.yr.

 

 

 

man“! :5
£9,383 g. 3.3...
"51.3.5.

 

 

$13 ..
. .x .2 v:

 

a.
1:1 ”PJQJ“.

.03. 1..l.~.t..x|...
{2.1. x15); 5

 

 

3., m.

.. 3.

1.3.9372: 1.5:}- r. .7...- Lu. :1.» 3.1:"
..

    

 

:Isi

 

THEStS
Z

Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

31293017721204

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Adaptive Performance in A

Multi-Tasking Environment

presented by

Kevin E. Plamondon

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Mas ter d . Arts
egree 1n

 

 

 

 

Major professor

Neal Schmitt

Date May 11, 1998

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RErURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1M W14

ADAPTIVE PERFORMANCE IN A MULTI-TASKING ENVIRONMENT
By

Kevin E. Plamondon

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

I998

ABSTRACT
ADAPTIVE PERFORMANCE IN A MULTI-TASKING ENVIRONMENT
By

Kevin E. Plamondon

This study examined the role of self-monitoring, process feedback, and motivation
in adaptive, multi-task performance. Research in these areas is reviewed and integrated
to develop a model of adaptive performance. This study examined the effects of self-
monitoring. motivation. and process feedback on multi-task performance. Hypothesis 1
that high-self monitors would outperform low self monitors was not supported,
Hypothesis 2 that highly motivated individuals would outperform the less motivated was
not supported, Hypothesis 3 that motivation would moderate the effects of self-
monitoring could not be tested due to the failure of self-monitoring to affect multi-task
performance. Hypothesis 4 that process feedback would improve multi-task performance
was supported. and Hypothesis 5 that self-monitoring. motivation. and process feedback
would interact to effect multi-task performance was not supported. The implications of

process feedback for adaptive performance are discussed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
Adaptive Performance ..................................................................................................... 1
Defining Adaptation .................................................................................................... 2
Adaptability & Selection ................................................................................................. 3
Research on Adaptation ............................................................................................... 4
Multiple Task Demands .................................................................................................. 6
Managerial Job Requirements ..................................................................................... 6
Multi-task Performance Research ............................................................................... 7
Performance Strategies ................................................................................................ 8
Managers & Multi-Task Performance ........................................................................... 10
Multi-Tasking & Individual Differences ................................................................... 12
Self-Monitorin g ............................................................................................................. l3
Self-Monitoring & Job Performance ......................................................................... l3
Motivation ..................................................................................................................... l6
Self-Monitoring & Motivation .................................................................................. 17
Feedback ........................................................................................................................ 18
Process Feedback & Multi-Task Performance .......................................................... 21
Process Feedback, Self-Monitoring & Motivation .................................................... 22
Summary of Hypotheses ................................................................................................ 23
Methods ............................................................................................................................. 26
Participants .................................................................................................................... 26
Independent Variables ................................................................................................... 28
Motivation ................................................................................................................. 28
Self-Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 28
Process Feedback ...................................................................................................... 29
Dependent Variables ..................................................................................................... 32
Report Writing Tasks ................................................................................................ 32
Scheduling Tasks ....................................................................................................... 33
Situational Judgment Tasks ....................................................................................... 34
Simulation Overview ................................................................................................. 34
Simulation Scoring .................................................................................................... 36
Control Variables ...................................................................................................... 38
Design and Procedures .................................................................................................. 39
Part I .......................................................................................................................... 39
Part II ......................................................................................................................... 39
Results ............................................................................................................................... 41
Scales ............................................................................................................................. 4|
Manipulation Check .................................................................................................. 45
Adaptive Performance ............................................................................................... 45

Analyses .................................................................................................................... 46

Supplemental Analyses ............................................................................................. 49
Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 54
Test of the Hypotheses .................................................................................................. 54
Self-monitoring ......................................................................................................... 55
Motivation ................................................................................................................. 56
Process feedback. ...................................................................................................... 59
Potential Applications of Research ............................................................................... 59
Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................ 60
Student sample .......................................................................................................... 60
Measuring adaptive performance .............................................................................. 6O
Motivation manipulation ........................................................................................... 62
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 64
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 66
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 72
APPENDIX A Power Analyses ......................................................................................... 73
APPENDIX B Measures ................................................................................................... 77
APPENDIX C Simulation Materials ................................................................................. 84
APPENDIX D Audio Messages ...................................................................................... 117
APPENDIX E Simulation Scoring Key .......................................................................... [21
APPENDIX F Data Collection Agenda .......................................................................... 137
APPENDIX G Informed Consent Form: No Incentive ................................................... 139
APPENDIX H Simulation Instructions ........................................................................... 142
APPENDIX I Debriefing Forms ...................................................................................... l58

IV

Table I.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

LIST OF TABLES

Inter-rater reliability results for situational judgment task ................................. 37
Scale corrected inter-correlations, inter-correlations, reliabilities, means, and
standard deviations ............................................................................................. 43
Test of hypothesized model ................................................................................ 48
Supplemental analyses using awareness and ability sub-scales of Lennoit and
Wolfe’s measure ................................................................................................. 50

Supplemental analyses using the self-report, motivation measure in place of the
incentive condition ............................................................................................. 53

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

LIST OF FIGURES

Hypothesis 2: The interaction between motivation and self-monitoring .......... 18

Hypothesis 5: Three-way Interaction between Self-Monitoring, Motivation, and

Process feedback ............................................................................................... 24
Multi-Tasking Adaptive Performance Model ................................................... 27
Three way interaction between self-monitoring, motivation, and process

feedback ............................................................................................................ 52
Interaction between process feedback and motivation measure ....................... 54

VI

INTRODUCTION

In recent years it has become increasingly apparent that the nature of work is
changing. Technological change as well as a shift towards a predominately service
economy (Davis, 1995; Reeves & Bednar, I994; Thach & Woodman, 1994) have created
a dynamic work environment in which the expectations on personnel are diversified and
the need for an adaptive workforce has become increasingly important (Edwards &
Morrison. 1994; Hollenbeck, LePine, & Ilgen, 1996; Smith, Ford, & Kozlowski, in
press).

Adaptive Performance

Previous research on the construct of adaptability has examined a broad range of
topics in which adaptability is defined and operationalized in a variety of different ways.
Adaptation has been discussed in relation to adapting to an organization (Ashford, 1986),
adaptation following re-Iocation (Ammons, Nelson, & Wodarski, 1982; Black, 1990;
Fisher & Shaw; I994), adapting to a team (Hollenbeck, LePine, & Ilgen, I996;
Kozlowski. Gully, McHugh, Salas. Cannon-Bowers, I996; Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, &
Cannon-Bowers. 1996), the ability to adapt to changing job requirements and demands
(Dix & Savickas, I995; Weiss, 1984; Murphy, I989; Edwards & Morrison, I994:
Goodman, 1994; Hall & Mirvis. I995; Kossek, Roberts, Fisher, & Demarr, I996).
interpersonal adaptability (Aronoff, Stollak, & Woike. I994; Paulhus & Martin. 1988;
Spiro & Weitz, I990), adapting to noise (Fiedler & Fiedler, I975; Weinstein, 1978),
solving novel or ill-defined problems (Holyoak, I991; Hatano & Inagaki, I986;
Mumford, Baughman, Threlfall. Uhlman, & Costanza, I993; Mumford, Connelly,

Baughman, Marks, 1994). and adapting to shift work (Benjamin. 1984). The wide range

 

of articles and diversity of topics dealing with adaptation have resulted in numerous

definitions of the construct.
Defining Adaptation

Adaptation has been defined as tailoring behaviors to fit the demands of a
particular environment within an organization (Ashford, I986), adjusting to relocation
and the resulting stress (Ammons et al., 1982), rapidly and effectively assimilating into
teams (Hollenbeck et al., 1996), coordinating interactions within a team to meet shifting
external contingencies (Kozlowski. Guly, Salas. & Cannon-Bowers, I996). adjusting to
changing roles throughout the course of one’s career (Goodman, I994). adjusting one’s
interpersonal style to meet the demands of the situation (Paulhus & Martin, 1988), and
applying expertise to a novel task or in a new situation (Holyoak, I991). Initially, this
diversity of definitions makes it difficult to determine what it means to be adaptable. A
closer examination of the literature however, reveals two common themes.

Adaptation first requires new or unanticipated environmental demands. Whether
the environment is created in a laboratory. exists within an organization. or emerges on a
battlefield, all of the articles on adaptation discuss the demands of the environment. The
second component of adaptation focuses on the individual and his/her ability to perform
effectively within the new environment. To be adaptive. the individual must match
his/her behavior to the demands of the new environment. Adaptive performance thus
requires two factors, a novel environment and an appropriate matching of behavior. The
environmental demands can vary greatly and the adjustment may require cognitive ability,

interpersonal skills, or physical abilities. Nevertheless, it is these two factors that

constitute adaptive performance. In this paper, adaptive behavior will be defined as
adjusting one’s behavior to perform effectively in a new or novel environment.

The purpose of this paper is to propose and test a model of adaptive performance.
The research on performance and adaptation suggest that characteristics of the individual
and environment play a critical role in effective performance. Specifically, there is reason
to believe that individual differences in self-monitoring and motivation, and the
availability of process feedback will have a significant effect on performance. While
adaptive performance can include a wide range of behaviors, this study will limit its focus
to multi-task performance, in which several tasks are performed concurrently.

Adaptability & Selection

As stated in the introductory paragraphs, the nature of work is changing. The
challenge facing employers is that of hiring individuals who are not only qualified to
perform a specific job but also capable of continuously learning new skills to
accommodate future change (Edwards & Morrison. I994). Identifying these individuals
however, requires an understanding of the characteristics that distinguish them from other
applicants. Unfortunately, a listing of such characteristics does not exist. While many
authors have stressed the great need for adaptability and suggested avenues for future
research (Edwards & Morrison, I994; Goodman, I994: Hall & Mirvis. I995; Hollenbeck
et al., 1996; Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, Salas, Cannon-Bowers, I996; Kozlowski,
Gully, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, I996). few articles have examined adaptation
empirically to identify the qualities leading to effective performance. Until the

characteristics associated with adaptive performance can be identified and measured,

selecting adaptive individuals will be very difficult. It is for this reason that researchers
should be investigating the individual differences unique to adaptive performers.
Research on Adaptation

The empirical work that does exist on adaptation has focused primarily on
adapting one’s interpersonal style. Spiro and Barton (1990) for example, developed a
scale designed to assess the ability of sales personnel to adapt their sales technique to
better meet the needs and expectations of the customer. The l6-item adaptive selling
scale (ADAPTS) was designed to measure the degree to which sales personnel alter their
sales presentation both across and during customer interactions in response to the
perceived nature of the sales situation. ADAPTS is a self-report index assessing five
aspects of adaptive sales performance: recognizing that different sales approaches are
needed for different customers, confidence in ability to use a variety of approaches,
confidence in ability to alter approach during an interaction, collection of information to
facilitate adaptation. and actual use of different approaches.

Results indicated that ADAPTS correlated significantly with self-reported
measures of performance. ability to modify self-presentation. sensitivity to others,
androgyny, perspective taking, empathetic concern, social self-confidence, ability to
obtain personal information from others, and intrinsic motivation. In other words,
subjects who are sensitive to others. high in perspective taking and empathetic concern.
and who are able to modify their behavior report higher performance in a sales
environment. This study is mentioned because it provides insight into the characteristics

that distinguish adaptive individuals. It is apparent that adaptation in a sales environment

requires sensitivity to the customer and an ability to modify behavior to meet the
customer’s needs.

In a similar study, Paulhus and Martin (1988) developed the functional flexibility
index (FFI), a scale measuring interpersonal flexibility or one’s capacity to adjust
behavior to meet the demands of the environment. Interpersonal flexibility has
traditionally been viewed as consisting of two components: having a wide repertoire of
interpersonal responses, and having the ability to apply the responses appropriately.
Paulhus and Martin (1988) took a unique perspective on interpersonal flexibility by
examining capabilities rather than traits. The underlying assumption is that traits are
merely summaries of past behavior where capabilities represent potential for future
performance.

Results indicated that the I6-item flexibility scale is distinct from other flexibility
measures, correlates significantly with peer ratings of interpersonal flexibility, and
outperforms other flexibility measures in predicting self-report and peer ratings of
adjustment. These findings reiterate the importance of having not only the flexibility to
perform in a variety of ways, but also the ability to know when it is appropriate to
demonstrate certain behaviors. In addition, the study has identified a measurable
indicator of one’s ability to adapt to interpersonal interactions.

The two preceding studies are mentioned because they are useful examples of the
type of work that is needed to better understand adaptive performance and assess the
skills associated with it. By identifying the characteristics that enable certain individuals
to effectively adapt, it is possible to begin selecting and training for these skills. These

studies are also useful in that they demonstrate the dual components of adaptive

performance «awareness of the situation and ability to behave appropriately. What is
lacking in the literature however, is a thorough examination of the work environments
requiring adaptation. and the individual differences that enable certain people to function
effectively within them. While a complete study of all environments is far beyond the
scope of this project. this study will contribute by examining one work environment
requiring adaptation and the characteristics necessary to perform effectively within it.
Multiple Task Demands

Studies have shown that multi-tasking is a crucial component of managerial
performance (Mintzberg I973). While empirical research has looked at adaptation in
terms of interpersonal abilities, no studies have examined the individual differences that
enable certain people to effectively adapt to environments containing multiple task
demands. The majority of work on multi-tasking has taken an information processing or
cognitive perspective with the goal of explaining the processes involved in multi-task
performance. Although understanding the underlying processes is important, the utility
of this information for the selection of employees is unclear. This point is mentioned
because of the critical role multi-tasking plays in today’s work environment. The
dynamic nature of today’s work environment combined with a lack of predictability.
creates an environment in which personnel must continuously switch from task to task.

The following paragraphs will examine the demands faced by managerial personnel and
review the literature on multi-task performance.

Managerial Job Requirements

Many jobs require employees to perform effectively while faced with numerous

task demands. Studying the task demands placed on managers and chief executives,

Mintzberg (1973) found that individuals in these positions encounter hundreds of
incidents in quick succession with little or no breaks. In a study of supervisors, Guest
(1956, cited in Mintzberg, 1973) observed that they had little idle time and had to handle
many urgent problems in quick succession while enduring numerous interruptions.
Furthermore, Guest noticed that supervisors’ jobs are characterized by interruptions,
variety, and discontinuity. The results of these continuous interruptions and constant
demands require managers to shift quickly and frequently from task to task with little
continuity or similarity (Mintzberg, 1973).

These demands are further compounded by changing technology. The increased
speed of communication has created an environment in which employees are bombarded
with considerably more information than ever before (Thach & Woodman, I994). The
individuals who can effectively allocate resources to meet the multitude of work demands
and endure numerous interruptions and discontinuity in tasks are expected to perform
most effectively. It is for this reason that adaptability is believed to play a critical role in
multi-task performance. To function effectively, managers must be able to endure
numerous interruptions. switch attention from one task domain to another, and
continually adjust performance to effectively meet situational demands.

Multi-task Performance Research

As stated previously, much of the research on multi—task performance has focused
on theory development. Theories include the single channel hypothesis, the unitary
resource hypothesis. and the multiple resource theory (Meyers & Kieras. I997). The
single channel hypothesis, as the name would imply, proposes a single channel of

processing. After one reaction. there is a psychological refractory period before another

reaction can occur. The theory contends that despite multiple environmental demands,
individuals are limited in the number of times they can respond in a given interval due to
single-channel limitations (Meyers & Kieras, I997).

The unitary-resource theory which was designed to overcome the limitations of
the single channel approach, views multi-tasking performance in terms of quantifiable
sets of cognitive resources required to perform certain tasks. A person’s ability to multi-
task is limited by the cognitive resources needed for each task and the total resources at
the individual’s disposal (Meyers & Kieras, I997). The third theory is the multiple-
resource theory. The multiple-resource theory views multi-tasking as a function of
various disjointed sets of processing resources, which are used in concert to perform a
task. The nature of the task will determine the speed of processing and performance. If
the tasks are so related they require similar resources, performance time will suffer
accordingly. However. if the tasks are unrelated. performance can proceed
simultaneously with little or no decrement (Meyers & Kieras, I997; Shallice, McLeod, &
Lewis, I985). While each of the theories described above explain performance under
certain conditions. there is little agreement on the processes associated with multi-

tasking. The research has however. discovered some useful information in understanding

multi-task performance.

Performance Strategies

Studies examining the difference between multi—task and single task performance
have found that different skills are required for multiple versus single task performance.
Research has shown that despite single-task training and practice. performance drops to

near novice level when subjects attempt to perform tasks simultaneously (Schneider &

Fisk, 1984; Schneider & Detweiler, I988). One reason for this finding is that resource
allocation and the processing strategies needed to perform well on one task appear to be
different from those required to perform both tasks simultaneously (Schneider &
Detweiler, I988). Schneider and Detweiler (1988) noted that the optimal strategy for
performing multiple tasks is dependent on the context and demands of the situation. The
performer needs to determine the most effective way of allocating resources to perform
the combined tasks. Strategies include grouping or ordering the tasks to maximize
efficiency (scheduling strategies), as well as utilizing executive level processing strategies
to minimize the time necessary to observe and process stimuli (Schneider & Detweiler,
I988). Each of these strategies and their implications for adaptive. multi-task
performance will be discussed.

Executive processing. Executive level processing aids performance by
maximizing the utilization of processing resources. It refers to the coordination of
concurrent activities through the selection of goals, prioritization of tasks, use of decision
rules, or coordination of resources (Meyer & Kieras. 1997; Schneider & Detweiler, I988).-
Essentially, executive level processing encompasses the processes guiding behavior. An
individual who recognizes the bigger picture and can structure his/her activities to
achieve a desired goal is likely to perform more efficiently and effectively than one who
lacks a clear focus and direction.

Scheduling Strategy. Scheduling strategies can also have a significant impact on
multi-task performance (Schneider & Detweiler, I988). One study of multi-task
performance found that subjects employing a simultaneous response strategy (responding

to two stimuli in very quick succession) or an alternating strategy (alternating responses

between two stimuli) performed significantly better than subjects using a massed strategy
(giving more than two responses on one task before switching to another). Damos and
Smist’s (1982) study is mentioned because it identifies an observable individual
difference affecting multi-task performance (i.e.. scheduling strategy); it also
demonstrates the critical role that scheduling strategies play in effective performance.
The manner in which subjects approach multi-task demands significantly affects the
efficiency and effectiveness of their overall performance.

Managers & Multi-Task Performance

Mintzberg’s work ( I973) shows that managers have to frequently shift from
handling crisis situations. to administrative responsibilities. to phone calls, to
interruptions by eo-workers/subordinates etc. Moreover, Mintzberg (1973) could find no
pattern in the type or timing of the tasks encountered within a given day or week. Due to
these constant demands as well as their frequency, unpredictability, and discontinuity. it
is believed that unique skills and abilities will be required to be an effective manager.
Those who can effectively prioritize tasks or develop ways of performing more efficiently
are likely to be the most successful.

Based on Schneider and Detweiler's (I988) findings on single versus multi-task
performance, it is believed that being able to draft a report. meet with a client, or answer
questions from subordinates is different from being able to begin writing a report, stop to
take a call from a client. return to the report while periodically answering questions from
employees. The research on multi-task performance shows that effective performance is
determined by individuals’ ability to allocate resources to effectively perform all of the

tasks successfully. To cope with limitations of processing ability and satisfy performance

l0

goals, individuals utilize executive level processing and devise flexible scheduling
strategies to perform effectively (Meyer & Kieras, 1997). Applying these findings to the
work of managers would imply that executive processing and flexible scheduling
strategies are critical to their performance as well.

In a study of managing directors, Carlson (1951, cited in Mintzberg, 1973) noted
that managers could easily delegate portions of their work to administrative staff thus
freeing time to attend to other responsibilities. However, many of the managers
specifically chose not to eliminate interruptions or phone calls due to the critical and
current information obtained during these encounters. While on the surface it would
seem advantageous for managers to delegate work responsibilities, this approach would
result in limited access to critical information and a potential decrement in oVerall
performance. Recognizing the greater goal of maximizing performance, effective
managers place high priority on informal meetings and conversations as a means of
obtaining critical information. This type of executive level processing has been shown to
have a positive impact on performance (De Jong, 1995; Meyer & Kieras, I997; ‘
Mintzberg, I973; Schneider & Detweiler, I988). In addition, scheduling strategies that
allow for interruptions while still allocating the necessary resources to complete work
responsibilities are expected to be another important skill for effective managerial
performance (Damos & Smist, I982; Schneider & Detweiler’s, I988).

The literature on multi-tasking and managerial performance indicates that
executive level processing and scheduling strategies will play a crucial role in adaptive,
multi-task performance. The purpose of this project however, is not to examine these two

factors directly. The strategies are mentioned because they relate to the processes that are

ll

likely occurring during multi-task performance. Moreover, by recognizing the effects of
executive and scheduling strategies, it may be possible to manipulate the types of
strategies utilized and thus improve multi-task performance. If executive level processing
and scheduling strategies have a significant effect on multi-task performance as the
literature indicates, providing subjects with information (i.e., process feedback) that
shapes their goals, prioritization of tasks, or allocation of resources could significantly
affect performance. This point will be discussed in greater detail in subsequent sections
of the paper.

This paper has examined the research on multi-task performance and its relevance
to managerial and supervisory positions. The following sections will examine the role of
individual differences (i.e.. self-monitoring and motivation) and environmental
characteristics (i.e.. process feedback) in understanding and explaining adaptive, multi-
task performance. The literature on self-monitoring, motivation, and process feedback
will be reviewed in an attempt to establish theoretical links between these constructs and
adaptive, multi-task performance.

Multi-Tasking & Individual Differences

The studies of managers indicate that multi-tasking is a critical component of
effective performance (Mintzberg, I973). Moreover, the executive processing and
scheduling strategies required for multi-task performance have been shown to be
qualitatively different from those required in single-task performance (Schneider &
Detweiler’s, I988). This finding seems to indicate that adaptability will be of great
importance for effective multi-task performance. Barring previous experience, subjects

facing multiple task demands will have to quickly adjust their behavior to meet the

12

unique demands of the environment. What is lacking in the literature however, is a study
that identifies measurable, individual differences that distinguish effective performers in a
multi-task environment. The present study has examined this issue, investigating the role
of self-monitoring in adaptive performance.
Self-Monitoring

As stated previously, adaptive performance requires the ability to modify behavior
to meet the demands of a new or unanticipated environment. In considering this
description of performance. it is apparent that self-monitoring theory could play a
significant role in explaining and predicting adaptive performance. Self-monitoring
theory suggests that people differ in the extent to which they rely on their environment to
shape or determine their behavior (Snyder, I974). High self-monitors are very aware of
their surroundings and are cautious to adapt their behavior to the setting. Low self-
monitors are less guided by their environment and rely on their internal affective state to
shape their behavior (Snyder. I974). Effective performers in interpersonal situations are
those who are aware of the environment and can adjust their behavior appropriately
(Lennox & Wolfe, I984). Although research on self-monitoring has been limited to
situations involving interpersonal interaction, it incorporates both being aware of one’s
environment and acting on environmental cues. These characteristics are expected to be
very important for adaptive performance.
Self-Monitoring & Job Performance

Studies of self-monitoring have found that it correlates positively with job
performance. Kilduff and Day (I994) studied MBA graduates and found that high self-

monitors showed greater career mobility, cross-company promotions, and more internal

l3

promotions than low self-monitors. The authors attributed these differences to high self-
monitors’ willingness to accept change and ability to modify their presentation to match
the situation. In a study of individuals' willingness to change or try new things,
Goldsmith (1987) found a significant main effect for self-monitoring. High self-monitors
scored significantly better on a 20—item willingness to change inventory than low self-
monitors. Based on these findings, it is believed that one’s awareness and ability to
modify behavior will correlate significantly with adaptive performance.

Studies looking specifically at adaptive performance have found that it correlates
positively with self-monitoring. In a study on boundary spanning positions. Caldwell and
O'Reilly (I982) found that self—monitoring was significantly correlated with job
performance. Boundary spanners are individuals who work with diverse groups of people
and must adjust their interpersonal style to perform effectively. Subjects who could
recognize the demands of the environment and modify their behavior appropriately,
received higher performance evaluation ratings than those who could not. Furthermore,
self-monitoring correlated most strongly with performance during employees’ first few
months on the job. Thus self-monitoring had its strongest relationship to performance
during the initial adjustment period in which employees were adapting to the demands of
their new job.

Recognizing the key components of being sensitive to one's environment and
being able to modify one’s behavior, Lennox and Wolfe (I984) developed a self-
monitoring scale that measures two factors. being sensitive to the expressive behavior of
others and being able to modify self-presentation. Using this scale, Lassk, Kennedy,

Powell, and Legace (I992) found that one component of self-monitoring, having the

ability to modify one’s behavior, correlates positively with sales performance. It is
therefore only ability and not awareness that correlates with actual performance. The
authors believe that awareness of environmental demands is a crucial factor in effective
performance, but when considered alone, is not a sufficient criterion. Goolsby, Lagace,
and Boorom (1992) conducted a similar study and in fact, reported similar findings. They
found that sensitivity to the expressive behaviors of others correlates with self-reports of
sales interactions with customers, but it is having the ability to modify behavior that
correlates with self-reports of ability to meet sales objectives. The authors concluded
that being sensitive to others will facilitate a salesperson’s interactions with customers,
while having the ability to modify behavior is what determines actual sales performance.
These studies show that self-monitoring relates to effective performance in two
ways. The first component is being sensitive to the situation and aware of environmental
cues. The second component is having the ability to modify one’s behavior to adapt to
those cues. It is the combination of these two factors that leads to effective performance.
This point is emphasized because of the similarity between the self-monitoring factors of
awareness and ability and the executive level processes and scheduling strategies
associated with multi-tasking performance. Executive processing would encompass
awareness of the environment, knowledge of the goal. prioritization of tasks, and
monitoring of progress. Scheduling strategies would encompass actual performance and
having the ability to behave appropriately and effectively given the environmental
demands. Due to the relevance of awareness and ability for adaptive performance, this
study investigated the effects of self-monitoring on adaptive, multi-task performance. It

was hypothesized that all else being equal, subjects who are aware of their environment

IS

and capable of modifying their behavior would perform more effectively than subjects
who are not aware of environmental cues or who lack the ability to behave appropriately.

Hypothesis 1: Self-monitoring will correlate positively with performance in a multi-
tasking environment requiring adaptation.

M_0ti_V.aLign

Motivation was expected to play a crucial role in adaptive performance as well.
Numerous publications have linked motivation to performance (Campbell, 1990;
Campbell, McCon, Oppler. & Sager, I993; Kanfer, I992). Campbell’s work on job
performance (1990; Campbell et al., 1993) views motivation as a critical component that
interacts with declarative and procedural knowledge to determine performance. Barrick
and Mount’s (I991) meta analysis of the “Big Five” personality constructs found that
conscientiousness. defined as one’s will to achieve or what could be thought of as
motivation, was the one personality dimension that showed a consistent relationship with
job performance for all occupational groups (correlations ranged from .20 to .23). Other
studies examining motivation have found significant positive relationships between need
for achievement and cognitive task performance (Piedmonst, I988), college academic
performance (Ali. 1988), work performance (Tatum & Nebeker, 1995). and performance
in a learning environment (Nishida & lnomata. 1985).

Based on the large body of research linking motivation to performance, it was
expected that motivation would affect adaptive performance as well. For the purposes of
this study, motivation was defined as one’s intention to act. Intention to act is taken from
work on reasoned action theory. According to the theory, the immediate antecedent of

any behavior is the intention to perform the behavior in question. The stronger an

16

individual’s intention, the more effort s/he is likely to expend, and the more likely s/he is
to actually perform the behavior (Ajzen and Madden, 1985).

Ajzen and Madden (1985) have examined this relationship and have found that
intentions do lead to performance. Individuals who indicated having a high intention to
perform do in fact perform more effectively. Based on this finding, it was expected that
individuals who wanted to perform well, or had a high intention to perform, would
perform more effectively than individuals who did not intend to perform well. Thus
motivation, defined as one’s intention to act, would correlate positively with multi-

tasking, adaptive performance.

Hypothesis 2: Motivation will correlate positively with performance.

Self-Monitoring& Motivation

Motivation was also expected to moderate the relationship between self-
monitoring and performance. The literature on self-monitoring defines high self-monitors
as individuals who are aware of environmental cues and able to adjust their behavior
appropriately (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984). The expectation was that motivation would have
a greater effect on performance for high self-monitors than low self-monitors. Because
high self-monitors have a greater capacity to perform. they should demonstrate better
performance when highly motivated than low self-monitors who may be lower in ability.
Furthermore. high self-monitors by definition are aware of environmental cues, able to
assess the demands of their environment, and able to determine what behavior is
appropriate in a given situation. High self—monitors should therefore be better able to

determine what behavior will lead to effective performance than low self-monitors. Thus

17

when highly motivated. high self-monitors should outperform low self-monitors due to a
more accurate evaluation of environmental demands (see figure I).

Hypothesis 3: Motivation will moderate the relationship between self-monitoring
and adaptive performance.

Motivation x Self-Monitoring

+711ng 'SIM.’
+fi Low S.M.

Performance

 

low hi

Motivation

Figure l. Hypothesis 2: The interaction between motivation and self-monitoring

Feedback
Feedback was also expected to play a significant role in adaptive, multi—task
performance. The research on feedback commonly focuses on two types. outcome and
process. Outcome feedback is information related to goal attainment; process feedback is
information related to the manner in which a person is performing (Earley, Northcraft,
L186. & Lituchy, I990; Korsgaard & Diddams. 1996). Research results on the utility of
feedback for improving performance are mixed. It is clear that the effects of feedback on

Performance are contingent on the type of feedback. nature of the task, and conditions of

18

the performance environment (Earley et al., 1990; Kluger & DeNisi, I996; Korsgaard &
Diddams, 1996). In a meta-analysis of feedback intervention, Kluger and DeNisi (1996)
concluded that feedback’s primary effect on performance is through changing the
performer’s locus of attention. In addition, the nature of the task was found to moderate
the effects of feedback. These conclusions are consistent with research linking task
complexity to richness of feedback (Korsgaard & Diddams, 1996).

In a study of feedback, Korsgaard and Diddams (1996) examined the joint effects
of feedback and task complexity on performance improvement. They found that the
richness of feedback should match the complexity of the task. Specifically, Korsgaard
and Diddams (1996) found that when the task was simple. feedback had no effect on
performance improvement. However, in the complex condition, performance improved
only when both process and outcome feedback were made available. This study was
fueled by contradictory findings regarding outcome feedback. Some researchers have
speculated that outcome feedback is harmful because it does not provide guidance on how
to redirect behavior (Earley et al.. 1990).

Earley et al. (1990) conducted a laboratory study assessing the effects of outcome
and process feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance. Subjects were
told that they had $100,000 to participate in a stock investment simulation. Goal setting,
outcome feedback, and process feedback were then manipulated. The goal was either
general, "do your best" or specific "make 810.000 in profit." Outcome feedback was
either general. telling subjects whether they gained or lost money, or specific, telling them
exactly how much their portfolio was worth and the value of each block of shares.

Pl‘ocess feedback consisted of information on how useful certain portions of information

19

were for evaluating the investment advice of a particular brokerage house. The feedback
was either general, “the information you requested is irrelevant,” or specific “the
information you requested is irrelevant because when averaged across brokerage firms, no
differences exist.”

Earley et al., (1990) found that subjects receiving specific process feedback and a
specific goal implemented better investment strategies than the other subjects. Process
feedback interacted with goal setting to strongly affect the quality of people's task
strategies and information search. This finding indicates that process feedback can
benefit performance by directing individuals' attention to relevant job behaviors and away
from irrelevant or inappropriate ones (Earley et al., 1990). The study also found that the
effects of outcome feedback on goal setting and performance is much smaller than for
process feedback. This finding indicates that outcome feedback is a less efficient way of
shaping performance strategies when compared to the effects of process feedback.
Finally, Earley et al. ( 1990) found that process feedback is especially important for
performing complex or unstructured tasks in which the relation of behaviors to
performance outcomes may be uncertain. Due to the nature of the task to be examined in
the present study, Earley’s ( I990) findings were expected to be extremely relevant.

The task subjects were asked to perform in this study was relatively complex.
demanding, and novel. If executive processing and scheduling strategies are as
Significant to multi—task performance. as previous research has indicated (Damos &
Smist, 1982; Meyer & Kieras, I997), process feedback that shapes behaviors and
indicates ways of performing effectively should have a positive effect on multi-task

Performance. The demands of having to perform multiple tasks combined with the

20

ambiguity of not knowing how best to approach the tasks was expected to create an
environment in which subjects were eager to receive information on how to perform and
adapt their behavior. In a study examining feedback seeking in organizations, Ashford
(1986) found that individuals reported seeking feedback when faced with uncertain
situations and when they feared that they were not meeting their goals. By seeking and
obtaining feedback, individuals can use the information to improve performance and
more effectively attain the desired goal. A study of new accountants found that after six
months on the job, information seeking had a significant positive correlation with
supervisor ratings of performance (Morrison, 1993). This study was consistent with the
findings that individuals desire feedback as they adjust to a new environment (Ashford,
1986), and that feedback can have a positive effect on performance (Earley et al., 1990).
Process Feedback & Multi-Task Performance
Kluger and DeNisi’s (I996) meta-analysis concluded that feedback primarily
affects performance by altering the locus of attention --a finding which has been stated
previously. It is quite possible then that bombarding subjects with outcome results which
contain no developmental information, may actually divert attention from performing
effectively and thus hinder performance. Kluger and DeNisi’s (1996) review of the
feedback literature concluded that when the task is cognitively complex, feedback should
be specific and task focused to increase task involvement and performance. Furthermore.
the literature suggests that one potential explanation for performance improvement is that
feedback helps eliminate erroneous performance strategies (Earley et al., 1990; Kluger &
DeNisi, 1996). When combined with Korsgaard and Diddams’(l996) findings linking

riChness of feedback to complexity of the task, these results point to the beneficial effects

21

of process feedback for performance on a complex task. Providing subjects with clear
performance guidelines or information on ways of improving performance will eliminate
ineffective approaches and will focus attention on how to perform the task effectively.

Process feedback & adaptive performance. Due to the novelty or complexity of
the task, it was expected that subjects will seek feedback (Ashford, 1986). Because
subjects have no baseline to compare outcome feedback, providing performance scores
was expected to have little positive effect. However, giving process feedback that
instructs subjects how best to approach the adaptive tasks was expected to positively
affect performance. Specifically, providing process feedback that focuses attention on
effective performance strategies and influences executive level processes or scheduling
strategies should improve performance (Earley et al., 1990; Kluger & DeNisi’s. 1996;
Korsgaard & Diddams, 1996). It was therefore hypothesized that all else being equal.
subjects receiving process feedback on how to approach the tasks, would outperform
those who did not receive such information.

Hypothesis 4: Process feedback will improve multi-task performance

Process Feedback, Self-Monitoring & Motivation

In addition to their main effects. process feedback. self-monitoring, and
motivation were expected to interact to affect performance. According to self-monitoring
theory, high self-monitors are sensitive to environmental cues and have the ability to
mOdify their performance appropriately (Snyder, 1974). It was therefore expected that
When given performance guidelines, high self-monitors would pay closer attention to the
information provided. Furthermore, because high self-monitors have a greater ability to

mOdify their performance, they should be able to utilize process feedback more

22

effectively and therefore demonstrate a higher level of performance than low self-
monitors. This relationship however, was hypothesized to be contingent on subjects’
level of motivation.

According to Ashford’s (1986) findings on feedback seeking, individuals seek
feedback on important issues or in new and uncertain situations. The underlying
assumption is that people seek feedback because they are motivated to perform well at
their job. Applying Ashford’s (1986) findings to this study would indicate that
motivation should affect the extent to which subjects seek and implement feedback. The
hypothesis was that low self-monitoring subjects would show little change in
performance as a result of motivation and process feedback. Conversely, high self-
monitors who received feedback were expected to perform significantly better across
levels of motivation than high self-monitors who did not receive process feedback (see
figure 2).

Hypothesis 5: Self-monitoring, motivation, and process feedback will interact to
affect multi-task performance as shown in figure 2.

Summary of Hypotheses
The preceding paragraphs have outlined the present study in which the effects of
self-monitoring, motivation, and process feedback on multi-task performance were
examined. According to research on managers’ performance, multi-tasking is a critical
Component of effective managerial performance. Managers and supervisors are
frequently required to switch between multiple tasks in quick succession throughout the
Course of their day. Further, research on multi-tasking shows that it is qualitatively

different from single-task performance. These findings imply that to perform effectively,

23

3-Way Interaction with Process Feedback

 

§ ' -+- Piigh—SeF-Mom
g ‘ V—I—fLovy Self-Monitor I
8
1:
e
a
No Motivation Motivation
Motivation
3-Way Interaction with no Process Feedback
0
8 a ,a,_c.
E +High Self-Monitor I
g 1+L9‘.” Self-Monitor 3
0
fl.

 

No Motivation Motivation

Motivation

Figure 2. Hypothesis 5: Three-way Interaction between Self-Monitoring, Motivation, and
Process feedback

24

managers must have the ability to adapt their behavior to meet the multiple task demands
in their work environment. Thus adaptation appears to be a crucial component in multi—

task performance. It is for this reason that multi-task performance was selected as a way
of examining adaptation.

Using a managerial in-basket simulation, this study investigated the effects of
individual differences (self-monitoring and motivation) and environmental characteristics
(process feedback) on adaptive, multi-task performance. Research on self-monitoring,
the extent to which individuals attend and adjust to social cues in their environment, has
found that it is positively related to work performance. It was therefore hypothesized that
individuals who were both aware of environmental cues and who could adjust their
behavior appropriately (high self-monitors) would be more adaptive and thus perform
more effectively than low self-monitors who were either unaware of environmental cues
or unable to adjust (hypothesis 1).

Research on motivation provides strong support for a link between motivation and
adaptive performance as well. All else being equal, individuals who have the intention to
perform well should dedicate more effort to the task and thus outperform less motivated
individuals (hypothesis 2). Motivation was also hypothesized to interact with self-
monitoring, moderating its effects on adaptive performance (hypothesis 3).

The characteristics of the environment were expected to be important for adaptive
performance as well. Studies of process feedback on complex tasks have found that it has
a positive effect on performance by focusing attention on critical components of the task
and by providing effective performance strategies. Thus process feedback in which

individuals are given information related to the way in which they should perform a task,

25

was hypothesized to have a positive effect on performance (hypothesis 4). In addition a
three way interaction was expected between process feedback, motivation, and self-
monitoring (hypothesis 5).

The goal of this study was to identify individual differences and environmental
characteristics related to adaptive performance. By identifying measurable, individual
differences, it will be possible to select for specific traits that will lead to adaptation. The
adaptive process can be further enhanced with a better understanding of the effects of
one’s environment on adaptive performance. An awareness of the environmental
conditions that facilitate the adaptive process will make it possible to encourage and
enhance performance. This study examined these issues as they relate to one component
of adaptive performance. multi-tasking (see figure 3 for a model of adaptive
performance).

Methods
Participants

The sample consisted of 216 undergraduates from a large. mid-western university.
The majority of students participated in the study as part of an introductory psychology
course. Additional participants were recruited from a 200 and 300-level psychology
course in which extra-credit was awarded for participation. The sample consisted of 61
(28%) males and 155 (72%) females. There were 19 (9%) African Americans. 5 (2%)
Asians. 5 (2%) Hispanics. 2 (1%) Native Americans, 184 (85%) Whites, and l (5%)
person indicated other. The average age of participants was 19.97 years with a range

from 18 to 58. Ninety-four (44%) participants were freshman, 57 (26%) sophomores,

26

 

 

ooamscotom
3:935.

 

 

 

 

menozaozfiom

 

 

/

 

 

 

 

mm

NE

 

cocaine—Z

 

 

 

 

v:

 

 

Moan—600% mmDQOhnm

 

 

Figure 3. Multi-Tasking Adaptive Performance Model

27

31 (14%) juniors, 32 (15%) seniors, and 2 (1%) indicated other. Mean GPA was 2.88

with a range from 1.2 to 4.0.

Independent Variables
Motivation

Motivation was manipulated in this study. As part of the instructions provided
prior to completion of Part II of the simulation, half of the participants (n = 104) were
told that they would receive $10.00 if they scored in the top 50% of the sample. The
remaining participants did not receive this information. To check the effects of the
manipulation. participants were asked to complete a four item questionnaire at the end of
the study.

The questionnaire asked participants to indicate the extent to which they wanted
to perform well on the task and if they were interested in scoring in the top 50% of the
sample (Appendix B).

Self-MonitoriLg

Self-Monitoring was measured using Lennox and Wolfe’s (I984) self-monitoring
scale (see Appendix B). The scale consists of two parts. awareness of one’s environment
and ability to modify behavior. Lennox and Wolfe’s (I984) awareness scale consists of
thirteen items with a five point Likert type scale ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree. The scale includes the following items: At parties I usually try to behave
in a manner that makes me fit in; My behavior often depends on how I feel others wish
me to behave: If I am the least bit uncertain as to how to act in a social situation, I look to

the behavior of others for cues; etc.

Lennox and Wolfe’s (I984) ability scale consists of seven items with a five point

28

Likert type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Example items
include: I tend to show different sides of myself to different people; Different situations
can make me behave like very different people; In different situations and with different
people, I often act like very different persons; etc.

In addition to Lennox and Wolfe’s (1984) scale, a supplemental measure was
developed that assessed awareness and ability related to the specific tasks measured in the
study. The scale will be referred to as the performance oriented self-monitoring scale
(Appendix B). Example items for the awareness index are: I like to know how well I am
performing (in class, at work, etc.); When the television or radio is on, I have a hard time
concentrating on anything else; When performing a task, I periodically assess my
performance to make sure that I am doing well; etc. Samples from the ability index
include: I am able to argue for either side of an issue depending on what is expected of
me; I am able to develop creative solutions to problems; I am able to listen to information
while writing or performing other tasks: etc. These two scales are in the developmental
stage and were included for exploratory purposes.

Process Feedback

The process feedback was designed specifically for the simulation and provided
information on how best to complete the tasks. To minimize the differences between the
non-feedback and feedback conditions. participants in the feedback condition received the
exact same instructions as the non-feedback condition. However, the instructions were
supplemented with process feedback (Appendix H). Participants were told the best order
in which to complete the simulated tasks (e.g., begin with the written tasks, switch to the

situational judgment items when presented, and finish with the scheduling task after

29

receiving all of the relevant audio messages). They also received sample problems and
answers that demonstrated the types of responses that were expected on each task.

Part II of the simulation was designed such that the scheduling task could not be
completed accurately until after all audio messages had been received. To perform
effectively participants had to take notes on the audio messages, waiting until the very
last scheduling message was received (24 minutes into the simulation) before completing
the employee schedule. If participants attempted to complete the schedule earlier, they
would be unable to complete it accurately. Thus telling participants to postpone
completion of the scheduling task until the end provided a more efficient approach. To
complicate matters further. participants were also receiving situational judgment
problems in audio. Unlike the scheduling messages. the situational judgment items had
to be completed immediately. Thus participants had to react in two very different ways
depending on the type of audio message received.

As stated previously, the scheduling items should be postponed until the end. The
situational judgment items however. should be completed immediately. Providing
participants with process feedback that shaped their strategy and provided information on
how to respond to the audio messages was expected to have a significant. positive effect
on performance.

In addition to strategy information. participants in the experimental condition also
received sample items for each of the three tasks (e.g., report writing task, scheduling
task, and situational judgment task) as well as the correct responses for each sample. The
samples were designed to closely resemble the types of tasks in Part I and II of the

simulation. In giving sample items and responses. the intention was to cue individuals to

30

the appropriate response that was expected for each of the tasks. Because all of the
questions were open ended responses, the sample items would give participants an idea of
how long their responses should be. Key instructions for each of the tasks were also
emphasized. For example, on the scheduling task. employees must work either 4 or 8
hour shifts. Failure to attend to this information adds significant complexity to the
scheduling task and is likely to result in a schedule that is incorrect. This aspect of the
process feedback was expected to not only shape strategy choice, but also focus
participants’ attention on critical components of the simulation.

The final component of feedback occurred during the simulation. Participants in
the experimental condition received a prompt via the audio tape 5 minutes before the end
of the simulation. The message informed participants that they had 5 minutes remaining
and should use the time to complete the scheduling task if they had not done so already.
This piece of information was intended to remind participants of the time limits and to
encourage them to complete the scheduling task (worth 28 points) before time had
expired.

The purpose of the feedback was to provide participants with strategies on how
best to approach the tasks as well as examples of what information was expected in the
reports. scheduling task, and situational judgment responses. The feedback followed Part
I of the simulation. This point is mentioned because it is consistent with the notion of
process feedback. Participants first completed a series of tasks. After they had
familiarized themselves with the simulation, they received information on how to
approach each section of the simulation as well as specific information related to each

task. If utilized. the process feedback should enable participants in the experimental

31

condition to perform more effectively than those in the control condition. This
operationalization of process feedback is consistent with existing research.

Studies of process feedback have found that its beneficial effects come from the
fact that it shifts the locus of attention to critical components of performance and provides
effective performance strategies (Earley et al., 1990; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). The
process feedback provided in this study was designed to achieve these same objectives.
By providing examples of correct responses, participants were shown exactly what was
expected for each of the three tasks. In addition, participants received strategy
information on how best to approach the tasks and organize their time. Based on
previous research, this information should shape behavior and improve performance.

Dependent Variables

Multi-tasking performance was assessed using a paper and pencil in-basket
simulation (Appendix C). The simulation was designed specifically for this study and
consists of three sections. a report writing task. a scheduling task. and a situational
judgment task. Participants were asked to complete written tasks similar to those
encountered by managerial personnel. While completing the written portions of the in-
basket, participants received audio information necessary to complete the scheduling task

and the situational judgment problems. Each of these tasks will be described in more

detail in the following sections.
Report Writing Tasks

The report writing task involved interpreting charts and graphs. completing
mathematical computations, and writing reports. Participants received a packet of

materials with a series of reports on various aspects of a simulated company (i.e., CLR

32

Shipping Inc.). Each report contains a table of figures or a chart containing information
relevant to ordering new office furniture, selecting a new intemet carrier, or other
company related topics. Participants were asked to review the report and answer several
questions. The questions asked participants to compute various figures and enter the
results in a table (which is provided on the answer sheet). Participants were then asked to
interpret the table and make a recommendation based on the values they computed. The
reports were designed to have one correct response and could therefore be objectively
scored. One point was given for each correct response with a total of 73 points possible
on Part I and 51 points on Part H. While completing the reports, participants were also
receiving audio information. The audio information related to the two other simulation
tasks, the scheduling task and the situational judgment task.

SchedulingTasks

The scheduling task required participants to schedule appointments (Part I) or
complete an employee work schedule (Part II). To complete the schedules, participants
needed to listen to the audio information to determine when they would be meeting with
individuals (for Part I) or when employees were available to work (for Part II). The audio
messages for the scheduling tasks were played over an audio tape. The messages were
organized such that it was necessary to listen to all of the messages before an accurate
schedule could be developed. If a participant attempted to complete the schedule without
listening to all of the messages, s/he would be unable to complete the scheduling tasks
correctly. The scheduling tasks were also designed to have only one right answer and
could therefore be objectively scored. Participants were asked to schedule 9

appointments in Part I and 14 in Part II of the simulations. Two points were given for

33

each correct response (e.g., I point for knowing who the appointment is with, and 1 point
for assigning the correct time of the appointment). There was a total of 18 points possible
on Part I and 28 points on Part II of the scheduling tasks.
Situational Judgment Tasks

The situational judgment tasks were also presented via audio tape. While
completing the report writing tasks, participants received “phone calls" from employees.
The employees asked for advice on a particular problem they had been facing. The
problems were adapted from a situational judgment test designed for an auto-parts
manufacturing firm; the test was part of a managerial selection system. During the
simulation. participants were presented with situations and were asked to develop a
solution based on how they would respond to the problem. Participants completed two
situational judgment items in Part I and five in Part II of the simulation. Responses were
scored on a five point, Likert type scale ranging from highly ineffective to highly
effective. The scores were based on the scoring key developed for the original. multiple
choice situational judgment test.
Simulation Overview

The simulation described above was designed to require multi-tasking
capabilities. Participants were asked to complete the three tasks (i.e., the report writing
task, scheduling task. and situational judgment task) concurrently. While completing the
written reports. participants received periodic interruptions from an audio tape. The
message contained information related to the scheduling task or situational judgment task.
To perform effectively, participants needed to work on the report writing tasks while

periodically attending to the audio information and completing the corresponding items.

34

The simulation was pilot tested on six individuals who completed the tasks,
evaluated the clarity of the instructions, and provided time estimates. When given an
unlimited amount of time, participants were able to complete Part I of the simulation in
approximately 35 minutes and Part H in approximately 45 minutes. To enhance the
multi-tasking component of the task, the time was limited to 25 minutes in Part I and 35
minutes in Part II. In Part 1, participants received 2 minutes for each of the scheduling
messages and 3 minutes for each situational judgment item. In Part II, participants
received 1.5 minutes per scheduling message and 3 minutes per situational judgment
item. The time limits were longer in Part I to give participants the opportunity to
familiarize themselves with the tasks. Participants were expected to complete the written
tasks between audio messages. The audio messages and their time of presentation are
presented in Appendix D.

Given the time limits for the simulations, spacing between audio messages, and
number of interruptions. it is believed that the simulation requires multi-task
performance. Participants had at most three minutes of uninterrupted time, and that time
was needed to write a response to the situational judgment items. To perform the tasks
effectively, participants needed to have the ability to continuously switch from task to
task. Because two of the three tasks were presented in audio, participants had to stop
what they were doing, attend to the audio message. and respond appropriately (making a
note for the scheduling task or writing a response to a situational judgment item). Thus to
perform effectively, participants had to multi-task. Between messages. participants
reviewed reports, made mathematical computations, interpreted charts and graphs, and

wrote responses. Based on the initial time estimates obtained from the pilot sample, 25

35

and 35 minutes per section with 1.5 to 3 minutes between messages was expected to be
sufficiently complex to qualify as multi-tasking performance, requiring adaptive
capabilities.

Simulation Scoring

As stated previously, the simulation consists of three sections. Scoring for each
section varied depending on the task; the following section will describe the scoring
procedures for the report writing task, scheduling task, and situational judgment task.

Report writing task.. The report writing task was designed to be objectively
scored. Participants were asked to complete mathematical computations and interpret
charts. tables, and graphs. For each of the 124 items in the report writing task, there is
only one correct answer (see Appendix E for the scoring key). Participants received one
point for each correct response (73 points for Part I; 51 points for Part II). In addition,
participants received “partial credit” for correct computations.

Because many of the problems are mathematical and require participants to
interpret the results. many of the answers are contingent on one another. For example, to
compute the rent on a building, participants must find the total floor space available in the
building and then multiply the value by the cost per square foot. Using the wrong values
to compute the rent would result in errors for all subsequent computations and
conclusions. For this reason. participants received credit for completing the correct
computations even if the original values used were in error. Likewise, participants
received credit for reaching appropriate conclusions given the values they computed. In

this manner. participants were only penalized one point for each error rather than loosing

multiple points for a single error.

36

Scheduling task.. The scheduling task was also designed to be objectively scored.
Based on the appointments (in Part I) or employee availability (Part II), there is only one
correct schedule that can be developed (see Appendix E for the scoring key). Participants
received one point for scheduling the correct activity or person, and one point for
scheduling the activity/person at the appropriate time (18 points in Part I; 28 points in
Part H).

Situational judgment task. The situational judgment task required trained scorers
to evaluate. The situational judgment scenarios were adapted from an existing multiple-
choice test designed for an auto-parts manufacturing firm. The scoring key from the
original test was used to develop behavioral anchored rating scales with scores ranging
from 1 (highly ineffective) to 5 (highly effective) (Appendix E). Due to the subjective
nature of the rating task, two raters reviewed a sub-set of situational judgment item
responses. The raters independently reviewed the responses from 30 participants (for a

total of 210 responses); the results are presented in Table 1.

 

Table l. Inter-rater reliability results for situational judgment task

 

 

Kappa r between raters
Item I .44* .90*
Item 2 --"‘ 87*
Item 3 .57* .89*
Item 4 62* .78*
Item 5 .69* _ .95*
Item 6 .61 * .93*
Item 7 .53* .87
Part A (items 1&2) -- .93*
Part B (items 3-7) -- .92*
Total Score -- .92*

 

*p<.05. " kappa could not be computed due to a lack of symmetry in the data.

37

Ratings for each item were correlated to examine the inter-rater reliability for the
situational judgment task. The results were above .78 for all seven items indicating high
reliability. Reliability was also examined at the scale level. Because items were
aggregated to form scale scores. ratings for Part I (items I and 2) and Part 11 (items 3-7)
of the situational judgment task were compared. The correlation between the two raters
was .93 for Part I and .92 for Part II. Based on these data, I felt there was sufficient inter-
rater reliability to justify the inclusion of all seven items and the use of one rater for
scoring the remaining situational judgment responses.

Control Variables

Previous performance and cognitive ability were used as control variables in the
analyses. Previous performance was assessed in Part I of the simulation. By controlling
for the effects of previous task performance. the effects of process feedback and
motivation could be assessed more clearly. Likewise, the analyses also controlled for the
effects of cognitive ability (i.e.. ACT or SAT score obtained from the registrar). Due to
the differences in scales between the ACT and SAT. means and standard deviations were
obtained from the test publishers and used to compute z-scores. For the ACT the mean
was 21 with a standard deviation of 4.7; the SAT had a mean of 1016 and a standard
deviation of 157.68. Of the 216 participants. 189 individuals provided ACT scores, 8
SAT scores. and 19 did not have scores. Controlling for cognitive ability allowed for an
examination of the incremental effects of individual differences (e.g., motivation and self-
monitoring) and environmental characteristics (e.g., process feedback) on adaptive

performance above those attributable to cognitive ability.

38

Design and Procedures

Lani

This study was a 2 X 2 laboratory experiment (see Appendix F for a data
collection agenda). The variables that were manipulated are process feedback (present or
absent) and motivation (incentive or no incentive). Upon beginning the study,
participants received a brief description of the simulation and were asked to complete an
informed consent form (Appendix G). Participants then received a packet of materials to
be used for Part I of the simulation (Appendix C). The experimenter read a standard set
of instructions to all participants that provided a background for the simulation and a
description of the tasks they would be completing (Appendix H). Participants were then
given an Opportunity to ask questions. After all questions had been answered,
participants were told to begin Part I of the simulation, and the experimenter started the
audio tape.

After 25 minutes. participants were told to stop with Part I. They were asked to
complete the self-monitoring scales and demographic data form (Appendix B), and were
then given a 10 minute break.

Part II

Following the break, participants were given a packet of materials for Part II of
the simulation (Appendix C). The experimenter read a standard set of instructions to all
participants that provided a description of the tasks they would be completing (Appendix
H). It is at this stage of the study that the experimental manipulations occurred. The
instructions for Part II were modified. depending on the condition, to included process

feedback and the motivation manipulation. There were four conditions resulting from

39

these manipulations. The control group received no process feedback and no incentive.
One group received process feedback but no incentive. Another group received an
incentive but no process feedback. The final group received both process feedback and
an incentive.

Process feedback. In the non-feedback conditions, participants received basic
instructions that focused on Part II of the simulation and the tasks they would be
completing (Appendix H). For participants in the feedback conditions however, the basic
instructions were supplemented with the process feedback described previously.

Motivation. The non-incentive conditions provided participants with the
instructions with no mention of the $10.00 prize that was offered as an incentive.
Alternatively. participants in the incentive condition were told that they could receive a
prize for effective performance. As part of the instructions given for Part II of the study,
participants in the incentive conditions were told that they would receive a $10.00 bonus
if their score fell within the top 50% of the sample (See Appendix H and Appendix I for
instructions).

After participants received the appropriate instruction for Part II of the study, they
were given an opportunity to ask questions. After all questions had been answered,
participants were told to begin Part [I of the simulation. and the experimenter started the
audio tape for Part II of the simulation. After 35 minutes participants were told to stop
Part II of the simulation. Participants then completed the motivation measure (Appendix

B). The materials from the simulation were collected and participants were thoroughly

debriefed (Appendix I).

40

Results

Participants were tested in groups and each group was randomly assigned to
condition. To affirm that there were no systematic demographic or ability differences
across conditions, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted. Results indicated no
significant differences (p>.05) in age, sex, GPA, race, or ACT score. There was a
significant difference (p<.05) in year in school across conditions with more juniors and
seniors participating in the control condition (no incentive, no process feedback) and
more freshmen participating in the process feedback only condition. There was no reason
however. to expect this difference to have a significant effect on the data. and no unusual
results were found that could be attributed to this difference.

Salas:

The study utilized three scales. Lennox & Wolfe’s (I984) self-monitoring scale, a
self-monitoring scale developed specifically for this study (e.g., performance oriented
self-monitoring), and a motivation measure designed as a manipulation check. Both of
the self-monitoring scales have two sub-scales. an awareness scale and an ability scale.
Scale inter-correlations, internal consistencies. and descriptive statistics are presented in
Table 2. The table includes inter-correlations corrected for unreliability shown above the
diagonal, internal consistency measures on the diagonal, and observed inter-correlations
below the diagonal. Means and standard deviations for the scales are listed in the last two
rows of the table. The only modification to the scales was the deletion of item 10 (I
eavesdrop on other people’s conversations) from the awareness sub-scale of the

performance oriented self-monitoring measure. The item was dropped because of its low

41

item-total correlation. Alpha increased from 0.61 to 0.63 when this item was excluded
from the scale.

A review of Table 2 indicates moderate to high internal consistency (’T = .63 to
.85) for all of the measures. There is a moderately high corrected correlation (’ = .49)
between the two sub-scales of the self-monitoring measure, which is consistent with their
intended purpose (i.e., sub-scales of one self-monitoring measure). In addition, there is
considerable overlap between the awareness sub-scale in the self-monitoring measure and
the awareness sub-scale of the performance self-monitoring measure (r = .42). This
overlap is expected considering the fact that the scales were designed to measure a similar
construct (i.e., awareness). The results obtained using the ability sub-scale of the
performance measure however, were unexpected. The performance oriented ability scale
had a negative relationship with the self-monitoring ability scale (r = -.16) and no
relationship to the performance oriented awareness scale. Based on the intended design
of the scale, a moderately positive relationship between the performance oriented ability
scale and the self-monitoring ability scale as well as a positive relationship between the
ability and awareness scales of the performance oriented measure were expected. The
contradictory findings made it difficult to determine what the ability scale was actually
measuring. The fact that no significant relationships were found when using the
performance oriented measure would seem to indicate that the measure failed to assess

the constructs of interest or did so in a way that was inconsistent with its intended design.

42

£38. EEK 5.283623% Vmazmtg moScESb-i n o $34.55 25.5w. 3.282523% 33th mezeztebem u w- etch-£3.
3653.5‘ MSSCEQEKEM 33th 326anwa u v 323. $58232.me Back n M 384.55- ».EEv. mEaS.:=€<.\Ew u N Seem-S:- fimzfckvx «58:26:
$6.0 u ~ .BzomEV 2: 23.3 3625339-..me VSCVKQ «5636.5 2: zo .25.:ng SEE <22:ch.5 2: page :5.:E~t3-§.=.. ~328an wevab. 2:2

 

 

 

5.- 5.- 5. 5.- 5.- 5.- 5.- co. : 5. 5. c_. 5.- 5.- 5.- we. 5. 5:. 25:8:— E
mm. mm. 2. ~_. 5. mo. 5.- 5.. 5. - 5. no. 5.- 5.. 5.- 5.- 5.. 5. xoancoum 5
5:23:32 _a.:2::o%m
cm. wv. 5. am. mv. NV. 5. mo. 5. 5. - _ _. 5.- 5. N..- 5. 5. 5. 353-3 E< w
an. cm. 5. M2. 2. 5. mm. 5. 2. co. 2. 2.. km. *2. I. 5.- ~_.- 5.- 553.22 -

Amfiv
mo. 5. 5. 5.- 5. No. 5. v. .- 05.. 5.- 5.- mm. 3.. *3. awe. m _. 5. *3. :53 .25». c
N_. N_. 5. 5. we. 5. mo. 5.- mo.- co.. 5. mm. 2 an. we. *2 .- 5.- ...o..- 555a .E.m.m m
255a 6523
.ceZ-:om
3.- N_.- 2. 2.- 2.- o..- 5. m..- 5.- 5.- 3.- 2. 3. 5. no. 3m. *3. K6. 8585:3— v
5. co. 5.- 2.- mo. 5.. c..- 5.- m5. 5.- mo. 5.- 2. M2.- vm. 5. 5w. *5. 34m: :53 .2.m m
mo.- 5.- 5.- 2.- 5. 5. w..- E .- mo. 2 .- 5. E.- c_. 2.. 3“. mm. mm. 5v. biog .E.m N
2.36 6E3

mo. 2. No. no; 9. 2. 2.- mo. 5. 8. ac. 5.- 9. cw: am. 2 a... 2.. matczcozéom _
8.382 858:5 .3239;

w- 2 c. n. v. m_ N_ _ _ o. a w - o n v m N _
mcosmgon 935$ 28 .288 $2553? .wco:a_otoo¢2:_ decays—0:09.25 Baotou 28m .m 035.

43

53:53.3 2.. 38.2. 362333933. uptown?» 5265.5 2: to 25.6ng 8.5: 555.5 2.. S65 ESEEtE-CE. Facets-u 5.x... ~32

 

 

 

 

w. m. 9m m6 om ON vd N... 5m. 5w. ma. a.~ .5 ..n NV a.a v.m v.0 .Q.m
5 am h. an E. ow 56 n. av. cw. 5v. w. m .v mm am _m mm EN9.).
2.33.6.
ma. La. *5. awn. 1w. 5m. 5. *2. 5.- *mm. *5. 4mm. 5. Z. 2.. 5. 5.- 5. :53 m :9. m.
.a. ha. 5. *Nm. .5. 5m. 5. Z. 5.- Km. .5. Km. 5. 5.. c..- 5. 5.- I. m :83. E
va. 5. .m. N.. 5. 5.- N.. m_. 5. m.. *Nm. *5. 5. 5. 5. 5.- 5.- 5. m .5. 5.535 0.
mm. mm. N.. am. LN. *5. 5. L... 5.- N.. *5. *2. 5.- 5. m..- 2.. 3... .- 5.- m UEco—Um w.
Amiwd... .
.n. .m. 5.- mm. ea. *aa. 5. m.. 5.- 5. am... 5.. 5. 5. 5.- 5. 5. . .. :53 < EX. v.
5m. 5w. 5.- mm. aa. ma. 5.- 5. 5.- 5. smv. 5. 5. 5. 5.- a5. 5. . .. < :83. m.
5. 5. ~.. 5. 5. 5.- 3. 5.- 5.- 5.- 5. N.. 5. 5. 5. 5.- 5.- 5.- < .5.- =c.§:.m N.
:- 2. 2. E. m.. 5. 5.- 5. 5. 5.. 5. 5. c..- 5.- 5.. 5.- *3.- 5. < 0.3.2.5 _.
coca—58.9. :o..m_=E.m
m. h. o. n. v. m. N. .. o. a w n o w v m N .

 

.28. N 93.:

pa:
inc
dif:

by

me-
finc

m
the

and
my
Ihre
{Ape
*l'mL
rese;

milkt

Manipulation Check

To assess the effectiveness of the motivation manipulation a four item, motivation
measure was administered at the conclusion of Part H of the simulation. Participants
were asked to indicate the extent to which they wanted to perform well on the simulation
(Appendix B). Based on the intended design of the study, the motivation level of
participants in the incentive condition should be significantly higher than those in the no-
incentive condition. A one—way ANOVA indicated that there was no significant
difference in the motivation measure across the two conditions. Motivation, as assessed
by the 4-item measure. was approximately the same whether or not an incentive was
offered. This finding was unanticipated and certainly affected the tests of the main and
moderating effects of motivation (hypotheses 2 and 3). Possible explanations for these

findings will be presented in the discussion section.
Adaptive Performance
The original intent of the study was to utilize the score obtained on Part II of the
simulation as an indicator of adaptive performance. The score would be an aggregate of
the three components of the simulation (i.e.. scheduling task. situational judgment task,
and report writing task). This value could then be used as the dependent variable for the
regression analyses. After examining the scales however. it was clear that scores on the
three tasks were not highly inter-correlated and were therefore measuring different
asPctcts of performance. Furthermore. the situational judgment items used in the
Simulation were not highly reliable. While this low reliability is consistent with previous
research using situational judgment tests (Motowidlo, Dunnette. and Carter, 1990) it

makes it more difficult to determine what the test was in fact measuring and whether it

45

v;
Si;

ab

P4

ind

was doing so effectively. For this reason, each of the three tasks was examined
individually.

Analyses

The data were analyzed using hierarchical regression. There were three dependent

variables used consistently throughout all analyses, performance on the scheduling task,
situational judgment task, or report writing task from Part II of the simulation. Cognitive
ability (i.e., ACT/SAT score) and performance on the scheduling task, situational
judgment task, or report writing task from Part I (depending on the dependent variable of
interest) were entered in step 1 of the regression equation. In this manner, the variance
due to cognitive ability and previous task performance was removed prior to assessing the
effects of self-monitoring, process feedback, and the incentive. In step two of the
equation the main effects of process feedback, motivation, and self-monitoring (using
Lennox & Wolfe’s scale) were examined. Step three assessed the interaction effects of
the incentive and process feedback, the incentive and self-monitoring, and process
feedback and self-monitoring. Step four assessed the effects of the three way interaction
of process feedback, the incentive, and self-monitoring on simulation performance. The
results are shown in Table 3.

The study proposed five hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 was that high self-monitors
would outperform low self‘monitors. As can be seen from the regression results, this
hyPothesis was not supported; there was no significant main effect of self-monitoring on
Performance for any of the three tasks. Hypothesis 2 was that highly motivated

individuals would outperform less motivated individuals. This hypothesis was not

46

fee
reg
for
ClUi

whi

the
mm
H)?

iien

supported. Offering participants an incentive to perform effectively had no significant
effect on simulation performance.

Hypothesis 3 proposed an interaction between offering an incentive and self-
monitoring; specifically. hypothesis 3 stated that motivation would moderate the effects
of self-monitoring on multi-task performance. Results indicate that the interaction
between self-monitoring and the incentive had no significant effect on performance for
any of the tasks. Hypothesis 3 was not supported. Hypothesis 4 stated that process
feedback would improve multi-task performance. This hypothesis was supported. The
regression analysis showed that process feedback had a significant effect on performance
for the situational judgment task and report writing task. When participants were given
clues on how best to approach the tasks, they performed more effectively than individuals
who did not receive this information.

Finally, hypothesis 5 examined the three-way interaction between self-monitoring,
the incentive. and process feedback. The hypothesis stated that self-monitoring,
motivation, and process feedback would interact to effect multi-task performance.
Hypothesis 5 was not supported. The proposed three-way interaction did not have a

Significant effect on simulation performance for any of the three tasks.

47

Table 3. Test of hypothesized model

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Schedule B Judgment test B Report B
Step 1
Variable r R2 Beta r R2 Beta r R2 Beta
Schedule/Judgment/Report A . 18* .12 .21 * .12 .07 .14 .50* .33 .35*
ACT 28* .27* 22* 22* .48* .33*
Change R2 .12* .07* .33*
Step 2
Variable r R2 Beta r R2 Beta r R2 Beta
Schedule/Judgment/chort A . 15 .20* .09 . 15 .42 .35*
ACT 27* .22* .33*
Self Monitoring -.1 l -.07 -.01 -.04 .05 -.01
Process Feedback .1 1 .1 1 .13 .15* .32* .30*
Incentive -.08 -.09 .03 .04 -.04 -.03
£hange R2 .03 .03 .09*
’Step 3
Variable r R2 Beta r R2 Beta r R2 Beta
Schedule/Judgment/Report A .16 22* .10 .16* .42 .34*
ACT 27* 22* .33*
Self Monitoring .04 .01 -.02
Process Feedback .82 -.03 .25
Incentive -. 16 .29 .06
Feedback x Self-monitoring -.77 .12 .ll
Incentive x Self-monitoring .03 -.34 -.02
Feedback x Incentive .06 .13 -.10
Change R2 .02 .01 .004
Ste g 4
Variable r R2 Beta r R2 Beta r R2 Beta
Schedule/Judgmcnt/Report A .16 .22* . 12 .15* .43 .34*
ACT 27* 22* .33*
Self Monitoring .03 .08 .02
Process Feedback .70 .58 .62
Incentive -.22 .58 .24
Feedback x Self-monitoring -.65 -.51 -.27
Incentive x Self-monitoring .09 -.66 -.22
Feedback x Incentive .24 -.81 -.67
Feedback x Incentive x SM. -.18 .96 .58
Change R2 .00 .01 .004
*p<.05

48

Supplemental Analyses
After testing the initial hypotheses, several supplemental analyses were
conducted. First, the sub-scales of self-monitoring were examined. Previous studies
using the scale have found that the awareness and ability sub-scales relate to different
aspects of performance (Lassk et al., 1992; Goolsby et al., 1992). In addition, the inter-
correlations between these subscales indicate that they represent different constructs (r =
.40). For these reasons, the individual effects of Lennox & Wolfe’s (1984) self-
monitoring sub scales were examined. No main effects were found for either of the
scales (Table 4).
When examining the scheduling task however. there was a marginally significant
(p<. 10) three-way interaction between process feedback. the incentive, and the awareness
scale of the self-monitoring measure. While a three-way interaction was hypothesized,
the data were opposite to the relationship expected (see figure 4).
In the absence of feedback. it was expected that motivation would have a positive effect
on performance for both high and low self-monitors. The data did not support this
expectation. The incentive appeared to have no effect on high self-monitors and a
negative effect for low self-monitors. High self-monitors performed consistently well
Whether or not an incentive was offered. Low self-monitors on the other hand actually

Showed a decline in performance as a result of being offered an incentive.

49

 

Table 4. Supplemental analyses using awareness and ability sub-scales of Lennox and Wolfe's measure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Schedule B Judgment test B Report B
Step 1
Variable r R2 Beta r R2 Beta r R2 Beta
Schedule/Judgment/Report A . 18* . 12 .21* . 12 .07 .14 .50* .33 .36*
ACT .28* .27* .22* .22* .48* .33*
Change R2 .12* .()7* .33*
Step 2
Variable r R2 Beta r R2 Beta r R2 Beta
Schedule/Judgment/chort A .15 . 18* .10 .14 .43 .34*
ACT .27* .21* .33*
Process Feedback .1 l .10 .13 .15 .32* .30*
Self Monitoring Aware -.04 .04 .01 .04 .l l .04
Self Monitoring Ability -. 15* -.13 -.()4 -.09 -.03 -.05
Incentive -.08 -.08 .03 .04 -.04 -.02
£hange R2 .04 .03 .10*
Step 3
.__ Variable r R2 Beta r R2 Beta r R2 Beta
Schedule/Judgment/chort A .18 .19* .l l .16* .43 .34*
ACT .27* .22* .33*
Process Feedback .71 .01 .18
Self Monitoring Aware .21 .09 .01
Self Monitoring Ability -. I9 -.07 -.04
Incentive -.06 .29 .10
Feedback x S.M. Aware -.46 .00 .25
Feedback x S.M. Ability -.24 .06 -.08
Feedback x Incentive .10 .14 -.08
Incentive x S.M. Aware -.55 -. l 3 -.15
Incentive x S.M. Ability -.49 -.22 .08
Change R3 .03 .01 .004
Step 4
Variable r R2 Beta r R: Beta r R2 Beta
Schedule/Judgment/Report A .20 .18* .13 .15* .44 .34*
ACT 27* 22* .33*
Process Feedback .64 .54 .61
Self Monitoring Aware .27 .09 .07
Self Monitoring Ability ~.3l* .02 -.06
Incentive -.ll .53 .28
Feedback x S.M. Aware -.86 -.21 -.29
Feedback x SM. Ability .25 -.29 .02
Feedback x Incentive .27 -.66 -.67
Incentive x S.M. Aware -l.l" -.03 -.50
Incentive x S.M. Ability 1.07”“ -.59 .25
Feed x Incentive x Aware .73 .16 .78
Feed x Incentive x Ability -.94+ .68 -.19
W2 .02 .01 .006

 

*p<.os +p<.10

50

In the presence of process feedback, motivation seemed to have a non-significant,
negative effect on performance for both high and low self-monitors such that performance
declined in the presence of an incentive. What is unusual is the effect of process
feedback on high and low self-monitors. Performance for low self-monitors is
significantly higher than for high self-monitors, which is completely contrary to what was
expected. The expectation was that process feedback would have the most positive effect
on high self-monitors and the effect would only increase in the presence of an incentive.
The data however, indicate that process feedback had a detrimental effect on the
performance of high self-monitors.

Having described the three way interaction between process feedback, the
incentive, and the ability scale of the self-monitoring measure, it is important to mention
that the beta weight and change in R2 for the interaction was non-significant (p>.05).
Given the lack of interpretability of this interaction as well as its marginal impact on
performance it is perhaps best to conclude that it is spurious. The effects of the
performance oriented self-monitoring scales were also examined. No significant effects
were found.

A final set of analyses was conducted in which the self-report. motivation measure
was used in place of the dichotomous incentive variable. The motivation measure was
designed as a manipulation check and was administered to participants at the end of the
Simulation. Results indicated a main effect of the self-report motivation measure for the
SCheduling task and report writing task (Table 5). Participants who were highly
motivated, performed better on both tasks than those who were not motivated. This

findin g is consistent with hypothesis 2 that proposed a main effect from motivation.

51

3-Way Interaction without Process

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feedback
\ l __.A
o A \ v
g - - _ .1
g ' ' '.‘ ' + H AbiItiy
‘6 .1 +Low Ability!
E .
D. -
No hcentive hcentive

Motlvatlon

3-Way Interaction with Process
Feedback

+ HI Abilityflw'
7': _L—°Y! Abfll‘Y

Performacne

 

No Incentive Incentive

Motivation

Figure 4. Three way interaction between self-manitoring, motivation. and process

feedback

52

 

Table 5. Supplemental analyses usinLthe self-report, motivation measure iglace of the incentive condition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Schedule B Judgment test B Report B

Step 1

Variable r R2 Beta r R2 Beta r R2 Beta
Schedule/Judgment/Report A .18* . 12 .21* . 12 .07 .14 .50* .33 .36*
ACT 28* .27* .22* 22* .48* .33*
Change R2 .12* .07* .33*
Step 2

Variable r R2 Beta r R2 Beta r R2 Beta
Schedule/Judgment/Report A .17 . 19* .09 .14 .45 .34*
ACT .25* 22* .31*
Process Feedback .1 l .10 .13 .15* .32* .30*
Self Monitoring -.l 1 -.05 -.01 -.O4 .05 .02
Motivation .15* . 17* .05 -.02 22* .15*
Change R2 .05* .02 .12*
Step 3

Variable r R1 Beta r R2 Beta r R2 Beta
Schedule/Judgment/Report A .21 .20* .10 .14 .45 .34*
ACT 26* .22* .32*
Process Feedback 1.72* .01 .62
SelfMonitoring -.58 .39 -.25
Motivation -.41 .49 -.04
Feedback x Self-monitoring -.74 .l l .13
Feedback x Motivation -.93* .02 -.47
Motivation x Self-monitoring .90 -.64 .33
Change R2 .05* .01 .01
Step 4 Change R2 = .00 Change R2 = .00 Change R2 = .00

Variable r R2 Beta r R2 Beta r R2 Beta
Schedule/Judgment/chort A .22 .21* .10 .14 .46 .34*
ACT 26* 22* 32*
Process Feedback 4.0 -.89 - l .07
Self Monitoring .34 .30 -.42
Motivation -. I4 .38 -.23
Feedback x Self—monitoring 2.9 1.0 1.8
Feedback x Motivation -3.3 .96 1.3
Motivation x Self-monitoring .56 -.50 .58
Feed x Motivation x S.M. 2.3 -.91 —l .7
Change R2 .00 .00 .00
*p<.05

53

pII

pa

ad.-

WEI

IOI

P600-

”are

In addition, there was an interaction between motivation and process feedback for
the scheduling task. While this interaction was not hypothesized it was significant and
produced a significant change in R2. As can be seen from the graph (figure 5), when
participants are highly motivated, performance is high and process feedback has little
additional effect. When the participant indicated low motivation however, process
feedback played a significant role in improving performance. When no feedback was
given, low motivated individuals performed poorly. However, when process feedback
was provided, the performance of low motivated individuals increased to a level similar

to the highly motivated individuals who received process feedback.

2-Way Interaction Between Process
Feedback and Motivation

'+ Hi Motivation
+ Low Motivation

Performance

 

No Feedback Feedback
Process Feedback

Figure 5. Interaction between process feedback and motivation measure

Discussion
Test of the Hypotheses
A key component of this study was the relationship of self-monitoring to adaptive
performance. The reason for including self-monitoring was the assumption that being

aware of one’s surroundings and having the ability to perform effectively would

54

contribute to effective performance (hypothesis 1). Furthermore, it was hypothesized that
motivation would interact with self-monitoring to affect performance (hypothesis 3), and
finally that self-monitoring would interact with motivation and process feedback
(hypothesis 5). The expectation was that high self-monitors would consistently perform
better than low self-monitors due to high self-monitors’ increased environmental
awareness and ability to perform. The effect of this difference was expected to be much

greater in the presence of motivation and process feedback. The actual results however,

were quite different.

Self-monitorin g

Hypothesis 1 in which high self-monitors were expected to outperform low self-
monitors was not supported. Self-monitoring had no relationship to performance for any
of the three simulation tasks. One explanation for this finding is that self-monitoring as
conceptualized and measured by Lennox and Wolfe’s (I984) instrument is not
appropriate for multi-tasking, adaptive performance. Studies that have found significant
relationships between work performance and self-monitorin g have consistently examined
jobs that involve interpersonal interaction (Caldwell and O’Reilly, 1982; Goolsby et al..
1992; Lassk et al.. 1992). Furthermore, the construct was originally developed to explain
the ability of individuals to match their interpersonal style to the demands of the situation
(Snyder, 1974). Perhaps awareness of one‘s environment and ability to modify behavior
are concepts that are relevant to adaptive performance. but not in the way that Lennox and
Wolfe’s (I984) instrument was able to measure. This study attempted to assess the
concepts embedded in self-monitoring as they might relate to task performance, but the

results were inconsistent with the hypothesized relationships. Given the lack of validity

55

information on the performance oriented self-monitoring scale and the fact that the ability
sub-scale had a negative correlation with the self-monitoring ability scale, it is difficult to
draw any definitive conclusions from the results obtained with the new scales.

The two-way interaction between motivation and self-monitoring proposed in
hypotheses 3 was not supported. Given the problems associated with the motivation
manipulation and failure to find a relationship between self-monitorin g and performance,
it is not surprising that no interaction was found. It is not clear what effect the incentive
had on participants and it is apparent that self-monitoring as defined by Lennox and
Wolfe (I984) was not relevant to the adaptive performance examined in this study. The
failure to find a significant interaction may be a result of flaws in the design of the study
(i.e., the manipulation of motivation and the operationalization/measurement of self-
monitoring). Alternatively, self-monitoring may be a construct that is not relevant to
multi-task performance. In either case, no interaction was found.

A three-way interaction between self-monitoring, motivation. and process
feedback was also hypothesized (hypothesis 5) but not supported. The problems
associated with hypothesis 1 and 3 are relevant here as well. The failure to find a three
way interaction could very well be a result of flaws in the manipulation of motivation or a
lack of a relationship between self-monitoring and task performance.

Motivation

The hypothesized main effect for motivation (hypothesis 2) was technically not

supported. The data were consistent with hypothesis 2 however, when the self-report,

motivation measure was used in place of the dichotomous. incentive variable in the

56

analyses. Individuals who indicated being highly motivated did in fact perform more
effectively on the scheduling and report writing tasks.

The significant findings from the self-report, motivation measure, however, are
not without qualifiers. The “main effect” of motivation may be a reflection of simulation
performance rather than true motivation. Chan, Schmitt, DeShon, Clause, and Delbridge
(1997) found that self-reported, test taking motivation was significantly affected by
previous task performance. Because the motivation measure in this study was given at the
conclusion of the simulation. it is quite possible that it measured perceptions of
performance rather than self-reported motivation. In other words, the individuals who
felt that they performed well indicated high motivation after the simulation, and did in
fact perform well, while individuals who felt that they performed poorly indicated low
motivation, and did in fact perform poorly. This explanation could account for the
significant main effect of the motivation measure as well as the significant interaction
between the motivation measure and process feedback. as will be discussed later.

The fact that no significant main effect was found for the incentive could be
attributed to several factors. One possibility is that participants were simply not
motivated by the incentive. Perhaps offering a $10 prize for effective performance was
not a sufficient motivator to encourage additional effort. Alternatively, it could be that
the incentive was perceived as a goal by some of the participants (i.e., perform in the top
50%). Research on goal setting has found that for complex tasks, difficult specific goals
can have a detrimental effect on performance (Wood. Mento, and Locke. 1987). Thus the
incentive may have had a detrimental effect on performance for some individuals. Taken

as a whole it is possible that some participants were effectively motivated by the incentive

57

while others were either not motivated or negatively affected by the incentive. Any
combination of these potential outcomes could explain the lack of a significant main
effect due to the incentive.

The motivation measure also interacted with process feedback. The process
feedback appeared to have a compensatory effect on motivation. When highly motivated,
participants performed well on the scheduling task regardless of receiving process
feedback. This finding is consistent with research on motivation (Ajzen and Madden,
1986). Individuals who are highly motivated can achieve effective levels of performance
by dedicating additional effort or attention to the task.

It is when motivation was low that process feedback became important.
Participants who were low in motivation performed very poorly when no process
feedback was given. However, when given process feedback, low motivated individuals
were able to achieve the same level of performance as the highly motivated participants.
These findings are consistent with feedback research (Earley et al., 1990; Korsgaard and
Diddams, 1996). The process feedback was designed to improve performance. When
motivation was low. providing individuals with strategies on how to perform did in fact
improve performance.

Another plausible explanation is that the motivation measure was actually
measuring simulation performance as discussed earlier. When “motivation” or perceived
performance was high, process feedback had little effect. However, when participants
indicated low “motivation” or poor perceived performance, process feedback

compensated by providing participants with effective strategies that improved

performance.

58

Process feedback.

The one hypothesis that was supported was hypothesis 4 which proposed a main
effect of process feedback. Providing participants with process feedback had a significant
positive effect on situational judgment task performance and report writing performance.
The effects of feedback on performance are not new however. Previous studies have
demonstrated that process feedback can enhance performance (Earley et al., 1990;
Korsgaard and Diddams, 1996). What this study contributes is that it demonstrates the
beneficial effects of process feedback for performance in a multi-tasking environment.

Studies have shown that individuals seek feedback in a novel situation (Ashford,
1986) and that seeking information relates to performance (Morrison, 1993). This study
added to these findings by showing that process feedback which provides individuals
with cues on how best to approach a task, will in fact improve performance in a multi-
tasking environment. Moreover. this study demonstrates the potential benefits of process
feedback for individuals who are adapting to a new job or perfonning in a novel
environment. While some situations requiring adaptation do not lend themselves to
offering process feedback or guidance (e.g., crisis situations. new situations in which
there is no established guidelines to follow), other situations do have the potential for
performance enhancement.

Potential Applications of Research

Situations in which the individual is required to adapt to a new situation such as
an overseas assignment could be a perfect opportunity to utilize process feedback.
Individuals who have had experience in the adaptation process could mentor

inexperienced individuals and aid in their adjustment. Similarly, new managers who may

59

lack experience could benefit greatly from the advice and guidance of a senior manager
who has experience in the position and can share helpful information. Perhaps focusing
the exchange of information on providing task relevant information with the use of
process feedback could greatly enhance the adaptation and adjustment process of new

managers.

Limitations of the Study

Student sample

The most obvious limitation of this study is that is a laboratory experiment, using
college students. While the setting allowed for greater control and a more precise
assessment of the effects of various environmental and individual difference
characteristics, it limits the generalizability of the findings. Future research should
examine the effects of process feedback, motivation, and self-monitoring in an applied
setting to see if the hypothesized relationships can be found. Specifically, the role of

process feedback, self-monitoring, and motivation could be examined to see if they relate

to the adaptation process of new managers.
Measuring adaptive performance

Another potential concern is the low or non-significant correlations between the
tasks used in the simulation. Performance in this study was measured with a multi-
tasking, managerial simulation. The simulation involved three distinct tasks designed to
replicate those commonly encountered by managerial personnel. It was designed to be
one assessment of adaptive performance that consisted of three sub-sections. Ideally,
performance on one task would have been positively related to performance on the other

tasks, due to the fact that performance was a function of one’s capacity to adapt. The

60

results however, indicated that performance on the various tasks was not correlated;
aggregating scores on the three tasks to form a composite measure did not result in a
meaningful assessment of adaptive performance. Therefore, the three performance
measures were treated as alternate aspects of adaptive performance and analyzed
separately.

Failure to find relationships between the three measures could be attributable to
obvious content differences between tasks. The non-cognitive skills needed for the
situational judgment task, are quite different from the analytical skills needed for the
scheduling task, or the math and verbal skills needed for the report writing task.
However, it could also be a flaw in the design of the simulation. Perhaps certain tasks
were more reactive than others to participants’ ability to adapt. As a result, the effects of
process feedback were more pronounced for the scheduling task, for example, than the
situational judgment task.

In examining the individual results obtained for each of the three tasks. it
appeared that the scheduling task was most consistently affected by the experimental
manipulations and individual difference characteristics. The nature of the three
simulation tasks however are consistent with this finding. The scheduling task was the
task that changed most significantly from Part I to Part II of the simulation and was the
task that offered the most opportunity to adapt. Specifically. in Part I of the simulation,
participants had to listen to the audio messages and copy the appointments in the
appropriate time slots. In Part II of the simulation. the task was significantly more
complex. Participants had to listen to the audio messages that involved employee

availability across 5 days. Using this information from eight individuals, the participants

61

had to construct a work schedule that accommodated all eight employees while also
adhering to the scheduling guidelines (i.e., 4 or 8 hours shifts and 2 employees in the
office at all times). Following the same strategy for the second schedule that was used on
the first schedule would be highly ineffective. In fact, the data were consistent with this
notion. Performance on the first scheduling task correlated .16 with performance on the
second scheduling task. This is in contrast to the report writing task that had a correlation
of .50 between Part 1 and Part 11. Thus performance on the first scheduling task is
virtually unrelated to performance on the second scheduling task. Given the other results
of the study, it would appear that the lack of a relationship is attributable to participant
adaptation. in which strategies were modified in response to process feedback.
Motivation manipulation

Another concern is the differences between the incentive condition and the self-

report manipulation check. Presumably. offering an incentive should have had a positive
effect on motivation resulting in a positive correlation between the incentive condition
and the manipulation measure. The data did not support this assumption. Motivation
was unrelated to the incentive condition and the incentive and manipulation check were
related to different constructs.

Motivation in this study was defined as intention to act. According to Ajzen and
Madden (1986) intention to act is related to performance. In addition, attitudes,
SUbjective norms, and perceived behavioral control are related to intentions. Perhaps the
incentive affected intentions in the sense that it established a subjective norm or
environmental demand that stressed effective performance. The manipulation check

however, may have assessed performance or ability. The four-item, motivation measure,

62

which was designed to assess intention, was administered after the simulation and asked
participants to indicate whether they tried to perform well.

It is quite possible that after completing Part I] of the simulation, participants
knew how they performed on the simulation and answered the motivation questionnaire
based on their perceived performance rather than their actual effort or intention to act.
This explanation is consistent with Chan et al.,’s (I997) findings and explains the
significant relationship between performance and the self-report motivation measure for
the scheduling and report writing tasks. Perhaps if the self-report motivation measure had
been administered prior to Part II of the simulation and after offering the incentive, there
would have been greater consistency between the incentive condition and motivation

measure. Nevertheless, this inconsistency does not appear to be a significant problem for
the study. The self-report, motivation measure was included merely as a manipulation
check. What the data indicate is that it may not have been an appropriate measure given
the purpose of the scale and design of the study. This finding does however complicate
the interpretation of the effects attributable to the incentive. The intention of the
incentive was to influence motivation as seen by differences in performance. However,
this effect was not found and further, the self-report motivation measure designed to
assess the effectiveness of the manipulation did not relate to the incentive. Thus, it is
difficult to determine what impact the incentive actually had on motivation and
performance. These findings also highlight the potential for moderating variables that
were not considered. Participants’ perceptions of the test and level of self-efficacy may

have interacted with the incentive to produce unanticipated effects on motivation and

63

performance. Furthermore, the incentive may have functioned as a difficult, specific goal
for some participants and therefore hindered their performance.
cw

Despite some limitations however, this study contributes to our knowledge of
adaptive performance. The data in this study identify ways of encouraging and even
enhancing adaptive performance. Providing individuals with information that guides
performance, whether it eliminates erroneous strategies or simply presents more effective
ones, can improve adaptive performance. This finding indicates the beneficial effects of
providing individuals with process feedback as they adapt to a new task.

The purpose of this study was to examine environmental conditions and
individual difference characteristics that relate to adaptive performance. The data seem to
indicate that process feedback plays an important role in adaptive performance. Future
research could build upon these findings by examining alternative environments or task
demands to see if feedback continues to improve adaptive performance. Future studies
could also examine other individual differences to identify characteristics that distinguish
adaptive from non-adaptive individuals. Perhaps self-efficacy or goal orientation (e.g.,
mastery versus performance) could be examined. Finally, future studies should examine
aspects of the environment or individual that could be shaped or trained. Embedding
feedback within the task itself or within the environment in which the task is occurring
may enhance adaptation. Likewise. training individuals in effective task strategies or

providing them with a mentor or model of performance, may also lead to more effective

adaptation and performance.

64

 

In conclusion, this study demonstrates the need for additional research in the area
of adaptive performance. The diversity of definitions and operationalizations of adaptive
performance. combined with the small quantity of empirical research in the area highlight
the need for further investigation. As job requirements continue to change, adaptability
will become increasingly important. Selecting and training individuals for these types of
positions will require additional research and a better understanding of adaptability and

the factors contributing to successful adaptive performance.

65

 

REFERENCES

66

REFERENCES

Ali, M. R. (1988). Relationship Between Achievement Motivation and Academic

Performance of College Students in a Developing Country. Psychological Reports, 63,
719-722.

Ammons, R, Nelson, J ., & Wodarski, J. (1982). Surviving corporate moves:

Sources of stress and adaption among corporate executive families. Family Relgtions. 31,
207-212.

Ajzen, I., and Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior:
Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimerfll Social

Psychology, 22, 453-474.

Aronoff, J ., Stollak, G. E., & Woike. B. A. (1994). Affect regulation and the
breadth of interpersonal engagement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

67m,105-114.

Ashford, S. J. ( I986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 465-487.

Barrick, M. R.. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and
job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psvchology,44( 1), 1-26.

Benjamin, G. A. (1984). Shift workers. Personnel Journal, 63(6), 72-76.
Black. J. S. (1990). Locus of control. social support. stress, and adjustment in
international transfers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management, 7, 1-29.

Caldwell. D. F. & O’Reilly, C. A. (1982). Boundary spanning and individual

performance: The impact of self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67; 1 i, 124-
l 27.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problems in
industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psvchology(pgs. 687-732). Palo Alto,
California: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Campbell, J. P.. McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of
performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations
(pgs. 35-70). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

Chan. D., Schmitt, N., DeShon, R. P., Clause, C. S., & Delbridge, K. (1997).
Reactions to cognitive ability tests: The relationship between race, test performance, face

67

validity perceptions, and test-taking motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2).
300-310.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behgvioral sciences. Hillsdale,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishing.

Cohen, J. (1992). Power Primer. chhological Bulletin, 1 12(1). 155-159.

Damos, D. & Smist, T. (1982). Individual differences in multi-task response
strategies. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 53$). 1177-1181.

Davis, D. (1995). Form, function, and strategy in boundaryless organizations. In

A. Howard (Ed.), The Changing Nature of Work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

De J ong, R. (1995). The role of preparation in overlapping-task performance. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A(1), 2-25.

Dix, J. E. & Savickas, M. L. (1995). Establishing a career: Developmental tasks

and coping responses. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 47, 93-107.

Earley, P. C., Northcraft, G. B., Lee, C., & Lituchy, T. R. (1990). Impact of

process and outcome feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance.

Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 87-105.

Edwards, J. E., & Morrison. R. F. (1994). Selecting and classifying future naval
Officers: The paradox of greater specialization in broader areas. In M. G. Rumsey, C. B.

Walker, & Harris. J. H. (Eds). Personnel selection and classification. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fiedler, F. E. & Fiedler, J. ( 1975). Port noise complaints: Verbal and behavioral
reactions to airport related noise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(4), 498-506.

Fisher, C. D. & Shaw J. B. (1994). Relocation attitudes and adjustment: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 209-224.

Goldsmith, R. E. (1987). Self-monitoring and innovativeness. Psychological
Reports, 60, 1017—1018.

 

Goodman, J. (1994). Career adaptability in adults: A construct whose time has
Come. The Career Development Quarterly, 43, 74-84.

68

Goolsby, J. R., Lagace, R. R., & Boorom, M. L. (1992). Psychological
adaptiveness and sales performance. J ouml of Personal Selling & Sales Management,

12(2), 51-66.

Hall, D. T., & Mirvis, P. H. (1995). The new career contract: Developing the
whole person at mid-life and beyond. Journal of Vocational Behavior; 4L 269-289.

Hatano, G. & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H.
Azuma, & K. Hakuta, Child development and educmn in Japan. W. H. Freeman and
Company: New York.

Hollenbeck, J. R., LePine, J. A., & Ilgen, D. R. (1996) Adapting to roles in
decision-making teams. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences agid behavior in
organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Holyoak, K. J. (1991). Symbolic connectionism: Toward third-generation theories
of expertise. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith, Toward a general theory of expertise.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hunt, D. M., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and
development tool. Academy of Management Review, 8(3), 475-483.

Kanfer, R.. & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An

integrative/ aptitude approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
3 39-351 .

Kenny, D. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1983). An estimate of variance due to traits in
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68g), 678-685.

Kilduff, M. & Day, D. V. (1994). Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-
monitoring on managerial careers. Academy of Management Journal. 37(4), 1047-1060.

Kluger, A. N. & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on
performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback
intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 1 19(2), 254-284.

Kossek, E. E., Roberts, K., Fisher, 8., & Demarr, B. (1996). Personal and
contextual antecedents of career self-management competency. Manuscript under review.

Kozlowski. S. W. J., Gully, S. M., McHugh, P. P., Salas, E.,.& Cannon-Bowers, J.
A. (1996). A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: Developmental and
task contingent leader roles. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research infipersonnel and human
resources management (Vol. 14). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

 

69

 

Kozlowski, S. W. J ., Guly, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996).
Team leadership and development: Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders
and teams. In M. Beyerlein, S. Beyerlein, & D. Johnson (Eds), Advances in

interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Team leadership (Vol. 3). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.

Lassk, F. G., Kennedy, K. N, Powell, C. M., & Lagace, R. R. (1992).
Psychological adaptiveness and sales managers’ job performance. Journal of Social
Belgivior and Personality. 7(4). 61 1-620.

Lennox, R. D. & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1349-1364.

Mento, A. J ., Steel, R. P., Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the
effects of goal setting on task performance: 1966-1984. Organizational Behpvior and
Humgi Decision Performance. 39, 52-83.

Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive
cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. basic mechanisms.
Psychological Review, 104(1), 3-65.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper &
Row Publishers.

Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes,
sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 557-589.

Motowidlo. S. J., Dunnette. M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative

selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6),
640-647.

Mumford, M. D.. Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V., Uhlman, C. E., & Costanza,
D. P. ( 1993). Personality, adaptability, and performance: Performance on well-defined
and ill-defined problem-solving tasks. Human Performance. 6(3), 241-285.

Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., Baughman, W. A., & Marks, M., A. (1994).

Creativity and problem solving: Cognition, adaptability, and wisdom. Roeper Review,
16(4), 241-246.

Murphy, K. (1989). The role of cognitive ability in validity generalization. Human
krformance, 2, 183-200.

Nishida, T. & lnomata. K. (1985). Function of achievement motivation in learning
rotary pursuit tracking. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 851-857.

Paulhus, D. L., & Martin. C. L. (1988). Functional Flexibility: A new conception
0f interpersonal flexibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(D. 88-101.

70

Piedmont, R. L. (1988). The relationship between achievement motivation,
anxiety, and situational characteristics on performance on a cognitive task. Journal of
Besearch in Personality, 22. 177-187.

Reeves, C. A. & Bednar, D. A. (1994). Defining quality: Alternatives and
implications. Academy of Management Review, 19L3), 419-445.

Schneider, W. & Detweiler. M. (1988). The role of practice in dual—task

performance: Toward workload modeling in a connectionist/control architecture. Human
Factors. 30(50). 539-566.

Schneider. W., & Fisk, A. D. (1984). Automatic category search and its transfer.
Lgumal of Experimental Psychology: Learning memory, and cognition. 10, 1-15.

Shallice, T., McLeod, P., & Lewis, K. (1985). Isolating cognitive modules with
the dual-task paradigm: Are speech perception and production separate processes? m
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37A, 507-532.

 

Smith, E. M., Ford, J. K., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (in press). Building adaptive
expertise: Implications for training design. In M. A. Quinones & A. Dudda (Eds.),

Training for let century technologfi applications of psychological research. Washington,
DC: APA Books.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,30(4), 526-537.

Spiro, R. L., & Weitz, B. A. (1990). Adaptive selling: Conceptualization,
measurement. and nomological validity. Journal of Marketirg Research, 27, 61—69.

Tatum. B. C. & Nebeker, D. M. (1995). Effects of system control and feedback

variability on job performance and affective reactions. Human Performance, 8(4). 297-
3 25 .

Thach, L., & Woodman, R. W. (1994). Organizational change and information
tfichnology: Managing on the edge of cyberspace. Organizational Dynamics, 23m. 30-46.

Weinstein, N. D., (1978). Individual differences in reactions to noise: A
longitudinal study in a college dormitory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 458-466.

Weiss, S. J. (1984). The effects of transition modules on new graduate adaption.
Research in Nursing and Health, 7, 51-59.

 

Wood, R. E., Mento, A. J., & Locke. E. A. (1987). Task complexity as a
moderator of goal effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 72, 416-425.

71

APPENDICES

72

APPENDIX A

Power Analyses

73

The power analysis involved a test for a three-way interaction in which the main
effects for feedback, motivation, and self monitoring, their interactions (feedback x
motivation, feedback x self-monitoring, and self-monitoring x motivation), and the three
way interaction (feedback x self-monitoring x self-monitoring) were tested. A power
analysis was conducted for each of the main effects, the combined main effects, and the
i nteractions.
mm
The power of the main effects were tested using Cohen’s (1992) power analysis
for product moment correlations. Estimates for the three independent variables were
obtained from existing research. Based on Mento, Steel, and Karren (1987) meta-analysis
on the moderating effects of feedback on goal directed performance, a correlation of .36
was obtained. Barrick and Mount’s (1991) correlation of .23 for conscientiousness was
used as an estimate for the effects of motivation, and self-monitoring estimates were
obtained from Goolsby et al. (1992) r = .28.
When compared to Cohen’s ( 1992) table of effect sizes these correlations ranked
in the medium (.30) range for feedback, motivation, and for self-monitoring. To obtain
- 80 power at a = .05 would require a sample size of 85 participants for the feedback and
Self-monitoring variables and slightly more for the motivation variable (approximately
1 50 participants).
Combined Main Effects
The next step of the power analysis was to test the combined effects of these three
Variables using Cohen’s (1992) f2 test for multiple R [f2 = R2 / (1- R2)]. At the conceptual

level, there was no reason to expect a relationship between the variables being studied.

74

Feedback was expected to have no relationship to motivation or self-monitoring. Further,
motivation was not expected to relate to self-monitoring. For this reason, the correlations
mentioned above were squared and summed resulting in an estimated R2 of .26. Using
the equation shown above. f2 was computed to be .35. According to Cohen’s (1992) table
of effect size f2 = .35 is a large effect. To obtain .80 power at a = .05 with a large effect
size and three independent variables would require a sample size of 34 participants.
Interactions
The interactions were tested using Cohen’s (1988) f2 equation for change in R2

[ f2 = (RZYAB - Rzy_A)/ ( l - RZYAB); where Y is the accounted variance, A represents the

initial equation. B represents the equation with the addition of the interaction term]. Due

to the small expected change in R2 resulting from the interactions, they were tested as a

group. There are a total of four interactions (feedback x motivation, feedback x self-

monitoring, motivation x self-monitoring. and feedback x motivation x self-monitoring).

The expected change in R2 for the combined interaction effects was estimated to be .06.

Using the equation shown above. an f2 of .08 was computed: this value falls between

Cohen’s (1992) small (.02) and medium (.15) effect size. To obtain .80 power at a = .05

With seven variables (three main effects and four interaction terms) would require a

Sample size between 726 (small effect size) and 102 (medium effect size). Given the size

Of the expected change. approximately 200 participants will be needed to achieve

Significance for the interaction terms.

Conclusion
Based on these power analyses, 85 participants will be needed to achieve

Si gnificant main effects, 34 for the combined main effects, and 200 for the interactions.

75

For this reason a minimum sample size of 200 participants is recommended to achieve

- 80 power at 0:05 for all of the main effects and interactions hypothesized.

76

APPENDIX B

Measures

77

Motivation Index

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements
using this 5-point scale:

C) Strongly Disagree

® Disagree

6) Neither Agree nor Disagree
@ Agree

C5) Strongly Agree

I tried to perform well on this task

1. 0) ® ® @ GD
2. I tried to perform in the top 50% of scorers on this task O) ® ® @ ®
3. I am not concerned with how well I performed on this task (R) Q) ® (3) @ ®
4. Performing well on this task is not important to me (R) Q) ® ® @ ®

78

Lennox & Wolfe’s (1984) Self Monitoring Scale

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements
using this 5-point scale:

(D Strongly Disagree

® Disagree

6) Neither Agree nor Disagree
@ Agree

(9 Strongly Agree

Attention to Social Comparison Information

1 .

00.45.03!”

90>]

9.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

It is my feeling that if everyone else in a group is behaving in a
certain manner, this must be the proper way to behave.

I actively avoid wearing clothes that are not in style.

At parties I usually try to behave in a manner that makes me fit
in.

When I am uncertain how to act in a social situation, I look to
the behavior of others or cues.

I try to pay attention to the reactions of others to my behavior in
order to avoid being out of place.

I find that I tend to pick up slang expressions from others and
use them as part of my own vocabulary.

I tend to pay attention to what others are wearing.

The slightest look of disapproval in the eyes of a person with
whom I am interacting is enough to make me change my
approach.

When with a group of people. it is important to me that I fit in.
My behavior often depends on how I feel others wish me to
behave.

If I am the least bit uncertain as to how to act in a social
situation. I look to the behavior of others for cues.

I usually keep up with clothing style changes by watching what
others wear.

When in a social situation. I tend not to follow the crowd, but

instead behave in a manner that suits my particular mood at the
time. (R)

alpha = .83

79

99 9 9 9 99

6969 ® ® ® ('96)) ®
@@ ® @ @ @@ @
@® @ C9 C9 @369 ®
@@ @ @ @ @@ @

9 9C9

®®
@ @@
® @@
@ @@

®®®@®
®®®@®

Lennox & Wolfe’s (1984) Self Monitoring Scale

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements
using this 5-point scale:

(D Strongly Disagree

(3 Disagree

6) Neither Agree nor Disagree
@ Agree

6) Strongly Agree

Cross-Situational Variables (Ability to modify behavior)

1.
2.

3.

I tend to show different sides of myself to different pe0ple.

In different situations and with different people, I often act like
very different persons.

Although I know myself, I find that others do not know me.

4. Different situations can make me behave like very different

people.

5. Different people tend to have different impression about the
type of person I am.

6. I am not always the person I appear to be.

7. I sometimes have the feeling that people don’t know who I
really am.

alpha = .82

total alpha = .86

80

CD®®©®
®®®@®
CD®®©®
®®®@®
CD®®®®
®®®@®
®®®@®

 

Supplemental Self-Monitoring Scale

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements
using this 5-point scale:

0) Strongly Disagree

(3 Disagree

3) Neither Agree nor Disagree
@ Agree

6) Strongly Agree

Self-Monitoring Measure (Awareness of one’s environment)

1.

2.

3.

I like to know how well I am performing (in class, at work,
etc.).

When placed in a new situation, I watch other people to learn
how to act.

Before taking a test, I like to review the professor’s old exams
to know what and how to study.

When the television or radio is on, I have a hard time
concentrating on anything else.

The environment I am in influences how I behave.

Before writing a report, I try to determine exactly what the
professor is looking for.

7. I act very differently depending on the situation I am in.
8. When forced to work under time constraints, I keep track of

9.

how much time I have to complete the tasks.
When performing a task, I periodically assess my performance
to make sure that I am doing well.

10. I eavesdrop on other people’s conversations.

81

®®®@®
®®®€D®
®®®@®
®®®@®

9 99 99
® @® (969
@ @@ @@
C9 @@ @@
@ @@ @@

®®®@©

Supplemental Self-Monitoring Scale

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements
using this 5-point scale:

0) Strongly Disagree

® Disagree

(3 Neither Agree nor Disagree
@ Agree

(5) Strongly Agree

Self-Monitoring Measure (Ability to modify one’s behavior to the environment)

I. When placed in a new setting (new class, new school, new job, 0) ® ® ® 6)
etc.) I am able to quickly adapt my behavior to the situation.

2. I am able to argue for either side of an issue depending on what G) (2) ® @ ®
is expected of me.

3. I am able to perform a task well even when the task is not G) ® ® @ ®
something I feel like doing.
I am able to learn new tasks quickly.

4

5 I am able to adjust my behavior to perform well on most tasks.

6. I am able to develop creative solutions to problems.

7 I am able to do well in a class even if I am not interested in the
topic.

8. When forced to work under time constraints, 1 am able to pace
myself and complete the necessary tasks.

9. I am able to listen to information while writing or performing G) ® ® @ ®
other tasks.

10. When faced with a difficult task, I am able to find better. more Q) ® ® @ ®
efficient ways of performing the task.

I I. [am able to perform multiple tasks simultaneously. G) ® ® @ ®

9 @999
® ®®®@
@ @@@@
(9 @®@@
@ @@@@

82

Demographic Data Form
Please complete the following information:

PID
(all information will be kept confidential)

Year:

G) Freshman
® Sophomore
(3 Junior

@ Senior

6) Other

Major Field of Study:

 

Age:

Sex:
® Male
® Female

GPA:

Race:

Q) African American
® Asian

(3 Hispanic

@ Native American
6) White

© Other

ACT/SAT Score:

 

83

APPENDIX C

Simulation Materials

84

Today you will be participating in a managerial simulation. The simulation was designed
to include the types of tasks commonly associated with the job of supervisor. You will be
working for CLR Shipping Inc. CLR is a shipping firm based in Detroit, MI. The
company contracts with large manufacturers (e.g., General Motors, Ford, Nabisco,

Proctor & Gambill, IBM, etc.,) to transport their products to various locations through
out the United States.

You have been hired to work as Supervisor of the Quality Control Department. The
main purpose of the quality control department is to improve CLR’s performance. Your
job responsibilities include the following:

0 Scheduling appointments/employees

o Advising CLR staff on situational judgment problems

0 Writing reports

Today’s simulation will include each of these tasks. The packet of information that
you’ve been given contains all of the necessary materials for the simulation. In addition,
portions of the scheduling and situational judgment tasks will be presented in audio.
While performing the written tasks, you will be interrupted with audio messages. It is

important that you pay close attention to the audio information as it will be needed to
complete the simulation.

The simulation has two parts. You will begin with Part I. Part I consists of the following
tasks:

1. Scheduling personal appointments
2. Advising CLR staff on situational judgment problems
3. Writing summary reports
You will have 25 minutes to complete Part I
Part [I of the simulation will consist of the following tasks:
1. Creating an employee work schedule
2. Advising CLR staff on situational judgment problems
3. Writing summary reports

You will have 35 minutes to complete Part II

The instruction to Part I are on the following pages. You will receive instructions to Part
II following the break.

85

Managerial Simulation
Part I

1. Scheduling personal appointments
As a supervisor you are continually scheduling appointments and attending meetings.

While attending to your paper work, you will receive audio messages concerning your
schedule for next week.

The packet of materials labeled Personal Appointment Book contains the needed
materials and additional instructions for the appointment scheduling task.

2. Advising CLR staff on situational judgment problems

As supervisor of the quality control department, CLR employees look to you for
guidance. Periodically throughout your day, employees will call you for advice on how to
address situations with other employees or customers. When confronted with a problem
it is imperative that you consider the problem carefully, and give a response that will
address the problem in the most effective manner possible. Your responses should reflect
how you would behave in the situations.

The packet of materials labeled Situational Judgment Items contains answer sheets on
which to write your responses.

3. Writing summary reports

The main focus of the quality control department is continuous improvement. One of
your key job responsibilities is to identify and implement new policies and procedures.
For Part I of the simulation you will be working on the following two tasks:

1. Ordering new office furniture
2. Evaluate Employee Overtime Expenses

You have asked members of your staff to research information on these topics. The result
of their work has been summarized for you. Your task is to review the information and

use it to make recommendations to top management concerning each of these topics.

The packet of materials labeled Summary Reports contains the needed materials and
additional instructions.

You will have 25 minutes to complete Part I
If you finish early please remain quiet and seated until everyone has finished

86

Personal Appointment Book

The following materials are to be used to schedule your appointments for next week.
Every week you have to attend a staff meeting, team meeting, and project meeting. The
days and times for each are listed below.

 

Meeting Day/Time
Staff Meeting Tuesday 8:00-10:00
Team Meeting Wednesday 10:00-l 1:00

Project Planning Friday 12100-2200

You have also been trying to schedule meetings with several individuals whose names are
listed below:

0 Ken 0 Nicole
0 Linda 0 Oscar
0 Mike 0 Patricia

You have left messages with each of them and are waiting for them to call you back.
While attending to your other responsibilities, you will receive messages from them
confirming their appointments with you. Use the information from the phone calls and
meeting requirements (listed above) to schedule your appointments for next week. Record
your appointments on Answer Sheet #1.

For each appointment write the name of the meeting (staff, team, project) or person (Ken,
Linda. etc.) and draw an arrow through the times you will be meeting. For example, if
you have a meeting with Dan on Monday from 8:00 to 10:00 you would mark your
appointment book as follows:

 

 

Example:
Monday
8 Dan
9 1
l0
1 l

 

 

Record all of your meetings & appointments on Answer Sheet #1.

87

Answer Sheet # 1

Personal Appointment Book

 

 

 

 

 

Monday Tuesday Wednesday
8 8 8
9 9 9
10 10 10
1 l l l l 1
l 2 l 2 l 2
l l l
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
Thursday Friday Notes:
8

9 9

l 0 l 0

l l l l

l 2 l 2

l 1

2 2

3 3

4 4
S 5

 

 

 

88

 

Situational Judgment Items

Throughout the day, employees will call for advice on how to address situations with
other employees or customers. When confronted with a problem it is imperative that you
consider the situation carefully, and give a response that will address the problem in the
most effective manner possible. Your responses should reflect how you would behave in

the situations.

89

Answer Sheet #2
Situational Judgment Items 1 & 2

Please write your response to situational judgment item #1 in the following space:

Please write your response to situational judgment item #2 in the following space:

90

Summary Reports
Two reports were compiled by your employees on the following topics:

1. Ordering new office furniture
2. Evaluating Employee Overtime Expenses

Your task is to review each of the reports and make recommendations using the answer
sheets provided. You will be asked to provide specific information from the reports and
make recommendations based on that information. The recommendations will be used by
CLR’s Board of Directors to make crucial decisions concerning CLR. Your
recommendation will have a significant impact on management’s decisions, so it is
important that you consider all of the information when making your recommendations.

The summary reports are provided on the next pages. After each report there are tables

for you to complete and questions for you to answer. Use Answer Sheet #3-4 to record
your responses. Calculators are not permitted.

91

Office Furniture

You have been asked to order new office furniture. There are 20 offices that need to be
furnished. Each office will need 1 desk, 1 hutch, 1 chair, 1 book shelf, and 1 file cabinet.

Table 1 contains the prices charged by Companies A, B, & C for each item. Use this
information to complete the tables and answer the questions on Answer Sheet #3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1
Company A Company B Company C

Desk $500 $550 $600
Hutch $250 $350 $300
Chair $150 $125 $100
Book Shelf $200 $175 $150
File Cabinet $100 $150 $200
Additional Notes:

0 The desk. hutch, book shelf, and file cabinet are all made of dark mahogany.

o The chair has been ergonomically designed and can be adjusted to fit a widerange of
body types.

0 All three furniture companies will deliver and assemble furniture within five working
days of order.

Use this information to complete Answer Sheets #3

92

 

 

Answer Sheet #3

Office Furniture Summary Report

Directions: Use the information from Table I to complete the following chart.
Cost to furnish 1 office: add the cost of each item (desk, hutch, chair, etc.)
Cost to furnish 20 offices: multiply the cost of furnishing 1 office by 20.

 

Cost to furnish 1 office

Cost to furnish 20 offices

 

 

 

Company A x 20 4'
Company B 2- x 20 5-
Company C 3' x 20 6'

 

 

 

 

Directions: Use the information from Table I to complete the following chart.

Lowest Priced Company: write the letter of the company (A, B, or C) offering the
lowest price on the piece of furniture.

Cost per item: write the price of the item.

Cost for 20: write the price of purchasing 20 items.
Total: Add the total cost of furnishing 20 offices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lowest Priced Cost per item Cost for 20
Company

Desk 7- 12. X 20 I7.
Hutch 8- 13. X 20 18.
Chair 9. 14. x 20 19.
Book Shelf ‘0- 15. x 20 20.
File Cabinet ‘1. 16. x 20 21.

Total: 22-

Continue to the next page

93

 

 

 

 

Answer Sheet #3 continued
Office Furniture Summary Report

23. Where should the office furniture be purchased (company A, B, C, or a combination)

if the goal is to furnish the offices for the least amount of money? Explain the
reason for your answer.

94

Evaluate Employee Overtime Expenses

CLR’s business has been improving rapidly. As a result, employees are being asked to
work overtime to compensate for the extra workload. You have been asked to review the
overtime statistics and decide whether CLR should hire additional personnel.

Chart 1 contains information on the number of overtime hours worked per department.
Chart 2 contains the cost of training one new employee (categorized by department).
Table 2 contains the hourly pay rate per department.

Chart 1 Weekly Overtime Hours by Department

Hours per Week
N
01

Hours of Overtime by Department

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accounting Shipping

Chart 2 Training Cost by Department

Training Cost per New Employee

Clerical

a, IE

Sales

 

 

 

 

2
E
T:
D
.E
‘63
O
0
Sales Accounting Shipping Clerical
Table 2 Hourly Pay Rate
Sales Accounting Sh_ip ing Clerical
Over- New Over- New Over- New Over- New
time Hire time Hire time Hire time Hire
Hourly
W $15.00 $10.00 $12.00 $8.00 $10.00 $7.00 $9.00 $6.00
a e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Use this information to complete Answer Sheet #4.

95

 

 

 

Answer Sheet #4

Employee Overtime Summary Report

Directions: Use the information from Chart I and Table 2 to complete the following
table.

Overtime Hours: Number of overtime hours as indicated on Chart 1.

Overtime Pay Rate: Overtime hourly pay rate as indicate in Table 2.

Overtime Wages: Multiply overtime hours by overtime pay rate.

New Hire Pay Rate: New hire hourly pay rate as indicated in Table 2.

New Hire Wages: Multi 1 overtime hours by new hire pay rate.

 

 

 

 

 

Overtime Overtime Overtime Overtime New Hire New Hire
Department Hours Pay Rate Wages Hours Pay Rate Wages
Sales 7-4- 28- 32. 36. 4o. 44.
Accounting 25- 29. 33. 37. 41. 45,
Shipping 26' 30. 34. 38. 42. 4.;
Clerical 27- 31. 3s. 39. 43, 47.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Directions: Use the information from the table above and Chart 2 to complete the
following table.

Overtime Wages: Enter values computed in the above table under Overtime Wage
column.

New Hire Wages: Enter values computed in the above table under New Hire Wages
column.

Weekly Savings: Subtract New Hire Wages from Overtime Wages.

4 Week Savings: Multiply Weekly Savings by 4.

24 Week savings: Multiply Weekly Savings by 24.

Training Costs: Enter the values from Chart 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overtime New Hire Weekly 4 Week 24 Week Training
Department Wages Wages Savings Savings Savings Costs
Sales 48. 52. 56. 60. 64. 68.
Accounting 4"- 53- 57- 61. as. 69.
1 Shipping so. s4. 58. 62. 66. 70.
1 Clerical 51- 55. 59. 63. 1.7. 71.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continue to the next page

96

Answer Sheet #4

Employee Overtime Summary Report Continued

72. Assuming the need for overtime persists for four (4) weeks, what would be the most
cost effective strategy to compensate for the workload (i.e., continue paying overtime
or hire new people).

73. If overtime persists for six (6) months (24 weeks), what would be the most cost
effective strategy to compensate for the workload (i.e., continue paying overtime or
hire new employees)?

97

Managerial Simulation
Part II

Consistent with Pat I of the simulation, you are the supervisor of the quality control
department for CLR Shipping Inc. For Part H of the simulation you will be completing
the following tasks:

1. Creating an employee work schedule
2. Advising CLR staff on situational judgment problems
3. Writing summary reports

The packet of information that you’ve been given contains all of the necessary materials
for the simulation. In addition, portions of the scheduling and situational judgment tasks
will be presented in audio. While performing the written tasks, you will be interrupted
with audio messages. It is important that you pay close attention to the audio information
as it will be needed to complete the simulation.

Instructions

1. Creating an Employee Work Schedule

Because CLR is dedicated to serving its customers, the quality control department has
instituted a toll-free support line to answer questions and address customer concerns.
You have eight employees who answer phone calls. One of your supervisory
responsibilities is to create the weekly work schedule for these employees.

The packet of materials labeled Employee Work Schedule contains the needed materials
and additional instructions for the scheduling task.

2. Advising CLR Staff on Situational Judgment Problems

As supervisor of the quality control department, CLR employees look to you for
guidance. Periodically throughout your day, employees will call you for advice on how to
address situations with other employees or customers. When confronted with a problem
it is imperative that you consider the problem carefully, and give a response that will
address the problem in the most effective manner possible. Your responses should reflect
how you would behave in the situations.

The packet of materials labeled Situational Judgment Items contains answer sheets on
which to write your responses.

Continue to the next page

98

Managerial Simulation
Part 11 continued

3. Writing Summary Reports

The main focus of the quality control department is continuous improvement. After

numerous discussions with CLR board of directors, the decision was made to introduce
four improvements:

1.) Implement team based work units
2.) Move to a different office facility
3.) Connect CLR to the Internet

4.) Improve the training system

You have asked members of your staff to research information on these four topics. The
result of their work is contained in four reports. Your task is to review the information

and use it to make recommendations to top management concerning each of the four
topics.

The packet of materials labeled Summary Reports contains the needed materials and
additional instructions.

You will have 35 minutes to complete Part II
If you finish early please remain quiet and seated until everyone has finished

99

Employee Work Schedule

The following materials are to plan next weeks work schedule. You are responsible for
writing the schedule for eight employees whose names are listed below. Next to each
person’s name is a list of the days and times for which they are normally available.
Because the employees all work pan-time, CLR has established a policy in which
employees can call you by the end of the day to make special scheduling requests.

While attending to your other responsibilities, you will be receiving calls from your
employees letting you know when they are available to work. Use the information to
construct a work schedule for next week. Record the schedule on Answer Sheet #6.

Scheduling Guidelines

0 Shifts are from 8am to 4pm Monday through Friday
0 Two employees must be scheduled at all times
0 Shifts can be either 4 or 8 hours long

A form for making notes and tracking employee '3' availability has been provided.
Employees: Availability

Amanda Available Monday, Tuesday, & Thursday

Bill Available Monday, Wednesday, & Friday

Cathy Available Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, & Friday
Dan Available Monday, Wednesday, & Friday

Elaine Available Monday, Tuesday. Wednesday, Thursday, & Friday
Frank Available Monday, Wednesday. & Thursday

Georgia Available Tuesday, Wednesday, & Friday

Henry Available Wednesday & Friday

Use Answer Sheet #6 to record the employee work schedule.

100

Answer Sheet #6
Employee Schedule

Scheduling Guidelines

0 Shifts are from 8am to 4pm Monday through Friday
0 Two employees must be scheduled at all times

0 Shifts can be either 4 or 8 hours long

Please write the schedule on the following table:

 

 

 

 

Monday Tuesday Wednesday
8 8 8
9 9 9
1 0 l 0 10
l l l l 1 l
l 2 l 2 12
l l l
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
Thursday Friday Notes:
8 8
9 9
l O 10
l l l l
I 2 12
l l
2 2
3 3
L 4

 

 

 

 

 

101

Employee Work Schedule
Scheduling Notes

Scheduling Guidelines

0 Shifts are from 8am to 4pm Monday through Friday
0 Two employees must be scheduled at all times

0 Shifts can be either 4 or 8 hours long

The following is a chart to help you keep track of next weeks schedule. The chart is
provided for your convenience. The chart is not a required part of the scheduling task.

You are not required to use or complete this chart, and you will not loose points if you
choose not to use it.

Amanda M T W Th F

Bill M T W Th F
Cathy M T W Th F
Dan M T W Th F
Elaine M T W Th F
Frank M T W Th F
Georgia M T W Th F
Henry M T W Th F

102

L.- LE

 

Situational Judgment Items

Throughout the day, employees will call for advice on how to address situations with
other employees or customers. When confronted with a problem it is imperative that you
consider the situation carefully, and give a response that will address the problem in the

most effective manner possible. Your responses should reflect how you would behave in
the situations.

Write your responses on the following answer sheets (Answer Sheets #7-9).

103

Answer Sheet #7
Situational Judgment Items 3 & 4

Please write your response to situational judgment item #3 in the following space:

Please write your response to situational judgment item #4 in the following space:

104

Answer Sheet #8
Situational Judgment Items 5 & 6

Please write your response to situational judgment item #5 in the following space:

Please write your response to situational judgment item #6 in the following space:

105

Answer Sheet #9

Situational Judgment Item 7

Please write your response to situational judgment item #7 in the following space:

106

Summary Reports

The following packet contains information on CLR policies and procedures. The reports
were compiled by your employees on the following four topics:

1.) Team based work units
2.) Office facilities

3.) Internet carriers

4.) Training systems

Your task is to review each of the reports and make recommendations using the answer
sheets provided. The answer sheets ask you to provide specific information from the
reports and make recommendations based on that information. The recommendations
will be used by CLR’s Board of Directors to make crucial decisions concerning CLR.
Your recommendation will have a significant impact on management’s decisions; be sure
to consider all of the information when making your recommendations.

There are four reports that follow. After each report is an answer sheet with tables for

you to complete and questions for you to answer. Write your responses directly on the
answer sheets (Answer Sheets #11-14).

107

 

Team Based Work Unit Report

In 1997 the quality control department tested a team based approach to office operations.
Of the 50 office employees at CLR, six individuals were chosen to form the first team.

The team was given the responsibility for a 4 million dollar contract with a very

prestigious and valued customer. Table 3 contains an itemized list of CLR’s 1997 budget
as well as the budget report from the team.

Table 3 1997 Financial Summary Report

 

Financial Summary Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CLR’s 1997 Results Team’s 1997 Results
Sales $20,000,000 $4,000,000
Expenses
Truck Maintenance $2,000,000 $400,000
Transportation Costs $5,000.000 $1,000,000
Transportation Overhead $2.000,000 $200,000
Wages $4.000,000 $800,000
Office/Warehouse Rent $2,000,000 $400,000
Office Supplies/Equipment $1 .000,000 $200,000
Contents of Table 3

Sales: the total amount of money received from all shipping contracts in 1997.
Truck Maintenance: cost of any truck repairs or maintenance.

Transportation Costs: cost of shipping freight (i.e., gas, tolls. loading fees).

Transportation Overhead: cost of driving an empty truck between jobs.
Wages: costs of CLR employee salaries.

Offich arehouse Rent: costs of renting office and warehouse space.
Office Supplies & Equipment: costs of paper. pens, computer equipment. etc.

Use this information to complete Answer Sheet #10

108

Answer Sheet #10
Team Based Work Unit Summary Report

Directions: Use the information in Table 3 to compute the following values.

Total expenses: add the amount of money spent on each item under Expenses in Table 3
(e.g., truck maintenance, transportation cost, etc.).
Profit: subtract Total Expenses from Sales.

Profit %: divide Profit by Sales and multiply the value by 100 to compute a percentage.

 

Summary results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CLR’s 1997 Results Team’s 1997 Results
Sales $20,000,000 $4,000,000
Total Expenses ($) 74. $ 77. $
Profit ($) 75. $ 78. $
% Profit
Profit (%) 76. % 79. %

 

 

 

Directions: Using the sales and expenditure figures in Table 3, compute the % of money
spent on each item.

Example: Truck Maintenance
CLR’s 1997 Sales were $20 million. $2 million were spent on truck maintenance.
Divide truck maintenance by sales.($2 million/$20 million = 0.1). Multiply value

by 100 (0.1 x 100 = 10%). Therefore. 10% of sales went to truck maintenance.
10% is entered in the table.

 

Financial Summary Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CLR’s 1997 Results Team’s 1997 Results
Sales $20,000.000 $4,000,000
% of Sales spent on Expenses
Truck Maintenance 10% 85. %
Transportation Costs 80. % 86. %
Transportation Overhead 81. % 87. %
Wages 82. % 88. %
Office/Warehouse Rent 83. % 89. %
Office Supplies/Equipment 84. % 9o. %

 

 

 

Continue to the next page

109

 

 

Answer Sheet #10 Continued
Team Based Work Unit Summary Report

91. What differences, if any, are there between CLR’s financial results and the team’s
financial results?

92. Based on the results computed above, what recommendation would you make
concerning the move to team based work units (accept or reject). Explain your
answer.

110

Office Facilities Report

As CLR continues to grow, it has become increasingly apparent that additional office
space will be needed. A decision was made to move CLR’s headquarters to a new
building that will accommodate a larger staff. The new office space will need to have:

0 A minimum of 6500 square feet
0 40 computer network connections

Table 4 contains a list of potential locations and the costs associated with each.

Table 4 Office Facilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost per
Computer , ,
Building Year Built Square Feet Cost: connections additional
(sqft) sqft/year available computer
connection
“1'15"." 1957 8500* $600 0 $2000
Bu11d1ng
Yald'f'y 1968 7000* $700 10 $2500
Building
1611115611 1973 6500* $1000 30 $3500
Bu11d1ng
M9m50mery 1985 7500* $800 25 $1500
Building
”0.“th 1994 6500* $1000 20 $4000
Buildiihg

 

 

 

 

 

 

*CLR must rent all of the available square feet listed for a building
Additional Information

Wilson Building: A converted warehouse that was remodeled in the early 1980’s; was
previously used by an architecture firm.

Yardley Building: A five story brick building on the east side of Detroit approximately 5
miles from CLR’s present building. The fourth floor is available for rent.

Johnson Building: A 25 floor skyscraper owned an operated by Vanguard Enterprises.

Montgomery Building: An 18 floor skyscraper that leases its first ten floors for business
offices and the remaining floors for apartments and condominiums.

Northrop Building: The newest building being considered. It is a multi-million dollar
building constructed by two large manufacturing firms with headquarters in Detroit.

Use this information to complete Answer Sheet #11

111

 

Answer Sheet #11

Office Facilities Summary Report

Directions: Use the information from Table 4 to complete the following chart.

Total cost of rent: indicate how much each building will cost in rent. To calculate this
figure, multiply the Square Feet of the building (Table 4) by Cost per square foot.

# of computer connections needed: subtract the number of Computer connections
available (Table 4) from 40 (the number needed).

Cost of computer connection: multiply the Cost per additional computer. connection

(Table 4) by the # of computer connections needed for each building.

Total cost after year 1: add the Total cost of rent and Cost of computer connections

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for each building.
# of
Total cost t Cost of computer T tal t aft
Building of compu. er connections 0 cos er
connections year 1
rent
needed
Wilson 93- 98. x 2000 103. 108.
Yardley 94- 99. x 2500 104. 109.
Johnson 95- 100. x 3500 105. 110.
Montgomery "6- '01- x 1500 I06- III.
Northrop 97- ”’3- x 4000 107- HZ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 13. Based on these results computed above. indicate which building will be the most
cost effective after the first year. Explain the reasoning for your recommendation.

112

 

Internet Carrier Report

Due to the increasing reliance on electronic communication, the suggestion was made to
connect CLR to the Internet. Three companies have submitted proposals to handle
Internet services for CLR; Companies A, B, & C. Table 5 contains the billing rates for
each company. Rates are charged per minute of use. For Companies A and B, the rates
fluctuate depending on the time of day, as indicated by the table 3. Company C charges a

flat rate per minute.

Table 5 Internet Carrier Billing Rates

 

Company A
Billing Rate

Company B
Billing Rate

Company C
Billing Rate

 

Morning

(7:00am-11:59am)

.30 per minute

.20 per minute

.20 per minute

 

Afternoon

(12:00pm-6:59pm)

.20 per minute

.30 per minute

.20 per minute

 

 

Evening

(7 :00pm-6:S9am)

.10 per minute

 

 

.10 per minute

 

.20 per minute

 

 

The Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics computed the average amount of time spent using
Internet resources. Table 6 contains an estimate of the number of minutes spent on the
Internet per year for a company equivalent to CLR.

Table 6 Internet Usage 1997

 

Morning

Afternoon

Evening

 

1500 minutes

 

2500 minutes

 

2000 minutes

 

Use this information to complete Answer Sheet #12

113

 

 

 

Answer Sheet #12

Internet Carrier Summary Report

Directions: Use the information from Tables 5 & 6 to complete the following chart.
Annual cost (per plan): multiple the total number of minutes by the charge per minute
and enter the number in the space provided. If for example 1000 minutes were used in
the morning at a cost of $0.30 per minute the annual cost would be $300.

Total annual cost: compute by adding the annual cost for each time period for each

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

company.
Total # Company A Company B Company C
of Annual Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost
minutes
Morning 1500 .30 114. .20 m. .20 120.
Afternoon 2500 .20 ”5- .30 118- .20 121.
Evening 2000 .10 ”6- .10 ”9. .20 I22.
Total Annual Cost

 

 

 

 

 

123. Based on these results. which Internet carrier would be the best value? Explain
your answer.

114

Training System Report

CLR has been working to standardize its training system. There are three training
strategies that would be appropriate for CLR:

1. On the Job Training (OJT)
2. Classroom training
3. A combination of both OJT and classroom training

Studies of these three approaches have yielded varying effects on job performance. Chart

3 contains the results of these studies. Employee performance was determined by

supervisor ratings on a 100 point scale and was measured at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years
after training.

Chart 3 Effects of Training

Employee Performance X Time of Employement Chart

 

90
80

 

 

+ OJT

70
60 / \ + Classroom

50 + Both

40

30 l l I l

6 1 year 2 years
months

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Rating

 

Time on the Job

OJT = On the job training Classroom = Classroom training
Both = OJT 81 Classroom

Use this information to complete Answer Sheet #13

115

Answer Sheet #13

Training System Summary Report

124. If CLR expects to keep employees for a minimum of two (2) years, which training
program should CLR implement? Explain your answer.

116

APPENDIX D

Audio Messages

117

Simulation Part I

Time
2:00

4:00

6:00

8:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

25:00

Message

“Excuse me, this is your secretary. Ken returned your call. He said Lunch would
be great. He can meet 11 to 12 on Friday.”

“I was able to contact Oscar. I scheduled your dinner reservations with him for
Wednesday from 5 to 7pm.”

“Nicole called. She would like to meet with you before Friday’s Project Planning
Meeting. I scheduled her for Thursday morning from 8-10.”

“Hi this is Bob, I’m a manager in the Sales & Marketing department. I’m having
a problem. Employees from other departments have started to congregate in my

work area, which is disrupting the staff’s activities. How should I handle the
situation?”

“Linda called. She will see you on Tuesday from 11-12.”

“Ken called again. He got his days confused and won’t be able to have lunch
Friday. He rescheduled for Tuesday from 1-2.”

“Patricia just called. She can meet you 5 to 7 pm on Friday to discuss the project
planning meeting.”

“Mike returned your call. He would like to meet Wednesday. I scheduled him
from 2 to 4.”

“Hi this is Sandy, l’m a manager in accounting. 1 need your advice. I’ve noticed
that some of the accounting staff have been arriving for work with inappropriate
clothing. They wear blue jeans, jogging suits, tennis shoes. etc. No one else
seems to be enforcing the dress code policy, but I think the employees look
unprofessional. What do you think I should do?”

“Please Stop with Part I of the Simulation”

118

Audio Messages

Simulation Part II

Time
1 :30

3:00

6:00

7:30

9:00

12:00

13:30

16:30

18:00

Message

“Georgia called about her schedule. On Friday she can only work 8am to 2pm.
She is still available all day Tuesday and Wednesday.”

“This is Jennifer in the accounting department. I need some advice on one of my
employees. When she was hired last year, she seemed adequate, and the
performance appraisals from her previous jobs were outstanding. It’s been 12
months though, and she is clearly unable to perform the work. I’ve tried to assign
her to different projects, but I’m having trouble finding a position that she’s
qualified for. I’ve thought about firing her, but she hasn’t violated any policies
and I couldn’t justify letting her go. What should I do?”

“Bill called about next weeks schedule. He wanted to remind you that he will be
on vacation all week and unable to work.”

“I just got off the phone with Dan. He called about next week’s schedule. He will

be able to work anytime on Monday. Wednesday from 10-1, and Friday after
1 1am. ”

“Hi this is Sara from the sales & marketing department. Next week is a holiday,
and my staff has been asking about taking vacation time. I’m reasonably sure that

there won’t be any urgent projects that need to be done next week, but I don’t
know for sure. What should I tell my staff?”

“Amanda called about her schedule. She will be available to work Monday after
10am and Tuesday between 9am and 3pm. She can work anytime on Thursday.”

“Hi, I work with CLR and needed some advice on how to handle a situation. A
few days ago when I was leaving work, I saw a CLR employee backing his car
into a parking space. As he was backing in though, he accidentally hit a
supervisor’s vehicle. I saw the employee get out of his car, look at the damage,
and then drive off. I heard today that the supervisor has initiated an investigation

to find who hit his car. I’m not sure what I should do. How would you handle the
situation?”

“Henry called about his schedule for next week. He can only work until 3pm on
Wednesday and Friday.”

“I just received a call from Cathy. Her daughter has the flu and Cathy will not be
able to work at all next week.”

119

Audio Messages

Simulation Part 11

Time
19:30

22:30

24:00

25:30

30:00

35:00

Message

“This is the sales & marketing department. I’m having problems with one of my
employees and don’t know what to do. The employee is just not pulling his
weight. He avoids difficult assignments, complains about the amount of work
that has to be done, and says the job really doesn’t matter anyway. What do you
think I should do?”

“Elaine called about next week’s schedule. She can only work Tuesday and
Friday, but on Friday she can only work after 9am.”

“Frank called about his schedule for next week. On Monday he will have to leave

at 2 and on Wednesday, he can only work after 11am. He can work anytime on
Thursday.”

“This is accounting. 1 need advise on how to handle one of my employees. The
employee wants to become a manager and discussed the possibility with me.
Specifically, he wants me to go over the requirements to be a CLR manager with
him. The problem is that I don’t believe this guy could ever qualify to be a

manager and even if he did, he would not be a very good one. What do you think
I should tell him?”

(Experimental Condition Only) “You have 5 minutes remaining in Part 11. Please
complete the scheduling task if you have not done so already.”

“Please Stop with Part II of the Simulation.”

120

APPENDIX E

Simulation Scoring Key

121

Part 1: Scheduling Task (18 points total)
0 lpoint for correct meeting/person lpoint for correct time

 

 

 

 

 

Monday Tuesday Wednesday

8 8 Staff Meeting

9 9

10 10 10 Team Meeting
11 11 Linda 11 '

12 12 12

l 1 Ken 1

2 2 2 Mike
3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5 Oscar
Thursday Friday Notes:

8 Nicole 8

9 9

10 10

11 ll

12 12 Project Meeting

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5 Patricia

 

 

 

122

 

Situational Judgment Item #1
Hi this is Bob, I’m a manager in the Sales & Marketing department. I’m having a
problem in my department. Employees from other departments have started to

congregate in our work area, which is disrupting the staff’s activities. How should I
handle the situation?

 

 

Low Medium High
0 Do Nothing 0 Advise the employees to 0 Discuss the problem
0 Tell the employees to meet during their break with the employees
leave or over lunch 0 Work together to find a
0 Give employee a few 0 Advise the employees to solution
minutes to talk then tell talk during non-work o Remind employees of
them to get back to time your expectations and
work 0 Speak with the their responsibilities to
supervisor from the work
other department about
his/her employees
0 Send a memo

 

 

 

 

0) ® ® @ (5)

 

123

 

Situational Judgment Item #2

Hi this is Sandy, I’m a manager in accounting. I’ve noticed that some of the accounting
staff have been arriving for work with inappropriate clothing. They wear blue jeans,
jogging suits, tennis shoes, etc. No one else seems to be enforcing the dress code policy,
but it still is the policy. What do you think I should do?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Low Medium High
0 Do nothing 0 Circulate a memo 0 Discuss the dress code
0 Humiliate/Reprimand reminding employees policy with employees
employees who are and supervisors of the 0 Explain the importance
improperly dressed dress code policy of following the dress
0 Do not let improperly 0 Send improperly dressed code
dressed employees work employees home to 0 Clearly state your
change expectations of your
0 Discuss the option of employees concerning
changing the dress code the dress code
policy
0) ® 6) GD (5)

 

124

 

Give credit on written response if it is correct given their computation of the data

Answer Sheet #3

Office Furniture Summary Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost to furnish 1 office Cost to furnish 20 offices
Company A $1200 x 20 $24,000
Company B $1350 x 20 $27,000
Company C $1350 x 20 $27,000
Lowest Priced Cost per item Cost for 20
Company
Desk A $500 x 20 $10,000
Hutch A $250 x 20 $5,000
Chair C $100 x 20 $2,000
Book Shelf C $150 x 20 $3,000
File Cabinet A $100 x 20 $2,000
Total: $22,000

Answer Sheet #3 continued

Office Furniture Summary Report

 

 

 

 

Where should the office furniture be purchased (company A, B, C, or a combination) if
the goal is to furnish the offices for the least amount of money? Explain the reason for

your answer.

The desk, hutch, and file cabinet should be purchased from company A. The chair

and bookshelf should be purchased from company C. Company A & C offer the
best price on the respective items.

125

Answer Sheet #4

Employee Overtime Summary Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Department Overtime Overtime Overtime Overtime New Hire New Hire
Hours Pay Rate Wages Hours Pity Rate nges
Sales 30 15 450 30 10 300
Accounting 40 12 480 40 8 320
Shipping 15 10 150 15 7 105
Clerical 20 9 180 20 6 120
Department Overtime New Hire Weekly 4 Week 24 Week Training
Wages Wages Savings Savings Savings Costs
Sales 450 300 150 600 3600 2000
Accounting 480 320 160 640 3840 2500
Shipping 150 105 45 180 1080 500
Clerical 180 120 60 240 1440 1000
Answer Sheet #4

Employee Overtime Summary Report Continued

Assuming the need for overtime persists for four (4) weeks, what would be the most cost
effective strategy to compensate for the workload (i.e., continue paying overtime or hire

new people).

The best strategy would be to pay overtime. The cost of training new hires would
far exceed the cost of overtime charges over 4 weeks.

If overtime persists for six (6) months (24 weeks), what would be the most cost effective
strategy to compensate for the workload (i.e., continue paying overtime or hire new

employees)?

After 6 months, the best strategy would be to hire and train new employees. The
savings in overtime costs will more than pay for the cost of training.

126

 

 

Part [1: Scheduling Task

0 1 point for correct person

0 1 point for correct time (must be exact or no credit)

0 28 points total

Simulation Answer Key

 

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

 

8 (1)Frank 8-12 (3)Dan 8-
4

8 (6)Elaine 8-4 (7)Georgia
8—4

8 (12)Henry 8-12
(14)Georgia 8-4

 

9 9 9

10 10 10

1 l 1 l 1 1

12 (2)Amanda 12-4 12 12 (13)Frank 12-4
1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

Thursday Friday Notes:

 

 

8 (4)Amanda 8-4 (5)Frank
8-4
9

10
ll
12

 

8 (8) Henry 812
(10)Georgia 8-12
9

10
11

12 (9)Elaine 12-4 (1 1)Dan
12-4
1

2
3

 

 

127

 

Situational Judgment Item #3

Dialogue: “This is the accounting department. I need some advice on one of my
employees. When she was hired last year, she seemed adequate, and the performance
appraisals from her previous jobs were outstanding. It’s been 12 months though, and she
is clearly unable to perform the work. I’ve tried to assign her to different projects, but
I’m having trouble finding a position that she’s qualified for. I’ve thought about firing

her, but she hasn’t violated any policies and I couldn’t justify letting her go. What should
I do?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Low Medium High
0 Tell the employee to 0 Try to re-train the 0 Discuss the problem
quit or look for another employee with the employee
jOb 0 Help the employee find 0 Work with the employee
0 Look for ways of having a position more suited to to identify the root cause
the employee fired or her skills and interests of the problem
transferred 0 Re-iterate your 0 Look for a solution that
0 Do nothing; accept the expectations to the will resolve the
fact that the employee is employee and tactfully underlying issues
incompetent tell her that she needs to
improve her
performance
0) C2) C3) @ C5)

 

128

 

Situational Judgment Item #4
Dialogue: “Hi this is the sales & marketing department. Next week is a holiday, and the
staff has been asking about taking vacation time. I’m reasonably sure that there won’t be

any urgent projects that need to be done next week, but I don’t know for sure. What
should I tell my staff about taking vacations?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Low Medium High
0 Tell the employees that 0 Give employees a 0 Be honest with the
you will check the definitive answer employees
schedule and get back to (yes/no) without telling 9 Tell them they will
them them the whole story probably have time off
0 Wait until the last 0 Allow employees to 0 Take precautions to
minute to give the take vacation time have employees
employees a response without planning for available to work if the
0 Avoid the issue, don’t possibility emergencies need arises
provide a definite 0 Let the employees who
answer ask take vacation but do
not offer the opportunity
to everyone
0) ® ® @ ®

 

129

 

Situational Judgment Item #5

Dialogue: “Hi, I work with CLR and needed some advice on how to handle a situation. A .
few days ago when I was leaving work, I saw a CLR employee backing his car into a
parking space. As he was backing in though, he accidentally hit a supervisor’s vehicle. I
saw the employee get out of his car, look at the damage, and then drive off. I heard today
that the supervisor has initiated an investigation to find who hit his car. I’m not sure what
I should do. How would you handle the situation?

 

Low

Medium

 

0 Wait to report the
incident to see what
happens

0 Wait until someone asks

about the incident

0 Don’t get involved; say
nothing about what you
saw

High

 

Confront the employee
who hit the car

Try to verify the
information to see if the
employee reporting the
incident is telling the
truth

Make an anonymous
call to the supervisor

 

Report the incident
immediately

Give the investigators
all of the information
available

 

 

G)

 

 

130

 

Situational Judgment Item #6

Dialogue: “This is the sales & marketing department. I’m having problems with one of
my employees and don’t know what to do. The employee is just not pulling his weight.
He avoids difficult assignments, complains about the amount of work that has to be done,
and says the job really doesn’t matter anyway. What do you think I should do?

 

 

Low Medium High
0 Have the employee re- 0 Discuss your 0 Discuss the problem
assigned or fired expectations with the with the employee
0 Reprimand the employee and tell him 0 Work to identify the
employee for his poor that his performance root cause of the
attitude and needs improvement problem
performance 0 Have other employees a Try to develop effective
0 Do nothing; the work with him to solutions that will
employee won’t change improve his improve the employee’s
anyway performance attitude and
0 Give the employee performance
encouragement that will
improve his attitude and
commitment to his work

 

 

 

 

0) ® ® @ C9

 

131

 

Situational Judgment Item #7

Dialogue: “This is accounting. I need your advise on how to handle one of my
employees. The employee wants to become a manager and discussed the possibility with
me. Specifically, he wants me to go over the requirements to be a CLR manager with
him. The problem is that I don’t believe this guy could ever qualify to be a manager and
even if he did, he would not be a very good one. What do you think I should tell him?

 

 

Low Medium High
0 Have the employee ask 0 Give the employee a list 0 Discuss the job
someone else of the requirements and requirements openly
0 Tell the employee you let him decide if he with the employee
don’t know what the should pursue a 0 Work with the employee
qualifications are or that managerial position to develop a plan for
they change depending - Be honest with the improving his
on the position employee and tell him skills/qualifications
0 Tell the employee that he is not qualified for 0 Help the employee
the requirements but the position improve and become a
that there will be no 0 Answer the employee’s more qualified
openings for a while questions but provided candidate
no additional
information that would
reveal your personal
opinion on his
qualifications

 

 

 

 

0) ® ® @ ®

 

132

 

 

Answer Sheet #11

Team Based Work Unit Summary Remrt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summargresults

CLR’s 1997 Results Team’s 1997 Results
Sales $20.000.000 $4,000,000
Total Expenses ($) $16,000,000 $3,000,000
Profit ($) $4,000,000 $1,000,000

% Profit

Profit (%) 20% T 25%

Financial Summary Report

CLR’s 1997 Results Team’s 1997 Results
Sales $20,000,000 $4,000,000

% of Sales spent on Expenses

Truck Maintenance 10% 10%
Transportation Costs 25% 25%
Transportation Overhead 10% 5%
Wages 20% 20%
Office/Warehouse Rent 10% 10%
Office Supplies/Equipment 5% 5%

 

 

 

Using the percentages computed in the last table (Financial Summary Report), what
trends do you notice between CLR’s 1997 financial results and the Team’s 1997 financial

results?

The percentage of money spent on each expenses is equal except for transportation
overhead. The team saved 5% on this expenses.

Based on the results computed above. what recommendation would you make concerning
the move to team based work units (accept or reject). Explain your answer.

Accept the move to team based work units. The pilot team saved 5% on
transportation overhead which could translate into $1 mil 3 year in additional

profits.

133

 

 

Answer Sheet #12
Office Facilities Summary Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Building Total cost # of Cost of computer
of computer connections Total cost after
rent connections year I
needed
Wilson 5,100,000 40 x 2000 80,000 5,180,000
Yardley 4,900,000 30 x 2500 75,000 4,975,000
Johnson 6,500,000 10 x 3500 35,000 6,535,000
Montgomery 6,000,000 15 x 1500 22,500 6,022,500
Northrog 6,500,000 20 x 4000 80,000 6,580,000

 

 

Based on these results computed above, indicate which building will be the most cost
effective after the first year. Explain the reasoning for your recommendation.

The Yardley building is the most cost effective. After calculating the cost of
computer connections and rent, it offers the lowest rate.

134

 

Answer Sheet #13

Internet Carrier Summary Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total # of Company A Company B Company C
minutes Annual Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost
Morning 1500 .30 450 .20 300 .20 300
Afternoon 2500 .20 500 .30 750 .20 500
Evening__ 2000 .10 200 .10 200 .20 400 ,
Total Annual Cost 1150 1250 1200

 

 

 

 

 

Based on these results. which Internet carrier would be the best value? Explain your
answer.

Company A offers the best value. Their total cost of service is the cheapest when
computed across all three time slots.

135

Answer Sheet #14

Training System Summary Report

If CLR expects to keep employees for a minimum of two (2) years, which training
program should CLR implement? Explain your answer.

Classroom training should be the training system implemented. After
2 years, employees showed the greatest performance.

136

APPENDIX F

Data Collection Agenda

137

Time Task

0:00 Informed Consent Form

5:00 Part I Simulation Instructions

8:00 Begin Part I

33:00 Administration of Measures (motivation. self-monitoring, demographic info)
45:00 Break

55:00 Part II Instruction

60:00 Begin Part H

95:00 Stop Part II of the Simulation

96:00 Distribute Motivation Measure

105200 Collect Motivation Measure and Distribute Debriefing Form

138

APPENDIX G

Informed Consent Form: N o Incentive

139

Participant’s Name: Date:
Participant’s PID#:
Project Title: Managerial Performance

Investigator’s Name: Kevin E. Plamondon & Neal Schmitt

Project Description: The purpose of this study is to investigate managerial performance
in a simulated work environment. You will be asked to complete a managerial
simulation. There are two parts to the simulation. Each part consists of a written task,
scheduling task, and situational judgment task. The tasks take approximately 90 minutes
to complete. In addition, you will be asked to provide your ACT/SAT score along with
other demographic (PID#, age, year in school, major field of study, etc.). ALL
INFORMATION OBTAIN WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. No one outside of the
research team will have access to your information or simulation performance data.

 

 

Estimated Time Required: 120 minutes (2 hours)
Credits Earned for Participation: 4 credits

I have fully explained to the participant the nature and purpose of the study procedures
and the risks that are involved in its performance. I have responded to and will answer all
participant’s questions to the best of my ability.

 

Kevin E. Plamondon (355-2171), Investigator

Consent:
0 I have been fully informed of the study procedures including the possible benefits and
risks.

0 I understand that I will be able to view summary results at a later date and be fully
debriefed on them if I so desire.

0 I give permission for my participation in this study.

0 I also agree to allow the researcher to obtain my ACT /SAT scores from the registrar.

0 I know that the investigator and his/her associates will be available to answer any
questions that I may have.

0 If at any time I feel that my questions have not been answered. I may speak to the
Head of the Department of Psychology (Gordon Wood, 355-9563) or the University
Committee of Research Involving Human Subjects (355-2180).

0 I understand that I am free to withdraw this consent and discontinue participation in
this study at any time without penalty.

0 I am also aware that within one year of my participation a copy of this informed
consent will be provided to me upon request.

 

Signature of Participant

140

Participant’s Name: Date:
Participant’s PID#:
Project Title: Managerial Performance

Investigator’s Name: Kevin E. Plamondon & Neal Schmitt

Project Description: The purpose of this study is to investigate managerial performance in a
simulated work environment. You will be asked to complete a managerial simulation. There are
two parts to the simulation. Each part consists of a written task, scheduling task. and situational
judgment task. The tasks take approximately 90 minutes to complete. Those scoring in the top
50% on Part II of the simulation will receive a $10.00 prize. In addition, you will be asked to
provide your ACT/SAT score along with other demographic (PID#, age, year in school, major
field of study. etc.). ALL INFORMATION OBTAIN WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. No

one outside of the research team will have access to your information or simulation performance
data.

 

 

Estimated Time Required: 120 minutes (2 hours)
Credits Earned for Participation: 4 credits

I have fully explained to the participant the nature and purpose of the study procedures and the

risks that are involved in its performance. I have responded to and will answer all participant’s
questions to the best of my ability.

 

Kevin E. Plamondon (355~2171), Investigator

Consent:

0 I have been fully informed of the study procedures including the possible benefits and risks.

0 I understand that I will be able to view summary results at a later date and be fully debriefed
on them ifl so desire.

0 1 give permission for my participation in this study.

0 I also agree to allow the researcher to obtain my ACT/SAT scores from the registrar.

I know that the investigator and his/her associates will be available to answer any questions
that 1 may have.

0 If at any time I feel that my questions have not been answered, I may speak to the Head of

the Department of Psychology (Gordon Wood. 355-9563) or the University Committee of
Research Involving Human Subjects (355-2180).

0 I understand that 1 am free to withdraw this consent and discontinue participation in this
study at any time without penalty.

0 I understand that if 1 score in the top 50% on Part II of the simulation, I will receive $10.00

prize.

1 am also aware that within one year of my participation a copy of this informed consent will

be provided to me upon request.

 

Signature of Participant

141

APPENDIX H

Simulation Instructions

142

Simulation Instructions: Part I

Simulation Instructions

Today you will be participating in a managerial simulation. The simulation was designed
to include the types of tasks commonly associated with the job of supervisor. You will be
working for CLR Shipping Inc. CLR is a shipping firm based in Detroit, MI. The
company contracts with large manufacturers (e.g., General Motors, Ford, Nabisco,

Proctor & Gambill, IBM, etc.,) to transport their products to various locations through
out the United States.

You have been hired to work as Supervisor of the Quality Control Department. The
main purpose of the quality control department is to improve CLR’s performance. Your
job responsibilities include the following:

0 Scheduling appointments/employees

- Advising CLR staff on situational judgment problems

0 Writing reports
Today’s simulation will include each of these tasks. The packet of information that
you’ve been given contains all of the necessary materials for the simulation. In addition,
portions of the scheduling and situational judgment tasks will be presented in audio.
While performing the written tasks, you will be interrupted with audio messages. It is

important that you pay close attention to the audio information as it will be needed to
complete the simulation.

The simulation has two parts. You will begin with Part I. Part 1 consists of the following
tasks:

1. Scheduling personal appointments

2. Advising CLR staff on situational judgment problems

3. Writing summary reports
You will have 25 minutes to complete Part I
Part II of the simulation will consist of the following tasks:
1. Creating an employee work schedule
2. Advising CLR staff on situational judgment problems
3. Writing summary reports

You will have 35 minutes to complete Part II

The instruction to Part I are on the following pages. You will receive instructions to Part
11 following the break.

143

Managerial Simulation
Part I

1. Scheduling personal appointments
As a supervisor you are continually scheduling appointments and attending meetings.

While attending to your paper work, you will receive audio messages concerning your
schedule for next week.

The packet of materials labeled Personal Appointment Book contains the needed
materials and additional instructions for the appointment scheduling task.

2. Advising CLR staff on situational judgment problems

As supervisor of the quality control department, CLR employees look to you for
guidance. Periodically throughout your day, employees will call you for advice on how to
address situations with other employees or customers. When confronted with a problem
it is imperative that you consider the problem carefully, and give a response that will
address the problem in the most effective manner possible. Your responses should reflect
how you would behave in the situations.

The packet of materials labeled Situational Judgment Items contains answer sheets on
which to write your responses.

3. Writing summary reports

The main focus of the quality control department is continuous improvement. One of
your key job responsibilities is to identify and implement new policies and procedures.
For Part I of the simulation you will be working on the following two tasks:

1. Ordering new office furniture
2. Evaluate Employee Overtime Expenses

You have asked members of your staff to research information on these topics. The result
of their work has been summarized for you. Your task is to review the information and

use it to make recommendations to top management concerning each of these topics.

The packet of materials labeled Summary Reports contains the needed materials and
additional instructions.

You will have 25 minutes to complete Part I
If you finish early please remain quiet and seated until everyone has finished

144

Simulation Instructions: No Process Feedback; No Incentive

Managerial Simulation
Part 11

Consistent with Part I of the simulation, you are the supervisor of the quality control

department for CLR Shipping Inc. For Part H of the simulation you will be completing
the following tasks:

1. Creating an employee work schedule
2. Advising CLR staff on situational judgment problems
3. Writing summary reports

The packet of information that you’ve been given contains all of the necessary materials
for the simulation. In addition, portions of the scheduling and situational judgment tasks
will be presented in audio. While performing the written tasks, you will be interrupted

with audio messages. It is important that you pay close attention to the audio information
as it will be needed to complete the simulation.

Instructions

1. Creating an Employee Work Schedule

Because CLR is dedicated to serving its customers, the quality control department has.
instituted a toll-free support line to answer questions and address customer concerns.
You have eight employees who answer phone calls. One of your supervisory
responsibilities is to create the weekly work schedule for these employees.

The packet of materials labeled Employee Work Schedule contains the needed materials
and additional instructions for the scheduling task.

2. Advising CLR Staff on Situational Judgment Problems

As supervisor of the quality control department, CLR employees look to you for
guidance. Periodically throughout your day. employees will call you for advice on how to
address situations with other employees or customers. When confronted with a problem
it is imperative that you consider the problem carefully, and give a response that will

address the problem in the most effective manner possible. Your responses should reflect
how you would behave in the situations.

The packet of materials labeled Situational Judgment Items contains answer sheets on
which to write your responses.

Continue to the next page

145

Managerial Simulation
Part 11 continued

3. Writing Summary Reports

The main focus of the quality control department is continuous improvement. After
numerous discussions with CLR board of directors, the decision was made to introduce
four improvements:

1.) Implement team based work units
2.) Move to a different office facility
3.) Connect CLR to the Internet

4.) Improve the training system

You have asked members of your staff to research information on these four topics. The
result of their work is contained in four reports. Your task is to review the information

and use it to make recommendations to top management concerning each of the four
topics.

The packet of materials labeled Summary Reports contains the needed materials and
additional instructions.

You will have 35 minutes to complete Part II
If you finish early please remain quiet and seated until everyone has finished

146

Simulation Instructions: No Process Feedback; Incentive

Managerial Simulation
Part 11

Consistent with Part I of the simulation, you are the supervisor of the quality control

department for CLR Shipping Inc. For Part H of the simulation you will be completing
the following tasks:

1. Creating an employee work schedule
2. Advising CLR staff on situational judgment problems
3. Writing summary reports

The packet of information that you’ve been given contains all of the necessary materials
for the simulation. In addition, portions of the scheduling and situational judgment tasks
will be presented in audio. While performing the written tasks, you will be interrupted

with audio messages. It is important that you pay close attention to the audio information
as it will be needed to complete the simulation.

Instructions

1. Creating an Employee Work Schedule

Because CLR is dedicated to serving its customers, the quality control department has
instituted a toll-free support line to answer questions and address customer concerns.
You have eight employees who answer phone calls. One of your supervisory
responsibilities is to create the weekly work schedule for these employees.

The packet of materials labeled Employee Work Schedule contains the needed materials
and additional instructions for the scheduling task.

2. Advising CLR Staff on Situational Judgment Problems

As supervisor of the quality control department, CLR employees look to you for
guidance. Periodically throughout your day. employees will call you for advice on how to
address situations with other employees or customers. When confronted with a problem
it is imperative that you consider the problem carefully. and give a response that will

address the problem in the most effective manner possible. Your responses should reflect
how you would behave in the situations.

The packet of materials labeled Situational Judgment Items contains answer sheets on
which to write your responses.

Continue to the next page

147

Managerial Simulation
Part 11 continued

3. Writing Summary Reports
The main focus of the quality control department is continuous improvement. After

numerous discussions with CLR board of directors, the decision was made to introduce
four improvements:

1.) Implement team based work units
2.) Move to a different office facility
3.) Connect CLR to the Internet

4.) Improve the training system

You have asked members of your staff to research information on these four topics. The
result of their work is contained in four reports. Your task is to review the information

and use it to make recommendations to top management concerning each of the four
topics.

The packet of materials labeled Summary Reports contains the needed materials and
additional instructions.

$10.00 Prize
To encourage performance on Part II of the simulations, there will be a prize awarded to
the top half of performers. Those of you who score in the top 50% (or approximately one
out of every two people in this room) will receive $10.00. At the end of the simulation
you will be given instructions and a phone number to call to receive the money.

You will have 35 minutes to complete Part II
If you finish early please remain quiet and seated until everyone has finished

148

Simulation Instructions: Process Feedback; No Incentive

Managerial Simulation Part 11

Consistent with Part I of the simulation, you are the supervisor of the quality control

department for CLR Shipping Inc. For Part II of the simulation you will be completing
the following tasks:

1. Creating an employee work schedule
2. Advising CLR staff on situational judgment problems
3. Writing summary reports

The packet of information that you’ve been given contains all of the necessary materials
for the simulation. In addition, portions of the scheduling and situational judgment tasks
will be presented in audio. While performing the written tasks, you will be interrupted

with audio messages. It is important that you pay close attention to the audio information
as it will be needed to complete the simulation.

To achieve the best score on the simulation:

0 Begin by working on the summary reports. All of the information you need to
complete the reports is contained within the packet of materials you have been given.

0 Pay close attention to any audio information that you are given.

0 If an employee is calling about the work schedule, make a note of when s/he can
work. Do not complete the schedule until all eight employees have contacted you.

0 When a situational judgment item is presented. respond to the item immediately,
writing your response on the sheet provided.

The following pages contain instructions and example items for each of the three
tasks.

149

Managerial Simulation Part II
Instructions

1. Creating an Employee Work Schedule

Because CLR is dedicated to serving its customers, the quality control department has
instituted a toll-free support line to answer questions and address customer concerns.
You have eight employees who answer phone calls. One of your supervisory
responsibilities is to create the weekly work schedule for these employees.

The packet of materials labeled Employee Work Schedule contains the needed materials
and additional instructions for the scheduling task.

Example Item

Employee Scheduling Task
Instructions:

Write a schedule for next Monday. You will need two employees in the office from 8am
to 4pm. You have the following three people to choose from:

Employee Availability

Irene All day Monday
Jason 8-12 on Monday
Ken 12-4 on Monday
Answer:

Monda
8 Irene Jason
9
10
1 1
l 2
l

 

2
3
4

For the Scheduling task in Part [1, be sure to follow the scheduling guidelines:
Scheduling Guidelines

0 Shifts are from 8am to 4pm Monday through Friday
0 Two employees must be scheduled at all times
- Shifts can be either 4 or 8 hours long

150

Managerial Simulation Part 11
Instructions

2. Advising CLR Staff on Situational Judgment Problems

As supervisor of the quality control department, CLR employees look to you for
guidance. Periodically throughout your day, employees will call you for advice on how to
address situations with other employees or customers. When confronted with a problem
it is imperative that you consider the problem carefully, and give a response that will
address the problem in the most effective manner possible. Your responses should reflect
how you would behave in the situations.

The packet of materials labeled Situational Judgment Items contains answer sheets on
which to write your responses.

Example Item
Situational Judgment Task

Situation:

A supervisor from another department has a tendency to single out employees for clerical
errors and publicly describe those errors to other members of the department. This causes

employees to feel stupid and humiliated. How would you handle this situation?
Answer:

High Scoring Response:

“1 would set up a meeting with the supervisor and discuss the importance of speaking

with his/her employees in private rather than confronting them in front of the entire
department. "

Moderate Scoring Response:

“I would advise the supervisor to focus on the problem directly. discussing how it could
be avoided, rather than focusing on the individuals who caused the problem. "

Low Scoring Response:

“I would tell the supervisor to never reprimand employees in front of the rest of the
department again. ”

151

Managerial Simulation Part 11
Instructions

3. Writing Summary Reports
The main focus of the quality control department is continuous improvement. After
numerous discussions with CLR board of directors, the decision was made to introduce
four improvements:

1.) Implement team based work units

2.) Move to a different office facility

3.) Connect CLR to the Internet

4.) Improve the training system

You have asked members of your staff to research information on these four topics. The
result of their work is contained in four reports. Your task is to review the information

and use it to make recommendations to top management concerning each of the four
t0pics.

The packet of materials labeled Summary Reports contains the needed materials and
additional instructions.

Example Item
Summary Report Form
Instructions:
You are responsible for ordering new computers. Companies A, B, & C sell the exact
same computer systems. The price for the computer processor and monitor are listed
below. (Computer processors and monitors cannot be purchased separately).

 

 

 

 

 

Table A
Company A Company B Company C
Computer Processor $1200 $1300 $1400
Commiter Monitor $800 $500 $700

 

 

 

From which company would you purchase new computer equipment?

Answer: Computer systems should be purchased from Company B. Because computer
processors and monitors must be purchased together, it is the total cost of the
system that is important. Company A ’s system costs $2000, Company B’s
$1800, and Company C 's $2100. As all three companies afier the exact same
system, Company B ’s computer system is the best value at $1800.

You will have 35 minutes to complete Part II
If you finish early please remain quiet and seated until everyone has finished

152

 

Simulation Instructions: Process Feedback; Incentive

Managerial Simulation Part 11

Consistent with Part I of the simulation, you are the supervisor of the quality control

department for CLR Shipping Inc. For Part II of the simulation you will be completing
the following tasks:

1. Creating an employee work schedule

2. Advising CLR staff on situational judgment problems
3. Writing summary reports

The packet of information that you’ve been given contains all of the necessary materials
for the simulation. In addition, portions of the scheduling and situational judgment tasks
will be presented in audio. While performing the written tasks, you will be interrupted

with audio messages. It is important that you pay close attention to the audio information
as it will be needed to complete the simulation.

To achieve the best score on the simulation:

0 Begin by working on the summary reports. All of the information you need to
complete the reports is contained within the packet of materials you have been given.

0 Pay close attention to any audio information that you are given.

0 If an employee is calling about the work schedule, make a note of when s/he can
work. Do not complete the schedule until all eight employees have contacted you.

0 When a situational judgment item is presented, respond to the item immediately,
writing your response on the sheet provided.

The following pages contain instructions and example items for each of the three
tasks.

153

Managerial Simulation Part 11
Instructions

1. Creating an Employee Work Schedule

Because CLR is dedicated to serving its customers, the quality control department has
instituted a toll-free support line to answer questions and address customer concerns.
You have eight employees who answer phone calls. One of your supervisory
responsibilities is to create the weekly work schedule for these employees.

The packet of materials labeled Employee Work Schedule contains the needed materials
and additional instructions for the scheduling task.

Example Item

Employee Scheduling Task
Instructions:

Write a schedule for next Monday. You will need two employees in the office from 8am
to 4pm. You have the following three people to choose from:

Employee Availability

Irene All day Monday
Jason 8-12 on Monday
Ken 12-4 on Monday
Answer:

Adondav
8 Irene Jason
9
10
l 1

12
l

 

For the Scheduling task in Part ll, be sure to follow the scheduling guidelines:
Scheduling Guidelines

0 Shifts are from 8am to 4pm Monday through Friday
0 Two employees must be scheduled at all times
0 Shifts can be either 4 or 8 hours long

154

Managerial Simulation Part 11
Instructions

2. Advising CLR Staff on Situational Judgment Problems

As supervisor of the quality control department, CLR employees look to you for
guidance. Periodically throughout your day, employees will call you for advice on how to
address situations with other employees or customers. When confronted with a problem
it is imperative that you consider the problem carefully, and give a response that will

address the problem in the most effective manner possible. Your responses should reflect
how you would behave in the situations.

The packet of materials labeled Situational Judgment Items contains answer sheets on
which to write your responses.

Example Item
Situational Judgment Task

Situation:
A supervisor from another department has a tendency to single out employees for clerical

errors and publicly describe those errors to other members of the department. This causes

employees to feel stupid and humiliated. How would you handle this situation?
Answer:

High Scoring Response:

“I would set up a meeting with the supervisor and discuss the importance ofspeaking

with his/her employees in private rather than confronting them in front of the entire
department. "

Moderate Scoring Response:

“I would advise the supervisor tofocus on the problem directly. discussing how it could
be avoided, rather thanfocusing on the individuals who caused the problem. "

Low Scoring Response:

“I would tell the .s‘upervisor to never reprimand employees in front oft/re rest ofthe
department again. "

155

Managerial Simulation Part 11
Instructions

3. Writing Summary Reports
The main focus of the quality control department is continuous improvement. After
numerous discussions with CLR board of directors, the decision was made to introduce
four improvements:

1.) Implement team based work units

2.) Move to a different office facility

3.) Connect CLR to the Internet

4.) Improve the training system

You have asked members of your staff to research information on these four topics. The
result of their work is contained in four reports. Your task is to review the information

and use it to make recommendations to top management concerning each of the four
topics.

The packet of materials labeled Summary Reports contains the needed materials and
additional instructions.

Example Item
Summary Report Form
Instructions:
You are responsible for ordering new computers. Companies A, B. & C sell the exact
same computer systems. The price for the computer processor and monitor are listed
below. (Computer processors and monitors cannot be purchased separately).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table A
Company A Company B Company C
Computer Processor $1200 $1300 $1400
Computer Monitor $800 $500 $700

 

 

From which company would you purchase new computer equipment?

Answer: Computer systems should be purchased from Company 8. Because computer
processors and monitors must be purchased together, it is the total cost of the
system that is important. Company A 's system costs $2000, Company B ’s
$1800, and Company C '3 $2100. As all three companies offer the exact same
system, Company B 's computer system is the best value at $1800.

156

 

Managerial Simulation Part 11
Instructions

$10.00 Prize
To encourage performance on Part H of the simulations, there will be a prize awarded to
the top half of performers. Those of you who score in the top 50% (or approximately one
out of every two people in this room) will receive $10.00. At the end of the simulation
you will be given instructions and a phone number to call to receive the money.

You will have 35 minutes to complete Part II
If you finish early please remain quiet and seated until everyone has finished

157

 

APPENDIX I

Debriefing Forms

158

Debriefing Form: No Incentive Group
Managerial Performance Study

You have completed the Managerial Performance study. The study was designed to
identify the qualities that enable individuals to perform effectively in a simulated work
environment. The goal of the study is to identify characteristics that can be used to hire
and promote individuals into managerial positions.
We appreciate your willingness to participate in this study. All of the information that
you have provided will be kept confidential. We ask that you do not discuss this study

with other individuals as this may affect future data collection efforts.

If you have any questions or comments please contact Kevin Plamondon (355-2171).

159

 

Debriefing Form: Incentive Group
Managerial Performance Study

You have completed the Managerial Performance study. The study was designed to
identify the qualities that enable individuals to perform effectively in a simulated work

environment. The goal of the study is to identify characteristics that can be used to hire
and promote individuals into managerial positions.

We appreciate your willingness to participate in this study. All of the information that
you have provided will be kept confidential. We ask that you do not discuss this study
with other individuals as this may affect future data collection efforts.

If you have any questions or comments please contact Kevin Plamondon (355-2171).

$10.00 Prize
To see if you qualified for the $10.00 prize (i.e., you scored in the top 50%) you will need
your PlD # as it is written on the demographic information form. A space has been
provided below for you to copy your number.

PID

 

At the end of the semester (May 4 - May 8) call the number listed above (355-2171). Say
that you are part of the Managerial Performance Study and are calling to see if you scored
in the top 50%. Provide your PID#, your name, and a phone number where you can be

reached. To receive the $10.00 you must call between Monday, May 4 and Friday,
May 8.

160

HICHIGnN smTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES
IHINIHNH ill HlWllNHll‘INHIIIIW 1111111
31293017721204