IDENTIFICATION OF SUPERVISORY IMPROVEMENT NEEDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LUNCHROOM MANAGERS IN A SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM BY DOROTHY EDITH FISHER A THESIS Submitted to the Dean of the College of Home Economics of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Institution Administration 1955 THCED|S ABSTRACT In developing the curriculum of a supervisory training pro— gram, Dr. Lawrence G. Lindahl introduced a procedure for use in industry which gave the supervisors an opportunity to identify their own improvement needs. The purpose of this study was to show how the method presented by Dr. Lindahl could be adapted to the develop- ment of a training prOgram for public school lunchroom managers. By job analysis, job evaluation, and a questionnaire, the im— provement needs of 23 nonprofessional public school lunchroom man- agers in Dearborn, Michigan, were identified. During job analysis, the duties and the responsibilities of the lunchroom managers were defined; the duties and the responsibilities were classified into the job factors, the attributes, and the subattributes which made job evaluation possible. Job descriptions for each of the three sub- divisions of the job of the lunchroom manager were prepared. A. job evaluation committee determined the relative worth of the job factors, the attributes, and the subattributes in the over-all job of the lunchroom manager. The degree to which each attribute and subattribute entered into the job of the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III manager was established. ii (364 569 A questionnaire was prepared for distribution to each lunch- room manager in the survey group. The questionnaire statements were suggested by the attributes and the subattributes; the number of items which referred to each attribute and subattribute was de- termined by the extent to which each attribute and subattribute en- tered into the composite job of the lunchroom manager. From the analysis of the questionnaire results, the curriculum of a short-term and a long-range training prOgram for the lunchroom managers was developed. The curriculum content of both programs was designed so that training would be given in relation to improve- ment need. The curriculum of the short-term training program was de- veloped from the statement score of the questionnaire items which had been arranged by rank in the order of importance. In the cur- riculum of the long-range training prOgram, both the number and the sequence of the training sessions which referred to the area sug- gested by each attribute and subattribute were determined by the extent to which training in the area of an attribute or a subattri- bute would be of value to the lunchroom managers. The topics of discussion pertained to the specific areas described by the question- naire statements in which, according to the lunchroom managers, iii training would be of the most value as they performed the duties of the supervisory job. The proposed training programs presented in this study were tailored to the needs of the 23 lunchroom managers in the Dearborn public schools. These training programs would not satisfy the im- .provement needs of any other group of supervisors. However, the procedure for identifying the improvement needs was described; the deve10pment of the training program, recognizing these needs, was explained. Therefore, a training program, designed to fit the needs of any supervisory group, could be constructed by the same method of procedure. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express her grateful appreciation to Miss Katherine Hart for her consideration, patience, and advice in the execution of this study, and to Mr. Charles H. Pesterfield for his generous guidance and valuable counsel. The author desires to express her sincere gratitude to Dr. A. D. Brainard, Deputy Superintendent in Charge of Business and Finance, Dearborn Public Schools, and to Mrs. Nila B. Laidlaw, Coordinator of Lunchrooms, Dearborn Public Schools. The study was made possible through their cooperation. Appreciation is extended to Dr. Lawrence G. Lindahl, whose procedure for develOping a training prOgram was used in this study; to Dr. Pearl Aldrich, for her interest and suggestions; to Dr. Fred- eric R. Wickert, for his assistance in the preparation of the ques— tionnaire; to Mrs. Margaret Pattullo, for her cooperation in recording data; and to Dr. Kenneth J. Arnold, for his help in the analysis of data. Acknowledgment is also due those who have made possible this course of graduate study at Michigan State University: Major General George E. Armstrong, formerly Surgeon General, United States Army; Colonel Nell Wickliffe, formerly Chief, Women's Medi- cal Specialist Corps, United States Army; and Lt. Colonel Hilda M. Lovett, Chief, Dietitian Section, Women's Medical Specialist Corps, United State 5 Army . vi TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION REVIEW OF LITERATURE Identification of Supervisory Improvement Needs METHOD OF PROCEDURE ................. DISCUSSION ............................ Preliminary Information Survey ............ The Dearborn public schools ............ The Dearborn Board of Education ........ Financial administration of the lunchroom department ........................ The coordinator of lunchrooms .......... The typical lunchroom manager .......... The classification of lunchroom managers Determination of Supervisory Improvements Needs Job analysis ....................... Job descriptions ..................... Job evaluation ...................... Questionnaire preparation .............. Questionnaire distribution .............. vii 0000000 ...... oooooo Page 10 12 12. 13 20 21 23 31 34 35 36 45 46 55 71 III 1' ill-Ill; Questionnaire tallying ....................... Ranking of questionnaire statements ............. Numerical ranking of attributes and subattributes Percentage ranking of attributes and subattributes Curriculum Construction ....................... Short-term training program .................. .Long-range trahfing prOgrani .................. SUMMAR Y ................................... viii 79 82 85 85 91 TABLE LIST OF TABLES Page Point values assigned to the attributes and the subattributes in the job of the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III manager ........... 54 The point value of each attribute and sub- attribute in the composite job of the lunchroom manager; the percentage to which each attribute and subattribute entered into the composite job . . . 56 The statement number in the questionnaire which referred to each attribute and subattribute ...... 68 The score of each statement in the questionnaire . . 73 The rank of each statement in the questionnaire, using two criteria: (1) the number of managers who reported that training in the area would be of "some" or "much" value; and (Z) the number of managers who stated that training would be of "much" value .......................... 76 The average numerical rank value of the ques- tionnaire statements which referred to the attributes and the subattributes .............. 80 The converted rank of each statement in the questionnaire ........................... 84 The converted average numerical rank value of the attributes and the subattributes . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Extent to which training in the area of each attribute and subattribute should be included in an extensive training program for the lunch- room managers in the Dearborn public schools . . . 88 ix TABLE 10. 11. Page The suggested curriculum for a series of 15 training sessions for the lunchroom managers in the Dearborn public schools as developed fromthedatashowninTableS.............. 89 The proposed curriculum of an extensive training prOgram for the lunchroom managers in the Dearborn public schools .............. 92 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1. Schematic map of the public school buildings in Dearborn, Michigan .................... l6 2. Subdivision of job factors into attributes and subattributes ........................... 38 3. Point distribution to the attributes and the subattributes of the value established for the job of the lunchroom manager by the evaluation committee ..................... 53 4. The number of statements pertaining to each attribute and subattribute in the questionnaire utilized to determine the improvement needs of the lunchroom managers who formed the survey group ........................... 58 xi INTRODUCTION During recent years, management has become deeply concerned with the problem of supervisory training. Industry has learned that a systematic and continuous prOgram of instruction is absolutely necessary if maximum efficiency and cooperation is to be obtained from the first-dine supervisor. The need for adequate training of supervisors is no less acute in the area of food service. Profes- sionally trained food service personnel are in critically short supply. The solution to the shortage is the nonprofessional food service supervisor who can be utilized as the manager of small food service units. However, this individual can perform with efficiency and pro— ficiency only if properly educated in the new skills and attitudes which are necessary in performing the duties of the supervisory job. Ordinarily, management plans, organizes, and presents the entire supervisory training program. Management defines the goals; management decides upon the areas in which improvement is needed; management outlines the course of study in a series of lessons; and, management teaches the classes. Yet, for several reasons, the de- sires of management should be tempered with a consideration of the needs, the problems, and the interests of the supervisory group. PeOple learn better that material in which they are interested (19). More learning takes place when the individual has participated in the development of the training program (92). Training emphasis in important areas may be overlooked if the supervisors have not had the Opportunity to indicate the subjects in which training would be of value to them. Dr. Lawrence G. Lindahl, industrial and vocational psycholo- gist, introduced a procedure for use in industry that gives the super- visor an opportunity to identify the supervisory improvement needs prior to the construction of the training program. This study will show how the method presented by Dr. Lindahl can be adapted to the development of a training prOgram for public school lunchroom managers. The supervisors themselves were asked to indicate the areas in which they saw the need for training. the tere to t mer abc tur pre the S. m Re to n c tr I‘ll III q.l.l REVIEW OF LITERATUR E As industry has recognized the need for supervisory training, the curriculum of the training program has become a subject of in— terest. Management employs scientific procedures to determine who to train, when to train, and how to train. However, when manage- ment decides what to teach, no precise, scientific process is utilized. Identification of Supervisory Improvement Needs In spite of the volume of material which has been written about supervisory training programs, a review of the current litera- ture produced only one precise process by which supervisory im- provement needs could be identified. Lindahl, by job analysis, job evaluation, and administration of a survey questionnaire, determined the improvement needs of a group of supervisors in an industrial situation (63). He showed how a training program, recognizing these needs, was built, administered, and evaluated. Many professional publications contained material designed to assist management in defining current supervisory improvement needs. Planty, McCord, and Efferson stated that all supervisory training must be done with two aims in mind: (1) to deveIOp supervisors who can carry out the functions assigned to them with a maximum degree of satisfaction to management, to their subordinates, and to themselves, and (2) to assist each supervisor in the discovery and the utilization of his potential abilities (81). Management should make certain that the subject matter presented in the supervisory training program is directed toward these aims. Nissley advocated a rational approach to the supervisory train- ing program (72). First, management should get the facts. Accord- ing to this author, management can identify the weaknesses in the organization by comparing the man hours Spent in the settlement of grievances with similar records in other industries, by examining the records of labor turnover, absenteeism, and other lost man hours, by scrutinizing safety figures, and by reviewing exit interview findings. Management should then provide the necessary educational tools to correct the areas of deficiency. Pigors and Myers also indicated that the supervisory training program should be adapted to the needs of the company as determined by a survey of management records (80). However, these authors went one step farther. They suggested that the training director should discuss the problems of management with the supervisors to determine the areas of current improvement need. Yoder reported that since the job analysis and the job specifi- cation show what needs to be learned, and the knowledge and the skills which are required on each job, these management tools are of major importance in setting the objectives of a training program (118). Training should be geared to fit these needs. Yoder further recommended that current improvement needs could be exposed by an examination of promotional charts, an industrial-relations audit, or employee attitude surveys. Bellows stated that all employees need training so that they can contribute more to the company and also earn a better living (10). Management must spot the potential necessity for training before the need becomes an actuality. When management recognizes the need for training in a specific area, the subject matter should be incorporated into the training program. Both the American Dietetic Association and the Hospital Dietetic Service of the Veterans Administration advised that super- visory training should be given in relation to the need. The Com- mittee of the Food Administration Section of the American Dietetic Association said that management should observe the work performance of the supervisors to determine the need for improvement (27). This committee recommended that the training prOgram should be designed to correct more apparent supervisory weaknesses first; other factors should be treated in the order of their importance. The Hospital Dietetic Service of the Veterans Administration reported that the ex- tent and the scope of the supervisory training program depends on the actual performance of the job by the supervisor (52). The course of study should be based on the apparent need for improvement in a specific area. This Service was emphatic in its observation that all supervisors need technical training, job instruction training, and edu- cation in employee relations techniques. Tiffin was of the Opinion that the purpose of the training pro- gram is to train supervisors in the newer aspects of the job and to prepare younger men to become supervisors (98). He suggested that every supervisor or potential supervisor should attend regularly scheduled training classes. Management should decide upon the sub- ject matter to be presented in the course of study according to the needs of the plant. Shellow and Harmon reported that small group conferences are valuable in the development of practical men who think for themselves (91). In the conference, a group who has common problems and related interests sit together to exchange points of view, individual experiences, and various opinions, Through discussion, the group arrives at definite conclusions. Though conferences are useful training tools, Harmon and Shellow indicated that the confer- ence does not replace lectures, demonstrations, classes, or bulletins in giving information to supervisors. Jennings stated that the supervisory training program should place less emphasis on technique training and more stress on atti— tude training (55). According to this author, technique training is ineffective if the foreman does not understand human behavior so that he can gain c00peration from his employees. In 1945, Brad- ford wrote that supervisory training of the future would be based on the fundamental principles of group leadership rather than on surface symptoms (14). Training would concern itself less with technique and more with an understanding of basic causes. Bradford also fore- casted that management would make greater use of supervisor par- ticipation in the deve10pment of the training program. He anticipated that the improvement course of the future would not be a rigidly packaged prOgram of study; the curriculum would be determined in terms of the problems faced by the supervisors concerned. The predictions made by Bradford in 1945 have become reality. Many authorities have concluded that supervisory training is more effectively accomplished by the conference method than by a series of lectures. Cantor observed that training is not telling; lecturing about generalities is ineffective (19). Cantor said that supervisors should be active participants in their own development. They should become involved, realize the problem, and discover, primarily through their own efforts, how to solve the problem. Coffman reported 1 that the mutual exchange of ideas and experiences among supervisors at the conference table was an effective way to solve current super- visory problems (24). Shepherd conducted a conference type training program for school lunchroom managers in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (92). Each group member was encouraged to participate in the identification and the solution of problems. Three criteria were met by any problem which was studied at the conferences: (1) the problem had to be recognized as a real problem by the majority of the group; (2) the problem had to be concerned with the improvement of the school lunch program; and (3) the solution of the problem had to be such that it contributed to the welfare of the total school and the community. Shepherd stated that supervisory deve10pment was more effective when the identification of problems was initiated by each individual of the group. In deter- mining the objective or the theme of the school lunch training pro- gram, Pryor advised examination of the findings of national research studies, investigation of the results of state studies, and consultation with school lunch personnel (82). Childress reported that the aim of training is to bring the worker to the point where he can perform efficiently, safely, and in a minimum of time, all the steps involved in the work to which he is assigned (22). This author recommended the full use of conferences in training first line supervisors. However, she indicated that the supervisors should also be given formal courses in leadership, job instruction methods, job breakdown procedures, and supervisory responsibility in the working relationship. METHOD OF PROCEDURE The improvement needs of the 23 nonprofessional public school lunchroom managers in Dearborn, Michigan, were determined by job analysis, job evaluation, and a carefully designed questionnaire. Be- fore the job analysis and the job evaluation were performed, all factors that could influence the job of the lunchroom manager were investigated. A detailed study was conducted of: (1) the physical plant and the administrative organization of the Dearborn Public Schools; (2) the policies of the Dearborn Board of Education; (3) the financial administration of the lunchroom department; (4) the position of the coordinator of lunchrooms; (5) biOgraphical data con- cerning the lunchroom managers; and (6) the classifications into which the lunchroom managers were grouped. During the job analysis process, the job of the lunchroom manager was examined to determine: (1) the work performed; (2) the demands of the job in terms of skill, responsibility, and effort; (3) the environment in which the job was accomplished; and (4) the hazards to which the job exposed an individual. After job analysis was completed, job descriptions for the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III lunchroom managers were written. The job factors, 10 11 the attributes, and the subattributes common to the three job classi- fications were identified. An evaluation committee determined the relative importance of the job factors, the attributes, and the sub- attributes in the job of the lunchroom manager. Using statements suggested by the common job factors, attributes, and subattributes, the investigator prepared a questionnaire for distribution to the lunchroom managers who were members of the survey group. Su- pervisory improvement needs were isolated by an analysis of the results of the questionnaire. DISCUSSION The lunchrooms in the Dearborn public schools were directed by nonprofessional managers who worked under the guidance of the school principals and the coordinator of lunchrooms. When construct- ing the training program for these lunchroom managers, management could have planned the course of study according to the current needs of the lunchroom department. Instead, the curriculum was adapted to fit the needs and the desires of the lunchroom managers. Preliminary Information Survey The four month period during which data were collected for this study extended from March until June, 1955. The coordinator of lunchrooms of the Dearborn public schools made available the records of total school membership which included both the number and the grade classification of the pupils "who attended each school. Information concerning the Dearborn public school lunchroom facili- ties, the type of menu served, and the time and length of the lunch periods was gathered by personal observation and during conferences with the coordinato r. 12 13 In a series of interviews, the coordinator outlined the admin- istrative organization of the Dearborn public schools, the policies of the Board of Education regarding the public school lunch prOgram, and the financial management of the lunchroom department. She explained the responsibilities and the duties of the coordinator of lunchrooms and defined the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III subdivisions of the job of the lunchroom manager. With two exceptions, the biographical data concerning the 23 lunchroom managers who formed the survey group were collected by means of a questionnaire (Appendix Form 1). The details pertaining to the marital status and the children of the lunchroom managers were provided by the coordinator of lunchrooms. The Dearborn public schools Dearborn, Michigan, is located in the highly industrialized, southeastern section of the state of Michigan near the city of De- troit. Its population, as recorded by the 1950 census, was 94,994 (101). In March, 1955, when the first data were collected for this study, the Dearborn public school system was composed of 29 ele- mentary and secondary grade schools plus an adult education center 14 called the Henry Ford Community College. Since that time, an addi- tional elementary school building has been opened. Figure 1 shows a schematic map of the public school buildings in Dearborn. However, two institutiOns indicated on this map were not included in this study. The Henry Ford Community College was excluded because the food service differed from that in the elemen— tary and secondary schools. The other institution, the new Howe School, was not in Operation at the time the data were collected. The Dearborn public school membership was composed Of children from the city of Dearborn and a very limited number Of pupils from adjacent townships. The transportation Of nonresident children was the responsibility of the community from which they came. The Dearborn public school system maintained school bus service only for the physically handicapped and the mentally retarded children Of Dearborn residents. According to Dearborn school records of January 28, 1955, 25 kindergarten and 27 elementary school facilities were located throughout the city for the convenience Of the children too young to walk great distances to school. On the other hand, only 11 schools were available for junior and senior high school pupils. Nine build» ings were attended by students in the junior high school grades. Senior high school classes were held in three buildings. 15 3025 a $53. ....... mamoaoooa 32¢. a 88833. . mmqqom MmOEEmS c6533 ado: umudAoGwnH . . . mmwéH 2:02 aw 39:an ....... MOVE ZHH. .3st J Bocm ............. 302m rowan s i352 . meemmamHDOm 29200 cm oEmQ Oppoz . . . . . . . . EHHEm 00.2202 cw c3302 ....... memdexfim >on304 cw @6380an ......... omuo>fim ....... QA> a coumom .......... UZOA 3no>m>> a used empod ..... OmmeZHA p003pm0>>£ COED ......... Eflmnjwd pud>ogom @095de .......... H303 ooGOHBmA cw Mao» ......... Owing/OE wand >no>mm w c.2500 ........ 30H; . Hoxooz cw whom 3.30 s Eon 3qu Hm SOomTHQ ..... Stew 3 338E ......... 28:3 02:02 a >232 moi Zmomm225 mAOOmmUm .mO ZOHHANUOA mUHm ZOQOOh . QmOh «>334ng . QmOh szmm . HZ¢¢u10 ufifiua: O'IIIJHLOOS 1!! 31K It 11"! "LYNN —'I' >53 90 _ 1M 22:23 17 Two schools were operated exclusively for pupils in senior high school; 27 schools Offered classes in more than one grade di- vision. Of the latter, 18 schools were for younger children in the kindergarten and the elementary grades; six were attended by kinder— garten, elementary, and junior high school pupils; two held elemen— tary and junior high school classes; and one school was attended by pupils in all grade divisions. On January 31, 1955, the total membership in the DearbOrn public schools was 21,314. Of this number, 2,165 were kindergarten children; 10,143 were in the elementary grades; 4,567 students were enrolled in the junior high schools, and 4,168 were senior high school pupils. The remaining 271 children attended special classes. Spe— cial instruction was available to the mentally handicapped, the oral deaf, and to foreign pupils. Sight saving and Braille classes were Offered. Children who were afflicted with cardiac disorders or who had OrthOpedic difficulties attended Special classes. Homebound and nursery school children were also included in the Special classifica— tion. At the time of this study, 23 of the elementary and the sec- ondary school buildings were equipped with food service facilities. Six Of the elementary schools had no lunchrooms. 18 The school lunchrooms in Dearborn were Operated on a non- profit basis and received federal financial assistance under the Na- tional School Lunch Act Of 1946 (51). During the school year 1954- 1955, the assistance to public schools in the state of Michigan was four cents for each Type A lunch served. For a Type C lunch, re- imbursement Of one cent was authorized. The Type A lunch was a complete lunch, hot or cold, that provided a child with 1/3 to 1/2 of his daily nutritive requirements (71). The Type C lunch consisted of 1/2 pint of whole milk (71). No Type B lunches were served in the Dearborn public schools during the 1954—1955 school year. The Dearborn public schools also participated in the Special School Milk PrOgram (57). Under this legislation, the lunchroom department was reimbursed at the rate of four cents for each 1/2 pint of milk served in excess of pre-program milk consumption (55). Menu selectiOnS in any Dearborn public school were influenced by three factors. These included the available cooking and serving facilities, the age of the pupils attending the school, and the extent to which the pupils carried all or a part of the lunch from home. In five of the Six elementary schools which had no lunch— rooms, only the Type C lunch was served. The children who at- tended the sixth school without a lunchroom were provided with food service at a nearby high school. The elementary schools which were l9 equipped with lunchrooms offered the Type A lunch, the Type C lunch, and ice cream. In three of the elementary schools, soup was available in addition to the Type A. lunch, the Type C lunch, and ice cream. The soup was served only to those children who carried their lunches. A. more liberal selection of food was served in the schools which were regularly attended by junior high school students. These pupils were offered the Type A lunch, the Type C lunch, ice cream, and a limited selection of soups, salads, desserts, and fruit juice beverages. At times, because of a Shortage of classroom space, pupils in the lower junior high school grades attended class in an elementary school building. Because this was always a temporary arrangement, no menu adjustment was made in the elementary school. An extremely varied and interesting menu was served in the three schools attended by high School students. In addition to the Type A. lunch, the Type C lunch, and ice cream, the pupils were able to choose from a liberal selection Of soups, entrees, sandwiches, vegetables, salads, desserts, and fruit juice beverages. NO record was kept of the number of customers served in the lunchrooms. The administration of the school lunch program in Dear- born was based upon financial evaluation rather than On the numbers served. Spot checks Of customer count were taken only when needed 20 for some specific purpose. Careful record was kept of cash re- ceived; and, for the purpose of reimbursement, a record was kept of all Type A and Type C lunches served to pupils in high school grades and under. No financial assistance was authorized for Type A. or Type C lunches consumed by adults. The lunch period in each school was adjusted to the schedule of classes and to the number of students served. The longest serving period was from 10:55 A.M. to 1:25 P.M.; the shortest period was from 11:45 A.M. to 12:15 P.M. In the majority of the schools, the pupils were served as they came into the dining room. In three schools, because of the number of pupils to be served and the limited seating space, three distinct meal periods were estab- lished. The Dearborn Board Of Education The Board of Education was responsible to the citizens of Dearborn for the operation of the public school System. The Super- intendent Of Schools, guided by policies formulated by the Board of Education, administrated and directed the entire public school pro- gram. He was assisted in the discharge of his duties by a Deputy . Superintendent in Charge Of Instruction and a Deputy Superintendent in Charge of Business and Finance. However, he delegated a major 21 portion Of his lunchroom department responsibilities to the coordi- nator of lunchrooms. The value of the school lunch as an important function in the total school program was recognized in the Dearborn public schools. Board of Education policy concerning the administration of the school lunch program emphasized that the lunchroom department Should, within budgetary limitations, serve to each pupil on every school day, a nourishing, wholesome, and appetizing lunch. Financial administration of the lunchroom department V—v The Board Of Education expected the school lunchrooms to be financially self-supporting. Money collected from the sale of meals and financial reimbursement gained by participation in the National School Lunch PrOgram and The Special Milk Program provided the main source Of revenue for lunchroom department operation. However, the Board Of Education budget included five funds from which expenditures for the lunchroom department were authorized. Building and Site Funds purchased the kitchen and the dining room equipment that was installed in a newly constructed school building.- When a lunchroom was remodeled, money from the Modernization PrOgram bought any necessary new equipment. Additional equipment needed because of an increased student body in a school was paid 22 from the Additions to Equipment and Furniture Fund. Major expenses incident to the repair and the maintenance of equipment were allo- cated to the Repair and Upkeep Of Equipment Fund. All other lunchroom Operational Obligations were met by the lunchroom department. Food service income paid for food, salaries, gas, laundry, miscellaneous operating costs, replacement of dishes, minor expenditures for the repair and the upkeep Of equipment, and overhead expense. Salary expense consisted of the wages of lunch- room department employees, the cost of vacations with pay, and payment for Sick leave and other authorized absences. Laundry included expenditures for the rental Of uniforms and the purchase price of towels and bib aprons. Uniform rental service provided each lunchroom department employee with two uniforms weekly. If necessary, the worker was permitted to have a third clean uni- form. Instead Of renting towels and bib aprons, the lunchroom de- partment purchased them. These items were laundered in the house— hold type washing machines installed in each kitchen. Miscellaneous Operating Expense was composed of the expenditures which were made for such nonfood items as cleaning supplies and paper goods. Allowance for the replacement of dishes also included the purchase price of silverware and cooking utensils. 23 The clerks in the schools acted as cashiers in the lunchrooms, banked the money they collected, and prepared the Lunchroom Sales Report (Appendix Form 2). For this service, two per cent of the lunchroom department gross income was credited to clerical salaries. Charges for clerical service and the salary and the transportation costs of the coordinator of lunchrooms comprised the overhead ex- pense. The coordinator of lunchrooms The administration of the school lunch program in the Dear- born public schools was delegated to the coordinator of lunchrooms. She was directly responsible to the Deputy Superintendent in Charge of Business and Finance. Her major responsibility was to organize food service activities in the entire school system so that each child (was served a nutritious lunch on each school day. She was expected to direct the prOgram in such a way that the lunchroom department was financially self-supporting. The coordinator of lunchrooms was professionally trained in the areas Of foods, nutrition, institution administration, and education. Her major duties could be classified into seven main areas of re- sponsibility. These included personnel administration, financial management, the formulation of policies and procedures, menu 24 planning, quantity food production and service, the designing of kitchen floor plans for new schools, and the selection Of food service equip- ment. InhEmployeeS of the school lunchrooms began their careers as substitutes. The coordinator, who hired all personnel, conducted group interviews with job applicants. From these applicants, she developed a substitute list. During the substitute period, the worker was closely observed. Each supervisor to whom she was assigned for three days or longer filled in a check list (Appendix Form 3) on which the supervisor evaluated the personal appearance, the working habits, and the other attributes of the substitute employee. The supervisor was also asked to indicate whether or not she would recommend the substitute for permanent employment. Substitute employee evaluations were filed in the Office of the coordinator of lunchrooms. When a job vacancy occurred, the coordinator made the permanent appointment from the substitute roster. The newly appointed worker was placed on a probationary status for the first Six months of permanent employment. Every lunchroom department employee was given general Orientation information by the coordinator before she was assigned to her first job. The training she received was conducted on the I Ill} villi-lull '\ {.(,{ 25 job under the guidance and the direction of the lunchroom manager to whom She was assigned. K As a part of her duties, the coordinator was called upon to work in the school lunchrooms. When a lunchroom manager was ill, the coordinator filled the vacancy until arrangements could be made for a substitute. The trainee manager was closely supervised and guided by the coordinator until she was completely familiar with her duties and could perform her job in an acceptable manner. The school principals were responsible for their school buildings and for every function which took place within them. Thus, they were responsible for the food service in the lunchrooms. How- ever, in such a complex School system, uniformity and central con- trol of a great number of food service activities was desirable. The coordinator of lunchrooms, a food service specialist, relieved the principal of many Of the administrative burdens Of lunchroom man- agement, such as menu planning, food purchasing, staffing, financial regulation, and Similar duties. These activities were directed by the coordinator of lunchrooms. The school lunchroom had to be operated to the satisfaction Of the principal. For this reason, the coordinator maintained liaison with each school principal to determine if any lunchroom problems 26 existed. Difficulties were settled by intelligent discussion and close COOperation between the coordinator and the principal. In her capacity as adviser to the lunchroom managers, the coordinator made rounds of the lunchrooms as Often as time per— mitted. During these visits, she performed many detailed adminis- trative functions. She worked with the managers in the scheduling of employee work hours. She supervised food preparation and ser- vice methods. She ascertained that the proper quantity of food was being prepared. She assisted with work production schedules. She Observed the work habits of the employees. She inspected the kitchen and the serving area for sanitation and neatness. She examined equipment, cooking utensils, silverware and china for cleanliness and serviceability. By checking the amount of plate waste and the utilization of left-over food, she made certain that no food was be- ing wasted. She helped the lunchroom managers with their problems. Finally she offered suggestions which would lead to more satisfactory lunchroom Operation. The food served in the public schools was prepared according to a master menu. Menu planning was the responsibility of the co- ordinator of lunchrooms. However, the lunchroom managers partici- pated in this activity. In September, the coordinator divided the school year into periods three weeks in length. Each lunchroom 27 manager chose a time when she would like to help with the writing Of the Type A lunch master menu. Teams were assigned. The co- ordinator considered the menus which were submitted to her by the teams, made any necessary minor changes, and finally approved the menus for use. The Deputy Superintendent in Charge of Business and Finance specified the local suppliers from whom the lunchroom department was to order the foodstuffs which were not purchased by contract. However, all perishable and nonperishable foodstuffs consumed in large amounts were procured by competitive bid. The coordinator estimated the needs for the next school year. She also reviewed the existing Specifications for acceptability and recommended neces- sary adjustments. Finally, she indicated the suppliers who Should be given the Opportunity to bid. All actual contracting was accom- plished in the Office Of the Deputy Superintendent in Charge of Busi- ness and Finance. The business Office prepared and issued the in— vitations to bid. The contract was awarded to the vendor who sub- mitted the most advantageous offer. During the analysis of the bids, the coordinator was frequently consulted for her Opinion and recom- mendation concerning bid acceptance. Because there was no central storage area for the lunchroom department, the jobber from whom 28 nonperishable cased goods were purchased stored the merchandise and delivered it to the individual schools upon requisition. The schools were supplied with paper goods, cleaning mate- rials, and similar items from a central stock room. If the stock room was supplied with the desired items, the lunchroom manager requisitioned from this Source. When the lunchrooms needed non- food supplies which were not available in the stock room, the coordi- nator purchased the merchandise from approved vendors on the local market. Because the coordinator was completely responsible for the financial management of the lunchroom department, she developed a requisitiOn procedure which enabled her to control the expenditure Of lunchroom department funds. Only fresh fruits and vegetables, frozen foods, dairy products, and breadstuffs were ordered by the lunchroom manager directly from the specified local supplier. All other items were ordered on weekly requisitions which were proc- essed through the office of the coordinator. On Monday and Tuesday, the lunchroom manager determined her food and nonfood requirements for the following school week. On Wednesday, she submitted two written requisitions to the coordinator. One of the requisitions was for meats and the other was for groceries and nonfood supplies. The coordinator checked the requisitions for completeness and 29 accuracy. Then she placed the orders with the appropriate agency, indicating the amounts to be delivered to each school and the deliv- ery date desired. The lunchroom managers inspected, received, and signed for deliveries made to the kitchens. The Signed invoices were forwarded to the coordinator. In the Office of the coordinator, the) clerk checked the item extensions and the invoice totals for arithmetic accuracy. At the end of the month, the clerk referred to the invoices to de- termine the total monthly purchases each school had imade from each vendor. She compared the totals with the amounts charged on the statement from the supplier. The total purchases were posted to the record of accounts payable. The suppliers from whom purchases were made were listed across the top Of the page. The schools were indicated in the extreme left-hand column. The total monthly purchase made by each school from every vendor was entered in the appropriate column in line with the name Of the school which made the purchase. The clerk totaled the entries on the record of accounts payable to determine the purchases made by each school and the amount due and payable to local vendors. The totals, by school and by supplier, were for- warded to the business Office. 30 The lunchroom profit and loss statement was prepared in the business Office. The data.which appeared on the statement were computed by means of an International Business Machine. Informa- tion from the lunchroom department record of accounts payable was utilized to validate the entries pertaining to the total amount spent for food by each school as recorded by the International Business Machine. The lunchroom profit and loss statement was not distributed to the lunchroom managers. Instead, the coordinator determined the percentage of food cost, labor cost, and profit or loss for each School and sent this information to the appropriate school principal and the lunchroom manager. The coordinator made an annual detailed finan- cial analysis of lunchroom department food service activities. Addi- tional financial reports were prepared only if requested by the Board Of Education. The coordinator assisted the Deputy Superintendent in Charge of Business and Finance with the procurement of equipment, appli— anceS, and utensils necessary for the operation of lunchroom facilities. The coordinator determined the requirements and initiated the requi— sitions. The office of the Deputy Superintendent in Charge of Busi- ness and Finance prepared and issued the bids, decided upon the most 31 favorable offer, and made recommendations for acceptance to the Deputy Superintendent in Charge Of Business and Finance. When a new school building was planned, the coordinator collaborated with the architect in drafting the floor plan for the lunchroom area. She also determined the equipment requirements for installation. The school buildings in Dearborn were cOnSidered the prop- erty of the people. They were utilized extensively for civic func‘ tions. Frequently, the lunchroom department was asked to serve meals to community groups. Permission for such affairs was granted by the Deputy Superintendent in Charge of Business and Finance; the administration Of special meal service was the responsibility of the coordinator. Usually, the lunchroom manager and her staff served the meals; the coordinator planned the menu and determined the price to be charged. If she was needed, the coordinator actually assisted with the food preparation and the service. The typical lunchroom manager An analysis of the biographical data Showed that 78 per cent of the lunchroom managers in the Dearborn public schools were mar- ried women. The remaining managers were divorced or widowed. None was single. The youngest manager was 39 years of age and 32 the Oldest 64. The median age Of the group was 46 years; the 40 to 44 year age interval was the mode. Fifty-two per cent of the lunchroom managers lived within a l-mile radius of the schools to which they were assigned. One man— ager resided only 1 city block from her place of duty. None trav- eled over 6 miles to work. The median was a distance of 1 mile. Eleven of the 23 managers had children living in their homes. Six had one child, four had two children, and one had three. Be- cause 59 per cent of their children were 15 years of age and older, it was evident that no lunchroom manager had very young children. The youngest child was 10 years old and the oldest was 20. The median age of the children was 15 years; the mode was the 15 to 16 year interval. Three of the employees who were filling supervisory positions had an eighth grade (education; two had attended college for 1 year. The median level of education was the completion Of the eleventh year Of school. The mode was the completion of high school. Of the eleven managers who were high school graduates, three had edu- cation beyond the twelfth year. Eighty-seven per cent of the managers worked before they were employed by the Dearborn public school lunchroom department. Of these, one manager had worked only 1 year and 8 months before 33 her employment with the lunchroom department; one manager had worked in other employment for 16 years. The median amount of prior working experience was 5 years; the mode was 3 years. Three managers had never worked until they became lunchroom department employees. Thirty—nine per cent of the managers had experience in quan- tity food preparation and service preceding their employment in the lunchrooms. No vocational pattern could be determined among those who had a history of working experience not connected with food service. Twenty-two occupations were listed, and the type of work performed ranged from factory worker to beautician. The employees who were lunchroom managers had many years of experience in the lunchroom department. Ten of the supervisors had been lunphroom department employees for 10 years or longer. The manager who had the least amount of service had worked in the lunchrooms for 3 years; the manager who had the most service had been employed-by the lunchroom department for 29 years and 3 months. For the group, the median length of service as lunch- room department employees was 9 years; the mode was 11 years. The junior manager had been in charge of a lunchroom for Only 4.5 months; the senior manager had held the position for 25 years. For all, the median length Of service in a managerial 34 position was 4 years and 2 months. Determination of the mode was difficult because the time spread was wide and there was no concen- tration of the observations into specific time intervals. For this reason, the description of the data is presented in percentages. Fifty—Six per cent of the managers had held the position for less than 5 years; 18 per cent had been managers for more than 5 but less than 10 years; 22 per cent were in the 10 to 15 year interval; and 1 individual, or 4 per cent, had been a lunchroom manager for 25 years. The 40-hour week was the standard workweek for seventy per cent of the managers. However, seven school lunchrooms re- quired managerial services for less than 8 hours a day; three man- agers worked 7.5 hours daily; one worked 7 hours; one was on duty for 6.5 hours; and two were able to accomplish their daily duties in 6 hours. The classification of lunchroom managers A11 first line supervisors in the Dearborn public school lunchrooms were assigned the title of lunchroom manager. How- ever, from one lunchroom to another, the managerial duties differed in difficulty, complexity, and responsibility. For these reasons, the job had been subdivided into three classifications. 35 Class I managers were assigned to those lunchrooms in which the raw food cost was in excess of $1500.00 a month. The manager directed the activities of seven or more adult employees. Three schools had a manager in Class I on duty in the lunchroom. Lunchrooms which retained the services of a Class 11 man— ager handled a smaller volume of business and employed less workers. The minimum monthly raw food cost was $700.00; the maximum was $1500.00. In additiOn to the manager, three to Six adult employees were required to do the work. There were five managers in this classification. The Class III manager directed food service activities in the lunchrooms where the monthly raw food purchases did not exceed $700.00. Some managers in this classification worked alone, but in no instance was a Class III manager assisted by more than two adult employees. Managers in Class III were employed in 15 lunch- rooms. Determination of Supervisory Improvement Needs The lunchroom managers in the Dearborn public schools were active participants in determining their own improvement needs. The description of the work performed on the supervisory job as reported by the lunchroom managers was the foundation Of the job analysis and 36 the job evaluation. Both the job analysis and the job evaluation were major factors in the construction of the questionnaire through which the lunchroom managers identified the areas in which training would be helpful to them. Job analysis The job Of the lunchroom manager was studied to determine: (1) the Specific tasks each manager performed in the accomplish- ment of the duties of her job; (2) the experience and the educational background required to perform the job satisfactorily; (3) the physi- cal, the mental, and the Social attributes desirable in the individual chosen for the job; (4) the physical, the mental, and the visual de- mands that the job made upon the manager; (5) the variety of Skills the manager had to possess to accomplish the job; (6) the responsi- bilities the manager was expected to assume; (7) the environment in which the job was performed; (8) the unavoidable occupational hazards to which the manager was exposed; and (9) the Opportunities for advancement. The work performed by the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III lunchroom managers was determined by- the job analyst, the coordinator, and the manager. Each manager filled out a ques- tionnaire (Appendix Form 1) on which she was requested to list in 37 detail the duties and the responsibilities of her job as a lunchroom manager. Any point of confusion was clarified by personal Observa— tion of the managers at work or by discussion with the coordinator. The 23 lunchroom managers submitted a total of 123 distinct job duties and responsibilities: the Class I managers listed 46; the Class II managers itemized 69; and the managers in the Class 111 group recorded 90 items. From the list of the duties and the responsibilities which were submitted by the lunchroom managers, a brief, but comprehen— sive, summary of the work performed by each classification of lunch— room manager was prepared. The bulky list was reduced to a series of concise, descriptive statements that delimited the duties and the responsibilities of the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III man— agers. The description included all pertinent information but ex- cluded unimportant detail. An analysis of the work performed by the lunchroom managers showed that each detailed duty could be classified into one of four major factors: skill, responsibility, effort, or working conditions. However, as shown in Figure 2, important phases of the jobs were more adequately defined when the major factors were subdivided into attribute s and subattribute s. 38 Factors Attributes Subattrubutes FAbility to do Detail Work ~Versatility FMOntul I-Ability to Make Decisions Llnitiative and Ingenuity Skill [Leadership -Social LAbility to get Along with People .. Manual 4 Dexterity Material and Product 7 Physical Property —[ Appliances. Eguipoent and Tools i-Work of Others -—vl-$upervision Physical Ettort '- L Mental- Visual Environment Working Conditions Hazards Figure 2. Subdivision of job factors into attributes and subattributes. 39 Skill was divided into mental skill, social Skill, and manual Skill. Mental Skill was defined as the ability required to operate the kitchen smoothly and efficiently in accordance with existing rules, policies, and precedents and to visualize and plan for the work ahead. Social skill was defined as the ability to work either with or through other peOple to get results (66). Manual skill referred to the re- quired ability to use the hands, the kitchen tools, appliances, and equipment properly and with competence. The division of the Skill factor into three attributes still did not accurately describe the variety of Skills required to accomplish the job of a lunchroom manager. Therefore, mental skill, social skill, and manual Skill were divided into subattributes. The subattributes established for mental skill were: the abil- ity to do detailed work, versatility, the ability to make decisions, and initiative and ingenuity. The ability to do detailed work was defined as the accuracy and the efficiency required in the interpretation Of instructions and in the performance of the duties of the job. Errors in the accomplishment of detailed work could cause such inefficiencies as waste Of product, requisition of too much or too little food, and the submission of inaccurate reports. Versatility was defined as the ability to perform a variety of Operations which required more than one type of developed skill (57). The ability to make decisions 40 was interpreted to mean the weighing of existing facts and conditions and, after consideration of all pertinent rules, policies, and prece- dents, deciding upon the correct course of action (66). Initiative and ingenuity was the subattribute which evaluated both the nature and the extent of the independent action required to visualize, plan, and accomplish the work in the lunchroom (93). The initiative and ingenuity subattribute also appraised the complexitypof the job and the resourcefulness required Of the lunchroom manager in the ac- complishment Of the job. Social skill was subdivided into two very important attributes: leadership and the ability to get along with people. The nonsuper- visory responsibility for Obtaining willing cooperation from employ— ees in the accomplishment of the work to be done was the definition of leadership applicable to this job analysis (66). The ability to get along with people was defined as the personality, the. appearance, and the tact which was required where cooperation with superiors, teachers, pupils, community leaders, and fellow workers was an integral part of the job. An examination of the duties of the lunchroom managers indi- cated that the only type of manual skill necessary to perform the job of the lunchroom manager was dexterity. Therefore, the manual Skill attribute was not subdivided. However, to clarify the description of 41 manual skill, dexterity was entered as a subattribute. Dexterity was defined as the speed, the coordination, and the deftness of senses and muscles required to use the tools, the appliances, and the equipment in the kitchen. The responsibility factor was divided into two attributes: the responsibility for physical property and the responsibility for the work of others. The responsibility for physical property was more accurate and more descriptive if the attribute was subdivided into two subattributes: the responsibility for material and product and the responsibility for appliances, equipment, and tools. The re- sponsibility for material and product was defined as the care re- quired in the storage, the use, the handling, and the control of materials and supplies to avoid waste, damage, spoilage, and loss. The responsibility for appliances, equipment, and tools involved the care required to avoid any loss or damage to equipment, appliances, and tools which would result in monetary loss or in lost production time for employees and machines. In this analysis, the responsibility for the work of others meant supervision. For clarification in the evaluation process, super- vision was listed as a subattribute under the attribute entitled re— ,_ sponsibility for the work Of others. Supervision was defined as the responsibility for assisting, instructing, or directing the work Of 42 others so that: (1) effective use would be made of employees, ma- terials, equipment, and tools; and (2) the work would be accomplished in an acceptable, Safe, and sanitary manner (66). Two types of effort were isolated. Therefore, the effort factor was divided into two attributes: physical effort and mental- visual effort. Physical effort was defined as the muscular effort and the physical exertion demanded by the work. The physical po- sition for standing, walking, stooping, sitting, and lifting, as well as the frequency with which the muscular and the physical effort oc- curred were considered in the definition. The mental—visual effort attribute referred to the mental and the visual attention expended in the satisfactory performance Of the job. This attribute measured the degree of mental and visual concentration required to organize and plan food service activities in the lunchroom rather than the degree of intelligence required. The working conditions factor was divided into two attributes: environment and hazards. Environment was defined as the surround- ings in which the job was accomplished. Such variables as the con— gestion in the kitchen, the temperature, the ventilation, the noise, and the illumination were included in the analysis of the environment. Hazards were defined as the degree of exposure to accidents. The occupational hazards to which the individual on the job was exposed 43 and both the type and the extent of the injuries most likely to Occur were considered. During the initial stages of the analysis, education and expe- rience were listed among the attributes. However, a more extensive survey showed that these two attributes were not significant. Any one of the three jobs could be performed by an individual with an eighth grade education. At the time of this study, three of the managers on duty in the lunchrooms had completed only the eighth grade in school. Experience was excluded because of the policy for promotion from within. The managers accumulated the necessary food service experience as they worked their way through the ranks. Although each of the 14 attributes and subattributes estab- lished was common to the job of the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III manager, variation from one job to another was evident. Therefore, each attribute and subattribute was subdivided into four degrees. A concise, objective definition was written to describe each degree. For example, the four degrees of environment were defined by describing four types of working conditions. The first degree was excellent, with no exposure to unpleasant conditions; the second degree was good, with exposure to not more than one unpleasant condition; the third degree was fair, with exposure to two or three unpleasant conditions; and the fOurth degree was poor, with exposure 44 to four or five unpleasant conditions. A description of four types of injuries defined the degrees of hazard. The first degree was minor cuts and burns, with no time lost from the job; the second degree was Slight cuts and burns, with the amount of time lost from the job not in excess of 3 days; the third degree was serious cuts and burns or falls, with resulting sprains or broken bones; and the fourth degree was explosions, with resulting very serious burns. Appendix Form 4 shows the definitions of the degrees into which 12 of the 14 attributes and subattributes itemized in Figure 2 were divided. Environment and hazards have already been discussed. The degrees of versatility and the ability to do detail work were defined by describing four menus of varying complexity. The ability to make decisions and the material and product attribute were sub- divided by indicating four ranges of monetary responsibility for raw food. The four subdivisions of leadership and supervision were de- fined in terms of the number of adult employees supervised. The degrees of initiative and ingenuity were delimited by four definitions based upon menu complexity and the number of fellow workers super- vised. The variations in the ability to get along with people were described by determining four groups of different Sizes with whom the individual assigned to the job would have COntact as she performed her duties. The four degrees defining appliances, equipment, and tools 45 were based upon four ranges of monetary responsibility which repre- sented the value of the appliances, the equipment, and the tools in the kitchen. Physical effort was subdivided by indicating four degrees of physical exertion in terms of the amount of standing, walking, stooping, and lifting demanded by the job. The degrees of mental— visual effort were defined by establishing four levels of job difficulty, with emphasis on the amount of planning and organization required, the number of fellow workers supervised, the menu complexity, and the number and the difficulty of the records maintained. Job de sc riptions The information collected during the job analysis was re- duced to writing in the form of job descriptions for the Class 1 (Appendix Form 5), the Class II (Appendix Form 6), and the Class III (Appendix Form 7) lunchroom managers. Smyth and Murphy (93) stated that the following items Should be included in every job de- scription: (1) the job title; (2) a Summary of the job; (3) a detailed account of the work performed; (4) the tools, the equipment, and the materials handled or operated during the performance of the job; (5) a description Of the physical surroundings in which the job was ac- complished; and (6) the employee attributes. However, to clearly define the job of the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III manager, 46 additional details were listed. The job descriptions also included: (1) the department by whom the individual was employed; (2) the number of people on the job; (3) the complexity Of the menu; (4) the monetary responsibility for food and food products; (5) the mone- tary responsibility for equipment, appliances, and tools; (6) the num- ber of people supervised; (7) the names of the reports and the rec- ords prepared; (8) the education required; (9) the necessary length and type Of experience; (10) the promotional line; (11) the initials of the job analyst; and (12) the initials of the coordinator of lunch- rooms. The level of health essential in the individual assigned to the job of the lunchroom manager was not included in the job descrip- tion. Good health, like a good attendance record, was to be expected of the individual assigned to the job as a condition of employment. Job evaluation The job evaluation was accomplished by a committee of Six members; the job analyst acted as chairman Of the group. Each committee member was professionally trained in food service admin— istration and had extensive experience in the food service industry. The committee was well qualified to evaluate the job of the 47 lunchroom manager, because every member possessed an intimate knowledge of the food service first-line supervisory job. The purpose of the job evaluation procedure was to deter- mine the relative value of the job factors, the attributes, and the subattributes that had been established during the job analysis. The subject of the evaluation was the over-all job Of the lunchroom man- ager, not the job of the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III manager. If the job as a whole was properly evaluated, evaluation of the classifications into which the job was divided would be an automatic process. Several days before the meeting of the job evaluation com- mittee, an information Sheet was distributed to each member. The information sheet included: (1) the job description of the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III manager; (2) the job factors, the attributes, and the subattributes which had been established during the job analysis; (3) the definitions of the job factors, the attributes, and the subattributes; and (4) a brief explanation of the job evaluation process. Thus, when the committee met, each member was familiar with the job of the lunchroom manager and the job evaluation pro- cedure. At the meeting Of the job evaluation committee, the job an- alyst presented the committee with the four major job factors: skill, 48 responsibility, effort, and working conditions. The job analyst arbi- trarily assigned 4 points to each factor. However, the committee Observed that the four factors were not of equal relative importance in the job of the lunchroom manager. Therefore, beginning with the 16 available points, the committee assigned 1 to working conditions, 3 to effort, 6 to skill, and 6 to responsibility. After the relative values had been placed upon the four major factors, the committee divided the available points among the attri- butes and the subattributes. The 1 point allotted to the working con- ditions factor was divided equally between environment and hazards. Of the 3 points assigned to the effort factor, 1 was given to physical effort, and 2 to mental-visual effort. The 6 points of the responsi- bility factor were divided as follows: 3 to the work of others, and 3 to physical property. As the work of others was not subdivided, the supervision subattribute retained 3 points. The 3 points appor- tioned to the physical property attribute were distributed by granting 2 points to material and product and 1 point to the responsibility for appliances, equipment, and tools. Because the skill factor was subdivided into many attributes and subattributes, allocation of the 6 available points was more diffi- cult. The committee gave 2.5 of the 6 points to mental skill, 2.5 to social skill, and 1 to manual skill. Further point subdivision was all. Ill '1. .1": all'I‘IIIV llllll 49 necessary. The 2.5 points assigned to mental skill were divided among four subattributes: 0.5 point to the ability to do detailed work, 0.5 point to the ability to make decisions, 0.5 point to initia- tive and ingenuity, and 1 point to versatility. Of the 2.5 points al- lotted to social skill, leadership was awarded 1.5 points; the ability to get along with people received the remaining 1 point. The manual skill attribute was not subdivided; therefore, the value Of the dexterity subattribute was established at 1 point. The evaluatiOn committee determined the extent to which each factor, attribute, and subattribute entered into the job of the lunch- room manager. TO determine the degree to which each factor, at- tribute, and subattribute was a part of the job of the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III manager, a point value was determined for each of the four degrees into which the attributes and the sub- attributes had been divided during job analysis. However, to appor- tion the small numerical values of the attributes and the subattri- butes among four degrees was impractical. Therefore, each point Was arbitrarily assigned the value of 40 points. As an illustration, the working conditions factor had been allotted 1 point by the job eValuation committee; after conversion, the value Of the working c10nditions factor was 40 points. Hereafter in this study, any 50 reference to the point value of the job factors, the attributes, or the subattributes will be made at the conversion rate. Appendix Form 4 shows the point value of each of the four degrees of every attribute and subattribute. The fourth degree was assigned the value determined by the evaluation committee; the third degree was given 0.75 the value of the fourth degree; the second degree was assigned 0.50 the value of the fourth degree; and the first degree was alloted 0.25 the value of the fourth degree. For example, the supervision subattribute was assigned a value of 120 points by the evaluation committee. The fourth degree received the entire 120 points because the job exacted the responsibility for the work of seven or more fellow workers. The third degree was worth 90 points, because the job demanded the responsibility for the work of between three and Six fellow workers. The second degree was given 60 points, for the job required the responsibility for the work Of only one or two fellow workers. The first degree was allowed 30 points because the employee on the job was assigned no super- visory responsibility. After the degrees were converted into points, a trial evalua- tion of the job of the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III man- a~gcer was effected. By referring to the job description, the appro- Pl‘iate degree for each attribute and subattribute was determined. 51 A total Of the points assigned to the degrees selected indicated the relative worth of the job of the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III manager. To check the accuracy of the job analysis, the job evaluation, and the definition of the degrees into which the attributes and the subattributes were divided, a job questionnaire (Appendix Form 8) was distributed to each lunchroom manager. The questionnaire listed 14 questions. Each question referred to one of the 14 attributes and subattributes; the possible answers were to be chosen from the definitions which had been prepared for the degrees of the attributes and the subattributes (Appendix Form 4). Each manager checked the answer which described her job. In this way, the lunchroom managers assisted in the job evaluation. The results of the job questionnaire proved that the values which had been assigned to the job factors, the attributes, and the subattributes were correct; the definitions which had been prepared for the degrees were accurate. With one exception, the factors chosen for evaluation during the job analysis showed a variation from one job classification to another. However, the results of the job Questionnaire indicated a very small degree Of variance in the work- ing conditions of the lunchroom managers. The environment in which the jobs were performed was very good; the incidence Of accidents, I'll"! 52 according to the survey, was negligible. Therefore, the working con- ditions factor was excluded from the evaluation. The working con- ditions, like good health and a good attendance record, were condi- tions of employment rather than variables which should be evaluated. The evaluation committee established a maximum value of 600 points On the job of the lunchroom manager. The distribution of the points among the attributes and the subattributes is shown in Figure 3. During the final evaluation, the degree to which each attri- bute and subattribute entered into the job of the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III manager was determined by the use of Appendix Form 4. The degrees were converted into points. Table 1 shows the point value which was assigned to each attribute and subattribute in the job of the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III manager. The total of the figures in the vertical columns in the table indicates the point value of each job. Of the 600 possible points, the job of the Class I manager was awarded 560, the job of the Class II manager was granted 450, and the job of the Class III manager was given 317.5 points. During the job analysis, the job analyst noted that eight of the Class III managers Worked alone and seven managers in this classification were assisted in the performance Of their duties by one or two adult employees. 40 POINTS ABILITY TO GET ALONG WITH 53 60 POINTS LEADERSHIP I20 POINTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUPERVISION 40 POINTS PEOPLE PHYSICAL EFFOR 20 POINTS 20 POINTS ABILITY TO DO DETAIL WORK INITIATIVE AND INOENUITY 20 POINTS 40 POINTS ABILITY TO MAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR APPLIAN DECISIONS Figure 3. 40 POINTS MANUAL DEXTERITY EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS 80 POINTS 80 POINTS MENTAL- VISUAL EFFORT 40 POINTS VERSATILITY RESPONSIBILITY FOR MATERIAL AND PRODUCT Point distribution to the attributes and the subattributes of the value established for the job of the lunchroom manager by the evaluation committee. 54 Table 1. Point values assigned to the attributes and the subattri— butes in the job of the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III manager. Manag er Clas Sific ation Att t S b tt 'b t ribu e or u a r1 u e Class Class Class I II III Ability to do detailed work .......... 20 15 10 Versatility ...................... 40 30 20 Ability to make decisions ........... 20 15 10 Initiative and ingenuity ............. 20 15 10 Leadership ...................... 60 45 22.5 Ability to get along with people ....... 40 30 20 Manual dexterity .................. 20 30 40 Responsibility for material and product . . 80 60 40 Responsibility for appliances, equip- ment, and tools ................ 40 30 20 Responsibility for supervision ........ 120 90 45 Physical effort ................... 20 30 40 Mental-visual effort ............... 80 60 40 Total .......................... 560 450 317.5 55 When the job of the Class III manager was evaluated, the appro— priate degree for the leadership and the supervision subattributes lay midway between the first and the second degrees. For this reason, in evaluation of the job of the Class III manager, the leader- ship subattribute was allotted 22.5 points; the supervision subattri- bute was assigned 45 points. Questionnaire preparation To determine the supervisory improvement needs, a question- naire was administered to each lunchroom manager. The question- naire consisted of 101 statements suggested by the attributes and the subattributes. Of the 101 items, the number which pertained to each attribute and subattribute was established by determining the extent to which the attributes and the subattributes entered into the com- posite job of the lunchroom managers. The point value Of the composite job of the lunchroom man- agers who formed the survey group is shown in Table 2. The point value of each attribute and subattribute in the composite job of the lunchroom manager was determined in the following manner. The total point value of each attribute and subattribute in the job of the Class 1, the Class II, and the Class III manager (Table l) was di— vided by the three jobs of which the total was composed. Therefore, 56 Table 2. The point value of each attribute and subattribute in the composite job of the lunchroom manager; the percentage to which each attribute and subattribute entered into the composite job. Composite Attribute or Subattribute Job Percentage Ability to do detailed work ........ 15 3.39 Versatility .................... 30 6.78 Ability to make decisions ......... 15 3.39 Initiative and ingenuity ........... 15 3.39 Leadership .................... 42.5 9.60 Ability to get along with people ..... 30 6.78 Manual dexterity ................ 30 6.78 ReSponsibility for material and product .................... 60 13.56 Responsibility for appliances, equip— ment, and tools .............. 30 6.78 Responsibility for supervision ...... 85 19.21 Physical effort ................. 30 6.78 Mental-visual effort ............. 60 13.56 Total ........................ 442.5 100.00 57 the point value of the composite job of the lunchroom manager is merely an average of the point values which were assigned to the Class I, the Class II, and the Class 111 jobs during job evaluation. The value of the composite job of the lunchroom manager was es- tablished at 442.5 points. In the questionnaire, the number of items which referred to each attribute and subattribute was determined by the percentage to which each attribute and subattribute entered into the composite job of the lunchroom manager (Table 2). For example, since the value Of the responsibility for supervision subattribute in the composite job was established at 19.21 per cent, 19 items in the questionnaire referred to supervision. In determining the number of statements which were to relate to an attribute or a subattribute in the ques- tionnaire, the percentages assigned to the attributes and the sub- attributes in the composite job of the lunchroom manager were rounded to the nearest whole number. Fractions of less than 0.5 per cent were drOpped. If the fraction exceeded 0.5 per cent, the attribute or the subattribute percentage was increased to the nearest whole number. Figure 4 indicates the number of statements which pertained to each attribute and subattribute in the questionnaire. The first page of the six-page questionnaire (Appendix Form 9) was an information and instruction sheet. The information section 58 RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUPERVISION RESPONSIBILITY FOR MATERIAL AND PRODUCT ncspoususmrv ran APPLIANCES. EOUIPMENT AND TOOLS T ABILITY TO OET ALONG WITH PEOPLE ABILITY TO DO DETAIL WORK 3 INITIATIVE AND ABILITY TO MAKE DECISDNS INOENUITY MANUAL DEXTERITY PHYSICAL EFFORT MENTAL - VISUAL EFFORT l4 Figure 4. The number Of statements pertaining to each attribute and subattribute in the questionnaire utilized to determine the improvement needs of the lunchroom managers who formed the survey group. 59 Of the cover sheet contained two messages: (1) a training program was being developed for lunchroom managers; and (2) each lunch- room manager, by completing the questionnaire, could indicate the areas in which She needed training. The instructions for completing the questionnaire were explicit. The manager was cautioned not to be influenced by the training She might think others needed, but rather to indicate the areas in which She, herself, desired training. The questionnaire was not to be discussed with the coordinator or with other lunchroom managers. The manager classification, but not the name, of the individual who was completing the questionnaire was requested. The instructions also explained the code used to indicate the degree to which training was desired. The statements in the questionnaire indicated 101 specific areas in which training might be of value to a lunchroom manager. Three choices of answer were Offered: little, some, and much. "Little" indicated that this was an area in which the manager felt She needed no further train- ing. “Some" meant that training would be of assistance to the man- ager in her work. By answering ”much,” the manager showed keen interest in an area in which additional training would be very help- ful. Each statement in the questionnaire was suggested by the work performed by the lunchroom managers. As an illustration, the 60 items which referred to the responsibility for supervision subattribute were determined in the following manner. ,1 Supervision had been de- fined as the responsibility for assisting, instructing, or directing the work of others so that (1) effective use would be made of employees, materials, equipment, and tools, and (2) the work would be accom- plished in an acceptable, safe, and sanitary manner. The detailed tasks of the lunchroom managers were examined; the duties which related to supervisory responsibility were isolated. Then, simple and direct statements concerning the representative, supervisory duties of the job of lunchroom manager were prepared. The 19 items included in the questionnaire to determine the need for training in the area of supervision are listed below. 1. How to supervise the cooking of food. 2. How to give orders. 3. How to train a new employee. 4. How to evaluate the work performance of an employee. 5. How to have a neat kitchen. 6. How to correct a fellow worker in the prOper way. 7. How to supervise the service of food. 8. How to speak good English and express myself well. 9. How to do on-the-job training. 10. How to decide where my help is needed. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. The wo rk we re 1 . The 61 How to make my kitchen a safe place in which to work. How to give clear and definite instructions and directions. How to be a good supervisor. How to assign jobs to others so I can make the most of their time. How to develOp poise, self-restraint, and patience. How to boss without being bossy. How to understand my fellow workers. How to approach the personal problems of others in the right way. How to teach my fellow workers good work habits. statements which pertained to the ability to do detailed prepared. They were: How to understand and follow the suggestions and direc- tions made to me by Mrs. Laidlaw and my principal. How to do the paper work and keep the necessary records for the kitchen. (Orders, reports, etc.) How to check supplies (food and nonfood) as they are de— livered to my kitchen. training which was desired by the lunchroom managers in the area of versatility could be indicated through the following statements. Iffififiaw p 62 1. How to plan menus. 2. How to test a recipe. 3. How to make Salads and salad dressings. 4. How to make desserts. 5. How to make casserole dishes. 6. How to make hot breads. 7. How to make sandwiches in large quantities. The questionnaire statements suggested by the ability to make decisions subattribute were: 1. Information concerning the federal and state laws which regulate the food served in the lunchrooms. 2. An explanation of the standard procedures, methods, and rules in the Dearborn school lunchrooms. 3. An explanation of the rules and regulations concerning the use of surplus commodities. The statements that were useful in determining the degree of improvement that was necessary in the initiative and ingenuity sub— attribute were: 1. How to handle complaints. 2. How to be resourceful in meeting unexpected problems. 3. How to develop my judgment. Leadership was represented by 10 statements. 63 How to be friendly and fair in dealing with the people 1 How to make my kitchen a pleasant place in which to make other people have confidence in me. develop teamwork in the kitchen. be a good leader. make my fellow workers interested in their jobs. make a new employee feel at home. make peOple like and respect me. encourage personal development in others. be a good listener. 1. work with. 2. work. 3. How to 4. How to 5. How to 6. How to 7. How to 8. How to 9. How to 10. How to The need fo r improvement in the ability to get along with people could be adequately described in the following statements. 1 . How How How How How How How to to to t0 to to to develOp my personality. improve my personal appearance. remain calm and self-controlled at all times. get and give better cooperation. get along with other adults. be tactful. get along with children. 64 Indication of the need for training in manual dexterity could be determined by the following statements. 1. How How How How How How How to to to to to to to handle a sharp knife safely. operate and clean a meat Slicer. carve meat. roll pie dough. handle hot food without getting burned. Shape rolls quickly. arrange food attractively in pans and on plates. The statements which concerned the responsibility for ma- terial and product were: 1 . 10. 11. How How How How How How How How How How How to to to to to to to to improve the quality Of the food. out down on plate waste. handle and store food stuffs. cook meat properly. prevent food spoilage. control food cost. maintain a high standard of kitchen sanitation. use left-overs. and where to store cleaning materials. to to preserve the vitamins in food. prevent food poisoning. 65 12. How to control portions. 13. How to prevent thoughtless contamination of food by the poor personal habits of other people. 14. How to use a recipe. The need for training in the responsibility for the care Of appliances, equipment, and tools would be disclosed in the following statements. 1. How to conduct routine checks on kitchen appliances, equipment, and tools. 2. How to keep kitchen equipment and appliances in good working order. 3. How to prOperly wash kitchen utensils that have wooden handles. 4. How to Operate heavy duty kitchen equipment and appliances. 5. How to reduce the amount of breakage of dishes, glasses, etc. 6. How to Sharpen a knife. 7. How to clean china, trays, and silverware. The following representative statements in the questionnaire referred to physical effort. 1. How to lift prOperly and safely. 2. How to clean heavy duty kitchen equipment easily. 3 . How 4 . How 5 . How 6. HOW to to to to 66 scrub a floor satisfactorily with the least effort. wash pots and pans quickly and easily. defrost and clean a refrigerator. use techniques in food preparation that will make work Simpler. 7. How to Operate and clean a dishwasher. The statements related to mental-visual effort were: 1. How to manage my lunchroom money. 2. How to 3. How to 4. How to for the 5. How to 6. How to take an inventory accurately and efficiently. time food preparation accurately. determine the proper amount of food to prepare meal. figure the cost of the Type A lunches I serve. break down recipes to meet the lunch count. 7. How to figure the cost of a recipe. 8. How to anticipate the amount Of food and nonfood (clean—- ing supplies, paper goods, etc.) items I need to order. 9. How to mark time cards. 10. How to plan and schedule my own work. 11. How to use foresight in advance planning of time and work to meet day to day Situations. 12. How to organize the work in the kitchen. 67 13. How to run my kitchen with the least expense. 14. How to plan and schedule the work of othersj The statements pertaining to the attributes and the subattri- butes were placed in random order in the questionnaire. Table 3 Shows the attribute and the subattribute to which each item in the questionnaire referred. When the questionnaire was developed, the alternative choices of answers to the statements were scrambled to prevent central tendency. That is, rather than have columns in which the answer "little," ”some," or ”much" could be indicated, the words "little," "some," and ”much" were written in random order in columns preceding each statement in the questionnaire. For example, the first statement in the questionnaire was ”How to supervise the cook- ing of food"; the arrangement of the alternative answers was "little,” "some," and "much." Question number three was l'How to manage my lunchroom money“; the answers were arranged in a different order: ”some," "much,” and ”little." The individual who was completing the questionnaire was asked to circle the word which indicated the degree to which training in that specific area would be helpful to her in her work. Before being approved for use, the questionnaire was discussed with three nonprofessional food service supervisors in the residence 68 Table 3. The statement number in the questionnaire which referred to each attribute and subattribute. A . . Ability Ability 1 Tat, t bléltz’ n 1 to DO Versa- to Make 1 1 ve Leader- 0 e . . . . and . Along Detailed t111ty Dec1- , Shlp , , Ingenulty With Work SlOI‘lS People 30 15 17 9 5 12 59 27 46 38 13 29 88 44 80 67 21 41 56 34 58 73 42 75 90 55 87 100 63 99 71 84 92 69 Table 3 (Continued) Resp. for A '- Resp. for Pph Manual ances, Resp. for , Mental- Material _ PhySical , Dex- Equip- Super- Visual and , , Effort terity ment, ViSion Effort Product and Tools 8 2 7 1 4 3 25 6 24 10 16 ll 37 19 36 14 33 20 54 23 53 18 50 28 66 31 61 22 62 32 83 40 78 26 79 45 98 48 95 35 91 49 52 39 57 65 43 70 V 69 47 74 77 51 - 82 81 60 86 94 64 97 96 68 101 72 76 85 89 93 70 halls at Michigan State University. The preliminary survey was con- ducted: (l) to ascertain that the questionnaire instructions were clearly presented; and (2) to determine that the wording of the state- ments in the questionnaire was sufficiently explicit to convey a def- inite meaning to the reader. The instructions and each statement in the questionnaire were discussed in detail with the members of the preliminary survey group. The instructions were determined to be clear. However, as each statement was discussed, the need for five minor adjustments in statement wording became apparent. Statement 5 in the question- naire had been “How to be friendly and understanding with the people I work with." The intent of the statement was more distinct when the wording was changed to ”How to be friendly and fair with the peOple I work with.” The sixth statement was amended to "How to cut down on plate waste," rather than ”How to cut down on food waste.” When asked to define nonfood items, every member of the preliminary survey group stated that nonfood items were condiments. For this reason, two examples of nonfood items were included in the body of statement 57. Originally, statement 57 was "How to anticipate the amount of food and nonfood items I need to order"; after modification, the statement was ”How to anticipate the amount of foOd and nonfood (cleaning supplies, paper goods, etc.) 71 items I need to Order." Prior to change, statement 67 was ”How to sharpen my judgment." The meaning Of statement 67 was more clear when the wording was altered to ”How to develop my judg- ment. ” Questionnaire distribution The coordinator of lunchrooms distributed the questionnaires to the 23 lunchroom managers who formed the survey group. Each manager was given 24 hours in which to complete the questionnaire. To prevent the possibility of any form of bias, the coordinator was asked to refrain from answering any questions concerning the ques- tionnaire instructions or the questionnaire statements. The necessity for verbal clarification of the questionnaire had been eliminated by the preliminary survey. The preliminary survey had established the clarity of the questionnaire instructions and the perspicuousness of the Questionnaire statements. Que S tionnai re tallying The questionnaires were tallied by two individuals working as a team. From the questionnaire, one member called the statement number and the answer to the statement. The second member reg- iStered the answer on the tally Sheet (Appendix Form 10). For easier t. 1.4.1 1.1 l..l l't.ill| Alt“ 1! I: .. 72 checking in the event Of error, the answers were recorded accord- ing to manager classification. That is, if the questionnaire had been completed by a manager in Class III, the answers to the statements were indicated with a figure ”3" in the appropriate column on the tally sheet. The statement score for each item in the questionnaire was determined by totaling the number of entries which had been recorded in the ”little,” the "some," and the "much“ column on the tally sheet. Table 4 Shows the score of each statement in the question- naire. Ranking of questionnaire statements A procedure for arranging the questionnaire statements in the order of importance was develOped. Two criteria were established: (1) the number of lunchroom managers who reported that training in the area specified by the statement would be helpful to them in their work; and (2) the degree to which the training would be of assistance. Each statement was examined to determine the number Of managers who felt that training would be of "some" or "much” Value in the area to which the statement referred. Responses indi— Cating that further training in an area would be of "little" value Were dis regarded. 73 Table 4. The score of each statement in the questionnaire. State- State- ment Little Some Much ment Little Some Much 190. 190. l 5 l4 4 26 7 12 4 2 4 l6 3 27 4 14 5 3 8 12 3 28 10 10 3 4 9 ll 3 29 9 l3 1 5 11 11 1 30 8 ll 4 6 8 10 5 31 10 12 l 7 6 12 5 32 4 12 7 8 12 ll 0 33 12 9 2 9 6 12 5 34 9 12 2 10 5 l6 2 35 6 12 5 11 7 10 6 36 12 10 l 12 4 15 4 37 2 9 12 13 10 11 2 38 3 14 6 14 2 13 8 39 5 13 5 15 6 12 5 40 2 15 6 l6 7 12 4 41 7 13 3 l7 2 10 11 42 l 16 6 18 4 13 6 43 0 13 10 19 8 l3 2 44 8 12 3 20 6 14 3 45 8 13 2 21 8 10 5 46 3 ll 9 22 12 9 2 47 9 11 3 23 6 14 3 48 12 7 4 24 7 14 2 49 8 12 3 25 13 8 2 50 14 8 1 74 Table 4 (Continued) State- State- ment Little Some Much ment Little Some Much IQO. 190. 51 9 12 2 76 5 15 3 52 8 13 2 77 7 13 3 53 14 6 3 78 14 8 1 54 13 8 2 79 0 15 8 55 6 11 6 80 8 10 5 56 5 14 4 81 3 16 4 57 11 9 3 82 6 15 2 58 6 l4 3 83 4 l6 3 59 12 9 2 84 3 l4 6 60 5 15 3 85 5 14 4 61 16 4 3 86 10 10 3 62 20 3 0 87 8 12 3 63 12 10 1 88 13 8 2 64 1 14 8 89 4 l6 3 65 13 9 1 90 8 12 3 66 13 8 2 91 16 5 2 67 3 l3 7 92 11 8 4 68 6 10 7 93 3 l7 3 69 6 l3 4 94 5 14 4 70 12 9 2 95 12 8 3 71 6 14 3 96 14 8 1 72 7 11 5 97 4 11 8 73 8 ll 4 98 6 12 5 74 12 8 3 99 14 9 0 75 12 10 l 100 11 9 3 101 4 15 4 75 In the event that an identical number of managers indicated training would be of "some" or "much" value in the areas de- scribed by two or more statements, the equal score was eliminated by ranking the statements according to the number of the "much" responses. For example, 23 managers stated that training in the areas suggested by statements 43 and 79 would be helpful. However, in response to statement 43, 10 of the 23 managers reported that the training would be Of "much" value. The replies to statement 79 Showed that only 8 of the 23 managers indicated that further training would be of ”much" value. Therefore, rank 1 was assigned to statement 43, and statement 79 was placed in rank 2. The rank of each statement which appeared in the question— naire is Shown in Table 5. When an absolute tie existed between two or more statements, the numerical values Of the rank which normally would have been assigned to the tied statements were to- taled, and the sum was divided by the number of the tied statements. As an illustration, statements 38 and 84 were tied. In reply to these Statements, 20 managers had reported that training in the areas de- scribed would be desirable. The response to both statements indi- cated that training would be Of "much" value to 6 managers, and of "some" value to 14 managers. Ordinarily, statements 38 and 84 should have been given the numerical rank value of 11 and 12. 76 Table 5. The rank of each statement in the questionnaire, using two criteria: (1) the number of managers who reported that training in the area would be of ”some" or ”much'' value; and (2) the number Of managers who stated that training would be of "much" value. State- Cri— Cri- State— Cri- Cri— ment terion terion Rank ment terion terion Rank NO. 1 2 No. l 2 43 23 10 1 27 19 5 17 79 23 8 2 12 19 4 18.5 64 22 8 3 101 19 4 18.5 42 22 6 4 2 19 3 21.5 37 21 12 5 83 19 3 21.5 17 21 11 6 89 19 3 21.5 14 21 8 7 97 19 3 21.5 40 21 6 8 39 18 5 24 46 20 9 9 l 18 4 26.5 67 20 7 10 56 18 4 26.5 38 20 6 11.5 '85 18 4 26.5 84 20 6 11.5 94 18 4 26.5 81 20 4 13 60 18 3 29.5 93 20 3 14 76 18 3 29.5 32 19 7 15 10 18 2 31 18 19 6 16 68 17 7 32 77 Table 5 (Continued) State- Cri- Cri- State- Cri- Cri- ment terion terion Rank ment terion te rion Rank iNo. l 2 ZNO. l 2 55 17 6 33 24 16 2 51 7 17 i 5 36 6 15 5 53 9 l7 5 36 21 15 5 53 15 17 5 36 80 15 5 53 35 17 5 36 30 15 4 p 55.5 98 17 5 36 73 15 4 55.5 69 17 4 39 44 15 3 59 20 17 3 41.5 49 15 3 59 23 17 3 41.5 90 15 3 59 58 17 3 41.5 87 15 3 59 71 17 3 41.5 3 15 3 59 82 17 2 44 45 15 2 63 ll 16 6 45 52 15 2 63 72 16 5 46 19 15 2 63 16 16 4 47.5 4 l4 3 65.5 26 16 4 47.5 47 14 3 65.5 41 16 3 49.5 34 14 2 67.5 77 16 3 49.5 51 14 2 67.5 Table 5 (Continued) 78 State- Cri- Cri- State— Cri- ment terion terion Rank ment terion Rank NO. 1 2 No. l 29 14 l 69 63 11 86 28 13 3 70.5 75 11 86 86 13 3 70.5 8 11 88 l3 l3 2 72 25 10 90.5 31 13 1 73 54 10 90.5 92 12 4 74 66 10 90.5 57 12 3 75.5 88 10 90.5 100 12 3 75.5 65 10 93 5 12 l 77 53 9 94 48 .11 4 78 50 9 96 74 11 3 79.5 78 9 96 95 ll 3 79.5 96 9 96 22 ll 2 82.5 99 9 98 33 ll 2 82.5 61 7 99 59 11 2 82.5 91 7 100 70 ll 2 82.5 62 3 101 36 ll 1 86 79 Instead, the numerical rank values were totaled. The sum of 23 was divided by the 2 tied statements, and thus the rank of both statement 38 and 84 was established at 11.5. Numerical ranking of attributes and subattributes The degree to which the lunchroom managers indicated that training would be of value in the area Of an attribute or a subattri- bute was determined by computing the average numerical rank value of the questionnaire statements which referred to each attribute and subattribute (see Table 6). The sum of the numerical rank values of the questionnaire statements pertaining to an attribute or a sub- attribute was divided by the number of questionnaire statements of which the sum was composed. For example, the total numerical rank value of the 19 questionnaire statements which referred to the responsibility for supervision subattribute was 606.5; the average .numerical rank value of the same 19 statements was 31.92. The average numerical rank value of the questionnaire statements which referred to the reSponsibility for supervision subattribute was com- puted by dividing 606.5 by 19. The questionnaire statements which pertained to the attributes and the subattributes had been arranged in the order of importance beginning with rank 1. Thus, an inverse relationship was established 80 Table 6. The average numerical rank value of the questionnaire statements which referred to the attributes and the sub- attribute s. 1 't' t' Ability R S f Resp.for m 1a we to Make 8 p. or Versa- Material Leader- and . Super- . . . I 't DeCi- vision tility and Ship ngenui Y sions Product 1 2 S R S R S R S R S R .S R 67 10 17 6 43 1 27 17 40 8 42 4 38 11.5 46 9 64 3 56 26.5 81 13 84 11.5 9 36 80 53 14 7 15 '36 2 21.5 55 33 93 14 73 55.5 94 26.5 71 41.5 18 16 44 59 69 39 21 53 89 21.5 90 59 23 41.5 34 67.5 39 24 100 75.5 77 49.5 13 72 85 26.5 6 53 92 74 1 26.5 52 63 5 77 60 29.5 19 63 63 86 76 29.5 31 73 10 31 48 78 68 32’ 65 93 35 36 96 96 72 46 26 47.5 47 65.5 51 67.5 22 82.5 Total 57.5 68 606.5 328.5 718 519.5 Average 19.17 29.33 31.92 46.93 51.29 51.95 Statement number. Questionnaire statement rank. 81 Table 6 (Continued) Resp.for A . . A ._ bility Ability ppli Mental- to Get Manual , ances, , PhySical to Do , Visual Along Dex- , Equip- , , Effort Detailed Effort With terity ment, Work People and Tools S R S R S R S R S R S R 32 15 12 18.5 37 5 79 2 30 55.5 7 36 101 18.5 58 41.5 83 21.5 16 47.5 59 82.5 24 51 97 21.5 41 49.5 98 36 4 65.5 88 90.5 95 79.5 20 41.5 87 59 8 88 33 82.5 36 86 82 44 29 69 25 90.5 50 96 53 94 ll 45 75 86 54 90.5 91100 78 96 49 59 99 98 66 90.5 62101 61 99 3 59 45 63 28 70.5 86 70.5 57 75.5 74 79.5 70 82.5 2939.1. 745 421.5 422 494.5 228.5 541.5 Average 53.21 60.21 60.29 70.64 76.17 77.36 82 between the average numerical rank value of an attribute or a sub— attribute and the value of the training in that area to the lunchroom manager. As an illustration, the average numerical rank value of the initiative and ingenuity subattribute was 19.17; for the leadership subattribute the average numerical rank value was 51.95. Because 19.17 was in closer proximity to rank 1, the lunchroom managers had indicated that training in the area of the initiative and ingenuity subattribute would be of more value to them than training in leader- ship Skills . Percentage ranking of attributes and subattributes To determine the curriculum composition of an extensive train- ing program for the lunchroom managers, the extent to which training would be of value in the area described by each attribute and Sub- attribute was converted into a percentage proportion. However, the percentage could not be established from the average numerical rank values of the attributes and the subattributes (see Table 6) because of the inverse nature of the data. That is, a low average numerical rank value assigned to an attribute or a subattribute indicated that training in that area would be of great value to the lunchroom mana- gers; a high average numerical rank value was evidence that training in the area would be of lesser value. Therefore, the content of a 83 training program based upon the average numerical rank value of the attributes and the subattributes would be inverse to the needs Of the group. For example, the average numerical rank value of the initiative and ingenuity subattribute was 19.17; for the responsibility for the appliances, equipment, and tools subattribute, the average numerical rank value was 77.36. If these values were used to de- termine percentages, more extensive training would be offered in the area of the responsibility for appliances, equipment, and tools subattribute than in the area described by the initiative and ingenuity sub attribute . The average numerical rank position of the attributes and the subattributes was reversed by placing the questionnaire statements in the order of their importance beginning with rank 101 (see Table 7). Questionnaire statement 43, describing the area in which training would be Of the most value to the lunchroom managers, assumed the rank value 101. The rank value 1 was assigned to questionnaire statement 62; this statement defined an area in which the lunchroom managers indicated that training would be of little value to them. The COnverted average numerical rank value of the attributes and the subattributes was determined by the same procedure which had been employed to establish the average numerical rank value. The converted numerical rank values of the questionnaire statements 84 Table 7. The converted rank of each statement in the questionnaire. State- State— State- ment Rank ment Rank ment Rank No. No. No. 43 101 9 66 29 33 79 100 15 66 28 31.5 64 99 35 66 86 31.5 42 98 98 66 13 30 37 97 69 63 31 29 17 96 20 60.5 92 28 14 95 23 60.5 57 26.5 40 94 58 60.5 100 26.5 46 93 71 60.5 5 25 67 92 82 58 48 24 38 90.5 11 57 74 22.5 84 90.5 72 56 95 22.5 81 89 16 54.5 22 19.5 93 88 26 54.5 33 19.5 32 87 41 52.5 59 19.5 18 86 77 52.5 70 19.5 27 85 24 51 36 16 12 83.5 6 49 63 16 101 83.5 21 49 75 16 2 80.5 80 49 8 14 83 80.5 30 46.5 25 11.5 89 80.5 73 46.5 54 11.5 97 80.5 44 43 66 11.5 39 78 49 43 88 11.5 1 75.5 90 43 65 9 56 75.5 87 43 53 8 85 75.5 3 43 50 6 94 75.5 45 39 78 6 60 72.5 52 39 96 6 76 72.5 19 39 99 4 10 71 ’ 4 36.5 61 3 68 70 47 36.5 91 2 55 69 34 34.5 62 l 7 66 51 34.5 85 which referred to each attribute and subattribute were added; the sum was divided by the number of questionnaire statements which were components of the total. Table 8 shows the converted average numerical rank value Of each attribute and subattribute. In this table, a correct relation- Ship was established between the average numerical rank value of an attribute or a subattribute and the value of the training in that area to the lunchroom manager. To determine the extent to which training in the area of each attribute Should be included in a long- range training program for the lunchroom managers, a percentage value was assigned to each attribute and subattribute (Table 9). Curriculum Construction From the findings presented in this study, either a short-term or a long-range program of study can be developed for the lunch- room managers in the Dearborn public schools. In either event, the managers would be given instruction in the areas in which they, themselves, had indicated the need for training. Sho rt-term training prog ram Table 10 shows the suggested curriculum for a series of 15 training sessions for the lunchroom managers in the Dearborn public 86 Table 8. The converted average numerical rank value of the attri- butes and the subattributes. ,, . Ability Resp.for Initiative to Make Resp. for Material Versa- Leader- and Super- __ . I 't Deci- ViS'on and t111ty ship ngenui Y sions 1 Product 1 2 S R S R S R S R S R S R 67 92 17 96 43101 40 94 27 85 42 98 38 90.5 46 93 64 99 81 89 56 75.5 84 90.5 9 66 80 49 14 95 2 80.5 15 66 55 69 93 88 94 75.5 73 46.5 71 60.5 18 86 69 63 44 43 21 49 89 80.5 23 60.5 90 43 34 34.5 39 78 77 52.5 100 26.5 13 30 85 75.5 6 49 92 28 1 75.5 52 39 5 25 60 72.5 19 39 63 16 76 72.5 31 29 10 71 48 24 6870 65 9 35 66 96 6 72 56 26 54.5 47 36.5 51 34.5 22 19.5 Total 248.5 238 1331.5 710 385.5 500.5 Average 82.83 79.33 70.08 57.86 55.07 50.05 Statement numbe r. Questionnaire statement rank. 87 Table 8 (Continued) Resp.for Ability . . Appli- Mental- to Get Manual , Ablhty ances, , PhySical to Do , Visual Along Dex- , Equip- , , Effort Detailed Effort With terity ment, Work People and Tools S R S R S R S R S R S R 32 87 12 83.5 37 97 79100 30 46.5 7 66 101 83.5 58 60.5 83 80.5 16 54.5 59 19.5 24 51 97 80.5 41 52.5 98 66 4 36.5 88 11.5 95 22.5 20 60.5 87 43 8 14 33 19.5 36 16 82 58 29 33 25 11.5 50 6 ‘ 53 8 11 57 75 16 54 11.5 91 2 78 6 49 43 99 4 66 11.5 62 1 61 3 3 43 45 39 28 31.5 86 31.5 57 26.5 74 22.5 70 19.5 Total 683 292.5 292 219.5 77.5 172.5 Average 43.07 41.79 41.71 31.36 25.83 24.64 88 Table 9. Extent to which training in the area of each attribute and subattribute should be included in an extensive training program for the lunchroom managers in the Dearborn public Schools. Converted Av a Per Cent Attribute or Subattribute N Hf: 52:1 u r A t Rank Value ( c ual) (Rounded) Initiative and ingenuity ..... 82.83 13.72. 14 Ability to make decisions 79.33 13.14 13 Responsibility for supervision. 70.08 11.61 12 Responsibility for material and product ........... 57.86 9.59 10 Versatility .............. 55.07 9.12 9 Leadership .............. 50.05 8.29 8 Mental-visual effort ....... 43.07 7.14 7 Ability to get along with pe0ple ............... 41.79 6.92 7 Manual dexterity .......... 41.71 6.91 7 Physical effort ........... 31.36 5.20 5 Ability to do detailed work 25.83 4.28 4 Responsibility for appliances, equipment, and tools . . . . . 24.64 4.08 4 Total .................. 603.62 100.00 100 89 Table 10. The suggested curriculum for a series of 15 training sessions for the lunchroom managers in the Dearborn public schools as developed from the data shown in Table 5. Train- State- State- The ing Topic ment ment Questionnaire Ses- for NO. Rank Statement sion Discussion No. 43 1 How to do on—the- 1 Job instruction job training methods 75 2 How to use tech- 2 Techniques of time niques in food and motion study preparation that will make work simpler 64 3 How to be a good 3 Good supervisory supervisor practices 42 4 How to be a good 4 The supervisor as leader a leader 37 5 How to carve meat 5 Carving of meat 17 6 Information concern- 6 A review of the ing the federal federal and and state laws state laws under which regulate which public the food served school lunch- in the lunch- rooms Operate room 14 7 How to train a new 7 Orientation and employee training of new. workers 40 8 How to control food 8 Food cost control cost 90 Table 10 (Continued) Train- State- State- The ing TOpic ment ment Questionnaire Ses- for NO. Rank Statement sion Discussion No. 46 9 An explanation of the 9 A review of the pro- standard proce- cedures, the dures, methods, methods, and the and rules in the rules by which Dearborn school the Dearborn lunchrooms school lunch- rooms are Op- erated 67 10 How to develop my 10 The development of judgment self-confidence 38 11.5 How to be resource- 11 Planning and organ- ful in meeting un— izing techniques expected problems 84 11.5 How to encourage 12 Supervisory-em- personal develop- ployee relations ment in others 81 13 How to control por- 13 Portion control tions 93 14 How to teach my 14 Technique for es- fellow workers tablishing good good work habits work habits 32 15 How to figure the 15 Pre-costing menus cost of the Type A lunches I serve 91 schools. This training program was develOped from the data shown in Table 5. In Table 5, the questionnaire statements were arranged in the order of their importance; the relative value of training in specific areas, as indicated by the lunchroom managers, was estab- lished. The tOpics of the 15 lessons were suggested by the ques- tionnaire statements which were assigned a rank value of 1 through 15. In this short, intensive course of study, the lunchroom man- agers would be given training in relation to the improvement needs. If a course of less than 15 lessons Should be desired, training should still be offered in accordance with the suggested curriculum. For example, if the training program was to be 5 sessions in length, training sessions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 should be given. Longrange training progam Table 11 Shows the prOposed curriculum of an extensive train— ing program for the lunchroom managers in the Dearborn public Schools. A program of 32 sessions was planned; the course of study was developed in accordance with the improvement needs of the survey group. The curriculum for the long-range training program was de- veloped in the following manner. The number of training sessions 92 Table 11. The prOposed curriculum of an extensive training pro- gram for the lunchroom managers in the Dearborn public schools. Attribute or L th enfg Subattribute T . S f D's , O to Which the opic o 1 cuSSion Course Course Refers y—s 5 sessions Initiative and . Know your job. ingenuity 2. The development of self-confidence. 3. Flaming and organizing techniques. 4 sessions Ability to 1. The history Of the school lunch make de- program. cisions 2. Review of the federal and state laws under which public school lunchrooms Operate. 3. Review of the procedures, the methods, and the rules by which the Dearborn public school lunch- rooms operate. 4 sessions Responsibility 1. Job instruction methods. for super- 2. Orientation and training of the new vision employee. 3. Good supervisory practices. 3 sessions Responsibility 1. Food cost control. for mate- 2. Food quality control. rial and 3. Portion control. product 3 sessions Versatility 1. Recipe development and standardi- zation. 2. Dessert preparation. 3 sessions Leadership 1. The attributes of a good leader. 2. The supervisor as a leader. 3. Supervisor-employee relations. 93 Table 11 (Continued) Length of Course Attribute or Subattribute to Which the Course Refers Topic 5 of Discussion sessions ses sions ses sions ses sions session session Mental - vi S ual effort Ability to get along with people Manual dex— terity Physical effort Ability to do detail ed work Responsibility for appli— ances, equipment, and tools . Precosting menus. . Planning and scheduling the work of others. . Personality dev elopm ent. . Meat cutting and carving. . Roll shaping. . Techniques of time and motion study. . Following suggestions and direc- tions. . Preventive maintenance. 94 which pertained to the area Of an attribute or a subattribute was determined from the data shown in Table 9. For example, these data indicated that 14 per cent of the training time should be spent in the area suggested by the initiative and ingenuity subattribute. Therefore, five seSSions in the training program were devoted to subject matter which referred to the initiative and ingenuity sub- attribute. The data shown in Table 6 were utilized to establish the sequence in which the training Should be presented. According to the lunchroom managers, training in the area of the initiative and ingenuity subattribute would be of the most value to them. For this reason, the first five sessions Of the training program referred to areas suggested by the initiative and ingenuity subattribute. Train- ing in other areas was presented in the order of importance. The topics of discussion in the curriculum were develOped from the data shown in Table 5. T0pics chosen pertained to the specific areas suggested by the questionnaire statements in which, according to the lunchroom managers, training would be Of the most value. Thus, the curriculum content of the long-range training pro- gram was designed so that the prOportion of training would be given in relation to the improvement need. A precise process was utilized to determine: (1) the number of training sessions which pertained to the area suggested by each attribute and subattribute, and (2) the 95 sequence in which the training was to be presented. The Specific topics of discussion were those identified by the lunchroom man- agers as the subjects in which training would be of value to them as they performed the duties of the supervisory job. SUMMARY During recent years, the food service industry has become deeply concerned with the problem of supervisory training. Con- struction of the training prOgram is clearly a responsibility of man- agement. However, many authorities have Observed that supervisory training is more effective if the supervisors have participated in the development of the course of study. The problems and the in- terests of the supervisors are important and should be given consid— eration when a supervisory training program is planned. In this study, a different approach to the construction of a food service training program was presented. By job analysis, job evaluation, and a carefully designed questionnaire, the improvement needs of 23 nonprofessional public school lunchroom managers in Dearborn, Michigan, were identified. Prior to job analysis and job evaluation, every factor that might influence the job Of the lunchroom manager was examined. The physical plant of the Dearborn public schools was worthy of note. The objectives, the policies, and the administrative structure of the BOard of Education were significant. The financial administration of the lunchroom department was im- portant. The responsibilities and the duties of the coordinator of 96 97 lunchrooms were considered. Biographical data concerning the work- ers who formed the supervisory group were studiedii'The three clas- sifications of the job of the lunchroom manager were investigated. When the survey of preliminary information was complete, the job of the lunchroom manager was analyzed. The job analysis was conducted to: (1) define the duties and the responsibilities Of the lunchroom managers, and (2) classify the duties and the respon- sibilities into the job factors, the attributes, and the subattributes which made job evaluation possible. From the job analysis, job descriptions for the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III manager were prepared. A job evaluation committee determined the relative worth of the job factors, the attributes, and the subattributes in the over-all job of the lunchroom manager. The degree to which each attribute and subattribute entered into the job of the Class I, the Class II, and the Class III manager was established. A questionnaire was prepared for distribution to each lunch- room manager in the survey group. The questionnaire statements were suggested by the attributes and the subattributes which had been established during job analySis; the number Of items which referred to each attribute and subattribute was determined by the 98 extent to which each'attribute and subattribute entered into the com- posite job of the lunchroom manager. The supervisory improvement needs were identified by an analysis of the questionnaire results. The questionnaire statements were ranked in the order of their importance according to two cri- teria: (l) the number Of lunchroom managers who reported that training in the area specified by the statement would be helpful to them in their work, and (2) the degree to which the training would be of assistance. The degree to which training in the area of each attribute and subattribute would be of value to the lunchroom man— agers was established. The extent to which training in the area Of each attribute and subattribute should be included in the curriculum of a training program for the lunchroom managers was determined. From the analysis of the questionnaire results, the curricu- lum of a short-term and a long-range training program for the lunchroom managers in the Dearborn public schools was developed. The curriculum content of both programs was designed so that training would be given in relation to the improvement need. The areas in which the training would be of the most value to the man- agers were discussed early in the course of study; other areas were treated in the order Of importance. 99 The curriculum of the short-term training program was de- veloped from the statement score of the questionnaire items. The statements were arranged by rank in the order of importance. The fifteen areas in which the lunchroom managers indicated that train- ing would be of the most value became the tOpics of discussion in the short, intensive training program. According to the lunchroom managers, the fifteen questionnaire statements which described the specific areas where improvement need was the greatest were: (1) How to do on-the-job training; (2) How to use techniques in food preparation that will make work simpler; (3) How to be a good super- visor; (4) How to be a good leader; (5) How to carve meat; (6) Infor- mation concerning the federal and state laws which regulate the food served in the lunchrooms; (7) How to train a new employee; (8) How to control food cost; (9) An explanation of the standard procedures, methods, and rules in the Dearborn school lunchrooms; (10) How to develOp my judgment; (11) How to be resourceful in meeting unex- pected problems; (12) How to encourage personal development in others; (13) How to control portions; (14) How to teach my fellow workers good work habits; and (15) How to figure the cost of the Type A lunches I serve. In the curriculum Of the long-range training program, both the number and the sequence of the training sessions which referred 100 to the area suggested by each attribute and subattribute were deter- mined by the extent tO which training in the area of an attribute or a subattribute would be of value to the lunchroom managers. The topics of discussion pertained to the Specific areas described by the questionnaire statements in which, as indicated by the lunchroom managers, training would be of the most value as they performed the duties of the supervisory job. The analysis of the questionnaire results Showed that, in an extensive course of study for this par- ticular group of supervisors, the percentage of the training time which should be spent in the area suggested by each attribute and subattribute, and the sequence in which the training Should be given was as follows: (1) 14 percent to the area suggested by the initiative and ingenuity subattribute; (2) 13 per cent to the ability to make de- cisionS subattribute; (3) 12‘ per cent to the responsibility for super- vision subattribute; (4) 10 per cent to the responsibility for material and product subattribute; (5) 9 per cent to the versatility subattri— bute; (6) 8 per cent to the leadership subattribute; (7) 7 per cent to the mental-visual effort attribute; (8) 7 per cent to the ability to get along with people subattribute; (9) 7 per cent to the manual dex- terity subattribute; (10) 5 per cent to the physical effort attribute; (11) 4 per cent to the ability to do detail work subattribute; and 101 (12) 4 per cent to the responsibility for appliances, equipment, and tools subattribute. In this study, two training programs were developed by iden- tifying the training needs of a group of supervisors. These training programs, tailored to the needs of the 23 nonprofessional lunchroom managers in the Dearborn public Schools, would not satisfy the improvement needs of any other group of supervisors. However, the procedure for identifying the improvement needs was described; the deve10pment of the training prOgram, recognizing these needs, was explained. Therefore, a training program, designed to fit the needs of any supervisory group, could be constructed by the same method of procedure. 10. ll. LITERATURE CITED Allen, Harvey K. School lunch aid to be cut! American School Food Service News 9:22. 1955. American Dietetic Association. Duties and responsibilities. (Editorial) J. Am. Diet. Assn. 30:692-694. 1954. Armour and Co. Marie Gifford's school lunch bulletin. Chi- cago, Armour and Co. 1951. Armstrong, T. O. Deve10ping effective supervisor - employee communications. Personnel 27:70-75. 1950. Arny, Clara Brown and Tinsley, Willa Vaughn. School lunch evaluation chart. School Lunch Item 1. Minneapolis, Department of Public Services, General Mills, Inc. 1947. Amy, Clara Brown and Tinsley, Willa Vaughn. School lunch evaluation chart. School Lunch Item 2. Minneapolis, Department of Public Services, General Mills, Inc. 1947. Amy, Clara Brown and Tinsley, Willa Vaughn. School lunch evaluation chart. School Lunch Item 3. Minneapolis, Department Of Public Services, General Mills, Inc. 1947. Bain, Read. Theory and measurement of attitudes and Opinions. Psychol. Bul. 27:357-379. 1930. Beckman, R. O. How to train supervisors. 4th ed. New York, Harper and Bros. 1952. Bellows, Roger M. Psychology of personnel in business and industry. New York, Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1949. Benson, Edward G. Three words. Pub. Opinion Q. 4:130- 134. 1940. 102 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 103 Biltz, Bertha and POhl, Mary Agnes. An employee training program in the making. J. Am. Diet. Assn. 22:431- 434. 1946. Blankenship, Albert. Does the question form influence public opinion poll results? J. Ap. Psychol. 24:27-30. 1940. Bradford, L. P. The future of supervisory training. Person- ne122:6-12. 1945. Brooded, C. H. Supervisor sets prOper climate for team- work. Institutions: 32:127. 1953 Burtt, Harold E. and Gaskill, Harold V. Suggestability and the form of the question. J. Ap. Psychol. 16:358-373. 1932. Campbell, A. Two problems in the use Of the Open question. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 40:340-343. 1945. Cantor, N. Skills in conference leadership. Personnel Jour- nal 31:135-137. 1952. Cantor, Nathaniel. Training is not telling. Personnel Journal 3128-10. 1952. Cantril, Hadley. EXperiments in the wording of questions. Pub. Opinion Q. 4:330-332. 1940. Carola, Sister'Mary. A good dietitian is a good teacher. In Readings in Hospital Dietary Administration. p. 403- 409. Chicago, American Hospital Association. 1952. Childress, Clara E. Training of supervisors. J. Am. Diet. Assn. 25:606-610. 1949. Childress, Clara E. Training of supervisors - a prerequisite for good fOOd service. In Readings in Hospital Dietary Administration. p. 231-239. Chicago, American HOS- pital Association. 1952. “\I‘ - ‘- n“ 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 104 Coffman, Ray H. Deve10ping leadership in the dietary depart- ment. In Readings in Hospital Dietary Administration. p. 205-212. Chicago, American Hospital Association. 1952. Cohen, Irwin H. The supervisor - past, present and future. J. Am. Diet. Assn. 26:260-263. 1950. Colyer, Daniel M. The good foreman - as his men see him. Personnel 28:140-147. 1951. Committee of the Food Administration Section of the American Dietetic Association. A guide to the selection and train- ing of food service employees. Minneapolis, Burgess Publishing CO. 1953. Committee to Study the Auxiliary Worker: First Tentative Trial Outline of Hospital Experience--The Food Service Supervisor. Part II. Supervised Practice, 2nd rev. Chicago, American Dietetic Association. 1954. Committee to Study the Auxiliary Worker: Tentative Trial Outline of Class Room Instruction--The Training of the Food Service Supervisor (Vocational School Level). Chicago, American Dietetic Association. 1954. Conrad, H. S. Some principles of attitude measurement: a reply to opinion-attitude methodology. Psychol. Bul. 43:570—589. 1946. Disney, F. M. Employee turnover is costly. Personnel Jour- nal 33:97-100. 1954. Dooker, M. Joseph and Marquis, Vivienne. The supervisor's management guide for all who supervise others. New York, American Management Association. 1953. Droba, D. D. Methods for measuring attitudes. Psychol. Bul. 29:309-323. 1932. Drummond, L. W. 10,000,000 children can't be wrong. Amer- ican School Food Service News 8:1 and 3. 1954. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 105 Dykes, M. Training food service employees. Mod. Hosp. 83: 106-108. 1954. Edwards, Allen L. and Kilpatrick, F. P. A technique for the construction of attitude Scales. J. Ap. Psychol. 32: 374-384. 1948. Elliott, T. E. ”Painful truths" told in this analysis of turn— over costs. Institutions 34:104-107. 1954. England, A. C. How we survey attitudes periodically. Per- sonnel Journal 31:202-205. 1952. Eppy, Magdalin K. Evaluation of a training program for hos- pital dietary employees. J. Am. Diet. Assn. 24:224- 226, 1948. Fesler, C. M. Leadership in supervision. Personnel 27:217- 223. 1950. Flesch, Rudolph. A new readability yard stick. J. Ap. Psy- chol. 32:221-233. 1948. Florida. Department of Education. Growing through school lunch experiences. School Lunch Program Bulletin 33A. Tallahassee, Fla, Florida State Department of Educa- tion. 1948. Gallup, George H. The quintamensional plan of question de- sign. Pub. Opinion Q. 11:385-393. 1947. General Mills, Inc. The teacher's guidebook for a prOgram in nutrition education. Minneapolis, General Mills, Inc. 1946. Ghiselli, Edwin E. All or none versus graded response ques- tionnaires. J. Ap. Psychol. 23:405-413. 1939. Good, Carter V., Barr, A. S., and Scates, Douglas E. The methodology Of educational research. New York, D. Appleton-Century CO., Inc. 1941. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. '55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 106 Guttman, L. A basis for scaling qualitative data. Am. Sociol. R. 9:139—150. 1944. Guttman, L. The Cornell technique for scale and intensity analysis. Ed. and Psychol. M. 7:247-279. 1947. Halsey, George D. Supervising people. Rev. ed. New York, Harper and Bros. 1953. Hart, Pauline E. Supervisors come first. Mod. Hosp. 76: 118-122. 1951. Heyel, Carl. The foreman's handbook. New York, McGraw- Hill Book CO. 1943. Hospital Dietetic Service. Training food service workers. Veterans Administration Training Guide 10-7. 1953. How to plan a system of employee training for restaurants. Chicago, National Restaurant Association. 1954. Jennings, E. E. Advantages of forced leadership training. Personnel Journal 32:7-9. 1953. Jennings, E. E. Attitude training vs. technique training. Personnel Journal 31:402-404. 1953. Johnson, Forest Hayden, Boise, Robert W., Jr., and Pratt, Dudley. Job evaluation. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1946. Jones, Philip W. Practical job evaluation. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1948. Kelsey, A. S. Audit of personnel takes measure of Supervisory efforts. Institutions 32:31. 1953. Knowles, W. H. The limitations of personnel management. Personnel Journal 31:138-144. 1952. Kulp, Daniel H. The forms of statements in attitude tests. SociOl. and Social Res. 18:18-25. 1933. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 107 LaBelle, Alta M. and Barton, Jane A. Administrative house- keeping. New York, G. P. Putnam Sons. 1951. Lifquist, R. C. and Hartman, J. Food service in small hos- pitals. Part 4. Employee supervision and training. Mod. Hosp. 79:116. 1952. Lindahl, Lawrence G. A "tailor-made" supervisory improve- ment program. Personnel 28:322-327. 1952. Lundberg, Donald E. Personnel management in hotels and restaurants. Minneapolis, Burgess Publishing CO. 1949. Lundberg, Donald E. and Kane, Vernon C. Business manage- ment: hotels, motels and restaurants. Tallahassee, Fla., Peninsular Publishing Co. 1952. Lytle, Charles W. Job evaluation methods. 2nd ed. New York, The Ronald Press Co. 1954. Mandel, Milton M. Ways to select supervisors. Personnel Journal 33:210-213. 1954. Markstein, D. Right bossing can raise production of all em- ployees. Institutions 32:42. 1953. Marsh, Charles J. The influence of supplementary verbal directions upon results Obtained with questionnaires. J. Social Psychol. 21:275-280. 1945. Mathews, C. O. The effect Of order of printed response words on an interest questionnaire. J. Ed. Psychol. 20:128- 134. 1929. Michigan. Superintendent Of Public Instruction. School Lunch Agreement. Nissley, Harold R. Supervisory training: ten years behind Or ten years ahead. Personnel 28:491-495. 1952. Obert, Jessie Craig and Patton, Mary Brown. Appraisal of school lunch programs. Part I. Deve10ping a score card for management factors. J. Am. Diet. Assn. 29:1004- 1009. 1953. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 108 Obert, Jessie Craig and Patton, Mary Brown. Appraisal of school lunch prOgrams. Part 11. Changes in manage- ment practices after in-service training. J. Am. Diet. Assn. 29:1113-1117. 1953. Obert, Jessie Craig and Patton, Mary Brown. Appraisal of school lunch programs. Part III. Effect of management factors on nutritive value and pupil participation. J. Am. Diet. Assn. 29:1211-1215. 1953. Ohio Dietetic Association. Manual for school and institutional lunchrooms. 2nd ed. Versailles, Ohio, The Versailles Policy Publishing CO. 1949. Parten, Mildred. Surveys, polls and samples. New York, Harper and Bros. 1950. Perry, H. E. The questionnaire method. Journal of Applied SociOlOgy 10:155-158. 1925. Personnel. Executives and foremen disagree 'On supervisors' problems. (Editorial) Personnel 28:371-372. 1952. Pigors, Paul and Myers, Charles A. Personnel administration. 2nd ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book CO., Inc. 1951. Planty, Earl G., McCord, William S., and Efferson, Carlos A. Training employees and managers. New York, The Ronald Press Co. 1948. ‘ Pryor, Eleanor. State in-service training programs. Amer- ican School FoodService News 6:98. 1952. Reinhardt, Marjorie. Pre-service training for school cafeteria personnel. American School Food Service News 6:8—9. 1952. Roper, Elmo. Checks to increase polling accuracy. Pub. Opinion Q. 5:87-90. 1941. Roper, Elmo. Wording questions for the polls. Pub. Opinion Q. 4:129. 1940. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 109 Rugg, Donald. Experiments in wording questions: Part 11. Pub. Opinion Q. 5:91-92. 1941. Rugg, Donald and Cantril, Hadley. The wording of questions in public Opinion polls. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 37:469-495. 1942. Selph, Annabelle D. Qualifications of school lunch supervisors. American School Food Service News 9:30. 1955. Sheatsley, Paul B. Closed questions sometimes more valid than open. Pub. Opinion Q. 12:127. 1948. Sheehan, Kathryne E. Trends in the school lunch program. J. Home Econ. 44:697-700. 1952. Shellow, Sadie M. and Harmon, Glenn R. Conference manual for training foremen. New York, Harper and Bros. 1935. Shepherd, Ruth F. How an in-service education program works. American School Food Service News 8:19-20. 1954. Smyth, Richard C. and Murphy, Matthew J. Job evaluation and employee rating. New York, McGraw-Hill Book CO., Inc. 1946. Study management problems. Suggest yardstick for supervisors of food service. Institutions 32:81. 1953. Terrell, Evelyn L. School lunches pay dividends - better health, better nutrition, better citizens. The Nation's Schools 53:84, 86, 88. 1954. Terris, Fay. Are poll questions too'difficult? Pub. Opinion Q. 13:314-320. 1949. Thornbury, Rachel and Watson, Olive. This school lunchroom trains its own lunchroom managers. American School Food Service News 7:4-5. 1953. Tiffin, Joseph. Industrial psychology. New York, Prentice- Hall, Inc. 1942. -‘ 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 110 Trainer, Leonard R. The national school lunch program - a report. J. Am. Diet. Assn. 31:18-20. 1955. Urwick, Lyndall. The elements of supervision. New York, Harper and Bros. 1943. U. S. Bureau of the Census. Number of Inhabitants in Mich- igan. 1950 U. S. Census of Population, Vol. I, Ch. 22., p. 22-11 (Table 4, POpulation of Urban Places of 10,000 or more from Earliest Census to 1950). Washington, D. C., U. S. Govt. Print. Off. 1951. . Department Of Agriculture. National school lunch pro- gram. Program aid No. 19. Washington, D. C., U. S. Govt. Print. Off. 1949. . Department of Agriculture. The special school milk prOgram. Program aid NO. 248. Washington, D. C., U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1954. . Department of Labor. Employment Security Bureau. Job descriptions and Organizational analysis for hospitals and related health services. Washington, D. C., U. S. Govt. Print. Off. 1952. . Department of Labor. Employment Service. Dictionary of occupational titles. Washington, D. C., U. S. Govt. Print. Off. 1939. . Department of Labor. Employment Service. Dictionary of Occupational titles supplement. Edition 2. Washing- ton, D. C., Govt. Print. Off. 1943. . Food Distribution Administration. Handbook for workers in school-lunch programs, with special reference to volunteer service. Washington, D. C., Govt. Print. Off. 1943. . Office of Education. School lunches and education helps from federal agencies. Vocational Division Leaflet 7. Washington, D. C., Federal Security Agency, U. S. Of- fice Of Education. 1942. 109. 110. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 111 U. S. Office of Education. School lunch management. Nutri- tion Education Series Pamphlet No. 3. Washington, D. C., Govt. Print. Off. 1942. U. 8. War Food Administration. Lunch at school. Sept. 1943, Revised Aug. 1944. Weinland, J. D. An Objective method for the measurement of attitudes. J. Ap. Psychol. 14:427-436. 1930. Wells, 0. V. Outlook for food supplies, surplus commodities, and food habits. J. Am. Diet. Assn. 31:13-17. 1955. Wenzel, George L. Talks to restaurant employees. Baltimore, Publication Press, Inc. lea. 1950.] West, Bessie Brooks and Wood, Le Velle. Food service in institutions. 2nd ed. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1945. West, Bessie Brooks and Wood, Le Velle. Food service in institutions. 3rd ed. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1955. Witney, Fred. Government and collective bargaining. Chicago, J. B. Lippincott Co. 1951. Yoder, Dale. Personnel management and industrial relations. New York, Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1942. Yoder, Dale. Personnel principles and policies. New York, Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1952. O mujr M‘ax’ . Flax." We Job Factors First Degree Points] Second Degree Points Third Degree Points Fourth Degree Points SKILL l A. MENTAL 1. ABILITY TO DO DETAIL WORK Not responsible for ordering or Accurately order and account for Accurately order and account for Accurately order and account for Accuracy and efficiency required .ccounting for food. food for a menu consisting of a food for a menu consisting of a food for a complex menu consisting in interpretation of instructions ' 5 'pre a and C lunch plus a very 10 Type A and C lunch plug a more 15 of a Type A and O lunch plus a 20 and performance Of work' limited 95190131011 Of 319 certs liberal selection Of’ ale. carts very liberal selection of 5115;, items. items. carts items. 2. VERSATILITY Not FOBpOI’lS'lble for performing any Ability to perform any job in a Ability to perform any job in a .‘oility 110 perform my job in 8. Ability to perform a variety of job in the kitchen without detailco 10 -itchon serving a menu consisting 2 kitchen serving a menu consisting 50 kitchen serving a complex menu 40 Operations which require more than instruction and close supervision. of a Ty e A and C lunch plus a of a Type A and C lunch plus a consisting of a Type A and C lunch one type 0f developed Bkillo very limited selection of ale more liberal selection of ale plus a very liberal selection of carts “9mg" carts items. ala carte items. 3., ABILITY TO MAKE-i DJBUISIONS Not. required to make any (216016102151. Makes the variety of deci 8210118 Mali-88 the variety Of decisions Rakes the variety Of decisions The weighing of existing facts Closely supervised. necagsary for the smooth and necessary for the smooth and necessary for the smooth and and conditions, taking into consi- efficient Operation of a small efficient operation of a kitchen efficient operation of a kitchen deration existing rules, P0110133: 5 kitchen handling a food volume of 10 handling a food Volume of 15 handling a food volume of over 20 and precedent, and then deciding upon less than $700.00 monthly. 3700.00 _ $1500.00 monthly. $1500.00 monthly. the correct course of action. A. INITIATIVE AND INGENUITY Work performed under direct and . Must be able to anticipate, est, Must be able to anticipate, meet, Must be able to anticipate, meet, Appraisal of the nature and close supervision. Does no and make changes in a kitchen and make changes in a kitchen ”“5 make changes in a kitchen extent of the independent action planning. serving a Type A and C lunch plus serving a Type & and C lunch plus serving a complex menu consisting required f9? visualizing, planning, 5 a very limited selection of ale 10 a more liberal selection of sin 15 of a Type A and 0 unch plus a very' 20 and the exercise 0f ingenuity. carts items. Required to plan and carts items. Required to plan and liberal selection of ala carte schedule own work and work of not schedule own work and work of not , ‘items. Required to plan and more than 2 adult employees. more than 6 adult employves. k Schpdule own work and work of 7 or more adult employees. 8. SOCIAL 1° LEADSRSHXF 9999 not diTUCt 39“ efforts 0f any Instructs, directs efforts of, Instructs, directs efforts of, Instructs. directs efforts of and The nonsuporvieory responsibility' other employees. and is responsible for the conduct and is responsible for +he co.duct is responsible for the conduct of for obtaining willing cooperation 15 (f l _ o follow workgrso )0 of 3 fl 6 fellow workers. #5 7 or more fellow workers. 60 from employees in the accomplishment of the work to be done. .. 2. ATILITY TO GET ALONG WITH PLOPLE a minimum of contact with peOpIe Contacts with: coordinator; grin- Contacts with: coordinator; prin- Contacts with: coordinator; prinp Pcrsonality, appearance, tact, outside the kitchen. cipal; teache 8; student oody cipal; teachers; student bodjr cipal; teachers; student hody 393 ability T90“1T?d to cooperate IO numbering loss than 695; com~ BO numbering 695 n 1600; community I ‘3 numbering over 1600; community 40 ”19h superiors, teachers, pupils, i munity 13999F33 1 r 4 PRIILV lgiderfiz 5 ~ 6 fellow workers. leaders; or more fellow workers. cormunity'lxal rs, and fellow workgrg, work" rs . O. MAhUAL l I. BEETLRITE 30:“ 39? H,"il”ifim+” 1P fGOd ; ‘-is'l .,c? f.od prepare ion, E rf-rm5 as ~ 0 gift, ;f_ , Se ( Prepares and serves menu end cleans Speed, CuflvgifiuTiflfi and scarce s pr'.1r.u Om, storage "r kitchen i . do, an» . ichcn ”I‘lnmup only »r in *- ., fornfiu a; 1 or a i up kitchen fiicnu or With the help 9f 935993 539 cusclts required 1‘ 91*9flrup duticr 9X“"Pb in 99h” 13 .1 r and ' on ”31? it needed. 3 c- -”~n of: a ‘121‘. 30 of not more than L fellow workers. 1 AC the use of tools, appliances, and junction with . . ning assigns ) euuipment. “9939‘ i . . RESPONSIBILITY FOR: l A. PHYSICAL PROPERTY % 1. MATERIAL AND PRODUC Not responsible for food or food Responsible for food or food Responsible for food or food Rosycnsihle for food or P00d Care re uired in the storage, use, products except those used in 20 products with a value of loss 40 products with a value of 50 ,radggtg ngn a value of over 3C handling, and control of materials performance of assigned duties. than $700.00 monthly. $700.00 — $1500.00 monthly. 31509,gu monthly. and supplies to avoid waste, damage, spoilage, and loss. 2. APPLIANCES, EQUIPMENT, AND TOOLS Not responsible for equipment, Responsible for equipment, Responsible for sonipmcnt, Reaponeibj, ref pguipmgnt' Care required to avoid loss and appliances or tools. 10 appliances and tools with a value 20 appliances and tools with a value 9* Appliances and *ools with 40 damage to equipment, appliances, and of not over $16,000.00 of $16,000.00 - £75,00c,oo, a value of over 855,000.00 tools which may result in monetary . loss or in lost production time for employees and machines. B. WORK OF OTHERS "— p.....-............ 10 SUPERVISION Responsible for own work only. Responsible for work of l - 2 Responsible for work of f - f Responsible fcr ‘rk of 7 or more The responsibility which goes with 50 fellow workers. 60 fellow workers. 90 fellow workers. IIO the job for assisting, instructing or directing the work of others so that effective use may be made of employees, materials, equipment, and tools, and that the work may be accomplished in an acceptable, safe, and sanitary manner. EFFORT A. PHYSICAL MOBPIY walking or standing. th > Mostly walking or standing. Net Mostly walking or standing. Mostly walking or standing. Ia Muscular effort and physical exertion assigned to preparation, storage assigned to preparation, storage Assigned frequently to preparap assigned to preparation, storage demanded by the nature of the work, in- or cleanpup tasks. Seldom lifts 10 or clean-up tasks, but may assist 20 ration, storage or clean-up tasks 50 or clean—up tasks daily. Frenuent so eluding physical position for standing, or stoops. ' where and when help is needed. that require frequent lifting and lifting and steeping. walking, stooping, sitting. and lifting. Occasional lifting and/or stooping, and the frequency with which such mus. atooping. cular and physical effort occurs. A r -4 I B. MENTAL—VISUAL Simple job. Requires a minimum Fairly diversified job. Must Diversified job. Most plan, ; Diversified, complex job. Hunt The degree of mental and visual of mental effort. No planning plan, organize, and coordinate own organize, and coordinate own work , plan, Organize, and coordinate own attention required to perform the job or organization involved. No work and work of not more than 2 and work of not more than 6 fel- ‘ work and work of 7 or morfi fellow satisfactorily. paper work required. fellow workers to serve satisfac- low workers to serve satiefsc- ‘ workers to serve satisfactorily a 20 torily a Type A and G lunch and 140 150111? a Type A and 9 lunch— 113d 60 ‘ Type A and O lunch and a very 80 8. very limited BeleCtion Of 513 8. more liberal selection 0f 8.18 i liberal 331301,},011 of a1; cargo carts items. Required to keep carts items. Required to keep ' itema. Required to kgep detailed detailed records of fOOd and detailed records of fOOd and ; records 01‘ fOOd and equipment, equipment, adjust re°19999 order equipment, adjust F061968, order adjact recipes, order food, etc. food, etc. food, etc. 1 D/ W5 xoxv axe/0554 C ”a ”I 0 t- A .5-- .- O . ..-— A .3 .EIEI;333. 0E5 , /-l TfE/Bl/Tfs AND 5 UBA vegans: uv. 7'0 Die/r555 F76. /L "lllllllllllllllITS