MSU LIBRARIES ‘1 RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ”rt-Mi“ NH??? '.?\q gm?" f! S 5’51?) 5 $3, ' “A” 0 7 is?! I triad :2 ‘ - . A“ ’3’. j:~ . i Q 1 ‘ .. . a 7. ‘_‘. , _,} f I 'V I imx- . ;- 1 J . . | ‘ r-L t A STUDY OF VARIABLES WHICH CAN INCREASE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF BEHAVIOR MODELING TRAINING FOR SUPERVISORS AND MIDDLE MANAGERS BY JAMES SYLVAN RUSSELL A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 1982 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF VARIABLES WHICH CAN INCREASE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF BEHAVIOR MODELING TRAINING FOR SUPERVISORS AND MIDDLE MANAGERS BY JAMES SYLVAN RUSSELL Behavior modeling (or Applied Learning) training for supervisors is quite popular in the training literature although only a relatively few studies have been reported in the scientific literature. Results have consistently demonstrated that the training is effective in increasing the knowledge of supervisors, but little is known about how to maximize the effectiveness of the training in the work setting. This study tested several hypotheses about how to increase the effectiveness of the training for behaviors and performance results on the job. The theoretical framework for the research was drawn from both organizational behavior and social learning theory literature. It was hypothesized that training would be effective for: (l) trained supervisors versus control group supervisors; (2) supervisors trained by managers versus supervisors trained by professional train- era. It was also hypothesized that the training would be more effective for supervisors with low self-esteem and a highly supportive working relationship with their mana- gers. Middle managers were also trained and six of them participated as trainers in one supervisors' class. It was predicted that the training would be more effective for: (1) the trained class versus a control group; (2) the middle managers who were trainers versus the middle managers who were trained only; and (3) the supervisors of the trained managers versus supervisors of control group managers. Fifty-six supervisors were assigned to two training classes, a pre-post control group, and a post-only control group. Twenty-eight managers were assigned to a training class, a pre-post control group, and a post-only control group. The effectiveness of the training was measured according to four criteria for evaluating training (Kirkpatrick, 1976). The results indicated that the training was effective in increasing the knowledge of the supervisors but that their effectiveness on the job did not change. The train- ing was not effective in increasing the effectiveness of the middle managers although they felt the training was worthwhile and should be repeated. The implications of the study for training, manage- ment ratings, and social learning theory are discussed. Copyright by JAMES SYLVAN RUSSELL 1982 DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated in loving appreciation to Karen whose loving support and sacrifice made this odyssey possible, and to Lynne, Keith, and Pam whose acceptance stilled my conscience. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The list of acknowledgements for this dissertation extends to everyone who has worked in connection with this project. I will remain grateful to them. This acknowl- edgement must, however, be limited to those people who have been directly responsible for the fulfillment of this pro- ject from the University, the organization and the prepara- tion of dissertation. My first acknowledgement goes to my Chairman, Ken Wexley, for his guidance and support for all phases of the research under extraordinary circumstances. Jack Hunter and John Wanous both contributed greatly with different emphases: Jack with his patient guidance on methodological and statistical issues and John for his work in editing my writing and for reviewing methodological and theoretical issues. The people in the organization also have my unending gratitude. When we started I emphasized to them that it was a dissertation and they accommodated me to the best of their ability during very trying times. My thanks go to all of the people who were so cordial and cooperative. In particular the work done by Larry Palmisano, Ron Saia, and Darius 'Pete' Cunningham in planning for, conducting, and iii evaluating the training was greatly appreciated. Thanks also go to Bill Hall and Jim Warren without whose support the training would never have been approved. Finally, the work at getting all the training materials prepared and distributed was due to the speedy and efficient work of Sarah Ward, Julie Parsons, and Angie Carroll. My thanks go out to them also. I trust the organization believes, as I do, that the project was beneficial. There are also a few special acknowledgements that should be made. Special thanks go to Ginger Noel who did accurate and timely work on numerous drafts of this dis- sertation but who could not complete it because of time and distance limitations. Ben Schneider's probing questioning style led me to the realization that I was pursuing a topic which I myself was not truly interested in and I never explained that to him or thanked him. I owe him a debt of gratitude for that. I also appreciated the opportunity to finish the draft of this dissertation in partnership with Jane Irving and Bill Kahn. My Mother, Helen Russell, nurtured and sustained me during the crucial months we were alone together holding the fort. Finally I must acknowl- edge the support, patience, and loving acceptance of my wife, Karen, and children, Lynne, Keith, and Pam, who accepted why I was gone so often during the weekends and evenings and taking short naps at odd times. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Chapter I II RESEARCH AND HYPOTHESES INTRODUCTION Social Learning Theory Observational Learning Process Film vs Live Models Applications of Social Learning Theory Summary APPLIED LEARNING TRAINING Components Social Learning Theory and Applied Learning Training Applied Learning Scientific Literature HYPOTHESES Supervisors Middle level (2-4L) Managers METHODOLOGY PROPOSAL PHASE Introduction Corporate Background Preposal ASSESSMENT PHASE TRAINING PHASE Training Classes and Control Groups Training Sessions viii mcuhn #4 19 21 22 22 26 27 40 41 46 49 49 49 57 63 65 70 III IV EVALUATION PHASE Evaluation Introduction Behavior Measures Learning Test Performance Measures Reaction Measures Moderator Variables RESULTS INTRODUCTION RELIABILITIES Reactions Learning Behaviors Performance Middle Managers TESTS OF SUPERVISOR HYPOTHESES Group Characteristics Trained Supervisors vs Control Group Hypotheses Moderator Variables Trainers Class vs Managers Class MIDDLE MANAGERS Group Characteristics Reaction Measures Trained Middle Managers vs Control Group Hypotheses Middle Manager Trainers vs Trained Only Supervisors of the Trained Managers vs Supervisors of the Control Group Managers SUMMARY DISCUSSION INTRODUCTION TRAINING DISCUSSION Reactions Learning Behaviors Performance vi 102 102 102 102 103 105 105 107 108 108 110 118 120 126 126 129 131 133 134 135 136 136 138 138 142 146 153 Trainers, Managers, and Films Moderator Variables SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY DISCUSSION LIMITATIONS IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE CONCLUSION APPENDICES APPENDIX A CONSENT FORM APPENDIX B RELIABILITY CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR SUPERVISORS' PERFORMANCE RATING APPENDIX D EVALUATION FORMS APPENDIX E TRAINER CHARACTERISTICS (POWER MEASURE) APPENDIX F LEARNING TEST APPENDIX G BOS MEASURES APPENDIX H PERFORMANCE MEASURES APPENDIX I TRAINING MODULES APPENDIX J VDL MEASURES APPENDIX K SELF-ESTEEM MEASURES BIBLIOGRAPHY GENERAL REFERENCES vii 156 160 162 167 171 179 180 181 182 183 197 198 204 216 223 265 267 268 281 TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE II-Z II-3 II-4 II-S II-6 III-1 III-2 III-3 III-4 III-S III-6 III-7 III-8 LIST OF TABLES OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING PROCESS COMPARED WITH APPLIED LEARNING TRAINING COMPONENTS APPLIED LEARNING TRAINING SYMPOSIUM (KRAUT, 1976) OBSERVATIONS AND GROUPS OF TRAINEES NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AT EACH LEVEL BY DIVISION TRAINING PROGRAM SEQUENCE PARTICIPANTS INVOLVEMENT BY DEPARTMENT/DIVISION AND LEVEL REPORTING RELATIONSHIPS OF SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS IN THE TRAINING CLASSES TRAINING MODULE EXAMPLE MEASURES BY TIME PERIODS SUPERVISOR RELIABILITIES MIDDLE MANAGER RELIABILITIES CHARACTERISTICS FOR SUPERVISORS MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF SUPERVISORS GAIN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF SUPERVISORS CORRELATION MATRIX FOR LEARNING, BEHAVIORS, AND PERFORMANCE IN SUPERVISORY GROUPS RESIDUAL GAINS FOR LEARNING, BEHAVIORS, AND PERFORMANCE IN SUPERVISORY GROUPS PARTIAL CORRELATIONS FOR SUPERVISOR RESIDUAL GAINS viii 23 28 42 51 52 56 69 74 76 104 107 109 111 112 114 117 119 TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE III-9 III-10 III-11 III-12 III-13 III-14 III-15 III-16 III-17 IV-1 CORRELATION MATRIX FOR LEARNING AND REACTIONS IN TRAINED SUPERVISORS GROUPS MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR REACTIONS OF TRAINED SUPERVISORY GROUPS SUPERVISOR TRAINERS CLASS (1) AND MANAGERS CLASS (2) CORRELATIONS OF REACTIONS WITH VDL, SELF ESTEEM AND POWER GROUP CHARACTERISTICS FOR MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GROUPS MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE MIDDLE MANAGER GROUP MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR REACTION AND POWER DATA FROM MIDDLE MANAGERS CORRELATION MATRIX OF LEARNING AND BEHAVIORS FOR MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS MIDDLE MANAGERS LEARNING AND BEHAVIORS RESIDUAL GAIN SCORE ANALYSIS LEADERS AND MANAGERS RESIDUAL GAIN SCORES FOR LEARNING AND BEHAVIORS LEARNING AND BEHAVIOR MEASURES OF APPLIED LEARNING TRAINING ix 121 123 124 127 128 130 132 133 134 145 CHAPTER I RESEARCH AND HYPOTHESES INTRODUCTION Training programs for supervisors utilizing "behavior modeling" or "applied learning" components have become quite popular. One author estimates that 500,000 supervi- sors have been trained in this technique (Robinson, 1980). Published scientific research indicates this technique produces positive results in changing supervisory behavior as well as counseling behavior (Decker, 1979). The train- ing is based on tested psychological theory, namely, social learning theory (Bandura, 1967, 1977). The training is easy for supervisors and adults to comprehend because very little theory is discussed and the desired behaviors are specifically described (Kraut, 1976). The course instruction is instructor-intensive, with l-2 instructors working with six to 12 people per session. However, there are three factors which have not been fully explored: (1) scientific research with middle- and upper-level managers; (2) substitution of line managers for professional trainers; and (3) self-esteem and managerial support as moderators of the training's effectiveness. The purpose of the research is to investi- gate methods which increase the effectiveness of the training in the work setting. The purpose of this research was to develop an ap- plied learning training program which would include first level supervisors and middle managers at the second level (2L), third level (3L) and fourth level (4L), and then measure the results of the training. Results were mea- sured using the four criteria for evaluating training: (1) the reactions of the trainees to the training; (2) learning the content of the training program; (3) changing behaviors as a result of the training; and (4) improving effectiveness as a result of the training (Kirkpatrick, 1976). The training was conducted in two steps. During the first step the middle managers (2-4L managers) were trained by professional trainers; the second step involved training supervisors in two separate classes, one con- ducted by the same professional trainers who taught the middle managers (trainers' class), and the other was taught by six of the managers from the middle managers' class (managers' class). The trainees were given measures to determine their perceptions of the power of the trainers in each class so the different levels of per- ceived power could be examined. In addition there were control groups of 2-4L managers and supervisors who re- ceived no training. The questions which were explored in this research were: (1) was the training more effective for the trained supervisors in both classes when they were compared to the control groups; (2) was the training more effective when conducted by the 2-4L managers when compared to the train- ing by the professional trainers; (3) was the training effective for the 2-4L managers who received the training when they were compared to the 2-4L managers who received no training; (4) were the supervisors of the 2-4L managers who received the training more effective than the supervi- sors of the 2-4L managers who received no training. The trainees were also given measures of self-esteem and mana- gerial support to determine whether these variables would moderate the effects of the training. Since the training was based on social learning theory (SLT), the following section reviews the literature on SLT, followed by a review of behavior modeling train- ing. A summary of the hypotheses concludes the chapter. 5 . 1 I . Tl Social learning theory was developed by Albert Bandura and is based on extensive research (Bandura, 1969, 1977). The theory states that psychological functioning can be understood through the interaction of a person's individual characteristics, the environment surrounding the individual, and his/her behaviors in that environment. It is a continuously interacting relationship. Within this framework, the individual's observational learning goes on through vicarious, symbolic and self- regulatory processes. In the vicarious process, the person observes the behavior of another person (i.e., model) and relates those behaviors to consequences for him/herself. The observer actually makes two judgements of the observed behaviors: first, whether it is possible to imitate the behaviors; second, whether it is advisable to imitate the behaviors given the likely consequences. If the model is receiving rewards or reinforcements for the behaviors and the observer thinks he/She would receive them also, he/she will probably imitate the behavior. If on the other hand, he believes that imitating the behav- iors would result in negative consequences, the behaviors may be learned but not repeated, e.g., if the model is punished, the observer may be able to imitate the behav- iors, but will studiously avoid them. The symbolic processes are the words and pneumonic codes people use to provide instructions or memorize lists or directions. The symbolic capability of people allows them to retain the learned behaviors and reproduce them at a later date. In fact, behavior modeling training is based on first describing the desired behaviors, and then having a model perform the behaviors for people to ob- serve. This uses both the symbolic and vicarious rein- forcement processes. The third process people use is self-regulation, where the individual can set goals for him/herself, or provide self-reinforcement (e.g., go home only after a person's work has been finished). Self-regulation assumes a person is autonomous, interacting with the environment to set up rewards to reinforce desired behaviors. Thus the individual is seen as interacting with his/her envi- ronment and not just responding to its reinforcements, rewards, and punishments. This description is similar to interaction psychology (Terborg, 1980). Social learning theory places emphasis on the cogni- tive learning capabilities of the individual. People are continuously observing other behaviors within their sur- roundings, codifying them in their memory, determining the behavior's value to themselves, and behaving in a way which they feel will generate rewards and reinforcements for those behaviors. The continuous observation is com- posed of a complex set of factors which influence the degree of learning by the observer. Bandura (1977) has established a diagram of the process which he labels the “observational learning process.“ (see Figure 1). The components of observational learning are described below. Figure l Observational Learning Process ATTENTIONAL RETENTION MOTOR MOT IVAT ION PROCESSES PROCESSES REPRODUCTION W The process which the Observer uses to understand the model's actions or behaviors is called Observational learning. The process is composed of four steps: (1) focusing attention on the behaviors (attentional); (2) retaining the behaviors (retention); (3) rehearsing the behaviors with feedback (rehearsal); and (4) being moti- vated to perform the behaviors (motivation). Acquisition of the skills by the Observer occurs in the attentional, retentional, and rehearsal stages, but use Of the skills is determined by the reinforcement stage. All four steps in the process must be present for the individual to Observe, acquire and use the behaviors, because each phase contributes something unique. Each phase of the process is described in greater detail below. Attentional The attentional phase refers to the characteristics of the model and the Observer which cause the Observer to notice the model's behaviors. In a training program several characteristics of both the model and the observer could be expected tO be significant. The Observer's friendship with the model, the frequency of the behaviors, the Observer's perception of the functional value of the behaviors, and the individual characteristics of the model (e.g., status, power) all will contribute to the likeli- hood that the behaviors will be imitated. The Observer's past reinforcement and the perceptual biases of the Ob- server at the time are also important. Research has generally found the model's characteris- tics to be more important than the Observer's characteris- tics (for review of the literature see Bandura, 1969, 1977; Flanders, 1968; and Wodarski and Bagarozzi, 1979). Research predicts imitation is more likely where the model confers symbols of status, is physically attractive, com- forting, possesses desirable characteristics of social power, has control over past, present, or future re- sources, and/or is similar to the observer with respect to socio-economic status, age or sex. Results are not as clear about the impact of the Observer's view Of his/her own competence on the observed task, nor about the friend- ship between the Observer and the model. MW. The studies of the model's characteristics in the SLT literature can be classified into French and Raven's (1965) six sources Of power: legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, status, and refer- ent. The research has well established that legitimate, reward, coercive, status, and referent power contribute to the model's effectiveness, but the research on power has been confounded by the self-esteem Of the Observer. The next section discusses the influence Of the various forms of the model's power, followed by a section on the in- fluence of the Characteristics of the Observer. Legitimate, Reward and Coercive Power. These sources of power have usually been combined by researching the effects of modeled behavior from adults who have control over future resources valuable to the observer. The model's power has been legitimate (parent or teacher) but also frequently included the ability to give rewards and reinforcements or punishments. A child identified with the more aggressive parent (legitimate and coercive power) when there was low warmth by both parents (Heatherington and Frankie, 1967). Adults who were identified as a child's future teacher and who provided rewards was more effective as a model than an adult who was not identified as being a future teacher and who was not rewarding (Grusec and Mischel, 1966). So combinations of reward, coercive and legitimate power have been shown to make models more effective. Other research indicates that reward power by itself is an important factor. Two studies of models with the ability to confer group social status demonstrated that these models were imitated more than other children Lippitt, Polanski, and Rosen (1952). They studied the social behaviors and rela- tionships in three boys' camps and concluded that the boys were likely to imitate those members that they perceived to have the most social power. The boys imitating the models wanted the models to reward them with high social status in the group. In another study, trainers were given control over the rewards they could provide the trainees (Justis, Redia, and Stephans, 1978). The study gave the trainers the authority to reward performance for one group with an incentive system, another with a bonus, and a third group with a salary. The incentive performers were the better Of the three groups. The research demon- strated that reward power had an effect, but the results could be explained by incentive systems instead of the reward power of the trainer. Further research is needed to clarify the respective contributions. Nonetheless, power to reward and reinforce or punish or coerce appears to significantly increase the importance Of the model's behaviors to the observer. Status Power. A person with apparent status will more likely be imitated than one without the status. Strangers were more likely to follow a model wearing a business suit across the street against a red light than 10 they were a person dressed in denims (Lefkowitz, Blake, and Mouton, 1955). The study in the boys camp also demon- strated that those boys who were given higher status in the group were imitated by the other boys (Lippitt, et al., 1952). Managers, in an organization with higher status such as seniority, or a high status job, e.g., Coordinator of Career Planning, would be expected to be effective models for supervisors and trainees. Expert Power. The research on expert power is more complex. Essentially, research shows that a model's expert power contributes to his/her effectiveness, but is even more effective when the observers are either low in confidence pertaining to a certain task or low in self- esteem. Researchers manipulated the observer's perception of the model's competence in a series of studies (Mausner, 1953, 1954a, 1954b; Mausner and Bloch, 1957). Overall, the results indicated that the greater the competence of the model compared with that of the observer, the greater the likelihood the observer would imitate the model. How- ever, these results should be viewed with caution. Obser- vers paired with an "expert art director' were likely to imitate the expert, but so were Observers matched with “just another student." (Mausner, 1953). Both groups of observers were significantly different from a group whose participants worked alone, but the observer's groups were 11 not significantly different from each other. The exis- tence of a partner was more important than whether the partner was an expert. Observers given negative feedback during a study measuring lines were more likely to agree with a model than Observers given positive feedback (Mausner, 1954a). This study should be identified as a study Of the self- confidence of the Observer although it is referred to as a study of the competence of a model (Flanders, 1968 and Bandura, 1977). The last two studies did demonstrate that the “success“ of the model in earlier trials influenced the Observer to imitate the model (Mausner, 1954b and Mausner and Bloch, 1957). A study of fifth graders essen- tially replicated these last two findings using grades as a measure of competence (Gelfand, 1962). Finally, video— taped models who were competent increased the effective- ness of the training (Justis, et al., 1978). A videotaped model demonstrated high competence in a sorting task by successfully completing the task on videotape while another videotaped model unsuccessfully demonstrated the task. The models who demonstrated the task successfully were the more effective models, indicating the perceived competence of the model may not be as much a factor as the actual quality of the modeling. The better models pro- duced better results by modeling better behaviors more frequently. Considering all of the above studies, it 12 seems apparent the competence of the model does increase his/her effectiveness but that the self assessments of competence of the observer also plays a significant part. (See the section on observer characteristics for a further discussion) Consideration (referent power) by the supervisor was found to be another important variable of the model in- fluencing employee values (Weiss, 1977, 1978). Regardless of level of self-esteem, the employees shared similar values with considerate supervisors. In summary, models with greater power which include French and Raven's (1965) five sources: legitimate, referent, status, reward, coer- cive and expert, would be seen as increasing the effec- tiveness of behavior modeling training. W Observers who lack self- esteem, are dependent, or have been rewarded in the past for copying behavior are more likely to imitate a model. Fifth graders who had been made to fail at a previous task were more likely to imitate a model than observers who had succeeded at the task (Gelfand, 1962). High self-esteem naval cadets resisted imitation significantly more than low self-esteem cadets in a study of 73 participants (deCharms and Rosenbaum, 1960). Numerous other studies have found an inverse relationship between social confor- mity and self-esteem (see Gergen and Bauer, 1962). The 13 previously reviewed work by Mausner and Weiss directly measured the confidence of observers in tasks with other people. Weiss measured the supervisor-employee relation— ship and found low self-esteem employees imitated their supervisors if they felt their supervisors were either successful or competent. High self-esteem employees did not imitate their supervisors' values even if they did view them as successful or competent (1977, 1978). Still another observer characteristic is his/her history of past reinforcement. As reviewed in Mausner (1953, 1954a, 1954b) and Mausner and Bloch (1957), the past reinforcement of the Observer directly related to Observer imitation. Further, observers in a small group who were immediately rewarded for imitating the behavior of a model in the group were more willing to repeat that behavior (Schein, 1954). This underlines the point that one of the most potent considerations for imitating behav— ior is the perceived consequences for the observer. If imitation is rewarded or has been rewarded in the imme- diate past, imitation of behavior will continue. To summarize the attentional phase of the observa- tional learning process, the perceived power of the model, the self-esteem of the observer, and the consideration of the model will be significant indicators of imitation of behavior. An organization which maximizes the power of 14 the trainers, has reinforced participants in the past, and has models high in consideration should have more effec- tive training programs. Low self-esteem among the train- ees will make the programs even more effective. Retention The second step in the Observational learning process is the retention stage. This stage involves both cogni- tive and physical learning, where cognitive learning is defined as mental understanding and ability to recall the learning, and the physical learning is the ability to actually physically perform the behaviors. A person may be able to watch and understand someone working with an employee on a disciplinary problem, but may have great difficulty actually going through the steps with an em- ployee himself. It is similar to knowing what should be done to return a tennis serve, but having a great deal of difficulty in doing it. Cognitive learning involves symbolically coding in- formation, organizing it for recall, or mentally rehears- ing the behaviors. For example, Decker (1979, 1980, 1981) showed that when participants were given pneumonic codes to help memorize modeled behaviors, and were asked to mentally rehearse them, the participants generalized the behaviors to other settings better than participants who were not given the codes nor the mental rehearsal instruc- 15 tions. In another experiment in assertiveness training, rehearsal out loud with coaching was more significant than either rehearsal or coaching alone (McFall and Twentyman, 1973). Stone and Vance (1976) also found that combina- tions of instructions, modeling, and rehearsal were more effective than any variable alone. The implications for training are clear: the training program can be enhanced where instructions, modeling, rehearsal and coaching are all included in the design of the program. Furthermore, the instructions can be enhanced where the participants are given pneumonic codes to improve recall. Motor Reproduction Processes The motor reproduction process is the process where a person performs a behavior and then receives feedback on the performance. The capability to physically perform the behaviors is the first obvious requirement. However, the accuracy of self-feedback and feedback from others are paramount to actually performing the behaviors in a simi- lar fashion. Videotape has been introduced in a number of training programs because of the accuracy of the feedback to the participants (Byham and Robinson, 1976; O'Connor, 1979). No studies have been found or were reported in the literature reviews, which focused on the specific motor 16 reproduction steps. However, a significant number have concentrated on the effect of reinforcement or punishment. Motivational Processes The attention, retention, and motor reproduction steps are essential for the individual to acquire the behaviors, but the last step is essential for the behav- iors to be reproduced at a later date. There is consider- able evidence tO demonstrate that external, vicarious and self-reinforcement contribute significantly to the use of the behaviors. Flanders' (1968) review of imitation con- cluded: (l) contingent reinforcement (tied directly to the behavior) produces strong results; (2) vicarious rein- forcement (reinforcing the model) also produces strong results in direct relation to the size of the reward; (3) partial contingent reinforcement also produces increased imitation; (4) both partial and continuous reinforcement produce greater amounts of imitated behavior if the rein- forcement is based on the behavior and not "success.” This is identical to the findings in goal setting theory where better results are achieved for specific goals com- pared to being "successful" (Locke, 1976). (5) modeling with no reinforcement will increase imitation, but the results are not as strong as with reinforcement. There is also evidence that self-administered reinforcement is effective. When children self-administered reinforcement 17 by determining their own rewards for completing a task, they created significantly more modeled behavior than a control group (Bandura and Perloff, 1969). Limited re- search in the training literature supports the importance of reinforcement. The often cited training studies at International Harvester provide evidence that supervisors will not use learned skills in the workplace if the cli- mate is not favorable (Fleishman, Harris, and Burtt, 1955, and Harris and Fleishman, 1955). A study of the implemen- tation of training skills for Indian managers indicated the managers used the skills only where the organizational climate was favorable (Baumgartel and Jeanpierre, 1972). Still further evidence that vicarious reinforcement is effective comes from a study of supervisory effective- ness (O'Reilly and Weitz, 1980). The authors found that supervisors who frequently used sanctions against marginal performers produced better sales results and fewer employ- ee and customer complaints. The authors point out that Operant conditioning theory predicts punishment will not lead to any increased behaviors for the individual, but they argue that punishment of the marginal performers in a unit may cause others in that unit to avoid the same behaviors. SLT argues punishment plays a lead role in group behavior: unpunished behaviors may well be imitated and therefore reduce the unit's performance; punished 18 behaviors will be inhibited and usually replaced by un- punished behaviors which will increase performance. This concludes the review Of the current research on the Observational learning process and its four compo- nents: attention, retention, motor reproduction, and motivation. The first three were seen as important compo- nents to learn the behaviors, while the last one was described as important to the imitation of the skills. Behavior modeling training which increases the effective- ness of those components should increase the effectiveness of the training. 2.] I' H 3 1 Another facet of the research in behavior modeling is that using film instead of live models is equally effective (Bandura, 1969, 1977). Participants in two groups that were instructed to observe either live models or film models were significantly more aggressive than a control group, but not significantly different from each other (Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 1963). The results were subsequently replicated (Bandura, et al., 1967; Hill and Lieber, 1967; Klinger, 1967). The only exception to these results was found in a study of videotaped group leaders presented as models in comparison with live group leaders. (Walter, 1976). The participants who viewed the videotaped leaders were more 19 effective than the participants who viewed the live leaders. However, the videotapes were presented to the participants as clear, overt models of role behaviors, while the “natural" groups were Observed by the partici- pants without any advanced emphasis on the targeted behav- iors Of the leaders. The researchers tested whether the participants would observe the behaviors of the live models without any advanced emphasis. Walter believes the live models would have been equally effective if the participants had been instructed in the same manner as groups who viewed the videotapes. The substitution of live models for film models should have no effect on the training if both the models and their targeted behaviors are identified in advance. El'li ES'JI 'Tl Social learning theory has been used to teach new behaviors to adults in clinical counseling and training (Bandura, 1969, 1977; Decker, 1979; Wodarski and Bagarozzi, 1979). Assertiveness behavior has been in- creased in college students with covert modeling (Kazdin, 1975), and with modeling, rehearsal, and coaching in four studies by McFall and Twentyman (1973). Thirty-six female undergraduates overcame extreme unrealistic fears of snakes when they viewed models who exhibited behaviors 20 overcoming the same fears (Meichenbaum, 1971). Experimen- ters were given assistance more frequently by 135 male college students if a model was Observed also giving assistance (Rosenbaum, 1956). Participants exhibited more empathic responses in interviews when the participants were trained with instructions, modeled behaviors, and rehearsal than any one variable alone (Stone and Vance, 1976). Social learning theory has only recently begun to find application in the organizational behavior literature even though it has been researched extensively in the clinical and counseling literature. Davis and Luthans (1980) presented SLT as an approach tying together the various elements of organizational behavior and call for research on its potential use for self-management tech- niques. A similar article argues self-management can provide greater insight into leadership research (Manz and Sims, 1980). Empirical work in SLT relating specifically to vicarious learning is summarized in yet another article by Manz and Sims (1981). They review the literature and describe two areas of management where the modeling can be used most effectively: in day-to-day modeling, and in training. In day-to-day modeling, two studies discussed earlier have been reported supporting SLT in industrial settings (Weiss, 1977; O'Reilly and Weitz, 1980). While both these studies were able to use social learning theory 21 to explain their results (imitated work values Of subor- dinate foremen, Weiss; the impact of sanctions on unit performance, O'Reilly and Weitz), they did not test actual changes in supervisory behavior through modeling training. Summary Social learning theory is a comprehensive description of the processes which people use to understand and inter- act with their environment and can be used to understand learning in an organizational environment. The observa- tional learning process has four stages which are suppor- ted by extensive research. The attentional phase des- cribes the importance of the perceived power of the model and the self-esteem and prior reinforcement of the Obser- ver. The retention, motor rehearsal, and reinforcement phases of the model are also well researched and provide important techniques to improve training programs. Social learning theory has been used to change behavior in numer- ous situations with adults and children, and has been useful in explaining why punishment has increased the effectiveness of work units. Another area where the theory has been effectively used is behavior modeling or as it has also been labeled, in the scientific literature, applied learning training programs, where the training is based on social learning theory. 22 E 1' i I . T . . Applied learning training focuses on behavioral changes in management training programs (Goldstein, 1974, 1980; Goldstein and Sorcher, 1974; Latham and Wexley, 1981). Training has traditionally concentrated on atti- tudes which are difficult to measure and do not necessar- ily produce significant changes in behavior and perfor- mance (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick, 1970). Applied learning, on the other hand, focuses on behaviors and lets attitudes develop through the mastery of the steps (Kraut, 1976). Applied learning consists of four steps which are closely linked to social learning theory: (1) modeling the behaviors; (2) rehearsing the behaviors; (3) socially reinforcing the participants after rehearsal; and (4) providing learning experiences which transfer the training from the classroom to the job (Goldstein and Sorcher, 1974). (See Table I-l for a summary of the similarities and differences between SLT and applied learning training.) CQERQBQDLS Modeling The modeling step is designed after the attention phase in the observational learning process. It begins 23 Table 1-11 Observational Learning Processes Compared With Applied Learning Training Components E 1' i I . T . . 0] Ii 1 I . E . Presentation of a model . Model and Observer . Providing summarized characteristics learning points of the behaviors .Retsntion_£rocesses . Symbolic coding . Cognitive organization .Rehearsal .Retention . Behavioral or covert . Symbolic rehearsal rehearsal of the . Motor rehearsal modeled behavior . Physical capabilities . Availability of component responses 5 . 1 E . E | E l I' . Feedback and rein- . Symbolic coding forcement, coaching, . Cognitive organization rehearsal . Self-observation . Accuracy of feedback M l' l' . External reinforcement . Vicarious reinforcement . Self-reinforcement .Ratention . Expanding rehearsal . Cognitive organization to various job . Symbolic rehearsal experiences . Motor rehearsal . Self-Observation . Accuracy feedback .Motixation . Self-performance 1Adapted from Bandura, 1977, and Manz and Sims, 1981. 24 with a leader describing the targeted behaviors followed by a carefully chosen model demonstrating a mastery per— formance. The model is similar in appearance to the targeted participants. Applied learning literature de- scribes the used of videotaped or filmed models primarily, because of several advantages: they are more consistent, can be reused, and are portable. The modeling is fre- quently accompanied with handouts summarizing the behav- iors and then the behaviors are modeled again (Decker, 1981; Goldstein and Sorcher, 1974; Latham and Saari, 1979; Wexley and Latham, 1982). Behavioral Rehearsal In order to aid the trainee in retention, the second step requires the participants to practice the modeled behaviors. Various approaches are used here such as let- ting a pair of participants practice before a group, followed by group discussion about the effectiveness of the practice, or breaking into dyads or triads and having the people practice with each other assuming the role of supervisor and subordinate (or observer if triads are used). The key is to give all participants sufficient practice to acquire the skills either directly or vicar- iously. The participants are instructed to play them- selves as they rehearse the managerial behaviors, while one Of the participants role plays the subordinate. The 25 role-playing participants are thus experiencing the use of the behaviors, but also re-observing them while in a different role. Social Reinforcement The third step provides feedback and reinforcement to the individuals about their performance. This process provides positive feedback so that participants will know what they have performed well and what behaviors they could use to perform even better (Goldstein and Sorcher, 1974; Latham and Saari, 1979; Wexley and Latham, 1982). Since virtually all the behaviors typically taught are easily physically performed, the important part is to provide accurate feedback and enough reinforcement to ensure their use in the future. The trainers play a key role here in using positive reinforcement and feedback. Transfer Training This step requires the use of rehearsals and discus- sions which increase the likelihood that the behaviors will be used on the job. The more situations which can be discussed, the more the participants will generalize to other aspects of their job. The first modeling Of behav- iors usually consists of a fairly simple set of behaviors, while subsequent rehearsals incorporate more elaborate, 26 complex, or emotional situations to simulate on—the-job conditions. Examples include making subordinates more hostile or having someone assume the role Of a union leader in the discussion of a disciplinary action. The trainees gain more skills in the process and begin to see additional situations where they could use the training to their benefit. Those benefits may include external rein- forcements by their managers or self-reinforcements in controlling or resolving interpersonally difficult situa- tions. . . g9QiéliLfaxnlgg—Ig£9¥¥rand Table I-l summarizes the different steps in applied learning and the different phases of the Observational learning process which are included in each step. The applied learning steps do not correspond exactly but every step in the observational learning process is included in a full program of applied learning. Each step of the applied learning is necessary to encompass all of the Observational learning processes. Applied learning is seen by several reviewers as grounded in a sound theory Of how people can learn new behaviors (Goldstein, 1980; Manz and Sims, 1980; Wexley and Latham, 1982). 27 E 1i i I . S . I'E' 1'! I A search of the literature revealed six studies of applied learning in industrial settings. Four of them were contained in a symposium edited by Kraut (1976): Burnaska; Byham, Adams, and Higgins; Moses and Ritchie; and Smith (See Table I-2). A fifth study by Latham and Saari (1979) extended the design of the evaluation of the research, and Decker (1979, 1980, 1981) tested components of the process. A seventh study was described in an unpublished manuscript and Q;ganizatignal_nynamigs but it was part Of an organizational development effort (Porras and Anderson, 1981, 1982 and Porras, Patterson, Kerry, Maxfield, Bies, Roberts, and Hargis, 1980). The results are consistently positive even though the first four have methodological weaknesses. Each of the six articles is reviewed briefly below, followed by a critique of the studies and a summary of the organizational development program. Kraut Studies (1976) MW (1976) .-Applied learning training had been conducted on 1,200 managers at General Electric but Burnaska's study summarized the tests on 124 of the managers. The managers supervised professional employees, but it is not clear what level employees they 2E3 uzqgouai on case “mauve uo—unuu0uoouuzu saunas can “mauve umn:09¢o~ >o>uan assay as acugoun: ooo:o»0uu«v anus» new acaoooo cu ova-onuu yo: noun Nana: >3qbu~u> uncu0ucu gun as unouuvum 0: cos» unoccuun nu u:«:0unx nanozuoa>s oauaacu0uqa uOu usaoooc o» QODDOAOu ac: can: Nana: aouvuuos uncuoucu nunoaaonas o>uuc:.0u~a use mass by coauoao. yo: can: new: made—nos guano»:— eo«u—uuuuo ac: .950uo an eouuoqou unloucau nov>o~mla vouuoauu vocab—nucu¢u on «gum: >u~c_~u> qacuoucu aquacuaaoo nauseous no: vauuom old» soon QODHOAUu yo: >uuqauuo: nunosuonas o>uaacuouqu an ac «nus. ocqaoua o~o¢ anuoc ace-nuanc— cuquue vacuum nunuuaaauxluquluauuuuuuunuuquua .aumnnquE .auOLm—s .0 A No .nouaua .uucoum .uc .ao—nna No A do .uau and! .uucuum .u: unnouu: .No A no. ..0 A no. .nuuuoa vauuuaom .u: .ao—aln .auo.om .u.: ~.u= .acnalfl .-o a no. .uuu use! A.no a «c. on. unooon< nuaauuu 44a: aqua-qua cud-«a auquuudum gonad .h=¢¢uo tauacntun 98u8~uonam ea unsung: nuouu>uooan on can .000: I sauna—u .ouoaanxu099m aqxo .ulup: .Ias>n coaxedaln non - «a uncousuomam no .n. unoccuan Idudududuudfl a dnquuduad 29 cognac 1:03 on n«oa~:u:o amuoou zuao cocqaqnnu no: nosaqcsoou nauoon cuau sum: cauaaau:«au acuoo .<. oocquOu Lea .u—m .u: :uoa nan-u .uOI on .n05 w an :ouuouuumuna nonconau :. .oun oz Ace—unauu—uun QODOOAOu cane noses oz Owen—anus museum wouuquuuo no: u QODCOQOC uo: can: guanoc any: u¢ nun>~ccn ouoou cane gov: Auchuc> accumucu fiuuuucxflul Uflfl unuucuuuu an—uud auscuoao no u—u>O~ uuuan a nuudxu coma .czsiou. louunuuom n¢h. I u .u: auscunau MOAQO DOIFO «o A NO 00 ma no nauoom soda case :ocuouuom ubu .oqm .u: ooze—Ala No an no I nauucou an. acugqauh .u. .oouh .0. huge .a. ocuduuo: .n. .oe—a sous .u. + ~oco: .<. nudauum «Hum nuuaudufl aqduud nudduudum nadfi uqdnddufl .eoacuazoo. .uho— .h=uom=m mcHuoochco 0:0 H m. m m m m. m. .Im. m H N e H H o H N Houucou o o H o a NDHHaso o o H o o o H o m monoum can mchmnousm o o o o o o H H v chcowuwm o H H H o H o o N Heuucoo o H o o q coHuoscoum HH m N N w H o o N v a H H o o H m mconH>Ha o H o o v mchHnonz o m H N o o H o N o H H o m m conH>Hn o o o H v can muccsom o m Hm q o w o o N o o H H m o o o H 4 meHumochcm IIAdMHZdu_IAGMH2du Illmwdqu Illwudqu IIAdMHZdu.IAQMquu muaafla.HAZQ. HHHNA IIZdeHuHQ wHZOIamOm Bmomlmmm mmmoMmmam mmmw¢z¢= Hm>mq 924 ZOHmH>HG\Bzszm¢me um Bzmzm>AO>ZH m824mHUHEm¢m mIHH OHDMB 57 already involved in specialized training for the super- visors. The division was included in the post-tests be- cause their specialized training was completed by that time. The Plant Manager also decided to limit the train- ing to those operations directly connected with produc- tion. This meant accounting and payroll, personnel, and industrial engineering departments were not included in the training program, as well as salaried Office personnel in production control and purchasing. This concludes the section on the overall design Of the training and the background of the corporation. The proposal, assessment, training and evaluation phases are described in the succeeding sections. RLQRQEEI An applied learning approach was proposed to the manufacturer because it met several design considerations Of the personnel managers at Corporate headquarters and the Plant. One design consideration was the need for a counseling approach between the supervisors and their subordinates. This was particularly important since the supervisors were Often not familiar with the jobs their subordinates were performing. The Plant Personnel Manager also was interested in including the middle level and lower level managers in developing more participative management styles. A strong effort to work more coopera- 58 tively with the Union Leaders and their leadership had been under way for nine months, but the supervisors had not been given any formal training. The program had to be designed SO it would complement the on-going cooperation between labor and management. In the Personnel Manager's mind this required a counseling approach between the mana- gers and subordinates. The Personnel Manager also re- quired a program which would give the supervisor a uniform method of dealing with employees during interactions rang- ing from guidance to reprimands. The Plant Council wanted a training program that had the support of middle manage- ment. A plantwide supervisory training program had never been held in the organization, although several programs had been proposed in the past. Consequently, the proposal phase was extensive in order to build lasting support. Finally, the program could not interfere with the super- visors' regular working hours, because severe cutbacks in manpower limited the flexibility in removing people from their jobs. The managers preferred a training program which would require only a few hours after each shift and could be spread out over several weeks. The proposal phase lasted four months. The Corporate Personnel Director expressed interest in the program, but indicated it first required plant management support. The Plant Personnel Manager felt it was worthwhile to pursue 59 and and accompanied this author in a discussion with the Plant Manager. His directions were to present the idea to the entire Plant Council and if they supported it, the program could be implemented. The personnel Manager recommended a team to guide the project which consisted of the plant Training Director, who reported to the Personnel Manager, the Manager of Organizational Development, who reported to the Plant Manager, and this author. Presenta- tions were given to the other eight managers of the Plant Council in several meetings, asking for their support. The managers unanimously expressed support for the pro- gram, although one reservation was expressed by several managers: with so many changes going on in the plant, they were concerned that this training would be putting one too many burdens on the supervisors. The plant was simultaneously undergoing several major upheavals. The company had announced a $43 million mod- ernization project which was being physically implemented since its start in January 1981. It meant new machinery, new processes, and new plant layout all of which occupied major new portions of all the managers' times The plant manager and his Plant Council also were continuing to implement a joint, cooperative effort with their labor unions to reduce the conflictual bargaining practices that had characterized their relationship. The plant moderni- zation‘had marked a significant milestone in convincing 60 the corporate and parent company management that a harmon- ious relationship had been established, but that also occupied significant portions of management time. Finally, the plant was experiencing the manpower cutbacks and volatile schedule changes exacerbated by the depression in the automotive industry. Schedules were being dramatically changed on short notice; manpower had been out several times until the plant was now Operating with about forty percent of their peak employment; and they were continuing to operate at a loss, with increasing pressure from the corporate and parent management to cut those losses even further. In the context of all these pressures, the Plant Council felt it was important to provide the supervisors with a training program which allowed them to cope with their changing environment more effectively. The 4L managers agreed to cooperate to the best Of their ability and time. The initial round of presentations was followed with a detailed letter and proposal which outlined the process of the training program (see Table II-2). The proposal outlined the assessment phase, the training phase, and the evaluation phase. The role of the managers at all levels was explained and their support and pledges of cooperation were again received. .At this stage the formal proposal was given the plant manager to prepare a budget authoriza- 61 tion for the professional costs and the overtime authori- zations. A corporate directive occurred at this time to conserve cash because of the automotive depression, and this combined with vacations caused a three week delay in receiving approval to proceed. The Plant Manager played a facilitative and suppor- tive role in several respects. First, he placed full responsibility on his Personnel Manager to complete the program and authorized the resources to complete it. Secondly, he expressed his support to the managers on his plant staff in writing and in person at the appropriate stages of the program. He excluded one division from the training because of their involvement in other programs. Finally, be reviewed the learning test and answered each of the questions in a verbal interview with this author. The test was modified as a result of his input. He did not directly participate in the training, assessing, or evaluating, nor did his staff evaluate or assess him in any way. The training team, consisting of the Manager of Organization Development, the Training Director and the author, prepared all the training manuals, selected the model films, and conducted the training programs which were led by trainers. The Manager of Organizational Development Manager was a former industrial engineer and a supervisor in another plant of the parent company. In 62 addition, he had served as a personnel manager for approx— imately one year in a 150 employee plant which had been closed temporarily; He had been appointed to his new position in February of 1981. He reported to the Plant Manager as a staff manager with no personnel reporting to him. The Training Director had been responsible for all training in the plant but had been unable to gain approval and fully implement a training proposal for all super- visors in the past five years. To his knowledge there had never been any program given to all the supervisors. He had made several proposals but they had never been imple- mented because of a lack of top and middle management support or economic conditions. He had been an industrial engineer at the local plants and was currently the manager of all security operations. He reported to the Personnel Manager with all hourly security employees reporting dir- ectly to him. The Personnel Director took an active role in the program by reviewing in detail the assessment instruments, approving and recommending to the Plant Manager the six modules to be used in the training, pre- viewing two of them, and Observing a practice training session conducted by the training team. He also requested to be, and was included in, the training program as an active participant. 63 W During the assessment phase the training team worked with the Plant Council to determine which training modules would be most effective. Nine applied learning modules were Obtained which had been used by Goldstein and Sorcher (1974). Modules for the training were selected by the training team after reviewing the films, developing a BOS measure which was based on the training modules, and receiving feedback from the plant staff. The BOS measures were constructed with two to four questions for each of the specific learning points in the nine modules from Goldstein and Sorcher (1974). The BOS measures also included behavioral statements about super- visory responsibilities (Dowell and Wexley, 1978). The questions for each learning point were randomly distri- buted in the scale under five skill classifications: in- terpersonal, rule explanation and enforcement, organizing and planning, job/task directions, and managerial respon- sibility. Nine managers of the Plant Council reporting to the plant manager were given copies of the BOS measures and asked to suggest changes which would make the measures relate more specifically to their plant Operations. Several questions were eliminated which emphasized theft. Terminology for managers and equipment, tools, and proces- 64 ses were changed to make the measure more relevant to the local plant. The BOS measures are descried in detail in a following section, and complete copies of the BOS meaures are included in he Appendices. The BOS measures were completed by the participants prior to the start of the training. It was not possible to determine which modules were most desirable from the BOS measures. A preliminary re- view of the data showed the modules were reported at approximately equal frequency. One major reason was that the learning points were common to several modules “L93, ask for the employeefls opinion; set a time for follow-up). Five of the Plant Council reporting to the Plant Manager also completed a questionnaire which indicated the areas of training needs they considered critical. The training team and the Plant Personnel Manager were responsible for analyzing these data and determining which modules would be presented. Time and budget constraints dictated no more than six modules be used. The critical needs questionnaire indi- cated that Welcoming a New Employee to the Job and Giving Task Instructions were not high priorities throughout the plant. The module on "Controlling Absenteeism“ was simi- lar to “Discussing Poor Work Habits“ so it was dropped. Consequently, the training contained the following six modules: (1) Motivating a Person to Problem Solve; (2) 65 Handling a Complaining Employee; (3) Discussing Poor Work Habits; (4) Discussing Potential Disciplinary Action; (5) Recognizing Employees; (6) Overcoming Resistance to Change. The modules are included in the Appendices. The managers and supervisors were told there would be training sessions in the Fall and Spring, and that people had been assigned to them on a random basis. I . . E] I . . C] i C I 1 G Supervisory Groups The research design called for analyzing the effec- tiveness of the training by using a control group design with pre-test and post-test measures. Plant management established two pre-conditions: (l) the training would be conducted with first shift supervisors to minimize disrup- tions in plant operations; and (2) the supervisors in one division would be excluded because Of an unrelated train- ing project already underway. With those pre-conditions, the remaining supervisors were randomly assigned, by a process described below, to one of three conditions: (1) trainers class; (2) managers class; or (3) pre-post control. A fourth post-test only control group was in- 66 cluded by testing the previously excluded personnel. (see Table II-3) The assignments were made to the training groups and to the pre-post control group by alternating names from an organizational chart, with minor exceptions made to accom- modate the plant Operations. Thirteen supervisors were aSsigned to each class, and twenty-two to the pre-post control group. 'The two supervisory training classes were limited to the first shift supervisors because the train- ing classes were scheduled at the end of the first shift so these supervisors could work their full Operations. Minor deviations from the random assignment were made when two pairs of managers were shuffled between groups because one pair from an area could not be in training at the same time, and the other pair had a supervisor who had an after-hour conflict. The pre-post control group included random assignments from the remaining supervisor from the first shift, and the second and third shifts. Therefore the original design had 13 people in each training class. At the end of the first week one person missed two ses- sions of the managers' class and then resigned from the company before the third one. Consequently the managers' class ended up with only 12 supervisors completing the training. .After the training was complete a second super- visor in the managers' class resigned so the post-tests only included 11 people for the management-trained class. 67 Middle Managers Groups A Machining Division was excluded originally but the supervisors and 2-4L managers associated with it were included in the design as the post-test only control group. This group included managers from two departments and the Quality Control people who worked in those areas. Fourteen supervisors were classified in this group. This is, of course, a weaker design than random assignment, but it was decided to include them, because they could assist in providing some information about the effect on the supervisors of taking the pre-tests. Twelve 2-4L managers were selected for the 2-4L (middle) management training class, thirteen for the pre-post control group and 6 were assigned to the post-test only control group. (See Table II-3) Ten managers were selected from the eight opera- tional areas by alternating names on the organizational chart. A replacement was necessary for an employee who was called out of town. The Plant Personnel Manager and the Corporate Career Planning Director were included to represent the personnel function. The Plant Personnel Manager represented the final decision maker for the com- pany in the disciplinary process, so the supervisors would see him as a high power figure» The Corporate Career Planning Director was assigned to provide equal cell sizes and functional authority when half the class was desig- 68 nated trainers for the supervisors class. That selection process is described below. Six managers from Machining Division 1 and Quality Control were included during the follow-up evaluation stages as a post-only control group. Six 2-4L managers were selected by a matching process to train the supervisors in the managers' class. They were chosen without regard to either their performance in, or support of, the training program. (See Table II-3). The matching process included balancing the number of trainees in both classes who reported to these managers. The balancing made it possible to more accurately test the hypothesis that the supervisors of the 2-4L managers who received the training were more effective than the super- visors of the 2-4L managers who did not receive the train- ing. .As a result, the 2-4L managers were chosen so they were matched by level and function and had an approximate- ly equal number of supervisors participating in the train- ing program. The result was that eleven supervisors had managers who participated as leaders in the training pro- gram, and eleven supervisor had managers who did not participate as leaders, but did participate in the middle managers training. One supervisor in each group did not have a manager participating in the 2-4L management train- ing. Table II-4 has a detailed breakdown of these report- ing relaionships. 69 Table II-4 Reporting Relationships of Supervisors and Managers in the Training Classes MIDDLE MIDDLE MANAGERS MANAGERS TRAINING CLASS PRE-TEST POST-TEST CONTROL NOT LEADERS LEADERS IQIAL SUBORDINATE SUPERVISORS WHO WERE IN TRAINING £LASSE$_________. 1. TRAINERS CLASS 6 6 1 13 2. MANAGERS CLASS 51 52 l, 111'2 11 11 2 1Excludes one supervisor who left the company during the tfaining program. Excludes one supervisor who left the company after the training program. 70 In summary, there were three groups of middle level managers. One group of 2-4L managers participated in the training (n=12); one group that served as a control group with pre- and post-measures (n=l3); and a third group that received only the post-test measures (n=6). T . . S . Middle Managers The six modules were first given to twelve 2-4L managers in three four-hour sessions, with two modules given in each session. The format for each of the train- ing sessions consisted Of the following components: (1) introduction of the topic; (2) modeling of the behaviors and key learning points on the film; (3) handing out copies of the learning points and reviewing the film again; (4) group discussion of the effectiveness Of the model and the film; (5) role playing in groups of three; (6) feedback from the trainees on the effectiveness of the module; (7) instructions to use the behaviors on at least one employee during the time before the next session; and (8) evaluation of the session. After the first training session, all training sessions were begun with a brief discussion on any feedback from the participants on the results of using the techniques or questions that they had concerning them. For example, one discussion covered when 71 to use the learning points since the incidents weren't as clear cut in the work place as they were in the training sessions. Another issue was that the learning points did not have to be used in the sequence they are given in the program, as long as all the points were covered. The classes were all conducted with the author, the Training Director, and the Manager of Organizational Development who reported to the Plant Manager. The train- ers would sit in on the role playing triads and make comments or answer questions when appropriate. Each triad would role play three versions of the same incident, so that each manager would be an employee one time, a super- visor one time, and an Observer the other time. At the end of each role play, the observer would provide feedback to the person playing the supervisor. The trainers would make comments at that time if they were also observing. After each triad had role played three times, the class would reassemble and discuss any problems or issues which might have arisen, such as what to do with a particularly difficult employee or how to handle the situation if several members of the union bargaining committee were present. 72 Supervisors Training At the conclusion of the middle management training sessions, one group of supervisors were trained in a class conducted by the same professional trainers who conducted the middle managers training. The training included the same modules and format as the middle managers training. The modules lasted two hours each and were held on Mondays and Wednesdays for a three week period. The supervisors were paid overtime to attend the training program which was held at the end of their shift. The managers class included a second group of super- visors who were trained by six of the managers from the 2- 4L manager training. The sessions conducted by the mana- gers were identical to the ones conducted by the trainers, except there was no film shown. Instead, the material from the film was role-played by two of the managers conducting the training. The learning points were handed out as in the previous classes, and then the managers role played the film material again. The supervisors were told the training in their class was different than the other supervisors' training program in order to determine the best method for future training. The author was in the back of the room at each of the training modules conducted by the managers, but did not participate in the discussion and remained busy with paperwork so that people did not 73 look to him for guidance or suggestions. The managers were given an instructor's manual and the material for the module, including the details of the role play as adapted from the film. The material was usually handed out one day prior to the start of the training, but no separate training program was held to instruct the managers in training techniques. The managers' class was conducted on Tuesdays and Thursdays during the same weeks the trainers' class was held. A description of the training modules learning points is listed in the Appendices. The learning points for the module on improving poor work habits is included in Table II-S. W E 1 l' I l i l' The evaluation of the training's effectiveness was based on the trainees' reaction to the training, the trainees' learning as a result of the training, the train- ees' behaviors as a result of the training, and the train- ees' performances. (Kirkpatrick, 1976). Several vari- ables were also measured tO determine their affect on the results of the training. The self-esteem Of the super- visors, the working relationship Of the supervisor with his manager and the perceived power of the trainers were all expected to influence the training's effectiveness. 74 Table II—S TRAINING MODULE EXAMPLE 3. . E .l. I I] E E J 1. Specifically describe to the employee what he or she did which deserves recognition and why. 2. .Thank him or her by saying how much you appreciate what he or she does. 3. (Ask the employee if there is anything you can do to make it easier for him or her to do his or her work. 4. Time for a specific follow-up meeting, if necessary. 75 The measures were collected at various times during the training. (See Table II-6) Reaction measures were col- lected during the training modules and after 16 weeks. Pre-measures and post-measures were collected for learn- ing, behaviors, and performance. The self-esteem, VDL, and power measures were collected after the training was completed and during the collection Of the post-test meas- ures. The measures and their collection schedules are summarized on Table II-6. Each type Of measure is de- scribed in the following sections arranged in chrono- logical sequence. WE As described in the assessment phase, the B08 meas- ures used two to four statements for each learning point. The questionnaires were administered at the end of a Rater's Training Workshop held two weeks prior to the training sessions for the l-4L managers. The rater's training was limited to 20-30 people in each session but follow-up sessions were held for two smaller groups until 56 managers completed the training. The workshop was based on the work of Latham, Wexley, and Pursell (1975). Videotapes of job candidates being evaluated were shown to the participants, after which the participants were asked to evaluate the candidates on a 9 point scale. The participants were then asked to explain 76 .OIHu saga a. 0:0uo oHsa nan saga» nauseous o: nouauHesH u .ouHu can» an mus-cut ass» say a as» agony-no. Dance 0:» :H saunas: H u u u v w u w x u Hogaccu uHco anon .N n u u u n a u o N u o u a Hauucou anom10ua .0 u u o a u u u q 0H NH a HH NH onuHu anon-ca: oHpoH: .n u NH a HH unaudzcu u a u a HH x NH u u Heuucou uHco anon .v u u u a HH HH oH oH NH u «H u u Hauucou uuonumun .n eN mH NH oN cH cH HH o m 9H HH NH NH nouHu nuances: .N NH NH 0 NH HH HH NH 9 HH HH HH NH NH uuuHu unocHauh .H NH NH 0 NH anauuuuuuuu mW. II uaH autos :oHa :oHa a use: can loco: nun»: u Inca Nance NuHoa m: 30H has. oHapox szoa qu¢ Inna anon :mon .oHaaHua> L a H ounHu u 9 mg: as: us: ca: as: nouns nouns »0H m > 2 2 9.. 3 NH .35: 9.1.5 can... 2:26 2...: much<¢m902 man¢H¢<> azuozumma macaw nux=muomsm cochHu man can Hoo cums cocoa mm; macaw HOuucoo umomIOHH one .H Ho. v o .. ma. v m « INN u Not a o n oH HH oo- oo No oo. oo Ho NH- NN .mmv smegma Noam 1 NH Ho: oN oH 4N Ho mN oH- mH Ha> . NH oo oo: ..oo NH oH oH oH leo szoommm I oo mH .om «.oo mo: om- .4om HNmmo Nmmomnmom . oo- oo No- ..Ho No- oH HNmmo Noammumom I oo- HN No ..om mN INHV szamq u mm oH HH oo xHao Hzmommmo . oH No ...oo HHmmo Homomumom u oo NH “Homo Hoammnmom n .«HN- HHHo Hzmama ono moomo .m.m Ho> No Nmm Nmm NH Hm Hmm Hmm HH 8 mousmmoEumom mousmmoEoum Hmmbomw MmOmH>mmmDm 2H moz¢zmommmm Gad .mmOH> I yamw «inn mm vN oH Amhv monBU Mm mm m: NA HA w HmmDOMU mmOmH>mmmDm QMZH<¢B 2H mZOHBU¢mm Qz¢ 02Hzmmq WAQQHS mom mm0H>¢mmm 92¢ 02Hzm 1.00 wken corrected for attenuation. SEW WWW Since the learning results were significant for the managers, the supervisors of the managers were examined to 135 see if they had imparted any of their knowledge to the supervisors. The supervisors whose immediate managers were trained were compared to the supervisors whose mana- gers were in the pre-post control group. No significance was found in the residual gain scores for learning. Summary The middle managers apparently learned from the training, but there was no evidence from the 808 measures that the results were translated into overt behaviors. The managers who served as leaders of the managers' class for the supervisors also did not show any significant difference in learning of behaviors, contrary to the hypo- thesis. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the train- ing for the middle managers was effective for the super- visors of the managers who received the training. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION Winn The purpose of the research was to test several hypotheses concerning variables which could improve the effectiveness of applied learning training in an indus- trial setting. The hypotheses were tested by having pro- fessional trainers first train middle (2-4L) managers. Then the professional trainers trained one supervisory class (trainers' class) and six of the trained 2-4L manag- ers trained another class (the managers' class). Control groups were established to allow comparisons for the tests of the hypotheses. The first set of hypotheses concerned the supervi- sors. It was hypothesized that the training would be effective for the trained supervisors versus control groups and the results partially supported this hypothe- sis. The second hypothesis was that the training would be more effective if it was conducted by managers of the organization compared to training conducted by profession- al trainers. The hypothesis was not supported. It was also hypothesized that the supportive relationship between 136 137 the supervisors and their managers and the self-esteem of the supervisors would effect the results of the training, but neither moderator variable predicted more effective training results. Several hypotheses concerning the middle managers were also tested, but the hypotheses were generally not supported. The training was not found to be effective when trained 2-4L managers were compared with a control group. Neither was the training effective for the 2-4L managers who were also trainers for the managers' class when they were compared with the 2-4L managers who were trained but did not conduct any training. The hypotheses were tested by the four results of training identified by Kirkpatrick (1976): (1) the per- sonal reaction of the trainees to the training; (2) the increased knowledge of the trainees; (3) the change in the behaviors of the trainees while on the job; and (4) the change in performance of the trainees on the job. Measur- ing the four types of results made it possible to examine different aspects of the effectiveness of the training which will be discussed in the following section. The four types of results provide the outline for the follow- ing discussion of the findings as they relate to applied learning training. Since applied learning training is based on social learning theory, the findings are next discussed as they relate to social learning theory. The 138 chapter will conclude with the practical and theoretical implications of the study. T"I:" Reactions There were several interesting findings related to the trainees' reaction to the training. First, the meas- ures indicated that trainees in both classes liked the training with no significant difference between the clas- ses. Second, the trainees' reactions did not significant- ly change over time. The supervisors and middle managers reacted positively to the training on measures taken during the modules themselves, at the conclusion of the training, and 16 weeks after the training. The consistent reaction is similar to the findings in the Latham and Saari study (1979). The supervisors in their study also reacted favorably immediately following the training and their reactions were not significantly different four months later.1 The material in applied learning programs 1. In fact the results are highly similar. Latham and Saari had responses averaging 1.85 immediately after- wards vs an average of 1.68 in this study. Latham and Saari had responses of 1.69 in the four month follow-up while this study had responses of 1.99. Latham and Saari's numbers were reversed for comparison. 139 is apparently appreciated by trainees as much during the training as it is after several months back on the job. There is nothing in the literature or in the defini- tion of reactions that suggests that the reactions should have increased or decreased over time. One can surmise that if the supervisors used the training and found it didn“t*work, they would be less inclined to react favor- ably at a later date. On the other hand if they did use it and it was successful they would be inclined to react more favorably. Or it may be that the training was pre- sented in such a straightforward manner that the trainees reacted favorably because they could see its potential use without having to wait and 'try it out on the job." Still another explanation why the reactions remained constant is that the trainees may have reacted to the training program by itself and not its practical use on the job. In other words, they reacted to the training separately from its practical value to them. The trainees may have reacted positively regardless of its practical value to them in their jobs because they found it entertaining, or they had a chance to get away from their work, or they were meeting with other supervisors, or they simply viewed it as a reward for their position as a manager. 80 it is not clear why their reactions to the training remained consis- tent over time but the results are consistent with the earlier findings of Latham and Saari (1979). 140 Another interesting finding concerns the importance of the reaction measures. There is an assumption based on intuitive logic that the more favorable the reaction of the trainees the more the trainees will learn (Wexley and Latham, 1982). However, the correlations between the three reaction measures and the post-measure of learning (Learn2) are not significant (Average Module Reaction: r = .01; Summary Reaction: r = .01: and Follow-up Reaction: r = .25). The findings raise the question of how important reaction measures are and what role they play in determining the effectiveness of training. The value of reaction measures has been questioned for some time (Andrews, l967aL. He reviewed reactions from training and executive development programs and found they were almost always well liked. IAndrews therefore con- cluded that they provided no real test of the value of a training program. Furthermore, Kirkpatrick indicates that the reactions are not indicators of whether any learning occurs or whether the training is used on the job. In fact there is no theoretical base connecting any of the four measures of training including reactions. Is it possible that trainees can react negatively to training and still learn from it or react positively and learn nothing? There is no theory which helps answer these questions. So, the findings are consistent with Andrews 141 findings which suggest that reaction measures usually do not differentiate effective from ineffective executive training programs. Furthermore, reaction measures do not indicate whether the trainees learned, or whether they changed their behaviors and performance on the job. Even with these criticisms of reaction measures, there are still a number of reasons why they provide useful information. Wexley and Latham (1982) cite several reasons. For example, they can maintain organizational support for training; the training staff can assess their efforts; and the training staff can evaluate the reactions of different groups of trainees. In fact, the Plant Manager and Corporate Personnel Director both reported they considered the training successful based on the actual and informal feed back they received on the train- ees' reactions. Reactions are also valuable because they can measure other useful dimensions such as those found by Andrews. He indicates that executives regard training programs as worthwhile because they widen the managem‘s perspec- tive, increase their tolerance for disagreement, and en- hance their respect for the function of management. Another significant point that he raises is that the training can provide an unmistakable signal that the style of management is changing. One of the trained 2L managers made that very point when he indicated that he felt the 142 training was worthwhile and should be continued for the rest of the supervisors. He said 'it's clear to me that this company is changing the way it handles people, and the supervisors are just going to have to learn the new ways.” That is also one of the reasons the company ini- tiated the training. All of the above implies that reaction measures should be designed to consider much broader questions in addition to whether the training was worthwhile on the job or that the trainees reacted favorably. If one of the purposes of the training is to signal a change in policy, the follow-up evaluations should include the idea of test- ing that finding empirically. If the management styles are the results of long standing practices it may take some time before the changes are observed, but communicat- ing a clear intent to change that policy is definitely the first step. The reaction measures should be designed in recognition of those factors to determine the overall effectiveness of the training. Learning The increase in learning was measured by determining what principles, facts, and skills were understood and absorbed by the trainees (Kirkpatrick, 1976). The tests should be based directly on the learning objectives of the 143 training (Wexley and Latham, 1982). The learning objec- tives in this training program were to teach supervisors and middle managers the learning points covered in the behavior modeling modules. The test consisted of inci- dents which called for responses that used the specific learning points from the modules. The incidents were written so that the responses were open ended-~idm, they asked the supervisors and 2-4L managers to respond in their own words. The incidents were not discussed during the class so the test was an external test (14%, it tested the ability of the trainees to generalize the training to other situations). The results were signifi- cant when the pre-measures were taken into consideration. The responses were rated by two raters working inde- pendently, determining whether open ended responses repre- sented the appropriate learning points. The use of open ended responses made it difficult to rate the training effectiveness because the supervisors frequently used succinct statements to describe how they would handle a situation. It was difficult to tell whether they would have used other learning points in an extended conversa- tion. Further, it was apparent that some answers reflect- ed the learning points from a different module (e.g., a supervisor would react with responses appropriate for 'DISCUSSING POOR WORK HABITS" when the incident was based on 'MOTIVATING A PERSON TO PROBLEM SOLVEJW. The inci- 144 dents were reviewed with the Manager of Organizational Development to identify ambiguous incidents. Allowances were made in the ratings for ambiguous incidents by giving partial credit for responses which were still effective approaches and which reflected learning points from one of the other modules. If the incidents had been role played with responses recorded on audio tape, most of the diffi- culties of succinct responses and ambiguous incidents would have been avoided. The other learning tests in the literature did use recorded role playing, although one paper and pencil mul- tiple choice test was also used (see Table IV-l). The multiple choice test (Latham and Saari, 1979) was also an external test because it measured incidents which were not specifically covered in the training. The other tests were role plays between the trainees and a role player either immediately after the training or up to seven months later. The literature frequently observes (ium, Latham and Saari, 1974; Moses and Ritchie, 1976: and Burnaska, 1976) that the supervisors were judged by wheth- er they covered the learning points, not whether they were in sequence or whether there were misinterpretations in the beginning of the role plays. Role playing appears to be more flexible than open ended paper and pencil exams for testing the learning results for applied learning 145 Table IV-l LEARNING AND BEHAVIOR MEASURES OF APPLIED LEARNING TRAINING .AHTHQB MEASURE EMALUAIQB .IIME .RESHLTS Burnaska, 1976 (l) Taped Role Judges 4—5 mo. Significance Plays (2) Perceptual Employees 4 mo. No signifi- Items cance Byham, Employee Judges 7 months Positive Adams, Interviews but sig not Kiggins, reported 1976 Decker, Taped Role Judges 1 week Significance 1981 Plays Decker, 1980 (l) Taped Role Judges Immediately Significance Play after (2) Taped Role Judges 1 week Significance Play Latham Paper and Judges 6 months Significance and Pencil Saari Taped Role Judges 30 months Significance 1979 Plays BOS Managers 1 year Significance Moses and Assessment Assessment 2 months Significance Ritchie Center Staff 1976 Role Play 146 training. The numbers of supervisors and 2-4L managers in this effort made role playing impractical to use, but wherever possible role playing is probably a better test of the learning. Another observation should be made. Frequently role playing is reported in the literature as testing behav- ioral changes, but it should rightfully be conceptualized as a learning measure because the behaviors are not eval- uated on the job. Kirkpatricsz definition of behavioral changes refers to evaluating training by measuring the changes of trainees behavior on the job, not in a con- trolled setting. In summary, the findings for learning in this train- ing program are consistent with the scientific literature. All of the studies in the scientific literature report positive results for the learning phases of the training. The behavior modeling training used in this training pro- gram was effective in imparting knowledge of verbal skills in interpersonal relations. The training was effective in helping supervisors acquire the knowledge of the learning principles and relate them to different situations which could occur on the job. Behavisrs On-the-job behaviors were observed by using BOS meas- ures which were based on the learning points as well as 147 eleven other external items. The results indicate that there were no behavioral changes on the job, even where there were supportive (high)‘VDL relationships between the supervisors and their managers. The findings were not interpretable for the moderating effects of self-esteem either. These results were disappointing but it should be kept in mind that not all of the results in the scientific literature found significance for behaviors back on the job. In fact only three attempted to measure changes in behavior on the job. Burnaska (1976) used employee per- ceptions but found no significance. Byham, Adams, and Kiggins (1976) used employee interviews and their results were positive, although they did not report significance. Latham and Saari (1974) did find significant differences after one year. It could be argued that the results were confounded by what is labeled 'beta change“ (Golembiewski, Billingsly, and Yeager, 1976). This would have occurred if the supervisors and 2-4L managers interpreted the BOS measures differently when they completed the post-measures than when they completed the pre-measures. For example, suppose that the supervisors and 2-4L managers were more sensitized to their behaviors as a result of the training. The sensitization would have meant that they paid more 148 attention to the percentage of time they used the behav- iors. Now suppose that they noticed they used the behav- iors less than they thought they did, but had been working to increase their frequency. ‘When they completed the BOS measures during the post-measure time period they would have reported their estimated frequency based on a differ- ent internal scale. If they felt they had increased their behaviors to the same frequency that they reported in the pre-measures, the statistical analysis would not show any significant change. The results would look like the su- pervisors' and manager‘s behaviors were not significantly different even though the supervisors would actually have increased their usage of the behaviors. However, there are several reasons why it seems more logical to conclude that the supervisors did not increase their behaviors. First, their managers did not report change in the supervisors behaviors either. It could still be argued that the middle managers had changed their perceptions equally, but that is highly unlikely. Second, both supervisors and middle managers either attended the training programs or were placed in control groups. ‘Yet the overall F tests for all the two trained and two con- trol groups were not significant for the BOS-Self measures (F a 1.63, p a .19) or the BOS-Boss measures (F a 1.92, p = .14). For a 'beta change“ to have occurred, it would be more likely that it occurred in the training groups. 149 Third, the means between the pre-post control group are not significantly different than the post-only control group for either the BOS-Self measures (t = 1.62, ms.) or the BOS-Boss measures (t = .914, n.s.). Another explanation could be that the supervisors did experience the 'beta change" and their managers did not have enough opportunities to observe the change. The persons who would have had the best opportunities to observe the changes would be the employees, so employee observations would point out whether the employees ob- served the changes. Their observations could have pro- vided additional confidence about a possible I'beta change.“ However, in light of all the above tests, it seems more plausible to assume that the behaviors did not occur on the job. The question remains: why were there no significant changes in behaviors on the job as a result of the train- ing in this study? There are several possible explana- tions related to the training itself, the trainers, the trainees, the job setting and the BOS measures. Each of these will be examined as possible explanations. First, the training may have been ineffective because of the way the training was conducted. There were several factors in the way this training program was conducted which were different from other programs which provided 150 changes on the job (Byham, et al., 1976; and Latham and Saari, 1979). The training classes were held twice a week instead of once a week (Latham and Saari, 1979), so more spacing between the modules may be important in transfer- ing the training to the job. The Byham, et al. and Latham and Saari studies were also conducted over a nine week period with nine modules instead of a three week period with six modules, so the amount of training and the length of the training may be important. .Also, this program had all the supervisors rehearsing in triads of three super- visors. The triads of supervisors worked independently instead of having all the supervisors observing a pair of supervisors role playing in front of the class. Role playing in front of the class permits the trainers to positively reinforce the behaviors and might facilitate transfer of training. Furthermore, the trainees in this training program may have spent time talking with each other in the triads and not practicing when the trainers were not observing the triads. Still another explanation could be that the trainers in this study were simply not as effective at training as other trainers. It may be that more experienced trainers could have developed examples of how to transfer the training to the job and taught positive reinforcement to the middle managers. However, it seemed that the manage- ment trainers were able to cite instances during the 151 training where the training could be used. It is also important to keep in mind that the trainees liked the training and learned from it, so perhaps the answer lies with the trainees and/or the job setting. The trainees had several characteristics which sug- gest why the training content was not observed on the job. The first is based on the fact that the majority of the trainees (four in each class) came from engineering where the supervisors have stable, long term relationships with a relatively small number of highly skilled employees. As one supervisor said in a follow-up interview, “My employ- ees and I know each other and we get along pretty well. It's true of all of us in the tool room.“ Coupled with the fact that the supervisors had high seniority and extensive management experience, it may not be surprising that there were no significant behavioral changes on the job. Still another reason for not finding significant results on the job may be that the BOS measurement was inappropriate or inadequate, even though there was pro- bably no beta change as was discussed earlier. However, Latham and Saari (1979) used a 808 measure and they did find significant results. Burnaska (1976) was unsuccess- ful using a questionnaire testing employee perceptions, but Burnaska criticized his measure because it wasn“t 152 specifically related to the learning points. The BOS measure in this study was specifically based on the learn- ing points, and yet the supervisors and middle managers still did not self-report an increase even after 20 weeks. That would tend to indicate there was no change in behav- iors, not that the measures were inadequate. In summary, there are several possible explanations for not finding the training effective in changing behav- iors on the job, but the most plausible explanations seem related to the lack of potential for reinforcement on the job due to the supervisors' bosses, their subordinates, and their ages and managerial experience. The behavioral results of this study show mixed find- ings with respect to appraisal literature. Past research has found that self-ratings are more lenient and have a low to moderate relationship with supervisors' ratings (Landy and Farr, 1980; Thornton, 1980). The present re- search indicates that the supervisors' ratings were higher than their bosses in the pre-measures (t = 3.37, p < .001). However, the post-measures were not signifi- cantly different (t :- .67, n.s.). The relationships bet- ween the supervisors and the bosses' ratings are consis- tent with past research because there is a low to moderate relationship between the self-ratings and the bosses' ratings (r a .19 on the pre-measures and r = .09 on the post-measures). The correlations for the high and low VDL 153 subgroups and the high and low self-esteem subgroups were also examined but none of the pre-measures or post- measures were significant (median intercorrelation r = .20) The friendliness of the interchange between the rater and the ratee has been studied previously. The friendship between the rater and the ratee has consistently not impacted the ratings (Amir, Kovarsky, and Sharan, 1970; Suci, Vallance, and Glickman, 1956; and Waters and Waters, 1970). The interesting point is that all these ratings investigated in previous research were given by peers, so the friendship between the boss and his/her subordinate has not been studied. This would appear to be an impor- tant area for future research which will be discussed in a later section. Performance The performance measure developed for this research was a composite measure by peers of the supervisor's ability to organize his department and achieve quality production at standard cost. The same problems that plague most efforts to establish quantifiable measures of performance plagued this effort (Latham and Wexley, 1981). It simply was not possible to develop a universal measure across the different kinds of supervisory responsibility. 154 The only study which did develop quantifiable results used plant results rather than supervisor results (Porras and Anderson, 1981; Porras, et al., 1980). These problems lead Kirkpatrick to report that there are '.. . so many complicating factors that it is extremely difficult to evaluate certain kinds of programs in terms of results. Therefore it is recommended that training directors eval- uate in terms of reaction, learning, and behaviors.“ (1976, p. 18-21). The same conclusions are drawn by Latham and Wexley (1981) and Latham, Cummings, and Mitchell, (1981). Nevertheless, economic measures should be used whenever they can be reliably obtained. The low intercorrelations between the BOS measures and the performance ratings in the pre-measures are dis- appointing, but not particularly surprising. The raters for performance were carefully guided in the rating pro- cess to make sure that they were not including any be- havioral factors in their performance ratings, because those factors would be measured by the BOS measures. The literature on leadership would also suggest that there would not necessarily be a strong relationship between the two measures. Leadership research has indicated that both consideration and task orientation are necessary for ef- fective performance (House and Baetz, 1979). Leadership research has also shown that there are many factors which 155 affect the supervisom‘s performance as a leader (Kerr and Jermier, 1978; Steers, 1977). However, one of the purposes of the research was to demonstrate training effects on all the measures of train- ing effectiveness. It was expected that training would improve supervisor effectiveness by modeling considerate ways for supervisors to work with employees on the job (e4y, problem solving, discussing poor work habits with an employee, reducing resistance to change). The training was designed to convince the supervisors that the tech- niques would be likely to succeed and that they should be used on the job. Social learning theory predicts that the supervisor will be likely to attempt the behavior if the probability of success is high (Bandura, 1977). However, in the present research, the supervisors did not report an increase in use, so there would not be any reason to expect high correlations in the post-measure period either. The other training programs which attempted to meas- ure direct performance met with equivocal success. Two studies to actually measure performance statistics were both reported by Smith (1976). He was able to show per- formance gains in sales and employee satisfaction, al- though a measure of customer satisfaction did not show significant results. While those results need to be treated cautiously as was discussed earlier, they do rep- 156 resent successful attempts to tie the training to specific performance results. The organizational development ef- fort by Porras and his associates (1980, 1981, 1982) was also successful, but that included goal setting and exten- sive training with senior level managers in each plant. Their results and the results of the present training suggest that training should be linked with goal setting and a major organizational development intervention. T . M 3 E'] The present results indicate that the training is equally effective when conducted by the managers of the organization using live modeling or professional trainers with film models. IAs a result of the design, it is not possible to analyze whether the training would have been more effective if the managers had used the films, but prior research in social learning theory would indicate that live modeling would be equally effective as films (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 1963; Hill and Liebert, 1967). One point to consider, however, is that the role modeling in the film will be perfectly reliable, while the role modeling by the managers may vary from training class to training class. This is of course one of the reasons organizations frequently use films, but a 157 well written script for the managers can lead to greater consistency and may not present any problem. The interesting question is why the power measures were not significantly different between the two training classes. One answer is that the power measure used did not place enough emphasis on legitimate, reward, or coer- cive power, which are the three key power sources that the professional trainers did not possess. Follow-up inter- views suggest that the supervisors felt that the expert and referent power of the trainers was important. During follow-up interviews in the plant after all data had been collected, one 2L manager indicated he preferred the pro- fessional trainers. In a group interview with three supervisors and the 2L manager, the 2L manager said he felt that the professional trainers were the “people ex- perts“ and he wanted to hear what they had to say, not some manager that he had to work with every day. The point being made is that the professional trainers may have been viewed as high in expert power, and therefore received an equal power score. These equal perceptions of power may have contributed to the lack of significant differences in training results between the two classes. It would have been possible to select high power managers as trainers but there were two reasons which dictated the matching assignment of management trainers. One reason was to test whether selecting managers by the 158 matching process would result in trainers who were seen as having high authority, power, and 'success'--i.e., power- ful models who would be imitated by the trainees. The difference in their positions as staff vs line managers would indicate that there would be power differences. In fact the differences between the professional trainers and the line managers fit the typical description of the differences in education, age and experience between line and staff personnel based on the research conducted by Dalton (1966). The three professional trainers had two four-year college degrees and one two-year degree compared to the two management trainers who had four-year college degrees, two who had some college, and two who had a high school degree. The professional trainers were younger than all but two of the management trainees, while the management trainees had more managerial experience than the professional trainers. So, the professional trainers had more education, were younger, and possessed less mana- gerial experience. It was expected that trainees would perceive such differences in terms of greater sources of expert, legitimate, reward and coercive power for the management trainers compared to the professional trainers. It was expected that even a matching selection of manage- ment trainers would provide more powerful models than professional trainers. 159 The second reason for the selection of management trainers was to determine the impact of being a trainer in comparison with managers who also received the training but did not serve as trainers. While no significant differences were found, it is clear from the follow-up interviews that the management trainers recognized there was an impact on them of being a trainer. One 2L manager indicated that he had problems with being a trainer. He did not get along well with some of his people, he said, because he had to “step on their toesJ' The fact was that he felt some pressure to change his behavior, even though it did not fit his personal style of leadership. It appears that managers who serve as trainers will be im- pacted by their training, but it remains for future re- search to determine the full extent. One other factor for consideration is which set of trainers the trainees preferred. Follow-up interviews suggest that the managers were preferred. One supervisor said he appreciated the chance to see the Personnel Manager in the training so he could get a chance to see how the Personnel Manager “handled things.“ Three other supervisors and one management trainer also expressed a preference for managers to serve as leaders. IHowever, two of the supervisors and the management trainer said they felt only leaders who were committed to the principles of the training should participate. One said that one of the 160 managers who did the training '. . . was only 'surface!‘ He didn't really practice it." Still another supervisor expressed concern that some of the managers who did the training did not really believe in it, but still felt managers should conduct the training. Three of them also indicated that a mixture of managers and trainers would be effective also. However, the author conducted all the interviews, so the frequent reference to a mixture may have been in deference to the interviewer. Of the seven lL-4L managers who discussed the question of who should conduct the classes, five preferred the managers, one preferred the professional trainers, and one indicated no preference. It would appear the use of managers as train- ers deserves further consideration. Mariam None of the training programs in behavior modeling have examined the impact of moderator variables on the effectiveness of the training. Yet there is evidence that training is impacted by the characteristics of the train- ees and the method of training (Wexley and Latham, 1982). One example is the Aptitude Treatment Interaction (ATI) where the training provided to an individual is based on the most appropriate techniques for each individual (Cronbach and Snow, 1969). The ATI refers to those vari- ables of the individual which affect his/her capabilities 161 to learn. However, there is still another kind of situa- tion which can impact the effectiveness of the training. What are the characteristics of the individual and his/her environment that will make the training effective after it has been learned? The present research indicates there was probably no differential ability to learn the mater- ial, but it was not possible to test the effects of changes in behaviors on the job. The degree of support from the trainee's boss as measured by the VDL model was expected to be an important factor in determining training effectiveness. The suppor- tive (high) VDL relationship is indicative of closer in- terchange between the supervisor and his manager than with a less supportive (low) VDL relationship (Danserau, Graen, and Haga, 1975; Graen, 1976; Liden and Graen, 1980). It was hypothesized that training would be more ef- fective in this kind of work environment than in one where there was less interaction and trust. The highly suppor- tive and trusting relationship that is implied by the high VDL score would suggest that the training was discussed more, there was a better opportunity to experiment with the training, and that there was more interchange about how to use it and under what circumstances. A high VDL relationship also predicts that the super- visor places higher value on rewards from his boss than a 162 supervisor with a low VDL relationship. This would indi- cate that the supervisor has a history of more past rein- forcement on the job than a low VDL supervisor. It does not mean that the particular behaviors in the training program had previously been reinforced, just that the supervisor has received more reinforcement from his boss in the past than the low VDL supervisor. The important fact is that a history of past reinforcement for an ob- server (trainee) has been shown to be a significant pre- dictor of imitated behaviors (Mausner, 1953, 1954a, 1954b, Mausner and Bloch, 1957; Scheir, 1954). This also indi- cates that low VDL supervisors would not even report attempting the behaviors because they have not had the history of job rewards which would encourage such changes in behavior. Since the results from the present study show no improvements, it casts doubt on the potential of the variable to predict effectiveness of the training. Future training studies should continue to examine this relationship to determine if it is a moderator. S . 1 I . I] E' . The training program results cast doubt on the abil- ity of social learning theory to predict behavioral changes on the job. The training is based on social learning theory and the results were positive for learning the behaviors but not in using them on the job. Social 163 learning theory predicted the training would be learned and used on the job. It also predicted that the behaviors would have been modeled back on the job even more by supervisors with a history of past reinforcement (inter- preted in this study to be high VDL) and for those super- visors with low self-esteem (Bandura, 1977, 1969). How- ever, VDL and self-esteem moderators were not effective in improving results for high VDL or low self-esteem super- visors as evidenced by the fact that the training did not produce significant effects for the trained groups as a whole. The role that reinforcement plays in the learning and modeling process is an important one and deserves further clarification. Bandura argues that reinforcement is a facilitative factor in learning, but not a necessary fac- tor. Modeling which commands attention such as that available in a mandatory training class will enable learn- ing to occur even without prior notice that the modeling behaviors will be reinforced. Further the learning may or may not result in modeling the behaviors at a later time. In the present research, the supervisors who received the training demonstrated increased learning but did not use the behaviors. The trainees acquired a set of skills and demonstrated them in test situations, but that represents no assurance that the learning will be used. 164 Bandura (1977, 1969) uses a model of the observa- tional learning process which has four components that predict effective modeling. The first is the attentional component which predicts that characteristics of the model and characteristics of the observer (trainee) will influ- ence the effectiveness of the modeling. Bandura argues that this process deals with the acquisition of the mod- eled behaviors. The literature indicates that the past history of the trainee will be an important characteristic in the acquisition of the skills. The results of this research indicate that the history of past reinforcement played no role in the acquisition of the the skills. Learning was significant for both high and low VDL super- visors. The past reinforcement appears to have greater influence in the motivational component of the observa- tional learning process, but that is in the usage phase of the process, not the acquisition phase. It appears that the past reinforcement of the observer (trainee) is not an effective predictor of acquisition, and this study casts doubt on its ability to predict usage of the modeled behaviors. Social learning theory predicted that usage of the behaviors would increase if there was a vicarious, self-, and/or direct reinforcement for using the behaviors on the job. The question remains why there were no behavioral changes when social learning theory predicted there would 165 be. The answer may be that social learning theory is limited in its ability to predict behavioral changes on the job for adult supervisors as a result of a twelve hour training program. McGehee and Tullor (1980) have cau- tioned that behavioral modeling has primarily been used with children who are more impressionable than adults and with those adults who desire a behavioral change (e.g., to overcome a phobia regarding snakes). For those adults with high seniority or supervisory experience there may be several factors which cast doubt on social learning theory's ability to predict changes in behavior. Supervisors may have established deeply rooted self- perceptions based on the behavioral styles of leadership which they are using (Bem, 1972). A change in behaviors may first require a new self-perception which adults are resistant to make. Second, behavioral changes are often deeply imbedded over thousands of hours of experience and already provide reinforcement to the supervisor through confirmation of their self-perception or in success on the job. The established patterns of reinforcement are diffi- cult to overcome, particularly if there are no established patterns of reinforcement for the new behaviors. The present reinforcement patterns in an ongoing plant with high seniority supervisors make it difficult to change 166 behaviors in return for on unestablished pattern of social reinforcement. These factors suggest that the role of rehearsal in the observational learning process needs to be expanded when it is applied with adults. More rehearsal outside the training may be required to encourage and sustain supervisors' efforts to change their behaviors on the job. For example, Wexley and Nemeroff (1975) used a combination of checklists and coaching techniques on the job to en- hance the effectiveness of a training program. The impli- cations section discusses the suggestions for future training research which emanate from this study. The purpose of this discussion is to indicate that social learning theory may require further elaboration to in- crease its ability to predict changes in behavior on the job. The ability to test the effectiveness of the line managers as higher power figures was thwarted by the fact that the trainers of the two classes did not differ in perceived power, and that the results for the trained versus control groups did not show any significant differ- ence for any variable except learning. Power was held constant to see if the learning results were influenced by the power of the trainees, but there was no change in significance. 167 As far as the relationship of power with other meas- ures of training effectiveness are concerned, power was significantly correlated with reactions, but not with behaviors or performance. The more powerful the trainees were perceived, the more positive the reaction of the trainees although it is also possible that the positive reactions led to the perception of high power of the trainers. One could presume that trainers who had power over supervisors behaviors and performance on the job could also increase the effectiveness of the training. Power may well be an effective factor for training but probably only in the area of usage and not learning. It remains for a future research effort to clarify its impor- tance. Ii 'l I' The primary limitation of the present study is the method for statistically analyzing the results. Under normal circumstances the use of multivariate analysis of variance or covariance would have been recommended (Huck and Maclean, 1975 and Maxwell and Howard, 1981). However, there were several problems which led to the use of cor- relational analysis instead. First, there were pre-test differences in the groups on variables which were to be effected by the treatments, which precludes the use of analysis of covariance (Lord, 1963, 1967, Cook and 168 Campbell, 1979), even under the less restrictive assump- tions proposed by Overall and Woodward (1977). Frankly, it was not possible to run MANOVA or MANCOVA because the missing data was treated with list-wise deletion which made the calculations impractical. List-wise deletion meant that any supervisor or manager with missing data was completely dropped from the analysis. That resulted in too few observations for analysis. The only alternative to using MANOVA would be to include missing data but the results would have been of little value. The procedures used were outlined in Lord (1963) and confirmed by Cronbach and Furby (1970). Lord states that the use of change scores by correlational analysis avoids computing true gain scores for each individual. He pro- vides the formulas for the use of partial correlations where all correlations have been corrected for attenua- tion. The partial correlation between a perfectly meas- ured covariate (e.g., group) and the post-measure with the pre-measure held constant is equivalent to a gain score correlation with the pre-measure held constant. He recom- mends that the correlations be corrected for attenuation so the signs of the partial correlations are accurate. The nature of the formula for the partial correlation means the sign of the partial correlation will be crit- ically affected by the size of the inter-correlations. 169 Therefore, the correction for attenuation must be made so that the partial correlation reflects the relationship of the correlations without measurement error. This will produce partial correlations with the proper signs and although there may be spurious correlations as a result of sampling errors, the results are superior to partial cor- relation without correction for attenuation. Fortunately, the reliabilities were fairly high for most of the vari- ables, and the results are equivalent to gain score analy- sis. The other limitations in the study relate to various threats to the validity of the study (Cook and Campbell, 1979). The assignment of the post-only control group was not done randomly, although the group did not figure in the results because they were not included in the correla- tional analysis because of no pre-measures. Mortality is a problem which can affect any field experiment and did, in fact, affect the present study. Another threat to the validity of the study was the problem of missing data. The author worked with top management to obtain measures which were not turned in immediately and received support from two of the managers in particular, but missing data still limits the validity of the study, because the inter- correlations may represent a subset of the data which is not equivalent to the entire sample. 170 There were also various threats to internal, exter- nal, and statistical validity. Internal validity is strengthened by giving all measures in controlled sur- roundings so participants do not share answers and the same amount of thought is put into the answers. The managers and supervisors completed the information in controlled situations for the most part, but there were some people who took the measures home or back to their work stations to fill them out. Fortunately, all the pre- measures for learning, behaviors, and performance were completed in the presence of the author except for five of the learning measures in the pre-post control group. The module and summary reaction measures were completed in the controlled environment of the classes. The post-measures were the most difficult problem, but 76 percent of the post-measures for BOS and the Follow-up Reactions were completed in controlled conditions. Assigning supervisors and managers by alternating names from the organizational chart served to distribute the participants evenly among the divisions. Analyses revealed no significant differences in age, seniority, or years of supervision between the groups. Generalizability may be affected by the fact that the company was working with high seniority personnel and that all the supervisors and managers were males. Nevertheless, the overall re- sults indicate that the training was learned, but that the 171 training was not translated back to the job. This indi- cates that further research is necessary to determine the effectiveness of behavior modeling and the ability of social learning theory to predict imitation of behaviors. W The implications for training will be discussed in the context of the three phases of training identified by Goldstein (1974): assessment phase, training and develop- ment phase, and evaluation phase. The implications for the assessment phase are based on the work by McGehee and Thayer (1961) and elaborated on by Moore and Dutton (1978) and Wexley and Latham (1982). A needs analysis should include the characteristics of the organization and the person as well as the job. Goldstein (1980) reviewed the training literature and indicated there has been no re- search on improving the effectiveness of training by ana- lyzing these variables. The present research hypothesized that the analysis of the relationship between the super- visors and his/her employees would improve the effective- ness of future supervisory training programs. Two pre- vious training programs have demonstrated that the man- agerial climate will affect the transfer of training to the job (Baumgartel and Jeanpierre, 1972, Fleishman, et al., 1955; and Harris and Fleishman, 1955), but have not 172 identified the measure or relationship which can predict whether the training will be effective. While no signifi- cant results were found in this study, management devel- opment programs should still consider measuring the level of support between the potential trainee and his/her mana- ger before implementing the training, since past results have found it important. Perhaps there may be other relationships which could moderate the effectiveness of training. One type of rela- tionship is the 'subordinate's perceptual congruence" in the work done by Wexley (e.g., Wexley, Alexander, Greenawalt, and Couch, 1980). There are several reasons why subordinate congruency may affect training results similar to those hypothesized for the VDL relationship. First, both focus on the dyadic relationship between the subordinate and manager. Second, both measures indicate a high degree of interaction between the subordinate and manager which is based on role modeling. The communica- tion of behavioral expectations is thought to be greater between a subordinate and manager with both high con- gruence dyads and high VDL dyads. Third, high subordinate perceptual congruence is significantly correlated with the subordinate's satisfaction with the manager, while the VDL is a measure of the strength of the supportive relation- ship of the subordinate/manager dyad. Furthermore, Wexley notes that his current research indicates the VDL is 173 highly correlated with trusting and liking the manager (note 1). Therefore, the high VDL and the subordinate perceptual congruence would predict a close working rela- tionship exists which would allow the use of new, learned behaviors on the job and provide reinforcement of those behaviors. Thus, both would predict that trainees with a strong relationship would be more likely to benefit from the training. Another concept which emphasizes the need to examine the trainee's environment is interactional psychology (Terborg, 1981). Interactional psychology recognizes that the situation and the person interact to create a complex relationship which must be measured as a whole to increase the validity of social science research. The VDL de- scribes a role making process between the supervisor and his/her manager which is an interaction in the social context. The facet design suggested by Terborg for analy- sis of the person, physical-technological, social, and time contexts may be an appropriate way to conduct the assessment and evaluation of training programs. The implications for the training and development phase are that line managers can be as effective in train- ing as professional trainers. In the Porras, et a1. organizational development program the line managers were found to be effective in improving training results, but 174 they were not compared with a group that was trained by trainers (1980,1981,l982). The line managers in that organizational development program were directly respons- ible for the supervisors and had received intensive train- ing in modeling and leadership. The line managers and the personnel managers in the present study simply partic- ipated in the same training for a period of twelve hours and were not necessarily directly responsible for the supervisors. The results indicate that the use of line managers produces equal results when compared with the professional trainers. More research is needed to deter- mine the criteria for the selection of managers to do the training and whether there are any long range benefits to the organization of involving carefully selected line managers as trainers. There is also an impact on the managers who do the training themselves. The present research found no sig- nificant results, but the follow-up interviews indicated that there was pressure on managers who were not deeply committed to the concepts of the training. There may be other results from involving the managers in the training. They may support the training function more; they may work harder to ensure that the training results are brought back to the job: they may develop better relationships with other supervisors in the plants which can lead to better selection of personnel for promotions. The train- 175 ing process itself offers opportunities for the organiza- tion to impact both the trainee and the trainer. This area certainly seems to deserve future research effort. Still another implication for training and develop- ment is the need to design coaching, counseling, and reinforcement strategies to enhance the training program. Checklists and coaching were used by Wexley and Nemeroff (1975) in a training program for supervisors in a hospi- tal. One of the trainers met with the supervisors one week and three weeks after the training was over to review the principles which had been taught and their usage on the job. Training programs should include the use of assistance on the job by trainers or supervisors as an integral part of the training process. The difficulty of overcoming well entrenched behaviors indicates training programs need to extend their domain to such assistance. The last implication of the research for training and development phase is the need to establish applied learn- ing modules for the middle managers in the scientific literature. There have been no studies to date which have reported on effective training for middle level managers. The disappointing results of this study should not discourage the search for possible moderators to the ef- fectiveness of training for on the job behavior results nor the use of DOS measures for measuring on the job 176 behaviors. Goldstein's review cited the lack of method- ologies for systematically studying behaviors as a serious problem within evaluation research (1980). The BOS in- strument used in the present study was easy to complete and provided the opportunity to identify the modules of the training program in terms of its learning points. Even though the findings for behaviors on the job were not significant, the BOS instrument appears to be a valuable tool for measuring training behavioral changes on the job. Further research should also continue to examine the VDL model along with other models to determine their impact on training for supervisors' on the job behavior. Research should continue to try to identify circumstances which will moderate the effectiveness of training. The perceptual congruency of subordinates and interactional psychology were two such factors discussed earlier. There may also be other measures of self-esteem (see Jackson and Paunonen, 1980) which would clarify the importance of self-esteem as a moderator, or alternatives to self- esteem, such as ability (Terborg, Richardson, and Pritchard, 1980). The implications for performance appraisal are that there may be interesting research questions concerning the impact of the close working relationship of the rater and the ratee. The research on friendship suggests there is no effect on peer ratings (Amir, Kovarsky, and Sharan, 177 1970; Suci, Vallance, and Glickman, 1956). There is cur- rently no research on the accuracy of ratings for boss- subordinate relationships where there is a strong, friend- ly, supportive relationship. The relationship between accuracy of ratings and VDL models (or subordinate percep- tual congruency and/or interactional psychology) may be a fruitful area of research. For example, does the close relationship increase the accuracy of the rating or does it inflate halo error? Are the subordinate and manager ratings more convergent for high congruency relationships as the theories would seem to suggest? Is this the reason subordinate and managerial ratings have not been found to converge across all managers? The final implication for ratings comes from the author's experience with the peer raters of supervisory performance. Research has shown that peer evaluations have a low to moderate relationship with other evalua- tions, but they are useful for predicting promotions (Landy and Farr, 1980; and Waters and Waters, 1970). The experience in this effort demonstrated that there may be a practical way for organizations to establish peer evalua- tions with reasonable reliabilities. The raters reported learning a great deal from evaluating the supervisors and the process was effective in limiting them to the spheres of interaction which they had with the supervisors. The 178 higher reliability for the post-measures may well have come from their increased attention to the supervisors' performances after they were informed they would be eval- uating them again. Several implications come to mind here. It seems that there is fruitful research in knowing whether a person is more effective as an observer once it is estab- lished that he/she has to evaluate performance. Further, it was clear that certain types of jobs were highly vis- ible as opposed to others which were not even observed, so peer evaluations would serve to draw attention to the performances of individuals who are not visible in organi- zations. Non-visibility can have serious ramifications on the performance and careers of individuals as well as organizations. The present research suggests that social learning theory is limited in predicting behavioral change for adults in non-counseling settings or general training programs. Further research should be directed at estab- lishing where social learning theory is effective in pre- dicting behavioral changes. Research could be directed at exploring the role of an individual's self-concept, the impact of past models, and the need to recognize the present reinforcement received by the observers. The contribution that past reinforcement makes to each of the results is not clear, but it appears to make no signifi- 179 cant contribution to the acquisition of skills and no evidence was found that it produced behaviors as a result of the training. Future research should clarify the rela- tive contributions. Censlusion Training in an organizational context has to be eval- uated for reactions and learning as well as usage on the job, but that analysis must be based on both characteris- tics of the individual and the context of the job. The actual delivery of the training programs should be studied to include line managers because they are equally effec- tive and a controlled selection of line managers may make them even more effective. Further work needs to be done to determine what individual characteristics of the trainee limit the use of that training on the job as well as developing techniques to increase the use of the train- ing on the job. Finally, the results cast doubt on the ability of social learning theory to predict changes in behavior or the job where there have been long standing reinforcement patterns. APPENDICES APPENDIX A 180 APPENDIX A CONSENT FORM I have freely consented to completing these forms which I understand is for the purpose of determining training tOpics and assessing the impact of training for managers and foreman. I am further aware that James S. Russell is collecting this data and my responses will be kept in strict confidence. and my identity anonymous. I understand that results of this study at an aggregate level of analysis will be made available to me upon request. Further9 I understand that completion of these forms is voluntary. will not have an effect onNmy employment status. and that I may withdraw my participation at any time. Date Name Signature APPENDIX B 181 APPENDIX B RELIABILITY CALCULATIONS FOR SUPERVISORS PERFORMANCE RATINGS EBE:MEASHBES Average number of ratings per supervisor 3.85 Variance of the mean of the individual supervisors' means 4.64 Mean of the variances of the individual supervisors' means 8.26 Single rater reliability 2 4.64 = .36 4.64 + 8.26 Reliability of the pre-measure = __13‘§51143§L__ = .68 1 + (2.85)(.36) RQST:MEASHRES Average number of ratings per supervisor 4.1 Variance of the mean of the individual supervisors' means 6.90 Mean of the variances of the individual supervisors' means 6.51 Single rater reliability = 6.90 a .51 6.90 + 6.51 Reliability of the post-measure = __14‘111‘§ll__,= .81 l + (3.1)(.51) APPENDIX C SEX: AGE: RACE: 182 APPENDIX c NAME BACKGROUND INFORMATION (1) Female (2) Male (1) American Indian (4) Oriental (2) Black (5) Spanish Surnamed American (3) Caucasian (6) Other Time in this position (department): years months Years as a foreman Department Division Years seniority in the Plant Education: (1) (2) (3) Training (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) How'many subordinates report directly to you? Circle highest level achieved in school: 8th grade or less . (4) Some college Some high school (5) College graduate High school graduate or equivalent received for management position (circle all that apply): No training. On-the-job training before promotion. In—plant classroom training before promotion. Off-site classroom training before promotion (Professional, AMA. etc.). On-the-job training after promotion. In-plant classroom training after promotion. Off-site classroom training after promotion (Professional. AMA. etc.). APPENDIX D 1133 APPENDIX D EVALUATION OF TODAY'S TRAINING CODE SESSION Thinking fur a minute about the training, answer the questions based on the way the class was conducted today. Circle the column which best describes your opinion. Be sure to read the questions carefully because some are reversed. on stron l a ree; (2) if you agree; (3) if you _2_5 5) i you strong y disagree. They Check (1) if (4) if you disagree; a. Role modeling in the fihn Strongly Strongly The Leaders: Agree ____ Disagree 1. Presented the learning points clearly and 1 2 3 4 5 logically. 2. Got everybody's ideas 1 2 3 4 5 3. Gave too many of their own opinions I 2 3 4 5 4. Wrote ideas on the boards or paper 1 2 3 4 5 5. Horked out ways to use the ideas on the job 1 2 3 4 5 Summarizing the training as a whole: .6. The training was unrealistic 1 2 3 4 S 7. The role modeling in the film was effective 2 3 4 8. I was given specific feedback about the way 2 3 4 5 I practiced . 9. I was given enough practice to learn the steps 2 3 4 5 10. I plan to use the steps on my job 2 3 4 11. My boss uses these steps 2 3 4 5 - If I were to use the steps on my job: #7 12. My boss would back me up 1 2 3 4 5 13. Personnel would not back me up . 2 3 4 S 14. It would make it easier to deal with the 1 2 3 4 5 stewards in the long run ' 15. I'd be a better manager 2 3 4 5 16. My employees would see me as a better manager 3 4 5 17. Think about all the parts of the training which were important to you in today's session. Place a rank for each item: Very 0f Some Not at ‘11 Important Important _3_. Importance Important b. Discussion of the learn- ing points c. Practice and feedback d. Review of on-the-job experiences e. Hearing how other super- visors handle things f. Having the leaders conduct the class 184 18. Overall. today's workshop was: (circle one) 1. very useful; 2. useful; 3. somewhat useful; 4. of little use; 5. of no use -2. 185 CODE SESSION EVALQATION 0F TODAY‘S TRAINING Thinking for a minute about the training, answer the questions based on the way the class was conducted today. Circle the column which best describes your opinion. Be sure to read the questions carefully because some are reversed. Check (1) if you stron l a ree; (2) if you a ree; (3) if you._;_; (4) if you disagree; 1? yo r 1 TE (5) u st ong y disagree. ey Strongly Strongly The Leaders: Agree _1_ Disagree 1. Presented the learning points clearly and 1 2 3 4 5 logically. 2. Got everybody's ideas 1 2 3 4 5 3. Gave too many of their own opinions I 2 3 4 5 4. Hrote ideas on the boards or paper 1 2 3 4 S 5. worked out ways to use the ideas on the Job I 2 3 4 5 Summarizing the training as a whole: 6. The training was unrealistic 1 2 3 4 5 7. The role modeling played by the managers 1 2 3 4 was effective 8. I was given specific feedback about the way 1 2 3 4 S I practiced 9. I was given enough practice to learn the steps 1 2 3 4 5 10. I plan to use the steps on my Job 1 ‘ 2 3 4 5 11. My boss uses these steps 1 2 3 4 5 If I were to use the steps on my job: 12. My boss would back me up 1 2 3 4 13. Personnel would not back me up 1 2 3 4 5 14. It would make it easier to deal with the 1 2 3 4 stewards in the long run 15. I'd be a better manager 1 2 3 4 5 16. My employees would see me as a better manager 1 2 3 4 5 17. Think about all the parts of the training which were important to you in today's session. Place a rank for each item: Very 0f Some Not at .11 Important Imggrtant ? Imggrtance Iggggggg£_ a. Role playing by managers b. Discussion of learning points c. Practice and feedback d. Review of on-the-Job experiences e. Hearing how other super- visors handle things f. Having the managers conduct the class 186 18. Overall. today's workshop was: (circle one) 1. very useful; 2. useful; 3. somewhat useful; 4. of little use; 5. of no use -2. 187 CODE SESSION OVERALL EVALUATION OF OVERALL TRAINING Thinking for a minute about the training. answer the questions based on the way the class was conducted. ‘ Circle the column which best describes your opinion. Be sure to read the questions carefully because some are reversed. Check (1) if you strongly agree; (2) if you agree; (3) if you‘_1_; (4) if you disagree; yo . (S) u strong y disagree. Strongly Strongly The Leaders: Agree _1_ Disagree 1. Presented the learning points clearly and 1 2 3 4 5 logically. 2. Got everybody's ideas 1 2 3 4 5 3. Gave too many of their own opinions I Z 3 4 5 4. Hrote ideas on the boards or paper I 2 3 4 5 5. Horked out ways to use the ideas on the Job 1 2 3 4 S Summarizing the training as a whole: _ 6. The training was unrealistic 1 2 3 4 S 7. The role modeling in the film was effective I 4 8. 1 was given specific feedback about the way 1 2 3 4 I practiced 9. I was given enough practice to learn the steps 1 2 3 4 5 10. I plan to use the steps on my job I Z . 3 4 11. My boss uses these steps ‘ 1 2 3 4 If I were to use the steps on my job: 12. My boss would back me up 1 3 4 13. Personnel would not back me up 1 3 4 14. It would make it easier to deal with the 1 3 ‘ 4 stewards in the long run 15. I'd be a better manager 1 3 4 16. My employees would see me as a better manager 1 2 3 4 17. Think about all the parts of the training which were important to you. Place a rank for each item: Very Of Some Not at ‘11 Impgrtant Important _3__ Importance Important a. Role modeling in the fjlm b. Discussion of the learn- ing points c. Practice and feedback d. Review of on-the-Job experiences e. Hearing how other super- visors handle things f. Having the leaders conduct the class 1138 18. Overall, the workshops were: (circle one) 1. very useful; 2. useful; 3. somewhat useful; 4. of little use; 5. of no use FINAL TRAINING EVALUATION Please consider the training program as a whole. and rate the value below based on your feelings at this moment. Rate the answer (1) if you strongly agree; (2) if you agree; (3) if you're not sure (7); (4) if you disagree; and. (5) if you strongly disagree: 1. The training helped me do the Job better. I 2 3 4 5 2. The training helped me interact better 1 2 3 4 5 with employees. 3. The training helped me interact more 1 2 3 4 5 effectively with my fellow managers. 4. The training helped me interact more 1 2 3 4 S effectively with my bosses. 5. I would recommend this training fer I 2 3 4 5 other managers. -2- 1539 CODE SESSION OVERALL EVALUATION OF OVERALL TRAINING- Thinking for a minute about the training. answer the questions based on the way the class was conducted- Circle the column which best describes your opinion. Be sure to read the questions carefully because some are reversed. Check (1) if you stron l a ree; (2) if you agree; (3) if you _;_; (4) if you disagree; (5) you strong y disagree. Strongly Strongly The Leaders: Agree _?_ Disagree 1. Presented the learning points clearly and I Z 3 4 5 logically. 2. Got everybody's ideas 1 2 3 4 S 3. Gave too many of their own opinions I 2 3 4 5 4. Wrote ideas on the boards or paper 1 2 3 4 5 5. Worked out ways to use the ideas on the Job 1 2 3 4 5 Summarizing the training as a whole: 6. The training was unrealistic 1 2 3 4 5 7. The role modeling played by the managers 1 2 3 4 was effective 8. I was given specific feedback about the way 1 Z 3 4 S I practiced 9. I was given enough practice to learn the steps 1 2 3 4 S 10. I plan to use the steps on my Job 1 2 3 4 5 II. My boss uses these steps 1‘ If I were to use the steps on my job: 12. My boss would back me up 1 2 3 4 13. Personnel would not back me up 1 2 3 4 5 14. It would make it easier to deal with the 1 2 3 4 stewards in the long run 15. I'd be a better manager 1 2 3 4 16. My employees would see me as a better manager I 4 5 17. Think about all the parts of the training which were important to you. Place a rank for each item: Very 0f Some Not at all Important Important _jL_ hnoortance Important a. Role playing by managers b. Discussion of learning points. c. Practice and feedback d. Review of on-the-Job experiences e. Hearing how other super- visors handle things f. Having the managers C—I conduct the class 1590 18. Overall. the workshops were; (circle one) 1. very useful; 2. useful; 3. somewhat useful; 4. of little use; 5. of no use FINAL TRAINING EVALUATION Please consider the training program as a whole. and rate the value below based on your feelings at this moment. Rate the answer (1) if you strongly agree; (2) if you agree: (3) if you're not sure (I); (4) if you disagree; and (5) if you strongly disagree. 1. The training helped me do the Job better 1 2 3 4 2. The training helped me interact better 1 2 3 4 with employees. 3. The training helped me interact more 1 2 I 3 4 effectively with my fellow managers. 4. The training helped me interact more I 2 3 4 effectively with my bosses. 5. I would recommend this training for 1 2 3 4 other managers. ~ -2- 1‘91 CODE SESSION REVIEW OF OVERALL TRAINING Thinking for a minute about the training in the spring, answer the statements based on the way the class was conducted. Circle the column which best describes your opinion. Be sure to read the statements carefully because some use negative terms. Circle (SA) if you stron l a ree; (A) if you a ree; (I) if you neither agree nor disagree; (D) if you d sagree; D if you-strongly disagree. Meither Strongly Agree or Strongly The Leaders: Agree . Disagree Disagree 1. Presented the learning points clearly and SA A T D SD logically. 2. Got everybody's ideas SA A 7 D SD 3. Gave too many of their own opinions SA A T D SD 4. Hrote ideas on the boards or paper SA A ? D -SD 5. worked out ways to use the ideas on the job SA A 7 D SD Summarizing the training as a whole: 6. The training was unrealistic SA A ? D SD 7. The role modeling played by the managers SA A ? SD was effective 8. I was given specific feedback about the way SA 5 7 D SD 9. I was given enough practice to learn the steps SA S ? D SD Each of the next items asks you to rate the importance of some part of the training session. Please mark each item according to your feeding of its importance. 10. Very Df Some Mot at all Impgrtant Impgrtant ? Impgrtance Impgrtant a. Role playing by managers b. Discussion of learning points c. PracticingItheebehaviorc d. Feedback on my practice e. Review of on-the-job experiences f. Hearing how other supervisors handle things 9. Having the managers conduct the class 11. Overall, the workshops were (circle one) 1. Very Useful; 2. Usefel; 3. Somewhat Useful; 4. Of Little Use; 5. Of No Use 192 FINAL TRAINING REVI g1 Please consider the training program as a whole. and rate the value below based on your feelings at this moment. Rate the answer (SA) if you strongly agree; (A) if you agree; (I) if you're not sure: (D) if you disagree: (SD) if you strongly disagree. Strongly Not Strongly . Agree _ Sure _ Disagree 12. The training helped me do the job better SA A 7 D SD 13. The training helped me interact better with employees SA A ? D SD 14. The training helped me interact more effectively with my fellow managers SA A T D SD 15. The training helped me interact more effectively with my bosses SA A ? D SD 16. I would recoamend this training for - other managers . SA A ? D SD The next set of questions are designed to measure your recollection and evaluation of the training. Each module will be listed in turn. The first three (3) questions in each module ask which step is the correct step according to the module. All answers are acceptable management answers. but please give the answer specified by the module. The last three (3) questions in each module ask fer your opinion. Please circle (SA) if you strongly agree; (A) if you a ree; (2) if you're not sure; (D) if you disagree; (SD) if you strongly disagree. Please circ e the letter which Best describes your opinion. Module 1. Motivating a Person to Problem Solve 17. I remember the learning points (or steps) for thib module: a. clearly and completely I can name the code word which is: b. well enough to use c. only partially d. not at all 18. The step after you describe a problem to an employee is to: a. ask for his ideas b. tell him why it can't continue c. tell him what will happen if it does continue d. tell him you expect him to correct it 19. The learning point after you agree on the actions each of you should take to correct the problem is: a. tell him what happens if he doesn't get it done b. set a specific time fur follow-up c. assure him of your interest d. say nothing; it's clear what both should do 20. I felt I perfbrmed these learning steps well in the training SA A T D SD 1593 .21: The feedback from the other first line managers helped me learn the steps SA A 7 D SD 22. The feedback from the leaders for this module helped me learn the steps SA ' A 2' 0 so Module 2. Handling a Complaining Employee 23. I remember the learning points (or steps) for this module: a. clearly and completely; I can name the code word which is: b. well enough to use c. only partially d. not at all 24. The next step after you have asked for a full description of the complaint and listened openly is to: a. ask the employee if he has any suggestions b. explain why the situation is the way it is c. Remind him that complaining doesn't solve problems. d. thoroughly understand the complaint by restating it 25. when an employee complains about something, the first thing to remember is to: a. ask for a full description of his complaint b. respond thoughtfully without hostility or defensiveness c. fbcus on the prdblem. not the employee ‘ d. come to agreement on steps to be taken by each of you. 26. I felt I performed these learning points well in the training SA A 7 D SD 27. The feedback from the other first line managers helped me learn the steps SA A 2 . D SD 28. The feedback from the leaders for this module helped me learn the steps SA A ? D SD Module 3. Discussipg Poor Hork Habits 29. I remember the learning points (or steps) fbr this module: a. clearly and completely; I can name the code word, which is: b. well enough to use c. only partially d. not at all 30. After describing the behaviors which are poor work habits, the manager should: a. explain what will happen if they continue b. set a timetable fbr when they should be reviewed 119A 30. (continued) c. explain why the behaviors cannot continue d. assure the employee of your interest in helping him succeed 31. Before setting a time for fellow-up. the last thing the manager and employee should do is: a. review the penalty if it happens again b. come to agreement on steps to be taken by each of you c. explain why the behaviors cannot continue d. review prior cases which have been similar 32. I felt I perfbrmed these learning points well in the training SA A 2 o ' so 33. The feedback from the other first line managers helped me learn the steps SA A ? D SD 34. The feedback from the leaders fbr this module helped learn the steps SA A ? 0 SD Module 4. Discussing a Potential Disciplinary Action 35. I remember the learning points (or steps) for this module: a. clearly and completely; I can name the code word, which is: b. well enough to use c. only partially d. not at all 36. The first thing to focus on in the discussion is: a. Harn him that if it happens again, it could be discipline. b. what disciplinary actior is called fbr c. describing the behavior which cannot be allowed to continue d. the lack of improvement since the previous discussion 37. After assuring the employee of your interest in helping him succeed on the job. the manager should: a. come to an agreement on the employee's responsibility to solve the problem b. describe what disciplinary action is called for c. set a date fbr review d. let the employee go back to his Job 38. I felt I perfbrmed these learning points well in the training SA A 7 D SD 39. The feedback from the other first line managers helped me learn the steps SA A 7 D SD 1595 The feedback from the leaders for this module helped me learn the steps SA A 2 y 0 so ule 5. Recognizing the Average Employee I remember the learning points (or steps) fbr this module: a. clearly and completely; I can name the code word, which is: b. well enough to use c. only partially d. not at all This module stressed that when a manager was thanking an average employee. he should: a. Describe areas where he could improve. b. avoid talking to the employee while he is working c. tell the employee how much you appreciate what he does d. describe the specific behavior or work habit which is appreciated . After thanking the employee. the module stressed that the manager should: a. ask the employee to let him know if there is ever anything he could do to make the job easier b. Ask the employee to improve his perfbrmance in other areas. c. explain why the behavior is appreciated d. encourage him to ask questions about work I felt I perfbrmed these learning steps well in the training SA A ? 0 SD The feedback from the other first line managers helped me learn the steps SA A ? D SD The feedback from the leaders for this module helped me learn the steps SA A _ ? D SD ule 6. Overcoming Resistance to Change I remember the learning points (or steps) for this module: a. clearly and completely; I can name the code word which is: b. well enough to use ' c. only partially d. not at all The second step after the details of the change are described is: a. describe the effect of the change on the employee b. ask the employee fbr questions or suggestions c. explain why the change is necessary d. ask the employee to come to you if there are any problems 196 49. After the manager gets the reaction of the employee about the change. the next step is to: a. set a date for follow-up b. ask for help to make the change work c. explain why the change is necessary d. assure the employees of your interest in helping them succeed The following statements are about your experiences since the training. Please answer as honestly as possible. based on your own experience and feelings since the training program in the spring. Strongly Not Strongly Agree ____ Sure ____ Disagree 50. Hy boss uses these steps SA A ? D SD 51. I used the steps on my job SA A ? D SD If you answered SA or A on the last question (question #51). please answer the questions below. If you answered 7. D. or SD. please skip to question I 59. 52. My boss backed me up SA A ? D SD 53. Personnel backed me up SA A ? D SD 54. It has made it easier to deal with the stewards in the long run SA A ? 0 SD 55. Hhen I used the training. it made matters worse SA A ? D SD 56. I'm a better manager SA A ? D SD. 57. when I used the training I controlled « . the conversation better SA A ? D SD 58. My employees see me as a better manager SA A ? D SD The next questions ask about your opinion of how the training was used by other managers. 59. Those managers who used these steps were supported by their managers SA A ? _ 0 SD 60. The Personnel Department has backed those managers who used the training SA A ? D SD 61. The training didn’t work for other managers who tried it SA A ? D SD APPENDIX E 197 APPENDIX E TIM lNl'lli iZLIAICAUI'IiK I S'l' ILZS CODE The following adjectives. or phrases. identify nunlltieu a manager may have. actions he might take. or your personal experlence with him. describes each of your training leaders. feellnun toward him. based on your Please circle the respouue after each item which bent Circle SA if you strongly agree; A If you agree; ?-if you're not sure; u if you diunfiree;_SD if you strongly disagree. Leader: 1. This leader would reward my good work. SA 2. This leader is important to me on my job. SA 3. i'd have to accept this leader's orders. SA A. he could be very critical of my actions. SA 5. I identify with him as a manager. SA 6. I respect him as a person. SA 7. I admire the way he handles his people. SA 8. i think he gets his way with upper SA management. 0Q 09 D SD D 50 D SD D SD D 50 D SD D SD D SD APPENDIX F 198 APPENDIX F INSTRUCTIONS CODE The incidents listed below were collected to use as a pre-res: and a post-test tor the plant management training program. Please read each question and then answer by writing the words that you would use below each question. Write the words you would say if you were in the position described whether it's foreman. general foreman. superintendent or divisional manager. If there are any questions. please feel free to ask the instructor. Your answers should just be words and not any background description. Don't worry about spelling. Remember. put yourself in the shoes of the manager and write the words you'd use. 1. You're the foreman. The decision has been made to enforce the rule about the plant manager’s signature on any equipment which may be leaving the plant. You have to tell your maintenance people it means personal tools also. How would you describe it to them? 2. You're the foreman. Your employee just missed a day this week (early September) which is his 10th day absent this year. You counselled him on the 8th day in late May and then he missed 1 day in June. He missed a day yesterday. How would you handle t today? 3. .You're.the foreman. As you walk by the presses. you notice Charley is steadily - working on salvage inspection with just 5 minutes until wash-up time. just like he always is. You would say: 6. You talked with a steward about his horseplay on the line and now you've just seen him doing it again. You asked him to ccme to your office. You told him next time he'd be disciplined. He just walked in. You say: 5. 6. 7. 199 You're the foreman. One of your employees has recently been using up too many cool bits on his Warner-Swasey. You suspect he's waning too fast. He has three years seniority in this department and has been a. satisfactory performer. flow would you discuss it with him? You're the general fawn/superintendent. when you are talking with s foreman whose area is too dirty. he says he doesn't have enough men to keep it clean. You would say: You're the foreman. Production man are standing in water and complaining that everyyesrthere's snewlaakinthe roofandwatercomss induringasmamsr rainstorm and why the hell can't you guys in maintenance ever fir the roof right for once] You said. ”You wait to know why it always leaks in a new place. right?" He said. "You're goddamn right I do." You say: An employee who gets transferred to your area regularly takes 15 unutes longer -__to show up than other workers. You talked to him about it once aud'nowhe's -. showing up late again. He seems surprised when you suggest he hasn't improved since last discussion because he still was is minutes late. What would you say now? 200 9. You're the general forensn. Your foreman can't get production on the wheel line because of the poor penetration on the 6" weld. Either he produces too much scrap or not enough pieces. What would you say to him? 10. One of your steady aployees caught your eye and asked a basic question which you easily answered. What would you say now! ll. The steward has just come up and said the nan shouldn't be putting the 120 pound ordnance wheels in the baskets. They should be on pallets. You were told at the beginning of the shift there were no more pallets. You would: 12. You' re the general form/superintendent. Your foreman has continued to set tenporary rates from files he has and the Industrial Engineering departnent is refusing to mthorize them. You' ve Just mlained that problem to- the foreman and toldhinwhyitcan'tcontinue. whatwouldyoudcwnowz 201 13. You're the foreman. Your electrical repairman frequently seas to have trouble fixing something. Since you're a plumber by trade he may be fooling you. He has four years in this division and his previous foreman had no trouble with him. what would you say when you talk to him about it? 14. You're the general foreman/superintendent. Foreman talking says: "Sometimes I wonder if it's worth it. I feel like walking out and seeing what the rest of the world is talking about. It seas like since I've been here there's been a big dark cloud over the plant." You would say: 15. You're the foreman. The storeroom is being closed off so your man won't be able to get inandpulltheparts theyneed anytimetheywant to. howwould you tell yourmen? 16... You're._the formsan. when counseling a man for not wearing- his- earplugs, he“ says. .-".I can't wear them, they cause too may problems.".- You would say: 17. 18. 19. 200' 202 You're the foreman. After giving a yellow card to an average employee for a free Coke or coffee for a near accident-free month. you would say: You're the foreman. One of your on truck drivers has been leaving too much incoming freight stacked up on the receiving docks. How would you talk with him about it? ' You're the division manager. Restricted men aren't able to return even if they have seniority because of their restrictions. M who have asked to come back have apparently minor restrictions. Yhe plant wager has asked you if you could find someplace for them towork. Howwillyou approachyourmuiz You're-the general for-an. Your'foraan's man have been standing around a lot tonight. When you checked into it. he adnitted he madea deal. If the men would run 2,000 parts acustouer really needed. he'd let then quit. he figured it would take-.6-J;hours.. but they got done in 3 hours. So any deals are getting cut it screws up production. You would say: 203 21. You're the foruan. A stewardworking on the and of the line asked to be relieved half an hour ago to settle a grievance. You need production badly. relief is on the way but will probably take 15 nimtes to get there and you'd have to shut down if he leaves. he tells you he's going to leave. What would you say? 22. You're the foruan. The decision has been made to run hoops and store them. You're explaining the change to your people. They're obviously not listening closely. What would you do and say for the rest of the meeting? 23. You're the for-sen. When an employee agrees he has a probleagetting to work on time. you would say: 26. Youlre the for-Ian. You were talking with one of your people working the cupola who alwaya_se¢as to be there but is not a spectacular performer and thanldng him for being so reliable. What would you say now? ' APPENDIX G 204 APPENDIX G MANAGERS RATE SUBORDINATES Name of person being observed Department Observer's Code Date This checklist contains key job behaviors that managers have reported as critical for their jobs and the effectiveness and efficiency for Motor Wheel Corporation. Please consider the above named individual's behavior on the job for the past a months. Read each statement carefully. Circle the number that indicates the extent to which you believe this person has demonstrated this behavior. For each behavior describe the number which represents the frequency with which the behavior is observed when it is appropriate. For each behavior a: 5 means almost always or 95-100% of the time. a means freguently or 85- 94% of the time. 3 means sometimes or 75- 842 of the time. 2 means seldom or 65- 742 of the time. 1 means almost never or 0- 642 of the time. 0 means not able to observe at appropriate times. An example of an item is shown below. If a manager drives his car to work 95~1001 of the time, circle 5. If he drives it 501 of the time, circle the 1. If you don't know how he gets to work or do not observe him coming to work, circle 0. Almost Almost Never Alwa s ' Manager drives his car to work I 2 3 4 3 : O 205 RATING ERRORS As a rater. you should keep in mind the need to avoid the six common rating errors people make when using human judgment to rate people. Rating errors may be defined technically as a difference between the output of a human judgment process and that of an objective accurate assess- ment uncolored by bias. prejudice. or other subjective extraneous influences. Among the most common ratin errors are contrast effects. first impressions, halo, simi ar-to-me. central tendency, and positive and negative leniency. Contrast effects is the tendency for a rater to evaluate relatIve to other Individuals rather than on the extent to which the individual is fulfilling the requirements of the job. First-1m ression error refers to the tendency of a rater to make an InItIaI favorable/unfavorable judgment about an employee that is not justified by the employee's subsequent jo behavior. The halo effect refers to inappropriate generalization from one aspect of a person's performance to all aspects of the person's job performance. The similar-to-me effect is a tendency for people to be judged more favoraBIy who are similar rather than dissimilar to the rater in attitudes and background even if the latter are not job related. Central tendenc refers to consistently rating people at the midpoint of a scale. Ne ative and ositive lenienc refers to consistently rating peop e at t e ow or g end of the scale. 2()6 eonmcnononmn o u n c n N A on unonnoemo aonu conuoanoucn to seem n.nuoon .nn ewcnfimom c u n e n N H e.eoaonmao one now annenam one mcnmcouonoomo ozonm .oa c a. n a n N H soaogmmo one on monnenoonQQMImoconnom‘someonmwm .nu o n n e n N a ooomenounmm.ooom now conuncwwoon no>no .NH q eaoNnonm m.ooaoamao nun: c _ n o .n N a anon on manoanu>o new names on on nooao on menu: .HA . unnom30n> o u n c n N — e.noxno3 one aonu usednonm nonononoomm on ozonm .oH . non>onon no: no an: a _ n o n N a ao>onaaa on: oozodmao «no on mnnnnhcm has n.mooom .m _ no« «no to museums no: no a . n o n N a an: wounds: tn noonoocn an: no esoaonnao nonoau< .a c _ n o n N A wtnnnnuanoocojmwmmnonn now ncwmwmaoo one eoumuuom .N . adumwommm omoueua to o _ n e n N a euonnamaoo ooaoflnao no nonnmnnoaoo Harm u some: on .o _ nonmamsoo c . n e n N n u on unoco>ndcouon no annNnueon nuns uncommon .n Bosnonm‘mlo>uoo On 30: to mourn no: no a . n e n N A on: unannouno one man: e.ooao~mao one now exo< .o o M n a n u n new econ «wan nnns . one no on nonu monsoon onu ooaoamao one eo>no .n . .oum .ouoononcnxiocsonmxonn c . n o n N a o.ooaoamao ozone monumeno>noo season «one: .N a q n n n N d monm onn cu encode: Nuononnu o meshedmeo mo>no .a . euanxm uneconomnoutn o>noano _ .MNmmmm no>oz . uoz . :93... once: e>noano on «fine no: a New -c no>oz neo3~< H Non umo aooaom N Anonneosc some now nenass onunnnonmmm ouonnov Rom Ins mflawuuaom n «as -na knocoacoun a anneznoeoeam nae: munoHnnoon onn mcHnoonue . o . n o n N H .ooonmBo one noommo HHna snooze one so: nonmmoaHa .mN o m n . c n N H anemones: one newness an: cnonxo on oHnom .NN - . neon no nofi o . n o n N H one on «moons a mo eHHuooo one eonnnoeoo aHnmoHo .oN H xnoz no: no o _ n o m N H an: on on oohowmao now noneoo on oan On on can mesonou mcnnn so an enema an ooaonao onn axe< .nN b o . n o N nonficwneeo no mmmnone onwnooma one to monsoon . . n H cN o . n e n N H usaHu mouonHou onunoome umonuna toneoaonHo mommy .nN _ noootnononom uo xnoz mo wwneSoHHom one mmem .oonncowno _ 1. nanm xno: noon mcn>Hoe now eHnHucomeen o H n o n N H oH ooonuao onu nonu ooaonao nun: nonconnm .NN . no wcHoo o . n o n N H now snowmen man one .on HHna tonnes onn nuns _ .nou ooHHao on coHnuo anoanmHoono nuns eonmUHocH .HN H ooHsn can on anoucoo not o _ n o n N H noon non>onon o.oo>onao onu tuna ooEHn eonoomH .cN . nonunHom one uoHsn ecu o u n o n N H zono on on oHoone oomoHnao emu non: ucannxm .oH l . figs: 0 . n o n N H noonnns no>noeno on on o>nn eonn one exam .mH moaoHnao can a . u n o n N H mo nnHomzon> «no oomooHaomxoo one oounnmooom .NH o . n e m N H awomeo uo eucnnnoman one eonaonum .oH _ nnoaeonoucm new conummmHmwm 0H5: o>noano - exozH< no>oz noz _ nooaH< neoaH< o>noano on «Has no: a Non uc no>oc neoaH< H “on -no BooHom N AcoHuuuno some now noses: oumHnnonnmo oHonHUV Hem unn emanuoaom m «.3 -3 Dennison... .c 3.25223 was. «.5324: NooHunm onenHo uuoaH< n "econnoonuacH 2()8 .~.ono qoan o>anoomH .Nwmv m o _ m e n N H ooeHaonm moon n.neooo non eooonnEo wo emnooen . xno: no emoHnuono no nooHo an aoeHaonm nose: .Ho HHHonamm neooxov coHusanowcH c u n o n N H Hocooenoe cH mcncnon onoH on non .eonoHnaoo .co 3 Jfl n a n N H coHHMMHuoo>cH u30£UH3 om unmooHoom enoH .mm c _ n o n N H enomHHnuoHo now «one xnos ouoomacH .an Nuono qoaHumzoo o - n o n N H .uunsoo .nnoonv xnoznomun echnchB one nouonaoo .Nn " oanHHHnHecomeom anOaH>nonam anmwmm wcHHocm: _ «anon onmwu .nooHo o \LI n e n N H cH «HoHnonoE wo on: one mH aeoaoHeee unconnecH .on euommxo mesonow unu ounmanownoe a H n a m N H wo Ho>oH one wo nooaonEo nanownH aHnsoHu .nm . mosmsnownom nHonu o _ n o n N H to aeoonmao «no 0» nounoomw ooH>onn not soon .on H no3 command a _ n c m N H oxma on mHmn no; no an now ooonuao onn mxu< .nm soon on on o h n a n N H o>en anon>unoe no .axueo .onoa an: ecnaanm .N« on an eH one no on nuns o u n o n N H AHHmonHoone ooaoHeao one on eoanoeoo thmoHo .Hn . noH>e£on no a H n a m N H BoHnonm .AOn one no: .ooaonao onu no monsoon .on q naeH>nonwm osu mam.owNonEu «Mn Na canon o _ n a m N H on on omens onHoome no uceaoon n on assoc .oN _ ecoHuuoan name no non o>noeno _ MNmmwd no>oz uoz _ neoaH< nooEH< o>nonno on oHnu uoz a New -c no>em neoaH< H was -no aooHom N AcoHueoso some now nonamn onanmonnnm eHonHov Rom ins moEHumaom n «.3 -3 3233: s annaznenonam nuke mam—325.. NooHumm nasaHm nooaH< n "emoHuumnuecH 9 0 2 o H n o n N H muHHmso o>0Hsue on eemmmto ooze: .Nn o _ n o n N H analogy wo hnHHoao mom once we eumnofle eonHmMmuoa .oc mocHounHee one a o>o o . n e n N H noHuoomonn one on coHuow e>Huuennoo “one“ .no . 3* I o H n e n N H anyone no# eocHauxu .co m m n e n N H -meom onmueooaoneo non: momm.u.mmwoa .ne c _ n e n N H eHanoooa new eeHdmmoe we so: eHonncoo .No o>noono . eNu3H< no>oz uoz _ neoaH< ueoaH< o>noeno on oHno 902 a New .0 no>on neoeH< H Nos nnc eooHem N HmoHooooe some now neneoc eueHnmonnmm eHonHov New anN eoeHueaom n a: -3 3233.... s 325333 n2: 335.5. NccHunm saosz neoaH< n “ocoHnuonnecH 21(3 MANAGER RATES SUPERIORS Name of person being observed Department Observer's Code Date This checklist contains key job behaviors that managers have reported as critical for their jobs and the effectiveness and efficiency for Corporation. Please consider the above named individual's behavior on the job for the past 4 months. Read each statement carefully. Circle the number that indicates the extent to which you believe this person has demonstrated this behavior. For each behavior describe the number which represents the frequency with which the behavior is observed when it is appropriate. For each behavior a: . 5 means almost always or 95-1002 of the time. 4 means frequently or 85- 94% of the time. 3 means sometimes or 75- 84% of the time. 2 means seldom ' or 65-‘742 of the time. 1 means almost never or 0- 64% of the time. 0 ‘means not able to observe at apprOpriate times. An example of an item is shown below. If a manager drives his car to work 95-1002 of the time. circle 5. If he drives it 50% of the time. circle the 1. If you don't know how.he gets to work or do not observe him coming to work, circle 0. Almost Almost Never Alwa s ' Manager drives his car to work I 2 3 4 : O 211 RATING ERRORS As a racer. you should keep in mind the need to avoid the six common rating errors people make when using human judgment to rate people. Rating errors may be defined technically as a difference between the output of a human judgment process and that of an objective accurate assess- ment uncolored by bias. prejudice. or other subjective extraneous influences. Among the most common rating errors are contrast effects. first impressions, halo. similar-to-me. central tendency, and positive and negative leniency. Contrggt effects is the tendency for a rater to evaluate relative to other individuals rather than on the extent to which the individual is fulfilling the requirements of the job. First-1m ression error refers to the tendency of a rater to mahe an InItIaI favorable/unfavorable judgment about an employee that is not justified by the employee's subsequent job behavior. ' The halo effect refers to inappropriate generalization from one aspect of a person's performance to all aspects of the person's job performance. The similar-to-me effect is a tendency for people to be judged more favorath who are similar rather than dissimilar to the rater in attitudes and background even if the latter are not job related. Central tendenc refers to consistently rating people at the EIapoint of a scale. Ne ative and ositive lenienc refers to consistently rating peopIe at the low or hIgh end of the scale. £212 GNU QC“ «whoa-HG OH H o m n c n N H mnoHnommm eonw :oHumanowcH to some n.caoom .eH q Immmeoow e moocHonoosa o _ n a n N H one now wonmmao mom mnHoooumnooom ozonm .NH o H n c m N H aHHnmoenom ouoonononme sou excess .NH c m n o n N H oocoanownom meow now :oHUHowwoun oo>Ho .HH - . ‘\~.0no .xnoznomun o . n a n N H uno mcH HHw .ounmm mnHocHw .aoHsoonon wcHnooav _ aaoHoon o.ouomHonoooe now mcHocouanoocs eaonm .oH H noH>mnoo no: no eHn oo>onosH c . n c n N H on: onooHononse son on manuwco wen n.oeooo .o sea man to museums eoummwmnoomm c u n w n N H mchHon on uaononcH «H: wo eonmcwononou nonaao< .o _ ¢ mwnocmueno a: swoononu _ c w n a m N H a now eucHonaoo no enoHnoo on eononaom .N NHstommo moonaHH one nonHmaoo m c u n o n N H no :oHuaommme m we ooHumHnoeoo HHow o anoumoom .o q umHmHNEOmnm‘no coHuuommme o . n a n N H m on oaomo>waoowoo no names nuH3 uncommon .n .- c m n c n N H anon nofi s new on oxen HHH3 nNAMGoH _ so: nouocHononno mmeom onowon oawaonm a moxoz .o . BoHoowm m o>Hoo on so: no eoonH no; no o . n o n N H uHo nooosoeHo one mHon n.0uocHonoose now exe< .n c . n .c n N n new 23 a . _ on HHH3 Nona mcHHoow on» noummnononme no>Ho .N a eHunn HHmmmNm o . n e n N H en HHooowo to co .auuononcH .ocsonmxooo . o.onocHonoo:o usooo :oHnoeno>coo Humane eons: .H nHHme HoseanomnoumH o>neeno . ous3H< no>oz noz H nooaH< neoBH< o>noono on oHom noz o Row .6 no>oo nooaH< H Non -no aooHom N Hmonnmono some new noose: ouoHnnonmmm oHonHov Roe unN noewuoaom n Nam uno wHucoov:.. : mmonmwam mmao vno3ouo nun: oxHoa .NN o . n c n N H coHuoo amflmHHmwowHo co commoanonau a: axon: .cN . flosn moms n.suuoo uoa A.ouo .oaHuno>o now mam .uomcoso oHnHu o . n c n N H .oooHnoaonm .mwwoaoqv nouachnoaao now uuHoHHoo . mcHunowoo coo ooHuoucoaoHnsH nooao noaHBOnn nexus .nN o _ n c n N H onnmmm snoa noomiwaH>Hoa now oHaHucomuon 0H . unocnvnonoa can nun» onochnonso osu nnHz coauonum .cN _ uoHuHHomonon n.0noononoaaa on» can: aoBHu ounoomH .NN a uoHuHHoo now no on o H n c n N H any hono on ov vHooza ooaonao osu nos: nonoHqu .NN c MM n o n N H as: mchHonxu nooans voaono on an u>o£ ooHsn axon .HN ouaoanonou osn o . n c n N H wo uoHooaoH> ozn nomvoHaocxoo van nounomooom .ON c an n o n N H unowoo wo ouoounomwn «no cocoonum .oH " ncoaoonowcm one :oHuommmwwmxfiunHom can 0H5: m ~.ouo[duno>mwxmmHoomux+wmm uaozuHa o . n o n N H oaHuno>o xnozv nouocnvnonoo wo omwuco>vu auxoa .NH H M.onu+:uow 30> aooon voom‘no>onasz c . . m o n N H coo: 03:: «show uH can: .::06 u voozv aoHnonm . onu o>Hou >HHoon n.cov nonu «nuance sonov ao>Ho .NH O 1m, n c n N H MMUno :3o nnunu wo anomocoa on nouooanoaau auaona .9H d Nwz nosu ocov on o _ n c n N H coo amaHnu no: as: no >53 ocHoHQXo can enamoron . can acoHuuowmou noona nouaonvnoaaa on soon uuoo .nH o>noano . nunsH< no>oz uoz _ unoaH< unoaH< o>noono on oHAu no: o Noe -o no>oc uuoaH< H Nou :no aovHom N AcoHuooov some now noses: onoHnmonmna oHonHOV Non uns uoaHuoaom n . «.3 -3 323.5:— e 23:23 «was. 3324: NocHanm oaoaHo uaoaH< n "nooHuoanuaoH 2111 fi‘ xno: camcono monoa o . m c n N H :H oHoz no: no on: now ouoanononau any oxa< .oo b . anon on on oH noazxwmemeHooou unocwvnoaou o n c n N H «nu an canon onaHu on nonnnouoo aHnooHo .an BoHaomm‘no c n c n N H .nofi .noH>ozon can no: .ouaonao ozu co nououom .mn nowocoa man can ouooHunonaa can an o n o m N H ooxan on on manna uanoomm co nooaoonwo on noeoo .Nn acoHnooan xous no now so moHom o.uon3 q----d-q- o n q n N H zoos Sosa uoH on wwoua nuHs amcHuuoa avHoz .on c n o n N H aonu moHHHonuooo naozuH3 co Mano umcHuuos anom1,.nm m ausu unozou xno: o _ n c n N H coo no» on oHnHaaom no AHnou no aconHoov aoxo: .cn . mucosa mun wo uuoomoo o>HuHaom o n e n N H any mcHuaonuo .uHmoo uHs can .onocHononoo . can noowwo HHH3 «mouse on» so: aoaasoonn .nn o _ n c m N H _ mwoouuoo: one oommmso N53 :HoHoxo ou «Hugh .Nn _ unooHOnm no a afi‘uzn c H n e n N H :H mucosa o wo oHanov any uoaHnoaov MHnaoHo .Hn on on ommmwvnonao o . n c n N H man now nonaoo new can «sue on on coo nomocoa . osu mansuaco an ononu wH ouachnonoa «an axa< .on o _ n o. n N H ucosawwoao no EoHaonm onHuomo «co co monsoon .aN awcnnooa can «menu a . n e n N H gauonHow onHooau noosunz :oHouoooHo noon .mN _ xno3 so mmnosoHHob use acon amouncowno o>nouno . «No3H< nm>oz uoz bluooaH< nmoaH< o>noano 0n «Has no: o Noe no no>oc nooaH< H Nos Inc BovHom N AcoHuuosa zoom now noses: ouoHnmonaao oHonHov Rom nns aoanuoaom n «.3 -3 32268:— .~ 9.35%.... mun; $325. flccH:nm aaaaHo uuoaH< n "nooHuosnnucH 2155 monov «no c n n c n N H aucoaunoauo no nouacnvnonaa yoga zoos n.ouooa .mq o . m c n N H aoHHomoa vow uHaHnouoa wo on: man aHonucoo .ao o . n a m N H nvnooan Hoccoonom CH wchnzu uuaH on non .aononeoo .Nc o . n c n N H :oHnmeuoo>cH usoanz om oucovHoou unoH .oc {\w A.ouo .oEHuczou c . n c n N H .ncooo .nnaonv xnoznoooq acHoucHoa vow ouoHoeou .no . aoHuHHHnHacomoom Hannummcoz noHamom wCHHocoz b . ucoaunomov :3o o H n c n N H an: «mucus on aunnozuau osu unannononaa uo>no .co o ‘ n c m N H :oHaHoovxwaonz _ can oxoa Nona saga nonocnonoaou ooNHonano .no u . usuaunomov van wHoo wo c . n o m N H cocoanownom mcn>onaaH on mauacnvnonaa auuHoa< .No - m oocosnownom nHozu no G . n o n N H oouaoHoso «so an xooncoow ouH>ono u.cooon .Ho o>noano . MNMMMQ no>oz no: _ uaoaH< nooaH< o>nouno on oHno uoz 0 Now no no>oc uuoaH< H No« uno aovHom N AcoHuounv comm now noses: onoHnaonaou oHunHoV New unn uoaHuoBom n «.3 -3 32373..— .. 9.85.5... 3.52 532...: NocH-nm a>o3Ho nooaH< n ”aconuoanumcw APPENDIX B 216 APPENDIX H We are asking a number of people to evaluate the performance of the first line managers in the management training program. You are being asked to participate in this research project to aid us in the fair and objective evaluation of the managers and the training program. Please review the list of managers which will be given to you and circle those managers you feel you could evaluate. We are asking you to consider their performance over the last 2-3 months. The ratings will be used for research purposes only. and will not be placed in anyone's personnel file. The ratings will not affect the person's performance in any way. Before we begin, we would like to establish a common frame of- reference by rating two hypothetical managers. Take a few minutes to read the descriptions of the job performances of "Howdy" and "Tank" which appear on the following pages. 21'? As you complete your ratings, remember that distorted ratings may result if you do not consider the following possibilities for error: 1. The so-called "Halo Effect" This is a tendency to rate a person either high or low in several areas because he/she rates high or low in one outstanding area. Consistent Leniency Some raters tend to "go easy" because they believe in being generous toward their fellows. They rate almost everybody high in almost everything. Consistent Severity Some raters tend to be "too tough" on people because they believe in upholding extremely high standards. They rate people low and feel that few can reach the standards. Central Tendency Another type of rater refuses to "stick his neck out” and so rates everybody right down the middle. Prejudice Sometimes strong personal feelings toward the person being rated influence the rater's judgment. Day-to-Day Variation in Point of View Just as a rater's outlook on things in general may vary over a period of time from Optimistic to pessimistic, so also may his attitude fluctuate toward a given individual at a given time. If you can avoid making these errors, you will improve the quality of our study. 21E3 Description of Job Performance for Howdy Howdy is very well liked by his employees. He knows them by first names and frequently talks with each one during the shift. He feels his men have worked at ’ for a long time and have the experience and skill to do the job well. He feels this is important and spends time doing that instead of organizing the work load and following up. As a result, his department is frequently behind on work and has shortages and breakdowns which require scrambling to get the work done. His department shut down a plant once this year. He knows his equipment well and makes sure the job is set up right and that the equipment is maintained well.’ He may spend so much time with other matters that he'll cut corners on quality and add too many people, and do the best he can. He has almost no turnover and few labor problems. ' Description of Job Performance for Tank Tank is feared by his employees. He is usually well prepared for' any problem of difficulty which may come up during the shift, and lets his people know exactly what the targets and bogies are for the shift, and he almost always hits them. If any problem develops, he can usually handle it quickly and efficiently, and if anything gets in his way, he'll personally handle it. He insists on rigid standards and quality, and jumps on anyone who makes an error or is being idle. His department is almost always better than standard. His men call him "Sherman the Tank" because he'ss burn anything down which gets in his way. He has high turnover in his area and a lot of trouble with the union stewards. £319 =UH= mo<¢m>< N>Om< uo<¢m>< NU<¢M>< SOHMG 30H .nEmHnonn Hosanna nomnonom .unoo mnnmcnna us moH>nom no nunmond huHHnau awn; n menoamona nHH 3 nmuchwno mH own new: nu nouomdxm an mHnoo .. Ewan nmunn 03 anon: one new owed may snag .unsu nouw< .moH>non no coHuonvonn mnn team was zuH mac chnHocH ano noos name On nwsoco moNHcmwno an new :an on monounxo on anou ~.momomc wH uaoo nnn ,umcnum no >UHHn=o nsanu oonHnonn use nan .hHauoosa meow mcHsuhnn>u no wcoH an enoHunnan nnoe CH mmanvnn nH nuns m>uHcon on monounxn an mHnoo .hUHHnav no umoo oun -Hnonn 0n EH: NGH unnsvon .mnoum one» no>oc one n 0500 away on nEmHnonn noncns aHucnuncoo unn .nnnnnnnun can nuHmon new nHmow can socx cu nonconxo ma mHnoo .oHnwnnon no nonmonn no 00H>nun some as use new on >UHHmnc mam nmou uonHnomn was man amHmon :oHnunmona «omens hHucuavonw .mmNH sznwno unmsunmnmm man m>n£ no: cu mmuooaxu no mHnoo .xnz new .o>onn nnOuonw «an to same amnnnuasm anon xcng 3oz sona coHUHnOQ may now :9: m use .anzoz now wcHumn ecu mmawnonom yawn xcHsu no» coHuHmOQ can no :2: cm monHa .cmza .coHuonmond no nocmsnownon co wcHunn HHnno>o cm ease .wnHumn :oHnusmond no nonmEnownma HHmnm>o unmnHmeno unoEunmdom .3onn nuance sows: .00H>nmn amnnmcmun aneuomw ozu wo acoHudHnonom mHnun any :xan: man :am3oz: n>Hw .uowuuwnm now no uoamonn auHHnnc n mcHonmonn AmV on menu an :H sno3 mcHEnownua an may wcw>n£ mam o>Huonnona oHaonn wcHduox AHV "anouuew wcHRoHHow oAU no momma mco :uH3 aways anu :H towns; some unnn HHH3 a: 22H) zowz mu<¢m>< m>om< mu< mu<¢m>< 304mm 304 .,,.--._.t _ .maoHnonn Humans: nnmnonom .uaoo nnnmcnuu an moH>non no uoamonn huanac swan m wcHusmonn mHst nmanemno «Hmong nnmx on mmuomdxm an mHnoo Q>Q£ 03 UflflfiOOfi mflhamflms UUGQEHOMHQQ CO ”Cdmfloom URN 03 zwnonu cm>m nonsmond acne .moH>noa no coHuoomonn one cane can hnHHenv :HmnHocn aHmow umoa news on smnocm vouHcmwno on was :nHa on mouoodxo on mHnou .9 .mommoc wH umoo one -ecmua no aunHasu nosuHo oonHnonn has nan .thuooEn meow mcHsuhno>o an mcoH an mnoHunann umos :H nwanvon nH ness o>mH£om cu mouooaxw on mHsoo .ananc no unoo uon -Hnonu an EH: wcH unwnonn .mnoun «new nn>mc men a @800 away an nEoHnond anncnn zHucmnnnoo nan .nnnmmcnua men nonoa use nHmom can Socx On nouomdxa on mHnoo :2 mHanmoa an noonona no ooH>nmn some as uao new on zuannv new neon munwnnonn see was nonwon :oHuonmona momnwe hHucmnvonw .moNH ncnwno unmannmdmv can n>nn no: on mouooaxu on mHnoo .nHHHxn mnancm: oHdooa .HnCOnnoa man unannos nu censuses nosuo .mcHH n czom ance cm>m a: .Sosn co nnn: n.n£ nnoamn :08 «H: .umoo um no .>UHHnnc nmaonn man zuHs no .oEHu co nucoaonnnvan ecu anemone u.cnoom a: nan .anooa any gun: n>Huonwwo ano> on use >030: MCHBOHHow man no woman .noH>non no anemone AnHHnnc n manonnonn AnV unnmmcnnn cu none nH; CH xnoa wcHEnownon HNV “moNHCnmno unmannmnon can mcH>nn one o>wuonmond deooa mchoox HHV "QHOUUQW QOHSU wcHunn coHuoomona no mocmEnownmd HHnnm>o oco can: xmzoz men xcmb mmnmn 03 221 The list of managers below contains managers who attended the training sessions and those who did not, but all of them will be attending the program in the future phases. For the purposes of the present research, we want you to circle those managers whom you feel you can evaluate on a reasonable basis. particularly over the last 2-3 months. You should rate them on their ability to keep people productive and having the department organized, performing work to standard, and producing a quality product or service. Please rate the managers on the scale provided according to your best estimate at the present time. To rate the manager, place the number by the manager's name on the place on the scale which you think best describes his behavior. There may be more than one manager who gets a particular rating. When you have completed all the ratings of the managers you have circles, please go to the next page and rank the managers according to the procedure described on that page. Keep this sheet because you will be asked to rate the same managers again 3 months from now. 222 zqu wo<¢m>< m>om< mo<¢m>< mo<¢m>< onmn BOA _ .anHmsa .oHannoa an no nnoo oonw nonvona no oOH>nom .nEmHnonq .momooc wH noon mnm -Hnomn On EH: mew some on n30 new Hnomncn momnonom .nmoo unevennn ne OOH>non no nosnona AnHHmoc st: n mcHoanonm oHHsz nouwcewno oHdoon one: On monomawo no mHaou .oOH>non no coHnonnona nnnncmnn men Ann mac wnnmaHocn nHmO nooa news On zmsoco mouncnwno on was ann On nonooaxo on oHnoo uncenm no AnHHmac nosnno oonwnnonn sea nan .aHsnOOEn meow mensnanm>o mm mnoH no ncOHnmnnHm nnoa 6H noanvon on non: o>oHson On monoodxo as anoo -anvmn .mno a «new nn>oc men : oaoo wean an nEoHnone monnm: aHntmnncou nan .nmnowcnno one nonwon one nHmom man 3ocx On nonommxo on nHaou On anHHmnv mam nmoo nOHanomm has one meHmon cannunnona nomoHE annonconw .mowH ucnwno ncoannndon can o>m£ no: On menomnxo on anoo .OOH>noe no nonnond anHmac m mcHoamona any monomonna On menu an: on xnoa wanenownOQ HNV "nouncemno ncoennnamn msn wcH>es one o>nnosmond oHdomd wcHoomx HHV "onOnonw monzn mcnonHow onn to women mcHnnn coHnoomona no nonmanownom HHmno>o oco LnHz amnnm mnsn :H COnnOQ some anon HHH3 03 .Ho>oH ansoHnnnn some no oco cnsn onoa o>ma has no» mzn an noses: man nonHm .noonm can no HO>OH oco cH use: n.nowocna .BoHon oHnOn osn co moHonHo o>o£ no» anomncne ozn mnnn onnoHn .3oz APPENDIX I 1223 APPENDIX I Motivating A Person 52 Problem Solve (Session NO. 1) Introduction: This session lays the roundwork for several other sessions by stressing the need to focus on the problem and getting the employee to come up with ideas. To help the managers remember the key points. stress the acronym, "PACT" for: Problem is the focus, not the employee Ask the employee gone to agreement Time for a specific follow-up The mana ers should be able to recall "PACT" by the end of the class an recite the steps to the process. It's helpful to compare PACT to the process of reaching a pact with the employee to try to solve the problem. When the class chooses on incident to role play. the group leaders should: 1. Put the essential facts on the board or flip chart paper. 2. Provide a profile of the employee. 3. Ask the class if they want any more information. 4. When they are satisfied theg know enough, break them up into groups of three esc . Role Modeling The participants should work on three levels of difficulty: easy. medium and tough. The leaders should circulate to each group and make sure the feedback provided is specific, positive, escriptive and something the emp oyee can do something about. (See feedback sheets) £22” MOTIVATING A PERSON TO PROBLEM SOLVE FORMAT FOR TRAINING SESSION Introduction of topic Modeling of behaviors and key learning points Handing out copies of the learning points and modeling the behaviors again ‘Group discussion of the effectiveness of the model Practice in role playing in groups of three Feedback in general class discsusion on effectiveness of the module Instructions to use the behaviors on at least one employee during the time before the next session. Evaluate the session Materials 1. Learning points 2. Role play incident 3. Evaluation sheets Manager Managers Managers Managers Managers Managers Managers Russell 1225 W Attempting to coerce or threaten an employee to do a better job can put them on the defensive. and require increasing amounts of surveillance from you. Therefore. the first discussion about inadequate job performance should not be a disciplinary session. but rather a problem solving session in which the employee is made aware that you are concerned about a specific problem. You should not attempt to personalize the problem. to get a confession from the employee, or even suggest that the employee is causing the problem. For example. rather than saying. "Joe. why are 223 slowing up production?" you might say. "Joe. we have a problem that needs to be solved and I'd appreciate your ideas on it. Production has been somewhat slower in the warehouse in the past two weeks. You've worked in that area for some time and I consider you an expert on the warehouse operations. I'd like your ideas on how we might solve this problem." Write down his ideas and arrange to have him follow up on as many of the suggestions as possible (in other words, don't end up with a long list of ideas for only you to check on). Set a specific follow-up meeting to discuss progress on solving the problem. This will assure the employhe of your commitment to getting the problem solved. THE LEARNING POINTS FOR THIS EXERCISE ARE: 1. Focus ON THE PROBLEM. NQI THE EMPLOYEE. 2. ASK FOR THE EMPLOYEE’S HELP AND DISCUSS HIS OR HER IDEAS ON HOH TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. 3. COME TO AGREEMENT ON STEPS TO BE TAKEN av EACH OF you ANO SUMMARIZE THEM. 4. PLAN A SPECIFIC POLLOH-UP MEETING. 226 MOTIVATING A PERSON TO PROBLEM SOLVE ROLE MODELING Incident: The employee is on a line where there is a production problem with the parts coming by his station. The problem is the seals aren't holding and the part is leaking. The foreman is about to talk with his employee about the problem in his office. The employee has a good work record. He has been on the line for 3 years with no previous trouble. The parts he has been producing have not been a problem before. As foreman. you have checked into the problem and the line speed is the same as it's always been. 227 Employee: The employee is naturally a little defensive at first. He's not sure why he's been called into the office. He feels the foreman may be blaming him for some problems with a part he's been working on. Employee feels the line is moving too fast. He also is bothered by the fact the parts from station C are not bolted on as they should be. Finally. the adhesive seems too watery to him and he feels it may not be able to do the job. If the manager shows interest in solving the problem. the employee should drOp his defensiveness and respond with ideas. 22E3 MOTIVATING‘A PERSON 2Q PROBLEM SOLVE The discussion of the roI models should accomplish several purposes. 1. The participants should review whether the manager actually covered all the points. 2. The participants should understand why the learning points were essential and whether they should be improved to fit plant situations. 3. The participants should begin to get the feeling that they could model the points as effectively and possibly better. 4. The participants should be developing an acceptance of the learning points as legitimate steps to follow. Comments should be posted in front of the class for everyone to see. 1229 MOTIVATING é_PERSON 22_PROBLEM SOLVE Below are some comments made from the earlier session: Comments from managers: Foreman made sure employee knew it was running same speed. Office is a little unrealistic. Employee defensive at first. Supervisor was taking notes. Distractions were removed. No steward was present. Laid groundwork for future problems. Our group of middle and upper managers used the following incident: 1. Unwelded wheels were found in the production cycle: one was chalked, one was painted with no weld. Should be 1002 check. Employee was defined as working 5-6 years with no problems before. Learning Points: We added "and summarize them" after "Coming to agreement on steps to be taken by each of you.". The acronym for learning points is: Problem gsk for ideas game to agreement Timetable 23C) HANDLING é COMPLAINING EMPLOYEE Introduction: This session should begin with a review of someone's incident where they tried the actual learning points. This is a crucial time because they will be reluctant, but someone will eventually offer an incident which occurred recently. After this feedback session, the standard format will be followed as in the first session. This session is important because people have a tendency to want to jump to a response on a complaint before fully understanding it. particularly if the employee has complained before. The key emphasis here is to concentrate on really listening to the complaint by asking for a full description, restating the complaint, and acknowledging that the person has a valid viewpoint (even though you may not agree. and may not be able to resolve it). 231 HANDLING A_COMPLAINING EMPLOYEE FORMAT FOR TRAINING SESSION 1. Feedback from participants on the results of using the technique. 2. Introduction of tOpic 3. Modeling of behaviors and.key learning points A. Handing out cOpies of the learning points and reviewing the film.again 5. Group discussion of the effectiveness of the model 6. Practice in role playing in groups of three 7. Feedback in general class discussion on effectiveness of the module 8. Instructions to use the behaviors on at least one employee during the time before the next session 9. Evaluate the session Materials 1. Learning points 2. Role play incident 3. Evaluation sheets Manager Manager Managers Manager Managers Managers Managers Managers Russell' 2323 HANDLING A COMPLAINING EMPLOYEE (Session No. 2) Reviewing someone who has tried the points. This session is the first time the participants will return to the class from a previous session where they were asked to try the learning points on an employee. They should be asked to discuss whether they tried the points and if so, whether they would like to talk about it. If it worked well. the partici- pants should discuss why it worked, unless it's obvious. If the attempt was unsuccessful, the managers should ask the person to play the employee and get a volunteer from the class. (This will take a long time. but the leader should be patient; someone will eventually volunteer.) Get the essential points as in session 1. ' Role play in front of the class with the learning points in front of the person playing the supervisor. After completing the role playing, ask the class for specific feedback and for any suggestions they may have. Phrase all suggestions in a positive manner if they are stated negatively. I233 HANDLING i COMPLAINING EMPLOYEE (Session No. 2) Reviewing someone who has tried the points. This session is the first time the participants will return to the class from a previous session where they were asked to try the learning points on an employee. They should be asked to discuss whether they tried the points and if so. whether they would like to talk about it. If it worked well. the partici- pants should discuss why it worked, unless it's obvious. If the attempt was unsuccessful. the managers should ask the person to play the employee and get a volunteer from the class. (This will take a long time, but the leader should be patient; someone will eventually volunteer.) Get the essential points as in session I. ' Role play in front of the class with the learning points in front of the person playing the supervisor. After completing the role playing, ask the class for specific feedback and for any suggestions they may have. Phrase all suggestions in a positive manner if they are stated negatively. 2311 WE Many employees like to complain about their job. Although their complaints may seem unimportant to you, they may, in fact. be important to the employee. It is easy to react to the employee's complaints by refusing to listen to them, or by getting in a debate with them. Often the employee is just "letting off steam”. If you remain calm and express a willingness to listen, it increases the likelihood that they. too. will remain calm (or calm down). It is a good idea to write down each of the employee's complaints. and restate them to the employee to ensure your understanding of the issues. This will help slow the employee down, especially if he or she has a barrage of complaints. Go over each complaint, one at a time. discussing the employee's suggestions for solutions. If any of the complaints involve issues for which you have no control (e.g., pay raises). state your position non-defensively and without hostility. To make certain the complaints are adequately resolved, plan a specific follow-up meeting to talk with the employee again. THE LEARNING POINTS FOR THIS EXERCISE ARE: 1. RESPOND THOUGHTFULLY HITHOUT HOSTILITY OR DEFENSIVENESS. (REST) 2. A§&,FOR A POLL DESCRIPTION OF HIS OR HER COMPLAINT AND LISTEN OPENLY. 3. THOROUGHLY UNDERSTAND THE COMPLAINT BY RESTATING IT. (T) A. EMELQYEELS VIEHPOINT RECOGNIZED AND ACKNOWLEDGED. (E) S. EQSIIIQN SHOULD BE STATED NON-DEFENSIVELY. IF NECESSARY. (P) 6 . ASK THE EMPLOYEE TO SEE IF HE/SHE HAS ANY SUGGESTIONS, IF POSSIBLE. ) 7. COME TO AGREEMENT ON SPECIPEC STEPS TO BE TAKEN BY EACH OF YOU AND SUMMARIZE THEM. 8. IIME FOR A SPECIFIC FOLLOH-UP MEETING. (T) ACRONYM: RESTATE PACT 235 HANDLING A COMPLAINING EMPLOYEE Incident: The employee interrupts the foreman who is writing at his desk. The employee is upset that the line is moving too fast to handle the smaller units. The units were recently begun and the employee feels they are still too hard to handle. The smaller units were supposed to be easier, but he feels they are harder. The foreman is surprised. He knows the parts were time studied and should be no problem to the employees. The worker has had a good work record, although recently he was working on a line where the foreman was having problems with some parts. employee: The employee is nervous when he comes up because he's pretty worked up. If the foreman tries to brush him off, he'll get even more upset. As the foreman gets a full understanding of the complaint, he should calm down. 236 RANDLING A COMPLAINING EMPLOYEE Comments From Managers "There’s an implicit understanding that if I agree he has a legitimate gripe, I may have to solve it." "It's not the kind of complaint we usually get." "There's no steward." "He's not irate enough." Our group of middle and upper managers used the following incident: Example: "Dirty S_ _ _ Houses" Learning Points: Added: #6 If possible, ask the employee to see if he/she has any suggestions. NOTE: At this point, foreman could use the PACT Step in module number 1. 237 DISCUSSING POOR WORK HABITS Introduction This session focuses on a person's work habits, not his/her performance. For example, the employee may be coming to work late, leaving early, absent too much, or not filling out records or time cards accurately. The focus here should stay on the work habits or behaviors, not the employee personally. This session is literally a counseling session where the person is informed about behaviors or work habits that should be changed. It is assumed this is the first time the work habits have been discussed. The acronym for this session is the BeWAre PACT, where the first level managers are establishing a point which makes the employee aware he/she should change his/her behavior. BeWAre PACT stands for: Be Behaviors which are poor work habits and which are of concern to the manager. W Why the behaviors cannot continued. Are Ask for, and listen openly to the Reasons the Employee does what he/she does. P Problem is the focus, not the employee. A 52k for the employee's help and discuss his or her ideas on how to solve the problem. C Egg: to agreement on staps to be taken by each of you. T Tim; is set up for a follow-up. The only additional point here is to stress the point that you should offer your help in solving the problem if it's apprOpriate. so the employee specifically knows you do want to help. The participants will probably want to bring in a union steward during the discussions, which an employee would have the right to do. The supervisor can advise the employee he/she has the right to call his/her steward, but the supervisor should reiterate this is not a disciplinary action. Even if the steward is present, the stEps should still be valid and can be followed. 238 DISCUSSING POOR WORK HABITS FORMAT FOR TRAINING SESSION Feedback from the participants on the results of using the previous technique Introduction of COpic Modeling of behaviors and key learning points Handing out copies of the learning points and reviewing the film again Group discussion of the effectiveness of the model Practice in role playing in groups of three Feedback in general class discussion on effectiveness of the module Instructions to use the behaviors on at least one employee during the time before the next session Evaluation MATERIALS: 1. Learning Points and pads. 2. Role Play incident 3. Evaluation forms Managers Manager Managers Managers Managers Managers Managers Manager Russell 239 W Poor work habits include such things as: tardiness, poor attendance. refusing to follow proper safety procedures. leaving work early, etc. Discussing poor work habits with an employee can arouse feelings of defensiveness on the part of the employee. The initial discussion with the employee should not be a disciplinary session, but rather a problem-solving session in which you and the employee get together to solve a specific problem. If you express your sincerity in trying to help the employee rather than trying to punish him/her. it is likely that the employee will try to solve the problem. THE LEARNING POINTS FOR THIS EXERCISE ARE: 1. BEHAXLQR IS DESCRIBED HITHOUT HOSTILITY. HHICH YOU HAVE SEEN AND HHY IT CONCERNS YOU. (BE) 2. flux THE BEHAVIOR CANNOT CONTINUE Is EXPLAINED. (W) 3. ASK FOR AND LISTEN OPENLY To THE REASONS THE EMELQIEE DOES HHAT HE OR SHE DOES. (ARE) A. EBQBLEM IS THE QNE SPECIFIC FOCUS (AVOID DISCUSSING OTHER ISSUES). (P) S. ASK THE EMPLOYEE FOR HIS OR HER IDEAS ON HOH TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. (A) (6. OFFER YOUR HELP IN SOLVING THE PROBLEM.) 7. COME TO AGREEMENT ON STEPS TO BE TAKEN BY EACH OF YOU. (C) 8. ILME FOR A SPECIFIC FOLLOH-UP MEETING. (T) ACRONYM: "BEWARE PACT" 244) DISCUSSING POOR WORK HABITS Incident: The employee has recently begun leaving his work station five minutes early to get in line to clock out first. The employee is a steady worker who has not had a discussion with the manager earlier. The manager is afraid this will cause other employees to do the same thing, so he has called the employee in to his office to talk about the behavior. This is the first time he has talked to the employee about this practice. The foreman is willing to help the employee and has a frind in personnel at a plant nearby whom he could call on to ask a favor if necessary. Employee: The employee is a steady worker who gets the job done, doesn't take extra time on breaks, and has not been in any disciplinary action before. He considers himself an above average worker. He has been leaving his station a little early so he can get ready to clock out first in line because he now rides with a friend from his home town 30 miles away. His friend has to leave right away, because of a job he has to do at night. If the employee misses the ride with his friend, he has to wait to catch a pool van which arrives home an hour and a half later. He figures five minutes makes an hour and a half difference, and since he gets his work done better than most, he can leave his station a little early. The employee should explain his reasons to the supervisor after some discussion about why the issue is a problem since he gets his work done. If asked for ideas, he should suggest he could post a notice on the bulletin board about needing a ride. There could be a local newspaper which he could place an ad in. If the manager listens Openly and offers his help. the employee should reluctantly agree to look into ways to solve the problem. 2111 DISCUSSING POOR WORK HABITS The discussion of the role models should accomplish several purposes: 1. The participants should review whether the manager actually covered all the points. 2. The participants should understand why the learning points were essential and whether they should be improved to fit plant situations. 3. The participants should begin to get the feeling that they could model the points as effectively and possibly better. 4. The participants should be developing an acceptance of the learning points as legitimate steps to follow. Comments should be posted in front of the class for everyone to see. 2142 CORRECTING POOR WORK HABITS Comments: "Doesn't look like my people." "Would have had the steward." "Would work with one-on-one." "Might work with group." "WOn't work with some people." "Some people really don't know their record is bad, and need to have it pointed out." "Some stewards who've been thru QWL can be helpful at this step of counseling. The off-shift steward less willing to discuss." Incident: Die job not shipped correctly from tool room to the third shift. Bolts missing and the die drOpped out when the part was turned over. 3rd shift communicating to lst shift was a factor also. Employee had 16-17 years, good record; 5 years in die room. Note: Not a good example here, because it's really a performance problem. Reactions: Comfortable process. Hard to hold the sequence, but if all the points are covered, it's 0.x. Jotting down notes was important. Summarize conclusions. Learning Points: The supervisors may remark that the first session or "PACT" dealt with performance, but also included in it the offer of help by the supervisor. The supervisor agreed to check into station "C" 243 Learning Points (continued): and the adhesive if the employee would continue to check on station "C". It's not always important to say you want to offer your help if you demonstrate it. The acronym is: "BeWAre PACT" Be Behavior which is a poor work habit and which is of T concern to the manager. Why the behavior cannot continue. Ask for and listen openly to the Reasons the Employee does what he/she does. Problem is the focus, not the employee. Ask for the employee's help and discuss his or her ideas on how to solve the problem. Come to agreement on steps to be taken by each of you. Time is set for a follow-up. (The only additional point is the manager offers his/her help or demonstrates it.) 21M DISCUSSING A POTENTIAL DISCIPLINARY ACTION This is the second session following up with an employee whose poor work habits have not improved. The focus shifts from the poor work habits to the £555 gf correction for the poor work habits, so that a potential disciplinary action is now called for. It's important for the participants to recognize that this session is a follow up with the same employee who was counseled about leaving the work station earlier. The acronym for this module is the LAW PACT. This follows the BeWAre PACT where the employee was told about the behavior, why it couldn't continue, and asked for the reasons it was happening. Now the law is being laid down. The steps are: L Lack g; improvement since the previous discussion is the problem now. A Ask for and listen openly to the reasons for the continued behavior. W What disciplinary action is called for. and your reasons for doing so. P Problem being discussed is the only issue to focus on. Avoid distractions. A Assure the employee of your interest in helping him succeed on the job. C Come to an agreement on the employee's responsibility to solve the problem. T Time should be set to review and to praise the employee for changed behavior. This session would almost never be conducted without a union steward present, but the learning points should be still valid with the steward also. In particular, the steward will often try to get the manager into some other discussion and not focus on the problem being discussed. 2H5 DISCUSSING POTENTIAL DISCIPLINARY ACTION FORMAT FOR TRAINING SESSION Feedback from the participants on the results of using the previous technique. Introduction of tOpic. Modeling of behaviors and key learning points. Handing out copies of the learning points and reviewing the film again. Group discussion of the effectiveness of the model. Practice in role playing in groups of three. Feedback in general class discussion on effectiveness of the module. Instructions to use the behaviors on at least one employee during the time before the next session. Evaluation. Managers Manager Managers Managers Managers Managers Managers Managers Russell 1246 DISCHSSlflfi_EQIEHIlAL_DISCIELINARX_A£IIQN This session serves as a follow-up to previous discussion with the employee on poor performance or unfavorable work habits. At this time you have already given the employee the Opportunity to solve his problem, yet he has not solved it. If you have given the employee ample opportunity to correct the problem, you have the discretion to take disciplinary action: verbal-written warning, written warning, suspension or termination. If the employee is not terminated, it is important that you assure him of your continued interest in helping him succeed on the job, but to succeed and do well, the problem must be corrected. Give the employee specific praise for correcting the problem, when the problem is, in fact, resolved. THE LEARNING POINTS FOR THIS EXERCISE ARE: 1. LACK DE INEBQMENENI.SINCE THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION IS THE PROBLEM NOH. (L) 2. ASK FOR AND LISTEN OPENLY FOR HIS OR HER REASONS FOR THE CONTINUED BEHAVIOR. (A) 3. UHAI DISCIPLINARY ACTION Is CALLED FOR, AND YOUR REASONS FOR DOING SD. (M) A. EBOBLEM.BEING DISCUSSED Is THE ISSUE. SO THE MANAGER SHOULD AVOID DISTRACTIONS. (P) S. ASSURE THE EMPLOYEE OF YOUR INTEREST IN HELPING HIM OR HER SUCCEED ON THE JOB. (A) 6. COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON THE EMPLOYEE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. ' (C) 7. IIME SHOULD BE SET FOR A SPECIFIC FOLLOH-UP AND TO PRAISE THE EMPLOYEE FOR CHANGED BEHAVIOR. ‘ (T) ACRONYM: LAW PACT 21V? DISCUSSING A POTENTIAL DISCIPLINARY ACTION Incident: The employee has continued to leave his station 5 minutes early so the foreman has called him back into his office to discuss the lack of improvement since the last discussion. The employee explains that he's had no response from the ad in the paper and no response from the posting on the bulletin board. The foreman did contact the Personnel Manager at the other plant and hasn't heard about any results, so he asks the foreman if anything came from that contact. After asking for any reasons for the lack of improvement, the foreman should indicate a half day suspension is required by company policy. If it's not resolved, it could lead to dismissal. It's not an arbitrary decision and rules are for the improvement of the company. The foreman has tried to help and wants to help figure something out, but it's the employee's responsibility. Employee: The employee still has the problem and none of the foreman's ideas worked; only one person called about his ad in the paper and on the bulletin board, but that fell through. He's still in a bind because his ride has to be back right away for another job. He hopes the foreman has heard about somebody from the other plant. It still doesn't seem to be a big deal because he gets his work done and doesn't take too long on breaks. If the foreman's serious about it, he'll figure out something. NQEE: The role players should explain that a time lapse occurs right after the first meeting. The two should role play a brief incident where the foreman tells the employee he's noticed him leaving on time, so he appreciates the change and congratulates him on getting it solved. 2148 DISCUSSING A POTENTIAL DISCIPLINARY ACTION The discussion of the role models should accomplish several purposes: 1. The participants should review whether the manager actually covered all the points. 2. The participants should understand why the learning points were essential and whether they should be improved to fit plant situations. 3. The participants should begin to get the feeling that they could model the points as effectively and possibly better. a. The participants should be deveIOping an acceptance of the learning points as legitimate steps to follow. Comments should be posted in front of the class for everyone to see. 2189 DISCUSSING POTENTIAL DISCIPLINARY ACTION Coments : "Against policy is a stupid reason." Better to say: Manning a problem, line won't work, others will leave early, etc. Explain intent of policy. "Foreman knows he may get his A _ _ kicked if he doesn't enforce it." "Was the first module really a warning?" "Does he actually discipline?" "Does not mention when discipline takes effect." "Grant" you a discipline was a poor word. "Penalty was because of not solving the problem, not because of policy." "Seems false to offer help. May be better to say: 'We need you as a good employee.’ 'We need employees here all the time.’ 'We don't want to discipline.'" Example: 3 unauthorized absences in 60 days. Last discipline was 1 week, next one is 30 days. Employee: 49; single; likes to drink; 26 years seniority; hard worker; willing worker; careless worker. Fired 3-4 times for absenteeism and brought back for alcoholism. £253: The impact of the steward on foreman: Steward: tries to distract: policies; personal attach on the foreman; foreman's performance; other pe0ple; etc. Steward: represents the committee being a phone call away with better policy and consistency. Steward: causes foreman to have no confidence discipline will stick. 2250 Foremen need to know how to avoid distractions, such as: : "I'm not finished,and direct question at employee." : to steward: "I'm talking about his performance or work habits. That's the issue." They need backing up through the first step of counseling, especially through 13 days of the absenteeism policy. Acronyp Again, the acronym for the sessions is LAW PACT. L Lack of improvement since the pervious discussion is the problen now. Ask for and listen openly for his/her reasons for the continued behavior. What disciplinary action is called for, and the reasons for doing so. Problem being discussed is the issue, so the manager should avoid distractions. Assure the employee of your interest in helping him or her succeed on the job. Come to an agreement on the employee's responsibility to solve the problem. Time should be set for a specific follow-up and to praise the employee for changed behavior. 251 RECOGNIZING THE AVERAGE EMPLOYEE (Session 5) Introduction: This session focuses on the need to recOgnize a job, task, or work habits of an employee which are an improvement over typical performance. The person may be a steady performer, but always on time and without an absence for the past two years. The person could be a performer who frequently does poor work or fools around a lot, but who has done a nice job (even an average job, if he/she typically does a poor job). Of course, if the person is a good performer who does an exceptionally nice job, this technique is useful also. To help the managers remember the key points, stress the acronym "STAT" which stands for: S "Specific" behavior or work habit clearly described. T "Thanks" or tell him/her how much you appreciate why he/she does. A "535" the employee to let you know if there's ever anything you can do to make it easier to do the work. T "Tips? for a follow-up if that is needed. The way the managers may be able to remember it is that the employee is not just another "STAT" or statistic, but deserves some recognition for his/her performance. Also, you should emphasize that these principles are the same ones used in the constructive positive feedback which have been stressed throughout the training. We should recognize what pEOple do well, besides correcting problems with performance or with work habits. 2522 RECOGNIZING THE "AVERAG " EMPLOYEE FORMAT FOR TRAINING SESSION Feedback from participants on the results of using the previous technique. Introduction of topic. Modeling of behaviors and key learning points. A) Learning points on flip chart paper B) Role play C) Learning points on flip chart paper Handing out cOpies of the learning points and reviewing the fihm again. Group discussion of the effectiveness of the model. Practice in role playing in groups of three Feedback in general class discussion on effectiveness of the module. Instructions to use the behaviors on at least one employee during the time before the next session. Evaluate the session. MATERIALS: 1. Learning Points and pads. 2. Role play incident. 3. Evaluation sheets. Leader Manager Managers Managers Managers Managers Managers Managers Russell 253 Employees who receive recognition for their work are generally either the outstanding employees and/or the problem employees. The problem employees get recognition in terms of disciplinary action or other types of negative feedback from their supervisors. The outstanding performer often receives recognition for being the "best in the crew". However. the vast majority of employees are average. They do a good Job. they can be depended upon to be there every day. and yet they are not outstanding performers. Typically. no recogni- tion is given to these employees for the Job that they are doing. Tet. your Job would be much more difficult if these “average" workers became problem employees. It is important that the performance of these employees does not slip. Therefore provide them with gpggifig positive feedback and express your appreciation to them for doing a good Job. It is even possible that by showing these employees that you appreciate their efforts. they will be willing to do more or put forth an extra effort when you need their help. THE LEARNING POINTS FOR THIS EXERCISE ARE: 1. SEECIEICALLI DESCRIBE To THE EMPLOYEE NHAT HE OR SHE DID NHICH DESERVES RECOGNITION AND WHY. (S) 2. IHANK HIM OR HER BY SAYING How MUCH YOU APPRECIATE NHAT HE 0R SHE DOES. (T) 3. AfiK THE EMPLOYEE IF THERE IS ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR HIM OR HER TO DO HIS OR HER WORK. (A) 4. IIME FOR A SPECIFIC FOLLOW-UP MEETING. IF NECESSARY. (T) ACRONYM: "STAT" 251I Incident: The employee has been called in to the office of the first level manager. He explains to him that he has noticed the employee has done a steady job over the years and he wanted to take the time to tell him.how much he appreciates the performer. The items which the supervisor should comment on are: 1. "Gets along well with other workers" 4. "Dependable" 2. "Always in attendance" 5. "On time" 3. "Good attitude" The supervisor then should indicate that he has placed a letter of recommendation in the employee's personnel file. The supervisor then asks the employee if there is anything he can do to make the work easier. The supervisor should write down whatever suggestions are made. E_Ipployee: The employee should be a little worried at first because of being called into the office. When the supervisor explains the purpose is for doing a good job, the employee should relax. Whatever the supervisor says about the employee's performance should just be accepted without any questions to clarify what is specifically being done well. If the supervisor asks if there is anything that is bugging you, you should hesitate and then mention about your work area being dirty when you first come in, and that you though that was the cleanup man's responsibility. Also, if it seems like the supervisor is listening, you might also add that the coffee machine never has change for a quarter at the afternoon break. 255 §E_COGNIZING THE AVERAGE EMPLOYEE The discussion of the role models should accomplish several purposes: 1. The participants should review whether the manager actually covered all the points. 2. The participants should understand why the learning points were essential and whether they should be improved to fit the plant situations. 3. The participants should begin to get the feeling that they could model the points as effectively if not better. 4. The participants should be developing an acceptance of the learning points as legitimate steps to follow. Comments should be posted in front of the class for everyone to see. 2256 RECOGNIZING THE AVERAGE EMPLOYEE Comments from participants: "The feedback wasn't specific except that she "was always in attendance". The other comments about "good attitude", "dependable", "on time", "gets along with others", were too general. "Some employees may think he's asking for more." "Good idea for foreman to put the phone down." "Some employees may feel 'it's my job'". "Question whether the person is an above average employee." "Flip it in at a natural time." "Office atmosphere was not realistic." "Do it one on one." "No specific follow-up." "A meeting on the line is possible under these same learning points." "Unheard of to be brought into an office at Motor Wheel." "Would be better to focus on specific task just completed." "Terrifid'comment at the end is inappropriate." "Having personnel file is unrealistic." The group recommended the module to be used as follows: 1. Emphasize the first 2 points of positive feedback. 2. Leave 3 & 4 in for awareness. 3. Aim at the person who does a good job, but you noticed they did something specific just recently. Make the comments in the work area of the person. 5. Emphasize the need to say positive things about peOple's performance. 6. Timing for each employee is important. Don't just say it to everyone right away. 257' Exppple of things to recogpize are: no missed days orders processed setups done when it was important to get it done right cleaning up of work area The middle-upper managerial group did not use an incident because there was so much discussion about whether the learning points should be used on average employees or all good performance. It would be much better to role play an incident as in earlier training sessions. The acronym for learning points is: S T A T Specific "Thanks" "Ask" if you can help with job "Time" if necessary 25£3 OVERCOMING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE Introduction: This session focuses on the need to let people know a change is coming, why it will occur and how it will affect the employees. This technique is used where there is a decision from above because of customer demands, legal requirements, safety precautions or whatever. The issue may have been discussed before to get input from the employees, or it may not, but the situation is now clear: this is how things are to be changed. (If there is no final decision yet made, the PACT or "problem solving" session would be the module to use.) Here, the manager is to fully explain a change and ask for the people's help, or the individual's help in making the change work. Most change is resisted by peOple for natural reasons: habits, relationship with other employees, fear of not being able to handle the change, no feeling of needing the change, or whatever. This process is to let peOple talk about those fears, or just ask questions about how the change will work. Frequently, people will know about a change before it's official, but they don't have the full story or have questions about it. This session sets up the learning points which can guide a manager through that process. The acronym for this session is "SpEAR HeAd" because the manager will want peOple to "spear head" for the change. "Spear- head" stands for: Spe Specific details of the change. E Explain why the change is necessary. A Affect of the change on the employee. R Reaction of the employee(s) should be listened to OpenIy, because they may be worth considering. He Hal is asked for from the employee(s) to make tEe change work. Ad A date is set for a specific follow-up meeting If required. 259 The managers should be able to recall SpEAR HeAd at the end of the training session and recall what the letters stand for. Since this is the last session, the managers should be familiar with the process by now. q It's still important to go through the format in part because they're used to it by now, and should follow it easily, but also because each section of the format has a specific purpose. Note that the only change here from earlier sessions is that the managers are asked to use the techniques on an employee during the next week. 1. Feedback from.the participants on the results of using the previous technique. 2. Introduction of topic. 3. Modeling of behaviors and key learning points. A) Learning points on the chart paper B) Role play C) Learning points on flip chart paper 4. Handing out COpies of the learning points and reviewing the film again. 5. Group discussion of the effectiveness of the model. 6. Practice in role playing in groups of three. 7. Feedback in general class discussion on effectiveness of the module. 8. Instructions to use the behaviors on at least employee during the next week. .9. Evaluation. 10. Final Evaluation MATERIALS: 26C) OVERCOMING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE FORMAT FOR TRAINING SESSION 1. Learning Points and pads. 2. Role Play incident. 3. Evaluation forms. Manager Manager Managers Managers Manager Managers Managers Managers Russell Russell 261 W It is important that you inform your employees of a change as soon as you are told about it. When describing the change, explain ypy it is occurring (if you do not have this information, contact your manager). Explain the reasons for the change in terms the employee can understand, for example, the need to meet the market demands, the need to produce a product that is currently being requested, etc. The employee is likely to Oppose the change. It is important that you listen Openly and without hostility to his or her concerns. Point out the positive aspects of the change that may be beneficial to the employee (this may take some thinking). Express your confidence that you feel he or she can handle the change and that you would appreciate his or her help in making the change work. Ask him or her to think of ideas on how to make the change go smoothly. These could be discussed at a follow-up meeting. A follow-up meeting may also be necessary to "touch base" with an employee who is extremely anxious or defensive about the change. THE LEARNING POINTS FOR THIS EXERCISE ARE: 1. SEEEIEIEALLY DESCRIBE THE DETAILS OF THE CHANGE. (SP) 2. EXELAIN.WHY THE CHANGE IS NECESSARY. (E) 3. DISCUSS HON THE CHANGE HILL AEEECI.THE EMPLOYEE. - STRESSING THE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE CHANGE. (A) 4. LISTEN OPENLY To THE EMPLOYEE'S REACIIQNS ABOUT THE CHANGE. THE BEAQILQN§_MAY BE HORTHY OF MANAGEMENT'S ATTENTION. (R) S. ASK THE EMPLOYEE FOR HIS OR HER HELE To MAKE THE CHANGE HORK. (HE) 6. IF NECESSARY. PLAN A DAI£,FOR A SPECIFIC FOLLOH-UP MEETING. (AD) ACRONYM: 'SPEAR HEAD” 2622 OVERCOMING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE Incident: The first level manager has asked one of his/her employees into his office to explain the specific details of a change from a wooden production part to a plastic production part. The process change will mean the employee is required to walk from the beginning of the job to the completion of it, and then repeat the cycle again. He/she stays at the same station and works with the same employees, but in the future won't be working with anyone in particular. The change to the plastic part was called for by marketing, who felt the part was needed to meet customer demands and stay competitive. The employee went through another major change 3-4 years ago, and handled it very well. He/she is an average to good employee, who gets along well with the other employees. Employee He/she likes working with the other people at his/her station, so would not like the idea of moving along with the job. Marketing also always seems to be making changes, and sometimes it seems like they're just for the sake of change. If the manager seems to be giving sincere reasons for the change, the employee should not question it too much. Also, if the manager seems to acknowledge the employee's problems with the change, the employee should agree to help with the change, but not be enthusiastic about it. 263 OVERCOMING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE The discussion of the role models should accomplish several purposes: I. The participants should review whether the manager actually covered all the points. 2. The participants should understand why the learning points were essential and whether they should be improved to fit plant situations. 3. The participants should begin to get the feeling that they could model the points as effectively and possibly better. 4. The participants should be developing an acceptance of the learning points as legitimate steps to follow. Comments should be posted in front of the class for everyone to see. 2614 OVERCOMING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE Comments: "Reasonable explanation of why change necessary." "No explanation of why plastic causes a process change." "Described affects on the employee." "Positive aspects not stressed." "Assured her about how she handled the change last time." "Asked her for her help." "Tieing in with Employee Involvement neans you should get them involved in the change." "One-to-one not realistic. More like one group. "Motor Wheel employees would already have lots of questions so foreman should be armed with facts by their managers." "It is not just for modernization, but rather it happens every day: job combinations, piecework rates (foremen not involved), rearrange lines. policy changes)." 7 Example: We practiced in groups of 5: l foreman. 3 employees, and an observer. Used: Shutdown of Q.C. inspection area for breaks. Lunch buckets, coffee pots. magazines and cigarette smoking were all off limits unless on Q.C. business The groups were production employees on the second shift and the supervisor was a production manager who had to explain the change to his/her employees. Learning Points: It's important to make sure the manager actually "asks" for the employee's help in making the change work. The acronym for the learning points is: Sp Specific details of the change. E Explain why the change is necessary. A Affect of the change on the employee.. R Reactions to chan e should be listened to openly, because they may e worth considering. He Help is asked for from the employee. Ad A date is set for follow-up if necessary. APPENDIX J 265 APPENDIX J Before answering the following questions. please think about your working relationship with your immediate supervisor. All Of the following questions ask about this particular working relationship. Do you usually feel that you know where you stand . . . do you usually know how satisfied your immediate supervisor is with what you do? (circle one) - Always know where I stand - Usually know where I stand - Seldom know where I stand - Never know where I stand MN“- How well do you feel that your immediate supervisor understands your problems and needs? (circle one) - Not at all I Some but not enough - Well encugh - Completely #uNH How well do you feel that your immediate supervisor recognizes your potential? (circle one) Fully As much as the next person Some but not enough Not at all HNUb Reqardlcss Of how much formal authority your immediate supervisor has built into his or her position, what are the chances that he or she would be personally inclined to use power to help you solve problems in your work? (circle one) - No chance ' Night or might not - Probably would I Certainly would ‘UNF‘ 266 Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your immediate supervisor has, to what extent can you count on him/her to I'bail you out' at his/her expense when you really need it? (circle one) Certainly would Probably would Night or might not No chance a 3 2 1 I have enough confidence in my immediate supervisor that I would defend and Justify his/her decisions if he/she were not present to do so. (circle one) Probably not Maybe Probably would Certainly would fiwma— I... How would you characterize your working relationship with your immediate supervisor? (circle one) Extremely effective Better than average About average a 3 2 1 Less than average APPENDIX K 267 APPENDIX Please indicate how much you arree with the statements below about your om fellinns of worth and self comet-ence. ageee; (2) if vou came; (2) if you’re not sure; (u) if you disame; (S) if you strmply disame . l. I feel i‘m a person of worth, at least a1 an equal basis with others. 2 I feel that I have a nunher of good qualities. 3. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. '4. I am able to do things as well as most people. 5. I feelIdonothavemchtohe proud of. 6. I take a positive attitude toward myself. 7. m the whole, I am satisfied with myslef. c l. I wish I could have more respect for myself. 9. I certainly feel useless at time 10. At tines I think I mine pond at all. X Mower“ (1) if you strongly Strum! 1v Disagree 10. BIBLIOGRAPHY Andrews, Kenneth R. Is management training effective? I. W 1957 15(1), 85-940 Andrews, Kenneth R. 13 management training effective? II. W, 1957, Baer, Donald M., a Sherman, Jones A. Reinforcement control of generalized imitation in young children. MW, 1964, 1, 37-49 0 Bandura, Albert. Social_LeaLning_Ihegry. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1977. Bandura, Albert A. ' (Modification. New York: Holt, 1969. Bandura, Albert A. Influence of model's reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Social_zs¥shnlns¥: 1955: 11 589-595. Bandura, Albert, & Mischel, W. Modification of self- imposed delay of reward through exposure to live and symbolic models. 2519119193.}; 1955: 2: 698-705- Bandura, Albert, & Perloff, Bernard. Relative efficacy of self-monitored and externally imposed reinforcement systems. Wr1957r 1, 111-116- Bandura, Albert, Ross, Dorothea, & Ross, Sheila A. Imitation of film mediated aggressive models. , 1963, §§(1), 3-11. Bandura, Albert, Ross, D., & Ross, S.A. A comparative test of status envy, social power, and the secondary reinforcement theories of identification learning. Journal_gf_Ahngrmal_and .SQQinl_RE¥QthQQ¥r 1953: 511 527-534. 268 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 269 Baumgartel, 3., & Jeanpierre, F. Applying new knowledge in the back home setting: A study of Indian managers' adaptive efforts. Journal_gf .Applied_Behaxiora1_Science,1972, a, 674- 694. Bem, D.J. Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (26.),.Ad1ances_in_expe1imental_socia1_nfiY£holonY- New York: Academic Press, 1972, 1-62. Burnaska, Robert F. The effects of behavior modeling training on managers' behaviors and employees' perceptions. WW. 1976, 29., 329- 335. Byham, William C. Changing supervisory and managerial behavior. Jgnxnal, May, 1977,10-16. Byham, Wm. C., Adams, Diane, & Kiggins, Ann. Transfer of modeling training to the job. .Rersonnel 22mm. 1976. 22. 345-349. Byham, William, & Robinson, James. Interaction modeling: a new concept in supervisory training. .Iraining.and_Dexelnnment_Journal, February, 1976, 20- 33. Caine, B.T. Role modeling and the assumption of leadership in associates. Office of Military Leadership (Ede-l. A_£tud¥_of_Qrsanizational . Harrisburg, PA: Stockpole Books, 1976, 362-372. Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E. E. III, & Weick, K. E. Jr. and_£f£egt11eness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Campbell, D. T., 8 Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N L- Gage (Ed l,.Handbook_on_Research_in_Ieachin9- Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. Chronbach, Lee J., & Furby, Lita. How should we measure "change,” or should we? Rsyghglggigal Bulletin, 1970, 74(1), 68-80. Chronbach, L.J., & Snow, R.E. "Individual differences in learning ability as a function of instructional variables," £1nal_renort11&2hogl_gf 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 270 6961262212111. US Office of Education, 1969. Cook, Thomas D., & Campbell, Donald T. Quasi: WW £i£1d_5ettings. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1979. Cossini, Raymond, Shaw, M. E., 8 Blake, Robert R. . New York: Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Dalton, M. Conflict between staff and line managerial officers. WW. 1966,15, 3- 5. Dansereau, F. Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership with informal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. .Qrsanizationa1_nehaxior Wage 1975. 13.: 46-78. Davis, T., Lim, R.V., a Luthans, Fred. A social learning approach to organizational behavior. ‘ , 1980, 5(2), 281-290. de Charms, R., & Rosenbaum, M. E. Status variables and matching behavior. Jon;na1_gfi_£ersgnality, 1960, 2&, 492-502. Decker, Phillip J. Coding and rehearsal in behavior modeling. Jaurna1_of_Annlied_£s¥cheiogx. 1980. 6(65), 627-634. Decker, Phillip J. The enhancement of behavior modeling of supervisory skills by inclusion of retention processes. ‘Agademy_gf_nanagement Proceedings, 1981. Decker, Phillip J. Modesty and caution in reviewing behavior modeling: a reply to McGehee and Tullar. WW: 1979. 32. 399-400- Dowell, Ben E., & Wexley, Kenneth N. Development of a work behavior taxonomy for first line supervisors. WW 1978, 63(5), 563- 572- Feder, Janice, & Midlarsky, Elizabeth. The relationship between identification and imitation: a conceptual and empirical review. W W, 1979, 2, 59. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 271 Flanders, James P. A review of research on imitative behavior. £s¥9h91991231_nn11etin, 1968, 62(5), 316- 337. Fleishman, E.A., Harris, E.R., & Burtt, H.E. ' ' , Bureauf . 1 Ohio State University, 1955. Frank, L. L., e Hackman, J. R. Effects of interviewer- interviewee similarity on interviewer objectivity in college admissions interviews. .Jonrnal_of_Annlisd REYShganY, 1974, 21: 209- 233- Gelford, D.M. The influence of self-esteem on rate of verbal conditioning and social matching behavior. WW, 1962, 65, 259-265. Gergen, K.J., 8 Bauer, R.A. Interactive effects of self-esteem and task difficulty on social conformity. 5' 16-22 0 Goldstein, Arnold P., & Sorcher, M. A. .Changing , New York: Pergoman Press, Inc., 1974, 90. Goldstein, Irvin L. - and_£1alnatign. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., A Division of wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1974, 231. Goldstein, Irvin L. Training in work organizations. W. 1980. 31. 229-272- Golembiewski, R.T., Billingsley, K., & Yeager, S. Measuring change and persistence in human affairs: Type of change generated by OD designs. ‘Jgnrnal_of Woe, 1976,12: 133-157- Graen, George. Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M.P. Dunnette (Ed.), Bandbooflf MW. 1976. 1201- Graen, E. & Cashman, J.F. A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J.G. Hunt and L.L. Larsen (Eds.), , Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1975, 143—165. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 272 Grusec, Joan, 8 Mischel, Walter. Model's characteristics as determinators of social learning. , 1966, 4(2), 211-215. Hakel, Milton D. Some questions and comments about applied learning. W, 1976. 29., 361-363. Hamblin, A.C. NW- London: McGraw Hill, 1974. Hand, H.H., Richards, M.D., 8 Slocum, J.W. Organizational climate and the effectiveness of a human-relations training program. AcademLof ManagemenLlonrnal. June, 1973. 1.6.. 185-194. Harris, E.R., 8 Fleishman, E.A. Human relations training and the stability of leadership patterns. W. 1955, 3.9.. 20-25. Hetherington, E. Mavis, 8 Frankie, Gary. Effects of parental dominance, warmth and conflict on imitation in children. my, 1967, 5(2), 119-125. Havland, C.L., 8 Janis, I.L. (Eds.), Persuasability. New Haven: Yale University, 1959. House, R.J., 8 Baetz, M.L. Leadership: Some generalizations and new research directions. In B.M. Staw (Edd . W. Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press, 1979. Huck, S.W., 8 McLean, R.A. Using a repeated measure ANOVA to analyze the data from a pretest-postest design: a potentially confusing task. Rsxnhnlnsisal Bulletin, 1975, 3214), 511-518. Jackson, Douglas R., 8 Paunonen, Sampo V. Personality structure and assessment. WW: 1980. 31. 503- 51. James, L.R., Hater, John J., Gent, M.J., 8 Burni, J.R. Psychological climate: Implications from cognitive social learning theory and interactional Psychology. W. 31(4). 783-813. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 273 Katz, Robert L. Human relations skills can be sharpened, W 1956 31(4). 61- 72. Kazdin, Alan E. Covert modeling, imagery assessment, and assertive behavior. W: 1975.136), 716-724. Kerr, Steven. On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. In Ross Webber (Ed.), ° . Homewood, Ill: Richard O. Irwin, 1979. Kerr, Steven, 8 Jermier, John. Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. WW 1978. 22, 375-403. Kirkpatrick, Donald L. Evaluation of training. In Craig. Roger L. (136.). W ‘Handnggk. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1976, 18- 27. Klinger, E. Modeling effects on achievement imagery. Koch, James L., 8 Rhodes, Susan R. Problems with reactive instruments in field research. MW 1979 15.. 485- 506. Kraut, Allen I. Behavior modeling symposium: developing managerial skills in modeling techniques: Some positive research findings. Personnel W, 1976. 22. 325-328. Landy, F. J., 8 Farr, J. L. Performance rating. W, 1980 31(1). 72-107. Latham, Gary P., 8 Saari, Lisa. The application of social learning theory to training supervisors through behavior modeling. .Pfixcholosxp 1979: 51: 239-245- Latham, Gary, 8 Wexley, Ken. ' . Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley, 1981. Latham, G.P., Cummings, L.L., 8 Mitchell, T.R. Behavioral strategies to improve productivity. Organizationamxnamics. Winter, 1982. 5-23. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 274 Latham, Gary P., Fay, Charles, 8 Saari, Lisa M. The development of Behavioral Observation Scales for appraising the performance of foreman. ‘Eersonnel 25mm. 1979. 12 299-311. Lefkowitz, M., Blake, R.R., 8 Mouton, J.S. Status factors in pedestrian violation of traffic signals. W. 1955. 51, 704-705. Lewis, Donald J., 8 Duncan, Carl P. Vicarious experience and partial reinforcement. AbnormaLSosiaLPsmhology 1958 51. 321- 326. Liden, Robert C., 8 Graen, George. Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Wu. 1980. 21(3), 451-465. Likert, Rensis. ' . New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1967, 258. Lippitt, Ronald, Polansky, Norman, 8 Rosen, Sidney. The dynamics of power. Human_3e1atigns, 1952, 5, 37- 64. Locke, Edwin A. The myths of behavior modification in organizations. Wm. October, 1977, 543-553. Locke, Edwin A. The supervisor as "motivator”: His influence on employee performance and satisfaction. In R. Steers, 8 L.W. Porter, (Eds.), Motiyatign_and ‘Wgrk_BehagiQr. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. Lord, Fredrick M. A paradox in the interpretation of group comparisons. Psychologiga1_nnllgtin, 1967, 63(5), 304-305. Lord, Fredrick M. Elementary models for measuring change. In C.W. Harris, (Ed.), Problems_in . Madison, Wis: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1963. Luchins, Abraham 8., 8 Luchins, Edith H. Learning a complex ritualized social role. .Ih£_£B¥£thQQi£fll ‘nggxd, 1966, 16, 177-187. Macy, E.A., 8 Mirvis, P.H. A methodology for assessment of quality of work life and organizational 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 275 effectiveness in behavioral-economic terms. W112. 1976. 21. 212- 226. Manz, Charles C., 8 Sims, Henry, P. Jr. Vicarious learning self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theory perspective. AW. 5(3). July. 1980. 361- 367. Manz, Charles C., 8 Sims, Henry P. Jr. Vicarious learning: The influence of modeling on organizational behavior. ‘Agademy_gf_flanagement Rm, 1981’ £(1), 105‘1130 Mausner, B. The effects of prior reinforcement of the interaction of observer pairs. .Annlied_Behaxior_Science. 1954. 52¢ 55-68- Mausner, B. The effects of one partner' 8 success in relevant task on the interaction of observer pairs. W.1954. $9.. 557- 560. Mausner, B. Studies in social interaction: Effects of variations in one partner's prestige on the interaction of observer pairs. ‘lonrnal_gf_Applied Psmholoox. 1953. 31. 391-393. Mausner, B., 8 Bloch, B.L. A study of the additivity of variables affecting social interaction. Journal Welling. 1957. 51. 250-256. Maxwell, Scott, 8 Howard, George S. Change scores- necessarily an anathema? PW. 1981. 41. 747-756. McFall, Richard M., 8 Twentyman, Craig T. Four experiments on the relative contributions of rehearsal modeling, and coaching to assertion training. W. 1973. 81(3). 199-218. McGehee, W., 8 Thayer, P.W. ‘and_1ndnstry. New York: Wiley, 1961. McGehee, William, 8 Tullar, William L. A note on evaluating behavior modification and behavior modeling as industrial training techniques. W. 1978. 31. 477-484. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 276 Meichenbaum, Donald H. Examination of model characteristics in reducing avoidance behavior. ’ ' , 1971, 11(3), 298-307. Mischel, W., 8 Grusec, J. Determinents of the rehearsal and transmission of neutral and aggressive behavior. WW. 1966, 1, 197-205. Moore, Michael L., 8 Dutton, Phillip. Training needs analysis: Review and critique. ‘Agademy_of ManagemenLRexisx. 3(3) . 532-545. Moses, Joseph In, 8 Ritchie, Richard J. Supervisory relationships training: A behavioral evaluation of a behavior modeling program. .Persgnn£l_£fi¥£h9199¥. 1976’ 22’ 337-343. Mowdy, Richard T8 The exercise of upward influence in organizations. Mministratimficimcefinartsrly. 1978, 21(3), 137-156. (YConnor, Terrance. How to set up, run and evaluate a training program based on behavior modeling Principles. W. 1979. January, 23-24. (PReilly, Charles A. III, 8 Weitz, Barton A. Managing marginal employees: The use of warnings and dismissals. MW.1980. 25(3), 467-481. Overall, J.E., 8 Woodward, J.A. Nonrandom assignment and the analysis of covariance. Psychological Bullgtin, 1977, 81(3), 588-594. Pelz, Donald C. Influence: A key to the effective leadership in the first-line supervisor. W. 29.. 1952, 209-217. Peters, William 8., 8 Champoux, Joseph E. The role and analysis of moderator variables in organizational research. In R.T. Mowday and R.M. Steers (Eds.), I Santa Monica, Calif: 1979, 239-253. Porras, Jerry I., 8 Anderson, Brad. Improving management effectiveness through modeling based training. QuanizationaLDynamics. 1981. 60-77. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 277 Porras, Jerry I., 8 Anderson, Brad. Modeling based training: Management development through behavioral modeling. Stanford_fififl, 1981-82, 2-6. Porras, Jerry I., Patterson, Kerry J., Maxfield, David G”, Bies, Robert J., Roberts, Nancy, 8 Hargis, Ken. Modeling-based organizational development: A longitudinal assessment, unpublished manuscript, June 5, 1980. Roberts, Michael C. The effects on the model of being imitated: A review and critique of the literature. Esyghglggy, 1979, Feb., 9, 7-8. Robinson, James C. Will behavior modeling survive the 1980's. 11W. Jan.. 1980, 22-28. Robinson, James (L, 8 Gaines, Dana L. Seven questions to ask yourself before using behavior modeling training. WW. Dec.. 1980, 60-69. Rosenbaum, Milton E. The effects of stimulus and background factors on the volunteering response. WW. 1956. 51. 118-121. Rosenbaum, M.E., 8 Tucker, I.F. The competence of the model and the learning of imitation and non- imitation. WW. 1962. fl, 183-1900 Rosenbaum, M. - . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965. Schein, Edgar H. The effect of reward on adult imitation behavior. WW Psychology. 1954, 42. 389-395. Schmidt, F.L., 8 Hunter, J.E. Moderator research and the law of small numbers. W, Shaw, Marvin E. . New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1981. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 278 Smith, Preston. Management modeling training to improve morale and customer satisfaction. W. 1976. 29.. 351-359. Steers, R.M. ' ' WW Behaxigral_yigw. Santa Monica, Calif: Goodyear, 1977. Steers, R.M. Task goal attribute on achievement and supervisory performance. , 1971, lfiJ 392-403. Steers, Richard M., 8 Rhodes, Susan R. A new look at absenteeism. Persgnngl_£syghglggy, 51(6), 1980, 60- 66. Stone, Gerald L., 8 Vance, Adrian. Instructors, modeling and rehearsal: Implication for training. WW: 1976. 23(3). 272- 279. Suci, G.J., Vallance, T.R., 8 Glickman, A.S. A study of the effects of "likingness' and level of objectivity on peer ratings reliabilities. WWW . 1956. 1.6.. 147-152. Terborg, James R. Interactional psychology and research on human behavior in organizations. Widen. 1981. 6(4). 569-576. Terborg, JJL, Richardson, Peter, 8 Pritchard, Robert D. Person-situation effects in the prediction of performance: An investigation of ability, self- esteem, and reward contingencies. .Jonrnal_gf_Applied Psyghglggy, 1980, 65(5), 574-583. Thorton, George C. Psychometric properties of self- appraisals of job performance. Personnel_23ychglngy, 1980, 11, 263-271. Tosti, Donald T. Behavior modeling: A process. W. August. 1980. 70- 74. Walter, Gordon A. Changing behavior in task groups through social learning-modeling alternatives. {Human .Rglatigns, Feb., 1976, 22(2), 167-178. Walters, Richard H., Parke, Ross D., 8 Care, Valerie A. Training of punishment and the observation of 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 130. 128. 129. 131. 132. 279 consequences to others as determinants of response inhibition. WI 1965' 21' 1.0-’30. Waters, L.K., 8 Waters, L.W. Peer nominations as predictors of sales performance. .Jgnrnal_gf_Applied Pfixchnlogx. 1970. 51. 42-44. Webber, Ross A. . Homewood, 111: Richard T. Irving, 1979. Wehrenberg, Stephan and Kuhlene. How training through behavior modeling works. .Rersgnneldlgnrnal, 1980, 52(7), 576-580, 593. Weiss, Howard M. Social learning of work values in organizations. W. 1978. 61(6), 711-718. Weiss, Howard M. Subordinate imitations of supervisory behavior: The role of modeling in organizational socialization. Organizational BahaviaLansLBumarLPerfarmance, June 1977, 12(1), 89- 105. Wexley, K.N., Alexander, R.A., Greenawalt, R.A., 8 Couch, M.A. Attitudinal consequence and similarity as related to interpersonal evaluations in manager- subordinate dyads. W. 1980, 2212), 320-330. Wexley, Kenneth N., 8 Latham, Gary P. W. Glenview. Illinois: Scott Foresman and Co., 1981, 256. Wexley, K.N., 8 Nemeroff, W.F. Effectiveness of positive reinforcement and goal setting as methods of management development. Psychology. 1973. 51. 233-236. Wodarski, John S., 8 Bogarazzi, Dennis A. A seminar of the empirical status of traditional modes of interpersonal helping: Implications for social work Practice. minicaLSoniaLWanlaurnal. 1979. 1(4). 231-255. Woodward, J. Arthur, 8 Overall, John E. Multivariate analysis of variance by multiple regression methods. WI 1975' 3.2.(1)r 21'32- 280 133. Wright, Donald. The basic dilemma of management training. IndustriaLandJnmmaraialJraining, (UK), 134. Zedeck, S. variables. 310. Problems with the use of moderator BamboloaicaLBnlletin. 2.6.. 1971. 295- GENERAL REFERENCES NOTE 1, Personal correspondence with Kenneth N. Wexley, 1982. Beeland, James Lee. The effectiveness of a short supervi- sory management training course: a multi-factor evaluation experiment. DBA. 1976, Georgia State University School of Business Administration. 182 p. 37/05-A p. 3005. DAH 76-25381. Brannen, Dalton Eugene, An analysis of training needs of lower and middle management personnel. Ph.D. 1976, University of Mississippi, 267 p. 37/11-A p. 7194. DBJ 77-11180. Calvert, Linda McGee, Behavior modification training: A study of the effects in a hospital. Ph.D. 1976, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 225 p. 37/07-A, p. 4463. DBJ76- 28793. Dem, Robert Arthur, An objective approach to the evalua- tion of management training. Ph.D. 1976, The Ohio State University, 382 p. 37/05-A, p. 3010. DAH76- 24583. Decker, Phillip Jay, The effects of coding and rehearsal on reproduction and generalizability of modeled events: An amplification of applied learning Ph.D. 1979, The Ohio State University), 120 p. 40/07-B, p. 3460. DEM80-017l7. Hill, J,and Liebert, R.M. Vicarious extenction of avoid- ance behavior via film-mediated models. Unpublished manuscript, Vanderbilt University, 1967. Holybock, Robert L and Weinstein, Alan G. The Attributed Power Index. unpublished manuscript. Huegli, Jon M. and Tschirgi, Harvey, 0. Preparing the student for the initial job interview: skills and methods, ABCA Bulletin, DEC. 1979, Vol. 42, (4), pp. 10-13 0 281 282 Keim, Robert Thomas. .Assessing implementation attitudes in traditional versus behavioral model building: A longitudinal investigation with the MAPS design tech- nology. Ph.D. 1976, University of Pittsburgh, p. 203, 37/07-A, p. 4472. DBJ-30432. Schwind, Hermann Franz. The performance and evaluation of a new performance appraisal and training evaluation instrument: the Behaviour Description Index. Bus. Adm. PhJL 1979, The University of Britich Columbia, (Canada). 40/04A, p. 2166. Landrum, Thomas Lowell, Sr. The evaluation of a ”custom- tailored“ supervisory training program. Ph.D. 1974, Purdue University, 150 p. 35/06-A p. 3218. 74- 26739. Unis, Harriest Mason. Development of an instrument to measure change in human relations training outcomes. IWnD. 1974, New York University, 186 p. 35/10-A p. 6376. 75-08572. Wells, Ronald G. The effects of selected antecedent atti- tudes and individual differences on learning and behavior change in management development programs, Ph.D. 1980, University of Kansas 165 p. 41/06A, p. 2685. DEM80-26729. "‘111111111111illES