Development of a Contingency Model Organizational Assessment Survey for Management

Consultants
Author(s): William H. Hendrix
Source: The Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 52, No. 2 (Winter, 1984), pp. 95-105
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20151531
Accessed: 10-08-2016 11:49 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal
of Experimental Education

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:49:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Development of a Contingency Model

Organizational Assessment Survey for
Management Consultants
WILLIAM H. HENDRIX
Clemson University

have various and often contradictory goals (2, 4, 8). Ef

fectiveness criteria at one organizational level may dif
fer from those at other levels (11, 13) and criteria ap
The development of an Organizational Assessment propriate at one point in time may change and be less
Package (OAP) for use by Air Force management con appropriate at later times. Steers (12:38-58) has noted
sultants is presented. Development was based on a con
that criteria of organizational effectiveness used by
tingency model of effectiveness with separate inven
organizations have been varied and included hard or ob
tories measuring the major components of the model.

ABSTRACT

Data were collected using the OAP from 4,786 Air jective measures as well as attitudinal or subjective
Force military and civilian personnel. Factor analyses measures. The objective measures have included meas
ures of productivity, quality, efficiency, profit, and
inventory. Internal consistency indices were computed growth; while the attitudinal measures have included
using the coefficient alpha formula for the highest measures of morale, motivation, and satisfaction. Eng
loading items which defined each factor. Some redun land (5) indicated that organizational effectiveness
resulted in 22 factors which were orthogonal within each

dancy between inventories was identified and recom could be considered the degree to which managerial
mendations for items and factors for an operational goals were obtained. These goals frequently included
OAP were made.
high productivity and profit maximization but also in
cluded goals of employee welfare and social welfare.
This paper focuses on research conducted in develop
ing an organizational diagnostic instrument. The instru

A MAJOR TOPIC OF INTEREST to personnel in all ment, entitled the Organizational Assessment Package
types of organizations is organizational effectiveness. (OAP), was developed within a contingency model of
Empirically assessing organizational effectiveness has
been wrought with difficulty in that no one ultimate
criterion exists. A contingency approach to organiza
tional effectiveness considers effectiveness to be a func

organizational effectiveness. Figure 1 depicts the con

tingency model on which the OAP was developed and
the sections of the OAP that were designed to measure
each component of the contingency model. Although

tion of the manager, the situational environment, and the OAP was developed within a contingency model
the criterion of success (7, 14). Within this framework, framework, it was limited in its scope. First, the situa
no one criterion of effectiveness is postulated; rather, tional environment was primarily limited to the internal
many criteria may be appropriate depending on the environment of the organization. The OAP focused on
other components of the model (i.e., the situation and aspects such as employee characteristics, equipment and
the manager). Many researchers have noted that organi tool availability, and job enrichment components.
zations operate within this type of model. Organizations Therefore, the external environment was not directly

95

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:49:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

96

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL EDUCATION

SI

Legend:
M = Management Style
SI = Supervisor Inventory
S = Situational Environment
JI = Job Inventory
BI = Background Information

C = Criterion

JSQ = Job Satisfaction Questionnaire

OCI = Organizational Climate Inventory
PPI = Perceived Productivity Inventory
E = Effectiveness

Figure 1?Three component organizational effectiveness model.

assessed by the OAP even though it is known to be an

important determinant of organizational effectiveness

collect the attitudinal criteria but also expected to collect

hard objective criteria when available and relevant.
The development of the OAP was in response to a re

titudinal components. This was done to provide criteria

that could be used across organization types and organi
zation levels. The criteria problem was one of obtaining
criteria which had a common metric (1) for all organiza
tions. Although deficient in many respects, these are

quest by the Air Force's management consultation

organization, the Leadership and Management Devel

(10). Second, the OAP criteria were limited to at

criteria which could be used across organizations and

had been noted to be frequently employed by managers
(5, 12). They, in their own right, should, however, be
considered as relevant criteria of effectiveness. This has

opment Center. The survey development requirements

established by the management consultants were that
the instrument should measure organizational factors as
comprehensively as feasible, have sections which could

be administered separately or as a part of the total

package, and should provide a data base for organiza

been noted by Perrow (9:96-105) in discussing revela

tional research. These requirements were intended to

result in an instrument which would measure a wide

tory analysis of effectiveness where he indicated that

measures of constructs such as morale were highly rele
vant to organizational effectiveness and offered advan
tages over other more commonly used criteria. Opera
tionally, however, consultants were not only expected to

spectrum of attitudinal factors across an organization.

If a potential problem was identified, then a more de
tailed survey or interview could be used to verify the ex
istence of the problem and further define it. Also, by
having the OAP in modular form, sections could be ex

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:49:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

HENDRIX 97
tracted to tailor-make a survey for an organizationInstrument
hav
ing specific problems and not desiring a comprehensive

A group of 165 items (149 attitudinal items and 16

diagnosis. Data collected using the contingency-based
background information items) were selected from a
OAP could then be analyzed to establish which types of
review of the literature and discussions with manage
managerial behavior patterns were most effective in
dif consultants. The attitudinal items were either
ment
ferent types of organizations and different organiza
seven-point Likert scales with no response option for
tional levels using different criteria of effectiveness
not applicable responses or eight-point Likert scales
(e.g., satisfaction and perceived productivity). The
with a zero point for not applicable responses. Scales
questions under investigation in accomplishing these ob
used included: agree-disagree, extent, amount, and
jectives were: do items of a given inventory load only on
satisfaction scale response anchors. The attitudinal
factors primarily measured by the respective inventory?

items were selected to measure the major components of

within each inventory, what are the reliable orthogonal
the contingency model; namely, the manager or super
factors measured by the respective inventory? and can
visor, the situational environment which dealt primarily
the internal OAP criteria (i.e., satisfaction, organiza
with the job, and three criteria of effectiveness (i.e.,
tional climate, and perceived productivity) be predicted

satisfaction, climate, and perceived productivity).

from Job Inventory and Supervisor Inventory

Within the situational environment, items were con
variables?

The first question was to determine if the top loading

items associated with a given factor were from the ap
propriate inventory or if other inventories' items were
measuring the same factor. The second question dealt
with identifying within each inventory those orthogonal

factors that were internally consistent and provided

reliable measures of the respective factor. Implied in the
first two questions was that separate inventories were
desired that had uncorrelated factors within each, but
were correlated between inventories. If all OAP factors
were rotated orthogonally and factor scores used for
analyses, then factors from one inventory (e.g., Job In
ventory) could not be correlated with another inventory
(e.g., Job Satisfaction Questionnaire or Perceived Pro
ductivity Inventory). Since ultimately the OAP was to
be used as a research instrument to relate managerial

and situational variables and factors to different

criteria, then factors uncorrelated across inventories

would be undesirable. The final question focuses

specifically on whether Supervisor Inventory and Job
Inventory variables and factors were effective predictors

of the OAP criteria measured by the Job Satisfaction

Questionnaire, the Perceived Productivity Inventory,
and the Organizational Climate Inventory.

Method

ponents.

The basic unit used for analysis was the work group
that was defined as any group of individuals performing
work under a work group supervisor/manager. In op?r

?t ionalizing work group data collection, a structure

code was developed that contained digits for identifying
the batch number, the major command, whether the
command was a host or tenant organization, the base,
the organizational level of a given work group, and the

work-group code. Table 1 presents an example of a

structure code. The batch number is used to identify dif

ferent major organizations on the same base. The work

group code identifies a specific work group. As can be

noted in Table 1, the organizational level and work

group code was entered by subjects on their answer
sheets. All other data were batched into computer
storage by use of an optical-scan header sheet. Table 2
shows examples of work-group codes (i.e., the last four
digits of structure code) used during data collection for
the personnel area.

Procedure
In selecting subjects at each base, 100% of all
available managers who were squadron level comman

Subjects

ders or higher were surveyed. A 25% stratified random

A sample of 4,786 military and civilian subjects was

collected at five Air Force bases representing six major

commands. The sample's composition was: 2% non

high school graduates, 39% high school or GED

graduates, 37% some college work, 9% bachelor
degrees, 6% some graduate work, 6% masters degrees,

1% doctoral degrees; 78% white, 10% black, 5%

Hispanic, 7% listed as other than white, black, or

Hispanic; 86% males, 14% females; 17% officers, 66%
enlisted, and 17% civilians.

structed specifically to measure the components of the

job enrichment model described by Hackman, Oldham,
Janson, and Purdy (6) as well as other job-related com

sample below the squadron level commander was ob

tained where stratification was by organization. In addi
tion, specific work groups requested by commanders to
be surveyed were also included. Air Force management
consultants administered the OAP and asked subjects to
fill in their organizational level code and work-group
code from a list presented on a screen or chalkboard in
front of their survey room. They were told the informa

tion was confidential and no individual's data would be

released; only work-group information would be pro

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:49:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

98

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL EDUCATION

Table 1?Structure Code

CODE

Batch Number

Command
Host/Tenant

Base
Organizational Level

Work Group Code

01

"I I-1

11

i i-1 i?fc?i r
1 009 1 0001
J l_

INPUT

Individual Optical-Scan Sheet

Header Sheet

Table 2?Work Group Codes

1400 Director of Personnel

1401 DP Sgt Major

1402 Chief, Admin/Clerical

1404 Chief, Suggestion Program
1405 Chief, Intro Program
1406 Chief, Education Services
1407 Chief, Education Services
1410 Chief of CBPO
1411 NCOICofCBPO
1412 Chief, Admin/Clerical
1413 Personnel System Manager
1420 Chief, Personnel Utilization
1421 Chief, Manning Control
1422 Chief, Outbound Assignments
1423 Chief, Airman Assignments
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428

Chief,
Chief,
Chief,
Chief,
Chief,

Officer Assignments
Passport and Admin
Personnel Readiness
Student Control
Classification & Testing (Class II)

1429 Chief, O.J.T. (Class II)

1430
1431
1432
1433

1434
1435
1440
1441
1442
1443

Chief, Quality Force

Chief, Special Actions
Chief, Career Assistance
Chief, OER-APR Section

Chief, Separations Sections

Chief, Promotion & Testing (Class II only)
Chief, Customer Assistance
Chief, Customer Service Center
Chief, Customer Service Cen Satellite
Chief, Customer Service Cen Satellite

1444 Chief, Personal Affairs

1445 Chief, Casualty Affairs
1446 Chief, Personal Affairs (other)
1447 Chief, Records Section
1448 Chief, Airman Records
1449 Chief, Officers Records
1450 Chief, Career Progression
1451 Chief, Classification and Training (II = PU)

1452 Chief, O.J.T. (II = PU)

1453 Chief, Promotion & Testing (II = QF)

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:49:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

HENDRIX 99
vided management. Also, no data collected at the was computed on the two highest loading items, then on
respective base would be provided to other off-basethe three highest loading items, and iteratively one addi

units such as higher headquarters personnel. The sub tional item was added until either the top 10 highest
jects then were instructed to read the OAP instructions items were included in the computation or those items
and complete the OAP by marking their responses on whose loadings were .29 or higher. Table 3 provides a
summary of the factor analyses results.
the optical-scan form provided with their OAP.
Table 3 is divided into six sections where each section

Results

presents data associated with one of the OAP inven

The first research question of interest was: do items

of a given inventory load only on factors primarily

measured by the respective inventory? It was considered
desirable to have inventories that measured factors that
were unique to the given inventory. That is, items in one

inventory should load only on factors of that inventory

and not load on another inventory's factors. In attempt

ing to answer this question, all 149 attitudinal OAP

items were factor analyzed using a principal axis solu

tion with orthogonal rotation to simple structure.

Twenty-one factors were extracted which had eigen
values greater than 1. All of these factors had items
from a single inventory loading together except for two
factors. These were the factors of Job-Related Satisfac
tion and Positive Perceived Productivity. The factor of
Job-Related Satisfaction had items from the Job Inven

tory and Job Satisfaction Questionnaire loading to

gether. A review of the items indicated that the items
dealt with satisfaction and were redundant with those of

the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. These items, there

fore, were identified for deletion from the Job Inven
tory. The factor of Positive Perceived Productivity had
items from the Perceived Productivity Inventory and
the Job Inventory loading together. Those from the Job
Inventory were identified as dealing with perceived pro
ductivity and, therefore, would be more appropriate if
listed in the Perceived Productivity Inventory.
Once the redundancy between the inventories was de
termined in terms of different inventory items loading
on the same factor, then the second question of interest

could be addressed. The question was: within each in

ventory, what are the reliable orthogonal factors
measured by the respective inventory? In order to
answer this question, each inventory was submitted to
factor analysis and orthogonally rotated to a simple
structure using the principal axis solution. The single ex
ception was for the Job Inventory which was structured
in two parts. The first part dealt with the extent to which
certain variables were present in a job, while the second
part dealt with the extent that individuals desired certain
variables in their jobs. The first and second parts of the
Job Inventory were factor analyzed separately. After
each inventory's orthogonal factors were extracted, the
the factor loadings for each factor were rank ordered in
terms of their descending magnitude. Next, the internal
consistency of each factor was established using Cron
bach's coefficient alpha formula (3). Coefficient alpha

tories. For each section, four columns are provided. The

first column contains the factor name and in paren

theses the percent of variance accounted for by the fac
tor out of the total variance within the respective inven
tory. The second column lists up to 10 items that loaded
on the respective factor with loadings equal to or greater

than .29. The third column contains the factor loadings

and the fourth column the coefficient alpha reliabilities.

For each factor, the coefficient alpha reliability was

computed on the top two highest loading items, then the

top three highest loading items, and iteratively one item

was added and coefficient alpha recomputed until all

items in a factor where included. This was done so that a

user could tailor-make a survey by selecting the number

of top loading items he or she desired for a factor scale
and know what degree of internal consistency reliability
that subset of items had.

As indicated in Table 3, 22 factors were extracted. Of

these, 14 factors appeared to be sufficiently internally
consistent to reliably measure the extracted factors.
Two of the remaining eight factors were identified for
deletion from the Job Inventory. They were the factors
of Supervisor Influence and Work Group Performance.
These factors were composed of items which loaded on
factors in the Supervisor Inventory and Perceived Pro
ductivity Inventory when the overall factor analysis was
performed. The remaining six factors had internal con
sistency indicies which fell below .70 and were not con
sidered sufficiently reliable for diagnostic use.

The third question of interest was: can the internal

OAP criteria be predicted from Job Inventory and

Supervisor Inventory variables? In order to answer this
question, four factors from the criteria surveys (i.e.,

General Organizational Climate, Organizational Com

munications Climate, Job-Related Satisfaction, and
Positive Perceived Productivity) were selected as criteria
to be predicted from Job Inventory and Supervisor In
ventory variables. Factor scores for all subjects were
computed to serve as dependent variable measures for
regression analyses. For the Supervisor Inventory an ad
ditional variable was created for each of the "not ap-.

plicable" responses associated with each Supervisor In

ventory item prior to computing the regression equa
tions. Regression equations to predict the four criteria
were then computed using a stepwise (step up) regres
sion program with a stop criteria of .0001 increase in the

R2 value. Also, items identified in previous factor

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:49:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

100

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL EDUCATION

Table 3?OAP Factor Analyses

Factor (Percent variance) Item

Loading

Coefficient

alpha

Job Inventory Part I: The Job Itself (7-point Extent Scale)

Job Enhancement (12.24)

To what extent are you proud of your job? .73

To what extent does your work give you pride and feeling of self-worth? .70 .86

To what extent does doing your job well affect a lot of people? .63 .79

To what extent is your job significant in that it affects others in some important way? .61 .81

To what extent does your job require you to do many different things using a variety

of your talents and skills? .58 .82

To what extent does your job require you to use a number of complex skills? .54 .84

To what extent does your job keep you busy? .52 .85

To what extent does your job provide the chance to know for yourself when you do a

good job and to be responsible for your own work? .51 .86

To what extent do you know exactly what is expected of you in performing your job? .49 .87

To what extent does you job involve doing a whole task or unit of work? .49 .87

Task Autonomy (6.34)

To what extent does your job give you freedom to do your work as you see fit? .79
To what extent does your job provide a great deal of freedom and independence in

scheduling your work and selecting your own procedures to accomplish it? .78 .81

To what extent are you allowed to make the major decisions required to perform your

job well? .67 .83

To what extent does your supervisor allow you to make decisions concerning your

job? .49 .84

To what extent does just doing your job provide you with chances to find

well you are doing? .41 .84

Planning and Time

Management (6.82)

How much of your time is used for weekly or monthly planning? - .80

How much of your time is used for planning more than six months ahead? - .68 .71

How much of your time is used for daily planning? - .61 .71

To what extent do you use management information systems (e.g., computer print

outs, reports, etc.) to make decisions in your job? - .59 .70

To what extent are staff assistance visits helpful in achieving job performance? - .45 .70

To what extent is planning modified to meet changing job-related needs? Changing

environment? .39 .71

To what extent is the amount of information you get from other work groups

adequate to meet your job needs? .36 .73

To what extent are the people affected by decisions asked for their ideas? .35 .7

To what extent is your work group involved in establishing goals? .35 .7

Supervisor Influence

(7.33)a

To what extent does your supervisor encourage the people in your work group to

work as a team? .77

To what extent does your supervisor ask for ideas before making decisions? .74

To what extent does your supervisor provide the assistance you need to manage your

work? .74 .84

To what extent does your supervisor allow you to make decisions con

job? .60 .86

To what extent do you feel accountable to your supervisor in

To what extent do people who perform well rec

To what extent do you know exactly what is expected of you

To what extent does your work give you pride and f

Advancement/Recognition

(4.95)

To what extent do you have the opportunity to progress up your car

To what extent are you being prepared to accept inc

To what extent are you aware of promotion/advancement opportuniti

you? .61 .69

To what extent do people who perform well receive re

Work Group Performance

(5.9)*

To what extent does your work group perform effectively under pressure? - .74

To what extent does your work group solve problems ef

To what extent do co-workers in your work group maintain high standards of

performance? - .65 .80

To what extent is your work group involved in establishing goals? - .45 .80

To what extent do you know what the objectives of your organization are? - .39 .80

To what extent is the amount of information you get from other work groups

adequate to meet your job needs? - .32 .80

To what extent are the people affected by decisions asked for their ideas? - .30 .82
.74
Equipment/Work Space To what extent is the amount of work space provided adequate?
.65
(3.90)b To what extent do you have adequate tools and equipment to accomplish your job?

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:49:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

.53

HENDRIX

101

Table 3 continued

Loading

Factor (percent variance) Item

Work Repetition (4.11)

(4.06)b

alpha

To what extent do you perform the same tasks repeatedly within a short period of

time?

To
Task Accomplishment

Coefficient

To
To

what

what
what

job?

-.81

extent

.71
are

extent
are
your
extent
do
additi

.52

.32

.40
To
what
extent
are
t
.46
To
what
extent
does
To
what
extent
does
y
of
your
talents .58 and
.62
To
what
extent
does
.68
To
what
extent
does
Job Inventory Part II: Need for Enrichment (7-point Amount-You-Would-Like Scale)

Meaningful/Responsible

Work (49.17)

Opportunities in my work to learn new and exciting things.

.87
.84
.84
.83
.82

A job in which tasks are repetitive.

A job in which tasks are relatively easy to accomplish.

.86
.83

Opportunities in my work to use my skills.

Opportunities to perform a variety of tasks.
The availability for personal growth in my job.

A job that is meaningful.

Desired Repetitive/

Easy Tasks (15.92)b

.85
.88

.91

.92
.64

Supervisor Inventory (0 = NA and 7-point Agree-Disagree Scale)

Management/Supervision

(30.56)

Supervisor Assistance/

Feedback (26.51)

My supervisor is a good planner.

My supervisor establishes good work procedures.
My supervisor has made his responsibilities clear to the group.
My supervisor performs well under pressure.
My supervisor represents the group at all times.
My supervisor fully explains procedures to each group member when appropriate.
My supervisor sets high performance standards.
My supervisor encourages teamwork.
My supervisor always helps me improve my performance.
My job performance has improved due to feedback received from my supervisor.
My supervisor frequently gives me feedback on how well I am doing my job.
My supervisor lets me know when I am doing a good job.

Autonomous Control (5.59) My supervisor over controls my work.

My supervisor overemphasizes the need to accomplish more than other groups.
My supervisor's directions must be followed exactly.
My supervisor usually makes decisions without group discussion.

.11
.76
.73
.72
.72

.71

.70
.68
.76
.74

.73

.71

.69
.65

.56
.56

.86
.89
.90

.91

.93
.93
.94

.85
.87

.91

.53

.51

.58

Organizational Climate Inventory (7-point Agree-Disagree Scale)

General Organizational

Climate (33.56)

I am very proud to work for this organization. .76

I feel motivated to contribute my best efforts to the mission of this organization. .75
Your organization has a very strong interest in the welfare of its people. .73

This organization rewards individuals based on performance. .71

Your organization is very interested in the attitudes of the group members toward

their jobs. .69

I feel responsible to my organization in accomplishing its mission. .69

I am usually given the opportunity to present the results of my work to others. .66
Personnel in my unit are recognized for outstanding performance. .66
There is a high spirit of teamwork that exists between co-workers. .66
The people affected by decisions are asked for their ideas before the decisions are

made.

Organizational
Communications Climate

(24.62)

Your
Your

.61

.82
.85
.87

.90
.90

.91

.92
.92

.93

organization
organization

effectively.

.84

pro

.86
Our
work
unit
is
usu
.87
Your
organization
is
v
The
information
in
y

available.

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:49:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

.61
.89

102

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL EDUCATION

Table 3 continued

Loading

Factor (percent variance) Item

Coefficient

alpha

Perceived Productivity Inventory (0 = NA and 7-point Agree-Disagree Scale)

Positive Perceived
Productivity (43.82)

The quality of output of your work group is very high.

Your work group's performance in comparison to similar work groups is very high.
When high priority work arises, such as short suspenses, crash programs, and schedule
changes, the people in my work group do an outstanding job in handling these

.83
.80

The quantity of output of your work group is very high.

Your work group always gets maximum output from available resources (e.g., person

.72

.81

.71

.82

situations.

nel and material).

Performance Disruption

(17.51)b

There is a bottleneck in my organization that seriously affects the flow of work either
to or from my work group.
Your work group is frequently involved in crash programs, short suspenses, schedule

changes, etc.

.78

.74
.80

.78
.77

.34

Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (0 = NA and 7-point Satisfaction Scale)

Job-Related Satisfaction
(36.50) Degree satisfied

with:

Work schedule. Your work schedule, flexibility and regularity of your work schedule,
the number of hours you work per week.

Your job as a whole.

Work itself. The challenge, interest, importance, variety, and feelings of accomplish
ment you receive from your work.
Job security.
Acquired valuable skills. The chance to acquire valuable skills in your job which
prepare you for future opportunities.
Family attitude toward job. The recognition and the pride your family has in the work

you do.

Verbal and written communication. The amount of required telephone communication

and required paperwork in your job.
Feeling of helpfulness. The chance to help people and improve their welfare through
the performance of your job. The importance of your job performance to the
welfare of others.
Moral acceptability of job. The chance to do things not violating your sense of "right

and wrong."

Self-improvement opportunities. The educational and recreational opportunities pro

vided in the surrounding community, and the opportunity provided by the Air Force
for self-improvement education.

Local Area/Social
Satisfaction (5.17)b

Training (5.37)

Characteristics of the local area. The geographic area in which you work, weather in
the local area, recreational opportunities available, and the size of the surrounding
community.
Social contact. Opportunity to meet new people, the amount and the meaningfulness
of social contact required by the job.
On-the-job training (OJT). The OJT instructional methods and instructors'

competence.

Technical training (other than OJT). The technical training you have received to per
form your current job.

Base Facilities (8.70)

.75

.72

.62

.69
.68

.78
.79

.63

.82

.56

.84

.52

.85

.50

.86

.50

.87

.42

.81

.69
.80

.79

.86
.78

Commissary. At your base.

Base exchange services. At your base.
Medical facilities. At your base.

.63

.71

.71

.75
.74

aThis factor recommended for deletion since in the original factor analysis with all inventories included the variables listed here are loaded on one of
the other inventories.

bFactor recommended for deletion since internal consistency index is low.

analyses as inappropriate for inclusion in the Job Inven

tory (i.e., Supervisor Influence and Work Group Per

formance factor items) were deleted. Table 4 lists the re
gression analyses performed and the R2 values obtained.
The first four analyses regressed situational variables
from the Job Inventory against the four criteria. The

second four analyses regressed managerial variables

from the Supervisor Inventory against the four criteria.

The last four analyses combined all variables used in the

above analyses and regressed them against the criteria.

The data in Table 4 indicate that Organizational Com

munications Climate cannot be predicted as well as the
other criteria and that the Job Inventory variables are
more predictive of the four criteria than were the Super
visor Inventory variables.
One additional series of analyses performed was for
evaluating the Job Inventory as an instrument for iden

tifying job enrichment components. First, an index

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:49:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

HENDRIX

103

Table 4?Job Inventory and Supervisor Inventory Regression Analyses

General

Analysis
number

Inventory

1-4 Job Inventory

5-8 Supervisor Inventory
9-12 Job and Supervisor Inven
tories

called the Job Motivation Index (JMI) was computed.

This index is analogous to the Hackman, et al. (6)

Motivation Potential Score (MPS). It differs in that
each JMI component was a mean of only two items, and
the items did not have exactly the same wording as used

with the Hackman, et al. (6) Job Diagnostic Survey

(JDS). The computational formula used was essentially
the same as for the MPS: JMI = (skill variety + task

identity + task significance)/3 x autonomy x job

feedback. In addition, three other analyses were com

pared with the four criteria and are provided in Table 5.

The first of these simply summed the five job enrich

ment components and correlated the total score with the
four criteria. This analysis is provided in the second col
umn of Table 5 and is labeled as JI Total.
The next analysis involved computing the JMI for
mula with the three major components added together
instead of being multiplied. This analysis is labeled JMI
Additive in Table 5. The last analysis involved compar
ing the predictive accuracy of the regression equations
reported earlier using variables from the Job Inventory.
The results from this analysis are provided in the fourth

column of Table 5 labeled SEI Regression Equation.

The SEI regression equation's predictive accuracy in
predicting the four criteria is clearly superior to the
other formulas. To obtain this increase in predictive ac
curacy, more variables which measured nine of the ten
Job Inventory factors, Parts I and II, were required.
Variables associated with the Supervisor Influence fac
tor were not included in the regression equations since

they had been previously determined to be inap

propriate for the Job Inventory.

Organizational

communications

Positive

climate

Job-related
satisfaction

productivity

.52
.42

.24
.19

.52
.27

.43
.30

.57

.30

.55

.47

organizational

climate

perceived

After the OAP had become operational, the stability

of factors over a series of different functional areas was
investigated on a data base of 44,728 cases. The results
indicated a highly stable structure for all factors across
the functional areas. Table 6 provides an example of the
factor loadings for the items (or variables) across the
functional areas for the factors of Perceived Productiv
ity, Advancement-Recognition, Task Autonomy, and

Management-Supervision.

Discussion
This study addressed three questions: do items of a
given inventory load only on factors primarily measured
by the respective inventory?; within each inventory,
what are the reliable orthogonal factors measured by the
respective inventories?; can the internal OAP critera be
predicted from Job Inventory and Supervisor Inventory

variables?

The first two questions were answered by a series of

factor analyses. Two factors that had items loading

from different inventories were identified. In turn,

specific items loading from an inappropriate inventory
were identified for deletion from that inventory. Four
teen internally consistent factors and six that had low in

ternal consistency were extracted. The six factors with

low internal consistency appeared to be useful items for

organizational diagnosis if their reliability was ade

quate. Therefore, these will have additional items writ

ten to increase their reliability in a future study.

The third question was answered by a series of regres

sion analyses. The data indicated that all four criteria
could be predicted from the Job Inventory and Super

Table 5?Correlations of Job-Related Formulas with Four Criteria of Effectiveness

SEI
regression

JI JMI equation
JMI total additive (analyses 1-4)
General organizational climate .44 .46 .47 .72

Organizational communications climate .22 .22 .23 .48

Job-related satisfaction .51 .52 .53 .72

Perceived productivity .39 .46 .44 .65

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:49:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

104

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL EDUCATION

Table 6?Factor Loadings across the Functional Areas

OAP
variable Total
Unique type
number data base Wing/group Resources Maintenance Operations Medical Missile Communications o
N = 44728
12758 4827 8295 2117
2426 961 988 8261
Task Autonomy

213
214
270
271

.76466
.61629
.73423
.79860

.741
.617
.720
.780

.776
.629
.698
.807

.798
.607
.709
.810

.771
.614
.698
.792

.717
.620
.725
.792

.814
.562
.685
.826

.713
.438
.732
.805

.779
.666
.762
.780

A avancement/Recognition

234
239
240
241

.61514 .628 .632 .662 .476 .602 .511 .565 .634

.74110 .750 .772 .726 .697 .693 .673 .769 .752
.56232 .562 .576 .563 .609 .581 .560 .578 .533

.45796 .468 (.437) .418 .471 .440 (.414) (.395) (.435)

259
260
261
264
265

.66257
.75659
.73389
.67856
.74094

.696
.774
.727
.667
.742

.676
.774
.737
.669
.756

404
411
412
413

.78017
.76523
.82057
.76411
.77464

.791
.775
.831
.775
.782

.784
.765
.825
.769
.786

Perceived Productivity

.661
.744
.723
.654
.729

.591
.716
.755
.707
.737

.612
.747
.696
.686
.730

.557
.754
.760
.632
.735

.662
.762
.767
.697
.741

.642
.736
.749
.707
.737

.758
.780
.834
.784
.786

.781
.766
.817
.763
.779

Management-Supervision

416

.779
.771
.814
.754
.775

.751
.737
.805
.740
.757

.787
.771
.806
.747
.764

.768
.756
.829
.775
.791

visor Inventory variables with R2s ranging from .19 to appropriate in different situations based on different
.57 with most in the .40s and .50s. The Job Inventory criteria of effectiveness. Since the criteria were capable
also appeared to be useful for measuring job enrich of being predicted by Job Inventory and Supervisor In
ment. The formulas computed, based on the Hackman, ventory items, the stage is set for performing research to
et al. (6) model, correlated with the four criteria with compare different managerial behaviors in different
correlation coefficients ranging from .22 to .51. A types of situational environments with the four criteria
broader measure of the job environment was obtained of effectiveness reported here. The second goal involves
from the SEI regression equations that correlated with the modular concept of the OAP; that is, each inventory
the four internal criteria with correlation coefficients should be able to be administered as a separate inven

ranging from .48 to .72.

The analyses reported here provide a basis for revis

ing the Organizational Assessment Package (OAP). If

desired, those internally consistent factors can be
measured by using only those top loading variables
determined as providing adequate internal consistency
for their respective factor. This would result somewhat
in reducing the length of the OAP. Whether the top
loading variables for a factor were used or all variables
were used, each factor could be measured and the score
compared with normative data during organizational

diagnosis.

Also, Job Inventory and Supervisor Inventory equa

tions provide a means of accomplishing two goals. One
goal deals with the contingency model presented earlier.
The goal is to establish what managerial behaviors are

tory. The goal is to estimate the four criteria without

having to administer their inventories. If a client pre
ferred a reduced survey, the criteria inventories could be
deleted and the four criteria could be estimated by using
either the Supervisor Inventory or the Job Inventory
items, or both.

The OAP admittedly has weaknesses as noted pre

viously. Nonetheless, it provides a survey that was
developed within a contingency model of organizational
effectiveness. It is constructed in a series of inventories
that can be administered separately or in any subgroup,

or in total. Also, each inventory measures factors

associated with different aspects of the organizational

system. The development of the OAP has provided Air

Force management consultants at the Leadership and

Management Development Center (LMDC) with their

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:49:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

HENDRIX 105
first primary Organizational Assessment Survey, and 4.
toDubin, R. Organizational effectiveness: Some dilemmas of

Organization and Administrative Sciences, 1976, 7,

date has operationally collected over 130,000 cases inperspective.
7-14.

organizations throughout the United States and Europe.

5. England, G. W. Organizational goals and expected behavior of

The OAP data base, which is constantly updated byAmerican managers. Academy of Management Journal, 1967,10,
107-117.
LMDC personnel, should provide a means for future

6. Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. A. A new

research for better understanding organizations, their strategy for job enrichment. California Management Review,

characteristics, and the manager's role in increasing 1975, 17, 57-71.

7. Hendrix, W. H. Contingency approaches to leadership: A review
organizational effectiveness.

and synthesis (AFHRL-TR-76-17, AD-AO 28 485). Lackland,

AFB, Texas: Occupational and Manpower Research Division, Air

Force Human Resources Laboratory, 1976.

8. Perrow, C. Organizational analysis: A sociological view. Bel

mont, Calif.: Brooks-Cole, 1970.
The author would like to thank the Air Force Human Resources 9. Perrow, C. Three types of effectiveness studies. In P. S. Good

NOTE

Laboratory who provided financial and technical support for this man, J. M. Pennings (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational
effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977.
research, and the Air Force Leadership and Management Develop
10. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. The external control of organiza
ment Center who collected the data.
tions: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper &

REFERENCES

Row, 1978.
11. Price, J. L. The study of organizational effectiveness.

Sociological Quarterly, 1972, 13, 3-15.

1. Brodgen, H. E., & Taylor, E. K. The dollar criterion?Applying12. Steers, R. M. Organizational effectiveness: A behavioral view.
the cost accounting concept to criterion construction. Personnel
Santa Monica, Calif.: Goodyear, 1977.
Psychology, 1950, 3, 133-154.
13. Weick, K. E. Re-punctuating the problem. In P. S. Goodman &
2. Cameron, K. Measuring organizational effectiveness in institu
J. M. Pennings (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational effec
tions of higher learning. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978,
tiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977.

23, 604-629.

3. Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of

tests. Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 297-334.

14. Wofford, J. C. Managerial behavior, situational factors, and pro

ductivity and morale. Administrative Science Quarterly, 197'1,16,

10-17.

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:49:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms