CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE AND LEVEL ON
GROUP PERFORMANCE AND SATISFACTION
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Psychology
by
Lillian Wendel
January, 1979
The
thesi~
William
of
Lilli~ndel
is approved:
B. Knowles
JerVf rJshaw
~rbara
Tabachnick, Chairperson
California State University, Northridge
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my parents and friends for
keeping their faith in me throughout this entire ordeal.
A special note of thanks goes to my dog, Roxie, whose
love keeps me going.
~ost
of all, I thank myself.
Throughout innumerable
obstacles and set-backs, I managed to reach my goal.
Determination and patience do have their rewards.
i.ii
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract
ix
List of Figures
vi
List of Tables
vii
Introduction
1
Background
1
Problem
5
23
Hypotheses
26
!Yethod
Subjects
26
Tasks
26
Independent variables
26
Dependent variables
29
Experimental design
38
Procedure
38
41
Restll ts
Perceived status
41
Decision time
41
Performance quality
46
Satisfaction
46
Perceptions of the formation process
56
Discussion
62
References
71
iv
Page
Appendix A
76
Appendix B
79
c
81
Appendix D
85
Appendix E
89
Appendix F
95
Appendix
v
List of Figures
Number
Title
Expected composite satisfaction
(or composite perception of the
formation process) as a function
of organizational structure and
level.
24
Organizational chart of (A) Flat
organization and (B) Tall organization.
28
3
Composite satisfaction as a
function of organizational level.
52
4
Security need satisfaction as a
function of organizational level.
55
1
2
.vi
List of Tables
Number
1
Title
summary of studies of job performance-organizational structure
relationship
Pa~
9
Summary of studies of job satisfaction-organizational structure
relationship
12
Summary of studies of job needsatisfaction-organizational
structure relationship
15
summary of the reliabilities of
the seven quality dimensions
32
5
Performance measures intercorrelations
33
6
Satisfaction and perception
measures intercorrelations
36
summary of means and standard
deviations for "Perceived Status"
data
42
Summary of the analysis of variance
for perceived status as a function
of organizational structure and
level
43
9
Summary of means and standard
deviations for ".Decision Time" data
44
10
Summary of the analysis of variance
for decision time as a function of
organizational structure
45
summary of means and standard
deviations for "Performance Quality"
data
47
2
3
4
7
8
11
vii
Number
12
13
14
15
Title
-Summary of the analysis of variance
for performance quality as a function
of organizational structQre
48
summary of means and standard
deviations for "Composite Need
Satisfaction" data
50
Summary of the analysis of variance
for composite need satisfaction as
a function of organizational
structure and level
51
Summary of means and standard
deviations for "Security Need
Satisfaction" data
53
16
summary of the analysis of variance
for security need satisfaction as a
function of organizational structure
and level
17
summary of means and standard
deviations for "Perceptions of the
Formation Process - Influence" data
57
Summary of means and standard
deviations for "Perceptions of the
Formation Process - Fairness" data
58
Summary of the multivariate
analysis of variance for perceptions
of the formation process as a
function of organizational structure
and level
59
18
19
20
summary of the univariate analyses
of variance and step-down analysis
for perceptions of the formation
process as a function of organizational
structure and level
61
.viii
ABSTRACT
EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE AND LEVEL ON
GROUP PERFORMANCE AND SATISFACTION
by
Lillian Wendel
fo!;aster of Arts in Psychology
December, 1978
Seventy female subjects were randomly assigned to ten
groups, five groups performing under each of two experimental structures:
structure.
a "tall" or "flat" organizational
Subjects were placed in one of two organiza-
tional levels within the flat structural condition,
"leader" or "workers," or in one of three organizational
levels within the tall structural condition, "leader,"
"supervisors," or "workers."
"Supervisor" data were not
employed in the analyses so that comparisons could be made
between organizational structures and levels.
Subjects were required to complete a series of five
problem solving tasks.
There were four dependent measures.
1) Decision Time was measured in terms of time needed to
complete a task.
2) Performance Quality was measured in
ix
terms of a composite of seven quality characteristics of
the written group solutions:
action orientation, length,
originality, optimism, quality of presentation, issue involvement, and operability.
3) Satisfaction was a compo-
site of five need areas as defined by Maslow:
self-esteem, growth, social, and security.
autonomy,
Separate pre-
dictions were made for Security and a Composite of the four
remaining components of satisfaction.
4) Perceptions of
the Formation Process of the final solutions was measured
in terms of a composite of each subject's perception of
a) the amount of influence her answer had on each final
solution as compared to the others in her group, and b) the
fairness and impartiality with which each final solution
was formed.
All dependent variables were measured over trials.
Statistical analyses indicated a number of statistically significant effects, as follows.
Decision Time
varied as a function of organizational structure.
Tall
structural groups required more time to reach a final solution to each problem than flat structural groups.
Com-
posite satisfaction was affected by organizational level;
leaders reported greater composite satisfaction than did
workers.
It also varied as a function of an organizational
structure by level interaction.
Among workers, there was
significantly more satisfaction in the flat structural condition.
Differences in satisfaction between leaders and
X
workers was evident only in the tall structural condition,
where leaders showed greater need satisfaction.
was affected by a level by trials interaction.
Security
Reported
security need satisfaction of leaders was greater than
that of workers only in the final trial.
The perception
measure was affected by organizational level; leaders reported higher perceptions of influence in and fairness of
the formation process of the final solutions than did
workers.
There were no main effects of trials on any of
the dependent measures.
Based on the results of this study and on previous research, it was concluded that organizational structure is
not related to member behavior and attitudes in a systematic manner.
Organizational level, however, is positively
related to satisfaction.
The general finding is that high-
er level members report more perceived satisfaction than
do lower level members,
xi
Introduction
In one way or another organizations affect all our
lives, either directly in our place of employment, or indirectly in terms of goods and services they provide.
Or-
ganizations are a pervasive force in our society. · The effectiveness with which organizations achieve their objectives determines in part our health, well-being, education,
security, and standard of living.
It is for these reasons
that the study of organizations and their processes has
received a great deal of attention from behavioral and
social scientists.
It is through the study of behavior of
individuals and groups in organizations, as well as the
organization in its entirety, that these scientists "hope
to further their understanding of these complex phenomena
so as to enhance organizational effectiveness and the satisfaction of organizational members" (Wexley & Yukl, 1977,
p. 1).
An organization can be defined as "the patterned relationships among people who are engaged in mutually dependent activities with a specific objective" (Wexley & Yukl,
1977, p. 12), or more simply, "an organization is a group
of people who interact to achieve some purpose" (Carroll &
Tosi, 1977, p. 3).
1
2
Organizational Configuration
All organizations operate within an external environment, and as such can be conceived as "open systems," in
that they actively interact with the environment.
They
receive "inputs'' (resources) from the environment, perform
some sort of transformation process on these inputs to
produce "outputs" (goods and/or services) to the environment.
This cycle is continuous, and involves a complex
of mental and physical tasks.
The survival and growth of an organization depends on
a favorable, efficient ratio of inputs to outputs.
Energy
expended must not exceed energy received, however, energy
received may exceed energy expended (it may be stored for
later use).
The maintenance of this efficient ratio is
thought to depend on an organization's configuration
(Wexley & Yukl, 1977).
Configuration can be defined as
"the pattern of prescribed roles and role relationships,
the allocation of activities to separate subunits, the
distribution of authority among administrative positions,
and the formal communication network'' (Wexley & Yukl,
1977, p. 1_5).
An organization is structured with the goal of achieving an efficient division of labor and an effective coordination of member activities.
Organizational "configu-
ration" is a complex entity, comprised of many dimensions
and attributes.
In order to differentiate between organ-
3
izational types under investigation, some sort of configurational typology was necessary.
Only with such a frame-
work is it possible to systematically study the relationship between organizational configuration and organizational effectiveness.
It has been suggested (Cummings & Berger, 1976) that
the structural arrangement of an organization affects both
employee attitudes and behavior, which in turn affects organizational effectiveness.
By being able to define the·
structural variables and therefore research their effects
on employee attitudes and behavior, one could perhaps manipulate the structural dimensions in such a way as to create high performing, satisfying organizations.
To accom-
plish this, it is necessary to find the degree to which
organizational configuration and member attitudes and behavior are related.
Organizations are composed of a number of structural
dimensions.
A partial list of these dimensions are'
size
of sub-units, size of organization, structure (number of
levels, depth of hierarchy, span of control, segmentation
of tasks, horizontal and vertical differentiation of roles),
distribution of decision making power across levels (concentration of authority; decentralized vs. centralized),
standardization (of procedures, roles, and rules; they
cover all circumstances and apply to all organizations),
and line control of workflow.
These dimensions may vary
4
between and within organizations.
The effectiveness of an organization's configuration
can be influenced by individual characteristics and various miscellaneous factors.
fer to
suc~factors
Individual characteristics re-
as individual personality, group com-
position and interaction (cohesiveness) of immediate work
groups, all of which affect member attitudes and behavior.
Other miscellaneous factors may mediate the relationship between organizational configuration and organizational effectiveness.
These may be:
nature of the tech-
nology (scale of the technical complexity), the environment's rate of technological change (stable vs. dynamic),
flexibility (changes in structure over time; number,
speed, acceleration, and willingness to accept change),
dependencies on other organizations, operating site (geography), traditions (customs, history), leadership style,
organizational climate, and nature of the task (creative
vs. routine).
As can be seen, organizations are highly complex entities containing a myriad of elements, and being affected
by many diverse factors.
Any or all of these elements can
determine organizational form at any given point in time.
5
The Problem
The present research was limited to the investigation
of two organizational configuration dimensions on group beh2vior and attitudes.
The relationship between organiza-
tional structure (flat vs. tall) and organizational level
(leader vs. worker) on employee performance and satisfaction was examined.
~uch
of the research concerning organizational struc-
ture was sparked by Worthy's (1950) article on the determinants of employee morale in the Sears and Roebuck corporation.
The article presented no data, but was based on
the author's 12 years of experience in the company.
Worthy stated that closer contact between executives
and rank and file employees results in a friendlier, easier
relationship.
The fewer the number of levels (i.e. the
flatter the organizational structure) the more meaningful
the work becomes, and the easier it is for the employee to
see the relation and importance of his or her work to other
functions and to the organization as a whole.
Flat, decen-
tralized structures create potentials for improved attitudes, greater responsibility and initiative among individual employees.
This encourages the development of individ-
ual self-expression and creativity, factors thought necessary to the personal satisfaction of employees.
Worthy
6
stated further that the more supervisory (managerial) levels there are (i.e., the taller the organizational structure) the less able the worker is to see the total process.
A worker cannot identify the end product as a result of his
or her own skill, so the job loses meaning and bec0mes less
significant.
The organization is too complex, leading to
social disorganization, necessitating more supervisory control.
Sharp cleavages develop between different groups in
the organization (subgroups are too specialized).
This in
turn leads to decreased productivity because work is no longer challenging and it is difficult to get the members to
cooperate.
The main proposition of Worthy's thesis was that a
flatter structure is superior to a taller structure in
terms of employee satisfaction (morale, attitudes) and performance (productivity).
The thesis implies executives
(leaders) are relatively immune to the proposed effects of
organizational structure as compared to lower level employees (workers) who are more sensitive to these effects.
Worthy did study all levels within the Sears and Roebuck
corporation, but did not separate them in his analyses.
Al-
though Worthy did not address his article to effects of organizational level, it is reasonable to expect that level
may affect employee satisfaction, regardless of organizational structure.
When examing results of research performed within the
7
past 20 years on the relationship between satisfaction and
erganizational level, it was generally found that the
higher the level the more need fulfillment reported
(Cummings & Berger, 1976; Porter & Lawler, 1965),
Commu-
nication theory relating the degree mf centrality of a position to satisfaction finds a relationship similar to this.
The general finding is that the person in the centralized
pGsition is better satisfied than those who occupy peripheral positions (Shaw, 1971; Cartwright & Zander, 1968).
The centralized position affords more communication channels, facilities (Shaw, 1971), more participation experiences in the group (Cartwright & Zander, 1968), and the
most independence of action, or autonomy (Leavitt, 1951).
Even though the higher level is not necessarily the more
centralized position (i.e., top executives may be relatively isolated from organizational processes), these two
theories are in agreement when one assumes the higher the
level the more informed, involved, responsible is the person in that level.
In order to present findings relating organizational structure to performance and satisfactien in a
clear and understandable manner, prior experiments were
divided into two areas:
field and laboratory.
Field re-
search tends to suffer from effects of intervening and/or
confounding variables.
Laboratory studies may also suffer
from these effects, and in addition do not represent "real-
8
life" situations.
For these reasons their findings are
presented separately.
Performance-Organizational Structure Studies
A summary chart of studies conducted on the organizational structure-performance relationship is presented in
Table 1.
Few field studies have been conducted examing this relationship.
An inverted-U relationship was found between
steepness of the organizational structure and productivity
of physiologists (Meltzer & Salter, 1960).
A tom flat or
too tall structure were beth deleterious to productivity.
A flat structure was associated with a higher efficiency
rating for trade salesmen than was a tall structure (Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1975).
However, organizational con-
figuration made no difference on two other measures of
performance:
absentee rate and route coverage index.
The few laboratory study results are also inconsistent.
Forecasting fluctuating sales orders was the task used in
the Carzo (1963) study.
The flat structural group ini-
tially used less decision time and produced better quality
decisions.
However, over trials the two structural groups
reached similar levels of performance in both decision
time and decision quality.
In a similar study conducted
by Carzo and Yanouzas (1969) no significant differences
existed between structural types on decision time.
Both
structural groups decreased their decision time over trials.
Table 1
Summary of studies of Job Performance-Organizational Structure (No. of Levels)
Eelationship
Study
J.V:eltzer &
Salter, 1960
Experiment
'Type
Field
Ivancevich & Field
Donnelly, 197 5
Sample
Performance
IV:easure
Direction of
Relationship
Inverted-U
Physiologists
Number of research
reports
Trade salesmen
Efficiency rating
Negative
Absentee rate
Zero
Route coverage index Zero
F
I
Laboratory
Business students
Decision time
Decision quality
Zero
zero
Carzo &
Laboratory
Yanouzas, 1969
Business students
Decision time
Profit
Rate of return of
sales revenues
Zero
Positive
Positive
Jones, 1969
Business students
Total accumulated
profit
Communication time
Communication
accuracy
Negative
Carzo, 1963
Laboratory
J-shaped
Inverted-J
10
The tall structural group was superior on two other performance measures:
profit and rate of return of sales reve-
nues, with both groups improving over trials.
It was sug-
gested that the tall structure allowed repeated evaluations
of decisions and therefore aided its members in producing
higher quality output.
A series of unspecified complex business problems were
the tasks used by Jones (1969).
The flat structural group
had a larger total accumulated profit than did the intermediate and tall structural groups.
In terms of communi-
cation time, the intermediate structural group used the
least amount, and the tall structural group used the greatest amount.
When examining communication accuracy, the
tall structural group had the least amount of errors and
the intermediate structural group had the most.
In summary, it tentatively appears that structural
type does not affect decision time.
Decision time is simi-
lar between organizational structures and decreases over
trials.
Organizational structure does, however, affect
performance, but in a nonsystematic manner.
A reduction in
the number of levels in an organization was not shown to be
associated with improved performance as Worthy's proposition implies.
Mixed results among studies relating performance to
organizational structure may have been due to the task type
involved, for example, whether problem solving or decision
11
making tasks were used.
Problem solving tasks (research
oriented) were used by Meltzer and Salter (1960) in the
_only field study in this area, whereas decision making
tasks were used in all laboratory studies.
Jones (1969)
used complex business tasks, whereas Carzo (1963) and
Carzo and Yanouzas (1969) used tasks involving forecasting
fluctuating sales orders.
These latter two studies used
identical task types, subject type, and experimental setting, but results are still conflicting.
Satisfaction-Organizational Structure Studies
A summary chart of the studies conducted examining the
relationship between organizational structure and satisfaction is presented in Table 2.
A negative relation between number of levels in the
organization and reported satisfaction regardless of organizational size was found among physiologists (Meltzer &
Salter, 1960), teachers (Carpenter, 1963), and trade
salesmen (Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1975).
However, no sig-
nificant differences in satisfaction among differing
structures were found among managers (Porter & Lawler,
1964).
When controlling for organizational size, dif-
ferences did emerge.
Organizations were arbitrarily divi-
ded into those containing more or less than 5,000 employees.
In companies containing less than 5,000 employees,
the fewer the levels the more satisfaction perceived by
managers.
In companies containing over 5,000 employees,
Table 2
Summary of Studies of the Job Satisfaction-Organizational Structure (No. of Levels)
Relationship
Experiment
Type
study
Sample
Direction of
Rela,tionship
I~
~eltzer
Field
Physiologists
Negative
Carpenter, 1963
Field
Teachers
Negative
Porter & Lawler, 1964
Field
& Salter, 1960
Porter & Siegel, 1965
Field
Managers
Organizational
Size:
under 5,000 empl.
over 5,000 "
Foreign managers
Organizational
Size:
under 5,000 empl.
over 5,000 "
Zero
Negative
Positive
Negative
Negative
Zero
Ivancevich & Donnelly,
1975
Field
Trade salesmen
Negative
Carzo, 1963
Laboratory
Business students
Negative
Jones, 1969
Laboratory
Business students
Negative
13
the more levels the greater the reported satisfaction of
managers.
This study was replicated using a different
_sample of managers (Porter & Siegel, 1965) to test if the
hypothesized advantages of flat structures apply universally.
Managers from 13 foreign countries were tested.
Regardless of organizational size, greater satisfaction was
associated with fewer levels, the effect being most pronounced in organizations containing less than 5,000 employees.
No differences in satisfaction occurred between
structures in organizations containing over 5,000 employees.
These latter two studies are in agreement when studying
companies containing less than 5,000 employees.
A flatter
structure was associated with greater reported satisfaction
of managers.
Their findings are contradictory, however,
when examining companies containing over 5,000 employees,
and when examining the relationship between number of levels and employee satisfaction regardless of organizational
size.
It appears that flatter structures do provide more satisfaction than taller structures (Carpenter, 1963; Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1975; Meltzer & Salter, 1960; Porter &
Siegel, 1965).
Organizational size, however, influenced
some of these results (Porter & Lawler, 1964; Porter &
Siegel, 1965).
Differential satisfaction of different sociopsycholo-
14
gical needs (based on Maslow's hierarchical classification
of needs) was said to account for this interaction between
-"organizational structure and size on satisfaction.
A
large organization might satisfy certain needs under one
structure and not the other, with the opposite occuring in
a small organization.
In order to understand which socio-
psychological needs are best satisfied under each structural type, organization size must be held constant when
making comparisons.
Need Satisfaction-Organizational Structure Studies
A summary chart of studies conducted on the organizational structure-sociopsychological need satisfaction relationship is presented in Table
J.
In companies containing over 5,000 people, a tall
structure best satisfied the security, self-esteem and
social need areas of managers with non-significant differences in terms of satisfaction of the self-actualization
and autonomy needs (Porter & Lawler, 1964).
A flat struc-
ture best satisfied the self-actualization and autonomy
needs of trade salesmen with no significant differences
between structures in terms of satisfaction of the social
or security needs (Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1975).
No dif-
ferential need satisfaction was found between structures
in the Porter and Siegel (1965) study.
When restricting findings to organizations containing
less than 5,000 employees, the following were found.
For
Table 3
Summary of Studies of the Job Need-Satisfaction-Organizational Structure
(No. of Levels) Relationship
Study
Experiment
Type
Sample
Organization
Size
Porter & Lawler, 1964
Field
l\~anagers
over 5,000 empl.
Porter & Siegel, 1965
Field
Foreign
managers
over 5,000 "
Ivancevich &
Donnelly, 197 5
Field
Trade
salesmen
over 5,000 "
Need(s) Best
Structure Satisfied
Tall
Security,
self-esteem,
social
No Difference
Flat
Self-actualization, autonomy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Porter & Lawler, 1964
Field
I1Canagers
under 5,000 empl.
Flat
Self-actu.alization, selfesteem
Porter & Siegel, 1965
Field
Foreign
managers
under 5,000 ..
Flat
Self-actu.alization, autonomy, social
Carpenter, 1972
Field
Teachers
under 5,000 "
Flat
Self-actu.alization, au.tonomy, selfesteem
I l:
,
..
16
managers, a flat structure best satisfied self-actualization and self-esteem needs, with no difference in satis£action of the security, autonomy or social needs (Porter &
Lawler, 1964).
A replication of this study found a flat
structure best satisfied the self-actualization, autonomy,
and social needs, with no differential satisfaction of the
security or self-esteem needs (Porter & Siegel, 1965).
For teachers (Carpenter, 1972) a flat structure satisfied
the autonomy, self-actualization, and self-esteem needs
more than did a tall structure, with non-significant differences in terms of satisfaction of the security need.
To summarize, when reviewing research performed on
companies containing over 5,000 employees, no clear pattern .emerges as to which sociopsychological needs are best
satisfied under either structure.
On the other hand, when
reviewing research conducted on companies containing less
than 5,000 employees, some consistent findings appear.
It
tentatively appears that a flat structure best satisfies
the self-actualization need, whereas satisfaction of the
security need is not affected by organizational structure.
In laboratory studies, a flatter less structured organization was associated with greater satisfaction when
studying business students (Carzo, 1963; Jones, 1969).
laboratory study examined the effects of organizational
structure on sociopsychological need satisfaction.
Generally, it appears flatter structures do provide
No
17
more overall satisfaction than taller structures.
When ex-
amining specific need satisfaction, results are mostly inconsistent and therefore inconclusive.
Conflicting findings in the relation between structural type and satisfaction may have been due to the interaction among variables in the studies.
Organizational
size was shown to have an effect on satisfaction as a
function of organizational structure (Porter & Lawler,
1964; Porter & Siegel, 1965).
When only considering stu-
dies using organizations containing less than 5,000 employees, all findings indicate the fewer levels, the more
satisfaction (Carpenter, 1972; Jones, 1969; Meltzer &
Salter, 1960; Porter & Lawler, 1964; Porter & Siegel,
1965).
This supports Worthy's conjecture that employees
in flat organizational structures tend to have a higher
level of satisfaction than employees in taller structures.
This relationship apparently held regardless of type of
experiment (laboratory or field), worker type, or task
type.
Mixed results in the related area of sociopsychological
need satisfaction may have been due to the occupational
class of the subjects.
The Carpenter study ysed teachers
as subjects, American managers were tested in Porter and
Lawler's study, foreign managers were tested in Porter and
Siegel's study, whereas trade salesmen of educational material were the subjects in Ivancevich and Donnelly's
18
study.
Perhaps these groups of people have different need
strengths, witnessed by the nature of their chosen profession, and by their position within their job.
Overall, it appears some of the conflicting findings,
except for the Carzo (1963) and Carzo and Yanouzas (1969)
studies, may have been due to the specific variables used
in the studies, be they organizational size, subject type,
task type, or experimental type.
In order to obtain a
clearer picture of the relationship between organizational
structure and employee attitudes and behavior, a more systematic control of mediating variables is necessary.
The
present research was conducted as such an attempt.
In an attempt to avoid using a too restricted subject
type, such as all managers, all teachers, all business students, etc., a more heterogeneous subject pool was used.
It was composed of students from introductory psychology
courses.
Undergraduate students may be oriented toward
business, research, teaching, etc.
As this was a laboratory study the organizational size
was necessarily small, seven members per organization were
chosen.
Problem solving (research oriented) tasks were
used as no laboratory study conducted in this area has
thus far used this task type.
Two measures of performance were recorded on each experimental group.
Decision time was measured as the actual
amount of time spent discussing, solving, and writing out
,,
-~------
------
--·-
~-
19
the solution to each problem.
Output quality was mea-
sured by a scale developed by Hackman (1968) which rated
solutions on seven dimensions of written solution quality:
originality, length, optimism, quality of presentation,
issue involvement, action orientation, and operability.
These dimensions were developed by Hackman, Jones, and
McGrath (1967) and the last by the author.
No other study,
field or laboratory, has as yet used this performance measure in examining the relation between organizational
structure and member performance.
Satisfaction was measured by a questionnaire designed
to assess satisfaction of five need areas as defined by
Maslow:
autonomy, growth, social, self-esteem, and se-
curity.
Perceptions of the formation process of the final
solutions were measured by a similarly designed questionnaire.
This measure assessed each subject's perception of
a) the amount of influence her answer had on each final solution as compared to the others in her group, and b) the
fairness and impartiality with which each final solution
was formed.
No laboratory study in this area has as yet
measured specific need satisfaction and no studies in this
area have measured perceptions of the formation process of
the final solutions.
All of the above measures were recorded over trials.
In the last trial a measure was taken on each subject's
perceived status, ranking in the group.
20
Performance measures have been taken over trials in all
laboratory studies reviewed (Carzo, 1963; Carzo & Yanouzas,
1969; Jones, 1969).
Satisfaction measures have been re-
corded over trials in only one laboratory study (Jones,
1969).
This study offered no data, making results diffi-
cult to interpret.
No clear effect of trials existed, and
sociopsychological need satisfaction measures were not
taken.
The present research was conducted in a laboratory,
simulated business setting with members being placed in a
new, unfamiliar organizational setting.
As such, differen-
tial effects of organizational structure were not expected
to exist at the onset of the study.
Rather, the hypothe-
sized effects were expected to appear over time, over
trials, after the members had been able to experience the
hypothesized influences of the structural arrangements.
By this argument, it was hypothesized trials effects
should appear in all dependent measures, even though no
studies have as yet found a trials effect on the satisfaction measure.
Groups under either structure were expected
to improve over time on the performance measures, due to
practice on the tasks and increased familiarity with the
experimental setting.
However, the practice effect was
not expected to be as strong in the present study as was
found in the Carzo and Carzo and Yanouzas studies.
These
studies used decision making tasks, in which performance on
21
one task partly determines performance on the next task.
The present study ysed research oriented tasks (problem
solving), in which performance on one task has no systematic relation to performance on the next task.
To reiterate, if organizational structure does affect
member behavior and attitudes, differences should exist
between tall and flat structural groups on measures of
performance and satisfaction.
Worthy's proposition pre-
dicted group performance would be superior under a flat
structural condition.
been inconsistent.
Results in this area, however, have
Carzo and Yanouzas (1969) suggested
that a tall structure might allow repeated evaluations of
a decision as it progresses up the hierarchical levels,
thereby producing the higher quality output (performance).
This proposition appears more tenable.
Although Worthy's
article did not address itself to decision time, all studies conducted in this area found no significant differences between structures on this measure (Carzo, 1963; Carzo
& Yanouzas, 1969).
In terms of satisfaction, the general finding has been
that the higher the level, the more need fulfillment reported (Cummings & Berger, 1976; Porter & Lawler, 1965).
According to Worthy's proposition, flat structural groups
should be more satisfied than tall structural groups.
This
difference in satisfaction sould be caused mainly by ''worker" satisfaction scores and not by those of the execu-
22
tives.
This difference was expected to appear in all areas
of need satisfaction except the security need.
-~esting
Since the
situation of the present study was contrived, the
security need was expected to be equally satisfied under
both structures and not to be affected by trials.
23
Hypotheses
From the preceding findings and arguments the following
hypotheses were formulated.
1.
Decision Time was expected to decrease over trials.
2.
The groups performing under the tall structural
condition were expected to excel in Performance Quality
over those in the flat structural condition.
Performance
Quality was expected to improve over trials.
J.
Satisfaction was divided into two areas:
Composite
need satisfaction (composed of the autonomy, social, selfesteem, and growth needs) and Security need satisfaction.
In terms of Composite satisfaction, the flat structural
groups were expected to report more satisfaction than the
tall structural groups, and leaders were expected to report
more satisfaction than workers.
These effects were expect-
ed to differ as a function of trials.
An organizational
structure by level by trials interaction was predicted to
affect satisfaction (see Figure 1).
Within the tall
structural condition leaders were expected to report more
satisfaction than workers; within the flat structural condition leaders and workers were expected to report similar
satisfaction; among workers, those in the flat structural
condition were expected to report more satisfaction than
those in the tall structural condition; among leaders, reported satisfaction was expected to be similar.
These ef-
24
o-- -
--~
workers
leaders
Flat
Tall
less
l
more
_ _ _I _ __
1
3
trials
5
1
3
trials
5
Figure 1. Expected composite satisfaction (or composite
perceptions of the formation process) as a function of
organizational structure and level.
25
fects were expected to differ as a function
o~
trials.
No
such relationships were predicted for Security need satisfaction, but this need was included for completeness.
4.
In terms of Perceptions of the Formation Process
of the final solutions, the flat structural groups were expected to report more perceived fairness of and influence
in the formation process than the tall structural groups.
Also, leaders were expected to report greater perceptions
of fairness and influence than the workers.
These effects
were expected to vary as a function of trials.
An organi-
zational structure by level by trials interaction was predicted to affect these perceptions (see Figure 1).
Within
the tall structural condition leaders were expected to report higher perceptions than workers; within the flat
structural condition leaders and workers were expected to
report similar perceptions; among workers, those in the
flat structural condition were expected to report higher
perceptions than those in the tall structural condition;
among leaders, reported perceptions were expected to be
similar.
These effects were expected to differ as a func-
tion of trials.
».
~----·--------
f/ethod
Subjects
Seventy female undergraduates from introductory psychology courses at California State University, Northridge
were randomly assigned to either of the two experimental
structures.
The subjects were randomly placed into ten
groups of seven people, five groups performing under each
structural condition.
Tasks
Hackman and Vidmar (1970) developed 10 problem solving
tasks, ranging in level of difficulty.
The five easiest
of these problem solving tasks were pilot tested for use
in the present study.
Pilot testing results revealed that
only three of these problems could be solved within the
time limitations of this study.
The author then developed,
pilot tested, and incorporated into the study two additional problems.
These tasks are presented in Appendix A.
Tasks B,C,
and E were developed by Hackman and Vidmar, tasks A and D
were developed by the author.
These tasks were presented
to the groups under each structural condition in a Latin
square design, one problem per trial.
Independent Variables
The independent variables were organizational struc-
26
-
---
----
----- -
-
--
----
>'•
-
27
ture, organizational level, and trials.
Organizational Structure - Structure of the organization was either "flat" or "tall" (see Figure 2) as defined
by the formula developed by Sadler and Barry (1967).
The steepness of the organization is reflected by the
sum of the number of relationships between individuals at
the same level and reporting to the same superior.
This
steepness is expressed as a percentage (or ratio), C, of
the total possible number of peer relationships, where:
rn
c=
r
= the
(N-1) (N-2)
sum of the number of relationships (r) be-
tween individuals (n) who are at the same level
in the hierarchy and report to the same superior.
N = the total number of individuals in the structure.
(N-1)(N-2) =the total possible number of relationships
in the structure.
This ratio, C, indicates the structural steepness regardless of company size.
steeper the structure.
The smaller the ratio, the
In this study, for the tall struc-
ture C = 0.20, while for the flat structure C
= 1.00.
For
computations see Appendix B.
Organizational Level - Levels within the organizations
were "leader" and "worker" in the flat structure, and
"leader," "supervisor," and "worker" in the :t;q.ll structure.
"Supervisor" data were not used so that comparisons
-----------------
-
-
~---------------------
28
Leader
(A)
worker
l
worker \
worker
worker
Leader
supervisor!
(B)
Isupervisor j
Figure 2. Organizational chart of (A) Flat
Structure and (B) Tall Structure.
29
could be made between structures and levels. ·Subjects were
randomly placed into these levels.
Group means were the
unit of measurement for "workers."
Trials - Each group performed five problems, each problem corresponding to a trial.
Dependent Variables
The dependent variables were decision time, quality of
the written group solutions, satisfaction as measured by a
need satisfaction questionnaire, and perceptions of the
formation process of the final solutions.
Decision Time - This was the amount of time actually
spent working on the solution to each problem.
It in-
cluded group discussion time and time given to each leader
to write out the final solution to each task.
It did not
include time spent traveling to and from different meeting
locations or time spent on answering questionnaires.
De-
cision time was measured for each trial separately.
Performance
Qualit~-
The quality of the written solu-
tions was measured along six descriptive dimensions developed by Hackman, Jones, and rf:cGrath (196?), dimensions
a through f, and one developed by the author, dimension g,
for a total of seven dimensions.
Each dimension is com-
posed of three defining scales.
A complete list of des-
criptive characteristics of the twenty-one defining scales
is given in Appendix C.
The dimensions used were:
JC
(a)
Action orientation - the degree to which
.a
solution
states or implies that a specific or general course of
action should be, might be, or will be followed.
(b)
Length - the number of words used.
(c)
Originality - the degree to which a solution is fresh
and unusual (not necessarily good or creative) as opposed to obvious and mundane.
(d)
Optimism - the degree to which the general point of
view or tone of a solution can be characterized as
positive or optimistic as opposed to negative or pessimistic.
(e)
Quality of presentation - evaluation of the grammatical, rhetorical, and literary quality of a solution.
(f)
Issue involvement - the degree to which a solution
takes or implies a particular point of view regarding
some goal, event, issue, or procedure.
(g)
Operability - the degree to which a solution lends itself to implementation and goal attainment •.
The procedure for performing a rating on a scale was
as follows and was repeated for each of the three scales
within a dimension:
Judges assigned each solution one numeric score per
defining scale, scores being based on how well the solution
met the defining scale's criteria.
Scores could range from
"7" (very true), to "1" (very false).
Thus, for the scale
titled "unusual," if the judge deemed the solution to be
.31
quite out of the ordinary, he would have assigned a score
of "7" to that defining scale, whereas if the solution was
thought to be not at all unusual then it would have been
categorized as "very false" and given a score of
~1".
Two judges were used, both having M.A. degrees in Psychology.
The judges were extensively trained using pilot
testing results.
A score for the dimension was computed
by averaging ratings for the three defining scales across
the two judges.
Median inter-rater reliability was com-
puted to be .68, and median intra-rater reliabilities were
.87 and .79 (see Table 4).
Performance quality was measured for each solution
(trial) separately.
A correlational analysis performed on these performance quality measures indicated they are highly intercorrelated (see Table 5).
For this reason the seven mea-
sures were collasped into one and a univariate, rather than
a multivariate, analysis was performed on the data.
A
multivariate analysis is presented in Appendix F for comparison purposes.
This table also indicates that the two
performance measures (decision time and performance quality) are not significantly intercorrelated.
Therefore these
two areas were tested separately.
Satisfaction - Each individual satisfaction score was
based on the difference between each subject's perception
of how much of a certain characteristic was present on the
Table 4
Summary of the reliabilities of the seven quality
dimensions.
Dimension
Judge 1
Judge 2
Interrater
Action orientation
.83
.85
.48
Length
.93
.91
.80
Originality
.87
.?9
.?0
Optimism
.84
.?8
.62
Quality of presentation
.?9
.?5
.68
Issue involvement
.98
.8?
.8?
Operability
.88
.60
.56
Table 5
Performance measures intercorrelations (N = 50)
Performance Qual~t~es
Dec~s~on T~me
Action
Quality
Issue
Origiof pres- involve- Operaorientat ion
Length
nality
Optimism entation ment
bility Time
--
I
~
I
Action
orientation
Length
0.76**
Originality
0.76**
0.76**
Optimism
0.40**
0.46**
0.)4*
Quality of
presentation
0.18
0.35*
0.)6**
0.35*
Issue Involvement
0.67**
0.80**
0.69**
0.40**
0.48**
Operability
0.66*
0.70**
0.68**
0.32*
0.37**
Time
0.24
0.04
0.24
'
-0.21
-0.11
0.8)**
0.03
0.13
*P < .05
**p < .01
Note; Probability levels d0 not reflect adjustment for inflated
probability of Type I error with multiple testing.
~
34
job and how much she would have liked to have ,of this characteristic.
Each characteristic related to aspects of the
self-esteem, growth, social, autonomy, or security need.
The "is now" perception is determined mostly be actual job
conditions, while the "would like" percpetion is determined
by subject characteristics (needs, values, personality
traits).
Measures were ratings on a ?-point Likert scale ranging
from "none at all" (score of 1) to "very much" (score of
?).
A score for each need satisfaction question was the
"would like" rating minus the ''is now" rating.
Therefore,
the smaller this number, the higher the perceived satisfaction of that quality, or the less the perceived dissatisfaction of that quality.
A score for each need was
computed by averaging the discrepancy scores for the questions relating to that need.
A group satisfaction score
by organizational level on each of these measures was computed by averaging across subjects in that particular
level.
In the present study, a "would like" (ideal, desired
outcome), not "should be" (equitable outcome) scale was
used.
This was because a person might not feel a job is
the right one for them, it does not satisfy all their needs,
but still
belie~e
the job provides fair (equitable) out-
comes for the inputs required (Wanous & Lawler, 1972).
These researchers reported that of the two measures,
3.5
''would like" correlated most highly with a direct measure
of satisfaction.
A copy of the satisfaction questionnaire is presented
in Appendix D.
Need satisfaction measures were taken after
the first, third and fifth trials.
The needs measured in the questionnaire were as follows:
(a)
Self-esteem- the feeling of recognition and respect,
feeling of doing a job well, feeling of self-fulfillment, and feeling of achievement.
(b)
Growth - the opportunity for feedback on performance,
the chance to do a whole piece of work, variety on the
job, the feeling of accomplishment.
(c)
Autonomy - lack of close supervision, opportunity for
independent and unrestricted thought and action, freedom, opportunity for participation and involvement,
respect and fair treatment, authority.
(d)
Social - the opportunity to develop social relationships, to feel a sense of belongingness.
(e)
Security- the feeling of stability.
A correlational analysis performed on these need satis-
faction measures indicated significant intercorrelations
(see Table 6).
Therefore, measures were collapsed into one
over all satisfaction needs except security as separate
predictions were made on this need.
A multivariate analy-
sis is presented in Appendix F for comparison purposes.
Table 6
satisfaction and perception measures intercorrelations (N
Perceptions of the
formation process
Five need areas of satisfaction
Self-esteem
Security
Growth
Autonomy
= 60)
Social
Influence
Fairness
Security
Self-esteem
0 • .50**
Growth
0.49**
0.75**
Autonomy
0.23
0.33*
0.21
Social
0.45**
0.47**
0.34**
i
0.26*
Influence
-0.26*
-0.21
-0.12
-0.24
-0.18
Fairness
-0.21
-0.32*
-0.23
-0. 34**
-0.17
0.32*
*P < .0.5
**p<.Ol
Note:
Probability levels do not reflect adjustment for inflated
probability of Type I error with multiple testing.
~
3'7
Perceptions of the Formation Process - Perceptions of
this area were measured by asking each individual to indicate on a ?-point Likert scale the amount of influence she
felt her answer had on the final solution as compared to
the others in the group, ranging from "more" (score of 7)
to "less" (score of 1), and the amount she "disagrees'' or
"agrees" that the final solution was formed out of a fair
and impartial consideration of everyone's answers, scores
ranging from 1 to 7 respectively.
Therefore, the larger
the score the higher the perceived fairness of the formation process and influence on the final solution.
These
perception measures are questions #27 and #28 on the satisfaction questionnaire presented in Appendix D.
A score for group perception of the formation process
was formed by averaging scores across individuals within a
particular level in the organization.
This measure was
taken after the first, third and fifth trials,
As the two perception measures were found to be significantly but not highly intercorrelated (see Table 6), a
multivariate analysis of variance was performed on the data.
This table also indicates that need satisfaction and perception measures are not significantly intercorrelated.
Therefore these two areas were tested separately.
Manipulation Check
A measure assessing each subject's perceived status in
the group was taken after the last trial.
This measure
38
consisted of a ?-point Likert scale upon which the subject
was asked to rate her perceived amount of status in the
group as compared to the others in the group.
The scale
ranged from "less" (score of 1) to "more" (score of 7),
and is shown in Appendix D as the last question on the satisfaction questionnaire.
Experimental Design
The experimental design for the performance data was a
two-factor mixed design (organizational structure by
trials).
For the satisfaction and perception data it was
a three-factor mixed design (organizational structure by
organizational level by trials).
Group means were the
unit of measurement for "workers."
Procedures
Subjects participated in either one of the two experimental structures:
tall or flat organizational structure.
In each structure, when all subjects were present and
seated, detailed instructions were handed out and read aloud to the group by the experimenter.
The two sets of in-
structions are contained in Appendix E.
All subjects were randomly placed in the organizational
levels within that organization's structure (see Figure 2).
Titled badges were placed face down on a table.
were instructed to choose one of the badges.
Subjects
The title on
the badge determined their positional level within the organization.
All subjects wore the badge depicting their
39
respective title.
To instill awareness of positional dis-
tance and authority relations, a graphic representation of
the organizational structure in which the subjects were
working under (an organizational chart) was prominently
displayed in the room.
Everyone was then handed paper and a task description
(the problem) and the experiment began.
In the flat structure, everyone was able to communicate
with everyone else.
In the tall structure, however, com-
munications went through a set chain of command.
To im-
plement this communication restriction, when discussions
occurred, those involved were physically separated and
placed into the proper meeting group.
This separation
simulated the hierarchical nature of a tall organizational
structure.
In both instances the final decision came from
the group's designated leader.
Communications could have
been either oral or written, but the final solution had to
be written.
The experimenter was not present during any
discussions, thus allowing freedom of response while the
groups performed.
Time warnings were given half-way
through each part of each trial.
The final written solu-
tion to each trial was collected at the end of that trial.
Both structures had a total of twenty minutes per trial
(probl~m).
The' first five minutes were used to write in-
dividual solutions.
The next ten minutes were used dif-
ferently depending on the structure involved.
40
For the flat structure these ten minutes were given for
everyone to come to a single final solution to the problem.
For the tall structure five minutes were given for the workers and respective supervisor to meet and form a single
solution.
The next five minutes were for the supervisors
to meet with the leader and form a single solution.
For both structures, the final five minutes were used
by the leader to write out the final form of the solution
before presenting it verbally to the group.
subjects were
told they could use less than the alloted time, but could
not use more than that time in any part of the experiment.
Under both structural conditions, upon completion of
each problem, the next task description and new paper were
handed to the groups and they were instructed to begin
work.
In trials one, three and five, however, upon com-
pletion of the problem the group was given a satisfaction
questionnaire to complete before proceeding on to the next
task.
The participants were given four minutes to complete
this questionnaire.
No communications were allowed to
ensure privacy of responses.
The satisfaction question-
naire was administered in every other trial so as to cut
down on adverse psychological affects associated with work
interruption and to cut down on carry-over effects due to
remembrance of previous responses.
At the end of the fifth
trial the subjects were debriefed and dismissed.
Results
Perceived Status
Group means and standard deviations for perceived status for each level within each organizational structure are
presented in Table 7.
A 2-way analysis of variance was performe'd on these
data, summarized in Table 8.
effect of level.
Results indicate only a main
Leaders (mean status on a scale of 1 to
7 = 6.3) perceived themselves as being of a higher level
ranking than did workers (mean status
= 3.7).
This indi-
cates that levels were effectively manipulated.
Decision Time
A separate measure of decision time was computed for
each group.
No scores were recorded on individual members
of the groups.
Group means and standard deviations for
each trial within each organizational structure are presented in Table 9.
A 2-factor mixed design analysis of variance was performed on these data, summarized in Table 10.
indicates a main effect of structure.
This analysis
Those groups per-
forming under the flat structure used significantly less
time (mean
= 12~02
minutes) to arrive at a final solution
than did those working under the tall structure (mean
14.01 minutes).
Neithe~
=
a trials effect nor a trials by
41
Table 7
summary of means and standard deviations for "Perceived Status" data
Structure
Workers
Flat
Tall
Level
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
3.58
0.55
3.86
0.51
',
Leaders
6.20
0.84
6.40
0.55
~
43
Table 8
Summary of the analysis of variance for perceived
status as a function of organizational structure and
level.
Source
df
ss
MS
Structure
1
.29
.29
Level
1
33.28
:n. 28
Structure X Level
1
.01
.01
16
6.24
.39
Error
F
0.74
85 .34*
0.02
---------------------------------------------------Total
*P
<I 05
19
Table 9
'
summary of means and standard deviations for "Decision Time" data
Structure
1
2
3
Flat
Tall
Trial
.
Mean
S.D.
.Mean
S.D.
13.32
2.38
15.60
3.89
13.36
3.48
7.88
2.22
13.16
3.66
13.04
2.51
-·
4
15.36
2.86
12.06
2.41
5
14.86
3.69
11.50
4.42
'
Table 10
Summary of the analysis of variance for decision time
as a function of organizational structure.
Source
df
Total
49
ss
MS
Between Groups
9
Structure
1
49.80
49.80
Errorb
8
62.96
7o87
Within Groups
6.33*
40
Trials
4
83.42
20.85
1.88
Trials X Structure
4
93-76
23.44
2.11
32
355.66
11.11
Errorw
*P <
E
.05
46
structure interaction were found.
Neither structural
group showed a learning trend over trials.
Performance Quality
Measures of performance quality were based on each
group as a whole.
No individual scores were recorded.
Group means and standard deviations for each trial within
each organizational structure on the composite quality dimension are presented in Table 11.
A 2-factor mixed design analysis of variance performed
on these data, summarized in Table 12, indicates no statistically significant differences on this criterion.
Per-
formance quality was similar over trials and between structures.
Satisfaction
Group means, not individual responses, were used as the
''workers" satisfaction score per group.
The number of wor-
ker scores comprising each mean was different for the two
structural conditions, in that the tall structure contained
four workers whereas the flat structure contained six.
For
"leaders" satisfaction score per group, each individual
leader's response served as the score per group since there
was only one leader in each group.
As discrepancy scores
were used, the smaller the score the more satisfaction perceived.
Composite satisfaction -Means and standard deviations
for workers and leaders over trials within each organiza-
Table 11
summary of means and standard deviations for "Performance Quality" data
Trial
!
3
4
5
4.24
4.24
3.90
lJ-.40
0.37
1.03
0.27
0.67
1
2
~~'ean
4.03
S.D.
0.87
Structure
Tall
-
··-"--. -~-· _._
Mean
4.53
4.60
4.62
4.59
4 ·53
S.D.
0.50
0.93
0.64
0. 53
1.05
Flat
48
Table 12
Summary of the analysis of variance for performance
quality as a function of organizational structure.
Source
df
ss
Total
49
24,36
Between Groups
9
12.11
Structure
1
2.09
2.09
Errorb
8
10.02
1.25
40
12.25
Trials
4
0.40
0.10
0.28
Trials X Structure
4
0.42
0.10
0.31
32
11.43
0.36
0.29
Within Groups
Errorw
MS
F
1.67
49
tional structure are presented in Table 13.
A 3-factor
mixed design analysis of variance was performed on these
data.
The analysis, as summarized in Table 14, indicates
two statistically significant effects:
a main effect of
level and an organizational structure by level interaction.
Leaders (mean discrepancy satisfaction score= 0.93)
reported greater satisfaction than did workers (mean
1.57).
=
A significant organizational structure by level
interaction is also present as illustrated in Figure 3.
Tukey's (a) test for unconfounded means was performed on
the interaction data.
Results indicate that workers, but
not leaders, were affected by structure.
Among workers,
there was significantly more satisfaction in the flat
structure.
Further, differences in satisfaction between
leaders and workers was evident only in the tall structure,
where leaders showed greater need satisfaction.
were no effects of trials.
There
satisfaction remained similar
over time.
Security need -
r.~eans
and standard deviations for wor-
kers and leaders over trials within each organizational
structure are presented in Table 15.
A 3-factor mixed de-
sign analysis of variance performed on these data, summarized in Table 16, indicate only one statistically significant effect, a level by trials interaction shown in
Figure 4.
Tukey's (a) test for unconfounded means was per-
formed on the interaction data.
Results indicate that lea-
Table 13
summary of means and standard deviations for "Composite Need Satisfaction"
data
Structure
Tall
Flat
1
Trials
3
5
1
Trials
3
5
Mean
1.76
2.23
2.10
1.18
0.99
1.14
S.D.
0.71
0.51
0.87
0.35
0.38
0.40
Mean
0.86
0.69
0.62
1.13
1.29
1.00
S.D.
0.58
0.44
0.51
0.63
0.99
0.75
Level
Workers
Leaders
I
\.J'\
0
51
Table 14
Summary of the analysis of variance for composite need
satisfaction as a function of organizational structure
and level.
ss
source
df
Total
59
33.79
Between Groups
19
28.20
Structure
1
Level
Structure X Level
IV:S
F
0.97
0.97
1.07
1
6.04
6.04
6.69*
1
6.75
6.75
7.48*
16
14.44
0.90
40
5·59
Trials
2
0.08
0.04
0.29
Trials X Structure
2
0.07
0.04
0.25
Trials X Level
2
0.28
0.14
1.01
Trials X Structure X
Level
2
0.61
0.31
2.17
32
4.55
0.14
Errorb
Within Groups
Errorw
*p <. 05
52
workers
2.0
Q)
~
0
0
1.5
rn
>,
0
c
CIS
0..
1.0
,/
,/
Q)
/
~
.,.
0
rn
/
II"'
•rl
"d
o. .s
leaders
0
tall
flat
structure
Figure J. Composite need satisfaction as a function
of organizational level.
Table 15
Summary of means and standard deviations for "Security Need Satisfaction" data
Structure
Level
1
Tall
Trial
3
5
1
Flat
Trial
3
5
Mean
Workers
1.86
2.76
2.02
0.60
1.48
0.76
S.D.
1.49
0.72
1.54
0.95
0.62
0.78
Mean
1.40
0.40
o.6o
1.40
0.60
-0.40
1.67
0.89
0.89
1.52
0.89
0.89
Leaders
S.D.
Table 16
Summary of the analysis of variance for security need
satisfaction as a function of organizational structure
and level.
Source
df
ss
Total
59
95.19
19
62.10
Structure
1
10.84
10.84
4.38
Level
1
6.6
6.6
2.67
Structure X Level
1
5.1
5.1
2.06
16
39.56
2.47
40
33.09
Trials
2
3·37
1.68
2.5
Trials X Structure
2
.65
.32
0.48
Trials X Level
2
5.65
2.82
4 .19*
Trials X Structure X
Level
2
1.87
.93
1.38
32
21.55
.67
Between Groups
Errorb
Within Groups
Error
*P <. 05
w
fl~S
F
55
1.5
workers
,.
\
Q)
\
1.0
\
$of
0
0
\
[f)
\
\
0.5
0
1
3
trials
5
Figure 4. Security need satisfaction as a function
of organizational level.
ders reported greater satisfaction of the sectlrity need
than workers, but only in the final trial.
No other com-
parisons were significant.
Perceptions of the Formation Process
Means and standard deviations on workers and leaders
over trials within each organizational structure on the
influence component are presented in Table 17, while those
of the fairness component are presented in Table 18.
As
was discussed in the satisfaction section, group means
were used as the "workers" perception score per group while
individual leader's responses served as the "leaders" perception score per group.
The larger the score, the great-
er the perceived satisfaction with the formation process.
A multivariate analysis of variance was performed on
the perception composite data.
Results, as summarized in
Table 19, indicate that a statistically significant difference existed between levels.
Perceptions of influence
on and fairness of the final solutions of the leaders were
significantly greater than those of the workers.
means vector:
5.39.
5.20, 6.6?; workers' means vector:
Leaders'
4.00,
The larger the number the higher the perceptions.
There was no main effect of trials.
this area remained constant over time.
main effect of structure.
Perceptions in
Nor was there a
Further, none of the interac-
tions produced a statistically significant effect on perceptions of the formation process.
Table 17
summary of means and standard deviations for "Perceptions of the Formation
Process - Influence" data
Structure
Level
1
Tall
Trials
3
.5
1
Flat
Trials
3
.5
Mean
Workers
3.80
3.96
4.18
3.64
4.06
4.38
S.D.
0.35
0.46
0.95
0.52
0.67
1.08
Mean
s.oo
5.40
5.80
5.20
4.60
5.20
0.84
1. 79
1.34
1.30
..
Leaders
S.D.
1.00
1.14
Table 18
Summary of means and standard deviations for "Perceptions of the Formation
Process - Fairness" data
Structure
Level
1
Tall
Trials
3
5
1
Flat
Trials
3
.
5
5.58
5.08
4.98
5.98
5.76
4.96
S.D.
1.12
1.17
1.01
0.88
0.51
1.35
Mean
7.00
6.00
6.60
6.80
6.80
6.80
1.01
1.73
0.89
0.45
0.45
0.45
Mean
~Norkers
Leaders
S.D.
'
59
Table 19
Summary of the multivariate analysis of variance for
perceptions of the formation process as a function of
organizational structure and level.
u-statistic
Source
df
F
df
Between Groups
structure
0.921
2, 1, 16
0.6.5
2
Level
0.4.53
2, 1, 16
9.0?*
2
Structure X Level
0.982
2, 1, 16
0.14
2
1.5
Errorb
Within Groups
Trials
0.?34
2, 2, .32
2 . .59
4
Trials X Structure
0.908
2, 2, 32
0.??
4
Trials X Level
0.881
2, 2, 32
1.01
4
Trials X Structure
X Level
0.898
2, 2, 32
0.86
4
Error
*P <. 0.5
w
62
60
Due to the significant intercorrelation between these
two measures (see Table 6), a step-down analysis was chosen
over two individual univariate analysis of variance tests
to discover which of these two measures caused this difference (Bock & Haggard, 1968).
Univariate analysis of
variance results are presented along with step-down analysis results in Table 20 for comparison purposes.
In step-
down analysis the experimenter decides the order the variables enter the analysis.
As perceived influence on the
final solutions was thought to be the most important component it entered the analysis first.
As can be seen in Table 20, a significant difference
existed between levels only on the "influence" measure.
Leaders perceived their answers had significantly more influence on the final answers (mean = 5.20 on a scale of 1
to 7) than did workers (mean
= 4.00).
Once the effect of
"influence" had been partialled out, no significant additional effect of "fairness" was found.
Table 20
Summary of the univariate analyses of variance and step-down analysis for
perceptions of the formation process as a function of organizational
· structure and level.
Dependent
Variable
Factor
Univ.
F
df
Priority
Influence
s
0.19
1,16
1
1
8.90
S1
Fairness
df
Crit.
F
0.19
1,16
6.12
.025
1,16
8.90*
1,16
0.31
1,16
0.31
s
0.86
1,16
6.20
.025
1
14.58
0.02
S1
*P <. 05
step-down
F
2
0.41
1,15
1,16
2.27
1,15
1,16
0.25
1,15
o<.
Discussion
The goal of the present experiment was to investigate
some of the areas in which structure might exert influence
on organizations.
Hypotheses were based mainly on Worthy's
proposition that a flatter, less structured organization
leads to higher morale.
Results of the present study in-
dicate organizational structure apparently exerted no influence on group performance quality, but did affect decision time, and an interaction with organizational level
affected a composite measure of need satisfaction.
Organizational level, however, exerted a great influence on the satisfaction and perception measures.
Organi-
zational level affected the composite measure of need satisfaction singularly and in interaction with organizational structure, when in interaction with trials affected
satisfaction of a need for security, and affected the composite measure of perceptions of the formation process.
Failure to support the majority of the hypotheses formulated in this experiment may have been caused by methodological flaws.
be tenable.
As such, Worthy's conjecture might still
A re-examination of the hypotheses presented
and possible causes for lack of experimental support follows.
62
63
Decision Time - Groups under either struct'ure were expected improve (lessen their decision time) over trials.
This prediction was not supported.
The absence of a
trials effect might be attributable to the task type involved.
As stated earlier, in research oriented tasks per-
formance on one task is not systematically related to performance on the next task.
Therefore, it may have been
unrealistic to expect practice effects.
Another finding was that tall structural groups required more decision time than did flat structural groups.
This might have been attributable to the fact that in the
tall condition there were two meetings per trial, as compared to one such meeting in the flat condition.
In each
such meeting each member had to re-state her solution to
the other members in the meeting, thus causing tall structural groups to use more time per trial,
Perhaps multiple
presentationn of ideas is an inherent process of tall hierarchical organizations, as such the finding of the present
study may be generalizable.
Decision time may be a function not only of organizational structure, but of the task type involved.
reason others might not have found this result.
For this
A possi-
ble explanation for the absence of a structure effect on
decision time when using decision making tasks was offered
by Carzo and Yanouzas (1969).
Whereas a tall structure re-
quires more time to process decisions through the levels,
64
a flat structure requires more time to
resolv~
conflicts
and coordinate efforts, therefore causing no difference in
decision time.
Perhaps the problem solving tasks used in
the present study involved a different form of analysis
(thinking), and/or were much simpler, so that very little
debate was necessary.
This lessened the decision time of
flat structural groups, while tall structural groups still
had to process decisions through the levels, thus causing
the significant difference in decision time between the
two structures.
Performance Quality - None of the predicted hypotheses
were supported.
Performance quality was similar between
organizational structures and over time.
No statistical
effects existed anywhere on this measure.
It was assumed that repeated presentations of a solution (as occurs in the tall structural condition) leads to
increased performance quality, therefore performance of
tall structural groups should have excelled over that of
the flat structural groups.
The trend of the sample data
reflected this train of thought, but results did not approach statistical significance.
A significant difference
might have occurred if the performance measures themselves
were more reliable, and if the tall structural groups were
given more time, to work on their solutions.
Occasionally,
in the tall structural condition, meetings were forced to
end before the subjects had completed their discussion.
65
The time limit could have caused these subjects to work
under a "forced" work pace which caused their performance
to suffer.
It should also be noted that the relationship between
performance quality and organizational structure appears
to depend on one's choice of performance measure.
Jones
(1969) found each structure to be superior to the others
depending on what measure of performance was examined.
An
intermediate structure was associated with fewer number of
errors, a tall structure with less communication time, and
a flat structure with the largest accumulated profit.
Carzo (1963) found no difference between structures on
performance measures, whereas Carzo and Yanouzas (1969)
found a tall structure to be superior to a flat structure
in terms of profit and rate of return of sales revenues.
As stated in the discussion of decision time, above,
the task type involved (research oriented) may have been
responsible for the absence of a trials effect.
satisfaction - In terms of the composite measure of
need satisfaction, predictions were partially supported.
There were no trials effects, even though it was hypothesized that organizational structure would have no effects
until subjects had spent time performing under it.
It
appears that subjects immediately assumed a role they
thought consonant with the situation.
This "role playing"
may have been responsible for reported satisfaction re-
66
maining relatively constant over trials.
Leaders were expected to report more satisfaction than
workers regardless of organizational structure, with the
effect increasing as a function of trials.
was partially supported.
This hypothesis
There was no trials effect, but
there was a·main effect of level in the predicted direction.
This result is consonant with the general finding that satisfaction increases with job level (Cummings & Berger,
1976; Porter & Lawler, 1965).
Organizational structure did not affect satisfaction,
contrary to what was hypothesized.
This might have been
due to a too weak manipulation of the tall structural condition.
In the tall condition, all members sat together
during the initial five minutes of each problem solving
task, and again when the leader read each final solution
to the group.
In "real life" hierarchical organizations
there may not be, and probably is not, this much contact
between the positional levels.
This relatively large a-
mount of contact may have canceled out the deleterious effects attributed to hierarchical structures, thus accounting for the lack of significant differences in reported
satisfaction between structures.
An organizational structure by level by trials inter-
action was also hypothesized.
It was predicted that over
trials a) within the tall structural condition, leaders
were expected to report more satisfaction than workers,
67
b) within the flat structural condition, leaders and workers were expected to report similar satisfaction, c) among workers, those in the flat structural condition were
expected to report more satisfaction than those in the tall
structural condition, and d) among leaders, reported satisfaction was expected to be similar.
A statistically significant organizational structure by
level interaction was found.
Ignoring the predicted trials
effect, all interaction hypotheses were supported.
This
finding lends some support to Worthy's proposition that
the closer the contact between executives and rank and file
employees, as in the flatter structure, the higher the morale, or satisfaction.
This difference in satisfaction was
attributable to workers' satisfaction scores, as leaders'
satisfaction scores did not differ significantly.
Even
though a flat structure was not associated with greater
satisfaction than a tall structure as Worthy predicted,
workers in the tall structural condition were significantly
less satisfied than workers in the flat structural condition.
This finding lends support to another part of
Worthy's theory.
No differences were expected on the security need measure.
However, a significant organizational level by
trials interaction was found.
In the final trial, reported
security need satisfaction differed significantly between
workers and leaders.
This effect may be attributable to
/
68
subject "role playing."
Perhaps, as the experiment pro-
gressed, group members increasingly experienced the differential aspects (privileges, responsibilities, etc.) of
the group levels.
As the manipulation check (taken at the
end of the final trial) indicated, leaders did perceive
themselves as having a significantly higher status ranking
than the workers.
This "status" may have been construed
by the leaders as equaling power over the other group members.
From this argument it follows that the leaders
would perceive their position as being the more secure one
since their position held control over the others.
Perceptions of the Formation Process - Even though
trials effects were predicted, none were evident.
Again,
subject "role playing" may have been responsible for perceptions remaining stable over trials.
Organizational
structure was not found to affect these perceptions.
A too
weak manipulation of the tall structural condition, as was
discussed in the composite satisfaction section, .may have
been responsible.
Another prediction was that over trials,
leaders! composite perception of the formation process of
the final solutions would be greater than that of the workers.
This hypothesis was partially supported.
Results
were in the predicted direction but without a trials effect.
Since leaders have the final say in forming the fi-
nal solutions, it is natural that they would report higher
perceptions of fairness of and influence in the formation
process.
An organizational structure by level by trials
interaction was not found even though one was predicted,
It appears these perceptions are affected solely by
organizational level.
Workers reported less satisfaction
with the formation process than did leaders.
Neither or-
ganizational structure nor trials nor any interactions had
a significant effect on this relationship.
Perhaps it does
not matter how far away from the solution's final stage
one is, but rather it only matters that one is or is not
involved in this stage.
A stronger organizational struc-
ture manipulation is needed to test this theory.
In summary, results indicate that organizational
structure affected only one aspect of performance:
sion time.
deci-
Composite satisfaction was affected by level
and by an organizational structure by level interaction.
Satisfaction of the security need was affected by an organizational level by trials interaction.
Composite per-
ception of the formation process was affected by positional level only.
Based on the results of the present study, the following situation might occur.
There are two research
firms, Co. T has a tall hierarchical structure; Co. F has
a flat structure.
Co. T would require more time to finish
a project than would Co. F.
two
compani~s
The finished products of the
would be similar in quality.
In both com-
panies executives would increasingly feel more secure in
\
70
their job position than would rank and file employees.
Executives would be more satisfied than lower level employees in Co. T only, as
exec~tives
ployees in Co, F would be
eq~ally
and lower level em-
satisfied.
Co. F wor-
kers would be more satisfied than workers in Co. T, while
executives in either company would be equally satisfied.
Executives in both companies would be more satisfied with
the formation process of company decisions than would
lower level employees.
The·main thrust of the present experiment was to investigate the effects of organizational structure on both employee behavior and attitudes.
As such, few hypotheses
were supported, with results being generally contrary to
previous findings.
As was previously discussed, organizational effectiveness is influenced by a myriad of factors, far too many to
be adequately researched in any one study.
It is impossi-
ble to systematically control and research all factors relating to organizational effectiveness.
Therefore any or-
ganizational experiment conducted is generally highly situation specific, and as such is only partial.
It is for
this reason few, if any, clear cut relations have been, or
probably will be, found to exist between organizational
configuration and member behavior and attitudes.
References
Anderson, B. F. The Psychology Experiment.
Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1971.
f,elmont, Ca. :
Blau, P.A. A formal theory of differentiation in organizations. American Sociological Review, 1970, J.i,
201-219.
Bock, R.D., & Haggard, E.A. The use of multivariate analysis of variance in behavioral research. In Handbook of ~easurement & Assessment in Behavioral Science. Whitla, D.K. (Ed.). Reading, ~ass.: AddisonWesley, 1968.
Bruning, J.L., & Kintz, B.L. Computational Handbook of
Statistics. Glenview, Ill.: scott, Foreman and Co.,
1968.
Carpenter, H.H. Formal organization structure factors and
perceived job satisfaction of classroom teachers.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 16, 460-465.
Carroll, S.J., & Tosi, H.L. Organizational Behavior.
Chicago, Ill.: St. Clair Press, 1977•
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (Eds,). Group pynamics Research and Theory (3rd ed. ). New York: Harper
& Row, 1968.
Carzo, R., Jr. Some effects of organizational structure on
group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,
1963, L• 393-424.
Carzo, R., Jr., & Yanouzas, J.N. Effects of flat and tall
'
organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969, 14, 178-191.
71
72
Cummings, L.L., & Berger, C.J. Organization structure:
How does it influence attitudes and performance?
Organization Dynamics, 1976(Aut), 34-79·
Cummings, L.L., & Scott, W.E., Jr. (Eds. ). Readings in
Behavior and Human Performance. Illinois: R.D.
Irwin, Inc. & The Dorsey Press, 1969.
Du Brin, A.J. Fundamentals of Organization Behavior - An
AEplied PersQective. New York: Pergamon Press, Inc.,
19?4.
Emery, F.E., & Trist, E.L. Socio-technical systems.
Management Science~ Wo~els and Techniques.
C.W. Churchman & ~. Verhulst (Eds.). New York:
Pergamon Press, Inc., 1960, 83-97.
In
Guetzkow, H., & Simon, H.A. The impact of certain communication nets upon organization and perforformance
i.n task oriented groups. r.~anagement Science, 1955,
!_, 233-250.
Hackman, J.R. Effects of task characteristics on group
products. Journal of Experimental social Psychology,
1968, ~. 162-187.
Hackman, J.R., Jones, L.E., & McGrath, J.E. A set of dimensions for describing the general properties of
group generated written passages. Psychological
Bulletin, 1967, £1, 379-390.
Hackman, J.R., & Vidmar, N. Effects of size and task type
on group performance and member reactions. Sociometry, 1970, 11. 37-54.
Hall, R.H. Organizations: Structure and Process.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1972.
/
Ivancevich, J.M., & Donnelly, J.H., Jr. Relation of organizational structure to job satisfaction, anxietystress, and performance. Administrative Science
guarterly, 1975 (June), 20(2), 272-280.
James, L.R., & Jones, A.P. Organization structure: A
review of structural dimensions and their conceptual
relationships with individual attitudes and behavior.
O~anization Behavior & Human Performance, 1976, 16,
74-113.
Jones, H.R., Jr. A study of organizational performance for
experimental structures of 2, 3, & 4 levels. Academy
of Management Journal, 1969, 12, 351-366.
Katz, D., & Kahn, L. Common characteristics of open systems. In Social Psychology of Organizations.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966, 14-29.
-Leavitt,
H.J. Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psycho~, 1951, 46, 38-50.
Linton, if'., & Gallo, P.s., Jr. The Practical Statistician:
Simplified Handbook of Statistics. Monterey, Ca.:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Co • , 197 5.
/
Lorsch, J.W. Introduction to the structural design of
organizations. In Organizational Structure and
Design. G.W. Dalton, P.R. Lawrence, and J.W. Lorsch
(Eds.). Homewood, Ill.: R.D. Irwin, Inc., 1970,
1-16.
Maier, N.R.F. Assets and liabilities in group problem
solving: The need for an integrative function.
Psychological Review, 1967, ~. 239-249.
74
Meltzer, L., & Salter, J. Organizational structure and the
performance and job satisfaction of physiologists.
American Sociological Review, 1960, 27, 351-362.
Meyer, M.W. Theory of Organizational Structure.
Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing, 1977.
Indiana:
Porter, L.W., & Lawler, E.E., III. The effects of "tall"
versus "flat" organization structures on managerial
satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 1964, li,
135-148.
Porter, L.W., & Lawler, E.E., III. Properties of organization structures in relation to job attitudes and job
behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 64(1), 23-51.
Porter, L.W., & Siegel, J. Relationships of tall vs. flat
organization structure to the satisfaction of foreign
managers. Personnel Psychology, 1965, 18, 379-392.
Sadler, P.J., & Barry, B.A. Organizational characteristics
of growing companies. Journal of Management Studies,
1967, 4, 204-219.
Shaw, M.W. Some effects of problem complexity upon problem
solution efficiency in different communication nets.
Journal of Experimental Psycholog~, 1954, 48, 211-217.
Shaw, M.E. Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group
Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971.
Wanous, J.P., & Lawler, E.E., III. Measurement and meaning
of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1972, 2£, 95-105.
Wexley, K.N., & Yukl, G.A.
Personnel Psychology.
Inc., 1977~
Organizational Behavior and
Homewood, Ill.: R.D. Irwin,
75
Worthy, J.C. Organizational structure and employee morale.
kmerican Sociological Review, 1950, 12, 169-179.
Appendix A
Problem Solving Tasks
76
7'7
A
John has just spent most of his money on a new car.
He is now left with the problem of selling his old car.
He must sell it as soon as possible because his savings
are now slightly in the red.
Because he is now so low on
money, he can only allow $5 toward advertising costs.
What are some of the low cost or no cost ways he can advertise that his car is for sale?
Remember, he also wants
quick results.
B
What would you do if you got a flat tire while driving
on the freeway during a rainstorm?
c
Tom and Harry are roomates in a college dormitory.
They share responsibility for keeping their room reasonably neat.
The present problem is how to divide these
"neat-keeping" chores.
not mind
sweepi~g.
Tom loathes making beds, but does
Harry also loathes making beds, but
doesn't mind "straightening up" and dusting.
Tom's classes
start at 7 a.m. and end at 3 p.m. each day, while Harry's
78
I
classes run from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m.
Decide (and write down) who shall do what cleaning job
wh~,
in such a way that the solution will be satisfactory
to both and all jobs get done.
D
Sue is a freshman in college.
There is a boy in one
of her classes that she would like to meet.
What might
sue do to meet him without appearing aggressive?
E
Psychologists have found that
"sp~ced"
as opposed to
"massed" practice results in more rapid learning of everything from machine operation to spelling.
The implications
of these findings for study habits are obvious
massing
corresponds to cramming, and studying each course daily
corresponds to spacing.
Joe is a freshman in college.
He works 20 hours a
week, Nonday through Saturday, and goes to school from 8 to
4, five days a week.
Write out verbally a general plan which Joe could use
as a guide in alloting his time between work, studies,
rest, and recreation.
what.
In other words, when should he do
'
Appendix B
Structural Computations
79
80
For the flat structure - there are six people at the
same level and reporting to the same superior, so n
= 5.
Each can talk to five others, so r
= 6.
There are a total
of seven people, N = 7.
1st level
c=
2nd level
6 X 5
(7-1)(7-2)
·~Jo
=
= 1.00
JO
For the tall structure - at the second level n
= 2,
= 2. At the third level n = 2, r = 1 for each
2
of the two parts to this level, nr = 2 + 2 = 4. The tor
= 1,
nr
3
tal number of people is seven, N = 7.
1st level
2nd level
3rd level
c=
6
(7-1)(7-2)
=
6
30
= 0.20
Appendix C
Descriptions of the 21 Scales
Defining the 7 Dimensions
of Written GroQp SolQtions
81
82
Dimension I:
Action Orientation
Suggests action:
The degree to which a passage states or
implies that a specific or general course of action
should be, might be, or will be followed.
Constructive:
The degree to which a passage is concerned
with "doing something," whether it makes actual suggestions, implies them, "does something" by itself,
or merely has a "tone" of constructiveness.
Passive (reversed scoring):
The degree to which a passage
is inactive, complacent, quiet, or restful.
Dimension II:
Length
Short (reversed scoring):
Estimation of the brevity of a
passage.
Number of words:
This is an "operational" scale.
The
number of words in the passage are counted.
Lacks detail, elaboration (reversed scoring):
The degree
to which a passage is devoid of detail, examples, and
elaboration.
Dimension III:
Eizarre:
Originality
The degree to which a passage is unique, odd, or
"far out" in a morbid, ribald, or highly unusual
sense.
Not unusual (reversed scoring):
The degree to which a pas-
8)
sage is ordinary, everyday, or usual in content.
Original:
The degree to which the ideas contained in a
passage are unique, fresh, unusual, surprising, or
refreshing.
Dimension IV!
Optimis~
Positive outlook:
The degree to which the general outlook,
attitude, tone, or orientation of a passage is "positive" as opposed to "negative."
Supportive:
The degree to which a passage lends or implies
support for some idea, object, or event.
Disapproves (reversed scoring):
The degree to which a
passage states or implies disapproval of some idea,
object, or event.
Dimension V:
Qualitv of Presentation
Choppy (reversed scoring):
The degree to which the writing
of a passage is fragmented, broken, discontinuous, or
inappropriately staccato, as opposed to flowing or
harmonious.
Stylistically well-integrated:
The degree to which the
writing of a passage blends together in an appropriate
manner.
Consistency and synchronization of the style
of the passage are of primary importance in making
judgements on this scale.
84
Understandably presented:
The degree to which a passage
can be read and understood without excessive difficulty; the clarity of the presentation.
Dimension VI:
Issue Involvement
IJow issue involvement (reversed scoring):
The degree to
which a passage fails to adopt a position or point of
view with respect to some matter, or fails to deal
with the subject matter in the appropriate depth.
Propagandistic:
The degree to which a passage attempts to
sell or push a particular point of view.
States a belief or opinion:
The degree to which a passage
states or very strongly implies a particular belief
or opinion about some idea, object, or event.
Dimension VII:
Operability
Effectiveness:
The degree to which a solution is instru-
mental in attaining the desired goal.
Feasibility:
The degree to which a solution could in fact
be put into action, as opposed to being farfetched
and non-realistic.
Cost-effectiveness:
The degree to which a solution at-
tempts to achieve maximum goal attainment at a minimum cost.
Appendix D
Satisfaction Questionnaire
85
86
QUESTIONNAIRE
Below you will find twenty-six statements concerning
your job position. For each question you will find a scale
on your answer sheet that ranges from "none.at all" to
"very much." Please read each question and make a v or X
in a box on this scale according to the way you perceive or
see your job position. There are no right or wrong responses. Please DO NOT sign your name.
----------------------------------------------------------How much is there now of the following1
1.
The feeling of security in my job position.
2.
The feeling of self-esteem or respect in my job position.
3.
The amount of close supervision in my job position.
4.
The opportunity for independent thought and action in
my job position.
5.
The opportunity for feedback on performance in my job
position.
6.
The opportunity to help others in my job position.
?.
The feeling that I know when I do a job well in my job
position.
8.
The amount of variety on the job in my
9.
The opportunity to develop social relationships in my
job position.
posit~on.
10. The feeling of accomplishment in my job position.
11. The opportunity to get to know others in my job position.
12. The feeling of self-fulfillment in my job position.
13. The amount O,f authority in my job position.
87
How much would you like there to be of the following?
i4.
The feeling of security in my job position.
15. The feeling of self-esteem or respect in my job position.
-------
16. 'I·he amount of close supervision in my job position.
17. The opportunity for independent thought and action in
my job position.
18. The opportunity for feedback on performance in my job
position.
19. The opportunity to help 9thers in my job position.
20. The feeling that I know when I do a job well in my
job position.
21. The amount of variety on the job in my job position.
22. The opportunity to develop social relationships in my
job position.
23. The feeling of accomplishment in my job position.
24. The opportunity to get to know others in my job posi. tion.
25. The feeling of self-fulfillment in my job position.
26. The amount of authority in my job position.
----------------------------------------------------------Please place a -./ or X in a box on the scale according
to your perceptions of the situation.
27. As compared to the others in the group my answer had
the following amount of influence on the final decision.
28. The final solution was formed out of a fair and impartial consideration of everyone's answers.
29. As compared to the others in my group I feel my job
position had the following amount of status.
88
The following questions relate to the following need areas.
Self-esteem- 2,7,12,15,20,25
Growth- 5,8,10,18,21,23
Autonomy- 3,4,13,16,17,26
Security - 1,14
Social- 6,9,11,19,22,24
Appendix E
Instructions
89
90
This study is being conducted to determine the effects
different organizational structures have on group performance.
I want you to think of yourself as being part of a
group of researchers whose job is to make recommendations
of way certain problems could be solved.
You will be pre-
sented with a series of five problems which I'd like you
to answer within the specified time limit.
There is no
one "best" answer to any of these problems so just do the
best you can.
Your group will be working under a tall structure
which resembles this graphic display.
Your group will be randomly broken down into subgroups, which will then be placed at three different levels within this structure,
One of you will be placed at
the top level, the leader position, two at the second level, the supervisor positions, and the remaining four at
the third, lowest level, the worker positions.
will then be handed a problem.
which to reach a solution.
ask you to stop working.
Everyone
You will have 5 minutes in
At the end of this time I will
The worker subgroups will then
meet with their respective supervisor for 5 minutes and
form a single solution.
Then the supervisors will meet
with the leader for 5 minutes and form a single solution.
The leader will then be left alone for 5 minutes to write
out the final solution.
91
As in most companies that are organized as a hierarchy,
workers• suggestions do not go directly to the President,
but go through intermediate
stage~
in which these sugges-
tions are reviewed, revised, and then passed on up the levels until they reach the President.
The structure you are
in simulates such an organization.
When the final solution has been made, it will be read
aloud to your group by your group's leader.
Your group's
performance will be based on this final solution.
Quality
of performance is based not only on the solution itself,
but also on its presentation, i.e., writing style and
grammer, so I'd like the leader to please use complete
sentences when writing the final solution to each problem.
You will go through this process five times.
You can take less than the alloted time to solve each
problem, but you cannot take more than that time.
At the end of some trials you will be given a questionnaire to complete,
I want your responses to·reflect
your own ideas, not those with which you think someone in
your job position would respond.
You will have 4 minutes
to fill out the questionnaire.
Each time you answer the questionnaire I want your
response to reflect how you feel at that moment, in that
your attitudes may change over the course of this experiment.
To ensure privacy of responses, no talking will be al-
92
lowed except during subgroup meetings.
Are there any questions?
93
This study is being conducted to determine' the effects
different organizational structures have on group performance.
I want you to think of yourself as being part of a
group of researchers whose job is to make recommendations
of ways certain problems could be solved.
You will be pre-
sented with a series of five problems which I'd like you
to answer within the specified time limit.
There is no one
"best" answer to any of these problems so just do the best
you can.
Your group will be working under a flat structure
which resembles this graphic display.
One of you will be randomly designated the leader.
Everyone will then be handed a problem.
minutes in which to reach a solution.
time I will ask you to stop working.
You will have 5
At the end of this
You will then be
given 10 minutes in which I want your group to form a
single solution to the problem.
The leader will then have
5 minutes alone in which to write out the final solution.
The final solution to each problem will be read aloud to
your group by your group's leader.
Your group's perfor-
mance will be based on this final solution.
Quality of
performance is based not only on the solution itself, but
also on its presentation, i.e., writing style and grammar,
so I'd like the leader to please use complete sentences
when writing out the final answer to each problem.
94
You will go through this process five time·s.
You can take less than the alloted time to solve each
problem, but you cannot take more than that time.
At the end of some trials you will be given a questionnaire to complete.
I want your re spons?§_ j;o _:t'?f_l~9t
your own ideas, not those with which you think someone in
your job position would respond.
To ensure that your
responses to this questionnaire do reflect your own opinions, no talking will be allowed during this part of the
experiment.
You will have 4 minutes to fill out the ques-
tionnaire.
Each time you answer the questionnaire I want your
response to reflect how you feel at that moment, in that
your attitudes may change over the course of this experiment.
Are there any questions?
.Appendix F
Multivariate Analyses
95
Performance
As the component parts of written solution quality
were found to be significantly intercorrelated (see
Table 5), another acceptable analysis is the multivariate
analysis of variance.
This analysis was performed on the
seven quality dimensions:
action orientation, length,
originality, optimism, quality of _presentation, issue involvement, and operability.
As summarized in Table 21,
no statistically significant effects were found to exist
on the performance quality criterion.
Performance quality
was similar over trials and between structures.
Even
though the scoring of some dimensions was more reliable
than others (see Table 4), no areas of performance quality
were affected by organizational structure or by trials.
Satisfaction
As the five component parts of need satisfaction were
found to be significantly intercorrelated (see Table 6),
multivariate analysis of variance provided an alternative
evaluation of the data.
This analysis was performed on the
five need satisfaction measures:
growth, autonomy, and social.
security, self-esteem,
The results, summarized in
Table 22, indicate a significant difference between organizational levels on the satisfaction composite.
Leaders
reported significantly more satisfaction (means vector:
0.66, 1.15, 1.35, 0.08, 1.11) than did workers (means vee-
97
'I'able 21
summary of the multivariate analysis of variance for
performance quality as a function of organizational
structure.
Source
u-statistic
df
F
df
Between Groups
Structure
0.548
7. 1
J
8
0.24
7
2
Errorb
Within Groups
Trials
0.452
Trials X Structure 0.467
Errorw
7. 4, 32
7. 4, 32
0.84
28
0.80
28
95
98
Table 22
Summary of the multivariate analysis of variance for
need satisfaction as a function of organizational
structure and level.
Source
u-statistic
df
F
df
Between Groups
2.04
5
0.392
5, 1 ' 16
5, 1 ' 16
3.72*
5
0.574
5, 1 ' 16
1.78
5
Structure
0.541
Level
Structure X Level
12
Errorb
Within Groups
0.660
5. 2, 32
1.29
10
Trials X Structure 0.726
5, 2, 32
0.97
10
0.648
5, 2, 32
1.35
10
Trials X Structure 0.772
X Level
5. 2, 32
0.77
10
Trials
Trials X Level
Error
*p
< .05
w
56
99
tor:
1.34·, 1.92. 1.90, 1·.01, 1.39).
The smaller the num-
ber, the more satisfaction perceived.
There was no trials effect, satisfaction remained constant over time.
Nor was there a main effect of structure,
satisfaction was similar between organizational structures.
Further, none of the interactions produced a statistically
significant effect on satisfaction.
This significant effect of organizational level, however, did not by itself indicate specifically in which need
area or_areas this differential satisfaction occurred.
A
multivariate analysis of covariance (step-down analysis)
was chosen as the most appropriate method of analysis
(Bock & Haggard, 1968).
Univariate analysis of variance
results are presented alongside the step-down analysis results (see Table 23) for comparison purposes.
In step-
down analysis the experimenter decides the order the variables will enter the analysis.
As the autonomy need was
thought to be the most important component of this differential satisfaction, it was entered into the analysis
first.
The self-esteem, growth, social, and security needs
were subsequently entered in that order.
As can be seen in Table 23 a significant difference
was found between levels only on satisfaction of the autonomy need.
Leaders (mean discrepancy satisfaction score =
1.15 on a scale of +6 to -6) reported significantly more
satisfaction of this need than did workers (mean= 1.92).
Table 23
summary of the univariate analyses of variance and step-down analysis for
need satisfaction as a function of organizational structure and level.
Dependent
Variable
Autonomy
Self-esteem
Growth
Social
un~v.
Factor
E.
df
Crit.
F
4.90
14.88
5.8o
1,16
1,16
1,16
1
4.90
14.88*
5.80
1,16
1,16
1,16
8.53
.01
s
0.46
4.31
2.94
1,16
1,16
1,16
2
0.86
3.30
3.43
1,15
1,15
1,15
8.68
.01
s
0.52
1.89
2.50
1,16
1,16
1,16
3
0.14
0.02
0.12
1,14
1,14
1,14
8.86
.01
s
0.02
0.65
5.32
1,16
1,16
1,16
4
0.73
0.50
0.51
1,13
1,13
1,13
9.07
.01
4.38
2.67
2.06
1,16
1,16
1,16
5
3.12
0.55
0.04
1,12
1,12
1,12
9.33
.01
L
SL
L
SL
s
L
SL
*P < •05
df
Step-down
s
L
SL
L
SL
Security
F
Priority
The remaining variables showed no additional unique effects on level after the effect of autonomy was partialled
out.