The grievance activity of work groups has received surprisingly little attention by either organizational behavior or industrial re-lations researchers. This study explores the impact of different work environments on the rate of grievance filing in a large, unionized manufacturing plant. The two aspects of the work environment exam-ined, (a) size of the primary work group and (b) type of work technology, were both significantly related to grievance rates. A batch production environment was associated with a substantially higher rate of grievance filing than were either mass or craft pro-duction. When the work technology effect was held constant, the size of the primary work group was negatively related to grievance rates.
In general, I thought that the Boal and Willis "Note on the Armstrong/Mitroff Debate" provided an interesting and fair discussion. The summary of the consequences of the subjective versus objective approaches (Table 1 in their paper) was helpful. It clearly outlined the dilemma faced by scientists: "Should I strive for personal gain or for scientific contributions?" It also described what is likely to happen to the theories generated from the subjective and objective approaches. For example, the authors claimed that the subjective approach will yield a fuller hearing for a theory. Given my preference for empirical evidence, I was disappointed that Boal and Willis had little evidence to report. Fortunately, recent research has been done on the above topics. This research supports some of Boal and Willis's conclusions, but it falsifies their conclusion that the subjective approach will provide a fuller hearing for theories. The evidence seems consistent with Boal and Willis's summary of the conflict between the advancement of scientists and scientific advancement. My summary of the empirical evidence on this conflict led to the "Author's Formula" (Armstrong, 1982a, p. 197). This states that scientists who are interested in career advancement should: (a) not select an important problem, (b) not challenge existing beliefs, (c) not obtain surprising results, (d) not use simple methods, (e) not provide full disclosure, and (f) not write clearly. These rules for scientists conflict with the aims of science. Unfortunately, many scientists use these rules and profit from them. Those who break the rules are often dealt with harshly by the scientific community.
Managers often use negotiation as a conflict-resolution mechan-ism. We characterize this negotiation process as a problem of dividing ownership in a corporate combination. We specify a set of axioms which imply a unique outcome of this negotiation process. In par-ticular, ownership in the combinedfirm will be divided in proportion to the value of resources contributed by each constituent to the transaction. We tested this prediction of ownership division using a sample of 133 recent corporate combinations. The evidence is con-sistent with this prediction.
A laboratory experiment involving 144 student subjects was con ducted to examine the effects of performance cues on descriptions of leader behavior. The concept of involvement, operationalized in a two-dimensional manner, was invoked in order to create varying vantage points (observation versus participation)from which subjects would view leader behavior. Split-plot analysis of variance demon strated an attribution effect in that the presence of performance cues directly affected subject descriptions of leader initiating structure and consideration. Subject involvement directly affected only subject ratings of consideration. Analysis of interaction effects showed per formance data to be a more salient cue for uninvolved observers than for involved participants.
Recent research has produced seemingly contradictory findings for the moderating effect of job context satisfaction on job-contentl worker-response relationships. Four sets of possible explanations are explored: chance occurrence, sample distribution artifacts, common method variance, and a series of alternative conceptual explanations. Psychological absorption/distraction is discussed as a process to explain the role of context satisfaction. Possible determinants of absorption/distraction are explored, and competitive, testable hy-potheses are presented for each possible explanation.
The reliability and validity of the Manifest Needs Questionnaaire (MNQ) and the Personality Research Form (PRF) nAch, nAff, nAut, and nPow scales were assessed in a heterogeneous sample (N = 136). Reliability was assessed by computing coefficient alpha for each scale. Validity assessments were based on criteria suggested by Campbell and Fiske (1959) for evaluating the multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) matrix. An additional analysis of variance suggested by Kavanagh, MacKinney, and Wolins (1971) was applied to the MTMM matrix; thus allowing the quantitative identification of the effects of subjects, traits, and methods. The scales demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity according to these analyses. Where validity is in question, the cause seems to be due to the overall poor reliabilities of the MNQ scales. Only the MNQPOW scale was acceptably reliable, while all the PRF scales were acceptable. The unreliability of the MNQ seems to be afunction of item heterogeneity and scale variance, while the PRF does not appear as sensitive to these factors.
Viewing leadership as the process of selecting an appropriate means (or control strategy) to reach a desired goal, this paper investigates the underlying structure of supervisory control. Using a multidimensional scaling procedure, four leader behavior dimensions are extracted and identified: obtrusive vs. unobtrusive control, situ-ational vs. personal control, professional vs. paternalistic control, and process vs. output control. The implications of the findings for past and future research are then considered.
Recently, Armstrong and Mitroff have joined an important debate over the methods of science. We are afraid that because of the tongue-in-cheek fashion in which it was done that two important issues were intertwined and may not be fully appreciated. The issues involved the practice of science versus the methods and theory versus data.
Skill learnability, the degree to which a particular managerial skill can be acquired or modified by training and development, is de scribed and discussed. It is argued that those managerial skills com prised of large sociallinteractive components and affected by under lying noncognitive attributes are more difficult to learn than skills which can be articulated through a common body of knowledge or technology. Implications for organization resource allocation be tween selection and training strategies and future research directions are discussed.