Feedback, cont.

1
Unit 5

• Feedback, cont.
• Goal Setting
• Schedules of Reinforcement

2
Unit 5 Schedule

• Wednesday Lecture
• Monday, 10/20
• U5 lecture, cont.
• Exercise Schedules of reinforcement in the lab
  and applied settings
• Wednesday, 10/22 E5
• Monday, 10/27 ME1 over Units 1-4
• Ill hand out study objectives for ME1 on Monday,
  10/20

3
ME1

• Covers Units 1-4 (not E5)
• If you have missed an exam, you need to take ME1
  or your missing exam score turns into a zero
• If you have taken all the exams to date and would
  like to replace your lowest score on Es 1-4, you
  should take ME1
• If your grade on ME1 is lower than your grades on
  Es 1-4, I throw out ME1 the ME1 cannot hurt your
  grade, it can only help your grade
• If you have taken all of the exams to date and
  are satisfied with your scores, you get the day
  off

(Monday, 11/03 is the last day to withdraw from
classes w/o academic penalty)
4
In-class exercise (8 points), Mon. 10/20

• Read Latham Dossett in the coursepack
• Pay particular attention to the Methods section
• Was the continuous reinforcement (CRF) schedule
  used in the Latham Dossett article a true CRF
  schedule?
• Was the variable ratio 4 (VR4) schedule used in
  the Latham Dossett article a true VR4 schedule?
• For each question, first say yes or no
• List as many reasons as you can
• You can bullet each reason, then provide an
  explanation beneath each bullet

5
In-class exercise (8 points), Mon. 10/22

• I am not looking for a long paper 2 pages max
• The points you earn will depend upon
• whether you identify the most obvious reasons
• the number of reasons you identify
• This is NOT an opinion paper
• Use the material from this class
• Possibly others

6
SO1 SMART goals (NFE)

• Locke Latham developed goal setting theory
  and have done some stellar studies in the area
• While originally, Locke did not believe feedback
  was important, over the years he adjusted his
  opinion about that based on his research
• Thus, while we would not agree with Lockes
  conceptual analyses, once again, as with
  expectancy theory, we do agree about practical
  implementation
• SMART goals (Rubin, 2002)
• Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant,
  Time-bound
• I would add accompany with feedback and
  consequences

Locke Latham (Eds.) (2013). New developments
in goal setting and task performance.
7
SO2A Specific goals are better than general
goals (Locke Latham). Why from a behavioral
perspective?

• OBM position Goals affect performance only
  because of the consequences that follow behaviors
  that result in goal attainment.
• When goals are specific
• They specify the response requirements
• They specify the criterion for reinforcement/rewar
  d
• Thus, both employees and managers can easily
  discriminate successful from unsuccessful
  performance
• Goals function like task clarification in the
  sense that the employee knows exactly what good
  performance consists of
• They also provide an explicit evaluative
  component which, as I have indicated earlier,
  appears to be necessary for feedback to function
  effectively in most situations

(material is from an analysis by Fellner
Sulzer-Azaroff, 1984, jOBM. Time to update the
literature review, do your best goals next
evaluation component does NOT have to be goals -
could be achieved a number of ways, but goals
work )
8
SO2B. What are the problems with do your best
goals?

• What about do your best goals?
• They preclude objective assessment because no
  performance criteria are stated
• Employees may set lower goals than the supervisor
  and anticipate rewards that they then dont
  receive
• Remember, most employees evaluate themselves
  better than their supervisor evaluates them

9
SO3 Although difficult goals may lead to higher
levels of performance, be careful!
Goals should be realistic and challenging but not
too difficult From a behavioral perspective.
Why? There are 3 problems.
1. Goal R (work hard) gt Sp (supervisory
criticism)
2. Goal R (work hard) gt Ext (dont meet
goal)
3. Goal R (work hard) gt Sp (signs of
failure)
In our culture, signs of failure tend to be
conditioned punishers. Think about it.
Regardless of the criticism you get from a
supervisor (or professor), when you fail to meet
a goal or standard, how do you feel? Signs of
failure tend to be automatically punishing -
which punishes the behavior of working harder.
(example in book, students who were failing set
goals to get a 4.0 stretch goals, 2 Daniels
Oops 13 mangt practices that waste time money
operationally defined as those that are attained
less than 10 of the time students often get the
first two, miss the third 1st EOM programs)
10
Jeffrey et al. study (2012) nfe

• Many organizations use one goal a goal that is
  the same for all workers
• Basic research question Are ability-based goals
  more effective, particularly for low and middle
  performers?

(lab study, interesting study, interesting
results)
11
Jeffrey et al. (2012) nfe

• Based on an initial performance assessment,
  divided participants into low performers, middle
  performers and high performers
• Two conditions
• One goal 20 of all performers had met the goal
• Ability-based goals different goals for the
  different groups
• Low performers 20 of low performers had met the
  goal
• Middle performers 20 of middle performers had
  met the goal
• High performers 20 of all performers had met
  the goal

(based on pilot study decoding task 3-digit
number that they had to convert into a letter of
the alphabet were given the key divided Ps
into three groups based on initial session)
12
Jeffrey et al. (2012) nfe

• Pay 2 base pay bonus for reaching goal
• One session, divided into 5 periods
• Practice session
• Assessment session with per piece incentives for
  each item correctly decoded used to assign Ps to
  low, middle, high performers
• Three 5-minute performance periods

13
Jeffrey et al. study (2012) nfe

• Ability-based goals were more effective than one
  goal for all for low performers
• Low performers who were given goals based on low
  performance performed better than their
  counterparts who were given a higher goal based
  on the performance of all performers (which
  included the middle and high performers)
• Low and middle performers who received the one
  goal decreased their performance across 3
  sessions
• Challenging, but attainable goals are the best
• What is challenging and what is too difficult??
• Were the goals in this study too difficult?

(the analysis I provided earlier probably
explains why goals were too difficult for the
low and middle performers 0 of the low and
middle performers in the one goal condition met
the goal only 35 of high performers did)
14
Jeffrey et al. follow-up studies

• Goals may have been too high and bonus system may
  have influenced the results
• Redo the study using goals based on the average
  performance of the groups, not a goal that only
  20 of individuals can meet
• Use piece rate pay rather than an all or none
  bonus system
• Urschel (2013), Replication using 3 tiered goals
  versus one high goal or one medium goal with
  bonus pay for reaching goals
• Different perspective of traditional management
  and OBM?
• Only top performers should be rewarded and get
  bonus pay
• All workers who perform well (above average)
  should be paid commensurate with their
  performance (piece rate pay)

15
Practical dos and donts still nfe

• When possible do use tiered (multiple goals) with
  successively increasing rewards for meeting each
  higher goal
• Performance Matrix is a great tool for this
  because of the multiple goals (columns 6-10)
• Do not have different goals for different
  individuals with the same tangible/monetary
  rewards disaster

(organizations typically cant set individual
goals too labor intensive but it may be
possible 2-3 tiers Pampino et al. did that in
study in U2 Dans dissertation last slide on
this)
16
SO5 Assigned vs participative goals

• The research indicates that participating in goal
  setting does not increase performance when
  compared to assigned goals
• Three meta-analysis studies now support this
  conclusion, first one in 1986
• The key issue, thus, is not how a goal is set,
  but whether a goal is set

(Back to the Sos this is a very common
misconception issue keeps coming up at ABAI,
with a student -from another program-arguing and
maintaining that participative goals were better
just this summer I was asked about this by a
consultant who works for a behavioral firm)
17
SO6A Goals what is the best combination?

• We know that goals combined with feedback are
  more effective than either alone
• Feedback enhances the effectiveness of goals
• Goals enhance the effectiveness of feedback
• Studies suggest that graphic feedback is the most
  effective type of feedback to use with goals
  better than vocal or written
• We know that goals and feedback are much more
  effective when consequences are provided
• Not definitive, but it appears that monetary
  incentives/rewards are more effective than
  nonmonetary incentives/rewards
• THUS.

(next slide)
18
SO6A What is the best combination? (answer)

• Goals
• Graphic feedback that displays performance over
  time, preferably at least once a week
• Some type of performance consequence, preferably
  monetary incentives

(the same recommendation from Balcazar et al
just add goals when at all possible)
19
SO6B Group goals

• When using group goals, what factor should be
  taken into account?
• Group size
• Group goals are more effective with small groups
  than large ones
• However, we dont know what the critical size
  is
• This would be a very interesting and valuable
  study to conduct
• Goals, graphic feedback, consequences, while
  manipulating group size

(alone, not combining them with individual goals
group size is an issue in ALL group contingencies)
20
SO7 Possible behavioral functions of goals nfe

• Analyses of goals parallel those of feedback
• Summarized the prevalent ones in SO7
• Good summary and starting point if you want to
  pursue this
• Tammemagi et al. (2013)

21
SO8 Daniels vs. Dickinson

• Daniels maintains that if you set a goal and if
  performance meets but does not exceed that goal,
  the contingency is a negative rather than
  positive reinforcement contingency
• Also maintains that negative reinforcement
  contingencies are bad contingencies because they
  represent aversive control
• In order for negative reinforcement to work there
  must be a pre-existing aversive stimulus that the
  behavior terminates or avoids
• Is this a correct analysis?

22
Dickinsons position

• People are not going to overshoot goals if there
  is no further reinforcement for doing so, whether
  the contingency is a negative or positive
  reinforcement contingency
• Negative reinforcement contingency
• People will perform only to the level that
  terminates or avoids criticism or punishment
• Positive reinforcement contingency
• People will perform only to the level that
  results in maximum positive reinforcement

23
Main point repeated

• If there is no further reinforcement for
  performing above the goal, then people will not
  exceed the goal, regardless of whether the
  reinforcement is positive or negative
• If you want people to perform above the goal,
  then you must provide additional
  reinforcement/rewards for them to do that
• Daniels misconception (I think) comes from the
  fact that he encourages further
  praise/reward/recognition from supervisors for
  above goal performance but often those rewards
  are not qualitatively different than rewards for
  meeting goals (nontangible socials), so doesnt
  view those rewards as additional positive
  reinforcement

24
Example

• Union National Bank
• Baseline 1,065 items per machine hour
• Feedback 1,800 items per machine hour
• Incentive, top incentive rate was for 2,500 items
  per machine hour 2,700 items per machine hour
• Incentive 2, top incentive rate was for 3,500
  items per machine hour 3,500 items per machine
  hour
• During the first incentive phase, proof operators
  met but did not exceed the goal (except to a
  level than insured they met the goal)
• Yet during the second incentive phase when
  additional incentives (reinforcement) was
  provided, they increased their performance (but
  again, only to a level that met the goal)

25
SO9 Most common mistake re goals

• What is the most common mistake that managers
  make after implementing a goal setting program
  for employees?

Increase the goals without increasing the rewards
Why is that a problem?
Its a punishment procedure. The consequence of
meeting the goal is that management increases the
goal so that the worker has to work harder and
harder to obtain the same rewards
What are employees going to do?
Restrict their productivity and in some
cases develop performance norms monitored by the
group
(mgrs loose their common sense when they become
managers. social isolation and criticism)
26
What about successively increasing goals? NFE

• Daniels recommends that you set goals low so
  people can meet them, then gradually increase
  them
• Wilk Redmon used successively increasing goals
• Sulzer-Azaroff used successively increasing goals
• Proceed with caution OK if praise and
  celebrations are consequences
• With tangible rewards, particularly with
  incentives, you should never increase the goal
  level without increasing the reward level
• Tiered reward systems work well with tangible
  rewards, however
• Union National Bank - increased incentive rate
• Pampino et al. (U2) - an additional lottery
  ticket
• Performance matrix - more points for higher
  levels of performance

(only after goals had been met several times
another interesting study - )
27
Schedules of Reinforcement

• The basic schedules of reinforcement are
  emphasized way too much in OBM. They are not very
  relevant. In fact, I would argue they are not
  relevant at all. Ill come back to this in a
  moment
• I have provided definitions of basic schedules in
  SO10 (NFE)
• You need to know them for your exercise this week

28
SO11A Is hourly pay is an example of a FI
schedule?

• Yes or no
• Why or why not?

(answer not on slide)
29
SO11B FR3 example, NOT!

• Goal of study increase the extent to which
  college students rode buses on a college campus
  (Penn State)
• Tokens that could be traded for merchandise from
  local stores served as the reinforcers (pop,
  reduced price on pizza, etc.)
• Gave a token to every third person that got on
  the bus (FR3)
• What is the major problem with calling this
  schedule an FR3?

30
Schedules of Reinforcement

• Back to Dickinsons point The basic schedules of
  reinforcement tend to be emphasized way too much
  in OBM. They are not very, if at all relevant.
• SO12 Hantulas conclusions after reviewing the
  effects of schedules of reinforcement on
  organizational behavior - review covered
  1971-1994
• Reinforcement schedules (in comparison to hourly
  pay) are an effective way to manage work, however
• The parameters of the schedule did not result in
  consistent differences in performance. Rather,
  the presence of a contingent relationship between
  performance and rewards was the critical factor
  with respect to improving performance
• Bucklin Dickinson found the same thing in a
  review of monetary incentives

31
SO12 What does this mean?

• Performance contingent rewards do increase
  performance, but different schedules of
  reinforcement (e.g., FR vs VR schedules, FR1 vs
  FR4, FR1 vs VR2, VR2 vs VR4) do not affect
  performance differently in work settings

(ABA presentation set up incentives for staff in
human service setting - very nice study - spent
many, many hours deciding what reinforcement
schedule to use - wasted hours).
32
SO13 Why are these results differentthan the
results of research on basic schedules?

• In the operant laboratory, different schedules of
  reinforcement do generate different response
  rates and patterns of performance. So, what may
  account for the differences seen in the
  laboratory and in applied settings?
• Before answering, why does anyone care? Why is
  this analysis important?
• Our basic principles of behavior have been called
  into question (particularly by expectancy
  theorists in I/O) because humans do not show the
  same response patterns as nonhumans
• That is, they claim this proves that our basic
  principles are incorrect
• So, we have to be prepared to answer these
  criticisms and concerns

33
Two reasons why humans do not usually display the
typical performance patterns displayed by
nonhumans in an operant laboratory setting

• Although schedules used in applied settings are
  indeed schedules of reinforcement, they are
  rarely, if ever the same schedules examined in
  the laboratory, even though they are called the
  same thing (e.g., FR1, FR3, etc.). Given that
  they are not the same, we should not expect the
  performance patterns to be the same
• FR3 example earlier

34
Two reasons why humans do not usually display the
typical performance patterns displayed by
nonhumans in an operant laboratory setting

• 2. Adult humans tend to describe contingencies to
  themselves and then their behavior is controlled
  by their self-stated rules
• FI Slow responding is reinforced
• FR Fast responding is reinforced
• Fergus Lowes (Welsh behavioral psychologist)
  study with infants, 2-3 year olds and 5-year olds

(last slide on this)
35
Crawley et al. article, introduction

• I have included this article because it is the
  best one I have ever seen with respect to
  improving sales behaviors and I would wager that
  most many of the behaviors identified in their
  exquisite analysis would generalize to other
  sales positions
• Study was conducted by one of Ed Feeneys
  consultants, Bill Crawley (I didnt stress
  Feeneys accomplishments in U1, but I recommend
  that you go back and read the Dickinson article
  for an historical perspective)
• (NFE) Note the analysis at the beginning that was
  designed to determine the best opportunities for
  intervention, based on both the potential for
  improving performance (exemplar performer vs.
  average performer) and the economic pay-off of
  intervening on the performance

(back to feedback old study)
36
SO14 What approach was not successful in
identifying what made sales reps effective?

• Surveys were sent to the top sales
  representatives in the country asking what is was
  that they did that made them so effective
• This approach did not work because sales
  representatives could not describe the behaviors
  that made them successful
• I am friendly
• Its genetic - my parents were sales
  representatives
• You need to be up
• You need to be aggressive
• General point
• Even though workers are exemplary workers, they
  often cant tell you what they do that makes them
  exemplary workers. Those behaviors are often
  contingency-shaped (controlled by direct-acting
  contingencies) and employees never have had to
  describe them (describing what you do and doing
  what you do are different behavioral repertoires)
• Automobile mechanics
• Construction workers

37
SO15 (NFE) Exquisite specificity of the targeted
behaviors

• To determine the behaviors
• They observed 65 top performers
• Over a four month period of time
• For 1,000 hours
• Both inside the store and at in-home sales calls
• Recorded the stimulus-response sequences
• That is, what were the antecedents that prompted
  a response by the sales representative, and how
  did the sales representatives respond to those
  antecedents
• Also interviewed customers for 50 hours
• Pilot tested the entire intervention in two
  stores
• First with the consultant as the coach
• Then with the store manager as the coach
  (fidelity - did they create an intervention that
  could be carried out by employees)

38
SO15 (NFE) Exquisite specificity of the targeted
areas and behaviors, cont.

• Areas with 5-11 behaviors in each area
• Customer greeted
• Customer needs identified
• Needs matched to store product and service
  benefits
• Objections identified and overcome
• Decision maker identified
• Close made
• Results of sales contact
• Follow-up action taken

(48 behaviors in addition to smiling, eye
contact, natural voice, and use of customers
name in each area)
39
SO15 (NFE) Exquisite specificity of the targeted
areas and behaviors, cont.

• Examples of behaviors in the Customer Greeted
  area
• Customers should be approached within 120 seconds
  after entering the store
• The sales representative should stand within 3-4
  feet of the customer, smile and maintain eye
  contact
• The sales representative should approach the
  customer at a normal pace and maintain a natural
  and relaxed posture
• Introduce self using first and last names and
  identify his/her position
• Obtain the customers name and use it throughout
  the sales interaction

40
SO17 Two reasons why commissions did not
function as effective rewards

• Sales representatives received sales commissions
  monthly which most would assume would be
  sufficient to maintain high levels of performance
• Commission payments were delayed, often by as
  many as 3 months, weakening the relation between
  sales and the amount of money earned
• Commissions earned in January would not be
  received until March or April
• Commissions were based on sales, an
  accomplishment measure, and sales representatives
  did not know the behaviors required to improve
  sales
• The initial survey that failed to identify the
  critical target behaviors showed that sales
  representatives did not know what behaviors led
  to improved sales

(skippingSO16 on your own Tom Gilbert, Human
comp., 1978, accomplishments v. behaviors
daniels concern, systems v. PM)
41
SO18 Why is it important to compare data to
records for the same months in the preceding year?

• As part of the analysis to determine the
  effectiveness of the program, they compared the
  sales data to sales records for the same month
  the preceding year. Why?
• Sales fluctuate seasonally and monthly
• February is traditionally a big sales month while
  December is traditionally a low sales month
• In behavior analysis, we often use time series
  data (AB design) to determine the effectiveness
  of our interventions but
• If you compared sales in February and it had
  increased in comparison to Dec and Jan, you may
  conclude that your program was successful when it
  was not
• Alternatively, if you compared Dec data with Nov
  data (with traditionally higher sales), you may
  conclude your program was not successful, when
  indeed it was

(including this just so you dont just say due
to seasonal fluctuations but add an explanation)
42
Crowell et al. Task Clarification

• 1. Task clarification improved performance
• 2. Objective feedback improved it further but
• 3. Praise improved it again

Task clarification alone only results in modest
increases Objective feedback should be combined
with evaluative feedback/consequences
(note that these results re objective feedback
are consistent with the Johnson article from last
unit and thus emphasizes that the difference
between objective and evaluative feedback is
important)
43
NFE Crowell et al.

• My main reason for including this article was its
  implications for task clarification and feedback
  (see previous slide)
• Secondary purpose was because of the authors
  analysis of whether feedback functioned as an
  antecedent, a consequence, or both (rarely done,
  astute analysis)
• Feedback includes task clarification, so task
  clarification was examined first
• If the only function of feedback was as an
  antecedent, one would not expect additional
  increases in performance when it was implemented
  after task clarification

44
NFE Crowell et al. overview

• 6 bank tellers
• 11 customer service behaviors defined
• Quality points assigned to each depending upon
  importance
• 100 total points possible, with 85 as the minimum
  acceptable
• Task Clarification
• Memo from management identifying the target
  behaviors and quality points

(sos on your own)
45
NFE Crowell et al. overview

• Feedback
• Posted chart with individual point scores, daily,
  coded
• Fake scores for any teller that was absent to
  protect confidentiality
• Supervisor met with each teller individually when
  the teller came to work, but descriptive not
  evaluative
• Praise added
• Supervisors praised tellers if the point score
  was above 85 or below 85, but higher than the
  preceding score

46
NFE Crowell et al. results
Phase Average
Baseline 1 61.4 points
Task clarification 1 72.0 points
Feedback 1 78.0 points
Feedback praise 1 83.0 points
Baseline 2 76.0 points
Feedback 2 83.0 points
Feedback praise 2 88.0 points
last 6 sessions, gt 85
only phase mean gt 85
Above standard performance was obtained and
sustained only when both feedback and praise were
added to task clarification
47
NFE Social validity not definitive, but actual
hard datafacts, not survey data cool!

• Dollars on deposit in bank
• 24 to 42 million, 75 growth
• Customer complaints
• 2-3 per month, dropped to near-zero level
• Compliments increased

(no customer input, so no certainty customer
perceptions and behaviors were affected by the
intervention, but results continued on next
slide)
48
NFE Social validity not definitive, but actual
hard datafacts, not survey data cool!

• Bank managers rolled-out the program
• Streamlined and implemented it in 6 other
  branches
• Program was being implemented in the remaining 5
  branches at the time the study ended
• Cost
• Annual cost of program as implemented 6,000.00
• Streamlined version in other 11 branches, an
  additional 16,000
• This included the cost of a dedicated full-time
  program administrator/observer

(streamlining next slide)
49
NFE Social validity not definitive, but actual
hard datafacts, not survey data cool!

• Streamlined version
• Reduced teller observations from daily to 3X a
  week
• Reduced the number of transactions recorded per
  teller in each session from six to three
• Once praise was introduced, a maintenance
  procedure was suggested in which the frequency of
  recording be further reduced to one session per
  week

(reduce labor intensiveness and number of
observers required ok last slide on this, moving
on)
50
Gaetani Johnson, cash shortages, intro

• Purpose
• Decrease cash and inventory shortages in a
  retail beverage chain (employee theft?)
• Assessed the effects of data plotting
  (self-recording), praise, and state lottery
  tickets
• Im including it because of the comparison of
  self-recording/praise/lottery tickets and as
  another example of a lottery system not
  expensive but effective
• Unusual lottery system in that each mgr who met
  the criterion received 2 state lottery tickets
  (only 1.00 a piece!)
• Most lottery systems employees who meet the
  criterion have a chance to win a prize, but same
  basic principle

(also including it tie in with the Johnson
study from last unit address that in a moment)
51
Gaetani Johnson, cash shortages, intro

• Participants 12 store managers
• DV Efficiency estimate
• Very nice measure could be computed from data
  the stores were already collecting and equated
  high sales volume and low sales volume stores
• Researchers did not implement any new measurement
  system or data collection system BIG PLUS
• Calculate baseline measures using archival data
• IVs
• Data plotting alone (closed circles on graph)
• Praise alone (open triangles on graph)
• Data plotting and praise (closed triangles on
  graph)
• Data plotting, praise, and lottery tickets
  (closed squares on graph)

(one of few studies that has examined supervisory
praise alone without specific graphic feedback
weekly phone conversations this is the
tie-in with the Johnson study from last week
praise alone without objective feedback)
52
SO29 Least effective and most effective IVs

• Least effective
• Data plotting alone
• Supervisory praise alone
• Most effective
• Data plotting, praise, and lottery tickets
• Group A stores, 123 above baseline
• Group B stores, 108 above baseline
• Group C stores, 40 above baseline
• Group C, no prior exposure to self-recording or
  praise as Group A and Group B managers, so prior
  exposure may well have affected the results

(skipping to SO29, are straightforward careful
with wording data plotting praise better)
53
NFE, but remember your consequences!

• Self-monitoring alone does not seem to be a
  particularly powerful intervention
• Richman et al. study, look at in U8
• Gaetani et al. (1983) The study I recommended
  but did not include in coursepack
• Supervisory praise by itself does not seem to be
  a powerful intervention (need objective feedback
  as well) and objective feedback itself may not
  be powerful w/o praise or some type of evaluation
  (Crowell study)
• Once again, the combination of feedback, praise,
  and tangible rewards appears to be the most
  powerful

(note the consistency of these results with
Johnson- thats why I like that article so much
it ties in and Explains the results of some of
these applied studies more controlled study)
54
Wilk Redmon article

• Study was conducted as Braksicks (Wilks)
  doctoral dissertation while she was at WMU
• Excellent model of how to do research in the real
  world few better examples
• Follow-up of a study conducted at WMU in our
  admissions and orientation office
• Pam Liberacki, Director of Admissions and
  Orientation, who retired three years ago
• Braksick was hired as a consultant to implement
  the program at UM based on the success of the
  program here

(not going to go over many of the Sos one of
CLGs founders in 1993 both she and Julie Smith
have now left this study was Excellent predictor
of her future work excellent, excellent work)
55
Wilk Redmon intro, cont.

• Participants were 16 clerical workers at UM
• DVs
• Number of tasks completed
• Performance efficiency
• Employee satisfaction

56
SO32 Why was the efficiency measure used?

• Performance efficiency formula (NFE)
• Total number of tasks completed by all
  participants
• Total number of hours worked by all
  participants
• Why is this an important measure - why not just
  use the total number of tasks completed?
• The total number of hours worked by the employees
  differed from week to week
• If you only looked at the total number of tasks
  completed, you wouldnt know whether workers were
  completing more tasks because they were working
  more hours or whether they were completing the
  more tasks in the same amount of time
• If workers completed more tasks but also worked
  more hours, then you have not increased
  performance

57
Skipping to SO37 What procedure was used to
verify that the supervisor actually delivered the
feedback?

• After feedback was given during the week day, the
  employee placed a check mark on the next entry on
  their data sheet
• If you use a graphic feedback display, have
  employees initial the graphic feedback display
• If you post a graph, have employees initial the
  posted graph
• More modern technology send the graph or
  feedback via email with verification that the
  email has been opened by the recipient
• not as good - employees could conceivably open
  the email and not look at the feedback, but
  better than nothing

(I am pointing this out because it is an
excellent procedure - its simple, doesnt
require any extra effort on the part of the
researcher, yet does confirm that feedback was
provided as it was supposed to be provided -
fidelity of implementation of the IV - a lot of
our students at WMU have used this or something
similar in their studies )
58
(Results! circled data are an issue decreasing
trend back to previous level but others, large,
abrupt change average data next)
59
SO40 Most importantly, what does this study
reveal?
Line
The important role that graphic feedback plays in
improving performance
(average data click highlight last slide on
Wilk except questions, comments)
60
Questions over Wilk and Redmon?
61
NFE Take home points about goals and feedback

• Ability-based/individualized goals are the most
  effective (Jeffrey et al., 2012)
• Probably helps account for dynamite results in
  Wilk Redmon, 1993
• Objective plus evaluative feedback (praise)
  better then either alone (Johnson, 2013 Crowell
  et al., 1988 Gaetani Johnson, 1983)
• Graphic feedback is better than vocal feedback
  (Wilk Redmon, 1993)

62
In-class exercise

• Was the continuous reinforcement (CRF) schedule
  used in the Latham Dossett article a true CRF
  schedule?
• Was the variable ratio 4 (VR4) schedule used in
  the Latham Dossett article a true VR4 schedule?