Technical Report 469

FACTOR STABILITY OF PRIMARY SCALES OF

r THE GENERAL ORGANIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE

Bruce S. Sterling and John R. Mietus

ARI FIELD UNIT, USAREUR

TI C

: ~JUN 2 2 1982 "

CT

U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

October 1980

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

~~ " O4% 
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

JOSE.Pti ZEII)NER Colonel, US Army

Technic~al irector Commander

NOTICES

D I STRI SLITION Prmat v distrebution of this report has been' med. by ARIL Please address cortellPondlnCe

cfrncern dttributiorn of reports to U S Army Research Institute for the Behevioral and Social Sciences.

ATTN: PERI TP, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue. Alexandria, Virginia 22333.

FINAL ISPOSITIO This report mey be destroyed whfen it is no longer needed. Pleawe do not return it to

the U S. Armv Research Insititute for the Behtavioral end Social Sciences.

NOEThe firdings in this report are not to be construed s an official Despartmnnt of the Army position,

unlets so designated by other ruthorited documents.
Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Won Date Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ DNSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING FORM 1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Report 469 ;Z // -,)

4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

FACTOR STABILITY OF PRIMARY SCALES OF THE --

GENERAL ORGANIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE

S. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(s) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(&)

Bruce S. Sterling and John R. Mietus

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 2Q762722A779

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333 2Q162722A791

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

October 1980 U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel Otb 1980

Washington, DC 20310 NUMBEROPPAGES 48. 48

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(if different from Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

Unclassified

IS&. DECL ASSI FICATION/ DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, If different from Report)

18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

It. KEY WORDS (Cortinue on reverse side it necesesry and identify by block number)

General Organization Questionnaire (GOQ)

Organizational climate

Organizational effectiveness

20. ATRACT (Cnm eriwem7 N d Iderntify by block numbst)

-The factor structure of the General Organization Questionnaire (GOQ) was studied. The GOQ is the primary paper-and-pencil diagnostic organization

climate survey instrument in the U.S. Army's Organizational Effectiveness

program. Two large samples of personnel within U.S. Army, Europe (USAREUR)

*were surveyed. Responses to 69 of the 84 items in the GOQ were factor ana- lyzed; these items measure primary organizational processes. Five- and fourfactor solutions were generated for each sample. Both the solutions contain

(Continued)

D I F~OM IM gi no" OF I NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE

JIAO Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PASE (UBwt Data anter d)

H _I _ _ iii
Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOE(IWh Dots Antered)

Item 20 (Continued)

factors measuring Unit Climate, Supervisory Leadership, Group Cohesion, and

Mission Accomplishment. Only two of the four original GOQ dimensions received empirical support. Not only was the factor structure stable between

organizations, but the amount of variance accounted for by a particular

factor (or psychological importance of that factor) was also stable. Results

suggest that the GOQ, if organized along empirically supported lines, is a

diagnostic instrument which is equally applicable to various Army

organizations..

r.,.1 U? TA3 0 .nounaOol E

CDT IC

INSPECTED 2 : Di , trtbui!,...,._ i) _

Ava.labliltY Codeml

Dist Speeili

ii Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE('hlon Data Rntered)

... .i -. ... -- lllm ..... ... . . /
Technical Report 469

FACTOR STABILITY OF PRIMARY SCALES OF

THE GENERAL ORGANIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE

Bruce S. Sterling and John R. Mietus

Submitted by: William W. Haythorn, Chief

ARI FIELD UNIT, USAREUR

Approved by:

James D. Baker, Acting Director

ORGANIZATIONS AND SYSTEMS

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

October 1980

Army Project Number

20762722A779 Organizational

*20162722A791 Effectiveness

7Wpm orpic Wjefledriuunimiu&
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.

tv
FOREWORD

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

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. This unit's

primary objective is the enhancement of combat readiness through research

on improving organizational processes. The research is responsive to Army

Project 2Q762722A779, Techniques for Organizational Effectiveness; Management

Training, FY79 Work Program; and Project 2Q162722A791, FY80 Work Program.

The complex, rapidly changing environment of the modern Army makes it

imperative that organizational 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. The present technical report continues the

study of the internal structure of an instrument designed to diagnose these

variables.

\0EPHZE&16

Thnical Director

v
FACTOR STABILITY OF PRIMARY SCALES OF THE GENERAL ORGANIZATION

QUESTIONNAIRE

BRIEF

Requirement:

The purpose of this report is to determine empirically the stability,

across organizations, of the factor structure of the General Organization

Questionnaire (GOQ). The GOQ is the primary diagnostic organization climate survey instrument in the U.S. Army's Organizational Effectiveness

Program.

Procedure:

Samples of 2,167 Air Defense Headquarters battery and 493 Mechanized

Infantry company personnel in U.S. Army, Europe (USAREUR) responded to the

GOQ in 1977 and 1978. Responses to 69 of the 84 items were factor analyzed

in both samples; these items measure primary organizational processes.

Five- and four-factor solutions in each sample were compared with each other

and with the four a priori GOQ factors.

Findings:

A stable four-factor structure pattern was found in both samples; this

was different from the a priori GOQ factor structure. Factors were Unit

Climate, Supervisory Leadership, Group Cohesion, and Mission Accomplishment.

Also, the amount of variance accounted for by factors, hence their psychological importance, was the same across the two samples.

Utilization of Findings:

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

diagnostic meaningfulness of this primary Organizational Effectiveness survey instrument. If organized along empirically supported lines, the GOQ

could better serve as an instrument to evaluate organization climate in

various Army organizations accurately and meaningfully.

vii

V .,
FAC'OR STABILITY OF PRIMARY SCALES OF THE GENERAL

ORGANIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE

CONTENTS

Page

BACKGROUND ................. ............................... 1

METHOD ............... ... ................................. 2

Subjects ................ .............................. 2

Instrument ............ .... ............................. 2

Analysis ................ .............................. 2

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............. ......................... 2

The Five-Factor Solution, AADCOM Sample ....... ............... 2

The Five-Factor Solution, Mechanized Infantry Sample ... ........ 4

The Four-Factor Solution, AADCOM Sample ..... ............... . 13

The Four-Factor Solution, Mechanized Infantry Sample .. ........ 13

CONCLUSIONS ............ .............................. 22

REFERENCES ............. ............................... 25

APPENDIX. THE GENERAL ORGANIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE ... ........... . 27

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. GOQ dimensions and indexes ......... .................. 3

2. Five-factor solution, AADCOM sample ...... ............. 5

3. Five-factor solution, mechanized infantry sample ... ....... 8

4. Comparison of five-factor solutions with original

GOQ dimensions ......... ........................ 11

5. Coefficients of congruence for the five-factor solutions . . . 11

6. Four-factor solution, AADCOM sample .... ............. 14

7. Four-factor solution, mechanized infantry sample ........ . 18

8. Comparison of four-factor solutions with original

GOQ dimensions .......... ........................ 21

9. Coefficients of congruence for the four-factor solutions .. .21

* ix

0 ,7
FACTOR STABILITY OF PRIMARY SCALES OF THE GENERAL

ORGANIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Army is investing in an Organizational Effectiveness (OE) program to improve mission readiness (DA Letter 600-76-2, May 1976). OE is a

process relying on accurate diagnosis of organizational functioning. The

General Organization Questionnaire (GOQ) is the primary paper-and-pencil instrument used in this diagnosis. However, a recent study (Walizer & Mietus,

1979) has found the GOQ to have marginally adequate internal consistency

scale reliabilities and considerable duplication between scales. This is a

serious concern; the ability to make a pinpoint diagnosis is limited.

This paper has two purposes. The first is to compare the empirically

determined item structure of the GOQ found in samples from two different

Army organizations with the a priori item structure of the GOQ. The second

is to determine whether there is a stable item structure for the GOQ across

these samples from two different Army organizations.

One sample was drawn from air defense command (AADCOM) headquarters

(HQ) battery personnel in U.S. Army, Europe (USAREUR). These units are

high-technology organizations that are decentralized; that is, battalion

units are spread out over a large area. The other sample consisted of

mechanized infantry personnel from two USAREUR battalions. These are

relatively standard Army technology organizations with a highly centralized

chain of command, and all elements of a battalion located on the same

kaserne. The questions asked in this report are (a) how applicable, to

either of these samples, are the original dimensions of the GOQ, and

(b) how generalizable are the empirically derived factors and/or original

GOQ dimensions? In this specific instance, are the differences in tasks,

organizational climates, job nature and relationships, operating environments, and technologies between the two types of units sufficient to affect

factor structure? Little research has been done on this topic. Sims and

La Follette's (1975) factor analytic study of the Litwin and Stringer (1968)

Organizational Climate Questionnaire found a factor structure that was different from the a priori structure. Muchinsky (1976), in discussing the

factor structure of the Litwin and Stringer questionnaire, reviewed four

research efforts related to this question (Meyer 1968; Downey, Hellriegel,

Phelps, & Slocum, 1974; Sims & La Follette, 1975; and Muchinsky, 1976) and

concludes that while superficially there seems to be considerable factor

communality, there is not when actual item loadings are examined. The

author concluded that it is logical that different structures be found for

different types of organizations. Organizational climate, in one research

tradition, involves perceptions of work environments that are the results

of organization practices and procedures. Differing organizational practices

and procedures should produce different climates (Schneider, 1975), hence

different factor structures. Woodman and King (1978) conclude that the

factor structure of organizational climate instruments cannot be assumed

to generalize from one type of organization to another.

1J
METHOD

Subjects

Subjects from the AADCOM sample were 2,167 personnel of all ranks at

company level from all HQ batteries of an air defense command in USAREUR.

The data were collected in late 1977. The mechanized infantry sample consisted of 493 enlisted personnel and noncommissioned officers from two

mechanized infantry battalions in the same brigade in USAREUR. Data were

collected in 1978.

Instrument

The GOQ is a standard Army instrument used in the OE program. The 84

items that purportedly measure 21 areas of organizational functioning are

presented in Table 1. Major indices and question patterns resemble the

Survey of Organizations of the Institute for Social Research (Taylor &

Bowers, 1972). Only items 1 through 69 of the total 84 items were included

in this factor analysis. Items 1 through 69 measure primary organizational

climate processes, and items 70 through 84 measure tangential climate issues. The GOQ is shown in the Appendix.

Analysis

Principle factoring with iteration and varimax rotation from the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Nie et al., 1975) was

used to analyze the data. Also, a coefficient of congruence was used to

compare empirically the factor solutions of the factor analyses using the same variables in the two different samples (Harmon, 1967). The coefficient

of congruence is similar to a Pearson r in that it can range from ±1.00

(i.e., a perfect positive or inverse relationship), with zero indicating

no relationship. A coefficient of congruence of .90 or above is considered sufficient to establish good factor congruity (Mulaik, 1972).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Five-Factor Solution, AADCOM Sample

The original factor analysis yielded 10 factors with eigenvalues greater

than 1.00. However, examination of the 10-factor rotated solution revealed

that only 6 of the 69 items had loadings equal to or greater than .30 on Factors 6 to 10 combined. Of Factors 1 through 5, the factor with the fewest items loading greater than or equal to .30 was Factor 5, and it had 6

such loadings alone. Thus, a five-factor solution seemed optimal and was

generated. This five-factor solution is discussed below.1

ISince the order in which these factors are listed is arbitrary, the factors

are listed to simplify comparison with the original GOQ dimensions. Later,

other factors in this report are also organized to simplify comparison with

previously reported factor analyses.

2
Table 1

GOQ Dimensions and Indexes

Items Total no.

Area 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

STotal 84

. . " . .. .. . " .. . . . .. . .. II1 11 ~ l~l ll3
The five-factor rotated solution is reported in Table 2. Variables

loading .30 or higher on a factor are underlined. Thus, certain items may

load on more than one factor, while others may not load on any.

The first factor, Unit Climate, responsible for 10% of the variance

among items, is a good match to the GOQ's Unit Climate dimension, although

it appears Unit Climate in the original 84-item GOQ is also defined as Work

Group Processes (items 61, 66 to 69) and Supervisory Leadership (items 38,

44).

The second factor, Supervisory Leadership, accounting for 12% of the

item variance, is very similar to the GOQ Supervisory Leadership dimension.

Only three items (54, 57, 64), which load at .30 or greater on this scale,

are assigned elsewhere on the 84-item GOQ. This leadership dimension contains both items traditionally seen as consideration type items (e.g., "My

supervisor makes it easy to talk to him") and items usually viewed as measuring initiating structure (e.g., "My supervisor maintains high standards").

The third factor, which accounts for 10% of the variance among the

items, seems reasonably close to the third GOQ dimension, Co-Worker Interaction. However, perhaps a better name for this particular group of items

is Group Cohesion, since it pictures a group that is "solid" internally

(e.g., "I have the trust and support of my co-workers," "Co-workers discuss

differences honestly) and that can respond to external demands as well (e.g.,

"People in my group work hard," "The group meets requirements of higher-ups").

The fourth factor, accounting for 5% of the variance, does not bear

much relationship to any of the standard GOQ dimensions. It measures Mission Accomplishment (e.g., "My group can respond on short notice," "My

supervisor wants mission accomplishment").

The fifth factor seems to tap Personal Job Fulfillment (e.g., "I get

a sense of accomplishment from my job," "I'm working in a job for which I

am trained," "I would stay in the unit for as long as possible"). This

last factor explains 4% of the total variance and is also different from

any GOQ factor.

The Five-Factor Solution, Mechanized Infantry Sample

The initial unrotated factor analysis on the data from the mechanized

infantry sample generated 13 factors. However, the eigenvalue dropped below one after the fifth factor, suggesting the data contained, at most, five

valid factors. Thus, a five-factor rotated solution was generated. This

five-factor solution is examined below.

The five-factor rotated solution for the mechanized infantry sample

is presented in Table 3. Factor loadings of .30 or over are underlined.

Table 4 compares the original dimension structure of the GOQ with the fivefactor solutions from both samples. Coefficients of congruence are shown

in Table 5.

Unit Climate, accounting for 9% of the variance in the present sample,

is similar to the Unit Climate factor in the previous sample. When comparing

4
.0

9: -4 i4-~ C L 91 L !1 1 1c C 0 "4

Lfl '-4 I

4-)

0

0

(00

$4 04

0)

-AU)

04 Q) N- - 44 - Nr4 LA I AL0C Cq -4 No -4 r-4 4 N 4 -4 0 14 r- )IL0AD

0

U

41)

C'-V -V Ln LA tA LAO r4 en -4 to mrv A) A q, LA * Ln tn ..4 LA C'T C) c4 cq * -4 .-4

0U

-4

0

4

0

41

UU

Q) 0)

.) ( >~ 0 0

-4 rd (0> 01 >t

OCO0)> 4.) 0 0 .14 141(00Ur-:2

z -4 ()4 .,,-0LO4 (4 '-4 4J E 'd

u(u0." (04 :3 W-4 44 -4M 00 0 0 1-4 4 41 04-0 MO0 0 0 40 M 0 M1-4. 

0 0 4j 0( w(4- 0 4 4 U)-,00 44

(A0 U r 44 4 0) 0 . 10 0 4 n o U) (a4-4- r-4 $

04.4-4 0 01 ) . .0 4 0 3 A z4)0V4r- 0"44 -A 0 C:0 ) rd 4J .0 4 4J0$4 4 0 4- 0) 0. M, U) ) -H ON 4

U)ua1 n ( i .- o0 0 ~4 4J (04(0 CO -4 ) 4 Ol L r. 4 0 11 4) (n l 4 0) ) AI( 0)4

q) (n-4 Z0 4~-4 .J(d 0 ) 4- t3) 41 -a)*4 10 0 144) 4 41~0

4.E 0 0 0 n0 4 0- 00.4 0 -, 0 En r )440

w04' 0 4 q 04 w r0)to 41 S a) 0-d 44J 4J 4J.44444 41-0 0UI, 0r .) ) w0 C0 m lUi)". 44 0 0400 04.) (1) .4 lrf 4 4 -)4 fUj 1- 0 (d r. - '40 0 -CO' 0 00 0-4 (000w 4 ~4-) 0 ) 0(D 4J -4

0 0 4 -ri4 40 3:U044 -r -4 4 :1 . 'o 4) 0 W . to 1) 4 0 -444 4)004)0-4C0-440 a- ) 4 0-44) U)4MM0

U) R ) 0) 0 t 0 004M)FN0 004J0090 T)tow a)0 w0 w

0).4 )0%64> A 04)-rI Q 1 0

4)0 4 000 41 000 4 J4 d 0 H0 41u w0 9-10 D4)V )- 40> q

44-4U y a i)U) E 4 C S Q)4 r45.

0 o )a -H> DUV-4 41 4
0 4

A OOOO0O0O 4C 0- 4- - 4- - 0C - N 4O'4O C'-J0 0 .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . LO 4-4

-4

0

P4 W

0 M

0

0 -

4

'00

0 0

00_

04 C

0 4J C) 40 (d

.14 - r:: r-4 , OD o 00)4r 'O 0 I .01 n( 0 (14 00 v -o4.U 0 r-r 0 V. )C)r)O ~ 41 ~ -4 ~ 4 4 ' 4rI lri4 M r-4 CN04C 0M 0 C4 q0 4 '4 - N -. 0~l0 04 r4M U)C r . 0. 00 . . . . . . .4 . .4. .~ .- 0 .r . . . .

0)U 0 1414 ' 20 ) ~ 0 )

4. 4J0) OrJU 000 '- Z wr 4 304 10 1-401 0U 0'-)0'

WOO A J 44 04-H4 0J.00 0U 4.1-10 4w1-4 Iw

z rn ) - -4 > C 0 >4)t ) aO0 0) 0)E0 'o C-04 J "-4

OW . w F. 04 rd01 > -I 0 d O00 41 0 (n WOO -1 0 >4 0. 0O. $4 O 0 r: 40 ) 4 )4 0 z 4H 44- J oW4- Wi) aQ E0 - (d4 0 C 4.

WaJ- U) (0 >.- 40- '0 En O. 4 N4 8 m ;3 '0- a I ( 4 g40 M.' 0 >U 40 4-) 4O 0

-4 0 0(U) L) .)r ) . ) a). wOO 0'L)-).0'1Wa) 44 )i .4 (v

0q0. O.O " 4 W 0 -4J 0 0 1-40-V) w -z 000 '0 u 4 00 "-

'4) W cr r ()-w-4.0 0-' 04 Lo'-- - 04 ) r: A 0C 4'0 0W0-4 H 1 W 4J 4 Q) -1 4-40 -40 0 W 4 -A G 0 r-040' :3U 4 t 1 : r da 1.- 0 44) 4 .4- as .--On 4 ' U0 w

4. D .1 000: H' JUr =MW4 () 0Q HU r . I-)0 Cl Cl) $4 Cl 0z Clyl Cll0 r :3 4- ~U.0 m EU-4 L1 t I~Af dL 'D-k .-A

w 4 r U L n .)0 4 4(6V
.0

04

04-4 .

0) '4-

N454

0 )

-'-4 H

U

$4.04

0 -4q

4.4 0) i N -T 4N r- 

*0

0 :j 04E

rn 0 0

$44:

m0 C4i0

4. o 0

-4 o4 d3

r. 4 4 a)w

COrd. $4W 4

4 .- $4 03

4 di rd 4) 41 0

O4Jbr'4 -4r

4- 0 L') -4 U)

M) 0d U) 4.) 14 ON -4 .~C: . 4. u d C

- 0 U 1044 4 (

0-4 V 0 M1WO

u 0 C)U

4J m- %--, Ln W r,
0

0i

0 -

04.

n -4 ,,

.'

z 0

0

:010 )n 0

o 00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 , . ..,. .,. . . .- . . ., . . . ,.. . . . .. .,I .0 . . . .

040

NO 4 0

w WO

90 > 4r N V0r M nm - - 0 -i W0 (II-- I

NW

4-41

O g'

o

v V m LnmL novm- nr4r40NrIrM MM

.-q . . . . . ... . .. . .g . . .o. . . . . ..

I~

'0

0 t

4.',

N4.' U) > 0 '

4-) 

0 (0 ~4)0 > 

W-- "1 .0 -4 0 o U 0-4 .,I r- 4J) ~ 0 .0

o4-4 . - 0 . 4 4 ) 0 U 0 j r., rq :I W 4 - M 0 0 .0 41 0 0 d 1 4 4 5 0 0 5 0 ' 4 U) .1 0-, 41 U w '440.-I04 M _1 0 W -4 14 4) ~41 (n 0 ( 4-4 Wo 1- ( -- 004 V) O04a) .H- "4-. 0 ) .).I 0A 4) 4 g0 00 0 r 4 ~0 20 . 2N4 .- 0 4' 0m Ho u 41. 

-)4.) -4

4) W .4 . 0 44 0 -A m 040 .0 W M 0 W4-4 W 4J $4- 4 -r04 0-4 .~0 to - 0. 0

C- W 0)4- C: .0- -405W04V)C N d '0 4 F ) q-400.4q4 4.)41v 5o

0. N ) 0 C 4- (DM "- R444 .0 N0 4J0 -A4)V' 0- W0 wo. j $4' ( (d 0t4) r. 4 '0 0

.0 10- w $4 > 41 4) 0. >4 00 0 0 0 4J "I 0ys41' C05n0 0 0g42)0 t W'a4 41 ) 0 -aV 4 w :1 0 -ri(& - *A -.. WP l4 4) 3 .4 r4 v 4 00 g 004 00 -4 t 44I 0 .,1 00 4).0 )24( 1.4 m o $4 M 440 4'0 U44 Mg 9 V 40 10 43 - W00 . )RW4) 0' 4'VO W 0) 44> 0W U 4J 4 -10 w w w4 0 04 41 A00V0 N0 91 0 .0 -.C4& 0 0 4) 4 4 OJ iO4) 0

044-4 0U0 t~G) 4)02001050 V0r. 04 S0 W4-14 9O w(atoN 0 ON 0 0 -. 4 > ) 0-H 02 4 . 4J w N$

-,q .0 a u 4 -,N 0 u -. 4W0 C000U)0 00 41 4CA))v04 )0O-4A r:4. -A W-4 -4 to m

$4 ttl rd q f 4 0 4' w( 0 10V W $4

NO 4J 0 O U C: .00 0 .- '0 j NOw V 0 4 4-4 '0 0

H 4)00

8 0:m10 i 4 3219 1 13 91 .98
0 41

Cf4 t OHHH ' "NOHHH HMINOOOHHOOOON OHH i-4r.v-4.-

m W 0r4Hr4Nr4N N0 0 - - lrlMN00 0r4r4 0 I - - - 4r

$4

0

0m

0

o00 0 r4N M r4 4 -H H N H " NA ~ N I - I Dr I -W IDN Wr .D Ln N v vIN Hf

WC14

0 -'-q

'4 N H0L0' H0NL N r- H r- LA v 010 -4 m m [- -4 %0 ) LA'%D'1W'm'Ln'Ln %o <N v D LA4 i ou wO HO 0 H -1 0 HH 1 H HmN q N N -4 N H"-

".4 $4( ar4V

oj 44 4 H) H1 H) Hd 00 N -H 0 WN (d 4) 04 0l NA 0% u 0

w 0o 0 r

"4 w. 0 8 0 R0 m> tO 4-4 4)

04' 0.004 ) )w ' I4 4 41". 1w a) 4)0' w

m O2Ow u ) .4 44 V~ Q) W10 0EUM4J 4J 00 - 3 04 4 ~0 44 .11 *.-4I 4) U 0on 4.)NI'0 00O.00 $ w.

0.'"4 -4 .0 C'4r4j 0 0 14 0 1, 1 04 ?a~ td0 .t)0 $4 r4 H4 04 00N 0440 OW'4-44 UI4 44U.0 44. 0 ci20'4-40 - 1 m 

0 (D4 S 1 r 0 4 $ A A)-H4 4 0 0 4 1 04i .0 

04) 44 4 J (A .,# 4 "1~ & 4 1 040 x

0 4: oC l - -4 HW$ 0) r.>HU mH 4) 90' 4 W

4.1 U)4) 4-)4-) 4 : C440 0 9: . 0 c 0 0 0 H () r W -4 0 4 H0 4~0 44a)C:oJ 4-1 ~ ~ ~ mm0-jWH41 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 4 0 

0.) o= 40'a- -8'

4)w w1 4$4W. )W )0 )U r 4 u 9 0-

ON0 00 rq0 00 MW Wk 0V9
0 4-)

-4 to)

0

4.)

ED

0

0m CN m %D-4IAL 0 a) C HII~n

N4)

041

4.) W r-41J-4 -4 (n 4

".1 W

0) 4 -- U r

-4 ra 0

13 o 4 0) 0 : 044

r0 004 000 N) 

$.4 444 >

.0 0 $4

4 -

0 0 ,4

.4 04 w4 0 0

N o ~40 0 Q) W

04 0,-- U

~ 010
,-4 U)I (o"

f0)4 44 C:U04 4-

044~ 0 r_ 41 i'4 r )40

U) (d W-a) U 4

Si ) d0

HU)%0.0L U) 0r En '4- 4 0- ~ (nU) 140

Co -U> 0 U 0 En--IH H'Jc

0) . : 2j4 --- 4 r. U)1 D2a:

a) -4c~UU k o.4

410 '~44

Q-4 -4

$4 I4

0

4) > U) U) .1ci

4.) 0 D4r

H: C i04 wA 

- ~41 .0 0 -4

U)0 LrA 4-) 04 4.Q) ,4Hfn

a) 0 0z2 0. U) Q) w4 > $4 r r- Lnr- '- -U (1 ci-4 .14 H4 0 $4 4ci OG LA) koLA

,LO2c) -4 -4 0 )V

0~ U) ~ k''--.4 40

.14 04 Q k

4 41. 4 > M u 0 >'. M 0. A) )C4 W M t_3 C 4-'

41) R 0 4.) (1 N (3)r- en t uQR *H U)0 1 4 U .,I r: M) L DLA m = -4-HU r.to2 0 0 1 ...

u U> 0z 4-4 4-4 $4 04 di0 0 U)

C14-4 00ul $4 4) to

04 U) Uci

0

L) -0

0 (11.

04 >) 04 4J

0 U

04 4- 04U.c

-- 4-4 4 U 1-

I-l Qi C:
items with factor loadings at or above .30 on this factor in each sample,

there are as many items that do not match as do match (18 items in each case).

Nonetheless, the coefficient of congruence between these factors is .92. This

empirically derived Unit Climate factor contains items from other original

GOQ dimensions of Supervisory Leadership (28 to 30, 38, 42, 43), Co-Worker

Interaction (54), and Work Group processes (61, 63, 69) as well as from the

original Unit Climate factor (items 1 to 6, 8 to 14, 16 to 19, and 21).

Supervisory Leadership, accounting for 12% of the variance in the

present sample, is very similar to the Supervisory Leadership factor in

the previous sample. This factor taps both the traditional leadership

components of Consideration (e.g., "It is easy for me to get in to see my

supervisor," "When appropriate, my supervisor supports my decisions") and

Initiating Structure (e.g., "My supervisor emphasizes mission accomplishment," "My supervisor ensures that all required materials are available

to accomplish the job"). The items loading .30 or above on the Supervisory

Leadership factor in both samples are identical with the exception of one

item (57). These factors have 20 items in common. Harmon's coefficient

of congruity between these two factors is .99. Of the items these factors

have in common (i.e., with loadings of .30 or greater on both factors), all

but two (54, 64) are in the Supervisory Leadership dimension in the original

GOQ.

Group Cohesion, accounting for 11% of the variance in the present sample, is very similar to the Group Cohesion factor in the previous sample.

This factor reflects not only group solidarity (e.g., "I have the trust and

support of my coworkers," "My work group plans together and coordinates its

efforts"), but also group responsiveness to external demands (e.g., "People

in my work group work hard," "My work group meets all requirements placed

on it by higher levels of command"), and discipline (e.g., "Army standards

of order and discipline are maintained in my work group"). All but three

of the items loading .30 or above (items 19, 34, 54) are the same in both

samples. There are 18 items loading above .30 on this factor in both samples. The coefficient of congruity between these two factors is .99. However, this factor consists of items from all four original dimensions of the

GOQ (mostly from Co-Worker Interaction and Group Processes) and thus fails

to confirm empirically the original dimension structure of the GOQ.

The fourth factor, Mission Accomplishment, which accounts for 5% of

the variance in the present sample, is fairly similar to the fourth factor

in the previous sample, Mission Accomplishment. In this sample, the Mission

Accomplishment factor taps the feeling that the job is worthwhile (e.g.,

"My job is directly related to meeting the unit's goals," "I get a sense of

accomplishment from the work I do") and that the unit is trying to do the

job (e.g., "My supervisor emphasizes mission accomplishment," "My work group

is able to respond on short notice to heavy work demands placed on me").

Although there are seven items with loadings of .30 or above on this factor

in one sample but not the other (items 8, 9, 15, 31, 37, 56, 66) and nine

with loadings above .30 on both factors (items 10, 26, 27, 34 to 36, 58 to

60), Harmon's coefficient of congruence between the factors is still .92.

This factor is not similar to any of the four original GOQ dimensions and

in fact draws about an equal proportion of items from all but one of the

original GOQ dimensions (Co-Worker Interaction).

12
The fifth factor, Mission Orientation, which accounts for 4% of the

variance in this mechanized infantry sample, is not at all similar to the

fifth factor in the AADCOM sample, Personal Job Fulfillment. In fact, no

items loading .30 or more on either sample are the same, and the coefficient

of congruity between the fifth factors in both samples is .37. Mission

Orientation is fairly similar to the fourth factor in the present infantry

sample, Mission Accomplishment. Mission Orientation seems to measure the

unit's ability to focus energy on the mission, and away from extraneous

things (e.g., "Work priorities are established in line with the unit's objectives," "There is little interference from outside units in doing our

work"). Like the fifth factor from the previous sample, this factor is not

similar to any dimensions in the original GOQ. Mission Orientation draws

items mostly from the original GOQ dimensions of Unit Climate (items 3, 15,

16, 21 to 24, 27) and Work Group Processes (items 65 to 68).

The Four-Factor Solution, AADCOM Sample

Since the GOQ hypothesized four dimensions, a four-factor solution was

computed foi the AADCOM sample even though the original factor analysis implied that a five-factor solution was optimal. The four-factor solution

for the AADCOM sample is reported in Table 6 and discussed below.

Unit Climate, comprising 10% of the total item variance, strongly resembles the GOQ Unit Climate dimension. However, like the Unit Climate

factor of the previous five-factor solutions, this factor is also influenced

by Work Group Processes (items 61, 63, 66, 68, 69), Supervisory Leadership

(items 38, 43, 44), and item 54 from Co-Worker Interaction.

Supervisory Leadership, accounting for 11% of the variance, is quite

similar to the GOQ Supervisory Leadership dimension. It includes one item

concerning the supervisor (64) that is considered part of the GOQ Work Group

Processes dimension and one item (54) that is part of the Co-Worker Interaction dimension.

Group Cohesion, accounting for 10% of the variance among items, is a

mixture of the GOQ dimensions labeled Co-Worker Interaction and Work Group

Processes. It is similar to the Group Cohesion factor of the five-factor

solutions, since it reflects group solidarity (e.g., "My co-workers work

together as a team," "My co-workers offer new ideas to solve job-related

problems") and group esprit de corps ("Army standards of order and discipline are maintained in my work group," "My work group meets all requirements placed on it by higher levels of command").

Mission Accomplishment, making up 6% of the overall item variance,

does not resemble any dimension of the original GOQ. It measures mission

accomplishment from both a personal perspective (e.g., "I want to contribute my best efforts to the unit's mission and my assigned tasks," "I understand what is expected of me on my job") and from a group perspective

("This unit places high emphasis on accomplishing the mission," "This unit

is able to respond to all demands put on it to accomplish the mission").

This factor is quite similar to the Mission Accomplishment factor of the

five-factor solutions.

13
4)

0

o

U

mod

0

0 uI

4

o '

ul =

*.4 U)

0 14 w vL mS 04 ( tU

0

o~~c ri 0

ir N i N IN rlkol) Vi ,' H LA A 'iH I - 1H D09 (N 0. -11 r

H -o . . . . . .-. o E-1 1-o V a ,-o

0 " $4 Q) o ° ' -4 

LA 0 0

4) o o Ata o4 0 C:

4. > 4) 0 0 4 WH o -( 0 0

Z4 ri0. 4 0 *dUr44C 0 A - 1 -)5'0

oi 4o. 9oC Cl CoH w Cw H*.4 00.4 0) -1 )

>9 LH- .'1 0 014 r) 000 I4 Id U)4 4 0 00 4 (r 14 HU E) 0. _) t

H0 )-M 4)H4 N 0 M 40 -4 0,0U0- 04 a)4~f 1.4 H 0404

H4 -q H '1m 04 z a) F:: r )Co4)050 0 0 0 ( 4-Jo4 2 a 0 4 -f04 *H I O 0 U2-4 ' mU) 491

-44)4 tl W . .4 w 14 C 4 0U' 4 4 -00401M :r4 ) -4 Q0'C W : ) 4 1 a 10(d 0 0.00w Cl Co f 00- a4 -4 )1 0 4) OH4 04 10 4 4) n 04 ( U .. U)ul 1 00 'rWa F. ( .04 C: U 4) w 40H0 0.i0 >1 It 000 4)-'

O0~ -4 w ( .i 0 H.020)M - 104 -A .0 - 4 0WH1 0 0 D)rS-4Z0o04 4ON0 W 04-r. r t V 41 0 4) 0 W 14J44 000C W1

41 0 > -1 04 444) 00 0m 004wM rA r 4 44 4 4 00 -4 a 1- 0W )4 0 -,4 H> f 0 '4 .- 4d 4) 4)0 1 z .i

4 r 1 0 OHO4 4 )>4 S aiU' 0 4 4 CIHUa)-4HaH 4 o 1o - tyl41r. 0R U0 n ) O0 (d04 0 4J J ) 4 . U04)ar 1 V 014~O -1 1 4 U ) 0J0 H -4 tCo f o 4J 0 (Dr H(V 3 0

04 4 10 Q4 0b Z: J01 )4U 0' t $4fl W0 W 4W W 0 0 0H 0 44- 0~)) w dt">.11 0 H4 41 -4 04) 4 $4)W 0 0. 1 0 0 0 0 -) 0 14 ) 0 1. ) V 0 4 .) HJ 44 H to0 4

0 O4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 )4 ~ 4J0 ~ ) $ ~ ~ C 

00 r-4 004 :Hr 000 44 HH4 4) 4 HH- H 04 0 4 )etd 4)H

to 14m o t . Ch114i
0 f

.u. . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x0

* 0

04 0

4 04

Hn WN %D MO C O HD 0 O W H n WO -4 HN L-4 - -4N N£ -i MIN N MINA d -4 N 0A

-4 ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ N N ~ Nf ~ A H- H - H- - H- 4r4r H- (Ni ( N H- M' (4N )N H H -(MNO

'0

4)4

r- r. .

404 0 > 4.

H0 0 4 1 0 M04 1

0 HA 0 r-4 (n 0 t 0 En 44 M 0~ >, 4 , d 0 HnM. 04 nt u Q)9

' - J 4 .4 0 0 4' H4 .04r.M 0 -- : t 4 0 4 =

$4 04 HH.0 ) 04 0r" 0 U- 0 '0 00 U 4147> rU 4) $4_ $ . 0 4O00W 4 00W 00U

000700i > m0 0 H4 0 4 0 009 $4 M. W~ 0- MUC 4 0 r.0$ 0

1- > r, to H & C: 44 r 04) Z . rd 44 0 )4H ( 04 m 4)2 4) (n r Tn ' U$. H r (U v >0 4) 0 4 x 4v r 0 m m . 04J ) 4 "1 0 0 w~ .H 1- £2) 4 4 0'4-)oli0U4.1x 0 4) 0 04 W S "1 0 4 W 40 04 -1> 4 - 40) -4 44( . 0 4 H 0 0 r 110 :I wt"- E 04J :3 ma - - 4 W1.0- . H 14-4 (v 'u 0 4-4

U)0)0440 0 7 _ HOt 1 00f > -40 4 ) '0 0 t x 1CCl0 q)

N rq- 0 H w0 V)07 -10 'OHc - 0 0 00 (1)0 )W- 00 0)r a) Ir '00 ro UH'4 . 0 Wl . 040 H4U 07 4J- 4-1 1

4J~~ ~ ~ 0J01 1r

0 9 .Cr 0 '0 4 e4E H r-7. 4 (U W -A0. 0 W (Ul )0 0 ' ') a)-r

4-) 0) H4 1400 Sw c W 4 4 0 WW 41. 4 1.1. p t.04.)m (nflu) cn ) V44 (d 41 to - tr0 0 >00 0 0 H0 0 0 .0 0 0 W W W W W W 4 W0 04J 4) 0) X

W 5W M4JM 0W 0M 00 ) ) )H) >HA 0 c wt7 $,

00- 1 ' , 4U- 4- 4- - 491*.49 X H : 4 0 0

HO 4)0 > 0 w 4 > >$ J k $ W $ p a . 1 " 4 - 40> h t 1

>, 1 & & 14-4(1 9 0715
4

0

0

04 -

$4.c

0 r

o Xd

>4 r- 0Im r% kD O

w

03 4.) c~4 v o irI

U) U

0

'.0 00 En

$4r.0) $ 0 41 )l ON w

-4 0H ONU r*4 0)-4 m r

U)$44

uU0 0'1 0)

4) -. U) 9i

k 4''4 >fty

) 14 .~ r.

04 4j 0 0U

.4 r 0 '.4

$4 $

m 044 M 0H4-

to I 0 w

$4 >

4.) w.~~8.~

16
The Four-Factor Solution, Mechanized Infantry Sample

To enable comparison between the four-factor solution using the AADCOM

sample, the original GOQ dimensions and the mechanized infantry sample, a

four-factor rotated solution was computed on the mechanized infantry sample,

even though the original factor analysis suggested that a five-factor solution was optimal. The four-factor rotated solution for the mechanized infantry sample is contained in Table 7. Factor loadings of .30 or above

are underlined. A comparison of the factors from the two samples and the

original GOQ dimension structure appears in Table 8. Coefficients of congruence are shown in Table 9.

Unit Climate, accounting for 10% of the variance in the mechanized

infantry sample, is similar to the Unit Climate factor in the AADCOM sample. Although 11 items load at or above .30 on this factor in one sample

and not the other (10, 15, 22, 23, 27 to 30, 42, 66, 68) and 24 items

load at or above .30 on both factors, the coefficient of congruence between

these two factors is still .97. Again, however, as in the five-factor solutions in both samples and four-factor solutions in the previous sample, Unit

Climate is defined more broadly than in the original GOQ, including items

from the original dimensions of Supervisory Leadership (28 to 30, 38, 42

to 44), Co-Worker Interaction (54), and Work Group Processes (61, 63, 69).

Supervisory Leadership, which accounts for 12% of the variance in the

mechanized infantry sample, is quite similar to the Supervisory Leadership

factor in the AADCOM sample. In fact, the variables loading .30 or above

on this factor in both samples are the same except for two items (54, 57).

There are 18 items loading .30 or above on this factor in both samples.

The coefficient of congruity between these two factors is .99. Also, of

the items loading at or above .30 on the factor in both samples, all but

one (64) belong to the original GOQ Supervisory Leadership dimension.

Group Cohesion, accounting for 11% of the variance in this mechanized

infantry sample, is similar to the Group Cohesion factor in the AADCOM sample. Only three items have factor loadings of .30 or above in one sample

and not the other (19, 34, 54), while 18 have loadings of .30 or above on

both samples. The coefficient of congruence between these two factors is

.98. As with the five-factor solutions in both samples, this factor again

measures group solidarity, responsiveness to external demands, and discipline. However, this factor again shows no similarity to any of the four

original GOQ dimensions; it draws some items from all dimensions, but mostly

from Co-Worker Interaction and Work.Group Processes.

The fourth factor, Mission Accomplishment, accounting for 6% of the

variance in the mechanized infantry sample, is similar to Mission Accomplishment in the AADCOM sample. Considering items loading .30 or more on each

factor, there are more items that do not overlap (16 items) than those that

do overlap (10 items). However, the coefficient of congruence between these

factors is .92. Again, this Mission Accomplishment factor measures the extent to which the job is worthwhile and the unit's energy is focused on

mission accomplishment. Also, this factor is not similar to any in the

original GOQ; it contains items from all original dimensions except CoWorker Interaction.

17
to 04 . . . . . . . . . . ! .

x 0

0)

C.)

,4 o -,-1

0 a) -4 00 r-4 00 U N ,Hr4 C N 'J.H 4 P-r'4.(n)j 0.r4 0 0 00 N -4 r- r-4 -.4

-. 4

ao

-4 0H

to ,- Q) C r4 " ,-, . N A r-4 (N N,--) -4--, , -, 1 o

a) r..Oo . . ...~ ....oo . .. o

0.4( 4-J

4Q4

4.)- C IMC oo'lI VI ~II IDCjnrIOINC1 o NIi or N°5 miolo

C -4 .o .. . .. ..... ..- . .,.

'to

444 cu )

U) tp U

t) Q )z z41 4- m4 04 ( 1

4J 9 0 4 - r .

(o f -n ). a (a o - U)

r- -M j0 w U 40- 4 )" 0 )

o o IQ o o l o d o ,-I ,-. ,-4 v ,--4 Z. 1: U) ) ( -)

o4 3 :3Q . 5 4J 0 4 dL I n 4t Ul ) 4)E

*o r-q 0 ) H O 44 W Q '4Z - (D 0 0 4 4 n 0 - )4l 0

44) En"49 144 0) i C-a)O w t -H V 0 " 'aO)r4 4

'-4 0) $4-'a ( )4 0 C40 -4 H 0 -4W OE>4>

U44 > 0) ) 4 0 CIjf r.a) a) UH( Ea4 44 4-4 Q)4

0- 0 q) a)' 4-4 0~4 (1) 4J -4 H04 4M Z 4f ) s 01 0 (

oC 4 1HH~ E $4)E 04 -- H 4 2W 04 >1 ) -HCOQ) ZO (00 -

0) 4-J.0 0 0 U4~-OC 00)0 WZ00MWV4 J 4C U&4- 00) C 4 4

M) 4 Q)) 4 0 F(O (0) 44( m04 .) 0 2) 44 k 44 -W '0a) 0)J. a): 4a ) a)-4m .w0 4 0 0. ,I ( $40) 4 .0.00 g

-4 O 1H o 0 C ~4-O 0 ) 4- uCia 10 44 0 H0O4 .J -- 4Q). d44C

0 .0H u $4 10O- w w-H Q )n4-E) 4a)~ ) W 0 0 (n- M 4-i4L ~ 4-1 Q 0)- ) 4 0 E -wm 0. U) C 0 4 -- 4 0 4( (0-)i-'a- 0 4. 4 a', s ) 1 -4> )H a)a) Q -4 4 .)OOO0 1W)$4 o-- w09 v 0m - s U0' (d0~ 4 4 Ea0 z a) 0 0 0 0 0a

O-4 4 t 0. n oE- -~4 r::-i4 m~ w0 'a- a - d0 - H- 'aE 

f ID 0O14a) E W4 r- > 4 P 04 0 ~ - > 3 a) (o - a)4>-> (($ - ,q ) UO )OU(a t7% 0 4 'C 4 m 1 o 4-4 - 'wwH4u 41)0 a)-H'H 0 W -H ''i0 ~41 44) - -

CO.-(0 4))a a 4 0 (d r ,-i)Cr 00 0 0 0 _ -H0 U U r. 0

44 :n 014 .z4 :: I w-a4:D :)3:mOt :D~)~)d C44444 PDZ)0Lo

O 4 4 a $ $)a4 kWW- 4 J'0 0 W) 4 4 4 W 4 W

H-H O C d (1H (C 0d (aO >4 > >44 H~fl~~-H > >> >>)H>>4a>>-->>)U>>8 i 

44 4- 0)i0i0-,,L4 0N H--
41

0,. TA-O O oH .- HH,-C' , i 0 C

Cfl0 . . . . ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ... .

0

u

(o

.1

u0

0-4

th z

-4 (n

04 M

4) ,.r C 4

U

41

(a oP -i Ln .o r- cn %D.oL -o n- -%DC Dr -0 ,W )L

o T" : o -I+ q M IN: +- N No o - .r, r- N mN- o 10r4,

.H. o . . . . . .. .. .. .. , .. .. . . . .

0

4'

z) w fd ) 04 4) 0E

( 4a04 00 0 - a, o H.0 o E4t) wO O -4 -4 E 0 En 54r w 4 '0 wU ) 1 U *. to 4 -4OHU d a) Q4 c 6 U- ) C U) n ) >, 9 ~) > (1) .4H4.) Q) (D tocf0 r- 4 0)z-4 0 1

u 0 > t> 1 0 i Q 0 1 .-14 04 En (TI. .r .0 4jOU C)-% , 4 4 0U) 4 1

W 4 Q( 4- 0 R Q) a 1 3 ( 4 Z-' 4) 10 >, 8)- 404. 4 '4 0

0o0mw zu 4J r () 5, ri4 C )a) .0 0 IUd ) 41 41 () 44 Q)i $4 d En ) . )OU ) En-H w 4) t aU) V) '0O )n4 4 _ - 1 044 4-)0 44 -4

*.4 u r4 r> mC)a)O 4J 04 -, ( w En a) E I 4) Q) u 0a).C H4 > 0U z E -4 44-4 Z-JO r.0 C: (d 4 ' 4( ~ 0 04 ' Q) U) $4

(1) 4J-4-i -4 (1) 3: H (1) 5 W . C 4 : 4 J O( M 4.1 4 4-) S-4 04 ) 15 rf0 404 4) k0 4Hrf>1 4 4J 4 ).0rl44-4M 0.4c-1Q) 0C:4J 0 :5) U)4.) 4 0,0 0. -IA 44.4 4S .0.,1H (a ol C0 44 En 4-4 o- 0) 0 0)0 

Cfl in tn ) a) 04 M-4 >--4 0 ) 4) rO 04~ (n En 0r

0)4.44.n4 n 4 .. , ~. O U - 4 004 O ) 5Z ) 0-4 .- 0I a)

(U) k d Z CD (d V)40 0 4-) A (d En 4 (a U) (d 4.) a , .,4 r441 4 4 r. 2 n(1 r04~ :3C4 - 04 Q>u114

H1 C') (a raA~ 0 -4 a aN) g LA D ) 0 ) H N ) 4 q. LA 44 .) CO $)0 (4 C) r') 0' C) (I c -H rq rq 0' M0 LA 0A zA ALA 0A a ALA0 v. '.0

*r 41 0) 44.44.44.0 4d 0. 0.z V.

M) 40 0 10 0 0 '-0 0 0 0 0 0 4 V 440k4V0 4 44044004a)

-. 0- 4 ', -, , 4- , 4- 4r -r 4 X 9 A 3 Q
w0 "-4 -4

0

00

04 (

Q))

41)

NIU 04 U)lH 4)-4 r 0r :1 ( 04 (nI

-'4 0

N4O

) 4 U)

H 0 o 01

Q4 0rw

4.) r U' 4J4 0 W- -4 W 0 M H4 0 04- 4-4 4 tP 0

fu 2 4) c'04

C)] r0-. U 44

0) 4-4 E 4)4=)

44 4.)~ p 1

04)140 E 4JJ 0

0 rq 5

r.4 -4 0 .1 -H0 (n 0 Q 4 4 -4 ti)

4.) C)4) ~ 1

"-4 :3 4)of

k 0

0) () 14 14 W~ )

0020
0 (

W2~ r-%0Ddw

k 44 -0 r

41.-14 0D *..40

C) 4-) >1 0U)U

(n0

CU()> 0 1-4

0. 40U R -

U)~ .1 0 0 2

0 :31(~ m2 U.i 0 t -

0) -4 0to 00 r- LA(0

".4 )4$4

0 -4 4 0

0U

-.4 N t.l 4 1 -. 4

0 0 0 U2 54 0Un)c -. 0 0".40H

4JI- -4 0) :> $4 oO 0

" - - C) 4-) 4)DO L

024O 4-) 1-4 01 ul W 0 E0 ~4 0U .0 ".4 4-4

41 4 40

E 4 02 (L) 0E-4

0 -(o -4 C)

1-) 04-) A 0 01

4J ~ 0 m a) 0 04-4

r)> UT 0 144 0 1-4 04-1- U

el j14 004)4

r44

0 0

C)-4

0) 4-4

0H 0 0 0 U4

00 0 ( 14

(d0 4-4 .1

4. 0 4 0

V w140 -H

r. 4.4 01

o 0 m .1 0 "4

$4 u '.0

-40 04 -42

AU P44 1 4 V-4 0 t

~~21
CONCLUSIONS

The Supervisory Leadership dimension in the original GOQ was found,

nearly intact, in both the five- and the four-factor solutions in both

samples. This factor received the strongest empirical support of any

original dimension. It accounted for the highest percentage of total

variance of any factor in both the four- and five-factor solutions, for

both the AADCOM and mechanized infantry samples. Admittedly, Group Cohesion, Supervisory Leadership, and Unit Climate all accounted for essentially the same amount of total item variance (i.e., 9% to 12%) across

all factor solutions.

Unit Climate was also a distinct factor on both five- and four-factor

analyses in both samples. However, it was not quite as stable across samples in factor loadings as was Supervisory Leadership. The empirical definition of Unit Climate is broader than that hypothesized in the original

GOQ.

The Group Cohesion factor also emerged in both the five- and fourfactor analyses and was stable with regard to item composition across the

two samples. Thus, this factor, which was not one of the original GOQ dimensions, received empirical support in two independent samples, using two

different factor solutions (five versus four factors).

Mission Accomplishment received general support from both five- and

four-factor analyses in both samples. This factor was not an original GOQ

dimension. Item composition was slightly more stable across samples for

the five- than for the four-factor solution.

The fifth factors generated in the two separate sets of data bear

little relationship to each other, either empirically (i.e., in terms of

the coefficient of congruence) or in terms of item composition (i.e., items

loading on the fifth factor at .30 or better in both samples). Thus, although original factor solutions in both samples suggest a five-factor solution as optimum, there may be only four stable factors across samples

(Supervisory Leadership, Unit Climate, Group Cohesion, and Mission Accomplishment), with the fifth varying according to the sample's composition.

In summary, the a priori structure of the GOQ was not well supported

in either the mechanized infantry sample or the AADCOM sample. Across

these two samples there was a stable factor structure. Supervisory Leadership remained intact as in the a priori scales. Unit Climate emerged as

a factor, but with more items than in the a priori scales. Co-Worker Interaction and Work Group Processes from the a priori scales were not replicated, but the new factors of Group Cohesion and Mission Accomplishment

were found in both samples.

Thus, in these two samples, not only did items generally load onto the same factors, but the amount of total item variance accounted for by the

factors remained stable across both four- and five-factor solutions and

different samples. As mentioned previously, Group Cohesion, Supervisory

Leadership, and Unit Climate were the three most important factors, accounting for roughly 10% of the item variance each across all analyses. Mission

Accomplishment was the replicated factor accounting for the least item

variance (5% to 6%) across solutions.

22

- -
These findings, if replicated in other types of Army organizations,

could have important practical implications. One could then reasonably

assume that across Army organizations, peoples' perceptions of organizational climate are determined by the same general factors, and further,

that the psychological importance of these factors remains the same across

types of organizations. If such stability in factors determining organizational climate existed across Army organizations, it would narrow to a

handful the major issues in organizational climate that the Army managers

and policymakers would have to deal with. Also, if the Army designed programs to impact on these issues, they would be equally applicable to various types of Army organizations.

The results of this report, if replicated in other Army organizations,

would also be helpful to OESOs since they suggest that it is not necessary

to reanalyze data for each new type of organization to discover what elements determine how organizational climate is perceived and the relative

psychological importance of each element. In short, assuming these results

are reliable, the GOQ, if organized along the lines outlined in this report, could better serve as a diagnostic instrument, one which is known to

be equally applicable across various Army organizations.

23
REFERENCES

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

Department of the Army. Commander's Guide to Organizational Effectiveness,

TC 26-1, HQ, September 1978.

Downey, H. K., Hellriegel, D., Phelps, M., & Slocum, J. W. Organizational

climate and job satisfaction: A comparative analysis, Journal of

Business Research, 1974, 2, 233-248.

Evaluation of General Organization Questionnaire, final report. Fort Ord,

Calif.: U.S. Army Organizational Effectiveness Center and School,

May 1979.

Harmon, H. H. Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1967.

Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. Motivation and organizational climate.

Boston: Harvard University, 1968.

Meyer, H. H. Achievement motivation and industrial climates. In R.

Tagiuri & G. H. Litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate: Explorations

of a concept. Boston: Harvard University, 1968, pp. 151-166.

Muchinsky, P. M. An assessment of the Litwin and Stringer Organization

Climate Questionnaire: An empirical and theoretical extension of the

Sims and La Follette study. Personnel Psychology, 1976, 29, 371-392.

Mulaik, S. A. The foundations of factor analysis. New York: McGrawHill, 1972, p. 355.

Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K. S., & Bent, D. H.

(Eds.). Statistical package for the social sciences. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Schneider, B. Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology,

1975, 28, 447-479.

Sims, H. P., & La Follette, W. R. An assessment of the Litwin and Stringer

Organization Climate Questionnaire. Personnel Psychology, 1975, 28,

19-38.

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

standardized questionnaire instrument. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute

for Social Research, 1972.

Walizer, D., & Mietus, J. Development of an organizational survey feedback

program for the 32D Air defense command. ARI Technical Report 433,

March 1980.

Woodman, R. W., & King, D. C. Organizational climate: Science or folklore?

Academy of Management Review, October 1978, 816-826.

25

Ulf,
Appendix A

The General Organization Questionnaire

PAMN iLAW-Wm NIij

I 27
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

GENERAL ORGANIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE

(GOQ)

THIS QUESTIONNAIRE IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE MEMBERS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION WORK

TOGETHER. THE INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE WILL BE USED BY

COMMANDERS/MANAGERS/SUPERVISORS TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE UNIT/ORGANIZATION,

IF THE RESULTS ARE TO BE HELPFUL, IT IS IMPORTANT

THAT YOU ANSWER EACH QUESTION AS THOROUGHLY AND FRANKLY

AS -POSSIBLE. THIS IS NOT A TEST, THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR

WRONG ANSWERS,

THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES WILL BE PROCESSED BY

AUTOMATED EQUIPMENT WHICH WILL SUMMARIZE THE ANSWERS IN

STATISTICAL FORM SO THAT INDIVIDUALS CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED.

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ANYWHERE ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE

OR ANSWER SHEET.

USA ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS TRAINING CENTER

FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA

* OCTOBER 1977

29
INSTRUCTIONS

1. Mark all responses on the machine-readable answer sheet. If you do not find

the exact response that fits your case, use the one that is closest to it.

2. Remember, the value of the survey depends upon your being straightforward in

answering the questionnaire. Your answer sheets are processed by automated equipment and no one from your command will see them.

3. The answer sheet is designed for automatic scanning of your responses. Items

are answered by marking the appropriate response rectangle ( ) on the answer

sheet as illustrated in the following example.

Item #55. 1 am able to influence my co-workers when we are making group decisions.

Response Scale for Questions 1 - 84.1

1) I strongly disagree

2) I somewhat disagree I

3) I am neutral

4) I somewhat agree

5) I strongly agree

In this example, the response is ( ), I somewhat disagree 55

that I can influence my co-workers .,ten we are-making group

decisions.

4. Please use a pencil (No 2 is best), and observe carefully

these important requirements: 7

-Make heavy black marks that fill in the numbered rectangle A

-Erase cleanly any answer you wish to change l

-Make no stray markings of any kind

-Do not write your name or social security number anywhere 10

on the questionnaire or the answer sheet

5. The particular meaning of the term "this unit" will be announced

by the person administering the questionnaire. For example, "this

unit" may refer to your Company, Battalion, Brigade, etc. Questions

about "your supervisor" refer to the person to whom you report directly.

Questions about "your co-workers" refer to the people you associate with

from day to day in order to get the job done--they usually report to the

same supervisor. Questions about "your work group" refer to the entire

team of people, including your co-workers and your supervisor(s) who work

for a common goal.

6. Turn to side two (GREEN SIDE) and fill in the appropriate unit/org code.

Write your code number in the boxes and then pencil mark the corresponding

numbered rectangles.

31 u
ON SIDE TWO (GREEN SIDE), LOCATE ITEM 116 AND ANSWER THE FOLLOWING BACKGROUND INFORMATION ITEMS.

BE SURE THAT THE ITEMLNUMBER ON THE ANSWER SHEET IS THE iAME AS

THE QUESTIONMIRE ITEU YOU ARE ANSWERING,

BACKGROUND

116. Service type.

1) Military service (active or reserve)

2) Civil Service

117. Sex.

1) Male

2) Female

118. Education.

1) Did not finish high school

2) High School graduate or GED

3) Some college, but not a 4-year degree

4) College graduate, 4 year degree

5) Graduate degree, or work beyond a 4-year degree

119. Ethnic.background.

1) White

2) Black

3) Spanish-Mexican American

4) Oriental American

5) Other (American Indian, Filipino, Puerto Rican, etc)

120. Marital Status.

1) Married

2) Single, never married

3) Other (divorced, separated, widowed)

121. How long have you been in this unit?

1) Less than 3 months

2) 3-6 months

3) 7-12 months

4) 13-24 months

5) More than 24 months

122. How long have you been at this installation (this tour of duty)?

1) Less than 3 months 4) 13-24 months

2) 3-6 months 5) More than 24 months

3) 7-12 months

32
123. How long have you been in the Army, or Civil Service if you are a civilian?

1) Less than 12 months

2) 12 to 36 months

3) 37 months to 6 years 4) 7 to 10 years 5) more than 10 years

124. Which of the following best describes your career intentions at the present

time?

1) I will definitely stay until retirement

2) I will probably stay until retirement

3) I am undecided about staying

4) I will stay for now but will probably leave before retirement

5) I will definitely leave at the earliest opportunity

125. Military pay grade.

1) E-1 - E-2

2) E-3 - E-4

3) E-5 - E-6

4) E-7 - E-9

5) W-1 - W-4

6) 01 - 02

7,) 03

8) 04 - 05

9) 06 or above

126. Which military branch corresponds closest with your primary MOS?

1) Infantry

2) Field Artillery, Air Defense Artillery

3) Armor

4) Corps of Engineers

5) Signal Corp

6) Military Police/Military Intelligence

7) Logistics (Ordnance, Quartermaster, Transportation)

8) Adjutant General/Finance

9) Other (Medical, Dental, Chaplain, etc)

127. Civilian pay grade (GS, WG, WL, WS).

1) 1-4

2) 5-8

3) 9-10

4) 11-12

5) 13 or above

128. Civilian wage classification.

1) GS (Grade Scale)

2) WG, WL, WS (Wage Grades)

3) Other (NAF, etc.)

33

i
TURN THE ANSWER SHEET OVER TO SIDE ONE (BLUE SIDE) AND ANSWER

ITEMS 1-75.

RESPONSE SCALE FOR ITEMS 1-84

1) Strongly disagree

2) Somewhat disagree

3) Undecided

4) Somewhat agree

____________________________________S) Strongly agree

ITEMS ABOUT YOUR UNIT.

1. The information I receive down through formal channels is generally

accurate.

2. I get all the information I need about what is going on in other sections or

departments in my unit.

3. Work priorities are established in line with the unit's objectives.

4. Meetings in this unit generally accomplish meaningful objectives.

5. Decisions are made in this unit at those levels where the most adequate

information is available.

6. Decisions are made in this unit after getting information from those who

actually do the job.

7. People in my work group work hard.

8. I get a sense of accomplishment from the work I do.

9. I look forward to coming to work everyday.

10. I want to contribute my best efforts to the unit's mission and my assigned

tasks.

11. This unit has a real interest in the welfare of-assigned personnel.

12. My job helps ie to achieve my personal goals.

13. I have enough time off to take care of my personal and family needs.

14. My performance evaluations and efficiency reports have been helpful to me.

15. This unit places a high emphasis on accomplishing the mission.

16. Workload and time factors are taken into consideration In planning our work

group assignments.

34
RESPONSE SCALE FOR ITEMS 1-84

1) Strongly disagree

2) Somewhat disagree

3) Undecided

4) Somewhat agree

5) Strongly agree

17. J would like to stay in this unit as long as I can.

18. My unit is respected on this post.

19. The job I have is a respected one on this post.

20. I am not afraid to make an occasional mistake.

21. My unit is willing to try new or improved methods of doing work.

22. There is enough emphasis on competition in this unit.

23. Rules in this unit are enforced.

24. There is little interference from outside units in doing our work.

25. There is a good working relationship between civilian and military personnel

in this unit.

26. My job is directly related to meeting the unit's goals.,

27. This unit is able to respond to all the demands put on it to-accomplish

its mission.

ITEMS ABOUT YOUR SUPERVISOR.

28. My supervisor lets me know when I have done my job well.

29. My supervisor makes it easy to tell him/her when things are not going as well

as he/she expects.

30. When appropriate, my supervisor supports my decisions.

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

32. My supervisor emphasizes teamwork.

* 33. When there is disagreement, my supervisor encourages the people who work for

him/her to openly discuss their differences.

34. I know what my work group is trying to accomplish.

35. My supervisor emphasizes mission accomplishment,

36. My supervisor encourages us to -fve our best effort.

35

_-_--_-__-_ -_-_ 
RESPONSE SCALE FOR ITEMS 1-84

1) Strongly disagree

2) Somewhat disagree

3) Undecided

4) Somewhat agree

5) Strongly agree

31. My supervisor maintains high personal standards of performance.

38. Rarely do other people up the chain of command make conflicting demands on

mce while I am at work.

39. Unless I ask for help, my supervisor lets me do my work without interfering.

40. My supervisor gives clear instructions when he/she assigns me a task.

41. My supervisor shows me how to improve my performance.

42. My supervisor helps me plan and schedule my work ahead of time.

43. My supervisor ensures that all required materials are available to accomplish

the job.

44. My supervisor is able to be heard by and influence those above him/her.

45. My supervisor is highly regarded as a leader by members of my work group.

ITEMS ABOUT YOUR CO-WORKERS.

46. My co-workers tell me when they think I have done a good job.

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

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

49. My co-workers encourage each other to give their best effort.

50. My co-workers maintain high standards of performance.

51. Open and honest discussion is used when there are disagreements among my

co-workers.

52. My co-workers provide the help I need so I can plan, organize and schedule

work ahead of time.

53. My co-workers offer each other new ideas'for solving Job related problems.

54. I feel that I am given adequate authority to perform the tasks and responsibilities assigned to me.

55. 1 am able to influence my co-workers when we are making group decisions.

36

7 . ..
RESPONSE SCALE FOR ITEMS 1-84

1) Strongly disagree

2) Somewhat disagree

3) Undecided

4) Somewhat agree

5) Strongly agree

ITEMS ABOUT YOUR WORK GROUP.

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

57. My work group plans together and coordinates its efforts.

58. 1 understand what is expected of me on my job.

59. My work group is able to respond on short notice to heavy work demands placed

upon it.

60. My work group meets all requirements placed on it by higher levels of command.

61. The supplies and equipment I receive are adequate to perform my work.

62. I am working in the job area for which I have been trained.

63. 1 am getting the training I need to take on more responsibility.

64. Hy supervisor is trained for his/her job.

65. My work group has sufficient qualified personnel to accomplish its mission.

66. Army standards of order and discipline are maintained in my work group.

67. Members of my work group reflect Army standards of military courtesy,

appearance and grooming.

68. Cooperation is encouraged between work groups in my unit.

69. When I am doing a job that requires the assistance of another work group, I

usually receive the help I need.

ITEMS AOJT YOUR PERSONAL SATISFACTION.

70. All in all, I am satisfied with my present job.

71. All in all, I am satisfied with the people in my work group.

72. All in all, I am satisfied with my supervisor.

73. All in all, I am satisfied with my unit.

74. All in all, I am satisfied with my career In the Army.

7 -. Admiristering of discipline in my unit is done fairly.

37

I
TURN THE ANSWER SHEET OVER TO SIDE TWO (GREE1 SIDE) AND ANSWER ITE14S

76-84.

RESPONSE SCALE FOR ITEMS 1-84

1) Strongly disagree

2) Somewhat disagree

3) Undecided

4) Somewhat agree

5) Strongly agree

76. I receive fair and objective efficiency reports in this unit.

77. My job provides opportunity for me to advance my skills and/or personal

education.

78. 1 know what I have to do to get recognized for doing a good job.

79. Work assignments are fairly made in this unit.

80. This unit recognizes a person for what he/she does and not just by favoritism.

81. Racial problems in my unit are confronted and dealt with fairly.

82. A spirit of cooperation exists among races in my unit.

83. My unit does not have a drug problem.

84. Excessive drinking is not a problem in my unit.

38

., .......... ... m . ... ... .
GOQ ANSWER SHEET PAGE I OF e PAGLS

STRONGi.Y SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT STRO14GLY

DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE AGREE

1 2 3 4 5

STANDARD 11Ih.MS

1 2 3 4 5 41. 1 2 3 4 5

2. 1 2 3 4 5 42. 1 2 3 4 5

3. 1 2 3 4 5 43. 1 2 3 4 5

4. 1 2 3 A 5 44. 1 2 3 4 5

5. 1 2 3 4 5 45. 1 2 3 4 5

. 1 2 3 4 5 46. 1 2 3 4 5

7. 1 2 3 4 5 47. 1 2 3 4 5

8. 1 2 3 4 5 48. 1 2 3 4 5

9. 1 2 3 4 5 49. 1 2 3 4 5

10. 1 2 3 4 5 50. 1 2 3 4 5

ii. 1 2 3 4 5. 51. 1 2 3 4 5

12. 1 2 3 4 5 52. 1 2 3 4 T5

13. 1 2 3 4 5 53. 1 2 3 4 5

14. 1 2- 3 4 5 54. 1 2 3 4 5

15. 1 2 3 4 5 55. 1 2 3 4 5

16. 1 2 3 4 5 56. 1 2 3 4 5

17. 1 2 3 4 5 57. 1 2 3. 4 5

18. 1 2 3 4 5 58. 1 2 3 4 5

19. 1 2 3 4 5 59. 1 2 3 4 5

20, 1 2 3 4 5 60. 1 2 3 4 5

21. 1 2 3 4 5 61. 1 2 3 4 5

22. 1 2 3 4 5 62. 1 2 3 4 5

23. 1 2 3 4 5 63. 1 2 3 4 5

24. 1 2 3 4 5 64. 1 2 3 4 5

25. 1 2 3 4 5 65. 1 2 3 4 5

26. 1 2 3 4 5 66. 1 2 3 4 5

27. 1 2 3 4 5 67. 1 2 3 4 5

28. 1 2 3 4 5 68. 1 2 3 4 5

29. 1 2 3 4 5 69. 1 2 3 4 5

30. 1 2 3 4 5 70. 1 2 3 4 5

31. 1 2 3 4 5 71. 1 2 3 4 5

32. 1 2 3 4 5 72. 1 2 3 4 5

33. 1 2 3 4 5 73. 1 2 3 4 5

34. 1 2 3 4 5 "74. 1 2 3 4 5

35. 1 2 3 4 5 75. 1 2 3 4 5

36. 1 2 3 4 5 O0 NOT" WRITE IN "IHIS SPACE

37. 1 2 3 4 5

38. 1 2 3 4 5 CS/ ENCLE NUM/BER CARD 0

40. 1 2 3 4 5

40.~~~ ~~ 1 64- ) L (79) 1 (80)

Numbers in () are for card punching purposes

HQ AN i Q 'U oe *U7 583 3 "3 Continued on reveri-..

( 39

J
GO0Q ANSWER SHEET~cniud -T I AGE 2 OF a FA6e9

STAIOARD ITFMS (COIIIJUEDJ' STANDARD BACKGP, OUfFITEMS

76. 1 2 3 4 5 (1) 116. 1 2 (41)

77. 1 2 3 4 5 (2) 117. 1 2 (42)

78. 1 2 3 4 5 (3) 118. 1 2 3 4 5 (43)

79. 1 2 3 4 5 (4) 119. 1 2 3 4 5 (44) 120. 1 2 3 (45)

80. 1 2 3 4 5 (5)

82. 1 2 3 4 5 (6) 121. 1 2 3 4 5 (46) 82. 1 2 3 4 5 (7) 122.. i 2 3 4 5 (47)

83. 1 2 3 4 5 (8) 123. 1 2 3 4 5 (48)

84. 1 2 3 4 5 (9) 124. 1 2 3 4 5 (49)

SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS

85. 2 3 4 5 67 89 0 (10) 125. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (50)

86. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (11) 126. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (51)

97. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (12)

88. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (3) 127. 1 2 3 4, 5 (52)

89. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (14) 128. 1 2 3 (53)

90. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (15)

91. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (16) SUPPLEMENTAL BACKGROUND ITEMS

92. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (17) 129. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (54)

93. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (18) 130. 1 Z 3 4 .5 6 7 8 9 ('55)

0.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (19)

9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (20) 131. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (56)

132. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (57)

96. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (21) 133. 1 2 3 .4 5 6 7 8 9 (58)

97. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (22) 134. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (59)

98. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (23)

99. V 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (24)

100. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (25) ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

101. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (26) SUPERVISOR CODE

102. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (27) _ i _ . I- 1

103. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (28) blan

104. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (29) (60) (61) (62) (63) (64)

105. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (30)

UNIT/ORGANIZATIOI CODE

106. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (31) 1 YEAR

107. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (32) ban I I

108, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (33) (65) .(66) (67) (68) (69)

109. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (34) 110. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (35) MONTH YEAR

112. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8'9 0 (37) 8 (70) 7).. Z7) (73)'(74)

113. 12345 6 7 8 9 0 (38)- ___________

114. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (39f DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE

115. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 (40)

*CASE/SEQiJENC QARD -

Note: Numbers In or lare card puh-i I

ing purposes. blank[S~ '7 TY'7 F 1 J

40
DISTRIBUTION

I US ARMY WESTERN COMMANU ATTNI APPE

I HQOA ATTN: DAAG-EU

I HQ, ICATA ATTN: ATCAT-OP-U

I HQ, tiSMEPCOM ATTN: MEPCT

2 HQOA RESEARCH AND STUDIES OFC

1 MILIIARY OCCUPATIONAL ULVELOPMENI UIV DAPC-MSP-U RM R52C HOFFMAN BLDG I

1 HQOA OFFICE OF TIE CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS

4 OASO (MRA AND L)

I HQOA ATTN: DAMO-RUR

I HQDA ODCSPER

I HQOA ATTN: UAMI-ISI

I USA aVIATION SYSTEMS CUMU ATTN: URSAV-ZOR

1 EQUAl OPPORTUNITY BRANCH ATTN I AFZT-PA-HR

I USA &RRAUCOM ATT: ATFE-LU-AC

1 HEADUUARTERS US MARINE CORPS ATTN: CODE MTMT

I HEADwUARTERS9 US ARINE CURPS ATTN: COUE MPI-20

2 US ARMY EUROPE AND SEVENTH ARMY

I IST INFANTRY DIVISION AND FT. RILEY ATTN: AFZN-UPT-T

1 CHIEF. ATTITUDE * OPINION SURVEY DIVISION ATTN: ATZI-NCR-MA9 HOFFMAN BLDG II

1 USA INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMAND ATTNI IAOPS4TNG.T

2 H TwADOC TECHNICAL LIHNARY

I MILIIARY OCCUPATIONAL UEVLLOPMENT DIRECTORATE ATTN: ATZI-NCR-MS-Me RN 3N33 HOFFmAN SLUG II I DATA ANALYSIS UIVISION ATTN: ATLI-NCR-MD. HUFFMAN BLDG I I USA wILPERCEN ATTN: DAPC-POO-T

I USA IjRONANCE # CHEMICAL CENTER AND SCHOOL ATTN: ATSL-DTC-P

1 HGUA ARMY FORCE 4ODERNIZATION COORDI4ATION OFPICE I HQDA ATTN: DASG-PTB

1 1230 USARCOM RESERVE CENTER

I US ARMY SOLDIER SJPPORT CLNTER ATIN: ATSG-HDD (OR' CAVINESS)

I USA PORCES COMMAND AFPR - OEPTY CHIEF' OF STAFF FOR PERSONNEL

I OIREcTORATE OF TRAINING ATTNI ATZQ-T I DIRE('TORATE OF C04HAT UEVLLOPMENTS ATTN: ATZQOD

I HQODACOM MARINE CORPS LIAISON UFC I DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY INTELLIGENCE + SLCURITy COMMAND

I ANNISTON ARMY UEPOT ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

I ARTASS ATTN: URCPM-TDS-TU I USA oORCES COMMAND

I PM TRADE / I US MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON OFC OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

I NAVAi CIVILIAN PERSONNEL COMU SUUTHERN FLO DIV

2? ARI LIAISON OFFICE

I 7TH &RMY TRAININO COMMAND I HQODA. OCS STUUY OFFICE

I DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DIVISION (OP-5I) I OEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HUMAN RESOURCE MGT AND PERSONAL AFFAIRS DEPT I DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HUMAN RESOURCE MGT AND PERSONAL AFFAIRS DEPT

I NAVAl MILITARY PERSONNEL LUMMANU N-b2)

I NAVA,. MILITARY PERSONNEL CUMMANU (N-61)

I NAVAl MILITARY PERSONNEL COMMANU (N-4)

I HUMAN RESOURCE MA4AGEMENT CENTER

I HUMAiv RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CENTER

I U.S. NAVY TRAIN146 ANALYSIS EVALUATION GROUP

1 USACIEC ATTNI ArEC-EX-E HUMAN FACTORS

1 ATTN: SM-ALC/DPCR

I INTEw-UNIV SEMINAR ON ARMLU FORCES * SOC

I OASA IRDA) DEPUIY FOR SCI.NCE AND TECHNOLOGY

I OFC uF NAVAL RESEARCH /

I AFHRI /LRT

I AFHRI /LRLG

1 AIR FORCE HUMAN RESOURCES LAb ATTN: AFHRL/TSR

i NAVY PERSONNEL R AND 0 CENTER /

41
I NAVY PERSONNEL H AND D CLNTER uIkECTOR OF PROGRAMS

I NAVY PERSONNEL R AND U CENTER /

2 OFC oF NAVAL RESEARCH PLHSONNFL AND TRAINING RESEARCH PROGRAMS

1 NAVAl PERSONNEL k . U CENTLR /

1 OFC uF NAVAL RSCH ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS PRO.

I MCFAiqN-GRAY * ASSJCIATES, INC* /

I NAVAl AEROSPACE MEDICAL RSCH LAU AIRtLURNE RANGER RESEARCH

I DEPT. OF NATIONAL DEFENCE UEFENCE AND CIVIL INSTITUTE OF ENVIR MED

1 NAVAl AEROSPACE MEDICAL RSLH LAU AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGy DEPARTMENT

1 USA TRADOC SYSIEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: ATAA-TCA

I HEADwUARTERS9 COAST GUARU CHIFI. PSYCHOLOGICAL RSCH BR

I USA .NGINEER TUPOSRAPHIC LABS ATTN: EIL-TD-S

1 USA MOBILITY EUUIPMENT R AND U CUMU ATTN: DRUME-TO (SCHOOL)

1 USA IRAINING BOARD ATTN: ATTU-AIB-TA

1 USA MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: URXSY-C

1 NAFEc HUMAN ENGINEERING BRANCH

I BATTiLLE-COLUMbU5 LABORATORIES TACTICAL TECHNICAL OFC

I USA aRCTIC TEST CEN ATTN: AMSTt-PL-TS

I USA cOLD REGIONS TEST CEN ATTN: STECR-OP

1 USA c:ONCEPTS ANALYSIS AtCY ATTNI CSCA-RQP

I HO WRAIR DIV OF 4EUHOPSYCHIATRY

1 USACAC ATTN: ATLL-CAC-IA

I USACaCDA ATTN: ATZL-CAC-A

I USA iLECTRONIC WARFAHE LAU CHILEF INTELLIGENCE MATER DEVEL * SUPP OFF

I USA wSCH DEVEL + STANDARUIZA GP9 U.K.

1 NAVY PERSONNEL RSCH + UEVLL CENTLR ATTN: (CODE 307)

1 USA wESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LABS CHIEF, BEHAV SCIENCES DIV* FOOD SC I LAB

1 USAAwL LIBRARy

1 HUMA,q RESOURCES RSCH OHR (HUMRRO) /

I SEVItLE RESEARCH CORPORATION

I USA IRAOC SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: ATAA-SL- (TECH LIBRARY)

I UNIFuRMED SERVICES UNIT OF THE HEALTH SCI DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY

I USA cOMPUTER SYSTEMS COMMAND ATTN: COMMAND TECHNICAL LIBRARY H-9

I HUMAN RESOURCES RSCH OR6 (HUMRRU)

I HUARWO LIBRARY

I BATTI-LLE REPORTS LIBRARY

I RAND CORPORATION /

1 RAND CORPORATION ATTN: LIbRARY U

1 NAFEc LIBRARY, ANA-64

I GRONINGER LIBRARY ATTN: ATZF-RS-L BLDG 1313

1 CENT.R FOR NAVAL ANALYSIS

I NAVAl HEALTH RSCH CEN LIdRARy

1 NAVAi PERSONNEL H AND U (LN LIBHARY ATTN: CODE io6

1 HO, .T. HUACHUCA ATTN: TLCH REF UIV

1 USA mCADEMY OF HEALTH SCILNCES bTIMSON LIBRARY (DOCUMFNTS)

I SCHOOL OF SYSTEMS AND LOGISTICS /

I ERIC PROCESSINb AND REFERLNCE FAC ACJUISITIONS LIBRARIAN

I DEPAwTMENT OF IHE NAVY THAINING ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION GP

I NATIoNAL CENTER FOk HEALTH STATWIiCS /

I USMA DEPT OF BEHAVIORAL SCI AND LLADERSHIP

I OLD i)OMINION UNIVERSITY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT LAOORATORy

1 USA COMMAND AND GENERAL SIAFF COLLEGE ATTN: LIBRARY

I USA IRANSPORTATION SCHOOL USA 1RANSP TECH INFO AND RSCH CEN

I USA AUMINCEN TECHNICAL RESEARCH BRANCH LIBRARY

I USA oIELU ARTY HU /

I NAT cLEARINGHOUSE FOR MENTAL HFALTH INFO PARKLAWN BLDG

I t OF TEXAS CEN FOR COMMUNICATION RSCH

I INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES

1 USA IRAINING SUPPORT CENTER ATIN: ATIC-oST-PA

I AFHRI TECHNOLObY 3FC (H)

I PURDUE UNIV DLPT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCES

I USA mOBILITY EUUIPMENT R AND U CUMMANO ATTN: DRUME-ZG

42
I HQ, uiSA MOW ATTN: ANPE-OL

I DA Us ARMY RETRAININU BUE RESEARCH * EVALUATION DIVIsION

I DANVILLE RESEARCH ASSOCIAILS, INC.

I USA AEROMEDICAL RESEARCH LAB SCIENTIFIc INFORMATION CENIER

I HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CEN, SAN DIEGO

I USAFA DEPT OF HEH SCI + LLAUERSHIP

1 US MILITARY ACADEMY DEPT. OF HISTORYt BLDG 601

I USA INTELLIGENCE CEN AND SCH AITN: SCHOOL LIBRARY

I MARINE CORPS INSTITUTE

I US COJAST GUARD TNG CEN AITN: EUUCATIONAL SVCS OFFICEP

I USAAvNC AND FT. RUCKER ATiN: ATLU-ES

I USA AIR DEFENSE SCHOOL ATTN: ATSA-DT

I USAAYNC ATTN: AIZQ-U

I US MILITARY ACADE4Y DIRECTOR 0 INSTITUTIONAL RSCH

I USA AIR DEFENSE SCHOOL ATTN: ATSA-CD-MS

I USAAi|S-LIBRARY-DOCUMENTS

I USA AIR DEFENSE bOARU ATTN: FILLS REPOSITORY

1 USA SERGEANTS MAJOR ACAUEMY ATiN: LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER

1 USA INTELLIGENCE CEN ANU SCH ATTN; ATSI-DOTD-SF

1 USA oRDNANCE CEN AND SCH ATTNI ATSL-TO-TAC

I USA ARMOR SCHOOL ATTN: ATZK-Tf)

I NAVAI POSTGRADUATE SCH ATTN: DUuLEy KNOX LIBRARY (CODF 1424)

1 USA IRANSPORTATIUJ SCHOOL DEPtiY ASST. COMMANDANT EUUCA. TECHNOLOGY

I USA SIGNAL SCHOOL AND FT. GORDON ATTN: ATZH-LT

I USA MILITARY POLICE SCHOOL AITNI LIBRARY

I USA ARMOR CENTER + FT. KNOX OFFICE OF ARMOR FORCE MGT * STANDARDIZATION

I USA SIGNAL SCHOOL + FT* GORDON EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

I HO AIC/XPTD THAINING SYSTEMS OLVELOPMENT

I USA INSTITUTE FOR MILITARY ASSISANCE ATTN: ATSU-TD-TA

I US AWMY ARMOR CENTER ATTN: ATI-TU-P4O

I USA wUARTERMASTER SCHOOL DIRECTORATE OF TRAINING DEVELOPMENTS

I US CoAST GUARD ACADEMY /

I USA IRANSPORTATION SCHOOL DIREClORATE OF TRAINING + DOCTRINE

I USA INFANTRY SCHOOL LIbRAkY /

I USA iNFANTRY SCHOOL ATTN: ATSH-I-V

I US ANMY INFANTRY SCHOOL ATTN; AFSH-CU

I USA INFANTRY SCHOOL ATTN: ATSH-UOT-LRU

I USA INFANTRY SCHOOL ATTN: ATSN-LV

I USA MP * CHEM SCH/TNG CEN * FT. MCCLELLAN ATTN: ATZN-PTS

1 USA MP + CHEM SCH/TNG CEN + FT. MCCLELLAN DIR; COMBAT DEVELOPMENT

I USA MP + CHEM SCH/TNb CEN + FT. MCCLELLAN DIR. TRAINING DEVELOPMENT

1 USA MP + CHEM SCH/TNG CEN * FT. MCCLELLAN AITNI ATZN-MP-ACE

I USA INSTITUTE UF ADMINISTRATION ATTN: RESIDENT TRAINING MANAGEMENT

I USA vIELD ARTILLLRY SCHOOL MOPRIS SwETT LIBRARY

I USA INSTITUTE OF ADMINISTRATION ACADEMIC LIBRARY

I USA wAR COLLEGE ATTN: LIBRARY

I USA bNGINEER SCHOOL LIHRARY ANU LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER

I USA ARMOR SCHOOL (USARMS) ATTN: LIBRARY

I US CoAST GUARD ACADEMY LIORARy

I USA IRANSPORTATION SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION SCHOOL LIBRARY

I ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS CEN # SCH ATTN: LIRARIAN

1 US AwMY INTELLIGENCE CENTER + SCHOOL ATTN: ATSI-T0

I US AwMY INTELLIGENCE CENTER + SCHOOL ATTN: ATSI-Tg-LD

I DEPAwTMENT OF THE AIR FUHE AIR UNIVERSITY LIBRARY (ATC)

I USA .HAPLAIN CENTER * SCHOOL ATTN: ATSC-TO-O

I USA cv IAPLAIN CENTER * SCHOOL ATTN: ATSC.TD-EU

I USA cHAPLAIN CENTER * SCHOOL ATTN: ATSC-TD-SF

I USA c:HAPLAIN CENTER * SCHOOL AITNI ATSC-DOS-LLC

I DEPAwTMENT OF THE NAVY HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SCHOOL

I NAVAl POST GRAUUATE SCHOOL

I HQ ThAoOC TRAININ6 DEVELUPMENT LNSTITUTE

2 BRITISH EMBASSY 3HITISH UEFENCL STAFFI

43
2 CANAiiIAN JOINT STAFF

I COLS (w) LIBRARY

I FREN.H ARMY ATTACHE

I AUSTtIAN EMBASSY UEFENSE, MILTTARY ANU AIR ATTACHE

3 CANAuJIAN DEFENCE LIAISON STAFF ATTN: COUNSELLOR, DEFENCE R AND U

1|ROYAi NETHERLANDS EMBASSY MILIIAHY ATTACHE

I CANAiJIAN FORCES BASE CORNwALLIS ATTN: PERSONNEL SELECTION

2 CANAiIAN FORCES PEHSONNEL APPL RSCH UNIT

I ARMY PERSONNEL RESEARCH ESrABLISHMENT

6 LIBRaRY OF CONGRESS EXCHANGE ANU bIFT DIV

I DEFENqSE TECHNICAL INFORMAlION CLN ATTN: OTIC-ODA-2

140 LIHRmRY OF CONbRESS UNIT UOCUMLNTS EXPEDITING PROJECT

I US GuVERNMENT PkHiTING OFC LINRARY, PU8LIC UOCUNENTS nEPARTMENT

I US GoVERNMENT PRI4TING OF- LIklHARY ANU STATUTORY, LIR DlV (SLL)

I THE mRMY LIBRARY ATTN: ARMY STUUIES SEC

3 ROYAl ARMY EDUCATIONAL COHPS CENtRE ARMY SCHOOL OF TRAINING SUPPORT

1/ /

NUMBER iuF AUURESSEES 202

TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES 381

44