Download Sampling

National Organizations Study
Cynthia Kendall
Arthur Heether
Kohei Takahashi
What is the study?
 Structural
Features of Organization.
 Human Resource Practices of
Contemporary Work Settings.
Team of Sociologists
 Peter
Marsden (Harvard University)
Arne Kalleberg (Univ. of North Carolina)
David Knoke (Univ. of Minnesota)
 Issue from the 1980’s of Complex
Organizations and Social Stratification
1950‘s Emergence of Organizational
Analysis in Sociology
Organizations as Instruments
(2) Social or natural systems
Disjuncture between designed formal
structure & the in practice structure of
behavior
(3) Context or Environmental Settings
Technical & Institutional conditions
(1)
Organizational theory and the NOS
(1)
(2)
(3)
Structural Theory
Environmental Influences
Sociology & Institutionalism
Organizations and Inequality
Status Attainment & Social Stratification
Individual attributes
(2) New Structuralist Critics
Social class or labor market sector
(3) Organizations as Central Contexts
generating inequality
Studies grounded at organizational
level rather than structural effects on
individual attainment (Baron &Bielby 1980).
(1)
Organizations and Stratification Research
Designs
Surveys of employees within single
organizations
2) Analysis of personnel records
3) Large-scale surveys in geographical areas
Work organizations and work attitudes
4) Employer/Employee survey
Development of modern personnel practices
5) Establishment and Workers
Gender and racial segregation in employment
NOS used similar design with national sampling
frame studying personnel practices and
employment conditions
1)
Emergence of National
Organizations Survey
1)
2)
3)
Mid 1980's advancement in quality of
organizational data
National Science Foundation
Employment and Training
Administration of the US Department
of Labor
Methodology of National
Organizations Survey
Unit of analysis
Complexity within organizational
research
Work establishments and NOS
Multi-level of analysis
Establishment-Job/OccupationIndividual
Methodology of NOS I
Sampling
Before 1980's organizational data via convenience
sampling Literature based on “small samples of
opportunity...Careful observation of large samples,
drawn from theoretically meaningful populations is
uncommon.” (Freeman, J.H. 1986)
Non-probability sampling designs
Case studies and non-probability samples
Dense sampling
Generalizations extending beyond specific type
Fortune 500 sample
1)
Methodology of NOS II
(2) Sampling and Population
Medium and small-scale workplaces
Defining the limits of generalization
Replicate data from “dense” samples in
multiple settings
Analyze stability or variance across settings
Span organizational variance in environment
Methodology of NOS II
(3) NOS sampling approach
Sample survey research on individuals
Probability sampling plan
All US workplaces in 1991
Data on typical US workers
Design risks: Do findings hold for all types of organizations
rather than only for specific types?
Overcome risk: Separate analysis of variance within
different types of organizations.
Lack of sampling frame in US work establishments
NOS Sampling Design
1)Multiplicity sampling and Hyper network
sampling
Individuals and work units
Individuals and random samples
Individual random sample and random sample
of employers
2)Organizational context of employment
Probability proportional to size
Implementation of NOS
Sample
1)1991 General Social Survey (GSS)
Topical module on organizations and work
Individual survey and workplace information
1,127 workplaces — 727 completed interviews
for NOS
Telephone and mail questionnaires
(Note: of 727 completed cases, 668 unique
establishments. Also, 55% part of multi-site
organizations, 45% independent).
Informants
1)Head of personnel department
2)Person responsible for the hiring
Focus of NOS: Human resource
practices
Questionnaire Design and
Content
1)Multiple occupation design
2)NOS Questionnaire
Basic descriptive data
Workplace composition, structure and settings
Core occupation–central work role. Occupation
held by GSS respondent nominating the
establishment for NOS
“Managers and other administrators”
Supplementary Data
1) US Census
 Work establishment industry
 NOS Standard Industrial Classification code
 Geographical characteristics of workplace
operations
 Local labor markets and local unemployment
rates
Research based on the National
Organizations Study
Organizational Structures
1)
Conventional Bureaucracy
Size, structural complexity and administrative intensity
Vertical and horizontal complexity
Departmentalization (Blau 1972)
Organizational structure (Maersden et al., 1994)
Reflects market scope, sector and union presence
Structural types
Absence of formalization (Bothner 1998)
Research based on the National
Organizations Study
Organizational Structures II
2) High Performance Work Organizations
 Characteristics (Kalleberg and Moody 1994)
 Identification
 Large, manufacturing, unionized, multi-site
 NOS and “post-Fordist” trends (Handel 1998)
Research based on the National
Organizations Study
Organizational Structures III
3) Firm-Internal Labor Markets
Promotion ladders
Human resource practices
Procedural due process (Kallenberg et al., 1996b)
Public sector organizations (Sutton et al.,1994)
Grievance procedures
Unionized settings, multi-site firms, high level of
centralization and formalization (Marsden et al.,
1994a)
Staffing Patterns
Personnel distributions across various
dimensions I
1) Occupational Segregation
Sex segregation patterns
Sex segregation and wages
Promotion opportunities
Managerial gender integration (Reskin
and McBrier 2000)
Staffing Patterns
Personnel distributions across various
dimensions II
2) Contingent Employment
Organization flexibility
Uncertain and tenuous labor
Part-time, temporary, contract employment
and subcontracting arrangements.
40% of US work establishments in 1991
Clerical (female)
Organizational Performance I
Structure +Environment=Performance
Complicated Indicator for interpretation
Due to wide variety of sampled establishment;
difficulty in objective measurements;
differentiating sectors.
Organizational Performance II

Benchmarks
Subjective Performance Indicators
NOS interview– compares recent performance of
their establishment to others doing same kind of
work. Covered 11 areas of performance.
Subjective Performance and Organizational
Structures
High-performance organizations (Kalleberg and Moody
1994), based on structure and human resource
practice,
Recruitment and Selection Practices

Job-Matching Processes
Recruitment methods to identify applicants
Selection methods in screening applicants
Marsden (1994a) “extensive search”–newspaper ads
and referrals
Marsden and Gorman (1998) difference in reliance on
referrals

Business and professional referrals
Referrals from employees (mostly nonmanagerial)
Referrals in unionized workplaces
Training I
Organizational training programs
Individual careers
Compete in “high quality” niches
Economy and rewarding jobs
NOS Focus on training
Formal training programs
Do any types of formal training exist?
Budgets and number of employees covered
Modes of training
Internal staff or outside vendors
What was employers reason for providing training?
Training II
Training paradigms
Supplemental development (Knocke and Kallenberg 94)
Principal -agent theory
Establishment environments
Unions, white and male, complex, formal
Highly formalized, more training capital
Althauser and Kallenberg (1981)
Relationship between training and firm-internal labor markets.
Exists in complex, competitive environments.
Training and labor scarcity
Training as organizational phenomenon
Organizational features as training indicator
White and blue collar training
Unionization and training
Compensation and Benefits I
1) Earnings 1
Complexity/differentiation & firm-internal labor
markets
Government jobs higher than private sector
Job level properties
Training Authority Prestige
Individual properties
Tenure Education Sex
Sex composition (Huffman and Velasco 1997)
Compensation and Benefits II
Earnings 2
Sex composition (Huffman and Velasco 1997)
1% increase in percentage of women on job=
Minus $180 annual earnings (core and
managerial/administrative occupations )
Job ladders
Women’s Work (Huffman et al., 1996)
Merge Census Bureau and NOS
Occupational-level sex composition (Census)
Job-level sex composition (NOS)
More predictive of wage levels
(1)
Compensation and Benefits III
(2) Benefits
Non-wage compensation (Knoke 1994)
Personal benefits
Familial benefits
Participant programs
Three benefit hypothesis
Larger establishments/ more training
Benefits as response to employee demands
Attract and retain benefits
Public, non-profit and private sector benefits
Public- personal and familial
Private- profit sharing
(2) Benefits
Kallenberg and Van Buren (1996)
Individual analysis of NOS/GSS data
Six personal benefitsmedical and dental coverage, life
insurance, sick leave, maternity
leave and pension plans
Establishment size and sectorial factors
Promotions




Firm size and employees’ perceived likelihood of
promotion
Public sector and firm/internal labor market–Likelihood of
promotion (Kalleberg and Van Buren 1996).
Sex differences in promotions (Kalleberg and Reskin
1995)
Race differences in promotion experiences (Baldi &
McBrier (1977)
“Sponsored system of mobility based on informal
ties with managers” (whites) “Contest system” based on
education (blacks)
Conclusion: male, full-time, experience with the firm,
working for private-sector firm with personnel department
lead to positive promotion experiences
Intrinsic Rewards

Authority, Autonomy, and Commitment
Huffman (1995) examines gender
differences in supervisory authority
 Work autonomy lower in large firms
“small is beautiful” if a worker desires to
exercise autonomy and control work
(Kalleberg and Van Buren 1996)
 Firm-internal labor markets and
organizational commitment (Kalleberg and
Mastekaasa 1994)
Summary and Discussion I

Objectives of NOS
Large scale database on US
establishments and their employment
practices
Issues of gender and employment (related
research)
Discussion point: what objectives were the
NOS research team unable to achieve and
how did they restructure their design ?
Summary and Discussion II

Findings of NOS I
1)Establishment and firm size
Structural Complexity– differentiation,
decentralization, formalization
High Performance settings– internal labor
markets and institutions ensuring procedural due
process
Includes, sex balanced jobs and non-traditional
forms of employment. In contrast to many positive
benefits workers have less job autonomy
Summary and Discussion III

Findings Of NOS II
(2)Institutional differences
Public and for- profit spheres
(3)Unionization impact on employment practices
Benefit members and increase workplace
equity Role of unions in the absence of
internal labor markets as training mechanisms
Low level of unions in US
Summary and Discussion IV

Findings of NOS III
(4) Internal labor markets and promotion ladders
Lower degrees of self-direction
Greater degree of extrinsic rewards
Discussion point: what has been the impact on union
membership from the growth of high performance
establishments?
Summary and Discussion V
NOS Study Design
Captured complexity of organization
Representativeness and transparency (Marginson 1998)
Use of probability sampling
Replication of findings
Secondary analysis
Flexibility of survey design
Key to NOS design
Household survey of individual workers
Obtain establishment sample from workers
Link observations on establishments to those of employees
Described as “bottom up” sampling method
individual information/one employee (NOS)
Muti-level employee surveys
Would involve more separation of establishment level
and individual-level phenomenon
Longitudinal study
Trend analysis and panel designs
Summary and Discussion VI
Survey problems
Guarding of financial information
Occupational sex composition
Diversity of workplaces covered