AD-AOM 2 360 —

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV FOIT WORTH INST OF BEHAVInRAL R—ETC F/G 5/10PSYCHOLOGICAL AND OROANIZATIONAL CLIMATE: DIMENSIONS AND RCLATI——flC (lj)JUl. 77 A P JOICS’ I. R JAMES. a n BRUNI N00014—76— C—0008

UNCLASSIFIED NI.

I~~ ’

• _ _ _ __ _

__ _

• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ji1~~__ __

~1tI I __ __

I _ _

H \$~_

~~•

institu te of behavioral 1~eoearchTexas Chtlstlon Unlvetslty

rott Worth1Texos 7b12~Reproduction in whole or in part ispermitted for any purpose of the UnitedSta tes (ov2 rnnlent. Approved for pub l icre lease; d istr ibut ion unlimited.

Psychological and Organ1zation~ 1 Clima teDimensions and Rela t ionshi ps

Al lan P. Jones and Lawrence R. James

Iii c o l l a b o r a t i o n ~d th John R . Br un i ,Chris W . I lornick , and S. B. Sells

F i na l Repor t

July, 1977 0 ~~~~~~

- Unclassified‘ ‘ ‘ 4 ’ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .~~~~ ‘ •. ‘ ‘ , ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

REPORT DOCUMENTAT ION PA~~F -

.~~~~~~~pM

• P H I ‘-~‘ M~~4 ç W 2 ,()~~ A ‘ , , I I ) L No ci i ’ ’ ’ ’. ’ ’ , “ 0 ‘ A L ’ , ’ , Pi M H P ci

~~~ 4 . ~~i ‘~~ F .‘-“ • t r f ~~t .’ N T YP F ~~~ P F P~ 7 R T A P~ ~~I’~~[) ~~C’ .’~~ R F O

Psychological and ~‘rg:n~1 t ~~f U L Cil ‘~a~ e ‘ ‘ ‘~~~~ 1 ,1ep~~ tDimensions and }~e~ ot i on s hi ps , _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

~~~~~~~

,--

0 _ _ _A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ ‘~y~’ ~ Jones , A~~~~~~~~ Ja e s , ~~~~~~~~~~~~ / .

.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ F:y.:R UOC1 4 — 7 6 — ( — ’ 1O(~8~

(

1n~ ~ó~~~~~oratjpn with I~runi , .3 . R .,4~~ ’rnlck ,”t.WJ andj~~~‘

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~<‘4~.T~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Institute of Behavioral ~es~’nrchTexas Christian U n i v e r ~~i t yFort Worth , Texas 76129 ‘i

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ‘4~~~~.’ L A N ~~) A D D R E SS

— - - t IOrganizational Effectiveness Research Pro~~r.~ r~ -

y~~64

Off ice of NCVaI Research (Code 452) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _±~~~ ~L?

- ,:i~4 i, ’~, ‘ L P . , ( , A . ’ ‘. i 4 4 ~~i .’ ’ ’ 4 A f l~~’- R E S 5 ( l ( ‘i , i ’ ” ~ .,’~ ~~~~ ,.,,p. . ’ ’ ’ . ‘~ 5’

Y L C ‘~~o S S ~ ~

b~~~ i A~~~~~~~~~~~ P - A ,SC’ ..

~~~7’ F

6 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ‘ F M E N ° l , P r~i I , R~~po’ r~~

Approved f o r public release; distribution ‘~nI~ ni ~ed

7 L ’,’ P I R U~~~’ C ’4 c ” A ~~F~ A : N r (~~( ~

. , ,0., ,, - • .r.~~.,. ’ g n 13’ k ~ O , U - ‘ f ’ ~~’.” ’ ‘~ “- ~ .r’ ’

I8 S U P P L E M F ~~~’ A P ’ c ’ L ’ ~ — - - —

‘ 9 ~ F V W O R D S (C~,nPlnu. on iev, r ,. , ‘d- If ,... ,, ~~.r, irid L.I,,,,I~~0,’ b y h? , ,’). ,.,,, nP,,i ,

Psycholog!cal Climate StructureOrganizational Climatl’ “on t~~vL - Situational Varian e Perceived Climate

T Interaction

fl , c i A~ ”~~ 0 ’ ,,n?ir,,,, on ,~~ ,- .,.. .0 , U •... . pp., ,? ~~~~~~~~~ 0’ , t~~” , ’ b noothpp,)

The present stud y represented an ottemp t to develop a comprehensivemeasure of psychological climate and to investigate the appropriateness ofaggregating psychological climate scores to describe subunit or organizationalclimate. Theoretical assumptions underlying the two constructs were reviewedand r~’latfonsh ips with various situational , positional , and ind ividual vari-ables were posited as indices of cons t ruc t va l id i ty . Analyses i n d i c a t e d t ha t :(a) five of six psychological climate dimensions found for 4,315 U.S. Navy

~~ DD ~~~~~~ 1473 ~~o , T o ’ ~ oF I NOV “ ‘ IS 01450 ‘F UnclassifiedS N ‘ ‘ 1 0 2 A 1 4 - ~~~~~

1 _______

S E r) J R’ 7 V CL A c S t ~~ I C A T I O P 4 (5F T H I S PAL3 ~~ (*~P.n flat. Rnt.,.d .l

-~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~:

Unclassified, 4 ’4I T N 0, A ’ , ’ ,I~ 0 A ‘ I P4 U t 0 iII’, ‘ A , , i’ ,, I . ‘ ..~~~ ,

enlisted men were generalizable tc’ comparison samples of firemen (n 398) and

~~ health care managers (n~5O4); (b) aggregating psychological climate scores todescribe subunit climates appeared appropriate only for homogeneous subunits

1 (e.g., divisions): (c) subunit climates were significantly related to divisioncontext , structure , and personnel compos I tion , whi 1~ psychological climate

I appeared more related to individual r ’ se ’or ”ec and position variables,~ and• (d) subunit climate , structure , conte ct , and personnel composition m~~sureswere significant predictors of division performance criteria. Result~ ~~ reinterpreted relat ive to the t orot~~ca1 p’op€ ’rtien of climate and pr i4~,

rresearch on structure and con”e ’

\ .~~~~

‘~~~~~N$

, . ‘ ‘,

I

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~—

\~\‘H

0~’ 9~~’ t ’ , (~~ A N ’ . t I C A ’ N “ ‘ o N ~‘ * ‘ ,~~~W0,~~ ’ 1’ s.. t- ,, ’. , . r0 ’

:t — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

— _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

~~~~~~ — -

~~~~ —a-- - ~~~~~

~‘ ‘ ‘ .‘ ‘ ‘h olo ; l o : ; i ] (~~ j I ’irl t

a c t

The p r e s e n t st n d . ‘ p r o ’ ’ ’ n t t ’ ~ an ~t t . :~~~ T t o ~o ’ v ’ ] ; a c ” .;~ ’. ’ h o n s i ’ .” “ . a o u r ~

of p s y c h o l o g i c a l c i i ~~ t ’ ’ and I~~v ’ ’~ i~~.i t a’ :I ; ) r ’r o p r i a t e n o’s s’ ’, t .‘o~~~’r . ’ ,’a t n~ ç

p sycho log ica l c l i ma t e s o r e s to d t ’ . ’r ~ht ’ ‘a l i w t or ‘r ; ;on I za~ i t , J ci io dte

T h e o r e t i c a l assunptic ’~ s under1 yin~’, the ‘~ constrocts were r e v l I ’L o d , .‘n~d rela-

t ionships with various situat Ic” h”I i , p ” ~ i t ional , a nd individual variables were

posi ted as indices of c o n s t r u c t v . , l i d i t v . A n a i v s c s indi~~-Ite d t n a t : ( a ) five

of six psychological clinar e dimensions found for L,,315 1’. S. ~ a vv en isted men

were general izable to comparison samples of fir ’ nen (n = 398’) and health care

managers (n = 504); (b) aggregating psvch ’logical clinat e scCres to describe

subunit climates appeared appropr iate only for homogeneous subunits (e.g., di-

visions); (c) subunit climates were s i g n i f i c a n t ly r e l a t ed to d iv i s ion con tex t ,

structure , and personnel composition , whi]e psycho~ o~ ical c 1~~nate appeared more

related to individual resources and position variables; and (d) subunit climate ,

s t r u c t u r e, context , and personne l composition measures were significant predic-

tors of division performance criteria. Resul~~ were interpreted relative to the

theoretical proper ties of climate and prior research on structure and context.

PF.ycholog Icai Cli nate

2

Psycholog ical and Organizati onal Clinate : Dimensions and Relationshi ps

Several recent artlclos and r ev i ews have . at t e s t d to the current popularity

of climate research and , more irportant , have off er€ ’~ su~~est1ons for future

theoretical and emp irical efforts (cf. Campbell , Dunnette , Livier , & Weick , 1970;

Guion, 1973; }Iellrelge l & ~ locun , 1974; Jar- es & Jones , 1974; Payne & Pugh , 1976;

Schneider , 1975a; Howe & Gavin , N o t e 1). The stron~ vnt , most f~ equent reconnen—

dation was for a clear , explicit description of t~~e conceptual properties of

climate that identified variables relevant to measur !oc~ the construct and speci—

fied relationships with various situational and in ’ividual attrfbutes. As a

first step in this process , James and Jones (1974) suggested that a d i s t i n c t i o n

be made between climate as an individual , perceptua l a t t r i b u t e (psychologIca l

• climate) and climate as a situational attribute (organizational climate). In

light of this distinction , certain of the reccr-~mendations ~n the above articles

appeared especially relevant.

Regarding psychological climate, for example , it was recommended that the

focus of perceptual measurement be descriptive , that measures Include task as

veil as person and social characteristics , and that studies investigate the

direct and interactive influences of situational and individual attributes upon

climate perceptions. With respect to organizational climate , it was suggested

that a further differentiation be made between organizational climate and subunit

climate (e.g., workgroup climate , division climate , etc.), with the former term

~e.erved for descrip tions of the total organization . This suggestion was partic-

ularly importan t given the popular procedure of basing subunit and organizational

climate measures on aggregated psychological climate scores and was consistent

vith a recommendation that criteria be developed to assess the appropriateness

of such aggrega tion. Finally, it was suggested that research on each of the

•0~0 ,~~~~~~ — -~~~~~~~ - - -

Psyc h o lopi ca l CUrate

3

level s of c l i m a t e ( i n c l - J d l r d p v c h o 2 o g ~ cal c U r - a t e) should Incorp orate long itu—

tinal as well as cross—s ectional d c p ~ ’: and t;hould explore the construct valid-

ity of d ir-ate In term s of relationships with a variety of situa tional and Indi-

vidual characteristics , and with performance by individuals , subunits , and

organizatIons .

The present stud y addressed a subset of the above recorsoendations concerning

needs for theoretical development and emp irical research. The objectives of the

study were: (a) to develop a comprehensive ‘rea~ ure of p s y cl i o io g i c a l c li ma t e ;

(b) to investigate the appropriateness of aggregating psvcbological climate

scores to describ e subunit and organizational climate~ (c) to investigate the

construct validity of psychological and subun it climate scores in terms of rela-

tionships wi th selected s i tua t iona l and individual variables; and (d) to explore

relationships between subuni t c l imate scores and subuni t performance.

The theoretical basis for the development of the psychological climate meas-

ure is presented below. Included in this presentation is a comparison of assump-

tions for psychological climate and for climate treated as a situational attrib-

ute. This comparison Is then used to explore the appropriateness of aggregating

psychological climate scores to describe the climate at various levels of the

organization , including the total organization . A brief overview of probable

relationships betveen psychological and subunit climate and selected situational ,

tmdivid ual , and subunit performance variables is also presented. Finally, a

specific stat ement of the research strategy is provZded .

Theoretical Properties Underl y ing Psychological Climate

In the literature describing climate as an Individual , perceptual attribute ,

there appeared to be certain common assumptions regarding properties of the con—

•tr uct. Before discussing such assumpr.Ions, however, it must be noted that ,

vhile the authors cited below stressed psychological or perceptual attributes

— ~~-=t=.-, ,--

~~~.-

~~,_

~~_ •—- . - - — —

Psycholopi cal Clf’-at e

4

of climate , nost of then spe clficaUv o~ ed ‘he tern “org anIzational cu rate ”.

Thus, describing their work as psychological cUr-ate represents an Interpretive

liberty.

1. One of the most common assumptions was that psycholog ical climate repre-

sents a perceptually based , psychologicall y processed description of the situa-

tion, where the individual filters , interprets , and structures perceived situa-

tional attributes. For example , Schneider (1975a) described climate as a set

of macro perceptions which reflected processes of concep t formation and abstrac-

tion based on micro perceptions about specific organizational conditions , events ,

and experiences. Campbell and Beaty (Note 2) expressed similar ideas of percep-

tual filtering , summation , and cognitive structuring. Ittelson , Proshansky ,

R.ivlin, and Winkel (1974) suggested that the indIvidual organizes perceptions

of the env ironment into an abstract “cognitive map” that serves to guide future

predic tions and behavior . This cognitive map refers to the Individual ’s Inter—

ualized representation of the situation and reflects an inherently inseparable

combination of perceptual and cognitive processes.

The above authors stressed the descriptive, cognitive nature of psycholog-

ical climate, divorcing it from the affective , evaluative aspects that would

render it tautological with job—related attitudes such as satisfaction. At a

conceptual level, authors in both the climate (cf. James & Jones , 1974 , 1976;

Payne & Pugh, 1976; Payne, Finetnan, & Wall , 1976) and job satisfaction literature

(cf. Locke, 1976) carefully distinguished between p~rceptual/cognitive represen-

tations of the situation and affective/evaluative reactions to that situation.

Although empirical findings have been somewhat mixed , recent research has tended

to suppor t this distinction between psychological climate and satisfaction

(La Folle tte 6 Sims , 1975; Schneider & Snyder , 1975). It should be noted that

dynamic interrelationships were generally assumed and often found in climate—

—-~~~

-~~~~

-,-‘--. - - ,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --.

~~—-.

~ C———

Psy choiog ical C1f~- ate

S

satisfaction studies (cf. Helirc i gel & Slocun , 197 6 ) .

2. Another common assumption re~ ard 1n~ n sycholo glcal cUr-ate was that a

limited number of dimensions can character ize a large and varied group of social

environments. Insel and Moos (197’.) propos ed three such dimensions-—re lationship,

personal development , and system maintenance. Campbell et al. (1970) Isolated

four d imensions as common to a number of emp irical climate studies in organiza-

tions. These dimensions (individual autonomy ; degree of structure imposed on

the situation ; reward orientation; and consideration , w a r m t h , and support) were

supported by subsequent factor analy t ic studies of perceptual data (Sir-s &

La Folle tt e , 1975; Waters , Roach , & Bat h s , 1974), although it was noted that

a communality of items might have contributed to such results and that the number

of dimensions was perhaps too few . In this respect , Payne and Pugh (1976) added

a fifth dimension, orientation toward development and progressiveness , and sev-

eral authors noted that specific dimensions might be needed to describe

particular situations .

The major divergence from the idea of a common core of dimensions appeared

when Schneider (1975a) postulated that the question of dimension salience was

relevant only in the context of a particular criterion . He viewed organizations

(subunits and workgroups) as having many climates (e.g., climates for creativity,

motivation, etc.) and concluded that the term climate “should refer to an area

of research rather than a construct with a particular set of dimensions.”p

Schneider ’s viewpoint represe nts a serious divergenee requiring empirical

examination.

3. Another important assumption was that psychological climate represents~

an intervening variable in a model of org anizational functioning. The interven’-

ing nature of psychological climate is inherent in the concept of a cognitive

map , whereby the individual transforms situational stimuli into perceived situ—

Psycho1e~ 1ca1 Climate

6

ationa In fluences (I.e., perc ep t irn5 ; of how t i . situation Influ ences ~he ind i-

vidual). Such perceived influences (e.~~., amb ly u it y , wi r r - ti , progr eu~~iver.ess,

etc.) are emp loyed to achieve a “fit ” with the situation by “ap p r e h e r d i n~ o r d e r ”

and “gauging appropriateness of behav ior ” (Ittels on et al., 1974; Schneid er ,

1975a). Thus, psycholog ical climate acts as an internalized , psycho logicaUv

meanin~. ful reprt- st-ntat i~’n of t h e sit u at ion th:.. t ~u id e s f’~tu r a t i tudes and be-

haviors (Cannbell et al., 1~~’0; It~ elson et al. , 1974 ; J~tn . s i~ Jones , 1974).

4. There also appeared to be considerable agreement that the situational

var 4ables that are most related to psychological climate are those with rela-

tively d irect and immediate ties to individual experience. For example , it was

pointed out that characteristics that are conceptually more distal or remote from

individual experience require more complex , in tervening linkages to be related

to individual perceptions and behavior (Ind ik, 1968; Jessor & Jessor , 1973; JamesI

& Jones, 1976). In a similar vein , Lawler, Hall , and Oldham (1974) argued that

percep t ions of climate were more related to relatively immediate characteristics

such as organizational and subsystem processes than to structural attributes.

In summary, certain common assumptions appeared to underlie treatments of

climate as a psychological , perceptually based attribute , namely, that psycholog-

ical climate: (a) is primarily descriptive; (b) involves a psychological pro-

cessing, abstracting, and structuring of perceived situational attributes into

an internalized representation (or cognitive map) that reflects influences of

P the situation ; (c) is multidimensional , with a central core of d imensions

(although specific dimensions might be added to describe particular situations);

Cd) tends to be most closely related to situational characteristics that have

relatively direct and immediate ties to individua l experience; and (e) occupies

an intervening role in a model of organizational functioning, where the poin t

of intervention is within the individual. Based on these assumptions , it was

— —

ho O~t i d l (;i ] c i T .

7

Cu~1C 1c ed t h i t , ri~- i~z c - ~ .ss~ ’d i n t t l it i . r at re , 2cv - j~± - i 1 c f l~~n t & - r e f e r s to

— — i1 ’ S T I r t n t it lot ‘,i t i iona l i. e i t lo ~s t h i n

t e o r ~- i ~~i . - t i n a: t~~~ i - i c h i n i t ~~, t r i d s t im p si ;~e c on d I t i o n s t h a t ar e re a—

t i : e1v i ~v- . e d i a t e t o i n d i v i d u a l ex r i e n c i~~~ ffId r e f l e c p ~~~~~~~~~ n i t i v e transforin a—

t i o n and structu in~~~cf t hei-i e c o n d i t i o n s l it o e r c ei ve d s it u a t i o n a l influences.

Imp l ic a t i on s for Measurement. of_j oia~~cal Climate

The foregoing discussion of assumptions appears to have important imp lica-

tions for measuring ps-- i.hological chircnte . The assumptions that psychological

climate is primaril y descri ptive , represents a psychological transformation of

perceived situational characteristics into perceived situational influences , and

is most closely related to situational attributes that are relativel y proximal

to individual experience indicate that emp irical indices of psychological climate

might be based on perceptions of such proximal attributes. Previous reviews and

research (Hellriegel & Slocum , 1974; Indik , 1968; James & Jones , 1974, 1976;

Payne & Pugh, 1976; Schneider , 1975a; Sells , 1963, 1968a) have suggested a var—

iety of relevant situational attributes , including: (a) job or role character-

istics such as job variety and challenge , job pressures , and role ambiguity; (b)

leadership characteristics and behavior such as support , goal emphasis , and m i —

tiation of structure ; (c) workgroup and social environment characteristics such

as friendliness and cooperation; and (d) cer ta in subuni t and o rgan iza t iona l char—

acteristics with relativel y direct ties to individual experience (e.g., manage—

ment awareness of employee needs , fairness of the reward process , etc.). Thus,

the empirical exploration of relationships among perceptions of these various

attr 4butes would seem important in developing a measure of psychological climate.

p Assumptions Underlying Climate as a Situational Attribute

Many of the assumptions regarding psychological climate appeared to have

rela~ ively direct parallels in the literature treating climate as a situational

P

-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - - - - — — - ---

~~~~~~ -— —!!i.. --- ~~- ‘a~--’ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - - ________

I’Sy ( h I ‘,~‘ l ea I ( I i it

a t t r i b t ~~e . Fir c t , S i b tre t t s ass i~~ed t h a t c l im~i t . b~~c r i h es s i t u a t i o n a l

c o n d i t i o n s (P~i v n i . ~ P i t h , i i) and se cond , t h a t t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n i s m u l t i d i ~ u e n —

s i ona l ~‘i t h w h a t a p p e a r s t o hi. - a common core of d i m e n s i o n s ( l n s e l :~ M o s , 1 9 7 4 ) .

The c a u t i o n h y S c h ne i d e r ( 19 7 5 a ) i s i m p o r t a n t , however , b e c a u s e some dimensions

of c l im a t e may be m o r e a pp r o p r i a t e l y i n t e r p r e t e d at leve]s b e l o w the t o t a l or-

ganization. For examp le , cooperation and friendliness may vary across different

subunits and thus might be interpreted most meaning fully at the subunit and work-

group levels of analy sis. Third , it has been assumed that the variables that

are most closely related to workgroup , subunit , and organizational climate are

p those proximal situational variables that are most likely to h ave psychol og ical

importance to individuals in the situation (Payne & Pugh , 1976).

There has been considerable agreement also that climate treated as a situ-

ational attribute represents an intervening variable in an organizatioi-ial model.

Insel and Moos (1974) characterized organizational environments as having “per-

sonalities” tha t exert directional influences on behavior , while Ittelson et al.

(1974) pointed out that environments possess a “demand character ” that not only

describes the imm edia te sensory s t imul i of the situation but also encompasses

a social and symbolic meaning. In a related vein, Payne and Mansfield (1973)

described organizational climate as a conceptual linkage between organizational

and individual levels of analysis. From this perspective , climate intervenes

between specific situational attributes or events and individual perceptions ,

attitudes , and behavior (Payne & Pugh, 1976) and has often been viewed (albeit

implicitly) as a summary description of how the situation influences individuals.

Heliriegel and Slocum (1974) referred to climate as a set of organizational or

subsystem attributes that may be induced from the way an organization or its

subsystems deal with its members. For example , relatively specific situational

attributes such as unstructured role prescriptions , unclear reward contingencies ,

P

-

- - Jffi - ~~. - — - -

I ’ s ye h o l ~~ i c . ! C l i i . it e

9

in 1 i t h r e ct i v i 1 t e r s h i p n i g h t he t ratt ’;foru~ i i i n t o t h e s i t of S i t u j ~~~ m e l

i n ? I r i c s r c f c r r t J 1 as a c o n f l j c t i n ’ a r t ! a m b i p u o u i s c l i m a t e . T h i s t r a n s f , r m a —

t i o n of s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n a l i i t t r i h i t s i n t o situatio nal i n f lu en c e s is u r i l i e r

e v i d e n t in the names given to most clima te dimensions (e .g., autonomy ,

consideration , warmth , etc.) .

In summary , theo retical treatments of climate as a situational attribute

(i.e., organizationa l or subunit climate) suggested that it: (a) is primarily

descri ptive of organizational and subunit situations; (b) is multidimens ional

with what appears to be a central core of dimensions (although specific d imen-

sions might be added to describe particular situations or nopulations); (c) tends

to reflect primarily aspects of the organizational and/or subunit environment

that are most proximally related to individual experience and behavior; and (d)

indicates an intervening variable in a model of organizational functioning where

the point of in te rvent ion lies between the relatively specific characteristics

and events of the situation and the individual and represents a transformation

of situational attributes into situational influences. Based on these assump-

tions, therefore , it appears that climate as a situational attribute describes

a set of situational influences within the organization and its subunits, tends

to emphasize those conditions that are relativel y immedia te to individual exper-

ience, and reflects relationships among situational characteristics in terms of

the ways the situation influences people.

P In terms of the current literature , therefore , the basic differences between

climate viewed as a psychological attribute and climate viewed as a situational

variable appear to rest on assumptions about the point of intervention . For

P psycholog ical climate , the assumed point of intervention lies within the indi-

vidual , so that any transformation of situational attributes into psychologically

meaning ful , internalized representations of the situation and its influences must

p

___________________

Psy ;hological Cl li- tat e

10

involve the individua l as a perceiver and as a cognitive processor. For climate

viewed as a situational attribute , however , the assumed point of intervention

lies outside the individual. Thus , the latter concept describes only the situ-

ation, although this descri ption includes the social and personnel characteris-

tics of the situation , as well as structural , technolog ical , process , and other

such variables.

The concept of intervening variable as applied to situational climate is

a difficult one. It is perhaps clearest in considering experimental studies of

climate , where one does not attempt to manipulate climate directly but rather

manipulates variables such as structure , leader behavior , etc., which presumably

result in variations in climate that equally influence all persons within a par-

ticular treatmen t condition. Thus, it appears that situational climate cannot

be assessed directly but must be inferred either from the configuration of sal-

ient situation characteristics which are presumed to lead to a particular climate

or from consistencies in the responses of individuals who are assumed to have

P experienced that climate.

Conceptually, it appears that situational climate refers to the character

of the situation that is represented by the pattern of relationships among a

variety of situational events, organizat ional processes , role expectations , and

so forth and which exerts a common core of influence on workgroup (subunit , or

organizational) members, whereas psychological climate represents the individual ’s

cognitively transformed , internal represen tat ion based on perceptions of such

characteristics , events , rol e expectations , and influences. Thus, the most im-

portant difference between the two constructs as discussed in the current liter-

ature appears to lie in the assumed presence or absence of individually based ,

cognitive processing of the external situat ional characteristics and influences

tha t have potentia l impact on individual members .r. -

-, ‘- - ‘i~~~~ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Psyrholo :’ica~ Cu rate

11

Given such a perspective , one would expec t dynamic and substantia l in ?.r-

relationships between the two constricts. Although such interrelatedn ess ciues

not negate basic conceptual distinctions between the constructs and , as discussed

below , does provide a rationa le for the use of aggregated psychological climate

scores to infer situational climate , the same overlap makes it difficult to de-

vise independent empirical indices of the two constructs in any given study.

Aggregation of Psychological Climate Scores to Represent Subunit and

Organizational Climate

Many organizational researchers have sought to develop measures of the sets

of situational influences referred to as subunit or organizational climate be-

cause of the presumed relationships between these influences and organizational

or subunit performance . For example, climate has been discussed as a direct

predIctor of various criteria or as a moderator of certain predictor-criterion

relationships (cf . Campbell et al., 1970; James & Jones , 1976; Payne & Pugh ,

1976). The most popular approach to measuring subunit or organizational climate

has been by aggregating psychological climate scores.

The rationale for aggregating psychological climate scores to describe sub-

unit or organizational climate appears to rest primarily on the communali~y of

assumptions underlying the two constructs. Of major importance are the assump-

tions that both constructs describe situational influences and represent some—L.

thing more than a simple listing of relatively specific situational attributes.

This dual emphasis on description and transforma tion of specific situational

attributes into situational influences appears to provide the basic conceptual

linkage between the two concepts. In othe r words , to the extent that individuals

perceive part icular aspects of the situation that are reflected as situational

influences, it appears reasonable to expect a corresp ondence between organiza—

tionsl (and/or subunit) climates and the perceived situational influences which

- ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ j i • .- —,---

- —

Psychol og ica l Cl ima te

12

form psychological climate.

The use of aggregated psychological climate scores to measure subunit or

organizational attributes requires , however , that the aggregated scores meaning-

fully represent the situation. 1 A common strategy to assure such representative—

ness has stipulated that agreement must exist among perceivers before aggregation

is justified , on the basis tha t percep tual agreemen t implies a common situ ational

Influence (ef. Culon , 1973; Insel & Moos, 1974; James & Jones, 1974; Schneider ,

1975a).

Various methods have been used to assess perceptual agreement , including

differences in mean perceptions across different situations or trea tmen ts, inter—

rater reliability within a single group , and correlations among the perceptions

of individuals occupying different organizational levels. h igh indices of inter—

rater reliability or statistical power connote that the perceptions primarily

reflect differences across situations and thus Imply perceptual agreement whereas

within situation variance implies a lack of perceptual agreement. Empirical

indices of statistical power (eta-squared , omega—squared) or interrater reliabil-

ity (intraclass correlation) have generally been low to moderate , varying between

.06 and .35 (Bass, Valeozi, Farrow, & Solomon, 1975; Schneider , 1975a; Campbell

6 leaty, Note 2). Converted to Spearman-Brown estimates of reliability of the

mean (aggregated) score (Ebel, 1951) , values have varied between .70 and .91

(Sc1m~eider, 1975a). Unfortunately, when many individuals are involved , aggrega—

tion across relatively heterogeneous individual per~eptions might still yield

high estimates of the reliability of the mean, questioning this procedu re as an

index of perceptual agreement.

mother potential index of the representativeness (and thus appropriateness)

of aggregated psychological climate scores concerns the degree to which various

climate—related , situationa l measures differ from subunit to subunit or from

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Psychological Climate

13

individual to individual. For example , recent reviews suggested that context

(technology , goals , etc.) and structure (size , centralization of decision making,

span of con trol , etc.) are among the situational variables that influence organ-

izational or subunit climate (James & Jones, 1976; Payne & Pugh, 1976). These

and other authors (Litwak, 1961; Mahoney & Frost, 1974; Scott , 1975), however ,

have questioned whether many context and structure measures are meaningful when

used to describe organizations consisting of heterogeneous subunits wIth varying

goals, technologies , subgroup sizes , and so forth. Thus, to the extent that

climate r2flects variations in such variables, aggregation of perceptions across

subunits with heterogeneous context or structure attributes would appear

questionable.

P.rceptions of climate also have been shown to reflect differences In organ-

izational position such as hierarchical level and job type (Hei.lreigel & Slocuui,

1974; Johnston, 1974; Jones, James, & Bruni, 1975; Payne & Mansfield , 1973;

Schneider & Snyder., 1975; Stone & Porter , 1975). Newman (1975) demonstrated that -

organizational position (functional division, department , workgroup , and hierar-

chical level) accounted f or more variance in climate perceptions than did per—

p sonal characteristics (age, sex, number of dependents , education , and tenure).

Be concluded that different positions were subject to differen t experiences andp

that positional differences were more Important than personal characteristics

in the development of the individual’s perceptual—cognitiv e map of the

organizationa l situation.

Conclusions that different organizational positions experience different

situational influences have important implications f or the aggregation of psycho-

logical climate scores. That is, although many studies (e.g., Gavin, 1975;

Pritchard & Karasi ck, 1973; Schneider , 1975b; Schneider & Snyder , 1975) have

shown that climate perceptions vary by organization or subsystem , it is dubious

‘S- - — - - - —---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -:

~~~~~- — - - - - - . ——— _____ - --------- ---- - - -. - - - - -. .-- _ _

Psychological Clim ate

whether aggregated individual scores represent all the various positions within

a heterogeneous organization or subsystem (Payne & Mansfield , 1973). Furthermore ,

heterogeneity of pos ition , by limiting communality of experience for different

individuals , limi ts probable interperceiver agreement and provides a potential

explanation for some of the low to moderate Indices of interrater reliability

and statistical power reported earlier . Thus, it appears that psychological

climate scores should be aggregated only for relatively homogeneous organizational

units.

Mother factor related to agreement on climate perceptions across members

of organizations or subunits reflects the influences of individual charac ter is-

tics on the perceptual process. For example , previous studies have shown that

climate perceptions covary with a variety of individual characteristics including

personality attributes , cognitive styles, ability , adaptability (Johnston , 1974;

Kerr & Schreisham, 1974; Schuler , 1975; Vannoy , 1965), alienation from cul tural

norms (Blood & Hulin, 1967; Hulin & Blood, 1968), and need strength (Hackman &

Lavler, 1971; Hacknan & Oldham , 1975; Pritchard & Karasick, 1973; Steers , 1975),

as well as age , race , sex, and intelligence (Helireigel & Slocum, 1974). There-

fore, to the extent that an organization or its subunits contain a wide range

of individual characteristics , a greater diversity of perceptions might be

-~~~~ ixp.cted .

A final index of the appropriateness of using aggregated psychological cli-

mate scores as situational measures would appear to be the empirical d emonstra—

tion that such aggregated scores were meaningfully and predictably related to

p various situational measures and to organizat ional or individual criteria . In

other words, Ii. rationale for using aggregated perceptual data is enhanced to

0 the extent that it is possible to establish the construct validity of the aggre—

P gated scores by emp ir ically demonstrated utility in predict ing and understanding

- - - —~~~~~~~~ ---~~~~=--~~~ -- - - ----

S - - . —- ----~~~~~~~~_-

Psychological C1i~ ate

15

organizational and subunit functioning .

In summary, the assumed correspondence between situational influences and

individ ual perceptions of those Influences appeared to provide a logical basis

for using aggregated psychological climate scores to represent shared situational

influences . Other factors (differences In position , technology, type of job,

etc.) contribute to a heterogeneity of influences across individuals or subunits,

however, requirIng an empirical demonstration of shared situational experiences

before aggregation to a particular subunit or organization is undertaken. Poten-

tial criteria which might justify aggregation include the demonstration of: (a)

differences in aggregated or mean perceptions across different organizations or

subunits; (b) interperceiver reliability or agreement; (c) homogeneous situa—

tional characteristics (e.g., similarity of context , structure , job type , etc.);

and (d) construc t validi ty for the aggregated score in terms of meaningful rela-

tionships to various organizational, subunit, or individual criteria .

Issues Related to the Construct Validity of Psychological and Subunit Climate

In regard to the construct validity of psychological , subunit , and or gani—

aational climate scores , it was noted that such scores should be meaning fully

and predictably related to other indices of subunit and organizational situation

and functioning. The following section therefore presents a brief overview of

hypothesized relationships among measures of psychological and subunit climate and

subunit measures such as context , structure , and personnel composition. (Rela-

tionships with individual resources and position vafiables were reviewed in the

arlier discussion of factors related to aggregation.) These hypotheses were

derived from extensive reviews of the literature published elsewhere (cf. Campbell

.t .1., 1970; Forehand & Cilmer, 1964; Helireigel & Slocum, 1974; James & Jones,

1976; Lawler et al., 1974; Payne & Mansfield , 1973; Payne & Pugh , 1976; Porter

& Lawler , 1965; Por ter , Lavler , 4 Hacksan , 1975) and , in the interests of brevity .

- _

‘c~~~~~. — ~~~ -

~~~~~~~ ‘.- -~ - - — —~~~~~~ __________ -

Psychological Clinate

16

are presented generally and in su~-.rnary .

The first general hypothesis regarded relationships between climate (both

subunit and psychological) and Context measures , especially technology . It was

hypothesized that the more complex , nonroutine technologies would be associated

with climates reflecting higher levels of task complexity, variety, imp or tance ,

and challenge as well as higher levels of role ambiguity and autonomy. Further ,

because complex, nonroutine jobs tend to be intrinsically satisfying and motivat-

ing, it was expected that there would be less emphasis on efficiency and morale

as direct subunit goals , although the subunits with noriroutine technologies were

also expected to have more capable , better trained personnel and to achieve

higher levels of subunit performance .

-The second general hypothesis concerned relationships with measures of

“anatomical” structure , that Is, variables describing distributions and formal

relationships among subunits or positions (Porter er al., 1975). It was expected

that high levels of anatomical structure as reflected by large size , tall confIg—

nrations, large spans of control, and high specialization (division of labor)

would be associated with climates characterized by relatively uncooperative,

unfriendly workgroup relationships, coimsunication difficulties, unsuppor tive

leadership, and monotonous, low challenge tasks . Also expected were relativel y

unskilled , low aptitude personnel compositions as well as low levels of subunit

P performance.

The third general hypothesis concerned relatioi~ships with measures of “oper—

ational” structure or measures reflecting the structuring of events (Katz & Kahn ,

1966). It was expected tha t high levels of operationa l structure , defined by

high centralization of auth ority, for malized roles and communication procedures ,

and standardized procedures , would be associated with climates characterized by

b y levels of role conf lict and ambiguity, task—oriented leadership , low levels

- - - -~~~~~~~~~~~r~~E~ L - - -•--—----—-- —- - -

Psycholog ical Clim ate

17

of ind ividual autonomy , and monotonous , unchallenging tasks that were low In

complexity. Also expected were lower scores on subunit performance measures and

less capable, less trained personnel.

The final hypothesis reflected a general theme of a social system , integrat-

ing model approach to organirational investigatIon (cf. James & Jones , 1976).

Eased on the linkage concept that variables in direct conceptual proximity would

be more highly intercorrelated than variables connected by indirect linkages or

intervening variables (Indik, 1968), it was hypothesized that subunit context

and structure measures would be more highly related to subunit climate than to

psychological climate which by definition includes the additional elements of

perception and psychological processing of situational attributes.

Strategy of the Present Research

Development of a psychological climate measure. The development of a meas-

ure of psychological climate involved three steps. Following a comprehensive

review of the literature (cf. James & Jones, 1974 , 1976; Jones , James , & Hornick,

lote 3; Jones , James, Bruni, Rornick, & Sells, Note 4), measures of a var iety

of perceived situational attributes with relatively direct ties to indivIdual

experience were constructed and administered to a sample of U. S. Navy enlisted

man. Second, these measures were component analyzed and the resulting components

• were used as indices of psycholog ical climate. Third, component solutions were

conpared across two additional types of organization to assess dimension general—

izability and the potential for a coweon core of dimensions.

Aggregation of psychological climate scores. Within the Navy sample , psy-

chological climate scores were aggregated to describ e subunit and organizational

climate. The represeatativeness of each level of aggregation was empirically

assessed on th. basis of: (a) significant differences in subunit mean psycho log—

ical cl imate scores, (b) indices of statistical power and interrater reliability,

— - .-— .-.

— ~~~~~- --

Psychological Climate

18

(c) estimates of the reliability of the mean scores , and (d) representativeness

of other climate—related situational measures (e.g., structure). As treated

later , the data suggested that aggregation should be res tricted to the level of

the smallest (and most homogeneous) subunit studied .

Construct validity of psychological c l ima te and subun i t c l i m a t e ne~isures.

The construct validity of the psychological and subunit climate scores was further

assessed by relating such measures to measures of subunit context and structure

and to measures of individual resources and position variables (for psychological

climate) and personnel composition (for subunit climate).

Prediction of subunit perfo rmance. The relationships of situational attrib-

utes (includ ing subunit climate) with subunit performance were investigated by

using subunit context, structure, climate, and personnel composition measures

to predict subunit performance.

Method

Sample -

The U. S. Navy sample consisted of male, enlisted personnel (n — 4,315) on

20 ships operating in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans during the latter half of

1973. The ships included two aircraf t carriers with crews of approximately 4,000

men, and four classes of destroyer with crews averaging between 225 and 375 men.

Ships were organized into four or more departments , each responsible for a major

set of duties (e.g., engineering , ope ration s, supply, weap ons) . Departments were

further subdivided into divisions ; for example , the ’Engineer ing Department con—

sisted of divisions concerned with the main pro pulsion unit , boilers , electrical

systems, and so forth. The total possible subunit sample was 105 departments

and 281 divisions.

Individual sampling on carriers was limited to non—aviation personnel and

stratified by department and division; destroyers were sampled on a 100% basis.

—

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~ -r~~ ---- - ---~~~~~~~~r-,~~ ~~~ — .~~~___.___— _---_ -

Psycholog ical C l i m a t e

19

Individual questionnaire data were collected in group sessions during the first

weeks of deployment. Responses were obtained from 76% of the available men on

destroyers and 45% of the men in sampled divisions on carriers (90% of the dis-

tributed questionnaires). Age (M 23.8 years) and time in the Navy (M = 4.8

years) indicated that most respondents were in their first enlistment. Levels

ranged from E—1, the lowest enlisted pay ra te, to E—9, the highest enlisted grade;

mean education was 12 years.

Two additional samples were studied to explore the generalizability of the

psychological climate measures. One sample consisted of 393 male firemen below

the rank of district chief in two departments in thz. southwest United States.

lire stations consisted of one to four companies of four men each; questionnaires

were administered to groups of 8 to 16 persons. Data were obtained from 72% of

eligible respondents. The average age was 36 years; mean tenure was 11.3 years;

432 of the sample had completed one or more years of college.

A second comparison sample consisted of 504 exemp t emp loyees of a private

health care program, ranging from top regional management to first—line superv I-

sora. Fourteen functional areas (e.g., nursing, data processing, accounting)

p and 42 separate locations (including seven large hospitals were represented .

Questionnaires were administered by mail, with a 742 usable return rate. Females ,

primarily nursing supervisors, represented 52% of the sample. Mean age was 42

P years; approximately half the sample possessed a college or professional degree .

Individual Level Measures

Psy~cho1ogical climate questionnaire. The psychological climate question—

p maiz e (administered to all three samples ) consisted of 145 items that described

relat ively specific aspects of the work situation. The items represented 35

a priori composites , many of which had been shown by previous research to be

interna lly consistent , psychologically meaningful measures of the work environ—

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -‘---‘- -~~~—-

Psychological Climate

20

aent (see Table 1). Each composite consisted of two to seven items , each wIth

a stem and three to five scaled responses. Composites were scored by summing

across relevant item responses (variances were similar).

Insert Table 1 about here

Job or role related measures included role ambiguity, role conflict (House

& Rizzo, 1972a; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964; Lichtman & Hunt ,

1971), autonomy (Campbell et al., 1970; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Turner & Lawrence,

1965), task variety , task identity, job challenge (Forehand & Cilmer, 1964;

Hackman & Lawler , 1971; Porter & Lawler, 1965), and opportunities for growth and

advancement (Herzberg, 1966; House & Rizzo, 1972a , 1972b). Other measures

reflected job pressure and standards of performance (Rouse & Rizzo, 1972a; Sells,

1963 , 1968a).

Leader related measures included support, interaction facilitation , goal

emphasis , and work facilitation (Bowers & Seashore, 1966; Campbell et al., 1970;

Rslpin, 1966; Rouse 6 Kerr , 1973; Likert, 1961; Litwin 6 Stringer, 1968; Taylor,

1971), as veil as measures of the leader’s ability to plan and coordinate actlv—

ities and influence superiors (Rouse & Kerr , 1973) . Also included were measures

reflecting confidence and trust between supervisors and subordinates (Flacks,

1969; Jones et al., 1975; Sells , 1968a; Wood , 1974).

Measures of the workgroup environmen t included cooperation , fr iendl iness ,

prid e, and workgroup image (Blau , 1954 ; Parris , 1971; Hackman & Lawler , 1971;

P 1*11, 1971; Steiner , 1972). Finally , variables primarily related to larger sub-

units and th. total organizat ion included organizational level ambiguity and

conflict (Rizzo, Mouse, 6 Lirtaman , 1970) , communication patterns (Sells, 1968b;

Thaw, 1971), consistency and fairness of organizational policies and reward rol— -

-v — -— - - —-—--——- — -

Psychological C1~~ate

id es and reward processes (Hacknan & Lawler , 1971; Porter & Lawler , 19’~8; Vroom ,

1964), esprit (Friedlander & Margulis, 1969; HalpIn & Croft , 1963; Litwin &

Stringer , 1968) , and professional and organizational identification (Farris ,

1971).

Individual resource T~easures. Measures of individual characteristics and

resources were obtained for the Navy sample. These measures included age , mar-

ital status, years of formal education, intelligence (Navy General Classification

Test or GCT scores), number of grades failed in school, size of preenlistment

home town (5—point scale ranging from small town to large city), number of rooms

in childhood house (5—point scale ranging from four or fewer rooms to 11 or more),

and three composites measuring Ego Needs (three items reflecting needs for recog-

nition and appr oval , a .59), Self—Esteem (four items reflecting self—confidence

and self—rated ability , a — .54), and preenlistment disciplinary record (three

items reflecting school and discipline problems, a — .64).

Position variables. In an earlier article, Herman and Rulin (1972) sug—

geared that variables primarily controlled by the organization (e.g., size, tech-

nology, etc.) are situational and thus may be distinguished from variables such

as age or education which are brought into the situation by the individual andp

are relatively Independent of organizational control. In attempting to apply

this distinction , however , they found that the classification of some var iables

(e.g., tenure , hierarchical level) was arbitrary because such variables were

~ itually controlled by both the individual anc! the •rganization. Thus, in the

present study, variables which reflected mutual organizational and individual

influences were considered separately as a third category . Because such vari-

ables are typically related to the individual ’s position or status in the

organization they were referred to as “position variables”.

Position measures obtained f rom the Navy sample included self—report meas—

- - - - —~~- - -.

Psychological Cl m ate

22

ures of tenure , leve l or pay gr ade , number of men supervised , number of advanced

or technical training schools (A or B schools) completed , and number of func-

tional or other training schools completed. In addition , measures of job spe-

cialty were obtained from ship records and grouped into four types——unskilled ,

requiring little training; medium level mechanical; clerical and low level tech-

nical; and high level skilled (Orr, 1960; Seymour, Gunderson , & Vallacher, 1973).

Organizational and Subunit Situational Measures

Although situational measures were obtained from the Navy sample for ships ,

departments , and divisions, analyses were restricted to the subunit level for

reasons discussed later. Thus, situational measures are described only for the

levels at which subsequent analyses were conducted (i.e., departments and

divisions).

Subunit structure measures. Measures of the anatomical aspects of subunit

structure were obtained from ship records. These measures included: size—the

number of men in the division/department; specialization——the number of separate

occupational titles in the division/department; configuration/shape——the number

of actual ranks between the lowest and highest ranking enlisted men in the

division/department; and configuration/span of control——a ratio of the number

of enlisted supervisory personnel (E—6 or above) to the number of men below that

rank (a high score reflected a low span of control).

P As shown in Table 2, operational aspects of subunit structure were measured

by 21 questionnaire items (4 or 5-point Llkert scal~s) derived from interviews

with Navy personnel and from the research literature (James & Jones, 1976; Inkson,

Pugh, & Uickson, 1970; Pugh, Bickson, linings, & Turner, 1968). Questionnaires

were administered during the first weeks of deployment; responses were obtained

from the heads of 91 departments and 224 divisions.

-

- - - - —

.. . - . T —- — —— -V ________ ______

Psych o1~ig ic a1 C 11r~ate

Insert Table 2 about here

P A principal components analysis of the 21 items yielded seven components

with elgenvalues > 1.0. The seven components were: (a) General Centralization

of Decision Making , (b) General Standardization of Procedures , (c) Interdepend—

ence with Other Work Units, (d) Formalization of the Role Structure , (e) Central-

ization of Work Allocation and Scheduling , (f) Formalization of Communication ,

and (g) a unique component reflecting Standardization of Procedures for Expending

Funds. Separate analyses for departments and divisjons yielded similar results.

Component scores (N = 50, SD = 10) were calculated for each department and

division by a direct solution method (see Harman, 1967 , p. 349).

Internal consistency estimates of reliability were based on item s with load-

ings > ~~~~~~ Except for Formalization of Communication (a .27) and the one

item component for Standardization of Expenditures , alpha varied from .52 (Inter—

dependence with Other Work Units) to .72 (General Centralization of Decision

Meking) and was considered acceptable given the limited number of items. The

Vormalization of Communication and Standardization of Expenditure components were

deleted from remaining analyses .

— Context measures. Context measures (also based upon questionnaire data from

r the 315 division and department heads) included technology and emphasis on var-

ious goals , as well as personnel , habitability , and’equipment resources. Tech-

nology was measured by a 4—item composite (range — 4 to 19). A high score

reflected a nonroutine , complex technology where success was difficult to eval-

uate and subject to uncertainty (cf. Hage & Aiken , 1969; Mohr , 1971; Perrow, 1967;

Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, & Turner, 1969; Woodward, 1965). Coefficient alpha was

only .44, but significant item intercorrelation . suggested that they sampled one

-V-V.— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

. :.~~~~~. -.

~~ - . -~~ .~~~

.

P s y c h o ] ‘;- ca~ Cl 1 ’ - V l ’

conceptual area (i.v-,es & E~ hson , ~973) .

The e—p hasls p iaced rn v:rious goals w~ir; measured in te~ -s of two conpo ncnt

scores. Fe~ r—point , L~kert t ype item s were con~;truct~~ to r~~nsure n~ nc mijor

division and department goals as defined by av~’ p er c o n r ~e~~. Components a n a l y s e s

of these items vIe~ded tw: ’ c e-~ s (X = 1.0 , 42% of trace): (a) Erp hasis on

Morale , ref .ecting the e~ phasis on ~rr .n r ov i ng nc r a l e , deve lop ing new procedurec

and programs , promotion of personnel , and doing better than ether departments !

d1v1s~ens aboard ship (~ = . 62 ) ; and (b) Emp hasis on Following Standardized Pro—

cedures , reflecting the emphasis on f o f l ow i r~ s t a n d a r d i z e d procedures , r e l i ab il-

i ty of perfcrmance , and overall e~ fec tiveness (:~ = .51). Component scores (~

V — 50, SD = 10) were computed for each departmen t and division by a direct

solu tion m et h od (Harman , 1967).

Other context measures included single , s—point , questionnaire items for:

(a~ condi t Ion of work equi p m e n t ; (b) ava i l ab i l i ty of funds and supp lies for work;

(c) availability of funds for habitability improvements; and (d) personnelrresources within the department/divi sion.

Subunit cri’er a. The primary measures of s~hcrnlt performance were devel-

oped through a multistage process. First , interviews with naval officers and

ship commanders generated eight aspects of effectiv e division performance: (1)

—. Quality of Work, (2) Adherence to Planned !lainteoance schedules , (3) Readiness

to FulfiF Commitments , (6) Performance under Pressure , (5) Efficiency, (6) Coop—

eretion with Other Divisions , (7) Safety, and (8) t~adership Abitity of Enlisted

Supervisors. Following Identification and definition of these dimensions, off 1—

cers were asked to suggest three statements describing levels of performance

(i.e., poor , adequate , superior) for each dimension.

The resulting 24 statements were randomly mixed (Arvey & Hoyle , 1974). Each

dep~-rtme nt head rated subordinate divisions on each statement by indicating

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — -.—-~~~~~~~ . - w— - -V . , - ‘ -‘ — - V . -—-——

Psy rho1o~;Icai Clinat e

whe ther the division p r fernvd : (a) bet ter t h a n , (b ) e q u a l t o , or ( c ) he~~~v t h e

perfor r-ance leve described in t~~’ - s t a t e m e n t (cf . Blanz & hh~ sel11 , 19 7 2 ) .

• Scores on each of the eL~ht d~ m en e i on s wc r~ calculated by surnminp the app r~ :n late

ratings wliure a “better than ’ rat ing was scored as a 3, “equal t o ” r e c e i v e d a

2, and “worse than ” recei ved a 1. (T: e Cuttmon scalin~ n-rnoe dur e recnnmr— ’~ed

by Blanz and Ghlselli provi ded no Improver -nt av er the aPeve approach .~

p Mdit~ ona cr I~~- nia included rat ~np~ by divIsion bea ds c~~nrern rp prc~ ens

caused by the use of drugs and alcoho ’. (4—o cint scale va r v~~ng f t n n f r e ç u e n t to

nonexistent) and f r e q u c r : v of re- :’st to transfer from the division (3—point

P scale ranging from many requests to no requests).

Criterion data were collec ted at the end of each ship ’s dep loyment period

(five to seven months after the context , structure , and ind ividual questionnaire

data). Data were obtained from 1 0 divisionrn, represen ting 19 ships and a~ 1

division types. Despite attempts to obtain data for all divisions , some of the

departmen t and dIvision heads h ad been ro ta ted from the ship near the end of thep

cruise and their replacements lacked sufficient observations to provide the

ratings.

Results

Results are presented as follows: (a) dimensions of psychological climate ,

(b) comparison of these dimensions across samples , (c) agreement and representa—

tiveness analyses for agg regated scores, (d) correlates of psychological and

div ision climate, and (e) prediction of division crtteria.

Dimensions of psychological cl imate . A principal components analysis of

the 35 a priori composites was conducted on the Navy sample (see Table 3). Reli-

ability estimates (coefficient alpha) for these composites ranged from .44 to

.81 m d were considered acceptable because alpha is a function of the number of

p iteirs in the composite and tends to be conservative (Lord & Novick, 1968).

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

-~~~~ ~~~~ - ~~~

.——._~_-_--—-— ,

~~ _____________

Psycholog ical C~~~- a t~

Simi la r v a l u e s were f o u n d f o r t he o the r sa-~p l e s .

Insert Table 3 abou t he re

Six c o m p o n e n t s w i t h e lg env a l ue s > 1.0 were found (59% of trace). Follnwing

verimax rotation , the fir t compo nen t reflected perceived conflict In organiza-

tional goals and objectives , combined with amb iguIty of organizational structure

and roles , a .ack of interdepartm ental cooperation , and poor communica tion , from

management. Also Incl uded were poor planning, inefficien t job design , a lack

of awareness of employee needs and problem s, and a lack of fairness and objectiv-

ity of the reward process . This component was labelled “Conflict and Ambiguity. ”

The second component reflected a job perceived as challenging, Imnortan t

to the Navy , and involving a var ie ty of dut ies , inc luding dealing wi th other

people. The job was seen as providing autonomy and feedback , and demanding h igh

standards of quality and performance. This component was designated “Job

Challenge , Importance , and Var ie ty . ”

The third component , “Leader Facilitation and Support ,” reflec ted leader

behavior such as the extent to which the leader was perceived as helping to accom-

plish work goals by means of scheduling activities , planning , etc., as well as‘~~~

the extent to which he was seen as facilitating interpersonal relationships and

p providing personal support.

The fourth component , “Workgroup Cooperation, Friendliness, •and Warmth,”

generally described relationships among group members and their pride in the

P workgroup. Only composites describing the workgroup loaded on this component.

The fifth component , “Professional and Organizational Esprit,” reflected per—

cei ’ed ex ternal image and desi r able growth potential offered by the job and by

thq Navy . Also included were perceptions of an open atmosphere to express one’sp

.

Ip

~~ - .-

- .-— —-— - - _____________

Psycllol ’- g ica C li’ ~~~ e

f e e l i n g s and thougbt~~, o nfl d nce I n t h e h-ud:r , an ! cc nuln ;tentl y tp l lr ’d

izational policies , coc± i~a’d with non— conf ltct ing role rxpec ta ti cns and red uced

job pressure.

The sixth and final component had loadings for onl y three composites. ThIs

componen t , “Job Standards ,” reflected th c degree to which the job was seen as

having rigid standards of quality and accuracy , combined with Inadequate time ,

manpower , t ra ining , and resources to complete the task. Also reflected were a

perceived lack of confIdence and trust by supervisors and manage m ent per sonne l .

Scores for the six components (M 50 , SD = 10) were computed by a direct

solution method (Harcian , 1967 ) .

Comparison of~psvchological climate dimensions across samp les. Psycholog—

ical ,clitnate components from the Navy sample were compared to components derived

from the other two samples (James, Hartman , Stebbins, & Jones, in press; Jones

& James, Note 5). Each comparison sample also yielded six components with eigen—

values > 1.0 (62.8% of trace for firemen , 66.8% for health managers). As m di—I

cated in Table 4, five of the six components——Leadership Facilitation and Support;

Workgroup Cooperation , Friendliness, and Warmth ; Conflict and Ambiguity; Prof es—

sional and Organizational Esprit ; and Job Challenge , Importance , and Variety——

vere similar across the three samples.2

L.

Insert Table 4 about here

The sixth component tended to be somewhat less generalizable. For health

V asnagers, this component appeared to represent a finer breakdown of the Challenge ,

Impor tance, and Variety Component, with loadings by Job Importance (.70), Job

Challenge (.58) , and Job Standards (.40). 8oth latter variables, however, also

ha? loadings ) ~±.40~ on components similar to the five mentioned previously for

$- —m

~~_-- ~~

---~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~,t_ ,._ ~ ~~~~~

-~-—-~~~.-~~

— -- — -~~

P sy~ !to l o g I c a 1 C1~~-~~t~

the Navy s a m p l e . The s i x t h cc~ p o n e n t f o r t h ~ f 1r e r ~~n a p p e . lr e u to r e f ic-ct r ’ ’u a

trust , with loadings by Confide nce and Trust In Suh ord1rat ~ s ( . ~~8) and In th~•

Leader (.50).

Ag~re~ at i o n of p s v ch o l o~ i c a l c l i m a t e s c o r es . As d i scussed e a r l i e r , the- use

of aggregated (I.e., mean) p s y ch o l o 7 i c al c l i m at e scores to d e s c r i b e o rgan iza -

tional and/or subunit climates required an emp irical demonstration that various

criteria were met. Suggested analyses included the demonstration of differences

in perceptions across different situations , an assessmen t of the reliability of

the aggregated score , and a demonstration of the construct validity of the aggre—

gated score. In the present stud y, these analyses were conducted for each of

the six psychological climate components. A subset of the Navy sample was used

and aggregated scores were constructed for 223 divisions , 97 departments , and

20 ships (3 ,693 Individuals). Only divisions with psychological climate data

for six or more persons were included in these and subsequent analyses.

Between group differences in perception were assessed by means of separate1

one—way ANOVAs computed for each climate component , where each division repre-

sented a treatment cell and individual scores on the component were the dependent

variable. Similar analyses were run for departments and ships. All resulting

! ratios were significant.

-‘ ~~~‘-~ As described In Ebel (1951), the ANOVA results were converted to intraclass

correlation coefficients as estimates of statistical power and interrater reli—

ability (McNeniar , 1969). These values were relativ ly low, however. Median

intraclass correlations were approximately .12 for divisions, .06 for departments,

P and .02 for ships . Only the values for divisions were within the range of power

estimates reported in earlier studies . The reliability of each aggregated (mean)

sco -e was then w~asured by applying Spearman—Brown (S. B.) estimates to the intra—

class correlation, where the harmonic mean for the appropriate organizational

— - - . ~~ — -‘.-~~~-.~~~~~ --

Psy c1olo ,~ica1 C] imat’-

level (e.g., division) ~a s u - ed as the a d j u s t i ng f a c t o r ( G u i l f o r d , 195 4 ) . The

resulting estimates wore cono~~crably higher , with medians of approxim ately .68

for divisions and .71 f o r d e p a r t n r n t s and s h ip s .

The S. B. estimates Indicated stability for the aggregated scores , but

appeared to be somewhat fallible indicators of perceptual agreeme nt where larger

sample sizes were involved (e.g., departments and ships). This conclusion was

further supported when d e p a r t m e n t context and s t r uc t u r e measures were compared

with division context and structure scores (see Table 5). Department scores were

added to the appropriate division data records (i.e., all divisions within a

department received the same department score) and correlated with division

scores (n — 205 divisions). Except for size and the two configuration variables ,

relationships were low or nonsignificant, indicating considerable Intradepartment

heterogeneity for context and structure measures. In other words , the majority

of department context and structure scores did not appear to meaningful ly

describe their respective divisions. Such results coincided with the information

provided by the intraclass correlations (rather than the S. B. estimates) that

departments (and ships) consisted of relativel y heterogeneous subunits.

Insert Tables 5 and 6 about here

The meaning of the aggregated score was further addressed by exploring rela-

tionships of psychological and subunit climate scor~s with various situational ,

individua l, and position variables . Based on the results described above and

p because divisions were the most homogeneous subunits in term s of technology ,

function, personnel composition , etc., the remainder of the study focused on the

division as the most meaningful organizational subunit. Thus, the division was

P the highcst level of organizational subunit used in the remaining anal yses and

-—~~~~~~~~ —“~~~~~~~ — . —~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

P s y r h o l n ;~~ca ] Cl f r a t r

psychologica l clima t ’ scores ~ ‘r e ac~g r e n a t e d o n l y to t he d i v i s i o n l e v e l .

Corre1a~ es of rnv~~~~~~i cal c lI- ~’ate . Correlations with psychological cli-

mate were based on a sanpie of 3,726 sailors for whom all data were available.

No differences were found bet~-een the total sample and this reduced samp le in

terms of psychological clim ate , indiv idual resource , or position variable scores.

Each man In a particular division was assigned that division ’s context and struc-

ture scores and these scores were correlated with his Individual scores (see

Table 6). In the Interests of brevity, only significant correlations were

reported (complete analyses are available from the authors).

Relationships between psychological climate and division context and struc—

ture scores were low and generally nonsignificant. Only the Workgroup Coopera-

tion, Friendliness , and Warmth component showed any consistent pattern of rela-

tionship with these measures and then only in terms of low correlations with size—

related variables (e.g., size, span of control , number of levels). The pattern

of relationships between psychologl’al climate and individual resource and posi—

Ption variables was somewhat stronger, although corielations were again low except

for the Job Challenge, Importance , and Variety me.-~sure. This component was posi-

tively related to age, time in the Navy, hierarchical level, number of men super—p

vised , number of other training schools, and self—esteem , bvt was negatively

related to assignment to unskilled jobs. Such corr dations appeared to reflect

an increased responsibility and challenge associated with promotion. Individual

resources and position variables were also related to Workgroup Cooperation,

Priendliness, and Warmth and to Professional and Organizational Esprit. Higher

scores on the latter component were generally found for the older, less educated

sailors in the relatively unskilled jobs.

The major interest of the present study was identify ing relationships with

p psychological and division climate. Some knowledge of relationships among the

- - —--——- -

~~ . ~~~~~~ - -r~~~ ~~~~~~~— _ ---— — - -

Psycliol cigi cal Cl i r a te

_i I

v a r i ous n o n c l i m a t e d o m a i n s wa s e s s e n t i a l to f u l l y i n t erpr- t these flnd ir ; ;s , how-

ever. In t h e i n t e r e s t s of b r e v i t y , such n o n c l i n a t e I n t e r r e l a t i o ns h i p s are pre-

sented In summary only. In general terms: (a) relationships among div ision

context variables were generally low or nonsignif icant; (b) correlations among

anatomical structure measures were generally significant b u t m o d e r a t e , opera-

tional structure measures represented uncorrelated components , and relationships

between anatomical and operatfonal structure me’sures were general l y low and

nonsignificant; (c) with the exception of the four job—type measures , relation-

ships among the position variables were significant and greater than ~±.40!; (d)

relationships among individual resource measures were low but significant; (e)

relationships between division context and structure measures tended to be low,

although nonroutlne technology and higher rated personnel resources were assocI-

ated with smaller division sizes and low role formalization; (f) relationships

between position variables and Individual resource measures were low to moderate ,

where significant relationships among tenure, number of men supervised , hierar-

chical level , and training reflected general patterns of promotion In the mili-

tary; and (g) relationships of division context and structur~ with position var—

tables and individual resource measures tended to be low or nonsignificant,

al though d ivisions with higher levels of technology tended to have more

intelligent men in more highly trained job specialties.

p Correlates of division climate. In order to study the correlates of divi-

sion climate, a typology of division climate was de~eloped and the resulting

climate types were correlat ed with the nonclisiate variable domains . The division

P climate typology was obtained by clustering divisions with similar profiles on

the six division climate scores . The profile analysis was simplified , however ,

because the divisions represented certain existing (formal) types based on homo-.

ge-ieity of functio n or task. Twelve types were represented (e.g., Navigation ,

I~ _- —~~-~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - -~~------ — —,-—-...-.-—-- —~~~~~—-~.--—_______________

- -

Psycholog ical Clima te

32

Deck Maintena nce , Electror. Ics , Communication , etc.) and divisions within each

type tended to have similar climate profiles (e.g., the climate profiles for all

Deck Maintenance divIs~ens across the 20 ships were similar). Furthermore , the

vectors of mea n division climate scores , were visibly similar for some of the

12 functional types. Thus, it appeared that the functional types might be

further collapsed on the basis of similarities In climate score profiles.

Both an a priori grouping and a hierarchical clustering of the 12 functional

types (Ward & Hook , 1963) suggested seven meaningful climate clusters (a separate

hierarchical clustering of the 223 separate divisions corroborated this conclu—

sion) . Finally , a multiple discriminant analysis (MDA) was conducted with the

seven clusters as partitioning variables and the division climate scores (n =

223) as dependent variables. The MDA results supported the division climate

typology and demonstrated that 78% of the variance in the discriminant space was

attributable to between group differences , based on significant discriminant

functions and the multivariate analog of w2 (Ta tsuoka , 1970). An average of 727.

of the climate score variance was included in the discriminant space.3 Thus,

the seven division climate types appeared to provide a meaningful basis for the

remaining analyses addressing division climate.p

Each of the seven division clusters was described and named on the basis

of differences between the climate mean of that division cluster and the grand

maans for all divisions (see Table 7). For example, Cluster I was named “Coop-

erative and Friendly” because of comparatively high scores on Workgroup Cooper-

ation , Friendliness, and Warmth. This cluster consisted of divisions concerned

with navigation , antisubmarine warfare , and gunne ry duties. Cluster 2, labelled

“Conflicting and Ambiguous” because of a comparatively higher mean on Conflict

and Ambiguity and a low mean score on Job Standards, was comprised of divisions

concerned with missiles, nuclear weapons, fire control for the weapons system ,

Psychological Cli mate

and divisions concerned with maintenance and repair of t ’r c sh i p ’s electrical ,

air conditioning, and life support systems . The means for Cluster 3 (Communica-

tions and Intelli gence Divisions) suggested an uninvolving atmosphere which had

relatively high , rigidly adhered to job standards. This cluster was Interpreted

as an “Alienating and Constrictive” division climate. Cluster 6 (Boilers and

Main Propulsion Divisions) had a lower mean on the workgroup climate component ,

connoting an “Uncooperative and Unfriendly ” climate. Comparatively lower means

on Job Chall enge, Importance , and Variety, Leadership Facilitation and Support ,

and Workgroup Cooperation , Friendliness , and Warmth suggested that Cluster 5

~Deck Maintenance) describ ed a “Monotonous, Cold , and Unsupportive” climate.

Insert Table 7 about here

Cluster 6 reflected jobs that were challenging, important , multifaceted ,

and flexible, in conjunction with a cooperative, friendly, and warm workgroup

atmosphere. Such a profile suggested an enriched and warm work environment.

A low mean on organizational esprit, however , indicated that these divisions

(primarily concerned with sophisticated electronics) did not provide opportun-

ities that compared favorably with other organizations, especially civilian occu—

pations. This cluster was therefore labelled “Enriched and Warm Work Environment!

Organizationally Uninvolving.” In contrast, Cluster 7 (Supply Division) sug—p

gested a climate that was “Organizationally Involviflg” with high esprit and iden-

tification with the Navy and the ship, connoting a climate that compared favor—

ably with alternatives. As discussed later, however, both Clusters 6 and 7

appeared to be influenced by the nature of their personnel and may thus be

somewhat idiosyncratic .

• Relationships between division climate and other variable domains were exam—

— -~~

-—~~~

-.~~-— — -

~-~~

__ _.: - . • —— —— —- —

~~~~~~~---

Psycholo~;1ca l Clim ate

m e d by means of an MDA. The seven division clim ate clusters provid e! t~~e ;~~r—

titloning variables , and divi~~ion con tex t , structure , and aggr ega t d ~~sit1’n

variables and individual resource scores served as depen dent variab~~- s. Indivi-

dual resource and position variables were aggregated only if the resu~ tin~ scor es

appeared meaning ful at the division level of analysis. Such aggregated var iables

were viewed as situational attributes representing the personnel composition of

the division. Finally, whenever variab1 es evidenced substantial conceptual ano

statistical overlap (e.g., age and tenure), only one was included .

The resulting MDA produced four significan t discritninant functions (2~

< .05 ,

Bartlett ’s V statistic). The first function accounted for 56.09% of the between

cluster vari anc e, the second 21.61%, the third 11.47%, and the fourth 5.077..

The multivarlate analog of u2 for the four functions was .91. (Separate MDAs

for each of the nonclimate domains provided w2s of .38 for division context , .67

for division structure , .62 for aggregated position variables, and .55 for

aggregated individua l resources.)

The first function discriminated most clearly between Clusters I and 6 and

Clusters 4 and 5. Enriched and Warm Work Environment/Organizationally Uninvolv—

jug climates and, to a lesser extent, Cooperative and Friendly climates had a

~~re intelligent and highly trained personnel composition than the Monotonous,

Cold , and Unsupportive , and to some extent, Uncooperative and Unfriendly climates.

In addition , the latter two climates were more specialized (i.e., more jobs per

division) than the enriched and warm climates, but less specialized than the

Cooperative and Friendly climates. These results were consistent with the char—

p acteristics of t’ie divisions comprising the climate clusters; for example, Elec-

tronics and Navigation Divisions required advanced, technical training, while

Dsc’~ Maintenance , Boilers , and Machinery Divisions did not require the same

cotbination of technical training and personnel intelligence.

Psycholog ical C lim ate

3 -~

The second d i sc r i m f n ~ nt function m o st clearl y identified the Org ani zation—

ally Involving climate cluster. A defining variable for this function was tenure ,

partly reflecting the somewhat Idiosyncratic nature of the cluster. The divi-

sions comprising this cluster (Supply) contained several foreign—born individuals

who had enlisted in the Navy as stewards because such assignment was seen as

preferable to organizations and careers available In their own country . Thus,

an above average percentage of these Individuals had reenlisted . Supply Divi-

sions were also the most structurally specialized of the divisions studied , pro-

viding a variety of personnel services (ship’s store , food service , barber ,

P laundry , etc.),

The third discriminant function differentiated most distinctly between the

Uncooperative and Unfriendly and the Monotonous , Cold , and Unsupportive climates.

The latter (I.e., Deck Maintenance Divisions) had comparatively flatter division

configurations , larger spans of control , less formalization of roles, and better

work equipment than the former. Moreover, Deck Maintenance Divisions had the

lowest average tenure and training of all divisions studied.

The last discriminant function indicated that a Conflicting and Ambiguous

division climate (e.g., Missile and Nuclear Weapons Divisions), and to a lesser

extent an Enriched ~“~d Warm Work Environwent/Organizationally Uninvolving climate ,

bad comparatively higher degrees of interdependence with other divisions, more

nonroutine and complex technologies, higher ratings of personnel, and more formal

education, tower overall standardization of proced~res and a higher emphasis

on morale were also indicated. These latter variables, however, had

nonsignifican t univar iate V ratios and thus were interpreted with caution.

In su~~ary, the psychological climate measures had generally low relation—

ships with variables reflecting division context and structure as well as m di—

p vidual resources and position , although many of these variables differentiated

Psycholog ical Clima te

among the d ivision clImat e clusters. This contrast in results reflected both

theoretical and statistical factors discussed later.

Prediction of division c’-iteria. Divi sion per f orm ance r a t i n gs evi d ence d

a moderate positive leniency (range = 3 to 9, M 6.34 to 7.41 , SD = 1.10 to

1.60). Also indicated were few requests for transfer and infrequent problems

with drugs and alcohol. Except for the safety rating , criterion intercorrela—

tions were significant , positive , and of moderate magnitude (see Table 8). While

not indicating large amounts of “halo,” the correlations did suggest the possi-

bility of a more parsimonious composite criterion. Thus, a unit—weighted crite—

non composite excluding safety (ci = .94) was constructed for subsequent validity

analyses.

For cross—validation purposes, the 160 divisions with criterion data were

p randomly separated into two subsamples (after stratification by ship type and

number of divisions with data); all divisions from a ship were placed in the same

subsample. This provided “true” cross—validation samples (ns 84 and 76) where

the two subsamples were independent (i.e., from different ships).

Initial predictive validities for each subsample are reported in Table 9.

Predictors included all the division context, structure, and aggregated position

and individual resource variables employed in the MDA for division climate.1’

Validities for these variables were calculated as product—moment correlations.

A somewhat more complex procedure was needed to calculate the validities for the

seven division climate clusters. The validity coefficient for the climate clus-

ters was based on a unit—we ighted regression procedure (cf. Wainer, 1976; Wainer

1 Thissen, 1976) whereby a correlation was computed between a unit—weighted corn-p

posite of the division climate clusters (represented by dummy variables) and the

criterion. The formula f or the procedure was presented by Cui]ford and Fruchter

(1973) and James and Elltson (1973). It is important to note that the initialp

~~~~~~- ,-_---~~

.-- -- ~~~~~~ -. - - -- --—

Psycholog ic~il Cl im at e

3/

and cross—validities were identical because of the use of unit— ’-’eights and t he

inclusion of all climate clusters when calculating the val idities.

Insert Tables 8, 9, and 10 about here

The cross—validities for the nonclitnate domains are reported in Table 10.

These cross—validities were calculated as follows. Only variables In each domain

which had significant initial validities in the other sam ple were included in

these analyses. Predictors were standardized , combined into a unit—weighted

• composite, then correlated with the criterion. For example, the cross—validity

for division context for Sample B was based on Emphasis on Mcrale , condition of

equipment, ra ting of personnel , and availability of funds and supplies for work

needs, all of which had significant initial validities in Sample A. The overall

cross—validity reported in Table 10 was based on all variables used to compute

the cross—validities for the reported subsample.

The cross—valid ities (also predictive validities) were, with one exception ,

significant and at least moderate in magnitude . Among the nonclimate domains ,

the variables of greatest interest were those with significant predictive valid—

ities for both subsamples. For example, the context variables with significant

validities for both samples were the rating of personnel and the availability

of funds and supplies for work. In terms of personnel composition , all the aggre-

gated individual resource and position variables exeept tenure contributed to

prediction in both samples. The relationship between the climate clusters and

the criterion was assessed in terms of the mean criterion scores for each climate

cluster . The Enriched and Warm Work Environment/Organizationally Uninvolving

and Cooperative and Friendl y climates received the highest criterion scores,

while the Monotonous, Cold, and Unsupportive climate received the lowest.

-a____________________________ - -

~~‘- p p .crfl ~~~~~~~ .._ P _ - — — -~~~~~ — - ~ - - - —- —- — -—

Psycholog ical C limit e

Discussion

The discussion of results is presented in terms of four basic issues: (a)

the development of a measure of psychological climate , (b) the construct valid-

ity of the psychological climate measure , (c) the use of aggregated psychological

climate scores to describe subunit and organizational climates , and (d) the con-

struct validity of subunit climate measures. When interpreting the findings of

the present study , however, certain idiosyncracies of the U. S. Navy sample

should be noted . For example , decisions regarding personnel selection , training,

assignment, promotion , pay, and so forth tended to be outside the immediate juris—

diction of the ship. Enlistment contracts were for designated terms, with high

turnover after the first enlistment. Further , although the data demonstrated

variance in many aspects of context: and structure, ships have rela tively for mal ,

mechanistic structures compared to many other organizations; many context and

Structure characteristics are determined by levels of command above the ships.

Such factors might dampen relationships among structure , context, individual

resources , position variables , and subunit and psychological climate, thus

reducing generalizability of results.

Development of a psychological climate measure. In regard to the psycho].og—

ical climate measure , findings were strengthened by the use of multiple , diver—

gent samples (i.e., military/civilian , managerial/nonmanagerla l , large/small

•ubunits). For example , assumptions that psychological climate represented

multid imensional descriptions of the situation and that a common core of dimen—

•ions applied across organizations were supported by the similarity of components

across samples. Such similarity also argued for component stability and

generalizability .

The components themselves appeared psychologically meaning ful , were lacking

) in st att~ tical complexity, and reflected distinctions among various organiza—

•

—- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -.-.~~~.

——- --—-- - ________

Psych olr~~ical Cli m at e

tional levels of explamat ion. One component described task and role cha r a cter —

istics; a second reflecte’i workgroup aspects; a third described leadersh1~ char-

acteristics ; and two ccm~ onents generally reflected subunit and organizational

attributes. Such results suggested that work environment perceptions are not

en tirely global or diffuse but reflect organizational and conceptual-distinctions.

This interpretation was bolstered by other findings (Mowday, Porter , & Dubin ,

1974) that workgroup perceptions (and attitudes) differed from those about the

total organization. Conversely, components reflecting the total organization

also had load ings by variables describing leader and task or role characteristics.

Such findings were consistent with the hypothesis that characteristics at more

macro organizational levels were linked to individual experience in terms of

influences on more immediate aspects such as those of the task, role , and so

forth.

The psychological climate components generally reflected dimensions reported

in the literature. Workgroup Cooperation, Friendliness, and Warmth was similar

to dimensions labelled Team Spirit (Meyer, 1968), Distant vs. Close Working Rela-

tionships (Thornton , 1969), Intimacy (Friedlander 6 Margulis, 1969) , Social Rela-

tions (Pritchard & Karasick, 1973), and Friend ly—Unfriendly (Lawler et a].., 1974).p

Conflict and Ambiguity was reflected as conflict by Litwin and Stringer (1968),

Schneider and Bartlett (1968), and Pritchard and Karasick (1973), while ambiguity

was reflected (although negatively) by structure (Campbell et al., 1970; Litwin

& Stringer, 1968; Pritchard 6 Karasick, 1973; Schnefder & Bartlett, 1968) , Organ-

izationa l Clarity (Meyer , 1968), Normative Contro l (Payne & Pheysey, 1971), Effec—

tive Organizational Structure (Waters et al., 1974), and Efficiency and Clarity

of Purpose (Thornton, 1969). Similar comparability was evident for Job Challenge ,

Importance, and Variety and Professional and Organizational Esp r it .

p Leadership Facili tation and Support , however , was not as directly general—

— ~~r — ,- — - — ‘.- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _—

Psycho I r~~ I -a 1 Cl irn;i to

40

izable , although most studies incorporated one or more leadership d imensions.

For example , Schneider and Bartlett (1968) mentIoned Managerial Support , and

Car~pbe ll et a l. (1970) discussed Conside r a t i o n , Wa r m t h , and S u p p o r t . Wa te r s

et al. (1974) mentioned Close, Impersonal Supervision and Employee Centered Ori-

entation , whereas Friedlander and Margulis (1969) mentioned four separate leader—

ship factors——Aloofness , Production Emphasis, Trust , and Consideration . Closer

inspection 1 however , revealed that most of the factors from these other studies

were represented as a priori composites in the present study, indicating that

the Leadership Facilitation and Support component might reflect a more abstract

P variable representing relationships among a number of aspects of leadership.

In sum, the psychological climate instrument yielded components that ap-

peared to be: ~~~~~‘ conceptually meaningful , (b) internally consistent , (c) gen-

eralizable acr ss organizations and organizational levels , and (d) compatible

with the existing literature. Other indications of the construct validity of

the instrument were less clear , however.

Construct validity of the psychological climate measure. It was suggested

earlier that psychological climate represents an individual processing of situ-

ational data and thus reflects both the situation and the individual. The pres-

ent study, however, generally failed to identify significant relationships be-

tween psychological climate and subunit context and structure , although differ—

ences in pny cholo~,ical climate were found across divisions. A partial explana—

tion for such findings might lie in the “level of explanation” argument (cf.

Campbell et al. , 1970; Indik , 1 968; Payne & Pugh , 1976) that influences of con-

text and/or structure upon climate perceptions are mediated by organizational,

subunit , or group “processes” such as leadersh ip , communication, workgroup in-

teraction, and reward mechanisms. Thus, psychological climate should be more

highly related to process variables than to context or struc~’tre . in the pres—p

Psycho logical C I i va t~-

~$ I

ent study, altho ugh percepri~ ns of such processes were reflected by ma n y of t h e

a priori composites i n the questionnaire , psychological climate was viewed as

involving a psycholog ical processing, abstracting, and struct uring of these per—

ceptions and is thus somewhat removed from direct ties to context and structure.

Such reasoning suggested that the influences of subunit context and structure

upon psychological climate are indirect so that such relationships would not be

expected to be as large as relationships with more directl y linked variables

(note the fourth general hypothesis).

The sane reasoning suggested that position variables and individual re—

sources should be more highly related to psychological climate because different

positions are expected to have different organizational experiences and thus

different psychological climates. Moreover, it has been suggested that indivi—

dual resources influence entry into various positions (Herman , Dunham , & Hulin ,

1975; Newman, 1975). Such expectations received but limited support. For exam-

ple , Job Challenge, Importance, and Variety evidenced positive but moderate re—

lationships with correlates of hierarchical level (e.g., age, training, tenure ,

men supervised , and self—esteem) and reflected perhaps the responsibility and

challenge inherent in supervisory positions as well as the trend for men in more

technical jobs to be promoted more rapidly. Other correlations between psycho-

logical climate, position variables, and individual resources were considerably

lower and often nonsignificant ; however, although certain patterns were indicated .

For example, more technically trained, intelligent sailors tended to perceive

more cooperation, friendliness, and warmth in their workgroup, while at the same

time perceiving the Navy as not providing careers that compared favorably withI,

civilian orga nizations .

The suggestion that position variables accounted for more psychological

climate variance than individual resources (Herman et al., 1975; Newman, 1975)I,

— - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ .. -. . ~~~-- ~~~ —--~~ — — — -—-

l’s’i h ’i u , l e d C I j r : I a t c

was general: n e t sup :~: r t e d . ( e r r e l i r i o n s ‘ i t h p s y c h n l o~, i c a i ir ~~t c were sim i—

b r in p a t em and i~~~, - i d e f~~r ho t ii ~a t s 1 v a r i a b l e s . I is I i k c l v , heweve r ,

tha t such f m d i n~ s r e f l e e t ed c er t a in samp le c h a r i c t c r i s t i c s as w~- 1 I as t h e f a c t

that pos i t i on va r i ab l~~ r e p re s e n t m u t u a l i n f l u e n c es by situational and individual

characteristics. For e x a r p i & , p r o m o t i o n to a higher level requires a specified

time in pay grade and thus a minimum age. In a similar vein , selection for var-

ious types of training de7ended upon the attainment of certain test scores.

Finally, the sample included enl y enlisted personnel , thus limiting the variance

on some variables , espec .allv those related to position.

In sum , ind icatiens of the construct validity of the psycholog ical climate

measure were , at “~st , mixed . The similarity of components across samples and

the resemblance to cPmp -~nents reported by other studies supported assumptions

of validity, but the low magnitude of correlations with situational , individual ,

and positional measures remains troublesome . The patterns of significant corre-

lations were generally as hypothesized , but most were too low to produce clear

evidence of construct validity for the measure. While the level of explanation

concept provides a partial rationale for such findings , many questions remain

unanswered about the nature of the linkages between ind ividual perceptions as

represented by the psychological climate components and the relatively ,bjective

aspects of the situation reflected by the structural and context measures.

Aggregation of psychological climate scores. Indications of construct Va—

tidity for the aggregated climate scores were generally stronger than for the

individual scores in t erms of both the magnitude of correlations and the predic-

tive validities against division performance criteria. The level of explanation

argument again provided a possible rationale for such findings insofar as divi-

sion climate represented a situationa l attribute and was thus expected to be more

highly related to other situational measures (i.e., division context and struc—

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - — — - - - —.---—-~~~~~ —- — ---- --—---

Ps v ( h I , l o~’ I I ~I de

P t u r e ) than was p s y c h o l o g i~ a l el i n i at e , w h i c h wa~ ind iv i d u a l I n n a t u r e . On the

other hand , t h e use o f aC~~re~ ated (mean) individual scores t e represen T d i v i s i e n

climate part ialled out variance due to individual differences In p e r c e p t i o n and

P raised questions of aggregation bias. Thus , justification of such aggregation

was of major importance.

Both the aggregation of psychological climate to the division level and the

decision to limit aggregation to that level were based on several factors , in—

cluding: (a) the apparent predictive and construct validity of the division

climate scores, (b) the apparent inappropriateness of higher levels of exp lana-

tion for interpreting aggregated psycholog ical climate scores , Cc) the low in—

dices of perceptual agreement for departments and ships, and (d) the lack of

representativeness for many of the department context and structure variables.

With respect to perceptual agreement, estimates of variance attributable to or-

ganizational units (e.g., intraclass correlations) appeared to be more meaning-

ful than Spearman—Brown estimates adjusted for the average number of raters per

organizational unit . The Spearman—Brown estimates for departments and ships were

substant ial in spite of findings of heterogeneous division context , structure ,

personnel compositions , and climates. Thus, while the Speamman-Brown formula- P

indicated the reliability of the mean score, it appeared misleading when used

— as an estimate of perceptual or situational homogeneity.

Construct validity of subunit climate measures. An important index of theP

validity of the division climate scores was the pattern of relationships of the

seven division climate clusters with both the potential correlates and with the

division performance criteria. In terms of such relationships, Monotonous , Cold ,P

and Unsupportive climates were associated with large spans of control and large

division sizes, low interdependen ce with other divisions , relatively routine and

noncomplex technologies, and lower average in tell igence , education , training,

—~.--~~~-- -~~~~ — - - -

—- ____

Psy cho I ogi cal C l i r n a t e

46

and t tni r e . Furth& rmc re , the d i v i s i on i n t h i s c lu s t e r ( e . g . , De ck M i i n t e n a n c e )

had t h e lowest o v e ra l l r a t i n g s on t h e c r i t e r i a . S i m i l a r l y , U n c o o p e r a t i v e and

Unfr iendly cljma tts (e..~., Boiler Divisions ) were relate d to comparativel y large

spans of con t ro l , t a l l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s , low i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e , and low average ten-

ure , education , and training. Criterion ratings also tended to be below average .

In contrast , Enriched and Warn Work Environment/Organizationa lly Uninvolving

climates (Electronics Divisions) tended to have comparativel y nonroutine , complex

technologies, flat configurations , low specialization , small division sizes , and

high average intelligence , education , and training (but not tenure). Cooperative

and Friendly climates (e.g., Navigation Divisions) had the lowest average span

of control of all climates studied and were further characterized by high

averages on intelligence and training as well as above average criterion ratings.

P - Such results at least partially supported the hypothesis that comparatively

large subunit siz~~~and~ tall configurations were related to uncooperative and

unfriendly workgroup interrelationships (Payne & Mansfield , 1973; Porter & Lawler,

1965) , unsupportive leadership , communication difficulties (Payne & Pheysey ,

1971) , reduced group involvement , and less harmonious interpersonal relationships

(Pheysey , Payne, & Pugh, 1971). Also supported were hypotheses that the above

forms of anatomical structure , when combined with routine technology and special-

ization (also related to size and tall configuration), were associated with low

task complexity, variety, challenge , and importance (Hackinan & Lawler, 197 1 ;P

Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Woodward , 1965), monotony (Blood & Hulin, 1967; Hulin

& Blood , 1968); and reduced autonomy (Forehand & Gilmer, 1964). Finally, cli-

mates related to higher levels of anatomical structure (i.e., large size , tallP

configuration, and high specialization), and, to a lesser extent routine technol-

ogy , tended to be associated with low subunit criterion scores , whereas the oppo-

site wa s true for climate s reflectin g low levels of anatomical structure and

- — — — -~~~ - fl — - - - ~~~~~~~ - ______ - —

P s y c h l~~~ i i a l C l f l i t

4r )

nonroutIn~ technolo~;v.

Of further interest were findings that small spans of control , often link ed

to mechanistic structures , were associated with warn and enriched climates ,

whereas large spans of control , often linked to organic structures , were associ-

ated with cold and monotonous climates . Such findings reflected the nature of

the divisions comprising the above climates . For example , divisions with warm

and enriched climates tended to be more technologicall y advanced , smaller , and

comprised of individuals at higher pay grades. These results appeared to support

suggestions that appropriate spans of control depend upon such factors as tech-

nology, job, and personnel characteristics and that no one span of contro l is

ideal for all situations (cf. House & Miner, 1969).

With respect to the rd~maining climate clusters , Conflicting and Ambiguous

climates (e.g., Missiles, Nuclear Weapons) were characterized by comparatively

high interdependenc ies with other divisions and by nonroutine , complex technol-

ogies. A partial explanation of these results was provided by Corwin (1969) who

noted that increased interdependencies and interactions among organizational

units increased the nrobability for organizational conflict , and by House (1971)

who hypothesized that nonroutine jobs tended to be inherently ambiguous. On the

other hand , Conflicting and Ambiguous climates were not associated with such

measures as low role formalization, decentralized decision making, and low stan-

dardization , as suggested by Hickson (1966), House (1971), House and Rizzo

(1972a), and Pheysey et al. (1971). In fact , a high level of standardization

was indicated for these divisions .

Alienating and Constrictive climates (e.g., Communications and Intelligence

Divisions ) were most closely related to personnel compositions with high average

scores on intelligence and training, although small division size and low special—

ization were also indicated . In contrast , the Organizationally Involving cli—

- - — —~ - — —~~~-.

~~~~~_ . . — .-

Psyeli ’ I ~‘gic~ ( - - -~

mates (Supp ly D i v i s i e n s ) cctis stud of personnel with longer avera;y~ t c n n r t b u t

below average traini t .: n~ i n t e l l i g en c e . Large d i v i s i o n s i ze s , h i gh s p € — t ~~l i z a —

tion , high role ~orra liia: ion , routine technolog ies , and below wi-rage criterion

scores were also indicated . These results , when combined with those for the

Enriched and Warm Work Erivirontnent/Organlzatlonally Uninvolving climate cluster ,

indicated that involving climates were positively related to routine technologies

and high levels of anatomical structure , whereas uninvolving climates were re-

lated to nonroutine technologies and low levels of anatomical structure. Certain

aspects of personnel composition are important in interpreting these findings ,

however. That is, uninvolving climates failed to provide relatively intelligent

and trained individuals with careers that compared favorably to civilian occupa—

tions, while the opposite appeared to be the case for involving climates (which,

as noted earlier, included several foreign-born individuals for whom the Navy

provided a comparatively advantageous career). Such points further emphasized

the need to consider personnel compositions when interpreting relationships

among measures of subunit climate, context , and structure (Payne & Pugh, 1976) .

In Summary , it appeared that the division climate clusters (and thus the

division climate measures) were related to both situational and personnel char—

acteristics in predictable and meaningful ways. Except for the measures of oper-

ational structure , relationships were generally as hypothesized . Moreover , the

5— to 7—month predictive validities against div ision performance measires were

quite encouraging given the low magnitude of such relationships normally reported

in the literature . Such findings appeared to argue for the construct validity

of aggregated psychological climate scores used to describe subunit climate when

the subunits are relatively homogeneous.

Implications. The present study had a number of implications for future

research involving psychological and/or subunit climate. Among these was the

4 . . - -_--- -~~~~~~~~~— -- - -.- - - .-—-

l’sy i ho lo~ I en C l i r’~;J

A 7

find I n~ of a common t . ~: I t : n . i ons t h a t c h a r a c t e r I z u l m d iv i no 1 ~~~~~~~ i o n n

(psychological clir.a t ..-~ i - russ diverse s i t u a t i o n s . S u c h r e s u l ts i m p l i e d t h a t

a parsimonious set of di ensions may desc ribe diff erent situations , although

additional , more specific dimensions might be needed to describe certain idio—

syncracies of each situation . Also important was the finding that the use of

aggregated psychological climate scores or profiles of aggregated scores to de—

scribe situational influences was appropr iate only for relativel y homogeneous

subunits and that these tended to be at lower levels of the organization. In

a related vein , it appeared tha t the functiona l type of division was a more im—

portant facet of its climate than~~as the superordinate organization . In other

words, cliniates in similar div isions from different ships were more alike than

were climates in disparate divisions from the same ship. Similar results were

found for context and operational structure. Such findings have numerous m ph-

cations for future organizationa l research and development programs , suggesting

that attention should be focused on relatively homogeneous units rather than

larger subunits and total organizations .

One of the most important findings of this study was that division climate

appeared to provide a meaningful linkage between situational attributes such as

context and structure and subunit criteria. That is, division climate reflected

situational differences that appeared to portray how such measures were opera—

tionalized into situational influences on subunit performance. Regarding psy—

chological clima te, on the other hand , division context and structure appeared

to be several steps removed from individual perceptions and perhaps mediated by

intervening variables such as processes and division climate. Moreover , psycho—p

logical climate appeared to reflect complex relationships among positional and

individual characteristics as well as situational measures. The present study

addressed a number of these relationships, with only partial success. Future

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~‘.-~~~~— - ‘ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

P sv lu 1 o~~i c a l C l i n a t e

48

resea rch is need ed ~~~~- mor e adequately id en t if y sal ieut m di’; idual and ~o si t ion

variables and th i r r los I the format ion of psychologic al cli rate . Such stu-

dies will li kely ben -f it from the inclusion of objectively menu ured process var-

iables to explore relation shi ps with psychological , subunit , and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

climate.

The present study must be viewed as a preliminary step, awai ting additional

investigations with other types of organizations to extablish the generalizabil—

ity of results and the further incorporation of longitudinal designs to provide

a basis for causal interpretation. This study, however , suggested several ap—

p parently fruitful areas for future research regarding conceptual properties of

subunit and psychological climate .

p

p

p

- p

•1___________ -

- ~~~~~~~~~ Z ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

Psycholog ical Cli m ate

4 b

Reference Notes

1. Howe, J. C., & Gavin , J. F. Organizational c l i m a t e : A r e v i e w and

delineation (Technical Report No. 74—02). Fort Collins , CO.: Colorado

State University, Industrial Psychological Association of Colorado , 197 4.

2. Campbell , J. P., & Beaty, E. E. Q~ganizational climate: It ’s measurement

and relationship to workgroup performance. Paper presented at the Meeting

of the American Psychological Association , Washington , D. C., September 1971.

3. Jones , A. P . , James , L. R . , & Ho r nick , C. W. Organizational climate related

to shipboard functioning : A preliminary study (Technical Report No. 73—16).

P Fort Worth, TX.: Texas Christian University, Institute of Behavioral

Research , 1973.

4. Jones , A. P . , James , L. R ., Bruni , 3. R. Hornick , C. W., & Sells, S. B.

P Psychological climate: Dimensions arid relationships (Technical Report No.

75—3). Fort Worth, TX.: Texas Christian University, Institute of Behavioral

Research , 1975.

3. Jones, A. P., & James , L. R. Dimensions of psychological climate among

firemen (Technical Report No. 75—9). Fort Worth , TX.: Texas Christian

University, Institute of Behavioral Research, 1975.

PS

l’sych c-l o’, ’, i c . t l C l i - - - t i

(~)

References

Arvey, R. D., & Hoyle , J. C. A Guttman approach to the develop m ent of

behaviorally based rating scales for systems analv ts and progra—-’r’r/

analysts. Journal of App lied Psycholoj,~~ 1974 , 59 , 61-68.

Bass , B. M., Valenzi , E. R., Farrow , D. L., & Solomon , R. J. Management sty les

associated with organizational , task, personal , and interpersonal

contingencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 720—729.

Blanz, F. , & Chisell i, E. E. The mixed standard scale: A new rating system.

Personnel Psychology, 1972, 25 , 185—199.

blau P. M. Cooperation and competition in a bureau.cracy . American Journal of

SocioloZy,~ 1954 , 59 , 530—535.

Blood , H. R . , & Hu lin , C. L. Alienation, environmental characteristics , and

worker responses. Journal of Applied Psvahology, 1967, 51, 284—290.

Bowers , D. C., & Seashore, S. E. Predicting organizational effectiveness with

a four factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly,

1966, 11, 238—263.

Campbell, 3. P., Dunnette, H. D., tawler, E. B., III , & Weick, K. B., Jr.

Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill ,

1970.

Corvin, R. C. Patterns of organizational conflict. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 1969, 14, 507—519.P

Ebel, R. L. Estimation of the reliability of ratings. Psychotnetrika, 1951, 16,

407—424.

Tarn ., C. F. A predictive study of turnover. Personnel Psychology, 1971, 24,P

311—328.

Flacks , E. Protest or conform: Some social psychological perspectives on

legitimacy . J ournal of Applied Behavioral Science , 1969 , 5 , 127— 149.

-~~ - ‘ . 4 — — .- -r- - - - a S--- --~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ‘

-~~

- --- -- - —- -—- -

Psych o]o~:1ca1 C i i - ~- a t t -

Forehand , C . , & Gilner , B. V. H. Environmental variati on in studies of

organizational behavior. Psychological Bu l letin , 1964 , 62 , 361—382 .

Friedlander , R., 6 Margulis , N. Multiple Impacts of organizational c1ir~ te and

individua l value systems upon job satisfaction . Personnel Psychology, 1969 .

22 , 171—183. -

Gavin , .7. Organizational elimate as a function of personal and organizational

variables. Journal of Applied Psvchoio~ y, 1975 , 60, 135—139.

Guilford , J. P. Psychometric methods. ~;ew York: McGraw-Hill , 1954.

Guilford , .7. P., & Fruchter , B. Fundamental statistics in psychology and

education. New York: McGraw-Hill , 1973.

Guion , R. N . A note on organizational climate. Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance, 1973, 9, 120—125.

Hackman , J. R., & Lawler, E. E., III. Employee reactions to job characteristics.

Journal of _Applied Psychology Monograph, 1971 , 55 , 259—286.

Hackman, 3. R., & Oldham , C. R. Development of the job diagnostic survey.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60 , 159—170

Bage, 3., & Aiken, N. Routine technology, social structure , and organizational

- goals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969, 14 , 366—376.

Ball, D. A theoretical model of career subidentity development in organizational

settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6, 50—76.

Halpin, A. W. Theory and research in administration. New York: MacMillan ,

1966.

Ilalpin, A. W. , & Croft , D. B. The organizational climate of schools. Chicago:

University of Chicago, 1963.

Hannan, H. T. Problems of aggregation. In B. H. Blalock , J r. (Ed. ) , Causal

models in the social sc iences. Chicago: Aldine—Atherton , 1971.

P

________ - — ------— - -“:: ~~~ - — -

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ‘~~~~-,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- _______ - —-—--———-

Psychological C 11na t~

52

Harman , U. H. Modern f a c t o r an a l y s i s (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of

Chicago Press 1 1967.

Hellr iegel , IL , & Slocu~ , 3. W ., J r . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e : Measures ,

research , and contingencies. Academy of Management Journal , 1974, 17 ,

255—280.

Herman , 3. B., Dunham , R. B., & Hulin , C. L. Organizational structure ,

demographic characteristics , and employee responses. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 1975 , 13 , 206—232.

Herman , 3. B., & Hulin, C. L. Studying organizational attitudes from individual

and organizational frames of reference. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 1972, 8, 84—108.

Berzberg, F. Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Press, 1966.

Rickson, D. 3. A convergence in organization theory. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 1966 , Ii , 229—237.

Horn, J. L., & Knapp , J. R. Thirty wrongs do not make a right. Psychologi cal

Bulletin, 1974, 81, 502—504.

House, R. .1. A path—goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 1971, 16, 321—338.

House, Ii. 3., & Kerr , S. Organizational independence , leader behavior , and

4- managerial practices: A replicated study. Journal of Applied Psycho1og,~~

1973, 58, 173-180.P

House, R. 3. , 6 Miner , 3. 3. Merging managemen t and behavior theory : The

imteraction between span of control and group size. Administrative Science

~~arter1y, 1969, 14, 451—464.P

House, R. 3., & Rtzzo, 3. B. Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables

in a model of organizat ional behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance , 1972 , 7 , 467—505. (a)P

— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

- -- _________ - —

Psycholog ical Climat c

53

House , R. 3., & Rizzo , 3. R. Toward the measurement of organizational practices:

Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 972 , 56,

388—396. (b)

Hulin , C. L., & Blood , M. R. Job enlargement , ind ividual differences , and

worker resp onses. ~~ycho 1ogica1 Bulletin , 1968, 69 , 41—55.

indik, B. P. The scope of the problem and some suggestions toward a solution.

In B. P. Indik & F. W. Berrien (Eds.), People, groups, and organizations.

New York: Teachers College Press , 1968.

Inkson, J. H. K., Pugh , D. S., & Hicks on , IL J. Organization context and

structure : An abbreviated replication. Administrative Science Quarterly,

1970 , 5 , 318—329.

m a d , P. 14 . , & Moos, R. H. Psychological environments: Expanding the scope

of human ecology. American Psychologis t , 1974 , 29 , 179—188.

Ittelson , V. H . , Proshansky, H . N ., Rivlin , L. C . , & Vinkel , C. H. An

introduction to environmental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &

Winston , 1974.

James, L. R., & Ellison, B. L. Criterion composites for scientific creativity.

Personnel Psychology, 1973 , 26 , 147—161.

Ja mes, L. R. , & Jone s , A. P. Organizational climate: A review of theory and

research . Psychological Bulletin , 1974, 81, 1096—1112.

James, L. R., 6 Jones, A. P. Organiza tional structure: A review of structural

dimensions and their conceptual relationships with individual attitudes and

behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976, 16, 74—113.

J ames . L. B., Stebbins , N. V., Hartman , B. A., 6 Jones, A. P. An examination

of the relationships between psychological climate and a VIE model for work

motivation. Personnel Psyeho1o~y, in press .

P .

- — —.-.-— — - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~- ?~.—-- --.S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..-.. -—-— - - - — —- —- - -- -— -

Psycho1o~;ica 1 C 1in -~te

54

Jessor , R., & Jessor , S. The perceived environr~ent in behavioral science.

American Behavioral Scient ist , 1973, 16 , 801—828.

Johnston, J. R., Jr. Some personality correlates of the relationships between

individuals and organizations . Journal of Applied Psvchology, 1974, 59,

623—632.

Jones, A. P., James , L. R., 6 Bruni, J. R. Perceived leadership behavior and

~~ployee confidence in the leader as moderated by job involvement. Journal

of App lied Psycholozy, 1975 , 60 , 146— 149.

Kahn , R., Wolfe , D., Quinn , R., Snoek , J., & Rosenthal , R. Organizational

stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity . New York: Wiley, 1964.

Katz, IL , & Kahn , R. L. The social psychology of organizations. New York:

Wiley , 1966.

Katzentneyer , V. C., 6 Stenner , A. .1. Strategic use of random subsample

replication and a coefficient of factor replicability. Educational and

Psychological Measurement , 1975, 35, 19—29.

Kerr , S., & Schriesham, C. Consideration, initiating structure, and

organizational criteria — an update of Korman ’s 1966 review. Personnel

Psychology, 1974 , 27 , 555—568.

La Follette , V . R., 6 Sims, H. P., Jr. Is satisfaction redundant with

organizational climate? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,

1975, 13, 257—278.

Lavler, B. B., TI!, Hall, D. T., & Oldham, C. B. Organizational climate:

Relationship to organizational structure, process, and performance.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 1974, 11, 139—155.

Lichtaan , C. 14. , & Hunt, R. C. Personality and organization theory: A review

of some conceptual literature. Psychological Bulletin , 1971 , 76, 27 1—294.

P

- - - - - ~~~~

T- - - ~- . •. —-

Psycholo gical C l1- - ;itc

Likert , R. New patterns of r a na~ enent. New York: McGraw —H ill , 1961.

Litwak , B. Models of bureaucracy which permit conflict. American Journal rif

Sociology, 1961 , 67 , 17 7—184 .

Lit win , C. , & Stringer , R. Motivation and organizational climate. Boston :

Harvard University Press , 1968.

Locke, E. A. The nature and causes of job satisfaction . In M. D. Dunnette

(Ed.) , Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology . Chicago:

Rand McNally , 1976.

Lord, F. N., & Novick, N. R. Statistical theories of menta l t e s t scores.

Reading, MA.: Add ison—Wesley , 1968.

Mahoney, T. A., & Frost , P. J. The role of technology in models of organizational

effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1974, 11,

122—138.

McNemar, Q. Psychological statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969.

Meyer, H. H. Achievement motivation and industrial climate. In R. Taguiri

p & C. Litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept.

Boston: Harvard University Press, 1968.

Mohr, L. 3. Organizational technology and organizational structure.

P Administrativ e Science Quarterly, 1971, 16, 444—459.

Nowday, B. T., Porter, L. V., 6 Dubin , R. Unit performance , situational factors,

and employee attitudes in spatially separated work units. Organizational

P Behavior and Human Performance, 1974. 12, 231—248.

-

-

~&ilaik, S. A. The foundations of factor analysis. New York: McGraw—Hill , 1972.

Bewman, J. E. Understanding the organizational structure — job attitude

P relationship through perceptions of the work environment. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance , 1975, 14, 371—397.

H.’

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- ——~~~---———_ r . - - - ur-T~~~~_~~~~r_~~~~ — ...- -~~t_ - - -— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -_ _~~~~~ -

Psychological Cl~ r~atc

t 56

Nicewander , W. A., & Wood , D. A. Comments on “A general canonical correlation

index”. Psychological Bulletin , 1974, 81 , 92— 94.

Nicewander, V. A., & Wood D. A. On the mathematical bases of the general

canonical correlation index: Rejoinder to Miller. Psycholog ical Bulletin,

1975, 82, 210—212.

Orr , D. B. A new method for clustering jobs. Journal of App lied Psychology,

1960, 44, 44—49.

Payne , R. L., Finema n, S., & Wall, T. D. Organizational climate and job

satisfaction : A conceptual synthesis . Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance , 1976 , 16, 45—62.

Payne, B. L., & Mansfield , B. Relationships of perceptions of organizational

climate to organizational structure, context, and hierarchical position .

Administrative Science Quarterly, 1973, 18, 515—526.

Payne, R. L., & Pheysey, D. C. C. C. Stern ’s organizatio nal climate index : A

reconceptualization and application to business organizations.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6, 77—98.

Payne, B. L., & Pugh, D. S. Organizational structure and climate. In M. IL

Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychol~~y.

chicago : Rand McNally, 1976.

Perrow, C. A framework for the cunparative analysis of organizations.

American Sociological Review, 1967, 32, 194—209.

Pheysey, D. C., Payne, B. 1.., & Pugh, D. S. Influeflce of structure at

organizational and group levels. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971,

j~, 61—73.

Porter, 1.. V.,, & Lawler, B. B., III. Properties of organization structure in

relation to job attitudes and job behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1965,

~~~~~

, 23—51.

I

- - V .. - ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~- -?- -:--— - - • — ----

- --— —- - - - --— ——-- .—- -

p

Psychological C1ir~ate

$ 57

Porter , L. V ., & Lawler , E. E., III. Managerial attitudes and perfor mance.

Homewood , IL.: Richard D. Irwin , 1968.

Por ter , L. V., Lawler , E. E., I I I , & Hackman , J. B. B e h a v i o r in o r g a n i z a t i o n s .

New York: McGraw—Hill , 1975.

Pritchard , R. D., & Karasick, B. W. The effect of organizational climate on

managerial job performance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior

and Human Performance, 1973, 9, 126—146.

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. B., & Turner, C. Dimensions of

organizational structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1968, 13,

p 65—105.

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. 3., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. The context of

organizational structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969, 14 ,

94—114.

Rizzo, 3. R., House, B. 3., & Llrtzman, S. I. Role conflict and ambiguity in

• complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 150—163.

Schneider, B. Organizat ional climate: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 1975,

28, 447—479. (a)

Schneider, B. Organizational climate: Individual preferences and organizational

realities revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 459—465. (b)

Schneider, B., & Bartlett , C. 3. Individual differences and organizational

climate I: The research plan and questionnaire development. Personnel

- ~iychology, 1968, 21 , 323—333. -

Schneider , B., & Snyder , R. Some relat ionships between job satisfaction and

Or$aiizational climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 318—328.

Schnler , B. S. Role perceptions , satisfaction , and performance: A partial

reconciliat ion. Journal of ~pplied Psychology, 1975, 60, 683—687.

Scott, V. B. Organizational structure. Annual Review of Sociology , 1975.p

____________________________________ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~_~~~~~_ __

-‘ - -— ~ — -

Psychological Cu rate

58

- Sells, S. B. An interaction ist looks at the environment. Am erican Psycholog ist ,

1963, 18, 696—702.

Sells, S. B. The nature of organizational climate. In B. Tagiuri & C. H.

Litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept. Boston :

Harvard University Pr ess, 1968. (a) -

Sells, S. B. General theoretical problems related to organizational taxonomy :

A model solution. In B. P. Indik & F. K. Berrien (Eds.), Peop le, group s ,

and organizations. New York: Teachers College Press, 1968. (b)

Seymour , G., Gunderson, E. IC. E., & Vallacher, R. Clustering 34 occupational

groups by personality dimensions. Educational and Psychological Measurement,

1973 , fl , 267—284.Shav, N. B. Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York:

)IcCrav—Hill, 1971.

Sims, H. P., 6 La Follette, V. An assessment of the Litwin and Stringer

organization climate questionnaire. Personnel Psychology, 1975, 28, 19—38.p

Steers, B. fl. Task—goal attributes , n Achievement , and supervisory performance.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 13, 392—403.

Steiner, I. D. Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press, 1972.p

Stone , E. F., & Porter , L. V. Job characteristics and job attitudes: A

multivariate study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 57—64.

Tatsuoka, N . N . Djscriininant analysis: The study of group differences.

Champaign , IL.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1970.

Taylor, 3. C. An empirical examination of a four—factor theory of leadership

.sin.g smallest space analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human

!.rforaanc e, 1971, 6, 249—266.

— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -w r~~~~~~~— ~~~~~~~

—

Psychological Climate

59

Thornton , C. C., Ill. The dimension s of organizational climate of office

situations. Experimental Publication System, 1969, 2, (Manuscript No.

057A).

Turner, A. N., 6 Lawrence , P. B. Industrial jobs and the s.orkers. Boston:

Harvard University Press, 1965.

Vannoy , 3. S. Generality of cognitive complexity—simplicity as a personality

construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 385—396~

Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley , 1964.

Vainer, H. Estimating coefficients in linear models: It don’t make no

neveraind. Psychological Bulletin, 1976, 83, 213—217.

Wainer, H., & Thissen, D. Three steps toward robust regression. Psychometrika,

1976, 41, 9—34.

Ward, 3. 8., & Hook, N. B. Application of an hierarchical grouping procedure

to a problem of grouping profiles. Educational and Psycho1o~lcal Measuremen t,

1963, 23, 69—81.

Water s, L. IC ., Roach , D. , & Bat h s, N. Organizational climate dimensions and

job—related attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 1974, 27 , 465—476.

Wood, D. Effect of worker orientation differences on job attitude correlates.p

Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 54—60.

Woodvard, .1. Industrial organization: Theory and practice. London: Oxford

University Press, 1965.

-

•

.

_ _- ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ -..~~~ .

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - —~~~~~ ~~- . - - -

Psycholog ical Climate

60

Footnotes

- Support for this project was provided under Office of Naval Research Con-

tracts N00014—72—A—0179—000l , and N00014—76-C—0008, Office of Naval Research

Project RR 042—08— 01—NRI 7O—743 , and by the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Depart-

~~nt of the Navy , under Research Work Unit 51 524 002—5OISDXSF. Opinions

expressed are those of the authors and are not to be construed as necessarily

reflecting the official view or endorsement of the Depart ment of the Navy .

Senior authorship was assigned randomly because thought , work , and writing

responsibility were equally divided .

The authors wish to thank Clifford Abe , Mark C. Butler , Bill Curtis , Robert

L. Ellison, E. K. Eric Gunderson , Joseph Schneider , and John W . Slocum , Jr. for

their helpful suggestions and advice.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Allan P. Jones, Naval Health

Research Center , San Diego , California 92152.

1Tvo points should be discussed regarding the uses of aggregate d scores.

Pirst is the form of aggregation. Most frequently used are mean perception

scores. As discussed by Payne et *1. (1976), the mean score appears to provide

$ legitimate situational descriptor as long as the perceptual referent is the

situation and not the individual. Second, aggregated and individual scores will

be functionally dependent on each other thus limiting the researcher’s ability

to simultaneously investigate psychological and subunit or organizational climate

(cf. Hannan , 1971). -

‘Sampling distributions are not available for coefficients of congruence ,

tlss significance tests could not be conducted. Mulaik (1972), however , pointedp

ut that ft is a ccmmon practice to accept two factors as equivalent if the index

of factor similarity is .90 or greater. On the other hand , this practice , or

subjective criterion, is generally employed only after a least squares approx i—

- — - — -

- ~~~~~

— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - .r~- . ’ -

~~--

~~~- - -

~ - -- -

Psychological Climate

61

mation (i.e., Procrustes rotation) of one factor pattern from the other. Other-

wise , the coefficients of congruence may undere stimate the actual degree of fac-

tor similarity. Due to recent questions regarding Procrustes rotations (Horn

6 Knapp, 1974; Katzenmeyer & Stemmer , 1975), such a procedure was not employed

in the present study . Rather , the component structures prov ided by the varimax

rotation s were compared . Although a point—estimate for equivalence could not

be provided , .90 appeared somewhat conservative.

2The multivariate analog of w2 provides an estimate of the proportion of

variance in the discriminant space attributable to group differences . It is

usually not , however , an index of redundancy or the proportion of variance in

the dependent variables attributable to group differences . Procedures for

assessing redundancy are unclear at the present time (cf. Nicevander & Wood , 1974 ,

1975). Thus, the proportion, .72, reflects the average amount of variance of

the dependent variables accounted for by the discriminant space, based on the

sum of the squared correlations between the dependent variables and the signifi-

cant discriminant functions divided by the number of variables (cf. Nicevander

6 Wood, 1975).5Tb. context scores , the operational structure scores, and the two global

ratings (reques ts for transfer and use of drugs and alcohol) were all provided

by the division head , thus experimental dependence may have contributed to the

predictiv e validities . However , the magnitude of the predictive validitie s for

t)i~ context—globa l rating criteria (same rater) were approximately equal to the

median pr edictive validit ies for the context—perfor mance rating criteria (differ-

met raters). A similar result was also found for operational structure. Thus,

p.r iou. relationships based on experi mental dependenc e were not indicated.

..

-~!~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ - I

• . Psychological Climate

~.., 62

~~._ ‘ _ _

•,~

- — - -

- - -

~~~~~~~~~~~ t~.%_:, ~

~ 1 ~ l i t‘ I !1. 1 2 ~ •2 a

t

$ .t~~~ i ~2 1 1 : I £

2 2 .~~~~• U

$ U • - a~~

*

~ ~ ii ~ ‘~~ ~ .

a . S$ a I ~~I — —

~ 1 ; — $ ~ —

~ 1 1 4 1.) • ; 1 1~• — — —,— .

~ $ 1

~ ~~ 1 ~ • 1 1U ~ • 2 — S

I ~ • a .. . . 1 * 3~~~~~ J ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ II ~~!

2 ! s ~~~~

. i . 1 •~~.1 l ii . — U• $ 1 i ~~~ $ 1

~~ 11

L

: . ~~~~ • 1 2~~~

U

‘I i $ 3 ~~~~~~~~ $ -

• U U

U •- 1 2 1 3 j~~

i a • U1 !1 ! 3t a — : ~~ t a - :— s U • U 1 2

~t•

* ‘~~ ‘ . ‘ . 2 i i ~ I j i 1~ Ij ~ ~1 ~ •1 I S ~~ s~~~I$ — — 5 5.i a 1 !~~~~~~’~~ :~~ 2 — : ~~~~~~3 : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

-

• i U — U~~~~~~

_ _N — .g . —

~~~ ,z ; 2 i 2 : s : . 2 z

~~• • . !• S — — S U — — S2 -

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I. U £ S — U

.1 &

IIa a a a a a a a a a a a ~ a

Ill

•

I ~ I .

p

S ~ .1 ~~* • 3 S Ia

~ 1

: ~~~ ~~1~~~t iI — . aI 1 1 a3 1I

I I I I I h.3 3 * * * * 1 * ~~*a

- — —~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~-~~~~~-~~~

-~~

-- -— ~~~ .-- —-——— - - - __________

Psychological Climate

/ 63

- -

1 1 1

I j H I - i ! !I 5 .- • 1 3

U I I 3~ I~~~~~ I£ I •• U U

82 ~ t~~~~~

$~~

s j i ~ 115. 1• 2

~

j~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ f U J I •I ~~ I !~~~~~

i 1 j ~~~I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~ & • I3 1 •

..: 1- —I i i • ;~~a~~l :

5• 5.SI — — ~~~~~ : i a ~;:•a I

~~~~~ • . aU • S! !s . ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

s I ~~~a . . ~~• ; •~~~~~~~• • _U — S £

IS A _i

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 i ~~~~. 1~~~ 2 !2 1!~~~~ :5. — a• • a 1 1 51 -

! ‘ a ; 1~~ ;:~~~ : t1 . a : ia 4 I & . 4 $

1 2 8•

~

• _ 2 _~~~~~~~12 ~~~~~~~

I.~~~~~~~~~~~

_ — —U .1 a & ~~ 1:~~~~~~~~~~5

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I — ~~~~~~~

. 2 2 1 1 i 1~ •S S N — 5.

2 54 $ U U $ — 5. — U U — • — ii‘U S S

-

~ r I :~~

i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~• • 1 i • 1 j 3~~~~~~~~~~~

1 i~~ 3~~

- • ~ I 3 ~ £~~ r ~ ~ 2 ; 1 8 _ a , •

I i i1

4 ‘3 ~ ~ — 2 ‘3 8 ‘3 2 2 ~ 2 2 2 2 2 ‘2 £ .4 4

~~ - i !~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~S

U U t

~~~~~~~

* NI

I~~~~3 5 . 3 3

~~ ~~! I 2 2 ’ •2 ’ • 2~~

‘ — - j I

- 3 ~ •f ‘I •

I ~ I ~ • - ..i _ I N S

• ‘ U

a a a ia a a a a a a a a a a a‘II I . ,

I 3

-

~,

S i

p I i iS • ‘1

~~~~

I i ~~~

~~~~~~ 8 1• J ‘j a~~~~

1

,I ~• , i ‘U 2 • .2 ~~~~~ ~ I IIJ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I

~ II ~~~~~~• i ’

I I 1 1 ‘~~I ~ I

p J~ ~ I . ~ ~ I} I I 3 3

1 1 1

I,

- . ‘- ~~ 1-~~~~!~~~~~~~, -~~- — ~~ -

-_- -

—.

—~ — ——— -—- ,:__— - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ - ______________________ —

- . Psychological Clinate

64Table 2

— Principal Co.poneuits for Iteas Reflecting Four Proposed Dlmensiona of Operational Structure

Couponent Loadings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 h’Viriables —

Pornslizatics

1. Job responsibilities are defined .85 .75

2. ActivitIes specified In writing .24 .73

3. ~~ ha.is on written co~~mication .79 .72

4. Ma st follow chain of co and - .59 .58

~itaa4ardizati on

S. Procndurea for and fr.qvsncy of inspections .43 .42

• 6. Reporting performance .S7~ .37

7. Procedure, for discipline .4$ .42

S. Initiating .f maettngs and formal activities .74 .37

~~. ~~~enditure of funds .17 .79

10. Training personsel .59 .46

lacowdependenee

• 11. Depend on other units for r.sosrc.s .70 .31

11. Consider other units’ needs is prepari ng .70 .52

mart schedule -

13. .3.1st decision making bearing en act .70 -, .36

Centralization of Decision Making -p

$4. Ostarsins own budgetS .32 .40

• IS. Allocate mark .12 .74

1$. Determis. work scheduls • .20 .74

• 17. Mopt n.w- progren .r policy .67 •

.47-

1$, lit standards of port or..sca .70 .5)

• 1~. let overall goals .77 •‘1

IS. Mta is asking decisions . .66 .52

33. Deserains netted, for g.sls d acttvtti s .48 . U

34

- bii. Proportion .f trace ae~~est.d for • .56; only loadings ‘ ~t.40~ are reported~r p • 315 41,1st... and d.psrtmcet s.

‘ .l ~ •.~.v.. r.flect bitt c.etr. ttz att ea.-

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ —

~~~~~~~~~ ~~ - ~~— _~~~‘— - --—— —- -- - - --_______

__________

Psycho ]o~ ical C]i ri.ite

Tibia 3 65

- - I’4WT’~

~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~‘~~~~~~*~~!! ,~~~~~~~ sl

C lp OI.4,~I L.mJ

No- )II 2 3 4 3 1 a1~~. it....

J.bwl.1.

I. I.) . Mb*pstty .45 —.U .42 .42 5

3. I.~. C.~~1$ci — .03 .39 .3S 4

• 3. J.b~~—a—~.-~~. .32 .14 .05 4

4. Jib 9.rktp .07 - .39 .05 ‘

S. Jun 1~~~~t C . .0S .01 .15 4

S. Jib ISSIISCk .44 .3* .93 .52 3

7. Jib ~~~ —“-~~~~~~ .73 .44 .77 4

S. Jib PTSSSuTi —.s, .so .39 .34 5

9. Uf*gi~~~ f Jib h.tp — .41 .~7 .44 5

IS. Jib k..i d. - .42 .94 .50 .32 S

Ii. Sp~~~tsaLty *~~ SssUa with Oi~~~e .54 -

.33 .47 2

p

U. ~~~~~~ .73 .~~~ si s*3. ~~~1 ~~bud. ~~~~~~~~~ - .fl .19 .42 4

34. ~~rb 7.d2ft.tJ . -- .50 .79 .73 3

~~~~ ?~p *3. Ist .cft f.cU*c.tt .fl .n .70 4

14. PI—4— sal C.SV4~~~ C0IS .‘-.

-~~ .42 .53 .35 3

*7. ~~u,rd Zu~~~ i44, .55 .45 .50 .47 2

*5. ~~~f 4 4 . d 7~~~e . 0 P .42 .49 .30 2

*9. C ttluscu Trsat • — .40 .34 .32 5

p ~~~~~~~~~~~ S • _ _

~c ~“- 34. 34- ivsd.s

- - .79 .74 .73 4

22. Pul.SII*a.. ~~ Ussatb .77 .43 .13 3

£ ~~~ Su~uissIsa 1., UIsaU~~~a. .30 .30 .34 3

13. ~~~~~~~~~ 34prft Is 34ups - .10 .53 .10 4

~~~ ITpalss*34s

50. ~~~~~~~ •1 ~~~Ussa34. .54 .10 .49 3

— 34. 34.nsu *~~* ‘—i— isa — ion .03 .40 4

50. 1.s l~~srun.s.i Cus~s.se34s .10 .37 .34 3

- p 27. 34SIU s ,1 345.MawiU.ul ~~sis sad 00 .ss~~sa .0.1 .97 .33 5

15. nsIu~~t~ .1 0,~~~i.si~~~1 $siwstesa .11 • .30 .~~~ 3

10. ~~~~kt~~~ ~~,)$saa1 .1 19 $ami .1 Isisalas —.47 .49 .45 .47 4

10. 34 sa1s s&sa.1 1 1 1 Is 3459. .50 .5* .5* 0

3$. Osa10saIsami lipili Is Cusps .79 .57 .4? 1

10. f l 4~~~~~ ttfs t5sau.a. .9) JO .14 $1). P.sisa.s al 503.ss$, sa .1 •~~ i~~~ l P~~~sas .0* .45 3) 3

• - -- 50. ~~~s *sMiI.. I., 34saib sal ~~ sat an .0 .47 .5) 7

34. act.aun .0. ~~~i.pi. 34,4. sad Pi.b* 5.5$ .03 .14 .15 3

P Mi .4 .3l9.

~~~I, & .J1a . ‘ ~I .SS~ .,. ~.piflSI.

— .— ~~ -- - -~~~ - — — - — — -~~~~~~ ——-- -- _ _ _ • _ S _ _ _ _

~~_•f~~~4_ _S_~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ —, ‘ _ - - -. .~~. — - •-- -- .- -

Psychological Climate

66i, ’1 Sn

~~

U — .

I 1~~~ C 4 0 N I

~~U) 0 .Q Sn SnSi—

~~~~~

Bo

11Si II.. I

o •V ) S I14 • I ~ .~~ ..i S • Sn Io l~

0.o W ’~< I s ‘~i ~~~~~~~~~ I O U O

I ~~i Q .,4 14 0

Si ~~ ~~I ~~~~~~ I C~ .o o o~~ I 50

; t ~~I 0 1~~ t~~~ N $ • Q ,.4 4.) O N IC 1 01 .~~~0 l CS I ; ) Pj ~~~~~~~~~

0 0- 0 0 ..4 ~ .C 0. 0 p’ 0’.

a — I •~ H ~~~~0 $ 4 O I 0’. CO I P~ 40U I.. — I

U I ’CI‘I

E l.4— I.0 1)

•

o

r51 — .4

‘-4 0 C .4.0 U 0. 0 1.5 Sn I 0 Sn0 ~~

0 0I-’ CO L 4 ~~~0 0 ‘4

0 ; S O C. “0 ‘4 41 51.4 14 1.5 0. I 0’. S ~~ 0 ~~ I 7~o i l N S • S O W N I •

0 0 . 4 4C —0 . 4

n~ 0 u’a ,~ .o ~ 0 $.. ~~ aa t ; . 2 0 0 I 0’. 0’. I.. 410. $ CO 0’.

— $ . • 5. — 5 . • .

O h

SI

V$4

a• 41

• ‘~4l 41

‘4 0U 1 1.4 0

III0 44 0 44

8 ‘4 ‘4

-~~~~

~~~~~~~~ I~~ Sn 401 0 a.4 Sn Sn Sn0 1.k

U I S. . . . 5 5— N Sn — 54 ~~ ~~~ baI u0I

~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ - ~~ -~~~~~~~~~--—— - --- -— _______________

Psychologica] Clir~att.

67

Table 5

Correlations Between Department and Division Context and Structure

Department/DivisionVar iables Correlations

Context

1. Emphasis on Morale .15*

2. Emphasis on Following Standardized Procedures .06

3. Technology .13

4. Funds for Habitability .03

5. Condition of -Equipment -.

6. Rating of Personnel .23*5

7. 7’unds and Supplies for Work ~~~~

Structure

8. Size of Department (Division) .62**

9. Specialization — Jobs/Department (Division) .11

10. Configuration — Span of Control ~~~~

11. Configuration — Number of Levels .645*

12. General Centralization .215*

13. General Standardization — .01

14. Interdependence •

. .14*

~~~~ Formalization of Roles •

.16k

16. Centralization of Work .07

~~~~~~~~~~ ~ • 205 divisions with both depart ment and division data.

< .05.

•*~~

< .01.

Psycho1o;~,ic~fl C~ ~~~d~~ 4

p68

JI

• I‘ l ‘ S-

~~ I I

S

ii.’ .

I I S

p

I I !iI~

5~

1 1•

~ 3~1

111 5

i I J Ij ~Ii!;IIi~i1ii~Iiii1 ~i i ’ i I

-

.

~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Psychologic;i ]

aS

S. .4 U *

• p. U SI.4 64 ~4 Si

. . S + S V S

.4 *4 5 <_ —•a 4 .4 44 VS

• 2 •5.’. S. S ~~.4 S ~~~~

• 0 Si • U 64

C SI • .4• 5 U U •5

Ii 4. - I ..C U S. I •5~

• Si 14 45 U C

~.4

• •Si’. .• ~ + p. SI

“ .C UI S.Si 5 44 5.

-

~ i. ~~ 5’ ., .

Si V U.5

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 5 Si

.4 .5 ~ ISi 5 0 ~~ Si

41 .4 5w ~4 .C• W S i . 4 Si + S I + ~i g •~~

~

I ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~5 I .4 ii

• z1~~~~I S

~~ ~~~~

8I~~ Si

~~ V Si~ V ‘4 U

~~

SI 5 S. p. U.4 Si Si Si. 4 w Z •.9 ~ Si

44 4 .4• S

Si ~ $ ~~~~

S. 44Si Si U

a! Si~~~5.4 51 S ~ 2 g ~a.4 5. V.4 0 41

a • •i’~’

‘4 ‘ ‘

~~

Ue m ; . . . J~~~; U •0 — C

g • g X .4 Si64 ~4 5. .4 U

. Si 4~ ‘. CS A t .,l

.4 5

~ S is . .4 Si•6I • .4 U U

S ‘4.4 5.

,~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• 6. ‘4 44. 445) 5 V S

*4 44 564 0 Si .. U

• .

‘4

+ i I i:

~-

• 44

• ~~~~~ $

0 5 1

I.. , • S I S 61 $ 4 4 I~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .4 • SiN N ~~

4 ; p.

J~~~~~~~~~s~~~~~~~~ s s ; t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.5 44 44 44 44 V

I I I 2~~~~~~~~ . ! 5 ~~~~~ . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

______ -.~ ‘.--- —• - -

-_____

1 .Psycholog ical Clim ate

I71)

2

• S

‘I

• ,i•.

-

.

Z 1 ‘I..

~

.

•

p..

• $ . • • . 4 . 4

I . •

- VS $ • • . . .

- I I$

•~- 8 ...

S a a S 45 a a - a a45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45• VS OS 51 455 -4 fl- - -

S

• ~~i.— S —

- i .

• i i i I

5’ 2 1 ! I

• lS’.~~~~~~~~~~) ~~

I .

~~~~~~~~~~~~ :$

~~

I .

•

-

- —~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Psycho]o~ ical CIITT151 t (-

Table 97 1

Predictive Validities for a Cornposite Division Criterion for Two Subsamp 1e~

Pr edictive Validi t ies

Sanp)e A Samp le B• Predictors — 76) (a — 84)

• Division Context

1. Y~pbasis on Morale .23k .02

2. F~phasis on Standard Procedures .07 .01

3. Technology .10 .05

4. Funds for Habitability —.02 — .13

S. Condit ion of Equipnent •37** .16

6. Rating of Personnel - .364* ~~~~

7. Funds and Supplies for Work .23* .364*

Division Structure

8. Size of Division — .23k — .22k

, Specialization — Jobs/Division —.10

- 10. Configuration — Span of Control .21 .11

11. ConfIguration — Number of Levels —.06 .11

12. General Centralization .05 — .06

13. General Standardization .10 — .09

14. Interdependence .12 .07

13. Poraali.zation of Role. .12 .08

16. Centralization of Work — .08 — .03

Division Climate

17. ClImate Clusters •~~~** •~~a*

Position Variables

18. Time in Wavy - •33** .10

1~. Vuabar of Advanced Training Schools .46~~ .52*4

• . 20. Wuaber of Other Training Schools and Courses .34” .25*

• Individual Resources . -

21. Tears of Formal Education •

.32*~ •35**

22. IntelLectual Aptitude •37** •33**

~~~~~ .01

— -~ . -- - - • ~~~~~~~~~~ —i- —

~-—-• .

P svc o l ’ - y ~ c. 1 C 1 i ”~~~t -

Table 10

Cross—Validities for a Composite Division Criterion

Based on Unit—Weighted Predictors

Cross—Validities

- - Sam ple A Samp le ~Predictor Domains 76) (n 84)

Division Ccntext .~ l** •43**

Division Structure .21 .22*

Climate Clusters .41** 39**

Position Variables •55**

Individual Resources •39**

Overall ~~~~ .55**

*~~~< .05.

**~~~< .01.

1

a

I

— —5,- - —I — - - f~ -~!4’~~~~~ - - - - - -~~~~- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ -: - — - - - -

- —

- - -

-

Distribution List

Mandato ry

• Office of Naval Research (3 copiss) Library, Code 2029 (6 copies)(Code 452) U~ S. Naval Research Laboratory800 N. Quincy St. Washington, DC 20390Arlington , VA 22217

Science & Technology DivisionDirector Library of Congress~U . S. Naval Research Laboratory (6 copies) Washington , DC 20540Washing ton , DC 20390ATTN : Technical Information Division Mr. Frank Lucas

ONR Resident RepresentativeDefenae Documantatlon Center (12 copie.) Office of Naval Research~~i1ding 5 582 Federal BuildingCa~~~ron Station Austin , Texas 78701Alexandria, VA 22314

OKR FIELD

Director Research PsychologistONR iranch Off ice ONR Branch Of fice536 S. Clark St. 536 S. Clark St.Chicago , IL 60605 Chicago , IL 60605

Principal Inv atig*tors

Dr. Alvin J. Abren. Dr. Milton R. BloodNavy Personnel R 6 D Center School of Business

P San Diego, CA 92152 Ceorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlanta, GA 30332

Di.. C~ayton P. Ai.derferDept. of ~~ inistrative Sciences Dr. Davis B. BobrowTel. University University of Maryland

SW Raven, CT 06520 College Park, PU) 20742P

Dr. J .. A. My ton Dr. David G. Bower.Dept. of Psychology Institute for Social ResearchRovard University University of MichiganWashington, DC 20001 Ann Arbor , MI 48106

P Dr. Carl 8ennett Dr. Robyn N. bayeslattelle Ma~~ ria1 Institute Oregon Research Institute4000 N. 1. 41st St. 488 B. 11th Ave.Seattle, WA 98105 Eugene, OR 97403

Dr. B. ~ assel1 Barnard Dr. Barry R. DayDept. of Sociology 6 Anthropology University City Science CenterWont Virginia University Center for Social DevelopetentP~ r$mntonn, WV 26306 3508 Science Center

Philadelphia , PA 19104

-

~~~~~~

. . - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4 _ _

~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

-

Principal Investjg tor. (continued)

Dr. Dyne. Dr. Norman 3. JohnsonOhio State University Research Foundation School of Urban & Public Affairs1314 Ltnnear Road Carnegie—Mellon UniversityColumbus, OR 43212 Pittsburgh , PA 15213

Dr. Fred K. Fiedler Dr. David C. McClellandDepartment of Psychology McBer and CompanyUniversity of Washington 137 Newbury St.S attl., WA 98105 Boston , MA 02139

Dr. Al lan H. Fisher, Jr. Dr. Elliott M. McGinniesBay Associates Psychology Department1625 Eye St., N. V. Suits 1001 American UniversityWashington, DC 20006 Washington, DC 20016

Dr. Sanuel L. Gaertner Dr. Terence R. MitchellDepartment of Psychology School of Business AdministrationUniversity of Delaware University of Washington220 Wolf Hall Seattle, WA 98195Newark, DE 19711

Dr. Peter R. MongeDr. Paul S. Goodman Department of Speech—ComeunicationGraduate School of Industrial Administration California State UniversityCarneige—Meilon University, Schenley Park San Jose, CA 95192Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Dr. James A. MooreDr. Gloria L. Grace CAd , Inc.Syst Development Corporation 800 Garden St.2500 Colorado Ave. Santa Barbara , CA 93101Santa t~~nica , CA 90406

Dr. Stanley M. NealeyDr. Eric Cusd.rson Battelle Memorial InstituteNaval Health Research Center 4000 N. E. 41st St.San Diego, CA 92152 Seattle , WA 98105

Dr. Richard Hark~*n Dr. Herbert R. NorthrupD.psrtment of Administrative Sciences Industrial Research UnitTale University University of PennsylvaniaNew Haven, CT 06520 Philadelphia, PA 19174

Dr. Thomas V. Rarrell Dr. Benson F. PenickGraduate School of Business Carnegie—Mellon UniversityStanford University Margaret Morrison 410Stanford, CA 94305 Pittsburgh , PA 13213

PDr. Qtarlss F. Heraann Dr. Chester N. PierceOhio State University Research Fowidation Harvard University1314 Linn.sr Road Nichols HouseColumbus , OH 43212 Appian Way

Cambridge, MA 92138Dr. Charles L. BullnDepartment of Psychology Dr. Diane N. Ramsey-Lie.University of Illinois R-E Research & System DesignCh~~ aig~’i, IL 61820 3947 Ridgamont Dr.

Malibu , CA 90265

P

— - - — - - --

Frjncipal Inv.ati&ators (coot 1.nusd)

Dr Eariens B. Roberts Dr. Victor H, VroomSchool of Business Administration School of Organization & ManagementUniversity of California Yale UniversityBerkeley CA 94720 56 Hillhouas Ave.

New Haven , CT 06320Dr. )4osho F. tubinst.inUniversity of Californi a Dr. Paul Wall405 Rilgard Ave. Div. of Behavioral Science ResearchLos Angeles , CA 90024 Tuskegee Institute

Tuskegee, AL 36088Dr. John RubeUniversity of Nor th Carolina Dr. WilkenfeldDept. of Business A’4lnistration University of MarylandCharlotte, NC 28223 College Park, Ml) 20742

Dr. Rudolph J. ~~~~~ Dr. Philip C. ZimbardoPolitical Science Department Dept. of PsychologyUniversity of Hawaii Stanford UniversityHonolulu, HI 96822 Stanford , CA 94305

p Dr. Irvin Sarason _————— __ —__ Department of Psychology MISCELLANEOU SUniversity of WashingtonSeattle, WA 98195

Air ForceDr. Edgar H. SchsinSloan School of lanagemsnt AFOSR (NL)

1400 Wilson Blvd .Meseachuaetts Institute of TechnologyArlington, VA 22209cambridge, MA 02139

Dr. Saul B. 5.11.Texas Christian UniversityFort Worth , ~~ 76129 Army Research Institute (2 copies)

Comsonwealth Bldg.1300 Wilson Blvd.Dr. Siegfried Streu f art Rosslyn, VA 22209Department of Psychology

Purdue University~~~~~~~ II 47907 Coast Guardp

Dr. Richard I. s,t~ Chief , Psychological Research BranchMinnesota systems Research, i~~. U. S. Coast Guard (G—P- l/ 62)

.. —..P 2412 University Awe., S. 1. 400 7th St., S. V.((nasapolis, MR 55414 Washingtoz~ DC 20590

Marine CorpsDr. Lorand I. SealayA.srican Institutes for ResearchFoxhall Square Dr. A, L. Slaf kosky3301 Rev Mexico Ave. • i. w. Scientific AdvisorWashington, DC 20016 Coamandant of the Marine Corps

(Code RD—i)Dr. I. H. Vr..lam d III Washington, DC 20380W’~~~’ Sciences Research , Inc.Wee tsate Research Park7710 Old pringhov.. RoadMeLeen, ¶ A 22101

P

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ - -

—

~~~~~NEOUS (continu-~

J Chief of ~~~~ Per,on~~ Offtcer th ~~~~~ ‘Code L5)Are:~~~ r for R~’seareb Liaiaon c~~ r~’—0r)

~~~~~~~~~ ~ ;-‘-osp~c~ ~e~~ir~~ Research L~~W*~~~~~t’~’~ -r ’ , ~~ 20i~7O ~~~~~~ ‘~~‘?ace ~~c Center

?~~ - - - .ico1a , ? 32512B~iri~u of Naval Personnel (Pera—6)Assistan t thief of Naval Personnel for C~~ -

~c~ C. Sto~’-~ . U.~~.N.p Human Goals (Code N--33 )

Wasbi ug -~v , ~C 202’-O D~ recto-r , ~ducstirm & Training

~“t~earch ~ ~~~~~an Developnen tCdi. Paul D. ~~~~~~ !1tSC , U SN Chief ~-f ~ ‘i - - ci Educa~ - :-t & Training~.a~ ,Humar P,rfor~-~ --~-”- 2’viston (Cod e 44) StaffNa’vy M.dJ R & ~~ aad Naval Air .‘-stion , ~‘ensacola. FL 32~ -?8

~~~ 20014Dr. H. H, Wolff

‘~.dr. C. ~~~. Patlc!, ~~~. S. Technical 5~ -~~~t~:r (“oc~ N—2)

Director, ~~~~~~ Ck~a1a iept . N~’v~1 Tr~~.ning ~- -~ - ~~~•r~ C’~nt~~r

Code 1 ~, Ni~i —.al Training Center Or lando. ~ 2 ~? 813Orlando, ~T. 32813

p Humz~n Re~o’rce r age~ent Center2f~~.ce of M~~~-~-.~er MAnagew~~ t

~~ ~z~ aent Evaluat Ion ~‘-~rvh C- ; ~~~~~~ -~~~~or ~

- Activity

~~*r~ton, DC 20390 c/c ~~;C ~~‘i~ York, NY 09521~~~ Nelson

Ass~stant Officer in Chargep Navel Internal Relations Activity Chief , Naval Tec~~~-~~ . TrainitgPentagon 5 P5oos -~~~

‘-~~~. “As ~~- —- -“-~:.a (75~Washingto~~. DC 20350 M~~~~~~ing - r - r

~ , ~‘N 8128

Na val Postgraduate School OtherMonterey , CA 9394Q

p ATTN : Library ‘~o~e 2124) Division ~~r~ctor for Social Science

~~~~~~~~ Science Foundation~~of,~ r,r John Senger 1800 C St., N. W.

~~era’io- -.~ T~r~ earcb & Washingt ‘-- , DC 20550Adminiatrt ion Sciences

Naval Pos~~~~A-~,te ~~o—d Mr. Luigi -~et r-uilop Mouterrev, -

~~~~ 93960 2431 ‘- . &‘~ewood St.- ~~~t cn , VA 22207

T-~eIr-~ ng Officer —-- —- --- — _

~umAr2 R.esot~rce Management C C.- AdditionsNTC, C.~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ CA 92133 to Dt8tr ibut ion List

p Sa~~ Pe’~ onrte1. B ‘i D Center (5 copies) Cdr. Anthony C. Cajka, U. S. N.Cods 10 ~~

-: .~~~~~~~~~~~ ‘- -~~ of the Navy

Sv~ Diego , CA 92152 Human Resource Management CenterWashington, DC 20370

Officer in ~~~~~~~Naval Sub~isrl~e ‘~e~~ ca1 Research Lab Dr. C. Brooklyn Derr

p Navel Submar~ o Baa~’ New London , Bcx 900 Associate Professor, Code 55Groton , (T 06340 Naval Postgraduate School

Monterey, CA 93940

)

~~~~~~ ~—~

--~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~--.-- .------ .~~~

-~~ —~~~~~~~~—-—------—-—— .---—— -- —

Ad.dit ions_ (cont1nue-’~)

Dr. Robert A. Zavecki Capt. Charles Baldwin, U. S. N.Assistant ~rc~~e-o- ~~ Behaviora l Bureau of Naval Personnel

Sc~.n’e, (Cr~’-” 6a2)

645Th W.shington , DC 2’~370• Jr -ed State. Air Force Acad emy

t7 8&!A. CC- 80.840 M~-~ Joe F~’l.t rmei.rNavy Personnel. R & D Center

Capt&th ~~. I.. Johnson, U.S.N. Code 30~Office of t e Chief of ~aval Operation. San Diego , CA 92152(OP—009T)Navy ~~~Prtmant ‘ ffice of Naval ReEce’-r-hWashington , DC -2350 ~C~de 200)

Ar1t-~~ton, V~ 22217burr -~u of N~vp7. Personnel~esssrch & Fvaiuatlon ~1-~ v’~~iou ARI ?lf ld Unit—Leaven-worthCode : “ers—65 P. 0. Box 3122

~~ 70371’ ForC Leavenworth, KS f~ -C27

~ men Resource M.an~s ii#nt Center, London Mr. Ric’crd T, Mowday- ~~y ~ sio Co’lng& of Business Administratfon

University of Nebraska , Lincolnp ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ !~~~~~~~ -‘~~~~!~ t L~~ ’.o1i , ~Center, WashingtonWashington , DC 20~70 Dr. WF~~Cam F. Gaymon

Anerl ’-m- Cnatitutes for “eaearch~uman Resource Management Center, Norfolk 3301 New Mexico Avenue , N~- ’5621—23 Tidewater ~r. Foxha~~ Sqt~~reNorfolk , VA 2351. ton , DC 20016

~~~~~~ n Resource Management ~~.‘- . C~

-. ~~~. 0. Milan

Center~ San Diego SMC 265Naval T’-~~.ning Center Naval ~e”-tgraduate SchoolSan Diego , r~ 0;

~3 ~‘D:P ~~~!- , CA 93940

Pi~~an Resour ce M*nag~~~nt Center , Eugene F. StonePearl Harbor Aar ’-~ ant

professor of ManagementV~~ Sara Francisco, CA 96610 De b t . of —~-~r’ “i~trstive Sciences

Purdue UniversityHuman Resource Management School. West Lafave~ te , IN 47907Naval Air SCe - t-~n, Memphis (96)Mill ton . “N 3 ’3/~ ~~~~~ M - q t q ~rial Co and

Fnp~~-v ce ~e’.-elopme~~t Office~~- -~..._ P Capt. ~r~’ce Stove 1~.S.N. Code SA—65

Director Room 150 Jefferson Plaza, Bldg. #2Pi-ogrem ~‘ - £o-~ei~t Div. (Code N—35) 1429 Jeff Davis HighwayChief of Naval Edice~~ cv & Training Arlington , VA 20360Naval Air Sta onPensacola, - 32rCQ Headquarters , Forces Comeand

APPE - HRMr. ~si:h Taylor Ft. McPhersonOffice of Civ’lian Manpower Management Georgia 30330(Cods 21)Navy DepartmentWashington, DC 20390

I - -

- •

‘~_‘__•-_!~~~_~

- 2T T~~~~~-~~~~~~~~ - — ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~ - - —~-• .--— - ________

/

Additions (continued)

Captain Joseph Weker Dr. Bill CurtisDepartment o’ the Army Weyerhaeuser l~r mpa i :yHeadquarters, 32D Ara 7 UHB #2

• Air Defenee C~~~ .and ~‘.i -on~~, ~~ ~-~4OlAPO N. V~ 091751r. Al lan P.

E~~ ind D. Th~~~ a Code 8030(Code 307t’) Naval H- ; 1~~- Research CenterNavy Personnel Rsssarch ~nn ~~~~~~~~ CA 32152

and Deve lopment CenterSan Diego, -

~~~‘~ 97152

Dr. Robert L. Holabach, .r.t)epartmsnt of the NavyNavy PersonneL ~e~~’z’ - -:~iand Development Center

Sam Diego, CA 92132

Johann.s N. Penningsr~ J ” n t - 3cho. . of ~~~~ ?rta l Admin.

Carnegie— tie ’ ‘n’ ~si ’vSchanley ~~~~~~ - -

Pittsburgh , PA 15213

Personnel Resea rch andDevelopmen t ~~~~~~~

U.S. Civil Service Comeisujonbureau of Policies & StandardsWashington, D. C. 20415

Department of the Air Forcep Air Force Institute c’ Tech . (AU )

ATTT/St.CR (Lt . Col. t~as t rWright—Patterson Air Force

Base , Ohio 45433

Dr. John A. ~refc’r , Jr.Bat t e ‘ ~r 1~~m.n Af f I re

- Cen ter4000 N.!. &lst StreetSeattle, Washington 98105

Dr. Doug lap T , HallEarl •

“~~~~-‘ Howard Professorend Chairman

Dept. of Orga*izational BehaviorGraduate Senoo l of Management

~venaton. rJinoie 60201

H

_ _ _ ____________ -- - -~~~— — ~

.—-—---.-——- - -

‘ii

I i ~ kx ~ f 1’ ihl l i nt ‘ 1(7 I ( 7 ‘t l( ‘ 1 N- i ’ ~;i1 I’ n ~ ; i t , 1i

(‘ n i t 7 : 1 I ’ : t:( (’ ((l/l--/ , ’— A o f / i j _ n n ~ n ! ! ‘ ‘ ~~( 1 f t - - /~ ( : -— cNfN , (( I f ] c ~

( 1)1

F : ( Y ; l I 1~ (~~~- ( ;!!(‘f( i’ i. ’ 1 - - t - I ( ! / i 2- - (~~ - ( I f - N ! ! / f l 7/ i

Ilnrii I ek . 0 . t- . , , !:ljpp~~ , , _ . I? . , ~ - 1 i ’ e - % ,~~~~~ . ~‘ . I ~-‘r I I I ~~rv I n~~ v ’ 7 ~~~iis~ a

- - t I II- ;1 ~‘ f % i ( 1 - II 1 ‘ a ii v ’ I IN’ I ‘ r ! ’ ( ~‘ I (‘I I c I ill I - (f ill ‘7 t (‘tI l l fl I i

~1- 1 f 1 ‘‘~~ ~

‘‘~~~

:‘ - ‘~~~~~

‘ f i [ 1 1:1 1 F h - : i - : i i I (‘ i l ( 1I( • I ~

1iIflp~;, I,. I’ . (~~~ l i t inn ipodnl’i nnd ( (‘ipl I l i~~ ’ t . l l f ( f f t \ [ n t ~~i ( c n t i n . _J ’ ’:)- _1’~ l_n_ I _n f ~ f~ -~;( _1

hi f i r t -~ r , 1 7 , ~ _

() , 1’ ’— ~’-

J;lnr’ ’; , 1~. I-’ . • 1. .1(ili~~- ’ ~ • A . I’ . ( i t ~‘:in 171 ! fn i i n 1 l~ 1 lii;iF i- A i r ’ ’ _ l w ~f t hnnry nu ll

I ; \ c I i n ! i - ~~I (- ; ( 1 N , 1 l i - I Iii . f ’ ( 7 4 , P1 , 1 O N ’ — i 1 1 2 .

• I. !~ . , N a t I r a n , r. A. , I n - ’ - • A . 1’ . , ~. ~~ ~l’f u s ; , t I . ~

- • An i x I m i t l I t I (‘U o f

s ::i I i I f i ( I I ( ‘ 5 ( 171 (H(’ l l()?_ nUl l r~~ . . F ’ ’ . N6 1 , ( a t a tn~ t 1 Ne I net _ i d I)oct i rncnts

hi 1 5 ) 1 li (l l (1 f \ , / i~’ l’r 1(’ ;1ii I’nv r h n l n p f i’fl i A 97n( ’ Ll t Inn , VIII • r, ~prlu ig , 1 9 1 5 .

1~iini s; , L. P ., 1 e lan —. , A. f’~ (~ i ~~a i ij : - ;i t j~~~ ;i 1 ~~t n i rt ‘ i i r ~ A i ( - V j ( ’ 7 c f r 1t r ( i 1• L I i t ’ n f~

Ii- ( ‘ 1 ) [ 1 ) 7 1 fi ll! I I I r - I ‘i (‘Ii nFi I..’ I I 17 (11 I,i i u ~‘ :I ii 1 ~~ t I iii a 1 ~ nnip (lii P ti t ~

- i i i Inn! lenn i lFrhnv ni ;~~‘ c l P i i i’ .in H i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 , N’ , 7 4 — 1 1 1

L. P. , fin r tn’;un , A. I’ . , NI i bli 7 7 1 7 , ~~ . . S .k ’u l ( U , A . P . Pel a t I OT1U1T I pibc’tw ee , i f 7 V ( 11(1 1 i p I ~~ I ~‘i I V I f l t I’ niiil ~ I I I - iin~ li 1 1’ (ii W (i r k 71)01 I V I I Ion . J e IOOf lh1r_’1

1 f i ’ I ’ ,’ • U

i’ - ‘; , 1 . P. . I I’ i i f l- i’ , ( . . a ‘d I , I’ • I A ~ ‘ i f l lie (I V 1(1111 C ((1 ~ I’ I at 1 (‘11

‘‘( ‘i f I f e 1 i’~~ . - ii i i i ; i i ~>I ti 1 - 1 I I I n _ , l ij i f ‘PY’ •

m m n , ‘~~. I’ ., L’s ’ , I~. P. , A I r n u l , 1 . I’ . I’r i t n I’ i ’ ’ ! inn~ !’ i hi p 1-i l u nv i o r and

r’rn p I nv - ‘ -~ i I I ‘ 1 t u - e iii I in - 1 i nde I irowl - t ii i d b y 1 i b i u i V c — I ve t ieu i I . ~1 n 1

( ‘ 0 ~ f - I 1 1 ( 1 I ’ V I w f n 1’ v , N i l ’ (.(l ( I ) , 1 / 6 — I/ i ’!,

‘.“ - . - ~~~. . ‘ i ’ l - - - , I - . I!. , N? n IT , 1 . • , ‘~ ~ ‘ 1 I I , N . II. It Inn ~ —WIu III’ ( If ! N t i lil (‘1;

- • a ’ i ~ l i t h t ’ :ii,~ I ) : (‘(‘I I ’ i n t l ~~~. ( ‘ I ‘~~iIlIU I 1 1 ( f t ( ’ l l ’ ~~V , i N// , 3 ) , 5 — 1 6 ,

‘~ r ~~~~~~~~~~ I t ’ i ;’ I 1 IT ’ ll r :1 1 0 ~ I a t nr nI -

nu pan I 711 Ii i tu ; i 1 p et lo t - m i am i -c

- . • — I - ‘ ‘ i •:~ I 1 , , , i ~ I I I . ‘ ( l~ ’ii I Lfi’,’\ ’ ‘~I~~ • It )’ ’ I l it ! ((li lt i l I l t I t 1011

— I - • I ‘ . ‘ - ‘i Ii I - i : I I ‘ 5 Iii’ I Ii It I I I P : 1 7 I’’ - I a t y — — I I iii (If f h e

I , ) ‘ l

• -, 1 ’~~L:-.

— ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~_ w — . -~~~~~~~ ’- - - -~— -.-~

_ . ——

~~- ----

- —_-----

I n-b ’s, of f ’ i~ - - t~~: l i ii- ( 1 I - i - c~ ! N i - r i I Ni - a - a t i l i ( t i ( t l et

r ; ’ i l ( l 1 ! ~— - 7 ) — A - 1)1 JN — - o )n1 ;i ii~I F ( i ( U ) f A — — / ( - t : — o n p , o f u n of Naval

- s i ’ P I’ t i ’ j e r t I ’ ’ f l ’ 7~~( !N - ( I I - - t0 I - , I 7( 1- 71

It t - i t i I , . 1 . I , I - - i - - - - • A - P . , -‘- - a t ’ - - ’ - • I - . I’ . - I - -I- In V I ’ 1,a - 7 s i t : :1 1- n i l I s i t c i

— of

Ili~ I i - t n t lnin:I j p I n - l w - e u Ii :nlei n IiI 1- I i - I i : i v l i i nticl nUll I (l \i i n ’ ( ‘ n I f f j ( ~~) ( ( 5 itnf

t i c ? s s t . l a pot - pm e n - t i’d ;i t I It e P ‘ ii - I A i h t m l I ( nti ‘.‘ - ‘ t i t I 1W Of 1 In’ A tt ic I i an

I’r- v r h — f - p 1 n~~ 1 A s s S 0 c ~ I a t I — ’ m i , Mi- ’ (1 r I es t os ; 11 1 14

( i t t - I In , II., ~~~~f f i u t - ’ ’ ’,, 1 . I! . ( I i t i u : u t I- rin d not I’,-at m m i i ( i j O niii t I :int S i ~if j c ’ Ii

n ;ut 1 : 1 a c t nuu A nii~ i t Ic ! I ‘ l i - m i s ; n u n ! ~ u ( W . Pnj -e r p t — o r : m ’ l e d a t I Im~ lien t hip of

t h c N’ n I .Ii -, - i - ’ - t - t l u i ’ s ; ’ ~~- I m I n p f i - ~~ A s : s - e f : i t l i - t i , I f n n s ; t o t i , A p r i l , I~~7 5 .

I b m o f etc . , P - P . , Fa t ’ s ; • 1,. P . , A h-ni’ ’ : , A . I’ . i ex a ni i n r u t ion of ncnt1 n~ l i r r lc c—

dni en 101 :111 n rpu i l 2:1 1 i n i t a t c i h i n t - - l i m O - s i t I onn;i I re A c o r n j a r I sw- n of

c- u s; ! I nit Vn . ( np l r I c - - I V I I iii;i t i nu i . Psi l-er pri’ocnt - I! n i t ( l ie P2nd An ntial

(o n ’,’e nt m u c - f t f i - - Aj ui’r I - - mt ¶ ‘ r v c - l n m f c f ’ I ~~si ! As s r u-n f a t Int t , h e w O r l c n n s ; — 1Q 114

_ lnm ’ n-s ; f ,~ J( l S , - ~ 11(7 101 0~’, f ’ ’ : i l p re f 1 - lii ‘ n c - l a ! ‘a_ - t i - r e : snia I vo l s-; . P. WI 1k i n~~

(Mlii I r ) , Mi t ’ iii I J uj y o i i n—.; I I ico n A , A 1p lc i :unh I n Nc~c ’ j :11 Ny~: I t-ni l; A t i a l v s : i o .

‘ i s p o s : lion -r - ‘ n - n I el f a t t i n’ i n ’ i - t hip i f the Ain i’t lr,- ium ~~- ‘~n lii ’ 1opfci I A s e s o c l a —

t f i l l , Mi ii - !~~i l i t • i -~~‘ I f’t71I )i’ I , 1N/)

In 14 ’ ’ ; - L. P . ~. lb in l i -k , r ; . W . lu a n n I v s ; i ’ s of c- i -It or 3~ i , s: i t lilt 1011:1 1. da ta

c u pan I :‘ at I i n;i 1 ci lu-iit e , ;iuiiI h u l l vI iln ;i 1 nf t , iu :0- I pt- i s i t N- ’ ; : I’ c - s ; t t l ¶ ‘ : of .i p 1 lot

71 l( l i’ . Tim I - . P . Munnl,’ l’nnn (P1 :1 ii ) • ( i~~~

; t i I n s a I m i i i I f u l l v s : n In 1.; —

t i - I limf i; — u u i c l i - I l l et 1:1 . - } m i f ’on I i - ‘ ; i - m i t ‘ ‘ i f ru t I lie t’ii I u ~~ ~f I lie 1\nierlran

l’s; yc lco 1 np I - - i l /- - ; s:i - fa t lom t , 0-!oui I i en 1 , I 9 1 1 ,

,Iaui t s~c , 1. 1’ ., I l m i I ‘ -un , 1- . A . • M I t ’ fiIcitiu ; , N . W . , ~, - t in t o n , A . I’ . PeI; i t lilnohi rs

lie II, - i - m i I’M ;- n ’ f a V I I ,ic c de I I i t t l i n t ha I I on . I’ ;tçn’ r pt i- n—n t e d s i t I ho Annna 1

i’ ’ r I I i , - ,‘I I ! - I f- l i 1 m w I’ ’ - ’,’ m h i m ’ I i - p _ h c i A — l i l t h -u , ( ) i — ; l ( 5 c 1 , I I l i tt o N;,

F r i . Ni l ’ s .

¶ u - i - ’ , I,. I- ’ . , — - A . I - p - i i i I .- i I 1(1 11:1 I ins i t ’ I (i ii ’ t t i ’ t l t s ; a i m it no—n i n i t ru — —

t to u I . I - i~~ ’ ~‘ t ~t I I I I - I ‘ ‘ - 0 ( 5’ (01 t N - t i I it Ni t l : u 1 Mv eli - u i ’ : • b!)iu~! A i i t i t u a I

t ’ t ’ i - u ,’i it I’ ,i 4 - f Iii - f - c - - t I - i I - - l i’ I i’ p I lii A - - n- I i t t I i u, i , P -rn ( 17 i t 7~ t 15 :~ 11/ Ii •

lS i - I ’ t 11 , 1 , , ! I l l t ‘ -~~- ‘ mn Ii I i u I 5n - c i t o ~ f~~ / ’ . Po- .- . , I III ( 0 ( 1 ‘ ‘)~

~ ~~-. ~ -

- - - -‘ - — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~ -.w-~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ‘ -

I f ~I I ~; ( t I f I ~ Ii)

s m - - n , . 1’ . I u - I 11111 ji m ’ c t i i I~~c u i I a: m I I u~ :i I ui _ I) I I ‘; i - I n t l 1 I —— (II I f i - _ u t u ’ ~‘ su lit

‘ - - f ( _ I i ’- ’~~I e ; mmm d b i b I I n i l - i I I I . i’ nu l c i ’ t ~‘r ( s: m i t ( - - I 1 ¶ a :yu c i ~ios; l t unu ott

‘‘ (‘ l f ’ : m i i i :Sn i t Iciui; i l An ,’uI~ ’,;l’;~ F t c - l o i s; , t N t I c - I’; ;ui~ l ( ‘ r l I e u ha ” . Au uio rlrn ,t

f ’ r; v ’ Iii- I op i r u I A ’ : 5 : ( r ‘it I nit ( - ‘ u s V l it I (nil — Hr-ui I I ‘I I , I ‘1 /

Ic e,’ ; - A. I’., A ,L’uiimp’; , I,. P. Au c t pat i I ant f e l i f i I tn u,cbr i ~‘nmne O X~ m Inratory aria 1ysv~~.

1’a p ’i p t- - ‘n l i L t - I at I 7 ~u nj ’on I ~u r m ‘nIt b- l i— l i In Moi’ I _ —il Mv ’ s I noun . P2nd A t tu iu in I

H’li~ ’ell I I (c l i pf tIn ’ At-ut - ’, I r’nui In yc lie Iu c pl - :i I As ; nnm ’ I at Inmi • tlew (ii h’ann , 19 74 ,

Pej’ ii nt ~‘,f III I i - n e ; u l ( Ii J it Iclw - a 1 h i’ , 1N7 5 , I’IuIV . — 1~hii ( 15T(1 ,’N —

A. F’ . • ,Jnui’ns-t — 1, . lb . , l Int u l (‘k —

1 , ¶4 , — A Itt - m e l — -1. P. A lt lil t ~‘(~T f l t In~ mo de l

/ij lJi t - no Ii I c ’ nl~~- 5:u _l~ (7 .~i f f~ c i u _a I n t u i i n t t i r e — - a t t f l i t d e r r’ l ;t t 1( i Tis)ul ps ; . i’a p or pronrtt—

tod a t t h m e N .brd annum 1 m un- t h i p of tIn’ Ann srhan T’s ;vc fmolnp fcal As~ ocfat 1on -

(Iii rapu , • I I 1 m o m , Nu ’1 ’ t t’nilinr , 1’) / N

• A . I’ . , A ,!;lu ’en , I. N. Act l i l t i - p s a t . l im p l ’-c i~~i ’ I ;u~’~~t c c a c Iu to ni g nt u iza l i o n a i

In’lni’,’ i - - r . Hipt’ t- p t i - : - - t i i - - f o I f i r Ii I II n i y (S f0’ ra t I nit’ : ft~’nea I (Ii Soc In t y

q iuaiu F I - ( u — V I N’ h u m Ia • flec ’ c -m ’ i I~~- , i N / S .

A. I’ . - & .Inmune’ ; , 1,. Il . IbIacI’ —w f u 1 F f - if if [(‘I ( ‘ l t C t O I I) Ccc l - ! e l ; it ( ’s o f Job

nt. t I - t i s C S : . I’ :c~n ’ i — ~‘n-’ :- m i l l - i f nil t h u c ’ F IA t It A u i u u u t n i ! I ’ - t - l m u g o f liii’ A rn e r l emm n

I’ - l;’’InI’ I u- a l As;nm’ j u l i i c u u , l- :i’ - f t l u u p t ntu , h .P ., Ne~c I i t - bier , 19 7 6 .

Nt uu Iv , I~. P. — A ‘Pi t—-’; — A . I’ . (4 ;nu i nn i I I c ’ t ia i c- l in t a c t or i s ; t i in :uii c l p - u : ; n u m cuo l

c - f f i - ( t 1 v - u ~ : ;s ; In I fu n I r : c u : i i - w , c t f u - I ‘ n i -u n I s: y ’ ; t nn m s ; 111:1 N-n in . Map - -i 1,i—escii t~’iI

nit I Ito (0(11 ii Ai uniu a I (iutiv(’ tl I 11111 ( I f I ills AntI’ t i Pa il P~ yc 1i~ log I ra l A~~~oc Iat lout

i lnum n I i t lii — II ;iw ;u I I , Me l’ I ( - u u h u ’ t —

iN 7) ,

&~. j~~~~~~; -

~~ ‘ —

-~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - —- :

I m s h s i f 1 i ’~ fc uu I ,; i I lSi- ~’i - t I-s Thr O i l f .H’ t ’ d l M nm v n t l l’r” ’e a t c l i

( c c l I c l ~~ N t i ( 1 I , I ’ A — I l l / f — t l ( i l , i ( c c l Fl( i (tn l/ i -— 1 ( — C— (11)0 , h f f l u e of Fiav~~I

- hi I t m i i I l c b o i ’, ,i _ M S _ t I ) — t u ~I Ifl I/ u I

l i i ’ s ; , A , ‘ I nn f : i I - \ ‘ : Ii i , : c m ; I ’ d ’ : j ; : ‘ ‘ 1 l i t ’ u ;r’;u l i’i~ - : u u m l ; a I In’ : (i N~f luu i2; il (neal

c lii 1;t e l i -I l ot i n s ; at id i 1 f in’ t I ~‘ r l u t ’ s : s : I - I ut s u ’ ’ : i I nIi l I ’ . I ~~ I t Aut I Ii , ‘texa s ;

I i t s I II l i l t ’ nt N’ha’j I c c r a I i i - ; : - - ii ri m , ‘I (‘XII; C It r h u n t I i t t IT tt I vu ’ u ; : 1 t v - ‘I ~c I i t i he a l

H- p c - I Iz Mu’ - / ,~ — I 5 , i l i:~ —

j c mnes ; , A. P . — ,1:mnic -s ; , 1 — It . , A il - mitt Iu ’~-

— F : . ¶4 . ( t t patu I za 1101111 c I lunal u - re l at oil to

sIt I ~‘lnnu i d I t l l i cs I l ice I tip : A pm - ‘ I Iii l it re v l e dy . J5~~ t I’hui t h , Ii x an : I l i S t 11111

iii fSi - I i ; c ’ .’ i o u nu I 14’ - c - n i t - i - f m • ‘ Ii- XIs ; Clii I ‘:1 I nu l l b ’ n I ‘_‘ n u i-S II v — ‘1 ( ‘ ( h i t ) les t I 14- I’ ~c ~ I f lu, —

7 3 — 1 6 , I l / i .

Inn-n O , I,. R . , S~ Ii- mi ’s ; , A. I’ . (u t p : t t m I ~ssc t I rnal ci l i n t o (~~n;’:t ruIn — g loba l m u —

sI t t u c - I • ou I ;iuu t e l ogv - l i ’ i- i M i t t h u • 1 rxan : h u e - I f t ill I’ 111 Pi-Iia ~’ I era 1 Itcoca in Ii —

‘T i - > ’ :c s ( h u u I ’ : I 1:111 I I u u ) ’ n ’ m n l t y , 1( ’ c ’ I uth i r : l I b r l n c t t tIc- . i i — : ’ o , i~~i : o.

l i l t ’ s : , A. I’ .. In i : - ’’: , I,. N. , A l l u u i u i I , .1 . P . A p in l Iii’ ruf i c t p n u u l s - ni t In~ial c i trm si t p

Iii a ¶ .~~~ . t u t u - ,’ [~~s i c ’ ; o f f u t p i ’ u s ’ - - ’ u ’ : I S l e t I l l - I 011 H - i - . In I Mei t fu , ‘I c’~’a’ ; :

b u t II l i t , ’ (c i IN ’Ii :ivl i~~ nil l i - n t - no i -li , ‘I <’< :t ’’, (‘hi - l o t into Mum Iv crs : It y , f r c b u l i i c n t l

Pepr it I Mi’ . 1 ! — 10 .

li m o ’ ’ ; — A. P . • I : i’ ’n -’ i I . I’ ., F, N u i uii I —

.1 . I- ’ . I’ i’r - ’ I’’’’’! l i - n i - l i t s ;hi 1 1- be l i r tc ,—lo r and

~‘t- ’ l Ic ’ ’ ,- t - c - - u i I ’ !i-mi c - - In I In’ I P : il f t ’ l f l ; u O i t - i n i t ‘ ‘c i I v j ( f l I ? i v c l s ’ ( ’ u n r u l t . Fo r t

N~ , i t Ii I - - ; ’ ;t ’ : l e n t It o H’ of l’,’ Iu: ic,c l m i a ! I%- s n ’ ; u uc l t , ‘ I , - ~~as ; ( ‘I t t lo t 1:,ii UuiI~~_ ’iii l I y ,

‘I - r f i t l I n t I Ii l c c m r I P c . 7 4 — - 1 Il, 1’) 14

m m c ’ s ; , i,. ~~~. — F. I - u i ’ ’ ’ ’, , A . I’ . (t u g ;I?t l z a t loon 1 o t rio t t l y e 1 A s t - v i e w of ~t , u t c t t u r a 1

(Ii l i l ’t 17 I nIl’ n c t i l I In I t u ’ n t i i -u ’ p I toi l u i - I a I I - ‘ i t o h I ~~~~

w f l i t I u i - t i ‘. 1 c h In 1 at t I t,nub’s ; amid

In - 1 c m ‘. I I i i . I s i I Wu~ i I It , Ii - y - : l e s t f t o l e ~ I Pelt ~~~ ‘ Ii i a I f’ i’ ’:e a i r Ii — ‘I ex ist

Cli i 1 : 1 N u t f l u i s ,’ -’ t s ; II v , ‘I, C P u ? In:, I I n l i c I I Mu’ . / ‘i - 10 , 1° / f t

.I;i iii uu ; • I,. I . • F. ,I m u ~i~ ’~; • A . I’ . A u i - I c ’ nil 1~ i- I - l i - m t - n t i - I at i’d Ii’ r a t l i c i u n i Ip mode is ,

‘ ‘i t l i- - t m — i i - p c, f i t o i ‘, u u i I 7:c t I - ‘ nu t I a u u : u I ‘,‘ ‘ : I s : • I ’ u u r I W e t I Ii , ‘i’e x s t s ; I us; I I t m i t p

t t I lc ’ h .i~- I i , t . ’ I I’ ‘ m ’ .’ i t i I- , i m- ~~, c ’ i t i t I - i 1, - i t i IIt u I ’ ’ t t ’ : I t c , ’ , ii c ’ i t m m I c ,c I li ’1 im ’ i t: t h .

/ t ,‘ l t ~ Hi i’ - .

~~~~BLS~ I-~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ U.1~ I

-~~ -— _ - ,_ - _~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~i-

‘ 11 . 1 l l t : l t A I , IS I I - ‘ I N ( ( t i f i l ’ ’ - )

I lI~ ’,, It. ‘I . , 0 - f , N . It . , , i wo- ’ : • t , 1’ • , - Ic , u c r ’ ‘ . P t c ‘ i n u ’ u ’ n c t u • I . V

Mel non — I ’ . I) . , 1. P Hu t - i - i , It . 11 . b t u - i m l i t un - n - i a I ‘ ‘ ‘ s I i c s ; : Pi e - t u b 1 ; nI a

l l u u e t - — c , - , - a i mu ll l r - ug a t i l s ’ ; u t I t i t u a l a t ‘c k- . b - n u t (‘A u t l t , ‘ l c ’~ : nu ’; : liu’; t. h t t i t o of

P’ehav l o u :c 1 I’ i”:,- ni n-lu , ii’ X : 1 5 5 CP u I u s I I nii I’ ll Iv u - i a I v , ‘Ho liii I na b I4-pn r t ITo

16—215 , l c t l / t .

j n iu t? I ’ Is — I.. I- . • M t c - l ~f - I in; , II. ¶4 . , lIar t m i ami — I . A. • F. j i ’ i t c n , A • 1’ . Au ‘- xni i us l n—i t I on

of t o b a t fn i is :h pm : f s t - I ’ ~ i - i - t i Ic s ; y cI i c uli NS Ha l (‘I i m at m ’ and a V I I : nuoclr ’ l for work

r ’ c ’ I I v a t I - c u . I - t u I Mc i i I f u • 1 i’~~;t u; i r i s I It ill r’ id Pu — h an i — - i n i l It(’’ :i’ :c r i - l u

‘lexaus Pln r i t t I :;uu Ilu ut vn u n i t c, , lit -h it I c al 14-pert M e . l i t — ) ’) , I~ 1/ i .

i - - n — I. It - , I1 ’ i I uuuan , I - . /,. — St e h c lu i in; - f t . ¶4 — — F. he nce - - A . 1’ . Au r’x ;um limi t I en

of j - c lc t - ; u t f ! ; f n c - I Inn c II ~— l t otitrnh , ’n . b i t t A’i ’u t Ii , ‘l ex a n : i r u s t i t u u l o of

r-t’I u;t v l ’ -rnl I’ u - s; i-n ur ni u , h ’y n ’; C h r i s t In uu i 1 nl ’~~’ts s It v , ‘fr’clum i l ca l . l -Si ’pnrt Me .

7/ i — 10 , l97 ~t .

,lntmi’r; , A. I’ ., F, 1;, - - u ’ ’ : , f ,~ f- S . i t ~~’:iii I a n t I j c u l i : u I n b I I’m:l t V A i i - v I ~‘w ( ‘ 1 F ltc — c c,

l i e- i a rc - Ii. I s t t (- ‘n i l Ii , ‘I m x r im: : f I n - I I l u l l i o f P - - c -it - i c , I c - i :u 1 P i -~~ ‘a rc It — ‘I ex ni 5 :

Chr lu; t H u m h i s l v o i ’ ; i t ’ 1, ‘ l c n - i u u m i c a l Ro j - c i r l Ito . /5—1 , 19 7 ’- .

m i t t s , A. P. , , i ;c u i - i ’ - ; , I . 0., ISi u i t t l — 1 . 0 . , Ik ’ r mu ln i ’ c 5, ’ — ,r,

~~~~ Is : , N . IT .

ru;~’cIuu ’ I op Ii- :11 c i I I’ ’ ; - 1 e : P imu i - i i ’ s l u i u s: a uu d i e l n u I I nu i ’ n f i I ~~

I e t I i i i I Ii , 1 - v a ’ ’

it i s t t f c i t u - c c l I n u - I c : m v b n u a b L i ’ s n i ’ : - i c ’ f u , ‘I t - i - n t i s ( I t u l u s t l a m t t ’ n l v - u s : I t v , ‘i ’ - c l m u i t c a l

Ropot I tin . 7~.—1 , 19 7 5 .

.b amrr; , I.. I’ io n , A . 1’ , • if u u uu i l , .1 . It . — ihui rn l c’ I’ , (~ W~ — A 5 4’l Is ; , 5, 11 ,

— , Pol at im ’ut i ’ ; lt l Ic ’ : atutr~uug nu uI ,e-~- . ;i I’m ( - ‘ l u l l c - n t —

5 : 1 n i l I t i re — i- i l r c s m t e ame b f ier for mai lce

I irus m t Pc I - t ’ : I i - l t Inn ( u f ;t t i h i t I F’~ t a t I ti p notml n 1 . 74- m t M i tt I Ii — ‘I i’x ~~s; limo t 1—

I t u l i - n i 15 t l t n t ’ - ’ h r i ; c b nh Ii , I m ’~~, t ’ : ( ‘ f i t l u ; t I n ’ ~ u ( ) c , ,~, u , f ~ c, , It c’ l i u u l c u u l Pu’ 1c ni I

Plo . 7 5 — ‘u • I 1)/N -

~~~~~~~ ;~~~~~~ .~~~~~~

‘-

‘

~~ r

_____________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • -

~~‘~~~-;-~~~~‘-~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —~~ -- -~ - ——-— -

‘I I ( l~~S I ( A I , P - f I - u - I ’ - 7 5 ; (roll- I ‘ hi )

,hd ’ t i ns ; , A. I’ . , , l~~u,’ c ’ ’ : , t~ !~~. , 1, I S t , u u m f , 1 . 1’ . b t l : ’cI’ - M h , f t . ’ c l i I f t - i e t u c u ’ s : In Ic s ;Vciiru- -

l i d s I c a b e l Ic , . r t n s t u d o r -. iu , l ~~nt Iin im ;u I I~~ t ’ Intl i - r I ;ut I I t u I u ’ ; nlcoar u l Navy ‘sit I c s; —

F u r l (- ‘ c c l l I t , ‘h t ’ x n i s n : I i i’ I I t m u l i ’ t c l I’, u - h i s i ’ ,c li,i;i l l’ - ’ ’ - i u i - I c , ‘f -x ; iu: (: I i t i s ; i j ;u i t

Ilu m i v e u n f l v , l i - c l u e It ’ ;, F P t f ’ c~ I t f : c ’ , 1 5 - N , 1 915 .

Ikrt iii I , J. I- ’ . — lee’’ ’ : , A. I’ . , F. ,In iu r - e sn — I . P • ( ‘ i c r i - - I a l o e - of 11 r o t — t e r m r em-u I J o t rue -mi t

bel m n u v j - c i : i l ’ ’ e c t c b Psic, ’’,’ mdi II’’ - . b c - i l N i l Ii , ‘I i ’ y : us ; : t i u s ; f II It t e ol J P’f t av l or i l

14’s ;’ ’ : , i chu . ‘I u - x : i ~ C lur Is ; ! I :cu m Iii lv i’ , m l i v , ‘H’cl iit f cnu l f Sepo i I Iii’ . 7 5—0 , 1~ t 7 5 .

.l o r d ( — s ; — A. ~~~. — A , Int iu i i- s ; , I,, I- . l’u;~’ ‘‘ I i - ’ l i s p I c ’:i 1 ~~r u d I u - u p;t t l I ~~r I I nu unu I e 1 itu ra to:

1) Iu i s i ’ i m u ; I c ’ u - ’ ; ‘ it i-I i i’ la l. l i e i snh t l 1c~;, h - n i t Nc iu - I.li , ‘bex : i s ’, : iun:I I LIII C o f P-eiiavl.or,iI

I’Svm ’ e;ur c - Im , ‘li ’v ,’m’’, Cli r I s nI I :u i u b l t l v u ’ r m n l t ’ , , ‘I m’ c l itu lt-’ i b It r -~’uit I fT c , . 77— 5 , I~~77

I r t mr r ’ s : , F,. N - — F. Si mip l, , B — V — A pp 1 1 c- n ’ I Io ns : of I m ’ i i —s ; Isi pv ’ b o ,’mn t rnqu i at en lii cauusa I

aut nul ‘‘‘s In mu uh ot . m u d - l.t u u n l ( -d l u u ; m I lou i s ; . I nu I I-A im t I, • ‘I ,-xa -: l os t I t it le of

Ncliav Int .’t h I S e ’ i ’ n r n i u , ‘l t ’ y ; t ’ : (liii ‘:1, 1mm I’ ui i v o y us if c, , ‘ I - -u - h u h c a l Nm- por t No .

11—6 , h u h .

- ~¾

‘4

‘I