LEVEL f

Technical Repnort 433

4 DEVELOPMENT OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL

SURVEY FEEDBACK PROGRAM FOR THE

32D, AIR PEFENSE COMMAND.

Donald G. Walizer o John R.lietus /

r,-A

ARI FIELD UNIT, USAREUR

-.. 4 i' /

DTIC

" ELECTE

L~m. JUL 7 19813

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

// Mar igM S

a Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. )

A 81o06112

. 11
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

FRANKLIN A. HART

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, US Army

Technical Director Commander

NOTICES

1DIST RI BUTI ON Prnimary distribution of this report has been made by AR I. Please address corrospondenict 4 concerning distribution of reports to U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

ATTN: PERI TP, 5001 Eisenhovw Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333.j

FINAL DISPOSITION This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do not return it to

the U S. Army Resarch Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position,

'4 I unless so designated by other authorized documents.
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATIOP) OF TAIS PAGE (Mhen Data Entered) REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS

BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

I. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Report 433 0,tA' o 9, , I 4. TITLE (end Subtitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT A PERIOD COVERED

DEVELOPMENT OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL SURVEY

FEEDBACK PROGRAM FOR THE 32D AIR DEFENEE Final

COMMAND 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(s) S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s)

Donald G. Walizer and John R. Mlietus

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

and Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Army Project 2QI62722A779

Alexandria, VA 22333 Task B, Work Unit 1, FY 79

Ii. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

US Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel March 1980

Washington, L)C 20310 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

52 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(If different Iron Controlling Office) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of thills rporl)

Unclassified

15&. DECL ASSI FICATION/ DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

15. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

"17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, It different fro'" Report)

"18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

-4

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse aide if necessiary and Identify by block number)

Organizational effectiveness

Organization development

Organizational climate

Organization processes

20 ABT'RACT (COaWtie sm rsvme sk Ift nas a end Identify by block number)

_- I. In the U.S. Army's Organizational Effectiveness Program, the General Organization Questionnaire (GOQ) serves as the primary diagnostic survey instrument for measuring organizational climate. This project (a) tailored the GOQ

and its data processing (ADP) and feedback systems to the unique situation of

the 32d Air Defense Command (AADCOM) and (b) examined the psychometric properties of the basic GOQ instrument.

The GOQ was tailored to the 32d AADCOM's situation. It was administered

to more than 2,000 headquarters battery personnel in late 1977. Because there- J

DO M 473 EDToN OF N Sis OBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Doe Entered)

-.. .. .. .................... .. ... .. .. .. ... ... .. 
UNCLASSIFIED

S ~urTYy CLASSIFICATION OF TinS PAGs(Wbm Data Rnad)

20.\ was no GOQ ADP system in U.S. Army-Europe (USAREUR) during the project,

systems for processing data and returning results to commanders were built and

then used. Interscale correlation and inter-item reliability coefficients were computed. To help assess the impact of the procedures as viewed by commanders, a short evaluative questionnaire was used.

Five of six major indices of the GOQ were left intact; these measured

unit climate, supervisory leadership, co-worker interaction, and work group

processes. Questions on norms and values, job satisfaction, personal adjustment, family life, and equal opportunity were added. Internal consistency scale reliability coefficients averaged .75. There was no curtailment in the

range of item responses. Interscale correlation coefficients are higher than

desired in an instrument used for differential diagnoses.

The data processing system was unwieldy but workable. Data feedback was to the top levels of the command, where it had policy impact; and to battery

commander, where it had minimal practical impact, as perceived by unit com- manders. Recommendations were to refine further the GW scales, make the

tailore nstrument available, replace the ADP system, and change the data

feedback p ocedures. Feedback to unit commanders should be on "profile"

forms; it s uld nrovide norms for comparison; the commander and immediate

subordinates ould be involved in discussing the data in several long

meetings. ,

\/

Accession For

ITIS GRA&I 00feDTIC TAB I

Unannounoed

Justification

Diotribut ion/

Avatllbilit" Codes

Ava~ii nn,!/or

UNCLASSIFIED

isCUftIlV CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEWMen Dae Rnte*d)
Technical Report 433

DEVELOPMENT OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL

SURVEY FEEDBACK PROGRAM FOR THE

32D AIR DEFENSE COMMAND

Donald G. Walizer and John R. Mietus

Submitted by:

William W. Haythorn, Chief

4ARI FIELD UNIT, USAREUR

Approved by:

E. Ralph Dusek, Director

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

RESEARCH LABORATORY

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

March 1980

Army Project Number Leadership and Management

20162722A779

Aopr ecd for Putbic rolems: distribution unlimined.

Aiii

A|

I- ... .7 ......... ........
ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and for other research and military agencies. Any findings ready

for implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last part

of the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

'I

iv
I

The research reported here was accomplished by the Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness Work Unit, U.S. Army-Europe (USAREUR) Field Unit of the

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. This unit

has as its primary objective the enhancement of combat readiness through research to improve organizational processes. The research is responsive to Army

Project 2Q162722A779, Techniques for Organizational Effectiveness and Management Training, FY 79 Work Program.

The complex, rapidly changing environment of the modern Army makes it imperative that organization leadership, climate, and processes function optimally. The Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness Work Unit researches

personal, small-group, and macro-organizational functioning in work settings,

specifically in USAREUR, in an attempt to increase combat readiness and quality

of life. This report details the development of a system designed to diagnose

these variables. Research was initiated and data collected by the first author,

who left ARI before the project was completed. The second author carried out

secondary data analysis and wrote the final report.

44

JSEPH Z11ER

echnical Director

v

4 K
DEVELOPMENT OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL SURVEY FEEDBACK PROGRAM FOR THE 32D AIR

DEFENSE COMMAND

BRIEF

Requirements:

In the U.S. Army's Organizational EfFectiveness Program, the General Organization Questionnaire (GOQ) serves as the primary diagnostic survey instrument for measuring organizational climate. This project (a) tailored the GOQ

and its data processing (ADP) and feedback systems to the unique situation of

the 32d Air Defense Command (AADCOM) and (b) examined the psychometric properties of the basic GOQ instrument.

Procedure:

The instrument was tailored to the 32d AADCOM's situation. It was administered to more than 2,000 headquarters battery personnel in late 1977. Because there was no GOQ ADP system in U.S. Army-Europe (USAREUR) during the

project, systems for ADP and for returning results to commanders were built

and used. Interscale correlation and interitem reliability coefficients were

computed. A short evaluative questionnaire helped assess the impact of the

procedures as viewed by commanders.

Findings:

Five of six major dimensions of the GOQ were left intact. These exhibited

minimally adequate item reliability and excessively high interscale correlation

coefficients. This suggests it would be inappropriate to use this instrument

to attempt pinpoint diagnosis. The data processing system was unwieldy but

workable. Data feedback was to the top levels of the command, where it had

policy impact; and to battery commanders where, as perceived by unit commanders,

it had minimal practical impact. Recommendations were to refine further the

GOQ scales, make the tailored instrument available, replace the ADP system,

and change the data feedback procedures. Feedback to unit commanders should

be on "profile" forms; it should supply norms for comparison; the commander

and his immediate subordinates should be involved in discussing the data in

several long meetings.

Utilization of Findings:

The findings of this study provided an empirical base for improving the

utility of this organizational effectiveness instrument. Principal users of

these findings are the Organizational Effectiveness Center and School and the

Orqanizational Effectiveness Staff Officers in the 32d Air Defense Command.

'4
DEVELOPMENT OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL SURVEY FEEDBACK PROGRAM FOR THE 32D AIR

DEFENSE COMMAND

CONTENTS_________________________ ___

Page

INTRODUCTION............................... 1

OBJECTIVES.................................2

TAILORING THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT.......................2

The Survey Instrument.......................................2

Data Collection..................................................4

Psychometric Properties...................................4

DATA PROCESSING PROCEDURESo.........................................12

DATA FEEDBACK PROCEDURES...........................................12

Method...................................................12

Results.....................................................13

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................17

REFERENCES.......................... ....................... 19

APPENDIX A. ORGANIZATIONAL SURVEY.................................21

B. LETTER FORWARDING RESULTS TO UNIT COMMANDERS..............35

C. ORGANIZATIONAL SURVEY: COMMANDER'S GUIDE...............39

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. GOQ dimensions and indices.....................3

2. organizational survey dimensions and indices ............ 5

3. Internal consistency reliability coefficients

(coefficient alpha) for organizational survey

indices . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6

4. Unit climate interscale correlation coefficients

corrected for unreliability....................8

5. Supervisory leadership interscale correlation

coefficients corrected for unreliability . .. .. .. .. . . 9

6. Co-worker interaction interscale correlation

coefficients corrected for unreliability . .. .. .. .. .. 9

I-T'
LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Page

Table 7. Work group processes interscale correlation

coefficients corrected for unreliability ... ........... ... 10

S. Individual outcome interscale correlation

coefficients corrected for unreliability ........... 10

9. Interdimension correlation coefficients*

not corrected for unreliability ..... ............... ... 11

10. HQ staff survey questionnaire results ............ 14

+x

i .

p4

.4

-i

0i
DEVELOPMENT OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL SURVEY FEEDBACK PROGRAM

FOR THE 32D AIR DEFENSE COMMAND

INTRODUCTION

The Department of the Army initiated an Organizational Effectiveness program in the mid-1970s. Organizational Effectiveness is defined as follows:

Organizational Effectiveness (OE). A systematic adaptation of OD

by the Army for the purpose of strengthening the chain of command,

increasing individual and unit effectiveness, and improving the

quality of life in an Army community. OE is implemented as a

phased process that is tailored to the unique requirements of

a particular Army unit, controlled by that unit's leader or commander, and normally supported by an Organizational Effectiveness Staff Officer. The primary steps of OE include:

(1) Assessment of organizational processes.

(2) Chain of command action planning.

(3) Implementation of planned actions.

(4) Evaluation and follow-up.

Organization Development (OD). A technology which involves the combined application of behavioral and management sciences methods:

(1) to understand more clearly how persons in an organization

communicate with each other and how they affect and are affected

by the structures, procedures, and work environments of the organization, and (2) to use this knowledge and understanding to

reinforce organizational strengths and make practical and systematic improvements in the way the organization functions.

(HQ DA Letter 600-76-2, May 1976)

Survey feedback is a specific OE technique in which a survey instrument

measuring organizational climate is administered to unit personnel by an Organizational Effectiveness Staff Officer (OESO). Based on the results of the

survey, the OESO and the commander plan organization improving actions.

During 1974 and 1975 in U.S. Army-Europe (USAREUR), the Army Research Institute (ARI) conducted a pilot survey feedback project to assess the value

of a particular form of survey feedback technology and to develop tools and

instrumentation (Holmes, 1977). Commanders felt that survey feedback was useful in promoting insight and communication. Company commanders particularly

believed that quarterly surveys would provide useful management information.

This pilot effort established a recognized need and use for the survey feedback technique in USAREUR.

In 1975, the Organizational Effectiveness Training Center (0ETC) made

the General Organization Questionnaire (GOQ) available to OESOs. The GOQ

is a standardized, machine-scored organizational questioniaire patterned

after the Institute for Social Research's "Survey of Organizations" (Taylor

& Bowers, 1972). All OESOs are trained in its use at OETC. Soon after the

GOQ was made available, it became apparent that some tailoizng was needed to

* 11

I- i * , , _ .. -
address the specific organizational diagnosis requirements and operational

r'h-racteristics oZ the 32d Air Defense Command (AADCOM). Furthermore,

there was a need to develop a quick turnaround from survey administration

to feedback to insure that unit commanders received timely and useful data.

OBJECTIVES

This report briefly describes the accomplishment of three goal-!

1. To tailor the GOQ to the 32d AADCOM situation and to examine the

psychometric properties of the GOQ as they reflect the quality of

the survey instrument;

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

analysis system; and

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

In brief, the GOQ was tailored to the 32d AADCOM requirements and characteristics. Data were collected on a sample of line and HQ batteries, and a

method of scoring and analyzing the data was built and implemented. Results

were fed back to commanders by letter and by the 32d AADCOM OESOs. Afterward,

unit leaders and OESOs were sampled as to their judgments on the process.

Some psychometric properties of the instr1,itent were also determined.

TAILORING THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

The Survey Instrument

The tailored instrument, termed the Organization Survey (OS), was based

on the GOQ. The Army adopted the GOQ as a standard instrument in the mid1970s; the GOQ measures 21 dimensions of social organization functioning.

Major GOQ indices and question patterns closely resemble the "Survey of Organizations" of the Instituta for Social Research, a well-researched instrument containing considerable reliability and validity information (Taylor &

Bowers, 1972). When this research began in 1977, reliability and validity

information on the GOQ were not yet available.

The basic GOQ instrument consists of 84 items comprising 21 indices, a

.1 section in which commanders can add their own questions, and a section for

demoqraphic information. The GO) indices are shown in Table 1.

2'

, I ,+ ... . . .2
Table 1

GOQ Dimensions and Indices

Items Total no.

numbered of items

I. Unit Climate

1. Communication Flow 1- 2 2

2. Decisionmaking 3- 6 4

3. Motivation 7-10 4

4. Integration of Personnel and Mission 11-16 6

5. Identification With Unit 17-19 3

6. General Climate 20-27 8

27

II. Supervisory Leadership

1. Support 28-31 4

2. Teamwork 32-33 2

3. Goal Emphasis 34-37 4

4. Work Facilitation 38-43 6

5. Influence 44-45 2 . 18

III. Co-Worker Interaction

1. Support 46-47 2

2. Teamwork 48-51 4

3. Work Facilitation 52-53 2

4. Peer Influence 54-55 2

10

IV. Work Group Processes

1. Coordination 56-57 2

2. Readiness 58-65 8

3. Discipline 66-67 2

4. Intergroup Cooperation 68-69 2

14

V. Effects on Personnel

1. Satisfaction 70-74 5

2. Equal Opportunity 75-84 10

15

TOTAL 84

.g4

3

- 2A77W-T Z- --
The present Organizational Survey retains intact 19 of the original 21

GOQ organizational processes indices; Table 1 lists the 19 as Dimensions I

through IV. Modifications to the GOQ include substantial changes in the

Effects on Personnel indices in Dimension V; only the Equal Opportunity index was retained. The Satisfaction index was changed to measure job satisfaction, and indices of morale and effects on family life were added. Also

added was a section measuring organizational norms and values. The demographic section of the GOQ was dropped, and two questions on rank and sex

of the respondents were added to the OS. The capability of adding commander's

questions was retained. Table 2 shows the final composition of the OS; a

copy of the instrument is in Appendix A.

The four Family Life items added to the OS were developed largely at the

request and with the assistance of the 32d AADCOM OESOs. Items for the Job

Satisfaction and Personal Adjustment (morale) indices were selected from items

used in previous ARI research programs. The Unit Norms and Values items came

from interviews of 32d AADCOM personnel conducted as part of a previous ARI

contract.

Data Collection

A pilot test of the OS and related systems was conducted from March

through June 1977. This test was run with eight current OESO clients, line

batteries in the 32d AADCOM. A total of 654 usable surveys was obtained.

The pilot was designed primarily to test the analysis and feedback portions

of the system, although it did result in some minor item wording changes in

the Unit Norms and Values index.

During August 1977, a survey of all HQ batteries within the 32d AADCOM

was conducted in the first operational phase of the system's existence. A

total of 2,167 usable surveys was received. These data, in conjunction with

data from the pilot phase, provided a basis for examining the psychometric

properties of the instrument. Coefficient Alpha, a measure of internal consistency reliability, was computed for each of the OS indices; interscale

correlation analyses were also performed.

Psychometric Properties

Table 3 shows Alpha reliability coefficients for both the pilot and the

a operational surveys. The pilot data came from line batteries (N = 654), and

the operational data came from HQ batteries (N = 2,167). The Organizational

4- Processes indices (1-19) and the Equal Opportunity index are identical to those

in the GOQ and provide information on that instrument.

ic* 4

Jf

at= ::
Table 2

Organizational Survey

Dimensions and Indices

Items Tctal no.

numbered of items

I. Unit Climate

1. Communication Flow 1- 2 2

2. Decisionmaking 3- 6 4

3. Motivation 7-10 4

4. Integration of Personnel and Mission 11-16 6

5. Identification with Unit 17-19 3

6. General Climate 20-27 8

27

II. Supervisory Leadership

1. Support 28-31 4

2. Teamwork 32-33 2

3. Goal Emphasis 34-37 4

4. Work Facilitation 38-43 6

5. Influence 44-45 2

-4 18

III. Co-Worker Interaction

1. Support 46-47 2

2. Teamwork 48-51 4

3. Work Facilitation 52-53 2

4. Peer Influence 54-55 2

10

IV. Work Group Processes

1. Coordination 56-57 2

2. Readiness 58-65 8

3. Discipline 66-67 2

L 4. Intergroup Cooperation 68-69 2

14

V. Unit Norms and Values 80-96 17

VI. Individual Outcomes

1. Equal Opportunity 70-79 10

2. Job Satisfaction 97-100 4

3. Personal Adjustment 101-105 5

4. Family Life 106-109 4

23

VII. Demographic Information

1. Rank 110

2. Sex i1

TOTAL 111

11 5

*. -1

• "" I " ~I' "I " : - -.... . -
7T_

Table 3

Internal Consistency Reliability Coefficients (Coefficient

Alpha) for Organizational Survey Indices

Test Phase

Index dimension and name Pilot Operational

A. Organizational Processes

1. Communication Flow .49 .54

2. Decisionmaking .67 .74

3. Motivation .63 .67

4. Integration of Personnel and Mission .63 .73

5. Identification with Unit .69 .68

6. General Climate .60 .69

7. Supervisory Leadership Support .81 .83

8. Supervisory Leadership Teamwork Emphasis .76 .75

9. Supervisory Leadership Goal Emphasis .81 .82

10. Supervisory Leadership Work Facilitation .81 .81

11. Supervisory Leadership Influence .66 .73

12. Co-Worker Interaction Support .74 .71

13. Co-Worker Interaction Teamwork .87 .87

14. Co-Worker Interaction Work Facilitation .77 .76

15. Co-Worker Peer Influence .57 .57

16. Work Group Coordination .76 .78

17. Work Group Readiness .70 .77

18. Work Group Discipline .81 .80

19. Intergroup Cooperation .65 .70

B. Unit Norms and Values .85 .89

C. Individual Outcomes

1. Equal Opportunity .78 .83

2. Job Satisfaction .79 .81

3. Personal Adjustment .73 .78

4. Family Life .68 .68

A I6
Internal consistency scale reliability coefficients in the pilot study

varied from .49 to .87, with a mean of .72; the operational phase study obtained internal consistency scale reliability coefficients from .54 to .90,

with a mean of .75. The four supervisory indices--Support, Goal Emphasis,

Teamwork, and Work Facilitation--had coefficients of internal consistency

ranging from .75 to .83. These coefficients contrast to the .85 to .94 range

reported for similar indices in the "Survey of Organizations" (Taylor & Bowers,

1972), a standard against which other similar instruments can be judged.

The range of index scores theoretically can be from 1 to 5. The average

of the indices means is 3.24; the highest index mean score is 3.88, and the

lowest is 2.75. The average of the indices' standard deviations is .98, with

a range of 0.73 to 1.21. This indicates that a curtailment of range problem

does not exist that could limit the instrument's reliability and validity

potential.

Tables 4 through 8 present the interscale correlation coefficients grouped

into major dimensions. The correlations are corrected for index unreliability

by the formula rTG = rtg / rtrg, where rTG = correlation between true components of t and g rtg = obtained correlation; rtt and r = alpha reliability

coefficients. These coefficients show the "true" correla?9on between indices;

that is, they show the correlation coefficients that would exist f the indices

were perfectly reliable and if each item in a scale faithfully represented the

total scale in all significant respects. This relationship is useful for understanding the amount of theoretical common variance between indices and hence

the nature of organization climate, leadership, and group processes. It is

equally important for an OESO to know the amount of shared variance between

indices when explaining survey results to unit leaders. Squaring the reported

coefficients provides an indication of the extent to which variability in any

index overlaps or duplicates variability in another index.

For example, the degree of overlap in the four primary supervisory indices--Support, Teamwork Emphasis, Goal Emphasis, and Work Facilitation--ranges

from a low of 62% shared variance for both Goal Emphasis/Support and Goal

Emphasis/Work Facilitation to a high of 81% shared variance for Support/Teamwork. Therefore, for any pair of these four supervisory indices, approximately

60% to 80% of the variability in one index is shared by the other index, and

approximately 20% to 40% of the variability in each index is independent of

the other. Thus, no index completely duplicates another, although there is

a very high degree of overlap. These figures are higher than those for comparable indices of the "Survey of Organizations," after which these indices

and items are modeled (Taylor & Bowers, 1972).

All the indices groupings could be looked at similarly. In general,

there is extensive duplication between indices within dimensions except for

the Individual Outcome indices developed specifically for the OS. On the

basis of this one organization sample and of this simple analysis, however,

there is not sufficient justification to combine indices. Further scale analyses were not conducted because revision of the GOQ was outside the scope of

this project. Furthermore, a new climate survey instrument is under development by ARI. However, there are enough data to state that pinpoint diagnoses

of an organization's climate should not be attempted solely with the OS or

the GOQ.

7

,4
0

• .4 CO

C N

o~co

d $. .,N t&oc

4424

U,-.

o u

"I4

-- '-4 o

4-4

4-4 o44 

(2) 0t

0 >1 u 4-)

-'-4 0 C

- 4-

4-) $..4 : E

a) a)o -4 $43

00

(n 4

a)) u n -4

41 ) > L

441

00

--4

42 0 a) -4 r

En .1

-4 01)

-4.)

44 to

4-44

0'0 0

04 u- id

421

En 0 -4-4

CA 4 4-) *.M 41 v

0-4 0 T -4 , -

H U~) D40.c .

.4m
Table 5

Supervisory Leadership Interscale Correlation Coefficients

Corrected for Unreliability

Teamwork Goal Work

Indices Emphasis Emphasis Facilitation Influence

Support .90 .79 .86 .78

Teamwork Emphasis .87 .83 .77

Goal Emphasis .79 .75

Work Facilitation .88

< .001 for all entries.

Table 6

Co-Worker Interaction Interscale Correlation Coefficients

Corrected for Unreliability

Work Peer

Indices Teamwork Facilitation Influence

Support .90 .86 .75

Teamwork .95 .71

Work Facilitation .77

R .001 f-r all entries.

9
77!

Table 7

Work Group Processes Interscale Correlation Coefficients

Corrected for Unreliability

Intergroup

Indices Readiness Discipline Cooperation

Coordination .77 .63 .64

Readiness .65 .70

Discipline .65

p < .001 for all entries.

Table 8

Individual Outcome Interscale Correlation Coefficients

Corrected for Unreliability

Job Personal Family

Indices Satisfaction Adjustment Life

Equal

Opportunity .66 .57 .43

I. Job

Satisfaction .50 .41

Personal

Adjustment .58

p < .001 for all entries.

.lO

A

1 10

41
1-0 0 m C4 a r, Ln L1n Ln

4-) 4 (

.r.

04 0 () %D

-4 0

2) >, r 4 43 o -H-

(44 -4

4-4.

0%4 -)

a) $4 40 LA)

r. 4 r LA) LA

.4. 0 4

Q) (0 .4 L) r H -40 H44

E-4 4.'0

0 (1)

Ua 4.40

04.4 0-

>0 >44 LA w) (~) 110

~a)

4-)

4.31

-4

4J >4 0

a) w4).4 )

4. 1 41 1 0 

'U 4. ~ 0 0 04 A L.

0L 04. H.a a
DATA PROCESSING PROCEDURES

Data processing procedures were designed with several goals in mind: (a)

rapid turnaround, (b) minimum error rate, (c) minimum OESO time requirements,

and (d) printouts suitable for OESO and client use.

Because programming assistance was not available from either the ARI

field unit or USAREUR, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)

was used to perform all data processing functions. The SPSS was easily used

by field unit personnel, and it provided complete data analysis capabilities

and fully labeled printouts suitable for use in the client feedback system.

An optical scan system was used to transpose subject responses to computerready inputs. This system was chosen to minimize error rate, improve turnaround time, and reduce demands on OESOs. The available military optical scan

system was judged inadequate for this purpose; it required multiple answer

sheets, was intolerant of answer sheet problems, and provided card-punch computer input that increased clerical demands and error potential. Thus, this

service was contracted to a German firm using different hardware. The German

system allowed all responses to be made on one sheet and provided computer

input on a tape format. The rejection rate due to answer sheet problems was

less than .5%.

However, the resulting data processing steps involved a complicated procedure. The tape from the German firm had to be translated by the Honeywell

facility at Campbell Barracks, Heidelberg, to a format acceptable to the IBM

*facility that had the SPSS capability. Data cleaning and file building were

time-consuming procedures because the IBM facility accepted only batch processing and usually gave only a 24-hour turnaround. The average turnaround

time was 2 weeks with this processing system. These procedures would be unacceptable in an operational system because the 2-week turnaround would limit

the usefulness of the data for organization leaders.

DATA FEEDBACK PROCEDURES

Method

The basic data feedback provided to a commander was a computer printout

containing fully labeled response frequency distributions, means, and medians

for 111 items. Each commander also received a letter explaining how to understand the printout (Appendix B) and a description of the meanings of the indices (Appendix C). Finally, the 32d AADCOM OESOs were available to counsel

commanders, and commanders were urged to use this resource.

Several steps were taken to insure that the data feedback would be used

for diagnostic purposes and not to evaluate people or units. First, each

unit through battery level in the 32d AADCOM was assigned a unique four-digit

code number known only by the ARI scientists and the OESOs. This unit code

was the only identifier used on answer sheets, computer storage, --nd printouts. Second, a unit's data were made available only to the unit commander,

in a composite format not broken down by section. Finally, individual anonymity was preserved by suppressing all data in which fewer than five respondents

could be located in any analysis category (rank, sex, or section).

12
OESOs supplement the basic printout with tables showing the most positive

and most negative aspects of the data. Generally, negative areas were items on

which one-third or more of the responses were "Somewhat Disagree" or "Strongly

Disagree" for positively worded items, and "Somewhat Agree" or "Strongly Agree"

on negatively worded items. Positive areas were usually items on which 75%

or more of the responses were "Somewhat Agree" or "Strongly Agree" for positively worded items, or the reverse for negatively worded items.

Additional analysis of the data was possible, and commanders were told

they could get further data breakdowns by sex or rank.

An overall report, Third Report to the Commander, was sent to the Commanding General. This report showed and interpreted overall trends in the

survey data. This report is not included here because the data are confidential to the 32d AADCOM.

To assess the impact of the feedback procedure, a short questionnaire was

sent to a sample of commanders who had received data.

Results

The overall effects of the data feedback and survey project were mixed.

The Third Report to the Commander resulted in top level planning; several actions were initiated. The Commanding General used information from the report

to brief incoming commanders on the overall organizational climate and to tell

them which areas of leadership he wanted them to stress. The Third Report to

the Commander also served the G-1 and OESOs as an information base for planning

a human resources development program for the command. That program has been

started.

However, the data feedback effects on unit commanders' ways of running

their units seemed minimal. Results of the postfeedback questioning of commanders are in Table 10.

The commanders who responded (N = 7) felt the survey was of limited value.

Little activity resulted from the feedback at the battery level.

The OESOs reported they found it very difficult to move from the data to

action planning with their clients. The data indices had little operational

meaning to the OESOs or their clients. It was not clear to the OESOs what a

particular combination of index scores indicated about an organization, nor

.what should be done as a result.

C 13

-

mt
Table 10

HQ Staff Survey Questionnaire Results

To a To a

very To a To To a very

little little some great great

extent extent extent extent extent

1. To what extent have the survey data been useful to you

as a commander? 0 0 4 3 0

2. To what extent have the survey data helped you learn

new things about your unit? 0 1 4 2 0

3. To what degree are you

personally committed to

use the survey data? 0 2 2 2

4. Have you discussed the results of the survey with the

Officers and/or NCOs of your

unit? (Please check one) YES NO

YES NO 5 1

5. If you replied "yes" to

question 4, to what extent

did you find these discussions valuable? 0 0 5 0 0

6. Have you discussed the sur- Svey results with your

superior? (Please check YES NO

one) _YES NO 1 5

7. If you answered "yes" to

question 6, to what extent

did you find these discussions valuable? 0 0 1 0 0

8. How accurately do you believe the survey data described the perceptions of

the Officers, NCOs, and

Enlisted Persons in your

unit? 0 0 6 0 0

14

Arm
Table 10 (continued)

HQ Staff Survey Questionnaire Results

To a To a

very To a To To a very

little little some great great

extent extent extent extent extent

9. How helpful were the instructions for interpreting

* the computer printout(s)? 0 1 1 3 2

10. To what extent were you

able to understand the

computer printout(s)? 0 0 1 3 3

11. To what extent have you

taken actions based on the

survey data? 1 1 4 1 0

12. Would you like to have

similar surveys in the

future? 1 0 1 3

13. How often should a survey

of this nature be conducted? (Please check one)

A. Never

4 B. Quarterly

1 C. Semi-Annually

3 D. Annual ly

L. Other (Specify)

14. How would you prefer to

receive the computer

printout(s)? (Please

check one)

3 A. Mail, as I did this time

1 B. Through command channels

__C. Delivered and discussed b.' OESU

15

,io
Table 10 (continued)

HQ Staff Survey Questionnaire Results

F

15. Comments: Data limited use; need executive summary. No one seemed to

get excited about survey. Results in question because number of female

resp-ndents was too large to be true. Keep out of command channels if

youngsters are to be receptive to survey. Expand to facilities.

i.

'r1

.1

4

i1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The OS and its parent instrument, the GOQ, exhibit minimally sufficient

psychometric qualities. Therefore, one would be prudent to use them only as

rough gauge, but broad-ranging, diagnostic instruments. The indices are not

sufficiently refined for finely honed diagnoses. Internal consistency scale

reliabilities are low, and interscale correlation coefficients show considerable duplication between indices. Nevertheless, the instruments survey a broad

range of areas of organizational functioning. Results from these instruments,

when combined with other data about an organization, could prove useful to the

OESO. It was not the purpose of this research effort to study comprehensively

the psychometric characteristics of the OS or the GOQ. These preliminary results indicate that further psychometric study and scale development are advisable if the GOQ is to continue in use as a standard Army instrument. If

a new organizational climate survey is developed, it could replace or supplement the GOQ, making further GOQ scale development unnecessary.

New scales were developed to measure (a) organization norms and values,

(b) effects of job on family life, (c) morale, and (d) job satisfaction. Although these scales also have minimally adequate psychometric properties, they

should be made available to OESOs so the officers can tailor the GOQ more specifically to their client organization's needs.

The data reduction methods used in this study are cumbersome and unsatisfactory for operational use. Turnaround time is long, and continued use of

this system involves ARI in the process. Printouts are difficult for the OESO

or military manager to interpret. OESOs in the 32d AADCOM and USAREUR in general should have a data reduction system that is simple to understand and implement and that does not involve ARI. Also, the turnaround time should be

1 to 1-1/2 weeks so that the data feedback is relevant and useful to the client. An updated version of the GOQ program will soon be available at corps

level computer facilities and is now available at Headquarters, USAREUR. This

system should be used in place of the present ARI-developed system.

Finally and most importantly, the data feedback procedures had the least

impact in batteries, the organization components they were intended to affect

most heavily. Their greatest impact was at the highest levels of the command.

A possible reason for this is the matching of the mode of feedback and the

level of the organization. Feedback to the top levels of the command was technical, interpretive, and designed to elicit an intellectual response; this it

did. Feedback to the battery commanders was technical, intellectually oriented

(e.g., data printout, abstract discussion of indices) and was intended to elicit

behavioral acts to change unit functioning. The limited information from OESOs

and the postintervention survey suggest that very little behavioral change and

only minimal thinking about the data's meaning occurred. This is consistent

4 with the general research literature on social and organizational change. Also,

)the cost effectiveness of survey feedback at the battery commander level may

* be questioned. Commanders at this level are busy responding to other demands

and perhaps have not had sufficient staff experience to understand the value

or meaning of this type of data.

.1

17r
The data feedback procedure available to the OESOs involved data that

were numerically displayed on computer printouts and analyzed in several ways.

The OESOs had difficulty in interpreting these data and in recommending changes

at the battery level. Improvements in this system could be made in three areas.

First, specifically designed feedback forms that display organization data both

numerically and in profile form should be built.

Second, norms should be developed and used against which to compare a particular battery's data. In the present research, the same arbitrary point was chosen on each item as the minimally "good" score, or the highest and lowest scores were contrasted. However, research by the Institute for Social Research

shows different organizations have different mean scores, as do different items;

the percentile score is what matters (Hauser, Pecorella & Wissler, 1977).

Therefore, providing even tentative norms to OESOs would help.

Third, survey-guided development techniques could be used at the battery

level. In survey-guided development (Bowers & Franklin, 1977) the OESO and

battery commander would hold several long meetings with the commander's immediate subordinates to discuss their own work group's data and suggest changes

in the way they work together. In other meetings, battery-wide data would be

discussed. Data, in both cases, would be fed back on specifically designed

forms and compared to norms. Although this procedure would be much more time

consuming, and only few units could be handled at one time, there would be

heightened probability that behavioral changes would occur. The discussions

themselves would be an intervention, and suggestions for further intervention,

if desired. would flow out of the meetings. A survey-guided development intervention would also alleviate the need for a more psychometrically refined

GOQ. The GOQ in this type of intervention would simply serve as a stimulus

to discussion and would not be used for pinpoint diagnoses. At upper levels

in the 32d AADCOM, combined data would continue to be fed back as it was in

the Third Report to the Commander. This technical, interpretive survey feedback mode is appropriate at that level and has been effective.

18

,iL

.........
REFERENCES

Bowers, D. G., & Franklin, J. L. Survey Guided Development I: Data Based

Organizational Change. LaJolla, Calif.: University Associates, 1977.

Hauser, D., Pecorella, P., & Wissler, A. Survey Guided Development II: A

Manual for Consultants. LaJolla, Calif.: University Associates, 1977.

Headquarters, Department of the Army Letter 600-76-2, 3 May 1976. Subject:

Organizational effectiveness (OE): Activities and training.

Holmes, D., Strasel, H. C., Cosentino, C., Leader, G. C., Daltas, A. J., &

Brimm, M. Survey feedback in combat units in the U.S. Army in Europe:

A pilot project. ARI Research Problem Review 77-2, July 1977.

Taylor, J., & Bowers, D. The survey of organizations: A machine-scored

standardized questionnaire instrument. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social

Research, 1972.

1

I

~19
APPENDIX A PT 5031

-,ARI FiELD UNI7

IU$AIREUR

ORGANIZATIONAL SURVEY

The purpose of this questionnaire is to gather information about unit

management, activities, morale, and the actual day-to-day life in the unit.

This information can be very helpful to your commander in planning improvements for the unit.

This information will be provided to your unit commander in a summarized

form. Care will be taken so that no information will be provided to the

commander that would allow any single individual to be specifically identified.

This is not a test, and there are no right or wrong answers. If the

results are to be helpful, it is important that you answer all statements

as honestly as possible. Please turn the page and read the instructions

carefully before you begin responding to the statements.

Thank you very much for your cooperation in completing this questionnaire.

MOT TO BE SHO4N TO UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS. NOT TO

BE REPRODUCED rI-ANY FORM ..ITHOUT THE SPECIFIC

PERIISSION OF THE TECHNICAL DIRECTOR OF THE U.S.

ARMY RESEARCI INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND

SOCIAL SCIENCES, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF

STAFF FOR PERSONNEL, DEP, RTMENT OF THE AR,'IY.

M' WI=iW PAGE &At&-bOT fL I D

21
INSTRUCTIONS

1. The questionnaire is designed for automatic scanning of your re- sponses. Questions are answered by marking the appropriate answer

space on a separate answer sheet.

2. Be sure to follow the answer sheet carefully. Match the numbers on

the answer sheet with the numbers of each question.

3. Please use a soft pencil (no.2 is ideal) and observe carefully these

important requirements:

- make heavy black marks that fill the space on the answer sheet

- erase cleanly any answer you wish to change

- make no stray markings of any kind

4. Please do not make any marks on the questionnaire.

5. Do not write your name anywhere either on the questionnaire or on the

answer sheet.

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

7. There is a total of Ill questions in Section A. All answer spaces

higher than 111 in Section A should be blank when you finish.

8. The person administering this questionnaire will provide you with

special instructions for completing Section B.

9. If you have any questions, raise your hand and someone will come to

help you.

10. Now that you have completed the instructions, please turn to Section A

(page 4) and begin with question 1. There is no timc limit.

2

1 22

Iy
ISECTION A

I

IMPORTANT: MARK ALL YOUR ANSWERS ON THE SEPARATE ANSWER SHEET.

* DO NOT MAKE ANY MARKS IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE BOOKLET.

23

a!

-.
ol C-1 ) C

NOTE: BE SURE OF THE ANSWER CATEGORIES r r o V

YOU ARE USING >C3 M...

_-1 4.1 >1 PLEASE MARK ONE SPACE ON THE

ANSWER SHEET FOR EACH QUESTION C ) ._ " 0

4JU 0 -

1. The information I receive down through

formal channels is generally accurate. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

2. ! get all the information 1 need about

what is going on in other sections or

departments in my unit. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

3. Work priorities are established in line

with the unit's objectives. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

4. tleetings in this unit generally

accomplish meaningful objectives. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

5. Decisions are made in this unit at those

levels where the most adequate information

is available-. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

6. Decisions are made in this unit after

getting information from those who

actually do the job. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

7. People in my work group work hard. (A) (G) (C) (D) (E)

8. I get a sense of accomplishment from

the work I do. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

o. I look forward to coming to work every

day. (A) (B) (C) (0) (E)

10. 1 want to contribute my best cfforts to

the unit's mission and my assigned tasks. (A) (B) (C) (D) (1)

I. This unit has a real interest in the

welfare of assigned personnel. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

12. My job helps me to achieve my personal

qoals. (A) (R) (C) (D) (E)

_ 13. I have enough time off to take care of

ry personal and family needs. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

!4

24
aD. a

NOTE: BE SURE OF THE ANSWER CATEGORIES o t W YOU ARE USING -3 . . al

PLEASE MARK ONE SPACE ON THE - t

M~ -C to -0 C ANSWER SHEET FOR EACH QUESTION r 3 S 0 r

o . ) 4o oV 4

14. My performance evaluations and efficiency

reports have been helpful to me. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

15. This unit places a high emphasis on

accomplishing the mission. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

16. Workload and time factors are taken into

consideration in planning our work group

assignments. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

17. I would like to stay in this unit as

long as I can. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

18. My unit is respected on this post. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

19. The job I have is a respected one on

this post. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

20. I am not afraid to make an occasional

mistake. (A) (B) (C) (0) (E)

21. My unit is willing to try new or

improved methods of doing work. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

22. There is enough emphasis on competition

lp' in this unit. (A) (B) (C) (0) (E)

23. Rules in this unit are enforced. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

24. There is little interference from

outside units in doing our work. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

_ 25. There is a good working relationship

between civilian and military personnel , in this unit. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

26. My job is directly related to meeting

the unit's goals. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

27. This unit is able to respond to all the

. demands put on it to accomplish its

mission. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

*1S4 25

I-t

.. *
II

NOTE: BE SURE OF THE ANSWER CATEGORIES 4 W

YOU ARE USING -: 2 -M, O

PLEASE MARK ONE SPACE ON THE to

ANSWER SHEET FOR EACH QUESTION g0 

- 0 C) 0 -

28. My supervisor lets me know when I have

done my job well. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

29. My supervisor makes it easy to tell him

when things are not going as well as he

expects. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

30. When appropriate, my supervisor supports

my decisions. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

31. It is easy for me to get in to see my

supervisor. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

32. My supervisor emphasizes teamwork. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

33. W.hen there is disagreement, my supervisor

encourages the people who work for him/her

to openly discuss their differences. (A) (0) (C) (0) (F)

34. 1 know what my work group is trying to

accompl i sh. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

35. My supervisor emphasizes mission

accompli shment. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

36. My supervisor encourages us to give our

Dest effort. (A) (3) (C) (0) ([)

37. Mv supervisor maintains high personal

standards of nerformance. (A) (B) (C) (D) (1) ,. Rarely do other people up the chain of

command make conflicting demands on me

while I am at work. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

3'. Unless I a'k for help, my supervisor lets

rle do 1, y wlork withou, interfering. (A) (D) (C) (D) (F)

My -. supervisor qives clear ins'tructions

whe.n he aj,,iqns m'e a task. (A) (D) (C) (, (F)

A- 

,

I -. i i I' II I " l i
M a, NOTE: BE SURE OF THE ANSWER CATEGORIES o M W

YOU ARE USING. . M.

>-1 4.J 4J PLEASE MARK ONE SPACE ON THE to

ANSWER SHEET FOR EACH QUESTION 04-) 0J 0

&_ E E 4' 0 Q) 0 -

41. My supervisor shows me how to improve my

performance. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

42. My supervisor helps me plan and schedule

my work ahead of time. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

43. My supervisor ensures that all required

materials are available to accomplish

the job. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

44. My supervisor is able to be heard by

and influence those above him. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

45. My supervisor is highly regarded as a

leader by members of my work group. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

46. My co-workers tell me when they think

I have dnne a good job. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

47. I have the trust and support of my

co-workers. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

48. My co-workers work together as a team. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

49. My co-workers encourage each other to

give their best effort. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

50. My co-workers maintain high standards

of performance. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

51. Open and honest discussion is used when

there are disagreements among my coworkers. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

52. My co-workers provide the help I need

so I can plan, organize and schedule

work ahead of time. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

53. My co-workers offer each other new

ideas for solving job related problems. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

27
0) 0)

NOTE: BE SURE OF THE ANSWER CATEGORIES J D

YOU ARE USING - CC5

PLEASE MARK ONE SPACE ON THE _o

ANSWER SHEET FOR EACH QUESTION s C r

CD 0 4 0C

54. I feel that I am given adequate authority

to perform the tasks and responsibilities (A (B (C () (E

assigned to me.(A (B (C (D (E

55. I am able to influence my co-workers

when we are making group decisions. (A) (3) (C) (D) (E)

56. Information important to our work is

widely exchanged within my work group. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

7. My work group plans together and

coordinates its efforts. (A) (B) ( D) ( E()

58. 1 understand what is expected of me on

my job. (A) (3) ( ( DN) W E

59. My work qroup is able to respond on

short notice to heavy work demands

placed upon it. (A) (B) (C), (D) (E)

60. My ,-ork group meets all requirements

piaced on it by higher levels of

comnand. (A) () (C) (D) ()

61. The supplies and equipment I receive

are adequate to perform my work. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

62. 1 amn working in the job area for which

I have been trained. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

63. 1 a' i qettv'.q th- triining I need to

take on more responsibility. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

64. ?,Iy supervisor is trained for his, job. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

.I ", or'k qromjp has sufficient

j i if i d per-sonnel to acccymipl ish

is'so.(A) D) (C) (D) (E)

Ei

28

iL
J a)

0) (

NOTE: BE SURE OF THE ANSWER CATEGORIES to

YOU ARE USING .

PLEASE MARK ONE SPACE ON THE -

ANSWER SHEET FOR EACH QUESTION .

0~ 0) 4J 0a)

66. Army standards of order and discipline

are maintained in my work group. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

67. Members of my work group reflect Army

standards of military courtesy,

appearance and grooming. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

68. Cooperation is encouraged between work

groups in my unit. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

69. When I am doing a job that requires the

assistance of another work group, I

usually receive the help I need. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

70. Administering of discipline in my unit

is done fairly. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

71. 1 receive fair and objective efficiency

reports in this unit. (A) (B) (C) (D) (C)

72. My job provides opportunity for me to

advance my skills and/or personal

education. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

73. 1 know what I have to do to get

recognized for doing a good job. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

74. Work assignments are fairly made in

this unit. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

75. This unit recognizes a person for what

he/she does and not just by favoritism. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

476. Racial problems in my unit are confronted

and dealt with fairly. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

77. A spirit of cooperation exists among

races in my unit. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

78. My unit does not have a drug problem. (A) (B) (C) (0) (E)

29

• 1 d
- NOTE: BE SURE OF THE ANSWER CATEGORIES SYOU ARE USING o)

>1 4--) >

PLEASE MARK ONE SPACE ON THE ANSWER SHEET FOR EACH QUESTION 0-

4 0 a) 0 4-3

- V V) Lo)

79. Excessive drinking is not a problem

in my unit. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

80. Officers in this unit care more about

their own welfare than the welfare of

the troops. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

81. Things are done with little or no preplanning in this unit. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

82. You get in trouble if you ask "why?" (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

83. During inspections of our unit each

HQ has its own set of standards

instead of the same standards

for everybody. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

84. Officers in this unit often don't

use the chain of command. (A) (B) (C) (D) (F)

85. NCOs in this unit get mad if they

are called out at night. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

86. Senior NCOs in this unit are afraid

of the officers. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

87. Senior NCOs in this unit won't

protect their men. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

88. NCOs and officers in this unit don't

seem to think before they act. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

. 89. Most EM in this unit will take a

reasonable order (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

99. You can't afford to fail or make a

mistake in this unit. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

91. Seeking help is a sign of weakness

in this unit. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

30
1.

NOTE: BE SURE OF THE ANSWER CATEGORIES L

YOU ARE USING - -C

4J 4-> >1 rz - PLEASE MARK ONE SPACE ON THE -- 'a ., Z 

ANSWER SHEET FOR EACH QUESTION 4 E . 0 0

92. "Cover Your Butt" is the name of

the game in this unit. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

93. The primary concern of the officers

in this unit is getting promoted at

any cost. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

94. Priorities keep changing in this unit. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

95. The only way to get action taken on a

problem in this unit is to go to the IG. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

96. We hardly ever follow established

procedures in this unit. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

97. On the whole, the Army gives me a

chance to show what I can do. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

93. 1 viould rather be in my present Army

job than any other Army job. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

99. I usually feel that what I am doing

in the Army is worthwhile. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

100. I am interested in my present Army job. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

161. I am in good humor and happy. (A) (3) (C) (D) (E)

102. I am daydreaming more than usual. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

103. 1 wish people would let me alone. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

104. 1 have unpleasant feelings in my

stomach lately. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

105. I feel sluggish a great deal of the time. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

31

"S.

~.1 * ....~d
(1 c

S- SNOTE: BE SURE OF THE ANSWER CATEGORIES S- *

YOU ARE USING

* PLEASE MARK ONE SPACE ON THE C : '. S

ANSWER SHEET FOR EACH QUESTION S E E S4- 0 C) 0 4-)

QUESTIONS 106 TO 109 ARE FOR MARRIED,

ACCOMPANIED PERSONNEL ONLY:

106. My present Army job leaves me enough

time for family life. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

107. My present Army job has put a lot of

pressure on my marriage. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

108. My spouse isn't happy with my present

assignment. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

109. I worry about the well being of my

family while I am on duty (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

NOTE: ANSWER CATEGORIES ARE CHANGED FOR o .

THE NEXT TWO QUESTIONS 2 U U 0 0 0

L4-

110. What is your present rank? (A) (B) (C) (D)

111. What is your sex? M F

(A) (B)

4

32

Ohio~
I STOP

YOU HAVE COMPLETED SECTION A. YOUR LAST MARK IN SECTION A OF THE

ANSWER SHEET SHOULD BE ON NUMBER 111. DO NOT MAKE ANY MORE MARKS

IN SECTION A. TURN THE PAGE TO SECTION B AND BEGIN MARKING YOUR ANSWERS FOR SECTION B WITH NUMBER 1 IN SECTION B ON YOUR ANSWER SHEET.

33

4"
S SECTION B

The person administering this questionnaire will provide you

with special instructions for completing Section B.

Please be sure to follow these special instructions, and to

mark your answers beginning with number 1 in Section B of the

answer sheet.

o3

4.1 34

A

- I
APPENDIX B

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY %: U. AMI RESEAURCH INSTITIUT FOR THE SEHAVIORAL AND SOC-AL SCIENCES

FIELD UNIT - USA26U3

APO 0940J

PERI-OE

Dear Commander:

Here are the results of the recent organizational survey conducted at your

headquarters. For your convenience, a copy of the survey is also included.

The computer printout includes an analysis of each of the Ill items of the

survey. In reviewing the results, please note that 20 of the 111 items are

written in the negative direction. A high score on one of these 20 items

is a bad sign, while a high score on one of the remaining items is a good

sign. The 20 negative items are: 80 through 88, 90 through 96, 102 through

105, and 107 through 109.

Instructions for Reading the Printout

On page I of your printout (the page number is at the upper right portion

of the page) you will see the following information:

"VAR00I INFORMATION THROUGH CHANNELS IS ACCURATE"

This means that the analysis on page 1 is for the first item of the survey

which is "I. The information I receive down through channels is generally

accurate."

Beneath this heading is the item analysis information. At the left of the

page are the category labels as found in the survey. These categories

range in ascending order from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree".

Moving to the right are the codes assigned to each category. On the survey

these codes are represented as Lhe letters "A" through "D". On the computer

printout they are represented as the number "0" through "4" respectively.

(We have represented these codes as numbers in the computer so we can

compute averages, etc.) The computer printout contains an additional code

which doesn't correspond to a code on the survey. This is the nunber "9"

which is used to represent missing data; that is, it indicates when one

or more people have left that item blank on their answer sheet.

Still moving to the right after the "code" column we find the "ABSOLUTE

FREQUENCY" column. This is simply the number of people in your unit who

chose each of the answer categories; and at the bottom of the column is

35

4
the total number of people in your unit who responded to the survey.

I The next column to the right, "RELATIVE FREQUENCY (PERCENT)" is the

* percent of the total number of people who took the survey who answered

in each category. The "ADJUSTED FREQUENCY (PERCENT)" column shows the

percent of people who answered in each category adjusted for missing

responses. This is the most meaningful column because it considers

only people who have answered that item in the computation of the percentage.

The final column "CUMULATIVE ADJ FREQ (PERCENT)" gives a running total

of percent of people answering in each category, again adjusting for

missing data. This is a useful column because it allows the reader to

see at a glance more of the total picture of the data.

At the bottom of the page are two summary statistics, the mean and the

median. The mean is the simple average of scores across all respondents.

The median is the midpoint of scores; that is, the point at which 50%

of the respondents scored higher and, correspondingly, 50% scored lower.

The median is probably the more meaningful of the two statistics.

Interpreting the Data

In the final analysis, you, the Commander, are the only person who can

realistically interpret the data for your unit. Different Commanders

have different styles, policies, and objectives. As a rule of thumb we

would suggest that when 25% or more of your people have responded 4 "Strongly Disagree" or "Disagree" to a positive item (or "Strongly Agree"

or "Agree" to a negative item) there may be cause for some concern.

This condition usually occurrs when the median is 2.5 or smaller (1.5

or larger for negative items). Likewise, when 70% or more of your

people have responded "Agree" or "Strongly Agree" ("Disagree" or "Strongly

Disagree" for a negative item) this indicates a real strength in the

unit. It is as important to identify and build upon strengths as it is

to identify and correct weaknesses.

What Next

You may be interested to see how your unit stacks up with other units.

As soon as all of the data are in and analyzed, group Commanders and the

32d AADCOM Chief of Staff will be provided with composite data whidh you

can use for comparison purposes. (Remember, no higher Commander will

receive data about your unit.)

You may also wish to have additional analyses made of your data. You

can get the results broken down by rank (option 1), by sex (option 2),

and by section - HQ vs DSP (option 3). A simple request to me will get

you these additional analyses. State the options desired in your

request. In many instances there are not enough responses to make a

breakdown practical; and I will act aicordingly.

36
Finally, ramember that the Organizational Effectiveness Staff Officers

-., assigned to the 32d are your resource and are equipped with the skills

necessary to assist you in using these Data effectively.

DONALD G. WALIZER, Ph.D. V

Senior Research Scientist

ARI Field Unit-USAREUR

2121-6977/6274

p

i4

k.3

q ... 37
APPENDIXD R A F T 20 ay 1977

ORGANIZATIONAL SURVEY: COMMANDER'S GUIDE

The attached organizational survey is designed to provide the comnmnder

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

members of his work unit have about their work environment. These perceptions

can be classified into three general areas:

1. Organizational Processes

2. Organizational Norms and Values

3. Impact of Organization on Individual

The survey consists of III statements (items). The work rgroup ,embers

are to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagrpe with each statement. The following number code is used in the corvp;iter printouts:

0 = A = Strongly Disagree

I = B = Somewhat Disagree

2 = C = Neutral

3 = D = Somewhat Agree

4 = E = Strongly Agree

Thus, if the computer printout shows a mean (average) of 2.5 for an item,

the average response was between Neutral and Somewhat Agree on that item.

When reading the computer printout it is important to note that the

variable number listed on the computer printout does not correspond

4 directly to the item number or, the survey. The variable number is

always two (2) more than the item rumber. Thus, survey item number one (1)

"Tre information I receive down through chanrels is generally accurate" is

shown as variable number 003 (three) on the comput2r printout. (Variables

001 and 002 are confidential unit identification numbers.)

39

"Wi4D PA" IlM -iAic
The Ill survey items are grouped conceptually into a number of indices.

For example, survey items one and two comprise an index called Communication

Flow. The index value is obtained by adding the item values and dividing

by the number of items comprising that index. For example, if an individual

responded with a three (D) to item one and a four (E) to item two, his value

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

lists the survey indices and provides a cross reference to the survey and

the computer printout. Table 2 provides a verbal description of each index.

4

4

,1

i

' 40 t

4
Table I

ORGANIZATIONAL SURVEY INDICES

Item Nos. Variable Nos.

Index Dimension and Name on Survey on Printout

A. Organizational Processes

1. Communication Flow 1-2 3-4

2. Decision-making 3-6 5-8

3. Motivation 7-10 9-12

4. Integration of Personnel and Mission 11-16 13-18

5. Identification with Unit 17-19 19-21

6. General Climate 20-27 22-29

7. Supervisory Leadership Support 28-31 30-33

8. Supervisory Leadership Teamwork Emphasis 32-33 34-35

9. Supervisory Leadership Goal Emphasis 34-37 36-39

10. Supervisory Leadership Work 38-43 40-45

Facilitation

il. Supervisory Leadership Influence 44-45 46-47

12. Co-Worker Interaction Support 46-47 48-49

13. Co-Worker Interaction Teamwork 48-41 50-53

14. Co-Worker Interaction Work Facilitation 52-53 54-44

15. Co-Worker Interaction Peer Influence 54-55 56-57

16. Work Group Coordination 56-57 58-59

17. Work Group Readiness 58-65 60-67

18. Work Group Discipline 66-67 68-69

19. Intergroup Cooperation 68-69 70-71

B. Unit Norms and Values 80-98 82-100

C. Individual Outcomes

1. Equal Opportunity 70-79 72-87

2. Job Satisfaction 99-102 101-104

3. Personal Adjustment 103-107 105-109

4. Family Life 108-111 110-113

41

4
Table 2

ORGANIZATIONAL SURVEY INDEX DESCRIPTIONS

A. Organizational Processes

1. Communication Flow. Unit leadership understands the work and

problems of the command. Information flows freely through the

chain of command, easily from the work groups to a listening

and responsive leadership, and easily to the work groups concerning plans and problems facing the unit.

SURVEY 1-2 PRINTOUT 3-4

2. Decision-making. Information is widely based within the unit

and decisions are made at those levels where the most adequate

information is available. Supervisors seek out information

before making decisions.

SURVEY 3-6 PRINTOUT 5-8

3. Motivation. The unit motivates personnel to contribute their

best efforts through rewards for good performance and career

enhancing duties.

SURVEY 7-10 PRINTOUT 9-12

4. Integration of Personnel and Mission. The extent to which a

unit shows concern for human resources in the way it organizes

its personnel to achieve its mission. The degree to which

personnel within the unit perceive that the organization and

assignment of work sensibly considers the human element.

SURVEY 11-16 PRINTOUT 13-18 p'

5. Identification with Unit. The degree in which personnel are

willing to see the unit as respected and be willing to be

associated with it.

SURVEY 17-19 PRINTOUT 19-21

6. General Climate. These statements provide useful unit data in

and of themselves; however, they do not easily group with other

statements in the survey.

SURVEY 20-27 PRINTOUT 22-29

42

I I
7. Supervisory Leadership Support. There is a good general feeling

among subordinates about how they are treated by their leaders.

Leaders behave in a way which increases the subordinates' feelings

of worth and dignity by being approachable.

SURVEY 28-31 PRINTOUT 30-33

8. Supervisory Leadership Teamwork Emphasis. Supervisors encourage

subordinates to develop close, cooperative working relationships

with one another.

SURVEY 32-33 PRINTOUT 34-35

9. Supervisory Leadership Goal Emphasis. High standards of performance are clearly set, maintained and encouraged by supervisors.

SURVEY 34-37 PRINTOUT 36-39

10. Supervisory Leadership Work Facilitation. Supervisors help

subordinates improve performance. Subordinates and sLpervisors

work together to solve problems which hinder task completion and

performance.

SURVEY 38-43 PRINTOUT 40-45

11. Supervisory Leadership Influence. The amount of positive influence

a supervisor has with his superiors and subordinates.

SURVEY 44-45 PRINTOUT 46-47

12. Coworker Support. Subordinates behave toward each other in a

manner which enhances each member's feeling of personal worth.

SURVEY 46-47 PRINTOUT 48-49

13. Coworker Teamwork. The behavior of work group members encourages

Jthe development of close, cooperative working relationships. Work

group members maintain and encourage high standards of performance,

even in conflict situations.

SURVEY 48-51 PRINTOUT 50-53

14. Coworker Work Facilitation. Work group members help each other

improve performance. The work group works together to solve

problems which hinder performance and task completion,

SURVEY 52-53 PRINTOUT 54-55

15. Coworker Peer Influence. Co-workers have power to mutually

influence one another and the group is not just run by cliques.

SURVEY 54-55 PRINTOUT 56-57

43

'I1r '' ilr
16. Work Group Coordination. Work group members plan, coordinate,

and support each other effectively.

SURVEY 56-57 PRINTOUT 58-59

17. Work Group Readiness. The work group is able to adapt to emergency

situations and meet its mission.

SURVEY 58-65 PRINTOUT 60-67

18. Work Group Discipline. Work group members maintain Army standards

of discipline and decorum.

SURVEY 66-67 PRINTOUT 68-69

19. Intergroup Cooperation. Work groups in a unit work together

effectively.

SURVEY 68-69 PRINTOUT 70-71

B. Unit Norms and Values

The shared rules or guides to behavior in the unit are supportive of

both the mission and the people.

SURVEY 80-98 PRINTOUT 82-100

C. Individual Outcomes

1. Equal Opportunity. The unit insures fair treatment for all

personnel in such areas as job assignment, advancement, education,

rewards and punishments.

SURVEY 70-79 PRINTOUT 72-81

2. Job Satisfaction. Measures the degree of overall satisfaction

with Army job.

SURVEY 99-102 PRINTOUT 101-103

3. Personal Adjustment. Measures the degree to which the individual

soldier has a feeling of adjustment and well being.

, SURVEY 103-107 PRINTOUT 105-109

4. Family Life. Work unit demands do not put undue stress on the

soldier's family life.

SURVEY 108-111 PRINTOUT 110-113

444
DISTRIBUTION

I US ARMY CINCIPAC SJPPURT L7HUgP PLHSON'ILL IdIVISION

i HUOIA ATTN: PMAC

-~I TA,/rAGCEN ATTN: UAAG.-t.O

I HQ. TCATA ATTN: ATCAT-UP-U

I HU. USMLPCOM ATTNj: MEPCT-H

e HQ)A WESEANCH AN) STUU1LS O C

I mIIITAQY UCCUPAT13NAL L)LVLLO'MfN IV Ul APC-MSP-U, RM A5S2C HOFFMAN BLDG I

I H(I)A (UIRECTORt PANS, PHULRAMs, AND PJLIC-IES

4 ()ASD ImWA AND L)

I HO")A ATTN: DAMU~R

I HIIA CHIEF, H~UMAN4 RESURCESL OEVLLPM0.T oIV

I H00A ATTN: DAMI-TST

1 USl AVTATION SYSTEMS CUML) M1TN: UHSAV-ZiP

I RACE WFLAI IONS AN) EUUAL UPPORTUNITy JkAJCH AITN: AFZT-PA-HH

I US4 ARPAUCOM ATTN: ATFE-LU-AC

I HEADUUARTLRS US MAHINL CORPS ATTN: C)OE MTMT

IHEADUUARTERS9 US 4ARINL CORPS A1TN: CUDF MPI-28

Z US ARMY LUROPE AN) StVEodt1 ARMY

I IST INFANTRY DIVISION A114U IT. wILLY A1Tti: AAF2N-OPT-T

I CHIEF, SURVEY ORANICH ATTN: UAPt-MSF-So ~oFFMAN 8LO'J 11

I USa INTELLIGNC, AND SECUHITY CUmMAND ATTN: IAOPS-TN,

d HU TRAnOC TECHNICAL LItHRAHY

I MIITAPY UCCUPATIDNAL UEVLLUPMFI41 UIV ATTN: UAPC-MSP-IS, NM 852C, P-OFFMAN PiLDG( I

I M~tTAwY OCCOPATl)NAL uEVELUPMFNI UIV ATTN: UAPC-MSP-D, RM 852C. 4i0fFMAN BLC(3 I

I MIlITAwY OCCUPATIDNAL UEVLOPMFNT UlV ATTN: UAPL-MSP-T, RM 852C, 4O~FFMAN tiLDG I

I US4 URInNANCE + CHEMICAL (.LNTLR AND SCHU00L ATTN: ATSL-PTC-P

I H(JuA TANK FORL& S MANAbEMLNT uFL

I HU.)A ATTN: DA.-PTHi

1 123D USARCOM H SEHVE CitNIER

I FT. BEPiJAMIN HARRISON, IN 4belt

I USA FORCLS COMMAN) AVP4I - DEPT)' CHIEF OF STAFF FOR PFPSUNNL

I DI-QECTfnRATE OF TRaININO ATTN: AiLU-T

I O1jFLCTORATF~ OF CU4bAT DL)VLLOPMFNIS ATTN: ATZADU

I HUI)ARCOM MAkW CORPS LIAISON UFC

I DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY iNTELLIGFNCL + SLCURITY COMMAND

I H0I)A C'HIEF. wLTI4EO ACTIVITIES OR

I AN1415TON ARMY U P)T OUijANIZATITONAL EFFEcTIVENESS

I ARTAOS ATTN: URCDM-TUS-TO

I uSa FOPCES COMMAN)

I Pm TRAnE /

I US MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASH-tIUN UFC OF EUUAL OPPOPTUNITY

I NAVAL CIVILIAN PE4SONNLL LOMU SUHE4N FLD DIV

20 ART LIAISON OFPICE

I T-4 ARMY TRAINI', CENTER

I HUl)A, rlCS STUDY )FFICL

1 LIS*1 DLC ATVt: ATEC-Lx-t riOMAN IMCJ0Rb

1 SACRAMFNTO ALC/ti'CHH

Ii INTER-iiNIV SEMI A,1 ON sARMED POWLtbS # UC

I 0ASjA (VDA) DEvily FUR sLIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

4 1 OFC OF NAVAL R~sLAwCH/

I AI.H-RL/I NT

I AFHRL/I RL

*1 AIR FORCE HUMAN NrSOURCES> LAb ATTN: AFiHwLTSR

I NAVY PFRSUNNEL '4 AND 0 CLNIEW /

1 NAVY PFHSONNtL 0 AN!) U LLNIER UIRECTJk OF- PROGRAMS

1 NAVY PFRbONNFL ,~ ANU U LLNIER

e OFIr OF NAVAL RLIEAWCH ORLHbONNFL AND TRAINING RESEARCH PRO6RAMS

I OF(- OF NAVAL RESELARCH AS5 IJ. ultLTUR )PFp5 * TRAINING PSCP1 PROGS

1 OFC OF NAVAL RbCH ORbANIZATIUNAL tFFCLTTYVENL5S IPO.

I NAVAL AEROSPACE MEDICAL HhLH LAb ATTNd: (COUE L51)

I NAVAL AEROSPACE MEDICAL RSL H LAM AlwdUtqF HANGER RESFARCH

* 45
I HUP.EAU OF NAVAL ,PEkSDNNLIL SCIFNTIFIC ADvISOR (PLRS-OR)

I NAvAL aLHOSPACL MEDICAL H::LH LAb AEHJS)PACE PSYCHOLU6Y DEP~ARTMENT

1 USA THADOC SYSI1-MS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: ATAA-TCA

I HLADIIUARTEPS, COAST b~UAH-U ChlIFF9 PSYCHOLOGICAL HSCH HR

I USA ENCINEFR TUPOSHAPHIL LABS ATTN: EfL-TD-S

1 USA MOPILITY Eu~jIDMENT N AND U LUMD ATTN: UHUME-TUJ

I 11SA TRAINING BU.,NJ

I USA MATLkIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: URASY-M

41 NAFEC HUMAN EN(,I"JENIND tbRANCH

I HATTELIEi-COLUMbS LABOkA PONIES TACTICAL TECHNICAL OFC

I USA A~rTIC TEST CEN ATTN; AMSTt-PL-TS

*I USA AkRTIC TEST CEN ATiN; ST.AL-PL-mi

I USA CU.JCEP75 ANALYS15 A6CY ATTN: MOCA-wt,

1 HU wRATR DIV UP- NEUROPSYLHIATRY

I USACACU)A ATTN: ATZLCA-CI-A

I U)SACACILA ATTN*- ATZLCA-CA

1 USa LLFCTHONIC WA4FAHL LAb (;Hl.P-, INTELLIGENCE MArEk DEVEL SUPP OFF

I USA RSfMH DEVEL + S7ANUAkUIZA bk), U.K.

1 NAVY PFI4SONNEL kSCHi + DEVLL CENPLt ATTN: (CODE 307)

1 USA NATICK RkStL.WCH AND ULVELOPMLN7 CJMMAND CHILF, BEHAV SCIENCES DlVq P-DOD SCI LAB

1 O)AU. F ANn E ( . AND LS)) MILITUHY ASS] P-DR 7NG 4 PLNS TECHNOL

I HUL)A

1 USAAHL LIBRAWY

I HUM4AN PEbOIRCES HSC.H UHU (HUMRPU) LIdHAPY

I SEvILLF RESEARCH CURPOHAl ION

I USri TRAUOC SYSIMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: ATAA-SL (TECH LIBRARY)

I UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIT UP- THE MLALTH SCI DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY

I Hs.A COMPUTER SYSTEMS COMMAND ATTN: CJMMAND TECHNICAL LIBRARY

1 HU-'AN RESOURCES RSCH OH6 (HUMkPU)

1 HUARRU WESTERN LIHRARY

1 HATTELI I REPORTS LIBRARY

I RAJ) CORPURATIUN- /

I RAND CnRP-ORATIU',j ATTN: LIibRARY u

* I NAFEC i IHRARY9 ANA-64

I (CRfNIN(.EH LIBRA, AT TN: A1

l&--S-L HLJU 1313

I CE'ATER FUR NAVAL ANALYSIS

* 1 NAVAL HEALTH RSCH CEN LIURAHY

1 NAVAL PERSONNEL N AND U LN LIHHARY AIT'j: CODE Y?O1L

* I Ho. FT. HUACHUC4 ATTN: TtLH PP-F DIV

1 USA ACADEMY OF HEALTH SCILNCLS STIMS3N LIBRARY (DDCUMFNTS)

I SCHOOL OF SYSTEM4S AND LOUISTICS ATTN: A~rIT/LSCW

1 FRIC PRUCESSINO AND RELLtNCL FAC AC..UISTITIUNS LIHRARIAN

I UEPARTmENT OF IrHl NAVY TkAININUJ ANALYS)IS AND EVALUATION GP

1 NATIONAL CENlEH F~k HEALTH STAT IICS/

I uS-iA OPET OF BFHAVIORAL SC! ANU LEAI)LRSHIP

1 C)Ln OmINION UNIVEkSITY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT LABORATORY

I USA COMMAND AND IENEHAL STAFF CULLEGE ATTN: LIBRARY

1 USA TRANSPORTATIUN SCHUOL USA TiHANSP lErH INFO AND RSCH CEN

I uSA ADmINCFN TE.CHNICAL RESEAWRCH bkANCH LIBRARY

I USA PIFLO ARTY H~U /

I NAT CLFARINGHOU',t P-ON MtNTAL HFALIH IN4FO PAHKLAWN BLIno

1 U )F TFXAS CEN FjW CUMMUNICAT pUN kSCH

I INqTITulTE FOR D FENSL ANALYSES

1 USA TRAINING SUPP:)RT CEti4RL bEVEL SYS)TEMS INU # DEVICFS DIRECTORATE

I AF-IRL TECHNOLOIjY 3FC (H)

I PU-LUUE UNIV DEPT UPF PSYCHOLU(bICAL SCIENCES

1 USA MOWILITY Euul~mENT N AND U CUMMAND ATTN: URDME-Zo,

I HQ. USA MOW ATTN: ANPE-Ut

I DA US ARMY RETNAININU BUE RESEARCH + EVALUATION DIR

I HUAAN PESULRCE MANAGLMb'il CEN, SAN OIEw.O

I jSAFA DEPT UP- LIFE AND BENH SC!

1 US5 MILITARY ACAIE'4Y LlbRAkY

46
I USa INTELLIGENCL CtN AND SLH ATTN: SCHOOL LIBRARY

I MARINE CORPS INSrITUTE

I US COAST GLARD ING CEN AITN: F.UCATIJNAI. SVCS OFFICER

I USAAVNC AND FT. RJCKER ATTN; ATLU-ES

I USA Alp DEFENSE SCHOOL AITN: AISA-DT

,I USAAVNC ATTN< ATZu-U

I US MILITARY ACALLiy UFC UF MILITARY LLA1,hRSHIP

1 US MILITARY ACA)EiY UIRLLIOR o INSTITUTIONAL RSCH

I USA Al DEFENSE SCHOOL AWIN: AISA-CO-MS

1 USAAUS-LIBRARY-I)OCUMENTS

I USA AIp DEFENSE 63ARD ATIN: FILLS REPUSTTORY

I HO, USA SERGEANTS MAJOR ACADEMY ATTN: LFARNING RESOURCES CENTER

I USA INTELLIGENLF CEN AND SCH FUUCATIJNAI ADVISOR

I USI ORDNANCE CE. ANt) SCH ATTN: ATSL-TLM-C

I USA ARMOR SCHOOL ATTN: AISb-UT-TP

I NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCH ATIN: D)UULEY KNOX LIBRARY (COOF 14?4)

1 USA TRANSPORTATIU' SCHOUL DtPH|Y ASST. COMMANDANT EDUCA. TLCHNOLOtY

I USA SIGNAL SCHOOL AN II. bORDUN ATTN: ATZH-ET

I USA MIt ITARY POLICE SCHOOL ATTN: LIHRARy

I USA ARMOR SCHOOL LVAL HRANCt, UIRECT)RATE OF INSTRUCTION

I USASIGS STAFF AN) FACULTY DtV AND IN5 DIV

I HO A7C/XPTD TRAIN1NU SVSILMS I)LVELOP4LNT

I USk INSTITUTE FOR MILITARY ASSISIANCE ATTN: ATSU-TD-TA

I US ARMY ARMOR SCHOOL DIRECTORATL OF TRAINING

I USA UUARTLPMASTrH SCHOOL UIRECIURATE OF TRAININt DEVEtOPMENTS

I US COAST GUARD ACADEMY ATIN: CAULT COUNSELOR (DICK SLIMAK)

I USA TRANSPORTATIUJ SCHOOL DIRFCIOR OF TPAINING

I USA INFANTRY SCHOOL LIRAHY /

I USA INFANTRY SCHOOL ATTN: ATSH-i-V

I US ARMY INFANTRY SCHOOL ATTN: AISH-CO

I USA INFANTRY SCHOOL ATIN; ATSH-UOUI

I USA INFANTRY Sfi-IOUL ATTN: ATSH-LV

I USA Mil ITARY POLICE SCHUOL/TRAININb CENTFR ATTN: ATZN-PTS

I USA MIt ITARY POLICE SCHOOL/TRAINLNb CENT-R DIR. COMBAT DEVELOPMENT

I USA MIIITARY POLICE SCHOOL/TRAININb CENTFR DIR. TRAINING DEVELOPMENT

I USA MII ITARY POLICE SCHUUL/TRAINING CENTFR ATTN: ATZN-ACE

I USA INsTITUTE O AUMINISIHATION ATTN: RFSIDENT TRAINING MANAGEMENT

I USa FIFLU ARTILLERY SCHOOL MORRIS Swill LIdRARY

I USA INsTITLTE OF ADMINISTRATION ACADEMIC LIBRARY

I USA WAq COLLEGE ATTN: LIHARY

I USA ENUINEFR SCHODL LIRARY AND LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER

I USA ARMOR SCHOOL (USARMS) ATTN; LIBRARY

I US COAST GUARD ACADEMY LIbRARY

I USA rRANSPORTATIO SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION SCHOOL LIBRAPY

I ORGANI7ATIONAL EFFECTIvENeSS TN CEN * SCH ATTN: LIBRARIAN

I US ARMY INTELLIOENCE CE1IER * SLHOOL ATTN: ATSI-TD

I US ARMY INTELLIkENCE CENILR + SCHOOL ATIN: ATSI-TD-LD

4 BRITISH EMRASSY 3HITISH UFENCE STAFF

2 CANADIAN JOINT STAFF

I COsS (w) LIHRAHY

- 1 FRENCH MILITARY ATTACHE

1 AUSTRIAN EMBASSY MILITARY AND AIR ATTACHE

3 CANADIAN DFFENC1 LIAISU, STAFF ATTN: GOUNSELLOR, DEFENCE P AND U

I ROYAL NETHERLANd) EMBASSY MILITARY ATTA(CHE

I CANADIAN FORCES dASE COHNALLIS ATTN: PFRSONNLL SELECTION

d CANADIAN FORCES PERSONNEL APPL RSCH UNIT

I ARMY PFRSONNEL H451ARCH ESTABLISHMENT

I AR,4Y PFRSONNFL tESEARCH ESIABLIbHMENT API SCIENTIFIC COORDINATION OFFICE

b LIHRARY OF CONGRESS EXCHANGE ANU 6IFt UIV

I PEFENSF TECHNICAL INFORMATION CLN ATTN: uTIC-TC

153 LI,4RARY OF CONUPESS UNIT DOCUMENTS EXPEnITING PROJECT

I EDITOR. R AND 0 MAUAtINL ATIN: URCDE-LN

a-. "l 4 7

A'-
I US GOVFRNMENT PINTING UIFC LIHRARY, PUBLIC UOCUMENTS PEPAWTMLNT I US GOVFRNMENT PP14TING U C LIMNARY AW4 STATUTORY, LIR DIV (SLL)

I THEF ARmY LIMNAHY

44