The Role of the Foreman in Modern Indus- try: II. Foreman Identification with Manage-

ment, Work Group Productivity, and Em-

ployee Attitude Toward the Foreman'

BY M. J. B A L M J. C. MALONEY

Production Engine Department Omar, Inc. General Electric Company Omaha, Nebraska

Cincinnati, Ohio and

C. H. LAWSHE

Occupational Research Center Purdue University

Summary

THE first article in this series analyzed the changing role of foremen in modern industry and reported the development of a measure of management identification using an indirect method of attitude measurement. The cur- rent article describes the relationships found between foreman identification with management, work group productivity, and employee attitude toward the foreman.

After the indirect measure of foremen's tendencies to identify with management had been developed, it was submitted to first line operating foremen in 28 manufacturing plants in the Midwest. Several management people from each of the plants rated the foreman work groups in their respective plants on

lThis series of articles is based on the Ph.D. dissertations of the two senior authors while at Purdue University, sponsored through the cooperation of the Purdue Research Foundation and the Foremanship Foundation.

367

3 6.8 M. 1. BALMA, J. C. MALONEY, AND C. H. LAWSHE

the basis of how well they n-ere doing their present job. Groups of foremen from each plant were thereby identified as being leaders of relatively high-producing or of relatively low-pro- ducing work groups. In 19 of the 28 plants a short questionnaire designed to reflect attitude toward foreman was adminis- tered to the employees working under these selected foremen.

Statistical analyses were undertaken to investigate the rela- tionships between the major variables : management identifica- tion scores of foremen, productivity ratings of foremen’s work groups, and employees’ attitude toward foremen scores. Results and implications are discussed. Background

The role of the foreman has changed drastically in the last few decades, and managements have been attempting to further modify that role by helping foremen feel they are an integral part of management. They have necessarily done so with a minimum amount of empirical evidence of its effects. The research project on which this series of articles is based was designed to determine the relationships between foreman identification with management and two aspects of his super- visory effectiveness, work group productivity and employee attitude toward the foreman.

The development of the measure of foreman identification with management (FIM) used in this research was fully reported in the last issue of Personnel Psychology. An indirect method of attitude measurement, the Error-Choice, or Direc- tion of Perception, technique was used in its construction. The attitude questions were not obvious, and were further disguised by mixing them with informational questions; this was done to obtain a truer measure. Odd-even reliability estimates of FIJI scores were found to be .65 for first line foremen, and .Sl for executives. Evidence for the validity of the measure was found with executives scoring significantly higher than foremen, and the fact that none of the Error-Choice questions had its a priori scoring direction reversed by an internal con- sistency item analysis.

ROLE OF THE FOREMAN 369

Procedure

After the Error-Choice attitude measure of foremen identi- fication with management (FIN) had been developed, it was administered to approximately 1500 foremen in 28 different industrial plants, primarily in the Midwest. The plants ranged from light to heavy manufacturing operations and from very small to very large. A number of the plants were unable to provide all of the data needed for all of the phases of the study, however; and the major analysis of the data was com- puted using information from 19 plants from which about 1000 foremen had participated. (Certain analyses, which could be done without all of the data required by the complete experimental design, were carried out using data from all 28 plants.) As many as 300 and as few as 14 foremen from each plant filled out the questionnaire administered in the plants by the experimenters.

Identifying High- and low-Producing Work Groups

The criterion selected to evaluate work group productivity was management ratings of the various work groups, i.e., work groups rated relative to each other within a plant. The experi- menter and a plant representative mutually selected certain management people to serve as raters. There were usually three or four raters from each plant. A typical group of raters from a small plant consisted of the production superintendent, the personnel manager, and the plant manager. In larger plants there were often many foremen in each of several different functional groups. In such cases all foremen’s groups were not pooled together with all other foremen’s groups; they were divided into more natural functional classifications for rating purposes, e.g., shipping foremen’s groups were rated against each other, etc. In these cases superintendents or general foremen in charge of such groups usually served as raters. Each rater ranked the work groups independently.

Since it would not have been practical to work with every work group in each of the plants, and since the experimenters were primarily interested in determining whether high-produc-

370 M. J. BALMA, J. c. MALONEY, AND c. n. LAWSHE

ing m-orb: groups were led by foremen with different manage- ment identification scores from those of foremen with low-producing work groups, certain of the foremen and fore- men's groups were dropped, for the time being, from the sample. Several pairs of foremen and foremen's groups from each plant were chosen for further study. Those selected were characterized by quite high work group productivity ratings or quite low ratings in their respective plants. (One of the plants Fas represented by eight work groups that had been rated high and eight that had been rated low, while another one of the plants was represented by two pairs of work groups; modal representation was four to five groups.)

Determining Employee Attitude Toward the Foremen

After the measure of management identification had been administered to the foremen in each participating plant, and after some had been identified as being leaders of relatively high- or low-producing work groups, arrangements were made for the hourly paid employees in these high- and low-producing work groups to fill out a short questionnaire designed to reflect their attitude toward their foremen. This questionnaire, entitled Z'our Immediate Supervisor, was developed pre- viously: it n-as shown to have a .91 internal consistency reli- ability, a reproducibility by the Guttman-Cornell Technique of .82, and Kas used successfully many times in the past (1). It was administered to the hourly paid people by plant per- sonnel. The esperimenter discussed the administration of the questionnaire with plant personnel and approved a pro- cedure for administering the questionnaire to the appropriate hourly paid employees, with the experimenters pointing out ways to elminate or minimize administration difficulties that might arise.

The usual procedure was for the employees to fill out the questionnaire at their work spaces, on company time, after the plant representative in charge (not the foreman) had pro- vided standardized written or oral instructions. I n no instance

ROLE OF THE FOREMAN 371

TABLE 1 d n a l y s i s of Covariance

Management IdenliJieafion, Productivity, and Employee Attitude ~ ~~ ~. ~~~ ~

Source of variance

Between Plants.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Between Productivity Levels.. Plants X Productivity Levels.. . . . Between Foremen Within Cells . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . .

** Significant at the 1% level. Significant at the 5% level.

was the foreman present at the time that his group filled out the questionnaire reflecting their attitude toward him. The hourly paid employees who filled out Your Immediate Super- visor did not sign their names to the questionnaire, and further steps were taken to assure them that their responses would remain anonymous. Each employee who completed a ques- tionnaire did record the name of his foreman. Findings

A double-classification analysis of covariance design was used to determine the relationships between foreman identifica- tion with management (FIM), work group productivity ratings, and the attitudes of foremen’s subordinates toward the foremen. FIM scores (from the error-choice questionnaire) were the independent variable. Attitude toward supervisor mean scores (from the Your Immediate Supervisor question- naire) were the covariate, and productivity levels of the foremen’s groups (from the management ratings of the groups’ relative productivity) were the treatments. A fixed model was assumed since the plants cannot be construed to represent a random sample from a meaningful population. Between plant variation was taken out of the error term by classification and was treated as a main effect. Foremen were nested within plants. The error term for the evaluation of all effects which were tested wm, therefore, the mean square between foremen

372 M. J. BALMA, J. C. MALONEY, AND C. H. LAWSHE

PLANT I FOREMEN SCORING ABOVE MEAN

A 100%

B 100%

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

0

P

a R

S

FIG. 1 . PERCENTAGE OF FOREMES FRObi EACH P L A N T W H O SCORED ABOVE

THE FIM MEAN SCORE OF ALL OF THE FOREMEN FROM THE 19 PLANTS THAT PROVIDED THE ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE DATA

n-ithin cells. Table 1 presents the results of this analysis of covariance.2

Plant-to-Plant Variations in Foreman identification Scores

-1 great deal of plant-t,o-plant variation was found in the FIN scores of the foremen. Figure 1 shows the percentage of foremen from each plant who scored above the average (mean) of all of the foremen from the 19 plants that provided the analysis of covariance data. These percentages range

.Xppreciation is expressed to J. A . Sorton of the Statistical Laboratory, Purdue L-niversity, for his aid in developing the statistical experimental design and in in- terpreting the interactions.

ROLE OF THE FOREMAN 373

from 0% to 100%. It will be noted in Table 1 that the Mer- ence in FIM scores between plants is significant at the 1$ level (F-ratio = 2.5$), before the effect of employee sttitude toward the foremen is partialed out; these differences remain significant at the 5y0 level (F-ratio = 1.87) after the effect of employee attitude toward the foremen is partialed out by the covariance analysis.

Foreman Identification with Management and Work Group Produc- tivity

There is a positive relationship between FIN seores 2nd management ratings of how well the various foremen‘s work groups are doing their present job. This relationship is illus- trated by Figure 2 which indicates the percentage of foremen whose work groups were rated as “high producers,” who got above average management identification scores, and the percentages of foremen whose work groups were rated as .*lovi- producers” who got above average management identifica- tion scores. The analysis of variance F-ratio (4.S9) for the difference between FIM scores of leaders of “high-producing” work groups and the FIM scores of leaders of “low-producing” work groups is significant a t the 57, level. When the effect of employee attitude toward the foremen is partialed out of this relationship, the resulting F-ratio (4.79) is still significant at the 5% level.

Foreman Identification with Management Scores and Interaction of Plants and Productivity

Although there is a general overall positive relationship between FIM scores and the productivity ratings of the

WORK GROUPS FOREMEN SCORING ABOVE MEAN

F I G . 2. PERCENTAGE OF FOREMEN WHOSE WORK G R O U P S WERE RATED AS HIGH PRODCCERS, A N D PERCENTAGE OF FOREMEN WHOSE WORK GROUPS WERE RATED

AS Low PRODUCERS WHO GOT ABOVE AVERAGE FIhI SCORES

374 M. J. BALMA, J . C. MALONEY, AND C. H. LAWSHE

FIG. 3. EXAMPLE O F DIFFEREWES BETKEEX FIN SCORES A N D WORK GROUP PRODUCTIVITY RATINGS FROM OSE PLANT TO ANOTHER

work groups, this relationship varies considerably between plants. When one plant is considered a t a time and the rela- tionship between FIR1 scores and work group productivity ratings is examined, some positive relationships are noted; there are some plants in which there is no relationship, and a few in which negative relationships exist. Figure 3 shows examples of how the relationships differ from one plant to another. Plant H illustrates a positive relationship; Plant N illustrates a negative relationship. It will be noted in Table 1 that the interaction effect of plants and productivity levels is significant (F’s = 1.87 and 1.85) a t the 5% level.

Attitude of Employees Toward Foremen as Related to Plant-to- Plant and Between Productivity Level Differences

Table 1 indicates that the covariate scores (employee at- titude toward foremen mean scores) are not significantly dif- ferent from one plant to another or from one productivity level to another. (These inferences must be made on the basis of analysis of variance results only, since employee attitude toward foremen means are the covariate in the design repre- sented in Table 1) .3

3 A better test of the relationship between employee attitude and productivity levels (or plants) would be an analysis of variance of individual employee scores rather than means of the employees’ attitude toward foremen scores. This analysis would involve a nonorthogonal analysis, and Bartlett’s test of homogeneity of vari-

ROLE OF THE FOREMAN 375

Foremen identification with Management vs. Attitude Toward the Foremen

The analysis of covariance reported in Table 1 permits the computation of the correlation between employee attitude toward foremen means and FIhf scores, either by partialing out the effects of plants and productivity levels or by ignoring these two variables. The correlation between employee at- titude toward foremen means and FIM scores is negligible and insignificant, when plants and work group productivity level effects are ignored; the correlation equals .10 (not significantly different from 0.00) when these variables are partialed out. Discussion of Results

The purpose of this research was to determine relationships ; no attempt was made in the design to probe the reasons for these relationships. Needless to say, even though its objective has been achieved, this research suggests many more questions than it resolves. Two questions of major importance involve interplant differences.

Why do foremen in some plants identify so much more with management than do foremen from other plants?

Why is there a positive relationship between foreman identification with management and work group pro- ductivity ratings in most plants in the study, while a negative relationship exists in a few?

It was possible to make some secondary analyses with the foreman identification with management data which may provide some further insight into the first question. These will be reported in the final article of this series under the sub-heading : “Some Correlates of Foreman Identification with Management. ”

The significant interaction effect on the relationship between FIM scores and work group productivity emphasizes an even more serious problem. Since it cannot be assumed that this ___ ance could not be satisfied. It seems doubtful that there would be a significant re- lationship between employees’ attitudes toward the foremen and productivity rat- ings of the work groups.

376 M. J. BALMA, J. C. MALONEY, AND C. H. LAWSHE

~ r i s a random sample of plants, the positive relationship could not be statistically generalized. From all the investigators could determine, the sample is fairly representative, but it K ~ S not statistically drawn. In view of this fact and the inter- action effect, it is possible, though not probable, that in the total population of plants the general relationship is zero. K h d e no claim is made for statistical significance, an after the fact analysis of the data suggests some hypotheses concerning the interaction effect on the relationship.

An A Posteriori Investigation

Tn-elve plants were identified as “plus relationship’’ plants ; these n-ere plants where the relationship between FIAT scores and the productivity ratings of their respective work groups n-a< positive. Similarly, six “minus relationship” plants were identified. Selected data from each of these groups were tabu- lated and were found to differ in a t least three ways.

In the “plus relationship” plants the foremen leading high- rated productivity groups (therefore having generally high FIN scores) tended to be differentiated from foremen leading Ion--rated productivity groups (therefore generally having low FISI scores) by:

1. Youth (under 30) 2. Education (high school or better) 3. Shorter foreman tenure (less than 5 years) In the “minus relationship’’ plants these characteristics

n-ere re\-ersed, i.e., the foremen leading high-rated groups (generally lower FIM scores) tended to be differentiated from the foremen leading low-rated groups (generally higher FIM scores) by being older, less well educated, and having longer tenure as a foreman.

This suggests two hypotheses: 1. In some plants the work group productivity ratings were

contaminated by the higher managerial (rater) bias that younger, better educated, or more management-identified foremen make better foremen; while in other plants these

ROLE OF WE FOREMAN 3?7

ratings were contaminated by the antithetical feeling that the “oldtimer” foremen are better foremen.

2. There is a genuine relationship between work group productivity and the foreman’s youth and education in some plants, while experience makes the difference in other plants.

While most raters did not know the nature of the study before making their ratings, it is possible that the criterion was con- taminated with the raters’ knowledge of a foreman’s identifica- tion with management. Or, some raters could have rated on potential of the foreman (probably related to FIM) rather than on the performance of his work group. Relatively high inter-rater reliability, however, denies this as an extensive possibility. It seems more likely that, if contamination exists, it is in the form of a plant-wide philosophy, attitude toward the foreman.

If there is a genuine positive relationship, the variation between plants may be a function of the nature of the plants’ products, characteristics of the people supervised, or type of jobs assigned young, educated foremen.

Attitude Toward the Foreman

While no relationship was found between employee attitude toward the foreman and his identification with management, this research was static; the finding cannot be generalized to say that if a foreman were to change his identification there would be no change in employee attitude toward the foreman, or change in work group productivity either.

While it is often reasoned that employee attitude toward the foreman is one determinant of work group productivity, it was not found to be so here (range of attitude scores was not unduly restricted). Further, even though the plants them- selves and the foremen differed in many ways, no significant variation of employee attitude toward the foreman was found from plant-to-plant. It is not surprising then that partialing out employee attitude toward the foreman did not significantly

378 M. J. BAIMA, 1. C. MALONEY, AND C. H. LAWSHE

change the relationship between foreman identification with management and rated work group productivity.

These findings t.end both to support and contradict the findings relative to the possibility and desirability of “dual loyality,” loyalty of the foreman both to his men and his company (2, 3). Employee attitude showed no relationship to either FIM or productivity, and there was no significant covariance here.

References 1. L s u s i ~ s , C. €I. , A V D S ~ G L E , B. F. Productivity and attitude toward supervisor.

J . ( lpp l . Psychol., 1953, 37, 15s-162. 2. M s x s , FLOYD ATD DEST, J ~ V E S . dppraisals of supervisiors and attitudes of their

employees i n an electric poloer company. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, 1054

3 . PRL-CELL, THEODORE V. The worker speaks his mind on company and union. Cam- bridge: Harvsrd Cniversity Press, 1953.