The use of a managerial differential to compare the affective meaning of management of managers and students

UNIVERSITY OF

ILLINOIS LIBRARY

AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

BOOKSTACKS

CENTRAL CIRCULATION BOOKSTACKS

The person charging this material is re-
sponsible for its renewal or its return to
the library from which it was borrowed
on or before the Latest Date stamped
below. You may be charged a minimum
fee of $75.00 for each lost book.

llMft, imitltotiaa, and undeiilnlng of booki are reawns
for db«tpllnary action and may result In dlimlual from
the Unlverilty.
TO RENEW CAU TELEPHONE CENTER. 3M-8400

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

AUG

0 7

When renewing by phone, write new due date below
previous due date. LI 62

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2011 with funding from

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

http://www.archive.org/details/useofmanageriald24alba

Faculty Working Papers

The Use of a Managerial Differential to
Compare the Affective Meaning of
Management of Managers and Students

Robert Albanese

University of Illinois

\

College of Commerce and Business Administration

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

FACULTY WORKING PAPERS
College of Coamerce and Business Administration
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
August 10, 1971

The Use of a Managerial Differential to
Compare the Affective Meaning of
Management of Managers and Students

Robert Albanese

University of Illinois

No. 2k

THE USE OF A tJANAGERlAL DIFFERENTIAL TO COMPARE THE AFFECTIVE MEANING
OF MANAGEMENT OF MANAGERS AND STUDENTS

Robert Albanese

Introduction

This paper reports some results of research concerned with the affective
meaning of management. Affective meaning refers to how people feel about ideas,
things, events, or people. It is concerned with attitudes and sentiments toward
an object. Denotative meaning, on the other hand, refers to what a thing is or
what it does. Thus, one denotative meaning of management is, "management is
planning, organizing, .. .the activities of other people." An affective meaning
of management is, "management is good, potent, and active." Affective meaning
is multi-dimensional but tends to be primarily evaluative, that is, ex- ' '.
pressive of attitudes toward an idea, person, object, or event. If it is true
that attitudes bear some relationship to behavior, then greater knowledge and
understanding of management's affective meaning may provide additional insights
into managerial behavior.

This paper also reports data comparing the affective meaning managers and
students attach to management. The finding that managers and students feel
differently about management would not take many people by surprise. Such
differences are everywhere to be found and are not difficult to understand.
Ho\v'ever, this research attempts to locate specific differences and attempts to
measure them. The hope of this aspect of the research was and is that university
management education might benefit from additional knowledge about differences
and similarities in the affective meaning managers and students attach to manage-
ment.

The main research tool used in this research was the semantic differential
technique. A brief discussion of the use of this technique in developing a
managerial differential is included in this paper. Then management is analyzed
in terms of 61 concepts and a three factor model of management is presented.
Finally, the managerial differential and the three factor model are used to
present information about managers and students and to compare the two groups.

The Development of a Managerial Differential

This section of the paper will discuss briefly the procedure followed
in developing a semantic differential instrument for use in studying the
management area. A semantic differential (SD) is a collection of rating
scales anchored by a set of bipolar adjectives. An SD provides a means
for respondents to express the affective meaning they attach to various
concepts. The main problem in developing a SD has to do with selecting
bipolar adjectives to serve as "scales" that will be useful in measuring
the "meaning" of concepts, where meaning is commonly a multi -dimensional
construct.

The first step in constructing a SD for research use is to select the
concepts or stimuli that will represent the content area being studied. In
the present study all concepts are nouns, and, with few exceptions, repre-
sent a concept of some relevance to management. The concepts were selected
from management textbooks and were solicited from managers and students.
A list of the 61 concepts used in this study is contained in Table II. For
purposes. of this study these 61 concepts make up the management content
domain.

The next step in developing a SD is to select the bipolar adjectives
that will serve as scales for measuring affective meaning. The scale con-
sists of the bipolar adjective pair separated (in this study and in most
SD studies) by a seven-step rating scale which allows the subject to
respond with varying degrees of intensity. The process of choosing scales
is much more structured than that of choosing concepts. The ideal situatioi
would be to have one scale to represent each dimension of meaning. If
meaning is found to have three dimensions (Evaluation, Potency, and
Activity, for example) then, ideally, the SD would consist of three scales
(bad-good, strong-weak, and active-passive, for example) each of which is

a "pure" measure of one dimension. In practice, a set of scales is usually
used to represent a dimension of meaning.

Bipolar adjectives were obtained from ninety students and professors
and from eighty managers. Each subject was given a set of twenty nouns
selected from the 61 concepts listed in Table I. The subjects were asked
to write after each noun those adjectives that come to their mind when they
see the noun. This procedure resulted in over 10,000 responses which were
analyzed according to frequency (number of times a response was given) and
diversity (number of different concepts that elicited a given response).
Those responses with the highest frequency and diversity were then cor-
related in order to determine which responses were the most independent.
The result of this procedure was a list of 93 adjectives meeting criteria
of frequency, diversity, and independence. Opposites to these qualifiers
were solicited from students and the outcome was that 49 of the responses
had, according to the students, clear opposites.

The 49 pairs of bipolar adjectives were set against each of the 61
management concepts, and were administered, with appropriate instructions
(2), to two samples: 399 University of Illinois Commerce College and
Graduate College students and 464 managers;. The managerial sample con-
sisted of managers from manufacturing, government, military, and marketing.
A complete set of responses consisted of 2,989 judgments (61 concepts X
49 scales per concept). Since that many judgments is clearly too many
to require of a single subject, the task was divided so that each sub-
ject responded to ten or fewer concepts (a maximum of 490 judgments).
The number of subjects responding to the concepts differed with each
concept. The mean number of subjects responding to each concept was
about 50 for both the managers and the students.

The data resulting from the administration of the 49 scale instrument
was analyzed in a variety of ways. Of particular interest here is the
analysis aimed at the selection of particular bipolar adjective pairs
that would be used on a semantic differential. For that purpose, means
across subjects for each concept and for each scale were computed. For
example, for the concept BUSINESSMAN 49 scale means were computed for
the student group and 49 scale means were computed for the manager group.
This was done for each of the 61 concepts . The scale means were then
summed across concepts and a mean of means was computed resulting in 49
means each representing a mean score on a scale across subjects and across
concepts .

The 49 means were correlated and the correlation matrix was subjected
to a principal components analysis. The result was a factor structure for
the manager group and a factor structure for the student group. Since the
two factor structures were highly congruent the two groups were combined
into one group. A principal components and varimax analysis of the data
of the combined group yielded four factors that could be considered as
dimensions of affective meaning of management. The four factors accounted
for seventy percent of the total variance in the matrix.-

Factor I (36 percent of the total variance) is represented by such
words as valuable, reasonable, logical, practical, realistic, right,
desirable, reliable, efficient, good, and fair. These adjectives are
evaluatj.ve in tone and provide a means for expressing attitudes toward
management concepts. Factor I will be called Evaluation.

Factor II (14 percent of the total variance) provides a means for
describing the climate or atmosphere of management. Adjectives with high
loadings on Factor II are free, loose, unstructured, friendly, generous,
and interesting. Factor II will be called Climate.

Factor III (12 percent of the total variance) is similar to Osgood's
Potency factor. Adjectives representing Factor III are huge, big, and
complex. Factor IV, an Activity factor with eight percent of the total
variance is represented by active, ambitious, and exciting.

These four factors can be considered as affective meaning dimensions
of management. The three highest loading scales on each of the four fac-
tors will be used to represent the factors. The twelve pairs of bipolar
adjectives with a seven-step rating scale will be called a Managerial
Differential (MD) . The MD is shown in Figure 1. The factor that each of
the twelve scales belongs to is indicated by the letter at the right of
each scale.

MANAGEMENT CONCEPT

Neither
One Nor
Extremely Quite Slightly The Odier Sli^ly Quite Extremely

Structured

Little

Impractical

Ambitious

Valuable

Reasonable

Dull

Free

Tiny

Complex

Passive

right

: Unstructured (C)

.: Big (P)

_: Practical (E)

_: Lazy (A)

_: Worthless (E)

: Unreasonable (E)

_: Exciting (A)

_: Restricted (C)

.: Huge (P)

_: Simple (P)

J Active (A)

: Loose (C)

FIGURE 1

MANAGERIAL DIFFERENTIAL

■j«o

Concgpt Factor Analysts

Since the 61 concepts were supposed to be representative of the
management area and were selected, for the most part, because of their
relevance to management, the expectation was that the concepts could be
represented by one or two factors. A concept factor analysis was done
in order to determine whether this expectation was warranted.

The procedure followed for the concept factor analysis was the same
as that for the scale factor analysis. A mean score was computed on all
49 scales for each concept across subjects. The 61 means were correlated
and the 61 x 61 matrix factor analyzed. The percent variance accounted
for by the first four principal components factors is shown in Table I.
For students and managers, separately and combined, the first four factors
account for over 907» of the total variance.

TABLE I

PERCENT VARIANCE ACCOUNTED FOR BY FIRST FOUR PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS CONCEPT
FACTORS IN SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL STUDY OF THE MEANING OF MANAGEMENT: BY GROUPS

GROUP

Factor

1

2

3

4
5 - 61*

Students
80.55
5.34
3.84
2.05
8.22

Managers

91.63

2.00

1.30

.79

4.28

Combined
88.61
3.17
2.27
1.23
4.72

*Factors 5 through 61 had roots of less than 1.00, which is usually considered
as error variance.

Although four factors were rotated using the varltnax criterion, the
rotation of three factors gave the best structure. The factor loadings
for three factors are shown in Table II for the student and manager groups,
separately and combined.

INSERT TABLE II HERE

As Table II Indicates, for esch concept with very few exceptions,

the proportion of total variance that Is common factor variance is very

2
high (h > .85), indicating that the reliability of each concept measure

is high and that the proportion of the total variance that is error variance

is low.

An inspection of the factor loadings in Table II indicates very little
difference between the student and manager groups. The most notable difference
is that the student's Factor I is similar to the manager's Factor II and
vice versa. Since the percent variance accounted for by each of the students'
first two factors is approximately equal (40% and 38%, respectively), not
much can be made of the ordering of the factors. Since the concepts with
highest loadings are about the same for the student group as for the
manager group, further attention will be directed at the factor loadings
fiTiT the combined student and manager groups.

The concepts (listed according to size of factor loading) with the
highest loadings on Factor I (37% of the total variance) are: Schedules,
Budgets, Accounting, Chain of Command, Span of Control, Organizational
Structure, Time, Control, Money, Committees, Efficiency, and Costs, Although
all of these concepts have loadings of .70 or more, they are not pure
loadings -- all have loadings of .41 or more on one or both of the other
two factors. Some other concepts with highest loadings on Factor I are:
Production, Computers, Authority, Business Education, Quality, Responsibility,
Organization, Mathematics, Private Property, and Businessman.

■'-IR

TABLE II

FACTOR LOADINGS ON FIRST THREE PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS FACTORS ON 61 CONCEPTS
ACROSS 49 SCALES IN SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL STUDY
OF THE MEANING OF MANAGEMENT: BY GROUP

GROUP

CONCEPT

STUDENTS

MANAGERS

CCMBINED

I

II

III

h^

I

11

III

h2

I

II

III

h^

Businessman

.70

.60

.27

.91

.60

.61

.49

.97

.66

.53

.48

.94

. Span of Control

.82

.49

.18

.95

.53

.71

.45

.99

.76

.52

.37

.98

. Profit

.67

.55

.39

.91

.58

.61

.51

.96

.64

.58

.46

.96

Executive salaries

.53

.62

.41

.83

.62

.62

.44

.96

.54

.58

.50

.88

Influence

.60

.65

.37

.92

.56

.60

.53

.96

.60

.58

.51

.95

Small business

.43

.71

-.20

.73

.59

.63

.35

.86

.58

.69

.15

.83

Costs

.77

.22

.48

.87

.38

.71

.54

.94

.71

.27

.58

.9?

Decision-making

.62

.73

.23

.97

.58

.66

.45

.98

.63

.65

.41

.98

Efficiency

.74

.62

.17

.95

.61

.64

.43

.98

.71

.60

.36

.98

Organizational structure

.83

.45

.27

.97

.62

.66

.40

.98

.75

.50

.41

.99

, Work

.67

.70

.14

.96

.68

.57

.44

.99

.62

.68

.37

.98

Organizational goals

.68

.68

.21

.97

.61

.61

.47

.98

.65

.62

.41

.98

. Quality

.66

.70

.04

.93

.61

.65

.42

.98

.68

.65

.28

.96

Competition

.50

.69

.42

.90

.67

.45

.56

.98

.49

.67

.53

.96

I, PsTOer

.71

.47

.47

.94

.49

.57

.65

.98

.62

.50

.59

.98

Conssiittess

.72

.56

-.03

.83

.55

.71

.36

.94

.72

.59

.24

.92

Planning

.67

.68

.20

.96

.68

.58

.43

.98

.63

.66

.38

.98

. Motivation

.46

.82

.27

.96

.74

.51

.42

.99

.50

.76

.40

.99

Conflict

-.26

.02

.74

.62

.43

.30

.72

.79

-.05

.37

.76

.72

Big business

.61

.28

.70

.94

.58

.50

.62

.98

.53

.41

.71

.97

Private property

.71

.56

.23

.87

.64

.61

.38

.93

.66

.58

.36

.91

Communication

.59

.77

.17

.97

.72

.54

.38

.96

.58

.72

.35

.98

CONCEPT

GROUP

10

STUDENTS ~|

MANAGERS

COMBINED

I

II

III

h^

I

II

III

h^

I.

II III

h^

23.

Human being

.54

.71

.24

.84

.69

.54

.42

.95

.54

.72 .36

.94

24.

Time

.79

.44

.16

.85

.48

.70

.45

.92

.75

.46 .38

.91

25.

Executive

.64

.65

.28

.92

.63

.52

.43

.97

.63

.61 .44

.96

26.

Control

.81

.48

.26

.95

.58

.68

.44

.98

.73

.55 .38

.98

27.

Chain of command

.88

.31

.20

.92

.47

.75

.44

.98

.79

.46 .35

.97

28.

Morale

.50

.81

.13

.92

.73

.55

.39

.98

.54

.76 .37

.97

29.

Business

.66

.57

.47

.98

.63

.50

.57

.98

.57

. 61 . 54

.9?.

30.

Organization

.76

.52

.35

.98

.61

.60

.51

.99

.67

.54 .49

.99

31.

Authority

.77

.50

.31

.95

.53

.67

.51

.98

.69

.55 .44

.90

32.

Responsibility

.72

.64

.14

.96

,64

.61

.44

.98

.67

.64 .36

.98

33.

Opportunity

.39

.80

.25

.85

.74

.50

.44

.98

.49

.76 .38

.97

34.

Schedules

.88

.40

.16

.96

.51

.75

.38

.98

.82

.44 .33

.98

35.

Success

.54

.74

.32

.94

.68

.54

.48

.98

.54

.70 .43

.97

36,

Achievement

.57

.76

,25

.96

.69

.57

.43

.99

.57

.72 .37

.98

37.

Practical experience

.61

.76

.13

.96

.71

.58

.39

.98

.60

.71 .32

.98

38.

Free enterprise

.54

.70

.40

.93

.65

.47

.57

.97

.53

.67 .49

• ^ i

39.

Leadership

.64

.72

.18

.97

.66

.59

.44

.99

.62

.68 .37

.99

40.

Budgets

.88

.37

.20

.94

.44

.75

.47

.97

.80

.42 .38

.97

U.

Science

.53

.73

.32

.91

.68

.50

.51

.97

.52

.68 .47

.95

l£.

Religion

.50

.61

.25

.68

.74

.51

.35

.93

.52

.70 .33

.87

W.

Economics

.67

.63

.29

.93

.52

.61

.57

.96

.65

.56 .49

.97

44.

Politics

.32

.12

.82

.79

.41

.38

.76

.89

.33

.28 .82

.86

45.

Theory

.47

.68

.28

.77

.67

.52

.48

.95

.52

.69 .42

rsr-

46.

Freedom

.39

.88

.12

,94

.78

.48

.38

.97

.47

.82 .30

.97

i7.

Love

.20

.89

.18

.86

.77

.44

.37

.93

.34

.83 .32

.91

is.

Art

-.02

.93

.23

.91

.84

.31

.41

.96

.17

.90 .34

,95

W.

Production

.76

.39

.39

.88

.59

.59

.49

.94

.69

.43 .51

.92

50.

Money

.74

.44

.36

.87

.43

.69

.51

.93

.72

.44 .47

.93

^ ri.

1 .

CONCEPT

GROUP

STUDENTS

MANAGERS

COMBINED

51.

Labor unions

52.

Accounting

53.

General Motors

54.

Psychology

55.

College professor

56.

College student

57.

Business education

58.

Computers

59.

I . B .M .

60.

Mathematics

61.

Marketing

Percent of

Total Variance

II III

II III

II III

.49

.24

.76

.88

.21

.35

.87

.92

.39

.19

.85

.91

.83

.47

.05

.92

.54

.70

.40

.95

.80

.47

.30

.95

.54

.28

.69

.85

.37

.32

.79

.86

.43

.28

.78

.87

.46

.81

.20

.91

.57

.55

.46

.85

.52

.70

.39

.92

.56

.77

-.01

.90

.68

.58

.34

.91

.59

.72

.23

.9?

.49

.71

.18

.78

.61

.47

.50

.84

.48

.64

.40

.81

.73

.62

.18

.94

.62

.59

.45

.93

.69

.58

.40

.96

.73

.47

.26

.81

.57

.60

.42

.87

.69

.41

.45

.85

.63

.51

.42

.84

.54

.47

.64

.92

.57

.46

.60

.9C

.72

.47

.21

.78

.61

.61

.46

.95

.67

.55

.40

.92

.49

.71

.41

.90

.63

.47

.54

.91

.47

.64

.56

.9^

40% 38% 12%

37X 337o 25%

37% 37% 20%

12

Most of the concepts mentioned in the above paragraph appear to relate
to ideas frequently mentioned in management literature, such as production-
centered, initiating-structure, task-orientation, and, perhaps, Theory X.
The concepts suggest a manager operating in a classical organization with
time-schedule pressures and costs -money-control problems. They also
emphasize internal -management problems as opposed to problems of organi-
zations and management relating to the environment. This concept factor
will be called Internal Operations because it contains concepts primarily
concerned with "getting a job done" within the organization. The Internal
Operations factor will be represented by: Schedules, Budgets, Organizational
Structure, Time, Control, Committees, Efficiency, Costs, Authority, and
Responsibility (3). The following hypothesis will be tested: The Managers
will give significantly higher (at .05 level) ratings to the Internal
Operations concepts than will the students.

The concepts with highest loadings on Factor II (37% of the total
variance) are: Art, Love, Freedom, Motivation, Morale, Opportunity,
Achievement, Human Being, Communication, College Professor, Practical
Experience, Psychology/, Success, and Religion. These concepts have
Factor II loadings of .70 or more, but all have loadings on one or both
of the other factors of .34 or more. None of the 61 concepts in the study
is a "pure" representative of any of the three factors. Some other con-
cepts with highest loadings on Factor II are: Small Business, Theory,
Science, Leadership, and Work.

These Factor II concepts reveal a different aspect of management
than those representative of Factor I, Factor II is more in line with
notions of consideration, people-centered, and Theory Y. The variance
accounted for by Factor I and II is equal, indicating these two factors

i! :xw -ji, i I

rill ] ■•'l. '■ 'W

13

are equally useful or "important" within the context of this study. As
with the concepts representing Factor I, Factor II concepts stress internal
dimensions of management. Motivation, morale, opportunity, communication,
and achievement are found, for the most part, inside the organization.
Factor II will be called Internal Environment which emphasizes the
manager's task of creating an environment in which employees have the
opportunity to self-develop and realize their potential.

The Internal Environment factor will be represented by: Freedom,
Motivation, Morale, Opportunity, Achievement, Human Being, Communication,
Success, Leadership, and Practical Experience, The following hypothesis
will be tested: The students will give significantly higher (at .05 level)
ratings to the Internal Environment concepts than will the managers.

Labor Unions, Politics, General Motors, Conflict, Big Business, and
I.B.M. are the concepts with highest loadings (.71 to .85) on Factor III.
There are no other concepts having their highest loading on Factor III,
although Power has a .59 loading. Costs a .58 loading. Marketing a .56
loading, Business a .54 loading, and Competition a .53 loading. Small
Business, Quality, Committees, and College Professors have small loadings
on Factor III, The highest loading concepts on Factor III appear to
emphasize external aspects of management. They are suggestive of nego-
tiation, strategy, power; and bigness. The idea of "social responsibility"
of management does not come through in the concepts loading on Factor III,
but, perhaps, the social responsibility idea is inadequately represented
in the list of 61 concepts. In any case, the manager's responsibility
to deal with his environment is suggested by the concepts loading on
Factor III. This factor will be called External Relations, which emphasizes
the manager's need to be a representative of his group to "outsiders" --
whether within the company or outside of it.

14

No hypothesis concerning the concepts loading on the External
Operation's factor will be tested.

In sum, the concept factor analysis of the 61 concepts used in this
study resulted in a three-dimensional model of management: Internal-
Operations, Internal-Environment, and External Relations. These three
dimensions will be examined using the twelve-scale Managerial Differential
discussed previously.

Composite Factor Scores (C.F.S.)

The data collected from managers and students for the purpose of con-
structing the twelve scale Managerial Differential can be used to compare
manager responses with student responses. One type of comparison utilizes
Composite Factor Scores which are, for each of the four dimensions of
Evaluation, Climate, Potency, and Activity, mean scores on the three
scales representing each dimension.

Composite Factor Scores are usually expressed as a deviation from
the scale midpoint which in the present study is 4.00. Thus, the
C.F.S. for the concept BUSINESSMAN are 1.615 (managers) and 1.196 (students)
on the Evaluation Factor. The 1,615 is arrived at by computing a mean from
the raw scores of the managers on the valuable-worthless, reasonable-
unreasonable, and impractical-practical scales and subtracting 4.000 from
the result. The 1.615 represents a deviation from "Meaningless." The
higher the C.F.S. , the more meaningful the concept to the respondents.
Positive C.F.S, represent deviations from the midpoint toward the "good"
cr positive end of the seven-step scale. Negative C.F.S. represent de-
viations toward the low end of the scale.

15

Table III shows C.F.S. of Managers and Students on the ten Internal-
Operations concepts on the four factors of Evaluation, Climate, Potency,
and Activity. The Climate and Potency C.F.S, are not useful in dis-
tinguishing managers and students. In the Climate factor only the
Organizational Structure C.F.S. are significantly different. All
Climate C.F.S. are negative indicating a feeling that both groups
consider this set of Internal Operations concepts "slightly restricted,
structured, and tight." In the Potency factor, Schedules and Responsi-
bility C.F.S. are significantly different. Most of the C.F.S. in the
Potency factor have a value of less than 1.00 indicating a feeling
somewhere between neutral and "slightly huge, big, and complex." On
the Climate and Potency factors, the hypothesis that the managers would
rate the set of Internal-Operations concepts significantly higher than
the students is rejected.

On the other hand. Table III indicates that the Evaluation and
Activity factors are useful in distinguishing students and managers.
On every one of the Internal -Operations concepts the C.F.S. of
managers are higher than the C.F.S. of students, and in sixteen out
of twenty cases the differences are significant. A general interpretation
of the Evaluation C.F.S. is that the managers view this set of concepts
as "quite valuable, reasonable, and practical." Although the students
also rate these concepts positively they are significantly less intense
in their "attitude" than are the managers. The evaluative factor almost
serves as a definition for the term "attitude," and consequently scales
on the evaluative factor serve as measures of verbalized attitudes. (4)

w

H
CU
U
O

z

o

u

o

w

a<

o

I

■<
PS

(a

H

2:

z

H

Z

o

CO

w

>
I

CO

8

Pi
o

OS

w
o
&

H
CO

><

w

as
o

H
Z Pc,

£2
CO z

OS pi
o 5

H O

<

Ed
H
M
CO

o

a,

g

z
o

*

■K

CVJ

X3

<J-

in

0^

i-J

*

•vC

00

-*

tn

Vf>

ON

ro

CO

ON

CM

*

CO

CO
CSl

CO

<M

r-^

ON

OI

o

<t

VO

CO

CO

ON r-<

00
CO UO

CM
CO

ITi

00

u

O

XJ

V

to

60

C

•H

d-

CB

to

u

0)
M)i
CD
C

CM

CO

oo

CO

CO 00

ON v^

CM CO

!J0

CO

CM

CM
O

00

OC
00

O

CM

c^

ON

CO

CM

in

o

ON

00

OC-

ON

CM
CO

CM

CO

c^

00

o

CM

CJN

<x>

a-.

CM
CO

CM
CO

C3N
CO

■J-

CO

o

ON.

CO

CM

1-^

00

CO
CO

On
00

O

C3N

CO

^

(U

•<t

r>.

t£

o

CM

TO

«

C

r-f

I-H

C3

1

s

00

in

CM

o

CM

in

ON

CJN

in

c^

00

^
^

<£>

*

*

o

in

<!-

CM

m

to

i->

c

CM

V£>

OO

CO

•

m

<r

D

1—1

r-<

r— {

CO

CM

in

CM

o

■Jc
CO

CO

cr.

~ IT

.—I o

O iX)

in
(—1

CM

St

o
o

in

in

CO

CM

II

>

CO

u

01

Ml

CD

C

«C!

ON

CO

o

CO

in

o

<1>

>

CO

o

CM

<f

^O

<U

CO

-*

r-

o

00

ON

CO

c

o

TO

d a

O C)

I u

r-* C

TO O

c o

0/

eci

C 0)

O P

•r-J 3

CO

4J -U

0)

CO u

t-4

CO

N D

3

iJ

■r^•^^

•o

(U

C U

<I>

60

TO CO

x:

T3

60

'_>

""

£r

CO

«

o

Hi

e

o

c
o
o

CO
0)

o

CJ

o

c

o

CO

c
o

CO

(Hi

in
o

4J
CO

C
CD
U

60
CO

17

The Activity factor C.F.S. result in the highest t values. In
terms of a feeling characterized by such words as active, ambitious,
and exciting the managers, although not very intense in their feelings,
are significantly more positive than the students toward the Internal-
Operations concepts. On the basis of the C.F.S. on the Evaluation
and Activity factors, the hypothesis that the managers would rate the
set of Internal-Operations concepts significantly higher is accepted.

Table IV shows C.F.S. of Managers and Students on the ten Internal-
Environment concepts. Once again, the C.F.S. on the Climate and Potency
factors are not useful in distinguishing managers and students. Both
managers and students consider the Internal -Environment concepts
"meaningless" (C.F.S. near zero) on the Climate factor and "slightly
potent" (C.F.S. near 1.00) on the Potency factor. The Evaluation and
Activity factors are useful in distinguishing managers and students. In
seventeen of twenty cases the C.F.S. are significantly different, however,
in every case the manager's, rather than the student's, have the higher
C.F.S. The managers rate the ten concepts higher than the students.
Thus, on all four factors, the hypothesis that the students would rate
Internal -Environment concepts significantly higher than the managers is
rejected.

The C.F.S. of managers and students on the six External Relations
concepts were not significantly different except on the Big Business
concept. The manager's rate Big Business significantly higher on the
Evaluation, Climate and Activity factors and significantly lower on the
Potency factor. Big Business was the only concept out of the sixty-one
included in this study on x^rhich the managers and students differed sig-
nificantly on all four meaning factors.

Pn

O

OS

o

OS

u
o

<:

Q

<
H

w
o

03

CO
OS

o

H
O

B

2:

OS

O
fa

z
o

81

*

*

•X

*

*

*

■x

*

■!i

CO

en

CO

CO

ON

in

CM

o

r-4

00

1—1

r-^

kj-

00

1-1

m

in

00

i-H

vO

.4-1

•

•

■

•

■

>

•

«

•

•

CM

CM

<f

CM

CM

CM

1-1

CM

CO

CO

>■,

Ul

•u

JJ

t-l

c

CVl

CO

1-1

00

7-(

r-t

VO

O

C--1

00

>

0)

<n

CO

r^

00

^

a^

o

m

CO

On

■^

■V

•

>

•

•

u

3

l-H

r-i

f-H

1—1

1-^

rH

o

■u

<;

0)

u

0)

00

r^

cr.

00

-d-

!-^

CO

vO

>n

r— 1

6C

vD

r~

<(■

o-

00

<t

CO

ON

00

vC

CO

•

•

•

•

•

•

-

■

>

c

1-1

1—1

r— :

1-1

1-4

i-H

1—1

T— *■

1—1

r-'

CD

S

ii

•!«

■/.

r^

O

oc

r^

r~»

00

VD

r~~

r^.

C~-

i->

O

O;

ITi

00
CM

1-4

CSJ

MD

cc

CM

to

>

^

o

c

en

CO

U-)

r-

lO

\o

in

Ov

r-~

r-l

c

<u

CO

O

00

<3-

r^

CT^

cr.

c^

M3

MP

<u

•o

•

•

»

•

•

•

•

•

J-l

3

t-i

i-i

o

u

fa

CO

u

0)

■-J

vD

1-1

CTi

-*

t-l

CM

<t

rH

o

o

60

0-)

O

C

o

O

C3N

00

r-4

t-l

<>

■u

CO

•

•

»

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

o

C

r-l

1-1

r-l

r-l

t-4

1-1

CO

CO

fa

60
C

•r-l

S

*

§.

0^

in

O

r-~

CO

in

in

CO

c

O-

o

00

<r

CM

o>

00

00

CM

CM

TO

4J

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

0)

Cvj

CM

r-t

1—1

1-1

S

0)

4-1

c

(U

<u

CSl

IT-,

00

r^

u-i

tn

1— «■

in

CJ\

VO

i->

T)

00

CM

o

CM

1-1

CM

CM

1-4

CO

O

TO

3

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

■

■

•

e

4J

1

1

1

1

1

1

•rH

CO

1— i

U

CO

01

cn

o

r-~

CM

O

in

vO

00

Ov

CM

60

en

I— «

o

O

CM

o

O

<t-

in

o

CO

>

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

r^

1

1

1

I

1

1

!

1

1

TO

X

*

->:

*

*

*

4c

*

•!<

CM

vO

CO

^D

\n

o

00

CM

o

1-4

O

C7^

r^

lO

in

o

c^

in.

CM

VO

4J

•

•

•

•

•

«

•

•

■

•

CM

CM

i-t

CM

CO

CO

CO

<r

CM

to

4-J

c

*-t

o

r-l

00

CO

o

<f

ir\

CO

o

vD

o

5

00

m

<r

O

in

1-1

as

, <t

in

r^

•H

TS

•

•

>

«

«

OJ

3

1-1

1— 1

1-1

i-l

1-4

1-4

i-i

I-l

1-1

.-1

ttj

4-1

d

CO

t— 1

(0

>

U3

CO

<p

oo

1-1

1— i

CNJ

r~

CO

o

r--

in

r^

60

r^

o

CO

\D

o

r^

r-4

ON

r-4

r-4

TO

•

■

•

■

•

•

•

•

•

•

C

CM

CM

1—1

r-l

CM

1-1

CM

1-1

CM

CM

JO

2^

1 ,j-f

Q.

0)

o

C

1

c

o

X

.-4 O

>.

4J

60

•r-4

H

CO CJ

c

4J

d

C

4J

O-

CD

c

o

-r^

9J

•H

TO

•r-t

,-4 u

!-i i-i

'r^

C

B

0)

O

s:

CO C

0) c:

6

4J

3

<u

CQ

•1-4

CO

10

o 'U

-W (U

o

CO

cu

4-1

>

C

09

u

•^ -H

C 6

•a

>

r-<

u

<u

C

3

<u

<u

iJ !-!

l-J c

o

•r-l

TO

o

—4

TO

CJ

TD

'J H)

o

o

iJ

l-i

a.

x:

?3

g

o

TO

TO a

h

1-1

O

O

&

o

5

o

3

0)

j-i

-f-4

fa

S

S

o

<

se

o

CO

K-1

Bu

CO
VD

CM

II

>

4J
TO

ON
ON

>

o

c

CO

o

C
M

19

In sum, the C.F.S, indicate that managers are significantly more
positive than students in their evaluation of several concepts concerned
with the manager's task of "getting a job done." This set of concepts
represents a factor that has been called Internal-Operations. It may
be said that the managers have a more favorable "attitude" toward these
concepts than do students. The managers also consider the Internal-
Operations concepts significantly more "active, ambitious, and exciting."
In addition, the same conclusion applies to a set of concepts representing
an Internal -Environment factor which reflects the manager's task of
"creating an environment in which employees have the opportunity to self-
develop and realize their potential." Finally, there is no significant
difference in the manager and student ratings on a set of concepts repre-
senting an External Relations factor which reflects the need of the manager
to represent his group to those outside his immediate area of responsibility.

If the significant differences noted above accurately reflect real
differences between managers and students in their feelings toward manage-
ment concepts they may be due to a number of factors. First, managers live
in a world of schedules, budgets, costs, control, authority, responsibility,
and organizational structure. In addition to feeling pressures and restric-
tions from these sources (negative C.F.S. on the Climate factor), managers
nay learn to appreciate their value and necessity. Furthermore, the
!?anagers included in this study, although from many types of organizations,
are predominantly "middle managers" and may be rather more concerned with
such traditional management concepts than "top managers" would be. Students,
on the other hand, although frequently very busy and under a unique kind
of pressure, do not feel as much pressure from these sources, vis-a-vis,
managers .

,\ ~'j ';" ;■ 1

20

Second, many students have strong biases against organizational con-
cepts. In addition to there being a pervasive cultural anti-organization
bias, the students in this study have been exposed to academic instruction
that tends to emphasize "organizational behavior" and minimizes the need
for schedules, budgets, et. cetera. In view of the high ratings given these
concepts by managers, there may be a need in university management education
for more emphasis on them. Such emphasis could not only deal with technical
specifics but could also stress the importance in organizations of such
task-oriented concepts.

Third, the higher manager C.F.S. on the Internal-Environment concepts
may reflect an appreciation for such values based on experience in organi-
zations. Furthermore, such words as Opportunity, Achievement, Leadership,
and Success may be less of an abstraction to managers than to students.

Finally, the differences may reflect none of the above factors. They
may be an artifact of this study. It is known that although the students
tend to be a homogeneous group the managers are very heterogeneous. The
manufacturing managers respond to concepts in ways significantly different
than the marketing managers. These differences are being examined. In
addition, managers from different levels of organizations will be studied
and groups other than students and managers will be compared. In future
study the Managerial Differential will be used along with biographical
information and performance measures. Additional tests of the reliability
Slid validity of the MD are also being conducted.

21

Additional Comparisons

Ranks of C.F.S. It is interesting to observe the similarities in
the rankings of C.F.S. on the four meaning factors. Table V shows the
top and bottom five rankings by group. Of the 61 concepts, both managers
and students rank Efficiency as the most and Conflict as the least valuable,
reasonable, and practical. Both groups consider Art, Freedom, and Love as
the most free, loose, and unstructured. Both groups consider General
Motors the most and Committees the least "potent." Finally, students and
managers rank Competition first and second, respectively, as the most
Active, Ambitious, and Exciting. Both groups agree that Accounting is
the least "Active." The rank-difference correlations of the 61 C.F.S.
of the two groups are: Evaluation = .78, Climate = ,85, Potency = .82,
and Activity = .67.

Individual and Group Polarization (5). Another interesting type of com-
parison that can be made between managers and students has to do with
polarization. In terms of the semantic differential technique, the more
polarized a concept, the more "meaningful" that concept. A concept is
polarized to the extent that ratings tend to be toward the extreme scale
positions, regardless of the direction or the meanings of the adjectives
on the ends of the scale. For example, a concept that receives ratings
of 7 is more polarized than a concept that receives ratings of 5.

There are several methods of computing polarity but the methods yield
values that are highly correlated. A method based on an assumption of
£trict linear departure from the neutral point of scales will be discussed
here. This method is known as the average absolute deviation from the
midpoint of all scales. It can be used in two ways: (1) Individual
Polarization - the absolute deviations from the midpoint are summed over
individuals and over scales (the twelve scales of the Managerial Differential)

o
o

o

H
Q

•z

<

o

o

H
U

o

M

<

o
ft.

o

ZZ

c

KB

o

m

y

op

to

-H

(U

•rl

u

4-)

0)

4->

^r^

c

•-4

CO

<u

4J

ctl

4J

(U

4J

CO

o

4J

>^

g

c

T)

CU

u

CU

c

CO

•r^

1-1

CU

3

3

a.

(U

<u

y

m

4J

c

o

x:

O

4J

e

>

&

y

•r4

to

^

(U

4-1

y

f^

W

o

o

o

3

y

o

o

x;

CO

o

4J

u

hJ

PL<

CO

CO

o

o

H

S3

<

-r-l

>

•r-l

4J

c

y

o

<u

c

to

>s

ep

<:

CO

•r4

to

•rl

V

CU

M

(5C

1-1

4J

•r4

rC

>

0)

o

o

•r-l

0)

to

■r-4

M

to

■H

4.J

0)

0) CO

r-l

4.!

60

to

4-)

a.

n

4J

4J

4.JI

ac to

O

rj

«

tu

GJ

u

CU

3

•rW

CU

0) (U

:J

C

o

tX

CD (U

TD

y

P

00

r-l y-i

'o

O

CO

o

5^

'M 4J

CO

CU

§

-a

r~l O

>^

"J

s

3

o

S4 C

Q)

X

o

3

O U

CO

o

CO

o

Un M

hJ

w

u

cq

CJ P^4

[■•V*

<

to

CO

so

V-i

0.1

iJ

CO

CU

o

<!j

C

t-<

CO

CU

1-4

<U CO

<U J-J

.u

(U

to to

0)

•

o

CO

3

to CO

oO Ci

4-1

-o

u u

C

S

c

u a

T)

a) <u

CU o

•W

a

0 o

•r4

(U

o o

<u

(U

r-l 14-1

r-l -O

1:3

i-i

f^ u

C>0 (fi

«

•H

X! -r^

g

.C

r~l O

r-l 3

S'

>>

CO

0) o

•rJ 2

•

y

CO a

•r4

y

O S-i

G 4-;

c

c

o s

PQ pa

M

CO

hJ »

H

CO

U P4

a CO

0

j-j

o

K

Pk

CO

CO

CO

to

4J

CU

u

r-l

CU

CO

y

4-4 r-i

r-4

y

4->

d)

CO to

•

y

CU

•r4

o o

3

•r-i

4-1

M

M »J

22

c

c

iJ

u

-a

r-l

•r4

Jj

CD

4) O

CU

•r4

•r-l

C -u

CU

CM

(U

ff

o

C

C 4-1

w

•r-l

so CO

<-l

CO C

x:

c

a

^

J-l

cc

O O

U

•H 3

o

£2. O

y

o

•1-1

6

o

s

O 2

i-j

CO

fC CQ

Pm

CO CJ

CO

u

H

rj)

«

fa

CO

•H

c

c

>,

o

CD

4J

c

bO

•r4

CU

CO

•H

o

C

4-1 <U

s

iJ

c

•H

•r4

CO

CO U

y-i

c

S

3

•u

JJ

CO

N 3

O X!

to

a;

o

4J

«

c

(U

•1-1 4J

c

4J

-o

t3

u

>

3

C

C U

c g

(U

3

tu

CU

o

•rl

O

•r^

CO 3

•rl E

60

AJ

4-1

>

CU

CL

4J

y

M to

lyj u

CO e

■u

<y

CO

u

o

M

CU

o

y

—1 3

U 4-)

x: o

3

■u

<

1-5

fa

o

S

<

(Q as

O so

o u

(Q

•M

r-l

CU

O

CO

u

.-1 y

to c

•u

m

Hi

t4.(

CU

e

o CU

y

r-l

O T3

m

at

o

•r-l --4

■H

3

C

u

CO

TO

T)

4-1 s-1

r-l

•T3

c g

<a

>,

U C

C

CD

<u

O (U

<4-l

CU

60

CU

0 0

CO

4J

OJ

>

CO a.

B

JS

CO E

T)

c

X! -H

S

S-1

M

o

(-1 X

O

y

x: o

3

o

CO E

<

Pn

IJ

P4 W

U

CO

O u

CQ

S

^_I 1=3

O

to

•r4

CO

■U

>,

4J

y

C

o

CO

■r4

CO

QJ

c

o

4J

00

U

CO

'4J

X>

0)

•H

c3

c

CU

r-l

y

y

3

-r4

c

0

•r4

W

CO to

CO

•r4

C

4-)

o

3

0)

a

3

to

V4 I-<

J-1 c

4.1

r-l

o

W

•l-l

1

x:

c

a.

4->

(U o

O O

•r4

C4-I

•r^

cw

4J

c«

s

m

C 4-1

•O •r4

r-l

c

4-1

'4-1

O

tc

1-1

o

o

0) o

cS C

O

0

2

w

U

S

P4

u

o

cj S

rJ S

O.

0

r-l

TO

m

>

>,

y

<u

u

to

o

•r4

OS

r-l U

>J

c

4J

tl

CO C

05

to

4J

<u

OJ

e

<rt

OJ

y CU

a) 4-1

r-l

y

y

OC

•r-l

o

£

4-»

•rl •r^

60 c

CO to

■r4

TO

•r-i

CO

o

-o

tu

3

•U H

CU tu

u u

4J

n c

r-l

c

• r4

(U

j:

O.

u tu

r-l 13

(U o

•r4

o o

U-I

CO

yj

Hi

4J

g

CO tX

r-l 3

c *->

r-l

XI -rJ

c:

s

W-l

^4

cs

o

u ><;

O 4J

CU o

O

as c,

0

W

^=4

S

o

FU p::}

CLJ CO

o s

PL.

,-i »

u

0£

C

•H

J<i

r-l

<>j

CO

•*

u-i

r^

00

a\

o

r-l

c

in

ITl

tr.

•o

vC

c8

fC

23

and an average computed. Individuals checking on opposite sides of a scale
add to the total sum of absolutes. Individual Polarization (P-I) is an
index of the average intensity of affective meaning for the individuals
in a group, regardless of whether they agree on the direction of meaning
(6). P-I reflects individual meaningfulness of a concept but disregards .
intra-group disagreements on its meanings. (2) Group Polarization - the
absolute average deviation of the group mean from the midpoint of the scale.
In the Group Polarization (P-G) measure individual's checking opposite sides
of a scale will cancel out in the mean and lower the value. P-G reflects
group meaningfulness of a concept and takes into account intra-group dis-
agreements on its meaning. For any concept the value of P-G must be equal
to or less than the value for P-I and the magnitude of their difference
(P-I minus P-G - C.I.) is a direct reflection of what might be called
intra-group conflict or instability about the affective meaning of the
concept.

Table VI shows the top and bottom five P-I, P-G, and C-I measures for
managers and students. No absolute values of the polarity measures are
shown in Table VI. The managers had higher P-I values for all 61 concepts
than did the students. For example, although managers and students gave
Costs a P-I rank of 59 (see Table VI) Che managers had a P-I of 1.298 and
tfii; students a P-I of 1.060, The correlation of the P-I values = .64.
Similarly, the managers had higher P-G values for all but three of the
6'i. concepts. The correlation of the P-G values = .72. It may be said
that the managers, individually and as a group, attach more meaningfulness
to the concepts included in this study than do the students. A comparison
of the C-I values showed no clear pattern but the managers did have more
higher C-1 values than the students. The correlation of the C-I values = .33.

n\j '■'

.••■•.T<>.Tj 'ev;;d b b

M

1

M

2:

o

O

M

N-'

H

Pk

^

B

M
1

H

O

H

Z

(^

U

w

M

a

'^

1-1

e

&

E

Cfl

Q

o

l-l

t3

Q

>

^

M

<;

o:!

M

W

--V

o

Q

1

1

^

(2

a

>•

o

S

M

M

>

H

M

<:

• •

(K

N

tn

M

§

H

fcj

CO

H

o

<:

O

pa

1^
en

Q

Is

o

<:

(16

P4

o

H

o

I

M
I

c

c

<u

(U

-o

T3

3

3

u

4-1

CO

M

0)

ij

P

o

0)

•H

M

l-H

m

IW

n

C

aj

O

S

U

w

0)

<u

o
o

C

4J
C

3
O

o
o

<

o

e

•1-1
H

0)

y

a)
E

H

OB

o

c

o
•H
c

1=1

o
►J

c
o

E
o

o

CM

0)

y

c

(U

u

CO

00

•o

3

o

c

o

•H

«

E

o

y
3
•O
O

P4

i-i

0)

d

u

(U

c

•a

<u

3

•rH

u

O

cn

w

0)

>

o

03

0>

<U

c

•H

00

CO

•H

3

m

ta

(0

(U

{-)

3

o.

e
o

u

c

3
u
v<
o
o.
a.
o

E
•1-1
H

cr.

Vj

«;

o

o

0)

03

■ij

bfl

<C

4J

0)

t-l

rH

CI

O

•H

o

}J

o

u

lU

o

CO

u

<u

<u

bj

y

«

c

0)

CO

•r^

s

y

<n

§

a)
<u

CO

c

o

(U

o-

•H

W)

•H

•u

•H

/-

CO

cC

!•<

CO

CO

N

a

p

(I)

•r^

■u

u

<u

c

C CO

•H

0)

q;

•n

•r^

tg 1-1

l«

(U

AJ

CO

CO

00 CB

O

Vi

c

0)

3

u o

Vj

fe

w

hJ

P3

O O

PU

<

u

V
3

t-H
C

00

o

r-t
O

xs
y

CO

Pi

0)

o

JJ

0)

c

y

<u

c

T3

(U

a>

3

>

•H

•u

o

y

CO

.J

CO

CO

u

0)

ot

c

CIS

CO
U C

o o

CO C

y o

c xi

(J) aj

•H <u

y w

CO Pn

CO
05
(U

c

•r-l

OO CO

•H 3

pa cQ

CO
•H
!-i
Cu
U

V cu

ti c
Pm w

01

!-i
CU

j-i
3

a.

E
o

a.
•f-j
*-*

(O

ai

ID

CO
(U
-J

60
C

•M
C

c

CO
r-l

CO
CO

(1)

C

■H

tn
3

CQ

>,

u

u

o

1-1 ■

0) CO

u

00 09

o

v <u

to

x:

t-I <*■*

u

jj

r-l O

CD

3

O fJ

o

<

U fM

o

IT.

i«i;

c:3

^1

o

c
o
o

4-i

o

<4-l

c

o

oo c
0) <u

r-< -a

r-f 3
O 4J

o CO

<W ,-4

q; jj

o o

00 C

h

0) (U

CO

C -u

.-< -o

u

to C

'-H 3

CO

a- o

O t)

o

CO o

O CO

o

Ct-I

C
O
O

c

3
4J
U

o
o

CO

0)

C3

a

00

c
•1-1

G
to

fO

cn

00

m

ON

o

<o

^Z

25

Table VI indicates that in terms of individual meaningfulness (P-I)
the managers attach highest rankings to Labor Unions and lowest rankings
to Committees. The students rank Love first and Opportunity last. In
terms of group meaningfulness (P-G) the managers and students agree that
Science is first and Committees and Conflict rank at the bottom.
Summary and Conclusions

The research reported in this paper attempted to measure the affective
meaning of management. The semantic differential technique was used to
develop a twelve-scale managerial differential. The twelve scales reflect
four dimensions. Evaluation, Climate, Potency, and Activity, to the af-
fective meaning of Management. Data from managers and students was used
to develop the managerial differential. The same data was used to analyze
sixty-one management concepts. The analysis yielded a three factor model
of management, and the three factors were named Internal-Operations, In-
ternal-Environment, and External Relations.

Scores on each of the four meaning dimensions were computed for
managers and students. The Composite Factor Scores were tested for sig-
nificant difference. The Climate and Potency dimensions did not yield
significant differences. Evaluation and Activity Composite Factor Scores
of managers were significantly higher than those of students on both the
Internal-Operations concepts and the Internal-Environment concepts. Only
one significant difference on an External Relations concept (Big Business)
was noted. The ranks of all 61 Composite Factor Scores of managers and
students on all four dimensions were correlated. A high correlation was
reported.

Measures of individual and group meaningfulness attached to the sixty-
one concepts were compared. It was found that the nmnagers, individually

26

and as a group, attach more meaningfulness to the concepts than the student;
However, a measure of intra-group conflict or instability about the meaning
of the concepts showed no pattern useful in comparing managers and students

27

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. For a detailed discussion of the procedures followed in the development
of a semantic differential for use in studying management see Robert
Albanese, The Development of a Managerial Differential. Unpublished.
Faculty Working Paper No. 19. College of Commerce and Business Ad-
ministration, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, July 6, 1971.

2. Charles E. Osgood, George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum, The
Measurement of Meaning (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957),
pages 84-85.

3. The following concepts are not included because they represent specific
functions: Accounting, Production and Mathematics. Span of Control
and Chain of Command are not included because they relate to Organiza-
tional Structure.

4. Jum C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1967), p. 537.

5. For a discussion of these two notions see, Charles E. Osgood, Compara-
tive Studies of Affective Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois
Center for Comparative Psychol inguis tics, First Mimeograph draft,
August, 1966, pages V-26 to V-28.

6. Ladli Charan Singh, A Comparative Study of Meaning of Occupational
Titles Between and Within Two Language Groups in India. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of Delhi, Delhi, India, 1968, page 98.