THERE HAS BEEN much recent research and discussion of worker responses to job en1argement.l Countering claims of universal applicability, the general conclusion of three widely cited studies is that rural workers respond favorably to job enlargement, while the opposite is true for urban workers.2 Rural workers, it is felt, express satisfaction with jobs which allow individual responsibility and discretion because the communities in which they live value such traditional work virtues as autonomy and independence. By contrast, urban workers, it is argued, respond less favorably to enlarged jobs because urban communities are not sufficiently integrated to support and enforce traditional work values; instead, nonwork related values and activities compete for the worker's allegiance. This latter response is considered most likely in anomic communities characterized by high population density, slums, low standards of living, and chronic ~nemployment.~ While the iduence of individual and cultural variables on worker responses to job enlargement is not denied, the findings of the present study suggest that the evidence for differential responses between rural and urban workers is inconclusive. Previous studies which have found urban-rural differences in responses to various job attributes have either used atypical worker populations or have drawn implications for job enlargement which are unwarranted by the data. Utilizing data which avoid a number of the problems associated with past studies, this research examines the responses of workers * Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior, Pennsylvania State University. 1This research was supported by funds from a National Science Foundation grant to the Pennsylvania State University. The author wishes to express his appreciation to E. Lauck Parke and John E. Sheridan for their contributions to the job ratings and data analysis. 1 7 Blamer, op. cit, and M . Meissner, Technology and the Worker (San Francisco: Chandler,

No abstract

No abstract

Summary and Conclusions Four rating scale formats were used by the first and second line supervisors of four groups of clerical workers. The formats varied from unstructured to highly structured. The format incorporating trait titles and behavioral descriptions of scale steps demonstrated marked superiority over both more‐ and less‐structured formats. This format demonstrated higher inter‐rater reliability, less halo and less leniency than did the other formats. Variability was approximately equal for all formats.

This paper examines intellectual property (IP) management in U.S. companies and addresses three questions: What are typical sources of IP? How do companies manage IP? What role do donations of IP play in IP management?We used a combination of in-depth interviews with a sample of 15 companies in Northeast Ohio and an on-line survey to over 7,200 companies nationally. We found that firms develop their IP position from a wide variety of sources such as joint ventures, acquisitions, and consulting contracts. However, internal development is still the primary source of IP. Internal patenting processes follow two general paths, one relying on some type of IP committee and another that simply empowers divisional line managers to make patenting decisions.Organizationally, three structural archetypes of IP management were identified, each with its unique advantages and drawbacks: a centralized structure, a purely decentralized IP structure and a compromise structure involving a divisional assignment where a multi-business unit or division committee oversees IP.Concerning IP donations, the response rate to our on-line survey was too low for us to draw definitive conclusions. IP donations clearly do not appear to be a major phenomenon at the present time. Our survey results suggest that tax benefits are an important driver and that recent tax law changes have diminished the incentives to donate IP. Potential good will benefits constitute another motive. The uncertainty of tax benefits and the costs associated with IP valuation appear to be the main disincentives. The low survey response rate may be attributable to the timing of the survey (fall, 2004, while federal legislation was pending), a lack of interest in IP donations, and the generally low response rates to on-line surveys.