This study tested two propositions about whom a sample of 40 Israeli middle managers perceived as their reference group in the organization. We wish to ascertain (a) if each sees management as his reference group and (b) whether he sees a difference between job levels in the managerial hierarchy. As part of the analysis of variance, we performed two contrasts: one between management and workers; another between levels of management. The former explains 95% of the effect and thus supports our first proposition. While the 40 middle managers from 8 industrial organizations see some difference between job levels in the management hierarchy, this difference explains only 5% of the effect.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BottE.The concept of class as reference group. Human Relations, 1954, 7, 259–285.
2.
EisenstadtS. N.Studies in reference group behavior: I. Reference norms and social structure. Human Relations, 1954, 1, 191–216.
3.
FoxA.A sociology of work in industry. London: Collier-Macmillan, 1971.
4.
MertonK. R.KittA. S.Contribution to the theory of reference group behavior. In MertonK. R.LazarsfeldF. P. (Eds.), Contributions in social research studies in the scope and method of the “American soldier.”Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1950. Pp. 86–95.
5.
KeppleG.Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
6.
PorterW. L.A study of perceived need satisfaction in bottom and middle management jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 45, 1–10.
7.
PorterW. L.Job attitudes in management: Perceived deficiencies in need fulfillment as a function of job level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1962, 46, 375–384.
8.
RosenH.WeaverC. C.Motivation in management: A study of four management levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1960, 44, 386–392.
9.
TurnerH. J.Role taking, role standpoint, and reference group behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 1956, 61, 316–328.
