Discussion: Research Design for One-Way ANOVA
monque11
JOB.pdf
Journal of Applied Psychology 1977, Vol. 62, No. 3, 335-343
An Investigation of the Influence of Job Level and Functional Specialty on Job Attitudes and Perceptions
Edward F. Adams, Dennis R. Laker, and Charles L. Hulin University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
One hundred and fifty-two jobs in a large (N = 1,313) midwestern printing com- pany were classified into vertical (job level) and horizontal ( f u n c t i o n a l specialty) distributions to investigate differences in employee attitudes. Descriptions of leader behavior (the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire's Initiating Structure scale) and four aspects of satisfaction (the Job Descriptive Index Scales: Satisfaction with Work, Pay, Supervision, and Co-Workers) were as- sessed. A 3 (job level) X 5 (functional specialty) multivariate analysis of vari- ance demonstrated significant differences in job attitudes for both job level and functional specialty. A discriminant analysis separated the f u n c t i o n a l specialty and job-level groupings along two dimensions in terms of satisfaction with work itself and pay, and initiating structure. The results suggest that these two organizational structure characteristics summarize influences of managerial style, local norms, goals, and job requirements that a f f e c t individual attitudes and perceptions of work situation.
Organizational structure has been used to describe norms and values, relationships among groups, and patterns of behavior. In this article, the term structure is restricted to two features of organizations: horizontal and vertical distributions of organizational mem- bers and their duties. Horizontal distribution is the extent to which jobs in organizations can be subdivided into homogeneous func- tional clusters such as departments, divisions, or functional specialties. Vertical distribution is the extent to which organizational jobs can be divided into layers or levels with different amounts of authority, responsibility, and task complexity. Conceptually, distinctions be- tween these two distributions are independent. In practice, the distinctions are more complex
The a u t h o r s wish to acknowledge and thank James Terborg, Peter Horn, and Ralph Katerberg, Jr., for their h e l p f u l comments and suggestions.
The research reported in this study was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant GS- 32096 and in part by the U.S. Office of Naval Re- search Contract No. N 0014-75-C-0904, Charles L. H u l i n , principal investigator.
Requests for reprints and other correspondence con- cerning this research should be sent to Charles L. Hulin, Department of Psychology, University of Il- linois, Champaign, Illinois 61820.
and interrelated (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Per- row, 1970).
Both structural characteristics of organiza- tions and individual employee characteristics have been found to influence job attitudes (e.g., Herman, Dunham, & Hulin, 197S; Her- man & Hulin, 1 9 7 2 ; Porter & Lawler, 196S; Stone & Porter, 1975).
Herman and Hulin ( 1 9 7 2 ) found that struc- ture variables reflecting departmental assign- ment and functional specialty accounted for a substantial portion of variance in individual attitudes toward work. Stone and Porter ( 1 9 7 5 ) have taken issue with Herman and Hulin. They concluded from their findings that "the discrimination achieved by Herman and Hulin may have been more a function of jobs held by individuals in their sample than of differences in either 'function, hierarchical level or primary task orientation' " (p. 6 3 ) .
All 16 jobs sampled by Stone and Porter were reported at the same hierarchical level. Therefore, they concluded that job level did not account for their discrimination among job titles, and by implication that Herman and Hulin's results could be explained by job level. Job level could not have influenced Stone and Porter's findings, but we believe the possible implications of their conclusions con-
335
336 E. F. ADAMS, D. R. LAKER, AND C. I. HULIN
earning job level and function influences re- main unclear and should be addressed. Also, Stone and Porter's conclusions suggest that one can separate a job from its level, function, or department and q u a n t i f y the influences of these components.
To test the impact of functional specialty, one would collect data from workers having the same job duties in d i f f e r e n t functional subdivisions of the organization. Differences should be found if function has an influence on attitudes and perceptions. One cannot, ex- cept in the crudest sense of the term, find em- ployees in various subdivisions of an organiza- tion who all have the same job duties. It is the job duties that have led us to differentiate among tasks and among employees who are assigned to these tasks, and to categorize them into different units. It is possible, however, to find employees in different subunits who share relevant job characteristics ( j o b complexity, authority, autonomy, etc.). It would be pos- sible to generate aggregations of organiza- tional members who work in different f u n c - tional subunits but would be classified as hav- ing highly similar jobs in terms of complexity, authority, etc.
As Stone and Porter argue, when one com- pares different job clusters (departments or functional areas), there is the potential prob- lem of unintentionally confounding variables of interest with other characteristics such as job level. Job level has been shown to in- fluence job attitudes (e.g., Cummings & El- Salmi, 1970). Most studies using functional specialty as an explanation for job attitude differences have not specifically controlled for differences in job level (Herman & Hulin, 1972; Herman, Dunham, & Hulin, 197S). However, one can examine simultaneously the effects of job level and functional area with appropriate statistical techniques.
In the two studies mentioned above (Her- man & Hulin, 1 9 7 2 ; Herman et al., 1 9 7 5 ) , there were no job-level differences across de- partments or functions. The f a i l u r e of the writers to discuss this is a serious oversight. The appearance of the Stone and Porter ar- ticle casts reasonable doubt on these findings and may result in functional specialty and de- partmental membership explanations of job
attitude differences being neglected in f u t u r e research.
It is hypothesized that both functional specialty and job level are related to meaning- ful differences in job attitudes even when the other factor is controlled. We do not hypoth- esize that functional specialty or job level cause differences in employee attitudes in a direct cause-effect link. We do not hypothe- size that job level or functional specialty clas- sifications account for more or less variance in work attitudes than job title. W7e hypothesize that functional specialty and job level in- fluence employee attitudes differently and should be examined as potential variables shaping job attitudes.
Method
The data were collected f r o m one plant of a mid- western printing company. Questionnaires were ad- ministered in small groups and required 30 minutes to complete. All participants were assured anonymity of their responses. The response rate was 88%. The 12%: nonresponse rate is an upper bound estimate of nonresponse rates hased on inadequate records of vacations, sick leaves, and unexcused absences from work. Included among the 12%, however, are those who simply did not show up at the survey room with the rest of their department or office. Eight different individuals administered the questionnaires. No ad- ministrator effects in terms of missing data or overall s a t i s f a c t i o n were observed. The total sample size was 1,313.
Independent Variables
Seventeen departments were clustered into the five f u n c t i o n a l area groupings of (a) preliminary prepara- tion, (b) pressrooms, (c) bindery, (d) maintenance, and (e) staff. The a u t h o r s clustered the 17 depart- ments according to their roles in transforming "raw materials" into finished products. The preliminary preparation grouping readied materials for produc- tion units in a supportive service capacity. Press- rooms and binderies were two large and different production functions. Maintenance ensured the up- keep and proper working order of machines and fa- cilities. Staff provided the administrative and man- agerial functions of the company, such as planning, organizing, and coordinating the units of the or- ganization. Six additional departments (cartoning, pallet, ink room, by-products, shipping, and ware- h o u s i n g ) were not included in the study because the tasks in these six departments were too heterogeneous to be grouped into one m e a n i n g f u l functional group- ing. In fact, these departments could have been con- sidered separate f u n c t i o n a l specialty areas, but the department sizes were so small that analyses could
JOB LEVEL AND FUNCTIONAL SPECIALTY 337
Table 1 Intercorrelations of Dependent Measures
Measure
1. 2. 3. 4. S.
J D I Satisfaction with Work JDI Satisfaction with Supervision JDI Satisfaction with Pay JDI Satisfaction with Co-Workers LBDQ Initiating Structure
1.00 .45* .41* .44*
-.03
1.00 .31* .32* .00
1.00 .31* .01
1.00 .12* 1.00
Note. N = 1,313. JDI = Job Descriptive Index. LBDQ = Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire. *p < .01.
not be done. Tatsuoka (1970, p. 38) recommends that the total sample size should be at least two or (prefer- ably) three times the number of variables used.
Job level was determined through a rating of the jobs by the principal investigators. These ratings were arrived at through a process of iteration. Origi- nal ratings of job level based on training time or edu- cation required, responsibility, and authority were provided by members of the personnel department. Ratings provided by the personnel department were modified by the investigators in an attempt to re- move p e r t u r b a t i o n s introduced by the unwanted in- fluence of wage rates. For example, jobs that ap- peared "objectively" similar in all relevant character- istics were at times rated differently by members of the organization because one was a "male" job pay- ing more whereas the other was a "female" job with a lower pay rate. Differences in ratings caused by such biases were removed whenever possible. Wage rates were not confounded across functional spe- cialties.
The resultant rating of job levels was a 20-point scale. Examples of the different job levels scaled from low to high are as follows: janitor (1), bagger (3), Clerk Typist II (S), chemical mixer ( 7 ) , folding- machine operator ( 9 ) , hoist-truck mechanic (11), linotype operator (13), Program Analyst II (15), maintenance foreman ( 1 7 ) , line department superin- tendent (19), and staff group manager ( 2 0 ) . Because of the small numbers of workers within these sepa- rate job levels, the actual job level hierarchy was trichotomized. Job Levels 1-6 (unskilled), 7-11 (skilled), and 12-20 (professional/supervisory) were aggregated into three job level clusters. Each func- tional area included people at these three levels of the hierarchy resulting in a 3 (levels) X 5 (functional specialties) design.
Dependent Variables
Job satisfaction. The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) developed by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969) was used to measure f o u r aspects of job satisfaction: Satisfaction with Work itself, Satisfaction with Co- Workers, Satisfaction with Pay, Satisfaction with Supervision. Satisfaction with promotion was not in- cluded in the analyses because of considerations dis- cussed below.
Perception of leader behavior. The Initiating Structure scale of the Leadership Behavior Descrip- tion Questionnaire (LBDQ; Stogdill & Coons, 19S7) was used to obtain perceptions and descriptions of average supervisory behavior from subordinates.
An attempt was made to sample the relevant re- sponse domain broadly while simultaneously retain- ing necessary degrees of freedom. The four JDI scales assess several specific aspects of satisfaction and should be related to job level and f u n c t i o n . JDI pro- motions should be less related to function and job- level differences than the other affect measures, espe- cially because there was a company-wide policy on promotions. Initiating S t r u c t u r e of the LBDQ was t h o u g h t to be a better complement to the f o u r JDI scales than the Consideration scale, which overlaps more with the JDI Supervision scale. By selecting these five dependent variables, all sample size to de- pendent variable ratios, except as noted in Table 4, coincided with Tatsuoka's (1970) suggestions and other considerations of job/task homogeneity.
Demographic Data
Each respondent supplied information on com- pany tenure, age, sex, level of education, marital status, number of wage earners in the family, and family size. Analyses of these data are reported else- where (Hulin, Horn, & Herman, Note 1).
Results
The sample consisted of predominantly married males under 45 years of age. Most had a high school degree and had been with the company more than 4 years. Demographic variables accounted for less than \°/o of the unique variance in affective responses (Her- man, Hulin, & Dunham, Note 2 ) .
The intercorrelations of the dependent mea- sures are presented in Table 1. Intercorrela- tions among the four measures of satisfaction (JDI Satisfaction with Work, Supervision, Pay, and Co-Workers scales) were significant
338 E. F. ADAMS, D. R. LAKER, AND C. I. HULIN
Table 2 Raw Cell Means
Group
Unskilled preliminary Skilled preliminary Professional/supervisory
preliminary Unskilled press Skilled press Professional/supervisory press Unskilled bindery Skilled bindery Professional/supervisory
bindery Unskilled maintenance Skilled maintenance Professional/supervisory
maintenance Unskilled staff Skilled staff Professional/supervisory staff
JDI Satisfaction with Work
24,91 29.14
32.63 19.03 25.03 32.04 19.22 25.48
29.54 28.07 36.29
36.54 33.56 30.07 37.83
J D I Satisfaction
with Supervision
32.89 33.36
33.00 32.95 36.30 37.49 32.66 33.99
35.28 35.73 33.00
37.90 39.81 38.93 42.61
J D I Satisfaction
with Pay
12.16 15.92
16.95 12.46 16.53 18.86 12.57 14.97
18.29 11.40 12.86
19.94 14.51 15.58 19.96
JDI Satisfaction
with Co-Workers
33.75 39.91
39.25 36.95 38.12 40.90 33.74 39.30
41.26 38.33 40.87
44.06 38.88 38.73 44.84
LBDQ Initiating Structure
30.84 30.00
32.39 34.95 34.47 34.91 34.24 34.81
34.87 29.80 30.86
33.22 28.44 30.53 31.67
Note. JDI = Job Descriptive Index. LBDQ = Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire.
O < . 0 1 ) . The LBDQ Initiating Structure scale was significantly correlated only with the JDI Satisfaction with Co-Workers scale.
Multivariate Analysis oj Variance
A multivariate analysis of variance was used to determine the main effects of func- tional specialty and job level and any possible interactions on the five dependent measures. Discriminant analysis was used mainly in the interpretation and explanation of job level and functional specialty relationships with the dependent measures.
The raw cell means on the five dependent measures for the IS groups, a 3 X S design (Job Level X Functional Specialty), are pre- sented in Table 2. The main effect of job level was significant, multivariate F( 10, 2588) = 36.66, p < .01. Univariate F ratios were com- puted to assess the individual significance of the five dependent measures. Four of the five univanate F ratios on the scale items were significant at p < .01: For the Satisfaction with Work, F(2, 1298) = 141.52; for Satis- faction with Supervision, F ( 2 , 1298) = 6.49; for Satisfaction with Pay, F(2, 1298) =
87.91; and for Satisfaction with Co-Workers, P(2, 1298) = 32.08.
The main effect of functional specialty was also significant: The overall effect was F(20, 4 2 9 2 ) = 13.64, p < .01. All five univanate F ratios computed for each dependent measure were significant at p < .01: For Satisfaction with Work, F(4, 1298) = 26.31; for Satis- faction with Supervision, F(4, 1298) = 13.98; for Satisfaction with Pay, ^(4, 1298) = 3 . 4 9 ; for Satisfaction with Co-Workers, F(4, 1298) = 4.31; and for LBDQ Initiating Structure, F(4, 1298) = 29.74.
The Job Level X Functional Specialty in- teraction was significant. The multivariate overall effect was F(40, 5643) = 1.5298, p < .01. Only one univariate F ratio, for Satisfac- tion with Work, F(&, 1298) = 2.67, was sig- nificant at p < .01.
Multiple-Group Discriminant Function A nalysis
In order to interpret the results of the multivariate analysis of variance, a multiple- group discriminant function analysis was done. Calculation of the discriminant analysis
JOB LEVEL AND FUNCTIONAL SPECIALTY 339
Table 3 Significant Discriminant Functions and Proportion of Discriminable Variance Accounted for by Each Function in a Multiple-Group Discriminant Function Analysis
Function
Measure
JDI Satisfaction with Work J D I Satisfaction with
Supervision JDI Satisfaction with Pay JDI Satisfaction with
Co-Workers LBDQ Initiating Structure
P of discriminable variance"
1
.72
-.18 .43
.04 -.50
.70
2
-.07
-.06 .55
.04
.83
.19
3
-.42
.85
.14
.16 -.22
.08
Note. JDI = Job Descriptive Index; LBDQ = Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. a Explained by discriminant function,
resulted in five discriminant functions. The total discriminatory power accounted for by these five functions was 39%. The correction for small sample size relative to the number of dependent measures for this particular study is not necessary because the present sample is sufficiently large (Tatsuoka, Note 3). The first three discriminant functions
were significant (p < ,01) and jointly ac- counted for 91% of the discriminable vari- ance. The third function contributed only 8% of the discriminable variance and was not interpreted.
The significant discriminant functions as well as the proportion of discriminable vari- ance accounted for by each function are presented in Table 3.
The first significant function accounts for 70% of the total discriminable variance, x~ (18) =438.36, p < .01. The discriminating power of the predictor variables was examined by Bartlett's test (Rao, 1952) with p(k - 1) degrees of freedom, where p is the number of variables and k is the number of groups. The second significant function accounts for of the total discriminable variance, 134,31, p < .01. Application of the discrimi- nant coefficients for the first and second func- tion to the original group means yielded IS group means in discriminant space that are presented in Table 4.
Table 5 presents the structure matrix from the discriminant analysis. The structure ma- trix consists of correlations of each dependent measure with the linear combination of the dependent measures that maximally separate the groups along each discriminant function. Using the structure matrix and discriminant scaled weights for purposes of interpretation
Table 4 Group Means on Discriminant Functions in a Multiple-Group Discriminant Function Analysis
Function
Group
Unskilled preliminary Skilled preliminary Professional/supervisory preliminary Unskilled pressroom Skilled pressroom Professional /supervisory pressroom Unskilled binderies Skilled binderies Professional/su pervisory binderies Unskilled maintenance Skilled maintenance* Professional/supervisory maintenance Unskilled staff Skilled staff Professional/supervisory staff
3.05 8.32
10.13 -3.02
2.75 8.50
-2.56 2.70 6.89 5.19
11.84 15.30 10.48 7.51
14.01
30.04 31.34 33.64 34.16 35.43 36.63 33.50 35.00 36.60 28.56 29.92 35.40 28.55 31.17 34.01
44 66
204 109 60
120 218 140 76 15
7 50 41 60
103
a Sample size to dependent variable ratio <2:1.
340 E. F. ADAMS, D. R. LAKER, AND C. I. HULIN
Table 5 Structure Matrix from a Multiple-Group Discriminant Function Analysis
Function
Measure
JDI Satisfaction with Work J D I Satisfaction with Supervision JDI Satsifaction with Pay JDI Satisfaction with Co-Workers LBDQ Initiating Structure
.88
.24
.S3
.36 -.26
.08
.03
.57
.26
.81
Note. JDI = Job Descriptive Index. LBDQ = Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire.
(Tatsuoka, 1970), one can describe and in- terpret differences among the I S groups. On the first discriminant function, the functional specialty areas of preliminary, maintenance, and staff are separated f r o m pressroom and bindery by Satisfaction with Work, Satisfac- tion with Pay, and perception of less Initiat- ing Structure. Job level groups are also sepa- rated along this dimension, with higher job levels associated with higher means. Both of these interpretations can be confirmed by a comparison of the raw cell means presented in Table 2. Interpretation of the second dis- criminant function, again using the structure matrix and standardized discriminant weights, yields a similar separation. This function sep- arates pressroom and bindery from prelimi- nary, maintenance, and staff, but in this in- stance pressroom and bindery yield higher discriminant means than the other three func- tional specialties. In order of decreasing mag- nitude, the LBDQ Initiating Structure scale and the JDI Satisfaction with Pay scale ac- count for this separation. Again, hierarchical job level is reflected in the same manner as before, higher job levels (within each func- tional specialty) having higher cell means in discriminant space. Comparison of the origi- nal group means presented in Table 2 f u r - ther support these interpretations. Group loca- tions in discriminant space are shown in Fig- ure 1. The labels on the axes are tentative and reflect the structure matrix in Table 5.
Discussion
In only a few other studies have there been simultaneous investigations of both the verti-
cal and horizontal distribution of organiza- tional units. Porter (1963) categorized f o u r levels of the vertical managerial hierarchy (vice president, upper middle, lower middle, and lower) and two horizontal subdivisions (line and s t a f f ) of organizations on the basis of the respondent's self-classification of his ot- her position. Line managers reported greater need satisfactions f r o m their jobs than staff managers, especially in the areas of esteem and self-actualization of needs. By examining mean differences, he concluded that vertical level of position within management had a greater effect on perceived need fulfillment deficiencies than did horizontal categorization of line versus staff.
The present study investigated both the horizontal and vertical subdivisions in one printing organization. We attempted to sep- arate statistically the effects of the vertical subdivision (job level) and the horizontal subdivision (functional specialty) on the job attitudes by using a multivariate analysis of variance. The results showed that both main effects due to job level and functional spe- cialty were statistically significant.
The Job Level X Functional Specialty in- teraction (a multivariate analysis of variance) was also significant. The univariate F for Sat- isfaction with Work is the only measure con- tributing to this interaction. If Figure 1 is examined, the lowest skilled staff group (Group 13) appears to be the group that is out of line. This group consists of primarily female clerical workers who seem to be hap- pier with their work than their job level would predict. The group means in Figure 1 demonstrate the main effect of job level within functional specialty on work satisfac- tion and initiating structure. With the excep- tion of Group 13, unskilled groups reported lower satisfaction with work and initiating structure than skilled or professional groups.
Evidence for the vertical distribution of job level influencing job attitudes has been well supported in the past (e.g., Cummings & El- Salmi, 1970; Herman & Hulin, 1973; Porter, 1962). Porter and Lawler's (196S) compre- hensive review has summarized these differ- ences in job attitudes across different orga- nizational levels. The present study replicated
JOB LEVEL AND FUNCTIONAL SPECIALTY 341
INITIATING
STRUCTURE
II
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
10
S A T I S F A C T I O N W I T H T H E W O R K I T S E L F
14
Figure 1. Fifteen job levels by f u n c t i o n a l specialty groupings plotted in two-dimensional func- tional discriminant space. (Lines connect the three levels within each functional specialty grouping on the dimensions of satisfaction with work and initiating s t r u c t u r e . Group numbers are as follows: 1 = unskilled preliminary; 2 = skilled preliminary; 3 — professional/supervisory preliminary; 4 = unskilled pressroom; S = skilled pressroom; 6 — professional/supervisory pressroom; 7 = unskilled binderies; 8 = skilled binderies; 9 = professional/supervisory binderies; 10 = unskilled mainte- nance; 11 — skilled maintenance; 12 = professional/supervisory maintenance; 13 — unskilled s t a f f ; 14 = skilled s t a f f ; IS = professional/supervisory s t a f f . )
these earlier findings while controlling for differences in functional specialty.
The main effect for functional specialty confirms the hypothesis that horizontal sub- divisions can be a meaningful differentiation of job attitudes even when job level is con- trolled. This finding also lends support to the Herman and Hulin ( 1 9 7 2 ) and Herman et al. ( 1 9 7 S ) findings that functional specialty is a viable and useful manner of explaining differences in organizational attitudes.
Examination of the means of the five func- tional groupings on the two discriminant func- tions indicates two interesting patterns. The two production groups, pressroom and bind- ery, have lower means on the first function of satisfaction with work and pay than the other three areas of maintenance, preliminary, and staff, This separation is clearly seen in Figure 1. The second function, defined by initiating structure, separates the five functional spe- cialties similarly, except that on this function, bindery and pressroom have higher means than the other three functional specialties. All seem to have a production-nonproduction sep-
aration of groups. The bindery and pressroom are production sectors of the organization, whereas preliminary, maintenance, and staff groups are less production oriented. Binderies and pressrooms are also machine and line paced and mechanically oriented. The tasks in these departments are more well defined and structured than are the tasks in the other three areas.
Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) described functional specialties as different subsystems in the organization based on certain subtasks. Lawrence and Lorsch ( 1 9 6 7 ) called these horizontal subdivisions "basic functional de- partments" (p. 30). Each of the subsystems studied (production, sales, applied research, and fundamental research) could be separated on the dimensions of formality of structure, interpersonal orientation, and time orienta- tions. Each subsystem possessed certain char- acteristics that were related to their primary task. For example, the production subsystems were highly structured but low on interper- sonal relations and were oriented to short terms. The research areas were low on struc-
342 E. F. ADAMS, D. R. LAKER, AND C. I. HULIN
ture but higher than production on interper- sonal relations and were oriented to long-runs.
Herman and Hulin ( 1 9 7 2 ) used primary functions of staff, productions, and produc- tion service departments and found significant differences between these functions on such organizationally relevant attitudes as satis- faction with line-staff relations, evaluation of production management, effectiveness of sup- portive services, satisfaction with plant, and plant atmosphere. Porter's (1963) findings separating line versus staff on need satisfac- tion also seem to be consistent with the pres- ent findings, although this dichotomy into line and staff is less specific than the basic func- tional departments, primary function, and functional specialty horizontal categorizations of other studies. The next logical question is why these subsystems and structural dis- tributions of organization units can differenti- ate job attitudes.
Lawrence and Lorsch ( 1 9 6 7 ) have demon- strated that there are actual internal charac- teristics in various subsystems of an organiza- tion that are determined by the tasks being performed. In other words, employees in d i f - ferent work situations (defined by depart- ment, functional area, job level, etc.) will experience different local norms, demands, re- quirements, or managerial styles that are spe- cific to that work situation. Newman (1975) supports this view. He found that individuals in different organizational positions perceived their work environment differently. This would be expected because the task and en- vironment are different for different organiza- tional positions.
It seems highly unlikely that attitudinal predispositions caused the company to locate individuals in different departments. Self-se- lection into different functional specialties may be part of the explanation. However, what we have assessed are attitudes and de- scriptions determined in large part by what workers find on their jobs and not only by what they bring with them to their jobs (Her- man et al, 197S; Herman & Hulin, 1 9 7 2 ; O'Reilly & Roberts, 1 9 7 S ) . Thus, although self-selection probably does occur, it seems tenuous to argue that it alone causes differ- ences in job responses assessed at a later time.
Individuals in similar organizational posi- tions should perceive their environments more similarly than individuals in different posi- tions or functions. Organizational structure variables may simpl}' summarize a number of important influences (managerial style, specific goals, time orientations, local norms, and structural differences) that affect an in- dividual in his or her work situation. Future research should identify which variables de- fine work situations as well as influence in- dividual's perceptions of the work situation and how this knowledge can be used to under- stand and predict relevant employee behav- iors.
Reference Notes
1. Hulin, C. L., Horn, P. W., & Herman, J. B. In- dividual differences, structural characteristics of organizational positions and plant effects on re- sponses (Tech. Rep. 76-3). Champaign: University of Illinois, D e p a r t m e n t of Psychology, 1976.
2. Herman, J. B., Hulin, C. L., & D u n h a m , R. B. De- veloping a response relevant typology of organiza- tions (Tech. Rep. 7 6 - 2 ) . Champaign: University of Illinois, Department of Psychology, 1976.
3. Tatsuoka, M. M. An examination of the statistical properties of a multivariate measure of strength of relationship (USDHEW Final Report, Project No. 2-E-020, Grant No. OEG-5-72-0027, 509). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, De- cember 1973.
References
Cummings, L. L., & ElSalmi, A. M. The impact of role diversity, job level, and organizational size on managerial satisfaction. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 75, 1-10.
Herman, J. B., D u n h a m , R. B., & Hulin, C. L. Or- ganizational structure, demographic characteristics, and employee responses. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 13, 206-232.
Herman, J. B., & Hulin, C. L. Studying organiza- tional attitudes from individual and organizational frames of reference. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 8, 84-108.
Herman, J. B., & Hulin, C. L. Managerial satisfac- tions and organizational roles: An investigation of Porter's need deficiency scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 57, 118-124.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. The social psychology of or- ganizations. New York: Wiley, 1966.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. Organization and environment. Boston: Harvard University, Grad- uate School of Business Administration, Division of Research, 1967.
JOB LEVEL AND FUNCTIONAL SPECIALTY 343
Newman, J. E. Understanding the organization struc- t u r e : Job attitude relationship through perceptions of the work environment. Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 14, 371-397.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Roberts, K. H. Individual differ- ences in personality, position in the organization, and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Unman Performance, 197S, 14, 144-150.
Perrow, C. B. Organizational analysis: A sociological view. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1970.
Porter, L. W. A study of perceived job satisfactions in bottom and middle management jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 45, 1-10.
Porter, L. W. Job attitudes in management: I. Per- ceived deficiencies in need fulfillment as a func- tion of job level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1962, 46, 375-384,
Porter, L. W. Job attitudes in management: III. Per- ceived deficiencies in need f u l f i l l m e n t as a f u n c - tion of line versus staff type of job. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1963, 47, 267-275.
Porter, L. W., & Lawlcr, E. E. Properties of organiza- tion s t r u c t u r e in relation to job attitudes and job behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 64, 23-51.
Rao, C. R. The u t i l i z a t i o n of multiple measurements in problems of biological classification. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 1948, 10, 159-193.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. Mea- surement of satisfaction in work and retirement, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.
Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Ohio State Univer- sity Bureau of Business Research Monograph, 1957, No. 88.
Stone, E. F., & Porter, L. W. Job characteristics and job attitudes: A multivariate study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 57-64.
Tatsuoka, M. M. Discriminant analysis: The sttidy of group differences. Champaign, 111.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1970.
Received May 14, 1976 »
