. ··' ' 

. >'' 

' 

·;:· 

~tlUJ m:· NEW. MAIN'l'~NANC!i C::ON~PT 

f~C~~~Titlt Sl1tVI~ ,· 

,... ... ~-:--­

··< • . . ~~ 

-.· ~-

~cPment is :available 'to thco public through the · 

· Nlltioual' Tec:hnical .. IdoriiUition Service 

$pringO.e1d, Virginia 22161 

Prepared for 

U.s. DEPARTMEN'l' OF TRANSPQ,aTATION 

Federal. Av!l.aticm Admin:t•!:cra~:l:on 

· Office of Avhtio"" Mt41-cine . WashinJton, n•c~ .20591 

\ 

\ 

.... 

. ~ •. 1··. o·.·.· .• o·4. . . . 09 5 ss·-

·.'---? 

- :. -- -
• 

iJACK R. HUNT MEMORIAL UBRARY 

DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA 904-226-6595 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This study was initiated by Dr. Roger c. Smith. Responsibility 

for the study was assumed by the authors several months after 

Dr. Smith's untimely death in an automobile accident. The 

authors wish to thank personnel of the Aviation Psychology 

Laboratory who assisted in the conduct of this project during 

the interim and transitional periods. 
Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Cotalog No. 

FAA-AM-83- 7 

4. Title and Subtitle 5, Report Date 

JOB ATTITUDES TOWARD THE NEW MAINTENANCE CONCEPT FEBRUARY 1983 

OF THE AIRWAY FACILITIES SERVICE 6. Performing Orgonizotion Code 

8. Performing Orgonizotion Report No. 

7, Author/ s) 

David J. Schroeder and Julia R. Deloney 

9. Performing Orgonizotion Name ond Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute 

P.o. Box 25082 II. Contract or Gront No. 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, s. w. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

15. Supplementary Notes 

Work was performed under task AM-C-80/81/82/83-PSY-72. 

16. Abstract At the request of the (then) Airway Facilities Service (AAF), AF personnel 

were asked to respond to questions concerning their attitudes toward a proposed New 

Maintenance Concept (NMC). Questionnaires were sent to all (11,569) AF personnel; 

a return rate of 61.7 percent was obtained. Overall, employee awareness of the 

proposed changes was limited; only 18 percent indicated that they possessed "considerable" to "a great deal" of information concerning the changes. As a general 

reaction to the NMC, 43 percent expressed some degree of acceptance, 31 percent were 

undecided and 26 percent expressed some degree of rejection. Aspects of the proposal 

that involved a shift to solid state equipment along with associated changes in 

specialization and knowledge, a proposed reduction in routine maintenance, automated 

recordkeeping, and a reduction in watchstanding produced highly positive responses 

(67 to 85 percent). Least favorable responses were for plans to reduce the number of 

remote facilities and relocate personnel in more centralized work hubs. Analyses 

suggest several variables of utility in predicting overall response to the NMC. A 

major factor was the employee's position in the work force. Relatively more negative 

attitudes were expressed by nonsupervisory personnel and by those (i) who expressed 

general dissatisfaction with their jobs, supervision, and management; (ii) who had 

been in their positions for longer periods of time; and (iii) who reported greater 

anxiety and stress on the job. Management should be aware that its attitudes toward 

proposed changes are not necessarily shared by individuals at the lower levels. The 

role of communication in promoting change within the organization is discussed. This 

report serves as technical documentation of the survey; however, from the onset of 

data analyses, periodic reports and consultations were provided to AAF· 

17, Key Wards 18, Distribution Statement 

Job attitudes Document is available to the public 

Connnunication through the National Technical 

Personnel Information Service, Springfield, 

Virginia 22161 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20, Security Clossif. (of this page) 21. No. of Poges 22. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified 79 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-721 Reproduction of completed page authorized 
F '4 

J 

JOB ATTITUDES TOWARD THE NEW MAINTENANCE CONCEPT 

OF THE AIRWAY FACILITIES SERVICE 

PART I. OVERVIEW 

To determine the attitudes of Airway Facilities (AF) personnel to the 

proposed New Maintenance Concept (NMC), an extensive questionnaire was 

mailed to all employees. Of 11,569 questionnaires distributed, 6,976 were 

completed and returned. Responses to the NMC questions were analyzed with 

respect to employee characteristics, job satisfaction measures, shift work, 

and general health variables. 

This report summarizes the findings from the NMC questionnaire and 

provides a technical documentation of the completed study. However, regular 

consultation with Airway Facilities Service (AAF) officials was conducted 

throughout the data analyses period for use in management decisions 

regarding this developing concept. Also, although the functions of AAF were 

formally assumed by the Systems Engineering Service (AES) and Program 

Engineering and Maintenance Service (APM) in a reorganization effective 

October 4, 1982, the older designation (AAF) will be used throughout this 

report. 

A majority of the respondents reported receiving only a limited amount 

of information concerning the proposal, with 22,6 percent indicating "very 

little knowledge" of the proposal. Only 3.3 percent indicated that they 

possessed a "great deal of knowledge'' of the proposed changes. As could be 

expected, certain segments of the work force indicated that they had 

received less information than others concerning the overall proposal. One 

of the more obvious differences was between supervisors and nonsupervisors. 

While 7.3 percent of the supervisors reported a "great deal of knowledge" 

and only 12.8 percent indicated a limited degree of knowledge, in the 

nonsupervisor segment of the work force the percentages for the same 

responses were, respectively, 2.0 and 25.7 percent. Degree of knowledge 

concerning the proposed changes was also different for the different work 

locations. In regional offices, 8.8 percent of the personnel indicated that 

they had "a great deal of knowledge" compared to .1 to 4.4 percent of the 

personnel at other sites. This suggests that the flow of communication was 

not equally effective at all levels of the work force. The three primary 

sources for information were: the videotape presentation (33.1 percent), 

word of mouth (22.4 percent), and management channels (19.0 percent). The 

remaining 25 percent of the responses were spread out between the FAA Order 

6000.27 (12.2 percent), an article in FAA WORLD (7.3 percent), union 

communications (2.3 percent) and "otheT'(3.6 percent). 

The overall reaction to the proposed changes (Q27) was mixed, with 

nearly half of the respondents (42.8 percent) indicating "generally 

positive" to "very positive" responses and 30.8 percent indicating that they 

were undecided. In response to this question (Q27), there were segments of 

the work force that expressed differential levels of overall acceptance. 

1 
.. 

For example, while 20.3 percent of the respondents in regional offices 

expressed "very positive" reactions, only 4.0 to 9.6 percent of the 

respondents at other facilities expressed this degree of acceptance. At the 

supervisor level, only 12.8 percent expressed a "generally negative" to 

"negative"" reaction, compared to 30.5 percent of the nonsupervisors. 

However, there were specific aspects of the proposal that generated fairly 

high levels of overall acceptance. Between 67 and 75 percent of the 

personnel expressed general acceptance to strong support for: diagnostics, 

corrective maintenance, and problem solving (Q34); automated record keeping 

(Q32); an increased need for electro-mechanical technicians (Q38); greater 

specialization, multiple specialization, and greater knowledge of system 

interfaces (Q39); a reduction in watchstanding (Q41); and an emphasis on 

solid state electronics, digital logics, systematic trouble shooting skills, 

and computer programing capabilities (Q37). Lower levels of support were 

expressed for the goal to centralize maintenance work at sector field 

offices (Q33) and the proposal to establish centralized maintenance hubs 

with fewer sector field offices and virtually no manned remote facilities 

(Q35). 

Concern about the proposed changes did not appear to be related to the 

need to develop additional work skills since nearly one-half of the 

respondents indicated that they currently possessed the necessary skills in 

their present position. A very small percentage, 2.5 percent, indicated 

that they would prefer to work with their present skills. 

The aspect of the proposed changes that appeared to generate the 

greatest amount of concern in respondents was the proposal to relocate 

personnel to more centralized work hubs. When questioned about their 

reactions to the proposed reorganization (Q42), 20 percent indicated that 

the plan would most likely require an undesirable relocation to a 

maintenance hub. Once again there were marked differences in the 

percentages of individuals in different segments of the work force that 

responded to this alternative. Different types of subgroups that had 

relatively high percentages selecting this alternative were: nonsupervisors 

(23 percent), electronics and environmental technicians (23.5 and 23.0 

percent), personnel located at the smaller and more remote facilities 

(intermediate tower, 31.3 percent; small tower, 38.5 percent; and remote 

nontower, 36.7 percent). Responses to questions 33 and 35, which dealt with 

the movement toward centralized work hubs, further support the above 

indications, that within certain subgroups of the work force there is a 

significant number of workers who feel considerable dissatisfaction with the 

proposal to move some workers from the more remote sites to more centralized 

work hubs. Issues raised in the "comments" section also lend support to the 

idea that the specific aspect of the NMC that generated the least support 

was the proposal to move personnel from the smaller, more remote sites, to 

more centralized work hubs. This concern in the work force appears to be 

related to the potential need to relocate families, associated economic 

concerns, and concern about being able to meet individual needs in a new job 

setting. 

2 
Since a large number of variables was found to impact on the 

individual's response to the NMC, analyses were conducted to select the 

variables that would serve as the best predictors. The 

supervisor-nonsupervisor distinction and occupation identification were most 

influential in determining an employee's response to the NMC. As indicated 

above, environmental technicians and electronics technicians in 

nonsupervisory positions were more likely to express dissatisfaction with 

aspects of the proposed changes, particularly concerning the potential 

requirement of relocation. Higher levels of dissatisfaction were also found 

for individuals who expressed dissatisfaction with their working conditions, 

their supervision, and with various levels of FAA management. Furthermore, 

personnel who perceived their jobs as being more difficult, who felt they 

were under greater stress at work, and who were dissatisfied with their 

salary, were also more likely to express dissatisfaction concerning the 

proposed changes. The overall profile of the individual who was most likely 

to express a strong degree of dissatisfaction with the proposed changes is 

that of a lower GS-level nonsupervisory technician who has worked at his 

position for several years; who is dissatisfied with his job, the working 

conditions, and/or management, and who perceives his work environment as 

being stressful. 

These analyses must be interpreted within the context of how people 

tend to view change. Resistance to change is apparent at all levels of our 

society; it is commonly encountered in individuals, within groups, and 

within organizations. If this common resistance is taken into account, the 

responses of the AF personnel appear in a more positive perspective. 

SUGGESTIONS 

Suggestions are primarily related to improving communications within 

the organization. It is generally accepted that communication flows more 

effectively within levels than between levels. This was apparent in the AF 

work force. Even though AAF management used a variety of forms to 

communicate the proposal to workers (magazine article, videotape, and an FAA 

Order) it was apparent that certain segments of the AF work force felt that 

they had received little information concerning the proposed changes. There 

is a need to communicate more effectively proposed changes to all segments 

of the work force, especially to individuals at the nonsupervisory level. 

Since 31 percent of the employees who returned the survey were undecided 

about their general reaction to the overall proposal, this presents an 

excellent opportunity for AAF to present them with additional information 

that could be effective in generating a more positive overall reaction. 

Such communication should be as specific as possible and should include 

statements concerning the potential positive impact of the changes on the 

individual; for example, the challenge of working with new equipment, 

potential for enhancing work skills, and increased opportunities for job 

promotion. This could include the development of a followup videotape, 

followup articles in the FAA WORLD, or the development of a temporary 

3 
question and answer section in the magazine where workers could request more 

specific responses concerning aspects of the proposed changes. 

4 
~ 1. 

I 

j 

PART II. TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION 

I. Introduction. 

The Maintenance Philosophy Steering Group was commissioned in 1976 by 

the Airway Facilities Service (AAF) to resolve problems associated with the 

current AF system (equipment age, lack of standardization of equipment, 

geographic dispersion) in order to meet the demands of increasing activity 

in a more efficient manner. This steering group consisted of the division 

and assistant division chiefs at both regional and headquarters levels. 

Their task was to: 

i. assess the changes that could be expected in the national 

airspace system over the period 1980-1990; 

ii. assess the applicability of the current national airspace system 

maintenance philosophy to that system; and 

iii. develop a new maintenance concept suitable for the system 

expected to be in operation during this period (2). 

The steering group-s conclusions and recommendations appear in a 

report presented in November 1978. The steering group recommended the 

immediate development of plans to implement a "New Maintenance Concept 

(NMC)." The schedule called for an initial proposal to be submitted to the 

Director (AAF) early in 1980, with a final plan completed several months 

later. Even though the schedule called for initial implementation of the 

plan in mid-1981, implementation would not be complete until 1990. 

The plan proposed several changes in both AF organizational structure 

and in AF equipment. The plan emphasized: 

i. implementation of a solid state replacement program for 

existing equipment; 

ii. implementation of a remote maintenance monitoring program; 

iii. a significant reduction in the number of field duty stations; 

iv. enhancement of the present sector office concept by providing 

a shop for module repair and alignment; 

v. implementation of a national field support group; 

vi. the enhancement of training methods to meet new skill 

requirements; and 

vii. the individual technician as the most important link in 

ensuring system integrity (2). 

According to the report, implementation of this program would decrease the 

number of employees over the 10-year period while increasing the number of 

operating facilities. The result would be an overall savings of 1.2 

billion dollars. 

While implementation of the NMC would not result in an immediate loss 

of employees, other than through attrition, there are several areas in 

which implementation would directly affect the current workforce. The 

impact of the change would be greatest for those employees required to 

5 
relocate from more remote sites to centralized sector field offices. In 

addition, introduction of solid state equipment would create a need for 

greater specialization and an overall higher skill level in the work 

force, there would be a need to retrain some employees, retraining would 

require the development of new training methods (computer based 

instruction), and less shift work would be required. Since the AAF 

administration recognized that the acceptance of this change by employees 

is critical to optimal system functioning, AAF management provided 

employees with information concerning the proposed changes. The 

information was presented in a number of different ways: a video tape 

("The Maintenance Concept of the 80's") was developed and shown at 

numerous facilities, an article appeared in the December 1979 issue of the 

FAA WORLD ("Better Service at Less Cost"), a Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) Order was issued in June 1979 (2) and less formal 

channels of communication were also used. 

Following presentation of the information, the AAF administration was 

interested in knowing how the proposal was viewed by employees. Since a 

research task by the Civil Aeromedical Institute had already been approved 

to survey AF employees concerning the influence of shift work on their 

health, morale, efficiency and productivity, it was decided that extra 

items would be added to assess employees' attitudes toward the NMC. In 

addition to determining the general response of employees to the proposed 

changes, the current study was designed to assess which of the demographic 

and job related factors were most predictive of employees' general 

reactions. 

Questionnaires were sent to all AF personnel in mid-1980. Feedback 

concerning employees' reactions to aspects of the proposed changes, as 

indicated by responses to the questionnaire, has been provided to AAF-160 

on a continuing basis since the start of these analyses in December 1980. 

This report documents those extensive findings. 

II. Method. 

Subjects. A list of all AF personnel and their addresses was 

generated for each FAA region. A 21-page questionnaire, along with an 

answer sheet and return envelope, was sent to the 11,569 personnel on the 

list. Of this number, 6,976 questionnaires were completed and returned. 

An additional 274 questionaires were returned due to incorrect addresses. 

Characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1. 

Questionnaire. The questionnaire used in this survey was designed to 

provide measures in several major informational categories (Appendix A). 

The first two pages described the purpose of the study and included 

instructions on the completion of the questionnaire. This was followed by 

a section requesting demographic information and type of work or job 

setting. The main body of the questionnaire comprised questions dealing 

with basic job information, job satisfaction ratings, shift work 

information, general self evaluation questions (16), and questions 

6 
rr I 

' 

TABLE 1 

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents 

Variable 

AGE 

24 and under 

25-29 

30-34 

35-39 

40-44 

45-49 

50-54 

55-59 

60 or over 

Ethnic Background 

Oriental 

Black 

White (Caucasian) 

Hispanic 

American Indian 

Other 

Degrees 

High School Diploma 

Associate Degree 

Bachelor's Degree 

Master's Degree 

Doctoral Degree 

Trade School-1 Year 

Trade School-2 Years 

Trade School-3 Years 

Pay Schedule 

GS 

WG 

WL 

ws 

Grade Level 

Grade 5 or Lower 

Grade 6 

Grade 7 

Grade 8 

Grade 9 

Grade 10 

Grade 11 

Grade 12 

Grade 13 

Grade 14 or Higher 

Percentage 

1.3 

6.2 

10.1 

10.8 

19.7 

26.6 

15.8 

7.0 

2.5 

2.2 

4.9 

82.1 

7.0 

1.4 

2.3 

50.6 

15.3 

12.8 

1.3 

.2 

3.8 

8.9 

7.1 

91.1 

8.2 

.1 

.5 

3.1 

.3 

2.8 

1.4 

5.9 

1.5 

25.8 

39.9 

12.7 

6.7 

7 

Variable Percentage 

Years Worked-FAA 

Less then 1 year 

1 year 

2 Years 

3 Years 

4 Years 

5 Years 

6 to 10 Years 

11 to 20 Years 

21 Years or More 

Years in Present Position 

Less than 1 Year 

1 Year 

2 Years 

3 Years 

4 Years 

5 Years 

6 to 10 Years 

11 to 20 Years 

21 Years or More 

Sex 

Male 

Female 

Grade or Education 

8 or Below 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 or above 

2.3 

1.9 

3.3 

3.8 

5.2 

5.9 

18.7 

30.1 

28.4 

10.5 

8.8 

10.8 

9.4 

7.5 

7.5 

25.1 

16.4 

4.0 

96.0 

4.0 

.9 

.4 

.6 

1.2 

35.5 

12.5 

27.9 

7.4 

13.8 
concerning general health. Nineteen questions were included to assess the 

employee's attitudes toward the NMC. 

The section of 19 items that was devoted to the NMC was developed to 

measure employee attitudes toward various aspects of the NMC. In addition 

to determining how much each employee knew about the proposed changes and 

the source of the information, the questionnaire contained an item 

designed to assess overall reaction to the NMC proposal. Additional 

questions assessed attitudes toward the centralization of functions with 

remote monitoring, increased usage of solid state equipment and required 

retraining, use of computer assisted instruction, changes in travel, 

increased automation in record keeping and a reduction in shift work. 

Procedure. The returned response sheets were machine scored and 

placed on a data tape for computer analyses. A VAX 11/780 version of the 

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used in the data 

analyses (13). Analyses included cross frequencies and chi-square 

statistics where appropriate. Correlation coefficients were also computed 

on the appropriate variables. Multiple regression equations were 

calculated to determine the variables that best predicted the individual's 

reaction to the NMC. The underlying relationships between the various 

predictor variables were determined through use of factor analysis. In 

order to include some of the variables in the regression equations and 

factor analysis, the responses were reordered to make them more ordinal in 

nature (type of facility, AF specialty, occupational identification and 

region). Question 27, which covers general reaction to the NMC, was used 

as the criterion variable in the multiple regression analyses. A 

probability level of p < .01 was used as the minimum level for statistical 

significance. It was recognized a priori that the large sample size would 

lead to a large number of statistically significant differences that would 

have varying degrees of practical significance. Thus, while statistical 

significance is indicated, the emphasis is on the differences that appear 

to have some practical significance. Written comments concerning the NMC 

were content analyzed and sorted into categories for analysis. The 

analyses presented in this report focus on the relationship between 

various demographic and job related variables and responses to the 19 

items related to the NMC. 

III. Results. 

QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES 

Return Rate. The overall return rate of 61.7 percent (6,976 out of 

11,295 questionnaires), is somewhat higher than the 49.3 percent return 

rate obtained in a previous AF survey by Smith and Hutto (15). Of those 

returned, 92 questionnaires were eliminated because they had questionable 

responses or contained a large number of omitted items; thus resulting in 

a final sample of 6,894. 

8 

1 
Overall Responses to the New Maintenance Concept. The frequency and 

percentage of respondents who selected various alternatives on each of the 

NMC questions appear in Table 2. A sizable majority (81.9 percent) of 

these individuals reported receiving "very little" to "some" information 

about the NMC. This information was most often obtained from the 

videotaped presentation (33.1 percent), by word of mouth (22.4 percent), 

or through management channels (19 percent). Smaller percentages of 

individuals reported receiving most of their information from either the 

FAA Order 6000.27 (12.2 percent) or from FAA WORLD (7.3 percent). 

When questioned about their overall reactions to the proposed 

changes, 42.8 percent of the respondents expressed "positive'' to "very 

positive" reactions. However, there was still a sizable group of 

respondents (26.2 percent) who reported "negative" to "very negative" 

reactions. 

In response to the proposal to have two levels of facilities, the 

largest proportion of the respondents (45.7 percent) indicated acceptance 

with some reservations. Only 14.5 percent strongly supported the idea 

while 21.2 percent were either not in favor of the idea or totally 

rejected it. 

The percentages for the question dealing with facility and periodic 

certification (Q29) were similar to those noted above for the two levels 

of the facility question. However, there was a slightly larger percentage 

of individuals who reported strong support (18 percent in this case). 

Considerable acceptance was expressed for the proposal to establish 

four levels of system repair (Q30), with 60.2 percent of the respondents 

indicating general acceptance to strong support. 

The next question, concerning the establishment of a remote 

maintenance monitoring system for solid state equipment, also produced a 

fairly high level of overall support (61.7 percent). As was true for the 

question concerning levels of system repair, a fair number of respondents 

indicated that they were generally not in favor of the proposal or would 

actively reject the idea (18.3 percent- Q33 and 16.6 percent- Q35). 

Automation of the record keeping system (Q32) was viewed in very 

favorable terms, with 73.5 percent reporting they strongly accepted the 

notion or accepted it with some reservations. This question also resulted 

in one of the lowest percentage of respondents expressing some 

dissatisfaction (11.5 percent). 

The two questions (Q33 and Q35) concerning the movement of 

maintenance personnel to centralized maintenance hubs, with fewer 

personnel at remote sites, received only limited support. Only 16.9 and 

13.1 percent of the respondents were strongly in favor of this goal. A 

total of 27.0 and 31.7 percent, respectively, selected one of the last two 

(negative) categories on these questions. 

9 
TABLE 2 

Summary Percentages For Responses to the New Maintenance Concept Questions 

Alternatives 

Question 

Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

.. 25 Information 22.6 59.3 14.7 3.3 

26 Source of I 12.2 7.3 33.1 2.3 19.0 22.4 3.6 

27 General Rea 7.9 34.9 30.8 19.5 6.7 

28 Facility Lev 14.5 14.8 6.6 24.3 18.6 15.1 6.1 

29 Certification 18.0 15.9 3.4 25.6 19.5 12.6 4.9 

30 System Repair 19.0 41.2 21.1 13.0 5.3 

31 Rem Maint Mon 21.2 40.5 21.5 11.8 4.8 

32 Recordkeeping 42.5 31.0 14.9 7.7 3.8 

33 Centralizat 16.9 36.4 19.7 19.5 7.5 

34 Diagnostics 30.1 36.9 14.0 14.1 4.9 

35 Central Hubs 13.1 35.2 19.9 23.1 8.6 

36 Travel 12.4 35.5 22.0 24.0 6.0 

37 Work Skills 49.7 35.4 10.9 2.9 1.2 

38 Technicians 37.0 32.2 20.4 6.9 3.4 

39 Specializa 31.7 39.5 17.8 7.5 3.4 

40 Comp Ass Ins 31.9 31.3 16.1 13.1 7.6 

41 Watchstanding 44.1 27.7 15.8 8.5 3.8 

42 Reorganizat 34.5 23.3 5.0 6.2 20.1 7.3 3.6 

43 Work Situat 47.9 12.4 15.3 17.9 2.5 2.9 1.2 

10 
I 

j 

Responses to the question (Q34) dealing with movement away from 

routine preventive maintenance toward diagnostic and corrective 

maintenance were generally favorable. Some degree of support for the 

concept was indicated by 67 percent of the respondents, with 14 percent 

being uncertain and 19 percent expressing some degree of disfavor. 

The proposed alteration in travel (Q36) received limited support. 

Only 47.9 percent expressed some degree of support for this idea, with 30 

percent expressing some degree of disfavor. 

The aspect of the NMC that generated the highest level of overall 

support was the emphasis on solid state electronics, digital logic, 

systematic troubleshooting skills and computer programing capabilities 

(Q37). Nearly one-half (49.7 percent) of the respondents said they 

strongly supported this idea, another 35.4 percent expressed support with 

some reservations, and a very small percentage of the group expressed some 

degree of disfavor (4.1 percent). 

Even though there was a high degree of acceptance for the use of 

solid state electronics, the percentage of respondents who accepted the 

idea that this would require a greater knowledge of electronics (Q38) and 

increasing specialization (Q39) in the work force was slightly smaller. 

However, more than two-thirds of the respondents still expressed some 

degree of acceptance for these changes (69.2 and 71.2 percent). Only 10 

percent expressed some degree of disfavor. 

The movement toward computer assisted instruction at the home sector 

was also viewed favorably, with nearly two-thirds of the respondents 

marking one of the two favorable categories. The percentage expressing 

some degree of disfavor was slightly higher than for the two preceding 

questions (20.7 percent). 

General approval was also evident in the responses to the proposal to 

reduce watchstanding (Q41), with 71.8 percent expressing general 

acceptance to strong support. A total of 12.3 percent were in the two 

nonfavorable categories. 

Next (Q42), respondents were asked to indicate which of several 

responses best described what they saw for themselves during the time of 

the reorganization (e.g., little or no effect, retirement, relocation or 

resignation). About one-third of the workers (34.5 percent) indicated 

that it would have little effect on them, since most were at a location in 

which there would be little change. Another 23.3 percent indicated they 

would be retired by the time the plan was implemented. A similar 

percentage responded negatively (20.1 percent), indicating that the 

proposed changes would require them to relocate, which they would not 

like. 

11 
Consequences of the move toward solid state equipment presented 

little concern for most respondents. Nearly one-half (47.9 percent) said 

the change would have little effect on them since they were already 

utilizing the necessary skills in their current job. Another 33.2 percent 

said they would either continue using their current skills or they would 

look forward to acquiring new skills. Only 12.4 percent indicated they 

would probably retire when those skills were needed. 

NMC Item Correlations. Pearson Product-Moment correlation 

coefficients for the 19 items comprising the NMC portion of the 

questionnaire are presented in Table 3. Responses to the first question 

(Q25), dealing with the respondents knowledge of the NMC, were negatively 

correlated with every question in the NMC section, except questions 40 and 

42. Individuals who reported receiving more information concerning the 

NMC expressed more favorable attitudes toward the proposed changes. While 

most of these correlations were statistically significant, they were quite 

low, ranging from .009 to -.257. The second question (Q26), dealing with 

the major source of the respondents' information, exhibited even smaller 

correlations with the other items (ranging from .004 to .091). Even 

though several of the correlations were statistically significant, the 

practical significance is slight and there is little indication that the 

source for the information played any significant role in determining the 

individual's response to the various aspects of the proposal. 

With the exception of the last two questions (Q42 and Q43), responses 

to the rest of the NMC questions exhibited moderate to high 

intercorrelations (range of .315 to .781). This suggests that the 

individual's responses to the various aspects of the NMC were reasonably 

consistent. This consistency was most evident in the correlation between 

the individuals' responses to question 27, which assesed their general 

reaction to the NMC, and their responses to the remaining items. These 

correlations ranged from .323 to .724 and were all statistically 

significant (p < .01). 

Correlations between the general reaction to the NMC and various 

demographic, job related and self evaluation varlables-.--Correlation 

coefficients between the criterion-variable (Q27) and the various 

predictor variables used in this study appear in Table 4. While the 

correlations were relatively low, ranging from -.011 to .276, a majority 

were statistically significant due to the large sample size. Responses to 

questions concerning various aspects of job satisfaction produced the 

highest correlations with the criterion variable. Of these responses, 

satisfaction with national FAA management (Q24), satisfaction with 

regional management (Q23), and satisfaction with working conditions (Ql8) 

produced the highest correlations (.276, .278 and .275). Additional 

questions dealing with satisfaction with salary (Ql9), adequacy of the 

salary (Q20), and satisfaction with local management (Q22) produced 

similar correlations (.249, .262 and .245). There were five other 

variables that had correlations above .200 with the criterion variable, 

they were: supervisor-nonsupervisor, ratings of percentage of difficult 

12 
" ··~ 

TABLE 3 

NEW HA IIITENo\NCE CONCEPT QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES: INTERCORRELATIONS 

~est ion 

25 

26 -.257 

27 -.124 .067 

28 -.143 .055 .724 

29 -.169 .071 .665 .768 

30 -.064 .056 .585 .619 .624 

31 -.117 .044 .684 .708 . 713 .661 

32 -.103 .044 .495 .494 .513 .491 .614 .... 

w 33 -.062 .028 .638 .664 .620 .597 .684 .537 

34 -.075 .050 .558 .563 .560 .525 .629 .515 .607 

35 -.058 .020 .630 .660 .615 .559 .660 .484 .781 .646 

36 -.058 .020 .561 .586 .557 .527 .595 .455 .673 .572 .726 

37 -.149 .091 .366 .392 .414 .374 .438 .417 .384 .436 .392 .397 

38 -.052 .054 .323 .336 .336 .348 .371 .334 .376 .340 .391 .374 .429 

39 -.078 .050 .460 .461 .463 .468 .524 .440 .491 .497 .498 .508 .508 .492 

40 .014 .011 .342 .357 .324 .355 .381 .343 .383 .347 .373 .372 .324 .315 .416 

41 -.088 .034 .463 .460 .460 .434 .512 .435 .472 .511 .484 .444 .351 .316 .422 .353 

42 .009 .004 .206 .227 .198 .187 .209 .133 .282 .195 .323 .267 .163 .164 .203 .162 .172 

43 -.035 .062 .073 .084 .088 .079 .088 .089 .105 .120 .120 .120 .240 .100 .142 .100 .086 .371 
TABLE 4 

CORRELATIONS (r) BETWEEN Q27 RESPONSES (GENERAL REACTION TO THE NMC) 

AND VARIOUS PREDICTOR VARIABLES 

Predictor Variables 

Age 

GS-Level 

Years in Present Position 

Education 

Facility 

Occupational Identification 

AF Program 

Region 

Supervisor/Nonsupervisor 

Q7-Difficulty of Job 

Q9-Percent Difficult Workdays 

r 

-.055 

-.095 

.104 

-.069 

-.137 

-.199 

.026 

-.ll8 

.236 

-.184 

.217 

Q12-Work Physically Straining -.268 

Q13-Work Mentally Straining -.148 

Q14-Work Stressful -.165 

Q15-Sat. with Employment .241 

Q18-Sat. With Working Cond. .275 

Q19-Sat. With Salary .249 

Q20-Rate Current Salary .262 

Q21-Sat. With Imm. Superv. .124 

Q22-Sat. With Local Manage. .245 

Q23-Sat. With Reg. Management .278 

Predictor Variables 

Q24-Sat. with Nat. Management 

r 

.276 

Q44-Present Work Schedule .202 

Q45-Time on Present Work Sched. -.033 

Q46-Ever Worked Rotating Sched. -.014 

Q47-Time on Rotating Sched. .086 

Q48-Productivity on Eve-Shifts -.018 

Q49-Productivity on Mid-Shifts -.011 

Q53-Diff, Keep Awake in Eve. -.026 

Q55-Most Efficient Work Time .121 

Q60-Trouble Sleep Aft. Day-Shift .038 

Q62-Trouble Sleep Aft. Mid-Shift -.044 

Q63-Stay Asleep Aft. Day-Shift .088 

Q67-Amt. of Sleep Aft. Day-Shift -.012 

Q68-Amt. of Sleep Aft. Eve-Shift -.147 

A-State Anxiety .198 

A-Trait Anxiety .142 

Q110-General Health .ll4 

Q112-Currently Rec. Treatment -.043 

Q116-Treatment for Lung Prob. .039 

Q118-Treat. for Ten. or Nerves .054 

Q119-Treat. for Stomach Prob. .019 

14 
T 

! 

work days (Q9), ratings of the physically staining nature of the job 

(Q12), a global job satisfaction measure (Q15), and type of shift worked 

(Q44). Other variables that produced significant correlations (.100 to 

.200) were: occupational identification, region, AF specialty, AF type of 

facility, years in current position, job difficulty (Q7), A-state anxiety, 

A-trait anxiety, ratings of the stressful nature of the job (Q14), ratings 

of the mentally straining nature of the job (Q13), satisfaction with 

immediate supervisor (Q21), general health (Q110), most efficient work 

time (Q55), and amount of sleep after an evening shift (Q68). 

General Reaction to the NMC, Stratified by Demographic Variables, Job 

Related Variables, and:Self E~ation. ThisiSection examines the general 

reaction to the NMC~27) to determine the degree of acceptance relative 

to various subgroups in the AF work force. Since the response to question 

27 is highly correlated with the response to more specific questions, the 

presentation of the results will be focused on the responses to question 

27. The discussion of job rating, job satisfaction, shift information, 

and general state of health, as they relate to question 27, will be 

limited to the global question from each section since there would be 

considerable overlap if subitems were also discussed. The global question 

in each category referred to the one question that was most general; 

e.g., in general, how difficult is your job? (Q7), how satisfied are you 

with being employed in AF? (Q15), what is your present work schedule? 

(Q44), and how would you describe your general state of health? (Q110). 

Each category included several more specific questions (subitems) that 

provided further information. These additional questions in each of the 

four categories were used in the regression analysis and factor analysis. 

Sex. Categorized responses of men and women appear in Table 5. Due 

to size limitations and similarity of responses to the various questions, 

this table, as well as suceeding tables, includes the responses for 

questions 25, 27, 33, 35, 37, 42, and 43. (Note: Percentages on this and 

succeeding tables may not add up to 100, due to a few responses beyond the 

scoreable range). Chi-square comparisons for the 19 NMC questions were 

significant (p < .01) except for questions 32, 36, and 41. Compared to 

men, a higher percentage of women reported they had received very little 

information concerning the NMC (35.4 percent versus 21.6 percent). The 

greatest percentage of men reported they had received most of their 

information by videotape, while women had received their information 

primarily by word of mouth. 

The percentages of women and men who reported very positive and 

generally positive reactions to the NMC (Q27) were nearly identical. A 

much larger percentage of women, as compared with men, reported they were 

uncertain about the NMC (43.6 to 30.0 percent). The tendency for women 

employees to express more uncertainty about the NMC was evident throughout 

most of the remaining questions. This greater uncertainty concerning the 

proposal is most likely related to occupational type. A majority of the 

women were involved in staff support areas (possibly secretarial and 

filing duties), with a relatively small percentage in technical positions. 

15 
r 

TABLE 5 

Percentages of Men and Women Responding 

to Selected New Maintenance Concept Questions 

Question Response 

Number Alternatives Men Women 

25 1 21.6 35.4 

2 59.0 56.5 

3 15.9 6.3 

4 3.4 .8 

27 1 8.0 8.8 

2 35.0 35.7 

3 30.0 43.6 

4 20.2 6.2 

5 6.7 4.8 

33 1 17.0 24.2 

2 36.5 28.7 

3 19.2 29.1 

4 19.8 12.6 

5 7.5 5.4 

35 1 13.4 16.7 

2 35.1 33.0 

3 19.6 28.5 

4 23.3 16.7 

5 8.6 5.0 

37 1 50.2 43.6 

2 35.6 31.2 

3 10.2 21.6 

4 2.8 1.8 

5 1.2 1.8 

42 1 34.0 46.7 

2 23.6 11.4 

3 4.9 8.1 

4 6.2 8.6 

5 20.5 16.2 

6 7.4 1.4 

7 3.3 7.6 

43 1 48.3 29.1 

2 12.6 8.9 

3 15.2 21.2 

4 17.6 31.5 

5 2.5 3.0 

6 2.9 1.5 

7 .9 4.9 

16 
r 

j 

Thus, the observed higher rate of uncertainty by women employees could be 

due to their job setting, a setting in which they would have little need 

to develop an attitude toward the various proposals, or a setting in which 

they received a limited amount of information concerning the proposed 

changes. The only questions on which the two sexes did not exhibit 

statistically significant differences involved automation in record 

keeping (Q32), less travel (Q36), and a reduction in watch standing (Q41). 

Age. Table 6 presents the categorized responses from various age 

groups. While differences in the percentages of respondents in different 

age groups who selected the various alternatives were relatively small, 

chi-square comparisons revealed that the differences were all 

statistically significant except for question 39. 

A comparison of the percentages of respondents checking the two 

favorable categories for question 27 gives an indication of differences 

among age groups. The percentages for the five younger age groups ranged 

from 27.7 to 42.3 percent. Values for the older age groups, except those 

60 and older, were all higher, ranging from 44.5 to 46.3 percent. There 

were corresponding changes in the percentage of respondents expressing 

negative attitudes toward the proposal. Within the four older age groups 

(45 to 60+), 19.7 to 23.9 percent expressed a negative reaction, compared 

to 26.2 to 31.6 percent of those in the younger age groups. The most 

obvious age differences in responses occurred for questions 42 and 43. 

Beginning at age category 45 to 49 through 60+, there was a consistent 

increase in the percentage of the respondents who said they would be 

retired when the NMC was implemented (29.0 to 67.7 percent on Q42 and 12.2 

percent to 59.6 percent on Q43). There was a significantly greater 

tendency for younger respondents (ages 24 and younger through 44) to 

indicate that the proposal would lead to their being relocated, which they 

would dislike. For all age groups, this response to question 42 was 

chosen most frequently by respondents in the 25 to 29 age group (35.6 

percent). 

Ethnic Background. Categorized responses from individuals with 

different ethnic backgrounds appear in Table 7. Even though the 

differences in percentages are relatively small, chi-square comparisons 

indicate that most of the differences were statistically significant (p < 

.01). 

In response to the question concerning their general reaction to the 

NMC (Q27), a higher percentage of individuals in the "'other" (i.e., 

individuals who selected this alternative rather than one of the five 

available ethnic backgrounds) category expressed negative reactions to the 

proposal. Blacks also tended to show a slightly lower percentage who 

favored the proposed changes, along with a slightly higher percentage of 

negative reactions. For the remainder of the NMC questions the Orientals, 

Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, and American Indians tended to be relatively 

similar. There was little indication that any one group was consistently 

more or less favorably disposed to the proposal. However, those who 

17 
r 

TABLE 6 

Responses to the New Maintenance Concept Based on Age 

Age 

Quest. Response 

Number Alt. 24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 

25 1 45.9 23.5 22.3 22.7 19.3 19.3 

2 45.9 58.7 61.6 59.3 61.4 60.8 

3 5.9 16.1 13.2 16.1 15.7 16.1 

4 2.4 1.7 2.8 1.8 3.5 3.6 

27 1 8.4 8.6 7.2 7.0 7.7 7.5 

2 19.3 32.5 31.4 31.5 34.6 38.8 

3 45.8 32.5 31.1 29.8 28.7 29.7 

4 21.7 19.5 20.7 24.0 22.2 17.7 

5 4.8 6.7 9.6 7.6 6.7 6.0 

33 1 25.9 13.6 14.9 14.3 15.2 17.7 

2 21.2 32.5 35.4 31.8 38.6 38.3 

3 22.4 20.3 20.8 19.7 17.9 18.7 

4 22.4 27.0 18.5 22.5 21.2 19.1 

5 8.2 6.2 10.3 11.7 7.1 6.1 

35 1 10.6 10.4 11.4 12.3 11.1 14.2 

2 28.2 31.1 35.5 30.5 36.1 35.3 

3 24.7 22.9 19.8 20.2 18.3 20.1 

4 24.7 27.9 23.5 24.3 24.6 23.1 

5 11.8 7.5 9.8 12.7 9.9 7.3 

37 1 45.9 58.1 56.3 53.2 51.0 48.1 

2 29.4 27.7 31.9 30.8 35.7 37.6 

3 16.5 11.5 8.2 10.5 9.8 10.4 

4 4.7 2.2 2.0 3.0 2.7 2.8 

5 3.5 o.s 1.5 2.4 0.8 1.0 

42 1 37.3 32.1 38.4 45.6 44.8 34.1 

2 3.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 4.6 29.0 

3 9.6 10.4 8.8 6.7 5.0 3.2 

4 9.6 14.8 11.6 6.4 7.3 4.4 

5 28.9 35.6 32.8 31.5 26.3 15.5 

6 1.2 0.3 0.3 1.3 8.2 12.0 

7 9.6 5.6 6.9 6.7 3.8 1.7 

43 1 28.6 36.4 44.4 57.3 56.1 51.8 

2 1.2 0.3 0.8 0.1 1.3 12.2 

3 38.1 34.4 27.2 19.3 14.7 10.8 

4 19.0 24.4 23.5 18.1 21.6 16.6 

5 7.1 2.8 1.7 2.2 2.9 3.2 

6 3.6 o.o 0.2 0.4 2.5 4.8 

7 2.4 1.5 2.3 2.4 1.0 0.6 

18 

of Respondents 

S0-54 55-59 60+ 

23.2 29.3 32.9 

60.1 55.3 47.6 

12.8 10.8 15.2 

3.8 4.6 4.3 

10.0 8.1 6.8 

34.5 36.6 34.0 

31.7 33.6 38.9 

17.3 19.6 16.0 

6.6 5.2 3.7 

19.7 22.4 18.0 

36.1 38.3 37.9 

20.0 18.5 28.0 

17 .s 15.0 13.7 

6.7 5.7 2.5 

15.2 17 .s 11.7 

36.7 38.8 40.5 

20.7 16.9 22.7 

19.8 20.8 21.5 

7.6 5.9 3.7 

46.9 44.1 36.2 

37.1 37 .s 46.6 

11.6 14.3 12.9 

3.1 3.1 3.7 

1.3 1.1 0.6 

23.5 20.1 13.3 

50.8 62.3 67.7 

3.7 1.8 1.9 

2.6 1.8 3.8 

8.2 6.0 2.5 

10.0 6.0 9.5 

1.3 2.0 1.3 

43.9 34.8 23.7 

26.9 41.5 59.6 

8.6 8.3 1.9 

14.2 10.7 8.3 

1.8 1.1 1.9 

4.2 2.7 3.8 

o.s 0.9 0.6 

I 

' j 
TABLE 7 

Responses to the New Maintenance Concept Based on Ethnic Identification 

Quest. Response Ethnic Background 

Number Alt. Ortl. Black White Hisp. Amind. Other 

25 1 34.7 27.3 21.3 23.2 25.3 29.1 

2 49.7 58.4 60.2 61.2 56.0 49.7 

3 15.0 10.6 15.1 12.8 14.3 16.6 

4 0.7 3.7 3.3 2.8 4.4 4.6 

27 1 8.3 6.6 8.1 7.9 7.9 6.7 

2 25.5 33.3 36.0 31.7 32.6 24.0 

3 43.4 32.6 30.1 33.4 37.1 28.7 

4 15.2 16.7 19.6 21.8 13.5 24.7 

5 7.6 10.7 6.2 5.2 9.0 16.0 

33 1 22.2 16.9 16.9 17.6 20.2 13.3 

2 34.0 37.9 36.8 36.8 33.7 28.0 

3 23.6 23.2 18.9 20.5 24.7 21.3 

4 14.6 15.7 19.9 20.7 13.5 20.7 

5 5.6 6.3 7.4 4.4 7.9 16.7 

35 1 17.2 13.1 13.1 13.3 18.0 10.6 

2 36.6 36.9 35.4 35.4 36.0 25.2 

3 23.4 22.2 19.6 20.2 22.5 20.5 

4 15.9 18.8 23.6 23.7 12.4 23.8 

5 6.9 9.1 8.4 7.4 11.2 19.2 

37 1 49.7 53.8 49.8 50.2 42.7 43.0 

2 37.2 33.3 35.4 36.1 40.4 31.8 

3 10.3 9.1 11.0 8.9 13.5 11.9 

4 1.4 2.2 2.7 3.9 3.4 4.6 

5 1.4 1.6 1.0 0.9 o.o 8.6 

42 1 33.1 39.2 34.8 28.6 32.2 33.1 

2 33.8 11.8 23.8 23.5 16.1 20.3 

3 4.9 7.6 4.6 7.0 12.6 3.4 

4 5.6 12.7 5.5 9.0 14.9 2.7 

5 19.7 20.1 20.6 19.6 14.9 17.6 

6 2.1 4.5 7.4 9.2 6.9 8.1 

7 0.7 4.1 3.2 3.1 2.3 14.9 

43 1 40.0 52.4 48.7 43.1 33.7 43.0 

2 22.8 4.8 12.5 12.9 8.1 10.7 

3 19.3 21.9 14.2 17.7 33.7 16.8 

4 15.9 15.9 18.1 19.5 19.8 14.8 

5 2.1 2.5 2.6 1.8 0.0 2.0 

6 o.o 1.3 2.9 4.4 2.3 4.0 

7 0.0 1.3 1.0 0.7 2.3 8.7 

i 

I 

19 

l 
listed their ethnic identity as "other" were consistent in exhibiting a 

slightly higher percentage of negative responses and a slightly lower 

percentage of favorable responses. Since these differences in reaction to 

the NMC proposal tend to be relatively small, they appear to be primarily 

determined by the number (percentage) of individuals in each of the ethnic 

groups who were supervisors (or nonsupervisors). For the Hispanic, 

Indian, Oriental, and White employees, between 22.3 and 25.1 percent were 

supervisors, compared to 15.9 and 15.3 percent of the Blacks and "Others." 

Since these latter two groups had a larger percentage of nonsupervisors in 

the overall sample, and employees who were nonsupervisors tended to 

respond more negatively, this would explain why there were some slight 

differences in general reaction to the NMC. 

Education. Respondents were placed in one of six groups on the basis 

of their formal education: 11 years or less, 12 years, 13 years, 14 

years, 15 years, and 16 years or more. This does not take into account 

the on-the-job educational experiences that many workers have completed. 

Categorized responses for individuals stratified by years of education 

appear in Table 8. Chi-square comparisons for each of the NMC questions 

were significant (p < .01). 

As years of formal education increased, there was a corresponding 

increase in the percentage of individuals reporting "considerable" to "a 

great deal" of knowledge concerning the NMC (12. 3 percent for 11 years or 

less to 25.2 percent for 16 plus years). 

Individuals with 11 or fewer years of education had the highest 

percentage reporting uncertainty about their general reaction to the NMC 

(36.8 percent) relative to the other education groups (33.5 to 22.6 

percent). This same group also had the smallest percentage (39.2 percent) 

indicating some degree of positive reaction to the general proposal. The 

group with college degrees clearly had the highest percentage expressing 

some degree of approval (58.7 percent versus 39.2 to 43.5 percent) and the 

lowest percentage expressing some degree of disapproval (18.5 percent 

versus 24 to 32.1 percent). This tendency for a higher percentage of the 

college educated group to express positive feelings concerning the NMC was 

evident throughout the remaining questions. 

Differences between groups were apparent for questions 42 and 43. In 

response to the reorganization (Q42), higher percentages of individuals 

with higher educational levels reported that they were at facilities that 

would evidence little change. The percentage of individuals who reported 

that the reorganization would not affect them since they would probably be 

retired was greatest for the group with the least education, 38 percent of 

those with less than a high school education and 18.5 percent of the 

college educated group. While only 13 percent of the college educated 

group indicated that the proposed changes would likely result in their 

relocation, a move that they would dislike, 23 percent of those in the 

groups with 13, 14, and 15 years of education responded similarly. 

20 
r "'4 

TABLE 8 

Responses to the New Maintenance Concept Based on Years of Education 

Quest. Response Number of Years of Education 

Number Alt. 11 12 13 14 15 16+ 

25 1 29.2 24.4 20.8 22.3 22.0 16.5 

2 58.5 60.9 62.0 58.7 56.6 58.3 

3 9.4 12.6 14.6 15.1 17.9 18.1 

4 2.9 1.9 2.5 3.7 3.6 7.1 

27 1 11.7 5.7 6.8 7.2 6.8 16.3 

2 27.5 33.5 36.7 32.9 34.5 42.4 

3 36.8 33.5 31.1 31.4 26.3 22.6 

4 17.0 20.5 20.7 20.8 25.3 12.3 

5 7.0 6.7 4.7 7.6 6.8 6.2 

33 1 14.8 14.6 15.4 15.2 16.7 30.7 

2 38.5 35.7 37.2 37.1 32.7 37.3 

3 22.5 22.2 19.7 18.3 17.2 13.7 

4 15.4 20.8 20.5 21.1 23.7 10.6 

5 8.3 6.8 7.3 8.3 9.7 7.4 

35 1 16.6 11.2 10.7 12.5 12.4 23.6 

2 31.4 33.7 36.2 34.4 32.6 40.7 

3 21.3 21.2 22.6 19.5 16.3 15.6 

4 21.9 25.5 23.9 23.5 28.2 12.8 

5 8.3 8.4 6.6 10.1 10.5 7.3 

37 1 35.9 45.1 48.5 50.8 56.4 63.2 

2 44.3 37.5 37.8 35.5 30.9 28.8 

3 12.6 12.7 9.4 9.8 9.0 5.3 

4 3.6 3.7 2.7 2.5 2.9 1.3 

5 3.6 1.1 1.6 1.3 0.7 1.4 

42 1 25.2 29.8 35.9 33.5 37.0 49.5 

2 38.0 28.5 19.0 20.3 17.6 18.5 

3 6.1 4.3 5.6 5.0 5.9 5.9 

4 4.9 6.0 6.3 7.4 5.4 5.8 

5 17.2 19.1 23.1 23.0 23.0 13.0 

6 4.9 9.2 7.1 6.3 7.6 3.7 

7 3.1 3.0 3.0 4.3 3.4 3.7 

43 1 35.9 45.1 46.1 50.4 53.3 52.9 

2 26.3 14.7 8.5 10.6 10.9 10.7 

3 10.8 14.7 15.6 16.2 18.7 14.8 

4 17.4 18.0 22.5 17.1 12.4 17.4 

5 5.4 2.7 3.6 2.3 1.5 0.9 

6 2.4 3.7 2.6 2.2 2.7 1.6 

7 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.8 

21 

J 
Higher percentages of individuals in the upper three educational 

level groups, compared to those with less education, indicated the 

potential alteration in work skills (Q43) would have little or no effect 

since these skills were already required (SO to 53 percent versus 36 to 46 

percent). The group with the least amount of formal education had the 

highest percentage of individuals indicating that the change would have 

little effect since they would be retired at the time of implementation 

(26.3 percent versus 8.5 to 14.7 percent), and that they would prefer to 

work with their current work skills (5.4 percent versus 0.9 to 3.6 

percent). 

Pay Schedule. Categorized responses of individuals with different 

pay schedules appear in Table 9. It should be noted that the wage leader 

(WL) and wage schedule (WS) groups involved an extremely small proportion 

of the overall sample (.1 and .5 percent). Differences in general 

schedule (GS), wage grade (WG), wage leader (WL), and wage supervisor (WS) 

percentages, based on the chi-square comparisons, were significant for all 

of the NMC questions. 

A higher percentage of the GS employees reported "considerable" to "a 

great deal" of knowledge concerning the NMC, than did those in the other 

groups (18.8 percent versus 8.6 to 12.5 percent). Differences were also 

noted in terms of the source of the information. For GS employees, 

approximately one-third reported that the videotape was their major 

source, with 21.4 percent obtaining their information via word of mouth. 

In comparison, 38 percent of the WS personnel received the majority of 

their information from management, with 20.6 percent indicating the 

videotape as their major source. 

While GS employees exhibited the highest percentage of favorable 

responses to the NMC (43.5 percent versus 33.5 to 41.2 percent), they also 

exhibited the highest percentage of negative responses (26.9 percent 

versus 8.8 to 21 percent). In comparison to WG employees, the percentages 

of GS employees who expressed favorable responses to more specific 

questions concerning the NMC were also consistently higher. However, for 

the same two groups, GS employees also tended consistently to have higher 

percentages of respondents expressing negative reactions to the more 

specific questions. A higher percentage of the WG employees indicated 

that they were undecided concerning many of the proposals. 

Grade Level. Categorized responses of individuals with different 

grade levels appear in Table 10. Chi-square comparisons for the NMC 

questions revealed that there were statistically significant differences 

on all of the questions. 

Individuals at the higher grade levels, especially those at the GS-13 

and GS-14 levels, reported having more information about the NMC. It is 

possible that this difference is due to their management level positions 

since their responses to question 26 indicate that the major source of the 

information for the GS-13 and 14 level respondents was via management 

22 

J 
TABLE 9 

Responses to the New Maintenance Concept Based on Pay Schedule 

Quest. Response Pay Schedule 

Number Alt. GS WG WL WS 

25 1 20.8 38.6 37.5 28.6 

2 60.3 52.2 50.0 62.9 

3 15.3 8.1 12.5 8.6 

4 3.5 0.9 o.o o.o 

27 1 8.1 5.6 o.o 8.8 

2 35.4 27.9 37.5 32.4 

3 29.4 45.1 50.0 50.0 

4 20.1 15.4 12.5 5.9 

5 6.8 5.6 o.o 2.9 

33 1 17.2 13.2 14.3 25.7 

2 36.8 31.6 57.1 40.0 

3 18.6 29.6 14.3 22.9 

4 19.9 18.6 o.o 5.7 

5 7.5 7.0 14.3 5.7 

35 1 13.3 10.0 12.5 31.4 

2 35.6 30.3 25.0 37.1 

3 19.0 29.2 25.0 20.0 

4 23.2 24.3 12.5 8.6 

5 8.9 6.2 25.0 2.9 

37 1 51.7 28.8 37.5 37.1 

2 35.1 39.0 12.5 42.9 

3 9.5 23.9 37.5 20.0 

4 2.5 6.4 o.o 0.0 

5 1.2 1.9 12.5 o.o 

42 1 35.4 25.6 14.3 27.3 

2 23.6 18.3 28.6 48.5 

3 4.9 5.9 14.3 12.1 

4 5.5 12.6 28.6 3.0 

5 19.7 28.2 14.3 9.1 

6 7.6 4.0 0.0 o.o 

7 3.4 5.2 0.0 o.o 

43 1 51.4 13.5 12.5 14.7 

2 12.1 14.8 25.0 23.5 

3 13.7 30.8 25.0 44.1 

4 16.9 28.1 37.5 17.6 

5 2.2 7.0 0.0 0.0 

6 2.8 3.4 o.o 0.0 

23 
TABLE 10 

Responses to the New Maintenance Concept Based on GS-Level of Respondents 

Quest. Response GS-Grade Levels 

Number Alt. <5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14+ 

25 1 49.0 60.0 32.6 36.7 36.2 44.3 23.0 21.2 10.8 9.6 

2 42.0 40.0 60.3 52.2 55.3 48.5 62.8 62.6 60.8 44.3 

3 7.0 o.o 7.1 10.0 7.5 6.2 12.2 13.7 23.4 29.6 

4 2.0 o.o o.o o.o 0.8 o.o 1.9 2.4 4.8 16.5 

27 1 11.5 5.9 6.7 9.1 6.8 7.4 5.7 5.2 13.9 21.1 

2 26.0 17.6 31.8 29.5 26.1 33.0 30.3 31.2 52.9 53.3 

3 46.4 64.7 39.7 47.7 41.1 41.5 32.8 30.8 20.8 16.2 

4 9.4 5.9 15.6 11.4 18.4 10.6 24.1 24.0 9.9 6.7 

5 6.8 5.9 6.1 2.3 6.8 7.4 7.1 8.7 2.4 2.4 

33 1 25.3 11.8 15.8 23.5 11.6 8.7 11.6 13.4 28.5 38.8 

2 27.8 41.2 33.3 36.5 33.9 31.5 34.5 35.7 43.8 42.3 

3 30.9 35.3 24.9 27.1 24.7 32.6 20.2 19.4 14.5 10.7 

4 10.3 5.9 20.9 8.2 22.9 16.3 24.9 22.6 10.0 5.1 

5 5.7 5.9 5.1 3.5 6.8 10.9 8.9 8.9 3.3 3.1 

35 1 18.1 18.8 13.0 13.1 10.0 12.0 8.1 10.8 20.8 32.7 

2 29.5 25.0 30.5 29.8 32.0 28.3 30.6 34.1 47.8 45.2 

3 26.4 43.8 26.6 32.1 23.6 27.2 21.7 19.7 14.6 10.5 

4 21.2 12.5 23.2 21.4 24.1 20.7 29.0 25.5 12.5 8.2 

5 4.7 o.o 6.8 2.4 10.2 12.0 10.7 9.9 4.4 3.3 

37 1 42.7 31.3 55.7 45.8 43.3 35.6 42.2 48.4 65.7 66.4 

2 29.7 37.5 27.3 26.5 37.5 34.4 39.8 37.1 29.1 27.2 

3 20.8 25.0 15.9 21.7 14.0 23.3 13.3 9.8 3.8 5.3 

4 2.6 6.3 1.1 4.8 4.0 2.2 3.4 3.4 0.6 0.9 

5 4.2 o.o 0.0 1.2 1.3 4.4 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.2 

42 1 36.6 70.6 38.6 35.8 37.7 30.8 17.8 37.2 49.6 47.9 

2 10.4 11.8 8.8 25.9 8.5 15.4 22.6 24.3 28.5 35.2 

3 13.7 5.9 5.8 4.9 6.6 6.6 5.7 4.1 4.5 3.7 

4 10.4 o.o 11.1 11.1 11.4 17.6 7.0 4.8 3.7 3.9 

5 17.5 5.9 28.7 14.8 30.2 24.2 33.1 16.8 7.9 5.1 

6 1.6 0.0 1.8 2.5 2.1 1.1 8.6 9.8 4.9 3.0 

7 9.8 5.9 5.3 3.7 3.4 4.4 5.1 3.0 0.8 1.2 

43 1 21.4 26.7 31.3 15.8 38.7 12.1 33.8 60.5 59.5 45.2 

2 8.6 6.7 7.8 15.8 5.3 11.0 12.6 11.3 14.0 24.0 

3 32.6 13.3 27.1 28.9 29.1 27.5 21.6 9.4 9.0 9.0 

4 28.3 40.0 25.9 30.3 21.9 41.8 22.9 12.6 13.7 19.6 

5 1.6 13.3 4.2 2.6 2.7 6.6 4.2 2.0 1.2 0.2 

6 1.1 0.0 1.8 2.6 0.8 1.1 3.5 3.4 2.0 1.4 

7 6.4 o.o 1.8 2.6 1.6 o.o 1.4 0.8 0.6 0.7 

I 

24 

J 
r 

""' 

' 

' .>f' 

(41.1 and 24.7 percent). The percentage checking this response in the 

lower GS-level groups was between 12.3 and 16.7 percent. The videotape 

was the major source of information for individuals at the lower GS 

levels. A larger percentage of the respondents at the higher GS levels 

also reported that a majority of their information came from the FAA 

Order. 

Overall reactions to the NMC were related to individuals' GS levels. 

When compared to individuals in the four highest GS levels, larger 

percentages of individuals in the lower grade levels reported that they 

were uncertain about their reactions to the NMC (39.7 to 64.7 percent 

versus 16.2 to 32.8 percent). Individuals in grades GS-13 and 14 also 

expressed the greatest degree of acceptance for the NMC, with 66.8 and 

74.4 percent expressing generally positive to very positive reactions. 

This tendency for the higher GS-level respondents to exhibit greater 

support and less rejection of the proposed changes was apparent throughout 

the remaining questions. 

Years Worked for FAA/CAA. Table 11 includes categorized responses in 

terms of job tenure. The chi-square comparisons for questions 36 through 

40 failed to reach statistical significance. Even though differences 

across groups for the remaining questions were statistically significant, 

there was little indication that any group was remarkably or consistently 

different from the others. 

There was a tendency for individuals who had worked for the FAA for 

less than a year to use the "strongly support" category more often than 

individuals in the other groups. Out of this group, 17.2 percent said 

that they felt very positive about the proposed NMC. The tenure group 

with the next highest percentage in selection of the very positive 

category had the most experience, 21 plus years (9.7 percent); 

percentages for the other groups ranged from 5.8 to 7.5 percent. These 

same two groups also had the highest percentage of respondents indicating 

some degree of positive reaction to the overall proposal (Q27). As could 

be expected, the largest difference between groups occurred in response to 

question 42, where a much higher percentage of individuals in the 11 to 20 

and 21 years or more groups (22.4 and 46.7 percent) indicated that the 

proposed changes would have little effect on them since they would be 

retired at the time of implementation. A higher percentage of individuals 

in both of these groups also reported that the proposal would lead to 

their retirement (9.5 to 11.7 percent compared to 0.4 to 3.5 percent). 

The response alternative "that the proposal would result in their 

relocation to a maintenance hub, which they would probably dislike," 

received the highest rate of endorsement from respondents who had worked 

for the FAA for 1 to 5 years (34.4 to 40.2 percent). 

Years in Present Position. Categorized responses in terms of tenure 

in present position appear in Table 12. Chi-square comparisons indicate 

that the differences on questions 25, 30, 36, 40, 41, and 42 were not 

statistically significant. 

25 
TABLE 11 

Responses to the New Maintenance Concept 

Based on Years Worked for the FAA/CAA 

Quest. Response Years Worked for the FAA/CAA 

Number Alt. <1 1 2 3 4 5 6-10 11-20 21+ 

25 1 39.6 39.2 23.6 25.1 24.7 23.2 23.8 21.5 18.7 

2 53.9 48.8 65.9 60.0 61.5 61.4 60.5 59.6 58.5 

3 5.2 10.4 9.5 12.9 11.5 13.4 13.7 15.9 16.9 

4 1.3 1.6 0.9 2.0 2.3 1.8 1.9 2.8 5.9 

27 1 17.2 6.4 7.4 6.8 5.8 6.9 5.9 7.5 9.7 

2 26.5 32.0 27.8 33.5 35.9 33.3 31.3 34.5 39.1 

3 39.1 39.2 42.1 31.9 29.3 35.4 31.5 29.8 28.2 

4 13.9 20.0 18.1 19.9 21.2 18.3 22.1 21.3 16.8 

5 3.3 2.4 4.6 7.6 7.8 5.6 9.0 6.7 6.0 

33 1 21.7 13.7 11.2 15.5 13.1 14.8 15.5 16.5 20.2 

2 32.9 39.5 34.9 33.9 37.5 36.9 32.8 37.6 37.7 

3 25.0 18.5 22.3 21.5 21.2 17.0 21.1 19.6 17.9 

4 17.8 22.6 24.7 21.1 21.2 24.7 21.2 19.0 17.0 

5 2.6 5.6 7.0 8.0 7.0 6.6 9.5 7.2 7.1 

35 1 13.8 9.7 10.3 10.4 8.1 12.2 11.7 13.3 15.9 

2 40.8 27.4 31.3 32.3 37.4 32.2 31.9 36.3 37.3 

3 21.1 26.6 23.4 23.5 22.3 20.6 21.8 18.6 17.7 

4 20.4 28.2 28.5 26.3 24.6 25.1 23.6 23.2 21.0 

5 3.9 8.1 6.5 7.6 7.5 9.9 10.9 8.6 8.1 

37 1 58.7 49.2 53.0 53.4 47.5 53.7 47.7 49.2 49.8 

2 24.7 31.1 31.6 29.1 37.1 33.6 34.4 37.0 36.8 

3 12.0 15.6 13.0 12.7 11.9 9.7 12.8 9.7 9.6 

4 4.0 1.6 1.4 3.6 2.0 2.3 3.2 3.3 2.5 

5 0.7 2.5 0.9 1.2 1.4 0.8 1.9 0.9 1.3 

42 1 32.0 26.2 25.4 33.2 31.7 34.8 42.4 40.8 25.2 

2 4.8 4.1 4.2 4.5 6.2 6.2 9.9 22.4 46.7 

3 12.2 13.9 7.0 8.5 9.7 7.7 5.7 3.6 2.8 

4 17.7 9.8 17.8 12.1 11.1 8.5 7.2 4.2 2.8 

5 29.9 40.2 37.6 34.4 35.5 35.3 25.7 16.5 9.0 

6 0.7 1.6 1.9 0.4 0.6 3.4 3.5 9.5 11.7 

7 2.7 4.1 6.1 6.9 5.3 3.9 5.4 2.9 1.7 

43 1 35.4 26.0 37.4 36.4 41.1 43.7 51.8 55.3 45.1 

2 2.7 1.6 1.4 2.8 2.3 3.1 5.0 10.7 26.5 

3 36.1 36 6 35.0 30.0 27.0 23.0 18.4 10.1 7.6 

4 22.4 26.8 22.9 24.7 25.8 23.5 19.4 16.8 13.0 

5 2.7 4.9 1.4 3.6 2.1 3.6 2.6 2.6 2.2 

6 o.o 0.8 0.5 o.o o.o 1.3 1.2 3.5 5.1 

7 0.7 3.3 1.4 2.4 1. 8 1.8 1.6 1.0 0.6 

26 

J 
f 

TABLE 12 

Responses to the New Maintenance Concept Based on Years in Position 

Quest. Response Years in Position 

Number Alt. <1 1 2 3 4 5 6-10 ll-20 21+ 

25 1 24.1 21.0 20.7 23.3 18.7 20.4 23.5 23.4 23.7 

2 57.1 60.0 59.2 59.6 61.2 59.6 59.4 60.7 60.4 

3 15.2 15.3 16.6 14.6 16.3 17.2 13.8 12.9 10.7 

4 3.4 3.8 3.5 2.4 3.8 2.8 3.1 2.9 4.8 

27 1 ll.4 10.0 8.4 8.8 7.9 10.1 6.0 5.3 8.6 

2 37.0 39.2 39.6 33.5 39.8 34.5 34.5 29.2 25.3 

3 30.1 29.7 28.9 31.6 26.4 28.8 31.6 33.6 34.9 

4 16.6 17.3 17.1 17.0 19.9 20.0 20.9 23.2 21.6 

5 4.8 3.8 6.0 8.6 5.9 6.7 6.8 8.6 9.3 

33 1 21.3 18.7 17.6 20.0 18.9 17.4 16.1 11.6 15.2 

2 38.6 35.7 37.6 35.1 38.1 36.6 36.3 36.6 29.3 

3 19.0 19.4 20.0 18.5 17.0 17.6 20.1 20.9 21.9 

4 16.4 21.5 17.3 18.5 17.8 20.4 20.0 21.8 22.6 

5 4.8 4.6 7.5 7.8 7.5 7.9 7.5 9.1 11.1 

35 1 14.9 14.5 14.6 14.0 13.5 13.8 13.4 9.2 12.6 

2 37.0 35.1 36.8 37.7 38.4 33.0 35.1 33.1 28.5 

3 21.2 20.1 19.5 20.1 18.4 18.6 19.7 20.6 20.0 

4 20.3 25.0 20.9 20.0 20.8 24.1 22.9 26.6 29.3 

5 6.7 5.3 8.2 8.3 8.7 10.5 9.0 10.5 9.6 

37 1 57.0 59.1 51.9 51.5 54.5 50.0 47.1 41.4 41.9 

2 31.1 28.8 35.1 33.1 32.9 33.8 37.3 41.6 38.1 

3 9.3 8.3 9.3 10.9 10.8 10.7 11.4 12.1 14.1 

4 1.9 2.4 2.3 3.4 1.2 4.3 2.9 3.1 5.2 

5 0.7 1.4 1.4 1.1 0.6 1.2 1.3 1.7 0.7 

42 1 39.5 34.7 32.6 39.8 41.4 35.5 39.0 24.8 12.4 

2 ll.4 12.0 13.6 17.7 12.3 19.3 27.8 38.3 53.2 

3 7.6 9.2 7.9 7.2 5.8 5.1 2.7 1.8 2.2 

4 ll.2 9.8 9.2 6.4 7.9 5.5 3.1 3.9 2.6 

5 25.6 26.5 28.1 19.5 22.5 24.0 15.8 15.5 10.5 

6 2.4 3.7 3.9 4.4 4.8 6.6 8.5 13.3 16.5 

7 2.4 3.8 4.6 5.1 5.2 3.7 3.0 2.3 2.6 

43 1 45.0 42.4 45.5 46.3 49.5 48.8 53.1 48.4 42.2 

2 6.8 5.7 6.4 6.8 7.4 10.3 16.2 19.7 28.4 

3 24.6 25.2 21.3 18.7 14.6 17.4 9,3 8.1 7.5 

4 21.2 20.8 21.1 21.6 24.1 17.6 15.1 13.1 11.6 

5 1.6 2.1 1.8 3.2 0.8 3.5 2.9 3.6 1.5 

6 0.4 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.4 2.7 6.0 8.2 

7 0.3 1.7 2.3 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.7 1.1 0.7 

I I 27 I 

l l 
While tenure in a given position did not result in any significant 

differences in knowledge of the NMC, there were differences regarding the 

source from which individuals received the majority of their information. 

This difference was primarily due to the percentage of individuals 

reporting they had received their information from the union. Of 

individuals who had been in their position for 5 or more years, 2.7 to 3.4 

percent indicated the union was the major source, compared to 1.7 percent 

or less of those with less time in position. 

Individuals who had 11 or more years experience in their position 

comprised the highest percentage indicating that they felt generally to 

very negative about the proposal. There was also a smaller percentage of 

individuals in these groups reporting positive reactions. Those reporting 

that they had been in their position for 2 years or less had the highest 

percentage of positive responses and the lowest percentage of negative 

responses on question 27. This trend was consistent throughout the rest 

of the questions on the NMC. With increasing years in position, 

individuals reported greater rejection and less acceptance of the proposed 

changes. 

Type of Facility. Categorized responses in Table 13 reflect type of 

facility in-which the individual worked. Chi-square values were 

statistically significant for all of the questions. The most obvious 

difference was between personnel located in the Regional Office (RO) and 

those working in other facilities. Individuals who categorized themselves 

as "other" tended to respond much like individuals in the RO. 

In terms of their general reaction to the NMC (Q27), 20.3 percent of 

RO personnel and 9.6 percent of "other" personnel indicated they felt very 

positive about the proposal. The percentages of individuals in other 

facilities who responded in like fashion ranged from 4.4 to 6.8 percent. 

This difference was also apparent in the percentages of individuals who 

expressed negative reactions to the NMC. Only 1.1.percent of the RO 

respondents expressed very negative reactions concerning the proposal 

while 5.4 to 10.9 percent of the individuals in other facilities felt the 

same way. This tendency for RO personnel and to a lesser degree "other" 

personnel to feel significantly more positive about the NMC was evident 

throughout the remaining NMC questions. 

Responses to questions 33 and 35, concerning the move to centralized 

maintenance hubs, appear to have been influenced by type of facility in 

which the respondent worked. While 40.8 percent (Q33) and 32.1 percent 

(Q35) of the RO personnel offered strong support for the centralization 

concept, only 8.3 to 19.6 percent of the personnel at the remaining 

facilities expressed strong support. The least amount of support and the 

highest level of nonfavorable responses concerning the proposal occurred 

for individuals in remote nontowers, small towers or stations, and 

intermediate towers. 

28 
TABLE l3 

Responses to the New Maintenance Concept Based on Type of Facility 

Quest. Response Facility Type 

Number Alt. ARTCC MajTo IntTo SmaTo ReNTo RegOf Other 

25 1 30.2 22.7 16.6 15.4 19.4 23.7 23.9 

2 54.2 58.2 67 .o 67.5 65.1 50.3 56.1 

3 12.3 16.0 2.8 15.7 13.7 18.1 15.3 

4 3.2 3.1 0.1 1.3 1.8 8.0 4.4 

27 1 6.1 6.3 4.4 6.8 5.5 20.3 9.6 

2 30.1 31.2 31.9 36.6 33.4 47.4 37.9 

3 34.9 29.1 30.0 28.5 32.4 24.6 31.0 

4 20.0 22.4 24.6 22.7 23.0 6.6 15.7 

5 8.4 10.9 9.1 5.4 5.6 1.1 5.4 

33 1 14.4 15.8 11.7 13.4 10.0 40.8 19.6 

2 37.3 33.8 35.1 35.8 35.0 39.6 37.5 

3 22.3 20.7 19.4 16.8 20.4 12.6 21.2 

4 17.2 22.0 22.8 25.8 26.2 5.7 15.7 

5 8.6 7.7 11.1 8.1 8.5 1.3 5.8 

35 1 13.0 12.3 8.3 8.5 7.1 32.1 15.4 

2 36.4 37.1 33.9 30.1 31.2 45.4 35.6 

3 21.6 19.7 18.0 20.0 19.0 14.1 22.3 

4 20.4 22.7 27.0 31.6 32.1 7.1 19.1 

5 8.6 8.1 12.8 9.8 10.8 1.3 7.5 

37 1 49.4 53.9 46.3 48.5 43.9 62.2 49.2 

2 35.6 30.8 38.8 37.4 41.1 29.5 33.2 

3 10.0 10.8 9.2 11.0 12.2 7.5 13.1 

4 3.1 3.4 4.5 1.6 1.9 0.4 3.5 

5 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.4 1.0 

42 1 73.5 59.3 20.3 6.8 3.8 55.8 19.7 

2 17.5 21.3 22.7 19.8 25.4 26.8 30.3 

3 1.1 2.0 5.0 8.8 7.3 6.4 6.5 

4 1.1 2.1 8.1 10.1 8.0 3.7 8.7 

5 1.8 7.8 31.3 38.5 36.7 5.0 22.0 

6 2.5 5.7 7.6 9.9 15.0 1.5 8.8 

7 2.4 1.7 5.0 6.2 3.9 0.6 3.8 

43 1 70.3 60.0 49.6 31.6 40.7 41.2 36.8 

2 9.5 9.5 10.5 10.8 12.4 17.4 16.8 

3 7.0 12.3 15.1 24.1 16.2 15.7 17.8 

4 9.1 13.6 17.5 24.2 21.4 23.2 20.9 

5 1.5 2.1 2.8 3.8 3.7 1.3 2.4 

6 1.5 2.0 2.9 3.8 4.6 0.8 3.7 

7 1.1 0.4 1.5 1.6 1.0 0.2 1.5 

29 
On question 35, the percentages of small tower and remote nontower 

individuals who expressed some degree of disfavor with the proposed change 

(41.4 and 42.9 percent) were slightly greater than the percentages 

expressing some degree of support (38.6 and 38.3 percent). The concern 

that these individuals felt about the centralization issue was also 

evident in their responses to question 42. When questioned about what 

they would see for themselves during the time of reorganization, the 

largest percentage of individuals in intermediate towers, small towers, 

and remote nontowers indicated they felt they would be required to 

relocate in a maintenance hub and they would probably dislike it (from 

31.3 to 38.5 percent). Compared to the other groups, the percentages of 

individuals at these facilities who indicated that they would retire at 

the time of implementation were also higher (7.6 to 15 percent versus 1.5 

to 8.8 percent). 

AF Specialty. Categorized responses from individuals in different AF 

specialties appear in Table 14. Chi-square comparisons were significant 

for all of the questions. 

In comparison with individuals whose specialty was in communications, 

radar, navaids, automation, environmental support, and engineering areas, 

higher percentages in the staff support and "other" groups (23.0 and 27.4 

percent versus 12.1 to 18.5 percent) reported receiving "considerable" to 

"a great deal" of information concerning the NMC. These two groups also 

had the highest percentage of individuals reporting that they had received 

their information via management. 

While 14.4 and 15.6 percent of the individuals in staff support and 

"other" groups reported very positive general reactions to the NMC (Q27), 

only 5.8 to 7.7 percent of the individuals in the remaining groups were 

positive. These two groups also differed from the other groups in terms 

of the percentages indicating a negative to very negative reaction to the 

proposal (10.3 and 14.1 percent compared to 20.4 and 32.1 percent). The 

generally more favorable opinions that were expressed by individuals in 

these two groups on question 27 were also evident for the more specific 

questions concerning the NMC. While the percentages of individuals in the 

remaining specialties (communications, radar, navaids, automation, and 

environmental systems) who responded to the various alternatives were 

quite similar, there was a tendency for slightly higher percentages of the 

radar and automation personnel to express negative reactions. 

A high percentage of the automation personnel (73.3 percent) reported 

that the implementation of the NMC (Q42) would have little effect on them 

since they were at facilities that would experience little change. There 

was a smaller percentage of individuals in the automation, staff support, 

and "other" groups (1.2 to 9.4 percent) than in the other four specialty 

groups (18.8 to 29.5 percent) who indicated they would dislike the 

relocation requirement of the plan. 

30 
TABLE 14 

Responses to the New Maintenance Concept Based on AF Specialty 

Quest. Response AF Specialty Number Alt. Comm Radar Navai Auto EnSys StSup Other 

25 1 26.7 18.8 15.0 24.4 34.6 21.2 31.1 

2 58.7 63.9 66.5 58.9 53.1 55.8 41.2 

3 12.0 14.5 16.1 14.3 10.3 17.5 18.2 

4 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.2 1.8 5.5 9.2 

27 1 7.5 5.8 7.7 5.8 7.2 14.4 15.6 

2 32.3 31.5 38.5 32.1 31.9 47.0 41.4 

3 30.8 30.6 29.6 30.4 40.5 28.2 28.4 

4 20.7 24.6 19.8 23.4 14.0 7.4 10.1 

5 8.5 7.5 4.4 7.9 6.4 2.9 4.0 

33 1 18.3 12.9 14.5 14.2 16.6 33.3 29.2 

2 36.1 34.8 39.6 36.7 36.2 38.5 34.8 

3 19.5 18.9 17.5 20.8 25.5 18.9 20.1 

4 19.7 24.5 21.6 20.3 14.7 6.2 ll.4 

5 6.4 8.9 6.8 8.1 7.0 3.2 4.2 

35 1 14.3 10.0 10.7 12.5 13.6 26.1 22.8 

2 35.6 32.5 35.5 35.9 34.8 42.0 38.6 

3 18.5 18.6 19.8 20.9 23.6 19.0 21.4 

4 23.8 27.1 25.8 22.0 21.1 10.3 12.7 

5 7.8 ll.8 8.2 8.6 7.0 2.5 4.2 

37 1 50.7 50.1 49.9 56.2 31.2 61.8 55.1 

2 36.0 35.9 38.1 31.3 41.2 25.3 30.5 

3 9.6 9.5 9.2 8.9 20.3 10.3 11.6 

4 2.3 3.6 2.3 2.4 5.2 2.1 1.3 

5 1.4 0.8 0.5 1.2 2.1 0.5 1.3 

42 1 36.1 22.3 16.6 73.3 37.3 52.5 43.0 

2 22.7 23.9 25.3 17.3 20.8 27.8 29.9 

3 6.4 5.5 6.9 1.2 5.4 4.1 3.4 

4 8.1 6.1 7.5 1.2 8.6 3.4 5.6 

5 18.8 28.7 29.5 1.2 21.1 6.2 9.4 

6 4.6 10.6 10.5 3.5 2.9 3.4 4.9 

7 3.3 2.9 3.7 2.3 3.7 2.6 3.2 

43 1 43.5 60.7 32.3 82.0 22.7 39.8 38.2 

2 12.7 10.3 12.8 7.2 14.8 19.5 20.3 

3 21.7 10.1 21.4 3.2 28.2 8.3 14.9 

4 17.7 13.2 24.4 4.4 25.7 26.8 18.6 

5 2.1 1.9 3.4 0.7 4.8 1.7 2.1 

6 1.7 2.8 4.6 1.6 2.1 2.0 3.8 

7 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.8 2.0 1.7 

31 

l 
TABLE 15 

Response to the New Maintenance Concept Based on Occupational Identification 

Occupational Identification 

Quest. Response Elec. Env. Sta. 

Number Alt. Tech. Tech. Eng. Sup. Other 

25 1 20.6 36.0 14.0 22.8 37.8 

2 62.9 53.0 54.9 59.2 38.5 

3 14.1 9.9 22.3 14.6 15.0 

4 2.3 0.8 8.8 3.4 8.1 

27 1 5.4 6.0 20.3 13.3 14.3 

2 32.6 28.4 51.6 43.5 36.3 

3 30.2 44.1 19.0 33.4 36.3 

4 23.7 14.5 6.9 7.5 9.4 

5 8.0 6.9 2.2 2.3 3.0 

33 1 12.1 13.8 40.6 29.8 27.9 

2 35.8 37.0 41.4 39.8 31.9 

3 19.5 26.2 10.5 19.6 25.5 

4 23.8 15.7 4.8 8.2 10.1 

5 8.8 7.3 2.5 2.6 4.4 

35 1 9.4 11.4 31.9 22.4 19.4 

2 33.3 34.2 47.0 40.1 35.7 

3 19.7 25.5 11.1 22.1 26.2 

4 27.2 21.9 7.2 11.2 13.6 

5 10.4 7.0 2.8 4.1 4.9 

37 1 49.8 31.1 68.1 52.1 44.2 

2 36.6 41.3 27.0 29.9 31.8 

3 9.6 20.3 4.2 15.1 19.1 

4 2.9 5.3 0.3 2.7 2.8 

5 1.2 2.0 0.5 0.3 2.1 

42 1 29.4 35.1 59.3 45.4 44.6 

2 23.0 19.9 24.4 27.8 26.9 

3 5.1 5.0 5.3 6.2 4.6 

4 6.2 9.6 3.2 5.2 6.2 

5 23.5 23.0 5.0 8.3 10.6 

6 9.2 2.7 1.1 3.4 5.3 

7 3.8 4.5 1.8 3.7 1.7 

43 1 52.7 21.7 55.9 34.7 29.1 

2 10.8 14.2 13.4 18.3 21.1 

3 14.1 29.4 12.9 12.6 15.3 

4 15.7 25.1 16.2 26.8 26.5 

5 2.3 5.8 0.6 2.5 3.2 

6 3.3 1.9 0.5 2.5 3.6 

7 1.1 1.9 0.5 2.5 1.0 

32 
Occupational Identification. Categorized responses from individuals 

with different occupational identifications appear in Table 15. 

Chi-square comparisons indicate that the differences in percentages of 

individuals responding to the various categories was significant for all 

of the questions. 

Engineers tended to differ from other groups in their responses to 

most of the questions. They reported more knowledge of the proposal and 

were significantly more in favor of the overall concept, with 71.9 percent 

expressing generally positive to very positive feelings. While not 

expressing as much support, 56.8 percent of station support personnel and 

50.6 percent of those categorized as "others" also expressed positive 

feelings in terms of their general reaction to the NMC. The lowest levels 

of support for the various proposed changes generally came from 

electronics technicians and environmental support technicians. The 

questions dealing with the centralization issue (Q33 and Q35) generated 

the lowest levels of support in these latter groups, where 32.6 and 37.6 

percent of the electonic technicians and 23.0 and 28.9 percent of the 

environmental support technicians indicated they were not in favor of or 

rejected the concept. 

AF Program. Categorized responses from personnel in each of the 

three-xF Program areas appear in Table 16. Chi-square comparisons 

indicate significant differences for responses to all 19 of the NMC 

questions. 

When compared to the other two groups (maintenance and other), a 

smaller percentage of individuals in the facilities and equipment (F and 

E) area reported having "considerable" to "a great deal" of knowledge 

concerning the NMC. For this group and the "other" group, the "word of 

mouth" category was cited most frequently as the major source for their 

information. For those in maintenance, more than one-third indicated that 

the videotape was their major source of information. 

A higher percentage of F and E personnel indicated that they felt 

"generally positive" to "very positive" about the proposal than did 

personnel in the other groups. The smallest percentage of positive 

responses was by maintenance personnel. As has been true for the previous 

categorizations, this difference in responses between groups on Q27 was 

also consistently evident throughout the remaining questions. 

Region. Table 17 includes the categorized responses from individuals 

working in each of the 10 regions. Chi-square comparisons revealed that 

the differences were significant for all questions except questions 37, 38 

and 40. 

There were slight differences between regions in reported awareness 

of the NMC, with higher percentages of individuals in the Central (CE), 

(then) Western (WE), and (then) Northwest (NW) reporting "considerable" to 

"a great deal" of information about the proposal. The Southern (SO) 

33 
TABLE 16 

Response to the New Maintenance Concept Based on AF Program 

AF Program 

Quest. Response 

Number Alt. F and E Maint Other 

25 1 39.7 20.6 39.7 

2 46.4 61.2 38.5 

3 11.5 14.9 13.9 

4 2.5 3.1 7.6 

27 1 15.6 7.2 11.7 

2 37.8 34.7 36.8 

3 32.7 30.5 34.2 

4 9.7 20.6 10.4 

5 4.3 6.9 6.2 

33 1 36.9 15.3 24.5 

2 34.7 36.7 34.0 

3 17.6 19.6 23.2 

4 7.7 20.7 10.5 

5 2.8 7.7 7.8 

35 1 26.4 11.8 21.7 

2 40.1 35.1 33.6 

3 19.9 19.7 24.0 

4 10.5 24.3 14.5 

5 2.8 9.1 6.3 

37 1 56.4 49.2 50.0 

2 31.1 35.9 32.1 

3 10.3 10.8 13.6 

4 0.9 3.0 2.3 

5 1.4 1.1 2.0 

42 1 54.6 32.4 53.8 

2 21.5 23.4 23.1 

3 6.0 5.0 6.3 

4 4.2 6.2 6.3 

5 8.7 21.5 4.9 

6 3.0 7.8 1.4 

7 1.2 3.6 4.2 

43 1 46.3 48.5 40.0 

2 12.9 12.3 13.8 

3 18.8 15.0 15.9 

4 18.8 17.5 24.1 

5 1.5 2.6 1.7 

6 1.2 3.1 0.3 

7 o.o 1.1 4.1 

34 
I 

! 

TABLE 17 

Responses to the New Maintenance Concept Based on Region of Employment 

Quest. Response Region Number Alt. NE EA so GL CE sw RM WE NW EU 

25 1 20.5 19.2 30.3 24.0 19.3 24.3 20.6 17.6 17.5 28.4 

2 61.3 65.9 57.8 57.9 57.5 58.3 65.8 57.0 57.6 50.3 

3 14.7 12.6 9.3 15.6 18.1 14.0 10.4 20.3 20.0 19.5 

4 3.4 2.2 2.4 2.4 5.1 3.4 3.0 4.7 4.9 1.8 

27 1 3.8 5.8 5.2 7.2 7.9 8.9 10.3 10.7 10.5 8.9 

2 27.3 30.2 31.6 34.1 40.6 32.6 40.7 37.1 43.6 32.1 

3 32.9 32.7 31.9 31.3 31.5 32.6 31.1 28.6 23.6 33.3 

4 27.3 22.2 22.7 19.2 16.6 19.9 14.1 17.4 17.1 16.7 

5 8.7 9.0 8.3 8.0 3.5 5.7 3.7 5.9 5.2 8.9 

33 1 10.7 15.3 14.1 15.0 16.7 19.4 17.6 20.3 21.0 17.3 

2 30.7 33.9 36.4 35.0 40.4 34.7 42.6 35.8 38.1 38.1 

3 21.7 21.1 18.8 20.2 19.5 21.1 16.1 19.6 19.1 23.2 

4 28.3 21.0 22.0 20.4 18.6 18.4 17.6 16.2 18.0 12.5 

5 8.6 8.7 8.7 9.4 4.9 6.4 5.8 7.8 3.8 8.9 

35 1 8.3 10.2 11.3 10.8 14.5 15.5 13.8 16.8 16.3 10.7 

2 29.1 32.1 31.6 36.1 39.4 36.0 39.3 35.3 39.0 39.9 

3 23.5 19.7 20.4 19.1 23.5 18.9 19.8 19.0 18.9 22.0 

4 28.7 27.9 25.4 24.7 17.5 21.7 19.2 21.5 20.1 19.0 

5 10.4 10.2 11.3 9.3 5.1 8.0 7.7 7.4 5.8 8.3 

37 1 50.9 51.9 45.9 48.9 47.3 48.5 52.3 53.6 50.6 47.6 

2 30.9 34.2 38.1 35.2 37.3 35.2 35.5 33.0 36.1 36.9 

3 13.4 10.3 11.0 11.7 11.2 10.8 9.5 10.3 10.3 12.5 4 3.1 2.5 3.5 2.5 4.0 4.3 1.8 2.2 2.1 1.2 

5 1.7 1.2 1.5 1.7 0.2 1.2 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.8 

42 1 38.8 34.2 35.3 38.6 31.8 32.7 32.1 32.7 36.1 27.3 

2 18.2 21.5 20.0 22.7 25.4 27.7 21.6 25.1 23.8 36.4 

3 3.1 2.9 4.7 3.4 7.1 8.1 5.7 5.2 5.7 4.8 

4 4.5 6.0 6.6 5.4 6.4 4.8 6.9 6.5 7.3 7.3 

5 23.1 24.5 21.5 18.2 18.1 15.6 24.0 20.7 17.4 15.8 

6 8.7 7.2 8.5 7.7 7.8 8.7 6.3 6.8 3.9 3.0 

7 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.5 2.5 3.4 2.9 5.5 4.8 

43 1 53.3 52.1 51.9 49.1 46.0 49.9 40.1 44.2 43.0 38.3 2 8.2 9.8 11.3 11.6 12.7 14.4 11.7 15.0 12.9 21.6 

3 12.4 15.4 13.8 14.0 16.0 13.9 20.3 15.6 16.6 19.8 

4 20.3 16.4 16.0 17.7 17.5 16.2 20.3 19.9 20.9 16.8 

5 2.7 2.7 3.2 2.3 3.1 1.6 3.0 2.1 2.3 0.6 

6 2.1 3.0 2.6 3.6 3.3 3.5 2.7 2.5 2.1 1.2 

7 1.0 0.7 1.2 1.6 1.4 0.5 1.9 0.7 1.9 1.8 

35 
region had the highest percentage (30.3 percent) of individuals reporting 

that they had little information concerning the NMC. This region also 

differed from most of the other regions in terms of the source of 

information. Compared to the other groups, higher percentages of 

individuals in this group reported gaining most of their information 

concerning the NMC from the article in FAA WORLD (9), a smaller percentage 

reported gaining their information via management channels. 

The percentages of individuals who indicated that their general 

reaction to the proposal was "positive" to "very positive" in the New 

England (NE) (31.1 percent), Eastern (EA) (36.0 percent) and SO (36.8 

percent) regions were somewhat lower than those reported in the other 

regions (41.0 to 54.1 percent). Correspondingly, these same regions had 

the highest percentages of respondents expressing generally negative to 

very negative reactions. Percentages for individuals in the Great Lakes 

(GL) region were similar, though somewhat more positive than those in the 

NE, EA, and SO regions. The greater amount of "disfavor" to "rejection" 

of the general aspects of the proposal that was expressed by individuals 

in the NE, EA, SO, and to a lesser extent the GL region, was also evident 

in their responses to a majority of the remaining NMC questions. 

These regional differences were most pronounced in response to the 

questions concerning centralization. For question 35, the percentage of 

individuals in the NE, EA, SO, and GL regions who reported either general 

acceptance or strong support ranged from 37.4 to 46.9 percent. This 

compared to a range of 50.6 to 55.3 percent in the other regions. The 

generally negative attitude toward the centralization issue was also 

evident for question 42, where nearly one-fourth of the respondents in 

each of the NE, EA, and SO regions indicated that the proposal would most 

likely require their relocation to a maintenance hub, which they would 

dislike; relatively high percentages of individuals in the Rocky Mountain 

(RM) and WE regions responded similarly (24.0 and 20.7 percent, 

respectively). 

Supervisor-Nonsupervisor. Categorized responses from supervisors and 

nonsupervisors appear in Table 18. Chi-square comparisons were 

significant for all 19 of the NMC questions. 

As could be expected on the basis of some of the previous results, a 

higher percentage of supervisors than nonsupervisors reported receiving 

their information from management channels, as well as receiving more 

information. 

Differences in how individuals in these two groups responded to the 

proposed NMC were greater than for any of the other categories. In 

response to the general question concerning the NMC (Q27), a much larger 

percentage of supervisors expressed VEry positive reactions (13.6 percent 

versus 6.1 percent) and more generally positive reactions (51.6 percent 

versus 29.6 percent). This tendency for supervisors to view the proposed 

changes in a more positive fashion was consistent for responses to the 

36 
r i 

TABLE 18 

Responses to the New Maintenance Concept Based on Position 

Position 

Quest. Response 

Number Alt. Supervisor Nonsupervisor 

25 1 12.8 25.7 

2 55.4 60.5 

3 24.3 11.6 

4 7.3 2.0 

27 1 13.6 6.1 

2 51.6 29.6 

3 21.9 33.7 

4 10.2 22.4 

5 2.6 8.1 

33 1 28.3 13.3 

2 42.7 34.3 

3 15.3 21.2 

4 10.1 22.5 

5 3.6 8.7 

35 1 22.0 10.2 

2 44.1 32.4 

3 15.8 21.3 

4 13.8 26.1 

5 4.3 10.0 

37 1 60.7 46.2 

2 31.4 36.7 

3 6.2 12.4 

4 1.0 3.4 

5 0.7 1.3 

42 1 40.8 32.5 

2 30.4 21.0 

3 4.7 5.2 

4 4.8 6.6 

5 11.2 23.0 

6 6.9 7.4 

7 1.2 4.2 

43 1 49.0 47.6 

2 17.2 10.9 

3 11.3 16.5 

4 17.6 18.0 

5 1.7 2.7 

6 2.7 2.9 

7 0.4 1.4 

37 
remaining questions. Thus, nonsupervisors consistently expressed greater 

disfavor and more rejection of not only the general proposal but also the 

more specific aspects of the proposal. 

Job Difficulty. Respondents made ratings of the difficulty of their 

job ona five-point scale from "very difficult" to "very easy." 

Categorized responses from individuals with different ratings of job 

difficulty appear in Table 19. Chi-square comparisons of these values 

indicate that the differences between groups were significant for all 

questions. 

There are indications that perceived job difficulty was related to 

knowledge of the NMC. Individuals who reported knowing either very little 

or a great deal about the NMC were more likely to come from the groups 

which had perceived their jobs as being either very difficult or very 

easy. Comparisons of the different job rating categories, from "very 

difficult" to "very easy," indicate a significant increase in the 

percentage (5.5 to 32.7 percent) of the respondents reporting that they 

strongly support the general proposal (Q27). A large difference was also 

apparent in terms of the percentages of individuals reporting negative 

reactions, with 18.2 and 17.3 percent of the individuals with "easy" and 

"very easy" jobs expressing generally "negative" to "very negative" 

reactions as compared to 25.8 and 44.8 percent with "difficult" and "very 

difficult" jobs. Once again, this difference between groups in response 

to the general question (Q27) was consistently apparent for the remaining 

NMC responses. 

Of the respondents with "very easy" and "easy" jobs, 62.7 and 63.3 

percent, respectively, indicated acceptance to strong support for the 

proposal to centralize maintenance work (Q33), while 39.1 and 54.1 percent 

of their colleagues who had rated their jobs as "difficult" to "very 

difficult" felt the same way. On this question and question 35, higher 

percentages of individuals with "very difficult" jobs expressed disfavor 

or rejection of the proposal than expressed some degree of acceptance or 

support (42.3 and 45.4 percent to 39.1 and 35.5 percent). 

Job Satisfaction. Question 15 asked respondents to rate their 

satisfaction with being employed in AF, using a five-point scale from 

"very satisfied" to "very dissatisfied." Categorized responses from 

individuals with different degrees of job satisfaction appear in Table 20. 

Chi-square comparisons indicate the differences in percentages were 

significant for all of the NMC questions. 

Of the five job satisfaction categories, the highest percentage of 

individuals who reported knowing very little about the NMC came from the 

very dissatisfied group. While 11 percent of the respondents who were 

very dissatisfied with their job said that they had received a "great 

deal" of information, nearly one-third (32.9 percent) indicated that they 

had received very little information about the NMC. These percentages are 

higher than comparable values for individuals in any of the other job 

38 
TABLE 19 

Responses to the New Maintenance Concept Based on Ratings of Job Difficulty 

Rating of Job Difficulty 

Quest. Response Very Very Number Alt. Diff. Diff. Neither Easy Easy 

25 1 23.9 20.2 24.6 22.5 34.0 

2 51.2 61.7 60.4 60.8 37.7 

3 17.7 15.2 12.6 14.9 18.9 

4 6.9 2.9 2.3 1.8 9.4 

27 1 5.5 6.9 8.8 17.7 32.7 

2 23.4 36.3 38.2 38.2 19.2 

3 26.1 30.8 33.0 25.9 30.8 

4 26.4 20.2 16.3 16.4 7.7 

\ 5 18.4 5.6 3.6 1.8 9.6 

33 1 12.0 16.1 18.3 30.3 43.1 ' 2 27.1 38.1 39.0 33.0 19.6 

3 18.3 18.9 21.6 15.8 19.6 

4 24.6 20.1 17.0 16.3 3.9 

5 17.7 6.8 4.1 4.5 13.7 

35 1 9.2 12.4 14.1 23.2 39.2 

2 26.3 35.9 38.4 36.4 23.5 

3 19.1 19.3 21.5 14.5 17.6 

4 26.3 24.3 20.8 21.4 2.0 

5 19.1 8.0 5.2 4.5 17.6 

37 1 46.1 49.8 49.8 60.0 60.8 

2 32.1 37.0 35.8 30.9 21.6 

3 12.9 9.8 11.6 6.4 9.8 

4 5.0 2.8 2.2 2.3 0.0 

5 4.0 0.6 0.7 0.5 7.8 

I 42 1 39.2 36.4 30.8 30.6 22.4 

2 20.9 22.6 25.6 16.9 26.5 

' 3 2.2 4.6 6.1 10.5 12.2 

4 3.7 5.3 7.7 10.5 8.2 

5 15.8 20.9 21.5 17.8 10.2 

6 10.6 7.3 5.8 9.6 6.1 

7 7.5 2.8 2.4 4.1 14.3 

43 1 60.3 49.5 41.2 42.1 49.0 

2 8.7 12.5 13.9 10.2 16.3 

3 8.4 14.7 18.5 20.4 14.3 

4 12.8 17.5 20.4 21.3 8.2 

5 2.9 2.6 2.4 0.5 4.1 

6 3.9 2.6 2.8 3.2 o.o 

7 2.9 0.6 0.8 2.3 8.2 

39 
¥ 

TABLE 20 

Responses to the New Maintenance Concept Based on Ratings of Job Satisfaction 

Job Satisfaction Rating 

Quest. Response Very Very 

Number Alt. Sat. Sat. Ind. Dis. Dis. 

25 1 21.9 20.3 25.1 25.1 32.9 

2 51.7 62.5 60.1 57.4 44.2 

3 19.5 14.7 12.8 14.1 11.6 

4 6.7 2.4 2.0 3.4 11.0 

27 1 16.6 8.2 5.6 5.2 5.2 

2 43.4 40.6 28.1 24.5 15.5 

3 25.5 31.4 35.6 29.7 22.7 

4 12.4 16.0 23.1 28.3 26.8 

5 1.8 3.6 7.7 12.3 29.2 

33 1 27.8 18.2 11.8 13.3 11.0 

2 37.7 40.6 34.1 29.7 17.6 

3 19.6 18.9 25.0 18.7 16.6 

4 11.4 17.6 21.8 26.2 23.1 

5 3.5 4.7 7.3 12.1 31.0 

35 1 23.3 13.5 10.1 9.9 10.0 

2 38.8 39.7 30.6 29.0 16.6 

3 18.5 20.5 22.3 18.3 14.2 

4 15.2 20.8 28.7 28.3 26.0 

5 4.3 5.5 8.3 14.4 33.2 

37 1 62.6 50.1 44.1 47.9 42.7 

2 27.4 37.6 37.6 33.8 26.7 

3 8.8 9.7 13.9 11.8 14.9 

4 1.1 2.1 3.8 4.4 6.9 

5 0.2 0.6 0.7 2.1 8.7 

42 1 36.0 33.7 33.7 37.0 32.4 

2 27.9 24.9 21.0 20.3 14.2 

3 5.6 5.5 4.9 3.9 4.3 

4 6.8 6.8 6.3 4.5 2.8 

5 17.9 20.5 22.4 19.4 16.0 

6 3.9 6.5 8.0 9.2 14.6 

7 2.0 2.1 3.7 5.5 15.7 

43 1 44.6 46.7 48.1 51.8 52.1 

2 16.2 13.7 10.0 10.0 7.3 

3 16.1 16.4 14.4 13.2 11.2 

4 19.2 18.2 19.8 16.8 10.8 

5 1.4 2.2 3.8 2.7 3.5 

6 2.0 2.3 3.1 3.8 5.9 

7 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.7 9.1 

40 
satisfaction categories. The most frequent source of information for 

individuals in each of the job satisfaction categories was the videotape. 

While the next most frequent source of information for individuals who 

were very satisfied with their jobs was management, individuals who rated 

themselves in the indifferent, dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied 

categories reported receiving their information via word of mouth. 

Higher percentages of individuals who rated themselves in the 

satisfied and very satisfied categories reported their general reaction to 

the NMC was positive (60.0 and 48.8 percent), compared to 20.7 to 33.7 

percent in the other three groups. This tendency for the satisfied 

workers to express generally more favorable reactions to the NMC than 

those who were dissatisfied was apparent for the remaining questions. 

State-Trait Anxiety. Individuals were placed into one of three 

groups on the basis of their trait scores (summation of items 70 through 

89) on the state-trait anxiety inventory (16). The trait anxiety scores 

provide a measure of the individual's susceptibility or proneness to 

anxiety across situations. These groups comprised the lower third (low), 

middle third (middle), and upper third (high) of the distribution. 

Similar groups were formed for the state anxiety measure (summation of 

items 90 through 109). State anxiety scores provide a measure of the 

individual's anxiety at the time he or she is completing the 

questionnaire. Categorized responses, from individuals in each of the 

three groups for the state and trait anxiety measures appear in Table 21. 

Differences in percentages of individuals from the groups representing the 

three levels of anxiety were significant for all questions except question 

26 for the trait anxiety measure. 

Individuals with high state and trait anxiety scores reported less 

knowledge of the NMC than did individuals in either the medium or low 

groups. The source of information for the various groups was similar, 

with nearly one-third of each of the groups indicating that the videotape 

was their major source of information. 

In terms of their general reaction to the NMC, the smallest 

percentage of very positive and generally positive responses, along with 

the highest percentages of generally negative responses, came from 

subjects in the high trait and high state groups. The percentages of 

individuals in both the high trait and high state groups who reported a 

very negative reaction (11.9 and 14.3 percent) were more than twice as 

large as the percentages in either of the respective medium or low trait 

and state groups (4.9 and 5.7 percent; 4.4 and 5.4 percent). Differences 

between groups that were evident for responses to the general question 

{Q27) concerning the NMC were also apparent for the more specific 

questions concerning the NMC. Even on issues where there was considerable 

overall support (e.g., use of solid state equipment, Q37), a much higher 

percentage of the low state and trait groups expressed strong support 

(55.7 and 56.1 percent) compared to those with high state and trait scores 

(38.9 and 39.4 percent). 

41 
T 

' 

I 

! 

TABLE 21 

Responses to the New Maintenance Concept Based on State-Trait Anxiety 

Anxiety Measure 

State Trait 

Quest. Response 

Number Alt. Low Mod High Low Mod High 

25 1 21.6 21.0 29.0 20.9 21.4 27.6 

2 57.5 61.3 54.7 56.5 60.6 58.4 

3 16.3 14.8 12.3 17.6 15.0 10.3 

4 4.6 2.9 3.7 5.0 2.9 3.4 

27 1 12.0 7.6 5.1 12.1 7.8 5.1 

2 41.1 35.9 23.6 37.9 36.5 25.7 

3 26.9 31.6 33.0 27.3 31.0 34.1 

4 15.6 19.4 23.7 17.8 18.9 22.8 

5 4.4 5.4 14.3 4.9 5.7 11.9 

33 1 23.4 16.3 13.1 20.6 17.2 13.1 

2 37.0 38.4 28.3 38.8 37.5 30.2 

3 17.3 19.9 20.8 17.7 19.0 24.1 

4 16.4 19.6 22.7 17.4 19.8 20,2 

5 5.9 5.9 14.7 5.4 6.6 12.1 

35 1 19.1 12.6 8.7 16.8 13.2 9.4 

2 36.3 37.4 26.4 37.6 36.8 27.6 

3 18.9 19.9 20.7 19.4 18.9 24.2 

4 19.9 22.7 28.1 21.4 22.9 25.3 

5 5.8 7.4 16.0 4.8 8.2 13.4 

37 1 55.7 50.6 38.9 56.1 50.6 39.4 

2 32.0 36.4 35.3 32.4 35.9 36.1 

3 9.8 10.1 16.5 9.7 10.1 16.5 

4 1.6 2.5 5.2 1.5 2.5 5.1 

5 0.8 0.5 4.0 0.4 0.9 2.8 

42 1 35.8 35.1 31.6 36.6 35.1 30.3 

2 24.7 23.4 20.4 24.3 23.0 22.5 

3 5.3 5.3 4.3 5.3 5.2 4.6 

4 6.1 6.4 5.8 6.2 6.3 6.1 

5 18.2 20.7 20.0 19.4 20.3 19.8 

6 6.9 6.8 9.7 6.0 7.1 9.8 

7 2.8 2.3 8.2 2.0 2.9 6.5 

43 1 49.8 48.3 43.9 50.6 48.7 41.8 

2 13.3 12.1 11.9 13.5 11.7 13.8 

3 14.2 16.0 13.3 14.9 15.7 13.9 

4 17.5 18.2 17.6 17.3 18.2 17.8 

5 1.2 2.2 4.8 0.7 2.1 5.6 

6 2.5 2.6 5.0 2.4 2.6 5.0 

7 1. 4 o.s 3.5 0.6 1.0 2.2 

42 

1 
General Health. On question 110, individuals were asked to rate 

their general health on a four point scale from "poor" to "excellent." 

Categorized responses from individuals in the four different health 

categories appear in Table 22. According to chi-square comparisons, all 

of the differences were statistically significant. 

The percentage of individuals who rated themselves as being in poor 

general health and who reported knowing very little about the NMC was 

considerably higher than for the other three (better health) groups (38.9 

percent versus 21.7, 21.5, and 27.5 percent). Differences were also 

apparent in terms of the sources of information for individuals in these 

groups. 

Relative to the ''good" and "excellent" health groups, higher 

percentages of the individuals in the "fair" and "poor" groups expressed 

negative general reactions to the NMC and also had lower percentages 

expressing positive feeling. These differences were observed consistently 

for responses to the remaining NMC questions and were evident even on 

questions where there was a high degree of general acceptance (e.g., solid 

state equipment and watchstanding, Q37 and Q41). While between .9 and 3.9 

percent of those in good and excellent health felt that the equipment and 

watchstanding concepts were unworkable, 9.6 and 13.5 percent of those in 

poor general health felt the same way. Individuals in the fair and poor 

health groups also reported that they were more likely to either retire or 

resign when the plan was implemented. 

Type of Shift Worked. Categorized responses from individuals working 

the 10 different shift schedules appear in Table 23. Chi-square 

comparisons for each question were statistically significant. The small 

number of individuals reporting straight evening or night shifts make it 

impossible to effectively interpret their overall reactions. They will 

not be referenced in the discussion. Comparisons will be made between the 

straight day workers and workers on the other shift schedules. 

The largest and most significant differences between responses of 

people in the various shift categories were between individuals who were 

working straight days and those working alternating shifts. There was 

less evidence of any consistent difference between workers on the various 

alternating shift schedules. While 51.5 percent of the straight day 

workers reported a "positive" to "very positive" general reaction to the 

NMC, only 25 to 35.8 percent of the individuals working various shifts 

responded similarly. Once again, this contrast remained apparent for 

responses to the rest of the NMC questions. This difference between 

workers on straight days and those on alternating shifts was even evident 

in responses to the question concerning watchstanding (Q41), where 50.9 

percent of the day workers and only 27.8 to 36.2 percent of those on 

alternating shifts expressed strong support. 

43 
TABLE 22 

Responses to the New Maintenance Concept Based on General State of Health 

General State of Health 

Quest. Response 

Number Alt. Excel. Good Fair Poor 

25 1 21.7 21.5 27.5 38.9 

2 57.1 62.2 55.6 50.5 

3 16.7 13.7 13.0 7.4 

4 4.4 2.4 4.0 3.2 

27 1 10.8 6.6 5.7 5.3 

2 36.9 36.1 23.6 25.3 

3 28.6 31.2 35.7 33.7 

4 17.7 19.7 24.5 16.8 

5 6.0 6.1 10.3 18.9 

33 1 20.3 15.3 12.5 25.5 

2 35.4 38.4 31.1 20.2 

3 18.3 19.9 23.7 22.3 

4 18.8 19.5 22.7 17.0 

5 7.2 6.9 9.8 14.9 

35 1 15.8 11.9 10.0 16.0 

2 35.4 36.7 29.2 23.4 

3 19.0 19.7 24.3 16.0 

4 22.3 23.2 25.2 24.5 

5 7.4 8.5 11.3 20.2 

37 1 55.5 47.9 40.5 42.6 

2 32.2 37.5 37.5 25.5 

3 9.1 11.0 15.1 19.1 

4 2.3 2.7 5.0 3.2 

5 0.9 0.9 1.9 9.6 

42 1 36.4 34.1 30.6 28.0 

2 18.3 25.1 30.1 29.0 

3 6.4 4.6 2.8 6.5 

4 7 .o 5.9 4.8 2.2 

5 22.9 19.5 15.5 9.7 

6 5.6 7.6 11.2 14.0 

7 3.3 3.1 5.1 10.8 

43 1 49.9 47.2 45.9 38.9 

2 9.4 13.4 16.7 18.9 

3 17.8 14.5 11.0 14.7 

4 18.4 18.4 15.4 12.6 

5 1.5 2.5 5.2 4.2 

6 1.8 3.1 4.9 5.3 

7 1.2 1.0 0.9 5.3 

44 
TABLE 23 

Responses to the New Maintenance Concept Based on Present Work Schedule 

Work Schedule 

Straight Rotating 

Quest. Response 

Number Alt. Days Eve. Nits 3-W 3 3-M 3-LM 2-W 2 Other 

25 1 20.0 41.2 30.0 30.S 23.6 32.5 31.0 21.S 17.1 24.0 

2 59.3 47.1 40.0 57.0 61.7 51.S 56.0 66.1 66.5 57.9 

3 16.S 5.9 10.0 9.9 11.9 13.3 12.1 9.S 15.9 13.7 

4 3.9 5.9 20.0 2.2 2.6 1.2 0.9 2.3 0.6 4.1 

27 1 10.5 25.0 10.0 !h3 3.3 6.2 4.3 4.0 2.5 5.1 

2 41.0 1S.S 10.0 23.6 26.9 29.6 20.7 29.3 31.3 27.4 

3 2S.5 31.3 40.0 3S.1 32.5 33.3 39.7 32.2 27.6 29.1 

4 15.9 12.5 30.0 22.1 26.9 21.0 25.9 23.0 2S.2 27.1 

5 4.2 6.3 10.0 11.6 10.0 7.4 9.5 u.s 10.4 11.1 

33 1 21.0 23.5 0.0 11.2 9.4 15.9 11.3 12.1 11.0 10.4 

2 3S.3 35.3 40.0 32.7 34.5 34.1 39.1 35.1 30.1 32.3 

3 1S.4 17.6 40.0 23.1 21.3 23.2 22.6 1S.4 17.2 20.9 

4 16.S 11.S 10.0 21.6 25.3 17.1 20.0 26.4 27.0 24.0 

5 5.4 11.S 10.0 u.3 9.6 S.5 7.0 s.o 14.7 11.7 

35 1 15.5 23.5 10.0 10.2 7.S 15.9 10.4 7.4 6.1 10.7 

2 37.S 29.4 40.0 33.0 32.9 31.7 27.S 33.1 30.5 27.6 

3 19.2 5.9 20.0 21.4 21.3 17.1 2S.7 19.4 17.1 19.9 

4 21.3 29.4 20.0 23.2 26.7 2S.O 22.6 26.9 30.5 27.S 

5 6.2 11.S 10.0 12.3 U.3 6.1 10.4 13.1 15.9 13.S 

37 1 51.7 52.9 40.0 45.6 47.9 50.0 40.0 46.9 45.4 4S.7 

2 34.5 17.6 20.0 36.S 37.4 31.7 39.1 42.3 40.5 32.4 

3 10.7 17.6 30.0 ll.6 9.S 9.S 17.4 6.3 11.7 12.7 

4 2.3 5.9 0.0 3.9 3.3 6.1 2.6 4.6 1.S 4.1 

5 o.s 5.9 10.0 2.1 1.7 1.2 0.9 o.o 0.6 2.2 

42 1 26.3 35.3 40.0 SS.1 51.0 45.1 41.7 2S.1 23.9 3l.S 

2 24.6 17.6 10.0 20.2 1S.6 26.S 30.4 2S.1 19.6 22.7 

3 6.9 0.0 20.0 2.5 2.0 3.7 1.7 1.2 3.1 3.0 

4 7.9 5.9 0.0 3.0 3.5 3.7 3.5 4.7 s.s 4.2 

5 23.9 23.5 10.0 S.6 12.4 7.3 13.0 26.3 29.4 22.9 

6 6.S 5.9 10.0 5.7 9.5 9.S 7.S 7.6 10.4 S.6 

7 3.5 u.s 10.0 1.9 3.0 3.7 1.7 4.1 8.0 6.4 

43 1 35.8 29.4 33.3 72.2 68.0 65.9 60.0 59.0 62.2 56.7 

2 14.2 17.6 11.1 8.3 8.5 12.2 14.8 12.7 9.1 10.5 

3 20.2 u.s 22.2 5.9 7.4 7.3 8.7 11.0 9.1 11.2 

4 22.6 23.5 22.2 8.4 11.0 ll.O 10.4 12.7 12.2 14.8 

5 2.9 11.8 0.0 1.9 1.9 0.0 2.6 2.9 2.4 1.7 

6 3.2 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.1 1.2 3.5 1.2 4.3 2.7 

7 1.1 5.9 11.1 0.9 1.2 2.4 0.0 0.6 0.6 2.2 

45 
Predictors. Since a large number of variables demonstrate a 

statistically significant relationship with an individual's reaction to 

the NMC (Q27), question 27 was statistically regressed on demographic 

variables and the key or global item from each section of the 

questionnaire in order to determine which of the variables best predicted 

general reaction to the NMC. The results of the stepwise multiple 

regression equation, along with derived beta weights, are presented in 

Table 24. The beta weights, while highly significant due to the large 

size of the sample, are very low. The 10 variables that are most 

predictive are capable of explaining only 18 percent of the overall 

variance. In an attempt to improve predictability, a second stepwise 

multiple regression analysis was performed, using all items in the 

questionnaire, omitting global items (Q7, Ql5, Q44, and QllO). Results of 

the second analysis, using 32 variables, appear in Table 25; the first 10 

variables in the new equation now explain 23 percent of the variance, with 

all 32 variables explaining 25 percent of the variance. While the 

supervisor-nonsupervisor distinction was the first variable to enter into 

the equation in the first analysis, it entered as the third variable in 

the second analysis; it was replaced as the first variable in the new 

equation by question 24, satisfaction with national FAA management, 

followed by question 12, a rating of the physically straining nature of 

the job. The fourth and sixth variables involved satisfaction with 

working conditions (Ql8) and satisfaction with salary (Ql9). Occupational 

identification entered as the fifth variable. Variables 7 through 11 were 

as follows: region, type of facility, percentage of difficult workdays 

(Q9), education level, and state anxiety. This was followed by questions 

concerning sleep, health problems, and some demographic variables. 

TABLE 24 

Results of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis 

Predicting I27, using Global Items and Demographic Indices 

Multiple R 

R Square 

.42629 

.18172 

Step 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Variable 

Supervisor/NonSupervisor 

Job Satisfaction 

Job Difficulty 

Occuational Identification 

Work Schedule 

Region 

Grade Level 

State Anxiety 

Facility Type 

Years in Present Position 

46 

Beta 

.15391 

.14911 

-.12872 

-.11558 

.09652 

-.08016 

-.09033 

.06728 

-.05291 

.04963 

F= 99.77573 

R Square 

.06119 

.10216 

.13130 

.14583 

.15819 

.16770 

.17256 

.17535 

.17950 

.18172 

p 
TABLE 25 

Results of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis 

Using all Survey Items Except the Global items 

Multiple R 

R Square 

.47898 

.22943 

F=68.24054 

Step 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Variable 

Item 24-Satis. with Nat. Management 

Item 12-Work Physically Straining 

Supervisor/Nonsupervisor 

Beta 

.17545 

-.13579 

.15969 

Item 18-Satisfaction WithWorking 

Occupational Identification 

Item 19-Satisfaction with Salary 

Region 

Facility 

Cond •• 10697 

-.10085 

.11438 

-.06995 

-.06392 

Item 9-Percent 

Education 

of Difficult Workdays .06129 

.05738 

R Square 

.07159 

.13088 

.16854 

.18713 

.19860 

.21023 

.21845 

.22318 

.22631 

.22943. 

To obtain a clear understanding of the structure of the 

interrelationship of the variables, a factor analysis (SPSS program for 

principal axis analysis with varimax rotation) was performed using the 

same 32 variables. Results of the factor analysis appear in Table 26. 

The eigenvalues and percentage of variance explained by the 12 factors are 

presented in Table 27. Using the traditional measure, an eigenvalue of 

one or greater, only 5 of the 12 factors were significant. The first 

three factors account for slightly more than one-half (52.5 percent) of 

the total variance. A second factor analysis was performed to determine 

which of the 12 factors received the heaviest loading on the criterion 

variable (Q27). Even though the eigenvalue was not significant for factor 

11, this factor received a heavier loading from question 27 than any other 

factor. This finding, along with the results of the multiple regression 

analysis, suggests that this factor has considerable utility in the 

prediction of the individual's response to the NMC. 

47 
'

TABLE 26 

FACTOR LOADINGS FOR THE PREDicrOR VARIABLES 

FACTORS 

VARIABLES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

AGE -.02 .62 -.12 -.07 .03 -.07 -.02 .05 .23 -.03 -.14 .07 

GRADE -.18 .34 -.14 .01 .04 -.09 -.02 -.00 .23 • 56 -.01 -.06 

YRS POS -.04 .77 .01 .09 .02 -.05 .00 .06 .11 -.as .20 -.07 

EDUC -.01 -.10 .04 • 05 • 01 -. 02 -.02 -.01 -.04 .35 -.02 .10 

FACILITY .07 .01 -.07 -.02 .04 .22 -.01 -.02 -.17 .01 -.ll .54 

OCC. ID. .04 -.02 .00 -.09 .03 .07 .05 .01 -.06 -.01 -.46 .14 

PROGRAM .03 -.03 .04 -.05 -.02 ~.04 .01 .07 .14 -.16 -.04 -.16 

REGION .09 -.01 .01 -.07 . 01 .00 .01 -.01 .04 .07 -.02 .36 

SUP/NONSUP .12 -.14 .ll .ll -.02 -.03 -.02 .03 -.11 -.40 .49 . 11 

Q9 -.61 .01 .14 .14 .01 -.04 .03 .04 .02 -.05 -.03 -.07 

Q12 .28 -.01 -.14 -.15 .oo .04 -.07 .03 .ll .3R -.05 -.01 

Q13 .80 -.04 -.05 -.04 .00 .03 .01 -.09 -.06 -.08 -.03 .07 

Q14 .79 -.10 -.05 -.12 -.02 .04 -.03 -.13 -.06 -.06 .oo .09 

Q18 -.20 .oo .19 .63 -.02 -.02 .05 .12 -.00 -.02 • 06 -.08 

Q19 -.10 -.09 • 88 .18 -.01 -.01 .04 .04 -.02 -.07 .02 .00 _,_ Q20 -.18 -.07 .84 .18 -.01 -.01 .03 .03 -.01 -.ll .01 .05 

co 

Q21 -.04 .06 .03 .59 -.02 .oo .03 .03 .02 -.01 -.04 .02 

Q22 -.04 .04 .06 .68 -.01 -.03 .05 .04 .01 -.01 .12 -.04 

Q24 -.15 -.02 .25 .36 .oo -.03 .03 .ll .05 .15 .09 -.07 

Q45 -.03 .64 -.04 .05 .06 .12 .00 .04 .04 .ll -.06 .02 

Q46 -.04 .13 -.02 .04 .oo -.09 -.02 .03 .53 .07 .oo .04 

Q47 -.08 .29 -.01 .03 -.02 -.17 -.04 .05 .61 -.01 .09 -.12 

Q48 -.00 .03 .02 .04 .74 .05 .01 -.01 -.07 -.01 -.04 -.01 

Q49 -.04 .02 -.00 .03 .65 .01 -.03 .06 . 21. .13 .ll -.08 

Q53 .04 -.01 -.02 -.04 -.17 -.02 -.ll -.07 .08 .07 .10 -.02 

Q55 -.03 -.05 .03 .ll -.46 -.09 .10 .08 • 09 -.03 .09 -.04 

Q60 -.01 .00 .04 .06 -.06 .07 . 70 .10 -.03 -.00 -.03 .02 

Q62 .03 .oo .00 .01 .28 .58 .09 .06 -.15 -.01 -.03 .07 

Q63 -.04 .01 .02 .07 -.04 .03 .72 .10 -.01 -.06 -.03 -.oo 

Q67 .00 -.oo -.02 -.03 .19 .14 -.04 .oo .03 -.02 .04 .07 

Q68 .10 -.01 -.02 -.06 .06 .87 .07 -.06 -.19 -.00 -.13 .n 

ASTA -.25 -.06 .08 .29 .06 -.02 .21 .38 -.05 -.06 .01 -.ll 

Ql12 .05 -.16 .01 -.03 -.01 .04 -.08 -.18 .01 .06 .06 .02 

Ql16 -.00 -.00 .02 .05 -.01 .00 .OS .25 .05 -.01 .01 .04 

Qll8 -.06 .05 .01 .04 .01 .02 .00 .64 -.00 .01 .01 -.06 

Qll9 -.05 .05 .01 .01 .02 .01 .01 .48 .01 .01 .00 -.01 

---J 
Factor 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

TABLE 27 

Summary of Factor Analysis 

Eigenvalue 

3.449 

2.550 

1.809 

1.331 

1.243 

.980 

.866 

.804 

.658 

.458 

.376 

.344 

Percent of Variance 

23.2 

17.1 

12.1 

9.0 

8.4 

6.6 

5.8 

5.4 

4.4 

3.1 

2.5 

2.3 

Factor 11 has heavy loadings from two questions, one dealing with 

occupational identification {Q23), the other involves the 

supervisor-nonsupervisor distinction {Q6). As noted earlier, 

nonsupervisors and the electronic and environmental technicians are more 

likely to respond negatively to the proposed changes. 

Loadings for the criterion variable on the other factors were not 

very high, ranging from .011 to .261. Factors which received the higher 

loadings from the criterion variable involved questions that entered early 

in the multiple regression equations. This included information 

concerning satisfaction with working conditions and management, time in 

position, anxiety, and questions concerning the stressful nature of the 

job. 

COMMENTS 

A total of 453 (6.57 percent) of the respondents included written 

comments related to the NMC on the "comment" section of the questionnaire. 

For analysis, comments were placed individually on 5x7 cards and sorted 

into categories. A total of 793 separable comments were made by the 453 

respondents. A "general critical" category, for responses generally 

negative toward the NMC, was established, along with seven additional 

major categories. These major categories and their subdivisions, along 

with their respective numbers of comments and percentages of the total 

comments, are presented in Table 28, and are discussed below. 

49 
TABLE 28 

Response Categories and Number of Comments 

Concerning the New Maintenance Concept 

Total 

Category 

N % N % 

Remote Monitoring 225 28.4 

General-Critical 126 15.9 

Telco Reliability 49 6.2 

Increased Travel Time 50 6.3 

Effects on Personnel 220 27.7 

Loss and Grade Reduction 102 12.9 

Training 60 7.6 

Relocation 47 5.9 

Man-Machine 11 1.4 

Solid-State Equipment 110 13.9 

General Critical 70 8.8 

Favorable 53 6.7 

Lack of Information 51 6.4 

Miscellaneous 38 4.8 

Management 26 3.3 

Remote Monitoring. This general category involved the largest number 

of responses, 225 (28.4 percent of total). Several subcategories were 

established to help specify the complaints. These subcategories were 

concerned with: (a) the negative potential impact of the withdrawal of 

preventative remote maintenance, (b) the overall reliability (or lack 

thereof) of the telco (telephone company) lines that would be used to 

relay information from the remote facility to the centralized monitor, and 

(c) under the proposal, travel time could be greater since the facility 

would be farther away. These responses suggest that there are several 

areas in which the proposal for remote monitoring could have a negative 

impact. 

Effects on Personnel. The overall number of comments (N=220) in this 

category was similar to that noted in the previous category. These 

comments tended to emphasize the negative impact of the proposed changes 

50 
on personnel, especially technicians. The subcategories were: (a) grade 

loss and grade reduction, (b) training, (c) relocation, and (d) 

man-machine. The concern in subcategory (a) was whether the intent of the 

agency is to "upgrade the integrity of the system or to reduce the 

manpower." A related concern was the potential impact of the changes on 

the technician's grade level. A number of respondents felt that when the 

technician becomes a "module swapper," "chassis changer," or "board 

changer," management will downgrade the technician. This change in 

status, according to several respondents, would have a negative impact on 

the attitude of the average worker. In the next subcategory (b), 60 

comments were made concerning the potential impact of the changes on 

personnel training. The comments ranged from current training to training 

in the future. While several individuals expressed their satisfaction 

with the training they had received at the FAA Academy, concerns were 

expressed about the decline in money for training and the inadequacy of 

current procedures. The responses suggest that workers tend to favor a 

classroom, instructor-taught course, over computer based instruction. 

While it is not entirely a training issue, some respondents expressed 

concerns about remaining proficient under the NMC. They were concerned 

that less frequent "hands on" experience with the equipment would lead to 

lowered proficiency, which in turn would require additional and more 

frequent training. A total of 47 comments was made concerning the issue 

of relocation to centralized hubs (c). Comments indicated that the 

proposed relocation would have a negative impact on the worker, the work 

environment, and family life. This generally negative attitude toward 

relocation is reflected in the following comment: "I look forward to 

working with up-to-date equipment and will do so until the FAA says I have 

to move, then I will resign." These responses reflect not only concern 

about the cost of the relocation, but also concern about the perceived 

better "quality of life" available in the smaller communities relative to 

larger cities. The final subcategory (man-machine) included a small 

number of comments (11). Concerns were expressed that the move to remote 

monitoring would lessen or eliminate the "pride in ownership" that is 

presently evident at smaller facilities. 

Solid State Equipment. Even though a large majority of the personnel 

favors the use of solid state equipment, these comments suggest that there 

is some concern over the reliability of solid state equipment. Several 

respondents expressed the opinion that their experience with such 

equipment indicated that it was not as reliable nor was it as easily 

repaired as is frequently described. A related concern, that the 

government purchases inferior equipment by "low bid," was reflected in the 

following comment: "The NMC will not work with the quality of the 

equipment the FAA buys." Additional comments were made concerning the 

necessity to repair the monitoring equipment and the sensitivity of the 

solid state equipment to lightning and other environmental events. There 

were very few positive statements about the reliability of this type of 

equipment. 

51 
General Critical. A total of 70 (8.82 percent) of the comments 

expressed a generally critical attitude concerning the proposed NMC. 

These responses indicated that the individuals saw the proposal as being 

idealistic, overly optimistic, and "someone's crazy dream." These 

reactions often seemed to be influenced by the respondent's previous 

experience with new equipment, as is reflected in the following comment: 

"Sounds good on paper, but so did the new ARSR-3 and DARC, both are real 

fiascos." 

Favorable. There were 53 favorable comments. These comments were 

often focused around the need for new equipment, that it was about time 

the agency "caught up with today's technology." While a few people 

indicated that they supported the NMC "without reservation," most of the 

respondents indicated that they offered their support with some 

reservations. Comments like "will it be done in practice?" or "it depends 

on the quality of the equipment," reflect these concerns. 

Lack of Information. A total of 51 comments was made about either a 

lack of information or a lack of detailed information. These comments 

ranged from statements such as: "I am not aware of any proposed changes," 

to "more information is needed by field personnel." One individual 

commented that "I feel I know more about the NMC than I did before I 

answered the questions." The general feeling was that some philosophical 

information had been provided; however, there had been little information 

available concerning specific organizational changes. A common concern 

was the potential impact of the NMC on the "technician." 

Management. Twenty-six comments dealt with some aspect of managment. 

The general tenor of these comments was that "high level" management was 

not aware of what goes on in the field, that management needs to "start 

paying attention to people in the field." 

As is evident in Table 28, there is a miscellaneous category that 

comprised a variety of comments, including some that deal with the 

potential cost of the proposed changes, the influence of the NMC on shift 

work, and the generally negative consequences of the move toward a 

computerized monitoring system (man-machine). 

IV. Discussion. 

Any attempt to assess attitudes toward organizational change must be 

placed within the context of how people typically respond to change. The 

development of homeostasis (a steady state) and subsequent resistance to 

change is not only evident in most individuals, but is commonly found in 

groups, organizations, and certainly in larger societies. Managers have 

known for some time that employees are capable of promoting, impeding, or 

preventing change. Issues concerning the resistance to change and the 

need to carefully plan change have been raised by numerous authors (e.g., 

Bennis et al. (Eds.) (1), Howes and Quinn (7), Mealiea (11), Meyer (12), 

McMurry (10), Schleh (14), Stewart (17), and Zander (19)), to mention a 

52 
few. 

Since history suggests that individuals often tend to resist change, 

the AF work force does not appear to be highly unusual. In terms of their 

general response to the NMC, the work force indicated a mixed to slightly 

positive response; 42.8 percent were to some extent clearly positive, 

30.8 percent were undecided, and 26.2 percent were to some extent clearly 

negative. However, there were specific aspects of the proposal that 

generated high levels of satisfaction. The use of solid state equipment 

and associated changes in specialization and knowledge, along with a 

reduction in routine maintenance, computer assisted instruction, automated 

record keeping, and a reduction in watchstanding generated the most 

positive responses, with 63 to 74 percent of the work force expressing 

some degree of acceptance for the various proposals. 

The large number of statistically significant differences (which were 

expected a priori due to the large sample size) that were found in the 

analysis of the general reaction to the NMC made it important to determine 

which variables were most influential. Results from the multiple stepwise 

regression analyses and factor analyses are useful not only in determining 

the importance of the many variables but in looking at the 

interrelationships. One of the major factors related to the worker's 

resistance to change concerns his position within the work force. 

Individuals who were nonsupervisors and whose occupational identification 

was as electronic or environmental technicians were more likely to express 

a negative reaction concerning the proposal. Management needs to be aware 

that its view of change is not necessarily shared by those at the lower 

levels. This is especially evident in the reaction of supervisors vs. 

nonsupervisors to the proposed relocation. While only 11.2 percent of the 

supervisors indicated that they would dislike the possibility of their 

being relocated, 23 percent of the nonsupervisors indicated their dislike 

for this aspect of the proposal. The tendency for upper level personnel 

to express more favorable responses to the proposed changes was evident 

not only in terms of general aspects of the proposal, but also to the more 

specific changes. These findings are consistent with the work of Faunce 

(3), who found that supervisors, upper level personnel, and more educated 

personnel expressed greater readiness for changes in their jobs, and of 

Trumbo (18) who reported that more highly educated workers in an insurance 

company expressed greater readiness to change. This suggests that there 

may be characteristics of individuals who either seek higher formal 

education or become managers or supervisors that predispose them to be 

more receptive to change. However, in the case of the NMC proposal, it 

should be remembered that the proposed changes are least likely to affect 

individuals within the upper levels of management. There appear to be 

several possible explanations for why individuals in upper level positions 

are less resistive to change: (i) it will have little effect on them, 

(ii) they know more about it and thereby feel less threatened, (iii) due 

to their position they are often more closely associated with the 

implementation of the change and can thereby feel that they have greater 

control over what happens to their own position, (iv) in the process of 

53 
becoming a supervisor or manager they had to experience a greater number 

of changes in their jobs and thereby learned to become more accepting of 

change, and (v) supervisors feel less threatened by change due to their 

personality styles. While the extent to which a proposed change affects 

us is likely to be central in determining our reaction to the proposal, 

the influence of the other variables has yet to be determined empirically. 

Overall response to the proposed changes was also related to an 

individual's attitudes toward local working conditions: satisfaction with 

the working conditions, satisfaction with supervision, and satisfaction 

with local and national management. These questions, along with the 

importance of the global question concerning job satisfaction (QlS), 

indicate that ratings of job satisfaction provide some measure of the 

individual's resistance and/or willingness to accept specific changes. 

This finding is somewhat paradoxical: when there is greater job 

satisfaction there is more acceptance of the changes, and when job 

satisfaction is lower there is increased resistance. One might expect 

that individuals who are dissatisfied with their jobs would be willing to 

accept change in the hope that their job would become more satisfying. 

Previous studies in this area have yielded contradictory results. Faunce 

(3) reported a low, positive, but insignificant correlation between a 

measure of job satisfaction and readiness for change, while Hardin's (6) 

review of several studies indicates a weak negative correlation; her own 

results show that the two variables were essentially uncorrelated (r • 

-.09). However, there is an important difference between this study and 

the studies of Faunce (3) and Hardin (6). In the present study, the focus 

was on attitudes toward specific changes that had been proposed by 

management, while in Faunce (3) and Hardin (6), the focus was on readiness 

for change. A dissatisfied worker may indicate a readiness for change, 

but he may be hesitant to accept a specific change and/or a change that is 

being imposed from an outside source (management). This is not a totally 

unexpected finding. If employees feel disenchanted with management in 

general, dissonance theory suggests that they would also tend to perceive 

their proposals as being unsatisfactory. It is possible that an important 

factor in determining reaction to organizational change lies in how the 

change is presented. While there has been limited research in the area, 

several writers indicate that workers are more accepting of change when 

they have been involved in the decision (participative management) than 

when the change is imposed from above (management). Additional research 

is needed to determine how job satisfaction, especially satisfaction with 

management, relates to resistance to change, relative to whether the 

changes occur as the result of a decision by management or if they come 

about through some type of participative process. 

Age was another determinant of the individual's response to the NMC. 

Older workers tended to express greater satisfaction with the proposed 

changes. However, this finding is modified somewhat in terms of the 

length of time the worker has been in a particular position. The longer 

an individual has been in a certain position the more likely he or she is 

to express dissatisfaction with the proposed changes. If that worker has 

54 

p 
also spent a larger amount of total work time on a rotating shift or on a 

shift other than the day shift, expressions of dissatisfaction with the 

proposal were more likely. 

Finally, response to the NMC was determined by the individual's 

perception of the amount of stress and strain experienced while on the 

job. Respondents who indicated that their work was mentally straining 

(Q13), stressful (Q14), and involved a higher percentage of difficult 

wo~kdays (Q9) were more likely to express a negative reaction to the 

general NMC proposal. Additionally, their responses on the state-trait 

anxiety inventory were indicative of higher levels of state anxiety at the 

time they completed the questionnaire. These results are consistent with 

the work of Trumbo (18), who found a significant negative correlation 

between anxiety and readiness for change (r = -.16). This is not an 

unexpected finding since the clinical literature is full of examples of 

how highly stressed and anxious individuals resist change and maintain 

stereotypical behavior patterns. 

With the information gained from these analyses, it is possible to 

provide a description of the AF employee who expresses the greatest amount 

of dissatisfaction with the proposed changes. The generalized profile 

depicts a lower GS-level nonsupervisory technician who has worked at his 

position for several years. He is somewhat dissatisfied with his job, the 

working conditions, snd management, and perceives his work environment ss 

being stressful and mentally straining. 

While the questionnaire did not focus specifically on the reasons for 

dissatisfaction with the proposal, issues raised in the "comments" 

section, as well as attitudes expressed towards various aspects of the 

proposed changes, offer some possible explanations. The specific aspect 

of the proposed changes that appeared to generate the lowest level of 

support was the proposal to relocate personnel from the smaller, more 

remote sites, to more centralized work hubs. It was this aspect of the 

plan that also generated a number of negative comments. In another 

context, Fox (4) indicates that apprehension concerning the relocation of 

a plant in Israel was centered around two basic issues: concern about 

changes in the job situation and concern about moving or the need for 

traveling greater distances to work. Both of these issues are likely to 

be of some concern for AF employees. 

Concern about changes in the job situation would appear to be related 

to the manner in which or the extent to which these modifications 

interfere with the ability of the worker to meet his basic needs on the 

job. Mealiea (11) suggests that, in order to experience success at a job 

or to feel comfortable at a job, workers need to meet four basic needs. 

These needs are: (i) to be aware of specific information concerning 

his/her role within the job environment, (ii) to interact with others, 

(iii) to be able to predict what he/she will face in the future, and (iv) 

to have some degree of control over what takes place in his/her 

environment. Any alteration in the job environment is likely to disrupt 

55 
the manner in which the individual meets aspects of these needs. The 

greater the change, the greater the potential disruption in the ability of 

workers to meet their needs. Comments concerning the move to centralized 

work hubs, as well as the 20 percent of the work force that indicated that 

they would probably be relocated and would dislike the move, suggest that 

concern about relocating in a new work environment is a significant 

feature of the negative reactions to the NMC proposal. The movement to a 

new work environment where the worker may be required to develop 

additional specialized skills creates a setting in which the individual 

will be required to establish new ways of meeting needs. This will 

include the development of new work roles and new patterns of interaction 

with coworkers in a setting that is largely unpredictable, one in which 

the worker would initially experience little control. It is easy to see 

how the technician could perceive this change as involving considerable 

psychological cost. The additional expense of selling a house and buying 

a new house at a higher price and at a higher interest rate is another 

negative consequence. Relocation from country to city also impacts the 

family in that the move will require the development of a new lifestyle. 

Several individuals specifically indicated that a move to a larger city 

would create a significant (negative) change in the overall quality of 

their life. 

In view of the potential costs involved in the change, there has been 

limited emphasis on the positive aspects of the change as they relate to 

the technician. As indicated by Schleh (14), management typically 

justifies proposals for change by demonstrating their positive impact on 

the organization (economic savings), giving less attention to the impact 

of these changes on the average worker. This assessment seems to be 

generally true concerning the NMC proposal. The primary focus appeared to 

be on the potential savings and increased efficiency for the agency; 

there was less emphasis on the benefits for the average employee, an 

increase in efficiency and reliability when using new solid state 

equipment, and a possible reduction in watchstanding. Little emphasis was 

placed on other potential rewards: the challenge and opportunity of 

working with more sophisticated equipment, the opportunity for upgrading 

skills, and the increased potential for promotion. The provision of such 

additional information to the technicians would be beneficial in helping 

them see the proposal in a different manner. 

Meyer (12), Mealiea (11), and Howes and Quinn (7) all stress the 

importance of effective communication in the reduction or prevention of 

resistance to change. Employees are less likely to resist change if they 

are given the relevant facts concerning how change will affect them. An 

attempt was made through the use of multiple sources, including a 

videotape, an article in the agency magazine that is received by all 

employees, an FAA Order that was widely distributed, as well as more 

informal means, to communicate the proposed changes. However, since 

nearly one-fourth (22.6 percent) of the work force indicated that they had 

received "very little" information concerning the plan, questions need to 

be raised concerning the effectiveness of the communication. For example, 

56 
the article in FAA WORLD (9) entitled "Better Service at Less Cost" at 

first glance gi~n<l indication that the article concerns the NMC. While 

the focus of the article is on the savings generated by the move to solid 

state equipment and remote monitoring, there was significantly less space 

provided for a discussion of the influence of these changes on the 

employee's job and the proposal for a reduction in work sites. Thus, the 

average worker at the smaller facility received little information to 

indicate how these changes would impact on his job and location. 

Communication could have been improved by using this article as a basis 

for a series of articles to continue to inform the work force as 

additional details concerning the proposed changes were developed. 

Furthermore, a question and answer column might have been implemented 

where the workers could write in and ask questions concerning the proposed 

changes and answers would have been-supplied by headquarters personnel. 

This would not only have allowed the average worker to express his/her 

concerns, but it would have allowed management to determine the aspects of 

the changes that were being viewed critically by the worker in terms of 

the types of questions that were being raised. The existence of a large 

number of workers who indicated that they were undecided about the overall 

plan (30.8 percent, Q27) suggests that the development and presentation of 

additional informational programs could be of some utility in ensuring a 

more positive reaction in the future. 

An additional benefit from increased communication is that there is 

research evidence suggesting that the presence of adequate information 

prevents the occurrence of rumors among lower level employees (12). A 

fear expressed in several comments, that under the proposal there is a 

potential for the electronics technicians to have their positions 

downgraded when they become "module swappers, •• could be an example of this 

type of a rumor. The existence of effective two-way communication both 

within and between levels of employees is critical to the implementation 

of change. Meyer (12) indicates that communication within an organization 

is typically greater within levels than between levels. Limited 

communication flow in the AF work force seems indicated since upper level 

personnel reported that they possessed a greater amount of information 

concerning the proposal than did those at lower levels. Not only do they 

report possessing more information, but they tend to perceive the proposal 

in more favorable terms than the technician. This suggests a need for 

additional communication, especially two-way communication between upper 

level management and technicians. In developing more effective 

communication, it should be remembered that when changes are imposed there 

tends to be greater resistance (5). If at all possible, attempts should 

be made to involve technicians in some of the decision-making concerning 

their jobs. The typical approach of having a few representatives meet 

with personnel involved in the decision making may not be sufficient to 

accomplish the desired result. Since a majority of the technical work 

force may be unaware that this input was obtained and utilized, it may be 

necessary to develop and circulate communication from the representatives, 

concerning their involvement. 

57 
REFERENCES 

1. Bennis, C., K. Benne, R. Chin, and R. Corey (Eds.). 1972. The 

Planning of Change. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston. 

2. 

3. 

Federal Aviation Administration. 1979. 

Philosophy Steering Group (MPSG) Report. 

Transmittal of Maintenance 

FAA Order 6000.27. 

Faunce, w. A. 1960. Social Stratification and Attitude Toward Change in 

Job Content. Social Forces. 39:140-148. 

4. Fox, s .. 1979. Workers' Apprehensions Due to Plant Relocation. 

Psychological Report. 45:327-332, 

5. Hall, D. T., J. G. Goodale, s. Rabinowitz, and M. Morgan. 1978. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Effects of Top-Down Departmental and Job Change Upon Perceived Employee 

Behavior and Attitudes: A Natural Field Experiment. Journal of Applied 

Psychology. 63:62-72. 

Hardin, E. 1967. Job Satisfaction and Desire for Change. 

Applied Psychology. 51:20-27. 

Journal of 

Howes, N. J,, and R. E. 

Research to a Prescriptive 

3:71-84. 

Quinn. 1978. Implementing Change: From 

Framework. Group and Organizational Studies. 

Lauer, R. H., and R. Thomas. 1976. 

Psychological Consequences of Change. 

A Comparative Analysis of the 

Human Relations. 29:239-248. 

9. Lavey, G. E. 1979. Better Service at Less Cost. FAA World. !(12):2-5. 

10. McMurry, R. N. 1947. The Problem of Resistance to Change in Industry. 

Journal of Applied Psychology. 31:589-593. 

11. Mealiea, L. W. 1978. Learned Behavior: The Key to Understanding and 

Preventing Employee Resistance to Change. Group and Organizational 

Studies. 3:211-223. 

12. Meyer, M. c. 1976. Managing Organizational Change. Personnel Journal. 

~:570-572, 579. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

Nie, N. H., C. H. 

Bent. 1975. SPSS: 

York: McGraw-Hill. 

Schleh, E. c. 1960. 

of Life, Personnel. 

Smith, R. c., and G. 

Facilities Personnel. 

Hull, J. G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner, and D. H. 

Statistical Package for ~ Social Sciences. New 

Selling Technological Change as the Company's Way 

37:57-66. 

L. Hutto. 1977. Job Attitudes of Airway 

Office of Aviation Medicine, OAM Report No. 

58 
AM-77-21. 

Spielberger, C. 

(Form Y). Palo 

Press). 

D. Test Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory 

Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press (In 

Stewart, M. 1957. Resistance to Technological Change in Industry. 

Organization. 16:36-39. 

Human 

Trumbo, D. A. 1961. 

Work-Related Change. 

Individual and Group Correlates of Attitudes Toward 

Journal of Applied Psychology. 45:338- 344. 

Zander, A. 1950. Resistance to Change- Its Analysis and Prevention. 

Advanced Management. 15:9-11. 

59 
APPENDIX 

AIRWAY FACILITIES MAINTENANCE PHILOSOPHY AND 

WATCHSTANDING QUESTIONNAIRE 

PURPOSE 

The questionnaire is being sent to all field personnel of the Regional Airway Facilities (AF) 

Divisions by the Civil Aeromedical Institute of the FAA. It is concerned with two issues, 

the new maintenance concept to be implemented during the 1980s and watchstanding 

(shiftwork). As" you know, plans are being made to change the agency's approach to main· 

tenance so that on-line performance will be improved in a cost-effective manner. This 

questionnaire is concerned with your thoughts about the changes being proposed. 

There are also many questions that need to be studied about the effects of watchstanding 

on those employed in the AF Divisions. Although watchstanding will be substantially 

reduced under the new maintenance concept, it will probably always be a requirement in 

some settings. The results of this questionnaire will be used to help plan the most ap· 

propriate ways to handle the watchstanding requirement in the future. 

A-1 
INSTRUCTIONS 

1. Enclosed in this packet are a questionnaire, an answer sheet, a comments sheet, and 

a preaddressed return envelope. 

2. Your participation in this survey is voluntary and anonymous. Therefore, please do not 

put your name on the questionnaire. 

3. Please read the instructions carefully before each part of the questionnaire. 

4. Please use a pencil (Number 2, if possible) to mark your responses on the answer 

sheet. See side 2 of the answer sheet for the correct way to mark your answers so 

that they will be read accurately by the scoring machine. MAKE A HEAVY, DARK 

MARK··not a cross or checkmark. 

5. Work quickly; do not spend a long time on any one item--use your first impression to 

answer each item. If you do wish to change an answer, please erase your first 

choice completely. It is important to complete as much of the questionnaire as 

possible: however, if there are questions you prefer not to answer, please omit 

these while completing the rest of the questionnaire. If you omit an item, please be 

sure that your subsequent answers line up with the correct space on the answer 

sheet. 

6. The completed answer sheet and comments sheet should be returned directly to: 

Dr. Roger C. Smith 

AAC-118, FAA, CAMI 

P.O. Box 25082 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

in the preaddressed return envelope provided for this purpose. It is not necessary to 

return the questionnaire. 

A-2 
BASIC INFORMATION 

(These items are to be answered in the spaces to the left of the heavy green line 

on side 1 of your answer sheet.) 

Sex: Male (M) or Female (F) 

Grade or Education: Enter the number of years of formal education (e.g., high school graduate12, 2 years of college -14). 

Special codes (located at bottom center of side 1) 

Age Enter in Column J 

24 and under .................................................................................................................. O 

25~29 ......................................................................................................................... 1 

30~~ ......................................................................................................................... 2 

35 to 39 ......................................................................................................................... 3 

~~M ......................................................................................................................... 4 45~~ ......................................................................................................................... 5 

~~~ ........................................................................................................................ 6 55~~ ......................................................................................................................... 7 

60 or over ....................................................................................................................... 8 

Ethnic background Enter in Column K 

Orientai .......................................................................................................................... O 

Black .............................................................................................................................. I 

White (Caucasian) ........................................................................................................... 2 

Hispanic ......................................................................................................................... 3 

American Indian or Alaskan Native ................................................................................. .4 

Other .............................................................................................................................. 5 

Degrees Enter in Column L 

High school diploma ....................................................................................................... 0 

Associate degree (junior college graduate) ....................................................................... I 

Bachelor's degree (college degree) .................................................................................. 2 

Master's degree .............................................................................................................. 3 

Doctoral degree .............................................................................................................. 4 

Trade school ·1 year ....................................................................................................... 5 

Trade school ·2 years ...................................................................................................... 6 

Trade school ·3 or more years ......................................................................................... 7 

Pay schedule Enter in Column M 

~ .................................................................................................................................. 0 

WG ................................................................................................................................. 1 

WL ................................................................................................................................. 2 

m ................................................................................................................................. 3 

Grade level Enter in Column N 

Grade 5 or lower ............................................................................................................. 0 

Grade 6 .......................................................................................................................... 1 

Grade 7 ...........................•.............................................................................................. 2 

Grade 8 .................................................... ,. ..................................................................... 3 

Grade 9 ....................................................•..................................................................... 4 

Grade 10 ................................................... , ..................................................................... 5 

Grade 11 ........................................................................................................................ 6 

Grade 12 ........................................................................................................................ 7 

Grade 13 ........................................................................................................................ 8 

Grade 14 or higher .......................................................................................................... 9 

A-3 
Years worked for FAA/CAA Enter in Column 0 

Less than 1 year................... .. .. .. .. .... . .. .. . .... . .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ........... 0 

1 year ............................................................................................................................ 1 

2 years ........................................................................................................................... 2 

3 years ........................................................................................................................... 3 

4 years ........................................................................................................................... 4 

5 years ........................................................................................................................... 5 

6 to 10 years .................................................................................................................. 6 

11 to 20 years ................................................................................................................ 7 

21 or more years ............................................................................................................ 8 

Years in your present position Enter in Column P 

Less than 1 year ............................................................................................................. 0 

1 year ............................................................................................................................. 1 

2 years ........................................................................................................................... 2 

3~~ .................................................................................................................... 3 

4~~-............................................................................................................... 4 

5 years ........................................................................................................................... 5 

6 to 10 years .................................................................................................................. 6 

11 to 20 years ................•............................................................................................... 7 

21 or more years ............................................................................................................ 8 

AF INFORMATION 

(These items are to be answered in the spaces to the right of the heavy green line on your answer sheet.) 

Enter 

1. At what type of facility do you work? 

ARTCC ............................................. 1 

Ma1or tower (Level 4 or 5) ................. 2 

Intermediate tower (Level 3) ............. 3 

Small tower or station (Level 1 or 2) . .4 

Remote non tower ............................. 5 

Regional office ................................. 6 

Other ............................................... 7 

2. What is your AF specialty? 

Communications .............................. 1 

Radar ............................................... 2 

Navaids ............................................ 3 

Automation ...................................... 4 

Environmental systems ..................... 5 

Staff support .................................... 6 

Other ............................................... 7 

3. What is your major occupational 

identification? 

Electronics technician ....................... 1 

Enter 

Environmental support technician ..... 2 

Engineer .......................................... 3 

Staff suppor\. .................................. .4 

Other ............................................... 5 

4. Which AF program do you work under? 

F & E ................................................ 1 

Maintenance .................................... 2 

Other ............................................... 3 

5. In which FAA region do you work? 

NE ................................................... 1 

EA ............................................... 2 

so ................................................... 3 

GL ................................................... 4 

CE ................................................... 5 

SW ................................................... 6 

RM .................................................. 7 

WE ................................................... 8 

NW orAL ......................................... 9 

EU or PC ........................................ 10 

A-4 
Enter 

6. Are you presently a supervisor; that is, 

does your official job description include 

the responsibility for directly supervising 

the work of others? 

Yes .................................................. 1 

No ................................................... 2 

RATING YOUR JOB 

7. In general, how difficult is your job? 

Very difficult .................................... 1 

Difficult. ........................................... 2 

Neither difficult nor easy .................. 3 

Easy ................................................ .4 

Very easy ......................................... 5 

8. Up to now, how difficult has today's 

shift been? If you are just starting the 

shift or have been working 2 hours or 

less when you answer this, mark the 

6 on the answer sheet. 

Very difficult .................................... 1 

Diffic;ult. ........................................... 2 

Neither difficult nor easy .................. 3 

Easy ................................................ .4 

Very easy ......................................... 5 

Just starting ..................................... 6 

9. What percentage of your workdays 

are difficult? 

10% or less ...................................... 1 

10-20% ............................................ 2 

20-30% ............................................ 3 

30-40% ........................................... .4 

40-50% ............................................ 5 

50-60% ............................................ 6 

60-70% ............................................ 7 

70-80% ............................................ 8 

80-90% ............................................ 9 

90-100% ........................................ 10 

10. What percentage of your workdays 

are easy? 

10% or less ...................................... 1 

10-20% ............................................ 2 

20-30% ............................................ 3 

30-40% ........................................... .4 

40-50% ............................................ 5 

50-60% ............................................ 6 

60-70% ............................................ 7 

70-80% ............................................ 8 

80-90% ............................................ 9 

90·100% ........................................ 10 

A-5 

11. How would you rate your typical 

workload (the amount of work you 

have to do)? 

Enter 

Very heavy ....................................... 1 

Heavy .............................................. 2 

Moderate ......................................... 3 

Light ................................................ 4 

Very light ......................................... 5 

12. Is your present work physically straining? 

Very much so ................................... 1 

Moderately so .................................. 2 

Somewhat ........................................ 3 

Very little ......................................... 4 

13. Is your present work mentally straining? 

Very much so ................................... 1 

Moderately so .................................. 2 

Somewhat ........................................ 3 

Very little ......................................... 4 

14. How stressful is your work? 

Very much so ................................... 1 

Moderately ....................................... 2 

Somewhat ........................................ 3 

Very little ......................................... 4 

JOB SATISFACTION 

15. How satisfied are you with being em· 

ployed in AF? 

Very satisfied ................................... 1 

Satisfied ........................................... 2 

lndifferent. ....................................... 3 

Dissatisfied ...................................... 4 

Very dissatisfied ............................... 5 

16. How satisfied are you with your pres· 

ent position in AF? 

Very satisfied ................................... 1 

Satisfied ........................................... 2 

lndifferent. ....................................... 3 

Dissatisfied ...................................... 4 

Very dissatisfied ............................... 5 

17. How satisfied are you with your 

choice of occupation; that is, with 

being an electronics technician, engi· 

neer, or whatever? 

Very satisfied ................................... 1 

Satisfied ........................................... 2 

lndifferent. ....................................... 3 

Dissatisfied ...................................... 4 

Very dissatisfied ............................... 5 
Enter 

18. How satisfactory are your working 

conditions in AF? 

Very Satisfactory .............................. 1 

Satisfactory ...................................... 2 

lndifferent. ....................................... 3 

Unsatisfactory ................................. .4 

Very unsatisfactory ........................... 5 

19. How satisfied are you with your salary? 

Very satisfied ................................... 1 

Satisfied ........................................... 2 

lndifferent. ....................................... 3 

Dissatisfied ...................................... 4 

Very dissatisfied ............................... 5 

20. In terms of the work you do now, 

how would you rate your present 

salary? 

Very good ......................................... 1 

Good ................................................ 2 

Adequate ......................................... 3 

lnadequate ....................................... 4 

Very inadequate ............................... 5 

21. How satisfied are you with your im· 

mediate supervisor? 

Very satisfied ................................... 1 

Satisfied ........................................... 2 

lndifferent. ....................................... 3 

Dissatisfied ...................................... 4 

Very dissatisfied ............................... 5 

Enter 

22. How satisfied are you with your local 

sector management? 

Very satisfied ................................... 1 

Satisfied ........................................... 2 

Indifferent. ....................................... 3 

Dissatisfied ...................................... 4 

Very dissatisfied ............................... 5 

23. How satisfied are you with regional 

management? 

Very satisfied ................................... 1 

Satisfied ........................................... 2 

Indifferent ........................................ 3 

Dissatisfied ...................................... 4 

Very dissatisfied .............................. 5 

24. How satisfied are you with national 

FAA management? 

Very satisfied ................................... 1 

Satisfied ........................................... 2 

lndifferent ........................................ 3 

Dissatisfied ...................................... 4 

Very dissatisfied ............................... 5 

THE NEW MAINTENANCE CONCEPT 

This section of the questionnaire is concerned with your understanding of, and attitudes toward, the 

new maintenance concept planned for implementation during the 1980's. Be sure to check that your 

answers start in space 25 on the answer sheet. 

Enter 

25. How much have you heard about the new AF maintenance concept being proposed 

for the 19So··s? 

Very I ittle - do not know much about it.. .................................................................. 1 

Some- am acquainted with basic concepts of plan .................................................. 2 

Considerable -am familiar with most aspects of the plan ......................................... 3 

Great deal-am thoroughly familiar with most details of the plan ............................. 4 

26. Where have you obtained most of your information about the new maintenance con· 

cept? 

FAA Order 6000.27 (6/6179) describing the new maintenance concept and plan ........ 1 

Article in FAA WORLD, "Better Service at Less Cost" (December 1979) ...................... 2 

Video tape presentation on new maintenance concept.. .............................................. 3 

Union communications ............................................................................................. .4 

Management channels ............................................................................................... 5 

Word of mouth .......................................................................................................... 6 

Other ........................................................................................................................ 7 

A-6 
Enter 

27. From what you know now, what is your general reaction to the new mamtenance concept? 

Very positive- believe it will be a progressive change for AF ..................................... 1 

Generally positive -am generally supportive, but have some concerns ..................... 2 

Uncertain -do not know whether I support this program ......................................... 3 

Generally negative- see some good points, but generally think the overall plan 

is not a good one .................................................................................................. .4 

Very negative- believe it will be bad for the AF Service ............................................ 5 

28. The new maintenance concept proposes two levels of facilities: (1) Maintenance hubs 

where maintenance technicians will do the monitoring, remote certification, and repair of modules and (2) remote facilities that will be unmanned, remotely monitored 

and featur.e easily diagnosed and replaced system modules. What do you think about 

this concept? 

This is a good idea that I strongly support... ............................................................... 1 

Accept with reservations about remote maintenance monitoring ................................. 2 

Accept with reservations about maintenance hubs ..................................................... 3 

Accept with reservations about both monitoring and hubs .......................................... 4 

Uncertain about this concept.. ................................................................................... 5 

Do not feel that this will be a good change, am generally not in favor of it.. ................. 6 

Not workable -concept should be rejected .............................................................. 7 

29. The new maintenance concept also proposed two types of certification: (1) facility certification (i.e., initial, quarterly, etc.) accomplished through on-site calibration and 

certification of equipment and remote monitoring devices and (2) periodic certification (i.e., daily, weekly, etc.) through the remote maintenance monitoring system. 

What do you think about this concept? 

This is a good idea that I strongly support... ............................................................... 1 

Generally accept with reservations about periodic certification process ....................... 2 

Generally accept with reservations about on-site facility certification ........................... 3 

Generally accept with reservations about both processes ........................................... .4 

Uncertain about this concept.. ................................................................................... 5 

Do not feel this will be a good change, am generally not in favor of it.. ........................ 6 

Not workable- concept should be rejected .............................................................. 7 

30. Under the new maintenance concept, four levels of system repair have been proposed: 

(i) First.level- module replacement 

(ii) Second level -basic module repair at sector 

(iii) Third level- specialized module repair at depot 

(iv) Fourth level -on-site repair for nontransportable items. 

What do you think about this proposal? 

This is a good idea that I strongly support.. ................................................................ 1 

Generally accept with some reservations .................................................................... 2 

Uncertain about this concept.. ................................................................................... 3 

Do not feel this will be a good change, am generally not in favor of it.. ....................... .4 

Not workable- concept should be rejected .............................................................. 5 

A-7 
Enter 

. 31. Along with use of solid-state equipment, the remote maintenance monitoring system 

is a key to the successful implementation of the new maintenance concept. It wrll be 

designed to monitor the equipment and atert personnel of deficiencies. It wiH also 

allow periodic certification of the facility from a central location and wiU give some 

degree of remote control of facility functions. It win have a recordkeeping capability. 

Other functions will be added later such as trend analysis and fault prediction. What 

do you think about this concept? 

This is a good idea that I strongly support .................................................................. 1 

Generally accept with some reservations .................................................................... 2 

Uncertain about this concept ..................................................................................... 3 

Do not feel this will be a good change, am generally not in favor of it ........................ ..4 

Not workable- concept should be rejected .............................................................. 5 

32. One goal of the new maintenance concept is to automate much of the recordkeeping, 

particularly facility logs. What do you think about this goal? 

This is a good idea that I strongly support.. ................................................................ 1 

Generally accept with some reservations .................................................................... 2 

Uncertain about this concept ..................................................................................... 3 

Do not feel this will be a good change, am generally not in favor of it... ...................... .4 

Not workable -· concept should be rejected ........................ , ..................................... 5 

33. One of the goals of the new maintenance concept is to centralize most of the maintenance work of technicians at the sector office and at a more limited number of sector 

field offices rather than at distant sites. What do you think about this goaL? 

This is a good idea that I strongly support. ................................................................ 1 

Generally accept but have some reservations ............................................................. 2 

Uncertain about this concept. .................................................................................... 3 

Do not feel this will be a good change, am generally not in favor of it ......................... .4 

Not workable- concept should be rejected .............................................................. 5 

Listed below are some of the changes that will have the most direct effects on the individual technician. How do you feel about these changes? 

34. The job itself under the new maintenance concept will be directed toward diagnostics, 

corrective maintenance, and probtem solving and away from routine preventive maintenance. 

This is a good idea that I strongly support.. ................................................................ 1 

Generally accept with some reservations .................................................................... 2 

Uncertain about this concept ..................................................................................... 3 

Do not feel this will be a good change, am generally not in favor of it.. ........................ 4 

Not workab[e- concept should be rejected .............................................................. 5 

35. Under the new maintenance concept, a large majority of AF personnel will probably 

work at and out of central maintenance hubs. These will be located at major facilities 

(such as ARTCCs and maior terminals) and large sectors. There will probably be 

fewer sector field offices, and virtually no manned remote facilities. 

This is a good idea that I strongly support .................................................................. ! 

Generally accept with some reservations .................................................................... 2 

Uncertain about this concept ..................................................................................... 3 

Do not feel this will be a good change, am generally not in favor of it .......................... 4 

Not workable- concept should be rejected .............................................................. 5 

A-8 
Enter 

36. Travel under the new maintenance concept is likely to be less frequent for most main· 

tenance personnel but may be of longer duration when it does occur. 

This is a good idea that I strongly support .................................................................. ! 

Generally accept with some reservations .................................................................... 2 

Uncertain about this concept ..................................................................................... 3 

Do not feel this will be a good change, am generally not in favor of it .......................... 4 

Not workable- concept should be rejected .............................................................. 5 

37. Needed skills under the new maintenance concept will tend to emphasize solid state 

electronics, digital logic, systematic troubleshooting skills, and computer programing 

capabilities. 

This is a good idea that I strongly support .................................................................. I 

Generally accept with some reservations .................................................................... 2 

Uncerta.in about this concept ..................................................................................... 3 

Do not feel this will be a good change, am generally not in favor of it.. ....................... .4 

Not workable- concept should be rejected .............................................................. 5 

38. There will probably be an increased requirement for electro-mechanical technicians 

and they may require a greater knowledge of electronics than is presently the case. 

This is a good idea that I strongly support .................................................................. I 

Generally accept with some reservations .................................................................... 2 

Uncertain about this concept ..................................................................................... 3 

Do not feel this will be a good change, am generally not 

in favor of it .......................................................................................................... 4 

Not workable -concept should be rejected .............................................................. 5 

39. While the career plan for technicians may come to emphasize increasing specializa· 

tion as one progresses in the AF system, the technician will still require multiple spe· 

cialties and a greater knowledge of system interfaces. The senior technicians will be· 

come system diagnosticians, software specialists, and will be akin to the Technician· 

In-Depth (TID) of today. 

This is a good idea that I strongly support.. ................................................................ I 

Generally accept with some reservations .................................................................... 2 

Uncertain about this concept ..................................................................................... 3 

Do not feel this will be a good change, am generally not 

in favor of it .......................................................................................................... 4 

Not workable- concept should be rejected .............................................................. 5 

40. Training under the new maintenance concept will emphasize the use of new educa· 

tional technology, particularly computer-assisted instruction. This will allow most of 

the technical theory training to be conducted at the home sector and hands-on train· 

ing at the FAA Academy. 

This is a good idea that I strongly support... ............................................................... I 

Generally accept with some reservations .................................................................... 2 

Uncertain about this concept.. ................................................................................... 3 

Do not feel this will be a good change, am generally not in favor of it.. ........................ 4 

Not workable- concept should be rejected .............................................................. 5 

41. Under the new maintenance concept, it is very likely that there will be a reduced need 

for watchstanding. 

This is a good idea that I strongly support .................................................................. I 

Generally accept with some reservations .................................................................... 2 

Uncertain about this concept.. ................................................................................... 3 

Do not feel this will be a good change, am generally not in favor of it ......................... .4 

Not workable- concept should be rejected .............................................................. 5 

A-9 
Enter 

42. The implementation plans for the new maintenance concept calls for conversion to 

solid state and remote maintenance monitoring, and the associated reorganization to 

be completed by 1989. Which of the following best describes what you see for your· 

self in this time period? 

Will have little or no effect on me as am currently at a facility that will change 

relatively little (for example an ARTCC or major tower) with the new system ............ 1 

Will have little or no effect on me as will probably be retired by the time the plan 

is implemented ................................................... , .................................................. 2 

Will probably mean my relocation to a maintenance hub which I would probably 

like to do ............................................................................................................... 3 

Will probably mean my relocation to a maintenance hub which would probably 

not matter to me one way or the other ................................................................... 4 

Will probably mean my relocation to a maintenance hub which 

I will probably dislike ............................................................................................. 5 

Will lead me to retire at the time of implementation at my facility ............................... 6 

Will lead me to resign at the time of implementation .................................................. 7 

43. With the implementation of the new maintenance concept, emphasis will be placed 

upon skills with solid state electronics, systems troubleshooting, digital logic equip· 

ment, and computers. Which of the following best describes your feelings about this 

change in the work situation? 

Will have little or no effect since some or all of these skills are generally 

required in my present position ............................................................................. 1 

Will have little or no effect since I will probably be retired by the time these 

skills are needed ................................................................................................... 2 

Will look forward to obtaining these new skills ............................................................ 3 

Does not matter since I can continue with present skills or acquire new ones 

as necessary ......................................................................................................... 4 

Would prefer to work with present skills, would prefer not to have the 

transition to new system ........................................................................................ 5 

Will probably retire at time of implementation ............................................................ 6 

Will probably resign at time of implementation ........................................................... 7 

A-10 

l 
SHIFT INFORMATION 

This part of the questionnaire is concerned with watchstanding (shiftwork) as you now experience it. 

Please indicate what your present and past experience has been with shiftwork. Please do not give consideration in this section to any anticipated changes in the shiftwork or watchstanding systems. Be sure 

to check that your answers start with space 44 on your answer sheet. 

Enter 

44. What is your present work schedule? 

Straight days (approximately 6 a.m.-2 p.m., 7 a.m.-3 p.m., 

8 a.m.-4 p.m., or 9 a.m.-5 p.m.) ................................................................... ----------1 

Straight evenings (approximately 3 p.m.-11 p.m., 4 p.m.-midnight, 

or 5 p.m.-1 a.m.) ................................................................................................... 2 

Straight nights (approximately 11 p.m.-7 a.m. or 

midnight-S a.m.) ................................................................................................... 3 

Rotating three-shift with at least one shift change within each 

workweek (e.g., 2 days, 2 evenings, I mid; 3 days, I night, 

1 evening) .................. __ ............. _---· .......... ---· .......... __ .............. ______ .......... __ ... __ ... _ .... 4 

Rotating three-shift with a change each workweek 

(e.g., 5-5-5, 7-5-7) ................................................................................................. 5 

Rotating three-shift with a change each month ........................................................... 6 

Rotating .three-shift with changes less frequent than monthly ..................................... 7 

Rotating two-shift with at least one change within each 

workweek ......................... ____ ...... ····----........... _---·· ............. _ ............. ___ ---· ...... _______ ... 8 

Rotating two-shift with a change after each workweek ................................................ 9 

Other .................................. _ ............. _ .............. __ ............ _ ............... _ ............... ____ ..... 10 

45. How long have you worked on this kind of schedule? 

Less than 1 year ....................................... ____ ............................................. __ .......... ___ .1 

1 year .................................. __ ......... _ ........................................................... __ ............ 2 

2 years .................................. ·--- .......... ----· ........... __ .......... _ ............... ____ .......... ·-·-- __ ..... 3 

3 ·years ............................... _ ......................... _ ........... _ ................ _ ......... _______ .......... ____ .4 

4~~---·········--············-··········--·-·········-············----············----········---·············----·······5 

5 years ................................... _ ...................................... ---··· ...... ·---_ ........... ______ .......... 6 

Up to 10 years .......................................................................................................... 7 

Between 10 and 20 years ................................................. _______ ........ _ .................. __ ..... 8 

More than 20 years ................................................................................................... 9 

46. If you are not now on a rotating schedule, were you ever? 

Never ................................. ····---······ .................. ____ ............ _---· ....... ·--- ............. ______ ..... 1 

Within the last year ................................................................................................... 2 

Up until 1 year ago .................................................................................................... 3 

Up until 2 years ago .................................................................................................. 4 

Up until 3 years ago .................................................................................................. 5 

Up until4 years ago .................................................................................................. 6 

Up until 5 years ago .................................................................................................. 7 

More than 5 years ago ............................................................................................... 8 

A-ll 
Enter 

47. What is the total number of years since you were first employed full time that you 

have worked on a rotating shift schedule? 

Less than 1 year ........................................................................................................ 1 

1year .... : .................................................................................................................. 2 

2~~ .................................................................................................................. 3 

3~~ ................................................................................................................ 4 

4 years ...................................................................................................................... 5 

5 years ...................................................................................................................... 6 

Up to 10 years .......................................................................................................... 7 

Between 10 and 20 years .......................................................................................... 8 

More than 20 years ................................................................................................... 9 

48. Using your daytime productivity as a basis for comparison, what is your relative pro· 

ductivity on evening (approximately 4:00p.m. to midnight) shifts? 

More than 50% better than day shifts ....................................................................... 1 

25-50% better than day shifts ................................................................................... 2 

Up to 25% better than day shifts ............................................................................... 3 

No different from day shifts ...................................................................................... .4 

Up to 25% worse than day shifts ............................................................................... 5 

25-50% worse than day shifts .................................................................................... 6 

More than 50% worse than day shifts ....................................................................... 7 

49. Using your daytime productivity as a basis for comparison, what is your relative pro· 

ductivity on midshifts (approximately midnight to 8: 00 a.m.)? 

More than 50% better than day shifts ....................................................................... 1 

25-50% better than day shifts ................................................................................... 2 

Up to 25% better than day shifts ............................................................................... 3 

No different from day shifts ...................................................................................... .4 

Up to 25% worse than day shifts ............................................................................... 5 

25-50% worse than day shifts .................................................................................... 6 

More than 50% worse than day shifts ....................................................................... 7 

50. When you are ordinarily awakened, do you 

usually get up immediately ........................................................................................ 1 

usually stay in bed for a while .................................................................................... 2 

51. How difficult is it for you to keep awake mornings (8:00a.m. to noon)? 

Often (70% or more of the time) ................................................................................ 1 

Sometimes (30-70% of the time) ............................................................................... 2 

Seldom (less than 30% of the time) ........................................................................... 3 

52. How difficult is it for you to keep awake afternoons (noon to 6:00 p.m.)? 

Often (70% or more of the time) ................................................................................ 1 

Sometimes (30-70% of the time) ............................................................................... 2 

Seldom (less than 30% of the time) ........................................................................... 3 

53. How difficult is it for you to keep awake evenings (6:00 to 10:00 p.m.)? 

Often (70% or more of the time) ................................................................................ 1 

Sometimes (30- 70% of the time) ............................................................................... 2 

Seldom (less than 30% of the time) ........................................................................... 3 

A-12 
Enter 

54. How difficult is it for you to keep awake late evenings/nights (after 10:00 p.m.)? 

Often (70% or more of the time) ................................................................................ 1 

Sometimes (30· 70% of the time) ............................................................................... 2 

Seldom (less than 30% of the time) ........................................................................... 3 

55, Overall, what is your most efficient working time? 

Morning (8:00a.m. to noon) ...................................................................................... I 

Afternoon (noon to 6:00 p.m.) ................................................................................... 2 

Evening (6:00p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) ............................................................................. 3 

Late evening/night (after 10:00 p.m.) ........................................................................ 4 

56. Which of these best describes you? 

Alert in morning/alert in evening ............................................................................... ! 

Tired in morning/alert in evening .............................................................................. 2 

Alert in morning/tired in evening ............................................................................... 3 

Tired in morning/tired in evening .............................................................................. 4 

57. How well do you usually sleep after day shifts? 

Usually my sleep is excellent.. ................................................................................... 1 

Usually my sleep is satisfactory ................................................................................. 2 

Usually my sleep is not so good ................................................................................. 3 

Usually my sleep is poor ............................................................................................ 4 

Do not work day shifts ............................................................................................... 5 

58. How well do you usually sleep after evening shifts? 

Usually my sleep is excellent.. ................................................................................... 1 

Usually my sleep is satisfactory ................................................................................. 2 

Usually my sleep is not so good ................................................................................. 3 

Usually my sleep is poor ............................................................................................ 4 

Do not work evening shifts ........................................................................................ 5 

59. How well do you usually sleep after midshifts? 

Usually my sleep is excellent.. ................................................................................... 1 

Usually my sleep is satisfactory ................................................................................. 2 

Usually my sleep is not so good ................................................................................. 3 

Usually my sleep is poor ............................................................................................ 4 

Do not work midshifts ............................................................................................... 5 

60. How often do you have trouble going to sleep after day shifts? 

Seldom (less than 25% of the time) .......................................................................... 1 

Sometimes (25-50% of the time) ............................................................................... 2 

Often (50-75% of the time) ........................................................................................ 3 

Usually (more than 75% of the time) ......................................................................... 4 

Do not work day shifts ............................................................................................... 5 

61. How often do you have trouble going to sleep after evening shifts? 

Seldom (less than 25% of the time) .......................................................................... 1 

Sometimes (25-50% of the time) ............................................................................... 2 

Often (50-75% of the time) ........................................................................................ 3 

Usually (more than 75% of the time) ......................................................................... 4 

Do not work evening shifts ........................................................................................ 5 

A-13 
Enter 

62. How often do you have trouble goinv.; to sleqJ after m1dshiftsl 

Seldom (leo> than 25% of the t1rne)..... .. . . . ... . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. ... . . ............................ 1 

Somet1mes (25-50% of the time) ....................................................................... 2 

Often (50-75% of the t11ne) .................................................................................... 3 

Usually (more than 75% of the time) ....................................................................... .4 

Do not work midshifts ............................................................................................... 5 

63. How often do you have trouble staying asleep after day shifts? 

Seldom (less than 25% of the time) .......................................................................... 1 

Sometimes (25·50% of the time) ............................................................................... 2 

Often (50-75% of the time) ........................................................................................ 3 

Usually (more than 75% of the time) ......................................................................... 4 

Do not work day shifts ............................................................................................... 5 

64. How often do you have trouble staying asleep after evening shifts? 

Seldom (less than 25% of the time) .......................................................................... 1 

Sometimes (25-50% of the time) ............................................................................... 2 

Often (50·75% of the time) ........................................................................................ 3 

Usually (more than 75% of the time) ......................................................................... 4 

Do not work evening shifts ........................................................................................ 5 

65. How often do you have trouble staying asleep after midshifts? 

Seldom (less than 25% of the time) .......................................................................... 1 

Sometimes (25-50% of the time) ............................................................................... 2 

Often (50-75% of the time) ........................................................................................ 3 

Usually (more than 75% of the time) ......................................................................... 4 

Do not work midshifts ............................................................................................... 5 

66. How much sleep do you usually like to get each night? 

5 or less hours .......................................................................................................... 1 

6 hours ..................................................................................................................... 2 

7 hours ..................................................................................................................... 3 

8 hours .................................................................................................................... .4 

9 hours ..................................................................................................................... 5 

10 hours or more ...................................................................................................... 6 

67. On the average, how much sleep do you get after working a day shift? 

5 or less hours .......................................................................................................... 1 

6 hours ..................................................................................................................... 2 

7 hours ..................................................................................................................... 3 

8 hours ..................................................................................................................... 4 

9 hours ..................................................................................................................... 5 

10 hours or more ...................................................................................................... 6 

Do not work day shifts .............................................................................................. 7 

68. On the average, how much sleep do you get after working an evening shift? 

5 or less hours .......................................................................................................... 1 

6 hours ..................................................................................................................... 2 

7 hours ..................................................................................................................... 3 

8 hours ..................................................................................................................... 4 

9 hours ..................................................................................................................... 5 

10 hours or rnore ...................................................................................................... 6 

Do not work evening shifts ........................................................................................ 7 

A-14 
Enter 

69. On the average, how much sleep do you get after working a midshift? 

5 or less hours .......................................................................................................... ! 

6 hours ..................................................................................................................... 2 

7 hours ..................................................................................................................... 3 

8 hours ..................................................................................................................... 4 

9 hours ..................................................................................................................... 5 

10 hours or more ...................................................................................................... 6 

Do not work midshifts ............................................................................................... 7 

A-15 
,\ numher of statem~:nts which people h;;,-c u.,ed w d<.·s ... :dbe_ themsch .. , .lft.' ghcn b ... :tu~. ludicak hO'·s 

you feel right now, that is, at this mome,t. That is, mark the auswer that seems to dcsenhe mur present 

feelings best. 

Enter Enter 

70. I feel calm. 78. I feel fnghtened. 

Not at all ...................................... 1 Not at all. ..................................... 1 

Somewhat .................................... 2 Somewhat .................................... 2 

Moderately ................................... 3 Moderately ................................... 3 

Very much so ............................... 4 Very much so ............................... 4 

71. I feel secure. 79. I feel comfortable. 

Not at all ...................................... 1 Not at all ...................................... 1 

Somewhat .................................... 2 Somewhat .................................... 2 

Moderately ................................... 3 Moderately ................................... 3 

Very much so ............................... 4 Very much so ............................... 4 

72. I am tense. 80. I feel self·confident. 

Not at all ...................................... 1 Not at all ...................................... 1 

Somewhat .................................... 2 Somewhat .................................... 2 

Moderately ................................... 3 Moderately ............................... ., .. 3 

Very much so ............................... 4 Very much so ............................... 4 

73. I feel strained. 81. I feel nervous. 

Not at all ...................................... 1 Not at all ...................................... 1 

Somewhat .................................... 2 Somewhat .................................... 2 

Moderately ................................... 3 Moderately ................................... 3 

Very much so ............................... 4 Very much so ............................... 4 

74. I feel at ease. 82. I am jittery. 

Not at all ...................................... 1 Not at all ...................................... 1 

Somewhat .................................... 2 Somewhat .................................... 2 

Moderately ................................... 3 Moderately ................................... 3 

Very much so ............................... 4 Very much so ............................... 4 

75. I feel upset. 83. I feel indecisive. 

Not at all ...................................... 1 Not at all ...................................... 1 

Somewhat .................................... 2 Somewhat .................................... 2 

Moderately ................................... 3 

Very much so ............................... 4 

Moderately ................................... 3 

Very much so ............................... 4 

76. I am presently worrying over possi· 84. I am relaxed. 

ble misfortunes. Not at all ...................................... 1 

Not at all ...................................... 1 Somewhat .................................... 2 

Somewhat .................................... 2 Moderately ................................... 3 

Moderately ................................... 3 Very much so ............................... 4 

Very much so ............................... 4 

77. I feel satisfied. 85. I feel content. 

Not at all ...................................... 1 Not at all ...................................... 1 

Somewhat .................................... 2 Somewhat .................................... 2 

Moderately ................................... 3 Moderately ................................... 3 

Very much so ............................... 4 Very much so ............................... 4 

A-16 
Enter Enter 

86. I am worried 88. I feel steady. 

Not at all ...................................... 1 Not at all. ..................................... 1 

Somewhat .................................... 2 Somewhat .................................... 2 

Moderately ................................... 3 Moderately ................................... 3 

Very much so ............................... 4 Very much so ............................... 4 

87. I feel confused. 89. I feel pleasant. 

Not at all. ..................................... 1 Not at all ...................................... 1 

Somewhat .................................... 2 Somewhat .................................... 2 

Moderately ................................... 3 

Very much so ............................... 4 

Moderately ................................... 3 

Very much so ............................... 4 

Below are some more statements which people have used to describe themselves. This time indicate 

10w you generally feel. That is, mark the answer that seems to best describe how you generally feel. 

90. I feel pleasant. 96. I am "calm. cool, and collected." 

Almost never ................................ 1 Almost never ................................ 1 

Sometimes ................................... 2 Sometimes ................................... 2 

Often ............................................ 3 Often ............................................ 3 

Almost always .............................. 4 Almost always .............................. 4 

91. I feel nervous and restless. 

Almost never ................................ 1 

Sometimes ................................... 2 

Often ............................................ 3 

Almost always .............................. 4 

97. I feel that difficulties are piling up 

so that I cannot overcome them. 

Almost never ................................ 1 

Sometimes ................................... 2 

Often ............................................ 3 

Almost always .............................. 4 

92. I feel satisfied with myself. 

Almost never ................................ 1 

Sometimes ................................... 2 

Often ............................................ 3 

Almost always .............................. 4 

98. I worry too much over something 

that really doesn't matter. 

Almost never ................................ 1 

Sometimes ................................... 2 

Often ............................................ 3 

93. I wish I could be as happy as oth· Almost always .............................. 4 

ers seem to be. 99. I am happy. 

AI most never ................................ 1 Almost never ................................ 1 

Sometimes ................................... 2 Sometimes ................................... 2 

Often ............................................ 3 Often ............................................ 3 

Almost always .............................. 4 Almost always .............................. 4 

94. I feel like a failure. 100. I have disturbing thoughts. 

Almost never ................................ 1 AI most never ................................ 1 

Sometimes ................................... 2 Sometimes ................................... 2 

Often ............................................ 3 Often ............................................ 3 

Almost always .............................. 4 Almost always .............................. 4 

95. I feel rested. 101. I lack self-confidence. 

Almost never ................................ 1 Almost never ................................ 1 

Sometimes ................................... 2 Sometimes ................................... 2 

Often ............................................ 3 Often.: .......................................... 3 

Almost always .............................. 4 Almost always ............................. .4 

A-17 
Enter 

102. I feel secure. 

Almost never ................................ 1 

Sometimes ................................... 2 

Often ............................................ 3 

Almost always .............................. 4 

103. I make decisions easily. 

AI most never ................................ 1 

Sometimes ................................... 2 

Often ............................................ 3 

Almost always .............................. 4 

104. I feel inadequate. 

Almost never ................................ 1 

Sometimes ................................... 2 

Often ............................................ 3 

Almost always .............................. 4 

105. I am content. 

Almost never ................................ 1 

Sometimes ................................... 2 

Often ............................................ 3 

Almost always .............................. 4 

Enter 

106. Some unimportant thought runs 

through my mind and bothers me. 

Almost never ................................ 1 

Sometimes ................................... 2 

Often ............................................ 3 

AI most always .............................. 4 

107. I take disappointments so keenly 

that I can't put them out of my 

mind. 

Almost never ................................ 1 

Sometimes ................................... 2 

Often ............................................ 3 

Almost always .............................. 4 

108. I am a steady person. 

Almost never ................................ 1 

Sometimes ................................... 2 

Often ............................................ 3 

Almost always .............................. 4 

109. I get in a state of tension or tur· 

moil as I think over my recent con· 

cerns and interests. 

Almost never ................................ 1 

Sometimes ................................... 2 

Often ............................................ 3 

Almost always .............................. 4 

A-'18 
GENERAL STATE OF HEALTH 

Enter 

110. How would you describe your general state of health? 

Excellent ................................................................................................................... 1 

Good ......................................................................................................................... 2 

Fair ......................................................................................................................... -.3 

Poor ......................................................................................................................... 4 

111. Have you seen a physician in the past 12 months for any of the following reasons (if 

seen for more than one reason, check the one that required the most attention)? 

Routine physical or checkup ...................................................................................... I 

High blood pressure/hypertension ............................................................................. 2 

Upper respiratory infection ........................................................................................ 3 

Tension/nerves ......................................................................................................... 4 

Surgery ..................................................................................................................... 5 

lnju~ ........................................................................................................................ 6 

Cardiac (heart) problems ........................................................................................... 7 

Stomach problems/ulcers .......................................................................................... 8 

Other ........................................................................................................................ 9 

Have not seen a physician in the past 12 months ..................................................... IO 

112. Are you cuFrently being treated by a physician for any of the following reasons (if 

being treated for more than one reason, check the one that requires the most attention)? 

Routine physical or checkup ...................................................................................... 1 

High blood pressure/hypertension ............................................................................. 2 

Upper respirato~ infection ........................................................................................ 3 

Tension/nerves ......................................................................................................... 4 

Surgery ..................................................................................................................... 5 

lnjury ........................................................................................................................ 6 

Cardiac (heart) problems ........................................................................................... 7 

Stomach problems/ulcers .......................................................................................... 8 

Other ........................................................................................................................ 9 

Not currently being treated ...................................................................................... IO 

113. Have you ever required the attention of a physician for treatment of ulcers? 

Never required .......................................................................................................... 1 

Have now .................................................................................................................. 2 

Have had in the past ................................................................................................. 3 

114. Have you ever required the attention of a physician for treatment of high blood pressure? 

Never required .......................................................................................................... 1 

Have now .................................................................................................................. 2 

Have had in the past ................................................................................................. 3 

Have you ever required the attention of a physician for treatment of cardiac 

problems? 

Never required .......................................................................................................... ! 

Have now .................................................................................................................. 2 

Have had in the past ................................................................................................. 3 

A-19 
,, 

Enter 

116. Have you ever required the attention of a physician for treatment of lung problems? 

Never required ....................................................................... ;.-.................................. 1 

Have now ................................................................................ : ................................. 2 

Have had in the past ................................................................................................. 3 

117. Have you ever required the attention of a physician for treatment of upper respiratory 

infection? 

Never required .......................................................................................................... 1 

Have now .................................................................................................................. 2 

Have had in the past ................................................................................................. 3 

118. Have you ever required the attention of a physician for treatment of tension or 

nerves? 

Never required .......................................................................................................... 1 

Have now .................................................................................................................. 2 

Have had in the past ................................................................................................. 3 

119. Have you ever required the attention of a physician for treatment of stomach 

problems? 

Never required ..................................................................... , .................................... 1 

Have now .................................................................................................................. 2 

Have had in the past.. ............................................................................................... 3 

120. Have you ever required the attention of a physician for treatment of emotional 

problems? 

Never required .......................................................................................................... 1 

Have now .................................................................................................................. 2 

Have had in the past ................................................................................................. 3 

A-20 J:J.-U.S. Government Printing Office : 1983 -381-428/3116