Schedule:
Monday and Wednesday: Lecture
Monday, 9/28, Exam
Unit 2: PSY 6450
Traditional Performance Appraisal
Performance Measurement
Performance Assessment
Task Clarification
1
Unit 2





Aamodt: traditional performance appraisal
Daniels chapter: measurement & performance
matrix
Pampino et al. article: great example of
performance assessment, multiple component
intervention, and social validity assessment. Only
problem is the short-term nature of the study.
Anderson et al. article: great example of task
clarification and importance of feedback
Komaki: Tool to assess effective supervisors and
managers from an operant perspective
2
Additional Readings


I have included six references for additional readings
that I highly recommend if you are interested in
pursuing any of the topics
 Alyce’s hit list
I have also included “Major Take-Home Points” in the
study objectives, or the World According to Alyce


Hopefully this will help explain why I chose the articles I
did and tie the material together for you
There’s a lot of different topics covered
3
SO1: Why it is important to
determine the reason for evaluation


Performance is assessed for a number of
reasons (administrative reasons, performance
improvement)
Various performance appraisal methods are
appropriate for some purposes, not for others.


Employee comparison methods such as forced
choice and ranking: good for administrative
purposes, not good for performance improvement
360-degree evaluation: good for performance
improvement, not good for administrative
purposes
(Start with traditional performance appraisal: two very good articles in the 2011 JOBM IO/OBM special issue:
DeNisi and Gravina & Siers administrative – pay increases, promotions, termination)
4
Traditional Performance
Appraisal: Who does it?


90% of appraisals are done by supervisors
Others, however, may also participate in the
appraisal





Peers
Subordinates/Direct reports (upward feedback)
Customers
Employee himself or herself (rather rare)
28% of large companies use some form of multisource evaluations
(start with some data re the source of the appraisal; that is who actually does the appraisal)
5
SO2: Different results

There is often little agreement when different
sources evaluate an employee





Supervisors and peers: .34 correlation
Supervisors and subordinates: .22 correlation
Supervisors and the employee: .22 correlation
Peers and subordinates: .22 correlation
Peers and the employee: .19
(start with some data re the source of the appraisal; not subordinates, more commonly called direct reports,)
6
SO2: Two reasons why results
may differ

Those groups see different aspects of the
person’s performance



The supervisor may see the results, but not see how
the person interacts with peers, direct reports and
customers
The employee may interact very differently with
the supervisor than with peers and subordinates
This is why we have our current graduate
students evaluate our applicants to our graduate
programs
(why are the evaluations so different?, to get an accurate evaluation, tap into different sources)
7
SO3: Peer assessments

3A. In general, when peers are similar and know
the person well peer ratings have good reliability
and validity



Reliability - different peers rate the employee the same
way; Inter-observer agreement
Validity - predict future success of employees
3B. However, employees react worse to negative
feedback from peers than from
supervisors/experts
8
SO4: Main obstacle to peer
assessments

Acceptance by employees - we don’t like to
do this
 WMU faculty merit system: Union vs. admin.

Not enough money to go around; many just split $$
How would you like to be given the responsibility
for evaluating your peers - the other students
advised by your faculty advisor - and have
rewards (i.e.,assistantships, grades in classes,
opportunities for practica and projects) based on
that?
9
SO5: Ratings by subordinates


5A. Not surprisingly, accurate subordinate ratings can be
hard to obtain. Why?
Employees fear a backlash, particularly if there are only a
few of them and the supervisor is likely to be able to
identify them.
5B. Data also indicate that feedback/ratings from
subordinates brings about the greatest performance
change when compared to feedback/ratings by
supervisors and peers (quite interesting!)
(used in 360 degree feedback programs; quite popular right now; however, subordinate rating systems are not common
or well-regarded by managers.; same problem with getting evaluations of faculty advisors)
10
360 degree feedback (NFE)

A manager/supervisor





Rates himself
Is rated by his manager/supervisor
Is rated by his peers
Is rated by his subordinates
What percentage of managers saw themselves as
others saw them?
Only 10%!

Overrating was most noteworthy on what scale?
People
11
(NFE, devastating, but why is this good news for us?; use for administrative purposes is increasing, but there are some problems with this – Aamodt
advised, it is best used for development purposes; coaching with a coach who is not the manager’s supervisor)
SO6 Self-assessment

6A: Main problem?


6B: Self-ratings correlate




Inflation: we think we are better than we are
only moderately with actual performance
poorly with subordinate ratings
poorly with management ratings
NFE, but interesting cross-cultural data


Ratings of Japanese, Korean, & Taiwanese workers
suffer from strictness (modesty)
Ratings from workers in the US, mainland China, India,
Singapore, and Hong Kong suffer from leniency
12
(Dr. Oah, deadlines)
SO6 Self-assessments, cont.

6C: Little agreement between supervisory and selfassessments. What are the important implications of this
from a behavioral perspective?
If employees believe they are performing better than the
supervisor believes, then they will not get the rewards they
feel they deserve from the supervisor.
Thus, employees will not believe that rewards are
contingent upon their performance. Because of that, it
is likely to hurt performance, cause dissatisfaction, and
cause strained relations with the supervisor.
13
Common types of appraisal
methods (NFE)

Employee comparison methods



Evaluate employees by comparing them against each
other rather than against a standard
Objective performance
Ratings



Graphic rating scales, most common
Behavioral checklists
Less common in Appendix (due to complexity): (a)
behaviorally anchored rating scales, (b) forced choice
rating scales, (c) mixed standard scales, (d) behavioral
observation scales
14
(Aamodt does a superb job of presenting the different types and discussing strengths and weaknesses of each)
SO8: Why use employee
comparisons?

To reduce leniency


Forces variability into the ratings
With graphic scales, not uncommon for a supervisor
to rate employees pretty much the same: everyone is
a 5 or a 6 on a 7 point scale, making it difficult to make
personnel decisions.
(rank order, paired comparison, and forced distribution; I want to look at ranking and forced distribution in detail))
15
SO9: Forced distribution


A predetermined percentage of employees are placed in
each rating category
More than 20% of Fortune 1000 companies use this type
of system
 General Electric, former CEO Jack Welch

Rank and yank: required that the bottom 10% be fired
(unfortunately, you have probably experienced this in some of your classes: 10% get As, 20% get Bs, 40% get Cs,
20% get Ds and 10% get Es; how do you feel about that system; quote from article next slide?)
16
SO9: The problem with forced
distribution


Assumes that the performance of employees is normally
distributed
Probably not the case (if it is, the organization is doing
something very wrong)




Selection system is good
Poor performers have been fired
Good management system
My undergraduate class distribution


Oops, only the top 10% in fall get an A, when in reality typically
20% of students earn 92% of the points or better?
Also, my fall grade distribution tends to be better than my spring
grade distribution: those who take the class in fall could do just as
well as students (or better) in spring, but get a lower grade.
17
(assumes 10% are performing great, 20% good, 40% are average, etc.)
SO9: Forced distribution

Article about Yahoo
 In 2013 Yahoo adopted a ranking system based on the
bell curve
 Author calls it the “third rail of human resource
management”
(quote next)
18
Quote from article
Basically, many people have lost faith that ranking employees works, and some
research suggests that employee performance doesn’t follow a bell curve at all.
Instead most people are slightly worse than average with a few superstars.
And while a bit of pressure can motivate people, constantly pitting employees
against one another is terrible for morale. In a company that is going through
layoffs, this gets worse over time wrote several MIT professors in a study of
forced rankings in 2006.
“As the company shrinks, the rigid distribution of the bell-curve forces managers
to label a high performer as a medicore. A high performer, unmotivated by such
artificial demotion, behaves like a mediocre.”
This can have a particularly bad impact on innovation, arguably the thing Yahoo
most needs now. When employees worry about being ranked at the bottom of the
pile, they take fewer risks, said Cliff Stevenson, who studies workforce issues for
i4cp.
(I find that part of the quote very interesting; on Aubrey’s 13 management practices that waste time
and effort, Institute for Corporate Productivity)
19
SO9: Forced distribution

Yet another caution!


Two major lawsuits have been brought against
companies because minority groups were
disproportionately ranked in the low category
Ford and Goodyear dropped them
20
SO10: What’s the problem
with employee comparisons?

May create a false impression that differences
between individuals are actually larger than they
are because you do not get actual performance
data
Six employees, rank ordered
1. Jan
2. Shakira
3. Paul
4. Mike
5. Susan
6. John
Actual performance
difference between
Jan and Mike or even
Susan may be very
small, yet look big.
Can affect salary
increases, promotions,
etc.
(employee comparisons in general: ranking, forced distribution are types: limited $ for merit increases, promotions - across depts
– Is #3 in one dept. comparable in performance to #3 in another? Also, competitive systems; only one person can be #1; sabotage or at
least decrease willingness to cooperate/help )
21
SO11: Main problem with
graphic rating systems

Leniency and halo


Leniency: supervisors rate employees better than they
should
Halo: a rating in one area of performance affects ratings
in other areas

Person has good social skills, supervisor rates him/her higher on
performance than the supervisor should
(in general, rating errors, but the two most common: pressures on raters: how would you like to be the supervisor who gives
one of your direct reports a poor evaluation, placing the employee in jeopardy of being fired, given MI’s unemployment
22
rate right now?)
SO12: Behavioral checklists


Behavioral checklists and scales are assumed to be more
accurate because they are less vague, and target
“objective” behaviors that are readily observable but they
are not more accurate
Why?



Still are based on subjective judgments
Completed once a year
That is also why we should not consider them adequate
from a behavioral perspective


Objective measures of behavior/performance
Over time as behavior/performance occurs on the job
(only 5% of variance between individuals when rated is due to the type of performance appraisal –
That means, the type of performance appraisal format really does not matter; one form is not better than another, people just think they are)
23
SO13: Which method is better?
Research suggests that none is really better than another
Methods that are complicated and time consuming to
develop have only occasionally been found to be better
than uncomplicated, inexpensive graphic rating scales.
Known this for years: Landy & Farr, 1980.
24
Dissatisfaction with
performance appraisal (NFE)

Companies tend to switch frequently from one type
of form to another



Recall performance appraisal was the third-ranked topic
addressed in JAP
IBM abandoned employee ranking in favor of graphic
scales, then returned to ranking a few years ago
 Made the front page of the Wall Street Journal: ranking was
THE way to go
Why do you think IBM may have made the switch?
25
(nothing to do with reliability or validity)
Main problem with
performance appraisals (NFE)


Inflation of ratings
Main assumption about the cause of errors



Design of the form (hence why so much time and
money is spent redesigning forms - “design out”
rating errors
Lack of knowledge on the part of
supervisors/managers - training
Rarely are the consequences for ratings
examined or considered
26
(Director of Personnel, WMU, ranks among the worst problems she had - fire/good ratings)
Consequences for inflated
ratings (NFE)

No rewards for accuracy; no sanctions for
inaccurate ratings (how does the organization know if the
ratings are accurate or inaccurate - a problem)

Most common reason
High ratings are necessary to get salary increases,
promotions and other rewards for employees and now
even more importantly, to prevent employees from losing
their jobs


Avoids aversive interactions with subordinates
Ratings of subordinates reflect the competence
of the supervisors as a supervisor/manager
27
SO14: Legal issues (NFE)


Performance appraisals are subject to federal
and state EEO laws, and more and more cases
are being filed.
Protected classes under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964?
African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans,
and females.
(on click; Aamodt gives a very nice list of the factors that will increase the likelihood that you will
“win” a legal challenge – note those well – but too many for you to memorize; but, next slide)
28
SO15: Legal issues

Conservative courts

Validity and accuracy of the appraisal (technical
merits)



Does the company have data that indicates that the
appraisals are related to job performance?
Does the company have data indicating that raters
assess performance accurately?
Liberal courts

Fairness issues



How are underrepresented individuals rated in
comparison to white majorities
Are employees given a chance to appeal the appraisal?
etc.
29
(what factors influence how courts will rule?)
For your entertainment only:
Actual statements






His men would follow him anywhere, but out of
morbid curiosity
I would not allow this employee to breed
Works well when under constant supervision and
cornered like a rat in a trap
He would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle
This young lady has delusions of adequacy
This employee is depriving a village somewhere of
an idiot
(see next slide as well)
30
What some others say*



“By only infrequently rating personnel we only infrequently
demotivate them” (Blogger, 2008)
A 1994 survey by the Society for Human Resource
Management found that 90% of appraisal systems were
not successful (Shellhardt, 1994)
“The best way to double the effectiveness of the typical
annual performance appraisal is to do it once every two
years” (Daniels, 2009)
*All taken from Daniels, A. (2009). Oops! 13 management practices
that waste time and money (and what to do about them). Atlanta:
Performance Management Publications.
31
Unit 2: Part 2
Performance Matrix
Functional Assessment
Task Clarification
32
Skip to SO19
Performance Matrix


Of SOs 16-18, only SO16 is for the exam
I am not going to cover that in lecture - unless
someone has a question about it
33
SO19: Performance Matrix Daniels1

Based on Riggs’ Objectives Matrix (1986)


Abernathy


Morphed into Felix & Riggs’ Balanced Scorecard
Performance Scorecard
Unique feature: performance indexing
(weighting/prioritizing of multiple measures and
sub-goals)
1
Performance Matrix power point slides:
© AUBREY DANIELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR USE EXCLUSIVELY BY EDUCATORS IN ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS.
34
Why 4-12 for columns,
with 5=baseline and 10=goal?
Sample Matrix
Behaviors or
Results
4
5
Below Baseline
Above goal
6
Raw
Score
7
8
9
10 11 12
Points
100
Sub-goals
Baseline
(not current)
Performance
Weight
Total Pts.
Goal
© AUBREY DANIELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR USE EXCLUSIVELY BY EDUCATORS IN ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS.
35
Sample Matrix: Postal Worker
Behaviors or
Results
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 12 Weight
Appropriate
Greeting
Number of
Bins Sorted
59% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 98%
Till Correct
91% 92% 93% 96%
Number of
Complaints1
3
6
4
5
5
6
4
7
8
9
Raw
Score
Points
10 12
97% 98% 99%100%
3
2
1
0
100
Sub-goals
Baseline
Performance
1Note:
Total Pts.
Goal
number of complaints, less is better
36
Sample Matrix
Distribution=100
Behaviors or
Results
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 12 Weight
Appropriate
Greeting
Number of
Bins Sorted
59% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 98%
Till Correct
91% 92% 93% 96%
Number of
Complaints
3
6
4
5
5
4
6
7
8
9
10 12
97% 98% 99%100%
3
2
1
0
Raw
Score
Points
35
25
30
10
100
Sub-goals
Baseline
Performance
Total Pts.
Goal
© AUBREY DANIELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR USE EXCLUSIVELY BY EDUCATORS IN ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS.
37
Sample Matrix: What would the points be?
Actual
performance
Behaviors or
Results
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
59% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 98%
Till Correct
91% 92% 93% 96%
Number of
Complaints
6
4
5
5
4
6
7
8
9
10 12
97% 98% 99%100%
3
Points
35
70%
?
25
9
?
30
95%
?
10
1
?
11 12 Weight
Appropriate
Greeting
Number of
Bins Sorted
3
Raw
Score
2
1
0
100
Sub-goals
Baseline
Performance
Total Pts.
Goal
© AUBREY DANIELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR USE EXCLUSIVELY BY EDUCATORS IN ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS.
38
Link to rewards: Use points to
determine level of reward
Points
Reward
700-799 $10 gift card
800-899 extra 1/2 hour for lunch
900-999 gift certificate for favorite store or restaurant
1000-1200 1/2 day off on Friday
Could also use, of course, different monetary bonuses
*Group contingency: If everyone reaches 750, the
whole office goes to lunch on the boss
© AUBREY DANIELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR USE EXCLUSIVELY BY EDUCATORS IN ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS.
39
Skipping to SOs 21&22:
Lecture study objectives, intro



The Pampino et al. article used a functional assessment
(the Performance Diagnostic Checklist by Austin) to
determine what interventions were needed
Functional assessments have received more attention
lately, although most practitioners and, many researchers
have used some type of assessment to determine what
their interventions should be
The term “functional assessment” comes from Iwata’s
work in DD and autism - determination of what is
controlling self-injurious behavior

What are the functional causes of the behavior?
40
Functional Assessment, intro

In OBM, the term has become more transparent due to Austin’s PDC
and Wilder’s publications, but these type of analyses have existed for
many years in both OBM and I/O - just not called “functional
assessment”



An “ABC” analysis is a functional assessment
Mager & Pipe, 1970, flowchart to determine whether a performance
problem was a training problem or a consequence problem
Petrock, 1978, balance of consequences



Brown, 1982, included balance of consequences in his book
Daniels & Rosen, 1982, modified it into “PIC/NIC”
These all focused on the consequences of behavior, without
expanding the analysis to management and organizational level
systems analysis

Brethower was the first to do that in his 1972 systems analysis book with
his Total Performance System diagram and concept - but it “didn’t catch
on” until years later
41
SO21: Three types of functional
assessment

Informant


Descriptive


Direct observation of the employees: generally considered to be
more reliable than informant
Functional analysis (note, not assessment)


Interviews, questionnaires, rating scales or some other “indirect”
(verbal) method: a bit suspect as are all verbal reports
Experimental analysis - the systematic manipulation of specific
antecedents and consequences that may affect the target
behavior: most reliable, but often difficult in organizational
settings
 Good example, Pampino, Wilder, & Binder (2005) to determine
why foremen were entering wrong job codes
In OBM, most common is to combine informant and
descriptive
42
SO22: Three popular functional
assessment procedures in OBM

Gilbert’s Behavioral Engineering Model, 1978


Binder’s Six Boxes



(very nice workshop CalABA, 2013)
Directly derived from Gilbert, but copyrighted
Gives Gilbert credit, by the way
Austin’s Performance Diagnostic Checklist


Earliest one that “caught on” and is still very popular
Based on expert consultant analyses of case studies (his
dissertation); interesting how similar it is to Gilbert’s
NFE Rummler’s Human Performance System

Very similar to Gilbert’s BEM
(all systems oriented, that is they don’t just target the antecedents and consequences of behavior, but also look at systems variables)
43
Gilbert’s BEM (nfe)
Information
Instrumentation
Motivation
Resources
Incentives
Tools

Knowledge
Capacity
Motives
Training
Work
Assessment
Environmental Data
Relevant & frequent
Supports
feedback
Descriptions
of what
is expected
Clear and relevant
guides
Person’s
Repertory of
Behavior
for
exemplary
performance
Placement
and
materials designed
to match human
factors
scheduling
for peak
performance
Prosthesis
Selection
Adequate
contingent $$
incentives
 Nonmonetary
incentives
 Career
development
of
motives to work
Recruitment of
people to match
job
44
Binder’s
Six(NFE)Boxes
Gilbert’s
BEM
Information
Environmental Data
Relevant
& frequent
Expectations
Supports
feedback
&
Descriptions of what
Feedback
is expected
Instrumentation
Motivation
Resources
Incentives
 Adequate
and
Tools
Consequences
contingent $$
materials designed
&
&
incentives
to match human
Resources
Incentives
factors
 Nonmonetary
Tools
Clear
and relevant
guides
1
Person’s
Repertory of
Behavior
2
incentives
 Career
3
development
Knowledge
Capacity
Motives
for
Skills
exemplary
&
performance
Knowledge
Placement
Work
Selection
scheduling
&
for peak
Assignment
performance
“Capacity”
Prosthesis
Assessment
Training
Selection
4
5
Motives &of
motives
to work
Preferences
Recruitment of
“Attitudes”
people
to match
job
6
45
(click for binder)
Austin’s Performance
Diagnostic Checklist (NFE)

Four areas that are assessed




Antecedents and Information
Equipment and processes
Knowledge and skills - training
Consequences
(A lot of overlap among all of these)
46
NFE: Comparison of Assessment
Procedures




No one has compared the relative effectiveness of different types of
assessment procedures*
There have been studies published focusing on the use of, in particular, the
PDC to determine barriers to performance, but none of these compared the
use of the PDC to any other procedure or determined whether its use
resulted in a better or more efficient determination of the barriers than even
an “arm chair” analysis
My guess is none is going to be found to be better than the others, given that
most of them do target the same variables (which is a good thing; that shows
we have consensus on what those variables are)
However, I could be very wrong about that


Heather’s class: Mager & Pipe vs. PDC, antecedents vs. consequences
Nate Bechtel’s dissertation??
*Johnson, Casella, McGee, & Lee (2014)
47
(cont. on next slide)
NFE: Comparison of Assessment
Procedures


I would suggest, nonetheless, that from an organizational/systems
perspective, the assessment tools that include an analysis of processes,
would be better than those that don’t include such an analysis
And, I would like to see someone use/develop an assessment tool that is
based on the systems analysis that Bill Abernathy first presented at ABAI in
2005 and later published in articles below.
 The seven employee drivers or organizational success: expense control,
productivity, sales, cash flow, regulatory compliance, customer
satisfaction, and special projects
 Profit driver map
Abernathy, W. B. (2010). A comprehensive performance analysis method. Performance Improvement,
49(5), 5-17.
Abernathy, W. B. (2013). Behavioral approaches to business and industrial problems: Organizational
Behavior Management. In G. Madden (Ed.), APA Handbook of behavior analysis, Vol. 2 (pp 501-521).
(profit driver map, next slide – just FYI; it’s exquisite)
48
Profit Driver Map
Profitability
Short-Term Profit
Long-Term Profit
Sales
Expense
Productivity
Cash Flow
Regulatory
Compliance
Customer
Loyalty
Development
Projects
Prospecting
Selling
Efficiency
Collections
Internal
Style
Budget
Closing
Production
Utilization
Inventory
Trade
Accuracy
Timeliness
Up Sell
Delivery
Rework
Payables
Governmental
Timeliness
Specification
Cross-sell
Workflow
Durability
Pampino et al.
SOs 23, 24, 25A, & 26 on your own
In other words, I am only going to cover 25B!
50
SO25B intro: Lotteries




Pampino et al. used a monthly lottery where each of 5 employees
had an opportunity to win $20.00 based on the number of lottery
tickets they earned for each shift
(U5) Gaetani et al. used state lottery tickets to decrease cash
shortages in a retail beverage chain
(U8) Green et al. used a lottery to increase extent to which human
service staff conducted scheduled training with consumers in
residential facility for individuals with DD and profound handicaps
(U8) Green et al. used a lottery for staff to make supervisory
observations of performance more acceptable for both the staff and
supervisor
(lotteries have been used in a number of studies; appear effective; benefit? Cost effective Which certainly has advantages in human service settings – several articles in this class demonstrating effectiveness of lotteries; in fact
one of the very first articles in OBM, Pedalino & Gamboa used a lottery system to increase attendance – based on the best poker hand – really
cool study! 1974, JAP )
51
SO25B What influences the
effectiveness of lotteries?
What factors could influence how effective a lottery is?
1. Amount of money/strength of reward
2. Frequency of lottery: the more frequent the better
3. Number of eligible employees (affects chances)
(how/why? clearly, however, be careful – “gambling” issue”; bible belt)
52
Anderson et al.
Task Clarification
Task clarification improves
performance moderately
When combined with feedback,
much better!
53
(really should come as no surprise; task clarification is an antecedent intervention)
Anderson et al. article, one of Hantula’s first
studies

Fun study, because it was done in a student-run
university bar
“Cleaning was an ancillary requirement and also preempted time that could be spent with peers or studying.
The result was a conspicuous, pervasive accumulation
of grease and various sticky materials on virtually
every surface. Garbage areas were strewn with
debris.”
University officials said the bar had been a nearimpossible management situation for years, and the
State Board of Health threatened closure.
54
(again, I am just going to go over a few selected SOs)
Anderson et al. overview






30 student employees
11 work areas, each with a separate task list
Each task list had 5-10 Yes/No items on it
Assistant managers scored the cleanliness of
each area after line employees finished work
Task clarification: checklists were posted in
relevant areas
Feedback: Individual line graphs, coded by
number, were publicly posted
55
SOs 28 and 30: Effects of task
clarification and task clarification plus
feedback


Task clarification increased task completion
13% over baseline
Task clarification plus feedback increased task
completion 62% over baseline
(last slide on this study, not covering SO29 in lecture)
56
Komaki
The OSTI:
Operant Supervisory
Taxonomy & Index
57
Intro: Komaki’s Operant Supervisory
Taxonomy & Index (OSTI)


This is the only supervisory/managerial assessment tool
based on behavioral principles that is available in the
literature
Komaki and colleagues published a series of three articles
and a book containing research results from field studies
 First article – development and psychometric
soundness of the OSTI
 Second article – the one I have assigned
 Third article – the one I mention in the SOs as one of
my all time favorite articles; sailboat regatta
(companies, consulting firms, have own assessment questionnaires, but proprietary; research;
Judi is now retired, but was one of the best field researchers in OBM)
58
Intro: Komaki’s OSTI




Most recent article, JOBM 2011, summarizes all of the
research, discusses an in-basket assessment procedure,
and then the results of a training program for
managers/supervisors
Full reference is in the study objectives
In my personal opinion, this should be required reading for
all students who study OBM
Finally, also the book:
Komaki, J. L. (1998). Leadership from an operant
perspective. London: Routledge.
I chose to use one of Komaki’s earlier study that provides
more detail about the actual assessment tool for this class
59
Intro: Komaki’s OSTI


Leadership consists of more than supervisory
behavior but clearly one function of a leader is to
be an effective supervisor
As I indicate in the SOs, many non-behavioral
theories exist


Trait theories: general traits that make a person an
effective supervisor (see Aamodt, chapter 12)
Situational theories: factors that interact with the
traits/characteristics of the person (see Aamodt,
chapter 12)
60
Intro: Komaki’s OSTI

Komaki’s analysis is based on the extent to
which supervisors:



Provide antecedents (task clarification and clear
expectations for performance)
Monitor performance (measure and collect information
about the performance of direct reports)
Provide consequences for performance
61
Komaki’s Taxonomy
Supervisory Behaviors
Solitary
Activities
Interactions
Nonwork
Related
Work Related
Not About
Performance
About Own
Performance
About Other’s
Performance
Performance
Antecedents
Performance
Monitors
Performance
Consequences
62
Summary of Komaki article

Will the following three categories of supervisory
behavior distinguish between effective and
marginally effective supervisors with respect to
motivating others?



Providing antecedents
Monitoring performance
Providing consequences
63
Summary of Komaki article

Hypotheses

Providing antecedents: No



Monitoring performance: Yes


Antecedents do not reliably affect performance
All managers, good or bad, provide far more antecedents than
monitors and consequences, thus there won’t be any
difference
Monitoring is a prerequisite to providing contingent
consequences
Providing consequences: Yes


Behavior is a function of its consequences
Effective managers will indicate knowledge of subordinate
performance, whether positive, negative, or neutral
64
(Antecedents, SO33; Monitoring, SO32)
Komaki article method

Participants


24 managers at a medical insurance firm
Design

Extreme or contrasted groups design



Identification of Effective and Marginal Managers


12 managers in the top 28% of managers at the firm
12 managers in the bottom 28% of managers at the firm
Division VPs ranked and rated all managers on how well
they motivated others
Identification of Knowledgeable and Marginal Mgrs.

Division VPs ranked and rated all managers in terms of
technical expertise
(knowledge ranking/rating really cool – were supervisory behaviors NOT related to technical expertise; they shouldn’t
be; supervisory skills and technical expertise are different)
65
Komaki results

Managers spent only ~13% of their time dealing
with the performance of others (SO36)*


This is important to remember when we intervene –
managers have many other responsibilities, thus time
management and the labor-intensiveness of our
interventions becomes an important issue
Effective managers monitored performance
significantly more than marginal managers (SO31)

Effective managers used work sampling rather than selfreport or a secondary source (i.e., “is Mary doing the
accounts well?”) when monitoring performance
*In other studies, bank managers spent ~15% of their time dealing
with the performance of others; newspaper managers spent ~14%
66
Komaki results

Performance monitoring was not related to technical
expertise (as predicted) (SO37)


Implication: Just because you are an expert in your field
doesn’t mean you are a good manager
Performance consequences did not distinguish
between effective and marginal supervisors


Results may mean that it is not the number of
consequences provided, but whether contingent
consequences are provided, which performance
monitoring makes possible
Performance monitoring may be an establishing
operation for employees that makes consequences more
reinforcing or punishing (more on this next unit)
(if a supervisor monitors your performance, it makes his/her consequences more effective)
67
Results, subsequent studies, NFE
Performance



When performance monitoring was sufficient, consequences did
distinguish between effective and marginal managers
In a sailboat regatta, both performance monitoring and consequences by
skippers were significantly related to race results
In an Australian police force, both performance monitoring and
consequences by patrol sergeants were significantly related to higherperforming teams
Attitudes and perceptions


In a national movie theater management company, managers who
monitored work were perceived as more fair
Workers rated managers as more positive and less negative when they
monitored work and provided consequences than when managers only
monitored work or only provided consequences (simulated study in a
post office)
68
THE END
Questions?
69