LittererJoseph A., The Analysis of Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1965), p. 21.
2.
MorenoJ. L., Who Shall Survive? (New York: Beacon House, 1934).
3.
See StogdillRalph M., Leadership and Structures of Personal Interaction (Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1957).
4.
See MassarikFred, “Sociometric Choice and Organizational Effectiveness: A Multi-Relational Approach,” in The Sociometry Reader, MorenoJ. L. (ed.) (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1960), pp. 153–180.
5.
A further breakdown is indicated when we consider “actual actual” vis-à-vis “perceived actual” where respondents are asked how they would like to complete their task.
6.
Massarik, p. 156.
7.
Sociometric studies over time, sometimes referred to as “longitudinal programs,” have shown interesting results in the changing patterns of relationships. For an example of this on school children see NorthwayMary, “A Plan for Sociometric Studies on a Longitudinal Programme of Research in Child Development,”Sociometry, 17 (1954), 272–281.
8.
A very practical method to design a sociogram is to use a plastic overlay on the formal chart and draw the choice patterns on the overlay so that analyses can be facilitated by comparing the two charts simultaneously.
9.
See WeissRobert S.JacobsonEugene, “The Structure of Complex Organizations,” in The Sociometry Reader, pp. 522–533.
10.
For one application of matrix algebra to sociometric problems see ForsythElaineKatzLeo, “A Matrix Approach to the Analysis of Sociometric Data,”Sociometry, 9 (Nov. 1946), 340–347.
11.
For an elementary source which gives a step-by-step procedure for launching a sociometric study see NorthwayMary L., A Primer of Sociometry (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967).
12.
The schedule was originally used for the analysis of a classroom situation. See JenningsHelen, Sociometry in Group Relations: A Manual for Teachers (Washington: American Council on Education, 1959), pp. 31–32.
13.
See StogdillRalph M.ShartleCarroll L., Methods in the Study of Administrative Leadership (Ohio Studies in Personnel No. 80, The Ohio State University, 1958), pp. 26–28.
