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.