Characteristics

of Employee
Transportation
Coordinators
Center for
Urban Transportation Research
July 2004

Prepared by
Nancy L. Brown, MBA, CAE
Designs in Development, Inc.
In collaboration with
Harold T. Welch, Ph.D.
High Performance Coaching
Post Office Box 4460 Seminole, Florida, 33775 (727) 398-5997
Fax (727) 397-6497 designdev@aol.com www.ephilanthropy.com
For Dr. Welch: hwelch@hpcoach.com office (813) 966-7333

Report on Characteristics of Employee Transportation

Coordinators

Table of Contents
Overview of Study ..............................................................................................................4
Overview of Instruments......................................................................................................5
Application and Findings...................................................................................................12
Summary of Conclusions...................................................................................................21
Recommendations..............................................................................................................22
Researcher Credentials.......................................................................................................24
Validity and Reliability of Instruments..............................................................................26

Attachments
Attachment A: Summary of Demographics Collected from POC ...................................31
Attachment B: Profile of Organizational Characteristics (POC)
Summary of Questions.......................................................................................33
Attachment C: Overview of CVAT Terms......................................................................35
Attachment D: Table Addenda.........................................................................................36

Attachment D: Table Addenda detail, continued

Table 1:
Overview of FIRO-B Responses (n=15) ...........................................................................37
Table 2:
Comparison of FIRO-B Responses by Program Performance ..........................................38
Table 3:
Comparison of FIRO-B Responses by ETC-Supervisor Position .....................................40
Table 4:
Comparison of This study With Other Studies Using FIRO-B .........................................41
Table 5:
Overview of POC Responses (n=14).................................................................................42
Table 6:
Difference between high/low performing program in how the work unit is seen now .....44
Table 7:
Difference between high/low performing program in how the work unit should be.........46
Table 8:
Difference between how ETCs and their supervisors perceive their work unit to be
Now....................................................................................................................................48
Table 9:
Difference between how ETCs and their supervisors think their work unit should be .....49
Table 10:
Overview of responses to demographic questions.............................................................51
Table 11:
Overview of CVAT Part 1 Responses on Personal Values (n=14) ...................................52
Table 12:
Overview of CVAT Part 2 Responses on Work Unit Culture (n=14) ...............................54
Table 13:
Difference between ETC and Supervisor perception of personal values ..........................56
Table 14:
Difference between ETC and Supervisor perception of work unit culture........................58
Table 15:
Difference in perception of personal values between high and low performing
Programs ........................................................................................................................... 60
Table 16:
Difference in perception of work unit culture between high and low performing
Programs ............................................................................................................................62
Table 17:
Chart III from DiSC -- the official report ......................................................................64
Table 18
Chart I and II from DiSC -- anecdotal observations ..........................................................65

Overview of Study
The goal of this study was to determine if differences in effectiveness of work site trip reduction
programs (TRP) can be explained by the characteristics of Employee Transportation
Coordinators (ETCs) and the relationships they have with their supervisors.
The process used for this investigation includes a study of the characteristics of organizations
with the six most successful TRP participation metrics in comparison with the six organizations
with the least successful TRP participation metrics. Also, by comparing personal characteristics
of ETCs and their supervisors from the six most successful programs with personal
characteristics of ETCs and their supervisors from the six least successful programs, we intend to
indicate personal characteristics that may contribute to TRP effectiveness.
The study was undertaken to provide a statistical foundation to refute two null hypotheses:
1. There is no significant difference between selected characteristics of organizations with
highly successful TRP metrics from organizations with low TRP metrics.
2. There is no significant difference between selected individual characteristics of ETCs
from organizations with highly successful TRP metrics and ETCs from organizations
with low TRP metrics.
Collection of data to study organizational or personal characteristics could have been
accomplished by several approaches.
1. Referring to existing data-which documents culture change for organizations and
performance appraisal feedback for individuals. This approach is cost effective and can
be time effective with full cooperation from each participating organization, but comes
with the problem of diverse expressions of collected information. Documentation
regarding culture change will be tailored to each organization and some organizations
will have no culture statement or internal evaluation. Performance appraisal criteria will
normally be consistent within an organization but vary widely between organizations.
Even if organizations share common descriptions the perception of standards of
performance are not consistent between departments, let alone between companies.
2. The on-site observation by a researcher to gather organizational information and multiple
feedback observations in the form of 360-degree tools used to assess characteristics of
each participant. This approach provides optimum consistency of common,
predetermined criteria, but is so expensive and time restrictive that it is only used for the
most demanding or critical applications.
3. Collection of responses to common sets of questions by each participant. The use of selfassessment instruments is time efficient and provides effective data at a reasonable cost.
Self-assessment tools rely on the candor and accuracy of participants and often depend on
the assumption of confidentiality placed on individual feedback. Data from selfassessment instruments reflect opinions of participants and contain individual bias,
baggage, and potential misperceptions of reality. For this reason, representation of an
adequate sample of the defined population is needed.

Overview of Instruments
The self-assessment feedback approach was selected for this study. Instruments were selected
that could be made available on-line, would be relatively easy to administer, would provide data
suitable to build statistical evidence, and that would provoke interest on the part of survey
participants. The instruments included:
DiSC by Inscape Publishing
FIRO-B (Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation Behavior) by Consulting
Psychologist Press administered through SkillsOne
POC (Profile of Organizational Characteristics) based on the work of Dr. Rensis Likert in
The Human Organization, administered by High Performance Coaching
CVAT (Culture and Values Analysis Tool) by Dr. Reid Nelson, administered by High
Performance Coaching.
Participants were contacted by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) with an
overview of the research project, the approximate time to participate, access to website
information, and a commitment of individual confidentiality. Seventy participants were sought;
19 actually participated in the study and 18 completed all or some of the instruments.
DiSC
At its most basic level, DiSC measures four factors of an individual's needs-driven behavior:
Dominance (D) is the DiSC factor that relates to control, power and assertiveness.
Influence (i) relates to an individuals approach to social situations, and an individuals

desire to influence others.

Steadiness (S) is the factor of patience, persistence and thoughtfulness.
Conscientiousness: (C) describes a persons approach to structure and organization.

The instrument allows a person to project his or her perceived needed behavior in a situation
and compares it with the instinctive response, to yield a composite view of the person in the
position. The DiSC is typically used to help individuals determine their own needs-driven
behaviors and learn to adapt their behaviors to the needs of others.
Upon completion of the DiSC instrument by an individual, the data is used to construct three
graphs. A first graph (referred to as Graph I) charts perceived needed behavior in a given job
environment, a second graph (referred to as Graph II) charts the instinctive response and a third
graph (referred to as Graph III) develops a composite view, which is the information sent back to
the person completing the instrument. In responding to the instrument, ETCs were asked to
focus on doing their jobs as an ETC. Supervisors were asked to focus on supervising their
ETC.

DiSC is one of several hundred needs-driven, behavior-based instruments available on the

market. However, it is the only one of the instruments that has been validity- and reliabilitytested successively through several stratified random samples of the US over its forty years of
existence. The language in the instrument has also been adapted, as language utilization has
changed over time. Its original creator, Dr. John Geier, a former professor at the University of
Minnesota, found that Graph I tended to correlate with how people projected their jobs to be,
because of a tendency to think more carefully about how a person most saw their job as
opposed to how they functioned least in the position. He called Graph II the instinctive response
under pressure. Graph III is the combination of the two, representing how a person is probably
functioning in the role at the point at which they complete the instrument.
With the advent of the use of the computer, and with the instrument being taken in an
unsupervised environment, Inscape does not officially claim that the differing charts mean
anything. Anecdotally, however, many long-term administrators like Ms. Brown agree with the
original instrument developer, Dr. John Geier, that Graph I correlates most closely to behaviors
people perceive that they need to emulate within the focus, They also find that Graph II is more
closely aligned with the instinctive response to pressure (and much less likely to change
dramatically over time), and that Graph III provides insight into how well the subject is actually
merging the wanted (projected) behaviors with his or her own more instinctive responses. While
no research proves this fact, the additional graphs provide rich insight into individual persons,
which can be especially helpful with a resulting small sample size such as the one resulting from
this initial study.
There are thirteen possible DiSC Classical Profile Patterns which may more closely describe
an individuals behavior. Participants received a detailed report about their unique behavioral
style. No style is better than another. The information sent included a description of the
persons needs-driven behavioral tendencies. The information also describes the persons
desired environment and - can help the participant discern what he or she can do to be more
effective in the defined situation. For more information about the DiSC instrument refer to the
section Validity and Reliability Regarding Instruments.

FIRO-B (Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation Behavior)

The FIRO-B is specifically concerned with individual interpersonal needs and how these needs
show up in one-to-one relationships, and in groups. The FIRO-B provides insights into issues of
organizational culture and team dynamics. This makes the FIRO-B especially valuable for
leaders and team members.
FIRO-B describes interpersonal behavior in terms of three primary dimensions:
Need for Inclusion, whether one wants to be in or out of a particular group
Need for Control, whether one wants to be up or down (superior or subordinate)
Need for Affection [openness], whether one wants to be close or distant
FIRO-B measures these three dimensions from two perspectives:
Expressed behavior: behavior one feels most comfortable showing to others
Wanted behavior: behavior one wants from others or to be received from others.
The FIRO-B yields six basic scores, including an expressed score for each dimension: inclusion
(Ie), control (Ce), and affection (Ae), and a wanted score for each dimension: inclusion (Iw),
control (Cw), and affection (Aw). In addition, there are total scores for each of the three
dimensions; total inclusion (It), total control (Ct) and total affection (At). There is also a total
expressed behavior score (Te), a total wanted behavior score (Tw), and an overall total-total
score combining both wanted and expressed scores (Tt).
FIRO-B explains how personal needs affect interpersonal relationships. It provides a useful focus
for leadership development, teambuilding, mentoring programs and organizational change. As
applied to this study to assess characteristics that lead to effective or ineffective programs, there
may be clues from contrasted scores of ETCs and their supervisors. An investigation will be
made to discover if there are statistically significant differences between FIRO-B data and the
level of program effectiveness.
The following table is a common arrangement for FIRO-B scores and illustrates abbreviations
used with the data:

Expressed
Wanted
Totals

Inclusion
Ie
Iw
It

Control
Ce
Cw
Ct

Affection
Ae
Aw
At

Totals
Te
Tw
Tt

Abbreviated descriptions associated with FIRO-B scores:

Instrument Scores
Individual cells (Ie, Iw, Ce,
Cw, Ae, Aw)

Low
Score = 0-3
Individual rarely displays
the behaviors.

Total expressed (Te)

Score = 0-9
Not comfortable initiating
social behavior.

Total wanted (Tw)

Score = 0-9
Not comfortable relying
on others for what you
need. Do not expect much
from others.
Score = 0-6
Indicates that individual is
indifferent to satisfying
this need.

Total need (It, Ct, At)

Overall need (Tt)

Medium
Score = 4-6
The behaviors will be a
noticeable characteristic of
the individual but only
some of the time.
Score = 10-18
Vary extent to which
initiates action; depends
on who it is and context.
Score = 10-18
Vary in the extent to
which you are comfortable
being reactive and reliant
on others.
Score = 7-12
Suggests that individual
will characteristically
express or display the
related social behavior to
fulfill this need.

Score = 0-17
Involvement with others
is not a reliable source of
need satisfaction.
Individual tends to need
privacy to do best work.
Considers self an
introvert.

Score = 18-35
Involvement with others is
sometimes a source of
satisfaction, depending on
individuals and context.
May consider self to be
introverted or extraverted,
contingent on the situation.

High
Score = 7-9
The behaviors are
noticeably characteristic of
the individual in most
situations.
Score = 19-27
Enjoy initiating behavior
with others.
Score = 19-27
Rely quite a bit on others
and feel comfortable about
accepting behaviors from
others.
Score = 13-18
Indicates that individual
will consistently pursue
this need by expressing or
eliciting the interpersonal
behaviors related to these
needs.
Score = 36-54
Finds involvement with
others enjoyable and
satisfying. Works best in a
group. Likes to work on
teams and to solve
problems through
discussion. Considers self
to be an extrovert.

Descriptions of scores based on narrative from Introduction to the FIRO-B in Organizations by E. Schnell and A. Hammer, 1993, Consulting
Psychologist Press, Inc.

For more information about the FIRO-B, please refer to the section Validity and Reliability
Regarding Instruments.

POC (Profile of Organizational Characteristics)

In his 1961 book, New Patterns of Management, Rensis Likert identified four prototype
organizations, named Systems I, II, III and IV defined by the degree to which they were open,
participative, and satisfying to work in. These organizational levels are:
System I
System II
System III
System IV

Authoritative
Paternalistic
Consultative
Participative

Dr. Likert further identified management style as the key variable. Dr. Likert was able to
provide evidence that as organizations moved toward System IV4 on this scale, they had lower
costs and higher output than those tending toward System I1.
The POC provides an efficient method to collect workplace perceptions of how the organization
looks to an individual, and how that individual believes it should appear. The processes used by
Dr. Likert included control, influence, decision-making and goal setting. The POC incorporates
six process characteristics that can be observed in an organization. These include Leadership,
Motivation, Communication, Decisions, Goals, and Controls.
The POC collects feedback on the six characteristics in terms of the perspective of how the
organization is seen now and the perspective of how the organization should be. An overall POC
Index is calculated for each perspective and for each characteristic. The POC is most useful
when there are sufficient responses to provide sample data for predictions of a general
population. Is the Appendix B reference still current? Appendix B contains the questions used
for this study and is a reference when investigating the data:
Questions 1, 2, and 3 deal with the organizational characteristic of Leadership; questions 4,
5, and 6 deal with Motivation; questions 7 through 10 collect feedback of organizational
Communication; questions 11 and 12 focus on Decisions; 13 and 14 on Goals; and
questions 15 and 16 on Controls.
For the initial phase of this study, using feedback from ETCs and their supervisors, comments
from POC data will only describe the perceptions of management style from their singular
perspective. This will have value as long as resulting descriptions of these perspectives are
contained within the scope of comparing program leadership perceptions and not confused with
providing projections of existing organizational characteristics. The desire of this study is to
discover POC data with sufficient correlation to program effectiveness data to act as a catalyst
for increased dialogue, vis--vis understanding perceived organizational characteristics that
enhance or support successful trip reduction programs.
For more information about the POC, please refer to the section, Validity and Reliability
Regarding Instruments.

CVAT (Culture and Values Analysis Tool)

Organizational culture is more complex than one survey instrument can hope to address, but the
CVAT provides a solid foundation to begin to recognize important components of an
organizations culture.
Assessing perceptions of what is rewarded and important within an organization provides
insights that can be used to style communications in a way that compliments cultural
characteristics. CVAT consists of two interlocking instruments supported by licensed software.
1) The Personal Value Profile (CVAT Part 1) measures participants perceptions of personal
values (PV).
2) The Aggregate Value Profile (CVAT Part 2) also uses the same dimensions and format but
relates to participants perceptions of work unit values or culture (UC). The CVAT identifies
16 dimensions that fall within four categories. These categories are identified below, with
expanded descriptions in the attachments.

WORK: Effort (A), Time (B), Finish Job (C), Quality (D);
RELATIONS: Affect (E), Empathy (F), Sociability (G), Loyalty (H);
CONTROL: Dominance (I), Status (J), Political (K), Leader (L);
THOUGHT: Abstract (M), Plan/Organize (N), Exposition (O), Flexibility (P).

Data from the administration of Part 1 and Part 2 of the CVAT are used to consult with
executives and others whose personal styles and assumptions of organizational culture may
influence organizational effectiveness and change. Part 1 is focused on the individual and can be
used to illustrate personal values (PV). Part 2 is focused on the individuals perceptions of their
work environment and can be used to illustrate work unit culture (UC).
Within the scope of this study, the CVAT is an effective tool to assess core values of ETCs and
their supervisors, to assess the level of similar and dissimilar values, and to obtain perceptions of
organizational culture. The CVAT software facilitates comparisons of responses and will
statistically match similar responses. We anticipated that responses from incumbents from
organizations with effective programs might be statistically similar to each other and different
from responses from incumbents from organizations with ineffective programs. Regrettably, not
enough participants completed this portion of our battery to provide data to differentiate
characteristics of successful programs from less effective programs.
For more information about the CVAT, please refer to the section Validity and Reliability
Regarding Instruments.
The DiSC and the FIRO-B focus more on the characteristics of the individual, while the POC
and CVAT focus more on the characteristics of the organization for which the individual works.
The combination of these four instruments was selected for this study to provide information that
could be compared to develop an overall profile of the study participants and their perceptions of
their work sites. Finding consistencies (or inconsistencies) among the instrument data uses the
concept of multiple sources of evidence in the development of cases studies.

10

As a trial, we determined that it would be best to utilize several different instruments to see
which provided the greatest insight. It is common in studies of this nature to utilize several
instruments. As stated elsewhere in this document, we found that the willingness of the
participants to actually complete the instruments to be the most limiting factor. Supervisors, in
particular, perhaps because of their many responsibilities, were often unwilling to commit the
time required.

11

Application and Findings

Statistical protocols were set up in anticipation of a minimum of 30 responding work sites, paired
to include a supervisor and an Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) for a total of 60
participants. A web site, hosted by the National Center for Transit Research (NCTR), was
constructed which contained information about the purpose of the study and links to the four
feedback instruments. Each link contained instructions for completing each feedback
instrument. NCTR staff recruited the study participants with contact information for ETCs
provided by the Washington State DOT trip reduction database of participating work sites.
Recruitment included initial phone calls with a follow-up letter that contained detailed
information and an Informed Consent form. Participant recruiters relied upon the ETC to
provide contact information for his or her immediate supervisor. Individuals interested in
participating signed the Informed Consent form and emailed or faxed it back to the recruiter.
Upon sending his or her informed consent, the participant received emails that provided
individual pass codes and information for accessing the link to the feedback instruments. Tollfree telephone conferences were offered to all participants for providing verbal instructions for
accessing and completing the instruments. Participants were provided contact information if
they had any questions or problems.
The study attracted 18 usable responses for DiSC, 15 usable responses for the FIRO-B and 14
usable responses for the POC and CVAT.
The design of the study required each participant to commit two hours of time completing
instruments. Ideally, a supervisor and his or her ETC from the same work site would participate;
however, each would complete the instruments separately and independently of the other. Many
of the ETC supervisors, who have many other responsibilities, did not choose to participate for a
range of reasons given to study directors. Of the eight participating sites ranked as top
performing (rated A by CUTR) for vehicular trip reduction, only 25% (2) of the supervisors
participated. Due to the resulting small sample size, the researchers are not able to apply
statistical protocols to predict individual or work unit characteristics of a larger population.
However, inferences may be extracted from the feedback contained in the instrument responses
collected. These inferences might support or direct future investigations relevant to this study.
It appears that the behavioral style represented by the i in the DiSC instrument (Influencing)
correlates with the more successful programs. Additionally, although the sample size is
extremely low, it appears that the lack of Expressed Affection (Ae) in FIRO-B scores may align
with lower performing programs. This hypothesis could be tested in further studies.
Additionally, as indicated in the section entitled Recommendations in the demographics the
Profile of Organization Characteristics, the (POC) could be restructured by eliminating some
questions and adding others to help evaluate outside influences, such as how far a work site is
from public transportation, or how supportive top management is perceived to be of the program.

12

DiSC Scores: Paired supervisors and their ETCs

The trip reduction program requires influencing a change in the travel behaviors of people. An
instrument that measures, in part, how people perceive the needs of the job and balance them
against their own need-driven behaviors is the DiSC Personality Profile. One of the initial
hunches of the study was that the behavioral work style of the ETC may be associated with the
outcome of the TRP.
D is associated with task-oriented behaviors such as dominating and delegating.
"i" is associated with people-related behaviors such as influencing and inducing.
S is associated with people-related behaviors such as steadiness and security.
C is associated with task-oriented behaviors such as conscientiousness and control.
While the study sample for the DiSC is too small to draw conclusions, a possible pattern
emerges from the available data. It is interesting to note that of the five pairs of study work sites
for which there were data for both the ETCs and their supervisors, the site that had the highest
performance as measured by vehicle trips reduced was also the only site in which both the ETC
and the supervisor had a high i (Influence) work style as one of their primary needs-driven
behaviors. (A person with a high i personality is one who enjoys influencing others. They
seek contact with all types of people, look for opportunities to generate enthusiasm and
accomplish goals through others. They are adept at dealing with people and articulate ideas
well.) Of course, one example such as this cannot lead to any conclusions, but the recognition of
both the supervisor and the ETC that active influencing is a key factor does support our hunch.

Pairs of ETCs and Supervisors

Program Rating
ETC
Highest performing organizations
A
C, i
A
i, S
Lower performing organizations
B or C
S, C
B or C
S, D `
B or C
S, C

Supervisor
i, D
S, C
i, C
D, C
D, i

DiSC Scores: ETCs alone

DiSC scores for ETCs alone provided much greater insight into the behavioral mindset of the
ETC. Although the sample size was too small to be considered other than anecdotal, the results
were revealing in that the high i (active Influencing) appeared consistently.
The study contained 13 ETCs who completed the DiSC instrument. In examining these scores it
is important for the reader to remember that the Graph III score represents a combination of how
the employee projects how he/she should most be, plus how he/she feels he/she is least, as
defined by a specific job focus (my job as an ETC). Actual scores of ETCs as compared to the
CUTR worksite rating based on vehicle trips reduced are explained in the graph on the following
page.
13

The following graph illustrates the difference in DiSC scores between high and lower
performing programs for ETCs alone:
Trip
Reduction
Ranking
high performing
E02
A
E17
A
E14
A
E04*
A
E10
A
E08
A
E15
A
E09*
A
low performing
E22
B
E21
B
E11
B
E24
C
E25
F

DiSC Scores Graph III

C, i (supervisor also has high i)
i, S
i, S
S, D (i graph I)
i, S
C, i
S, C
C, D (i graph I)

S, C
S, D
S, C
S, C
i, S

Looking at the ETC data apart from the data for the supervisors, the predominant work style for
all ETCs in higher performing programs (VTR <30) was i.
Two of the high performing programs for which the ETCs did not score a high i (as indicated
in their Graphs III) as a predominant needs-driven work style indicated that they believed a
high i personality was needed to do the job of the ETC well (as indicated in their Graphs I),
meaning that they were attempting to change their natural needs-driven behaviors to meet the
needs of the job.
The predominant work style for ETCs in the lower performing programs VTR>30 was S
(Steadiness). A person with a high S personality is one who performs in a consistent,
predictable manner. He or she prefers stable harmonious work environments with standard
operating procedures and predictable routines. This ETC is task-oriented rather than peopleoriented. He or she is uncomfortable with change and desires an environment in which the
status quo is maintained.
Not fitting the above pattern are two lower performing organizations with ETCs with high i
work styles. Obviously, a high i ETC work style might not be the only predictor of TRP
effectiveness. However, this finding can anecdotally provide insight into other factors that may
impact TRP effectiveness.

14

 In the first case, the ETC reportedly expressed a lot of frustration over lack of management
support Therefore, it might be proposed that no matter how effective the ETC, the ETC might
not be able to overcome unsupportive management.
In the second case, the exception concerned the lowest performing work site. Its ETC has a
high i personality but it is not believed that this is evidence that the hunch is wrong. The
work site is located far away from the nearest central business district, which has limited transit
service and free plentiful parking not controlled by the organization. It is suggested that this
work sites TRP performance might actually rate well in comparison with other work sites in
similar conditions.
Also not inconsistent with our hunch was one work site that was among the highest performing
trip reduction programs. This program has an ETC with her primary needs-driven work style
measured as a high C and her secondary work style as i. The C style includes adherence
to key directives, accuracy and attention to detail. In reference to the qualities needed in an
effective ETC, her supervisors (perhaps unenlightened) reported opinion was that that the most
important activity of the ETC was to .serve as a compendium of knowledge. We dont need
a cheerleader.
Other incentives were known to be at work: this work site has among the largest numbers of
employees in the study, and they all receive a full transit subsidy. Top management,
reportedly, actively advocates for the TRP, which may be unusual in some other organizations.
While the persuading of a large percentage of employees to use alternative transportation has
already been accomplished in this organization, we have been advised that there are still
employees who do not use alternative transportation but could.
This ETC reportedly further said that she is most proud when she succeeds in convincing
someone to participate in trip reduction programs. Reportedly, supervisory guidance appears to
reward employees who already want to participate in such programs. (For supervisory
approval, administration of the transit passes is apparently what this ETC must do well.) So, in
this case, her high C work style may be very effective: the ETC recognizes that influencing
more employees to use alternative transportation is her goal.
Based on the above examples, one may conclude that the ETC work styles that best match the
culture of the work site may enable an ETC to be effective in his or her position.
In conclusion, while the study sample for the DiSC is too small to draw definitive conclusions,
a pattern appears to emerge from the available data that high i ETC work style, wherein
encouragement is practiced and found, is one of the keys to the most effective trip reduction
programs.
Conclusions regarding DiSC Scores
While data is insufficient to draw actual conclusions, we can infer from both of the tables above
that recognition of the ETCs role as one who actively manages processes in a persuasive way is
essential to project success. This could perhaps be tested with a larger sample using only the
DiSC instrument, or preferably the DiSC and the POC.

15

FIRO-B (Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation - Behaviors) Scores

In general, respondents to the surveys appear to be more reserved, or private, than the population
at large. This conclusion is inferred from the low overall FIRO-B when compared to other
studies using FIRO-B data (Table 4). As a group, the participants are likely to be choosy about
how, when, and where they associate with others. They may also be cautious about how they use
or share authority.
It should be noted that the FIRO-B scores represent patterns of interpersonal behavior and
expectations of those persons evaluated. It may appear at a quick glance that the DiSC and
FIRO-B information are in conflict. Any difference is minimized as one considers that the FIROB scores reflect the unique interpersonal needs that strongly motivate each of us. Within a work
setting is only one of a wide range of situations and environments.
The DiSC, however, utilizes a very specific task focus upon application (my job as an ETC or
my job supervising an ETC). DiSC celebrates the fact that, although each individual may have
a greater comfort level with one or more behaviors, individuals can change and adapt
behaviors to adjust to varying situations. This, in fact, appears to be what is happening with the
more successful ETCs. Although, as a group, ETCs tend to be more private according to their
FIRO-B scores, they are willing to ADJUST their behaviors to improve program outcomes by
influencing and showing affection (openness) to others in the process of recruitment, solicitation,
and related ETC communications.
The following is a recap of the meaning of the FIRO-B score categories:
Inclusion
Expressed inclusion (Ie) is consistently greater than wanted inclusion (Iw) (Table 1),
indicating a greater comfort with initiating contact with other people while wanting privacy for
themselves. This score is amplified in Table 2 with the comparison of ETC responses from high
performing programs to responses from lower performing programs. The mean for wanted
inclusion (Iw) of ETCs from high performing organizations is 3.4, and the mean wanted
inclusion (Iw) of ETCs from low performing organizations is 0.8. ETCs with both high
performing programs and low performing programs are comfortable with including others (Ie).
However, the ETCs with low performing programs are even more private, and may be perceived
as insincere due to their preference to not be included by others.
Control
The combination of expressed control and wanted control is described as Control total (Ct) and is
the lowest factor for the group of respondents (Table 1). Control is also a topic of interest in
Table 2, in that Control total (Ct) for participants from the top ranked programs and lower ranked
programs both have a mean response that can be considered placed in the lower-middle of the
scale. However, the score is the lowest of the three dimensions for the ETCs with high
performing programs and it is the highest of the three dimensions for the ETCs with the low
performing programs. This finding implies that either inclusion or affection (openness) may be
more of a success factor than expressing or wanting control over events or the ability to influence
others.

16

Affection
Affection is the dimension with the highest mean score, implying that this need is of greatest
importance to the group of respondents. In an organizational setting, affection is frequently
referred to as openness, warmth, or friendliness. The expressed and wanted scores, (Ae) and
(Aw), appear at a low-medium level compared to other data sub-sets. Persons with a desire to
express affection usually want to appear to be open and warm to others.
When overlaid with the DiSC scores for the most successful ETC sites rated most highly for the
most vehicular trips reduced, ETCs scored significantly higher in the expressed Affection
category (Ae), and essentially the same in the expressed Inclusion category (Ie).
There is data from the FIRO-B that infers that some ETCs may lack commitment to their
program. They may be seen as doing an assigned task because it is part of their job, not
necessarily because they believe in it. This inference is based on low mean expressed control
(Ce) of 2.4, and low mean wanted inclusion (Iw) of 2.4. They will tend not to be the people who
have a strong need to be in control of events or outcomes and will often like their privacy. This
might be summed up as, Whatever; Ill be in my office.
This idea is reinforced by the relatively high scores in both the Now and Should of the POC.
There is a consistent level of satisfaction with the existing management style. The ETCs may
come from organizations that utilize highly effective participative processes and practices, or the
ETC may have figured out how to meet their personal needs within the existing culture.
Conclusions regarding FIRO-B Scores
While the sample size is too small to make statistical predictions about a population, there does
seem to be an indication that low expressed Affection (Ae) scores align with low performance of
transportation programs, as compared with the mean of 4.3 expressed Affection for the more
highly performing programs with the mean of 2.5 for those not performing as highly. The
following is a more in-depth explanation of the FIRO-B scores and how they differ from, and
measure different qualities, than the DiSC scores:

17

Comparison of DiSC and FIRO-B Scores

TRP
Ranking
DiSC Scores Graph III

FIRO-B
Ie

high performing
E02
A
E17
A
E14
A
E04*
A
E10
A
E08
A
E15
A
E09*
A
low performing
E22
B
E21
B
E11
B
E24
C
E25
F

bolded #s higher than avg

C, i
i, S
i, S
S, D (i graph I)
i, S
C, i
S, C(supervisor has high i)
C, D (i graph I)
Mean

5
4
7
4
6
3
4
4
4.6

S, C
S, D
S, C
S, C
i, S
Mean

6
4
5
4
n/a
4.8

Ce

Ae

Iw

Cw Aw

0
3
3
3
1
5
2
2
2.4

5
3
8
7
4
3
3
1
4.3

6
8
8
7
0
0
0
0
3.6

2
1
1
5
2
3
6
2
2.8

4
7
3
7
4
0
5
1
3.9

1
3
0
3
n/a
1.8

5
1
3
1
n/a
2.5

2
0
4
0
n/a
1.5

4
3
8
1
n/a
4.0

6
5
3
3
n/a
4.3

From the comparison above, one can see that in addition to a tendency to express Affection
among the highly-performing program DiSC respondents, the FIRO-B respondents of lower
performing programs tended to express less tendency toward expressing affection toward others.
This is illustrated by Affection expressed and wanted scores which appear in the bolded boxes.
POC (Profile of Organization Characteristics) Scores
The POC provides an efficient method to collect workplace perceptions of how the organization
looks to an individual, and how that individual believes it should appear. As stated previously,
the processes used by Dr. Likert included Control, Influence, Decision-making and Goal-setting.
The POC incorporates six process characteristics that can be observed in an organization. These
include Leadership, Motivation, Communication, Decisions, Goals, and Controls.
Scores from the POC were generally high (Table 5), reflecting positive perceptions by the ETCs
of their work environment and the predominant management style. Tables 6 through 9
summarize POC responses. (Add POC in the headings for these tables).
This high score can also be a reflection of sample bias, as those willing to participate in the
survey might express a positive attitude toward the program and be more willing to participate in
the study. Also, participants in this study were simply responding to a questionnaire with little

18

organizational context; whereas, participants in previous POC studies were taking part in a larger
organizational change intervention and, therefore, more discriminate about responses to describe
organizational behaviors.
Scores for How should the organization be are typically high because most people want to
contribute to the work activity and want their work units to be participative. Scores for How do
you see the organization now are often lower than the scores for the participants in this study.
Since participants in this study responded with small valued difference between now and
should be, they may be working in positions that offer considerable autonomy, or they may
have learned how to work within their system to obtain the autonomy they desire (referencing
the FIRO-B responses). A particular management style did not emerge from this study.
Organizational
Categories
Leadership
Motivation
Communications
Decisions
Goals
Controls
Overall
POC
Study
CUTR
A
B
C
D
E
F

n=
14
24
34
12
16
15
9

This
study
5.7
5.7
5.2
5.
5.1
4.8
5.3

POC
Study A
4.5
4.2
4.2
3.7
4.2
3.9
4.2

POC
Study B
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.2
4.0
3.6
3.8

POC
Study C
4.0
4.4
4.0
3.5
4.8
4.2
4.2

Description of sample
Participants in This study
Managers & supervisors at power plant
Technical professionals at nuclear plant
Office/clerical at power plant
Union employees at transmission site
Nuclear engineers at nuclear plant
American Red Cross managers

POC
Study D
2.8
2.9
2.6
2.2
3.2
3.1
2.8

POC
Study E
5.0
4.7
4.8
4.0
4.9
4.5
4.8

POC
Study F
4.7
4.4
4.2
4.1
4.7
4.0
4.4

Study
Year
2004
1990
1994
1990
1996
1994
1999

Scores for questions 8 and 10 of this study have the greatest gap between now and should.
They both come from the Communication category. This group of survey participants thinks that
the style and effectiveness of communications in their organization can be improved.
CVAT (Culture and Values Analysis Tool) Scores
General findings from the CVAT (Tables 13 and 14) are that supervisors tend to value Control
and Relations more than non-supervisors and high performing programs have ETCs who value
Control and Relations more than lower performing program ETCs (Tables 15 and 16).
Overall, study participants value relations (CVAT Part 1; Table 11) greater than their work unit
rewards relations-building behaviors (CVAT Part 2; Table 12). Also, study participants indicate
that their work unit rewards control (CVAT Part 2) greater than they personally value control
(CVAT Part 1).

19

The sum of categories from Table 11 indicates that Work is the highest valued category of
behavior for the group of participants; followed by Relations, Control and Thought. In Table 12,
we can see that Work is considered to be the highest rewarded category by work units, but
Relations is last in perceived organizational culture importance. The dimensions with the greatest
difference between personal values and work unit culture (PV-UC) are Loyalty (H), Leader (L),
and Political (K). Loyalty is more important to the individual than it is perceived to be for the
organization, Leadership and political savvy are both considered to be more important to the
organization than to the individual.
CVAT data is supported by DiSC and FIRO-B results to make a distinction between ETCs with
higher performing programs from ETCs with lower performing programs. Personal values of
ETCs with high performing programs favor Relations over Work. ETCs with lower performing
programs favor Work over Relations (Table 15). These results are supported by the FIRO-B
(Table 2) by a distinction between mean wanted inclusion (Iw) of 3.4 for ETCs with high
performing programs, and 0.8 for ETCs with lower performing programs. The lower level of
needed inclusion reflects the relationship values by the CVAT score.
It is interesting to note that political savvy (K) within organizations is considered to be of greater
importance to ETCs with high performing programs than to ETCs with lower performing
programs (Table 16). Flexibility (P) is also considered more important to ETCs with high
performing programs than ETCs with lower performing programs. Political savvy and flexibility
would help persons navigate cultures that value Work over Relations even when it is clear to the
employees that relations are critical to the successful completion of the ETC job (as correlated by
DiSC and FIRO-B Scores.)
The category of Control as part of the organizational culture (Table 12) was exceeded only by
the category of Work. Statements such as, Respect for authority is important here, Status is
important in this organization, Its important to know the ropes to get ahead, and It is
important to display leadership, received high scoring for being selected above other options.
The topic of Control is reinforced by the FIRO-B scores. Expressed Control (Ce) is the need to
have control over events or people and is tied for the lowest mean score (Table 1). As a group,
the surveyed ETCs as well as their supervisors appear to resist having control, and as a group
they have little value for control.
Yet, ETCs with high performing programs see that their organization rewards the dimensions
that identify the category of Control (Table 16). The study implies that ETCs with a better
understanding and acceptance of political and control factors, with the skill and desire to
influence, and the rewards that go with their success will not settle for Whatever, but will
strive to reach goals that they believe are important.
When the CVAT scores of ETC personal values are compared to the CVAT scores of supervisor
personal values, we find that ETCs as a group appear to strongly value Relationships over Work,
while ETC supervisors value the dimensions of Work and Thought over Relations (Table 13).
This difference is reinforced by the FIRO-B scores that compare ETCs and supervisors (Table
3). The greatest difference of mean scores is in wanted Inclusion (Iw); mean ETC score is 2.9
and mean supervisor score is 0.3. Relationships and being included is more important to the ETC
individual contributors than it is to the supervisors.

20

Summary of Conclusions
1) The data sample is too small to draw statistical conclusions, but large enough to make
inferences that can be further evaluated through continued research.
2) It appears that there is a correlation between the DiSC behavior of Influencing (high i) and
with successful ETCs. Additionally, FIRO-B scores indicate that ETCs associated with
transportation programs identified as less effective have lower need of expressed Affection
(openness) than ETCs associated with effective transportation programs. An assumption can be
inferred that ETCs with characteristics of low influence and little openness may negatively
impact an ETC program.
3) The CVAT scores indicate that survey participants place low relative value on Control. The
options of I like to be respected, I am somewhat status minded, I know how to beat the
system when necessary, and I like to lead, were not selected by many respondents as part of
their personal values. This was the lowest category selected by this entire sample of respondents
including ETCs and supervisors. This is echoed by the FIRO-B mean score for expressed
Control which, along with wanted Inclusion, was the lowest of all other interpersonal
dimensions.
4) The study, as designed (2 hours for completion), was too long to gain the desired participation
and needs to be shortened. Streamlining the use of the POC, DiSC, and FIRO-B, in that order,
would be recommended and would result in reducing the time commitment by half. For instance,
in a larger study the should be questions from the POC could be eliminated to help reduce the
time required to complete the instrument.
5) In the CVAT, political savvy (K) within organizations is considered to be of greater
importance to ETCs with high performing programs than to ETCs with lower performing
programs (Table 16). Flexibility (P) is also considered more important to ETCs with high
performing programs than ETCs with lower performing programs. Political savvy and flexibility
would help persons navigate cultures that value Work over Relations even when it is clear to the
employees that relations are critical to the successful completion of the ETC job (as correlated by
DiSC and FIRO-B Scores.)

21

Recommendations
1) Evaluate a larger sample of ETCs, using the premise that expressed Affection (FIRO-B) and
understanding for the need for Inducement and influencing (DiSC) are essential to our
targeted participants, successful ETCs. Market participation by emphasizing the potential for
recognition by their peers and positive acknowledgement from their supervisors.
2) Reduce the number of instruments to two or three. Drop the CVAT, cut down the POC, and
dont make it a requirement for the supervisors to participate. The time it took to move
through the process is believed to be problematic. Feedback to the participant recruiter
indicated that the time commitment to participate (a minimum of 2 hours before reading the
feedback results and optionally attending a telephone debriefing) was too much. Only twothirds of the study sample participating completed all the instruments. Supervisors, in
particular, were often too busy to participate. Since time is a factor, and since Supervisors are
less likely to participate, the most insightful instruments are the POC, DiSC and FIRO-B, in
that order. All three can be administered in less than one hour.
The POC is the instrument that is most flexible and can be adjusted to provide the required
demographics. It can be shortened by eliminating the questions about how the organization
should be, and retain the focus on how the organization is perceived now. The POC
would provide more valuable insight into variations of management style with a larger
sample. In a larger sample in more diverse communities, the POC process can be further
adapted to include demographic and geographic information needed to investigate how
external factors such as the availability of mass transit can influence reduced vehicular trips.
The DiSC gives powerful information about how the ETCs specifically interpret the
behaviors needed on the job and whether they are attempting to adapt their natural behaviors,
if need be, to achieve them. There was a high correlation with the i behavior in the highly
performing groups.
The FIRO-B is most powerful when used to compare the supervisors psychological needs to
those of the ETC in dimensions of Inclusion, Control and Affection. We had hoped to
achieve some insight into how the relationship between the supervisor and the ETC
impactedprogram success; however, the resulting pair sample was too small to find any
statistical significance. In this study, we did find some strongly suggestive correlations for
expressed Affection (openness) when comparing only ETC scores between work groups with
highly effective programs and those with less effective programs. This illustrates how the
FIRO-B can be useful to investigate fundamental differences between groups of participants.
The CVAT is by far the longest and most complex instrument. While it would provide
valuable information to future studies about the values of successful organizational cultures
(whether Work, Relations, Control or Thought is valued most highly), we have concluded
that it cant reasonably be administered over the Internet due to its length. Eliminating it
would cut the time commitment significantly.

22

3) Overlay externally gathered information concerning community capacity for mass transit
against future participants in a study. Even in the same geographic area, work with this
limited sample could not account for variations that might have occurred because a surveyed
plant was next door to a mass transit stop, for example. (See item #2 above for discussion of
questions that might be added to POC to help differentiate such factors.)
4) Perhaps a more limited attempt could be made to evaluate supervisor/ETC pairs. Ideally this
may need to be done in person. The overriding question is, What relationship dynamics
between the ETC and their supervisor leads to an effective program or interferes with
obtaining an effective program?
5) Participation in the study, whether through pairs or ETCs, could possibly be enhanced by
working through local ride-share group networks. If there are any meetings where ETCs are
physically grouped together, perhaps administering the instruments in person to a captive
audience and then sending them the results, with offer of a telephone conference call recap,
could be more effective from a time standpoint.
6) CUTR staff as well as our own staff noted that there has been password confusion between
the automatically generated password required by DiSC and the password to get into the
website assigned by CUTR. In consulting with DiSC, we learned that they have developed
and twice beta-tested a new procedure, which could be used to circumvent these
administrative problems. With this methodology, the University would be set up with a sub
account, however, the data could still be controlled by the interpreting researcher. There is a
$1,500 front-end cost to accomplish this and therefore the procedure would not have been
cost-effective for a small sample. With several hundred people participating, it could be
worthwhile to investigate.

23

Researcher Credentials
Harold T. Welch, Ph.D., SPHR
President, High Performance Coaching
Harold Welch has broad experience initiating organizational effectiveness processes for national
and multi-national applications and for independent, private enterprises. Working as both an
internal and an external consultant, Harold has over twenty years of experience providing coaching
and consulting services for companies in oil and gas, health care, manufacturing, utility,
transportation, government, construction, entertainment, and non-profit industries.
Dr. Welch has a degree in Management with a masters degree in Counseling and a doctorate in
Adult Education. He is a Certified Career Management Practitioner (CMP) and Senior Professional
in Human Resources (SPHR), and a professional member of the American Counseling Association
(ACA).
Experience with FIRO-B
Used with executive coaching, team building, and career development, Dr. Welch has applied his
knowledge of the FIRO-B to overcome organizational performance obstacles and barriers to more
healthy relations between people. The FIRO-B has proven to be a useful tool to demonstrate how
conflicting interpersonal needs can interfere with authentic communications.
Experience with POC
Dr. Welch has used the POC instrument for organizations with 3,000 survey participants. Data has
been gathered to provide a reference for the senior management team to monitor the impact of
existing management style and to initiate management changes for desired effect. One senior
manager remarked, This POC feedback gives me a map of the organization that helps see and
understand how the management tools I use really changes the way people work.
Experience with CVAT
The CVAT has given valuable feedback on an individual, team, and organizational level. When
used with a small organization with 56 employees, data from the CVAT highlighted fundamental
differences that had developed between departments and work groups. Employees had conflicting
perceptions of what the senior staff considered to be the most important issues facing the
organization. By using the CVAT the senior management team was able to draft a culture change
process that incorporated the diverse values that was fragmenting the organization. The result was a
cohesive and consistent message from senior management, acceptance of a unified purpose with
common objectives, and movement toward a desired organizational culture.

24

Nancy L. Brown, MBA, CAE

President, Designs in Development, Inc.
Nancy L. Brown has 18 years of consulting experience ranging from team building to conflict
resolution and from strategic planning to staff and volunteer training. She has worked with over 200
units of government, schools, professional and non-profit associations. Certifications include
Certified Association Executive, preparing her to develop associations of industry professionals in
fields ranging from accounting to tennis. Ms. Brown has special expertise in developing voluntary
boards, whether advisory or governing, of the sort often approving community transportation
initiatives. Clients have included County Planning Departments and Community Commuter Service
advocacy organizations.
Ms. Brown speaks nationally, is the author of a text entitled Increasing Board Effectiveness which
is used in the University of South Florida s non-profit certificate program in conjunction with the
DiSC instrument. She has also served as an adjunct professor for Indiana University and St.
Petersburg College.
Experience with the DiSC
Ms. Brown has administered the DiSC instrument to several thousand persons over the last 18
years. She has used it for team building, and in counseling environments to compare an
employees perception of his/her job with that of an employers. She has also used it as a basis
for volunteer training and for sales training within organizations.
Ms. Brown is also certified to administer the Myers Briggs Personality Profile and also uses it in
coaching and training environments in combination with the DiSC instrument.

25

Validity and Reliability of Instruments

DiSC (excerpted from Inscape Publishing, 2800 Series, Research Report)
DiSC

Validity
There are many ways to measure validity. One approach is to determine
the extent to which the association among scores represents the theory
and model on which the instrument is based.
-

In the DiSC model, Scales D (Dominance) and S (Steadiness) are, to

some degree, opposites. So, we would expect to find that those two
scales will be somewhat inversely related (negatively correlated).
In the same way, Scales i (Influence) and C (Conscientiousness) are, to
some degree, opposites. We would also expect them to be inversely
related.
If each scale measures something different from other scales, the
correlation among scales should be smaller than the reliability of the
individual scale. This condition is met when the value of a reliability
coefficient is significantly larger than any of the correlations in the same
row and column as that number.
The reliability table below shows reliability coefficients along with
inter-scale correlations, to reveal the relationships found for the sample.
Note that the reliability coefficients have been adjusted using the
Spearman-Brown Formula to compensate for any underestimation due
to scale length.
DiSC

Table 3. Adjusted Validity Coefficients and Inter-Scale Correlations Among

Total Scores (N=812)
D-Most
i-Most
S-Most
C-Most
D-Least
i-Least
S-Least
C-Least

D-Most

i-Most

S-Most

C-Most

D-Least

i-Least

S-Least

C-Least

.92
-.07
-.73
-.18
-.79
.10
.73
.33

.89
-.21
-.63
-.04
-.67
.18
.60

.88
.11
.73
.13
-.74
-.33

.84
.26
.56
-.20
-.64

.92
-.07
-.78
-.46

.85
-.15
-.56

.88
.33

.86

(Note: Adjusted reliability coefficients are shown in bold along the diagonal of the
table. Inter-scale correlations are shown below the diagonal.)

26

Results Summary

The 2800 Series of the Personal Profile System used in this study is
considerably more reliable than the 24-box Personal Profile System 6.1
instrument had been marketed previously. For comparison purposes
with 24-box instruments, reliabilities of the 24-box DiSC instrument
are given below.
Comparing results in Table 4 with those shown in Table 3 above, you
will note that reliabilities were significantly improved for i and C scales.
Reliability of C-Most went from .36 to .72 and C-Least from .52 to .74.
Similarly, i scale reliabilities increased to .79 for i-Most and .74 for iLeast.

Reliability of 24-Box
DISC Instruments

Table 4. Reliabilities of 24-Box DISC Instruments

Reliability of Personal
Profile System 2800
Series (N=812)

As shown on Table 2, Graph III reliabilities range from .85 to .92.

Commonly accepted standards require learning instruments to
demonstrate reliabilities above .70. The results obtained on the
Personal Profile System 2800 Series are considered to be very good.

D-Most
i-Most
S-Most
C-Most

.79
.50
.61
.36

D-Least
i-Least
S-Least
C-Least

.76
.47
.59
.52

FIRO-B (Fundamental Interpersonal Relations orientation - Behaviors)

Validity
Content validity: determined by showing how well the content of the test samples the
class of situations or the subject matter about which conclusions are to be drawn. Content
validity is a property of all legitimate scales.

Concurrent validity: showing how well test scores correspond to measures of concurrent
criterion performances or status. Refers to studies that attempt to demonstrate differences,
on the basis of the measuring instrument, between already existent groups or between
people with already know attitudes. To demonstrate the FIRO-B ability to measure
interpersonal relations, there should be evidence that parallel assumptions related to all
situations in which the interpersonal element is significant. Studies are presented that
include an investigation of FIRO-B and political attitudes, occupational choice, and
conformity behavior. These studies represent several different areas where there was an
opportunity to measure concurrent validity. Schutz, W. FIRO: A Three-Dimensional
Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. Will Schutz Associates, Inc. 1958. Chapter 4, pp. 66-80.

Predictive validity: showing how well predictions made from the test are confirmed by
evidence gathered at some subsequent time.

27

Construct validity: evaluated by investigating what psychological qualities a test

measures, for example, by demonstrating that certain explanatory concepts account to
some degree for performance on the test. Essentially, it is a validation of the theory
underlying the test. Since FIRO-B is designed to test a theory, virtually every study in
this book is relevant to predictive [and construct] validity. (Schutz, p. 77.)

Reliability
Coefficient of Internal Consistency: the measure based on internal analysis of data
obtained on a single trial. Essentially, this measure indicates the degree to which the
items are homogeneous, or measuring the same thing. The most usual test for internal
consistency is the split-half method, the correlation between scores on two halves of the
test.
The usual criterion for reproducibility is that 90 percent of all responses are predictable from
knowledge of scale scores. The FIRO-B scales were developed on about one thousand subjects
and the reproducibility computed for the remainder of the sample. The reproducibility for all
scales is very high and consistent over all samples. These reproducibility scores are the
coefficients of internal consistency.
Scale
Ie
Iw
Ce
Cw
Ae
Aw
Mean

Reproducibility
.94
.94
.93
.94
.94
.94
.94

No. of Subjects
1615
1582
1554
1574
1467
1467
1543

Guttman, L. The basis for scalogram analysis. In S. Stouffer et al., Measurement and
Prediction, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1950.
Profile of Organizational Characteristics (POC)
Validity
Chapters 3 and 4 of The Human Organization: Its Management and Value contain information
about validity, but not expressed as coefficients. For example, information about the Weldon
Plant study shows the improvement in the profile with related performance improvements.
Seashore and Bowers published additional data on the Weldon plant in a 1970 paper, Durability
of Organizational Change (American Psychologist, 25-3, March 1979). Even more supporting
data on linking management style to performance improvement is provided in New Ways of
Managing Conflict, Likert and Likert, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1976).
Concurrent validity requires a survey have empirical association with some criterion or "gold
standard" (DeVellis, 1991). This requires identification of an established, generally accepted test
(Litwin, 1995). A high correlation coefficient between the survey and the standard test suggests
28

good concurrent validity. To validate the Organizational Culture Assessment (OCA), the results
were compared to the Likert POC. The correlation between the OCA data and the Likert POC
data is .95. An analysis of variance produced a significant F-value of .000, indicating that the
OCA and the Likert POC are related. Analysis of the residuals indicated the errors are normally
distributed and that the order of the model is correct. The high correlation and the ANOVA
indicate that the OCA and POC have high concurrent validity.
Reliability
A reliable survey is consistent in what it measures. The type of reliability used is internal
consistency reliability. Internal consistency uses a single survey to determine the degree to which
the questions in the survey are measuring the same thing. The methods used for measuring
internal consistency are split-half reliability. The Human Organization: Its Management and
Value, Likert, Rensis, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967), Chapter 7, gives reliability
data or inter-correlations from which reliability can be computed or estimated. The 18-item Form
S usually yields split-half reliability in the .90 to .96 range when applying the Spearman-Brown
formula for estimating the reliability from the r between two halves of the form.
Culture and Values Analysis Tool (CVAT)
Rational and Accountability
The CVAT uses dimensions and sub-dimensions to describe individual priorities that determine a
personal values map. Convergence of Iterated Correlations (CONCOR) statistical applications
are then utilized to describe a culture model of a group of members based on the summary of
individual value choices. The CVAT protocol is able to discern how organizations and people
handle trade-offs as they are required to deal with organizational forces that require choices of
action or response.
Universal cultural themes involve selections or the prioritization of choices between people
orientation and production orientation at an individual level (Blake and Mouton 1964; Larson et
al. 1976; Nystrom, 1978).
Three principal forces that exist in organizations create tension within the individual and in the
organization. David McClelland (1961) identifies a need for achievement, need for affiliation,
and need for power as the basic forces underlying human motivation. Alderfer (1969) also
identifies three basic needs (existence, relatedness, and growth) which can be loosely related to
power or security, relations, and task achievement.
The CVAT captures these forces in dimensions referred to as Work, Relations, and Control. An
additional CVAT dimension is added to capture information about cognition or thought, a
fundamental theme within organizational settings that frequently clashes with the other values
categories (Nelson 1997). Each dimension is then identified by four sub-dimensions providing
16 themes that are usually contradictory but occasionally complementary. Responses to
questions about these sub-dimensions provide a means to apply statistical analysis of clusters of
similar responses to describe values and subsequent culture.

29

CONCOR is an algorithm developed by sociologists at Harvard and is commonly used in

analyzing social networks and is applied in the CVAT to locate clusters of individuals with
similar opinions. CONCOR works by comparing each respondents scores on all 16 CVAT
dimensions with every other persons scores. When CVAT responses are clustered into groups of
individuals with statistically similar responses of value profiles the researcher will then
determine from demographic information whether there is evidence of cultural disparity between
the groupings.
Alderfer, Clayton L. 1969. An empirical test of new theory of human needs. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, May: 142-175.
Blake, Robert R., and Jane W. Mouton, 1964. The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf.
Larson, Lars R., Jerry G. Hunt, and Richard H. Osborne. 1976. The great hi-hi leader behavior
myth: A lesson from Occams razor. Academy of Management Journal, December: 628-641.
McClelland, David C. 1961. The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Von Nostrand Reinhold.
Nelson, Reed E., and K. Michael Mathews. 1991. The social networks of high performing
organization. Journal of Business Communications, 28: 367-386.
Nystrom, Paul C. 1978. Managers and the great hi-hi leader myth. Academy of Management
Journal, June: 325-331.

30

Attachment A:
Summary of Demographic Information Collected from POC
1. What is your age group?
1. under 25 (0)
2. 26-35 (4)
3. 36-45 (4)
4. 46-55 (3)
5. over 55 (3)
2. Which response best describes your education level?
1. No college. (0)
2. Some college with no degree, or 2-year degree. (4)
3. Bachelor-level degree (four year). (5)
4. Master-level degree or above. (5)
3. Which response best describes the functional area of your education?
1. Business/Economics (8)
2. Education/History/Social Science (1)
3. Engineering (2)
4. General education (2)
6. Political Science/Law (1)
4. How many total years work experience do you have?
37, 35, 31, 30, 30, 30, 23, 22, 20, 17, 16, 15, 8, 4,
5. How many years have you worked for this organization?
27, 20, 17, 12, 11, 10, 9, 7, 7, 5, 5, 4, 4, 2
6. How many years have you been designated ETC or supervised the ETC position?
10, 10, 7, 6, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2.5, 2.5, 2.4, 2.4, 2, 1.5
7. Which response best describes your functional work area?
Accounting, Finance, Bookkeeping, Payroll (1)
Administration, Facilities, Health & Safety (3)
Consulting (1)
General staff role, Executive Assistant (3)
Manufacturing (1)
Procurement, Purchasing, Warehouse (3)
Production/Operations, customer service (2)
8. The Employee Transportation Program at this location satisfies the intent of the program.
Strongly Agree (6)
Agree (7)
Disagree (1)
Strongly Disagree (0)
31

9. Local managers support this program in a way that contributes to its success.
Strongly Agree (6)
Agree (7)
Disagree (1)
Strongly Disagree (0)
10. It is clear that top managers believe this program is important.
Strongly Agree (2)
Agree (11)
Disagree (1)
Strongly Disagree (0)
11. There is adequate funding for the success of this program.
Strongly Agree (4)
Agree (8)
Disagree (1)
Strongly Disagree (1)
12. Employees consider the purpose of this program to be important.
Strongly Agree (3)
Agree (9)
Disagree (1)
Strongly Disagree (1)
13. Local managers and supervisors consider this program to be important.
Strongly Agree (2)
Agree (12)
Disagree (0)
Strongly Disagree (0)
14. My other work priorities are such that I have an appropriate amount of time for this program.
Strongly Agree (3)
Agree (10)
Disagree (1)
Strongly Disagree (0)

32

Attachment B: Profile of Organizational Characteristics (POC)

Summary of Questions
Survey participant respond to the following questions with a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 8.
Part a of each question asks how the respondent perceives the work unit now. Part b of each
question asks how the respondent thinks it should be.
Topic: Leadership
1. a) How much confidence and trust is generally shown in subordinates?
b) How much confidence and trust should be shown in subordinates?
2. a) How free do subordinates feel to talk to superiors about their work?
b) How free should subordinates feel to talk to superiors about their work?
3. a) How often are the ideas of subordinates sought and used constructively?
b) How often should the ideas of subordinates be sought and used constructively?
Topic: Motivation
4. a) In your organization, which of the following is the predominant form of motivation: fear,
threats, punishment, rewards, or involvement?
b) In your organization, which of the following should be the predominant form of
motivation: fear, threats, punishment, rewards, or involvement?
5. a) Where is there a true sense of responsibility for the organization's level of performance?
b) Where should there be a true sense of responsibility for the organization's level of
performance?
6. a) How much cooperative teamwork exists in this organization?
b) How much cooperative teamwork should exist in the organization?
Topic: Communication
7. a) What is the general direction of the flow of information needed for decisions about work
processes and priorities?
b) What should be the general direction of the flow of information needed for decisions about
work processes and priorities?
8. a) How is the communication of information from upper levels of the organization generally
received by lower levels of the organization?
b) How should the communication of information from upper levels of the organization be
generally received by lower levels of the organization?
9. a) How accurate is upward communication?
b) How accurate should upward communication be?
10.

a) How well do superiors understand the problems faced by subordinates?

b) How well should superiors understand the problems faced by subordinates?

33

Topic: Decisions
11.

a) At what levels are decisions made in your organization?

b) At what levels should decisions be made in your organization?

12.

a) How often are subordinates involved in decisions that determine the processes and
procedures of their work?
b) How often should subordinates be involved in decisions that determine the processes and
procedures of their work?

Topic: Goals
13.

a) How are performance goals usually set?

b) How should performance goals usually be set?

14.

a) How much do subordinates strive to achieve the organization's goals?

b) How much should subordinates strive to achieve the organization's goals?

Topic: Controls
15.

a) Where is responsibility for review and control functions found in the organization?
b) Where should responsibility for review and control functions be found in the organization?

16.

a) How are cost, productivity, and other reports containing control data used?
b) How should cost, productivity, and other reports containing control data be used?

34

Attachment C: Overview of CVAT Terms

WORK

Task Orientation

A. Effort

Sweat of the brow, often greatest when time is at stake.

B. Time

Speed orientation; need to get things done now; the "executive trot".

C. Finish Job

Priority given to finish tasks; drive for closure; end justifies the means.

D. Quality

Emphasis on time or finish job robs from ability to achieve total quality.

RELATIONS

Relates to Voluntary Connections With Others

E. Affect

Getting warmth, intimacy. Brings one close to others to get nurturance.

F. Empathy

Desire to understand and care for. Brings closeness to give nurturance.

G. Sociability

Focuses on closeness to groups rather than individuals.

H. Loyalty

Emphasizes durable, long-lasting closeness to people or organizations.

CONTROL

How You Attempt to Influence Your Environment

I. Dominance

Imposing one's will openly and without contrivance.

J. Status

Create symbolic inequalities between individuals.

K. Political

Imposing one's will principally through manipulation or leverage.

L. Leader

Secures control through charisma or "referent" power.

THOUGHT

Cognition, Thinking in Rational or Creative Terms

M. Abstract

Deals with generalities and big picture concepts; vision.

N. Plan/Organize

Tends to focus on details and order; objectives.

O. Exposition

Deals with the transmission of produced ideas.

P. Flexibility

Individual creativity or organizational adaptability.

35

Attachment D: Table Addenda (Repeated)

Attachment D: Table Addenda detail, continued
Attachment D: Table Addenda detail, continued
Table 1:
Overview of FIRO-B Responses (n=15) ...........................................................................37
Table 2:
Comparison of FIRO-B Responses by Program Performance ..........................................38
Table 3:
Comparison of FIRO-B Responses by ETC-Supervisor Position .....................................40
Table 4:
Comparison of This study With Other Studies Using FIRO-B .........................................41
Table 5:
Overview of POC Responses (n=14).................................................................................42
Table 6:
Difference between high/low performing program in how the work unit is seen now .....44
Table 7:
Difference between high/low performing program in how the work unit should be.........46
Table 8:
Difference between how ETCs and their supervisors perceive their work unit to be
Now....................................................................................................................................48
Table 9:
Difference between how ETCs and their supervisors think their work unit should be .....49
Table 10:
Overview of responses to demographic questions.............................................................51
Table 11:
Overview of CVAT Part 1 Responses on Personal Values (n=14) ...................................52
Table 12:
Overview of CVAT Part 2 Responses on Work Unit Culture (n=14) ...............................54
Table 13:
Difference between ETC and Supervisor perception of personal values ..........................56
Table 14:
Difference between ETC and Supervisor perception of work unit culture........................58
Table 15:
Difference in perception of personal values between high and low performing
Programs ........................................................................................................................... 60
Table 16:
Difference in perception of work unit culture between high and low performing
Programs ............................................................................................................................62
Table 17:
Chart III from DiSC -- the official report ......................................................................64
Table 18
Chart I and II from DiSC -- anecdotal observations ..........................................................65

36

Table 1: Overview of FIRO-B

Responses
Code
E02
E04
E08
E09
E10
E11
E14
E15
E17
E21
E22
E24
S12
S20
S26
Mean
s.d.
d (e-w)

Ie
5
4
3
4
6
5
7
4
4
4
6
4
3
6
3
4.5
1.2

Ce
0
3
5
2
1
0
3
2
3
3
1
3
1
1
8
2.4
2.1

Ae

Iw Cw Aw
5
6
2
4
7
7
5
7
3
0
3
0
1
0
2
1
4
0
2
4
3
4
8
3
8
8
1
3
3
0
6
5
3
8
1
7
1
0
3
5
5
2
4
6
1
0
1
3
3
1
4
5
3
0
2
5
2
0
1
0
3.5 2.4 3.0 3.9
2.1 3.2 2.1 2.2

Te Tw Tt
10 12 22
14 19 33
11
3 14
7
3 10
11
6 17
8 15 23
18 12 30
9 11 20
10 16 26
8
8 16
12 12 24
8
4 12
7 10 17
10
7 17
13
1 14
10.4 9.3 19.7
3.0 5.3 6.6

It

Ct At Tt
11
2
9 22
11
8 14 33
3
8
3 14
4
4
2 10
6
3
8 17
9
8
6 23
15
4 11 30
4
8
8 20
12
4 10 26
4
6
6 16
8
5 11 24
4
4
4 12
4
5
8 17
6
3
8 17
3
9
2 14
6.9 5.4 7.3 19.7
3.8 2.3 3.5 6.6

2.1 -0.6 -0.4

Table 1 Footnotes:
Ie = expressed Inclusion
Ce = expressed Control
Ae = expressed Affection (openness)
Iw = wanted Inclusion
Cw = wanted Control
Aw = wanted Affection (openness)
It = total Inclusion
Ct = total Control
At = total Affection (openness)
Te = Total expressed need
Tw = Total wanted need
Tt = Overall Total score
Refer to narrative on FIRO-B instrument for further description of elements.

37

Mean: arithmetic mean is the sum of a set of measurements divided by the number of
measurements in the set. For this study, arithmetic mean provides a better measure of central
location to estimate a population parameter than other expressions of average, such as mode,
median, or geometric mean.
s.d. = standard deviation. The square root of the mean of the sum of squared variances from
mean. Used as a measure of dispersion that refers to the variability or spread in the data.
d (e-w) = delta, or difference, between mean e (expressed) scores and mean w (wanted)
scores.
Table 2: Comparison of FIRO-B Responses by Program
Performance
Top
E08
E09
E14
E17
S12
Mean
d (e-w)
Middle
E02
E04
E10
E15
E22
Mean
d (e-w)
Bottom
E11
E21
E24
S20
S26
Mean
d (e-w)
Top-Bot

Ie

Ce
3
4
7
4
3
4.2
0.8

5
2
3
3
1
2.8
0.6

Ae

Iw

3 0
1 0
8 8
3 8
3 1
3.6 3.4
0.4

Cw

Aw Te
Tw Tt
3 0
11
3
14
2 1
7
3
10
1 3
18
12
30
1 7
10
16
26
4 5
7
10
17
2.2 3.2 10.6 8.8 19.4

Ct

At

Tt

3
8
3 14
4
4
2 10
15
4 11 30
12
4 10 26
4
5
8 17
7.6 5.0 6.8 19.4

5
0
5 6
4
3
7 7
6
1
4 0
4
2
3 0
6
1
5 2
5.0 1.4 4.8 3.0
2.0 -2.4 -0.4

2 4
5 7
2 4
6 5
4 6
3.8 5.2

5
4
4
6
3
4.4
3.6

8 3
3 5
1 3
2 5
1 0
3.0 3.2

8
8
8
10
13
9.4

15
23
8
16
4
12
7
17
1
14
7.0 16.4

9
8
6 23
4
6
6 16
4
4
4 12
6
3
8 17
3
9
2 14
5.2 6.0 5.2 16.4

1.6 2.6 -0.8 0.0

1.2

1.8

2.4 -1.0 1.6 3.0

0
3 4
3
1 0
3
1 0
1
3 0
8
2 0
3.0 2.0 0.8
0.0 -1.2

-0.2 -0.2

10
12
22
14
19
33
11
6
17
9
11
20
12
12
24
11.2 12.0 23.2

It

38

3.0

11
2
9 22
11
8 14 33
6
3
8 17
4
8
8 20
8
5 11 24
8.0 5.2 10.0 23.2

Table 2 Footnotes:
Ie = expressed Inclusion
Ce = expressed Control
Ae = expressed Affection (openness)
Iw = wanted Inclusion
Cw = wanted Control
Aw = wanted Affection (openness)
It = total Inclusion
Ct = total Control
At = total Affection (openness)
Te = Total expressed need
Tw = Total wanted need
Tt = Overall Total score
Refer to narrative on FIRO-B instrument for further description of elements.
Mean: arithmetic mean: the sum of a set of measurements divided by the number of
measurements in the set. For this study, arithmetic mean provides a better measure of central
location to estimate a population parameter than other expressions of average, such as mode,
median, or geometric mean.
s.d. = standard deviation. The square root of the mean of the sum of squared variances from
mean. Used as a measure of dispersion that refers to the variability or spread in the data.
d (e-w) = delta, or difference, between mean e (expressed) scores and mean w (wanted)
scores.
Top-Bot = Mean scores of participants representing five organizations with highest ranking of
transportation program effectiveness minus the mean score of participants representing five
organizations with lowest ranking of transportation program effectiveness.

39

Table 3: Comparison of FIRO-B Responses by ETCSupervisor Position

ETC
E02
E04
E08
E09
E10
E11
E14
E15
E17
E21
E22
E24
Mean
d (e-w)

Ie

Ce

Ae

5
0
5
4
3
7
3
5
3
4
2
1
6
1
4
5
0
3
7
3
8
4
2
3
4
3
3
4
3
1
6
1
5
4
3
1
4.7 2.2 3.7
1.8 -1.0 -0.3

Supv
S12
S20
S26
Mean
d (e-w)

3
6
3
4.0
3.7

ETC-Sup

0.7 -1.2

Iw

Cw Aw Te
Tw
Tt
It
Ct At Tt
6
2
4
10
12
22
11
2
9 22
7
5
7
14
19
33
11
8 14 33
0
3
0
11
3
14
3
8
3 14
0
2
1
7
3
10
4
4
2 10
0
2
4
11
6
17
6
3
8 17
4
8
3
8
15
23
9
8
6 23
8
1
3
18
12
30
15
4 11 30
0
6
5
9
11
20
4
8
8 20
8
1
7
10
16
26
12
4 10 26
0
3
5
8
8
16
4
6
6 16
2
4
6
12
12
24
8
5 11 24
0
1
3
8
4
12
4
4
4 12
2.9 3.2 4.0
10.5 10.1 20.6
7.6 5.3 7.7 20.6

1
3
1
4
5
1
3
0
2
5
8
2
0
1
0
3.3 2.7 0.3 2.3 3.3
1.0 -0.7
1.0 2.6 0.8 0.7

Table 3 Footnotes:
Ie = expressed Inclusion
Ce = expressed Control
Ae = expressed Affection (openness)
Iw = wanted Inclusion
Cw = wanted Control
Aw = wanted Affection (openness)
It = total Inclusion
Ct = total Control
At = total Affection (openness)
Te = Total expressed need
Tw = Total wanted need
Tt = Overall Total score
40

7
10
13
10.0

0.5

10
17
7
17
1
14
6.0 16.0

4
5
8 17
6
3
8 17
3
9
2 14
4.3 5.7 6.0 16.0

4.1

3.3 -0.3 1.7 4.6

4.6

Refer to narrative on FIRO-B instrument for further description of elements.

Mean: arithmetic mean is the sum of a set of measurements divided by the number of
measurements in the set. For this study, arithmetic mean provides a better measure of central
location to estimate a population parameter than other expressions of average, such as mode,
median, or geometric mean.
s.d. = standard deviation. The square root of the mean of the sum of squared variances from
mean. Used as a measure of dispersion that refers to the variability or spread in the data.
d (e-w) = delta, or difference, between mean e (expressed) scores and mean w (wanted)
scores.
ETC-Sup = Mean scores of participating ETCs minus the mean scores of Supervisors of ETCs.
Table 4: Comparison Trip Reduction Program (TRP) With Other Studies Using
FIRO-B

TRP Study (n=14)

Ed. Administrators (n=104)
Teachers (n=677)
Traveling Salesmen (n=39)
Creative Architects (n=40)

Ie
4.5
5.9
5.2
6.4
2.7

Ce
2.4
4.7
3.1
5.6
5.4

Ae
3.5
4.4
3.7
6.1
2.6

Iw
2.4
4.6
3.4
7.0
1.7

Cw
3.0
5.5
5.1
4.4
3.1

Aw
3.9
5.1
4.3
6.9
4.4

Te Tw
Tt
10.4 9.3 19.7
15.0 15.2 30.2
12.0 12.8 24.8
18.1 18.3 36.4
10.7 9.2 19.9

It
Ct
At
Tt
6.9 5.4 7.3 19.7
10.5 10.2 9.5 30.2
8.6 8.2 8.0 24.8
13.4 10.0 13.0 36.4
4.4 8.5 7.0 19.9

Table 4 Footnotes:
Source: Will Schutz, Ph.D., FIRO Awareness Scales Manual, Table 4: FIRO-B Scores for
Occupational Groups, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, 1978, pg. 10
Descriptive groups were selected to provide comparison with similar, small and moderate size
samples of workplace professionals.
Ie = expressed Inclusion
Ce = expressed Control
Ae = expressed Affection (openness)
Iw = wanted Inclusion
Cw = wanted Control
Aw = wanted Affection (openness)
It = total Inclusion
Ct = total Control
At = total Affection (openness)
Te = Total expressed need
Tw = Total wanted need
Tt = Overall Total score
Refer to narrative on FIRO-B instrument for further description of elements.

41

Table 5: Overview of POC Responses

(n=14)
Now All

E02
E04
E10
E11
E14
E17
E21
E22
E24
E25
S12
S20
S23
S26
mean
Should All

E02
E04
E10
E11
E14
E17
E21
E22
E24
E25
S12
S20
S23
S26
mean
Now-Should

1. a) 2. a) 3. a) 4. a) 5.a) 6.a) 7.a) 8.a) 9.a) 10.a) 11.a) 12.a) 13.a) 14.a) 15.a) 16.a)

5
5
6
5
2
6
5
5
6
5
7
6
7
7
7
7
6
5
5
5
5
7
7
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
5
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
6
5
6
7
4
6
7
4
3
7
6
6
3
3
6
5
6
7
7
6
5
6
5
6
8
8
8
7
5
5
3
5
5
5
7
5
7
5
7
7
5
7
4
5
6
3
7
5
7
4
7
7
6
7
5
5
6
7
5
5
7
7
5
7
7
6
7
6
7
4
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
5
7
7
7
7
7
5
3
7
5.6 5.9 5.6 6.0 5.5 5.6 5.4 4.6 5.9

5
3
5
4
6
1
5
5
3
6
5
7
7
7
4.9

4
5
4
5
5
2
5
7
7
5
5
6
5
7
5.1

6
5
4
5
3
2
7
5
3
5
5
7
3
7
4.8

5
5
6
3
3
7
1
7
5
5
5
7
1
5
4.6

6
3
5
3
6
5
5
4
7
7
7
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
7
3
7
7
2
3
5
7
5.5 4.8

4
7
5
4
5
5
4
3
5
5
5
6
3
5
4.7

1. b) 2. b) 3. b) 4. b) 5.b) 6.b) 7.b) 8.b) 9.b) 10.b) 11.b) 12.b) 13.b) 14.b) 15.b) 16.b)

7
7
7
7
5
7
7
7
7
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
7
5
5
5
7
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
7
6
7
7
7
6
5
5
6
5
6
7
6
6
7
5
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
6
7
7
7
6
7
5
7
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
3
5
5
7
5
7
3
5
7
5
5
7
7
7
6
7
5
7
7
7
7
5
7
7
7
5
7
7
7
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
7
5
5
5
5
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
7
8
5.9 6.3 6.1 6.6 6.4 6.5 6.7 6.3 7.0

7
7
5
7
6
8
7
7
3
7
6
7
7
8
6.6

7
6
5
7
7
7
5
7
7
5
6
6
5
8
6.3

8
7
5
7
5
7
7
5
5
5
5
7
5
8
6.1

7
5
6
5
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5.9

7
7
7
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
5
5
5
7
7
3
7
3
7
8
5
7
5
8
6.4 6.1

7
7
5
6
5
6
5
7
5
5
5
6
7
5
5.8

-0.2 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.9 -0.9 -1.3 -1.7 -1.1 -1.6 -1.1 -1.4 -1.3 -0.9 -1.4 -1.1

42

Table 5 Footnotes:
Profile of Organizational Characteristics (see questions in Attachment B)
a) questions = How do you see your organization now?
b) questions = How do you think your organization should be?
Summary of question topics:
Leadership
1. confidence and trust
2. subordinates talk to superiors
3. ideas of subordinates sought
Motivation
4. predominant form of motivation
5. responsibility for performance
6. cooperative teamwork
Communication
7. direction of flow of information
8. communication received by lower levels
9. accurate upward communication
10. superiors understand problems of subordinates
Decisions
11.
levels decisions made
12.
subordinates involved in decisions
Goals
13.
performance goals set
14.
subordinates strive to achieve goals
Controls
15.
review and control functions
16.
cost, productivity, and other reports used
Mean: arithmetic mean is the sum of a set of measurements divided by the number of
measurements in the set. For this study, arithmetic mean provides a better measure of central
location to estimate a population parameter than other expressions of average, such as mode,
median, or geometric mean.
Now-Should = mean of each now questions minus mean of each should question.

43

Table 6: POC -- Difference between high and low performing program in how the work
unit is seen now.
Now high 1. a) 2. a) 3. a) 4. a) 5.a) 6.a) 7.a) 8.a) 9.a) 10.a) 11.a) 12.a) 13.a) 14.a) 15.a) 16.a)
E02
5
5
6
5 2 6 5 5 6
5
4
6
5
6
3
4
E04
5
7
6
7 7 7 7 6 5
3
5
5
5
5
3
7
E10
5
5
5
7 7 5 5 5 5
5
4
4
6
6
5
5
E14
5
4
4
6 5 6 7 4 6
6
5
3
3
7
7
5
E17
7
4
3
7 6 6 3 3 6
1
2
2
7
7
7
5
S12
7
6
7
5 5 6 7 5 5
5
5
5
5
7
3
5
S23
4
5
4
4 3 3 3 3 5
7
5
3
1
2
3
3
Mean high 5.4 5.1 5.0 5.9 5.0 5.6 5.3 4.4 5.4 4.6 4.3 4.0 4.6 5.7 4.4 4.9
Now low 1. a) 2. a) 3. a) 4. a) 5.a) 6.a) 7.a) 8.a) 9.a) 10.a) 11.a) 12.a) 13.a) 14.a) 15.a) 16.a)
E11
5
6
6
6 5 4 4 5 5
4
5
5
3
5
4
4
E21
5
6
7
7 6 5 6 5 6
5
5
7
1
5
5
4
E22
8
8
8
7 5 5 3 5 5
5
7
5
7
5
5
3
E24
5
7
5
7 5 7 7 5 7
3
7
3
5
5
5
5
E25
4
5
6
3 7 5 7 4 7
6
5
5
5
5
3
5
S20
7
7
5
7 7 6 7 6 7
7
6
7
7
7
7
6
S26
7
7
7
7 7 5 3 7
7
7
7
5
5
7
5
Mean low
5.9 6.6 6.3 6.2 6.0 5.6 5.6 4.7 6.3 5.3 6.0 5.6 4.7 5.3 5.1 4.6
high-low

-0.4 -1.4 -1.3 -0.3 -1.0 0.0 -0.3 -0.3 -0.9

-0.7 -1.7 -1.6

Table 6 Footnotes:
Profile of Organizational Characteristics (see questions in Attachment B)
a) questions = How do you see your organization now?
Summary of question topics
Leadership
1. confidence and trust
2. subordinates talk to superiors
3. ideas of subordinates sought
Motivation
4. predominant form of motivation
5. responsibility for performance
6. cooperative teamwork
Communication
7. direction of flow of information
8. communication received by lower levels
9. accurate upward communication

44

-0.1

0.4 -0.7

0.3

10.
superiors understand problems of subordinates
Decisions
11.
levels decisions made
12.
subordinates involved in decisions
Goals
13.
performance goals set
14.
subordinates strive to achieve goals
Controls
15.
review and control functions
16.
cost, productivity, and other reports used
Mean: arithmetic mean is the sum of a set of measurements divided by the number of
measurements in the set. For this study, arithmetic mean provides a better measure of central
location to estimate a population parameter than other expressions of average, such as mode,
median, or geometric mean.
Now mean high = mean of a) question scores of ETCs and supervisors from first seven
organizations from a list of participating organizations ranked by transportation program
effectiveness.
Now mean low = mean of a) question scores of ETCs and supervisors from last seven
organizations from a list of participating organizations ranked by transportation program
effectiveness.
high-low = mean of a)question scores of ETCs and supervisors from first seven organizations
from a list of participating organizations ranked by transportation program effectiveness minus
mean of a)question scores of ETCs and supervisors from last seven organizations from a list of
participating organizations ranked by transportation program effectiveness.

45

Table 7: POC -- Difference between high and low performing program in how the work
unit should be.
Should high 1. b) 2. b) 3. b) 4. b) 5.b) 6.b) 7.b) 8.b) 9.b) 10.b) 11.b) 12.b) 13.b) 14.b) 15.b) 16.b)

E02
E04
E10
E14
E17
S12
S23
Mean high
Should low

7
7
7
7
5
7 7
7
7
5
7
7
7
7
7 7
8
7
5
5
5
7
7
5 7
5
7
6
5
5
6
5
6 7
6
6
7
5
6
7
7
7 7
7
7
7
7
7
5
7
7 7
5
7
5
7
5
5
5
5 6
7
7
6.0 6.1 6.0 6.3 6.1 6.3 6.9 6.4 6.9

7
7
5
6
8
6
7
6.6

7
6
5
7
7
6
5
6.1

8
7
5
5
7
5
5
6.0

7
5
6
5
7
5
5
5.7

7
7
6
7
7
7
5
6.6

7
5
6
7
7
3
7
6.0

7
7
5
5
6
5
7
6.0

1. b) 2. b) 3. b) 4. b) 5.b) 6.b) 7.b) 8.b) 9.b) 10.b) 11.b) 12.b) 13.b) 14.b) 15.b) 16.b)

E11
E21
E22
E24
E25
S20
S26
Mean low

5
7
5
7
7
6 7
7
7
5
6
7
7
7
6 7
5
7
8
8
8
7
7
7 7
7
7
3
5
5
7
5
7 3
5
7
5
5
7
7
7
6 7
5
7
7
7
5
7
7
7 7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8 8
7
8
5.7 6.4 6.3 7.0 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.1 7.1

7
7
7
3
7
7
8
6.6

7
5
7
7
5
6
8
6.4

hi-lo

0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.7 -0.6 -0.4 0.3 0.3 -0.3

0.0 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4

Table 7 Footnotes:
Profile of Organizational Characteristics (see questions in Attachment B)
b) questions = How do you think your organization should be?
Summary of question topics
Leadership
1. confidence and trust
2. subordinates talk to superiors
3. ideas of subordinates sought
Motivation
4. predominant form of motivation
5. responsibility for performance
6. cooperative teamwork
Communication
7. direction of flow of information
8. communication received by lower levels
9. accurate upward communication
10.
superiors understand problems of subordinates
46

7
7
5
5
5
7
8
6.3

5
5
7
5
7
7
7
6.1

7
7
5
5
7
7
5
6.1

7
6
5
7
3
8
8
6.3

6
5
7
5
5
6
5
5.6

0.4 -0.3

0.4

Decisions
11.
levels decisions made
12.
subordinates involved in decisions
Goals
13.
performance goals set
14.
subordinates strive to achieve goals
Controls
15.
review and control functions
16.
cost, productivity, and other reports used
Mean: arithmetic mean is the sum of a set of measurements divided by the number of
measurements in the set. For this study, arithmetic mean provides a better measure of central
location to estimate a population parameter than other expressions of average, such as mode,
median, or geometric mean.
Now mean high = mean of b) question scores of ETCs and supervisors from first seven
organizations from a list of participating organizations ranked by transportation program
effectiveness.
Now mean low = mean of b) question scores of ETCs and supervisors from last seven
organizations from a list of participating organizations ranked by transportation program
effectiveness.
High-low = mean of b) question scores of ETCs and supervisors from first seven organizations
from a list of participating organizations ranked by transportation program effectiveness minus
mean of b) question scores of ETCs and supervisors from last seven organizations from a list of
participating organizations ranked by transportation program effectiveness.

47

Table 8: POC -- Difference between how ETC's and their supervisors perceive their
work unit to be now.
ETC Now 1. b) 2. b) 3. b) 4. b) 5.b) 6.b) 7.b) 8.b) 9.b) 10.b) 11.b) 12.b) 13.b) 14.b) 15.b) 16.b)
E02
5
5
6
5
2
6 5
5
6
5
4
6
5
6
3
4
E04
5
7
6
7
7
7 7
6
5
3
5
5
5
5
3
7
E10
5
5
5
7
7
5 5
5
5
5
4
4
6
6
5
5
E11
5
6
6
6
5
4 4
5
5
4
5
5
3
5
4
4
E14
5
4
4
6
5
6 7
4
6
6
5
3
3
7
7
5
E17
7
4
3
7
6
6 3
3
6
1
2
2
7
7
7
5
E21
5
6
7
7
6
5 6
5
6
5
5
7
1
5
5
4
E22
8
8
8
7
5
5 3
5
5
5
7
5
7
5
5
3
E24
5
7
5
7
5
7 7
5
7
3
7
3
5
5
5
5
E25
4
5
6
3
7
5 7
4
7
6
5
5
5
5
3
5
Mean ETC 5.4 5.7 5.6 6.2 5.5 5.6 5.4 4.7 5.8 4.3 4.9 4.5 4.7 5.6 4.7 4.7
Supv Now 1. b) 2. b) 3. b) 4. b) 5.b) 6.b) 7.b) 8.b) 9.b) 10.b) 11.b) 12.b) 13.b) 14.b) 15.b) 16.b)
S12
7
6
7
5
5
6 7
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
3
5
S20
7
7
5
7
7
6 7
6
7
7
6
7
7
7
7
6
S23
4
5
4
4
3
3 3
3
5
7
5
3
1
2
3
3
S26
7
7
7
7
7 5
3
7
7
7
7
5
5
7
5
Mean Supv 6.3 6.3 5.8 5.3 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.3 6.0 6.5 5.8 5.5 4.5 5.3 5.0 4.8
ETC-Supv

-0.9 -0.6 -0.2 0.9 0.0 0.1 -0.1 0.5 -0.2 -2.2 -0.9 -1.0

Table 8 Footnotes:
Profile of Organizational Characteristics (see questions in Attachment B)
a) questions = How do you see your organization now?
Summary of question topics:
Leadership
1. confidence and trust
2. subordinates talk to superiors
3. ideas of subordinates sought
Motivation
4. predominant form of motivation
5. responsibility for performance
6. cooperative teamwork
Communication
7. direction of flow of information
8. communication received by lower levels
9. accurate upward communication
10.
superiors understand problems of subordinates

48

0.2

0.4 -0.3

0.0

Decisions
11.
levels decisions made
12.
subordinates involved in decisions
Goals
13.
performance goals set
14.
subordinates strive to achieve goals
Controls
15.
review and control functions
16.
cost, productivity, and other reports used
Mean: arithmetic mean is the sum of a set of measurements divided by the number of
measurements in the set. For this study, arithmetic mean provides a better measure of central
location to estimate a population parameter than other expressions of average, such as mode,
median, or geometric mean.
ETC Now = mean of a) question scores of ETCs.
Supv Now = mean of a) question scores supervisors of ETCs.
ETC-Supv = mean of a) question scores of ETCs minus mean of a) question scores of
supervisors of ETCs.
Table 9: POC -- Difference between how ETC's and their supervisors think their work unit
should be.
ETC Should

E02
E04
E10
E11
E14
E17
E21
E22
E24
E25
Mean ETC

1. b) 2. b) 3. b) 4. b) 5.b) 6.b) 7.b) 8.b) 9.b) 10.b) 11.b) 12.b) 13.b) 14.b) 15.b) 16.b)

3
5
5
7
5
7 3
5
7
5
7
5
7
7
6 7
7
7
5
5
7
7
7
6 7
5
7
5
7
7
7
7
7 7
8
7
5
6
7
7
7
6 7
5
7
8
8
8
7
7
7 7
7
7
6
5
5
6
5
6 7
6
6
7
5
6
7
7
7 7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
7 7
7
7
5
5
5
7
7
5 7
5
7
5.6 6.0 6.2 6.9 6.4 6.4 6.6 6.2 6.9

3
7
7
7
7
7
6
8
7
5
6.4

7
7
5
6
5
7
7
7
7
5
6.3

5
7
5
7
7
5
5
7
8
5
6.1

5
5
7
5
5
7
5
7
7
6
5.9

5
7
7
7
7
3
7
5
7
6
5
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6.5 6.0

5
6
5
7
5
7
5
6
7
5
5.8

Supv. Should 1. b) 2. b) 3. b) 4. b) 5.b) 6.b) 7.b) 8.b) 9.b) 10.b) 11.b) 12.b) 13.b) 14.b) 15.b) 16.b)

S12
S20
S23
S26
Mean Supv.
ETC-Supv.

7
7
7
5
7
7 7
5
7
6
7
7
5
7
7
7 7
7
7
7
5
7
5
5
5
5 6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8 8
7
8
8
6.5 7.0 6.0 5.7 6.5 6.8 7.0 6.5 7.3 7.0
-0.9 -1.0 0.2 1.2 -0.1 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.4 -0.6

49

6
5
5
6
7
7
5
5
5
8
8
7
6.3 6.3 6.0
0.0 -0.2 -0.1

7
3
7
8
5
7
5
8
6.0 6.5
0.5 -0.5

5
6
7
5
5.8
0.0

Table 9 Footnotes:
Profile of Organizational Characteristics (see questions in Attachment B)
b) questions = How do you think your organization should be?
Summary of question topics
Leadership
1. confidence and trust
2. subordinates talk to superiors
3. ideas of subordinates sought
Motivation
4. predominant form of motivation
5. responsibility for performance
6. cooperative teamwork
Communication
7. direction of flow of information
8. communication received by lower levels
9. accurate upward communication
10.
superiors understand problems of subordinates
Decisions
11.
levels decisions made
12.
subordinates involved in decisions
Goals
13.
performance goals set
14.
subordinates strive to achieve goals
Controls
15.
review and control functions
16.
cost, productivity, and other reports used
Mean: arithmetic mean is the sum of a set of measurements divided by the number of
measurements in the set. For this study, arithmetic mean provides a better measure of central
location to estimate a population parameter than other expressions of average, such as, mode,
median, or geometric mean.
ETC Should = mean of b) question scores of ETCs.
Supv Should = mean of b) question scores supervisors of ETCs.
ETC-Supv = mean of b) question scores of ETCs minus mean of b) question scores of
supervisors of ETCs.

50

Table 10: Overview of responses to demographic

questions
Client Age
Coll. Educ. Work Yrs. in Yrs. as Organizational Question Numbers
Code Range Level area Exp. org
ETC Function
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
E02
2 C
1
17
17
2.5Operations
1 1
1
1
1 1 2
E04
3 C
1
16
10
10Exec Asst
2 2
2
2
2 2 2
E10
4 M
2
35
5
3Cust Svs
2 2
2
2
2 2 2
E11
2 B
3
4
4
3Health & Saf
1 2
2
2
2 2 2
E14
2 C
1
15
4
2Human Resc.
2 2
2
2
2 2 2
E17
2 B
1
8
2
1.5Human Resc.
3 3
3
4
4 2 1
E21
4 M
1
30
7
7Facilities
1 1
2
1
2 2 2
E22
3 M
1
22
7
3Consulting
2 2
2
3
1 2 3
E24
4 C
4
30
11
2.5Acct/Finance
2 1
2
2
2 2 2
E25
3 B
4
23
5
2.4Quality
2 2
2
2
2 2 1
S12
3 B
1
20
20
6Administration
1 1
2
1
2 2 2
S20
5 B
1
31
9
3Operations
1 2
2
2
3 2 2
S23
5 M
6
37
27
2.4Operations
1 1
1
1
1 1 1
S26
5 M
3
30
12
10Pur./Warehse.
2 1
2
2
2 2 2

Responses to questions 8 - 14: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Disagree, 4 = Strongly Disagree

8. The Employee Transportation Program at this location satisfies the intent of the program.
9. Local managers support this program in a way that contributes to its success.
10. It is clear that top managers believe this program is important.
11. There is adequate funding for the success of this program.
12. Employees consider the purpose of this program to be important.
13. Local managers and supervisors consider this program to be important.
14. My other work priorities are such that I have an appropriate amount of time for this program.

Table 10 Footnotes:
Profile of Organizational Characteristics (see questions in Attachment A)
Age Range:
1 = under 25
2 = 2635

3 = 3645
4 = 4655

5 = over 55

51

College Level:
N = No college
C = Some college with no degree, or 2-year degree
B = Bachelor-level degree (four year)
M = Master-level degree or above
Educ. Area
1 = Business/Economics
2 = Education/History/Social Science
3 = Engineering
4 = General Education
6 = Political Science/Law
Work Experience (stated in years)
Yrs. in org = Number of years experience in the organization
Yrs. as ETC = Number of years experience as an ETC or supervisor of ETC.
Table 11: Overview of CVAT Part 1 Responses on Personal
Values (PC) (n=14)
Work
Relations
Control
Thought
PV
As Bs Cs Ds Es Fs Gs Hs Is Js Ks Ls Ms Ns Os Ps s.d. PV
E02
20 17 11 19 10 14 13 16 13 15 7
9
8 11 10
7
3.95
E04
12 13 10 15 19 17 14 20 12 10 6 12
5 17 10
8
4.23
E10
17 16 11 13 11 16 15 15 14
9 6 10 12
9 16 10
3.12
E11
13 15 11 17 18 17
9 16 10 16 5
8 18 11
8
8
4.12
S12
14 11 15 18 13 15 10 19 11 10 10
7 10 17 12
8
3.43
E14
16 17
9 11 14 17 14 20 12
9 6
9
7 14 16
9
3.97
E17
8 10
8 14 17 13 11 12 15 14 8 11 15 15 13 16
2.83
S20
15 17 13 17
8 16 10 16 11
6 6 18 10 15 13
9
3.87
E21
17 17 14 20 10 14 10 13 13 13 6 10 14 14
7
8
3.69
E22
13 11
6 11 14 16 14 15 14
8 8 16 16 11 14 13
2.98
S23
11 18 11 19 12
8
8 16 11 10 10 12 13 14 13 14
3.06
E24
18 16 16 17 14 13 12 20 12 11 6 11
7 11
9
7
4.00
E25
15 12 13 17
6 18
8 17 10
9 10 11 12 14 18 10
3.59
S26
15 10 17 16
6
8
8
9 13
9 10 20 14 16 15 14
3.86
Mean 14.6 14.3 11.8 16.0 12.3 14.4 11.1 16.0 12.2 10.6 7.4 11.7 11.5 13.5 12.4 10.1
Sum
56.6
53.9
42.0
47.5
Table 11 Footnotes:
CVAT = Culture and Values Analysis Tool
PV = Personal Values
See Attachment C for description of dimensions
52

WORK
As = Effort as a value for self
Bs = Time as a value for self
Cs = Finish Job as a value for self
Ds = Quality as a value for self
RELATIONS
Es = Affect as a value for self
Fs = Empathy as a value for self
Gs = Sociability as a value for self
Hs = Loyalty as a value for self
CONTROL
Is = Dominance as a value for self
Js = Status as a value for self
Ks = Political as a value for self
Ls = Leader as a value for self
THOUGHT
Ms = Abstract as a value for self
Ns = Plan/Organize as a value for self
Os = Exposition as a value for self
Ps = Flexibility as a value for self
s.d. PV = standard deviation of Personal Values. The square root of the mean of the sum of
squared variances from mean. Used as a measure of dispersion that refers to the variability or
spread in the data. A lower s.d. implies that the participant has a consistent perception of
expressed values and does not elevate a particular value over another. A higher s.d. implies that
the participant has a more marked opinion of particular values and can more easily express the
importance of one value over another.
Mean: arithmetic mean is the sum of a set of measurements divided by the number of
measurements in the set. For this study, arithmetic mean provides a better measure of central
location to estimate a population parameter than other expressions of average, such as mode,
median, or geometric mean.
Sum = the sum of the means for each set of four Personal Values dimensions that compose a
Values category.

53

Table 12: Overview of CVAT Part 2 Responses on Work Unit Culture

(UC) (n=14)
Work

UC
E02
E04
E11
S12
E14
E15
E17
S20
E21
E22
S23
E24
E25
S26
Mean
Sum

Relations

Control

Thought

Au Bu Cu Du Eu Fu Gu Hu Iu Ju Ku Lu Mu Nu Ou Pu s.d. UC
19 12 12 19 11 10
7 11 13
7
8 15 13 16 12 15
3.55
15
9 13 20 12 11 15 10
8 17
9 18
5 12 14 12
3.81
18
9 16 19 11 13 12 14
9
9 10 15 16
8
7 14
3.57
14 10
8 18 14 18
8 18 13 13
9 11 14 12
9 11
3.30
12 14 15 14
9 14 16
9 13 15 19 15 11
9
6
9
3.30
14
8 10 12
6
8 14
9 10 15 20 19 17 12 17
9
4.11
17
9 13 15 18 19 19 14 13 11
6 11
7
9 11
8
4.09
15 10 10 16 11 11 11
7 13
9
7 20 11 16 16 17
3.66
13
9 10 18 13 20 14
9 10
8
8 13 16 15 10 14
3.48
14 13 11 19
7 12
7
6 11 16 19 15 14 11 14 11
3.72
15 11
9 16
5
6
7 10 15 15 19 20 14 17 13
8
4.49
17 10
8 17 14 17 11 16
9 13
7 16 12 13
9 11
3.30
18 16 11 19
7
9 12
8 11 11
8 17 14 11 13 15
3.59
17 12 10 17
8 11 12
8 13 12
9 20 12 12 15 12
3.22
15.6 10.9 11.1 17.1 10.4 12.8 11.8 10.6 11.5 12.2 11.3 16.1 12.6 12.4 11.9 11.9
54.6
45.6
51.1
48.6

All
Au Bu Cu Du Eu Fu Gu Hu Iu Ju Ku Lu Mu Nu Ou Pu
PV-UC -1.0 3.4 0.6 -1.1 1.9 1.6 -0.6 5.4 0.7 -1.6 -3.9 -4.4 -1.1 1.1 0.6 -1.8
Table 12 Footnotes:
UC = Unit Culture
See Attachment C for description of dimensions
WORK
Au = Effort as rewarded in the work unit
Bu = Time as rewarded in the work unit
Cu = Finish Job as rewarded in the work unit
Du = Quality as rewarded in the work unit
RELATIONS
Eu = Affect as rewarded in the work unit
Fu = Empathy as rewarded in the work unit
Gu = Sociability as rewarded in the work unit
Hu = Loyalty as rewarded in the work unit

54

CONTROL
Iu = Dominance as rewarded in the work unit
Ju = Status as rewarded in the work unit
Ku = Political as rewarded in the work unit
Lu = Leader as rewarded in the work unit
THOUGHT
Mu = Abstract as rewarded in the work unit
Nu = Plan/Organize as rewarded in the work unit
Ou = Exposition as rewarded in the work unit
Pu = Flexibility as rewarded in the work unit
s.d. UC = standard deviation of Unit Culture. The square root of the mean of the sum of squared
variances from mean. Used as a measure of dispersion that refers to the variability or spread in
the data. A lower s.d. implies that the participant has a consistent perception of expressed
rewards and does not perceive a particular reward over another. A higher s.d. implies that the
participant has a more marked opinion of what is rewarded and can more easily express the
perception that one form of reward has more value in the work place than another.
Mean: arithmetic mean is the sum of a set of measurements divided by the number of
measurements in the set. For this study, arithmetic mean provides a better measure of central
location to estimate a population parameter than other expressions of average, such as mode,
median, or geometric mean.
Sum = the sum of the means for each set of four Unit Culture dimensions that compose a Culture
category.
PV-UC = mean Personal Value minus mean Unit Culture

55

Table 13: CVAT -- Difference between ETC and Supervisor perception of

personal values.
Work

PV-E
E02
E04
E10
E11
E14
E17
E21
E22
E24
E25
Mean
Sum
PV-S
S12
S20
S23
S26
Mean
Sum
PV
E-S

As
20
12
17
13
16
8
17
13
18
15
15

Relations

Bs
17
13
16
15
17
10
17
11
16
12
14

Cs
11
10
11
11
9
8
14
6
16
13
11

As Bs Cs
14 11 15
15 17 13
11 18 11
15 10 17
13.8 14.0 14.0

As
1.2

Ds
19
15
13
17
11
14
20
11
17
17
15
56
Ds
18
17
19
16
17.5
59.3

Es
10
19
11
18
14
17
10
14
14
6
13

Control

Fs
14
17
16
17
17
13
14
16
13
18
16

Gs
13
14
15
9
14
11
10
14
12
8
12

Es Fs
13 15
8 16
12
8
6
8
9.8 11.8

Gs
10
10
8
8
9.0

Bs Cs Ds Es
0.4 -3.1 -2.1 3.6

Hs
Is
16 13
20 12
15 14
16 10
20 12
12 15
13 13
15 14
20 12
17 10
16 13
57
Hs
Is
19 11
16 11
16 11
9 13
15.0 11.5
45.5

Fs Gs
3.8 3.0

Table 13 Footnotes:
CVAT = Culture and Values Analysis Tool
PV-E = Personal Values of ETCs
PV-S = Personal Values of Supervisors of ETCs
See Attachment C for description of dimensions
WORK
As = Effort as a value for self
Bs = Time as a value for self
Cs = Finish Job as a value for self
Ds = Quality as a value for self

56

Hs
1.4

Js Ks
15
7
10
6
9
6
16
5
9
6
14
8
13
6
8
8
11
6
9 10
11 6.8
Js Ks
10 10
6
6
10 10
9 10
8.8 9.0

Thought

Ls Ms Ns Os Ps s.d. PV
9
8 11 10
7
3.95
12
5 17 10
8
4.23
10 12
9 16 10
3.12
8 18 11
8
8
4.12
9
7 14 16
9
3.97
11 15 15 13 16
2.83
10 14 14
7
8
3.69
16 16 11 14 13
2.98
11
7 11
9
7
4.00
11 12 14 18 10
3.59
11 11 13 12 9.6
41
46
Ls Ms Ns Os Ps s.d. PV
7 10 17 12
8
3.43
18 10 15 13
9
3.87
12 13 14 13 14
3.06
20 14 16 15 14
3.86
14.3 11.8 15.5 13.3 11.3
43.5
51.8

Is Js Ks Ls Ms Ns Os Ps
1.0 2.7 -2.2 -3.6 -0.4 -2.8 -1.2 -1.7

RELATIONS
Es = Affect as a value for self
Fs = Empathy as a value for self
Gs = Sociability as a value for self
Hs = Loyalty as a value for self
CONTROL
Is = Dominance as a value for self
Js = Status as a value for self
Ks = Political as a value for self
Ls = Leader as a value for self
THOUGHT
Ms = Abstract as a value for self
Ns = Plan/Organize as a value for self
Os = Exposition as a value for self
Ps = Flexibility as a value for self
s.d. PV = standard deviation of Personal Values. The square root of the mean of the sum of
squared variances from mean. Used as a measure of dispersion that refers to the variability or
spread in the data. A lower s.d. implies that the participant has a consistent perception of
expressed values and does not elevate a particular value over another. A higher s.d. implies that
the participant has a more marked opinion of particular values and can more easily express the
importance of one value over another.
Mean: arithmetic mean is the sum of a set of measurements divided by the number of
measurements in the set. For this study, arithmetic mean provides a better measure of central
location to estimate a population parameter than other expressions of average, such as mode,
median, or geometric mean.
Sum = the sum of the means for each set of four Personal Values dimensions that compose a
Values category.
PV E-S = the mean of Personal Values of ETCs minus the mean of Personal Values of
Supervisors of ETCs.

57

Table 14: CVAT -- Difference between ETC and Supervisor perception of

work unit culture.
Work

UC-E
E02
E04
E11
E14
E15
E17
E21
E22
E24
E25
Mean
Sum
UC-S
S12
S20
S23
S26
Mean
Sum
UC
E-S

Au
19
15
18
12
14
17
13
14
17
18
16

Relations

Bu
12
9
9
14
8
9
9
13
10
16
11

Cu
12
13
16
15
10
13
10
11
8
11
12

Au Bu
14 10
15 10
15 11
17 12
15.3 10.8

Cu
8
10
9
10
9.3

Au
0.4

Bu Cu
0.2 2.7

Du
19
20
19
14
12
15
18
19
17
19
17
55.7
Du
18
16
16
17
16.8
52.0

Eu
11
12
11
9
6
18
13
7
14
7
11

Control

Fu
10
11
13
14
8
19
20
12
17
9
13

Gu
7
15
12
16
14
19
14
7
11
12
13

Eu Fu
14 18
11 11
5
6
8 11
9.5 11.5

Gu
8
11
7
12
9.5

Du Eu
0.4 1.3

Thought

Hu
Iu Ju Ku Lu Mu Nu Ou Pu s.d. UC
11 13
7
8 15 13 16 12 15
3.55
10
8 17
9 18
5 12 14 12
3.81
14
9
9 10 15 16
8
7 14
3.57
9 13 15 19 15 11
9
6
9
3.30
9 10 15 20 19 17 12 17
9
4.11
14 13 11
6 11
7
9 11
8
4.09
9 10
8
8 13 16 15 10 14
3.48
6 11 16 19 15 14 11 14 11
3.72
16
9 13
7 16 12 13
9 11
3.30
8 11 11
8 17 14 11 13 15
3.59
11 11 12 11 15 13 12 11 12
47.4
49.7
47.2
Hu
Iu Ju Ku Lu Mu Nu Ou Pu s.d. UC
18 13 13
9 11 14 12
9 11
3.30
7 13
9
7 20 11 16 16 17
3.66
10 15 15 19 20 14 17 13
8
4.49
8 13 12
9 20 12 12 15 12
3.22
10.8 13.5 12.3 11.0 17.8 12.8 14.3 13.3 12.0
41.3
54.5
52.3

Fu Gu Hu
Iu Ju
1.8 3.2 -0.2 -2.8 -0.1

Table 14 Footnotes:
CVAT = Culture and Values Analysis Tool
UC-E = perception of Unit Culture of ETCs
UC-S = perception of Unit Culture of Supervisors of ETCs
See Attachment C for description of dimensions
WORK
Au = Effort as rewarded in the work unit
Bu = Time as rewarded in the work unit
Cu = Finish Job as rewarded in the work unit
Du = Quality as rewarded in the work unit

58

Ku Lu Mu Nu Ou Pu
0.4 -2.4 -0.3 -2.7 -2.0 -0.2

RELATIONS
Eu = Affect as rewarded in the work unit
Fu = Empathy as rewarded in the work unit
Gu = Sociability as rewarded in the work unit
Hu = Loyalty as rewarded in the work unit
CONTROL
Iu = Dominance as rewarded in the work unit
Ju = Status as rewarded in the work unit
Ku = Political as rewarded in the work unit
Lu = Leader as rewarded in the work unit
THOUGHT
Mu = Abstract as rewarded in the work unit
Nu = Plan/Organize as rewarded in the work unit
Ou = Exposition as rewarded in the work unit
Pu = Flexibility as rewarded in the work unit
s.d. UC = standard deviation of Unit Culture.
The square root of the mean of the sum of squared variances from mean. Used as a measure of
dispersion that refers to the variability or spread in the data. A lower s.d. implies that the
participant has a consistent perception of expressed rewards and does not perceive a particular
reward over another. A higher s.d. implies that the participant has a more marked opinion of
what is rewarded and can more easily express the perception that one form of reward has more
value in the work place than another.
Mean: arithmetic mean is the sum of a set of measurements divided by the number of
measurements in the set. For this study, arithmetic mean provides a better measure of central
location to estimate a population parameter than other expressions of average, such as mode,
median, or geometric mean.
Sum = the sum of the means for each set of four Unit Culture dimensions that compose a Culture
category.
UC E-S = the mean of perceived Unit Culture of ETCs minus the mean of perceived Unit
Culture of Supervisors of ETCs.

59

Table 15: CVAT -- Difference in perception of personal values between high and low
performing programs.
Work

Relations

Control

Thought

PV-hi As Bs Cs Ds Es Fs Gs Hs Is Js Ks Ls Ms Ns Os Ps s.d. PV
2
14 11 15 18 13 15 10 19 11 10 10
7 10 17 12
8
3.43
2
8 10
8 14 17 13 11 12 15 14 8 11 15 15 13 16
2.83
3
16 17
9 11 14 17 14 20 12
9 6
9
7 14 16
9
3.97
5
12 13 10 15 19 17 14 20 12 10 6 12
5 17 10
8
4.23
7
20 17 11 19 10 14 13 16 13 15 7
9
8 11 10
7
3.95
7
11 18 11 19 12
8
8 16 11 10 10 12 13 14 13 14
3.06
8
17 16 11 13 11 16 15 15 14
9 6 10 12
9 16 10
3.12
Mean
14 15 11 16 14 14 12 17 13 11 7.6 10 10 14 13 10
Sum
54.9
57.0
41.1
47.0
PV-lo As Bs Cs Ds Es Fs Gs Hs Is Js Ks Ls Ms Ns Os Ps s.d. PV
9
13 11
6 11 14 16 14 15 14
8 8 16 16 11 14 13
2.98
10
17 17 14 20 10 14 10 13 13 13 6 10 14 14
7
8
3.69
10
15 10 17 16
6
8
8
9 13
9 10 20 14 16 15 14
3.86
11
13 15 11 17 18 17
9 16 10 16 5
8 18 11
8
8
4.12
12
15 17 13 17
8 16 10 16 11
6 6 18 10 15 13
9
3.87
12
18 16 16 17 14 13 12 20 12 11 6 11
7 11
9
7
4.00
13
15 12 13 17
6 18
8 17 10
9 10 11 12 14 18 10
3.59
Mean 15.1 14.0 12.9 16.4 10.9 14.6 10.1 15.1 11.9 10.3 7.3 13.4 13.0 13.1 12.0 9.9
Sum
58.4
50.7
42.9
48.0
PV
hi-lo

As Bs Cs Ds Es Fs Gs Hs Is Js Ks Ls Ms Ns Os Ps
-1.1 0.6 -2.1 -0.9 2.9 -0.3 2.0 1.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 -3.4 -3.0 0.7 0.9 0.4

Table 15 Footnotes:
CVAT = Culture and Values Analysis Tool
PV-hi = Personal Value scores of ETCs and supervisors from first seven organizations from a list
of participating organizations ranked by transportation program effectiveness.
PV-lo = Personal Value scores of ETCs and supervisors from last seven organizations from a list
of participating organizations ranked by transportation program effectiveness.
See Attachment C for description of dimensions

60

WORK
As = Effort as a value for self
Bs = Time as a value for self
Cs = Finish Job as a value for self
Ds = Quality as a value for self
RELATIONS
Es = Affect as a value for self
Fs = Empathy as a value for self
Gs = Sociability as a value for self
Hs = Loyalty as a value for self
CONTROL
Is = Dominance as a value for self
Js = Status as a value for self
Ks = Political as a value for self
Ls = Leader as a value for self
THOUGHT
Ms = Abstract as a value for self
Ns = Plan/Organize as a value for self
Os = Exposition as a value for self
Ps = Flexibility as a value for self
s.d. PV = standard deviation of Personal Values. The square root of the mean of the sum of
squared variances from mean. Used as a measure of dispersion that refers to the variability or
spread in the data. A lower s.d. implies that the participant has a consistent perception of
expressed values and does not elevate a particular value over another. A higher s.d. implies that
the participant has a more marked opinion of particular values and can more easily express the
importance of one value over another.
Mean: arithmetic mean is the sum of a set of measurements divided by the number of
measurements in the set. For this study, arithmetic mean provides a better measure of central
location to estimate a population parameter than other expressions of average, such as mode,
median, or geometric mean.
Sum = the sum of the means for each set of four Personal Values dimensions that compose a
Values category.
PV hi-lo = mean of Personal Value scores of ETCs and supervisors from first seven
organizations from a list of participating organizations ranked by transportation program
effectiveness minus mean of Personal Value scores of ETCs and supervisors from last seven
organizations from a list of participating organizations ranked by transportation program
effectiveness.

61

Table 16: CVAT -- Difference in perception of work unit culture between high and low
performing programs.
Work
Relations
Control
UC-hi
Au Bu Cu Du Eu Fu Gu Hu Iu Ju
2
14 10
8 18 14 18
8 18 13 13
2
17
9 13 15 18 19 19 14 13 11
3
12 14 15 14
9 14 16
9 13 15
5
15
9 13 20 12 11 15 10
8 17
6
14
8 10 12
6
8 14
9 10 15
7
19 12 12 19 11 10
7 11 13
7
7
15 11
9 16
5
6
7 10 15 15
Mean
15 10 11 16 11 12 12 12 12 13
Sum
53.3
46.9

Ku
9
6
19
9
20
8
19
13

UC-lo
Au Bu Cu Du Eu Fu Gu Hu Iu Ju
9
14 13 11 19
7 12
7
6 11 16
10
13
9 10 18 13 20 14
9 10
8
10
17 12 10 17
8 11 12
8 13 12
11
18
9 16 19 11 13 12 14
9
9
12
15 10 10 16 11 11 11
7 13
9
12
17 10
8 17 14 17 11 16
9 13
13
18 16 11 19
7
9 12
8 11 11
Mean 16.0 11.3 10.9 17.9 10.1 13.3 11.3 9.7 10.9 11.1
Sum
56.0
44.4

Ku Lu Mu Nu Ou Pu s.d. UC
19 15 14 11 14 11
3.72
8 13 16 15 10 14
3.48
9 20 12 12 15 12
3.22
10 15 16
8
7 14
3.57
7 20 11 16 16 17
3.66
7 16 12 13
9 11
3.30
8 17 14 11 13 15
3.59
9.7 16.6 13.6 12.3 12.0 13.4
48.3
51.3

UC
hi-lo

Thought
Lu Mu Nu Ou Pu s.d. UC
11 14 12
9 11
3.30
11
7
9 11
8
4.09
15 11
9
6
9
3.30
18
5 12 14 12
3.81
19 17 12 17
9
4.11
15 13 16 12 15
3.55
20 14 17 13
8
4.49
16 12 12 12 10
53.9
46.0

Au Bu Cu Du Eu Fu Gu Hu Iu Ju Ku Lu Mu Nu Ou Pu
-0.9 -0.9 0.6 -1.6 0.6 -1.0 1.0 1.9 1.3 2.1 3.1 -1.0 -2.0 0.1 -0.3 -3.1

Table 16 Footnotes:
CVAT = Culture and Values Analysis Tool
UC-hi = perception of Unit Culture scores of ETCs and supervisors from first seven
organizations from a list of participating organizations ranked by transportation program
effectiveness.
UC-lo = perception of Unit Culture scores of ETCs and supervisors from last seven organizations
from a list of participating organizations ranked by transportation program effectiveness.
See Attachment C for description of dimensions

62

WORK
Au = Effort as rewarded in the work unit
Bu = Time as rewarded in the work unit
Cu = Finish Job as rewarded in the work unit
Du = Quality as rewarded in the work unit
RELATIONS
Eu = Affect as rewarded in the work unit
Fu = Empathy as rewarded in the work unit
Gu = Sociability as rewarded in the work unit
Hu = Loyalty as rewarded in the work unit
CONTROL
Iu = Dominance as rewarded in the work unit
Ju = Status as rewarded in the work unit
Ku = Political as rewarded in the work unit
Lu = Leader as rewarded in the work unit
THOUGHT
Mu = Abstract as rewarded in the work unit
Nu = Plan/Organize as rewarded in the work unit
Ou = Exposition as rewarded in the work unit
Pu = Flexibility as rewarded in the work unit
s.d. UC = standard deviation of Unit Culture: the square root of the mean of the sum of squared
variances from mean. Used as a measure of dispersion that refers to the variability or spread in
the data. A lower s.d. implies that the participant has a consistent perception of expressed
rewards and does not perceive a particular reward over another. A higher s.d. implies that the
participant has a more marked opinion of what is rewarded and can more easily express the
perception that one form of reward has more value in the work place than another.
Mean: arithmetic mean is the sum of a set of measurements divided by the number of
measurements in the set. For this study, arithmetic mean provides a better measure of central
location to estimate a population parameter than other expressions of average, such as mode,
median, or geometric mean.
Sum = the sum of the means for each set of four Unit Culture dimensions that compose a Culture
category.
UC hi-lo = mean perceived Unit Culture scores of ETCs and supervisors from first seven
organizations from a list of participating organizations ranked by transportation program
effectiveness minus mean of perceived Unit Culture scores of ETCs and supervisors from last
seven organizations from a list of participating organizations ranked by transportation program
effectiveness.

63

Table 17: Chart III from DiSC -- the official report

Segment
Numbers
from Graph III

Code
Rank
ETC
Respondents

Intensity
Number from
Graph III

Pattern Name

S C

E02

5 3

Appraiser

7 17 12 25

E04

5 5

Result-Oriented

E08

5 3

Appraiser

E09

4 3

5 Objective Thinker

E10

6 5

Counselor

7 21 20 14

E11

11

2 7

Perfectionist

2 8 27 22

E14

7 4

Promoter

E15

1 7

Perfectionist

8 2 27 23

E17

7 7

Practitioner

2 23 25 17

E21

10

1 6

Achiever

20 3 23 14

E22

2 6

Perfectionist

11 8 21 18

E24

12

2 5

Investigator

18 5 20 18

E25

13

6 5

Counselor

21 17 20

12 19 10 22
16 14 10 19

14 27 15

11 23 20

Supervisor
Respondents
S05

11

6 4

Practitioner

9 21 14 17

S12

4 5

Specialist

11 14 20 16

S20

12

5 3

Inspirational

18 17 12 11

S23

7 2

Inspirational

21 27 6

S26

10

2 1

Creative

27 5 2 18

Table 17 Footnotes:

Rank indicates the highest performing organizations (1) to the lowest (13) in the study.
Pattern name is one of the 13 classical profile patterns established by the DiSC researchers.
Most persons have only one or two behavioral traits at or above the midline, and these can be
viewed in combination to interpret the greatest needs-driven behaviors of an individual,
including Directing, Influencing, Steadiness and Conscientiousness. The number of respondents
to this study was not such that any conclusions can be drawn from the Classical profile pattern.

64

Table 18: Chart I and II from DiSC -- anecdotal observations

Chart I: projected behaviors
Segment
Numbers
from Graph I
Most
(Intermediate)

D
3
4
3
4
2
2
3
2
1
5
3
6
3
3
3
5
4
7

i
4
5
6
5
6
2
7
3
6
3
3
1
6
6
4
4
7
1

S
3
6
3
3
6
7
5
7
7
6
5
5
6
5
5
5
3
2

Chart II: response under pressure

Segment
Numbers
from Graph II
Least
(Intermediate)

C Pattern
7 Objective Thinker
2 Agent
6 Appraiser
5 Appraiser
4 Counselor
4 Specialist
2 Counselor
4 Specialist
4 Agent
4 Achiever
6 Perfectionist
5 Investigator
2 Counselor
4 Counselor
6 Perfectionist
3 Achiever
1 Promoter
6 Creative

D
1
6
3
4
2
1
5
3
1
6
3
3
3
2
3
5
6
7

i
6
4
4
3
6
3
5
1
7
1
3
3
6
6
3
5
6
3

S
4
5
3
3
5
7
4
7
7
7
7
6
4
3
7
2
2
1

C Pattern
6 Practitioner
1 Achiever
5 Objective Thinker
6 Objective Thinker
4 Counselor
7 Perfectionist
2 Inspirational
7 Perfectionist
6 Practitioner
4 Achiever
4 Specialist
5 Perfectionist
3 Promoter
6 Appraiser
3 Specialist
4 Inspirational
1 Inspirational
4 Developer

Table 18 Footnotes:
As explained previously, long-term users of this instrument have found very strong anecdotal
evidence that the Chart I, where respondents indicate how they are Most within a given job
focus correspond most highly to the way people intend to project their behaviors. In this case,
they were given the specific focus of my job as an ETC or supervising my ETC.
Similarly, the creator of the instrument found that Chart II, wherein respondents indicate how
they are Least within the same focus, is often more closely aligned with the instinctive
response to pressure. Only Chart III results have been validated and reliability tested, as
explained in the section concerning validity and reliability of instruments (see Table 17).
However, the insight provided by how people project their behavior MOST (Graph1) and
LEAST (Graph II) lend insight in a small sample size such as this.

65