tentang gaya hidup

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

http://www.jstor.org

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. 313-322Published by: Academy of ManagementStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/255533Accessed: 02-10-2015 02:48 UTC

REFERENCESLinked 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 [email protected].

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

Life Style, Work Group Structure, Compatibility, and 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-subordinate pairs, and satisfaction with work, co-workers and supervision, respectively, were examined. Life style, life style-group structure, co- worker life style, and superior-subordinate life 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 authoritarianism- bureaucratic work structure congruity 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's value 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-attraction relationship in work groups. Rychlak (15) and Schutz (17) provide support for a relationship between need com-

Nicholas 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


Academy of Management Journal

plementarity and interpersonal attraction in supervisor-subordinate pairs. Huber (13) has indicated that superior-subordinate similarity (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 ex- perienced 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 ac- cepted 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 down- ward, and disputes are settled by the leader or by organizational policy. The Coll dimension is characterized by a group or team orientation. Au- thority is vested in the standards and norms developed by the group. Deci- sions 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.

314 June


Volume 18, Number 2

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 structure compatibility is significantly

related to satisfaction with the work. 2. The compatibility between the life styles of an employee and his co-

workers 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 with their organizations from 7 months to 10 years (mean 6.7 years, s.d. - 4.1). The project leaders ranged in age from 34 to 55 years (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 represents his 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; 3- to 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

1975 315


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-Bur compatibility = F sub - Bur sub S-Coll compatibility I S sub-- Coll sub P-Coor compatibility = P sub - Coor sub

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 co- workers. 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 - sub F compatibility - Fsup -Fsub sup - sub S compatibility =| S sup - S sub sup - sub P compatibility = 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 aver- aged for all subordinates in 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 struc-

ture, compatibility, and JDI variables are presented in Table 1. A compari-


Volume 18, Number 2

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-Work Group Structure Compatibility

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-sub F sup-sub S sup-sub P

JDI Dimensions Work Co-Workers Supervisors

Mean

30.29 24.14 30.19

29.95 22.71 26.67

5.52 5.38 6.05

Standard Deviation

4.96 4.20 5.38

2.25 2.31 4.08

2.69 2.80 3.20

1.83 1.77 1.59

3.81 3.86 3.67

3.24 3.67 3.81

37.57 41.57 42.29

1.51 1.35 1.69

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


TABLE 2

Correlations Between JDI Dimensions of Work, Co-Workers, Supervision and Life Style, Work-Group Structure and Compatibility Variables (N - 21)

JDI Dimensions Variables Work Co-Workers Supervision

Subordinates' Life Style (sub) Formalistic (F sub) .296 .049 -.027 Sociocentric (S sub) -.563'* .546** -.064 Personalistic (P sub) -.122 .291 .142

Work Group Structure Bureaucratic (Bur) .484* -.392 .235 Collaborative (Coll) -.452* .491* .306 Coordinative (Coor) .592** -.123 .166

Life Style-Work Group Structure Compatibility

F sub-Bur --.408 .078 -.428* S sub-Coll -.104 -.063 .067 P sub-Coor -.831*: .361 .049

Subordinate-Co-Worker (co) Life Style Compatibility

sub-co F -.525' -.682** -.051 sub-co S .139 -.695** -.321 sub-co P .275 -.702** .012

Superior (sup)-Subordinate Life Style Compatibility

sup-sub F .087 -.143 -.788** sup-sub S .045 .351 -.153 sup-sub P .020 -.137 -.818**

Note: -r involving a compatibility variable should be interpreted as a positive relationship since it is a difference score.

*p < .05 *: p < .01

positive rs with all three subordinate-co-worker life style compatibility measures, sub-co F (r = -.682, p

Volume 18, Number 2

TABLE 3

Coefficients and Standard Errors for Regressions of JDI Dimensions of Work, Co-Worker and Supervision (N - 21)

JDI Dimensions R2 and Predictor

Variables a Work Co-Workers Supervision R2 .757 .751 .820 Constant 50.812 47.926 48.756 P-Coor -3.391

(.210) sub-co S -2.216 -1.491

(.414) (.546) sub-co F -2.107

(.420) sub-co P -1.358

(.601) S .944

(.353) sup-sub P -2.504 (.313) F-Bur -1.216

(.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

319 1975



subordinate's formalistic value score. There is some support for the hypothesis that satisfaction with supervision is related to compatibility between the subordinate's and his superior's life 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-authoritarianism congruence 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 ac- complish 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 require- ment 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 co- workers 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

320 June


Volume 18, Number 2

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 attributed to the high values this dimension places on close relationships with colleagues, collaboration, and a team or group orientation. Although interaction and collaboration with co- workers 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 com- fortable 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's ability 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 mem- bership 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, co- workers, 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.

1975 321



REFERENCES

1. Bass, B. M. "Social Behavior and the Orientation Inventory: A Review," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 68 (1967), 260-292.

2. DiMarco, N. "Supervisor-Subordinate Life Style and Interpersonal Need Compati- bilities as Determinants of Subordinate's Attitudes Toward the Supervisor," Academy of Management Journal, 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 Prob- lem-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-Subordinate Similarity, Performance Evaluation, and Job Satis- faction (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 Interper- sonal Attraction," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 2 (1965), 334- 340.

16. Sanford, N. Authoritarianism and 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 Coopera- tive 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 Work and Retirement (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969).

22. Tannenbaum, R., and S. Allport. "Personality Structure and Group Structure: An In- terpretive Study of Their Relationship Through an Event-Structure Hypothesis," Jour- nal 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 Psychol- ogy, Vol. 55 (1955), 508-513.

322 June


Article Contentsp. 313p. 314p. 315p. 316p. 317p. 318p. 319p. 320p. 321p. 322

Issue Table of ContentsAcademy of Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, Jun., 1975Front Matter [pp. 201 - 204]Organizational Self-Perception and Environmental Image Measurement [pp. 205 - 357]Organizational Effectiveness and Management's Public Values: A Canonical Analysis [pp. 224 - 241]The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership: A Partial Test and Suggested Refinement [pp. 242 - 252]Analysis of Relationships among Leader Behavior, Subordinate Job Performance and Satisfaction: A Path-Goal Approach [pp. 253 - 262]Manpower Obsolescence: A New Definition and Empirical Investigation of Personal Variables [pp. 263 - 275]Management Education: An Interdisciplinary Problem Solving Approach [pp. 276 - 287]The Interaction of Technological Process and Perceived Organizational Climate in Norwegian Firms [pp. 288 - 299]Job Involvement, Values, Personal Background, Participation in Decision Making, and Job Attitudes [pp. 300 - 312]Life Style, Work Group Structure, Compatibility, and Job Satisfaction [pp. 313 - 322]The Quest for Relevance in Management Education: Some Second Thoughts and Undesired Consequences [pp. 323 - 333]Comparative Management and Organization Theory: A Marriage Needed [pp. 334 - 344]Reemergence of Bogdanov's Tektology in Soviet Studies of Organization [pp. 345 - 357]Research NotesThe Harmonogram of Karol Adamiecki [pp. 358 - 364]Manager's Influence on Subordinates' Thinking about Safety [pp. 364 - 369]Gullibility's Travels [pp. 370 - 374]Manager-Consultant Conflict: An Experiential Approach [pp. 375 - 381]The Use of Semantic Differential Scales in Studying the Innovation Boundary [pp. 381 - 388]Boundary-Spanning Roles in a Research and Development Organization: An Empirical Investigation [pp. 388 - 393]Statistical Problems of Contingency Models in Organizational Behavior [pp. 393 - 397]Leadership Style and Leader Needs [pp. 397 - 402]Education in Information Systems: What Does Industry Expect from the University? [pp. 402 - 407]An Evaluation of Management Curricula in the American Association of Collegiate Schools of Business [pp. 407 - 411]Institutional Affiliation of Contributors to the Academy of Management Journal [pp. 411 - 416]

Back Matter [pp. 417 - 424]

tentang gaya hidup

Documents