CHAPTER 5. 1) Environmental Factor; 2) Domain of Business; and 3) Organizational Configuration.

Transcription

1 CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS: MICRO ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS We have earlier presented that this study follows the basic organizational design theory in which contextual factors as well as internal, structural and process factors will be utilized to explain the effectiveness or otherwise of the organization unit. Here, in this case, we shall be considering contextual factor as consisting of 1) Environmental Factor; 2) Domain of Business; and 3) Organizational Configuration. Environmental factor will be both physical and political administrative factor and business domain is defined as "the specific goal of an organization in terms of the function it performs, the products or services it renders and the target population and markets they serve." In a way "this could also be equivalent to a strategy or determination of basic long terms goals and objectives of the enterprise and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals." The third factor is concerned with the organizational configuration. This includes such variables as the size of the organization, layers in the organization, extent of specialization, organizational size, span of control and other general characteristics of the organizations. The usual procedure followed in organizational design analysis is to relate contextual factors of a number of organizations to the levels of effectiveness of organizations thus making conclusions about what type of organizations are successful under what contingent conditions. These types of researches usually use a statistical analysis. However, in our case, statistical manipulation of the contextual factors of a number of organizations is not possible. Since we are dealing with a single organization, National Irrigation Administration (NIA), the contextual factor we collected will be related to this organization only, common to all the work units, the study of which we emphasize here. Therefore, these factors will be used only as a background or inb~rpretative factors in the analysis. Therefore, a separate chapter is provided so that we can see how the micro analysis organizational analysis or the job design analysis can be interpreted in the light of the context NIA is operating. However, we also assumed from the beginning that each of our basic units of study, units of irrigation systems, possesses certain special characteristics, each system representing a fairly independent and unique physical environment encompassing different physical, political and social characteristics of the geographical area in which it operates. Therefore, although the common contextual factor will be the same for all the work units or all irrigation systems, different systems, on the other hand, will have different physical and social environments. The variation in this environment is captured by part of our questionnaire which explores the perceived conception of environment as answered by the head of the work unit, the head of the Irrigation System, the head of the PIOs or Divisions. This will provide us with the information which could be used to explain 48

2 why the system performance or work unit performance differs in some cases. Whether the individual environmental characteristics have any influence on the internal operation or performance of these work units or systems will also be explored. In the micro-organizational analysis we have differentiated between the structural and process factors. Structural factors will include, as we have explained earlier, unit work role specification under which definition of role, extent of skill heterogeneity, unit standardization and unit automatons will fall In addition, we will also include the size of the work unit as another variable. With regard to process factor, we have included a number of major variables which we have mentioned earlier. That includes distribution of authority, controlling incentive, work interdependency or work patterns, communications, and extent of conflict and conflict resolution. These factors will be related to the performance variables that we have collected in this research. In this Chapter, we shall first describe organizational designs indices and their characteristics, and then compare the results of this study with those obtained by previous benchmark studies and also the alternative indices, such as factorized indices. In addition, in the next section we shall differentiate the results of these indices by type of location, type of unit and by nature of unit. In the final section we shall investigate what patterns of inter relationships between variables exist, what configuration emerges and how these variables or a cluster of variables are related to performance characteristics. It would be remembered that we have used OAI procedures in constructing scales and indices so as to make this research comparable with the previous ones. OAI procedures have been well tested in the past, and it is found fairly reliable. However, as this instrument has not been applied outside advanced industrial countries, it is important that we test here to see that the results of the procedures in our setting agree with natural clusterings that could be obtained through factor analysis. The same test routine as done in constructing the original instrument was followed and the results are reported in Appendix B. Indices of Organizational Structure and Processes We have explained in the previous chapter that the indices essentially are derived from the OAI Assessment Center Questionnaires. These questionnaires, again, are based on the theory developed in the last twenty years regarding the organizational designs. Our organizational design indices included altogether twenty four indices, starting from the 'role interchangeability' to 'perceived unit performance.' In addition, there are also two composite indices; One is 'unit incentive/ which includes both group-basedincentive and the individual-based-incentives, which again are presented as separate indices. In addition, unit communication is the addition of three indices which include written communication, personal communication and group communications. In addition, we also show the tabulations of the results obtained from responses to each of conflict resolution questions, broken down by type of resolutions practiced. 49

3 TABLE 5.1 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN INDICES IN NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, PHILIPPINES. Mean Standard Deviation CV 1 Role Interchangeability in Unit Unit Skill Heterogeneity * Chain of Command Unit Automation Unit Standardization Supervisor Authority Unit Employee Authority Unit Collegial Authority External Authority over Unit Authority of Staff Officer Unit Incentives Unit Group based Incentives Unit Individual based Incentives Group Pressure on Individual Members to Conform Work Flow Interdependence within Unit Job Dependence among Unit Personnel Job Dependence on Supervisor Job Dependence on Other Units Unit Communication Unit Written Communication Unit Personal Communication Unit Group Communication Unit Extent of Conflict Conflict Resolution by A voiding Issues Conflict Resolution by Smoothing Over Issues Conflict Resolution by Confronting Issues Conflict Resolution by Hierarchy Perceived Unit Performance CV Coefficient of Variation * The index is the average of standardized valued items 50

4 It should be remembered that each index includes four or five items and these items have generally five responses, from one to five. Responses to these items are added to get the response of a single respondent for a particular index. When there are supervisors and a number of members in the organization responding to a particular question, supervisor responses and the member responses are combined and averaged out to get the unit response to a particular index, such as role interchangeability. In doing this we have followed the following precedence: since there are more members answering the same questionnaire, the member answers will be first added together and averaged; this members' average and the supervisor's will be added together and divided by two. In other words, we are giving equal weight to supervisor's answer and the average of the members' answers. This, we think, is logical because it is the supervisor who leads and sets the tone of the organizational pattern in a particular unit. The results of these indices are shown in Table 5.1 which indicates means and standard deviations of organizational design indices plus responses to conflict resolution questions in the National Irrigation Administration. You will notice that there is a range of values in the means of these various indices from 3.87 in some case to 1.8 in the case of a particular index. Coefficient of variations are not extreme. In a number of cases, coefficient of variation is below twenty per cent. To be exact, fifteen out of twenty six cases have coefficient of variation of twenty and above whereas the rest are below this value. This indicates that the coefficient of variation is spread reasonably over a range, although this range is not extreme, implying that the responses conform consistently to an average. On the other hand, we recognize that this may have a problem. If responses are centered around the means we will find the problem in differentiating why some units are low and other units high in their scores. In other words, it may not be statistically differentiable when we are trying to find the causes of variation. However, as there are a sufficient number, fifteen items having a fairly wide range of coefficient of variation, we hope that this limitation will not unduly handicap our analysis. Another observation we could make out from this table is that some indices score very high comparatively with others in the same table. Knowing that the maximum value of each score is 5, except in the cases of skill heterogeneity, a standardize value, and work flow interdependence, a weighted score whose maximum be more than the value of 5, indices scoring 3 or above should be considered as high scores representing more pronounced characteristics. It should be noted that unit standardization, supervisory authority, unit collegial authority, external authority, unit incentives and its two sub indices, job dependence on supervisors, conflict resolution by confronting issues are scoring 3 and above among 26 items shown in the table. This in itself is very interesting. The prominence of unit standardization, supervisor and other authoritative relationships, and job dependence on supervisor suggests, at least, as a first approximation the relative importance of more directive relationships in the management of work units in NIA. 51

5 Comparison with Benchmark This tabulation of our results could become more productive if we could compare it with a certain benchmark. This benchmark, at this stage, is provided by the results that researchers had obtained regarding these indices or variables in the previous OAr surveys. It will be recalled that when OAr constructed organizational design indices they collected data from five different organizations regarding these variables. We have, in this case, selected from the OAr data, three organizations whose results can be contrasted with the results that we obtained. However, in the original presentation of results of these studies, not all indices we have studied were included and some of these included ones were not constructed in the same way. We, therefore, were able to compare only those indices which have followed a comparable method in the previous studies and Table 5.2 shows a comparative results of organizational design indices of NIA and previous research studies. 52

6 TABLE 5.2 COMPARATIVE RESULTS OF ORGANIZATION DESIGN INDICES IN THE NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION AND PREVIOUS OAI STUDIES NIA SAMPLES FROM OAI STUDIES Intake and Placement Employment Claim and Counselling Processing Employer Unit Relations Number of Units M SD M SD M SD M SD Unit Standardization Supervisor Authority Employee Authority ~ Workflow In terdependence Job Dependence on Supervisor Job Dependence among Unit Members Information Flow a) Written Communication b) Personal Communica tion c) Group Communication Conflict Frequency ~ Conflict Resolution a) A voidance b) Smoothing c) Confrontation d) Hierarchy M Means SD. Standard Deviation 53

7 In this table we mentioned three organizations: the first, the Intake and Claim Process Unit, the second, Placement and Employer Relation Department, and the third, the Employment Counselling Department. All these departments formed independent units in service-type government organizations studied by the OAI Center. They also give us an opportunity to study a variety of organizations with different activities. The Intake and Claim Process Unit consists of more clerical work, Placement and Employer Relation Department consists of more professional work activity, whereas Employment Counselling includes only professional counselling people whose qualifications are rather high with most of them having Masters Degree in counselling and social sciences. We feel that this variation will give us a contrasting picture to our results from NIA. Comparing between results of measure constructed for NIA and those of previous studies, as shown in Table 5.2, indicates the accentuation of some of the NIA results in contrast to those of the previous studies. For instance, interestingly, the average score on the supervisor authority, work flow interdependence, job dependance on supervisors in NIA sample are markedly higher than the average score of similar indices in the other three samples used in the OAI previous study. It is interesting that supervisor authority in NIA is much higher than all three previous samples that we have included in Table 5.2. As we have explained, the Intake and Claim Process Unit being more of a clerical unit, you will have expected that there would have been more authoritarian or more authoritative relationship to have existed in that unit. But we will find that all three of the previous studies including both professional and non professional agencies indicate the scores around the average of 3, whereas our case has the average of 4.5 very much a contrast. We should also note tha t all these indices were constructed using the same items and the maximum and the minimum that can be attained also are the same. In addition, the organization types themselves are comparable as all belong to service-type organizations. We noted that job dependence on the supervisor in NIA is again higher than job dependence on supervisors in other previous studies. Again this is consistent with the prominence of supervisor authority that we have already noted in the last sect\on. It is also found that job dependance among the unit members also is higher in the case of NIA. All these indicate that in the NlA sample the authoritative relationships, and interdependence are pronouncedly higher than those of similar results or similar measures in OAl previous studies. Another interesting point is that in types of communication, written or group communication, between NIA and other studies there exists no Significant difference, whereas personal communication in the case of previous samples indicates a higher score than the one found in NIA. Does it indicate that the American organizations generally use more personal communication than the Philippine organization. Ofcourse, this is a comparison of a very limited sample, also further constrained by the fact that organization types are also not exactly the same. However, this gives us some points to ponder on, that is, whether there are any cultural differences operating in these two sets of organizations. The next interesting point is that in the case of frequency of conflict there is no difference between various samples. Again, interestingly, in the case 54

8 of conflict resolution, while there is no difference between methods of resolution such as avoidance, smoothing over and use of hierarchy between these two sets of samples, there is a marked use of "confronting the problem: in NIA: the average in NIA indicates a larger percentage or higher frequency of use of "confronting the problem squarely" than those in the other three organizations. Does it mean that managers of the NIA are more prompt to use the rationale method of solving a conflict, that is, confronting the problem squarely and overcoming it? We could say that the avoidance of conflict, smoothing over the conflict and use of hierarchy in resolving conflicts are quite consistent with the kind of oriental culture in which the Philippines administration is operating. However, the prevalence of more rationalistic approach to the problem solving, that is, confronting the problem squarely, is an interesting observation on which we shall have to suspend the judgement before we have the full story of the practice in the National Irrigation Administration. On the whole we could say that most of the results that we have obtained in the NIA in comparison with the results obtained in previous OAI studies are not very much different and whatever accentuation that we have observed in NIA is going in the direction that could be expected. Consistency between Factor Patterns and Organizational Design Indices On the basis of empirical evidence reported in Appendix B, we conclude that consistency between the natural clustering and the indices constructed by this research is high. Observations we have made in the factor analysis should be useful in improving the construction of scales. But we shall generally be using not the factor results but the results obtained by the various additive indices in our analysis. As we mentioned earlier, all these additive indices in the organizational design are theoretically related to our model and possess a fair amount of consistency and reliability. Also because we intend to make results of this research comparable with the researches that have been done in the past or that will be done in the future in this field, we will follow the OAI procedure consistently. In this research itself, we are ultimately comparing the results of three different organizations, National Irrigation Administration in the Philippines, Irrigation Department and Mahaweli Economic Agency in Sri Lanka. If we devise a different set of scales for each organization, especially on the empirical grounds, the comparison between results will become very difficult. The use of OAI measures do not preclude comparing natural clustering of questions in these organizations through a factor comparison. Such an analysis, which we intend to do in this section will add a deeper understanding of organizational processes in these organizations. 55

9 TABLE 5.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN FACTORS IDENTIFIED AND ORIGINAL ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN INDICES FACTOR NUMBER NAME ON THE BASIS OF FACTOR PATTERN EQUIVALENT,ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN INDEX WITH NOTE 1 Rating on unit performance Perceived unit perfonnance (two scales match almost exactly) 2 Intensity of communication Written, personal and group communication indices included 3 Extent of use of chain of command 4 Extent of performance orientation 5 Extent of interdependency within unit Chain of command (Two almost exactly match) Group based incentives, individual based incentives, group pressure all included Job interdependence on supervisor and members indices (the index on interdependence with others excluded) 6 Say on performance criteria Does not equal any 00 index but include items relating to performance criteria controlled by various posi tions (the supervisor, the employee and the group) 7 Extent of interdependency with outside unit 8 Extent of participative rule setting (management group) Equals job interdependency with other unit index Does not equal any index but includes items relating to what say the unit has on setting the rules, policies etc. by management group 9 Conflict avoidance All items except confronting issues are included 10 Extent of conflict in the unit Matches almost the extent of unit conflict index 56

10 FACTOR NUMBER TABLE 5.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN FACTORS IDENTIFIED AND ORIGINAL ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN INDICES (Cont'd.) NAME ON THE BASIS OF FACTOR PATTERN EQUIVALENT ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN INDEX WITH NOTE 11 Pattern not discernable - 12 Extent of say on rules by authoritative figures (supervisor, external authority, staff officer) Does not equal exactly any original index on authority 13 Mechanical performance Two items for unit automation scale is included 14 Say on performance criteria by authoritative figures (supervisor, external authority) Does not exactly equal any of authority scales 15 Not discernable - 16 Say on unit task by member, group and external authority Not exactly equal to any indices 17 Role interchangeability Two items for role in terchangeabiii ty In Table 5.3 a comparison is made between the factors identified and the equivalent organizational design indices. There we note that out of first seventeen factors, eleven factors are almost equivalent to indices constructed on the basis of the OAl procedure. Factor One, rating on unit performance is exactly equal to the perceived unit performances in the organizational design indices. Likewise, Factor Two, described as intensity of communication is equivalent to combined indices of written, personal and group communication. Factor Three, extent of use of chain of command is almost exactly matches the chain of command index in the original indices. Factor Four, the extent of performance orientation includes all the items related to incentives, that is, group based incentive, individually based incentive and group pressure. Factor Five, extent of interdependency within unit exactly overlaps with two job dependency indices, job dependency on supervisor and job dependency on member. Whereas Factor Seven, which we name as extent of interdependency with external unit almost coincides with the index on job dependency on other units. In other words, the natural clustering of items differentiates two scales, one for internal dependency and the other for external dependency in contrast to three sub indices which we devised in our OAI procedure. 57

11 This in itself should be considered as a corroborative finding which does not contradict the original division into three scales, that is, job interdependency on supervisor, members and external units because the differences between internal and external dependency could also be observed from the results of three sub scales as originally devised. These six factors account for a fairly large number of items included in our original index and we have accounted for a great deal of indices here. The next one is nine and ten. They are related to the conflict avoidance and the extent of conflict in the unit and they too nearly match the respective original indices though some modifications are suggested. Factor Thirteen which we classified as mechanical performance includes two items from unit automation scales and Factor Seventeen which you may classify as role interchangeabilities include two important items from role interchangeability index. On the whole, all these identified ones that we have mentioned so far are fairly consistent with the indices that we have constructed according to our OAI methods. There is a large group of items relating to authorities. In the factor analysis, Factor Six, Factor Eight, Factor Twelve, Factor Fourteen l Factor Sixteen account for most of the question items included in authority scale. However, as we have stated, the classification of these factors differentiate from each other by the type of decision questions such as setting performance criteria l or giving rewards or reprimands etc. as well as the position of the person who gives the order or who has the say. The detailed description of convergence between the additive indices and the factor analysis is given in Appendix B. On the whole we will say that the use of our OAI measure is generally justified by this factor analysis. As we have explained, our analysis throughout this study will be based on OAI indices only although we will add with the additional information that may, from time to time, be obtained from the factor analysis. EssE~ntiallYI the cross tabulations and all the causal analysis will be done using the indices constructed under the OAI procedure. Organizational Design Indices Among Different Work Units Organizational design indices we have constructed represent various aspects of organizational characteristics: one aspect relating to the definition of organizational role and role specification, the other to the various organizational processes such as distribution of authorityi communication patterns l types of incentives, use of incentives, job interdependence and work flow and also the respondents' rating of the performance characteristics of respective units. Our first supposition is that various characteristics of the organizational behaviour will differ by the type of organization l by location of the organizations. For instance, we have already observed that in different regions, the river irrigation systems and the provincial irrigation offices operating are existing side by side in the same towns l cities and countryside under the same regional managers. We surmise that the units located in different places or locations would depict different types of management characteristics. This supposition is tenable, especially when we look at the rationale behind the selection of our sample. We have already known that Region III is supposed to be a poor performer in financial viability and Region VI in the 58

12 middle range of performance scale and Region XI is supposed to be the top performance in the whole set of NIA regions. If that is the case, the ways in which the management is conducted in different regions should also differ. We also further postulate that organizational behaviour of units could also differ because of the nature of the work they do. In our sample we included operating units such as PI Os and the National Irrigation Systems as well as Regional Divisions and also a sample of divisions in the Central Office. The Central Office's divisions and the regional divisions are office and administrative units, while the PIO and NIS are actual operating units. We expect that there is bound to be differences between these different types of work units regarding the ways units are organized and supervised. The items or variables relating to work role specification including role interchangeability, skill heterogeneity, unit standardization and automation are likely to be the same in organizations performing the same type of work. For instance, all PIOs should have characteristics which will probably differ from those operative in irrigation systems with regard to these variables. It is also expected that offices such as divisional offices and the headquarter offices will differ from field operating offices such as PI Os and russ regarding these work role specifications. The work role specification will probably be more definitive and routinized in the case of administrative offices, whereas in the case of operating systems work role specification will be less specific and the allowance for a greater degree of initiative may exist. Incentives and types of incentives will also differ again from the nature of the work and the type of work performed by the organization units. For instance, the systems and the PIOs are likely to use extensively incentives as a managerial device: earning their income, they will have a greater financial latitude in handling their own finances whereas offices, having no independence financial status, their ability to give financial inducements may be limited. Likewise, the variables like distribution of authority, work independence and communication may differ from units to units depending on the style of management the individual manager or individual work unit is practicing, which could again be influenced to an extent by type of organization, type of work performed, and the culture of the region in which the work unit exists. Even within the same type of organization unit itself, there will be a variation of these variables because the personality of manager and the special peculiarity of work situation or work culture. We shall be unearthing what types of management structures and processes exist in these different varieties of organization units and later also we shall be discussing how different patterns of the organizational design are related to the level of performance of various work units. In other words, ultimately we will try to find out why some organizations are less successful than other organizations, what makes some units more effective than others. These will be the crux of the research in management. 59

13 Cross Tabulation by Location and Type of Work Units To accomplish this objective, first, we cross-classify the scores of organizational design indices and also of items included in each of the indices by different locations of organization, Region III and Upriis systems, Region VI, Region XI and Central Offices. Since we know that at least among the regions there are differences in the level of financial performance attained, and we expect that there will also be differences between the operating regions and the central office: different priorities, such as emphasis on financial results vs. that on control and order, will be appearing in these organizations. Details of these results are shown in Appendix C. A summary of significant findings is presented in Table 5.4, that is, 'Organizational Design Characteristic by Location or Office.' TABLE 5.4 ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS BY LOCATION OF OFFICES Variable Region UPRIIS Region Region Central F. Level III VI XI Office Value of Signif. Unit M Automation 2.15 (0.08) SD Group Pressure M on individuals to 2.72 (0.04) conform SD Perceived unit M performance 4.52 (0.003) SD M - Means for each category SD - Standard Deviation for each category In this we find that very interestingly three variable or three indices significantly differ among the offices in different locations. For instance, the extent of automation differ; Region XI and Central Offices as well as Upriis systems have a higher degree of automation as different from Region VI and Region III. This probably is understandable also because Upriis system is a newer system and the more advanced technologies are used in water management. Likewise, the Central Office could also enjoy a higher degree of automation because it has access to the use of computers and the use of various automatic office machines. Also in Region XI the higher degree of automation is also understandable that the region attaining a higher economic performance and thus enjoying higher financial resources, the managers of the systems and PIOs probably have more access to various machines and equipments. As the systems in the region were newer or newly constructed, they may have been left with a larger stock of newer machines and equipments. 60

14 Next two items are very interesting: one is the perceived unit performance and the other, the group pressure on individual to perform. The locational variable is very influential in having a different degree of scores regarding these variables in these offices. For instance, as we have expected, Region XI indicates the highest attainment of perceived unit performance. Of course, it should be noted that these performance rating is done by individual members of organization units as they answer the questionnaire. Even here you will find that the subjective rating by the personnel of the Region XI conforms to the actual performance rating attained. Likewise, Region III which has, in practice, a lower degree of achievement in actual performance also depicts the same lower level of attainment in the self rating index. All in all it indicates that these results confirm the actual happening in various regions that we have gathered from other sources of information. Although this finding is nothing startling, perceived unit performance, as used by us, is consistent with the actual knowledge we gather about these organizational units and that in itself is very comforting: it lends credibility to the measures that we are devising. The next interesting item of the variables is the group pressure on the individual to conform. It has been alluded earlier that while structural variables such as the degree of standardization and the role specification will be more dependent on the nature or the business of the whole organization, the work culture or the patterns and processes of organization such as group pressure on the individual to perform, the degree of communication exercised or control exercised will be very much dependent upon the management styles of the managers. We have observed here an interesting point: work units in the Region XI, compared with those in other regions, depict the highest degree of group pressure being put on individuals to conform. On the other hand, we know that the Region XI was the most successful region in terms of financial performance. It suggests that a strong pressure exerted on the individual to perform well in the organization is one of the conditions for leading the units in the region towards the achievement of their financial targets and objectives. Why this particular behaviour exists in these organizations is not discernable from this table. The cross-classification by region, as presented in the table, covers a very broad spectrum of work units, differing among themselves by type of work, RIS vs. PIO, by status of financial success, viable vs. not viable, by the age of the system, old vs. new etc. Therefore, it would be very difficult to interpret the significance of relationships between the location and management patterns without specifying or controlling the other conditions such as the type of organization, level of organization, and the age of the organization etc. The fact that this group pressure stands out as one item which distinguishes one region to another shows the intensity of this type of work culture in organizations of these regions. In other words, work culture as represented by the different degrees of pressure put on the individual differ from one region to another and the most successful region also happens to be in a highly pressurized situation. 61

15 The next table that we have in this section is Table 5.5, 'Cross Classification of Organizational Patterns by the type of Work Unit' in which we discriminate various patterns by type of offices, that is, by the central office divisions or the regional divisions, by systems and by PIOs. h TABLE Variable!! Type of Unit rsi<.ill Heterogeneity 5.5 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS BY TYPE OF WORK UNIT Central Office! Division Region! Division Systems PIOs Level of Singnif. M SD F. Values Unit Automation Supervisor Authority Unit Incentives Group Based Incentives Individual Based Incentives Group Pressure 0111 Individual Members Conflict Resolution by Hierarchy Unit Rating on Reputation of Excellence M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M - Means for each category SO - Standard Deviation for each category 62

16 Our hunch was that the type of the organization, such as PIOs vs. systems, systems vs. divisional offices or PIOs vs. divisional offices will depict different organizational characteristics. Our suspicions are borne out by the high degree of differentiation between different offices regarding a number of characteristics. The organizational role specification which includes both skill heterogeneity and unit automation indices differs according to the type of work unit. For instance, in terms of skill heterogeneity, the central offices and the regional offices score values significantly higher than those scored by the systems and PIOs. This finding is reasonable because the central offices and the regional divisions will have used the variety of individuals with the different type of skills, such as engineers, accountants, administrators, computer specialists and so on, whereas in the systems and PIOs the jobs will be more well defined and will be mainly staffed by system managers and assistant system managers who are also engineers, in addition to a few office staff and institutional assistants. The staffing patterns of systems and PIOs will be more or less similar. Likewise, the central divisions and the regional divisions also have a higher degree of automation than Irrigation Systems and Provincial Irrigation Offices. It is likely that the regional divisions and central office divisions are using more automated office machines. At the same time, the regional divisions such as engineering and maintenance divisions probably have employed more earth moving machines and equipments, which make these divisions to score higher in the automation scale. Another interesting point we bring out here is different degree of supervisory authority enjoyed among different types of work units. Here, the supervisory authorities enjoyed by the Systems and PIOs and the headquarter offices is markedly higher than those enjoyed by the regional divisions. This, again, conforms to our expectation because the supervisors of PIOs and Irrigation Systems will have to take more initiative and will have to take decisions in coping with their problems. The exercise of a higher degree of supervisor authority will be evident in these types of units. The fact that the central office divisions having higher authority in comparison to regional divisions also is explainable. The headquarters or central divisions by virtue of the focal position they occupy in the communication net in the whole organization will probably have let supervisors enjoy a higher level of authority and a higher degree of discretion. Another important observation is the variation in levels of incentives used in various types of work units, NISs and PIOs applying a higher degree of incentives. Here, again, it conforms to our understanding that incentives are more effectively used in the systems and PIOs mainly because these units are measured on the basis of the financial performance which again is translated to incentives enjoyed by employees. In addition, what we have observed before in the case of cross-classification by location, the group pressure on individual members, is observed also prominently in the systems and PIOs in contrast to the regional divisions and central divisions. 63

17 Regarding the conflict resolution by hierarchy, that is, resorting to the hierarchical authority when conflict arises in the work unit, systems and central divisions in contrast to regional divisions and PIOs use significantly frequently this type of resolution in cases of conflict in the organization. In other words, more authoritative resolutions are resorted to in the systems and central divisions than administrative divisions of the region and PIOs. Here we could not clearly account for this finding. Why are the systems and central divisions more authoritatively oriented than PIOs and regional divisions? Are PIOs being more community-oriented by virtue of their work less authority-directed? We are not sure. More corroborative information will be needed to understand this finding. We also have another interesting point here. In terms of self-rating on the reputational excellence, central divisions rated themselves as more highly reputed than the other units. Whether it is an abrasion or a random element or how it is to be interpreted will be made clearer as we bring in more contingent variables at a later stage. In terms of various types of general organizational characteristics we find a few important results. As we have stated we do not expect the organizational type or the organizational location to explain all the patterns of management existing in these work units. However, we find some interesting points which we shall note here and will be reinterpreted in the light of further findings that we will introduce additional variables to our analysis. We present the significant aspects of the findings so far, in the following summary. 1. Very interestingly we find that our results from the perceived unit performance conform to the actual physical performance characteristics of these systems. That means perceived unit performance scores are higher in systems in the regions where a higher actual financial performance also is known to have reached a viable status. This itself validates and strengthens the reasonableness of the measure that we are devising and using. 2. Another important observation we made here is that certain characteristics of organizational design. which can be classified as representing the management style or management processes stand out distinctly from other variables. We found out from our tables that supervisor authority, group pressure and individual members and the conflict resolution by hierarchy are distinguishing characteristics in classifying work units according to types of organization. It has been found that the extension of organizational supervisor authority, the degree of group pressure and resort to hierarchical authority in the conflict resolutions are prominent in operating organizations such as PIOs and NISs as distinct from central office and divisions. How much say the supervisor has, how much power 64

18 the supervisor wields and to what extent individual members in the unit are pressured to conform the organizational norms depict the characteristics or the styles of the organization. We know that the operating organizations such as systems and PIOs are under great pressure to achieve financial viability or financial success. The fact that these organizations have shown a greater use of supervisor authority and to a greater extent the practice of group pressure and the conflict resolution by hierarchy tells us the method by which these organizational units generally are managing themselves to achieve the desired financial results. Of course, it does not necessarily imply that these methods are good or bad or inappropriate or appropriate. These will have to be justified only when we relate different approached taken to the different results obtained. That this certain characteristics become predominant in the systems and the PIOs indicates in a way the type of management pressure that is going on, the style of management that seems to be emerging in NIA work organizations. 3. The third important point we observed here is the use of incentives. Both group incentives and individual incentives are applied in the NIA organizational units. Among all the organizations, PIOs and the systems use both group and individual incentives more prevalently than the central divisions and regional divisions. This also is understandable because these are the organizational units which enjoy financial autonomy and which could effectively utilize the incentives as a means of motivation and control on the employees. Cross Tabulations of Factor Results We have already explained earlier that as a means of verification and support we factor-analyzed the questionnaire items included in the organizational design questionnaires so as to see how they actually or naturally form themselves into a pattern or how they empirically cluster together in such an analysis. We have identified a number of variables or a number of factors which distinguish themselves from the rest and which are also identifiable by their special characteristics: in fact, we improved the results of the original factor analysis by deleting question items not significantly related to the identified factors and refactoring the remaining items. From the refactor analysis, we selected the first eight factors which satisfied our criteria of selection. These eight factors were submitted again to the same type of analysis we did with the organizational design indices. The results are shown in Tables 5.6 and

19 TABLE 5.6 ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS BY LOCATION OF OFFICES ANO UNITS Factor Region Region VI Region XI fill UPRlIS Central F. Officel Value Oivision Level of Signif. Factor 1 M SO Factor 2 M SO Factor 3 M D3 SO Factor 4 M Factor SO Factor 6 M SO F<lctor 7 M D SO F<lctor 8 M SO M SD - Means for each category - Standard Deviations for each category Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7 Factor 8 Communication Authority of employees and groups Incentives Chain of command Job dependence on other unit Staff officers' authority Automation Role defini hon 66

20 Results that we obtained from the analysis of variance cross classified by location of organization and type of organization are also very similar to what we have already discovered in the analysis of organizational indices. When we cross tabulate factors by regions and central offices, that is by location, we find that Factor Three, that is incentives, and Factor Eight, role definition, are discriminating themselves between various regions. For instance, with regard to incentives, regions apply much more incentives than the central office and regional office divisions that we have already seen in the previous analysis of the organizational design indices. Likewise, we also find that according to Factor Number Eight, which is identified as factors representing role definition, the central office divisions define work roles more clearly and specifically than various regions. This also means that regions or regional offices as well as the systems and PIO under the regions are given or applying more latitude when dealing with the tasks they are supposed to do and the roles they are to assume. This is again understandable because the regions largely consisting of operating units will need to have more latitude and more authority or more innovation and improvisation to cope with the difficult or changing conditions in the fields. Again these two findings are consistent with what we have discovered the in the previous analysis or organizational design indices. The next table is Table 5.7 in which factors are arrayed against various type of organizations such as divisions, systems and PIOs. 67

21 TABLE 5.7 ORGANIZATIONAL FACfORS BY TYPE OF WORK UNITS Factor Central OfficelDiv. RegionlDiv. System PIO F. Value Level of Sign if. Factor 1 M SO Factor 2 M SO Factor 3 M SO Factor 4 M SO Factor 5 M SO F:actor 6 M SO Factor 7 M SO Factor 8 M SO M SD Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7 Factor 8 Means for each category Standard Deviations for each category Communication Authority of employees and groups Incentives Chain of command Job dependence on other unit Staff officers' authority Automation Role definition 68

22 Here again Factor Three, incentives and Factor Eight, role definition, are applied differently in the different types of organizations. As in the previous case, work roles are more clearly defined in the administrative divisions than the systems and PI~s. In the case of Factor Three, incentives, more incentives are applied in systems and PIOs than in the central divisions. We also find that a higher degree of employee and collegial authority is applied in systems than in PIOs. This is an interesting finding. We shall have to explain why the PIOs are applying less of employee and collegial authority when we normally would have expected them to behave otherwise. Because the units are operating in a situation where they have to work with farmers' organizations and also dealing with the farmers' irrigation systems, they should have been more prone to act democratically than more directly-managed irrigation systems. We will need a further elaboration before we can make a final say on this finding. On the whole, I shall say that the factor analysis again conforms to what we have found earlier in the organizational design indices cross classified by region, by location and also by type of offices. Patterns of Interrelationships Among Various Variables We have constructed twenty five indices in organizational design. These indices earlier are categorized into various groupings. Each grouping represents a basic variable in the organizational theory. For instance, we have considered that role specification is one of the important variables or categories under which role interchangeability, skill heterogeneity, unit standardization and unit automation are placed. These indices represent the structural aspects of organizational design. Likewise, we also have a category classified as the distribution of authority under which various aspects of authority such as chain of command, extent of supervisor authority, extent of member authority, collegial authority, external authority and expert authorities are included. This, we classify, as representing the style of management, that means, how management distributes decision making power in the organizational units. In addition, we also have the control and incentives grouping including indices relating to various incentives and group pressure. Also the grouping named the work interdependence in which various interdependence, workflows and job interdependence are included. Added to the above list are the communication indices representing various aspects of communication processes taking place in the organization and also the conflict category in which extent of conflict as well as type of resolution are measured. All these variables as represented under the various groupings form the coherent part of the management process in any work unit indicating the way in which the unit is run. These groupings also have a natural order or relationship, an implied relationship according to organizational theory. For instance, the role specification being related to the structural aspects of organization unit should precede all other variables. The way the roles are defined and jobs are designed, and the extent of automation applied are devised by the top management or by the manner the organization is structured and, therefore, this variable will precede the actual practices or processes of the organization. 69

23 The variables such as distribution of authority will probably precede other variables such as communication and conflict. The distribution of authority represents the style of management or the way the work unit manager organizes his work. This, in turn, of course will affect how the group processes function, how the communication is made and also the extent of the conflict that may have arisen. Likewise, the control and incentives is another type of basic variable which will precede the other variables such as work dependence, communication and conflict. Incentive systems is fairly independently laid down by the top management, although how an incentive system will actually operate within the work unit may have been influenced by the work units management. All these variables have some logical order of causal ordering as we have presented in Figure 5.1, 'Causal Ordering of Variable Groupings.' 70

24 FIGURE 5.1 CAUSAL ORDER OF VARIABLE GROUPINGS ROLE SPECIFICATIONS AND STRUCTURES ENVIRONMENT DISTINCT OF AUTHORITY CONTROL AND INCENTIVE WORK INTERDEPENDENCE COMMUNICATION CONFLICT I,,.,,.,,,, ~:.i PERFORMANCE 71

25 The purpose in this section is to find out how these variables and indices are wolven together or how they are actually functioning together in the NIA organization, in contrast to our hypothesized pattern. Here we are interested in knowing two aspects of the this interrelationship: one, the pattern of interrelationships between these variables, that is, how indices are related within each grouping and how variables from on'~ grouping are related to variables in the other groupings; the other, collectively how these groupings themselves setwise are again interrelated to each other set wise. This will tell us how organizational units are actually behaving. Although organizational theory generally suggests that different styles of management will lead to different patterns of types of communication or conflict, we still have to identify what particular styles of managerial relationships, whether it is centralized or decentralized, whether it is more supervisor-oriented or more collegial-oriented, are existing in the organization. Likewise, we also have to see how a particular type of authority relationships influences variables in other categories or other groupings. This will give us the picture of the internal working of the National Irrigation Administration and enlighten us with the insights regarding how the organization gels or binds together as a functioning system. However, as we are ultimately interested in how the performance of NIA could be improved, we still not only have to identify what kind of management processes are operating in the NIA but also have to relate these to ultimate criteria, that is, the performance. By so doing that we shall be able to suggest to the management what kinds of behaviour are functional for better performance and what options the management may have various for improving the organization of National Irrigation Administra tion. 72

26 TABLE 5.8 INTER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN INDICES IN ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN CATEGORIES BY VARIABLE GROUPINGS INDICES R S U U C S U U E I H S A C A E C A A A 0 U ROLE SPECIFICATION Role Interchangeability 1 "().23 "().21 Skill Heterogeneity 1 Unit Standardization Unit Automation! DISTRIBUTION OF AUTHORITY Chain of Command "().2 Supervisory Authority Member Authority Collegial Authority External AuthOrity 1 Expertise AuthOrity ~ONTROL ANIl INCENTIVES Group Incentives Individual Incentives Group Pressure WORK DEPEN05NCE Workflow Interdependence on Supervisor Interdependence on Member Interdependence on Others COMMUNlCATION Written Personal Group CONFLICT Extent of Conflict A 0 S A i ALL CORRELATION COEFHCIENTS INUUOED HERE ARE SfATISI1CALLY SIGNIFICANT AT.05 OF HIGHER LEVEL RI Role Interchangeability SH Skill Heterogeneity US Unit Standardization UA Unit Automation CC Chain of Command SA Supervisory Authority UEA Unit Employee Authority UCA Unit CoI1egja1 Authority EAO External Authority Over Unit A05 Staff Officer or Expert Authority 73

27 TABLE 5.8 (Cont'd.) INTER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN INDICES IN ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN CATEGORIe) BY VARIABLE GROUPlNQ; INDICES G I G W J J J W P B B P F D D D C C I I I I 0 A 0 M S U U M ROLE SPEOFICATION Role Interchangeability SkillHeterogeneity I Unit Standardization Unit Automation.12lSTRIBUTION OF AUTHORITY OJlin of Command Supervisory Authority Member Authority Collegial Authority 0.24 :Exremal AuthOrity Expertise Authority :QNTRQL ANQ INCENTIVES Gmup Incentives Individual Incentives 1 Gmup Pressure I 11= 0.31 I WORK QEPENJ:?BNCE Workflow Interdependence onsupervisor 1 Interdependence on Member Inberdependence on Others ,Q;;IMMUNICATION Writben I Personal I 1 Group mneuct Extent of Conflict ALL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS INCLUDED HERE ARE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AT.OS OFHIGHER LEVEL GBI illr GPIM WFI }DOS JDAU JDOU WC PC GC UC Gmup Based Incentive Individual Based Incentive Group Pressure on Individual Members Workflow Interdependence within Unit Job Dependence on Supervisor Job Dependence AmongUnit Members Job Dependence on Other Units Writben Communication Personal Communication Gmup Communication Unit Conflict G C I I I U C 0.21 i If' 74

28 To accomplish the first objective we have presented Table 5.8 showing inter correlations between indices in organizational design as categorized by variable groupings. In this table all the indices are placed under six groupings: the role specification, distribution of authority, controlling incentives, work interdependence, communication and conflict groupings under each of which respective indices are brought together. As the indices are grouped together, not only interrelationship between the indices but also the intensity of interrelationships between the groupings can be seen. Regarding the first grouping, role specification, we find only one interrelationship, inside the grouping, unit standardization is related to unit automation, and the rest of the correlations, eleven in number are with indices outside of the grouping. Three variables here, role interchangeability, unit standardization and unit automation are significantly related to outside variables while the skill heterogeneity is unrelated to any variable both inside or outside the grouping. The conclusion that we can make out from this finding is that of all four variables that come under role specification, three active variables are independent enough not to be related to each other while they are most significantly related to eleven other outside variables. That suggests that role interchangeability, the unit standardization or unit automation probably are independently determined or exogenous variables. Next, with what indices in all other groupings the role specification indices are interrelated and the way they are interrelated should also be studied. For instance, the role interchangeability is negatively interrelated with the unit employee authority, the unit collegial authority and the job dependence among unit members. This is an interesting finding because we will have expected that the role interchangeability which indicate the extent of rotation of various jobs including items such as ease of job rotation, degrees of uniformity of tasks, also the learning of new skills by each member to do the other's job, would be correlated positively with the employee's authority and also job interdependence. This negative correlation is rather unexpected. However, if the role interchangeability had resulted from the decision of the manager of the work unit, that is, if the manager is the one who indicates and decides for his staff members to learn or to take on assignments of the other colleagues, it then implies that there is a predominance of managerial role or supervisor's control in such a case. The fact that the management active supervision in a particular work unit results in assigning members of the unit into a different tasks and changing their roles from time to time could have lessened what members can say, that is, members' authority in making decisions in such a unit. This explanation is plausible as we take into account the prevalence of supervisor's authority and role in work unit management in NIA as having been earlier noted. Another important variable here is unit standardization. Unit standardization is concerned with the formalization of unit functions and extents of the application of rules and regulations, the specification of tasks and job, the definition of what performance standards are, and the precision of rules, regulations and policies. In other words, this variable is related to the extent of formalization in the work unit. In a way it may be 75

29 likened to the extent of bureaucratization in the work unit. This is related positively to a number of variables, the chain of command, the supervisor authority with a high level of statistical significance, and also the unit external authority, the group pressure and also the job dependence on the supervisors all going in the same direction. The high interrelationship of the extent of bureaucratization or formalization with the extent of supervisor authority, also with the chain of command, and the influence of external authority, indicates the strength of formalization process and also how it intertwines with the other related variables. The next one is the unit automation which is only related to the supervisor authority and the chain of command, again suggesting the ubiquitous nature of supervisor authority, chain of command and related variables. The next important group is the distribution of authority depicting the style of management or the style of decision making in the organizational unit. In this we find that there are fairly extensive intercorrelations between variables within the category: supervisor authority which is correlated to chain of command as may be expected stands out from the rest of the other types of authority. Member authority, collegial authority, external authority are highly interrelated among themselves, whereas expert authority is related only to the authority outside the grouping. By itself, the supervisor authority is correlated to the group pressures on individual members, work flow interrelatedness, job dependence on members and written communication. Among the group"oriented aufhority items, member's authority and collegial authority are closely related. In addition, the member's authority is related to group pressure and written communication, and the collegial authority to the job dependence among unit members, all going in the expected (positive) direction. In the case of external authority and expert authority each relates itself to the job dependence among unit members. As the exercise of authority is normally carried through the communication and buttressed by the group process, the relationships of authority items to communication and group process is understandable. On the other hand, the role of supervisor authority stands out among the rest, a single most important authority in the grouping. We also recognize that the distribution of authority is a pivotal category whose influence permeates through all other categories in the organizational process. The next grouping we shall discuss is the control and incentives. This grouping is related only to a few variables. The group process or group pressure is related with a number of variables but group incentives and individual incentives are not related to other variables. That probably indicates that the incentive variables are, as we have explained earlier, independent or exogenous variables by themselves which may influence the behaviour or communication in the group but are distinct from the authority and the role specification variables. 76

30 The next variable is the work dependence category and four variables under this category are related to, as expected, the authority, communication and role specification variables. Except the workflow interdependence which could be conceptually recognized as an independent variable because of its likely prearrangement, other work interdependence variables are probably dependent or derived from the way other variables are operating: the definition of work role and extent of collegial or supervisor authority exercised will probably determine the work interdependence of the unit. The points we have just discussed are also summarized in Table 5.9 in which the number of intercorrelations, both inside and outside each grouping are mentioned. 77

31 TABLE 5.9 NUMBER OF INTER CORRELATIONS OBSERVED IN BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE EACH GROUPINGS.. WITH ALL OTHER INDICES INSIDE GROUPING OUTSIDE GROUPING ~OLE SPEOFICATION Role Interchangeability Skill Heterogeneity Unit Standardization Unit Automation DISTRIBUTION OF AUTHORITY Chain of Command Supervisor Authority Unit Member Authority Collegial Authority External Authority Expert Authority CONTROL AND INCENTIVES Group Based Incentives Individual Incentives Group Pressure WORK INTERDEPENDENCE Workflow Interdependence Interdependence on Supervisor 4 a 4 Interdependence among Members Interdependence on other Units COMMUNICATION Written Personal Group CONFLICT Extent of Conflict 5 a 5 TOTAL " Table implies double counting or classification of correlatioi'ls. 78

32 In this table, as we have just mentioned, for each grouping, both inside and outside correlations are shown and the extent of relative importance between the inside and outside correlations are gauged from here. The table shows that authority is an important category in which both inside intercorrelations and the outside intercorrelations are equally prominent. Also the role specification, we have already noted, is more importantly related with outside variables than with variables inside the grouping. We may summarize our findings regarding the patters of intercorrelation: We have observed that role specification and distribution of authorities, as we have expected, are more likely to be exogenous or independent variables. The distribution of authority permeate its effect on all other categories. It is importantly related to the group pressure as well as to the work independence and communication. It is also related with the role definition and formalization as we have expected. In the controlling incentives, group incentives and the individual incentives are not much related to the other variables. We have surmised that this probably is due to the fact that these variables are exogenous in nature and they are actually organizational-determined rather than the unitdetermined and, therefore, we observed not much variation in practice within the units. However, the group pressure is an active variable and related to a number of outside variables or influenced by the outside variables such as distribution of authority and also is related to the other group processes and communication. Work interdependence and communications look more like endogenous variables which are dependent on the other variables such as role specification and distribution of authority and control incentives. We cannot really be sure that order or precedence that we have just mentioned is exactly correct. We still have to make the empirical verification which we shall do shortly but the importance of authority, particularly supervisor authority, and the importance of group processes and work interdependence and the job specifications stand up as an important determinants in the behaviour of a work unit in the National Irrigation Administration. Performance and Prior Variables The objective of this section is to relate the patterns of relationships we just identified to the performance variables. From the questionnaires on the supervisor and members, 'Perceived Unit Performance' was compiled. The Perceived unit performance (PUP) is not the actual physical achievement of the unit but it is an average score of how members perceive how well their unit performs compared to other units in the various categories of measurement. Before we use the objective measurement such as the viability index, the water performance index and other measures, it is important that we use this as a dependent variable on performance although it is still a subjective variable. There are three reasons for the use of this variable. First, this perceived unit 79

33 performance is significantly related to the viability index. That means that this performance variable is not without foundation: it is significantly related to the objective criteria and, therefore, there is a definite value in utilizing this variable. Secondly, the PUP is a variable which we have for a sample of hundred units, all the hundred units we have studied in the National Irrigation Administration have answered the questions relating to this measure, whereas the Viability Index is available only for units which enjoy independent financial management such as PIOs and Irrigation Systems, amounting to only fifty units. Thirdly, and more importantly, the subjective evaluation of the unit performance is a useful measure by itself because it gauges the general feeling of how well the management of the unit is doing, again to be recognized as the achievement of the management, having created a conducive and confident climate. Therefore, it is very important that we use this information available in the best possible way. As a first step in studying the performance as a dependent variable we relate all the variables to the PUP. We already know how some of these variables are related among themselves but if we are to find out how these twenty five indices are related to PUP, as a first analysis we want to see how each of the variables is statistically related to PUP. That will tell us the direct or indirect relationship between some of the variables and PUP. On the basis of that information, we shall be able to define the model of relationship between indices and the performance variables. We find that out of twenty five categories of indices only eight variables are related to PUP in the zeroorder correlation, among which the unit standardization shows a significant statistical relationship to PUP. GBI, the group-based incentive, and the individual-based incentive are also related to PUP which is also understandable because incentives will figure very importantly in the work units of the NIA as a device for control and motivation. Interestingly enough, the chain of command and the group pressure and the group communication are also related to PUP. As can be expected group conflict is also related to PUP. As a first cut of the information it indicates that performance is the function of incentive, supervisor authority and chain of command and also group processes in addition to the unit standardization. The picture emerging here is very interesting. In the modern organizational theory known to the West, it is always almost a religious belief that better performance in the organizational process are achieved through the participation and democratization rather than through individualism and authoritarianism. The more participative the management is, the better will be the level of its performance. Instead of more participative management, we are seeing here, more of standardization, incentive and supervisors' role and also more emphasis on chain of command and formalization with the resulting group processes and pressures related to the performance variable. In other words, what we are witnessing here is the more traditional type of management, standardization, supervisory authority, the use of incentives and group pressure as the dominant themes again being related also to the perceived unit performance of the work unit in the National Irrigation Administration. 80

34 This is only a very broad picture because we have not yet presented an ordering of these variables in affecting the perfonnance variable, PUP. To understand the causal ordering or the logical order of these variables in affecting that PUP, as a first step, we can look at the intercorrelation between variables themselves see what we can make out of these correlations. TABLE 5.10 ZERO ORDER INTER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PERCEIVED UNIT PERFORMANCE AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES US GBI US GBI IBI SA CC GPIM GC UCON PUP SA CC GPIM GC UCON PUP We find that the unit standardization is related to the supervisor authority, the chain of command and the group processes and also that the group-based incentives are related to the individual based incentives as expected and also to the group communication which is also in the expected direction. Also that the supervisor authority is related to the chain of command and the group pressure shows the working of the process of authority. The chain of command and the group pressure are related to the extent of unit conflict also which again is a logical sequence, the greater the intensity of command and pressure, the more likely will be the extent of conflict. Although all these eight variables are related to PUP in zero-order correlations itis likely that some of them are only indirect correlations, that is, correlations with the variables directly related to PUP. This we cannot verify from this table; we had to perform additional analysis. However, what we have observed is that out of twenty five variables eight variables are already identified as a possible independent variable responsible for the performance variation and a pattern that indicates what type of management is more effective in National Irrigation Administration is emerging. 81

35 Testing the Causal Model of the Organizational Design Indices To understand the relative importance of contributions of various factors, the hierarchical multiple regression was applied to the variables we have already identified as important independent ones. By the hierarchical analysis, we shall be able to look at the incremental effects of each set of variables as each set enters the equation. One of the requirements of the hierarchical regression is that the causal priority must be determined before the regression is worked out. Unlike the stepwise procedure in which the selection of variable entering the question is done on the basis of statistical criterion, the hierarchical procedure assumes beforehand the causal priority of variables or a sub set of variables over other sets. Thus, the hierarchical procedure will be better suited to the hypothesis testing. The stepwise regression procedure has the likelihood of not giving some important variables the priority they deserve, that is, not recognizing their full contributions on account of the order of selection followed, which again rests entirely on the statistical device. By the hierarchical procedure, the researcher could draw up a causal order of variables or sub sets of variables, control the whole exercise, and test the significance of the contribution of each sub set as it enters the question and also in successive operations. In our case, we have already evolved a causal model based on the theoretical considerations, which we can now test with the hierarchical regression procedures. The following is the model we make out from the set of correlations we have selected from the intercorrelations table. Figure 5.2 indicates the approximate causal order of indices found to be related to PUP in zero-order correclations. 82

36 FIGURE 5.2 DIAGRAMMATIC PRESENTATIONS OF ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS AMONG SELECTED INDICES ~.~.196 PUP GPIM UCON This diagram presents the results of zero-order inter correlations between the Perceived Unit Performance and other related variables in the causal format we have earlier presented in Table

37 The unit standardization representing the role specification structure stands as the most prior causal variable, followed by the supervisor authority and the chain of command. The next sub set of prior variables includes the group-based incentives, the individual-based incentives, and the group pressure among individual members, succeeded by the group communication and the extent of the unit conflict. As zeroorder correlation values include both the direct and indirect effects between two variables, the arrows in this diagram does not indicate the actual causal or direct relation. To understand the direct causal relations between the variables we have to use the hierarchical regressing method to test: (1) Whether each sub set of variables in this pre determined causal order remains correlated to the dependent variable, PUP, that is, whether the causal priority of the subset as hypothesized is correct; (2) Whether the successive subsets of variables add significantly to the R2 or how much variance each additional sub set explains; (3) Whether the relationship between a subset and the dependent variable is spurious, caused by another commonly related subset of variables. TABLE 5.11 ANALYSIS OF R~ EFFECTS IN THE HIERARCHICAL MUL TlPLE REGRESSION OF ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN INDICES STEP R' F STAT INCREMENTAL R~ INCREMENTAL F VARIABLES ENTERING VARIABLES IN THE EQUATION EUI EUI " " us EUI, us '" ' SA,ec EUI, us, SA, ee '" " Gm,IRI EUI, US, SA, ee, GBI, IBI '" " GPIM, GC EUI, US, SA, ce, GBI, IBI, GPIM, Ge '" ueon EUI, US, SA, ee, GBt, IBI. GPIM, eg, ueon i LEGEND EUI US SA CC GBI IBI GPIM GC UCON >t >t>t >tot->t Environmental Uncertainty Index Unit Standardization Supervisory Authority Chain of Command Group Based Incentive Individual Based Incentive Group Pressure on Individual Members Group Communication Extent of Unit Conflict Significant at 10% level Significant at 5% level Significant at 1 % level of higher level 84

38 Table 5.11 summarizes the results of this hierarchical regression exercise. It will be noted that in this exercise we have included the environmental uncertainty index as the most prior variable, assuming that the external environmental uncertainty will, from the very beginning, add the pressure on the management process and influence the way the work unit is run. As we wish to treat the operations of the work unit as an open system, taking the environmental uncertainty or both physical and organizational pressure into account is a logical step in this exercise. However, the result of the first equation which includes the environmental uncertainty index as the only independent variable indicates that it has very little or no influence on the Perceived Unit Performance. It could be that the environmental uncertainty being largely organizationdetermined, there would not be much differential effects of this variable when compared between different work units or systems. The next important variable which enters into the equation is the unit standardization. Theoretically, this is causally prior to all other variables in the model. We also knew that this variable was already closely related to the variables which followed in the causal order. The results of the equation in which this variable is included indicates that it is significantly related to the PUP, though the initial variance explained,.058 per cent, is rather small. In the third step, we added the supervisory authority and the chain of command indices forming into the next sub set. The R2 is appreciably and significantly increased and the incremental R2 is also statistically significant. That means that both the Supervisor Authority and Chain of Command are directly related to the PUP, after partialling out the effects of two prior variables. In addition, the significant relationship of the unit standardization to the PUP even improves with partialling the affects of the supervisory authority and the chain of command, as indicated by the increase in B values shown in Table 5.12, 'B Coefficients of Hierarchical Multiple Regression on selected 00 Indices.' 85

39 TABLE 5.12 B COEFFICIENT OFHlERARClllCAL MULTIPLE REGRE$ION ON SELECfED ORGANIZATIONAL INDIca:; BVALUEIN lstsiep 2ND STEP 3RDSTEP 41HSTEP 51HSTEP 61HSTEP EACH STEP B/STO. ERROR B/STO. ERROR B/STO. ERROR B/STO. ERROR B/STO. ERROR B/STO. ERROR I VARIABLE EUI.065/.039".047/ / / /.037*.550"/.453 US.189/ ~096"". 205/ /.097"..061/.037*... SA.164/.096" -.186/.094"" -.208/ *"/.093 CC. 299/ / / "/.114" GBI.098/ / /.095 IBI.097/ / /.087 GPIM.028/ /.088 GC.181/.069"".164""/.070 UCON.098/.090 LEGEND EUI US SA CC GBI IBI GPIM GC UCON Environmental Uncertainty Index Unit Standardization Supervisory Authority Chain of Command Group-Based Incentive Individual-Based Incentive Group Pressure on Indi vidual Members Group Communication Extent of Unit Conflict Significant at 10% level Significant at 5% level Significant at 1% level or higher level 86

40 However, one important point to be noted and accounted for is the negative relationship between the supervisory authority and the perceived unit performance as shown by the negative B Values. We have all along noted that the supervisory authority was positively related to the PUP and this new finding is rather contrary to the previous notion. However, as the previous positive relationships between the PUP and the SA were inferred from the zero-order correlations which could have included both direct effects and indirect effects, the correlation of the SA and the PUP to a common variable such as the US, would have obscured its negative direction relationship with the PUP. It is for this reason that when the affects of other commonly related variables are controlled, the true direct relationship with PUP become visible. This explanation, though plausible, shall call for a reinterpretation of the earlier observation that the formal and supervisory authority predominates the operations of the work unit in the National Irrigation Administration of the Philippines. In spite of the SA's negative relationship to the PUP, the prominence of the formalized structure and authority process, as represented by a stronger showing of the correlation of the US and the CC to the PUP remains. The active working of other authority relationships such as collegial authority, members' authority, expert authority and external authority also remain, as indicated by their respective relationships to the role specification and, group and communication processes. However, the negative or dysfunctional consequences of the supervisor's authority must also be recognized. The direct negative relationship between the PUP and the supervisory authority suggests that though the supervisory authority goes well with the formalized structure such as the unit standardization and the chain of command, it seems to have adverse impact on the performance of the unit. It may be that though the variables which define the role of the proper formal procedure are well appreciated, too prominent a display of supervisory authority is viewed with distaste. Probably the Filipino culture, like other Asian cultures, respects and accepts authority but too frequent resort to the supervisory authority or the over use or flaunting of supervisory authority brings in some negative reactions. If this interpretation is correct, the delicate nature of supervisory power must be recognized and the fine tuning in the use of authority will be needed. In Step Four, the group-based incentives and individual-based incentives are introduced; interesting enough, neither the GBl nor the lbi is related to the PUP as shown by the insignificant B values though these two as a subset have increased R2 significantly, indicating that the combined effects of these variables are significant. This is explainable as these two factors themselves are closely interrelated, the multicolinearity operates. And presenting two of them as a subset is a reasonable device to take account of the combined effects. Next two variables entering are the group communication and the group pressure on individual members. While the group pressure remained an independent variable significantly related to the PUP, the effects of the GPIM on the PUP becomes no longer significant as indicated by B values. It should be noted that the GPIM is closely related to two independent variables, the unit standardization and supervisor authority, and in the multiple regression when these variables are controlled! its effects on the PUP disappear. Likewise, the extent of unit 87