1. Introduction:

The object of this paper is to focus upon the behavior of the human individual in the administrative management theory. By using the general management principles recommended in this theory, we shall model a formal organization of a manufacturing firm. This formal organization will consist of different departments, different hierarchical levels and different individuals and groups.

In this organizational model, we study the individual human behavior in a specific situation from two different approaches: the classical and the behavioral. The specific situation is a goal differentiation between different members of the organization. In the analysis of the results in this study, we shall try to give some possible solutions to the problems arising from the conflict situation by applying the behavioral theory of the firm.

---

*) This article was prepared as a joint research work in the course in Organization and Administration while the authors were visiting the Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. - 1964.

**) Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, now at AB Svenska Kullagerfabriken, Gothenburg, Sweden.

***) Facultad de Ciencias Economicas, Universidad de Chile, Santiago de Chile,

2. Principles for classical organization.

Two main lines of development in traditional organization thery can be distinguished. The first of them focuses upon the basic physical activities involved in production and typified by time study and methods study. This Scientific Management Theory is derived from the work of F. W. Taylor (10).

The second main line in traditional organization theory is more concerned with the general organization problems of departmental division of work and coordination, the administrative management theory. In this chapter we will analyze and describe the methods and principles which have been suggested by students in traditional organization theory.

2.1. A principle for management organization.

The theory of departmentalization or the administrative management
theory was developed during the 1920's through to the early 1940's1).

Among the prominent exponents of the theory are Fayol (1), Urwick
and Gullick (2), Mooney and Reiley (5).

Both of these lines of developing the traditional theory which are mentioned above, are concerned with the simpler neurophysiological properties of human beings and the simpler kind of tasks that are handled in organizations. However, the administrative management theorists tended to carry their analysis, at least at the level of wisdom and insight, beyond the boundaries set by their formal models.

The general problems which the formal theory is handling has been
defined by March and Simon (6) as follows:

»Given a general purpose for an organization, we can identify the unit tasks necessary to achieve that purpose. Those tasks will normally include basic productive activities, etc. The problem is to group these tasks into individual jobs, to group the jobs into administrative units, to group the units into larger units, and finally to establish top level departments.

.... To understand the formal theory, it is important to
recognize that the total set of tasks is regarded as given in
advance.«

---

2) At the present time, some students maintain some of the basic arguments of this theory. See, for example, Newman, Koontz and O'Donnell.

This is the common base upon which all students in administrative
management build up their theories.

We will now focus upon the bcisic functions with which the administrative
management deals.

Henry Fayol (1) has separated the managerial function from other
functions, such as material function, machine function, etc.

The managerial operates only on the personnel. He says »the soundness and good working order of the body corporate depend on a certain numer of conditions termed indiscriminately principle, laws, rules, etc.« Fayol's principles are flexible and capable of adaptation to every need in the firm and are those to which he has most often had recourse.

The basic need for principles can be expressed by his own words:

». .. . in every concern there is a management function to be
performed, and for its performance there must be principles
- that is to say - acknowledged truths regarded as proven on

which to rely. And it is the code which represents the same
total of these thruths at any given moment.«

In order to use the principles recommended in the administrative management theory for organizational modeling, we shall briefly rewiev the work done by the most well-known students of the classical organization

L. Gullick (2) is concerned with the structure of coordination imposed
upon the work division. In fact, he describes the work division as the
only reason for organization.

The reasons for division of work are

- because men differ in nature, capacity, skill

- because the same man cannot be at two places at the same
time

- because one man cannot do two things at the same time

- because the range of knowledge and skill is so great that
a man cannot, within his life-span, atain more than a
small portion of it.

- etc., etc.

Division of work requires coordination of work. The coordination of
work, Gullick says, can be accomplished in two ways:

- by organization interrelating the sub-divisions of work
by allocating them to men who are placed in a structure of
authority coordination by order.

- by the dominance of an idea — coordination by purpose.

Gullick's basic »tools« for coordination through organization are span
of control, one master (unity of command), technical efficiency and
caveamus expertum (to avoid the »expertum«).

L. Urwick (2) is dealing with the same problem as Gullick, but from
another point of view the need for a technique of organization.
Reasons:

- there are principles which can be arrived at inductively from
the study of human experience of organization.

- the principles can be studied as a technical question, irrespective
of the purpose of the enterprise.

- the scalar process, clear lines of authority running from the
top into every corner of the department's intellectual capacity.

- specialization, removal of routine of management and need
for specializing the work.

- span of control. An individual who is coordinating the work of others must take into account in his decision (1) the reaction of each person as an individual and (2) the person's reaction as a member of any possible grouping of person's which may arise during the course of the work.

J. D. Mooney (4) says that a principle is something fundamental in the organization and must be universal in its own sphere. In the Mooney theory, true coordination, in the formal sense, can only, be effectuated through functional definition and must begin at the top. This coordination will give relation of one job to other jobs and functions.

All of Mooney's structural principles of organization concern coordination,
»the beginning an end of all organized effort«.

One main objective in this study is to construct a formal organization of the administrative management theory, and evalute the individual human behavior in a specific situation in this organization - a goal differentiation.

In order to construct this organization, we want to use some of the basic principles in the administrative management theory. Because Fayol's principles of management are the first basic recommendations in this theory, we want to build the formal organization of this study around his principles. This assumption seems to be a feasible one; most of the students in the administrative management theory have accepted and used Fayol's principles, and some of them have based their own theory on these principles,

The general principles of management is the subject to which we
turn next.

2.2 General Principles of Management.

In his general principles, Fayol (1) is concerned with the managerial function operating only on the personnel in the organization. He tries to be general in these principles in order to get an unique answer to a general problem. As he says:

»There is nothing rigid or absolute in management affairs; it is
all a question of proportion«.

And further on he points out the generality, saying:

»therefore principles are flexible and capable of adaptation to every need; it is a matter of knowing how to make use of them, which is a different art requiring intelligence, experience, decision and proportion».

Fayol says that there are no limits in the number of principles of management.
As long as a principle by experience has been evaluated as a
worthwhile principle, it may be included among the general principles.

In the following, we will review the general principles of management,
which Fayol has derived from his experience in working in industrial
firms.

1. Division of work - permits a reduction in the number of objects to which attention must be directed, and which has been recognized as the best means of making use of individuals and groups of people.

2. Authority and Responsibility - Responsibility is a corollary of authority, its natural consequence and essential counterpart; and wherever authority is exercised, responsibility arises.

3. Discipline -
is respect for agreements which are directed to achieving obedience,
appliciton, energy and the outward marks of respect.

4. Unity of Command -
For any action, whatsoever, an employee should recieve orders
from one superior only.

5. Unity of direction -
one head and one plan for a group of activities having the same
objectives.

6. Subordination of individual interest to general interest - different
interests of a different order, but earning equal respect, confront
each other and means must be found to reconcile them.

7. Remuneration of Personnel -
is the price of services rendered.

8. Centralization - everything that goes to increase the importance of the subordinate's role implies decentralization, and everything that goes to reduce it implies centralization.

9. Scalar chain - the line of authority is the route followed — via every link in the chain - by all communications which start from or go to the ultimate

10. Order - social (human) order presupposes the successful execution of the two most difficult managerial activities: good organization and satisfactory solutions.

]1. Equity -
combination of kindliness and justice.

12. Stability of Tenure of Personnel —
Instability of tenure is at one and the same time the cause of and
and the effect of poor management.

15. Initiative —
power of constructive thinking, freedom to propose and execute.

14. Esprit de Corps -
harmony is great strength, and effeort should be made to establish it.

Fayol says in his book »that this list has no precise limits«. All principles are to be seen as general management principles on which it is appropriate to concentrate general discussions. We will now use these general principles for management in modeling a formal organization for a general firm where we are also interested in seperating the organizational and human points of view on these principles. It is to this area we turn next.

3. Application of the general principles for management to an organization the formal organization 3).

Using Fayol's principles for organizational modeling, we find it useful
to separate this modeling into two steps:

1. To model the formal organization for the firm.
In this case we are organizing a manufacturing company

2. To study the human individual within this firm. Here we are
interested in what the firm gives to the human individual and
what is reuired of him.

3.1. The Formal Organization:

The formal organization in the firm describes thecoordination and
communication pattern in which the firm expects its members to behave.

Some of the general principles of management by Fayol can be used for modeling this formal pattern of expected behavior. We shall list these principles referring to Exhibit 1, and the numbers refer to the order of principles in Chapter 2.2.

1. Division of work:

Division of work will permit a reduction in the number of objects to which attention and effort must be directed, and should result in the best efficiency of individual and group, In this case, therefore, our firm will be divided into four different department: Sales, Production, Finance and Personnel. In these different departments the work will also be divided; the sales department will be divided into sales promotion and sales etc.

2. Authority and Responsibility.

Authority is the right to give orders and the power to exact obedience,
and responsibilty can be viewed as a natural consequence of authority.
Wherever authority is exercised responsibility arise.

The general manager of the firm orders to the production manager and
the order will then be given to the supervisor for department B. Authorityis
delegated down to the organizational levels, and, at every level,

---

3) The formal organization has been described by H.Simon (7): Procedural coordination - the specification of the lines of authority, and the spheres of activity and authority of etch organization member creates a formal organization, a set of abstracts, more or less permanent relations, that govern the behavior of each participant.

this authority (the given order) creates responsibility up through the
different levels.

4. Unity of Command.

This principle says that an employee should receive orders from one
superior only. This rule is established to complete number 2 and in orderto

dertoavoid dual command in the organization. Unity of command can be exemplified by the finance department. The supervisor for departmentD will receive orders from one superior, the manager of the finance department - and the latter will receive orders from only one person, the general manager.

5. Unity of Direction.

The unity of direction principle is concerned with the goal definition of the firm, one head and one plan for a group of activities having the same objective. This principle expresses the unity of action, coordination of strength and accumulation of effort in the firm as a whole and in the different groups in the firm. The objective for the firm will be given to the departments by the general manager; the objectives for the departments will be given to the groups by the manager, etc. The different group members will then focus on the objective (plan) given to them by their head.

The personal manager gives the objective to the group - supervisors
E, F and G, and the whole personnel department then works with this
objective.

9. Scalar Chain.

The scalar chain is the chain of supervisors ranging from the ultimate authority to the lowest ranks. This line of authority is dictated both by the need for some transmission and by the principle of unity of com mand. The scalar chain is the formal way in which problems between different departments will be handled. By using the »gang planks« (cross contacts) it will be possible to make some rapid decisions without using the scalar chain.

If supervisor C in the finance department, and G in the personnel department have come to an agreement using the »gang plank« (dotted line), the scalar principle will be safeguarded if the managers for finance and personnel have authorized their respective subordinates G and G to deal directly.

After modeling the formal organization for our firm, we now want to
focus upon the human individual in this organization; on what the organization
will give to him and what It requires of him.

3.2. The Individual.

The individual is represented by the unique human behavior in the
formal organization, from the general manager to the employee at the

lowest level. The human behavior in the administrative management
theory is given in advance, found by the environment dictated by the
general principles.

In focusing upon the human element in the formal organization, we
find that some of the general principles are directed toward the human
being, given, and some others are directed from him ,required.

Referring to the human being and the environment in Exhibit 2 and
the principles in Chapter 2.2, we shall discuss briefly the expected impact
of applying these principles in an organization.

Given to the Individual.

(1) The division of work will give specialization to the individual;
he will become a specialist and an expert in his work.

(2) The individual will have authority. This authority gives him power
and responsibility in his behavior.

(4) The human receives orders from another human, his superior. The unity individual of command principle will help him in identifying his superior. He will always know to whom he belongs and from where he will take orders.

(5) All members in a group work the same objective, given by the
group leader, the superior. The individual will be able to identify
his own goal.

(7) By the remuneration of personnel, the firm gives rewards to the
individual. This is the price the firm pays for the service it gets
in order to satisfy the individual.

(8) Through centralization, the individual will be able, to make decisions.
He becomes involved in the decisionmaking process within
the firm.

(9) By the scalar chain, the firm is broken down vertically in different
hierarchical levels. Wherever the human is posted in the firm, he
belongs to some of the levels in the hierarchy.

(11) Equity gives the individual justice, the right to put into execution
the established conventions.

(12) The stability of tenure of personnel in the organization will give
the individual security in his work.

(14) Esprit de Corps gives the individual a feeling of group identification;
harmony in his work.

Required of the Individual.

(3) Discipline can be described as outward marks of respect observed
in accordance with in the standing agreements between the firm
and the individual. It is obedience of the employee to the firm.

(6) The goal of the individual must be the same as the goal of the firm.
If it is not, the individual must subordinate his own goal and
accept the goal of the firm.

(10) The right man is the right place. The firm selects its personnel for different tasks in the organization depending on the special requirements. The requirements must be balanced against the personnel resources. After this selection the firm expects knowledge from the individual in his tasks.

(13) The firm gives freedom to propose and to execute to the individual,
but it expects that the human will use the freedom to reason

out plans. It expects reasoning power and power to execute. This
is what Fayol calls initiative.

(14) The firm gives the group-identification and group-feeling to its members. But the firm also expects the individual to fit in with the group and communicate with the group members in order to maintain this group feeling.

We shall conclude this Chapter by referring to the critical view of
the organization members in the administrative management theory given
by March and Simon (6):

»First, in general, there is a tendency to view the employee as an inert instrument performing the tasks assigned to him. Second, there is a tendency to view personnel as a given, rather than as a variable, in the system.«

In the next chapter we shall analyze the expected human behavior in formal classical organizations in a specific situation in order to test the management principles in »the real life«. The specific situation we want to focus upon is »a goal differentiation«.

4. The expected human behavior in the classical theory when there is goal differentiation.

Under the principles of Fayol. we can assume that if they are accomplished, then the organization is going to work in a smooth manner. In order to show the way in which this model of organization works, we are going to present a problem of organization. Our principal assumptions in this problem are:

1. That all the principles of Fayol are fulfilled. This means that the
organization, in order to improve its actions, applied each principle
in the best form.

2. That this is not an odd problem, but a general and usual problem within an organization. Actually, we can expect this kind of problem in any type of organization, not only in an industrial pattern. Fayol, himself, accepts the possibility of the differential goals, and he gives it the category of principles through the one which speaks about the subordination of the particular interest (individual goals) to the general interest (organization goals).

I. The Problem. - Let us assume the following problem within the Formal

a) In some organizations there exists a general plan of action. One part of this plan is the sub-plan in the Sales Department. In this sub-plan, there is a program for promotion which is the same as that of other years, i. e. advertising.

b) The Sales Manager (A) gives to the Head of the Promotion Department
(B) the goals (Gi). He expects that B will accept this
goal under the principles of Direction Command, and Authority.

c) The Head of the Promotion Research Department (B) does not like the Gi, so he looks for a better plan in order to improve the promotion of the product, (G2). We can expect this behavior through the principle of Initiative.

d) B gives instruction to his subordinates to prepare a new alternative
(G2) through Unity of Command, Scalar Chain, and Authority
and Responsibility.

e) B shows G2 to A who insists on Gi. B really believes G2 is better
than Gi.

f) A can oblige B to perform Gi because of Unity of Command, Authority, Direction. A can expect B to accept Gi because of Subordination of Particular Interest to General, Discipline, Esprit de Corps, and because he acts with Equity.

g) So the Promotion Department is going to work then, for the
succes of Gi.

Exhibit 3 shows this process.

In this particular problem, the crucial point is the stage (e) in which A rejects the goal of B and insists on the goal Gi. We can assume that because of Division of Works and Order, B has done a good job, and because he knows the problems, he has to prepare a better alternative than Gi. We do not imply, necessarily, that G2 is the best for the organization. We say that G2G₂ is best for the department. The problem is how A is to convince B that Gi is better than G2. The model said that A must act with Equity (mixture of kindness and justice). Because of the other principles mentioned above (especially through authority which Fayol defines as the »right to give orders and the power to exact obedience«, B must obey and work with Esprit de Corps and in a smooth way within the organization for the succes of the general plan (organization

5. The same problem under the assumption organizational behavior.

In the problem we have presented above, the »formal« solution was given. But it seems to us that under this formal solution there is another »underground« behavior. In other words, we can be assured that the behavior expected of the traditional model( or Fayol's model) is going to fail; that human behavior will differ from that expected of such a model. There exists some »unanticipated« responses of the organization members

Our following task is to again present the same problem and we are
trying to develop this unanticipated consequence through the different

steps, and then compare with the principles of Fayol, in an attempt to
explain why it does not work.

We can assume that the first part is the same, that the promotion
department receives Gi. We shall now explain the next steps of human
behavior.

1. Why can we expect that Bis going to search for another alternative?

We know that the Promotion Department is a specialized department and its access to information is greater than what other departments have. Because of the differential information that is shared by the different department within an organization, we can assume that intraorganizational disagreement will occur. March and Simon hypothesized that »the greater the number of independent information sources, the greater differentiation of perception within the organization« and a staff department such as Research does have independent sources of information.

Simon and Dearborn (12) in a study of the departmental identification of executives found that each member of the organization tends to see his function as one of the most important. The differential perception and the circumstance that each member of the organization gives to his own role leads to a different interpretation of the goals, and that to a differentiation of the goals

So we can expect A to reject Gi because of the better information
his department has and because the departmental identification is going
to lead to a lower satisfaction.

2. The search for a new alternative and its implications.

Combining the general model of search behavior and satisfaction and the factors affecting individual conflict and individual reactions to conflict (both presented by March and Simon (6), we can predict the following steps in the behavior of the Promotion Department:

6) Because of a feeling of subjective unacceptability4) (produced
because of low satisfaction with Gi), the members are going to
perceive a conflict.

b) This conflict will produce a motivation to reduce conflict

c) The strength of the motivation to reduce conflict (and thus the

---

4) The individual knows at least the probable distribution of outcome associated with each alternative of action. In addition, he may be able to identify a preferred alternative without difficulty, but the preferred alternative is not good enough.

rate of search) depends on the availability of alternatives, and the pressure of time. In this point we can assume 1) that the members of the department at least have the feeling that they are able to find a better alternative (if these do not already exists no time pressure nor does the department have a positive amount of slack.

d) This will induce the members to search for new alternatives.

e) The more searching, the higher the expected value of reward.

f) The higher the expected value of reward, the higher the satisfaction
and the level of aspiration of the members of the department.

Because of this model, we can expect that when the department finds G2 this not only implies a better alternative (for them), but it implies that members are in a situation of high expectancy of reward created for the increased level of aspiration. (We can expect the employees to be happy, proud and expectant.)

Exhibit no. 4 shows this process.

3. The Rejection of G2.

We can expect the following behavior of the members of the Promotion
Department after A rejects the alternative that they produced:

a) If they insist that G2 is better than Gi, then there will be conflict
arising from unacceptability. This is so because they are
not going to accept Gi as they already know G2 is better5).

b) This subjective unacceptability leads to tension. This tension can be identified with frustration. But because they are forced to accept Gi this is going to raise a new conflict - to accept or not to accept Gi⁶).

c) This frustration and conflict will motivate the members to reduce the frustration and the conflict. The will search for alternative action. Agyris pointed out the following alternatives for a member in conflict with the organization:⁷)

»a. - He may leave the organization (but where else can he
go? Most companies are organized in the same way).

b. - He may work hard to climb the ladder and become president.
(But how many can become president?)

c. - He may defend his self-concept and adapt through the use
of defense mechanisms.

---

5) We assume that through Fayol's model, the Sales Manager is going to impose Gi on the assumption of the principles, which can of course be done in different ways; but it is doubtful (if G2 is satisfactory) that, given the high degree of expectancy and level of aspiration that the members have, they are going to accept the rejection of their new alternative.

6) We can assimilate this conflict to the third type of conflict that Argyris presents (Personality and Organization) »Conflict will tend to exist when the person has the choice of doing something he likes, but runs the risk of punishment or loss« - page 39 (11).

7) Argyris, op. cit. page 79 (11).

d. - He may »pressure« himself to stay, and in spite of the conflict, simultaneously adapt as much as possible by lowering his work standards and becoming apathetic and dissinterested.

e. - This apathy and disinterest may lead him to place mode
value on material rewards and to depreciate the value of
human or non-material rewards.«

Exhibit no. 5. shows this process.

4. The unanticipated consequences of the model

All the different reactions of the individual under conflict pointed out in no. 3 show us that the behavior of the group) is going to be quite different from the behavior expected for the Sales Manager through the traditional models. Moreover, we can briefly analyse the response of the members of the department in comparison with the principles (or some of them):

a. If they leave the organization. This is not what Fayol intended Through his principles of Stability in the tenure of the position he says that it is better to have a mediocre employee permanently than a good one occasionally.

b) If they work hard to become president, they are going to destroy
the Esprit de Corps, the Scalar Chain, Subordination

c) If they use defense mechanisms, then they are against Esprit de
Corps, Discipline, Authority and Responsibility (especially the
latter).

Problems of the Goal

As we said before, the key point of this problem is the moment A
rejects Go and insists on Gi.

What kind of goal is G2? It is a new program, that is, an innovation. March and Simon (6) postulated that the rate of innovation is likely to increase when changes in the environment make the existing organizational procedures unsatisfactory. That means, that even when Gi is a good goal (or plan), but the members of the promotion department believe that there exists a better alternative (may be because there exists some slack) then Gi is considered unsatisfactory. Maybe even the change of environment is an unnecessary condition if the members feel that they can change the environment through the new plan.

What kind of goal is G2? It is a continuity (i. e. repeat the same procedure
because it worked last year).

So Sales Promotion believes that G2 is going to increase the sales and the Sales Manager believes that Gi is good enough. In this case, both goals are not comparable, even less so if they are not operational. (Even less, if we can assume that they are not sub-goals of the same Goal).

In the Traditional model the organization (sales manager) found the solution to the problem through command and discipline - in general, the use of power and authority. And this was the main reason for the resulting behavior of the group within the Promotion Department. This is true in asmuch as the traditional theory does not differentiate between goals, and moreover, it is primarily based on non-operational goals (increased profit, power on the market, welfare of employees, etc.).

We know that this type of goal is necessary in order to maintain
the organization (or the coalition).

Cyert and March (8) say:

»The prevalence of objectives in this form (non-operational)
can be partly explained by the fact that non-operational objectives
are consistent with virtually any set of objectives.«

But we know too, that when we are dealing with this kind of goal we cannot use analytical approaches (problemsolving or persuasion) in order to solve the conflict. We must use the bargaining approach (bargaining and »politics«).

We can emphasize the bargaining solution if the realize that this is an intergroup conflict within the organization (even if the sales manager represented only one individual) and »the more organizational conflict represents intergroup differences, the greater the use of bargaining«.

Conclusion:

We have tried, in this paper, to criticize the Traditional Theory of Management in the light of the Behavioral Approach. In so doing, we described a formal organization and the expected human behavior on the basis of Fayol's principles. Then we created a problem of goal differentiation,and described the general behavior expected of this theory. Our next step was to explain this behavior in the light of the BehavioralOrganizration Theory. We can see the differences in the two approaches by the different expected behaviors. In the first theory, the expected result was an adaptation of the individuals to the organizationalgoals; in the second theory the result of the same problem was

a conflict between the groups, leading to the eventual destruction of the
formal organization.

In working with the principles of Fayol, we experimented with their limitations - that is, their inoperability. They are, in general, good recommendations, but not only are there contradictions among them, as Simon (7) pointed out, but they also presented a problem when we tried to apply them. Their definition is broad, and can therefore be interpreted in many different ways.

We feel that we have clearly presented the image that the Traditional theorists had of the man within the organization. In the expected behavior that the principles assume of the man (implicit and explicit), we can support the conclusion of March and Simon (6) about the »machine man«. Fayol recognizes that there could exist a differential behavior in the individual and his principles; in this case he tried to avoid this problem by advising the manager to be kind and friedly, while the behavioral sciences emphasize a bargaining solution to an intergroup organizational conflict.

References:

(1) Fayol, H. Industrial and General Administration London 1930.

(2) Gullick, L. H., and Urwick, L.; eds. Papers on the Science of Administration
New York 1937.

(3) Gullick, L. H., The Elements of Administration New York 1943.

(4) Mooney, J. D., The Principles of Organization New York 1947.

(5) Mooney, J. D., and Reiley, A. C, The Principles of Organization New York 1939.

(6) March, J. G. and Simon, H. Organizations New York 1958.

(7) Simon, H. Administrative Behavior New York 1947.

(8) Cyert, R. M., and March J. G. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm New York 1963.

(9) Likert, R., New Patterns of Management New York 1961.

(10) Taylor, F. W., The Principles of Scientific Management New York 1911.

(11) Argyris, C. Personality and Organization New York 1958.

(12) Dearborn, D. C, and Simon, H. Selective Perception: A Note on the Departmental
Identifications of Executives. Sociometry 1958 21 pp 140-144.