Journal of Management

The reliability and validity of the Manifest Needs Questionnaaire (MNQ) and the Personality Research Form (PRF) nAch, nAff, nAut, and nPow scales were assessed in a heterogeneous sample (N = 136). Reliability was assessed by computing coefficient alpha for each scale. Validity assessments were based on criteria suggested by Campbell and Fiske (1959) for evaluating the multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) matrix. An additional analysis of variance suggested by Kavanagh, MacKinney, and Wolins (1971) was applied to the MTMM matrix; thus allowing the quantitative identification of the effects of subjects, traits, and methods. The scales demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity according to these analyses. Where validity is in question, the cause seems to be due to the overall poor reliabilities of the MNQ scales. Only the MNQPOW scale was acceptably reliable, while all the PRF scales were acceptable. The unreliability of the MNQ seems to be afunction of item heterogeneity and scale variance, while the PRF does not appear as sensitive to these factors.

Managers often use negotiation as a conflict-resolution mechan-ism. We characterize this negotiation process as a problem of dividing ownership in a corporate combination. We specify a set of axioms which imply a unique outcome of this negotiation process. In par-ticular, ownership in the combinedfirm will be divided in proportion to the value of resources contributed by each constituent to the transaction. We tested this prediction of ownership division using a sample of 133 recent corporate combinations. The evidence is con-sistent with this prediction.

The grievance activity of work groups has received surprisingly little attention by either organizational behavior or industrial re-lations researchers. This study explores the impact of different work environments on the rate of grievance filing in a large, unionized manufacturing plant. The two aspects of the work environment exam-ined, (a) size of the primary work group and (b) type of work technology, were both significantly related to grievance rates. A batch production environment was associated with a substantially higher rate of grievance filing than were either mass or craft pro-duction. When the work technology effect was held constant, the size of the primary work group was negatively related to grievance rates.

Viewing leadership as the process of selecting an appropriate means (or control strategy) to reach a desired goal, this paper investigates the underlying structure of supervisory control. Using a multidimensional scaling procedure, four leader behavior dimensions are extracted and identified: obtrusive vs. unobtrusive control, situ-ational vs. personal control, professional vs. paternalistic control, and process vs. output control. The implications of the findings for past and future research are then considered.

Recently, both Hollander (1978) and House and Baetz (1979) have stressed the importance that a leader's competence or expertise has on a leader's effectiveness. Despite this, however, few empirical studies have been conducted in the past decade to examine the potential impact of leader expertise. The present study was designed to test for the moderating effects of leader expertise on the relation-ships between instrumental and supportive leader behaviors and subordinates' perceived role ambiguity. The results show that leader expertise moderated the effects of both instrumental and supportive leader behavior on role ambiguity.

Recent research has produced seemingly contradictory findings for the moderating effect of job context satisfaction on job-contentl worker-response relationships. Four sets of possible explanations are explored: chance occurrence, sample distribution artifacts, common method variance, and a series of alternative conceptual explanations. Psychological absorption/distraction is discussed as a process to explain the role of context satisfaction. Possible determinants of absorption/distraction are explored, and competitive, testable hy-potheses are presented for each possible explanation.

Recently, Armstrong and Mitroff have joined an important debate over the methods of science. We are afraid that because of the tongue-in-cheek fashion in which it was done that two important issues were intertwined and may not be fully appreciated. The issues involved the practice of science versus the methods and theory versus data.

The Hawthorne Experiments are among the most well-known experi-ments ever conducted in the field of management and social research. The data from the experiments have been reinterpreted and mis-interpreted and the conclusions have been both lauded and criticized. We interviewed three of the original participants in the experiments in order to clarify some of the events and to answer many of our questions concerning the methodology and conclusions of the experi-ments. Although a half century has passed since the research was performed, Theresa Layman, Wanda Blazejak, and Donald Chipman have vivid memories and provided us with valuable insights about the Hawthorne Experiments.