.-.- .xL Loflollu . 21......fl1v..uou o... , got-.1flv0‘4loohkolvhhhn. . 138.-.»...mwvln III'II.II‘- I . 3i ' . 1| 9‘ Vibu- : r ‘ I .1: I D ‘ d. . 4-) A ~. I. . . .. m. - . .LPL . .4 . .. . .. .- t O I - I II. I I a A A I IDA I r - Q .0 I n O ‘ . . . I-.. . . . p in \ b 3-. “v: . . . . N. v... uni-“um... .3!.I.......nllhnv . . “I: l O I t O iji ;HV”XII’- I. i, Q I .. ‘II. n; . 5.. Q a v. I.I V n. I 0 IA. l o . u t. u I u o. . V A; 5- w Inn-v... . .31 1!. n "I" 1 l 5'91 . on. . 1.. Allvt >vo!... to co. Incl 0J1. .. l “0' ..:,o '5}: - . 1..» v'H ii y g- . V . c. .u . v . tttttt . i .f...”v.- . H.104... .n. I!!! {It}... you f. . 0'. ”-39 .0 I. It: ‘ .4lpbr. Huc- . . . w’!‘ 4! 5» J" J (m? '~ ' ll. .’ . 9:! a .h a} u I .’.v .VOJ. :4- ‘A |I - . . . .. .5.- ‘v . .T . . . y 0 l 0 DO I ‘04; “O < . on . o 10‘: . c1991 50". n . .. . y "a!" All . . . T- ...:.l...- . a 0.. v {1" r o (-10... .3 dune.-. 0.: {$103. . u! I. . 1'1 rt 1 u-" 0.9123.4.5-1.K-clmfi4of12.-.noua.a:u.u.ood.l...hn.ufl.t .Ovlv’.l:.‘l|l$ v0 "3.00.1.4... ..i£..lvo..l 1.13.... 2.11.2 {linear [£11. if}lv"iluic 1b.: 0- :J. 3 . . 0.729. Iv Illt‘lr\ nDI-I‘ b c I w. ! fz-‘Qot. .4! .i tttttt 0...)... . holly‘vwlcl‘lflndwbvlu [III-duly”. .d.vnrvduhl....) nflvffllfiva ll . . 31.90]...;!d31{..-P-€1 ”.18. 1x . O . vl . . I.‘ . z. - 3 o . ‘01-; vi! I!!! .' ‘I’O‘l'lif’lv‘ .a. 0.1!!!! c Inf A: o 9 u a. , . n - v s . ' '7 . - , a o :u. . li' . o. I. .- . . . 'V‘ . vv 1"...“ 'IIOI‘I .o. .. 1|"er - .153” (“n-UPI. .1 .333»...- .. - 1| - ”If!" A 51101 if.” ‘~I11 I’lvlfn’l'llfllllllvrflv... . 1'3“”... “v‘gcsnlfifir .. t .331. . . . . |Illnuu,\l‘0.\fl'9‘||| 1.!» .l (9| 1%.?62...” mum-u...) r. «I . ”5"! |CA ’1] Ix I00. I ‘ fi< will." .- I-oll p.14 vqhw . who... 9.3:... N4: . . I“; I“, "b .‘r ,fv.‘-’:.'.'y'.:’ I: l . .. 1.. . .. . . ... . - 7n”. 1. ‘ - . .. o . 2. . u - ; Is 27 . .. . . v n 0.1-. I \cn . . o A -| . Q: v'od'.lllbll Iv. 91!. < .. v. . ‘IH‘. .v‘vtv fl-ou-‘iu-J... ..~..-. I 3 12.05"”.- I 39‘!!!) . . a. 355.. 1!.- . wruq 334“?!” ...... - < III“ I A I ”an. . . loot ..... lib}. .5... ¢ .1: “’..1-\D‘v.v(- . o . o - .vu . ’ ' ) off-90w. a... .OA lxrivtlncgnotvf o1 ..v..l..9f.:01sf {0.4 Ha? , .. - , 3- . .2 .r 1 . . 3...... .. .0..i{:.-u......-..-....... 3..-: , -.... . . - .- . . . I0” 'I l; . . l.’...6.‘1.. - .l E: nu - s n u 11.75.“! I. 0v {Jr 0- ., v&1P9.. _ 1.. . yAI 3"; I! o I - .u - - I . p . n. u t. RUN!) ”\L ‘5 {tuvusuvl . .- o. » .... .. . .l >DI, . {,{lr‘llllllillilu’lllVauG- .. v .f - - ,. . u - H o. . , , . .. a r. .1»..- . .II‘ 1.0.- lv‘l’i .1 1.4 - - . i .. . . 3 . V .5: mull-11.01:... . . . -. : . . . L - . I. 1H,“, } - . - - . . y ".u‘v- |l '14 I‘ s . . - . l L., smr LI IBRARIES IIIIIITIIII:I“IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 gnaw. n-r. - .:&h” a.._.,__ __.__' L. a I .'“_"i’ 4‘ —-.._..-'—-.. ~'-:—'—].A—.::;'.:v o .. {'3 -,-_.f.-_-_ii.- 11 t _:.-‘.".,5.;.'--._" ' ' This is to certify that the thesis entitled A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF FACTORS INFLUENCING PARTICIPANT USAGE OF POST-ASSESSMENT CENTER DEVELOPMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS presented by David Richard MacDonaId has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhJL degree iii—Educationa'l Systems Deveiopment Major professor Datenfgmim 0.7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution IVISSI_} RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from nun-Ic-nnnn. your record. FINES wiII - , be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF FACTORS INFLUENCING PARTICIPANT USAGE OF POST-ASSESSMENT CENTER DEVELOPMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS BY David Richard MacDonald A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Educational Systems Development 1986 ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF FACTORS INFLUENCING PARTICIPANT USAGE OF POST-ASSESSMENT CENTER DEVELOPMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS BY David Richard MacDonald The purpose of the study was to assist organizations using the assessment center method to increase the number of individuals having high levels of requisite skills and qualities to fill supervisory and managerial positions by identifying factors which influenced assessees' extents of follow-up on post-assessment developmental recommendations. Study participants were 299 individuals who had partici- pated in a supervisory assessment center in a large manufac- turing organization. Data were gathered from participants through a question- naire and through audits of existing assessment center files. The dependent variable, extent of follow-up on post- assessment. center developmental recommendations, was measured by calculating the mean of individual ratings of three trained assessors using a l to 5 scale of partici- pants' descriptions of post-assessment follow-up on develop- mental recommendations and then compared to each of 22 selected factors using a log-linear model and chi-square test statistic to measure the degree of association between each factor and the dependent variable. Nine of the selected factors were significant. David Richard MacDonald A positive relationship significant at the .05 level of confidence was identified between the dependent variable and each of the following factors: 1. Formal education level. 2. Desire to attend the assessment center. 3. Logicalness of recommendations. 4. Perceived support from the organization for devel- opmental efforts. 5. Perceived support from time supervisor/manager for developmental efforts. 6.‘ Perceived support from family members for develop— mental efforts. 7. Perceived likelihood of achieving the target job for which the assessment center was designed. 8. Post-assessment desire for the target job. An inverse relationship significant at the .05 level of confidence was identified between the dependent variable and age at assessment. Those factors which were discovered to be significantly related to the dependent variable were facilitating in nature, 1&h, post-assessment follow-up on developmental recommendations did not appear to occur only as a result of the presence of a factor, but the absence of a factor was associated with little or no follow-up on developmental recommendations. David Richard MacDonald The conclusions of the research are: 1. Individuals with higher levels of formal education (two or more years of college) demonstrate greater extents of follow-up on post-assessment center developmental recommendations than those with lesser levels of education. Individuals reporting a greater desire to attend an assessment center demonstrate greater extents of follow-up (n1 post-assessment center developmental recommendations than those reporting a lesser desire to attend. Individuals who demonstrate greater extents of follow—up cur post-assessment center developmental recommendations are more frequently those who report seeing a fairly logical connection between the recommendations made and the skills and qual- ities needing development. Support from the organization facilitates follow-up on post-assessment center developmental recommenda- tions. Support from the supervisor/manager facilitates follow-up (N1 post-assessment center developmental recommendations. Support from family members facilitates follow-up on post-assessment center developmental recommenda- tions. David Richard MacDonald Individuals reporting perceptions of a higher like- lihood to achieve the target job demonstrate greater extents of follow-up on post-assessment center developmental recommendations than those reporting perceptions of a lower likelihood to achieve the target job. Post-assessment desire for the target job has a facilitating effect on follow-up on post-assessment center developmental recommendations. Individuals over 40 years of age demonstrate lesser extents of follow-up on post-assessment center developmental recommendations than those in younger age groups. Based on the findings of the research, it is recommended that organizations: 1. Encourage individuals to pursue more development than that suggested by post-assessment center de- velopmental recommendations. Describe the assessment center to employees and stress the personal benefits of attending. Describe to assessees how developmental recommenda- tions logically relate to measured skills and qual- ities. . Offer support through educational assistance pro- grams and appropriate policies which encourage self-development. David Richard MacDonald Ensure that supervisory personnel provide on-the- job opportunities for self-development. Recognize the role that family support plays in follow-up (n1 post—assessment center developmental recommendations. Encourage assessees Ix) seek de- velopmental support through family members. Conduct a discussion with each assessee to deter- mine each individual's perception of likelihood of achieving the target job. Put the assessment cen- ter information in context with each individual's performance information and a forecast of the num- ber of individuals needed to fill target job open- ings. Recognize the role that post—assessment center desire for the target job plays in follow-up on developmental recommendations. Recognize that individuals over 40 years of age will likely demonstrate lesser extents of follow-up on post-assessment center developmental recommenda- tions than those in younger age groups. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There can be no question in the mind of the reader that 'this dissertation was truly a team effort. It is here that I have the sincere pleasure of thanking those people who provided the necessary support, guidance, and encouragement to see this research through to its completion. Thanks are due to Dr. Castelle G. Gentry, the chair of the dissertation and guidance committees, for his sagacious guidance. He is clearly an expert in a helping profession. Drs. S. Joseph Levine and Richard J. McLeod of Michigan State University and Dr. John E. Nangle of Western Michigan University also served on the dissertation and guidance committees. They are to be congratulated for their professional help and friendly encouragement. Hats off to them! There are many people at Steelcase Inc. to be thanked; they include: Jerry Hekker, V3P. of Manufacturing, for permitting the gathering of data; Charlie Williams, Compen- sation Manager, and Mike Hollern, Compensation Analyst, for providing data relating to the study participants' organiza— tional levels; Dr. Roger D. Konyndyk, Statistical Analyst, for his extensive help in the data analysis phase. Roger always gave me what I wanted and a good measure more. His ii help is deeply appreciated; Dr. James C. Soule, V}P. of Human Resources, for his review of the dissertation proposal and for his ultimate blessing to carry out the research; Paul Pearson, Director of Human Resources Development, and Dan Wiljanen, Manager of Employee Development and Human Resource Planning are to be thanked both for their permis- sion to carry out the research and for being understanding friends throughout. Their timely empathy and encouragement really did make a difference when times were tough; Nancy VerStrat, Section Leader of Employee Development, and Sue Warmels, Administrator of Career Development are both sea- soned in the administration of the Steelcase Identification Development Iwogrann the assessment center which provided the focus for the study. They provided invaluable assist- ance in coding the dependent variable. They are also fun to work with on a daily basis. I am grateful to the 300 Steelcase employees who re- sponded to the questionnaire used in the research. They exemplify the spirit of helpfulness that binds otherwise individual Steelcase employees into a hardworking, loyal team. Their responsive quality has to be at the root of Steelcase's excellence in the office environment industry. Drs. Joe Allen Cook and Lecter L. Hyder, industrial psychologists with Rorher, Hibler, and Replogle, Inc., iii provided numerous helpful suggestions and a fiesh perspective on the study. Lastly, to Mary. Your willingness to set aside so many things which were important to both of us really made this dissertation possible. I can only pledge to return the patience and support in your pursuit of academic achieve- ments. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O 0 Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . Need for the Study . . . . . The Research Questions . . . Scope and Limitations . . . . Assumptions . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . Overview of the Study . . Summary . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . The Costs of Managerial Non-performance . . . . Methods of Managerial Selection and The Interview . . . . . . . . Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . Performance Appraisal . . . . Self— assessment . . . . . . . Individual Assessment . . . The Assessment Center Method . Development Historical Development of the Assessment Center Utility of Assessment Centers for Selection . . Utility of Assessment Centers for Development . Assessment Center Impact on Participants . . . Expected Impact of Each Selected Factor . . . . Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seniority . . . . . . . . . . Desire for the Target Job . . Formal Education Level . . . . Organizational Level . . . . . Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . Desire to Attend the Assessment Center . . Rating of Overall Potential to Succeed in the Target Job . .. . . V Page ix xii 21 21 24 26 29 3O 32 33 35 38 41 45 49 62 62 63 64 64 65 65 67 67 Chapter II - Continued III. . IV. Perceived Realism of Assessment Situations or Exercises Acceptability of the Time Delay Between the Assessment and the Feedback Sensitivity Displayed by the Individual Delivering the Feedback Appropriateness of the Amount of Time Spent During the Oral Feedback . . . . Credibility of the Individual Delivering the Feedback .. .. . Needs Identified .. . Perceived Level of Support Provided by Each of Several Sources for Individual Development Efforts . Relevance of the Feedback in Comparison to the Critical Job Dimensions Relevance of the Developmental Recommendations.to the Developmental Page 6.8 69 69 7O 71 72 73 73 Desire for the Target Job (Post-assessment) 74 Perceived Likelihood of Achieving the Target Job . .. . .. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . Research Method . . . . . . . Participant Selection . . . . Instrumentation . . . . . . . The Research Questions . . . General Question . . . . Specific Questions . . . Treatment of Data . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . Pre-assessment Factors _. . . Age at Assessment . . . Seniority at Assessment Formal Educational Level Organizational Level (Job Gr at Assessment 0 o o 0 sex 0 O O O O O O O O O ade) Desire to Attend the Assessment Center Desire for the Target Job vi 74 75 76 83 84 86 95 96 96 96 101 103 111 112 115 118 121 125 128 131 Chapter IV - Continued Page During- -assessment Factors . . . . . . . . . . 134 Rating of Overall Potential to Succeed in the Target Job .. .. .. .134 Perceived Realism of Assessment Situations 138 Acceptability of Time Delay between Assessment and Feedback .. . .. . .. 141 Sensitivity of the Individual Delivering the Feedback . . .. . .I.. 144 Appropriateness of the Length of Feedback Session . .. . . . .. . .. 147 Credibility of the Individual Delivering the Feedback . . . .. . . . 150 Relevance of Feedback to Critical Job Dimensions . . .. . . .. . . .. . 153 Relevance of Recommendations to Developmental Needs . . . . . . . . . . 156 Post-assessment Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Support from the Organizatidn . . . . . . 160 Support from the Supervisor/Manager . . . 163 Support from Co-workers . . . . . . . . . 166 Support from Family . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Support from Friends . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Likelihood of Achieving the Target Job . . 175 Post-assessment Desire for the Target Job 178 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 183 Summary of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Conclusions and Recommendations for Each Question . . . . . . . .'. . . . . 185 Research Question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Age at Assessment . . . . . . . . . . 188 Formal Education Level . . . . . . . 189 Desire to Attend the Assessment Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Research Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Relevance of the Developmental Recommendations to the Developmental Needs Identified . . 192 Research Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Perceived Support from the Organization . . . . . . . . . . 195 Perceived Support from the Supervisor/Manager . . . . . . . . 196 Perceived Support from the Family . . 198 vii Chapter V - Continued - Page Post-assessment Desire for the Target Job . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Likelihood of Achieving the Target Job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 General Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . 202 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 207 A. ASSESSMENT CENTER GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . 207 B. VARIABLES OF FIRST-LINE SUPERVISOR OF STEELCASE, INC. IDENTIFICATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAbI . C O I C O O O C C O O C 214 C. POST-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . 216 D. INITIAL LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . 220 E. FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO NON-RESPONDENTS . . . . . . 221 F. IDENTIFICATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT SITUATIONS/VARIABLES MATRIX . . . . . . . . . 222 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 223 viii LIST OF TABLES How Management Development Needs are Specified Sources of Development Needs for Individuals . Overall Reactions to Assessment Center . . . . Factors Influencing Assessment Center Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benefits and Disadvantages of Assessment Center Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . Rating of Participants' Follow-up on IDP Recommendations for Their Improvement . . . . IDP Scores of Respondents vs. Non-respondents to the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . Original/Collapsed Ratings: Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-assessment Factors and Probabilities of No Relationship to the Dependent Variable Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations by Age at IDP O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations by Seniority at IDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations by Formal Education Level at IDP . . . . . . . . Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations by Organizational Level (Job Grade) at Assessment 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations by Sex . Post-IDP Follow—up on Recommendations by Desire to Attend the Assessment Center . . . ix Page 25 49 56 57 58 105 107 110 112 113 116 119 123 126 129 Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations by Desire for the Target Job . . . . . . . . . . During-assessment Factors and Probabilities of No Relationship to the Dependent Variable Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations by Rating of Overall Potential to Succeed in the Target Job .. . .. . .. . .. . .. Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations by Perceived Realism of Assessment Situations . Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations by Acceptability of Time Delay Between Assessment and Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations by Sensitivity of Individual Delivering the FeedbaCk O I O I O O O O O O O O O O O O Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations by Appropriateness of Length of Feedback Session Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations by Credibility of Individual Delivering the FeedbaCk O O O O O I O O O I O O O O O O Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations by Relevance of Feedback to Critical Job Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations by Relevance of Recommendations to Developmental Needs . .. . .. . .. . .. . Post-assessment Factors and Probabilities of No Relationship to the Dependent Variable . . Post-IDP Follow-up Support from the on Recommendations by Organization . . . . . . . . Post-IDP Follow-up Support from the on Recommendations by Supervisor/Manager . . . . Page 132 134 136 139 142 145 148 151 154 157 159 161 164 Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations Support from Co-workers . . . . . . Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations Support from Family . . . . . . . . Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations Support from Friends . . . . . . . Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations by Likelihood of Achieving the Target Job Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations by Post-assessment Desire for the Target Job Summary of Factors and Probabilities of No Dependence Between Each and the Dependent Variable . . . . . . . . xi Page 167 170 173 176 179 187 Figure l. 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF FIGURES Assessing the Skills of a Pro Ball Player . Assessing the Skills of a Manager . . . . . A Career Development System . . . . . . . . Number of Individuals Assessed in the Steelcase Identification Development Program 1973-1985 0 o o o o o o o o o o 0 Percentage by Which the Mean Salary Increase of IDP-Assessed Supervisors Exceeded the Mean Salary Increase of the Total Group of Salaried Supervisors . . . Rating Scale for Coding the Dependent Variable Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Age at IDP . . . . . . Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Seniority at Assessment at IDP O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Formal Education Level at IDP O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Organizational Level at Assessment 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Sex . . . . . . . . . Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Desire to Attend the Assessment Center . . . . . . . . . . . . Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Pre-assessment Desire for the Target Job . . . . . . . . . . . xii Page 42 43 46 79 82 97 114 117 120 124 127 130 133 Figure 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Page Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Rating of Overall Potential to Succeed in the Target Job . . . 137 Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Perceived Realism of IDP Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Post-IDP Follow—up on Developmental Recommendations by Acceptability of Time Delay Between Assessment and Feedback . 143 Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Sensitivity of Individual Delivering the Feedback . . . . . 146 Post—IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Appropriateness of Length of Feedback Session . . . . . . . . 149 Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Credibility of Individual Delivering the Feedback . . . . . 152 Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Relevance of Feedback to Critical Job Dimensions . . . . . 155 Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Relevance of Recommendations to Developmental Needs . . . 158 Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Support from the Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Support from the Supervisor/Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Support from Co-workers . 168 Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Support from Family . . . 171 xiii Figure Page 26. Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Support from Friends . . . 174 27. Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Likelihood of Achieving the Target Job . . . . . . . . . . 177 28. Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Post-assessment Desire for the Target Job . . . . . . . . . . 180 xiv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION When reduced to its essence, selection and development of skilled workers is, for nearly all organizations, a clear matter of economics. As labor costs spiral upward, com- panies are intensifying the search for methods of selecting and developing employees who have the highest probability of performing their jobs effectively. Individuals in supervisory and management positions exert influence over the achievement of their organizations' goals; the effects of their successes and failures are made more significant through the corresponding multiplying effect their actions have on their subordinates and other individuals with whom they interact, both internally and externally. Because of the nature of managerial positions it is particularly important for organizations to select and develop individuals to fill these positions who will be most likely to perform to expected standards in leading their respective work groups to accomplish goals and fulfill the missions of their respective organizations. In addition to the financial costs, there are also the very real human costs of non-performance. Expectancy theory 2 (Campbell and Pritchard, 1976) suggests that individuals who fail to perform to expectations are likely to experience feelings of frustration, anxiety, and inadequacy, particu- larly if they have put forth their best efforts to perform effectively. Some managers who are failing to perform ef- fectively will be involuntarily terminated from their posi- tions. Of these, some will be reassigned to other positions within the organization while others will not. cmher poorly-performing managers, sensing Iflme inevitable, will terminate voluntarily. In-any case, a vacancy will remain which is likely to be costly and time-consuming to fill. A new manager selected to fill a vacancy will nearly always require some minimal orientation time to become accustomed to those variables in the position with which he/she is unfamiliar. In addition, the newly-selected man- ager may still require training and development to maximize job performance. An approach to organizational staffing is needed which places special emphasis on managerial selection and development. For some organizations, one component of this approach is the assessment center. Since its development some four decades ago, the assess- ment center method has become a wellfestablished process by which critical skills and abilities of candidates for target jobs can be measured. As such, it is used in the making of selection decisions, as well as in the identification of relevant strengths and areas for development for job candi- dates. Because assessment centers are expensive to develop 3 and operate, an understanding of the manner in which asses- sees use their feedback, and why, becomes an important issue. According to Finkle (1976) and S. L. Cohen (1980 c) over 1,000 organizations were using the assessment center process at the time of their writings. As a general indicator of overall interest in assessment centers, Finkle also said (1976): Several consulting firms, such as Person- nel Decisions, Inc. of Minneapolis, Min- nesota, were known to offer assessment center services with others prepared to advise and assist companies in setting up centers. At least one organization spe- cialized 1J1 offering psychological assessment center materials, and work- shops on how to conduct assessment cen- ters were being offered by several groups including the American Management Asso- ciation. Perhaps because of its success, the assessment center method has been dissected for analysis by a great many researchers representing several major fields of study. According to George C. Thornton III and William C. Byham (1982). There is.ua lesson to be learned from the high professional standards evidenced by assessment center proponents. The assessment center method has been sub- jected to more research and professional scrutiny than any other personnel prac- tice. Because of high quality research and generally positive results, the de- velopment of standards for assessment center operations, and widespread self- monitoring Ix) ensure compliance with proven practices, there are good pros- pects for continued validity of the method. (p. 391 - emphasis added) 4 Though not all research on the assessment center process has been completely favorable, e.g., Sackett and Dreher (August, 1982), Clement and Rawlins (1982) and Ross (1979), the greater proportion of the research is very supportive, e.g., Stephen IL. Cohen (1980 b,c), Byhani (1979, 1980), Jaffee, Frank, et. al. (1976), Quick, Fisher, Schkade, and Ayers (1980), and Olivas (1980) to name just a few. The assessment center is simply one method by which human performance can be measured. Osborne and Norton (1983) indicated that five popular techniques are used to evaluate managerial. performance: (1) assessment. centers, (2) psychological assessment, (3) rating forms, (4) perfor- mance standards, and (5) joint goal setting. They concluded that when applying these techniques to evaluate performance in five personnel management areas: (1) assessment centers are best for evaluating career development, (2) rating forms have the best foundation for coaching, (3) joint goal setting and performance standards are useful for assessing planning abilities, (4) performance standards are effective for negotiating salaries and benefits, and (5) assessment centers are valid predictors of managerial success. As already mentioned, assessment centers are also used to gather performance information which can be useful in making selection decisions. Douglas W. Bray (1977) identifies alternate uses for the assessment center method and provides strong support for it: 5 As one looks back over the 35 or so years since the assessment center method first came to the attention of psychologists generally, the method has come a long way. It has moved from the status of a special technique applied tn) special problems to the status of a general methodology--a method ideally suited to a wide variety of selection, placement, development, and self-evaluation applica- tions. The time has passed when we can be content with attempting to predict complex future behavior only from responses to paper-and-pencil test items or verbalizations during an interview. Although such methods may be part of a complete appraisal of the individual, they are IK) longer enough. Credentials, too, have become an insufficient stand- ard. When we need to know whether people can and will perform effectively, what could be a more obvious solution than observing whether they can and do per- form? (p. 302) The Problem Management selection and development is crucial to most organizations. Managerial and supervisory talent of an appropriate quality is generally unavailable to the same extent as the talent required to perform routine production jobs. A good deal of time and money, therefore, is spent to locate and develop capable supervisors and managers. According to C. Edward Kur amd Mike Pedler (1982), Management development has been the focus of intense interest and activity during the last decade. Rapid changes in tech- nology, such as the use of computers and teleconferencing, as well as changes in organization styles brought on by the Quality of Work Life movement and matrix techniques, have resulted in an enormous shortage of qualified managers. This shortage is evidenced by the difficulty organizations have in filling openings, 6 by the high starting salaries for new MBAs and by the number of "help wanted" advertisements in management-oriented periodicals. (p. 88) Peter Drucker (1974) in his text Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices also spoke on this issue: Basic business decisions require an increasingly long time span for their fruition. Since no one can foresee the future, management cannot make rational and responsible decisions unless it selects, develops, and tests the men [sic] who will have to follow them through and bail them out—-the managers of tomorrow. (p. 420) The numerical demand for executives is steadily growing. A developed society increasingly replaces manual skill with theoretical knowledge and the ability to organize and lead--in short with manager- ial ability. (p. 420) And if we know one thing today, it is that managers are made and not born. There has to be systematic work on the supply, the development, and the skills of tomorrow”s management. It cannot be left to luck or chance. (p. 421) The literature is replete with studies relating to supervisory anui management development, selection, succes- sion planning, and related topics. Such publications as Training and Development Journal, Personnel Journal, Acad- emy of Management Review, and Personnel Administrator are common sources of articles on the relative shortage of competent management personnel, e4p, Oppenheimer, 1982; Scholl, 1981; Langdon, 1982 to name only a few. The problem, simply put, is that a shortage of high- quality supervisory and managerial talent exists when com- pared to organizations' needs for this type of talent. The 7 assessment center method is one method by which organiza- tions locate and develop employees to fill supervisory and managerial positions. This study is aimed at contributing to a partial solution to this problem by analyzing the impact of various factors on assessment center participants' follow-upion post-assessment developmental recommendations. Purpose of the Study Thornton and Byham (1982) and Moses and Byham (1977) agree that, to date, no steps have been taken to measure the extent to which assessees follow up on their feedback and developmental recommendations. This type (n3 information would be useful to those individuals designing, administer- ing, and participating in assessment centers; furthermore, this information is apparently unavailable as evidenced by: (l) searches through relevant literature, (2) searches through INFORM, NERAC, ERIC, MANAGEMENT CONTENTS, AND DATRIX databases, and (3) conversations with assessment center experts. Providing information on how individuals follow up on post-assessment center developmental recommendations was the researcher's intent. In summary: The purpose of this research is a determin- ation of the impact of selected factors on whether or not assessment center participants use post-assessment develop- mental recommendations. 8 Need for the Study Thornton and Byham (1982) identify numerous topical areas in which assessment center research has been conduct- ed. In their text Applyinggthe Assessment Center Method (1977), Joseph L. Moses and William C. Byham publish a chapter ("Current Trends and Future Possibilities") by Douglas W. Bray. Bray says: Although the predictive power of the assessment center method has been well researched, there are other areas in which considerable work remains to be done. These include the nature of and definition of the dimensions to be rated, the assessment techniques themselves, methods of observation used by the asses- sors, the characteristics and training of the assessors, methods of combining judg- ments from the multiple techniques, and methods and effects of feedback of as- sessment center findings. (p. 301 - em- phasis added) In addition to citing topical areas of completed research, Thornton and Byham (1982) and Moses and Byham (1977) cite literally dozens of areas in which questions about the assessment center method are still begging for answers. One general grouping of questions relates to the effects of assessment centers; within this grouping are questions which probe the issue of feedback and its effects upon assessees and other interested organizational members. Of the several questions Bray (1977) suggested could be the topics of needed research was, "What are the effects of the feedback of assessment center results to the assessee on job motivation, self-esteem, and self-development efforts?" (p. 301) 9 To explain the importance of the proposed study to educational technology, it will be useful to examine briefly how assessment centers are designed and administered. Assessment centers are created with specific (target) jobs in rmhui. A job analysis is conducted by interviewing supervisory personnel one and two levels above the target job, by examining job outputs, and by interviewing and observing a wide range of incumbents. The job analysis will produce a determination of those skills and personal quali- ties known as "dimensions” or "variables" which are most critical to success in the target job. A detailed listing and description of the dimensions of one specific job are presented subsequently. Next, simulation exercises are designed--exercises which will elicit behavior relevant to the jobfis critical dimen- sions. As candidates participate in the exercises, their behaviors are thoroughly observed and recorded by a staff of trained assessors. Based upon their observations, assessors rate each candidate on each dimension according to the amount of behavior exhibited. Often, the separate ratings for an individual candidate are integrated in order to provide an overall measure of the assessee's preparedness to enter the target job. In some organizations, the assessors' observations, analyses, and conclusions for a candidate are summarized and presented orally and/or in writing to that candidate, in some cases, with specific developmental recom- mendations. 10 The evaluative information available at the end of a candidate's participation can be used not only for the individual's personal and career development, but also can be considered with other information in making a selection decision when a target job opening occurs. To this end, what an assessee does based upon the feedback received become significant. Some assessees demonstrate a good level of the critical dimensions of the target job, are promoted, and generally perform well in the job. Other candidates display less competence in various critical job dimensions. For these candidates, further development would be indicated before their promotion to fill a target job opening. Of those individuals requiring development, some vfill take active efforts to improve their skills, while others will not. As mentioned earlier, because assessment centers are quite costly to an organization, an understanding of the manner in which assessees use assessment center feedback, and why becomes quite important as it could be used to assist each candidate needing some development in progress- ing toward the target job. It is in this way that the results of this study would be beneficial when generalized. The results of this study will be generalized to those assessment. centers which measure skills and/or qualities required for success in a specific target job. Dugan Laird (1983) emphasized the need for organizations to follow up on any analysis of the developmental needs of its members: 11 These are the days of assessment centers and career planning and appraisal pro- grams. Such systems are meaningless unless accompanied by proper individual training and development plans. The T & D (training and development) officer wants to be a major factor in the design of those individual programs...and above aLl, a major factor in the follow-up which gives such programs their real impact. That follow-up is the education, training, or development which individual humans adhieve as a result of the assess- ment, the career plan, or the appraisal. (p. 78) Because an assessment center represents an analysis of individuals' needs to develop critical skills and qualities for target jobs, it is in this sense that this research is integrated into the broader field of educational systems development. The Research Questions This research should provide data which will assist the researcher in answering the following broad question: Q. What factors influence the extent to which an individual follows up on developmental recommendations made following his/her participation in an assessment center? Part of this general question is rooted in the work of Thornton and Byham (1982). The authors have indicated that there are questions in this general area to be answered. Speaking of assessment centers, they ask: Does it help to enhance an individual's self-awareness of developmental needs? Attitude surveys (Dodd, 1977) confirm that a majority of participants believe the assessment center provides valuable 12 information, but whether these new in- sights lead to development is as yet unconfifmed. As we have discussed, mana- gerial development is hard to accomplish. Self-awareness does not necessarily lead to development for most areas, especially for cognitive skills such as problem analysis, judgment, or planning and or- ganizing. Personal awareness may be enough to lead to improvement in some intrapersonal characteristics such as the willingness (not skill) to delegate, amount of participation in group meet- ings, risk taking, or initiative. (p. 340 - emphasis added) Based upon this and the opinions of other authors, it is logical to conclude that an) organization applying the assessment center method would be vitally interested in measuring the extent to which those assessed respond to the feedback they received, i.e” their performance evaluation and personalized developmental recommendations, if any, following their participation in an assessment center. An answer to this open question would help human resource personnel become rmnma effective in their employee develop- ment and organization development efforts through time more effective training and placement of assessed employees. At this point, it seems appropriate to define the con- cept of "feedback" as it is used in this research. A particularly suitable definition of "feedback" is supplied by Edward E. Lawler III (1976): Feedback or knowledge of results seems to be crucialu.because i1: performs two important functions. First, it gives the individual the information that is needed in order to correct his or her behavior when it deviates from the standard or desired behavior. Second, feedback pro- vides the intrinsic motivation that will 13 lead the person to perform at the stand- ard or in an effective way. (p. 1279) Lawler continues to expand his definition of feedback as he identifies two specific types of information feedback provides: VIOOITI Vroom (1964) refers to two kinds of in- formation that people get from feedback. The first is information about how they are performing. He refers to this as the cue function of feedback and says it can contribute to good performance even on tasks that have been performed many times... The second kind of information which people get from feedback is information about performance success that comes after the task has been performed. A number of early psychological learning studies hawe shown that this kind of feedback is necessary if task performance is to improve. (p. 1279) is referring to formative and summative evalua- tion, respectively. Because an assessment center is used primarily to eval- uate a person's current levels of skills and qualities in relationship to levels required for effective performance in a specific job, which is supplied by assessment center feedback. it is the summative type of evaluation data The specific research questions to be answered by this study are as follows: The pre-assessment factors research Q1. To what degree are pre-assessment factors related tn) the extent to which an individual follows up on post-assessment center developmental recommendations? include: to be examined in this 14 Age at assessment. Company seniority at assessment. Formal educational level. Organizational level (job grade) at assessment. Sex. Desire to attend the assessment center. Desire for the target job. Q2. To what degree are factors associ- ated with the assessment center and feedback process related In) the extent to which an individual fol- lows up on post-assessment center developmentalrecommendations? A second grouping of factors to be examined in this research are those factors associated with the assessment center itself and the feedback process. a. Rating of overall potential to succeed in the tar- get job. Perceived realism of assessment situations or exer- cises. Perception of the utility of the feedback process itself, including: i. Acceptability of the time delay between the assessment and the feedback. ii. Sensitivity displayed by the individual deliv- ering the feedback. iii. Appropriateness of the amount of time spent during the oral feedback session. iv. Credibility cfif the individual delivering the feedback. 15 v. Relevance of the feedback in comparison to the critical job dimensions. vi. Relevance of the developmental recommendations to the developmental needs identified. Q3. To what degree are post-assessment factors related to the extent to which an individual follows up on developmental recommendations made during the post-assessment feedback process? Post-feedback factors 13) be examined during this research include: a. ’Perceived level of support provided by each of the following for individual development efforts: i. Organization. ii. Immediate supervisor/manager. iii. Co-workers. iv. Family members. v. Friends. b. Desire for the target job. c. Perceived likelihood of achieving the target job. The intuitive basis for selecting the factors of the research was the expectation that each would contribute to an answer for its respective research question. Scope and Limitations The following research is limited to factors influencing individual usage of developmental recommendations made fol- lowing managerial assessment center participation. It does not extend to a measurement of the factors influencing the 16 other sources of performance feedback and developmental recommendations, emy, training program evaluations, inform- al progress discussions, and periodic performance apprais- als, although a cursory discussion of these is included as a means of more clearly identifying the position of an assessment center within a corporate human resources management system. The research is limited to data collected from one private sector assessment center. The center serving as the data source is one which measure those skills and qualities required for a specific supervisory job and which has two organizational purposes: (1) identificathmu of candidates to fill current and short-range supervisory vacancies (selection), and (2) development (ME those individuals assessed as not yet prepared to fill those vacancies (diag- nosis). The type of data dealt with in the research are primar- ily perceptual, although some hard data are also included, such as age, seniority, and organizational level. Assumptions In dealing with the problem and attempting to answer the research questions, this research is predicated on the fol- lowing assumptions: 1. A group of individuals exists whose perceptions regarding assessment center feedback and corre- sponding developmental recommendations are likely to be quite reliable. l7 2. Through the application of appropriate techniques, the perceptions of the above group of individuals can be collected. 3. Through the application of appropriate techniques, the perceptions of the above group can be analyzed to provide significant data from which conclusions can be drawn regarding the basic problem of the study. 4. Knowledge of factors relating to assessment center participants' usage of post-assessment development- al recommendations would be helpful to human re- source personnel and, in particular, to developers of educational systems. Definitions Terms used in the study are based on definitions found in Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language. Exceptions are as follows: Assessee - an individual whose skills and qualities are measured by an assessment center. Assessment Center - a process using multiple assessment techniques and Inultiple assessors which yields judgments regarding the extent to which a participant displays select- ed skills and qualities. Unless otherwise noted, this term will be used to refer specifically to the process as applied to measure those skills and qualities judged to be critical to the performance of a particular target job. 18 Assessor - an individual trained to observe, record, classify, and make reliable judgments about the behaviors of assessees. Developmental Recommendations - suggestions given to an individual regarding actions which could be taken in an attempt to improve skills and qualities judged as needing improvement for successful performance. Dimensions - also called ”Variables." Those skills and qualities, i.e., behaviors judged to be critical to success in a particular job. Feedback - information about performance success which comes after a task has been performed. (Vroom, 1964) Job Analysis - in this study refers to a combination of techniques (interviews with, and observations of, incumbents in a given job; job check lists, training material analysis, diaries, etc.) used to determine which dimensions comprise a target job. Target Job - the job for which an assessment center is created. Variables - used interchangably with the previously defined term "Dimensions." Overview of the Study The background for the study was developed in Chapter I. The background included the purpose of the study, the need for the study, the broad and specific research questions to 19 be answered by the study, definitions of special terms used, and an overview of the research. A review of relevant literature is presented in Chapter II. This review includes a discussion of performance measurement methods and, in particular, the assessment cen- ter method, including historical development and some spe- cific applications. A description of the design of the research is presented in Chapter III. The information presented in Chapter III includes the research method, a description of the assess- ment center serving as the source of data for the research, the procedures used in the study, a statement of the broad and specific research questions, a description of how the collected data are treated, and a summary of the chapter. Chapter IV contains the analyses of data. A determina- tion of the factors influencing participant usage of post- assessment center developmental recommendations is presented which is followed by a summary of the methods used in arriv- ing at these conclusions. In Chapter V the summary, conclusions, and recommenda- tions are presented. This chapter includes suggestions for future research. Following Chapter V are the Appendices and the Biblio- graphy. 20 Summary A shortage of supervisory and managerial talent exists. Because of this, ‘most organizations spend significant amounts of money to locate and develop individuals for managerial positions. The assessment center method is one process vfifirfli many organizations have used to select indi- viduals for managerial and supervisory jobs from among their personnel and to make developmental recommendations to those who do not perform to expectations in an assessment center. Research does exist which outlines a number of the ways in which assessment center participation impacts assessees. It is currently unknown, however, what factors influence an assessee's follow-up on developmental recommendations made following feedback (n1 assessment center performance. The purpose of this study is to identify the factors which appear to facilitiate/hinder an assessment center partici- pantfis follow-up on post-assessment developmental recommen- dations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE To contribute to that which has been done, it is neces— sary to know what has been done. This chapter reviews existing literature in a number of specific topical areas relating to assessment center technology, adult development, motivation, and feedback. Examination of these areas of the literature, and others, was carried out as a means of devel— oping a foundation for the design of the study and the conclusions and recommendations to follow. In this chapter of the study, the origins and historical development of the assessment center method are presented. Also included is a description of precisely what an assess- ment center is and is not, along with a description of the general process which must be followed to develop a useful assessment center. The Costs of Managerial Non-performance As mentioned in Chapter I, it is vital to an organiza- tion as a whole and to each of its members individually that every employee perform at or above expected standards. It was also mentioned in Chapter I that the failure of a 21 22 manager or supervisor has even more significant negative consequences for the organization than the failure of a member of the general work force. Some studies have been conducted in an attempt to deter- mine the costs of managerial failure. S. L. Cohen (1980 b), for example, has listed some of the costs likely to be incurred in any organization when one of its managers or supervisors fails to perform to expectations: 1. Lost revenues from the incumbent doing a poor job. 2. Lost revenues from the right incumbent not being on the job. 3. Training for an individual who fails. 4. Training for a new incumbent. 5. Downtime between incumbent changeover. [sic] 6. Start-up or orientation time for a new incumbent. 7. Relocation expense. 8. Psychological costs: individual and organizational. 9. Legal implications of justifying removal decisions. Miller,in S. L. Cohen (1980 b),also cites some specific dollar amounts which are significant: A few attempts have already been made to calculate failure costs. One estimate, based on similar factors to those noted above, was $50,000 for £3 first-line supervisor's position; another was over $250,000 for the cumulative impact of a managerial failure at the upper middle management level. While these figures are at best isolated cases and can't necessarily be generalized to other organizations, it is reasonably safe to assume that the costs associated with a 23 single ineffective managerial performance for most organizations probably lies somewhere between these two values. (p. 51) As mentioned earlier, there is also the issue of the human cost of non-performance. Psychologists have studied the concept of self—esteem and the way in which individuals react to events which influence their self-esteem. According to Abraham H. Maslow (1970, p. 45) all indi- viduals in our society who are psychologically healthy have "u.a need or desire for a stable, firmly based, usually high evaluation of themselves, for self-respect, or self- esteem, and for the esteem of others." He categorized the concept of self-esteem into two subsets: (1) the need to exert power, display competence, to achieve, be independent, and to feel confident, and (2) the need to be respected by others through praise, recognition, attention, and status. It seems quite clear that these two subsets of self-esteem are interrelated. It seems natural, then, that a manager's failure will result in a decreased level of self-esteem due to a reduc- tion in self-esteem from both of the aforementioned subsets; the poorly-performing manager will not be able to achieve, display competence, or feel confident. Additionally, poor performance is less likely to result in praise and positive recognition from others. Particularly unfortunate is the prognosis for the individual who failed in a managerial position. Research conducted by A. K. Korman (1966) has concluded that individuals VHH) perceive themselves as 24 successful behave in a manner which increases the likelihood of further success. Those individuals who have a strong negative self-perception tend to behave in ways which in- crease the likelihood of failure. As a result, the finan- cial costs of a managerial failure in which the ex-manager is kept in the employment of the organization may be pro- longed in the rune job role. Assuming one's level of self- esteem is much reduced due to a managerial failure, the probability of performing successfully in a different posi- tion may be correspondingly reduced. Avoiding managerial failure, therefore, seems very worthwhile when all of the implications are considered. Methods of Managerial Selection and Development It is the task of most human resources personnel to provide support tx> their' organizations 1J1 recruiting, selecting, orienting, training, developing, and maintaining employees (Szilagyi, 1984). Toward this end, a number of differing techniques have been developed to identify/select and develop employees. Within the context of this research, supervisors and managers are simply one definable group of employees and, as a result, many of the selection and devel- opment techniques to be briefly examined can be, and often are, used with other employee groups as well. Digman (1980) conducted research to more fully under- stand imnv major corporations project development needs of the organization, identify individual development needs, and 25 how the corporations' actual methods of needs identification compare to methods they would ideally employ. Digman (1980) sent questionnaires to 289 U.S. companies considered to be among the top 500 in terms of assets, sales, market values, and net profits and received 47 usable responses. His research resulted, in part, in the list in Table 2.1. The list is useful in defining the multiplicity of ways in which management development needs are identified and their rela- tive frequencies of use. TABLE 2.1--HOW MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT NEEDS ARE SPECIFIED Percent Using By Level of Management Exec- Super- Method - 33313 Middle visory Performance Appraisal 69% 89% 89% Judgment of Superiors 78% 87% 87% Analysis of Future Position 56% 69% 53% Self-assessment by Individual 58% 64% 58% Individual Development/Training Plan 44% 56% 62% Analysis of Current Position 51% 60% 60% Geared to Typical Needs 38% 44% _51% Formal Assessment Center 2% 11% 20% Input from Subordinates 7% 18% 18% Objective Testing 4% 4% 11% Other ‘ 4% 4% 2% 26 Following are descriptions of a few of the commonly used methods of managerial and supervisory selection and develop- ment which should help place the assessment center method into an appropriate perspective. The Interview Single and multiple interviews have long been used as a means of collecting information which can be used to eval- uate an individual's readiness and suitability for a parti- cular job. According to Porter, Lawler, and Hackman (1975): The interview is the most widely used selection device, and there is clear evidence that job applicants can influ- ence their attractiveness by how they manage the interview. It has been demon- strated that the more interviewers talk, the more favorably they are inclined toward the job applicant (Mayfield, 1964). There are also data that show that interviewers are much more influ- enced by unfavorable information than by favorable information (Webster, 1964). Additionally, of course, such factors as dress and appearance can influence the favorableness of the interviewer's judg- ments. What all this suggests is that the thoughtful job applicant can often significantly influence his attractive- ness to an organization by behaving in certain specific ways. (p. 137) The authors also probe the extent to which the interview outcome can be skewed by particular behaviors of the appli- cants being interviewed: Experienced interviewers are, of course, very much aware of the motivation and opportunity for interviewees to present a misleading image of themselves in the hope of appearing more acceptable.” Many interviewers, furthermore, claim they can tell when an interviewee is in 27 fact trying to do this. However, the evidence on the validity of interview judgments (Mayfield, 1964) would suggest that perhaps they are not as good at this as they believe themselves to be. (1975, p. 138) Development Dimensions International, headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is devoted to supplying programs and consulting assistance to organizations, particularly in human resource areas. DDI was founded, and is currently headed, by Dr. William C. Byham, a well-known author in the field of managerial assessment. According to DDI through their training program Targeted Selection (1980), recent past behavior can be used to make judgments about applicants which have good predictive valid- ity. According to Targeted Selection, to make reasonably accurate predictions about future behavior, interviewers must start asking questions only when an extensive job analysis has been performed to identify and describe those behaviors which are considered important to success in the job. Once this has been accomplished, the next step is to design interview questions which are job-relevant, non— leading, and non-hypothetical, i.e., questions which focus on events of the recent past rather than upon the inter- viewee's description of a proposed reaction to a given situation in the future. Interviews are used to select external applicants for positions, as well as to select current employees for other positions within an organization. The interview is rarely used as a developmental tool as well. Development can occur 28 provided feedback is supplied to job applicants which iden- tifies areas in which the candidate is seen as needing improvement. It must be mentioned, however, that the evidence is currently not in favor of the interview. According to Reilley and Chao (1984), "The interview is recognized as the' most widely used method in personnel selection.nand encom- passes a wide variety of techniques which can range from an unstructured, non-directive approach to a defined set of questions in an oral exauu" (p. 266) In reviewing research pertaining to interview validities, they concluded the aver— age estimated validity coefficient (based on 12 studies, roughly half of which were predictive, the others con- current) to be nineteen one-hundredths. In sum, Reilley and Chao (1984) indicate: The evidence does not support the valid- ity of interviews as alternatives sub— stantially equal with tests, nor is there any evidence that interviews will have less adverse impact than tests (though few studies are available). Based on this evidence the interview cannot be recommended as ea promising alternative. (p. 271) It seems evident that the interview used as a develop- mental tool would not be sufficiently accurate in pinpoint- ing managerial developmental needs. While job applicants may be given feedback regarding those areas 1J1 which they were deemed by interviewers to be less than satisfactory, the research to date would suggest the applicants should question the validity of those recommendations. 29 Tests Prior to the implementation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as subsequently amended by Executive Orders 11236 and 11375, tests of various sorts were commonly used to select and place individuals in organizational posi- tions. With the rmnv legislation covering requirements for tests--requirements to be enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)-—employers began to abandon objective tests formerly thought to identify strengths and weakness of job candidates. For most employers, the effort, expense, and potential liability incurred in developing and/or using a test does not justify its contribution to a selection or placement decision. Tests are often classified as "aptitude” or “achieve- ment" and measure potential in a given area or a current level of skill, respectively. Although test validities vary greatly, Blum and Naylor (1968) have concluded: Since the same test can often be con- sidered both an achievement test and an aptitude test depending upon use, this classification system is often a fuzzy one. Thus, with many tests one can (1) measure the amount of present skill, and (2) use the present score to predict future performance. (p. 90) This information suggests that achievement tests may be of some assistance in identifying the extent to which an individual displays the skills needed to perform effectively and may be of some use in identifying developmental needs. 30 Performance Appraisal According to Szilagyi (1984, p. 540) employee perfor- mance appraisal is ”u.the process of identifying, meas- uring, and developing human performance in organizations." Porter, Lawler, and Hackman (1975) acknowledge the informal component of evaluating work effectiveness: Much of the evaluation that takes place in organizations is informal, but some of it becomes part of the formal performance evaluation systems that are present in many organizations. Ideally, formal evaluation systems utilize valid data in order to determine how well an individual is performing his job. Information of this type then forms an important input to organizational reward.uand planning systems. (PP. 315-316) Szilagyi (1984) highlights three functions of perfor- mance appraisal: (l) observation and identification-- observing selected job behaviors and/or outputs and deciding how frequently sample observations will be conducted, (2) measurement--comparing the actual behaviors and/or outputs to the levels expected to determine the acceptability of performance, and EH development--improving performance over time. Szilagyi (1984, p. 540) emphasized: A performance evaluation system must be able to point out deficiencies and strengths in people's behavior so they can be motivated to improve future per- formance. These broad-based functions of a perfor- mance evaluation system can be translated into specific purposes. The most import- ant are: 31 Feedback for employees about how the manager and organiza- tion view their overall per- formance. Promotion, separation, and transfer decisions. Criteria for allocating organi- zational rewards. Criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of selection and placement decisions. Ascertaining training and de- velopment needs, along with criteria for evaluating the success of training and devel- opment decisions. Managers need to keep in mind that the performance evaluation process is at the focal point of the entire behavioral control system. That is, it not only evaluates the employee's behavior, but also initiates and corrects action. It is the last specific purpose listed by Szilagyi, that of ascertaining training and development needs, which is of the greatest interest to the researcher. No research, how- ever, could be located to identify why assessees follow up in varying extents to developmental recommendations dis- cussed in a performance appraisal interview. It should also be nmmtioned that performance appraisal systems are used as a tool for an individualfis development in the present job by comparing present skills and behaviors to the demands of the job currently held as well as for a more advanced position by comparing the present skills and behaviors to the demands of the advanced position. 32 Kirkpatrick (1978) has indicated that while analysis of performance appraisal forms in ".uone of tflme best sources of supervisory training needs.nthis approach is rarely used." MW 17) This was not entirely in congruence with the research conducted by Digman (1980) who agreed that performance appraisal systems yield information which can be used in determining management development needs, but who discovered that, in the 47 major corporations surveyed, a performance appraisal system was the most frequently cited source of management development needs information for middle-management and supervisory positions. Performance appraisal is used for this purpose by 89 percent of the responding organizations. When executive development needs were identified, incidentally, judgment of superior(s) was the most frequently cited technique (78 percent) while per— formance appraisal systems held second position (out of a: possible 11 sources of information), cited by 69 percent of the responding organizations. Self-assessment As the name implies, self-assessment is the process by which an individual examines his/her own strengths and areas for development with respect to one or more skills or traits. Self-assessment is uncommon in employment settings (Reilley and Chao, 1984), primarily because the technique is based upon the apparently faulty assumption that individuals 33 can make valid judgments about their own skills and abili- ties. hi their review Imf self-assessment validation studies, Reilley and Chao (1984) discovered that: Although several studies. reported jposi- tive results, only three studies included validity coefficients with overall cri- teria. Based (n1 these limited data (three independent coefficients, total N=545) an average weighted validity of .15 was calculated. (p. 282) Although Reilley and Chao did find self-assessment to have widespread use in psychological research, they con- cluded: Based on the research available, self— assessments cannot be recommended as a promising alternative. However, since self-assessments can be obtained quickly and inexpensively from applicants, researchers might consider including self-assessment variables based on job analysis information 111 a validation study. Results of such studies, if con- ducted in a realistic employment setting, could help determine whether self- assessments can be 21 useful source of." information. (1984, p. 283) Individual Assessment Though individual assessment may include a number of techniques like the interview and various tests, eug., self- report inventories, and projective tests, it is a process in which a psychologist gathers information about an individual and compares it to job requirements to make a recommendation regarding the individual's suitability for the target job. Of the methods of managerial selection and development, individual assessment has the greatest similarity to the 34 assessment center method. Many of the assessment center exercises may be found in individual assessment, e43” an in-basket exercise, an interview, and a scheduling exercise, but a key difference is that individual assessment employs a single assessor whereas the assessment center method employs multiple assessors who reach consensus judgments. Individual assessment requires a thorough job analysis to provide the psychologist/assessor with a clear descrip— tion of the skills and qualities required in the target job against which actual data collected can be compared. There is also an ethical responsibility of the psychologist to provide feedback to each individual assessed, whether placed in the target job or not. According to Lowman (1985), Psychologists should inform client com- panies that, if they are hired to perform individual assessments, they are bound by the ethics of their profession to provide feedback to the assessees unless an ex- ception to this is agreed on in advance, and to explain to the candidates the bases of their findings in terms they can understand. Generally psychologists should not exam- ine candidates cu' make ”suitability” recommendations if the job in question has not been sufficiently analyzed to establish qualification requirements and personal characteristics necessary for successful job performance. All practic- ing psychologists should be aware of the legal, social, and personal consequences of making decisions on the basis of as- sessment techniques that do not comply with professional validation standards. (pp. l3-l4) 35 The feedback supplied to each assessed individual can be used as ea basis for formulating developmental recommenda- tions to assist a rejected applicant or non-promoted employee in improving skills and abilities to have a greater chance to achieve the target job should there be a future opening. The Assessment Center Method As described in Chapter I, the assessment center method is a process by which individuals' levels of skills, abili- ties, and qualities are measured and compared to the levels required in a selected job. Because the assessment center method is at the core of the present study, it will be examined in much greater detail than any of the other tech- niques used for managerial selection and development. In May, 1975, the Third International Congress on the Assessment Center Method met in Quebec, Canada to approve a set of guidelines for the assessment center method. These guidelines appear in Appendix A. One of the main features of assessment centers is their reliance on multiple sources of data. A number of errors of measurement can be eliminated by observing an individual in several different assessment exercises designed Ix) measure the same skills, abilities, or qualities. Random errors leading to unreliability can be minimized with multiple observations of the same general type of assessment exer- cise. 36 Assessment centers, according to Jaffee and Sefcik (1980), always employ multiple-trained assessors to process behavioral information in a fair and impartial manner. The multiplicity of information sources and multiplicity of raters reaching consensus is at the root of the predictive and concurrent validities of time assessment process (Moses and Byham, 1977). A special type of assessment center method is one which is designed for early identification of managerial or super- visory potential. Thornton and Byham (1982) state, Early identification of supervisory or management potential provides an organi- zation with a much greater period of time for development prior to putting a person in a position—-as much as 6 to 8 years. The best trainer in the world can do little if information on the individuals to be trained is received just before they are to be promoted. If information is received well in advance, an organized and, it is hoped, effective training and development effort can be initiated. (p. 323) Thornton and Byham later continue to discuss similari- ties and differences between early identification assess- ments targeted at first or second level supervisors and those assessment centers designed more for the purpose of selection. An important observation they make is that, There are also some structural differ- ences between early identification pro- grams and selection programs. The AT&T early identification program (Moses, 1973 b) is shorter than the selection program. This reflects the state of assessment technology during the development of the programs more than a planned difference. [sic] However, there is good rationale for early identification centers to be 37 shorter and, therefore, slightly less reliable. The way most programs work, candidates who do poorly in the early identification assessment center program have a second chance later in a selection assessment center program. Thus, the negative effect of mis-classification error is lessened. A person falsely thought not to have potential is only slowed, not stopped, in his or her devel- opment. (Thornton and Byham, 1982, p. 325) It can be clearly seen that an early identification assessment center focuses exclusively on developmental needs for a target job whereas an assessment center designed for the dual purpose of selection and development does not. But what about the issue of training once developmental needs have been identified? Most companies must spend significant amounts of money to recruit, test, interview, and develop individuals for vacated positions. According to Business Week (1979), A less obvious but equally important reason for the closer attention large companies are giving Ix) human resources is the skyrocketing cost of employee benefits, which has risen from just above 20% of an average employee's salary five years ago to 35% today. With so much invested in aux employee, reducing turn- over rates is crucial. At Tenneco's J. I. Case subsidiary, the Human Resources Department is credited with helping the company reduce its monthly turnover to 1.1%, compared with an industry average of 1.5% a month, by developing clearer job performance criteria and better training programs... (p. 121) Because the major focus of this research is on one process by which needs for additional training and develop- ment might be unearthed, it would be appropriate to examine the concepts of training and learning. said: Bergevin 38 Training may be defined as any organiza- tionally initiated procedures which are intended to foster learning among organi- zational members. Needless to say, the desired learning is in a direction which is intended to contribute to overall organizational objectives. Learning may be thought of as a process by which an individual's pattern of behavior is changed by experience-~for our purposes, the catalytic experience of the training activity. So, training is a systematic intentional process of altering behavior of organizational members in a direction which contributes to organizational ef- fectiveness (King, 1964, p. 125; McGehee & Thayer, 1961, p. 3; Warren, 1969, p. 3). (p. 832) facet of adult education when he remarks that, Historical Development of the Assessment Center People concerned only with training pro- grams as distinquished from the long-term development of the learner through educa- tion, carry on the training programs as if the process of training a person to sell merchandise, do a particular job in a factory, or think and act a certain way has little to do with behavior change. But this is a fallacy. Every adult edu- cational or training exposure, whether it is mechanistic training or the longer developmental process, involves some change in the learner. (p. 66) Hinrichs (1975) (1967) considers training programs as just one The assessment center method has its foundation in the United States government's selection of international secret service agents during World War II. (1977), According to Moses 39 While assessment centers have been suc— cessfully used by many organizations for the past 15 years, the origin of this approach goes back well before this. Some early references to an assessment center concept can be seen in the work of German psychologists in the early 19005. The most commonly accepted date for the development of a historical frame of reference for this process goes back to the 19405 and the work of the Office of Strategic Services (088). (p. 8) Full details of the first assessment centers, used by the Office of Strategic Services, can be read in Assessment of Men authored in 1948 by the Office of Strategic Services (058) Assessment Staff. The 088 assessment centers were not wildly successful, but did yield positive results. Donald W. MacKinnon has worked with assessment centers since his days as Director of the original Office of Strategic Services Assessment Center at Station S, one of the 088 centers. MacKinnon (1977) has reported that, hi terms (fl? selecting international secret service agents, ...if we had used only random selection, our percent of correct decisions would have been 63%, but actually 77% were correct. Corresponding estimates for Station W are that by random selection, 66% would have been correct, but actually 84% were correct. This means that at Station S, Iassessment effected ea 14% increase in correct decisions over random selection and and at Station W, an 18% increment. Considering the crucial nature of the assignments, increments of 14% and 18% of correct decisions are not unimportant. (p. 27) The first private sector use of the assessment center method was the Management Progress Study (MPS) conducted by the 40 American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T). The MP8 was a longitudinal study of 422 male managers, two-thirds of whom were recent college graduates who participated in the MPS shortly after employment with one of six Bell System companies. The other one-third of the subjects were high school graduates who had been hired into non-management positions. The assessments took place in groups of twelve between 1956 and 1960 (Thornton and Byham, 1982). The assessors of the MPS, originally industrial or clinical psychologists, Bell System staff members, university faculty members, and consultants made, Two final ratings.u. Ratings of "Yes" or "No" indicated whether the staff pre- dicted the candidate would make middle management and whether he should make middle management in 10 years or less. If the staff came to an even split of yes/no votes, the candidate was placed in a "?" category. Later, the qualitative and quantitative information was summarized in a narrative report (ME each participant's performance at the assessment center. Feedback of results was not given to the partici— pants, their superiors, oz mo mm . mmmd mama Hmma omma whoa whma hhma mhma whoa vhma muma loll lol lol. lonl o lll Ill om vm mm mm om [ill ov be bv om om vm ooH mmmalmsma 2mo ZOHB¢UHmHEZMDH mm<04mm9m Hz? 2H Qmmmmmm< md¢DQH>HQzH ho mmmEDZ v mmDOHm )- E .-e.ore the c V performance 80 A study of the effectiveness of the IDP was conducted by the Steelcase Employee Development Department in September, 1981. The purpose of the study was to determine the extent to which overall IDP ratings related to future success as a supervisor. Historical data were collected for each IDP participant between 1973 and 1975 who had subsequently been promoted to a supervisory position. The early (1973-1975) sessions were used because the promotions had occurred several years before the study and data would be available about the job performance and salary increases. While job performance was initially considered to be a good success measure, a number of problems were encountered in trying to determine what performance dimensions to measure. When reviewing the historical data it was discovered that: (1) some IDP participants in the study went on to become supervisors other than Manufacturing Foreman (the target job of the IDP), (2) the statistical records available for Manufactur- ing Fbremen, iJe., measures of schedule completion, effi- ciency, quality, safety, etc., were assigned to departments rather than individuals, and (3) with many department num- ber changes, plant expansions, and supervisor re- assignments, historical data were difficult to obtain. Therefore, Steelcase decided to focus on the underlying notion that those supervisors who performed better would receive higher salary increases over time. a . 3 S a v vi. P\,~ Q upon 'V S .1 Q. ship Q r v L . upef’JisQ 73¢ . 9 Figure «up Of 1 h C U 81 To determine a supervisor's average annual salary increase, the individual's beginning base salary upon becom- ing a supervisor was subtracted from his/her "current" base salary (as of September, 1981) and divided by the number of years the individual had been in the supervisory position. Salary increases were computed for each of the 30 super- visors in the study. The supervisors were grouped according to their overall IDP rating which was expressed on a 1 to 5 scale (1=Low potential to succeed, 5=High potential to succeed). Average salary increases for each group were determined for each year since IDP participation and for each year since becoming a supervisor. Additionally, the salary increases per year since becoming a supervisor were compared to the average salary increases given to the total group of exempt salaried supervisors. Upon examining the groups of individuals promoted to the target job who had received overall IDP ratings ranging from 2 to 5, it became apparent that a strong positive relation- ship existed between overall IDP ratings and subsequent supervisory success as measured by their salary increases (See Figure 5). No individual who had received an overall IDP of 1 had been promoted to the target job. .35.}: c>CL< .. Ia f~u2p—_— cu .— 5 ii. r... Ar“ .1. ..ELS:~ .9. .T.>~.V >..G~ can 1r. raspcg.o .12... a. L a. C H 1?: 1. Ctr; ,7. CL ‘C e an m 1 1N. T ma 82 FIGURE 5 PERCENTAGE BY WHICH THE MEAN SALARY INCREASE OF IDP-ASSESSED SUPERVISORS EXCEEDED THE MEAN SALARY INCREASE OF THE TOTAL GROUP OF SALARIED SUPERVISORS 2.. ,BCL 25 - <25 X 01mm 0‘) L4 8”?) 83"; 20 .1 (23“ 19.63 H m on. >115 L: U) igguu 15 - m>o (Ow-l on. 3018 12.84 (OWL-l unto cal 10 - qlu 00 14:: (DH m 7.40 5.61 S l l T T 'T IDP RATING 1 2 3 4 5 The general question to be answered by this study was: "What factors influence the extent to which an individual follows up on devel- opmental recommendations made following his/her participation in an assessment center?" The three specific questions to be answered by this study were: 1. Do what degree are pre-assessment factors related to the extent to which an individual follows up on post—assessment center developmental recommenda- tions? h.) 538‘ a ‘aned t E‘Dw- «‘3 -nts O tCfldil- 8 Back, 3V7 . Cue Slan ~XlStin i» it #593 roa uu tar “ and 583 d. 3the pOQ the (u 83 2. Do what degree are factors associated with the assessment center and feedback process related to the extent to which an individual follows up on post-assessment center developmental recommenda- tions? 3. To what degree are post—assessment factors related to the extent to which an individual follows up on developmental recommendations made during the post- assessment feedback process? Research Method Individuals who had participated in an assessment center designed to measure the skills and qualities necessary for a first-line supervisor (Manufacturing Foreman) at Steelcase were used as subjects for the research. One pool of data was gathered through a: questionnaire (See Appendix C) designed to collect the assessees' perceptions of various elements of the assessment center, the feedback process, conditions following.the receipt of assessment center feed- back, and their descriptions of (flu: developmental efforts made since receiving the feedback. Information contained in existing individual assessment files included written exer- cises produced by each candidate during the assessment cen- ter and assessor judgments regarding performance and formed another pool of data for the research. Data collected from the questionnaires and the subjects' assessment files were analyzed to determine the degree to which relationships S .1. 0. 0.. .1. .c t n E ..—I q-e"‘ t C a. .0 ..g 7'3, . c1.‘ 3 COT: VG a. e C; O 071 b. ‘I. h» . unhWH rt t .5. a LL "V mm. 0 a. O r. Lu. r. 7 0 5 b c ~ I P?» 84 exist between selected factors and the dependent variable, i.e., the degree of follow-up on post-assessment develop- mental recommendations. The literature relating to assess- ment and assessment centers, managerial selection and development, early identification, testing, adult develop- ment, job analyses, and feedback was carefully researched to identify any previous studies which could be used as a basis for the present work. The interview method of data collecting was originally considered by the researcher for this study. An interview method would have, of course, allowed for further clarifica- tion of questions and responses, would that have been nec— essary. To interview over 300 individuals during their working hours, however, would have been an extremely diffi- cult task in terms of scheduling, length of time, and expense. Participant Selection In this study, all individuals who had participated in the Steelcase, Inc. IDP who were also currently employed at the time of the study (N=335) were used as the population from which the subjects were drawn. As mentioned earlier, 17 other individuals also had participated in the IDP who, for various reasons, were no longer in the employment of Steelcase and could not be contacted. The entire group satisfying both conditions, i.e., assessed and currently employed, was chosen to eliminate any initial sampling bias. .L e .3 . e a: CC C 0’ and 5. C. . lav Cu .1; r. o. n C and Cs 85 Each of the individuals was asked through a letter from the Steelcase, Inc. Vice President of Manufacturing (See Appendix D) to respond to a questionnaire. Of the questionnaires distributed, 300 (89.6 percent) were return- ed; of these, 299 were usable for the study. Those individuals who had been assessed in the IDP between 1973 and April, 1985 exhibited the following char- acteristics at the time of assessment: 1. None were in the target job (Manufacturing Fore- man). 2. All but one had a position at a pay grade lower than that of a Manufacturing Foreman. 3. Nearly aflJ. were working in highly product-related departments; only seven were from non-manufacturing departments, 1&h, marketing, personnel, purchas- ing, and data processing. 4. Nearly all were male; only 22 were female. Eight- een (82 percent) of the females had been assessed since April, 1982. 5. They ranged in age from 22 to 60 years. The mean age at the time of assessment was 34.3 years. 6. They ranged in seniority from 9 months to 39 years, 1 month. The mean seniority was 9.48 years. 86 Instrumentation One pool of data used in this study was provided by the individual IDP files maintained for each participant. Each file contains: '1. A biographical background questionnaire completed by the candidate before IDP participation. Assessors' notes on behavioral observations as the candidate worked through the IDP exercises. Individual assessor ratings of candidate perfor- mance on each of the critical dimensions of the target job, as well as each assessor's rating of overall potential to succeed in the target job. Integrated ratings of candidate performance on each of the ten critical job dimensions as well as a single, integrated rating of the candidate's over- all potential to succeed in the target job. An original copy of the written report read to the candidate during the feedback session. A photocopy of a "Summary Profile" given to the candidate to keep. This document contains highly condensed feedback regarding IDP performance. All written material (original exercises, notes) produced by the candidate during the IDP. A description of suggested developmental paths to be taken to improve upon skills and personal quali- ties identified as needing improvement, i.e., below f C C. 3 r. 3. c. 4.4 r. av C .~. .2 87 the level required by the target job of Manufactur- ing Foreman. This information appeared on the "Summary Profile" given to the candidate. At this point, it is appropriate to describe the content of the IDP and the way in which the exercises are used. Four exercises comprise the Identification Development Program and are presented to the candidates in the following order sion): 1. (six candidates always are invited to a given ses- Leaderless Group Discussion. In this exercise, each assessee is asked to play the role of a Manu- facturing Superintendent an: the Sellmore Company. Each is given a description of a candidate (presum- ably given to him/her by a subordinate Foreman) to be considered for a vacancy of Foreman. Each of the background descriptions was pmeviously tested for equal desirability (Hf candidates--all are essentially reasonably qualified, each with one fault of some sort. The assessees are told they have one hour in which to discuss and decide which of the candidates will be recommended first to fill the new vacancy, which will be second, etc. The assessees are told each should do the best job possible to get his/her candidate promoted but to make the best decision for the company as a whole. Foreman's In-Basket. In this exercise, each asses- see is given a simulated in-basket containing 14 CC 88 different letters, notes, and memos and is told to assume the role of a first-line foreman in the packing section of a: warehouse. The objective is to identify how each item will be handled in the upcoming week; the candidate is told he/she will be going on a week long vacation and will have to write out all instructions. Separate memo paper is provided to the candidate to be used, if desired, to respond to the items. The time limit for the exercise is 90 minutes. Following the written portion of the exercise, each assessee is inter- viewed by one of the assessors to identify how and why the items were handled as they were, and to present alternative ways of handling the items to measure the assessee's ability to make decisions on the spot. A standard interview guide provided to each assessor 1x) insure consistency across inter- views. Interview Simulation. In this exercise, the admin- istrator of the IDP plays the role of Pat Jones, an electronic equipment assembler. Pat Jones is identified through written material provided to the assessee as a highly competent and likeable worker who has also been absent the last three Fridays with no excuse and whose work area has been untidy. The assessee is told the objective is to spend up to 15 minutes in a one-on-one discussion with Pat 89 Jones and, through assuming the role of Pat's supervisor, gain Patfs commitment to improve. One additional assessor is present during this simula- tion to take notes of the assessee's handling of the exercise. 4. Scheduling Exercise. In this exercise, the asses- sees are told to assume the role of Foreman in a six-person plumbing shop. Each is given a brief description of the six employees and a description of a number of jobs to be scheduled during the day. A number of other factors are described (general scheduling policy, key elements of a labor agree- ment, etc.) which the assessee must take into con- sideration when working out a work schedule for the six plumbers for the day. The time limit on this exercise is 45 minutes. At the end of the time limit, each candidate is given a description of three new jobs to be considered which may cause the candidate to revise the initial schedule. The time limit on the second portion of the Scheduling Exer- cise is 20 minutes. A matrix describing how the assessors obtain information on the IDP variables is seen in Appendix F. The assessment staff meets during the two days following the actual one day assessment program. For each candidate, the assessment staff spends approximately 2 1/2 hours in a b C .3 Fla. 2 - . .. . r. Aw. 1.. 0 e n .1 a I 1 a . «a . 1 I 3. Z . Au his a. 3 z . -1 I I re n «1 re 3 C fi/g L.» O u a n D. C a O. r. rs A» 3. Av a» D. vb Q :3 ll" 7. F¥ CL in a. C. P. O 11 F .1; s. p... Hid H. A\ ra m, Jig u 90 post-assessment discussion of performance at which the final ratings are made. For each of the critical job dimensions of the position of Manufacturing Foreman each assessor applies one of the following numerical ratings to express the amount of behav- ior exhibited by the candidate: "5" - Outstanding--more skill tfluui the position requires. "4" - Good--the normal skill level needed for acceptable performance. "3" - Moderate--a bit less skill than would be needed for acceptable performance; some development required. "2" - Limited--quite a bit less skill than needed for acceptable performance; quite a bit of development required. "1" - Low--essentially no skill seen; development criti- cal. After all dimensions are independently rated, the assessment staff members compare and discuss their ratings until general consensus has been achieved. For the rating of a candidate's overall potential to succeed as a Manufacturing Foreman, each assessor applies a rating of "B" (High), "M" (Moderate), or "L" (Low). Again, after the assessors have independently rated a candidate's overall potential, the assessors compare and discuss their overall ratings to reach consensus. The overall rating of supervisory potential as supplied by the integrated assessor 91 ratings is expressed on a seven-point scale ranging from High to Low, with increments in between: H (High) H- (High Minus) M+ (Moderate Plus) M (Moderate) M- (Moderate Minus) L+ (Low Plus) L (Low) All of the above information was used as one pool of data for this research. To establish the reliability of the data collected by the IDP it will be necessary to describe the process by which IDP assessors are selected and trained. Assessors generally are selected from the ranks of Manufacturing Superintendents--the organizational level to which Manufac- turing Foremen report directly. Because of this, and because most had been in the position of Manufacturing Foreman at one time, Manufacturing Superintendents have a broad understanding of the skills required of a successful Manufacturing Foreman. Additional assessors may also be selected from the large pool of Manufacturing Foremen while others are chosen from the Human Resources Division of Steelcase-~more specifically from tflma Employee Development Department which is responsible for management training and for the administration of the IDP. r4 1 s t a LL 6 I- .C . . E a 0 d E ..Q _ C . . A: P. C Va oh.” I .d k g 1. #g e . 7,. f Or. 9. o; .i . l . 74 O 3 D. s L C .t I 3 . O S k... V O V r r m MUD 1 LL 9 v. r S e e t t .1 O O a 0 e .a e . «G e F s S m r D. .lu Q.» fl: c. “I” IN! a: #b e ‘C n d 0 AH» p Q. C 1‘ PL .3 qflu .7. t b. r: nfiw fa .~ . Ow Cr; an 0 HI. V4 MW” up.“ a Pa; 1 . a .4. D I .l i . t b C 4w m... ..w 4.... I e C. 92 The individuals selected to conduct the training sessions for new IDP assessors are Human Resource Develop- ment Consultants with training and experience in the measurement and improvement of human performance as well as experience in the administration of the IDP. Over the four days of training, assessor candidates participate in each of the four exercises of the IDP as well as learn how to observe, record, classify, and specifically describe behavior. They are instructed and given practice in the use of the various forms, check lists, and reports of the IDP, the consensus-seeking integration process of the variable ratings and the overall rating of supervisory potential. Performance criteria for a newly-trained group are measured by comparing the new groupfls judgments of videotaped (standardized) assessment situations to the judg- ments of an experienced IDP staff using the same situations. If the newly-trained group's ratings, 1&h, the means of the individual ratings for each of the variables, are within i0.5 of the ratings of the experienced staff and the mean of the overall rating of supervisory potential does not deviate by more than one point on the seven-point rating scale when compared to the mean overall rating of supervisory potential determined by the experienced staff, the assessor training is considered to be successful. Reliability of IDP ratings is also improved during the evaluation discussions as assessors are required to reach a degree of consensus in rating variables and overall rating 93 of supervisory' potential. Regarding the :hudividual. vari- ables, the four assessors on any given staff are required to produce ratings using the lrto-S scale (described earlier) which deviate from each other by no more than one rating point. This means, for example, that initial assessor ratings on a selected variable of "3”, "3", "4", and "2" would not be permitted. Though deviations of more than one point are quite uncommon, when they do occur the assessors must reopen their discussion on that variable and cite evidence and answer questions of the others to support their positions. When one or more assessors are comfortable in changing the rating(s), the "split" can be resolved. The mean of the new ratings is then calculated. This consensus- seeking rating process ensures a high degree of interrater reliability. The second pool of data for this study was collected through the questionnaire seen in Appendix C. The following is a description of the rationale for questionnaire items and the procedure by which the questionnaire was validated. In designing the questionnaire, the design principles of Babbie (1973) and Sudman and Bradburn (1983) were followed. The questionnaire was made as brief as possible, given the type and amount of data needed to answer the questions of the study. Most of the questionnaire items were structured with only one free-response item requiring a potentially long answer. The free-response item was designed to gather information about the dependent variable, 14e., the actual 94 extent to which IDP assessees had followed up on post- assessment developmental recommendations. No masking items were included on the questionnaire. Each question was worded to deal with a single concept and was worded to minimize any misunderstanding on the part of respondents. Additionally, the final draft of the ques- tionnaire was typeset to reduce the number of pages required. Typesetting gave the questionnaire a neat and professional appearance and made it appear relatively small and easy to complete. To further increase the response rate, a cover letter signed by the Steelcase, Inc. Vice President of Manufactur- ing (See Appendix D) accompanied each questionnaire to moti- vate each respondent to fulfill the request for information. The letter was neatly typed and emphasized the need for the study as well as the confidentiality of the responses as a potential means of improving truthfulness and the percentage of returns. A pre-addressed envelope was given to each respondent as a means of helping to make the questionnaire return as easy as possible. An initial draft of the questionnaire was given, along with a description of the intent of the study and research questions, txi four industrial psychologists for their review. They included: (1) Joseph Allen Cook, IMLD., Con— sultant, at Roher, Hibler, & Replogle of Grand Rapids, MI; (2) Lecter IL Hyder, Jr., Ph.Dq Consultant, .at Roher, Hibler, & Replogle of Grand Rapids, MI; (3) John E. Nangle, 95 PhJL, Associate Director of Institutional Research at West- ern Michigan University of Kalamazoo, MI; (4) James C. Soule, PhJL, Vice President of Human Resources at Steel- case, Inc. of Grand Rapids, MI. Their comments and sugges- tions were used to make the draft of the questionnaire which was pilot-tested with a sample of respondents. The questionnaire was mailed to six individuals with the cover letter from the Steelcase Vice President of Manufac- turing. The respondents were given ten days to complete and return the questionnaire. The returned questionnaires were inspected after which the six respondents were contacted by telephone to comment and make specific suggestions on the directions, recording procedures, and specific items. This feedback was used to confirm the design of the questionnaire which was then typeset for distribution to the remaining members of the population (See Appendix C). The data from the six initial respondents were included in the study. After the ten day time limit for responding had passed, a reminder letter was mailed by the Vice President of Manu- facturing (See Appendix E) to those individuals whose ques- tionnaires had not been returned. The Research Questions This research was designed to provide data which will be appropriate to enable the researcher to answer the following general and specific questions: 96 General Question What factors influence the extent to which an individual follows up on developmental recommendations made following his/her participation in an assessment center? Specific Questions 1. To what degree are pre-assessment factors related to the extent to which an individual follows up on post- assessment center developmental recommendations? 2. To what degree are factors associated with the assessment center and feedback process related to the extent to which an individual follows up on post-assessment center developmental recommendations ? 3. To what degree are post-assessment factors related to the extent to which an individual follows up on post- assessment center developmental recommendations? Treatment of Data Information (N1 assessment center participants' percep- tions of various pre-, during-, and post-assessment factors was collected, along (with their descriptions of post- assessment developmental activities. In addition, certain demographic data were collected (age, sex, seniority, eth. Each participant's description of post-assessment devel- opmental activity was used as the dependent variable. The descriptions were coded by the researcher and two additional IDP assessors using a rating scale (See Figure 6) essen- tially identical to that which other IDP assessors use to 97 rate assessees' skill levels in each of the ten critical job dimensions. FIGURE 6 RATING SCALE FOR CODING THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE "To what extent has this individual pursued post-IDP developmental recommendations?" 5 = To an OUTSTANDING extent. 4 = To a GOOD extent. 3 = To a MODERATE extent. 2 = TO LIMITED extent. a: l = To a VERY LIMITED extent. Each assessor coding post-assessment developmental activity was first asked to rate the level of activity, then to compare the rating to the ratings of the other two asses- sors. If the ratings deviated from one another by one point or less, it was agreed that consensus was achieved. If any two ratings deviated by two or more points, the assessors were then asked to discuss their ratings until one or more of the ratings could be changed to achieve consensus. After this consensus was achieved on the rating of a given IDP participantfis post-assessment. developmental activity, the mean of the three individual ratings was calculated. Using the mean rating of post-assessment developmental activity as the dependent variable, a log-linear model with 98 a chi-square test statistic was used to measure the depend- ence between variables. This method of analysis was sel- ected over other options like regression analysis, factor analysis, and principal components analysis, because the data of the study are primarily in ordered categories whereas the optional methods of analysis assume multivariate normality. The following is a description of how data used to determine the answer to Research Question #1 were treated. The pre-assessment factors are identified as: a. Age. b. Company Seniority. _c. Desire for the Target Job. d. Formal Educational Level. e. Organizational Level. f. Sex. 9. Desire to Attend the Assessment Center. Data on factors "c" and "g" were collected through the questionnaire designed for this study. Data for the other factors were collected and placed in personnel and IDP files before the individuals attended the assessment center. For each pre-assessment factor except ”f" a log-linear model with a chi-square test statistic (Agresti, 1984) was used to determine the degree of relationship to the dependent vari- able. Factors "a" (Age) and "b" (Company Seniority) were expressed in number of years. 99 Factors "c" (Desire for tine Target Job) and "g" (Desire to Attend the Assessment Center) were coded by simply using the numbers associated with the items selected by respond- ents to the questionnaire. Factor "d" (Formal Educational Level) was coded by using the following five-point scale: "5" - Approximately a four-year degree (or more). "4" - Approximately a two-year degree. "3" - High school diploma/G.E.D. supplemented by a few additional courses. "2” — High school diploma or G.E.D. "l" - Less than high school diploma or G.E.D. Factor "e" (Organizational Level at Assessment) was coded using the system by which Steelcase places relative values on positions within the company. Each job's value is described by totaling points from a number of different categories. The point totals (calculated by the Steelcase Compensation'Department) for all jobs range from a minimum of 200 to a maximum of 2,000. This system was used as it accurately reflects subtle changes in organizational level. Factor "f" (Sex) was simply coded "M" (Male) or "F" (Female). The following is a description of how data used to determine the answer to Research Question #2 were treated. The during-assessment factors are identified as: a. Overall rating of potential to succeed in the tar- get job. 100 b. Perceived realism of assessment situations/exer- cises. c. Percepthmi of the utility of the feedback process itself, including: i. Appropriateness of the amount of time spent during the oral feedback. ii. Credibility (M? the individual delivering the feedback. iii. Sensitivity displayed by the individual deliv- ering the feedback. iv. Relevance of the feedback in comparison to the critical job dimensions. v. Acceptability of the time delay between the assessment and feedback. vi. Relevance of the developmental recommendations to the developmental needs identified. Factor "a" (Overall Rating of Supervisory Potential) was coded by the respective assessment staff and placed in the individual's assessment file following the evaluation dis- cussion. All other factors were coded by simply using the numbers associated with the items selected by respondents to the questionnaire. For all during-assessment factors the log-linear model and chi-square test statistic described by Ag‘resti (1984) were used in an attempt to identify relationships to the dependent variable. 101 The following is a description of how data used to determine the answer to Research Question #3 were treated. The post-assessment factors were identified as: a. Perceived level of support provided by each of the following for individual development efforts: i. Organization. ii. Immediate supervisor/manager. iii. Co—workers. iv. Family members. v. Friends. b. Desire for the target job (post-assessment). c. Perceived likelihood of achieving the target job. All post-assessment factors were coded by simply using the numbers associated with the items selected by respond- ents to the questionnaire. The data were analyzed using a log-linear model and chi-square test statistic in an attempt to identify relationships to the dependent variable. Summary Using a questionnaire, 299 participants provided the study with their perception of pre-, during-, and post- assessment center factors. The participants were all cur- rent Steelcase, Inc. employees who had participated in the Steelcase IDP since its development in 1973. Additional data for the study were primarily demographic and were collected from assessment files and personnel records. 102 One questionnaire item requested participants to describe their post-assessment developmental activities as they related to the target job. These descriptions were rated by three trained IDP assessors using a consensus- seeking process identical to the process used to rate an assesseeJS performance in the dimensions of the target job. Once the three assessors achieved general consensus on the rating of a candidate's post-assessment developmental activ- ity, the mean of the individual ratings was computed and used as the dependent variable. The data were subjected to a statistical analysis to determine the degree of relationship of each selected factor to the dependent variable. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The techniques for analyzing the relationships between selected pre-, during-, and post-assessment factors and participants' extent of follow-up on post-assessment center developmental recommendations are presented in this chapter. The main research question to be answered is: Q. What factors influence the extent to which an individual follows up on developmental recommendations made following his/her participation in an assessment center? As mentioned in Chapter III, a total of 352 individuals were assessed in the Steelcase Identification Development Pnogran|(IDP) between 1973 and mid-1985. Of this total, 335 (95.2 percent) were still employed and were considered the Population for the study. Of those 335 individuals who received the questionnaire designed for the study, 300 (89.6 Percent) returned questionnaires; 299 (89.3 percent) of the questionnaires mailed were returned completed in a manner Considered satisfactory for further analysis. A frequency distribution of the study participants' ratings of post-IDP follow-up on developmental recommenda- tions (the dependent variable) is seen in Table 4.1. It is 103 104 clear that the distribution is highly skewed toward the low end of the scale, 1&5, nearly 52 percent of the respond- ents' post—assessment follow-up on recommendations was rated 1.0 to 2.0 on a five-point scale, ‘vith "1.0" being low. This translates into the fact that slightly over half of the individuals participating in the research did little or nothing to improve those skills and qualities identified as needing improvement. 105 accoskum m. I. W. m. m. m. m. e oo.ooa mm.m ¢m~ Ha ««**¥« o.m mm.om oo.H mmm m a« h.v mm.m¢ vm.m mmm OH ¥x««« m.v hm.H¢ mm.m th HH «««#«x o.v mm.mm mm.m «mm ma **««««««*« h.m ¢m.am No.0 m¢N ma ««««««««« m.m Nm.mh mm.m FNN om *«*¥«««¥¥« o.m mm.mm on.oa mom Nm **««««*««*««*««* b.N mm.mm no.5 mha Hm «««¥¥««**«« m.N wmm Hm.Hm on.m vma mm ««««««««««««««« o.N Hm.Hv Ho.v mNH NH ¥««««« h.H ab.hm mw.w MHH cm ««**«x«««« m.H OH.HM oa.am mm mm *««*««««*««¥*««««*««*«**x«««««««««««««««x«x«««« o.H w wmum 30a 25 w 28 3E dn-mottod go {aAaq SEOEZH KHE mom mZOHfiémgnHmm mDH ZO mDIEflpm .WHZAEHUHEQ .mO OZHB/wmildé 59E. 106 Though a relatively small number of individuals (35) did not return questionnaires, it appears they differed from the respondents. It can be seen from Table 4.2 that the per- centages of non-respondents scoring poorly in (fine IDP assessment exceeded the percentage of poor scorers in the responding group. In particular, the percentage of non- respondents whose overall rating of supervisory potential was "1" (Low) exceeded the corresponding percentage figure for respondents by a factor of approximately 2 l/2 (34.29 percent vs. 14.00 percent). 107 aocozqoym m. I. m. I. W... m. m. e N. am oo.OOH mm.m ocm mN «««*«««*«««««*«*«*««*«««« h hm.Hm No.0H th om ¥«««««««***¥«*«*«*««**«««¥«««««««««««*««**«««««««* m oo.mh co.OH mNN cm «*««««««x***««««*«*««««««««*«* m oo.mm hm.mN mmH om xx«x««x««x«««««x««««x«««xxx«xsxx***«*«*«s««xxsxxxxx««**««¥«««««xx ¢ mm.mm mm.HH mHH vm «*««*«*««**««««««*«««««««««««««««a m oo.hN co.MH Hm NM *«««***«x«««««*«*««¥*«««x««axx«««««««¥« N oo.vH oo.vH Nw Ne «*«««««««««««««««««**«««*«««*««««**««««««* H mm» co.OOH Hh.m mm N «x h mN.va Hh.m mm N «« m hm.mm hm.m Hm m *«* m oo.om mm.NN mN m «««««««« v «H.5m mv.HH ON v xaxx m Hh.mv m¢.HH 0H v «««« N mN.vm mN.vm NH NH «*««*«««xx«x H 02 w doom muoom 58 w 28 RE 9.3mm EB 2896 ES ocammm mmHEZOHBmm—DO E OF mBzmozoammleOz .m> awn—28mg .mO may—00m 2550mm gaggma ZOHBSHWHEZMQHIIN .v mamas? 108 It is possible that a number of non—respondents did not receive or return their questionnaires due to illnesses, medical leaves of absence, vacations, or interplant trans- fers. As a means of improving the validity of the study, 50 of the questionnaires returned were randomly selected and their descriptions of developmental recommendations were compared to data kept in files in the Employee Development Department at Steelcase. Because the Employee Development Department administers the Steelcase Educational Assistance Program (a program by which employees are reimbursed for their tuition for various outside courses for which a passing grade is received) and conducts numerous management and supervisory development programs internally, it was considered to have the most accurate records on employee's developmental efforts. Some of the developmental activities listed by participants in the study such as various readings or job assignments could not be validated by this method. In all but one case, the descriptions were corroborated. In the case of the exception, the individual had listed completing an internal development program after participating in the IDP whereas the program had been completed slightly before the time of assessment. This error did not significantly alter the individual's score of post-assessment follow-up on developmental recommendations. In designing the study, a log-linear model with a chi- square test statistic was selected for analysis as it was 109 pre-determined that the data would be in ordered categories rather than continuous. Not only was the assumption of multivariate normality violated by the categorical nature of the data, but also by the skewed distributions of the dependent variable and many of the factors selected for analysis. Because of this, many common methods of data analysis, exp, factor analysis, regression analysis, and principal components analysts were of doubtful use due to their requirement of approximate multivariate normality. In fact, a factor analysis amd a principal component analysis were attempted, tun: failed to yield useful results due to the skewed and categorical nature of the data. An attempt was made to apply a regression analysis after transforming the data with the formulas l/y and 1/vy; this attempt also failed to yield useful results. In initially analyzing the data, chi-square tables were developed using the l3-point rating scale for the dependent variable (See Table 4.3). This method of analysis was abandoned; spreading 299 bits of data over the 65 cells of a 5 X 13 table, for example, yielded an expected value per cell of less than five (4.60). The tables were so sparse that chi-square was not considered to be a valid test under these conditions. 110 TABLE 4.3--ORIGINAL/COLLAPSED RATINGS: POST-IDP FOLLOW-UP ON RECOMMENDATIONS Scale Original Rating Revised Scale Collapsed Rating 1 1.0 2 1.3 l - LOW 3. 1.7 4 2.0 5 2.3 6 2.7 7 3.0 2 - MODERATE 8 3.3 9 3.7 10 4.0 11 4.3 3 - HIGH 12 4.7 13 5.0 To overcome this difficulty, the data on the dependent variable were aggregated in such a manner that the l3-point scale was collapsed into a three-point scale (Again see Table 4.3%. Such collapsing of the dependent variable into a smaller number of categories significantly increased the expected number of cases per cell in each two—way table and made the chi-square test appropriate. With respect to the factors to be examined, those which were continuous (age at u\. Cu .vu 1.1: L. C CL A: x lll assessment, seniority at assessment, and job grade at as- sessment) were also collapsed into categories to allow the use of the chi-square test. Each of the 22 factors to be examined were treated as independent variables, although certain factors (age, sen- iority, educational level, and job grade) were technically demographic factors. The statistics employed tested the null hypothesis of no association between the row variable and column variable. The type of chi-square table and statistics constructed for each factor included the probability that the null hypothesis is true. This more clearly expresses the degree of dependence between the dependent variable and each of the factors examined. Pre-assessment Factors The research question to be answered by these factors is: "To what degree are pre-assessment fac- tors related to the extent to which an individual follows up on post-assessment center developmental recommendations?" The pre-assessment factors examined in this research are seen in Table 4.4. 112 TABLE 4.4--PRE-ASSESSMENT FACTORS AND PROBABILITIES OF NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE Pre-assessment Factor Probability a. Age at assessment .0418* b. Seniority at assessment .4239 c. Formal education level .0160* d. Job grade (organizational level) at assessment .6383 e. Sex .9906 f. Desire to attend assessment center .0186* g. Desire for target job ' .1453 *Significant Age at Assessment It was anticipated that post-assessment developmental activity would be dependent upon age and specifically that older individuals nearer the ends of their careers would be less inclined to work toward the target job. Conversely, it seemed reasonable to expect younger workers who had addi- tional time to devote to their careers to sense the future value of their own development toward a more responsible position. There is aa fairly clear dependence between age at assessment auul post-assessment. follow-up (N1 developmental recommendations. One can see from the chi-square chart and statistics (See Table 4.5) that those rated "high" in terms of following Lu) on post-IDP developmental recommendations a CC.— .. .ut: 1:2: CU :2 EC QZIRA: H CL QCH l u DOA consist more of age 40) than of older). Figure 7). "younger" "older" workers workers 113 (32 individuals are under (only three are age 40 or Also see the three-dimensional representation (See TABLE 4. 5--POST-IDP.FOLLOW-UP ON RECOMMENDATIONS BY AGE AT IDP *Frequency Age Expected Row Pct 50 or Col Pct Under 30 30 - 39 40 - 49 Older Total :0 No Reply 5 22 9 0 . g 0 O O O .H O 0 .LJ (0 . . c c 2 a Low 43 78 22 11 154 8 45.3 80.3 21.6 6.7 g 27.92 50.65 14.29 7.14 48.86 50.00 52.38 84.62 8 2‘ Moderate 28 63 17 2 110 ; 32.4 57.4 15.5 4.8 g 25.45 57.27 15.45 1.82 H 31.82 40.38 40.48 15.38 :2 m . Q High 17 15 3 0 35 T 10.3 18.3 4.9 1.5 g 48.57 42.86 8.57 0.00 Total 88 156 42 13 299 Statistics For 2-Way Tables Chi-Square 13.082 DF = 6 PROB 0.0418 *Elements in Each Cell of the Table. 114 Edam: 50H 9d VOA ZMZZO DlBOJHOh “OH Led 0mm H Lugs: éFZMEQOdm>wD \Pmoa as. m; witou ruzmfiaumu a. Q. E C cH Lb AC an u .C I. 71 might F a D. center m1. indica e 9 O» wOrker 115 Seniority at Assessment To begin with, :U: was expected that this factor would necessarily be highly intercorrelatad with the factor "age at assessment." The rationale for this is clear; as an individual's seniority increases, his age increases by an equal amount. It would, of course, be impossible to find a worker with 25 years of seniority who was only 25 years old. There was an expectation that a dependency might exist between seniority at assessment and the dependent variable. It was anticipated that, while workers with more seniority might have more insight into the workings of a manufacturing department, increasing seniority (like increasing age) would reduce an assessee's desire to follow up on assessment center developmental recommendations. The chi-square table and statistics (See Table 4.6) indicate with a high degree of probability that no depend- ence exists between this factor and the dependent variable. The reader will notice, however, that in the groups of workers with ten or more years seniority (total of 123 people), only eight were rated "high" for post-IDP develop- ment. Also see Figure 8. 1:— >2 3.7: c _ .~.<:Z...~22Ac.v...-Z 2A1» L 3 I \SPV .~ .7-.v..~ 1“? { no Mk... III: I! LQN 5.5.9.4... auntie 0%. ...\-~,~<.~. 116 .mfinme 8:» to Hamo comm as mucmemam . ammq.o u moan so amo.m mumswmufigo mmanme swanm Hos moaamfiumum mam NH as on mas >4 H8009 oo.o mm.s 4H.h om.mH am.ea oo.o nm.m m~.¢H 4H.sm oo.o~ % e.H m.v N.m H.mH m.m 3 mm o m m cm A cos: .H I G oo.m~ mv.H¢ 4H.em H~.>m vo.vm d ms.~ mv.ma em.m~ «m.mv mm.vH 8 «.4 H.mH m.m~ m.eq m.sH w OHH m AH mm me 8H 8888860: Mm A. co.me -.Hm He.nm a~.sv mo.am m vm.m em.ma ~m.m~ Hm.am mm.ma «.8 H.H~ H.8m v.88 ~.e~ m «ma a am am He em 30a H a 3 O O O I O O O O O O O m 0 I O O 0 w . m m S 3 e imam oz w. P. .4. Hoses mus +o~ mu» mflnmfl was vauoa 80» mnm mu» mv Dom Hoo m. pom 30m u @960me s Nuwuowcwm Nocmskum8 mm: .H.< >BHmOHZWm Mm mZOHefln—zmzzoumm ZO mDISOqAOm QDHIBmOnHIIoH. mqmdp. 117 Figure 8. 1.3: _ monBIdzmrzooum agzmzmoqu/uo I. ..IMHrf 20 82-2030... .5758 3.g JJIIJIIIIIII I... - v n, ...A I I: _ a.-- .................. . v. H I uuuuuuuuuuuu Ammu._._ ZC_._.<.::_¢_ .— 2 mnzAv _. ._I<:zn.:i_>2v..v.i: 2A.» A-ulznv.h~ .oHooe ono Ho HHoo comm cH mocoeon. 119 ooHo.o u momm m u so oms.wH moosomnHzo moHooe mozum ooz moHomHooum pom om oo oHH om HH . Hoooe o~.0H oo.oH mv.mH Ho.MH oo.o . mo.HH «H.>H H~.mv H~.m~ oo.o . % o.o H.> o.oH m.> m.H . 3 mm o o oH o o o con In I G mo.mm oo.om hh.mm o~.v~ mo.mm . d >~.oH ~m.~m mn.mm mo.¢H mn.m . a m.oH o.- ”.mo N.om m.v . m oOH Hm om om oH m H mooooco: m. H oo.mm oo.oe mn.mm NH.~o ~o.on . m mH.o oo.mH mm.Ho om.o~ om.o . H.o~ m.om m.Ho o.vm n.o . o mmH «H «N Ho Ho oH H 30H no H a O O O O O O 3 O o o o o o o m 0 O O O O 0 w . N n mH o m H sHoom oz m. 9 2 Houoe m o m N H moon oz Loo Hoo m. 9 0m 30% ..u couommxm s Hm>ma coHumozcm HmEuom aocmsvoum8 an: HR amt/ms ZOHBmo ZO QDIEOHHOL ADHIBmOm mDH B< Hm>md ZCHEdUDOE atrmom \\\ FZDCQ >©Z¢29m¢u \0 «O U) 0 H. 11') Ff 121 Organizational Level (Job Grade) at Assessment As described earlier, all jobs at Steelcase, Inc. are given a point value ranging from 200 through 2,000 to ident- ify the relative contribution of each job to corporate success. This system of points was used as a representation of each study participant's organizational level or job grade. The number of points assigned to the target job of Manufacturing Foreman is 674. All IDP participants with the exception of one were in jobs graded lower than 674 at the time cfif their assessment center participation, ine., their current jobs were less valued by the company than the target job. It was anticipated that a dependency would exist between this factor and the dependent variable. In particular, it was expected that those of a higher organizational level might perceive less organizational "distance” between their actual levels and that of a Manufacturing Foreman and thus would believe that a promotion would be more likely, thereby justifying the effort of following developmental recommenda- tions. The chi-square table and statistics in Table 4.8 illus- trate clearly'18iUn a probability of .6383 that this factor is not related to the dependent variable. The reader will notice a total of only 272 cases con— tained in this analysis. This is due to the fact that the organizational levels at the time of assessment could not be located for 27 individuals. 122 Though no patterns emerge upon examining the chi-square table, it may be interesting to note that 129 of the 272 (47.4 percent) for whom job grades at assessment were deter- mined were in jobs graded 450-549. Also see the three- dimensional representation (See Figure 10). 3:22: :C: ._H._>n._._ I_2 ”“7: c _ 56.22.... 22:. XL: 2: Ezh.:<.f..hu...:/..T.< LI< LDIZCIHIHCL LCH ILImHCQllr - V ”N ~N M‘ .> m.m . mm o NH o e oH onm mm.>v Hm.ov vH.~m Hm.vm . om.¢ mo.om no.mm mh.~H . m.b v.wq m.Hm m.oH . «OH oH mm hm mH m oumuwcoz mm.~m om.om vH.>m mm.mm . mm.b mm.vv OH.mm mv.qH . N.HH m.mm m.vv m.om . mvH HH mm mv Hm a 30H . H mH m h n sHoom oz Hmuoe + omm mvmlomv mvvsomm omm v sumo oz Dom Hou Dom 30m concomxm ucwEwmmmm< um Ho>mH HmcoHumuHcmmuo mocmsvoume suoiqepuawmooaa uo dn-MOIIOJ dQI—qsod ezmzmmmmm< e< ImowH Hmd AdZOHBéN HZdUmO 00 . HEEL. mZOdeozmizoumm AdfiszqumH/nwa ZO malgoddoh mQHIEmOm rmVYJIJIIIIIIfiflflffillr. k1 I z 0000000 I!!! I’. IIIIIIIIII lllll I lllllll II ’!(| III! Q-.- IIIIIIIII ...,._ .H : .I,...I H... . f «to. H .130; I» ....IZ,...,__.,:.,..I_._...I...I poss the there h1 that aSa Perce 125 Sex It was anticipated that men would be more likely to pursue post-IDP development than women. The job of Manufac- turing Foreman at Steelcase, Inc. and many other companies as well is primarily filled by men. Though legislation relating to employee selection procedures was changed in recent years to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex where sex is not a job-related factor, it still seemed possible to the researcher that women might have perceived the target job as difficult to achieve and maintain and, therefore, have invested less in development toward the job. Based upon the responses (See Table 4.9), it seems clear that the dependent variable is completely unrelated to sex as a factor. At each level of post-IDP development the percentages of females and males are essentially identical (”low": 50.00 percent vs. 51.59 percent; "moderate": 37.50 percent vs. 36.75 percent; "high”: 12.50 percent vs. 11.66 percent). It bears mentioning, however, that the rate of response for women (16/22 = 72.7 percent) was lower than the rate of response for men (284/313 = 90.7 percent). The probability of no association between post-IDP development and sex was calculated to be .9906. .Also see Figure 11. . I P H TABLE 4.9--POST-IDP FOLLOW-UP ON RECOMMENDATIONS BY SEX 126 Post-IDP Follow-up on Recommendations *Frequency Sex Expected Row Pct Col Pct Female Male Total No Reply 6 30 . Low 8 146 154 8.2 145.8 5.19 94.81 50.00 51.59 Moderate 6 104 110 5.9 104.1 5.45 94.55 37.50 36.75 High 2 33 35 1.9 33.1 5.71 94.29 12.50 11.66 Total 16 283 299 Statistics For 2-Way Tables Chi-Square 0.019 DF PROB *Elements in Each Cell of the Table. 127 Post—IDP Follow—up on Developmental Recommendations by Sex 5.2.1.1. \ I ..Ifif’lj m 4‘s-—r wa— - 3 5 Guess: mZOHbdozmzzoumm Hmo ZO ADIEOIHIHOE mDHIBmCQ I ..I I. I #22ng ...Q: II Earn 128 Desire to Attend the Assessment Center It was anticipated that a person's desire to participate in the assessment center would be related to the dependent variable. Those individuals who had a pmmitive outlook on the instrumentality of the assessment center were expected to give more consideration to the developmental recommenda- tions than those who had a lesser desire to attend. Table 4.10 and the three-dimensional graph (See Figure 12) demonstrate a relationship between this factor and the dependent variabLe which is significant at the .0186 level of confidence. Table 4.10 illustrates that half (150/299) of the respondents had a moderate ("3") desire to attend the IDP. It also illustrates that of those expressing little or no desire to attend the IDP ("2" and "1") only one person had a post-IDP rating of developmental activity of "high." .oHooe on» to HHoo zoom :H mocoeon. 129 omHo.o u memo N u mo oom.mH oomoomquo moHooe zozuN Hoz moHomHooom ooN Ho om omH «H H. . Hmooe oH.NH no.o oo.qH oo.o HH.N . me.Hm HN.m oo.oo oo.o oo.N . d m.» m.m o.NH o.H m.q . m mm HH N HN o H o onz I. I... Hm.me mm.mm mm.Hm em.mN mH.om . d om.oN mm.eH mN.NH oo.m MN.NH . 8 m.mN o.HH N.mm N.m H.mH . o oHH oN oH NH 4 «H o mooooooz H“ O M om.Nm oo.oo No.4m NH.HN He.mo . m om.mH oN.N mN.mm oq.o mm.oH . .o o.mm m.mH N.NN N.N H.HN . o HmH «N NH No oH oN o 3oH ”I H a . . . . . . 3 O O O O O O O m 0 O O O O I w . o o H o H em IHHmom oz m. w Houoe m H m N H oooo oz ooo Hoo .s Hum 30m w cmuoomxm s Houcwo unoEmmwmmc onu ccwuu< Ou wuHmwo Nocoaqmumx Ezmzmmmmm< WEB DZMBEC OE mmHmma wm mZOHfidozmzzcomm ZO mmezmu mDIBOHHOh mQHIEmOmIIOH.v mum<9 KHII moneaozmxzoomm Hmezmzooqm>mo winazrrrt zo mouEOHHom soHuemom 130 Figure 12. Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Desire to Attend the Assessment Center h \In mmezmo ezmzmmmmma H\.. mme ozmeez oe mszmo H. 10 L .. Cl ICC: #7: ID“. .rwIZwDamxm 131 Desire for the Target Job It was anticipated-that this factor and the dependent variable would be strongly related--that an eagerness for the target job would motivate one to improve upon certain skills necessary for successful performance in that job. Table 4.11 illustrates a probability of true null hypothesis of .l453--in excess of a more commonly accepted level of .05. The three-dimensional graph (See Figure 13) quite clear- ly shows that most of the respondents are located on the right-hand side of the diagonal. 132 .oHooe on» No HHoo zoom cH mucoEon. mme.o u momm m n ma mmH.NH mumsvmanu mmHoma Nmznm mom moHumHumum ooN mNH mm Hm oN o . Hones om.NH oo.mH oN.HH me.m oo.o . HN.me oN.vm qH.NH oN.N oo.o . % o.oH m.oH o.o o.m N.o . 3 mm oH NH o H o o non In I G oo.o¢ Ho.oe mm.mm oo.oN No.oH . 8 mo.me NN.Nm mv.mH mv.m Ho.o . 8 o.oe e.NN N.NH N.oH N.N . m. oHH om on S o H o 33.60: m. - H oN.No mo.mv oo.om oo.mN mm.mm . m Hm.mm No.mN NH.mH oN.oH mN.m . o.eo m.mv m.oN o.oH H.m . m HmH om o4 NN NN m o 30H a 3 O O O O O O o O O 0 O O O m 0 O O O O 0 w . o N o o o em IHHomm oz w. W Hoooe m o m N H moon oz Hum Hoo m. pom 30m u cwuommxm 3 non ammume may HON wuHmmo mocmsvoum8 mow Em0m<9 mm? mom mmHme Mm mZOHBmo 71.11:: 7.0 82-30.58 ooHuemom .\ _ I!” 7.4!! \ HHU Irriflrllfcioox 'o ulll IIIII 0" 0’ ‘II I II IIIII OI IIIII IUHI m.om ..I C . A... m szzgu >sz26mtu 134 During Assessment Factors The research question to be answered by these factors is: "To what degree are factors associated with the assessment center and feedback process related to the extent to which an individual follows up on post-assessment center developmental recommendations?" The during-assessment factors examined in this research are seen in Table 4.12. TABLE 4.12--DURING-ASSESSMENT FACTORS AND PROBABILITIES OF NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE Duringfassessment Factor Probability a. Rating of overall potential to succeed in target job .0805 b. Realism of assessment exercises .5887 c. Acceptability of time delay to feedback .1186 d. Sensitivity of individual delivering feedback .4853 e. Appropriateness of time spent discussing performance .3157 f. Credibility of individual delivering feedback .3706 g. Relevance of feedback to job dimensions .4598 h. Logicalness of recommendations .0087* *Significant Rating of Overall Potential to Succeed in the Target Job Based on research findings by Fitz-enz, Hards, and Savage (1980, p. 60) it was anticipated that this factor 135 would 1x3 related 13) the dependent variable. Specifically, it seemed likely that an individual who was seen as having potential to succeed in the target job would have the self- confidence, or an increased level of self-confidence, to follow up on developmental recommendations. Table 4.13 illustrates a probability of a true null hypothesis of slightly higher than .05 (.0805). Further simple calculations show that 59.1 percent of those individ- uals rated as Low, Low+, and Moderate- ("1", "2", and "3" on Table 4.13) were also seen as having low degrees of follow- up on developmental recommendations. The three-dimensional graph (See Figure 14) illustrates that, with some exceptions, nearly all of the cases lie on the right-hand side of the diagonal. 136 .mHQmE ono Lo HHoo comm cH mocoeon. momo.o u mozo NH n oom.oH moosomquo moHooe NozuN Non moHomHooom moN mN mo om co «m om Ne Hobos oo.oN NN.NH No.o om.N oN.HH mo.NHfl oN.e oN.qH HN.mN HN.m HH.NH mo.HH oo.oN HN.m N.N N.m m.m N.N o.o o.v o.v mm m o N o e N N con oo.Nm oo.om. oo.om mN.mm. mN.mm HN.NN mH.oN NN.HH me.mH vo.mH NH.NN Hm.OH oo.OH oo.OH N.N o.NH o.HH o.oN m.NH m.¢H m.mH OHH mH NH mH Hm NH HH HH mooooooz oo.mN Ho.o¢ mm.mo mN.Nm «N.Nm mm.mm mo.oo mm.e vo.eH oo.m No.NN mo.HH Ho.NH mm.NH N.NH N.mN m.mH N.Ho m.NH H.oN o.HN omH N mN NH mo NH HN oN 30H . N N m N v 4 NH NHoom oz Hobos N o m H m N H Hum Hoo Loo 30m cwuowmxm HmHucwuom HHmuw>o mo mewumm Nocosvmumo suoiqepuammooaa uo dn-MOIIOJ daI—qsod mOh Emwmflb MPH. ZH QQMUUDm OE A0 .mO UZHBE wm mZOHfidn—zmzzonumm ZO mDIZOn—IHONH mDHIBmOmIIMH.v mamma. 137 I H:.I monezozmzxoomm Hmo zo EDIKOHHON ocHuemoo mow Bmwmdfi mmfi 2H OmmUUDm OB AdHfiszOm Qdfimm>0 ho UZHBdm Target Job Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Rating of Overall Potential to Succeed in the NZZDQ >szzabzg 138 Perceived Realism of Assessment Situations It seemed reasonable to expect that an individual's pursuit of post-assessment development would have a good deal to do with the degree to which the individual thought the components of the assessment center approximated the target job. Table 4.14 indicates that the probability of no association between this factor and the dependent is high (.5887). The three-dimensional graph (See Figure 15) clearly depicts the fact that most individuals perceived the assess- ment situations to be somewhat or quite realistic ("3" or "4") but that the rating of post—IDP development of these people varied greatly. .oHome oco No HHoo comm :H mocoeoHN. 139 NNNN.o u Nomm N u No NNN.N ooooomuHco NoHome Noan oom moHomHoooN mom Hm vHH NNH Hm HH . Hmuoe mm.m mN.mH mo.¢ mm.m mo.m . hm.m m¢.Hm me.Hm HN.m mN.m . d N.N N.NH m.vH m.m m.H . m NN N NH HH N H o con I. _ I a mm.~m «N.Nm NH.oe Hm.mm NN.NN . d No.m mo.am mm.eq mm.v mn.m . J v.HH m.Hv o.vv N.N o.v . o OHH OH me me m m o oumuocoz flu o M No.NN NH.NH NN.oN NN.NN «N.NN . m mo.HH mv.vm m~.ov mo.m mm.v . d o.mH N.Nm N.Nm N.OH N.m . o va NH mm mm «H N o 30H u w 0 O O O O O D o O I O O O O m 0 O O O O 0 w . o o N o o «N IHHdoN oz m. I... Houos m v m N H mama oz uom HOU m. “Ohm 30% U couoomxm s mcoHumsuHm acoEmmwmm< mo EmHHmwm cw>HmOme mocmsqwumN monBHmUmmE wm mZOHBHmUmmm x .. was .I-r.~— ..1 III-I .llll In lllll n I. IIIIIII (OI. II! II! I llll . 2 Ill-II -olt II II II. I»! lcl (‘0' mZOHHmo ZO mDIZOHHOh mDHIFmOQ .IMHC1mQOZ IIIIIII r-rn ....... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1\ I" m“ w P \I, /L\ .. I J . I I I _ er I H \I I" n \\ “ I I \\ _ I .. \ _ .5... .I . I ll \\. Fill)! . . II .\ I. I In I I \ .I I I _ _ . I’lu I. \. \\ u .vrlr’l \\ II _ . _ H all); \\ _ . _ I. H I I I H\ \ .. _ I. . I I. I . I I. I ..x HI I I I \- I I _ . . m vHIIL III-I \\\ I. A in). \u H ’J’III’IIII‘ \\ r: m {If ‘\ u H. I C P.“ m. HL \\ ,Izzcc .CI.I_.II_.NN¥.I 141 Acceptability of Time Delay between Assessment and Feedback It was anticipated that an assessment center partici— pant's follow-up on developmental recommendations would clearly be related to the participant's perception of the acceptability of the time delay between assessment center participation and the delivery of the feedback. It seemed reasonable that delays which were unacceptably long might have given the participant the impression that the informa- tion is of lesser importance or urgency. It was also ex- pected that the passage of time might interfere with a participant's ability to clearly recall the specifics of his/her performance in the assessment center, thus creating some difficulty in linking the feedback with the actual performance. The chi-square table in Table 4.15 reports the probabil- ity of a true null hypothesis of .1185. It should be noted that on the questionnaire this item has a scaling inverted from the others, ine., a score of "1" means the time delay was "not too long at all" and a score of "5" means the time delay was "very much too long." This is particularly im- portant to bear in mind when examining the three-dimensional graph (See Figure 16). It is true that of the 39 people who felt the time delay was quite a bit too long or very much too long ("4" or "5"), only 2 (5.1 percent) were rated as having high levels of post-IDP developmental activity. .mfinme man No Name comm an mucmemfim. 142 omHH.o u mean m u an aoN.NN mumsvm1nco mmflnms smzuN boa monumaumnm mmN NH NN . Nm «N NNH . Nance co.o Nq.N mm.mN mm.qa mm.m . oo.o mo.m eN.vN NN.NN mm.om . d ¢.N o.m m.m m.m v.¢H . m mm o N N NH NH N can: .. m mm.mm NN.NN NN.NQ NN.NN N¢.He . d Nv.m om.m NH.ON NN.mH Nm.mv . a m.q o.oa m.ma m.NN m.ee . 0 mad N o NN HN mm H mumumnoz ”H m aw.He km.os NN.NV ma.mm NN.av . m Hm.m mm.NH hm.vH NN.NN NN.Hq . d N.o a.mN m.mN N.NN o.om . o Hmfl m an NN Ne mm m 304 u H a 0 O O O O O 3 O 0 O O O O O m 0 O O O O I w . o o o o o mm Emma oz w. w Hmuoe. m v m N H mama Oz uom HOD m. bum 30m u cmuowmxm s Nmaoo mews mo hufiafiomumwoo< xocmswwume xofimommh Qz¢ BZMmemmm< zmm39mm w¢qmo mzwe mo weHaHmuzmfiéuam [If ...s\ IIJIIJI.’ .... I}; \ If} I; ....\\ 144 Sensitivity of the Individual Deliveringythe Feedback It was anticipated that greater levels of sensitivity displayed by the individual delivering the assessment center performance information might make negative information more palatable and, as a result, not reduce the participant's self-esteem. Table 4.16 illustrates that this factor is unrelated to the dependent variable with a probability of .4853. One can see from Table 4.16 and the three-dimensional graph (See Figure 17), however, that the distribution of this particu- lar factor is quite skewed to the upper end of the scale. Only 27 of the 297 respondents (9.1 percent) perceived the sensitivity of the individual delivering the feedback to be quite low or very low ("2" and "1" on the scale). 145 .oflnme ono co HNoo comm cu mocoeoam. mmme.o memo u on mmv.a ooosamuuzo mofinme smzsN oom monomaomum 5mm om «NH mm Hm m . Hobos mm.MH mv.oa mm.vH mm.m oo.o . m~.¢m vH.>m mm.~m ah.m oo.o . m.OH m.va m.m m.m n.o . mm NH MN m N o 0 zoom mm.mv ¢N.mm H>.mm mo.ma mm.mm . mv.mm H¢.ov mH.mH oo.m mm.a . m.mm m.mv n.om m.> N.N . OHH mm me on v N o oumuwpoz mm.mv m~.mm oo.cm mq.ab hm.mm . mo.mm mv.mv mv.mH hm.m mm.~ . H.mv m.mm n.m~ >.oa H.m . mma mm mm mm ma v m 304 . o o o o o mm snoom oz Hmuoe m v m N H name 02 Dom How uom 30% pwuowmxm xom2pomm mcfiuw>waoa HMD©N>M©CH mo wufl>fiufimcwm aocwswmum« suorqepuemmooau uo dn-moIIog daI-qsod x0Hdmo JHQZH m0 wBH>HEHmzmm Mm mZOHedozmzzovmm ZO mDIZOdAOm mQHIEmOmlIQH.¢ mqm<9 146 Figure 17. Post-IDP Follow—up on Developmental Recommendations by Sensitivity of Individual Delivering the Feedback 3:1 moneaozmzzoomm qmo wllfirlllz zo consequom moHuemom \NIL :rxnllztrr mpcmmooz n. \\\\ l — I—N- LII... llllllllll A; XUdemmm Wmh. UZHMNN/HAMQ .9 RIF}.- ..r - ............. AdooH>HozH mo weH>HeHmzmm k W m r ........................ m U “ m.mn _ _ ...rl d _ - w _ w _ _ . H , _ a W _ h l ”Jul-J ..Tllllrr’)! .. , _ u r M “ :Irrlts r fl \\ to qv - .- i l _ ..l. Illllllllfl \\ \._ m 1 m r _ llll\ \ w _ m w M M . fl \\ . . . .fl .. n m u, h .. q . \\ KIHL . t w . J_ _ .- .1 _ _ ll “ Fl . lll \\ fill-1. ”Tl \\ _ M 'lllnr'illllllll \\ r m ’Ij’ll’flll \ \AUIJ {C ._ ll 52:5 hazy-1.10.5... \ [ll \ Infill \ linen/Ill; \\ 147 Appropriateness of the Length of Feedback Session It was anticipated that a positive relationship between this factor and the dependent variable would be seen. Re— search by Blum and Naylor (1968, p. 243) indicates: ”.learning is facilitated by increased precision in feedback up to a point, but beyond this point learning is hindered with continued increase in precision. The explanation, of course, is that the trainee will reach a saturation point where the information given is just too much for him to handle, and he will have to spend time trying to simplify it in order to understand it. He becomes "overloaded," so to speak. A true dependency between this factor and the dependent variable was unconfirmed in Table 4.17. The probability of no association between this factor and the dependent vari— able is .3157. Both the chi-square table and the three-dimensional graph (See Figure 18) illustrate clearly that time majority of individuals (255/297 = 85.9 percent) believed the length of the feedback session itself was quite appropriate ("4") or very appropriate ("5"). Only one individual of the total perceived the length of the feedback session to be not appropriate at all ("1"). 148 .oHcme mco mo Hcoo comm cc mocmEmHm. hmam.o momm n ma «Nm.¢ mumsqmlfiso mmfinme amZuN com mowumfiumum nmN HNH «ma NN NH a . Hmuoe ov.NH mH.HH vm.oa >o.ma oo.o . om.Nv mm.Nv hm.w an.m oo.o . d m.¢H m.ma v.m ¢.H H.o . m mm ma ma m N o o comm .. m mv.mq vm.Nm «H.VN mm.mm oo.o . d oo.om oo.ov mm.m vo.m oo.o . d m.¢q m.mv n.oa v.v v.o . o OHH mm «v n v o o wumumpo: “u o M mH.N¢ >¢.mm Nm.mw oo.om oo.ooa . m mm.mm vm.¢v om.NH mm.m oo.o . .d m.ao m.mw m.¢a H.m m.o . o NmH Hm ms NH m a N 39c u H a . . . . . . o o . . . . . . m o o . o . . w . o o o o o mm zflomm oz m m. Hmuoe m v m N H mumo Oz Dom HOU m. mom 30a u popoomxm s xomnpowm mo cameo; mo mmmcoumNumoummc aocmsvoum« ZOHmmmm x0mo nu. Ill-r; zo molacquom 379mg \ l m c c m e c .... c \. Jim H c... ........ 1...: :u c z ...-AWL. ........... mun... . w onmmmm zommammm mo mlkwr- meozmq mo mmmzmsfimoomaoa ..c M ................ \~ fl IIIIIIIIII oil-.31.”. a.-. \..A, W h h llllllllllllll .r. .. l - ..-- ralNPL # ll. 1 . w M U .llnflllll \m mm 9. t ,. i l _ L l m m 1 .3 c _ c a .1 .- . ,. u m n . _ w _ c m m w n m c c mmm w W” i “W“ m cm .. _ _ u . . c _ Ill - _ m u _ . N Illflfl. _ fi-r T c . . T Tl. ..r. r c _ . H M . _ l. . w m n _. c _ . 1 . . _ H u 1 ~. . _ - . _ Vllldh c Mm_ M c * r t M W w ll .._ Tll .- w _ u Tl , _- - u ._ ‘ _ ......1. L M c . . .- . ft ,_ Z. 5.... ..- films-.0 f7; 150 Credibility of the Individual Delivering the Feedback It seemed reasonable that a participant's perception of the credibility of the individual delivering assessment center performance data would have an impact on that par- ticipant's likelihood of following up on the recommendations he/she made. . Table 4m18 and the three-dimensional representation of this factor (See Figure 19) illustrate two things: (1) a relatively high probability (.3706) of a true null hypothe- sis, and (2) the fact that most participants (284/297 95.6 percent) saw the individual delivering the feedback to be moderately to highly credible ("3" - "S" on the chi- square chart). 151 .chme mco mo HHmo comm cH mocoemHm. momm.o mozo u mo mem.m momoomuHco moHome zmzuN moo moHomHomom smN NNH «HH Ne HH N . Hmooe mm.¢H om.HH mN.o ao.a oo.om . mv.Hm «H.Nm Hm.m mm.N mm.N . d m.¢H «.mH m.m m.H N.o . m mm NH NH N H H o con .. H... «N.NN mo.mm om.mm NN.NN oo.o . a mm.mm mm.om mm.mH mm.N oo.o . a m.mm N.Nv «.mH H.m 5.0 . o OHH am om NH m o o momooooz "u 0 M mm.mv Hm.mm mq.Nm mm.mo oo.om . m om.mm NH.om mN.NH Hm.m mm.o . .o m.Nm m.mm H.«N m.m o.H . o NmH mm Hm NN N H N zoo u H a O O O O O O a O O O O O O O m o o o o o o w . o o o o o mm zHomm oz m. n Hmooe m m m N H momo oz coo Hoo m. coo 3oz u pouowmxm s xomnpwom mewuo>waoo HMDUH>H©CH mo auwawbfipmuo accosmoumm x0Hde AHQZH .mO NBHAHmHQmmU Mm mZOHfidozmz—zoomm ZO mDISOQQOm mQHIBmOmIImH.v mqmflb 152 Figure 19. 3C. mZOHEquo ............ \- HéaoH>HozH mo zquHmHommo .................. 1L\\\ N: .......... ll..\\ \_ rum .lhullfi ” ................... \ r llllllllll I\ b...‘ l _ _ .\ . \x . t \ I \\ , .. \ .. . i . c \ m , .. r h . W \\ _ .. .hU \ 1 \ W , c n\ m i c . , _ J . . \\ .x: u 1 fl \. \ _ \ t W n m \ \\ . _ ._ \ r _ . \. . . \.. T . u - c m L, \ c ...-at \\ ._ .1 n \ _ m u \... r w . u \. \ v V W H u \- _. .- . c . F W rlh \ Y _ ...: Willi: Ill , \\\\ zzzcu cozereuzu .\ ‘-\II \ :\\ lfllllf’l \\ lllllll%\\\ 153 Relevance of Feedback to Critical Job Dimensions It was expected that a relationship between this factor and the dependent variable would be seen, based upon the assumption that feedback which appears to match what is purportedly being measured may have the effect of increasing the impact of the developmental recommendations. Table 4.19 illustrates a probability of no relationship of .4598 and, along with the three-dimensional representa- tion of this factor (See Figure 20), illustrates that most participants (192/297 = 64.6 percent) saw the performance feedback as quite or very ("4" or "5") related to the skills and qualities being measured in the IDP. Of the 25 individ- uals who saw the feedback as having little or no relevance ("2" or "1"), only one had a high rating of post-IDP follow- up of developmental recommendations. .chme oco No HHoo comm cH mocoeon. 154 mamm.o u momo m u mo mmN.N momoomuHco moHcme zmzuN mom moHomHomom NmN mm NQH om NH m . Hmooe mm.mH NN.NH mN.m oN.m oo.o . mm.NN oN.vm oo.ON mm.N oo.o . d m.m m.mH m.m N.N N.o . m mm m NH N H o o con .. m Nm.om mo.Nm mN.mm Nm.mN Nm.mH . d NH.mH NH.m¢ NH.mN mm.q Hm.o . a H.mH o.mm m.oN o.N N.N . o OHH oN mm Hm m H o mcmomooz "u 0 M mm.Nm mm.a¢ om.Nm Nv.mo NN.NN . m NN.NH HN.mm mm.NN mm.m NN.N . d H.mN N.NN m.om N.N H.m . o NmH HN HN Ne NH m N zoo "u H 8 O O O O O O 3 O O O O O O O m 0 O O O O 0 w . o o o o H. mm NHomz oz m. w Hmooe m m m N H momo oz coo Hoo m. uom 30m u cwuowmxm s mcowmcoewo non Ou xomnpmom mo oocm>oawm accosvmumm mZOHmZWZHD mow Jmqmm Mm mZOHfidozmzzoomm ZO malzoaqom mQHIBmOmIImHJo mqmflfi 155 Figure 20. Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Relevance of Feedback to Critical Job Dimensions mZOHmZWXHD mOh AdUHBHmU OF demommm m0 m02<>mqmm Y‘T mZOHBdDZMZZOUMM d<fizmfimoqw>mo ZO QDISOJAOh mQHIFmOm II! III- III. III! III OII llllll ---. -' J... In- ". '0 .cm ,->¢ ore . :- NZICU >Uzm33mau 156 Relevance of Recommendations to Developmental Needs A relationship between this factor and the dependent variable was expected based on the assumption that an as- sessment center participant would be more likely to follow- up on developmental recommendations which seem to make more sense in comparison to identified needs than recommendations which are somehow illogical. Table 4.20 confirms that this factor and the dependent variable are clearly related. The probability of a true null hypothesis in this instance is only .0087. It can be seen from the chi-square chart and the three- dimensional graph (See Figure 21) that of the 20 partici- pants who believed the recommendations made little or no sense ("2" and "1") only one individual was seen as having a high degree of follow-up on recommendations. Conversely, of the participants reporting that their recommendations made quite a bit or a great deal of sense to them ("4" and '5"), 108 (55.1 percent) of this grouping were seen as having a moderate or high level of follow-up on recommendations. The three-dimensional graph (See Figure 21) shows most individ- uals are on the right-hand side of the diagonal. .chmN mco No HHmo comm cH mocoeon. 157 Nmoo.o mozo u mo va.ON oomoomuHco moHcme NmzuN mom moHomHomom qu ma NOH mN mH v . Hmooe .H NH.oH mm.mH mm.m w oo.o oo.mN . mm.Nv HN.mm Nm.m _ oo.o mm.N . d H.HH N.NH m.a m.H m.o . w mm mH 0H m o H o con .. m. Hv.mm om.mm mv.mm om.NH oo.mN . d ao.aN Hm.ov NN.NN Nm.H Hm.o . a m.mm m.mm N.NN o.o m.H . o OHH Nm mo om N H o oomomooz “H O . M mq.am mN.om- mm.Nm om.Nm oo.om . m Nm.om NH.NN ON.om ov.m mm.H . d H.Nv N.Nm m.mm H.m o.N . o meH me No me «H N m 30H u H 8 o o o o o o a O O O O O O O m o o o o o o w . o o o o 0 mm NHoom oz no Hmmoe m m m N H momo oz moo Hoo .l pom 30m m pwuommxm s mcowumccmeeooom no oocm>waom >ocmsvmumm mommz Qma OB mZOHEmamm Mm mZOHedozmzzoumm ZO mDIZOQQOh ACHIEmOmIION.v mqmdfi 158 Figure 21. Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Relevance of Recommendations to Developmental Needs 2:1 monpmazmzsoomm Hmezmzooqm>mo 1 .rl. . zo mouzoqoom moHnemoo m1 ~CimQH-1Z 1H a ......... \1 1 --x ........... .\ \ '- mommz HmezmszHE/mo 9H. , \ 1 1 fin... .. .............. monemozmzzoomm mo mozm>mqmm 1 :1 T ......... \.._H . llllllllll llllill 1. ... 1 1 . ......... .11..-. 1 1 ......... . 1 Y0“ . ooooo ..1. 11 Thur ........ 11 \\ 1. lllll Jill - ._ HVLPI 1 1 1 111 T .......... 1 1 1 1.. 1. 1 . ........... .1 r 1 1 ,_ M 1f]. .- . 1-1. \ 1 1 1 .. 1 11 1 1T}. fl 1, 1 1 .1 t . 1 .1 1 1 1L». _ 1 1 _ 1 1 1 1.. . . . . _. 1 _ . 1 1111 1 11 11 1 . 1 . . . . 1 . 1 1 1 1 r, .. 1 _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ .1 1 1 .1 11 I 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 .71.. 1 1 _ 1 1 11 1 1. 1 u If.. r1. 1 we”. _, 1 . .1 1 1 i 11 1 1. 1 1 1 .1 1 1 11 _ 1 11 1 11 1 .11 1 .. 1 .1 . 1 1 . 1 _ , 1 . 1 .1 1 1 11 ....1. T1 1| ._ 1 1 1 . 1111 1llllrlr! 1 - 1r|1 -.J. fillllr .. 1-l.1 l 1 1 Ill; , 1 l . 1 . 1 1 1 -_ 1 1 1 . 1 W41 12111.5 Noz,.mH,11..1--11-.1.-1 [if frilly llllrlllljl Post-assessment Factors 159 The research questhmu to be answered by these factors is: "To what degree are post-assessment fac- tors related to the extent to which an individual follows up on developmental recommendations made during the post- assessment feedback process?" The post-assessment factors examined are seen in Table 4.21. in this research TABLE 4.21--POST-ASSESSMENT FACTORS AND PROBABILITIES OF NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE During-assessment a. Perceived b. Perceived c. Perceived d. Perceived e. Perceived support support support support support Factor from from from from from organization supervisor/manager co-workers family friends f. Likelihood of achieving target job 9. Post-assessment desire for job *Significant Probability .0001* .0011* .3488 .0105* .2255 .0001* .0081* It is this grouping of factors which contains the great- est number of factors which are closely linked to the depen- dent variable. Of the seven post-assessment factors, five were seen as being significant. 160 Support from the Organization It was expected that this factor would be a significant one. Steelcase provides considerable support for the devel- opment of its employees in the form of an educational assistance/tuition reimbursement program, and through sever- al in-house supervisory and management development programs. Post-IDP feedback given t1) many candidates included recomr» mendations to participate in various in-house programs. The chi-square analysis (See Table 4n22) confirmed the expectation that this factor would be linked to the depen- dent variable. The probability that no real dependence exists is only .001. Also see the three-dimensional repre- sentation of this factor (See Figure 22). Table 4.22 illustrates that 62 individuals reported receiving little or no support ("2" or "1") for their fol- lowing of post-assessment developmental recommendations. Of these, only one (1.6 percent) was rated as demonstrating a high degree of follow-up on those recommendations. Con- versely, 173 individuals reported receiving quite a bit or a great deal (ME support ("4" and "5") for their following of post-assessment recommendations. Of these, 104 (60.1 per- cent) were rated as demonstrating moderate or high degrees of follow-up on the recommendations. .mHnme ago do HHwo comm cH mucmemHm. Hooo.o momm n ma Nom.hm mumsvmlficu mmant mmzlm uom mOwumHumum Nam me um pm me 5H . Hobos mm.mm hm.NH Hm.m «N.N mm.m . so. mm mm.mm mm.m Hm.m Ha.~ . a m. m m.HH 6.0 N.m o.m . m «m wH NH m H H H anm .u m mm.mm mv.mv om.mm am.m~ mm.m . d mm.vm me. we oo.om mm. HH Hm.o . a m.mw m. mm m.Hm o. “H ¢.w . m CHH em av mm HH H o mumumwoz .L a m 1 me.ov mH.mm mm.nm mm. mm v~.wm . m mm. om mo.mm om. mm mm. om «H. OH . d m. mm N.mv m. mm w.~m m. m . o mHH Hm mm mm Hm mH m 30H u vd 8 . . . . . . o O o o O o o o m . . . . . . w . o o o o 0 mm sHmmm oz m. p. 1.. H6009 m H m m H Mama oz boa Hoo m. u om 30m u @muommxm s coflumuwcmmuo map EOuw uuommsm wocwnwmumx ZOHBmo l YrJz! zo asuzoqqom moHuemoa w :JHI Infl I’ ’. . IIIIIIII -C lo: I' .w one¢NH7uomsm wcu EOuu uuommsm mocmsqmum« mm0mmmDm mm? 20mm BmOmmDm wm mZOHfidozmzzoomm ZO mDIBanOm mQHIBmOmIIMN.v mqmgb 165 Figure 23. Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Support from the Supervisor/Manager _ 5 Tl . l h m ...... _ mmommoom mze rcmm amoooom v fllw:a w L m w - ......... r . Y.|. .. . \f __ n _ w «.10 nnnnn n H \\H _ . _ _. . lllllllll I. n F n. .x. w l _ J “It... m .-Lw . l H m . fi . _ . a: ........... \__l «1 .iwzr ..... 4!\k l WM ............... ,, \u _ w . F“ m . 1.-.... . . 4.11 _ . W _ l . , TIL- -r- . t T (If. _ z . . ..... r ..... _. u . z . .m T , o. 6 H ._ ‘ fl _ n l w .m .110 TI. . z Ht_ ._ mu” __ l. (JIIJIJI. \ l . h _ . l . m. m N H . _ Illen 1;: :41." W. M.“ _. . a _ .. . r_ _ w a z 1 r... M a . M . , _ .113.“ ~ . n . U r1... 1 _ _ .n _ .Tlfr. . H H-” . _ . fl H a H . H _ _ u H {[4 . t o . _. M . _ _ T'IL _ U 1 _ w_ 11 w t. l. _ __ ,1 . _ M an”... a fi __ . w m l r. H l _ . _ . r .. . . . . . _ THU! . H _ TIMHT... / . z _ _ WHNH . r r ff ’Iljlf‘rIII .. llffIIIIJlflllf \..\ PA. rlll ... .A "I- I; lllll WZOHBHNQZmeOUmd Ama 20 QDIBOA‘HOh mOHIBmOm -JerIJIrrsvmstzwzcz 10:: W1 ’1 { if I ... .21... . nu Q zzzou >czm:3wil 166 Support from Co-workers It seemed pmobable that encouragement and/or guidance from co-workers might be related to the dependent variable. The chi-square table in Table 4.24 confirms with a probabil- ity of .3488 that the two variables are unrelated. The three—dimensional graph (See Figure 24) visually illustrates that at each level of support from co-workers various levels of the dependent variable are also found. 167 .oHome on» no HHoo zoom cH mucoaon. mmam.o momo n ma mma.m oomsomnHzo moHooe zmzum ooz moHomHomom mam mH mm «OH mm em . Hobos em.mH m~.¢H m~.MH 4H.» H¢.~ . mm.m nv.mm mH.Hq m>.HH m~.HH . H.~ m.p m.HH m.o m.o . «m m m «H a v H onz mm.mm mo.am o~.ov so.Hq mm.mm . mm.» mp.- >~.hm Hm.o~ mn.~H . m.o n.m~ m.mm o.H~ m.o~ . OHH 5 mm Ha mm «H o ouoooooz ve.¢q mo.m¢ mo.mv mn.Hm no.mm . nm.m oq.aH em.Hm mv.mH oH.¢~ . ~.m o.~m o.Hm m.m~ m.e~ . qu m mN >4 mm mm m 30H . o o o o o om zHoom oz Hobos m a m m H mono oz boo Hoo uom 30m cwuowmxm muoxuozuou EOum uuommsm mocmsvmuma suorqepuammooaa uo dn-MOIIOJ dQI-qsod mmmmeBIOU 20mm Bmommbm wm mZOHfidozmzzoumm ZO mDIZOAAOh mQHIBmOmiIvN.v mqm<9 168 Figure 24. Post-IDP Follow-up on DevelOpmental Recommendations by Support from Co-Workers mmmmeZIOU Eomh Bmommbm m .2 \\ u . _ \ . ”V wit-11.91 x. .L. h _ \ux. .. _ fl . \«L _ “ ”ml 7: m . _ r l H m . Ill . M x. a . w . w 1. m g n l m 7'" _ i . \ all-i. Oil-.0! ..{Ill I}! 59.1.3ch . Ir. :3 5 . ...-s.— .-....z.... mZOHfidoszZOUQm AdBZNXmOAm>mD EllaflA 20 LDIZOAAOL QCHIBmOm 1. ——, 173—- .... ...unx 169 Support from Family Numerous post-IDP recommendations require class attend- ance, outside readings, and studying. This fact, coupled with that likelihood that each assessment center participant would have a unique set of family-related variables with which to deal, suggested that support from family members would be a significant variable. The chi-square analysis in Table 4.25 confirms that a relationship between this factor and the dependent variable exists with a high degree of confidence (probability of a true null hypothesis = .0105). The chi-square table illus- trates that where family support was relatively low 0%} and "2"), 41 of the 57 individuals (71.9 percent) also regis- tered low levels of follow-up on developmental recommenda- tions. Conversely, where family support was relatively high (”4" and "5"), 101 of the 173 individuals (58.4 percent) registered moderate to high levels of follow-up on develop— mental recommendations. The three-dimensional repreSentation of this factor (See Figure 25) illustrates that, not unlike "support from the organization" and "support from the supervisor/manager," nearly all of the cases lie on the right-hand side of the diagonal. .oHome on» do HHoo zoom cH mucoeon. 170 moao.o u mean . m n he mom.ma mumsqmlwcu mmacme amzlm pom moHumHumum mom an «m mm mm Hm . Hobos mv.mH eo.OH o~.HH mm.m mo.m . v~.mm H¢.m~ mm.o~ om.~ ~m.m . % N.m m.oH ~.s o.m o.m . s em MH OH 5 H m H zmHz .u I G Hm.oe qa.m¢ o~.~m mm.m~ MH.oH . a mo.m~ mm.Hv mH.mH mm.m mm.v . a m.am v.mm ¢.mm m.o >.HH . m oHH mm mo cm s m o ouoooooz m. M_ eo.mv ma.ov mv.mm m~.mo mH.a> . m bo.mm mm.mm mo.mm mH.~H vm.mH . o.ov c.5v v.Hm N.MH >.mH . w mvH om mm mm mH mm o zoo Wu 3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O m 0 0 O O O 0 w . o o o o o om zHooz oz m. D. : Hobos m a m m H moon oz uom Hoo m. uom 30% u cwuommxm .s mafismm EOuw uuommsm aocwsvmum« quZLZ»: a E .. 172 Support from Friends This factor was considered. worth investigation simply because a circle of friends would represent another group of people with whom an assessment center participant interacts. The chi-square analysis in Table 4.26 indicates a rela- tively high probability'(.2255) of no association between this factor and the dependent variable. The three-dimensional representation of this factor (See Figure 26) illustrates that a number of individuals report- ing little or no support from friends also were seen as having moderate to high levels of post-IDP development. Simple calculations from the chi-square table in Table 4.26 show this figure to be 39.3 percent. 173 .onoe ozo mo HHoo zoom zH oozoeon. mmmm.o momm n ma mmm.oa mumsqmanU moHomB amzlm uom moHumHumum mam vm Nb ow mv mm . Hobos mh.HH mo.mH om.NH mo.¢ mo.w . on. AH vm. mm av. mm mm. m an. «H . m. m o. m m. m h. m n. m . om o NH OH N m H zmHz v~.wm mm.wm om.~v m>.mm Hm.mm . Nw.HH mv.mm Ha.om mm.mH mv.mH . m.ma o.>m o.om v.wH m.am . OHH MH mm vm ma 5H 0 ozouocoz oo.om mo.mv oo.mv mH.mm no.~m . H¢.HH Hm. om ma. um mv.mH oH. vm . m.>H m. mm 5. co m.¢~ m. mm . ova pH Hm mm om mm m 30o . o o o o 0 mm zHoom oz Hmuoe m w m N H mama oz uom HOU uom 30m couoomxm mocofium EOuw uuommsm accosqoumo suorqepuammooeu uo dn-mottog dQI—qsod mazmHmm 20mm Emommbm Mm mZOHEmo 20 ADIEOAAOh mQHIPmCm I!!!) 1......z.:_.cz --.—..-? -... .. —. o. a ( I IIIIII toIIIIol 0 ul 0 . Oil m fl If! I t _ WU H z .z _ I q _ _ H . _ _ z z. _ . _\ z . s z T. 4 \ m . . z \ . x\\‘ . .\ _ .\ z “ \\\. . \ 7'!!! .\ I‘L I'll!!\ \ \. \\ .\ 5\. I'IJII'II .\ \.. -. . om oM.MH F2200 >Lzm:owzu 175 Likelihood of Achieving the Target Job It seemed reasonable to expect that those participants who, for whatever reason(s), felt likely to become a Manu- facturing Foreman at Steelcase would be more inclined to pursue development than those who felt the likelihood was lower. Table 4.27 illustrates a strong dependency between this factor and the dependent variable (probability of true HO = .0001). Simple calculations from the chi-square table indicate that of the 71 individuals who perceived little or no like- lihood of achieving the target job>("2” and ”1"), 53 (74.6 percent) were seen as having low levels of post-IDP develop- ment. Conversely, of the 147 individuals who perceived they were quite or very likely to achieve the target job ("4" and "5"), only 58 (39.4 percent) were seen as having low levels of post-IDP development. The three-dimensional graph (See Figure 27) visually describes this relationship. .onoe ozo mo HHoo zoom zH ozzoEon. 176 Hooo.o u momm o n ma mmN.Hm ooooomnHzo oonoe zozuN oom ooHooHooom maN om co co mm oH . Hoooe W NN.m HH.HN mo.o mo.m . mN.o . mN.oH . mN.om oo.ON om.m M oo.N . d N.o m o.OH o.m m.o . m.H . m mm m ” mH o N w H o zmHz .. w . w. No.Nm m ao.om. mo.om co.ON mo.oH . a NN.oN . No.Hm mH.mN oo.OH mo.N . a o.HN N.mm m.mN m.ON m.m . o OHH om mm Hm HH N o oooooooz nu O M oo.om oo.co om.Nm mm.oo oo.mo . m om.oH mm.mN mo.NN oo.oN oo.o . d m.mN N.oo H.Ho .N.mN N.m . o NmH NN om No Ho NH H 3oz u H a O O O O O 0 a O . . . . . . m o o o o o o w . o o o o o om szom oz w. w _ Hoooe m M o m N H oooo oz zoo Hoo m. _ zoo zoo u . concomxm 5 non mowume mcfi>ofino¢ mo coonwaoqu mucosqommo mow Emomza. “WEB UzH>mHZU¢ .mO DOOEHAMXHQ Mm mZOHfidn—Zmzzovmm ZO mDIBOn—Aom mDHIBmOmIIhN.v mqmtfi. 177 Figure 27. Post-IDP Follow-up on Developmental Recommendations by Likelihood of Achieving the Target Job ...- 3. VI III mom emozzm. mam. \.H _ . h -.. ........... ozH>mmzoz mo oooszmsz \. fl U _ W :41: -:: r1 IMHII _ _ . . M IIIIIIIIIIIII \..:..srm .. ........... . . _ ........... f . ....... . ... .. N u z 547-..: n H “a w \ . _ III L. 31 . z . . . . . ......... _ .-a z. _ -.-- ........ \ ...” _ H w W .-- ....... . _ _ M -.-..- H.. . \\ . _ _ . uluil .-.). in... _ .11) _ g m m . .. “VIII/l llllllllll \ . _ 7f 75 #1“ z m . _ ........... W . g . . _. m . . .. TJIII _ f ua.cvn.T. . .. _ . z . . . . I] .1. . w .. v.11“ “......z. ._ .1- E. .. "H. _. H ._ o . \ . M _ z . ._ . H H ,. H \1 z m. .z. z. _ z .. .. _ Wm.“ "M . . .m z w m x _ «Hm ._ z. . .W _. . rv . \\\ . h _ _ . H . . . . . z , _ . . . . . . _ . _ ......1 TI: . _ _ u _ .\ u z n _. . TI... 1.I H. .. . z . _ z W W . ll} 1L. 1( z a .. _. _ . IIIJI \\ u u . 1 ,_ . l . H X\\ m. . wllllz. p m m . m . fi Illlt \\ J _ . _ . _ \\ M M . . \ _ z ,. “ .. . . ruin“! \.\ _ . . TII-‘l N . H Fl. . \ _ ”'11 1|”). f . \\v.\ . z _ llffé 117 . .\ NUM- . . ,rlllfrll \ .H. \ .... THU... Ill?!“ ..\\ l4 .1 \\ / .\. ..\ ..\ IIIII! \. ff \ J'lfll'fllLfiK mZOHdeZmTXOUNm ddbszmOAmx/mfl ZO QDIEOQQCL mQHIFmOm m. ,_.. .... ...._ .... a : Z .H. 2 3 Q u ......z..._...: 3.; i 178 Post-assessment Desire for the Target Job It seemed reasonable 1x) expect that those individuals who felt a strong desire for the job of Manufacturing Fore- man at Steelcase, for whatever reason(s), would demonstrate a greater interest in pursuing development than those who lacked a strong desire. Table 4.28 illustrates that a dependency exists between this factor and the dependent variable (the probability of a true HO = .0081). Simple calculations based on the chi-square analysis show that of those individuals who had little or no desire for the target job ("2" and "1") eight of these 38 (21.1 percent) showed moderate to high levels of post-IDP develop- ment. Conversely, of those 213 individuals who had a fairly strong or very strong desire for the target job ("4” and "5”) 116 (54.5 percent) showed moderate to high levels of post-IDP development. The three-dimensional graph (See Figure 28) shows that with this factor most of the cases lie on the right-hand side of the diagonal. 179 .onoe ozo mo HHoo zoom zH mozoeon. HNoo.o momm u mo Nmo.oN ooosomnHzo monoe zoz-N zom ooHooHooom NNN oHH am No NN HH .. Hoooe p _ _ z _ J NN.OH NH.NH H NN.o oo.N oo.o _ . _ NN.NN NN.om . NN.N oN.N oo.o _ . w d N.NH o.HH . o.m N.N N.H . . z m NN NH NH 1 N H o z o zmHz 3 _ .. HH.No NN.NN . om.NN NN.NH “ NH.NH _ . m oo.No oo.NN . oN.oH mm.o m NN.H . a N.Ho o.oN N.NH N.N . o.o . o OHH No 5N NH m _ N o oooooooz U f O M NN.No Nv.No NN.oN NN.NN NN.HN . m oo.mN NN.NN NN.NH oo.NH «N.N . d N.Nm o.Hm N.oN N.NH N.m . o «NH om No NN HN N 0 3oz u H _ a n o o o o o o 3 . . . . . . . o m o o o o o o w . o o o o o zN zHooz oz u . w : Hobos m o N N H oooo oz zoo Hoo I mom 30m m couoomxm 3 non uommme mew omfimoo ucoEmmommMIumom accosqommo moo omomom MZE mom mmHmmo BszmmmmmmO . If 20 azuzomqom .8733 x... - j mtizzcz _ .Irn. : M - mo. z . ..vlluolull uuuuu I. _. ..l. uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu mow memdm. mmB mom mmHmmO Ezmsmmmmmdlfimcm “a. ,\ s- v.3 "x ‘——-- rvr-v:s-Y . . I... 11w nhfi’Jlllzl n \ ..Illlfnll U . J mrIIlaJlfIJllll \\\ .fio H u . w , Jirfrfr..\ _ z m .m .z .. . VII... N225 z w \ j \ Jfflflfllrl . \ 1.2.2.13... 11L 181 Summary Twenty-two selected factors comprised of independent variables and demographic factors were compared to assess- ment center participants' extents of follow-up on post- assessment center developmental recommendations. The degree of relationship between each factor and the dependent vari- able was measured using a log-linear model and chi-square test. The degree to which a participant follows up on develop- mental recommendations following participation in an assess- ment center was found to be dependent upon the following factors; they are listed in decreasing order of strength of dependency: 1. Perceived support from the organization.* 2. Likelihood of achieving the target job.* 3. Perceived support from supervisor/manager. 4. Post-assessment desire for the job. 5. Logicalness of developmental recommendations. 6. Perceived support from family. 7. Formal education level. 8. Desire to attend the assessment center. 9. Age at assessment. The following factors were ones for which the dependency between each and the dependent variable was not considered *Equal strengths of dependency for these two factors. 182 significant. 'flunl are also listed in decreasing order of strength of dependency: 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 2.. 21. 22'. Rating of overall potential to succeed in target job. Acceptability of time delay to feedback. Desire for target job (pre-assessment). Perceived support from friends. Appropriateness of time spent discussing feedback. Perceived support from co-workers. Credibility of individual delivering feedback. Seniority at assessment. Relevance of feedback to job dimensions. Sensitivity of individual delivering feedback. Realism of assessment exercises. Job grade (organizational level) at assessment. Sex. In the following chapter, the implications of these findings are presented and discussed. Recommendations are made to those individuals/organizations using the assessment center process to select and develop individuals for various jobs. Recommendations are also made for individuals contem- plating research in this topical area. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In this chapter a general summary of the research is presented. Included also are conclusions of the research, organized by the questions the research was designed to answer. Presented in this chapter are recommendations based upon the research findings and suggestions for further re- search. Summary of the Study The general problem toward which this research was directed dealt with the relative scarcity of individuals having high levels of requisite skills and abilities to fill managerial and supervisory positions within organizations. Over the last few decades, the assessment center process has emerged as one method by which requisite skills and abili- ties for these positions are measured for individuals participating in the assessment center. Because not all assessees demonstrate sufficient levels of skills and abili- ties to be judged ready to assume the jobs for which assess- ment centers are designed, many others must pursue further development to demonstrate job readiness. As many 183 184 assessment centers yield developmental recommendations to lesser- performing assessees and because not all assessees pursue the specified development, the research question became "What factors influence the extent to which an indi- vidual follows up on developmental recommendations made following his/her participation in an assessment center?" A review of the literature identified a number of studies conducted in the United States and the United King- - dom which helped to define the impact assessment center participation has on assessees, but confirmed that this study's major research question had not been previously answered. To answer the general research question, data were gath- ered from 299 participants of an assessment center designed to select and develop Manufacturing Foremen at a large manufacturer of office furniture. The data were gathered on 22 selected factors and on the dependent variable-~a rating of the extent of each person's follow-up on post-assessment center developmental recommendations. Two-way tables were constructed between each factor and the dependent variable and a log-linear model and chi-square test statistic were employed to measure the degree of association between the dependent variable and each selected factor. The factors examined were seven which dealt with condi- tions established prior to assessment center participation, eight which related to assessment center participation, the performance feedback, and its manner of delivery, and seven 185 which were conditions established following assessment cen- ter participation. Conclusions and Recommendations for Each Question In general, those factors which were discovered to be significantly related to the dependent variable-were ones which seemed to be facilitating in nature. None of the factors alone clearly explained why some individuals did appear to take the recommendations seriously and many others did not. This is simply to say that development did not appear to occur as a result of the presence of a particular factor, but the absence of the factor was associated with little or no follow-up on developmental recommendations. Following are the specific outcomes of this research, organized by the three specific research questions. All of the outcomes are presented in Table 5.1. The first question concerned itself with factors operating prior to a person's contact with the assessment center process; it asked: Ql. 'ma what degree are pre-assessment factors related to the extent to which an individual follows up on post-assessment center developmental recommendations? The pre-assessment factors examined in this research included: a. Age at assessment. b. Company seniority at assessment. c. Formal education. d. Organizational level (job grade) at assessment. 186 e. Sex. f. Desire to attend the assessment center. 9. Desire for the target job. Of the pre-assessment factors examined, three were found to be significant: Age at assessment, formal education level, and desire to attend the assessment center. 187 TABLE 5.1--SUMMARY OF FACTORS AND PROBABILITIES OF NO DEPENDENCE BETWEEN EACH AND THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE Pre-assessment Factor ° Probability a. Age at assessment .0418* b. Seniority at assessment .4239 c. Formal education level .0160* d. Job grade (organizational level) at assessment .6383 e. Sex .9906 f. Desire to attend assessment center .0186* g. Desire for target job .1453 During-assessment Factors a. Rating of overall potential to succeed in target job .0805 b. Realism of assessment exercises .5887 c. Acceptability of time delay to feedback .1186 d. Sensitivity of individual delivering feedback .4853 e. Appropriateness of time spent discussing per ormance .3157 f. Credibility of individual delivering feedback .3706 9. Relevance of feedback to job dimensions .4598 h. Logicalness of recommendations .0087* Post-assessment Factors a. Perceived support from organization .0001* b. Perceived support from supervisor/manager .0011* c. Perceived support from co-workers .3488 d. Perceived support from family .0105* e. Perceived support from friends .2255 f. Likelihood of achieving target job .0001* g. Post-assessment desire for job .0081* *Significant degree of dependence between these factors and the dependent variable (extent of follow-up on post- assessment center developmental recommendations). 188 Age at Assessment Conclusion: Individuals over 40 years of age demon- strate a lesser extent of follow-up on post-assessment de- velopmental recommendations than those in younger age groups. If the assumption can be made that self-development would be pursued only if it is viewed as a useful means of achieving the target job of the assessment center then this finding can be fairly easily explained. The under-40 em- ployees may more strongly believe that the developmental investment will result in the eventual payoff of a pmomo- tion. The older workers may feel that the developmental investment will not pay off or, if it does, it will be for too short a time period to be justified. As many of the study participants could voluntarily retire at age 55, this assumption makes even more sense. The findings associated with this factor are in agreement with the findings of numerous developmentalists (e.g., Burach, Erickson, Gould, Holland, Levinson, Sheehey, Super). Recommendation: Be aware that, in general, individuals under 50 years of age will follow up on post-assessment developmental recommendations to a greater extent than older workers. Little can be done to directly deal with this factor. Current federal legislation (n1 employee selection procedures prohibits the use of age as a factor in selecting individuals to attend an assessment center. A company 189 cannot, therefore, select only those individuals who are under 40 to attend an assessment center. Recommendation for further research: Explore indi- viduals' views of their ages in comparison to their desires to fbllow In; on post-assessment developmental recommenda- tions. Study participants could tn: asked directly to identify the extent to which they felt their age was a factor in follow up on recommendations. Formal Education Level Conclusion: Individuals with higher levels of formal education (two or more years of college) demonstrate a greater extent of follow-up on post-assessment developmental recommendations than those with less formal education. Though not all individuals who were judged as having higher levels of formal education pursued post-assessment development, those who did tended to be better educated. This seems consistent with findings presenbmi by Campbell and Hansen (1981); additional levels of formal education appear to improve one's "academic comfort" which, in turn, increases his/her likelihood to approach similar experiences in the future. Because several of the post-assessment re- commendations involved formal. course-work, those already having had similar experiences may have felt more comfort- able and more willing to follow up on these components of the recommendations. 190 Recommendation: Encourage individuals to pursue more development than that suggested by post-assessment recommen- dations alone. It appears that the pursuit of development may be a positive cycle; the more development one pursues, the more he/she may be likely to pursue. Recommendation for further research: Measure "academic comfort" using an instrument like the Strong-Campbell Inter- est Inventory and identify the relationship between the scores and participants' extents of follow-up on post- assessment developmental recommendations. This may yield better evidence on the impact on the dependent variable of one's comfort level in pursuing development. Desire to Attend the Assessment Center Conclusion: Individuals reporting a greater desire to attend an assessment center demonstrate greater extents of follow-up CH1 post-assessment developmental recommendations than those reporting a lesser desire. This factor appeared (X) be significant with a high degree of probability, i.e., a low probability of a true null hypothesis. Few individuals having little desire to participate in the assessment center exhibited much follow- up on developmental recommendations. Where high levels of follow-up were observed, however, they were generally accom- panied by a stronger desire to attend the assessment center. This may have to do in part with the perceived instrumen- tality of the assessment center. Those having little l9l confidence in such a process will probably tend to view the results with skepticism. Recommendation: For those administering an assessment center it would seem to be important to discuss the nature and potential value of the assessment center with individ- uals who may.be considering attending. This might improve a person's desire to attend, as the process would become less mysterious to the potential attendee and he/she might more clearly understand how the information yielded by the center could be useful in achieving career goals. Recommendation for further research: Compare the extent of follow-up on post-assessment center developmental recom- mendations of an experimental and a control group; the experimental. group 'would receive information «designed to reduce their fear and increase their desire to attend, the control group would not. The second research question concerned itself with fac- tors operating during a person's contact with the assessment center and feedback process; it asked: QZ. 'n: what degree are factors asso- ciated with the assessment center and feedback process related to the extent tx> which an individual fol- lows up on post-assessment center developmentalrecommendations? The factors examined in this research which relate to research question two are: a. Rating of overall potential to succeed in the tar- get job. 192 b. Perceived realism of assessment situations or exer- cises. c. Percepthmi of the utility of the feedback process itself, including: i. Acceptability of the time delay between the assessment and the feedback. ii. Sensitivity displayed by the individual deliv- ering the feedback. iii. Appropriateness of the amount of time spent during the oral feedback session. iv. Credibility (HE the individual delivering the feedback. v. Relevance of the feedback in comparison to the critical job dimensions. vi. Relevance of the developmental recommendations to the developmental needs identified. Of the above factors, only one (c-vi) proved to have an effect. Relevance of the Developmental Recommendations to the Developmental Needs IdentifiEd This factor proved to be significant at the .0087 level of confidence. Conclusion: Individuals who demonstrated greater ex- tents of follow-up on post-assessment center developmental recommendations were more frequently those who reported seeing a logical connection between the recommendations made 193 and the skills and qualities identified as needing develop- ment. As with the significant factors in research question one, this factor appeared to have a facilitating effect on post-assessment follow-up on recommendations. This seems reasonable and is consistent with what is currently known about feedback and human performance. Recommendation: It is recommended that assessment cen- ter users clearly describe to assessees how developmental recommendations made will help improve the skills and quali- ties seen as needing improvement. It may be that some assessees view certain recommendations as arbitrary; dis- cussing the relevance of the recommendations would demon- strate that the recommendations were founded upon a careful plan. Such a discussion might also give assessees the opportunity to ask about alternate paths of development which might improve the same skills and qualities. Recommendation for future research: Compare giving and withholding developmental recommendations on post-assessment development activity. Not all assessment centers yield recommendations to participants. It is to be expected that, even after participating in these centers, certain partici- pants will continue to seek development. It would be useful to )umnv what impact the actual provision of developmental recommendations has on an individual's desire to pursue further development. 194 In the assessment center which provided the focus for the current research, assessees always had the options of inviting the first- and second-level managers to the feed- back session. A second recommendation, therefore, would be to explore the impact of the absence/presence of line man- agement at the feedback. It may be that individuals who request their line managers to be present continue to dis- cuss the performance feedback and developmental recommenda- tions with them and this may have a positive impact on the pursuit of development. The third research question concerned itself with fac- tors operating after a participant had concluded assessment and had received developmental recommendations; it asked: Q3. To what degree are post-assessment factors related txa the extent to which an individual follows up on developmental. recommendations made during the post-assessment feedback process? Post-assessment factors examined in this research in- cluded: a. Perceived level of support provided by each of the following for individual development efforts: i. Organization. ii. Immediate supervisor/manager. iii. Co-workers. iv. Family members. v. Friends. b. Desire for the target job. c. Perceived likelihood of achieving the target job. 195 Of the seven post—assessment factors which were examined in this research, five were found to be significant. Three of these five dealt with the perceived amount of support provided to each participant for his/her own developmental efforts. Perceived Support from the Organization Conclusion: Support from the organization facilitates follow-up on post-assessment center developmental recommen- dations. This factor ranked at the top of the list of signific- ance with an equal probability of no association with the dependent variable as the factor "Likelihood of achieving the target job." Both were calculated as having a .0001 probability of a true null hypothesis. As described earlier in the study, the organization in which this study was conducted (Steelcase, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan) offers educational assistance to each of its 7,500+ employees through tuition reimbursement for job- related courses which are successfully completed. Several courses are offered on site through the company's own Em- ployee Development Department, free of charge to employees, as well as through local colleges and community education systems. It appears that those individuals who actively pursued post-assessment developmental recommendations were those who perceived that the company provided high levels of support 196 for their developmental efforts. Little or no perceived support from the organization was clearly associated.with little or no development. Recommendation: Organizations should make extra efforts to provide support for individual development. The support provided might be in the form of monetary assistance, courses which are offered on site, courses which are offered at convenient times of the day, etc. Recommendation for future research: Construct a study to determine the type(s) of support which appear to be most important. It may be that financial assistance is the factor having the greatest impact, or perhaps participants are more interested in taking classes at convenient times of the day. Perceived Support from the Supervisor/Manager It is not surprising that this factor was highly sig- nificant (.0011 level of confidence), particularly in view of the fact that support from the organization was ranked so highly. Conclusion: Support from the supervisor/manager facili- tates follow-up 0n post-assessment center developmental recommendations. This finding is consistent with the expected findings. It seems reasonable that, in the eyes of an employee, the supervisor or manager is the organization. This individual is one of the few individuals who (in the setting for the 197 study) must approve a request for tuition reimbursement and who may provide or withhold opportunities for on-the-job development. Many of the developmental recommendations made involved such things as: (1) serving on a quality circle team, (2) chairing weekly meetings such as safety meetings, (3) filling in for the current supervisor to provide cover- age for illnesses, vacations, etcu.(4) reviewing various elements of in-house supervisory training programs--all of which do require permission and assistance from the current supervisor or manager. Higher levels of development were accompanied by higher levels of support from the supervisor. Where supervisory support was reported to be low, little development took place. Recommendation: Organizations should stress the im- portance to management personnel of working with assessment center participants. Supervisors and managers should be made aware of the types of support they can provide asses- sees and the impact their support will have on helping individuals reach their career goals and, as a result, on helping the organization to fill vacancies with skilled people. Recommendation for future research: Construct a study to determine the type(s) of support from the supervisor which appear to be most important. It may be that a super- visor's encouragement and verbal support is more important than the simple provision of on-the-job developmental oppor- tunities. 198 Perceived Support from the Family This factor was significant at the .0105 level of con- fidence. Conclusion: Support from family members facilitates follow—up on post-assessment center developmental recommen- dations. As with other types of support found to be significant, family support does appear to be a logical pre-condition to follow-up on assessment center developmental recommenda- tions. Presence of family support seemed to assist many assessees while absence of family support was generally accompanied by little or no follow-up. Recommendation: Encourage assessees to describe their need for support for their self-development, in part, from their family members. Ask them to describe to the family the amount of time and energy which must be invested to improve skills and qualities. Ask them to stress the poten- tial benefits of their own development to the rest of the family. Additionally, make appropriate organizational mem- bers aware of the impact of the family unit on an assessee's developmental follow-up. Recommendation for future research: Construct a study to identify the type(s) of family support considered most important. It may very well be that individuals having greater degrees of family responsibility (greater number of dependents, 84%) may receive less support for their own development due to the demands which are already placed upon 199 their time and energy. It may be that certain families are more encouraging and emotionally supportive than others and this may have a positive effect. Post-assessment Desire for the Target Job This factor was significant at the .0081 level of con- fidence. Higher levels of follow—up on developmental recom- mendations were associated with higher levels of this factor; the absence of this factor quite clearLy was asso— ciated with very little development. Conclusion: Post-assessment desire for the target job has a facilitating effect on the extent of follow-up on assessment center developmental recommendations. This finding is a reasonable one and does conform to expectency theory. It does seem likely that those who do not have the desire for something (promotion to the position of Manfucturing Supervisor, for example) will not be willing to spend much time and energy working toward it. The strengths of relationship to the dependent variable of this factor and the re-assessment factor "Desire for the job" are a bit different. This seems to indicate that interven- ing variables (the assessment center experience itself, perhaps) had some effect on one's desire over time for the target job. Recommendation: As this factor represents some very personal feelings, one could question the appropriateness of attempts to influence it. It is theoretically possible to 200 make attempts to promote one‘s desire for the target job of the assessment center, but the consequences seem potentially risky. To do so is to place more value on the organization than the individual. The best recommendation may be to simply keep the impact of this factor in mind when working with assessees. Recommendation for future research: Construct a study to determine the components of one's desire for the target job. Attempt to identify if certain characteristics of the target job make the position appear to be highly desirable. Perhaps individuals are interested in the target job because of its challenges or because of its greater income (n: its greater status. Likelihood of Achieving the Target Job This factor tied for first place in the list of signif— icant factors (Again see Table 5.1) with the factor "Per- ceived support from the organization" with a probability of Conclusion: Perceived likelihood of achieving the tar- get job has a facilitating effect on the extent of follow-up post-assessment center developmental recommendations. The findings related to this factor are those which were expected and do conform to expectency theory. It seems reasonable to expect that an individual will work harder to achieve something which is more likely than something which is less likely, all else being equal. 201 Part of one's perceived likelihood of achieving the target job would no doubt be his/her "Rating of overall potential to succeed in the target job" which was another factor of this study. It is worth mentioning that, of the factors considered to be non-significant at the .05 level of confidence, "Rating of overall potential to succeed in the target job" came the closest to being significant with a .0805 probability of a true null hypothesis. It is true, however, that one's overall rating of cur- rent potential to succeed in the target job, while an impor- tant piece of data, is only one of several pieces of data combined in making a promotional decision. Other pieces of data such as performance appraisal ratings, experience in a particular type of manufacturing department, and judgments yielded by an industrial psychologist following an individ- ual assessment are also used. As assessment center partici- pant's perception of his/her own likelihood of being promoted to the target job probably is a function of the knowledge the individual has of his/her own total perfor- mance data and his/her knowledge of personal drive to suc- ceed. Also important would be the person's strength of "Desire for the target job" which was also measured in this study. One's strength of desire may positively correlate with onehs belief in a personal ability to overcome obsta- cles to reaching the target job. The factor ”Likelihood of achieving the target job" was also seen as a facilitating one. Presence of higher levels 202 of this factor were associated with higher levels of follow- up on recommendations. Where individuals reported weaker likelihoods of achieving the target job, little follow-up on developmental recommendations was seen. Recommendation: For organizations using the assessment center process, it is recommended that a discussion be conducted with each assessee to determine his/her current and future likelihood of being promoted to the target job. Information could be shared with each candidate which is in addition to the performance data provided by assessment. This discussion may be useful for those who have an other- wise low belief in their likelihood of achieving the target job. By putting the assessment data in context with other information, a more positive outlook may be generated. Of course, such a discussion may have a chilling effect on other assessees who had a prior good feeling about their promotional likelihood. Ini either case, .a more realistic outlook may be formed. Recommendation for future research: Explore an addi- tional factor like "Belief that pursuit of developmental recommendations will lead to promotion to the target job)‘ This would be an important measure of the perceived instru- mentality of the recommendations. General Conclusions and Recommendations Recommendations have already been stated as they related to each of the factors and research questions. In the 203 process of searching the literature and in completing this dissertation, however, additional recommendations and addi- tional ideas for related research came to mind: 1. Consider the use of an interview approach to gather data. Using an interview approach would permit the gath- ering of additional data not specified on a: questionnaire, and could allow for clarification of questions as necessary. An additional richness of information would be possible through interviewing, although i1: would certainly consume more time and effort than the questionnaire method alone. 2. Ask assessees more directly about factors influenc- ing their follow-up on developmental recommendations. This study attempted to indirectly determine the impact of var- ious selected factors. A researcher could conduct a force- field analysis by asking a participant to rank order factors facilitating and hindering developmental follow-up. This could more clearly establish the types of obstacles to personal growth. 3. Conduct a true "pre-/post-" study. Two of the pre- assessment factors of the study (Desire to attend the assessment center and Pre-assessment desire for the target job) were of a retrospective nature. The data gathered for the study were treated as though they were gathered in a temporal sequence, although they were gathered only after the treatment. To improve future research, pre-assessment data should only be gathered before participants enter the assessment center process. 204 4. It appears that the design common to most assess- ment centers does not lend itself to participant follow-up on developmental recommendations. In the case of the as— sessment center which served as one focus for the study, participants disengaged from the overall process once they had received their performance feedback and developmental recommendations. Because they are geographically dispersed, they probably have little or rm) information on lune others with whom they participated in the assessment center are progressing on their developmental recommendations. An annual meeting of assessees would make a type of follow-up a part of the overall process and would allow participants to offer one another support and encouragement. The fact that the assessees would be coming together again might encourage them to more actively pursue their developmental recommenda- tions. 5. Another recommendation for future research would be to conduct separate analyses on promoted versus non-promoted individuals. It seems reasonable to expect that those who exhibited greater degrees of follow-up on their develop- mental recommendations would also be those who were more likely to be promoted to the target job. 6. Gather and analyze data in such a way that regres- sion analysis, principal components analysis, or factor analysis could be used. As described earlier in the re- search, the data gathered were categorical in nature and highly skewed. An attempt was made to use a regression 205 analysis after transforming the data, but this yielded re— sults which were of no value. One suggestion to a future researcher would be to gather the data in more than five categories; a ten—point scale might be more helpful here. A factor analysis would be particularly valuable to help develop a "profile" of the individual who is most likely to pursue post-assessment center development. 7. An interesting conclusion of the research is that, of the nine factors which were seen as being significantly related to the dependent variable, the 9311 one which is within the control of the assessment center administrator is logicalness of recommendations (Again see Table 5LU.g This indicates that an assessment center administrator has rela- tively little influence over assessees' follow-up on devel- opmental recommendations except through insuring that each assessee understands how the recommendations are specifi- cally targeted to improve particular skills and qualities. Summary Presented in this chapter were a brief description of the study, its design, data analysis method, and the signif- icant findings of the study organized by the specific research questions. Additionally, conclusions and recommen- dations were provided for each factor within a research question. To conclude the study, general conclusions and recommendations were made for individuals contemplating 206 future research and for those VHK) are responsible for the operation of assessment centers. APPENDICES APPENDIX A ASSESSMENT CENTER GUIDELINES ASSESSMENT CENTER GUIDELINESl Assessment Center Defined An assessment center consists of a standardized evalua- tion of behavior based on multiple inputs. Multiple trained observers and techniques are used. Judgments about behavior are made, in part, from specially developed assessment sit— uations. These judgments are pooled by the assessors at an eval- uation meeting during which assessment data are reported and discussed and the assessors agree on the evaluation of the dimensions and any overall evaluation that is made. The following are the essential elements which are nec- essary for a process to be considered an assessment center. Multiple assessment techniques must be used. At least one of these techniques must be a simulation. A simulation is an exercise or technique designed to elicit behaviors related to dimensions of performance on the job requiring the participants to respond behaviorally to situational stimuli. The stimuli pmesent in ii simulation parallel or resemble stimuli in the work situation. Examples of simula- tions include group exercises, In-Basket exercises, inter- view simulations, Fact Finding exercises, etc. Multiple assessors must be used. These assessors must receive thorough training prior to participating in a cen- ter. Judgments resulting in an outcome (1&5, recommendation for promotion, specific training or development) must be based on pooling information from assessors and technique. An overall evaluation of behavior must be made by the assessors at a separate time from observation of behavior during the exercises. 1Task Force on Assessment Center Standards. Standards and ethical considerations for assessment center operations. The Personnel Administrator, February, 1980, 35-38. 207 208 Simulation exercises are used. These exercises are developed to tap a variety of pre-determined behaviors and have been rue—tested prior to use to ensure that the tech- niques provide reliable, objective, and relevant behavioral information for the organization in question. The simula- tions must be job-related. The dimensions, attributes, characteristics, qualities, skills, abilities, or knowledge evaluated by the assessment center are determined by an analysis of relevant job behav- iors. The techniques used in the assessment center are de- signed to provide information which is used in evaluating the dimensions, attributes, or qualities previously deter- mined. The following kinds of activities do not constitute an assessment center. 1. Panel interviews or a series of sequential inter- views as the sole technique. 2. Reliance on a specific technique (regardless of whether a simulation or not) as the sole basis for evaluation. 3. Using only a test battery composed of a number of pencil and paper measures, regardless of whether the judgments are made by a statistical or judg— mental pooling of scores. 4. Single assessor assessment (often referred to as individual assessment)--measurement by one individ- ual using a variety of techniques such as pencil and paper test, interviews, personality measures, or simulations. 5. The use of several simulations with more than one assessor where there is no pooling of data; i.e., each assessor prepares a report on performance in an exercise and the individual reports (uninteg- rated) are used as the final product of the center. 6. .A physical location labeled as aux "assessment center" which does not conform to the requirements noted above. Organizational Policy Statement Assessment centers need to operate as a part of human resource system. Prior to the introduction of a center into 209 an organizathmu, a policy statement should be prepared and approved by the organization. The policy statement should address the following areas. Objective--This may be selection, development, early identification, affirmative action, evaluation of potential, evaluation of competency, or any combination of these. Assessees--The population to be assessed, the method for selecting assessees from the population, procedures for notification, and policy related to re-assessing should be specified. Assessors--The assessor population, limitations on use of assessors, number of times assigned, evaluation of asses- sor performance, and certification requirements where appli— cable should be specified. Use of Data--The flow of assessment reports, who re— ceives reports, restrictions on access to information, procedures and controls for research/program evaluation purposes, feedback procedures to management/employee, and the length of time data will be maintained in files should be specified. Qualification of Consultant(s) or Assessment Center Developer(s)--The internal or externaI consultants responsi- ble for the development of the center should be identified and their professional qualifications and related training listed. Validation--There should be a statement specifying the validation model being used. There should be a time sched- ule indicating when a validation report will be available. Assessor Training--Assessor training is an integral part of the assessment center program. The following are some issues related to training. Training Content--Whatever the approach to assessor training, the objective is obtaining accurate assessor judg- ments. A variety of training approaches may be used, as long as it can be demonstrated that accurate assessor judg- ments are obtained. The following minimum training goals are suggested: 0 Thorough knowledge and understanding of the assess- ment techniques used, including the kinds of behav- iors elicited tn! each technique, relevant dimensions to be observed, expected or typical behaviors, examples or samples of actual behaviors, etc. 210 Thorough knowledge and understanding of the assess- ment dimensions including definitions of dimen- sions, relationship to job performance, examples of effective and ineffective performance, etc. Skill in behavior observation and recording, in- cluding knowledge of the forms used by the center. Thorough knowledge and understanding of evaluation and rating procedures, including how data are integrated by the assessment center staff. Thorough knowledge and understanding of assessment policies and practice of the organization, includ- ing restrictions on how assessment data are to be used. Thorough knowledge and understanding of feedback procedures where appropriate. Length of Training. The length of assessor training may vary due to a variety of considerations that can be categor- ized into three major areas: 1. O 0 Trainer and Instructional Design Considerations The instructional model(s) utilized. The qualification and expertise of the trainer. The training and instructional sequence. Assessor Considerations Previous knowledge and experience with assessment. The use of professional psychologists (i.e., li- censed or certified psychologists) as assessors. Experience and familiarity with the organization and the target position(s) or target level. The frequency of assessor participation. Assessment Program Considerations The level of difficulty of the target position. The number of dimensions or skills to be rated. The anticipated use of the assessment information (immediate selection, broad placement. considera- tions, development, eth The number and complexity of the exercises. The division of roles and responsibilities between assessors and others on the assessment staff. It should be noted that length of training and quality of training are not synonymous. Assessor training, however, is an important aspect of an assessment program. The true 211 test of training quality should be provided by performance standards and certification outlined below. Performance Standards and Certification--Each assessment center Should have clearly stated minimal performance stand- ards for assessors. These performance standards should, as a minimum, include the following areas. l. The ability to administer the exercises and tech- niques the assessor uses in the center. 2. The ability to recognize, observe, and report the behaviors measured in the center. 3. The ability to classify behaviors into the appro- priate behavior or skill. Some measurement is needed indicating that the individ- ual being trained has the capability of functioning as an assessor. The actual measurement of assessor performance may vary and could include data in terms of (1) rating performance, (2) critiques of assessor reports, (3) observa- tion as an evaluator, etc. It is important that assessor performance is evaluated to ensure that individuals are sufficiently trained to function as assessors, prior to their actual duties, and that such performance is periodi- cally monitored to insure that skills learned in training are applied. Each organization should prepare to demonstrate that its assessors can meet minimal performance standards. This may require the development of additional training or other action for assessors not meeting these performance stand- ards. . Informed Participation The organization is obligated to make some form of announcement prior to assessment so that participants will be informed as completely as possible about the program. While the actual information provided will vary from organi- zation to organization, the following basic information should be given to all prospective participants before get- ting their agreement to participate in the program. Ideally, this information should be made available in writing prior to the center. A second option is to use the material in the opening statement of the center. 1. Objective-—The objectives of the program and the purpose of the assessment center. 212 2. Selection--How individuals are selected to partic- ipate in the center. 3. Choice--Any options the individual has regarding the choice of participating in the assessment cen- ter as a condition of employment, advancement, development, etc. 4. Staff--General information on the assessor staff to include composition and assessor training. 5. Materials--What assessment center' materials are collected and maintained by the organization. 6. Results--How the assessment center results will be used. The length of time the assessment results will be maintained on file. 7. Feedback—-When and what kind of feedback will be given to the participants. 8. Re-assessment--The procedure for re-assessment (if given). 9. Access--Who will have access to the assessment center reports and under what conditions. 10. Contact--Who will be the contact person responsible for records. Where will the results be stored. Validation Issues A major factor in the widespread acceptance and use of assessment centers is directly related to an emphasis on sound validation research. Numerous studies have been con- ducted and reported in the professional literature demon- strating the validity of the assessment center process in a variety of organizational settings. The historical record of the validity of this process cannot be taken as a guarantee that a given assessment program will or will not be valid in a given setting. Ascertaining the validity of an assessment center pro- gram is a complicated technical process and it is important that validation research meet both professional and legal standards. Research should be conducted by individuals knowledgeable in the technical and legal issues pertinent to validation procedures. 213 In evaluating the validity of assessment center pro- grams, it is particularly important to document the selec— tion of dimensions, attributes, or qualities assessed in the center. In addition, the relationship of assessment exer- cises to the dimensions, attributes, or qualities assessed should be documented as well. The technical standards and principles for validation appear in "Principles for the Validation and Use of Person- nel Selection Procedures" (Division 14, 1975) and "Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests and Manuals" (APA, 1974). Rights of the Participant The Federal Government enacted the Freedom of Informa— tion Act and Privacy Act of 1974 to ensure certain safe- guards are provided for an individual against an invasion of personal privacy. Some broad interpretations of these acts are applicable to the general use of assessment center data. Assessment center activities typically generate a volume of data on an individual who has gone through an assessment center. These assessment data come in many different forms ranging from observer notes, reports on performance in the exercises, assessor ratings, peer ratings, paper and pencil tests, and final assessment center reports. This list, while not exhaustive, does indicate the extent of collection of information about an individual. The following guidelines for use of these data are suggested: 1. Assessees should receive a comprehensive feedback on their performance at the center and informed of any recommendations made. 2. For reasons of test security, assessment center exercises are exempted from disclosure, but the rationale and validity data concerning dimensions, ratings, and recommendations should be made avail- able on request of the individual. 3. If the organization decides to use assessment re- sults for purposes other than those originally announced, the assessees involved must be informed. 4. The organization should inform the assessee what records and data are being collected, maintained, used, and disseminated. APPENDIX B VARIABLES OF FIRST-LINE SUPERVISOR OF STEELCASE, INC. IDENTIFICATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM VARIABLES OF FIRST-LINE SUPERVISOR OF STEELCASE, INC. IDENTIFICATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PERSONAL QUALITIES O INITIATIVE To what extent does this individual take active efforts to influence events, and/or is self- starting, rather than passively accepting? INNER WORK STANDARDS To what extent will this individual want to do a good job, even if he/she could get by with doing a less acceptable job? STRESS TOLERANCE To what extent will this individual's work perfor- mance stand up in the face of unusual pressures? INTERPERSONAL SKILLS O SENSITIVITY To what extent is this individual able to perceive and react sensitively to the feelings and needs of others? FLEXIBILITY To what extent can this individual modify his/her behavioral style and approach to reach a goal? LEADERSHIP To what extent can this individual effectively lead a group or another individual to accomplish a task without arousing hostility? 214 215 ORAL COMMUNICATION To what extent can this individual effectively express his/her ideas in individual or group situa- tions? ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS O ORGANIZING AND PLANNING To what extent can this individual establish an appropriate course of action for self and/or others to accomplish a specific goal, make proper assign- ments of personnel, and apropriate allocation of resources? DECISIVENESS To what extent is this individual willing to make a decision, render judgment, or commit to action when required? JUDGMENT To what extent is this individual able to make logical and rational decisions of high quality? APPENDIX C POST-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE 216 IDENTIFICATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (IDP) LONG TERM FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE Yourhelpionoododl YouaroamongaaoloctgroupofemployaeswhohawaflendodflnldenfificaflonDevelopnthrogmflDH—a uwmtomemmmmammuammmmu Steelcase. You are being asked to complete this quostionnam as a entice! step in a long-tom lolow-up study by the' EmpbyuoovobmmtmtflmmybemedeNommmdmcflmwmm www.mresponmwilbekoptconfidenflal:mothmamnyouwppIwabedeorrmchpupouo. Pleasemlnkcaremlyaboutyoumwm.Mostotflmitmwlbevoryeaybm,wfloafcwmayma bitmommonflort.Dombuttomwertdymdopuiyfloumaymmmmuyou'dflm. butploasedonotdiscusamonemswithmyonooba. meuuonhooflnwWehhummwmnhmhmde. Ityouhavoquowom. plomcaloxt. 9188. Pbaaemflhecanplotodquosflonnamnomerm I I THA NK YOU! PLEASE PRINT OR WRITE CLEARLY A. mmummmmm m ”practicum-mum. “I... Data 5. WlmmeMbM. SocUSocuityNo. 4. WIWWDM. 3. makedll’dlubmumdnn mm. wadmmmbm. 1. rubidium-mud. I. Wmmhmmcbommommm c. TMDPMNMOWWIO youwuudammIDPfibmdrdomm rmhmdMIF-amusw mummmmaanumc cucbukodtohmdoJ-Iowuollfllcddflmouu— mum-mum. chum»you:Mh.Iowhquddyouhd “memukodbmwokom “lb-an... bboWbyaFm’IMddumw mmmmmmm. motmdufltobocamnFum. mmmommasam. "Th-Woman“... #999.“ mm “watchman-0170:“. 5. voryroclfllc. WMbeooamaFum. 4, M.r.‘.k_ WMNMbeocmnFam. 3. Mt“. 2. whom. I. not-Intends. AflotlhalOP mmmwmatmmmm onyou'lOP mmaamounlolllma .1..me yourIOP anandmca and your Iaadback aaaalon? Plano cltcla Ihamnbatbalowwhlchmcalcloaalymalchaayw laahoa. 'TTIa'atlluntollknabalwaanMaIDPandmylood- backaaaalon was, . 5. varymuchloolong. quiaalotloolong. mmmm. abnoolono. mlloolongalal. .‘F‘P’P 217 Gamma hdvldualw whodalvaradyoulDPpadot- camad Illa W we with you: Iaollnga during Ina laodbacll aaaalon. "ThalndvldualdalvamomlePpadovmancalaad- 5. varyconcamadwmylaahqa. 4. Mammalnylaahoa. 3. mawhatconcamadabolnmylaalnga. 2. nolloocmunodabuflmylaahoa. 1. nolalalconoamadaboumylaahoa. Wmamounl olllma apantdallvadnoand dlacuaalnoyourlDP paflonnancaloadback Ploaaa ciclalna mambatwhlch cloaalymalchaayour laahoaolnowaootopnalamaamomtolmwaa. ‘mmtoltinadavoladtodalvamgm MmyIOP laadbackwaa . m W10. 5 I arlnomquaal ‘mhdlvldud meIDPpatlonna-‘lcalaad- backndmat’ncmy WW 5. vatybalavabla. 4 Mahala“. 3. aanawhalbalavabla. 2. nolloobalavabla. 1 nolalalbalavula. Ambuolakhandmaltlaaraqulobaaw- caaalullvalchaSupaI-vlaoralsualcaaa wan moat aahoa ma ralavana ol yom padonnanoa laadback to than ”would“. WWWIMIracaNadwu..." 5. vatytalavanl. 4 3. What ralavant. 2 1 nol at I ralavant. Tharacomnandallonalotmydavaloomanldacuaad WilllePIaomackaaadon. 5. madaalololaanaa. madaqdaablolaama. madaaomaaanaa. madavatyllllaaanaa. madanoaanaaald. 7‘99? Conaldarlhaaflmpaflodw almoyouracalvadywlOPpadormmcalaatback Plaaaalalavatythlnoyou hum-ad havadomalncayourlDPloadbacktoinorovauoonlnouaflammamamadbymalwm (Comldarmouua allarad al company Random "mt“! Ina-lob a.andxparlancaa anythlngaha (PLEASE PUT EXTRA EFFORT INTO ANSWERING THIS ITEM IN As MUCH DETAIL AS YOU CAN.) oalb inponam. (Ha-amonhanaxlpqa) 218 Cauldattnalavalolaupponmmumofluadamwmmamptalounmmwulamd mmwmlol’.Foraacholhalolowhpxtdahammbatobaatdaaababaunomtolawpat A Odtaa Graat Daal an ol Soma Ulla No ol Support Support Support amped Support a. Staalcaaa 5 4 3 2 1 b. Smarvlaorm 5 4 3 2 1 o. W 5 4 3 2 1 d. Funny 5 4 3 2 1 a. Frlanda 5 4 3 2 1 ConaldartnapohthtinahntaltaryouracauadywloP H. cmmpohtlntlmaluataltalyouracalvad laadback.Plaaaackclamanunbarbalowchnmoat mlDPpadomwtcalaacbacltanddavalopmantal clooarymatcnaamlaahoaabouttnallltallnoodyou :aoomnandatlona.Plaaaaclrclatnanunbarbalow wouldaomadayachlavathalooolFotaman. whichbaatdaacrbaayoudaalnattnattlmato hawnaaPorammaISIaalcaaa. ”JutaltarlracalvadmlePlaacbacltJth waa... "lhada... 5. vatylkalytoacnlavamalobole. 5. vatyatrongdaalratobacomaal‘oramm. 4. outalltalytoacnlavatnaiobolForanm. 4. mmmatobacanaam. 3. aanawnatlikolytoachlavamalobolForamm. 3. modaratadaatatobacomaaFm. 2. nottoolkalytoachlavathajoboll-‘oramm. 2. lmltaddaalratobacomaaForamm. 1. I. notataliltalytoachlavamaiobolFm. ounplatalackoldaalratobacomaaFocaman. 219 PLEASE RETURN TO: EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT RC THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWERS! YOUR HELP IS APPRECIATED! APPENDIX D INITIAL LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS 220 Dundmuthannnmfluno R) All IDP Participants [Mm September 13, 1985 Han Jerry Hekker 3mm”: IDP Follow-up Study Since its deve10pment in 1972, a total of 300 of our employees have participated:h1the Identification/Development Program (IDP). The purpose of the IDP is to measure and assist in the development of supervisory skills. Because the IDP is one key part of Steelcase's employee development efforts, and because you have participated in the IDP, I'm asking you to supply some information for a long-term follow-up study. The simple purpose of this study is to identify steps which might km taken to improve the value of the IDP for each individual partici- pant. Ebr some of you, a number of years will have passed since you attended the IDP; for others, it may only have been a few weeks or months. In either case it is important that you return the attached questionnaire cmmpleted as thoroughly and accurately as possible. Please feel free to express your honest opinion--the confidentiality of your answers «A11 be carefully maintained and your responses will be used for re- search purposes only. Ybur help will be sincerely appreciated. The date by which your questionnaire should be returned is specified on the top sheet. fimmld you have any questions, please call ext. 9188 in the Employee [kvelopment department. APPENDIX E FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO NON-RESPONDENTS 221_ Dunnmuwflcaunnmnunn To IDP Participants Dme September 24, 1985 F%om Jerry Hekker SumanIDP Follow-Up Questionnaire On September 13 you were mailed a questionnaire to complete which asked for your perceptions of a number of aspects of the Identifi- cation Development Program (IDP). To date, your completed question- naire has not been received by the Employee Development Department. If you have lost your questionnaire or need help in answering the items, please call the Employee Development Department at 9188. Your completed questionnaire is valuable! In order for the current study to be helpful, each participant should supply a questionnaire completed as thoroughly and accurately as possible. Please make an effort to mail your completed questionnaire no later than October 1. If you have already mailed your questionnaire, thanks for your cooperation! APPENDIX F IDENTIFICATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT SITUATIONS/VARIABLES MATRIX 222 IDENTIFICATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Sources of Variable Information Assessment Situations Leaderless In—Basket Group & Interview Scheduling Discussion Interview Simulation Problem PERSONAL QUALITIES Initiative (X) (X) X Inner Work Standards X X X Stress Tolerance (X) X (X) (X) INTERPERSONAL SKILLS Sensitivity X X (X) Flexibility (X) X (X) X Leadership (X) (X) Oral Communication (X) (X) (X) ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS Organizing and Planning (X) X (X) Decisiveness (X) X Judgment (X) (X) (X) A N \ul Primary source of information for variable. D< ll Secondary source of information for variable. No information provided by assessment situation. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, 8. "Using Assessment Centers in Smaller Organiza- tions," Personnel Journal (September, 1978), (57), 484- 487, 516. Agresti, A. Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1984. Alexander, L. D. "An Exploratory Study of the Utilization of Assessment Center Results," Academy of Management Journal, 1979, (22), 152-157. "Alternative Methods of Personnel Assessment," Small Business Report (February, 1983), (8), 17-19. American Psychological Association, American Education Research Association and National Council of Measurement in Education. Standards for Educational and Psychologi- cal Tests. Washington: American Psychological Associa- tion, 1974. Anundsen, K. "An Assessment-Center at Work," Personnel (March/April, 1975), (52), 29-36. "Assessment Center Training Has Side Benefits," Behavioral Sciences Newsletter, Book XII, (15), 3. Babbie, E. R. Survey Research Methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Bergevin, P. E. A Philosophy for Adult Education. New York: Seabury Press, 1967. Bertalanffy, L. von. General System Theory. New York: George Braziller, 1968. Blum, M. L. & Naylor, J. C. Industrial Psychology: Its Theoretical and Social Foundations. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. Bray, D. W. "Current Trends and Future Possibilities," in J. L. Moses & W. C. Byham, eds., Applying the Assessment Center Method. New York: Pergamon Press, 1977. 223 224 Bray, D. W. "The Assessment Center and the Study of Lives," American Psychologist (February, 1982), (37), 180-189. Brush, D. H. & Schoenfeldt, L. F. "Identifying Management Potential: An Alternative to Assessment Centers," Personnel (May/June, 1980), (57), 68-76. Byham, W. C. "Assessment Centers for Spotting Future Mana- gers," Harvard Business Review (July/August, 1970), 150- 160. Byham, W. C. "Help Managers Find the Best Candidate for the Job with Assessment Center Techniques," Training (November, 1979), (16), 64-73. Byham, W. C. "How to Improve the Validity of an Assessment Center," Training and Development Journal (November, 1978), (32), 4-6. Byham, W. C. "Starting an Assessment Center the Correct Way," Personnel Administrator (February, 1980), (25), 27-32. Byham, W. C. "The Assessment Center as an Aid in Management Development," Training and Development Journal (June, 1980), (34), 24-36. Campbell, D. T. & Hansen, J. C. The Manual for the SVIB- SCII: Strong-Campbell Interest Blank/Strong Campbell Interest Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1981. Campbell, J. P. & Pritchard, R. D. "Motivation Theory in Industrial and Organizational Psychology," in M. D. Dunnette, ed., Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1976, 63-130. Carissimi, D. C. "Using Management Assessment Centers in Health Care," Training and Development Journal (March, 1982): (36), 95-97. Cascio, W. F. Costing Human Resources: The Financial Impact of Behavior in Organizations. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1982. Cascio, W. F. & Silbey, V. "Utility of the Assessment Center as a Selection Device," Journal of Applied Psychology (April, 1979): (64), 107-118. Clement, R. W. & Rawlins, C. L. "Assessment Centers: Pro- ceed With Caution," Mid-South Business Journal (April, 1982), (2), 11’140 225 Cohen, B. M. "Assessment-Centers--What the Supervisor Should Know," Supervisory Management (June, 1975), (20), 30-34. Cohen, B. M. "The Assessment Center: Whom to Develop," Training in Business and Industry (February, 1974), (11), 19-21. Cohen, S. L. "How well Standardized is Your Organization's Assessment Center?” Personnel Administrator (December, 1978): (23): 41-51. Cohen, S. L. "Pre-Packaged vs. Tailor-Made: The Assessment Center Debate,” Personnel Journal (December, 1980), (59), 989-991 (a). Cohen, S. L. "The Bottom Line on Assessment Center Technol- ogy," Personnel Administrator (February, 1980), (25), 50-56475). Cohen, S. L. “Validity and Assessment Center Technology: One and the Same?" Human Resource Management (Winter, 1980), (19), 2-11 (0). Dapra, R. A. & Byham, W. C. "Applying the Assessment Center Methods to Selection Interviewing," Training and Devel- opment Journal (April, 1978), (32), 44-49. Development Dimensions International. Targeted Selection. Pittsburgh, PA: Author, 1984. Digman, In A. "Determining Management Development Needs," Human Resource Management (winter, 1980), 12-16. Division of Industrial-Organizational Psychology (Division 14), American Psychological Association. "Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Pro— cedures." Dayton, OH: The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 1975. Dodd, W; E. "Attitudes Toward Assessment Center Programs," in J. L. Moses & W; C. Byham, eds., Applying the Assess- ment Center Method. New York: Pergamon Press, 1977. Dreher, G. F. & Sackett, P. R. "Some Problems with Applying Content Validity Evidence to Assessment Center Proce- dures," Academy of Management Review (October, 1981), (6), 551-560. Drucker, P. F. Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Prac- tices. New York: Harper & Row, 1974. Dulewicz, v; "The Application of Assessment Centers," Personnel Management (September, 1982), (14), 32-35. 226 Dulewicz, V. & Fletcher, C. "The Relationship Between Pre- vious Experience, Intelligence, and Background Charact- eristics of Participants and Their Performance in an Assessment Center," Journal of Occupational Psychology (September, 1982), (55), 197-207. Finkle, R. B. "Managerial Assessment Centers,” in M. D. Dunnette, ed., Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psyghology. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1976. Fitz-enz, J., Hards, K. E., & Savage, G. E. "Total Develop- ment: Selection, Assessment, Growth," The Personnel Administrator (February, 1980), 58-62. Frank, F. D., Sefcik, J. In, & Jaffee, C. L. The Assessment Center Process: A Participant's Workbook. Orlando, Fin Human Resource Publishing Company, 1983. Frank, F. D. & Preston, J. R. ”The validity of the Assess- ment Center Approach and Related Issues,” Personnel Administrator (June, 1982), (27), 87-95. Freedman, S. C. "Attribution Theory and Management Educa- tion," Training and Development Journal (November, 1984), 95-99. Friedman, B. A. & Mann, R. W. "Employee Assessment Methods Assessed,” Personnel (June, 1981), (58), 69-74. Gallegos, P. M. Namnmunicating Performance Results," Journal of Systems Management (March, 1983), 25-31. Gilbert, T. F. Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Per- formance. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1978. Gryzan, M. "Assessment Tests Probe the Potential of Future Leaders." Grand Rapids, MI: The Grand Rapids Press, April 4, 1982, l-2E. Harmon, In "Beyond Behavioral Performance Analysis: Toward A New Paradigm for Educational Technology,” Educational Technology (February, 1979), 5-26. Hart, G. L. & Thompson, P. H. "Assessment Centers: For Selection or Development?" Organizational Dynamics (Spring. 1979). (7). 63-77. Haynes, M. E. "Streamlining an Assessment—Center," Person- nel Journal (February, 1976), (55), 80-83. 227 Hinrichs, J. R. & Haanpera, S. "Reliability of Measurement in Situational Exercises-~An Assessment of the Assessment-Center Method," Personnel Psychology (Spring, 1976), (29), 31-40. Hinrichs, J. R. "Personnel Training,” in M. D. Dunnette, ed., Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychol- ogy. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1975. "How One Company's 'Assessment Center' Paid Off on the Bottom Line," Training (April, 1976), (13), 24-25. Howard, A. ”An Assessment of Assessment Centers," Academ of Management Journal (March, 1974), (17), 115-134. Huck, J. R. & Bray, D. W. "Management Assessment Center Evaluations and Subsequent Job Performance of White and Black Females," Personnel Psychology (Spring, 1976), (29): 13-30. Huck, J. R. "Assessment Centers: A Review of the External and Internal Validities," Personnel Psychology (February, 1973), (26), 191-212. Huck, J. R. Determinants of Assessment Center Ratings for White and Black Females and the Relationship of These Dimensions to Subsequent Performance Effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Wayne State Univer- sity, Detroit, Michigan, 1974. Huck, J. R. "Research Finds Equality for Females and Blacks in Assessment," Assessment and Development (October, 1973), (l), 6. Huck, J. R. "The Assessment Process: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow." Paper presented at the First Annual Indust- rial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Ohio State University, September, 1973. Jaffee, C. L. "Assessment Centers Help Find Management Potential," Bell Telephone Magazine (March, 1965), (44), 18-24. Jaffee, C. L. & Sefick, J. T., Jr. "What is an Assessment Center?" The Personnel Administrator (February, 1980), (25), 44-46, 62. Jaffee, C. L., Frank, F. D., et a1. "Assessment Centers-— The New Method for Selecting Managers," Human Resource Management (Summer, 1976), (15), 5-11. Jaffee, C. L. President, Assessment Designs, Inc., Orlando, FL. Telephone conversation of August 31, 1983. 228 Johnson, R. A. & Wichern, D. W. Applied Multivariate Sta- tistical Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, 1982. Kemmer, R. "The Assessment Center: A Proven Way to Find and Develop Managers," Magazine of Bank Administration (October, 1982), (58), 45-50. Kirkpatrick, D. L. "Determining Supervisory Training Needs and Setting Objectives," Training and Development Jour- nal (May, 1978), (32), 16-19. Klimoski, R. J. & Strickland, W. J. "Assessment Centers-- Valid or Merely Prescient?" Personnel Psychology (Autumn, 1977), (30), 353-361. Korman, A. K. "Self—Esteem as a Moderator in vocational Choice: Replications and Extensions," Journal of Applied Psycholqu (1969): (53), 188-192. Kraut, A, I. "New Frontiers for Assessment Centers," Per- sonnel (July/August, 1976), (53), 30-38. Kur, C. E. & Pedler, M. "Innovative Twists in Management Development," Training and Development Journal (June, 1982): (36), 88-96. Laird, D. Approaches to Training and Development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1978. Langdon, D.(L "The Individual Management Development Pro- gram," Training and Development Journal (March, 1982), (36), 78-82. Lawler, E. E., III "Control Systems in Organizations," in M. D. Dunnette, ed., Handbook of Industrial and Organ- izational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1976, 1247-1291. Locke, E. A. "Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction," in M. D. Dunnette, ed., Handbook of Industrial and Organiza- tional Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally College Pub- lishing Company, 1976. Lowman, FL I“, ed., Casebook on Ethics and Standards for the Practice of Psychology in Organizations. College Park, MD: Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychol- 09Y: Inc., Division 14 of the American Psychological Association, 1985. MacKinnon, D. W. "From Selecting Spies to Selecting Managers--The OSS Assessment Program," in J. L. Moses & W. C. Byham, eds., Applying the Assessment Center Method. New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1977. 229 Maslow, A. H. Motivation and Personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row, 1970. Millard, C. W. & Pinsky, 8. "Assessing the Assessment Center," Personnel Administrator (May, 1980), (25), 85- 88. Moses, J. L. ”The Assessment Center Method," in J. L. Moses & W. C. Byham, eds., Applying the Assessment Center Method. New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1977. Norton, 8. D. “The Assessment Center Process and Content Validity: A Reply to Dreher and Sackett,” Academy of Management Review (October, 1981), (6), 561-566. Norton, S. D. "The Empirical and Content validity of As- sessment Centers vs. Traditional Methods for Predicting Managerial Success," Academy of Management Review (July, 1977), 442-453. Office of Strategic Services (088) Assessment Staff. As- sessment of Men. New York: Rinehart, 1948. Olivas, L. "Using Assessment Centers for Individual and Organizational Development," Personnel (May/June, 1980), (57), 63-67. ‘ Oppenheimer, R. J. "An Alternative Approach to Assessing Management Development Needs/'TTaining and Development Journal (March, 1982), (36), 72-76. Osborne, H. A. & Norton, S. D. "The Snake-Oil Syndrome (And How to Fight It)," Training (May, 1983), (20), 31; 35- 36. Parker, T. C. "Assessment Centers: A Statistical Study," Personnel Administrator (February, 1980), (25). 65-67. Pearson, P. A. The Psychology of Human Development Part II: Vocational Development. Unpublished paper submitted to The Fielding Institute, Santa Barbara, CA, April, 1984. "Personnel Widens Its Franchise,” Business Week (February 26, 1979), 116; 121. Petty, M. M. "A Multivariate Analysis of the Effects of Experience and Training Upon Performance in a Leaderless Group Discussion," Personnel Psychology (Summer, 1974), (27), 271-282. Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., III, & Hackman, J. R.’ Behav- ior in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Com- pany, 1975. 230 Quick, J. C., Fisher, W. A., Schkade, L. L., & Ayres, G. W. ”Developing Administrative Personnel Through the Assess- ment Center Technique," Personnel Administrator (Feb- ruary, 1980), (25), 44-46, 62. Rawls, J. "Recent Trends in Management Selection," Person- nel Journal (February, 1974), (53), 104-109. Reilley, R. R. & Chao, G. T. ”Validity and Fairness of Some Alternative Employee Selection Procedures," in Readings in Professional Personnel Assessment. Washington: International Personnel Management Association, 1984, 225-308. Rocco, K. Assessing the Assessment Center. Unpublished Master of Arts research paper. Western Michigan Univer- sity, Kalamazoo, MI, April, 1979. Ross, J. D. WA Current Review of Public Sector Assessment Centers: Cause for Concern," Public Personnel Manage- ment (January/February, 1979), (8), 41-46. Sackett, P.1L "A Critical Look at Some Common Beliefs About Assessment Centers," Public Personnel Management (Summer, 1982), (11), 140—147. Sackett, P. R. & Dreher, G. F. "Some Misconceptions About Content-Oriented Validation: A Rejoinder to Norton,” Academy of Management Review (October, 1981), (6), 567- 568. Sackett, P. R. & Dreher, G. F. "Constructs and Assessment Center Dimensions: Some Troubling Empirical Findings," Journal of Applied Psychology (August, 1982), (67), 401- 410. Sackett, P. R. & Wilson, M. A. "Factors Affecting the Consensus Judgment Process in Managerial Assessment Centers,” JournalJof Applied Psychology (February, 1982): (67), 10-17. Sax, G. Empirical Foundations of Educational Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968, 324-328. Schmitt, N. "Interrater Agreement in Dimensionality and Combination of Assessment Center Judgments," Journal of Applied Psychology (April, 1977), (62), 171-176. Schmitt, N. & Hill, In E. "Sex and Race Composition of Assessment Center Groups as a Determinant of Peer and Assessor Ratings," Journal of Applied Psychology (June, 1977), (62). 261-264. (L 231 School, J. "Recognizing the Need for Human Resource Plan- ning," Training and Develgpment Journal (May, 1981), (35). Skoff, E. J. "Assessing Managerial Potential," Datamation (August, 1975), (21), 37-40. "Standards and Ethical Considerations for Assessment Center Operations," Personnel Administrator (February, 1980), Steelcase, Inc. Identificapion Development Program. Grand Rapids, MI: Author, 1973. Steiner, R. "New Use for Assessment Centers: Training Evaluation," Personnel Journal (April, 1975), (54), 236- 237; 248. Sudman, S. & Bradburn, N. M. Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design. San FranciSco, CA: Josey-Bass Pubiishers, 1983. 'Szilagyi, A. D., Jr. Management and Performance (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company, 1984. Teel, K. S. & DuBois, H. "Participants' Reactions to As- sessment Centers," Personnel Administrator (March, 1983), (28), 85-91. Thornton, G. C., III & Byham, W. C. Assessment Centers and Managerial Performance. New York: Academic Press, 1982. Turner, T. S. & Utley, J. A. "Foreman Selection: One Company's Approach," Personnel, (May/June, 1979), (56), 47-55. "Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures," Federal Register (August 25, 1978), (43). Vroom, V. H. Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964. Yager, E. "Assessment Centers--The Latest Fad,” Training and Development Journal (January, 1976), (30), 41-44. Yager, E. Is There Life After Assessment? Park City, UT: Mountain Press, 1981. Yager, E. "When New-Hires Don't Make the Grade (The Case for Assessment Centers," Personnel Journal (May, 1980), (59), 387-390. Zemke, R. "Using Assessment Centers to Measure Management Potential," Training (March, 1980), (17), 23-26; 30-34. ‘11111111111“