The Effects of Feedback and Goal Setting - on the

The Effects of Feedback and Goal Setting on the Productivity and Satisfaction of University Admissions Staff -

Leslie A. Wilk William K. Redmon

ABSTRACT. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a Organizational Behavior Management (OEM) intervention designed to improve the productivity and job satisfaction of clerical employees in a university admissions department. During the first phase of the intervention, supervisors used individualized daily goal setting and verbal feedback. During phase two, graphic display of individual performance levels was added to thc goals and verbal feedback program. Productivity was measured via daily self reports of tasks completed. Job satisfaction was assessed by taking measures prior to and following the intervention using the Work Environment Scale, a standardized assessment of subjective responses to working conditions. Results indicated that (a) individual performance levels improved over baseline when daily goal setting and feedback were implemented, @) individual performance levels were highest when the graphic display of task completion was used, (c) the effecCJ of the progtam were maintained at follow up, and (d) indicators ofjob satisfaction improved following the intervention. [Article copies available for a fie fmm The Hawnh Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mailaddree~:[email protected]] While ow nation faces the greatest decline in the number of high school graduates in its history (Breneman, 1983), enrollment manLeslie A. Wilk is Partner and Consultant and wittiam K. Redmon is Senior Consultant, both at Continuous Learning Group, Inc. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to William K. Redmon, Continuous Learning Group, 500 Cherrington Corporate Center, Suite 130, Coraopolis, PA 15108. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 18(1) 1998 @ 1998 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights resewed.

45

46

JOUANAL O F ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

agement teams seek to develop ways to maintain college and university enrollments (Hossler, 1984). Changing demographics, shifting student career interests, intensifying competition and scarcity of college financial resources are only a few of the concerns currently plaguing enrollment managers (Kellaris & Kellaris, Jr., 1988; Knight & Johnson, 1981). Because of these challenges, renewed attention has been given to factors which may affect a student's choice to attend one institution over another, such as application cycle time, the frequency and type of contact with students, and the usefulness of informational materials (e.g., Bell & Bracken, 1992). Most admissions strategies have emphasized marketing and public image (Huneycutt, Lewis, & Wibker, 1990), and few have targeted staff performance as an important determinant of enrollment. Areas such as selection, training, and retention of admissions support staff have been considered critical only in recent years (Hartnagel, 1986; Morgan & Weckmueller, 1991; Rogers 1989; Snyder, 1989). For example, the effects of employee performance on application cycle time were examined recently (Bell & Bracken, 1992), and concerns about the productivity, and satisfaction of support staff have been the focus of some management programs (Hartnagel, 1986; Kay & Healy, 1987). These strategies have targeted staff development and productivity in general, but have failed to identify specific, replicable techniques for use by admissions managers. Additional research on precise methods of performance improvement is urgently needed. Perhaps the most promising source of performance improvement technology can he found in the literature on organizational behavior management (OBM) (Balcazar, Shupert, Daniels, Mawhimey, & Hopkins, 1989). Many organizations, both in the public and private sector, have utilized OBM as a means of increasing overall efficiency and effectiveness. Public sector applicationi have addressed management in educational and mental health systems (Kopelman & Schneller, 1981; Stephens & Burroughs, 1978) and government service agencies (Kreimer & Golab, 1978). Private, sector applications have been carried out in manufacturing (Wikoff, Anderson & Crowell, 1982; Zohar & Fussfeld, 1981), retail (Carter, Hanson, Holmberg, & Melin, 1979; Luthans, Paul, & Taylor, 1985), and food service (Komaki, Blood, & Holder, 1980; McNees, Gilliam,

Research Arlicles

47

Schnelle, & Risley, 1979). The most commonly used OBM interventions consist of performance feedback alone (Wikoff et al., 1982) and goal setting combined with performance feedback (Balc a m et al., 1989; Calpin, Edelstein, & Redmon, 1988; Fellner & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1984; McCuddy & Griggs, 1984). Within the research literature on feedback and goal setting, several studies have targeted behaviors that are especially important in university admissions processing, including the rate at which employees process paper work transactions and general clerical tasks (e.g., Frost, Hopkins, & Conrad, 1981). Newby and Robinson (1983) utilized public posting of feedback (individual and group) and contingent rewardi (e&rnovie tickets, sodas) to reduce cash inaccuracies, increase punctuality, and increase the daily checkout proficiency of clerical employees in a retail business setting. They found that the use of individual feedback alone and rewards plus individual feedback substantially increased efficiency in all targeted areas. Brand, Staelin, O'Brien, and Dickinson (1982) described a goal setting and feedback intervention, which increased the speed with which transactions were completed, decreased errors and improved the efficiency of office staff in handling many routine tasks in one unit of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Jones, Moms, and Barnard (1985) used similar methods to increase the accuracy of civil commitment forms filed by mental health workers. Their intervention included instructions and graphic feedback, and resulted in immediate and significant increases in correct completion of forms, with results that were maintained across six months. Research has shown OBM interventions to be effective in improving productivity in clerical jobs in business, industry, and human service settings (Andrasik, 1989; Merwin, Thomason, & Sanford, 1989); however, applications of this technology in higher education are rare. In the only published application of OBM in admissions management, Wilk and Redmon (1990) reported increased productivity and satisfaction on the part of admissions processing staff after a daily adjusted goal setting and feedback procedure was implemented. They also reported decreases in employee absenteeism and overtime costs after the intervention. A major purpose of the present study was to extend the work of

48

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

Wilk and Redmon (1990) in order to fiuther study the usefulness of OBM strategies in admissions management. A second purpose was to add to existing research on the effectiveness of different sources and forms of performance feedback. Studies of performance feedback have examined many different sources including subordinates (Hegarty, 1974) supervisors (Chandler, 1977), co-workers (Greller, 1980) and outside consultants (Komaki, Barwick, & Scott, 1978). In one application, Fox and Sulzer-Azaroff (1989) assessed the effectiveness of supervisory and non-supervisory sources in promoting percentages of assigned fire evacuation training trials conducted by direct care staff at a residential facility for mentally retarded persons. Their results showed no differential effects in performance levels across the two types. In a review of performance feedback interventions Balcazar, Hopkins, and Suarez (1985-86) reported that feedback delivered by supervisors has been more frequently associated with consistent performance improvements than other sources. Furthermore they reported that graphs were the most frequently used feedback mechanism and that graphic feedback was associated with the highest proportion of consistent feedback effects. However, little research has been done to directly compare the effects of different feedback mechanisms. In order to add the existing research on feedback sources, the present study assessed the effects of goal setting and verbal feedback delivered by a supervisor on university admissions staff performance, and compared the relative effects of graphic versus verbal feedback. The present study also examined indicators of job satisfaction prior to and following the introduction of the program.

METHOD Sixteen clerical employees, in the undergraduate admissions department of a large midwestern university, served as subjects. All were full time employees, and duration of employment ranged from 1.2 years to 26.5 years. Six employees worked in the mailroom; four were credit evaluators; three were data entry clerks; and three worked primarily with filing tasks. One supervisor oversaw all activities within the mailroom, and another supervised the rernaining three sections. Employees were made aware of the general

Research Arricles

49

purpose of the study at the outset and informed consent for participation was obtained prior to the study.

Three separate physical work sites were used by the four sections. Credit evaluators worked together in one large room, where each had her own desk, computer terminal and telephone. Data entry and filing employees worked near each other in a single large room, where each had her own personal workstation. The mailroom was situated in two separate adjoining rooms where the supervisor and six employees were located. Each mailroom employee had a work station, and mailroom supplies and file cabinets were located within a common area. Entry and Relationship Building

The program was implemented by the senior author who sewed as an outside consultant hired to set up the program. Prior to implementation, several steps were taken to establish a positive working relationship with supervisors and staff. Employee section meetings were held in which the consultant asked employees to provide their assessment of problems in their immediate work environment. This was done using a nominal group technique (Delbecq & Van De Ven, 1968) in which employees were asked to identify problems in a group meeting and to rank order suggestions generated by the group in order of importance. Anonymity was retained by asking employees to write their responses on cards and give them to the consultant who summarized the responses on a blackboard for group review. During the nominal group exercise, employees were asked to respond to the following questions: "What do you see as the (two) greatest obstacleslproblems that affect you in your job?" and "What changes could be made to thingslpeople in your admissions work environment that would diminish or eliminate those obstacles/problems?" The information gained from the group meetings was used as a basis for stating the overall goals of the intervention and for pinpointing specific performance changes.

50

JOURNAL O F ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

Dependent Variables

The number of routine clerical tasks completed and recorded daily on a performance data sheet by employees (self report) served as the dependent variable. Regular duties performed by the employees were categorized along the top of each data sheet. Completion of any one of these activities constituted one task completed. The employees denoted task completion by placing a check mark in the appropriate column. For each task, the social security number of the student for whom the work was done was recorded so that the file could be checked to verify the self report (see reliability section). The tasks recorded varied from section to section and are listed in Table 1. In addition to raw productivity measures (i.e., number of tasks done), performance efficiency was calculated by dividing number of tasks completed by the number of person hours (i.e., all work hours for employees in attendance when the tasks were completed) involved in completing all tasks recorded for each week. This calculation was used to adjust total productivity for number of employees working. Employee satisfaction was measured using the Work Environment Scale (WES). The WES is a 90 question true/false battery which is comprised of ten subscales that measure the quality of the social and physical environments of a work setting (Moos, 1981). The ten WES subscales assess three main dimensions: relationships, personal growth, and system maintenance and system change. The relationships dimension is assessed by involvement, peer cohesion, and supervisor support subscales. These subscales sample the extent to which employees are concerned about their jobs and the extent to which they are friendly to each other and supportive of one another; they also assess management support of employees. The personal growth dimension also is called the goal orientation dimension and is assessed by autonomy, task orientation, and work pressure subscales. These subscales sample the extent to which employees are encouraged to be self-sufficient and to make their own decisions and assess the degree of emphasis on good planning, efficiency and getting the job done. They also ask for information concerning the degree to which the work pressure and time urgency

Research Articles

TABLE 1. Definitions of Tasks for Each Work Section Work Area

Task Definitions

Filing

m l i c a t i o n s and filing involve placing new applications in paper files and recording completion of this on the computer database.

Mailroom

(a) E m e n t e r i n g data from student information cards onto the university database. (b) T r a n s c r i b i n o m : transcribing information from a cornouterizedohone-mail svstem to the cornouter database so that requesk for additional information,etc.. may befilled. (c) sorting student informationcards into geographic territories and recording this information on the university database.

Credit Evaluation

The following data entry tasks were done by credit evaluators for students whose files had already been entered by data why: (a) coding of information to prepare for computer entry. (b) grade point average computation. (c) information update entry. (d) computer entry of informationon transfer students. and (e) finalizing credit evaluations.

Data Entry

The following tasks were done in data entry for students applying to enter the University as new studenls: (a) entry of application on computer, (b) grade point average computation. (c) review of new information. (d) entering supplementary information, and (e) updating file data.

operate in the work environment. The system maintenance and system change dimension is assessed by clarity, control, innovation, and physical comfort subscales. These subscales assess the extent to which employees know what to expect in their daily routines and the clarity of rules and policies; items on these subscales also sample the extent to which management emphasizes variety, change, and new approaches and whether physical surroundings contribute to a pleasant work environment. The norms for the WES were determined from data collected

52


from 1,442 employees in representative general work groups. Testretest reliabilities for individual scores for 75 employees on the ten subscales ranged from a low of 0.69 to a high of 0.83. Stability correlations were calculated for 90 people who kept the same jobs over a 12-month period; the mean correlation coefficient was 0.61, and 75 of the 90 correlations were greater than 0.50. In the present study, raw scores for each individual for each subscale were converted to standard scores (mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10) based on normative data provided by the authors of the instrument and the standard scores were averaged to obtain group means, pre- and post-intervention, for each subscale. Reliability of Self-Recorded Data

Twenty percent of all tasks reported as having been completed were selected randomly and verified each week. This was done by checking student information in computer files to determine if the data reported by employees agreed with physical records. Percent agreement was calculated using the following formula: Number of Agreements

Number of Agreements + Disagreements where an agreement was defined as a case where data reported for a single self-reported task and physical file reports for that task matched. Mean agreement was 93.1% (range 86-99%) for filing, 98.2% (range 96-100%) for mailroom, 91.6% (range 88-97%) for credit evaluation, and 93.4% (range 90- 100%) for data entry. Independent Variables Supervisor training. All supervisors were trained in behavioral management techniques (see Experimental Design and Procedures section for details) prior to implementing the first intervention phase. Supervisor training began six weeks prior to the beginning of the baseline phase. Specifically, this included one three-hour group

Research Articles

53

training session per week, and a one-hour individualized instructional session each week for each supervisor. All training materials were designed by the consultant, and all training was conducted by the consultant alone. Sections of a text on performance management by Daniels and Rosen (1984) were re--&itten with examples and practice exercises specific to admissions processing and served as the reading materials for the training. Verbalfeedback and goal setting. A daily-adjusted goal setting and feedback procedure utilized by the supervisors served as the independent variable in the first intervention phase. The supervisor met with each employee during the first hour of work each day and described the day's goal. A goal was defined as the performance criterion that the employee was to attain for that particular day. The goals were highly specific in that they included a precise number of tasks to be accomplished for that particular work day. For example, a goal might be to enter application information on 55 students and update the records for 15 files. The supervisor used the following criteria when determining an employee's goal: (a) the past performance of the employee (i.e., selecting a goal that was between 10 tasks above and below the employee's highest number completed), and (b) the needs of the office (e.g., changes in task demands across the university academic year). If, for example, an employee had completed an average of 62 tasks per day with a range of 45-78, the goal selected for that employee was a specific number between 68 and 88. Once an employee met or exceeded hisher daily goal, the following day's goal remained the same, and the supervisor was instructed to be careful not to immediately follow meeting a goal with imposition of greater demands for the following day. However, if performance was maintained for several consecutive days, then a new, higher goal was set for the next work day. In determining the mixture of tasks (e.g., applications loaded, records updated) within the day's goal, the supervisor considered the needs and seasonal demands of the ofice. This allowed for maximum flexibility and redirection of task emphasis. Goals were stated only for tasks that the supervisor considered important for a particular day and were recorded on a goal sheet in written form by the supervisor and kept by the employee for reference purposes.

54


Verbal feedback describing employee performance was delivered by the supervisor a minimum of two times during each work day (Wilk & Redmon, 1990). Feedback identified current performance as consistent o r inconsistent with the day's goal, and included (a) praise if the employee was working on the goal-related tasks, or (b) a prompt to focus on the goal-related tasks if the employee was not working on appropriate tasks. Corrective feedback included comments such as "While typing labels is an important job, right now it isn't our greatest priority. We really need to get these new applications loaded onto the database first, before worrying about the labels. I appreciate your hard work, but let's make sure that it's productive use of time." Graphic feedback and goal setting. During the second intervention phase, individualized, graphic feedback was added to goal setting each morning. This consisted of the supervisor showing each employee a line graph of hisher daily overall productivity during the feedback and goal setting episode each morning. While showing the employee hisher graph, the supervisors commented on performance patterns. All other conditions remained the same as in verbal feedback and goal setting. Manipulafion check. The researcher verified the supervisor's intervention by examining the performance data sheets submitted by employees. After feedback was given during the work day, the employee was responsible for placing a check mark on their personal data sheet beside the first entry completed following the supervisor's interaction. Any instance of disagreement as indicated by the absence of a check mark on the employee's data sheet was brought to the attention of the supervisor and counted as a "disagreement." The consultant met formally with the supervisors twice weekly during the first three months of the intervention, and once per week during the remainder of the program. It was during this time that disagreements were brought to the attention of the supervisor. Percent agreement between planned supervisor contact and the number of contacts was calculated to indicate the degree of success in implementing the system. Percent agreement on supervisor feedback was 97% (range 94-100%) for filing, 97.5% (range 93-100%) for mailroom, 96.4% (range 91-100%) for credit evaluators, and 98.8% (range 95- 100%) for data entry.

Research Articles

Experimental Design and Procedures Design. A multiple baseline design across sections was used. The conditions of self-recording baseline (A), and verbal feedback plus goal setting (B) were applied in a staggered fashion across four sections including credit evaluators, filing, mailroom and data entry. Graphidverbal feedback combined with goal setting (C) was implemented less systematically across the sections; this condition was implemented during the same week in the filing and mailroom sections. It was implemented one week earlier in the credit evaluation section and four weeks later in the data entry section. Pre-intervention training. During weekly group sessions, supervisors were given reading assignments. on topics including pinpointing, measurement, operant analysis, rewardinglpunishing behavior, setting goals, graphing responses and interpreting graphic data. Written and verbal problem solving exercises also were used during the group training sessions. Lndividual sessions also were scheduled with each supervisor and included question and answer periods specific to the reading assignments and written exercises. Supervisors were asked to react to vignettes with proposed solutions. Practice exercises on goal setting, providing praise and corrective feedback were conducted using sample data sheets and graphs constructed by the consultant. Supervisors were required to demonstrate competence in plotting performance data on a graph and reading and interpreting graphic data. Baseline. At the beginning of the baseline phase, the consultant administered the Work Environment Scale (WES) (Moos, 1981 ) to all employees. The employees were asked to respond to each of the 90 items on a standardized answer sheet provided by recording either "true" or "false." The WES was administered privately, and confidentiality of the data was assured. Completed answer sheets were given directly to the consultant and not to supervisors. On the first day of the baseline phase, each supervisor held a section meeting with her group. During this meeting, data sheets w e e distributed and self-recording procedures were explained. Employees were asked to begin self-recording, and to turn in their sheets at the end of each work day (5 p.m.). They began a new data sheet each work day. At the end of each work day, employees were

56


instructed to place their data sheets in a drop box that was attached to the front of the supervisor's desk. Total tasks completed by each employee were counted and graphed by the supervisor on an individual basis. The graphs were not shown to employees at this time; they were used by the researcher and supervisors as part of supervisor training and goal setting. These graphs presented an overall output measure of the total number of tasks completed per day. Neither goal setting nor feedback was used during the baseline period. Verbalfeedback and goal setting. The supervisors provided each employee with an explanation of the goal setting procedure at the beginning of the day that the intervention with hisher group began. The verbal explanations were presented prior to communicating the employee's goal for the day and consisted of a description of how the goals were to be determined and when and how the goals would be communicated. The employees were told that the program provided a means of helping them to identify high priority tasks so that work backlogs would not develop. During the first hour of work each morning the supervisors reviewed the data and determined goals for each employee for the day. A specially constructed form was used to record goals and to provide a written record of goal content. As described previously, goals were individualized and highly specific. After a goal was written, the employee was asked to initial the form beside the goal to indicate that the goal had been set. Five days of goals were written on a single form. This process required approximately 5 minutes per employee. Also during this phase, the supervisor interacted with each employee and provided private performance feedback twice each day (once in the morning and once in the afternoon). Graphic feedback and goal setting. Supervisors showed each employee hisher individual performance in graphic form in a private interaction. This was done during the morning goal setting and feedback session only. The supervisors explained to the employees how to interpret the graphic information, and responded to questions anytime they were asked. The graphs were 8 112 x 11 sheets of graph paper that were kept in a binder with a separate section for each employee. The graphs included information on the number of

Research Articles

57

total task completions (along the vertical axis) and the dates of the work weeks (along the horizontal axis). Graphs were not shown to employees during the feedback delivered at other times during the day. If an employee's performance indicated a steady positive or increasing positive trend, praise was delivered. If the performance showed a negative change, the supervisor prompted the employee to describe barriers to effective performance that had been encountered. Follow-up. Six months following the onset of the intervention, the Work Environment Scale (Moos, 1981) was again administered to assess change in satisfaction relative to pre-intervention levels. Employee responses, expressed in terms of standard scores on each of the subscales, at pre-intervention were compared with scores at post-intervention to assess these effects. Follow-up data also were collected on employee productivity (i.e., tasks completed) after the initial portion of the program was in place and operating on a routine basis. Managers continued data collection without consultation assistance using procedures identical to those applied during the initial stages of the project. These data were monitored by the consultant on an occasional basis with little direct contact with management for a period of 30 weeks following withdrawal from the project site. .

RESULTS

Staff Performance Performance was measured on a daily basis for a total of 150 work days during the implementation of the two interventions. Figure 1 shows group performance data across the four different sections for each experimental condition. The means and standard deviations for each unit for each phase are presented in Table 2. In all cases, an immediate increase in mean number of tasks completed was observed when the goal setting and verbal feedback intervention was applied. In all cases, an additional increase in performance was observed immediately after the addition of graphic feedback. Performance varied considerably within phases; most notable was a decline in performance during the verbal feedback and goal setting phase in the mailroom and filing sections (weeks 11-14).


58

TABLE 2. Mean (Mn) Tasks Completed per Week and Standard Deviations (SD) for Each Week for Each Section Across Experimental Conditions

Sect~on

Baseline

GS t Verbal Fdbk

GS t Verbal and Graphic Fdbk

983

61

1.703

224

4188

274

5077

254

8822

335

13389

432

Credit Evaluators

685

33

861

25

1049

39

Data Entry

582

26

994

45

1243

39

Filing

Mailroom

The data for credit evaluation and data entry sections show an upward trend beginning with the introduction of the daily goal setting and verbal feedback program. It appears as though performance improvements were achieved more gradually with these sections, with the greatest performance improvements found at the end of the graphic feedback component. The mailroom and filing sections, however, show abrupt increases in performance with the introduction of each of the two intervention components. Furthermore, the highest perfonnance levels were not achieved toward the end of the graphic feedback phase, but, rather, somewhere in the middle of the phase, with performance leveling off later. Follow-up data also are shown in Figure 1 for weeks 38, 43, 51 and 55. For filing, mailroom and data entry, performance remained at or above levels achieved at the end of the formal study (week 28). A slight decrease in number of tasks completed was observed for the credit evaluation section.

Work Eflciency Table 3 presents the mean efficiency levels by department. The efficiency calculation considers not only tasks completed, but also

Research Arlicles

59

FIGURE 1.Number of tasks completed each week for filing, mailroom,credit evaluation and data entry sections for baseline (Bs'ln), goal setting combined with verbal feedback (GS + Verb Fdbk), and goal setting combined with verbal and graphic feedback (GS + Verb + Graphic Fdbk). The open squares each represent one weekof datacollectedat various intervals after the consultant had withdrawn (weeks 38,43,51 and 55). GS + Verb F&

B

G

+ Verb + Grap

60

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZ4 TIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

TABLE 3. Mean Efliciency Levels for Each Section Expressed in Terms of

Tasks Completed per Hour GS + Verbal Fdbk

GS + Verbal and Graphic Fdbk

8.19

14.19

34.90

21.16

37.81

55.79

Credit Evaluators

4.28

5.38

6.56

Data Entry

3.63

6.21

18.19

Section

Filing

Mailroom

Baseline

the number of hours required to complete the tasks; this measure is, therefore, an important way of determining if a department is simply using additional hours to complete more tasks, or if they are, in fact, completing more tasks in the same amount of time. The results show that eficiency was clearly improved with the intervention. Whereas efficiency improved for all sections with the addition of the goal setting and verbal feedback program, much greater improvements occurred after graphic feedback was added to the goal setting and verbal feedback program. For example, in the data entry section, employees completed an average of 3.63 tasks per hour during baseline, 6.2 1 tasks per hour with the addition of goal setting and verbal feedback, and 18.19 tasks per hour when graphic feedback was added. Job Satisfaction Indicators

Table 4 presents the pre- and post-intervention g~oupmeans for all subscales of the Work Environment Scale. The data presented are standard scores based on a normative sample where the mean is 50 and the standard deviation is 10. Most importantly, task clarity and supervisor support were reported as greatly improved (more than two standard deviations), while work pressure was reported to be reduced (one standard deviation). Smaller positive changes were

Research Arricles

61

noted on involvement and peer cohesion subscales. These changes were consistent across sections, with greater changes in the area of supervisor support reported by the mailroom employees. The greatest change in task clarity was reported by employees in the filing section whose scores increased from 24 during baseline, to 67 afler the intervention. Smaller changes in task clarity were noted by the mailroom employees which may indicate that employees were aware of what was expected of them on a day to day basis prior to the study. The greatest decrease in work pressure was reported by data entry employees, although decreases were evident for all four sections. DISCUSSION

The results of the present study demonstrate the eflicacy of a daily adjusted goal setting and feedback procedure for improving the performance, efficiency and job satisfaction of clerical employees in a university admissions department. Most importantly, this study revealed the critical role that graphic performance feedback plays in improving individual performance levels. For each section, the number of tasks completed increased immediately over that of self-recording baseline levels when the goal setting and feedback program was added, and failed to increase in the sections where the intervention was not yet implemented. Furthermore, performance improvements were immediate when the independent variable was added and were sustained over time following the intervention. Pre-treatment baselines remained relatively stable except when the independent variable was added. This indicates that the intervention was responsible for performance changes. Finally, the changes observed during the interventions were maintained over a period of several months without direct involvement from outsiders. The findings of the present study are consistent with reports in the literature which show that feedback alone is effective, but more effective with the addition of goal setting (Balcazar et al., 1985-86). Furthermore, these results directly replicated the findings of Wilk and Redrnon (1990) which demonstrated that a daily-adjusted goal setting and feedback intervention was effective in improving the

62

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZA T m A L BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

TABLE 4. Work Environment Scale Standard Scores for Each Section Prior to (Pre) and Following (Post) OEM Program for the Subscales of Involvement (INV), Peer Cohesion (PC), Supervisor Support (SSup). Autonomy (AUT), Task Orientation (TO), Work Pressure (WP), Clarity of Task (CLA), Control (CTL), Innovation (INN), and Physical Comfort (PHY) Sections

Subscales

INV

PC

SSup

AUT

TO

WP

CLA

CTL

INN

PHY

PRE 27

34

29

31

33

74

24

35

30

31

POST 33

40

54

32

36

67

67

41

30

31

PRE 40

53

20

37

57

69

30

70

38

17

POST 53

58

60

39

59

58

45

79

39

14

PRE 38

59

54

42

51

62

42

43

30

41

POST 40

68

80

43

52

44

61

46

30

41

PRE 38

44

40

46

43

81

17

18

41

12

POST42

54

58

45

45

79

43

34

41

10

36

44

36

39

46

71

28

42

35

25

POST 42

55

63

38

48

62

54

50

35

24

Filing

Mailroom

Data Entry

Credit Evaluators

All Sections PA€

Research Arricles

63

performance levels of clerical admissions employees. Unlike many other admissions staff development programs, this intervention offers a means of measuring and tracking performance, as well as assessing the accuracy of self reports of performance across a variety of tasks. In this context, the verification process in this study was critical. Because files were checked for correct entry dates,' typographical errors, etc., employees were reminded to maintain accuracy as well as output. This strategy helped to maintain quality within a program designed primarily to increase quantity of output. The mean efficiency data for each section across experimental conditions are noteworthy. The-greatest improvements were attained in the filing and mailroom areas where the tasks are relatively simple in nature, whereas smaller changes were observed in data entry and credit evaluation. Credit evaluation tasks are considerably more complex than the majority of mailroom and filing dudes; thus the probability of altering performance may be less than for tasks which are relatively simple. Future research should address differences in outcomes across complex and simple tasks when feedback systems are used. This view is supported by O'Hara, Johnson, and Beehr (1985) who noted that most OBM interventions have dealt with simple rather than complex behaviors. Because employees self-recorded their performance during the baseline condition, the possibility exists that pre-intervention performance was inflated. Self-recorded feedback serves as a feedback mechanism whereby employees are generating information on their own performance levels (Komaki et al., 1980; Wilk & Redmon, 1990). However, it is clear that significant performance improvements occurred for all subjects with the introduction of the supervisor goal setting and verbal feedback phase indicating that the effects . of the self-recorded feedback were relatively minimal. The results of the present study indicate that graphic feedback combined with goal setting'was more effective than verbal feedback combined with goal setting. Furthermore, these effects were consistent across individuals and sections of the organization and were maintained for a period of weeks or months. This finding is in agreement with other research which has shown graphic feedback to be superior to other types (Balcazar et al., 1985-86). One possible reason-for improvement's noted during the verbal

64

JOURNAL O F ORGANIZA TIONA L BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

plus graphic feedback phase is the value of the information being provided to the employees. With graphic feedback, employees can more closely monitor their performance levels and adjust reactions precisely to improve output; the relationship between behavior change and change in the numerical data on the visual display provides a more precise and sensitive indicator of performance than verbal descriptors. Additionally, as Prue and Fairbank (1981) noted, graphic feedback provides a product which allows a longitudinal assessment of the performance. Thus, it may be the case that graphic feedback increases the usefulness of the information presented since precise comparisons with earlier performance levels are possible. Fairbank and Prue (1982) also observed that verbal feedback is influenced by the sociaVinterpersona1 skills of individuals delivering the feedback and the past history of interpersonal interactions between the providers and the recipients. Therefore, when graphic feedback is used, task completion is more likely to be controlled by performance data than the interpretation of a supervisor, leading to more timely and precise control over performance from moment to moment. Job satisfaction data from the Work Environment Scale (Moos, 1981) indicated that employees were more positive about the work environment in general following the intervention. Additionally, the greatest changes were observed on WES subscales that were directly related to elements of the OBM program. Large positive changes were noted in the area of task clarity, which should be affected by clear goals. Similar changes were noted in supervisor support which is likely to be affected by interaction between subordinates and supervisors in daily feedback episodes. Other more general factors involved in the present study probably influenced the results. One aspect of this study that proved to be a strong mechanism in gaining initial support and interest in the program was the self-recording performance data sheets. Employees were initially very hesitant to cooperate with the consultant; however, by instituting the data sheets prior to any intervention, employees were eased into the program gradually and had the opportunity to ask questions and understand the process. Self-recording provided a mechanism by which the employees became in-

Research Articles

65

volved in the day-to-day data collection. Furthermore, they could monitor their own performances and budget their time accordingly, particularly for repetitious, process work. Consistent with other researchers' conclusions (Balcazar et al., 1985-86; Fellner & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1984; Kim, 1984; Komaki et al., 1978; Welsch, Ludwig, Radiker, & Krapfl, 1973; Wilk & Redmon, 1990), the findings of the present research show that OBM interventions clearly offer managers powerful tools. It is important, however, that the elements of effective interventions be examined so that they are better understood and effectively utilized. The present study represents a step in that direction. REFERENCES Andrasik, F. (1989). Organizational behavior modification in business settings: A methodological and content review. Journal oJOrganizotiona1 Behavior Management, 10(1), 59-77. Balcazar, F., Hopkins, B.L., & Suarez, Y. (1985-86). A critical, objective review of performance feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7(314), 65-89. Balcazar, F.E.,Shupert, M.K.. Daniels. A.C., Mawhinney, T.C.. & Hopkins, B.L. (1989). An objective review and analysis of ten years of publication in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. Journal of Organizarional Behavior Management, 10(1), 7-37. Bell, D.J., & Bracken, J.D. (1992). Combining "peopleware and "software" in the admissions office: A case study in change. College and Universit-v. 67,

151-159. Brand, D.D., Staelin, J.R., O'Brien, R.M.. & Dickinson. A.M. (1982). Improving white collar productivity at HUD. In R.M. O'Brien, A.M. Dickinson & M.P. Rosow (Eds.), Industrial behavior modi/icarion @p. 307-334). New York: Pereamon. Breneian, D.W.(1983, March). The coming enrollment crisis. Change. pp, 14-19. Calpin, J.P., Edelstein, B.E., & Redrnon, W.K. (1988). Performance feedback and goal setting to improve mental health center staff productivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior Managemenr, 9(2), 35-58. Carter, N., H a n m , L., Holmberg, B., & Melin, L. (1979). Shoplifting reduction through the use of specific signs. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 2,73-84. Chandler, A.B. (1977). Decreasing negative comments and increasing performance of a shift supervisor. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, I.99-lOS.

66


Daniels, A. & Rosen, T. (1984). Performance management: Impmving quality and pmducriviry through positive reinforcement (2nd ed.). Tucker, GA: Performance Management Publications. Delbecq, A.L., & Van De Ven, A.H. (1968). A group process model for problem identification and program planning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 7(4). 466-492. Fairbank, J.A., & Prue, D.M.(1 982). Developing performance feedback systems. In L.W. Frederikscn (Ed.), Handbook of otganizarional behavior management (pp. 281-299). New York: John Wiley. Fellner, D.J., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1984). A behavioral analysis of goal setting. Journul of Organizational Behavior Management, 6,33-5 1. Fox, C.J., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1989). The effectiveness of two different sources of feedback on staff teaching of fire evacuation skills. Journal of Orgrmirorional Behavior Management, IO(2). 19-36. Frost, J.M., Hopkins, B.L., & Conrad, R.J. (1981). An analysis of the effects of feedback and reinforcement on machine based production. Journal of O a nizarional Behavior Managemenr. 3(2). 5-14. Greller, M.M. (1980). Evaluation of feedback sources as a function of role and organizational level. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 62.24-27. Hartnagel. D. (1986). Supporting the support staff. College and Universiry, 61(4), 275-281. Hegany. W.H. (1974). Using subordinate ratings to elicit behavioral changes in supervisors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59,764-766. Hossler. D. (1984). Enrollment management: An integrated approach. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Huneycutt, A.B., Lewis, P.B., & Wibker, E.A. (1990). Marketing the university: A role for marketing faculty. College and University, 66,29-34. Jones. H.H.. Morris, E.K., & Barnard, J.D. (1985). Increasing staff completion of civil commitment forms through instructions and graphed group performance feedback. Journal of Organizarion Behavior Management, 7(3/4), 29-44. Kay. C., & Hcaly, M. (1987). Quality circles in higher education: Quality, satisfaction, and climate. Proceedings fmm the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. Kellaris, J.J., & Kellaris, W.K., Jr. (1988). An exploration of the factors influencing studcnls' college choice decision at a small private college. College and University, 63, 187-197. Kim, J.S. (1984). Effect of behavior plus outcome goal setting and feedback on employee satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 139-149. Knight. B.. & Johnson, D. (1981). Marketing higher education. Educational Record, 3.28-3 1 . Komaki, J., Banvick, K.D., & Scott, L.R. (1978). A behavioral approach to occupational safety: Pinpointing and reinforcing safe performance in a food manufacturing plant. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 434-445.

Research Articles

67

Komaki, J., Blood, M.R., & Holder, D. (1980). Fostering friendliness in a fast food franchise. Journal of Organizafional Behavior Management, 2, 1 5 1 - 161. Kopelman, R.E., & Schneller, G.O. (1981). A mixed-consequence system for reducing overtime and unscheduled absences. Journal of Orgonizational Behavior Management, 3(I), 17-28. Kreitner, R., & Golab, M. (1978). Increasing the rate of salesperson telephone calls with a monetary refund. Journal of Organizotional Behavior Management, I . 192-195. Luthans, F., Paul, R., &Taylor. L. (1985). The impact of contingent reinforcemcnl on retail salespersons' performance behaviors: A replicated field experiment. Journal ojOtganimtiona1 Behavior Management, 7(I 12), 25-36. McCuddy, M.K., & Griggs, M.H. (1984). Goal setting and feedback in the management of professional department: A case study. Journal of Oppnizalional Behavior Management, 6(1), 53-64. McNees, P., Gilliam, S.W.. Schnelle, J.F., & Risley. T.(1979). Controlling employee theft through time and product identification. Journal ofOrgonizariona1 Behavior Managemenr, 2, 1 13-1 19. Merwin, G.A.,Jr., Thomason, J.A., & Sanford. E.E. (1989). A methodology and content review of organizational behavior management in the private sector: 1978-1986. Journal of Opanizational Behavior Managemenr. 10(I ). 39-57. Moos, R.H. (1981). Work Envitunment Scale manual. (3rd ed.), Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Morgan. B.E., & Weckmueller, B.L. (1991). Staff development for the 1990s. College and University, 67, 81-88. Newby,T.J. & Robinson, P.W. (1983). Effects of grouped and individual feedback and reinforcement on retail employee performances. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 5(2), 5 1-68. O'Hara, K., Johnson, C.M., & Beehr, T.A. (1985). Organizational behavior management in the private sector: A review of empirical research and recommendations for further investigation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4). 848-864. h e , D.M., & Fairbank, J.A. (1981). Performance feedback in organizational behavior management: A review. Journal of Orgonizational Behavior Management, 3, 1-16. Rogers, M.E.(1989). Building a winning admissions team. College and University,65(l), 5-13. Snyder, D. (1989). Hiring support staff can be a widwin affair. College and Universiy, 64(3), 300-305. Stephens. T.A., & Burroughs. W.A. (1978). An application of operant condition63. ing to absenteeism in a hospital setting. Journal of Applied Ps.vcho10~~ 518-521. Welsch, W.V., Ludwig, C., Radiker. J.E., & Krapfl, J.E. (1973, August). Effects of feedback on daily completion of behavior modification projects. Mental Retardation, pp. 24-28. Wikoff, M., Anderson, D.C.,& Crowell, C.R. (1982). Behavior management in a

68

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZ4TlONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

factory scmng: lncrcasing work efficiency. Journal of Otganizational Behaviur Mu~lugrmenr.4( 1 ), 97-127. Wilk. L.A.. & Redmon, W.K. (1990). A daily-adjusted goal setting and feedback proccdure for improving productivity in a university admissions department.

Journul of Organiza~ionalBehavior Managemenr, 10(2), 55-76. Zohar, D.. & Fussfeld, N. (1981). Modifying earplug wearing behavior by behavlor modification techniques: An empirical evaluation. Journal of Organizario~lalBehavior Matwgemenr, 3(2), 4 1-52.

HAWORTH JOURNALS ARE AVAILABLE ON MICROFORM All HaworthJournalsore available in either microfiche or microfilm from The Haworth Press. lnc. Microficheand microfilms are available to hardcopy subscriben at Me lower -individual" subscription rate. Other microformsubscribers may purchase microfiche or microform at the -library" subscription rate. Microfilm specifications: 35mm: diozo or silver. Microfiche specificotions: 105mm x 184mm (4' x 6.): reduction ratio: 24X; nonsilver (diazo) positive polarity. Microformare mailed upon compietlon of each volume. For further information,contact Janette Holl. Microform Contact. The Howorth Press. Inc.. 10 Alice Street. Binghamton. NY 13904-1580: Tel: (800) 342-9678 (ext, 328): Fax: (607) 722-1424; E-Moll:[email protected] Orders for microform may also be placed with University Microfilms lnlernationol. 300 NorthZeeb Road. Ann Arbor. MI 48106; Tel: (303) 76 1-4700.