This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of "sectioning" the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.
University Microfilms
International 300N.Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
8223003
Brandon, Richard William
THE ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES TOWARD A QUALITY OF WORKING LIFE PROGRAM
The University of Arizona PH.D. 1982
University Microfilms
International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106
Copyright 1982
by
Brandon, Richard William
All Rights Reserved
PLEASE NOTE:
In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .
1. Glossy photographs or pages
2. Colored illustrations, paper or print
3. Photographs with dark background
4. Illustrations are poor copy
5. Pages with black marks, not original copy
6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page
7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages ^
8. Print exceeds margin requirements
9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine
10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print
11. Page(s) lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.
12. Page(s) seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.
13. Two pages numbered . Text follows.
14. Curling and wrinkled pages
15. Other
University Microfilms
international
THE ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES TOWARD A QUALITY
OF WORKING LIFE PROGRAM
by
Richard William Brandon
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
1 9 8 2
@ Copyright 1982 Richard William Brandon
*
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE
As members of the Final Examination Committee, we certify that we have read
the dissertation prepared by RICHARD WIT.T.TAM BRANDON
entitled THE ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES TOWARD A QUALITY OF
WORKING LIFE PROGRAM
and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement
for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHIIX5SOPHY
A /V
Date
<==?/// /J?' Date '
6"- // Z-Date
S- II - 72 Date
S - / N / ? Date
Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate's submission of the final copy of the dissertation to the Graduate College.
I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement.
issertation Director Date r
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the copyright holder.
SIGNED: k
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
When I first embarked upon the journey of my doctoral studies,
the task seemed insurmountable. As I recall the many stepping stones
leading to fruition with this dissertation, I know I will celebrate
this major completion in my life for weeks, months and years to come.
I can only hope that my family members, friends and colleagues trust
how I appreciate their support and assistance, and realize that these
words cannot express the degree of my gratitude.
I am indebted, among others, to the following people:
~ My major doctoral committee, whose personal and professional
assistance was critical throughout my graduate studies. Dr. Oscar
Christensen reminded me that it was OK to narrow the focus to the
achievable. Dr. Koger Daldrup continually endorsed my holding onto
"Rick" as I blossomed in my professional life. Special thanks goes to
Dr. Gordon Harshman, chairman of my committee throughout my four years
of work in Tucson. My chief advisor, friend and counselor (for those
times I needed to be told to relax and trust more in my competence),
he provided indepth feedback and guidance for this project, opening
himself up to me far beyond the call of duty.
— Dr. Neal Herrick, my committee member and mentor, who provided
the initial spark for this study through his involving me in the early
stages of the Pima County Quality of Working Life experiment. A
pioneer in workplace reform, Neal offered countless hours of stimulating
iii
substantive discussion, ongoing enthusiasm and encouragement. His end
less dedication and commitment to the value of humanizing the lives of
those around him have been an inspiration during our association; I will
carry his influence with me throughout my career.
— Clyde Feldman, my close friend and guide in what was relatively
unknown terrain. Clyde's crucial expertise as my computer programmer
and statistics consultant was transcended only by his response to my
needs at a moment's notice (often at the expense of his own), his con
stant reassurance that there was "no problem," and his willingness to
become ray partner in pondering the quantitative questions, sharing in
the excitement of discovery.
— Dr. Robert Wrenn, for being the most understanding and giving
employer and friend anyone could hope for.
— Charles Huckleberry, Martin Lujan and the employees of the
Department of Transportation of Pima County for their openness to this
research endeavor.
— The panel of judges and additional measurement consultants for
donating their time, effort and expertise: Tom Hoffman, Tom Patterson,
Jim Whiteside, Marj Holiman, Rick Zucker, Mark Meyers, Martin Lujan,
Neal Herrick, Gordon Harshman, Clyde Feldman, John Luiten and
Dr. Daryll Sabers.
— Hazel Gillie, for her diligence and technical input during her
superb typing of the final manuscript.
— My friends, who have understood and accepted by absence (and
at times struggled with my presence) in times of "dissertation fever."
Special appreciation goes to Marj Holiman, friend and colleague, who
V
has shared in my journey and growth for four years, and to Julie Newhouse
for giving me space when I needed it and helping to keep the coast
clear. It's rewarding to know my friends share in my joy.
— My beloved family, who have always rooted for me, regardless of
the miles between us. They are a source of confidence that I am a
"winner." I thank my father, mother, brothers and sister for the world
they helped to create for me, and their invitations for me to be happy
and successful in it.
Finally, I wish to express particular gratitude to Karen New-
house, my partner and best friend, whose caring, trust and patience
have truly been "for better or worse." She has given steady love
despite my mood, timely nudges to acknowledge my realistic limitations,
permission for me to be gentler with myself, cherished escape and
release, hope and faith in a light at the end of the tunnel, innumerable
hours of typing with eyes at half-mast, and her rare breed of quiet <r
strength when I felt I had none left of my own. This dissertation
would not have been completed without Karen's love, support and
presence.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ix
ABSTRACT xi
1. RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY 1
Context of the Study .. ....... 1 The Turbulent Environment 2 Economic Stagnation 2 Crisis of Worker Attitudes ..... ... 3 Changing Role of Unions ... 6 The Challenge to Organizations ........... 8
The Quality of Working Life Movement . 10 QWL as a Unique Experiment 10
QWL Differentiated from Related Trends ......... 13 A Comprehensive QWL Model ............. 1 Organizational, Development and QWL ......... 16 Quality Circles, and QWL .............. l8 Participatory Management and QWL .......... 19 Sociotechnical Systems, Job Redesign and QWL .... 20 Alternative Economic Structures and QWL ...... 22 Labor-Management Committees and QWL 23 Summary 23
Historical Background of the Study 2k National Perspective 24 Pima County Perspective 25.
Statement of the Problem 26 Purpose of the Study 26 Objectives of the Study 27
General Significance of the Study 27 The Importance of QWL Research ........... 27 The Gap in Current QWL Assessment Research ..... 29 The Need for Attitude Measurement in QWL Research . 31 Existing QWL Attitude Assessment .. 33 Significance of the Study for Pima County ..... 35
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 36
Attitude Theory ...... 37 Nature of Attitudes ................ 39 Attitude Formation and Change 39 Social Attitudes and Social Psychology Research . . *+0
vi
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS—ContinueJ
?age
Attitude Measurement 4l Psychological Measurement and Testing . 42 Educational Measurement and Evaluation . 43 Attitude Assessment ...... 44
Survey of Literature for CWL-Related Attitude Scales . . 51 Summary 55
3. PROCEDURES 56
P r e p a r a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 Preliminary Literature Review . 56 Population 56 Organization Entry . 57 Sampling 57
Scale Construction 59 Generation of Initial Attitude Statements 60 Conceptual Classification of Statements » 6l Format Selection .................. 68 Item Writing and Editing . 74 Content Validity Sorting by Judges ......... 75 Questionnaire Design 76
Scale Administration 79 Evaluation 79 S u m m a r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 0
The Factor Structure of the QWLAS 89 Initial Investigation of Original Subscales .... 92 Confirmatory Factor Analysis 101 Exploratory Factor Analysis ............ 110
Item Analysis and Development of the QWLAS Short Form . 114 General Item Analysis • 114 Selection of the QWLAS Short Form 117
Reliability of the QWLAS 121 Validity of the QWLAS 124
Summary ........ 138 Limitations 1 1 Recommendations for Scale Development lMt-Recommendations for Scale Use 146 Conclusions IV7
APPENDIX A: MEANS-END RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE ... 150
APPENDIX B: PIMA QUESTIONNAIRE 155
APPENDIX C: DEPARTMENT HEAD MEMO 179
APPENDIX D: INITIAL GENERAL INVENTORY l8l
APPENDIX E: SUBSCALE GROUPINGS OF PILOT ITEMS 182
APPENDIX F: JUDGES' INSTRUCTIONS 189
APPENDIX G: PILOT QWLAS 192
APPENDIX H: RANDOM ORDERING OF ITEMS (BY MASTER LIST #) . . 205
APPENDIX I: RANDOM ORDERING OF ITEMS (BY SCALE #) 206
APPENDIX J: PILOT ITEM RESPONSE STATISTICS 207
APPENDIX K: FINAL QWLAS LONG FORM 210
APPENDIX L: FINAL LONG FORM 212
APPENDIX M: FINAL QWLAS SHORT FORM 216
LIST OF REFERENCES 218
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Trist's old and new paradigms 9
2. Taxonomy for organizing attitude research 38
3. Representative rangs of attitude scale construction a r t i c l e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8
k. Organization attitude scales and OWL correlates . 53
5. Orientation date and personnel for each division ..... 58
6. Original QWLAS subscale classifications . „ 64
7. Subscales of the QWLAS with their respective items .... 67
8. Descriptive characteristics of participants in terms of frequency distributions of each attribute .... 83
9. Frequency counts and range of global scores for QWLAS pilot 84 items .............. 86
10. Response category use by pilot QWLAS sample . 90
11. Frequency distribution for the Change Acceptance Scale (CAS) 91
12. Results of judges' sorting of items into original subscales 9k
13» QWLAS original subscale statistics and alpha reliabilities. 96
14. Comparison of original and randomly created subscales ... 98
15. Intercorrelations of 14 QWLAS subscales and total scale . . 100
16. T-test comparison of subjects dropped from factor analysis with those retained .................... 104
17. Principle factor eigenvalues for 84 pilot QWLAS items ... 106
18. First two factors for the OWLAS using original subscale composite scores as items ..... 10?
ix
X
LIST OF TABLES—Continued
Table Page
19. Factor loadings arranged by original subscales using principal factor analysis with iteratiras and a varimax . . 108
20. Factor loading matrix using principal factor analysis with iterations and a varimax ................. Ill
21. Item-total correlations of the 8b pilot QWLAS items ... 116
22. Characteristics of items on QWLAS Long Form used in deriving QWLAS Short Form 119
23. Reliability of the QWLAS Long Form and Short Form .... 123
2 . Concurrent validity of the QWLAS and Control Scale .... 129
25. Analysis of variance on the committee seat variable for subscale (Factor) One, General 133
26. Analysis of variance on the committee seat variable for subscale (Factor) Two, Specific Concerns 133
27. Analysis of variance on the committee seat variable for total Long Form ....................o 133
28. Summary table for QWLAS 136
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to construct and field-test a
standardized instrument for assessing the attitudes of employees toward
a Quality of Working Life (QWL) program. The QWL movement is one re
sponse to the increasing demand for organizational change efforts, an
intervention which elects worker representatives to jointly-established
union-management committee structures, thereby democratizing the work
place.
The instrument finalized was the Quality of Working Life Atti
tude Scale (QWLAS), a 29-item Likert-format inventory developed through
the administration of an 8 -item Pilot Form within the Department of
Transportation of Pima County, Arizona.
The following research questions were addressed: (1) What
basic factors comprise the concept of QWL attitude as measured by the
QWLAS?; (2) What items can comprise the final QWLAS Long Form and Short
Form without significantly lowering scale reliability?; (3) Is the
QWLAS a reliable psychological instrument?; and (k) Is the QWLAS a valid
psychological instrument?
A total of 179 respondents returned the completed Pilot Form,
and data analysis was performed utilizing the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences. Confirmatory factor analysis employing a princi
pal factors analysis with a varimax rotation, as well as coefficient
alpha tests of internal consistency and subscale intercorrelations,
xi
xii
revealed that the rationally-derived initial subscales did not possess
sufficient factoral validity, homogeneity, or statistical independence
to warrant their being kept intact in the final QWLAS forms.
Exploratory factor analysis surfaced two interpretable factors,
the first being labeled General and consisting of 17 positively-worded
items concerning more global feelings and ideas about the theory of the
program. The second factor, Specific Concerns, consisted of 12
negatively-worded items about more practical realities of QWL. A 29-
item QWLAS Long Form and 1 -ite.m QWLAS Short Form were finalized around
these two components.
Cronbach's alpha estimate of reliability yielded high coeffi
cients of .96, .95 and .93 for the Pilot Form, Long Form, and Short
Form, respectively. All forms were reviewed favorably against face,
content, concurrent and construct validity. The QWLAS results suggest
it reliably and validly discriminates favorable versus unfavorable QWL
attitudes.
Recommendations include further factor validation and use of
the QWLAS to research attitudes toward QWL.
CHAPTER 1
RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY
Alvin Toffler's Future Shock (1970) warns of the rapidly-
accelerating pace of change characterizing our world, reflected in
futurists' admonition that "the evolutionary future of human beings is
bound up with the ability of their social organizations to cope with
an ever-changing environment" (Grabow and Heskin, 1976, p. 17)• Many
enterprises adopt approaches for meeting this challenge of becoming
organizations of the future (Fuller, 1980). The "Quality of Working
Life" (QWL) is a remedy gaining momentum in this country since the
expression was coined in 1972 (Keidel, 1980).
The general purpose of this study was to develop an instrument
for assessing employees' attitudes toward this promising organizational
change program. This chapter will describe QWL's context, relate it to
similar efforts to resolve workplace problems, and establish the need
for more adequate QWL attitude measurement. This review will provide
an understanding of the attitude referrent being studied and establish
QWL as a movement that warrants more sophisticated instrumentation to
accompany the research likely to be engendered in years to come.
Context of the Study
The key forces comprising the context of the QWL movement are
divided into four main sections: the turbulent environment faced by
1
2
organizations, economic stagnation, the crisis in worker attitudes, and
the changing role of unions.
The Turbulent Environment
Eric Trist (1978), past president of London's Tavistock Insti
tute, confronts today's organizations with the urgency of learning to
cope with a quality in the environment he calls "turbulence." Turbu
lence is responsible for many organizations* loss of any stable state,
manifest in growing interdependence, complexity, and uncertainty (Trist,
1977)• The turbulent environment is attributed to the breakneck speed
of change, described by Beckhard (1969) as dynamic explosions in know
ledge, technology, communications and economics.
Susman (1979) traces patterns of change in education, work
ethics, the nature of work, consumption and motivation, attitudes
towards authority, income and worker expectations. Rogers notes "dizzy
ing changes in science, technology, communications and social relation
ships" (Rogers, 1969, p. 303).
Robert Oppenheimer (1955) poignantly captures the present
condition:
. . . t h e c h a n g i n g s c a l e a n d s c o p e o f c h a n g e i t s e l f , s o t h a t t h e world alters as we walk in it, so that the years of men's life measure not some small growth or rearrangement or moderation of what he learned in childhood, but a great upheaval. What is new is that in one generation our knowledge of the natural world engulfs, upsets, and complements all knowledge of the natural world before (Oppenheimer, 1955, P« 1)•
Economic Stagnation
A second force changing the U.S. workplace is the economic
crisis we face, evidenced by high unemployment, inflation, trailing
3
wage gains compared to those abroad, public outcry about taxes, declin
ing basic industries such as steel and auto, and the productivity crunch
(Business Week, May 11, 1981). U.S. management is concerned with
domestic inflation and foreign competition (Keidel, 1980), and labor
unions are haunted by the threat of foreign competition that places a
plant's survival at stake (Kuper, 1977)- Zemke (1980) ironically re
calls when "Made in Japan" meant poor quality, and he refers to U.S.
industry as less able to set standards of quality, services, relia
bility, competitive pricing and sales.
The magnitude of the productivity problem was highlighted by
the first balance of payments deficit in 1972 (Herrick, 1980a), creating
a vital interest in anything that would allow us to compete in a
society of scarcity. The 1978 Economic Report to the President decried
the slowdown in productivity1s growth as "one of the most significant
economic problems in recent years" (Glaser, 1980, p. 71).
Crisis of Worker Attitudes
One scholar and practitioner in the field of organizational
change writes, "During the 1970's a great deal of attention was given
to 'worker dissatisfaction', the 'white collar woes' and the 'blue-
collar blues' ... which seem to be continuing trends into the 1980's"
(Herrick, 198lb, p. 26). This declining job satisfaction and morale
among the nation's employees is metaphorically expressed in the title
and concepts of Where Have All the Robots Gone? (Sheppard and Herrick,
1972). Such alienation, malaise, frustration and discontent comprise a
major cause for the QWL movement (Landen, 1981).
k
The decline of worker attitudes became more visible in the early
seventies because of several major events (Ronchi, 1980). A highly
automated and efficient General Motors assembly plant was scarred by a
strike of such bitterness and sabotage that it became known as "The
Lordstown Fiasco" (Miles, 1980). Elliot Richardson, Secretary of HEW,
commissioned a task force to study workplace attitudes, culminating in
the controversial report, Work in America (U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, 1973)* Senator Edward Kennedy held Senate
hearings on worker alienation in 1972 (Hampton, Sumner and Webber, 1978),
and Terkel (1972) shocked the public with his recorded interviews por
traying the spiritual, psychological and bodily "violence" character
izing the American workplace.
Susman (1979) offers an indepth analysis of the structural and
cultural changes that have increased job dissatisfaction and the refusal
to accept alienation, boredom and lack of dignity as job-related norms.
He cites such factors as the different work ethic of a new generation,
changes in the nature and setting of work, patterns of consumption and
motivation, and responses to managerial authority. Maccoby and Terzi
(1979) explain the crucial historical currents as the migration from a
traditional, rural society to a modernized urban one, and the decline
of patriarchal values.
Several studies, such as those by Katzel and Yankelovich (1975)
and Cooper, et al. (1979)1 compare Depression generation attitudes with
those of the "baby boom" generation that comprises over forty percent
of the current labor pool (Business Week, May 11, 1981). These younger
members of the work force, born between 19 6 and the early 1960's,
5
entered the workplace during great prosperity and social upheaval, cul
minating in a new profile of job expectations. Spearheaded by the
University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, several classic
national surveys tap attitudes along dimensions such as intrinsic
properties of jobs, emotional attitudes like authoritarianism, and life
issues such as mental health, excessive consumption of alcohol, and
family life (Quinn, et al., 1971; Quinn, et al., 1977).
Maccoby and Terzi (1979) review the findings of the Michigan
Survey of Working Conditions and Quality of Employment Survey of 1969,
1973« and 1977» reporting trends summarized below.
1. Work does remain important, but other areas of life are gaining
in significance, such as work/leisure enjoyment and personal growth.
2. Work is endorsed, but there is growing criticism of the quality
of work and actual fairness of reward, leading to withdrawal.
3. Workers are distrustful and therefore reluctant to share ideas.
k. There is a growing crisis of leadership, legitimacy and
authority, and less fright or automatic submission.
5. Workers believe hard work does not pay off.
6. Radical changes exist in job factors important to workers (such
as interesting work, opportunity to develop special skills, information
and authority, helpful co-workers and competent supervisors). Pay and
security placed lower in priority than ever before. Elsewhere, Yankelo-
vich (Business Week, May 11, 1981) contends that one new value group
rejects money as a substitute for self-fulfillment and that another
seeks money first, but only as the means to a certain lifestyle.
6
7. An increasingly educated and ambitious work force is dissatis
fied with the lack of opportunity to utilize knowledge and capacities.
8. A "new narcissism" exists among workers valuing self-fulfillment
and self-development.
Changing Role of Unions
The Quality of Working Life movement's impetus is partially
attributable to the decline and changing role of unions. This changing
profile of organized labor is an outgrowth of the growing futility of
an outmoded but increasingly adversarial posture between labor and
management and rising pressures on union leaders to secure more for
their rank-and-file members than traditional wages, benefits, and job
security.
The rise of industrial unionism in the 1930*s ended unfair
treatment at the workplace and gave workers a voice in security, equity,
wages and working conditions through collective bargaining, thereby
reducing corporate power over labor (Business Week, May 11, 1981).
Collective bargaining, the oldest and still most predominant model for
worker influence, is stunted by various shortcomings (Glueck, 1978). '
In particular, labor-management relations through collective bargaining
have become polarized, with negative stereotyping severely impeding
mutual progress and contributing to a decline of unionization in recent
years.
Mannweiler and Talbott (1977) review several investigations
describing labor-management conflict and note their common definitional
thread as a "win-lose" stance between opposing groups, caused by a real
7
or perceived incorapatability of needs, goals, and values. The end re
sult of such sharp adversarial relations is a caustic "we-they" attitude.
More specifically, within one's own group there are increased loyalties,
exaggerated self-righteousness and cohesion, acceptance of autocratic
leadership, and greater demand for a solid front, leading to intoler
ance for divergent views (Schein, 1978). Between groups there are
distorted perception and listening, hostility, aggression, single-
mindedness and negative stereotyping (Hollander and Hunt, 1967).
This adversarial relationship is dysfunctional in our turbulent
times when a new spirit of cooperation and awareness of mutual plight
seems essential. Leonard and Thanopoulos (1981) analyze fifty recently
published works in search of reasons for Japanese management's success,
and include as a key variable the relatively harmonious relations
between Japanese organized labor and management. Meanwhile, there are
mounting pressures for adjusting traditional patterns of interaction
(Kochan and Dyer, 1976) and a threat to legislate greater labor-
management cooperation (Lawler, 1979)• Thus, the influence of U.S.
unions wanes as they primarily maintain an antagonistic, competitive
posture towards management.
Although union strength has lasted as a means for obtaining
better pay, benefits and some working conditions, its viability is
limited as a catalyst for change in humanizing work because this area
of reform requires joint programs outside the formal bargaining process
(Kochan and Dyer, 1976). Traditional roles of unions do not seem to be
instrumental in freeing workers from the "mind-numbing, repetitive,
8
dehumanizing jobs" spurred by the Industrial Revolution (Cooper, 1980,
p. 1+88).
Unfortunately, "Unionism has done little to insert the worker
into his work or give him pride in quality" (Business Week, Kay 11,
1981, p. 89), and yet national surveys indicate employees want more pay,
benefits, and security. The bargaining process, hallmark of unionist
identity, is viewed by many union leaders, academics, and local union
activists as an inappropriate forum for addressing quality of work,
work humanization, job restructuring and productivity issues (Bluestone,
1973; Kochan, Lipsky and Dyer, 1975).
The Challenge to Organizations
This section has identified the technological, social, economic,
and political milieu which creates growing pressure for change within
organizations (Beckhard, 1969; Huse, 1980). The challenge to organiza
tions is to move beyond marginal innovation, to adopt radical new
organizational values, forms and structures (Trist, 1977). Trist (1978)
advocates a "new paradigm," a social architecture designed to allow
institutions to evolve from their traditional techno-bureaucratic make
ups toward more socio-ecological models (see Table 1). Tannenbaum and
Davis (1978) and Thorsrud (1978) reinforce Trist's new paradigm in their
depiction of society in transition toward more humanistic, organic
values (Susman, 1979).
Change is inevitable, and hope for control and stability of its
whirlwind pace lies in. fostering two major dimensions: (1) a planning
and leadership process i;hat is interactive and participatory (Finch,
1977; Trist, 1977); and (2) work restructuring for greater individual
9
Table 1. Trist's old and new paradigms.
Old Paradigm New Paradigm
The technological imperative Joint optimization
Man as an extension of the machine Man as complementary to the machine
An expendable spare part A resource to be developed
Maximum task breakdown to single, Optimum task grouping, multiple, narrow skills broad skills
Organization* s purposes only Members' and society's purposes also
Alienation Commitment
Low risk-taking Innovation
Source: Trist, 1978
10
and work group autonomy with resulting freedom, potential and capacity
for becoming "continuously adaptive learning mechanisms" (Emery and
Trist, 1973; Herbst, 1962).
The Quality of Working Life Movement
One response to the need for organizational change is the
Quality of Working Life (QWL) movement, which this study defines as the
recent U.S. practice of electing jointly-established labor-management
problem-solving groups. QWL's purpose with these formalized structures
is to elicit employee participation in workplace decisions about
policies, programs and procedures. QWL is an organization-wide, multi
level committee system that weaves collaborative, democratic influence
into the fabric of the organization.
QWL as a Unique Experiment
"Quality of working life" has been used as a catch-all phrase to
describe a variety of organizational structures and managerial
approaches, values and processes for humanizing the workplace. "QWL"
has become an umbrella code for most job change recommendations in the
organizational field (Bohlander, 1979). Huse quotes the broad concept
of "QWL" offered by Lippitt and Rumley (1977) as addressing the degree
to which work
provides an opportunity for an individual to satisfy a wide variety of personal needs, from the need to survive with some security to the need to interact with others, to have a sense of personal usefulness, to be recognized for achievement, and to have an opportunity to improve one's skills and knowledge (Huse, 1980, p. 237).
Going beyond the techniques typically advanced to improve em
ployee fulfillment, effective QWL experiments referred to in this study
11
provide more than piecemeal tampering with work schedules or jobs.
Katzell and Yankelovich conclude that "relatively limited programs, such
as job enrichment, participative decision-making, or incentive pay plans,
seem unlikely by themselves to create larger or enduring improvements in
both productivity and job satisfaction; they are better regarded as
possible ingredients. . . (Wacker and Nadler, 1980, p. 15).
This study, along with Herrick (1981c), isolates "pure" QWL
efforts based upon a group of experiments jointly sponsored by unions
and managements in the early and mid-seventies. A report of an organi
zation which sponsored several of these experiments suggests their
general characteristics as being:
. in unionized organizations;
. endorsed by the highest officers of managements and unions;
. created to establish cooperative labor-management structures to permit participation of employees in the design and implementation of organizational change;
. undertaken in a wide variety of major public and private organizations highly visible in their industry and sector;
. jointly 'owned', operated and run by the labor and management participants, without imposed interference, advocacy, or direction by either the National Quality of Work Center or its consultant representatives;
. continued as 'experiments' for from twelve to eighteen months;
. provided during the 'experimental' phase with expert consultant teams skilled in facilitating organizational change activity (Institute for Social Research, 1979, p. *0.
Huse (1980) notes the mutual involvement of both union and
management as the basic methodological approach establishing the QWL
movement as a significant departure from previous organizational change
endeavors. He summarizes the structural features as (1) a top level
joint union-management planning committee; (2) establishment of per
manent labor-management committees throughout the departments, plants,
or work units; (3) ad hoc cross-organizational problem-solving
12
committees to address specific projects; (4) external consultants with
behavioral science skills; and (5) external researchers separate from
the change agent.
This study adopts the concept of QWL as requiring an elective
system-wide influence structure created through a formal, joint labor-
management coalition (Declaration of Agreement by and Between the Board
of Supervisors and the Employees of Pima County, 1981; Agreement
Between United States Steel Corporation and the United Steel Workers of
America, August 1, 1980). The cooperative endeavor seeks to give indi
viduals greater autonomy in their jobs and groups of employees more
control over their working environment, by electing multi-level QWL
committees on which workers sit in equal representation with super
visors and managers. These structures develop and adhere to various
policies, procedures, and proposal-writing formats in order to achieve
consensus-based solutions to mutual, work-related concerns (Herrick,
1980b).
The two major thrusts of worker participation engendered by the
QWL systems are analogous to Abrahamsson's (1977) concepts of political
participation and socio-technical participation. The former involves
having a "say" in the actual management of the enterprise through on
going decisions about organization policies, programs, and procedures,
while the latter pertains to the kind of job restructuring for greater
autonomy, variety and productivity discussed by job design writers
(Susman, 1979; Trist and Bamforth, 1951)•
Accordingly, the Economic Development Administration (n.d., p.
7) writes:
13
While what work improvement goals are selected is important, how they are chosen is what really counts. The lasting force of any useful quality of work life effort is the creation of a process - a learning process - through which the various stakeholders in an organization (managers, supervisors, stewards, individual employees, union officials) learn how to work together ... that process is the essential gift ... that permits organizations to tap and utilize the skills and insights of the total work force.
QWL Differentiated from Related Trends
Various writers (Keidel, 1980; Srivastva, et al., 1975; Cummings
and Molloy, 1977) have sought to reduce the confusion about what QWL
actually is by ordering the common aspects of QWL approaches. These
catalogs are ambiguous since they simply group techniques employed as
part of various programs loosely called "QWL." Similarly, several sets
of human development principles have been forwarded as underlying QWL
approaches to workplace reform (Keidel, 1980; Herrick and Maccoby, 1975).
Huse (1980) synthesizes these basic categories as (1) adequate and fair
compensation; (2) safe and healthy environment; (3) development of
human capacities; CO growth and security; (5) social integration; (6)
constitutionalism; (7) the total lifespace; and (8) social relevance.
This section more clearly defines QWL as a unique organiza
tional change effort toward which attitudes can be assessed. Herrick's
(198la) comprehensive schemata will be presented below, consisting of
policies, working conditions, and outcomes compatible with the defini
tion of QWL adopted in this study. Secondly, QWL will be compared with
several trends in the organizational change field.
A Comprehensive QWL Model
Herrick's "The Means and End of Work" (198la) presents a uniform
theoretical schemata (see Appendix A for definitions), conceptualizing
QWL as a mutual benefit bargaining process engaged in by unions and
jects, including LMC's, and ranks this country behind Sweden, Norway,
Holland, Denmark, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, and Ireland.
Granting that the European stress on co-determination and Board room
representation does not necessarily lead to the shop-floor representa
tion to which QWL aspires (Kuper, 1977), the U.S. is, nevertheless,
relatively adolescent in its workplace reform.
A recent Business Week (Sept. 21, 1981) underscores QWL's spread
by citing the attendance at 1981's Toronto International Conference on
QWL of 1500 managers, unionists, consultants, academics, and government
officials, dwarfing its 1972 counterpart. The current case study count is
above 1000, up from 25 in the early seventies.
The 1978 Directory of Labor-Management Committees listed 1 3
private sector and 55 public sector LMC's, whereas present estimates
exceed 120 cases by the International Association of Machinists alone
and 90 programs inside General Motors (Batt, 1981). Twenty-five percent
of American businesses are believed to be involved in such programs
(Hlaweck, 1982). Though such reports inflate the spread of QWL due to
this study1s more stringent definition as requiring joint program
initiation and system-wide elected structures, QWL's growth is un
deniable. Herrick (1982b) adopts the stricter definition and compiles
reports of several "pure" QWL efforts within the public sector, as well
as some related projects.
While this study has sketched the general forces behind QWL on
the American scene, more detailed accounts of the historical signposts
of OWL are available elsewhere (Huse, 1980; Ronchi, 1980). Landen
(1981) targets two major events: (1) President Nixon's commissioning
of the National Center for Productivity and Quality of Working Life,
which was headed by the vice-president and stimulated the growth of
labor-management experiments and other non-profit QWL centers; and (2)
the widespread publicity on changing worker attitudes. Landen, a key
QWL proponent within General Motors, comprehensively traces the evolu
tion of QWL over 25 years along three tracks: society (foreign influence
and social events); General Motors* influence (among the first major
corporations to make a QWL commitment); and government involvement
(such as 1979's Lundine-Javitts Labor-Management Cooperative Act offer
ing financial support and motivation to further projects).
Pima County Perspective
In 1977, Pima County, Arizona, joined a group of eight states
and cities called Project Network which decided to start QWL programs.
A volunteer County Labor-Management Committee functioned for several
years in conjunction with the Human Resources Department and in "1980
the County received a grant from the U.S. Office of Personnel Adminis
tration to set up a pilot QWL department" (Herrick, 1980b, p. 2).
26
On May 30, 1980, the Department of Transportation and Flood Con
trol District became the first county government department in the
nation legitimately to elect a QWL committee structure, aiming at a
five-year grant-supported endeavor to involve the entire County in the
QWL program. This installment was followed by the 1981 initiation of
QWL in a second department, a nursing home called Posada del Sol, and
by the landmark election of a 29-member, County-wide Labor-Management
QWL committee. This latter analogue to the U.S. Contress is respon
sible for developing proposals to increase productivity and improve
working life quality, and is charged with implementing the QWL system
in the County's remaining 33 departments.
The historical development and social context of the QWL move
ment have gathered much momentum, but QWL is characterized by a relative
youth, resulting in inevitable shortcomings. One void is QWL's short
age of the fuller range of standardized assessment tools enjoyed by
other, more mature social movements. The importance of such measure
ment is addressed below as the next step in forwarding the "state of
the art" of QWL's spiraling influence in this country.
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
The major purpose of this study was to construct a standardized
instrument for assessing the attitudes of employees toward a public
sector Quality of Working Life program. While scale development in
volved the examination of the attitudes of respondents, the study's key
focus remained obtaining a Long and Short Form of the Quality of Working
27
Life Attitude Scale (QWLAS). The attitude data from Pima County
employees were primarily examined as part of final item selection and
for purposes of stimulating directions for further research.
Objectives of the Study
The umbrella purpose of constructing a Quality of Working Life
Attitude Scale (QWLAS) led to the following research questions:
1. What basic factors comprise the concept of QWL attitude as
measured by the QWLAS?
2. What items can comprise the final QWLAS Long Form and Short
Form without significantly lowering scale reliability?
3- Is the QWLAS a reliable psychological instrument?
k. Is the QWLAS a valid psychological instrument?
General Significance of the Study
This study adds to the field of organizational change by making
available a systematic instrument for assessing favorable and unfavor
able attitudes toward QWL experiments in the public sector, enabling
entry-level and ongoing awareness of program acceptance or resistance.
The Importance of QWL Research
Considerable attention is given by QWL and other approaches to
improving organizational effectiveness and the quality of working con
ditions® Social scientists studying the introduction of organization
change by unions and managements demand useful assessment methodology
and instrumentation to interpret program effects, establish causal
connections between the program and its results, and generalize findings
28
to other settings (Lawler, et al., 1978). Such investigation helps to
verify program results, understand planned change processes, and
develop theories to explain change (Stone, 1980).
Recognizing the risky nature of introducing organization change
efforts, Lawler et al. (1978) advocates a stronger role for research on
conditions optimal for various approaches to organizational reform. He
summarizes the need for valid assessment to:
1. Provide credible information on the successes and limitations of different change approaches so that the theory and practice of organization change can be improved;
2. Provide data on how various situational factors in the organization and its environment moderate effectiveness of change programs;
3. Guide social action to improve the quality of work life and the effectiveness of organizations;
k. Aid in the implementation of practices intended to improve organizational effectiveness and the quality of work life (Lawler, et al., 1978, p. 4).
French, Bell, and Zawacki (1978) note the scarcity of scientifi
cally respectable research evaluating organization change programs,
describing the need to empirically test those findings which are too
frequently offered in anecdotal, informal terms. Cummings, et al.
(1977) criticize 58 work experiments on the basis of inadequate change
program descriptions, lack of theory-based evaluation criteria,
utilization of measures with questionable reliability and validity,
and faulty research designs. These findings and Leedy's (197 ) exten
sive coverage of the requirements for disciplined practical research
give rise to the classical questions about the feasibility of scien
tific research within the field of organization change (Greiner and
Barnes, 1970; French and Bell, 1973)•
29
Benne, Chin, and Bennis (1976) confront the organization change
agent with the difficulty of retaining scientific objectivity while
intervening in the change process for favorable outcomes. Susman and
Evered (1978, p. 582) maintain that the real "crisis in organizational
science" transcends this conflict between social scientist and social
practitioner roles, and is attributable to the inappropriateness of
even attempting to adopt strict scientific methodology within an on
going social system experiment#
Still, most researchers believe in the possibility of obtaining
objective, reliable and valid results. Whether they stress case study
paradigms (Yin, 1981) or emphasize the capacity of various quasi-
experimental and other designs to reduce potential experimenter bias
(White and Mitchell, 1978), most writers reinforce the need for de
veloping rigorous, formal research methodologies (Kimberly and Nielsen,
1978; Beckhard and Lake, 1978; Reicken, 1978).
The Gap in Current QWL Assessment Research
The productivity crisis spawning QWL experiments in this country
also accounts for the lop-sided emphasis in most QWL evaluation and
research upon accountability-oriented, economic-based outcome measures.
Most measurement methodologies stress gross financial outcomes of
increased economic effectiveness (Macy and Mirvis, 1976) or rises in
neered the expansion of the scope of OWL assessment beyond this
conventional, bottom-line approach of cost of output and volume of
production with his identification of "work force indicators," a set of
behaviorally measureable variables affected by QWL experiments. He
advocates the recognition of factors like accrued sick leave, promotions
from within, and accident rate (Herrick 1980b) as indirect, yet sig
nificant measures of productivity gains. Macy and Mirvis (1976) further
Herrick's work toward obtaining a newer, standardized methodology for
measuring productivity gains in behavioral-economic terms.
Available literature reveals a heavy emphasis in QWL research
upon evaluation of positive effects upon work "according to both
economic/technical and human/social criteria" (Maccoby, 19751 p. i).
This frantic scramble to document accountability can be at the expense
of employee support, and QWL research should provide insight into the
dynamics of change. These foci demand inquiry into qualitative as well
as quantitative data, the use of "soft" as well as "hard" measures of
effectiveness (French et al., 1978) and exploration of the processes of
organizational change (Keidel, 1980). Measurement and observation of a
change effort should capture more than its outcomes, but also the pro
cesses by which the change is planned and implemented (Seashore, 1979).
Many research designs do reflect a bias for understanding the
human side of a strategy's evaluation in addition to the strictly
quantitative, economic bottom-line data (Porras and Berg, 1978). Case
study approaches, for instance, focus upon qualitative dimensions like
the processes underlying change (Walton, 1972; Yin, 1981; Davis and
Cherns, 1975b). This shift from pure outcome research to a search for
causal links (Lawler, et al., 1978) requires indepth tracing of pro
cesses within individual sites (Keidel, 1980) and the adoption of
31
longitudinal studies (Seashore and Bowers, 1978; Beckhard and Lake,
1978). Both thrusts include attitude assessment.
The Need for Attitude Measurement in QWL Research
While QWL outcome research is critical for understanding change
efforts, data which focus only on changes in general job satisfaction,
work conditions, and productivity ignore the human fulfillment and
change process dimensions of the experiment. Lawler et al. (1978)
explicitly recognizes the measurement of individual attitudes and
beliefs as one of six key components of organizational assessment,
along with outcomes; individual and group behavior; job characteristics,
technology and organization structure; individual and group character
istics; and the external environment.
"Attitude" is defined by Kerlinger (1973) as an "organized pre
disposition to think, feel, perceive toward a referent or cognitive
object. It is an enduring structure of beliefs that predisposes the
individual to behave selectively towards the attitude referents"
(Kerlinger, 1973, p. 95). Remmers (195 , p. 16) describes attitudes
as greater determinants of behavior than cognitive understanding alone.
He envisions attitudes as central variables in the development of a
"science of society" and views the fulfillment of psychology and social
science as dependent on learning to measure and cultivate attitudes
conducive to social change, public responsibility, free inquiry and the
extension of democracy.
Some attitude assessment exists within QWL literature, as re
viewed below. Attitude literature primarily addresses job satisfaction
32
and work conditions which necessitate programs like QWL, and involves
pre-post measurement of attitude about work as influenced by QWL. There
is a need in current literature for more attention to the critical role
played by QWL participant attitudes towards the change program itself,
which is the focus of this study. If QWL is a democratic tool, the
employees of such a participation-based effort are the carpenters whose
attitudes are critical.
Literature in the field of organizational change demonstrates
great concern for the level of involvement in, and commitment to, the
change effort (Huse, 1980). This theoretical thrust provides a ratio
nale for addressing attitudes of program participants towards the
project itself, and for more fully appreciating the detrimental impact
of their neglect upon program success, even where there are monumental
productivity gains.
Lewin's (1951) classic force field analysis theory permits
examination of the wide range of forces driving for acceptance of change
and those forces restraining movement from the status quo. His diag
nostic perspective reflects the need to assess and address forces
resisting change rather than merely increasing those pushing for change
(Argyris, 1971). One potentially devastating set of resisting forces
can be the attitudes of individuals toward OWL projects from inception
throughout their duration.
Spier (1973) reviews a variety of strategies for working with
data produced from a force field analysis and cautions against altering
the equilibrium of forces in the direction of change by strengthening
or adding forces driving for change implementation. These tactics
create tensions that are met by an increase in the restraining forces,
in the form of resistance. A more stable, tension-free approach is
accepted to be the removal or diminishment of opposing forces. Since
unfavorable worker and supervisor attitudes toward OWL comprise a key
restraining force to change the assessment of these attitudes is essen
tial to a program's success.
Existing OWL Attitude Assessment
Some limited literature exists on QWL attitudes, focusing spe
cifically on participants accepting or resisting the QWL program. This
work consists primarily of burdensome interview formats (Herrick, 198lb)
or autobiographical accounts of reactions by organization members
(Herrick and Ronchi, 1982). Other works are comprised of theoretical
hypotheses about dispositions conducive to a "participatory democratic
consciousness" (Frost, et al., 197p« 93)» and speculations about the
nature of different groups' QWL objections and appreciations (Herrick,
1972). Still lacking is an empirically-based, systematic assessment of
attitudes of various groups toward QWL initiatives.
Some extensive opinion surveys exist, but they tend to assess
dimensions of interest other than the needed examination of reactions
toward the change effort itself. Various surveys inventorying atti
tudes about working conditions and organizational climate have been
championed by the Institute for Social Research at the University of
Michigan (Bowers and Franklin, 1977; Haussler, et al., 1977; Franklin,
et al., 1977). Seashore (1979) discriminates between these explorations
of the work-related attitudes and their impact on work-related behaviors
3^
like turnover and absenteeism, and a second, newer group of attitude
studies. These more recent surveys relate job satisfaction and emo
tional attitudes, such as authoritarianism, to more general indicators
of well-being such as mental health, physical health and non-work
attitudes. They are exemplified by the "Quality of Employment Survey"
(Quinn and Staines, 1977)* "The Survey of Working Conditions" (Ouinn,
et al., 1971), "The Pima County QWL Questionnaire" (see Appendix B) and
other studies (Margolis, et al., 197 ; Kahn, 196*0.
Thus, existing QWL-related scales are actually surveys that do
not assess favorable and unfavorable QWL attitudes useful in deter
mining acceptance or resistance to the change effort, but instead seek
to determine program outcomes and effects. General Motors does have a
QWL Survey (General Motors, 1982), but as Gershenfeld (1982) has noted,
most existing instruments are not available to the public because they
are regarded by corporations as trade secrets. The literature review
in Chapter 2 of this study will describe an extensive survey taken of
existing attitude measures which failed to uncover any instrument
resembling the QWLAS.
While some QWL research addresses the problems in question
here, the "state-of-the-art" still lacks what Edwards (1957) describes
as a quick, valid, standardized instrument that can be administered on
a group basis in order to show degree of affect. Such an instrument
would move us beyond working only with several vocal individuals or
inferring attitudes from overt behaviors.
There is a need for a publicly available QWL attitude scale
enabling program initiators to "take the temperature" of experiments
in progress and to predict the likelihood of their survival in organi
zations considering their adoption. The scale could also benefit
program developers in adapting OWL systems, orientations and supportive
training to be more responsive to employees' reactions and attitudes.
Significance of the Study for Pima County
The significance of this study for the Pima County QWL project
included its contribution to adjustment and acceptance within the
Department of Transportation, by facilitating expression of QWL opinions
by all employees, both more and less vocal, who might otherwise not
communicate their feelings about the program. This unfreezing of com
munication channels about QWL was believed to be healthier than the
assumption that the democratic experiment was being well-received by
County workers.
The study also resulted in the l*f-item QWLAS Short Form which
may be incorporated into the broader research package that is being
administered in Pima County on an ongoing basis.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Unlike the relatively focused body of literature accompanying
QWL's early stages of development, the literature involving attitudes
is overwhelming in its volume, historical continuity, and span of re
lated disciplines, including sociology, psychology, social psychology,
and education. Martens (1979) contends that the abundance of measure
ment scales illustrates the importance attached to attitudes toward a
wide range of subjects. Even 30 years ago, Kahn (1951) acknowledged
that any extensive review of attitude literature was an unrealistically
mammoth endeavor.
The words of Gordon W. Allport (1935)t pioneering social
psychologist, usher in the first chapter of Edwards' (1957) classic
Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction:
The concept of attitude is probably the most distinctive and indispensible concept in contemporary American social psychology. No other term appears more frequently in experimental and theoretical literature (Edwards, 1957, p« xvi).
A literature review congruent with this study's purpose of
constructing an attitude scale demands a broader focus than instrument
development. Disciplined scale construction is enriched by awareness
of the entire field of attitudes, so that the investigator understands
the role of attitude measurement within its proper context. Since the
scope of this study does not permit a detailed review of the field,
36
37
this chapter assists the aspiring attitude researcher by presenting a
guide to attitude literature. The two areas of attitude theory and
attitude measurement are organized into sub-categories, depicted in
Table 2, with citings of several representative, widely used sources.
This taxonomy of attitude literature will be followed by the
results of an extensive survey of existing attitude scales in search of
QWL-related instruments. While this discussion of QWL-oriented tools
is directly connected to the scale development purpose of this study,
the more comprehensive review of attitude literature is also pertinent
to this study.
Fishbein (1967) conceptualizes the three major facets of the
study of attitudes as theory, measurement, and change. However, Rogers
(1978) has noted that for all intents and purposes, theoretical material
on attitude formation and development is indistinguishable from attitude
change literature. Therefore, this review organizes attitude research
into the two major areas of attitude theory and attitude measurement.
Attitude Theory
The investigator in attitude assessment must become acquainted
with the literature on attitude theory, realizing that, "the distinction
between theory and measurement is an artificial one, and that neglect
of the theoretical assumptions which are made by the various methods of
measurement is likely to engender a form of false consciousness on the
part of the researcher which could lead him to misunderstand the nature
of the data that he has obtained" (Lemon, 1973, p. vii). Three sub
categories, though not entirely independent entities, comprise a
38
Table 2. Taxonomy for organizing attitude research.
Area Representative Literature
I. Attitude Theory
A. Nature of Attitudes
B. Attitude Formation and Change
C. Social Attitudes and Social Research
(Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein, 1967, 1975; Jahoda and Warren, 1966; Greenwald, et al., 1968)
(Shaw and Wright, 1967; Bonjean, et al., 1967; Robinson, et al., 1967; Robinson, et al., 1968; Robinson and Shavers, 1969; Chun, et al., 1975; Buros, 1978; Goldman and Busch, 1978)
rational clustering of the proliferation of attitude theory literature
and provide grounding in (1) the nature of attitudes, (2) attitude for
mation and change, and (3) social attitudes and social psychology
research. These categories build a conceptual understanding of "atti
tude" as a unique phenomenon, an appreciation for the dynamics of
attitude development, and a commitment to the value of attitude measure
ment.
The Nature of Attitudes
Comprehension of the conceptual nature of attitudes requires
familiarization with historical foundations (Allport, 1935; Cantril,
1932; Symonds, 1927).as well as the more recent, comprehensive
anthologies of readings and attitude theory (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980;
Fishbein , 1975; Greenwald, et al., 1968; Jahoda and Warren, 1966).
Various works clarify attitude's alternative definitions and concep
17. Satisfaction of employees with information passed down from above
18. Satisfaction with information process
19. Perception of information wanted from above
21, 22. Involvement in the organizations
23. Job relations attitude scale
2 . Knowledge about an agricultural cooperative
26. Labor-attitude scale
27. Legitimacy of organizational influences
Characteristics of Complex Organizations
k. Bureaucracy
5. Bureaucratic competitiveness
8. Complexity
11, 12. Effectiveness
l'f. Employee information
20. Member participation
23. Power distribution in unions
27. Responsibility
Participation
Education
Education
Education
Participation
Autonomy
Education
Mutual benefit
Participation
Decentralization
Cooperative self-interest
Decentralization
Human and Organizational Effectiveness
Education
Participation
Decentralization
Autonomy
Table k—continued
Attitude Conceptual Area and Category Number (Bon.iean, et al., 196?)
Possible QWL Correlate (Herrick, 1981a)
Complex Organizations: Informal Relations
1. Verbal aggression toward supervisors and co-workers
5. Assumed similarity
20t 21. Influence
Job Satisfaction, Morale, and Related Measures
1. Dissatisfaction
2. Dissatisfaction with task
21. Personal commitment to group goals
Decentralization
Mutual benefit
Autonomy and Participation
Decentralization
Autonomy
Cooperative self-interest
ui -F-
satisfaction and 35 others which touch upon job attitudes with other
emphases, and the Goldman and Busch directory (1978) contributes less.
The scales in both volumes are either too broad in scope or too esoteric
to be of use in QWL research. A few remaining sourcebooks are not
helpful because their primary domains are defined as measurement of
mental capacities and mental health (Davis, et al., 1975; Comrey,
et al., 1973; Buros, 1970), and therefore inapplicable for this survey's
purposes.
Summary
This chapter has offered a guide to the literature on attitude
theory and measurement in hopes of rendering more manageable the bur
geoning array of material in the field. The theoretical dimension
provides a perspective on measurement endeavors, while the methodologi
cal dimension is most pertinent to the actual construction of an
attitude scale. A laborious survey of major attitude scale reference
sources has been presented, reinforcing the need for OWL-related
attitude instruments.
It is hoped that the reader benefits from coverage of both the
general field of attitude research, as well as more specific literature
on attitude assessment. The serious student or investigator of atti
tude scale development should profit from the literature as organized
and described in this chapter.
CHAPTER 3
PROCEDURES
This chapter is concerned with the methodology adopted in the
development of the Quality of Working Life Attitude Scale (QWLAS).
Procedures followed in its design, construction, and administration
are presented.
Preparation
Preliminary Literature Review
The initial stages of this study involved a review of basic
research literature (Kerlinger, 1973; Edwards, 1957; Anastasi, 1968;
Campbell and Katonah, 1953), which fostered the resolution of essential
research decisions regarding proposal-writing and planning. Early
consideration of issues such as alternative avenues for research design,
applicable data collection formats, and appropriate attitude scaling
techniques were among the parameters of the study taken into account.
Leedy (197*0 contends that such exploration and informed decision
making raises practical research from the realm of careless data collec
tion to its proper stature as a careful discipline.
Population
The population for this study was 303 employees of the Pima
County Department of Transportation and Flood Control District. The
56
Department is divided into a Division of Operations, comprised of 15k
employees, mostly blue collar, who have been involved in the OWL system
since May 1980. Five remaining divisions, predominantly white collar,
form the other half of the Department. These last divisions were
oriented to the QWL program according to the schedule presented in
Table 5»
Organization Entry
Prior to administration of the pilot form of the QWLAS, approval
of the study's procedures was obtained from the University Human Sub
jects Committee. Approval for the research was then secured from the
Department Director through an explanatory proposal. Introduction of
the project occurred through the Department's "QWL Newsletter," presen
tation at a Division Head staff meeting, and attendance of the
researcher at a Departmental QWL Committee meeting. The research
activity was conveyed by the Department Director as related to the
efforts of the principal third party consultant, Dr. Neal Q. Herrick,
and as start-up assistance in QWL acceptance and adjustment (see Appen
dix C).
Sampling
Since the subjects were already assigned to groups by nature
of their job descriptions and Divisions, and because of constraints
dictated by the study being part of "start-up assistance" consultation,
it was not possible to sample randomly or representatively. Sampling
was therefore "accidental" (Remmers, 195*0, but sampling bias was
58
Table 5. Orientation date and personnel for each division.
Division Total Employees Orientation to OWL
Operations 15 May, 1980
Traffic Engineering 35 Nov., 1980
Planning and Programming 27 Nov., 1980
Administrative Services 12 Nov., 1980
Design Engineering Zk Dec., 1980
Field Engineering 5 June, 1981
Miscellaneous 6
Population 303
minimized because all Department members received a QWL Attitude Scale
and had the opportunity to participate,
Leeds (1950) and Sabers (personal communication, 1981) have
advised scale developers in early stages of construction that no attempt
need be made to control factors such as age, sex, education or nation
ality, since the focus of attention is on scale development and field
testing, rather than interpretation of attitude data results. Remmers
(195*0 discusses the value of non-random, "accidental" sampling pro
cedures, and Kahn (1951) maintains that the extra expense and labor of
systematic random or stratified sampling is not warranted. Lawler and
his associates (Lawler, et al., 1978) have downplayed the necessity for
random assignment of subjects or control of variables in a field set
ting research effort. McNemar (Kahn, 1951) further justifies the
sacrifice of controls of a laboratory or academic setting in exchange
for the real world of the field setting, exclaiming, "The real social
psychology of attitudes is in need of research on groups of greater
generality than college students" (Kahn, 1951, p. 2). Thus, both the
field setting, and basis of this study in scale construction deem it
permissible to abandon attempts at systematic sampling.
Scale Construction
The basic methodological steps of scale development can be
generalized to other attitude measures to accomplish (1) generation of
an initial pool of attitude statements, (2) conceptual classification
of the statements, (3) selection of data collection, scaling, and item
formats, (content validity sorting by judges, (5) writing and
editing of the items for inclusion in the final instrument, and (6)
design of the questionnaire.
Generation of Initial Attitude Statements
The universe of attitudes was defined as verbal attitudes about
QWL programs, and a thorough collection was made of a large number of
statements from the following sources.
Extensive QWL Literature Review. Attitude statements were
borrowed directly or constructed from various interview-based QWL case
studies and project description literature (Herrick and Ronchi, 1982;
Herrick, 1981b; Herrick, 1977).
Interviews. The Pima County QWL project involved a separate,
ongoing research package, including interviews with ten managers, super
visors and non-supervisory employees. The researcher conducted these
one and one-half hour interviews, which uncovered the QWL issues most
salient to employees and produced potential items.
Anthropological Data. The researcher's involvement in coun- .
seling and support meetings with employees and informal discussions with
employees and colleagues surfaced many attitude statements recorded
for later use.
Attitude Inventories. An open-ended QWL Attitude Inventory was
administered to 60 employees through a series of seven "diagnostic
meetings," similar to those described by Fordyce and Weil (1978).
Separate meetings were attended by managers, supervisors and rank and
61
file employees of the Divisions of Traffic Engineering, Design Engineer
ing, Administrative Services, and Planning and Programming, respectively.
The rationale for attitude assessment was given, questions were
answered, and problems or obstacles preventing QWL acceptance were
brainstormed. Finally, respondents wrote essay answers to a general
question that asked for both favorable and unfavorable QWL opinions
(see Appendix D).
Willing employees from the Division of Operations answered a
similar general question that was distributed by supervisors at their
regular grassroots QWL meetings, for completion on the employees' own
time. Scheduling constraints on the part of the Department prohibited
special meetings for the 15 Operations employees.
Conceptual Classification of Statements
Preliminary Attitude Statement Organization. The attitude
statements from employees were tallied and compiled according to themes,
a process which facilitated data feedback to respondents in follow-up
meetings. This preliminary clustering of statements also oriented the
researcher to the range and categorization of possible QWL attitude
topics and influenced the development of initial subscales.
Development of a Rational Model for Subgrouping Items. The
clustering of items into themes was followed by the search for a con
ceptual framework that could fit the program being evaluated.
Leeds (1950) suggests using a system of item classification in
order to achieve a more adequate sampling of prospective attitudes, to
62
differentiate the ideational content of items, and to roughly identify
the possible factors of a measured attitude, which serve as subscales
to be confirmed through later factor analysis. Other scale developers
(Benson and Vincent, 1980; Perney, 1975; Stauffer, 197*0 believe that
adopting a conceptual framework contributes to better content validity
by yielding a more substantial, representative body of inventory con
tent.
This utilization of a theoretical structure to arrive at scale
components identified relevant areas for measurement which appeared
conceptually independent, and determined the logical relationships
between items before administration. Especially in research assessing
the reactions of groups toward particular aspects of an organizational
program, the "content dimension is clearly the key to proper development
of an attitude measure" (Hartke, 1979, p. 585).
Herrick's "Means and End to Work" model (198la) was modified to
provide a rational basis for item subgrouping. The components of
Herrick's schemata which were retained as categories for scale items
were his requisite policies of "decentralization," "education" and
"cooperative self-interest," the operational policy of "democratiza
tion," and the working conditions of "individuation" (autonomy) and
"participation." Herrick's "human," "organizational" and "political
effectiveness," and his "human well-being" outcomes were collapsed into
two subgroups on the QWLAS, labeled "human benefits" and "economic
benefits."
Drawing from themes which emerged in the initial gathering of
attitude statements, Herrick's model was expanded by five additional
categories: "need" (for QWL's mutual benefit bargaining); "faith" (in
QWL's intentions, potential and good will); "implementation" (of QWL by
the organization and third party); "functioning" (of the QWL system
within the organization); and "general" OWL attitude.
A final grouping designated certain items from other subgroups
to be additionally classified as a "Control" subgroup. This subgroup
was believed to reflect the respondent's need for order and predict
ability, with clear definitions of where responsibilities lie and
various roles that remain separate and distinct. This hypothesized
character trait of control need was developed for later construct
validation of the QWLAS.
Table 6 presents the I1* classification groups utilized in the
construction of the original QWLAS Pilot Form. Table 7 displays spe
cific item numbers of the groupings, with the amount of positively and
negatively worded statements. These categories made up the rationally
based "subscales" of the QWLAS, which were later investigated through a
panel of judges and through statistical tests of internal consistency
and factor analysis. (Appendix E includes the subscale groupings of
the original 8*f items administered as the QWLAS Pilot Form.)
This section has reviewed the development of a rational model
for classifying items into subscales, and given the rationale for doing
so. The conceptual framework provided content validity and a theoreti
cal structure to initially explore underlying factors of OWL attitude.
The subscales also added practical utility for managing data and
discrimination amongst specific areas of QWL attitude, whether gener
ally favorable or unfavorable.
6k
Table 6. Original QWLAS subscale classifications.
1. Need for Program (8 items) This group includes attitudes about the need for, or applica
bility of the OWL program. Need here refers to whether problems even exist that call for OWL or some similar effort. Applicable items should be attitudes about the appropriateness of a program like QWL for this particular setting or employee. Statements should concern whether there is a need for any program for this setting, rather than judgments about OWL's specific ability or approach for affecting change.
2. Faith in the Program (8 items) These items express attitudes about the feasibility of OWL's
goals at the outset, and trust in its intentions. Feasibility taps feelings about the range and loftiness of OWL's ains or potential and should not include statements about actual outcomes or how successful QWL has been. Trust items express the degree of belief in honorable intentions and the true reasons behind QWL, as well as trust in the good will of the program's initiators. These items say less about the specifics of OWL itself than they do about the respondent's faith in the organization's aims and in the program's chances for making a difference.
3. Decentralization (k items) Decentralization items concern the redistribution of authority
along the existing management structure, the delegation of authority for decision-making to the lowest appropriate level of supervision. This group should not deal with the specific arrangements for sharing this authority or the giving of freedom to do one's own particular job with discretion and autonomy. Rather, we're involved here with the actual issue of passing authority from upper levels down the hierarchy to place appropriate decisions in the sphere of lower level supervision and workers.
k. Education (3 items) Education items include attitudes about policy that provides
opportunities to develop oneself and learn about one's job and the organization, so that employees are competent to deal with the increased authority in decision-making that OWL offers. Statements contained in this group convey feelings about how much organizations should make provisions for training, advancement, and development of skills, organizational knowledge and individual responsibility.
5. Cooperative Self-interest (3 items) Cooperative Self-interest items are attitudes about the policy
of organizing the workplace so that all members of a work group are rewarded (recognition, money, etc.) for the group's output and activity. These statements concern OWL's replacement of individual or interest-group competition with cooperation and work towards group goals so that the interest of the individual can be in harmony with the interests of his/her fellows and of the organization.
65
Table 6—continued Original QWLAS subscale classifications.
6. Democratization (9 items) Democratization here refers to the establishment of a specific
means through which employees can influence the work environment, that of an organization-wide joint worker/supervisor committee structure. These items deal with this tangible committee system of elected representatives as a vehicle for evolving employee participation. This category should not contain opinions about the implementation, effectiveness or outcomes of the committees in the respondent's organization (see Categories 6, 7, 8, and 9), nor should they involve attitudes toward the idea of participation. This category only includes feelings about the structure of the committee system itself, with its meetings, procedures and standards.
7. Individuation (4 items) Individuation items express attitudes about circumstances that
allow the employee opportunities to distinguish oneself from others and maintain uniqueness. These can relate to personal autonomy; craftman-ship; and freedom on-the-job to exercise skills, discretion, and responsibility.
8. Participation (k items) Participation items are statements about the opportunity to in
fluence and have input to organizational decision-making and they relate to the actual experience of influencing one's working arrangements, and the policies, programs and plans of the organization.
9. Economic Benefit Outcomes (8 items) This category includes statements about QWL outcomes but here
the items deal with organizational effectiveness and productivity increases. These attitudes have to do with questions of whether QWL is worth the time and effort spent in relation to the costs of providing public services.
10. Human Benefit Outcomes (9 items) Attitudes contained here concern QWL results in terms of human
benefits achieved. These statements can refer to the existence or nonexistence of gains in satisfaction and well-being at work or off the job, effects of QWL upon relationships among employees and individual political effectiveness acquired through involvement with QWL.
11. Implementation (8 items) This category should include attitudes about how OWL was brought
into the organization and implemented, not whether it should have been adopted or what it has achieved. These statements should concern the process undergone from method of introduction to QWL, program quality, follow-through and third-party consultant involvement.
Table 6—continued Original QWLAS subscale classifications.
66
12. Program Functioning (12 items) Items in this category express attitudes about how well the OWL
process is functioning and about the level of involvement assumed by the organization's members, not the merits of the QWL program itself or the results it has achieved. These opinions about the quality of OWL involvement and process in this particular setting can involve performance of QWL duties, quality of meetings and commitment of various groups to the program's success.
13- General QWL Attitude (4 items) These items are global statements of the respondent's own dis
position towards QWL as favorable or unfavorable, or his/her opinion about QWL's chances of surviving. These should not be estimates of the level of support of various groups, nor attitudes about specific aspects of OWL. Rather, these statements can refer to one's own personal commitment and intentions regarding OWL involvement.
I1** Control (7 items) Items which assess the respondent's need for order and predict
ability in the environment, with clear definitions of where responsibilities lie so that various roles are kept separate and distinct.
67
Table 7. Subscalee of the QWLAS with their respective items.
Item Numbers Positively Negatively Total Item Subscale Name Included Criterial Criterial Count
1. Need 16, 28,
21, 47,
25, 63,
27, 73
4 4 8
2. Faith 13, 40,
15, 41,
18, 48,
38, 49
4 4 8
3. Decentrali zation 9, 76, 81, 83 2 2 4
4. Education 11, 50, 79 1 2 3
5. Cooperative Self-interest 43, 55, 65 2 1 3
6. Democratization 3, 69,
17, 72,
20, 74, 77, 82 3 6 9
7. Individuation 10, 23, 24, 78 3 1 4
8. Participation 22, 53, 66, 75 1 3 4
9. Economic Benefits 57,
14, 58,
36, 62,
45, 71
4 4 8
10. Human Benefits 2, 60,
5, : 61,
19, : 64,
50, 34, 70
4 5 9
11. Implementation 1, 5 ,
6, ' 68,
7, 12, 39, 80
4 4 8
12. Program Functioning
8, 33, 59,
26, 37, 67
29, 44,
31, 32, 51, 56, 5 7 12
13. General 35, 42, 52, 84 2 2 4
14. Control
Totals
10, 69,
11, 76,
22, 83
50, 0
39
?(•)
45
7(*)
84
(*) Control items are borrowed from other subscales and therefore not additionally summed in arriving at totals.
Format Selection
The literature review on attitude measurement resulted in
decisions concerning the most appropriate method for collection of
attitude data, scaling technique and item formats.
Method of Data Collection. Prior to the decision to construct
an attitude scale, alternative data collection methods were considered.
The options included were: Q-methodology, which is more useful in
research on individuals (Jackson and Bidwell, 1959); card sorting,
which was deemed impractical for administration within the field setting
(Cataldo, et al., 1970); interviewing, which would not fulfill the
purposes of organization-wide assessment of attitudes; direct behavioral
observation, which would not produce a permanent, distributable instru
ment and suffers from the changes of inaccurately inferring underlying
attitudes from actions (Edwards, 1957); and the semantic differen
tial, which risks loss of interest and ambiguous interpretation of its
adjective pairs (Anderson, 1981). The attitude scale method was
selected as offering the most practical, easily-accepted and distribu
table instrument format for comparing QWL attitudes (Shaw and Wright,
1967).
Scaling Technique. The Likert method of summated ratings
(Likert, 1932) and Thurstone's (19 6) method of equal-appearing inter
vals were considered as potential scaling techniques for the study.
These have been acknowledged as the most commonly used and oldest
options (Edwards, 1957; Guilford, 195 ; Anderson, 1981). Most experts
agree that the few advances accompanying the newer, more complex
procedures offered by Guttman, Coombs, Lazarsfeld, and others do not
overshadow the elegance and effectiveness of these earlier, simpler
approaches (Remmers, 195*0.
The use of Thurstone's differentiated method, the oldest scaling
technique (Goldberg, 1955), would have demanded prior ranking of each
potential item on its degree of favorableness toward QWL by 50-100
judges drawn from the study sample. Statements with the least variance
between judgments would be retained and assigned a scale value based on
their computed median positions on an 11-point scale, indicating the
items' strength of favorability when they are endorsed (Millward, n.d.).
Final scale items would be arranged along the supposed underlying atti
tude continuum, separated from one another by equal intervals (Kerlin-
ger, 1973). The respondent would select those items with which he or
she agrees, whose scale values would then be averaged to yield the i
global attitude score.
Likert's method consists of a set of attitude statements, all
of approximately equal attitude value (either very favorable or very
unfavorable), as opposed to Thurstone's use of items all along the
agreement continuum. The respondent indicates the intensity and direc
tion of his or her attitude toward each statement by selecting from a
number of categories, typically five or seven, along a continuum from
"strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" (Kerlinger, 1973). Each cate
gory carries a weighted numerical score, which is summated with all
others or summated and averaged to produce the total scale score.
Utilizing no judges, Likert's approach involves the application
of item analysis procedures from educational test construction
70
methodology (Pidgeon and Yates, 1968) to the first set of responses.
Each item is examined for its ability to differentiate between people
with favorable attitudes and those with unfavorable attitudes. The
simplest method of item analysis is to calculate the mean value of re
sponses for each item from groups obtaining the highest and lowest total
scores, with the upper and lower ten percent, 15 percent, or 27 percent
being the common cut-offs to designate the criterion groups. State
ments which clearly discriminate between these criterion groups are
retained (Remmers, 195*0• More sensitive, complex discrimination
indices include the phi, tetrachoric and point biserial coefficients-
(Thorndike, 1978), and Cronbach's (1951) alpha coefficient of internal
consistency. Cronbach's alpha, used for this study, interrelates each
item with every other, and is based upon the notion that any item in
the scale should receive responses consistent with all other scale
statements.
Millward (n.d.) has summarized the basic steps of Likert's
techniques as including:
1. Collection of a large pool of statements reflecting an under
lying attitude toward the psychological object, which are administered
to a pilot group of at least 100 respondents;
2. Assignment of score values to each response by deciding whether
a high scale score (seven) is to reflect favorableness or unfavorable-
ness, and designation of the contingent score of seven or one, respec
tively;
3. Determination of the reliability of each item; and
k. Item selection of those which differentiate individuals with
favorable attitudes from those with unfavorable attitudes, based upon
an item analysis and internal consistence.
Thus, two features of Likert items are: (1) that they represent
either the positive or negative pole of the underlying attitude con
tinuum, and (2) that they yield responses which are consistent with the
sum total responses, as determined by significant correlation between
the statement and the total scale score (Anderson, 1981).
The Likert technique was selected over the Thurstone method
because the former is typically viewed as less laborious, easier for
developing suitable items (Anderson, 1981; Hall, 193*0, most useful and
adaptable in behavioral research (Kerlinger, 1973; Lemon, 1973), and
not necessitating the use of judges. The Likert and more burdensome
Thurstone technique correlate highly, producing similar results (Ker
linger, 1973). Each has reliabilities typically in the .80's (Thurstone,
19 6), but Likert scales generally lead to scores with a slightly higher
reliability for fewer items (Guilford, 195*0 • Finally, the Likert
approach was favored for its rapidity of scoring (Napior, 1972) and its
provision of an intensity response, which indicates the degree of
agreement or disagreement with each statement.
Item Format. The item format for statements was, as is always
the case, dictated by the scaling method. Items were formulated so as
to conform to the Likert format of expressing attitudes at either
pole of the attitude continuum, with a range of optional responses for
each item.
72
Every item initially had a "paired opposite," a counterpart that
was simply reversed in wording, requiring an opposite direction of re
sponse to express the same opinion (i.e., "I like QWL" and "I dislike
QWL"). This practice was intended to remove two types of bias in which
response selection is based upon influences other than item content.
Position bias is based upon the positioning that the selected response
category has on the page (right, left, or center) and yeasaying-
naysaying bias occurs when the statement is given automatic agreement
or disagreement (Cataldo, et al., 1967). The use of a paired opposite
for every item was abandoned because this method led to an inappropri
ately large (200) item pool. Also, there is little statistical evi
dence that paired opposites actually provide opposite meanings or
prevent response bias (Sabers, personal communication, 1981).
A simpler, more popular deterrent to response set bias was
adopted (Scott, 1968), the formulation of both favorable and unfavor
able attitude statements, without devising an exact paired opposite for
each item. A pool of items was produced with 39 positively criterial
and J+5 negatively criterial statements. The Pilot Form length was
decreased by one-half, and response bias was satisfactorily prevented.
Positively criterial items were worded so that an individual highly
favorable toward QWL would respond with the lowest weight category,
"Strongly Agree." The negatively criterial items would require the
same QWL-enthusiast to respond with the highest weight category,
"Strongly Disagree," as exemplified below.
73
a> «J <D a> 0) t, 60
a) a) ho as U 0> tfl 10 S> b (0 -H < ho -H a
<c Q >5 <D f>> I—( O pH O fl> rH he -P a) -P h bO c e u E c c o a) « +> t3 (0 o U £ C 3 c 10 u *> ho 4) <a <u -H -p W < E-I Z EH O W
(Positively Criterial Item) "OWL should be continued at any cost." 2 3 k 5 6 7
(Negatively Criterial Item) "QWL should be banished from this Department." 1 2 3 4 5 6 (j,
Each item was adapted to a seven-point Likert format (Strongly
Agree, Agree, Tend to Agree, Neutral, Tend to Disagree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree). The most favorable response, "Strongly Agree," had
a value of "1", with "7" corresponding to the "Strongly Disagree" cate
gory.
The range of options for the number of response categories has
been presented by Anderson (1981), and disagreement exists regarding
the best choice. Mattell and Jacoby (1971) suggest the optimal number
of rating categories as that beyond which no further improvement occurs
in discrimination of rated items. Sellitz's claim that "within limits,
the reliability of a scale increases as the number of possible alterna
tive responses is increased" (Millward, n.d., p. 1) is endorsed by
Stauffer (197*0, but others believe that this proposition is not
supported in practice (Mattell and Jacoby, 1971; Wesman, 1971). Since
five and seven categories have been used most frequently, the seven-
point item format was selected to provide maximum discriminating
ability.
7*+
Item Writing and Editing
Wesman (1971) reviews studies pertaining to item writing, com
menting about the role of later item analysis in deleting poor and
ambiguous items. He cautions that "item analysis in no way lessens the
skill and care requisite in the original item writing" (Wesman, 1971,
p. 8l). Writers like Ebel (1951)1 Shaw and Wright (1967) and Kerlinger
(1973) offer guidelines for proper writing of attitude statements, and
Edwards' (1957) popular summarization draws together the work of the
most prominent test developers. Items chosen to comprise the OWL AS
Pilot Form were filtered through Edwards' criteria for item-writing,
and were subsequently subjected to editing for clarity, style and
brevity.
Writing. This initial writing followed Edwards' (1957, pp. 13-
1k) requirements for each item to be non-factual, or it might be
accepted equally by respondents favorably and unfavorably inclined
toward OWL; short and to-the-point; unambiguous, so that response is
clearly a statement about one's OWL attitude; clear of any "double
barrel" phrasing about more than one issue per item; simple, clear and
direct in its language; free of universal attitudes likely to be
accepted or rejected by all; devoid of double negatives or complex sen
tences; and free of words like "no", "never", "always", and "all."
First Draft Check. Revisions were made based upon feedback
elicited from experts, regarding the items' representativeness of the
range of potential OWL attitudes and their fulfillment of criteria for
adequate wording. The panel consisted of a professor of Educational
Psychology who is expert in measurement, the principle OWL consultant
who is expert in OWL substantive areas, and an MBA student having exten
sive contact with OWL committee members. The edited items were then
categorized into their respective subscales and forwarded to a second
panel consisting of ten judges. Although their input primarily re- -
volved around the content validation sorting described below, further
input on proper wording was solicited.
Content Validity Sorting by Judges
While confirmatory factor analysis provided tests to verify the
rationally based grouping of items into subscales, a panel of judges
sorted the items by content, further assuring a substantial, represen
tative body of inventory content.
Panel Selection. Four judges, expert in QWL concepts and pro
cesses, included the principle QWL consultant, the Pima County Depart
ment of Transportation O.WL Coordinator and two graduate students
involved in the QWL project. Six "non-expert" judges consisted of two
MBA students, a Ph.D. candidate in Counseling and Guidance, a Ph.D.
candidate in Clinical Psychology, a professor of Counseling and Guidance
and the study's computer programmer.
Material Preparation. Instructions described OWL, explained
the subscale definitions and gave criteria for item classification
(see Appendix F). A shuffled deck of cards, each one displaying one of
the pilot statements, was provided with a labeled envelope for each
subscale. Judges were also asked to evaluate item ambiguity by circling
each as "favorable," "unfavorable," or "undecided," depending upon which
76
disposition it appeared to reflect toward OWL. Finally, input was
invited from judges regarding wording and clarity.
Results and Revisions. Frequencies and percentages were figured
on tally sheets and decisions were made about item inclusion and re
visions based on Kahn's (1951) 70 percent criterion of consensus of
agreement among judges. This sorting decreased ambiguity and increased
content validity. Forty-three items underwent revisions, because only
five subscales showed 70 percent consensus. Factor analysis was later
used to again explore subscale groupings.
Questionnaire Design
The 8*+ finalized items which comprised the OWLAS Pilot Form were
put in random order and printed, along with biographical data and other
items discussed below. Appendix G presents the QWLAS Pilot Form as
administered in the Pima County Department of Transportation, with the
addition of asterisks here to indicate items which were scored in
reverse.
Randomizing Item Order. The 8k Likert items, upon feedback and
final revisions, were randomly drawn from a hat to determine their
order on the Pilot Form. A cross-reference list indicated each item's
number as it appeared upon the Scale and its sequencing on a master
list of items by subscale groupings (see Appendices H and I). The
random ordering spread items of similar focus throughout the scale and
served as a check on "honesty of efforts" (Kahn, 1951), since negatively
and positively criterial items were interspersed. It was hoped that
randomization would lower "fakeability" (Scott and Rohrbach, 1977) and
"social desirability" of responses (Anderson, 1981).
Enlistment of Support Services. During instrument design, it
was necessary to contract the services of a statistician, computer pro
grammer, key puncher, and typist. They saw the Scale before it was
reproduced, in order to provide relevant input, such as optimal data
formatting for key punching and necessary statistical planning.
Additional Non-Likert Items. The non-Likert items of the Scale
were written or used from other sources. Reddin*s (1970) nine-point
continuum was utilized as a self-rating by respondents (Item 93) of
their overall attitude toward OWL, referred to as the Change Acceptance
Scale (CAS), and shown as Figure 1 below. The CAS was later used as an
index to explore the concurrent validity of the QWLAS by correlating
the two measures. Additional bio-data items (9 -102) elicited informa
tion on respondents' sex, age, education, ethnicity, job classification,
and OWL status (see Appendix G). Finally, "Gap-score" items (85-92)
were intended to determine the difference between a respondent's per
ception of desired and actual levels of autonomy and participation at
the workplace.
Attitude Scale Format and Finalization. Finalization of the
design of the QWLAS Pilot Form included writing the general instructions
and directions for specific items, choosing wording for response cate
gories, arranging the graphics of the instrument, and determining paper
color, print size, and procedures for duplication (see Appendix G).
93. It's natural that we all have different attitudes and reactions toward OWL. In fact, each person in this organization fits somewhere along the range of words shown below. Please place a check {>/) mark in the one box that best describes your own attitudes, feelings and behaviors towards QWL.
Sabotage Protests Slowdowns Apathy Indifference Acceptance Support Cooperation Commitment
1), as well as ethnicity significant effects (p< .05, F = 3.8 , df = 3).
On Factor Two (Specific Concerns), only committee seat effects were
significant (p<.05, F = 5.85, df = 1). On the total Long Form scores,
132
ethnicity effects were again significant at the p<r.05 level (F = 3.52,
df = 3)» as well as committee seat effects (p <.01, F = 10.63, df = 1).
Tables 25, 26, and 27 report one-way Analysis of Variance
results for Committee Seat and show that significant differences did
exist on the General, Specific Concerns and Total Long Form scores.
On Factor One, the group holding a committee seat had a mean of 3.17,
more favorable in QWL attitude than those not holding a committee seat
(M = 3«77). The Factor Two respective means were 3.89 and k.k6. Total
Scale means revealed the same directions, with groups achieving corre
sponding means of 3.56 and 4.17.
The significant difference in means between committee seat
holders and non-committee seat holders (p< .002, p<.00if, p <.0005) for
the two subscales and total scores for OWLAS Long Form contributed to
the instrument's construct validity. It was sensible to expect
employees elected to a QWL committee seat to demonstrate more favorable
attitudes toward the program and higher QWLAS scores if the Scale is
measuring the construct it claims to. Greater exposure to a program
improves attitudes, as opposed to its remaining an enigma to distrust
ful employees. Furthermore, Festinger's (1957) principles of cognitive
dissonance provide a theoretical rationale for committee seat members
expressing more favorable attitudes toward QWL. Dissonance theory
would maintain that QWL-involved employees, even those elected against
their initial wishes, would become more favorable in order to reduce
the psychological tension of what would otherwise be a discrepancy
between their attitudes and their public behavior. Thus, construct
133
Table 25. Analysis of variance on the committee seat variable for subscale (Factor) One, General.
Source Sum of Squares D.F. , Mean Square F P
Between groups 12.655 1 12.655 9.687 .0022
Within groups 195-958 150 1.306
Table 26. Analysis of variance on the committee seat variable subscale (Factor) Two, Specific Concerns.
for
Source Sum of Squares D.F. Mean Square F P
Between groups 11.267 1 11.267 8.732 .0036
Within groups 193•5 7 150 1.290
Table 27. Analysis of variance on the committee seat variable for total Long Form.
Source Sum of Squares D.F. Mean Square F P
Between groups 12.829
Within groups 15 150
1
150
12.829 12.1+83 .0005
1.028
13
validity evidence stemmed from committee seat variable differences in
QWLAS scores.
Since overall main effects for ethnicity were significant be
tween groups, LSD multiple range procedures from the SPSS package were
used to test which pairs of ethnicity groups achieved differences.
Blacks (N = 5) were significantly more favorable (p<.05) than Whites
(N = 6*0 and Indians (N = 3) on Factor One, and significantly more
favorable (p<.05) than Whites, Mexican-Americans (N = 6*0 and Indians
on the total scale. On Factor One, Mexican-Americans scored signifi
cantly more favorably (p<.05) than Indians, but no other significant
findings occurred (note: Oriental ethnicity was omitted since its
sample of one did not comprise a true group).
No differences between ethnic groups were specifically expected
during construct validation, as were hoped for with the straightforward
variable of committee seat. However, Blacks demonstrated more favor
able attitudes toward the OWL, a program that attempts to equalize
decision-making power in the workplace and increases the participatory
rights and respect shown each grass roots worker.
This more positive disposition of Blacks toward the program is
explainable as due to the group's historical roots in equality-based
civil rights efforts. The greater appeal of QWL to Blacks can be
accounted for by an assumed awareness of, and affinity for, such social
movements seeking to humanize and improve the conditions of life for
minority groups. Further research could prove helpful in such theo
retical explorations, but the key focus of this study was the empirical
field testing of the QWLAS.
135
Summary
The QWLAS Long Form and QWLAS Short Form appeared to be excel
lent measures of attitude towards QWL programs. While principal factors
analysis yielded 21 factors rotated to a varimax solution, one strong
General and a second strong Specific Concerns factor existed, with no
evidence for utility of the original Ik subscales. Although the
General factor accounted for the most variance and was most related to
the total scale, the Specific Concerns factor warranted inclusion in
the final test, especially given its moderate correlation with Factor
One and its negatively criterial nature, useful in reducing response
bias.
Cronbach's alpha estimates of internal consistency produced
Long and Short Form coefficients of .95 and .93» respectively, as com
pared to the .96 value for the QWLAS Pilot Form. Reliability estimates
for the two factors were high enough in each form to warrant their use
as separate subscales. A third factor, labeled Control Scale, emerged
as a separate personality construct, different from QWL attitude (alpha=
.89). Evidence for face, content, concurrent, and construct validity,
of the QWLAS Long and Short Forms appeared strong.
The final QWLAS Long Form and Short Form are summarized in
Table 28, with their respective alpha coefficients, validity coeffi
cients, and Pearson Product Moment correlations with the 8*4—item Pilot
Form. The Long Form was found to actually raise the validity of the
QWLAS as compared with the Pilot version. Organizations employing the
QWLAS Long or Short form have cause for trusting the instrument's
136
Table 28. Summary table for OWLAS.
Form Number
of Items Alpha CAS
Correlation
Correlation with
Pilot Form
OWLAS Pilot Form 84 .96 .72 1.00
QWLAS Long Form 29 .95 .73 .96
QWLAS Short Form l b .93 .69 .94
Control Scale* 7 .89 •3/+ .51
•Not included in QWLAS.
137
reliability and validity. Appendices L and M present each version in
its final form, with randomly-determined item order and identical
instructions as those employed in the Pilot Form.
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The emergence and growth of the Quality of Working Life (QWL)
movement in this country is the culmination of a variety of social,
economic, political, and technological developments which cultivate
fertile ground for this workplace reform that institutionalizes employee
participation and democratization. This study focused upon the con
struct of worker attitudes toward this new concept of organizational
change.
The study's main purpose was to develop and field test the
Quality of Working Life Attitude Scale (QWLAS), because existing litera
ture showed a gap in QWL evaluation and research of instruments tapping
the important variable of employees' attitudes toward the change pro
gram itself. Four major research questions were formulated, and their
resolution served as objectives to be reached through construction and
pilot-testing of an 84-item, Likert-type inventory: (1) What basic
factors comprise the concept of QWL attitude as measured by the QWLAS?;
(2) What items can comprise the final QWLAS Long Form and Short Form
without significantly lowering scale reliability?; (3) Is the QWLAS a
reliable psychological instrument?; and (4) Is the QWLAS a valid
psychological instrument?
138
139
A broad-based perspective was gained through a review of general
research on attitude theory, attitude change, and psychometric measure
ment. The more esoteric attitude assessment literature provided
specific methodological guidance toward the selection of instrument and
item formats, construction of the actual Scale, and statistical obser
vations required for field testing and validation.
Originally, fourteen rationally-determined subscales formed a
conceptual framework for the inventory and provided content validity,
based upon a theoretical OWL schemata postulated by Herrick (198la), a
pioneer in these joint labor-management workplace democratization ex
periments. An initial pool of attitude statements around this classi
fication system was generated from a variety of sources, including the
involvement of the research subjects and literature consultation.
Through extensive filtering of the OWL statements through attitude scale
writing criteria, screening, and editing, as well as a content-based
sorting by a panel of judges, the 84-item QWLAS Pilot Form was final
ized, consisting of 39 positively worded and negatively worded items.
The Pilot QWLAS was distributed to 303 employees in the Depart
ment of Transportation and Flood Control District of Pima County of
Tucson, Arizona, following approval of proposed procedures by the
University Human Subjects Committee. The completed attitude scales of
179 respondents indicated the sample's mixture of demographic variables,
including subjects of varying ethnic origins, years of experience within
the County, degrees of current involvement in the OWL program, levels
of education and job classifications. Psychometric data were statisti
cally treated using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
I<t0
(Nie and Hull, 1975) in order to answer the research queries about
underlying QWLAS factor structure, appropriate Long and Short Forms,
Scale reliability and Scale validity.
Confirmatory factor analysis employed a principal factors analy
sis with a varimax rotation, as well as coefficient alpha tests of
internal consistency and subscale intercorrelations, and revealed that
the initial rationally devised subscales did not possess sufficient
factoral validity, homogeneity, or statistical independence to warrant
their being kept intact for the final forms.
Exploratory factor analysis surfaced 21 factors with eigen
values over 1.00, but only two of these emerged as strong factors with
five or more items loading at the .50 level or greater. The first of
these two interpretable factors was established as involving a more
general attitude about the theory of the OWL program, appropriately
labeled the General Subscale, consisting of 17 positively criterial
items. The second subscale, entitled Specific Concerns, consisted of
12 negatively criterial items tapping attitudes toward more specific
realities of the program's existence. This basic structure is congruent
with the notion that individuals tend to have one set of reactions
toward a program in theory, which are usually mitigated by a second set
of sentiments which take into account the more practical, everyday im
pacts of the change effort.
A third weaker factor, the Control Scale, emerged as an inter
nally consistent personality construct believed to be separate from OWL
attitude and potentially useful for assessing an emotional dimension
related to QWL acceptance. Several extensive item analysis procedures
lk l
applied to the 29 items in the Long Form led to a 14-item Short Form
which yielded scores on the same two factorally-determined subscales,
as well as a Total Score. While appearing as separate constructs in
the factor analysis, the researcher does not recommend the use of the
Scale's two components as separate subscales for diagnostic purposes;
rather, the balance of the QWLAS is believed to be maintained through
the intact use of the entire instrument.
Cronbach's alpha estimate of reliability yielded high coeffi
cients of .96, .95, and .93 for the Pilot Form, Long Form, and Short
Form, respectively. Furthermore, the General and Specific Concerns
Subscales each demonstrated high alpha coefficients of .9 and .92 for
the Long Form, and .91 and .88 for the Short Form.
All forms were reviewed favorably against face, content, con
current and construct validity. Subjects from the Department of Trans
portation participated in decisions involving selection of Scale state
ments, contributing to content and face validity. Statistically
significant correlations were found between QWLAS means and respondents'
self-ratings of their QWL attitudes on Reddin's (1970) Change Accep
tance Scale applied to QWL, showing a high degree of concurrent
criterion validity. Construct validation was evidenced by Analysis of
Variance tests, which revealed that the QWLAS discriminated markedly
among subjects by OWL committee seat status and ethnicity.
Limitations
The restrictions of the study influenced the conclusions, and
assisted in formulating recommendations for further research.
142
1. The Likert summated rating format of the Quality of Working Life
Attitude Scale means that there is no absolute value of a score on any
psychological continuum underlying the Scale. That is, there is no
"real meaning" of the attitude score independent of the scores' distri
bution for this group of subjects, because the items were not scaled
according to how favorable they were toward OWL. Thus, the neutral
point is unknown and interpretation is limited to group attitude pat
terns.
2. No control for representative sampling was achieved on any of
the biographical, independent variables because sample procurement was
based solely upon personnel pool characteristics that prevailed in the
field setting. Some sampling bias occurred, as in any questionnaire-
based study, since results were based only upon members of the popula
tion who were willing to complete and return the Scale.
3. A major limitation of this study lies in its minimal sample size
for the factor analysis portions of treatment of the data. Kerlinger
(1973) suggests ten items for every subject, and an even less stringent
criterion for a subject pool of 2-1/2 times the number of items was not
realized (Powers, 1982).
k. No measure was employed to tap the extent to which respondents
answered in ways they thought socially desirable. Reynolds and Greco
(1980) have noted that in the measurement of attitudes toward socially
potent stimuli, this response bias of social desirability can confound
results. This drawback may be even more prevalent in a field setting
as opposed to academic environments.
3A3
5. Completion rate was undoubtedly decreased because of the length
of the QWLAS Pilot Form demanded in the field-testing stage; presumed
resentment by some workers of anything connected with QWL, thereby in
troducing sampling bias into the results; and the mailing-type distri
bution for the Divisions of Operations and Field Engineering, which also
may have produced less concentration on the task than is assumed for
respondents administered the Scale in meetings with the researcher.
Additionally, some.subjects complained of frustration with the small
print chosen for paper conservation and the overly-sophisticated wording
of some items, hindering comprehension. The expressed distrust of
management most likely influenced the high omission rate for the personal
bio-data sections, due to fear of being identified by the organization.
6. The content-based sorting by judges of the pilot items into
their original subscales occurred only once, before revisions. A
second sorting and reported percentages of categorization agreement
would have been desirable, even though the Subscales were disconfirmed
for many reasons beyond this inter-judge sorting.
7. The Change Acceptance Scale (CAS) used for concurrent valida
tion should have been administered before the 8 Likert-styled items,
so that it could have been independently responded to before respon
dents' thoughts were stimulated by the content of the other attitude
statements. Also, it would have been helpful to use judges to sort the
order of the CAS verbal cue words ("Protests," "Apathy," "Support,"
etc.), so as to anchor the continuum's ordering on an empirical, rather
than intuitive basis.
Ikk
8. Weighting of the response categories with higher numerical
weights corresponding to more favorable OWL attitudes ("Strongly Agree")*
rather than this study's higher weight on "Strongly Disagree," would
have facilitated score discussions associating higher scores with a
more positive disposition toward QWL.
9. The Gap Scores (Items 85-92) were omitted from statistical
treatments due to their impracticability. These items were to have been
calculated by subtracting a subject's response weight on Part A of the
item from Part B, but the variety of response patterns that could lead
to the same resultant Gap Score rendered interpretation unwieldy and
ambiguous. Other more easily manipulatable indices should be substi
tuted for concurrent validity, such as the CAS.
Recommendations for Scale Development
The above limitations have implications for the development of
the QWLAS which are outlined below, along with additional suggestions
for strengthening the psychometric properties of the instrument.
The validity evidence described in this study can be even
further improved through continued validation, recommended for any
experimental scale. Factor analysis replication studies are required
to verify the two-factor results of this study. Larger and different
samples are suggested for cross-validation of the QWLAS.
Future research designs need to explore the factor results of
this study to determine whether the true source of variance is due to
the factors' labeled General and Specific Concern nature or, in fact,
due to their positively criterial versus negatively criterial wording.
The first factor's theoretical focus and second factor's more
3>5
operational focus may influence the direction of wording characterizing
the items loading on each respective factor, but any such relationship
is not explained by this study's findings.
Greater construct and criterion-related validation are necessary,
both of the predictive and concurrent variety, and the multi-trait-
multi-method matrix ideal of Campbell and Fiske (1967) can be a "north
star" in QWL attitude research. Concurrent validation is needed using
overt behavioral measures such as supervisor ratings of worker involve
ment in QWL, comparisons among groups for number of regular QWL meetings,
proposal generation and similar criteria.
Within the framework of this initial validation study, experi
mental studies are further warranted to ascertain the sensitivity of
the QWLAS to QWL attitude change during longitudinal studies. Addi
tional exploration of construct validity is encouraged, through other
personality measures, such as authoritarianism, previously related to
QWL acceptance (Herrick, 1975). The Control Scale, which emerged in
this field testing as a separate factor with high reliability (.89),
needs to be related to authoritarianism (F-scales) and investigated for
its use in further research, since it may represent an underlying
personality trait, as well as being QWL-specific.
Future research could benefit from concurrent administration of
the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale (Crowne and Marlowe, i960)
in order to rule out social approval as a variable in subjects' re
sponses. Similarly, research is needed to isolate attitudes toward
change in general as discriminated from attitudes specific to a QWL
change effort; therefore, some sort of "rigidity" or related measure
146
needs to be administered as part of the validation battery. Naturally,
such extended test administration may not be feasible in field settings
due to the time involved. Nevertheless, research should be conducted
in academic settings, as well as those organizations willing to partici
pate in the interest of advancing research in the OWL movement.
More rigorous sampling controls are recommended, possibly
through coding respondents' inventories, since such procedures would
facilitate test-retest and longitudinal assessment of OWL attitudes.
Additionally, while the original subscales were disconfirmed in this
initial QWLAS field testing and validation, some of these clusters, if
more items are written, may demonstrate better reliability and a sepa
rate factor structure, as did the Control Scale in this sample.
Recommendations for Scale Use
Prospective users of the QWLAS need to take heed of Anastasi's
(1968) regard of most attitudes scales as experimental in their status
(Anastasi, 1968, p. 487) and, as such, the QWLAS should not be used for
predictive purposes, at least until after future validation. QWLAS use
for investigation of pre-post organizational attitudes and ongoing
assessment of OWL acceptance does seem warranted, particularly on a
group basis, since concurrent validity has been established. Further
research questions have been provoked by the ethnicity findings and lack
of expected differences along job classification lines. Additional
theoretical explorations are suggested by demographic variable results,
such as blue collar-white collar differences, impact of education on
OWL attitudes and supervisor versus grass-roots worker reactions.
1^7
Program practitioners are urged to consider attitude scale
administration as a tool in facilitating QWL acceptance, since the OWLAS
can assist in targeting particular components of the system needing
attention in orientation, follow-up training and system maintenance.
Of course, the substantive nature of specific questions will temper the
utility of the OWLAS for this purpose, and program evaluators deviating
from the suggested items in the QWLAS Long Form and Short Form, in
order to discover reactions to a particular aspect of interest, should
attend to the item analysis data for each item they employ. Beyond the
addressing of content-specific dimensions, the opportunity for ventila
tion of attitudes and data feedback to employees may be healthy for
adjustment to any organizational change.
Determining the effects of the measurement process itself upon
subsequent data collected is difficult, as discussed by Salancik and
Pfeffer (1978). They warn that "measuring attitudes calls attention
to problems that otherwise may have had only minor salience or may not
have existed at all" (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978, p. 2 2). This danger
of actually creating attitudes, especially negative ones, is mitigated
by the Scale's including one-half positively criterial and one-half
negatively criterial items.
Conclusions
The intent behind this study was to advance the "state of the
art" of research in the Quality of Working Life (QWL) movement taking
place on the American work scene, through the construction and field
testing of an instrument for assessing the OWL-related attitudes of
organization members. The psychometric data observed through pilot
148
testing of an 84-item, Likert-style attitude scale suggest that one such
tool, the OWLAS, does reliably and validly discriminate among individ
uals holding favorable versus unfavorable OWL dispositions.
QWL, as a joint union-management venture electing mutual benefit
problem-solving committees on which both labor and management sit in
equal representation, has shown promise through various experiments
across this country since its 1972 inception. The importance of OWL as
a type of workplace reform is increased in these times of economic
stagnation, crisis in worker alienation, and ineffectiveness of adver
sarial union-management relations in improving productivity and human
izing working conditions. The breakneck pace of change worsens the
situation, increasing environmental turbulence and complexity. This
need for tapping the wellspring of worker resources in solving work
place problems is accompanied by a timely evolution toward less auto
matic subservience and greater equality and participative influence by
persons of different status in all spheres of society.
It would be folly to automatically assume QWL enthusiasm on the
part of all employees of an organization contemplating the initiation
of such a cooperative democratization project. The installation of QWL
committee structures is accompanied by its social-emotional climate,
which has great impact on the prognosis of the program. Availability
of a reliable, valid indicator of QWL attitudes, such as the OWLAS, is
important for forwarding the growth of such projects, especially given
the thread of participation-based involvement running through OWL's
philosophy, procedures and structures.
1^9
QWL's democratic directions and broader, macro-organizational
ramifications render it no less than a true social movement, beyond
interpersonally-focused organizational change efforts which are typi
cally micro-organizational in their scope. Comprising such a social
movement, QWL's extension of democracy, evolution of social responsi
bility, and cultivation of a participatory democratic consciousness
require the kind of attitude measurement Remmers (195*0 deems critical
for any "science of society" (Remmers, 195*S P» 16). It is therefore
hoped that organizations and academia will experiment with the QWLAS
or similar instruments to further establish the research sophistication
of investigating individual and group attitudes toward Quality of Work
ing Life endeavors. Attitude scales tapping the intensity of one's
attitude are desirable for research purposes.
Practitioners of organizational development have typically been
tunnel-visioned in their "bottom-line" focus on economic outcomes of a
program, ignoring the dynamics of change, as could be explored through
the QWLAS's focus on attitudes toward an intervention. Organizations
may additionally benefit from the adoption of the QWLAS: at program
outset to assess the climate for change; throughout the program to
"take the pulse" of workers on an ongoing basis; over the course of a
project, monitoring the longitudinal appeal of the experiment; and
possibly as a diagnostic and predictive tool.
APPENDIX A
MEANS-END RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE
Courtesy of N. Q. Herrick
150
MEANS END
Process Organizational Policies
Requisite Operational Working Conditions
Areas of Effectiveness
Adversary Collective Bargaining
Security
Equity
Mutual Benefit Bargaining
Decentralization.
X y Education —> Democratization-
k Cooperative self-interest
Individuation
Participation
Human Effectiveness
Organizational -Effectiveness
Political Effectiveness
Human
IWell-
Being
Adversary Collective Bargaining: This is the process through which unions bargain with employers to agree upon wages and working conditions. The Taft-Hartly Act gives most private sector employees the right to organize and engage in this process.
Mutual Benefit Bargaining: This is a proposed process through which unions and employers could reach contractual agreement on matters which are in the best interests of both. Already, some unions and employers engaged in joint quality of working life experiments are developing non-enforceable memoranda of understanding dealing with such matters.
Education: An education policy assures that every employee is provided with opportunities for mastering his own job, preparing himself for higher-level jobs, and obtaining the knowledge and skills which he needs in order to participate, directly and indirectly, in the management of the enterprise.
Cooperative Self-interest: To pursue a policy of cooperative self-interest is to develop and install systems which reward all members of a group for the quantity and quality of the group's activity. For larger groups of up to 1500 persons, the most appropriate rewards are economic (i.e., productivity sharing). For smaller subgroups of from 10-50 persons, the rewards are generally non-economic (e.g., feedback, recognition, competence development). For maximum effectiveness, cooperative self-interest should function at both levels.
Decentralization: Decentralization is the delegation of authority to make decisions to the lowest appropriate organizational level. When authority is delegated below the lowest formal organizational level to individual workers or to groups of workers, the working conditions thereby presented are termed respectively individuation and participation.
Democratization: A democratization policy provides the worker with a structure through which he can influence his working environment. In this essay the term refers specifically to the recent U.S. practices of establishing (a) worker-supervisor committees for each organization and at each organizational level and (b) problem-solving teams crossing organizational boundaries. It refers only to situations where the worker members of such committees and teams represent and are elected by constituencies of their fellow workers.
Security: Security is present in the workplace to the extent the worker is free from anxiety concerning his health, safety, income adequacy and job security.
Equity: Equity exists to the extent a work system is fair in terms of promotions, assignments, compensation, work standards and the absence of discriminatory practices.
Individuation: Individuation is present in the form of opportunities. The worker has opportunities for increasing his autonomy, knowledge, skills, the portion of a product or service which he produces, and the extent to which his job satisfies his desire for craftmanship.
Participation: Participation is an activity enabled and promoted by a democratization policy. It is of two sorts: direct and indirect. Direct participation is present in the work group when the first-level supervisor has delegated authority to the group to make operational decisions. It is also present for worker representatives, since they present their own as well as their fellows' views in committee and team meetings. Indirect participation exists where rank and file workers exert influence through their elected representatives.
Organizational Effectiveness: An organization is effective when it is able to survive over an extended period of time, provide useful goods and/or services to the public, produce these goods and services in an efficient manner, and provide economically, physically and psychologically enriching employment to its members.
Human Effectiveness: This is a person* s ability to control his immediate environment through direct action. Conditions such as individuation and direct participation make it possible for him to exercise this competence at work. They also tend to strengthen this competence so that it can be exercised in a person's non-work life.
Political Effectiveness: A person is politically effective when he is able to influence his environment through exercising control over the political system. Experience gained in controlling one's representatives at work can contribute to one's effectiveness in local and national politics.
Human Well-being: The end of work and, indeed, of all human activity, is intellectual, physical and emotional pleasure which is induced by one's own activity and which harms no-one else. This pleasure is assisted by favorable external (i.e., economic and
environmental) circumstances and arises, in part, from contributions made to the pleasure of others through one's cooperative activity (Herrick, 198la).
APPENDIX B
PIMA QUESTIONNAIRE*
•Permission granted by the author, Neal 0. Herrick.
155
PIMA COUNTY QWL QUESTIONNAIRE
Introduction
As part of your QWL program, the University of Arizona QWL staff is collecting information on working condi
tions, satisfaction, services to the public, and the quality of supervision. In this way we will be able to tell
whether the QWL committee system is on track. We may also be able to provide the QWL committees with
some information which will help them recognize problems to be addressed, and to provide other organizations
with information which may help them in deciding whether or not to have a QWL program. This information,
however, will be aggregated to include large groups of answers. The reason we are asking some "off-the-job"
questions is to see if there is any connection between what happens at work and things like health and
life satisfaction.
Your individual questionnaire will be kept confidential. To assure this confidentiality, we will develop identi
fication numbers for information that does not appear in your employment records. The purpose of these
identification numbers is to enable us to make comparisons of an individual's responses on this questionnaire
with responses to questionnaires he or she may take in the future. Only you will be able to match your name
with a questionnaire identification number. Individual responses to the questions in this booklet will be pro
cessed by computers and will be reported only in summary form. All individual questionnaires will be returned
to the University of Arizona QWL Service Center and will remain there under the confidentiality safeguards of
the Center. It is up to you whether or not you wish to complete this questionnaire. We do, of course, hope that
you participate. However, we want to make sure that everyone who completes a questionnaire does so willingly -
INSTRUCTIONS: Check or circle the answer which describes your situation.
54. Does your organization have a QWL
committee structure?
If "no" skip to question 63.
55. Do you sit on a QWL committee?
56. If "yes" to question 55, what
level (s) ?
i. CZ1 YES
1. cm YES
1. E=• Grass Roots
2. CZ3 Action
2. IZZI NO
2.1 I NO
3.r=n Division
4.CZ3 Department
INSTRUCTIONS: If no to question 55, (if you do not sit on a QWL committe), please circle the answers
which best describe your situation.
57. MY QWL representative keeps me informed
of everything that goes on in Department,
Division, Secion, and Grass Roots QWL
meetings.
58. The QWL committee for my unit works to
help me an my co-workers organize into
teams.
59. My opinions are taken to meetings by my
QWL representative.
60. The QWL committee for my unit makes
proposals to higher management.
61. The QWL committee for my unit works to
make the jobs in my unit more autonomous.
62. The QWL committee for my unit does a good
job of improving things around here.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
M ^3
Whether or not you sit on a QWL committee, please answer the remaining questions.
63. The QWL program as a whole does a good
job of improving services to the public.
64. The QWL program as a whole does a good
job of improving the quality of working
life in this department. 1 2 3 4 5
65. The QWL program spills over into my
"off-the-job" life and makes it better. 1 2 3 4 5
66. In my Department there is always a
problem-solving team made up of
employees and supervisors from
different units working on a
Departmentwide proposal. 1 2 3 4 5
•>3 CD
APPENDIX C
DEPARTMENT HEAD MEMO
179
l8o
PIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1313 SOUTH MISSION ROAD
TELEFHONE
BOARO OP SUPERVISORS BOAPO OP OiRECTOftS
Kate Ouaanotrry 0«"d i S*n Lfna •Hind 2
£ & 'Bwr 0«nei 3
Cento i&frm Dana«
0«mI Yctffltn Oawet S
TUCSON. ARIZONA 85713
(602) 0B2-2S67
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: John M. Bernal, P.E. Thomas P. MoGovern, P.E. John B. Lynch, P.E. Paul F. Steiner, P.E. Mark F. Spies
FROM: C. H. Huckelberry/ Director
DATE: February 4, 1981
RE: Organizational Development Support to QWL System
C M PLS Pg ORECTOfl
Consistent with my efforts to facilitate the adoption of the QWL management system program, I would like you to work cooperatively with Rick Brandon in setting up QWL training programs necessary over the next six to eight months.
While the specific nature of each program will depend upon the individual needs of your Division, I anticipate benefits from a set of initial diagnostic meetings with Rick to occur according to the following schedule:
Division Heads 1J hour mtg wk of 2/8/81 Supervisors 1J hour mtg wk of 2/16/81 Rank St File Workers (without supervisors or
division heads)1$ hour mtg by Division wk of 2/23/81
These meetings will surface interpersonal and inter-group needs that might be addressed by training/ organizational development interventions.
While we need to avoid, to the extent possible, interference with work flow in your Division, X urge you to give priority importance to Rick when he contacts you from the QWL Service Center.
CHH/sv
Highways • Airports • Alternate Modes • Flood Control • Floodplam Management • Engineering and Planning
APPENDIX D
INITIAL GENERAL INVENTORY
Attitude Inventory
From the perspective of your role in the County, what favorable and unfavorable attitudes do you have towards the OWL program?
16. At least QWL sees the need to try to do something about the economic crisis we're all in.
21. In our rapidly changing world, we need some program like QWL to teach us about social values and how to face the future.
25. The public sector has different problems than the kind QWL is meant to handle.
27. QWL should be restricted to production or manufacturing settings.
28. I resent that QWL wrongly assumes that I am turned off to this organization.
^7. This organization needs some way to get employees and supervisors to work together harmoniously for mutual benefits.
63. QWL has a lot of gall to tell us we need to communicate better when we do OK already.
73. White collar employees can benefit from the OWL system being introduced to their organizations.
FAITH
13. QWL programs "toss a bone" to make employees tolerant of management decisions on bigger issues.
15. Employees can be active in a QWL program without being "stooges" selling out workers' interests.
18. QWL is right in getting employees' hopes up for change.
38. The true reasons behind QWL programs include making jobs better and employees happier.
ko. Why should I trust QWL's intentions when other organizations already do the same things without using some special programs?
182
183
4l. OWL is overly optimistic and "cure-all" in its hopes to make a difference.
48. OWL programs are management "cons" to get employees to work harder without more pay.
49. QWL seems realistic in its basic goals of trying to break down barriers between labor and management.
DECENTRALIZATION
9. I like how OWL's delegation of more authority to lower level supervisors makes them better able to share decisions with employees.
76. Delegating authority to lower levels of supervision through QWL would result in chaos and disorder.
8l. OWL's delegation of more authority downwards provides managers and supervisors the opportunity to develop new, more constructive roles.
83. If top management does what QWL suggests and gives lower level supervisors more authority to make decisions, we won't know if things are getting done anymore.
EDUCATION
11. OWL should leave education about budget, personnel and organizational decisions in the hands of management who are trained and paid to deal with these matters.
50. OWL's emphasis on workers learning about their jobs and the organization is asking for trouble since management policies will end up being attacked by know-it-all employees.
79» I appreciate QWL's ideals of educating employees in budget, personnel and organizational matters so that they become valuable resources to the organization.
COOPERATIVE SELF-INTEREST
4-3. OWL increases unnecessary competition between units and divisions by allowing one group to pass a proposal at the expense of another.
55« I like the part of QWL that tries to reward everyone in the group when the work group does well.
65. I support OWL's rewarding everyone in the group even if someone is not pulling his full load.
18k
DEMOCRATIZATION
3. The OWL committee system is flexible enough that we can modify it to our satisfaction.
17. The OWL committee system is too bulky, with another meeting every time I turn around.
20. OWL democratic committee structures prevent leaving cooperative management up to the individual whims of supervisors and managers.
46. All this OWL talk about bringing a democratic committee system to the workplace scares me as being too radical a political idea.
69. The OWL democratic committee structure puts too much control "into the hands of the people."
72. The QWL committee system fits smoothly and compatibly with the existing organizational structure.
7*U There's too much attention given by QWL to rigid procedures, standards and schedules for its committee system.
77. QWL should keep its complex committee structures to guarantee representation at all levels of the organization.
82. The QWL committee system brings too much added bureaucracy into our organization no matter how good its purposes might be.
INDIVIDUATION
10. If OWL gives employees more opportunity for decision-making in how they carry out day-to-day work, we won't be able to tell anymore if things are done right.
23. It's important to me that OWL tries to return a sense of pride to the worker's job by seeing him/her as a craftsperson.
2k. Like QWL, I believe today's more educated and expert employee deserves added freedom to make decisions on the job.
78. I like how OWL seeks to increase freedom and autonomy in everyday work so that all employees can make more of a contribution in their jobs.
PARTICIPATION
22. QWL causes things to get out of hand by offering employees too much participation in decisions about the workplace.
185
53. QWL participation in proposal writing and suggestions sets you up for revenge from other people.
66. QWL's participation directions foolishly give influence and input opportunity to employees who are too lazy to want it.
75. QWL is a healthy opportunity through which employees have more say in expressing concerns, problems and suggestions.
ECONOMIC BENEFITS
k. QWL benefits taxpayers by reducing the cost of public services.
1 . OWL achieves progress on making the organization more efficient.
36. Interested people can find ways to make OWL fit their needs and the time they have available,
*+5. QWL is all talk and no action to improve public services.
57. We should adopt a better, more cost-effective alternative to OWL like a suggestion system.
58. OWL involvement should be accompanied by a reduction in other work demands since there's a time conflict.
62. OWL is superficial "wheel-spinning" unless it can deal with budget-related issues like pay, staffing and benefits.
71. Sure, QWL takes time, but it should be seen as an important part of the way people do their jobs.
HUMAN BENEFITS
2. OWL is all talk and no action to improve working conditions for employees.
5. QWL rounds out my overall work experience, making it more meaningful.
19. QWL hurts morale by adding pressure<>
30. QWL experience in controlling work environment contributes to workers' effectiveness in influencing local and national politics.
J>k. OWL hurts copmunication by creating splits between pro-OWL and anti-OWL groups.
6l. QWL does nothing to increase pleasure in off-the-job life.
186
6k. OWL puts up more communication walls between managers, supervisors and other employees.
70. OWL aids the organization in providing more enriching employment.
60. My relationships with peers have improved through OWL opportunities to discuss and hear their views.
42. OWL is a worthwhile program that should be pursued all the way.
52. Overall, QWL is a desirable thing to have.
8k. If I have any say in the matter, my own involvement with QWL will probably be low.
FUNCTIONING
8. Non-supervisory employees use QWL to try and get out of work.
26. Supervisors use OWL as a way to escape doing their jobs responsibly.
29. Division Heads participate in QWL more out of loyalty to the Department than out of belief in the program.
31. The Board of Supervisors' support for OWL is only lip service.
32. The Department is more committed to the success of QWL than other personnel programs that I've seen come and go.
33. QWL meetings are long, poorly led B.S. sessions.
37. QWL representatives use meetings to air personal gripes instead of bringing the views of fellow workers.
Supervisors see QWL as a valuable aid to doing their jobs even better.
51. QWL representatives do a good job of taking information back to grass roots so that their fellow workers are not kept in the dark.
56. At our QWL meetings everyone shares ideas openly and freely.
59. Our committees send proposals up and down the QWL system effectively and quickly for action at the appropriate level.
187
67. OWL meetings include hostility and personality clashes which stand in the way of getting things done.
IMPLEMENT ATION
1. The organization did a good job of preparing people for QWL long before it arrived, so that many were "on board" before Orientation.
6. Orientation was so abstract and poorly communicated that many employees still do not understand.
7. QWL should involve the vote of everyone on whether it's wanted, or else it's being forced like Big Brother.
12. It's fine with me for QWL to use evaluations and questionnaires to measure its own progress and to understand participant attitudes.
39. The "mob training" approach to QWL orientation should be reorganized into smaller groups.
5 . The outside third party help with QWL was pulled out too soon, leaving us to sink or swim.
68. QWL startup help from an outside consultant is rightfully brought in by labor and management when QWL is introduced.
80. Follow-up training in QWL is valuable in responding to our needs.
CONTROL
10. If QWL gives employees more opportunity for decision-making in how they carry out day-to-day work, we won't be able to tell anymore if things are done right.
11. QWL should leave education about budget, personnel and organizational decisions in the hands of management who are trained and paid to deal with these matters.
22. QWL causes things to get out of hand by offering employees too much participation in decisions about the workplace.
50. OWL's emphasis on workers learning about their jobs and the organization is asking for trouble since management policies will end up being attacked by know-it-all employees.
69. The OWL democratic committee structure puts too much control "into the hands of the people."
Delegating authority to lower levels of supervision through OWL would result in chaos and disorder.
If top management does what OWL suggests and gives lower level supervisors more authority to make decisions, we won't know if things are getting done anymore.
APPENDIX F
JUDGES1 INSTRUCTIONS
INSTRUCTIONS TO JUDGES FOR CLASSIFYING ATTITUDE STATEMENTS
I appreciate your cooperation in the construction of the Quality of Working
Life (QWL) Attitude Scale. "Quality of Working Life" is a phrase used to describe
a variety of organizational structures and managerial approaches, values and processes
for humanizing the workplace. However, here QWL refers to the recent U.S. practice
of utilizing joint labor-management cooperative problem-solving groups for organ
izational change. This institutionalization of employee participation in decision
making occurs through a multi-level committee system that involves both elected
worker representatives and management/supervisor members, thereby weaving democratic
influence into the very structure of the organization. Beyond interview and open-ended inquiry, no systematic assessment method has
been used for understanding the attitudes of groups toward these labor-management
co-determination efforts. My hope is for this scale to become a useful contribution
to research methodology for QWL experiments in Pima County or even throughout the
country. Then we might better be able to "take the temperature" of programs in
progress and to predict the likelihood of program survival in organizations considering
adoption of QWL.
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY
I am not interested in knowing whether or not you agree with each statement.
Instead, I want you to identify each item as being for QWL or against QWL. Whatever
your own opinion of QWL, you should be able to judge a statement as favorable or
unfavorable toward QWL. Please circle one of the three responses on the left side
of each card: "favorable," "unfavorable," or undecided" (if the statement is ambiguous
or if you are in doubt).
Your next job is to classify each attitude statement into ane of the ten content categories, which represent various aspects of QWL programs. It is essential
that you read and understand the meaning of each grouping so that all judges are
sorting the items by the same criteria, not by their own interpretation of what the
category should include. Please read carefully the descriptions of the ten classi
fication groups for items, and how nany items belong in each. Then place each item
in one of the ten envelopes, depending upon which category you think it should fall
under.
There are no right or wrong answers. I am simply interested in the generality
of classifying the items into the following rationally based groupings. When you
have finished, put all the snail envelopes into the large envelope and write your
name on it. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!
1) Need for Program {8 items)
This group includes attitudes about the need for, or applicability of the QWL
program. Need here refers to whether problems even exist that call for QWL or some
similar effort. Applicability items should be attitudes about the appropriateness
of a program like QWL for this particular setting or employee. Statements should
concern whether there is a need for any program for this setting, rather than judg
ments about QWL's specific ability or approach for affecting change.
189
190
2) Faith in the Program (8 items) These items express attitudes about the feasibility of QWL's goals at the
outset, and trust in its intentions. Feasibility taps feelings about the range and
loftiness of QWL's aims or potential aid should not include statements abait actual
outcomes or how siKcessful QWL has been. Trust items express the degree of belief
in honorable intentions and the true reasons behind QWL, as well as trust in the good
will of the program's initiators. These items say less about the specifics of QWL
itself than they do about the respondent's faith in the organization's aims and in the
program's chances for naking a difference.
3) Requisite Policies; Decentralization (4 items), Education (3 items), and
Cooperative Self-interest (3 items)
This category includes items about the three QWL requisite policies that enable
the committee structures to effectively democratize the workplace, and does not include
attitudes abcut their resultant work conditions of individuation and participation (see Category 5).
3a) Decentralization items concern the redistribution of authority along the
existing management structure, the delegation of authority for decision-making to
the lowest appropriate level of supervision. This group should not deal with the
specific arrangements for sharing this authority or the giving of freedom to do
one's own particular job with discretion and autonomy. Rather, we're involved here
with the actual issue of passing authority from upper levels down the hierarchy to
place appropriate decisions in the sphere of lower level supervision and workers.
3b) Education items include attitudes about policy that provides opportunities
to develop oneself and learn about one's job and the organization, so that employees
are ccmpetent to deal with the increased authority in decision-making that QWL offers.
Statements contained in this group convey feelings about how much organizations should
make provisions for training, advancement, and development of skills, organizational
knowledge and individual responsibility.
3c) Co<^erative Self-interest items are attitudes about the policy of organizing
the workplace so that all members of a work group are regarded (recognition, money, etc.)
for the group's output and activity. These statements concern QWL's replacement of
individual or interest-group competition with cooperation and work towards group goals
so that the interest of the individual can be in harmony with the interests of his/her fellows and of the organization.
4) Operational Policy: Democratization (9 items)
Democratization here refers to the establishment of a specific means through
which emplcyees can influence the work environment, that of an organization-wide
joint worker/supervisor committee structure. These items d^l with this tangible
committee system of elected representatives as a vehicle for evolving employee parti
cipation. This category should not contain opinions about the implementation,
effectiveness or outcomes of the committees in the respondent's organization (see
Categories 6,7,8, and 9), nor should they involve attitudes toward the idea of par
ticipation. This category only includes feelings about the structure of the committee
system itself, with its meetings, procedures and standards.
5) Work Conditions: Individuation (4 items) and Participation (4 items)
These items refer to the work conditions experienced by employees as an outgrowth
of the above requisite and operational policies. -While policy attitudes involved
issues once removed fran the everyday personal experience of workers, these statements
reflect feelings about the direct, everyday impact of QWL in the form of the "felt
experiences" of individ\ation and participation.
5a) Individuation items express attitudes aboit circumstances that allow the
employee opportunities to distinguish oneself from others and maintain uniqueness. They
can relate to personal autonomy; craftmanship; and freedom on-the-job to exercise
skills, descretion, and responsibility.
5b) Participation items are statements about the opportunity to influence and
have input to organizational decision-making and they relate to the actual experience of influencing one's working arrangements, and the policies, programs and plans of the
organization.
6) Implementation (8 items)
This category should include attitudes about how QWL was brought into the or
ganization and implemented, not whether it should have been adopted or what it has
achieved. These statements should concern the process undergone from method of intro
duction to QWL, program quality, follew-through and third-party consultant involvement.
191
7) Economic Benefit Outcomes (8 items)
This category includes statements about QWL outcomes but here the items deal
with organizational effectiveness and productivity increases. These attitudes have
to do with questions of whether QWL is worth the time and effort spent in relation
to the costs of providing public services.
8) Human Benefit Outcomes (9 items)
Attitudes contained here concern QWL results in terms of human benefits achieved.
These statements can refer to the existence or non-existence of gains in satisfaction
and well-being at work or off the job, effects of QWL upon relationships among
employees and individual political effectivenessacquired through involvement with QWL.
9) Program Functioning (12 items)
Items in this category express attitudes about how well the QWL process is functioning
and about the level of involvement assumed by the organization's members, not the
merits of the QWL program itself or the results it has achieved. These opinions about
the quality of QWL involvement and process in this particular setting can involve
perforrance of QWL duties, quality of meetings and commitment of various groups to
the program's success.
10) General QWL Attitude (4 items)
These items are global statements of the respondent's own disposition towards
QWL as favorable or unfavorable, or his/her opinion about QWL's chances of surviving.
These should not be estimates of the level of support of various groups, nor attitudes
abcut specific aspects of QWL. Father, these statements can refer to one's own
personal commitment and intentions regarding QWL involvement.
APPENDIX G
PILOT QWLAS
QUALITY OF WORKING LIFE (OWL) ATTITUDE SCALE
As you know, there is much disagreement in people's attitudes and reactions toward the OWL program. This scale contains statements about different aspects of the program and covers many points of view. You can help us understand and further react to your attitudes by answering each item below based on how you feel about different parts of OWL.
There are no right or wrong answers and you can be sure that however you mark each statement there are others who feel the same way you do. The best answer is your own personal opinion regardless of whether you think others might agree or disagree. Please do not spend too much time on any one item because it's very important that you are able to finish marking every item without leaving blanks.
We want to assure you the answers will be strictly confidential and nothing you state here will in any way be used by your employer or any other organization. Your willingness to participate will be shown by your return of this questionnaire. We do need everyone possible to take part so your cooperation would be greatly appreciated. V® DO NOT WANT YOU TO SIGN YOUR NAME TO ANY PART OF THE SURVEY, SO PLEASE BE AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND HONEST ABOUT YOUR ANSWERS AS YOU CAN. THANK YOU!
DIRECTIONS: Carefully read each statement and circle the one answer to the right that best shows how much you agree or disagree with the statement, depending on how you feel in each case.
1 — Strongly Agree 2 — Agree 3 — Tend to Agree k — Neutral 5 — Tend to Disagree 6 — Disagree 7 — Strongly Disagree
Ex: "I enjoy helping others through OWL." 1 ji* 3 5 6 7
192
193
In this example, the person felt good about his progress in OWL, so he circled #2 for "agree."
AGAIN, WE ASK FOR YOUR HONEST COOPERATION, SO PLEASE BE FRANK WITH YOUR ANSWERS.
0) 0) 0) o a; fe 0) <1) fee 03 6b
Q) CO (/2 6b <
•H <
< •H o 0) r-H O H o 0) r- bC (0 4->
fe fee C 0) u fe c o <D TJ •p T3 CC o u
fco c C W u •p fco a) 0) CD •H •P
CO c EH z E-" w
1. The organization did a good job of preparing people for OWL long before it arrived, so that many were "on board" before Orientation. 12 3 567
2.* QWL is all talk and no action to improve working conditions for employees. 1 2 3 5 6 7
3. The OWL committee system is flexible enough that we can modify it to our satisfaction. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
OWL benefits taxpayers by reducing the cost of public services. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
5. QWL rounds out my overall work experience, making it more meaningful. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
6.* Orientation was so abstract and poorly communicated that many employees still do not understand. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
7.* QWL should involve the vote of everyone on whether it's wanted, or else it's being forced like Big Brother. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
8.* Non-supervisory employees use QWL to try and get out of work. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
9. I like how OWL's delegation of more authority to lower level supervisors makes them better able to share decisions with employees. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
Item to be scored in reverse
19*+
0 o> <13 0) SH <D hC <D a> tc CC 0) CO CO
fe w • H < fe •H
o o
>> 0) >> rH o rH 0 0) H faO CO 4J S* hO C 0) U bO C O 0) T3 4j T3 TO o u fe c s C W tn fe <D 0) 0) •H 4-> to < E-" 2 E-t Q CO
10.* If QWL gives employees more opportunity for decision-making in how they carry out day-to-day work, we won't be able to tell anymore if things are done right. 1 2 3 if 5 6 7
11.* OWL should leave education about budget, personnel and organizational decisions in the hands of management who are trained and paid to deal with these matters. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
12. It's fine with me for QWL to use evaluations and questionnaires to measure its own progress and to understand participant attitudes. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
13.* QWL programs "toss a bone" to make employees tolerant of management decisions on bigger issues. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
1 . QWL achieves progress on making the organization more efficient. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
15. Employees can be active in a OWL program without being "stooges" selling out workers' interests. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
16. At least OWL sees the need to try to do something about the economic crisis we're all in. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
17.* The QWL committee system is too bulky, with another meeting every time I turn around. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
18. OWL is right in getting employees' hopes up for change. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
•Item to be scored in reverse.
195
0) 0) <D
to to J* to u bC to to to u
Ec d to
ctf W
*rl < bC
< •H Q
Q
(D >» H O
3 O 0) rH
hO 4-) 3 -P U hC G to Sm faD G O to T3 4-» 13 O u G G to fc,
4-3 hb 0) 0) QJ •H -P w c E- 2 e-< - c w.
19•* QWL hurts morale by adding pressure. 12 3 567
20. OWL democratic committee structures prevent leaving cooperative management up to the individual whims of supervisors and managers. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
21. In our rapidly changing world, we need some program like OWL to teach us about social values and how to face the future. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
22.* QWL causes things to get out of hand by offering employees too much participation in decisions about the workplace. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
23. It's important to me that OWL tries to return a sense of pride to the worker's job by seeing him/her as a crafts-person. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
2*+. Like OWL, I believe today's more educated and expert employee deserves added freedom to make decisions on the job. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
25.* The public sector has different problems than the kind QWL is meant to handle. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
26.* Supervisors use OWL as a way to escape doing their jobs responsibly. 1 2 3 if 5 6 7
27.* OWL should be restricted to production or manufacturing settings. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
28.* I resent that OWL wrongly assumes that I am turned off to this organization. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
'Item to be scored in reverse.
196
0) 0) O (D
0) tn bC <1> o bC & h* a> CO K bC u ' CO »H <C bu •H P
< P 0) r—( O r—1 O OJ r-H bC -P 05 -P U bC c o k bC C o 0) T3 -P T3 0 u u C 3 C M J-•M bO 0) a> <D •H •P
< E-1 2: E- P CO
29.* Division Heads participate in QWL more out of loyalty to the Department than out of belief in the program. 12 3 567
30. OWL experience in controlling work environment contributes to workers' effectiveness in influencing local and national politics. 1 2 3 5 6 7
31.* The Board of Supervisors' support for QWL is only lip service. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
32. The Department is more committed to the success of OWL than other personnel programs that I've seen come and go. 1 2 3 if 5 6 7
33.* OWL meetings are long, poorly led B.S. sessions. 1 2 3 if 5 6 7
3 .* QWL hurts communication by creating splits between pro-QWL and anti-OWL groups. 1 2 3 if 5 6 7
35.* I hope QWL is in danger of not surviving here. 1 2 3 if 5 6 7
36. Interested people can find ways to make QWL fit their needs and the time they have available. 1 2 3 if 5 6 7
37.* OWL representatives use meetings to air personal gripes instead of bringing the views of fellow workers. 1 2 3 if 5 6 7
•
OO
The true reasons behind QWL programs include making jobs better and employees happier. 1 2 3 if 5 6 7
39.* The "mob training" approach to QWL orientation should be reorganized into smaller groups. 1 2 3 it 5 6 7
*Item to be scored in reverse.
197
<0 0) 01 a> a> H he <D <1) he n3 0) rt 10 hC ID •H <E be <
*H Q Q >5 <u >> rH o rH o 4) rH he -p (0 4J P bO G 0) U hO c 0 <U T3 4-> T3 to o
U C 3 c in h£ d> <D a> •H +J
to «s EH 2 E- o w
bO." \ hy should I trust QWL's intentions when other organizations already do the same things without using some special program? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
41. * OWL is overly optimistic and "cure-all" in its hopes to make a difference. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
42. OWL is a worthwhile program that should be pursued all the way. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
45.* OWL increases unnecessary competition between units and divisions by allowing one group to pass a proposal at the expense of another. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
44. Supervisors see OWL as a valuable aid to doing their jobs even better. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
45.* CWL is all talk and no action to improve public services. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
46.• All this OWL talk about bringing a democratic committee system to the workplace scares me as being too radical a political idea. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
47. This organization needs some way to get employees and supervisors to work together harmoniously for mutual benefits. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
48.* OWL programs are management "cons" to get employees to work harder without more pay. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
49. OWL seems realistic in its basic goals of trying to break down barriers between labor and management. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
•Item to be scored in reverse.
198
0) 0) d) a) SH
a> Q) 0) fe hC
C3
lb 0) (0 K
lb u (0 •H < bC
< •H Q
o >» 0) >> pH o rH O Q) rH to 4-> m 4-> U bO C 0) Sh be C o a> TJ •p T3 ro o u fe C 3 C 10 u 4J fe 0) 0) <D •H 4-> CO < EH 52 E-« c w
50.* CV.'L'k emnhasis on workers learning about their jobs and the organization is asking for trouble since management policies will end up being attacked by know-it-all employees. 1 2 3 if 5 6 7
51. CWL representatives do a good job of taking information back to grass roots so that their fellow workers are not kept in the dark. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
52. Overall, OWL is a desirable thing to have. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
53-* OWL participation in proposal writing and suggestions sets you up for revenge from other people. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
5^.* The outside third party help with OWL was pulled out too soon, leaving us to sink or swim. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
55. I like the part of OWL that tries to reward everyone in the group when the work group does well. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
56. At our QWL meetings everyone shares ideas openly and freely. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
57.* We should adopt a better, more cost-effective alternative to OWL like a suggestion system. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
58.* CWL involvement should be accompanied by a reduction in other work demands since there's a time conflict. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
59. Our committees send proposals up and down the OWL system effectively and quickly for action at the appropriate level. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
'Item to be scored in reverse.
199
a) 0) aj a; t-
a) u b. <u ai bC r: u 01 CD to bo u M •H < Eb
<r •H <= o
>3 0 >1 rH o rH O 0) r*H bO +J ra 4J t- bC C <1) tc e o CD T3 +> T3 <B o u C 3 E in u
+> bC CD <D 01 •H 4-> w <c E- 2 E- Q
60. My relationships with peers have improved through OWL opportunities to discuss and hear their views. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
61.* OWL does nothing to increase pleasure in off-the-job life. 1 2 3 '4 5 6 7
62.* OWL is superficial "wheel-spinning" unless it can deal with budget-related issues like pay, staffing and benefits. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
63.* OWL has a lot of gall to tell us we need to communicate better when we do OK already. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
64.* OWL puts up more communication walls between managers, supervisors and other employees. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
65. I support QWL's rewarding everyone in the group even if someone is not pulling his full load. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
66.* QWL's participation directions foolishly give influence and input opportunity to employees who are too lazy to want it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
67.* OWL meetings include hostility and personality clashes which stand in the way of getting things done. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
68. OWL startup help from ail outside consultant is rightfully brought in by labor and management when OWL is introduced. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
69.* The OWL democratic committee structure puts too much control "into the hands of the people." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
•Item to be scored in reverse.
70. OWL aids the organization in providing more enriching employment. 12 3 567
71. Sure, QWL takes time, but it should be seen as an important part of the way people do their jobs. 12 3 567
72. The OWL committee system fits smoothly and compatibly with the existing organizational structure. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
73. White collar employees can benefit from the QWL system being introduced to their organizations. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
7 There's too much attention given by QWL to rigid procedures, standards and schedules for its committee system. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
75. OWL is a healthy opportunity through which employees have more say in expressing concerns, problems and suggestions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
76.* Delegating authority to lower levels of supervision through QWL would result in chaos and disorder. 1 2 3 5 6 7
77. OWL should keep its complex committee structures to guarantee representation at all levels of the organization. 1 2 3 if 5 6 7
t
CO
I like how OWL seeks to increase freedom and autonomy in everyday work so that all employees can make more of a contribution in their jobs. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
79. I appreciate QWL's ideals of educating employees in budget, personnel and organizational matters so that they become valuable resources to the organization. 1 2 .3 4 5 6 7
*Item to be scored in reverse.
201
<D 0) O a> 5-
0) <L> 0) hO £0 b 0) cd W ho < fee
(0 •H
•H O
< O O)
rH 0 rH O 0) rH hC •p CO •P k hC C <D hC £ O <D TJ •P T3 O u h C X C to -p hC Q) <0 0) •H •P
< EH 55 E- O CO
80. Follow-up training in QWL is valuable - in responding to our needs. 12 3 567
00
• OWL's delegation of more authority downwards provides managers and supervisors the opportunity to develop new, more constructive roles. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
82.* The OWL committee system brings too much added bureaucracy into our organization no matter how good its purpose might be. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
* •
CO
If top management does what QWL suggests and gives lower level supervisors more authority to make decisions, we won't know if things are getting done anymore. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7
84.* If I have any say in the matter, my own involvement with OWL will probably be low. 1 2 3 h 5 6 7
"Item to be scored in reverse.
INSTRUCTIONS: Here is a list of statements that could be made about your job. For each statement please circle two answers; one answer in Column A and one answer in Column B. Column A asks to what extent this statement is true of your job now. Column ff asks to what extent you would like it to be true.
Column A How is it now
85. I do a variety of things on my job.
Column 3 How you would like it to be
rH rH rH rH
rH <0 rH CO -P G -P G C O C O to <D •H E (0 a> •rH E 3 CO O u 3 w O u to C7 £0 T3 Q) CO a* cc T3 <D
s Q) O rH > 5 0) 0 rH > pH U O (1) O rH k 0 <D a; < O CO a < 0 A F 0 S N A F 0 S N
202
Column A How is it Now
Column B How you would like it to be
86. I am left alone unless I can help.
87. I have a lot of say over what happens on my job.
88. On my job I do a small part of each task; then someone else takes over.
>> >> rH rH
>> rH rH rH cd rH cd •P c -P c C 0 G 0
(0 <D •H S3 10 <L> •H E >> 3 (0 O u >5 3 CO O u cd cr cd TJ <D cd <T cd T3 0) 5 0) 0 r—1 > 5 0 0 rH > rH u 0 0) 0) rH u 0 0) 0) < En O w < £*4 O co 2
A F 0 S N A F 0 S N
A F O S N A F O S N
A F O S N A F O S N
INSTRUCTIONS: Here is a list of decisions which get made at work for each decision. Please circle two answers - one is Column A and one answer in Column B. Column A asks how much of a say your work group has in making these decisions now. Column B asks how much of a say you feel your v/ork group should have in making these decisions.
Column A How much of a say your work group has now
•A
Column B How much say you feel your work group should have
j •H
cd 0 a> cd 0 aj CO GJ > CO 0) >
O r—( CM
Q rH 0) CM 0)
>> 0 (0 (0 >s O CO W cd •H cd •H U CO rH & >? CO rH 3
cd cd •P O cd cd -P O CO a> O CO 0) 0 CO -p a <D >3 •p P 0) >>
>> a> cd ,0 >? 0) cd X3 cd rH JH •p cd cd rH u -p cd CO •P a> cd B a to -P 0) cd E a CO 4-> a) 0 •P 13 a> 0 0 •H 0 p a> •H 0 •H O 0) •H z 5: O 3 CO z X e> (Q
89. Developing programs and policies for my division, department or for the County.
Deciding on solutions to probl e m s i n m y w o r k u n i t . 1 2 3 ^ 5
1 2 3 ^ 5
90.
1 2 3 ^ 5
1 2 3 ^ 5
91. Developing programs and polic i e s f o r m y w o r k u n i t . 1 2 3 ^ 5 1 2 3 ^ 5
203
Calumn A Column B How much of a How much say you say your work feel your work group has now group should have
•H (0 •H CQ CO O 0) CO 0 a>
CO <D > CO 0) > P H O rH *M Q> <D
O (0 to >5 0 to (0 cO •H U CO •H U
& CO rH j: 3 >> CO rH & 2 CO (0 •p 0 CO CO «P O
CO 0 0) CO V O •p O 0) CO -p O 4) >5
0) (0 >> a> CO cfl rH u •P ro CO H fn •p CO co -P 4> E C CO V CO E C 4-> TJ d) 0 •P TJ a 0 0 •H O u 0) «rt 0 •H O O *H as s 0 3 to •-5 s: 0 S W
92. Deciding how my unit actually performs its work, the methods used, how the work is organized, etc. 1 2 3 * + 5 1 2 3 ^ 5
93. It* s natural that we all have different attitudes and reactions toward OWL. In fact, each person in this organization fits somewhere along the range of words shown below. Please place a check ( /) mark in the one box that best describes your own attitudes, feelings and behaviors towards OWL.
Sabotage Protests Slowdowns Apathy Indifference Acceptance Support Cooperation Conmitment
• ' • • • • • • • • ^
INSTRUCTIONS: Please check the appropriate box or fill in the blank with the required information.
9*+. Are you: 1. j jMale
2. j j Female
95. What was your age on your last birthday?_
96. Last year of school completed
97. Check your ethnic/cultural background
1. I | Black 5. I [ Caucasian
2. j [ Oriental 6. j jOther
3« 1 [ American Indian
k- | | Spanish/Mexican American
20k
98. Your Division/Section
99. Your job classification (e.g., Equipment Operator, Public Works Supervisor, etc.)
100. How long have you worked for this Department?
101. Do you sit on a QWL committee? j—j yeg | j Nq
I t e m S t a n d a r d % A b o v e % B e l o w N u m b e r M e a n D e v i a t i o n N e u t r a l N e u t r a l N e u t r a l
1 4 . . 7 4 1 . 7 0 5 5 . 3 1 7 . 1 2 7 . 6
* 2 4 . . 3 4 1 . 7 1 3 4 . 7 1 9 . 4 4 5 . 8
3 3 . . 5 9 1 . 4 7 2 3 . 6 2 7 . 1 4 9 . 5
4 4 . . 5 5 1 . 7 9 4 8 . 0 2 2 . 9 2 9 . 1
5 4 . . 4 8 1 . 7 5 4 6 . 6 2 1 . 6 3 1 . 8
* 6 4 . . 9 4 1 . 6 2 1 8 . . 6 1 5 . 8 6 5 . 5
* 7 5 . . 2 3 1 . 6 7 1 5 . 7 1 5 . 6 6 8 . 9
* 8 3 . . 6 4 1 . 8 2 4 3 . , 7 2 5 . 3 3 1 . 0
9 3 . . 5 5 1 . 4 2 2 3 . 1 3 1 . 2 4 5 . 6
i O 3 . . 4 7 1 . 5 6 4 7 . 5 2 4 . 0 2 8 . 6
1 1 3 . . 8 3 1 . 8 4 3 9 . 0 2 0 . 1 4 0 . 7
1 2 2 . , 8 2 1 . 4 4 1 7 . 7 1 4 . 8 6 7 . 7
1 3 4 . . 4 6 1 . 5 1 2 6 . 5 2 7 . 0 4 6 . 5
1 4 3 . . 8 9 1 . 5 5 3 5 . 6 2 9 . 9 3 4 . 5
1 5 3 . . 1 1 1 . 3 8 1 2 . 4 2 5 . 0 6 2 . 6
1 6 4 . . 0 3 1 . 7 6 3 4 . 9 2 1 . 1 4 4 . 1
1 7 4 . . 7 6 1 . 6 8 2 0 . 6 2 2 . 4 5 6 . 9
1 8 3 . . 8 9 1 . 7 0 3 5 . 7 1 7 . 8 4 6 . 6
1 9 3 . . 9 8 1 . 6 1 3 8 . 4 2 7 . 9 3 3 . 7
2 0 3 . . 7 7 1 . 3 9 2 6 . 1 3 6 . 7 3 7 . 3
2 1 3 . . 9 7 1 , 8 2 3 3 . 9 1 9 . 5 4 6 . 5
2 2 3 . . 5 0 1 . 5 7 4 7 . 7 2 4 . 4 2 7 . 9
2 3 3 . . 0 7 1 . 4 8 1 7 . 7 2 0 . 7 6 1 . 5
2 4 2 . . 8 7 1 . 4 3 1 5 . 5 1 7 . 2 6 7 . 2
2 5 4 . . 1 5 1 . 7 2 3 3 . 1 2 5 . 6 4 1 . 3
2 6 3 . , 6 4 1 . 6 7 4 4 . 2 2 6 . 2 2 9 . 7
2 7 3 . . 9 5 1 . 5 8 3 4 . 8 3 2 . 0 3 3 . 1
I t e m s r e v e r s e s c o r e d
207
208
I t e m S t a n d a r d % A b o v e £ B e l o w N u m b e r M e a n D e v i a t i o n N e u t r a l N e u t r a l N e u t r a l
* 2 8 4 . 1 1
* 2 9 4 . 9 5
3 0 4 . 5 7
* 3 1 5 . 1 7
3 2 3 . 2 3
* 3 3 4 . 3 6
* 3 4 4 . 0 5
* 3 5 3 . 9 3
3 6 2 . 9 6
* 3 7 4 . 0 4
3 8 3 . 1 8
* 3 9 4 . 5 6
* 4 0 4 . 1 3
* 4 1 4 . 3 6
4 2 3 . 6 4
* 4 3 3 . 9 0
4 4 4 . 1 7
* 4 5 4 . 3 2
* 4 6 3 . 5 1
4 7 2 . 6 6
* 4 8 4 . 1 8
4 9 3 . 3 5
* 5 0 3 . 6 6
5 1 3 . 6 7
5 2 3 . 7 0
* 5 3 3 . 1 5
* 5 4 3 . 9 8
5 5 3 . 7 3
1 . 6 5 3 1 . 5
1 . 5 7 1 7 . 0
1 . 5 7 3 9 . 0
1 . 4 3 9 . 7
1 . 4 6 1 7 . 6
1 . 5 8 2 7 . 3
1 . 5 4 3 2 . 7
1 . 8 1 3 6 . 8
1 . 2 7 1 2 . 5
1 . 5 7 2 8 . 9
1 . 5 1 1 8 . 1
1 . 3 2 2 2 . 6
1 . 4 1 2 5 . 1
1 . 4 6 2 5 . 8
1 . 7 1 2 6 . 4
1 . 5 1 3 7 . 0
1 . 5 2 3 6 . 4
1 . 7 1 3 2 . 4
1 . 5 6 3 0 . 7
1 . 3 8 1 1 . 9
1 . 7 1 3 5 . 8
1 . 5 4 2 3 . 9
1 . 5 5 4 1 . 9
1 . 5 6 2 4 . 5
1 . 7 9 2 5 . 9
1 . 3 6 5 2 . 1
1 . 2 4 2 9 . 1
1 . 5 1 2 2 . 5
2 6 . 9 4 1 . 5
2 2 . 8 6 0 . 2
3 2 . 8 2 8 . 2
2 4 . 4 6 5 . 9
2 7 . 3 5 5 . 1
2 5 . 6 4 7 . 2
2 9 . 3 3 8 . 0
3 1 . 6 3 1 . 7
1 9 . 9 6 7 . 7
2 9 . 9 4 1 . 2
1 8 . 6 6 3 . 3
3 5 . 3 4 2 . 2
3 6 . 0 3 8 . 9
2 7 . 0 4 7 . 2
2 5 . 9 4 7 . 7
3 1 . 3 3 1 . 8
3 1 . 3 3 2 . 4
2 3 . 3 4 4 . 3
3 3 . 9 2 5 . 4
1 5 . 3 7 2 . 9
2 3 . 3 4 0 . 9
1 5 . 9 6 0 . 3
2 5 . 3 3 2 . 8
2 6 . 9 4 8 . 6
2 5 . 9 4 8 . 3
2 7 . 4 2 0 . 6
3 8 . 9 3 2 . 0
3 0 . 6 4 6 . 8
* Items reverse scored
I t e m S t a n d a r d X A b o v e % % B e l o w N u m b e r M e a n D e v i a t i o n N e u t r a l N e u t r a l N e u t r a l
5 6 3 , . 4 7 1. 4 2 2 4 . 5 2 3 . 4 5 2 . 0
* 5 7 4 . . 3 5 1. 4 7 2 5 . 7 2 8 . 6 4 5 . 7
* 5 8 3 . 8 7 1. 5 9 3 7 . 9 3 0 . 5 3 1 . 6
5 9 4 , . 1 4 1. 5 0 3 7 . 3 3 1 . 0 3 1 . 6
6 0 4 , . 0 3 1. 6 1 3 9 . 8 2 8 . 4 3 1 . 8
* 6 1 4 . . 6 9 1. 8 0 2 7 . 9 2 0 . 3 5 1 . 7
* 6 2 4 . . 9 3 1. 8 4 2 4 . 0 1 9 . 4 5 6 . 6
* 6 3 3 . 6 4 1. 6 2 4 0 . 8 2 3 . , 6 3 5 . 7
* 6 4 3 . 8 7 1. 6 1 4 1 . 1 2 3 . 4 3 5 . 4
6 5 4 . . 4 4 1. 5 5 3 8 . 4 3 3 . 7 2 7 . 9
* 6 6 3 . . 9 3 1. 4 3 3 2 . 1 3 6 . 8 3 1 . 1
* 6 7 3 . . 8 6 1. 5 4 3 5 . 4 3 0 . 8 3 3 . 7
6 8 3 , . 6 1 1. 3 1 1 9 . 8 3 7 . 8 4 2 . 5
* 6 9 3 , . 2 8 1. 3 7 5 3 . 5 3 0 . 2 1 6 . 3
7 0 4 . . 0 6 1. 6 6 4 1 . 0 2 3 . 7 3 5 . 3
7 1 3 , . 5 8 1. 6 6 2 6 . 3 2 1 . . 7 5 1 . 9
7 2 4 . 1 5 1. 6 2 3 9 . 1 2 6 . 4 3 4 . 4
7 3 3 . 5 2 1. 4 5 2 2 . 4 2 9 . 9 4 7 . 7
* 7 4 4 . 2 9 1. 3 5 2 3 . 5 3 3 . 1 4 3 . 4
7 5 3 . 2 8 1. 4 8 1 7 . 2 2 3 . 6 5 9 . 2
* 7 6 3 . 3 9 1. 4 9 4 7 . 1 2 7 . 0 2 5 . 9
7 7 3 . . 6 4 1. 3 0 2 0 . 9 3 4 . 3 4 4 . 7
7 8 3 . 4 3 1. 3 2 2 0 . 5 2 9 . 1 5 0 . 3
7 9 3 . 2 3 1. 4 2 1 7 . 3 2 3 . , 1 5 9 . 6
8 0 3 . 3 5 1. . 4 1 2 1 . 7 2 5 . 1 5 3 . 1
8 1 3 . 4 4 1. 4 2 2 1 . 9 3 1 . , 2 4 6 . 9
* 8 2 4 . 2 3 1. 5 7 2 8 . 6 2 9 . 1 4 2 . 3
* 8 3 3 . 4 0 1. 4 6 4 5 . 1 2 8 . 9 2 6 . 0
* 8 4 4 . 2 8 1. 8 1 3 4 . 4 2 3 . 0 4 2 . 5
* Items reverse scored
APPENDIX K
FINAL OWLAS LONG FORM
Factor One (General)
1*+.* QWL achieves progress on making the organization more efficient.
18.* OWL is right in getting employees* hopes up for change.
21.* In our rapidly changing world, we need some program like OWL to teach us about social values and how to face the future.
23. It1s important to me that QWL tries to return a sense of pride to the worker's job by seeing him/her as a craftsperson.
36. Interested people can find ways to make OWL fit their needs and the time they have available.
38. The true reasons behind OWL programs include making jobs better and employees happier.
kZ.* QWL is a worthwhile program that should be pursued all the way.
9. QWL seems realistic in its basic goals of trying to break down barriers between labor and management.
52. Overall, OWL is a desirable thing to have.
70.* QWL aids the organization in providing more enriching employment.
71.* Sure, QWL takes time, but it should be seen as an important part of the way people do their jobs.
72. The QWL committee system fits smoothly and compatibly with the existing organizational structure.
73. White collar employees can benefit from the OWL system being introduced to their organizations.
75.* QWL is a healthy opportunity through which employees have more say in expressing concerns, problems and suggestions.
•Short Form items
210
211
78. I like how QWL seeks to increase freedom and autonomy in everyday work so that all employees can make more of a contribution in their jobs.
80. Follow-up training in QWL is valuable in responding to our needs.
81. OWL's delegation of more authority downwards provides managers and supervisors the opportunity to develop new, more constructive roles.
Factor Two (Specific Concerns)
17.* The QWL committee system is too bulky, with another meeting every time I turn around.
33.* QWL meetings are long, poorly led B.S. sessions.
34.* QWL hurts communication by creating splits between pro-QWL and anti-QWL groups.
40. Why should I trust QWL's intentions when other organizations already do the same things without using some special program?
41. QWL is overly optimistic and "cure-all" in its hopes to make a difference.
43. QWL increases unnecessary competition between units and divisions by allowing one group to pass a proposal at the expense of another.
44. Supervisors see QWL as a valuable aid to doing their jobs even better.
45.* QWL is all talk and no action to improve public services.
62.* QWL is superficial "wheel-spinning" unless it can deal with budget-related issues like pay, staffing and benefits.
64. QWL puts up more communication walls between managers, supervisors and other employees.
82.* The QWL committee system brings too much added bureaucracy into our organization no matter how good its purposes might be.
84." If I have any say in the matter, my own involvement with QWL will probably be low.
•Short Form items
APPENDIX L
FINAL LONG FORM
QUALITY OF WORKING LIFE (QWL) ATTITUDE SCALE
As you know, there is much disagreement in people's attitudes and reactions toward the QWL program. This scale contains statements about different aspects of the program and covers many points of view. You can help us understand and further react to your attitudes by answering each item below based on how you feel about different parts of QWL.
There are no right or wrong answers and you can be sure that however you mark each statement there are others who feel the same way you do. The best answer is your own personal opinion regardless of whether you think others might agree or disagree. Please do not spend too much time on any one item because it's very important that you are able to finish marking every item without leaving blanks.
We want to assure you the answers will be strictly confidential and nothing you state here will in any way be used by your employer or any other organization. Your willingness to participate will be shown by your return of this questionnaire. We do need everyone possible to take part so your cooperation would be greatly appreciated. WE DO NOT WANT YOU TO SIGN YOUR NAME TO ACT PART OF THE SURVEY, SO PLEASE BE AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND HONEST ABOUT YOUR ANSWERS AS YOU CAN. THANK YOU!
Directions: Carefully read each statement and circle the one answer to the right that best shows how much you agree or disagree with the statement, depending on how you feel in each case:
1 — Strongly Agree 2 — Agree 3 — Tend to Agree k __ Neutral 5 — Tend to Disagree 6 — Disagree 7 — Strongly Disagree
Ex: "I enjoy helping others through QWL." 12 3 567
In this example, the person felt good about his progress in QWL, so he circled #2 for "agree."
AGAIN, WE ASK FOR YOUR HONEST COOPERATION, SO PLEASE BE FRANK WITH YOUR ANSWERS.
212
213
d> <u
<
bO c a> o 01 u 6) w <
<D O <D O u
<D fe QL nJ 0) d CO
u w •H to •H C < O 0) 0 »H O 0 r—1 -p (0
u -P 6c bC
C T3 •p T3 CO O C p C 10 U <D 0 O •H •P 2 EH P 03
3 k 5 6 7
3 k 5 6 7
1. The true reasons behind OWL programs include making jobs better and employees happier. 1 2
2. Overall, QWL is a desirable thing to have. 1 2
3. The OWL committee system is too bulky, with another meeting every time I turn around. 12 3 567
4. QWL increases unnecessary competition between units and divisions by allowing one group to pass a proposal at the expense of another. 12 3 567
5. OWL is all talk and no action to improve public services. 12 3 567
6. QWL is right in getting employees' hopes up for change. 12 3 567
7. QWL achieves progress on making the organization more efficient. 12 3 567
8. Interested people can find ways to make QWL fit their needs and the time they have available. 12 3 567
9. I like how QWL seeks to increase freedom and autonomy in everyday work so that all employees can make more of a contribution to their job. 12 3 567
10. QWL is superficial "wheel-spinning" unless it can deal with budget-related issues like pay, staffing and benefits. 12 3 +567
11. QWL puts up more communication walls between managers, supervisors and other employees. 12 3 567
12. The QWL committee system brings too much added bureaucracy into our organization no matter how good its purposes might be. 12 3 567
21k
a> 4) 0)
«) U fe Q) U Si (0 (h D d (0 O0 U 10 -H < bo -H o
< O 0) >3
O H O 0) H be +> to 4J U bC cm t* Eo a o a) t3 -u -a to o h t, C 3 G CO (h •P hi) V a) 4) -H +> 03 < E-I jg E-1 Q M
13. OWL hurts communication by creating splits between pro-QWL and anti-QWL groups. 12 3 567
lk. Why should I trust QWL's intentions when other organizations already do the same things without using some special program? 12 3 567
15. QWL is a healthy opportunity through which employees have more say in expressing concerns, problems and suggestions. 1 2 3 5 6 7
16. Supervisors see QWL as a valuable aid to doing their jobs even better. 12 3 567
17. It's important to me that QWL tries to return a sense of pride to the worker's job by seeing him/her as a craftsperson. 1 2 3 ** 5 6 7
18. QWL meetings are long, poorly led B.S. sessions. 1 2 3 '+ 5 6 7
19. QWL's delegation of more authority downwards provides managers and supervisors the opportunity to develop new, more constructive roles. 12 3 567
20. Sure, QWL takes time, but it should be seen as an important part of the way people do their jobs. 12 3 567
21. QWL is a worthwhile program that should be pursued all the way. 12 3 567
22. QWL aids the organization in providing more enriching employment. 12 3 567
23. In our rapidly changing world, we need some program like QWL to teach us about social values and how to face the future. 12 3 567
215
0) a> a> 0> 0) Q)
<D fe u a> CO (0 he
& <
(0 •H < &
< •H o
Q a>
H o H o 0) rH to Q> •p cfl
U •p
fc to C o 0) 'O •P TJ CO 0 u e 3 c CO b
+> <D 0) 0) •H .p CO < 2: E-* w
24. OWL is overly optimistic and "cure-all" in its hopes to make a difference. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25. QWL seems realistic in its basic goals of trying to break down barriers between labor and management. 12 3 4 5 6 7
26. The QWL committee system fits smoothly and compatibly with the existing organizational structure. 12 3 4 5 6 7
27. White collar employees can benefit from the QWL system being introduced to their organizations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
28. If I have any say in the matter, my own involvement with QWL will probably be low. 12 3 4 5 6 7
29. Follow-up training in QWL is valuable in responding to our needs. 12 3 4 5 6 7
APPENDIX M
FINAL QWL AS SHORT FORM
QUALITY OF WORKING LIFE (OWL) ATTITUDE SCALE
As you know, there is much disagreement in people's attitudes and reactions toward the OWL program. This scale contains statements about different aspects of the program and covers many points of view. You can help us understand and further react to your attitudes by answering each item below based on how you feel about different parts of QWL.
There are no right or wrong answers and you can be sure that however you mark each statement there are others who feel the same way you do. The best answer is your own personal opinion regardless of whether you think others might agree or disagree. Please do not spend too much time on any one item because it's very important that you are able to finish marking every item without leaving blanks.
We want to assure you the answers will be strictly confidential and nothing you state here will in any way be used by your employer or any other organization. Your willingness to participate will be shown by your return of this questionnaire. We do need everyone possible to take part so your cooperation would be greatly appreciated. WE DO NOT WANT YOU TO SIGN YOUR NAME TO ANY PART OF THE SURVEY, SO PLEASE BE AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND HONEST ABOUT YOUR ANSWERS AS YOU CAN. THANK YOU!
Directions: Carefully read each statement and circle the one answer to the right that best shows how much you agree or disagree with the statement, depending on how you feel in each case:
Ex: "I enjoy helping others through QWL." 1 2j 3 5 6 7
In this example, the person felt good about his progress in QWL, so he circled #2 for "agree."
AGAIN, WE ASK FOR YOUR HONEST COOPERATION, SO PLEASE BE FRANK WITH YOUR ANSWERS.
216
217
1. If I have any say in the matter, my own involvement with QWL will probably be low.
2. In our rapidly changing world, we need some program like OWL to teach us about social values and how to face the future.
3. OWL aids the organization in providing more enriching employment0
QWL achieves progress on making the organization more efficient.
5. The OWL committee system is too bulky, with another meeting every time I turn around.
6. OWL is a healthy opportunity through which employees have more say in expressing concerns, problems and suggestions.
7- QWL hurts communication by creating splits between pro-QWL and anti-QWL groups.
8. QWL is superficial "wheel-spinning" unless it can deal with budget-related issues like pay, staffing and benefits.
9. The OWL committee system brings too much added bureaucracy into our organization no matter how good its purposes might be.
10. OWL is a worthwhile program that should be pursued all the way.
11. Sure, OWL takes time, but it should be seen as an important part of the way people do their jobs.
12. OWL meetings are long, poorly led B.S. sessions.
13. QWL is right in getting employees' hopes up for change.
l'+o OWL is all talk and no action to improve public services.
O 0) O
0) 03 U fe
0 0) hO 03 u 0) CO to bC
<c (0 •rt
< <c •rt Q
Q
>> 0 >> 0 r—! O o> rrt
b0 •p (0 -P u hO C 0) u bC C O 0 T3 -p 13 (0 O U C 3 C (0 U bo 0) O <D •rt -P to < 2 E- O CO
1 2 3 k 5 6 7
1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7
1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7
1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7
1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7
1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7
1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7
1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7
1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7
1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7
1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7
1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7
1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7
1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7
LIST OF REFERENCES
Abrahamsson, B. Bureaucrat or participation. Beverly Hills: Sage Publishers, 1977•
Adorno, T. W. (Ed.). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper, 1950.
Ahmann, J. S. and Glock, M. D. Evaluating pupil growth: Principles of tests and measurement. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1967.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980.
Allport, G. W. Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A handbook of social psychology. Worcester, Mass.: Clark University Press, 1935»
Anastasi, A. Psychological testing. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1968.
Anderson, L. W. Assessing affective characteristics in the schools. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1981.
Ard, N. and Cook, S. Short scale for the measurement of change in verbal racial attitude. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1977, 37(3), 7 1-7 !
Argyris, C. Management and organizational development. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971•
Argyris, C. Double-loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 1977, 5, 115-126.
Backer, T. A reference guide for psychological measures. Psychological Reports, 1972, 31, 751-768.
Batt, W. L. Personal communication (letter). U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Washington, D.C. June 30, 1981.
Beckhard, R. Organization development: Strategies and models. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969.
Beckhard, R. and Lake, D. G. Short- and long-range effects of a team development effort. In W. L. French, C. H. Bell, Jr., and R. A. Zawack (Eds.), Organization development: Theory, practice, and research. Dallas! Business Publications, Inc., 1978.
218
219
Bell, J. A. Stability of the factor structure of a short form of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. Psychology in the Schools, 1977, 1M2), 169-171.
Benne, K. D., Chin, R., and Bennis, W. G. Science and practice. In Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D., Chin, R. and Corey, K. B. (Eds.), The planning of change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976, 128-136.
Bennis, W. Case studies of behavioral science intervention: The case study introduction. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1968, k, 226-231.
Benson, P. L. and Vincent, S. Development and validation of the sexist attitudes toward women scale (SATWS). Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1980, 5(2), 276-289.
Bertrand, A. and Cebula, J. P. Tests, measurement, and evaluation. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1980.
Blood, D. F. and Budd, W. C. Educational measurement and evaluation. New York: Harper and Row, 1972.
Bluestone, I. Worker participation in decision-making. Paper delivered to the Conference on Strategy, Programs and Problems of an Alternative Political Economy, Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, D.C., March 2-4, 1973.
Bohlander, G. Implementing auality-of-work programs: Recognizing the barriers. MSU Business Topics, 1979$ 2, 33- 0.
Bonjean, C. M., Hill, R. J., and McLemore, S. D. Sociological measurement: An inventory of scales and indices. San Francisco: Chandler, 1967.
Bowers, D. G. and Franklin, J. L. Survey-guided development I: Data-based organizational change. La Jolla: University Associates, Inc., 1977.
Brehm, J. and Cohen, A. Exploration in cognitive dissonance. New York: Wiley, 1962.
Brown, F. G. Measurement and evaluation. St. Louis: F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1971.
Buros, 0. K. (Ed.). The 1938 mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, N.J.: The Gryphon Press, 1938. "
Buros, 0. K. Personality tests and reviews. Highland Park, N.J., Gryphon Press, 1970.
220
Buros, 0. K. (Ed.). The eighth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, N.J.: The Gryphon Press, 1978.
Business Week. The new industrial relations. May 11, 1981, 84-96.
Business Week. Quality of work life: Catching on. September 21, 1981, 72-80.
Buxton, T. A study of .job satisfaction of teachers of education in eight selected colleges and universities. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1971.
Campbell, A. White attitudes toward black people. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, 1977*
Campbell, A. and Katovi, G. The sample survey: A technique for social science research. In Festinger, L. and Katz, D. (Eds.), Research methods in the behavioral sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1953»
Campbell, D. T. and Fiske, D. W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56(2), 81-105.
Cannell, C. F. and Kahn, R. L. Interviewing. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968.
Cantril, H. General and specific attitudes. Princeton, N.J. and Albany, N.Y.: Psychological Review Co., 1932.
Cataldo, E. F., Johnson, R. M., Kellstedt, L. A., and Milbrath, L. W. Card sorting as a technique for survey interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1970, Jk, 202-215.
Cherns, A. Perspectives on the quality of working life. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1975« 8, 155-167#
Chisman, F. P. Attitude psychology and the study of public opinion. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1976.
Chun, K., Cobb, S.. and French, J. R. P., Jr. Measures for psychological assessment: A guide to 3000 original sources and their applications. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, 1975»
Clark, S. G. Executive report on a guide to labor-management committees in state and local government, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.
Comrey, A. L., Backer, T. E., and Glaser, E. M. A sourcebook for mental health measures. Springfield, Va.: National Technical Information Service, 1973*
Cook, S. W. and Sellitz, C. A multiple indicator approach to attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 62, 36-55.
Cooper, C. L. Humanizing the work-place in Europe: An overview of six countries. Personnel Journal, 1980, 6, 488-491.
Cooper, M. R., Morgan, B. S., Foley, P. M., Kaplan, L. B. Changing employee values: Deepening discontent? Harvard Business Review, 1979, 57, 117-125.
Crawford, I. Sharing profits and productivity. Work and People, 1975, 1(1).
Crespi, I. Attitude research. Chicago: American Marketing Associa-tion, 1965.
Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 1951, 16(3), 297-334.
Cronbach, L. Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper and Row, 1970.
Cronbach, L. J. and Meehl, P. Construct validity of psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1955» 52, 281-302.
Crowne, D. P. and Marlowe, D. A. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, I960, 24, 349-354.
Cummings, T. G. and Malloy, E. S. Improving the productivity and quality of work life. New York: Praeger, 1977.
Cummings, T. G., Malloy, E. S., and Glen, R. A methodological critique of fifty-eight selected work experiments. Human Relations, 1977, 30, 675-708.
Darom, E., Sharan, S. and Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. The development and validation of a multidimensional scale for assessment of teachers' attitudes toward small-group teaching. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1978, 38(4), 1233-1238.
Davis, J. C. and Forey, J. P. Mental examiners' source book. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1975.
Davis, L. E., Cherns, A. B., and Associates (Eds.). The quality of working life: Problems, prospects, and the state of the art. Vol. 1. New York: Free Press, 1975a.
Davis, L. E., Cherns, A. B., and Associates (Eds.). The quality of working life; Cases and commentary. Vol. 2. New York: Free Press, 1975b.
Dawes, R. M. Fundamentals of attitude measurement. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1972.
Dewar, D. Quality circle member manual. Red Bluff, California: Quality Circle Institute, 1980.
Dickson, J. W. Graduate seminar in College of Business and Public Administration. University of Arizona, January, 1981.
Doob, W. L. Propaganda; Its psychology and technology. New York: Holt, and Reinhart, 1935®
Dubois, P. H. A history of psychological testing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1970.
Ebel, R. L. Writing the test item. In Lindquist, E. F. (Ed.), Educational measurement. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1951.
Ebel, R. T. Essentials of educational measurement. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972.
Economic Development Administration. American Center for the Quality of Working Life. Office of Technical Assistance, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., no date.
Edwards, A. L. Techniques of attitude scale construction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957.
Edwards, A. L. and Kenney, K. C. A comparison of the Thurstone and Likert techniques of attitude scale construction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 19 , 30, 72-83.
Emery, F. E. and Trist, E. L. Towards a social ecology. New York: Plenum Press, 1973-
Engelhart, M. D. A comparison of several item discrimination indices. In Mehrens, W. A. and Ebel, R. L. (Eds.), Principles of educational and psychological measurement. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1967, 3»7-393.
Ferguson, L. W, A study of the Likert technique of attitude construction. The Journal of Social Psychology, 19 1, 13i 51-57.
Festinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1957.
223
Finch, F. E. Collaborative leadership in work settings. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1977, 13(3)» 292-302.
Fishbein, M. (Ed.). Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967.
Fishbein, M. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley Publishing Co., 1975.
Fordyce, J. K. and Weil, R. Methods for finding out what is going on. In French, W. L., Bell, C. H., Jr., and Zawacki, R. A. (Eds.), Organizational development: Theory, practice and research. Dallas:Business Publications, Inc., 1978.
Franklin, J. L., Wissler, A. L. and Spencer, G. J. Survey-guided development III: A manual for concepts training. La Jolla: University Associates, Inc., 1977 •
Frazier, L. P. An evaluation of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, 1976.
Freeman, F. S. Theory and practice of psychological testing. New York: Harper, Row and V/inston, 1966.
French, V/. L. and Bell, C. H., Jr. Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement. Princeton, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973-
French, W. L., Bell, C. H., Jr., and Zawacki, R. A. (Eds.). Organization development: Theory, practice and research. Dallas: Business Publications, Inc., 1978.
Fromm, E. and MacCoby, M. Social character in a Mexican village. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970.
Frost, C. F., Wakely, J. H., and Ruh, R. A. The Scanlon Plan for Organization development: Identity, participation and equity. Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 197 .
Fuller, S. H. How to become the organization of the future. Management Review, 1980, 69, 50-53.
General Motors. QWL update. Organizational Research and Development Department Newsletter, 1982.
Gershenfeld, J. Personal communication. Quality of Work Life Council, February 10, 1982.
Ghiselli, E. E. Theory of psychological measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
22k
Glaser, E. M. Productivity gains through worklife improvements. Personnel, 1980, 57, 71-77.
Glueck, W. E. Personnel: A diagnostic approach. Dallas: Business Publications, 1978.
Goldberg, A. L. The effects of two types of sound motion pictures on attitudes of adults toward minority groups. San Francisco: R and E Research Associates, 1955»
Goldman, B. A. and Busch, J. C. Directory of unpublished experimental mental measures. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1978.
Grabow, S. and Heskin, A. Foundations for a radical concept of planning. In Bennis, W., Benne, K. D., Chin, R. and Corey, K. E. (Eds.), The planning of change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1976.
Green, B. F. A primer of testing. American Psychologist, 1981, 36 (10), 1001-1011.
Greenberg, E. S. The consequences of worker participation: A classification of the theoretical literature. Social Science Quarterly, 1975, 56(2), 191-209.
Greenwald, A. C., Brock, T. C. and Ostrom, T. M. Psychological Foundations of Attitudes. New York: Academic Press, 1968.
Greiner, L. E. and Barnes, L. B. Organization change and development. In Dalton, G. W., Lawrence, P. R. and Greiner, L. E. (Eds.), Organizational change and development. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1970.
Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 195 «
Guttman, L. A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Sociological Review, 19 , 9» 139-150.
Guttman, L. Questions and answers about scale analysis. Research Branch, Information and Education Division, Army Sercice Forces. Report D-2, 19 5.
Habbe, S. Following up attitude survey findings. In National Industrial Conference Board, Studies in Personnel Policy, 1961, l8l.
Hall, 0. M. Attitudes and unemployment. - Archives of Psychology, 193 t 165.
Halloran, J. D. Attitude formation and change. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1976.
225
Hampton, D. R., Sumner, C. E. and Webber, R. A. Organizational Behavior and Practice of Management. Glenville, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1978.
Hanson, R. W. General beliefs scales; Toward the assessment of the Weltanschauung. Thesis for University of Arizona, 1970.
Hartke, A. R. The development of conceptually independent subscales in the measurement of attitudes. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1979, 39(3), 585-592.
Haussler, D. L., Pecorella, P. A., and Wissler, A. L. Survey-guided development II; A manual for consultants. La Jolla: University Associates, Inc., 1977 •
Healing, T. S. Attitudes of high school and college students toward old people. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, 1971.
Heider, F. Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 19 6, 21, 107-112.
Helfant, K. Parents' attitudes vs. adolescent hostility in the determination of adolescents' sociopolitical attitudes. Psychological Monographs, 1952, 66(13), Whole No. 3 5.
Henerson, M. E., Morris, L. L., Taylor Fitz-Gibbon, C. How to measure attitudes. Beverly Hills: Sage Publishers, 197HT
Hennessy, B. C. Public opinion. Belmont, Ca.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1970.
Hepburn, M. A. and Napier, J. D. Development and initial validation of an instrument to measure political attitudes. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1980, 0, 1131-113 1
Herbst, P. G. Autonomous group functioning. London: Tavistock, 1962.
Herbst, P. G. Socio-technical design; Strategies in multidiscrolinary research London: Tavistock, 197'+.
Herrick, N. Q. Organizational policies. Unpublished manuscript, 1972.
Herrick, N. 0. The quality of work and its outcomes. Columbus, Ohio: The Academy for Contemporary Problems, 1975.
Herrick, N. 0. Six interviews on the Quality of Working Life. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Productivity and Quality of Working Life, 1977.
Herrick, N. Q. Address to the Division of the Office of the Director, Department of Transportation Quality of Working Life Orientation, November 2*+, 1980a.
226
Herrick, N. Q. Pima County Department of Transportation and Flood Control District OWL Orientation Manual, 1980b.
Herrick, N. 0. Work in America: A comparison of industrial and municipal worker attitudes. Employee Relations, 1980c, 2, 6-10.
Herrick, N. 0. The means and end of work. Human Relations, 198la, J>k (7), 611-632.
Herrick, N. 0. How dissatisfied is the American Worker? Society, 1981b, 18(2), 26-33.
Herrick, N. Q. Address to the Pima County Labor Management Quality of Working Life Committee, December 16, 198lc.
Herrick, N. Q. Cooperative self-interest: Learning from Joe Scanlon. Public Productivity Quarterly, 1982a, 6.
Herrick, N. Q. (Ed.). Quality of working life in the public sector. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arizona, 1982b.
Herrick, N. Q. Graduate seminar, University of Arizona, January 22, 1982c.
Herrick, N. Q. Graduate seminar at The University of Arizona, February 20, 1982d.
Herrick, N. Q. and Maccoby, M. Humanizing work: A priority goal of the 1970s. In L. E. Davis and A. B. Cherns (Eds.), The quality of working life, Vol. 1. New York: Free Press, 1975.
Herrick, N. Q. and Ronchi, D. Springfield Ohio: Four years of labor-management cooperation to improve the quality of working life. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arizona, 1982.
Hlawek, J. Pima County Labor Management Quality of Working Life Committee Directory. Tucson: Pima County Government, 1982.
Hoffman, T. Measurement scale analysis: Pima County QWL project. Unpublished paper, 1981.
Hollander, E. P. and Hunt, R. G. Intergroup relations. In Hollander, E. P. and Hunt, R. G. (Eds.), Current perspectives in social psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.
Horowitz, E. L. The development of attitude toward the Negro. New York: Archives of Psychology, 1936.
Huckleberry, C. H. The Quality of working life experience at the Department of Transportation and Flood Control District, May, 1981.
227
Huse, E. F. Organization development and change. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1980.
Insko, C. A. (Ed.). Theories of attitude change. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.
Institute for Social Research. The Quality of Work Program: First eighteen months, a report. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, April' 197 -October 1975.
International Association of Quality Circles. The Quality Circles Journal, 1981, *+(4).
Isakson, R. L. and Ellsworth, R. The measurement of teacher attitudes toward educational research. Educational Research Quarterly, 1979, 4(2), 12-18.
Iwanicki, E. F. and Schwab, R. L. A cross validation study of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1981, 41, 1167-117%l
Jackson, D. M. and Bidwell, C. E. A modification of the Q-technique. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1959, 9(12), 221-232.
Jahoda, M. and Warren, N. (Eds.). Attitudes: Selected readings. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1966.
Jain, H. C. Worker participation: Lessons from the European experience. Management Review, 1980, 69, '+6-52.
Kahn, L. The organization of attitudes toward the Negro as a function of education. Psychological Monographs, 19511 65(13), Whole No. 330.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M. and Quinn, R. P. Organization stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Katzel, R. A. and Yankelovich, D. Work, productivity, and job satisfaction. New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1975«
Keidel, R. W. Quality of working life in the private sector: An overview and a developmental perspective. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.
Keisler, C. A., Collins, B. E. and Miller, N. Attitude change: A critical analysis of theoretical approaches. New York: Wiley,
Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973.
228
Kidder, L. H. and Campbell, D. T. The indirect testing of social attitudes. In Summers, G. (Ed.), Attitude measurement. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970.
Kim, J. Factor analysis. In Nie, N. H. and Hull, C. H. (Eds.), Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.
Kimberly, J. R. and Nielsen, W. R. Organization development and change in organizational performance. In W. L. French, C. H. Bell, Jr., and R. A. Zawacki (Eds.), Organization development: Theory, practice, and research. Dallas: Business Publications, Inc.,
Klein, A. Redundancy in the comprehensive tests of basic skills. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1981, *t-0, 1105-1110.
Kochan, T. A. and Dyer, L. A model of organizational change in the context of union-management relations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1976, 12(1), 59-78.
Kochan, T. A., Lipsky, D. B. and Dyer, L. D. Collective bargaining and the quality of work: The views of local union activists. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Winter Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association! Madison: IRRA, 1975, 150-162.
Kuper, G. H. Developments in the duality of working life. Labor Law Journal, 1977, 28(12), 752-762.
Landen, D. L. Quality of work life, quality of human life. Or is it vice versa? Detroit: General Motors, 1981.
Lawler, E. E. Should the quality work life be legislated? In Glueck, W. (Ed.), Personnel: A Book of Readings. Dallas: Business Publications, Inc., 1979.
Lawler, E. E>, III, Nadler, D. A., and Mirvis, P. H. Organizational change and the conduct of assessment research. Unpublished manuscript, 1978.
Lazarsfeld, P. F. and Barton, A. H. Qualitative measurement in the social sciences. In D. Lerner and H. D. Lasswell (Eds.), The policy sciences: Recent developments in scone and method. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1951.
Lazarsfeld, P. and Rosenberg, M. (Eds.). The language of social research. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1955*
Leeds, C. H. A scale for measuring teacher-pupil attitudes and teacher-pupil rapport. Psychological Monographs, 1950, 6M6), Whole No. 312.
229
Leedy, P. D. Practical research: Planning and design. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, Inc., 197^.
Lemon, N. Attitudes and their measurement. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973.
Leonard, J. W. and Thanopoulos, J. Japanese management: Reasons for success. Unpublished paper, University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, July, 1981.
Lewin, K. Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row, 1951.
Likert, R. A. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 1932, 140.
Lindquist, E. F. Educational measurement. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1951.
Lippitt, G. and Rumley, J. Living with work—the search for quality in work life. Optimum, 1977« 8, 38.
Luiten, J. Personal communication. Doctoral student in Educational Psychology, University of Arizona, April, 1982.
Lujan, M. and Brandon, R. W. A "reader's digest" version of AWL. Tucson: Pima County Government, 1981.
Lukes, S. H. Power: A radical view. London: MacMillan, 197^.
Maccoby, M. Foreword. In N. Q. Herrick, The quality of work and its outcomes. Columbus, Ohio: The Academy for Contemporary Problems, 1975.
Maccoby, M. and Terzi, K. A. What happened to the work ethic? Technology, work, and the changing American character. Unpublished paper, 1979.
Macy, B. A. and Mirvis, P. H. A methodology for assessment of quality of work life and organizational effectiveness in behavioral-economic terms. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 1976, 21, 212-226.
Mannweiler, R. A. and Talbott, V. G. Joint workshops to facilitate labor-management cooperation. Urbana, Illinois: Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, 1977.
Maranell, G. M. (Ed.). Scaling: A sourcebook for behavioral scientists. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 197^.
230
Margolis, B. L., Kroes, W. H. and Quinn, R. P. Job stress: An unlisted hazard. The Journal of Occupational Medicine, 197 , 10, 659-661.
Martens, F. L. A scale for measuring attitude toward physical education in the elementary school. Journal of Experimental Education. 1979, 47(3), 239-247.
Matell, M. S. and Jacoby, J. Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study I: Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1971, 31(3), 657-674.
Maye, W. T. Presidential labor-management committees: Productive failures. Industrial and Labor Relations, 1980, 34, 51 •
McDaniel, R. R. and Ashmos, D. P. Participatory management: An executive alternative for human service organizations. Human Resource Management, 1980, 1, 14-8.
McGuire, W. Cognitive consistency and attitude change. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, i960, 60, 345-353•
Mehrens, W. A. (Ed.). Readings in measurement and evaluation in education and psychology. New York: Harper, Row and Winston, 197T.
Mehrens, W. A. and Ebel, R. L. (Eds.). Principles of educational and psychological measurement. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 19671
Michaels, L. A. and Forsyth, R. A. Construction and validation of an instrument measuring certain attitudes toward mathematics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1977, 37(4), 1043-
Miles, R. H. Macro organizational behavior. Santa Monica, Cal.: Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc., 1980.
Miller, E. J. and Rice, A. K. Systems of organization. London: Tavistock, 1967.
Millward, Robert E. Attitude development through outdoor education. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University, n.d. (Pennsylvania State HYPER Series, No. 1).
Morgan, L. B. and Wicas, E. A. The short, unhappy life of student dissent. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1972, 51(1), 33-38.
Mosier, C. I. A critical examination of the concepts of tape validity. In Mehrens, W. A. and Ebel, R. L. (Eds.), Principles of educational and psychological measurement. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1967, 207-218.
231
Murphy, G. and Likert, R. Public opinion and the individual. New York: Harper, 1937.
Murphy, G. and Likert, R. Public opinion and the individual; A psychological study of student attitudes on public questions. New York: Russell and Russell, 1967.
Murphy, R. F. An attitude scale for dental health. The Journal of School Health, 1970, *+0(5), 268-270.
Napior, D. Nonmetric multidimensional techniques for summated ratings. In Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K. and Nerlove, S. B. (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling; Theory and applications in the behavioral sciences. New York; Seminar Press, 1972.
National Center for Productivity and Quality of Working Life.
A summary of the role of third parties in labor-management cooperative endeavors. Washington, D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.
Nelson, E. Radicalism-conservatism in student attitudes. Columbus, Ohio":Psychology Review Company, 1938.
Newcomb, T. M. Personality and social change. New York: Dryden, 19 3.
Newcomb, T. M. An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychology Review, 1953, 60, 393- 04.
Nie, N. H. and Hull, C. H. (Eds.). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975-
Nonnally, J. C. Introduction to psychological and educational measurement and evaluation. New York; McGraw-Hill, 1972.
Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
Nuttin, J. M., Jr. The illusion of attitude change: Towards a response contagion theory of persuasion. New York: Academic Press, 197 . '
Oppenheim, A. N. Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. New York: Basic Books, 1966.
Oppenheimer, R. Prospects in the arts and sciences. Perspectives USA, 1955, 2, 10-11.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. and Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of meaning. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1957.
Osgood, C. and Tannenbaum, P. The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychology Review, 1955, 62, 2-55.
232
Owens, L. and Straton, R. G. The development of a co-operative, competitive and individualized learning preference scale for students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1980, 50(2), 1V7-T5T;
Patchin, R. I. Is respect the key? The Quality Circles Journal, 1981, 9.
Payne, D. A. The assessment of learning;: Cognitive and affective. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Company, 197*+•
Payne, S. L. The art of asking questions. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1951®
Perney, J. The development and validation of the student opinion inventory factor scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1975, 35(*0, 9«3-986.
Peter, H. W. Redesigning human work: A new challenge. Work and People, 1975, 1(1), 3-9.
Pfeiffer, W. J., Heslin, R. and Jones, J. E. Instrumentation in human relations training: A guide to 92 instruments with wide applicability to the behavioral sciences. La Jolla, Ca.: University Associates, 1976.
Pfitzer, K. Program boosts county workers' morale. Tucson Citizen, Tuesday, July 21, 1981.
Pidgeon, D. and Yates, A. An introduction to educational measurement. New York: Humanities Press, 1968.
Pima County Board of Supervisors and the Employees. Declaration of Agreement by and between the Board of Supervisors and the Employees, 1981.
Pittell, S. M. and Mendelsohn, G. A. Situational appraisal inventory: Development and validation of a measure of evaluative attitudes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1969, 33(iO» 396-405.
Porras, J. and Berg, P. 0. Evaluation methodology in organizational development: An analysis and critique. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 1978, 1 (2), 151-173.
Powers, Stephen. Personal communication. Evaluator for Tucson Unified School District, April 1982.
Quinn, R. P., Seashore, S., Mangione, T., Campbell, D, Staines, G. L. and McCullough, M. Survey of working conditions. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.
233
Quinn, R. P. and Staines, G. L. Quality of emuloyment survey. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, 1977.
Raube, S. A. Experience with employee attitude surveys. In National Industrial Conference Board, Studies in Personnel Policy, 1951, 115.
Reddin, W. Managerial effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
Reicken, H. W. Memorandum on program evaluation. In W. L. French, C. H. Bell, Jr., and R. A. Zawacki (Eds.), Organization development: Theory, practice, and research. Dallas: Business Publications, Inc., 1978.
Remmers, H. H. Introduction to opinion and attitude measurement. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954.
Remmers, H. H. Anti-democratic attitudes in American schools. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1963.
Rendell, E. Quality circle—a "third wave" intervention. Training and Development Journal, 1981, 35, 28-31.
Reynolds, W. M. and Greco, V. T. The reliability and factorial validity of a scale for measuring teachers' attitudes towards mainstreaming. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1980, 40(2), 463-468.
Rice, G. H. Structural limits on organizational development. Human Resource Management, 1977, 4, 9-13«
Richards, H. C. and Gamache, R. Belief polarity: A useful construct for studies of prejudice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1979, 39(4), 791-801.
Roberts, D. M. and Bilderback, E. W. Reliability and validity of a statistics attitude survey. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1980, 40(1), 235?2W.
Robinson, J. P., Athanasiou, R. and Head, K. B. Measures of occupational attitudes and occupational characteristics. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, 1969.
Robinson, J. P., Rusk, J. G. and Head, K. B. Measures of political attitudes. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, 196H.
Robinson, J. P. and Shavers, P. R. Measures of social psychological attitudes. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, 1969.
Rogers, Carl. Freedom to learn. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1969.
23
Rogers, R. Book review. In Buros, 0. K. (Ed.), The eighth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, N.J.: The Gryphon Press, 1978, p. 1889.
Rokeach, M. Political and religious dogmatism: An alternative to the authoritarian personality.Washington:A.P.A., 1956.
Rokeach, M. Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organizations and change.San Francisco:Josey-Bass, 1968.
Rokeach, M. and Rothman, G. The principle of belief congruence and the congruity principle as models of cognitive interaction. Psychology Review, 1965, 72, 128-172.
Ronchi, D. The quality of working life movement I: History. Unpublished manuscript, 1980.
Rosenberg, M. An analysis of affective-cognitive consistency. In Hovland, C. and Rosenberg, M. (Eds.), Attitude organization and change. New Haven: Yale University Press, I960, 15-6 .
Sabers, Daryll. Personal communication, Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Arizona, March 1981.
Salancik, G. R. and Pfeffer, J. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 1978, 23, 22 -253*
Schein, E. H. Intergroup problems in organizations.. In French, W. L., Bell, C. H., Jr., and Zawacki, R. A. (Eds.), Organization development: Theory, practice and research. Dallas: Business Publications, Inc., 1978.
Schelble, J. M. Construction and validation of a behaviorally specific attitude scale. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, 1977.
Schreischeim, C. A. The effect of grouping or randomizing items on leniency response bias. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1981, kOl-kll.
Scott, 0. and Rohrbach, J. A comparison of five criteria for identi-bying fakable items on an attitude inventory. Journal of Experimental Education, 1977, 5(3), 51-55.
Scott, W. A. Attitude measurement. In Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1968.
235
Seashore, S. Overview and analysis of eight OWL demonstration projects. A proposal to the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Research and Development. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, December 1 , 1979.
Seashore, S. E. and Bowers, D. G. Durability of organization change. In W. L. French, C. H. Bell, Jr., and R. A. Zawacki (Eds.), Organization development; Theory, practice, and research. Dallas:Business Publications, Inc., 1978.
Shaw, M. E. and Wright, J. M. Scales for the measurement of attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Shaw, P. Participation in the Post Office and the pre-requisites for success. Personnel Management, 1980, 8, 2 -27.
Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K. and Nerlove, S. B. (Eds.). Multidimensional scaling: Theory and application in the behavior sciences. New York: Seminar Press, 1972.
Sheppard, H. and Herrick, N. 0. Where have all the robots gone? New York: The Free Press, 1972.
Sherif, C. W. and Sherif, M. (Eds.). Attitude, ego-involvement and change. New York: Wiley, 1967*
Snider, J. G. and Osgood, C. E. Semantic differential technique: A source book. Chicago, Illinois: Aldine, 1969.
Spier, M. S. Kurt Lewin's "force field analysis." The 1973 annual handbook for group facilitators. La Jolla: University Associates, 1973» 111-113*
Srivastva, S, Salipante, P., Cummings, T., Notz, W., Bigelow, J., and Waters, J. Job satisfaction and productivity. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University Press, 1975.
Stauffer, A. J. An investigation of the procedures for developing and validating the classroom attitude measure toward educational inquiry. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 197 i 3Z+(10, 893 %W~.
Stephenson, W. The study of behavior: Q-techniaue and its methodology.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.
Stephenson, W. The play theory of mass communications. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.
Stone, E. F. Research on OD phenomena: Methods, problems, and prospects. In Huse, E. F., Organization development and change. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 19 0.
236
Suedfeld, P. Attitude change: The competing views. Chicago: Aldine, 1971.
Summers, G. (Ed.). Attitude measurement. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970.
Susman, G. I. Autonomy at work: A sociotechnical analysis of participative management. New York: Praeger, 1979.
Susman, G. I. A guide to labor-management committees in state and local government. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.
Susman, G. I. and Evered, R. D. An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 1978, 23, 582-603.
Symonds, P. M. What is an attitude? Psychological Bulletin, 1927, 2 , 200.
Tannenbaum, R. and Davis, S. A. Values, man, and organization. In W. L. French, C. H. Bell, Jr., and R. A. Zawacki (Eds.), Organization development: Theory, practice, and research. Dallas:Business Publications, Inc., 1978.
Terkel, S. Working. New York: Random House, 1972.
Thomas, K. (Ed.). Attitudes and behavior. London: Penguin Books, 1971.
Thomas, W. I. and Znaniecki, F. The Polish peasant in Europe and America. Boston: Badger, 1918.
Thorndike, R. L. (Ed.). Educational measurement. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971•
Thorndike, R. L. and Hagen, E. Measurement and evaluation in psy-chology and education. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1955.
Thorsrud, D. E. Sociotechnical approach to job design and organizational development. In French, W. L., Bell, C. H., Jr., and Zawacki, R. A. (Eds.), Organization development: Theory, practice, and research. Dallas: Business Publications, Inc., 197HT
Thurstone, L. L. The measurement of values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 195 *
Thurstone, L. L. Comment. American Journal of Sociology, 19 6, 52, 39-50.
237
Thurstone, L. L. and Chave, E. J. The measurement of attitude. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1929.
Toffler, A. Future shock. New York: Random House, 1970.
Torgerson, W. L. Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1958.
Triandis, H. C. Attitude and attitude change. New York:" Wiley, 1971.
Trist, E. Collaboration in work settings: A personal perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1977, 13(3)» 268-278.
Trist, E. Adapting to a changing world. The Labour Gazette, 1978, 14-20.
Trist, E. L. and Bamforth, K. W. Some social and psychological conse-auences of the longwall method of coal getting. Human Relations, 1*951. 4, 3-38.
Trumbo, D. A. Individual and group correlates of attitudes toward work-related change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 45, 338-344.
Tyler, L. Theory and practice of psychological testing. New York: Harper, Row and Winston, 1963.
United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Work in America: A report of a special task force to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1973.
United States Steel Corporation. Agreement between United States Steel Corporation and the United Steel Workers of America, August 1, 1980. (Available from Neal Herrick, University of Arizona Management Department.)
Viano, E. and Wilderman, J. Organizational size and managerial attitudes of probation administrators. Sociology and Social Research, 1972, 56, 480-493.
Wacker, G. and Nadler, G. Seven myths about quality of working life. California Management Review, 1980, 22(2), 15-23.
Wadia, M. Participative management: Three common problems. Personnel Journal, 1980, 11(6), 927-928.
Walker, K. F. Workers' participation in management for Australia. Work and People, 1980, 5(3)» 3-H«
Walton, R. Advantages and attributes of the case study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 1972, 8, 77-78.
Walton, R. E. The Topeka story: Teaching an old dog food new tricks The Wharton Magazine, 1978, 38- 8.
Walton, R. E. and McKensie, R. B. A behavioral theory of labor negotiations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965*
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D. and Sechrest, L. Unobtrusive measures. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.
Wesman, A. G. Writing the test item. In Thorndike, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971» 81-129.
White, S. E. and Mitchell, T. R. Organization development: A review of research content and research design. In W. L. French, C. H. Bell, Jr., and R. A. Zawacki (Eds.), Organization development: Theory, practice, and research. Dallas: Business Publications, Inc., 1978.
Wiseman, A. Job redesign—two more examples. Work and People, 1975» 1, 16-19.
Wittenborn, J. R. Contributions and current status of 0. methodology. Psychological Bulletin, 1961, 58(2), 132-142.
Wood, D. A. Test construction: Development and interpretation of achievement tests. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books Inc., I960.
Yin, R. K. The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 1981, 26, 58-65.
Youngberg, C. F. X., Hedberg, R. and Baxter, B. Management action recommendations based on one versus two dimensions of a job satisfaction questionnaire. Personnel Psychology, 1962, 15» 149.
Zemke, R. Quality circles: Can they work in the United States? Journal of Applied Management, 1980, 5i 16-21.
