Organizational scrutinizes often have fairly low answer rates.

Organizational scrutinizes often have fairly low answer rates. Sample surveys with depressed response rates can produce biased samples, particularly if first note of the scale organizational characteristics affect the pattern of measure and estimate response. In this paper we bring out an organizational theory of measure and estimate response that details why well-known organizational characteristics should be calculate uponed to influence the probability that an organization will answer to a survey request. We then proof the empirical predictions of this theory onward a survey of private, for-profit service organizations.

Most reported response (or cooperation) rates for measure and estimates of heterogenous organizational populations have been significantly lower than the 70 to 75 percent that is normal for general population measure and estimates of individuals. Two of the most numerous substantively prominent examples in the literature are Lincoln and Kalleberg (1985) and Blau et al. (1977) who reported 35 and 33 percent cooperation rates, respectively, for measure and estimates of U.S. manufacturing plants. The mailed establishment review that forms the basis for this research had a 53-percent rejoinder rate, again substantially lower than that count uponed in surveys of individuals. lately Spaeth and O'Rourke (1994) and Osterman (1994) have reported organizational contemplate response rates of 65 and 66 percent respectively. These better rates refer to that poor response to organizational scans is not inevitable. But equal these rates leave much apartment for improvement.

The high rate of nonresponse typical of organizational sample examines creates the potential for large statistical biases in the final sample. We believe that the application of scrutinize methods must come to grips with the differences between organizations and individuals. It is likely that a of the high level of nonresponse in organizational observes represents the application to organizations of observe techniques developed for populations of individuals, without regard for these differences. A systematic theory of measure and estimate nonresponse as it applies to organizations necessitys to be developed. Additional scrutinize techniques may be necessary.

DEVELOPING AN ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY OF view NONRESPONSE

In general, conventional theory of measure and estimate nonresponse treats survey administration as a variant of more general methods for interpersonal interaction. To increase the capacity and motive of individuals to accord to a survey we typically give them ample opportunity (multiple call-backs, scheduling at the respondent's convenience, attempts at refusal conversion), convince them of the importance of the draw (personalized contacts, legitimized sponsor, salient topics), demonstrate that the costlinesss are low (confidential, short printed forms or promises of "only a not many minutes"), and provide some rewards (attention and conversation, respondent input into policy or science creation, model of results, or even a certain quantity of token monetary or other tangible reward). most numerous importantly, survey administration relies onward the norm of reciprocity in conversation. one time an interview begins, it is conversationally impolite for the respondent to break along the interview and, so, scarcely any do (Galtung, 1967; Fein, 1970; Dillman, 1978; Goyder 1987)

While informants in take a view ofs of organizations are individuals, the organizations are not, and attempts to improve overlook methodology must deal with the differences. In contrast to individuals, organizations are differentiated and hierarchical. These characteristics, together with their routinized behavior patterns, may condition organizational answer to survey requests. We descry three general processes that may affect organizational take a view of response. We conceptualize the likelihood that an organizational respondent will suit to a survey request to be a function of their authority to answer capacity to respond, and motive to answer We see each of these to be the consequence of general organizational processes that can either enhance or consume the probability of survey response

Authority to answer refers to the degree to which a designated respondent has the formal or informal authority to answer to a survey request. Authority may be limited according to position, establishment rules relating to observes and relationships with parent organizations. Authority to accord unlike capacity and motive, is generally a function of specifically organizational processe that have no routine parallel in measure and estimates of individuals. Organizational capacity to answer refers to organizational practices and divisions of labor and information that facilitate or inhibit the assembly of relevant knowledge to answer adequately to survey requests. Capacity may have important implications for responding to specific measure and estimate items as well as for the overall decision to consummated the survey. Motive to be agreeable to refers to both individual and organizational motivations to disclose information about the organization. It bring reproachs the interaction between organizational relationships with the environment, the attributes of the designated respondent for the organization, and the salience of the specific review instrument. Although authority to correspond is particularly problematic in organizational reviews all survey designs must deal with respondent capacity and motive. What is unique about organizational inspects is not these general design considerations, unless the uniquely organizational processes that determine the authority, capacity, and motive to answer within organizational settings.