Content-Type: text/html

Turbulent Times:
Organizational Change
and Development
in the Newspaper Industry









by Peter Gade, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
H.H. Herbert School of Journalism
University of Oklahoma
860 Van Vleet Oval
Norman, Oklahoma  73019
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0109B%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D7943184%26B%3D--%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D_171707324%253D%253D_%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>









Paper submitted to the Newspaper Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication 2001 annual convention, Washington, D.C.











Turbulent Times: Organizational Change
and Development in the Newspaper Industry


Abstract


        In the late 1990s, the newspaper industry embarked on broad-based change initiatives in an attempt to ensure the long-term viability of the industry in a dynamic media marketplace. Newsrooms were restructured, news values revised, job descriptions and necessary skills redefined. This mail survey of 457 rank-and-file journalists (56.6 percent response rate) from a purposive sample of 17 newspapers leading industry change draws on the commonality of the journalists' experiences with change, attempting to provide benchmarks for understanding industry change that are (a) practical to newsroom managers and (b) theoretical. Respondents perceive themselves as open-minded toward change, but think change initiatives have not been planned, implemented or monitored in accordance with organizational theory. Journalists report they do not think team-based newsrooms provide more autonomy or improve the content of newspapers. They perceive change as primarily market- and profit-driven. Organiza
tional development initiatives, newsroom structure and news values are significant predictors of morale, which is low.

Turbulent Times:
Turbulent Times: Organizational Change and Development
in the Newspaper Industry

        As the 21st century began, the only mass medium whose roots predate the 20th century found itself in something of a renaissance. Riding the wave of a strong national economy, newspaper companies were producing near-record profits, advertising revenue was setting records, and -- unlike prognosticators had predicted only a half-decade earlier -- the Internet had not spelled doom (Morton, 2000; Nicholson, 2000).
        This reality can be seen as vindication for newspaper executives who only a few years earlier had embarked on bold "change" programs to right what many considered a troubled industry. In the mid-1990s, newspapers faced uncertainty on nearly every horizon: a smaller percentage of the public were newspaper readers than at any time in the previous half-century; the Internet was competing for the populace's time and advertisers' money; the costs of doing business were becoming more unpredictable; and, for public companies, profit pressures were increasing as corporate managers sought to maintain control amidst waves of buyouts, mergers, and newspaper closings (Morton, 1998, March; Picard and Brody, 1997; Evans and Wurster, 1997; Whiteside, 1996; Hirsch and Thompson, 1994). The message to those leading the industry was clear: change or fall victim to the forces redefining your environment.
        In 1994, ASNE created a Change Committee, a group of editors given a five-year period to develop and experiment with initiatives that would ensure the long-term viability of the industry. Founded on the heels of a recession that had lingered since the late 1980s and resulted in smaller newsroom staffs and budgets, the committee focused its attention on exploring ways to: (1) reorganize newsrooms for better efficiency, and (2) realign journalists' values more closely with those of readers and citizens (McGuire, 1994).
        Change initiatives emerged that attempted to transform the culture of the newsroom, making more it more externally focused on markets and readers, while internally changing the nature of work by abandoning the century-old beat system of news coverage and replacing it with collaborative teams (Stepp, 2000; Coyle, 1998; Rappeleye, 1998; Albers, 1995; Haswell, 1995; Stepp, 1995, April). "Change" became the mantra of many leading editors and executives, and the new, restructured approach to producing newspapers was labeled "strategic", "reader-driven" or "market-driven" journalism (Bedal, 1995). Newsroom managers, recognizing that they lacked the organizational development background to plan, execute and monitor fundamental change, increasingly looked to outside consultants to guide their efforts and alleviate employee resistance (Shepard, 1996; Shepard, 1998). The process of change, seldom easy in any organization, became  a target of skepticism for journalists, who worried that initiatives jeopardized core journalism values and credibility (Hickey, 1998; Underwood, 1998; Woo, 1998; Stepp, 1995, Oct.).
        The extent to which change initiatives can be tied to economics is uncertain. Despite signs the soft 2001 economy is beginning to be felt throughout the industry (O'Brien, 2001), there is no doubt that newspapers performed well during the late-1990s, a period of fundamental change. Publicly owned companies, which account for nearly half the nation's daily circulation, returned an average profit of 20.7 percent in 1998 and 22.2 percent in 1999 (Morton, 1999; Morton, 2000).
        Organizational change (or organizational development) has its roots in social psychology and management. OD scholars concede that because different organizations have different goals, OD research has generally focused on one organization at a time (Cameron and Whetten, 1983). Argyris (1993) acknowledges that this situation-by-situation approach, which relies on on-site observations, in-depth interviews, and situation-specific variables, makes the task of generalizing results and theory-building more difficult.
        This study attempts to advance OD theory building and the practical understanding of ongoing newspaper change by surveying a relatively large probability sample of rank-and-file journalists from 17 newspapers most experienced in ASNE-sanctioned change initiatives. The logic of the approach is that journalists working at newspapers that have experimented with similar change initiatives create a population of cohorts who have clear perceptions regarding change based on their common experiences. This commonality should permit valid research that extends beyond single organizations and site-specific variables, producing results that can benefit newsrooms embarking on change initiatives and advance theory.

Literature Review
        Following the lead of the Change Committee and continuing today under the rubric of change, newsrooms are being reorganized, news values are being redefined, and the nature of newspaper journalism work is changing. The seriousness of prominent editors leading this effort can be understood by their numerous references to the need to "blow up" the newsroom and its associated routines and values (Weaver, 1998; Peck, 1996; Stepp, 1995); another editor, using a less violent metaphor, claims his goal for change is "cultural transformation" (Campbell, 1998).
However, a large body of organizational development scholarship indicates that understanding the need for change is not often enough to convince employees, and even members of management, to accept change (Gentry, 1996; Argyris, 1993, 1974; Connor, 1992; Giles, 1991; Hirschhorn, 1991; Kanter, 1983).
        Changing organizational structures. Following a national manufacturing trend, by the mid-1990s newspaper managers began disassembling the assembly line, creating instead self-contained work teams. The team-based structure flattened the traditional top-down manufacturing hierarchy, grouping editors and reporters into six-to-10 member teams responsible for reporting, writing, editing and packaging news in their coverage areas (Albers, 1995; Stepp, 1995a).
        The most controversial changes have come in those newsrooms using cross-departmental teams (Rappleye, 1998) . Section development teams at The Los Angeles Times include people from advertising, classified, editorial, marketing and research. Former Times Publisher Mark Willes said these teams are necessary to create a stronger marketing consciousness at the newspaper. Journalists and scholars have questioned whether cross-departmental teams compromise the traditional "wall" between the news and business sides of news organizations. This controversy was fueled in October 1999 when the Times created a special Sunday magazine promoting the new downtown Staples Center. Written by journalists, the section garnered nearly $2 million in advertising, which the paper split with the Staples Center (Strupp, 1999). Perhaps more indicative of the direction the industry is heading is that 63 percent of the editors responding to a 1999 Editor & Publisher  survey agreed that there should be more cooperation between news departments and business/marketing departments, while 29 percent disagreed (Mitchell, 1999). Clearly, editors are becoming more active in marketing. A recent study found that 57 percent of the 192 newspapers surveyed have marketing teams that include editorial members (Coyle, 1998).
        Less controversial has been reorganization from a beat system to a team system of news coverage. Some of the reorganization plans of newspapers in this study are described briefly. After a year of planning, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, scrapped the beat system in 1999 for topic-driven teams. Staff had to reapply for jobs, 19 general assignment positions were redefined in the team structure, and editors became team leaders. Each team created a mission statement and set its goals (Shepard, 2000). At The  (Columbia, S.C.) State, the news and features desks were abolished to facilitate a team structure. The paper also created an "office of the managing editor," which at any given time could be staffed by one of five different people (Stepp, 1995a). Changes in newsroom structure have brought with them new job titles that many news veterans would not recognize, including duty officer, maestro, circle editor, news manager of public life and change facilitator.
        At the Grand Forks  (N.D.) Herald, Editor Mike Jacobs said the change to reporting teams was initially resisted. He learned that change requires people in leadership positions who believe in change and are committed to executing it. To help staffers work through their problems with change initiatives, Jacobs brought in a marriage counselor to serve as "a listening post" between staff and upper management (Albers, 1995).
        The Dayton (Ohio) Daily Times adopted a "newsroom without walls" concept. Conceived by an architect, the reorganization eliminated departments and placed newsroom staff in gathering and producing teams. Managing Editor Steven Sidlo said the model is "a system that breaches our walls of tradition, encouraging a more effective, fluid use of our resources" (Albers, 1995, p. 32).
        In Portland, The Oregonian's "warp-speed nine" initiative prompted Managing Editor Peter Bhatia to joke "Reorganization 'R' Us". More than 80 jobs were posted in the newsroom as open assignments. Nearly every writer, regardless of experience or seniority, had to reapply. The final result was 10 teams, with a flattened newsroom hierarchy that saw former editors become team leaders. Bhatia, aware that the flattened hierarchy offers fewer career advancement opportunities, said, "The satisfaction that people will get from this system is in the quality of their work and what they put in the paper as compared to a traditional career path" (Albers, 1995, p. 34).
        Flattened newsroom hierarchies have resulted in some editors returning to the reporting ranks. In Tacoma, Wash., Editor David Zeeck's reorganization of the The News Tribune resulted in 34 percent of his staff changing jobs, and 23 percent of the editors becoming reporters (Haswell, 1995). At the Wichita (Kan.) Eagle, the copy desk was eliminated in 1995 and copy editors were assigned to reporting teams. Former Managing Editor Janet Weaver said "blowing up the copy desk" resulted in eight more staff reporters (Haswell, 1995). Weaver (1998) said the reorganization took the Eagle from a six-tiered hierarchy to just three tiers: editor, managing editor, and three equal teams -- content, organization and presentation. Stepp (1995a) writes the goal behind eliminating the editors at many papers was not only to cut payroll, but to simplify chains of command and reduce the number of news managers resistant to change.
        Changing news values. Aware that their readership is stagnant and influence declining, newspaper managers and journalists are re-examining their news values. This introspection is manifesting itself in several ways: an increased marketing consciousness, a desire for more credibility, the involvement of readers in deciding news and how it should be reported, and a sense the media are failing to live up to their historic democratic role of informing people of issues important to successful governance.
        American Journalism Review, in a 2000 cover story titled "Reader Friendly," reports that the emerging culture of restructured newsrooms around the country is characterized by:
        --enthroning readers as the "invisible giants," elevating them to near equal
        partners in decision-making;

        --erring on the side of caution rather than aggressiveness, rejecting stories
        that might offend readers as lacking compassion or sensitivity;

        --promoting cooperation with everyone, from City Hall to the paper's advertising                        departments (Stepp, 2000).

        The long-time taboo of "pandering" to readers is being swept away by an attempt to reverse what some editors have called a "disconnection" between newspapers and the public. Following a series of meetings called the Journalism Values Institute in which 30 editors from around the country debated the problems of the industry, Peck (1996) wrote, "The essence of these evaluations comes down to this: American journalists continue to say they practice good journalism in the public's interest -- but the public doesn't believe we deliver" (p. 5). Editors left the meetings agreeing that newspaper content includes too much gossip, not enough substance, bias but no balance, and a preoccupation with conflict and few solutions. The Oregonian's Bhatia summed up the problems: "Our comfort zones are painting the world in black and white. And our comfort zones are seeing the traditional good side and evil side of whatever issue it might be. We've got to blow that up" (p 13).
        Many of the editors most active in the ASNE Change Committee borrowed ideas from and adopted the language of "civic" or "public journalism." Civic journalism broadens the concept of journalistic social responsibility into a more active role, with the goal of journalism becoming a catalyst for the revival of civic life by promoting citizen engagement and dialogue (Rosen and Merritt, 1994). Merritt (1996) insists the practice of civic journalism requires journalists to abandon several common and traditional practices, including: valuing conflict as the primary narrative device; framing issues at extremes; maintaining an adversarial role with institutions; treating the readers as audiences rather than participants; insisting that journalism credibility arises from detachment.
        Stepp (2000) writes that a cross-country tour of newsrooms left him impressed by how many newsrooms were using the language and techniques of civic journalism. He notes that when he raises this issue many editors and journalists dismiss it, suggesting civic journalism is a project-driven formula that they don't understand. Stepp, however, concludes: "Perhaps the resistance to the civic journalism label simply underlines how much some of the techniques have seeped into the newsroom groundwater" (p. 29).
        Changing the newsroom culture. Nearly all editors who have involved their newsrooms in change initiatives have suggested the key to making change work is to create a new culture. Weaver (1998) said changing the newsroom culture requires "getting the staff to think of the whole paper, as opposed to their own story or small piece they contributed."  She said that reporters need to be trained to work in a new system, as many lack the editing, headline writing and design skills required in the team structure. Managers, too, have more pressure, as the staff is often competing for the attention of fewer bosses. And, because of the changing nature of journalism work, job performance evaluations need revision to reflect the standards and goals of a new system. She admits that "newsroom stars" under the old system often feel stifled by the team structure. Teams require a "new breed" of journalist with different personality traits and skills than the "lone wolf" who worked well alone and often produced break-through stories.
        Sue Deans (1998), editor of The (Myrtle Beach, S.C.) Sun News, said for change initiatives to work staff members need to understand that change is a constant; it will not go away after a short time or a few experiments. The two "core issues" of change are continuous product improvement, and keeping aware of what readers want and the market demands. She said changing the newsroom culture requires emphasizing "passion" for the newspaper business and:
        --impressing on people who do not want change that they must change or leave;

        --eliminating "silo" thinking by creating cross-departmental approaches to work
        and evaluating work quality;

        --staying focused on strategy and on the market.
        Campbell (1998), who resigned in April 2000 as St. Louis Post-Dispatch editor after a stormy three-and-a-half years, had embarked on an ambitious attempt at "cultural transformation" at the paper. He claims the existing "judgmental culture" is part of the problem with American journalism, and attempted to change the Post-Dispatch's culture from one based on "judgmentalism" to one based on "collaboration."
        By the millennium, the ideas for change that began in a couple dozen newsrooms in the mid-1990s were becoming the industry norm. Stepp (2000) writes:  "From civic journalism to New Directions for News, from credibility reforms to the Committee of Concerned Journalists, a host of foundations, trade groups and other forces have been pouring millions of dollars into attempts to remodel how journalists think and act."
        Impact of Change on Morale.   Change initiatives have required journalists to rethink some fundamental principles of their work: their sense of news, audience, organization and even the purpose of journalism. Signs of eroding morale were present before change began in the mid-1990s, and morale problems in relation to change initiatives have been reported in trade journals.
        Underwood (1998) writes that the mid-1990s layoffs and a widespread belief that management used downsizing as a way of getting rid of unhappy journalists -- many of whom were aggressive, good journalists in a traditional sense -- have left "a deep and growing cultural divide between newsroom managers and their reporters" (p 26). Many veteran reporters think that change initiatives -- and associated reader-driven, marketing consciousness -- make newspapers look needlessly desperate at a time when newspaper companies are posting record profits.
        Stepp (1995b) writes that changes in management goals may mark an historic period of journalism. Journalists always considered themselves bestowed by the First Amendment with special status, feeling they were public servants who value social responsibility; however, he writes, "You feel it in virtually every newsroom, the sag, the deflation, the suspicion that a special way of life is teetering" (pp 15-16). The frustration is not limited to rank-and-file, but includes editors who face the challenge of leading changes they may not understand or support. Stepp (2000) writes that editors are no longer seen by their staffs as in control of the newsroom, as publishers look for top editors who understand "a different approach" based on what the market needs and the reader wants. This leaves editors less time to focus on journalism and interact with their staffs, furthering widening the gulf between managers leading change and rank-and-file.
        The Newspaper Association of America (Owing and Danko, 1995) surveyed more than 2,600 newspaper journalists who left their jobs, trying to find the factors that caused journalists to leave the profession. The NAA found, beyond the expected reasons of stress and long hours, that people left newspapers because of low morale, lack of advancement, and perceived inequities in pay and promotions. Westley, a consultant specializing in reorganizing management structures, notes all of these reasons are issues that management can control.
        Organization Development research. Breed (1955) and Argyris (1974) were pioneers in newspaper industry organizational development research. Breed asserted that all newspapers operate under the influence of a publisher policy. The publisher, as a representative of ownership, has the authority to set and enforce the policy. Journalists learn the policy, which is often covert because it betrays journalistic values, through experience and observation. They also learn how and when to conform and deviate from the policy. Argyris (1974), after a three-year case study at one of the nation's largest newspapers, concluded the internal system at the paper helped create policy clashes, one-upmanship among reporters, and fear of authoritarian bosses. He found the greatest resistance to new ideas came from mid-level editors and managers, who, despite acknowledging the need to change, would not participate in organizational efforts at change.
        Kets de Vries (1993), a clinical psychologist who focuses on the "psychodynamics of organizations," writes that the leader/follower relationship -- a process of social comparison that involves power, authority, hero worship, flattery, ambition and attention seeking -- provides tremendous opportunities for distorted management reasoning. The key is for managers to "preserve their hold on reality." He concludes that the organizational culture depends on the psychological contract that exists between its leaders and followers. Trust is essential for a healthy organization, and trust is dependent upon communication, support, respect, fairness, competence and consistency on the part of the leaders.
        Hirschhorn (1991), a management scholar whose work focuses on team-based organizations, writes that the entire philosophy of management is changing as corporations flatten hierarchies, create less vertical chains of command and adopt new team environments. Successful managers develop roles for team members and "manage the boundary," communicating the company's needs to the team and the team's needs to the company. Managers lead by creating a structure in which the team can be successful and by positioning themselves to defend the team's efforts. Managers must realize they are both cause and solution to many team problems. To be successful, managers must show their vulnerability and willingness to learn from team members. Exhibiting these traits shows that managers are open to learning news ways to solve problems and encourages team members to respond to challenges that can enhance team performance.
        A meager amount of research exists on newspaper team performance. Russial (1997) studied changes in health and science content at the Oregonian after that paper created a Health and Science team. He found that the team produced more coverage that received better play (A1 or Metro section front) than before the team was created. Russial suggests that although his study did not measure coverage quality, the creation of a team-based system represents a realignment in the use of newsroom resources that may have important consequences on news content.
        Neuzil, Hansen and Ward (1999) surveyed Minneapolis Star Tribune and St. Paul Pioneer Press journalists working in teams and found most thought they had less authority and less success getting story ideas in the paper than before teams were created. Those who thought they had less authority also said they were unsure of the chain of command, worked on larger teams, and were reporters more than editors. The researchers concluded if a goal of team work was to "empower" journalists by granting them more autonomy to be innovative, this goal was not being met.
        Sylvie (1996) studied how department heads of news, advertising and circulation perceived their identity and ability to cooperate with each other. News managers named advertising as the most difficult department, while the advertising directors named the news editors as least cooperative. Newsroom managers were the only department heads not to rank their respective department's concerns as most important, ranking circulation success the most important. News editors showed a significantly greater tendency to say more cooperation between departments is needed. Sylvie concluded the news managers exhibit a "surprising sensitivity" to market-oriented concepts, which gives credibility to journalists' anecdotal claims that the newspaper industry is moving toward a greater market orientation.
        Gentry (1993) observed while a small California daily embarked on several change initiatives aimed at better aligning its content with community interests. The year-long efforts, orchestrated by New Directions for News, led Gentry to conclude the following elements were essential for successful newspaper organizational change: (a) strong leadership;  (b) management communication about why change is needed, management's vision, and new performance standards; (c) staff involvement in the change process; (d) management rewarding correct behavior and extinguishing improper behavior; (e) anticipating problems of acceptance and implementation.
        Working with the American Press Institute, Gentry (1996) developed a model he calls "A Roadmap for Change" that added several variables, including: (a) pre-change analysis of the current culture to determine the extent and types of changes needed; (b) use of mission statements to clarify core values for employees; (c) flexible management strategies and putting people in the proper roles to execute them; (d) enabling structures, such as job training; and (e) creating visible symbols of the new culture. Testing the model, Gentry (1997) surveyed management and rank-and-file at six newspapers and found management thought it was doing a better job than the staff thought it was doing on all 10 elements of change the study addressed.
        Gade and Perry (2000) did three-year case study from 1996-98 at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, measuring newsroom employees' perceptions of Editor Cole Campbell, known as an industry innovator, and the changes he has brought to the Post-Dispatch.  Issues that respondents indicated were important in the 1996 survey, taken the week before Campbell became Post-Dispatch editor, generally became good predictors of what would be important to the staff in subsequent years after change initiatives were introduced. Over three years, Campbell had some success making news values more reader-driven, but morale declined and was lowest among respondents with management duties. Respondents consistently indicated they were open-minded toward change, but they failed to see how change initiatives contributed to better journalism.
        In sum, the literature gives evidence that newspapers are changing in some fundamental ways: flattening organizational structures, replacing traditional beats with teams, revising job descriptions and required skills, and redefining news judgment criteria. The challenge of conceiving and leading change falls on management, while rank-and-file are required to adapt to change that affects many of their conventions and values. Management perceives it is initiating change in the best interests of the industry, while rank-and-file ponder the reasons for change and are sensitive to how it is implemented. Organizational theory and change models provide conceptual guidelines that should help predict effective organizational development (OD) initiatives. This study of rank-and-file journalists from newspapers leading industry change explores the following research questions and tests three hypotheses.

        RQ1: What are the attitudes and opinions of rank-and-file journalists toward change?

        RQ2: How do rank-and-file perceive the change process in relation to organizational             development theory?

        RQ3: Do rank-and-file perceive change as better serving the traditional goals
        of journalism, business, or both?

        RQ4: Have change efforts affected morale?

        RQ5: Does organization size (measured as a newspaper's circulation) affect how rank-and-                file perceive change?

        H1: Rank-and-file will perceive that the change process has not been implemented in             accordance with organizational development theory.

        H2: Morale among rank-and-file will be low.

        H3: Rank-and-file perceptions of organizational development will predict morale.
        .
Methods
        Creating the sample. The 1997 ASNE Change Committee annual report was used to draw a purposive sample. All 17 U.S. newspapers active on the committee were contacted by phone. Only two Change Committee papers declined to participate: Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times and Charlotte (N.C.) Observer. The Columbia Missourian was eliminated because its rank-and-file are students in the University of Missouri's School of Journalism. The 14 papers that participated are (from smallest to largest circulation): DeKalb (Ill.) Daily Chronicle; The Missoulian (Mont.); Grand Forks (N.D.) Herald; Fredericksburg (Va.) Free Lance Star; Bakersfield Californian; Wichita (Kan.) Eagle; Honolulu Advertiser; The (Colorado Springs , Colo.) Gazette; Columbia (S.C.) State; The (Tacoma, Wash.) News Tribune; Dayton (Ohio) Daily News; San Jose Mercury News; The (Portland) Oregonian; Minneapolis Star Tribune.
        Three newspapers were added to the study: St. Louis Post-Dispatch; Kansas City Star;  The Los Angeles Times. The Post-Dispatch was chosen because its editor, Cole Campbell, instituted sweeping changes focused on issues relevant to this study. The Kansas City Star was chosen because that paper was sold and restructured in the years immediately preceding the study, and its publisher, Arthur Brisbane, was the chair of the 1998 Change Committee. The Los Angeles Times was chosen because of its self-proclaimed desire to set an industry example of how to restructure a news organization into cross-departmental teams that are more marketing conscious. The additions created a sample of 17 newspapers with a circulation range from about 10,000 (DeKalb Daily Chronicle) to more than 1 million (The Los Angeles Times). The papers come from 14 states representing every major geographic region of the nation. Newspapers from 11 companies are in the sample, including nine newspaper groups or chains
and two family-owned papers. Thirteen of the papers are owned by public companies (those that offer public stock), and four are private (Editor & Publisher International Yearbook, 1997; Potter, 1998).
        Sixteen of the papers supplied a list of newsroom employees.  At the remaining paper, the San Jose Mercury News, a contact person worked with the researcher to draw a random sample of rank-and-file. The sample was determined in part by newspaper size. All of the rank-and-file at the four smaller papers (less than 50,000 circulation) were included in the sample. From the seven papers between 50,000 and 250,000 (the actual range is 71,000 to 156,000), a random sample of one of three newsroom employees was drawn from each newspaper; from the six papers with more than 250,000 circulation, one of five newsroom employees was randomly selected, except for the Los Angeles Times, where one of 10 employees was randomly selected.
        A survey was mailed to 807 journalists from the 17 newspapers in May 1998. The survey included 62 stimulus statements to which respondents recorded their level of agreement or disagreement on a five-point Likert-like intensity scale.  Demographic data were also sought. In accordance with Dillman's Total Design Method (1978), a postcard was sent as a reminder to non-respondents 10 days after the first mailing; a complete survey packet was sent to non-respondents three weeks after the first mailing.

Results

        Response rates and demographics. Of the 807 surveys sent, 457 were completed and returned, a response rate of 56.6 percent. The respondents' demographics:
        --177 females, 274 males, and 6 did not respond;
        --25 African-Americans, 19 Asian-Americans, 9 Hispanics, 2 Native Americans, 382                whites, and 20 indicated other or did not respond;

        --ages ranged from 22 to 77, with the mean being 41.98;
        --experience ranged from 1 to 60 years, with the mean being 17.72 years.
        --272 indicated they had "no managerial duties," 181 said they had "some managerial             duties," four did not respond.
        In terms of circulation:
        --137 surveys were sent to the four small papers, 72 completed surveys were returned, a                 rate of 52.6 percent;

        --260 surveys were sent to the seven mid-size papers, 166 completed surveys were                        returned, a rate of 63.8 percent;

        --411 surveys were sent to the six large papers, 219 completed surveys were returned, a                 rate of 53.3 percent.

        Variable measures. Most of the survey statements addressed change issues relating to morale, news values, organizational development and organizational structure.  Responses were factor analyzed to construct sets of statements representing the four concepts: six statements measure morale (Cronbach's alpha = .78); fourteen statements measure news values (Cronbach's alpha = .75); fourteen statements measure organizational development (Cronbach's alpha = .81); 13 statements measure organizational structure (Cronbach's alpha = .71). Statement responses -- on a five-point scale with one strongly agree, five strongly disagree and three neutral -- were coded so that a positive response indicated support for the concept (i.e., positive response indicated high morale). Conceptual quotients were created by calculating the mean response to the set of statements measuring the concepts. Accordingly, a quotient significantly below 3.0 (the assumed population mean on the five-point scale) indic
ates positive agreement with the concept, and a quotient significantly above 3.0 indicates that respondents disagree with the concept (i.e., disagree with statements suggesting high morale).
        Organizational Development. The fourteen OD statements are a broad measure of the change process, including planning, implementation and monitoring of change initiatives. These statements borrow a great deal from Gentry's work in newspaper change, but also reflect the ideas and language of Argyris (1974, 1993), Kanter (1983), Giles (1991, 1993), Hirschhorn, (1991), Kets de Vries (1993), Gentry (1993, 1996, 1997), Gade and Perry (2000). If the process of change at these newspapers has gone in accordance with OD theory, then respondents will tend to agree with the statements in OD construct. However, the small amount of existing research, combined with a substantial body of anecdotal evidence from trade journals, suggests newspaper change has not adhered to OD theory. Thus, it was hypothesized:
        H1: Rank-and-file will perceive that the process of change is not in accordance with            theory.(OD quotient will be greater than 3.0).

        The OD quotient is 3.21. A one-tailed t-test indicates the quotient mean is significantly higher than the assumed population mean (3.0). This hypothesis is supported.
______________________________________________________________________________
TABLE 1: OD Quotient t-test
and descriptive statistics

Variable                Mean            Std. Dev.       Minimum         Maximum          N
OD                      3.21**             .57             1.86             4.79                444

t value = 7.78
**p < .01
______________________________________________________________________________
        OD, by definition, includes several variables that can be measured independently. T-tests on each statement mean and the assumed population mean found that 13 of the 14 statements in the construct were statistically significant, with 10 statements having significant disagreement that change has been in accordance with OD theory (See Table 2).
        Respondents did not simply dismiss all change as negative; rather, they were able to differentiate among OD aspects and showed significant agreement with three of the 14 statements (statement means noted parenthetically). Respondents agreed that they have been sufficiently trained to perform their jobs well (2.42). The rank-and-file also recognize that management has taken the leadership role in the change process (2.75) and is unified in its commitment to change (2.82).
        On the other hand, rank-and-file journalists believe there have been shortcomings in all three OD phases: planning, implementing and monitoring. The second-highest level of disagreement is shown to the statement that management has adequately thought through the long-term implications of change (3.64). Respondents disagree that they have participated in drafting changes that affect their jobs (3.20). Three statements get at communication of change, and there are varying levels of disagreement to all of them. Respondents don't think change and the reasons it is required has been communicated on a continuous basis (3.18), and employees even disagreed
significantly that the paper's mission and core values are understood (3.11). More striking is that the rank-and-file in this sample don't think management has been open and honest about the reasons for change (3.40). In terms of monitoring the effectiveness and/or success of change

TABLE 2: Organizational Development
(14 statements, Cronbach's alpha = .81)

Items were arrayed on a five-point scale, ranging from (1) strongly agree to (5) strongly disagree. T-tests measured whether statement means were significantly different than assumed population mean.
                                                                Mean            Std. Dev.               N

The newspaper's mission and core values are clearly understood  3.11*           1.04            455
by newsroom employees.

I have been sufficiently trained to perform well in my job.             2.42**          1.09            456

The top management team is unified in its commitment to change.         2.82**          1.10            452

Management overestimated the level of resistance to change.             3.03            1.04            455

Management has been willing to scrap change initiatives         3.25**          1.07            455
that haven't worked.

The staff has participated in drafting change initiatives               3.20**          1.11            456
that affect their jobs.

The newsroom staff is open-minded toward change.                        3.14**            .98           457

I think management has adequately thought through the long-term 3.64**          1.05            457
implications of change initiatives.

Change initiatives and the reasons they are required have been          3.18**          1.09            457
communicated to the staff on a continuous basis.

Key top managers have taken on a strong leadership role         2.75**          1.09            456
in the change process.

Newsroom staff has been asked for feed-back on changes          3.35**          1.14            457
that affect their jobs.

Change initiatives have helped develop a stronger trust         4.03**            .88           457
between management and staff.

Management has been open and honest with        staff about the reasons 3.40**          1.12            457
for change.

There is a system of rewards for work that meets the goals              3.59**          1.09            457
of change initiatives.

*  p < .05      ** p < .01
______________________________________________________________________________
initiatives, respondents don't think they've been asked for feedback (3.35) and tend to see management as inflexible and unwilling to scrap ideas that have not worked (3.25). Further, there is strong disagreement with the idea that there is a system of rewards for work that meets the goals of change (3.64). Rank-and-file's belief that changes haven't followed theory at virtually every phase of the change process helps explain a breakdown of trust. Respondents strongly disagree with the statement that change initiatives have helped develop a stronger trust between management and staff (4.03).
        Morale. Deteriorating morale has been an newspaper industry issue for more than a decade, and OD research indicates that change initiatives often have a negative impact on morale because change requires employees to adjust routines and learn new values and job skills. Based on this evidence, it was hypothesized:
        H2: Morale among rank-and-file will be low (Morale quotient significantly higher than           3.0).

        The morale quotient is 3.32. A one-tailed t-test indicates the quotient mean is significantly higher than the assumed population mean (3.0). This hypothesis is supported.
______________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 3: Morale quotient t-test
and descriptive statistics

Variable                Mean            Std. Dev.       Minimum         Maximum          N
Morale                  3.32**              .72            1.17             5.00                444

t value = 9.41
** p < .01
______________________________________________________________________________
        Six statements comprise morale. T-tests on each statement and the assumed population mean found that five of the six statements were statistically significant. Respondents agreed with only one statement indicating high morale: "I am committed to this newspaper's plans for change" (2.57). Respondents were neutral to the notion that changes have given them more jobs skills (3.09), and they disagreed that changes have created more job autonomy (3.26). The remaining three statements constituting this concept make more general (non-first person) references to morale, and these had higher levels of disagreement (See Table 4).
        Rank-and-file's relatively strong disagreement that changes have been implemented
smoothly (3.58) supports theory that suggests change affecting jobs, skills and values is difficult.

TABLE 4: Morale
(6 statements, Cronbach's alpha = .78)

Items were arrayed on a five-point scale, ranging from (1) strongly agree to (5) strongly disagree. T-tests measured whether statement means were significantly different than assumed population mean.

                                                                Mean             Std. Dev.               N

There has been a noticeable change in our newsroom culture              3.58**          1.10            454
that has generally improved our organization.

Morale in our newsroom appears to be getting better.                    3.81**          1.00            456

I am committed to this newspaper's       plans for change.                      2.57**            .95           454

Change initiatives have given me more job skills.                       3.09            1.13            453

Change initiatives have created more autonomy in my job.                3.26**          1.07            454

Generally, change initiatives have been implemented smoothly.   3.58**            .96           454

** p < .01
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

This difficulty of embracing change draws more support from respondents' disagreement that there has been a positive change in the newsroom culture (3.58). However, most telling is the statement that is probably the purest measure of morale. Journalists show their highest level of disagreement to the idea that morale in our newsroom appears to be getting better (3.81).
        Variables affecting morale. Considering the vast amount of change being implemented at newspapers in the sample and the difficulties associated with OD in general, a particular interest of this research project was to measure the impact of change initiatives on morale. Toward this end, the constructs created to measure the three concepts common to change efforts at newspapers -- news values, OD, and organizational structure -- were used as independent variables in a regression model to assess their relative impact on morale. The news values construct includes 14 statements, which inquire about traditional barometers of journalistic excellence (credibility, truth, investigative reporting) and values associated with change (involving the public more in news judgment, increased emphasis on design, and becoming more market-driven). The 13 statements used to construct the organizational structure variable come from organizational theory and research about newsrooms that have adopted a
 team-oriented structure. In brief, theory suggests that team structures create fewer mid-level managers while giving more decision-making and autonomy to work teams. Team members respond to empowerment by taking more responsibility for the quality of their work and becoming more productive. Restructuring has attempted to put journalists closer to readers and customers, to utilize more organizational resources through cross-departmental teams, and to improve morale by granting teams more decision-making authority (See Appendices 1 and 2 for the statements in the news values and organizational structure constructs).
        Because OD is a broad measure of change, and OD initiatives impact an organization's structure and values, it was expected that the four variables (OD, news values, structure and morale) would be highly correlated. This was indeed what occurred, as the correlations were all significant at the p < .001 level. A collinearity test for tolerance showed these correlations did not violate the assumptions of multiple regression (SPSS, 1994).
______________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 5: Variable Correlation Matrix

                                Morale          News            Org.            Org.
                                                Values          Dev.            Structure

Morale                          1.000            .5880          .6727           .6512
News Values                                     1.0000          .4563           .6314
Org. Dev.                                                       1.0000          .5576
Org. Structure                                                                  1.0000
______________________________________________________________________________

        A multiple regression model was then built to test:
        H3: Rank-and-file perceptions of organizational development will predict morale.

        To control for the demographic variables of age, race, sex, experience and duties, these variables were entered as a block into the regression model before the three independent variables. Experience, duties ("some managerial duties" or "no managerial duties"), and age were significant predictors in the block. Together, the demographic variables accounted for 5.77 percent of the variance (Adjusted R Square = .0577).
        H3 was supported. Organizational development, entered as the second block in the model, explains 45.8 percent of the variance after controlling for demographics. Table 6 shows OD is clearly the strongest predictor of morale among all the independent variables. Accordingly, the data indicate that as rank-and-file's attitudes toward OD become more positive their morale increases; or, as rank-and-file's attitudes toward OD become more negative their morale decreases.
______________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 6: Regression Model -- Beta Weights and R2
for demographics, OD, Organization Structure
and News Values on Morale

Variable                                Block 1         Block 2         Block 3         Block 4
Experience                       .327**          .183**          .089            .113
Duties                          -.144**         -.176**         -.151**         -.139**
Age                             -.195*          -.080           -.036           -.051
Ethnicity                        .040            .051            .033            .028
Gender                           .036            .056            .033            .003

Organizational Development                       .679**          .484**          .445**

Organizational Structure                                                 .353**          .254**

News Values                                                                      .191**

Cumulative Adjusted R2           .058            .516            .594            .614

* p < .05       ** p < .01
______________________________________________________________________________

        After all the independent variables were entered in the regression model, OD, structure and news values are significant predictors of morale. However, after controlling for demographics, the explained variance each variable adds differs notably. OD explains 45.8 percent of the variance, organizational structure accounts for 7.8 of the variance and news values accounts for 2.0 percent. What is interesting is that news values, so basic to journalists' jobs and how they perceive their roles, explains a relatively small amount of the variance. Perhaps this is because in the midst of organizational changes that affect the most basic elements of work -- schedules and routines -- journalists continue to see the basic elements of news as information gathering, interviewing, writing and editing. It is logical that news values impacts morale, but -- as much of the ASNE change literature suggests -- change efforts should first focus on the culture and environment in the newsroom, which, onc
e changed, will result in redefined news values. Change initiatives that require training and re-ordering of work priorities, as well as newsroom restructuring, are tangible symbols of a new culture. Because they are the most easily identified signs of change, they are the most likely targets for acceptance or resistance. Thus, it appears that changes most affecting morale are those OD and restructuring initiatives that management believes will eventually reconstitute news. News values are changing, but the results suggest that among the types of change, rank-and-file see news values as having a smaller impact on their morale.
        After all the variables were entered in the model, duties was also shown to be a significant predictor of morale. A dichotomous variable (0 = no managerial duties, 1 = some managerial duties), the negative beta weight indicates an inverse relationship; in other words, journalists who have some managerial duties have significantly lower morale than those who have no managerial duties; or, those with no managerial duties have higher morale than those with some managerial duties. This result supports anecdotal evidence that change has been most difficult for low- and mid-level managers. These managers tend to get "squeezed" by change, expected to execute the change initiatives of top management while working most closely with non-managers.

Statements not in variable constructs
        Most of the statements not part of variable constructs are related to change and provide some useful insights (See Appendix 3). One of the research questions in this study was whether newsroom employees think the direction of change better fits the goals of journalism or marketing. Of the 62 statements in the survey, the strongest agreement (statement means noted parenthetically) was with the statement: "There is more emphasis on maintaining or increasing the paper's profits than there used to be" (1.89). There was also strong agreement that newsroom managers have become increasingly aware of the concerns of stockholders and capital investors (2.13). Respondents think this increased awareness or pressure created by financial performance does not need to be expanded, as there is significant disagreement to the statement that the newspaper industry needs a culture that requires greater marketing intelligence in the newsroom (3.26). Taken together, these statements indicate rank-and
-file journalists believe newspapers are becoming more sensitive to marketing and this movement has gone far enough.
        There is also a concern about the ethical issues and threats to journalism independence that removing the wall between the news and business may initiate. There is strong agreement that ethical committees are needed to draft guidelines for editorial staff participation in promotional events (2.27), and significant agreement that journalistic independence has helped establish newspapers as credible (2.57). The journalists in this sample still use journalism excellence as the standard for quality and they like competition. Even in the era of increased profit pressure, there is significant disagreement that most newspaper companies would trade Pulitzer Prizes for consistently high profits (3.26), and, in an apparent longing for days past, respondents show strong agreement that journalism has suffered in the era of one-newspaper towns (2.07).
        There is additional evidence that OD is not progressing in accordance with theory. Rank-and-file disagree that management has done a good job preparing employees for change (3.38), and they disagree that management has done a good job measuring the results of change (3.63). Respondents have even stronger beliefs that management is ego-driven and inflexible. Rank-and-file agree that some managers have embraced formulas of change because they have invested so much money, time and ego in them that they can't admit their lack of success (2.26). And there is a similar strong agreement to the idea that managers who have found resistance to change have responded by saying in effect, "The train is leaving the station, you can get on or get off" (2.27).
        Furthermore, journalists don't see change meeting its stated objectives, as they show strong agreement there is little evidence that common changes (i.e., redefining of news, newsroom restructuring and use of emerging technologies) are attracting more readers and advertisers (2.26).
        The data also lend support to the idea that news managers and the growing number of consultants employed in newsrooms misunderstand journalists' resistance to change. The journalists in this study do not see themselves as opposed to change; in fact, they show significant disagreement to the statement that they look forward to when change is no longer such a large part of work (3.15). But journalists tend to like to be left alone to do their jobs -- which runs counter to organizational theory that predicts workers are happier and more productive in teams. The more than 450 rank-and-file in this sample significantly agree with the statement: "I am happier when I can work alone" (2.64).

Analysis by circulation
        To test for differences by circulation, means for each variable were calculated by circulation size (four small papers with circulations less than 50,000; seven mid-size papers with circulations between 50,000 and 250,000 [actual range is 71,000 to 156,000]; and six large papers with circulations more than 250,000).
TABLE 6-8: ANOVA Tests of Variables by Circulation Size

        Responses are on a five-point scale, with one strongly agree, five strongly disagree and                three neutral.

                                                Circulation Size
                                      Small                  Mid-size                 Large
                                Mean        S.D.                Mean         S.D.       Mean         S.D.
                                      N = 63                 N = 146                  N = 192

Morale                  3.53**      .64         3.33       .75          3.23     .70
News values                     3.29        .56         3.20       .58          3.23     .55
Org. Dev.                       3.36*       .54         3.19       .61          3.17     .53
Org. Structure                  3.58        .48         3.53       .50          3.56     .50
*  p < .05
** p < .01
______________________________________________________________________________


        The data show that small newspapers are having more difficulty with change as it relates to two variables: morale and OD. A one-way analysis of variance test showed that morale is lower at small papers; also, small paper respondents indicate significantly higher disagreement that OD initiatives have been in accordance to theory. It is worth noting that the means for all four variables are higher for small papers.
        These results also show there are no significant differences between mid-size and large papers. But perhaps more telling about this analysis is that there is not a positive attitude toward any of the variables at any size paper. In other words, even though some aspects of change are more difficult at small papers, these strata show that respondents do not believe change has gone well (or in accordance with theory) on any of the measures, regardless of newspaper size.

Discussion
        This study reports the results of a broad sampling of rank-and-file journalists from newspapers at the forefront of industry change. The newspapers represented in this study are diverse -- with circulations ranging from 10,000 to more than 1,000,000, including public, private and family-owned papers that are located in every major geographic region of the country. Also, the number of respondents is relatively large (N = 457), which, combined with the scope of newspapers, means this study probably represents the largest-scale attempt to date to assess journalists' perceptions about change initiatives that are sweeping through newsrooms nationwide.
        The picture painted by rank-and-file shows that change is arduous and complex, requiring journalists to re-examine their most basic practices and beliefs. While it is incumbent upon management to lead change, rank-and-file that must live it. An abundance of trade journal reports have labeled newspaper journalists as resistant to change and slow to adapt to new environments. Management has been frustrated by rank-and-file's lack of "buy in" to change initiatives, wondering whether journalists don't see the need for changes or are simply resistant to altering many time-honored conventions of journalism. The results of this survey of rank-and-file journalists, however, show something a bit different.
        Perhaps the most surprising finding is that respondents say they are personally committed to change, which implies an open-mindedness and acceptance of it. On the other hand, when asked about the broader impact of change on the newsroom, respondents see a strong connection between change and low morale. There appears to be a third-person effect at work: journalists associate change as it relates to their individual morale in positive terms, but see change as a strong contributor to negative morale of others (and the newsroom in general). The idea that respondents perceive themselves open and committed to change is surprising in that they indicate strong reservations about changes they perceive as market-driven, not necessarily good for journalism, and not implemented very well by management.
        Respondents' concerns about restructuring are expressed several ways. First, journalists disagree significantly that reorganization has helped them better understand readers and that work teams have improved product quality. Second, despite the increasing popularity of cross-departmental teams, the statement that drew the strongest level of disagreement asked whether marketing, advertising and circulation directors should be included in the news planning process.
And, most important theoretically, respondents fail to see the "empowerment" of teams that management theory predicts. They disagree that change has brought them more autonomy and show slight disagreement (although not significant) that those working in teams have more decision-making authority. This finding casts doubt whether management theory about team-based organizations is applicable to the newspaper industry, in which reporters (and those at the bottom of the newsroom hierarchy) have traditionally enjoyed a great deal of job related-autonomy.
        The evidence in this study suggests it is not accurate to simply dismiss journalists as resistant to change. Respondents question the factors motivating change and are able to distinguish between efforts and results. Respondents credit their managers for taking leadership roles and being committed to change. However, the journalists in this study see change as largely profit-driven and are clearly critical of management's efforts at organizational development. They don't think management has thought through the long-term implications of change, and they don't think management has been open and honest communicating the reasons for change. Contrary to OD theory, rank-and-file generally think their participation and feedback is not sought, and they don't see a system of rewards for work that meets the goals of change. Respondents also sense management's vulnerability and frustration in leading change, showing strong agreement that change is ego-driven by inflexible managers who, ref
using to recognize its lack of success, resort to authoritarian measures to counter pockets of resistance. Rank-and-file's perception that management has failed at nearly every step of the process, combined with their sense that profit is increasingly important to newsroom managers, helps explain the low level of trust rank-and-file express toward their managers. To extend this circuit of thought, the breakdown of trust hampers continuing efforts at change, as theory suggests trust to be a prerequisite for OD and common sense reveals that people do not readily accept the ideas of those whom they do not trust.
        This study has extended previous change research by approaching the problem differently. Organizational research has seldom used large samples and quantitative methods. The constructs in this study held up quite well to tests of reliability and statistical analysis, showing the depth of common experiences of journalists at newspapers experimenting with change. These constructs can provide a basis from which to refine measures of change. An important methodological finding of this study is that change can be studied at more than one newspaper at a time. Studies that want to go beyond situation-specific variables are possible, which should encourage more research using larger, representative samples in the hopes of testing and building theory.





References
Albers, R. (1995, April). New Age Newsrooms: Is Reorganization the Cutting Edge or a Passing
        Fad? Presstime, 32-35.

Argyris, C. (1974). Behind the Front Page. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris C. (1993). Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational
        Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bedal, S. (1995, Nov./Dec.). Building a Better Newspaper.The Editor, 13-15.

Breed, W. (1955, May). Social Control in the Newsroom. Social Forces, 326-335.

Cameron, K., & Whetten, D., eds. (1983). Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of
        Multiple Models. New York: Academic Press.

Campbell, C. (1998). Newspaper Change Presentation and Handout. School of Journalism,
        University of Missouri, Jan. 21.

Connor, D. R. (1992). Managing at the Speed of Change: How Companies Experience It and
        Leaders Guide It. New York: The Free Press.

Coyle, J. (1998, July/August). Now, Editor as Marketer. Columbia Journalism Review, 37-41.

Deans, S. (1998). Newspaper Change Presentation and Handout. School of Journalism,
        University of Missouri, March 11.

Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys. New York: John Wiley.

Evans, P. and Wurster, T. (1997, Sept.-Oct.). Strategy and the New Economics of Information,
        Harvard Business Review, 71-82.

Gade, P. and Perry, E. (2000). Leadership, Values and Cultural Change: A Three-Year Case
        Study of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Paper presented at the conference for the Association     of Educators of Journalism and Mass Communication, Phoenix, Ariz.

Gentry, J. (1993). Analysis of Change at a Small Daily Newspaper. Unpublished doctoral
        dissertation, University of Missouri.

Gentry, J. (1996). A Roadmap for Change. Unpublished model for change developed with
        support from the American Press Institute.

Gentry, J. (1997). Keys to Success: Change Survey Results. ASNE Change: Annual Report of the
        ASNE Change Committee,  21.

Giles, R. (1991). Newsroom Management: A Guide to Theory and Practice. Detroit: Media
        Management Books, Inc.

Giles, R. (1993, Spring). Change Shapes Trends in Newspaper Management. Newspaper
        Research Journal, 32-39.


Haswell, C. (1995, December). Editors Wrestle with Change. The American Editor, 10-11.

Hickey, N. (1998, July/August). Money Lust: How Pressure for Profit Is Perverting Journalism.
        Columbia Journalism Review, 28-36.

Hirschhorn. L. (1991). Managing in the New Team Environment. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Hirsch, R. and Thompson, T. (1994). The Stock Market as Audience: The Impact of Public
        Ownership on Newspapers. Excerpted from: Audience Making: How the Media Create the
        Audience. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications.

Kanter, R.M. (1983). The Change Masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kets de Vries, M. (1993). Leaders, Fools and Imposters: Essays on the Psychology of
        Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McGuire, T. (1994, Oct.). Sharing the excitement of newspaper change. ASNE Bulletin, 5.

Merritt, D. (1996, July/August). Missing the Point. American Journalism Review, 29-31.

Mitchell, G. (1999, Dec. 4). Two-Way Street. Editor & Publisher, 20-21.

Morton, J. (1998, March). Newsprint Prices: Rising Again? American Journalism Review, 56.

Morton, J. (1999, June). Everything Is Coming Up Profits for Papers. American Journalism
        Review, 80.

Morton, J. (2000, April). Who Will Be Next? American Journalism Review, 72.

Neuzil, M., Hansen, K, and Ward, J. (1999). Twin Cities Journalists' Assessment of Topic
        Teams. Newspaper Research Journal, vol 20, no. 1, (Winter), 2-16.

Nicholson, J. (2000, March 13). Newspaper Ads Top $46 Billion, Eighth Consecutive Annual
        Record. Editor & Publisher, 49.

O'Brien, C. (2001, March 19). Resignation Touches a Nerve in the Newspaper Industry. San Jose
        Mercury News. Accessed March 23, 2001, online at:
        http:www0.mercurycenter.com/local/center/nwspaper0320.htm

Owing, C. and Danko, P. (1995, June). Kissing the Newsroom Goodbye. American Journalism
        Review, 31-35, 43.

Peck, C. (1996). Finding Our Way Means Revising Our Values. ASNE Journalism Values
        Handbook. American Society of Newspaper Editors.

Picard, R. and Brody, J. (1997). The Newspaper Publishing Industry. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Rappleye, C. (1998, Jan./Feb.). Cracking the Church-State Wall. Columbia Journalism Review,
        20-23.

Rosen, J. and Merritt, D. (1994). Public Journalism: Theory and Practice. Dayton, Ohio: Kettering
        Foundation.

Russial, J. T. (1997). Topic-Team Performance: A Content Study. Newspaper Research Journal. vol. 18, no. 1-2, (Winter/Spring), 126-144.

Shepard, A. (1996, September). Consultants in the Newsroom. American Journalism Review,
        19-23.

Shepard, A. (1997, Dec.). Blowing Up the Wall. American         Journalism Review, 18-27

Shepard, A. (1998, May). The Change Agents. American Journalism Review, 43-49.

Shepard, A. (2000, July/August). The End of the Line. American Journalism Review, 44-51.

SPSS 6.1 Base System User's Guide. (1994). Chicago: SPSS, Inc.

Stepp, C.S. (1995a, April). Reinventing the Newsroom. American  Journalism Review, 29-33.

Stepp, C. S. (1995b, October). The Thrill Is Gone. American Journalism Review, 15-19.

Stepp, C.S. (2000, July/August). Reader Friendly. American Journalism Review, 22-35.

Strupp, J. (1999, Dec. 11). Where There's A Wall, There's A Way. Editor & Publisher, 20-23.

Sylvie, G. (1996). Departmental Influences on Interdepartmental Cooperation at Daily
        Newspapers. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, vol. 73, 1, 230-241.

Thelan, G. (1997). Wrestling with Change. ASNE Change: Annual   Report of the ASNE Change               Committee, 2.

Underwood, D. (1998, Jan./Feb.). It's not just in L.A. Columbia Journalism Review, 24-26.

Weaver, J. (1998). Newspaper Change Presentation and Handout. School of Journalism,
        University of Missouri, Feb. 18.

Whiteside, S. (1996, July-August). Web Defines Who an Editor Is. The American Editor, 4-5.

Woo, W. (1998, Jan./Feb.). Why Willes Is Wrong. Columbia Journalism Review, 27.















Appendix 1: News Values (14 statements, Cronbach's alpha = .75)

Items were arrayed on a five-point scale, ranging from (1) strongly agree to (5) strongly disagree. T-tests measured whether statement means were significantly different than assumed population mean.

                                                                Mean              Std. Dev.              N

Changes in the newspaper industry have generally made newspapers        3.27**          1.06            454
more thoughtful and provocative.

The role models for today's newspaper managers are those editors        2.93            1.41            452
and publishers who in the past told the truth when it was not
popular nor profitable to do so.

Newspapers are doing a better job portraying a representative picture   2.61**          1.07            455
of society than in the past.

Most of the changes undertaken by this newspaper have resulted          3.57**          1.15            453
in more resources -- human, technical and/or financial support --
for practicing journalism.

Focus groups, surveys and community meetings are good methods   2.82**          1.14            456
to generate ideas for news coverage.

This newspaper does more investigative reporting than it used to.       3.46**          1.11            455

Journalists at dailies that have eliminated the divisions between the   2.36**          1.14            455
news and business departments are more likely to engage in self-
censorship when writing about issues important to advertisers.

Newspapers are doing a better job providing readers a truthful account  2.94            1.04            457
of the day's events in a meaningful context than in the past.

An important issue is less likely to become news if it takes            2.66**          1.29            456
a great deal of time to uncover and report it.

Recent changes in newspaper design stress style over substance  2.40**          1.19            457
to the point that the look and feel of the page are more important
to the editors than the depth of the news.

More gossip, trivia and non-news features are used to fill              2.38**          1.05            456
the paper than in the past.

Because the newspaper industry is increasingly big business,            3.61**          1.23            455
one cannot reasonably expect newspapers to be critical of big business.

The opportunity for an independent-minded publisher or editor           2.30**          1.07            457
to run his or her own newsroom is coming to an end.

Our newspaper has less breaking news than it did before change. 2.88*           1.13            454

*  p < .05      ** p < .01
Appendix 2: Organizational Structure (13 statements, Cronbach's alpha = .71)
Items were arrayed on a five-point scale, ranging from (1) strongly agree to (5) strongly disagree. T-tests measured whether statement means were significantly different than assumed population mean.

                                                                Mean             Std. Dev.               N

I work more closely with my colleagues than I did in the past.          2.89*           1.04            457

Management places more emphasis on non-profit goals             3.87**          1.07            456
(i.e., product quality, organizational efficiency, the latest technology,
worker autonomy and creativity) than profit goals.

Directors of advertising, circulation and marketing should participate          4.26**          1.14            456
in news planning and budget meetings.

Work teams have improved product quality.                               3.11*           1.05            453
The number of layers of management in the newsroom              3.75**          1.24            454
has decreased in the past few years.

Restructuring in the newsroom seems to require more editors             2.42**          1.04            453
who send out memos about the new goals of the restructuring.

Top executives of media corporations live in worlds closely linked      1.78**            .89           456
to market trends and business strategies but very far from the deeper
currents of experience of their employees.

Changes in the newsroom have too often meant attending          2.05**          1.02            457
meetings that cut into the time we concentrate on journalism.

Change initiatives have helped below-average performers         3.43**            .91           456
under the old system become more valuable to the staff.

Journalists in teams have more decision-making power            3.09            1.03            451
than those who work on their own.

Reporters and editors who were newsroom stars before teams              3.15*             .88           447
were created have adapted well to the team structure.

Reorganization has helped our staff better understand our readers.      3.53**          1.02            454


*  p < .05
** p < .01





Appendix 3: Descriptive Statistics for Statements Not Part of Concepts

                                                                Mean             Std. Dev.               N

Journalistic independence has helped establish the newspaper industry   2.59**          1.10            452
as a credible and distinct institution.

Newspapers should set up ethics committees to draft guidelines  2.27**          1.15            455
that put limits on editorial staff participation in promotional events.

I look forward to when change is no longer a large part of work.        3.15*           1.22            455

There is more emphasis on maintaining or increasing the paper's 1.89**          1.02            456
profits than there used to be.

Most newspaper companies would trade Pulitzer Prizes            3.36**          1.30            455
for consistently high profits.

Newsroom managers have become increasingly aware of the concerns        2.13**            .98           455
of stockholders and capital investors.

Management has done a good job preparing newsroom employees     3.38**            .98           456
for changes that have taken place.

The newspaper industry needs a culture that requires greater marketing  3.26**          1.08            453
intelligence in the newsroom.

Journalism has suffered in the era of one-newspaper towns.              2.07**          1.11            457

There is little evidence that changes in news operations (i.e.,                 2.26**            .94           457
redefining of news,  newsroom restructuring, and use of emerging
technologies) are attracting more readers and advertisers.

The press should continually ask itself what it can do to improve       1.96**            .96           455
the American democratic process.

Some newsroom managers have embraced formulas of change because 2.26**          1.01            452
they have invested so much time, money and ego in them that it
has become difficult to recognize or admit the lack of their success.

Managers advocating a new direction for news and having found   2.27**          1.04            456
resistance from their staff have responded by saying in effect ...
"The train is leaving the station, you can get on or get off."

Increasingly, top managers and editors seem to be retained or fired     2.99            1.02            455
on the basis of profits more than journalistic performance.

I am happier when I can work alone.                             2.64**          1.20            454

Management has done a good job  measuring the results of change.        3.63**            .91           452

*  p < .05              ** p < .01