A PROFILE OF EFFECTWE AND NON-EFFECTIVE HOME MANAGEMENT SUPERVISORS Thesis for the Degree 0? M. A. MiCHK‘aAN STATE UNIVERSITY JUDITH MARE MOORE 1967 g ‘ 9M :1; .Plgrs.s LIBRARY Michigan State U: :rsity ABSTRACT A PROFILE OF EFFECTIVE AND NON—EFFECTIVE HOME MANAGEMENT SUPERVISORS by Judith Marie Moore The purposes of this study were to develop techniques for evaluating the effectiveness of supervisory style; to identify the characteristics of effective as compared to non-effective supervisors; and to draw implications for improvement of supervisory style. The study related factors of interpersonal values and leader ideologies to the effective and non-effective super- visors and drew profiles of the characteristics of these women. A normative theoretical conceptualization of desirable home management supervision was developed by the researcher. From this model, an observation scale and workers' evalua- tion instrument were developed for use in observing the proficiency of the supervisors. Those college women rating high on the observation scale were considered to be effec- tive supervisors. Those college women rating low on the observation scale were considered to be non-effective supervisors. An instrument prepared by Gordon, the "Survey of Interpersonal Values," was used to determine selected interpersonal values. Judith Marie Moore The measurement of supervisor ideology used was the instrument develOped by Fleishman, the "Leadership Opinion Questionnaire," which tests for supervisors' attitude toward the two dimensions of structure and consideration. Structure refers to the extent to which an individual is likely to define and structure his own role and those of his subordinates toward goal attainment. Consideration reflects the extent to which an individual is likely to have Job relationships characterized by mutual trust, respect for subordinates' ideas, and consideration of their feelings. The sample consisted of 29 college women enrolled in a home management class. The workers were drawn from local high schools and qualified for work under the Economic Opportunity Act. Three elements were considered significant in the study: the proficiency of the supervisors as perceived by the researcher and workers, the interpersonal values of those in supervisory positions, and the supervisory ideology of these individuals. It was hypothesized that: (1) There will be an obvious difference between the interpersonal values held by the effective supervisors as compared to those held by the non—effective supervisors. The data failed to be con— clusive concerning this hypothesis. Further research based on larger samples is needed to test this hypothesis. Judith Marie Moore It was hypothesized that: (2) Supervisors who are rated as effective by means of the observation scale and workers' evaluation will rate high with respect to both structure and consideration on the "Leadership Opinion Questionnaire." This hypothesis held true in only one.case, that of the most effective supervisor. During the obser— vation periods it was found that, although the supervisors did not rate structure as a very important part of super- vision, each of the effective supervisors structured her activity in terms of goal attainment. The observation guide based on the normative theoreti- cal model was found to be a highly useful instrument for evaluating the effectiveness of the supervisors. No addi- tions to or deletions from the scale seemed to have been needed. It appeared to the researcher that supervision could be improved if the supervisors increased their ability to impart standards to the workers. The supervisor needs also to become more familiar with the workers' background—-more than the superficial characteristic of "high school girls who are planning to marry." One needs to know the workers' past experience in order to further their knowledge. Techniques are needed in home management supervision for making the Job seem important to the workers. A PROFILE OF EFFECTIVE AND NON-EFFECTIVE HOME MANAGEMENT SUPERVISORS By Judith Marie Moore A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Home Management 1967 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer of this thesis is indebted to Dr. Carol Shaffer, committee chairman, for her guidance, support and generous cooperation, Miss Esther Everett, who inspired the writer's interest in the present study, and Dr. Jay Artis for his kind assistance throughout the project. An acknowledgment is extended to the following graduate students who served on the panel for the develop- ment of the observation scale and workers' evaluation instrument: Marian Emerson, Robin Woodward, Jane Child, and Frances Yellon. Appreciation is also eXpressed to the thirty college women enrolled in the home management course for their participation as supervisors in this study. Also to the three high school girls who served as the workers. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF TABLES Chapter I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION . . . Objectives Assumptions Hypotheses . . . Operational Definitions . . . . Analysis . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE Defining Characteristics . . Human Relationships and Performance Goals. Rules Versus Generalizations Related Research . . . . . . PROCEDURE Description of the Sample Development of the Observation Scale Rationale for Observation Scale Development of Workers' Evaluation The Evaluation by Workers Measures of Interpersonal Values Measures of Leadership Attitudes Tasks to be Supervised Observation of Supervisors Construction of Profiles FINDINGS Survey of Interpersonal Values Leadership Opinion Questionnaire Observation of Supervisors . Profile of the Effective Supervisors Profiles of the Non—Effective Supervisors Summary of Profiles . . . Item Analysis of Observation Scale iii Page ii . . 11 I.. 1:7 Chapter Page V. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS. . . . . . . . 67 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Strengths and Limitations. . . . . . . 76 Suggestions for Future Research. . . . . 78 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 APPENDIX I--Observation Scale. . . . . . . . . 85 APPENDIX II-—Workers Evaluation Scale . . . . . . 106 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Results from the Survey of Inter- personal Values . . . . . . . . . A5 2. Results from the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . U6 3. Combined Ratings and Scores for the Effective and Non-effective Supervisors . 62 A. Item Analysis of Scores Received by High, Middle, and Low Groups by Percentages. . 6A CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Home management makes use of decision theory for the accomplishment of goals and the mediation of values through the judicious use of resources. The management process is important because of the effects it may have on the quality of life achievable by individuals or families. As more women move into the labor force, sociologists have noticed a strong trend toward the equalitarian family. With this trend so in evidence, the concept of supervision has become an increasingly important function in management. The homekeeping woman is responsible for the tasks of the home butvflifi1outside work and community obligations, more of the household tasks are being delegated to others. Included in this "others" might be husband, children and/or paid domestic help. As the outcome of the tasks and the development of the individual remain the responsibility of the home manager, effective supervision has taken on more significance in the aspects of and the studies relative to family management and behavior. Supervision in home manage- ment is concerned with parent-child, husband-wife, peer- peer, and supervisor—worker relationships. Margaret Liston in her paper "Management in the Family as a Social Process" states that: If management is conceived as an aspect of the family behavior, attention must also be given to the psy- chological and social processes of interaction during participation in making decisions, communication and the diffusion of ideas and practices; role responsi- bility with respect to leadership, information seek- ing, evaluation, organization and supervision; processes related especially to achievement of human needs and performances of social functions of the family such as consumption (broadly interpreted) and motivation. To improve our understanding of management in home and family life we must give attention to these social and behavioral concepts in our research, teaching, counseling, writing, and the like. (20:5A) The topic of supervision then, according to Liston, needs attention through research as a means of understanding management in the home. If home management theory is to enhance the quality of life achievable by individuals and families we need to focus attention on how people are in fact behaving under stated circumstances and devise rules of behavior that individuals should follow if they wish to make the most of their situation. Phenomena regarding supervision have attracted the attention of writers and investigators in many diverse fields. However, most of these investigations have centered on the rather one-sided approach of "how to be a good super- visor." The general result of this kind of approach has been to instill the idea that there is a step-by-step method of supervision and this is the only effective kind. (10:102) Perhaps the major shortcoming of this method has been the failure to identify the various attributes of supervisory behavior in different disciplines. Home management theory describes supervision as a guiding or directing process. Directing focuses on the job; while guiding refers to the deveIOpment of the individual. (5:106) It has been assumed up to this point that consid- erate behavior on the part of the supervisor is desirable, that being person—centered is the best approach. It is conceivable, however, that this supervisory behavior might have little influence on task performance. The influence might depend upon the degree to which it is used. The present study is concerned with identifying the effective and non-effective supervisor by means of observa- tion and evaluation in light of a normative theoretical model of the desirable home management supervisor developed from a study of related literature. It is also concerned with identifying the facets of the supervisory situation, such as interpersonal value dimensions, supervisory behavior and attitudes. Specifically, the concern here is with: l. the interpersonal values of those in supervisory positions, 2. the supervisory ideology of these individuals, 3. their proficiency as perceived by the researcher and workers. In order for the researcher to effectively observe the different supervisory acts, an observation guide was devel— oped based on literature from business as well as from home management. However, from business,only the literature which was similar to home management with respect to the values and goals considered important was selected. The values dominant in an organization may determine the kinds of supervisory acts which are regarded as "effective." This may be considered so for two reasons. First, such values may result in implicit norms by which supervisory behavior is evaluated; secondly, such values may actually determine the goals toward which supervisory acts are directed. Supervision occurs when an individual attempts to influence the behavior of others toward some goal. Because of this, supervisory acts are effective or non-effective to the extent that people are, in fact, influenced by them. (4:127) Since the central point in supervision is this interpersonal influence, it would appear to follow that the kinds of supervisory acts attempted would be a function of the interpersonal values of the supervisor. Interpersonal values refer to those values which would exert influence on supervisory behavior on a person-to—person basis. The Survey of Interpersonal Values developed by Leonard V. Gordon will be used to measure the kinds of human relation- ships that are considered important by the individual super- visors. The six areas covered in this survey are: support, conformity, recognition, independence, benevolence and leadership. (19:6) Barry and Wolf tell us that "values are omnipresent and influence everything the individual does." (1:56) It seems to follow then that these inter— personal values represent motivational patterns that are . relatively stable traits within the individual. The interaction between supervisory acts, inter— personal values and criteria of effectiveness are quite complex and, as yet, insufficiently understood. The supervisory ideology of the supervisors will be measured by the "Leadership Opinion Questionnaire" developed by Edwin A. Fleishman. This questionnaire measures a supervisor's attitude toward the two concepts of "structure" and "consideration." Structure refers to the extent to which an individual is likely to define and structure his own role and those of his subordinates toward goal attain- ment. Consideration reflects the extent to which an indi- vidual is likely to have job relationships characterized by mutual trust, respect for subordinates' ideas, and consider— ation for their feelings. Fleishman theorizes that the effective supervisor should have a high score in both of these ideologies; (4:12) but testing done by Fleishman has not fully supported this theory. College women enrolled in the home management residence course, are assigned a supervisory role-—that of training low income high school students in housecare procedures. These supervisors make up the sample for this research. The researcher is an advisor in the course and interest in the topic of supervision is an outgrowth of observing the college women perform their supervisory roles with the high school trainees. Heaton and KOOpman point out that the student lives in certain areas of relationships. "Education should provide the opportunity for him to grow in ability to live more satisfactorily in each area of relationship." (7:23) One area is that of vocational relationships and it is one of the aims of the home management course to give the college student the opportunity to test her supervisory skill in guiding high school students. The program also affords the opportunity of working with the low income person, learning communication skills and, lastly, being a part of the voca- tional training of high school "Service Industry" students who are seeking alternatives in their own vocational status. The purpose of this study is to identify the various attributes of supervisory behavior in home management in order to understand the situation and to point out problem areas which need attention and qualities which may be cul— tivated by the profession. The observation scale which was developed will give a theoretical base for future researchers to build upon and idea transferals may be made to the problems of home supervision and professional-worker relationships in light of the findings. Objectives To deve10p a normative theoretical model of effective supervision based on related litera- ture from business and home management. To develop an observation scale and workers' evaluation instrument based on the theoretical mode. To observe college students in their supervisory activities and to rank order them in terms of effective and non-effective home management supervision using the observation scale and the workers' evaluation instruments. To identify the interpersonal values of the college students at either end of the continuum. To identify the leader ideologies, structure and consideration, of the college students at either end of the continuum. To describe, through profiles, the effective and non—effective supervisors in relation to observation, workers' evaluation, interpersonal values and leader ideologies. To draw implications relative to improving the effectiveness of a supervisor. Assumptions That the selected tests will ascertain the desired facets of the supervisory situation. That effective and non—effective supervision is identifiable. That the observation scale and the workers' evaluation scale are based on the appropriate criteria to effectively evaluate the supervisor. Hypotheses There will be an obvious difference between the interpersonal values held by the effective supervisors as compared to those held by the non-effective supervisors. Supervisors who are rated as effective by means of the observation scale and workers' evaluation will rate high with respect to both structure and consideration on the "Leadership Opinion Questionnaire." Operational Definitions Home Management Supervision is a goal-directed process in which there is a close correlation between the human development of the individual and an acceptable task completion. Effective Supervisor refers to that college girl who ranks highest in the observation scale and evaluation by workers. Non-effective Supervisor refers to that college girl who ranks lowest in the combined rating devices. A. Interpersonal Values refers to those values which would exert influence on supervisory behavior on a person—to-person basis. The selected values are support, conformity, recognition, independence, benevolence and leadership. Analysis Each supervisor in the home management house situation was subjected to the following analysis: rating scores on the Survey of Interpersonal Values; rating scores on the leader ideologies of structure and consideration; ratings received on the observation scale during the supervisory situation, and ratings received on the workers' evaluation scales upon completion of the supervisory activity. Those supervisors receiving higher scores on the observation scale were classified as effective supervisors. Those supervisors receiving low scores on the observation scale were classified as non-effective supervisors. Profiles were drawn on the characteristics of the college women relative to their rating on the observation scale. The findings were analysed to provide basis for support or negation of the hypotheses and a basis for implications relative to the improvement of the effective- ness of supervision. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Supervision is an integral part of an organization in operation. The consequences of supervision are felt through- out any viable organization. Dubin feels that whatever characteristics the organi- zation may have will influence the styles of supervision that are appropriate. (3zu) Because of this reasoning the review of literature from business will be limited to literature reflecting values and goals which are similar to the values and goals considered important in home management. Gross and Crandall feel that supervision is a signifi- cant step in the managerial process, occuring when plans have been made by one person and are carried out by others. (5:106) To perform and to survive, an organization relies on effective supervision. In an organization such as the family, a supervisor must take charge of many different activities. Drucker warns organizations that there is a limit as to the number of areas in which an organization, via supervisors, may excel. "In how many areas can one ever try to excel without setting up strains, conflicts, and 10 11 internal contradictions that tear the organization asunder? Somewhere there is a limit." (2:95) It would appear to follow then that in the home, as well as in business organizations, clear and realistic goals must be identified. Supervision is directed toward goals and to be effective the goals must be fully under- stood. The goals should also be arranged in hierarchal order in order to assure the accomplishment of the most important before the limit is reached. Defining Characteristics The supervisor is in a superior position because he is responsible for more work than one person can do. The principle defining characteristic of his job is as simple as that. The supervisor is reSponsible for more work than he can do alone; therefore, he has subordinates to help him. The successful accomplishment of the supervisor's job depends primarily on his ability to get help from his sub- ordinates. Accomplishing results through people affords supervision—its unique problems, challenges, and opportuni- ties. (13:10) According to Haire, this means that "the supervisor's job--at any level of the management hierarchy-- is people, not production." (6:61-2) Haire feels that the supervisor may be reSponsible for production, but the medium through which he accomplishes it is people; there— fore, his success or lack of it depends chiefly on his ability to work through people. l2 Drucker tells us that the organization has to have power over people. Yet in a free society it must never be allowed to become an end in itself for which the individual is just a means. (2:78) An organization, via its super- visors, must never be allowed any power over individuals other than what is absolutely necessary for its function in, and contribution to, society. It must never be permitted the dangerous delusion that is has a claim to the loyalty or allegiances of the individual, other than what it can. earn by enabling him to be productive and reSponsible. The same thought can be carried over into home manage- ment supervision. A supervisor has the power of the position entrusted to him for the accomplishment of a goal, but a supervisor is not a dictator to use people as only a means to an end. Newman and Summer state that, "Managing is a social process. It is a process because it comprises a series of actions that lead to the accomplishment of objectives. It is a social process because these actions are principally concerned with relations between peOple." (11:62) They further state that a useful way of looking at the whole task of management is to divide it into four areas: organizing, planning, leading, and controlling. Leading involves striving to integrate the needs of people with the welfare of the company or department. "The leader tries to maintain a good balance between individual motivation and cooperative efficiency." (11:81) This step would seem to fit most l3 nearly with supervision. The main concern is the establish- ment of two-way communication, assisting subordinates to perform their duties and to help them achieve personal aspirations. Drucker tells us that the supervisor has a responsi- bility to the people working with him. He has the respon- sibility to build the structure in which men can achieve the most, and to find the right spot in the structure for each of the workers. He has to keep them informed of the common goal toward which their efforts are to be directed; and has to keep himself informed of the new potentials of contribution and performance opened up by advances in areas of specialized knowledge. "He has the responsibility--both to the individual and to the organization--to demand superior performance and to condone nothing less." (2:80) This adds the two ideas of responsibility and standards to the role of the supervisor. The home management super- visor must also be concerned with these role characteristics. Drucker suggests that the supervisor keep himself informed of advances in the field. It has been said that young women imitate the housekeeping procedures of their mothers; because of this it would follow that the homemaker— supervisor should keep herself abreast of changes in her field. In home management literature, Gross and Crandall define supervision in terms of guiding or directing. If the technical aspect of the situation, the end product, is the 14 uppermost goal of the supervisor, it is called directing. If, however, in the supervisory process the development of, the individual has high priority, the process is called guiding. (5:106) Although the authors state that the supervisor is involved in both kinds of supervision in the home, they leave the impression that guiding and directing are separate functions and do not overlap in any situation. This dichotomy is unreasonable in light of the profession. By the very make up of the field of home management one must be con- cerned with the tasks of the home as well as the individual development of its members. Situationally one may be more important than the other, but to isolate guiding or direct- ing is unrealistic in terms of the professional goals. In summary then, the principal defining characteris- tics of the supervisory role are clear-cut objectives or goals which are made known to the worker. The supervisory position is a power position but this power should not be used with people as merely a means to an end. Successful supervision accomplishes results through a willing worker. It can be thought of as a balancing of individual motivation with cooperative efficiency or effectiveness. Communica- tion runs throughout the supervisory process, in order to be effective there should be feedback, it is a two-way process. While Gross and Crandall speak of guiding or directing, the above shows that these two concepts may be intertwined for a more harmonious relationship with pleasing results. 15 Besides having the power of the position, the super- visor also carries the responsibility of his role, respon- sibility to the people under him as well as to the organiza— tion itself. This is why again the guiding 93 directing dichotomy is questioned. If the supervisor were responsible only to the individual then guiding would be effective but the totality of the situation must be considered. It is at this point that standards enter the supervisory role. Alerting workers to acceptable standards is as important for the individual's success as it is for the organization to reach its goals. The final characteristic is that of keeping abreast of changes in the field with regards to newer methods and per— formance skills. Insufficient knowledge of the work and poor instructions are named by some authors as retardants to effective supervision. There is no greater stimulant to morale than a collective consciousness of efficiency. "There is nothing which rots morale more quickly and more completely than poor communication and indecisiveness--the feeling that those in authority do not know their own minds." (21:A3) This condition, it would seem to follow, will also produce a sense of indecision in the workers. Keeping abreast of innovations in the field requires of the supervisor an open—mindedness to accept change, to try new methods and to take the inherent risks which are involved in any change. 16 Human Relationships and Performance Goals Nickell and Dorsey use guiding and directing to de— scribe the types of supervision. They see it as a way to get action from oneself as well as from others and state that through supervisory activities individuals may be energized into purposeful activity to get goal oriented results. (12:67) The authors describe controlling the plan in action, as planning with others for leadership and joint action in family groups to attain goals. They state that the emphasis is on group welfare and not on personal desires. Co- ordinating is another means of control as it unifies activ— ities and parts of an enterprise into a harmonious and workable whole. Direction is operating when emphasis is placed on the process itself and in order for this to occur, clear and adequate instructions must be given. Guidance operates with interest centered upon what is happening to the individual carrying out the process. Herein lies the main roots of what might be termed "home management supervision." We are interested in the person who is carry- ing out the process or the task. Nickell and Dorsey tell us that at times guidance and direction are so closely related that they merge. It would seem to follow then, that effec- tive supervision is a meaningful merger of the two concepts. Kay makes a point in favor of human behavior emphasis in supervision: 17 The supervisor on the lower level secures cooperation and production by de-emphasizing his own ego, stimu- lating group participation, and encouraging the maximum possible satisfaction of individual egos that is consistant with co-ordination. (8:36) It would appear that supervision in industry has been faced with the dichotomy of first being too production- centered and then running the risk of becoming too individual- centered. Likert tells us that those supervisors whose units have a relatively poor production record tend to concentrate on keeping their subordinates busily engaged in going through a specified work cycle in a prescribed way and at a satisfactory rate as determined by time standards. Supervisors with the best records of performance focus their attention on the human aspects of their subordinates' problems and on endeavoring to build effective work groups with high performance goals. (10:6) The key here seems to be a close correlation between relationships and performance goals. In the Fleishman, Harris study of 57 foremen in a motor-truck manufacturing plant it was found that employee turnover rates display a pattern when related to foreman structure and consideration of the work situation. In this instance, structure refers to the extent to which an individual is likely to define and structure his own role and those of his subordinates toward goal attain-‘ ment. It is characterized by individuals who play a more active role in directing group activities through planning, l8 communicating information, scheduling and trying out new ideas. Consideration reflects the extent to which an individ— ual is likely to have job relationships characterized by mutual trust, respect for subordinates' ideas, and consider- ation of their feelings. It indicates, by its nature, a climate of good rapport and two-way communication. Fleishman states that the major rate of change in employee turnover occurs at the low end of the consideration scale, with a moderate degree of consideration materially reducing turnover. Similarly, an increase in structure up to about the midpoint produces no increase in turnover, but beyond the midpoint it makes for a marked increase in turn- over. (A:132) Fleishman states that his original premise that an effective supervisor should score high in both ideologies needs further investigation before it is dis- carded. He feels that a larger sample than 57 and different circumstances should be studied. Rules Versus Generalizations Supervisors should recognize the fact that there are no sure and certain rules for working with "people" in general. Human beings are individually unique, and this individuality always has to be considered in developing working relations. Many books now deal with principles of supervision or general factors involved in the supervisory process rather than the approach of "Five Steps in Super- vising." l9 Prescriptive measures of how to be a good supervisor in home management have never reached the level that they once did in the business field. Emphasis has been on direc- tion giving, checking during the process and evaluation of the completed task. Some effort has been made to give generalizations for handling the human relations aspects of supervision. There is no "best" way to supervise. The best type' of supervision to employ depends upon the circumstances of the particular situation. According to Terry, "A supervisor succeeds almost in direct proportion to his ability to develop others to succeed him." (15:462) Some of the generalizations concerning supervision deserve attention as they contribute thoughts concerning the concept itself in terms of human relationships. Van Dersal speaks out against "oversupervision," that is, watching too closely over everything that the worker is doing. (16:20) Individuals want to feel important and the idea of a supervisor watching every move does not give much chance for a feeling of worth. Individuals wish the approval of their fellow workers as well as their supervisor in order to feel secure and to grow in their work. (9:1A) As a generalization then, one might draw from this that loud reprimanding in the presence of other peOple will not lead to security or a harmonious working relationship. Criticisms might be carried on in private to allow the worker to keep—face with his peers. 20 It would seem to follow also that criticism should be coupled with praise in order that the worker will know when he is again achieving the standard. Van Dersal describes seven key ideas which may be considered as a summary of generalizations concerning super- vision. These generalizations are: 1. People must always understand clearly what is expected of them. 2. People must have guidance in doing their work. 3. Good work should always be recognized. A. Poor work deserves constructive criticism. 5. PeOple should have the opportunity to show that they can accept greater responsibility. 6. People should be encouraged to improve themselves. 7. People should work in a safe and healthful environment. The consensus of opinions of all authors writing on the topic of supervision is that supervision is directed toward goals and to be effective these goals must be made known to all concerned. Related Research Nichols studied "Person-Centered and Task-Centered Styles of Organization" for her doctoral dissertation. According to Nichols there are three levels of task organ- ization. Level one involves one person arranging the parts of one task which he is to perform into a sequence or 21 pattern. Level two involves one person arranging his efforts for the completion of several tasks he is to perform into a sequence or pattern. Level three, that which fits the cur- rent discussion, requires one person, the manager, arranging the efforts of other persons, the performers, into a pattern for the completion of one or several tasks. The study was based on level three style of organization and drew the following hypothesis: "The more person-centered is the organizational style of the home manager the greater will be the amount of help she received with home tasks from family members." (23:8) Nichols found that none of the respondents selected all task-centered statements when she tested her hypothesis with 125 working women. Twelve women chose all person— centered statements selected from among the 12 pairs of forced-choice items. The hypothesis was not supported but it might be traced to the fact that the responses may not have reflected what the women actually did but rather what they thought desirable to do. It was interesting to note that women with four or more children were found to be task-centered in supervision as indicated by their choice of the statement, "It is impor- tant to check often to see if they are following instructions," significantly more often than women with only one child. (23:u8) Nichols asks two essential questions at the close of her dissertation: Are people as competent in supervising 22 and coordinating as in assigning and evaanting? And more basically, what constitutes competence in each of these areas? In a study designed to identify person-centered or task-centered managerial behavior among student managers and to describe the supervisory techniques used among peers with emphasis on the directions they gave and the communication used, Shimonaka found that the student managers were highly person-centered, 80 per cent rated high. (2“ 32) The Nichols forced-choice items were the basis for this investigation and as a result the same problem arises, did the girls choose person-centered items because they felt that they should? The forced-choice format of the Nichols items allows a per- son to only choose between being person-centered or task- centered. Should an effective supervisor be both person and task-centered? As to supervisory techniques, the student managers considered a combination of written and verbal form of direc— tions to be the most effective communication. Casual over- seeing was the most popular pattern of on—the-job supervision. The objectives of a study done by Fukushima were (1) to identify the interpersonal values of the students in a home management residence course, and (2) to compare stu- dents' interpersonal values with managerial ratings. (22:6) The instrument used to identify interpersonal values was the "Survey of Interpersonal Values" developed by Gordon. It was found that the rank order of higher values were: 23 independence, support, recognition, benevolence, leadership, and conformity. Each girl, after assuming the role of the manager, in the residence course, is allowed the opportunity of evaluating herself in terms of leader ability, c00peration, and so forth. It was hypothesized that there would be a relationship between the interpersonal values and how the girl rated her own managerial ability. The comparison of the interpersonal values and managerial ratings revealed that total managerial self scores were not associated with individual Specific interpersonal values. Fukushima stated that a further study was needed to clarify relationships between interpersonal values and managerial achievement. The literature calls attention to a number of problem areas related to effective supervision which need to be studied further. What constitutes competence in supervision? Should a supervisor be person—centered, task—centered or both? What type of communication best accomplishes the goals of home management supervision? How can the effective- ness of a supervisor be evaluated? What are the character- istics of the effective and the non-effective home manage- ment supervisor? This study was designed to develop and test some instruments which would aid in answering these questions and to identify and describe the characteristics of home management supervisors. CHAPTER III PROCEDURE The home management residence course assigns a super- visory role to students and the researcher is a graduate assistant in this course. This supervisory situation pro- vided an opportunity to study home management supervision. The sample consisted of all of the 30 students enrolled in the residence course during one term. Description of the Sample Each of the "supervisors" in the study had approxi- mately the same academic background. The students have junior or senior standing and have fulfilled the several prerequisites which must be taken before enrolling in the residence course. In conjunction with the course, one of the class lectures is on supervision. This lecture was given by the researcher before any of the college women assumed their supervisory role. Three high school girls participated as the workers in this study. The girls ages were l6, l7 and 18. The 16 and 17 year olds were juniors and the girl who was 18 was a senior. 2H 25 The researcher had no choice in the selection of these girls. They all qualify for work under the Neighborhood Youth Corps and are selected for work at the home management house on the basis of their interest and need by the coordi— nator of their respective schools. Development of the Observation Scale. Literature concerning the nature of supervision was reviewed in order to develop a normative theoretical model; that is to say what should be included in home management supervision. From this theoretical model the researcher decided upon what points should be included in an observa- tion scale for use during the observation of the college girls in their supervisory roles. A panel of graduate stu- dents in home management were asked to react to this obser- vation scale. The graduate panel were all enrolled in a seminar on supervision under the guidance of Esther Everett. The researcher was a member of this seminar along with a doctoral candidate in home management who had previously held a supervisory position in Institutional Administration for a number of years; an Extension Home Economist; a Home Economist in Business; and a graduate student in the Depart- ment of Child Development. The graduate panel did not find fault with the theoretical model but did suggest changes in sequence of items and wording of items. The observation scale was submitted three times with consequent corrections to this panel and finally accepted as a measure of what 26 should be included in home management supervision and accepted as a useable scale for observing the supervisory process. Rationale for Observation Scale The final observation scale contains 16 points which the graduate panel felt were necessary for effective super- vision (see Appendix I). 1. Supervisor defined the task which was to be learned. The literature pointed out that supervision is directed toward goals and to be effective these goals must be made known to all concerned. Item number one was con- sidered important to include in the observation scale as it is essential to ascertain the degree to which the supervisor informs the worker of the goals or objectives. In defining the task to be learned the worker knows from the start what the supervisor is attempting and what is expected in order to fulfill this objective. 2. Supervisor showed accuracy in making decisions during the pre-instruction and instruction period. 3. Supervisor was responsible and flexible in her decision-making: accepts risks inherent in decisions but is flexible within the situation. A characteristic of the supervisory position is that of assuming the responsibility and power which the role 27 entails. Gross and Crandall term decision-making as the "crux of management." Items two and three were added to the observation scale as means of ascertaining the reSponsibility and decision-making capacity of the supervisors. Was there evidence of decision-making prior to the instruction period? That is, plans made in advance, lesson outlined to show its scope, areas beneficial to the high school trainees stressed? Was the supervisor able to change plans during the process if this were necessary? That is, did she turn to the observer for help or could she accept and change plans accordingly? 4. Supervisor asked workers if they had a method for doing the task? Tannenbaum suggests that a major job of any super- visor is to "further the individual development of the employee." (14:78) It can be assumed that high school stu- dents have been performing household tasks or have learned some tasks through their school's Home Economics program. If the supervisor then is to "further" the development of the individual it would appear to be necessary to see where the individual is in her learning and build from there. Tannenbaum also tells us that it is the supervisor's role to "increase the readiness of subordinates to accept change." (1A:78) One cannot help a person to change unless they know the individual's level of thinking and performance. Zelditch states that the division of labor is universal and a fundamental principle of family life the world over. 28 (17:21) It is therefore necessary for the effective super- visor to ascertain the present knowledge and build upon this. 5. Supervisor showed resourcefulness in task pro- cedure and techniques; selection of alternative methods, taking time and energy into considera- tion; originality in technique(s) used. 6. Supervisor stated alternative ways in which the task could be accomplished. According to Likert, supervision is always a relative process. "To be effective and to communicate as intended, a leader must always adapt his behavior to take into account the expectations, values and interpersonal skills of those with whom he is interacting." (10:95) Each task in the home can be accomplished by a variety of methods, tools and commercial products. Each method of doing the job has its own variables such as amount of time needed, energy required and cost involved. The giving of alternatives seems to be most effective in regard to home management supervision, whereas the prescription of only one method does not allow for individual differences in relation to time, energy and cost. As Likert tells us, "Those supervisors whose units have relatively poor produc- tion record tend to concentrate on keeping their subordi- nates busily engaged in going through a specified work cycle in a prescribed way and at a satisfactory rate." (10:6) 29 7. Supervisor alerted workers to the acceptable standards for the finished task. Drucker states that the supervisor "has the respon- sibility-—both to the individual and to the organization-- to demand superior performance and to condone nothing less." (2:80) It has already been mentioned that the worker must realize the objective or goal toward which he is working. Standards should be treated in the same manner: that is, the worker should be made to realize at the outset that there is an acceptable standard or standards toward which he is working. Supervision is effective when the worker clearly understands what is expected of him. 8.- Supervisor related task to the workers' age and ability level and helped the worker think of future ways in which this knowledge could be applied. This point on the observation scale is most important is home management supervision; and Situationally in the supervision carried on in this research. The workers are low income high school girls, they are engaged and plan to marry within the year. At present they are coming to the home management house to learn more about housecare procedures; they receive a salary for this, and they will be able to use the information presently by helping their mothers. Can they be made to see the big picture, can they be made to see task performance in terms of human relationships when they have their own families? 30 This item was also added because it was felt that people learn best at the point when they need the informa- tion the most. Can people be prodded into futuristic thinking so as to alleviate the necessity of retracing past experiences? 9. Supervisor set an example for the workers by her interest and good work habits. Likert tells us that "subordinates reaction to the supervisor's behavior always depends upon the relationship between the supervisory act as perceived by the subordi- nate and the expectations, values and interpersonal skills of the subordinate." (10:94) Was the supervisor able to generate interest in the new situation and good work habits so that the workers felt comfortable in the new situation and eager to try the new process? One human behavior characteristic specifically pointed out by Newman and Summer was the need for a leader or supervisor to have empathy. Empathy is necessary for a supervisor to function as a guide, motivator and information gatherer in relation to the supervisee. 10. Supervisor advised workers of any hazard to self, equipment or furnishings in relation to the task. According to Van Dersal, "peOple should work in a safe and healthful environment." (16:38) In the tasks of the home or in the use of new equip- ment there are certain features which should be pointed out 31 for the safety of all concerned. Knowing these features in advance, a worker may then feel more confident and a stressful situation will not develop because of lack of knowledge. This item was added to the observation scale because it was felt to be a part of the supervisor's responsibility to be concerned with the welfare of workers and furnishings. ll. Supervisor's attention during the work period was one of parallel working with check-ups rather than constant direction. Van Dersal lists oversupervision, that is watching too closely over everything that the worker does, as a major factor in poor supervision. The worker needs a chance to try the procedure on his own to know where his own weaknesses are, rather than having every step watched. Parallel working means that the supervisor stations herself near by and does work of her own choosing. This affords her easy access to the workers to check on their progress and to answer subsequent questions. 12. Supervisor complimented worker for good ideas or a job well done and instructed those not achieving standard. According to Van Dersal, a common complaint of workers is that the supervisor does not give credit where it is due. He states that "good work should always be recognized" and that "poor work deserves constructive criticism." (16:30) 32 This item was included for its individual development significance. A person will not experience growth unless he understands where his position is with regard to task performance. Unless he hears that he is doing a good job or that he is not achieving the standard, he will not know his place in the scheme of things. 13. Supervisor treated the clean—up as part of the total job. This item was added because of its special signifi- cance to the home and home management supervision. It was felt that the clean—up process as part of a new task pro— cedure should be dovetailed into the learning process and not treated as a separate entity. It was considered to be a necessary part of standards and good work habits and its inclusion in the main part of the task performance would be a wise use of time and energy. 1“. Supervisor showed basic knowledge in her field by her ability to interrelate ideas and to guide the completion of the task. Drucker stated that the supervisor must keep abreast of the new developments and innovations in order to perform work in the best manner possible. Was the supervisor able to use her own knowledge and the knowledge of the workers in an effective manner so as to complete the task in a satisfactory way? Was the supervisor able to keep the workers' attention through to the completion of the task or did their interest lag? 33 This item was thought to be important in that the supervisor should have the basic knowledge concerning the subject matter and also should be able to retain the moti- vation through the actual task performance. 15. Supervisor showed knowledge concerning home management house policies and procedures. This item was included for the part it plays in the "supervisor's responsibility to the organization." (2:95) The home management house residence course, due to the turnover of residents every three weeks, has had to develop some policies and procedures on care of certain household equipment and furnishings. The actual decision—making of the supervisor is hindered to a degree on some few aspects of task performance. It was felt that knowledge of these few policies and procedures was necessary for the super- visor to fulfill her responsibility to the organization. 16. Supervisor conducted an analysis or evaluation of the finished task with the worker. This item on the observation scale was included because of its human relationship and task performance value. It was felt that the final results should be evaluated from all standpoints: appearance, ease, time, energy, money, costs, and worker's feelings and attitudes. Through an evaluation, the worker is given a better perspective on the necessity of the task and given a chance to clear up any remaining questions. 34 Development of Workers' Evaluation It was felt that the workers should be given the opportunity to evaluate each of the supervisors. This was decided upon for two reasons. First, as a check on the researcher. The observation method of data collection is not infallible, its limitations will be discussed in a later chapter. It was thought that the high school girls evaluation of some of the same points evaluated by the researcher would provide information to supplement the observation judgments. A second purpose of the workers' evaluation would be to use it as a check on the merits of the observation scale. Were the points on the observation scale adequate for covering the whole of the supervisory activity? Are there points which should be added to the scale? The only way to ascertain this would be to ask the workers their own feel- ings and if they learned the task. Jof performance is one area in which to examine if the task was learned but another is to find the actual feelings of the workers. The workers evaluation instrument was also judged by the graduate panel, revisions were made and finally an instrument was developed which was accepted as a meaningful tool for evaluation of the supervisor as perceived by the workers. 35 The Evaluation by_Workers The evaluation scale contains seven points plus two open—ended questions (see Appendix II). As they are similar to the points in the observation scale they will be discussed in less detail. 1. Did the supervisor tell you in advance what the whole job was about? If the worker is to be motivated toward goal—oriented results it is necessary to know the objective of their efforts. 2. Were the instructions of the supervisor very clear to you? It was felt that the researcher, knowing the princi- ples of each task, would be able to judge the clearness of directions but as a further check, the workers should be able to eXpress their opinions and feelings on how clear they, themselves, thought the instructions were. 3. Did the supervisor offer other suggestions for doing the job? It was felt that the researcher would be able to recognize suggestions or alternatives for job completion. Would the workers recognize or retain these suggestions if they were not put into practice during the work period? 4. Did the supervisor tell you how this task might be important to you in the future? Was the supervisor able to stimulate futuristic thinking? Did the workers realize that this was happening? 36 5. Did the supervisor ask if you already had a method for doing the job? As stated earlier, the major job of any supervisor is to "further" the development of the individual. One ascer- tains this level of knowledge and builds from this point. This also allows the worker to talk, and it is felt that no matter what their method of task procedure it should be heard in order to make a comparison between this and other acceptable methods. 6. Did the supervisor seem to know how to do the job herself? This is related to the question of instilling confi- dence in the workers. If the supervisor in unsure of the situation it would appear to follow that the worker will also be tense about the task. It is a more judgemental item but it was felt that it was an important aspect of the supervisory situation. 7. Did you learn how to do this task? This item was added to the evaluation for the idea of relationship between the task and the human relationship goals. It was felt that the learning of the task was one of the reasons behind supervision. The two open-ended questions were: What part of the training was of most interest to you, and . . . least interest to you? These were used to shed light on other aspects of the content of the supervisory situation which may not have 37 been included in either of the two scales. It was also another opportunity for the worker to talk and eXpress her feelings regarding the situation. These two questions were also thought of as a guide for the supervisor to look at in terms of self improvement. Measures of Interpersonal Values The instrument used in determining the interpersonal values of the college women was Gordon's Survey of Inter- pprsonal Values. This is a self-report questionnaire designed to measure certain critical values involving the individual's relationships to other people and their rela- tionships with him. The questionnaire yields scores for six value dimensions, presented in thirty (30) sets of forced-choice triads. The questionnaire was developed from a factor analysis of an original pool of 210 items. Items with high discrimination power within each factor were grouped into the 30 sets of three statements. Within each triad, three different value dimensions are represented, with all possible combinations of three counterbalanced among the six value dimensions represented in the question- naire. Items within triads were equated on a "social desirability" index. For each set of three items the subject was required to pick the item of most and least importance to him. This forced—choice format serves to reduce the likelihood that 38 the individual reSponds to the favorableness of the item rather than the degree of importance to him. The six value dimensions were: 1. S-—Support.—-Being treated with understanding, receiving encouragement from other people, being treated with kindness and consideration. 2. C-—Conformity.-—Doing what is socially correct, following regulations closely, doing what is accepted and proper, being a conformist. 3. R——Recognition.—-Being looked up to and admired, being considered important, attracting favorable notice, achieving recognition. 4. I--Independence.——Having the right to do what ever one wants to do, being free to make one's own decisions, being able to do things in one's own way. 5. B--Benevolence.--Doing things for other people, sharing with others, helping the unfortunate, being generous. 6. L--Leadership.--Being in charge of other people, having authority over others, being in a position of leadership or power. Test—retest reliabilities from .78 to .89 were re- ported for these scales. (l9:A) A high score on a particu— lar value dimension indicates that the individual tends to choose items from that value scale as "most important" to him. 39 Interpretation of scores on the Survey of Inter- personal Values is made by reference to norms prepared for each of the scales. Norms for men and women were presented in the "Manual for Survey of Interpersonal Values." These norms, based on data for 1075 men and 7A6 women, were obtained from colleges selected so as to represent all major regions of the country. The norms are presented in percentile form. The individual's percentile score provides an indication of her relative standing on a given value in comparison with other members of the normative group. For example, a college woman who scores at the 79th percentile on a particular value is as high or higher than 79 per cent of the norma- tive group and has her score exceeded by only 21 per cent of the group. The range may be divided into five levels of equal standard score magnitude to facilitate the interpretation of percentile scores. The intervals and their designations are: Very High — 94th to 99th percentile High - 70th to 93rd percentile Average - 32nd to 69th percentile Low — 8th to 3lst percentile Very Low - lst to 7th percentile The Survey of Interpersonal Values was administered to the 30 women enrolled in the residence course. Each individual's percentile score and the level this score represented was ascertained for each of the interpersonal values tested by the instrument. A0 Measures of Leadership Attitudes Each college woman also filled out a Leadership Opinion Questionnaire compiled by Edwin A. Fleishman. This questionnaire attempts to assess how the supervisor thinks she "should" behave in her leadership role. The question- naire yields scores for two leader dimensions "considera- tion" naire and "structure." The two independent scores provided by this question- are defined as follows: Structure (S).——Reflects the extent to which an individual is likely to define and structure his own role and those of his subordinates toward goal attainment. A high score on this dimension characterizes individuals who play a more active role in directing group activities through planning, communicating information, scheduling and trying out new ideas. Consideration (C).—-Reflects the extent to which an individual is likely to have job relationships characterized by mutual trust, reSpect for subordi- nate's ideas and consideration of their feelings. A high score is indicative of a climate of good rapport and two-way communication. A low score indicates the supervisor is likely to be more impersonal in his relations with group members. Al There are 40 items arranged such that the respondent indicates how frequently he thinks he should do what each item describes—-always, often, occasionally, seldom, never. It is emphasized that there are no right or wrong answers in the questionnaire, since "everyone's group is different and what is the best way to lead one group may not be the best way for another." The five alternatives for each item are weighted zero to four, and the total dimension scores are derived by adding the weights corresponding to the alternatives selected for the items in each dimension. Each of the two dimension keys contains 20 items and thus the theoretical range of scores on each dimension is from zero to 80. The stability of these attitudes over time, among industrial supervisors, was shown to be high in a previous study by Harris and Fleishman. (Azu6) An important research finding is that the dimensions of structure and consideration are independent. This means that some supervisors score high on both dimensions, low on both, or high in one and low on the other. Percentile norms and verbal descriptions of these are given at the end of the "Manual for Leadership Opinion Questionnaire." The intervals and their descriptions are: Very High — 97th to 99th percentile High - 75th to 95th percentile Average — 3lst to 69th percentile Low — 5th to 25th percentile Very Low - lst to 3rd percentile A2 The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire was administered to the 30 women enrolled in the residence course. For each student the percentile norm and the corresponding verbal description for each of the two dimensions was ascertained. Tasks to be Supervised The home tasks to be supervised were decided upon and assigned randomly to the 30 college women. They were: Use of electric floor polisher Small appliances: how to Operate the blender, mixer, disposal Care of electrical equipment: toaster, fry pan, waffle iron, coffee maker Care of flowers, plants: arrangements Kitchen organization: cupboards and drawers Table setting: different styles Table setting: work simplification Clean and defrost refrigerator Different methods of cleaning silver Care of fabrics: curtains and drapes "Spot" upholstery and carpets Use of automatic washer and dryer Use of irons and ironer Care of walls, window sills Care of asphalt tile floors Care of aluminum and brass Care of lavatories Care of linoleum floors '43 Care of porcelain enamel Operating a dishwasher Operating a pressure cooker Cleaning a gas range Cleaning an electric range Bed making: work simplification Care of lamps and shades Hems and hand stitching: this was added through the wishes of the trainees Brooms and brushes Care of mirrors, picture glass, windows Treating woodwork Treating furniture with wax, oil. Observation of Supervisors One of the college women was unable to fulfill her supervisory role and so the sample was reduced to 29. The researcher observed each of the 29 supervisory activities, trying to remain inconspicuous so as not to hinder the actual process. During the observation period the researcher wrote down everything that was said and described in writing everything that happened during the time the supervisor was giving directions for the task to be done. As soon as possible, either during the work period or after the completion of the activity, whichever was applicable, the supervisor was evaluated using the observation scale. The verbal description of the communi- cation and occurances during the activity were used in AA analysing why a supervisor was given a high or low rating on a particular point on the observation scale. Construction of Profiles The observation records were used as the basis for the establishment of the boundaries of the effective and non—effective supervisors. These college women were then described in terms of interpersonal values, leadership attitudes and individual points from the observation scale and workers' evaluation instrument were highlighted when meaningful to the discussion. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS Survey of Interpersonal Values The Survey of Interpersonal Values as developed by Gordon was administered to the 30 college women. The results are shown in Table 1. TABLE l.--Results from the Survey of Interpersonal Values. Verbal * Description S C R I B L Very High 13% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% High A0 10 23 33 1A 33 Average an 30 37 A7 50 2A Low 3 H3 “0 17 2O 23 Very Low 0 l7 0 3 13 20 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% a S=Support; C=Conformity: R=Recognition: I=Independ- ence; B=Benevolence; L=Leadership. As can be seen, the college women were quite high in Support (being treated with understanding, receiving encouragement from other people, being treated with kindness “5 A6 and consideration). Thirteen per cent of the women placed themselves in the Very High category and 40 per cent in the High category. Gordon states that a person valuing support would tend to be non—reflective, lacking vigor, dependent and unreliable. Leadership Opinion Questionnaire The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire as developed by Fleishman was administered to the 30 college women. The results are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2.—-Results of the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. Verbal Description Structure Consideration Very High 7% 13% High 7 37 Average 26 U7 Low 57 3 Very Low 3 0 Total 100% 100% The college women definitely scored higher on con- sideration than on structure. According to Fleishman, the effective supervisor would have a high score in both of these ideologies, but this theory has not yet been proven. (“:12) A7 Home management values may need to stress a closer relationship between the two dimensions or the attitudes held by the effective supervisors may point out the desir- ability of stressing one pattern. Observation of Supervisors The observation scale develOped for this study was used as the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of each of the supervisors. A total score for each supervisor was computed. The highest ranking supervisor scored 76 out of a possible 80 points. The lowest ranking supervisor scored 22. Two college women were ranked in the 20-30 point category; three were in the 30-A0 category: eight each in the AO—50 and 50-60 point categories, and four each in the 60-70 and 70-80 categories. The scores received by each of the supervisors were ranged to see if there was a natural break. A natural break was apparent at each end of the scale and, therefore, the five highest ranking and five lowest ranking super- visors were selected as representative of supervisors at each end of the rating scale. Profile of the Effective Supervisors The highest rating given to a supervisor was 76 out of a possible 80 points (see Appendix I a). The supervisory activity was one which may be considered in a heavy clean- ing category, related to floor care. A8 The supervisor's ability to relate to the workers' ages and past eXperience was noteworthy. The supervisor questioned the girls on whether they ever did this particu- lar task at home, what type of flooring material they had, what products they liked to use and if they had a chance to use waxing equipment in their high school home economics classes? In referring to the fact that old wax should be removed before applying the new, she said, "It's like make- up, you wash off the old before applying the new." This seemed to make more sense to the high school girls than just hearing the idea as a rule. Although the supervisor suggested alternative ways in which the task could be performed, the alternatives were in terms of how much more time and energy these alternatives would take. This was true but in light of the workers' socio—economic level these methods could have been stated in more positive terms as ways of reaching an acceptable standard. If money were not available for labor-saving equipment, the alternatives would be of great importance. The supervisor was most enthusiastic in her praise—- "Oh, you're following directions to perfection." The combined workers' evaluations were quite favor- able. They gave the supervisor mostly high or very high ratings with an average of 25 out of the possible 35 points. The Survey of Interpersonal Values for the supervisor showed the following characteristics. She was average, A9 A5 per cent, in support; low, 29 per cent, in conformity: low, 2A per cent, in recognition; average, 38 per cent, in independence; very high, 9A per cent, in benevolence and average, A8 per cent, in leadership. Her strong inter- personal value of benevolence carries with it the tendency trait of being tolerant and understanding. The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire scores for this supervisor are as follows. She rated very high, 98 per cent, in structure and very high, 99 per cent, in considera- tion. One might be able to generalize from this that the effective supervisor holds the task to be done and the individual both in high regard. The next two effective supervisors received observa- tion scores of 7A each. The first of these supervised a task which might be classified in a heavy cleaning category (see Appendix I b). _The supervisor alerted the workers to acceptable standards for the task but the observer noticed that the workers' standards were considerably higher than for many other tasks which they were called upon to do. The pride which they took in their work could only be traced to the supervisor's enthusiasm. She complimented the workers very nicely—-"Oh, it looks so nice, the best I've ever seen it." The workers gave the supervisor a combined rating of 27 out of a possible 35 points. Although this was a heavy cleaning task the workers felt that it was "fun" to do. It is interested to note that the next day the workers came 5. U back to check their handiwork to make sure that no one in the house had "dirtied it up." The Survey of Interpersonal Values showed the follow- characteristics for this supervisor. She was average, A5 per cent, in support; low, 19 per cent, in conformity; high, 90 per cent, in recognition; very low, 5 per cent, in independence; average, 36 per cent, in benevolence and high, 67 per cent, in leadership. The trait tendencies for the supervisor's highest values are recognition (anxious to please) and leadership (an original thinker, energetic, self-assured and assertive). The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire scores for this supervisor differ from the last effective supervisor in that she rated low, 25 per cent, in structure and very high, 97 per cent, in consideration. The low score in structure means that the supervisor does not think that she should structure her own role and that of the workers toward goal attainment. Although in actuality she did this, she does not feel that this should be an important part of her supervisory activity. The other supervisor, who also received an observation score of 7A, supervised a task which might be classified in the medium-heavy cleaning category (see Appendix I c). The supervisor was rated as average in asking the workers if they had a method for doing the task, because she rather glossed over this idea by saying "You've prob— ably done this task before." This only gave the workers a 51 chance to say yes or no without finding what they did in fact know about the task. The supervisor started off by telling the workers that this was something that the college girls learn to do. The workers seemed to enjoy being put on the same level as the college girls and were anxious to do a good job. The supervisor had a good way of relating to the workers age and interests. She spoke in terms of "when you're married" and "when your mother-in—law comes." The workers gave the supervisor a combined rating of 29 out of 35 points and again mentioned that the task was fun and that it was fun "talking to her." This would seem to indicate that the supervisor was able to open up two-way communication and develop a good rapport with the workers. The Survey of Interpersonal Values showed the follow- ing characteristics for this supervisor. She was high, 75 per cent, in support; low, 1A per cent, in conformity; low, 31 per cent, in recognition; high, 8A per cent, in inde- pendence; very low, 3 per cent in benevolence and high, 81 per cent, in leadership. Her two highest values, independence and leadership have the tendency traits of being non-sociable and being an original thinker, energetic, self—assured and assertive. The high valuation of support leads her to want a sympa- thetic environment and may have been brought out in her development of rapport and communication. 52 The supervisor rated average with regard to scores on the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. She was average, 69 per cent, in structure and average; 50 per cent in considera- tion. This would mean that the supervisor was average in terms of how frequently she felt she should do what the test items described. In other words, she would not always structure a situation and she would not always hold the human relations part as most significant. The next effective supervisor received an observation score of 73 points. Her taks for supervision might be classified in a light house care category (see Appendix I d). The supervisor scored lowest with respect to conduct— ing a final analysis and evaluation. She seemed unable to get the workers to take a stand concerning what they thought of the finished product. During the check up on workers she lifted their stand- ards by saying "how about if we . . ." or "do you think if we . . . " This seemed to give the workers more pride in the joint effort as the supervisor indicated she was willing to help when the workers needed her. The workers gave the supervisor a combined rating of 27 out of a possible 35 points. The workers had never done the task before but expressed confidence in trying it on their own. The Survey of Interpersonal Values showed that the supervisor had the following characteristics. She was high, 75 per cent, in support; very low, 3 per cent, in conformity; 53 high, 80 per cent, in recognition; high, 81 per cent, in independence; very low, 1 per cent, in benevolence and high, 87 per cent in leadership. The three highest categories of leadership, indepen- dence, and recognition would show the supervisor to be an original thinker, energetic, self-assured and assertive as well as being anxious to please. The high score in sup- port indicates why she worked toward the sympathetic en- vironment she created with comments such as "we" could do it this way. The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire for this super- visor showed her to be high, 75 per cent, in structure and average, A0 per cent, in consideration. This would seem to follow her very low score in benevolence. She is more interested in structuring the roles of supervisor and worker and communicating in terms of the finished product. The fifth most effective supervisor received an ob- servation score of 68 for a task which could be considered in a light house cleaning category (see Appendix I e). The supervisor was rated average in the areas of healthy working environment and evaluation of the finished task. Although both were touched upon there was much more that could have been done to help the workers. The supervisor stressed learning good work habits now while young so that they would not have to concentrate on them in later years. She showed some cartoons which were related to her topic in order to motivate the workers. 5A The workers gave the supervisor a combined rating of 30 out of a possible 35 points. This was the highest rating that they gave to any supervisor. It was interesting to note that on the last day of the workers' time at the home management house, the researcher asked each worker sepa- rately to deScribe the hour spent at the House they thought had been most enjoyable, most worth-while and during which they had learned the most. Although they were each asked separately and not given time for consultations, they each told the researcher that this was the best supervisor and work period of all that they had. The supervisor gave a good description of what they were to do during the hour. She had an interesting way of questioning them at every step of the eXplanation and pulling out ideas. The supervisor made the task seem important by relating to personal experiences of her family members. The Survey of Interpersonal Values for this supervisor showed the following characteristics. She was average, 68 per cent, in support; high, 79 per cent, in conformity; .average, 5A per cent, in recognition; average, 38 per cent, in independence; average, A8 per cent, in benevolence and very low, 6 per cent, in leadership. The high score in conformity carries with it the tendency trait of a person who is careful and responsible. The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire scores for this supervisor were low, 20 per cent, in structure and average, 69 per cent, in consideration. 55 The low score in structure means that the supervisor does not think she should structure her own role and that of the workers toward goal attainment. Although in actual— ity she did this, she does not feel that this should be an important part of her supervisory activity. Profiles of the Non-effective Supervisors Profiles of the five non—effective supervisors will be discussed starting with the "better" of the non—effective supervisors and ending with a discussion of the least effective supervisor. The first in this category received an observation score of 36 points (see Appendix I f). The supervisory activity may be classified as light housekeeping. The supervisor was quite hesitant in the activity and showed very little organization or pre-planning. At one point she asked the researcher, "was I supposed to tell them about . . . ?" The researcher in trying to remain on the fringes of the group answered to the effect that the content was up to the supervisor; at which point the super- visor said, "well I'm not prepared to do it." It is of importance to note that what was omitted was listed on the supervisor's job description sheet, in other words, it was a main part of the activity. As a result of this, her task was quite superficial in terms of the needs of the workers and her coverage was only low to average. 56 The workers gave the supervisor a combined average of 2A out of a possible 35 points. This was a fairly high rating for the content of the activity. The researcher believes that the supervisor was able to build some sort of rapport with the workers to rate this high evaluation. The open-ended questions found two of the workers listing the points from the activity that were of no interest but add- ing, in parenthesis, that it was not the fault of the super- visor. The Survey of Interpersonal Values for this supervisor showed the following characteristics. She was high, 75 per cent, in support; very low, 2 per cent, in conformity; average, 5A per cent, in recognition; average, 60 per cent, in independence; average, 5A per cent, in benevolence and high, 70 per cent, in leadership. The two high values of support and leadership carry with them the tendency traits of wanting a sympathetic environment and also being an original thinker, energetic, self-assured and assertive. The scores on the Leadership_0pinion Questionnaire show that she rated low, 5 per cent, in structure and average, 50 per cent, in consideration. The low rating in the structuring of the supervisory activity did in fact show itself. She does not hold the attitude that the supervisor and workers should be struc- tured in terms of goal attainment and in practice her superficial coverage seemed to show this. 57 The next supervisor received an observation score of 3A points (see Appendix I g). The supervisory activity may be classified in a medium housekeeping category. The supervisor seemed very hesitant and nervous in her role. She had to turn to the researcher twice to ask ques— tions on the procedure and twice with comments such as, "Anything I should repeat?" "Is there anything I should add?" Near the close of the activity she asked, "Did I miss anything?" The supervisor conducted the activity in terms of there being only one or two ways of doing the task. There were very few eXplanations as to the "whys"of the pre- scriptions that were being given. The workers' evaluations were again very high. They gave the supervisor a combined average of 26 out of 35 points. The Survey of Interpersonal Values for this supervisor showed the following characteristics. She was high, 75 per cent, in support; low, 19 per cent, in conformity; average, 38 per cent,in recognition; high, 78 per cent, in independ— ence; average, A8 per cent, in benevolence and low, 2A per cent, in leadership. The high values of support and inde- pendence carry with them the tendency traits of wanting a sympathetic environment and not caring about sociability. It could be assumed because of the high workers' evaluations that this sympathetic environment was achieved. The super- visor was able to build some sort of rapport with the workers. 58 The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire scores were average, 31 per cent, in structure and high, 90 per cent, in consideration. The high in consideration shows that she feels two-way communication is important and feels that the workers should be considered in the supervisory activity. The next supervisor received an observation score of 30 points (see Appendix I h). The supervisory task may be classified in a light housekeeping category. The supervisor did not instill any confidence with her opening remark of, "I've never done this before . . . " In giving the workers some practical suggestions she stressed one brand, one product. Her prescriptions of the "shoulds" involved in the task were more of a salesman than of a home management person creating awareness of alternatives. The workers gave the supervisor a combined average of 2A points but did list parts of the activity which were not beneficial. The Survey of Interpersonal Values for the supervisor showed the following characteristics. She was high, 92 per cent, in support; very low, 2 per cent, in conformity; high, 90 per cent, in recognition; low, 16 per cent, in independ- ence; average, 36 per cent, in benevolence and average, 61 per cent, in leadership. The high values of support and recognition carry with them the tendency traits of wanting a sympathetic environment and being anxious and sociable. The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire scores show that the supervisor was average, 50 per cent, in structure and 59 average, 50 per cent, in consideration. Here we have a non- effective supervisor with the two dimensions being similar but the committment to the facets of the situation are only average. The next supervisor received an observation score of 2A points. The supervisory activity may be classified in a light housekeeping category (see Appendix I i). The supervisor handed the workers written directions for the task at hand. There were two methods for doing the job and the supervisor told the workers to divide them- selves, with half using one method and half using the other. As there were only three high school workers, this confused them right from the beginning. At one point, the researcher got out the necessary equipment in the hopes of saving part of the activity. The workers were quite confused but when they questioned the supervisor she picked up the directions and read to them. The girls made comments such as "What are we supposed to be doing? I don't understand." The workers gave the supervisor a combined average of 17 out of a possible 35 points. This was the lowest rating given to any supervisor. It is interesting to note that at the end of all of the data collection when the researcher asked the workers separately to name the best and the worst supervisor and lesson, each of the three workers named this girl as the worst supervisor, namely because they did not know what they were supposed to be doing. 60 The Survey of Interpersonal Values for this supervisor showed the following characteristics. She rated high, 75 per cent, in support; high, 79 per cent, in conformity; average, 38 per cent, in recognition; average, 65 per cent, in independence; low, 31 per cent in benevolence and very low, 3 per cent, in leadership. Her high values of support and conformity carry with them the tendency traits of want- ing a sympathetic environment and being a responsible person, neither of which showed up in the supervisory activity. The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire for this super- visor shows her as low, 5 per cent, in structure and high, 80 per cent, in consideration. She then feels that building up a good rapport with the workers is necessary but in fact, did nothing of this sort. The least effective supervisor received an observation score of 22 points (see Appendix I j). The supervisory activity may be classified as medium-heavy housekeeping. The supervisor started with the remark, "I'm sure you know how to do this but let's go do it anyway." The workers did not know what the task was until they actually came face to face with it. The supervisor was not organized in the situation. She had to excuse herself twice to go for forgotten items and then, finally, ran out of the only product she had suggested, so called a halt to the proceed- ings and cancelled the rest of the lesson. It was a very elementary and superficial coverage of an activity which 61 could have been important to the workers. The supervisor turned to the researcher twice with comments on the task and then finally said, "Well, it's silly to go on any more, we've run out of . . . (the suggested cleaning product)." The workers gave the supervisor a combined average of 25 out of a possible 35 points. This was quite high and shows that even though the content of the supervisory activity was lacking the supervisor was able to create a good rapport with the workers. The Survey of Interpersonal Values for this supervisor showed the following characteristics. She was average, 53 per cent, in support; high, 7A per cent, in conformity; average, 68 per cent, in recognition; average, 55 per cent, in independence; low, 31 per cent, in benevolence and very low, 9 per cent, in leadership. The high value of conformity carries with it the tendency trait of being a careful, responsible person. This value did not show itself in the supervisory activity. The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire scores were low, 5 per cent, in structure and high, 90 per cent, in considera- tion. The fact that she does not feel it is important to structure herself and the workers toward goal attainment was definitely in evidence. Summary of Profiles In summarizing the combined scores of the effective and non-effective supervisors, it is not possible to make 62 generalizations concerning the interpersonal values and the leader opinions (see Table 3). Each supervisor had her own list of normative ideas but in actuality did not always hold to these. TABLE 3.——Combined ratings and scores for the effective and non—effective supervisors. 0 WE s c R I B L St Con* 76 25 A5% 29% 24% 38% 94% A8% 98% 99% 7A 27 'A5 19 9o 5 36 87 25 97 7A 29 75 1A 31 8A 3 81 69 5o 73 27 75 3 80 81 1 87 75 A0 68 30 68 79 5A 38 A8 6 20 69 36 2A 75 2 5A 60 5A 70 5 50 3A 26 75 19 38 78 A8 2A 31 90 3o 23 92 2 9o 16 36 61 50 50 2A 17 75 79 38 65 31 3 5 8O 22 26 53 7A 68 55 31 9 5 90 * O=Observation; WE=Workers Evaluation: S=Support; C=Conformity; R=Recognition; I=Independence; B=Benevolence; L=Leadership; St=Structure; Con=Consideration. In looking at the workers' evaluation scores for the non-effective supervisors we find only one girl receiving a low rating. The researcher believes that the high school girls were unable to remain objective except in this one 63 case. The workers would state that it "was not the super— visor's fault that . . . ." The researcher feels that the high school girls liked the association with each of the college girls and did not want to rate them low. It is possible that the workers did not "like" the supervisor . that they rated low; she confused them and did not seem interested in them. At one point during this supervisory activity when there was much confusion, the supervisor turned to the researcher and said in a loud voice, "Do teachers have heart—attacks 50 times a day?" The workers perhaps found this belittling and resented her for saying this and creating the uneasy atmosphere. Item Analysis of Observation Scale The 29 supervisors were divided into three approxi— mately equal-sized groups——high, middle, and low--based on their total observation scores. Each item on the observa— tion scale (see Appendix I) was analyzed to determine what proportion of supervisors classified in each of the three groups were given each of the ratings: very high, 5: high, A; average, 3; low, 2; and very low, 1. Table A reports the results of this item analysis. The data indicate that the low group needs to become more aware of the total supervisory process. They rated as low and very low in the majority of the items. It is interesting to note that a few in this group did quite well on Item 1, "Supervisor defined the task which was to be TABLE A.--Item analysis of scores received by high, middle and low groups by percentages. 6A Score Item GrOUp 5 A 3 2 l 1 High 30% 50% 20% 0% 0% Middle 0 O 56 AA 0 Low 0 20 0 50 30 2 High 50 50 0 O 0 Middle 0 33 67 0 0 Low 0 0 A0 A0 20 3 High A0 50 10 0 0 Middle 0 33 67 0 0 Low 0 -0 50 30 20 A High 50 10 3O 10 0 Middle .11 0 11 A5 33 Low 0 0 20 70 10 5 High 20 70 10 0 0 Middle 11 33 A5 11 0 Low 0 0 3O 50 20 6 High 20 70 10 0 0 Middle 11 33 56 0 0 Low 0 0 50 A0 10 7 High 10 70 2O 0 0 Middle 0 ll 56 33 0 Low 0 0 5O 50 0 8 High 50 50 0 0 0 Middle 0 11 78 11 0 Low 0 10 50 30 10 9 High 50 A0 10 0 0 Middle 0 33 67 0 0 Low 0 0 A0 30 30 10 High 60 20 20 O 0 Middle 0 78 22 0 0 Low 10 0 A0 30 2O 11 High 0 60 A0 0 0 Middle 0 33 67 0 0 Low 0 ll 0 30 60 12 High 50 20 3O 0 0 Middle 11 22 56 11 0 Low 0 0 20 50 3O 13 High 30 A0 30 0 0 Middle 0 33 3A 33 0 Low 0 0 A0 A0 20 1A High 60 30 10 0 0 Middle 0 ll 78 ll 0 Low 0 0 50 A0 10 15 High A0 A0 10 10 0 Middle 0 22 67 ll 0 Low 0 0 60 30 10 16 High 20 A0 no 0 0 Middle 0 22 78 0 0 Low 0 0 A0 A0 20 65 learned," and Item 10, "Supervisor advised workers of any hazards to self, equipment or furnishings in relation to the task." They scored higher, in some cases, on these items than did supervisors in the middle group. A very low score was given to 60 per cent of the low group on Item 11, "Supervisor's attention during the work period was one of parallel working with check—ups rather than constant direction." The majority of the middle group only scored in the average range with regard to the following items: Item 1. Supervisor defined the task which was to be learned. Item 7. Supervisor alerted workers to the acceptable standards for the finished task. Item 8. Supervisor related task to the worker's age and ability level and helped the workers think of future ways in which this knowledge could be applied. Item 1A. Supervisor showed basic knowledge in her field by her ability to interrelate ideas and to guide in the completion of the task. Item 16. Supervisor conducted an analysis or evalua— tion of the finished task with the workers. 66 A very low rating was given to 33 per cent of the group on Item A, "Supervisor asked workers if they had a method for doing the task." The data indicate that the high group were rated down on the following items: Item 11. Supervisor's attention during the work period was one of parallel working with check—ups rather than constant direction. Item 7. Supervisor alerted workers to the acceptable standards for the finished task. Item 6. Supervisor stated alternative ways in which the task could be accomplished. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS Introduction The previous chapter presented findings. This chapter will summarize the research findings in terms of objectives and hypotheses. Implications for improving supervision and some limited conclusions will be drawn in terms of the find— ings and over-all data collection. This was a pilot study, exploratory in nature. The observation of 29 supervisory activities allows for some tentative judgements. Summary Research on supervision and the supervisory process is important to the discipline of home management. Profes— sionals are called upon to supervise with little or no formal training. Parents must supervise the growth and development of their children without formal training. As a discipline, home management must come to a better under- standing of the supervisory process. Students living in the home management house were assigned a supervisory role and were subjects for this eXploratory research project. The objectives were: 67 68 1. To develop a normative theoretical model of effective supervision based on related literature from business and home management. 2. To develop an observation scale and workers' evaluation instrument based on the theoretical model. 3. To observe college students in their supervisory activities and to rank order them in terms of effective and non—effective home management supervision using the observation scale and the workers' evaluation instruments. A. To identify the interpersonal values of the college women at either end of the continuum. 5. To identify the leader ideologies, structure and consideration, of the college students at either end of the continuum. 6. To describe, through profiles, the effective and non—effective supervisors in relation to observation, workers' evaluation, interpersonal values and leader ideologies. 7. To draw implications relative to improving the effectiveness of a supervisor. Literature provided the basis for the normative theo— retical model. The model was then used as a basis for the development of the observation scale and the workers' evaluation instruments. These two instruments were presented 69 to a panel of graduate students for examination. After a number of revisions, the instruments were accepted as mean- ingful guides for evaluation of effective home management supervision. The scales comprised the instruments for evaluating the effectiveness of the supervision of each of the college students in the sample and were used to rank the supervisors from high to low. The observation scale developed was found to be very useful as an instrument for the evaluation of the effective- ness of a supervisor. No additions or deletions from the scale seemed to have been needed. Testing the observation scale in the same situation and in other situations such as the home or teaching activities might indicate that other facets of supervision are missing and should be added to the list. The results of the workers' evaluation instrument were not as meaningful as eXpected. It appeared to the researcher that the high school girls were too immature to be objective in their ratings. They were happy to be working at Michigan State University and gave subjective ratings to all but one of the supervisors. If the supervisory activity was not beneficial, the worker would say that this "was not the fault of the supervisor." The high school girls came to the home management house with a facade which no one was able to break through. 70 Although they were from low income families, qualifying for work under the Neighborhood Youth Corps, they felt the need to pretend that they had many labor saving devices in their homes. They told the college women that they had dishwashers, floor polishers, electric ironers, and the like in their homes. This was found not to be true since they lacked even an elementary knowledge of the items. It is interesting to note that the only supervisor who received a low rating on the workers' evaluation was one who treated them as being beneath her. The Survey of Interpersonal Values by Gordon was used to identify selected interpersonal values held by the effec- tive and non-effective supervisors. These values were support, conformity, recognition, independence, benevolence and leadership. It was hypothesized that: 1. There will be an obvious difference between the interpersonal values held by the effective supervisors as compared to those held by the non—effective supervisors. The data failed to be conclusive concerning this hypoth- esis. Literature in the area of human values supports the View that values represent motivational patterns that are relatively stable traits within the individual. Why were college women who rated high in leadership included in the list of non—effective supervisors? The hypothesis needs 71 further investigation before it is accepted or rejected. Perhaps the instrument used to identify values is not cor— rectly designed. The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire developed by Fleishman was used to identify the leader ideologies of structure and consideration held by the college women at each end of the effective/non—effective continuum. Structure refers to the extent to which an individual is likely to define and structure his own role and those of his subordinates toward goal attainment. It is character— istic of those individuals who play a more active role in directing group activities through planning, communicating information, scheduling and trying out new ideas. Consideration reflects the extent to which an indi- vidual is likely to have job relationships characterized by mutual trust, respect for subordinates' ideas, and consid— eration of their feelings. It indicates, by its nature, a climate of good rapport and two—way communication. It was hypothesized that: 2. Supervisors who are rated as effective by means of the observation scale and workers' evaluation instrument will rate high with respect to both structure and consideration on the "Leadership Opinion Questionnaire." This hypothesis held true in only one case, that of the most effective supervisor. Due to the findings of the re- searcher during the observation periods, the hypothesis was 72 not rejected. It is suggested that further research be done on the topic. Perhaps some other measurement technique should be used. As a generalization the majority of the supervisors indicated that they did not consider structure an important part of the supervisory situation. In actu- ality though, the effective supervisors all had structured their activity in terms of goal attainment and taking an active part in directing the situation. Have we in home management so instilled the idea of person—centeredness and consideration, that the supervisor thought they "should" hold this ideology, and "should not" consider structure important? Further research investigation of this question would greatly improve our understanding of this important aspect of supervision. The effective supervisors can be said to have excelled in their ability to relate to the workers age and past eXperience. They were able to make the work experience seem important to the trainees and so were more able to impart and to raise the standards of the workers than were the non-effective supervisors. The non—effective supervisors can be said to have had insufficient knowledge of the work. While it is true that the supervisors were assigned their activity, they were given the time to acquaint themselves with the activity as well as being told that they could call upon the researcher for information concerning the task. .Because of this, the researcher feels that lack of responsibility was a key 73 factor in the non—effective supervisors. How the discipline of home management may develOp responsibility is another matter entirely. It is the judgement of the researcher through observing the supervisory situations that the non— effective college women did not feel responsibility to either the workers or the goals of the home management house program. Their poor instructions and lack of knowledge may be traced to the fact they did not feel the reSponsibility of the situation and did not structure it in terms of goal attainment. Implications The researcher would like to include four main points concerning implications for improvement of the effectiveness of supervision based on this study. Implications for the use of the observation scale will also be discussed. The supervisor needs to know the workers well——more than just the superficial, "high school students who are planning to marry." Knowing the workers in the home situa- tion is a much easier task, but in the supervisory activity at the home management house it is more difficult. Yet, the researcher feels this is an important aspect of super- vision and should be given more attention. The second point is one which was mentioned earlier, that of responsibility. This could be a grey area in the home as well, for the mother-supervisor may become so involved in the tasks to be performed that she forgets the 7A individual development of the performer. Nichols found this to be true in her study. She noted that women with four or more children were definitely more task-centered than women with fewer children. (23:A7) As far as the college women are concerned, did the fact that they were not receiving a grade for the activity 'enter into their attitude of lack of responsibility for the outcome of the situation or was it just an individual characteristic? A third area for improving the strategy of the situa- tion is that of standards. In order for the worker to perform well and in order for the supervisor to raise the standards of the workers, this standard must be defined. As mentioned in the profiles, one of the supervisors was able to raise the workers' standards to an optimal level. It is difficult to try to pinpoint the reasons for this except through a description of the activity. The super- visor took the item apart for the workers and then put it back together. She made up stories about the task and let the workers think of hypothetical situations. The super- visor told the workers how much help this would be to the girls living in the home management house. All this before actually letting the workers do the task. It could be that there were such thorough instructions given and such impor— tance given to the task as well as to the idea of eliciting their help, that the workers were confident that they knew 75 what was expected of them and so found it "fun" to do a heavy cleaning task. Another area in supervision which seems to need further attention is that of making the task seem important to the worker. The above supervisor accomplished this by eliciting the help of the workers in doing the task. Business tries to make the job seem important to the workers but in the case of the unskilled workers if they do not produce they are fired. In home management supervision there is no replacement of the worker if the task is accomplished poorly. In the home management house situation as well as in the home, there is a captive audi- ence, the worker should perform the job. If he is not motivated or does not feel it is important, then how he does the job will be effected, but he will not be fired. The supervisor rated as most effective by the high school workers had this knack of making the job seem impor— tant. She related to personal experiences of family members, to her brother who is an "efficiency expert" and as a result the workers were able to see a broader picture and not just the small task before them. The study provides implications for multi-track instruction. The observation scale may be used as a basis for tracking and for planning the content of discussion groups working with the concept of supervision. This would be implemented by using the observation scale as a pre- testing device, for the purpose of identifying a high, 76 middle, and low group. Attention may then be focused on the weaknesses of each group as indicated by an item analysis (refer to Table A). Discussion groups would then concern themselves with the areas in which they need fur- ther study. The item analysis shows where the majority of the group scored on each specific point. It may also be used to give individual supervisors help with regard to their own shortcomings. Another important aspect is that the observation scale may be used as a post—testing device. This would be a means of ascertaining the degree of improve— ment in each group and in each individual supervisor. Strengths and Limitations A normative theoretical model of desirable home management supervision was developed from both home manage— ment and business literature. This model serves to eXpand previous theory, specifically that supervision occurs during the control step in the managerial process and con- sists of guiding or directing the worker. The observation scale and workers' evaluation instruments were based on this model and may stand as a guide for future researchers who wish to supplement knowledge concerning the concept of supervision. Pure nonparticipant observation is difficult. As an observer the researcher must take into account her own biases which will influence perceptions. The researcher has her own values which should remain in the background if 77 objective observations are to be made. It is hoped that the observation scale which was formulated acted to remove some of the personal flaws in the observation method. It gave the researcher definite points to look for while she was observing the social interaction of the situation. The researcher was able to spend some time with the high school girls prior to the data collection in order to eXplain her project and what she expected from them as participants. It was hoped that by doing this the researcher would counteract any preconceptions the workers had about authority figures thus leading to more truthful evaluations of the supervisors. A limitation of the study was that the workers' evaluations were not as objective as they could have been. Their comments like, "It was not the super- visor's fault" show that they recognized the hierarchy of the researcher being the supervisor's teacher and so were being easy on the college girls. Another limitation of the study was that 15 of the 29 supervisors tested were students of the researcher. Was the researcher able to remain objective in view of the fact that she knew her supervisors so well? Is there such a thing as trying harder because your instructor is watching your efforts? These elements did not seem to be distorting the findings but there is a possibility of this. 78 Suggestions for Future Research This study was eXploratory in nature. More studies relative to understanding the concept of supervision are necessary. A follow—up study on these same 29 college women in their student teaching activity might prove to be an interesting check on the ability to predict their effec- tiveness as supervisors in a teaching situation. Would they fall into the same categories as in this exploratory study? A study using the observation guide in home super- vision might be useful but difficult to perform. Nichols used responses to a questionnaire as a basis for ascertain- ing person— or task—centeredness. But what happens in actuality? This would be more difficult to set up in a home situation unless the researcher stayed with the family for a period of time. The researcher is unwilling to dismiss the idea that structure and consideration must operate in close relation— ship in order for there to be effective supervision. The unstructured attempts made by the non—effective supervisors attest to this and so the following hypothesis may be postulated: 1. The greater the concern for both structure and consideration, the more effective will be the supervision. 79 The effective supervisors all seemed to be able to relate to the individual workers age and ability. They were also able to relate task standards adequately so as to motivate the workers to satisfactory completion of the assignment. Because of this a second hypothesis may be: 2. The more understanding the person has of the facets of the supervisory situation as outlined in the theoretical model, the more effective will be her supervision. This would also go back to the questions posed by Nichols in her doctoral dissertation: Are people as com— petent in supervising and coordinating as in assigning and evaluating? And, more basically, what constitutes competence in each of these areas? It would seem that knowledge of the points included in the observation scale and the reasons behind them would give an individual more understanding of the concept and in turn lead to more effective supervision. The items of the scale are not applicable to every situation. Modifications may have to be made for home use but this would have to be determined through further testing. Individual items on the observation scale could be taken separately and hypotheses built from each of these. For example, each of the non—effective supervisors was rated as "low" or "very low" in the item, "Supervisor's attention during the work period was one of parallel working with check-ups rather than constant direction." 80 This would lead to the hypothesis that the more over- supervision there is, the less effective the situation will become. More eXploratory research similar to this study but based on larger samples and on samples drawn from persons in a variety of supervisory roles and situations is needed to provide information concerning the important aspects and the boundaries of this concept of supervision. BIBLIOGRAPHY 81 10. ll. 12. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Barry, Ruth and Wolf, Beverly. Motives; Values, and Realities. New York: Teachers College Press, 1965. Drucker, Peter F. Landmarks of Tomorrow. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1957. Dubin, Dale. Personnel Management and Industrial Relations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1965. Fleishman, Edwin A., Harris, E. F., and Burtt, H. E. Leadership and Supervision in Industry. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University, 1955. Gross, Irma H., and Crandall, Elizabeth W. Manage- ment for Modern Families. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1963. Haire, Mason. Psychology of Management. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 196A. Heaton, Kenneth L. and Koopman, G. Robert. A College Curriculum Based on Functional Needs of Students. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 19561 Kay, Brian R. The Challenge of Supervision. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., Inc., 1961. Latiner, Alfred R. The Techniques of Supervision. New London, Conn.: National Foreman's Institute, Inc., 195A. Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1961. Newman, William H. and Summer, 0. E. The Process of Management. New York: .Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961 Nickell, Paulena and Dorsey, Jean. Management of Family Living, 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959. 82 13. 1A. 15. l6. l7. l8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 83 Read, William M. Now You Are A Supervisor. Penn- sylvania: Pyramid Publishing Co., 1962. Tannenbaum, Robert, Weschler, Irving R., and Massarik, Frederick. Leadership and Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1961. Terry, George R. Principles of Management. Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1960. Van Dersal, William R. The Successful Supervisor in Government and Business. New York: Harper and Bros., 1962. Zelditch, Morris. "Role Differentiation in the Nuclear Family: A Comparative Study," The Family, ed. Norman W. Bell and Ezra F. Vogel. Illinois: The Press of Glencoe, 1960. Bulletins and Periodicals Fleishmann, Edwin A. Manual for Administering the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1960. Gordon, Leonard V. Manual for Administering the Survey of Interpersonal VaIues. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1960. Liston, Margaret I. "Management in the Family as a Social Process," Proceedings of a Home Management Conference. American Home Economics Association. Michigan State University, June 17—20, 196A. Urwick, Lyndall F. "Manager's Span of Control," Harvard Business Review. May-June, 1956. Unpublished Materials Fukushima, Yuriko. "Description of Interpersonal Values and Ratings of Students at Home Management Residence." Unpublished Masters Problem, Michigan State University, 196A. Nichols, Adreen. "Person-Centered and Task-Centered Styles of Organization." -Unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, Michigan State University, 196A. 2A. 8A Shimonaka, Reiko. "Supervisory Function in Student Managerial Role in Home Management Residence." Unpublished Masters Problem, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1965. APPENDIX I 85 86 Ia. Observation of Supervisor Supervisor defined the task which was to be learned. 1 2 3 (D 5 Supervisor showed accuracy in making decisions during the pre—instruction and instruction period. 1 2 3 A (5) Supervisor was responsible and flexible in her decision—making. ----- accepts risks inherent in decisions but is flexible within the situation. 1 2 3 A (9 Supervisor asked workers if they had a method for doing the task. 1 2 3 A (5) Supervisor showed resourcefulness in task procedure and techniques. ————— selection of alternative methods taking time and energy into consideration. ----- originality in technique(s) used. 1 2 3 ® 5 Supervisor stated alternative ways in which the task could be accomplished. 1 2 3 A ® Supervisor alerted workers to the acceptable standards for the finished task. 1 2 3 GD 5 Supervisor related task to the worker's age and ability level and helped the workers think of future ways in which this knowledge could be applied. 1 2 3 A (5) 10. 11. 12. 13. 1A. 15. 16. 87 Supervisor set an example for the workers by her interest and good work habits. 1 2 3 A 6) Supervisor advised workers of any hazards to self, equipment or furnishings in relation to the task. 1 2 3 A @ Supervisor's attention during the work period was one of parallel working with check-ups rather than constant direction. 1 2 3 ® 5 Supervisor complimented worker for good ideas or a job well done and instructed those not achieving standard. 1 2 3 A 6? Supervisor treated the clean-up as part of the total job. 1 2 3 A 5) Supervisor showed basic knowledge in her field by her ability to interrelate ideas and to guide in the completion of the task. 1 2 3 A 6) Supervisor showed knowledge concerning home management house policies and procedures. 1 2 3 A 6) Supervisor conducted an analysis or evaluation of the finished task with the workers. 1 2 3 A C53 TOTAL SCORE :Zé 88 lb. Observation of Supervisor Supervisor defined the task which was to be learned. 1 2 3 A (5) Supervisor showed accuracy in making decisions during the pre-instruction and instruction period. 1 2 3 A C5) Supervisor was responsible and flexible in her decision—making. ----- accepts risks inherent in decisions but is flexible within the situation. 1 2 3 A (5) Supervisor asked workers if they had a method for doing the task. 1 2 3 A G) Supervisor showed resourcefulness in task procedure and techniques. ----- selection of alternative methods taking time and energy into consideration. ----- originality in technique(s) used. 1 2 3 CD 5 Supervisor stated alternative ways in which the task could be accomplished. 1 2 3 GD 5 Supervisor alerted workers to the acceptable standards for the finished task. 1 2 3 (D 5 Supervisor related task to the worker's age and ability level and helped the workers think of future ways in which this knowledge could be applied. 1 2 3 GD 5 10. 11. 12. 13. 1A. 15. 16. 89 Supervisor set an example for the workers by her interest and good work habits. 1 2 3 A (5) Supervisor advised workers of any hazards to self, equipment or furnishings in relation to the task. 1 2 3 A @ Supervisor's attention during the work period was one of parallel working with check—ups rather than constant direction. 1 2 3 ® 5 Supervisor complimented worker for good ideas or a job well done and instructed those not achieving standard. 1 2 3 A 6) Supervisor treated the clean-up as part of the total job. 1 2 3 A 5) Supervisor showed basic knowledge in her field by her ability to interrelate ideas and to guide in the completion of the task. 1 2 3 A @ Supervisor showed knowledge concerning home management house policies and procedures. 1 2 3 A (5) Supervisor conducted an analysis or evaluation of the finished task with the workers. 1 2 3 GD 5 TOTAL SCORE ;Z£ 90 I0. Observation of Supervisor Supervisor defined the task which was to be learned. 1 2 3 4 A ® Supervisor showed accuracy in making decisions during the pre-instruction and instruction period. 1 2 3 A @ Supervisor was responsible and flexible in her decision-making. ----- accepts risks inherent in decisions but is flexible within the situation. 1 2 3 A ® Supervisor asked workers if they had a method for doing the task. 1 2 (3 A 5 Supervisor showed resourcefulness in task procedure and techniques. ----- selection of alternative methods taking time and energy into consideration. ----- originality in technique(s) used. 1 2 3 ® 5 Supervisor stated alternative ways in which the task could be accomplished. 1 2 3 GD 5 Supervisor alerted workers to the acceptable standards for the finished task. 1 2 3 A ® Supervisor related task to the worker's age and ability level and helped the workers think of future ways in which this knowledge could be applied. 1 2 3 A @ 10. 11. 12. 13. 1A. 15. 16. 91 Supervisor set an example for the workers by her interest and good work habits. 1 2 3 A ® Supervisor advised workers of any hazards to self, equipment or furnishings in relation to the task. 1 2 3 A (5) Supervisor's attention during the work period was one of parallel working with check-ups rather than constant direction. 1 2 3 @ 5 Supervisor complimented worker for good ideas or a job well done and instructed those not achieving standard. 1 2 3 A @ Supervisor treated the clean-up as part of the total job. 1 2 3 GD 5 Supervisor showed basic knowledge in her field by her ability to interrelate ideas and to guide in the completion of the task. 1 2 3 A (5) Supervisor showed knowledge concerning home management house policies and procedures. 1 2 3 A ® Supervisor conducted an analysis or evaluation of the finished task with the workers. 1 2 3 A @ TOTAL SCORE Z {i 92 Id. Observation of Supervisor Supervisor defined the task which was to be learned. 1 2 3 A @ Supervisor showed accuracy in making decisions during the pre—instruction and instruction period. 1 2 3 A C5) Supervisor was responsible and flexible in her decision-making. ----- accepts risks inherent in decisions but is flexible within the situation. 1 2 3 GD 5 Supervisor asked workers if they had a method for doing the task. 1 2 3 Q4) 5 Supervisor showed resourcefulness in task procedure and techniques. ----- selection of alternative methods taking time and energy into consideration. ----- originality in technique(s) used. 1 2 3 A 6) Supervisor stated alternative ways in which the task could be accomplished. 1 2 3 A (9 Supervisor alerted workers to the acceptable standards for the finished task. 1 2 3 GD 5 Supervisor related task to the worker's age and ability level and helped the workers think of future ways in which this knowledge could be applied. 1 2 3 A C5) IO. 11. 12. 13. 1A. l5. 16. 93 Supervisor set an example for the workers by her interest and good work habits. 1 2 3 A @ Supervisor advised workers of any hazards to self, equipment or furnishings in relation to the task. 1 2 3 A ® Supervisor's attention during the work period was one of parallel working with check-ups rather than constant direction. 1 2 3 @ 5 Supervisor complimented worker for good ideas or a job well done and instructed those not achieving standard. 1 2 3 GD 5 Supervisor treated the clean-up as part of the total job. 1 2 3 A (3 Supervisor showed basic knowledge in her field by her ability to interrelate ideas and to guide in the completion of the task. 1 2 3 A @ Supervisor showed knowledge concerning home management house policies and procedures. 1 2 3 A @ Supervisor conducted an analysis or evaluation of the finished task with the workers. 1 2 G) A 5 TOTAL SCORE ZZ 9A Ie. Observation of Supervisor Supervisor defined the task which was to be learned. 1 2 3 GD 5 Supervisor showed accuracy in making decisions during the pre-instruction and instruction period. 1 2 3 A C53 Supervisor was responsible and flexible in her decision-making. ----- accepts risks inherent in decisions but is flexible within the situation. 1 2 3 GD 5 Supervisor asked workers if they had a method for doing the task. 1 2 3 A @ Supervisor showed resourcefulness in task procedure and techniques. ----- selection of alternative methods taking time and energy into consideration. ----- originality in technique(s) used. 1 2 3 A 6) Supervisor stated alternative ways in which the task could be accomplished. 1 2 3 GD 5 Supervisor alerted workers to the acceptable standards for the finished task. 1 2 3 GD 5 Supervisor related task to the worker's age and ability level and helped the workers think of future ways in which this knowledge could be applied. 1 2 3 A O) 10. 11. 12. 13. 1A. 15. 16. 95 Supervisor set an example for the workers by her interest and good work habits. 1 2 3 GD 5 Supervisor advised workers of any hazards to self, equipment or furnishings in relation to the task. 1 2 (3) A 5 Supervisor's attention during the work period was one of parallel working with check—ups rather than constant direction. 1 2 3 G) 5 Supervisor complimented worker for good ideas or a job well done and instructed those not achieving standard. 1 2 3 A @ Supervisor treated the clean-up as part of the total job. 1 2 3 ® 5 Supervisor showed basic knowledge in her field by her ability to interrelate ideas and to guide in the completion of the task. 1 2 3 A @ Supervisor showed knowledge concerning home management house policies and procedures. 1 2 3 ® 5 Supervisor conducted an analysis or evaluation of the finished task with the workers. 1 2 @ A 5 TOTAL SCORE 600 96 If. Observation of Supervisor Supervisor defined the task which was to be learned. 1 ® 3 A 5 Supervisor showed accuracy in making decisions during the pre-instruction and instruction period. 1 ® 3 A 5 Supervisor was responsible and flexible in her decision-making. ----- accepts risks inherent in decisions but is flexible within the situation. 1 2 (3) A 5 Supervisor asked workers if they had a method for doing the task. 1 ® 3 A 5 Supervisor showed resourcefulness in task procedure and techniques. ----- selection Of alternative methods taking time and energy into consideration. ----- originality in technique(s) used. 1 (2) 3 A 5 Supervisor stated alternative ways in which the task could be accomplished. 1 ® 3 A 5 Supervisor alerted workers to the acceptable standards for the finished task. 1 ® 3 A 5 Supervisor related task to the worker's age and ability level and helped the workers think of future ways in which this knowledge could be applied. 1 2 (3) A 5 97 9. Supervisor set an example for the workers by her interest and good work habits. 1 @ 3 A 5 10. Supervisor advised workers of any hazards to self, equipment or furnishings in relation to the task. 1 2 Q) A 5 ll. Supervisor's attention during the work period was one of parallel working with check—ups rather than constant direction. ® 2 3 A 5 l2. Supervisor complimented worker for good ideas or a job well done and instructed those not achieving standard. 1 Q) 3 A 5 l3. Supervisor treated the clean-up as part of the total job. 1 ® 3 A 5 1A. Supervisor showed basic knowledge in her field by her ability to interrelate ideas and to guide in the completion of the task. 1 2 G) A 5 l5. Supervisor showed knowledge concerning home management house policies and procedures. 1 2 Q) A 5 l6. Supervisor conducted an analysis or evaluation of the finished task with the workers. 1 ® 3 A 5 TOTAL SCORE 34 1. 98 Ig. Observation of Supervisor Supervisor defined the task which was to be learned. C1) 2 3 A 5 Supervisor showed accuracy in making decisions during the pre-instruction and instruction period. 1 ® 3 A 5 Supervisor was responsible and flexible in her decision—making. ----- accepts risks inherent in decisions but is flexible within the situation. 1 ® 3 A 5 Supervisor asked workers if they had a method for doing the task. 1 2 (3 A 5 Supervisor showed resourcefulness in task procedure and techniques. ----- selection of alternative methods taking time and energy into consideration. ————— originality in technique(s) used. 1 ® 3 A 5 Supervisor stated alternative ways in which the task could be accomplished. 1 2 ® A 5 Supervisor alerted workers to the acceptable standards for the finished task. 1 2 ® A 5 Supervisor related task to the worker's age and ability level and helped the workers think of future ways in which this knowledge could be applied. 1 ® 3 A 5 99 9. Supervisor set an example for the workers by her interest and good work habits. 1 ® 3 A 5 10. Supervisor advised workers of any hazards to self, equipment or furnishings in relation to the task. 1 2 (3) A 5 ll. Supervisor's attention during the work period was one of parallel working with check-ups rather than constant direction. ® 2 3 A 5 l2. Supervisor complimented worker for good ideas or a job well done and instructed those not achieving standard. @ 2 3 A 5 l3. Supervisor treated the clean-up as part of the total job. 1 2 @ A 5 1A. Supervisor showed basic knowledge in her field by her ability to interrelate ideas and to guide in the completion of the task. 1 ® 3 A ' 5 l5. Supervisor showed knowledge concerning home management house policies and procedures. 1 @ 3 A 5 l6. Supervisor conducted an analysis or evaluation of the finished task with the workers. 1 ® 3 A 5 TOTAL SCORE 3 g 100 Ih. Observation of Supervisor Supervisor defined the task which was to be learned. 1 @ 3 A 5 Supervisor showed accuracy in making decisions during the pre—instruction and instruction period. 1 ® 3 A 5 Supervisor was responsible and flexible in her decision—making. ----- accepts risks inherent in decisions but is flexible within the situation. 1 ® 3 A 5 Supervisor asked workers if they had a method for doing the task. 1 2 (3 A 5 Supervisor showed resourcefulness in task procedure and techniques. ----- selection Of alternative methods taking time and energy into consideration. ----- originality in technique(s) used. 1 @ 3 A 5 Supervisor stated alternative ways in which the task could be accomplished. 1 C2) 3 A 5 Supervisor alerted workers to the acceptable standards for the finished task. 1 2 @ A 5 Supervisor related task to the worker's age and ability level and helped the workers think Of future ways in which this knowledge could be applied. 1 2 @ A 5 101 9. Supervisor set an example for the workers by her interest and good work habits. @ 2 3 A 5 10. Supervisor advised workers of any hazards to self, equipment or furnishings in relation to the task. @ 2 3 A 5 ll. Supervisor's attention during the work period was one of parallel working with check-ups rather than constant direction. G) 2 3 A 5 12. Supervisor complimented worker for good ideas or a job well done and instructed those not achieving standard. 1 ® 3 A 5 l3. Supervisor treated the clean—up as part of the total job. C1) 2 3 A 5 1A. Supervisor showed basic knowledge in her field by her ability to interrelate ideas and to guide in the completion of the task. 1 ® 3 A 5 15. Supervisor showed knowledge concerning home management house policies and procedures. 1 Q) 3 A 5 l6. Supervisor conducted an analysis or evaluation of the finished task with the workers. @ 2 3 A 5 TOTAL SCORE :26! 102 Ii. Observation of Supervisor 1. Supervisor defined the task which was to be learned. @ 2 3 A 5 2. Supervisor showed accuracy in making decisions during the pre-instruction and instruction period. (D 2 3 A 5 3. Supervisor was responsible and flexible in her decision—making. ----- accepts risks inherent in decisions but is flexible within the situation. @ 2 3 A 5 A. Supervisor asked workers if they had a method for doing the task. @ 2 3 A 5 5. Supervisor showed resourcefulness in task procedure and techniques. ————— selection Of alternative methods taking time and energy into consideration. ----- originality in technique(s) used. @ 2 3 A 5 6. Supervisor stated alternative ways in which the task could be accomplished. 1 ® 3 A 5 7. Supervisor alerted workers to the acceptable standards for the finished task. 1 ® 3 A 5 8. Supervisor related task to the worker's age and ability level and helped the workers think Of future ways in which this knowledge could be applied. @ 2 3 A 5 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1A. 15. 16. 103 Supervisor set an example for the workers by her interest and good work habits. C17 2 3 A 5 Supervisor advised workers of any hazards to self, equipment or furnishings in relation to the task. GD 2 3 A 5 Supervisor's attention during the work period was one of parallel working with check—ups rather than constant direction. 1 (23 3 A 5 Supervisor complimented worker for good ideas or a job well done and instructed those not achieving standard. ® 2 3 A 5 Supervisor treated the clean-up as part of the total job. 1 @ 3 A 5 Supervisor showed basic knowledge in her field by her ability to interrelate ideas and to guide in the completion of the task. 1 @ 3 A 5 Supervisor showed knowledge concerning home management house policies and procedures. 1 (2) 3 A 5 Supervisor conducted an analysis or evaluation of the finished task with the workers. 1 2 (3) A 5 TOTAL SCORE 022% 10A 13. Observation of Supervisor 1. Supervisor defined the task which was to be learned. (D 2 3 A 5 2. Supervisor showed accuracy in making decisions during the pre—instruction and instruction period. C1) 2 3 A 5 3. Supervisor was responsible and flexible in her decision-making. ----- accepts risks inherent in decisions but is flexible within the situation. @ 2 3 A 5 A. Supervisor asked workers if they had a method for doing the task. 1 C2) 3 A 5 5. Supervisor showed resourcefulness in task procedure and techniques. ----- selection Of alternative methods taking time and energy into consideration. ----- originality in technique(s) used. (D 2 3 A 5 6. Supervisor stated alternative ways in which the task could be accomplished. ® 2 3 A 5 7. Supervisor alerted workers to the acceptable standards for the finished task. 1 2 @ A 5 8. Supervisor related task to the worker's age and ability level and helped the workers think Of future ways in which this knowledge could be applied. 1 2 @ A 5 105 9. Supervisor set an example for the workers by her interest and good work habits. @ 2 3 A 5 10. Supervisor advised workers of any hazards to self, equipment or furnishings in relation to the task. 1 (2) 3 A 5 ll. Supervisor's attention during the work period was one of parallel working with check—ups rather than constant direction. C) 2 3 A 5 12. Supervisor complimented worker for good ideas or a job well done and instructed those not achieving standard. CD 2 3 A 5 13. Supervisor treated the clean—up as part of the total job. (:) 2 3 A 5 1A. Supervisor showed basic knowledge in her field by her ability to interrelate ideas and to guide in the completion Of the task. (3 2 3 A 5 15. Supervisor showed knowledge concerning home management house policies and procedures. (3) 2 3 A 5 l6. Supervisor conducted an analysis or evaluation of the finished task with the workers. (:> 2 3 A 5 TOTAL SCORE 6&2, APPENDIX II 106 EVALUATION BY WORKERS Name Date Name of Supervisor 1. Did the supervisor tell you in advance what the whole job was about? 1 2 3 A 5 2. Were the instructions of the supervisor very clear to you? 1 2 3 A 5 3. Did the supervisor offer other suggestions for doing the job? 1 2 3 A 5 A. Did the supervisor tell you how this task might be important to you in the future? 1 2 3 A 5 5. Did the Supervisor ask you if you already had a method for doing the job? 1 2 3 A 5 6. Did the Supervisor seem to know how to do the job herself? 1 2 3 A 5 7. Did you learn how to do this task? 1 2 3 A 5 What part of the training was of most interest to you? Least interest to you? 107