Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
no, ~J$tQ
INTRODUCTION OF SELF-MANAGED WORK TEAMS AT A BROWNFIELD
SITE: A STUDY OF ORGANIZATION-BASED
SELF-ESTEEM AND PERFORMANCE
DISSERTATION
Presented to the Graduate Council of the
University of North Texas in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
By
Christine Borycki, B.A., M.B.A.
Denton, Texas
May 1994
no, ~J$tQ
INTRODUCTION OF SELF-MANAGED WORK TEAMS AT A BROWNFIELD
SITE: A STUDY OF ORGANIZATION-BASED
SELF-ESTEEM AND PERFORMANCE
DISSERTATION
Presented to the Graduate Council of the
University of North Texas in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
By
Christine Borycki, B.A., M.B.A.
Denton, Texas
May 1994
*liz
Borycki, Christine, Introduction of Self-Managed Work
Teams at a Brownfield Site; A Study of Organization-Based
Self-Esteem and Performance. Doctor of Philosophy
(Management), May 1994, 191 pp., 6 tables, 9 illustrations,
reference list, 326 titles.
This empirical study is aimed at understanding the
patterns of relationships among the organization structure
of self-managed work teams in terms of three sets of
constructs: 1. organization-based self-esteem; 2. consequent
behaviors of intrinsic work motivation, general job
satisfaction, organization citizenship, and organization
commitment; and 3. performance.
The primary significance of this study is that it adds
to the pool of empirical knowledge in the field of self-
managed work team research. The significance of this study
to practicing managers is that it can help them make better-
informed decisions on the use of the self-managed work team
structure.
This study was a sample survey composed of five
standardized questionnaires using a five-point Likert-type
scale, open-ended questions, and demographic questions.
Unstructured interviews supplemented the structured survey
and for means of triangulation of results. The variables
were analyzed using regression analysis for the purpose of
path analysis. The site was a manufacturing plant
structured around self-managed work teams. The population
was full-time, first-line production employees.
The results indicate that self-managed work teams can
exhibit characteristics contrary to the popular notions
associated with stage five teams. The teams in this study
were in the second or third stages of development. Their
relationships to organization-based self-esteem and
performance were negative which may be indicative of their
stages of development. There were nonsignificant
relationships to the consequent behaviors of intrinsic work
motivation, general job satisfaction, and organization
commitment; a positive relationship existed to organization
citizenship.
It was concluded that total commitment to the success
of self-managed work team structure is required from all
levels of management; this includes commitment of time,
money, and training. In order for a work-place change of
this magnitude to be successful, it must be given nurturance
and time to grow as the teams experience stages of
development and varying degrees of performance associated
with each stage.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem Research Questions Theoretical Basis for the Study Nature of the Study Significance of this Study Limitations of the Study Summary of Methodology Definitions and Operational Terms Summary
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 16
Self-Managed Work Teams Stages of Transition to Self-Managed Work Teams Antecedents and Outcomes of
Self-Managed Work Teams Sociotechnical Systems
Organization-Based Self-Esteem Consequent Behaviors
Intrinsic Work Motivation Content Theories Process Theories
General Job Satisfaction Organization Citizenship Organization Commitment
Performance Individual Performance Organizational Performance Group Performance
The Present Study Hypotheses
i n
Page
3. THE DATA, THEIR TREATMENT, AND THEIR INTERPRETATION 68
The Data Primary Data Secondary Data
The Research Methodology The Design The Questionnaire Additional Data
The Procedure Setting Description of the Sample Treatment Variables
Level of Self-Managed Work Teams Organization-Based Self-Esteem Personal Mediator Variables
Global Self-Esteem Tenure, Age, and Sex
Consequent Behaviors Intrinsic Work Motivation and General Job
Satisfaction Organization Citizenship Organization Commitment
Performance Specific Treatment of the Data
Treatment of the Data Data Analysis
Interpretation of the Data
4. RESULTS 97
Stage of Transition of Self-Managed Work Teams Correlations Path Analysis Test of Hypotheses
5. CONCLUSION 121
Validity Issues Statistical Conclusion Validity Internal Validity
iv
Page Construct Validity External Validity
Hypotheses Supported by the Research Self-Managed Work Teams
Objective Measure and Subjective Measure Organization-Based Self-Esteem and
Personal Mediators Organization-Based Self-Esteem and Consequent
Behaviors Self-Managed Work Teams
Consequent Behaviors, and Performance Hypotheses Not Supported by the Research
Self-Managed Work Teams and Organization-Based Self-Esteem
Organization-Based Self-Esteem and Age Self-Managed Work Teams and Performance Intrinsic Work Motivation and Performance Organization Citizenship and Performance
Recommendations for Future Research
APPENDIX A 151
APPENDIX B .157
APPENDIX C 163
REFERENCE LIST 165
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Sources of Standardized Questionnaires . . . . 12
Table 2 Stages of Transition to Self-managed Work Teams 21
Table 3 Stages of Transition to Self-managed Work Teams in Study 99
Table 4 Correlation Matrix with Mean and Standard
Deviations 101
Table 5 Goodness of Fit 107
Table 6 Test of the Hypotheses 120
vi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Figure 1 Theoretical Model . . . . 60
Figure 2 Structure of the Sample
Figure 3 Self-managed Work Teams by Function . . . . . 77
Figure 4 Self-managed Work Teams by Gender
Figure 5 Self-managed Work Teams by Age
Figure 6 Self-managed Work Teams by Ethnic Group . . . 80
Figure 7 Self-managed Work Teams by Education Level. . 80
Figure 8 Full Model 104
Figure 9 Restricted M o d e l . . . . 106
vii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The United States of America, once the pre-eminent
world industrial and economic leader, has found itself
losing its competitive lead to countries that it never even
considered to be its competitors. American industry faces
challenges from foreign competition, negative international
balance of trade, rapidly changing technology, changing
labor attitudes, demographics, diversity in the work force,
and many other areas. In order to regain the country's
competitive lead, some American companies have focused on
improving quality and productivity.
Researchers, management experts, and corporate officers
have suggested that one way to improve quality and
productivity is to involve employees in decision making and
to give them more power over their jobs (Aubrey and Felkins
1988). Job redesign and employee involvement have also been
suggested as another way of improving quality and
productivity (Maslow 1954; McGregor 1960; Argyris 1964;
Herzberg 1966; Hackman 1967; Likert 1967; Lawler 1969; Ouchi
1981). Some of the forms that job redesign and employee
involvement have taken are quality circles, total quality
management, and self-managed work teams.
One of the latest forms of job redesign that involves
employees in decision making is self-managed work teams
(SMWTs). Self-managed work teams are trained groups of
employees who are fully responsible for producing a well-
defined segment of a finished product or service (Orsburn et
al. 1990). Team members are delegated the responsibility
and authority to make decisions over the details of their
immediate tasks. A number of companies, including Boeing,
Cummins Engine, Caterpillar, General Telephone, Texas
Instruments, Xerox, Saturn, AT&T Operator Services, American
Express Company, and Ford, have implemented this program of
work structure, management, and reward (Orsburn et al.
1990). More and more organizations are being added to this
list each day.
Among the presupposed benefits of self-managed work
teams is an increased level of worker self-esteem at the
organizational level. This organization-based self-esteem,
in turn, is believed to result in increased levels of
consequent behaviors such as intrinsic work motivation,
general job satisfaction, organization citizenship, and
organization commitment (Pierce et al. 1989)--each of which
is said to benefit the organization in terms of quality and
productivity.
Self-managed work teams, however, are a controversial
tool. Unindoctrinated employees do not understand it,
middle managers fear it, and top managers embrace it as the
latest panacea. While much has been assumed about the
contribution of SMWTs to organizations and to the
individuals who make up the teams, little is actually known.
Most of the literature on self-managed work teams is
anecdotal and is found in practitioner publications. Much
needs to be understood about the contributions of self-
managed work teams to an organization. In order to fully
benefit from their use, an organization must know what SMWTs
can and cannot do for them based on empirical research.
Statement of the Problem
Since among the presupposed benefits of self-managed
work teams are an increased level of worker self-esteem at
the organizational level, increased levels of specific
consequent behaviors, and improved performance in terms of
quality and productivity, this study provides empirical data
and analysis regarding these benefits rather than relying on
anecdotal material as previously noted. This empirical study
is aimed at understanding the patterns of relationships
among the organization structure of self-managed work teams
in terms of three sets of constructs:
1. organization-based self-esteem;
2. consequent behaviors of intrinsic work motivation,
general job satisfaction, organization
citizenship, and organization commitment; and
3. performance.
Research Questions
Based upon these three sets of constructs, three major
research questions are addressed in this study.
1. Do people participating in self-managed work teams
possess high levels of organization-based self-esteem?
2. To what degree does the level of organization-based
self-esteem of members of self-managed work teams affect
intrinsic work motivation, general job satisfaction,
organization citizenship, and organization commitment?
3. How is performance affected by the organization
structure of self-managed work teams?
Theoretical Basis for the Study
The concept of self-managed work teams finds its
origins in the sociotechnical system literature which
includes work redesign (Hackman, Oldham, and Purdy 1975;
Yorks 1976; Hackman and Oldham 1980) and workplace
transformation (Nora, Rogers, and Stramy 1986).
Sociotechnology, which integrates an organization's social
system and its technical system (Trist 1981), emphasizes the
interrelatedness of these systems with the total
organization and its total environment (Frederiksen, Riley,
and Myers 1984).
Herbst (1962), building on the work of Trist and
Bamforth (1951), traces the roots of sociotechnological
systems back to an earlier tradition, back before the
introduction and widespread acceptance of work techniques
based on task segmentation, differential status and payment,
and extrinsic hierarchical control. Trist (1976) points out
that the internal discipline that develops in teams comes
from the inclination of each member to make the work of
other group members easier and to facilitate the carrying
out of subsequent tasks of the group, a concept later
identified as organization citizenship (Katz 1964).
Theorists share certain assumptions regarding work
redesign (Whitsett 1975). Most believe that employees want
to be productive at work, and that organizations, through
poor job design, have not used the full talents of
employees. The traditional approach to the design of work
in many organizations is based on the work of Frederick
Taylor and assumes that jobs should be simplified,
standardized, and specialized for each component of the
required work (Szilagyi and Wallace 1983). Some of the
characteristics of jobs designed around Taylorism can be
dysfunctional when applied inappropriately. These
characteristics include mechanical pacing, repetitiveness,
low skill requirements, concentration on only a fraction of
the product or service, limited social interaction, and
predetermination of tools and techniques (Walker and Guest
1952). Work redesign, the theorists contend, brings about a
reversal of the dysfunctional applications of Taylorism
(Davis 1957; Herzberg 1966; Trist 1976).
At the same time that the person-based work redesign
was being experimented with by organizations such as AT&T
(Ford 1969), Texas Instruments (Myers 1970), and many
others, more ambitious work restructuring efforts in the
United States were being made based on the sociotechnical
school emphasizing team or self-managed work groups (Yorks
and Whitsett 1989). Critics of the work redesign movement
have cautioned the more zealous theorists. Fein (1974)
questions whether workers want or need work redesign, and
how representative the publicized cases have been. Rief and
Luthans (1972) argue the contingency view that
characteristics of the job, the organizational level, and
the characteristics of employees, such as general self
esteem, experience gained through tenure on the job, age,
and gender, are key situational factors. As work redesign
evolved into workplace transformation (Nora, Rogers, and
Stramy 1986), the concept became linked with other changes
in managerial practices, including pay-for-knowledge
compensation systems, participative structures, and higher
standards of performance (Yorks and Whitsett 1989). More
and more the literature seems to indicate that work redesign
cannot be dealt with in a vacuum; work redesign is part of a
system of management with various interrelated parts.
Researchers have made connections with self-managed
work teams to various behavioral outcomes (Tharenou 1979;
Korman 1976). Primary among these outcomes is higher levels
of organization-based self-esteem which in turn leads to
increased levels of intrinsic work motivation, general job
satisfaction, organization citizenship, organization
commitment, and ultimately to enhanced performance (Pierce
et al. 1989).
An underlying theoretical tenet of organization-based
self-esteem that is of practical interest to organizations
is that individuals develop attitudes and behave in ways
that maintain their levels of self-esteem (Korman 1976).
That is to say, individuals with high self-esteem develop
positive work attitudes, such as intrinsic work motivation
and general job satisfaction, and behave productively in
order to maintain the self attitude of being competent
individuals.
Organization-based self-esteem is a form of role-
specific self-esteem. It is the degree to which individuals
believe that they can satisfy their needs by participating
in roles within the context of an organization (Pierce et
al. 1989). It is a function of the global self-esteem with
which an individual comes to an organization and the
accumulation of task- and situation-specific self-esteem
experienced in the organization. Pierce et al. (1989)
hypothesize that experiences in an organization shape
organization-based self-esteem which, in turn, affects
organization-related behaviors. The literature suggests
that as an independent variable, organization-based self-
esteem is positively related to intrinsic work motivation
(Hackman and Oldham 1980; Lawler 1969), general job
satisfaction (Porter and Steers 1973; Smith, Kendall and
Hulin 1969), organization citizenship (Smith, Organ and Near
1983), organization commitment (Mowday, Porter and Steers
1982; Steers 1977a), and performance (Yorks and Whitsett
1989). The present study builds on the sociotechnical
systems literature by investigating the relationships among
the organization structure of self-managed work teams and
these outcomes.
Nature of the Study
This empirical study was performed on the site of a
food processing plant that is structured around self-managed
work teams. This plant, which is located in an urban area
of a nonmetropolitan county in a northeastern state of the
United States with a population of about 25,000, employs 325
people. The firm produces private label fruit and vegetable
juices in a plant of about 125,000 square feet. The average
yearly income of the employees studied was between $15,000
and $20,000.
A structured, written survey was administered at
regular team meetings to the sample population of 105
employees on a volunteer basis. The subjects for this study
were full-time, first-line production employees who
represented the following functional areas: batching,
maintenance, production, and quality control.
Qualitative data were also gathered through
unstructured interviews with team members, both line and
staff managers, and through observation of the study
participants. Using triangulation methods explained in
Chapter 3 in the sections entitled The Design and Additional
Data, these qualitative data gave meaning to the
quantitative data resulting from the written survey.
Significance of this Study
Recently, there has been an increase in the number of
empirical studies on self-managed work teams. The primary
significance of this study is to add to this pool of
empirical knowledge. As more knowledge about SMWTs and
their presupposed benefits--increased organization-based
self-esteem, improvement in the consequent behaviors of
intrinsic work motivation, general job satisfaction,
organization citizenship, and organization commitment, and
in performance—is gained, more refined hypotheses can be
10
made and more methodologically rigorous research testing can
be performed.
The study will also be significant for practitioners in
that it will help organization managers make better-informed
decisions on the choice of whether or not to institute self-
managed work teams. Managers must be aware of what the
chances are of increasing employee performance by
introducing more participation by employees in the decision
making process. Caution should always be taken against
adopting a seemingly perfect solution to an organization's
many problems. This is particularly true if SMWTs do not
add to the areas they are presupposed to benefit, especially
the area of performance (Bleakley 1993).
Self-managed work teams have developed a reputation as
a panacea. Some of what they actually do or do not
contribute to an organization was revealed in this study.
The empirical research in this study should help
organizations to be more effective in making decisions on
whether or not to institute self-managed work teams.
Limitations of the Study
Four major limitations relate to this study.
1. The subjects were employees of a non-union food
processing organization in the Northeastern United States.
Generalizations are limited to such organizations with
similar technology and union status. Further, the
11
membership of the sample group was one of convenience; only
volunteer respondents were used. Because of this self-
selection procedure, the sample may not be truly
representative of the population.
2. Possible measuring effects may account for the
results that were found. Questionnaires are intrusive
measures; the subject is aware of being tested. Therefore,
subjects can respond in the manner that they think is
expected rather than responding as they truly feel.
3. The sample was taken from a brownfield site, i.e.,
an organization that institutes self-managed work team
structure after years of functioning as a traditional,
mechanistic structure. Generalizations should be limited to
organizations of this type. Greenfield sites, i.e.,
organizations that institute self-managed work team
structure at the beginning of their operation, may produce
significantly different results.
4. The major assumption under which this study was
conducted was that the participants were from a homogeneous
group. They shared similar economic, educational, and age
characteristics, however, there were major cultural
differences.
Summary of Methodology
This study was a sample survey composed of five
standardized questionnaires using a five-point Likert-type
12
scale, open-ended questions, and demographic questions, and
was administered to a convenience sample of 105 members of
self-managed work teams. Table 1 shows the sources of the
five standardized questionnaires and who developed them;
TABLE 1 SOURCES OF STANDARDIZED QUESTIONNAIRES
VARIABLE STANDARDIZED QUESTIONNAIRE
AUTHORS (YEAR)
Organization-Based Self-Esteem
Organization-Based Self Esteem Scale (OBSE)
Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham (1989)
Global Self-Esteem Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE)
Rosenberg (1965)
Intrinsic Work Motivation
Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS)
Hackman and Oldham (1974a)
General Job Satisfaction
Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS)
Hackman and Oldham (1974a)
Organization Citizenship
Organization Citizenship Scale
Smith, Organ, and Near (1983)
Organization Commitment
Organization Commitment Scale
Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979)
reliability and validity figures for the standardized
questionnaires are presented in Chapter 3. The variables—
self-managed work team structure, organization-based self-
esteem, global self-esteem, tenure, age, gender, intrinsic
work motivation, general job satisfaction, organization
citizenship, organization commitment, and performance--were
analyzed using regression analysis for the purpose of path
analysis, a form of structural equation modeling.
13
Definitions and Operational Terms
Key terms used in this study are defined as follow:
Self-managed work team is a group of trained employees
who are fully responsible for producing a well-defined
segment of a finished product or service (Orsburn et al.
1990). These employees have decision-making power over the
details of their immediate tasks, such as scheduling a
predetermined work quota, rotating tasks among themselves,
or changing some aspects of the production process. At a
higher level of involvement, self-managed work teams have
increased responsibility for quality control, participate in
the selection and dismissal of fellow team members, and
determine how to meet production targets. The team may deal
with other departments as well as suppliers and customers
(Aubrey and Felkins 1988).
Organization-based self-esteem is the degree to which
organizational members believe that they can satisfy their
needs by participating in roles within the context of an
organization (Pierce et al. 1989).
Global self-esteem is an overall self-evaluation of
approval or disapproval of self. It is the extent to which
individuals believe themselves to be capable, and reflects a
personal judgment of worthiness (Simpson and Boyle 1975).
14
Intrinsic work motivation is the degree to which a job
holder is self-motivated to perform well because of some
subjective rewards or feelings that the job holder expects
to receive or experience as a result of performing well
(Lawler and Hall 1970).
General job satisfaction is an overall measure of the
degree to which an employee is satisfied and happy with his
or her organizational association (Hackman and Oldham 1975).
Organization citizenship describes acts of cooperation,
helpfulness, suggestions, gestures of goodwill, and altruism
in the work place (Smith, Organ, and Near 1983).
Organization commitment is the degree to which
employees are willing to endure internal and external
actions on behalf of their organization. It describes
employees' attachment to the organization and integration of
the organization's goals and value systems into their own
lives (Mowday, Steers, and Porter 1979).
Performance is comprised of any number of success
measures of an organization from the individual level, to
the group level, to the organizational level. It is
measured in a variety of ways; in this study it is measured
at the group level by level of output, amount of rework,
time lost due to injuries, and absenteeism.
15
Summary
In their attempts to develop organizations that produce
high quality products and services at the highest levels of
performance, managers of American industry have turned to
many organizational forms and management methods with
varying degrees of success (Bleakley 1993). This study adds
to the empirical knowledge associated with the
organizational structural form of self-managed work teams as
they relate to organization-based self-esteem, consequent
behaviors of intrinsic work motivation, general job
satisfaction, organization citizenship, and organization
commitment, and performance. The theoretical basis for this
sample survey study lies in the sociotechnical system
literature. Not only does this study add to the pool of
empirical knowledge, but it has a practical significance for
practitioners by offering guidance in selection and
implementation of self-managed work team structure.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
A review of the literature on self-managed work teams
and the three sets of constructs of: 1. organization-based
self-esteem; 2. four consequent behaviors of intrinsic work
motivation, general job satisfaction, organization
citizenship, and organization commitment; and 3. performance
is presented in this chapter. The concept of self-managed
work teams is defined and then expanded upon through an
explanation of the stages of transition to self-managed work
teams and the place self-managed work teams holds in the
theoretical framework of sociotechnical systems. Next, the
three sets of constructs that form the basis of the research
questions are reviewed as they pertain to the study. A
theoretical framework within which to study the patterns of
relationships among these sets of constructs is also
provided. A model conceptualizing the present study is
presented and discussed. Based on this theoretical
framework and the conceptual model, 24 hypotheses are
offered. The hypotheses are grouped around the six
theoretical relationships found in the literature.
16
17
Self-Managed Work Teams
As American Industry focuses on organizational
productivity and quality, more and more organizations are
turning to the redesign of their structure through the
implementation of a sociotechnical technique known as self-
managed work teams (Orsburn et al. 1990). This form of
employee involvement is one approach to improving quality
and productivity with cooperative relationships, open
communication, and group problem solving and decision
making. Organizations in a number of countries, including
Japan, Sweden, and the United States, have used this
approach with great success (Aubrey and Felkins 1988).
In 1988 it was estimated that there were approximately
200,000 employee-involvement groups in the United States,
and several million worldwide (Aubrey and Felkins 1988). In
a 1990 survey of 476 Fortune 1,000 companies, half of the
companies questioned said they would be relying
significantly more on employee involvement groups in the
years ahead (Dumaine 1990). The groups are identified by
various names, including quality circles, quality-
improvement teams, productivity teams, employee-involvement
groups, self-directed work teams, autonomous work groups,
work cells, and self-managed work teams. Each is as
different as the unique organization that spawned it. In
all cases, however, these are groups of employees who are
18
trained in problem-solving techniques with the improvement
of quality and productivity within the organization as their
primary goals.
Stages of Transition to Self-Managed Work Teams
Self-managed work teams do not suddenly appear as
mature, productive entities like Athena from the head of
Zeus. Moran and Musselwhite (1988) and Orsburn, et al.
(1990) identify and describe five stages or levels of
transition to fully functioning self-directed work teams.
The first stage, start-up, is characterized by optimism of
the teams and wariness of the supervisors. Together they
begin to define their new roles and begin intensive training
in communication, group dynamics, and additional technical
skills.
The second stage is characterized by a state of
confusion. The initial rush of the start-up stage is
replaced by feelings of ambiguity, foot-dragging, and
blatant resistance. Teams experience difficulty making
cooperative decisions as authority shifts from the
supervisor to the team. Team members invest a great deal of
energy in team activities, but are not sure if what they are
doing is effective. Teams worry about higher work
standards, hypothetical disasters, and job security.
Managers worry about their changing responsibilities from
day-to-day operations to longer term, broader
19
responsibilities. Secretly, various groups hope for the
change process to collapse.
Stage three, leader-centered teams, is achieved through
continued faith in the self-managed work team concept and
the people involved. It is characterized by growing
confidence as teams become effective decision makers, adept
at new technical skills, and able to make their work more
efficiently. A leader emerges from within the team who acts
as an interface with the organization and as a referee of
internal team disputes. Teams begin to rotate various
leadership roles so as to avoid a dominant leader who in
reality simply takes over the manager's role. Conflict
declines as group norms evolve. Managers become less and
less involved with daily operations and team productivity
increases as the team performs in unity.
Stage four, tightly formed teams, is characterized by
intense team loyalty. Teams manage their own scheduling,
express their needs, meet goals with limited resources, and
often protect themselves from outside criticism to the point
of dysfunction. Team loyalty also nurtures fierce
competition among teams which can lead to a change of focus
from the organization goals to team super-achievement.
The final stage, self-managed teams, is characterized
by maturity and a commitment to achieving organizational and
team goals. Shop floor employees naturally focus on
20
organizational concerns such as world markets, customer
satisfaction, and process improvements. Teams acquire new
skills, respond to internal and external customer needs,
improve support systems and work processes, and become more
and more sophisticated about contracts, competitors and
administrative duties. They think more and more in
strategic terms rather than in shop floor terms. The
challenge to management is to seek ways to maintain
commitment, trust, and involvement of the team members. A
continuous program of training and an effective flow of
information is necessary to energize and feed the system.
Table 2 summarizes the usual characteristics of each stage
of transition of self-managed work teams as presented by
Moran and Musselwhite (1988) and Orsburn, et al. (1990).
Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Managed Work Teams
The antecedents, or preexisting conditions, prescribed
for self-managed work teams parallel those of the job-
characteristics approach to work redesign (Hackman and
Lawler 1971; Hackman and Oldham 1976). The general
categories of antecedents are skill variety, task identity,
task significance, autonomy, and feedback (Wall et al.
1986). Because of the parallel between the antecedents of
self-managed work teams and the job-characteristics approach
21
TABLE 2 STAGES OF TRANSITION TO SELF-MANAGED WORK TEAMS
STAGES USUAL CHARACTERISTICS
Stage One: The Start-Up Stage
Optimism of the team and wariness of the supervisor
Stage Two: State of Confusion
Feelings of ambiguity, foot-dragging, and blatant resistance
Stage Three: Leader-Centered Team
Growing confidence as teams become effective decision makers
Stage Four: Tightly Formed Team
Intense team loyalty
Stage Five: Self-Managed Work Team
Maturity and a commitment to achieving organizational and team goals
to work redesign, many theorists have argued for a synthesis
of the two approaches (Rousseau 1977; Cummings 1978; Denison
1982). Hackman and Suttle (1977) go so far as to state that
the self-managed work team approach is the more powerful of
the two approaches. They suggest that teams can accomplish
larger tasks than can individuals, and that teams allow for
more manipulation of work characteristics. The primary
difference between self-managed work teams and the work-
characteristics approach is the level of analysis and
application, not content (Wall et al. 1986). Self-managed
work teams are at the group level of analysis, whereas the
work-characteristics approach is at the individual level of
analysis.
22
More detailed antecedents appear in the literature. In
a representative work, Orsburn et al. (1990) list among the
requirements for success, top-level commitment, management-
employee trust, willingness to take risks, willingness to
share information, enough time and resources, commitment to
training, operations conducive to work teams, union
participation, and access to help.
Although self-managed work teams are at the group level
of analysis, the authors of sociotechnical literature deal
with their outcomes at the individual level (Davis 1966;
Kelly 1978). They assume that logical outcomes of self-
managed work teams are intrinsic work motivation and general
job satisfaction which, in turn, are reflected in improved
group performance and reduced turnover (Wall et al. 1986).
This parallels Hackman and Oldham's (1980) job-redesign
approach.
Additional outcomes found in the literature are
increased organization commitment (Emery 1959) and improved
mental health (Herbst 1974), although neither is a central
element in existing propositions (Wall et al. 1986). Aubrey
and Felkins (1988) identify tangible and intangible
outcomes. Among the tangible outcomes are increased
individual self-respect, more positive attitudes, and
reduced conflict stemming from the work environment.
Intangible outcomes include improved communication,
23
increased problem-solving skills, better management-employee
relationships, promotion of personal growth, improved
attitude and morale, increased job knowledge, improved job
satisfaction and increased employee motivation and
commitment. Orsburn et al. (1990) add enhanced
productivity, streamlining, flexibility, quality,
commitment, and customer satisfaction.
Sociotechnical Systems
Historically, the concept of self-managed work teams
finds its origins in the sociotechnical system literature
which includes work redesign (Hackman, Oldham, and Purdy
1975; Yorks 1976? Hackman and Oldham 1980) and workplace
transformation (Nora, Rogers, and Stramy 1986).
Sociotechnology, which integrates an organization's social
system and its technical system (Trist 1981), emphasizes the
interrelatedness of these systems with the total
organization and its total environment (Frederiksen, Riley,
and Myers 1984). Thus while self-managed work teams may be
a controversial tool in the "real world" of organizations,
the basic theoretical concept is that work groups are the
building blocks of organizations (Gibson, Ivancevich, and
Donnelly 1988).
Herbst (1962) expanded the work of Trist and Bamforth
(1951), and proposed the idea that groups that take over
24
complete responsibility for the total cycle of operations
involved in a well-defined segment of work can emerge
spontaneously. He labeled these groups composite work
groups. Today we call them self-managed work teams. Herbst
traces the roots of sociotechnological systems back to an
earlier tradition, back before the introduction and
widespread acceptance of work techniques based on task
segmentation, differential status and payment, and extrinsic
hierarchical control. Trist (1976) states that the internal
discipline that develops in composite teams comes from each
member's inclination to make the work of other group members
easier and to facilitate the carrying out of subsequent
tasks of the group.
Basic conditions are necessary for emergent or
spontaneous autonomous work groups. These conditions
include independence of the task itself (Wilson, Trist, and
Bamforth 1951), definable physical boundaries (Rice 1958),
ability of the group to effectively take control and
responsibility of a task (Emery 1959), and control linked to
variables that are observable and measurable (March and
Simon 1958). Both Trist (1981) and Rice (1958) place
importance on group responsibility for the whole task.
Whereas Trist gives higher priority to enlarged jobs for
each team member, Rice places more importance on group
membership (Kelly 1978).
25
Work redesign refers to an organization's intervention
in the content of an employee's job, the range of tasks
performed, and the flow of work. It provides for more
employee control over the work by allowing employees to make
decisions on their own initiative (Yorks and Whitsett 1989).
These changes can be on an individual or person-based level,
or on a group level, where teams are established by the
organization. Yorks and Whitsett note that the changes
involve a sense of wholeness in that employees have broader
responsibility for an identifiable segment of work flow.
Employees receive increased information about the production
process and the results of their work. Important to the
success of work redesign is the commitment of management to
develop a cooperative relationship between the levels of the
organization.
Theorists share certain assumptions regarding work
redesign (Whitsett 1975). Most believe that employees want
to be productive at work, and that organizations, through
poor job design, have not used the full talents of
employees. As a result of these two conditions,
organizations have incurred unnecessary costs in terms of
lower performance, and in psychological stress to employees
brought on by job dissatisfaction, frustration, and
alienation at work. The traditional approach to the design
of work in many organizations is based on the work of
26
Frederick Taylor and assumes that jobs should be simplified,
standardized, and specialized for each component of the
required work (Szilagyi and Wallace 1983). Some of the
characteristics of jobs designed around Taylorism can be
dysfunctional when applied inappropriately. These
characteristics include mechanical pacing, repetitiveness,
low skill requirements, concentration on only a fraction of
the product or service, limited social interaction, and
predetermination of tools and techniques (Walker and Guest
1952). The implementation of the principles of Taylorism
can result in dismotivation and dissatisfaction of workers.
It was often found that workers' reaction to the design of
their jobs more than offset expected gains in efficiency and
productivity (Lawler 1973). Work redesign, the theorists
contend, brings about a reversal of the dysfunctional
applications of Taylorism (Davis 1957; Herzberg 1966; Trist
1976).
The psychological concept of motivation was first
linked to sociotechnical systems by Emery in 1959 (Kelly
1978). During the 1960s, Herzberg's (1966, 1968) work in
motivation-hygiene theory acted as a stimulus to the
interest in work redesign. Herzberg emphasized what he
called the intrinsic motivating needs of people that could
be satisfied through the design of individual jobs that
provided a sense of achievement, recognition,
27
responsibility, and growth. He saw task advancement as the
way to motivate high performance and job satisfaction.
At the same time that this individual work redesign,
discussed by Yorks and Whitsett (1989), was being
experimented with by organizations such as AT&T (Ford 1969),
Texas Instruments (Myers 1970), and many others, more
ambitious work restructuring efforts in the United States
were being made based on the sociotechnical school
emphasizing teams or self-managed work groups (Yorks and
Whitsett 1989). These efforts were based on the European
work-restructuring experiments conducted in Norway during
the 1960s. This work, in turn, inspired Swedish
organizations. Work redesign experiments at Volvo, Saab-
Scandia, and the Norwegian merchant marine received
widespread international publicity (Zemke 1988).
The less-extreme, but nevertheless adamant, work
redesign theorists acknowledge that contingencies affect the
feasibility of work redesign in a given situation. Hackman
and Oldham (1980) suggest that work redesign concepts have
widespread application and that management should implement
them on a broad scale. Rief and Luthans (1972) are more
conservative in their views. They advise caution, and
emphasize the contingencies that can impede success of work
redesign. Rief and Luthans (1972) also argue the contingency
view that characteristics of the job, the organizational
28
level, and the characteristics of employees are key
situational factors.
Rief and Luthans are not the only critics of the work
redesign movement. Fein (1974) doubts whether workers want
or need work redesign, and questions how representative the
publicized cases have been. Other lines of criticism have
been associated with accusations of deceiving workers into
producing more output for the same pay (Winpisinger 1973).
Even Hackman (1975), ever a proponent of work redesign, has
expressed concerns about the possibly inflated claims made
in the popular business press.
In 1975, Hackman predicted the "coming demise" of work
redesign. In fact, by the end of the 1970s, work redesign
went underground. Throughout the 1980s, however, several
organizations continued to implement work-design methods
(Walton 1985; Nora, Rogers, and Stramy 1986). Organizations
became more secretive. This was due, in part, to the belief
of many behavioral scientists and managers that publicity
often served to undermine work redesign efforts (Walton
1975).
As work redesign evolved into workplace transformation
(Nora, Rogers, and Stramy 1986), the concept became linked
with other changes in managerial practices, including pay-
for-knowledge compensation systems, participative
structures, and higher standards of performance (Yorks and
29
Whitsett 1989). The present study builds on the
sociotechnical systems literature by investigating the
relationships among self-managed work teams, intrinsic work
motivation, general job satisfaction, organization
citizenship, organization commitment, and performance.
Oraanization-Based Self-Esteem
Sociologists have studied self-esteem extensively.
Some of this work has been done in organizational settings
and has revealed positive relationships between self-esteem
and factors such as supervisory support (Hackman and Lawler
1971), job complexity (Kohn and Schooler 1973), control over
work (Staples, Schwalbe, and Gecas 1984), work autonomy
(Mortimer and Lorence 1979), and amount of interaction on
the job (Gardell 1971). A majority of the researchers have
established that multiple dimensions of the work experience
determine adult self-esteem (Tharenou 1979). The underlying
impetus to most of this work appears to be that the way
individuals react to life experiences varies with the extent
to which they perceive themselves as competent, need-
satisfying individuals (Korman 1976).
An underlying theoretical tenet of self-esteem that is
of practical interest to organizations is that individuals
develop attitudes and behave in ways that maintain their
levels of self-esteem (Korman 1976). That is to say,
individuals with high self-esteem develop positive work
30
attitudes, such as intrinsic work motivation and general job
satisfaction, and behave productively in order to maintain
the self attitude of being competent individuals. By the
same token, individuals with low self-esteem develop
unfavorable work attitudes and unproductive work behaviors
that reinforce their self-attitude of low competence.
Hollenbeck and Brief (1987) found that individuals with high
self-esteem were more apt to value the attainment of
performance goals than were individuals with low self-
esteem.
Research has been done on at least three levels of a
hierarchy of self-esteem. Simpson and Boyle (1975)
summarize them as (1) global self-esteem, the highest level
in this hierarchy, which refers to an overall evaluation of
self-worth; (2) role-specific self-esteem, which is the
self-evaluation that comes from one of life's many roles,
such as parent or employee, and (3) task- or situation-
specific self-esteem, which is the self-evaluation that
results from behavior in a specific situation and competence
in a task just performed. Each higher level in this
hierarchy is made up of a conglomerate from the next lower
level (Brockner 1988). For example, the role-specific self-
esteem an individual develops at work is a reflection of the
many task-specific self-esteems the individual experiences
at work. At the same time, a higher level self-esteem
31
affects the lower levels, because it sets up a
predisposition for how an individual responds in new
situations (Brockner 1988).
Researchers (Simpson and Boyle 1975; Tharenou 1979)
have argued that the appropriate self-esteem measure should
be used for any given level of analysis. For instance,
organization-based self-esteem should predict organization
related phenomena such as organization commitment and
intrinsic work motivation more strongly than should global
self-esteem.
Organization-based self-esteem is a form of role-
specific self-esteem. It is the degree to which individuals
believe that they can satisfy their needs by participating
in roles within the context of an organization (Pierce et
al. 1989). It is a function of the global self-esteem with
which an individual comes to an organization and the
accumulation of task- and situation-specific self-esteem
experienced in the organization. Korman (1976) views self-
esteem as both an outcome of experiences and, as such, a key
to the explanation of employee motivation, attitudes, and
behaviors. Pierce et al. extend this reasoning by
hypothesizing that experiences in an organization shape
organization-based self-esteem which, in turn, affects
organization-related behaviors and attitudes.
32
Tharenou (1979) suggests that self-esteem be treated as
both a dependent and an independent variable. Organization-
based self-esteem is dependent on an individual's
environment (Korman 1971), intrinsic job characteristics,
and extrinsic job characteristics (Brockner 1988).
Korman (1971) suggests that an individual's environment
affects self-esteem. He emphasized that under mechanistic
conditions where there is a high level of organization-
imposed control through a rigid hierarchy, centralized
decision making, standardization, and formalization of rules
and procedures, employees eventually develop a belief system
consonant with the apparent basic mistrust or lack of
respect for people implicit in that environment. In other
words, they would develop low organization-based self-
esteem. By extension, Pierce et al. (1989) suggest that an
organic organizational system, which by definition is more
personal and democratic and less concerned with hierarchy,
procedures, formality, and control, leads to higher levels
of organization-based self-esteem. This is a reflection of
the inherent trust given employees as competent, valuable,
contributing individuals in this environment. Sources of
environmental structure, such as self-managed work teams,
that permit employees to direct and control their own work
should be positively related to high organization-based
self-esteem (Pierce, Dunham, and Cummings 1984).
33
Brockner (1988) points out other determinants of
organization-based self-esteem. Intrinsic job
characteristics include the level of variety, skill, and
participation in decision making. Extrinsic job
characteristics include pay, job level, and nature of the
social relationships between employees and their coworkers
and supervisors.
A number of personal mediators have been identified in
the literature as having direct positive relationships with
organization-based self-esteem (Pierce, et al. 1989). Prime
among these independent variables are global self-esteem
(Korman 1976), tenure on the job (Mowday, Porter, and Steers
1982), age (Steers 1977a), and gender (Bandura 1978). More
specifically, the higher the global self-esteem a person
brings to an organizational situation, the more positively
that person will tend to interpret organizational
experiences. Also, the longer a person is with an
organization, the more likely that person is to interpret
organizational experiences as positive and to internalize
them as higher organization-based self-esteem. The older a
person becomes, based on increasing life and work
experiences through time, the more likely that person is to
have higher levels of organization-based self-esteem. And
finally, women tend to have higher levels of organization-
based self-esteem than do men.
34
The literature suggests that as an independent
variable, organization-based self-esteem is positively
related to intrinsic work motivation, general job
satisfaction, low turnover rates, low absenteeism,
organization commitment, organization citizenship, and
performance (Brockner 1988). A cause-and-effeet
relationship cannot be claimed, however. The literature
also suggests that as a dependent variable, organization-
based self-esteem is positively influenced by participative
organization structures such as self-managed work teams, and
by personal mediators such as global self-esteem, tenure,
age, and gender (Pierce, et al. 1989).
Consequent Behaviors
The organization structure of self-managed work teams
produces a number of outcomes, or consequent behaviors.
Among these consequent behaviors are intrinsic work
motivation, general job satisfaction, organization
citizenship, and organization commitment (Wall et al. 1986;
Aubrey and Felkins 1988; Orsburn et al. 1990). Pierce et
al. (1989) show how these same four consequent behaviors are
also outcomes of organization-based self-esteem. Following
is a literature review showing how these constructs fit into
the theoretical framework of self-managed work teams.
35
Intrinsic Work Motivation
Lawler (1969) defines intrinsic work motivation as the
degree to which a job holder is motivated to perform well
because of some subjective rewards or feelings that the job
holder expects to receive or experience as a result of
performing well. Thus, intrinsic work motivation exists
when esteem, feelings of growth, and fulfillment of other
internal needs are tied to performance. Intrinsic work
motivation can be thought of as the degree to which
attaining higher-order need satisfactions depends upon the
individual's performance (Maslow 1954; Alderfer 1972).
Intrinsic work motivation is a function of both an
individual's characteristics and the job characteristics
(Lawler and Hall 1970). Cavanagh (1984) theorizes that
intrinsic work motivation develops from an atmosphere that
includes four dimensions: the personal qualities of the
employee, the nature of the job, the qualities of the
supervisor, and the company philosophy.
Hackman and Oldham (1980) argue that there are three
key conditions, called critical psychological states, for
intrinsic work motivation. An individual must have
knowledge of the results, experience responsibility, and
experience the work as meaningful. They also argue that
core job characteristics impact intrinsic work motivation.
Core job characteristics are skill variety, task identity,
36
task significance, autonomy, and feedback from the job. To
accommodate for the differences found among people, they
include in their model moderators of knowledge and skill,
growth need strength, and satisfaction with the work
context.
Hackman and Oldham's model has been subjected to many
tests since it was published in 1980. Most of this work has
shown the model to be a useful tool in explaining internal
work motivation. Sherman and Smith (1984) concluded that
the core job characteristic of autonomy did, in fact,
influence intrinsic motivation. Specifically, they found
that mechanistic structures that minimized autonomy
undermined intrinsic motivation. Thomas and Velthouse
(1990) use the premises presentcsd by Hackman and Oldham in
1980, as the foundation for a model of intrinsic motivation
in which they theorize that empowerment is simply increased
intrinsic task motivation. Their model purports to provide
a more comprehensive set of task assessments, called
critical psychological states by Hackman and Oldham, than
the original Hackman and Oldham model. Still, the Thomas
and Velthouse work adds to the credibility of the original
model. Finally, George (1992) found that intrinsic
involvement as indexed by task significance was associated
with low social loafing, a behavior which diminishes group
effectiveness (Middlemist and Hitt 1981).
37
Motivation theorists have tried to identify the forces
that influence employees' behavior. These theories can be
classified into two general categories, content theories and
process theories.
Content Theories
The first category of motivation theories is content
theories (Campbell et al. 1970). These theories focus on
the factors internal to the individual that arouse, direct,
sustain, and stop behavior (Gibson, Ivancevich, and Donnelly
1988), or simply put, intrinsically motivate (Lawler 1969).
Intrinsic motivation can be satisfied or enhanced.
The content theory of motivation that acts as a
foundation for many others is Maslow's need hierarchy theory
(Maslow 1954). Simplistically put, Maslow states that
individuals are continuously in a motivated state but that
the nature of their motivation is fluctuating and complex.
As one desire or need level becomes at least partially
satisfied, another takes its place. This sequence of
emerging needs forms the following hierarchy of needs: (1)
physiological needs—food, air, water; (2) safety needs—
order, stability, rules; (3) social needs—affiliation,
love; (4) ego needs—status, respect of peers, and (5) self-
fulfillment needs--self-actualization.
Alderfer (1972) views motivational needs as a three-
tier hierarchy. They are (1) existence—food, air, water,
38
pay, working conditions, and job security; (2) relatedness—
meaningful social and interpersonal relationships; and (3)
growth—individual making creative or productive
contributions. Alderfer suggests that as needs at a lower
level, such as existence, are satisfied, an individual
progresses to the next level. He also proposes that if an
individual is frustrated in attempts to satisfy one level of
needs, the individual regresses to the next-lower level.
Herzberg (1966), another classic content theorist,
stated that there are two factors, dissatisfiers-satisfiers,
or extrinsic-intrinsic factors, that affect motivation. The
extrinsic factors are found in the job context. When they
are not present, an employee is dissatisfied. Among these
extrinsic factors are company policy, salary, interpersonal
relations, job security, working conditions, status, fringe
benefits, and quality of technical supervision. Intrinsic
factors are found in the job content. When they are
present, the employee is satisfied or motivated. Among
these intrinsic factors are achievement, recognition,
advancement, the work itself, possibility of growth, and
responsibility.
McClelland's (1961, 1962) learned needs theory is based
on the relative strengths of an individual's needs for
achievement, affiliation, and power. The need for
achievement governs an individual's orientation to tasks
39
faced in an organization. The need for affiliation is
analogous to Maslow's (1954) social needs. The need for
power is made up of some social and self-fulfillment needs,
but seems more closely related to ego and status needs.
Process Theories
The second category of motivation theories is process
theories (Campbell et al. 1970). They describe and analyze
how behavior is motivated. These theories generally offer
tangible things that can be done to enhance and capitalize
on intrinsic motivation. Process theories of motivation are
represented here by three general theories: expectancy
theory, equity theory, and goal setting theory.
Expectancy theory assumes that individuals evaluate
situations before acting on them. This theory suggests that
a person's motivation to behave in a given way is determined
by outcomes the person sees as desirable, and the person's
belief that these desired outcomes can be attained (Vroom
1964).
A second theory deals with equity. Equity is the state
of mind possessed by an individual who perceives that the
ratio of efforts to rewards is equivalent to the ratio of
comparison individuals (Gibson, Ivancevich, and Donnelly
1988). The equity theory of motivation is based on the
assumptions that individuals are motivated by a need to be
treated equitably, or fairly, at work, and that an
40
individual's perceptions may be altered by changing the
individual's inputs, outputs, or attitudes; the reference
person; the situation; or the inputs or outputs of the
reference person. Some of these changes can be done by an
organization, and thus, the theory implies, the organization
can create a situation in which the individual is motivated.
The third process motivation theory is based on goal
setting (Locke 1968) and entails an individual setting goals
and working to achieve them. Locke believes that an
individual's conscious goals and intentions are the primary
determinants of behavior. Motivation is a function of job
performance and goal difficulty (Locke and Latham 1984), and
the level of participation that an individual has in setting
the goals (Latham and Yukl 1975; Erez and Arad 1986).
In summary, the literature on content and process
theories of motivation suggests that, based on previous
findings, intrinsic work motivation would have a positive
relationship to the workplace environment created by self-
managed work team structure. It was also expected that
intrinsic work motivation would have a positive relationship
to organization-based self-esteem based on positive work
experiences inherent in self-managed work teams.
General Job Satisfaction
Satisfaction and motivation are closely tied in the
literature. As indicated from the previous discussion, a
41
great deal is said about satisfying individuals' needs in
order to motivate them. To this point the literature on
satisfaction and motivation runs parallel (DuBrin 1984).
Job satisfaction is a subset of satisfaction, and need
satisfaction in the work situation is a prerequisite to
general job satisfaction (Ferratt and Starke 1977).
Simply put, general job satisfaction is "an overall
measure of the degree to which the employee is satisfied and
happy with the job" (Hackman and Oldham 1975, 162). Locke
(1976, 1342) defines job satisfaction as "the pleasurable
emotional state resulting from the perception of one's job
as fulfilling or allowing the fulfillment of one's important
job values, providing these values are compatible with one's
needs." Gibson, Ivancevich, and Donnelly (1988, 79) define
job satisfaction as "an attitude that employees develop over
time about various facets of their jobs."
Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969) categorize the facets
of job satisfaction into five general groups: pay, job,
promotion opportunities, supervisor, and co-workers.
Satisfaction with pay is the amount of money and benefits
received and the perceived equity of them. Satisfaction
with job is the extent to which job tasks are considered
interesting and provide opportunities for learning and for
accepting responsibility. Satisfaction with promotion
opportunities is judged by the availability for advancement.
42
Satisfaction with supervisor refers to the abilities of the
supervisor to demonstrate interest in and concern about
employees. Satisfaction with coworkers refers to the extent
to which coworkers are friendly, competent, and supportive.
Porter and Steers (1973) suggest that influences on
employee attitudes, such as general job satisfaction, can be
grouped into four categories. The first category includes
organization-wide factors which are variables that are
available or applied to most employees. Second are the
immediate physical work environment factors. Job content
factors, the third category, are the actual job activities.
Finally, personal factors are the characteristics that
differentiate one person from another. The organization has
control over organization-wide factors, the immediate work
environment factors, and the job content factors; personal
factors are mediating factors over which the organization
has little or no control.
General job satisfaction can have a variety of positive
and negative outcomes, both for organizations and for
individuals. Low levels of general job satisfaction can
lead to high rates of absenteeism and turnover (Locke 1976).
The link between job satisfaction and job performance is
tenuous (Iaffaldano and Muchinsky 1985) and seems to be
dependent on the rewards, both intrinsic and extrinsic,
related to performance (Greene 1972). Korman (1970)
43
suggests that the relationship between performance and
satisfaction is moderated by self-esteem. He hypothesizes
that individuals with high self-esteem are more apt to
exhibit a positive performance-satisfaction relationship
than are individuals with low self-esteem. Testing of this
hypothesis has brought mixed results (Lopez and Greenhaus
1978; Dipboye et al. 1979; Tharenou and Harker 1984).
General job satisfaction is important to both
organizations and individuals. It can affect how employees
feel toward an organization and whether or not employees
continue membership in an organization. General job
satisfaction can affect how employees feel about life in
general, and themselves in particular (Steers 1984).
In summary, the literature suggests that, based on
previous findings, general job satisfaction would have a
positive relationship to the workplace environment created
by self-managed work team structure. It was also expected
that general job satisfaction would have a positive
relationship to organization-based self-esteem based on
positive work experiences inherent in self-managed work
teams.
Organization Citizenship
Organization citizenship is what Katz (1964) describes
as innovative and spontaneous activity in an organization
that goes beyond role prescriptions. He sees this behavior
44
as essential to the functioning of an organization. Without
these acts of cooperation, helpfulness, suggestions,
gestures of goodwill, and altruism, Katz believes that an
organization's fragile social system will fall apart.
Roethlisberger and Dickson (1964) refer to organization
citizenship as cooperation. Whereas productivity and
efficiency are functions of the formal organization, its
authority structure, role specifications, and technology,
cooperation is a function of the acts that serve to maintain
the equilibrium of the organization. Cooperation includes
the day-to-day social gestures of members of the
organization to other members in order to accommodate their
work needs. Roethlisberger and Dickson view cooperation as
a combination of the informal organization and what they
call logic of sentiment. Logic of sentiment is influenced
by the quality of the work experience and by previous social
conditioning. Roethlisberger and Dickson imply that, at the
organization level of analysis and over the long term,
efficiency and cooperation are interdependent.
Citizenship behavior, or prosocial behavior, can be
considered the lubricant of the social machinery of an
organization (Smith, Organ, and Near 1983). Without it, an
organization lacks flexibility to get through unforeseen
contingencies. With it, organization members can cope with
the complexities of interdependence in the work place. As
45
Katz (1964) notes, citizenship cannot be accounted for by
the same motivational bases that prompt persons to join,
stay, and perform within contractual, enforceable roles. An
organization cannot make individuals be considerate through
rules or monetary incentives. Although unquantifiable,
citizenship behaviors are often noted by supervisors and
probably have some influence on appraisals of individual
performance (Smith, Organ, and Near 1983).
Citizenship behavior can be accounted for by a
combination of direct effects from workplace environment and
personality variables as well as indirect effects through
job satisfaction (Smith, Organ, and Near 1983). Two
identified dimensions of workplace environment are leader
supportiveness and reciprocal task interdependence. Leader
supportiveness is, in itself, a model of citizenship
behavior for other members of an organization to emulate
(Berkowitz 1970). It also starts a pattern of reciprocity
from organization members to leaders (Dansereau, Graen, and
Haga 1975).
Reciprocal task interdependence requires many
spontaneous mutual adjustments in order to achieve
coordination (Thompson 1967). This situation encourages the
formation of social norms of cooperation, helping, and
sensitivity to needs of other organization members, that are
characteristic of organization citizenship (Krebs 1970).
46
Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) indicate a stronger
relationship between organization citizenship and reciprocal
task interdependence than between task independence or
sequential dependence.
Researchers have identified two personality variables
present in citizenship behavior: level of extraversion and
"belief in a just world" (Lerner and Miller 1978; Smith,
Organ, and Near 1983). Citizenship behavior may be one
manifestation of a person's level of extraversion. Krebs
(1970) suggests that extroverts display altruistic
citizenship behavior. They tend to be sensitive to their
physical and social surroundings and to act more
spontaneously. Neurotics, or emotionally unstable persons,
do not act altruistically. They tend to be preoccupied with
their own problems and do not concern themselves with the
problems or convenience of others.
Zuckerman (1975) found that persons who believe that
what they do in the present eventually will be rewarded tend
to display prosocial behavior. Organization citizenship is
one opportunity for these people to practice their "belief
in a just world" (Lerner and Miller 1978).
Smith, Organ, and Near (1983), in testing the
relationships of good citizenship, mood state, environmental
forces, and individual difference variables, identified two
factors that make up citizenship behavior. The first factor
47
is directly and intentionally aimed at helping a specific
person, such as orienting new people or helping someone with
a heavy workload. The second factor is more impersonal.
The person's actions indirectly help others involved in the
system, such as punctuality or efficient use of time. The
second factor seems to reflect compliance with internalized
norms of an organizational group.
In summary, the literature suggests that, based on
previous findings, organization citizenship would have a
positive relationship to the workplace environment created
by self-managed work team structure. It was also expected
that organization citizenship would have a positive
relationship to organization-based self-esteem based on
positive work experiences inherent in self-managed work
teams.
Organization Commitment
During the 1970s, social scientists conducted a great
many inquiries into the concept of organization commitment.
They developed a theoretical framework of the construct and
sought empirically to determine the antecedents and outcomes
of organization commitment (Sheldon 1971; Hall and Schneider
1972; Hrebiniak and Alutto 1972; Buchanan 1974; Mowday,
Porter, and Dubin 1974; Porter et al. 1974; Kanter 1977;
Salancik 1977; Steers 1977a; Mowday, Steers, and Porter
1979). Researchers may have been prompted in this inquiry
48
by the changes in employees' attitudes toward their jobs.
Whyte (1981) explains that during the 1950s, employees had a
feeling of belonging to the organization that employed them.
A sense of reciprocity existed between employees and the
organization; if employees were loyal to the organization,
the organization would be loyal to the employee. Over time,
Whyte notes, that situation has changed. Loyalties seem to
have shifted from the organization to oneself.
Most studies of organization commitment have been one-
time case studies. The methodologies and approaches used in
most of this research are fragmented, and the results are
difficult to generalize from or to compare (Hrebiniak and
Alutto 1972). One theme, however, is repeated throughout
the studies: commitment is an important variable in
understanding the work behavior of employees in
organizations (Mowday, Steers, and Porter 1979).
What is organization commitment? Researchers vary in
their approach to defining the concept (Becker 1960; Grusky
1966; Kanter 1968; Brown 1969; Hall, Schneider, and Nygren
1970; Sheldon 1971; Hrebiniak and Alutto 1972; Buchanan
1974; Salancik 1977; Wiener and Gechman 1977). In general,
organization commitment is the degree to which employees are
willing to endure internal and external actions on behalf of
their organization. It describes employees' attachment to
the organization and integration of the organization's goals
49
and value systems into their own lives (Mowday, Steers, and
Porter 1979).
Two factors emerge from the literature. The first
factor is commitment related behaviors, or overt
manifestations of commitment. These are behaviors that
exceed formal expectations of the organization (Salancik
1977). The second factor is commitment-related attitudes.
This is exemplified by individuals who adopt the goals of an
organization to the point of congruency (Hall, Schneider,
and Nygren 1970) or by individuals whose identity is linked
to an organization (Sheldon 1971). These individuals
identify with an organization and its goals and wish to
remain members of the organization in order to achieve these
goals. March and Simon (1958) note that this kind of
commitment may involve an exchange relationship between an
individual and an organization. The individual may attach
to the organization in return for certain rewards or
payments.
Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) combine both of these
factors, and define organization commitment as the relative
strength of an individual's identification with, and
involvement in, an organization. Organization commitment is
characterized by (1) a strong belief in and acceptance of an
organization's goals and values; (2) a willingness to exert
a great deal of effort on behalf of an organization; and (3)
50
a strong desire to maintain organizational membership, it
is more than a passive loyalty relationship. It is an
active relationship in which individuals are willing to give
something of themselves in order to help an organization
succeed (Steers 1984).
The antecedents and outcomes of organization commitment
are summarized by Steers (1977a) and Mowday, Porter, and
Steers (1982). The first antecedent, personal factors,
includes such aspects as age, length of association with the
organization, gender, and education. Older, longer-tenured
employees have higher commitment scores. Women score higher
than men, and the more education an employee has, the less
committed the employee is likely to be.
The second antecedent, role-related characteristics,
indicates that enriched jobs lead to more commitment and
jobs with high conflict and ambiguity lead to less
commitment. Structural characteristics, the third
antecedent, include decentralization and worker-ownership
which both lead to higher commitment. The fourth
antecedent, work experiences, includes a series of
experiences from which the employee develops attitudes
toward the organization. These include a sense that the
organization is dependable and really cares about the
welfare of its employees and that the employee is important
to the organization. A positive relationship exists between
51
dependability, trust, caring, and social involvement and
commitment.
Outcomes of organization commitment are the behaviors
exhibited by employees as a reflection of their level of
commitment. March and Simon (1958) found that the higher
the commitment, the lower the absentee rate. Mowday,
Steers, and Porter (1979) found that commitment is inversely
related to turnover and intent to leave an organization.
They also found that commitment is a better predictor of
employee turnover than satisfaction when employees have been
with an organization for a long period of time. As
employees adopt and identify with an organization's goals
over time, they become more likely to maintain an
association with the organization, to become more involved
with their jobs and to put more effort into the job itself
(Mowday, Porter, and Dubin 1974). Job involvement and
effort are aspects of general work motivation.
Thus, the literature suggests that, based on previous
findings, organization commitment would have a positive
relationship with self-managed work team structure because
of its role-related and structural characteristics. It also
was expected that organization commitment would have a
positive relationship with organization-based self-esteem,
based on positive work experiences inherent in self-managed
work teams.
52
Performance
Performance is perhaps the most researched of the
outcomes of the organizational structure of self-managed
work teams that are addressed in this study. While this
study is most concerned with performance as it pertains to
the work group, the concept of performance is relevant as a
continuum from individual behavior to organizational
success. A discussion of performance at all three of these
levels includes the perspectives of psychology, sociology,
and organizational behavior as well as the organizational
theory perspective taken in this study.
Individual Performance
Performance of the individual is typically measured and
reported as part of a routine performance appraisal system
(Latham and Wexley 1981). Each organization has its own
understanding of what constitutes employee performance. In
most organizations, performance criteria include rather
objective measures such as productivity and quality measures
as well as some rather subjective criteria such as
cooperation and loyalty (Steers et al. 1985). Regardless of
the specific measures used, however, the validity of
evaluation depends upon the degree of objectivity on the
part of person appraising the individual (Latham and Wexley
1981). To better understand the nature of individual
performance and to insure greater validity in the appraisal
53
process, researchers have attempted to develop models of
individual performance. Each of these models includes a
number of variables that partially explain individual
performance. Such models allow the appraiser to see
specific issues and to present the complexity of
performance.
One such appraisal model is presented by Organ and
Bateman (1991). It is based upon work done by Porter and
Lawler (1968) and Vroom (1964). This model defines
performance as a function of motivation, effort, ability,
task, role perceptions, and environment. Steers (1977b)
provides a similar model with motives, goals, needs,
abilities, and role clarity as the independent variables
resulting in performance. Szilagyi and Wallace (1983) offer
a third model suggesting that perceptions contribute to
learning which, when combined with personality, results in
abilities. Ability is then combined with motivation to
produce efforts which then result in performance. Cummings
and Schwab (1973) published a complex path model of
performance that included organizational variables
interacting with the individual's ability, motivation, goal
aspirations, and satisfaction levels to produce extrinsic,
i.e., organizational outcomes.
Each of these models present a set of predecessor
variables that directly or indirectly result in the outcome
54
of individual performance. Each model attempts to establish
a framework that can be applicable and useful to any
organization. It is important to note, however, that none
of these models implies that organizational performance is
simply the sum of all individual performances.
Organizational Performance
At the organization level, the distinction between
performance and effectiveness is blurred, at best (Steers
1977b), and in some cases, the two are used interchangeably
(Szilagyi and Wallace 1983; Robbins 1988). It might be
argued that effectiveness is the outcome of performance, but
this study treats the two terms as synonymous.
Etzioni (1964) provided the most basic model for
understanding organizational effectiveness or performance.
He equated organizational effectiveness with the degree to
which the organization realizes its goals. This goal
attainment approach, or goals model, then assesses the
degree to which one or more specific goals are met.
In addition to the goals model of Etzioni, another well
established model for identifying organizational
effectiveness is the systems model (Yuchtman and Seashore
1967). The systems model suggests that performance or
effectiveness is more complex than mere goal accomplishment.
It concerns itself with the way in which goals are met as
55
well as the degree to which they are met. Still another
model is the internal process approach (Bass 1952) which
maintains that an organization is effective only if it
establishes a benevolent relationship with its members
through free flowing communication and a trusting
environment.
In 1978, Pfeffer and Salancik formalized a model called
the strategic constituencies model. Their view was that
organizations needed to satisfy the objectives of several
key groups of people and that each of these groups had a
different perspective on organizational performance. Among
these key constituency groups may be the organization's
owners, workers, management, customers and suppliers, as
well as government agencies and the local community.
Steers (1977b) proposed a process model that combined
the models of goal optimization, a systems perspective, and
an emphasis on human behavior in organizational settings.
More recently, a theory known as the competing values
perspective has evolved (Quinn and Cameron 1979; Cameron and
Whetten 1981; Quinn and Cameron 1983). This theory draws on
all of the previously mentioned approaches.
While there is no absolute agreement on the nature of
organization performance or effectiveness, the subject has
been researched and discussed enough to allow an established
taxonomy to develop. Theories are goal oriented, systems
56
oriented, people/process oriented, or some combination of
the three. How to actually measure organization
effectiveness, however, is less established. Not only is
the task of measuring organization effectiveness difficult,
but as Etzioni (1964) warned:
"Curiously, the very effort - the desire to establish how we are doing and to find ways of improving if we are not doing as well as we ought to do - often has quite undesired effects from the point of view of the organizational goals. Frequent measuring can distort the organizational efforts because, as a rule, some aspects of its output are more measurable than the others. Frequent measuring tends to encourage over-production of highly measurable items and neglect those of the less measurable ones" (1964, p9).
Group Performance
Since the Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger and Dickson
1964), management theorists have been attempting to explain
and to understand work groups. It seems self-evident that
the issue of work group performance is more complex than
that of individual performance simply because of the added
interactions of individuals (Thompson 1967). It is also
more complex, because individuals participate in group
efforts in order to satisfy their own goals, as well as
organizational goals (Steers 1977b). As with performance at
the individual and organization level, several explanations
of group performance and effectiveness have been developed.
Also the distinction between group performance and group
effectiveness is obfuscated in much the same way the
57
distinction between organization effectiveness and
performance is.
Group effectiveness in organizations is the immediate
result of two sets of outcomes (Jewell and Reitz 1981). The
first set is comprised of four outcomes that are internal to
the group; these four are cohesiveness, conformity,
influence, and satisfaction with the group and its members.
The second set is made up of five external outcomes; they
include decisions, intergroup relations, productivity, task
performance, and satisfaction with outside agents and
objects.
According to Daft and Steers' (1986, 198)
interpretation of Hackman's model of work group
effectiveness, "the effectiveness of a work group is
influenced by environmental factors, design factors, and
task-related interpersonal processes, which in turn
influence intermediate criteria. These intermediate
criteria then combine with the nature of work technology to
determine ultimate work group effectiveness." Hackman
(1990, 6-7) also claims that there are three important
criteria of group effectiveness: the extent to which the
group s productive output meets the user's expectation of
quality, quantity, and timeliness; the extent to which the
group process insures future group effectiveness; and the
58
extent to which the group experience contributes to the
well-being of its members.
Other authors have explained group effectiveness
through the use of characteristics displayed by effective
groups. Costley and Todd (1983) summarized the findings of
several researchers' findings with the following list of
characteristics frequently observed in productive groups:
shared leadership, relaxed, supportive, and cooperative
relationships, group loyalty and trust, confidence in the
ability of group members, open communication, shared norms
and values, challenging goals set by the group, and strong
team spirit. Middlemist and Hitt (1981) state that
effective groups exhibit the following characteristics: all
members tend to contribute to the group effort; there are
few social loafers; group goals, both formal and informal,
are achieved; there is a sense of shared satisfaction and
high morale; the group structure satisfies the mix of
individual needs, skills, and backgrounds; communication
within and between groups is open; and they are responsive
to other groups' needs.
Clearly any understanding of group performance must
include some consideration of productive output (Organ and
Bateman 1991). Both the Hackman (1990) model and the Jewell
and Reitz (1981) model specifically include output. The
models that define effective groups according to their
59
characteristics, such as Middlemist and Hitt (1981) and
Costley and Todd (1983), do imply that these characteristics
will result in more productive output. It is significant
that these characteristics include many of the same
characteristics that describe self-managed work teams in
their fifth stage of development.
The Present Study
As shown in the literature, many commonalities and
complex interrelationships exist among the concepts studied
here. A theoretical model based on this literature review
helps conceptualize these relationships (Figure 1).
The causal variable is organizational implementation of
self-managed work team structure. The objective measure
represents the organization structure as determined by
observation of the functioning of the organization. The
subjective measure represents the level of self-management
as perceived by the subjects of the study. Organization-
based self-esteem, as well as its consequent behaviors of
intrinsic work motivation, general job satisfaction,
organization citizenship, and organization commitment, are
consequent behaviors. These behaviors are not easily
controlled and even less easily predicted. They are the
dividends that tend to emerge from the interactions that
60
"8
00
61
occur while the organization strives for desired outcomes.
Personal mediators, represented here by global self-esteem,
tenure, age, and gender, are the variables that are unique
to, and relatively stable in each individual in the
organization. The outcome phenomenon, performance, is the
goal of the causal variable, self-managed work teams.
This study is an investigation of theoretical
interrelationships among the variables represented in the
model. Path analysis, a type of structural equation
modeling, was used to reveal the relationships that occur in
the organization under study. It was hypothesized that as
the level of self-managed work teams increases, the degree
of organization-based self-esteem in its members would
increase, which would, in turn, lead to an increased degree
of intrinsic work motivation, general job satisfaction,
organization citizenship, and commitment, and finally to an
increased level of performance. Meanwhile, it was
hypothesized that each subject's level of organization-based
self-esteem would have a positive relationship with personal
mediators of global self-esteem, tenure, age, and gender.
It also was hypothesized that there would be a direct
positive relationship between the level of self-managed work
teams and the level of performance.
62
Hypotheses
Based on the literature and research to date and the
theoretical model developed on them, 24 hypotheses in six
groups are addressed in this study.
Group 1A
The first hypothesis discusses the correlation between
the objective measure (variable 1) and the subjective
measure (variable 2) of the level of self-managed work
teams. The subjective measure acts as a check on the
objective.
Hypothesis 1. There is a positive correlation between
the objective measure of the level of self-managed work
teams and the subjective measure of the level of self-
managed work teams.
Group IB
The next hypothesis discusses the direct relationship
between the objective measure of the level of self-managed
work teams (variable 1) and organization-based self-esteem
(variable 3). The literature suggests that, as a dependent
variable, organization-based self-esteem is positively
influenced by the organizational structure of self-managed
work teams.
Hypothesis 2. There is positive relationship between
the level of self-managed work teams and the degree of
organization-based self-esteem.
63
Group 2
The next four hypotheses discuss the direct
relationship between organization-based self-esteem and
personal mediators. The literature suggests that as a
dependent variable, organization-based self-esteem (variable
3) is positively influenced by personal mediators such as
global self-esteem (variable 4), tenure (variable 5), age
variable 6), and gender of the respondent (variable 7).
Hypothesis 3. There is a positive direct relationship
between the degree of organization-based self-esteem and the
degree of global self-esteem.
Hypothesis 4. There is a positive direct relationship
between the degree of organization-based self-esteem and the
length of tenure.
Hypothesis 5. There is a positive direct relationship
between the degree of organization-based self-esteem and age
of the respondent.
Hypothesis 6. There is a positive direct relationship
between the degree of organization-based self-esteem and the
gender of the respondent.
Group 3
The next four hypotheses discuss the direct
relationship between organization-based self-esteem and
consequent behaviors. The literature suggests that as an
independent variable, organization-based self-esteem
64
(variable 3) positively influences consequent behaviors such
as intrinsic work motivation (variable 8), general job
satisfaction (variable 9), organization citizenship
(variable 10), and organization commitment (variable 11).
Hypothesis 7. There is a positive direct relationship
between the degree of organization-based self-esteem and the
degree of intrinsic work motivation.
Hypothesis 8. There is a positive direct relationship
between the degree of organization-based self-esteem and the
degree of general job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 9. There is a positive direct relationship
between the degree of organization-based self-esteem and the
degree of organization citizenship.
Hypothesis 10. There is a positive direct relationship
between the degree of organization-based self-esteem and the
degree of organization commitment.
Group 4A
The next four hypotheses discuss the indirect
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and consequent behaviors. The literature suggests that, as
an independent variable, self-managed work teams (variable
1) positively influences consequent behaviors such as
intrinsic work motivation (variable 8), general job
satisfaction (variable 9), organization citizenship
65
(variable 10), and organization commitment (variable 11)
through organization-based self-esteem (variable 3) .
Hypothesis 11. There is a positive indirect
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and the degree of intrinsic work motivation.
Hypothesis 12. There is a positive indirect
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and the degree of general job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 13. There is a positive indirect
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and the degree of organization citizenship.
Hypothesis 14. There is a positive indirect
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and the degree of organization commitment.
Group 4B
The next four hypotheses discuss the direct
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and consequent behaviors. The literature suggests that, as
an independent variable, self-managed work teams (variable
1) positively influences consequent behaviors such as
intrinsic work motivation (variable 8), general job
satisfaction (variable 9), organization citizenship
(variable 10), and organization commitment (variable 11).
Hypothesis 15. There is a positive direct relationship
66
between the level of self-managed work teams and the degree
of intrinsic work motivation.
Hypothesis 16. There is a positive direct relationship
between the level of self-managed work teams and the degree
of general job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 17. There is a positive direct relationship
between the level of self-managed work teams and the degree
of organization citizenship.
Hypothesis 18. There is a positive direct relationship
between the level of self-managed work teams and the degree
of organization commitment.
Group 5
The next four hypotheses discuss the direct
relationship between the consequent behaviors and
performance. The literature suggests that, as a dependent
variable, performance (variable 12) is positively influenced
by behaviors such as intrinsic work motivation (variable 8),
general job satisfaction (variable 9), organization
citizenship (variable 10), and organization commitment
(variable 11).
Hypothesis 19. There is a positive direct relationship
between the degree of intrinsic work motivation and the
level of performance.
67
Hypothesis 20. There is a positive direct relationship
between the degree of general job satisfaction and the level
of performance.
Hypothesis 21. There is a positive direct relationship
between the degree of organization citizenship and the level
of performance.
Hypothesis 22. There is a positive direct relationship
between the degree of organization commitment and the level
of performance.
Group 6
The last two hypotheses discuss the relationship
between the level of self-managed work teams and
performance. The literature suggests that, as a dependent
variable, performance (variable 12) is directly positively
influenced by the level of self-managed work teams (variable
1) and indirectly positively by the level of self-managed
work teams through organization-based self-esteem (variable
3) and consequent behaviors (variables 8, 9, 10, and 11).
Hypothesis 23. There is a positive direct relationship
between the level of self-managed work teams and the level
of performance.
Hypothesis 24. There is a positive indirect
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and the level of performance.
CHAPTER 3
THE DATA, THEIR TREATMENT, AND THEIR INTERPRETATION
The Data
The data developed for this research are of two types.
They are primary and secondary.
Primary Data
Four types of primary data were used in this study.
First, data for this study were generated through
standardized questionnaires using Likert-type five-point
scales. These data were used to determine global self-
esteem, organization-based self-esteem, intrinsic work
motivation, general job satisfaction, organization
citizenship, and organization commitment. These data are
ordinal, but were treated as interval data for the purposes
of analysis. Traditionally, data collected using Likert-
type scales have been treated as interval data in regression
applications such as is used in structural equation modeling
(Churchill 1987). Scales, such as ordinal scales, that seek
to yield interval or ratio level measurement can effectively
be used especially when dealing with summations of scores as
is the usual practice with Likert-type scales (Cohen and
Cohen 1983). The power of regression analysis is so great
68
69
compared to ordinal-level techniques, that the risk of error
is acceptable in that regression analysis with ordinal data
arrives at the same conclusion as when using interval or
ratio data (Lewis-Beck 1985). In the specific case of using
summated Likert-type scales as is done in this study,
correlation of scores on the summated scale to other
measures can be done without concern for the absolute value
or degradation of results (Emory 1985).
A second type of primary data used was the content of
responses to open-ended questions. These qualitative data
were used to interpret the findings of the data collected
using Likert-type scales.
A third type of primary data used was demographic data.
These categorical data also were used to explain and
interpret the findings of the data collected using Likert-
type scales.
A fourth type of primary data used was observations and
judgements, a type of qualitative primary data. These
observations were used to categorize the degree of self-
management exercised by work teams and to interpret the
findings.
Secondary Data
Performance measures were obtained from the food
processing plant under study. Data resulting from research,
dissertations, and information in books and texts constitute
70
a type of secondary data. These data were significant in
the isolation of variables and the theoretical constructs
upon which this research was based.
The Research Methodology
The Design
The research design used in this study is known by
various names such as sample survey (Stone 1978) and
analytical survey (Leedy 1985). Analytical survey is a
systematic technique using questionnaires or interviews to
collect data from members of a sample that represents a
known population. No independent variables are manipulated.
The purpose of research using this design can range from
exploration of phenomena to the testing of hypotheses (Stone
1978).
The basic design of this analytical survey is a cross-
sectional survey. In this design, "data are collected at
one point in time from a sample selected to describe some
larger population at that time...A subsequent survey might
find quite a different relationship" (Babbie 1973, 62-63).
One part of this study collects data about the
respondents' environment; this is known as a contextual
study, or an examination of the respondents' context. These
environmental data can then be used to analyze the
71
respondents' attitudes as determined by the analytical
survey (Babbie 1973).
Analytical survey design was selected for three
reasons. First, it allows for generalizations to a defined
population. Second, surveys often yield data that suggest
new hypotheses (Stone 1978). And finally, the analytical
survey allows for triangulation, which is the use of various
systematic data collection methods, such as interviews,
questionnaires, and observation, that can be combined to
gain a deeper and clearer understanding of the setting,
people, and variables being studied (Taylor and Bogdan
1984).
The Questionnaire
The questionnaire used for this study was a combination
of Likert-type scale questions developed specifically for
this study, standardized surveys, demographic questions, and
open-ended questions. A copy of the questionnaire is
provided in Appendix A.
Two sets of Likert-type scale questions were developed
specifically for this study. Both were used to measure the
level of self-managed work teams based on the
characteristics discussed in the section on stages of self-
managed work teams in Chapter 2, p. 17. The objective
measure contained all ten items, whereas the subjective
measure used the last six items.
72
Six standardized surveys were used. These particular
construct measures were chosen because they had previously-
established psychometric properties. Organization-based
self-esteem was measured with a ten-item scale developed by
Pierce et al. (1989). Global self-esteem, a personal
mediator of organization-based self-esteem, was measured
with the ten-item Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE)
(Rosenberg 1965). Intrinsic work motivation and general job
satisfaction were measured with appropriate portions of
Hackman and Oldham's Job Diagnostic Survey (1974a).
Organization citizenship was measured with a fourteen-item
scale based on a survey developed by Smith, Organ, and Near
(1983). Organization commitment was measured with a ten-
item scale taken from an instrument developed by Mowday,
Steers, and Porter (1979).
Demographic questions were used to determine the
personal mediator variables of tenure, age, and gender.
Respondents were offered categories of responses for each
category.
Four open ended questions were used to gather
unstructured responses. These responses were used to
interpret the results of the quantitative part of the
questionnaire.
The ethnic make-up of the sample of this study
necessitated the development of a Spanish version of the
73
questionnaire as well as an English version. The
development of the questionnaire originally was written in
the English language. A professional translator then
translated the English version of the questionnaire into
Spanish. The Spanish version of the questionnaire was then
retranslated into English by two employees at the study
sight and compared to the original English version. This
was done to verify that meaning had not been lost in the
translation process and to help ensure comprehension by the
Puerto Rican respondents in the sample.
Additional Data
Three additional groups of data were collected for this
study. As a means of triangulation, written open-ended
questions and unstructured interviews were used. Open-ended
questions on the questionnaire asked respondents to
indicate, in their own words, what they liked and disliked
about their working situation and themselves. Unstructured
interviews were conducted with team members, supervisors,
and staff personnel. The data were gathered as
unobtrusively as possible in order to avoid the tendency
respondents have to modify answers to suit the interviewer.
The data collected in this manner were similar to those
found in the formal questionnaire. The answers to the open-
ended questions and the interviews were used to help
interpret the results of the standardized portion of the
74
questionnaire. This method of triangulation was used to
guard against researcher bias and to gain a deeper and
clearer understanding of the setting and the persons being
studied (Taylor and Bogdan 1984).
The Procedure
Setting
This analytical survey required that the organization
be structured around self-managed work teams and that it
offered an ample number of subjects. The nature of the
study, therefore, essentially necessitated a sample of
convenience. Even with convenience samples gaining access
to organizations has traditionally been difficult (Taylor
and Bogdan 1984). Fortunately, a food processing plant was
found that was team-based, accessible, and provided the
appropriate number of subjects.
This plant is located in an urban area of a
nonmetropolitan county in a northeastern state of the United
States with a population of about 25,000. Although it sits
in the heart of fertile, productive farm lands, the area
supports a broad diversity of industry including lumber and
wood products, primary metals, fabricated metals, machinery,
processed food, printing and publishing, and construction.
The average unemployment rate for the area from May 1988
through August 1990 was 5 percent while the average weekly
75
wage of all employees covered by unemployment Insurance in
1989 was $343.77. The average weekly wage of employees in
manufacturing in 1989 was $442.71.
The labor force in the county is generally well
educated and skilled. The county supports a four-year
liberal arts college, a two-year junior college, and a
vocational school. Health care services include five
accredited hospitals and there are many cultural and tourist
attractions as well.
The food processing plant that was the site of this
study is one of a number of similar food processing plants
in the county. One hundred forty of the 325 employees were
participants in the self-managed work-team structure. They
represented the following functional areas: batching,
maintenance, production, and quality control. The other 185
employees were a part of a traditional structure
representing warehousing, clerical, trucking, and
management.
The food processing plant, which processes fruit and
vegetable juices, encompasses 125,000 square feet. The
average yearly income of the employees studied was between
$15,000 and $20,000.
Description of the Sample
The subjects for this study were 116 full-time, first-
line production employees working in self-managed work teams
76
(75% of all employees in teams). All qualifying employees
within a unit were surveyed on a volunteer basis. Of the
116 completed surveys, 105 of them were usable; the other 11
were eliminated because of uncompleted sections of the
survey. Four subjects used a Spanish version of the survey.
One Spanish speaking subject could not read, so a bilingual
(Spanish and English) team member volunteered to help
administer the survey in that one case.
The sample for this study consisted of 325 employees at
a food processing plant. Of the 325 employees, 140 were
part of a self-managed work-team structure (Fig. 2). The
105 employees who were surveyed (75% of the 140), and whose
responses were usable, represented the following functional
areas: production (68), batching (24), maintenance (7), and
quality control (6) (Fig.3). The 185 employees who were not
used in this study were part of a traditional structure.
They represented warehousing, clerical, trucking, and
management areas.
The study participants belonged to seven different
teams, ranging in size from fourteen to twenty-one members.
Four of the teams worked day shift and three of the teams
worked night shift. Each team was comprised of
representatives from each of the four traditional
departments: production (packaging the product, 64.1%),
batching (preparation of the food product, 23.3%),
77
SMWT Survey Employees
105
Non-SMWT Employees 185
SMWT Non- Survey Employees
35
Total no. of employees in sample = 325
Fig. 2. Structure of the sample.
Batching 24
Maintenance 7
Quality Control 6
Production 68
Total no. of employees in survey = 105
Fig. 3. Self-managed work teams by function.
78
maintenance (6.8%), and quality control (5.8%).
The overall sample included 82 males (78.1%) and 23
females (21.9%) (Fig. 4). The largest percentage of the
sample were twenty-six to thirty-five years old (36.2%),
while 30.5 percent were less than twenty-six years old and
33.3 percent were more than thirty-five years old (Fig 5).
Several broad ethnic groups were represented; 65.7 percent
identified themselves as Caucasian, 17.1 percent as
Hispanic, 12.4 percent as Afro-American, and 4.8 percent as
Native American (Fig. 6). The workers' education levels
ranged from less than six years (3.8%) to more than twelve
years (33.7%), with the majority (53.8%) reporting ten to
twelve years of education (Fig 7). Most of the Hispanic
team members were emigrants from Puerto Rico. For most,
their formal education stopped when they left Puerto Rico to
seek employment in the United States. Most spoke English,
but all could communicate with others through bilingual team
members. Tenure on the job ranged from less than six months
to more than two years.
Treatment
This study was designed to investigate relationships
among the organization structure of self-managed work teams,
organization-based self-esteem, its consequent behaviors of
intrinsic work motivation, general job satisfaction,
organization citizenship, organization commitment, and
79
Females 23
Males
Total no. of employees in survey = 105
Fig. 4. Self-managed work teams by gender.
36.2%
30.5%
Less than 26 years
26 to 35 years
More than 35 years
Total no. of employees in survey = 105
Fig. 5. Self-managed work teams by age.
80
0 % 1 !• «+-m c o 3 «> op a eg — a
Ph
65.7%
12.4%
Caucasian Hispanic Afro- Native American American
Total no. of employees in survey = 105
Fig. 6. Self-managed work teams by ethnic group.
33.7%
1 & VO O a, D
a a
CO
so
§ ts
2 o
£ (N
•B 2 o s
Total no. of employees in survey = 105
Fig. 7. Self-managed work teams by education level.
81
performance. This study is an analytical survey; thus,
there was no treatment and no variables were manipulated.
Variables
The variables and the characteristics of each
instrument used to measure them are presented in the
following paragraphs.
Level of Self-Managed Work Teams
The first two key variables in the model are the
objective measure of the level of self-managed work teams
(variable 1), and the subjective measure of the level of
self-managed work teams (variable 2) (Fig. 1, p. 60,
Theoretical model of relationships among self-managed work
teams, organization-based self-esteem, consequent behaviors,
and performance). A self-managed work team is
characterized, at minimum, by the following:
1. A single social unit, or team, is responsible
for producing a well-defined segment of finished
product or service.
2. All functions and technical skills necessary
for process control, maintenance, and adjustment are
included within the team.
3. Output of the team can be defined and
measured.
82
4. The team is comprised of individual members
who are jointly committed to optimize the functioning
of the team with respect to production goals (DuBrin
1984; Aubrey and Felkins 1988; Orsburn et al. 1990).
Additional characteristics may include, but are not
limited to the following:
1. Individual members or whole teams cross
traditional channels and barriers to deal with other
departments.
2. Leadership responsibilities are rotated among
team members.
3. Tasks are rotated among team members.
4. Members may participate in the selection and
dismissal of fellow team members.
5. The team determines how to meet production
targets.
6. Individual members or whole teams cross
traditional channels and barriers to deal with
customers and suppliers (DuBrin 1984; Aubrey and
Felkins 1988; Orsburn et al. 1990).
No known valid quantitative instrument can consistently
determine the level of employee self-management. This is
due in part to the various interpretations by practitioners
and researchers of the concept of self-rtianagement. An
objective observation measure of self-management was judged
83
qualitatively for this study. The standards for judgement
were the ten characteristics listed on page 80. Teams were
rated using data gathered through unstructured interviews
with supervisors and employees and through observation. In
addition, six questions based on the last six
characteristics listed were included in the questionnaire in
order to gather the employees' perceptions of their level of
self-management. These six items are questions 48 through
53 of the questionnaire in Appendix A. The objective
measurement and the subjective measurement of the employees
were compared and analyzed. Internal reliability of the
subjective measure was high (Cronbach's alpha = .75).
Organization-Based Self-Esteem
The third key variable in the model is organization-
based self-esteem (variable 3, fig. 1, p. 60, Theoretical
model of relationships among self-managed work teams,
organization-based self-esteem, consequent behaviors, and
performance). Organization-based self-esteem, a construct
defined by Pierce et al. (1989), is the degree to which a
member of an organization believes that personal needs can
be satisfied by participating in a role within the context
of that organization. Therefore, employees with high
organization-based self-esteem would see themselves as
important, meaningful, effectual, and worthwhile within the
work situation. Experiences within an organization shape
84
organization-based self-esteem. Organization-based self-
esteem acts as an antecedent of organization-related
behaviors and attitudes such as intrinsic work motivation,
general job satisfaction, organization citizenship, and
organization commitment.
Organization-based self-esteem was characterized by a
score determined through the administration of an instrument
developed and tested by Pierce et al. (1989). Their
instrument has ten items and uses a five-point Likert-type
scale. These ten items are questions 28 through 37 of the
questionnaire in Appendix A. Respondents were asked to
think about the messages they receive from the attitudes and
behaviors of their managers, supervisors, and coworkers, and
to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed
with each of the statements. A measure of overall
organization-based self-esteem for each respondent was
derived by taking the mean score across all items. The
measure's reliability estimates and validity measures, as
reported in Pierce et al. (1989), are: an internal
consistency alpha value equal to or greater than .86; a
test-retest reliability coefficient of .75 (p < .01); a
predictive validity of organization structure, r = -.32 (p <
.05) to r = -.54 (E < *01) (this negative relationship
suggests that the more impersonal and authoritarian or
traditional an organization is, the lower an employee's
85
organization-based self-esteem will be); incremental
validity in relation to organization commitment, r = .55;
and incremental validity in relation to organization
satisfaction, r = .77 (p < .01). Incremental validity
provides "some increment in predictive efficiency over the
information otherwise easily and cheaply available"
(Sechrest 1963, 154).
Personal Mediator Variables
The next four variables are the personal mediators of
organization-based self-esteem. The variables are (4)
global self-esteem, (5) tenure, (6) age and (7) gender
(Fig.l, p. 60, Theoretical model of relationships among
self-managed work teams, organization-based self-esteem,
consequent behaviors, and performance).
Global Self-Esteem
Global self-esteem (variable 4) is an overall self-
evaluation of approval or disapproval of self (Simpson and
Boyle 1975). It is derived from an aggregation of life
experiences in many contexts, including work experiences,
that accumulate across time (Pierce et al. 1989). Global
self-esteem is both an antecedent and outcome of
organization-based self-esteem. In this study, global self-
esteem was treated as an independent variable, a personal
mediator of organization-based self-esteem. It was included
86
in this study to verify the findings of organization-based
self-esteem.
Global self-esteem was characterized by a score
determined through the administration of an instrument
developed and tested by Rosenberg (1965). The ten items are
numbered 1 through 10 on the questionnaire. Although
Rosenberg used a Guttman scale, most researchers use the
simpler Likert method of summing across the ten items (Wylie
1989). The original four-point scale was replaced with a
five-point scale for consistency in the overall instrument
and for increased test-taking ease for the respondents.
Several items were negatively phrased and reverse scored in
an effort to reduce response bias. No descriptive
statistics are available for the Likert-type scale scoring
of the instrument, although several researchers have used
the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Statistics on reliability
and validity are strong for the Guttman scale (Wylie 1989).
Wylie reports that for internal consistency, the Cronbach
alpha was .77 in a study of 5,024 students, and the alpha
coefficients in seven studies ranged from .72 to .87. The
coefficients of reproducibility were .92 or more.
Tenure, Age, and Gender
Tenure (variable 5), age (variable 6), and gender
(variable 7) are personal mediators of organization-based
self-esteem. These data were obtained by asking team
87
members how long they had worked in their present position,
how old they were, and whether they were male or female.
Respondents were offered categories of responses for each
mediator question. The three items are numbered 73 through
75 on the questionnaire.
Consequent Behaviors
The next four key variables in the model represent the
set of consequent behaviors of intrinsic work motivation
(variable 8), general job satisfaction (variable 9),
organization citizenship (variable 10), and organization
commitment (variable 11) (fig. 1, p. 60, Theoretical model
of relationships among self-managed work teams,
organization-based self-esteem, consequent behaviors, and
performance).
Intrinsic Work Motivation and General Job Satisfaction
Intrinsic work motivation (variable 8) is the effort
expended by an employee toward organizational objectives or
work accomplishment (DuBrin 1984). Cognitive consistency
theory assumes that persons are motivated to achieve
outcomes that are consistent with their self-concept (Korman
1971). This suggests that employees with high organization-
based self-esteem see themselves as organizationally
valuable and meaningful, and that they are motivated to
engage in behaviors valued in the organization.
88
General job satisfaction (variable 9) is an attitude
that employees develop as a consequence of their perceptions
of their job situations in general (Hackman and Oldham
1975). In this respect, it is a dependent variable. A
number of dimensions have been associated with general job
satisfaction, including how interesting the job is, how
fulfilling the job is, what the promotion opportunities are,
how supportive supervisors are, if pay is equitable, and how
friendly, competent, and supportive coworkers are (Smith,
Kendall, and Hulin 1969). To the extent that an
organization can provide these, employees experience general
job satisfaction, coupled with a reinforcement of their
organization-based self-esteem (Pierce et al. 1989). In
this respect it is an independent variable. In this study,
general job satisfaction is used as both an independent
variable with respect to performance and a dependent
variable with respect to level of self-managed work teams
and organization-based self-esteem.
For this study, intrinsic work motivation and general
job satisfaction were determined through the administration
of parts of the Job Diagnostic Survey, developed and tested
by Hackman and Oldham (1974a). Items 11, 12, 15, 17, and 19
of the present questionnaire measure general job
satisfaction. Items 13, 14, 21, 23, 25, and 27 measure
intrinsic work motivation. An average of item scores in
89
each category for each respondent yields the score for that
measure. The original seven-point Likert-type scale was
replaced with a five-point scale. The responses range from
1 = agree strongly to 5 = disagree strongly. The change was
made for consistency in the overall instrument and for
increased test-taking ease for the respondents. Several
items were negatively phrased and reverse scored in an
effort to reduce response bias. Both intrinsic work
motivation and general job satisfaction measures had an
internal consistency reliability of .76 (Hackman and Oldham
1975). The substantive validity of the instrument is
reported in detail in Hackman and Oldham (1974b). "In
general, the results suggest that both the internal
consistency reliability of the scales and the discriminant
validity of the items are satisfactory" (Hackman and Oldham
1975, 164).
Organization Citizenship
Organization citizenship (variable) is characterized by
acts of cooperation, helpfulness, suggestions, gestures of
goodwill, and altruism in the work place (Smith, Organ, and
Near 1983). Organization citizenship is what Roethlisberger
and Dickson (1964) refer to as cooperation, or something
beyond productivity. Whereas productivity is a function of
the formal organization, cooperation (or organization
citizenship) is the day-to-day spontaneous gestures of
90
employees accommodating the work needs of others.
Roethlisberger and Dickson describe cooperation as a
consequence of both the quality of work experience and
previous social conditioning. In this respect cooperation
functions as a dependent variable.
Organization citizenship was characterized by a score
which was determined through the administration of an
instrument developed and tested by Smith, Organ, and Near
(1983). The instrument has fourteen items, numbered 54
through 67 on the present questionnaire, and uses a five-
point Likert-type scale. Two factors make up this
construct, a personalized altruism and a more impersonal
form of generalized compliance. Coefficient alpha
reliability estimates were .88 and .85, respectively, for
the two factors. A five-point Likert-type scale is used
with responses ranging from 1 = very characteristic of me,
to 5 = very uncharacteristic of me. Several items were
negatively phrased and reverse scored in an effort to reduce
response bias. A summation of item responses yielded the
respondents' scores on organization citizenship.
Organization Commitment
Organization commitment (variable 11) is defined by
Porter et al. (1974) as the relative strength of an
individual's identification with and involvement in a
particular organization. They contend that it can be
91
characterized by at least three factors: (1) a strong belief
in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values,
(2) a willingness to exert a great deal of effort on behalf
of the organization, and (3) a strong desire to maintain
organizational membership. Organization commitment
represents an active relationship with an organization;
individuals are willing to give something of themselves in
order to contribute to the organization's well being
(Mowday, Steers, and Porter 1979). Because it is a
consequent behavior of organization-based self-esteem
(Pierce et al. 1989), organization commitment is a dependent
variable.
Organization commitment was characterized by a score
derived from an instrument developed and tested by Mowday,
Steers, and Porter (1979). It has ten items, numbered 38
through 47 in the questionnaire used for this study. The
original seven-point Likert-type scale was altered to a
five-point scale and the responses range from 1 = agree
strongly to 5 = disagree strongly. The change was made for
consistency in the overall instrument and for increased
test-taking ease for the respondents. Several items were
negatively phrased and reverse scored in an effort to reduce
response bias. As effectiveness of a questionnaire is
dependent, in part, on the total length of the questionnaire
(Churchill 1987), items with an average item-total
92
correlation less than .50 were eliminated. A summation of
responses yielded a respondents' scores on organization
commitment. Internal consistency reliability had a
coefficient alpha ranging from .82 to .93, with a median of
.90. Test-retest reliabilities were r = .53, .63, and .75
over two-, three-, and four-month periods, respectively.
Convergent validity ranged from .63 to .74, with a median of
.70.
Performance
The last key variable in the model is performance
(variable 12) (fig.l, p. 60, Theoretical model of
relationships among self-managed work teams, organization-
based self-esteem, consequent behaviors, and performance).
Team, or work group, performance is a function of the
organization measured in various ways (Chapter 2, p. 55).
In this study performance was determined by using level of
output, amount of rework, time lost due to injuries on the
job, and absenteeism for each team. These secondary data
for this variable were obtained from the food processing
plant under study.
Specific Treatment of the Data
The data needed for this study were (1) the identity of
members of self-managed work teams, (2) the responses from
these subjects to the questionnaire, and (3) performance
93
measures. After gaining access to a food processing plant
structured in part around self-managed work teams,
identification of appropriate subjects was made of members
of teams defined by, but not limited to, the list of
characteristics outlined earlier in this chapter in the
section entitled variables. This was done through
unstructured interviews with supervisors and team members,
and observation. Team members were also asked their
perceptions of the level of their self-management by means
of six questions in the questionnaire. These questions were
based on the last six characteristics listed in the
variables section.
The data were collected at regular team meetings over
the course of one week. Both the written and interview data
were collected in person at the work site. Prior to the
distribution of the questionnaire, an informed consent form
was voluntarily signed by all participants. The form was
collected separately to ensure anonymity of responses to the
questionnaire. A sample of the release form is provided in
Appendix B.
Four of the participants spoke and read only Spanish.
To accommodate them, a Spanish version of the questionnaire
was administered. Bilingual participants assisted in this
process.
94
Performance measures for each team were obtained from
the food processing plant under study. These measures
included level of output, amount of rework, time lost due to
injuries on the job, and absenteeism level. A composite
score for each team represented the performance measure.
Treatment of the Data
The sections of the questionnaire dealing with
organization-based self-esteem, intrinsic work motivation,
general job satisfaction, organization citizenship,
organization commitment, and global self-esteem utilized
Likert-type scales. The level of each variable for each
member of the self-managed work teams was determined by
summing the responses of the appropriate questions for each
respondent. Descriptive statistics and Pearson Product-
Moment correlations were performed on the data.
This study is an investigation of the theoretical
interrelationships among the variables represented in the
model illustrated in figure 1 (Chapter 2). Regression
analysis was performed for the purpose of path analysis.
Path analysis is a recursive statistical method used to
study patterns of causation among variables. This method
was used to help understand the relationships that occurred
among the constructs under study. It was hypothesized that
as the level of self-managed work teams increased, the
95
degree of organization-based self-esteem in its members
would increase, which would in turn lead to an increased
degree of intrinsic work motivation, general job
satisfaction, organization citizenship, and commitment, and
finally to an increased level of performance. It was also
hypothesized that a direct positive relationship exists
between the level of self-managed work teams and the level
of performance.
Data Analysis
Statistical procedures from ABSTAT software were used
to analyze the data for descriptive statistics and
correlations. EQS Structural Equations Program Version 3.0
was used to perform the path analysis.
Interpretation of the Data
Path analysis is a method for studying patterns of
causation among a set of variables (Pedhazur 1982). Path
analysis can reveal the extent of the association of the
variables being examined in a particular model, but does not
explain the cause of the association. One variable may
cause the other, or they may interact in causation, or they
may be associated because of outside influences (Balsley
1978). Few empirical studies have been published about the
effects that self-managed work teams have on the members of
96
these teams or about their effects on the performance of an
organization. The present study was designed to discover
what relationships exist in the organization under study,
and to offer explanations of those relationships.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The results of this study are presented in this
chapter. The results of the path analysis performed on the
theoretical model, presented in Chapter 2. A new model that
emerged from the data and accompanying rationale are then
presented. The chapter concludes with a presentation of the
results as they support the research hypotheses.
Stage of Transition of Self-Managed Work Teams
The stage of transition of the self-managed work teams,
as determined by observation and described in Chapters 2 and
3, varied among the teams. In quantitative terms, on a
scale of one to five, with one representing the weakest
degree of self-management, or stage one of transition, the
teams were evaluated between 2.5 and 3, or stages 2 and 3
(Table 3).
This restriction of range had the effect of reducing
correlations with other variables in the model. In
accordance with the definition of self-managed work teams
provided in Chapter 3, all teams in the study were
responsible for producing a well-defined segment of finished
product or service, included all functions and technical
97
98
skills necessary for process control, maintenance, and
adjustment, and had output that could be defined and
measured. The teams, however, were comprised of individual
members who were variously committed to optimizing the
functioning of the team with respect to production goals.
Joint commitment was stronger in some teams than in others,
and the commitment within teams also varied.
The extent to which individual members crossed
traditional channels and barriers to deal with other
departments varied among and within teams. Leadership
responsibilities, however limited, were rotated among team
members in a combination of consensus among team members and
acceptance by management. Few tasks were rotated among team
members. For the most part, team members tended to
specialize their skills. There were some notable exceptions
to this, however. Although management did not encourage job
rotation or cross training, these practices were accepted
within the teams if they were desired by team members. Team
members were allowed informal input into the selection and
dismissal of fellow team members. Management weighed the
input, to some degree, on the level of respect that
management seemed to have for a team. Teams had little
influence in determining how to meet production targets, and
individual members or whole teams did not cross traditional
channels and barriers to deal with customers and suppliers.
99
TABLE 3 STAGES OF TRANSITION OF SELF-MANAGED WORK TEAMS IN STUDY
STAGES SURVEY
CHARACTERISTICS STAGE OF TEAMS
IN STUDY
Stage One: The Start-Up Stage
Optimism of the team and wariness of the supervisor
Stage Two: State of Confusion
Feelings of ambiguity, foot-dragging, and blatant resistance
Night Shift Teams
Stage Three: Leader-Centered Team
Growing confidence as teams become effective decision makers
Day Shift Teams
Stage Four: Tightly Formed Team
Intense team loyalty
Stage Five: Self-Managed Work Team
Maturity and a commitment to achieving organizational and team goals
Correlations
Correlations among all of the variables in the
theoretical model are presented in Table 4. These
correlations serve as the basis of the path analysis used to
interpret the relationships among the constructs in this
study.
100
As indicated in Table 4, the objective measure of the
level of self-managed work teams (SMWT1, variable 1) and the
subjective measure of the level of self-managed work teams
(SMWT2, variable 2) have a correlation coefficient of r =
0.129, which at an alpha level of 0.05 is not significant.
The level of self-managed work teams (SMWT1, variable 1) and
organization-based self-esteem (OBSE, variable 3) have a
correlation coefficient of r = -0.078, which at an alpha
level of 0.05 is not significant. The level of self-managed
work teams (SMWT1, variable 1) has the following
correlation coefficients with each of the consequent
behaviors; intrinsic work motivation (IM, variable 8) r = -
0.070; general job satisfaction (SATIS, variable 9) r = -
0.060; organization citizenship (CIT, variable 10) r =
0.190; and organization commitment (COMM, variable 11) r = -
0.122. None of these correlations are significant at an
alpha level of 0.05. Self-managed work teams (SMWT1,
variable 1) and performance (PERFORM, variable 12) have a
correlation coefficient of r = -0.342, which is significant
at an alpha level of 0.01.
Organization-based self-esteem (OBSE, variable 3) has
the following correlation coefficients with each of the
personal moderators: general self-esteem (GSE, variable 4)
r = 0.148; tenure (TENURE, variable 5) r = -0.053; age (AGE,
variable 6) r = -0.097; and gender (GENDER, variable 7) r =
101
© o
S 5
v2 CO
CN Si ^ 00 <n
a *o
CN cn CN
io 8 o
en On cn
00 8 CN CN
VO cn r*
£ CN
8 CN CO
Os VO Os
8 $ © cs « # c> O Os *••< *"N
O CN ~ o * ©
S u s s
|ii s | ? U CO «
* * 00 ©
d *
*n cn
m CN o
so vo r-q $ s 9 « © , © £ > * f-H
2 § 8 o * o o * £ ON *0 T—t
CN *n
CO
5?
£
CO
i o
I d
s
CN *o
25 oo ~ s
O o
2 8
§ $ ? . 2 *
© <r> s o
5? £ © 9 P
$
m 8 9
*0
9 * o
*r> s
£; 10 * 0 1-H *-; o O ©
o o
o cn O d
0610 -0.1
22
**
-0.3
42
-0.0
63
-0.1
87
-0.1
07
-0.1
78
0.09
2
0.14
8
0.04
3
0.17
2
0.05
1
I is a <u £ 6 <? m VO
w CO §
W °Q O
00
102
0.226. Gender correlates significantly at an alpha level of
0.01; none of the other correlations between organization-
based self-esteem and its personal moderators are
significant at an alpha level of 0.05. Organization-based
self-esteem (OBSE, variable 3) has the following correlation
coefficients with each of its consequent behaviors:
intrinsic work motivation (IM, variable 8) r = 0.456;
general job satisfaction (SATIS, variable 9) r = 0.385;
organization citizenship (CIT, variable 10) r = 0.040; and
organization commitment (COMM, variable 11) r = 0.513. Each
of the correlations with intrinsic work motivation, general
job satisfaction, and organization commitment is significant
at an alpha level of 0.01; the correlation between OBSE and
organization citizenship is not significant at an alpha
level of 0.05.
Performance (PERFORM, variable 12) has the following
correlation coefficients with each of the consequent
behaviors of self-managed work teams and organization-based
self-esteem: intrinsic work motivation (IM, variable 8) r =
0.001; general job satisfaction (SATIS, variable 9) r =
0.247; organization citizenship (CIT, variable 10) r = -
0.219; and organization commitment (COMM, variable 11) r =
0.230. Each of the correlations between performance and
general job satisfaction, organization citizenship, and
organization commitment is significant at an alpha level of
103
0.01; the correlation between performance and intrinsic work
motivation is not significant at an alpha level of 0.05.
Path Analysis
Path analysis was performed to explore the tenability
of the theory-based causal model developed in Chapter 2.
Because the objective was aimed at understanding the pattern
of relationships among the constructs, a theory-trimming
approach was used (Pedhazur 1982).
The first step was to regress each endogenous variable
on all others that preceded it in the full theoretical model
(Fig. 1, p. 60, Chapter 2). Endogenous variables, or
dependent variables, are variables whose variation is
explained by other variables in the model, or dependent
variables. The regression analyses were based on the
correlation matrix in Table 4. Standardized beta weights
were used to estimate path coefficients. A path coefficient
is the direct effect that a variable hypothesized as an
independent variable has on the dependent variable. This
regression procedure assumes that in the full theoretical
model, all variables that precede a particular endogenous
variable in the causal sequence have direct causal effects
on it. As shown in Figure 8, some of the paths in the full
model have path coefficients that are near zero.
Coefficients this low have little if any real effect on the
dependent variable (Hair et al. 1992). "Since it is almost
104
if 00
c* 00
8*2
£
105
never possible to account for the total variance of a
variable, residual variables are introduced to indicate the
effect of variables not included in the model" (Pedhazur
1982, 582). In Figure 8, the residual variables are
indicated by the notation e . —n
The next step was to trim the full model by deleting,
one at a time, paths with path coefficients near zero. This
yielded a restricted model whose path coefficients were
recalculated by regressing each endogenous variable on
antecedent variables, that is, those variables that make up
the path to the endogenous variable being regressed. As in
the first step, standardized beta weights were used to
estimate path coefficients. The third step was to repeat
the previous step by deleting paths with path coefficients
near zero. These paths were p103 from organization-based
self-esteem to organization citizenship, p53 from
organization-based self-esteem to tenure, p81 from self-
managed work teams to intrinsic work motivation, pgi from
self-managed work teams to general job satisfaction, and
from self-managed work teams to organization commitment.
The resulting restricted or trimmed model is provided in
Figure 9.
Finally, each restricted model was tested for goodness
of fit using the chi-square test, the R2, and the £
106
vp oo
"2
s £ tS W ul*
& % & % i 1 O S £ 1 xtO vn H V£>< r-O
C4 <N
i f # 1
107
statistic. The results for the full model and the final
restricted model are presented in Table 5.
TABLE 5 GOODNESS OF FIT
TEST X2 df E (Ml
£
Full Model 21.28 46 .99 .902
Restricted Model
14.40 40 .99 .898 .960
The chi-square test was used to compare the variance
explained by the causal or hypothesized model and the
variance explained by the restricted model, or goodness of
fit. "A large drop in chi-square compared to the difference
in df between the original and the revised model is taken as
support for the changes in the model" (Pedhazur 1982, 620).
In the study, the chi-square dropped from 21.28 for the
causal model to 14.40 for the revised or restricted model, a
drop of 6.88 and the degrees of freedom dropped from 46 to
40, a drop of 6. This is a critical probability of 70.2%,
thus lending some but not overwhelming support for the
changes in the model. The probabilities of the chi-square
for each model were .99.
Next, the R2 for the full model and the M for the
reduced model were calculated. The following is the
procedure for overidentified models, models which contain
108
more variables than are necessary to estimate the path
coefficients. The formulas used were:
Rzra = 1 " (e, e2 e3 . . . ej
M = 1 - (e, e2 e3 . . . ej
where "R2n is the ratio of the generalized variance
explained by the causal (or hypothesized) model to the
generalized variance which was to be explained by the
(reduced) model" (Pedhazur 1982, 619), and e± represents the
residual paths. "In short, to calculate R2m for a fully
recursive model calculate the product of all the squared
residual paths and subtract from one" (Pedhazur 1982, 619).
The next step is to compare the results for the causal or
hypothesized model (R2m = .902) and the reduced model (M =
.898). Note that M is calculated in the same manner as is
R2m, except that some or all of the paths have been deleted.
Therefore, M can take values between zero and R2 . The — — in
closer the results for the two models, the better the fit of
the reduced model to the data. The difference between Rz —- HI
and M is .004 (.902 - .898 = .004), indicating that the
reduced model is a good fit.
Another measure of goodness of fit for an
overidentified model is the C[ statistic. It was calculated
using the following formula:
109
< 2 = 1 - R zm / 1 - M
The £statistic can vary from 0 to 1. The closer it
approaches 1, the better the restricted model fits the data
(Pedhazur 1982). The results of the calculations indicate
that the Q statistic for the restricted model was .960.
Test of Hypotheses
Using the procedures outlined (correlation, path
analysis, and theory trimming) each of the twenty-four
hypotheses presented in Chapter 2 were tested. In
accordance with standard path analysis practices, each path
in the original theory-based model is represented by an
hypothesis. When the path coefficient between two variables
increases the goodness of fit of the model, it is retained,
and the correspondent hypothesis is accepted or rejected.
When the path coefficient between two variables has little
or no affect on the goodness of fit of the model and is not
part of the core theory on which the model was developed,
the path is trimmed from the model and the correspondent
hypothesis is no longer applicable (Pedhazur 1982).
Following is a brief report of these results. Nine of the
hypotheses are supported by the data, ten are not supported,
and five hypotheses are no longer applicable and their
correspondent paths are trimmed. Table 6 summarizes these
110
findings. Their meaning and significance to the theoretical
model are discussed in Chapter 5.
The first hypothesis discusses the correlation between
two measures of the level of self-managed work teams
(variables 1 and 2). The result follows the hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1 states that there is a positive
correlation between the objective measure of the level of
self-managed work teams and the subjective measure of the
level of self-managed work teams.
The correlation, as seen in Table 4, between the
objective measure of the level of self-managed work teams
and the subjective measure of the level of self-managed work
teams was positive (r = .13, p = .19), and although it is
not statistically significant, the path with which
hypothesis 1 corresponds affects the goodness of fit of the
model and therefore was retained as support for Hypothesis
1.
The next hypothesis discusses the direct relationship
between the objective measure of the level of self-managed
work teams (variable 1) and organization-based self-esteem
(variable 3). The literature suggests that, as a dependent
variable, organization-based self-esteem is positively
influenced by the organizational structure of self-managed
work teams. The result follows the hypothesis.
Ill
Hypothesis 2 states that there Is a positive
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and the degree of organization-based self-esteem.
The direct relationship between self-managed work teams
(objective measure) and organization-based self-esteem had a
-.138 path coefficient, and thus does not support Hypothesis
2.
The next four hypotheses, Group 2, discuss the direct
relationship between organization-based self-esteem and
personal mediators. The literature suggests that as a
dependent variable, organization-based self-esteem (variable
3) is positively influenced by personal mediators such as
global self-esteem (variable 4), tenure (variable 5), age
variable 6), and gender of the respondent (variable 7).
The results follow the hypotheses.
Hypothesis 3 states that there is a positive direct
relationship between the degree of organization-based self-
esteem and the degree of global self-esteem.
Hypothesis 4 states that there is a positive direct
relationship between the degree of organization-based self-
esteem and the length of tenure.
Hypothesis 5 states that there is a positive direct
relationship between the degree of organization-based self-
esteem and age of the respondent.
112
Hypothesis 6 states that there is a positive direct
relationship between the degree of organization-based self-
esteem and the gender of the respondent.
The positive direct relationships between organization-
based self-esteem and its mediators of global self-esteem
(p43 = .223) and gender of the respondent (p63 = .151)
support Hypotheses 3 and 6 respectively. The positive
direct relationship predicted in Hypothesis 5 between the
degree of organization-based self-esteem and age of the
respondent proved to be negative (p73 = -.222), and thus
does not support the hypothesis. The relationship between
the degree of organization-based self-esteem and tenure is
near zero (p53 = .060), the path contributes little or
nothing to the goodness of fit of the model, and it is not
part of the core theory on which the model was developed,
hence the path is trimmed from the model and its
correspondent Hypothesis 4 is no longer applicable.
The next four hypotheses, Group 3, discuss the direct
relationship between organization-based self-esteem and
consequent behaviors. The literature suggests that as an
independent variable, organization-based self-esteem
(variable 3) positively influences consequent behaviors such
as intrinsic work motivation (variable 8), general job
satisfaction (variable 9), organization citizenship
(variable 10), and organization commitment (variable 11).
113
The results follow the hypotheses.
Hypothesis 7 states that there is a positive direct
relationship between the degree of organization-based self-
esteem and the degree of intrinsic work motivation.
Hypothesis 8 states that there is a positive direct
relationship between the degree of organization-based self-
esteem and the degree of general job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 9 states that there is a positive direct
relationship between the degree of organization-based self-
esteem and the degree of organization citizenship.
Hypothesis 10 states that there is a positive direct
relationship between the degree of organization-based self-
esteem and the degree of organization commitment.
The positive direct relationships (path coefficient)
between organization-based self-esteem and its consequent
behaviors of intrinsic work motivation (p83 = .518), general
job satisfaction (p93 = .660), and organization commitment
(p113 = .751) support Hypotheses 7, 8, and 10. The
relationship between organization-based self-esteem and
organization citizenship is near zero (p103 = .064); the path
contributes little or nothing to the goodness of fit of the
model, and it is not part of the core theory on which the
model was developed, hence the path is trimmed from the
model and its correspondent Hypothesis 9 is no longer
applicable.
114
The next four hypotheses, Group 4A, discuss the
indirect relationship between the level of self-managed work
teams and consequent behaviors. The literature suggests
that, as an independent variable, self-managed work teams
(variable 1) positively influences consequent behaviors such
as intrinsic work motivation (variable 8), general job
satisfaction (variable 9), organization citizenship
(variable 10), and organization commitment (variable 11)
through organization-based self-esteem (variable 3).
The results follow the hypotheses.
Hypothesis 11 states that there is a positive indirect
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and the degree of intrinsic work motivation.
Hypothesis 12 states that there is a positive indirect
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and the degree of general job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 13 states that there is a positive indirect
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and the degree of organization citizenship.
Hypothesis 14 states that there is a positive indirect
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and the degree of organization commitment.
The indirect relationships between self-managed work
teams and intrinsic work motivation, general job
satisfaction, organization citizenship, and organization
115
commitment were all negative, and thus do not support
Hypotheses 11, 12, 13, and 14. The indirect effect of the
level of self-managed work teams on each of the consequent
behaviors was calculated by multiplying the path coefficient
from the level of self-managed work teams to organization-
based self-esteem with the path coefficient from
organization-based self-esteem to each variable in question.
The negativity is a function of the negative relationship
between self-managed work teams and organization-based self-
esteem.
The next four hypotheses, Group 4B, discuss the direct
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and consequent behaviors. The literature suggests that, as
an independent variable, self-managed work teams (variable
1) positively influences consequent behaviors such as
intrinsic work motivation (variable 8), general job
satisfaction (variable 9), organization citizenship
(variable 10), and organization commitment (variable 11).
The results follow the hypotheses.
Hypothesis 15 states that there is a positive direct
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and the degree of intrinsic work motivation.
Hypothesis 16 states that there is a positive direct
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and the degree of general job satisfaction.
116
Hypothesis 17 states that there is a positive direct
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and the degree of organization citizenship.
Hypothesis 18 states that there is a positive direct
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and the degree of organization commitment.
The direct relationships (path coefficients) between
the level of self-managed work teams and consequent
behaviors was mixed and often weak. The paths between level
of self-managed work teams and intrinsic work motivation
(p81 = -.009), general job satisfaction = .003) and
organization commitment (£>m = -.043) are near zero and do
not contribute to the goodness of fit of the model. These
paths are dropped from the model and the correspondent
Hypotheses 15, 16, and 18 are no longer applicable. Level
of self-managed work teams had a positive direct
relationship with organization citizenship (p101 = .192), and
thus supports Hypotheses 17.
The next four hypotheses, Group 5, discuss the direct
relationship between the consequent behaviors and
performance. The literature suggests that, as a dependent
variable, performance (variable 12) is positively influenced
by behaviors such as intrinsic work motivation (variable 8),
general job satisfaction (variable 9), organization
117
citizenship (variable 10), and organization commitment
(variable 1 1 ) . The results follow the hypotheses.
Hypothesis 19 states that there is a positive direct
relationship between the degree of intrinsic work motivation
and the level of performance.
Hypothesis 20 states that there is a positive direct
relationship between the degree of general job satisfaction
and the level of performance.
Hypothesis 21 states that there is a positive direct
relationship between the degree of organization citizenship
and the level of performance.
Hypothesis 22 states that there is a positive direct
relationship between the degree of organization commitment
and the level of performance.
The positive direct relationships between performance
and general job satisfaction (p129 = .22) and organization
commitment (p1211 = .198) support Hypotheses 20 and 22. The
direct relationships between performance and intrinsic work
motivation (p128 = - . 1 4 7 ) , and organization citizenship (E1210
= - . 1 7 ) were negative, and thus do not support Hypotheses 19
and 21.
The last two hypotheses, Group 6, discuss the
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and performance. The literature suggests that, as a
dependent variable, performance (variable 12) is directly
118
positively influenced by the level of self-managed work
teams (variable 1) and indirectly positively by the level of
self-managed work teams through organization-based self-
esteem (variable 3) and consequent behaviors (variables 8,
9, 10, and 11). The results follow the hypotheses.
Hypothesis 23 states that there is a positive direct
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and the level of performance.
Hypothesis 24 states that there is a positive indirect
relationship between the level of self-managed work teams
and the level of performance.
The direct relationship between performance and self-
managed work teams is negative path coefficient ( p m = -
.282) and thus does not support Hypothesis 23. The
indirect effect of the level of self-managed work teams on
performance was calculated by summing the results of a
series of path coefficient multiplications. The first set
of results was achieved by multiplying the path coefficient
from the level of self-managed work teams to organization-
based self-esteem with the path coefficients from
organization-based self-esteem to each of the consequent
behaviors and from each of them to performance. The next
set of results was achieved by multiplying the path
coefficient from level of self-managed work teams to
organization citizenship with the path coefficient from
119
organization citizenship to performance. When calculated in
this manner, the indirect relationship between self-managed
work teams and performance is negative, and thus does not
support Hypothesis 24.
Analysis of the data provided some anticipated and some
surprising results. Table 6 is a summary of the test of the
hypotheses. Prime among the unexpected results were the
negative relationships that self-managed work teams had with
organization-based self-esteem and with performance. The
nonsignificant relationship between self-managed work teams
and intrinsic work motivation, general job satisfaction, and
organization commitment was also of special interest. A
discussion of these and other findings is provided in
Chapter 5.
TABLE 6 TEST OF THE HYPOTHESES
120
HYPOTHESIS SUPPORTED NOT SUPPORTED TRIMMED
Group 1A 1 X
Group IB 2 X
Group 2 3 X
4 X
5 X
6 X
Group 3 7 X
8 X
9 X
10 X
Group 4A 11 X
12 X
13 X
14 X
Group 4B 15 X
16 X
17 X
18 X
Group 5 19 X
20 X
21 X
22 X
Group 6 23 X
24 X
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
The results of this study are discussed in this
chapter. Each of the theoretical constructs used in the
development of the model presented in Chapter 2 are reviewed
with respect to the actual results. Possible explanations
are offered as well as recommendations for future research.
The theoretical literature assumes a number of logical
outcomes of self-managed work teams. Hackman and Oldham's
(1980) job-redesign approach assumes a positive relationship
with intrinsic work motivation and general job satisfaction
as did Wall et al. (1986) and Aubrey and Felkins (1988).
Additional outcomes found in the literature are increased
organization commitment (Emery 1959; Aubrey and Felkins
1988; Orsburn et al. 1990), reduced conflict stemming from
the work environment (organization citizenship) (Aubrey and
Felkins 1988), increased individual self-esteem in the work
place (Aubrey and Felkins 1988), and enhanced performance
(Hackman and Oldham 1980; Wall et al. 1986; Orsburn et al.
1990).
In most cases, the results of this study found negative
links between the level of self-managed work teams and the
theoretical outcomes (Fig. 9, Restricted model, Chapter 4).
121
122
The literature often proceeds on the assumption that teams
under study are at stage five of development, the stage at
which teams have worked out their differences and are
performing at their best for the organization.
Realistically, however, this is not the case for most teams;
at any given time, most teams are going through stages of
development when performance will vary, usually below the
optimum level sought by the organization, because so much of
their energy is put into becoming highly performing teams.
Low performance for a team is not necessarily an indication
of failure of the self-managed work team system; it may be
characteristic of the stage of development of that team.
They may be performing at high levels given the tasks
necessary for development, but the organization usually sees
it as low performance because of the performance measures
used to evaluate the teams. The self-managed work team
system should not be abandoned at this point based on
temporary low performance due to stage of development; it
should be given a chance to develop into a high performance
stage five team organization.
Validity Issues
The purpose of this section is to address the validity
of the study. Validity refers to how close to truth a study
comes. This study will be examined using Cook and
Campbell's (1979) four general areas of validity,
123
statistical conclusion validity, internal validity,
construct validity of causes or effects, and external
validity as guidelines. The validity of each of the
attitude scales used in this study was reported in Chapter
3.
Statistical Conclusion Validity
Statistical conclusion validity refers to the
justifiability of making inferences from a study based on
the strength of statistical covariation. Covariation is
dependent on statistical power which is a function of sample
size and the relative statistical significance of the
results.
The sample size of this study is adequate relative to
the number of variables being tested in the theoretical
model given the nature of path analysis. Were traditional
regression analysis employed, twelve variables would require
a substantially larger sample than the one employed in this
study. Path analysis, in general and specifically as
modeled for this study, does not manipulate all of the
variables at once in one regression model. Rather, many
regression analyses are performed simultaneously, each
employing different combinations or subsets of independent
variables, never exceeding four variables at a time.
Therefore, the sample size of n=105 is adequate for this
study.
124
The relative statistical significance of this study is
dealt with in the trimming method as fully explained in the
section on path analysis in chapter 4. Those paths with
beta coefficients near zero are candidates for being trimmed
from the original full theoretical model (Fig. 8, Chapter
4). After the trimming procedure was performed in
accordance with the assumptions necessary in path analysis
(see Path Analysis, Chapter 4), the resultant restricted
model represents those causal relationships that are
supported both statistically and theoretically (Fig. 9,
Chapter 4).
Threats to statistical conclusion validity include
reliability of treatment implementation and random
irrelevancies in the testing setting (Cook and Campbell
1979). These issues were taken into consideration into the
design of the study. The surveys were administered to each
team by the same person using a scripted, unvarying
procedure in the same setting each time. They are,
therefore, nonissues. Other threats to statistical
conclusion validity deal with experimental designs. As this
study is not experimental in nature, these threats are of no
concern here.
Internal Validity
Internal validity deals with the issue of causal
relationships between variables and the direction of the
125
causality (Cook and Campbell 1979). Most of the threats to
internal validity of this study are nonissues because of its
design. As a one time survey measurement and not a test-
retest design, history, maturation, testing,
instrumentation, statistical regression, mortality,
selection and any possible interactions of these threats do
not apply. There is, however, concern over the ambiguity of
the direction of causal influence. Whether A causes B, or B
causes A is often debatable in this study, and is discussed
more fully in each of the subsections dealing with the
support or non-support of the hypotheses and in the section
on recommendations for future research.
Construct Validity
Construct validity, according to Cook and Campbell
(1979, 59) "refers to the possibility that the operations
which are meant to represent a particular cause or effect
construct can be construed in terms of more than one
construct, each of which is stated at the same level of
reduction. Confounding means that what one investigator
interprets as a causal relationship between theoretical
constructs labeled A and B, another investigator might
interpret as a causal relationship between constructs A and
Y or between X and B."
In attempting to measure attitudes and their causal
relationships, research invariably falls short in the area
126
of construct validity. The human mind is too complex and
attitudes are too subject to interactions with recent events
for the researcher to pinpoint real relationships among
given attitudes and their preconditions and consequences.
All interpretations of the results of this study must be
made with this in mind.
External Validity
External validity is a two-stage process. The first
stage is generalizing to specific target persons, settings,
and times. The second stage is generalizing across types of
persons, settings, and times (Cook and Campbell 1979).
The first stage is satisfied by this study. The
conclusions are generalizable to low-skilled, operations
level workers going through the initial stages of
development of self-managed work-teams at a Brownfield site.
As long as these conditions are controlled for, the
conclusions of this study can be generalized to other
samples.
Different types of people, settings, and times would
represent a population different enough from the study
sample so as to prohibit generalization of this study to
them. As long as this condition is recognized and
respected, the value of this study stands in that it can be
useful in understanding given populations sharing the
characteristics of the sample used in this study. This
127
study can also be used as a comparator to other samples as
long as only one of the conditions (people, setting, or
times) or a subset of one of the conditions is changed.
Hypotheses Supported bv the Research
Of the 24 hypotheses of this study, nine were clearly
supported by the research and five were trimmed because of
the weak link found in the data (Pedhazur 1982). No pattern
was apparent, however, high residual variable coefficients
may account for the weak path coefficients.
Self-Managed Work Teams Objective Measure and Subjective Measure
Two methods were used to measure the level of self-
management. In the development of the model on which this
study was based, both an objective measure and a subjective
measure were used to act as checks on one another. The
correlation between the two (r = .13) proved to be positive,
but nonsignificant. The reason for this is threefold.
First, the measures are not identical. The objective
measure consisted of ten items observed by the researcher,
whereas the subjective measure consisted of only six of
those same ten items. These six items appeared on the
formal written survey. Second, the level of analysis of the
objective measure was at the team level, whereas the level
of analysis of the subjective measure was at the person
128
level. Comparison of the two is not entirely appropriate.
Although correlations can be calculated between any two
variables, the conclusions from the correlations should
cautiously be approached. Third, the differences in
language, culture, and demographics may have had an effect
on the lack of correlation between the objective measure and
subjective measure. At least three different groups were
represented: 1. college educated, English-speaking
Northeasterner; 2. high school educated, English-speaking
Northeasterners; and 3. high school educated, Spanish-
speaking Puerto Ricans. The interpretation of the items may
have varied with the backgrounds of the people reading them.
In addition, shades of meaning may have been lost or added
with the conversion of the questionnaire from English to
Spanish in spite of following reverse translation procedures
(see Chapter 3, Questionnaire). In the case of this study,
the correlation between the objective and subjective
measures of the level of self-management should be viewed
with a suspect eye.
Organization-Based Self-Esteem and Personal Mediators
The theoretical premise is that the relationship
between organization-based self-esteem and each of its
personal mediators is positive. In this study, the personal
mediator of tenure had a positive path coefficient to
129
organization-based self-esteem (p53 = .060)/ but the path
was so weak that it was trimmed from the model. The theory
would have us believe that people who stay with a job longer
have higher levels of organization-based self-esteem
(Brockner 1988; Pierce et al. 1989). In this case that was
not borne out. Length of time on the job had nonsignificant
effect. Perhaps the reason behind this is that, in general,
people in this study did not stay on the job long enough to
show a significant connection between tenure and
organization-based self-esteem. Unstructured interviews
with the subjects of this study disclosed that working at
the plant is often considered a temporary situation; the pay
is low and there is little prestige in working there.
The stage of self-managed work teams is also a crucial
factor involved in analyzing the relationship between
organization-based self-esteem and personal mediators and
might explain the observed anomaly. Some of the teams were
in stage one of development and most of the respondents were
new to the company or new to this system. The team members
were very optimistic and keen to acquire new skills. The
respondents had no real perception of organization-based
self-esteem at this stage because they were in no position
to identify global self-esteem regardless of tenure. Other
teams were in stage two and may have been in a state of
confusion where even members of the team that had been with
130
the company for some time might still be focussed more on
team activities and less on organizational issues. The weak
path coefficient, therefore might be attributed to the fact
that some of the teams studied were in stage one or stage
two of development. Had all teams been in stage three or
higher, the results might have been more consistent with
theory.
The personal mediators of global self-esteem (p43 =
.218) and gender (p73 = .157) also had positive path
coefficients to organization-based self-esteem, but they
were stronger than that of tenure and kept in the restricted
model. The path coefficients show that women tended to have
higher organization-based self esteem and that people with
higher global self-esteem tended to display higher
organization-based self-esteem. This agrees with the
theoretical literature (Brockner 1988; Pierce et al. 1989),
but the connections were weak in this study.
One explanation for the weak path coefficients that
personal mediator variables had with organization-based
self-esteem (as well as the negative path coefficient age
had) is that there may be other mediators that were not
included in this study that may affect the path
coefficients. This is evidenced by the high residual
variable values in the model. Mediators of note are
education, ethnic identity, comfort with coworkers and with
131
management, differences in cultural values among workers,
and ability of workers to communicate easily with coworkers
and management. As more and more companies take advantage
of the benefits of doing business in other countries such as
Mexico, these factors will become increasingly important to
the success of managing workers from diverse and different
cultural backgrounds. More work is needed in this area if
organizations are to be designed and managed effectively in
changing environments.
Organization-Based Self-Esteem and Consequent Behaviors
The theoretical premise is that the relationship
between organization-based self-esteem and each of the
consequent behaviors is positive; in this study, the
relationships are borne out. Organization-based self-esteem
has strong path coefficients to all but the consequent
behaviors except to organization citizenship (p103 = .064).
Although positive, the path coefficient is near zero and was
trimmed from the model in accordance with the procedures
recommended by Pedhazur (1982). This weak coefficient
between organization-based self-esteem and organization
citizenship may be due to the influences of quality of work
experience and previous social conditioning on organization
citizenship. Over the long term, efficiency and cooperation
are interdependent. Citizenship cannot be accounted for by
the same motivational bases that prompt persons to join,
132
stay, or perform with contractual roles. Also, since
personal mediators such as ethnic identity, social
background, and comfort with coworkers are not studied in
depth here, it is difficult to establish a strong base for
organization citizenship. If all teams had been in stage
three through stage five, where leader support and
reciprocal task interdependence is high, the organization
citizenship might also have been higher. The personality
variables such as level of extraversion also play an
important role in determining organization citizenship.
These are found only in higher stages of team development
when global self-esteem has been established. Some teams
studied were in stage one and stage two of development and,
therefore, organization citizenship had a weak positive
relationship to organization-based self-esteem. The path
coefficients from organization-based self-esteem to
intrinsic work motivation (pe3 = .517), general job
satisfaction (pg3 = .658), and organization commitment (p113 =
.750) are the strongest in the entire model (Hackman and
Oldham 1980; Orsburn et al. 1990).
Self-Managed Work Teams Consequent Behaviors, and Performance
The theoretical premise is that the relationship
between self-managed work teams and each of the consequent
behaviors is positive. In this study, one path coefficient
133
supports the literature whereas the other three are weak.
These three weak paths, intrinsic work motivation (p61 = -
.009), general job satisfaction (p91 = .003), and
organization commitment (p m = -.043), were trimmed from the
model because their path coefficients are near zero and
contribute little or nothing to the goodness of fit of the
model; the one path that remained was from self-managed work
teams to organization citizenship (p101 = .176). These
relationships affected the path coefficients from the
consequent behaviors to performance, two of which were
negative (intrinsic work motivation (p128 = -. 149) and
organization citizenship (p1210 = -.164)). This phenomenon
may be accounted for by the actual structure and level of
commitment by management to the team concept which are more
fully explained in the section on self-managed work teams
and organization-based self-esteem. It may also be
accounted for by the stage of team development. For
example, in the case of intrinsic work motivation, which is
the degree to which a job holder is motivated to perform
well because of some subjective rewards, intrinsic work
motivation exists when esteem is linked to performance. In
the early stages of team development which the respondents
represent, characteristically, performance is low, therefore
esteem derived from performing well is lacking and hence
intrinsic work motivation is suppressed. Further, core job
134
characteristics impact intrinsic work motivation and core
job characteristics are highest in the advanced stages of
four and five. It is likely that those teams which had
lower intrinsic work motivation were in the primary stages
of development. In those primary stages (stages one, two,
and three) of development, the focus is not on task
identity, autonomy and feedback from the job that are
essentials of core job characteristics. Stage of team
development may also explain the weak path of general job
satisfaction. An analysis of the importance of each of the
five general job satisfaction factors (pay, satisfaction
with job, promotion, satisfaction with supervisors, and
satisfaction with coworkers) during the five stages of self-
managed work team development suggested that these factors
took on varying degrees of significance during different
stages of development and, therefore, no clear picture
emerges as to path of factors. This may account for the
weak link between self-managed work teams, general job
satisfaction and performance.
Hypotheses Not Supported bv the Research
Ten of the 24 hypotheses of this study were not
supported by the research. The soundness of the theory on
which the hypotheses were based is not in question. Rather,
additional theory is needed to explain the results.
135
Self-Managed Work Teams and Organization-Based Self-Esteem
The theoretical premise is that the relationship
between self-managed work teams and organization-based self-
esteem is positive; in this study, the relationship is
negative (p31 = -.145). The theoretical premise is that the
more control an individual has over the task and how it will
be performed, the more that individual's needs will be
satisfied within the context of the organization (Tharenou
1979; Brockner 1988; Pierce et al. 1989). That is to say,
there is a direct positive correlation between the level of
self-managed work teams and organization-based self-esteem.
The data did not bear this out. The sources of this
contradiction may be twofold: the level of development of
the self-managed work teams and the level of commitment held
by management to the organization structure of self-managed
work teams.
The first possible source of contradiction is the stage
of development of the teams in the study. Pierce et al.
(1989) show that the more organic an organization's
structure is, the higher the organization-based self-esteem
of the employees; that is to say, the more the teams develop
and move away from mechanistic structure and closer to
organic structure, the more the workers in those teams will
experience higher levels of organization-based self-esteem.
This reasoning does not take into account the
136
characteristics of work teams as they struggle through the
developmental stages of self-management (Moran and
Musselwhite 1988; Orsburn et al. 1990). The teams in the
study have developed to the second and third stages. In
these stages there is a great deal of confusion, feelings of
ambiguity, and resistance, and they gradually begin to
experience a few minor successes as a team. Much energy is
put into working out differences among the team members and
developing group norms and few organizational or intrinsic
rewards or positive feedback is experienced by the team.
Organization-based self-esteem is a result of positive
experiences in an organizational setting. In the early
developmental stages of teams, these positive experiences
may be few, thus diminishing organization-based self-esteem.
It will not be until the team achieves higher levels of
development that organization-based self-esteem will have a
positive relationship with the organization structure of
self-managed work teams.
The second possible source of contradiction is the
level of commitment held by management to the concept and
implementation of the organization structure of self-managed
work teams. Management commitment to any venture is
important to the venture's success (Bleakley 1993). The
links in the chain leading from level of management
commitment through the level of self-managed work teams to
137
organization-based self-esteem and performance are many.
Management commitment translates into long-term commitment
of money, time, and other tangible resources, as well as a
philosophical commitment to the venture. Ventures need to
be nurtured if they are to succeed.
At the company in this study, the attitude of
management above the operations level was one of tolerance
to the new, experimental structure. Upper management
practiced a laissez faire form of management; they
instructed the operations managers to get the product out on
time and within budget. How this was accomplished was left
entirely up to middle and lower management. Little or no
communication on any matter existed between upper management
and the rest of the company. Upper management offices were
located in a separate building some distance from the
production site; the new vice president of operations, after
three months with the company, had not met with any of the
operations managers let alone with employees. This lack of
concern for the operations of the company by upper
management lead to a lack of understanding of the needs of
the lower levels.
The concept of self-managed work teams was introduced
to the company by the personnel manager. He and a few
interested middle managers attended one workshop on worker
self-management. They saw it as the answer to their
138
productivity and quality problems. Upper management's
official position on the subject was that, as long as it did
not cost the company anything, self-managed work teams could
be instituted.
Without the philosophical commitment of upper
management there was no commitment of needed resources.
Proper implementation of self-managed work teams includes a
great deal of training in team building, problem solving,
decision making, communication, leadership, and ethics, as
well as a positive reorientation toward the customer. What
resulted was the form of self-managed work teams without the
essence. The teams were given little training in team
functioning. They were delegated the responsibility for
running their teams and increasing quality and productivity,
but were not delegated the correspondent authority, nor were
they trained in the necessary skills. This led to a great
deal of ambiguity and cognitive dissonance on the part of
the team members, reflecting a stage two level of transition
to self-managed work teams.
Even the leadership of the teams was ambiguous. Day
shift teams were allowed to lead themselves, but were not
given the training to do so effectively. They were
motivated to make their teams work, but were not given the
tools or the authority to do so. Night shift teams were led
by the night shift production manager; he ran the meetings,
139
told the team members what he thought was important to them,
and entertained little or no participation from the team
members. The night shift production manager did not trust
the team to lead itself.
The lack of team skills and distrust from management
may account for a good deal of the negative correlation be
the level of self-managed work teams and organization-based
self-esteem. The day shift was struggling with self-
management. They had no authority, training, guidance,
mentors, or advocates. Perhaps they saw themselves as
incapable of creating effective teams. This would lead to
lower self-esteem derived from association with the
organization. The night shift, on the other hand, never
really felt the responsibility to function as a self-managed
work team because they really never were given the
opportunity to lead themselves. They attended team
meetings, but they did not fool themselves into thinking
they could affect their jobs or the company. Because they
were not set up for failure as teams, they did not see
themselves as failures in the organization.
If self-managed work team structure is to be effective
for both the company and the employees, all members of
management and the work force, from the top down, must be
philosophically committed to the concept of worker self-
management. There must be a clear understanding of the
140
prerequisites and ramifications. The management must make a
long-term commitment of time, money, and effort to the self-
management learning process. It can take up to five years
or more from initiation of the teams to their being fully
functional. The learning and reevaluation never stop in a
functioning team structure. There must be management-
employee trust, willingness to take risks, willingness to
share information, enough time and resources, commitment to
training, operations conducive to work teams, union
participation, and access to outside consultant help. There
is no place for laissez faire management; dedicated
involvement must become natural to management and employees
alike.
Organization-Based Self-Esteem and Age
The first path of concern is the direct path between
organization-based self-esteem and age (p63 = -.221). The
theoretical premise is that there is a positive relationship
between these two constructs (Pierce et al. 1989); the data
indicates a negative relationship. The results may be
accounted for by the status of working for the company under
study.
Among blue collar workers in the sample's geographic
area, varying degrees of prestige are associated with
different industries and with different companies within an
industry. The food processing industry, albeit a common
141
industry in the area, Is rather low on the prestige scale.
It requires little skill and does not pay well. Within the
food processing industry, the company under study pays an
average wage but its benefits and job security do not
compare well with other companies in the area. Given these
factors, the conclusion can be drawn that in the mind of the
workers in this study, it is a respectable job for a young
person. It is often a first job for recent arrivals from
Puerto Rico. As workers gain experience and skills, they
tend to move on to companies that offer more money and
benefits.
Unfortunately, turnover statistics were not available,
but speculation is that the status of the organization in
terms of salary and benefits may lead to higher than average
rates of turnover, even in a weak economy. Older
individuals may see themselves as not keeping up with the
additional obligations of maturity; they may see themselves
as less than a success for working at the company. Given
the labor pool available to the company, this matter is of
little concern to the company. If, however, the
availability of suitable labor were a problem, the company
could take steps to increase the status of working there,
such as offer a competitive wage, improve benefits and job
security, and, the least costly of all, management could
show respect for the workers.
142
Self-Managed Work Teams and Performance
The next path of concern is the direct path from self-
managed work teams and to performance (p121 = -.293). The
theoretical premise is that the more control an individual
has over the task and how it will be performed, the better
that individual's performance will be (Hackman and Oldham
1980; Wall et al. 1986). By logical extension, the same
relationship would hold true for teams and performance
(Orsburn et al. 1990). That is to say, there is a direct
positive correlation between the level of self-managed work
teams and performance; the more self-managed a team is, the
higher its performance is. The data indicated otherwise.
This reversal of logic can be accounted for by the number
and nature of the tasks performed by the different teams.
The day shift teams were assessed as being more self-
managed than the night shift teams. This was primarily a
function of each shift's production manager's attitude
toward the teams' ability to manage themselves. The day
shift teams had to perform a greater number of and more
complex tasks than did the night shift teams. This too may
be an outcome of the respective managers' attitudes toward
the abilities of the teams; the greater the respect for the
teams' abilities, the more challenging are the tasks given
to the teams. The day shift teams performed two time
143
consuming tasks more often than did the night shift, product
change-overs and maintenance.
Change-overs, a change from one product to another,
translate into down time during which product is not being
made. The change-over process consists of machinery being
cleaned of the previous product, packaging being changed,
and new product being mixed and tested. Maintenance of
machinery also results in down time. The only filter
rebuilders in the company worked days, so this function, as
well as general machine maintenance, was done during the day
shift. The resulting down time was reflected in lower
output of product per day.
The down time that is associated with product change-
overs and maintenance was not adequately accounted for in
the performance measure which was obtained from the company.
Based on the inaccurate performance measure, recognition was
given to the highest performing team each month; invariably
it went to a night shift team. This inequitable situation
may have backfired on the company. Although the literature
defines the relationship between the level of self-managed
work teams and performance as positive, perhaps this
relationship is only true in the case of levels of self-
management that approach the ideal. At some critical point
the relationship seems to reverse. Orsburn et al. (1990)
note that productivity tends to drop off during the second
144
stage of transition to self-managed work teams. The time of
euphoric optimism is over and a state of confusion engulfs
the team. A great deal of energy is expended on role
definition, establishment of group norms, and doubts
concerning the value and real purpose of team participation.
The teams that work through this stage of confusion
eventually see a rise in productivity in the third stage of
transition to self-managed work teams and enjoy increasing
productivity through the fifth stage.
Intrinsic Work Motivation and Performance
The third path of concern is the direct path between
intrinsic work motivation and performance (p128 = -. 149).
The theoretical premise is that the higher the intrinsic
work motivation the higher the level of performance is
(Lawler 1969; Hackman and Oldham 1980). The fact that the
data reveals a negative relationship between these two
constructs may be associated with the two production
managers' differing attitudes toward the team members and
the resulting difference in work assigned to their teams,
and ultimately with the inequitable method of measuring
performance.
The day shift production manager displayed a higher
level of trust and respect for the teams he worked with than
did the night shift production manager. Consequently, the
day shift teams were given more challenging and time
145
consuming tasks; the result was reflected in lower
performance as measured by the company. High performers
were rewarded, low performers were not. Time spent solving
problems was not accounted for in calculating performance,
hence, the teams that were honored by their manager's trust
and respect were actually punished by the company. This
situation can be rectified in two ways: 1. the performance
measures can be reevaluated to more accurately reflect the
different demands made on different teams, and 2. duties
that are not included in the performance measures can be
distributed equitably among all teams.
The fact that there was an inverse relationship between
intrinsic work motivation and performance suggests that
there may be a recursive rather than a nonrecursive
relationship between the two constructs. Although it is
agreed upon in the literature that motivation must be
present in order for an individual to perform, the perceived
results of performance may act as feedback to the individual
in whom the level of intrinsic work motivation will increase
or decrease based on that perception (Vroom 1964; Porter and
Lawler 1968; Kreitner and Kinicki 1992).
Organization Citizenship and Performance
The fourth path of concern is the direct path between
organization citizenship and performance (p1210 = -.164).
The theoretical premise is that there is a positive
146
relationship between organization citizenship and
performance (Smith, Organ, and Near 1983). The data
indicates, however, that acts of cooperation, helpfulness,
and altruism in the work place lead to lower performance.
One explanation for this phenomenon may be the multicultural
composition of the teams.
The teams were composed of local English speakers,
Puerto Rican Spanish speakers and Puerto Rican bilingual
speakers. Upon observation there was no animosity among
these groups; there was good natured teasing and concern for
each other. Bilingual Puerto Ricans took the effort and
time to interpret and instruct the Spanish speakers.
Because there is little or no formal training for new
employees and the managers only speak English, this is a
necessary arrangement. The company came to depend on these
informal, spontaneous acts of goodwill of one team member
toward another to smooth the operation of the team and the
company. This unassigned role, however, did lower the
performance rate of teams whose members displayed high
organization citizenship because it was not included in the
measurement of performance. As much as the company depended
on these acts of organization citizenship, it did not see
fit to reward it. In actuality, the company punished its
most valuable citizens by formally ignoring them. Their
team's performance as measured by the company was lower and
147
so did not receive the recognition or rewards given higher
performers who exhibited lower organization citizenship. In
order to make the rewards more equitable in this company,
acts of organization citizenship needed to be integrated in
the measure of performance. The company took unjust
advantage of its bilingual employees.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study attempts to provide a better understanding
of the patterns of relationships among self-managed work
teams, organization-based self-esteem, consequent behaviors,
and performance. It did not yield conclusive results. The
statistical method, path analysis, was used to test theory
and to develop further theory as suggested by the
results.
Little empirical research has been reported on self-
managed work teams. Although it is popularly held that as
an organizational structure it improves both productivity
and quality, proof of this relationship has not been
established. Many organizations have grasped at the
concept; many have also abandoned it after a short trial
period. The reasons for their failures have been suggested
by the results of this study. Therefore, further research
should address the following problems.
First, the level of commitment of management to the
organization structure of self-managed work teams should be
148
determined; without management's total commitment to the
concept and implementation of self-managed work teams, they
are doomed to failure (Bleakley 1993). A measurement
instrument must be devised for this. Areas to consider are
belief in the concept of self-managed work teams,
willingness and ability to delegate both decision making
responsibility and authority, willingness and ability to
financially support the teams in terms of training and
additional resources, level of management-employee trust,
willingness to take risks, willingness to share information,
and length of commitment. Each level of management should
be assessed.
Second, in order to better judge the stage of
transition to self-managed work teams, additional factors
should be considered. These factors may include the type of
training the teams have received, whether the training is
ongoing, and whether the team's authority is commensurate
with its responsibility. Also, a scale with more gradations
than the five used in this study should be used so as to
open up the range which would allow for more accurate
correlations with the other variables.
Third, additional variables should be considered for
inclusion. The residual variable values in this study were
high, indicating other pertinent variables that were not
included in this study. Some variables to be considered are
149
education, ethnic identity and comfort with coworkers and
with management, differences in cultural values among
workers, and ability of workers to communicate easily with
coworkers and management.
Fourth, the direct relationship between organization-
based self-esteem and performance should be included in the
model for testing. Whereas this study tested the indirect
relationship between organization-based self-esteem and
performance through the personal outcomes of intrinsic work
motivation, general job satisfaction, organization
citizenship, and organization commitment, Pierce et al.
(1989) show a basis for the direct relationship.
Fifth, if both an objective measure and a subjective
measure of the level of self-managed work teams is used in
the future, care should be taken to make sure they measure
the same things. Differences in semantics between the
objective response of the researcher and the subjective
responses of the subjects of the study must be taken into
account, as well as any language, cultural, or demographic
differences among the subjects.
Sixth, a longitudinal study of one or more plants would
be most enlightening. The actual changes in the
organization-based self-esteem, consequent behaviors, and
performance could be studied through the stages of team
150
development thereby testing the theoretical literature more
fully.
Finally, the path analysis employed is a nonrecursive
statistical method for studying the patterns of causation
among a set of variables. It requires a one-way causal
flow. Follow-up research should examine the possibilities
that reciprocal causation between variables exists.
Although the literature defines organization-based self-
esteem, intrinsic work motivation, general job satisfaction,
organization citizenship, and organization commitment as
antecedents of performance, the perception of the degree to
which the measurement of performance is equitable may in
fact affect the antecedents. A more appropriate method of
analysis might be a recursive model.
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE
151
152
ORGANIZATIONAL ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE The purpose of this survey is to gather information about your attitudes about your workplace.
Thank you for your time and cooperation.
Use this scale for the following 53 questions. Write a number in the blank for each statement based on this scale.
1 2 3 4 5 Agree Agree Neither Agree Disagree Disagree
Strongly nor Disagree Strongly
Please indicate how you personally feel about yourself in general by marking how much you agree with each of the statements.
1.1 feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.
2.1 feel that I have a number of good qualities.
3. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
4.1 am able to do things as well as most other people.
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
6.1 take a positive attitude toward myself.
7. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
8.1 wish I could have more respect for myself.
9.1 certainly feel useless at times.
10. At times I think I am no good at all.
Now think of the other people in your organization who hold the same job as you. If no one has exactly the same job as you, think of the job which is most similar to yours. Think about how accurately each of the statements describes the feelings of those people about the job.
It is quite all right if your answers here are different from when you described your own reactions to the job. Often different people feel quite differently about the same job.
11. Most of the people on this job are very satisfied with the job.
12. People on this job often think of quitting.
13. Most people on this job feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when they do the job well.
14. Most people on this job feel bad or unhappy when they find that they have performed the wortt poorly.
153
1 2 3 4 5 Agree Agree Neither Agree Disagree Disagree
Strongly nor Disagree Strongly
Now indicate how you personally feel about your job. Each of the statements below is something that a person might say about his or her job. Please indicate your own personal feelings about your job by marking how much you agree or disagree with each of the statements.
15. Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job.
16. This job does not allow me to use any personal initiative or judgment in doing the work.
. 17.1 am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job.
18. This job gives me a lot of independence and freedom in how to do the work.
. 19.1 frequently think of quitting this job.
. 20. My job permits me to decide for myself how to do the work.
. 21. My opinion of myself goes up when I do this job well.
. 22. My supervisor tells me exactly what to do and when to do it.
. 23.1 feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do this job well.
. 24. My supervisor lets me do the job my way.
25. i feel bad and unhappy when I discover that I have performed poorly on this job.
. 26.1 am allowed to work much of the time without supervision.
. 27. My own feelings generally are not affected much one way or the other by how well f do on this job.
Think about the messages you receive al work from the attitudes and behaviors of your managers, supervisors, and co-workers. Read the following statements and indicate to what degree you agree or disagree with them based on the scale at the top of this page.
. 28.1 count around here.
. 29.1 am taken seriously around here.
. 30.1 am important around here.
.31.1 am trusted around here.
_ 32. There is faith in me around here.
_ 33.1 can make a difference around here.
_ 34.1 am valuable around here.
_ 35.1 am helpful around here.
_ 36.1 am efficient around here.
_ 37.1 am cooperative around here.
154
1 2 3 4 5
Agree Agree Neither Agree Disagree Disagree
Strongly nor Disagree Strongly
Now think about how you feel about the company you work for. Please indicate your own feel-ings about this particular company by marking how much you agree with each of the statements.
38.1 am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organiza-tion be successful.
39,1 talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for.
40.1 find that my values and the organization's values are very similar.
41.1 am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization.
42. This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance.
43.1 am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for over others I was considering at the time I joined.
44. There's not too much to be gained by sticking with this organization indefinitely.
45.1 really care about the fate of this organization.
46. For me this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work.
47. Deciding to work for this organization was a definite mistake on my part.
The next six statements deal with what you think you and your work unit do. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the statements.
46. During the day my co-workers and I work with people in other work units.
_ 49. My co-workers and l take turns performing leadership duties in our work unit.
. 50. Some of my co-workers deal directly with customers and/or suppliers.
_ 51. My co-workers and I help decide who should be hired into our work unit.
_ 52. In our work unit we take turns doing different jobs.
_ 53. My co-workers and I decide how to meet production requirements.
155
1 2 3 4 5
Very Somewhat Not characteristic Somewhat Very characteristic characteristic or uncharacteristic uncharacteristic uncharacteristic
of me of me of me of me of me
The following statements represent things you may do at work. Please indicate the degree of how characteristic each one is of you.
_ 54.1 help others who have been absent.
_ 55.1 am on time.
_ 56.1 volunteer for things that are not required.
_ 57.1 take undeserved breaks.
_ 58.1 orient new people even though it is not required.
_ 59.1 miss fewer days of work than most of my coworkers.
. 60.1 help others who have heavy work loads.
,61.1 coast toward the end of the day.
_ 62.1 give advance notice if I am unable to come to work.
_ 63.1 spend a great deal of time with personal phone conversations.
_ 64.1 do not take unnecessary time off work.
_ 65.1 make innovative suggestions to improve the department.
_ 66.1 do not take extra breaks.
. 67.1 do not spend time in idle conversation.
Please answer the following questions the best you can.
68. The thing I like most about working here is:
69. The thing I like least about working here is:
70. How have your feelings about yourself changed since you started working In your present job? (More or less self confidence?More or less job stress? Happier?)
71. How has your job changed over the past 2 years?
Please circle the letter before the appropriate answer.
156
72. What department do you work in?
A. Batching
B. Maintenance
C. Production
D. Quality Control
73. How long have you worked here in your current position?
A. less than 6 months C. between 1 and 2 years
B. 6 months to 1 year D. more than 2 years
74.1 am A. Male
75. My age is
A. 25 or younger
B. between 26 and 35
C. between 36 and 45
D. over 45
76. I am: A. Afro-American
B. Asian
C. Caucasian/White
D. Hispanic
E. Native American
F. Other
77. How many years of education have you had?
A. Up to 6 years C. 10-12 years
B. 7-9 years D. More than 12 years
78. Have you ever worked at any other job in groups that had little or no supervision?
A. No B. Yes
79. Have you ever worked at another organization in a group that made its own decisions about its work and how it was done?
A. No B. Yes
APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE IN SPANISH
157
158
CUESTIONARIO DE ACTITUDES ORGANIZACIONALES
El proposito de esta encuesta es el de obtener information acerca de sus actitudes, sus respuestas seran anonimas y confidenciales. Las preguntas de antecedentes al final de este cuestionario NO seran usadas para identificarte. Este estucBo es parte de una investigation de la universidad. Unicamente se proporcionara un resumen de la encuesta a la gerentia de la compaftia jpara la que tu trabajas, para que ellos puedan saber en que pueden mejorar tu ambiente de trabajo.CJratias por tu tiempo y por tu cooperatidn.
Utiliza esta escala para las primeras 53 preguntas. Escribe un numero den el espacio en bianco en un lado de cada afirmation, basancfote en esta escala.
1 2 3 4 5
Muy de acuerdo De acuerdo Ni de acuerdo En desacuerdo Muy en Ni en desacuerdo desacuerdo
Indica por favor como tu personalmente te sientes en general al numerar segun est£s de acuerdo con las siguientes afirmaciones.
1.- Yo me siento como una persona valiosa, al menos al mismo nivel que otras.
2.- Yo siento que tengo un numero de buenas cualidades.
3.- Tomando todo en consideration, yo me inclino a pensar que soy un fracaso.
4.- Yo puedo hacer las cosas tan bien como la mayoria de las personas.
5.- No siento que tengo mucho de que enorgullecerme.
6.- Yo tengo una actitud positiva hacia mi mismo.
7.- A nivel general, estoy satisfecho conmigo mismo.
8.- Desearia tener m&s respeto para mi mismo.
9.- Definitivamente en ocasiones me siento inutil.
10.- En ocasiones pienso que soy un bueno para nada.
Ahora piensa de las demas personas en tu compalila que tienen el mismo trabajo que tti, o piensa en el trabajo que mas se parezca al tuyo. Piensa que tan bien describe cada una de la afirmaciones de esas personas acerca de su trabajo.
No hay problema si tus respuestas son diferentes a las que ya diste describiendo tus propias reacciones acerca de tu trabajo. A menudo personas distintas piensan en forma diferente acerca del mismo trabajo.
11.- La mayoria de las personas en este trabajo estan muy satisfechas con el
12.- La gente en este trabajo a menudo piensan en renunciar.
_13.- La mayoria de las personas en este trabajo sienten una gran satisfaction cuando hacen bien su trabajo.
_14,- La mayoria de las personas se sienten mal o estan descontentas cuando se dan cuenta que han hecho mal su trabajo.
159
1 2 3 4 5
Muy de acuerdo De acuerdo Ni de acuerdo En desacuerdo Muy en Ni en desacuerdo desacuerdo
Ahora indica como tii en lo personal te sientes acerca de tu trabajo. Cada una de estas afirmaciones reflejan algo que una persona podrla decir acerca de su trabajo. Indica por favor tu sentir personal acerca de tu trabajo marcando que tanto estas de acuerdo con estas afirmaciones.
15.- En terminos generates, estoy muy satisfecho con mi trabajo.
16.- Este trabajo no me permite tener iniciativa propia o juicio propio al estarlo
realizando.
17.- En general, estoy satisfecho con el tipo de trabajo que realizo.
18.- El trabajo me da mucha independencia y iibertad en como realizarlo.
19.- Con frecuencia pienso en renunciar a este trabajo.
20.- Mi trabajo me permite decidir por mi mismo c6mo realizarlo.
21.- La opinion de mi mismo mejora cuando hago mi trabajo mejor.
22.- Mi supervisor me deja hacer mi trabajo a mi manera.
23.- Siento mucha satisfaccidn cuando hago mi trabajo bien.
24.- Mi supervisor me dice exactamente qui hacer y cuando hacerlo.
25.- Me siento mal y descontento cuando descubro que he hecho un mal trabajo.
26.- Se me permite trabajar mucho de mi tiempo sin supervisibn.
27.- Mis propios sentimientos por lo general no se ven afectados de un modo u otro por como realizo mi trabajo.
Piensa acerca de los mensajes que has redbido en el trabajo de las actitudes y el comportamiento de his gerentes, supervisores y companeros de trabajo. Lee las siguientes afirmaciones e indica a qu£ grado estas de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con estas basado en la escala de la parte superior de esta pagina.
28.- Yo soy alguien aqul.
29.- A mi se me toma en cuenta aqui.
30.- Yo soy importante aqul.
31.- Se me tiene confianza aqul.
32.- Se me tiene fe aqul.
33.- Yo puedo influir aqul.
34.- Yo soy valioso aquf.
35.- Yo soy util aqui.
36.- Yo soy eficiente aquf.
37.- Yo soy cooperativo aqui.
160
1 2 3 4 5
Muy de acuerdo De acuerdo Ni de acuerdo En desacuerdo Muy en Ni en desacuerdo desacuerdo
Ahora piensa en como te sientes acerca de la compania para la la que trabajas. Indica por favor tus propios sentimientos acerca de esta compaftia al marcar que tanto estas de acuerdo con caaa una de las siguientes afirmaciones.
38.- Yo estoy dispuesto a poner un gran esfuerzo mas alia de io que normalmente se espera de mi
para ayudar que la compaftia tenga exito.
39.- Yo hablo de esta compaftia a mis amigos como "la gran organizacion para la cual trabajo
40.- Yo encuentro que mis valores y los de la compania son muy similares.
41.- Estoy orgulloso de decirle a otras personas que yo soy parte de esta compafiia.
42.- Esta compafiia realmente me inspira a dar lo mejor de mi mismo en lo que a desempeno de trabajo se refiere.
43.- Estoy mucho muy contento de haber escogido a esta compaftia para trabajar en lugar de otras
que estuve considerando antes de entrar a trabajar aqui.
44.- No hay mucho que ganar al quedarme aqui por tiempo indefinido en esta compania.
45.- Realmente me importa lo que le pueda suceder a esta compaftia.
46.- Para mi esta es la mejor de todas las posibies compaftias en las que pudiera trabajar.
47.- El haberme decidido a trabajar para esta organizacidn, realmente fue un error de mi parte. Las siguientes seis afirmaciones tratan con que es lo que tu piensas que tu y tu linea o grupo de trabajo hacen. Indica por favor tus propios sentimientos acerca de esta compafiia al marcar qu£ tanto estas de acuerdo con caaa una de las siguientes afirmaciones.
_48.- Durante el dia (o turno) mis compafteros y yo trabajamos con otras personas de otras llneas o grupos de trabajo.
_49.- Mis compafteros y yo nos turnamos realizando funciones de lider en nuestra linea o grupo de trabajo.
_50.- Algunos de mis compafteros tratan directamente con clientes y /o proveedores.
_51.- Mis compafteros y yo ayudamos a decidir quten debera ser contratado para nuestra linea o grupo de trabajo.
_52.- En nuestro grupo de trabajo, nos turnamos para realizar diferentes funciones.
_53.- Mis compafteros y yo decidimos c6mo cumplir con nuestras necesidades de produccion.
161
Muy tipico Algo tipico No es ni Algo no No tipico de mi de mi no es tipico tipico de mi de mi
Las siguientes afirmaciones representan cosas que tal vcz tu hagas en tu trabajo. Indica por favor en que grado cada afirmacidn es caracteristica en ti.
Escriba un numero en el espacio en bianco para cada afirmacidn, basandose en la escala arriba mostrada.
54.- Yo les ayudo a los compafteros que hayan estado ausentes.
55.- Yo llego a tiempo a mi trabajo.
56.- Yo me ofrezco a realizar funciones que no son mi obligation.
57.- Yo me tomo descansos que no merezco.
58.- Yo oriento a nuevos empleados aun cuando no me sea requerido.
59.- Falto menos dfas que la mayoria de mis compafteros.
60.- Yo le ayudo a otros que tengan una carga de trabajo pesada.
61.- Me la paso tratando de trabajar lo menos posible hasta el final del turno.
62.- Aviso con anticipaci6n si no voy a poder asistir a trabajar.
63.- Me paso mucho tiempo en llamadas telefdnicas personaies.
64.- No me tomo tiempo innecesario fuera del trabajo.
65.- Hago sugerencias innovadoras para mejorar mi departamento.
66.- No me tomo descansos adicionales.
67.- No pierdo tiempo platicando.
162
Por favor contesta las siguientes preguntas lo mejor que pueda.
68.- Lo que mas me gusta de mi trabajo es:
69.- Lo que menos me gusta de mi trabajo aqui es:
Por favor circula la letra que indique ia respuesta mas apropiada.
70.- «?Cu£nto tiempo has trabajado aqui en tu puesto actual?.
A).- Menos de 6 meses
B).- De 6 meses a 1 afto
C).- De 1 a 2 aftos
D).- M&s de 2 aftos
71.- Yo soy de sexo:
A).- Masculino
B).- Femenino
72.- Mi edad es de:
A).- 16 a 19 aftos
B).- Entre 20 y 25 aftos
C).- mas de 25 aftos
73.- ^Cuintos aftos de educacidn has tenido?.
A).- Hasta 6 aftos
B).- De 7 a 9 aftos
C).- De 10 a 12 aftos
D).- M&s de 12 aftos.
APPENDIX C
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
163
164
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YOIK COLLEGE AT FREDOMIA
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS M M INISTRATIOi
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
I understand that the questionnaire I have been asked to fill out is for acadeaic research on the attitudes of workers. The title of the project is Organizational Attitudes.
I also understand, if asked to do anything that, in good conscience, I cannot ethically or Morally do, I nay discontinue ay participation in this project iaaediately.
Participant's Name (Please print)
Participant's Signature
Date
REFERENCE LIST
Adams, Jeffrey B., Jerome Adams, Robert W. Rice, and Debra Instone. 1985. Effects of perceived group effectiveness and group role on attributions of group performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 15 (June): 387-398.
Albanese, Robert, and David D. Van Fleet. 1985. Rational behavior in groups: The free-riding tendency. Academy of Management Review 10 (April): 244-255.
Alderfer, C. P. 1972. Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings. New York: Free Press.
Allcorn, Seth. 1986. What makes groups tick. Personnel 25 (September): 52-58.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1989. Understanding groups at work. Personnel 66 (August): 28-36.
Argyris, Chris. 1964. Integrating the Individual and the organization. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Aubrey, Charles A., and Patricia K. Felkins. 1988. Teamwork: Involving people in gualitv and productivity improvement. Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press.
Babbie, Earl R. 1973. Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.
Balsley, Howard L. 1978. Basic statistics for business and economics. Columbus, OH: Grid Inc.
Bandura, A. 1978. The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist 33 (April): 344-358.
Barkman, Donald F. 1987. Team discipline: Put performance on the line. Personnel Journal 66 (March): 58-63.
Bass, B. 1952. Ultimate criteria of organizational worth. Personnel Psychology 5 (Summer): 157-173.
Becker, H. S. 1960. Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology 66 (July): 32-42.
165
166
Bennis, Warren G./ and Edgar H. Schein, eds. 1966. Leadership and motivation; The essays of Douglas McGregor, by Douglas McGregor. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Berkowitz, L. 1970. The self, selfishness, and altruism. In Altruism and helping behavior, ed. J. Macauley and L. Berkowitz, 143-161. New York: Academic Press.
Bleakley, Fred R. 1993. The best laid plans: Many companies try management fads, only to see them flop. Wall Street Journal 42 (July 6, 1993): A1 and A8.
Bohlander, George W., and Angelo J. Kinicki. 1988. Where personnel and productivity meet: Quality HR programs benefit team spirit and, subsequently, productivity. Personnel Administrator 33 (September): 122-130.
Bowers, David G., and Stanley E. Seashore. 1967. Peer leadership within work groups. Personnel Administration 30 (September-October): 45-50.
Boyd, Harper W., Jr., Ralph Westfall, and Stanley F. Stasch. 1981. Marketing research. 5th ed. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Brockner, Joel. 1988. Self-esteem at work. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Brockner, J., and T. Hess. 1986. Self-esteem and task performance in quality circles. Academy of Management Journal 29 (September): 617-622.
Brown, M. E. 1969. Identification and some conditions of organizational involvement. Administrative Science Quarterly 14 (3): 346-355.
Buchanan, B. 1974. Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 19 (December): 533-546.
Cameron, K. S., and D. A. Whetten. 1981. Perceptions of organizational effectiveness over organizational life cycles. Administrative Science Quarterly 26 (December): 525-544.
Campbell, Donald T., and Julian C. Stanley. 1966. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co.
167
Campbell, J. P., M. D. Dunnette, E. E. Lawler, and K. E. Weick. 1970. Managerial behavior, performance and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Carew, Donald K., Eunice Parisi-Carew, and Kenneth H. Blanchard. 1986. Group development and situational leadership: A model for managing groups. Training and Development Journal 40 (June): 46-50.
Cartwright, Dorvin, and Alvin Zander. 1968. Origins of group dynamics. In Group Dynamics, ed. D. Cartwright and A. Zander. 3d ed, 3-21. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers.
Casey, David. 1985. When is a team not a team? Personnel Management 17 (January): 26-29.
Cavanagh, Michael E. 1984. In search of motivation. Personnel Journal 63 (March): 76-82.
Champagne, Paul J., and R. Bruce McAfee. 1989. Motivating strategies for performance and productivity: A guide to human resource development. New York: Quorum Books.
Chatman, Jennifer A. 1989. Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review 14 (3): 333-349.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. 1987. Marketing research methodological foundations. Chicago: The Dryden Press.
Chusmir, Leonard H., and Douglas E. Durand. 1987. The female factor. Training and Development Journal 41 (August): 32-37.
Cohen, Jacob, and Patricia Cohen. 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2d ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Incorporated.
Cole, Robert E. 1989. Strategies for learning small-group activities in American, Japanese, and Swedish industry. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Collins, Paul D., and Frank Hull. 1986. Technology and span of control: Woodward revisited. Journal of Management Studies 23 (March): 143-64.
168
Conger, Jay A., and Rabindra N. Kanungo. 1988. The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review 13 (3): 471-482.
Cook, Thomas D., and Donald T. Campbell. 1979. Ouasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally College Pub. Co.
Costley, D. L., and R. Todd. 1983. Human relations in organizations. 2d ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Cotton, John L., David A. Vollrath, Kirk L. Froggatt, Mark L. Lengnick-Hall, and Kenneth R. Jennings. 1988. Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of Management Review 13 (1): 8-22.
Craig, R., ed. 1987. Training and development handbook: Employee participation and invoIvement. Boston: Macmillan.
Cummings, L. L., and D. P. Schwab. 1973. Performance in organizations: Determinants and appraisal Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Cummings, Thomas G. 1978. Self-regulating work groups: A socio-technical synthesis. Academy of Management Review 3 (4): 625-633.
Cummings, Thomas G., and Edmond S. Malloy. 1977. Improving productivity and the gualitv of work life. New York: Praeger.
Cummings, Thomas G., Edmond S. Malloy, and Roy Glen. 1977. A methodological critique of fifty-eight selected work experiments. Human Relations 30 (August): 675-708.
Dachler, H. Peter, and Bernhard Wilpert. 1978. Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participation in organizations: A critical evaluation. Administrative Science Quarterly 23 (March): 1-39.
Daft, R. L., and Richard M. Steers. 1986. Organizations: A micro/macro approach. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
169
Dansereau, F. D., Jr., G. Graen, and W. J. Haga. 1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role-making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 13 (February): 46-78.
Davis, L. E. 1957. Toward a theory of job design. Journal of Industrial Engineering 8 (1): 176-193.
1966. The design of jobs. Industrial Relations Society 6 (1): 21-45.
Dear, Margaret R., Carol S. Weisman, and Sharon O'Keefe. 1985. Evaluation of a contract model for professional nursing practice. Health Care Management Review 10 (Spring): 65-77.
Denison, Daniel R. 1982. Sociotechnical design and self-managing work groups: The impact on control. Journal of Occupational Behavior 3 (October): 297-314.
Dershimer, George. 1986. Keeping teams turned on. Management World 15 (March): 10-12.
Dipboye, R. L. 1977. A critical review of Korman's self-consistency theory of work motivation and occupational choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 18 (February): 108-126.
Dipboye, R. L., W. H. Zultowski, H. D. Dewhirst, and R. D. Avery. 1979. Self-esteem as a moderator of performance-satisfaction relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior 15 (1): 193-206.
Douf, Charles R. 1990. Better isn't easier: Participative management is about to face its stiffest test. Industry Week 3 (September): 5.
Doyle, Frank P. 1990. People-power: The global human resource challenge for the '90s. Columbia Journal of World Business 25 (Spring/Summer): 36-45.
DuBrin, Andrew J. 1984. Foundations of organizational behavior: An applied perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Dumaine, Brian. 1990. Who needs a boss? Fortune. 7 (May): 53-60.
170
Elden, Max. 1986. Soclotechnical systems ideas as public policy in Norway: Empowering participation through worker-managed change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 22 (3): 239-255.
Emery, F. E. 1959. Characteristics of socio-technical systems. London: Tavistock Institute, Doc. No. 527.
Emory, C. William. 1985. Business research methods. 3d ed. Homewood, IL: Irwin Publishing.
Erez, Miriam, and Revital Arad. 1986. Participative goal-setting: Social, motivational, and cognitive factors. Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (November): 591-597.
Etzioni, A. 1964. Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ewing, David W., and Pamela Banks. 1977. Participative management at work makes it possible for people to succeed and release their will to achieve. Harvard Business Review 55 (January-February): 117-127.
Farh, Jiing-Lih, Philip M. Podsakoff, and Dennis W. Organ. 1990. Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management 16 (December): 705-721.
Fein, M. 1974. Job Enrichment: A re-evaluation. Sloan Management Review 15 (1): 69-88.
Ferratt, T. W., and R. A. Starke. 1977. Satisfaction, motivation, and productivity: The complex connection. In Readings in Organizational Behavior, eds. J. Gray and F. Starke, 74-86. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Fisher, K. Kim. 1986. Human resource management in action management roles in the implementation of participative management systems. Human Resource Management 25 (Fall): 459-479.
Fombrun, Charles J. 1986. Structural dynamics within and between organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 31 (September): 403-421.
Ford, R. N. 1969. Motivation through the work itself. New York: American Management Association.
171
Fordyce, Jack K., and Raymond Well. 1979. Managing the people. 2d ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.
Franklin, William H., Jr. 1982. Six critical issues for the eighties. Administrative Management 43 (January): 24-54.
Frederiksen, Lee W., Anne W. Riley, and John B. Myers. 1984. Matching technology and organizational structure: A case study in white collar productivity improvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 6 (Fall-Winter): 59-80.
Frohman, Mark. 1988. A profile of participative managers: What they really do. Industry Week. 1 August, 51-54.
Fry, Louis, and J. W. Slocum. 1984. Technology, structure, and workgroup effectiveness: A test of a contingency model. Academy of Management Journal 27 (June): 221-246.
Fry, Louis, and Deborah A. Smith. 1987. Congruence, contingency, and theory building. Academy of Management Review 12 (1): 117-132.
Gabris, Gerald T., and William A. Giles. 1988. Perceptions of management style and employee performance: Resurrecting a diminishing debate. Public Personnel Management Journal 12 (2): 167-180.
Galagan, Patricia. 1986. Work teams that work. Training and Development Journal 40 (November): 33-36.
Gardell, B. 1971. Alienation and mental health in the modern industrial environment. In Society, Stress and Disease, ed. L. Levi, vol. 1, 148-180. London: Oxford University Press.
Garvin, David A. 1987. Competing on the eight dimensions of quality. Harvard Business Review 65 (November-December) : 101-109.
Gellerman, Saul W. 1963. Motivation and productivity. Binghamton, NY: Vail-Ballou Press, Inc.
Gemmill, Gary. 1986. The mythology of the leader role in small groups. Small Group Behavior 17 (February): 41-50.
172
George, Jennifer M. 1992. Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 35 (March): 191-202.
Gibson, James L., John M. Ivancevich, and James H. Donnelly, Jr. 1988. Organizations behavior, structure, processes. Piano, TX: Business Publications, Inc.
Gilberg, Jay. 1988. Managerial attitudes toward participative management programs: Myths and reality. Personnel Management 17 (Summer): 109-123.
Gist, Marilyn E., Edwin A. Locke, and M. Susan Taylor. 1987. Organizational behavior: Group structure, process, and effectiveness. Journal of Management 13 (Summer): 237-257.
Goldstein, S. G. 1985. Organizational dualism and quality circles. Academy of Management Review 10 (3): 504-517.
Goodman, Paul S., James W. Dean, Jr. 1982. Change in organizations: New perspectives on theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Gowen, Charles R,, III. 1985. Managing work group performance by individual goals and group for an interdependent group task. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 7 (Fall-Winter): 5-23.
Gray, Jerry L., and Frederick A. Starke. 1984. Organizational behavior concepts and applications. 3d ed. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.
Green, Paul E., and Donald S. Tull. 1978. Research for marketing decisions. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Greenberg, Edward S. 1980. Participation in industrial decision making and work satisfaction: The case of producer cooperatives. Social Science Quarterly 60 (March): 551-571.
Greene, C. N. 1972. The satisfaction-performance controversy. Business Horizons 15 (October): 31-41.
Greenhaus, Jeffery H., Saroj Parasuraman, and Wayne M. Wormley. 1990. Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 33 (March): 64-86.
173
Griffin, Ricky W. 1979. Task design determinants of effective leadership behavior. Journal of Management Review 4 (1): 215-224.
Grinyer, Peter H., and Masoud Yashai-Ardekani. 1981. Strategy, structure, size, and bureaucracy. Academy of Management Journal 24 (September): 471-485.
Grusky, 0. 1966. Career mobility and organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly 10 (4): 488-503.
Guaspari, John. 1987. The role of human resources in "selling" quality improvement to employees. Management Review 76 (March): 20-24.
Guest, Robert H. 1989. Team management under stress. Across the Board 26 (May): 30-35.
Gunn, Christopher Eaton. 1984. Workers' self-management in the United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hackman, J. Richard. 1967. The design of work teams. Technical Report 11, 315-339.
1975. On the coming demise of job enrichment. In Man and work in society, ed. E. L. Cass and F. G. Zimmer, 97-115. New York: Van Nostrand.
1982. The design of work teams. A set of methods for research on work teams. Technical report #1, group effectiveness. Research Project, School of Organization and Management, Yale University.
1990. Groups that work (and those that don'tl. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Hackman, J. Richard, and E. E. Lawler. 1971. Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology 55 (June): 259-286.
Hackman, J. Richard, and G. R. Oldham. 1974a. The iob diagnostic survey: An instrument for the diagnosis of 1obs and the evaluation of lob redesign projects (Tech. Rep. No. 4). New Haven, CT: Yale University, Department of Administrative Sciences.
174
Hackman, J. Richard, and G. R. Oldham. 1974b. Motivation through the design of work; Test of a theory (Tech. Rep. No. 6). New Haven, CT: Yale University, Department of Administrative Sciences.
Hackman, J. Richard, and G. R. Oldham. 1975. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60 (April): 159-170.
Hackman, J. Richard, and G. R. Oldham. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 15 (August): 250-279.
Hackman, J. Richard, and G. R. Oldham. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Hackman, J. Richard, G. R. Oldham, and K. Purdy. 1975. A new strategy for job enrichment. California Management Review 17: 57-71.
Hackman, J. Richard, and J. Lloyd Suttle. 1977. Improving life at work: Behavioral science approaches to organizational change. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Co., Inc.
Hair, Joseph F., Jr., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and William C. Black. 1992. Multivariate data analysis with readings. 3d ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Hall, D. T., and B. Schneider. 1972. Correlates of organizational identification as a function of career pattern and organizational type. Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (September): 340-350.
Hall, D. T., B. Schneider, and H. T. Nygren. 1970. Personal factors in organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarterly 15 (June): 176-189.
Harris, Philip R. 1986. Building a high-performance team. Training and Development Journal 40 (April): 28-29.
Harvey-Jones, John. 1984. What's new in motivation. Personnel Management 16 (May): 20-23.
Herbst, P. G. 1962. Autonomous group functioning: An exploration in behaviour theory and measurement. London: Tavistock Publications.
175
Herbst, P. G. 1974. Socio-technical design. London: Tavistock Publications.
Herzberg, Frederick. 1964. The motivation-hygiene concept and problems of manpower. Personnel Administration 27 (January-February): 173-178.
1966. Work and the nature of man. New York: Thomas Crowell Co.
. 1968. One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review 46 (January-February) : 53-62.
. 1979. Herzberg on motivation for the '80s: Piecing together generations of values. Industry Week, 1 October, 58-63.
, . 1982. The managerial choice to be efficient and to be human. 2d ed. Salt Lake City: Olympus Publishing Co.
Hillway, Tyrus. 1964. Introduction to research. 2d ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Hoerr, John. 1989. The payoff from teamwork the gains in quality are substantial—So why isn't it spreading faster? Business Week, 10 July, 56-62.
1990. The strange bedfellows backing workplace reform. Business Week, 30 April, 57-58.
Holder, Todd. 1984. Bringing out the best in workers. Manage 36 (January): 28-29.
Hollenbeck, J. R., and A. P. Brief. 1987. The effects of individual differences and goal origins on goal setting and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 40 (December): 392-414.
Horowitz, Irving Louis. 1962. Consensus, conflict and cooperation: A sociological inventory. Social Forces 41 (December): 177-188.
Hrebiniak, L. C., and J. A. Alutto. 1972. Personal and role-related factors in the development of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (December): 555-572.
176
Iaffaldano, M. T. and P. M. Muchinsky. 1985. Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 97 (March): 251-273.
Indik, Bernard P. 1989. Self esteem at work: Research, theory, and practice. Personal Psychology 42 (Summer): 446-449.
Jenkins, David. 1973. Job power: Blue and white collar democracy. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., Inc.
Jewell, L. N., and H. J. Reitz. 1981. Group effectiveness in organizations. Glenview, II: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Johnson, Cynthia Reedy. 1986. An outline for team building. Training and Development Journal 23 (January): 48-52.
Kanter, R. M. 1968. Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanisms in Utopian communities. American Sociological Review 33 (August): 499-517.
. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kaplan, Ira T., and Howard H. Greenbaum. 1989. Measuring work group effectiveness: A comparison of three instruments. Management Communication Quarterly 2 (February): 424-448.
Katz, D. 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science 9 (2): 131-133.
Katzell, Raymond A., and Daniel Yankelovich, with Mitchell Fein, Oscar A. Ornati, and Abraham Nash, assisted by Jeffery A. Berman, Robert A. Deliberto, Ira J. Morrow, and Howard M. Weiss. 1975. Work, productivity, and lob satisfaction: An evaluation of policy-related research. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
Kavcic, Bogdan, Veliko Rus, and Arnold S. Tannenbaum. 1971 Control, participation, and effectiveness in four Yugoslav industrial organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 16 (March): 74-86.
Kelley, Robert E. 1988. In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review 66 (November-December): 142-148.
177
Kelly, J. E. 1978. A reappraisal of sociotechnical systems theory. Human Relations 31 (4): 1069-1099.
Kerr, Steven, Kenneth D. Hill, and Laurie Broedling. 1986. The first-line supervisor: Phasing out or here to stay? Academy of Management Review 11 (January): 103-117.
Klein, Janice A. 1984. Why supervisors resist employee involvement. Harvard Business Review 62 (September-October): 87-95.
Kleinbeck, Uwe, Hans-Henning Quast, Henk Thierry, and Hartmut Hacker. 1990. Work motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kohn, M. L., and C. Schooler. 1973. Occupational experience and psychological functioning: An assessment of reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review 38 (February): 97-118.
Korman, A. K. 1970. Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 54 (1): 31-41.
. 1971. Organizational achievement, aggression and creativity: Some suggestions toward an integrated theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 6 (December): 593-613.
. 1976. Hypothesis of work behavior revisited and an extension. Academy of Management Review 1 (1): 50-63.
Kotter, John P., and Leonard A. Schlesinger. 1983. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review 61 (March-April): 106-113.
Kraemer, Helena Chmura, and Sue Thiemann. 1989. How many subjects? Statistical power analysis in research. Journal of Marketing Research 26 (May): 248.
Krayer, Karl J. 1986. Using training to reduce role conflict and ambiguity. Training and Development Journal 6 (November): 49-52.
Krebs, D. L. 1970. Altruism--An examination of the concept and a review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin 73 (4): 258-303.
178
Kriegler, Roy, and Gorden Rowland. 1980. Kriegler, Rowland/Employee decision making. . . . Work and People 6: 3-8.
Kreitner, Robert, and Angelo Kinicki. 1992. Organizational behavior. 2d ed. Boston, MA: Irwin.
Lang, Gerhard, and George D. Heiss. 1985. A practical guide to research methods. 3d ed. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Latham, G. P., and R. Wexley. 1981. Increasing productivity through performance appraisal. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Latham, G. P., and G. A. Yukl. 1975. Assigned versus participative goal setting with educated and uneducated wood workers. Journal of Applied Psychology 60 (June): 299-302.
Lawler, Edward E., III. 1969. Job design and employee motivation. Personnel Psychology 22 (4): 426-435.
. 1973. Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
1982. Increasing worker involvement to enhance organizational effectiveness. In Change in organizations: New perspectives on theory, research, and practice, ed. Paul S. Goodman and Associates, 280-315. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
. 1983. Human resource productivity in the 80s. New Management 1 (Spring): 46-49
1985. Education, management style, and organizational effectiveness. Personnel Psychology 38 (Spring): 1-24.
1986. High-involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lawler, Edward E., Ill, and Douglas T. Hall. 1970. Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology 54 (4): 305-312.
Leedy, Paul D. 1981. How to read research and understand it. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
179
1985. Practical research planning and design. 3d ed. New York: Macmlllan Publishing Co.
Lefton, Robert E. 1988. Communication: The eight barriers to teamwork. Personnel Journal 67 (January): 18-21.
Lehrer, Sande. 1986. Motivating subordinates: Making it work. The Bureaucrat 15 (Summer): 49-52.
Lerner, M. J., and D. T. Miller. 1978. Just world research and the attribution process: looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin 85 (September): 1030-1051.
Levine, David I. 1990. Participation, productivity, and the firm's environment. California Management Review 32 (Summer): 86-100.
Lewis, James, Jr. 1985. Excellent organizations: How to develop and manage them using theory Z. New York: J. L. Wilderson Publishing Co.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 1985. Applied regression: An introduction. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Likert, Rensis. 1961. New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1967. The human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Lincoln, James R., Mitsuyo Hanada, and Kerry McBride. 1986. Organizational structure in Japanese and U. S. manufacturing. Administrative Science Quarterly 31 (September): 338-364.
Locke, E. A. 1968. Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 3 (May): 157-189.
1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, ed. Marvin D. Dunnette, 1297-1350. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Locke, E. A., and G. P. Latham. 1984. Goal setting: A motivational technigue that works. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
180
Locke, Edwin A., and David M. Schweiger. 1979. Participation in decision-making: One more look. Research in Organizational Behavior 1 (2): 265-339.
Lopez, E. M., and J. H. Greenhaus. 1978. Self-esteem, race, and job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior 13 (August): 75-83.
Lorange, Peter, and Declan C. Murphy. 1983. Strategy and human resources: Concepts and practice. Human Resource Management 22 (Spring/Summer): 111-135.
Lupton, Tom. 1975. Efficiency and the quality of worklife: The technology of reconciliation. Organizational Dynamics 4 (Autumn): 68-80.
Luthans, F., and R. Kreitner. 1985. Organizational behavior modification and bevond. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Malka, Shalom. 1989. Managerial behavior, participation, and effectiveness in social welfare organizations. Administration in Social Work 13 (2): 47-67.
Manz, Charles C., and Henry P. Sims, Jr. 1984. Searching for the "unleader": Organizational member views on leading self-managed groups. Human Relations 37 (May): 409-424.
Manz, Charles C., and Henry P. Sims, Jr. 1987. Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 32 (March): 106-128.
Manz, Charles C., and Henry P. Sims, Jr. 1989. Superleadership: Leading others to lead themselves. New York: Prentice-Hall Press.
March, J. G., and H. A. Simon. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Marks, Mitchell Lee, Edward J. Hackett, Philip H. Mirvis, and James F. Grady, Jr. 1986. Employee participation in a quality circle program: Impact on quality of work life, productivity, and absenteeism. Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (February): 61-69.
181
Marrow, Alfred J., David G. Bowers, and Stanley E. Seashore. 1967. Management bv participation: Creating a climate for personal and organizational development. New York: Harper and Row.
Martin, Jack K., and Constance L. Shehan. 1989. Education and job satisfaction the influence of gender, wage-earning status, and job values. Work and Occupations 16 (May): 184-199.
Maslow, A. H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50 (2): 370-396.
. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Mastenbroek, Willem. 1988. A dynamic concept of revitalization. Organizational Dynamics 16 (Spring): 52-60.
Matsui, Tamao, Takashi Kakuyama, and Mary Lou Uy. 1987. Effects of goals and feedback on performance in groups Journal of Applied Psychology 72 (November): 407-415.
McClelland, David C. 1961. The achieving society. New York: D. Van Nostrand Co.
1962. Business drive and national achievement. Harvard Business Review 40 (July-August): 99-112.
1966. That urge to achieve. Think (November-December): 19-32.
McGregor, Douglas. 1960. The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Mendenhall, William, and Terry Sincich. 1986. A second course in business statistics: Regression analysis. 2d ed. San Francisco: Dellen Publishing Co.
Middlemist, R. D., and M. A. Hitt. 1981. Organizational behavior: Applied concepts. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc.
Miles, Raymond E., and Charles C. Snow. 1986. Organizations: New concepts for new forms. California Management Review 28 (Spring): 62-73.
182
Miller, Danny. 1986. Configurations of strategy and structure: Towards a synthesis. Strategic Management Journal 7 (2): 233-249.
Miller, Katherine I., and Peter R. Monge. 1986. Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal 29 (December): 727-753.
Millsaps, John. 1988. Creating motivation programs from within. Personnel Administrator 33 (June): 113-114.
Mintzberg, Henry. 1988. The strategy process concepts. contexts, and cases. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Moonman, Eric. 1961. The manager and the organization. London: Tavistock Publications.
Moran, Linda, and Ed Musselwhite. 1988. Self-directed workteams: A lot more than lust teamwork. San Jose, CA: Zenger-Miller, Inc., pp. 13-18.
Morgan, Gareth. 1986. Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Mortimer, J. T., and J. Lorence. 1979. Occupational experience and self-concept: A longitudinal study. Social Psychology Quarterly 42 (December): 307-323.
Mowday, R. T., L. W. Porter, and R. Dubin. 1974. Unit performance, situational factors, and employee attitudes in spatially separated work units. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 12 (October): 231-248.
Mowday, Richard T., Lyman W. Porter, and Richard M Steers. 1982. Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Mowday, Richard T., Richard M. Steers, and Lyman W. Porter. 1979. The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior 14 (April): 224-247.
Muczyk, Jan P., and Bernard C. Reimann. 1987. Has participative management been oversold? Personnel 64 (May): 52-56.
183
Myers, Scott M. 1970. Every employee a manager: More meaningful work through job enrichment. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Newman, Betsy. 1986. Expediency as benefactor: How team building saves time and gets the job done. Training and Development Journal 38 (February): 26-30.
Nichols, Don. 1987. Taking participative management to the limit. Management Review 76 (August): 28-32.
Nora, John J., C. Raymond Rogers, and Robert J. Stramy. 1986. Transforming the workplace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Research Press.
Nunn, Henry L. 1961. Partners in production: A new role for management and labor. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
O'Dell, Carla. 1989. Team play, team pay—Nnew ways of keeping score. Across the Board 26 (November): 39-45.
Organ, D. W. 1977. A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review 2 (January): 46-53.
Organ, D. W., and Thomas Bateman. 1990. Organizational behavior. 4th ed. Piano, TX: Business Publications, Inc.
Orsburn, Jack D., Linda Moran, Ed Musselwhite, and John H. Zenger. 1990. Self-directed work teams: The new American challenge. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.
Orth, Charles D., Harry E. Wilkinson, and Robert C. Benfari. 1987. The manager's role as coach and mentor. Organizational Dynamics 15 (Spring): 66-74.
Ouchi, William G. 1981. Theory Z. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Palmore, E. 1969. Predicting longevity: A follow-up controlling for age. The Gerontoloaist 9 (Winter): 247-250.
Pascarella, Perry. 1984. The new achievers: Creating a modern work ethic. New York: The Free Press.
184
Pedhazur, Elazar J. 1982. Multiple regression in behavioral research. 2d ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Pennings, Johannes M. 1976. Dimensions of organizational influence and their effectiveness correlates. Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (December): 688-699.
Pfeffer, J. and G. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.
Pierce, Jon L., R. B. Dunham, and L. L. Cummings. 1984. Sources of environmental structuring and participant responses. Organizational behavior and human performance 33 (April): 214-241.
Pierce, Jon L., Donald G. Gardner, Larry L. Cummings, and Randall B. Dunham. 1989. Organizational-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal 32 (September): 622-648.
Podsakoff, Philip M., and William D. Todor. 1985. Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and group processes and productivity. Journal of Management 11 (Spring): 55-73.
Porter, L. W., and Lawler, E. E. III. 1968. Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Porter, L. W., and Richard M. Steers. 1973. Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin 80 (August): 151-176.
Porter, Lyman W., Richard M. Steers, Richard T. Mowday, and Paul V. Boulian. 1974. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (October): 603-609.
Putti, Joseph M. 1985. Leader behavior and group characteristics in work improvement teams—The asian context. Public Personnel Management 14 (Fall): 301-306.
Quinn, Robert P. 1974. Job satisfaction: Is there a trend? Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Labor.
185
Quinn, R. E. and K. Cameron. 1983. Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence. Management Science 29 (January): 33-51.
Reilly, Bernard J., and Joseph A. DiAngelo, Jr. 1988. A look at job redesign. Personnel 65 (February): 61-65.
Rice, A. K. 1958. Productivity and social organization: The Ahmedabad experiment. London: Tavistock Publications.
Rief, W. E., and F. Luthans. 1972. Does job enrichment really pay off? California Management Review 15 (1): 30-37.
Robbins, S.P. 1988. Management: concepts and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Roethlisberger, F. J. 1968. Man-in-organization. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Roethlisberger, F. J., and W. J. Dickson. 1964. Management and the worker. New York: Wiley Science Editions.
Rohan, Thomas M. 1990. Whitecollar wisdom. Industry Week, 3 September, 32-35.
Rosenberg, Morris. 1965. Society and the adolescent self-image . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ross, Joel E., and R. Krishna Shetty. 1985. Making quality a fundamental part of strategy. Long Range Planning 18 (February): 53-57.
Rousseau, D. M. 1977. Technological differences in job characteristics, employee satisfaction and motivation: A synthesis of job design research and socio-technical systems theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 19 (February): 18-42.
Russel, Raymond. 1988. Forms and extent of employee participation in the contemporary United States. Work and Occupations 15 (November): 374-395.
Salancik, G. R. 1977. Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In New directions in organizational behavior, ed. B. M. Staw and G. R. Salancik, 1-54. Chicago: St. Clair Press.
186
Schein, Edgar H. 1968. Organizational socialization and the profession of management. Industrial Management Review 9 (Winter): 241-255.
Schlesinger, Jacob M., and Paul Ingrassia. 1989. GM woos employees by listening to them talking of its "team." Wall Street Journal, 12 January, 1(W).
Schneier, Craig Eric. 1974. Behavior modification in management: a review and critique. Academy and Management Review 17 (September): 528-548.
Schopler, Janice H. 1987. Interorganizational groups: Origins, structure, and outcomes. Academy of Management Review 12 (October): 702-713.
Schwalbe, Michael L. 1988. Sources of self-esteem in work: What's important for whom? Work and Occupations 15 (February): 24-35.
Sechrest, L. 1963. Incremental validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement 23 (1): 153-158.
Semler, Ricardo. 1989. Managing without managers. Harvard Business Review 67 (September-October): 76-84.
Shea, Gregory P., and Richard A. Guzzo. 1987. Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review 28 (Spring): 25-31.
Sheldon, M. E. 1971. Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment to the organization. Administrative Science Quarterly 16 (June): 142-150.
Sheridan, John H. 1990. What Execs Want To Know. Industry Week. 5 November, 50.
Sherman, J. Daniel, and Howard L. Smith. 1984. The influence of organizational structure on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. Academy of Management Journal 27 (December): 877-85.
Siegel, Laurence. 1962. Industrial psychology. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Simpson, C. K., and D. Boyle. 1975. Esteem construct generality and academic performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement 35 (Winter): 897-904.
187
Sims, H. P., and J. W. Dean. 1985. Beyond quality circles: Self-managing teams. Personnel 62 (1): 25-32.
Sims, Henry P., Andrew D. Szilagyi, and Robert T. Keller. 1976. The measurement of job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal 19 (June): 195-212.
Singh, Jitendra V. 1986. Technology, size, and organizational structure: A reexamination of the okayama study data. Academy of Management Journal 29 (December): 800-812.
Smith, C. Ann, Dennis W. Organ, and Janet P. Near. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology 68 (November): 653-663.
Smith, P. C., L. M. Kendall, and C. L. Hulin. 1969. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
Snyder, Neil H., Bernard A. Morin, and Marilyn A1 Morgan. 1988. Motivating people to build excellent enterprises. Business 38 (April-June): 14-18.
Staples, C. L., M. L. Schwalbe, and V. Gecas. 1984. Social class, occupational conditions, and efficacy-based self-esteem. Sociology Perspectives 27 (1): 85-109.
Staw, B. W. 1986. Organizational psychology and the pursuit of the happy/productive worker. California Management Review 2 8 (Summer): 40.
Steers, Richard M. 1977a. Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly 22 (1): 46-56.
Steers, Richard. 1977b. Organizational effectiveness: A behavioral view. Santa Monica: Goodyear.
1984. Introduction to organizational behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.
Steers, Richard M., G. R. Ungson, and R. T. Mowday. 1985. Managing effective organizations. Boston: Kent Publishing Co.
Stone, Eugene. 1978. Research methods in organizational behavior. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Co., Inc.
188
Szilagyi, A. D., Jr. and M. J. Wallace, Jr. 1983. Organizational behavior and performance. 3d ed. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Tausky, Curt, and Anthony F. Chelte. 1988. Workers' participation. Work and Occupations 15 (November): 363-373.
Taylor, Steven J., and Robert Bogdan. 1984. Introduction to qualitative research methods. 2d ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Taylor, Thomas 0., Donald J. Freidman, and Dennis Couture. 1987. Operating without supervisors: An experiment. Article Review 15 (Winter): 26-38.
Tharenou, P. 1979. Employee self-esteem: A review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior 15 (1): 1-29.
Tharenou, P. and P. Harker. 1984. Moderating influence of self-esteem on relationships between job complexity, performance, and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology 69 (November): 623-632.
Thomas, Kenneth W. and Betty A. Velthouse. 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpretive model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review 15 (October): 666-81.
Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Travernier, Gerard. 1974. The plant the workers planned: How a Danish firm turned a problem into an opportunity and succeeded. International Management 29 (December): 19-26.
Tregoe, Benjamin B., and Perer M. Tobia. 1990. Strategy and the new American organization. Industry Week. 6 August, 28-34.
Trist, Eric. 1976. Critique of scientific management in terms of socio-technical theory. In Job Satisfaction, ed. M. Weir, 81-90. London: Fontana.
Trist, Eric. 1981. The evolution of sociotechnical systems. In Perspectives on organization design and behavior, ed. Andrew H. Van de Ven and William F. Joyce, 19-75. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
189
Trist, Eric, and K. W. Baraforth. 1951. Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting. Human Relations 4 (1): 3-38.
Tung, Rosalie L. 1979. Dimensions of organizational environments: An exploratory study of their impact on organization structure. Academy of Management Journal 22 (December): 672-693.
Vanderslice, Virginia J., Robert W. Rice, and James W. Julian. 1987. The effects of participation in decision-making on worker satisfaction and productivity: An organizational simulation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 17 (February): 159-170.
Van Matre, Joseph G., and Glenn H. Gilbreath. 1983. Statistics for business and economics. Rev. ed. Piano, TX: Business Publications, Inc.
Vereapej, Michael A. 1990. Yea, teams? Not always. Industry Week. 18 June, 104-105.
Versteeg, Anna. Self-directed work teams yield long-term benefits. The Journal of Business Strategy 11 (November/December): 9-12.
Vroom, Victor H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Wagel, William H. 1987. A team approach to selecting managers. Personnel 64 (April): 4-6.
1988. An unorthodox approach to leadership development. Personnel 63 (July): 4-6.
Walker, C. R., and Robert H. Guest. 1952. The man in the assembly line. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.
Wall, Toby D., Nigel J. Kemp, Paul R. Jackson, and Chris W. Clegg. 1986. Outcomes of autonomous workgroups: a long-term field experiment. Academy of Management Journal 29 (June): 280-304.
Walton, Richard E. 1975. The diffusion on new work structures: explaining why success didn't take. Organizational Dynamics 3 (Winter): 3-22.
Walton, Richard E. 1977. Work innovations at Topeka: after six years. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 13 (Summer): 422-433.
190
Walton, Richard E. 1985. From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review 63 (1): 76-84.
Weiner, Y., and A. S. Gechman. 1977. Commitment: A behavioral approach to job involvement. Journal of Vocational Behavior 10 (1): 47-52.
Weisbord, Marvin R. 1985. Participative work design: A personal odyssey. Organizational Dynamics 13 (Spring): 5-20.
Werther, William B., Jr. 1988. Loyalty at work. Business Horizons 31 (March-April): 28-35.
Whetten, David A., and Kim S. Cameron. 1984. Developing management skills. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman Co.
Whitsett, D. A. 1975. Making sense of management theories. Personnel 52 (3): 44-52.
Whyte, William H. 1981. Whatever happened to corporate loyalty? Fortune. 9 February, 54.
Wilkinson, Harry E., Charles D. Orth, and Robert C. Benfari. 1986. Motivation theories: An integrated operational model. SAM Advanced Management Journal 51 (Autumn): 24-31.
Williams, Allan P. 0. 1979. Career development and employee participation: Current trends and their implications. Personnel Review 8 (Autumn): 15-20.
Williams, Trevor A. 1982. A participative design for dispersed employees in turbulent environments. Human Relations 35 (November): 1043-1059.
Wilson, A. T., E. L. Trist, and K. Bamforth. 1951. The Bolsover system of continuous mining. London: Tavistock Institute, Doc. 290.
Winpisinger, W. 1973. Job satisfaction: A union response. American Federatlonist 80 (1): 8-11.
Wintrobe, Ronald, and Albert Brenton. 1986. Organizational structure and productivity. American Organizational Review 76 (June): 530-538.
Wylie, Ruth C. 1989. Measures of self-concept. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
191
Yorks, Lyle. 1976. A radical approach to lob enrichment. New York: AMACOM.
Yorks, Lyle, and David A. Whitsett. 1989. Scenarios of change advocacy and the diffusion of job redesign in organizations. New York: Praeger.
Yuchtman, E. and S. E. Seashore. 1967. Factorial analysis of organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 12 (September): 377-395.
Zemke, Ron. 1988. Scandinavian management—A look at our future? Management Review 77 (July): 44-47.
Zuckerman, M. 1975. Belief in a just world and altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 131 (May): 972-976.