Organizational Performance Dimensions by imf45r1h

VIEWS: 11 PAGES: 28

									Administration and Interpretation of the
   Managerial Inbasket Simulation




              Kenneth M. Nowack Ph.D.
3435 Ocean Park Blvd. Suite 214  Santa Monica, CA 90405
         (310) 452-5130  (310) 450-0548 Fax
             http://www.envisialearning.com
    ENVISIA LEARNING


Envisia Learning helps leaders create high-performing organizations through effective talent
management by offering a comprehensive selection of tools and services for talent selection,
engagement, development and retention. Our results-based tools and processes are built on
decades of research conducted by licensed industrial / organizational psychologists.

Kenneth M. Nowack, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist (PSY 13758) who has over 20 years
experience in the human resources field as both an internal and external consultant. Dr.
Nowack received his doctorate degree in Counseling Psychology from the University of
California, Los Angles and has published extensively in the areas of 360-degree feedback,
assessment, health psychology and behavioral medicine.

Ken is the author of the Emotional Intelligence View 360, Executive View 360, Manager
View 360, Performance View 360, Career Profile Inventory, PeopleIndex and the StressScan
assessments.

Ken is a guest lecturer at the UCLA Anderson School of Management and also serves on
Daniel Goleman’s Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations.
    APPROACHES TO PERSONNEL SELECTION: WHICH ARE
    MOST PREDICTIVE?
                            AVERAGE VALIDITY
                                .38 to .54
A. WORK SAMPLE TESTS
                                .38 to .54
B. INTELLIGENCE TESTS
                                .41 to .43
C. ASSESSMENT CENTERS
                                .41 to .43
D. PEER RATINGS
                                .24 to .38
E. WORK HISTORY
                                .15 to .36
F. INTERVIEWS
                                .15 to .26
G. PERSONALITY TESTS
                                .14 to .26
H. REFERENCE CHECKS
                                .13 to .15
I. TRAINING RATINGS
                                .10 to .15
J. SELF RATINGS
                                .10 to .15
K. EDUCATION/GPA
                                .10 to .15
L. INTERESTS/VALUES
                                .00 to .10
M. AGE
                                                   3
        Description of the Envisia Managerial
                Inbasket Simulation
The Envisia Inbasket is a work sample simulation that assesses the
leadership, task and project management competencies of a typical
manager. The participant is given a brief description of the situation
surrounding a fictitious organization they are assigned to work for
and asked to respond to 23 Inbasket memos. The Inbasket memos
contain work situations, requests from customers and employees,
personnel problems, and decisions that a typical manager might be
asked to handle. The participant’s task is to go through as many of
the 23 Inbasket memos within 90 minutes, making appropriate
decisions, answering letters and memos from internal and external
customers, planning meetings, and solving problems.




                                                                         4
     Envisia Inbasket Simulation
     Management Competencies
 Initiative
 Interpersonal Sensitivity
 Planning/Organizing
 Delegation
 Follow-up/Administrative Control
 Problem-Analysis
 Decisiveness
 Judgment

                                     5
       Reliability and Validity of the
    OPD Managerial Inbasket Simulation
   Content for the OPD Inbasket Simulation was derived from job
    analyses of managerial positions in diverse industries
   Average inter-rater reliability across the eight competencies was
    .93 in one study
   Validity study 1 explored the association between Inbasket
    scores and job performance for 132 aerospace managers
    (average correlation was .26, p < .05)
   Validity study 2 explored assessment center performance and
    Inbasket scores for 72 utility managers. Overall scores were
    significantly correlated with assessor performance ratings (r=
    .26, p < .05)
   Validity study 3 explored assessment center performance and
    Inbasket scores for 144 production supervisors. Overall Inbasket
    scores were significantly correlated with both assessor and
    supervisory performance ratings (average r’s = .29, all p’s <
    .05)


                                                                        6
      Administration of the Envisia
     Managerial Inbasket Simulation
 Read the administration instructions to the participant
  aloud
 Emphasize that they will have only 90 minutes to
  complete the exercise
 At the completion, the participant will be asked to fill
  out the Participant Report Form found in the
  Inbasket materials
 Emphasize that they can not cancel the trip they will be
  asked to go on as described in the instructions
 Participants can take breaks during the exercise but not
  allowed additional time beyond 90 minutes
 Participants are asked to attach any written responses
  to Inbasket items to the appropriate memo and number
  them to facilitate the scoring process

                                                             7
         Scoring the Envisia Managerial
              Inbasket Simulation
 The competency-based scoring key is based on observed
  behaviors demonstrated on the Inbasket Simulation
 The objective scoring key provides overall scores for each
  of the eight Inbasket competencies
 Points are given for specific actions and decisions observed
  by the Inbasket participant
 Comments from the Participant Report Form are utilized
  during the Inbasket scoring process
 Scoring ranges and norms from diverse US companies are
  provides in the back of the Inbasket scoring key



                                                                 8
   Envisia Managerial Inbasket Reporter

 The Envisia Managerial Inbasket Online Reporter
  generates an individual feedback report summarizes
  strengths and development areas across the eight
  competencies
 The feedback results results are both graphic and
  narrative and are based on US norms with
  approximately 5,000 supervisors and managers in
  diverse industries
 The one-page graphic summary provides feedback in
  standard scores (t-scores) with a mean of 50 and
  standard deviation of 10


                                                       9
Inbasket Simulation Reporter
   Sample Graphic Results




                               10
        Scoring the Envisia Inbasket Simulation
                       Initiative
 Initiative is defined as the ability to influence events to achieve
  specific outcomes through individual actions (i.e., originates action
  rather than waiting for direction from others). Individuals who take
  initiative tends to make plans, decisions, and solve problems without
  waiting for direction from others

 Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency made
  decisions, took actions, and delegated assignments to others indicating
  a willingness to frequently take initiative. These individuals did not
  express hesitation to act and make decisions on their own in specific
  situations. For example, those with high scores tended to request
  additional information about a problem or decide to hold a special
  meeting to resolve an important issue. Individuals with low scores did
  not tend to take such actions or make such decisions as frequently


                                                                            11
    Scoring the Envisia Managerial Inbasket
                   Initiative

 Were actions taken on specific Inbasket items to
  prevent future problems and issues from occurring
  again?

 Were specific actions taken or decisions made that
  were proactive, rather than, just responding to the
  issues and challenges presented?




                                                        12
         Scoring the Envisia Inbasket Simulation
                Interpersonal Sensitivity
   Interpersonal sensitivity is defined as the ability to take actions that indicate
    consideration for the feelings and needs of others. Some demonstrations of
    sensitive and empathetic behaviors include: asking questions about work and
    non-work activities, expressing concern about problems, taking an interest in
    others, and making decisions that take into account the feelings of others

   Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency tended to respond
    in writing to others in a manner that expressed caring and empathy in the
    handling of specific interpersonal situations and problems. High scores
    suggest more frequent demonstration of written praise, compliments, positive
    feedback, and recognition than towards others than those with low scores.
    For example, individuals with high scores might have written a note of
    congratulations to an employee for exceptional performance or expressed
    sensitivity in not approving a vacation request at an inappropriate time


                                                                                        13
   Scoring the Envisia Managerial Inbasket
           Interpersonal Sensitivity

 Were internal and external customers responded to
  in a timely manner?
 Were internal and external customers responded to
  in a sensitive and caring manner?
 Did the tone of the response to specific Inbasket
  items express a level of understanding, warmth,
  and empathy?




                                                      14
        Scoring the Envisia Inbasket Simulation
                 Planning/Organizing
 Organizing, Planning, and Scheduling are defined as the ability to
  effectively schedule time and establish a course of action to
  accomplish specific goals for self or others. In general, organizing
  refers to longer-range plans and activities, whereas, planning and
  scheduling refers to the management of daily tasks and time

 Individuals who scored high in this Inbasket competency
  demonstrated the ability to effectively manage their time, organize
  their schedule, and plan for future activities. These individuals
  approached the in-basket simulation by prioritizing each item rather
  than attempting to tackle them in the order they were placed.
  Individuals with high scores tended to demonstrate the effective use of
  planning tools by utilizing the monthly calendar or preparing an action
  item list of meeting dates and phone calls to be made


                                                                            15
 Scoring the Envisia Managerial Inbasket
           Planning/Organizing
 Were the Inbasket items prioritized or done in
  order presented (I.e., were the items grouped and
  addressed in some logical order and attention
  given to high priority items)?
 Was the calendar used to assist in scheduling and
  planning efforts?
 Was there awareness of of specific scheduling
  conflicts and problems (I.e., notes or comments
  suggesting scheduling problems, meeting dates,
  etc.)?

                                                      16
         Scoring the Envisia Inbasket Simulation
                       Delegation
   Delegation is defined as the ability to allocate necessary authority and
    resources to subordinates in order to accomplish a task, assignment, or project

   Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency demonstrated the
    ability to select the appropriate individual to delegate tasks, projects, and
    assignments. Individuals who scored high also demonstrated good judgement
    in determining what was to be delegated in specific situations (e.g., making
    specific decisions, researching pertinent information, etc.). For example,
    individuals with high scores tended to select the right subordinate to carry out
    appropriate assignments in their absence and specified clear actions to be
    taken in writing. Those with low scores tended to take action or make
    decisions themselves rather than delegate these to others on many in-basket
    items




                                                                                       17
 Scoring the Envisia Managerial Inbasket
               Delegation
 Was there awareness of the need to delegate
  on specific Inbasket items?
 Were tasks/assignments delegated for
  appropriate reasons (e.g., attend a meeting
  or gather additional information)?
 Were tasks/assignments delegated to the
  appropriate individuals?
 Were tasks/assignments that were delegated
  clear, specific, measurable, and have
  appropriate authority?
                                                18
      Scoring the Envisia Inbasket Simulation
         Administrative Control/Follow-Up
   Administrative Control is defined as the ability to develop procedures to track
    & monitor activities, tasks, and delegated assignments on a timely manner

   Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency demonstrated the
    ability to monitor and follow-up on tasks, projects, and delegated assignments
    to others. For example, these individuals wrote notes on their calendars to
    check on the progress of an assignment or delegated a task to their
    subordinate with specific outcomes and progress to be reported on.
    Individuals with low scores tended to delegate a great deal of authority and
    responsibility but did not attempt to implement formal or informal feedback
    mechanisms to check the progress of the task or assignment very often




                                                                                      19
 Scoring the Envisia Managerial Inbasket
          Administrative Control
 Were arrangements made to follow-up on tasks,
  projects, assignments, and meetings related to
  specific Inbasket items?
 Were future dates and meetings scheduled to
  monitor and track delegated tasks, projects, and
  assignments (e.g., request written report or
  schedule a meeting upon return from the business
  trip)?



                                                     20
         Scoring the Envisia Inbasket Simulation
                    Problem-Analysis
   Problem Analysis is defined as the ability to accurately define a problem,
    gather and analyze information relevant to the problem, and determine
    possible causes and solutions to the problem

   Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency demonstrated the
    ability to see relationships between in-basket items, and correctly identify
    incongruent dates, times, and meetings. For example, individuals with high
    scores might have written a note to someone pointing out a potential meeting
    conflict and asking to change the date and/or time in order to accommodate
    their schedule. Individuals who scored high might also have linked several
    in-basket items together that were logically connected to each other by the
    people involved or the specific problem mentioned. Individuals with low
    scores tended not to point out the various scheduling conflicts or relationships
    between various in-basket items



                                                                                       21
 Scoring the Envisia Managerial Inbasket
            Problem Analysis
 Was there awareness of the interrelationships
  between Inbasket problems?
 Was there recognition of the need for
  additional information about some of the
  Inbasket items before decisions were made?
 Was there recognition of the need to research
  and investigate specific incidents further before
  actions were taken?


                                                      22
        Scoring the Envisia Inbasket Simulation
                     Decisiveness
 Decisiveness is defined as the ability and willingness to make a
  decision, render judgments, or take actions when required

 Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency
  demonstrated the capacity to make quick and numerous decisions
  when presented with the opportunity. These individuals actually
  made a greater number of decisions than those with lower scores on
  this competency. Individuals who scored lower tended to ask for
  more information before making a decision or taking action whether
  or not it was appropriate to do so. A highly decisive individual
  generally is characterized as taking in a small to moderate amount of
  information and assimilating that data or information quickly. Such
  individuals tend to arrive at a single focused solution rather than
  multiple or prioritized solutions


                                                                          23
  Scoring the Envisia Managerial Inbasket
               Decisiveness

 Were actions and decisions taken that
  required immediate attention (e.g.,
  vacation requests, deadline dates, etc.)?
 Were actions and decisions deferred on
  specific Inbasket items requiring
  additional investigation or information?



                                              24
       Scoring the Envisia Inbasket Simulation
                      Judgment
 Judgment is defined as the ability to make decisions of high
  quality and consider alternative courses of action based upon
  available information and logical assumptions

 Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency
  demonstrated the ability to correctly identify the highest quality
  decisions and actions given the information available to them.
  These individuals tended to take actions considered being most
  appropriate given the specific information available to them in
  the Inbasket exercise



                                                                       25
 Scoring the Envisia Managerial Inbasket
                Judgment
 Were major requests and issues
  requirements responded to (e.g., request for
  a department plan from the boss)?
 Were appropriate decisions made (e.g.,
  meeting with the company Vice President
  rather than attending a strategic planning
  meeting scheduled at the same time)?
 Was correct action taken on specific
  Inbasket items (e.g., disapproving the
  vacation request)?
                                                 26
                  Inbasket Simulation
                     Decision Style
   Low
Decisiveness     Flexible    Analytical




   High          Decisive    Integrative
Decisiveness



               Low Problem    High Problem
                 Analysis       Analysis

                                             27
                      SELECTED REFERENCES

   Wimer & Nowack (1998). 13 Common mistakes in implementing multi-rater
    systems. Training and Development, 52, 69-79.
   Nowack, K. & Wimer, S. (1997). Coaching for human performance. Training
    and Development, 51, 28-32.
   Nowack, K. (1997). Congruence between self and other ratings and assessment
    center performance. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 12, 145-166
   Nowack, K. (1994). The secrets of succession. Training & Development, 48,
    49-54
   Nowack, K. (1993). 360-degree feedback: The whole story. Training &
    Development, 47, 69-72
   Nowack, K. (1992). Self-assessment and rater-assessment as a competency of
    management development. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 3, 141-
    155.
   Nowack, K. (1988). Approaches to validating assessment centers.
    Performance & Instruction, 11, 14-16


                                                                                  28

								
To top