Productivity and Perceived Work Environment of Work Groups in Poland

Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU

Dissertations Graduate College

12-1993

Donald L. Gusfa Western Michigan University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, and the Educational Leadership Commons

Recommended Citation Gusfa, Donald L., "Productivity and Perceived Work Environment of Work Groups in Poland" (1993). Dissertations. 1863. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/1863

This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRODUCTIVITY AND PERCEIVED WORK ENVIRONMENT OF WORK GROUPS IN POLAND

Donald L. Gusfa

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Department of Educational Leadership

Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan December 1993

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PRODUCTIVITY AND PERCEIVED WORK ENVIRONMENT OF WORK GROUPS IN POLAND

Donald L. Gusfa, Ed.D.

Western Michigan University, 1993

The primary purpose of this study was to determine the relation

between levels of productivity and perceptions of autonomy among

similar work groups. The analysis of data obtained did not support a

tendency for perceptions of high autonomy among workers to be directly

related to high levels of productivity. Data were obtained from workers

at six carbide tool manufacturing plants in Poland who were adminis

tered the Work Environment Scale (WES) Form R (Moos, 1981) to

measure perception of autonomy. The data were collected in February

1991. Analysis of the WES data used the Kendall tau test to investigate

the relation between the independent variable productivity and the

dependent variable autonomy. The researcher examined nine additional

hypotheses, each involving productivity and involvement, peer cohesion,

supervisor support, task orientation, work pressure, clarity, control,

innovation, and physical comfort as measured by various WES sub

scales. Support for these hypotheses was found only between produc

tivity and workers' perception of peer cohesion.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough,margins, substandard and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Z eeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Order Number 9412214

Productivity and perceived work environment of work groups in Poland

Gusfa, Donald Leo, Ed.D.

Western Michigan University, 1993

UMI 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES...... v

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION...... 1

Productivity in Poland ...... 4

Importance of the S tu d y...... 7

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 9

Theories of Leadership ...... 9

Classical Theory ...... 9

Behavioral Theory ...... 10

Human Relations Theory ...... 13

Autonomous Work Groups ...... 14

Productivity ...... 19

Work Environment S cale...... 19

Reported Research...... 22

Discussion ...... 23

Summary ...... 29

III. DESIGN AND PROCEDURES ...... 31

Plant Selection ...... 32

Subjects...... 35

Instrumentation ...... 37

Data Collection ...... 38

Data Analysis ...... 40

Summary ...... 41

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table of Contents-Continued

CHAPTER

IV. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 42

Analysis of the Data ...... 44

Hypothesis 1: Productivity and Autonomy ...... 45

Hypothesis 2: Productivity and Involvement...... 45

Hypothesis 3: Productivity and Peer Cohesion...... 46

Hypothesis 4: Productivity and Supervisor Support ...... 47

Hypothesis 5: Productivity and Task Orientation .... 49

Hypothesis 6: Productivity and Work Pressure 51

Hypothesis 7: Productivity and C larity ...... 51

Hypothesis 8: Productivity and Control...... 51

Hypothesis 9: Productivity and Innovation ...... 52

Hypothesis 10: Productivity and Physical C om fort...... 54

Summary ...... 57

V. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, SUMMARY OF STUDY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHERRESEARCH ...... 58

Review of Study Purpose...... 58

Review of Study Design...... 59

Discussion of the Findings ...... 60

Recommendations for Further Research...... 62

APPENDICES ...... 64

A. Means and Standard Deviations ...... 65

B. Subscale Summary for All Plants ...... 67

C. Letter to Participants ...... 74

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table of Contents-Continued

D. Letter of Introduction...... 77

E. Letter of Approval From Human Subjects Institutional Review Board ...... 79

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 8-1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES

1. Summary of Plant Productivity ...... 43

2. Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Autonomy as an Environmental Factor and Productivity ...... 46

3. Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Involvement as an Environmental Factor and Productivity ...... 47

4. Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Peer Cohesion as an Environmental Factor and Productivity ...... 48

5. Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Supervisor Support as an Environmental Factor and Productivity ...... 49

6. Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Task Orientation as an Environmental Factor and Productivity ...... 50

7. Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Work Pressure as an Environmental Factor and Productivity ...... 52

8. Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Clarity as an Environmental Factor and Productivity ...... 53

9. Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Control as an Environmental Factor and Productivity ...... 54

10. Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Innovation as an Environmental Factor and Productivity ...... 55

11. Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Physical Comfort as an Environmental Factor and Productivity ...... 56

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Much has been written about labor productivity and perceived

work group autonomy (Chew, 1988; Farh & Scott, 1983; Flint, 1981;

Nevis, 1983; Steiner, 1972; Thurow, 1982). Although there exists

research about perceived work group autonomy and labor productivity,

their relationship remains vague. The primary purpose of this study was

to determine whether or not for work groups in Poland productivity

levels and their perceptions of their own autonomy are directly related.

Nine additional hypotheses were tested to measure the relation between

productivity and the following aspects of work environment: (a) per

ceived work group involvement, (b) perceived work group peer cohesion,

task orientation, (e) perceived work group work pressure, (f) perceived

work group clarity, (g) perceived work group control, (h) perceived work

group innovation, and (i) perceived work group physical comfort. The

findings to be reported in this study are intended to guide future work

environment measurement, experimentation, and organizational devel

opment in industry. Findings may be useful to industrial leaders as they

continue their efforts to remain competitive through labor productivity

improvements.

Increases in productivity are a continuous goal and concern of

business organizations competing in either local or multinational

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. markets. Increasing numbers of organizations have instituted productiv

ity measurement and improvement programs designed to supplement the

continuing efforts of management to reduce costs and to increase

productivity and thus competitiveness. Productivity, as defined by the

White House Conference on Productivity in 1984 (Productivity Growth.

1984), is the ratio of goods and services produced in the economy, in an

industry, or in an individual organization to the resources used to pro

duce them. Kendrick (1977) defined productivity as the relationship

between output of goods and services (0) and the inputs (I) of re

sources, human and nonhuman, used in the production process; the

relationship is usually expressed in ratio form: O/l. When the ratio of

output to total input rises, it indicates an increase in productive effici

ency, or productivity. Furthermore, Kendrick indicated that output can

be related to individual classes of inputs, such as labor hours used to

manufacture the product and labor productivity as the savings achieved

in the use of labor per unit of output. In this study, labor productivity is

measured by labor hours per.unit produced.

If the United States is to remain a world-class manufacturing

nation, companies must be able to produce in small lots, adapting pro

ducts to changing customer demands, which requires flexible work prac

tices, workers willing to move from job to job, and "cross-trained"

employees able to perform all tasks. The latter class of employees can

fill in for absent co-workers and respond quickly to changes in models

and production runs (Hoerr, 1989). Corporations in the United States

became concerned when labor productivity declined during the 1970s

and early 1980s. Labor productivity declined in the automotive, steel,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. machine and tool, textile, and farming industries. Wage concessions

were made by management to prevent labor unrest and threatened

strikes. At that time, however, labor productivity improvement plans to

minimize the incurred wage and benefit program increases were not ini

tiated. Concerns about market competitiveness were especially evident

in the automotive industry in the 1970s. Management arrived at the

realization employees were willing to increase labor productivity only if

they were more involved in the implementation processes and were able

to share in increased profits, that is, application of work involvement

theory through such methods as employee participation groups and

participative management.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (cited in Herman, 1975) reported

for 1974 a decline in labor productivity per person. This decline in

productivity was attributed to worker dissatisfaction due to the design

and management of the work. American workers were dissatisfied with

the quality of their working lives, which offered little challenge of auton

omy (Kerr & Rosow, 1979).

An autonomous work group is one which follows the principles of

sociotechnical design and open systems concepts, is organized around

relatively complete production processes, and is provided with the

minimal conditions for self-regulation (Katzell & Yankelovich, 1975).

Rakich (1970/1971) described job autonomy as:

the degree to which an individual has the ability to influence or control the manner in which activities in the work setting are performed. It consists of four dimensions which are (1) task independence, (2) interpersonal influence, (3) individual or group participation, and (4) delegated decision making authority. All four dimensions affect the individual's

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. autonomy by reason of reflecting his degree of influence or control over activities in the work setting, (p. 6)

The report, Work in America (Kerr & Rosow, 1979), speculated

worker discontent would be considerably less if workers had an active

voice in decisions at the workplace. Furthermore, they would work

harder if their jobs were enriched or expanded to allow greater control

over the order of their work and its content, or if altered in some way to

provide more freedom from direct supervision.

Productivity in Poland

Concerns about labor productivity were not limited to the United

States. In Poland, the Polish government in 1980, in an attempt to

improve national productivity, decided upon a course of rapid industriali

zation financed by Western banks. Large credits from the West made

possible a rapid and sizable growth in income, and consumption was

premature in relation to popular expectations and the economy's real

capacity (Pravda, 1983). Western banks were to have been paid by the

generation of hard currency through increased exports of coal, copper,

machinery, and machine tools. In 1988, Poland owed the West $40 bil

lion and each year was paying $6 billion to meet scheduled payments

(Merkel, 1989). When new capital equipment, lease agreements, com

puter software, etc,, were put into place, workers throughout Poland

were expected to increase their productivity (Sobczak, 1984). Calvo

and Coricelli (cited in Kharas, 1991) indicated that firms were subjected

to a serious credit crunch that generated reduced outputs and higher

prices. As an example of the Polish government's increased productivity

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. demands, workers at the Gdanska Slocznia {formerly Lenin) Ship Yard

were required to achieve productivity improvements (after new equip

ment was installed) by increasing the number of ocean-carrying freight

ers repaired and outfitted monthly (Sobczak, 1984). The gross produc

tion of light industry dropped 1.5% between 1970 and 1980, while

investment outlays increased by 301% for the same period

(Dziadkiewicz, 1987). Kharas (1991) indicated that the Polish Ministry

of Industry, in 1990, estimated that 552 enterprises were faced with

potential insolvency. These firms employed 674,000 workers. The

ministry forecast that dismissals during 1991 would total 150,000,

primarily in the machine tools, electronic, building, textile, and transport

sectors.

The Polish government refused to take the nation's work force

into its confidence or to permit open discussion of the productivity goals

needed to support mounting national debt. Poland owed $2.5 billion in

1973; 8 years later the debt exceeded $23 billion, and in 1990 the debt

exceeded $30 billion. The government denounced economic inefficiency

but excluded any innovative reforms to resolve the debt crisis. Decision

making and party superiority were to be preserved at all costs, even in a

country torn by economic and social strain (Dobbs, Karol, & Trevisan,

1981).

The government's autocratic methods suppressed the desire to

increase labor productivity initiatives and were accompanied by worker

discontent. Two-thirds of the directors in office had less than 10 years

of experience. They were highly educated, but many maintained an

authoritarian style and were insensitive to the human factor in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. production. This was not true of all new directors; nonetheless, on the

whole, as borne out by surveys conducted in 1960-1980, one of every

three workers looked upon industrial relations as a source of conflict

(Pravda, 1983). Management was largely concerned with controlling the

physical production process and avoiding theft, resulting in a hierarchical

pyramid.

A perceived lack of concern by the Polish government for its

human resources stimulated Polish workers into a "renewal" movement,

which became known as "Solidarity." Solidarity led to the emergence of

the first independent trade union supported by the Polish nation (Walesa,

1989).

There have been few, if any, genuine cases in which job enrich

ment had been successfully applied to a large, heterogeneous work force

(Fein, 1975). However, this was not the case in Poland. Hyclak (1987)

indicated in the period from 1956-1957 to 1980-1981, worker self

management was recognized as an important element in changing the

economic system from being centrally controlled to being decentralized

with decision-making authority in the firms. Also, worker participation

without managerial authority was seen as a way to increase the produc

tivity of enterprises without changing the basic enterprise system. In

1984 the concepts of Solidarity stimulated ideas of a market-oriented

economy and worker participation in management. These concepts met

with widespread and persistent support. The report on the state of the

republic (Bielasiak, 1981) stated:

Whenever a note of candor has sounded in the words of our leaders, whenever society has been trusted, whenever our difficulties, our mistakes, and ways to rectify them have

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. been discussed openly, the social climate and people's attitudes have changed radically, and new energies and initiatives have been released, (p. 148)

Importance of the Study

The findings of this study should provide more information about

the relationship of organizational effectiveness within a sociotechnical

work design. Sociotechnical work design, as detailed in Chapter II,

could increase labor productivity and offset the increasing cost of labor

and improve the quality of work life.

Foreign competition is an important consideration in economic

planning in the United States. Manufacturing operations have been

moved to countries such as Mexico, Korea, and China due to the avail

ability of cheap labor. Given that labor is less expensive in foreign

countries, American industry must compete by improving labor produc

tivity. The findings of this study, by describing the relation between

perceived work group autonomy and labor productivity at selected facto

ries in Poland, may provide useful information in a search for practices

which can improve labor productivity. Rakich (1970/1971) described

perceived job autonomy as the amount of job autonomy afforded an

individual in his or her work setting, as viewed by that individual, in

contrast to objective job autonomy which is determined from objective

criteria such as position in the organization hierarchy.

The data used in this study were collected in Poland. The reason

for collecting data in Poland is the Solidarity movement's emphasis upon

labor productivity improvements to decrease national debt through the

actions of work groups. The value of this study is important given the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. legalization of Solidarity in 1989 and the opening of new markets within

the Eastern European countries in 1990.

This study is exploratory; findings may prove to be useful for

future investigations into the relation between labor productivity and

worker perceptions of: (a) work group autonomy, (b) work group in

volvement, (c) work group peer cohesion, (d) work group supervisor

support, (e) work group task orientation, (f) work group work pressure,

(g) work group clarity, (h) work group control, (i) work group innovation,

and (j) work group physical comfort.

The remainder of this dissertation is divided into the following

chapters: Presented in Chapter II is a review of the literature, as well as

a description of the measuring instrument and a presentation of the re

ported research using the measurement instrument (Work Environment

Scale, Moos, 1981). Described in Chapter III are the data sources and

data analysis procedures. Presented in Chapter IV are the analysis and

conclusions of the research findings. Chapter V contains the summary

and recommendations for further research.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not for

work groups in Poland productivity levels and their perceptions of their

own autonomy and other work environments are directly related. This

chapter is divided into six sections: (1) theories of leadership, (2) autono

mous work groups, (3) productivity, (4) Work Environment Scale, (5)

reported research, (6) discussion, and (7) summary. Solidarity and

sociotechnical work design were discussed in Chapter I.

In the first section, leadership theories are reviewed because these

provide a background for the understanding of work environments, in

cluding autonomous work groups.

Theories of Leadership

Classical Theory

Classical organization theory, as espoused by Taylor (1911),

Weber (1947), and Fayol (1929), directs organizational efficiency by

specifying work task to worker role, developing employee rules and

procedures, and establishing sufficient levels of authority to maintain

them. Taylor (1911) thought workers will put forth extra effort on the

job to maximize their economic gain. He arrived at this conclusion by

observing a steel worker, who after putting in a 12-hour day of lifting

pigs of iron, ran 12 miles up a mountainside to work on his cabin. If this

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. excess energy can be used to produce more on the job, suggested

Taylor, higher profits from lower fixed costs can be used to pay the

worker signifjcantly more for his increased efforts. Such was the begin

ning of "scientific management" (Opsahl & Dunnette, 1966).

Scientific management subdivides functions into tasks and assigns

them to individuals with the appropriate skills, duties, and rules. Re

sponsibilities are clearly defined, the chain of command is top down,

each manager directs a small number of employees toward a specified

objective, and managerial authority is commensurate with responsibility.

Management plans, at least one day in advance, the work of every

worker to the most minute detail (Taylor, 1911).

Behavioral Theory

The behavioral school of thought in the United States is often

traced to the Hawthorne studies conducted at the Western Electric

Company in 1924 (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1947). Mayo's (cited in

Homans, 1950) work directed attention to the existence of small, infor

mal, face-to-face groups within larger work groups (the classical theo

rists ignored the informal organization). Mayo did not consider the

worker as strictly an economic being. He thought the strongest human

characteristic is man's desire to be associated continually with his fel

lows. Members of the informal groups observed at Western Electric

share in a variety of activities and beliefs common to the group. Mem

bership in the group becomes their source of satisfaction, strength, and

security and provides a buffer against the demands of the larger world of

department and factory. Employee motivation and performance are

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. influenced by factors such as type of management control perceived by

the worker, respect by management for the individual, and the inter

action within the group, rather than by the classical belief of monetary

incentives, discipline, and job security. Social factors also account for

increased productivity at Hawthorne. Supervision is relaxed. Operatives

set their own work pace and develop their own norms, practices, and

values.

Advocates of behavioral theory theorize a worker's increased job

involvement is reflected in a steady production improvement. The

worker is no longer considered less than a man driven for money and at

the mercy of his environment. Experiments by Calvin, Hoffman, and

Harden (1957) compared democratic and authoritarian leadership styles.

They found there is no consistent trend in favor of either style; however,

the less intelligent subjects perform better under authoritarian leadership,

while the more intelligent subjects perform slightly better under demo

cratic leadership.

Maslow's (1954) "Human Need Hierarchy" accentuates (the dif

ference between the behavioral and classical) these perceptions of

management theory. The behaviorists view workers as individuals with

wants and desires, whereas the classical school views workers as being

part of the production process. Maslow's theory of human nature was

not developed to understand people at work. Rather it is concerned with

motivation in life. The most appropriate organizational setting and

managerial approach is one conducive to the individual's satisfying his

own needs or wants while meeting organization objectives (McGregor,

1960). When management provides a work setting which satisfies the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. wants of an individual, he or she will be an effective member of the

organization.

The focus of the behaviorists is on improved communication,

where management and the workers have insight into the minds of each

other, and where the sociotechnical design of jobs influences employees'

participation in decision making and increases their job satisfaction and

productivity. Cognitive models indicate productivity, and satisfaction

increases can be attributed to specific inputs from subordinates on

issues in which they are interested and knowledgeable (K. I. Miller &

Monge, 1986). Cognitive models also suggest that if employees partici

pate with management in decision making, they will be better prepared

to implement agreed-upon work procedures. Groups need approval,

support, and a maintained sense of personal worth (Likert, 1961). Likert

linked effective groups to active participation in a limited area of deci

sions, although decisions do not have to be unanimous.

Likert (1961) and D. Katz and Kahn (1966) launched a program of

research studies, the aim of which was to discover the conditions result

ing in a high level of group functioning and a high level of individual

satisfaction of the group members. The study at Prudential Insurance

Company of America led to the identification of 12 high-producing and

12 low-producing groups of clerical workers who are equal in ability and

background. This study found evidence supervisory style affected group

motivation; and that as a consequence of this interaction, the most

effective style from the standpoint of production is one which is more

concerned with the employees' need for attention and respect than with

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. productivity. Successful supervisors combine employee-centered and

production-centered orientations (Kahn, 1960).

Human Relations Theory

The human relations theories differ from behavioral theories in that

the former purportedly are characterized by better controls and better

measurement and probed more deeply into the underlying psychology of

individuals (Gellerman, 1963). Bennis (1976) described an organization

as "a social system where people have norms, values, shared beliefs,

and paradigms of what's right and what's wrong and what's legitimate

and what isn't of how practice is conducted" (p. 15). Designing work

organizations does not mean having to conform to classical bureaucratic

principles. The technical aspects could be pushed aside in favor of

humanistic results (Trist, 1981). The best match would be somewhere

between social and technical systems. In order to be correlated, the

distinctive characteristics of the social and technical systems must be

mutually respected (Emery, 1970). The work group, rather than the

individual job holder, becomes central. Taylor (1911) designed man out

of the system.

In contrast to Taylor's view, sociotechnical systems theorists

propose that effective performance, defined usually in terms of output,

absenteeism, morale, etc., is a function of aligning the social and techno

logical systems in a way which will allow a coupling of their dissimilari

ties. Human relations theory emphasizes interpersonal relations, job

satisfaction, and the importance of informal groups as being the cata

lysts initiating the study of job attitudes and their relation to human

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. behavior in organizations. This interest in job satisfaction developed

from the desire of scientists to learn more about job satisfaction and its

presumed relation to job performance.

Emery (1970) presented a work paradigm based on six principles,

or assumptions, which are paraphrased below:

1. The work system is a set of activities that make up a func

tioning whole, rather than single jobs into which the work system can be

desegregated.

2. The work group is central rather than the individual job holder.

3. Internal regulation of the system by the group rather than the

external regulation of individuals by supervisors.

4. Develop multiple skills in the individual, thereby increasing the

response repertoire of the group.

5. Prescribed work roles are no longer valued; rather, discretion

ary roles are valued.

6. The individual is complementary to the machine rather than an

extension.

Autonomous Work Groups

Autonomous work groups largely emerge from the application of

sociotechnical systems perspective (Cummings, 1978; Emery & Trist,

1969; Susman, 1976). The process of group decision making can lead

to better utilization and integration of knowledge than individual or

consultive decision making. The group may set goals which are higher

than those which would have been assigned by management. As noted

in the study Work in America (Kerr & Rosow, 1979), what workers want

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. most is more autonomy in their job environment. Katzell and

Yankelovich (1975) may have been summarizing this phenomenon when

they stated:

A major development of the socio-technical approach is experimentation with autonomous work groups. Based on principles of socio-technical design and open systems concepts, work groups are organized around relatively complete production processes and are provided with the minimal conditions for self regulation. These self regulating properties include (a) clear measure of input and output for effective feedback of results; (b) requisite task variety; (c) joint commitment to the whole task; (d) total task respon sibility. Since these groups are capable of managing the internal activities of their units, managers are freed from direct control duties and are required to manage the bound ary conditions that relate the work groups to other sections of the organization and to their environments, (p. 69)

In support of Katzell and Yankelovich (1975), the study Work in

America (Kerr & Rosow, 1979) reported on a changing work force:

1. The work force changed from one having an average educa

tional attainment of less than junior high to one with more than a high

school education.

2. A work force comprised mostly of rural immigrants and

peasant origin to largely native born.

3. A work force influence minded.

4. A work force informed, knowledgeable, and creative.

Taylor's (1911) primacy of the machine has been replaced by the

human relations concept of concern for the worker. A skilled work force

using general purpose machinery is capable of higher productivity and

flexibility than an unskilled work force using highly specialized machines

(Friedman, 1983). The use of autonomous work groups involves a shift

in focus to group from individual work procedures. The research

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. conducted by advocates of human relation theories focuses on job

designs and work organizations where human resource can manifest

itself. D. Katz and Kahn (1966) cautioned against "the glorification of

the primary group as a source of work satisfaction" (p. 54) and sug

gested the importance of group autonomy. This form of work organiza

tion has direct consequences for the worker's self-development for

general satisfaction in the workplace and for productivity (Gulowsen,

1979). Gulowsen also listed seven criteria for autonomy. They are

paraphrased as:

Goal formation: Group formulates its goals, both qualitative and

quantitative.

Performance control: Group controls its performance with regard

to where to work, when to work, and in which activities to engage.

Production method: Group decides on the best production

method: modular, assembly line, etc.

Distribution of tasks: Group members assign tasks.

Group membership: Membership decided by the group.

Internal and external leadership: Group decides on the necessity

of adding members.

Operations performance: Group decides on the sequencing of

operations.

Gulowsen's (1979) criteria are used in this study to formulate a

working definition of autonomous work groups.

The Katzell and Yankelovich (1975) definition is used in this study

to describe autonomous work groups operationally. This definition fits

five of the seven criteria for autonomous work groups as described by

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Gulowsen (1979). The two items that do not fit are: (1) group mem

bership and (2) internal and external leadership. Katzell and

Yankelovich's, definition of autonomous work groups incorporates the

facets of discretion, control, participation, and decision-making authority.

Autonomous work groups are work structures where members

regulate their behavior around relatively whole tasks. The work design

has at least two features which distinguish it from more traditional task

structures: (1) The focus of design is interdependent task groupings

rather than individual tasks, and (2) task control is located within the

group rather than external to it. Also, autonomous work groups are task

structures where independent workers self-regulate their behavior around

relatively whole tasks (Cummings & Griggs, 1977). Work groups also

have indicated they perceive personal responsibility for their work

(Turner & Lawrence, 1965). Autonomous work groups have been found

to perceive they have a major say in scheduling their work, selecting the

equipment to be used, and in deciding upon procedures to be followed

(Hackman & Lawler, 1971).

A study of 60 employees and 4 supervisors describes their jobs

relevant to five job characteristics, which include autonomy (Oldham,

1976). The study found a relationship between the measure of internal

motivation and employees' rated work quality, work quantity, and work

effort. The correlation between measures of autonomy and growth

needs is .58 (q < .01). The relationships between the presence of

autonomous work groups to employee work motivation, job satisfaction,

and group performance were studied over a 3-year period in a British

company producing confectionery (Wall, Kemp, Jackson, & Clegg,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1988). In the study, an autonomous work group is described as being a

group which has collective control over the pace of work, distribution of

tasks, organization of breaks, and collective participation in recruitment

and training of new members. Seven hundred and twenty production

employees work in groups of 8 to 12 people. They concluded that

throughout the early part of the test, production fell short of targets,

individual and group efficiencies were low, and machine utilization was

poor. However, with increased reliability of the technology, increased

skill levels, and increased personnel levels, production steadily increased.

Toward the end of the second year, the autonomous work groups

achieved output targets, and they remained at that level for the remain

der of the study. Implementation of this work design increased intrinsic

job satisfaction, but it did not affect work performance demonstrably.

At an organizational level, productivity benefits were realized because

autonomous work groups reduced indirect labor costs.

Data for 56 blue-collar workers measure the correlation between

worker attitudes and behavior and the function of autonomous work

groups (Cummings & Griggs, 1977). The findings indicate three distinct

conditions are present if a work group is to be classified as an autono

mous work group: boundary control, task control, and control of the

whole task. The correlation between task control and team performance

is .34 (£> < .05).

A study of 101 samples from 88 studies in published literature of

either measures of autonomy or measures of participative decision

making concludes employees who perceive comparatively high levels of

autonomy at work are more satisfied, committed, involved, and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. motivated; are absent less; and have fewer intentions of quitting

(Spector, 1986). The correlations range in magnitude from .20 to .48

(E < .05).

Productivity

Productivity is the ratio of goods and services produced in the

economy, in an industry, or in an individual organization to the resources

used to produce them (Productivity Growth. 1984). This definition is

similar to definitions given by a number of other authors. Kendrick

(1977) defined it as the relationship of output to any or all of the asso

ciated inputs, nonhuman as well as human. Katzell and Yankelovich

(1975) indicated productivity reflects how well people, machinery, or

both perform together.

Work Environment Scale

Described in this section is the instrument used to measure the

perceptions of work groups in Poland of their work environments. In

this section, the development of the Work Environment Scale (WES)

Form R (Moos, 1981) is described, and a description of each of the work

environments is provided.

The Work Environment Scale (Form R) is designed to measure the

subjects' perceptions of their work environments. Additionally, the

instrument has been used with many types of groups to measure three

group dimensions of work environments. Insel and Moos (1974)

described the work environments as (1) relationship dimensions, (2) per

sonal growth dimensions, and (3) systems maintenance-systems change

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dimensions. The Work Environment Scale (Form R) (Insel & Moos,

1974) has 10 subscales. The instrument asks people how they perceive

their current work situations. Moos developed the scale using the

needs-press concept. The needs-press concept assumes individual

behavior is a result of internal thought processes (needs) interacting with

external stimuli (presses) (Murray, 1938). Murray described a need:

A need is clearly an emergence from the immediate past or as Schopenhouer would have it "a push from the rear," rather than a pull from the future. The environment may, of course, be effective in arousing this push, and to conscious ness the field that lies before its vision or the imagery which seems to anticipate such a field commonly appears in the guise of a pull, positive incentive or attraction. To put it metaphorically, a need may have no inkling of what it needs. It may be a blind impulse, but an impulse which does not as a rule completely subside until a situation of a certain kind has been arrived at. (p. 68)

Murray (1938) described a press:

For example a press may be nourishing, or coercing, or inju ring, or chilling, or befriending, or restraining, or amusing or belittling to the organism. It can be said that a press is a temporal gestalt of stimuli which usually appears in the guise of a threat of form or promise of benefit to the organism. It seems that organisms quite naturally classify the objects of their world in this way: This is sweet, this comforts, this lacks support, (p. 40)

The subscales of the Work Environment Scale (Form R) described

by Moos (1981) are:

1. Involvement: the extent to which employees are concerned about and committed to their jobs.

2. Peer Cohesion: the extent to which employees are friendly and supportive of one another.

3. Supervisor Support: the extent to which man agement is supportive of employees and encourages employees to be supportive of one another.

4. Autonomy: the extent to which employees are encouraged to be self-sufficient and to make their own

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. decisions.

5. Task Orientation: the degree of emphasis on good planning, efficiency, and getting the job done.

6. Work Pressure: the degree to which the press of work and time urgency dominate the job milieu.

7. Clarity: the extent to which employees know what to expect in their daily routine and how explicitly rules and policies are communicated.

8. Control: the extent to which management uses rules and pressures to keep employees under control.

9. Innovation: the degree of emphasis on variety, change, and new approaches.

10. Physical Comfort: the extent to which the physi cal surroundings contribute to a pleasant work environment. (pp. 2)

The WES, according to the needs-press theory as interpreted by

Insel and Moos (1974), provides an understanding of an individual's

perceptions and behavior in groups. The average internal consistency

for the WES subscales (N = 1,045) is .78 with a range of .73 to .86.

The average item subscale correlation is .48 with a range of .36 to .53.

Moos (1981) indicated normative data were collected for 1,442 em

ployees in representative work groups and 1,607 employees in a variety

of health care work groups. The preliminary norms used in Form R were

obtained from measures of 624 individuals in 44 different work groups.

Insel and Moos (1974) used the following work groups in the norming

sample: (a) recreational and maintenance workers in city parks; (b)

professional and paraprofessional workers in volunteer outpatient clinics;

attendants employed at a university; (d) city employees in public works,

financial services, and city clerk's office; (e) skilled maintenance and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. public works employees in community development and administrative

services; (f) faculty members in a nursing school; (g) employees of a

small electronics firm; (h) administrative staff and nurses employed in a

veteran's hospital; (i) maintenance and production workers in a large

factory; (j) various employees of a trucking firm; and (k) various em

ployees of a soft drink bottling plant.

The Work Environment Scale was used in this study because three

or four of the types of groups that were used to norm this in the United

States are considered to be similar, or at least not dissimilar, to groups

of production workers in factory settings anywhere in the world, includ

ing either the United States or Poland.

Reported Research

Summaries of studies in which the WES was used are included in

this section.

Five hundred and eighty-nine enlisted men and women at the

Naval School of Health and Science, San Diego, California, were sam

pled (Booth, Norton, Webster, & Berry, 1976). The results indicate the

Social Climate scales may constitute useful item pools when applied to

new environments, and the original scales may be applicable in new

settings. A sampling of 14 law enforcement officers found the WES can

be helpful in the study of work environments of criminal justice agencies

(Waters, 1978). A sampling of 50 depressed and 50 nondepressed

white women found independent women whose work environments are

incongruent with their needs, but who are free to leave their environ

ments, are depressed, similar to dependent women who perceive their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. work environments as low in structure (Wetzel, 1978). A study of the

work and family environments of a group of public school teachers

found a relationship between teacher perceptions of work structure and

work environment (Shannon, 1982/1983). Involvement at .61, Staff

Support at .43, Autonomy at .62, and Task Orientation at .68 supports

the relationship at the alpha level of .05. A study about whether or not

a group of middle-aged men (35-50 years) perceive their work and family

environments differently than younger men (20-34 years) found at the

alpha level of .05 no difference between the two groups in the scores

measuring their perceptions of involvement, peer cohesion, staff sup

port, autonomy, task orientation, work pressure, clarity, control, innova

tion, and physical comfort in their work (O'Brien, 1979/1980).

Discussion

The preceding review of literature found in some instances a direct

relation between perceived levels of autonomy and levels of productivity.

The literature indicates autonomous work groups emerge from the appli

cation of sociotechnical system perspective. Therefore, with the emer

gence of Solidarity, the Polish government no longer adheres to autocrat

ic methods of decision making in the workplace. Decisions affecting

production now rest in the hands of firms, and workers increase their

participation in management (one of the concepts of Solidarity). This

situation indicates there is some basis for the existence of productivity

and perceived work environment differences among work groups in

Poland. Therefore, the following 10 hypotheses were formulated:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of autonomy among work groups in

Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to productivity.

Rakich (1970/1971) found a relationship between job autonomy

and employee performance (r = .246). Rakich indicated that his find

ings add further support to the basic premise of other studies which

stipulate that people having higher levels of job autonomy are higher

performers. Booth et al. (1976) sampled 589 enlisted men and women.

Their research indicated the Social Climate scales may constitute useful

item pools when applied to new environments and the original scales

may be applicable to new settings. O'Brien (1979/1980) found the

group of middle-aged men (mean age 38.8 years) and the group of

younger men (mean age 28.7 years) do not differ at the .05 alpha level

in their perceptions of autonomy in their work environment. Shannon

(1982/1983) found the relation between teacher perception of work

structure and the Work Environment subscale Autonomy supporting the

existence of a relation at the alpha level of .05. Autonomy is found to

be correlated with the self-report of personal productivity (r = .21,e

< .05), and personal productivity is, in turn, correlated with reports of

general affective tone (r = .55,e < .001) and job attractiveness (r

= -44, j d < .001) (Farh & Scott, 1983). Thus, subjects in the most

autonomous condition report a higher level of autonomy; and those who

report a higher level of autonomy, whatever the condition, tend to report

a higher level of personal productivity.

Booth et al. (1976) did not directly address the issue of whether

or not there are differences in perceptions of autonomy between groups.

O'Brien (1979/1980) did not find differences when he disaggregated his

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. data by age and did not find differences in perceptions of autonomy.

Shannon (1982/1983) did find a relation, using the Work Structure

subscale Clarity and Innovation and the Work Environment subscale

Autonomy at the .05 alpha level. Farh and Scott (1983) and Rakich

(1970/1971) found a correlation between autonomy and productivity.

Four of these five studies did examine the relation of autonomy to other

variables. In three of the four studies, relations between autonomy and

other variables were found. Based on the studies where a relation

between perceptions of autonomy and productivity were found, it was

determined to complete a comparative study in an industrial setting

outside of the United States. Because one of the concepts of Solidarity

is worker participation in management, and because Solidarity places an

emphasis on labor productivity to reduce the country's national debt, it

was determined to add to the empirical data on productivity and the

relation to autonomy by testing work groups in Poland for differences.

As outlined in Chapter I, the remaining perceptions of the work

environment, as measured by the Work Environment Scale, made up the

nine other hypotheses.

Hypothesis 2 : Perceptions of involvement among work groups in

Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to productivity.

Oldham (1976) hypothesized the more an individual is internally

motivated, the greater the work effort, quality, and quantity, and the

lower his absenteeism. Results show a positive relation between the

measure of internal motivation and employee-rated work quality, work

quantity, and work effort. O'Brien (1979/1980) found no relation in

their perceptions of involvement in the work environment between a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. group of middle-aged men (mean age 38.8 years) and a group of young

er men (mean age 28.7 years). Shannon (1982/1983) found the exist

ence of a relation between teacher perception of work structure and the

Work Environment subscale involvement. The Pearson product-moment

correlation was .61. (A .05 alpha level was used in that study.) K. I.

Miller and Monge (1986) indicated productivity and satisfaction increas

es can be attributed to specific inputs from subordinates on issues in

which they are interested and knowledgeable.

Hypothesis 3 : Perceptions of peer cohesion among work groups

in Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to produc

tivity.

O'Brien (1979/1980) found no relation in their perceptions of peer

cohesion in their work environment between a group of middle-aged men

(mean age 38.8 years) and a group of younger men (mean age 28.7

years). However, Homans (1950) thought the strongest human charac

teristic is man's desire to be associated continually with his fellows.

Hypothesis 4 : Perceptions of supervisor support among work

groups in Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to

productivity.

Kahn (1960) indicated the most successful superiors combine

employee-centered and production-centered orientations. Mayo's (1945)

work at Hawthorne indicates employee motivation and performance are

influenced by factors such as type of management for the individual.

Social factors also account for increased productivity at Hawthorne.

Supervision is relaxed. Likert (1961) and D. Katz and Kahn (1966)

produced evidence supervisory style affects group motivation; and as a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. consequence of this interaction, the most effective style from the stand

point of production is one which is more concerned with the employees'

need for attention and respect than with productivity. O'Brien (1979/

1980) found no relation in their perceptions of supervisor support in their

work environment between a group of middle-aged men (mean age 38.8

years) and a group of younger men (mean age 28.7 years). Shannon

(1982/1983) found the existence of a relation between teacher percep

tion of work structure and the Work Environment subscale Staff Sup

port. The Pearson product-moment correlation was .43. (A .05 alpha

level was used in that study.)

Hypothesis 5 : Perceptions of task orientation among work groups

in Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to produc

tivity.

Taylor (1911) espoused organizational efficiency by specifying

work task to worker role. Taylor thought workers will put forth extra

effort on the job to maximize gain. O’Brien (1979/1980) found no rela

tion in their perceptions of task orientation in their work environment

between a group of middle-aged men (mean age 38.8 years) and a group

of younger men (mean age 28.7 years). Shannon (1982/1983) found

the existence of a relation between teacher perception of work structure

and the Work Environment subscale Task Orientation. The Pearson

product-moment correlation was .68. (A .05 alpha level was used in

that study.)

Hypothesis 6 : Perceptions of work pressure among work groups

in Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to productiv

ity.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. O'Brien (1979/1980) found no relation in their perceptions of

work pressure in their work environment between a group of middle-

aged men (mean age 38.8 years) and a group of younger men (mean age

28.7 years).

Hypothesis 7 : Perceptions of clarity among work groups in Poland

manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to productivity.

O'Brien (1979/1980) found no relation in their perceptions of

clarity in their work environment between a group of middle-aged men

(mean age 38.8 years) and a group of younger men (mean age 28.7

years).

Hypothesis 8 : Perceptions of control among work groups in

Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to productivity.

Cummings and Griggs (1977) found a positive correlation, .34

(B < .05) between task control and team performance. O'Brien (1979/

1980) found no relation in their perceptions of control in the work envi

ronment between a group of middle-aged men (mean age 38.8 years)

and a group of younger men (mean age 28.7 years).

Hypothesis 9 : Perceptions of innovation among work groups in

Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to productivity.

O'Brien (1979/1980) found no relation in their perceptions of innovation

in their work environment between a group of middle-aged men (mean

age 38.8 years) and a group of younger men (mean age 28.7 years).

Hypothesis 10: Perceptions of physical comfort among work

groups in Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to

productivity.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. O'Brien (1979/1980) found no relation in their perceptions of

physical comfort in their work environment between a group of middle-

aged men (mean age 38.8 years) and a group of younger (mean age

28.7 years).

Summary

Only a very small number of studies were found that investigated

the relation between productivity and (a) involvement, (b) peer cohesion,

pressure, (g) clarity, (h) control, (i) innovation, and (j) physical comfort

variables measured on the Work Environment Scale (Moos, 1981). Farh

and Scott (1983) and Rakich (1970/1971) found a correlation between

autonomy and productivity. Furthermore, Farh and Scott found a higher

level of autonomy, whatever the condition, associated with correspond

ing higher levels of productivity. This study examined perceived auton

omy and productivity in order to support or refute the propositions of

fered in the literature, particularly those of Farh and Scott. No study

identical or similar was found which was conducted in Poland. There

fore, this study was conducted to test the hypothesis of Farh and Scott

under conditions which occurred in Poland in 1991. One hypothesis to

measure the relation between the independent variable productivity and

the dependent variable autonomy was formulated; nine additional hy

potheses, each involving productivity and one of the following depend

ent variables, involvement, peer cohesion, supervisor support, task orien

tation, work pressure, clarity, control, innovation, and physical support,

were formulated for this study. Based on the findings of the studies that

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. have been reported, which are mixed, decisions were made for each

hypothesis on whether to treat it as either nondirectional or directional.

Much of what is theorized about autonomy and its influence upon other

variables remains untested theory. This study will contribute to the

number of tests of theoretical propositions about the importance of

autonomy.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER III

DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not for

work groups in Poland productivity levels and their perceptions of their

own autonomy as well as other aspects of the work environment are

related. This chapter contains the procedures for testing the research

hypotheses. The hypothesis developed to study the relation between

perceived work group autonomy and productivity between factories

manufacturing carbide tooling in Poland is: Hypothesis 1: Perceptions

of autonomy among work groups in Poland manufacturing carbide tool

ing are directly related to productivity. The following hypotheses were

also tested:

Hypothesis 2 : Perceptions of involvement among work groups in

Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to productivity.

Hypothesis 3 : Perceptions of peer cohesion among work groups

in Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to produc

tivity.

Hypothesis 4 : Perceptions of supervisor support among work

groups in Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to

productivity.

Hypothesis 5 : Perceptions of task orientation among work

groups in Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to

productivity.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hypothesis 6 : Perceptions of work pressure among work groups

in Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to produc

tivity.

Hypothesis 7 : Perceptions of clarity among work groups in

Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to productivity.

Hypothesis 8 : Perceptions of control among work groups in

Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to productivity.

Hypothesis 9 : Perceptions of innovation among work groups in

Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to productivity.

Hypothesis 10: Perceptions of physical comfort among work

groups in Poland manufacturing carbide tooling are directly related to

productivity.

This chapter is divided into six sections: (1) plant selection,

(2) subjects, (3) instrumentation, (4) data collection, (5) data analysis,

and (6) summary.

Plant Selection

The focus of this study was the relation between perceived

autonomy of work groups in Poland and labor productivity at selected

organizations manufacturing carbide tooling in Poland. Subscales of the

Work Environment Scale (WES, Moos, 1981), Involvement, Peer Cohe

sion, Supervisor Support, Task Orientation, Work Pressure, Clarity,

Control, Innovation, and Physical Comfort, also were to be examined.

Three steps were defined for this study before departure to Po

land. Step 1, the mean score and standard deviation for all factories'

plant productivity were to be computed. Step 2, factories with standard

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. productivity scores one or more standard deviations above or below the

mean were to be administered the survey. These factories were to be

considered as having high or low productivity, respectively. A minimum

of three factories in each category (high and low productivity) was

considered necessary for purposes of this study. If the sample size were

larger and if more than three factories in either group had been realized,

then the factories with the most extreme scores in each group were to

be chosen for the study. Step 3, if three or more factories did not fall

within the high and low productivity range as defined in Step 2, then all

of the factories were to be rank ordered from high productivity to low

productivity and used in the study. An alpha of .10 was used to test

the null hypotheses. This study is exploratory; therefore, a decision was

made to use a high alpha level.

Upon arrival in Poland and before conducting the survey, the

following occurred:

1. Contact was made with Poland's Department of Commerce in

Warsaw in February 1991. The Department of Commerce was re

quested in a face-to-face meeting to provide the names of the organiza

tions manufacturing carbide tooling near the cities of Warszawa,

Gdansk, and Kracow.

2. The Department of Commerce provided the researcher with

the list of only six factories located near the cities of Warsaw, Gdansk,

and Kracow. The Department of Commerce confirmed that these were

the only factories of this type.

3. After the list of six factories was provided by the Department

of Commerce, telephone contact with the plant manager at each of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. six factories was made requesting permission to conduct the study.

4. The plant manager at each factory computed their labor

productivity by dividing the total monthly labor hours required to produce

the parts by the monthly production. Actual production totals were not

divulged to the researcher because each plant manager stated that he

wanted to keep such data confidential. To verify the productivity data,

the researcher reviewed the data with a sales engineer employed by a

Polish export company familiar with data of this type. He confirmed the

reasonableness of the data.

5. All six factories were surveyed using the WES.

Permission to conduct the survey was obtained from the local

union representative in face-to-face meetings and plant management at

each factory site by telephone before the survey was administered. The

workers at the factories sampled in Poland were laborers in light industry

manufacturing machine cutting tools, namely, carbide cutting inserts.

To obtain information about the workers' perceptions of their work

environment, strict assurances were provided the workers, including

their local union representatives, that the information requested would

not be disclosed for purposes other than for this study (see Appendix C).

After such assurances were acknowledged, subject participation was

voluntary. Individual perceptions were obtained from scores recorded on

the WES. The scorer counted the number of ves answers for each

subscale and entered the total on a worksheet. Raw scores were con

verted to an average score for all respondents surveyed at each factory

location. Consequently, only WES data for workers employed on the

day the survey was administered at the selected plants were used for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. this study. Average scores for the subscales at each factory site were

calculated for this study. All testing was administered in the morning

during the designated work break.

Subjects

This study was conducted near the major industrial cities of

Warszawa, Gdansk, and Kracow. The population for this study was

factories comprised of work groups involved in the manufacturing of

carbide tools. Poland-Statistical Data 1987 (Dziadkiewicz, 1987), pub

lished by the Central Statistical Office of Poland, indicates in 1986,

4,2 77 ,000 workers were employed in industry. Forty-five percent had a

basic vocational education, 35% a secondary education, and 6% a third

level (college) education (the data do not address the remaining 14% of

the workers). The number of workers in light industry was 686,000,

representing 16.1% of the industrial enterprises. The number of work

ers manufacturing carbide tooling is unknown. The average pay per

worker was 27,499 zlotys per month, approximately $55 U.S. Rogers

and Matthews (1991) reported that the wages in Eastern Europe are

cheap, in Poland especially. The wage rate in Poland is 15% of equival

ent British rates, and less than either that of Hungary or Czechoslovakia.

In 1985 the number of organizations with 51-100 workers was 7,900;

101-500 workers, 11,900; 501-1,000 workers, 2,200; 1,001-5,000

workers, 1,800; and 5,001 and more workers, 200.

The subjects for this study were factory workers manufacturing

primarily cutting tools, namely, carbide cutting inserts. The percentage

of subjects asked to answer the survey was 100% of the workers at the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. selected plants working at the time the survey was administered. The

employees at each plant completed the survey in a designated area

monitored by the researcher. The plant manager at each plant verified

that 100% of the employees asked to take the survey did in fact partici

pate. It is assumed that the high response rate was due to the plant

managers' perception that the researcher could in some way affect

potential sales to United States customers. Therefore, pressure to

complete the survey could have been applied to the workers, but the

researcher had no indication that this actually occurred.

Permission to conduct the study was obtained from both factory

management and local union representatives. Each work group was

introduced to the researcher and encouraged by the researcher to partic

ipate in the study. A verbal agreement was made between the research

er and the workers to (a) keep information obtained from individual par

ticipants confidential by not requiring their names or any other means of

identification on the questionnaire and (b) to report only group data in

the study. A request was made to the workers at each factory site,

encouraging their participation in completing the WES. The participants

at each factory site (the work group) had described to them the study

and the instrument as a group. Identification codes were assigned to

each plant. Each factory surveyed was identified by its assigned code.

A logbook with the following information was maintained: assigned

code number for each factory surveyed, total work force on the rolls at

each factory, number of production days used in the calculation, total

production and total labor hours for the 2 months used for the survey,

and number of employees at the work site the day the questionnaire was

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. administered (if extenuating manufacturing circumstances had been

found which necessitated using production output for months other than

the 2 preceding the survey, one of two actions would have occurred:

(1) the factory would have not been used in the survey; or (2) if the

factory was used in the survey, the information would have been noted

on the logbook including conclusions).

Instrumentation

The Work Environment Scale, Form R (Moos, 1981) was used in

this study because factory workers had been used in the norming

sample. The instrument is published by the Consulting Psychologists

permission to use the instrument and to translate the English version into

Polish. Insel and Moos (1974), using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20,

determined the internal consistencies. The average internal consistency

for the English version of the Work Environment Scale subscales (N =

1,045) is .78 with a range of .73 to .86. The average item subscale

correlation is .48 with a range of .36 to .53. Test-retest reliability of

individual scores on 10 subscales varies from a low of .69 for Clarity to

a high of .83 for Involvement (Moos, 1981).

Polish workers, completing the translated WES, were asked to

respond true or false to 90 single-sentence statements on the instru

ment. Moos (1981) indicated the instrument should take between 15

and 20 minutes to complete. Questions pertaining to the subscales are

alternated in the survey to appear as every 10th question. Subscale

scoring is facilitated by this arrangement of questions for each subscale.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Raw scores for this study were obtained by adding ves responses

marked in appropriate spaces as contributing to the subscale score. High

raw scores (on a subscale 0-9) were interpreted as indicating a higher

perceived presence of the measured subscales. An average score was

calculated for the work group, that is, the workers at each factory, for

the subscales. Tables for converging raw scores for each subscale to

average scores are provided by Moos (1981).

Because Polish versions of the WES were not available, permission

was obtained from the publisher to translate the WES from English to

Polish. Translation accuracy was ensured by the method of back-

translation (Lefkowitz, 1988/1989); that is, the questionnaire was trans

lated from English to Polish by a bilingual interpreter and member of the

Union of Polish Translators in Warsaw, and retranslated back from Polish

to English by another bilingual interpreter at the University of Warszawa.

The researcher compared the back-translated version to the English

version and found it to be similar. (The same process was employed by

the researcher in a pilot of the WES conducted in Poland in 1984; no

problems were incurred with that translation.)

Data Collection

When Solidarity was legalized and Poland began changing to a free

market economy from a communist state-controlled economy, it is likely

Polish industry found it no longer necessary to report industry production

data in a manner calculated to justify the communist economic system.

Hyclak (1990) indicated that worker councils within Poland have consid

erable voice in production, investment, and profit and wage decisions

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. essential to a changing economic system (centrally controlled to decen

tralized decision making). It is also probable, therefore, such data re

ported now are not subject to the pressures exerted by the previous

government. Therefore, one could expect some accuracy in (a) the

productivity data provided by the plant management at each factory site

surveyed and (b) the responses to the WES provided by the Polish

workers at each factory site. However, there is no clear evidence for

accuracy or inaccuracy of these data in the environment under study.

The following steps were taken before the questionnaire was

administered:

1. The researcher obtained permission to conduct the survey

from the plant manager and the plant union representative.

2. During the workday prior to 12:00 noon, workers in the plant

were told by the researcher in Polish the purpose of the study.

3. The researcher assured the potential respondents the data

collected would be used only for purposes of the study and individual

responses would be aggregated and not revealed on an individual basis.

4. A consent form was given to each worker to indicate his

understanding of, and agreement to, the conditions of participation in the

survey.

5. The researcher gave the potential respondents instructions, in

Polish, for completing the survey.

6. The researcher administered the survey instrument to each

worker who signed the consent form at the plant during working hours

at the time and in the location designated by the plant manager and

agreed to by the plant union representative. Only the researcher was

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. present at the time the questionnaire was administered.

7. The survey instrument was collected from the respondents on

the morning of its administration and only by the researcher.

8. Confidentiality was maintained by the researcher's personally

collecting the survey when it was completed by the respondent.

9. For each plant all of the surveys completed by the respond

ents were used for this study.

10. All survey instruments were coded to indicate from which

plant the responses were received. No method was used to identify

individual respondents.

Data Analysis

The essential task in the data analysis was to determine for the

hypotheses whether or not the difference in the aspects of the work

environment and productivity scores among the factories support the

existence of a relationship at the alpha level of .10. The WES subscale

scores were entered into a computer system using a terminal tabulation.

Analysis was achieved through the use of a statistical application pro

gram, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences-Expanded (SPSS-X,

SPSS, Inc., 1991). The hypotheses were analyzed using the Kendall tau

test for ordered alternatives (Siegel & Castellan, 1988), a nonparametric

measurement, that tests the hypothesis that the samples (or groups) are

ordered in a specific a priori sequence. It is important to note that in

order to ensure proper use of the test, the researcher must be able to

specify the order of the groups or measures a priori. For purposes of

this study, the a priori order used in the analysis is plant productivity

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ranked from lowest to highest for the months of January, February, and

average January/February 1991. Kendall's tau and its probability level

were attained using the computer program SPSS-X (SPSS, Inc., 1991).

The scores are illustrated in tables designed for this study.

Summary

An overview of the methodology for the study has been presented

in this chapter. Plant selection, subjects, instrumentation, data collec

tion, and data analysis procedures have been discussed.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not for

work groups in Poland productivity levels and their perceptions of their

own autonomy and other work environments are related. The Kendall

tau test for ordered alternatives was used to investigate the relation

between the independent variable productivity and the dependent varia

bles, involvement, peer cohesion, supervisor support, task orientation,

work pressure, clarity, control, innovation, and physical comfort, as

measured by the Work Environment Scale (WES, Moos, 1981).

For each of the six plants used in this study, the independent

variable, productivity, was provided by the respective plant manager.

The productivity for each plant (see Table 1) for the months of January

and February 1991, including the average productivity for the same 2

months, is the ratio of the total production man-hours worked at each

plant for the month to the total month’s production.

Written daily production reports of the total number of carbide

tools manufactured, including the total daily labor hours used to produce

the carbide tools, were requested; but the information was not released

to the researcher. Instead, the management at each of the factories

provided the researcher with total labor hours worked and the productiv

ity in each month for January and February. The researcher calculated

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43

the average productivity for these two months for each plant. Table 1

shows the order of the plants with respect to productivity.

Table 1

Summary of Plant Productivity

Plant Average name January February (Jan. & Feb.) Rank

Fwp Vis 63% 67% 65% 1

Chifa 66% 68% 67% 2

Walimet 68% 73% 71% 3

Bialystok 68% 75% 72% 4

Poreba 80% 81% 81% 5

Wifama 84% 95% 90% 6

Note. The ranking is done using the average productivity levels, with 1 being the lowest productivity and 6 being the highest productivity.

A minimum of three plants in each category (high and low produc

tivity) was not realized because the total manufacturing locations produc

ing carbide tooling in Poland at the time of the survey, February 1991,

was only six. This was confirmed by the Director of the Department of

Commerce in Poland. Additionally, only two of the six plants (Fwp Vis

and Wifama) were found with productivity scores one or more standard

deviations above or below the mean for the month of January.

Since a minimum of three plants with productivity scores one or

more standard deviations above and below the mean was not realized,

the alternate plan to rank order each plant from high productivity to low

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. productivity was used for purposes of this study. The three average

highest productivity plants are Bialystok, Poreba, and Wifama; the three

average lowest productivity plants are Fwp Vis, Chifa, and Walimet.

The analysis was based on the average productivity.

Furthermore, no investigations to explain the relation between

productivity and the WES subscales with reported data are known to

have been made in Poland.

The data for this study were gathered from questionnaires submit

ted to Polish workers in six different plants (see Appendices C and D).

The questionnaires were submitted to workers in each plant on the day

shift. Raw scores were obtained by adding yes responses as contribut

ing to the subscale score. Tables for converting raw scores for each

subscale to average scores are provided by Moos (1981). Participation

in all cases was entirely voluntary. Even though the sample is small (six

factories), the high rate of response, 100% of the day shift hourly

workers at each plant, reflects an intense interest in the subject matter.

Analysis of the Data

Previous researchers have found differing results in the relationship

between work group autonomy and productivity. This study examined

whether or not for work groups in Poland productivity levels and their

perceptions of their own autonomy and other work environments are

directly related. What follows is the description of the analysis for the

hypotheses. The Kendall tau adjusted for ties was used to test the null

hypothesis that there is no relationship between the independent vari

able, productivity, and dependent variables, involvement, peer cohesion,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. supervisor support, task orientation, work pressure, clarity, control,

innovation, and physical comfort. Kendall tau was evaluated using

either a directional or nondirectional test and setting the nominal alpha

at .10.

Hypothesis 1: Productivity and Autonomy

Support for the null hypothesis between productivity and the

perception of autonomy was nonexistent. The attained values for

Kendall tau for the months of January, February, and January/February

average were .2760, .3333, and .3333, respectively. The subscale

Autonomy measures the extent to which employees are encouraged to

be self-sufficient and to make their own decisions. As shown in Table 2,

there is no relationship between the two variables at the alpha level

of .10 (one-tailed).

Hypothesis 2: Productivity and Involvement

Support for the null hypothesis between productivity and the

perception of involvement was nonexistent. The attained values for

Kendall tau for the months of January, February, and January/February

average were .4140, .3333, and .3333, respectively. The subscale

Involvement measures the extent to which employees are concerned

about and committed to their jobs. As shown in Table 3, there is no

relationship between the two variables at the alpha level of .10 (one

tailed).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46

Table 2

Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Autonomy as an Environmental Factor and Productivity

Autonomy

Plant Productivity name rank Mean SD

Fwp Vis 1 35.38 20.39

Chifa 2 43.86 15.86

Walimet 3 39.92 18.45

Bialystok 4 43.53 18.44

Poreba 5 37.40 27.65

Wifama 6 46.17 14.74

Autonomy with: Kendall tau £

January productivity .2760 .222

February productivity .3333 .174

Average productivity (January and February) .3333 .174

Hypothesis 3: Productivity and Peer Cohesion

Support for the null hypothesis between productivity and the

perception of peer cohesion was existent at the .10 level. The attained

values for Kendall tau for the months of January, February, and

January/February average were .6901, .7333, and .7333, respectively.

The subscale Peer Cohesion measures the extent to which employees

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47

Table 3

Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Involvement as an Environmental Factor and Productivity

Involvement

Plant Productivity name rank Mean SD

Fwp Vis 1 29.88 14.22

Chifa 2 38.07 18.21

Walimet 3 32.92 18.97

Bialystok 4 34.20 13.81

Poreba 5 31.80 12.72

Wifama 6 29.58 10.95

Involvement with: Kendall tau

January productivity .4140 .126

February productivity .3333 .174

Average productivity (January and February) .3333 .174

are friendly and supportive of one another. As shown in Table 4, there

is a relationship between the two variables at the .10 alpha level (one

tailed).

Hypothesis 4: Productivity and Supervisor Support

Support for the null hypothesis between productivity and the

perception of supervisor support was nonexistent. The attained values

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48

Table 4

Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Peer Cohesion as an Environmental Factor and Productivity

Peer cohesion

Plant Productivity name rank Mean SD

Fwp Vis 1 37.50 14.38

Chifa 2 38.36 15.44

Walimet 3 43.23 19.23

Bialystok 4 43.33 19.03

Poreba 5 40.60 14.22

Wifama 6 46.92 11.90

Peer cohesion with: Kendall tau E

January productivity .6901 .0 2 8 *

February productivity .7333 .0 1 9 *

Average productivity (January and February) .7333 .01 9*

< .10.

for Kendall tau for the months of January, February, and January/Febru

ary average were -.138, -.200, and -.200, respectively. The subscale

Supervisor Support measures the extent to which management is sup

portive of employees and encourages employees to be supportive of one

another. As shown in Table 5, there is no relationship between the two

variables at the alpha level of .10 (two-tailed).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49

Table 5

Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Supervisor Support as an Environmental Factor and Productivity

Supervisor support

Plant Productivity name rank Mean SD

Fwp Vis 1 40.50 10.10

Chifa 2 36.29 9.09

Walimet 3 42.23 12.72

Bialystok 4 41.67 12.88

Poreba 5 39.40 14.12

Wifama 6 39.08 11.12

Supervisor support with: Kendall tau £

January productivity -.138 .70

February productivity -.200 .56

Average productivity (January and February) -.200 .56

Note. Because the sign of each of the Kendall tau is opposite expecta tions, the reported probabilities are for a two-tailed test.

Hypothesis 5: Productivity and Task Orientation

Support for the null hypothesis between productivity and the

perception of task orientation was nonexistent. The attained values for

Kendall tau for the months of January, February, and January/February

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50

average were -.276, -.200, -.200, respectively. The subscale Task

Orientation measures the degree of emphasis on good planning, efficien

cy, and getting the job done. As shown in Table 6, there is no relation

ship between the two variables at the alpha level of .10 (two-tailed).

Table 6

Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Task Orientation as an Environmental Factor and Productivity

Task orientation

Plant Productivity name rank Mean SD

Fwp Vis 1 43.13 16.50

Chifa 2 48.00 19.89

Walimet 3 33.00 22.22

Bialystok 4 57.60 16.13

Poreba 5 29.00 20.19

Wifama 6 38.00 14.60

Task orientation with: Kendall tau B.

January productivity -.276 .222

February productivity -.200 .287

Average productivity (January and February) -.200 .287

Note. Because the sign of each of the Kendall tau is opposite expecta tions, the reported probabilities are for a two-tailed test.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51

Hypothesis 6: Productivity and Work Pressure

Support for the null hypothesis between productivity and the

perception of work pressure was nonexistent. The attained values for

Kendall tau for the months of January, February, and January/February

average were .0714, .1380, and .1380, respectively. The subscale

Work Pressure measures the extent to which employees are concerned

about the pressure of their job. As shown in Table 7, there is no rela

tionship between the two variables at the alpha level of .10 (one tailed).

Hypothesis 7: Productivity and Clarity

Support for the null hypothesis between productivity and the

perception of clarity was nonexistent. The attained values for Kendall

tau for the months of January, February, and January/February average

were .138, .200, and .200, respectively. The subscale Clarity measures

the extent to which employees know what to expect in their daily rou

tine and how explicitly rules and policies are communicated. As shown

in Table 8, there is no relationship between the two variables at the

alpha level of .10 (one-tailed).

Hypothesis 8: Productivity and Control

Support for the null hypothesis between productivity and the

perception of control was nonexistent. The attained values for Kendall

tau for the months of January, February, and January/February average

were .138, .200, and .200, respectively. The subscale Control meas

ures the extent to which management uses rules and pressure to keep

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52

Table 7

Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Work Pressure as an Environmental Factor and Productivity

Work pressure

Plant Productivity name rank Mean SD

Fwp Vis 1 60.75 11.90

Chifa 2 46.07 12.60

Walimet 3 47.08 9.66

Bialystok 4 48.20 11.82

Poreba 5 47.00 13.77

Wifama 6 52.00 9.95

Work pressure with: Kendall tau B.

January productivity .0714 .423

February productivity .1380 .351

Average productivity (January and February) .1380 .351

employees under control. As shown in Table 9, there is no relationship

between the two variables at the alpha level of .10 (one-tailed).

Hypothesis 9: Productivity and Innovation

Support for the null hypothesis between productivity and the

perception of innovation was nonexistent. The attained values for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53

Table 8

Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Clarity as an Environmental Factor and Productivity

Clarity

Plant Productivity name rank Mean SD

Fwp Vis 1 23.00 9.01

Chifa 2 47.00 19.57

Walimet 3 29.92 20.99

Bialystok 4 47.87 15.14

Poreba 5 42.00 23.97

Wifama 6 41.58 18.24

Clarity with: Kendall tau B.

January productivity .138 .351

February productivity .200 .287

Average productivity (January and February) .200 .287

Kendall tau for the months of January, February, and January/February

average were -.414, -.3333, and -.3333, respectively. The subscale

Innovation measures the degree of emphasis on variety, change, and

new approaches. As shown in Table 10, there is no relationship be

tween the two variables at the alpha level of .10 (two-tailed).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54

Table 9

Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Control as an Environmental Factor and Productivity

Control

Plant Productivity name rank Mean SD

Fwp Vis 1 42.38 19.76

Chifa 2 52.36 11.63

Walimet 3 41.00 10.41

Bialystok 4 61.73 8.90

Poreba 5 44.60 13.33

Wifama 6 49.58 16.20

Control with: Kendall tau G

January productivity .138 .351

February productivity .200 .287

Average productivity (January and February) .200 .287

Hypothesis 10: Productivity and Physical Comfort

Support for the null hypothesis between productivity and the

perception of physical comfort was nonexistent. The attained values for

Kendall tau for the months of January, February, and January/February

average were .0714, .0000, and .0000, respectively. The subscale

Physical Comfort measures the extent to which the physical

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55

Table 10

Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Innovation as an Environmental Factor and Productivity

Innovation

Plant Productivity name rank Mean SD

Fwp Vis 1 38.50 16.18

Chifa 2 40.21 12.54

Walimet 3 36.23 16.08

Bialystok 4 45.40 19.37

Poreba 5 17.60 9.37

Wifama 6 34.75 10.56

Innovation with: Kendall tau a

January productivity -.4140 .252

February productivity -.3333 .174

Average productivity (January and February) -.3333 .174

Note. Because the sign of each of the Kendall tau is opposite expecta tions, the reported probabilities are for a two-tailed test.

surroundings contribute to a pleasant work environment. As shown in

Table 11, there is no relationship between the two variables at the alpha

level of .10 (one-tailed).

Data of means and standard deviations for all subscales as

measured in each of the six factories is in Appendix A. The subscale

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56

Table 11

Descriptive Summary of Data: Relationship Between Perception of Physical Comfort as an Environmental Factor and Productivity

Physical comfort

Plant Productivity name rank Mean SD

Fwp Vis 1 26.63 8.19

Chifa 2 45.43 19.37

Walimet 3 36.85 17.83

Bialystok 4 31.60 8.37

Poreba 5 31.40 9.91

Wifama 6 32.08 17.03

Physical comfort with: Kendall tau a

January productivity .0714 .423

February productivity .0000 .500

Average productivity (January and February) .0000 .500

responses of perceptions of agreement and nonagreement for the

subscales in total and by plant as a percentage are summarized in

Appendix B.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57

Summary

The analysis of the data indicates Hypothesis 1 is not supported

at the .10 alpha level. The only hypothesis supported at the .10 alpha

level is Peer Cohesion.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, SUMMARY OF STUDY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This chapter is comprised of the following sections: review of

study purpose, review of study design, discussion of the findings, and

recommendations for further research.

Review of Study Purpose

This study was conducted to determine whether or not for work

groups in Poland productivity levels and their perceptions of their own

autonomy and other work environments are directly related. The study

was prompted because of the following reasons:

1. Only a small number of studies (Booth et al., 1976;

Cummings & Griggs, 1977; Farh & Scott, 1983; K. I. Miller & Monge,

1986; O’Brien, 1979/1980; Oldham, 1976; Shannon, 1982/1983) have

investigated the relation between productivity and the types of variables

measured on the Work Environment Scale (WES, Moos, 1981).

2. At the time of this study (1991), no other study identical or

similar had been conducted that measures workers' perceptions of their

work environment after a change in government leadership and an

apparent change in managerial style from autocratic to democratic as

occurred in Poland.

3. The researcher has an interest in sociotechnical work design

and its relation to improvements in worker productivity; for example,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Howard (1980) indicated that a mere 1% improvement in the productiv

ity of federal employees would save $4.0 million annually.

Additionally, much of what is written about autonomy and its

influence upon other variables remains untested theory; consequently,

this study will contribute to the number of tests of theoretical proposi

tions about the importance of autonomy and its relation to the other

work environments.

Review of Study Design

Six plants manufacturing carbide tooling in Poland were used in

this study. This study measured perceptions of Polish workers in their

work environment, the dependent variable, using the productivity scores

of each of the six plants, the independent variable. Data for the study

was obtained from participants' completion of the WES during February

1991. Polish workers were required to respond yes or no to 90 single

sentence statements about their work environment in completing the

WES questionnaire. The questionnaire has 10 subscales with 9 state

ments for each subscale. Raw scores (0-9), with higher scores indicat

ing greater perceived presence of a subscale, were converted to standard

scores for analysis (Moos, 1981). Standard scores for the WES were

entered into the computer program Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences-Expanded (SPSS-X, SPSS, Inc., 1991) to calculate the signifi

cance and correlation coefficients for the 10 subscales of the WES.

Analysis of the WES data used the Kendall tau test for ordered alterna

tives to investigate the hypotheses.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The weakness in this analysis is the small number of plants avail

able for sampling. However, the population available was limited; the

research purposely was confined to Poland because it was thought that

due to the historic change in political structure, from communist control

to democratic orientation, and the apparent change in managerial style

from autocratic to democratic, investigation into perceptions of autono

my and productivity would be particularly fruitful. In an effort to limit

extraneous variables, the researcher chose to concentrate on the carbide

tooling industry because its plants employed similar methods of produc

tion and measured productivity in a similar manner.

Discussion of the Findings

The researcher did not find support for the hypothesis that there is

a relation between the perceptions of autonomy among work groups in

Poland manufacturing carbide tooling and productivity using an alpha

level of .10. The findings of this study did not support that of Farh and

Scott (1983), who found that subjects in the most autonomous condi

tion reported a higher level of autonomy, and those who reported a

higher level of autonomy, whatever the condition, tended to report a

higher level of personal productivity. The findings of this study were not

anticipated by the researcher although the dramatic changes in the work

environment, namely, throwing off the yoke of state-controlled produc

tion in Poland, including the Soviet-influenced lack of employee-oriented

management, could have provided the necessary impetus for workers to

become more self-sufficient and to make more of their own decisions.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. On the other hand, due to the limited number of factories manu

facturing carbide tooling in Poland available for sampling, the chance of

finding a relation between perceptions of autonomy and productivity was

in this study very small even if the hypothesis were true. It should be

noted that some of the unique aspects of the groups of factories used in

this study were that all six factories manufactured carbide tooling on

similar machinery, the work force appeared to be of similar age, overall

physical plant size appeared to be similar, and all workers at all six facto

ries exhibited a positive attitude to taking the survey. The researcher

had control over the following aspects of data collection: the time of

day, instructions for completing the survey, only the researcher was

present at the time of administration of the survey, collection of the

survey instruments by the researcher, confidentiality of the survey, and

identification of survey instruments according to plant. The researcher

did not have control over the following aspects of data collection:

sample size (only six available); daily production data, which had been

requested but was not provided; and number of respondents at each

plant.

Because the questionnaire was not distributed to the respondents

prior to the test, the probability of their being coached by plant man

agement or union representatives is unlikely. Therefore, it can be

assumed that they answered the questionnaire honestly.

The researcher found support for the hypothesis that there is a

direct relation between perceptions of peer cohesion among work groups

in Poland manufacturing carbide tooling and productivity. One might

suspect that in order to survive under the former autocratic, suppressive

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. work environment workers throughout Poland had to cooperate with,

and to be highly supportive of, each other. It seems logical to assume

that this attitude, once ingrained in the work ethic, would persist even

after the break-up of the communist system. Polish workers now are

working together for the right reason, that is, to increase productivity,

not merely for the sake of their own personal survival. Furthermore, the

high correlation coefficient indicates to the researcher that high levels of

peer cohesion are a very important determinant of high productivity in a

work environment. Another example is Chrysler's current method of

manufacturing (Ford Motor Company's is similar). Daun (1992) reported

that Chrysler's platform management concept for manufacturing vehicles

uses the team approach, an important aspect of which is peer cohesion

because the team members must work collaboratively to share informa

tion, resources, and responsibilities in order to sustain the platform

concept. Chrysler sees this concept as the way by which it will remain

competitive with other vehicle manufacturers worldwide in the era of

smaller volume, niche-marketed production.

No relation was found between productivity and the perceptions

of involvement, supervisor support, task orientation, work pressure,

clarity, control, innovation, and physical comfort using an alpha level

of .10; therefore, they will not be elaborated upon.

Recommendations for Further Research

The following recommendations are offered as a result of being

involved in designing, conducting, and evaluating this study:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1. Future studies which measure productivity and work environ

ments should consider using a larger sample size.

2. Because this study was conducted in 1991, relevant literature

beyond that date was not reviewed. Therefore, future studies which

measure productivity and work environment should consider literature

subsequent to 1991.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDICES

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix A

Means and Standard Deviations

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66

Plant prod. 1 PC SS A TO WP C CTL INN COM rank

Mean

1 29.88 37.50 40.50 35.38 43.13 60.75 23.00 42.38 38.50 26.63

2 38.07 38.36 36.29 43.86 48.00 46.07 47.00 52.36 40.21 45.43

3 32.92 43.23 42.23 39.92 33.00 47.08 29.92 41.00 36.23 36.85

4 34.20 43.33 41.67 43.53 57.60 48.20 47.87 61.73 45.40 31.60

5 31.80 40.60 39.40 37.40 29.00 47.00 42.00 44.60 27.60 31.40

6 29.58 46.92 39.08 46.17 38.00 52.00 41.58 49.58 34.75 32.08

Avg. 32.74 41.66 39.86 41.04 41.46 50.18 38.56 48.61 37.12 34.00

Standard deviation

1 14.22 14.38 10.10 20.36 16.40 11.90 9.01 19.76 16.18 8.19

2 18.21 15.44 9.09 15.86 19.89 12.60 19.57 11.63 12.54 19.30

3 18.97 19.23 12.72 18.45 22.22 9.66 20.99 10.41 16.08 17.80

4 13.81 19.03 12.88 18.44 16.13 11.82 15.14 8.90 19.37 8.30

5 12.72 14.22 14.12 27.65 20.19 13.77 23.97 13.33 9.37 9.91

6 10.95 11.90 11.12 14.74 14.60 9.95 18.24 16.20 10.56 17.00

Avg. 3.15 3.53 2.14 4.17 10.44 5.58 9.96 7.75 5.95 6.47

Note: I = Involvement, PC = Peer Cohesion, SS = Supervisor Support, A = Auton omy, TO = Task Orientation, WP = Work Pressure, C = Clarity, CTL = Control, INN = Innovation, and COM = Physical Support.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix B

Subscale Summary for All Plants

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68

Subscale Summary for All Plants

Involvement: 41 % agreed they are concerned about and commit

ted to their jobs; 57% did not; 2% did not respond.

Peer Cohesion: 53% agreed they are friendly and supportive of

one another; 46% did not; 1% did not respond.

Supervisor Support: 49% agreed management is supportive of

employees and encourages employees to be supportive of one another;

50% did not; 1 % did not respond.

Autonomy: 50% agreed employees are encouraged to make their

own decisions; 48% did not; 2% did not respond.

Task Orientation: 55% agreed that there was an emphasis on

good planning efficiency and getting the job done; 44% did not; 1 % did

not respond.

Work Pressure: 49% agreed on the degree to which the pressure

of work and time urgency dominate the job milieu; 50% did not; 1 % did

not respond.

Clarity: 48% agreed employees know what to expect in their

daily routine and how explicitly rules and policies are communicated;

50% did not; 2% did not respond.

Control: 53% agreed management uses rules and pressures to

keep employees under control; 46% did not; 1% did not respond.

Innovation: 30% agreed there was an emphasis on variety,

change, and new approaches; 69% did not; 1 % did not respond.

Physical Comfort: 32% agreed to the extent to which the physi

cal surroundings contributed to a pleasant work environment; 67% did

not; 1% did not respond.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69

Involvement

Plant productivity Agree Disagree No response rank

1 51% 49%

2 42% 57% 1%

3 39% 58% 3%

4 38% 61% 1%

5 35% 65%

6 38% 58% 4%

Total 41% 57% 2%

Peer Cohesion

Plant productivity Agree Disagree No response rank

1 48% 52%

2 54% 46%

3 55% 43% 2%

4 59% 41%

5 47% 51% 2%

6 51% 49%

Total 53% 46% 1%

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70

Supervisor Support

Plant productivity Agree Disagree No response rank

1 42% 58%

2 53% 46% 1%

3 53% 44% 3%

4 46% 52% 2%

5 48% 49% 3%

6 47% 51% 2%

Total 49% 50% 1%

Autonomy

Plant productivity Agree Disagree No response rank

1 53% 47%

2 53% 45% 2%

3 48% 50% 2%

4 54% 45% 1%

5 42% 57% 1%

6 44% 53% 3%

Total 50% 48% 2%

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71

Task Orientation

Plant productivity Agree Disagree No response rank

1 56% 44%

2 76% 24%

3 41% 57% 2%

4 48% 51% 1%

5 56% 42% 2%

6 36% 60% 4%

Total 55% 44% 1%

Work Pressure

Plant productivity Agree Disagree No response rank

1 43% 57%

2 46% 53% 1%

3 44% 52% 4%

4 53% 46% 1%

5 66% 31% 3%

6 44% 56%

Total 49% 50% 1%

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72

Clarity

Plant productivity Agree Disagree No response rank

1 58% 42%

2 59% 39% 2%

3 33% 65% 2%

4 50% 48% 2%

5 25% 69% 6%

6 54% 42% 4%

Total 48% 50% 2%

Control

Plant productivity Agree Disagree No response rank

1 50% 50%

2 68% 30% 2%

3 40% 57% 3%

4 54% 45% 1%

5 53% 44% 3%

6 44% 53% 3%

Total 53% 46% 1%

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Innovation

Plant productivity Agree Disagree No response rank

1 33% 67%

2 43% 57%

3 26% 74%

4 23% 77%

5 29% 68% 3%

6 11% 89%

Total 30% 69% 1%

Physical Comfort

Plant productivity Agree Disagree No response rank

1 48% 52%

2 27% 72% 1%

3 35% 63% 2%

4 28% 72%

5 19% 79% 2%

6 27% 73%

Total 32% 67% 1%

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix C

Letter to Participants

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Donald L. Cusfa 8209 McCandlish Road Grand Blanc. Michizan U.S.A. Phone (313) 6362901

To Perspeccive Study Participants,

I am working on my dissertation entitled "Productivity and Perceived Uork

Environments of Uork Groups in Poland" at Western Michigan University. The

dissertation requires collecting data from Polish workers to complete the

University's requirements for obtaining my doctoral degree. Your participation

in this study is important but you have the freedom not to participate, the

right to withdraw, and the right to skip any item on the questionnaire should

you choose. Additionally, there is no penalty should you decide to withdraw

from this study.

tank you,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Donald L. Gusfa 8209 McCandlish Road Grand Blanct Michigan USA. Phone /313/ 6362901

Do Pczeatnikdw Badari

Szanowni Pailstwot •

Jeatem praeownlkiem naukowy przygotowujqcym na Uniwersyteci

Western Michigan pracf doktorak* pt. "Produktywnosd a poatrze-

ganie drodowieka pracy praoa grupy pracownicze w Polace". Praca

ta wynaga aebrania danych uzyskanych od polakich robotnikdw,

ktdro poaluiq do apeinienia wymogdw Uniweraytetu niezb?dnych

dla uzyakania przeze mnie tytulu doktora nauk humanistycznych.

Waas udzial w tych hadaniach jest wainy, alo jest to udsial

v pokni dobrowolny. Kfcfcdy a Padatva oa pravo wycofania aX^ a

badad,'a takie prawo nieudzielenia odpoviedzi na kt6rokolwiek#

a pytad ankle ty. Ponadto aaj* Padatwo pe&ut gwarancjt, *• za

• slf % udsi&itt w spklftclt nio p o t l z&dns kBrci •

Daifkujf

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix D

Letter of Introduction

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. JfiN-30-1991 08:20 FROM CQEXCntrFaxDiuiston

Celito# of Education Kaiamaioe.Mienigan «9006-5i93 Oaoanmam or Educational Laadaran* 616317*3179

W e s t e r n M ic h ig a n U n iv e r s it y

January 29, 1991

70 WHOM IT HAY CONCERN: Hr. Donald Lao Quafa, when In Poland, will he working on his doctoral dissertation entitled, "Productivity and Perceived Work Environments of Work Groups in Poland." The purpose of his trip is to collect data to complete the University's requirement for his doctoral degree. His planned research has been approved by his dissertation conmittee. Any consideration rendered will be appreciated. Sincerely,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix E

Letter of Approval From Human Subjects Institutional Review Board

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80

Human Subjects Institutional Review Board Kalamazoo. Michigan 490C8-3899

W e s t e r n M ic h ig a n U n iv e r s ity

Date: February 6,1991

To: Donald L. Gusfa From: Mary Anne Bunda, Chair Re: HSIRB Project Number: 91 -01 -24

This letter will 9erve as confirmation that your research protocol, "Productivity and Perceived Work Environments of Work Groups in Poland" (as revised), has been approved under theexempt categoryof review by the HSIRB. The conditions and duration of this approval are specified in the Policies of Western Michigan University. You may now begin to implement the research as described in the approval application. You must seek reepproval for any changes in this design. You must also seek reapproval if the project extends bevond the termination date. The Board wishes you success in the pursuit of your research goals.

xc: Edgar Kelley, Educational Leadership

Approval Termination: February 6,1992

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Argyris, C. (1972). The applicability of organizational sociology. Cambridge, MA: University Press.

Babbie, E. R. (1973). Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Backstrom, C. H., & Hursh-Ce'sar, G. (1981). Survey research. New York: Macmillan.

Baldwin, C. Y. (1983). Productivity and labor unions: An application of the theory of self-enforcing contracts. Journal of Business. 56(2). 155-185.

Bartlem, C. S., & Locke, E. A. (1981). The Coch and French study: A critique and reinterpretation. Human Relations. 3 4 . 555-566.

Bennis, W. (1976). The unconscious conspiracy: Why leaders can't lead. New York: AMACOM.

Bielasiak, J. (1981). Poland today: The state of the republic. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1981). Productivity: The human size: A social dynamics approach. New York: AMACOM.

Blumberg, M. (1980). Job switching in autonomous work groups: A descriptive and exploratory study in an underground coal mine. Academy of Management Journal. 23. 287-306.

Booth, R. F., Norton, R. S., Webster, E. G., & Berry, N. H. (1976). Assessing the psychosocial characteristics of occupational training environments. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 4 9 . 85-92.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1983). Educational research: An introduc tion. New York: Longman.

Calvin, A. D., Hoffman, F. K., & Harden, E. L. (1957). The effect of intelligence and social atmosphere on group problem solving be havior. Journal of Social Psychology. 4 5 . 61-74.

Chew, W. B. (1988, January-February). No-nonsense guide to measur ing productivity. Harvard Business Review, pp. 110-118.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Conant, E., & Kilbridge, M. D. (1965). An interdisciplinary analysis of job enlargement: Technology, costs, and behavioral implications. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 18. 377-395.

Cosier, R. A., & Aplin, J. C. (1980). Effects of delegated choice on performance. Personnel Psychology. 3 3 . 581-593.

Cummings, T. G. (1978). Self regulating work groups: A sociotechnical synthesis. Academy of Management Review. 3, 625-634.

Cummings, T. G., & Griggs, W. (1977). Worker reactions to auto nomous work groups. Organizations and Administrative Sciences. 7, 87-100.

Cummings, T. G., & Molloy, E. S. (1977). Improving productivity and the Quality of work life. New York: Praeger.

Cummings, T. G., Molloy, E. S., & Glen, R. (1977). A methodological critique of fifty-eight selected work experiments. Human Relations. 30, 675-708.

Cummings, T. G., & Srivastva, S. (1977). Management of work: A socio-technical systems approach. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University.

Daun, M. (1992). An introduction to teamwork partnering: Leadership empowered teams (Paper written for use by Chrysler Corporation).

Davis, L. E. (1958). Job design and productivity: A new approach. Personnel. 33. 418-430.

Dobbs, M., Karol, K. S., & Trevisan, D. (1981). Poland: Solidarity: Walesa. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dowling, W. F. (1973). Job redesign on the assembly line: Farewell to blue collar blues. Organizational Dynamics. 2, 51-67.

Dziadkiewicz, E. (1987). Poland: Statistical data 1987. Warszawa, Poland: Central Statistical Office.

Emery, F. E. (1970). The assembly line: Its logic and our future. In L. E. Davis & J. C. Taylor (Eds.), Design of jobs (pp. ). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Emery, F. E., & Thorsrud, E. (1976). Democracy at work. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.

Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1969). Socio-technical systems. In F. E. Emery (Ed.), Systems thinking (pp. 281-296). Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83

Engel, G. V. (1970). Professional autonomy and bureaucratic organiza tion. Administrative Science Quarterly. 15(1). 12.

Farh, J. L., & Scott, W. E., Jr. (1983). The experimental effects of "autonomy" on performance and self reports of satisfaction. Organi zational Behavior and Human Performance. 3 1 . 203-222.

Fayol, H. (1929). General and industrial management. Geneva, Switzerland: International Management Institute.

Fein, M. (1975, Winter). Job enrichment: A re-evaluation. Sloan Management Review, pp. 69-88.

Flint, J. (1981, July 6). The myth of the lazy American. Forbes, pp. 105-109.

Friedman, D. (1983). Beyond the age of Ford: The strategic basis of the Japanese success in automobiles. In J. Zysman (Ed.), American industry in international competition (pp. 350-390). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Gardell, B. (1977). Autonomy and participation at work. Human Rela tions. 30. 515-533.

Gellerman, S. W. (1963). Motivation and productivity. New York: AMACOM.

Gulowsen, J. (1979). A measure of work group autonomy. In L. E. Davis & J. C. Taylor (Eds.), Design of jobs (pp. 206-218). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph. 5 5 . 259- 286.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1974). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory (Tech. report #6). New Haven, CT: Yale University, Department of Administrative Sciences.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology. 60. 159-170.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 16. 250-279.

Harmon, R. L., & Peterson, L. D. (1990). Reinventing the factory. New York: Free Press.

Hauck, W. C., & Ross, T. L. (1987). Sweden's experiments in produc tivity Gainshoung: A second look. Personnel. 64(1). 61-67.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. . Hautaluoma, J., & Gavin, J. (1975). Effects of organizationalli&ational diagnosis and interventions on blue collar blues. Journal of AppliedYftcpplied Behavioral Science. 11. 475-496.

Heinen, J. J., & Jacobson, E. (1976). A model of task groupifx group develop ment in complex organizations and a strategy of implenfi innplementation. Academy of Management Review. 1(4), 98-111.

Herman, A. S. (1975). Industries studied showed productivitiMuctivity declines in 1974. Monthly Labor Review. 98. 50-52.

Hill, R. (1986). Harnessing "worker power" at a U.S. CadilU. Cadillac plant. International Management (U.K.), 41(11), 91-96.

Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1979). Applied statf ied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hoerr, J. (1989, July 10). The payoff from teamwork. Businal Business Week, pp. 56-62.

Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: HarcouwiiHHarcourt, Brace.

Howard, P. W. (1980). Bureau pathology and the unintendoliintended conse quences of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Paper R eaper presented at the 40th annual meeting of the Academy of Managementisgement.

Hulin, C. L., & Smith, P. C. (1965). A linear model of job satnlofob satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology. 4 9 . 209-216.

Hyclak, T. (1987). Worker self-management and economic uiionomic reform in Poland. International Journal of Social Economics. 1 4(7-8-ir_1.4(7-8-91, 127- 135.

Insel, P. M., & Moos, R. H. (1974, March). Psychology enviiiyy environments expanding the scope of human ecology. American Psvcholciasvcholoaist. pp. 179-188.

Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1987). Handbook in research anowtoTch and evalua tion. San Diego, CA: Ed ITS.

Joint Economic Committee. (1992). Men at work: Signs of trctks of trouble (A staff study prepared for the use of members of the Joint Q U o in t Economic Committee). Washington, DC: Author.

Kahn, R. L. (1960). Productivity and job satisfaction. Person^ Personnel Psy chology. 13. 275.

Kalleberg, A. L., & Loscocco, K. A. (1983). Aging, values, and ill,®, and rewards: Explaining age differences in job satisfaction. American Soofean Sociological Review. 48. 78-90.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Katerberg, R., & Blau, G. J. (1983). An examination of level and direc tion of effort and job performance. Academy of Management Jour- nai, 26, 249-257.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations New York: Wiley and Sons.

Katz, F. E. (1968). Autonomy and organization: The limits of social control. New York: Random House.

Katz, H. C., Kochan, T. A., & Keefe, J. H. (1987). Industrial relations and productivity in the U.S. automobile industry. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. 3, 687-727.

Katz, R. (1978a). The influence of job longevity on employee reactions to task characteristics. Human Relations. 3 1 . 703-725.

Katz, R. (1978b). Job longevity as a situational factor in job satisfac tion. Administrative Science Quarterly. 23. 204-223.

Katzell, R. A., & Yankelovich, D. (1975). Work, productivity and iob satisfaction. New York: Psychological Corporation.

Kendall, M. G., & Buckland, W. R. (1960). A dictionary of statistical terms. New York: Hafner.

Kendrick, J. W. (1977). Understanding productivity: An introduction to the dynamics of productivity change. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kerr, C., & Rosow, J. M. (1979). Work in America. New York: Letton.

Kharas, H. J. (1991). Restructuring socialist industry: Poland's experi ence in 1990. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Kimberly, J., & Gavin, J. (1975). Organizational development and change in organizational performance. Administrative Science Quar terly. 20, 191-206.

King, A. S. (1974). Expectation effects in organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly. 19. 221-230.

Lawler, E. E., III. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Lawrence, L. C., & Smith, C. S. (1955). Group decision and employee participation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 39. 334-337.

Lefkowitz, S. J. (1989). Attendance at oncology family support groups as predicted by specific demographic and interpersonal behavioral

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. factors (Doctoral dissertation, Barry University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International. 49. 2392A.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw- Hill.

Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decision making: One more look. Research in Organizational Behavior. 1, 265-330.

Lowin, A. (1968). Participative decision making: A model, literature critique and prescriptions for research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 3, 68-106.

Magaziner, I. C. (1992, September 4). [Testimony on improving Ameri can wages before the Joint Economic Committee.]

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1982). The potential for "groupthink" in autonomous work groups. Human Relations. 3 5 . 773-784.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1984). Searching for the unleader: Organizational member views on leading self-managed groups. Human Relations. 3 7 . 409-424.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead them selves: The external leadership of self managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly. 32. 106-128.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review. 50(4), 376-382.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.

Mayo, E. (1945). The social problems of an industrial civilization. Boston, MA: Harvard University Graduate School of Business Admin istration.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Merkel, J. (1989). The dilemmas of economic transformation: Where do we go from here. Stadium Papers. 13(4). 185-186, 196.

Miller, E. J. (1975). Socio-technical systems in weaving, 1953-1970: A follow-up study. Human Relations. 2 8 . 349-386.

Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal. 29. 727-755.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Miskel, L., & Bernstein, J. (1992, September 4). [Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee.]

Moos, R. H. (1973, August). Conceptualizations of human environ ments. American Psychologist, pp. 652-665.

Moos, R. H. (1981). Work Environment Scale manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Moos, R. H. (1986a). The social climate scales: A users guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Moos, R. H. (1986b). The social climate scales and overview. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

Moos, R. H., Clayton, J., & Max, W. (1979). The social climate scales: An annotated bibliography (2nd ed., Part three: The family, work, and group environment scales). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychol ogists Press.

Moos, R. H., Insel, P. M., & Humphrey, B. (1974). Combined prelimi nary manual: Family work and group environment scales. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Mullins, P. (1987). Flexibility through group assembly. Production. 99(5), 74-75.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nadler, D., & Pecorella, P. (1975). Differential effects of multiple inter ventions in an organization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 11, 368-384.

National Academy of Sciences. (1979). Measurement and interpretation of productivity. Project presented to the governing board of the National Research Council, Washington, DC.

Nevis, E. C. (1983, Spring). Cultural assumptions and productivity: The United States and China. Sloan Management Review, pp. 17- 29.

Newman, B. (1988, November 2). The old guard resisting solidarity: Poland's rulers heed the other opposition. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A1, A8.

Nicholas, J. (1982). The comparative impact of organization develop ment interventions on hard criteria measures. Academy of Manage ment Review.7, 531-542.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. O'Brien, P. F. (1980). A psycho-social profile of a group of middle-aged men in relationship to their work and family environments (Doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, 1979). Dissertation Ab stracts International. 41. 712B.

Oldham, G. R. (1976). Job characteristics and internal motivation: The moderating effect of interpersonal and individual variables. Human Relations. 2 9 . 559-569.

Oldham, G. R., Hackman, J. R., & Pearce, J. L. (1976). Conditions under which employees respond positively to enriched work. Journal of Applied Psychology. 61. 397.

Oldham, G. R., Hackman, J. R., & Stepina, L. P. (1978). Norms for the job diagnostic survey (Tech. Rep. 16). New Haven, CT: Yale Uni versity, School of Organization and Management.

Opsahl, R. L., & Dunnette, M. D. (1966). The role of financial compen sation in industrial motivation. Psychological Bulletin. 6 3 . 94-118.

Pasmore, W. A. (1982, Spring). Overcoming the roadblocks in work- restructuring efforts. Organizational Dynamics, pp. 54-67.

Pasmore, W. A., Francis, C., & Hadelman, J. (1982). Sociotechnical system: A North American reflection on empirical studies of the seventies. Human Relations. 3 5 . 1179-1204.

Pasmore, W. A., & King, D. (1978). Understanding organization change: A comparative study of multifaceted interventions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 14. 455-468.

Phillips, J. C., & Benson, J. E. (1983). Some aspects of job satisfaction in the Soviet Union. Personnel Psychology. 3 6 , 633-645.

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E., III. (1968, January-February). What job attitudes tell about motivation. Harvard Business Review, pp. 117- 126.

Poza, E., & Markus, M. (1980, Winter). Success story: The team approach to work restructuring. Organizational Dynamics, pp. 3-25.

Pravda, A. (1983). The workers. In A. Brumbero (Ed.). Poland:Gene sis of a revolution (pp. 68-91). New York: Vintage Books.

Productivity growth: A better life for America. (1984, April). Report to the President of the United States, White House Conference on Productivity. Washington, DC: National Technical Information Service.

Rakich, J. S. (1971). A study of the relationship between perceived job autonomy, job involvement, job satisfaction and job performance for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. hospital (Doctoral dissertation, St. Louis University, 1970). Disserta tion Abstracts International. 32. 604A.

Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1947). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rogers, P., & Matthews, P. (1991). Western quality at a low price: Cleaning up in Poland? European Management Journal. 9, 425-432.

Ross, I. C., & Zander, A. (1957). Need satisfaction and employee turnover. Personnel Psychology. 10. 327-338.

Rousseau, D. M. (1977). Technological differences in job characteris tics, employee satisfaction, and motivation: A synthesis of job design research and sociotechnical systems theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 19. 18-42.

Sadowski. (1986). Rocznik statvstvcznv przemvslu [Polish statistics book]. Warszawa, Poland: Central Statistical Office.

Schonberger, R. J. (1982). Japanese manufacturing technioues: Nine hidden lessons in simplicity. New York: Free Press.

Schuler, R. S. (1977). Role perceptions, satisfaction and performance moderated by organization level and participation in decision making. Academy of Management Journal. 20. 159-165.

Shannon, R. W. (1983). An examination of relationships between work structure and perceptions of family and work environments reported by teachers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International. 43. 3480A.

Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J., Jr. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Snedecor, G. S., & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical methods. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Sobczak, (1984). [Personal conversation.]

Sorbanes, P. S. [Opening statement before Joint Economic Committee.] Washington, DC: Joint Economic Committee.

Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta analy sis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations. 3 9 . 1005-1016.

SPSS, Inc. (1991). Statistical package for the social sciences-exoanded [Computer program]. Chicago: Author.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90

Srivastva, S., Salipante, P., Cummings, T., Notz, W., Bigelow, J., & Waters, J. (1975). Job satisfaction and productivity. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University.

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

Sullivan, D. J. (1960). Improving productivity in the work force: Impli cations for research and development in vocational education (Occa sional paper No. 72). Columbus: Ohio State University, National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Susman, G. I. (1976). Autonomy at work: A sociotechnical analysis of participative management. New York: Praeger.

Swiecicki, M. (1981, October 30). [Unpublished paper presented at seminar on the integration of social aspects in macro-economic planning and policy making on economic and social consequences of August 1980 agreements.] Warsaw, Poland.

Tagliabue, J. (1988, November 28). Unmaking of solidarity's birth place. New York Times, pp. 21, 29.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper and Brother.

Tenopyr, M. L. (1981). Trifling he stands. Personnel Psychology. 3 4 . 1-17.

Thurow, L. C. (1982, February 8). The Polish dilemma. Newsweek. p. 70.

Trist, E. L. (1981). Sociotechnical system theory. London, England: Tavistock.

Trist, E. L., Higgins, G. W., Murray, H., & Pollock, A. B. (1963). Organ izational choice: Capabilities of groups at the coal face under chang ing technologies. London, England: Tavistock.

Turner, A. W., & Lawrence, P. R. (1965). Industrial jobs and the worker. Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Admin istration.

Umston, D. D., Bell, C. H., & Mitchell, T. R. (1976). Effects of job enrichment and task goals on satisfaction and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology. 6 1 . 379.

U. S. Chamber of Commerce. (1981). Management attitudes toward productivity. Washington, DC: Author.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Walesa, L. (1989). Address to a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress. Stadium Papers. 13(4). 180-182, 201.

Wall, T. D., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R., & Clegg, C. W. (1988). Outcomes of autonomous workgroups: A long-term field experiment. Academy of Management Journal. 29. 280-304.

Walton, R. E. (1972, November-December). How to counter alienation in the plant. Harvard Business Review, pp. 70-81.

Walton, R. E. (1977). Work innovation at Topeka: After six years. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 13. 422-433.

Walton, R. E. (1979, January-February). Work innovations in the United States. Harvard Business Review, pp. 88-98.

Waters, J. E. (1978). Evaluating organizational environments in law enforcement agencies: A social climate perspective. Criminal Jus tice Review. 3(2), 1-6.

Weaver, C. N. (1977). Relationships among pay, race, sex, occupation al prestige, supervision, work autonomy, and job satisfaction in a national sample. Personnel Psychology. 3 0 . 437-445.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wetzel, J. W. (1978). Depression and dependence upon unsustaining environments. Clinical Social Work Journal. 6(2), 75-89.

Wexley, K. N., Singh, J. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1973). Subordinate person ality as a moderator of the effects of participation in three types of appraisal interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology. 5 8 . 54-59.

The World Bank. (1990). Poland economic management for a new era. Washington, DC: Author.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.