Laboratory training and supervisory attitudes.

Abstract

Previous smdies have reported significant changes in supervisory atrimdes as a result of laboratory training. Carron ( 1 9 6 4 ) , utilizing the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire and the Sanford F scale, reported significant changes toward democratic attitudes among supervisors as long as 17 mo. after training in human relations. Gassner, Gold, and Snadowsky (1964) also found increased understanding of and better attitudes toward democratic leadership following such training. This srudy was conducted to evaluate the changes in attitude toward supervisory practices d u r ~ n g a management development rraining program involving a 1-wk. T-Group. Procedure.-Twenry employees of The Dow Chemical Company completed a Special Training Program designed to familiarize them with management principles. All of the employees were male college graduates chosen for their supervisory potential. None were in a supervisory position at the time of training. The Special Training Program consisted of a 1-wk. T-Group and seven 1-day lectures by management specialists spaced 1 wk. apart. The Supervisory Index (SI; Science Research Associates) and the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (LOQ; Science Research Associates) were administered to all trainees before and after the entire training program. Differences berween scores on each subtest were tested with the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test. Results.-Sum of the ranks (Tc) and critical values of T on SI Management, Supervision, Employees, and Human Relations Practices, and on LOQ Srrucmre and Consideration were 68.6 ( T = 4 0 ) , 89.5 ( T = 5 9 ) , 45.2 ( T = 3 5 ) , 33.5' (T = 3 5 ) , 54.5 (T 5 52) and 88.5 ( T = 6 6 ) , respectively. Only one subtest from either scale showed a significant difference. Human Relations Pracdces was higher on the Supervisory Index after training. This is hardly encouraging. One significant change among six subtests could result from chance factors. N o change in supervisory behavior was detected by either index, thus laboratory rraining evidently does not produce changes in a trainee's attitudinal structure which are detectable by these instruments. These results contradict previous studies. It seems possible that laboratory training does not change supervisory attitudes, or that the measuring instruments are not adequate for detecting the type of change which occurs. Also, management lectures may have interfered with results of the T-Group, but we feel it is more likely that the content of the lecmres reinforced the purposes of laboratory training. The T-Groups were conducted by experienced trainers, so it is also difficult to criticize the actual laboratory procedures. Further study is in order.