Managerial behaviors and work group climate as predictors of employee outcomes

Managerial Behaviors and Work Group Climate as Predictors of Employee Outcomes

Allan H. Church

Employee satisfaction and quality of worklije continue to be significant con- cernsfor HRD and organizational change efforts in contemporary organizations. One area that can have a major impact on people’s attitudes in the workplace and yet is highly susceptible to intervention is individual behavior Behaviors exhibited by leaders, managers, and work group members all have an effect on employees’ attitudes and perceptions about their work and their organization. This article attempts to extend existing research by presenting an analysis of the predictive relationships of various aspects of managerial behavior and work group climate on employee outcomes-on feelings ofsat- isfaction, contribution, and team spirit. Results are based on 1,428 survey responses collected during a n organizational change effort in the marketing and sales division of an international pharmateuticals company. Overall, different types of behaviors for senior managers, immediate supervisors, and work group members were found to be significantly related to employee attitudes and perceptions. Results are discussed in terms of implications for the management of marketing- and sales-based organizations. Limitations and sug- gestionsfor future research are also addressed.

In spite of the seemingly steady rise in unemployment in the United States and the sagging economy in the global marketplace, it remains a truism that the majority of American workers are less than completely satisfied with their present jobs (Lawler, 1990; Sullivan and Bhagat, 1992). Even those who have what would traditionally be considered excellent jobs-that is, jobs with good pay and flexible benefits-often report low levels of satisfaction with their

Note: I would like to acknowledge the contribution of Celeste Comui and Anne Margiloff to the 0r ig1~1 organizational consulting project on which the data in this paper are based. Thanks are also given to four anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY. vol 6. no 2. Summer 1995 Q Jossey-Bass Publishers 173

1 74 Church

work (Quarstein, McAfee, and Glassman, 1992). Although it is unclear whether the antecedents of such perceptions are primarily culturally based (Hofstede, 1980; Kim, Park, and Suzuki, 1990) or organizationally based (Burke and Litwin, 1992; Katz and Kahn, 1978; Kotter and Hesket, 1992), this trend has serious implications for the management and staffing of contemporary organizations and for their continued viability in the marketplace. Vary- ing levels of employee satisfaction, quality of worklife, and organizational commitment, for example, have been linked to reductions in performance, product quality, and customer responsiveness, as well as increases in turnover (Buchko, 1992; Cohen, 1993; Cropanzano, James, and Konovsky, 1993; Golembiewslu and Sun, 1990; Huselid and Day, 1991; Kmicki, Carson, and Bohlander, 1992; Mayer and Schoorman, 1992; Schneider and Bowen, 1993; Shani, Basuray, Scherling, and Odell, 1992; Steers and Mowday, 1981; Ulrich and others, 1991).

Given the potentially devastating effects of such negative outcomes on both organizational effectiveness and people’s lives, it is critical that managers and HRD practitioners have a clearer understanding of the relationships between employee perceptions and attitudes and other important variables in the organizational system. Such an understanding will also ensure that positive change efforts can be initiated. This article will attempt to provide some insights into these relationships through an applied analysis of the results of a recent organizational survey.

Although the impact of negative worker attitudes and perceptions on overall performance is of concern to all types of organizations, it can be particularly problematic for those companies whose employees are either highly trained, client- or customer-service-oriented, or both (Goodstein and Burke, 1991; Maister, 1993; Schneider, 1980; Schneider and Bowen, 1985, 1993; Schuler and Huber, 1990). An organization whose workforce is primarily sales-based and specialized in a very complex or specific area of expertise, for example, will suffer considerable training and development costs as well as lost client relationships if negative attitudes among its employees result in greater turnover. Thus, for this type of company, the management of employee perceptions through changes to corporate culture, reward systems, work group climate, and managerial behaviors is a critical issue for systemic development and improvement efforts and for the HRD function in general (Burke, 1994; Carlson, 1980; Guzzo, Jette, and Katzell, 1985; Lang, 1992; Neuman, Ed- wards, and Raju, 1989; Schneider and Bowen, 1993; Sheridan, 1992; Wilkens and Ouchi, 1983).

One area that can have a significant impact on attitudes and yet is highly susceptible to interventions on the part of HRD and organization development practitioners is individual behavior (Block, 1987; Burke, 1994; Kanter, 1983; Lewin, 1958; Nadler, 1977; Patten and Vaill, 1976; Schein, 1987; Steers and Porter, 1987). More specifically, behaviors exhibited by leaders, managers, and work group members should be expected to have a significant impact on em-

Predictors of Employee Outcomes 1 75

ployee perceptions of empowerment, satisfaction, and commitment if we lend any credence to our existing theories of leadership and organizational behavior (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Burke and Litwin, 1992; Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Katz and Kahn, 1978; Kouzes and Posner, 1987; Lawler, 1992; Nadler, Gerstein, Shaw, and Associates, 1992; Porter and Lawler, 1968; Sagie and Koslowsky, 1994; Wellins, Byham, and Wilson, 1991).

In fact, many executive leadership and management development programs provide personalized feedback to participants from multiple rating sources, such as supervisors, direct reports, colleagues, and customers, based on the importance of these relationships (Burke, kchley, and DeAngelis, 1985; Daniel, 1985; Downham, Noel, and Prendergast, 1992; Nowack, 1992; O’Reilly, 1994; Posner and Kouzes, 1990; Shipper and Neck, 1990; Tichy and Devanna, 1986). Individual managerial feedback from subordinates and peers, for example, was used after the merger of the two pharmaceutical companies, SmithKline and Beecham, to help crystallize important behavioral practices and objectives required for SmithKline Beecham’s success (Burke and Jackson, 1991). Feedback from an organizational survey was also used to aid in moni- toring the degree of progress the company was making toward achieving its “Simply Better” culture. Although one might argue that providing any type of feedback can be useful for managers developmentally, a critical factor in achieving successful change in these types of situations is having a firm understanding of the spec$c behaviors that affect employee perceptions in a gven domain.

Levels of Impact

In general, the impact of individual behaviors on employee outcomes can be approached from three different levels of analysis or sources of origin: senior management or executives, employees’ immediate supervisors, and team or work group members. The mechanisms by which behaviors initiated at each of these levels can shape employees’ perceptions about their quality of worklife and about their organization will be described briefly below.

The actions of an organization’s senior managers can affect employee attitudes through both direct and indirect processes. The more direct process occurs through the modeling of leaders’ specific behaviors as observed by employees in the workplace (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Kouzes and Posner, 1987; Schmidt and Finnigan, 1992; Tichy and Sherman, 1993). When organizational figureheads are perceived to be publicly engagng in behaviors that are deemed important for success, they are said to be “walking the talk.” When their actions and decisions betray their own espoused principles and values, however, faith in these individuals as leaders and in the viability of their organization often suffers (Beckhard and Pritchard, 1992; Kouzes and Posner, 1987). During the last years of John Akers’s tenure as the CEO of IBM, for example, there were public outcries for his resignation and employee morale and

176 Church

productivity suffered considerably (Kanter, Stein, and Jick, 1992; Loomis, 1991; Loomis and Kirkpatrick, 1993). While Akers was probably not person- ally responsible for IBMs decline in the marketplace, as a career IBMer, his decision to alter the time-honored practice of full employment had a dramatic impact on the attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors of employees. His actions also affected the organization’s culture and ultimately its systems and policies.

These latter changes to culture, systems, and policies represent examples of the more indirect processes through which employee attitudes can be affected. The behaviors of senior management can result in modifications to the organization’s culture, its mission or strategy, its information and communication systems, and even the behaviors of middle managers (Burke and Litwin, 1992; Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Hollander, 1985; Kanter, Stein, and Jick, 1992; Schein, 1985). Demonstration of teamwork, open and honest communication, and commitment to the organizational mission are examples of specific behaviors that can influence employee attitudes through many different means. The cascading effects of executive behaviors on other organizational variables is the reason why securing the support and commitment of the top- most individuals in a given client system is often viewed as a critical compo- nent in implementing a successful organizational change effort (Burke, 1994; Davidow, 1994; Kanter, Stein, and Jick, 1992; Nadler, Gerstein, Shaw, and As- sociates, 1992). Not surprisingly, however, these indirect effects typically take longer to manifest themselves. Yet they are likely to have a stronger observable impact overall because of their pervasiveness and integration into other parts of the organizational system (Katz and Kahn, 1978). Returning to the IBM example, while the company does have a new CEO, who for the last few years has been engagng in radically different behaviors and management strategies from those of his predecessor, the cultural milieu still lags far behind in the change process (Hays, 1994).

A second category of behaviors that can have a significant impact on employee perceptions and feelings of satisfaction are those originating from an individual’s immediate manager. The dyadic linkage between supervisor and subordinate is a powerful means of transmitting culture, information, practices, beliefs, and attitudes (Burke and Litwin, 1992; Katz and Kahn, 1978; Shipper and Neck, 1990). While behaviors exhibited by individual managers in isolation have less far-reaching effects than those of executives across other systems in the organization, the impact of their behaviors on their subordinates’ perceptions is much greater because of the nature of the relationship (Block, 1987; Daniel, 1985; Nowack, 1992; Rggo and Cole, 1992; Vecchio, 1993). Moreover, collectively, inefficient or ineffective patterns of behavior on the part of the entire managerial subsystem (Katz and Kahn, 1978; Mintzberg, 1989) can damage the organization’s competitive viability as well. This is one of the reasons why individualized 360-degree feedback instrumentation is be- coming increasingly popular in conjunction with large-scale organizational change efforts (Beckhard and Pritchard, 1992; Bracken, 1994; Javitch and

Predictors of Employee Outcomes I77

Church, 1995; Downham, Noel, and Prendergast, 1992; Nowack, 1992; O’Reilly, 1994; Tichy and Devanna, 1986; Tichy and Sherman, 1993). Many organization development and HRD practitioners are realizing that the supervisor-subordinate relationship is a key lever for affecting lasting behavioral change.

In terms of research, a number of studies have been done linking managerial practices to different types of employee attitudes and perceptions. Coruzzi and Burke (1994), for example, found that employees’ feelings of empowerment were best predicted by a combination of the managers’ ability to provide direction and autonomy (coupled with superior skill in developing people) and the establishment of an atmosphere of trust and acceptance among work group members. Similarly, Daniel (1985) demonstrated that management styles reflecting both high-task and *‘people” concerns were pos- itively related to feelings of team spirit among participants in his study With respect to worker satisfaction, Schneider and Bowen (1985) reported a strong relationship between managerial behavior in a service organization and customer perceptions of overall quality and employee morale. Finally, Sagie and ‘Koslowsky (1 994) found that participation in the decision-making process had a positive effect on employee satisfaction, effectiveness, and acceptance of changes in the workplace.

The final set of behaviors that can affect worker satisfaction pertains to the interactions between members of a gven work group, team, or unit. The result of these interactions has often been referred to in the collective as work group or work unit climate (Daniel, 1985; Friedlander and Margulies, 1969; Litwin, Humphrey, and Wilson, 1978; Litwin and Stringer, 1968; Schneider, 1980). Often confused with the concept of organizational culture, climate has been loosely defined as the shared perceptions of the members of the group about “the way things are around here” (Reichers and Schneider, 1990, p. 22). Burke and Litwin (1992) provide a more detailed and concrete description of climate as conceptualized in their model of organizational performance. For these authors, climate refers to the “collective current impressions, expectations, and feelings that members of local work units have that, in turn, affect their relations with their boss, with one another, and with other units” (p. 532). In essence, then, climate is a reflection of the gestalt of people’s perceptions and attitudes about the standard mode of operating for a given work group or team.

It is interesting to note that, within this framework, climate can be classi- fied as both a predictor (or cause) of employee perceptions and an outcome (or effect) of them. Not surprisingly, researchers in this area have used work group climate as both types of variables. As a predictor it has been linked to individual satisfaction and work group performance (Friedlander and Mar- gulies, 1969; Litwin, Humphrey, and Wilson, 1978; Schneider, 1980). From this perspective, the behaviors of the manager and of the work group members themselves are used to explore differences in various dependent measures

178 Church

Work Group Climate and Interactions

L

of interest. As an outcome, climate has been used to differentiate between ef- fective versus ineffective management practices (Daniel, 1985; Van Eron and Burke, 1992). Examples of the type of questions answered from this approach include “Which leader behaviors have a positive impact on work group communication?” and ‘‘Whlch member behaviors affect the clarity of the goal-setting process?” Since climate fundamentally represents the tenor of the interactions between work group members-or, in other words, the perceptions and behaviors of others as experienced in one’s working environment-it has been conceptualized as a predictor of employee perceptions for the purposes of the present research. Figure 1 provides a graphic representation of the potential effects that these three categories of behavior can have on employee outcomes and perceptions.

Although some studies have examined very specific aspects of these relationships, few have tested the relative contribution of each category of behaviors across a given set of employee perceptions. Moreover, it is likely that different types of behaviors affect people’s attitudes differently, depending on the nature and context of their organizational system (Katz and Kahn, 1978). Given the significant impact that negative attitudes can have on the quality of worklife and organizational performance, however, more research is needed to help clarify the general nature of these relationships in various organizational situations and environments. This type of data would be useful to both managers and HRD practitioners in designing and implementing their organizational interventions.

The purpose of this article is to contribute to the literature in this area by empirically exploring the nature of the relationships described above. This ex- ploration will be done using data collected from a survey of employees in a marketing and sales division of an international pharmaceuticals corporation.

Figure 1. Categories of Behaviors That Affect Employee Outcomes

Behaviors Outcomes

Predictors of Employee Outcomes 179

More specifically, this article will examine the impact of varylng sources of leadership and managerial behaviors as well as work group climate on employee satisfaction, feelings of contribution, and perceptions of team spirit. By linking these behavioral assessments to attitude-based outcomes, the results of this study will contribute to the growing knowledge base regarding the link between organizational behavior and employee perceptions. These results will also provide a diagnostic framework for enhancing the quality of worklife of organizational members that could have implications for other marketing- and sales-based functions in organizations.

Methodology Responses obtained from the survey are described below according to each of the major content areas of interest. The results of the regression analysis linking behaviors to employee perceptions is presented at the end of this section.

Sample. Data were collected using an organizational survey of the U.S. marketing and sales division (MQSD) of an international pharmaceuticals corporation. All members of the division were encouraged to participate in the survey Questionnaires were mailed to the 2,498 M&SD people identified on the master employee payroll list provided by members of the Leadership and Team Spirit Task Forces. Respondents were gwen four weeks to return the completed survey to an external consulting firm for processing. In total, 1,428 employees provided usable questionnaires, yielding a response rate for the present study of 57.1 percent.

Although 57 percent is not ideal in terms of organizational survey work, it does provide an acceptable degree of representation for exploratory analyses (Kerlinger, 1986; Rea and Parker, 1992; Rossi, Wright, and Anderson, 1983; Schuman and Kalton, 1985). Moreover, the characteristics of the sample obtained and those of the total M&SD population were quite similar in nature. Table 1 provides a specific demographic comparison between these two groups. Overall, the sample characteristics matched almost exactly those of the population statistics in terms of location (that is, field or internal), gender, and length of service with the company The only notable discrepancy was at the upper management level. There were fewer managers and directors in the respondent sample (19 percent) than there were in the MQSD population overall (38 percent), suggesting a possible underrepresentation of this perspective. It is conceivable, for example, that senior managers were less willing to participate for political reasons.

Based on a review of the demographic data, respondents in the present sample could be characterized as a young, highly trained sales force. Fifty-six percent indicated that they had been with the organization for less than four years. The remainder were evenly split among the categories of five to nine, ten to nineteen, and twenty or more years of tenure.

Measures. The survey questionnaire used for data collection was de-

180 Church

Table 1. Comparison of Respondent and Population Demographics, in Percentage

Characteristic Respondents Population

Location Internal Field

Gender Female Male

17 83

40 60

G r d e Level Manager, director, and above 19

Nonexempt employees 5 Exempt employees 76

19 81

40 60

38 56

6

Length ofService Less than 1 year 6 4 1-4 years 50 58 5-9 years 16 13 10-19 years 14 13 20 plus years 14 12

signed in collaboration with members of the organization’s Leadership and Team Spirit Task Forces. The instrument was eleven pages in length and contained a total of 108 items. The items themselves were arranged according to conceptual differences in terms of the nature and level of the content addressed. Thus, there were five major sections containing items in the following areas: (1) leadership and management practices, (2) senior management actions, (3) managerial and member behaviors relating to work group climate, (4) recommendations for change, and (5 ) employee outcomes and perceptions.

The items pertaining to leadership and management practices were adapted from the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) (Kouzes and Posner, 1988, 1990, 1993), a thirty-item self-other feedback instrument that has been used regularly for training and development purposes. Although the term leadership was used as a category heading, the instructions specifically directed respondents to rate the behavior (or practices) of their immediate manager. Each item was worded to begin with “My manager.”

The managerial and member behaviors pertaining to work group climate were based on the climate section of the Executive Practices and Climate Ques- tionnaire (Burke, 1986), another feedback instrument that has been used in many organizational settings (Bemstein and Burke, 1989; Spencer, 1991; Van Eron and Burke, 1992). Based on prior theory and research (Burke and Litwin, 1992; Litwin, Humphrey, and Wilson, 1978; Litwin and Stringer, 19681, ques-

Predictors of Employee Outcomes I81

tions for this section were drawn from each of the major conceptual dimensions of work group climate. All these items began with the following stem: “Members of my work group.”

Both the senior management actions and the recommendations for change items were developed specifically for this survey assessment project in consort with the Leadership and Team Spirit Task Forces. Finally, the items on employee outcomes were taken in part from prior survey and consulting work with other organizations, and in part from the client’s specific issues and concerns regarding employee attitudes and perceptions.

All items were rated using an extent scale ranging from 1 (“to a very small or no extent”) to 5 (“to a very great extent”). Respondents were carefully in- structed to answer each item according to their present perceptions of overall working conditions and their own experiences and opinions. Each term (for example, work group, managel; senior management) was clearly defined at the beginning of the questionnaire in order to avoid confusion as to the referent of the item. The survey also contained an additional page on which respondents could include their own write-in comments concerning issues not addressed in the questionnaire itself. Several demographic questions were included as well, both for the purposes of examining the correspondence between the respondent group and the total MQSD population and for describing the general composition of the data set.

Analysis. The data analysis was approached from a combination of con- firmatory and exploratory methods. First, intact sets of items (that is, the thirty-nine leadership and management practices and the thirty-eight work group climate behaviors) were used to construct initial scale scores based on a priori dimensions from existing theoretical models. These scales were then examined, using an item-analysis approach, to determine the degree of conceptual congruence between the present summary score and those detailed in the literature. Next, the nine items describing senior management actions were factor-analyzed independently in order to identify the presence of specific dimensions. Additionally, the employee outcome measures (fourteen questions pertaining to issues of satisfaction, feelings of contribution, and team spirit) were also factored independently to identify conceptual clusterings among this group of items. These results were then used to construct final scale scores pertaining to the various components of each of the levels of behavioral data. Fi- nally, these scale scores were used in regression analyses to explore the relationship between senior management actions, leadership and management practices, work group member behaviors, and employee outcomes.

Results

Leadership and Management Practices. The leadership practices section of the questionnaire contained a total of thirty-nine items in the form of behavioral statements about the respondent’s immediate manager. Thus, people

1 82 Church

were asked to rate the extent to which these behaviors were practiced by the person to whom they directly reported-for example, “My manager . . . gives me a lot of discretion to make my own decisions.” Overall, the grand mean of the thirty-nine items in this section was 3.52 (SD = 0.82). Of the leadership practices in general, the five that were reported as being most frequently practiced by managers were: displays high ethical standards (M = 4.08), expects and operates with truthfulness whether the news is good or bad (M = 4.06), has the necessary skills and experience to do his or her job well (M = 3.931, treats me fairly (M = 3.88), and communicates a positive and hopeful outlook for the future of our organization (M = 3.85).

To identify the relationships between items and to assess the utility of presenting the data in the a priori five-dimensional LPI format (Kouzes and Pos- ner, 1990), these thirty-nine items were used to construct scale scores based on their assigned construct designations. The scales were then examined, using an item-analysis technique, to look for specific practices that may have been problematic either in terms of their contribution to the primary dimension score or with regard to response bias. Once this analysis was completed, five scales were retained representing the five dimensions of Kouzes and Pos- ner5 model (1990): Challengmg the Process, Inspiring a Shared Vision, En- abling Others to Act, Modeling the Way, and Encouragng the Heart (see Table 2 for details). Given the similarity in structure and the high reliability coefficients obtained (ranging from .88 to .93), and because the client organization was familiar with the LPI dimensions, this solution was retained for further analysis.

Table 2. Scale and Item Statistics for the Leadership and Management Practices

Scale Mean

Challenging the Process (M = 3.52, Interitem Correlation = .59, Reliability = .91) Encourages development of new ideas. Encourages me to reach higher levels of performance in my job. Supports innovative attempts even if they do not succeed. Encourages me to express my opinions regarding developments affecting

Acts on new ideas and suggestions for improvement. Provides me with challenpg opportunities that test my skills and abilities. Encourages prudent risk taking-and 1 feel comfortable doing so.

Inspiring a Shared Vision (M = 3.50, Interitem Correlation = .59, Reliability = .88) Communicates a positive and hopeful outlook for the future of our

Makes me feel that my work is important to the success of the

Describes the kind of future he or she would like us to create together. Fosters a sense of common purpose in our work group. Clearly defines my role in helping to achieve our vision.

our organization.

organization.

department.

3.70 3.60 3.55

3.55 3.45 3.38 3.33

3.85

3.63 3.61 3.52 3.11


Table 2. (continued) Scale Mean

Enabling Others to Act (M = 3.40, Interitem Correlation = .53, Reliability = .90) Gives me a lot of discretion to make my own decisions. Communicates to me the most recent developments affecting our

Supports me by committing time and resources to my work efforts. Places me in positions and assignments that make the best use of my

Involves others in planning the actions we will be taking. Helps people overcome interpersonal issues that get in the way of progress. Takes time to discuss careers with me. Coaches and trains me in new areas and assignments.

Dlsplays high ethical standards. Expects and operates with truthfulness, whether the news is good or bad. Has the necessary skills and experience to do his or her job well. Develops cooperative relationships with the people he or she works with. Operates with a relentless commitment to continuous improvement. Creates an atmosphere of mutual trust in projects he or she leads. Deals consistently with people in this department. Ensures that the work group sets clear goals, makes plans, and

Demonstrates a willingness to accept responsibility for innovative

Spends time and energy on malung certain that people understand

organization.

skills and abilities.

Modeling the Way (M = 3.65, Interitem Correlation = .55, Rehability = .93)

establishes milestones for projects.

attempts-even when they fail.

and are committed to our vision.

Encouragingthe Heart (M = 3.56, Interitem Correlation = .57, Reliability = .92) Treats me fairly. Makes use of existing systems and programs to reward people. Provides truthful and timely feedback about my performance. Takes the time to celebrate accomplishments when project

Praises me for a job well done. Supports the work group through stressful periods. Makes it a point to tell the rest of the organization about the good

Promotes people based on their ability to consistently perform

Finds innovative ways to reward people for a job well done.

milestones are reached.

work done by my group.

at high levels.

3.73

3.60 3.50

3.37 3.27 3.22 3.18 3.16

4.08 4.06 3.93 3.70 3.61 3.59 3.55

3.47

3.33

3.06

3.88 3.66 3.62

3.60 3.60 3.59

3.52

3.45 3.03

Work Group Climate. The thirty-eight items in the survey describing behavioral aspects of work group climate were presented to respondents in the same format as the leadership practices section, that is, using a five-point scale where 1 = “to a very small or no extent” and 5 = “to a very great extent.” How-

184 Church

ever, the questions in this section referred not to “my manager” but to respondents’ experiences in their immediate work group. Thus, the questions read as follows: “Members of my work group . . . find ways of celebrating team success.” The overall mean across all thirty-eight items was 3.38, with a standard deviation of .66. The five aspects of work group climate that received the highest ratings (that is, those that were reported as being experienced most in employees’ work groups) consisted of the following: continually strive to do the best possible work (M = 3.801, are quick to respond to those that need help (M = 3.731, pull their own weight (M = 3.651, provide products and services to customers that surpass customers’ expectations (M = 3.61), and clearly understand the goals of the work group (M = 3.61).

Once again, because the scale was adapted from an existing instrument (Burke, 1986), based on a set of constmcts concerning the workgroup climate (Litwin, Humphrey, and Wilson, 1978; Litwin and Stringer, 19681, these items were aggregated into their respective a priori scales and examined for problems and/or response set issues. This process resulted in one item, number 85 (‘‘Are you competitive with other work group members and with other work groups?”), being removed from further consideration. The decision was made based on (1) the item’s attenuation of the overall reliability of the dimension to which it was assigned (from .86 to ,711 and (2) the high probability that people had difficulty responding to this item, in terms of consistency of meaning. In retrospect, this particular item was double-barreled and prone to dif- ferential interpretations regarding both the positivity or negativity of the state- ment and the duality of its referent.

At the conclusion of this review, seven Climate scales comprising thirty- seven of the thirty-eight items remained (see Table 3 for details), with reliability coefficients ranging from .76 to .86. These scales consisted of questions pertaining to: Clarity of goals, roles, and group structure; Recognition of members’ contributions and team successes; Participation in the context of working together, including goal setting, planning, and thoughts and opinions; Standards regarding the quality and level of individual and group performance; Diversity in style, ideas, and skills as an asset to group product; Support based on trust, responsiveness, and openness; and lnten.mil Relations with other teams, work groups, and departments in M&SD.

Senior Management. The senior management section of the survey was made up of nine questions designed to assess perceptions about the behaviors of upper-level executives in M&SD. Respondents were asked to respond to statements such as “Senior management . . . can be expected to do the right thing,” using the same five-point scale as in the rest of the survey. The overall mean score for these nine items was 3.32 (SD = 0.83). In general, the five behaviors on which senior management in M&SD were rated the highest were: demonstrate through their actions a concern for the ethical aspects of how we do business (M = 3.87), can be expected to do the right thing (M = 3.48), readily share information about business performance (M = 3.40), clearly commu-


Table 3. Scale and Item Statistics for the Work Group Climate Dimensions

Scale Mean

Clarity (M = 3.38, Interitem Correlation = .45, Reliability = .79) Clearly understand the goals of the work group. Are well organized to perform their tasks. Are expected to achieve tasks that are reasonable. Clearly understand operating procedures.

Do not overly criticize each other’s performance. Appropriately recognize members for their contributions. Individually communicate their appreciation to members who

Find ways of celebrating team success.

Solicit each other’s thoughts and opinions. Have an opportunity to contribute to the setting of the

Jointly review and plan changes to work group goals. Have an opportunity to influence each other’s objectives.

Continually strive to do the best possible work. Pull their own weight. F’rovide products and services to customers that surpass

Are inspired to perform at a higher level. Set goals and performance standards that are challenging.

Diversity (A4 = 3.45, Interitem Correlation = .61, Reliability = .76) Make good use of our individual differences of style, approach,

Accept diversity in people’s opinions, ideas, and approaches as

Recognition (M = 3.41, Interitem Correlation = .55, Reliability = ,831

do good work.

Participation (M = 3.19, Interitem Correlation = .55, Reliability = .83)

work group goals.

Standards (M = 3.59, lnteritem Correlation = .53, Reliability = ,851

customer’s expectations.

and skills.

opposed to conformity.

Support (M = 3.53, Interitem Correlation = .64, Reliability = .84) Are quick to respond to those who need help. Share ideas, and work together to get things done. Have trusting relationships with one another.

Quickly respond to the needs of the other work groups. Ideas, thoughts, and suggestions are freely communicated

Deal effectively with conflicts that arise with other work groups. Experience a quick response to their needs from other work groups. Integrate day-to-day work unit activities with other work units.

Interunit Relations (M = 3.26, Interitem Correlation = 3 5 , Reliability = ,861

between work groups.

3.61 3.60 3.57 3.51

3.59 3.46

3.34 3.27

3.50

3.25 3.04 2.98

3.80 3.65

3.61 3.52 3.35

3.55

3.35

3.73 3.53 3.30

3.45

3.38 3.26 3.13 3.10

186 Church

nicate our business strategy (M = 3.34), and work as a team as necessary to get the job done (M = 3.30).

Since this group of statements was not based on any a priori model, the items were factor-analyzed using a principal-components technique in order to examine the underlylng structure of the data. A varimax rotation ylelded three factors accounting for 76.6 percent of the total item variance (in incre- ments of 62.4 percent, 7.7 percent, and 6.5 percent). All nine items from the senior management section were retained for the final solution, with loadings of .45 and above. In the case of double loadings, items were assigned to the factor to which they contributed the largest proportion of their variance. Table 4 contains the specific composition of each of the three factors, along with their respective item means and factor loadings. Scales were then generated based on these results and the items were tested for their contribution and reliability. All three scales were considered useful for additional analysis.

Employee Outcomes. The survey also contained fifteen items located in two separate sections that were designed to gauge employee outcomes, attitudes, or perceptions rather than behavioral indicators. Using the same scale, respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they experienced each of these outcomes in their present working conditions. Nine questions referring

Table 4. Ratings of Senior Management Item Means by Scale and Factor Loadings

Factor Scale Mean Loadings

Brings Vision into Action (62.4%, M = 3.22, Interitem Correlation = .65, Reliability = .85)

Clearly communicates our business strategies. Ensures that overall strategies are translated into a

workable number of goals and objectives. Demonstrates commitment to our vision, not only

in words but in actions.

Acts as OneAeamworh (7.7%, M = 3.28, Interitem Correlation = .62, Reliability = -82)

Takes time to talk informally with members of

Readily shares information about business performance Works as a team as necessary to get the job done.

the organization.

Demonstrates Ethics and Integrity (6.5%, M = 3.46, Interitem Correlation = .62, Reliability = .83)

Demonstrates through his or her actions a concern for

Can be expected to do the right thing. Removes barriers that interfere with getting

the ethical aspects of how we do business.

the work done.

3.34

3.08

3.27

3.15 3.40 3.30

3.87 3.48

3.00

.816

,750

.706

,834 .628 .614

,861 .627

.468


to aspects of team spirit or team orientation were presented as follows: “When worlung with your work group, do you feel . . . a common bond-a sense of shared values, goals, and experiences?” The other six items were presented as declarative sentences such as ‘‘I enjoy and have fun in my work.” Since all fifteen of these items reflected different types of employee attitudes and perceptions, these questions were initially analyzed together.

The mean rating for these items was 3.49 (SD = 0.79). The five highest- rated items from this group consisted of “I enjoy and have fun in my work (M = 3.931, “My work has significance and meaning” (M = 3.881, “I am satisfied with my job overall” (M = 3.84), “I feel a sense of ownership for the projects I work on” (M = 3.71), and “[I] take pride in being a member of the work group” (M = 3.69). The outcomes receiving the lowest scores pertained to feelings of team spirit across departmental (A4 = 3.14) and divisional (M = 2.97) levels as well as the item reflecting talent utilization: “My talents are being utilized to their fullest in my j o b (M = 3.02).

As with the senior management section, these items were subjected to a principal-components factor analysis to determine the underlying nature of the fifteen outcomes. After expIoring several options for fit, the cleanest solution was found to consist of four factors representing 77.2 percent of the variance. A varimax rotation of the structure matrix resulted in all items loading at .60 or above. Table 5 contains the details of the four factors, including the item loadings, means, and scale reliabilities.

Team Spirit represented the largest proportion of variance at 53.7 percent and was composed of seven of the nine items from the relevant section of the survey questionnaire. Five of the items loaded on the factor at .80 and above, suggesting a considerable convergence in their underlying content. Feelings of team collaboration, shared values and goals, pride in the group itself, and high energy all characterize this outcome-based factor.

Employee Satisfaction accounted for another 13.0 percent of the variance. Although based on only three statements, this dimension of employee experience was composed of three of the highest-rated outcomes overall. Respon- dents’ perceptions of enjoyment, significance, and overall satisfaction with their work constituted this outcome dimension.

Contribution was also based on three items but explained only 6.1 percent of the total variance. These items concerned individual assessments of talent utilization, opportunities for skill development, and feelings of ownership-issues related to but distinctly different from general satisfaction.

Culture of Team Spirit consisted of two of the lowest-rated items among all fifteen and explained only 4.5 percent of the variance. These two statements reflected the extent to whch the MQSD culture (across departments and in the entire function) had incorporated the notion of team spirit into its standard mode of operating. In other words, this factor reflected ratings of interunit as opposed to intruunit team spirit.

As with the previous sections, scales were constructed from these items

188 Church

Table 5. Outcome Ratings; Item Means by Scale and Factor Loadings

Scale Mean Loadings Factor

Team Spirit (53.7%. M = 3.46, Interitem Correlation = .71, Reliability = .95)

A sense of collaboration-worlung together as a

A common bond-a sense of shared values, goals,

A "team spirit" prevails in this work group. Take pride in being a member of the work group. Energized, excited, and motivated in being

Achieve as a team what individuals alone cannot. A willingness to act for the team rather than for

unified force.

and experiences.

part of the team.

individual benefit.

Employee Satisfaction (13.0%, M = 3.90, Interitem Correlation = .71, Reliability = .88)

I enjoy and have fun in my work. My work has significance and meaning. 1 am satisfied with my job overall.

Contribution (6.1%, M = 3.45, Interitem Correlation = .61, Reliability = .82)

My talents are being utilized to their fullest in my job I have opportunities to develop my skills and

1 feel a sense of ownership for the projects I work on. abilities in my work.

Culture of Team Spirit (4.5%, M = 3.06, Interitem Correlation = .63, Reliability = .77)

A "team spirit" prevails in M&SD. A "team spirit" prevails in this department.

3.39 ,853

3.42 ,838 3.33 ,814 3.69 .811

3.49 ,805 3.40 ,790

3.43 ,782

3.93 .844 3.88 .775 3.84 .760

3.02 ,823

3.62 .780 3.71 ,648

2.97 ,906 3.14 ,629

using the results of the factor analysis and were considered useful for further investigation. The reliabilities of each of these scales are presented in Table 5.

Modeling the Relationships. In order to explore the relationships between the four sets of employee outcome scores and the leadership and management, senior management, and work group climate behaviors, several regression analyses were performed on the survey data using the scales described above. Because the outcome factors had already been determined through a principal-components factor analysis to be conceptually independent in nature, four separate models were examined rather than one multivariate equation being generated. Thus, the dependent variables in these analyses consisted of ratings of Employee Satisfaction, Contribution, Team Spirit, and Culture of Team Spirit. The independent variables represented the five leader-


ship and management dimensions (Challengng the Process, Inspiring a Shared Vision, Enabling Others to Act, Modeling the Way, and Encouraging the Heart), the seven climate dimensions (Clarity, Recognition, Participation, Standards, Diversity, Support, and Interunit Relations), and the three senior management factor scores (Brings Vision into Action, Acts as Onfleamwork, and Demonstrates Ethics and Integrity). Also included as predictors in the regression were several demographic variables: length of service in the company, management level, a dummy code for gender (female = 1, male = 2), and a dummy code for location (internal = 0, field = 1). The method of variable se- lection for these regressions was stepwise because of the exploratory nature of the analyses (Pedhauzer, 1982).

As expected, factors from each of the various levels of organizational behavior entered into the model as primary predictors of Employee Satisfaction. Based on a final four-variable equation ylelding an R2 of .36, clarity in the work group goals, managers’ ability to inspire a shared vision, and the degree to which senior management demonstrates ethics and integnty provided the basis for understanding the variations in Employee Satisfaction (see Table 6 for details). The issue of standards was also a relevant predictor in this model; however, the contribution of this factor was somewhat less than that of the other three (with j3 = .15 versus p = .24, p = .23, and p = .21, respectively).

In predicting M&SD employees’ perceptions of their feelings of Contribu- tion, however, standards emerged as a more important predictor. The other factors in the model, accounting for 49 percent of the total variance, consisted of management’s ability to empower their people (Enabling Others to Act), senior management’s ethical behavior, group members’ attitudes and action in regard to diversity (accepting others’ differences in ideas, style, and skills), and, finally, employee location (internal versus field). Overall, managers’ behaviors regarding the leadership dimension of Enabling Others to Act had the strongest impact on individual feelings of contribution. In terms of location, the negative beta weight from the model suggested that internal staff were more likely to rate their level of contribution higher than were field representatives.

The model describing employees’ perceptions of Team Spirit resulted in five predictors and accounted for 67 percent of the variability in scores. Three of these factors pertained to aspects of work group climate-Support, Stan- dards, and Participation-one to a leader’s and/or a manager’s ability to inspire a shared vision in others, and the fifth to the ethical behavior of senior management. The two strongest predictors, however, based on the relative size of the standardized beta weights, concerned the extent to which people felt sup- ported (for example, have a trusting relationship, quick to respond to those who need help) by other group members and to the presence of clear and high performance standards (for example, people set challenging goals, pull their own weight, and are inspired to perform).

The final model generated was for predicting ratings regarding the preva- lence of interunit team spirit throughout different departments in MQSD (for

Tabl

e 6.

Reg

ress

ion

Res

ults

Dep

ende

nt V

ariab

le Ad

juste

d R2

F

df

Pred

ictor

P

S.E.

Empl

oyee

Sat

isfa

ctio

n .3

6 15

5.87

* 4,

1106

C

larit

y .2

4 .0

5 In

spiri

ng a

Shar

ed V

ision

.2

3 .0

3 D

emon

stra

tes E

thic

s and

Inte

grity

.2

1 .0

3 St

anda

rds

.I5

.05

Con

tribu

tion

Team

Spi

rit

.49

211.

91*

5,11

05

Enab

ling

Oth

ers t

o A

ct .4

7 .0

3 St

anda

rds

.2 1

.04

Dem

onst

rate

s Eth

ics

and

Inte

grity

.2

0 .0

3 C

oded

var

iabl

e fo

r loc

atio

n -.3

0 .0

6 D

iver

sity

.I2

.03

.67

45 1.

18*

5,11

05

Supp

ort

.38

.03

Stan

dard

s .3

4 .0

4

Parti

cipa

tion

.17

.03

Insp

iring

a Sh

ared

Visi

on

.16

.02

Dem

onst

rate

s Eth

ics

and

Inte

grity

.0

9 .0

2

Cul

ture

of T

eam

Spi

rit

.53

211.

59*

6,11

04

Inte

runi

t Rel

atio

ns

.34

.05

Dem

onst

rate

s Eth

ics a

nd In

tegr

ity

.25

.03

Insp

iring

a Sh

ared

Visi

on

.I3

.0

3

Brin

gs V

ision

into

Act

ion

.I9

.03

Stan

dard

s .I

8 .0

4

Leng

th o

f ser

vice

-, 10

.0

2

*p <

.001

.


example, Culture of Team Spirit). Six predictors emerged, describing 53 percent of the variability in ratings. The most important summary score in this equation, with j3 = .34, consisted of the quality of relationships between different groups (Interunit Relations) in the organization. Senior management’s behavior, in terms of both demonstrating ethics and integrity and actively sup- porting the vision and strategy of the division, was also significantly related to this more cultural outcome. The respondent’s length of service was also a meaningful predictor; generally, the longer one’s tenure in the company, the less positive were the ratings regarding a team-oriented culture. Standards regarding how people work together, as with the previous three models, contributed moderately (J3 = .IS> to this equation as well.

Discussion

The results presented above provide some interesting insights regarding the relationship between different types of managerial and work group behaviors and employee perceptions and attitudes. Before the implications of these results can be explored further, however, it is important to have a better understanding of the general context of the respondents’ organization. Thus, this discussion will begn with a review of some of the highs and lows across each of the different variable sets. A summary and interpretation of the regression results obtained, including implications for practice, will follow. Finally, limitations of the present study and directions for future research will be addressed.

Orgunkutional Context. In terms of management style in this marketing and sales organization, the behaviors associated with the leadership dimension of Modeling the Way constituted the highest set of ratings among this group of i tem (M = 3.65). Broadly defined, this concept involves the ability to demonstrate to others a sense of personal ethics and integnty in how work gets done; to communicate goals and objectives clearly; to establish milestones; to encourage fairness, honesty, and trust in relationships; and to operate with a relentless commitment to continuous improvement. Ethics at the immediate management level (“my manager”) was one of the highest-rated items in the entire survey at 4.08. This highlights the importance of the modeling functions described earlier. Clearly, the management of M&SD tended to convey a strong sense of personal ethics and commitment to their people. Given the industry (pharmaceuticals) in which this organization competes, it was encouragmg to see this pattern of results emerge.

The order of practice for the remaining four leadership and management scales was Encouraglng the Heart, Challenging the Process, Inspiring a Shared Vision, and Enabling Others to Act. Not surprisingly, these results corrobo- rated findings from earlier work in this organization regarding a downward trend in employees’ ratings of the enabling practices. Since this dimension fo- cuses primarily on management’s ability to empower their subordinates through coaching, development, increased autonomy, and support, these re-

192 Church

sults highlighted an important area for future training and development efforts. Thus, while this sales force saw their managers as being strong moral models, they did not feel particularly empowered by their actions. Moreover, there was a significant difference in the ratings between field personnel and internal staff on these enabling practices (M = 3.15 versus M = 3.44, t(1,335) = 4.87, p < .001), with internals providing the lower scores. Interestingly enough, variance in this particular dimension was also the single most important predictor of employee perceptions of Contribution, a related facet of empowerment (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Coruzzi and Burke, 1994).

What is even more surprising about these results, however, is that Kouzes and Posner (1990) have cited Enabling Others to Act as being the highest-rated set ofpractices in their sample of 2,100 managers. Thus, it would appear as if there are some significant differences between the managers in this marketing and sales organization and the general population of managers who have been exposed to LPI-related training programs. Although it should be recognized that the items in the present survey had been somewhat modified from the origmal LPI instrument, making exact comparisons problematic, this discrepancy in degree of practice still seems to be an important one. Thus, while this trend may be indicative of managers in marketing- and service-oriented organizations, more data are needed to reach such a conclusion.

Regarding respondents’ ratings of work group climate, there was a considerable degree of variability among the seven scale summary scores, with means rangng from M = 3.59 (for Standards), to M = 3.19 (for Participation). Based on a review of these results, it seems likely that employees were rela- tively clear about and accepting of what was expected of them in terms of performance objectives, but felt less than adequately involved in setting these objectives. There also seemed to be some degree of infighting between different groups (particularly between staff and field personnel) with regard to cross- functional tasks and projects. Receiving recognition, however, appeared to be less of an issue; group members indicated that they made good use of each other’s skills and abilities and were quick to provide support and to acknowledge other people’s contributions to the effort.

Since data for some of these same climate behaviors had been collected from other organizations, it was possible to examine normative scores for benchmarking purposes. By comparing the scores of a gven organization with those of other companies in the same or related industries, managers are in a better position to assess the relative degree of importance, emphasis, and advantage of their specific behavioral styles across each of the comparison points (Spendolini, 1992; Weatherly, 1992). For example, while there were no meaningful differences between ratings of Clarity, Recognition, and Participation, external worldwide pharmaceuticals norms for Standards and Support were considerably higher (M = 3.78 and M = 3.98, respectively) than the aggregate ratings obtained for the present organization. Thus, although Standards represented MQSD’s highest-rated-in other words, most positive-aspect of

Prediciors of Emvlovee Outcomes 1 93

work group climate, it still rated lower than the average norm for their industry, an industry in which standards are one of the most important keys to success. Additionally, although the score for Interunit Relations for MQSD employees (M = 3.26) was only somewhat above the comparable pharmaceuticals norm (M = 3.18), work group members’ acceptance and utilization of diverse opinions, views, and skills (that is, Diversity) were rated much higher than the ratings obtained in other organizations (M = 3.03). While this might have seemed like only a moderate finding for M&SD relative to other ratings on the same survey, when compared externally it highlights an important competitive advantage for ths organization that could be strengthened and capitalized on for the future.

In terms of perceptions of senior management, respondents in the present study were generally less positive, yielding only one item rating above 3.50 (regarding demonstration of concern for the ethical aspects of doing business). Since senior management was somewhat underrepresented in the sample, the ratings for this section proved to be extremely telling, given the tendency for positive response bias that occurs when people rate themselves (Ashford and Tsui, 1991; Landy and Fan, 1980; Lewicki, 1983; Zalesny and Highhouse, 1992).

Senior M&SD managers did receive high marks for ethics- and integrity- related behaviors, although this finding was somewhat at odds with some of the more volatile write-in comments, such as “Get managers who 1 could respect,” “We perpetuate our successes despite the incompetencies and fears of our leaders,” and “Display more honesty and respect for employees. Those taking the lead as role models should be trustworthy, not hypocritical.” Employ- ees also expressed less favorable opinions of their senior management’s ability to act as a team and to follow through with tangible results-in other words, the implementation phase of a change effort (Beckhard and Harris, 1987; Kan- ter, Stein, and Jick, 1992).

Overall, the four outcome factors ylelded some interesting context-setting (and diagnostic) information regarding managers’ and work group members’ behaviors in MQSD as well. First, it was clear from the data that while respondents reported being highly satisfied with their present jobs (with a scale mean score of M = 3.90), they were considerably less pleased with their level of contribution, particularly with regard to feelings of talent utilization (M = 3.02). Thus, while people experienced feelings of enjoyment, significance, and satisfaction, they did not feel as encouraged or pushed in the development and application of their skills.

Another general finding from these outcome scores was that respondents reported experiencing team spirit more in their immediate work groups than in their interdepartmental and cross-functional interactions with the larger organization. Thus, while team spirit was high among members of the in-group, the organization as a whole was not perceived to be as receptive. In fact, the average rating for the Culture of Team Spirit factor was quite low (M = 3.06).

194 Church

This is not an uncommon phenomenon in social psychologcal research (Bion, 1959; Cartwright and Zander, 1968; Mills, 1984), but it is interestingnonethe- less. The scores for intraunit team spirit, however, were not nearly as strong as those for individual satisfaction, suggesting another area for further development, this time on the part of the skills of the group members themselves.

Relationships Between Behaviors and Attitudes. Although close scrutiny of these data to identify the highs and lows is an important aspect of survey analysis and feedback, particularly with regard to getting a better understanding of the context of the organization, using the same information to generate a model or models for change is a critical second step in the analysis process. By identifymg the factors that have the most statistical covariance with ratings of key dependent measures, it is possible to generate a conceptual model for interpreting the relationships between the different sets of variables assessed that may have application to other organizations in similar situations. This type of model is also excellent for use with managers and internal clients in identifylng the target areas for change that will have the maximum amount of impact.

While it should be noted that the regression results discussed below are not truly statistically predictive in nature (due to method-based issues of mul- ticolinearity and shared rating variance), these types of analyses do facilitate our understanding of important relationships between people’s responses. In other words, while these data do not conclusively prove that a p e n managerial behavior leads to dissatisfied workers, it does indicate a pattern of relationships. For example, by looking at Table 7 (which provides a summary of the regression results categorized by level of behavior), it is clear that employees’ perceptions of their senior managers’ ethics and integrity are moderately related to experiencing team spirit both within and between groups, and at the individual level of employee satisfaction and contribution as well.

Employee satisfaction and contribution are particularly interesting. The more the leaders of this organization are seen as demonstrating an ethical concern for how business is done and the more they are trusted to “do the right thing,” the more employees will feel that their work has significance and meaning and their talents are being utilized, and the more satisfied they will be overall. This finding highlights an important point to be made regarding regression analysis, because the simple examination of means (see Table 4) would not suggest that ethics and integrity were important areas where senior management should focus their attention. While these factors may have received lower ratings regarding issues of strategc implementation and teamwork, variance on the factors was not significantly related to employees’ feelings of satisfaction, contribution, and team spirit.

Why does the ethical behavior (or perceived ethical behavior) of senior managers seem to have such a potential for affecting employee attitudes, particularly compared with their ability to provide vision or demonstrate teamwork? One explanation has already been alluded to above. That is, given the

Tab

le 7

. Su

mm

ary

of R

egre

ssio

n R

esul

ts: E

mpl

oyee

Out

com

es b

y L

evel

of O

rgan

izat

iona

l Beh

avio

r

Empl

oyee

Out

com

es

Leve

l of

Beha

vior

Em

ploy

ee Sa

tisfa

ctio

n Co

ntrib

utio

n Te

am S

pirit

Cu

fntre

of Te

am S

pirit

Seni

or m

anag

ers

Dem

onst

rate

s Eth

ics

Dem

onst

rate

s Eth

ics

Dem

onst

rate

s Eth

ics

Dem

onst

rate

s Eth

ics

and

Inte

grity

(.21

) an

d In

tegr

ity (.

20)

and

Inte

grity

(.09

) an

d In

tegr

ity (.

25)

Brin

gs V

ision

into

A

ctio

n (.

19)

Man

ager

s In

spiri

ng a

Shar

ed

Enab

ling

Oth

ers

Insp

iring

a In

spiri

ng a

Visi

on (.

23)

to A

ct (.4

7)

Shar

ed V

ision

(. 16

) Sh

ared

Visi

on (.

13)

Wor

k gr

oup

mem

bers

Cl

arity

(.24

) St

anda

rds (

.2 1)

Supp

ort (.38)

Inte

runi

t Rel

atio

ns (.

34)

Stan

dard

s (.15)

Div

ersit

y (.1

2)

Stan

dard

s (.3

4)

Stan

dard

s (. 1

8)

Parti

cipa

tion

(.17)

Not

e: N

umbe

rs in

par

enth

eses

refe

r to

the

stan

dard

ized

beta

wei

ght f

or th

at fa

ctor

take

n fr

om th

e re

gres

sion

anal

ysis.

I96 Church

nature of the pharmaceuticals industry and the negative connotations that chemical substances often have for many consumers and the press, coupled with the disastrous results of the occasional drug tampering or poisoning tragedy, this relationship probably reflects a strong cultural need among employees for high standards of ethics and integrity on the part of the figureheads of their organization. Perhaps, by demonstrating such qualities to others both inside and outside the organization, these individuals provide positive perceptions that serve to reinforce employees’ views about their own choice of job and employer. In an industry where people are habitually predisposed to point the finger at the drug company, a sense of righteousness regarding what employees do and whom they work for could conceivably contribute to their sense of self-worth.

Although it is purely speculative, additional support for this interpretation is provided in the results regarding work group behaviors. More specifically, the importance of work group members’ ability to identify and agree OR standards for their performance was an important predictor of all four outcomes as well (see Table 7). In fact, while Standards was the single strongest predictor of feelings of contribution (p = .21), this factor also contributed quite pos- itively to the Satisfaction (p = .34) measure. As defined by the items in this dimension (see Table 31, Standards concerns striving to do the best possible work, surpassing customers’ expectations, feeling inspired to perform at higher levels, and setting challenging goals. Although not ethically based, these items represent a related need for excellence in service and Performance in the work that people do, particularly with respect to feelings of utilization and ownership.

Interestingly enough, recognition regarding the attainment of these goals was not significantly related to any of the four outcomes. It may be that in this type of service organization, establishing a climate of motivation and a drive to excel at a higher standard is more important than recognition among members for their contributions. Of course, this effect might also reflect the type of reward system that has been implemented (individual versus group, cooperative versus competitive, and so on).

Another aspect of work group climate that was significantly related to outcome measures was the clarity of the goals, roles, and methods delineated, which was the strongest single predictor of employee satisfaction (p = .24). The data suggest that defining what needs to be done and how people are expected to go about doing it are highly important tasks that must be addressed when working with groups. Although ths may seem like common knowledge for a team leader, the variance exhibited in the present survey indicates that there is always room for improvement. Perhaps not surprisingly, having clarity of roles and responsibilities was not significantly related to any of the other employee outcomes.

Additional climate factors that were specifically related to team spirit included Support and Participation. The items in these two dimensions repre-


sent the more emotive and conciliatory aspects of work group climate, including helping and trusting others, sharing ideas, and setting mutual group goals. Given the nature of this particular outcome (measured through items such as feeling a sense of collaboration, having a common bond, and taking pride in membership), it makes sense that the more pro-relationship work group behaviors would be related to people’s experience of a strong team spirit. In some ways, this set of relationships may also indicate a conceptual area of overlap with climate and the manner in which it could be used as a dependent measure. The fact that several different climate factors emerged as important predictors of satisfaction, contribution, and intermit team spirit, however, lends credence to its utility as a set of independent variables as well. For example, the climate items regarding acceptance of diversity in styles, skills, and opinions were significantly related to employees’ feelings of ownership, having opportunities, and being fully utilized. Similarly, climate ratings regarding interunit interactions were strongly predictive of perceptions of a culture of team spirit throughout different functions and departments.

Finally, the only behaviors left to discuss are those of employees’ immediate managers. Although the pattern of results obtained in this area is less de- scriptive in some regards (see Table 7), the impact of these dyadic relationships on worker attitudes and perceptions is extremely important nonetheless. In- terestingly enough, on inspection of the regression results, it is apparent that Inspiring a Shared Vision was the only leadership practice dimension that contributed consistently to the prediction of three of the four employee outcomes. This suggests that for feelings of satisfaction and of intraunit and interunit team spirit, the only significant source of covariance in management behaviors concerns the extent to which supervisors are able to inspire their employees. Sim- ilar in some regards to the climate dimension of Standards, the items in In- spiring a Shared Vision describe managers who communicate and describe a positive future, foster a sense of common purpose, and engender feelings of importance among employees in the work they are doing.

In terms of feelings of contribution, Enabling Others to Act was the primary predictor overall (p = .47) and the only one relating specifically to management behaviors. Clearly, this outcome represents a distinct set of perceptions regarding one’s work. The more employees felt that their managers provided them with direction, kept them informed about the organization, provided them with the support needed to complete their tasks, and coached and trained them in assignments, the more fully utilized they felt and the more ownership they experienced regarding their work. Although in terms of the regression results, these enabling behaviors had little to do with satisfylng employees or promoting feelings of team spirit, they had everything to do with empowering them.

Of course, it should be noted that all of these various sets of behaviors and practices are important at some level for successful organizational performance. Otherwise, there would be little utility in collecting data about them.

198 Church

Moreover, organizations must be seen as larger social systems (Burke and Litwin, 1992; Katz and Kahn, 1978), not simply as collections of leaders, managers, and employees milling about in a large building with no real connec- tions. What is most important at any gven time is always relative and will probably shift to something else in the near future. Thus, although the results of this study describe some important relationships between organizational behavior at different levels and employee attitudes and perceptions, these findings are probably too specific to be applied automatically to other organizational settings.

This does not mean, however, that managers, leaders, and even those not in positions of formal power should simply sit back and wait for these shifts to happen while ignoring current problems. Nor does this mean that topics such as empowerment, quality of worklife, and organizational learning should be passed over in future endeavors. These topics and initiatives are based on the hnds of values and concerns that have manifested themselves in the wake of the industrial revolution and are clearly here to stay in some iteration or another (Chaudron, 1992; Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Margulies and Raia, 1990; Patten and Vaill, 1976; Sashkin and Burke, 1987; Sanzgiri and Gottlieb, 1992). Successful organizational transformations, including those involving mundane daily operations, require involvement, commitment, and energy. The use of data bases for feedback and analysis is one of the more powerful ways to instill these qualities in both management and employees. Although many managers and executives might want issues concerning quality of worklife and satisfaction to simply disappear, as long as organizations are also social systems, employee satisfaction, feelings of contribution, commitment, empowerment, and team spirit will all continue to be major areas for concern.

Limitations of This Research. Although the results of the present study are interesting and particularly meaningful for the organization in which the survey was conducted, several significant limitations need to be addressed. Each of these issues has implications for the generalizability of the relationships described above to other organizational settings.

First and foremost, the survey was conducted using employees from a single division in one organization in the pharmaceuticals industry Although a total of nineteen different business and field units were represented (including marketing research, training and development, product management, administration and operations, planning and budget, and local sales forces), suggesting an adequate mix of perspectives, the culture of the organization may have been strong enough to influence the results in a given direction. In other words, while these data might be very diagnostic for the present organization, they may not be relevant for other marketing and sales organizations in general, or even those in the pharmaceuticals industry. Further, despite the relative importance of the marketing division to the rest of the organization, it is unlikely that the relationships described above would apply to the larger system.

Such concerns are unfortunate and often unavoidable when working with


applied survey results. They also raise questions that are unanswerable without additional research in the field. One aspect of these results that is encouragng with respect to their generalizability, however, is the fact that the field- internal distinction proved to be an important variable in understanding some of the relationships between behaviors and attitudes. This simple location variable cut across several different internal functions and a number of external field sites. Thus, it is likely that the relationships obtained might be relevant for other marketing or sales organizations with a similar type of cultural and/or structural dichotomy. Moreover, given that over half the respondents were rel- atively young and inexperienced members of a large marketing and sales force, it is possible that the relationships observed may reflect more general trends in the pharmaceuticals industry than the specific cultural patterns in this particular company.

Another limitation in the present study concerns the method of instrumentation. More specifically, the problem stems from the fact that all the variables used for analysis purposes were obtained from the same individuals at the same time, using the same survey questionnaire. Referred to as the common-method variance problem or percept-percept correlation (Glick, Jenkins, and Gupta, 1986; Mitchell, 1985; Spector, 1987; Williams, Cote, and Buckley, 1989), this situation, inherent in all opinion surveys, results in two primary concerns: (1) that the direction or causality of the relationships obtained cannot be accurately determined and (2) that the relationships themselves are sus- pect because of various ratings and/or response effects.

The first of these issues is easily addressed by using the appropriate cau- tions in interpreting the results. Thus, although the fact that employees are rating others’ behavioral tendencies and their own internal states at the same time does confuse the direction of the causal linkage (does behavior lead to attitude or attitude to behavior?), it does not invalidate the relationships observed between the variables Uudd and Kenny, 1981; Kerlinger, 1986). For example, despite some lack of clarity regarding the mechanism, the data do indicate that perceptions of employee satisfaction are significantly linked to ratings of senior management behaviors regarding ethics and integrity, managers’ ability to inspire a shared vision in others, and clarity and standards regarding the work to be performed. Moreover, since HRD and organization development interventions typically involve changng from one state to another via behaviorally based interventions (Burke, 1994; Downham, Noel, and Prendergast, 1992; Lewin, 1958; Nowack, 1992; Schein, 1987), the specificity of the items used as predictors in the regression equation provides a more practical and applic- able means for understanding the relationships obtained and how they might be affected. In other words, from a research orientation, causality is simply indeterminable gven the nature of the data. From an organizational change perspective, however, these results have significant implications for action planning.

The second concern associated with common-method variance is more

200 Church

difficult to address. Are the data being collected a true reflection of people’s attitudes and perceptions about the constructs or interest, or do they reflect in- stead some other unmeasurable variable, such as social desirability, positive or negative ratings tendencies, or a unidimensional conceptualization of work experience? Although some research has suggested that method effects are not particularly problematic regarding self-reports of perceptions at work (Glick, Jenkins, and Gupta, 1986; Spector, 19871, other studies (Mitchell, 1985; Williams, Cote, and Buckley, 1989) have suggested just the opposite-that up to 25 percent of the variance obtained can be attributed to methods rather than measured variables. Given the sample size obtained in the present study and the almost infinite number of potential biases and response tendencies, it is likely that some degree of common-method variance was observed. Unfortu- nately, without additional measures from other sources or methods, it is im- possible to determine its impact on these results (Judd and Kenny, 19811. Al- though some types of response patterns and biases are automatically disregarded because of the representativeness of the data obtained and the identification of specific relationships over others through statistical procedures, the potential impact of common-method variance still represents a limitation to the generalizability of these results.

Directions for Future Research. Based on the results of the present study, there are a number of areas to which future research could be directed. Expanding these analyses, for example, to include data collected from multiple types of organizations would provide for far greater generalizability of results. Conversely, longitudinal studies linking ratings of behaviors as assessed at time 1 to ratings of employee outcomes at time 2 or later would help to clarify the nature of the causal relationship. This type of design would also simultaneously correct for some of the issues related to common-method variance.

The inclusion of data from outside the organization regarding financial performance, market share, customer ratings, and so on would also contribute significantly to the validity of the relationships observed. While negative affect on the part of members of the internal organization is undoubtedly problematic in the long run, a dissatisfied sales force is likely to result in more immediate reductions in profit, higher turnover ratios, and unhappy customers. This type of relationship and its impact on performance could be tested using external data from customers and/or information from internal staffing sources.

Incorporating other methods of measurement such as observation and individual interviews would provide further clarity regarding these types of findings. Additionally, p e n the complexities of organizational systems (Burke and Litwin, 1992; Katz and Kahn, 19781, it might be interesting to examine other variables, such as reward systems, communication technology, and business processes, to identify their relative contribution to employee perceptions. Al- though behaviors are often targeted for change interventions, many practitioners of organizational change focus on modifying structures and processes to better align the total system. Research exploring the impact of these vari-


ables and the impact of organizational change efforts directed at improving them might yleld useful information for other types of practitioners as well.

Summary and Conclusion Given the results of the present study, along with what has been learned from previous research, it seems clear that organizational behaviors and employee attitudes are inextricably linked. This article has attempted to make a contribution to the literature by providing an applied cross-level analysis of the relationships between these different variables. Overall, the results indicated that different types of behaviors for senior managers, immediate supervisors, and work group members were significantly related to employee outcomes and perceptions.

More specifically, variability in employee satisfaction was related to the extent to which senior managers demonstrated ethics and integnty, middle managers relied on inspirational methods of motivating and workmg with others, and clear roles for work group members and high standards for performance were established. Perceptions of contribution (for example, feelings of ownership and talent utilization) were significantly related to the ethical behavior of senior managers, middle managers’ ability to enable or empower others to act, and high work group standards of performance and the acceptance of diverse opinions and skills by other team members. Ratings of team spirit were predicted primarily by the ethics and integrity of senior executives, managers’ inspirational qualities, strong interpersonal relationships in the work group, high standards, and openness to participation in goal setting. Finally, perceptions of the larger organization’s culture of team spirit were found to be related to senior managers’ ethics and integrity as well as to their ability to bring vision into action, the inspirational behaviors of managers and high work group standards of performance, and positive interunit relations between interdepartmental and cross-functional work groups.

References Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of ac-

tive feedback seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 251-280. Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. T. (1987). Organizational transitions: Managng complex change (2nd

ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Beckhard, R., & Pritchard, W (1992). Changing the essence: The art of creating and leadingfunda-

mental change in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bennis, W G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strntegiesfor taking charge. New York Harper-

Collins. Bemstein, W M., 67 Burke, W W (1989). Modeling organizational meaning systems. In R. W

Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 3, pp. 117-159). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bion, W R. (1959). Experiences in groups. New York: Basic Books. Block, P (1987). The empowered manager: Positive political skills at work. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

202 Church

Bracken, D. W (1994). Straight talk about multirater feedback. Training and Development, 48 (9),

Buchko, A. A. (1992). Employee ownership, attitudes, and turnover: An empirical assessment.

Burke, W. W (1986). Executive practices and climate questionnaire. Pelham, NY: W. Warner Burke. Burke, W W. (1994). Organization development: A process of learning and changing (2nd ed 1. Read-

ing, MA: Addison-Wesley Burke, W W, &Jackson, P (1991) Making the Smithmine Beecham merger work. Human Re-

source Management, 30, 69-87. Burke, W W, & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change.

Journal of Management, 18, 523-545. Burke, W W, Richley, E. A,, & DeAngehs, L. (1985). Changing leadership and planning

processes at the Lewis Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Human Resource Management, 24,81-90.

Carlson, H. C. (1980). A model of quahty ofwork life as a development process. In W W Burke & 1. D. Goodstein (Eds.), Trends and issues in organization development: Current theory and practice (pp. 83-123). San Diego: University Associates.

Cartwright, D., &finder, A. (Eds.). (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Chaudron, D. (1992). How OD can help implement TQM: Opportunities for OD professionals. OD Practitioner. 24 (11, 14-18.

Cohen, A. (1993). Organizational commitmenr and turnover: A me@-analysis. Academy of Man- agementJournal,36 (51, 1140-1157.

Coruui, C. A., &Burke, W. W. (1994, Nov. 15). The manyfacets ofempavement. Paper presented at Empowerment in Organizations Conference, Nottingham, England.

Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993). Dispositional affectivity as a predictor of work attitudes and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 595-606.

Daniel, T. L. (1985). Managerial behaviors: Their relationship to perceived organizational climate in a high-technology company Group and Organization Studies, 10,413-428.

Davidow, R. (1994). Structuring the change initiative. In L. A. Berger & M. J. Sikora with D. R. Berger (Eds.), The change management handbook: A road map to corporate transformation (pp. 133-137). Homewood, 1L: Irwin.

Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate qltures: The rites and rituals ofcorporate lqe. Read- ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Downham, T. A., Noel, J L., & Prendergast, A. E. (1992). Executive development. Human Re- sources Management, 31, 95-107.

Friedlander, E, dr Marguhes, N. (1969). Multiple impacts of organizational climate and individual value systems upon job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 22, 171-183.

Glick, W. H., Jenluns, G. D., Jr., & Gupta, N. (1986). Method versus substance: How strong are underlylng relationshps between job characteristics and attitudinal outcomes. Academy o/ Management Journal, 29, 441-464.

Golembiewski, R. T., 67 Sun, B. (1990). QWL improves worksite quality: Success rates in a large pool of studies. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1, 3543.

Goodstein, L. D., & Burke, W W. (1991). Creating successful organization change. Organiza- tional Dynamics, 19, 5-17.

Guzzo, R. A., Jette, R. D., & Katzell, R. A. (1985). The effects of psychologically based intervention programs on worker productivity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 275-291.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, M. Addison-Wesley. Hays, L. (1994, May 13). Blue period: Gerstner 1s struggling as he tries to change ingrained IBM

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culhral consequences: International dierences in work-related values. New-

Hollander, E. E (1985). Leadership and power. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of

44-5 1.

Human Relations, 45, 71 1-733.

culture. Wall Street Journal, p. A l .

bury Park, CA: Sage.

social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 485-537). New York Random House.


Huselid, M. A,, & Day, N. E. (1991). Organizational commitment, job involvement, and turnover: A substantive and methodologal analysis. Journal oJ Applied Psycholoa, 76, 380-39 1.

Javitch, M., & Church, A. H. (1995, Mar. 28). Client satisfaction: Measuring “quality” in a professional servicefirm. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Conference of the Rochester Division of the American Society for Quality Control, Rochester, NY.

Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Estimating the effects ofsocial interventions. New York: Cam- bridge University Press.

Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Innovation and entrepreneurship in the American corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kanter. R. M., Stein, B. A, , & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenge of organizational change: How companies experience it and leaders guide it. New York: Free Press.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology oforganizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley Kerliger, E N. (1986). Foundations of behavior research (3rd ed.). Troy, MO: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston. Kim, K., Park, H., & Suzuki, N . (1990). Reward allocations in the United States, Japan, and

Korea: A comparison of individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Academy of Management journal, 33, 188-198.

Kinich, A. J., Carson, K. E, & Bohlander, G. (1992). Relationship between an organization’s ac- tual human resource efforts and employee attitudes. Group and Organization Management, 17, 135-152.

Kotter, J. E , & Hesket, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free Press. Kouzes, J. M., &Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How toget extrmrdinaly things done

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. 2. (1988). The Leadership Practices Inventory 0 1 ) . San Diego: Pfeiffer. Kouzes, J. M., & Pomer, B. Z. (1990). The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPZ): A self-assessment

and analysis. San Diego: Pfeiffer. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Psychometric properties of the Leadership Practices In-

ventory-updated. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53 (11, 191-199. Landy, E, & Fan; J. (1980). Performance rating. Psychologual Bulletin, 87, 72-107. Lang, D. L. ( 1992). Organizational culture and commitment. Human Resource Development Quar-

Lawler 111, E. E. (1990). Strategic pay: Aligning organkational strategies and pay systems. San Fran-

Lawler Ill, E. E. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high-involvement organization. San

Lewicla, E (1983). Self-image bias in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social change. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 197-2111, Troy, MO: Holt, b e h a r t & Winston.

Litwin, G. H., Humphrey, J. W, &Wilson, T. B. (1978). Organizational climate: A proven tool for improving performance. In W W Burke (Ed.), The cutting edge: Current theory and practice in organization development (pp. 187-2051, San Diego: University Associates.

htwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Loomis, C. J. (1991). Can John Akers save IBM? Fortune, 124 (2), 40-45,48, 52, 54.56. Loomis, C. J., & Kirkpatrick, D. (1993). The hunt for Mr. X: Who can run IBM? Fortune, 127 (41,

Maister, D. H. (1993). Managing the professional servicefirm. New York: Free Press. Margulies, N., & Raia, A. (1990). The significance of core values on the theory and practice of

organization development. In E Massarik (Ed.), Advances in organization development (Vol. 1, pp. 27-41). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mayer, R. C., & Schoorman, E D. (1992). Predicting participation and production outcomes

in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

terly, 3, 191-196.

cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

w, 45,384-393.

68-72.

204 Church

through a two-dimensional model of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 671-684.

Milk, T. M. (1984). Tne sociology of small groups (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mmtzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange world of organizations. New

York: Free Press. Mitchell, T. R. (1985). An evaluation of the validity of correlational research conducted in orga-

nizations. Academy of Management Reviau, 10,192-205. Nadler, D. A. (1977). Feedback and organizational development: Using data-based methods. Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley. Nadler, D. A., Gerstein, M. S. , Shaw, R. B., &Associates. (1992). Organizational architecfure: De-

signs for changing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Neuman, G. A,, Edwards, J. E., & Raju, N. S. (1989). Organizational development interventions:

A meta analysis of their effects on satisfaction and other attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 42, 461-489.

Nowack, K. M. (1992). Self-assessment and rater-assessment as a dimension of management development. Human Resource Development Quarterb, 3, 141-155.

O'ReiUy, B. (1994). 360" feedback can change your life. Fortune, 130 (8). 93-94,96, 100. Patten, T. H., &Vaill, P 8. (1976). Organization development. In R. L. Craig (Ed.), Training and

development handbook: A guide to human resource development (2nd ed., pp. 20.3-20.21). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pedhauzer, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). Troy, MO: Holt, Rinehan 6r Winston.

Porter, L. W, & Lawler Ill, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and petformance. Homewood, 1L: Irwin.

Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1990). Leadership practices: An alternative to the psychological perspective. In K. E. Clark dr M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures ofleadership (pp. 205-215). Greens- boro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Quarstein, V A,, McAfee, R. B., & Glassman, M. (1992). The situational occurrences theory of job satisfaction. Human Relations, 45, 859-873.

Rea, L. M., &Parker, R. A. (1992). Designing and conductingsurvey research: A comprehensiveguide. San Franclsco: Jossey-Bass.

Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

RIWO, R. E., & Cole, E. J. (1992). Agreement between Subordinate and superior ratings on su- pervisory performance and effects on self and subordinate job satisfaction. Journal of Occupa- tional and Organizational Psychology, 65, 15 1-158.

Rossi, I? H., Wright, J. D., &Anderson, A. B. (Eds.). (1983). The handbook ojsurvey research. San Diego: Academic Press.

Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1994). Organizational attitudes and behaviors as a function of participation in strategic and tactical change decisions: An application of path-goal theory. Jour- nal of Organizational Behaviol; 15, 37-47.

Sanzgiri, J . , & Gottlieb, J. 2. (1992). Philosophic and pragmatic influences on the practice of organization development, 1950-2000. Organization Dynamics, 21 (2). 57-69.

Sashkin, M., Q Burke, W. W. (1987). Organization development in the 1980s.Jmrnal of Man- agement, 13,393-417.

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Schein. E. H. (1987). Process consukation. Vol. 2: Lessonsfor managers and consultants. Readmg, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schmidt, W H., & Finnigan, J. P (1992). 7he race without afinish line: America's questfor total quality. San Francisco: Iossey-Bass.

Schneider, B. (1980). The service organization: Climate is crucial. Organizational Dynamics, 9 (2), 52-65.


Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1985). Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks: Replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 318-328.

Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1993). The service organization: Human resources management is crucial. Organizational Dynamics, 21, 39-52.

Schuler, R. S., & Huber, V. L. (1990). Personal and human resource management (4th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.

Schuman, H., & Kalton, G. (1985). Survey methods. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. I, pp. 635697). New York: Random House.

Shani, A. B., Basuray, M. T., Scherling, S. A,, 6r Odell, J. L. (1992). Revisitingquality of work life interventions: A cross-cultural pilot study J o u m l of Organizational Change Management, 5 (4),

Sheridan, J. E. (1 992). Organizational culture and employee retention. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 1036-1056.

Shipper, E , & Neck, C. P (1990). Subordinates’ observations: Feedback for management development. Human Resource Development Quurterb, 1, 371-385.

Spector, P E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work Myth or significant problem? Journal ofApplied Psychology, 72,438-443.

Spencer, J. L. (1991). The role of the airline service employee: Relationships among management practices, social support, key characteristics of the service role and performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University, New York.

59-76.

Spendolini, M. J. (1992). The benchmarking book. New York: AMACOM. Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. (1981). Employee turnover and post-decision accommodation

processes. In L. L. Cummings Q B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 237-249). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W (1987). Motivation and work behavior (4th ed.). New York: McGraw- Hill.

Sullivan, S. E., & Bhagat, R. S. (1992). Organizational stress, job satisfaction and job performance: Where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 18, 353-374.

Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader New York: Wiley. Tichy, N. M., & Sherman, S. (1993). Control your destiny or someone else will: HowJack Welch is

making Generd Electric the world’s most competitive corporation. New York: Doubleday Ulrich, D.. Halbrook, R., Meder, D., Stuchlik, M., &I Thorpe, S. (1991). Employee and customer

attachment: Synerges for competitive advantage. Human Resource Planning, 14 (2), 89-103. Van Eron, A. M., & Burke, W W (1992). The transformationaVtransactional leadership model:

A study of critical components. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. €? Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp, 149-167). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Vecchio, R. €? (1993). Self- and supervisor ratings: A dyadic approach. InternationaIJournd of Or- ganizational Analysis, 1, 73-83.

Weatherly, J. D. (1992). Dare to compare for better productivity HRMaguzine, 37 (91,4246. Wellins, R. S., Byham, W C., & Wilson, J , M. (1991). Empowered teams: Creatingself-directed work

groups that improve quality, productivity, and participation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wilkens, A. L., & Ouchi, W G. (1983). Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship between

culture and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28,468-481. Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A,, & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported af-

fect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact?]ouml of Applied Psychology, 74, 462-468. Zalesny, M. D., & Highhouse, S. (1992). Accuracy in performance evaluations. Organizational Be-

havior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 22-50.

Allan H. Church is a principal, W Warner Burke Associates, Inc., Pelham, New York. a

Documents

Managerial behaviors and work group climate as predictors of employee outcomes