ADMINISTRATIVE BEHAVIOR IN THE AIR MATERIEL COMMAND DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By JOHN LEWIS HESS, B. A., M. A ****** The Ohio State University 1959 Approved by Aaviser Department W Political Science ACKNOWLSDtmNT In the development of the study which resulted in this dissertation, valuable guidance and assistance were provided by Professor Harvey C. Mansfield and Professor Harvey Walker of the Department of Political Science, and Professor Carroll L. Shartle of the Department of Psychology and the Personnel Research board, the Ohio State University. Appreciation is also expressed to the officials of the Air Materiel Command, United States Air Force, for making available certain basic historical records and for permitting access to sources of information upon which this paper is based. The writer is espe­ cially grateful to Colonel John De Vos and Mr. John £. Taylor of the Personnel Directorate, Headquarters, Air Materiel Command, for the assistance and encouragement provided in connection with this under­ taking. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................. ii LIST OF TABLES............................................... iv Chapter I. INTRODUCTION......................................... 1 II. THE ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENT...................... 23 III. HYPOTHESIS AND l-ETHODOLOGY OF THE ST U D Y ............. 50 IV. FINDINGS A HD INTERPRETATIONS........................ 62 V. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, DEMOCRACY, AND THE "MILITARY MIND" ................................... 98 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................. 112 ill LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Scored Questions on the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire according to the Dimensions, Con­ sideration and Initiating Structure.................... 9 2. Democratic and Authoritarian Leadership Situations in an Experimental Setting at the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station.............................. 13 3. Means and Standard Deviations of LBDQ Responses Describing the Ideal AMC Military Officer Adminis­ trator, the Successful, and the Less than Successful AMC Civilian Administrator................. 63 4. Mean Scores of 30 LBDQ Items Describing the Ideal AMC Military Officer Administrator in Descending Order of Mean Scores.................................. 67 5. LBDQ Items on Which Largest Mean Differences Occurred in Comparing Descriptions of Successful and Less than Successful Civilian Administrators............... 71 6. Comparison of 153 Successful and 112 Less than Successful AMC Civilian Administrators in Terms of Means, Standard Deviations, and t-Ratios of Mean Differences of Selected Biographical Factors .... 73 7. Intercorrelations (Pearsonian r) among the Dimensions of Consideration and Initiating Structure, together with Selected Biographical Factors, for 153 Successful and 112 Less than Successful Civilian Administrators.......................... 74 S. Mean Scores on Consideration and Initiating Structure for Real and Ideal AMC Civilian Administrators, Dividing Successful from Less than Successful, and Comparing Scores according to Civilian and Military Describers............................................ 76 iv LIST OF TABLES-Continued Table Page 9. Coefficients of Correlation (Pearsonian r) between Real and Ideal AMC Civilian Administrators on the Dimensions of Consideration and Initiating Structure, according to Successful and Less than Successful Civilian Administrators, and Military and Civilian Describers. .................................. 78 10. Comparison of Mean Scores of Responses to ’'Most Authori­ tarian" and "Most Democratic" LBDQ Items Describing the Ideal AMC Military Officer Administrator, the Successful AMC Civilian Administrator, and the Successful Non-AMC Civilian Administrator .......... 81 11. Correlation Coefficients Expressing the Relationship between Dimension Scores and Selected Biographical Data for Successful and Less than Successful AMC Civilian Administrators ............................ 84 12. Correlation Coefficients Expressing the Relationship between Dimension Scores of Ideal AMC Military Officer Administrators and Selected Biographical Data on Military Describers of Ideal................ 85 13. Correlation Coefficients Expressing the Relationship between Dimension Scores on Ideal AMC Civilian Administrators and Selected Biographical Data on Military Describers Who Supervise Successful and Less than Successful Civilian Administrators........ 86 14. Correlation Coefficients Expressing the Relationship between Dimension Scores on Ideal AMC Civilian Administrators and Selected Biographical Data on Civilian Describers Who Supervise Successful and Less than Successful Civilian Administrators........ 87 15. Correlation Coefficients Expressing the Relationship between Dimension Scores and Selected Biographical Data on Military Supervisors Describing Successful and Less than Successful AMC Civilian Administrators. 88 16. Correlation Coefficients Expressing the Relationship between Dimension Scores and Selected Biographical Data on Civilian Supervisors Describing Successful and Less than Successful AMC Civilian Administrators. 89 v LIST OF TABLES-Continued Table Page 17. Means, Standard Deviations, and t-Ratios of Mean Differences in Ideal Leader Behavior of 132 Aircraft Commanders and 119 AMC Military Officer Administrators...................................... 99 18. Means, Standard Deviations, and t-katios of Mean Differences in Ideal Leader Behavior of 64 Educational Administrators and 119 AMC Military Officer Administrators........................... 100 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The basic objectives of this study Have been to determine the extent to which selected civilian administrators within a military logistics organization (the Air Materiel Command of the United States Air Force) tend to conform to patterns of behavior valued by their military peers and superiors; and to ascertain whether such behavior reflects values tending to be democratic and permissive, or authori­ tarian, or a combination of both, or neither. Essentially, this has involved an analysis of described behavior within a specific public administrative environment, and nas followed generally a research approach and a set of techniques developed by the staff members of the Ohio State University Personnel Research Board. One of the major objectives of the leadership studies con­ ducted by the Board had been to test hypotheses concerning the situa­ tional determination of leader behavior, as contrasted with previous endeavors to explain the phenomenon of leadership from the personality traits of the leader. According to Carroll I. Shartle, Chairman of the Personnel Research Board, "the trait approach reached an impasse before the beginning of World War II."1 Carroll L. Shartle, "Introduction," Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, ed, Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons (Columbus: The Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research, 1957), p. 1. 1 It was also considered that the ability to describe leader behavior objectively was central to the study of leadership. Conse­ quently, leader behavior description became a focal point of concern for the staff of the Personnel Research Board. The end product of their efforts in this connection was the Leader Behavior Description questionnaire, the specific instrument utilized in the study reported hereinafter. The research done preliminary to the development of the Leader Behavior Description questionnaire (hereafter referred to as the LBDQ) has been reported by Hemphill and Coons. As they have stated it, their report is concerned with an attempt to develop an objective method of describing "how" a leader carries out his activities. For example, a leader in his coordinating or supervisory activity, nay engage in a considerable amount of dominating behavior; or, he may accomplish these tasks without displaying dominating behavior at all.-*- Based on extended discussions by the staff members of the Per­ sonnel Research Board, the initial classification of the dimensions or the "hows'1 of leader behavior was accomplished. These were as follows: 1. Integration — acts which tend to increase cooperation among members or decrease competition among them 2. Communication - act3 which increase the understanding of and knowledge about what is going on in the group 3. Production emphasis - acts which are oriented toward volume of work accomplished ^-John K. Hemphill and Alvin E. Coons, "Development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire," Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, ed. Ralph M« Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons (Columbus: The Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research, 1957), P. 6. 3 4. Representation - act3 which 3peak for the group in interaction with outside agencies 5. Fraternization - acts which tend to make the leader a part of the group 6. Organization - acts which lead to differentiation of duties and which prescribe ways of doing things 7. Evaluation - acts which have to do with distribution of rewards (or punishment) 8. Initiation - acts which lead to change in group activities 9. Domination - act3 which disregard the ideas or person of members of the group The foregoing nine areas provided a framework for specific items of leader behavior which were subsequently developed and evalu­ ated. Based on previous field studies and on personal contacts with private industries and public