Life Style, Work Group Structure, Compatibility, and Job Satisfaction

Author(s): Nicholas Dimarco

Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Jun., 1975), pp. 313-322
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/255533
Accessed: 02-10-2015 02:48 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/255533?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management
Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Life

Style,

Work

Compatibility, and

Group

Structure,

Job

Satisfaction

NICHOLAS DIMARCO
University of Missouri at St. Louis

Relationships between life style-work group structure

compatibility, life style compatibilities among co-workers
and between superior-subordinatepairs, and satisfaction
with work, co-workers and supervision, respectively,
were examined. Life style, life style-group structure, coworker life style, and superior-subordinatelife style dimension compatibility variables were found to provide
predictive capabilities.
In examining the relevant literature, Friedlander and Margulies (7)
conclude that neither individual nor situational factors separately account
for a substantial portion of the variance in job satisfaction. Sells (18) and
Bass (1) add that the prediction of employee behavior must take into
account the interaction of individual and situational determinants of
behavior.
Some earlier studies (15, 22) found a positive relationship between
authoritarianism and bureaucratic work structure. More recently, some
support has been found for a relationship between authoritarianismbureaucraticwork structurecongruity and motivation (14) and job attitudes
(23). Flowers and Hughes (4) conclude that one of the factors influencing
employee retention is the congruence between the employee's and the
organization'svalue systems.
Several studies in the social-psychology literature provide support for
the hypothesis that members of compatible groups (personality dimensions)
are better satisfied than are members of incompatible groups (8, 20).
In the area of interpersonal compatibility, Winch et al. (24) indicated
that one is attracted to those who can fulfill his needs and whose needs he
can fulfill. Haythorn (10) and Shaw (19) have suggested the presence of a
need-complementarity-attractionrelationshipin work groups. Rychlak (15)
and Schutz (17) provide support for a relationship between need comNicholas DiMarco (Ph.D.-Case Western Reserve University) is Assistant Professor of
Management and Organizational Behavior, University of Missouri at St. Louis, St. Louis,
Missouri.
313
This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

314

Academy of Management Journal

June

plementarity and interpersonal attraction in supervisor-subordinatepairs.

Huber (13) has indicated that superior-subordinatesimilarity (biographical
and personality characteristics) was found to be associated with increased
subordinate job satisfaction. DiMarco (2) reported that superior-subordinate life style and interpersonal need compatibilities both were related
to the subordinate's attitudes toward the supervisor. Hampton, Summer,
and Weber (9) suggest that supervisors need to be aware of the value
orientations that subordinates bring to the work place. Finley and
Pritchett (3) describe the "new breed" of employee as operating out of a
value system quite different from that underlying the traditional management orientation.
Recently, Friedlander (6) has suggested that two sources of tension experienced by an employee are (a) the incompatibility between his life
style orientation and the structures and processes characterizing the organization and (b) the incompatibility between his life style orientation
and that of other organizational members.
Friedlander (5) describes life style as encompassing the values, beliefs,
and perspectives of the individual. Three major life style dimensions have
been identified as Formalistic (F), Sociocentric (S) and Personalistic (P).
The F dimension reflects a value system which indicates that an individual's actions should be guided by directives from formal authorities;that
control over one's behavior should derive from rules, regulations, policies,
and procedures established by authorities. The S dimension places a high
value on close interpersonal relationships, with mutually derived and accepted group norms serving as the basis of control over one's behavior. The
P dimension reflects the belief that an individual's actions should be guided
by his own experience and feelings. This dimension places a high value on
personal freedom and a sense of individual responsibility for one's actions.
Paralleling the three life style dimensions are three organization structure
dimensions-Bureaucratic (Bur), Collaborative (Coll), and Coordinative
(Coor).
The Bur dimension is characterized by a detailed list of rules, policies,
and regulations. Authority is vested in hierarchical position. Decisions are
made at the top and implemented below. Communication mostly is downward, and disputes are settled by the leader or by organizational policy.
The Coll dimension is characterized by a group or team orientation. Authority is vested in the standards and norms developed by the group. Decisions are made by the group. Communication mostly is lateral among group
members, and conflict is resolved by group consensus. The Coor dimension
can be described as a temporary system within which two or more people
come together because they share some common cause, concern, or purpose
and stay together while they share it. Each individual decides what he
wants to do and directs himself toward that end. Communication largely is
within each individual in terms of his ideas, reactions and feelings, and
progress toward goal achievement. Conflict between members is dealt with
openly and resolved by the persons involved.
This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1975

Volume 18, Number 2

315

It is hypothesized that if tension results from the incompatibility between

an employee's life style orientation and work group structure and from the
incompatibility between his life style orientation and the orientations of
other organizational members, this tension could affect the employee's satisfaction with various job dimensions. The three dimensions of the job with
which the present study is concerned are satisfactions with the work, with
co-workers, and with supervision (21).
The present study tests the following hypotheses:
1. Employee life style-work group structurecompatibility is significantly
related to satisfaction with the work.
2. The compatibility between the life styles of an employee and his coworkers is significantly related to satisfaction with co-workers.
3. The compatibility between the life styles of an employee and his
supervisor is significantly related to satisfaction with supervision.
METHOD

Subjects

The subjects were 113 engineers and 21 project team leaders employed
by two large manufacturing organizations in the Midwest. Ten of the teams
had five engineers, seven teams had six, and four had seven engineers. All
of the subjects had at least a B.S. degree in engineering. The engineers
ranged in age from 22 to 48 years (mean = 29.7, s.d. = 7.2) and had been
6.7 years,
with their organizations from 7 months to 10 years (mean
55 years
34
to
s.d.
4.1). The project leaders ranged in age from
(mean = 41.6, s.d. =5.5), in organizational tenure from 3 to 11 years
(mean = 5.7, s.d. = 3.1), and in supervisory tenure from 1 to 7 years
(mean - 3.4, s.d. = 2.1).
Measures

Life style orientation and work group structure were measured by the
Life Style Orientation Questionnaire (LSOQ) and Organization Structure
Questionnaire (OSQ), respectively (6). The LSOQ and OSQ each consists
of 24 items, 8 items measuring each of the three life style (F,S,P) and
organization structure (Bur, Coll, Coor) dimensions, respectively, in a
multiple-choice format. The LSOQ instructs the individual to indicate the
extent to which each item representshis attitudes; the OSQ instructs him to
indicate the extent to which each item describes the structures and processes
characterizing his work group. The five alternative responses to the items
on both measures are weighted: 1-not at all; 2-to a small extent; 3to a moderate extent; 4-to a large extent; 5-completely. Each LSOQ
and OSQ dimension has a maximum score of 40.
Satisfactions with work, co-workers, and supervision were measured by
the Job Description Index (JDI) (21). For each area the individual was
instructed to indicate whether the adjectives or short phrases listed apply to
This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

316

Academy of Management Journal

June

his work situation by placing a "Y" beside the item if it applies, an "N"
if it does not, and a "?" if he cannot decide. Each of the areas has a maximum score of 54.
Procedure
The LSOQ, OSQ, and JDI were administered to the subjects during
working hours. The subjects were told that their responses on the questionnaires would be kept confidential and used for research purposes only.
The questionnaires were coded in order to determine superior-subordinate
and subordinate-co-worker pairs within a group.
Life style-work group structure compatibility scores for each subordinate (sub) were determined by taking the absolute difference between his
LSOQ and OSQ dimension scores. The following scores were generated:
F sub Bur sub
F-Bur compatibility =
S
S-Coll compatibility
I sub-- Coll sub
Coor sub
P sub P-Coor compatibility =
Life style compatibility scores for subordinate-co-worker (co) pairs
were determined for each subordinate by averaging the absolute differences
between the LSOQ dimension scores for a subordinate and all of his coworkers. The following compatibility scores were generated:
sub-co F compatibility

-= I

F sub -

F co

number of co
sub-co S compatibility =

[ S sub -

S co

number of co
sub-co P compatibility

| P sub -

P co

number of co
Finally, life style compatibility scores were determined for each superior
(sup) - subordinate (sub) pair by taking the absolute differences between
their LSOQ dimension scores. The following compatibility scores were
generated:
sup sup sup -

sub F compatibility sub S compatibility =|

sub P compatibility =

Fsup -Fsub
S sup - S sub
P sup - P sub

Each team or group was used as a unit of analysis. The above LSOQ and
OSQ dimensions and compatibility scores for each subordinate were averaged for all subordinatesin each group. The mean subordinate-co-worker
LSOQ dimension compatibilities were determined by averaging the mean
compatibility scores for all the subordinates in the group.
RESULTS

The means and standard deviations for the life style, work group structure, compatibility, and JDI variables are presented in Table 1. A compariThis content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

317

Volume 18, Number 2

1975

TABLE 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Life Style, Work Group Structure,
Compatibility, and JDI Variables (N = 21)
Variables
Subordinates'Life Style (sub)
Formalistic (F sub)
Sociocentric (S sub)
Personalistic(P sub)
Work Group Structure
Bureaucratic(Bur)
Collaborative (Coll)
Coordinative (Coor)
Life Style-WorkGroup
StructureCompatibility
F sub-Bur
S sub- Coil
P sub-Coor
Subordinate-Co-Worker (co)
Life Style Compatibility
sub-co F
sub-co S
sub-co P
Superior(sup)-Subordinate
Life Style Compatibility
sup-subF
sup-subS
sup-subP
JDI Dimensions
Work
Co-Workers
Supervisors

Mean

StandardDeviation

30.29
24.14
30.19

4.96
4.20
5.38

29.95
22.71
26.67

2.25
2.31
4.08

5.52
5.38
6.05

2.69
2.80
3.20

3.81
3.86
3.67

1.83
1.77
1.59

3.24
3.67
3.81

1.51
1.35
1.69

37.57
41.57
42.29

12.11
8.99
9.30

son of the mean life style dimension scores for the present sample with a
sample of 180 employees in technical occupations (6) indicated similar
mean sociocentric and personalistic scores, but the present sample tended
to be higher on the mean formalistic score. The means for the three JDI
scales were quite similar to those reported for large samples of male employees (21). No norms were available for comparison of the mean scores
for the remaining variables in Table 1.
The correlation coefficients (r) for relationships between each of the
three JDI dimensions and the life style, work group structure, and compatibility variables are given in Table 2. The table indicates that satisfaction
with work had a significant negative r with the S life style dimension (r
.563, p <.01). All three structure dimensions had significant rs with work;
Bur (r = .484, p <.05), Coll (r = -.452, p <.05), and Coor (r = .592,
p <.01). The comparability variables, P-Coor (r = -.831, p <.01) and
sub-co F (r = -.525, p <.05), both had significant negatives rs with
work. These negative rs should be interpreted as positive relationships since
the compatibility scores were difference scores.
Satisfaction with co-workers was found to have significant rs with S (r =
.546, p <.01) and Coll (r = .491, p <.05). In addition, it had significant
This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

318

June

Academy of Management Journal

TABLE 2
Correlations Between JDI Dimensions of Work, Co-Workers, Supervision
and Life Style, Work-Group Structureand Compatibility Variables (N - 21)
JDI Dimensions
Variables
Subordinates' Life Style (sub)

Formalistic (F sub)

Sociocentric (S sub)

Co-Workers

.296

.049

-.027

.546**

-.064

-.563'*

Personalistic(P sub)

-.122

Work Group Structure

Bureaucratic(Bur)

.484*

Collaborative (Coll)

-.452*

Coordinative(Coor)

.592**

Life Style-Work Group

Structure Compatibility
F sub-Bur

--.408

S sub-Coll
P sub-Coor
Subordinate-Co-Worker
Life Style Compatibility
sub-co F

Work

.291
-.392
.491*

-.123
.078

-.104
-.831*:

-.063
.361

-.525'

-.682**

Supervision

.142
.235
.306

.166
-.428*

.067
.049

(co)

sub-co S
sub-co P
Superior (sup)-Subordinate
Life Style Compatibility
sup-sub F
sup-sub S

.139
.275

-.695**
-.702**

.087
.045

-.143
.351

-.051

-.321
.012
-.788**
-.153

.020
-.137
sup-sub P
-.818**
Note: -r involving a compatibility variable should be interpreted as a positive relationship since it is a differencescore.
*p < .05
*: p < .01

positive rs with all three subordinate-co-worker life style compatibility

measures, sub-co F (r = -.682, p <.01), sub-co S (r = -.695, p <.01),

and sub-coP (r =--.702, p <.01).

Satisfaction with supervision had a significant r with the F-Bur life

style-work group structure compatibility dimension (r = -.428, p <.05).
It also had significant rs with two of the superior-subordinate life style
compatibility dimensions, sup-sub F (r =
.788, p <.01 and sup-sub

P (r

-.818,

p <.01).

Although the correlation coefficients indicate strength and significance

in the relationships between the satisfaction and independent variables of
life style, structure, and compatibility, control for the intercorrelations
among the independent variables is needed. To this end, stepwise regressions were run featuring each of the satisfaction areas in turn as a criterion
variable, with all the life style, structure, and compatibility variables as
potential predictors considered for inclusion in the regression equation.
The results of the stepwise regressions of the three satisfaction areas may
be seen in Table 3. The equations derived represent relationships based on
only those predictor variables whose regression coefficient was significantly
different from zero at the .05 level by t-test. For the criterion variable
This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1975

319

Volume 18, Number 2

TABLE 3
Coefficients and Standard Errors for Regressions of JDI
Dimensions of Work, Co-Worker and Supervision (N - 21)
R2 and Predictor
Variables a
R2

Constant

JDI Dimensions
Work
.757

.751

.820

47.926

48.756

-3.391

sub-co S

(.210)
-2.216

sub-co P
S
sup-sub P

Supervision

50.812

P-Coor

sub-co F

Co-Workers

(.414)

-2.107
(.420)

-1.491
(.546)

-1.358
(.601)
.944
(.353)

-2.504
(.313)
-1.216

F-Bur

(.313)
a Only those variables whose regression coefficient was significantly different from zero
at the .05 level by t-test.

satisfaction with work, P-Coor, sub-co S and sub-co F were entered.

For satisfaction with co-workers, sub-co S, sub-co P, and S were entered.
Finally, for satisfaction with supervision, sup-sub P and F-Bur were entered. Sub-co S was the only variable that appeared in two equations,
work and co-workers.
A subordinate's satisfaction with his work can be accounted for in large
part (R = .870) from a knowledge of how compatible his personalistic
values are with the degree of coordinativeness in his work group and how
compatible he and his co-workers are in terms of their sociocentric and
formalistic scores. The negative regression coefficients for these three
variables indicate the more compatibility, the higher the satisfaction with
work. There appears to be some support for the hypothesis that satisfaction
with work is related to life style-work group structure compatibility.
In terms of satisfaction with co-workers, a large part (R - .866) can be
explained from a knowledge of the subordinate's sociocentric life style dimension score and his compatibility with his co-workers in terms of their
sociocentric and personalistic value scores. Thus, the higher the subordinate's sociocentric score and the more compatibility between his and his
co-workers' sociocentric and personalistic dimension scores, the more
satisfied he will be with his co-workers. There is support for the hypothesis
that satisfaction with co-workers is related to compatibility between the
subordinate's and his co-workers' life style scores.
Finally, a considerable part of the variance (R = .905) in satisfaction
with supervision can be accounted for by the compatibility between a subordinate and his superior in terms of their personalistic scores and the
compatibility between the bureaucratic nature of the work group and the
This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

320

Academy of Management Journal

June

subordinate's formalistic value score. There is some support for the hypothesis that satisfaction with supervisionis related to compatibility between
the subordinate'sand his superior'slife style scores.
DISCUSSION

The findings of this study have implications for increasing an individual's

satisfaction with his work, his co-workers, and his supervision. The
generalizability of the findings will be limited by the fact that the sample
was composed entirely of engineers.
In order to better interpret the results of the study, a brief description of
the subjects' work situation is given. The subjects were members of project
teams in which each member was assigned specific tasks. Although each
member was responsible for his specific tasks, he was also expected to link
his part of the project to other team members'tasks. Therefore, the nature of
the work required both individual and team effort.
The results of the study indicated that satisfaction with the work was
highest when the degree of coordinativeness was compatible with the personalistic value orientation of the team members. It should be noted that
it is the relationship between the Coor and P dimension that is important,
not the absolute nature of the Coor dimension. This finding is consistent
with earlier findings relating bureaucratic-authoritarianismcongruence to
motivation (14) and positive job attitudes (23). The present sample had a
mean P score of 30.2, which is interpreted as representing a high value
placed on this dimension. Therefore, in general, engineers tend to need a
work group structure that is high on the Coor dimension. This seems
reasonable since a portion of their work involves individual effort and their
work group environment should allow them the freedom they need to accomplish their tasks.
Satisfaction with work also was found to be highest when members of the
team were compatible in terms of their S and F dimension scores. If this
finding is related to the nature of the subject's task, specifically the requirement that members of the team must relate their activity to that of other
members, the S dimension compatibility seems reasonable. The mean S score
for the sample was 24.1, which reflects a moderate valuing of interaction and
group oriented activity. The presence of the sub-co F dimension compatibility may relate to the structured,objective, rational nature of an engineering
task. In addition, since most of the work involves working on a specifically
assigned area, respect for territorial boundaries would seem to be an important factor. The F dimension places a high value on structure, rules,
working procedures,and order in general. The mean F score was 30.3, which
reflects a high valuing of this dimension.
The findings related to satisfaction with co-workers suggest that in
general the higher the member's S score, the more satisfaction with coworkers he is likely to report. The co-worker satisfaction is even higher if
all share the same S value level. In addition, co-worker satisfaction seems
to be high when there is compatibility in terms of the P dimension, the
This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1975

Volume 18, Number 2

321

value placed on individuality and personal freedom. The relationship between S and P compatibility and satisfaction with co-workers is consistent
with previous studies (10, 19, 24). The importance of the S dimension in
satisfaction with co-worker may be attributedto the high values this dimension places on close relationshipswith colleagues, collaboration, and a team
or group orientation. Although interaction and collaboration with coworkers is important, agreement as to a certain degree of independence and
freedom is also an important ingredient for satisfaction with co-workers.
Satisfaction with supervision seems to be highest when a subordinate is
receiving as much direction as he feels he needs to perform his task. It
appears that this F-Bur compatibility is attributed to one's superior. Since
the superior is a strong factor in determining the structure of the work
group, a subordinate's satisfaction with him is influenced by how comfortable he feels in terms of the amount of direction the superior gives
compared to the amount the subordinate feels he needs. Satisfaction with
supervision was also found to be associated with agreement as to the value
the superior and subordinate place on freedom and independence. This is
consistent with previous studies (13, 15, 17, 24). This agreement may have
led to the subordinate'sability to experience the degree of personal responsibility and self-reliance he desired.
The discussion thus far clearly suggests that compatibilities between the
individual's life style and his work group structure, among co-workers, and
between superiors and subordinates are positively related to various job
satisfaction dimensions. Several studies (8, 20) support the general
hypothesis that homogeneous groups with regard to personality profiles
tend to be more satisfied with their group members than heterogeneous
groups. It should be pointed out, however, that heterogeneity of group membership has been found to be positively related to problem solving effectiveness (11, 12). Future research is needed to investigate the relationships
between the types of compatibilities used in the present study and criteria
such as group problem solving effectiveness.
Based on the present data, it appears that if an organization has as an
objective the maximizing of employees' satisfaction with their work, coworkers, and supervision, it should consider the following:
1. Develop work group structures and processes that reflect the degree
of bureaucraticness and coordinativeness that is compatible with the
members' values on the formalistic and personalistic life style dimensions, respectively.
2. Select employees who place a high value on the sociocentric life style
dimension, or try to increase this dimension through training.
3. Assign members to work groups based on the degree of compatibility
in the formalistic, sociocentric, and personalistic life style dimensions.
4. Assign a supervisor to a work group based on the degree of compatibility between his and the group's personalistic life style dimension.
This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

322

Academy of ManagementJournal

June

REFERENCES
1. Bass, B. M. "Social Behavior and the OrientationInventory: A Review," Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 68 (1967), 260-292.
2. DiMarco, N. "Supervisor-SubordinateLife Style and Interpersonal Need Compatibilities as Determinants of Subordinate'sAttitudes Toward the Supervisor,"Academy
of ManagementJournal,Vol. 17 (1974), 575-578.
3. Finley, L., and T. Pritchett. "Managing the New Breed of Employee," Personnel
Journal,Vol. 52 (1973), 46-50.
4. Flowers, V. S., and C. L. Hughes. "Why Employees Stay," Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 51, No. 4 (1973), 49-51.
5. Friedlander, F. "Congruence in Organization Development," Proceedings of the 31st
Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 1971, pp. 153-161.
6. Friedlander, F. "Generational Lifestyles and Organizational Structures," Department
of Health, Education and Welfare Grant MH20719-01 (Public Health Service, 1971).
7. Friedlander, F., and N. Margulies. "Multiple Impacts of Organization Climate and
Individual Value Systems Upon Job Satisfaction," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 22
(1969), 171-183.
8. Fry, C. L. "Personality and Acquisition Factors in the Development of Coordination
Strategy,"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 2 (1965), 403-407.
9. Hampton, D. R., C. E. Summer, and R. A. Weber. Organizational Behavior and the
Practice of Management(Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1968).
10. Haythorn, W. W. "The Composition of Groups: A Review of the Literature," Acta
Psychologica,Vol. 28 (1968), 97-128.
11. Hoffman, R. L. "Homogeneity of Member Personality and Its Effect on Group Problem-Solving,"Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 58 (1959), 27-32.
12. Hoffman, L. R., and N. R. F. Maier. "Quality and Acceptance of Problem Solutions
by Members of Homogenous and Heterogenous Groups," Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, Vol. 62 (1961), 401-407.
13. Huber, N. A. Superior-SubordinateSimilarity, Performance Evaluation, and Job Satisfaction (Ph.D. dissertation,Wayne State University, 1970).
14. Huse, E. F., and P. S. Price. "The Relationship Between Maturity and Motivation in
Varied Work Groups," Proceedings, 78th Annual Convention, American Psychological

Association, 1970, pp. 587-588.

15. Rychlak, J. "The Similarity, Compatibility, or Incompatibility of Needs in Interpersonal Attraction," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 2 (1965), 334340.
16. Sanford, N. Authoritarianismand Leadership (Philadelphia: Institute for Research in
Human Relations, 1950).
17. Schutz, W. C. FIRO: A Three Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior (New
York: Holt, Rinehart& Winston, 1958).
18. Sells, S. B. "An Interactionist Looks at the Environment," American Psychologist,
Vol. 18 (1963), 696-702.
19. Shaw, M. E. Group Dynamics-the Psychology of Small Group Behavior (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1971).
20. Smelser, W. T. "Dominance as a Factor in Achievement and Perception in Cooperative Problem Solving Interactions,"Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol.
62 (1961), 535-542.
21. Smith, P. C., L. M. Kendall, and C. L. Hulin. The Measurement of Satisfaction in
Workand Retirement(Chicago:Rand McNally, 1969).
22. Tannenbaum, R., and S. Allport. "Personality Structure and Group Structure:An Interpretive Study of Their Relationship Through an Event-StructureHypothesis," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 53 (1956), 272-280.
23. Vroom, V. Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation (Englewood
Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1960).
24. Winch, R. F., T. Ktsanes, and V. Ktsanes. "Empirical Elaboration of the Theory of
Complementary Needs in Mate-Selection,"Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 55 (1955), 508-513.

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions