Meta Analysis
Instrument and Characteristics: Structural Perceptions
June 12, 1995
The purpose of this instrument is to collect data on ProMES projects that will allow us to aggregate the results of our studies using meta-analysis. I will put the database together, agree to keep it current, and distribute it to the contributors. Those who have contributed ProMES studies with productivity data will have access to these data. Those who have not will not have access.
Fill out the instrument as completely as possible, realizing that there will be some missing data on most projects. When you aren’t sure how to complete a scale, make notes by that item. That way we can clarify the scales in future versions of the instrument.
The intention is that we fill out the instrument on all past and current projects at this time. Then, once every six months to a year, we update the projects that are still ongoing. This update will be much less involved than the work to do the original questionnaire since the majority of the information will not have changed. If a project has not yet started feedback, it is not necessary to complete the instrument. We will catch that project on the next cycle. Thus, there is no optimal time in the life of a project to complete the instrument. We will continually update the data base.
Fill out one copy of the questionnaire for each ProMES unit.
A lot of work by many of the research teams doing ProMES has gone into making the meta-analysis instrument as complete and as clear as possible. This has resulted in a lengthy questionnaire. Thus, it will take some time to complete the instrument. In addition, it is important that we do the ratings on all the projects we have conducted (including those that were unsuccessful or were not completed) so that we can get as complete a data set as possible.
We have a chance here to create something unique in our field. It is a lot of work, but the payoffs are very large. I appreciate your contributions.
Bob Pritchard
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEFINITIONS ii
1. CONTACT AND PROJECT INFORMATION 1
1.1 CONTACT INFORMATION 1
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ORGANIZATION` 4
2.1 INITIAL STATE OF THE ORGANIZATION AND TARGET UNIT 4
2.1.1 DESCRIPTION 4
2.1.2 STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS 6
2.1.3 JOB CHARACTERISTIC VARIABLES (JDS) 10
2.1.4 PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 12
2.2 INITIAL CONDITIONS AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS PRODUCTIVITY & PROMES 12
2.2.1 INITIAL CONDITIONS 12
2.2.2 INITIAL ATTITUDES AND EXPECTATIONS 14
2.2.3 MANAGEMENT, SUPERVISOR, AND UNION SUPPORT 17
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVELOPED SYSTEM 19
3.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROCESS 19
3.1.1 COMPOSITION OF THE DESIGN TEAM 19
3.1.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DESIGN TEAM SETTING 20
3.1.3 DYNAMICS OF THE DESIGN TEAM MEETINGS 21
3.1.4 TRAINING 22
3.1.5 OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 23
3.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEVELOPED SYSTEM 24
3.2.1 DESCRIPTIVE CHARACTERISTICS 24
3.2.2 FEEDBACK 25
3.2.3 OTHER 27
4. REACTIONS TO THE SYSTEM 29
5. PROJECT DATA 36
5.1 DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION 36
5.2 NEEDED PROJECT DATA 37
PROMES DATA TABLE
DEFINITIONS
ProMES Target Unit
To do the meta analysis over time, we need to collect data on each organizational unit where ProMES has been implemented. We call each such ProMES unit a Target Unit. It will be the number of such units that will be the sample size for the meta analysis. Therefore we need to define exactly what a single "Target Unit" is, so we can all use the same definition. For example, if the system is developed by four separate groups in a single organization and there are four design teams and four different feedback reports, this would be four Target Units. We would complete one copy of this questionnaire separately for each of the four Target Units. Some of the ratings will be the same for all four units such as the initial state of the organization factors, but others will be different for each.
In the majority of cases, the number of target units will be very clear. However, there are situations where it is not clear. In general, the defining characteristic for determining a target unit will be whether you would report the effectiveness scores for a given group separately from other groups. If you would report it separately, it would normally be a separate target unit. For example, in one project there were five university departments which did the system. Products and indicators were developed by a joint design team with representatives from all departments and the resulting products and indicators were identical for each department. Then each department developed its own contingencies with its own design team. In addition, some departments developed separate contingency sets for different types of courses. In this example, there were five "target units" since the effectiveness data would be reported to each department separately, and there were five unique feedback reports. For the departments that had more than one contingency set, there was still just one "target unit" for that department since the feedback report was the same for each type of course, they just used different contingencies.
As another example, suppose there are five shifts doing the system on the same exact job in the same location. If each shift develops its own system and has its own unique feedback report, the effectiveness data from each shift would be reported separately and thus there would be five target units. If the five shifts work together to develop the system and the feedback report gives effectiveness for the five shifts combined and in a way that the shifts cannot be separated, there would be only one target unit. If they all use the same measurement system (indicators and contingencies), but each shift has a feedback report on its own work separable from the other shifts, there are five target units. As a final example, if the system was developed for one group and then imposed on three others such that each of the additional three got a feedback report with their own data and had their own feedback meetings, there would be a total of four units.
If these decision rules still leave doubt in a given setting, the final criterion is whether there is reason to expect that the different units can really be considered as different from a meta analytic perspective. That is, if they are different in terms of initial conditions, how the implementation went, or how they responded to the feedback, they should be treated as separate units. If there are no differences possible, they should be combined.
"Local" vs. "Parent" Organization.
In some situations it is important to distinguish between the organization where the ProMES work is being done (the "local" organization) and the broader organization (the "parent" organization). The local organization is normally the physical setting where the project is being done. It is usually in one building or in a group of buildings that are next to each other. The parent organization, if there is one, owns the local organization, is usually much larger, and located in different cities or countries. In some cases, of course, there is no parent organization. In that case, the answers for the "local" and "parent" questions would be identical.
Target Unit ID Number
Each target unit will be assigned a unique identification number by Pritchard. This will be the major way the data from a given target unit will be kept together. The number will be a 9-digit number with the first three digits being the Parent Organization ID Number, the second three digits the Local Organization ID Number, and the last three digits for that particular target unit. After the first meta analysis questionnaire is completed for a given target unit, Pritchard will assign it its Target Unit ID Number. This number will be used for all future data about the project.
1. CONTACT AND PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 Contact Information
1. Person(s) filling out this questionnaire:
Name: _________________________________________
Title: __________________________
Name: _________________________________________
Title: __________________________
Name: _________________________________________
Title: __________________________
2. Research/Consulting Group (university/company and city. e.g. Texas A&M, College Station, Texas):
Group: ________________________________
Location: _______________________________
3. Field experience of person(s) filling out this questionnaire:
___ 5. High. All persons filling out the questionnaire have at least two years experience conducting research or doing projects in field settings.
___ 4.
___ 3. Medium. At least one person filling out the questionnaire has at least 2 years of experience conducting research or doing projects in field settings.
___ 2.
___ 1. Low. No one filling out questionnaire has conducted research or done projects in field settings.
4. Date this questionnaire was completed: ________________________
5. Dates covered by this questionnaire: From ____________________ To _____________________
6. Person(s) in charge of the project (typically an external academic or practitioner):
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7. Main contact person for future project information. (This should be a senior person who will be available for several years, not a student or someone who is expected to relocate soon.)
Name: ________________________________________________________________________
University/Company: _____________________________________________________________
Department: ___________________________________________________________________
Address: _________________________________________________________________________
Phone: ____________________________________________
Fax: ____________________________________________
E-mail: ____________________________________________
1.2 Project Description
1. Name of the Parent Organization (e.g. Westinghouse Corporation):
________________________________________________________________________
2. Name of the Local Organization (e.g., College Station Assembly Plant) This can be the same as the Parent Organization if there is only one location for the organization:
________________________________________________________________________
3. Name of the Target Unit (Use a descriptive name that will uniquely identify this unit now and in the future, e.g. Final Inspection and Testing.)
________________________________________________________________________
4. Date work with this Parent Organization started. ______________________________
5. Date work with this Local Organization started: _______________________________
6. Date work with this Target Unit started. ______________________________________
7. What type of project was this?
_____ 1. A field experiment (An intervention was used. This is the typical ProMES project.)
_____ 2. A field survey. Data collected in a field setting but there were no interventions or manipulations.
_____ 3. A laboratory study.
_____ 4. Other. Explain: ___________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
8. What is the status of the project?
____ 1. Preliminary discussions are under way, but no commitments have been made to do a project.
____ 2. Commitments have been made to do the project, but it has not started yet.
____ 3. System development has started, but is not completed.
____ 4. Feedback has started and productivity data can/will be collected.
____ 5. The ProMES research/consulting team expects no further contact with the target unit.
9. What was the primary purpose of using ProMES in this target unit? (Check all that apply)
_____ As a feedback/motivational instrument.
_____ As a performance appraisal instrument.
_____ To measure productivity to allocate rewards (e.g. pay for performance)
_____ As a criterion to study the effects of another intervention, e.g. a new work design.
_____ As a management information system.
_____ As a way of evaluating the productivity of one part of the organization.
_____ As a method for identifying/communicating top management strategy.
_____ Other. Explain__________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
10. Briefly describe the purpose of using ProMES in this target unit, expanding on your answer to the question above. For example, to see if ProMES would work in this setting, to combine ProMES with traditional performance appraisal, to evaluate the effects of different levels of participation in the process of doing ProMES, etc.
11. Briefly describe the design of the project. This will help us interpret the results. For example:
"Three target units (names of the units) developed ProMES in the typical way. Then the system was applied to four other units (names of the units) doing the same work at a different location. The new units only reviewed what the first groups did. They could make changes, but this was discouraged. Two comparison groups were also used (names of the units) throughout the project."
12. Available papers. If there are any published or unpublished papers available describing this project, please give the references. If the titles are not in English, please provide a translation of the title.
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ORGANIZATION
2.1 INITIAL STATE OF THE ORGANIZATION AND TARGET UNIT
2.1.1 Description
1. Country where the headquarters of the Parent Organization is located:
__________________________________________
2. Function of the Parent Organization. Select the main function of the organization. Manufacturing means that the primary business is making a tangible product, e.g. refrigerators, computers, cardboard boxes. That product is sold or distributed, but most of the effort goes to making the product. A sales organization’s primary business is selling something, typically things which they do not make themselves. Examples are insurance companies, department stores, and real estate agencies. A service organization exists to provide a non-tangible service to customers. Examples would be, computer repair companies, and hotels. Educational, research, and military should be clear. Examples of Health Care would be hospitals, rehabilitation centers, nursing homes. There will be some organizations that do more than one thing, so pick the main thing the organization exists for. For example, a university is a service organization, but its primary function is educational.
_____ Manufacturing
_____ Sales
_____ Service
_____ Educational
_____ Research
_____ Military
_____ Health Care
3. Approximate number of people in the overall parent organization at all physical locations:
1) 50 or less _____ 2) 51-100 _____ 3) 101-500 _____
4) 501-1000 _____ 5) 1001-5000 _____ 6) 5001-25,000 _____
7) 25,001-100,000 _____ 8) More than 100,000 _____
4. Briefly describe the Local Organization and what it does.
5. Main function of the local organization.
_____ Manufacturing
_____ Sales
_____ Service
_____ Educational
_____ Research
_____ Military
_____ Health Care
6. What type of organization is the local organization?
_____ 1. Private, for profit
_____ 2. Private, non-profit
_____ 3. Government/Public
7. Country where the local organization is located: __________________________________________
8. Approximate number of people in the local organization:
1) 50 or less _____ 2) 51-100 _____ 3) 101-500 _____ 4) 501-1000 _____ 5) 1001-5000 _____ 6) Over 5000 _____
9. Briefly describe the Target Unit (the unit doing the ProMES system) and what it does.
10. Function of the target unit.
_____ Manufacturing
_____ Sales
_____ Service
_____ Educational
_____ Research
_____ Military
_____ Health Care
11. Approximate number of people in the target unit: _________
12. Which of the following best describes the majority of workers in the target unit:
___ Managerial/professional (manager, accountant, lawyer, etc.)
___ Blue-collar/labor (carpenter, welder, non-skilled laborer, etc.)
___ Technician (photocopier repair, emergency room nurse, etc.)
___ Sales (life insurance sales, car salesperson, etc.)
___ Clerical/office
___ Academic/teaching
___ Other. Specify: __________________________________________________________
13. Amount of formal education of the typical person in the target unit. (Includes education at primary school, secondary school, vocational school, high school, university, master’s program, doctoral program, etc. Does not include formal training done by their employers.)
___ 5. More than 20
___ 4. 18 - 20
___ 3. 13 - 17 years
___ 2. 9 - 12 years
___ 1. 9 years or less
2.1.2. Structural Characteristics
Centralization: the degree to which decision-making and authority are centralized or delegated. A completely centralized organization is one where all decision-making authority rests in the hands of a single top manager. A completely decentralized organization is one where every employee has a say in making decisions.
1. To what extent was the structure of the target unit centralized?
___ 5. Highly centralized. Virtually all decision-making authority rested with the supervisor of the target group.
___ 4.
___ 3. Neither. Some important decisions were made by the supervisor and some important decisions were made by target unit personnel.
___ 2.
___ 1. Highly decentralized. All target unit personnel had a say in making virtually all important decisions.
2. To what extent was the structure of the local organization centralized?
___ 5. Highly centralized. Virtually all decision-making authority rested with upper management.
___ 4.
___ 3. Neither. Some important decisions were made by the upper management and some important decisions were made by personnel at lower levels of the local organization.
___ 2.
___ 1. Highly decentralized. All personnel had a say in making virtually all important decisions.
Formalization: the degree to which rules, procedures, and behavioral directives are laid down in writing.
3. To what extent was the structure of the target unit formalized?
___ 5. Highly formalized. All rules, policies, and procedures governing behavior were set forth in writing.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderately formalized. Some rules, policies, and procedures governing behavior were set forth in writing.
___ 2.
___ 1. Not formalized. No rules, policies, and procedures governing behavior were set forth in writing.
4. To what extent was the structure of the local organization formalized?
___ 5. Highly formalized. All rules, policies, and procedures governing behavior were set forth in writing.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderately formalized. Some rules, policies, and procedures governing behavior were set forth in writing.
___ 2.
___ 1. Not formalized. No rules, policies, and procedures governing behavior were set forth in writing.
Workflow interdependence: the degree to which different divisions in the organization are dependent on one another for the accomplishment of tasks.
5. To what extent was the target unit dependent on other units in the organization?
___ 5. Completely dependent. The target unit could not complete any of its tasks without inputs from other units.
___ 4.
___ 3. Neither. The target unit could complete some of its tasks without inputs from other units.
___ 2.
___ 1. Completely independent. The target unit did not require inputs from any other units to complete its tasks.
Specialization: the degree to which members of the unit have tasks and duties that cannot be done by other members of the unit without additional education or training.
6. To what extent was the target unit specialized?
___ 5. Completely specialized. No one in the target unit could do the job of another.
___ 4.
___ 3. Neither. Some of the people in the target unit could do the jobs of others.
___ 2.
___ 1. Completely unspecialized. All jobs in the target unit could be done by each person in the unit.
Centrality: the degree to which a given unit is central or essential to the functioning of the broader local organization. For example, in a manufacturing organization a unit making things the organization sells would be very central, a unit training new employees to operate the machinery would be moderately central, and a unit keeping track of employee benefits would not be central.
7. How central was the work of this target unit to the functioning of the organization?
___ 5. Highly central to the main mission of the organization
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderately central to the main mission of the organization
___ 2.
___ 1. Not central to the main mission of the organization
Complexity - Technological. Includes technological and task complexity.
8. Given this definition, how technologically complex was this target unit?
___ 5. Highly complex. The target unit was on the complex end of most of the complexity factors listed above.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderately complex. The target unit was in the middle of most of the complexity factors listed above.
___ 2.
___ 1. Not complex. The target unit was on the simple end of most of the complexity factors listed above.
Complexity - Structural. Includes degree of interdependence with other units, number of shifts, and physical separation of target unit personnel.
9. Given this definition, how structurally complex was this target unit?
___ 5. Highly complex. The target unit was on the complex end of most of the complexity factors listed above.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderately complex. The target unit was in the middle of most of the complexity factors listed above.
___ 2.
___ 1. Not complex. The target unit was on the simple end of most of the complexity factors listed above.
Complexity - Demands. Includes complex, changing and sometimes conflicting sets of demands from different sources. Presence of complex internal and external constituencies (e.g. unions and monitoring groups).
10. Given this definition, how complex were the demands on this target unit?
___ 5. Highly complex. The target unit was on the complex end of most of the complexity factors listed above.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderately complex. The target unit was in the middle of most of the complexity factors listed above.
___ 2.
___ 1. Not complex. The target unit was on the simple end of most of the complexity factors listed above.
Stability
11. Stability of the local organization’s external environment throughout the course of the project. External environment would include external customer demands, competitors, regulations, the nature of the market, etc.
_____ 5. Highly stable. The external environment did not change in meaningful ways during the course of the project.
_____ 4.
_____ 3. Moderately stable. Some important features of the external environment changed, but many were quite stable during the course of the project.
_____ 2.
_____ 1. Highly unstable. Most important features of the external environment changed during the course of the project.
12. Degree of stability of the technology in the target unit throughout the course of the project.
___ 5. The technology did not change in any meaningful way during the project.
___ 4.
___ 3. There were minor changes in technology during the project.
___ 2.
___ 1. There were major changes in technology during the project
13. What was the average percentage of the target unit personnel annual turnover during the project? ______ %
14. The stability of the local organization's management.
What percentage of turnover in management positions in the local organization occurred from the start of the project (i.e., since approval was received to do the project with this unit) until the first feedback report was given? ____%
What percentage of turnover in management positions occurred at the local organization from the start of the project until six months after the start of feedback?
____ % Unit has not had six months of feedback _____.
From the start of the project to six months after the start of feedback, what percent of managers important to initially approving the ProMES project have left the organization or gone to new positions in the organization in areas unrelated to where the ProMES work is being done?
____ % Managers Unit has not had six months of feedback _____.
2.1.3 Job Characteristic Variables (JDS) for the Target Unit
Describe the target unit’s work with these scales. (The following items are adapted from the items in section 1 of Hackman & Oldham's 1975 Job Diagnostic Survey, Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170, quoted from Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P.B. 1981. The experience of work: A compendium and review of 249 measures and their use. London: Academic Press.).
Skill variety: the degree to which the job requires a variety of different activities in carrying out the work, which involve the use of a number of different skills and talents of the employee.
1. How much variety did the job contain? That is, to what extent did the job require group members to do many different things at work, using a variety of skills and talents?
___5. Very much, the job required group members to do many different things, using a number of different skills and talents.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderate variety.
___ 2.
___ 1. Very little, the job required group members to do the same routine things over and over again.
Task identity: the degree to which the job requires completion of a "whole" and identifiable piece of work, i.e., doing a job from beginning to end with a visible outcome.
2. To what extent did the job involve individuals within the group doing a "whole" and identifiable piece of work? That is, was the work performed by individuals within the group a complete piece of work that had an obvious beginning and end? Or did it only comprise a small part of the overall piece of work, which was finished by other members of the group or automatic machines?
___ 5. The individual‘s job involved doing a whole piece of work from start to finish, the results of their activities were easily seen in the final product or service.
___ 4.
___3. The individual‘s job was a moderate size "chunk" of the overall piece of work performed by the group, their contribution could be seen in the final outcome.
___ 2.
___ 1. The individual‘s job was only a tiny part of the overall piece of work performed by the group, the results of their labor could not be seen in the final product or service.
3. To what extent did the job involve the group as a unit doing a "whole" and identifiable piece of work? That is, was the work performed by the group as a unit a complete piece of work that had an obvious beginning and end? Or was it only a part of the overall piece of work, which was finished by individuals or machines outside of the group?
___ 5. The job of the group involved doing the whole piece of work from start to finish.
___ 4.
___3. The job of the group was a moderate size part of the overall piece of work.
___ 2
___ 1. The job of the group was only a tiny part of the overall piece of work performed.
Task significance: the degree to which the job of the group has a substantial impact on the lives or work of other people, whether in the immediate organization or in the external environment.
4. In general, how significant or important was the job? That is were the results of the group's work likely to significantly affect the lives or well-being of other people?
___ 5. Highly significant, the outcomes of the group's work could affect other people in very important ways.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderately significant.
___ 2.
___ 1. Not very significant, the outcomes of the group's work were not likely to have important effects on other people.
Autonomy: the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the employee in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out.
5. How much individual autonomy was there in the job? That is, to what extent did the job allow individual group members to decide on their own how to do the job?
___ 5. Very much, the job allowed individual group members almost complete responsibility for deciding how and when the work was done.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderate autonomy, many things were standardized and not under the individual group member's control, but individual group members could make some decisions about their work.
___ 2.
___ 1. Very little, the job allowed individual group members almost no personal "say" about how and when the work was done.
6. How much group autonomy was there in the job? That is, to what extent did the job allow the group as a unit to decide on their own how to do the job?
___ 5. Very much, the job allowed the group almost complete responsibility for deciding how and when the work was done.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderate autonomy, many things were standardized and not under the group's control, but the group could make some decisions about their work.
___ 2.
___ 1. Very little, the job allowed the group almost no personal "say" about how and when the work was done.
Feedback from the job itself: the degree to which carrying out the work activities required by the job results in the employee obtaining direct and clear information about the effectiveness of his or her performance.
7. To what extent did the job itself provide group members with information about their performance? That is, did the actual work itself provide clues about how well the group was doing - aside from any feedback provided by supervisors or co-workers?
___ 5. Very much, the job was set up so that group members received almost constant feedback.
___ 4.
___ 3. Sometimes doing the job provided feedback to the group, sometimes it did not.
___ 2.
___ 1. Very little, the job itself provided almost no feedback, so the group could work forever without finding out how well they were doing.
Feedback from agents: the degree to which the employee receives clear information about his or her performance from supervisors or co-workers.
8. To what extent did managers or co-workers let group members know how well they were doing on the job?
___ 5. Very much, managers or co-workers provided group members with almost constant feedback about how well they were doing.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderately, sometimes people gave feedback, other times they did not.
___ 2.
___ 1. Very little, people almost never let group members know how well they were doing.
Dealing with others: the degree to which the job requires the employee to work closely with other people in carrying out the work activities (including dealings with other organization members and with external organizational "clients").
9. To what extent did the job require individuals within the group to work with each other.
___ 5. Very much, dealing with other group members was an absolutely essential and crucial part of doing the job.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderately, some dealing with other group members was necessary.
___ 2.
___ 1. Very little, dealing with other group members was not at all necessary in doing the job.
10. To what extent did the job require individuals within the group to work with individuals outside of the group (either within or outside the organization).
___ 5. Very much, dealing with individuals outside of the group was an absolutely essential and crucial part of doing the job.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderately, some dealing with individuals outside of the group was necessary.
___ 2.
___ 1. Very little, dealing with individuals outside of the group was not at all necessary in doing the job.
2.1.4. Psychological Characteristics
Degree of trust between target unit members and management.
1. Degree of trust the target unit has in management
___ 5. Very much. Members of the target unit felt that management would never take advantage of them.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderate. Members of the target unit trusted management would be supportive in most situations but felt they would take advantage of them occasionally.
___ 2.
___ 1. Very little. Target unit members felt that management would take advantage of them at every opportunity.
2. Degree of trust management had in the members of the target unit.
___ 5. Very much. Management felt that the target unit would never take advantage of them.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderate. Management felt that the target unit would be supportive in most situations but felt that they would take advantage of them occasionally.
___ 2.
___ 1. Very little. Management felt that the target unit would take advantage of them at every opportunity.
3. Degree of agreement in organizational values between target unit personnel and management. This item gets at something different from trust. It is the degree to which target unit personnel and management feel the same things are important and worth working towards in the organization.
___ 5. High agreement. Clear agreement and a willingness to work together to achieve those values.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderate agreement. Some disagreement in what was important, but a willingness existed to work together.
___ 2.
___ 1. Low agreement. Significant disagreement in values and a lack of willingness to work together.
2.2 INITIAL CONDITIONS AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS PRODUCTIVITY AND PROMES
2.2.1 Initial Conditions
1. How much experience did the local organization have with productivity enhancement programs?
___ 5. The local organization had done many formal productivity enhancement programs in recent years
___ 4.
___ 3. The local organization had done some formal productivity enhancement programs in recent years
___ 2.
___ 1. The local organization had done no formal productivity enhancement programs in recent years
2. How much experience did the target unit have with productivity enhancement programs?
___ 5. The target unit had done many formal productivity enhancement programs in recent years
___ 4.
___ 3. The target unit had done some formal productivity enhancement programs in recent years
___ 2.
___ 1. The target unit had done no formal productivity enhancement programs in recent years
Level of productivity prior to the start of the project:
3. Was management aware of the target unit’s level of productivity prior to the start of the project? ___ Yes ___ No.
4. If yes, how was the target unit’s productivity perceived by management before the start of the project?
___ 5. Well above organizational expectations
___ 4. Somewhat above organizational expectations
___ 3. Meeting organizational expectations
___ 2. Somewhat below organizational expectations
___ 1. Clearly below organizational expectations
5. Frequency of quantitative performance/productivity feedback given to the target unit before ProMES.
___ 9. More than once a day
___ 8. Daily
___ 7. Weekly
___ 6. Monthly
___ 5. Every 2-5 months
___ 4. Every 6 - 11 months
___ 3. Yearly
___ 2. Less than once a year
___ 1. Never
6. Quality of performance/productivity feedback given to the target unit prior to ProMES. Many things go into the quality of the feedback a unit receives. These factors include accuracy, controllability, congruence with overall organizational functioning, timeliness, understandability, and comprehensiveness. Taking all these factors into consideration how good was the formal and informal feedback the target unit personnel received prior to ProMES?
___ 5. Excellent
___ 4. More than adequate
___ 3. Adequate
___ 2. Less than adequate
___ 1. Poor
7. To what extent were there serious problems in the target unit at the start of the project? Examples would include serious conflicts within the group or with the group and management, major organization problems, serious management problems, etc.
___ 5. There were many serious problems
___ 4.
___ 3. There were some moderately serious problems
___ 2.
___ 1. There were no meaningful problems
8. Activities prior to starting the formal ProMES process. In some cases it becomes clear that work must be done with the group before the ProMES process starts, such as dealing with trust or conflict between target unit personnel and management. How much work of this sort was done with this unit?
___ 5. A substantial amount was done.
___ 4.
___ 3. A moderate amount was done.
___ 2.
___ 1. None was done.
If you, selected 3 or higher, describe what the problems were and what was done.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
9. At the start of the project, how many other units in the local organization had done ProMES projects? ____________ Units
2. 2. 2. Initial Attitudes and Expectations
1. What advantages of ProMES were important to the organization in deciding to start the project? (Check all that apply.)
_____ Improving productivity
_____ A mechanism for employee participation
_____ Improving quality
_____ Reducing stress
_____ Helping groups manage themselves
_____ As a criterion measure to do something else, e.g. pay for performance
_____ As a way of monitoring organizational units more accurately
_____ As a way of clarifying or communicating organizational policy
_____ Improving the image of the organization as being modern and progressive
_____ Other. Describe: _____________________________________________________________________
Rate each of the attitudes below using the scale below:
1. Strong disagreement 2. Moderate disagreement 3. Neutral 4. Moderate agreement 5. Strong agreement
2. How did management feel about productivity?
____ Productivity improvement is important.
____ Productivity improvement is not easy.
____ Productivity improvement is a long-term effort, not something that can be done quickly.
____ Organizational performance is heavily dependent on personnel behavior.
____ Quantitative measurement is important.
____ For a program to be good, it must be invented here.
3. How did the personnel in the target unit feel about productivity?
____ Productivity improvement is important.
____ Productivity improvement is not easy.
____ Productivity improvement is a long-term effort, not something that can be done quickly.
____ Organizational performance is heavily dependent on personnel behavior.
____ Quantitative measurement is important.
____ For a program to be good, it must be invented here.
4. How did the personnel in the union feel about productivity?
____ Productivity improvement is important.
____ Productivity improvement is not easy.
____ Productivity improvement is a long-term effort, not something that can be done quickly.
____ Organizational performance is heavily dependent on personnel behavior.
____ Quantitative measurement is important.
____ For a program to be good, it must be invented here.
____ No union was involved.
5. Constituencies value of productivity improvement. There are a number of influential constituencies in any organization such as the target unit personnel, supervision, management, works councils, unions, professional organizations, etc. To what extent did the influential constituencies believe productivity improvement was valuable?
_____ 5. All constituencies felt productivity improvement was highly valuable
_____ 4. All constituencies felt productivity improvement was somewhat valuable
_____ 3. One constituency did not feel productivity improvement was valuable
_____ 2. More than one constituency did not feel productivity improvement was valuable
_____ 1. More than two constituencies did not feel productivity improvement was valuable
Which constituency or constituencies did not feel productivity improvement was valuable? Explain.
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Expectations of project success by management (indicate the average expectations of those managers who were involved in the decision to do the project):
6. At the start of the project:
___ 5. High. They expected substantial improvements from the project.
___ 4.
___ 3. Uncertain. They did not know what to expect.
___ 2.
___ 1. Low. They had serious doubts that anything of value would come from the project.
7. At the time feedback started:
___ 5. High. They expected substantial improvements from the project.
___ 4.
___ 3. Uncertain. They did not know what to expect.
___ 2.
___ 1. Low. They had serious doubts that anything of value would come from the project.
Expectations of project success by the immediate supervisors of the target unit ( indicate the average expectations of the supervisors):
8. At the start of the project:
___ 5. High. They expected substantial improvements from the project.
___ 4.
___ 3. Uncertain. They did not know what to expect.
___ 2.
___ 1. Low. They had serious doubts that anything of value would come from the project.
9. At the time feedback started:
___ 5. High. They expected substantial improvements from the project.
___ 4.
___ 3. Uncertain. They did not know what to expect.
___ 2.
___ 1. Low. They had serious doubts that anything of value would come from the project.
Expectations of project success by personnel in the target unit ( indicate the average expectations of the people in the unit):
10. At the start of the project:
___ 5. High. They expected substantial improvements from the project.
___ 4.
___ 3. Uncertain. They did not know what to expect.
___ 2.
___ 1. Low. They had serious doubts that anything of value would come from the project.
11. At the time feedback started:
___ 5. High. They expected substantial improvements from the project.
___ 4.
___ 3. Uncertain. They did not know what to expect.
___ 2.
___ 1. Low. They had serious doubts that anything of value would come from the project.
Expectations of project success by personnel in the union/works council ( indicate the average expectations of the union/works council personnel):
12. At the start of the project:
___ 5. High. They expected substantial improvements from the project.
___ 4.
___ 3. Uncertain. They did not know what to expect.
___ 2.
___ 1. Low. They had serious doubts that anything of value would come from the project.
13. At the time feedback started:
___ 5. High. They expected substantial improvements from the project.
___ 4.
___ 3. Uncertain. They did not know what to expect.
___ 2.
___ 1. Low. They had serious doubts that anything of value would come from the project.
2. 2. 3. Management, Supervisor and Union Support
1. Highest organization level where the ProMES project was supported: (Check the highest level.)
___ 5. Top management: parent. The highest levels of the parent organization’s management directly supported the project. (If there is no parent organization and the top level of the local organization supported the project, use this rating.)
___ 4. Top management: local. The highest levels of the local organization’s management directly supported the project, but not the top level of the parent organization.
___ 3. Middle management: local. Middle management of the local organization directly supported the project, but not top management.
___ 2. Lower level management: local. Lower level management of the local organization directly supported the project, but not middle or top management.
___ 1. Supervisors only. The project was supported at the supervisory level but not by any levels of management.
2. At the start of the project (i.e., when the design team started meeting), to what extent did management support the project? Management support is composed of verbal support to the project directors and the target unit, support with organizational resources such as paid employee time and space to work, and publicly stated support of the project to others in the organization.
___ 5. High. Management was willing to invest as many resources and support as needed to insure the success of the project, and helped the project whenever help was needed.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderate. Management was willing to invest some resources and support in the project, and was helpful in some instances and not in others.
___ 2.
___ 1. Low. Management was unwilling to invest any resources and support in the project, and was uncooperative with people involved with the project.
3. Once the project was under way, to what extent did management continue to support the project?
___ 5. High. Management continued to be willing to invest as many resources and support as needed to insure the success of the project, and helped the project whenever help was needed.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderate. Management continued to be willing to invest some resources and support in the project, and was helpful in some instances and not in others.
___ 2.
___ 1. Low. Management became unwilling to invest any significant resources and support in the project, and was not helpful when needed.
4. At the start of the project (i.e., when the design team started meeting), to what extent did supervisors of the units support the project? Supervisory support is composed of verbal support to the project directors and design team, support with organizational resources such as time and space to do ProMES work, and publicly stated support of the project to others in the organization.
___ 5. High. Supervisors were willing to invest as many resources and support as needed to insure the success of the project, and helped the project whenever help was needed.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderate. Supervisors were willing to invest some resources and support in the project, and were helpful in some instances and not in others.
___ 2.
___ 1. Low. Supervisors were unwilling to invest any resources and support in the project, and were uncooperative with people involved with the project.
5. Once the project was under way, to what extent did supervisors support the project?
___ 5. High. Supervisors were willing to invest as many resources and support as needed to insure the success of the project, and helped the project whenever help was needed.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderate. Supervisors were willing to invest some resources and support in the project, and were helpful in some instances and not in others.
___ 2.
___ 1. Low. Supervisors were unwilling to invest any resources and support in the project, and were uncooperative with people involved with the project.
6. At the start of the project (i.e. when the design team started meeting), to what extent did the union/works council support the project? (A works council is primarily a European institution which is composed of full-time employees of the organization who represent the union at the work site.) Union/works council support is verbal support to the project directors, cooperation with project personnel, publicly stated support to other union and works council members, and publicly stated support of the project to the design team and others in the organization.
___ 5. High. Unions/works councils were willing to support as needed to insure the success of the project, and helped the project whenever help was needed.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderate. Unions/works councils were helpful in some instances and not in others.
___ 2.
___ 1. Low. Unions/works councils were unwilling to support in the project, and were uncooperative with people involved with the project.
___ 0. Not applicable. There were no unions/works councils in this setting.
7. Once the project was under way, to what extent did the union/works council support the ProMES project?
___ 5. High. Unions/works councils were willing to support as needed to insure the success of the project, and helped the project whenever help was needed.
___ 4.
___ 3. Moderate. Unions/works councils were helpful in some instances and not in others.
___ 2.
___ 1. Low. Unions/works councils were unwilling to support in the project, and were uncooperative with people involved with the project.
___ 0. Not applicable. There were no unions/works councils in this setting.