The Development of Stewardship Relationships between Managers and Their Principals:

A Study of the Effect of Three Organizational/Cultural Variables

Submitted to Regent University

School of Leadership Studies

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Organizational Leadership

C. Dean Williamson

November 2003

UMI Number: 3117958

Copyright 2004 by

Williamson, C. Dean

All rights reserved.

________________________________________________________

UMI Microform 3117958

Copyright 2004 ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

____________________________________________________________

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

ii

iii

Acknowledgements

God slowly reveals His plan for my life. He inspired the vision for entering into

doctoral studies, and then guided my path to Regent University’s School of Leadership

Studies. He then walked with me during the academic journey and provided strength

through a tremendous network of friends and scholars.

This project represents the completion of four years worth of research and study

in the field of organizational leadership, and along the way, numerous people were part of

the network of support. Recognition goes to Dr. Bruce Winston, this dissertation

committee’s chairman, who provided guidance and direction that allowed the project to

be completed. Acknowledgements are also due to committee members Dr. Paul Carr and

Dr. Michael Hartsfield, who provided encouragement and support. Noteworthy efforts by

Dr. Pam Robles assisted in development of the dissertation proposal.

During this academic journey, I spent most evenings and weekends camped out in

the study with stacks of journal articles and research books, reading and punching away

on the laptop computer. I could not have made it through the program and earned my

doctorate without the support of my family. My wife, Sharla, and our boys, Brad and

Chris, have witnessed to the hours of dedicated study that are required to complete the

program’s courses. They have stood with me as I plugged away on the research project.

As the academic journey comes to an end, I know that God’s will provide

direction and use the academic skills to reveal further steps in His plan for my life. I do

not yet fully understand why He inspired the vision for advanced graduate studies, but, I

do know that when His plan is revealed, the purpose will be clear and the experience

rewarding.

iv

Abstract

Agents and stewards are different, not only psychologically, as advanced by

Stevenson (2002), but also in the way they perceive their organization. This research

project extended research by Davis, Schoorman, and Donaldson (1997) examined the

situational influences on the development of principal-steward relationships. That is, the

involvement/control orientation in organizational management; individualism/

collectivism in organizational culture; and power distance in organizational culture,

which, for was focused in this study on institutions of higher education. The 1,077

respondents -- who are presidents, vice presidents, and directors at institutions affiliated

with the: (a) Association for Southern Baptist Colleges and Schools, (b) Council for

Christian Colleges and Universities, and, (c) American Association of State Colleges and

Universities. They answered self-typing paragraphs (STPAs) about their management

relationship, used to identify their status as an agent or steward, and management

philosophy, which identified the perception they held of their organization as being either

control-oriented or involvement-oriented. The administrators also provided answers to

individualism/collectivism (IDV) and power distance (PDI) questions from Geert

Hofstede’s Values Survey Module (VSM 94) that provided an understanding about

relationships that exist between agents and stewards and their organizations. A number of

statistically significant relationships were discovered, providing insight into the different

organizational understandings and expectations of those identified as agents and

stewards.

v

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................ iii Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iv Definitions.......................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1: The Need for Stewardship Theory .................................................................... 1

Stewardship Theory ........................................................................................................ 2 Developing Stewardship Theory..................................................................................... 3 The Need for the Study ................................................................................................... 4 The Purpose of the Study................................................................................................ 6 Research Questions......................................................................................................... 7 Hypotheses...................................................................................................................... 9

Hypothesis 1................................................................................................................ 9 Hypothesis 2.............................................................................................................. 10 Hypothesis 3.............................................................................................................. 10

Method .......................................................................................................................... 10 Procedures................................................................................................................. 11 Instrumentation ......................................................................................................... 11 Data Collection and Analysis.................................................................................... 12

Limitations of the Study................................................................................................ 13 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 13

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature.................................................................................. 14 Agency’s Assumptions and its Critics .......................................................................... 14

Agency Theory.......................................................................................................... 16 Stewardship Theory ...................................................................................................... 18

The “Stakeholder” Concept ...................................................................................... 19 The Development of Stewardship Theory ................................................................ 21

The Situational Factors Affecting Stewardship Relationships ..................................... 27 Involvement and Control .......................................................................................... 29 Collectivism and Individualism ................................................................................ 34 Power Distance ......................................................................................................... 40

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 44 Chapter 3: Method ............................................................................................................ 46

Research Questions....................................................................................................... 46 Research Question 1 ................................................................................................. 46 Research Question 2 ................................................................................................. 46 Research Question 3 ................................................................................................. 47 Hypothesis 1.............................................................................................................. 47 Hypothesis 2.............................................................................................................. 47 Hypothesis 3.............................................................................................................. 47

Study Sampling and Participants .................................................................................. 47 Limitations of the Study’s Sample................................................................................ 49 Procedures..................................................................................................................... 50 Variables ....................................................................................................................... 51 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 52

Self-Typing Paragraphs ............................................................................................ 52

vi

Agent/Steward Paragraphs........................................................................................ 53 Involvement/Control Paragraphs .............................................................................. 58 Values Survey Module.............................................................................................. 60 Summary ................................................................................................................... 65 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 65

Chapter 4: Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 67 Research Participants .................................................................................................... 68

Institutional classification ......................................................................................... 69 Gender....................................................................................................................... 69 Age............................................................................................................................ 70 Education .................................................................................................................. 71 Administrative Position ............................................................................................ 72 Religion..................................................................................................................... 73 Years in Current Position.......................................................................................... 74 Demographic Chart................................................................................................... 76

Management Relationship Variable.............................................................................. 78 Results........................................................................................................................... 79 Significant Findings ...................................................................................................... 82

Management Relationship ........................................................................................ 82 Management Philosophy........................................................................................... 83 Role of Individual ..................................................................................................... 84

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 85 Significant Data ............................................................................................................ 86

Management Philosophy........................................................................................... 87 Role of Individual ..................................................................................................... 87

Chapter 5: Conclusion....................................................................................................... 88 Research Project............................................................................................................ 88 Limitations of the Study................................................................................................ 91 Further Study ................................................................................................................ 91

References......................................................................................................................... 93 Appendix A..................................................................................................................... 100 Appendix B ..................................................................................................................... 106 Appendix C ..................................................................................................................... 117

vii

List of Tables

Table Page

1. Collectivist and Individualist Cultural Tendencies in Organizations ................... 35 2. Key Differences between Low- and High-Power Distance Societies .................. 41 3. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension IDV Scores......................................................... 63 4. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension PDI Scores ......................................................... 64 5. Research Variable and Instrument Relationships ................................................. 65 6. Institutional Classification .................................................................................... 69 7. Gender................................................................................................................... 70 8. Age........................................................................................................................ 71 9. Education .............................................................................................................. 72 10. Administrative Position ........................................................................................ 72 11. Religion................................................................................................................. 73 12. Years in Current Position...................................................................................... 74 13. Years Employed in Education .............................................................................. 75 14. Demographic Chart............................................................................................... 77 15. Management Relationship Type ........................................................................... 78 16. Management Relationship and Management Philosophy..................................... 80 17. Management Relationship and Role of Individual ............................................... 81 18. Management Relationship and Power Distance ................................................... 82 19. Management Relationship and Organization Type............................................... 83 20. Management Philosophy and Power Distance...................................................... 84 21. Management Philosophy and Gender ................................................................... 84 22. Role of Individual and Organization Type ........................................................... 85

viii

List of Figures

Figure Page

1. Psychological Factors of Stewardship Theory.........................................................6

ix

Definitions

Agency theory. For the purposes of this study, “agency,” in general, is defined as a

relationship in which individuals behave according to a natural system of motivation that

is largely economic. “Agency theory,” then, is a term representing a body of assumptions

and ideas that approaches the organizational relationship between top management and

principals from this perspective.

Agent. An “agent” assumes a position representing principal(s), and, as a

manager, is responsible to maximize shareholder utility. Managers accept agent status

because they perceive the opportunity to maximize their own utility.

Collectivist culture. In an organizational setting, a collectivist culture is defined,

for this study, as one in which the goals of the organization take precedence over those of

its individual members.

Control-oriented situation. For this study, a control-oriented situation is an

organization with an established bureaucratic structure.

Individualistic culture. Individualism, for the purpose of this study, is defined as

placing a greater emphasis on personal goals than on those of the organization or culture

as a whole.

Involvement-oriented situation. For the purposes of this study, involvement

orientation is a management approach that affects the atmosphere in the organization as a

whole and is characterized as consisting of open communication, encouraging employee

participation, and empowering workers.

x

Power distance. An institution’s culture of power distance, as described for this

study, focuses on the perception of how equally, or unequally, power is distributed

throughout an organization.

Principal. An owner becomes a principal when they contract with agents, who

manage their firms for them.

Steward. A “steward” is a manager who has accepted the tenants of steward

theory, and through that status is willing to be accountable for some larger body than

themselves.

Stewardship theory. An organizational theory proposed by Block (1996) that is

built on model in which leadership is focused on the principles of stewardship.

1

Chapter 1: The Need for Stewardship Theory

In the early 1990s, scholars began criticizing a prominent model of leadership --

agency theory -- for its inability to explain some organizational situations. Agency theory

was founded on behavioral assumptions that are economic. Donaldson and Davis (1991)

described the foundation of agency theory as follows: “The ‘model of man’ underlying

agency and organisational [sic] economics is that of the self-interested actor rationally

maximising [sic] their own personal economic conflict of interest between owner and

manager” (p. 51). The limitation in this view of “agents” was expanded by Jensen and

Meckling (1994), who wrote, “This individual is an evaluator and maximizer who has

only one want: money income” (p. 10). Similarly, Perrow (1986) explained, “It [agency

theory] appears to reflect a concern with applying the most stark assumptions of

economics -- maximizing utilities, where net utilities are rewards (money) minus effort --

to explain contracts and thus organizations” (p. 224). The basic assumption posed by

agency theory is that the primary motive in leadership is economics. Perrow identifies

this as a theoretical weakness, claiming that the model’s assumptions are limiting and that

“agency theory is an easy out” (p. 236).

In addition to positing a materialistic view of organizational actors, agency theory

seemed to have additional inadequacies. Doucouliagos (1994) criticized its

characterization of decision making, writing that, “Individual, atomistic, and self-

interested decision making cannot capture the institutional and norm-based nature of

firms” (p. 881). Davis, Schoorman, and Donaldson’s (1997) study of how organizational

stockholders and top managers align their interests convinced them that agency theory

2

also could not explain the stockholder/management dynamic and that “additional theory

is needed to explain what, if anything, causes interests to be aligned” (pp. 20-21). For

these authors, the most promising “additional theory” was Block’s (1996) stewardship

theory, which Block described as “the umbrella idea, which promises the means of

achieving fundamental change in the way we govern our institutions” (p. xx).

Stewardship Theory

Block (1996) expressed the need for a new model of organizational leadership

when he wrote that, “The evidence that our organizations are not working is fully upon

us” (p. 3). Offering an alternative to conventional models, Block described a “set of

principles and practices which have the potential to make dramatic changes in our

governance system” (p. 5). The stewardship theory of leadership that Block proposed

offered, in his words, “An approach to reform that puts leadership in the background

where it belongs” (p. 6).

The focus of Block’s (1996) stewardship model is on accountability, which he

claims, “Begins with the willingness to be accountable for some larger body than

ourselves -- an organization, a community” (p. 8). In looking at the importance of the

model, Tucker (1994) wrote that, “Block's prediction is that those organizations

exercising stewardship by elevating service over self-interest in all endeavors, as well as

redistributing power, privilege, and wealth, will be those that prosper" (p. 593). Block’s

model of accountability describes the possibilities for organizational prosperity through

“a set of design principles, a template from which a whole range of management

practices can be molded” (p. 64).

3

Block’s (1996) “template” focuses on the creation of an organizational

atmosphere emphasizing “ownership and responsibility” (p. 64). Organizational

governance, according to Block’s stewardship model, centers on nine principles. These

consist of: (a) maximize the choice for those closest to the work, (b) reintegrate the

managing and the doing of the work, (c) let measurements and controls serve the core

workers, (d) yield on consistency across groups, and support local solutions, (e) service is

everything, (f) de-glorify management as a job title and de-mystify the staff functions,

(g) end secrecy, (h) demand a promise, and (i) redistribute wealth (pp. 64-67). These

principles, according to Block, help the members of an organization “construct the house

in which they live” (p. 64).

Developing Stewardship Theory

Since the publication of Block’s (1996) proposal, the stewardship model has been

studied as an attractive alternative to agency theory. Preston (1998) wrote, “The strength

of the stewardship model is that it offers a different set of motivations, which could

potentially include the interests of all relevant stakeholders” (p. 9). Preston described

Block’s stewardship theory as being linked to morality. Its ethical content is an important

theoretical distinctive. Preston wrote that, “Without its moral appeal, the stewardship

theory is simply a more sophisticated approach to optimizing benefit-cost ratios” (p. 9).

Albanese, Dacin, and Harris (1997), on the other hand, discounted the application of

stewardship theory, claiming that it places too high a priority on “The relationship

established at time of hire” (p. 610). According to these authors, “We must view agency

relationships through a lens that can accommodate the shifting of interest alignment. In

fact, today's 'agent' may be tomorrow's 'steward,' or vice versa" (pp. 610-611).

4

Nevertheless, scholars such as Caldwell, Bischoff, and Karri (2002) see the stewardship

model as filled with opportunities. The stewardship model, according to Caldwell et al.

offers leadership “based upon teamwork, community and ethical and caring behavior” (p.

162). Caldwell et al. described stewardship theory’s concepts as providing hope, “which

we think best serve people and organizations long-term" (p. 162).

Through stewardship theory research, Davis et al. (1997) worked to define,

"situations in which managers are not motivated by individual goals, but rather are

stewards whose motives are aligned with objectives of their principals" (p. 21). They

found that limitations in agency theory prevented it from being able to explain this

organizational circumstance. Pursuing their interest in the relationship between the

principals of an organization and top management, Davis et al. posited that a “clear

understanding of the characteristics of the manager and of the situation are essential to

understanding manager-principal interest convergence" (p. 21). Seeing the potential of

stewardship theory for understanding this convergence, Davis et al. study expressed the

need for further research into the stewardship theory’s psychological and situational

correlatives.

The Need for the Study

Acceptance of Block’s (1996) stewardship theory hinges on whether the theory

can be integrated into a working organizational model. Validation of the model can help

bring about this accomplishment. Research has been conducted by Donaldson (1990),

Donaldson and Davis (1991, 1994), Fox and Hamilton (1994), and Stevenson (2002) in

an effort to begin establishing the theory’s validity. Donaldson (1990) provided insight

into the theory through his research into organizational economics, with a focus on the

5

variables of human motivation and behavior. Works by Donaldson and Davis (1991,

1994) contrasted the ability of agency theory and stewardship theory to explain corporate

governance. Finally, a study by Davis et al. (1997) posited that, “Research is needed that

shows where stewardship theory fits in the theoretical landscape, relative to agency

theory, rather than opposed to it” (p. 21). To that end, they established a set of 11

propositions centered on the “psychological and situational factors that explain manager-

principal interest alignment” (p. 21). Five of these propositions posit that, aspects of the

individual psychology of leaders will effect whether individuals are likely to develop

stewardship relationships with their principals. Three further propositions predict that

certain “situational factors” within a given organization encourage or discourage the

development of stewardship relationships between principals and top management.

Following up on Davis et al. (1997) study, Stevenson (2002) empirically

examined Davis et al. propositions about the psychological factors affecting an

individual’s tendency to practice stewardship in relation to his or her principals. He

determined that corporate executives who are likely to become stewards in principal-

steward relationships (a) operate at the highest level of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs,

being that of self-actualization; (b) are motivated by intrinsic factors; and (c) posses a

closer identification with, and a higher level of, commitment to their organization. Figure

1, which is taken from Stevenson’s study, shows the psychological factors that are

indicators for the development of stewards. Stevenson wrote that, “The corporate

executive or manager moves towards a stewardship style of management at the point

where all of these psychological factors converge” (p. 31).

6

Figure 1

Psychological Factors of Stewardship Theory

Note. From An empirical study comparing the psychological factors that describe agency

and stewardship theories in principal-steward relationships, p. 32, by L. J. Stevenson,

2002, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.

The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to contribute to scholarship on stewardship theory

by empirically testing Davis et al. (1997) propositions about situational influences on the

development of principal-steward relationships. This study, therefore, followed up on

7

Stevenson’s (2002) study, which validated the individual psychological factors effecting

the development of steward-principal relationships, proposed by Davis et al. This was

accomplished by empirically testing, in its turn, the three situational factors effecting the

development of steward-principal relationships. While each of these three factors will be

discussed in greater detail in chapter 2, a short explanation of each one is included in the

following presentation of the study’s research questions.

Research Questions

This study examines three situational factors at work in organizations -- factors

that affect the development of principal-steward relationships in organizations. The first

of the situational factors examined in this study is the degree of control orientation or

involvement orientation in a given organization. A “control orientation” as described by

Lawler (1992) as management, that is “top-down, pyramidal, hierarchical, mechanistic,

and bureaucratic” (p. 25). The goal of the control-oriented approach, according to Lawler,

is to “develop employees who are perfectly programmed robots and are 100 percent

reliable” (p. 29). In contrast, Lawler described “involvement orientation” as being

focused on management without barriers and boundaries, so that “individuals at all levels

in the organization are given power to influence decisions” (p. 28). Lawler noted that

organizations employing an involvement-oriented approach are organizationally “flatter,”

that is, less hierarchical. Furthermore, they encourage “innovation, change, and problem-

solving activity to take place throughout the organization” (p. 40), because more people

are involved in the decision-making process. Thus, the first research question expresses

this important situational aspect of management style.

8

Research question 1: Are managers who are in an involvement-oriented situation

more likely to become stewards in principal-steward relationships than are managers

who are in a control-oriented situation?

The second of the situational factors examined in this study focuses on

organizational culture and relates to its individualistic or collectivistic nature. Davis et al.

(1997) describe “individualism” as being characterized by “the emphasis of personal

goals over group goals” (p. 34). In contrast, “collectivism,” according to Davis et al. is

epitomized as being a dimension through which personal goals are subordinated “to the

goals of the collective” (p. 34). Thus, the second research question expresses this

important situational aspect of management style.

Research question 2: Are managers in a collectivist culture more likely to develop

principal-steward relationships than are managers who are in an individualistic culture?

Finally, the third of the situational factors examined in this study also focuses on a

dimension of organizational culture, in this case one referred to as “power distance.”

Power distance is described in terms of being “high” and “low,” which indicates the

degree of equality or inequality that exists between members of a national culture or

organizational culture. A high power-distance level indicates the presence of power and

wealth inequalities. Low levels of power distance indicate that the organization de-

emphasizes differences between its members’ power and wealth, stressing opportunity

and equality (Davis et al., 1997; Hofstede, 1984, 1991). Thus, the third research question

expresses this important situational aspect of management style.

9

Research question 3: Are managers in a low power distance culture more likely to

develop principal-steward relationships than are managers who are in a high power

distance culture?

Hypotheses

The first of the situational factors examined in this study was the degree of control

orientation or involvement orientation as promulgated by a given organization’s

management philosophy. Davis et al. (1997) contended that an organization’s

management philosophy “creates a context in which the choice of agency or stewardship

relationships is made by principals and managers” (p. 34). Therefore, the first research

hypothesis posited that the involvement/control orientation in an organization affects the

development of stewardship relationships as follows:

Hypothesis 1

Managers who are in an involvement-oriented situation are more likely to become

stewards in principal-steward relationships than are managers who are in a control-

oriented situation.

The second of the situational factors examined in this study focused on

organizational culture and related to its individualistic or collectivistic nature. Davis et al.

(1997) posited that the dimension of individualism and collectivism establishes a

foundational situational factor that affects the development of agency or stewardship

relationships. Collectivistic cultures, according to Davis et al., “Are more conducive to

the emergence of stewardship relationships” (p. 35). Thus, the second research hypothesis

posited that the degree of individualism versus collectivism in an organizational culture

affects the development of stewardship relationships as follows:

10

Hypothesis 2

Managers in a collectivist culture are more likely to develop principal-steward

relationships than are managers who are in an individualistic culture.

Finally, the third of the situational factors examined in this study focused on a

characteristic of organizational culture referred to as power distance. Davis et al. (1997)

contended that high power-distance cultures encourage agency relationships “because

they support and legitimize the inherent inequality between principal and agent” (p. 36).

On the other hand, cultures with lower power-distance levels “are more conducive to the

development of stewardship relationships” (p. 36). Thus, the third research hypothesis

posited that the degree of power distance in an organizational culture affects the

development of stewardship relationships as follows:

Hypothesis 3

Managers in a low power distance culture are more likely to develop principal-

steward relationships than are managers who are in a high power distance culture.

Method

As stated previously, the purpose of this study was to empirically test the affect of

three situational factors on the development of principal-steward relationships in

organizations. To this end, the study employed a method in which high-ranking members

of university management teams, hereinafter referred to as administrators, responded to

self-typing paragraphs identifying themselves as agents or stewards. The administrators

also responded to self-typing paragraphs that identified their perceptions of the

organization’s management philosophy as control-oriented versus involvement-oriented.

In addition, the administrators provided answers to questions from an empirically

11

established survey instrument that identified their perceptions of (a) the organization's

culture as collectivist-oriented or individualistic-oriented, and (b) power distance levels

as low or high within their organization.

Procedures

Most of the administrators chosen as participants for this study were members of

institutions affiliated with the (a) Association for Southern Baptist Colleges and Schools

(ASBCS), (b) Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), or (c) American

Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). The administrators included (a)

presidents, (b) vice presidents, and (c) directors. Due to the divergent nature of the

participants’ responsibilities, and their disparate backgrounds, it was posited that the

study sample would consist of both “stewards” and “agents.” Further information on the

participants in the study is provided in chapter 3.

Instrumentation

The study employed two types of instruments: an established survey instrument

and self-typing paragraphs. The survey instrument chosen for this study was Hofstede’s

(1984, 1991, 2001) “Values Survey Module” for the measures of individualism/

collectivism and of power distance in the respondents’ respective organizational cultures.

Self-typing paragraphs were used to determine the individual orientation of

participants toward either a stewardship or agency relationship with their principals, and

to identify the participants’ perceptions of their organization’s management philosophy as

control-oriented or involvement-oriented. The paragraphs employed in the study were

composed in accordance with the standards for design proposed by James and Hatten

(1994, 1995). These standards included providing accurate descriptions, which allowed

12

the administrators to correctly identify the dimensions that the instruments were being

used for in the process of data collection. Further details are provided in chapter 3.

Data Collection and Analysis

The survey instruments were provided to the administrators of the ASBCS,

CCCU, and AASCU institutions, as well as to other educational administrators through

electronic mail. Also, in an effort to increase the rate of participation, the survey

instrument was placed on the World Wide Web through an account with InterCom’s

SurveySuite (SurveySuite, 2003). The survey instruments were first forwarded to ASBCS

administrators by electronic mail, with the survey instrument provided as Microsoft Word

document attachment. In addition, the executive director of ASBCS supported the

research and encouraged membership participation. With the executive director’s

approval, an ASBCS board member composed a research project cover letter that urged

participation in the project. This letter was sent by electronic mail to administrators at the

54 ASBCS institutions and accompanied the survey document. With the addition of the

option that allowed participants to complete the survey through the SurveySuite on-line

World Wide Web site, requests sent by electronic mail included information on accessing

the survey’s electronic instrument (SurveySuite). The survey results were collected and

stored in a Microsoft Excel database, and then merged into SPSS (Statistical Package for

the Social Sciences) for statistical analysis. Calculations conducted with SPSS provided

calculation results and afforded comparisons of the observed differences in the dataset’s

calculated means and standard deviations, as well as providing opportunities for analysis

by independent-samples t tests.

13

Limitations of the Study

The study’s major limitations stem from the nature of its sample, which is a

narrow, convenience sample. The administrators of the educational institutions forming

the sample for this study were, for the most part, employed by institutions holding

membership in the ASBCS, CCCU, and AASCU associations. Consequently, individual

study participants were all educated professional administrators. This degree of

demographic homogeneity in the sample limits the generalizability of the study’s results.

Similarly, among respondents from the ASBCS and CCCU member institutions, there

was the possibility that the shared religious orientation of the participants would yield a

greater percentage of self-identified “stewards” than would be present in a random

sample of organizational leaders. This limits the generalizability of the study’s results.

Conclusion

This chapter has presented the current study’s purpose and has outlined its

research questions and methods. Subsequent chapters will discuss in detail the matters

that were briefly described in this introduction. The following chapter, chapter 2, will

review the literature related to stewardship theory and to the situational factors under

examination in the study, that is, the involvement/control orientation in organizational

management; individualism/collectivism in organizational culture; and power distance in

organizational culture. The study’s methods are described in detail in chapter 3, and

chapter 4 presents the results of the study. A discussion of the implications of the study’s

results is contained in chapter 5, along with a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses

of the study and suggestions for future research.

14

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature

This chapter reviews the literature related to the development of stewardship

theory and also provides a shorter review of the literature on the concepts tested by the

variables in the study -- involvement/control in organizational management; collectivism/

individualism in organizational culture; and power distance in organizational culture. The

first section of the chapter establishes the development of the stewardship model within

the academic fields of business and society. That section concludes with an in-depth

discussion of the study conducted by Davis et al. (1997), which advanced the model of

stewardship to which this study applies. The second major section of the chapter reviews

the literature on the three situational variables described above.

Agency’s Assumptions and its Critics

Organizational research began as an outgrowth of the Industrial Revolution,

which, according to Daft (2001), “Posed problems that earlier organizations had not

encountered” (p. 22). Berle and Means (1956) described the century that followed the

Industrial Revolution as a period of economic evolution. One, in which, society changed

“from an arrangement under which an association of owners controlled their property on

terms closely supervised by the state to an arrangement by which many men have

delivered contributions of capital into the hands of a centralized control” (p. 127). As

people and organizations grappled for understanding in this climate of change, they relied

on assumptions grounded in economics. Early business and economics researchers relied

on Smith’s (1937) work, in which he declared that labor is "the real price of everything,"

15

(p. 30), since it is through work that natural objects are transformed into things that

people need or want. Thus, Smith wrote that:

What every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and

trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has

acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is

the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon

other people. (p. 30)

The materialist assumptions about human nature contained in Smith’s model guided early

organizational leaders toward organizational paradigms that focused on control over

others based on this view of exchange, and this became the mainstay of what, according

to Hatch (1997), “Organization theorists now call the Classical School” (p. 27).

Daft (2001) described the effects that this economic model of man had on

organizations. He wrote that, “The classical perspective, which sought to make

organizations run like efficient, well-oiled machines, is associated with the development

of hierarchy and bureaucratic organizations and remains the basis of much of modern

management theory and practice” (p. 22). Explaining the influence of these inherited

assumptions, Daft also wrote, “Managers and organizations are still imprinted with the

hierarchical, bureaucratic approach that rose more than a century ago” (p. 24). Today,

scholars often refer to this body of assumptions as “agency theory.” According to Jensen

and Meckling (1994), agency theory frames organizational relationships “as a contract

under which . . . the principal(s) . . . engage another person (the agent) to perform some

service on their behalf which involves delegating some decision making authority to the

agent” (p. 308).

16

Agency Theory

Underlying the simple agent-principal conception of management in the Classical

School was a deeper set of assumptions about human motivations. Agency theory is built

on an economic model of organizational behavior that views the organizational leader as

a “self-interested actor rationally maximising [sic] their own personal economic gain”

(Donaldson & Davis, 1991, p. 51). The principal assumption of agency theory, according

to Perrow (1986), “Is that people maximize individual utilities, defined as reward

(generally monetary) minus effort” (p. 232). The agency theory paradigm, according to

Davis et al. (1997), understands individuals as being driven by “individualistic, self-

serving” (p. 24) motives. In short, in an agency-oriented perspective, “all behavior can be

regarded as self-regarding” (Perrow, p. 232) and can be taken as focused directly on

economic outcomes. These materialist assumptions are implicit in agency theory, and

they are assumptions that mesh well with a modern society that is tremendously

influenced by economically driven corporations. Agency theory, therefore, is a body of

assumptions resulting from a materialist understanding of human nature that continues to

have a profound effect on the operation of organizations.

Model of man. As described above, the economic “model of man” implicit in

agency theory describes individuals as constantly calculating the “likely costs and

benefits, and thus seeking to attain rewards and avoid punishment, especially financial

ones” (Donaldson & Davis, 1991, p. 51). According to Doucouliagos (1994), however,

the economic theory from which these foundational assumptions of agency theory were

borrowed was not intended as a comprehensive description of human behavior. It

attempted only “to capture certain tendencies and the essence of rational behavior”

17

(p. 878). Regardless of whether early organizational theories misappropriated economic

models, however, the problems that contemporary scholars see in agency theory derive

from its use of this economic “model of man.” In response, organizational researchers

such as Donaldson and Davis have urged the adoption of a more three-dimensional

conceptual model of human motivation. Among other things, such a model should reflect

people’s “need to achieve, to gain intrinsic satisfaction through successfully performing

inherently challenging work, to exercise responsibility and authority, and thereby to gain

recognition from peers and bosses” (p. 51). A research study conducted by Brown (1969)

highlighted this need for “responsibility and authority.” In the study, data was collected

from 834 Tennessee Valley Authority employees. Brown found that “the members of an

industrial organization must be provided with the opportunity to accomplish, as

individuals, something over which they have at least a modicum of control” (pp. 353-

354). Brown’s study demonstrates that employees have important needs, such as the need

for control over their work -- needs beyond those that can be explained by economics.

Brown’s (1969) study also provided an impetus for the adoption of organizational

models through which individuals can be more fully described. Herzberg, Mausner, and

Snyderman (1959) and McClelland (1961) proposed organizational models based on

alternative views of human nature, which originated in organizational psychology and

organizational sociology. These included: (a) the sociological, or social victim model;

(b) the psychological, or hierarchy of needs model; and (c) the political, or perfect agent

model. Another alternative model, advanced by Jensen and Meckling (1994), is the

“Resourceful, Evaluative, Maximizing Model,” which, they contend, is composed of the

18

best elements of the frequently used social science models mentioned above. The

foundational assumptions for this model arise from the understanding that:

[Individuals] respond creatively to the opportunities the environment presents to

them, and they work to loosen constraints that prevent them from doing what they

wish to do. They care about not only money, but almost everything -- respect,

honor, power, love, and the welfare of others. (p. 19)

Advancement of this model, according to Jensen and Meckling, is important because

“understanding human behavior is fundamental to understanding how organizations

function” (p. 4). For current studies, it provides insight into alternatives to theories whose

focuses are solely economic.

Stewardship Theory

The task of advancing new foundational conceptions for organizational leadership

has gone through a number of development stages. Research efforts conducted by Preston

(1975) sought to understand the nature of large corporations and their relationship to the

economy and society. Preston acknowledged that “the large corporation is clearly the

characteristic and most important behavioral entity in our economy” (p. 434). But, he

criticized the outdated organizational research of his day, writing that “very few of the

interactions between real firms and their host environments can be usefully formulated

within the conventional framework” (p. 434). Preston expressed the need for a paradigm

that could offer “a rather different, and substantially expanded, conception of both the

corporation and society” (p. 446). Two decades later, Hill and Jones (1992) pointed out

the still unmet need for such a model after conducting a study applying the dominant

paradigm of agency theory. Their study revealed to them that “one area that remains

19

relatively unexplored concerns the ability of agency theory to explain the nature of the

implicit and explicit contractual relationships that exist between a firm’s stakeholders”

(p. 131).

The “Stakeholder” Concept

Hill and Jones’s (1992) focus on understanding the relations between the

“stakeholders” in an organization was not new. Preston and Sapienza (1990) noted that,

“The stakeholder concept, if not the term itself, has been reflected in speeches and

writings of thoughtful analysts and executives for many decades” (p. 362). Dodd (1932)

delivered what Preston and Sapienza considered the “classic formal statement” (p. 362)

on the concept of the stakeholder when, in the course of a debate, he identified

stakeholders as the groups of people that business corporations should be serving. He

divided stakeholders into four major groups, as follows: (a) shareholders, (b) employees,

(c) customers, and (d) the general public. Another early study to highlight the concept of

stakeholders was a Scandinavian field study conducted by William Dill in 1958 (Preston

& Sapienza). In that study, Dill identified four major sectors of the organizational task

environment -- customers, suppliers, competitors, and regulatory groups -- that he

deemed relevant to goal setting and goal attainment.

After the Hill and Jones (1992) study highlighted the continuing need for

developing the stakeholder concept, Jones (1995) worked to develop a theory of

Stakeholder management that was first proposed in 1984 by Edward Freeman. Jones’

stated purpose was to “strengthen the case for using the stakeholder model as a central

paradigm for the business and society field” (p. 432). He argued for an overall theory of

organizational behavior “built on an integration of the stakeholder concept, economic

20

concepts (agency theory, transaction cost economics, and team production theory),

insights from behavioral science, and ethics” (p. 432). Explaining the usefulness to the

business and society field, Jones made the point that implementation of a model

incorporating these factors would turn “the neo-classical theory of the firm upside down”

(p. 432) and would provide organizations with a desired competitive advantage. This

advantage would result, he argued, because the stakeholder model incorporates the

understanding that organizational behaviors can be trusting, trustworthy, and cooperative.

Later, Preston (1998) recognized that the stakeholder research conducted by Jones

established a foundation for studies that could effectively address the limitations of

agency theory and incorporate the insights of the stakeholder model.

Parallel with the development of the stakeholder concept was an increasing call

for alternatives to the dominant agency theory. Herzberg et al. (1959), McGregor (1960),

Likert (1961), McClelland (1961, 1975), and Freeman (1984) initiated a shift in

contemporary organizational studies by introducing models that were developed in

violation of agency theory’s long-held constraints. The theory’s limitations were further

acknowledged in proposals presented by Walton (1980) and Lawler (1986, 1992). Walton

emphasized the need for a management philosophy involving a higher level of

commitment to employees than was typical of agency theory. He stressed that the keys to

such a philosophy were (a) employee participation generated through open

communication, (b) the empowered of workers, and (c) the establishment of trust.

Expounding on this commitment principle, Lawler advanced a management philosophy

that he described as “involvement oriented.” He described the need among organizations

for approaches that acknowledged an employee’s ability to meet the opportunities posed

21

by challenges. Walton’s and Lawler’s models married an enhanced understanding of

human nature with an increased understanding of organizations as systems. Also pursuing

alternatives to agency theory, Hatch (1997) applied Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s and

Kenneth Boulding’s system theory to organizations. She defined organizations as “open

systems,” which she described as those that receive inputs from the environment and

transform them into outputs “that sustains the life of the system” (p. 38). The expansion

of organizational understanding provided by the theorists mentioned above provided the

impetus for many new models. Among these was stewardship theory.

The Development of Stewardship Theory

While Lawler (1986, 1992) worked to advance involvement-oriented management

in fertile areas, Block (1996) based a new model on the assumption that an economy

dominated by service organizations should shun traditional models, such as agency

theory, that “are a testimony to self-interest” (p. xxi). Too many organizations, he

contended, have implemented a portion of the elements of participative management, but

rarely are the elements “put together in a pervasive governance strategy” (p. xxi), which

he contended is mandated for the system to provide for organizational change. Block

wrote that “one moment we are on the fast track toward participation and the next

moment we are instituting more controls” (p. xxi). He argued that “the evidence that our

organizations are not working well is fully upon us” (p. 3), and, as an alternative, he

proposed commitment to what he called “the stewardship model,” which he believed

could offer the understanding needed to meet a myriad of organizational challenges.

Block (1996) challenged the conception that an organizational model should be

dictated by a given organization’s environment. He urged the adoption of a model that

22

would promise “the means of achieving fundamental change in the way we govern our

institutions” (p. xx). His model focused on the dichotomy that exists between valuing the

concept of service and actually applying it. He contended that “we have a language of

service” (p. xx), but that it fails to be manifested as an “experience of service” (p. xxi).

To resolve this dichotomy, Block proposed “authentic service,” which only exists if the

following organizational conditions are met:

1. There is a balance of power. . . . We . . . do a disservice to others when we

make decisions for them. Even if we are right.

2. The primary commitment is to the larger community. Focusing constant

attention on the individual or a small team breeds self-centeredness and

entitlement.

3. Each person joins in defining purpose and deciding what kind of culture this

organization will become. We diminish others when we define purpose and

meaning for them, even if they ask us to do so.

4. There is a balanced and equitable distribution of rewards. . . . When an

organization succeeds in its marketplace, money and privilege need to be more

evenly distributed among levels if our commitment to service is to have any

integrity. (p. xxi)

Block contended that without the element outlined above, “no genuine service is

performed” (p. xxi).

Block (1996) described the stewardship model’s overall goal as “giving control to

customers and creating self-reliance on the part of all who are touched by the institution”

(p. 5). Block contends that this should be the goal of institutions that want to survive. He

23

wrote that, “Most businesses got the point in the 1970s and 1980s: if they did not find a

way to serve their markets more quickly, with higher quality and lower costs, they would

not endure” (p. 3). Thus, the impetus for making organizational changes, according to

Block, is fueled by considerations that are financial. Block wrote that, “Crises always

come packaged in economic terms first” (p. 4). He contended that economic crises are

ultimately connected to an organization’s marketplace failure. Block wrote that, “In some

fundamental way it is unable to serve its customers. And if it is unable to serve its

customers, it means it has failed to serve its own internal people” (p. 5).

The stewardship model offers a plan that can affect organizational reform, but it is

one that also forces a different understanding about governance. Block (1996) wrote that:

In its commitment to service, stewardship forces us then to yield on our desire to

use good parenting as a basic form of governance. We already know how to be

good parents at work. The alternative, partnership, is something we are just

learning about. Our difficulty with creating partnerships is that parenting --and its

stronger cousin, patriarchy -- is so deeply ingrained in our muscle memory and

armature that we don’t even realize we are doing it. (p. 6)

The choice of leadership as partnership forces a different organizational outlook. Block

described the changed model and wrote that, “We decide whether to support efforts to

treat us like children, which expresses our wish for dependency, or whether to keep

deciding that we serve the organization best by creating a place of our own choosing” (p.

6).

Block’s (1996) prescription for the implementation of a stewardship model in

organizations provides further insight into the model’s characteristics and its contrasts

24

with agency theory. The nine steps that he outlines for implementing the model are

discussed in the following paragraphs.

Step 1—Define the stewardship contract. Once an institution is committed to

change, the members must unite to adopt a stewardship contract. Block (1996) wrote that

the contract “Includes the business reasons, the difficult issues, the unit’s mission and

value added to customers. It concludes with the principles for the redesign effort”

(p. 214). He contended that the contract must include a vision of the organization’s

destination and “the way to get there” (p. 63). The contract serves to remind individuals

that “our desires for compensation, self-expression, participation … whatever we want

from a place … are viable only so long as we can commit to the mission, results,

constraints, principles, and difficulties of the larger institution” (p. 73).

Step 2—Renegotiate control and responsibility. After the stewardship contract is

defined and agreed to by all parties, responsibilities of the organizational members must

be outlined. This requires that contracts with bosses, subordinates, and staff groups be

renegotiated. The new role of bosses, according to Block’s (1996) concept of stewardship

theory, involves them “giving up control in exchange for a promise” (p. 214). The

promise comes from subordinates, who “commit to a set of results … [who make a]

promise to honor the requirements of the organization, to keep them informed, and to live

with the consequences” (p. 214). At the same time, new contracts with subordinates will

focus on their new purpose and responsibility to further organizational reform. As these

changes implemented, employees “exercise more choice and control and in return claim

ownership and real responsibility for the work process and outcomes” (p. 214).

25

Step 3—Fully inform the people. Organizational reform requires open

communication. Block (1996) wrote that, “This involves meetings about the core work

process of the organization” (p. 215). The concept of stewardship theory mandates that

members of the organization have access to knowledge about budget processes, financial

measures, and knowledge about customers. According to Block, “The point is to help

people understand the consequences of their choices” (p. 215).

Step 4—Create a desired future. An important step in the process of

organizational reform involves “meetings with representatives from all their major

stakeholders” (Block, 1996, p. 215). This group should include (a) customers, (b) board

members, (c) employees from all units and levels, (d) key suppliers, (e) community

people, and (f) local politicians. Block wrote that, “The focus is on the future this group

wants to create for the organization” (p. 215). The purpose of the meetings is to develop

the organization’s desired future, without regards to solving the problems related to

achieving the organization’s goals.

Step 5—Training. A key step toward organizational reform is training. Block

(1996) wrote that organizations should “offer management training to core workers”

(p. 215). The increased importance of teamwork in the stewardship model will require

that employees have an enhanced level of knowledge about (a) team skills, (b) conflict

management, (c) communication skills, (d) quality tools, and (e) work process

improvement.

Step 6—Form improvement teams. Borrowing from organizations that have

worked to create an entrepreneurial mindset, Block (1996) describes the importance of

improvement teams such as quality circles and cross-functional teams. Block wrote that,

26

“Their focus is usually on cost cutting, quality enhancement, reducing cycle time, and

satisfying customers” (p. 216). According to Block, “The quickest return often comes

simply by having groups meet regularly to discuss improvement ideas” (p. 216).

Step 7—Change management practices. Basic management practices must be part

of the reform effort. Procedures in (a) budgeting, (b) purchase decisions, (c) hiring, and

(d) evaluations all come under the umbrella of changing management and work practices.

To guide the management reform effort, Block (1996) suggested the formation of

steering committees to establish priorities and guide changes. These are conducted

through a process of self-diagnosis in which people redesign their workplace for

themselves. Block contended that, “This step is where spiritual concerns become

manifest in very concrete ways and the idea of stewardship begins to get

institutionalized” (p. 217).

Step 8—Fit architecture to purpose. Block (1996) posited that, management

practices can be changed without involving the “basic structure of how work gets done”

(p. 217). He wrote that this step “usually involves structuring multifunctional units

around a customer or a product. The roles of staff groups and supervisors also get refined

at this stage” (p. 217). For stewardship to be realized as an authentic organizational goal,

Block contends that the organizational design must become part of the efforts aimed at

reform.

Step 9—Redesign the reward system. The final step involved with organizational

reform involves changing the system of compensation. Block (1996) posited that “when

we ask people to act as owners, we need to pay them more as owners” (p. 217). This

requires stewardship-based organizations to design pay systems that are based on the

27

“outcomes of the whole enterprise and [on] the outcomes of the smaller units that people

are investing in, in addition to paying for outstanding individual effort” (p. 217). While

Block noted that changes in the pay system will not serve to provide an organization with

its goal of implementing organizational reform, changing the system of rewards must be

done “for the sake of equity and to maintain credibility in the changes we are requesting”

(p. 217). To achieve credible and authentic reform, Block claimed that the final and most

important step for an organization is to determine the “measurable outcomes that are

worth compensation dollars” (p. 217).

To summarize, Block’s (1996) stewardship model, when implemented as above,

was designed to create partnerships between the stakeholders in organizations and to

invoke a style of organizational governance that is democratic. For Block, “The

marketplace has become the testing ground for how a society lives out its potential”

(p. 240). For too long, he contended, “We have swallowed the belief that organizations,

and even communities, can survive only with enforcement of consistency and control” (p.

241). As a consequence, it is not control over but involvement with others that leads to

success in organizations, whether the organizations are corporations or nations. For this

reason, Lawler (1992) describes an involvement-oriented approach like stewardship

theory as “highly congruent with democratic values about decision-making and respect

for individual rights” (p. 43).

The Situational Factors Affecting Stewardship Relationships

The current study proposed that several situational elements influence the

development of principal-steward relationships in organizations. These situational

factors, which serve as the independent variables in this study, are involvement/control in

28

organizational management; collectivism/individualism in organizational culture; and

power distance in organizational culture. Hofstede and Waisfisz (2003) wrote:

Attitudes, orientations, emotions, and expressions differ strongly among people

from one nation or the other. These differences are fundamentally cultural. There

are countless examples of difficulties and conflicts between people, whether they

are policy decision-makers, managers of multinational corporations, airline pilots,

or plain common tourists, trying to communicate or even cooperate with people

from other cultures. Understanding and overcoming these difficulties requires a

cultural analysis, an analysis with a high receptiveness for the cultural factor: the

factor summarizing the influence of deeply-rooted values or shared normative,

moral, or aesthetic principles that guide action and serve as standards to evaluate

(one’s own and other people’s) behavior. (¶ 2)

The result of the efforts to develop a model provided a tool for conducting the cultural

analyses, which provides a level of understanding to things that cannot be seen. Hofstede

(2001) wrote that, “We cannot directly observe mental programs. All we can observe is

behavior: words and deeds. When we observe behavior, we infer from it the presence of

stable mental software” (p. 2). In working to develop a model for research into this

study’s variables, a short review of the literature is provided in this section to describe

each of this study’s concepts. The following discussion first reviews the literature on

control versus involvement in organizational management, then shifts to the variable of

collectivism versus individualism in organizational culture, and then finally information

is presented about the aspect of power distance in organizational culture.

29

Involvement and Control

The stewardship model that Block (1996) proposed emphasized leadership that

establishes partnerships at all organizational levels. This concept of partnership, in which

employees are more fully involved in an organization’s operations, expanded on models

first advanced by Walton (1985) and Lawler (1986, 1992). Lawler (1992) described two

basic orientations to organizational management styles: an “involvement-oriented”

approach founded on the concept of partnership and a “control-oriented” approach.

According to Lawler, “The fundamental difference between the control-oriented

approach and the involvement-oriented approach concerns how work is organized and

managed at the lowest level in an organization” (p. 28). He explained that “companies

using the control-oriented approach assume that work should be simplified, standardized,

and specialized and that supervision and pay incentives should be used to motivate

individuals to perform their tasks well” (p. 29). Lawler wrote, “If the smoothly running

assembly line is the best image for the control-oriented approach, then the small business

unit that controls its own fate and involves everyone in the business is the best image for

the involvement-oriented approach” (p. 29).

Involvement-oriented approach. In an involvement-oriented approach,

management is described as democratic or participative, because, according to Lawler

(1992), “Individuals at all levels in the organization are given power to influence

decisions” (p. 28). This sharing of power is what makes involvement-oriented

management “highly congruent with democratic values about decision making and

respect for individual rights” (p. 43). Another democratic feature of an involvement

orientation is challenge. Leadership must organize the work of their organizations in such

30

a way that it is “challenging, interesting, and motivating” (p. 28). Giving employees a

sense of challenge is primary because, according to Lawler, “The key assumption in the

involvement-oriented approach is that if individuals are given challenging work [then]

that gives them a customer to serve and a business to operate, they can and will control

their own behavior” (p. 29). He noted that the involvement-oriented approach:

Assumes that all individuals can add value to a product by using their minds as

well as their hands. Thus, employees are asked to make suggestions and in many

cases to respond in non-programmed [sic] ways to events that occur in the process

of making products and delivering services. (p. 29)

Lawler (1992) contended that research “suggests that significant gains can be

realized if employee involvement is effectively implemented and developed” (p. 47). He

worked to advance this change in organizational management and he challenged research

studies that, according to him, were conducted in a manner that favored the control-

oriented approach. He wrote that “what little research there is suggests that significant

gains can be realized if employee involvement is effectively implemented and developed,

but it does not provide definitive evidence that the involvement-oriented approach always

produces superior results” (p. 47). Nevertheless, Lawler believed that the involvement

orientation “shows promise of being a superior approach to management” (p. 47).

Control-oriented approach. The control-oriented approach is “A top-down,

pyramidal, hierarchical, mechanistic, and bureaucratic,” according to Lawler (1992,

p. 25). Walton (1985) traced the historical development of this approach to management

as follows:

31

The traditional -- or control-oriented -- approach to work-force management took

shape during the early part of this century in response to the division of work into

small, fixed jobs for which individuals could be held accountable. The actual

definition of jobs, as of acceptable standards of performance, rested on “lowest

common denominator” assumptions about workers’ skill and motivation. To

monitor and control effort of this assumed caliber, management organized its own

responsibilities into a hierarchy of specialized roles buttressed by a top-down

allocation of authority and by status symbols attached to positions in the

hierarchy. (p. 78)

These terms are echoed in Lawler’s description of the control-oriented approach in

contemporary times as well: the approach still “is based on the assumption that hierarchy

and vertical relationships are the best ways to assure that work gets done in a productive

and high-quality manner” (p. 25). Like Walton, Lawler believes that “American

companies were the technological leaders in installing the control-oriented approach to

management” (p. 27). In order to do so, “They produced sophisticated organizational

charts, trained managers to direct and control employees, and developed elaborate

information systems to support the control-oriented approach” (Lawler, p. 27). For

Lawler, such familiar workplace practices as “writing job descriptions, designing

production work flows, developing job evaluation systems, and selecting the ‘right’

individuals for jobs” (p. 27) are all part of the need to create and keep control. For this

reason, Davis et al. (1997) see a control-orientation as consistent with agency theory and,

like that theory, they identify the control-orientation as being based on an economic

model of man.

32

Although Lawler (1986) seems critical of a control orientation, he believed that it

serves a purpose in contemporary organizations. He explained that management must

concern itself vigilantly with monitoring organizational conditions and wrote,

“Approaches to organizing and managing are not inherently effective or ineffective. They

are effective to the degree that they fit existing conditions” (p. 12). He posited that “there

is no one correct style. The crucial thing is to develop and practice a style that fits the

conditions at a given point in time” (p. 12). As to the conditions that warrant a particular

style, Davis et al. (1997) wrote that “in unstable, uncertain environments the

involvement-oriented approach is more effective, but in stable environments, the control-

oriented approach is best” (p. 33).

Involvement/Control in Organizational Cultures. The literature on involvement

and control provides insight into the differences between organizations embracing

involvement and control oriented management philosophies, respectively. Argryis

(1973a, 1973b) claims that an organization’s management philosophy establishes a

framework that encourages behavior that is consistent with its assumptions. Thus,

organizations in which management has previously established an involvement-oriented

approach could be organizations more conducive to the development of “behavior that is

more consistent with stewardship theory” among principals and top management (Davis

et al., 1997, p. 34).

Institutions adopting an involvement-oriented approach, according to Lawler

(1986), are those realizing that “American organizations need to be more effective simply

to be competitive -- and not just somewhat more effective, but dramatically better”

(p. 19). He explained that organizations implementing an involvement-oriented approach

33

provide employees with enhanced access to four critical elements, which are: (a) power,

(b) information, (c) knowledge, and (d) rewards. The purpose in changing the way that

employees are treated is to develop a new manner in which employees act. Lawler (1992)

expressed the desired change when he wrote that:

Employees are asked to make suggestions and in many cases to respond in non-

programmed [sic] ways to events that occur in the process of making products and

delivering services. While the control-oriented approach seeks to develop

employees who are perfectly programmed robots and are 100 percent reliable, the

involvement-oriented approach strives to develop employees who are responsible

to change and in many respects self-programming. (p. 29)

The involvement-oriented approach encourages employee participation in the enterprise,

which Lawler (1986) contended, “Suits the current work force, technologies, and societal

conditions better than any other alternative” (p. 20). When organizations shift away from

a control-oriented philosophy, Davis et al. (1997) contended that employees are

empowered to respond to organizational priorities. The resulting enhanced levels of

involvement give employees at every level a greater sense of the importance of their

organizational role (Block, 1996). In these ways, an involvement-oriented management

philosophy nurtures a participative culture throughout the organization. Thus, Davis et al.

recognized the affinities between a participative culture and stewardship and posited that

“an involvement-oriented management philosophy is more likely to produce stewardship

theory relationships” (p. 34).

34

Collectivism and Individualism

The second set of factors serving as variables for this study addressed an aspect of

organizational culture. This aspect is described by Hofstede (1984, 2001) as a continuum

between cultural characteristics that he calls “individualism” and “collectivism.”

Differences in the collectivist and individualist cultural tendencies in the work

organizations, as described by Hofstede (2001), are presented in Table 1. Information

provided in Table 1 shows stark contrasts between collectivist and individualist

tendencies as they are manifested in organizational cultures. Through numerous studies,

Hofstede has found that regional and national cultures around the world can be

distinguished by, among other things, the degree to which the culture values

individualism or collectivism. According to Hofstede, this value expresses itself in:

The way people live together -- for example, in nuclear families, extended

families, or tribes; and it has all kinds of value implications. In some cultures,

individualism is seen as a blessing and a source of well-being; in others, it is seen

as alienating. (p. 148)

While Hofstede’s research focused on the cultural orientations of entire countries,

Triandis (1994, 1995) provided insight into the similar variations that can be observed in

sub-cultures within nations, including organizational cultures. Davis et al. (1997) wrote

about the expectation that “the national culture predisposes members of that culture to

either a collectivist or an individualistic orientation. However, the extent of this influence

varies among individuals, and the effects of other experiences shape the ultimate

orientation of each person” (p. 34).

35

Table 1

Collectivist and Individualist Cultural Tendencies in Organizations

Collectivist Perspective Individualist Perspective Employees act in the interest of their in-group, not necessarily of themselves. Employees supposed to act as “economic men.”

Hiring and promotion decisions take employees’ in-group into account.

Hiring and promotion decisions should be based on skills and rules only.

Relatives of employer and employees preferred in hiring.

Family relationships seen as a disadvantage in hiring.

Employer-employee relationship is basically moral, like a family link.

Employer-employee relationship is a business deal in a “labor market.”

Poor performance reason for other tasks. Poor performance reason for dismissal. Employee commitment to organization low. Employee commitment to organization high. Potential emotional commitment to union. Relationship with union calculative. Employees perform best in in-groups. Employees perform best as individuals. Training most effective when focused at group level.

Training most effective when focused at individual level.

Preferred reward allocation based on equality for in-group, equity for out-group.

Preferred reward allocation based on equity for all.

Relationships with colleagues cooperative for in-group members, hostile for out-group.

Relationships with colleagues do not depend on their group identity.

Treating friends better than others is normal and ethical: particularism.

Treating friends better than others is nepotism and unethical: universalism.

In business, personal relationships prevail over task and company.

In business, task and company prevail over personal relationships.

Organizational success attributed to sharing information, openly committing oneself, and political alliances.

Organizational success attributed to withholding information, not openly committing, and avoiding alliances.

Belief in collective decisions. Belief in individual decisions. Innovation champions in organizations want to involve others.

Innovation champions in organizations want to venture out on their own.

Innovations within existing networks. Innovations outside existing networks. Fewer invention patents granted. More invention patents granted. Entrepreneurs claim contribution of others to their results.

Entrepreneurs claim own results without depending on others.

Employees and managers report teamwork, personal contacts, and discrimination at work.

Employees and managers report working individually.

Less control over job and working conditions; fewer hours worked.

More control over job and working conditions, longer hours worked.

Less social mobility across occupations. Greater social mobility across occupations.

Note. From Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and

organizations across nations (p. 244), by G. H. Hofstede, 2001, Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

36

Collectivism. Collectivism is a common trait throughout various cultures. Triandis

(1994) wrote that, “The majority of people in the world (at least 70%) are socialized in

collectivist cultures” (p. 105). In a collectivist culture one’s personal identity is strongly

influenced by group membership. Triandis described this dynamic as follows:

In collectivistic cultures, the self is defined in in-group terms (e.g., I am an

employee of General Motors) rather than as an independent entity, detached from

groups. The goals of in-groups take precedence over individual goals in

collectivist cultures. Collectivist cultures are characterized by attitudes that favor

interdependence, norms that favor embeddedness in the in-group, and values that

favor security, obedience, duty, in-group harmony, in-group hierarchy, and

personalized relationships. (pp. 105-106)

Hatch (1997) concurred that “in collectivist cultures, cohesive groups give individuals

their sense of identity and belonging” (p. 207) but pointed out that, at the same time, the

group demands “considerable loyalty in return for the sense of security that they impart”

(p. 207).

Hofstede (1984) addressed this concept, of both the individual and the group

assuming additional responsibilities in a collectivist culture, when he wrote that,

“Collectivist societies call for greater emotional dependence of members on their

organizations; in a society in equilibrium, the organizations should in return assume a

broad responsibility for their members” (p. 152). This clarified the reciprocal nature of

collectivism. The group or organization promotes the efforts of its individual members to

meet their own individual needs, but these efforts serve at the same time to strengthen

and solidify the collectivist framework. When a culture functions in this way, Hofstede

37

contended that the individual members come to a point of accepting the tenants of their

collectivist culture and that they naturally incorporate collectivism as part of their

“mental programming.” In cultures where collectivism is a natural part of the worldview

of individuals, it serves as part of the interpretive system through which events and ideas

are interpreted.

Loyalty to the group in a collectivist culture requires sacrifice on the part of its

individual members. Along these lines, Triandis (1995) wrote that, “Collectivists are

often socialized to enjoy doing their duty, even if that requires some sacrifices” (p. 11).

Sacrifice is required, in particular, when the goals of the group and the individual clash,

because, when that happens, the group’s goals must prevail. In a collectivist culture,

scholars such as Hofstede (1984) and Triandis (1994, 1995) contend that individuals

highly respect group goals and that these often come to be understood as standards.

Collectivity is expressed when clashing goals are resolved by the submission of the

individual’s will to that of the group. Thus, Triandis (1995) wrote that, “Collectivists are

concerned with the goals of collectives and individuals. Such goals are consistent, so the

individual does what the collective expects, asks, or demands, without opposing the will

of the collective” (p. 11).

Collectivism may characterize the cultures of organizations, including

organizations that are located in nations whose wider culture is individualistic (Triandis,

1994, 1995). For example, Triandis (1995) wrote that, “In the United States, those who

join communes are likely to be allocentric in an individualistic culture” (p. 5). At the

same time, effective social and business organizations are often described as being those

who can operate collectively in that their members unite and focus their efforts on the

38

accomplishment of larger, organizational tasks. This ability and willingness to bond

together for cooperative goals, a feature of collectivism, is an acknowledged component

of organizational strength. Such strength arises, according to Daft (2001), when

“employees identify with the mission of the organization and spend long hours helping

the organization succeed. Members feel part of a collective, and communication and

control are mostly informal” (p. 286).

Individualism. Individualism describes the orientation of a culture in which the

priorities of individuals are more highly valued than the priorities held by the collective

society. As Hatch (1997) wrote, “Relationships between members of individualistic

cultures are loose and individuals are expected to take care of themselves” (p. 207). This

is the major cultural orientation in the United States, one of the nations classified as being

individualistic (Hofstede, 1984). This presents challenges for American organizations,

since, as Hatch wrote, “Individualism involves the degree to which individuals in a

culture are expected to act independently of other members of the society” (p. 207). In

individualistic cultures, it is a challenge for organizations and their leaders to unite

individualist members for the organization’s common purposes. Triandis (1995)

described the predicament as follows:

Individualists … may have personal goals that are inconsistent with the goals of

their ingroups. When conflict exists between the collective and the individual in

individualistic cultures, it seems ‘natural’ that the individual will attempt to reach

her goals and ignore the goals of the ingroup.” (p. 11)

Conflicts between group and personal goals, in individualistic cultures, tend to be

resolved by giving precedence to the goals held by the individual.

39

Triandis (1994) wrote that, “Individualistic cultures are characterized by attitudes

that favor independence, norms that favor independence from in-groups, and values that

favor pleasure, achievement, competition, freedom, autonomy, exchange, and fairness”

(p. 106). The acceptance of this outlook is consistent with the priorities of a society

dominated by economics. As Hellriegel and Slocum (1996) wrote, “A strong sense of

individualism supports and maintains a competitive market-based economic system. High

individualism also is consistent with the individual merit and incentive pay systems

favored in the United States and Canada” (p. 85). Rewards provided for individualistic

behaviors prompt individuals to work on behalf of the organization, since individualists

constantly search for rewards. Triandis (1995) explained this mindset when he wrote that

“individualists do their duty only when their computations of the advantages and

`disadvantages suggest they would derive a clear benefit” (p. 11).

Collectivism/Individualism in Organizational Cultures. In countries defined as

individualist, such as the United States, organizational leaders seeking to implement a

model incorporating aspects of collectivism face a difficult challenge. American

organizations established on agency theory’s assumptions are most likely to be guided by

ideals that are individualistic and consistent with economic models of human motivation.

In short, a collective or team-oriented organizational style contrasts with the nation’s

cultural approach to business. As Morgan (1997) wrote, “Many American corporations

and their employees are preoccupied with the desire to be ‘winners’ and with the need to

reward and punish successful and unsuccessful behavior” (p. 126). America’s culture of

competitiveness and individualism produces individuals whose foundational assumptions

directly conflict with the tenants of unity necessary for effective organizational

40

involvement. Thus, Manz and Sims (1998) wrote that, “In the United States, we have a

strong political and personal tradition of individual freedom that at times runs counter to

the collective nature of teamwork” (p. 189). They wrote that, “An emphasis on team

values threatens not only their traditional views of work but their approach to life” (p.

189).

Opportunities for long-lasting organizational success may be improved by the

implementation of the stewardship model (Block, 1996). Implementing the model,

however, requires that organizations’ achieve a level of unity that contrasts with the

individualist concepts implicit in agency theory -- concepts that are embedded in

American culture. Without the high value given to unity, which is a characteristic of

collectivism, efforts to reform an organization by applying the stewardship model will

falter because individuals would not form a unified team. This was why Davis et al.

(1997) posited that, “Collectivist cultures are more conducive to the emergence of

stewardship relationships” (p. 35).

Power Distance

The final set of elements comprising variables for this study reflected another

dimension of organizational culture -- a dimension that Hofstede (1984) dubbed “power

distance.” This dimension relates to the equality, or inequality, that exists between the

individuals of a society. Differences in low power-distance and high power-distance

tendencies in work organizations, as described by Hofstede (2001), are presented in Table

2, which is provided on the following page. Information provided in Table 2 shows stark

contrasts between low power-distance and high power-distance tendencies as

41

Table 2

Key Differences between Low- and High-Power Distance Societies

Low Power Distance High Power Distance Decentralized decision structures; less concentration of authority.

Centralized decision structures; more concentration of authority.

Flat organizational pyramids. Tall organization pyramids. Small proportion of supervisory personnel. Large proportion of supervisory personnel.

Hierarchy in organizations means an inequality of roles, established for convenience.

Hierarchy in organizations reflects the existential inequality between higher-ups and lower-downs.

The ideal boss is a resourceful democrat; sees self as practical, orderly, and relying on support.

The ideal boss is a well-meaning autocrat or good father; sees self as benevolent decision maker.

Managers rely on personal experience and on subordinates. Managers rely on formal rules.

Subordinates expect to be consulted. Subordinates expect to be told.

Consultative leadership leads to satisfaction, performance, and productivity.

Authoritative leadership and close supervision lead to satisfaction, performance, and productivity.

Subordinate-superior relations pragmatic. Subordinate-superior relations polarized, often emotional.

Institutionalized grievance channels in case of power abuse by superior. No defense against power abuse by superior.

Subordinates influenced by bargaining and reasoning; MBO is feasible.

Subordinates influenced by formal authority and sanctions; MBO cannot work.

Innovations need good champions. Innovations need good support from hierarchy.

Managers involved in relevant purchasing decisions.

Managers not involved in relevant purchasing decisions.

Privileges and status symbols for managers are frowned upon.

Privileges and status symbols for managers are expected and popular.

Narrow salary range between top and bottom of organization.

Wide salary range between top and bottom of organization.

Managers feel adequately paid. Managers feel underpaid. Managers (increasingly) satisfied with career. Managers dissatisfied with career. Possibilities to escape from role ambiguity and overload. Frequent role ambiguity and overload.

Openness with information, also to nonsuperiors. Information constrained to hierarchy.

Manual work same status as clerical work. White-collared jobs valued more than blue-collar jobs.

Note. From Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and

organizations across nations (pp. 107-108), by G. H. Hofstede, 2001, Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

42

manifested in organizational cultures. Hatch (1997) wrote that, “Power distance refers to

the extent to which the members of a nation are willing to accept an unequal distribution

of power, wealth, and prestige” (pp. 206-207). Scholars, such as Hofstede (1991) and

Davis et al. (1997), described cultures displaying high levels of power distance as those

in which respect for elders is considered a basic virtue and in which children are allowed

to be family dependents for a longer period of time. In contrast, Davis et al. explained

that children in cultures displaying low levels of power distance are urged toward

independence at an early age.

These cultural differences help shape organizational structure. Organizations in

high power-distance cultures are often centralized “and they include large differentials in

authority, salary, and privileges between those at the top and those at the bottom” (Davis

et al., 1997, p. 36). Low power distance cultures more often foster decentralized

organizations, in which “there is more consultation in decision making, and the

differences in salary and perquisites are minimized” (Davis et al., p. 36). On the other

hand, organizations may be characterized by higher levels of power distance even in low

power-distance cultures. Hofstede (1984) wrote that:

Inequality [in national cultures] can occur in areas such as prestige, wealth, and

power; different societies put different weights on status consistency among these

areas. Inside organizations, inequality in power is inevitable and functional. This

inequality in power is usually formalized in hierarchical boss-subordinate

relationships. (p. 65)

43

When organizations assume, at a fundamental level, that inequality can provide an

institutional advantage, their structure reflects that assumption. Daft (2001) believed that

the converse is also true, and argued that:

Power in organizations … is often the result of structural characteristics.

Organizations are large, complex systems that contain hundreds, even thousands,

of people. These systems have a formal hierarchy in which some tasks are more

important regardless of who performs them. In addition, some positions have

access to greater resources, or their contribution to the organization is more

critical. Thus, the important power processes in organizations reflect larger

organizational relationships, both horizontal and vertical, and organizational

power usually is vested in the position, not in the person. (p. 447)

Implicit in the understanding advanced by Daft was that institutions often solidify and

cement levels of organizational inequality, so that power-distance levels in organizational

relationships are pre-determined by the organization’s structure.

Leaders, however, have a stake in sustaining this situation. Studies of

organizational operations by Hofstede (1984) and Hellriegel and Slocum (1996) have

focused on the natural tendency among organizational leaders to maintain high power-

distance cultures in their organizations. Hellriegel and Slocum wrote that, from a leader’s

perspective, “Having strong position power simplifies a leader’s ability to influence

subordinates. Low position power makes the leader’s task difficult because she or he has

to rely on personal, rather than organizational, sources of influence” (Hellriegel &

Slocum, p. 457). Hofstede described a similar dynamic, for which he referenced Mulder’s

Power Distance Reduction theory, which described how “subordinates will try to reduce

44

the power distance between, themselves and their bosses, and bosses will try to maintain

or enlarge it” (p. 65).

Power distance in organizational cultures. The organizational reforms proposed

by the stewardship model are grounded in democratic ideals. For this reason, Davis et al.

(1997) posited that “low power distance cultures are more conducive to the development

of stewardship relationships, because their members place greater value on the essential

equality of the principal and the manager” (p. 36). They contended that in organizations

informed by agency theory, relationships between principals and managers are by

definition strained because the inherently individualistic, economic focus of agency

theory puts principals and mangers in competition with each other. For Davis et al.,

stewardship theory offers the hope of reducing this dichotomy of interests between

principals and agents through a relationship model that can best be fostered by

organizational cultures that value and pursue equality.

Conclusion

This chapter has reviewed the literature on a theory that long dominated

organizational studies -- agency theory -- and has discussed various research perspectives

on it organizational models, which tend toward hierarchy and autocracy. The chapter also

reviewed the literature on stewardship theory, focusing on the alternative organizational

model it proposes, which is committed to the development of organizational democracy.

Additionally, this chapter provided a review of the literature related to the concepts tested

by the study’s variables in the study: (a) involvement/control in organizational

management, (b) collectivism/individualism in organizational culture, and (c) power

45

distance in organizational culture. The following chapter will present the method being

employed to collect and analyze the data needed to test the study’s hypotheses.

46

Chapter 3: Method

This study empirically tested the effect of three situational factors on the

development of principal-steward relationships in organizations. This chapter provides an

explanation of the study’s empirical method used to test those effects. The chapter

includes a list of the research questions, a description of the participant sample used in

this study, a description of the procedures used to implement the study, a description of

the instruments being used for the data collection, and, finally, a discussion of the

analyses conducted on the collected data.

Research Questions

This study was guided by three research questions, each of which sought to

determine the effect of one of three situational factors on the development of principal-

steward relationships in organizations. These questions were as follows:

Research Question 1

Are administrators who are in an involvement-oriented situation more likely to

become stewards in principal-steward relationships than are administrators who are in a

control-oriented situation?

Research Question 2

Are administrators in a collectivist organizational culture more likely to develop

principal-steward relationships than are administrators who are in an individualistic

organizational culture?

47

Research Question 3

Are administrators in a low power-distance organizational culture more likely to

develop principal-steward relationships than are administrators who are in a high power-

distance culture?

Operationalizing the relationships expressed in the research questions led to the

following hypotheses, which were tested by this study.

Hypothesis 1

Administrators who are in an involvement-oriented situation are more likely to

become stewards in principal-steward relationships than are administrators who are in a

control-oriented situation.

Hypothesis 2

Administrators in a collectivist culture are more likely to develop principal-

steward relationships than are administrators who are in an individualistic culture.

Hypothesis 3

Administrators in a low power distance culture are more likely to develop

principal-steward relationships than are administrators who are in a high power distance

culture.

Study Sampling and Participants

The sample organizations for this study were institutions of higher learning,

institutions that were, specifically, members and affiliates of the (a) Association of

Southern Baptist Colleges and Schools (ASBCS), (b) Council for Christian Colleges and

Universities (CCCU), or (c) American Association of State Colleges and Universities

48

(AASCU). The 54 member schools that own and operate ASBCS are located in 19 states

and include 49 colleges and universities, 2 Bible schools, and 3 academies (Association

of Southern Baptist Colleges & Schools, 2003). Of the 54, institutions, 27, or exactly

half, were established prior to the opening of the twentieth century. They were

established with a central purpose that Walker (1993) described as transmitting

“Christian ethical and moral values both by precept and example” (p. 95). The 104

CCCU member institutions “are intentionally Christ-centered institutions" (Council for

Christian Colleges & Universities, 2003a, ¶ 3). CCCU member institutions are located in

30 states and seek “to advance the cause of Christ-centered higher education and to help

our institutions transform lives by faithfully relating scholarship and service to biblical

truth” (¶ 2). More than 430 public colleges, universities, and systems of higher education

hold AASCU membership. The association exists to “promote appreciation and support

for public higher education and the distinctive contributions of our member colleges and

universities” (American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 2003a, ¶ 2).

The “management” sample for this study was drawn from these educational

institutions. Study participants included (a) presidents, (b) vice presidents, and

(c) directors of the ASBCS, CCCU, AASCU institutions, as well as other educational

administrators. Responses from administrators at the ASBCS and CCCU member

institutions identified themselves on the survey instrument, with their answers coded for

the Private College or University grouping. The identification on the survey instruments

received from those employed at AASCU institutions allowed their responses to be coded

and sorted into the grouping labeled State College or University.

49

Limitations of the Study’s Sample

As described above, this study tested a convenience sample of college and

university administrators, who undoubtedly share various attitudes and values. This may

constitute a limitation in the generalizability of this study. The representatives of the

denominational -affiliated institutions, which are members of the ASBCS and CCCU

associations, predominantly professed themselves to be Christians. In addition, the

administrators were, for the most part, successful middle-aged managers who had

attained a high level of education. They share other demographic characteristics, such as

age, and this, too, reflected on the generalizability of the study’s results.

Furthermore, the precepts of Christianity, which were professed by the majority

of the study’s ASBCS and CCCU respondents, could have potentially resulted in a bias

amongst the Private College or University administrators toward selecting stewardship as

their leadership style. The “good stewards” of the first century, who did a good job

managing the affairs of their masters were a common model in Jesus’ parables for how

His disciples should conduct their lives. To this day, that model is a frequent theme in the

teaching of many Christian denominations. Christians were likely, therefore, to have a

strong positive bias towards a description of the tenants of stewardship theory as

encountered in the self-typing paragraph for that variable. This was a bias that potentially

affected this study’s validity. In response to this potential for a bias toward stewardship,

the words “steward” and “stewardship” were avoided in the self-typing paragraphs used

for the data collection phase of this study.

50

Procedures

The study employed a survey method in which (a) presidents, (b) vice presidents,

and (c) directors of colleges and universities responded to self-typing paragraphs

identifying themselves as agents or stewards. The administrators also responded to self-

typing paragraphs that identified their perceptions of the organization’s management

philosophy as being either control-oriented or involvement-oriented. In addition, the

administrators filled out an empirically established survey instrument that identified their

perceptions of (a) their organization's culture as collectivist-oriented or individualistic-

oriented, and (b) power distance levels as low or high within their organization. Due to

the divergent nature of the participants’ responsibilities, and their disparate backgrounds,

the study sample consisted of both “stewards” and “agents.”

In preparation for collecting this study’s needed data, contact was made with an

official at the ASBCS headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee. The association provided

database directory information on its membership, including the electronic mail addresses

of the individual members. Contact information for administrators at the CCCU and

AASCU institutions was gained through searches on the World Wide Web. Both the

CCCU (2003b) and AASCU (2003b) Web sites provided links to the home pages of their

member institutions, which provided access, through the individual institution directories,

of the electronic mail addresses of the college and university administrators.

The executive director of ASBCS requested that a board member develop a cover

letter, which urged administrators at the ASBCS member institutions to participate in this

research study. The letter accompanied the survey instrument that was transmitted to the

administrators by electronic mail, because, according to ASBCS officials, the

51

administrators at the member institutions are technologically knowledgeable and

responded to electronic mail at a greater rate than to postal mail. The survey (Appendix

C) provided to the participants included four self-typing paragraphs, eight questions

seeking Likert-scale responses, and eight demographic questions, the answers to which

were used to gain information about the research participants.

The survey instruments were first forwarded by electronic mail to administrators

of the 54 ASBCS institutions, with the survey instrument provided as Microsoft Word

document attachment. Additionally, in an effort to increase the participation rate, the

survey instrument was placed on the World Wide Web through an account with

InterCom’s SurveySuite (SurveySuite, 2003). One additional demographic question was

added to the on-line survey, which asked respondents to identify their organization’s

location. With the addition that allowed participants to complete the survey through the

World Wide Web site, requests sent by electronic mail to administrators at CCCU and

AASCU institutions, as well as to other educational administrators, included information

about accessing the survey’s electronic instrument.

Variables

The variable at the center of this study is that defined as management relationship,

which was determined by the college and university administrators’ responses to the self-

typing paragraphs, through which they identified themselves as agents or stewards. This

research study also focused on variables that were (a) involvement-oriented versus

control-oriented management style, (b) collectivist versus individualistic organizational

cultures, and (c) low power distance versus high power distance organizational cultures.

52

Instrumentation

This study employed a method in which members of college and university

administrations identify themselves as agents or stewards. In addition, the administrators

provided information about their respective organizations that (a) identified its dominant

management style as control or involvement oriented, (b) identified their particular

organizational culture as either individualist or collectivist, and (b) identified power

distance levels as low or high within their organizational culture.

Two distinct types of instruments were used to gather the foregoing data. In the

case of identifying administrators as agents or stewards, self-typing paragraphs were

employed, because an empirically validated survey instrument has yet to be developed

for this purpose. For the same reason, self-typing paragraphs were used and enabled

administrators to identify their organization’s management philosophy as either control-

oriented or involvement-oriented. The second type of instrument used in this study was

an empirically validated survey instrument, specifically the Values Survey Module,

which was developed by Geert Hofstede. The following paragraphs will discuss in detail

the study’s employment of these two distinct types of instruments.

Self-Typing Paragraphs

Dees and Robinson (1984) wrote that, “A researcher might consider using a

subjective perceptual measure” (p. 271) when (a) accurate objective measures are

unavailable, and (b) the alternative is to remove the variable being studied from the

research design. Because two sets of variables in this study -- agency/stewardship

relationship type and involvement/control management philosophy -- fit within the

parameters defined by Dees and Robinson, the more “perceptual” measure of self-typing

53

paragraphs will be employed. These paragraphs will be developed in accordance with the

Self-Typing Paragraph Approach (STPA) advocated by James and Hatten (1995). A

strength of the STPA is that, through the use of this instrument, data can be collected that

acknowledges organizational variations. Additionally, Hambrick (1983) contends that the

STPA allows the variables being studied, to be presented in terms that are not industry

specific. Shortell and Zajac (1990) and Conant, Mokwa, and Varadarajan (1990) have

used the STPA for research in the medical field, while James and Hatten, have used it in

the banking industry. For both of these studies, the authors concluded that “the scale

performs quite well” (p. 167).

Two sets of self-typing paragraphs were used to gather data for the study. The

first set determined whether administrators view themselves as agents or stewards. The

second set determined whether the administrators see the dominant management style in

their organization as control or involvement oriented.

Agent/Steward Paragraphs

Administrators who took part in this survey were asked to classify themselves

according to STPA statements, which were derived from the review of literature and are

consistent with either agency theory or stewardship theory. These paragraphs are as

follows:

Agent. Working for an organization is a trade-off. I contribute my time and

expertise to the organization, and the organization gives me a salary and benefits. This is

the practical foundation of our working relationship. It is up to my supervisors or my

board to let me know what they want me to do on a regular basis and it is up to me, to do

it. I rely on their specific direction. I expect a course correction from them when they

54

don’t like something I’m doing or rewards when they do. In this way, work is a practical,

give-and-take arrangement that benefits all of us.

Steward. I have a duty to the organization and to those who set its policy. Part of

that duty is to understand what my supervisors, or board, want for the organization and to

work out how to put that into practice. I prefer to have that responsibility, rather than

getting a lot of specific direction from them. If they are too involved, it reduces my

interest in the work. Nevertheless, my sense of responsibility to my supervisors or my

board is strong, and I would work hard for this organization even if it did not materially

reward me very much for doing so.

The administrators’ who received this survey were asked to select the paragraph

that best described their personal approach to their organizational work. Through this

process, data was gathered on the study’s dependent variables, which were agent or

steward.

Validity of paragraphs. The process of developing the wording used for this

study’s STPA paragraphs began with testing the paragraphs used in Stevenson’s (2002)

study. The sample STPA paragraphs used by Stevenson for his research were provided to

groups of administrators at Brewton-Parker College, Mount Vernon, Georgia; Hardin-

Simmons University, Abilene, Texas; University of Texas at Permian Basin, Odessa,

Texas; and Texas State Technical College, Abilene, Texas. The paragraphs from

Stevenson’s dissertation were:

Agent. I focus on extrinsic rewards, those things that are tangible and have a

market value. When it comes to managing and leading an organization, I give it

my best but do not accept full responsibility for any shortcomings the

55

organization may experience. As the leader in my organization, I limit my

involvement so that I can maintain an appropriate business environment.

Steward. I focus on intrinsic rewards such as opportunities for growth,

achievement, affiliation, and self-actualization for others and myself. When it

comes to leading and managing an organization, I tend to take credit for its

success and responsibility for its failures. As the leader in my organization, I try

to engage my coworkers as much as I can to try to determine their needs to help

them grow as individuals, as well as the organization as a whole (p. 33).

Stevenson (2002) received 137 responses from corporate executives, 76 stewards,

and 61 agents. Results from the same paragraphs being submitted to the groups of college

and university administrators resulted in a steward-to-agent ratio of 6:1. The results of

this sampling led to a search for new wording, while focusing on maintaining the

elements that represented the individual administrator’s management relationship type.

Stevenson contacted Lex Donaldson at the Australian Graduate School of Management

and sought his insight, as STPA paragraphs were being developed to categorize survey

respondents as agents or stewards. Donaldson responded to Stevenson by electronic mail

on June 20, 2001, (Stevenson, p. 108) and proposed the following STPA paragraphs:

Agent. I go to work in order to maximize my self-interest, for the sake of myself

and my family. Therefore, I am prepared to work hard for the organization only as

long as it rewards me with money or other tangible benefits. It is up to the

organization to provide discipline on me, otherwise I will slacken off my efforts,

because it is our nature as human beings to seek comfort and avoid exertion.

56

Steward. I work hard for the organization even if it does not reward me materially

for doing so. Also, to work hard, I do not need to be supervised by senior

managers. I am motivated by the psychological satisfaction I get from doing a

good job and from exercising responsibility. I feel a sense of duty to work hard

and want to help the organization in every way it needs. In fact, having superiors

supervise me tends to reduce my sense of responsibility and commitment, so that

it can reduce my motivation (p. 109).

The paragraphs proposed by Donaldson (Stevenson, 2002, p. 109) were submitted

to the same group of administrators, with the respondents again choosing, by an

overwhelming margin, the paragraph that identified the respondents as stewards. The

final version of the paragraphs used for this study resulted after data on a number of

drafts was collected. The results gathered for each set of sample paragraphs provided

improvements that enhanced the effectiveness of the STPA paragraphs. As sample

paragraphs made the rounds, results of the instrument began to provide a more even

distribution of responses indicating representation for both the agent and steward

groupings. As results from the testing were collected, respondents were asked why they

made their particular choice. When the final paragraphs used for this research project

were developed, an agent explained the choice of the STPA paragraph by saying that:

Loyalty to any organization, in my opinion, is a purchased commodity. We do not

live in a socialist society therefore we do not work for the betterment of the

whole. If that is a by-product of my labor and achievements, all the better, but it is

not one of my goals. While that sounds selfish and contrived, it is not. If everyone

were to strive to be their best and accomplish all of their goals without

57

equivocation, then the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, we live in a

society that seems to think the world owes them something simply because they

have mastered the art of breathing. If a person actually accomplishes something

they should be rewarded for it. Those rewards begin to build and before you know

it, there are a lot more smiles on peoples' faces and many less hands being held

out. (Personal communication, September 18, 2003)

To the same set of STPA paragraphs, which were the final revised paragraphs that

were used for the study, a respondent provided an explanation for responding as a

steward by saying that:

After all, if I was in it for the money, I wouldn't be here. I know that salaries have

been frozen for the next two years, but I'm not looking for another job; I'm

making a living wage, and I'm satisfied with that. Sure, I'd like to get a raise (and

I may start looking if I don't get a raise when the salary freeze is lifted in the next

budgeting cycle). But that isn't my highest priority, or the way I measure my

success. I'm here because I believe in what I'm doing, and I believe that I am

offering a valuable service to the clients (both the students and the businesses

which will eventually hire them). (Personal communication, September 18, 2003)

When responses by members of the testing groups began to provide split results,

with individuals indicating support both for the agent and steward paragraphs, a

determination was made to halt the revision process and consider them as the product

being used in the data collection phase of this research project.

58

Involvement/Control Paragraphs

A thorough search was made in the literature for a validated instrument measuring

the control/involvement construct. Searches were conducted through the Buros Institute’s

Mental Measurements Yearbook on-line database, for example, but this and other

searches failed to produce results. This should not be surprising. Limited research has

been done on the involvement/control contrast, in general; therefore, researchers have not

sought to develop an empirical instrument for testing these situational variables. For the

purposes of this study, observations, interviews, and a review of an organization’s

policies and procedures could potentially have been used to identify an organization’s

orientation toward involvement or control. However, this study sought to determine

administrators’ own perceptions of this factor in their workplace, and perceptions could

have varied among administrators serving at the same institution. The collection of data

was not focused on designating a specific organization’s general management style, but,

rather, the needed data looked at the individual administrator’s perceptions of his or her

organization’s culture. Hence, this study employed self-typing paragraphs as the means

of data collection for this independent variable.

To identify the independent variables of involvement/control, administrators

classified their organization’s overall management philosophy in response to a second set

of self-typing paragraphs, developed according to STPA guidelines. The language of

these paragraphs was linked to relevant theoretical concepts, as discussed in the review of

the literature on the theory of involvement and control. The paragraphs are as follows:

Control. The organization in which I work is a structured one. In general, the

management philosophy of the organization supports a consistent chain of

59

command, and employee interaction is consistent with that structure.

Organizational decisions usually come down along that chain of command. There

are established procedures for most types of work, and those who follow these

procedures are rewarded by the organization.

Involvement. The organization in which I work is an open one. Its general

management philosophy supports mutual access among employees at every level,

and employees interaction has minimal restrictions. Although decisions may be

made at higher management levels, they are discussed by all concerned. There are

established procedures, but these are seen as guidelines, and innovation is

rewarded.

This instrument was used to determine the overall management philosophy of the

respondents’ institutions. The participants were asked to choose the paragraph that most

accurately described their organization.

Validity of paragraphs. The process of developing wording used for the study of

STPA paragraphs, for a respondent’s perception of their organizational culture as being

control-oriented, or involvement-oriented, began with the testing of draft paragraphs on

groups of administrators at Brewton-Parker College, Mount Vernon, Georgia; Hardin-

Simmons University, Abilene, Texas; University of Texas at Permian Basin, Odessa,

Texas; and Texas State Technical College, Abilene, Texas. There were only a few minor

wording problems that hampered individuals from readily understanding the elements

contained in the paragraphs. A respondent described a decision to choose involvement,

but indicated the quandary related to institutions of higher education when saying that:

60

Involvement is the true reality, but I would venture to say that control would be

the perception of many. After all, this is academia, and that’s the most

cumbersome bureaucracy outside of government! (Personal communication,

September 18, 2003)

Final revisions to the paragraphs were completed when individuals responded

with a clear ability of being able to determine the question being asked. At that time, a

determination was made to consider the paragraphs as finalized and prepared them for

use in the data collection process.

Values Survey Module

The Values Survey Module developed by Geert Hofstede was used to gather data

on the independent situational variables of individualism/collectivism and power distance

in the organizational cultures of the sample universities. Both of these variables are long-

term components of Hofstede’s decades-long research into the characteristics of national

cultures, of organizational cultures, and the interplay between the two. As the

International Business Center (2003a) wrote:

Dr. Geert Hofstede conducted perhaps the most comprehensive study of how

values in the workplace are influenced by culture. From 1967 to 1973, while

working at IBM as a psychologist, he collected and analyzed data from over

100,000 individuals from forty countries. (¶ 1)

On the basis of this research, Hofstede (2001) developed a model that describes the

differences in cultures along five dimensions, as follows: (a) power distance, (b)

uncertainty avoidance, (c) individualism versus collectivism, (d) masculinity versus

femininity, and (e) long-term versus short-term orientation. The Values Survey Module

61

(the second and most recent edition was released in 1994) is the instrument that Hofstede

and his associates have developed and fine tuned over the years for measuring these

aspects of culture.

Instrument validity. Hofstede (2001) discussed the revisions that led to the 1994

edition of the Values Survey Module (VSM) used for this study. Beginning in 1967,

Hofstede’s “initial research material consisted of an existing database made available by

IBM” (p. 493). As a psychologist working for the company, he designed a survey

instrument that was “chosen for IBM’s internal purposes” (p. 493). Hofstede wrote that,

the instrument “was never intended to form a complete and universal instrument for

measuring national cultures” (p. 493). Hofstede founded the Institute for Research on

Intercultural Cooperation (IRIC) in 1980, and used 20 of the content questions from the

IBM instrument as the foundation for the initial 27-question VSM. Research conducted

by IRIC led to revised editions, VSM 81 and VSM 82. The VSM 94 edition contained 20

content questions, 8 of which remained from the original instrument developed for IBM.

Hofstede (2001) wrote that his VSM 94 “was designed especially for replications”

(p. 461), but reminded researchers that the instrument was designed for gathering

information about cultures. He wrote that, “Novice researchers, forgetting that they are

comparing cultures, not individuals, then apply reliability calculations (such as

Cronbach’s alpha) on individual scores and find very low values” (p. 463). Hofstede

wrote that:

The VSM is a test designed for comparing mean scores of matched samples of

respondents across two or more countries, regions, or ethnic groups. It is not a

personality test for comparing individuals within countries. The reliability of a

62

cross-country test can be tested only across countries, but this presupposes data

from at least some 15 countries. Cronbach alph reliability coefficients across

individuals are irrelevant. (p. 497)

Hofstede contends that the level of reliability is low, as a result of the instrument being

focused on cultures, instead of individuals. In response to the reliability scores, Hofstede

wrote that, “The reliability of an instrument is implicitly tested through its proven

validity” (p. 497). He also wrote:

An unreliable test cannot produce valid results, so if validity is proven, reliability

can be assumed. Validity is shown through significant correlations of test results

with outside criteria related to the test scores by some kind of theory or logic. In

this way the reliability of the VSM, even for smaller numbers of countries, can be

proven indirectly. (p. 497)

Through the years of extensive research replications conducted by IRIC, Hofstede

contends that the VSM 94 has validity. The instrument was selected for use in this study

as a result of the available database, which provided an understanding about the cultural

dimensions of individualism versus collectivism and power distance.

Individualism/Collectivism questions. Hofstede’s VSM 94 uses four questions to

identify the cultural level of individualism or its opposite, collectivism, within an

organization. The survey instrument uses a 5-point Likert scale for the collection of

responses. A copy of the VSM 94 Questionnaire is provided in Appendix A. Questions 1,

2, 4, and 8 are those that measure the levels of cultural individualism/collectivism in the

organizations of the administrator respondents.

63

Differences in the respective degree of collectivism versus individualism in

national cultures have been collected and analyzed by Hofstede for many years. He has,

to date, published the individualism/collectivism scores of 56 countries or regions. In

these results, the United States has the highest national score, a 91, reflecting the greatest

tendency toward individualism of all the national cultures tested. The full list of

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension Scores, provided by the International Business Center

(2003b), showed scores ranging from the high of 91, posted by the United States, to a low

of 6, posted by the country of Guatemala. Statistical analysis related to the frequencies of

the various individualism/collectivism scores was conducted with the SPSS software

package and provided the results that appear in Table 3.

Table 3

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension IDV Scores

N 56

Mean 43.66

Median 38.50

Mode 20

Minimum 6

Maximum 91

Standard Deviation 25.16

Power distance questions. The VSM 94 also served as the instrument for

collecting data on the independent variable of power distance. In this case also, there are

four specific questions designed to measure the level of power distance in an

64

organizational culture, the results of which can then be compared to data collected from

previous Hofstede studies. Questions 3, 6, 14, and 17 of the VSM 94 Questionnaire,

provided as Appendix A, was used to determine the level of power distance in the

organizations represented by the respondents. The mathematical formula provided in the

manual, Appendix B, served as a tool through which the questionnaire’s responses were

transformed into information that could be analyzed.

As with individualism/collectivism, Hofstede and his colleagues have analyzed

the differences in the power distance conventions of various national cultures for many

years. Scores for 56 countries or regions have been published, to date, and these range

from a high of 104, for Malaysia, to a low of 11, for Austria, with the United States score

identified as a 40 (International Business Center, 2003b). Statistical analysis of the

frequencies of the power dimension scores was conducted with the SPSS software

package, which yielded the results shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension PDI Scores

N 56

Mean 56.27

Median 59

Mode 35

Minimum 11

Maximum 104

Standard Deviation 21.54

65

Summary

Table 5 summarizes the relationships between the research variables and the

instruments that were used for data collection. The table lists each of the study’s variables

and provides a description of the descriptive categories into which the data was sorted,

once participants completed the survey instruments.

Table 5

Research Variable and Instrument Relationships

Research Variable Description Research Instrument

Agent Management Relationship Type

Steward STPA

Involvement Management Philosophy

Control STPA

Individualistic Role of Individual

Collectivistic VSM 94

Low Power Distance

High VSM 94

Data Analysis

As survey responses were returned, the results were collected and stored in a

Microsoft Excel database. When the study was completed, the data was merged into a

SPSS software package for statistical analysis. Observations on the nominal, categorical,

values of the Management Relationship Type and Management Philosophy variables

were made through the use of analysis conducted through the Pearson chi-square.

66

Differences in the mean and standard deviation of the samples were calculated and

independent-samples t tests run on the scaled data.

67

Chapter 4: Data Analysis

This study was designed to empirically test the effect of three situational factors

on the development of principal-steward relationships in organizations: involvement/

control in organizational management; collectivism/individualism in organizational

culture; and power distance in organizational culture. To this end, the study employed a

survey in which presidents, vice presidents, and directors of educational institutions,

hereafter referred to as administrators, responded to self-typing paragraphs that identified

themselves as agents or stewards. The administrators also responded to self-typing

paragraphs that identified the perceptions of their organization’s culture as being control-

oriented or involvement-oriented. In addition, the administrators provided answers to

questions from Geert Hofstede’s Values Survey Module (VSM 94) that identified the

administrator’s perceptions of their (a) organization’s culture as collectivist-oriented or

individualistic-oriented, and (b) organization’s culture as having a power distance level

that is low or high. The information provided in this chapter provides insight into the

results derived from the analysis conducted on the data collected during the study, which

was collected to answer the following research questions:

1. Are administrators who are in an involvement-oriented situation more likely to

become stewards in principal-steward relationships than are administrators who are in a

control-oriented situation?

2. Are administrators in a collectivist organizational culture more likely to

develop principal-steward relationships than are administrators who are in an

individualistic organizational culture?

68

3. Are administrators in a low power-distance organizational culture more likely

to develop principal-steward relationships than are administrators who are in a high

power-distance culture?

After the presentation of material providing an explanation of results directly related to

the research questions, this chapter concludes with a discussion about statistically

significant findings from the data set that are related to, but are beyond, the primary

scope of this study’s research questions.

Research Participants

This study’s research participants were administrators serving at private

denominationally related colleges and universities and state colleges and universities, as

well as at other educational institutions. Most of those who provided survey responses

serve at institutions with membership status in the (a) Association of Southern Baptist

Colleges and Schools (ASBCS), (b) Council for Christian Colleges and Universities

(CCCU), or (c) American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU).

Data collected from the survey responses provided demographic information

about the type of institution that the respondent was employed, which allowed the 1,077

responses to be grouped in the classifications of (a) Private College or University,

hereafter referred to as Private College, or (b) State College or University, described

hereafter as State College. Information was also collected about the (a) gender, (b) age,

(c) education level, (d) administrative position, (e) religion, (f) years employed in current

position, and (g) years employed in education of the survey participants. In addition, data

was gathered showing that responses were received from 38 States and the District of

69

Columbia, based on the location of the college or university that employed the survey

participants.

Institutional classification

Demographic information from those who responded to the survey allowed

categorical classifications to be determined. Participants from the ASBCS and CCCU

institutions responded to holding positions of employment at a Private College.

Responses from administrators at AASCU institutions provided a response indicating that

they held a position at a State College. Data presented in Table 6, shown below, provides

information about the type of institutions that employed the survey participants. The data

presented in Table 6 shows that from the 1,077 received responses, more than 500 were

determined to hold positions of employment at each of the two types of institutions. Just

over half (53%) of the sample identified themselves as being employed at a Private

College, with the remainder (47%) reporting employment at a State College.

Table 6

Institutional Classification

N P

Private College or University 567 53%

State College or University 510 47%

Total 1,077 100%

Gender

The data represented in Table 7 provides information about those who

participated in the survey. The compile data shows that 60% of the 567 Private College

70

respondents reported being male, while 52% of the 510 survey participants of the State

College category identified themselves as male.

Table 7

Gender

N P

Private College

Male 339 60%

Female 228 40%

State College

Male 266 52%

Female 244 48%

Total

Male 605 56%

Female 472 44%

Age

Data compiled from the survey responses provided information about the ages of

the college and university administrators. The data presented in Table 8 provided

information about those who participated in the survey. More than half (N = 634, 59%) of

the administrators reported that they are between the ages of 40-59, with the age category

of 50-59 being the answer provided by nearly one-third (N = 356, 33%) of the

respondents. A total of 319 (56%) of the Private College respondents and 315 (62%) of

the State College participants reported being between the ages of 40-59.

71

Table 8

Age

Private State Total

N P N P N P

20-24 14 2.5% 16 3.1% 30 2.8%

25-29 37 6.5% 24 4.7% 61 5.7%

30-34 45 7.9% 36 7.1% 81 7.5%

35-39 54 9.5% 36 7.1% 90 8.4%

40-49 143 25.2% 135 26.5% 278 25.8%

50-59 176 31.0% 180 35.3% 356 33.1%

Over 60 94 16.6% 80 15.7% 174 16.2%

No Response 4 0.7% 3 0.6% 7 0.6%

Total 567 52.6% 510 47.4% 1,077

Education

The level of education attained by the college and university administrators was

compiled from the survey responses and is presented in Table 9. This data, presented on

the following page, provides information about the survey participants. The information

shows that a majority of the college and university administrators (N = 793, 74%) of the

administrators reported that they have attained at least a master’s degree. Respondents

from the Private College category provided information showing that 76% have attained

advanced degrees, while 72% of the State College respondents have continued their

72

education after earning a baccalaureate degree. Almost one-third (32%) of the survey

participants reported having completed their doctorate.

Table 9

Education

Private State Total

N P N P N P

Doctorate 185 32.6% 162 31.8% 347 32.2%

Professional 19 3.4% 23 4.5% 42 3.9%

Master’s 224 39.5% 180 35.3% 404 37.5%

Bachelor’s 135 23.8% 141 27.6% 276 25.6%

Associate’s 3 0.5% 4 0.8% 7 0.6%

High School 1 0.2% 0 0.0% 1 0.1%

Total 567 52.6% 510 47.4% 1,077

Administrative Position

The administrative position held by each of the 1,077 survey participants is

presented in Table 10. Directors provided 75% of the responses.

Table 10

Administrative Position

Private State Total

N P N P N P

73

President 32 5.6% 15 2.9% 47 4.4%

Vice President 143 25.2% 77 15.1% 220 20.4%

Director 392 69.1% 418 82.0% 810 75.2%

Total 567 52.6% 510 47.4% 1,077 100.0%

Religion

Data compiled from the survey responses provides information about the religious

affiliation of the college and university administrators. Table 11 provides information

about the compiled data. There is a marked difference in regards to identification with the

Southern Baptist Convention. Respondents employed by Private Colleges reported, at a

rate of 37%, having membership in churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist

Convention. The significant denominational affiliation is explained by the number of

responses received from administrators serving at the ASBCS member schools.

Table 11

Religion

Private State Total

N P N P N P

Southern Baptist 208 36.7% 45 8.8% 253 23.5%

Catholic 63 11.1% 100 19.6% 163 15.1%

Protestant 55 9.7% 56 11.0% 111 10.3%

Methodist 36 6.3% 57 11.2% 93 8.6%

Church of Christ 43 7.6% 17 3.3% 60 5.6%

74

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship

14 2.5% 9 1.8% 23 2.1%

Other 112 19.8% 147 28.8% 259 24.0%

None 36 6.3% 79 15.5% 115 10.7%

Total 567 52.6% 510 47.4% 1,077

Years in Current Position

The demographic data compiled from the survey participants about the amount of

time that they have served in their current capacity is provided in Table 12. More than

half (57%) of the administrators reported having served in their current job position for

less than 5 years.

Table 12

Years in Current Position

Private State Total

N P N P N P

0-2 years 162 28.6% 144 28.2% 306 28.4%

3-5 years 173 30.5% 137 26.9% 310 28.8%

6-10 years 105 18.5% 86 16.9% 191 17.7%

11-15 years 53 9.3% 55 10.8% 108 10.0%

Over 15 years

73 12.9% 84 16.5% 157 14.6%

No Answer 1 0.2% 4 0.8% 5 0.5%

Total 567 52.6% 510 47.4% 1,077 100%

75

Years Employed in Education

The data compiled from the administrators is presented in Table 13 and shows

that the majority of survey participants, 54%, have served in the field of education for a

period that has extended longer than 11 years. Forty-three percent (N = 460) of the

administrators have spent more than 15 years working with educational institutions. This

finding provides relevance, when coupled with the data about the length of service in the

current job, which shows that the educational administrators are making transitions

within the educational community and are able to assume new positions of leadership.

Table 13

Years Employed in Education

Private State Total

N P N P N P

0-2 years 115 20.3% 71 13.9% 186 17.3%

3-5 years 68 12.0% 57 11.2% 125 11.6%

6-10 years

75 13.2% 91 17.8% 166 15.4%

11-15 years

63 11.1% 54 10.6% 117 10.9%

Over 15 years

239 42.2% 221 43.3% 460 42.7%

No Answer

7 1.2% 16 3.1% 23 2.1%

Total 567 52.6% 510 47.4% 1,077 100.0%

76

Demographic Chart

From the data collected, a demographic chart was constructed to provide

information about the educational administrators who provided responses for this

research project. The chart, which is presented as Table 14, was developed from the

demographic information provided by the 1,077 respondents. Data compiled for the table

provides a snapshot of the administrators of both the Private College and State College

categories based on position, educational level, and gender. Of all the various categories

provided in Table 14, the two groups providing the largest numbers of responses were (a)

male directors at Private Colleges who had attained a master’s degree (n = 90), and (b)

female directors at State Colleges who had attained a master’s degree (n = 87). The

information provided in Table 14 concludes the explanation of the demographic

information collected during the process of this study.

77

Table 14

Demographic Chart

Private State

Male Female Male Female

Total

President (n =47)

Doctorate 23 1 9 1 34

Professional 1 -- 1 1 3

Master’s 5 1 2 1 9

Associate -- 1 -- -- 1

Vice President (n = 220)

Doctorate 59 6 21 18 104

Professional 2 2 3 1 8

Master’s 49 10 16 7 82

Bachelor’s 9 6 8 3 26

Director (n = 810)

Doctorate 55 41 75 38 209

Professional 9 5 9 8 31

Master’s 90 69 67 87 313

Bachelor’s 37 83 54 76 250

Associate’s -- 2 1 3 6

High School -- 1 -- -- 1

Total 339 228 266 244 1,077

78

Management Relationship Variable

This research project focused on providing answers to three questions based on

participants identified as agents or stewards. Table 15 shows that the number of stewards

identified in the Private College category was greater (N = 388, 68%) than the number of

stewards employed with a State College (N = 267, 52%). Inversely, more agents were

identified in the State College category (N = 243, 48%) than were found in the data

collected from participants at Private Colleges (N = 179, 32%).

Table 15

Management Relationship Type

Private State Total

N P N P N P

Agent 179 31.6% 243 47.6% 422 39.2%

Steward 388 68.4% 267 52.4% 655 60.8%

Total 567 52.6% 510 47.4% 1,077 100%

79

Results

Research Question 1: Are managers who are in an involvement-oriented situation

more likely to become stewards in principal-steward relationships than are managers who

are in a control-oriented situation?

Information used to answer this research question included results of survey

responses for the management relationship (agent/steward) variable and the management

philosophy (control/involvement) variable. Since both variables were categorical, the

analysis was conducted with a chi-square. Table 16 presents the data analysis for the test

conducted on the three groups. The cross-tab for Private College (n = 567) showed that

those who perceived their organization as control-oriented (n = 273) was composed of

100 agents and 173 stewards, and those who identified their organization as involvement-

oriented (n = 294) were identified as agents (n = 79) and stewards (n = 215). The data

analyzed for the Private College grouping provided a statistically significant result of

X2 = 6.241, p = .012. Cross-tab information for State College (n = 510) showed that the

251 participants who identified their organization as control-oriented consisted of 136

agents and 115 stewards, while the 259 respondents who identified their organization as

involvement-oriented was composed of 107 agents and 152 stewards. Analysis of the

State College provided a significantly significant result of X2 = 8.465, p = .004. The

cross-tab data for the Total Population (N = 1,077) showed that those who reported their

organization as being control-oriented (N = 524) was provided by 236 agents and 288

stewards, and those who identified their organization as involvement-oriented (N = 553)

was provided by 186 agents and 367 stewards. Testing of the Total Population provided a

statistically significant result of X2 = 14.682, p = .000.

80

Table 16

Management Relationship and Management Philosophy

Control Involvement X2 Significance

Private 273 294 6.241 .012

State 251 259 8.465 .004

Total 524 553 14.682 .000

Research Question 2: Are managers in a collectivist culture more likely to

develop principal-steward relationships than are managers who are in an individualistic

culture?

Variables used to answer the research question were management relationship

(categorical) and IDV (ratio). Table 17 provides data about the independent-samples t

tests conducted on the three groups. Information for the Total Population showed that the

IDV mean for agents (N = 422, M = 104.02) and stewards (N = 655, M = 103.24) resulted

in a t test result of .301, p = .763. Analysis on the Private College participants compared

the IDV mean of agents (n = 179, M = 107.57) and stewards (n = 388, M = 107.59),

which resulted in t = 1.212, p = .226. For State Colleges, the IDV mean of agents

(n = 243, M = 101.40) and stewards (n = 267, M = 96.93) produced t = .005, p = .996.

Analysis conducted on all three groups failed to show statistical significance.

81

Table 17

Management Relationship and Role of Individual

Agent Steward T-test Significance

Total 104.02 103.24 .301 .763

Private 107.57 107.59 1.212 .226

State 101.40 96.93 .005 .996

Research Question 3: Are managers in a low power distance culture more likely

to develop principal-steward relationships than are managers who are in a high power

distance culture?

Providing an answer to this question involved conducting analysis on the

management relationship (categorical) variable, and the power distance (ratio) variable.

Table 18 presents information about the independent-samples t tests. Information for the

Total Population showed that the PDI mean for agents (N = 422, M = 20.82) and

stewards (N = 655, M = 18.73) resulted in a t test result of .682, p = .495. Analysis on the

Private College participants compared the PDI mean of agents (n = 179, M = 19.72) and

stewards (n = 388, M = 22.98), which resulted in t = -.756, p = .450. For State Colleges,

the PDI mean of agents (n = 243, M = 21.63) and stewards (n = 267, M = 12.57)

produced t = 2.029, p = .043. Only the PDI difference between agents and stewards at

State Colleges was statistically significant.

82

Table 18

Management Relationship and Power Distance

Agent Steward T-test Significance

Total 20.82 18.73 .682 .495

Private 19.72 22.98 -.756 .450

State 21.63 12.57 2.029 .043

Significant Findings

Data collected for this research project contained a number of statistically

significant relationships that were beyond the scope of the research questions. The

findings that were derived from the data provide insight into the administrators and the

organizational cultures of their institutions.

Management Relationship

Statistically significant results exist for the relationship of management

relationship and organization type.

Management relationship and organization type. Testing for statistical

significance between the categorical variables of management relationship and

organizational type showed agents (N = 422) at Private Colleges (N = 179) and State

Colleges (N = 243), and stewards at Private Colleges (N = 388) and State Colleges

(N = 267). Table 19 provides information about the relationship: X2 = 29.124, p = .000.

83

Table 19

Management Relationship and Organization Type

Agent Steward X2 Significance

Private 179 388

State 243 267

29.124 .000

Management Philosophy

Statistical analysis was conducted and determined that statistically significant

relationships exist between the variable of management philosophy and (a) power

distance, (b) gender, and (c) position.

Management philosophy and power distance. Statistical significance between

management philosophy, a categorical variable, and PDI, a ratio variable, was studied

through an independent-samples t test. Table 20 presents the test results. The mean PDI

of those who identified their organization as control-oriented (N = 524) was 26.43, and

the average for those who identified their organization as involvement-oriented (N = 553)

was 13.03 (t = 4.532, p = .000).

84

Table 20

Management Philosophy and Power Distance

Control Involvement T-test Significance

PDI 26.43 13.03 4.532 .000

Management philosophy and gender. Testing conducted on the relationship

between the categorical variables of management philosophy and gender. The cross-tab

showed males (N = 605) who perceived their organization as control-oriented (N = 273)

and involvement-oriented (N = 332), and females (N = 472) who identified their

organization as control-oriented (N = 251) and involvement-oriented (N = 221). Table 21

provides information about the relationship: X2 = 6.885, p = .009.

Table 21

Management Philosophy and Gender

Male Female X2 Significance

Control 273 251

Involvement 332 221

6.885 .009

Role of Individual

Significant results were found when analysis was conducted on the variable of the

role of individual (individualism/collectivism) and organization type.

85

Role of individual and organization type. Analysis was conducted on the

relationship of the variables of role of individual, which is ratio, and organization type,

which is categorical, by an independent-samples t test. Table 22 presents the test results:

The mean IDV of those employed at a Private College (N = 567) was 107.58, and the

mean for those employed at a State College (N = 510) was 99.06 (t = 3.347, p = .001).

Table 22

Role of Individual and Organization Type

Private State T-test Significance

IDV 107.58 99.06 3.347 .001

Conclusion

This discussion serves to integrate this study’s results. Each research question is

restated, followed by a discussion of the results.

Research Question 1: Are managers who are in an involvement-oriented situation

more likely to become stewards in principal-steward relationships than are managers

who are in a control-oriented situation?

Analysis for this research question was conducted through the variables of

management relationship (agent/steward) and management philosophy (control/

involvement), through which a chi-square showed that the dispersion of data for each of

the compared groupings -- Total Population, Private College, and State College -- was

statistically significant.

86

Research Question 2: Are managers in a collectivist culture more likely to

develop principal-steward relationships than are managers who are in an individualistic

culture?

The variables of management relationship and IDV were used to examine the

relationship described in this research question. Calculations conducted with

independent-samples t tests that sought to determine the existence of statistically

significant differences, all failed.

Research Question 3: Are managers in a low power distance culture more likely

to develop principal-steward relationships than are managers who are in a high power

distance culture?

A study of the relationship described in this research question was conducted

through the variables of management relationship and PDI. Independent-samples t tests

were conducted on each of the three groupings, with the PDI difference between agents

and stewards at State Colleges determined to be statistically significant.

Significant Data

In addition to answering this research project’s three questions, the data provided

information about relationships that expanded the understanding of the survey

participants and their organizations.

Management Relationship

An examination of the data showed that the relationship between the variables of

management relationship and organization type was statistically significant.

87

Management Philosophy

Analysis was conducted and determined the statistical significance of the

relationships that existed between the variable of management philosophy and (a) power

distance, (b) gender, and (c) position.

Role of Individual

Statistically significant results were found when analysis was conducted on the

variable of the role of individual (individualism/collectivism) and organization type.

88

Chapter 5: Conclusion

This research project extended the scholarship on stewardship theory by

empirically testing Davis et al. (1997) propositions, about situational influences on the

development of principal-steward relationships. This study followed up on Stevenson’s

(2002) study, which validated the individual psychological factors effecting the

development of steward-principal relationships, proposed by Davis, Schoorman, and

Donaldson. This final chapter summarizes the research project, discusses the results, and

offers recommendations on areas for further study.

Research Project

This study provided insight into the possibilities that exist toward the

advancement of stewardship theory. The data compiled for this study gathered

information about administrators and their organizational cultures, which provides

leaders with a greater understanding of the motivations held by those within an

organization. This study found significant differences in agents and stewards; not only

did their motivations differ, but they also held different perceptions about their

organizations. The information is important to leaders who are struggling with methods

to keep their organization competitive. Lawler (1986) wrote that:

American organizations need to be more effective simply to be competitive --and

not just somewhat more effective, but dramatically better. It is unlikely that

dramatic improvements can come about through the use of traditional

management approaches. It is very unlikely that research breakthroughs are going

89

to tell us how to make the traditional approaches to management operate more

effectively. (p. 19)

There are opportunities with participative management styles, such as the stewardship

model proposed by Block (1996). Organizational leaders, however, are faced with the

challenges of understanding the method of implementing change. This study took a step

and expanded the academic literature on stewardship theory and agency theory by

providing insight into the individual’s fundamental assumptions. Through this study, a

significant relationship was found between the variables of management relationship

(agent/steward) and management philosophy (control/involvement) that provides

implications for leaders who are studying opportunities for organizational change.

Agents, according to the research, are more likely to perceive their organization as

control-oriented, while stewards more often perceive their organization as involvement-

oriented.

This study also showed that the dispersion of agents and stewards was statistically

significant between the two groupings -- Private Colleges or Universities and State

Colleges or Universities -- and that a relationship exists between the respondents’

management relationship and the type of organization at which they are employed.

Respondents at Private Colleges or Universities were more likely, at a rate that showed to

be statistically significant, to identify themselves as stewards. The relationship, while

beyond the scope of this research project, indicates that Private Colleges or Universities

either attract stewards, or that agents, working over a period of time within the

organizations, become stewards.

90

The study failed to show the levels of statistical significance that were anticipated

for the variables of individualism/collectivism (IDV) and power distance (PDI), which

showed that the respondent pool -- Private College or University and State College or

University -- was composed of similar organizational cultures. The research project was

based on the expectation that the selected groups of respondents would identify their

cultures differently, as Triandis (1994, 1995) had previously found when conducting

research. Instead of providing insight into a set of variations that could be observed

within the organizational cultures, the data provided by the administrators provided a

comparison of organizations whose cultures were determined to be individualistic and

with a low power distance. While it is expected that statistically significant results could

have been discovered had the respondent pool compared administrators at colleges and

universities from separate countries, this project was focused on providing information

about institutions in the United States that seek to gain a competitive edge through the

employment of stewardship theory. The results of the study were not significant, but did

provide beneficial information about the composition of the cultural understandings of

the organizational members.

This study provided information to the stream of organizational literature that

provides leaders with information about the differences of agents and stewards. Those

leaders who are seeking to affect levels of their organization’s competitiveness would

benefit from an understanding of the implicit connection with strategic planning and

organizational change and the levels of participation and involvement from the

organization’s members. This study provides insight into the problem that exists when

plans for organizational change are never fully implemented, since the plans are often

91

built on agency theory assumptions, which never provide the incentives that would target

involvement from the organization’s stewards. In order for effective organizational

change to happen, leaders must provide benefits that target both agents and stewards.

Limitations of the Study

The study’s major limitations stem from the nature of its sample, which is a

narrow, convenience sample. The administrators of the educational institutions that

formed this study’s sample were, for the most part, employed by institutions holding

membership in the (a) Association for Southern Baptist Colleges and Schools (ASBCS),

(b) Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), or (c) American Association

of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). Consequently, individual study participants

were all educated professional administrators. This degree of demographic homogeneity

in the sample limits the generalizability of the study’s results. Similarly, among

respondents from the ASBCS and CCCU member institutions, there was the possibility

that the shared religious orientation of the participants would yield a greater percentage

of self-identified “stewards” than would be present in a random sample of organizational

leaders. This also limits the generalizability of the study’s results.

Further Study

Areas that should be considered for future empirical research includes studies that

provide insight into the difference of similar organizations that are identified as having

different cultures, based upon the IDV and PDI measured by the Values Survey Module.

Research should also expand on the dimension, brought to light in this project, which

showed management relationship (agent/steward) status differed according to

organizational type. While it was beyond the scope of this project, which took a snapshot

92

of the administrators’ identification, it would be beneficial to determine if agents can

become stewards over time, or if certain types of organizations attract, or only hire,

stewards. Additionally, empirical research should be conducted on the remaining four

propositions advanced by Davis et al. (1997), which deal with motive.

93

References

Albanese, R., Dacin, M. T., & Harris, I. C. (1997, July). Agents as stewards. The

Academy of Management Review, 22(3), 609-611.

American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (2003a). About AASCU.

Retrieved October 26, 2003, from the American Association of State Colleges and

Universities Web site: http://www.aascu.org/leadership/about.htm

American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (2003b). Members. Retrieved

October 26, 2003, from the American Association of State Colleges and

Universities Web site: http://www.aascu.org/members/default.htm

Argyris, C. (1973a, May/June). Some limits of rational man organizational theory. Public

Administration Review, 33(3), 253-267.

Argyris, C. (1973b, July/August). Organization man: Rational and self-actualizing.

Public Administration Review, 33(4), 354-357.

Association of Southern Baptist Colleges & Schools. (2003). 2003 School Search.

Retrieved August 2, 2003, from the Association of Southern Baptist Colleges &

Schools Web site: http:// www.baptistschools.org

Berle, A. A., Jr., & Means, G. C. (1956). The modern corporation and private property

(11th ed.). New York, NY: MacMillan.

Block, P. (1996). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco, CA:

Berrett-Koehler.

Brown, M. E. (1969, September). Identification and some conditions of organizational

involvement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(3), 346-355.

94

Caldwell, C., Bischoff, S. J., & Karri, R. (2002, March). The four umpires: A paradigm

for ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(1/2), 153-163.

Conant, J. S., Mokwa, M. P., & Varadarajan, P. R. (1990, September). Strategic types,

distinctive marketing competencies and organizational performance: A multiple

measures-based study. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 365-383.

Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. (2003a). Mission & organization.

Retrieved October 26, 2003, from the Council for Christian Colleges &

Universities Web site: http://www.cccu.org/about/ns_about.asp

Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. (2003b). Members. Retrieved October 26,

2003, from the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities Web site:

http://www.cccu.org/about/ns_members.asp

Daft, R. L. (2001). Organization theory and design (7th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-

Western.

Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997, January). Toward a stewardship

theory of management. The Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20-47.

Dees, G. G., & Robinson, R. B., Jr. (1984, July/September). Measuring organizational

performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held

firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 265-

273.

Dodd, E. M., Jr. (1932, May 8). For whom are corporate managers trustees? Harvard

Law Review, 45(7), 1145-1163.

Donaldson, L. (1990, July). The ethereal hand: Organizational economics and

management theory. Academy of Management Review, 15(3), 369-381.

95

Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991, June). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO

governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16(1),

49-64.

Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1994, July). Boards and company performance – research

challenges the conventional wisdom. Corporate Governance: An International

Review, 2(3), 151-160.

Doucouliagos, C. (1994, September). A note on the evolution of homo economicus.

Journal of Economic Issues, 28(3), 877-883.

Fox, M. A., & Hamilton, R. T. (1994, January). Ownership and diversification: Agency

theory or stewardship theory. Journal of Management Studies, 31(1), 69-81.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA:

Pitman.

Hambrick, D. C. (1983, March). Some tests of the effectiveness and functional attributes

of Miles and Snow's strategic types. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), 5-

26.

Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory: Modern symbolic and postmodern

perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1996). Management (7th ed.). Cincinnati, OH:

South-Western College Publishing.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York,

NY: John Wiley.

Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. (1992, March). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of

Management Studies, 29(2), 131-154.

96

Hofstede, G. H. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-

related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. H. (1991). Cultures and organizations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,

institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Hofstede, G. H., & Waisfisz, B. (2003). Dimensions of culture. Institute for Research on

Intercultural Cooperation (IRIC), Tilburg University, The Netherlands. Retrieved

August 10, 2003, from the IRIC Web site: http://kubnw5.kub.nl/web/

iric/index2.htm

International Business Center. (2003a). Geert Hofstede analysis. Retrieved August 10,

2003, from the International Business Center Web site: http://www.international

businessetiquette.com/besite/hofstede.htm

International Business Center. (2003b). Geert Hofstede's cultural dimension scores.

Retrieved August 12, 2003, from the International Business Center Web site:

http://www.geert-hofstede.com/geert_hofstede_dimensions.htm

James, W. L., & Hatten, K. J. (1994, October/November). Evaluating the performance

effects of M&S strategic archetypes in banking, 1983-1987: Big or small? Journal

of Business Research, 31(1/2), 145-154.

James, W. L., & Hatten, K. J. (1995, February). Further evidence on the validity of the

self typing paragraph approach: Miles and Snow strategic archetypes in banking.

Strategic Management Journal, 16(2), 161-168.

97

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1994, Summer). The nature of man. Journal of

Applied Corporate Finance, 7(2), 4-19.

Jones, T. M. (1995, April). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and

economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404-437.

Lawler, E. E. III. (1986). High-involvement management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Lawler, E. E., III. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high-involvement

organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1998). Tyrannosaurus Rex: The boss as corporate

dinosaur. In G. R. Hickman (Ed.), Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new

era (pp. 181-192). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York, NY: Irvington.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay (3rd ed.). New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Preston, L. E. (1975, June). Corporation and society: The search for a paradigm. Journal

of Economic Literature, 13(2), 434-453.

Preston, L. E. (1998, January). Agents, stewards, and stakeholders. Academy of

Management Review, 23(1), 9-13.

98

Preston, L. E., & Sapienza, H. J. (1990, Winter). Stakeholder management and corporate

performance. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4), 361-375.

Shortell, S. M., & Zajac, E. J. (1990, December). Perceptual and archival measures of

Miles and Snow's strategic types: A comprehensive assessment of reliability and

validity. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 817-832.

Stevenson, L. J. (2002, May). An empirical study comparing the psychological factors

that describe agency and stewardship theories in principal-steward relationships.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.

SurveySuite. (2003). Leadership studies project. Retrieved October 2, 2003, from the

InterCom SurveySuite Web site: http://intercom.virginia.edu/SurveySuite/

Surveys/ResearchProject/index2.html

Triandis, H. C. (1994). Cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology. In H. C.

Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 103-172). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Tucker, M. L. (1994, July). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. Academy of

Management Review, 19(3), 592-595.

Walker, A. L., Jr. (1993). Southern Baptist trusteeship. Nashville, TN: Southern Baptist

Convention.

Walton, R. E. (1980). Establishing and maintaining high commitment work systems. In J.

R. Kimberly, R. H. Miles, & Associates (Eds.), The organizational life cycle:

99

Issues in the creation, transformation, and decline of organizations (pp. 208-290).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Walton, R. E. (1985, March/April). From control to commitment in the workplace.

Harvard Business Review, 63(2), 76-84.

100

Appendix A

101

VALUES SURVEY MODULE 1994 QUESTIONNAIRE

V S M 9 4

VALUES SURVEY MODULE 1994

QUESTIONNAIRE

Copyright © IRIC Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153

NL-5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands tel. +31-13-4662816, fax +31-13-4668018

NOT TO BE COPIED IN WHOLE OR IN PARTS WITHOUT

IRIC’S WRITTEN PERMISSION

102

INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE (VSM 94) - page 1 of 4 Please think of an ideal job, disregarding your present job, if you have one. In choosing an ideal job, how important would it be to you to ... (please circle one answer in each line across)

1 = of utmost importance 2 = very important 3 = of moderate importance 4 = of little importance 5 = of very little or no importance

1. have sufficient time for your personal or family life 1 2 3 4 5 2. have good physical working conditions (good ventilation and lighting, adequate work space, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 3. have a good working relation- ship with your direct superior 1 2 3 4 5 4. have security of employment 1 2 3 4 5 5. work with people who cooperate well with one another 1 2 3 4 5 6. be consulted by your direct superior in his/her decision-making 1 2 3 4 5 7. have an opportunity for advance- ment to higher-level jobs 1 2 3 4 5 8. have an element of variety and adventure in the job 1 2 3 4 5

103

INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE (VSM 94) - page 2 of 4 In your private life, how important is each of the following to you? (please circle one answer in each line across) 9. Personal stability 1 2 3 4 5 10. Thrift 1 2 3 4 5 11. Persistence (perseverance) 1 2 3 4 5 12. Respect for tradition 1 2 3 4 5 13. How often do you fee nervous or tense at work? 1. never 2. seldom 3. sometimes 4. usually 5. always 14. How frequently, in your experience, are subordinates afraid to express disagreement

with their superiors? 1. very seldom 2. seldom 3. sometimes 4. frequently 5. very frequently

104

INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE (VSM 94) - page 3 of 4 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? (please circle one answer in each line across) 1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = undecided 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree 15. Most people can be trusted 1 2 3 4 5 16. One can be a good manager without having precise answers to most questions that subordinates may raise about their work 1 2 3 4 5 17. An organization structure in which certain subordinates have two bosses should be avoided at all costs 1 2 3 4 5 18. Competition between employees usually does more harm than good 1 2 3 4 5 19. A company's or organization's rules should not be broken - not even when the employee thinks it is in the company's best interest 1 2 3 4 5 20. When people have failed in life it is often their own fault 1 2 3 4 5

105

INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE (VSM 94) - page 4 of 4 Some information about yourself (for statistical purposes): 21. Are you 1. male 2. female 22. How old are you? 1. Under 20 2. 20-24 3. 25-29 4. 30-34 5. 35-39 6. 40-49 7. 50-59 8. 60 or over 23. How many years of formal school education (or its equivalent) did you complete

(including primary school)? 1. 10 years or less 2. 11 years 3. 12 years 4. 13 years 5. 14 years 6. 15 years 7. 16 years 8. 17 years 9. 18 years or over 24. If you have or have had a paid job, what kind of job is it / was it? 1. No paid job (includes full-time students) 2. Unskilled or semi-skilled manual worker 3. Generally trained office worker or secretary 4. Vocationally trained craftsperson, technician, informatician, nurse, artist or

equivalent 5. Academically trained professional or equivalent (but no a manager of people) 6. Manager of one or more subordinates (non-managers) 7. Manager of one or more managers 25. What is your nationality? 26. What was your nationality at birth (if different)?

106

Appendix B

VALUES SURVEY MODULE 1994 MANUAL

V S M 94

VALUES SURVEY MODULE 1994

MANUAL

By Geert Hofstede

Copyright IRIC Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153

NL-5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands Phone +31-13-466 2816 Fax +31-13-466 8018

NOT TO BE COPIED IN WHOLE OR IN PARTS WITHOUT

IRIC’S WRITTEN PERMISSION

107

Contents The uses of the VSM 94 and what it is not to be used for

Formulas for index calculation

Conditions for the use of the VSM 94

History of the VSM 94

Comparison of the VSM 94 with the VSM 82

Literature

VSM 94 Questionnaire – English

108

1. The uses of the the VSM 94 and what it is not to be used for The Values Survey Module 1994 (VSM 94) is a 26-item questionnaire developed for comparing the culturally determined values of people from two or more countries or regions. It allows scores to be computed on five dimensions of national or regional culture, on the basis of four questions per dimension: for this, it needs 5 x 4 = 20 questions. The remaining six questions are demographic; they ask for the respondent’s gender, age, education level, kind of job, present nationality, and nationality at birth. Experience has shown that the answers to the 20 content questions vary substantially between nationalities. This is not to say that every respondent of one nationality gives one answer and everyone of another nationality gives another answer, but on average, a sample of respondents from nationality A will (nearly) always score higher, or always score lower, than a comparable sample of people of nationality B (in statistical terms, an analysis of variance shows a strong country effect). However, answers to the 20 content questions will also be influenced by other characteristics of the respondents, such as gender, age, level of education, occupation, kind of work and year that the survey was held. Therefore, comparisons of countries or regions should so far as possible be based on samples of respondents who are matched on all criteria other than nationality or region. They should be matched on any criterion other than nationality that can be expected to affect the answers. The 5 x 4 content questions were selected because, when matched samples from different countries are compared, the mean scores for the countries on the four questions belonging to the same dimension usually vary together (if one is high, the other is high, or low if it is a negatively formulated question; if one is low, the other is low, etc.). In statistical terms, the country mean scores are strongly correlated. The mean scores for the countries on questions belonging to different dimensions usually do not vary together (are uncorrelated). Therefore, the 20 questions form 5 clusters of 4 questions each. The five clusters stand for the five dimensions of national culture identified in research by Hofstede and Bond. When samples of respondents of the same nationality but with different occupations or different employers were compared (matched on criteria other than occupation or employer), the same dimensions were not found. Nor were they found when the answers of individual respondents were compared. The answers to most of the questions do vary somewhat from one occupation to another and sometimes from one employer to another, and the answers to all of the questions vary from one individual to another. However, the mean scores on the questions for different occupations or for different employers will not form the same five clusters. Nor will scores from individual respondents (instead of mean scores for groups of respondents of the same nationality) form the same clusters.

109

If the questionnaire is used to compare responses from individuals, from respondents with different occupations, from employers or from respondents belonging to any category other than nations or regions, the answers should be examined question by question and not combined in the five dimensions. There is no reason to assume that the present questionnaire is the most suitable instrument! The questions and dimensions in this questionnaire have been chosen for comparing countries, and the questionnaire is meant for use at country level. It should also be suitable for the comparison of geographical regions other than countries (within a country or across countries). The minimum number of respondents per country or region to be used in comparisons is 20. Below that number, the influence of single individuals becomes too strong. The ideal number is 50. Even better is to choose more than one respondent sample per country, such as men and women; or people of higher, middle, and lower education. In this case, of course, the numbers 20 and 50 apply to each separate sample. 2. Formulas for index calculation The twenty content questions allow index scores to be calculated on five dimensions of national value systems as components of national cultures: Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Long-term Orientation. All content questions are scored on five-point scales (1-2-3-4-5). Index scores are derived from the mean scores on the questions for national or regional samples of respondents. Any standard statistical computer program will calculate mean scores on five-point scales, but the calculation can also be done simply by hand. For example, suppose a group of 57 respondents from Country C produces the following scores on question 04 (security of employment):

10 x answer 1 24 x answer 2 14 x answer 3 5 x answer 4 1 x answer 5 3 x invalid answer∗ 57 in total

The calculation now goes as follows:

10 x 1 = 10 24 x 2 = 48 14 x 3 = 42 5 x 4 = 20 1 x 5 = 5

Total 54 125

Mean score: 125/54 = 2.31∗∗

110

∗ Invalid answers are blanks (no answer) or multiples (more than one answer). Invalid answers are excluded from the calculation (treated as missing). ∗∗ Mean scores on five-point scales should preferably be calculated in two decimals. More accuracy is unrealistic (survey data are imprecise measures) and less accuracy loses valid information. Power Distance Index (PDI) Power Distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a society expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. The index formula is

PDI = –35m(03) +35m(06) +25m(14) –20m(17) –20 in which m(03) is the mean score for question 03, etc. The index normally has a value between 0 (small Power Distance) and 100 (large Power Distance), but values below 0 and above 100 are technically possible. Individualism Index (IDV) Individualism is the opposite of Collectivism. Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are loose: a person is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only. Collectivism stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which continue to protect them throughout their lifetime in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The index formula is

IDV = –50m(01) +30m(02) +20m(04) –25m(08) +130 in which m(01) is the mean score for question 01, etc. The index normally has a value between 0 (strongly collectivist) and 100 (strongly individualist), but values below 0 and above 100 are technically possible. Masculinity Index (MAS) Masculinity is the opposite of Femininity. Masculinity stands for a society in which social gender roles are clearly distinct: men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success; women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. Femininity stands for a society in which social gender roles overlap: both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life.

111

The index formula is

MAS = +60m(05) –20m(07) +20m(15) –70m(20) +100 in which m(05) is the mean score for question 05, etc. The index normally has a value between 0 (strongly feminine) and 100 (strongly masculine), but values below 0 and above 100 are technically possible. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) Uncertainty Avoidance is defined as the extent to which the members of institutions and organizations within a society feel threatened by uncertain, unknown, ambiguous, or unstructured situations. The index formula is

UAI = +25m(13) +20m(16) –50m(18) –15m(19) +120 in which m(13) is the mean score for question 13, etc. The index normally has a value between 0 (weak Uncertainty Avoidance) and 100 (strong Uncertainty Avoidance), but values below 0 and above 100 are technically possible. Long-term Orientation Index (LTO) Long-term Orientation is the opposite of Short-term Orientation. Long-term Orientation stands for a society which fosters virtues oriented towards future rewards, in particular perseverance and thrift. Short-term orientation stands for a society which fosters virtues related to the past and present, in particular respect for tradition, preservation of “face”, and fulfilling social obligations. Revision 1999: Experience with the first larger-scale application of the LTO questions, across 15 European countries in the context of a large-scale consumer survey, has shown that only questions 10 and 12 produced country scores correlated with other LTO measures. The index formula, therefore, has been revised as follows: LTO = -20m(10) + 20m(12) + 40 and questions 9 and 11 have become redundant, although they can be maintained for research purposes. The index formula is

LTO = +45m(09) –30m(10) –35m(11) +15m(12) +67 in which m(09) is the mean score for question 09, etc.

112

The index normally has a value between 0 (very short-term oriented) and 100 (very long-term oriented), but values below 0 and above 100 are technically possible. 3. Conditions for the use of the VSM 94 The VSM 94 is copyrighted. Permission to copy it and to use it for single research projects is automatically given to persons purchasing this manual. Consultants and training institutes who want to use the VSM 94 periodically should pay a license fee based on the number of copies administered per year. The same holds for use by companies in employee surveys. Information on the rates is available from IRIC. Authorized translations of the VSM 94 into a number of languages are also available from IRIC. A list of available versions and prices will be sent on request. IRIC will appreciate receiving a complementary copy of any non-confidential report, conference paper, or published article referring to uses of the VSM 94. Summaries of research using the VSM 94 will be published periodically. 4. History of the VSM 94 In appendix 1 of Geert Hofstede’s book “Culture’s Consequences” (1980) are listed the original questions from the 1966-1973 “Hermes” (IBM) attitude survey questionnaires referred to in his international comparisons of work-related values. In Appendix 4 of the same book, a “Values Survey Module” is presented, which is recommended for future cross-cultural studies. This contains 27 content questions and 6 demographic questions. This “VSM 80” was a selection from the IBM questionnaires, with a few questions added from other sources about issues missing in the IBM list and judged by the author from the book’s analysis to be of potential importance. In the 1984 abridged paperback edition of “Culture’s Consequences”, the original IBM questions were not included, but the VSM 80 was (Appendix 1). A weakness of the VSM 80 was its dependence on the more or less accidental set of questions used in the IBM surveys. The IBM survey questionnaire had not really been composed for the purpose of reflecting international differences in value patterns. However, the IBM questions could only be replaced by other questions after these had been validated across countries; and to be validated, they had to be used in a large number of countries first. Therefore, in 1981, IRIC issued an experimental extended version of the VSM (VSM 81). On the basis of an analysis of its first results, a new version was issued in 1982, the VSM 92. This is the version, which was generally used until the publication of the VSM 94. The VSM 82 contained 47 content questions plus the 6 demographic questions. Only 13 of the questions were needed to compute scores on the four dimensions identified by

113

Hofstede. The other questions were included for experimental use, and IRIC maintained a file on the answers collected by different users in different countries. An initial analysis of replications using the VSM 81 and VSM 82 was produced by Nico Bosland in a Master’s thesis. This thesis was split into three Working Papers (Bosland, 1985) describing (1) what happens if the VSM is used as a test of individual personality (showing that the dimensions do not apply in this case); (2) the results of the replications, including tables for the effect of education level differences on the dimension scores; and (3) the stability of the dimension scores when applied to a new set of country samples (which was less than perfect – a good reason to continue looking for an improved instrument). An additional reason to look for an improved version was that two questions in the VSMs were not applicable to respondents not employed in an organization, like entrepreneurs, students, and housewives (that is a question about the behavior of the boss, and a question about how long one wanted to stay with this employer). The number of replications using the VSM 82 in IRIC’s file increased, but, unfortunately, it turned out that the samples from different researchers were insufficiently matched for producing a reliable new VSM. This changed when Michael Hoppe published his Ph.D. thesis on a survey study of elites (Salzburg Seminar Alumni) from 19 countries, using among other instruments the VSM 82 (Hoppe, 1990). Eighteen of these countries were part of the IBM set (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the USA). One problem in the validation of the questions was the high level of education of Hoppe’s population; his scores had to be corrected using the Bosland tables (see above). A second problem was a restriction of range within Hoppe’s set of countries on the dimension of Individualism (there were no very collectivist countries). A third problem was the strong correlation in his set of countries between Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance (no countries for the large PD, weak UA quadrant in the PD x UA plot). The latter two problems were resolved by adding data from other surveys for China, Costa Rica, Malaysia, Nigeria, Taiwan, and Tanzania, although these were, of course, not perfectly matched with the Hoppe data. In the meantime, the research of Professor Michael Harris Bond from Hong Kong, using the Chinese Value Survey (The Chinese Culture Connection, 1987), had led to the identification of a fifth dimension: Long-term versus Short-term Orientation. In the VSM 94, this dimension appears for the first time together with the other four. The formula for LTO in this manual is based on Bond’s CVS survey among students in 23 countries (Hofstede and Bond, 1988; Hofstede, 1991, Chapter 7). The VSM 82 has been translated into the following languages: Afrikaans, Arabic, Armenian, Chinese, Danish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese.

114

5. Comparison of the VSM 94 with the VSM 82 The table on p. 8 lists the question numbers in the VSM 82 that correspond to questions in the VSM 94. Please note that the sequence of the answers for questions 13 and 14 (previously I-21 and I-22) has been reversed, so that answer 5 has become 1, 4 has become 2, 2 has become 4, and 1 has become 5. Indexes calculated using the old and new formulas are not necessarily the same! However, the old and new formulas should produce approximately the same score differences between countries. Comparison of old and new Values Survey Module:

VSM 94 VSM 82 01 I-1 02 I-4 03 I-5 04 I-6 05 I-8 06 I-9 07 I-14 08 I-15 09 new 10 new 11 new 12 new 13 I-21∗ 14 I-22∗ 15 II-1 16 II-7 17 II-11 18 II-12 19 II-19 20 II-20

∗ Scores were reversed

Questions I-11, I-13, I-19, I-20, and I-23 of the VSM 82, which were part of the formulas for calculating the first four dimensions, were not included in the VSM 94. In order to compute the scores using both the old and the new formulas for the sake of longitudinal comparison, one should add these five questions to the VSM 94.

115

The five questions are I-11 (format of VSM 94, 01 through 08): have an opportunity for high earnings. I-13 (same format): live in an area desirable to you and your family. I-19 and I-20: the descriptions below apply to four different types of managers. Please read through these descriptions first. Manager 1: Usually makes his/her decisions promptly and communicates them to his/her

subordinates clearly and firmly. He/she expects them to carry out the decisions loyally and without raising difficulties.

Manager 2: Usually makes his/her decisions promptly, but, before going ahead, tries to explain them fully to his/her subordinates. He/she gives them the reasons for the decisions and answers whatever questions they may have.

Manager 3: Usually consults with his/her subordinates before he/she reaches his/her decisions. He/she listens to their advice, considers it, and then announces his/her decision. He/she then expects all to work loyally to implement it whether or not it is in accordance with the advice they gave.

Manager 4: Usually calls a meeting of his/her subordinates when there is an important decision to be made. He/she puts the problem before the group and invites discussion. He/she accepts the majority viewpoint as the decision.

I-19. Now, of the above types of managers, please mark the one which you would prefer to work under (circle one answer only):

1. Manager 1 2. Manager 2 3. Manager 3 4. Manager 4

I-20. And, to which one of the above four types of managers would you say your own superior most closely corresponds?

1. Manager 1 2. Manager 2 3. Manager 3 4. Manager 4 5. He/she does not correspond closely to any of them

I-23. How long do you think you will continue working for the organization or company you work for now?

1. Two years at the most 2. From two to five years 3. More than five years (but I will probably leave before I retire) 4. Until I retire.

116

The formulas used for index calculation of the VSM 82 were (question numbers refer to the VSM 94 except for the five questions above) PDI = (% mgr 1 or 2 in I-20) – (% mgr 3 in I-19) + 25 m(14) – 15 IDV = - 43 m(01) + 76 m(02) + 30 m(05) – 27 m(I-13) – 29 MAS = 30 m(04) + 60 m(05) – 39 m(07) – 66 m(I-11) + 76 UAI = 60 + 40 m(13) – 30 m(19) – (% answers 1 or 2 in I-23) Note that m(05) occurs both in the IDV and in the MAS formula. For m(13) and m(14), the formulas are based on the reversed numbering of the answers in the VSM 94. 6. Literature Bosland, Nico

The (Ab)use of the Values Survey Module as a Test of Personality. Working Paper 85-1, Maastricht NL: IRIC, 1985.

Bosland, Nico An Evaluation of Replication Studies Using the Values Survey Module. Working Paper 85-2, Maastricht NL: IRIC, 1985.

Bosland, Nico The Cross-cultural Equivalence of the Power Distance-, Uncertainty Avoidance-, Individualism-, and Masculinity-measurement scales. Working Paper 85-3, Maastricht NL: IRIC, 1985.

Hofstede, Geert Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills CA: SAGE Publications, 1980.

Hofstede, Geert Culture’s Consequences (second edition): Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Sage Publications, 2001.

Hofstede, Geert Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw Hill, 1991.

Hofstede, Geert and Michael Harris Bond “The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth”. Organizational Dynamics, spring 1988, Vol. 16 no. 4, pages 4-21.

Hoppe, Michael H. A Comparative Study of Country Elites: International Differences in Work-related Values and Learning and their Implications for Management Training and Development. Ph.D. thesis University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1990.

The Chinese Culture Connection (a team of 24 researchers) “Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1987, Vol. 18 no. 2, pages 143-164.

117

Appendix C

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Please read the following two paragraphs and mark the paragraph that most closely describes you.

Working for an organization is a trade-off. I contribute my time and expertise to the

organization, and the organization gives me a salary and benefits. This is the practical foundation of our

working relationship. It is up to my supervisors or my board to let me know what they want me to do on a

regular basis and it is up to me do it. I rely on their specific direction. I expect a course correction from

them when they don’t like something I’m doing or rewards when they do. In this way, work is a practical,

give-and-take arrangement that benefits all of us.

I have a duty to the organization and to those who set its policy. Part of that duty is to

understand what my supervisors or board want for the organization and to work out how to put that into

practice. I prefer to have that responsibility, rather than getting a lot of specific direction from them. If

they are too involved, it reduces my interest in the work. Nevertheless, my sense of responsibility to my

supervisors or my board is strong, and I would work hard for this organization even if it did not materially

reward me very much for doing so.

Please read the following two paragraphs and mark the paragraph that most closely describes your

perception of your organization.

The organization in which I work is a structured one. In general, the management

philosophy of the organization supports a consistent chain of command, and employee interaction is

consistent with that structure. Organizational decisions usually come down along that chain of command.

There are established procedures for most types of work, and those who follow these procedures are

rewarded by the organization.

The organization in which I work is an open one. Its general management philosophy

supports mutual access among employees at every level, and employees interaction has minimal

restrictions. Although decisions may be made at higher management levels, they are discussed by all

concerned. There are established procedures, but these are seen as guidelines, and innovation is rewarded.

118

Please think of an ideal job, disregarding your present job, if you have one. In choosing an ideal job,

how important would it be to you to ... (please mark one answer in each line across)

1 = of utmost importance 2 = very important 3 = of moderate importance 4 = of little importance 5 = of very little or no importance

1. have sufficient time for your personal or family life 1 2 3 4 5 2. have good physical working conditions (good ventilation and lighting, adequate work space, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 3. have a good working relation- ship with your direct superior 1 2 3 4 5 4. have security of employment 1 2 3 4 5 5. be consulted by your direct superior in his/her decision-making 1 2 3 4 5 6. have an element of variety and adventure in the job 1 2 3 4 5 In your private life, how important is each of the following to you? (please mark one answer)

7. How frequently, in your experience, are subordinates afraid to express disagreement with their superiors? 1. very seldom 2. seldom 3. sometimes 4. frequently 5. very frequently To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? (please mark one answer)

1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = undecided 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree 8. An organization structure in which certain subordinates have two bosses should be avoided at all costs 1 2 3 4 5

119

Some information about yourself (for statistical purposes):

9. Are you: 1. Male 2. Female 10. How old are you? 1. Under 20 2. 20-24 3. 25-29 4. 30-34 5. 35-39 6. 40-49 7. 50-59 8. 60 or over

11. What is your highest education degree? 1. Bachelor’s degree

2. Master’s degree 3. Professional degree 4. Doctorate

12. Your position is?

1. President 2. Vice President 3. Director

13. Your church affiliation?

1. Southern Baptist 2. Methodist 3. Protestant 4. Catholic 5. Other

14. Years in current position?

1. 0-2 years 2. 3-5 years 3. 6-10 years 4. 11-15 years 5. 15+ years

15. Years, other than current position, in higher education?

1. 0-2 years 2. 3-5 years 3. 6-10 years 4. 11-15 years 5. 15+ years

16. I am employed at:

1. Private college or university 2. State college or university