ARl FIELD UNIT, USAREUR - Stanford University · 2015. 4. 3. · Project 2Q162722A779, Techniques for Organizational Effectiveness and Manage- ment Training, M 79 Work Program. The

ARl FIELD UNIT, USAREUR

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the Deputy Chief of S t a f f for Personnel

JOSEPH ZEIITNER Technical Director

FRANKLIN A. HART Colonel, US Anny Commander

NOTICES

DEVELOPMENT OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL

SURVEY FEEDBACK PROGRAM FOR THE 3 2 D AIR DEFENSE C O M M A N D

Donald G. Walizer and John R. Mietus

Submitted by: William W. Haythorn, Chief

ARI FIELD UNIT, USAREUR

Approved by :

E. Ralph Dusek, Director PERSONNEL AND TRAINING RESEARCH LABORATORY

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES 5001 Eisenhower Avenue. Alexandria. Virginia 22333

Office. Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel Department of the Army

March 1980

ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of R&D tasks and for other research and military agencies. Any findings ready for implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last part of the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formai recorn- mendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military agencies bv briefing or Disposition Form.

The research reported here was accomplished by t he Leadership and mgani- zational Effectiveness Work Uni t , U.S. Army-Europe (USAREUR) Fi.eld U n i t of t h e U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. This unit has as its primary objective the enhancement of combat readiness through research to improve organizational processes. The research is responsive t o Army Project 2Q162722A779, Techniques for Organizational Effectiveness and Manage- ment Training, M 79 Work Program.

The complex, rapidly changing environment of the modern Army makes it im- perative that organization leadership, climate, and processes function opti- mally. The Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness Work Uni t researches personal, small-group, and macro-organizational functioning i n work set t ings,

of l i fe . This report details t h e development of a system designed t o diagnose these variables. Research was init iated and data collected by the first author, who l e f t ARI before the project was completed. The second author carried out secondary data analysis and wrote the final report.

l specifically i n USAREUR, i n an attempt t o increase combat readiness and quality l

&5!lxr echnical Director

l

,

I

,

/

l

l

DEVELOPMENT OF AN OFGANIZATIONAL SURVEY FSGUBACK PROGRAM FOR THE 32D A I R DEFENSE COMMAND

Requirement S :

I n t h e U.S . Army's Organ iza t iona l RF Fsctivev I S S Program, t h e G e n e r a l O r - ganiza t ion Ques t ionnai re (GOQ) s e r v e s as t h e pr lmary d iagnos t ic survey ins t rument f o r rneasuring organizat ional climate. Th i s project (a) tailored the GOQ and i t s data p rocess ing (ADP) and feedback systems t o the u n i q u e s i t u a t i o n of t h e 32d A i r Defense Command (AADCOM) and !b) examined the psychometric proper- t ies of t h e basic GOQ instrument.

Procedure:

The instrument was tailored to the 32d AAilCOM's s i t u a t i o n . It w a s admin- istered t o more than 2,000 h e a d q u a r t e r s b a t t e r y p e r s o n n e l i n la te 1977. Be- cause there was no GOQ ADP sys tem in U.S. Army-Europe (USAREUR) d u r i n g the p ro jec t , sys t ems fo r ADP and f o r r e t u r n i n g results t o commanders were b u i l t a n d u s e d . I n t e r s c a l e c o r r e l a t i o n a n d i n t e r i t e m r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were computed. A shor t eva lua t ive ques t ionna i r e he lped assess rhe impact of t h e procedures as viewed by companders.

Findings :

Five of s i x major dimensions of the GOQ were l e f t in t ac t . These exh ib i t ed minimally adequate item r e l i a b i l i t y a n d e x c e s s i v e l y h i g h i n t e r s c a l e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s . T h i s sugges t s it would be i nappropr i a t e to u s e t h i s i n s t r u m e n t to a t t empt p inpo in t d i agnos i s . The data processing system was unwieldy but workable- Data feedback was t o the top l e v e l s o f t he command, where it had p o l i c y impact; and t o b a t t e r y commwlders where, as perceived by u n i t commanders, it had minimal p r a c t i c a l impact. Recommendations were t o r e f i n e f u r t h e r t h e GOQ scales, make t h e tailored ins t rumen t ava i l ab le , replace t h e ADP system, and change the data feedback procedures. Feedback t o u n i t commanders should be on "profile" forms; it should supply norms for comparison; t h e commander and h i s immediate subord ina tes should be i nvo lved i n d i scuss ing the data i n several long-meet ings . U t i l i z a t i o n of Findings:

The f indings of t h i s study provided an empirical base for improving t h e u t i l i t y o f t h i s o rgan iza t iona l e f f ec t iveness i n s t rumen t - P r inc ipa l u se r s of these f ind ings are the Organizat ional Effect iveness Center and School and t h e Organiza t iona l Ef fec t iveness Staff Offic-rs i n t h e 32d A i r Defense Command.

CONTENTS

L. ..

DEVELOPMENT OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL SUENEY FEEDBACK PROGRAM FCR THE 32D A I R DEFENSE COMMAND

The Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 D a t a C o l l e c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Psychometr ic Propert ies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

I

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. GOQ dimensions and indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Organizat ional survey dimensions and indices . . . . . . . . . 3. I n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s

( c o e f f i c i e n t a l p h a ) fo r organiza t iona l survey i n d i c e s O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Unit climate i n t e r s c a l e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s corrected f o r u n r e l i a b i l i t y . . . . . . . . .

5 . Superv i so ry l eade r sh ip i n t e r sca l e correlatim c o e f f i c i e n t s corrected f o r u n r e l i a b i l i t y . . . . . . . . .

6 . Co-worker i n t e r a c t i o n i n t e r s c a l e c 9 r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s corrected f o r u n r e l i a b i l i t y . . . . . . . .

3

5

6

0

9

9

i x

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table 7. Work group processes interscale correlation coefficients corrected for unreliability . . . . . . . . . . . 10

8 . Individual outcome interscale correlation coefficients corrected for unreliability . . . . . . . . . . . 10

9. Interdimension correlation coefficients, not corrected for unreliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

10. HQ staff survey questionnaire results . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I

I

X

DEVELOPMENT OF A& ORGANIZATIONAL SUFNEY FXEDBACK PROGRAM FOR THE 32D AIR DEFENSE COMMAND

INl'RODUCTIOlJ

The Department of t h e Army i n i t i a t e d a n O r g a n i z a t i o n a l E f f e c t i v e n e s s program i n t h e mid-1970s.. Organ iza t iona l E f fec t iveness is de f ined as fo l lows:

Organiza t iona l Ef fec t iveness (OEi. A s y s t e m a t i c a d a p t a t i o n o f OD by the Army for t h e pu rpose o f s t r eng then ing t he cha in of cormand, i n c r e a s i n g i n d i v i d u a l a n d u n i t e f f e c t i v e n e s s , and improving the qual i -y of l i fe i n an Army community. OE is implemented as a phased process t h a t i s t a i l o r e d to the un ique requi rements of a p a r t i c u l a r Army u n i t , c o n t r o l l e d by that unit's leader or commander, and normally supported by an Organ iza t iona l E f fec t ive - n e s s S t a f f O f f i c e r . The primary steps of OE include:

( 1 ) Assessment of organiza t iona l p rocesses . (2) Chain of command act ion planning. (3) Implementation of planned ac t ions . ( 4 ) Evaluation and follaw-up.

Orqanization Development (OD). A technology which invo lves t he com- b ined app l i ca t ion of behavioral and management s c i e n c e s methods: ( 1 ) to understand more c l e a r l y how p e r s o n s i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n communicate with each other and how t h e y a f f e c t a n d are a f f e c t e d by t h e s t r u c t u r e s , procedures, and work environments of t he organ iza t ion , and ( 2 ) t o u s e t h i s knowledge and understanding t o r e i n f o r c e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r e n g t h s a n d make p r a c t i c a l and sys- tematic improvements i n t h e way t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n f u n c t i o n s . (HQ DA L e t t e r 600-76-2, May 1976)

Survey feedback is a s p e c i f i c OE technique in which a survey instrument measuring organizat ional climatc ' S adminis te red to unit personnel by a n Or- g a n i z a t i o n a l E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t a f f O f f i c e r (OESO). Rased o n t h e r e s u l t s of t h e su rvey , t he OESO and t h e commander plan organizat ion improving act ions.

During 1974 and 1975 i n U.S. Army-Europe (USAWEUR), t he Army Research In- s t i t u t e ( A R I ) conducred a pi lot survey feedback project t o assess the v a l u e of a p a r t i c u l a r form of survey feedback technology and t o develop tools and ins t rumenta t ion (Holmes, 1977). Commanders f e l t t h a t s u r v e y feedback was use- f u l in p romot ing ins iqht and communication. Company connnanders p a r t i c u l a r l y b e l i e v e d t h a t q u a r t e r l y s u r v e y s would p rov ide u se fu l management information. T h i s p i l o t e f f o r t e s t a b l i s h e d a recognized need and use for the survey feedback t e c h n i q u e i n USAREUR.

I n 1975, t he Organ iza t iona l E f fec t iveness T ra in ing Cen te r (OETC) made the General Organizat ion Questionnaire (GOQ) a v a i l a b l e t o OESOs. The GOQ is a s tandardized, machine-scored organizat ional quest ionrraire pat terned after t h e I n s t i t u t e for Social Research 's "Survey of Qrganieat ions" (Taylor 8 Bowers, 1 C, 1 2 ) . A l l OESOs are t r a i n e d i n i ts use a t O E K . Soon a f t e r the GOQ was ma3.e a v a i l a b l e , it became a p p a r e n t t h a t some t a i l o r i n g was needed t o

1

address the specific organizational diaqnosis requirements and operational characteristics of the 32d Air Defense Command (AADCOM). Furthermore, there was a need to develop a quick turnaround from survey administratio? to feedback to insure that unit commanders received timely and useful data.

OBJECTIVES

This report briefly describes the accomplishment of three goals:

1. To tailor the GOQ to the 32d AADCOM situation and to examine the psychometric properties of the COQ as they reflect the quality of the survey inst.rument;

2. To develop a rapid turnaround, cost-effective data processing and analysis system; and

3. To develop a client-oriented data feedback system.

In brief, the GOQ was tailored to the 32d AADCOM requirements and characteristics. Data were collected on a sample c€ line and HQ batteries, and a method of scoring and analyzing the data was built and implemented. Results were fed back to commanders by letter and by the 32d AADCOM OESOs. Afterward, unit leaders and OESOs were sampled as to their judgments on the process. Some psychometric properties of the instnusent were also determined.

TAILORING THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

The Survey Instrument

The tailored instrument, termed the Organization Survey (OS), was based on the GOQ. The Army adopted the GOQ as a standard instrument in the mid- 1970s; the GOQ measures 21 dimensions of social organization functioning. Major G3Q indices and question patterns closely resemble the "Survey of Or- ganizations" of the Institute for Social Research, a well-researched instrument containing considerable reliability and validity information (Taylor h Bowers, 1972). When this research began in 1977, reliability and validity information on the GOQ were not yet available.

The basic GOQ instrument consists of a4 items comprising 27 indices, a section in which commanders can add their own questions, and a section for demographic information. The Gw indices are shmn in Table 1.

2

B&$? p y y 4 . . r . F @ r l g y BBbE .J ,- -. -. . .a " I -. LA,,

Table 1

GOQ Dimensions and Indices

Items Total no. numbered of items

I. Unit Climate

1. Communication Flow 1- 2 2 2. Decisionmaking 3- 6 4 3. Motivatim 7-10 4 4. Integration of Personnel and Mission 11-16 6 5. Identification With Unit 1' -19 3 6. General Climate 20-27 - 8

27

c 11. Supervisory Leadership l

1. Support 2. Teamwork 3. Goal Emphasis 4. Work Facilitaticn 5. Influence

111. Co-worker Interaction

1. Support 2. Teamwork 3 . Work Facilitation 4. Peer Influence

TV. Work Group Processes

1. Coordination 2. Readiness 3. Discipline 4. Intergroup Cooperation

V. Effects on Personnel

1. Satisfaction 2. EquGl Opportunity

TOTAL

28-31 32-33 34-37 38-4 .*, 444k 5

46-47 48-51 52-53 54 -55

56-57 58-65 66-67 68-69

70-74 75-84

4 2 4 6 2 18 -

2 4 2 2 10 -

2 8 2 2 14 -

5 10 15

04

-

The present Organizat ional Survey re ta ins intact l9 of che o r ig ina l 21 GOQ organizat ional processes indices; Table 1 lists t h e l 9 as Dimensions I through IV. m d i f i c a t i o n s t o the GCQ i nc lude subs t an t i a l changes i n t h e Effects on Personnel indices i n Dimension V; oniy t h e Equal Opportunity index was retained. The Sat i s fac t ion index was changed to measure job satis- fac t ion , and indices of morale and e f f e c t s on family l i f e were added. Also added w a s a section measuring organizational norms and values. '&e deawr graph.<: section of t h e GOQ was dropped, and tu, quest ions on rank and sex of t h e responuents were added tc t h e OS. The c a p a b i l i t y of adding m n d e r ' s questions was retained. Table 2 shows the f i n a l coaq?usition of the OS; a copy of the instrument is i n Apper?d.ix A.

The four Family L i f e items added to the OS w e r e developed largely a t the request and w i t h th2 a s s i s t ance of t h e 32d AADCCn OESOs. Items for the Job Sa t i s f ac t ion and Personal Adjustment (morale) ind ices were selected from item nsed in previous A R I research pr0gr-m The Unit Norms and Values items came from interviews of 32d AADCOM personnel conducted as part of a previous ARI cont rac ts

Data C o l l e c t i o n

A pilot test of t h e OS and related systems w a s conducted frola Harch through June 1977. This test was run with eight current OESO cl ients , 1 i r .e batteries i n the 32d AADCOM. A total of 654 usable surveys was obtained. The p i l o t was designed primarily to test the ana lys i s and feedback por t ions of t h e system, although it d id result i n some minor item wording changes i n t h e U n i t Norms and Values index.

Owing August 19 i7 , a survey of a l l HQ batteries within the 32d AADco# was conducted i n t h e f i r s t ope ra t iona l phase of the system's existence. A t o t a l of 2,167 usable surveys was received. These data, in conjunction L .?.I data from the pi lot phase, proviaed a basis for examining the psychometric proper t ies of t h e ins t rument . Coeff ic ient Alpha, a measure of i n t e r n a l con- s i s t ency r e l i ab i l . i t y , was conputed fer each of t h e OS i nd ices ; i n t e r sca l e correlation analyses were ilso performed.

Psychometric Properties

Table 3 shows Alphs re l iabi l i tv c o e f f i c i e n t s for both the p i l o t a n d the operational surveys. The pilot data came' from l i n e batteries (N = 6541, and t h e operat ional data came from HQ batteries IN = 2,167). Thc Organizational Processes indices { l -19 ) and the Equal Opportunity index are i d e n t i c a l to those in t h e GCQ and provide information on that ins t rument .

4

Table 2

Organizational Survey Dimensions and Indices

ItelBS Total m. numbered of items

I.

11.

111.

IV .

V.

VI .

VII.

Unit Climate 1. Comunication Flow 2. Decisionmaking 3. Motivation 4. Integration of Personnel and Hission 5. Identification with Unit 6. General Climate

Supervisory Leadership 1. support 2. Teamwork 3. Goal Rnphasis 4. W k Facilitation 5 . Influence Co-worker Interaction 1. Support 2. Teaolwori 3. Work Facilitation 4. Peer Influence

Work Group Processes 1. Coordination 2. Readiness 3 . Discipline 4. Intergroup Cooperation

Unit Norms and Values

Individual Outcomes

2. Job Satisfaction 3. Personal Adjustment 4. Family Life

- 1. Equal cq?*y*unity

Demographic Information 1. Rank 2. sex

#

1- 2 3- 6 7-10 11-16 17-19 20-27

28-31 32-33 34-37 38-43 44-45

46-47 48-51 52-53 54-55

56-57 58-65 6667 68-69

80-96

70-79 97=100 101-105 106-109

110 111

2 4 4 6 3 0 27 -

4 2 4 6 2 18 -

2 4 2 2 10 -

2 B 2 2 14

17

-

10 4 5 4 23 -

111

Table 3

Internal Consistency Reliability Coefficients (Coefficient Alpha) for Organizational Survey Indices

Index dimension and name Test Phase

Pilot Operational

A. Organizational Processes

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 * 11 . 12 . 13. 14. 15 . 16. 17. 18. 19.

Communication Flow Decisionmaking Motivation Integration of Personnel and Mission Identification with Unit General Climate Supervisory Leadership Support Supervisory Leadership Teamwork Emphasis Supervisory Leadership Goal Rnphasis Supervisory Leadership Work Facilitation Supervisory Leadership Influence Co-worker Interaction Support Co-worker Interaction Teamwork Co-worker Interaction Work Facilitation Co-worker Peer Influence Work Group Coordination Work Group Readiness Work Group Discipline Intergroup Cooperation

B. Unit Nom and Values

C. Individual Outcomes

1. Equal Opportunity 2. Job Sa5isfaction 3. Personal Adjustment 4. Family Life

. 49 . 67 . 63 . 63 . 69 . 60

.81 . 76 . 81 . 81 . 66

.74 87 . 77 . 57

m 76 .70 .81 65

.85

. 78 . 79 m 73 . 68

. 54 74 . 67 . 73 . 68 . 69 . 83

0 75 -82 -81 . 73 71 87 . 76

9 57 78 . 77 . 80 70

.89

83 . 81 . 78 g 68

Internal consistency scale reliability coefficients in the pilot study varied from .49 to .87, with a mean of .72; the operational phase study oh- tained internal consistency scale reliability coefficients from .54 to .90, with a mean of .75. The four supervisory indices--Support, Goal Emphasis, Teamwork, and Work Facilitation--had coefficients of internal consistency ranging from .75 to .83. These coefficients contrast to the -85 to .94 range reported for similar indices in the "Survey of Organizations" (Taylor C B o w e r s , 19723, a standard against which other simiI.ar instruments can be judged.

The range of index scores theoretically can be from 1 to 5. The average of the indices means is 3.24; the highest index mean score is 3.888 and the lowest is 2.75. The average of the indices' standard deviations is m 9 8 8 with a range of 0.73 to 1.21. This indicates that a curtailment of range problem does not exist that could limit the instrument's reliability and validity potential.

Tables 4 through 8 present the interscale correlation coefficic-nts grouped into major dimensions. The correlations are corrected for index unreliability by the fonrmla rn; = r / drtt r , where mm = correlation between true components of and g; rtq tg= obtainei'correlation; rtt and rzg = alpha reliability Coefficients. These coefficients show the "true" correla Lon between indices; that is, they shaw the correlation coefficients that would exist if the indices were perfectly reliable and if each item in a scale faithfully represented the total scale in all significant respects. This relationship is useful for understanding the amount of theoretical common variance betveen indices and hence the nature of organization climatel leadership, and group processes. It is equally important for an OESO to know the amount of shared variance between indices when explaining survey results to unit leaders. Squaring the reported coefficients provides an indication of the extent to which variability in any index overlaps or duplicates variability in another index.

For example, the degree of overlap in the four primary supervisory indices--Support, Teamwork Emphasis, Goal mphasis, and Work Facilitation--ranges from a low of 62% shared variance for both Goal Emphasis/Support and Goal Emphasis/Work Facilitation to a high of 81% shared variance for Support/Team- work. Therefore, for any pair of these four supervisory indices, approximately 60% to 80% of the variability in one index is shared by the other index, and approximately 20% to 40% of the variability in each index is independent of the other. Thus, no index completely duplicates another, although there is a very high degree of overlap. These figures are higher than those for com- parable indices of the "Survey of Organizations," after which these indices and items are modeled (Taylor 6 Bowers, 1972).

All the indices groupings could be looked at similarly. In general, there is extensive duplication between indices within dimensions except for the Individual Outcome indices developed specifically for the OS. On the basis of this one organization sample and of this simple analysis, however, there is not sufficient justification to combine indices. Further scale analyses were not conducted because revision of the GOQ was outside the scope of this project. Furthermore, a new climate surve\. instrument is under development by ARI. However, there are enough data to state that pinpoint diagnoses of an organization's climate should not be attempted solely with the OS or

I the GOQ.

7

Table 4

Unit Climate Interscale Correlation Coefficients, Corrected for Unreliability

Indices

Integration of Decision- per sonne 1 and Identification General making Motivation mission with unit climate

Communication Flow .86 0 55 .79 .64 69

Decision- making .61 .04 .69 .76

Motivation .84 .72 .72

Integration of Personnel and Miss ion .87 .07

Identification With Unit .76

g .001 for all entries.

Table 5

Supervisary Leadership Intersca-e Correlation Coefficients Corrected for Unreliability

Indices Teamwork Goal Work Emphasis Emphasis Facilitation Influence

Support

Teamwork mhasis

Goal Emphasis

Work Facilitation

. 90 9 79 . 86 -78

.87 . 83 -77

9 79 . 75

-88

E c .001 for all entries.

Table 6

Co-worker Interaction Interscale Correlation coefficients Corrected for Unreliability

~-

Work Peer Indices Tearwork Facilitation Influence

support .90 .86 9 75

Teamwork 9 95 -71

Work Facilitation 9 77

E -c . 001 for all entries.

Table 8

Individual Outcome Interscale Correlation Coefficients Corrected for Unreliability

Job Personal Family Indices Satisfaction Adjustment Life

- Equal Opportunity -66 .57 .43

Job Satisfaction -41

Personal Ad j us tment .58

- p .001 for all entries.

.50

10

Table 9

Interdimension Correlation Coefficients, Not Corrected for Unreliability

Dimension

Work Unit Norms Supervisory Co-worker Group and Individual Leadership Interaction Process Values Outcomes

Unit Climate: .65 .55 .68 60 71

Supervisory Leadership

Co-worker D Interaction

Work Group Process

Unit Norms and Values

.59 .68 .42 .56

.74 .36 .S3

.44 .62

0 59

e .001 for all entries.

DATA PROCESSING PROCEDURES

Data process ing procedures were designed with several goals i n mind: (a) rapid t u r n a r ~ u n d , (b) minimum error rate, (c ) minimum OESO time requirements, and (d ) p r i n t o u t s s u i t a b l e f o r OESO and c l i e n t use.

Because programming a s s i s t a n c e w a s n o t available from either the A M f i e l d u n i t or USAREUR, t he Statist ical Package for the Social Sc iences (SPSS) was used t o perform a l l data process ing func t ions . The SPSS was e a s i l y u s e d by f i e l d uni t personnel , and it provided complete data a n a l y s i s capabilities and f u l l y labeled p r i n t o u t s suitable €or u s e i n t h e c l i e n t feedback system.

An optical scan system was used t o transpose subject responses to computer- ready inputs . This system w a s chosen t o minimize error rate, inprove tu rn - around time, and reduce demands on OESOs. The available m i l i t a r y optical scan system was judged inadequate for t h i s purpose; it r e q u i r e d multiple answer sheets, w a s i n t o l e r a n t of answer sheet problems, and provided card-punch com- p u t e r i n p u t t ha t inc reased clerical demands and error potent ia l . Thus , t h i s service w a s con t r ac t ed to a German firm u s i n g different hardware. me German system allowed a l l responses t o be made on one sheet and provided computer input on a tape format. The r e j e c t i o n rate due to answer sheet problems w a s less t h a n -5%.

Hawever, the r e s u l t i n g data p rocess ing steps involved a complicated procedure. The tape from t h e German firm had to be t r a n s l a t e d by t h e Honeywell f a c i l i t y a t Campbell Barracks, Heidelberg, t o a format acceptable to the IBM f a c i l i t y t h a t had t h e SPSS c a p a b i l i t y . Data c l e a n l l g a n d f i l e b u i l d i n g Were time-consuming procedures because the IBM f a c i l i t y accepted only batch process ing and usua l ly gave on ly a 24-hour turnaround. The average turnaround time was 2 weeks wi th t h i s processing system. These procedures would be unac- cep tab le i n an ope ra t iona l sys t em because t he 2-week turnaround would limit t h e use fu lness of t he data for o rgan iza t ion l eade r s .

DATA FEEDBACK PROCEDURES

Method

The basic data feedback provided t o a comnrander w a s a computer p r i n t o u t c o n t a i n i n g f u l l y labeled re sponse f r equency d i s t r ibu t ions , means, and laedians for 111 items. Each coanrander also received a letter e x p l a i n i n g how to under- s t and the p r i n t o u t (Appendix E) and a d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e meaninys o f . the indices (Appendix C ) . F i n a l l y , t h e 32d OESOs were available to counse l commanders, and commanders were urged to u s e t h i s r e s o u r c e .

S e v e r a l s t e p s were taken t o i n s u r e that t h e data feedback would be used for diagnos t ic purposes aab no t t o e v a l u a t e people or u n i t s . First, each uni t th rough ba t te ry level i n t he 32d AADCOM was as s igned a unique four -d ig i t code number known only by t h e A R I s c i e n t i s t s and t h e OESOs. This u n i t code was t h e only ident i f ie r used on answer sheets, computer storage, and p r in t - Outs. Second, a u n i t ' s data were made available on ly to t h e u n i t c o r m ~ n d e r , i n a composite format not broken down by s e c t i o n . F i n a l l y , i n d i v i d u a l anonym- i t y was p rese rve1 by suppres s ing a l l data i n which fewer t h a n f i v e r e s p o n d e n t s could be l o c a t e d i n any a n a l y s i s category ( rank , sex , or section).

12

OESOs supplement the basic pr in tout wi th tables showing t h e most p o s i t i v e snd most negat ive aspects of t h e data- Generally, negative areas were it- on which one-third or more of t h e responses were "Somewhat Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree" for pos i t i ve ly worded items, and "Somewhat A g r e e " or "Strongly A g r e e " on negatively wrded items. Posi t ive azzas were usual ly items on which 75% or more of the responses were "Somewhat A g r e e " or "Strongly A g r e e ' for posi- t i v e l y worded items, or t he r eve r se for negat ively worded items.

Additional analysis of t h e data w a s possible, ani! commanders were told they could get further data braakdawns by sex or rank.

A n overa l l repor t , Third Report t o the Commander, w a s s e n t to t h e can- manding General. This report showed and in t e rp re t ed overall t r e n d s i n the survey data- This report is not included here because the data are confiden- t i a l to the 32d AADCOM.

To assess the impact of t h e feedback procedure, a short quest ionnaire w a s s en t t o a sample of commanders who had received data.

Results

The o v e r a l l effects of the data feedback and survey project were mixed. The Thfrcl R e p o r t to the Commander re-dted i n top level planning; several ac- t i o n s were in i t i a t ed . The Cormnanding General used information from the report to brief incoming commanders on the overa l l o rganiza t iona l climate and to t e l l them which areas of leadership he wanted them to stress. The Third R e p o r t to the Commander a lso served t h e G-1 and OESOs as an information base for planning a human resources development program f o r the conmand. That program has been started.

However, the data feedback e f f e c t s on uni t conananders' ways of running their u n i t s seemed minimal. Results of the postfeedback questioning of com- msndere are i n Table 10.

The commanders who responded (N = 7 ) fe l t the survey w a s of limited value. Lit t le a c t i v i t y r e s u l t e d from t h e feedback a t the battery level .

The OESOs reported they found it very d i f f i c u l t to move from the data to action planning wi th their c l i e n t s . The data indices had l i t t l e opera t iona l meaning t o the OESOs or their c l i en t s . It w a s not clear t o the 3ESOs what a particular combination of index scores indicated about an organization, nor what should be done as a r e su l t .

13

Table 10

HQ Staff survey Questionnaire Results

To a To a very T o a To To a very l i t t l e l i t t l e some grezt great e x t e n t ex ten t e x t e n t extent ex ten t

1.

2 .

3.

4.

5 .

6.

7.

8 .

To what extent have the survey d a t a been use fu l t o you as a conrmander? 0

To what extent have the survey data helped you learn new things about your unit? 0

To what degree are you personal ly committed t o use the survey data? 0

Have you d iscussed the re- s u l t s of the survey with ' the Of f i ce r s and/or NCOs of your un i t ? (Please check one) YES NO - -

I f you r ep l i ed ''yes'' t o quest ion 4, t o what ex ten t d id you f ind these d i s - cussions valuable? 0

Have you discussed the survey resu l t s wi th your superior? (Please check 0r.e) Y E S - NO

If you answered "yes" t o quest ion 6, t o what ex ten t d i d you f ind these discussions valuable?

How accurately do you be- lieve the survey data de- scr ibed the percept ions of t h e Officers, N O S , and Enlisted Persons in your u n i t ?

0

0

3 0

2 0

2 1

YES 5

0

YES 1

0

NO 1

5

NO 5

1

-

0 0

0 0

0 6 0 0

Table 10 (continued)

HQ staff Survey Questionnaire Results

To a To a very To a To Toa very little l i t t le some great great extent ex ten t extent extent ex ten t

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

How helpful were the in- s t r u c t i o n s f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g the conputer printout (S) ? 0 1 1 3 2

To what extent w e r e you able t o understand the computer pr in tout (S) ? 0 0

To v h t extent have you taken actions based on the survey data? 1 1

1 3 3

4 1 0

Would you like to have similar sunreys in the fu ture?

How often should a survey of th i s na ture be conducted? (Please check one)

A.

4 B.

1 C .

3 D-

E.

1 0 1 3 2

Never Quarterly

Semi-Annually

Annually

Other (Specify)

How would you p re fe r to receive the computer pr in tout (S ) 3 (Please check one)

3 A. Mail, as I did t h i s time

1 B. Through command channels

2 C. Delivered and discussed by OESO

16

I CONCLUSIONS M D -ATIONS

The OS and its parent instrument, t h e m. exhibi t minimally suff ic ient psychometric qualities. Therefore, one would be prudent t o use then only as

l rough gauge, but broad-ranging, diagnostic i n s t r m e n t s . The indices are not l su f f i c i en t ly r e f ined fo r f i ne ly honed diagnoses. Internal consis tency scale

r e l i a b i l i t i e s are law, and in te rsca le cor re la t ion coef f ic ien ts shov cons ider - able duplicat ion between indices. Nevertheless, the instnanents survey a broad rar-ye of areas of organizational functioning. Results from these instruments, when c&ined w i t h other data about an Organization, could prove usefu l to the OESO. It was not the purpose of this research e f f o r t to stutiy comprehensiwely the p s y c b m t r i c characteristics of the OS or the GOQ. These preliminary re- s u l t s ind ica te that fsrther psychometric study and scale development are ad-

a new organizat ional climate survey is developed, it could replace or supplement the 6 0 2 , making further GOQ scale development unnecessary.

l

I

i I visable if the GOQ is to cont inue in use as a standard Army instrument. If

New scales were developed to measure (a) organizat ion norms and values , (b) effects of job on family life, (c) nmrale, and (d l job sa t i s f ac t ion . Al- though these scales also have minimally adequate psychometric properties, they should be made ava i lab le to OBSOs so the officers CM tailor the GCQ m o r e specifically to t h e i r client organization's needs.

The data reduction asethods used in this study are cumbersome and unsatis- fac to ry fo r operational use. Turnaround time is long, and continued use of t h i s system involves ARI in the p rocess . Pr in touts are d i f f i c u l t for the OBSO or mil i t a ry manager to in t e rp re t . OESOa i n t h e 32d IuDc(m and USAREUR i n general should have a data reduction system that is simple to understand and im- plement and t h a t dose n o t involve MI. A l s o , the tuxnaround time should be 1 t o 1-1/2 weeks so t h a t the data feedback is relevant and useful to t h e cli- en t . An updated version of the GOQ program w i l l soon be^ available a t corps level ccquter f a c i l i t i e s and ie nay ava i l ab le a t Headquarters, USARrmR. This aystem should be used i n place of the present ARI-developed system.

F ina l ly and most importantly, the data feedback procedures had the least impact i n batteries, the o rganiza t ion components they were intended to a f f e c t most heavily. Their greatest inpact w a s a t the highest levels of the cnmund. A possible reason for this is the matching of the mode of feedback and the level of the organization. Feedback t o the top levels of the command was technical, i n t e rp re t ive , and designed to elicit an intel lectual response; this it did. Feedback t o the ba t te ry cormranders vas t echn ica l , i n t e l l ec tua l ly o r i en ted (e.g., data pr in tout , abstract discussion of indices) and was intended to elicit behavioral acts t o change uni t funct ioning. The limited information from OESOe and the poet intervent ion survey euggeet that very l i t t l e behavioral change and only minimal thinking about the data's meaning occurred. This is cons i s t en t w i t h the general research literature on social and organizat ional cnange. Also, t h e cost effectiveness of survey feedback a t the battery conanander l e v e l may be questioned. Commanders a t t h i s l e v e l are busy responding to o the r demands and perhaps have no t had s u f f i c i e n t staff experience to understand the value or meaning o f t h i s type of data.

I

17

The data feedback procedure available to the OESOs involved data that were numerically displayed on computer printouts and analyzed in several ways. The OESOs had difficulty in interpreting these data and in recommending changes at the battery level. Improvements in this system could be made in three areas. First, specifically designed feedback forms that display organization data both numerically and in profile form should be built.

Second, nom should be developed and used against which to compare a particular battery's data. In the present research, the same arbitrary point was chosen on each item as the minimally "good" score, or the highest and lalest scores were contrasted. However, research by the Institute for Social Research shows different organizations have different mean scores, as do different items; the percentile score is what matters (Hauser, Pecorella h Wissler, 1977). Therefore, providing even tentative norms to OESOs would help,

Third, survey-guided developent techniques could be used at the battery level. In survey-guided development (Bowers & Franklin, 1977) the OSSO and battery commander would hold se.ueral long meetings with the commander's immediate subordinates to discuss their m work group's data and suggest changes in the way they work together. In other meetings, battery-wide data would be discussed. Data, in both cases, would be fed back on specifically designed forms and compared to norms. Although this procedure would be much m~r2 time consuming, and only few units could be handled at one time, there would be heightened probability that behavioral changes would occur. The discussions themselves would be an intervention, and suggestions for further intervention, if desired, would flaw out of the meetings. A survey-guided developent ir.- tervention would also alleviate the need for a more psychometrically refined GOQ. The GOQ in this type of intervention would simply serve as a stimulrs to diacussion and would not be used for pinpoint diagnoses. At upper levels in the 32d AADCOM, combined data would continue to be fed back as it vas in the Third Report to the Commander. This technical, interpretive survey feedback mode is appropriate at that level and has been effective.

18

REFERZNCES

Bowers, D. G., & Franklin, J. L. Survey Guided Development I: Data Based Orqanizational Chanqe. LaJolla, Calif.: University Associates, 1977.

Hauser, D., Pecorella, F.# b Wissler, A. Survey Guided Development 11: A Manual for Consultants. LaJolla, Calif.: Uaiversity Associates, 1977.

Headquarters, Department of the Army Letter 600-76-2, 3 May 1976. Subject: Organizational effectiveness (OE): Activities and training.

Holmes, D., Strasel, H. C., Cosentino, C., Leader, G. C.# Daltas, A. a., h Brimm, M. Survey feedback in combat units in the U.S. Army in Europe: A pilot project. ARI Research Problem Review 77-2, July 1977.

Taylor, J., h Bowers, D. The survey of organizations: A machine-scored standardized questionnaire instrument. Ann Arhor: Institute for Social Research, 1972.

19

APPENDIX A PT 5031

ORGANIZATIONAL SURVEY

The purpose o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s t o gather information about u n i t management, ac t i v i t i es , morale, and the actual day-to-day l i f e i n t h e unit. This information can be very he lpfu l to your cormnander i n planning impmve- ments fo r t he un i t .

This information will be provided t o your un i t comnander i n a s u m r i z e d form. Care will be taken so tha t no information will be provided t o t h e comnander tha t would a l low any s ing le ind iv idua l to be spec i f i ca l l y i den t i f i ed .

This i s not a test , and there are no r i g h t o r wrong answers. I f the resu l ts a re to be helpful, i t i s important that you answer a l l statements as honestly as possibie. -Please turn the paqe and read the instruct ions carefu l ly before you begin responding to the statements.

Thank you very much f o r your cooperation i n completing this questionnaire.

NOT TO BE SHOYPI TO UNAUTHORIZED PERSOPIS. NOT TO

PERMISSION OF THE TECHNICAL ClIRECTOR OF THE U.S. ARMY RESEARCb INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIOML A N I SOCIAL SCIENCES, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE AkilY.

E€ REPRODUCED €N -ANY FORM SIITHOUT THE SPECIFIC

l.

2.

3.

4.

5 .

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

INSTRUCTIONS

The questionnaire i s designed f o r automatic scanning of your responses. Questims are answered by marking the appropriate answer space on a separate answer sheet.

Be sure to fo l low the answer sheet carefully. Match the numbers on the answer sheet with the numbers of each question.

Please use a Soft penci 1 (no. 2. i s i d e a l ) and observe careful ly these important requirements:

- make heavy black marks tha t f ill the space on the answer sheet

- erase cleanly any answer you wish t o change

- make no s t ray markings o f any kind

Please do not make any marks on the questionnaire.

Do not wr i te your name anywhere e i the r on the questionnaire or on the answer sheet.

There are two Sections to the questionnaire: Section A and Section B.

There i s a t o t a l of 111 questions i n Section A. All answer spaces higher than 111 i n Section A should be blank when you f in ish.

The person administering this questionnaire will provide you with special instructions for completing Section B.

I f you have ar,y questions, raise your hand and someone will corne t o he1 p you.

Now t ha t you have completed the instructions, please turn t o Section A (page 4) and begin with question 1. There i s no time 1 imit.

22

SECTION A

IMPORTANT: MARK ALL YOU!? ANEWERS ON THE SEPARATE ANSWER SHEET.

DO NOT MAKE ANY MARKS I N THIS QUESTIONNAIRE BOOKLET.

23

NOTE: BE SURE OF THE ANSWER CATEGORIES YOU ARE USING -> PLEASE MARK ONE SPACE ON THE ANSWER SHEET FOR EACH QUESTION

1 . The in format ion I rece ive dowr! through formal channels i s genera l l y accu ra te .

2. I g e t a i l t h e i n f o r m a t i o n I need about what i s going on i n o t h e r s e c t i o n s o r departments i n my u n i t .

3. Work p r i o r i t i e s a r e e s t a b l i s h e d i n l i n e w i t h t h e u n i t ' s o b j e c t i v e s .

4. Heotings i n t h i s u n i t g e n e r a l l y acconpl ish rwaningful Object ives.

5 . Decisions a x Fade i n t h i s u n i t a t those l e v e l s where the most adequate information i s avai 1 ab1 e'.

6. Decisions are made i n t h i s u n i t a f t e r get t ing in format ion f rom those who a c t u a l l y do the job.

7. People i n my work group work hard.

8 . I get a sense o f accompl ishment from the work I do.

3 . I look forward to coning to work every day.

10. I wmt t o con t r i bu te my bsst c f f o r t s t o the un i t ' s m iss ion and my assigned tasks.

1'1. T h i s u n i t has a r e E l i n t e r e s t i n t h e we1 fare of assigned personnel.

12. My j o b he1 ?S me t o ach-i eve my personal goal :.

13. I have enough tim crff t o take c a r e o f rliy personal and family needs.

24

l

l

NOTE: BE SURE OF THE ANSWER CATEGORIES YOU ARE USING .->

.PLEASE MARK ONE SPACE ON THE ANSWER SHEET FOR EACH QUESTION

14. My performance evaluations and e f f i c iency reports have been he lp fu l t o me.

15. This uni t p laces a high emphasis on accomplishing the mission.

16. Glorkload and time factors are taken into consideration i n planning our work group assignments.

17. I would l i k e t o s t a y i n th i s un i t as long as I can.

18. My u n i t i s respected on t h i s post.

19. The job I have i s a respected one on th is post .

20. I am no t a f ra id t o make an occasional m i stake .

21. My u n i t i s w i l l i n g t o t r y new or improved methods of do ing work.

22. Tnere i s enough emphasis on competition i n t h i s u n i t .

23. Rules i n t h i s u n i t a r e enforced.

24. There i s l i t t l e interference from outside units i n doing our work.

25. There i s a good working relat ionship between c i v i 1 ian and military personnel i n t h i s u n i t .

26. My j o b i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o meeting the un i t ' s goals.

27. Thi S u n i t i s ab le to respond t o a1 1 the demands put on i t t o accompl i s h i t s mission.

25

c

P Y 1

r a4

NOTE: BE SURE OF THE ANSWER CATEGORIES YOU ARE USING ,->

Q, al Q, L

U m m

U 2!

PLEASE MARK ONE SPACE ON THE P - (D

ANSWER SHEET FOR EACH QUESTION

+, a m c c m

L x 3

m

L Q, 3

0

P

0 Q) 3 w E 5 CI Q, E + J L

v) v) z v) v)

28. My supervisor lets me know when I have done my job well. (A) (B) (c) (0) (E)

29. My supervisor makes it easy t o t e l l him when things are not going as well as he expec t s . (A) (8) (C) (D) (E)

30. When appropriate, my supervisor supports m!’ decisions. (A) (B) ( C ) (D) (€1

31. It i s easy for me t o g e t i n t o see my supervisor. ( A ) (B) ( c ) (D) ( € 1

32. My supervisor emphasizas teamwork. (A) (B) (c ) (0) (E)

33. When there i s d i sagreemen t, my supervi sor encourages the people who work f o r him/her t o openly discuss their dif ferences. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

34. I know what my work group i s t r y i n g t o accompl i sh. (A) (B) ( C ) (D) (€1

35. My supervisor emphasizes mission accampl i shment.

36. My supervisor encourages us to g ive our b e s t e f f o r t . (A) (8 ) ( C ) (0) R )

37. My supervisor maictains high personal standards o f psrformance. ( A ) (B) ( C ) (D) ( E )

38. Rarely do other people up the chain o f command make c o n f l i c t i n g demands on me whi le I am a t work. (A ) (B) ( C ) (D) (€1

39. Unless I ask for help, my supervisor l e t s me do my work wi thoug interfer ing. ( A ) (B) (C) (D) (E)

4U. My supervisor g ives c lear instruct ions when he assigns me a task. (A ) (2 ) (C) (D ) (E )

26

NOTE: BE SURE OF THE ANSWER CATEGORIES - YOU ARE USING ->

PLEASE MARK ONE SPACE ON THE ANSWER SHEET FOR EACH QUESTION

41. My supervisor shows me how t o improve my performance.

42. My supervisor he1 ps me plan and schedule my work ahead o f time.

43. My supervisor ensures t h a t a l l r e q u i r e d mater ia ls a re ava i lab le to accomplish the job.

44. My supervi sor i s ab1 e t o be heard by and influence those above him.

45. by supervisor i s h i g h l y regarded as a leader by members o f my work group.

46. My co-workers t e l l me when they th ink I have done a good job.

47. I have the t rus t and support -of my co-workers.

48. My co-workers work together as a team.

49. My co-workers encourage each o the r t o g i ve t he i r bes t e f fo r t .

50. My co-workers maintain high standards o f pe r fo rmare .

51. Open and honest discussion i s used when there are disagreements among my co- workers.

52. My co-workers provide the he1 p I need so I can plan, organize and schedule work ahead o f time.

53. Fly co-workers o f fe r each other new ideas for solv ing job re la ted problems.

NOTE: BE SURE OF THE ANSWER CATEGGRIES - YOU ARE USING --> PLEASE MARK ONE SPACE ON THE ANSWEI! SHEET FOR EACH QUESTION

54. I f e e l t h a t I am given adequate au tho r i t y t o perform the tasks and respons ib i l i t i es assigned t o me.

.55. I am able to in f luence my co-workers when we are making group decisions.

56. Information important to our work is widely exckmged within my work group.

57. My work group plans together and coordinates i t s e f f o r t s .

58. I understand what i s expected of me on my job.

59. My work group i s ab le to respond on shor t not ice to heavy work demands placed upon it.

60. My work group meets a l l requirements placed on i t by higher levels o f conmand.

61 . The suppl i e s and equi p n t I receive are adequate t o perform my work.

62. I am working i n the job area f o r which I have been trained.

63. I am get t ing the t ra in ing 1 need t o take on more responsib i l i ty .

64. fry supervisor i s t r a i n e d f o r h i s j o b .

65. My work group has s u f f i c i e n t qual i f i ed personnel t o accomplish i t s mission.

W (D c

E 0 v)

F

(D L 3

z a

W (D c 3 CI

0 E v)

( A ) (E) ( C ) (D) (E)

NOTE: BE SURE OF THE ANSWER CATEGORIES YOU ARE USING -> PLEASE MARK ONE SPACE ON THE ANSWER SHEET FOR EACH QUESTION

66. Army standards of order and d i sc ip l i ne are maintained i n my work group.

67. Meinbers o f my work group r e f l e c t Army standards o f mil i tary courtesy, appearance and groomingi

68. Cooperation i s encouraged between work groups i n my un i t .

69. When I am doing a job that requi res the ass’stance of another :vork group, I usually receive the help I need.

70. Administering o f d i s c i p l i n e i n my u n i t i s done f a i r ly .

71. I receive f a i r and object ive e f f ic iency r e p o r t s i n t h i s unit..

72. My job provides opportunity for ne t o advance my ski1 1 S and/or personal education.

73. I know what I have t o do to get recognized for doing a good job.

74. Glork assignments a r e f a i r l y made i n t h i s mit.

75. This u n i t recognizes a person f o r what he/she does and n o t j u s t by favor i l i sn .

76. Racial problems i n my unit are confronted and dea l t w i th fa i r l y .

77. A s p i r i t of cooperation exists among races i n my uni t .

78. My u n i t does not have a drug problem.

29

.

NOTE: BE SURE OF THE ANSWER CATEGORIES YOU ARE USING

79.

80.

81.

02.

83.

04.

85.

86.

87.

08.

119.

90.

91.


Excessive drinking i s ,lot a problem i n my unit..

Off icers i n th i s un i t ca re more about t h e i r own welfare than the welfare o f the troops.

Things are done w i t h l i t t l e o r no pre- planning i n th i s un i t .

You get i n t rouble i f you ask "why?"

During inspections of our un i t each HQ has i t s own set of standards instead o f the same standards for everybody.

Of f icers in th is un i t o f ten don ' t use the chain o f command.

NCOs i n t h i s u n i t g e t mad if they are cal led out at n ight .

Senior NCOs i n th i s un i t a re a f ra id of the officers.

Senior NCOs i n t h i s u n i t won't *

p ro tec t t he i r men.

NCOs and o f f i c e r s i n t h i s u n i t d o n ' t seem to think before they act.

Most EM i n t h i s u n i t will take a reasonable order

You can't afford t o f a i l o r make a mistake i n th is un i t .

Seeking help i s a s ign o f weakness i n t h i s u n i t .

30

c (D

c, L 1

z QI

-

c >r

F 0 L v) -

92 .

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

193.

104.

105,

PLEASE WRK ONE SPACE ON THE ANSWER SHEET FOR EACH QUESTION


"Corer Your Butt" i s the name o f the game i n t h i s u n i t .

Tne primary concern o f the of f icers i n t h i s u n i t i s g e t t i n g promoted a t any cost.

Pr io r i t i es keep changing i n t h i s unit.

The only way t o get action take5 on a problem i n th i s un i t i s t o go t o ?he IG.

We hardly ever follow established procedures i n th is un i t .

On the whole, the A m y gives me a chance t o show what I can do.

1 would rather be i n my present Army job than any other A m y job.

I usually feel that what I am doing i n the A m y i s worthwhile.

I am interested i n my present Army job.

I am i n good humor and happy.

I am daydreaming more than usual.

I wish people would l e t me alone.

I have unpleasant feelings i n my stomach lately.

1 Feel sluggish a great deal of the time.

31



QUESTIONS 106 TO 109 ARE FOR MARRIED, ACCOMPANIED PERSONNEL ONLY:

106. My present Army job leaves me enough time for family l i fe .

107. My present Army job has p u t a l o t of pressure on my marriage.

108. My spouse isn' t happy w i t h my present assignment.

109. I worry about the well being of my family while I am on duty

NOTE: ANSWER CATEGORIES ARE CHANGED FOR THE NEXT TWO QUESTIONS

110. What i s your present rmk?

111. What is your sex?

32

l

,

S T O P

YOU HAVE COMPLETED SECTION A. YOUR LAST MARK I N SECTION A OF THE

AFlSWER SHEET SHOULD BE ON NUMBER 11 1. DO MOT MAKE ANY MORE MARKS

IPI SECTION A. TURN THE PAGE TO SECTION B AND BEGIN MARKING YOUR ANS-

WERS FOR SECTION B WITH NUMBER 1 I N SECTION B ON YOUR ANSWER SHEET.

33

SECTION B

The person administering with special instructions for

Please be sure to follow mark your answers' beginning W answer sheet .

this questionnaire will provide you completing Section B.

these special instructions, and to ith number 1 in Section B o f the

34

PERI-OE

Dear Commander:

Here are the r e s u l t s of the recent organizational survey conductad a t your hsadquarters. For your convenience, a copy of the survey is also included.

The computer pr intout includes an analysis of each of t he 111 items of the survey. In reviewing the results, please note that 20 of the 111 items are wr i t ten in the nega t ive d i rec t ion . A high score on one of these 20 items is a bad sign, while a high score on one of the remaining items is a good sign. The 20 n e g a t i v e i t a m are: 80 through 88, 90 through 96, 102 throiigh 105, and 107 through 109.

In s t ruc t ions fu r Reading the Pr intout On page 1 of your printout ( the page number is E t the upper r ight port ioa of the pake) you will see the following infomation:

"VARfldl INFORMATION THROUGH CHAN;JELS IS ACCURATE"

This means tha t t he ana lys i s on page 1 is f o r t h e f i r s t itsm of ths survey which is "l. The information I receive down through channeis is g m e r a l l y accurate. "

Beneath t h i s heading is t h e item analysis information. A t t h e l e f t or' the page are the ca tegory l abs ls as found i n t h e sunray. These categories range in ascznding order from "Strongly Agree" t o "StroEgly Disagrcs".

Moving t o t h a r i g h t are the codes assigned ta each caregory. On the survey these codes are represented as the letters "A" through "D". On tbs computer printout they are representsd as the number "0" through "4" rsspect ively. (We have represented these codes as rumbers i n the cocputer so W can compute averages, etc.) The computer pr intout contains an addi t ional cole which doesn't correspond to a code on the survey. This is the nbuber "9" which is used to rapresent missing data; that is, i t indica tes when one o r more people have l e f t t h a t item blank on t he i r answer sheet.

S t i l l moving t o t h e r i g h t a f t e r t h e "code" colucla w e f ind the ''ABSOiUTZ FXQUEHCY" column. T h i s is s h p l y tne nunbar of people i n your unit c;hd chose each of the answer categories; and a t the bottom of t h e s o l u m is

the total number of people in your unit who responded to the survey.

The next column to the right, "RELATIVE FREQUENCY (PERCEHT)" is the percent of the total number of people who took the survey who answered in each category. The "ADJUSTED FREQUENCY ,(PERCENT)" column shows the percent of people who answered in each category adjusted for missing responses. This is the most meaningful column because it considers only people who have answered that item in the computation of the per- centage.

The final column "CUMILATIVE ADJ FREQ .(PERCENT)" gives a running total of percent of people answering in each category, again adjusting for missing data. This is a useful column because it allows the reader to se2 at a glance more of the total picture of the data.

A t the bottom of the page are two summary statistics, the mean and the median. The mean is the simple-average of scores across a l l respondents. The median is the midpoint of scores; that is, the point at which 50X of the respondents scored higher and, correspondingly, 50% scored lower. The nsdian is probably the more meaningful of the two statistics.

Interpreting the Data In the final analysis, you, the Commander, are the only person who can realistically interpret the data for your unit. Different Commanders have different styles, policies, and objectives. As a rule of thmb 'we would suggest that when 23% or more of your people have responded

or "Agrce" to 3 negative item) there nay be cause for sone concern. This condition usually occurrs when the median is 2.5 or smaller (1.5 or larger for negative items). Likewise, when 70% or mors of your people have responded "Agree" or "Strongly Agree" ("Disagree" or "StronSly Disagree" for a negative item) this indicates a real strength in the unit. It is as important to identify and build upon strengths as it is t o identify and correct weaknesses.

II SLrongfy Disagree" or "Disagree" to B positive item (or "Strongly Agree"

\hat Nest You may be interested to see how your unit stacks up with other units. As soon as all OE the data are in and analyzed, group Commanders 2nd the 32d M C O H Chief of Staff will be provided with composite data which you ccn us? for cornparisan purposes. (Remember, no higher Concnander will rcceivc data about your unit.)

You may also wish to have additional analyses made of your data. You can get the results broken down by rank (option 1) , by sex (option 2), and by section - HQ vs DSP (cption 3). A simple request to me will get you thase additional analyses. State tha options desired iu your request. In macy instances there are net enough responses to make a breakdown practical; and I will act ahcordingly.

36

Finally, remember that the Organizational Effectiveness Staff Officers assigned to the 32d are your resource and are equipped with the skills necessary to assist you in using these Data effectively.

DONALD G. WALIZEB, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist ARI Field Cnit-USAREUR 2121-697716274

37

ORGANIZATIONAL SURVEY: COMMANDER'S GUIDE

The attached organizational survey is designed t o provide the comznd2r

with valid, reliable, and useful information about the perceptions that the

rembers o f his work u n i t have about their work environment. These perceptions

can be classified into three genera: areas:

1. Organizational Processes

2. Organizational Norms and Values

3. Impact of Organization on Individual

The survey consists o f l11 statements (items). The work group menbers

are t o indicate the extent t o which they agree or disaGree w i t h each state-

ment. The following number code is used i n the coaputer prir.touts:

0 = A = Strongly Disagree

1 = B = Somewhat Disagree

2 = C = Neutral

3 = D = Somewhat Agrge

4 = E = Strongly Agree

Thus, i f the computer printout shows a mean [average) of 2.5 For an ita,

the average response was between Neutral and Somewhat Aqree on t h a t item.

When reading the ccimputer p r in tou t i t i s important t o cote t h a t the

variable number listed on the computer p r i n t m t does not correspond

directly to the item numbor orl the survgy. The variable nuaber - is

always two ( 2 ) more than the i ten number. Thus, slurvey i tm ncmixr ono ( 1 )

"The information I receive down through chanrels i s g m m l l y accurate" -is

shown as variable number 003 (three) on the corrput;.r p r i n t o u t . (Variables

001 and 002 are confidential unit identification nunbers.;

39

L . . .

The 111 survey items are grouped conceptually into a number of indices.

For example, survey i tems one and two comprise an index cal led Communication

Flow. The index value i s obtained by adding the item values and div id ing

by the number o f i tems comprising that index. For example, i f an indiv idual

responded wi th a three (D) t o i t em one and a four (E) t o i tem two. his value

f o r the Communication Flow index would be 3.5 ([3+4] 2 = 3.5). Table 1

l i s t s the survey indices and provides a cross reference t o the survey and

the computer printout. Table 2 prcrvides a verbal description o f each index.

40

2 ____~

Table 1

ORGANIZATIONAL SURVEY INDICES

Index Dimension and Name

A. Organizational Pr-messes

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Communication Flow Decision-making Mo ti va ti on Integrat ion o f Personnel and Mission Ident i f i ca t ion with Unit General Climate Supervisory Leadership Support Supervi sory Leadershi p Teawork Emphasi s Supervisory Leadership Goal Emphasis Supervisory Leadershi p Work Fac i l i t a t i on Supervisory Leadership Influence CO-Worker Interaction Support Co-worker Interact ion Tesmwork CO-Worker Interact ion Work Fac i l i t a t i on Co-Warker Interaction Peer Influence Work Group Coordination Work Group Readiness Work Group D i sc ip l i ne Intergroup Cooperation

B. Unit Norms and Values

S. Individual Outcomes

1. Equal Opportunity 2. Job Satisfaction 3. Personal Ad jus tment 4. Family L i f e

I tem Nos. on Survey

1 -2 3-6 7-10

11-16 17-19 20-27 28-31 32-33 34-37 38-43

44-45 46-47 48-41 52-53 54-55 56-57 58-65 66-67 68-69

80-98

70-79 99-1 02

103-107 108-1 11

Variable Nos. on Printout

3-4 5-8 9-12

13-1 8 19-21 22-29 30-33 34-35 36-39 40-45

46-47 48-49 50-53 54-44 66- 57 58- 59 60-67 68-69 70-72

82-1 00

72-61 101 -104 105-1 09 110-113

41

Table 2

ORGANIZATIGHAL SURVEY INDEX DESCRIPTIONS

A. Organizational Processes

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Comnunication Flow. Unit leadership understands the work and problems o f the comnand. Information flws f ree ly through the chain o f conanand, easily from the work groups t o a l i s ten ing and responsive leadership, and eas i l y to the work groups con- cerning plans and problems facing the unit.

SURVEY 1-2 PRINTOUT 3-4

Decision-mkinq. Information i s widely based w i th in the un i t and decisions are made a t those levels wirere the mast adequate information i s available. Supervisors seek out information before making decisions.

SURVEY 3-6 PR1 NTOUT 5-8

Motivation. The unit motivates personnel t o contr ibute their best efforts through rewards for good performance and career enhancing duties.

SURVEY 7- 10 PR1 NTOUT 9- 1 2

Integration o f Personnel and Mission. The extent t o which a uni t shows concern for human resources i n the way i t organizes i t s personnel t o achieve i t s mission. The degree t o which personnel within the unit perceive that the organization and assignment o f work sensibly considers the human element.

SURVEY 11 -1 6 PRINTOUT 13-18

Ident i f icat ion wi th Uni t . The degree i n which personnel are w i l l i n g t o see the uni t as respected and be w i l l i n g t o be associated wi th it.


General Climate. These statements provide useful un i t data i n and o f themselves; however, they do not easi ly group with other statements i n the survey.

SURVEY 20-27 PR I NTOUT 22-29

4 2

I

7.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Supervisory Leadership Support. There i s a good general f ee l i ng among subordinates about how they are treated by their leaders. Leaders behave i n a way which increases the Subordinates' feelings of worth and d i g n i t y by being approachable.


*crvisory Leadership Teamwork Emphasis. Supervisors encourage subcrdinates t o develop close, cooperative working relationships w i t h one another.


Supervisory Leadership GGal Emphasis. High standards o f perfonn- ance are clearly set, maintained and encouraged by supervisws.


Supervisory Leadership Work Faci l i tat ion. Supervisors help subordinates improve performanee. Subordinates and supervisors work together t o solve problems which hinder task completion aqd performance.


Supervisory Leadership Influence. The amount o f posi t ive inf luence a supervisor has with h is super iors and subordinates.


Coworker Support. Subordinates behave toward each other in a manner which enhances each member' S f e e l ing o f personal worth.


Coworker Teamwork. The behavior o f work group members encourages the development ol' close, cooperative working relationships. 'Glork group members maintain and encourage high standards o f performance, even i n c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s .


Coworker Work F a c i l i t a t i o n . York group members help each other improve perfomance. The k o r k group works together t o solve problems which hinder performance and task completion.

SURVEY 52-53 PRINTGUT 54-55

Coworker Peer Influence. Co-workers have power t o mutually inf luence one another and the group i s no t jus t run by cliques.


43

16.

17.

18.

19.

Work Group Coordination. Work group members plan, coordinate, and support each other ef fect ively.


Work Group Readiness. The work group i s able to adapt t o emergency situations and meet i t s mission.


Work Group Disci p1 ine. Work group members maintain A n q y standards o f disc ip l ine and decorum.


Intergroup Cooperation. Work groups i n a unit work together ef fect ively.


B. Uni t Noms and Values

The shared ru les o r guides t o behavior i n the unit are supportive o f both the mission and the people.

SURVEY 80-98 PRINTOUT 2' -700

C. Individual Outcomes

l.

2.

3.

4.

Equal Opportunity. The uni t insures fa i r t reatment for a l l personnel i n such areas as job assignment, advancement, education, rewards and punishments.


Job Satisfaction. Neasures the degree o f overal l sat isfact ion wi th Army job.

SURVEY 99-1 02 PRINTOUT 101 -1 03

Personal Adjustment. Measures the degree t o which the individual soldier has a feel ing of adjustment and wel l being.

SURVEY 103-1 07 PR1 NTOUT 105- 1 09

Family Life. GCork u n i t demands do not put undue stress on the soldier 's family l i f e .

SURVEY 1 08--111 PRINTOUT 110-113

44

46

BEST DOCU

l

Documents

ARl FIELD UNIT, USAREUR - Stanford University · 2015. 4. 3. · Project 2Q162722A779, Techniques for Organizational Effectiveness and Manage- ment Training, M 79 Work Program. The