several hypotheses. Its most important consequence in this research, however, was to provide certain tentative bases for discriminating between the adequacy of dif ferent assumptions about change and stability in organizations. Assume ' for the moment that we had a set of measurement scores on the extent to ; which a random set of organizations or organizational features was found to be stable and/or changing. How would these scores be distributed across this figure? } . i J If change and stability were separable and inversely related j j attributes we would expect to find a concentration of scores clustering ] around the A and D corners of the matrix. If change and stability were ; intertwined but inversely related we would expect to find a distribution- of scores clustering along an A-D axis. If change and stability were j intertwined but positively related we would expect to find a distribu- j i tion of scores clustering along a C-B axis. If stability were normal I j and change unusual we would expect to find a concentration of scores in I i D, and if the reverse, a concentration of scares in A. I ! If change and stability, in isolation from each other, were ab- j i normal we would expect to see transitions of scores over time from Cells; r I A and D to Cells C and B, rather than between A and D. If any possible ■ combination was normal we would need to know more about the situational contexts involved before hazarding any projected distribution of scores other than a random one. These and other implied hypotheses are ex plored in Chapter VI where they are relevant to an understanding of the conclusions concerning adaptation capacity in organizations. 36 Definitions and Measurement | The foregoing discussion implied the requirement for defining ! such concepts as change and adaptation as well as agreeing to some ! procedure whereby they may be measured. | Adaptation represents one class of change. It is visualized as I Ian adjusting reaction on the part of the organizational system, most 'commonly associated with changes originating in its environment. It is j assumed to he governed or regulated by feedback processes of either the positive or negative kind. Adaptation is assumed to be a problem-solving I (process, whether or not this process is consciously recognized. It is i t [the response of the organizational system to the "exigencies" described 17 by Zolschan and Hirsch; that is, the disturbances of inertia. | The reason for not equating adaptation and change is the common | assumption that inertia refers only to a state of rest. It can, of jcourse, also refer to a state of motion which is continuous and stable jin its pattern or direction. Also because of the emphasis upon negative [feedback mechanisms the concept of adaptation has come to connote pri- jmrily the responsive or reactive changes whose direction is assumed to i be towards stability maintenance, rather than encompassing changes in the direction of stability disruption. For these reasons, it is per haps more profitable to address some of the dilemmas of this conceptual arena by focusing on the concept of change that is employed in this re search. 17 'George K. Zollschan and Walter Hirsch, eds., Explorations in \ Social Change (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964), 89-97* i 1 Change may have a clear intuitive meaning, but as an abuti-act .Concept it is elusive. Much as with the concept of organization, the jconcept of change represents a paradox. In a fundamental sense the con- i jcept of change represents an abstraction imputed to reality rather than I 18 [being inherent in the nature of reality. There is no way of concep tualizing change in absolute terms but only in relational or relative terms. When we say a change has occurred we mean that some state has f peen altered relative to something— either a previous state of the ob ject or some related object. Both of these possibilities have logical jdifficulties. Change of an object in relation to a previous state of i ! ffchat object may represent change to the observer but not to the object. j For example, a given object may have existential meaning only in terms jof some pattern or cycle of activity. The observer, by observing at different points in time, may misinterpret differences in the stage of jthe regularized pattern of activity as change. As for the second possi- i bility, where change is inferred from a comparison of objects, we have no way of assuring ourselves of what the true relative nature of the i J change has been. The object used for comparative purposes may itself be subject to relative change. We thus often have no way of knowing with precision which of the two objects has in fact changed or how much. We often try to minimize these relativistic dilemmas by simply equating change with movement. That is an object's movement from some definable state. This conceptual de-escalation presents another set of i | l8 I am particularly indebted in my discussion of this concept j in this and the following two paragraphs to a discussion by Carter j Zeleznik, "Some Reflections on ChangeKyklos, XIII (February, i960), 1 373-85.-------------------------------------------------------- J I 38 i I dilemmas, however. We typically would like to discuss the relative mag nitudes of change, but unfortunately, the measurement of the magnitude ■of movement may give us no basis for inferring the magnitude of what we j may want to denote by the concept of change. For example, an organiza tional system may be perceived to have radically changed if its mode of | operation continues unchanged when its environment comes to place new 1 ;demands or expectations upon it. One organization may be perceived to have changed radically, when increased in size by 10$ over a one year period, while another which had regularly experienced yearly increases |of 10$ may be perceived to have changed radically should it simply not jincrease in any given year. I The directionality of the movement or change is equally diffi- ! s' jcult to establish. Three organizations could have measurably doubled jtheir capacities to perform in a given area. The significance of such j ■a change is however, difficult to establish. The organization whose i doubling of capacity occurred in a context where demand for that capa city remained constant would be perceived as having increased its capa- ! 1 'city. The organization existing in a context where both capacity and i demand had doubled would probably appear unchanged. The organization lexisting in a context where capacity had doubled but demand had quad- [rupled would probably appear to have actually decreased in its capacity. Another dilemma in the use of the term "change" is reflected in j its multiple uses as a word in the English language. It can be used as a noun to refer to some specified variation, alteration or modification. We have already discussed the difficulties associated with this usage in terms of specifying the referent precisely. It can be used as a ; 39 [transitive verb to refer to the activity of making some alteration or modification. Much of the planned organizational change literature dis cussed in the next chapter flows from this usage. The term change is also used as an intransitive verb referring to the process of becoming 'different or experiencing alteration. Most of the models that attempt to account for how change occurs stem from this usage of the word. In a sense, the questions addressed by this research are focused on none of t these usages, but rather on the derivative noun "ehangefulness". That is, what characterizes an organization capable of changing, and what po tentially derivative attributes are associated with this phenomenon, j We therefore find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of t having to deal simultaneously with two paradoxes: both "organizational i ; ’ systems" and "change" appear real, yet both take on meaning in terms of ! I the perceptions and expectations of those who are involved as actors and ( [observers. For this reason, it was judged necessary to define opera tional change criteria for organizational systems in terms that are | [based upon the perceptual judgments of these actors and observers; that I jis, the members of an organizational system, and those persons outside [the organizational boundary in most intensive work interaction with its ^members. Change is assumed to have occurred in a given area when those f [persons in, or in close proximity to a given organization, perceive it to have occurred. Though such a perceptual measure necessarily makes inferences tentative, it appeared to be the most viable procedure for this exploratory comparison of organizations. Given the difficulty of imagining what "true" stability or change might look like if we could see it, and therefore being in the position of wanting to measure jagainst an absolute standard but not having one, a perceptual measure ! toay be the most accurate available. I A final caution needs to be made explicit concerning the use of ’ such terms as adaptation, change and changefulness. In our technologic ally oriented society such terms are often assumed automatically to con- 1 jnote positive values. This is not intended here. These terms are as- 5 sumed to be value neutral. Whether any particular adaptation, change, or degree of changefulness is "good” or "bad" must be situationally de termined by those involved, or empirically established by reference to some other valued criterion. While one may assume that rigidity or lack ;of adaptation is not "good" one can as easily visualize situations in j |which over-adaptation is "bad". It simply depends on the configuration i i of the situation and the values one chooses to judge it by. One of the i jpurposes of this research is to explore how a given degree of changeful- ! ness may be related to a value such as organizational effectiveness ■ 19 within a research and development context. Summary < I j This chapter has identified and analyzed the major theoretical ■parameters within which the research was conducted. A theoretical framework was constructed based on systems theory. An organization was defined to be a system with six dimensions held in common with other 19 ■^Even within such a research and development context there are clear differences in value positions. A supervisor of one of the or ganizations studied in this research, for example, commented that he j felt "engineers" tended to value "change" in and of itself. He went on I to say that "basic researchers” valued steadfastness of commitment to a ! research problem so highly that "change" had the connotation of shallow-; ness._________________ i lorganizations. The issues concerning the reification of systems models, the levels of analysis required for their effective usage, and the pro- I jpensity to attribute only negative-equilibrium assumptions to them were discussed. It was suggested that organizations, both theoretically and .empirically, can be seen to be as inherently changeful as they are sta bilizing. Certain assumptions about change and stability were explored and it was suggested that they may more usefully be hypothesized to be Intertwined and positively related than separable and inversely related. The definitions of adaptation, change, and changefulness were explored and the reasons for adopting a perceptual measure of change were out- The following chapter reviews the literature related to the jissues of organizational effectiveness, organizational adaptiveness, ■and institutionalized change process. A summarizing list of the major I hypotheses of this research is also introduced. CHAPTER III < j s : THE RESEARCH FOCUS: A REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE This review provides a sense of those theoretical models, re search findings, and other writings out of which this research evolved. : \ - It describes the intellectual focus for what follows by exploring sev- ; eral overlapping literature areas relevant to the study of the questions! I * ;dealt with in this research. The sequence in which the literature is discussed corresponds to the order in which the major research issues become relevant. t Addressed first is that literature bearing on the question of organizational effectiveness and the reasons why one might expect a more adaptive organization to be more effective. A major thrust of this re search is the development of organizational adaptiveness measures. These subsequently become useful as dependent variables in the test of factors that may affect adaptability. Measures of effectiveness become the dependent variables by which the significance of differences in adaptiveness levels can be empirically assessed. At issue in this dis cussion is whether there is evidence to support the hypothesized rela tionship between adaptiveness and effectiveness, and if there is, whether useful models are available for determining organizational ef fectiveness in order to test this relationship empirically. The second literature area assumes that the relationship between organizational adaptiveness and effectiveness is potentially both know- ahbe... and important. L i t e r a t u r e i s introduced that bears on the factors ~ k3 I that have been suggested as facilitative or inhibitive of the capacities! of organizations for adaptation and change. The concern is to establish5 the parameters of those variables subsequently to be tested as factors ; that may associate with variations in adaptability between specific or- > ganizations. i ; r k The third literature area discussed assumes both that the rela- j tive adaptability of an organization is potentially important and know- ■ j ; able, and that some of the major conditions associated with relative j jadaptability may be ascertainable. In this discussion the literature is reviewed relevant to the final basic question of the research; that is, whether relatively more adaptive organizations tend to be ones with rel atively greater capacity to self-initiate their own change. The concern in this section is the possibility that organizations with institution alized and internally generating change processes may have a greater capacity for solving problems adaptively. Organizational Effectiveness and Adaptability Adaptability, as previously noted, in and of itself can be viewed as a value-neutral phenomenon. Where, in what contexts or in what ways it becomes desirable is a function of its relationships to valued ends.'1 ' In the case of organizations, the unit of analysis of ^Herbert Simon in Administrative Behavior (2nd ed., rev.; New York: Macmillan, 1957) first published in 19^5 drew the attention of organizational students to this logic&l-positivist distinction. One can observe the way things are, but one can only decide how they should be on the basis of values. While the controversy has been extended on the practical possibility and ethical merits of distinguishing between ends and means in this way (since they are in fact so intertwined), it was useful in this research to make the assumption that adaptation to change this research, let us assume that an "effective" organization is the de sired endj review what definitions of "effective" have been used, de- \ \ scribe one which appears to have the greatest utility in the context of ) J this research, and then explore the relationships of adaptability to this definition of organizational effectiveness. j j There have been nearly as many definitions of what constitutes > s a "good" or an "effective" organization as people who have worked in 1 them, dealt with them, or studied them. Georgopoulis and Tannenbaum j j 1 focused on this criterion issue when they stated: Organizational effectiveness is one of the most complex and least tackled problems in the study of social organizations. Many diffi culties arise with attempts to define the concept of effectiveness adequately. Some stem from the closeness with which the concept becomes associated with the question of values (e.g., 'management' versus 'labor' orientations). Other problems arise when researchers] choose a priori criteria of effectiveness that seem intuitively j right, without trying systematically to place them within a consist ent and broader framework. In effect, specific criteria that might be proper in one case may be entirely inappropriate to other organi zations. The question arises whether it is possible to develop a definition of effectiveness and to derive criteria that are applic able across organizations and can be meaningfully placed within a general conceptual framework. Perhaps the most common approach has been to ignore this cri terion problem because of its complexity; and move directly to ameliora tive organizational problem-solving activities, where agreement on prob lem resolutions if not evaluative criteria could be reached. There is merit in the formulations of this approach supplied by Lindblom in the is in itself neither "good" nor "bad," its qualitative effects being a function of the situational context; that is, in terms of valued ends. p Basil S. Georgopoulos and Arnold S. Tannenbaum, "A Study of Organizational Effectiveness," American Sociological Review, XXII (Octo ber, 1957 )j 53**-. ^5 concept of "muddling through"” ^, Lindblom and Braybrooke in "disjointed 4 5 incrementalism" , and Simon in "satisficing". However, to use such models as a basis for developing measures of organizational effective ness would pose serious theoretical and empirical problems. There axe reasons for doubting the descriptive power of the models much less any such prescriptive use as implied by a measure of organizational effec- g tiveness. One might also suspect a premature equating of a particular jdecisional model with a concept of organizational effectiveness. Some jother way of conceptualizing and measuring the concept of organizational effectiveness was therefore needed. j | Traditional Effectiveness Models i One of the traditions in measuring the effectiveness of organi- ; zations has involved the use of productivity or efficiency measures. ! i This approach, so strongly reinforced by the rationalistic assumptions j 7 ! of Frederick Taylor and others involved in the scientific-management i movement in the early twentieth century, is based on the analogy of j i • 3 j Charles E. Lindblom, "The Science of Muddling Through," Public j Administration Review, XIX (Spring, 1959), 79-88. I J f I David Braybrooke and Charles E. Lindblom, A Strategy of De cision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process (London: The Free Press, Collier-Macmillan, 1963). j 5 ! Simon, Administrative Behavior, pp. xxiv-vi. ^Yehezkel Dror, "Governmental Decision-Making: Muddling Through — 'Science' of Inertia," Public Administration Review, XXIV (196*0, 15^-7; and Amitai Etzioni, ' ‘ Mixed Scanning: A 'Third' Approach to De cision-Making," Public Administration Review, XXVII (December, 1967), 385-92. 7 Frederick Winslow Taylor, Scientific Management (New York: Harper and. Brothers, 19^7) • -------------------------------------- —— organizations to mechanical systems. It tended to emerge from indus trial organizations with their quantifiable performance units and market mechanisms for measuring results. While often couched in sophisticated 1 |input-output or cost-benefit terms, this approach also has very severe J theoretical limitations associated with its use in research and develop ment organizations. Such organizations produce "products" that tend to ibe: ideational; difficult to quantify in meaningful ways; incomparable i i { lacking a fully functioning market place); focused on long range and j iemergent goals where progress is difficult to evaluate; dependent on jhuman resource development where the return on sunk costs is difficult t |to plan or measure with certainty; papers, designs, or patents whose ‘ Significance or merit tends to be determined over long periods of time Jby colleagues' judgments which constitutes a "market place" of consider able less specificity or finality than an economic one; very responsive to "market" fluctuations in terms of funding decisions often beyond the control of the organization; and other such factors. i I With the advent of the human-relations studies of the late 1920s jand 1930s it was recognized that a simplistic efficiency model was an j jinadequate representation of organizational effectiveness, since so jmany "human" (to the scientific-management movement,irrational) factors jdemonstrabiy affected output measures.® The human-relations movement emphasized the importance of these human factors, operationalizing them : in such terms as "satisfaction," "morale," and "employee involvement." g Mary Barker Follett, Dynamic Administration, ed. by H. C. Metcalf and L. Urwick (London: I. Pitman, i960), and F. J. Roethlis- berger and W. J. Dickson, Management and the Worker (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1939/- — ________ While the scientific-management movement assumed that productive people would he satisfied and have high morale (for example, Frederick Taylor's notion of a "mental revolution") the human relationists tended to re verse the equation by assinning that satisfied people with high morale would be productive. Both approaches were able to marshal research support for their claims. By the 1950s, however, it was realized that neither assumption o was necessarily accurate. Productivity and satisfaction, for example, I may or may not be related, depending on the operation of other inter- j vening variables in the situation. This finding resulted in the devel opment of more situational and integrated approaches to the question of organizational effectiveness, that generally have been based on some variant of a systems model. Systems Effectiveness Models The emergence of such models is reflected in the 1957 and 1959 publications of Georgopoulis and Tannenbaum,1^ and Etzioni,11 while the implications of such systems models axe succinctly summarized by Katz 12 and Kahn. These models of system effectiveness have the advantages of: providing sufficient generality for truly comparative research; ^Gf., Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 196l). ^Georgopoulos and Tannenbaum, "Organizational Effectiveness." 11Etzioni, "Mixed Scanning." ^Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Or ganizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966), Ch. 6. kS recognizing the multiplicity of short and long-range goals and objec tives, with their inherent differences in output criteria; accounting for situational or contextual factors affecting the organization, its members, and its environmentally relevant points of interaction; and i recognizing the essential relativity of organizational characteristics. They have several problems associated with their use, however. Their abstraction and generality prove hard to operationalize in mean- j lingful ways. They are directly dependent upon the conceptual character j jof the system model used. For example, the use by Georgopoulis and Tannenbaum of "absence of intraorganizational strain, or tension and conflict between organizational subgroups" as an effectiveness cri terion measure reflects a case where the potentially functional role of conflict is denied in the nature of the model employed. In this author’s estimate, a useful systems model of organiza- ik ftional effectiveness has been proposed by Bennis. This model possess es the advantages noted above, as well as being consistent with the or ganizational systems model described in the preceding chapter. It is susceptible to operationalization. He has suggested the concept of "or-' ganizational health," derived largely from mental health models and de fined in general systems terms, as a way of modeling organizational effectiveness. In this concept the organization is viewed as having two essential and interrelated problems. | — — — — — — —— ( Georgopoulos and Tannenbaum, "Organizational Effectiveness," 536. | ■^Warren G. Bennis, "Towards a ’Truly* Scientific Management: j The Concept of Organizational Health," General Systems Yearbook, VII 1 (Hew..York:__Socie.ty._for...Systems Research, 196 2- ) -. - ____________..... ! ! The first is the internal issue of reciprocity. That is, how the needs of the participants and of the organization are to "be inte grated in the achievement of organizational purposes and goals. This reciprocity issue is conceptually the equivalent of the fusion of con cerns of both the scientific-management movement (concerned with the needs and imperatives of the organization), and the human-relations movement (concerned with the needs and imperatives of the individual). The second basic issue confronting the organization in this model is the external one of articulating with its environment. That is, how it manages the exchanges and transactions with the persons, groups, and .organizations to which it is related. The two problems are interrelated ;since, for example, the quality of environmental exchanges may affect I the resources available for dealing with the reciprocity question. Both of these basic organizational tasks, internal reciprocity ! jand external articulation are seen to be dependent on the capacity of the organization to accurately perceive the nature of "reality”, both in jwhich it is embedded and within itself. That is, to perceive, distrib- i jute and employ accurate assessments of its members* individual needs, ■the organizational needs, and the environmental constraints and oppor- i [tunities with which it is faced. t j Operationally, Bennis suggests three criteria for measuring ■ 15 organizational health that correspond to these underlying problems. j 1. Adaptability: i.e., problem solving ability, flexibility, | ability to actively master the environment; capacity to effectively | account for the external environment within which the organization is embedded. ------- -^These criteria are desertbetLand - defined-iruXbid. , _ 277=8 .... 50 2. Identity: i.e., the extent to -which organizational goals are understood and accepted by the personnel and the extent to which the organization is perceived veridically by the members; capacity to achieve an effective resolution of the internal reciprocity problem. 3- Reality Testing: i.e., the ability to perceive the "real" field in which the organization exists; the capacity to perceive condi tions, events, problems and relationships in accurate ways. The purpose for developing a measure of organizational effec tiveness was, however, to establish an independent criterion by which the relative value of adaptiveness could be assessed. To explore the contribution of adaptiveness to organizational effectiveness, when the measure of effectiveness is itself partially composed of adaptiveness measures, would be a tautological exercise. Thus, a somewhat more in direct strategy was called for. This involved the attempt to establish the extent to which adaptiveness tended to be consistently related to the other two dimensions of the effectiveness criterion. The relation ship of this encompassing effectiveness criterion was then explored in relation to other more traditional effectiveness measures such as goal accomplishment. Finally, the relationship between these lesser effec tiveness measures, and the non-adaptiveness components of the Bennis organizational health model were explored in relation to the adaptive ness component of this model. The operationalization and employment of this model is developed in Chapter V. It is appropriate to note here that the procedures used in this operationalization parallel those de veloped by Pfiffner, Comrey and others in their study of organizational effectiveness in the Forest Service in the use of peer evaluations of effectiveness. A. L. Comrey, J. M. Pfiffner, and H. P. Beem. "Factors 51 The dimensions of the Bennis organizational health model are similar to those developed by Argyris. He has also been concerned with the issues of how organizations integrate individual and organizational needs, and adapt to changing environmental conditions. Argyris suggests that organizations perform three central core activities: "1. achieving objectives, 2. maintaining the internal system, and 3. adapting to the external environment."1^ The first two are the equivalent of Bennis's "identity" dimension; Bennis's "reality testing" dimension is implied as a process characteristic of Argyris's second and third core activi ties, and the adaptability dimension is common to both models. For Argyris the effectiveness of an organization becomes the extent to which these three core activities are performed "at a constant or increasing level of effectiveness with the same or decreasing increments of „l8 energy. For both Bennis and Argyris organizational adaptiveness is hy pothesized as playing an important part in an organization’s overall ef fectiveness. The importance attributed to organizational adaptiveness is common among a number of organizational students and practitioners. Mann and Seashore in their research at the University of Michigan Survey Research Center have suggested as one their four criteria of organiza tional effectiveness: Influencing Organizational Effectiveness," Personnel Psychology, V (Winter, 1952) 307-28. ■^Chris Argyris, Organization and Innovation (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, and the Dorsey Press, 1965), 120. l8Ibid., 123. 52 the ability of the organization to change appropriately in response to some objective reason for changes. Although we are convinced of the theoretical importance of this criteria, which we have called organizational flexibility we have thus far been unable to solve the operational problems involved in its use.^-9 "High capacity to adapt effectively to change" is identified by Likert i as one of the overall performance characteristics of the more effective 20 organization. Dimock’s work on administrative vitality is centrally 21 focused on the importance of organizational adaptation, as are the i 2 2 jconcepts of bureaupathology" of Thompson and organizational "self- i „ 2 P , renewal of Gardner. The efforts to accomplish planned organizational i | jchange, reviewed later in this chapter, are founded essentially on the assumption that adaptation is a requisite for effectiveness in organiza-l tions. 2k In his "Proposal for an Organization Science" Victor Thompson has suggested that little true organizational research has been done. He feels that most research has focused on individuals and groups, with findings about organizations often extrapolated to organizations in Robert L. Kahn, Floyd C. Mann, and Stanley Seashore, "Intro- I duction to Human Relations Research in Large Organizations," The Journal of Social Issues, XII (1956), ^+. 20 Likert, Hew Patterns of Management, 2^0. 2^Marshall Dimock, Administrative Vitality: The Conflict with ; Bureaucracy (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959)* : 22Victor A. Thompson, Modern Organization (New York: Alfred A. I Knopf, 1961). 2^John Gardner, "How to Prevent Organizational Dry Rot," Har per’s Magazine, October, 19f>5» PP* 20, 22, 2k, 26. Oh Victor A. Thompson, "Proposal for an Organization Science." Unpublished paper, 1965. (Mimeographed.) j 53 'inappropriate ways. In proposing an order of measurement that he feels | Will focus specifically on the organization, he suggests a primary Jinitial concern with the issues of organizational innovation, j To summarize, one needs some basis upon which to interpret the i jsignificance of organizational adaptability. There is strong support j jfor the idea that adaptiveness is a critical component of an organiza- I jtion's capacity to effectively accomplish its important functions, to maintain itself, and to develop its fullest potential. The concept of organizational effectiveness appears useful as a means of representing jsuch capacities and therefore appears a useful means of imputing value j jto adaptiveness. The system's health model developed by Bennis, and jparalleled by Argyris, appears to be a useful tool for comparatively studying organizational effectiveness. | The empirical relationships found to exist in this research be- jtween organizational adaptiveness and effectiveness are discussed in ’ Chapter V. Because the basic effectiveness model chosen has adaptive- jness as one of its three key dimensions, two problems are dealt with separately to prevent a simple tautology from emerging. The first is an exploration and test of the empirical utility of the effectiveness model as reflected in the relationships between a number of perceptual meas ures of effectiveness. The second is an exploration and test of the degree of relationship found between adaptiveness measures and measures I of the other two dimensions of the effectiveness model, as well as other, non-model derived measures of effectiveness. j Organizational Adaptiveness and Change i | To discuss and integrate the large number, disparate, and bur- i .geoning streams of literature which bear on the questions of adaptation i jand change in public research and development organizations could well serve as the basis for a separate research effort. Because such organi zations are embedded within more encompassing cultural, social, politi cal and organizational systems, and because they are composed of dis crete individuals, one could consider these questions from a number of literature perspectives. One could relevantly consider the contribu tions of intellectual loci ranging from philosophy to psychiatry, in- jcluding a large portion of the gamut of social science concerns. j j Since this research is, however, focused on an organizational j level of analysis, this review is primarily concerned with the organiza | itional literature. There are some rather arbitrary excursions into jother literatures concerned with the encompassing socio-cultural sys tems and the encompassed individual systems. Since these are the ad jacent levels of analyses, they need to be considered to prevent the artificiality that would result from an assumption that organizations icould exist in isolation from their environments or their members. In examining the relevant literature one finds considerable variation in approach: from pejorative statements of what needs chang- jing in organizations, to pragmatic statements of how change can best be introduced or implemented; to theoretical models for conceptualizing change processes. The literature ranges from elegant and sophisticated research designs and findings to unencumbered speculation. Organiza tional change and adaptation forms the central concern in some cases, 55 while other quite different investigations are rich in implications, choice of variables for analysis, findings and hypotheses. Some works focus on the causes of change, while others are focused more on its con sequences. Same work is focused on "natural" or unplanned change, while other work is most concerned with rationally planned change. The ex plicit and implicit assumptions, terminology, units of analysis, and I [variables chosen for examination vary widely. I i j To sharpen the focus of this discussion it is organized around ithe following two central issues: models developed for visualizing : i organization change processes, and dimensions or factors suggested as j most relevant to adaptiveness within organizations. The discussion does: not attempt to review all possible characteristics or models that may have an impact upon the consideration of adaptiveness within organiza- ! j tions, but only those whose relevance is most pronounced. Models of Change Research and development organizations need to be visualized as j i embedded subsets of the larger cultural and social systems of which they are a part. Adaptation and change in these organizations may therefore > be viewed as one kind of, a part of, or operating within the context of, more general socio-cultural change processes. We start our considera tion of change models then with these more macroscopic conceptions. This is an appropriate beginning since many of the more specifically j focused organizational change models find their roots in these theo- ■ ) retical positions. 56 Socio- cultural and Individual Models By the early twentieth century a number of evolutionary models of change had been developed that assumed a unilinearity of direction in change processes. Some of the more prominent examples, characterised 25 by stages or dichotomies in socio-cultural change, include: George Hegel's "orient" where few were free, to the modern "west" where all are free; Auguste Comte's theological to positive stages; Sir Henry Maine's status to contract; Karl Marx's savagery to utopia (though along with Hegel's work this model provided for a potentially infinite number of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis cycles); Edward Tylor's animism to monotheism; Herbert Spencer's militaristic savagery to modern industrial society; Lewis Henry Morgan's promiscuity to pair marriage; Emile 25 ^Individual footnotes to the primary sources of these early works are not provided here. These works have been ably reviewed and documented in several recent discussions to which I am particularly in debted: Nicholas S. Timasheff, Sociological Theory: Its Nature and growth (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1955); Melville Jacobs and Bernard Stein, General Anthropology (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1958); Amitai and Eva Etzioni, eds., Social Change: Sources, Patterns, and Consequences (New York: Basic Books, 1964); Banos D. Bardis, "Synopsis of Theories of Social Change," Social Science, XXXVII (June, 1962), . . l8l-8; Hornell Hart, "Social Theory and Social Change," in Symposium on Sociological Theory, ed. by Llewellyn Gross (Evanston: Row, Peterson, 1959)» 196-238; and Bruce Ryan, "The Resuscitation of Social Change," Social Forces, XXXXI (September, 1965), 1-7- The Timasheff and Jacobs and Stein works provide an excellent integrating discussion of s oc io - cultural theories from the early 19th century to the mid-1950s, including their implicit change models. The Etzionis' work provides in Part I and II a number of excerpts and re prints from the change theories of this same period. The Bardis and Hart discussions include as well much earlier theorizing going back to early Greek works. The Ryan article is a particularly lucid statement about the extent to which change processes were misunderstood for sever al decades following the development of structurally oriented theory and research in the 1920s. 57 | Durkehim's sacred organic to profane mechanical societies; Charles Cooley's primary to secondary relationships; Ferdinand Toennies Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft; Robert Park's sacred to secular; and Robert Redfield’s folk society to secular society. ■ Organismic and biological analogies were implicit in the cycli- - { cal change models (birth, growth, decline or death) of such social j philosophers as Vilfredo Pareto, Oswald Spengler, Pitirim Sorokin, and ' Arnold Toynbee. Somewhat greater optimism was reflected in the related ; models of Ibn Khaldoun, Giovanni Vico, and Frederick Nietzsche in their j i assumption that each successive cycle had the potential for achieving a "higher" level. l ) A good deal of early anthropological thought was based on models that assumed the major source of change to be the historical diffusion between societies of cultural elements or traits invented in only one cultural site. Such early hyper-diffusionists as G. Eliot Smith, a number of German scholars of the Kulterkreis school, and the historic ally focused Franz Boas and W. H. R. Rivers were of this persuasion. These early theories of socio-cultural change embodied a number 26 of problems and assumptions that led to their rejection. They tended to assume: a single cause of change (some form of determinism); a sin gle direction of change; or some inevitable cyclical pattern. They were usually buttressed by selectively chosen macro-historical events. This rejection was of course related to the decline of concerr with change phenomena in preference to structural-functional modes of socio-cultural analysis beginning in the 1920s and continuing well into the 1950s. This transition has been frequently commented upon and well documented, cf. Ryan, "Resuscitation.’ ' i 58 jThis rejection may have "been over enthusiastic because one can see in i jthe current reawakening of interest in change phenomena the selective i reinterpretation of some of these earlier conceptions into useful mod els, capable of more rigorous operationalization and test. There has, for example, been a marked recent concern with his torical process in change and even social evolution that many had ' thought was completely discredited in the rejection of Social Darwinism. 27 Such concerns are reflected in the work of S. N. Eisenstadt , V. Gordon 28 2Q 80 81 Childe, Julian H. Steward, y Talcott Parsons, Sahlins and Service, 32 and Kenneth E. Bock. Additionally, the development by Talcott ihrsons jof pattern variable analysis from a structural functionalist perspective < ■ p r s owes an acknowledged debt to the work of Toennies. This pattern vari- ■able analysis has been effectively used by a number of writers in the ;fields of Comparative Politics and Comparative Administration to visu- i alize modernization and development processes, noting changes in such | i ------------------ ; 27 j S. N. Eisenstadt, "Social Change Differentiation and Evolu- jtion," American Sociological Review, XXIX (June, 1964), 375-86. 2ft ; Gordon V. Childe, Social Evolution (New York: Schuman, 1951) • i 29 | ^Julian H. Steward, Theory of Culture Change (Urbana: Univer- jsity of Illinois Press, 1955)* i 80 | Talcott Parsons, "Evolutionary Universals in Society," Ameri can Sociological Review, XXIX (June, 1964), 339-40. | ^‘ Wrshall D. Sahlins and Elman R. Service, eds., Evolution and Culture (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, i960). ! M i Kenneth E. Bock, "Evolution, Function, and Change," American Sociological Review, XXVIII (April, 1963), 229-37. 88 ^Talcott Parsons, Essays in Sociological Theory (rev. ed.; New i York: The Free Press, 1954 X j 59 directions as affective neutrality, particularism and functional speci- ficity. The general systems theorists such as Ludwig von Bertalanffy make use of biological models and analogies, while not making the inap propriate assumptions about the inevitability of social "life cycles" in modeling change processes. The work in applied anthropology often focuses on the changes flowing from the introduction of new technology or other cultural elements and uses some of the perspectives of histori cal diffusionism, while not making the assumption that this is the only major source of socio-cultural change. It is therefore clear that mod ern change theories, while often appearing as new departures, are sig nificantly related to earlier work. Assumptions and models of socio-cultural change processes are clearly evident in the work of many current organizational theorists. McGregor,^ Argyris^ and Bennis^ reflect this in their view that, 34 Examples of such pattern variable derived analyses include: Lucian W. Ftye, Politics, Personality, and Nation Building: Burma's Search for Identity (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1962); P. X. Sutton, "Social Theory and Comparative Politics," in Com parative Politics: A Reader, ed. by Harry Eckstein and David Apter (New York; The Free Press, 1963), 67-81; Fred W. Riggs, "Models in the Com parative Study of Public Administration," in Models and Priorities in the Comparative Study of Administration, ed. by Fred W. Riggs and Edward W. Weidner (Chicago: Comparative Administration Group, American Society of Public Administration, 1963), 6-43; and Gabriel A. Almond and James S. Coleman, The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton: Princeton University Press, i960). ^Ludwig von Bertalanffy, "General System Theory - A Critical Review," General Systems Yearbook, VII (New York: Society for Systems Research, I962). Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw-Hill, i960). 37 Chris Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the Organization 6o because of basic socio-cultural changes where, for example, physical and economic needs no longer serve as such dominant sources of motivation, and technology changes the nature of work to be performed, organizations are being faced with new opportunities and constraints. These oppor tunities and constraints are seen by them as an impetus for the movement towards organizational forms and styles that are more able to respond to, and capitalize upon, a variety of developmental assumptions using such motivations as self-actualization, self-direction, and creativity. One of the useful socio-cultural change theories is derived from the implications of systems theory. This theoretical perspective has proved of utility in modeling the process of change at both the socio cultural and organizational levels of analysis. Because this systems theory model played such a central part in the design of the research reported here, its review was carried out in the previous chapter. It is clear that organizational change models are related to (and in many cases derived from) models of socio-cultural change. Be fore moving to a more detailed examination of some of these organiza tional change models it is important to note that other models have originated at the more specific level of analysis focused on the indi vidual. One stream of thought (represented particularly by the more pejorative management literature) has visualized organizational change (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 196k), ^Warren G. Bennis, Changing Organizations: Essays on the De velopment and Evolution of Human Organizations (New York; McGraw-Hill, I 960) . 6l primarily as an individual change process. That is, organizations are assumed to change as their members change or are replaced by members with different characteristics. While this approach has produced a number of useful insights, and now serves as the basis of most organiza tional recruitment, reward, and training strategies, it possesses a num ber of severe limitations. It tends to de-emphasize the interactional and situational effects that are known to be significant. It tends to oversimplify the complexities observed in actual organizational change experiences, and has been shown to be limited as a strategy for imple menting organizational change. The necessity for viewing individual change within the context of a more encompassing social change model is noted by Katz and Kahn: The major error in dealing with problems of organizational change, both at the practical and theoretical level, is to disregard the systemic properties of the organization and to confuse individual change with modifications in organizational variables. It is common practice to pull foremen or officials out of their organizational roles and give them training in human relations. Then they return to their customary positions with the same role expectations from their subordinates, the same pressures from their superiors, and the same functions to perform as before their special training. Even if the training program has begun to produce a different orien tation toward other people on the part of trainees, they are likely to find little opportunity to express their new orientation in the ongoing structured situation to which they return.39 There have been several individually oriented change models with relevance for organizational change analysis that have been more suc cessful in dealing with individual behavior in its social context. These models tend to be based on systems theory assumptions while having as their primary point of analysis the personality and behavior of QQ Katz and Kahn, Social Psychology, 390* „ 62 individual system members. Anthropologically oriented studies in cul- ture and personality, of which Abraham Kardiner^0 and Ruth Benedict*11 are outstanding examples, have suggested that a socio-cultural system must be viewed as an anastomatic whole. Members of the same culture face similar institutional situations which tend to produce integrative sets of patterns that result in certain common personality characteris tics among the participants. From a sociological point of view, Everett Hagen has suggested that certain types of modernizing changes can be ex plained on the basis of personality characteristics derived from status k2 deprivation. Max Weber’s earlier work on the relationship between emergent entrepreneurial capitalism and the imperatives of the protes- tant ethic are also within this framework. From a psychological point of view, the work of David McClelland reflects a socio-cultural change model that has as its fulcrum the personal need for achievement of in dividuals as the motivating force for the entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors that contribute to economic growth and development. In each of these examples change processes are viewed as the result of the in teractive effect of socio-cultural systems (of which organizations are a ^Abraham Kardiner, The Psychological Frontiers of Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 19^5)* ^•Wth Benedict, Patterns of Culture (New York: Penguin, 19^6). * * 2Everett E. Hagen, On the Theory of Social Change (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1962). **^Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, brans, by Talcott Parsons (London and New York: Allen and Unwin, and Scribners, 1930). ^David McClelland, The Achieving Society (Princeton: D. Van Vostrand. i960)._________ ___________________________________________ 63 subset) with individual personality and behavior systems. So far we have explored some of the implications of macroscopic socio-cultural change, and microscopic individual change, for the con sideration of organizational change models. We now turn to the explora tion of some of these change models couched specifically in organiza tional terms. Organizational Models The transition in criteria considered relevant for organiza tional effectiveness represented by the scientific management and human relations movements (discussed earlier in this chapter) had its recip rocal in the models of organizational change employed. The scientific- management movement assumed that organizational change was a phenomena primarily subject to rational planning and control. This model assumed that management would design organizational changes to maximize the de sired values of efficiency, and that these changes would be implemented with rather straightforward rational procedures. The human relationists were able to demonstrate some of the difficulties in this model by pointing out the mechanisms by which informal organization and non- arganizational values could intrude to negate the effectiveness of this rationalist change model. The human-relationist change model tended to assume that these uon-organizational values and informal organizations could be coopted by the formal organization by sufficient concern and interest being ex pressed by the organization's management, as well as by the involvement bf organizational members in the planning of change. Some of the 6k difficulties of this model have in turn become visible. Many theorists now contend that there are fundamental, unresolvable, and appropriately conflictual relationships within many organizations. From this perspective conflict may be a crucial source of or ganizational change, the value of which may be diluted or negated by the ameliorative strategies of cooptation and conflict avoidance repre ss sented by much of the human relationist approach. Additionally, as Likert has pointed out, the capacity of an organization to coopt the in formal organization in support of rational change objectives appears directly dependent upon the values internalized within the members of that informal organization. If the informal organization happens to value the same ends as are to be maximized by managerial objectives, its cooptation tends to be supportive of change in those directions; if its norms and values are different from those objectives, its cooptation will not serve the purposes hypothesized by the more enthusiastic human relationist s As with organizational effectiveness, the models of organiza tional change now being developed tend to be less simplistic, more situational in orientation, and more acceptive of the potentially func- tional consequences of conflict. A systems' model explicated by Schein, for example, is framed in information-comraunication terms. He visual izes the adapting-coping organization as one that effectively gathers ^Lewis Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (New York: The jTee Eress, 1956). 1* 6 Likert, New Patterns, 29-3I+. 65 accurate information, translates it into necessary change, and gathers k-7 accurate feedback information. Conflict in such a model may provide the necessary diversity of cognitive maps to allow the analysis of in formation to reconfigure the category systems of an organization’s mem bers. These category systems could then change as the nature of prob lems faced by the organization changed. One of the models that has had the greatest impact on the study of organizational change was developed by Kurt Lewin. In this concep tion organizations that change effectively are visualized as moving through a three stage cycle involving the ’ ’ unfreezing" of some current pattern or level of integration, moving to a new pattern or level, and then "freezing" this new state. Because organizations are assumed to iiQ exist within "force fields” p which prevent random change and tend to ensure equilibrium, this model assumes that organizational change is a cyclical process, where degrees of stability and change characterize a given organization depending on its current state in relation to the change process. This model has been fundamental to many of the theo retical formulations developed within the last two decades in the area of change planning— organizational as well as more macroscopic socio cultural change. ^Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Psychology (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965), 98-103* JLQ Kurt Lewin, "Frontiers in Group Dynamics," Human Relations, I (June, 19^7), 5-kl. ^"Force field" is a systems notion encompassing all operative parameters and constraints akin to the concept of environment or ecolo gy, but including these factors as they are perceived, internalized, and lave effects upon organisational members._____________________________ 66 The emergence of concern with planned change that has occurred since World War II has "been massive and far-reaching in its implica tions . The roots of the notion that desirable social ends can be achieved through planned change can be traced back to those contribu tions of John Dewey, Lester Ward, and many of the social philosophers already mentioned. Hart provides a number of empirical examples of such 50 successful social engineering. The literature growing from these at tempts at planned social change is rich in assumption and models rele- 51 vant to a consideration of organizational change processes. Examples 5°Hart, "Social Theory," 202-4. 51 It would be inappropriate here to provide a discursive review of this literature, but several of the most outstanding examples are discussed in this note. One of the richest sources in this literature is the reporting of the experiences encountered in the U.S. relocation camps for Japanese-Americans in World War II by Alexander Leighton. The governing of Men (Princeton: The Princeton University Press, 1946). Following the analysis of the data he suggests a variety of propositions for the effective management of cultural change. Two other now classic studies of socio-cultural implications of planned change are those of Margaret Mead, Cultural Patterns and Technological Change (New York: Mentor Books, 1955); and Edward Spicer, Human Problems in Technological Change: A Casebook (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1952), Human Organization, the Journal of the Society of Applied Anthropology, now in its third decade of publication, contains scores of socio-cultural change cases, many of which are annotated in the Jones, Niehoff, and Keesing bibliographies being respectively: Planned Organizational Change: A Working Bibliography (Bloomington: Comparative Administra- . tion Group, American Society for Public Administration, International Development Research Center, Indiana University, 1964), A Casebook of Social Change (Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1966), and Culture Change: ! a Survey and Bibliography of Anthropological Sources to 1952 (Palo Alto: [Stanford University Press, 1953)* Two of the most massive as well as perhaps most successful socio-cultural change efforts have been the Etawah project in India led by Mayer, and the Vicos project in Peru led by Alan Holmberg. These projects have been described comprehensively by these men respectively: Pilot Project India: The Story of Rural De velopment at Etawah, Uttar Pradesh (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1958), and "The Changing Values and Institutions of Vicos in the Context of National Development," The American Behavioral Scientist, 67 of these implications for organizational change process include the ideas that: change must be considered in the socio-cultural context in which it is planned; change occurs or is successfully introduced when it is consistent with socio-cultural patterns, or meets emergent needs of these patterns; understanding of, and participation in change plan ning and accomplishment is important in ensuring its success; change in the elements of socio-cultural systems is more difficult the closer one approaches to central core values, norms and institutions; change in evitably has secondary consequences; and, new elements introduced tend to be reinterpreted in terms meaningful to the socio-cultural system. Concurrently with these developments the planning of organiza tional change has received extensive consideration. The work in this area is also rich in models, assumptions and hypotheses about organiza tional change. In this author's judgment the works cited in the foot note below provide the most comprehensive review and integration of the 52 work that has been done in the area of planned organizational change. VIII (March, 1965). The change models built into these have been sum marized in a number of sources, two of the most insightful being the recent books by George Foster, Traditional Cultures and the Impact of Technological Changes (New York": Harper and Row, 1962); and Conrad Arensberg and Arthur Niehoff, A Casebook of Social Change (Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1966). 52 The current texture of concerns in the planned organizational change area was anticipated by the now classic research study of Lester Coch and John R. P. French, Jr. which investigated the difference in behavior and attitudes resulting from the employment of different change styles: "Overcoming Resistance to Change," Human Relations, I (Novem ber, 19^8), 512-32. The theoretical foundations of approaches to planned organizational change were explicated in two outstanding books by Eli Ginzberg and Ewing W. Reilley; and Ronald Lippitt, Jeanne Watson, and Bruce Westley being respectively: Effecting Change in Large Organi zations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957)« and The Dynamics 68 While the planned organizational change literature reflects a concern for making organizations more adaptive this concern remains latent. The manifest objective towards which most of this literature is addressed is how to accomplish particular changes. That is, how (through an active intervention process) organizational systems can be changed and client-system/change-agent relationships be made effective. Both Bennis and Chin have noted that the planned organizational change model is focused on "changing," while the more traditional social of Planned Change: A Comparative Study of Principles and Techniques (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1958). A great deal of descriptive re- search on planned organizational change has now been accomplished. One of the most outstanding examples of a careful case history of such a change is provided by Paul R. Lawrence, The Changing of Organizational Behavior Patterns; A Case Study of Decentralization (Boston; Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, 1958). The most encompassing presentation of the background, approaches, and dynamics of planned organizational change was published by Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin in 1962 in the form of a conceptually inte grated set of readings about this subject: The Planning of Change: Readings in the Applied Behavioral Sciences (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wins toil, 1962). One of the major thrusts in the planned organiza tional change literature is represented by the use of the T-Group labo ratory. This approach is well reviewed by Edgar H. Schein and Warren G. Bennis, Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods: The Laboratory Approach (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965); and Leland T. Bradford, T-Group Theory and Laboratory Methods: Innovation in Re- 'educatton (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964). A parallel approach has been developed by the Tavistock Group in Great Britain. The models of planned change toward more organic-adaptive organizations is clearly reflected in the Tom Burns and G. M. Stalker work: The Management of Innovation (London: The Tavistock Press, 1961). A brief but very en compassing review of the current status and prospects of planned change is presented by Warren G. Bennis in two recent publications: Changing Organizations, and "Theory and Method in Applying Behavioral Science to Planned Organizational Change," The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, I (October-November-December)^. 1965 , 337-60. The Garth N. Jones bibliography contains sources to most of this literature and is particularly rich in citations on case studies of planned change: Planned Organizational Change: A Set of Working Documents (Los Angeles Center for Research in Public Organization, School of Public Administra tion, University of Southern California, 1964). 69 science emphasis has been focused on "change." In this sense, the re search reported here is focused neither on models of "change" nor "changing," but rather "changefulness." That is, factors facilitating or inhibiting the capacity of organizations to adapt to change are to be investigated. Characteristics of Adaptive Organizations We have now considered some of the literature which was relevant to the development of the research reported here, with particular em phasis upon the models of change implicit within this literature. When one goes on to ask what organizational characteristics may play a role in affecting its capacity for adaptation one is confronted by a multi tude of dimensions that have been suggested as relevant. Turbulence of organizational environment, various situational and personality charac teristics of members, the nature of organizational tasks and goals, goal-setting processes, leadership-communication patterns, decision making procedures, organizational climate, influence patterns, problem solving styles, reward systems, degrees of cohesiveness, and other vari ables subsumed under the taxonomies of organizational characteristics have been suggested as having an impact on adaptation within an organi zation. The following discussion delineates a profile of the adaptive organization as visualized within the relevant literature. To prevent this profile from being duplicative of the discussion of specific hy potheses carried out in subsequent chapters the major parameters, char acteristics and attributes considered most relevant are introduced in 70 summary form. The major models and authors from which this profile is drawn are noted in the footnote below. Perhaps because of the already noted proclivity for dichotomous thought most authors visualize change and stability as two ends of a continuum. Specific variables tend to be analyzed in terms of their effect in promoting greater stability or flexibility. The place of an organization along this continuum is recognized to be analytically neu tral. More or less change becomes valuable only insofar as it supports the accomplishment of organizational purposes. Starbuck has put this well: "The well-adapted organization is one which matches the stability 5b of its problems set." As stated in Chapter II stability and change may both be "natural" tendencies of an organization, with the CO The "organic-adaptive" organization of Bennis, Changing Organ izations ; the consensus-collaboration model of Shepard, "Changing Inter personal and Intergroup Relationships," 1115-^3; the organizations char acterized by interpersonal competence and innovation in Argyris, Inte grating the Individual and the Organization and Organization and Inno vation; the "adapting-coping” organization model of Schein, Organiza tional Psychology; the model of organizational innovation of Victor A. Thompson, Modern Organization; the "organic" model of Jerald Hage in his article "An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, X (December, 1965), 289-320; the "self-renewing" organization of John W. Gardner in his Self-Renewal: The Individual and the Innova tive Society (New York: Harper and Row, 19&3) j the "participative style of Rensis Likert, The Human Organization: The Management and Value (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967); the "Theory 'Y'" of McGregor, Human Side; the "9/9" organizational style of Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton, Managerial Grid (Houston: Gulf Publishing, 196b); and the problem-solving model of Norman R. F. Maier in Problem-Solving Discus sions and Conferences: Leadership Methods and Skills (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963). 5b William H. Starbuck, "Organizational Growth and Development," in Handbook of Organizations, ed. by James G. March (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965), wl. 71 appropriate mix likely to vary between organizations, and within the same organization over time. Most authors, however, incline toward a position that organiza tions are now characterized by greater needs for developing flexibility to change rather than for dealing with stability. Dimock reflects both the commitment and the analytic disengagement: My thesis here is that bureaucracy is now in large supply and that enterprise is fading and needs to be restored; that the four main elements of bureaucracy are hierarchy, specialization, rules, and impersonality; and the four main ingredients of enterprise are in centive, idea, person, and process. Bureaucracy is formal and orderly and its strength is science and technology. Enterprise is personal and spontaneous and its strength is innovation and adapta tion to change. The weaknesses of bureaucracy are self-centered ness, the avoidance of personal responsibility, and a quest for power, often in petty ways. The weaknesses of enterprise are con fusion, lack of follow-through, and a disregard for system that ap proaches anarchy. Bureaucracy and enterprise compliment each other at essential points.55 Moving now to the general profile, adaptive organizations are visualized as having effective relationships with their environment. Their environments tend to serve as both sources of support and stimu lation. The organization is able to sense accurately the most relevant elements of its environment, and to accomplish adaptations that may be required on its part because of external change. The organization is able to meet environmental demands in return for the resource inputs it receives. The organization's structure and processes are intimately related to the relative degree of turbulence or stability characteristic of its environment. There is personal involvement and commitment on the part of ^Dimock, Administrative Vitality, 1-2. 72 organizational members to shared goals and objectives that are under stood and agreed upon. These goals tend to be modified or changed through succession rather than displacement. Members are involved both in goal-setting activities and the target-setting functions of estab lishing shorter run objectives. Members are able to influence the setting of major organizational purposes and directions. The amount of influence in this, as well as other areas, is not assumed to be con stant. All relevant actors are assumed to be able to increase their influence over decisions that affect them or the organization, without these increases resulting in a net loss of influence by other relevant actors. The organizational structure tends to be responsive to the na ture of the problems being dealt with, rather than fixed by historical circumstance. Organizational structure flows from tasks or objectives, and tends to change as these change. Working teams or task forces may be more important organizational forms than stable permanent organiza tional structures. Members tend to be differentiated on the basis of their skills and training in relation to the task at hand, rather than through formal ascribed roles or status. Organizational behavior tends to be characterized by concensus and collaboration rather than coercion or compromise. The management style employed tends to be group rather than individually centered. The formal leader is equally responsive to two primary reference groups: the group composed of his supervisor and peer managers, and the group composed of his subordinates. One of his primary roles is to act as an effective link or problem catalyst between these two groups and to develop commitment and concensus on objectives and problem resolution from these two points of reference. The leadership style tends to be both situationally and developmentally oriented, with the formal leader performing a primarily facilitative rather than directive role. Control mechanisms are built into the joint objectives setting and review pro cess. Communication is open and non-defensive. People contribute and are listened to according to the relevance of their contribution rather than their formal hierarchical position. Communication tends to be characterized by sharing and consultation rather than telling or direct ing. Emphasis is placed on the intelligence functions of seeking out information and feedback. High value is placed on reality orientation, and information tends to be tested, revised, or discarded when no longer accurate, rather than becoming frozen in myth. The decision-making style is focused on maximizing the availa bility of accurate and relevant information for problem definition. Relatively greater importance is placed on problem definition to avoid premature closure on decisions that may deal with symptoms rather than underlying causes. The focus of decisioning is on the innovation of solutions that maximize both organizational and personal needs. Deci sions are made at the place in the organization where information is most accurate and adequate. There is agreement on the styles of deci sioning appropriate to different categories of problems, with flexi bility in using different styles required by a problem's relevance, urgency, and other characteristics. There is broadly spread commitment to recognizing, defining and responding to the implications of problems 7b that are of an unprogrammed nature. Rather than being something to be ignored or suppressed, conflicts are recognized as inevitable and as providing the basis for developing more effective problem solutions. Relationships between members are characterized by trust, con fidence and helpfulness. Openness, commitment, involvement, freedom to experiment and take risks, and innovation example the kinds of attitudes and behaviors that are .rewarded and supported. People Eire assumed to have basic motivations which, if given opportunity for expression by the organization, work toward responsibility, self-expression, crea tivity, and heightened capacity for contribution to the organization. Opportunities for growth and development in these self-actualizing di rections are sought out and maximized within the organization. Indi vidual members tend to be sufficiently secure that self-actualizing motivations are able to become increasingly operative. This profile has reviewed some of the hypotheses and assumptions implicit in the literature on organizational adaptiveness. It should be stressed that the point of these ideas is not that they are "better," 56 but that they are facilitative of achieving organization adaptability. The specific hypotheses derived from this review are noted in the fiiml section of this chapter. Institutionalized Change Processes and Adaptiveness Technological innovation, management directive, and customer demand are the situations commonly assumed to require change on an 3 This point is pursued in Warren G. Bennis and Ehilip E. Slater. "Democracy is Inevitable," Harvard Business Review, XXXXII (March-April, : i 96* 0 , 51-9 . ____ . _________________________________________________________ 75 organization’s part. As outlined in Chapter II the typical meaning imputed to the concepts of adaptation and change is a responsive or re active one. Further, organizations are typically assumed to be sta bility or equilibrium seeking, and thus change tends to be conceived as the result of some form of disturbance or disequilibrium. If one as sumes, however, that organizations are increasingly confronted by mas sive change needs (as outlined in Chapter I) and that the negatively entropic model of change may not be completely descriptive (as outlined in Chapter II), then these changes in assumptions may have important implications for the study of adaptation capacity within organizations. One can begin to visualize organizations as inherently change ful, with varying degrees of capacity for recognizing and capitalizing upon developmental or change opportunities. In this sense organizations are not inherently stable, occasionally experiencing change; but rather basically changeful with purposes, structures, and other characteristics, solidifying for varying periods of time. Paradoxically within this model the major concern would be with institutionalizing processes of change rather than the patterns of structures characteristic of the evanescent periods of apparent solidity or equilibrium. The concept of institutionalization emerged to describe the "process through which human behavior is made predictable and patterned. Through this process social systems are given the elements of structure 57 and the processes of functions." That is, institutionalization has •^Charles P. Loomis, "Toward a Theory of Systematic Social Change," in Interprofessional Training Goals for Technical Assistance Personnel Abroad, ed, byVlrwin T. Sanders (New York: Council on Social fork' Education, 1959), 165-98._________________ _____________________ 76 referred to those regularized patterns which have been visualized as the most stable components of an organizational (social) system. It is suggested that the meaning of this concept might be broadened in recog nition of the fact that, for a possibly increasing number of organiza tions, change may be the most characteristic, regular and expected as pect of their existence. From this perspective an organization would attempt to institu tionalize change processes. That is, the organization would be de veloping programmed procedures for dealing with the unprogrammable. The capacity of an organization to adopt new goals, procedures, pro cesses, and relationships on a regularized basis would become critical. Adaptiveness would be visualized less as a reactive or responsive phe nomenon and more as a positive capacity to internally recognize and capitalize upon opportunities for growth and development. The critical variables would become the ability of the organizations to utilize the sources of innovation available to it, either internally or from its environment; in recognizing the opportunities for change, in defining critical parameters, in developing change, in implementing change, in testing and experimenting with change, and in dealing with consequences of change. Such self-generated, institutionalized change processes would rather explicitly attempt to cultivate the development of evolu tionary potentialities implicit within an organization. This capacity for the self-generation of change (as opposed to the response to or adaptation to change needs) has been recognized and discussed by several authors. It is of course modeled on the possibili ties of positive entropy in living-adapting systems discussed in the 77 preceding chapter. It is one of the major assumptions upon which Gardner’s proposals concerning organizational self-renewal are based.^ It is parallel to Victor Thompson’s proposal that the achievement of de velopment objectives is facilitated by adaptive administrative styles that incorporate the probability of constant change.^ In a sense, this concept of self-initiated institutionalized change processes within an organization is reflected in the planned or ganizational change literature under such concepts as "learning how to learn." While relatively little empirical work has been done in de fining and verifying those organizational characteristics which are most supportive of this organizational capacity, the planned organizational change literature increasingly articulates this as the primary objective of organizational development. Burns and Stalker describe some of the ways by which an organization might organize for continuing change and 60 innovation. Lippitt, Watson and Westley suggest that: There is one aspect of problem solving which is sometimes singled out for special attention and which is of particular interest to students of change. This is the characteristic of flexibility or, as it has sometimes been called, changeability. Some change agents consider this the key to the entire problem-solving process. They believe that if a system can be made sufficiently flexible first to recognize the changes indicated by the incoming information about itself or its environment and then to create new and effective pat terns to meet these changes, the system will be successful.Q-l 58 Gardner, Self-Renewal. co ^Victor A. Thompson, "Administrative Objectives for Develop ment Administration," Administrative Science Quarterly, IX (June, 196^), 21-108. 60 Burns and Stalker, Management of Innovation, 96-125. 6l Lippitt, Watson, and Westley, Dynamics of Planned Change, 63. 78 and Shepard that: . . . The purpose of changing in the direction of collaboration- concensus patterns is that the secondary assumptions facilitate growth, change and adaptation to new environmental challenges and opportunities. Coercion-compromise structures are subject to criti cism on just these grounds; bureaucratic structures are designed to do programmable things in a stable, predictable environment. More and more, the environment is unstable and rapidly changing. The present need is for modes of organization which permit rapid adapta tion to changing circumstances; the search is for ways in which people can organize for innovative, unprogrammable activities.&2 This concept of self-initiated change processes is related to, but not identical with, the question of organizational adaptiveness. Self-initiated changes are simply a subset of all adaptation processes. The home furnace analogy of cybernetic theory may clarify this differ ence. The furnace can be said to adapt in the sense that a thermostat responds to environmental change by starting or stopping the furnace. The furnace is not expected to self-initiate its own change, however. If the thermostat breaks the furnace is not expected to "realize" that a lack of on/off messages indicates anything other than that the house being heated continues to be too hot or too cold. In similar fashion, one might imagine that an organizational unit could respond to change (that is, in the fashion suggested by the scientific management movement using externally applied management plan ning techniques) without its members having any actual capacity for self1 initiation of their own collective change. Such an organization would experience acute difficulties with those problems dispersed among, or not recognized as relevant by, the external agency upon which it was 62 Herbert A. Shepard, "Changing Interpersonal and Intergroup Re lationships," uUi-nte. 79 dependent. On the other hand, one might imagine an organization whose adaptation was completely dependent on its own initiating capacities. If its initiating capacities were not sufficiently developed, or if they could not operate in a timely fashion, the organization might not appear as adaptive as one with highly effective external articulators of change requirements. It therefore appears useful to recognize that self-initiated change capacities are one form or source of organiza tional adaptability, but not the only one, and that each deserves inde pendent investigation. One would expect such an internalized self-change capacity to be particularly important within a research and development organization. Etzioni suggests in his analysis of compliance relationships, for example, that the professional members of such organizations tend to exercise greater control over goal-setting processes. ^ One would therefore expect that the change of goals would of necessity become more dependent on self-initiated processes of change, constrained but not de termined by exogenous factors. Formulation of Major Hypotheses This dissertation focused upon the exploration of a number of propositions and the test of three major hypotheses. The three hypo theses that were tested, stated in their general form are specified below. The ways in which they were further subdivided, and given greater specificity, are outlined in Chapter V where the results of the go rAmitai Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organiza tions (New York: The Free Press, 1961). 8o research are presented. The null form is used. Hypothesis I: There is no significant relationship between an organization's capacity to self-initiate its own change and its capacity for adaptation. Hypothesis II: There is no significant relationship between an organization’s capacity for adaptation and its effec tiveness. Hypothesis III: There is no significant relationship between an organization’s capacity for adaptation and the charac teristics of its environment, internal system or mem bers. The procedures by which these hypotheses were made operational and subsequently tested are reviewed in the following chapter. The research findings are reported and analyzed in Chapter V. The limita tions and implications of the findings are discussed in Chapter VI. 81 CHAPTER IV THE RESEARCH APPROACH Having now considered the major theoretical perspectives under lying this research; the literature out of which the concepts of adap tiveness, effectiveness and self-initiation of change emerged; and hav ing specified the major hypotheses to be tested; we turn to the ques tion of how these issues were dealt with empirically. This chapter provides a review of the research design and the choices related to its derivation and execution. The Research Site To control for inter-organizational differences not necessarily related to the main research interest a large research and development laboratory was chosen as the site for this research. The laboratory chosen encompassed a variety of work, technical skills, and organiza tional styles, all of which were set within a common management struc ture and overall mission. The U.S. Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS), located at China Lake, California was responsible for work ranging from basic research, to weapons systems development, to production contract monitoring, to remedying problems encountered in fleet usage of NOTS developed ord nance. The basic Mission of this Laboratory was defined by the parent 1 organization, the Naval Air Systems Command. At the time of this research the NOTS laboratory employed 82 approximately 1200 civilian scientists and engineers. The laboratory was unusual in that its isolated location had resulted in the develop ment of a professionally oriented community of some 12,000 persons liv ing in a government-owned community. This isolated location resulted from decisions made at the time of the Laboratory’s inception in the closing days of World War II. The Navy Department had initiated a contract with the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California during World War II to carry out research and development operations for which the Navy had no adequate in-house capability. This integration of military needs, industrial contracting capabilities and the tecbnological/scientific resources of the university was felt to be effective, and the decision was made to continue to develop it in the post-war period. During the war it had also seemed effective to integrate the research, development, test, and evaluation spectrum of activities in one laboratory. This enabled the rapid translation of ideas into hardware, with test and evaluation pos sible in the same location. The Sampling Plan The major portion of the technical work of NOTS was carried out by eight technical departments. Because this research was directed spe cifically toward research and development organizations, the specific organizations to be studied were drawn from these large technical ^At the time the study was initiated the Naval Ordnance Test Station was one of the field activities of the U.S. Navy Bureau of Weapons. Effective May 1, 1966, this Bureau, among others, was re organized into a set of Naval Commands. 83 departments. It was decided to focus on six of these departments as one was concerned primarily with a technical information function and a second was physically located in an Annex some 130 miles distant. In large part, these six technical departments were organized into Divisions, with these Divisions usually further subdivided into Branches. There were some Groups of approximately Branch size, that reported directly to the Department level. It was decided to take as the organizational unit of analysis these Branches and Groups which con stituted the primary organizational unit for carrying out research and development work. Branches and Groups ranged in size from one to twenty-seven members. Within the larger Branches further subdivision occasionally occurred, either formally recognized by the existence of Sections, or more frequently through more informal groupings of persons working on common problems. These Branches and Groups, because of their relatively small size, their common existence throughout the technical departments, their closeness to the actual research and development work, and their discrete character, were chosen as the unit of analysis in preference to the larger and more diffuse Divisions and Departments, and the relatively uncommon Section level organizations. One's choice of a unit of analysis reflects a number of assump tions and often implicit decisions. Some of the implications of having chosen these Branches and Groups as the analytical unit may be seen by comparing this choice with the one made by Argyris in his related work on innovation in organization which was also carried out, in part, in jresearch and development organizations. Argyris took several "suppos- I 2 edly innovative organizations" and studied them to see if the sources eh of innovation could be explained. He also chose to focus his attention on the top management behavior of these organizations, explaining his decision in these terms: ... I have suggested that the lower one goes down in the hierarchy of organizations, the greater the probability that behavior is con trolled by systems of technology, organizational structure, and managerial controls. The higher up in the organizational hierarchy one goes, and the less programmed or routine the activity, the less influence these factors tend to have over behavior and the more will interpersonal relationships tend to become the crucial variables.3 In the research reported here it was decided not to commence with a sui generis definition of an innovative organization, and then explain this assumed innovativeness. It was assumed rather that re search and development organizations may vary in their innovative or adaptive capabilities, and that this variability needed to be discovered and explored, rather than assumed and explained. It was also decided that a lower level (suborganization) within a research and development laboratory would be the locus of concern. This choice was based on the relatively more amorphous and complex character of the relationships aggregated at the upper levels of an organization. At these higher levels it would have been more difficult to specifically test associa tions between adaptiveness and other factors. The assumption that the higher in a hierarchy one goes the less programmed the activity seems at best to be supportable only in a lim ited sense. In a research and development milieu one might argue in O Chris Argyris, Organization and Innovation (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, and the Dorsey Press, I9S5), 1. 3Ibid., 2 . 85 fact that the closer one gets in the hierarchy to work focused on build ing and using complex technologies, the more unprogrammed the activity; while the closer one gets to the top of the hierarchy where overall al locative and planning decisions are made, the more programmed the ac tivity. In addition, it was thought that a study limited only to fac tors of interpersonal competence would prematurely foreclose such po tentially relevant issues as the nature of technology, organizational structure, and managerial controls. Several criteria were used in choosing the specific sample of Branches and Groups to be studied. A pool was constructed containing all Branches and Groups within the six technical Departments as of De cember 1965. Because of the primary interest in research and develop ment organizations (as opposed, for example, to units composed of tech nicians and mechanics performing electronic or machine support work), Branches and Groups which did not have over half professional member- h ship were eliminated from the pool. Because the theoretical model employed conceptualized organiza tions as the patterned interaction of members with each other and their environments, data had to be collected from these individuals. Branches and Groups with fewer than three members were eliminated from considera tion, on the assumption that it would have been highly artificial to deal with patterned organizational behavior in one or two person A professional was defined as a person who had a Bachelor's degree or higher in a science, engineering, or mathematics field. 86 "groups"."^ Because a number of hypotheses dealt with management style considerations all Branches and Groups were eliminated whose Head had only recently (within the previous year) assumed that responsibility. The resulting pool of Branch and Group level organizations which met each of the criteria outlined above totaled llU. Since some hypo theses were to be explored that focused on the nature of work performed by an organization it was desirable to achieve a sample of organizations relatively evenly distributed across a basic-research/applied-engineer- ing continuum. Since the six technical departments were roughly con tiguous on such a continuum it was decided to employ a stratified random sampling procedure. Each department was allocated six "places” in the final pool. A random number table was then employed to draw the six specific Branches or Groups from each Department. As one Branch was unable to participate this selection process resulted in a final sample of thirty-five Branches and Groups. To preserve the anonymity both of organizations and individual respondents each of these Branches and Groups was arbitrarily assigned a number. Column one of Appendix A is a listing of these thirty-five or ganizations. The thirty-five Branches and Groups included 3^7 people, Measures of central tendency, of course, decrease in utility as the N of a sampled population decreases. Two points must be kept in mind in relation to this problem of making inferences about organiza tions from data gathered from individual members. Measures of variation need to be inspected in addition to measures of central tendency. Also, because of the complete, or near complete, questionnaire return rates, these Us can be treated as populations or universes rather than as sam ples. For an enlarged discussion of this type of methodological prob lem, see David Gold, "Some Problems in Generalizing Aggregate Associa tions," The American Behavioral Scientist, VIII (December, 196^), 16-8. Also see the Analysis Plan discussion in the latter part of this chap ter. br an average of approximately ten persons per organization, with the j | ; range being from three to twenty-two. These membership figures turned j • I but to be more elusive than one might expect. They did not necessarily • I ( correspond to the formal employment totals shown in the laboratory rec- : brds. Persons not physically present (on extended assignments to other j | j organizations, on educational and other forms of extended leave) were hot included as members even though they would appear on the formal ! j i laboratory roster of employees. Others not included on formal rosters were included, however, i such as persons who had worked for extended periods as members of the i ; | ; Branch (more than three months) but who had not been formally reassigned! : i to their new organizational location. Some cases posed by Contract em- i i- ployees were especially difficult to resolve. These were persons em- ! i i ployed by a contractor, rather than the Laboratory, who worked as full j f members of the Branch or Group. Six such persons were included in the | J ! sample, on the basis that they had worked uninterruptedly in the Branch 1 or Group for more than one year, and were in the process of being con- t ' verted to Civil Service status. Others, whose periods of service were J I i i jnot of this nature, were excluded. ! | Data Collection j Having selected the sample of thirty-five organizations, data \ were gathered to answer two essential questions. First, to what extent I were these organizations adaptive, effective, and jself-initiating of ' their own change? Second, what were the characteristics of these or- | ! I ganizations which most strongly associated with their relative levels of! 88 adaptiveness? Both of these questions were recognized as relative ones. With the large variations found in these organizations in the type of work, type of management, type of personnel, type of structure, type of problems and many other factors it was not feasible to establish abso lute criteria to answer either question. With both questions the focus was on gathering information general enough to encompass all thirty-five organizations, and specific enough to apprehend the reality of each situation. The intent was to gather information which would establish the relative adaptability of these organizations, and the relative strength of the hypothesized variables among the sampled organizations. Data about these organizations were gathered from four sources: the information and perceptions of the management hierarchy above these Branches and Groups (Department and Division Heads); the members of the Branches and Groups (including the Heads of these organizations); the persons outside of these Branches and Groups with whom most frequent work relationships existed; and finally, information contained in the formal records of the laboratory (for example, personnel and financial information). The data obtained from the first three sources were largely perceptual; that is, more questions were asked about perceptions and feelings than for objective bits of data. It was felt that the hy pothesized variables of greatest interest were ones that could be best tested in this fashion. How the respondent perceived and experienced the conditions and variables being explored was the primary data base. The sequence of data gathering included six major steps. First, a series of interviews was conducted with the persons in management positions directly above the sampled Branches and Groups. Second, 89 interviews were conducted with each of the Heads of the sampled Branches and Groups. Third, questionnaire data were collected from the members of the sampled organizations (including the Heads), focused on two is sues: changes and adaptations perceived as having occurred in that spe cific Branch or Group in the previous year, and the identification of persons outside of the Branch or Group with whom the respondent had most frequent work contact. Fourth, the list of persons identified as fre quent points of work contact in the environment of the sampled organi zation was used as a sampling pool, and a second questionnaire was sent to them collecting information about their perception of the Branch or Group which had identified them, in terms of the changes and adaptations which they perceived as well as a number of overall questions about the processes and characteristics of the primary Branch or Group. Fifth, a third questionnaire was used to collect data from the members (including the Heads) of the sampled Branches and Groups, this time focused on the data needed to establish the independent variables for hypotheses test ing. Sixth, information was collected from laboratory records on such issues as age, grade levels, salaries, tenure, training, financial changes, etc. Each of these six major data gathering steps will now be described in somewhat more detail. A preliminary set of unstructured interviews was held with the Associate Technical Director and each of the Heads of the six technical Departments. These interviews had three purposes: outlining the objec tives of the research proposal and design; eliciting the cooperation of these managers in the commitment of the time of their personnel; and getting their perceptions about the kinds of things their experience as 90 research and development managers might indicate would most directly affect the capacity of such organizations to adapt to change. These interviews suggested several new hypotheses as well as sharpening others already a part of the research design. Following these preliminary interviews, the formal data gather ing began with a structured interview held with each of the twenty-four Associate Department Heads and Division Heads to whom one of the Branches or Groups drawn in the sample reported. Several Division Heads had more than one of their Branches drawn in the random sample. These interviews had multiple objectives. In addition to describing the re search study and eliciting their cooperation, a two-page schedule was completed at the time of this interview. This set of questions, included as Appendix B, was designed to familiarize the researcher with the work of the Branch or Group more thoroughly than was possible from reading functional statements and other published materials. This interview schedule provided a sense of work being done, its variety, and a number of the overall characteris tics of the Branch or Group. The questions on page three of Appendix B, for example, were designed to obtain a sense of the amount of effort being invested by a given Branch or Group in different areas of research and development work, visualized as a continuum from quite basic re search to operational system development work. These categories were ones used by the Department of Defense for funding purposes and as such they possessed some intuitive meaning for the Division and Associate Department Heads who prepared budget submissions in these terms. Thirty-five semi-structured interviews of the same nature were 91 then conducted, with each of the Heads of the Branches and Groups which had "been drawn in the sample. The same interview schedule (Appendix B) was used, and these data were collected. At the conclusion of these interviews the administration of the first questionnaire was scheduled within each of the thirty-five Branches and Groups. The first formal questionnaire, Appendix C, was developed for administration to the members of the thirty-five organizations in the study. It was designed using the systems model outlined in Chapter II to test the extent to which, during the previous year, the members per ceived change (having taken place, being needed, being self-initiated, and being worthwhile) in the six system characteristics of; goals, out put, input, internal processes, internal relationships, and external re lationships . Item one on this questionnaire, for example, inquired about the extent to which the goals of the Branch or Group were perceived to have changed. A nine-point scale was used in choosing an answer, ranging from "1" which indicated "not at all" as a response, to "9" which indi cated "completely" as a response. In each case the point of reference was the specific Branch or Group of which the person was a member. This questionnaire was also designed to gather some preliminary evaluative perceptions from organizational members as well as a list of the per sons, if any, outside the specific Branch or Group with whom the re spondent had frequent work contact, particularly in requesting work or being requested to do work. This first questionnaire evolved through a number of revised drafts and the final form was pretested in several Branches and Groups 92 of the type involved in the study. Though the original assumption had been that this instrument would be completed by all members of the Branch or Group (who had been a member for more than three months to provide a familiarity with the organization) the pretests indicated that there were often sharp differences between perceptions of clerical per sonnel and the other organizational members. This questionnaire was therefore given to all members of the selected Branches or Groups who had worked in the Branch or Group for more than three months with the exception of secretaries or clerical personnel. The final figures for organization membership included in the sample are the ones shown in column two of Appendix A. The administration of the first questionnaire took place at an individually scheduled Branch or Group meeting where the members, the Head, and the researcher were present. This author described the re search project briefly, outlined the time commitments involved and an swered questions. Following this introduction the members (including the Head) completed the first instrument. Members not present that day completed the questionnaire when they returned to work, with a followup letter being sent to non-respondents after ten days had elapsed. As Appendix A reflects, there were 3^7 members of the selected Branches and Groups who were eligible to complete this first (approximately thirty minute) instrument. Completed questionnaires were received from 337 persons or slightly over 97$» as indicated by column three of Appendix A. One of the issues discussed in the introduction to these ses sions was that of anonymity. Each of the participants was assured that 93 his individual responses would be treated anonymously. In addition the participants were assured that data about their specific Branch or Group would also be anonymous in the sense that none of the results would be identified with a particular Branch or Group. They, and only they, received feedback specifically identified with their particular organization. Other forms of feedback and the research findings would be reported in organizationally unidentified terms. This was felt to be necessary to assure the openness and frankness of response that was desirable. 4 The second questionnaire, Appendix D, was developed to test the perceptions of persons outside the sampled Branches and Groups who had frequent work contact with some member or members of that organization; that is, the persons making up the salient environment of the organiza tion. It was designed, pretested, and revised to test many of the same issues covered on the first questionnaire, but from an environmental perspective. In addition to the perceptions of change (occurrence, need, self-initiation by organizational members, and worthwhileness) this instrument had a number of items of a more generally evaluative nature. The frame of reference from which the respondent answered was his knowledge of the specific Branch or Group, one or more of whose members had nominated him as a point of frequent work contact. A pool of environmental names was constructed from the responses to the first questionnaire of persons nominated as points of frequent work contact for each of the sampled Branches and Groups. A specific sample was then constructed for each Branch and Group of those environ mental persons who appeared to be most likely to be knowledgeable about 9b the given Branch or Group. One of the inherent difficulties of this sample was that it was limited, for logistic reasons, to persons within the NOTS laboratory. Many of the Branches and Groups had points of fre quent work contact in other laboratories, in the parent Bureau of Naval Weapons, in contractor organizations and in universities. These possi bilities were not included. The sample of environmental names always included the Division or Associate Department Head to whom the Branch or Group reported. It also always included any person mentioned by more than one Branch or Group member as a point of frequent contact. Because the lists in the environmental sample pools included a number of persons who were points of frequent contact, but who appeared as if they might not be intimately knowledgeable about the total Branch or Group (such as persons in ma chine shops or the supply departments who were frequently asked to do work), each of the Branch and Group Heads was subsequently asked to name the six persons outside the Branch or Group whom he felt would be most knowledgeable about the total Branch or Group. The final environmental sample for each organization included a.n multiple mentions, all immediate supervisors, a random sampling of single mentions up to a total of fifteen persons, and then any names mentioned by the Branch or Group Head as knowledgeable persons which had not already been included were added (this later category tended to add one or two names on average to each organization's environmental sample) Because of the variation between organizations in the extent of environ mental differentiation, and because of the variation in the number of multiple mentions, the final environmental samples ranged in size from 95 ten to twenty-three persons, as reflected in column five of Appendix A. The total environmental sample for all Branches and Groups rep resented 589 "mentions". The word "mentions" (rather than persons) is used because, though most people received only one of the second ques tionnaires to complete, some were mentioned by more than one Branch or Group as a point of frequent work contact. The most extreme case was one person who was on the environmental sampling lists of five separate Branches or Groups as a point of frequent work contact. Slightly over 90$ of these (ten to fifteen minutes for completion) mailed second ques tionnaires were returned; but 10^ were marked indicating the respondent, for a variety of reasons, felt insufficiently familiar with the Branch or Group (that had initiated his name) to complete this instrument. As a result the 475 questionnaires completed represented slightly over 8C$> of the original sample. The third questionnaire, Appendix E, was developed, pretested and administered to the members of the sampled Branches and Groups. This instrument focused on items designed to be used as independent variables in hypothesis testing. Most items were of a perceptual nature and were answered either with a check on Likert type scales, or the in sertion of a number from the nine-point scale ranging from "l" indicat ing the answer to the question was "not at all" to a "9" indicating the answer to the question was "completely". In addition, this instrument had some objective questions such as the length of service in the spe cific Branch or Group (a surprisingly difficult fact to discover since so many persons move between organizations in the Laboratory on unre corded, temporary, and informal assignments). The administration of 96 this instrument followed the same procedure as with the first question naire, that is, a Branch or Group meeting to answer any questions was followed by the completion of the thirty-minute instrument by members, with subsequent followup on those not present. While this sequence of interviews and questionnaire completions was in progress, organizational, financial and personnel data were gathered from available laboratory records relevant to these sampled g Branches and Groups. These data were also collected for use in inde pendent-variable construction and included such things as average or ganizational tenure of members, average grade levels, extent of turn over, promotional rates, amount of formal training, financial changes, and other such factors. The data gathered from the latter five information sources (ex cluding the unstructured interview data) were then transcribed to punch cards for data analysis purposes. While these data were available in both individual respondent and aggregate form for each of the thirty- five organizations, the analysis plan described in the following section does not require their detailed presentation. Appendix F presents a portion of the most relevant data in teams of average individual re sponses for the total sample as well as range and median figures based on average responses from and about each of the thirty-five g The collection of dependent variable data from members at time-L, data from environmentals at time2, and independent variable data from members at timeg was of course a source of unknown error. The pro cedure was, however, necessitated by the need to minimize the intnr-- siveness of the research upon the Laboratory as a whole. Given the ex ploratory nature of this research and the relative shortness of the time elapsed between timei and timeq it is hoped that these potential effects of ma/rcnna. 1 importance. J _ _________________________________ 97 organizations. The data array reflected in Appendix F was used as a portion of the feedback provided to participating organizations at the conclusion of the study. Analysis Flan The major portion of data used in this research was based on at- titudinal and perceptual indicators developed within a survey research procedure. The treatment of such data in analytical and statistical terms has long been the subject of controversy. The assumptions upon which the data analysis in this research are based need to be understood in terms of the more general question of dealing with survey research data. Survey Research and Statistical Analysis One of the most vexing problems confronting man has been the epistemological question of what is knowable. This issue has been par ticularly difficult in the social sciences where open-systems, with a multiplicity of variables, have made the drawing of inferences especi ally difficult, even where such powerful processes as randomization have been introduced in experimental situations. Controversy has developed about the use of the tools of statistical inference where rigorous ex perimental controls have not been possible, particularly in survey re search. Lazarsfeld has suggested that survey research has three distinc tive features, including: its quantitative nature; the researcher de signs and uses his own data-gathering devices; and it is focused on people’s behavior and attitudes in real life situations rather than 98 constructed experimental situations. In his classic volume on survey design and analysis (part III particularly) Hyman considers the ways in which hypothesis testing may be carried out with such non-experimental 8 studies. Lazarsfeld also discusses the use of logical and statistical modes of analysis to discover and explore potential causal relationships reflected in survey data, particularly through the use of cross-tabula- g tion procedures. Certainly much of the survey research literature has been based on the assumption that survey data is susceptible to analysis by inferential statistics. Selvin, however, poses some very difficult questions concerning the appropriateness of testing survey data with inferential statistical procedures."^ He is not concerned in his criticism with the technical errors in statistical procedure which can easily be corrected, or with the processes of using statistics to describe a population on the basis of a sample. He is concerned rather with the application of signifi cance tests to explanatory empirical studies based upon survey data. Selvin*s position is that: . . . the conditions under which tests of significance may validly be used are almost impossible of fulfillment in sociological re search . . . and that, even where these conditions are met, the 7 Phul F. Lazarsfeld, "Evidence and Inference in Social Re search, 1 1 in Evidence and Inference, ed. by Daniel Lerner (New York: The Free Press, 1958), 107. g Herbert H. Hyman, Survey Design and Analysis (New York: The Free Press, 1955). ^Lazarsfeld, "Evidence and Inference," 125-32. 10Hanan C. Selvin, "A Critique of Tests of Significance in Survey Research," American Sociological Review, XXH (October, 1957)> 519-27. 99 nature of the research situation faced by sociologists is such that correct inferences from the tests are equally difficult to reach.11 This difficulty is seen to stem from problems inherent in designing ap propriate procedures for testing hypotheses, and in the interpretation 12 of these tests. The problems of design are centered on the question of experi mental control. Statistical techniques have been developed for con trolling what can be controlled, and randomizing the uncontrollable. Selvin feels that every explanatory experimental design is based on the principle of randomization, but that one is seldom able truly to ran domize (except perhaps in such limited cases as experimental research on small groups in laboratory situations). He points out that random sampling may or may not control for the systematic effect of uncon trolled variables between any given two groups. Random sampling in two different groups will provide no assurance of randomization if the pos sibility exists that the groups are systematically different from each other in some way other than the independent and dependent variables being investigated. ''Where two groups are sampled without randomiza tion there is no statistical procedure for assessing the possible ef- 13 fects of the uncontrolled variables." This has the consequence of introducing an unknown number of systematic or correlated biases, whose significance remains unknowable. "But only when all important i:LIbid., 520. 12Ibid. 1 3Ibid., 522. 100. correlated biases have been controlled is it legitimate to measure the possible influence of random errors by statistical tests of signifi cance. These tests must be the last step in statistical analysis, not nk the first.'* Even though Selvin is prepared to admit theoretically that tests of significance have a place in non-experimental research, he feels that three factors limit the possibility of completely removing the corre lated biases: 1. It is hard, if not impossible, to get a sufficient number of cases; 2. All variables known to be relevant may not be included; 3. Some variables are so 'confounded' with those being studied that they cannot be controlled.15 Since the confounding influence of correlated biases does not seem to be removable in most survey research designs, and since so many potentially non-random sources of variation of unknown strength or direction remain unexplored, Selvin concludes that the use of statistical tests of sig nificance is at best a premature step. Selvin feels, in addition, that even if one were able to control all of the correlated biases through adequate research design, equally severe problems in interpretation would remain. These problems of in terpretation tend to fall into the three areas of meaning, random pro cesses, and selection. In the case of meaning, Selvin feels that con fusion exists between the concepts of statistical and substantive 15Ibid., 522-3. 101 significance. In the former case the concept of significance has a negative connotation, in that "the level of significance of a differ ence between two groups is the frequency with which a difference as large as, or larger than, the observed value would occur if (l) there were actually no difference between the populations from which the groups were drawn, and (2) the only factors operating to differentiate the two groups is random." The problem develops when this negative meaning (that the differences were not likely to have happened by chance alone) is given a positive substantive interpretation (as if there were assurance that correlated biases were known not to be opera tive). Confusing statistical with substantive significance also occurs because the findings are dependent on sample size; for example, large relative size differences may be substantively more important in small samples (even though statistical significance is not achieved because of small sample size) than statistically significant differences in large samples based upon relatively smaller gross differences. The second major problem in interpretation arises from the na ture of random processes. Problems in this area nay arise in the sample selection, in the responses to questions, and in the processing of re sponses. Achieving truly random sample selection is of course a for midable task, and such factors as the frequent interaction between sam ple or population members tends to reduce the possibility that their response errors are independent. On the other hand, it may be appro priate to ignore these problems if their chance of occurrence has 16 Selvin, "A Critique of Tests of Significance in Survey Re- search," 523. ___________________________________ 102 systematically been reduced to negligible proportions.17 A third major problem in interpretation arises from the pro cesses of selection. Because of the richness of survey data, many hy potheses are formulated after data have been collected and examined, and then "tested” on the same data that have suggested them. This may pro duce apparent relationships or associations between variables that may have no relationship to the true levels of significance of these rela tionships. The cutting points for col lapsing data tables are also some times manipulated, even though this is appropriate only for isotropic tables. In conclusion Selvin argues that: !Di design and in interpretation, in principle and in practice, tests of statistical significance are inapplicable in non-experimental re search. Sociologists would do better to re-examine their purposes in using the tests and try to devise better methods of achieving these purposes than to continue to resort to techniques that are at best misleading for the kinds of empirical research in which they are principally engaged.19 In 1958 Gold agreed with Selvin*s major theses, but suggested two modifications. First, Gold points out that one is often confronted with the task of establishing whether or not a difference exists between two populations, and in this process the use of tests of significance on survey data are appropriate. He argues that establishing whether or not a simple difference exists may not be very important, but that it does constitute a legitimate use of significance tests. Second, Gold ex presses the concern that Selvin*s point that a larger degree of 17Ibid., 52k. l8Ibid., 526-7. 19Ibid., 5 2 7. 1Q3 difference in a small sample may be substantively more important (though not statistically significant) than a small difference in a larger sample (that is statistically significant), might lead some people to prefer the use of small samples. In fact, interesting relationships in small samples should always be subsequently explored in larger samples 20 where their significance may be more rigorously tested. Selvin responded by agreeing completely with Gold on this latter point. On the first issue Selvin agreed that tests of significance could be used to establish the presence or absence of difference, but only insofar as the difference in fact reflects some characteristic of the respondent, rather than some uncontrolled characteristic of the in- 21 terview or survey procedure. Later in 1958 Beshers suggested that Selvin had confused statis tical inference with causal inference. Beshers argued that statistical inferences may be used to establish descriptive generalizations and to unravel causal relationships by identifying important factors, estab lishing the relationship between these factors, and by testing hypothe- 22 ses about these factors. Selvin responded that he had not confused statistical and causal relationships, and that the latter had been the focus of his argument. He suggested that Beshers1 statement that one needs to know all 20 Gold, “Problems in Generalizing Aggregate Associations," 58. 21Ibid. 22 James M. Beshers, "On *A Critique of Tests of Significance in Survey Research'," American Sociological Review, XXIII (April, 1958), L99- lol* important factors was a platitude, and that in fact there are ways to effectively deal with potential correlated biases if sufficient atten tion were paid to the need for randomization. This exchange of corres pondence sharply focused the issue of what is knowable in the causal sense. Beshers argued that in the final analysis both survey and ex perimental research are equally dependent upon theory, since both re search modes imply a knowledge of the relevant variables, and the poten tial correlated biases. In this regard Beshers suggested that cross tabbing was a useful procedure only to establish the relationship be tween factors, while Selvin felt that such a procedure was useful for testing hypotheses if assumptions about randomization and his other 23 points could be met. Still later in 1958 McGinnis undertook an extensive critique of Selvin1s arguments. The purpose of McGinnis' critique is reflected in his appraisal of Selvin*s contribution: If his critical appraisal causes sociologists to re-examine their research procedures, Selvin will be due a great deal of credit. But if same are convinced that his conclusion is correct, and if they act accordingly, the results could be disastrous for quanti tative sociology.”^ * Noting that Selvin had expressed concern about the two major issues, of research designs that could achieve randomization, and of the problems of interpretation, McGinnis proceeds to dismiss the latter on the basis that because naive people might misinterpret tests of significance does pll Robert McGinnis, "Randomization and Inference in Sociological Research," American Sociological Review, XXIII (August, 1958), 4o8. 105 not make the tests in themselves wrong, and then focuses on the former issue: Such problems of interpretation, or more properly of misinterpre tation, are real and important, and Selvin's discussion of them is a genuine contribution. But they have nothing whatsoever to do with the admissability of significance tests in sociological research . . . The critical problem for sociologists, then, in Selvin*s view, rests in the fact that the experimental procedure of randomi zation is impossible in most of their research.^5 Using an example involving an independent, a dependent and a confounding variable, McGinnis explores the mathematics of randomiza tion. He demonstrates that the two parameters represented by the asso ciation between the independent and confounding variable, and the con founding and the dependent variable are such that, whenever either takes the value zero, the difference between the means of the independent classes also become zero. He then shows that the process of randomiza tion has the effect of setting the first parameter equal to zero. Ifti- like Selvin, McGinnis argues that these parameters need investigation, 26 rather than elimination through research design. In considering the appropriateness of statistical tests of sig nificance, McGinnis then argues that Selvin tries to deal on a proced ural level, when the critical question lies at the substantive level. He feels that Selvin does not understand that there are different classes of hypotheses, particularly in teims of their conditionality, including: 25Ibid. 26Ibid., * f 0 9. 1 0$ Type I - An absolute hypothesis (no conditions established regard ing the relationships of the variables under consideration to any other); Type II- A finitely conditional hypothesis (requiring a condition of statistical independence between the independent and de pendent variables and a finite number of confounding vari ables); Type III-An infinitely conditional hypothesis (same as II but for an infinite number of confounding variables).27 McGinnis feels that Selvin has implied a search for "general ized" relationships that are independent of population, time and space, which is not possible. The extent to which any given relationship is generalized to other populations always remains an empirical issue, rather than a known phenomenon. In a search for the level of "truth" implied by a Type III hypothesis he feels that Selvin has experienced difficulties by confusing the descriptive, explanatory or causal nature of different hypotheses. Only the Type III hypothesis requires that all correlated biases be controlled, which of course can be accomplished only by randomization. Since no significance tests of themselves re quire the removal of an correlated biases, the statistical test of all 28 hypotheses do not require the procedure of randomization. McGinnis feels that trying to limit all sociological investiga tion to the testing of Type III causal hypotheses would be inappropri ate, in some cases impossible, and would deny the utility of descriptive information which may have heuristic and predictive value. While agree ing with Selvin that increasing use of randomization is important, McGinnis argues that meanwhile much else can be accomplished, such as 27Ibid., 411. 28Ibid., 411-3. 107 maximizing statistical controls, the use of more sophisticated sampling plans, and the development of better measuring instruments with more 2g powerful scaling properties. In 1959 Kish presented a quite comprehensive and succinct criti cism of Selvin*s thesis. Kish posits that: , r The control of an rele vant variables is a goal seldom even approached in practice. To post pone to that distant goal all statistical tests illustrates that often the perfect is the enemy of the good. 1,30 Kish proceeds to suggest the utility of sorting sources of vari- 31 ation into four classes: 1. Explanatory variables— experimental independent and dependent variables; 2. Controlled variables— those extraneous to the research aims con trolled in the selection and estimation procedures; 3. Confounded variables— also extraneous, but uncontrolled and con founded with the explanatory variables; U. Randomized variables— also extraneous uncontrolled variables which are treated as randomized errors. In the "ideal" experiment all the confounded variables have been turned into controlled variables by efficient design, or into randomized vari ables by randomization, and clearly separated from explanatory variables by control procedures. Statistical tests can then be used to distin guish between the effects of explanatory and randomized variables. The problem with survey research is that the critical differences between 2g McGinnis, "Randomization and Inference in Sociological Re search," 413-4. OQ Leslie Kish, "Some Statistical Problems in Research Design," American Sociological Review. XXIV (June, 1959)> 331. 3 1Ibid., 3 2 9-3 0. I 108; ! j jexplanatory and confounded variables tend to be ignored in comparison j With randomized variables. Discussing the implications of this in the j use of statistical tests, Kish states: The separation of (explanatory) from (confounded) variables should j be determined in accord with the nature of the hypothesis with which j the researcher is concerned; finding and measuring the effects of ; confounding variables . . . tax the ingenuity of research scien- j | tists. But this separation is beyond the functions and capacities ! of the statistical tests, the tests of null hypotheses. Their func-; tion is not explanation; they cannot point to causation. Their function is to ask: "Is there anything in the data that needs ex- | plaining?"— and to answer this question with a certain probability?2 i Having refuted much of the theoretical significance of Selvin's argu ment, Kish proceeds to advance some of the same cautions about the po tential misuse of statistical tests: in simply hunting for relation ships with a shotgun approach; in confusing statistical with substantive^ j | significance; and in the tendency to use the weakest of weak null hypo- ' [theses, only that there is no difference, rather than specifying the di- i jrection and magnitude of relationships that must exist before a rela- ^ f ^ tionship becomes substantively important. ^ j i j i j Having distinguished between experiments, surveys, and inves- I I jtigations, Kish also points out that: i | Experiments are strong on control through randomization; but they j are weak on representation (and sometimes on the naturalism of measurement). Surveys are strong on representativeness, but they are often weak on control. Investigations are weak on control and j often weak on representation ... In practice one generally cannot; solve simultaneously all of the problems of measurement, represen- j tation and control; rather, one must choose and compromise .3** 32Ibid., 331. 33Ibid., 335-8. 3\bid., 332-**. ;He then proceeds to suggest ways in which this can be accomplished. | Consistently with Kish and McGinnis, Blalock concludes that: j To emphasize that the advantages of randomization in experimental situations are only relative and never absolute, as compared with the results obtained in nonexperimental studies, we must stress the j fact that only certain types of confounding variables can be elim inated through randomization. Incidentally, we would also argue | j that the simple rule that significance tests are appropriate only j in experimental situations is highly misleading.35 I j Owing to the inherent nature of the scientific method, there is a gap between the language of theory and research. Causal inferences I belong on the theoretical level, whereas actual research can only establish covariations and temporal sequences. As a result, we can ! never actually demonstrate causal laws empirically. This is true even where experimentation is possible. Causal laws are working assumptions of scientist, involving hypothetical statements of the I if-then variety.3o ; In conclusion, Selvin's attack on the usage of tests of sta- j tistical significance with survey research data seem to have been only ! j 'partially deserved. His cautions about the potential misuse of tests ofj i i I [statistical significance would seem to be beneficial. His position that) ! 1 i J such tests are meaningless until the assumptions of randomization have j i i been met would appear to have been refuted under the conditions de- j iscribed by Blalock, Kish, McGinnis, Beshers, and Gold. In seme cases, ! I ! ■particularly as pointed out by Blalock and Kish, nonexperimental survey j ! j research is able to accomplish objectives which are probably logically denied to the rigorous experiment. That statistical tests are tools only as appropriate as the thinking that has gone into their use, has ! become increasingly apparent through this controversy. ■35 ! Hubert M. Blalock, Jr., Causal Inferences in Non-Experimental Research (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1964), j 25. j. 36 i Ibid., 172-3. i ! . ! | Even if one were to accept Selvin*s premises (which is not \ \ | necessary in light of Blalock's and Kish's work), it would still seem j appropriate to continue to explore the nature of relationships with the : ! i test tools available, since a "tool development" function cannot be car ried out very well independent of the "tool usage" function. This would iseem appropriate even though each generation of "findings" may turn out to be the succeeding generation's partial statement of "correlated biases" in the process of successively approximating the nature of re ality . i | As Blalock points out, all findings are relative and limited to some contextual framework. An agnostic or existential position need not| ■ i therefore lead to inaction. Assuming that the scientific process is one in which explanations and theories are constantly being proposed to ac- j , t : count for more significant portions of realityj that these theories are _ j ! I |constantly being modified as the data and tests suggested by the theo ry's existence is developed, and that this process does not have as its j ! criteria the sort of infinitely conditional statements suggested by i | i Selvin in the sense of "truth," then the increasingly proximate findings! t i of nonexperimental survey research in conjunction with inferential sta- ! ! tistical procedures have an opportunity to make a contribution. j j Specific Assumptions and Procedures I i i In the analysis of the data of this research, therefore, a ! i i > variety of statistical procedures was used, ranging from simple data j description to tests of statistical significance using associational and correlational procedures. The hypotheses being tested by these inferential statistical tests were assumed to be of the type McGinnis i 07 tails "finitely conditional hypotheses." The selection of organiza- t tions to be studied from within one large research and development la- I i boratory was assumed to have controlled for some amount of confounding i (variation that might arise simply from the difference in basic context i i | ! or organizational milieu. The nature of the modified random sample is j j i assumed to have randomized a number of other potentially confounding : I (variables. The hypothesized variables will be treated as either ex- 1 : I oO i planatory or controlled variables. ! 1 ; The data are assumed to meet the assumptions of nominal data; in the cases of the scaled responses to the Likert nine-point scale i i items, it is assumed that the assumptions of ordinal data are met; and ; in the cases where correlational and/or cluster analyses are undertaken,! i 30 ! Jthat an interval scale is present. ^ Though this last assumption is not j 1 jcampletely defensible, it does allow certain tentative tests of J ! 0 7 j McGinnis, "Randomization and Inference," Ull. i j o Q 1 I The use of "confounded," "randomized," "controlled," "ex- j (planatory," and "hypothesized1 1 variables is in the sense employed by j (Kish, "Statistical Problems," 329-31. \ 39 j ^Nominal data assumes dichotomies which can be recognized. j Ordinal data assumes that presence of a variable whose gross magnitude j or rank can be ascertained between two or more samples or cases. Inter val data assumes that not only can the gross magnitude of differences be! ascertained, but that a scale exists whose intervals measure equivalent degrees of the variable under question. Ratio data assumes the presence! not only of an equally intervaled scale, but an interval scale whose I intervals have been standardized in such a way that the scale scores can; themselves be treated arithmetically in correspondence to the variable being measured (i.e., scale scenes added, subtracted, multiplied, or divided with the assumption that these operations on scale scores con- ' form precisely to magnitudes and relationships of the variable question j questioned). j 112 interactions that would not otherwise be possible. In order to increase the probability of equality in the intervals of the variable scales, as well as to facilitate the comparison of variables whose units of mea surement are different (for example, discrete number of persons within an organization as a variable compared with the average response to a nine-point scaled response item) the scores of organizations on vari ables were converted into standardized form (Z scores) prior to such correlational and cluster forms of analysis. In the analysis of the data we are interested in whether the hypothesized associations or relationships exist, their relative strength, and in the relative likelihood that the given association or relationship could have occurred by chance alone. The statistic chosen to measure the existence and/or strength of a given relationship depends on the level of measurement employed in a particular analysis. The re- I lative level of confidence to be placed in the significance of these re lationships must be inferred from other statistics which account for the i question of sample size. The minimum level of significance used in this research was p < .05, with greater confidence being placed in those re lationships reaching the p < .01 and/or p < .001 levels. The signifi- j cance level simply reflects the probability of making a Type 1 error j (that is, the chance of rejecting a hypothesis that should not have been! rejected). While the Type 1 and 2 errors are directly related (that is, as one increases the other decreases) it was decided not to minimize the chance of the Type 1 error by selecting a one-tailed test of sig nificance. Though most of the hypotheses framed included predicted 113 directionality, it was decided to use two rather than one-tailed tests in specifying this critical rejection region because the tentativeness of the measures would appear to warrant this more conservative crite rion. When our confidence has increased, both in terms of choosing those variables of relevance and in our measures of them, it would ap pear more appropriate to minimize the Type 2 errors (lowering the chance of not rejecting a hypothesis that should have been rejected) by using the one-tailed test of significance with its less difficult assumption about the strength of relationships necessary to produce a given level of confidence. When data are treated in terms of interval-data assumptions a Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient (r) is used as a mea- J+O sure of the strength of the relationship. An analysis of variance in procedure may then be used (F score) as a test of significance. One of the difficulties in using r is in the linearity of the model upon which it is based. The data did not, in general, support those hypo theses suggesting curvilinearity, and hence this statistic proved satis factory. For simplicity of presentation, since the sample size (of or ganizations, N=35) remains constant unless otherwise noted, one may use the formula for F (with the resultant 1 and 33 degrees of freedom) to determine those levels of r at which significant levels of confidence ire reached. Thus in the data discussions only the r and p figures need ko t Hubert M. Blalock, Social Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill, i960), 285-9. _______^Ibid.. 302-5. _______________________________________ be noted. Using the two-tailed test with N of 35: p < .05 if r = .334 j to .429 (F = 4.14 to 7.46); p < .01 if r = .430 to .531 (F = 7.47 to j i3.00); p < .001 if r > .532 (F > 13.01). i “ * i i : The hypotheses investigated in this research are stated in i [fcheir research form, but are of course tested in their null form. Since the pattern of null hypothesis formation is common to all hypotheses, j the hypotheses will not be stated twice, once in their positive and once: in the null form. The reader should simply note that a hypothesis in jthe research format (for example, relatively smaller organizations are ; i jmore likely to be adaptive than relatively larger organizations) are tested in their null form (for example, there is no statistically sig nificant difference in the adaptiveness of relatively smaller or larger j i organizations). Also it should be remembered that each hypothesis and finding should be read as conditioned by the characteristics of the j ; I jsample, operations, and analysis methods unique to this research. To j avoid undue repetition these qualifiers are not repeated in every por- ! | |tion of the discussion. The specific analysis procedures, such as the i i luse of the BC TRY (1966) program in the construction of aggregate index * i j ! iscores, are discussed in the following chapter where the empirical references simplify their explanation. I i I Summary This chapter has identified the major considerations involved i in the research approach. A sample of thirty-five organizational units j was drawn from a host research and development laboratory. Data were ] gathered through interviews, questionnaires and an analysis of available Records. These data were collected from members of the organizations ini I ■ ! the sample, from managers and from environmental-unit contact points i i : salient to the organization's members. It was determined that these data would be cautiously and not inappropriately dealt with by using I jinferential statistics in their analysis. i | i The following chapter introduces the major empirical research ] 1 findings of the dissertation. CHAPTER V THE RESEARCH FINDINGS 1 This chapter presents the major empirical findings of the re- j ' I 'search. These findings are introduced within the context of the prior :four chapters. Chapter I stated certain questions relevant to the prob lem of organizational adaptiveness. Chapter II presented the theoreti- j | cal framework, perspectives, and assumptions that informed the research.; I I Chapter III reviewed literature focused upon change and adaptation phe- i nomena, and specified the three hypotheses that were tested in the re search. Chapter IV outlined the research design and the methodological ; procedures that were followed. The research findings reported in this • I i chapter are grouped into three categories. i 1 9 ] ] The first category of findings deals with the operationaliza- j i ; jtion of the dependent variables— organizational adaptiveness, organiza- i tional self-initiation of change, and organizational effectiveness. Thej | ; operationalization of these variables was required in order that the ma-; i i |jor hypotheses of this research could be tested. The indexes construe- j i j ted to operationalize the three dependent variables are described in the! i first three sections of this chapter. The second category of findings is reported in the fourth sec- ' ; ! tion of this chapter. This section presents the findings on the tests of the first two hypotheses: j Hypothesis I: There is no significant relationship between an j organization's capacity to self-initiate its own change' and its capacity for adaptation. ! 1171 ! ! Hypothesis II: There is no significant relationship between anj 1 organization's capacity for adaptation and its effec- j tiveness. j I i : » The third category of findings is reported in the fifth section1 of this chapter. This section reports the analysis of the relationships! found to exist between the adaptiveness indexes and certain independent j j variables hypothesized to be associated with, or productive of, organi- ; zational adaptiveness. This section, therefore, reports the test of the; i j jthird hypothesis: Hypothesis III: There is no significant relationship between an organization’s capacity for adaptation and the ; characteristics of its environment, internal system, or | members. Organizational Adaptiveness To operationalize this dependent variable a number of direct ! j measures were built into the questionnaires. These questions were de signed to gather data on the relative levels and kinds of adaptiveness j |in the thirty-five organizations in the sample. Eleven direct measures i j i were included in questions asking about: the overall perception of the i | j •adaptiveness of the organization, the quality of changes that had oc- | I curred within the prior year; the extent to which changes felt to be 1 i ■ i i jneeded were in the progress of occurring; and the extent to which j i j changes needed in the future were likely to be accomplished. Nine of I these direct measures were in questions asked of the members of the or- ! ganization.1 Two were in questions asked of the organization's I To simplify the references made to specific data items con tained in the instruments included as Appendixes, the letter of the Appendix is cited and then followed by the item numbers. In this in- stance: C-U, 8. 12. l6. 20. 2k. 28. 38. 39. ______ . _____ 118 I 2 environmental sample. Subsequently, and perhaps of more theoretical interest, several; i ! inferred measures of adaptiveness were built from the explication of the| i ; theoretical model outlined in Chapter II. These inferred measures were i ! ; derived from data gathered by direct measures. Each of the organize- t jtions was assumed to be an organizational system minimally defined by j the six dimensions of: environmental relationships, inputs, outputs, ! i internal structure, internal processes, and purposiveness. It was as sumed that the adaptive organization was one that changed on these di- ! i taensions where change was needed. Both the members of the organization knd the sample of its salient environment were questioned about each of these six dimensions as areas of possible change: first, to gauge the extent to which change was perceived to have occurred within the previ- !ous year in that area; and second, to gauge the extent to which change ; 3 ! !was perceived to have been needed. i i For each organization the internal and external responses to I i ! i s each of these questions were averaged separately to give an estimate for] (the extent to which change within a particular area was perceived to i ; , have occurred and to have been needed. This resulted in twelve pairs of. figures (internal and external estimates of the extent of change occur- j I rence and need along the six dimensions of possible change) for each ] organization. These twelve pairs of figures were then reduced to twelve discrepancy scores by subtracting the need estimate from the occurrence I 6h._ ^D-TZ, 10. ! * j 3C-1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 1^, 17, 18, 21, 22, and D-la through j i H 9 j | j estimate. j t i j j If one assumes that the adaptive organization is one that meets! j ; its needs for change, then one might assume that a large positive dis crepancy score (reflective of having changed more than was felt to he ' heeded) would be as dysfunctional as a large negative discrepancy score , I ; j(reflective of having changed less than was perceived to be needed). j j ] That is, one might assume that both the over-changeful and the under- changeful organization are less functionally adaptive than the organiza-j tion where need for change, and extent of change occurrence, are bal- i lanced. If this were the case, one would expect to find a curvilinear i relationship between these discrepancy scores and other measures of 'adaptiveness (if the population of organizations included all three • i i categories— over-changeful, under-changeful, and balanced). The organi zations perceived to be most adaptive in this case, would be those j jwhose discrepancy scores approached zero, while less adaptive organize- j ! i I tions would tend to have larger discrepancy scores, either with a posi- 1 ; i jtive sign (indicative of changing more than needed) or a negative sign ! I | !(indicative of changing less than needed). i ! The data gathered in this research could not, however, provide ! a definitive test of this theoretical proposition. The distribution of j { discrepancy scores was largely squewed toward negative scores (indica tive of changing less than needed). One finds that the median case for ■ each of the twelve discrepancy-score distributions for the thirty-five i organizations was always a negative score. The average point at which j i the zero discrepancy score occurred in these distributions was the tenth ! rank out of thirty-five. Under-change was so much more common a jperception than over-change (twice as frequently) in this sample that there was an insufficient range at the over-change end of the distribu- I : tion to test the proposition adequately. Inspecting the scatter plots of the relationships between these discrepancy scores and the direct- evaluative assessments of adaptiveness, one finds them to be either es sentially linear, or linear up to the area where zero discrepancy scores; ’ I are found, and largely flat thereafter. | One can only speculate as to whether perceived adaptiveness ; ■would have tended to decline if there had been a significant number of sharply over-change cases. In any event, it was therefore decided that j i ! i ! 'signed rather than unsigned discrepancy scores would be of more utility ! in constructing indexes of adaptiveness. That is, of three organiza- j tions where the first had a large negative discrepancy score (large ! under-change), the second a small negative discrepancy score (small j under-change), and the third a small positive discrepancy score (small j over-change); the first was assumed to be less adaptive than the second |or third, the second was assumed to be less adaptive than the third, and jthe third was assumed to be most adaptive. ; ; j j In deciding upon the nature of the adaptiveness indexes to be i used, one issue was whether the members of an organization and the mem- j i bers of its salient environment agreed on the organization's relative j level of adaptability. That is, to what extent were the perceptions of i these two perspectives congruent? In examining these two perspectives j Unless otherwise noted in any reference to a rank-order dis tribution, the smaller the rank number the higher is the position in the! distribution. That is, unless noted to the contrary, "1" refers to i "high" while "35" refers to "low." ________ . . _____ J ion the most general direct measure of the adaptability of an organiza- ■ 5 6 tion the relationship was found to be moderately congruent. 1 Examining the two distributions from which this relationship i j i was calculated offers several clues to the differences in perspective j jwhich are operative. For example, if one deletes the two most markedly : i ‘ I ^discrepant cases (internal-external disagreement on average response to C-28 and D-10) one finds a markedly stronger relationship indicating I ; greater congruence between internal and external assessments of adap- ' 7 1 tiveness, The analysis of these two most markedly discrepant organiza tions (in incongruency of internal and external perceptions of adaptive- ■ 8 ■ ness) is instructive. Organization 10 was rank order 30 out of 35 in ' ! I terms of its own members' perception of their overall adaptiveness, ! i ; ! while its salient environment's perception of this same measure placed ' ! i it in rank order 2 out of 35. Organization 30 reflected the opposite ipattern. Its own perception of overall adaptiveness placed it in rank ! ! j |order 5 out of 35, while its salient environment's perception placed it ! I ! I in rank order 35 out of 35. Thus, organization 10 appeared to perceive ■ ' ■ i ] it self as significantly less adaptive than was perceived to be the case i jby its salient environment, while organization 30 appeared to perceive ! ? j i .............. I ■ » M j I C-28 and D-10. ! 6r = .357, P < .05. | 7N of 33, rs = .5lf2, p < .01. j O To simplify the references made to specific organizations, the anonymous code number is used. An organization's code number was arbi- ] trarily assigned and is used only for identification purposes. This number has no relationship with the organization's score or rank.on any variable or index. 122 i ; Q I iitself as more adaptive than did its salient environment. - 7 j : | Therefore, while there appeared to be some agreement between ' i ! internal and external definitions of adaptiveness (significant at the i i P < .05 level of confidence), these -two extreme cases of incongruence ' may provide clues for understanding some of the differences in perspec- ; i [tive reflected by these two sources of information (internal and ex ternal). I When one examines the relationship between the salient environ-: i ; ! : inent's overall perception of adaptiveness and the internal perception of [the quality of changes that had occurred in the previous year ("worth- i 1 0 jwhileness" of changes along the six dimensions of possible change), ! one finds the relationship to be positive in each of the six pairs. The! relationship, however, is statistically significant only in the case of ' ! j 11 [changes in environmental relationships. Thus it appears that of the |six possible areas of change investigated, only the worthwhileness of 1 I ^changes in external relationships (as viewed by members) correlate sig- [ i . ] nificantly with the over-all perception of adaptiveness held by the mem-1 i | Ibers of the salient environment. ; ! This suggests that while members were responding in terms of a i j i I number of aspects of their organizations, environmentals may, under- j ; 1 ! standably, have been responding primarily to knowledge generated [ i I ■ i r " ........................ - I Q ^This is reflected in absolute numerical average scores as well as in relative position in the rank order distributions. j 1QD-10 with each of C-4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 2k. j 3_T r r = .¥*8, p < .01, the next highest r being .252. ; ” """ ~ " " " 123! j ; ^directly by interacting with the organization's members. That is, the j i environment may perceive the organization primarily in terms of that j boundary behavior which is most visible to them, while this boundary be havior constitutes only one (and perhaps not the most relevant) portion i .of the member's perception of that organization. j This suggestion is born out by data on the two organizations j that constituted the extreme cases of incongruency noted above. In the ; case of organization 30 (which appeared to be overrating its level of adaptiveness compared to its salient environment's perception), we find ! it to be rank order 21, 27, 35, and 35 out of 35 relative to the other ; ! organizations in the extent to which its members perceived its environ- ■ Jnental relationships: having changed, needing to have changed, changing1 ; i as a result of self-initiation by members, and worthwhileness of change.j That is, the members of organization 30 saw neither much need for, nor Recurrence of, change in their environmental relationships. From the : ' ! salient environment's perspective, however, this organization ranked 5th lout of 35 in terms of perceived need for change in the environmental re-i i : 'lationships, while ranking 28th in the extent to which such changes had j ; i occurred, and 35th in both the extent to which any such changes that had 1 1 occurred were self-initiated within that organization or had been worth-! i while. That is, from the environment's perspective this organization ] needed to change but had not. j On other measures this organization perceived itself at the j second highest rank-order level both in terms of the importance of its ' j external relationships and in the effectiveness of these relation- ! 12 I ships. Its salient environment, however, rated the effectiveness theyj perceived in their relationships with this organization, their success t ! I ! ■in suggesting changes to this organization, their opinions being con- I sidered when changes were considered, and their reactions being solic ited when changes were made, all at a level which resulted in rank order i 1*5 jposition 35 out of 35* In light of these findings, as well as the ; I i fact that this organization's members Eire 7th highest out of 35 in termsj pf their estimated percentage of time spent in contact with their sali- j i 1 ^ i jent environment, one gets the sense of an organization whose members ! i perceived it to be adaptive, but which was experiencing real and un recognized problems in its boundary-layer functions. 15 Organization 10 on the other hand, whose salient environment perceived it to be relatively more adaptive than its members did, pre- | sents a quite different pattern. While on the indicators discussed I above this organization's environmental, relationships were not as im- j iportant as they were for organization 30, the members of organization 10! ! I | ! perceived the changes that had occurred in these relationships to have i ! 1 6 i been very worthwhile (rank order 5 out of 35). The salient environ- : jment perceived their relationships with the members of this organization 12E-65, 67. -12, l*f, 15, 16. llfc - i i - ^ . I ^The problem appeared to be unrecognized by members since | there was no difference in the magnitude of change needed or occurring in these environmental relationships, and both perceptions were recorded! at relatively low numerical levels on the response scale. ] l6C-2lK I 1251 I i as rather effective (rank order 12 out of 35) Organization 10 was i i close to the median case (19 out of 35) in terms of the magnitude of i ^discrepancy between environmental-relationship change and need for such .change as perceived by the members of its salient environment, while \ ; [organization 30 was the most extreme case in this regard, being rank j ' 18 ' order 35 out of 35. Thus it would appear that while organization 10 ] perceived itself internally to be relatively somewhat less adaptive than [the other organizations studied, it was relatively adaptive in its rela-; i ; tionships with its environment. j The discussion of these two extreme cases of incongruence be- 1 tween internal and external perceptions of adaptiveness point up the 1 j fact that, while these perceptions were moderately related (p < .05 level of confidence), a more meaningful analysis strategy would allow I |for the construction of separate indexes of adaptiveness based on data if ram internal and external sources. i | The possibility was allowed, in the construction of the direct j Jand inferred measures of adaptiveness, that adaptiveness might be con- ; j ! Iceptualized as a unitary attribute or capacity of an organizational sys-j | tem. These measures were thought to be conceptually linked in valid j ways so that reliably strong empirical relationships between them could j be used as the basis for the construction of a single index of organiza- j tional adaptiveness. While such an aggregate index has been con- 1 structed, it was decided (after an inspection of the data and a review | ____________ 1 17D-12. ! 18 D-Discrepancy between 6a and 6b. I 126 j lof empirical findings akin to the moderate internal/external perceptual j I ! congruence discussed above) that several indexes of this phenomena j ; should be developed and analyzed. ; i j These indexes were constructed from a cluster analyses of the ! correlation matrix of the data on adaptiveness measures. In all cases ; j j the unit of analysis was the organization (that is, N=35). An average j ‘ score was computed for each organization on each of the measures based j I ; jon the IT of respondents from that organization, or on the N of respond- | t ! 1 : ents from the members of the environment identified as salient to that [organization. As indicated in Chapter IV these scores were then con verted into standardized form. This had the effect of converting dif- ; j ferences of magnitude or scale into comparable Z scores referenced to | the overall distribution on any given item. Using the BC TRY analysis f program this matrix was successively analyzed in order to identify i 1 ■empirically those clusters which could account for the largest portion ! i i i 1 9 1 jof the variance represented by the matrix. ^ These clusters were used 1 ; f ' to define the indexes. The inclusion or exclusion of any particular measure in an in- j I ! 'dex represented a combination of conceptual analysis (Did the variable j | ! represented by a given measure conceptually link with those other vari- | j f ables with which it was empirically associated?) and empirical judgments; (Were a conceptually related set of variables strongly enough associated _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j ^Robert C. Try on, "The Theory of BC TRY," Department of Psy chology, University of California, Berkeley, California, 196b (mimeo- ! graph); and Robert C. Tryon and Daniel E. Bailey, eds., User’s Manual j of the BC TRY System of Cluster and Factor Analysis (Berkeley, Calif or- j nia: Computer Center, July, 1965). i27| [to use them as definers for the conceptual abstraction represented by j ; 1 the index?). When a decision was made about the composition of a given j i index, an organization's scores on each of the subsumed variables were I i : j aggregated (in standardized form) to create a new distribution and a ; 20 ’ Corresponding index measurement for that organization. I I The composition of these indexes was highly judgmental. For j [example, a given cluster might have been relatively homogeneous, but if i j i greater analytical precision could be obtained by splitting that cluster! [into two slightly different clusters, each of which was more internally consistent than the original aggregate whole, this was done. Ultimately, i 1 [seven indexes of adaptiveness were formed. They exist at different i levels of abstraction and in two cases are not mutually exclusive. For j ; I [example, one index was based on the internal assessment of the worth- j i . ! fwhileness or quality of changes that had occurred (based on six meas- j ures) while another index aggregated all internal measures of adaptive- j I ] [ness (including the six noted above) into a more generalized index. ; f ; Five primary (mutually exclusive) and two secondary (aggregate) indexes ; ! i ; | were constructed. We can now review the composition and meaning of the ; j [seven indexes of organizational adaptiveness that were developed and j jwhich are used in the subsequent hypothesis testing. For simplicity in j ! the later discussions, these indexes are identified with the letter D | > (for dependent variable) and numbered sequentially. i * \ f ! f ! I \ i ) i 20 Wo weighting factors were applied. 128 Primary Indexes Externally Perceived Adaptiveness (D l) This dependent variable was based on the perceptions held by the members of an organization's salient environment about the adaptive ness of that organization. The variable was composed by aggregating the effects of two direct and six inferred measures. The two direct meas ures asked for an estimate of the extent to which the organization was seen to be adaptable, and the extent to which changes that had occurred 21 in that organization were seen to be worthwhile. The six inferred measures were based on the discrepancies between occurrence of change and need for change in that organization, as perceived by these environ- jmentals. The six areas identified were those specified in Chapter II: purposiveness, outputs, inputs, internal structure, internal processes, 22 and environmental relationships. The basis for forming these eight measures into an index of externally perceived adaptiveness is reflected in Table 1. Conceptu- l ally, the measures were linked by their source, that is, environmental assessments of change. They cohered empirically with 23 of the 28 in terrelationships being significantly related at levels of confidence of j i i P < .05 (twelve of these twenty-three are at a level of p < .001 and ! four at p < .01). In no case were the relationships negative. In sum mary, an organization's score on this index (a number created by 2;id -10 and 7b. j 22Discrepancy scores on D-la/b, 2a/b, 3&/b, *ta/b, 5a/b, and oa/b. 129 TABLE 1 EXTERNALLY PERCEIVED ADAPTIVENESS INDEX: INTERCORRELATIONS OF COMPONENT MEASURES* Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Extent Adaptable 1. 000 .1+31 .5^7 .427 .336 .4o4 .230 .315 2. Extent Changes Worthwhile 1.000 .512 .506 .214 .292 .196 .345 3. Disc.-Purposiveness 1.000 .642 .494 .653 .381 .567 4. Disc.-Output 1.000 .793 .582 .367 .633 5. Disc.-Input 1.000 .567 .534 .645 6. Disc.-Internal 1.000 .613 .633 Processes 7. Disc.-Internal 1.000 .390 Structure 8. Disc.-Environmental 1.000 Relationships *With a constant N of 35, the level of confidence at which r becomes statistically significant, using a two-tailed test is: p < .05 if r = .334 to .429, p < .01 if r = .430 to .531, and p < .001 if r > . 532. The phrase “discrepancy between occurrence and need for change" in a given area of change is abbreviated to "Disc." iaggregating the average environmental responses to these eight ques- j i i ; . i tions, each expressed in standardized Z form) indicated operationally ; t the extent to which its salient environment perceived it to he more or ■ less adaptable (again expressed in standardized form) relative to the ! i perceptions expressed about the other organizations involved in the i i i study. ; Internally Perceived Balance of Change (D 2) ! This dependent variable was focused upon the relative balance j (extent of discrepancy) between the need for change and occurrence of j i ' ichange as perceived by the members of an organiztion along the six di- i I mensions of possible change defined in Chapter II. The variable was i composed by aggregating the effects of the six inferred measures based I 23 jon this internal data source. j i j Conceptually these six inferred measures were linked, both by ! jtheir information source (internal), and by the assumption that an or- | | j iganization would tend to equilibrate at roughly similar levels on these ; jsix dimensions. As outlined in Chapter II, however, this latter assump-i jtion may be neither necessary nor descriptive. Empirically, as indi- j cated in Table 2, these six measures were positively correlated, but not i with the same degree of strength as was reflected with the measures in- ( i volved in dependent-variable index D-l. Ten of the fifteen relation- ! ships were significant at levels of confidence of p < .05 (with six of ' ! these at p < .01). It was decided on the basis of both moderate j i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j ^Discrepancy scores on C-l/2, 5/6, 9/10, 13/l^, 17/l8, and j 21/22. ; 131 TABLE 2 INTERNALLY PERCEIVED BALANCE OF CHANGE INDEX: INTERCORRELATIONS OF COMPONENT MEASURES* Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Disc.-Purposiveness 1.000 .303 .393 .456 .455 .445 2. Disc.-Output 1.000 .360 .174 .167 .190 3. Disc.-Input 1.000 .447 .389 .420 4. Disc.-Internal Processes 1.000 .654 .389 5. Disc.-Internal 1.000 .281 Structure 6. Disc. -Environmental 1. OOO Relationships *With a constant N of 35, the level of confidence at which r becomes statistically significant, vising a two-tailed test is: p < .05 if r = -334 to .429, P < *01 if r = .430 to .531, and p < .001 if r > .532. The phrase "discrepancy between occurrence and need for change" in a given area of change is abbreviated to "Disc." theoretical and empirical support to aggregate these six inferred meas- j 1 I pres into one dependent-variable index. An organization's score on thisj j ! index indicated the extent to which its members perceived change occur- 1 : I ring to the extent they perceived it to have been needed. | i | i Worthwhileness of Change; Task, and Maintenance (D 3 and D 4) ! i ■ ■ I i These two dependent-variable indexes focused upon quality di mensions. The members of an organization were asked to judge the extent! I i to which any changes which had occurred along the six dimensions out- 2b lined in Chapter II were worthwhile. Conceptually these six measures jwere linked in the same fashion as those outlined in D 2 above. As with' that set of measures, however, the intercorrelations between these meas ures were not particularly high (only five of the fifteen relationships ] • reached levels of confidence higher than p < .05). What did emerge em- j jpirically through the cluster analysis procedure were two quality i | i > Oriented clusters, each defined by two of these measures. The first was titled a task worthwhileness change variable j(D 3) and was defined by the two measures focused on the input and out- ! {put dimensions (r = .535 s P < .001). While the purposiveness dimension | | ! {was significantly related to the output dimension (at the p < .05 level): j i it was not related significantly to the input dimension, and hence was | not included within the composition of this dependent variable. j Respondents were asked to compare the degree of success in changes made to, the effort invested in making them,.and any problems that may have resulted from having made them. A respondent who felt no ! change had occurred in a given area did not respond to the worthwhile ness question in that area. C-4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 2b. 133} i j The second worthwhileness index, titled a maintenance-change i variable (D 4), was defined by the measures focused on the internal j > i i structure and process dimensions (r = .481, p < .01). While the exter- ! nal-relationships dimension was significantly related to the intemal- structure dimension at the (p < .01 level) it was not significantly re- r i : : i pated to the internal-process dimension and hence was not included with-.' i in the composition of this dependent variable. An organization's score I I ion these two indexes indicated the extent to which its members perceived I task-oriented changes (D 3) and maintenance-oriented changes (D 4) being: I worthwhile,, These variables were interpreted as measures of change j quality. ! i Internal Confidence in Adaptiveness (D 5) i This final primary dependent variable focused upon the degree t ! pf adaptiveness directly attributed to an organization by its members. i The variable was composed by aggregating the effects of three direct 1 measures. These measures focused upon the overall perception of organi- zational adaptability and upon the extent of the members' confidence that changes perceived to be needed were being made or would be made in j ! 25 i the future if necessary. The two measures of confidence were highly i I j 26 related. The overall measure of adaptability was significantly re- f • Tated both to the level of confidence that needed changes were being • I i 27 made, and to the degree of confidence that changes needed in the 25C-28, 38 and 39. 26r = .786, p < .001. 13*4 » future would be accomplished.^0 The variable represented by the aggre- ! ( I gation of these three measures appeared to be best titled an index of j internal sense of confidence in adaptiveness. ; 1 1 Secondary Indexes Internal and Overall Adaptiveness (D 6 and 7) | i We have discussed the formation of five indexes or criteria of ! | • : jadaptiveness that are mutually exclusive. It was also useful to con- | struct two more aggregate dependent variables. The first of these pro- 2 ' ! I yided one overall-internal index of adaptiveness that serves as an ana log to the externally-perceived adaptiveness index (D l). This internal adaptiveness measure (D 6) was formed by the equally weighted aggrega- ; ! tion of the effects of each of those measures which were used in the j i construction of the four primary internal indexes (D 2 through 5). This i Index is recognizably less precise since it dilutes a number of the re lationships reflected by the primary indexes. For example, a given | j : organization could have scored relatively high on two of the primary I indexes, relatively low on the other two, and as a result have had an jintermediate score on this index. This index did, however, retain the ; sharpness of extreme cases; those organizations either consistently high or consistently low on those measures composing the primary in dexes scored either high or low on this index. ! The other secondary index was constructed in the same fashion: j aggregating the effects (unweighted) of both the external and internal j t j | 28r = >95, p < . 0 1. [ I I measures of adaptiveness used in all five of the primary subindexes. j The same caveats apply to this overall adaptiveness index (D 7) as were j I - discussed for D 6 above. Additionally it should be noted that this in- . ■dex was - weighed, by virtue of the relative number of measures, toward an internal perception (thirteen versus eight measures). This relative i r I t i [balance was allowed to stand unchanged on the basis of those factors ! discussed earlier in this chapter which indicated the perceptual base of ■the environmental judgments to be less detailed than that employed by the members of an organization. i ! i I : Independence Assumptions I In summary, two secondary and five primary indexes of adaptive-! , t ness were constructed. Before considering those indexes constructed to j ! i [operationalize the concept of self-iniated change there are two issues : that need to be discussed concerning the five primary indexes of adap- ! i j [tiveness. The intention in these indexes was to measure an organiza tion's capacity for change, not the simple magnitude of change occurring ;or needed. The theoretical framework outlined in Chapters II and III j ! suggests that while such a capacity finds expression in changes, these | [changes are to be visualized as expressions of that capacity rather than the capacity itself. For example, this model suggests the following hypothesis: Of two organizations experiencing roughly comparable magni tudes of change, the one with greater changefulness capacity is more ! I likely to accomplish these changes with a smaller investment of re- ■ i sources and fewer unintended consequences than the other. j The question therefore needs to be asked as to whether the five i primary adaptiveness indexes are measures of change capacity or change j i i magnitude. If they are reflections of change volume they ought to as- j sociate strongly with other magnitude measures. If there were no reason; !to suspect that change capacity and the scale of change encountered were! [related, and if the indexes measure capacity, they ought not to asso- . j iciate strongly with magnitude measures. There are, however, as noted in' the fifth section of this chapter certain hypothesized linkages between i I | {the capacity and magnitude concepts. This made a test for independence i between capacity and magnitude measures particularly difficult. It was hoped, particularly in the D 1 and D 2 indexes (which employed discrep- ; J i < ; ancy scores to establish the relative balance between change need and occurrence), that the adaptiveness indexes would have at least the po- j tential for independence from the change-magnitude measures. The data j discussed below indicates this intention to have been, in large measure,; ! i {realized. There is support for defending the relative independence of j l ■ J I ithe adaptiveness indexes from the change-magnitude measures. ■ ! Examining a sixty-cell correlation matrix representing the re- ; lat ions hips between the five primary adaptiveness indexes and the twelve i 1 29 » measures of perceived need for change one finds that, with four except i i Itions, the former were not related strongly enough with the latter to j i ; produce levels of confidence of p < .05. Both the internal balance j (D 2) and the internal confidence indexes (D 5) were unrelated to any of the change-need measures at this level of confidence. The four j Along the six dimensions of possible change specified in j Chapter H as seen from both the internal (C-2, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 22) j and external (D-lb, 2b, 3b, hb9 5b, and 6b) perspectives. j i w I exceptions arose from the other adaptiveness indexes. Organizations j higher on the worthwhileness of maintenance changes index (D 4) were I i 30 less likely to perceive themselves as having needed input changes, |while organizations higher on the worthwhileness of task changes index ! l(D 3) were less likely to perceive themselves as having needed internal j 31 ' structure changes. Organizations perceived by their environments as more adaptive (D l) tended to be perceived by these environments as I \ ’ ineeding less in both their internal processes3^ and in their external i ! ! relationships. When one examines the matrix of relationships between the five j i primary adaptiveness indexes and the twelve measures of perceived oc- 34 / currence of change, one finds that the two worthwhileness indexes (D 3 , i and D 4) are unrelated at the p < .05 confidence level with any of these; jchange-magnitude measures. The internal balance index (D 2) though not ! ! | jstrongly related to any of the external change magnitude perceptions was (positively related at the p < .05 level of confidence to the internal qc q^ [assessments of magnitude of change in inputs, internal processes,0 30C-10, r = -.367, P < .05. 31C-l8, r = -.388, p < .05. 32D-4b, r = -.428, p < .05. 33D-6b, r = -.380, p < .05. 34 Along the six dimensions of possible change specified in Chapter II as seen from both the internal (C-l, 5> 9? 13? 17, and 21) and external (D-la, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a and 6a) perspectives. 35 C-9, r = .398. 36C-13, r = .403. I 13a ! 0 * 7 ; land external relationships. The interaal-confidence index (D 5) was I 1 ! 1 also positively related at the p < .05 level of confidence to the in- ! 38 ternal assessments of change-occurrence magnitude in outputs, in- i 3 9 1 j .q i puts, * and external relationships. The externally perceived adap- [tiveness index (D l ) was not significantly related to any of the inter- j ■ i i ! nal assessments of change-occurrence magnitude. It was, however, sig- ! jnificantly and positively related to four of the six externally per- ! jceived change-occurrence magnitude measures: purposiveness, out- 1*2 4 3 )|)| jputs, inputs, and internal processes. It is interesting to note ithat while the external perception of adaptiveness was not significantly related to the magnitude of change the environment saw occurring in the | ! Organization's external relationships, it was significantly and nega- j ; i itively related to the amount of change perceived by the environment as j i 2 * 5 ■ jneeded in these relationships. | | I Having examined the relationships between the adaptiveness in- i ! i idexes and the change-magnitude measures, there appears to be support for 37C-21, r = .351. 38C-5, r = .385* 39C-9, r = .3^0. 1*0 C-21, r = .375. -la, r = .409, p < .05. -2a, r = .481, p < .01. U3d -3a, r = .563, P < .001. Li. , D-4a, r = .381, p < .05. ^Cf. fn. 32. ____ 'concluding that they are not identities and to a large extent are inde- j i i pendent from one another. In only 14 cases out of the 120 possible was | i < the extent of relationship stronger than one might expect by chance at the p < .05 level of confidence. Though this is of course a weak asser-j tion as the use of a significance test in this sense is suggestive and \ j 1 not definitive, it does provide a degree of confidence that the adap- j tiveness indexes (measures of capacity) are not simply reflections of the magnitudes of change needs and occurrences being experienced by an i i organization. j i i In order to allow adequately for the comparative research on organizations doing dissimilar work, it was also hoped that the adap- I i tiveness indexes would be essentially independent of the nature of work ; I done within the organization. That is, that organizations doing a pax- j jticular kind of work would not automatically be judged as relatively j ; i bore or less adaptive. j In the preliminary interviews (Appendix B) estimates were ob tained from Branch and Division Heads on the approximate percentages of ’ i ! I time spent by each organization on seven major categories of work. Five I 1 jof these categories were sufficiently common to a number of organiza tions to allow comparison. These categories roughly correspond to a j j science-technology spectrum: Research, Exploratory Development, Ad- | vanced Development, Engineering Development, and Operational-Systems De velopment . 1+6 When one examines a twenty-five cell correlation matrix ! i ® (pg* 3) 2, 3, and 7* ; irepresenting the relationships between the five primary indexes of adap- jtiveness and the proportions of work in these five categories, one finds [ i i i them only weakly related, with three exceptions. At each end of the f i jscience-technology spectrum one finds a significant relationship with j I | the worthwhileness of task change index (D 3)* Organizations heavily i I Engaged in basic research were more likely to see such changes as having; i i|_ *T been worthwhile, while operational systems development organizations I 48 ' yrere more likely to see such changes as less worthwhile. This differ-; i ence anticipates a number of apparent correlates of the nature of work i ; ! : jbeing performed by an organization which are discussed in section five j ! j of this chapter. Basic research organizations were also less likely to ! score highly on the internal confidence in adaptiveness index (D 5).^ j : t As mentioned previously, basic researchers may have a tendency to equate; changefulness with shallowness. The fact that the D 5 index was so heavily influenced by the organizational member's perception of overall j i • i ; adaptability may account for this particular relationship. This sugges-j I j ition is supported by the fact that basic research organizations were no I less likely than organizations primarily performing other types of work to be perceived as adaptive: by themselves (D 2 and D 4) or by their i , environments (D l). It would thus appear, with the exceptions noted j j I above, that the adaptiveness indexes were measuring something other than; ^7r - .356, p < .05. I * * 8r = -.378, p < .05. k9r = -.370, p < .05. i [the nature of work being performed. i 1 I ; | Organizational Self-Initiation of Change This criterion area was designed to measure the extent to which; j i an organization generated its own change. The idea was to explicate ac- i tive and anticipatory change capacity (better described as proactive andj I prosponsive than as reactive and responsive). The process of developing [the operational indexes for this criterion area were the same as those j described in the previous section of this chapter. There were seven i ! [direct measures built into the questionnaire instruments which were used; i jin the construction of two primary indexes and one overall secondary in-‘ dex. The interrelationships of the measures vised in the construction of these variables are shown in Table 3. i j : ! I Primary Indexes ! ! i I Externally Perceived Self-Initiation of Change (D 8) [ t | Parallel with the separation of internal and external percep- t ; tions used in the adaptiveness indexes, the first primary index in this i jarea was focused upon the perceptions held by the members of an organi- j zation’s salient environment. That is, the extent to which they per- j j ceived change within a given organization having originated within that j organization. Because it seemed questionable whether environmentals would uniformly possess specific information on this question, only one j 50 ! measure was used to test the environmental’s perception in this area. ^Following the questions focused on the amount of change need and j TABLE 3 SELF-INITIATION OF CHANGE INDEX: INTERCORRELATIONS OF COMPONENT MEASURES* Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Overall Self-Initiation-Ex l.ooo .509 .354 .285 .525 .388 .369 2. Purposiveness-In 1.000 .660 .539 .534 .467 .576 3. Output-In 1.000 .526 .786 .478 .583 4. Input-In 1.000 .565 .588 .608 5. Internal Process-In 1.000 .611 .571 6. Internal Structure-In 1.000 .751 7. Environmental Relation- 1.000 ships-In *With a constant N of 35* the level of confidence at which r becomes statistically significant, using a two-tailed test is: p < .05 if r = .334 to .429, p < .01 if r = .430 to .531, and p < .001 if r > .532. The "Ex" and "In" noted in the measure title indicates whether the item was based upon the perceptions of the organization's salient environ ment (Ex) or the members of the organization (in). occurrence along the six dimensions specified in the theoretical model, 5 the environmental respondent was asked to provide an overall judgment on' the extent to which he perceived changes which he had observed to have Jbeen self-initiated by the members of the organization. This dependent ; variable is thus a measure rather than an index, as it is based on only ; one item. For purposes of consistency, however, it is referred to as ! : 1 index D 8. jlnternally Perceived Self-Initiation of Change (D 9) The second primary index was focused upon the internal percep- ; tion of this phenomenon. On each of the six dimensions of possible > change the respondent was asked to estimate the extent to which changes which he felt had occurred had originated within that specific organiza-j 51 i tion. ' The member responded to this question in only those of the six I 52 areas where he had previously indicated some change had taken place. i j As reflected in Table 3 "the interrelationships among these six 1 jmeasures were quite pronounced. Conceptually they were linked by the j r assumption that this self-initiation capacity would, through processes | of interdependency, be expressed across an organization's dimensions at j , j roughly comparable levels. Empirically the relationships among these j i | ^0-3» 7, 11, 15, 19, and 23. ] 52 Out of an N of 337 respondents on the first questionnaire, an average of 33^ usable responses were recorded for the six areas of pos- j sible change. An average of 2b& responses were recorded for the six ' self-initiation questions. That is, approximately of the sample perceived at least some change having occurred on each of the six dimen sions . The range was from a low of 225 responses on the interaal-struc-j ture change variable to a high of 277 responses on the input change j variable. Six measures were statistically significant at acceptable levels of con-! I | fidence (with two being at p < .01 and thirteen being at p < .001). The; j i effects of these six measures were therefore aggregated into this index ; bf internally perceived self-initiation of change. \ j Secondary Index j j j Overall Self-Initiation of Change (D 10) I I Using the same process, and with the same advantages and dis advantages described for D 6 and D 7 previously in this chapter, the ef- i i fects of these seven direct measures were then aggregated into one over-. I j all index of organizational self-initiation of change. This measure is i i bf course nearly identical with the internal index, since there was only | one external measure available and it was not given extra weight. Organizational Effectiveness | As discussed in Chapter III, a number of approaches have been j taken to the question of operationalizing the concept of organizational ' j j |effectiveness. Since the theoretical model employed here was that of an; ; i {organizational system, a systemic effectiveness criterion was required, < I ) The operationalization of Bennis's concept of organizational health was j j attempted in order to meet this objective. In addition, several of the j more traditional measures of effectiveness were created, both for direct; analytical purposes and for the exploration of their conceptual rela- tionships to the systemic organizational health model. The more tradi- ; tional dependent variables are discussed before moving to the organize- j i tional health criterion. The procedures used to construct the nine j i ----------------------- j jeffectiveness criteria discussed in this section were identical with j ! i those used in the two previous sections of this chapter. j Primary Indexes ! i Externally Perceived Effectiveness (D 11) j ! j j Parallel with the separation of internal and external indexes ; i 1 [used in the two previous discussions the first primary index was based upon the perceptions held by the organization's salient environment i about the extent to which it perceived the organization as effective. ] Two direct measures were employed. The first focused upon the general perception of effectiveness (allowing the respondent to use those cri- } I teria which he felt to be most relevant), and the second upon the extent: ;to which the environmental perceived the organization accomplishing j ; ( “ those goals for which the organization existed. The effects of these jtwo measures which were highly intercorrelated were aggregated to form ' 54 I this index. The index is interpreted as a reflection of the extent i ! j jto which an organization's salient environment perceives it to be ef fective . i I i ; t llnternally Perceived Effectiveness (D 12) i | This dependent variable was drawn from data gathered from the j members of an organization. Conceptually it is a combination of more i traditional effectiveness measures (extent of perceived goal lb6 55 accomplishment and satisfaction), placed within the context of adap tiveness and change (extent of perceived effectiveness in coping with 56 unexpected problems and change issues), with an anticipation of sys- temically oriented concerns (perceived extent of agreement on objectives and means of accomplishment, and information search and feedback effec tiveness).*^ As reflected in Table 4 these eight measures were rather highly intercorrelated. All twenty-eight relationships were positive, with ’ * 58 twenty-six reaching statistically significant levels of confidence. The effects of these eight measures were aggregated to form this second, internally oriented, criterion of effectiveness. The index is inter preted as a reflection of the extent to which an organization's members perceived it to be effective. Internal Confidence in Increasing Effectiveness (D 13) As was the case with confidence in adaptiveness, there appeared to be a strong empirical basis for a confidence in increasing effective ness criterion. There were two direct measures focused upon the inter- nal perception of: the directionality of movement in effectiveness, that is, whether an organization was becoming more or less effective 59 or staying about the same; and upon the relative feelings of 55C-26 and 27- 56E-33 and C-36. 57C-29, 30, 32, and 35. 585 at p < .05, 7 at p < .01, and l4 at p < .001. 147 TABLE i f INTERNALLY PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS INDEX: INTERCORRELATIONS OF COMPONENT MEASURES* Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Goal Accomplishment 1.000 .655 . 582 .642 .577 .208 .439 .429 2. Satisfaction 1.000 .636 • 798 .581 .472 .678 .405 3. Goals Agreement 1.000 .715 .718 .585 .442 .365 4. Means Agreement 1.000 .661 .530 .584 .366 5. Information Scanning 1.000 .462 .499 .284 6. Feedback Search 1.000 .587 .440 7. Coping-Change 1.000 VO C V J - c f • 8. Coping-Unexpected 1.000 *With a constant N of 35, the level of confidence at which r becomes statistically significant, using a two-tailed test is: p < .05 if r = .334 to .429, P < .01 if r = .430 to .531, and p < .001 if r > .532i 6o ■ confidence about the future of the organization. The response to j | 6l ! these two items were highly intercorrelated, but were not strongly j | t associated with the measures of internally perceived effectiveness used i in D 1 2 . The aggregation of these two measures has the effect of scor- ; jing more highly those organizations which saw themselves increasing j j ; jtheir effectiveness (even though they may not be high on the previous i criterion index) than those organizations which perceived themselves Isimply maintaining a (perhaps high) status quo or experiencing a declin- 1 'ing level of effectiveness. This index, then, is a future oriented one ■ that may reflect primarily the members' estimate of the organization's ''prospects." Secondary Indexes ; j Traditional and Overall Effectiveness (D l4 and D 1 5 ) | i | To this point we have discussed three primary indexes that are ! j I mutually exclusive. It was also useful to construct two secondary ag- j ;gregated criteria of a different configuration. The first of these, titled Traditional Effectiveness (D 14) aggregated the two measures of i goal accomplishment (internally and externally perceived) with the over-; 62 1 iall environmental perception of effectiveness. The two environmental { measures correlated strongly, 5 while the internally perceived goal I ! ; 1 i ' 60w Q \ E-O. i i ; j £ - 1 - r r = .738, p < .001. i j C-26 and D-9 and 8 respectively. i 1 i 63D-9 with D-8, r < = .876, p < .001. accomplishment measure correlates with both environmental measures at a j | I moderate level. This was titled "traditional” because it was heavily j i i weighted both towards goal accomplishment (two out of three items) and towards the outside evaluation of effectiveness (two out of the three j i J [items were based upon external data). j i i | The other secondary index, Overall Effectiveness (D 15)? was i an aggregation of the effects of those twelve direct measures employed i ! | jin the indexes of effectiveness discussed above (D 11 - 1^). In addi- j i tion to those qualifications already discussed relevant to such an over-| jail index (cf. D 6 and D 7 earlier in this chapter), two additional , \ ; points must be kept in mind in the use of this criterion. First, unlike; D l4 above, it was heavily weighted toward internally generated data ' ■ [ ! ; l(ten out of twelve measures were from this source). While D l4 is a i i more traditional measure of effectiveness emphasizing external evalua- j | ! jtion, D 15 is a more traditional effectiveness measure emphasizing in ternal evaluation. Second, the effects of those measures represented in b 12 and D 13 were in many cases quite dissimilar. That is, an organi- i ' z at ion would need to have scored consistently high or low on the meas- ! I . jures composing both of those indexes in order to fall at either end of the distribution on this criterion. Those organizations which scored inconsistently on those measures would have this difference diluted within this criterion. The index does, however, have utility because those consistently high or low organizations are highlighted. C-26 with D-8 and D-9 respectively, r = .427 and .407? P < ■Q&s_______ .__________. - ____________ . . - _ “ 1 50 Goal Orientation, Identity, Reality Orientation, and Adaptiveness; The Criterion of Organizational Health (D 16, 17* 18, and~19T The final criterion of organizational effectiveness is that of organizational health (D 19) . The model for this criterion was drawn from the proposals of Bennis and Argyris discussed in Chapter III. Es sentially the model used in this research incorporates the three dimen sions of the Bennis model of organizational health (adaptability, iden tity, and reality testing), and supplements them with the objectives* achievement dimension suggested by Argyris. This criterion is based on the assumption that organizations, when visualized as systems, can be defined as more effective to the extent they: 1. Accomplish objectives (that is, deal with the constraints established by members, and between them and the environ ment, having to do with purposes— Goal Orientation); 2. Maintain the capacity to resolve reciprocity issues (that is, deal with the internal issue of assuring the continued basis of contribution, and having goals broadly understood and accepted by members— Identity); 3. Adapt to change (that is, through effective problem solv ing to deal with alterations in both their environments and internal conditions— Adaptiveness); U. Become more reality centered (that is, perceive accurately the conditions, events, problems, and relationships which affect them, and in which they are situated--Reality Orien tation) . In order to construct this final dependent variable, it was necessary to develop four indexes upon which it could be based. For the index of Adaptiveness the Overall Adaptiveness, dependent variable (D 7) was used; the derivation of the other three indexes is discussed below. Goal Accomplishment (D 16) This index was formed by aggregating the effects of the two ! measures on the extent of goal accomplishment as perceived internally b5 'and externally. The internal and external perceptions of goal ac- 66 [complishment were moderately congruent. Since both of these measures ! | I [were employed in other indexes, an organization's score on D 16 was not I independent of its scores on D 11, D 12, or D 1^. | I identity (D 17) j This concept refers to the members' understanding and accept ance of organizational goals and means, the willingness of members to ■ [invest meaning in the organization, and the effective resolution of reciprocity issues that sustain a member's continued willingness to par-; ticipate in the organization. Five internal measures were aggregated to i j create this criterion index. To test the goal understanding question, 1 respondents within an organization were asked to estimate the extent to (Lri j jwhich they felt they understood what goals were operative. To test ! j [agreement within an organization on objectives and mechanisms for ac- j jcomplishment, the respondent was asked to estimate the extent to which j he felt he was in agreement with the other members of the organization i about the goals they were trying to achieve and the means to be used in 68 achieving them. To test the investment of value issue the respondent j 152 was asked to estimate the extent to which he felt personally involved in 69 accomplishing the goals of the organization. ^ To test for the quality of reciprocity resolutions, the respondent was asked to estimate the ex tent to which he felt that both his personal objectives and those of the 70 organization were being achieved concurrently. Empirically these conceptually linked measures appeared to be sufficiently interrelated. These data are presented in Table 5. All relationships were positive I 1 TABLE 5 IDENTITY INDEX: INTERCORRELATIONS OF COMPONENT MEASURES* Measures 1 2 3 k 5 1. Goal Agreement 1.000 .715 .308 .513 .397 2. Means Agreement 1.000 .1*29 .655 .2^8 3- Goal Involvement 1.000 .719 .1*52 1 * . Personal/Organizational 1.000 .162 Goal Fusion 5. Clarity of Goal 1.000 Under standing #With a constant N of 35, the level of confidence at which r becomes statistically significant, using a two-tailed test is: p < .05 if r = .33^ to . 1 * 29, p < .01 if r = .1*30 to .531, and p < .001 if r > .532. C-31. 70. C-37. 153 i and seven out of the ten were significant at levels of confidence of i i ! 71 •p < .05 or higher. The inclusion of the two items testing agreement | on goals and means produce an overlap between this index and the Inter- ; j ; Inal Effectiveness criterion (D 12). j Reality Orientation (D 18) t I This concept reflected the capacity of an organization to per- jceive a wide field of information accurately. Two measures, one direct j j j jand one inferred, comprised this index. The direct measure tested the extent to which information was perceived upon a long, rather than a 72 1 short, time perspective. That is, that information used in decision [ t Imaking tended not to be perceived with a primary emphasis only upon the , |present, past, or future or a combination of two of these. The inferred measure was based upon the attempt to establish some independent base j ! t against which the accuracy of the members* perception could be tested, j ! j The concept of reality orientation is of course subject to the same j irelativistic dilemmas of measurement as that of change. J i i I Arbitrarily it was assumed that the organization's boundary t : I (represented by the external relationship dimension of the theoretical j model) was a property; information about which could be held in common j j by both the members of the organization and their salient environment, j Again, arbitrarily, it was decided to accept the environmentally per ceived degree of instability (operationalized as the difference between \ 1 the amount of change perceived by them as occurring and needed) as the | ! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i t < 2 at p < .05, 2 at p < .01, and 3 at p < .001. j 72E-25.________„ __________ _________ _________ j [base point for comparison. The relative difference between the inter nally perceived need for, and occurrence of change, in these external relationships was therefore compared to the external definition of this i ■same discrepancy. An inspection for possible curvilinearity in the re- j llationship between these two discrepancy scores was made. The relation-; j I jship was found to be essentially linear in the negative range (where j j ; Internals perceived less of a change deficit than externals), with the |few cases in the positive range (where internals perceived more of a I , I change deficit than externals) tending to flatten out the curve. It was therefore decided to use the signed numbers reflecting the size of this , discrepancy (in standard score form) as an inferred measure of congru- 1 ■ j jency of perception with the environment; or in the framework used here, ; I iof reality orientation. The direct and inferred measures used to create 'this index were then found to be related and the index was formed by I 73 laggregating their contributions. This index must be interpreted with j ! ! | I extreme caution because of the experimental and tentative nature of its i j 'construction. i SOrganizational Health (D 19) i j t j The conceptual linkages of the four independent indexes com- I | . | posing this final dependent variable were empirically supported. In specting the intercorrelations of D 7, D 16, D 17? and D 18, one finds ; that they are all positive with three at a level of confidence p < .01 ; 74 and three at p < .001. Though these indexes were quite different in s i j 73r = MK, p < .05. I ________ 7^See Table 6. . their degrees of tentativeness (reflected, for example, in the fact that| twenty-one measures were used in the construction of the adaptiveness ! index, five in the identity index and two each in the goal orientation and reality orientation indexes) it was decided that it would be ana- i lytically more useful to compose this final criterion of organizational I health (D 19) by an equally weighted aggregation of the effects of these! 1 four indexes. That is, while the other secondary indexes were formed by jthe aggregation of individual measure scores, this index was formed by I : aggregating index scores, with each of the four carrying equal weight. This was necessary to prevent this dependent variable from being over- ; ! I ! 1 whelmingly affected by the adaptiveness measures. In addition, there fore, to the caveats previously discussed concerning such an overall ^criterion, it must be kept in mind in the interpretation of this cri terion that its four components are highly varied in their degree of i 1 ! exactitude, and also that they are predominantly formed from i n t e r n a l l y 1 j I perceived data. j i I Dependent Variables I The first major objective of this research was to conceptual- j ize, model and operationalize the concepts of organizational adaptive- j ' j : ness, self-initiation of change, and effectiveness as attributes or I capacities of organizations. The nineteen dependent variables intro- j 1 f duced in this chapter represent this operationalization. Figure 3 notes i ; ! i the abbreviated titles of these variables and depicts schematically 1 their conceptual linkages and derivations. j 156 FIGURE 3 LINKAGES AMONG DEPENDENT-VARIABLE INDEXES Major Concepts Indexes a Adaptiveness D 2 Balance D 3 Task D 4 Maintenance D 5 Confidence^ D 1 External*^ ^ D 6 Internal^ D 7 Overall Adaptiveness D 8 External Self-Initiation of Change Organizational Effectiveness } * D 10 Overall Self -Initiation D 9 Internal D 11 External D 12 Internal D 13 Confidence D l4 Traditional^ D 16 Goals0 *1 D 17 Identity 7^ D 18 Reality I D 7 Adaptiveness^! ■^D 15 Overall Ef fectiveness D 19 Organiza tional Health a Inter-column linkages indicate non-independence, b Not independent from D 11 or D 12. c Not independent from D 11, D 12 or D l4. d Same as D 7 above. 157} f I j Reliability and Validity i i Using the theoretical framework, research design, and data i gathered by this research we have operationalized a number of dependent variables within the three major areas of concern. The validity of | these criteria may be judged on both theoretical and systematic bases. f | Commencing with the explication of the theoretical model of the organi- j zational system and the concepts of change and adaptiveness, the re search attempted to frame questions which would validly reflect the major dimensions of these models. The correspondence between these > i ! 1 models and the data generated by the perceptual questions asked is, of j i : i course, tentative. The data appear to suggest, however, that within ! i ,this range of tentativeness the concepts of adaptiveness, self-initia- . tion of change and effectiveness can in fact be operationally repre- j Isented as attributes or capacities of organizational systems. | ; Since no independent base lines were available, it was not pos-j I sible to assess the accuracy or reliability of respondent perceptions in ; ! jany absolute sense. Since it was accepted that the data bases and per- ; j j ceptions of respondents would differ, it was not reasonable to assume j ! j that the questionnaire items could be treated as test items for which a ; coefficient of reliability would serve as an adequate measure of repro- j ! ductibility. Constraints upon organizational time precluded the use of j i an additional sample (both large enough and similar enough to the re- I search sample) to allow a test-retest procedure to establish indepen- 1 I dently the degree of response consistency on particular items. Cambin- ; I ing these conditions with a set of moderately complex instruments, one j | can only assume that the data are subject to an unknown, but possibly i large, source of error variance. It is reasonable to believe, however, i that the effects of this error variance are more likely to be randomiz- I i : ing than systematic, with a consequent conservative effect upon hypothe-1 t isis testing. That is, "true" research hypotheses are more likely to be ' | j rejected than "false" ones are to be accepted. Given the exploratory ! I nature of the research this would not appear to be an intolerable prob- ! ilem. I : i The use of the organizational system as the unit of analysis i j ; bade necessary the aggregation of individual questionnaire responses i j |into organizational "scores." A mean of individual responses was ac- i ! cepted as this aggregate score. This procedure raises a number of re- i i liability and validity issues. A mean acts to weigh all responses ; equally. That some respondents may know "more" or be more accurate in j ■their perceptions is ignored; some respondents may occupy more "central" |or powerful status positions or play more critical roles. To have con structed some weighting procedure would, however, have required a sep- ! 1 arate research effort of considerable magnitude. 1 i ! If there were sharply discrepant perceptions on a given ques- ! j j tion the use of a mean would act to mask this discrepancy by construe- ! I ! jting an intermediate "number" that potentially could correspond to no i ! [respondent's perception. Data arrays were inspected along with standard^ deviation figures for each organization on each item and this would not j appear to have occurred. That is, the responses about individual organ-i I izations usually cohered sufficiently to make mean figures representa- ! i . tive. As with the previously discussed factors, however, the use of a j r mean as a descriptive measure would appear to be either random or 159 ^conservative rather than systematically biasing in its effects. j 1 The construction of indexes rather than the use of single meas- 1 i ures represented the attempt to deal with both validity and reliability : Sissues. In most cases the ultimate configuration of an index repre sented a process of successive eliminations of particular item measures.; j i That is, more potential criterion measures were designed and built into J the questionnaire instruments than were ultimately used. The index con-! I : jstruction process represented a combination of construct narrowing and i ' redefinition that went on concurrently with the selection and elimina tion of specific measures chosen to define a given index. Typically, those items removed were ones that either measured something that was unintended or not understood by the researcher, or measured the intended phenomenon unreliably (reflected by the cluster analysis and correla- ; tional procedures employed). 1 I Internal-External Congruency ; Another way of approaching the reliability question is to ask j whether the dependent variables, which are assumed to refer to an or- Iganizational attribute or capacity, reflect this attribute or capacity, | Ibased upon different sources of data. This test may be made within i | these data because in most cases parallel indexes have been constructed,! based upon internal and external perceptions. This is not a completely \ ! adequate test because the data upon which a concept is operationalized t i imay be less visible to one of the parties, or may be interpreted within ! such a different context that the expected correspondence would be un- j likely. Within these constraints let us examine the degree of j i 160l I congruency between different information sources. Table 6 represents i ! ! the matrix of intercorrelations between the dependent-variable indexes, j The internal (D 9) and external (D 8) indexes of self-initia- ! jfcion of change reflect a significant congruency of perception from the i 75 perspectives of members and environmentals. Comparing the external ] j |(D l) and overall internal (D 6) perceptions of adaptiveness one finds | v6 that these indexes are also moderately in agreement. While the ex ternal (D ll) and internal (D 1 2 ) indexes of effectiveness are posi- ; I 77 tively related, the relationship is not particularly strong. One may ■ conclude, therefore, that in each of the three dependent variable areas i I | that the internal and external perceptions were positively related, and : in the cases of self-initiation of change and adaptiveness at statis- ; i . [tically significant levels of confidence. j ; ’ i ! j Interrelationships of the Dependent Variables ; ! i I i | It is now possible to test the two hypotheses involving the de-j : i pendent variables. In research form these were: the more self-initi- j I i ating of change, the more adaptive the organization would be; and, the Imore adaptive, the more effective the organization would be. i ! ! i ! j The More Self-Initiating of Change, the More Adaptive j j Stated in its null form this hypothesis was: | 75r = .5CA, p < .01. 76r = Al3, P < .05. 11t = .273, P > .05. TABLE 6 INTERCORRELATIONS OF DEPENDENT-VARIABLE INDEXES* 161 Indexes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 D 1 1.000 .163 .205 .215 .339 .^13 — .526 .462 .508 D 2 1.000 -.043 -.127 .284 -- — .065 -.150 -.145 D 3 1.000 .379 .3^8 — — .151 .540 .513 D ^ 1.000 .199 — — .188 .359 .355 D 5 1.000 — — .398 .301 .340 D 6 ...1,000 — .240 .3^6 .354 D 7 1.000 .440 .474 .•504 D 8 1.000 .504 — D 9 1.000 — D 10 n n 1.000 D 12 D 13 D l4 D 15 D 16 D 17 D 18 D 19 TABLE 6 (continued) Indexes 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 D 1 .785 .184 .091 .735 .370 .654 .390 .518 — D 2 .044 •334 .164 .158 .320 .220 .433 .094 — i D 3 .128 .507 .239 .192 .498 .202 .437 .220 — D I f .257 .211 .371 .222 .325 .166 .218 .262 — j D 5 .312 .528 .454 .438 .615 .437 .646 .256 — D 6 .333 .597 .450 .442 .674 .457 .726 .319 — ; D 7 .639 .486 .340 .682 .636 .648 .682 .488 — D 8 .if 36 -.060 .069 .322 .080 .194 .163 .413 .373 D 9 .482 .171 -.143 .225 .367 .308 .319 .452 D 10 .510 .143 -.117 .454 .216 .364 .306 .360 .473 D 11 1.000 .273 .034 .334 .529 D 12 i 1.000 .292 .341 D 13 1.000 .093 — .107 .405 .145 .307 D l*f 1.000 .523 D 15 1.000 — — .444 D 16 1.000 .536 .439 • - i D 17 1.000 .479 D 18 1.000 D 19 l.oooj i t I | #With an N of 35 s using a two-tailed test of significance, r becomes statistically significant at the p < .05 level of confidence if r > j .33^ but < . 1*30; p < .01 if r > .430 but < .532; and p < .001 if j r > .532. Where no figure is entered it is because a correlation co- 1 efficient would be spurious, the two variables in question not being i -JjodependejQkt— ............... . _- _______ ___ ______I : i63j Hypothesis I: There is no significant relationship between an | organization's capacity to self-initiate its own cbangei and its capacity for adaptation. ' i Though stated in the most conservative form (no directionality : imputed and hence only a two-tailed test of significance possible) this ' hypothesis was, with certain qualifications noted below, disconfirmed. ; i t i | Organizations perceived by their environments to be more self-initiatingi of their own change (D 8) tended to be perceived by their environments 7 8 7 0 jas more adaptive (D l) and more effective (D 11). Organizations which see themselves as more self-initiating of their own change (D 9) 80 tend to perceive themselves as more adaptive (D 6), but not neces- 8l sarUy as more effective (D 12 and 13). Using the combined internal and external indexes of self-initiation (D 10) and adaptiveness (D 7) one finds the relationship between these two variables significant at 82 the p < .01 level of confidence. It is particularly interesting to i : i examine the internal primary indexes of adaptiveness, as these offer | | I » i greater insight into what the nature of the relationship between self initiation and adaptiveness .may be. ! \ j Using these internal primary indexes, one finds no strong re- j QLationship between the extent of change self-initiation (D 9) and either; [the index of internal change confidence (D 5) or perceived balance of | 78r = .526, p < .01. 79r = .436, p < .01. 80r = .3^, P < .05. r = .171 and -.1^3 respectively, p > .05. 82r = .50b. 164 Q q change (D 2), Both indexes of internally perceived worthwhileness of j i i [ i change (D 3 and D 4) are, however, significantly related to the extent j ■ i jof internally perceived self-generation of change (D 9).^ One may in- Ifer from these data that self-generated changes are ones that are valued highly and contribute to a perception of adaptiveness, on the part of j i ; both members and environmentals; but they are not necessarily related to decreasing the actual discrepancies between the need for change and its ; joccurrence as defined by members. We shall return to this point in the : [following chapter because it is suggestive of both the importance of S openness to environmental information, and some of the internal impera- ■ ! I tives that may be critical to an effective change and development style. | i ; i The More Adaptive, the More Effective i Stated in its null form this hypothesis was: ■ i j | Hypothesis II: There is no significant relationship between an! ! organization's capacity for adaptation and its effec- j tiveness. j j Though also stated in the most conservative form (no direction-1 I \ iality imputed and hence only a two-tailed test of significance possible)! |this hypothesis was disconfirmed. Organizations perceived by their en- j vironments to be more adaptive (D l) tended to be perceived by their en-i 85 • vironments as being more effective (D ll). Organizations which saw | themselves as more adaptive (D 6) -tended to perceive themselves as more j g o j r = .301 and -.150 respectively, p > .05. 84 . ■ r = ,5W and .359* P < .001 and .05 respectively. ; 85r = .785, P < -001. j 86 ' effective (D 12) and possessing greater confidence about their future I ! 87 ! effectiveness (D 13). This relationship between adaptiveness and ef- ■ i fectiveness was supported by the association found to exist between the icombined internal and external indexes of adaptiveness (D 7), and the traditional and overall effectiveness (D 14 and D 15) indexes where the ; I t 1 two relationships were significant at the p < .001 levels of confi- j j . 88 dence. I j One cannot discuss the relationships between adaptiveness and I ; Ithe final dependent variable of organizational health (D 19) because i 89 that variable includes the adaptiveness measures. One can, however, idiscuss the relationships between the adaptiveness indexes and the other three component indexes, of which the organizational-health criterion i s ' . composed. The overall adaptiveness index (D 7) is significantly relatedj to the three dimensions of; goal accomplishment (D l6),9<’ > identity ! [ | |(D 1 7 ) and reality orientation (D 18).92 Since this organizational- j j I health criterion is not mutually exclusive of the other effectiveness ; ; J ; t criteria it is also not possible to explore their relationships directly; However, based both on the foregoing discussion and the inspection of j | I ! i | - .597, P < .001. ; 87r = MO, p < .01. ; Q Q j r = s .682 and .636 respectively. : 89 That is, any correlational figures would be spuriously high i is the indexes are not independent. ; an 1 9°r = .648, p < .001. | “ 1 91r = .682, p < .001. | ______92r = .488 . p < .0 1. . j ~ 1 { j intercorrelations of those measures used to construct its component in- ! | | dexes, it appears reasonable to conclude that this organizational-healthi criterion does not conflict with any of the other effectiveness measures : | and represents a more encompassing and generic concept of an organiza tional system's effectiveness. j ; | : S : i Summary A number of dependent-variable indexes relevant to the adap- i tiveness, effectiveness, and self-initiation of change capacities within: organizational systems have been operationalized and their relationships! explored. Figure ^ schematically depicts some of the relationships be- i tween the more important of these. These indexes, though tentative in i their current exploratory form, appear to possess a measure of syste- j matic validity and empirical reliability. It should be re-emphasized I i i - I that these indexes are not meant to measure absolute quantities. They j ! i are intended rather as tools to be used in establishing relative degreesJ or levels of certain specified organizational attributes or capacities, ! within a specified sample of certain research and development organiza- i tions. We are now in a position to begin the exploration of those fac- ! | i tors or conditions hypothesized to be associated with, or productive of, j i organizational adaptiveness. j ; i The Independent Variables I The purpose for the adaptiveness indexes was to make possible empirical research concerning the conditions, characteristics, and at- j jbributes that might be associated with an organization's capacity for j adaptation. Having presented the findings on the derivation and 167 FIGURE 4 SELECTED DEPENDENT VARIABLES: SOME RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MAJOR CONCEPTS BY DATA SOURCES* Major Concepts; Source of Data External Internal Aggregate Effectiveness D lif— r = ■273-4D 12 /N r = .785 r = .597 Adaptiveness D 1 ■ r = - r = -r = -r = -r = r = .526 Self-Initia tion of Shange r = .413-SD 6 r = .346 r = .504-vD 9 .682 D 14 Traditional .636 D 15 Overall .648 D 16 Goal Accom- plishment .682 D 17 Identity .488 D 18 Reality Orientation ■B—Z 4" r = .504 D 10 *With a constant N of 35? "the level of confidence at which r becomes statistically significant, using a two-tailed test is: p < .05 if r = .33^ to .429, p < .01 if r = .430 to .531, and p < .001 if r > .532. operationalization of these dependent-variable indexes we now consider i the findings on the independent variables whose relationship with adap tiveness was explored in this research. In its null form the final ma- i i ijor hypothesis tested by this research was: j Hypothesis III: There is no significant relationship between i an organization's capacity for adaptation and the char-i acteristics of its environment, internal system or ! members. ' | The dependent variable in this hypothesis was the adaptiveness jcapacity of organizations. Seven indexes of this capacity had been de- j yeloped— five mutually-exclusive indexes and two secondary-aggregate in- jdexes. The independent variable was operationalized by constructing a number of subvariables that were hypothesized to be the attributes of, : i or contributing elements to, adaptiveness in organizations. Data to j construct measures of these constituent parts of the independent vari- ■ | ! able were gathered from members of the organization, members of its | salient environment, its management hierarchy, and from data available |in laboratory records. i Since the two secondary-aggregate indexes of adaptiveness com- j ibined the effects of the mutually-exclusive indexes, it is useful in i | this section to report findings using only the five primary indexes as j this provides the sharpest differentiation of findings. References to j these adaptiveness indexes are hereafter abbreviated to: D 1, External;! i D 2, Balance; D 3» Task-Change Quality; D 4, Maintenance-Change Quality;, E and D 5» Confidence. The independent variables are organized around the i i three major systemic perspectives identified in Chapter II— the environ-: ment, the organization, and the constituent members. Tne independent variables represent the operationalization of those models of the adap- i | ! tive organization introduced in Chapter III. j i i The research was focused on discovering characteristics which j yere associated with the adaptiveness of organizations, and was carried ; but within a research and development laboratory. This laboratory's ! i york ranged across a spectrum of activities from fundamental research to! the provision of engineering support to operational systems which had ; j been developed in prior years. The variation in work posed both an op- iportunity and a constraint for this research. The opportunity was that i •the independent variables could be tested for their degree of associa- ; I i ; tion with different types of research and development work. The con straint was that the nature-of-work differences had to be explored as : I j •the basis for observed differences in the independent variables, rather I j i i than assuming that adaptiveness was the only known major source of pos- j Sible variation. I Each organization was assessed by its manager and his super- j Visor in terms of the extent to which the work being done by the organ- | i QQ ;ization corresponded to seven major categories. Since two of these ! j Categories were performed by only a few organizations, and no basis of j I i jeomparability was available, it was decided to use data relevant to the ! I i five major categories; research, exploratory development, advanced de- j | I iVelopment, engineering development, and operational development, j Appendix G includes information about the relationships, that j I ' reached at least the p < .05 level of confidence, found to exist between; ^See Appendix B item 13 for the definition of these categories!. : " " i ? O j J } hypothesized independent variables and both primary and secondary adap- \ I i [tiveness indexes. Appendix H provides information about the relation- j i i Ships found to exist between those independent variables discussed in jthis section and both adaptiveness, as measured by the five primary in dexes, and the nature-of-work variables. i ! Environmental Variables j In the theoretical framework developed in Chapter II it was s : jsuggested that organizations ought to be studied in relation to their ienvironments. The environment was conceptualized as the source of op- Iportunities and constraints for the organization. In Chapter III the j character and quality of environmental relationships developed by an 1 i [organization were identified as important to the degree of adaptiveness j i ! which it might achieve. t ; It was hypothesized that organizations with greater degrees of I i |cross-boundary interaction would be more adaptive. The organization j jwith greater degrees of environmental linkage was hypothesized as likely j jto be able to convert the information generated by these linkages into 1 ! j jgreater adapativeness. One datum supported this hypothesis. Organiza- j < ; tions whose members interacted more frequently with environmentals were ; 94 I more likely to score higher on the Balance Index. In general, how- | t ever, the data would support the rejection of this hypothesis. Organi- | zations whose members spent a greater proportion of their time in ex- ! ternal interaction tended to be seen by their environments as less i ! 9S) 2 with E-12, r = .382, p < .05. ! f 05 adaptive. Organizations whose members interacted more frequently j i i 1 across the organization’s boundary tended to score lower on Task-Change j t 96 Quality The extent of environmental interaction appeared to he more : important as an indication of dilemma than as a source of positively- i {valued adaptiveness. ; i I I Environmentals identified organizations with whom they had morei contact, as less adaptive. Perhaps this can be interpreted as: "We !keep telling them, but they don’t hear." Organizations with more fre- i quent environmental interaction tended to perceive themselves in a po- ! 3 rtential overload situation. Perhaps this can be interpreted as: If {they would only stop telling uj% we might be able to get on with the im- ! ; ! portant tasks." The rate of environmental interaction was found to be j related to the nature of work being carried out by a given organization.; i ■Organizations heavily involved in engineering and operational-develop- { 97 ! ment work were characterized by significantly higher rates, while ex- I I | jploratory development and research organizations were characterized by { i l o w e r r a t e s . ^ i . It was hypothesized that the extent to which an organization i i 1 | 'identified its environmental relationships to be important and saw j_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j 95D 1 with C-II-1*, r = -.1*32, P < .01. j 3 with E-12, r = -.356, p < .05. j ^Respectively, r = .U08 and ,367> p < .05. j ^Respectively, r = -.M*0, p < .01 and r = -.215. Though this : relationship was not significant in the case of research organizations, i it is clear that their external interaction commitments are less. For j example, C-II-5 (proportion of time spent in external and non-NOTS in- j teraction) and B-13-a (research work) were inversely related at the p < .05 level with an r of -.388. { 172 j t i i \ jitself to be affected by environmental decisions would also be produc- j 1 i i t [tive of adaptation. That is, the organization more sensitive to its i ; environment was hypothesized to be more likely to search for that infor-; I : i . mation upon which adaptations might be developed. With one exception [the data did not support this hypothesis. | . j Organizations whose members attributed more importance to their; jenvironmental relationships were more likely to be adaptive, but only as 99 measured by the Balance Index. The other indexes were not signifi cantly related to the degree of importance attributed to environmental I ' relationships. Further, the extent to which members identified their I ' organization as being affected by environmental decision tended to be ; t associated with the extent to which such organizations were identified as lower on Task-Change Quality.Research organizations were less : i i 'likely to attribute importance to their environmental relationships or 101 * jto see environmental decisions affecting them. Engineering-develop- i iment organizations were more likely to attribute importance to these re-j ! I jlationships.102 Ope rat iona 1 - development organizations were more likely | 10^ to see themselves being affected by environmental decisions. : It was also hypothesized that the permeability of an organiza- j i tion*s boundary would affect its degree of adaptiveness. This ! I ! " d 2 with E-65, r = .480, p < .01. ! i 100D 3 with E-66, r = -.462, p < .01. j ^^"B-lS-a with E-65 and E-66 respectively, r = -.488, p < .05, and r = -.566, p < .001. 102B-13-e with E-65, r = .417, P < .05. _______ 10^B-13-g with E-6 6, r = .448, p < . 0 1 . ______ 173 hypothesis suggested that the extent to which an organization took the suggestions of its environment into account would he related to its de gree of adaptiveness. Based on internally-generated data the extent to which an organization considered externally-generated suggestions about change was not significantly related to scores on the External Balance, or Task-Change Quality Indexes; but was positively related to the 1 0 14 - Main tenance-Change Quality and Confidence Indexes. The extent to which environmentals identified an organization as accepting their suggestions for change was associated with the extent to which an or- 105 ganization was evaluated as adaptive by the environment. The im portance attributed by environmentals to the opportunity to suggest change was associated with the degree to which an organization scored 106 higher on the Balance Index. The importance attributed by organiza tional members to external suggestions for change varied by the kind of work being performed. Research organizations attributed significantly less importance to them, while engineering development organizations attributed more.^^ In summary, the character of the relationships between an or ganization and its environment were found to be important to an 10\-69 with D 4 and D5 respectively; r = .505, P < .01, and r = .367, P < .05* 105D 1 with D-l4, r = .4l4, p < .05. 106D 2 with D-13, r = .381, p < .05. 107e-68 with B-13-a and B-13-e respectively; r = -.666, p < .001, and r = .IfU, p < .05. I " " ~ 171+ organization’s adaptiveness. The nature of these relationships were : i : I not, however, always of the strength, consistency or direction antici- j ; i pated by the hypotheses. The only variable found to be associated with 1 the External Index was the extent to which environmentals saw their sug-l gestions for change being accepted. An organization's score on the ! ! j Balance Index was found to be related to the frequency of external in- j teraction, the importance attributed by members to the external rela- j ; i tionship, and to the extent environmentals wanted to suggest change. j - : ;The Task-Change Quality Index was found to be negatively related to the j jfrequency of external interaction and to the extent that members saw ex-j ternal decisions affecting them. The extent to which members saw them- I selves taking external suggestions into account was the only variable that was found to be significantly related to the Maintenance-Change and: : t jlnternal Confidence in Adaptiveness Indexes. ! I ! | One might summarize these findings by proposing that the extent ito which environmental suggestions for change are taken into account is : ! ! associated with the extent an organization is seen by its environment j i i i ! to be adaptive, sees itself to be changing where change is needed, feels: i i confident that necessary maintenance-oriented changes are being made, ! 1 1 but feels ambivalent about the substantive implications of these | i changes. In the research and development laboratory studied in this research, the dilemmas occasioned by an increasing intensity of environ-! mental linkage appeared to increase as one moved from research toward I more applied-engineering work. J ; ' ... ' ” """ ' ' 175 j : I i Organizational Variables j * > I [ A number of organization-based independent variables were de- ! ! i ! I veloped from the review presented in Chapter III. The findings relevant! to them are presented in this section, grouped into five major cate gories; nature of work, structure, management, information-communication, i I Sand "teamness." These categories of independent variables are not im- | plied to be mutually exclusive, but are rather suggested as a convenient; i ; i 1 (Clustering device. Several of their constituent variables are distin- | guished from the following section that deals with individual variables i j ! ,only by degree or emphasis. The hypotheses tested in this section, | i therefore, are focused on the hypotheses suggesting relationships be- ! i ■ tween the internal characteristics of an organization and its degree of ; i adaptiveness. j j Mature of Work ! ! | The relative independence of adaptiveness-index scores and the J t j nature of work being conducted within an organization was discussed j earlier in this chapter. Only two exceptions were found. Organizations! jheavily involved in research work were more likely to score higher on j T oft ' Task-Change Quality. Organizations heavily involved in operational j l 109 development were less likely to be confident of their adaptiveness. i i Because the nature-of-work variable is important to this analysis, how- ; ever, it is worth noting some of the interrelationships between work i i 10^B-13-a with D r = .356, p < .05. I 109B-13-g with D 5, r = -.370, p < .05. j _______________________ __________________________ :________________ .. . . J 176 t 'characteristics as they were found in the organizations in this sample. I | i ; To the extent that an organization was involved in research I j i Work it was significantly: less likely to be engaged in advanced or 110 engineering development, and to be confronting problems which its members identified as highly urgent;'*'1' 1 ' and more likely to be carrying i I r out work that was specialized, required an unusual degree of skill or 112 jtraining, and was conducted in a way that allowed time for reflection. To the extent an organization was involved in exploratory development it i i was significantly less likely to be engaged in engineering development i 1 1 3 jor operational development. To the extent an organization was in- ! * ; \ ■ volved in advanced development it was significantly less likely to be engaged in research and more likely to be engaged in work of a variety n U ! Of types across the research and development spectrum. i i i To the extent an organization was involved in engineering de- j yelopment it was significantly: less likely to be engaged in research j 115 I or exploratory development; and more likely to be engaged in work of ; ; I 1 I I ^ i 110 B-13-a with B-13-c and B-13-e respectively, r = -.387 and i-395, P < .05. i i ! m B-13-a with E-5, r = -.566, p < .001. 112B-13-a with E-l8, E-20 and E-71 respectively: r = .59^, j p < .001; r = .502, p < .01; and r = .3^2, p < .05. S 11'^B-13-b with B-13-e and B-13-g respectively, r = -.^95 and ’ ! “ . i f I f 9 9 P < .01. ■^B-lS-c with B-13-a and B-13-x respectively, r = -.387 and •335, P < .05. | ■^B-lS-e with B-13-a and B-13-b respectively; r = -.395* I P < .05, and r = -.495* P < .01. j " ' “ ~ 177 ; j I a variety of types across the research and development spectrum, as well: as confronting problems which its members identified to be highly I I nfi urgent. To the extent an organization was involved in operational development it was significantly less likely to be engaged in explora- : i 117 tory development. To summarize, though most organizations were involved in more i than one type of work, and several were engaged in work that spanned i ■ [the entire research and development spectrum, the concentration of work Of a particular type tended to be associated with other conditions. i Specialization of individual skills tended to be associated most with : i research and exploratory development, while multiple work objectives and problem urgency tended to be associated with advanced engineering and [ ■ operational development. I | ; Structure j Certain independent variables were developed which pertained to| i i fthe structural features of an organization. The first of these had to ! ! !do with age. If the capacity for adaptation were a natural attribute of1 j ; ^organizations, then some cause would have to intervene if this capacity j j ! were to be diminished over time. It was therefore hypothesized that j there would be no negative relationship between the length of time whichj ! an organization had existed as a discrete unit (including the change in ; management, membership, name, and organizational home which a number had ■^^B-lS-e with B-13-x and E-5 respectively, r = .465 and .4-59» j p < . 0 1. i 1I7B-13-g With B-13-b, r = -.449, p < .01. j ~m Undergone) and its degree of adaptiveness. !Ehe median organization in j ! i the sample had existed for seven years, with the range being from one to! j ! eighteen years. This hypothesis was supported. No significant rela- ; I tionship was found between organizational age and either the degree of ! \ adaptiveness or the nature of work being conducted within an organiza tion. The extent to which an organization's members perceived it to be ! I temporary was found, however, to be negatively associated with scores onj ! H8 Iboth the Task-Change Quality and Confidence Indexes. Organizations ( heavily engaged in research perceived themselves to be the least tempo- 119 srary organizations. Though organizational size (total number of members) was found > : 1 to be negatively related to the five adaptiveness indexes, none of these: i relationships were strong enough to reach a p < .05 level of confidence.! j Engineering-development organizations were found to be relatively larger! 120 ' Sthan organizations more heavily engaged in other types of work. i Neither degree of professionalization (proportion of members carrying [ 1 ^professional titles) nor a measure of skills' mix (number of different j j i J j (Classification titles represented within the organization), nor a 1 1 'heterogeneity score (number of members divided by number of classifies- j I ' I tion titles) was found to be significantly associated with any of the I 1 t five adaptiveness indexes. The professionalization and skills'-mix j i F •*^-^-9 with D 3 and D 5 respectively; r = -.h4l, p < .01, and r = -.367j P < .05. I 119E-9 with B-13-a, r = -.368, p < .05. ] ■^R-lS with B-13-e, r = A55, P < .01. | [variables, however, discriminated between organizations engaged in dif- ; ; i ; I ferent types of work. Research organizations were found to be higher j i 3.2 X I in professionalization and lower on the skills'-mix score. Both en- | gineering and operational-development organizations were found to be ■ 122 ■ lower in professionalization, with engineering organizations being ! 123 higher in the skills*-mix score. j > r The average grade level of the organization's members was found ,not to discriminate between more or less adaptive organizations, but it : was found that, relative to other organizations; research units tended ^ ;to have higher, while advanced-development units tended to have lower, ! average grade structures.12* * While the promotion rate (proportion of ■members promoted in the prior year) did not discriminate between organi zations engaged in different kinds of work, it did relate negatively to j 125 • the Balance Index of adaptiveness. The structural-differentiation > ' (number of recognized subunits within the organization) and turnover- ; | rate (proportion of members who had withdrawn in the prior year) vari- i ables were both related negatively to the five adaptiveness indexes, jbut at insignificant levels. 121B-13-a with R-17 and R-l4 respectively, r = .359 and -.1+18, ; ip < .05. I j l 122R-17 with B-13-e and B-13-g respectively; r = -.^31, ip < .01, and r = -.337, P < .05. , — i ^ | 123B-13~e with R-lU, r = .376, p < .05. J 12l+R-10 with B-13-a and B-13-c respectively; r = .693, ; p <_ .001, and r = -.339, P < *°5. j _ " “* } • . 125D 2 with E-ll, r = -.339, P < .05. \ | To summarize, using the p < .05 level of confidence, older or- j ! : ganizations were no less likely to be adaptive than younger ones. The ! .perception of temporariness was, however, characteristic of organiza- | i i tions whose members were less confident about their adaptiveness and who; were less sure of the quality of changes occurring in task-related j kreas. More adaptive organizations were no more likely than less adap- ' tive organizations: to be smaller, more structurally differentiated or jmore professionalized; or to have a mix of more diverse skills, higher ! ’ grade structures, higher promotion rates (with the exception of the Balance Index), or lower turnover rates. Certain of these characteris- ■ tics were, however, associated with the type of work being conducted within a given organization. i- Management ! j As indicated in Chapter III, it has been proposed by various i jauthors that the style of management employed in a given organization isj ; i likely to affect the degree of adaptiveness which that organization may achieve. Eleven questions were asked of members in order to construct ! variables indicative of the style, attitude and behavior of the organi- ; : i zation’s manager. The questions asked the member to estimate the extent; jto which the head of their unit could be characterized as seeking new j ideas, encouraging new ideas, ensuring communication, encouraging co- j operation, developing agreement, identifying problems, lending assist ance, representing the unit upward, representing management downwards, i I providing feedback, and helping members to achieve career goals. Perhaps the most notable finding concerning these variables was' 1 ' that none of them significantly discriminated between more or less j adaptive organizations as measured by the External Index. Five did not j discriminate between adaptiveness scores on any of the internal in- ! I 126 i dexes. Encouraging new ideas, encouraging cooperation, and identify-; 127 ing problems were positively related to Task-Change Quality. Ensur- j L 2 3 !ing communication was positively associated with Balance. Helping | | inembers achieve their career objectives was associated with Task-Change ! 129 Quality, Maintenance-Change Quality and the Confidence Indexes, while va<v prepresenting management downward was related to the Confidence Index. ; I ' In addition to these variables focused on the manager, ques- s j. tions were asked concerning the extent to which the member felt he in- ! fluenced the work he did and the way he did it, exercised influence upon the manager of his organization, and participated in the management of ■ I ■the organization. The extent of influence upon the manager or influence: | • r over the way work was carried out associated significantly with none of ! 131 |the adaptiveness indexes. Influence upon the choice of work assign- ; 132 ' ■ ments was found to be associated with Task-Change Quality, and par- 133 ticipation in management was found to be related to Balance. j * 1 pfC i E-36, E-bo, E-h2, E-if3 and E-^5. j 127D b with E-37, r = .380, p < .05. ! 2 with E-38, E-39 and E-^l respectively: r = .b36, j jp < .01; r = .3^1, p < .05; r = .1*33, P < .01. j with D 3j D ^ and D 5 respectively: r = .586, p < .OOli ir = .378, p < .05; r = .1 * 98, p < .01. With D 5, r = .391, P < .05. I 131E -28 and E-30. ^_______ ^32e -29 with D 3, r * = .389, P < .05._______ j i j j The degree to which these variables characterized a given or- ' ganization provided an insight into the different managerial styles em- j j j ployed in organizations engaged in dissimilar types of work. Research j : ! Organizations were significantly less likely to have managers that en- I 134 ! sured communication, developed agreement or identified problems, but ; ! i were more likely to have members that exercised greater influence over S 135 what work they did and how they did it. Exploratory-development or- j jganizations were more likely to have managers that helped members achieve! j ; their career objectives and to have members who influenced the work they: 1^6 did. Engineering-development organizations were less likely to have i i ! a management style where new ideas were encouraged, or where members saw; themselves influencing either the work they did or the way they did 137 it. Operational-development organizations were less likely to have ! 138 > members who saw themselves influencing the work they did. | To summarize, a set of management-style indicators was found toj ■ I be associated with certain adaptiveness indexes. Variables that were found to be associated with adaptiveness in this manner included: I l ; -27 with D 2, r = .417> P < .05 \ 1^B-13-a with E-38, E-4o and E-4l respectively, r = r.38l, j -.348 and -.420, p < .05. I I ' 13^B-13-a with E-29 and E-30 respectively, r = .643 and .647, f p < .001. : ■^^B-13-b with E-49 and E-29 respectively, r = .354 and .386, P < .05. 13^B-13-e with E-37, E-29 and E-30 respectively: r = -.345, i p < .05; r = -.438, p < .01; r = -.422, p < .05. 138B-13-g with E-29, r = -.340, p < .05. Manager encourages new ideas, encourages cooperation, identifies prob- j lems, ensures communication, represents higher management downward, and j helps members achieve their career objectives; influence upon the choice; pf work that one did; and, participation in management. None of these : management-style indicators, however, discriminated between more or less! i 1 adaptive organizations using the External Index. Organizations which ' ; i differed in the character of work in which they were engaged were found i to score differently on these independent variables. Research and ex ploratory development organizations tended to be characterized by member! i autonomy and passive or helping managerial rules, while engineering and ! operational-development organizations tended to be characterized by less member autonomy and a more directive managerial style. I Informat i on-Communicati on i '■ : I The literature reviewed in Chapter III suggested that an organ-1 ization's adaptation is dependent on the acquisition, communication and I use of information in decision making. Certain independent variables were developed from this proposition. These variables are considered in the order in which they may become relevant to an organization's j change. i An organization whose members identified themselves as actively! i : searching for accurate information was more likely to score highly on ; jthe Balance Index. Effective information-routing routines were I 2 . 1 ^ 0 likely to be associated with both Task-Change Quality and Confidence. 139D 2 with C-32, r = .374, P < .05. j p < .05. 3 and D 5 respectively; r = .482, p < .01, and r = .4-11, ; "" " .‘ ~ " .... ' " “ ' ' m I The usage of available information variable was related to the Balance ! i4i ! Index. Employing information relevant to the past, present and fu- ! i ture, rather than from only one or two of these perspectives, was one of; the few independent variables that discriminated between higher and 142 lower organizations on the External Index. The accuracy of informa- ; rtion used variable was positively related to the Maintenance-Change j Quality Index. ! Identifying changes as resulting from the acquisition of new data was related to both the Task-Change Quality and Confidence In- j 144 dexes. Actively searching for feedback subsequent to the making of ' j ' ■ Changes was related to both the Balance and Task-Change Quality In- 1^5 i jdexes. Success in coping with the unanticipated consequences of ! 146 ‘ change was related to the Task-Change Quality Index. None of these : \ : 1 items relating to information handling and decision making discriminated! between organizations engaged in dissimilar work activities. That is, \ . ! I these variables appeared to be general in their operation across organi-l zations occupying different points along the research and development j spectrum. [ 1 1 ! 2 with E-2^, r = .3^6, p < .05. I llf2D 1 with E-25, r = .^29, p < .05. | I ^ ^ with E-26, r = .372, p < .05. j I 144 i I ' I C-3^ with D 3 and D5 respectively; r = .397, P < *05, and r = .MK), p < .01. with D 2 and D 3 respectively, r = .336 and .3^3, ! P < .05. ! ' D 3 with C-36, r = .U90, p < .01. j 1851 : ■ j | Three communications variables were found to be positively re- j lated to the Balance Index. These variables focused on the extent to i i which a member identified himself as sending messages, receiving mes- lh.r 7 sages, and frequently talking with the organization's head. 1 Research! i organizations tended to be distinguished by the extent their members .communicated infrequently (either with other organizational members or j : the head of the organization) or saw themselves to be the recipients of 148 jcommunication. The members of both advanced and engineering-develop- i ment organizations, on the other hand, saw themselves to be talking with! significantly greater frequency with other members of their organiza tions.1^ To summarize, a number of information-related variables were ; i found to be significantly and positively related to the adaptiveness ! i , I indexes. These variables, unlike prior ones reviewed, tended not to be j I f associated with the nature of work engaged in by a given organization. i ’ ) Certain communication variables were also found to be positively related: to adaptiveness. In these cases, however, differences were discernible between organizations characterized by different types of work. Re- J I search work was associated with relative communications infrequency, ' f ' f While advanced and engineering development were characterized by com munications intensity. ! I " i i | llfr7D 2 with E-21, E-22 and E-10 respectively, r - .334, .363, and .426, p < .05. lllfi ! B-13-a with E-ll, E-10 and E-22 respectively: r = -.629, p < .001; r = -.354 and -.4l8, p < .05. ^^E-ll with B-13-c and B-13-e respectively; r = .425, p < .05,1 and r = .460, p < .01. _______ . _ _ “ 186 i Teamness P ■■■■1 1 1 1 1 This cluster of variables focused on the extent to which an or-! i \ ganization could be accurately characterized as a team. That is, the emphasis of these variables was on assessing the extent to which an or- ; ganization was attempting to develop those synergistic capacities for j problem solving identified from the literature. • I j The extent to which members identified decisions that might af-; feet the entire unit being made by the organization as a team was posi- : jtively associated with the Task-Change Quality Index.The extent to j which members identified with their organization and indicated that it met frequently, defined goals, planned for future work, and worked on prganizational-development objectives as a team, related positively to ; i | the extent the organization was likely to score highly on the Balance ■ 151 ’ Index. Each of these latter five variables, in turn, was negatively | i i and significantly related to the extent that an organization was engaged i 1 152 in research work. That is, while this team-centered style was found j to be employed at a relatively low and even level across the development; portion of the spectrum ("low" in absolute scale responses, "even" in I ; ; ! j the sense that none of the four development-work categories was particu-j I i larly identified with this style), it was significantly not employed in j I I research organizations. [ j | i i ! 150D 2 with E-32, r = .379, P < .05. ' ! ^*4) 2 with E-6l, E-13, E-l4, E-l6 and E-17 respectively, t = -376, .339, .372, .358 and .386, p < .05. ; 152B-13-a with 35-61, E-13, E-l*f, E-l6 and E-17 respectively, r = -.396, -.3^8, -.350, -.373 and -Al6, p < .05. i 18? | ! Individual Variables j A number of independent variables focusing upon attributes of j individuals are reviewed in this section. These variables are grouped i into four categories; physical and attitudinal characteristics, percep- 1 tion of clarity, perception of support, and self-actualization. Many ofj •these variables are intimately related to the organizational variables previously discussed. They are placed here to indicate that the per spective emphasized was not the organization as an interdependent net work, but rather the individual as he responded to, or dealt with, that network. Physical and Attitudinal Characteristics Parallel to the hypothesis on organizational ageing, it was j ! \ hypothesized that no significant relationship would be found to exist j i between an organization's adaptiveness and its: members' physical age, I j j organizational (NOTS) tenure, unit (sampled organization) tenure; or the! •tenure of its head in that position. With one exception these hypo theses were supported. While member physical age was found to be nega- i 153 i ffcively related to the External Index, no other relationships between i ! 15^ the independent variables and the adaptiveness indexes were found to : j be significant. j ; j | Each of these age variables was, however, found to be related j jto the nature of work being done within an organization. Both research j - jand exploratory-development organizations tended to have managers with ! ! I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i I 353d! with R-3, r = -.386, p < .05. M ___________R-4, E-l and_R-2.__. f l8 8j longer tenure in their positions, while engineering-development organi- | zations tended to have shorter-tenured heads. Engineering-develop- i ment organizations tended to have younger members whose NOTS and unit ! 156 tenure was shorter, while research organizations tended to have mem- ' 157 bers with longer unit tenure. 3 : It has sometimes been postulated that in order to change, an i ■ organization requires members whose attitudes are supportive of change. i To conceptualize the possibility that organizations may be inherently 'capable of changing is to suggest, however, that personal attitudes toward change may be neutral or situationally affected in either posi tive or negative directions. Two variables were introduced to test the relationship between the individual's attitude toward change and the . I j organization's adaptiveness. It was found that the organization whose members identified ; • i themselves as preferring a job where the tasks change was less likely toj 158 ' • score highly on the External Index. That is, environmentals appeared) to be valuing highly that adaptation which occurred within the parame- ; t ,ters of their expectations of the organization. Preference for a job ; I ; where relationships change over time was associated negatively with the ! , Maintenance-Change Quality Index.In neither case, however, was the j j j i 0 j *^R-2 with B-13-a, B-13-b and B-13-e respectively, r = .385 j j .336 and -Al8, p < .05. j ^^B-lS-e with R-3, R-^ and E-l respectively, r = -.33^* -.390 r d -.36k, p < .05. | 157B-13-a with E-l, r = .^71, p < .01. \ j 158D 1 with E-73, r = -.48t, p < .01. more adaptive organization characterized by members whose attitudes j toward change were significantly more positive than members of less i i 1 ; adaptive organizations. : Research organization members tended to prefer less task change; while members of engineering-development organizations tended, rela- I i jfcively, to prefer more. The members of both advanced and engineer- I ing-development organizations tended to prefer jobs where their working j * “ relationships tended to change over time. ; i : ' To summarize, most individual-age measures were found not to be associated with less organizational adaptiveness. Significantly more I ] positive attitudes toward task and relationship changes were not found |to be a characteristic of those organizations found to be more adaptive.! i f .Perception of Clarity ! A number of variables were tested that focused on the possible ; | | (consequences of clarity or ambiguity in an individual's response to an j ■organization. Eight items were introduced to operationalize this set of i variables. These items focused on organizationally-based data, but in- ! quired about them in terms of the clarity of the individual's under- ! i j Standing. i : j r The degree to which members were clear about their understand- 1 I ‘ ing of the organization's goals was positively related to the Balance I 1 l j ■ ■ , ■ ■ ■ , 159D 4 with E-74, r = -.348, p < .05. 1^°E-73 with B-13-a and B-13-e respectively; r = -.491, p < .Olj and r = .355* P < *05* i 74 with B-13-c and B-13-e respectively, r = .366 and .341, J ? < . 0 5 * . ._ _ _ _ _ i "l90i 162 1 Index. The extent to which members felt their individual responsi- j bilities and rights were clear,-r associated with the Maintenance-Change ! | -i / T o j Quality Index. Organizations whose members felt themselves to be in I ‘ 164 substantial agreement with their colleagues over both goals and means! 1 165 for goal accomplishment were found to be higher on both the Task- j (Change Quality and Confidence Indexes. j i I t Organizations were more likely to score significantly higher j o n the Task-Change Quality, Maintenance-Change Quality, and Confidence | : Indexes whose members identified themselves as seeing well-defined i 166 ‘ career opportunities, knowing what opportunities for advancement 1 167 'existed, believing that promotions were based on technical compe- ! jtence,1^ and judging that conflicts tended to be faced and resolved.1^! : i Members of engineering-development organizations saw themselves! i |as being in less agreement with their colleagues over means for accom- | I (Plishing goals, with less knowledge about the opportunities for ; I ! . l62D 2 wit&.R 7, r = .5^, P < .001. -52 with D I f , r = .548, p < .001. | l6k ' C-29 with D 3 and D 5 respectively, r = .370 and .337> i p < .05. | ^^C-30 with D 3 and D 5 respectively; r = .459, p < .01, and j j r = .334, p < .05. j 1^E-if7 with D 3j D 4 and D 5 respectively; r = .512 and .425, \ I p < .01, and r = .582, p < .001. | I 1^E-48 with D 3* D I f and D 5 respectively, r = .455, .483, and .468, p < .01. i i68 e -50 with D 3j D 4 and D 5 respectively, r = .450, .469 and j .480, p < .01. I ^ ^ “35 with D 3a D 4 and D 5 respectively: r = .342, p < .05;! I r = .515. p < .01; r = .3$2, P < .05. ___ _____ - : 191 advancement that might he available to them, and with less assurance 170 ! that promotions tended to be based on technical competence. Members j ! i f ; bf research and exploratory-development organizations were dispropor- 1 tionately more likely to feel that they knew what opportunities for ad- i 171 yancement were; .available to them. ; i : ! To summarize, the clarity or lack of ambiguity about organiza- j iional matters identified by members tended to be associated with the kdaptiveness of their organizations. With the exception of the ambi- i I guity reflected in the engineering-development organizations, and the ’ possibly greater advancement opportunities represented by research and exploratory-development work, these variables were essentially indepen dent of the nature of work engaged in by an organization. : Perception of Support ■ 1 : I ' It was hypothesized that the extent to which the members of an < i | organization perceived it to provide a supportive atmosphere would be i ; i positively associated with their organization’s adaptiveness. This sup- portive-atmosphere hypothesis was supported in regard to the two change : 172 quality indexes and the Confidence Index. The fact that members j tended to get along well with each other was related to the Maintenance-; ■ 17^ Change Quality Index. Organizations whose members answered positively ! I ! | I i ir^B-13-e with C-30, E-k8 and E-50 respectively: r = -.3^2, i j ? < .05; r = -.6^3, p < ,001; r = -.386, p < .05. ! 171E-k8 with B-13-a and B-13-b respectively; r = .^70, p < .01, i and r = .353? P < *05. 1^2E-5j + with D 3> D k and D 5 respectively, r = .395, .^2k and r j-397, P < .05. j ‘ 1921 I about the implications of working in a public laboratory tended to score] 174 i higher on the Confidence Index. I i ! L SeIf-Acutalization ' i It was hypothesized that those organizations able to develop i ! ]the opportunity for self-actualizing experiences on the part of their | members would tend to be more adaptive. This was one of the major I themes developed by the literature reviewed in Chapter III. The cluster of hypotheses represented by the nine items developed to operationalize this set of variables was among the most strongly supported of those i tested by this research. I I The extent to which members identified themselves as experienc-j ing a fusion of personal and organizational goals was in all cases posi tively related to the adaptiveness indexes. In the External, Task- ] Change Quality, and Confidence Indexes these relationships reached sig- j ! i 1 7 5 i hificant levels. The extent to which members felt personally in- | volved in goal accomplishment was, in turn, positively related to the t * 1 n / ■ Balance Index. The distributions of scores on these two variables ' were found not to be concentrated disproportionately in organizations j Idoing any of the five types of work. That is, the opportunity for self- actualization appeared to be broadly, rather than narrowly, distributed.; i i i i ,1 ■ ■ 1 ■ in K j 173E-63 with D 4, r = .392, P < .05. j 17l t E-75 with D 5, r = .401, p < .05. ■ = ' 1 ' 7'*C-37 with D 1, D 3 and D 5 respectively, r = .502, .448 and > ' .487, P < .01. I I 176D 2 with C-31, r = .353, p < .05. [ .... ~ .■- 193] I The extent to which the work done by members was identified by j • I I them as requiring the use of their best abilities was positively asso- j • i ciated with the Task-Change Quality, Maintenance-Change Quality and Con-j 177 ; fidence Indexes. Research organizations were found to be signifi- i : 1 : cantly more characterized by this attribute than were other types of j Organizations.178 j The extent to which work was seen to be challenging by members jWas associated with the extent to which their organizations scored 179 higher on the Task-Change Quality and Confidence Indexes. ^ Research > j j and exploratory-development organizations tended to experience more ^challenging work, while engineering-development organizations tended to • l80 experience this kind of work to a significantly lesser extent. The extent to which individuals felt that the work they were Idoing was important tended to discriminate between organizations on the j 1 f t l ' iBalance Index. Organizations whose members reported a feeling of i ; ! achievement in their work were found to score higher in the Maintenance- 182 Change Quality Index. Neither of these two variables appeared to be j 177E-59 with D 3j B ^ and D 5 respectively; r = .1*69 and .480, 1 ip < .01, and r = .542, p < .001. | i j 178B-13-a with E-59, r = .537, p < .001. ‘ | 17^E-57 with D 3 and D 5 respectively; r = .451, p < .01, and [ |r = .368, p < .05. | l8°E-57 with B-13-a, B-13-b and B-13-e respectively; r = .463, 1 jp < .01 and r = .358 and -.364, p < .05. j l8lD 2 with E-57, r = .387, P < .05. j | l82E-60 with D 4, r = .348, p < .05. 'distributed differentially among organizations engaged in different ! j types of work. j j Members who identified themselves as receiving training and experience in their work tended to belong to organizations that were (evaluated higher on the Task-Change Quality, Maintenance-Change Quality,! i 183 iand Confidence Indexes. Such conditions were more likely to be ex- ! l84 perienced by members of research organizations. : Finding an organization to be a satisfying place to work was associated with both the Task-Change Quality and Confidence Indexes,'1 ' 8' ’ f | ' while being more optimistic about the future was found to be associated 186 with the Maintenance-Change Quality and Confidence Indexes. Members ; of research organizations tended to experience their organizations as 187 ' more satisfying places to work, while members of engineering-develop- 188 inent organizations were found to be less optimistic about the future. j | I I To summarize, it was found that organizations which provided 1 ! j. the opportunity for self-actualization (personal and organizational goal; fusion) were significantly more likely to be adaptive. This variable \ 1 was not found to be differentially distributed by type of work. Other ; i ^^E-Sl with D 3, D and D5 respectively, r = .639* *556 and j 1.685, P < .001. ; | l8Vl3-a with E-6l, r = .370, p < .05. ! i * l8^C-27 with D 3 and D 5 respectively, r = ,6k$ and .535> i jp < .0 0 1 . i i86e-8 with D U and D 5 respectively, r = .431 and .444, j p < . 01. j l87B-13-a with C-27, r = .382, p < .05. \ L______ l88B-13-e with E-8, r = -.3 6 3, P < .05. | : ~ ~ ..” “ '“ “ “ 195! i measures of self-actualization were also found to be related to the j adaptiveness indexes. Where differential distributions of these con ditions were found to exist between organizations engaged in work across! the research and development spectrum, it was observed that more desir able conditions appeared to exist at the research and exploratory- j * development end of the spectrum than at the engineering and operational-' development end. i Summary This chapter has introduced the major empirical research find ings of the research. The theoretical framework developed in Chapter II; was operationalized in the construction of a number of dependent- ! variable indexes. The relationships between the adaptiveness dependent-! : . j - variable indexes and those indexes constructed to measure organizational! ’ 1 :self-initiation of change and organizational effectiveness were then ! j ;explored. It was found that the first two major hypotheses were sup ported. More self-initiating of change organizations were found to be more adaptive. More adaptive organizations were found to be more ef fective. | In the final section, certain independent variables identified ; i f by the literature review in Chapter III were operationalized and data j iderived from them introduced in support of the final hypothesis tested i j * by this research. With certain qualifications it, was found that more adaptive organizations were systematically characterized by certain | characteristics of environment, internal system and membership. The in-! i l dependent variables reviewed in this final section were found also to be! differentially distributed among organizations according to the nature of work in which they were primarily engaged. The following chapter presents a review and summary of these data along with an analysis of some of their implications. i 197; : i I ; I : I CHAPTER VI j j i IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS j : Concern about organizational change has become widespread. It j fcias, however, focused more on the tactical question of achieving partic-j ular changes, than on the strategic question of learning how organiza tions might develop the capacity for changing over time. Organization theory has contributed to this focus by tending to assume that organiza tions are inherently stable. The purpose of this dissertation was to explore certain alternative assumptions and their empirical implica tions. It was hypothesized that organizations could be conceptualized ' as inherently changeful systems of human interaction that would be: j more adaptive to the extent they self-initiated their own change, more j j t pffective to the extent they were adaptive, and, more characterized by j certain features of environment, internal system, and membership to the , extent they were adaptive. j This chapter reviews the research findings and discusses some j of their implications. The findings are reviewed first, and some of | | their limitations are noted. Some of the theoretical, methodological, ! i i' policy, and action implications of these findings are then considered. ; Certain proposals deriving from the research are advanced in each of these areas. Finally, a brief summary of implications is made in sup- i port of certain conclusions. i 198 Summary and Review of the Research Findings This section summarizes and reviews the findings of the re search. The findings concerning organizational adaptiveness and the other dependent variables are introduced first. This is followed by a summary of the findings concerning the correlates of adaptiveness. The nature of research and development work, as it was reflected in these data, is then summarized. Certain integrating dimensions for conceptu alizing this work are suggested. Some limitations of the findings are then noted. The Dependent Variable— Adaptiveness Relative to each other rather than to some absolute standard, and based upon perceptual rather than objective data, the adaptiveness of thirty-five small research and development organizational units was measured. The data for these measurements were gathered in relation to a significant period of time (the prior year), and in regard to a va riety of possible changes, rather than in relation to a particular change at a particular time. As a result, the measurements were in ferred to be estimates of an organization's capacity for adaptation. i Though one overall-aggregate index of organizational adaptive- j ness was constructed, a more discriminating analysis was made possible by developing five primary adaptiveness indexes. An organization's scores on these indexes indicated the extent to which its; salient en vironment saw it to be adaptive (External), members saw needs for change being met (Balance), members saw change occurring in worthwhile direc tions (Task-Change Quality and Maintenance -Change Quality), and, members felt confident about the overall adaptiveness of the organization (Con- j fidence). Thus, the primary indexes differentiated between sources of i i information (external and internal) and, in the case of internal data, i between three dimensions of adaptiveness that emerged in the analysis j ; of this organizational attribute (quantity in relation to need, quality, j j i - and confidence in potential). 1 Indexes were also constructed to operationalize the concepts of organizational self-initiation of change and organizational effective- f ness. Using the aggregate indexes of the three variables it was found i •fchat organizations more able to generate their own change (rather than j adopting a primarily reactive style), were likely to be more adaptive, and that more adaptive organizations were likely to be more effective (at the p < .01 and < .001 levels of confidence, respectively). The relationships found to exist between the primary indexes, i |however, introduced certain caution in the interpretation of these ; findings. The self-initiation of change variable, for example, was ^ positively and significantly related to the External, Task-Change jQuality, Maintenance-Change Quality, and Confidence Indexes, but nega- ! i ' tively (though insignificantly) to the Balance Index. Assuming that the; i i measures were reliable, this might indicate that organizations high in | ■"proactive" change capacity come to identify a greater volume of change ; jrequirements that are seen to be continuously generated. Such an or- | Iganization would, at any given time, identify itself as having signifi- cant unmet change needs, and could have scored lower on the Balance In- : dex for this reason. The fact that the capacity for organization adaptiveness had 200 been both modeled and measured, made possible the subsequent testing of hypotheses concerning the conditions related to its level in given or ganizations. The fact that adaptation capacity had been shown to be related to both the capacity for ’ ’ proactive" change and effectiveness, as had been suggested in the prior theoretical work, made this testing of particular interest. The Independent Variables— Correlates of Adaptiveness The five primary adaptiveness indexes were used to test a num ber of hypotheses about the relationship between an organization's ca pacity for adaptation and certain environmental, organizational and mem bership attributes. While many of these hypotheses were supported, there was evidence to suggest that a number of the attributes were to be better understood as the expression of nature-of-work conditions on a research and development continuum, rather than as factors that were simply and directly linked with adaptiveness. Given the nature of the sample, however, one would expect this situation to have conservative consequences on hypothesis testing. More adaptive organizations were found to be ones with less in tensive cross-boundary interaction. While such organizations saw them selves to be less affected by environmental decision, they had the ca- j pacity to deal with environmental initiatives and change suggestions. Less adaptive organizations were often characterized by a frequency and intensity of cross-boundary interaction that clearly represented an aver load situation. More adaptive organizations seemed able to maintain the integrity of their boundary by making it a selectively permeable 2 01 pne. Less adaptive organizations appeared to be threatened by a trans- actional arena whose scale and implications were beyond their control, I and responded to this threat by an attempt at withdrawal or boundary closure. | The importance of maintaining some degree of autonomy from en- i Vironmental expectations becomes clear when one examines the correlates of the External Index. Organizations judged by their environments to be more adaptive tended to be composed of younger people whose personal goals tended to be fused with the organization’s goals, who preferred a job where tasks changed less over time, who spent little time in inter- ; action outside their unit, who considered fully the past, present and i i ; future implications of their decisions, and, who were responsive to en vironmentally-initiated change suggestions. This is, at a minimum, an ^exacting standard. It appeared clear that most environmentals perceived: ! i a given organization as a contingency, one hopefully to be made as re- j ! i sponsive, dedicated and predictable as possible. Organizations unable to maintain some distance from such expectations would understandably tend to diminish in their capacity to deal with either their own, or j i competing environmental objectives. j i In general, the structural variables were found not to be as- I 'sociated with degrees of adaptiveness. A number of the management- I | [' jstyle, communications and "teamness" variables were found to be posi- ■ j jtively related to adaptiveness. In these clusters particularly,there was evidence to suggest the importance of task constraints as an im- - | portant intervening variable. The variables focused on individual char-- acteristics tended to be moderately supported in the predicted ! directions, but again in ways that appeared related to the nature of work engaged in by a given organization. j 1 | ; The relative clarity of goal understanding was the independent j variable found to be most discriminating in relation to the Balance [index. Seven variables were found to discriminate simultaneously on the; Task-Change Quality, Maintenance-Change Quality and Confidence Indexes. f f i The profile of the adaptive organization that emerges from these vari- lables is one in which the members understand the objectives toward which: they are working, are doing work'that requires the best of their abili- j ties, and are receiving worthwhile training and experience. There are j ; i well-defined career opportunities in which the advancement possibilities: j. lare known. Promotions are seen to be made on the basis of competence, y i and the Head is identified as helping the member to realize his career | Objectives. The organization is seen to provide a supportive atmos- jphere, and conflicts are faced and resolved. j Perhaps the most interesting independent variable was that one which focused on self-actualization. Members were asked the extent to ; j jwhich they found personal and organizational goals to be fused in their ■ unit. Hesponses to this question were found to be significantly related; i jto both the Task-Change Quality and Confidence Indexes. Of greater in- \ i | iterest, however, was the fact that the response to this item correlated | | | lat an equally high level of confidence with the externally-derived adap-; tiveness index (p < .01 in the three cases). The extent of self-actual-, ization was also related positively, though not strongly, to both the Balance and Maintenance-Change Quality Indexes. Further, it was not found to be associated strongly with any of the five major categories of j 203 work. The nature of Research and Development Work The thirty-five organizations studied in this research were constituent units of a research and development laboratory. The possi bility that differences would be found between these organizations on the basis of the work in which they were engaged was recognized in the research design. Wo organization was placed in the sampling pool unless it met certain tests of professionalization. Further, an attempt was made to ensure approximately equal representation within the final sample among units performing various types of research and development work. It has already been noted that many of the variables hypothe sized to be related to adaptiveness were found to be strongly associated with the nature of work characterizing a given unit. There were five major categories of work about which sufficient data were generated to derive inferences. Seventeen of the thirty-five organizations were en gaged in research. Thirty-two were involved in exploratory development. Twenty-eight were conducting advanced development work. Twenty-one were i engaged in engineering development, and twenty were carrying out opera- I tional development. No organization was devoting 100$ of its members’ time to any one of these five categories. These categories can be conceptualized as a continuum. Re- I search represents the left end and tends to involve basic studies of natural phenomena in their own terms, rather than in terms given by the requirement to solve a particular design problem. Exploratory develop ment represents the fusion of applied research and basic technology, and is directed toward the preliminary indent if icat ion, definition, and i broad solution of design problems. Advanced development represents the j area of applied technology, and is directed toward the translation of - the ideas and models generated by exploratory development into hardware j for experimental or operational testing. Engineering development repre-i sents the area where those designs that survived the advanced engineer- [ ing phase (were shown to be feasible and worthwhile) are explicated through the solution of specific design problems, the choice of materi als, and the preparation of the developed system for manufacture and use. Operational development represents the area where the problems ; ■ < and anomalies encountered in production or use are of concern, and en gineering activities tend to be of the— "find out what’s wrong-get it put right-and/or teach them how to do it correctly"— variety. j One’s position on this continuum tends to be a function of what jquestions one asks and what problems one is trying to solve. In re- i . ; search one asks: "What can be discovered about this phenomena?" In ex-- ploratory development one asks: "What fusion of research results and I available technology might represent a creative solution to an important; problem?" In advanced development one asks: "Can the solution proposed by the prior phase be shown to work in reality?" In engineering devel- ; opment one asks: "Can the solution shown to work in the prior phase be ! (explicated and reduced to a form where it is reproducible with the same j butcomes as achieved in experimental form?" In operational development ; j ; jone asks: "Can something which has been processed by the prior steps j I i and still does not work, or works in unexpected ways, or is subject to jperformance degradation for any number of reasons, be corrected?" j In the interviews conducted in this research it was observed l that one’s position on this continuum was often associated with what onej attributed to one's colleagues in other organizational units, and how [one perceived and experienced the world. If one accepts the premise , [that nothing original is likely to work in precisely the way intended i . by the originator, then some of these differences become clear. In general, a person engaged in work on this continuum tended [to attribute respect, coupled with lack of responsiveness, to colleagues | ; in more leftward work, and disdain, coupled with lack of competence, to • I colleagues in more rightward work. That is, something similar to the ! ; following was often said of leftward-colleagues: ; i j Why is it that their excellent training and fine minds do not resultj in a better understanding of what the real problems are? If they ' could only be made to see the light, then they could undoubtedly provide me with significant help, or at least stop generating prob- j lems for me by the naive assumptions they tend to make. ; [Conversely, one tended to say of rightward-colleagues: i I Why is it that these people cannot understand how to work out the implications of what I have given them? I solved the critical prob-; lems and there is really only detail work left to be done, which anyone of normal intelligence, adequate training, and a modicum of ; energy could accomplish. That is, if one occupies an intermediate position on this con- ; tinuum, then one tends to be the recipient of constraints established byj ; ! [persons whose work is to the left, and the originator of constraints fori | i jthose persons whose work is to the right. An examination of Figure 5 j clarifies some of the characteristic dilemmas associated with research and development work. All work does not move across this continuum in any inevitable fashion. Work tends to move rightward, for example, only after the utility of further investment has been demonstrated. Work 206 High Character istics of tfork Low FIGURE 5 SOME HYPOTHESIZED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTINUUM Research Exploratory Advanced Engineering Operational Development Development Development Development Nature of Work Uncertainity Freedom Autonomy Status Constraints unknown and internalized ■Time foreclosure Urgency Tangibility Information quality Constraints known and externalized ifchat does move between the continuum categories, however, provides cer- j tain insights into the dynamics of the organizations studied in this re-' ; j search. | The encompassing laboratory may be seen as an uncertainty- ireduction instrument. The constituent organizational units play spe- j \ i jcialized roles in this process. Leftward tasks tend to be characterized) I • i by uncertainty. Constraints tend not to be fully known, so their man agement tends to be internalized within units or persons. Problems tend1 ! ' jto be characterized by higher status, and individuals working on them tend to be accorded freedom and autonomy. As information is accreted about a given task or problem it | ! jtends to move rightward on the continuum. That is, as the problem be- i I 1 • icomes better known and defined, doubt (uncertainty) decreases. As in- j jformation quality increases, it becomes possible to make more finite | Iplans and arrangements. Scheduling and sequencing issues become more j I I ; i critical as the complexity of available information increases. Con straints may now be explicitly identified and made operational in the assignment of particular responsibilities. j i | Planning and scheduling decisions made possible by the increase jingly finite and tangible character of the work tend to be made, how- j lever, on information derived from prior phases. This has the conse- i i | j quence of making organizations bear the brunt of prior error in which they were not involved. Any prior error or unanticipated problem tends to be transported with the task to the rightward organization. Coupling J the increasing finiteness of the task (which allows planning and sched uling) and the increased visibility of consequences (customers becoming ■ 208! anxious about the organization making good on its delivery commitments) j with the emergence of anomalies and problems not dealt with by prior j ; t processes (error or slippage), one has a situation likely to be charac- ; terized by increasing urgency and time foreclosure. Some evidence for such a finding, and several of its conse- j ! 1 ‘ quences, may be seen by examining the data contained in Table 7- The data in this table are correlations between independent-variable items iand the extent to which (proportion of time) an organization was engaged: iin research, exploratory development, advanced development or engineer- ' I ing development. Data relevant to operational-development work is not included for several reasons. The fact that salient environmentals were pot included in the sample if they were employees of other organiza- j tions was a particularly important exclusion for these organizations. Much of their work is oriented to non-laboratory customers and pro- j i i i jducers. This puts them under both different constraints and provides j ! I ' r I them a different basis of autonomy from engineering development— which is largely oriented internally to the laboratory. i These data reflect the findings that rightward work was char- j acterized by the presence of increased constraints, decreased autonomy, j ( Increased problem urgency and greater apparent needs for change. The j- i i evenness of the progression of these changes is striking. This situa- i , t •' i jtion emerged where the opportunities for psychological success appeared : i to be lower. These are representative items to illustrate these dif- Jferences. Numerous other items supportive of the same inferences were : . Javailable. I ; • i As noted previously, not all work proceeds across this ; TABLE 7 THE EVOLUTION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT WORK: THE ADAPTATION DILEMMA* i i r \ Condition Item L' 1 i _ . . . . . . . . Research Explor atory Develop ment Advanced Develop ment t Engin- j eering Develop-! ment j | Constraints fE-66 External decisions affect you increase J n. d-13 Externals want to suggest change -.566 -.439 -.273 -.377 .157 .093 .316 .483 . . . f E - 2 9 Influence what work you do Freedom declines J CE-30 Influence how you do it .643 .647 .386 .296 -.015 -.294 -.422 I i -.438 Dilemma f E " ^ Urgency of »»st pressing problem ireflected \_E-11 Member interaction rate i -.566 -.629 .152 -.105 .108 .425 .459 .460 t | ("D-2B Environment says output should have changed Change needed J V.D-3B Environment says input should have changed -.403 -.555 -.241 .139 .204 .320 .508 t i .524 Where opportunity /"E-58 Work challenging for psychological V success declining V.E-48 Know opportunities for advancement .463 .470 .358 .353 -.232 -.197 -.364 -.643 *The data in this table are not presented to indicate significant similarities or differences between 1 individual items. The reader is intended to note the scale and evenness in progression of paired items ! as related to the nature of work. The changes in directionality between the five paired rows are of i . particiCnrimportance. 210 continuum. The fact that certain important conditions are distributed across it differentially, however, appears to pose a number of problems for the host research and development organization. Rightward organiza tions, for example, tend to identify their effectiveness with the extent to which they are able to move "upstream” in the development process (leftward on the continuum). Perhaps the most critical dilemma, however, is the possibility that the need for change may be inversely related to the probability of achieving those conditions supportive of its occurrence. As uncertainty ieclines, the possibility of programming increases. Such programming tends to be based on information derived from prior phases of activity. The probability of error (such as misestimates of difficulty, time and money required) is therefore always appreciable, and often high. Changes, though often not great in scale, are then required. The in crease of intensity and urgency (associated with the emergence of anom alies and problems unanticipated in the programming) and the declining opportunities for psychological success may not be productive of this j required change. They may be more likely to result in problem avoidance| i than problem solution. Some Limitations of the Findings There are several limitations to be noted in regard to the findings of this research. These limitations both constrain the infer ences drawn, and suggest certain issues to which subsequent research ] night be sensitive. The way in which the fundamental unit of analysis was operationally defined may have had important biasing effects, if one i Wished to use the findings for other than heuristic purposes. Accepting! only formally recognized units into the sampling pool, for example, had ' the consequence of not permitting the analysis of some of the most in- 1 [teresting units in the laboratory. Such organizations as subproject I I i * teams that cut across “normal” organizational lines were not included. Their most interesting features— temporariness, fluidity, situational ; Specificity— made them difficult to discover and harder to analyze. ! ' ■ ! Data gathered from the environmental samples of certain organ- i . izations may have been biased by the procedures used to construct these : samples. An organization that had made a significant change in the ' ; i prior year, for example, may have alienated certain "customers" at the ' ; i expense of others. Depending upon whether one of these categories was | lover-represented in the sample, one might have produced a set of esti- ; I jmates with low validity in terms of current data. The fact that a num- j l | her of organizations had significant environmental constituencies out side of the laboratory (given the resource limitations which necessi tated a delimitation of environment to include only those in host- organizational units) may have acted to bias these estimates. I - j One needs to exercise great caution in interpreting perceptual i ; | jdata gathered through survey research procedures. Though this data- ; {collection procedure was chosen on the basis that it would support a i i fbroad-scale preliminary study, it is important to keep in mind those {known and unknown potential sources of bias that may characterize such j an effort. In addition, certain assumptions (such as the presence of interval-scale data) used in the analysis were open to question. As indicated in Chapter IV, however, there appeared to he a hasis for the j 1 i cautious use of those tests of statistical inference employed in this j research. The findings clearly cannot he generalized to all organiza- ! 1 i. jtions. They were derived from a specific sample of research and de- \ I jVelopment units. The character of the host laboratory may have heen j ; i unique in ways that would make generalization suspect. Intervening variables other than the nature of work may have heen operative. The ; j i. nature of professionalized work implies certain cautions about the ex- • | •tension of findings. The fact that all data were focused upon quite small, units would make inappropriate a simple generalization to larger 1 and more complex systems. j Within these limitations, and the others that have heen speci- ! fied in earlier chapters, it is possible to suggest that the findings of; I ' ■ this research may he cautiously used. Though in intent and design it i i Was an exploratory effort, certain implications suggested by the re search are considered in the remainder of this chapter. ; I Theoretical Implications j It was suggested in Chapter II that most organization theory ! i has heen informed by the assumption that organizations are, given pro- j ■ i besses of dynamic feedback, best conceptualized as inherently stabiliz- j j j ing. This section addresses the implications of the research in terms i bf reassessing this assumption. Some of the issues raised by the alter-i jaative assumption, that organizations are as inherently changeful as they s u r e stabilizing, are then considered. ■ The assumption that has pervaded organization theory is that 2 1 3 1 [organizations tend to stabilize over time, not that they are likely to J l ' teach a completely unchanging state. Environmental perturbation, given i the dependence of the organization upon its environment for the provi- ! ision of resources, is often given as a minimal and sufficient cause for j ] J the creation of change exigencies. The data generated by this research, support the assumption ; i that organizations are unlikely to be completely unchanging. No organi sation was found that had experienced no change in the prior year. Six ; organizational dimensions were tested in each organization for the de- gree of change that had occurred in goals, outputs, inputs, structure, r i : processes, and external relationships. Only one organization was found ; whose members reported no change on one of these dimensions. This was j a small research unit whose members agreed in their responses that there! had been no change of goals in the prior year. ! At the other theoretical extreme, one can dismiss the possi- i : ! bility that organizations could be completely changing. Interdependent ; ! interaction, which is fundamental to the definition of the concept of ] f organization, would rule out the complete absence of predictability im- : plied by a random non-system. Incidentally, the data were consistent With this definitional assumption. No organization was found whose j ; I members agreed that any of the six dimensions had changed completely in i 'the prior year. I The fact that none of these organizations were found to be : I I f either completely changing or unchanging, however, implies nothing about] 1 - the nature of the feedback processes that characterized their activity, j I I jor whether they could be characterized as inherently stabilizing. In j * """ ~~2lk\ \ r . [terms of the discussion in Chapter II focusing on equilibrium assump- [ ! i tions,^ we are unable to assume that any of these changes were subse- i ; j quently or necessarily equilibrating or disequilibrating in their con- i ; sequences. ; , ! ! It was noted in Chapter II that part of the reason for attrib- j juting stabilizing tendencies to organizations was that change and sta- j ; i bility had been conceptualized as separable and inversely related phe- 2 nomena. Figure 2 depicted another set of possible assumptions. Change: ! ! f f and stability, in this model, could be intertwined rather than inversely; related. Whether organizations or their attributes were stable, chang- ; j 1 ing, both, or neither would be a question of empirical observation; rather than assumption. To test the hypotheses implied by this model were beyond the j resources available for this research. It would have required a sig- \ i mificantly larger organizational sample, for example, to generate a suf-i j S ficient number of phenomena (different enough in their change and sta bility attributes) to conduct a definitive test. Though such a test was| hot possible, certain findings were suggestive. For example, it ap peared in certain instances that non-change was highly unstable. In ‘ other cases extensive change in inputs, outputs and goals were associ- ! i i :ated with high stability. I I The combination of low change and low stability appeared to be ; best characterized as a withdrawal of value, or de-institutionalization. i ; 1 ! i_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i i j See particularly Figure 1, page 27. | 2See page 3^. ! : t Members' confidence in the efficacy of the organization waned as press- 1 i i I ! ing change needs went unmet. The combination of high stability and low j t 1 j i change was encountered in organizations where high confidence was placed> in the efficacy of current patterns of relationship and processes, and ! I ! i- Where little need for change was seen. That is, an institutionalization j 1 | jof structure may best characterize this combination. The combination of J ^ '! high change and low stability was experienced as a temporary dissolution of prior patterns or expectations. The perception of efficacy appeared ; ! I to persist in such situations to the extent that changes for the "bet- i: ter" were possible, or changes for the "worse" were being resisted. The; dynamics of this combination may be understood best in terms of reform r or resistance to change. j The combination of high stability and high change was a partic-; ularly interesting one. It may best be characterized as the institu- ; ; f ftionalization of process, rather than structure. Members of such or- j i ! ganizations appeared to be characterized by high confidence in their ; ) capacity to respond to new situations in ways that were congruent with these situations, rather than with available precedents. In such or- ; 'i 1 ganizations there seemed to be a successful investment, not in develop- 1 i ; jing commitments.to particular structures or procedures of problem solv- I ling, but in the search to discover those structures or procedures that j f ( would work in a given problem context. This process of discovery, rather than the products of past discovery, appeared to be infused with ; i meaning. | i Such organizations appeared to be stable to the extent that i I j' [they were capable of change. The advantages provided by such a strategy jfor dealing with rapid change are considerable. It tends to elicit ! j f high-quality information in a timely way. Its error-correction capacity; i ; tends to be high. It does, however, pose certain dilemmas to the re- i searcher. I i | i Methodological Implications i i ' Several methodological issues are raised by the findings of ' this research. Perhaps the most critical is the problem of how one can . [proceed to study organizations characterized by an institutionalized • process of change. In its lack of commitment to precedent, such an or- ; ganization does not seem to allow organizational investments to become significant sunk costs. To the extent such an organization becomes capable of confronting new problems in ways that are informed by, but not bound by (predicted by) past experience, it begins to approximate ; | j [the characteristics of a random field. | f It is not at all clear how one can conduct theoretically and j i- empirically relevant research in such a situation. The typical objec tives of such research are to comprehend a phenomena accurately enough that one is able to predict outcomes with confidence. To the extent an j [organization develops the capacity for reconfiguring itself in real-time: I | hnd situationally-specific ways, one might be better advised to study j I I the characteristics of problems, as they may be more determinate of out-; Icomes than prior organizational responses. ‘ The transition to a post-industrial society is likely to elicit I I more, rather than fewer, organizations capable of this kind of behavior.: It would, therefore, appear clear that our organizational-research tech-[ nology needs to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y developed. Without such development we would allow our tools to constrain the questions we raised. We would he' ; L able to gain knowledge only about those organizations whose performances! were least critical to the political and social system as a whole. That! is, we could inquire only about those residual organizations whose sta- i 1 i bility was not associated with change. Tools always constrain inquiry. ! ! i To recognize the requirement for tool development, however, implies some! responsibility for attempting to address it. The problem was confronted in the early phases of this re- 1 ; ! ; search, but not solved. To have studied the capacity for change in organizations, while excluding those organizations (such as temporary subproject units) which may have been most characterized by this attri- bute is, at best, strange. The fact that such organizations were hard j to discover, hard to define, unlikely to hold "still" long enough to be ; "seen" by the researcher are reasons, but hardly acceptable justifica- I j tions for their being ignored. j ! \ One possible clue to a resolution of this dilemma may be found in the dynamics of the organizations to be studied. Such organizations : ( attempt to be agnostic about the utility of their experience as a guide j to present or future action. They often find it more useful to create 1 information than to gather it. That is, they attempt self-consciously I to test hypotheses about the utility of different procedures or rela- j i I; jbionships, rather than to assume that such information can be inferred j from the past. The more critical the problem being addressed, the more i kikely such testing is to occur. Data gathered from this testing are j then used to approximate, with increasing certainty, the utility of a ; particular strategy, procedure, or assumption. j 2 1 8| ! I j These dynamics may have two major implications for organiza- i i • tional-research methodology. The utility of designing self-organizing j I simulations may be critical for the generation of hypotheses. The utility of real-time involvement on the researcher's part in an on-going: ( ! I ^organization may be critical to the test of hypotheses. The day may be > l I. past when the researcher could approach an organization with the assump-i : i tion that it would; remain stable for the period required by his obser- : jvation; be characterized by sufficient patterning to allow hypotheses to I ; be usefully derived from past organizational performances; and, be suf- i I ‘ ficiently similar in its dynamics to other organizations to allow the findings to be generalized easily. | Methodological development along these lines may be of signifi-' I I cant consequence to both researchers and organizations. For the re- isearcher, it may require the construction of laboratory simulations that' ! ■ ! .parallel closely the organization in which he is conducting research as .an active participant. The interplay between hypothesis generation and , test which could flow in both directions between the "real" and the ! . "simulated" organization could be considerable, though costly. j I i l : The organization may use this same process, in reverse. It ( ! • i j ; icould take the opportunity to develop its own capacity by self- j 1 consciously treating with itself as if it were a simulation. That is, j the organization would attempt self-consciously to operate at two levels' j--either simultaneously or sequentially through time. Its behavior or ^ i action would have meaning in relation to the problem being confronted. ! Information generated by such activity would, however, have equal mean- ; t r •i-Tig in terms of the organization's learning how to create situations in I j 219 j Which more sensible behavior could occur. j j ! 1 i j Certain other methodological issues were recognized as a con- j Sequence of the findings generated by this research. It was apparent, j * i* for example, that the boundary transactions of an organization were j ! ■ i ; critical in determining many of the constraints by which its members i I ; pound themselves governed. Data were gathered from an environmental ; t sample salient to each organization. Procedures need to be developed, however, for identifying such samples with greater precision. Informa- j Jtion needs to be gathered in order to make more informed choices about the consequences of excluding persons of different kinds or degrees of saliency. Assumptions about the attenuation effects of "distance" need : jto be examined. Ways of better estimating the saliency of given environ-' mentals need to be found. The lack of weighting of responses, for i 'example, represents a possible source of error, but one whose dynamics j I !in regard to environmentals is now largely unknown. Such issues have j I | not been addressed by most organizational research as a consequence of the major emphasis on variables and conditions internal to the organiza tion . i • i i ‘ | Policy Implications ! i To understand public policy in this society, one must under- ; I ! stand public organizations. Policy debate tends to be expressed through! the politics of organizational birth, enlargement, modification, con traction and death. Through most of this century these processes could I j. be most accurately described as the politics of reform. The politics of| reform tend to be linked to the assumption of organizational stability, j brganizations are seen to be inherently stabilizing instruments which, | if only well constructed, or modified to bring them into congruence with; changed conditions, will thereafter, make appropriate contributions. Such reform tends to be expressed in spasmodic fashion. Problem symp toms accrete until there is sufficient outrage or support for making a i » j"change." This strategy ignores that, to the extent a problem is complex and subject to change over time, any decision about the appropriateness i 'of a given organizational-design decision is subject to error. No mat ter how well matched an organization is with a given set of policy in tentions it will, over time, become incongruent with these intentions to [the extent it is designed upon stability assumptions. i 1 As conditions such as environmental turbulence, goal uncertain-" ity, and work whose nature does not lend itself to the making of pre- I ! 'programmed decisions increases, one commits oneself to error in assuming: ! I the problem to be one of reforming or changing organizations. One in creasingly looses the capacity to make high-quality decisions that can be expected to be valid for other than short periods of time. One be comes involved in a never-ending and increasingly desperate search for solutions that will “really" work for more than transient periods. A more promising strategy may be implicit in the recognition i f ! [that organizations are not inherently either stabilizing or changeful. iThese are attributes of organizations which can be increased or de- • I f \ Icreased by varying such things as the character of the environment, or I the nature of the organizational design employed. It may be more ap- [propriate to invest less energy in attempting to change organizations 221 j Sand more in attempting to increase the probability that they will, over j time, search for ways of changing themselves in appropriate ways. i I 3 > Argyris has proposed a set of alternative organizational forms; yhich, among their other attributes, are likely to systematically vary i . in the adaptation capacity which they elicit. This "mix" model was pre-i i i Isented largely in terms of such internal variables as psychological sue-1 i cess and reciprocity. They may also be susceptible to use in response to such external variables as the degree of environmental turbulence. One organizational design employed in the laboratory studied in* this research offers certain particular advantages to the organization which must deal with elements of both high and low turbulence, uncer tainty, and ambiguity. The "matrix" form of organization provides the opportunity for rather precisely matching the degree of organizational ! stability to the degree of stability encountered in its problem-set. i | Where information is available to judge with confidence that a j given problem is congruent with the solution system represented by an existing organization, one uses that organization. In such a situation one commits oneself to an existing pattern of technology, managerial arrangements, information screens and so forth. In a word, where one is; confident enough, one fits the problem to the available solution. Where! I j this confidence is lacking, however, one does the reverse. One fits the; |solution to the problem by creating a temporary, ad hoc, and situation- ; ! b ally specific organization. One attempts first to answer the question [ j ______________________ i 3 I Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the Organization, 3h. VII. lb ■ _______ Cf., Bennis, Changing Organizations. Ch. 1 and 2 . __ jabout who might usefully contribute to the problem's solution. Their j Arrangement into organizational form is a second-generation question. Questions of leadership, communication, and membership are expected to i be reconfigured over time. One stabilizes this impermanence by making no attempts at in- j stitutionalizing any given set of arrangements. Few, if any, formal i positions are established. In addition, one designs an incentive system: [that rewards most strongly those persons who become effectively mobile ■ i between the solution-oriented and problem-oriented parts of the organi- : zation. Access to rewards and incentives are equalized between the stable and unstable portions of the organization. One encourages the I mutual surveillance of the two types of organizations by the members of ; i each. ! Such an organizational model has utility beyond the confines of: a research and development laboratory. It allows the development and j I l. management of productive tension between the requirements of continuity,; persistence and responsibility, and the requirements of idiosyncratic, innovative and responsiveness-oriented demands. It may have important applications ranging from the design of city-service systems to the de sign of large single-policy organizations. ! Action Implications j : It has been suggested that organizations may be inherently as i i ; 1 changeful as they are stabilizing. That is, that the extent to which 5 they are characterized by either attribute is a function of certain con-| l iitions within which they are set, and to which they are subject. To j j f I have suggested, in the previous section, that the development of adapta-j tion capacity within organizations may be a relevant policy objective is! to accept a responsibility for specifying how this might be accomplished.; Unfortunately, several of the strategies by which organization-; jal change is now effected appear to have the unanticipated consequence j i I Of decreasing, rather than increasing, the changed unit's capacity for j adaptation. We know that no change is likely to be any better than the ■ i i . quality of that information which informs it. The use of managerial i ; (directive, consultant recommendation, or special unit study as the basis1 for change, is a commitment to information which must be "inaccurate." It has been screened, coded, filtered and aggregated from a unique per- ! i spective. The nature of the position of persons occupying such roles j . i [tends to assure systematic information bias. j To the extent information is limited and biased, it is likely to be productive of proposed changes unlikely to meet the critical tests i of feasibility, cost, or related consequences of the unit which must execute it, or which will be affected by it. Such strategies act to simplify rather than enlarge the information arena out of which deci- i i ; sions are reached. Such direct and simplified strategies are often i | |coupled with more indirect and intendedly sophisticated strategies. I i | Managerial training programs, for example, are often identified! I j a s a procedure for facilitating organizational change. Their conse- ! ! quence is more often likely to be the inverse. Managers are typically trained in isolation from their subordinates, or supervisors. That is, they are placed in an environment which is information deficient in terms of the organizational implications of what is "learned." They are thus denied the right to any reality testing, negotiation over the pos- | sible consequences of alternative changes, or confrontation over what j ; would be required to support their accomplishment, j | ' I . This isolation is justified on the grounds that it is "liber- i 1 i \ ating," since risk-taking is encouraged. This would appear more likely i j f c o increase the probability of large error upon return to the organiza- ! tion. The argument is not that managerial training is wrong. It is rather that if used unselectively it is more likely to produce "resist- . ance" to change than change. To the extent managers take seriously the | ; change aspirations they are taught, they are likely to experience the subsequent outcomes as punishment rather than reward. ; j | Lacking information about the reasons, implications or conse- jquences of change, the ambiguity and uncertainty of those persons ex- 1 pected to change are likely to result in doubt and testing on their j jpart. This is likely to be interpreted by the person or unit with ; ( ! ! change aspirations as recalcitrance or resistance. If the person or unit with change aspirations persists, a series of escalating conse quences are likely to follow which may be experienced as punishing by j { i ; all parties concerned. This in turn leads to the perception that change; I : i ! requires the investment of unusual resources. The continuing and sunk j | ! costs invested in achieving and maintaining what is seen to be "normal" j i i state of affairs tend to go unrecognized. An alternative strategy which offers promise for both achieving. Ichanges and using the process of achieving those changes as a means of j developing a unit's capacity for adaptation is, however, available. In j j i what shall hereafter be called "network” development, a different set of; jassumptions and procedures is employed. ; I ! s ! I It is assumed that individual strategies are appropriate for | changes whose focus and consequence is limited to the individual. Where! interdependent-network change is the focus, it is assumed that the con- \ Struction of an error-correcting informational arena is critical. In- j i. terdependent networks which "own" problems are presumed to have infor- ! mation critical to the adequate solution of those problems. The provi- ' jsion of external resource is more likely to take the form of a process- i ! oriented catalyst, than a substantively oriented consultant. j ; The emphasis is upon problem definition. It is assumed that noi problem can be solved more adequately than it has been defined. Alter- ; j pative problem definitions are tested in the attempt to move from symp- ; tomatic to underlying issues. Conflict tends to be recognized as a \ Critical resource and explicated, rather than being recognized as evi- j ' i jdence. of error or inadequacy to be suppressed. Solutions, as they are • considered, are tested against available information concerning the con ditions under which they would have to be supported if they were to be achieved. The emphasis is upon the testing of alternative hypotheses, j It is not suggested that organizational change occurs easily, ! i or without risk. It is rather suggested that the investments in not j changing tend to go unrecognized. Individuals in organizations who are i J i able to test the relative consequences of changing or not changing* will; i i tend to change in those situations where the potential rewards are dis- ! i : covered to be greater than the potential risks. Such a situation is more likely to occur in a rich, open, and variegated informational arena than in the narrow one employed by some change strategies. Further it J is suggested that the consequences of successful risk taking are likely to he additive. As networks develop confidence in confronting change problems successfully, their willingness to accept risk may increase. iSuch an outcome is likely to increase the adaptation capacity of organi zations . Conclusions It has been suggested in this dissertation that the capacity for adaptation is an organizational attribute which can be modeled and measured. In conceptualizing this capacity it has been proposed that organizations may be as inherently changeful as they are stabilizing. Organizations more capable of initiating their own change have been pound to be more adaptive. More adaptive organizations have been found to be more effective. Certain correlates of both adaptiveness and the nature of research and development work have been discussed. j i In the final chapter it has been proposed that, because of un certainty and time-foreclosure dynamics, organizations in a research and development setting may be required to change most in those situations where the conditions supportive of such change are least available. Some of the theoretical and methodological implications of the institu- i tionalization of impermanence have been discussed. In response, it ap pears clear that a significant development of organizational-research I technology is required. : It has been suggested that in public policy terms, the problem i |>f developing adaptation capacity may be more critical than the problem of achieving particular reforms or changes. Such reforms are likely to be subject to rapid degradation in quality over time, to the extent thatj I i ; they are set in turbulent environmental fields characterized by com- ! j plexity and uncertainty. A "matrix" form of organization has been sug- ■ gested as having utility in dealing with such situations. ' Finally, it has been argued that many change technologies now (employed have as their consequence the production of "resistance" to ' change and the decrease of adaptation capacity within those units af- by them. The use of "network" development has been suggested as ] an alternative procedure for constructing informational arenas with high; error-correcting capacity. The transition to a post-industrial society which this society jis now undergoing may be characterized by continued environmental turbu- ■ lence, complexity, and uncertainty. It is suggested that public organi-j ; i zations, and those interested in analyzing them, need to take these con-j ditions into account. A concern for learning how organizations can deal' i • creatively with these conditions as units, and how their members can turn this transition into a personally enriching experience, is required.; fected APPENDIXES APPENDIX A SAMPLING PLAN AND QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE RATES Organizational Branch or Group in Sample Number of Members First Questionnaire Third Questionnaire Second Questionnaire Members Responses Members Responses Environmental Sample Responses 1 11 11 11 13 12 2 10 8 9 20 17 3 10 10 10 19 15 I f 22 22 22 19 12 5 I f i f 3 18 15 6 11 11 11 18 15 7 8 7 8 17 12 8 7 7 7 10 7 9 8 8 8 16 10 10 6 6 6 15 12 11 22 21 17 20 18 12 9 9 9 12 9 13 9 9 108 , 18 16 I k 22 22 22 22 17 15 8 8 8 15 10 16 7 7 9b 16 12 17 8 7 8 17 15 18 9 9 9 19 15 19 3 3 3 15 12 20 13 11 11 16 15 21 7 7 7 l i f 11 22 6 6 i f 15 10 23 8 6 7 12 12 2 k 9 9 7 15 l i f 25 i f i f 5a 13 8 ro r o vo APPENDIX A (Continued) Organizational Branch or Group in Sample Number of Members First Questionnaire Third Questionnaire Second Questionnaire Members Members Environmentals Responses Responses Sample Responses 26 19 18 19 20 18 27 7 7 7 16 11 28 11 11 9 18 17 29 19 19 17 22 19 30 7 7 7 23 20 31 11 11 11 19 15 32 6 6 6 i k 12 33 9 9 8 18 15 3^ k h k 1^ 10 35 13 13 13 21 17 Total Wf 337 332 58? 57? Percentage lOOjt 971 97f lot# B O f , a Represents the addition of one "members" not available for the first questionnaire. b Represents the addition of two "members" not available for the first questionnaire. c While the number entered in each organizational row refers to both persons and questionnaires, these total figures refer only to questionnaires. Some persons were nominated by, and responded about, more than one organization. d Represents a percentage drawn from an available sample of 3^2 rather than 3^7 due to seme members r o leaving organization between first and second questionnaire. o APPENDIX B 231 Respondent: management interview schedule items __________ Div: JBr/Gr._ Organizational Name: Code: B-l No. of personnel: a. Professional: b. Non-profess.: c. Secty/Clerk: B-2 No. of Recognized Subdivisions: a. Zero: _____ b. One: _____ c. Two:_______ d. Three: B-3 B-k Pro.ject Status: a. Single _____ b. Two or three _____ c. Four or more ____ _ d. Not project focused Position in work cycle: a. Formulation: ____ _ 1 ~. Early devel: _____ Mid devel: _____ Late devel:_______ Completing: _____ B-5 Disciplinary pattern of professionals a. Electronic Eng. b. Electrical Eng. c. Mechanical Eng. d. Chemical Eng. e. Aero. Eng. f. Other Eng. (S) g. Physicist h. Chemist i. Mathematician j. Operations Res. k . Other (Spec.) B - 6 F o c u s o f w o r k : c. d. e. a. Research: b. Development: c. Test: d. Evaluation: e. Org. Support: f. Fit. Support: B-7 Organizational history (age-moves-repolarizatione) B-8 Description of organizational objectives: 232 B-9 Which of these statements is the more characteristic of this spe cific Branch or Group's work? (Check one) a. ____ One project, service, or area of investigation or analy- ! sis. | b. _____ Two projects, services, or areas of investigation or | analysis. j c. _____ Three projects, services, or areas of investigation or I analysis. * d. _____ Four projects, services, or areas of investigation or analysis. I e. _____ Five or more projects, services or areas of investigation or analysis. B-10 To what extent is this specific organization performing work of the following characteristics? Indicate by percentages the approximate I overall amount of time being devoted by the members of this Branch | or Group to the kinds of work noted below. Exclude the time of ! clerical personnel, but include the time of other supporting per- | sonnel within the basic functions they are supporting. a. % There is work Just beginning in a new area that will | take a considerable amount of time to complete. j b. ____ % There is work which is approximately mid-way to com- i pletion, but which will still take a good deal of time to complete. c. 36 There is work which is nearing completion, which will involve relatively little further time to complete. d. _____% There is work which is of a continuing nature, in which; this Branch or Group will probably be involved for the ■ forseeable future. 100% Approximately B-ll Approximately what percentage of the working time of the members of this Branch or Group is spent in contacts with persons who work at j NOTS, but who are not members of this specific Branch or Group? j (Exclude only clerical personnel as members.) ] i % Time in external contacts with NOTS personnel. ! 233 B-12 Approximately what percentage of the working time of the members of this Branch or Group is spent in contacts with persons who do not work at WOTS? That is, such as contractors, other Wavy Ac tivity, Fleet, Bureau or other BOD personnel. (Exclude only clerical personnel as members.) % Time in external contacts with non-NOTS personnel. B-13 To what extent is this specific organization performing the fol lowing kinds of work? Indicate by percentages the approximate overall amount of time being devoted by the members of this Branch or Group to the functions noted below. Exclude only the time of clerical personnel. The work of other supporting personnel is in cluded within the basic technical functions they are supporting. a. ___^ Research: Includes effort directed toward increased knowledge of natural phenomena and environment and ef forts directed toward the solution of problems in scien tific fields that have no clear direct military applica tion. It includes all basic research and, in addition, that applied research which is directed toward the ex pansion of knowledge in various scientific areas. It does not include efforts directed to prove the feasi bility of solutions of problems of immediate military im portance or time-oriented investigatinons and develop ments . b. ___% Exploratory Development: Includes effort directed towaid the solution of specific military problems, short of ma jor development projects. It may vary from fairly fun damental applied research to quite sophisticated bread board hardware, study, programming and planning efforts. The dominant characteristic of this effort is that it is pointed toward specific military problem areas with a view toward developing and evaluating the feasibility and practicability of proposed solutions and determining their parameters. c. ___% Advanced Development; Includes work on projects which have moved into the development of hardware for experi- i mental or operational test. The design of such items is directed toward hardware for test or experimentation as opposed to items already designed and engineered for Service use. d. ___% Project Definition: Includes the process whereby a pro posed weapon system is defined as regards its perform ance, schedule, and cost. The program definition phase precedes full development (i.e., after Advanced Develop ment) in order that development decisions and contracts may be based on knowledge of what the true capacilities, costs, and time of development, are likely to be. 231 * e. j o Engineering Developments: Includes those development programs being engineered for Service use but which have not yet been approved for procurement or operation. f . j o Management and Support: Includes research and develop ment effort directed toward support of installations or operations required for general research and development use. Included would be test ranges, military construc tion, maintenance support of laboratories, operations anc. maintenance of test aircraft and ships. g. j o Operational. System Developments: Includes research and development effort directed toward development, engineer ing and test of systems, support programs, vehicles and weapons that have been approved for production and Ser vice employment, or are already in production and Fleet employment. 100% Approximate total 235 APPENDIX C FIRST QUESTIONNAIRE: ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS | The first questionnaire was distributed to all members (except I clerical personnel) of the thirty-five organizations selected for par ticipation in this research project. The body of the questionnaire is reproduced on the following pages. Each questionnaire was covered by two memoranda. The first was over the signature of a management offi- j icial of the Laboratory and read as follows: The attached questionnaire (enclosure (l)) is part of a research project being carried out here at NOTS. The research focuses on some of the ways in which organizations change, and some of the I characteristics and costs of these change processes. The results I of the research should suggest ways we can increase our capacity j to adapt and develop as an organization. I feel this research is ! important, and that the findings will be significant as we continue to improve our capability as a research and development laboratory. Your cooperation in completing and returning the attached material is appreciated. |The second was over the signature of this author and read as follows: | This research is directed at understanding the ways in which the members of research and development organizations see these organi zations changing. As the cover memo suggests, the results of the research will be of value in learning how different styles of change have developed in organizations. Hopefully, this information will be useful to organizations desiring to increase their adaptability, j Data is being gathered from a number of Branches and Groups, first ! by questionnaires, and later by a smaller number of interviews and discussions. The Branch or Group of which you are a member has been selected from NOTS Technical Departments on a random basis. If you no longer work in the specific Branch or Group noted at the upper right corner of I the next page, or if you have worked in it for less than three I months, please return this questionnaire unanswered, noting this j fact. | 236 Your responses to these questions are anonymous. The confidenti ality of many of the questions is recognized and will be respected. No attempt will be made to identify any person with any response. In addition, the data will be reported in such a way that your Branch or Group will also remain anonymous. The findings of the research will be greatly enhanced by your frank and open response. In this research, an "organization" means the people in a specific Branch or Group, and the way they act together in forming that Branch or Group. The questions refer to "this specific organiza tion. " This is the Branch or Group noted at the top of the follow ing page, not some other organization of which you are also a mem ber, such as a Section, Division or Department. On the average, this questionnaire has taken about twenty minutes to complete. If it is possible, try to complete the questionnaire within the week and use the attached envelope to send it through the Guard Mail to Bob Biller, Code 6505. Detach the cover memo as further assurance of your personal anonymity if you wish. It is im portant to the data anlysis, however, that the organizational code on the next page be returned intact. I appreciate your help in completing this questionnaire. Feedback about the results will be provided this spring. 237 Section I Select the number from the scale below that you feel most adequately expresses your response to the questions on this and the following three pages, and write it in the blank next to the question number. s Not at To a minor To a medium To a major Completely c all (1) extent (3) extent (5) extent (7) (9) A L i * 1 v l ' 1 1 , * ■ .. 'si' ! 1 , * i E L T.' 2 3 9 5 b 7 8 9 A. Within the last year in this specific organization, to what extent do you feel 1. The organizational goals that the members of this specific organ ization are working towards have changed? That is, the mission of this Branch or Group. 2. The organizational goals should have changed? If your response to question 1 was "1", go directly now to question 5. 3. The change (s) in organizational goals was initiated by a member or members of this specific organization? q. The change(s) in organizational goals was worthwhile? {Overall, as far as you know now, compare the degree of success of the change(s) to: the effort invested in making it, and any problems that may have resulted from it.) B. Within the last year in this specific organization, to what extent do you feel 5. The things produced by the members of this specific organization have changed? That is, the results of the tasks and problems the members are working on; designs, prototypes, ideas, informa tion, proposals, reports, etc. 6. The things produced by the members of this organization should have changed? If your response to question 5 was "1", go directly now to question 9. 7. The change (s) in the things produced by the members of this organization was initiated by a member or members of this specific organization? 8. The change (s) In things produced was worthwhile? (Overall, as far as you know now, compare the degree of success of the change(s) to: the effort invested in making it, and any problems that may have resulted from it.) 237 Section I Select the number from the scale below that you feel most adequately expresses your response to the questions on this and the following three pages, and write it in the blank next to the question number. s Not at To a minor To a medium To a major Completely c all (1) extent (3) extent (5) extent (7) (9) A t i + i 1 1 . * , 1 1 1 ^ 1 E 1 ? . * .....H 5 6 7 8 9 A. Within the last year in this specific organization', to what extent do you feel 1. __ The organizational goals that the members of this specific organ ization are working towards have changed? That is, the mission of this Branch or Group. 2. _ _ The organizational goals should have changed? If your response to question 1 was "1", go directly now to question 5. 3. __ The change (s) in organizational goals was initiated by a member or members of this specific organization? 4. _ _ The change(s) in organizational goals was worthwhile? (Overall, as far as you know now, compare the degree of success of the change(s) to: the effort invested in making it, and any problems that may have resulted from it.) B. Within the last year in this specific organization, to what extent do you feel 5. __ The things produced by the members of this specific organization have changed? That is, the results of the tasks and problems the members are working on; designs, prototypes, ideas, informa tion, proposals, reports, etc. 6. __ The things produced by the members of this organization should have changed? If your response to question S was "1", go directly now to question 9. 7. The change(s) in the things produced by the members of this organization was initiated by a member or members of this specific organization? 8. The change(s) in things produced was worthwhile? (Overall, as far as you know now, compare the degree of success of the change(s) to: the effort invested in making it, and any problems that may have resulted from it.) 238 s Not at To a minor To a medium To a major Completely u all (1) extent (3) extent (5) extent (7) (9) A L 1 * l 1 ^ 1 i ^ i i i 1 ^ 1 E 1 2 3 9 3 6 7 8 9 C. Within the last year in this specific organization, to what extent do you feel: ^e resources used by the members of this specific organization in their work have changed? That is, the kind or nature of the technology, information, funds, people, time, advice, ideas, etc., used in doing their work. 10. ___ The resources used by the members in their work should have changed? If your response to question 9 was "1", go directly now to question 13. 11. __ The change(s) in the resources used by the members of this organization was initiated by a member or members of this specific organization? 12. ___ The change(s) in the resources used was worthwhile? (Overall, as far as you know now, compare the degree of success of the change (s) to: the effort invested in making it, and any problems that may have resulted from it.) D. Within the last year in this specific organization, to what extent do you feel 13. The processes within this specific organization which effect the way work is done have changed? That is, such things as work procedures, communications, priority setting, decision making, progress evaluation, etc. 1U. ___ These processes should have changed? If your response to question 13 was "1", go directly now to question 17. 15. __ The change(s) in processes was initiated by a member or members of this specific organization? 16. The change(s) in processes was worthwhile? (Overall, as far as you know now, compare the degree of success of the change(s) to: the effort invested in making it, and any problems that may have resulted from it. E. Within the last year in this specific organization, to what extent do you feel: 17. ___ The relationships between the members of this specific organiza tion have changed? That is, the formal and informal structure of the organization. 18. ___ These relationships within this organization should have changed? If your response to question 17 was "1", go directly now to question 21. 19. ___ Ths change(s) in relationships within this organization was initiated by a member or members of this specific organization? 20. ___ The change(s) in relationships was worthwhile? (Overall, as far as you know now, compare the degree-of success of the change(s) to: the effort invested in making it, and any problems that may have resulted from It.) s Not at To a minor To a medium To a major Completely c all ( 1 ) extent (3) extent (5) extent (7) (9 ) A L *4 / 1 . 1 i * , i ' K i . . . . . . ^ . i ^ . i E 1 2 3 * 1 5 6 7 8 9 F. Within the last year in this specific organization, to what extent do you feel: 21. __ The external relationships of this specific organization have changed? That is, the people outside this specific organization with whom the members have contact, and/or the nature of these contacts. 22. __ These external relationships should have changed? If your response to question 21 was "I", go directly now to the next page. 23. _ _ The change (s) in external relationships was initiated by a member or menbers of this specific organization? 2 *1 . __ The change (s) in external relationships was worthwhile? (Overall, as far as you know now, compare the degree of successof the change (s) to: the effort invested in making it, and any problems ^ ________that may have resulted from it.)_____________________ . 2U0 s Not at To a minor To a medium To a major Completely c all (1) ■ extent (3) extent (5) extent (7) (9 ) A L I 1 ^ 1 1 ^ . 1 1 ^ 1 1 ^ t E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 25. To what extent are you free to initiate change in this specific organization? 26 .___ To what extent do you feel this specific organization is accomplishing the goals for which it exists? 27 .___ To what extent do you find this specific organization a satisfying place to ‘work? 28 .___ To what extent is this specific organization adaptable? As a whole, do the members solve problems faced by the organization and react with flexibility to changing conditions and circumstances? 29. To what extent are you in agreement with the other members of this specific organization about what the goals of this organization are? 30. To what extent are you in agreement with the other members about the means to be used in accomplishing the goals of this specific organization? 31. To what extent are you deeply and personally involved in accomplishing the goals of this organization? 32. To what extent do the members of this organization search out accurate informa tion that is relevant and important to this specific organization? 33 .__ To what extent do the members of this organization make sure that the informa tion they discover goes to the members of this organization who should act on it? 34 .___ To what extent are changes made in this organization by the members as a re sult of the information they, or other menbers, have discovered? 35. When changes are made, to what extent do the members look for information or feedback about how the changes have worked out? (Enter a zero if you feel no change(s) has been made.} 36 .___ If unexpected problems arise as the result of changes that have been made, to what extent do the members take care of these new problems? (Enter a zero if you feel no change(s) has been made or if no unexpected problems have resulted) 37. To what extent within this specific organization are both your personal goals, and the organizational goals, being accomplished? 38 .__ To what extent are changes now being made in this specific organization where you feel they are necessary? (Enter a zero if you feel no changes are needed.) 39. To what extent do you feel changes will be made in the future in" this specific organization where you feel they are necessary? (Enter a zero if you feel no changes are needed.) 40. In an overall way, to what extent do you feel this specific organization is successful in changing itself when the needs for change become important? That is, the members Initiate and carry out change internally when needed. Section II In this section we are interested in learning who some of the people are that you frequently have contact with in your job who are not in this specific organization, but who do work at NOXS. You may not have had contact with people 'in the three areas noted below,' so complete those categories that apply in your case. Remember that those are persons outside this specific Branch or Group. but they may be members of a larger organization of which you are a part, such as a Division or Department: If the same person is your most frequent contact in two or more of the questions below, enter his or her name and organizational code as many times as appropriate. 1. Within the last year, who is a person outside this specific Branch or Group that has frequently asked you to do some kind of work? ’His or her Name: ____________________________ Organization Code: _____ 2. Within the last year, who Is a person outside this specific Branch or Group that you have frequently asked to do some kind of work? Name: ___________________________ Organization Code: _____ 3. Within the last year, who is the person outside this’specific Branch or Group with whom you feel you have had most frequent contact in your work, and what is the nature of the contact you have had? (Explain the purpose of the contact briefly.) Name: _____________ ______________ Organization Code; _____ Nature of contact: _________________________________________ 4. Approximately what percentage of your working time do you spend In contacts with persons who work at MOTS, but who are not members of this specific Branch or Group? Percentage of work time: ____ % 5. Approximately what percentage of your working time do you spend in contacts with persons who do not work at NOTS? (Such as contractors, other Navy Activities, Fleet, Bureau or other DOD personnel.) Percentage of work time: ____ % 6. What is your occupational title and level? (For example, Mechanical Engineer, GS-11, or Machinist, W-ll.) Title; _____________________ Level: __________ A number of questions have been asked about the last year in this specific Branch or Group. If you feel that there has been something unusual about this last year, please use the back of this page to briefly describe these circumstances. Use the attached envelope to return this questionnaire to Bob Biller. Code 650S. Thank you very much for your time and help. 2k2. APPENDIX D I I | i SECOND QUESTIONNAIRE: ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE J The second questionnaire was distributed to those persons who ;had been nominated by organizational members as frequent contact points and who were among the sample finally selected for each organization. The body of the questionnaire is reproduced on the following pages. Each questionnaire was covered by two memoranda. The first was a dupli- j bate of the introductory memoranda signed by a management official of i jthe Laboratory used to cover the first questionnaire. The second was I over the signature of this author and read as follows: i This is the second phase of a research project on change in research and development organizations. Change, in itself, is assumed to be neither good nor bad. The focus is on discovering factors that sup port useful and effective adaptation. You may have participated in j the first phase where data was gathered from a number of randomly I selected Branches and Groups. I You were mentioned by one (or several) persons, in at least one of these randomly selected Branches or Groups, as someone with whom I they have had contact in their work. The purpose of the questions ! on the attached page(s) is to find out what perceptions exist about j that Branch or Group on the part of persons who have work contacts with one or more of its members. If, however, you have worked at J NOTS for less than three months, or if to your knowledge you have | had no contact with anyone in that Branch or Group, please return i the questionnaire unanswered, noting this fact. Attached you will find one or several pages, depending on the number of persons in different Branches or Groups that mentioned you as a person with whom they have had work contact. Please answer the questions on both sides of each page. The questions refer to a spe cific Branch or Group whose name and code number are noted in the upper right corner of the following page(s). It is recognized that j you have limited information about that Branch or Group. We are in-] terested in your overall impressions based on the contacts you have j had with people who work there, and any other data you may have. j 2h3 So please respond to as many of the questions as possible, leaving blank only those where you have no impression. Your responses to these questions are anonymous. The confidenti ality of many of the questions is recognized and will be respected. No attempt will be made to identify any person with any response. The only feedback in which a specific Branch or Group will be iden tified will be made only to the members of that Branch or Group, and this feedback will be in the form of the average responses of the persons contributing data about that organization. In the final re search reports the Branch(es) or Group(s) about which you provide data will remain anonymous. The analysis will attempt to define styles and patterns within different categories of organizations which effect their adaptation to change, but the specific Branches and Groups will not be identified. The findings of the research will be greatly enhanced by your frank and open response. On the average, each questionnaire takes about ten minutes to com plete . If possible, try to complete the questionnaire( s) this^week, using the guard mail to return it to Bob Biller, Code 6505. Detach the cover memo as further assurance of your personal anonymity if you wish. If you have any questions, please call me at Ext. 71^7^ or 72675. I appreciate your help in contributing to this research. Feedback about the overall results will be provided this spring. 21* ■ Please respond to the questions on both aldos of thio page, In terms of how you see the specific Branch or Oroup identified in the upper comer of this pace. A Branch or Group nay chance in a number of ways. Six areas vhero chance may occur, or bo needed, are noted below. Select the number from the scale below that you feel 1b most adequate In answering tho follow ing two questions about each of tho six aroas of possible change noted below. Biter tho numbers from tho scale in tho appropriate column to tho right. 1st question: Within the last year In the Branch or Oroup noted above, to what cxtontl___ do you feel this has been an area in which change has occurred? J 2nd question: Within the last year in the Branch or Group noted above, to what euctonCJ do you feel this has boon an area in which change should have occurred?Jj s Hot at To a minor To a medium To a major Completely c all (1) extent (3) extent (5) extent (7) ( 9) A L i f ■ • ' i 1 i ' 1 ' ! 1 ^ » B i 2 3 i * f 6 ? d 9 Areas of Possible Change Answer Answer Enter the numbers you select as answers to question 1 and 2 above in tho boxes in the columns to the right. Quest. 1 Change Occurred? Quest. 2 Change Needed? 1. The organizational goals the members of that Branch or Groun are working towards. That is, tho mission of that organization. 2. The things produced by the members of that Branch or Grouo. That is. the results of the tasks and problems tho members are working on: such as: designs, prototypes, ideas, information, proposals, reports, etc. 3. The resources used by the members of that Branch or Group. That is. the kind or nature of tho technology, information, funds, people, time, advice, ideas, etc., used in their work. I t . Tho processes within that Branch or Group. That is. such things as work procedures, communications, priority sotting, decision making, progress evaluation, etc. The relationships between the mombors of that Branch or Group. That is, the formal and informal structure of tho organization. ~ 6. Tho external relationships of that Branch or Group. That is. the people outside that Branch or Group with whom the members have contact, and/or the nature of those contacts. 7. In terms of the six areas of possible change noted above, what is your overall impression of the extent to which changes that have occurred in the last year in that Branch or Oroup i a. _____ Were Initiated by a member or members of that specific Branch or Group? (filter a number from tho scale above, but enter a "O" if you feel no change has occurred in any of the six areas.) b. Were worthwhile? Overall, as far as you know now, compare the degree of success of the changes to: the effort invested in making them, and any problems that may have resulted from having mado them, (filter a number from the scale above, but enter a "0" if you feel no change has occurred in any of the six areas.) 245 Contlnuo to use this stroo scale in answering tho remaining questions. Enter tho number you choose from the ncalo, in answering the questions, in tho blank noxt to tho question numbor. s Hot at To a minor To a modium To a major Completely c all (1) extent (3) extent (5) extent (7) (9) A L , vk _ 1 ^ 1 1 ^ 1 1 1 ^ 1 E 1 2 3 I t 7 B 9 8. Using the criteria you think are important, to what extent do you fool this is an effectivo Branch or Oroup? (Remember that in all questions, "this Branch or Group" moans the ono noted at tho top of tho other sido of this page.) ' . 9. _ _ To what extent do you fool this specific Branch or Group is accomplishing tho goals for which it exists? 10. _ _ To what extent do you feel this specific Branch or Group is adaptable? As a whole, do the mombers solve problems faced by the organization and roact with flexibility . to changing conditions and circumstances? 11. _ _ How important to you in your work are your working relationships with porsons in this Branch or Group? 12. < ___ Within the lost yoar, to what extent do you feel tho working relationships that have existod botwoon you and the roembor(a) of this Branch or Group with whom you have had contact have been efTective? 13. __ To what extent is it important in your work that you have the opportunity to suggest or otherwise initiate change in this Branch or Group? (In any of tho six areas mentioned on tho other side of this pago.) 111 . _ _ Within the last year, to what extent have your suggestions or initiations of change ~ ~ in this Branch or Group been successful? (Enter a "0" if you have not suggested or Initiated any changes.) 1?. [ Within the last year, to what extent do you feel your opinions have been taken into account whan changes in this organization have boon considered? (Enter a "0" if you feel no changes have been considered, or if you bad no opinion.) 16. ____ Within the last year, to what extent do you feel your reactions to changes made in this Branch or Group have been taken into account when these changes have been evaluated? (Ehter a "0" if you feel no changes have occurred, or been evaluated, or if you had no reactions to those changes.) 17. What is your Department code, occupational title, and grade level? (For example; Code bO, Mechanical Engineer, OS-12.) Department code; 'Occupational title; Grade 1 Flease go on to the next page, if there 1b one. If this is the last page, please return this questionnaire to Bob Biller. Codo 6505. Personnel Building. Thank you very much for your timo and help. (The number below does not Identify you. It is the question numbers which originated your name as a person with whom a member (a) of this Branch or Group has contact.) 246 APPENDIX E THIRD QUESTIONNAIRE: ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS The third questionnaire was distributed to all members (except icierical personnel) of the thirty-five organizations selected for par ticipation in this research project. The body of the questionnaire is reproduced on the following pages. Each questionnaire was covered by a memorandum which included a copy of the nine-point scale to be used in ianswering the majority of the questions. This memorandum, signed by jthis author read as follows: i i i ; This questionnaire completes the data gathering for this study of ! change in research and development organizations. Approximately 97$ of the people in the 35 sampled Branches or Groups completed the first questionnaire. Over 90$ of the people you told us you had | frequent contact with in your work, to whom we sent the second ques tionnaire, completed it. In this final set of questions you are asked for your perceptions and feelings about a number of things in this Branch or Group and | in your work. We are interested in your overall reaction, percep- i tion, feeling, or best estimate in response to most of these ques- ! tions. That is, to the best of your knowledge at this time, indi cate what you feel are your most accurate answers to these questions. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers. Things that work well in one situation may be very inappropriate in another. These are the kinds of differences we are exploring. It is very important that you be as thoughtful, frank, and open in your responses as possible, both for the quality of the feedback you may want and for the over all findings of the research. . Your responses to these questions are anonymous. Their confidenti- : ality is recognized and will be respected. Only the members of this Branch or Group will get feedback about this particular organiza- j tion, and this will be available in the form of summary responses, i not individually identified answers. There are questions on both sides of the attached three pages. Starting on page three the questions are answered by selecting a 1___number from.. the scale_drawn-at_th&_t3.o.tt,cm_of, this page. When you are done reading this cover memo, it will be easiest if you, tear it off to use the scale as you work. It is important that as many of the questions as possible be answered. If there are questions that you feel you cannot answer, however, leave them blank. On the average, this questionnaire takes about 35 minutes to com plete. If possible, please complete it within the week and send it Guard Mail to Bob Biller, Code 6505. Feedback about the results will be available in about two months. If you have any particular feelings about the kind of feedback you would like to receive please complete the optional page 7 of the questionnaire. Thank you again for all of your help. Approximately hew lonn have you worked In this Branch or Group? Include all of the time you havo worked In this Branch or Croup even if while you worked it has changed name, Code, or departmental location. If you havo had a break in service, include the time actually worked in- this Branch or Croup, but exclude the time you were away. Include any time you have worked In this Branch or Group on a Detail or other informal assignment. (Fill in blanks) Approximately Year3 and Months In how many other organizations have you worked at NOTS for more than two months? Include regular assignments or full time Details (suchas JP rotational tours) to any other Branches or Croups, in this or other Departments. For example, if you have worked in throe other Branches at NOTS for more than two months, one In this Division and two in other Departments, you would enter a n3". (Fill in blaik) Number i______ Do you feci the overall effectiveness of this 3-1. Decreased significantly Branch or Croup has changed in tho last year? 2. Decreased somewhat (Check one)_________________________________3.___Stayed about the same If.__Increased somewhat $.m__Increased significantly What do you feel is the most pressing problem, if any, now facing this Branch or Group? (Describe briefly)______________________________________________ If you have described a problem in question l j above, how urgent do you feel it is that this problem be dealt with or resolved? (Check one) 5-1. Mo urgency 2. little urgency 3. Seme urgency If.___Croat urgency 5. Extrema urgency What do you feel is the most important goal or objective, if any, which the members of this Branch or Group as a whole are trying to achieve? (Describe briefly) How clearly do you feel you understand what 7-1. Not at all this branch or Croup as a whole is trying to 2. Not very clearly accomplish? (Check one) 3. Fairly clearly It. 'julte clearly 5. Completely 2k9 8. How do you feol about the future of this Branch or Oroup for tho next two to fivo years? (Check one) 8-1. Quite pessimistic 2. Somewhat pessimistic 3 .___Neutral or. about evenly mixed h. Somewhat optimistic 5. Quito optimistic Do you feel this Branch or Group is "temporary?" 9-1., That is, do you expect it to -change markedly or 2.* dissolve within the next five to ten years? 3*~ (Check one) ■ U.” 5." _No, not at all _Ye3, to a slight extent ~Yes* to a moderate extent ~Yeat to a rather large extent ~Yes, completely 10. Approximately how often on average do you talk with the head of this Branch or Group about work related thinrs? (If you are the Mead, answer in terms ofhow often you talk with the next higher levol manager about work related things. Check one) 10-1.___Less often than once a month 2. One to three times a month 3. About once a week h. Two to four times a week 5. About once, a day 6. Two to three times a day 7. Four to five times a day 8. Six to seven times a day 9. - Sight or more times a day 11. Approximately how often on average do you talk with some other member of this Branch or Group (other than tho Head) about work related things? (Check one) 11- 1. _Less often than once a month "One to three tlmos a month 'About once a week "Two to four times a week /bout once a day 'Two to four times a day 'Five to nine times a day 'Ten to fourteen times a day 'Fifteen or more times a day 12. Approximately how often on average do you talk with someone outside of this Branch or Group (someone who is not a member) about work related things? (Check one) 12- 1. Less often than once a month One to three times a month About once a week |Two to four times a week 'About once a day 'Two to four times a day Five to nine times a day . Ten to fourteen times a day 'Fifteen or more times a day 13. Approximately how often on average does this Branch or Group have some kind of work related meeting where most of the • members are prosent? (Check one) 13-1. Less often than once a year 2. One to three times a year 3 .___Four to seven times a year h. Fight to eleven times a year 3. About once a month 6. Two to three times a month 7. About once a week 6. Two to four times a week 9. Once a day or more 250 11. Within tho last year have the members lii-1. Ho, not that I know of worked together as a group in defining the 2,___Yes, to some extent oals or objectives vhich this Branch or 3«__Yes, rather thoroughly roup will try to achieve? (Check one) 15. Within the last year have the members worked _15-1._Ho, not that I know of together as a group in evaluating their progress 2.___ Yes, to some extent inachieving the pools or objectives of this branch or Croup? (Check one) ■ 16. Within tho last year have the numbers worked together a3 a group in planning for the work this Branch or Group will be doing in the future? (Check ono) 17. Within the last year have tho members worked together as a group in finding wavs to make ___ ' this Branch or Group more effective? (Check one) 3. Yes, rather thoroughly , rather thoroughly 16-1. Mo, not that I know of 2. Yes, to some extent 3 . ___Yes, rather thoroughly 17-1.___Mo, not that I know of 2.___Yes, to some extent IMPORTANT IMSTRUCTIOliSi Tear off the cover memo and use the scale drawn on it to select your answers to questions 18 through 70. Choose the number from the scale that most adequately expresses your answer to each question. Enter the numbers you select from the ar.nla as your answers in the blanks next to the question number. 18 .__ Is the work people do in this Branch or Group specialized? That is, do members work primarily in their own particular areas of specialization? (Use the scale on the cover memo-as outlined above-to choose the number of your answer to this and the following questions.) 19. /re a person's occupational title and grade level (such as Mechanical Engineer, OS-12) Important in determining what work he docs in this Branch or Group? gp. Are a person's skills and training important in determining what work he does in this Branch or Group? 21.__ Do you communicate to the other members information you may obtain on matters important to their work? gg. Do you recelvo from the other members the Information you need to do your Job woll? 23.__Are the other members Interested in hearing about information you may have about matters important to the work of this Branch or Group? 2 ) j , Is the relevant and available Information used when decisions are made in this Branch or Group? That is, significant information is not ignored or left undiscovered? 25 . Is information about past history, the present situation, and the anticipated future used when decisions are made in this Branch or Group? That is, decisions are not typically based on only one or two of these kinds of information? 26 . Does the information upon vhich decisions are made in this Branch or Group tend to ,~r" be accurato and adequate? 251 27. Do you participate in tho management of this Branch or Group? 28 .__ lire you able to influence tho decisions and actions of. the Head of this Branch or Oroup that effect you? ( “ if you are the Head, estimate tho extent to which you accept influence of this kind from tho other members.) 29. „_Are you able to influence the kinds of work you do? That is, do you havo a say in deciding which problems, things, or areas you will work on? 30 . ___Do you have the major responsibility for deciding how the work you do is to be done? That is, the way you will go about doing the work you are engaged in, 31 .__Do you feol secure in making work related decisions by yourself which seem to you appropriate for you to make alone? 32 .__Are decisions that might effect tho whole Branch or Group made by tho members working together as a group? 1 ! 33. Are tho members of this Branch or Group effective in coping with unexpected problems? 3U. Are there clear systems of procedures for dealing with the work done in this Branch or Oroup? 3?. Aro disagreements or conflicts among mombers faced squarely and resolved in this Branch or Group? 36. ' Does the Head of this Branch or Group seek out ideas, opinions and attitudes different from his own from tho other mombers? (If you aro the Head, answer this and the following eight questions-through j?Ui-in terms of tho extent to which you feel you do what is asked about.) 37. Does the Head of this Branch or Group encourage members to think about and apply new idoa3 and ways of doing things? " 36. Poas the Head of this Branch or Group make sure that members (including himself) communicate important Information to each other? 39. Does tho Head of this Branch or Group encourage cooperation among tho members? ItO. Does the Head of this Branch or Group work at developing agreement among the members on important work related matters? 1 11. Does tho Head of this Branch or Group keep familiar with points of progress and exert Influence on the other members by identifying problems and revising goals with them as necessary? 1 1 2 . Does tho Head of this Branch or Group lend assistance to tho other members when needed by1 helping to remove road blocks in the work they are doing? 1 1 3 . Does the Head actively represent the Interests and concerns of this Branch or Group to the higher level managers (Division and/or Department) with whew ha has contact? Lit. Does the Head actively represent the interests and concerns of the higher level aanagors (Division and/or Department) with whom he has contact to the members of this Branch or Group? hSm Do you feel you know how satisfied the Head of this Branch or Group is with your work? (If you are the Headj estimate how well you think the members know your feelings about their work*) 252 - t<6. Are you getting training and experience in your work that will help your personal and professional growth? 1 )7. Are there well defined career patterns for the members of this Branch or Group? US. Do you know what your opportunities for advancement are? U9. Does the Head of this Branch or Group help vou plan and achieve your career objectives? (If you are the Head, estimate the extent to which you do this with tho other members. 50. Are promotions in this Branch or Group based on technical competence? 51. Does a person's grade level (GS erode level) in this Branch or Group indicate clearly how much authority he has in relation to other members who have different grade levels? S?. Are the rinht3 and duties of members clearly defined in this Branch or Group? S3. ' Are tho relationships between members in this Branch or Group impersonal? SU« Poos this Branch or Group provide a supportive atmosphere for you and your work? SS« Do the members of this Branch or Group have trust and confidence in each other? S6. Do the members of this Branch or Group intend to be helpful when they offer sugGestions, ideas* or criticisms to each other? S7« Is the work you are doing important? S8*__Is the work you are' doinc challenging? 59. Does the work you do require the use of your best abilities? 60. Do you have a feeling of achievement in. the work you are doing? 61. Jo you feel a part of this Branch or Group? That is, do you feel closely identified with it? 62. Do you feel you want to stay in this Branch or Group for the next few (two to three) years? 63. Do the members of this Branch or Group get along well with each other? 6tt. Do the members of this Branch or Group tend to help each other? 65. How important to you in your work are your working relationships with persons outside this Branch or Group? 66. Do tho activities or decisions of persons outside this Branch or Group effect your work, directly or indirectly? 67. Within the last year have your working relationships with persons outside this Branch or Group been effective? 253 68 6 9.. 70._ 71. _Is it Important in the wor!: of this Branch or Group that persons who aro not mombers (but who are points of frequent work contact) have the opportunity to surnest or otherwise initiate change in this Branch or Croup? Possible areas, of chance include the Branch's or Group's: goals, things boinc produced, resources being used, internal processes, Internal and external relationships. _Within tho last year havo the suggestions or opinions of persons who are not mombers (but who are points of frequent work contact) been taken into account when chances have boon considered or made in this Branch or Group in tho areas noted in question 68? _Do the higher level manarers in this Department (Division Heads and above) provide sufficient support for tho work this Branch or Group is doing? Do you have sufficient time to think about wavs of doing your work more effectively? 72. For the people and time available in this Branch or Group, do you foci the workload is: (Check one. Tho cover memo scale is not used again.) _Quite low _A little low “About right “A little high “Quite high 73. Do you prefer a job where the things you work on over the course of a year: (Check one.) ' _Stay the same “Change very little “Change somewhat _Change quite a bit “Change a great deal 7 1 * . Do you prefer a Job where the relationships you havo , with people in your work over the course of a year (that is. whom you work with and/or the ways you work with themTi (Check one.) _Stay the samo “Change very little ^Change somewhat _Change quite a bit “Change a great deal 75. This Branch or Oroup is located within a government laboratory. As the years pass, tho nature of tho technology available, the things that most need doing, the resources available to do them, the ways of doing them best, and other factors may change. Do you feel the fact of being located in a government laboratory Eas any effect on the ability of thib Branch or Group to adapt to those klnd3 of changes?' (Check one.) I t . 5. _It hinders greatly _It hinders some “it has no effect, or "the effects are about ovenly mixed _It helps some “it helps greatly 76. What is your occupational title and grade level? OS-12, or Electronic Mechanic, WB-12.) Occupational title: (For example, Mechanical Engineer, Grade level: Please return this questionnaire to Bob Biller, Code 6505. Personnel Building. The optional -questions on the next page ask about the kind of feedback you would like to receive. Thank" you for your time and help. APPENDIX F PARTIAL DATA SUMMARY Members— First Questionnaire Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Total Sample Average N=337 C-l The organizational goals that the members of this specific organization are working towards have changed? That is, the mission of this Branch or Group. 3.29 1.00/5.50 3.52 C-2 The organizational goals should have changed? 3-57 1.00/5.00 3.61 C-3 The change(s) in organizational goals was initiated by a member or members of this specific organization? 5.00 2.00/8.00 4.89 C-4 The change(s) in organizational goals was worthwhile? (Overall, as far as you know now, compare the degree of success of the change(s) to: the effort invested in making it, and any problems that may have resulted from it.) 5.73 3.00/7.67 5.72 C-5 The things produced by the members of this specific organi zation have changed? That is, the results of the tasks and prob lems the members are working on; designs, prototypes, ideas, information, proposals, reports, etc. 3.79 2.00/6.55 k.oe C-6 The things produced by the members of this organization should have changed? ^.33 1.86/6.55 ^.35 C-7 The change(s) in the things produced by the members of this organization was initiated by a member or members of this specific organization-?— .—----_____------------------------------------- 6.00 2.00/9.00 5.55 1 0 vn - f r - APIENDIX F (Continued) Members— First Questionnaire Items Median Range of Total Org. All Orgs. Sample Rank #18 Low-High Average N=35 N=35 N=337 C-8 The change(s) in things produced was worthwhile? (Overall... name as #4.) (!-9 The resources used by the members of this specific organization :.n their work have changed? That is, the kind or nature of the tech nology, information, funds, people, time, advice, ideas, etc., used :.n doing their work. (1-10 The resources used by the members in their work should have changed? < ! —11 The change(s) in the resources used by the members of this organization was initiated by a member or members of this organi sation? C-12 The change(s) in the resources used was worthwhile? (Overall... |ame as #4.) ■13 The processes within this specific organization which affect the way work is done have changed? That is, such things as work pro cedures, communications, priority settings, decision making, progress Evaluation, etc. C-l4 These processes should have changed? -15 The change(s) in processes was initiated by a member or members 6.50 3.50/7.50 6.05 4.09 2.00/6.25 4.15 4.42 2.14/6.00 4.44 5.56 1.75/7.60 5.64 6.17 3.4o/7.8o 6.03 2.71 1.33/5.78 3.36 4.17 1.57/5.56 4.23 ro 6.00 3.00/9.00 5.88 $ APPENDIX F (Continued) Members— First Questionnaire Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Total Sample Average N=337 C-l6 The change(s) in processes was worthwhile? (Overall...same as #4.) 5.80 3.00/8.50 5*58 C-17 The relationships between the members of this specific organi zation have changed? That is, the formal and informal structure of the organization. 3.00 1.71/5.00 3.24 C-l8 These relationships within this organization should have changed? 3-33 1.71/5.40 3.46 C-19 The change(s) in relationships within this organization was initiated by a member or members of this specific organization? 5.50 2.00/9.00 5.77 C-20 The change(s) in relationships was worthwhile? (Overall... same as #4.) 4.75 2.33/8.00 4.86 C-21 The external relationships of this specific organization have changed? That is, the people outside this specific organization with 3.57 1.88/5.57 3.68 whom the members have contact, and/or the nature of these contacts. C-22 These external relationships should have changed? 4.12 2.29/5.67 4.24 C-23 The change(s) in external relationships was initiated by a mem ber or members of this specific organization? 4.86 1.80/7.14 4.73 C-24 The change(s) in external relationships was worthwhile? (Overall ...same as #4.) 5.75 3.00/7.25 __ ro 5.59 ^ APPENDIX F (Continued) Members— First Questionnaire Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Total_ Sample Average N=337 '3-25 To what extent are you free to initiate change in this specific organization? ^.73 2.67/6.75 I t . 65 3-26 To what extent do you feel this specific organization is accom plishing the goals for which it exists? 6.56 5.39/7.83 6.53 3-27 To what extent do you find this specific organization a satisfying place to work? 6.73 U.83/8.17 6.67 3-28 To what extent is this specific organization adaptable? As a whole, lo the members solve problems faced by the organization and react with flexibility to changing conditions and circumstances? 6.75 5.00/8.09 6.66 3-29 To what extent are you in agreement with the other members of this specific organization about what the goals of this organization are? 6.62 5.33/7.91 6.55 3-30 To what extent are you in agreement with the other members about the means to be used in accomplishing the goals of this specific organi sation? 6.14 I t . 78/7.67 6.08 3-31 To what extent are you deeply and personally involved in accom plishing the goals of this organization? 6.71 4.75/7.75 6.65 3-32 To what extent do the members of this organization search out iccurate information that is relevant and important to this specific organization? 6.88 5.17/8.12 6.71 ro VJ1 -J APPENDIX F (Continued) Members— First Questionnaire Items Median Range of Total Org. All Orgs. Sample P.ank #18 Low-High Average N=35 N=35 N=337 3-33 To what extent do the members of this organization make sure that the information they discover goes to the members of this or ganization who should act on it? 6.17 5. 00/8.00 6.15 3-34 To what extent are changes made in this organization by the members as a result of the information they, or other members have discovered? 5.33 3.50/6.91 5.27 3-35 When changes are made, to what extent do the members look for information or feedback about how the changes have worked out? 5.00 3.to/6 .60 4.94 3-36 If unexpected problems arise as the result of changes that have been made, to what extent do the members take care of these new problems? 6.33 5. 00/7.80 6.16 3-37 To what extent within this specific organization are both your personal goals, and the organizational goals, being accomplished? 5.76 4. 50/7.18 5.84 3-38 To what extent are changes now being made in this specific organization where you feel they are necessary? 4.27 2. 80/6.50 4.58 3-39 To what extent do you feel changes will be made in the future in this specific organization where you feel they are necessary? 4.83 3. 00/7.20 4.95 3-40 In an overall way, to what extent do you feel this specific organization is successful in changing itself when the needs for 6.29 4.86/7.73 6.29 r o CO APPENDIX F (Continued) f Members— First Questionnaire Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Total Sample Average N=337 change become important? That is, the members initiate and carry out change internally when needed. C-II-4 Approximately what percentage of your working time do you spend in contacts with persons who work at NOTS, but who are not members of this specific Branch or Group? 18.1836 5.33/ 45.0036 21.4336 C-II-5 Approximately what percentage of your working time do you spend in contacts with persons who do not work at NOTS? (Such as contractors, other Navy Activities, Fleet, Bureau or other DOD per sonnel.) 6.0036 1.25/ 30.0036 9.6036 Environmentals— Second Questionnaire Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Total Sample Average N=475 D-la Has change occurred in the organizational goals the members of that Branch or Group are working towards? That is, the mission of that organization. 3.27 1.14/6.15 3.37 iD-lb Should change have occurred in the organizational goals the members of that Branch or Group are working towards? (Etc., see la.) 3.80 1.75/6.08 i » . 00 $ VO APPENDIX F (Continued) Environmentals— Second Questionnaire Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Total Sample Average N=475 ])-2a Has change occurred in the things produced by the members of that Branch or Group? That is, the results of the tasks and problems the nembers are working on: such as: designs, prototypes, ideas, informa tion, proposals, reports, etc. 3-70 2.00/5.53 3.7^ ])-2b Should change have occurred in the things produced by the members of that Branch or Group? (Etc., see 2a.) 4.22 2.86/5.47 4.24 ])-3a Has change occurred in the resources used by the members of that branch or Group? That is, the kind or nature of the technology, infor mation, funds, people, time, advice, ideas, etc., used in their work. 3.1+6 2.17/5.00 3.59 ])-3b Should change have occurred in the resources used by the members of that Branch or Group? (Etc., see 3a.) 1+.33 2.62/5.53 4.32 ])-4a Has change occurred in the processes within that Branch or Group? That is, such things as work procedures, communications, priority set ting, decision making, progress evaluation, etc. 2.89 1.29/5.47 3.15 ])-4b Should change have occurred in the processes within that Branch or Group? (Etc., see *»a.) 3.93 1.69/5.39 4.16 ])-5a Has change occurred in the relationships between the members of ihat Branch or Group? That is, the formal and informal structure of ;he organization. 2.64 1.33/4.79 2.90 1 0 o> © APPENDIX F (Continued) _____ 1 Environmentals— Second Questionnaire Items Median Org. Bank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 j Total Sample Average N=475 D-5b Should change have occurred in the relationships between the members of that Branch or Group? (Etc., see 5a.) 3.22 1.33/5.00 3.36 | i l D-6a Has change occurred in the external relationships of that Branch or Group? That is, the people outside that Branch or Group with whom the members have contact, and/or the nature of those contacts. 3.27 1.86/4.62 3.34 ! D-6b Should change have occurred in the external relationships of that Branch or Group? (Etc., see 6a.) 4.14 2.00/5.71 4.16 f D-7a In terms of the six areas of possible change noted above, what is your overall impression of the extent to which changes that have oc curred in the last year in that Branch or Group were initiated by a member or members of that specific Branch or Group? 4.85 3.00/6.38 4.82 j i D-7b In terms of the six areas of possible change noted above, what is your overall impression of the extent to which changes that have occurred in the last year in that Branch or Group were worthwhile? Overall, as far as you know now, compare the degree of success of the changes to: the effort invested in making them, and any problems that nay have resulted from having made them. 5.21 3.62/7.14 5.28 D-8 Using the criteria you think are important, to what extent do you feel this is an effective Branch or Group? 6.27 4.25/7.29 6.23 D-9 To what extent do you feel this specific Branch or Group is accom plishing the goals for which it exists? 6.27 4.50/7.20 6.17 & H APPENDIX F (Continued) Environmentals— Second Questionnaire Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 j Total j Sample Average N=475 I 1 D-10 To what extent do you feel this specific Branch or Group is adaptable? As a whole, do the members solve problems faced by the 5.82 3.90/7.27 5.76 ! j organization and react with flexibility to changing conditions and circumstances? ! i i i ! D-ll How important to you in your work are your working relation ships with persons in this Branch or Group? 6.33 4.h2/7.28 6.13 1 D-12 Within the last year, to what extent do you feel the working re lationships that have existed between you and the member(s) of this 6.50 5.00/7.75 6.39 Branch or Group with whom you have had contact have been effective? D-13 To what extent is It important in your work that you have the opportunity to suggest or otherwise initiate change in this Branch or Group? (in any of the six areas mentioned in question 1-6.) 4.12 2.86/6.00 4.36 1 D-l4 Within the last year, to what extent have your suggestions or initiations of change in this Branch or Group been successful? 4.67 2 . 1 7 / 6 . 6 7 4.70 D-15 Within the last year, to what extent do you feel your opinions have been taken into account when changes in this organization have been considered? 4.80 2. 86/6.50 4.70 D-l6 Within the last year, to what extent do you feel your reactions 'to changes made in this Branch or Group have been taken into account 4.18 2.20/7.50 4.29 when these changes have been evaluated? ro o\ ro APPENDIX F (Continued) Members— Third Questionnaire Items Median Org. Bank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Total Sample Average N=332 E-l Approximately how long have you worked in this Branch or Group? Include all of the time you have worked in this Branch or Group even if while you worked it has changed name, code, or departmental loca tion. If you have had a break in service, include the time actually worked in this Branch or Group, but exclude the time you were away. Include any time you have worked in this Branch or Group on a Detail or other informal assignment. (Approximate number of years and months rounded off to the closest number of years.) If .62 1.67/12.71 4.92 E-2 In how many other organizations have you worked at HOTS for more than two months? Include regular assignments or full-time Details (such as JP rotational tours) to any other Branches or Groups, in this or other Departments, 2.36 0/5.67 2.61 E-3 Do you feel the overall effectiveness of this Branch or Group has changed in the last year? (l=Decreased significantly, 2=Decreased somewhat, 3=Stayed about the same, 4=Increased somewhat, 5=Increased significantly.) 3.6If 2.00/4.57 3.63 E-5 If you have described a problem in question 4 above, how urgent do you feel it is that this problem be dealt with or resolved? (l=No jurgency, 2=Little urgency, 3=Some urgency, 4=Great urgency, 5=Extreme urgency.) I 3.lf0 2.00/4.22 3.40 !e-7 How clearly do you feel you understand what this Branch or Group 'as a whole is trying to accomplish? (l=Not at all, 2=Not very clearly, ;3=Fairly clearly, 4=Quite clearly, 5=CompleteIy.) 3.59 2.90/4.33 3.50 ro ( T \ C j O APPENDIX P (Continued) Members— Third Questionnaire Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Total Sample Average N=332 E-8 How do you feel about the future of this Branch or Group for the next two to five years? (l=Quite pessimistic, 2=Somewhat pessimistic, 3=Neutral or about evenly mixed, 4=Somewhat optimistic, 5=Quite opti mistic.) 3-91 2.33/4.86 3.86 E-9 Do you feel this Branch or Group is "temporary"? That is, do you expect it to change markedly or dissolve within the next five to ten years? (l=No, not all, 2=Yes, to a slight extent, 3=Yes, to a moderate extent, 4=Yes, to a rather large extent, 5=Yes, completely.) 2.11 1.33/3.75 2,14 E-10 Approximately how often on average do you talk with the Head of this Branch or Group about work-related things? (If you are the Head, answer in terms of how often you talk with the next higher level mana ger about work-related things.) (l=Less often than once a month, 2=1-3 [times a month, 3=About once a week, 4=2-4 times a week, 5=About once a day, 6=2-3 times a day, 7=4-5 times a day, 8=6-7 times a day, 9=Eight or more times a day.) 4.22 2.00/6.33 3.88 !E-11 Approximately how often on average do you talk with some other imember of this Branch or Group (other than the Heady about work-related jthings? (l=Less often than once a month, 2=1-3 times a month, 3=About jonce a week, 4=2-4 times a week, 5=About once a day, 6=2-4 times a day, |7=5-9 times a day, 8=10-l4 times a day, 9=Fifteen or more times a day.) 6,08 3. 60/7.29 6,o4 !E-12 Approximately how often on average do you talk with someone out ride of this Branch or Group (someone who is not a member) about work- related things? (The same scale as in the preceding item #11 was used.) 4.44 2.75/6.78 4,56 & - f r APPENDIX F (Continued) Members— Third Questionnaire Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Total Sample Average N=332 3-13 Approximately how often on average does this Branch or Group lave some kind of work-related meeting where most of the members are present? (l=Less often than once a year, 2=1-3 times a year, 3=4-7 times a year, 4=8-11 times a year, 5=About once a month, 6=2-3 times a month, 7=About once a week, 8=2-4 times a week, 9=0ace & day or more.) 3-14 Within the last year have the members worked together as a group in defining the goals or objectives which this Branch or Group fill try to achieve? (l=No, not that I know of, 2=Yes, to seme ex tent, 3=Yes, rather thoroughly.) :3-15 Within the last year have the luciluuSjrS worked together as a group Ln evaluating their progress in achieving the goals or objectives of this Branch or Group? (Same scale as #14.) 3-16 Within the last year have the members worked together as a group Ln planning for the work this Branch or Group will be doing in the lture? (Same scale as #l4.) 4.00 1.62/7.67 4.17 1.70 1.00/2.86 1.76 1.56 1.00/2.57 1.65 1.73 1.00/3.00 1.75 3-17 Within the last year have the members worked together as a group Ln finding ways to make this Branch or Group more effective? (Same 3 cale’as"|ii.)------- ------------ 5-18 Is the work people do in this Branch or Group specialized? That Ls, do members work primarily in their own particular areas o f _ 1.67 1. 00/2.67 1.66 6.00 3.67/8.00 5.97 r o o\ APPENDIX F (Continued) Members— Third Questionnaire Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Total Sample Average N=332 i specialization? (Remaining items up to #71 use the scale drawn on she Cover memo.) 13-19 Are a person's occupational title and grade level (such as Mechanical Engineer, GS-12) important in determining what work he does in this Branch or Group? 4.23 5 I.67/6.38 4.24 ]3-20 Are a person's skills and training important in determining What work he does in this Branch or Group? r- E-21 Do you communicate to the other members information you may Obtain on matters important to their work? 6.88 5.60/8.50 6.72 6.89 5.60/8.33 6.90 13-22 Do you receive from the other members the information you need ;o do your job well? 6.27 4.43/7.86 6.22 13-23 Are the other members interested in hearing about information you may have about matters important to the work of this Branch or Group? 6.55 3.83/9.00 6.56 13-24 Is the relevant and available information used when decisions are made in this Branch or Group? That is, significant information :Ls not ignored or left undiscovered? 6.55 5.73/7.60 6.49 13-25 Is information about past history, the present situation and ;he anticipated future used when decisions are made in this Branch 6.47 5. 20/8.50 6.33 1 0 s APPENDIX F (Continued) Members— Third Questionnaire Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Total Sample Average N=332 or Group? That is, decisions are not typically based on only one or two of these kinds of information. E-26 Does the information upon which decisions are made in this Branch or Group tend to be accurate and adequate? E-27 Do you participate in the management of this Branch or Group? E-28 Are you able to influence the decisions and actions of the gead of this Branch or Group that affect you? (If you are the Head, estimate the extent to which you accept influence of this kind from the other members.) E-29 Are you able to influence the kinds of work you do? That is, do you have a say in deciding which problems, things, or areas you will work on? E-30 Do you have the major responsibility for deciding how the work you do is to be done? That is, the way you will go about doing the work you are engaged in. E-31 Do you feel secure in making work-related decisions by yourself which seem to you appropriate for you to make alone? E-32 Are decisions that might affect the whole Branch or Group made by the members working together as a group? 6.45 if.00/7.43 6.1fif 3.88 2.22/6.25 3.74 5.00 3.50/6.50 4.90 5.62 2.67/7.75 5.6l 7.09 6.00/8.40 7.09 7.56 5.00/8.33 7.38 4.75 1.71/6.57 4.56 On -3 APPENDIX F (Continued) Members— Third Questionnaire Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Total Sample Average N=332 3-33 Are the members of this Branch or Group effective in coping ri.th unexpected problems? 6.88 5.75/8.00 6.79 3-34 Are there clear systems of procedures for dealing with the work done in this Branch or Group? If.83 3.25/7.67 4.95 3-35 Are disagreements or conflicts among members faced squarely ind resolved in this Branch or Group? 6.00 3.33/8.33 5.92 3-36 Does the Head of this Branch or Group seek out ideas, opinions imd attitudes different from his own from other members? (If you are the Head, answer this and the following eight questions— through #44— in terms of the extent to which you feel you do what is asked about.) 5.91 3.20/7.18 5.91 E-37 Does the Head of this Branch or Group encourage members to think about and apply new ideas and ways of doing things? 6.75 4.20/8.25 6.65 E-38 Does the Head of this Branch or Group make sure that members (including himself) communicate important information to each other? 5.56 3.29/7.57 5.59 3-39 Does the Head of this Branch or Group encourage cooperation imong the members? 6.57 4.50/8.14 6.55 3-40 Does the Head of this Branch or Group work at developing agree- nent among the members on important work-related matters? 5.93 4.29/7.36 5*97 ro 'ON 00 APPENDIX F (Continued) Members— Third Questionnaire Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Total Sample Average N=332 B-4l Does the Head of this Branch or Group keep familiar with points of progress and exert influence on the other members by- identifying problems and revising goals with them as necessary? 6.1^ U.OO/7.UO 6.14 E-42 Does the Head of this Branch or Group lend assistance to the other members when needed by helping to remove road blocks in the work they are doing? 6.57 i t . 56/8.14 6.55 E-43 Does the Head actively represent the interests and concerns of this Branch or Group to the higher level managers (Division and/or Department) with whom he has contact? 7.00 5.17/8.43 6.89 E-Ml- Does the Head actively represent the interests and concerns of the higher level managers (Division and/or Department) with whom he has contact to the members of this Branch or Group? 6.12 4.43/8.57 6.08 E-45 Do you feel you know how satisfied the Head of this Branch or Group is with your work? (If you are the Head, estimate how well you think the members know your feelings about their work.) 6.00 4.00/7.57 5.95 E-46 Are you getting training and experience in your work that will help your personal and professional growth? 6.29 4.33/7.57 6.15 E-47 Are there well defined career patterns for the members of this Branch or Group? 5.00 3.20/6.00 U.88 & \o | APPENDIX F (Continued) Members— Third Questionnaire Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Total Sample Average n=332 13-48 Do you know what your opportunities for advancement are? 5.88 3.60/7.43 5.74 13-49 Does the Head of this Branch or Group help you plan and achieve your career objectives? (If you axe the Head, estimate ;he extent to which you do this with the other members.) 4.25 2.70/6.86 4.4l 13-50 Are promotions in this Branch or Group based on technical competence? 6.33 4.67/8.14 6.33 13-51 Does a person's grade level (GS grade level) in this Branch or Group indicate clearly how much authority he has in relation to other members who have different grade levels? 4.oo 1.67/6.14 4.15 13-52 Are the rights and duties of members clearly defined in this liranch or Group? 5.11 3.50/8.00 5.17 13-53 Are the relationships between members in this Branch or Group ijnpersonal? 4.6o 2.33/6.71 4.55 1 . E-54 Does this Branch or Group provide a supportive atmosphere for you and your work? 6.14 4.62/8.14 6.12 E-55 Do the members of this Branch or Group have trust and confidence in each other? 6.55 4.50/8.00 6.46 to APPENDIX F (Continued) Memberb— Third Questionnaire Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Total Sample Average N=332 E-56 Do the members of this Branch or Group intend to be helpful when they offer suggestions, ideas, or criticisms to each other? 6.89 5.50/9.00 7.02 E-57 Is the work you are doing important? 7.35 5.57/8.09 7.25 E-58 Is the work you are doing challenging? 6.91 5.83/9.00 6.81* E-59 Does the work you do require the use of your best abilities? 6.1 * 1 * 5.43/7.86 6. 1 * 1 E-60 Do you have a feeling of achievement in the work you are doing? 6.1*5 5.50/7.86 6.58 E-6l Do you feel a part of this Branch or Group? That is, do you feel closely identified with it? 6.88 5.ll*/8.1*3 6.76 E-62 Do you feel you want to stay in this Branch or Group for the next few (two to three) years? 6.22 3.25/8.50 6.27 E-63 Do the members of this Branch or Group get along well with each other? 6.86 1 *. 00/8.67 6.81 E-64 Do the members of this Branch or Group tend to help each other? 6.86 .1*. 57/7.86 6.77 E-65 How important to you in your work are your working relationships with persons outside this Branch or Group? 6.71 l * . 50/8.33 6.73 ro APPENDIX F (Continued) Members— Third Questionnaire Items Median Org. Bank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Total Sample Average N=332 -66 Do the activities or decisions of persons outside this Branch or Group affect your work, directly or indirectly? -67 Within the last year have your working relationships with per sons outside this Branch or Group been effective? -68 Is it important in the work of this Branch or Group that persons who are not members (but who are points of frequent work contact) have bhe opportunity to suggest or otherwise initiate change in this Branch ar Group? Possible areas of change include the Branch’s or Group's: goals, things being produced, resources being used, internal processes, Internal and external relationships. -69 Within the last year have the suggestions or opinions of persons yho are not members (but who are points of frequent work contact) been baken into account when changes have been considered or made in this Branch or Group in the areas noted in question 68? 3-70 Do the higher level managers in this Department (Division Heads and above) provide sufficient support for the work this Branch or }roup is doing? E-71 Do you have sufficient time to think about ways of doing your work more effectively? 3-72 For the people and time available in this Branch or Group, do 6.17 2.25/7.22 6.07 6.62 5.50/7. *6 6. 6l 4.78 2.33/6.00 4.77 4.87 3.00/6.50 4.67 6.00 3.50/7.33 5.86 5-57 3.50 2.33/7.00 2.92/5.00 5.53 3.78 ru r 3 l APPENDIX F (Continued) Members— Third Questionnaire Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Total Sample Average N=332 you feel the workload is: (l=Quite low, 2=A little low, 3=About right,~k=A little high, 5=Quite high.) E-73 Do you prefer a job where the things you work on over the course of a year: (l=Stay the same, 2=Change very little, 3= Change somewhat, 4=Change quite a bit, 5Change a great deal.) 3-59 2.75/4.86 3.65 E-7k Do you prefer a job where the relationships you have with people in your work over the course of a year (that is, whom you 2.73 2.00/3.86 2.81 wo"rk with and/or the ways you work with them): (Same scale as #73.) E-75 This Branch or Group is located within a government labora tory. As the years pass, the nature of the technology available, the things that most need doing, the resources available to do them, the ways of doing them best, and other factors may change. Do you feel the fact of being located in a government laboratory 3.75 2.92/4.38 3.70 has any effect on the ability of this Branch or Group to adapt to these kinds of changes? (l=It hinders greatly, 2=It hinders some, 3=It has no effect, or the effects are about even, 4=It helps some, 5=It helps greatly.) ro U) APPENDIX F (Continued) Records and Interview Data Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Average For Orgs. N=35 R-l Approximately how many years has this Branch or Group existed? (Years) 7 1/18 7.6 R-2 Approximately how many years has the Head of this Branch or Group held that position? (Years) k 1/13 k.6 R-3 Approximately how old on average are the members of this Branch or Group? (Years) 37.1 28.3/48.3 37.4 R-4 Approximately how long on average have the members of this Branch or Group worked at NOTS? (Years) 9.0 3.51/14.9 8.9 R-5 What was the approximate gross turnover 5 6 in the last year? (New members plus members that have left divided by current N.) 23% 0/8056 26.256 R-6 What is the average grade level? (GS level.) 11.7 11.0/13.6 11.8 R-7 What was the promotion 5 6 in the last year? (Number of promotion actions divided by current N.) lk.3i O/6656 17.256 R-8 What is the approximate investment in formal training activities? (Sum hours of formally recorded training since July 1959 of current members divided by sum of their NOTS man hours since that date.) 1.456 .2/6.156 1.656 R-9 How many separate job titles? (GS series or WB designations.) h 1/10 —3 ■ p- APPENDIX F (Continued) Records and Interview Data Items Median Org. Rank #l8 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Average For Orgs. N=35 R-10 How heterogeneous is the organization in job title terms: (N of separate job titles divided by N of current members.) .45 .13/1.00 .46 R-ll How many members in the Branch or Group? (Exclusive of those on WAE, LWOP and educational leave.) 9 3/22 10 R-12 What $ of the members have professional job titles? 75$ 50/100$ 75.5$ B-2-x How many formally recognized subdivisions within the Branch or Group? (if no subdivisions, a 'T' is entered, if 2 a "2", etc.) 1 1/4 1.7 B-2-y What is approximate average number of persons per subdivision? 7 2.0/22.0 7.2 B-3 How many projects, services, or areas of investigation or analysis are being worked on by this Branch or Group? (Scale only goes up to "5 or more".) | 5 1/5 4.1 B-10-x How many types of work are represented by items B-10-a/d? 4 1/4 3.43 B-10 Approximately what percentage of the time of members is devoted to the following four kinds of work? (These 4 categories total approximately 100$.) B-10-a Project-related work begun in the last year. 18$ 0/52$ 20.1$ B-10-b Project-related work now in mid-stream. 37$ o/8o$ , ro 37.2$ ^ APPENDIX F (Continued) Records and Interview Data Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Average For Orgs. N=35 B-10-c Project related work nearing completion (expected to tail out within the next year). B-10-d Work of a continuing nature, which is not directly related 0 a specific project(s). Approximately what percentage of the time of members over the course of the last year has been invested in the following areas jf work? (Total of seven categories will approximate 100$.) B-13-a Research: Basic studies of natural phenomena not directed ]bo the solutions of specific military problems. 3-13-b Exploratory Development: Applied research and development lirected toward the solution of specific military problems, short y£ major development projects. 3-13-c Advanced Development: Projects which have moved into the levelopment of hardware for experimental or operational test. 3-13-d Project Definition: Defining performance, schedule and :ost parameters of proposed weapon systems. 3-13-e Engineering Development: The engineering for service of levelopment programs not yet approved for operation and procurement. 12$ 20$ 0$ 23$ 15$ 0/28$ n.< 0/100$ 30.9$ 0/90$ 10. 9$ 0/90$ 32.0$ 0/58$ 19.7$ 0/33$ 5.i$ 0/60$ ik.fy ro APPENDIX F (Continued) Records and Interview Data Items Median Org. Rank #18 N=35 Range of All Orgs. Low-High N=35 Average For Orgs. N=35 3-13-f Management and Support; Support of installations and opera- 0% 0/100% 5.0% ;ion required for general research and development use, such as test ranges. ■3-13-g Operational Systems Developments; Development engineering 5% 0/90% 13.0% and test of systems approved for, or already in, production and service employment. !3-13-x How many types of work are represented by items 21-27? 4 1/7 4.09 r o -a -3 APPENDIX G INTERCORRELATIONS OF ADAPTIVENESS WITH INDEPENDENT VARIABLES INDEXES* Independent Variables D1 Externally Perceived D2 D3 „ . Worth- Balance , .. „ whileness ' 0 of Task 0ha”«e Change D4 Worth whileness of Main tenance Change D5 Internal Con fidence d6 Internal Adaptive ness D7 Overall Adaptive ness E-3 Change in effectiveness — - — — — .367 .356 E-7 Understand goals — .546 — — — — .541 E-8 Future orientation — — — .431 .444 .479 .484 E-9 Temporariness — — -M l — -.367 — ' E-10 Frequency - Talk - head — .426 — — — — ; E-ll Frequency - Talk - member — ■ a — — — .417 - E-12 Frequency - Talk - outside — .382 -.356 — — — - E-13 Organization meets as whole .339 — — — .3^7 .340 E-l4 Defining goals — .372 — — — M l .469 E-15 Evaluating progress — — — — — .522 .428 E-l6 Planning for future — .358 — — — .413 ro .446^ APPENDIX G (Continued) Independent Variables D1 Externally Perceived D2 Balance of Change D3 Worth whileness of Task Change D^ Worth whileness of Main tenance Change D5 Internal Con fidence d6 Internal Adaptive ness D7 Overall Adaptive ness E-17 Developing organizational effectiveness — .386 — — — .k6k >60 E-19 Status important — — — .570 .607 >3^ E-20 Skills important — — .W> a — — — E-21 Initiate communication — .33^ — — — — — i IE-22 j Receive information — .363 — — .U63 — 1 E-23 Others hear — — — — — >13 E-2^ 1 I Information used in decision — .3^ — — — — >08 b-25 i | Time span of decision past-present-future .429 — — — — .33^ E-26 1 1 Good information used in decision — — — .372 — — — ;E-27 You participate in manage ment — >17 — — — >70 w Co APHSKDIX G (Continued) Independent Variables D 1 Externally- Perceived D 2 Balance of Change D3 Worth whileness of Task Change d4 Worth whileness of Main tenance Change D5 Internal Con fidence d6 Internal Adaptive ness D7 j i Overall j Adaptive ness i i E-29 You influence work you do - - — .389 — — — 1 l E-32 Teamness — .378 — .375 .438 .489 E-33 Coping with problems — — — — — — .356 1 E-34 Procedures clear — — — — — .393 .4o6 E-35 Conflicts resolved — .3^3 .515 .392 — .334 ; Ie -36 1 Head solicits new information — — — — .403 .434 t E-37 Head encourages new ideas — — .380 — — — — E-38 i Head encourages communication .436 — — — .504 .554 b-39 1 j Head encourages cooperation — .3^1 — — — .456 . 4 6 7 e-4o 1 1 Head encourages concensus — -- — -- — .448 .352 E-4l Head revises goals — M3 — — — .553 .483 i pE -^2 Head helps others — — — — — .413 _T O : 00 O APPENDIX G (Continued) i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Independent Variables D1 Externally Perceived D2 Balance of Change D3 Worth whileness of Task Change d4 Worth whileness of Main tenance Change D5 Internal Con fidence d6 Internal Adaptive ness D7 ; Overall Adaptive-j ness | j ; E-43 Head represents organiza tion up — — — — .554 .386 E-44 Head represents management down — — — — .391 .639 .559 t E-45 Head provides feedback — — — — — .340 — E-46 Personal growth oppor tunities — — .639 .556 .685 — .456 E-47 Career patterns well defined — — • 512 .425 .582 .430 •353 E-48 Career opportunities known -- — .455 .483 .468 — E-49 Head supports you in career — — .586 .378 .498 CO 0 • .491 E-50 Promotions based on compe tence — — .450 \ .469 .480 .471 .405 E-51 Authority structure clear in grades — — — — — 5 CD — E-52 Responsibilities defined clearly — — — .548 — - •399 H APPENDIX G (Continued) D1 Independent Variables ^rce^ed^ D2 Balance of Change D3 Worth whileness of Task Change d4 Worth whileness of Main tenance Change D5 Internal Con fidence d6 Internal Adaptive ness D7 Overall Adaptive ness E-54 Supportive atmosphere — .395 .424 .396 .458 .481 E-57 Your work important .387 — — — .359 .360 E-58 Your work challenging — .451 — .368 — -- E-59 Your abilities used — .469 .479 .542 — .401 e-6o You are achieving — — .348 - - — .389 e-6i You identify with organization .376 — — — .489 •385 E-62 Permanence - you want to stay — -- — -- .4l8 •354 E-63 Compatible - members get along well — — .392 — -- — E-64 Members help each other — — — -- .435 __ E-65 Importance of external re lationships .480 — — — " — E-66 Your work affected by external relationships — -.462 — — ro 00 ro APPENDIX G (Continued) 1 j i Independent Variables D1 Externally Perceived D2 D3 „ « Worth- Balance , .n r whileness 0 of Task 0hanse Change d4 Worth whileness of Main tenance Change D5 Internal Con fidence d6 Internal Adaptive ness D7 j Overall j Adaptive ness i E-68 Suggestions from outside _ __ .395 1 j __ E-69 Action - as a result of outside — - .504 .367 .342 .363 E-71 You are overloaded — - .355 — — 1 E-73 You value task changes -.1+84 - — — — E-74 You value relationship changes — - -.348 — i 1 E-75 Publicness and change — - — .401 .428 .518 1 R-3 Individual average age -.386 — — — , — — R-7 i 1 Promotion rate in last year — -.339 V * a — — R-9 Dispersion of job titles — — — — .342 — B-10-x Number of different types work — -.362 — — - -,44l 00 t APPENDIX G (Continued)' D1 Independent Variables p2ceiv^ D2 Balance of Change D3 Worth- whileness of Task Change D1 * Worth whileness of Main tenance D5 Internal Con fidence d6 Internal Adaptive ness D7 Overall Adaptive ness B-10-d $ Non-project work — ™ • * * .356 — — -.370 B-13-g i o Operational systems work — — -.378 — -.370 — — " " n i ro N J l Free to initiate change — — — — — — .1+15 p-27 Satisfying place to work — — .6U9 — .535 •355 .^58 b-29 Agree with others about goals — — .370 •337 .637 .568 p-30 Agree with others about means - - — M 9 — .33^ .*09 .498 jc-31 Involved in goal accomplish ment — .353 — — — .501 .5^2 C-32 Search for accurate information — — .37^ — — A sk C-33 Information routed appropri ately — — .1*82 — .*01 .kk9 .5^9 C-3^ Changes result from new data — — .397 — . ¥ f O .626 .632 jc-35 Search for feedback — .336 .3^3 — — .U02 .... s APPENDIX G (Continued) D5 D6 D7 Internal Internal Overall Con- Adaptive- Adaptive- fidence ness ness C-36 Coping with consequences — .490 — — — .365 C-37 Personal/organizational goal fusion .502 .448 — .487 .585 .586 - C-II-4 $ external contacts-NOTS -.432 D-13 Important external suggest change — 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 r-t 00 CO • D-l4 External change suggestions accepted .414 *With an N of 35, using a two-tailed test of significance, r becomes statistically significant at the p < .05 level of confidence if r > . 33^ tut < .430; p < .01 if r > .430 hut < .532; and p < .001 if r > .532. D1 D2 D3 D4 Worth- Yorth" I _ , . , r . . Externally Bal^nce whileness w^i^e^ess | Independent Variables of of Mam- ! Change tenanee APPENDIX H INTERCORRELATIONS OP INDEPENDENT VARIABLES WITH PRIMARY ADAPTIVENESS INDEXES AND NATURE OF WORK® Independent Variables Adaptiveness Indexes D 1 D 2 D3 D 4 D 5 Nature of Work E 0 j Environmental: E-I2 Frequency— talk externally C-II-4 Time— external — NOTS C-II-5 Time— external — non-NOTS E-65 Importance of external relationships jE -66 External decisions i affect you I [e-68 Importance of external [ suggestions L-69 External suggestions considered -.293 .382 -.356 .053 -.248 -.432 .285 -.313 -.034 -.319 -.043 .238 -.330 .051 -.225 -.196 .480 -.280 -.063 -.250 -.139 .245 -.462 -.069 -.266 -.061 .298 -.143 .126 -.040 .169 .067 .224 .505 .367 -.215 -.440 -.072 .408 .367! .034 -.350 -.341 .237 .250! -.388 -.371 -.118 .342 .242 -.488 -.270 -.055 .417 . 292I t 1 ( L -.566 -.273 .157 . 316 .4481 -.666 — .229 .173 .411 .263 -.159 -.107 -.006 .007 .109 f r o | 8 ? i APPENDIX H (Continued) Independent Variables ( J Adaptiveness Indexes j Nature of Work D 1 D 2 D 3 D ^ D 5 R X A E 0 I p-U External sees relation- 1 ship important j .061 .309 -.236 .118 -.006 -.144 .492 .042 .371 .307; f I p-13 External wants to suggest change -.109 .381 -.331 -.128 -.220 -.439 -.377 .093 .483 .328; t | p-l4 External sees sugges tions accepted .4l4 -.094 -.026 .lk2 .080 .122 -.007 .086 .129 -.232! j 1 D-15 External sees his opinions considered .249 -.036 .029 .173 .160 .193 -.382 .095 .280 -.039| i t c. Organizational: f f Work; i B-13-a Research .034 -.212 .356 .21*6 .279 1.000 .088 -.387 -.395 -.303! B-13-b Exploratory development .075 -.066 .315 .018 .214 .088 1.000 -.262 -.495 i -.449! 1 t ! • B-13-c Advanced development .065 -.062 .002 -.091 .075 -.387 -.262 1.000 .132 i -.109! j B-13-d Engineering develop ment -.160 .066 -.266 -.223 -.268 -.395 -.495 .132 1.000 . .182 s | B-13-e Operational develop ment -.237 .156 -.378 -.196 -.370 -.303 -.449 *.109 .182 i l.OOOl r o ! C O ! S 3 I APPENDIX H (Continued) Independent Variables Adaptiveness Indexes0 a Nature of Work D 1 D 2 D 3 d 4 D 5 R X A E 0 ; B-13-x Humber of types of work -.213 -.327 -.129 -.232 -.160 -.297 -.253 .335 .465 .021 . E-l8 Work is specialized .033 -.014 .234 .064 .222 •59^ .010 -.052 -.212 -.i46; E-20 Skills and training are important -.021 .061 .446 -.04i .324 .502 .129 -.227 -.278 ! -.027 •i E-5 Urgency of most press ing problem -.073 .280 -.275 -.161 -.268 -.566 -.152 .108 .459 .274 E-71 Time to think -.066 -.218 .228 .355 .293 .3^2 -.058 -.125 -.113 -.101 Structure; i ( R-l Organizational age -.275 -.091 -.002 .019 -.031 .082 .172 -.198 -.300 .I56j E-9 Perceived temporariness .031 .094 -.44i -.252 -.367 -.368 -.071 .149 .280 -.00^ R-l6 Organizational size -.150 -.207 -.214 -.069 -.126 -.256 -.146 .099 .455 .104 R-17 Professionalization -.109 -.106 .082 -.090 -.011 •359 .146 .025 -.431 -.337 R-l4 Variety of job titles .187 .005 -.220 -.155 -.128 -.4l8 -.056 .198 .376 .0*46 R-15 Heterogeneity of titles .319 .285 -.085 -.228 -.100 -.308 .256 .079 -.092 -.07? R-10, Average, grade_ level . ,__ .203 .-,095. , ..168 ..•Q58, .007 ...693.. -.001 -•339. , -.250 - . i f ® APPENDIX H (Continued) Independent Variables*5 Adaptiveness Indexes Nature of Workd r i D 1 D 2 D 3 D 4 D 5 E X A . ; E 0 j jR-il Promotion rate knasanent; .009 -.339 .163 .000 .226. .208 -.015 -.143 -.004 .099 j i J | e-37 Head— encourages new ideas -.008 .0l£ .380 .227 .320 .272 .187 -.321 -.345 -.009 1 j E-38 Head— ensures communi cation -.017 .436 .238 .170 .219 -.381 -.090 -.026 .061 .286} E-39 Head— encourages cooperation .120 .341 .208 .138 .191 -.189 -.028 -.122 .002 i .332 E-40 Head— develops agreement .051 .201 .185 .134 .135 -.348 .014 -.058 .036 .229 1 E-4l Head— identifies prob lems .079 .433 .125 .072 .060 -.420 -.113 .003 .198 • 293! i E-43 Head— represents unit-up .174 .096 .325 .124 .241 -.045 .214 -.134 -.185 -.o44j 1 jE-M f Head— represents manage ment-down .217 .203 .293 .320 .391 -.174 .079 -.013 -.092 .i6c| 1 i E-lf9 Head— helps in career .194 .122 .586 .378 .498 .061 .354 -.227 -.298 -.146 I E-29 Influence what work you do -.112 -.246 .389 .047 .267 .643 .386 -.015 -.422 -.34a 101 APPENDIX H (Continued) Independent Variables* 5 Adaptiveness Indexes0 Nature of Work D 1 D 2 D 3 D 4 D 5 R X A E 0 E-30 Influence how do you work -.160 -.090 .316 .209 .302 .647 .296 -.294 -.438 -.227 E-28 Influence manager .003 .014 .167 .051 .200 .310 .329 -.077 — .348 -.125j 1 E-27 Participate in management -.007 .417 .264 .231 .231 -.175 .231 -.035 -.155 -.126 j E-19 Title and grade important .095 -.031 .272 .570 .607 .094 -.197 .238 .085 -.036! j E-51 GS level indicates authority -.117 .04l ,n 4 -.025 .169 -.382 .076 .512 .203 .0951 L | Information-Communication; 1 ! I C-32 Search for accurate information .068 .271 .374 .174 .278 -.031 .102 .100 -.203 I i .030! \ P-33 f i Information routed appropriately -.028 .282 .482 .196 .411 .239 -.016 .017 -.240 -.002 C-24 Available information used .167 .3^6 .186 .156 .196 -.052 -.025 -.240 .062 .251 ! r i r\ C V I 1 Information-past/ present/future .429 .204 .189 ,.220 .232 .080 -.006 -.236 -.212 -.03^ s J E-26 Accurate information used -,o4o -.133 .233 .372 .306 .185 -.233 -.074 -.012 ___ 0 \ APPENDIX H (Continued) ' 1 i Independent Variables c Adaptiveness Indexes 1 Nature of Work** ! 1 1 D 1 D 2 D 3 D 4 D 5 R X A E 0 j i C-34 Changes result from new data .290 .286 .397 .234 .440 -.044 .214 .067 -.246 r -.182 ■ C-35 Search for feedback .026 .336 .3*6 .109 .260 -.302 .080 -.090 .097 1 .128| C-36 Coping with unanticipated consequences .003 .258 .490 .071 .264 .131 .196 -.223 -.139 ,o64[ F f . E-21 Do you communicate -.070 • •334 .114 -.024 .o 4 i -.142 .039 -.090 .057 f . o n ! 1 j - E-22 Do you receive communi cation -.094 .363 .023 -.138 -.094 -.418 .050 .095 .117 . 309! i f E -ll Frequency-talk other members -.038 .225 -.186 -.064 - . 068 -.629 -.105 .425 .460 .114 E-10 Frequency-talk with head .108 .426 -.209 -.046 -.185 -.354 -.218 .171 .052 .238 Teamness; E-32 Organizational decisions made as team -.031 .217 .378 .195 .375 -.270 .304 .102 -.136 -.026 E-13 Frequency-meet as organi zation .216 .339 .075 .044 .030 -.348 .207 .043 .010 -.264 r o v o E H' e- i 4 Group defining goals .280 . .372 .120 .150 .154 -.350 .052 .173 .002 .028' APPENDIX H (Continued) Independent Variables Adaptiveness Indexes0 Nature of Workd D 1 D 2 D 3 D 4 D 5 R X A E 0 I I i A E-16 Group planning for future .084 .358 .104 .207 .160 -.373 .236 .042 -.l4l j -.100 1 E-17 Group working on [ development I .140 .386 .016 .260 .126 -.4l6 .035 .084 .050 1 -.083 , I 1 E-6l Feel apart of organization .058 .376 .016 .094 -.017 -.396 .034 .115 .122 .106! j f fe-53 Relationships impersonal .142 .199 .056 .167 .112 .310 -.132 -.415 .031 .l8oj Individual: i | Physical and Attitudinal i r Characteristics ; R-3 Member age -.386 .114 -.076 .026 -.210 .184 -.147 -.334 .259 I .220; t R-lf Member NOTS tenure -.l4l .260 -.072 .110 -.088 .178 -.045 -.390 .047 .0096 E-l Average unit tenure -.l4l -.043 .254 .175 .160 .471 .215 -.364 -.230 1 • 0 00 E-2 Prior mobility .068 -.058 -.264 $ « 1 -.151 -.372 V O 4^ .351 .144 -.n 4 j R-2 Head tenure -.235 -.108 .310 .174 .214 .385 .336 -.270 -.418 -.098! E-73 deferred job where tasks change -.484 .070 -.159 -.039 -.189 -.491 .021 .069 .355 -.0201 r -JII APPENDIX H (Continued) Adaptiveness Indexes0 Nature 1 0 f 1 . L U U . C j ^ l l l L c I l U V c t X - L c t U X S o D 1 D 2 D 3 D 4 D 5 R X A E 0 ! j ■ E-74 i Prefer job where relation ships change -.312 .006 -.186 -.348 -.243 -.282 -.127 .366 .341 -.026 [ i ! 1 Perception of Clarity; i E-7 Clarity of goal under standing .192 .5^ .096 .255 .214 .002 .057 -.165 1 J -.025 .012[ i i \ E-34 Clear systems of procedures .237 .260 .231 .304 .205 -.271 .093 -.086 -.107 -.ioij I r E-52 Rights and duties clear .017 .228 .236 .946 .326 -.13? .126 -.244 -.175 -.026} C-29 Agree with others about goals .291* .266 .370 .208 .337 -.q64 .048 .124 -.107 -.112| ! 1 f C-30 Agree with others about means .206 .281 .459 , .102 .334 .158 .238 -.038 -.342 -.152} } I I- e-Ut Well-defined career opportunities .171 -.205 .532 .425 .582 .060 .269 -.049 -.278 -.253 E-48 Know opportunities for advancement .256 -.173 .455 .483 .468 .470 .353 -.197 -.643 -.240 E-50 Promotions on competence .122 -.043 .450 .469 .480 .305 .173 .057 -.346 -.207 TO VO -- CO1 APPENDIX H (Continued) Independent Variables1* Adaptiveness Indexes Nature of Work^- D 1 D 2 D 3 D 1 * D 5 R X A E 0 1 E-35 Conflicts resolved I ' i perception of support; -,040 .034 .342 .515 .392 .236 -.025 -.327 -.286 .149 E-54 Supportive atmosphere .028 .173 .395 .1*21* .397 .137 .083 -.220 -.213 .111 E-31 Secure in work decisions -.116 -.021 .180 .000 .103 .292 .366 -.402 -.307 -.073 | C-25 Free to initiate change .146 . .280 .21*3 .274 .278 .190 ..144 -.094 -.442 -.198; | E-63 Members get along well .003 .094 .217 .392 .189 .049 .020 -.118 -.139 .057 E-64 Members help each other -.103 .180 .034 .131 -.020 -.381 -.098 .098 .199 .24^ I E-75 Implications of publicness Self-Actualization; -.075 .273 .281* .328 .1*01 -.069 -.197 .231 .i4o -.158 1 t t I j C-37 Personal and organiza* tional goals fused .502 .187 .¥*8 .11*7 .487 -.033 .231 .186 -.199 -.274| > 1 C-31 Involved in accomplish ing goals .273 .353 .27I * .109 .284 -.119 .066 .162 -.ill -.061 E-59 Work requires best abilities .ill .121* .1*69 .480 .542 .537 .091 -.212 -.285 -.117 i to; vo ---- ..-..— • ------ — --------■.— ... - — —.- ...— . . ...... - — ---- — .. - ...--- - P - . APPENDIX H (Continued) Independent Variables** Adaptiveness Indexes0 <D I of Work*3 , ’ D 1 D 2 D 3 D 4 D 5 R X A E 0 B-58 Work challenging .027 .194 .451 .177 .368 .463 .358 -.232 -.364 00 CO OJ • 1 E-57 ■ Work important -.161 .387 .022 -.025 .012 -.281 -.173 .186 .231 .154 e-6o Feeling of achievement .050 .221 .223 .348 .326 .124 .050 .001 -.232 .004 — -w r - ■ £ Getting training and experience .144 -.057 .639 .556 .685 •370 .067 .043 -.182 CO H OJ « 1 7 C-27 Satisfying place to work .259 .066 .649 .288 .535 .382 .224 1 • H Ipr -.303 -.220 E-8 Optimism about future .186 .124 .313 .431 .444 -.028 .266 .044 -.363 1 • H _ O _ ^ith an N or 35> the level of confidence at which r becomes statistically significant, using a two-j tailed test is; p < .05 if r = .334 to .429, P < .01 if r = .430 to .531, and p < .001 if r > .532. I The letter/number identifying each variable refers to its appendix/item location. The exception * to this rule is the letter "R" which indicates a variable diawn from laboratory records. In this instance I the number refers to an arbitrary coding scheme rather than an item number in an appendix. [ f Q | j These indexes are: D 1, Externally Perceived Adaptiveness; D 2, Internally Perceived Balance of Change; D 3, Task-Change Worthwhileness; D 4, Maintenance-Change Worthwhileness; and, D 5, Internal Confi dence in Adaptiveness. ^These categories are: R, research; X, exploratory development; A, advanced development; E, iengineering development; and 0, operational development. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Ahlberg, Clark D., and John C. Honey. Attitudes of Scientists and Engi- i neers about their Government Employment. Syracuse: Syracuse : University Press, 1950. i jAlmond, Gabriel A., and James S. Coleman. The Politics of the Develop- ! ing Areas. Princeton: Princeton University Press, i960. An Action Research Program for Organization Improvement. Ann Arbor: Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, 1959* t Arensberg, Conrad M., and Arthur H. Niehoff. Introducing Social Change: ! A Manual for Americans Overseas. Chicago: Aldine Publishing, __gj_ 1 [Argyris, Chris. Organization and Innovation. Homewood, Illinois: ' Richard D. Irwin and the Dorsey Press, 19^5* | _________ . Integrating the Individual and the Organization. Hew York: j John Wiley and Sons, 19^4'. Backstrcan, Charles H., and Gerald D. Hursch. Survey Research. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 19&3- j 5 I ’ Barber, Bernard, and Walter Hirsch (eds.). The Sociology of Science. | New York: The Free Press, 1962. j ; Barnett, H. G. Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1953- Benedict, Ruth. Patterns of Culture. New York: Penguin, 19^6. j I Bennett, Thomas R., 2nd. The Leader Looks at the Process of Change. | Washington, D. C.: Leadership Resources, 1961. | Bennis, Warren G. Changing Organizations: Essays on the Development and Evolution of Human Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, _________, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (eds.). The Planning of j Change: Readings in the Applied Behavioral Sciences. New York:! Holt7 Rinehart and Winston, 1962. ( 298 ; Blake, Robert R., and Jane S. Mouton. Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf ’ Publishing, 1964. _________ , Herbert A. Shephard, and Jane S. Mouton. Managing Inter group Conflict in Industry. Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing, 1964. ; _________ , and Jane S. Mouton. Group Dynamics: Key to Decision ! Making. Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1961. i j Blalock, Hubert M. Causal Inferences in Non-experimental Research. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1964. j iBlau, Peter M., and Richard W. Scott. Formal Organizations: A Compara tive Approach. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing, 1962. Bradford, Leland P., Jack R. Gibb, and Kenneth D. Benne (eds.). T - Group Theory and Laboratory Method; Innovation in Re-education, j New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. jBraybrooke, David, and Charles E. Lindblom. A Strategy of Decision: I Policy Evaluation as a Social Process. London: Collier- MacmillanV 1963 • j j Bright, James R. Research, Development and Technological Innovation: An Institution. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, 1964. 1 ; jBuchanon, Paul C. Innovative Organizations - A Study of Organization | Development. Washington, D. C«: National Training Laborato- j ries, National Education Association, 1964. f Burns, Tom and G. M, Stalker. The Management of Innovation. London: j The Tavistock Press, 1961. Caplow, Theodore. Principles of Organization. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964. Cartwright, Dorwin (ed.). Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor: Univer sity of Michigan, 1959* __________ , and Alvin Zander (eds.). Group Dynamics: Research and 1 Theory. Evanston: Row, Peterson, 19b0. Chappie, Eliot D., and Leonard D. Sayles. The Measure of Management: Designing Organizations for Human Effectiveness. New York: ; Macmillan, 196l” Chide, V. Gordon. Social Evolution. New York: Schuman, 1951. Collins, Barry E., and Harold Guetzkow. A Social Psychology of Group Processes for Decision Making. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1 -----— 1964 , - ■ 299 Coser, Lewis, The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: The Free Press, 1956. Costello, Timothy W., and Sheldon S. Zalkind. Psychology in Administra tion: A Research Orientation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 19&3. Dimock, Marshall. Administrative Vitality: The Conflict with Bureau cracy. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959* Duncan, Otis Dudley (ed.). William F. Ogbum: On Culture and Social Change; Selected Papers. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 196^. Dupre, J. Stefan, and Sanford A. Lakoff. Science and the Nation: Policy and Politics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hali,1962. Dyer, Frederick C., and John M. Dyer. Bureaucracy vs. Creativity: The Dilemma of Modern Leadership. Coral Gables, Florida: Univer- sity of Miami Press, 1965* Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 19&k. _________ (ed.). Complex Organizations: A Sociological Reader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. _________. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvement, and Their Correlates. New York: The Free Press, _________ and Eva (eds.). Social Change: Sources, Patterns and Con sequences . New York! Basic Books, 1964. Foster, George M. Traditional Cultures and the Impact of Technological Changes. New^York: Harper and Bow, 1962. Gardner, John W. Self-Renewal: The Individual and the Innovative So ciety. New York: Harper and Row, 19&3. Ginzberg, Eli, and Ewing W. Reilley. Effecting Change in Large Organi zations . New York: Columbia university Press, 1957. Glaser, Barney G. Organizational Scientists: Their Professional Ca reers . New York: Bobbs-Merril, 1964. Golembiewski, Robert T. The Small Group: An Analysis of Research Con cepts and Operations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962! 300" Greenwood, William T. Management and Organizational Behavior Theories: An Interdisciplinary Approach, Cincinnati: South-Western Pub lishing, 1965. Gross, Bertram. The Managing of Organizations. (2 Vols.) New York: The Free Press, 19647 Guest, Robert H. Organizational Change: The Effect of Successful Leadership. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press and Richard D. Irwin, 1962. Haire, Mason. Organization Theory in Industrial Practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. _________ (ed.). Modern Organization Theory. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959* Halpin, A. W., and D. B. Croft. The Organizational Climate of Schools. Chicago: University of Chica'go Press, 1963. Eiare, A. Paul. Handbook of Small Group Research. New York; The Free Press, 1962. Harris, Chester W. (ed.). Problems in Measuring Change. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1963. tierzberg, Frederick, Bernard Mausner, and Barbara Bloch Snyderman. The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Sill, Karl (ed.). The Management of Scientists. Boston: The Beacon Press, I96U. Hopkins, Terence K. The Exercise of Influence in Small Groups. Totowa, New Jersey: The Bedminster Press, 196^. Hower, Ralph M., and Charles D. Orth, 3rd. Managers and Scientists: Some Human Problems in Industrial Research Organizations. Boston: Harvard University, 1963* Hyman, Herbert H. Survey Design and Analysis: Principles, Cases, and Procedures. New York: The Free Press, 1955. Jacobs, Melville, and Bernard Stein. General Anthropology. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1958. Johns, Ray. Confronting Organizational Change. New York: Association Press, 196 J! Jones, Garth N. Planned Organizational Change: A Set of Working Docu ments . Los Angeles: Center for Research in Public Organiza- _______tiop^ School g^Public Administration, University of Southern 301 _________ , and Robert N. Giordano. Planned Organizational Change; A Working Bibliography. Bloomington, Indiana: Comparative Admin istration Group, American Society for Public Administration, International Development Research Center, Indiana University, 1964. Kahn, Robert L., Donald M. Wolfe, Robert P. Quinn, and J. Diedrick Snoek. Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. Kardiner, Abraham. The Psychological Frontiers of Society. New York: Columbia University Press, 1945. Kast, Fremont E., and James E. Rosenzweig. Science Technology and Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, I9S3. Katz, Daniel, and Robert L. Kahn. The Social Psychology of Organiza tions . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966. Keesing, Felix M. Culture Change: A Survey and Bibliography of Anthro pological Sources to 1952. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1953* Kluckhohn, Clyde. Mirror for Man. New York: Whittlesey, 1949* Kornhauser, William. Scientists in Industry: Conflict and Accommoda tion. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1962. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. — — — — LaPiere, Richard T. Social Change. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Lapp, Ralph E. The New Priesthood: The Scientific Elite and the Uses of Power" New York: Harper and Row, 1965. : Lawrence, Paul R. The Changing of Organizational Behavior Patterns: A Case Study of Decentralization. Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, Division of Re search, 1958. Leavitt, Harold J. Managerial Psychology: An Introduction to Individ uals, Pairs, and Groups in Organizations. 2nd edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964. Lehman, H. C. Age and Achievement. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953* Leighton, Alexander H. The Governing of Men. Princeton, New Jersey: The Princeton University Press, 19^6* Levin, Kurt, Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics J Rev York: Harper and brothers, 1948. 1 _____ . A Dynamic Theory of Personality. Rev York: McGrav-Hill, 1935. Likert, Rensis. Rev Patterns of Management. Rev York: McGrav-Hill, 1961. Lindveit, Earl W. Scientists in Government. Washington, D. C.: Public Affairs Press, 19S1. Linton, Ralph. The Study of Mian: An Introduction. Rev York: D. Appleton-Century, 193^• Lippitt, Ronald, and Ralph K. White. Autocracy and Democracy: Experi ments in Group Leadership. Rev York: Harper and Rov, i960. _________ , Jeanne Watson, and Bruce Westley. The Dynamics of Planned Change: A Comparative Study of Principles and Techniques. Rev York: Harcourt, Brace, 1958• Litterer, Joseph A. The Analysis of Organizations. Rev York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965. Livingston, Robert Teviot, and Stanley H. Melberg (eds.). Human Rela tions in Industrial Research Management. Rev York: Columbia University Press, 1957. Logan, Frank A., and Allan R. Wagner. Reyard and Punishment. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1965• Lord Hailsham. Science and Politics. London: Faber and Faber, 19^3• Maier, Rorman R. F. Problem-Solving Discussions and Conferences: Leadership Methods and Skills. Rev York; McGrav-Hill, 1963. _________ , and John J. Hayes. Creative Management. Rev York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Malinovski, Bronislav. The Dynamics of Culture Change. Rev Haven: Yale University Press, 19^5. Mann, Floyd C., and Franklin W. Reff. Managing Major Change in Organi zations: An Undeveloped Area of Administration and Social Re search. Ann Arbor: The Foundation for Research on Human Be havior, The University of Michigan, 1961. March, James G. (ed.). Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McRally, 1965. 303 __________, and Herbert A. Simon. Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958. Marcson, Simon. The Scientist in American Industry: Some Organiza tional Determinants in Manpower Utilization. Princeton: In dustrial Relations Section, Princeton University, i960. Mayer, Albert, and Associates in collaboration with McKim Marriett and Richard L. Park. Pilot Project, India: The Story of Rural De velopment as Etawah, Uttar Pradesh. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1958. McCamy, James L. Science and Public Administration. University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, i960. McClelland, David. The Achieving Society. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand, 1961. McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw- Hill, i960. Mead, Margaret. Cultural Patterns and Technological Change. New York: Mentor Books, 1955. Metcalf, Henry, and L. Urwick (eds.). Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. London: Urwick, Orr, and Partners, 19^0. Miles, Matthew (ed.). Innovations in Educations. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 196^. Miller, B. Gaining Acceptance for Major Methods Changes. New York: American Management Association, i960. i Miller, Delbert C. Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement. New York: David McKay, 1964. Nascimento, KLeber Tatinge do. Change Strategy and Client System; Ad ministrative Reform in Brazil. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, School of Public Administration, Interna tional Public Administration Center, 1966. Newcomb, Theodore M. Personality and Social Change. New York: Dryden Press, 19^3- Niehoff, Arthur H. A Casebook of Social Change. Chicago: Aldine Pub lishing, 1965"! 01mstead, Donald W. Small Groups, Roles, and Leadership: An Introduc tion to the Concepts. East Lansing: Michigan State University, I95H j 3Cfc j Orth, Charles D., 3rd., Joseph C. Bailey, and Francis W. Wolek. Admin- I istering Research and Development: The Behavior of Scientists | and Engineers in Organizations. Homewood, Illinois: Richard | D. Irwin, and The Dorsey Press, I96U. i 'Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957. ; _________ . Essays in Sociological Theory. Revised edition. New t York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 195*** Peabody, Robert L. Organizational Authority: Superior - Subordinate Relations in Three Public Service Organizations. New York: Atherton Press, 1961*. jPelz, Donald C., and Glen D. Mellinger. Human Relations in a Research Organization: A Study of the National Institutes of Health. Vol. I and II. Ann Arbor: Institute of Social Research, Uni versity of Michigan, 1953. (Mimeographed.) jPetrullo, Luigi, and Bernard M. Bass. Leadership and Interpersonal Be- j havior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. jPfiffner, John M., and Frank P. Sherwood. Administrative Organization. I Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, i960. iPresthus, Robert. The Organizational Society. New York: Alfred A. j Knopf, 1962. i jPrice, D. J. de Solla. Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963 • i jPrice, Don K. The Scientific Estate. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The j Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1965. t ! __________ . Government and Science. New York: New York University I Press, 1951 *. E j jPye, Lucian W. Politics, Personality, and Nation Building: Burma*s Search for Identity. New Haven and London: Yale University I Press, 1962. Randsepp, Eugene. Managing Creative Scientists and Engineers. New York: Macmillan, 1963. Roberts, Edward B. The Dynamics of Research and Development. New York Harper and Row, 1964. Roethlisberger, F. J., and W, Je Dickson. Management and the Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939* Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovation. New York: The Free Press 1962. . Ronken, Harriet 0., and Paul R. Lawrence. Administering Changes: A Case Study of Human Relations in a Factory. Boston: Harvard University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, 1952. Rubenstein, Albert H., and Chadwick J. Haberstroh (eds.). Some Theories of Organization. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, and The Dorsey Press, i960. Sahlins, Marshall D., and Elman R. Service (eds.). Evolution and Cul ture. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, i960. Schein, Edgar H. Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965. _ , and Warren G. Bennis. Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods: The Laboratory Approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965• Seashore, Stanley F. Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Re search, 195*+- Selltiz, Claire, Marie Jahoda, Morton Deutsch, and Stuart Cook. Re search Methods in Social Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making | Processes in Administrative Organization. 2nd edition, revised. New York: Macmillan, 1957. 1 i Snow, C. P. Science and Government. London: Oxford University Press, j i960. ! Sofer, Cyril. The Organization from Within: A Comparative Study of Social Institutions Based on a Sociotherapeutic Approach. Lon don! Tavistock Publications, 1961. Sorokin, Pitirim A. Society, Culture and Personality. New York: Har per and Brothers, 1947. Spicer, Edward H. Human Problems in Technological Change; A Casebook. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1952. Steward, Julian H. Theory of Culture Change. Urbana: University of ------Illinois—Presa, 1955. ........................................ 306 Storm, William B., and Jason L. Finkle. American Professionals in Tech nical Assistance: A Preliminary Report. Los Angeles: School of Public Administration, University of Southern California, 1 9 6 5 . Stover, Carl F. The Technological Order: Proceedings of the Encyclo paedia Britannica Conference. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1963. Tannenbaum, Robert, Irving R. Weschler, and Fred Masserik. Leadership and Organization: A Behavioral Science Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, I96I. Taylor, Calvin W., and Frank Barron (eds.)* Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1953T Taylor, Frederick Winslow. Scientific Management. New York: Harper and Brothers, 19^7. Thompson, Victor A. Modern Organization. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1 9 6 1 . Tiryakian, Edward A. (ed.). Sociological Theory, Values and Sociocul tural Change: Essays in Honor of Pitirim A. Sorokin. New York: The Free Press, 1963* Turner, Arthur N., and Raul R. Lawrence. Industrial Jobs and the Worker: An Investigation of Response to Task Attributes. Bos ton: Harvard University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, 1965- U», S. Naval Ordnance Test Station. Organization Charts: with Func- ! tional Statements. China Lake, California, U. S. Naval Ordnance Test Station, 1965. Vollmer, Howard M., Todd R. LaPorte, William C. Pederson, and Phyllis A Langton. Adaptations of Scientists in Five Organizations: A Comparative Analysis. Menlo Bark, California: Stanford Re search Institute, igSh. Wasserman, Paul. Measurement and Evaluation of Organization Perform ance; Annotated Bibliography. Ithaca: Graduate School of Business and Public Administration, Cornell University, 1 9 5 9 * Weisner, Jerome. Where Science and Politics Meet. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1965. Weschler, Irving R., and Paula Brown. Evaluating Research and Develop ment. Los Angeles: Institute of Industrial Relations, Univer sity of California at Los Angeles, 1 9 5 3 . |Williams, Richard H., Clark Tibbitts, and Wilma Donahue (eds.)* Pro- i cesses of Aging; Social and Psychological Perspectives. Vols. | I and II. New York: Atherton Press, 1963. j Wilson, Godfrey and Monica. The Analysis of Social Change. Cambridge: | Cambridge University Press, 1954. jWolfle, Deal. Science and Public Policy. Lincoln: University of • Nebraska Press, 1959* iZaleznik, Abraham, and David Moment. The Dynamics of Interpersonal Be havior . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. Zollschan, George K., and Walter Hirsch (eds.). Explorations in Social Change. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964. Articles and Periodicals Abrahamson, Mark. "The Integration of Industrial Scientists." Adminis- ! trative Science Quarterly, IX (September, 1964), 208-18. i jAgnew, Paul C., and Francis L. K. Hsu. "Introducing Change in a Mental ; Hospital." Human Organization, XIX (Winter, 1961), 195-8. j lAllport, Gordon W. "The Open System in Personality Theory." Journal of j Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXI (November, i960), 301-10. Almond, Gabriel A. "A Developmental Approach to Political Systems." ^ World Politics, XVII (January, 1965), 183-214. ;Argyris, Chris. "Interpersonal Competence, Organizational Milieu, and | Innovation." Research Management, IX (March, 1966), 71-99* ; _________. "Some Problems in Conceptualizing Organizational Climate: A Case Study of a Bank." Administrative Science Quarterly, II (March, 1958), 501-20. Back, Kurt W. "The Change-Prone Person in Puerto Rico." Public Opinion Quarterly, XXII (Fall, 1958), 330-40. ;Bardis, Panos D. "Synopsis of Theories of Social Change." Social Science, XXXVII (June, 1962), l8l-8. Barton, Allen H., and Bo Anderson. "Change in an Organizational System: Formalization of a Qualitative Study." Complex Organizations: A Sociological Reader. Edited by Amitai Etzioni. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. j 308 ! Baumgartel, Howard. "Leadership Style as a Variable in Research Admin istration." Administrative Science Quarterly, III (December. 1957), 3^-60. ;Benne, Kenneth D. "Deliberate Changing as the Facilitation of Growth." I The Planning of Change: Readings in the Applied Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne and Robert Chin. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. j :Bennis, Warren G. "Theory and Method in Applying Behavioral Science to Planned Organizational Change." The Journal of Applied Behav ioral Science, I (October-November-December, 1965), 337-60. ; __ . "Beyond Bureaucracy." Trans-action, II (July-August. 1965), 31-5. . "A New Role for the Behavioral Sciences: Effecting Organi zational Change." Administrative Science Quarterly, XIII (June. 1963), 125-65. ; . "Towards a 'Truly' Scientific Management: the Concept of | Organization Health." General Systems Yearbook. VII. New j York: Society for General Systems Research, 1962. ; _________ . "A Typology of Change Processes." The Planning of Change: Readings in the Applied Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Warren | G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne and Robert Chin. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. j . "Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior: The Prob lem of Authority." Administrative Science Quarterly, IV (Decem ber, 1959), 259-301. j , and Herbert A. Shepard. "A Theory of Group Development." I Human Relations, IX (November, 1956), ^15-5^7, _________ , and Philip E. Slater. "Democracy is Inevitable." Harvard Business Review, XXXXII (March-April, 196^), 51-9* Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. "General Systems Theory," General Systems Yearbook. I. New York: Society for Systems Research, 1956. _________ . "General System Theory - A Critical Review." General Sys tems Yearbook. VII. New York: Society for Systems Research, 1962^ Bertrand, Alvin L. "The Stress-Strain Element of Social Systems: A Micro Theory of Conflict and Change." Social Forces, XXXXII j (October, 1963), 1-9* 309 Beshers, James M. "On 'A Critique of Tests of Significance in Survey Research1." American Sociological Review, XXIII (April, 1958), 199. Blalock, Hubert M., Jr. "Making Causal Inferences for Unmeasured Vari ables from Correlations Among Indicators." American Journal of Sociology, LXIX (July, 1963), 53-62. Bock, Kenneth E. "Evolution, Function, and Change." American Socio- logical Review, XXVIII (April, 1963), 229-37. Eowers, Raymond V., Robert G. Brown, and Clifton D. Bryant. "Techno logical Change and the Organization Man: Preliminary Conceptu alization of a Research Project." Sociological Inquiry, XXXII (Winter, 1962), 117-27. Brown, Paula. "Bureaucracy in a Government Laboratory." Social Forces, XXXII (March, 195*0, 2U1-62. . . and Clovis Shepherd. "Factionalism and Organizational Change in a Research Laboratory." Human Relations in Industrial Research Management. Edited by R. T. Livingston and S. H. Mil- berg. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. Burke, W. W. "Leadership Behavior as a Function of the Leader, the Fol lower, and the Situation." Journal of Personality, XXXIII (March, 1965), 60-81. Burns, Tom. "Research, Development and Production: Problems of Con flict and Cooperation." Administering Research and Development: The Behavior of Scientists and Engineers in Organizations. Edited by C. D. Orth, III, J. C. Bailey and F. W. Wolek. Home wood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, and The Dorsey Press, 196k. Cangelosi, Victor E., and William R. Dill. "Organizational Learning: Observations Toward a Theory." Administrative Science Quar terly, X (September, 1965), 175-203. Carzo, Rocco, Jr. "Some Effects of Organization Structure on Group Ef fectiveness." Administrative Science Quarterly, VII (March, 1963), 393-^2^+. Chappie, Eliot D. "Quantitative Analysis of Complex Organizational Systems." Human Organization, XXI (Summer, 1962), 67-87. Clifford, Clare, and Thomas S. Cohn. "The Relationship Between Leader ship and Personality Attributes Perceived by Followers." The Journal of Social Psychology, LXIV (October, 1964), 57-64. Coch, Lester, and John R. P. French, Jr. "Overcoming Resistance to Change." Human Relations, I (November, 1948), 512-32. 310 Comrey, A. L., J. M. Pfiffner, and H. P. Beem. "Factors Influencing Organizational Effectiveness." Personnel Psychology. V (Winter, 1952), 307-28. Costner, Herbert L.s and Wesley L. Wager. "The Multivariate Analysis of Dichotomized Variables." The American Journal of Sociology, LXX (January, 1965), 455-66. Dahrendorf, Ralf. "Out of Utopia: Toward a Reorientation of Sociologi cal Analysis." American Journal of Sociology, LXIV (September, 1958), 115-27. Dana, R. H., and J, C. Condry, Jr. "A Criterion for Analysis of Inter personal Perception." The Journal of General Psychology, LXXII (April, 1965), 233-8. Davis, James A., Joel Spaeth, and Carolyn Euson. "A Technique for Analyzing the Effects of Group Composition." American Socio logical Review, XXVI (April, 1961), 215-25. de Grazia, Alfred. "A Concept of Scientists and Their Organization." American Behavioral Scientist, VI (December, 1962), 30-3. Dobrov, G. M. "Predicting the Development of Science." Minerva, IV (Winter, 1966), 218-30. Draper, Jean, and George B. Strother. "Testing a Model for Organiza tional Growth." Human Organization, XXII (Fall, 1963), I8O-9I + . Duncan, Otis Dudley, and Leo F. Sehnore. "Cultural!, Behavioral, and Ecological Perspectives in the Study of Social Organization." The American Journal of Sociology, LXV (September, 1959), 132-46. Dunn, Olive Jean. "Multiple Comparisons Using Rank Sums." Techno metrics , VI (August, 1964), 24l-52. Easton, David. "An Approach to the Analysis of Political System." World Politics, IX (April, 1957), 383-400. Eisenstadt, S. W. "Social Change Differentiation and Evolution." American Sociological Review, XXIX (June, 1964), 375-86. _________. "Institutionalization and Change." American Sociological Review, XXIX (April, 1964), 235-47. _________. "Bureaucracy, Bureaucratization, Debureaucratization.1 1 Ad ministrative Science Quarterly, IV (December, 1959), 302-20. 1 Elling, Ray H., and Sandor Haleb si^. "Organizational Differentiation and Support; A Conceptual Framework." Administrative Science Quarterly, VI (September, 1961), 185-209. I 311 | Ellul, Jacques. "Ideas of Technology: The Technological Order." The I Technological Order: Proceedings of the Encyclopaedia Confer- | ence. Translated by John Wilkenson. Edited by Carl F. Stover, i Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1963. i Emery, F. E., and E. L. Trist. "The Causal Texture of Organizational ■ Environments." Human Relations, XVIII (November, 1965), 21-32. Evan, William M. "Organizational Lag." Human Organization, XXV (Spring, 1966), 51-3. Faunce, W. A. "Social Stratification and Attitude Toward Change in Job Content." Social Forces, XXXIX (December, i960), l4l-8. Fleishman, E. A. "Leadership Climate, Human Relations and Supervisory Behavior." Studies in Personnel on Industrial Psychology. Edited by E. A. Fleishman. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1961. I Folger, Anne, and Gerald Gerdon. "Scientific Accomplishment and Social j Organization." American Behavioral Scientist, VI (December j 1962), 51-8. Forehand, Garlie A., and B. von Haller Gilmer. "Environmental Variation in Studies of Organizational Behavior." Psychological Bulletin, LXII (December, 1964), 361-82. I Frank Andrew Gunder. "Administrative Role Definition and Social | Change." Human Organization, XXII (Winter, 1964), 238-42. Friedlander, Frank. "Comparative Work Value Systems." Personnel Psy- | chology, XVIII (Spring, 1965), 1-20. _ , and Eugene Walton. "Positive and Negative Motivations Toward Work." Administrative Science Quarterly, IX (September, 1964), 194-207. Gardner, John. "How to Prevent Organizational Dry Rot." Harper's Maga zine, October, 1965, pp. 20, 22 , 24 , 26. Georgopoulos, Basil S. and Arnold S. Tannenbaum. "A Study of Organiza tional Effectiveness." American Sociological Review. XXII (Oc tober, 1957), 534-40. Gibb, Jack R. "Defense Level and Influence Potential in Small Groups." Leadership and Interpersonal Behavior. Edited by Luigi Petrullo and Bernard M. Bass. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Glaser, Barney, G. "The Local-Cosmpolitan Scientist." American Jour nal of Sociology, LXIX (November, 1963)9 249-59. | 312 Gmitter, George T. "The Industrial R & D Scientist and His Environ ment." Research Management, IX (March, 1966), 115-31. Gold, David. "Some Comments on the 'Empirical Classification of Formal Groups'." American Sociological Review. XXIX (October, 1963), 736-9. _________. "Comment on 'A Critique or Tests of Significance'," Ameri- can Sociological Review, XXIII (February, 1958), 85-6. Goldberg, Louis C., Frank Baker, and Albert H. Rubenstein. "Local-Cos mopolitan: Unidimensional or Multidimensional?" The American Journal of Sociology, LXX (May, 1965), 704-10, Golembiewski, Robert T. "Innovation and Organization Structure." Per sonnel Administration, XXVII (September-October, 1964), 3-4, 17-21. ________ . "Organization as a Moral Problem." Public Administration Review, XXII (Spring, 1962), 51-8. Goodwin, Leonard. "Science, History, and Social Change: Toward a Pro gram of Research." Sociology and Social Research, XXXXIX (Janu ary, 1965), 129-42. Gordon, Gerald, Sue Marquis, and 0. W. Anderson. "Freedom and Control in Four Types of Scientific Settings." American Behavioral j Scientist, VI (December, 1962), 39-42. _________, Odin Anderson, and Sue Marquis. "Organization for Scien tific Productivity." American Behavioral Scientist, VI (Decem- I ber, 1956), 35-7. | Gouldner, Alvin W. "Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles." Administrative Science Quarterly, II (December, 1957 and March, 1958), 281-306, 444-480. Gouldner, Helen. "Dimensions of Organizational Commitment." Adminis trative Science Quarterly, IV (March, i960), 468-90. Gross, Bertram. "What sire your Organization's Objectives: A General Systems Approach to Planning." Humsm Relations, XVIII (May, 1965), 195-215. Hage, Jerald. "An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly, X (December, 1965)» 289-320. Hagstrom, Warren 0. "Two Dimensions of Cohesiveness in Small Groups." Sociometry, XXVIII (March, 1965), 30-4. _________. "Traditional and Modern Forms of Scientific Teamwork." Administrative Science Quarterly, IX (December, 1964), 241-63. 313 Hall, Richard H. "Bureaucracy and Small Organizations." Sociology and Social Research, XXXXVIII (October, 1963), 38-1*6. _________. "The Concept of Bureaucracy: An Empirical Assessment." The American Journal of Sociology, LXIX (July, 1963), 32-40. _________. "Intraorganizational Structural Variation: Application of the Bureaucratic Model." Administrative Science Quarterly, VTI (December, 1962), 295-308. Hart, Hornell. "Social Theory and Social Change." Symposium on Socio logical Theory. Edited by Llewellyn Gross. Evanston: Row, Peterson, 1959- Heirich, Max. "The Use of Time in the Study of Social Change." Ameri can Sociological Review, XXIX (June, 1964), 386-97. Hermann, Charles F. "Some Consequences of Crisis Which Limit the Via bility of Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly, VIII (June, 1963), 61-82. Holmberg, Allan R. "The Changing Values and Institutions of Vicos in the Context of National Development." The American Behavioral Scientist, VIII (March, 1965), 3-8. Hyman, Herbert H. "Reflections on Reference Groups." Public Opinion Quarterly, XXIV (Fall, i960), 383-96. Indik, Bernard P. "Some Effects of Organization size on Member Atti tudes and Behavior." Human Relations, XVI (November, 1963), 369-84. Jacobson, E. H., D, Trumbo, Gloria Cheek, and J. Nangle. "Employee At titudes Toward Technological Change in a Medium Sized Insurance Company." Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXXIII (December, 1959), 349-54^ Joiner, Charles A. "Adaptations of Operating Structures of Government Administrative Organizations." Journal of the Academy of Man agement , IV (December, 1961), 189-97. Jones, Garth N. "Strategies and Tactics of Planned Organizational Change." Human Organization, XXIV (Fall, 1965), 192-200. Kahl, Joseph A. "Some Measurements of Achievement Orientation." The American Journal of Sociology, LXX (MAy, 1965), 669-81. Kaplan, Norman. "Some Organizational Factors Affecting Creativity." Administering Research and Development: The Behavior of Scien tists and Engineers in Organization. Edited by C. D. Orth, III, J. C, Bailey and F. W, Wolek. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, and The Dorsey Press, 1964. 314 . "Organization: Will it Choke or Promote the Growth of Science?" The Management of Scientists. Edited by K. Hill. Boston: The Beacon Press, 196^. "The Relation of Creativity to Sociological Variables in Research Organizations." Scientific Creativity: Its Recogni tion and Development. Edited by C. W. Taylor and F. Barron. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963. Kish, Leslie. "Some Statistical Problems in Research Design." America?. Sociological Review, XXIV (June, 1959), 328-38. Krislov, Sam. "Groping in Group Theory." Public Administration Review, XXI (Summer, 1961), 157-63. Kroll, Morton. "A Group Field Approach to Studying Large Agencies." PROD. II (June, 1959), 20-5. Kuethe, J. L., and B. Levenson. "Conceptions of Organizational Worth." The American Journal of Sociology, LXX (November, 1964), 342-8. Lamson, Robert W. "The Present Strains Between Science and Government." Social Forces, XXXIII (May, 1955), 360-367. La Porte, Todd R. "Conditions of Strain and Accommodation in Industrial Research Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly, X (June, 1965), 21-38. Lawrence, Paul R. "How to Deal with Resistance to Change." Harvard Business Review, XXXII (May/June, 1954), 49-57. Lazarsfeld, Paul F. "Evidence and Inference in Social Research." Evi- j dence and Inference. Edited by Daniel Lerner. New York: The j Free Press, 1958. j Leavitt, Harold J. "Applied Organizational Change in Industry: Struc tural, Technological and Humanistic Approaches." Handbook of Organizations. Edited by James G. March. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965. Leiserson, Avery. "Scientists and the Policy Processes." The American Political Science Review, LIX (June, 1965), 4o8-l6. Lewin, K. "Frontiers in Group Dynamics," Human Relations. I (June, 1947), 541. Lieberson, Stanley. "Limitation in the Application of Non-Parametric Coefficients of Correlation." American Sociological Review, XXIX (October, 1964), 744-6. 3X5 Lindblom, Charles E. "The Science of Muddling Through." Public Admin istration Review, XIX (Spring, 1959), 79-88. Littunen, Yrjo, and Eugene L. Gaier. "Social Control and Social Inte gration." International Journal of Social Psychiatry, IX (Sum mer, 1963), 165-73* Loomis, Charles P. "Social Change and Social Systems." Sociological Theory, Values and Sociocultural Change: Essays in Honor of Pitirim A. Sorokin. Edited by E. Aa Tiryakian. New York: The Free Press, 1963. . "Toward a Theory of Systematic Social Change." Interpro fessional Training Goals for Technical Assistance Personnel Abroad. Edited by Irwin T. Sanders. New York: Council on Social Work Education, 1959- Lupton, Tom. "The Practical Analysis of Change in Organizations." Journal of Management Studies, II (May, 1965), 218-27. McGinnis, Robert. "Randomization and Inference in Sociological Re search." American Sociological Review, XXIII (August, 1958), 1 *08-14. McNulty, James E. "Organizational Change in Growing Enterprises." Administrative Science Quarterly, VII (June, 1962), 1-21. Marayama, Magorah. "The Second Cybernetics." Industrial Research, VI (July-August, 1964), 48-56. Mechanic, David. "Sources of Power of Lower Ebrticipants in Complex Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly, VII (Decem ber, 1962), 349-651 Meltzer, Leo. "Scientific Productivity in Organizational Settings." Journal of Social Issues, XXII (Number 2, 1956), 32-40. Meridith, W. "A Method for Studying Differences between Groups." Psychometrika, XXX (March, 1965), 15-29- Miles, Matthew. "On Temporary Systems." Innovations in Educations. Edited by Matthew Miles. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. Miller, L. Keith, and Robert L. Hamblin. "Interdependence, Differential Rewarding, and Productivity." American Sociological Review, XXVIII (October, 1963), 763-78. Miller, James G. "Living Systems: Cross-Level Hypotheses." Behavioral Science, X (October, 1965), 380-411. 316 _________. "Living Systems: Structure and Process." Behavioral Science, X (October, 1965), 337-79* _______ . "Living Systems: Basic Concepts." Behavioral Science, X (July, 1965), 193-237. Moore, Wilbert E. "Predicting Discontinuities in Social Change." American Sociological Review, XXIX (June, 196^), 331-8. _________. "A Reconsideration of Theories of Social Change." American Sociological Review, XXV (December, i960), 810-11. Ogburn, William F. "Cultural Lag as Theory." Sociology and Social Re search, XLI (January, 1957), reprinted in William F. Ogburn: On Culture and Social Change. Edited by Otis Dudley Duncan. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964. Orth, Charles D. Ill, "The Optimum Climate for Industrial Research." Harvard Business Review, XXXVII (March/April, 1959), 55-64. Eagani, Angelo. "The Impact of Age on Attitudes toward Social Change." Processes of Aging: Social and Psychological. Edited by R, H. Williams, C. Tibbits, and W. Donahue. I. New York: Atherton Press, 1963. Pages, Max. "The Sociotherapy of the Enterprise: The Conditions of Psycho-social Change in Industrial Concerns and the Role of the Social Psychologist as an Agent of Social Change." Human Rela tions, XII (August, 1959)> 317-34. Pareek, Udai, and S, N. Chattopadhyay. "Adoption Quotient: A Measure 1 of Multipractice Adoption Behavior." The Journal of Applied Be- j havioral Science, II (January-February-March, 1966), 95-108. j i Barker, Treadway C. "Relationships Among Measures of Supervisory Be havior, Group Behavior, and Situational Characteristics." Per- ; sonnel Psychology, XVI (Winter, 1963), 319-34. Parsons, Talcott. "Evolutionary Universals in Society." American Soci ological Review, XXIX (June, 1964), 339-40. . "Some Consideration on the Theory of Social Change." Rural Sociology, XXVI (September, 1961), 219-39- Pelz, Donald C. "Conditions for Innovation." Trans-action, II (Janu- ary-February, 1965)3 32-4. Pelz, Donald C. "Relationships between Measures of Scientific Perform ance and Other Variables." Scientific Creativity: Its Recogni tion and Development. Edited by C. W. Taylor and F. Barron. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963- 317 . "The 'Creative Years' and the Research Environment." tree Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-7-11 (March, 1964), . "Freedom in Research." International Science and Tech nology, XXXVIII (February, 1964), 54-66. , and Frank M. Andrews. "Autonomy, Coordination, and Stimula tion, in Relations to Scientific Achievement." Behavioral Sci ence, XI (March, 1966), 89-97. , and Frank M. Andrews. "Diversity in Research." Interna tional Science and Technology, XXXI (July, 1964), 28-36. _ , and Frank M. Andrews. "Organizational Atmosphere, Motiva tion, and Research Contribution." American Behavioral Scien tist , VI (December, 1962), 43-7* Per row, Charles. "The Analysis of Goals in Complex Organizations." American Sociological Review, XXVI (December, 1961), 854-66. Peter, Hollis. "Human Factors in Research Administration." Some Appli cations of Behavioral Research. Edited by Rensis Likert and Samuel P. Hayes. Paris: UNESCO, 1957* Pugh, D. S., D. F. Hickson, C. R. Hinings, K. M. Macdonald, C. Turner, and T. Eupton. "A Conceptual Scheme for Organizational Analy sis." Administrative Science Quarterly, VIII (December, 1963)> 289-315. Riggs, Fred W. "Models in the Comparative Study of Public Administra tion ." Models and Priorities in the Comparative Study of Admin istration. Edited by Fred W. Riggs and Edward W. Weidner. Chicago: Comparative Administration Group, American Society of Public Administration, 1963. Roby, Thornton B., Elizabeth H. Ificol, and Francis M. Farrell. "Group Problem Solving Under Two Types of Executive Structure." Jour nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXVII (December, 1963), 550-6. | Rogers, Everett M. "A Conceptual Variable Analysis of Technological j Change." Rural Sociology, XXIII (June, 1958), 136-45. j i l Rubenstein, Albert H. "Organizational Factors Affecting Research and | Development De c is ion-Making in Large Decentralized Companies." Management Science. X (July, 1964), 618-33. Ryan, Bruce. "The Resuscitation of Social Change." Social Forces, XXXXI (September, 1965)> 1-7. 318 Saunders, David R. "Some Measures Belated to Success and Placement in Basic Engineering Research and Development." Scientific Crea tivity: Its Recognition and Development. Edited by C. W. Tay lor and P. Barron. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963. Sayles, Leonard R. "The Change Process in Organizations: An Applied Anthropological Analysis." Human Organization, XXI (Summer, 1962), 62-7. Scheidlinger, Saul. "Identification, the Sense of Belonging and of Identity in Small. Groups." International Journal of Group Psy chiatry, XIV (June, 1964), 291-306. Edgar H., William W. McKelvey, David R. Peters, and John M. Thomas. "Career Orientations and Perceptions of Rewarded Ac tivity in a Research Organization." Administrative Science Quarterly, IX (March, 1965), 333-^9* William C. "On Categorizing Qualitative Data in Content Analy sis*" Public Opinion Quarterly, XXII (Winter, 1958-1959) , 503- 15* William C. "Some Theoretical Considerations for Group Behav ior ." Symposium on Techniques for the Measurement of Group Per formance. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government, Research and Development Board, 1952. Paul P., and Carl W. Backman. "Personality Theory and the Prob lem of Stability and Change in Individual Behavior: An Inter personal Approach." Psychological Review, LXVTII (January, 1961), 21-32. Selekman, B. M. "Resistance to Shop Changes." Harvard Business Review, XXIV (Autumn, 19*+5), 119-32. Selvin, Hanan C. "Reply to Beshers." American Sociological Review, XXIII (April, 1958), 199-200. _________. "Reply to Gold’s Comment on ’ A Critique of Tests of Signif icance’." American Sociological Review, XXIII (February, 1958), 86. j i _________. "A Critique of Tests of Significance in Survey Research." American Sociological Review, XXII (October, 1957), 519-27. Shepard, Herbert A. "Nine Dilemmas in Industrial Research." Adminis trative Science Quarterly, I (December, 1956), 295-309. Shepard, Herbert A. "Changing Interpersonal and Intergroup Relation ships in Organizations." Handbook of Organizations. Edited by James G. March. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965. Schein, Schutz, Schutz, Secord, 319 ________• "Adaptive Processes for Research and Innovation." The Management of Scientists. Edited by K. Hill. Boston: The Beacon Press, 1964. Shor, Edgar L. "Comparative Administration: Static Study Versus Dy namic Reform." Public Administration Review. XXII (September. 1962), 158-64. Siepert, Albert F. "Creating the Management Climate for Effective Re search in Government Laboratories." The Management of Scien tists. Edited by K. Hill. Boston: The Beacon Press, 1964. Simon, Herbert A. "On the Concept of Organizational Goal." Adminis trative Science Quarterly, IX (June, 1964), 1-22. Simpson, Richard L., and William H. Gulley. "Goals, Environmental Pres sures, and Organizational Characteristics." American Sociolog ical Review, XXVII (June, 1962), 344-51. Sjoberg, Gideon. "Contradictory Functional Requirements and Social Systems." Conflict Resolution, IV (June, i960), 198-208. Smith, Clagett G., and Arnold S. Tannenbaum. "Organizational Control Structure: A Comparative Analysis." Human Relations, XVI (November, 1963), 299-316. Smith, Stanley A. "Conformity in Cooperative and Competitive Groups." The Journal of Social Psychology. LXV (April, 1965), 337-50. Spencer, Paul, and Cyril Sofer. "Organizational Change and Its Manage ment." The Journal of Management Studies, I (March, 1964), 26-47. Sofer, Cyril. "The Assessment of Organizational Change." The Journal of Management Studies, II (September, 1964), 128-42.. Starbuck, William H. "Organizational Growth and Development." Handbook of Organization. Edited by James G. March. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965. Stephenson, R. W., and B. S. Gantz. "Conflicting Objectives in a Re search and Development Organization." TEWF Transactions on En- gineering Management, EM-12 (December, 1965), 123-33. Steininger, Marion. "Situational and Individual Determinants of Atti tude Scale Responses." Educational and Psychological Measure ment, XXV (Autumn, 1965), 757-65. Tagiuri, Renato. "Value Orientations of Managers and Scientists." Ad ministering Research and Development: The Behavior of Scien tists and Engineers in Organizations. Edited by C. D. Orth, llI,^J.„„C.^Baiiey__and F. w. Wolek. I~llQmewQQd^^Illinois : __Richard 32(V D. Irwin and The Dorsey Press, 1964. Tannenbaum, Arnold S. "Control in Organizations, Individual Adjustment and Organizational Performance." Administrative Science Quar terly, VII (September, 1962), 236-57. __________, and Jerald G. Bachman. "Structural Versus Individual Ef fects." The American Journal of Sociology, LXIX (May, 196k), 585-95. Taylor, Donald. "Variables Related to Creativity among Men in Two Re search Laboratories." Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development. Edited by C. W. Taylor and F. Barron. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963. Thompson, James D. "Organizations and Output Transactions." The Amer ican Journal of Sociology, LXVIII (November, 1962), 309-24. Thompson, Victor A. "Bureaucracy and Innovation." Administrative Sci ence Quarterly, X (June, 1965), 1-20. __________. "Administrative Objectives for Development Administration." Administrative Science Quarterly, IX (June, 1964), 91-108. jTrumbo, Don A. "Individual and Group Correlates of Attitudes Toward Work-Related Change." Journal of Applied Psychology, . XXXXV | (October, 1961), 338-44. ' j I Udy, Stanley, H., Jr. "Administrative Rationality, Social Setting, and Organizational Development." The American Journal of Sociology,! LXVIII (November, 1962), 299-30^ Udy, Stanley H., Jr. "The Comparative Analysis of Organizations." Handbook of Organizations. Edited by James G. March. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965. ! Wallach, Michael A., and Nathan Kogan. "Aspects of Judgement and Deci sion Making: Interrelationships and Change with Age." Behav ioral Science, VI (January, 1961), 23-36. | I _________, Nathan Kogan, and Daryl J. Bern. "Group Influence on Indi vidual Risk Taking." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXV (August, 1962), 75^85*1 1 Walton, Richard E. "Two Strategies of Social Change and Their Dilem mas." The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, I (April-May- June, 1965), 167-79* Waterman, Alan T. "Science and Government." Ihilosophy of Science: The Delaware Seminar. Edited by B. Baumrin. Vol. I. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963. White, Harrison. "Management Conflict and Sociometric Structure.” The American Journal of Sociology, LXVTI (September, 1961), 185-99• Williams, Virgil. "Bureaucratic Proliferation: A Theoretical Ap proach." The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, XXII (July, 1963), 337-45. : Zander, Alvin. "Resistance to Change— Its Analysis and Prevention." Advanced Management, XV (June, 1950), 9-11. _________, and Herman Medow. "Strength of Group and Desire for At tainable Group Aspirations." Journal of Personality, XXXIII (March, 1965), 122-39. _________, and Theodore Curtis. "Social Support and Rejection of Or ganizational Standards." Journal of Educational Psychology, LVI (April, 1965), 87-95. Zeleznik, Carter. "Some Reflections on Change." Kyklos, XIII (Febru ary, i960), 373-85. Unpublished Materials Andrews, Frank M., and Donald C. Pelz. "Dimensions of Organizational Atmosphere." Analysis Memo No. 7. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute of Social Research, Survey Research Center, 1961. (Mimeographed.) Apstein, Maurice. "The Role of the Military Laboratory'in Defense, with Special Reference to the Problems of Contracting out Research and Development Programs." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The American University, 1963. Barnes, Russell M. "Organizational Climate: A Case Study." Unpub lished Masters Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1964. Baumgartel, Howard John. "Leadership, Motivation and Attitudes in Twenty Research Laboratories." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1955. Blake, Robert R., and Jane S. Mouton. "Toward Achieving Organization Excellence." Washington, D. C.: National Training Laborato ries, National Education Association, 1964. (Mimeographed.) Cadwallader, Mervyn L. "A Cybernetic Theory of Social Change." Unpub lished Ph.D. dissertation, university of Oregon, 1958. Davis, Robert C. "Commitment to Professional Values as Related to Role Performance of Research Scientists." Unpublished Ph.D. disser tation, University of Michigan, 1956. 322 Dickinson, Raymond. "Synopsis of Navy Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Formal Planning Procedures." China Lake, California: United States Naval Ordnance Test Station, 1965. (Miraeographed)i Gautschi, Theodore F. "An Investigation of the Management of Research and Development Projects." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni versity of Southern California, 1961. Gibb, Jack R. "Factors Producing Defensive Behavior within Groups." Washington, D. C.: National Training Laboratories, National Education Association, 1963. (Mimeographed.) Hardin, Einar. "Job Satisfaction and the Desire for Change." Michigan State University, 19&5- Hill, Harland Leslie. "Explorations in Administrative Decision Making." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern Califor nia, 1964. Indik, Bernard P. "Three Studies of Organizational and Individual Di mensions of Organization." Technical Report 15, Rutgers, The State University, 1965- (Mimeographed.) _________ . "The Study of Organizational and Relevant Small Group and Individual Dimensions." Technical Report No. 13. Rutgers, The State University, December, 1963. (Mimeographed.) ] Jacobs, Delbert Harold. "The Conduct of Basic Research in the Aerospace' Industry," Unpublished B. Sc. thesis, The California Institute j I of Technology, 1961. j Jones, Edward J., Jr. "The Administrative Ecology of a Research and De-i velopment Laboratory." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer- j sity of Southern California, 1959* Kaye, Carol. "Some Effects upon Organizational Change of the Personal ity Characteristics of Key Role Occupants." Unpublished Ph.D. j dissertation, University of Michigan, 1959* j i Kennedy, John L. "A ’Transition-Model' Laboratory for Research on Cul- j tural Change." Report P-653 • Santa Monica, California: The j Rand Corporation, 1955* (Mimeographed.) Kershner, R. B. "The Size of Research and Engineering Teams.” Paper j presented to the 11th National Conference on the Administration j of Research, John Hopkins University, Silver Spring, Maryland, September 4, 1957. (Mimeographed.) Margulies, Newton. "The Role of Organizational Climate in Technical Ob solescence." Case Institute of Technology, 19&5- (Mimeo graphed .) 323 _________ . "A Study of Organizational Culture and the Self-Actualizing Process." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cali fornia at Los Angeles, 196k. McLean, William B. "Invention." Paper presented at the Conference on Fostering and Rewarding Invention in the Company, the Government and the University, sponsored by the Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Foundation of the George Washington University, Wash ington, D. C., June 20, 1963. (Mimeographed.) Wangle, J. E. "A Study of Certain Aspects of Organizational Communica tions within a Medium sized Insurance Company undergoing Techno logical Change." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. Rothman, Sam. "Evaluation of Effectiveness of Scientists and Engineers in a Government Laboratory." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The American University, 1959. Sells, S. B., and Nurhan Findikyan. "Dimensions of Organization Struc ture: A Factor Analytic Reevaluation of the Hemphill Group Di mensions Description Questionnaire." Texas Christian Univer sity, November, 1965. Sherwood, Frank P. "A Report on Organizational Problems and Strategies j of Response for the U. S. Naval Ordnance Test Station, China ! Lake, California." October 30, 1965. (Mimeographed.) I "The Executive's 1^-Hour Day: Its Function, Consequences | and Future." Los Angeles, August 28, 1965. (Mimeographed.) "Leadership and Time." Los Angeles, August 23, 1965. (Mimeographed.) "Planning the Future: What Does the Leader Do?" Los Angeles, 1965. (Mimeographed.) "The Clock and the Specialized R and D Society." Los An geles, 1965. (Mimeographed.) Stedry, Andrew C., and Bnanuel Kay. "The Effects of Goal Difficulty on j Performance: A Field Experiment." Massachusetts Institute of ! Technology, 196U. (Mimeographed.) | Thompson, Victor A. "Proposal for an Organization Science." University of Illinois, Chicago, 1965. (Mimeographed.) j Trumbo, Don A. "An Analysis of Attitudes toward Change among the Em ployees of an Insurance Company." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta tion, Michigan State University, 1959* 324 Walton, Eugene. "Magnetic Theory of Organizational Communication." Un published Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1961. Zander, Alvin E. "Effects of Group Goals upon Personal Goals." Wash ington, D. C.: National Training Laboratories, National Educa tion Association, i960.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The Administrative Man In A Research And Development Environment
PDF
Organization Development In A Public Agency: The Strategy Of Organizational Devolution
PDF
Role Conflict Resolution In Complex Social Systems: A Polyarchical Systems Model For Organizational And Social Change
PDF
An Automated Police Information System: A Proposed Prototype Informationsystem For Police Departments In Medium-Sized Cities
PDF
An Investigation Of The Management Of Research And Development Projects
PDF
Organizational capacity for change and adaptation: An exploration in a public research and development organization
PDF
Systems Theory And Organizational Change
PDF
Toward A Non-Bureaucratic Organization For Development Assistance: Insights From A Study Of Aid Technical Advisers
PDF
Public Policy And Voluntary Health Insurance: An Empirical Inquiry
PDF
Group Problem-Solving In The Metropolitan Community
PDF
The Patterns Of Public Administrative Reorganization In The United States, 1945-1955
PDF
The Significance And Problems Of Civil Service Reform In A Developing Nation: The Experience Of Iran
PDF
An Evaluation Of A Communal Organization
PDF
Urban Executive Leadership Development For Black Professionals: A Research Evaluation Of An Applied Behavioral Science Program
PDF
Administrative Analysis In Modern Public Management
PDF
Organizational study of a welfare system: a typological approach to internal climates and organizational effectiveness
PDF
Attitudes On Mobility In The Public Service - The Junior College Case
PDF
An Analysis Of Performance Budgeting In The City Of Los Angeles
PDF
Alternatives In Research Design: The Measurement Of Goal Conflict
PDF
Strategies Of Planned Organizational Change
Asset Metadata
Creator
Biller, Robert Paul
(author)
Core Title
Organizational Capacity For Change And Adaptation: An Exploration In A Public Research And Development Organization
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Public Administration
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,Political Science, public administration
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Storm, William Bruce (
committee chair
), McDonagh, Edward C. (
committee member
), Sherwood, Frank P. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-375878
Unique identifier
UC11360834
Identifier
7000341.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-375878 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
7000341.pdf
Dmrecord
375878
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Biller, Robert Paul
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