sources of variation in managers' job attitudes

SOURCES OF VARIATION IN MANAGERS' JOB ATTITUDES'

ROGER HARRISON The Procter & Gamble Company'

Summary TRYON'S Cumulative Communality Cluster Analysis was ap-

lied to the intercorrelations of 78 items from a management job attitude questionnaire. Eight factors were discovered, and the cluster of items best representing each factor was identified.

The identification of clusters made it possible to summarize such attitudes into a few categories for which the scores could be presented graphically. The analysis provided objective cri- teria for the elimination of ambiguous items.

The results of the analysis lend support to previous findings that opportunities for achievement, advancement, and recognition are basic to managers' job attitudes. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Introduction Factor analysis has been applied to attitude questionnaires

primarily for two purposes. One has been to identify and as- sess the relative importance of a few major sources of variation. Together these sources should account for as much as possible of the variation of individual items. Thus, a study might find that attitudes towards supervision, compensation, working conditions, and higher management accounted for the major part of the variation in responses to the individual questionnaire items. The second purpose has been to identify those groups of items for which the scores can most appropriately be summed to obtain one score for each respondent for each of the sources of variation discovered above.

'Thanks are due to Robert C. Tryon and Daniel E. Bailey of the University of California (Berkeley) for their suggestions and their assistance in processing the data. ' Now a t Yale University.

425

426 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

The present study was undertaken with both objectives in mind. It was desired to apply factor analysis to a questionnaire to discover the major sources of variation in managers’ attitudes towards their jobs and to find the items in the questionnaire which could be combined to give a score for each of the attitude areas. It was also expected that the analysis would identify ambiguous items which could then be eliminated or revised.

A number of previous studies have applied factor analysis to attitude questionnaires (Ash, 1954; Baehr, 1954; Carlsson, 1951; Dabas, 1958; Gordon, 1955; Wherry, 1954). The present study differs in two ways from most of those cited. Excepting Dabas (1958) and Gordon (1955), most workers have avoided the expense of factoring large matrices. The present study uses Tryon’s ( 1958) Cumulative Communality Cluster Analysis, a method of factoring items which does not require a priori grouping by the experimenter.

Secondly, previously published factor analyses have used data which included managers and nonsupervisory personnel in the same study. It would seem appropriate to separate managers from other groups since their jobs are generally thought to have different demands and provide different satisfactions from those of nonsupervisory workers. The present study deals only with the job attitudes of a group of managers.

Recent evidence on significant aspects of managerial job attitudes has come from two studies using content analysis of managers’ stories about satisfying and dissatisfying periods in their job careers (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959; Schwarz, 1959). The authors of the former study found that a process they called “self-realization” was prominent in most stories involving positive job attitudes. This process was facilitated by opportunities to advance and achieve on one’s job and to use one’s abilities fully. Most reported sequences leading to negative attitudes did not involve the absence of self- realization but rather were concerned with the conditions under which a man performs his job-such as pay, relations with one’s supervisor, company policies, etc. Herzberg and his asso- ciates theorize that satisfaction with the conditions of work

ROGER HARRISON 427

will bring the individual only to a level of relative neutrality towards his job, and that positive job attitudes must come from opportunities for self-realization.

Schwarz’s findings (1959) are similar. He found that opportunities to achieve and advance and to obtain recognition for achievement accounted for an overwhelming majority of positive job attitudes expressed by the managers in his study. In contrast to Herzberg, et al., however, Schwarz found that in- cidents leading to negative job attitudes usually involved factors frustrating managers’ attempts at self-realization. Such stories dealt with such occurrences as interference in one’s own operation by higher management, poor cooperation from other managers, and having requests or suggestions turned down.

It was hoped that the results of the present factor analysis of a management attitude questionnaire would provide further evidence concerning the relative importance of self-realization opportunities and other job aspects for managers’ job attitudes.

Procedure The questionnaire to be analyzed had been developed to

cover job attitudes, which interviews by the author and previous questionnaire administrations had shown to be important to managers in the Company. The questionnaire con- tained 100 items. Of these, 78 items were selected for analysis, as applying to managers’ jobs in other of the Company’s plants where an attitude questionnaire might be used. For each item, the respondents were asked to use a five-point scale to rate how favorably they viewed an aspect of their job situation. The responses of all the first- and second-level supervisors in one manufacturing location were included in the analysis. There were 186 such respondents.

The items were dichotomized for computation of tetrachoric correlations. The point of dichotomy for each item was so chosen as to give as near a 50-50 split as possible. The intercorrelations were computed on the IBM 650, using a program developed by H. W. Garrison and M. Charap of Educational Testing Service. Tryon’s ( 1958) Cumulative Communality


Cluster Analysis was applied to the intercorrelations, using a program developed for the IBM 701 by D. E. Bailey and J. 0. Neuhaus of the University of California.

Cumulative Communality Cluster Analysis begins with a multiple group method of factor analysis. An objective cri- terion for the selection of groups is programmed, resulting in the selection of the item in the matrix with the highest variance of squared correlations as a pivot variable for each group. Other items whose profiles of correlations in the matrix are similar to those of the pivot variable are grouped with it, and the first factor is passed through the centroid of this group. The process is repeated on each succeeding residual matrix. This method does not extract a general factor, and hence all items tend to have high loadings on the first factor. Otherwise, the method produces results which are close to orthogonal sim- ple structure. That is, the factors are so located that each item has high loadings on as few factors as possible.

The program continues to extract factors until 97.5 per cent of the common variance of the matrix has been accounted for by the loadings of items on the factors. The program reiterates to stable communality estimates (Tryon, 1958).

Following the multiple group factor analysis, items may be grouped into clusters on the basis of their patterns of factor loadings. The method used in the present study was suggested by R. C. Tryon in a personal communication.

A table was constructed, showing the coordinates of each of the variable domains on each of the factor dimensions. These coordinates were obtained by dividing each factor loading by the square root of the variable’s communality. Items were included in a cluster if their profiles of coordinates were similar, i.e., if they were located close to each other in the space defined by the orthogonal factors. Items with low communalities (be- low .40), or items which did not cluster with others, were ex- cluded from further consideration or held for rewriting.

The cluster of items most closely related to each factor was found by selecting items which had high loadings on the factor and loadings as low as possible on all other factors. The loading of each cluster on each factor and the communality of each cluster were computed by Tryon’s (1958) formulas.

ROGER HARRISON 429

The major sources of variation in managers’ job attitudes were identified by considering the content of the cluster most closely related to each factor. As many major clusters were identified as there were factors.

If the items in the questionnaire are assumed to be repre- sentative of the job aspects which influence managers attitudes, then the proportion of common variance accounted for by each cluster is an indication of the extent to which that source of variation is related to managers’ job attitudes. These values are found by first calculating the correlation of each variable with each cluster domain. The cluster domain is a perfect measure of the cluster, and the correlations are thus equivalent to the loadings of the variables on oblique factors passed through each cluster (oblique factor loading matrix).

For each major cluster, the sum of the squared cluster domain correlations of all variables not in the cluster is divided by the sum of the communalities of the variables. The result is the proportion of common variance of items not in the cluster which is accounted for by the cluster. This proportion is a measure of the centrality or significance of each cluster in the over-all job attitudes of the managers.

Results

The analysis yielded eight factors, accounting for 59.5 per cent of the total variance of the 78 items. The items were grouped into clusters, and for each factor the cluster most closely related to it was identified. In Table 1 are given the items in each of these clusters. The factor loadings and domain validities of the composite cluster scores are given in Table 2, along with the proportion of common variance accounted for by each cluster. The term, domain validity, refers to the correlations between a composite cluster score and a perfect measure of the kind of variation sampled by the cluster.

All eight clusters have moderate or high loadings on Factor 1, and each has a substantial loading on the factor it repre- sents. The eight clusters in Table 1 include 28 of the 78 items in the original matrix of intercorrelations. Twenty-one of the remaining items were placed in seven additional clusters, none


TABLE 1 Items i n the Eight Major Clusters

Cluster 1 . Opportunity to Advance and Accomplish

will give you a real feeling of satisfaction and accomplishment?

has in the Company to rise to a position which fully utilizes his abilities?

How do you feel about your chances of having a job in the Company which

How do you feel about the opportunities a man on your level in line work

How do you feel about the progress you’ve made in the Company up to now? How do you feel about the amount of freedom you have to run your own

What do you think of the attitude of higher management toward the im-

How do you feel about the confidence a management person can have that

job in the way that seems best to you?

portance of your job?

his ability and effort will be adequately rewarded by the Company?

Cluster 8. Working Conditions How are the working conditions for hourly people in the plant? How are your working conditions generally?

Cluster 3. Non-Economic Stability and Security

your efforts to enforce rules and maintain discipline?

contemplated which will affect your department or your operation?

that have been taking place a t this plant in the last five years?

place in management recently?

Cluster 4. Personal Relations With Own Immediate Supervisor

How do you feel about the support you get from higher management in

What do you think of the consideration given your views when changes are

In general, how do you feel about the changes in management practices

How do you feel about the amount of job rotation which has been taking

How is your supervisor at getting people to work well together? Rate the job your superior does in letting you know how you stand with

How is your superior a t letting you know how you are doing on different

How is your superior a t giving recognition for good work?

him.

parts of your job?

Cluster 6 . Compensation: Pay and Benefits How do you feel about your earnings, compared to those of nonmanagement

people in the plant? How do you feel about your earnings, when you take into account the diffi-

culty and responsibility of your job? How do Company retirement benefits for management compare with what

other companies have to offer? Over-all, how do Company benefits for management (Disability Benefit

Plan, Hospital Plan, Group Life Insurance, Profit Sharing, etc.) compare with what other companies offer?

ROGER HARRISON 431

TABLE 1-Continued Cluster 6 . Communications from Top Management

what they ought to know about the Company?

what they ought to know about what’s going on in the plant?

ought to know about how salary increases are decided upon.

Cluster 7. Working Relations with Other In-Plant Groups

plant?

ments are defined?

Cluster 8. In-Plant Standards of Operation

in the plant recently?

How good a job does top management do in telling people a t your level

How good a job does top management do in telling people a t your level

Rate the job top management does in telling people a t your level what they

How do you feel about the way different departments cooperate in this

What do you think of how clearly your responsibilities to other depart-

In general, how is the quality of new hourly employees who have been hired

What do you think of the quality standards in use in the plant? What do you think of the quality of the ideas and suggestions which the

hourly people have?

of which were uniquely related to any one of the original factors as were the first eight cluster^.^

Discussion The content of items in the eight clusters suggests that the

major sources of variations in the managers’ job attitudes are as follows:

Opportunity to advance and accomplish. Working conditions. Non-economic stability and security. Personal relations with one’s immediate supervisor. Compensation, including both pay and benefits. Communications from top management. Working relations with other in-plant groups. In-plant standards of operation.

The results of the analysis were used to group items for presentation of results to management. Scores were obtained for each of the eight clusters in Table 1 by averaging scores

* A matrix of factor loadings for all items may be obtained from the author on request.


on individual items. The eight averages were plotted graphically for each group of managers in the study. Those who had responsibility for interpreting and planning action on the basis of survey results found the graphic presentation of cluster scores more understandable and useful than responses to individual items.

The Cumulative Communality Cluster Analysis is also useful in aiding construction of future questionnaires. Questions with overly complex patterns of factor loadings can be discarded or rewritten to refer more directly to one of the important aspects of the job. Questions with insignificant loadings on all factors (low communalities) may be discarded; or, if deemed important, other questions may be written to improve the coverage of the area a t which they are aimed.

The cost of machine and operator time for computing and factoring the 78 x 78 matrix was under $400, the major part going for calculation of the tetrachoric correlations. This brings the factor analysis of attitude questionnaires within the means of many research groups.

The cluster accounting for the highest proportion of common variance is inferred to have greatest significance for managers’ over-all job attitudes. The first cluster, dealing with opportunities to advance and accomplish, accounts for 38.5 per cent of the common variance. Clusters 3 and 6 account for approxi- mately equal amounts (32.8 and 31.4 per cent), but less than Cluster 1. The remaining clusters account for substantially less common variance.

The content of items in Cluster 1 suggest those aspects of the job reported by Herzberg, et al. (1959) and by Schwarz (1959) as most significant in determining job attitudes of their samples of managers and professional people.

The items in Cluster 1 deal with aspects of managers’ jobs which refer to opportunities for achievement, recognition, and advancement (Herzberg’s term is self-realization). While this study does not show as dramatic differences as were found by Herzberg, et al. and by Schwarz, the greater proportion of common variance accounted for by Cluster 1 is consistent with their findings. The present results lend support to their theories

ROGER HARRISON 433

6

.06 -.11

.OO

.oo

.oo

.58 -.01

.01

TABLE 2 Factor Loadings and Domain Validities of the Eight Major Clusters

7 8

-.13 .02 -.06 .02 -.03 .02

.01 -.01

.OO .oo

.OO .05

.56 -.05

.05 .65

____-

Cluster

1 1 1 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

.86 -.12

.47 .73

.52 .05

.57 .04

.58 .25

.55 .40

.58 .20

.32 .16

Factor

.05 -.08

.66

.OO

.14 -.01

.22

.22

1 3 1 4 1 5 -.12 .OO -.04 -.04 -.02 .04

.72 .OO

.19 .03 -.14 .64

.09 -.04 -.05 .07

Domain validity

.96

.93

.91

.97

.95

.95

.90

.83 --

that self-realization opportunities are the main source of job motivation for managerial and professional people.

In future studies it will be important to investigate conditions which may operate to influence the effect of opportunities for self-realization on attitudes and on performance. One such condition might be the expectations held by the individual as to the satisfactions to be obtained from work in general and from a specific job in particular. We would want to look for differences in expectations resulting from diverse social backgrounds and from varying past work experiences. We would anticipate that the effects of the opportunities offered by the job would vary with the expectations of the individual.

Another fruitful area for research is the relation of the present findings to findings on the effects of supervisor-subordinate relationships. One would expect that, if opportunities for self- realization are of central importance in people’s orientation to their jobs, the significant behavior of the supervisor would be that which facilitated or frustrated the achievement of these goals.

A study by Pelz (1952) provides evidence on this point. It was found that attitudes towards the supervisor’s human relations practices were positively related to performance of the work group only when the supervisor was seen by the group


as having influence with higher management, i.e., only if the supervisor had the power to facilitate or frustrate the goals of subordinates.

Work done to date points to the inference that job attitudes of managers and professional people are determined more by opportunities for growth, achievement, and responsibility than by other aspects of the job. The clear implication of such findings is that trends in modern organizations toward increased centralization of decision-making and increased rigidity of procedures will lead to lowered job satisfaction for people at middle and lower levels of management.

References ASH, P. “The SRA Employee Inventory-A Statistical Analysis.” Personnel

BAEHR, MELANY, E. “A Factorial Study of the SRA Employee Inventory.” Per-

CARLSSON, G. “An Analysis of Morale Dimensions.” Unpublished manuscript,

DABAS, Z. S. “The Dimensions of Morale: An Item Factorization of the SRA

GORDON, 0. J. “A Factor Analysis of Human Needs and Industrial Morale.” Per-

HERZBEBQ, F., MAUSNER, B. AND SNYDERMAN, BARBARA. The Motivation to Work.

PELZ, D. C. “Influence: A Key to Effective Leadership in the First Line Super-

SCHWARZ, P. A. “Attitudes of Middle Management Personnel.” Paper read a t

TRYON, R. C. “Cumulative Communality Cluster Analysis.” Educational and

WHERRY, R. J. “An Orthogonal Re-Rotation of the Baehr and Ash Studies of the

Psychology, VII (1954), 337-364.

sonnel Psychology, VII (19541, 319-336.

University of Michigan, 1951.

Employee Inventory.” Personnel Psychology, XI (1958), 217-234.

sonnel Psychology, VIII (19551, 1-18.

New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959.

visor.” Personnel, XXIX (19521, 209-217.

American Psychological Association, Cincinnati, September, 1959.

Psychological Measurement, XVIII (19581, 3-35.

SRA Employee Inventory.” Personnel Psychology, VII (1954), 365-380.

sources of variation in managers' job attitudes

Documents