Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
VALIDATION OF A TEST BATTERY FOR THE SELECTION OF
DRIVER MANAGERS IN A TRUCKING ORGANIZATION
THESIS
Presented to the Graduate Council of the
University of North Texas in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
By
Shirley T. Cassel, B. A.
Denton, Texas
May, 1990
3 4
Ns 1
Noa0V
Cassel, Shirley T. Validation of a Test Battery for
the Selection of Driver Managers in a Trucking Organization.
Master of Science (Industrial/Organizational Psychology).
May, 1990, 78 pp., 5 tables, references, 55 titles.
This study was a concurrent validation of a paper and
pencil test battery used at a national trucking company.
Forty-eight driver managers were rated by their immediate
supervisors with the performance appraisal covering 12
dimensions of job behavior that was developed by the
experimenter. The driver managers were also administered
the Wesman Personnel Classification Test, the Watson-Glaser
Critical Thinking Appraisal, and the California
Psychological Inventory (CPI). A biographical information
blank was also developed and validated. Most validity
correlations were nonsignificant, with the exception of the
Dominance scale r = .25 (p < .05), the Self-control scale r
- -.25 (p < .05), the Communanlity scale r = .29 (p < .05),
and the Flexibility scale r = -.39 (p < .05), with overall
performance.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES. . ....... . . . . . . . . . . .iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
VALIDATION OF A TEST BATTERY FOR THE SELECTION OF
DRIVER MANAGERS IN A TRUCKING ORGANIZATION
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Personnel SelectionHistory of Paper and Pencil TestingCriterion IssuesDesign of Validation ResearchStatement of the ProblemStatement of the Hypotheses
Method .-......-.-...-.-........... 12
SubjectsDesignMeasuresProcedures
Results.........-.-.................... . .... 24
Discussion............................. . .... 35
APPENDICES.....-.-.-. ..-............ . .. .. 42
REFERENCES........-.....-...-....................72
iii
- , x'db3585vd5Ri1 i IMP YOII - - -
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Correlation of the Wesman PCT and the Watson-Glaser CTI with Ratings for the Total Carriers . 28
2. Correlation of the CPI with Ratings for AllCarriers .-.-.......-.-..... ... ... 29
3. Correlation of Biodata with Behavioral Ratingsfor Total Carriers .-.-........ ...... 31
4. Varimax Rotated Maximum Likelihood FactorLoadings for the Criterion Measure . . . . . . . 33
5. Factor Correlations with the Predictors . . . . 34
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to extend my appreciation to my family
and friends for their love and support during this
endeavor.
V
. : . : :_. __ . _, _,,, , La. -
VALIDATION OF A TEST BATTERY FOR THE SELECTION OF
DRIVER MANAGERS IN A TRUCKING ORGANIZATION
Personnel selection is a process culminating in a
decision to hire one or more applicants for employment and
not to hire others (Guion & Gibson, 1988). It is of prime
importance to select candidates that will be successful
from the standpoint of both employee and employer. Spooner
(1985) states that a better match of candidate capabilities
to job requirements will enable companies to hire people
who will stay on the job longer and will be more satisfied
in their position.
A central issue in the area of personnel selection has
been the development of various ways of showing that a
selection procedure relates to successful performance on
the job. Professionals agree that this can be accomplished
by developing a validation strategy that describes the
components of behavior effectiveness and having predictor
measures that forecast effective job behaviors.
Inefficient methods of selection for management
positions are prevalent in major trucking organizations.
Increasingly, trucking companies are experiencing a
critical shortage of management personnel and are
continually dissatisfied with the unpredictable performance
of new hires. Moskal (1989) reported that there is a
1
2
middle and upper management talent void in the rapidly
growing truckload sector of the motor-carrier industry.
Moskal also noted that the industry is not attracting or
retaining new professional management personnel because of
low profit margins and low compensation levels.
The present study addresses the need to become more
efficient in the selection of key management positions by
developing a validation strategy for the driver manager
position in a national trucking company. Success in driver
management positions has historically been difficult to
predict. Therefore, a test battery that was used primarily
for both selection and career development purposes for the
driver manager position, will be validated to explore its
relationship to generalized performance ratings.
History of Paper and Pencil Testing
Many companies today utilize paper and pencil tests
for selection because of their relative ease of
administration and low costs. The use of tests for
personnel selection began over 75 years ago with
Munsterberg's experiment with motormen (Munsterberg, 1913).
Ghiselli (1973) noted that large scale testing of both
soldiers and industrial workers during World War I sparked
new methodology and enhanced respectability to the
examination of the use of tests in the assessment of
occupational aptitude. Selection with personnel tests
...:-:r.?ii :av+ ^ - ia tili aF aS q;t+.; i:- ai,: -. .,:r.,. _w.. .,: .. ,..
3
remained a primary concern of industrial psychologists
throughout World War II.
According to Ghiselli (1973), there has been an
accumulation of experience with the use of professionally
developed tests as devices for assessing men and women for
positions in business and industrial establishments for
well over 60 years. However, the use of these tests has
been subject to controversy for many years, stifled by
government regulation, conflicting guidelines, and lengthy
litigation (e.g., Kleiman & Faley, 1985). There has been
much debate within the psychological profession regarding
tests and other methods used in making selection decisions
(Grant, 1980).
Despite the controversy, the use of paper and pencil
tests for personnel selection is increasing. Taylor and
Zimmerer (1988) implied that because judges and employers
know considerably more about these instruments,
organizations have resumed their use. Strengthening this
stance, recent research has shown that cognitive ability is
the best indicator of future job performance, better by far
than education, experience, or even the personal interview
in the absence of behavioral data (Anastasi, 1982).
Guion and Gibson (1988) noted that from research using
validity generalization, it is accepted that cognitive
tests are likely to be good predictors of job performance.
4
Lent et al. (1971) found that general mental abilities
correlated with supervisors' ratings for managerial
positions r = .48. Furthermore, Ghiselli (1973) found that
tests for intellectual abilities tended to be the best
predictors of job performance criteria for managers, with
the average validity coefficient for managerial occupations
being r = .29. In subsequent meta-analysis research,
Schmidt and Hunter (1981) and Hunter and Schmidt (1983)
discovered that cognitive ability tests, as typically used
in personnel selection, are valid predictors of work
performance across a wide range of jobs.
Criterion Issues
As Cascio (1987) states, competent criterion research
is one of the most pressing needs of personnel psychology
today. Criteria are standards that can be used as
yardsticks for measuring employees' success or failure
(Bass & Barrett, 1981; Guion, 1965). There are many
examples of possible criteria including: units produced,
number of errors, number of days absent, length of service
and ratings of behavioral expectations. These criteria aid
in managerial selection as well as validation research.
Although objective indices of job behavior (e.g.,
salary, accidents, etc.) are intuitively appealing, these
represent factors that are beyond the individual's control.
As Cascio (1987) states, they do not measure behavior per
5
se, but rather outcomes of behavior. This is especially
true for managers. There are many factors over and above
the actions of the manager that affect the profit picture
of his or her unit.
Subjective criteria, which include supervisor's
ratings, are the most frequently used criteria (Guion,
1965; Lent et al., 1971). In a review of the criteria used
for test validation, Guion (1965) indicates that superior's
ratings of job behaviors are used about twice as frequently
as more objective measures. Unfortunately, supervisors
ratings are also susceptible to all forms of bias or rater
errors.
Heneman (1975) defines performance appraisal as the
"Achilles heel" of personnel management. Even though there
are many disadvantages of performance appraisal, surveys of
managers show that they are unwilling to abandon it because
of its importance as an assessment tool (Labor Letter,
1984). Cascio (1987) concludes that since subjective
measures depend upon human judgment, they are prone to
certain kinds of errors associated with the rating process
and that to be useful they must be based on careful
analysis of the behaviors important for effective job
performance.
One of the most common rater errors is "halo," which
is a rater who assigns ratings on the basis of a global
-, - 1 1- 1 m41.
6
impression of the ratee. Leniency and severity are also
very common rater errors. This occurs when raters are
inordinately lenient or inordinately difficult when rating
the ratee. Central Tendency is another common rater error.
This occurs when the rater avoids using the high and low
extremes of the scales and tends to cluster all ratings
about the center of all scales.
One way to control for these errors would include
rater training, which ranges from a five minute review of
the errors (Borman, 1975) to a three day seminar to control
errors (Latham, 1975). Another method of controlling for
errors is in the rating scale itself. There are many ways
to format a scale to control for rater errors, but the most
popular system, and the most acceptable to raters, is the
behaviorally anchored rating scales (Smith & Kendall, 1963).
These behaviorally anchored rating scales use actual
behaviors that are required to successfully function in a
job. This allows the rater to relate incidents that the
ratee has displayed on the job, when rating them. Tziner
(1984) found that, compared with a graphic scale, a
behaviorally anchored rating scale showed less leniency and
less halo, as well as higher interrater reliability.
According to Landy and Farr (1980), realizing the
importance of performance measurement and actually
measuring performance accurately are two different matters.
, .;.:a,.z.. r cs:'r-, dm ,git+ I +isd k._.,:ns;;t' t , _; ,..iwr~..:: .:,. , . .. <. .. .,: :::,-..
7
The careful development of criteria is an essential part of
any validation study. Controlling rater errors and rating
format can facilitate the rating process producing a more
accurate appraisal.
Design of Validation Research
An early validation research paradigm was laid out by
Freyd (1923) in a 10-step outline. Freyd established what
has become the classical view of personnel research. Guion
(1987) later abbreviated the outline:
(1) analyze the job, (2) designate a single criterion,
(3) select the subjects for the "experiment," (4)
develop a list of abilities required for success
(KSAP's), (5) find or devise a way to measure these
abilities, (6) administer the measures "under
carefully controlled conditions," (7) correlate test
scores with the criterion, (8) combine measures for
the best composite, (9) see if you could justify the
new measures by comparing the results to those using
the old methods of selection, and (10) if they offered
an improvement, start using them. (p. 783)
Guion also noted that Freyd's techniques were marvelously
up to date.
There are many ways to conduct validation research and
utilizing the most appropriate method is an important
issue. Guion (1976), along with many other industrial/
i",s..' .:a - .r. ~J2ixar , l&. MMMMMMMMMII 111
8
organizational psychologists, prefers criterion-related
validation, especially the predictive model, for evaluating
selection procedures. This method focuses on the measure
of performance in the occupation. Cascio (1987) recommends
criterion-related evidence of validity when measures of
individual differences are used to predict behavior. When
considering a criterion-related design, several issues
should be considered, including the design, the predictors,
and the criterion.
Cascio (1987) suggested that predictive validation
designs were superior to concurrent designs. In contrast,
Lent, Aurbach, and Levin (1971) found that the higher
frequency of statistically significant results in
predictive validity studies has not been due to design
considerations but rather to more careful predictor and
criterion development. Bemis (1968) found that with an
empirical comparison of a large number of predictive and
concurrent validities of the General Aptitude Test Battery
(GATB), the two research designs yielded virtually
identical validity coefficients.
In a subsequent study, Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, and
Kirsch (1984) found that concurrent designs actually
produce validity coefficients which are slightly superior
to predictive designs. Also, Lent, Levin, and Aurbach
(1971) found that concurrent validity studies offer an
~m,
9
advantage over predictive validity studies with respect to
the measured relationship of the predictor and criterion.
They pointed out that "the fact of near-simultaneity in
time minimizes the attenuating influence of other factors
upon the measured association between the experimental
variables" (p. 527).
According to Barrett, Phillips, and Alexander (1981),
there are several concerns with concurrent validity
designs, including the missing person problem, restriction
of range, differences between applicants and present
employees, and the effects of job experience and training.
The first criticism addressed by Barrett et al. (1981) was
that concurrent validation studies "leave out" subjects
that would be included in predictive validation designs.
This is labeled the missing persons problem. They
concluded that the missing person problem and restriction
of range should be considered as one category. Range
restriction for predictive validity designs was found to
be very similar to range restrictions for concurrent
validity designs. In both predictive validity and
concurrent validity designs, not all available applicants
would be hired, which would lead to a nonrandom sample.
Fortunately, methods to correct for range restriction in
criterion-related designs are available (see Lee, Miller,
& Graham, 1982; and Linn, Harnisch, & Dunbar, 1981).
10
A second concern with concurrent validation methods
involves the possibility that there are motivational
differences between applicants and present employees that
would affect scores on predictors. Barrett et al. (1981)
found that the differences affected personality measures
but not cognitive ability measures. They also found that
test-taking motivation was correlated with work motivation
which should cancel any motivational effects. Also, test-
taking motivation may act in a purely random fashion,
usually resulting in a spuriously low validity
coefficient.
Furthermore, Barrett et al. (1981) reported that the
effects of job tenure and training could affect scores on
predictors and criteria. Therefore, if job experience and
training were controlled, the learning would affect a job
performance measure equally for predictive and concurrent
studies. Barrett et al. (1981) concluded that for
cognitive ability tests, there are no differences in
results for predictive validity or criterion validity
designs. In response to Barrett et al. (1981), Guion and
Cranny (1982) argued that there are distinct differences
between predictive and concurrent designs and one cannot
simply substitute one procedure for another without
considering the characteristics of a particular situation.
c:',:S'.K lrwda+ air:;'-aaY... ... IF.kiey:. .a ,. . -.. .... t.. +u
11
Statement of the Problem
In the organization under study, there were seemingly
inefficient methods of selecting qualified personnel in the
driver management position. Finding an appropriate device
that discriminates between subsequently high and low
performing employees was of utmost concern. The present
study sought to address this question and hopefully
facilitate the selection process for the driver management
position.
Statement of the Hypotheses
Hypothesis one. No relationship will be revealed
between behaviorally anchored, supervisory ratings of
performance of driver managers and general intelligence as
measured by the Wesman Personnel Classification Test.
Hypothesis two. No relationship will be found
between behaviorally anchored, supervisory ratings of
performance of driver managers and critical thinking as
measured by the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal.
Hypothesis three. No relationship will be revealed
between behaviorally anchored, supervisory ratings of
performance of driver managers and personality dimensions
as measured by the California Psychological Inventory.
Hypothesis four. No relationship will be found
between behaviorally anchored supervisory ratings of
performance of driver managers and responses to a
biographical information form.
M m Now NEI NONNI,
12
Method
Subjects
Subjects consisted of 48 driver managers, 46 of whom
responded to the majority of the tests. Thirteen of the
subjects were driver operator coordinators. These subjects
have job duties that are similar to the driver managers.
The driver managers worked for a major national trucking
company in which they had direct supervisory control of
"over-the-road" truck drivers. Thirty-nine of the 48 who
participated were men and nine were women. The average age
of a driver manager was 33, with the oldest being 49 and
the youngest 18 years of age. The majority of the subjects
were Caucasian, 92% were White, 4% were Black, and 4% were
Hispanic.
Forty-four percent of the driver managers were high
school educated, 39% had some college or technical training
and 17% had a college degree. Most of the driver managers
were married (76%), with 15% being single and 9% being
divorced. Sixty-one percent of the driver managers had
never driven a truck for a living. Seventy-eight percent
revealed that they had experience in a "service" type
position, while 33% had experience in the military.
Fifty-seven percent of the participants were smokers
while 43% were nonsmokers. The majority of the driver
managers owned their own home (65%), while 35% rented, and
F' ivi:i . ::...:i. i;i,. :tv4. .- >: , niv:a« =n :;:.ta-b>e _._ _ _ -
13
driver managers drove an average of 16 miles to work. Most
of the driver managers have been employed by the present
company for an average of three years, with a standard
deviation of two years. The average number of years a
driver manager has been in the trucking industry is 7.65
years, with a standard deviation of seven years. The
typical driver manager supervised an average of 44 drivers
with a standard deviation of 13.16. The driver managers
were responsible for an average of 36 trucks with a
standard deviation of 3.86.
The subjects represented one of the largest national
truckload carriers in the nation with 2,000 trucks in the
combined fleet. Four cities with an average population of
approximately 50,000 people were represented, including
cities in the south, the northwest, the southeast, and the
midwest. These operating companies were linked to a parent
company which provided administrative support. All
subjects were instructed that their participation was
voluntary and that they would not be identified
individually in this study.
Design
A concurrent validation design was considered the only
practical option for this study because the tests were
already in use. Also, historically there were few
applicants and low turnover for the driver manager
r ;F$ - .. ir.:,:. u- r ieRackah7' r clY &3Mr.-,zm<,. ,M:1- : +a -. t.': .... ,.: , :. " - >,i r. i. 2Wlr.: _:
14
position. Concurrent designs can facilitate the
development of a performance appraisal system (Cascio,
1987) which was simultaneously being developed to serve as
the criterion. The present study occurred in four phases.
The first phase entailed generating a behaviorally based
performance appraisal form (see Appendix A). Factors, and
ultimately behavioral anchors were drawn from an extensive
job analysis (see Appendix B). The ratings served as the
criterion in the study. The second phase of the study
involved training the performance raters on the rating
process and collecting the criterion data. The third phase
involved developing the biographical information form (see
Appendix C). The fourth phase entailed administration of
the test battery to be validated, to subjects who had not
already taken it.
Selection Measures
Ryan and Sackett (1987) conducted a survey of
individual assessment practices by industrial/
organizational psychologists. It was found that the most
frequently used ability tests were the Watson-Glaser
Critical Thinking Appraisal (37.8%) and the Wesman
Personnel Classification Test (19.3%). It was also found
that 77% of I/O psychologists reported using personality
inventories. The most commonly used instruments were the
16PF (33%), the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperment Survey (33%),
z ? upri t «,YavJ!"da4 R:+Awu A:aa..w.a >. ;sv..,., ..- ,. :. ,..:.;. .. ,. i,. .,- :..:a. , -. _:., .... ... iYe m
15
the CPI (28%), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI) (20%), and the Myers Briggs Type Indicator
(19%). With this high rate of personality inventory usage,
there seems to be surprisingly little new information on
their usefulness, even though they continue to be used for
selection of a wide range of jobs including executives
(Wysocki, 1981) and groups such as police officers
(Parisher, Rios, & Reilly, 1979).
Evidence indicates that the accuracy of biographical
data as predictors of future work behavior is superb when
appropriate procedures are followed (Cascio, 1987). It is
also unlikely that biographical information will be
falsified because this information can be verified. Lent
et al. (1971) found that when personal information was used
with supervisory evaluations, 24% of the time the
correlations were statistically significant.
Wesman Personnel Classification Test. The present
study utilized the Wesman Personnel Classification Test
which is composed of 40 two-part analogy items arranged in
increasing difficulty and 20 arithmetic computational items
progressing from simple addition through more complex
manipulations. The verbal analogies were the only section
used in the present study. This paper-and-pencil test was
being used by the company and had not been investigated as
to whether or not it was useful in the selection of
.;..rr,
16
employees. There are two forms of the test designed to
measure general intelligence of a population from grades
eight to 16 and adults. This test is primarily meant to be
used in business settings. The norms are based on samples
from production workers, executive trainees and high level
positions as well as student groups. The manual (Wesman,
1985) reports reliability coefficients in the low 80's, and
validity coefficients were reported as being higher for
higher level jobs, including upper executive positions.
This test is most suitable for white-collar employees, such
as clerical, supervisory, and managerial personnel.
Research with the Wesman Personnel Classification Test
(PCT) has produced many predictive validity studies (see
Abt, 1949; Ash, 1960; Vincent & Dugan, 1962) which indicate
that it has been found useful as a predictor of success in
a wide variety of industrial applications. Furthermore,
the Wesman PCT's validity studies report significant
validity coefficients for a wide range of criteria of job
success including overall and composite performance
ratings. Finally, the PCT's split-half and test-retest
reliability studies indicate coefficients in the low .80s
which means that the scores should remain approximately the
same after retesting.
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. The
present study also utilized the Watson-Glaser Critical
..w aaa, ,gym . ; . ,. ;}:-_ ,, ,. y
17
Thinking Appraisal (CTA) which is another general abilities
test. This test was being used by the company, but had not
been researched as to whether or not it was useful to the
company as a selection tool. The Watson-Glaser CTA
consists of 80 items which purport to measure five skills
including (a) inference, (b) recognition of assumptions,
(c) deduction, (d) interpretation, and (e) evaluation of
arguments (Watson & Glaser, 1980). See Appendix D for
scale definitions. One can use the subtests as an
educational tool for remediation, but the manual stresses
the use of the total score only (Watson & Glaser, 1980).
There are two forms of the test and the reading level does
not exceed ninth grade. National norms were established
with high school students, college students, and business
and civil service employees. The reliability coefficients
(in the high .70s and low .80s) were reported in the manual
and the only references of validity evidence pertained to
content-related studies. Watson and Glaser (1980) suggest
using the Watson-Glaser CTA when selecting candidates for
positions where careful analytic reasoning is an important
part of the job. Many validation studies have been
conducted (i.e., Modjeski & Michael, 1983; Westbrook &
Seelers, 1967) providing evidence of its usefulness in many
diverse business and academic settings.
18
California Psychological Inventory. Personality tests
are instruments for the measurement of emotional,
motivational, interpersonal, and attitudinal
characteristics as distinguished from abilities (Anastasi,
1982). Guion and Gibson (1988) noted that "from the
perspective of personnel selection, personality may be more
usefully narrowed to consistencies in behavior patterns
relevant to the work to be done" (p. 352). With these
concepts in mind, Guion and Gottier (1965) referred to a
genuine need to predict behaviors influenced by
personality-- the "will do" as opposed to the "can do"
aspects of behavior on the job.
Along with the tests of general mental abilities, the
new 1987 version (Gough, 1987) of the California
Psychological Inventory (CPI) was used. The CPI was being
used by the company and had not been researched as to
whether or not it was useful in the selection of employees.
The CPI is a self-administered, paper-and-pencil,
personality test consisting of 462 items (e.g., "when I
work on a committee I like to take charge of things."), 12
of which are duplicates. One hundred and seventy-eight of
these items were taken directly from the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) item pool. All
items are presented in a true-false format. There are 20
possible scores including: Dominance (Do), Capacity for
.:_,... :..," .,...
19
status (Cs), Sociability (So), Social presence (Sp), Self-
acceptance (Sa), Independence (In), Empathy (Em),
Responsibility (Re), Socialization (So), Self-control (Sc),
Good impression (Gi), Communality (Cm), Well-being (Wb),
Tolerance, (To), Achievement via conformance (Ac),
Achievement via independence (Ai), Intellectual efficiency
(Ie), Psychological mindedness (Py), Flexibility (Fx), and
Femininity/Masculinity (F/M). For definitions of these
scales, see Appendix E.
The CPI is designed for group administration but it
can be taken individually or even by mail (Megargee, 1972).
Standardized testing conditions are not essential and there
is no time limit imposed. Fourth grade reading ability is
required unless items are read aloud. The age range
suggested for this test is 12 to 70 years of age.
An overall estimate of the test-retest reliability data
for all CPI scales was made from the medians of each scale
which resulted in a reliability median of .70 (Gough, 1987).
The new CPI does not report validity coefficients, although
the manual does report correlations of the CPI scales with
three categories of tests and measures, including measures
of intellectual and cognitive functioning, measures of
aesthetic orientation or preference, measures of moral
reasoning or moral development, personality and interest
inventories, and assorted others.
- ,.
20
The CPI, which has earned the respect of many
academics, clinical psychologists, and human resource
executives is an increasingly popular research tool. It
has been one of the most extensively researched personality
inventories (see Chronbach, 1959; Kelly, 1965; Thorndike,
1959), second only to the MMPI. The CPI has been used in
business settings to predict academic achievement,
leadership potential, and management success (see Bogard,
1960; Goodstein & Schrader, 1963; Hakstein, Woolsey, &
Schroeder, 1987; Rawls & Rawls, 1968; Zdep, 1969).
Biographical Information Form. A biographical
information form (see Appendix C) was developed to aid in
describing the present driver management population. Some
of the items included on the form were age, sex,
educational level, and tenure.
Procedures
Development of a performance appraisal system was
necessary because of the lack of comparable, objective, or
subjective performance measures across the four companies.
These scales were developed collaboratively by the
experimenter and the company (see Appendix B) as a measure
of job performance.
Phase one: Criterion development. A pre-existing job
analysis, a concise job description, and subject-matter-
experts (SME) were used in the development of the rating
21
form. The SMEs were top management employees who were
familiar with the driver manager position and had worked
with the driver managers or trained them. The job analysis
consisted of statements of behavioral activities that
occurred on the job, with comments concerning the
appropriateness of the activity for the driver manager
position. This information was compiled into dimensions by
the researcher and presented to the experts for review.
The experts were asked if the definitions were consistent
with the dimensions, if the dimensions were redundant, and
to suggest additional dimensions when needed. The
dimensions were then revised and sent to the SMEs for final
approval. Then a set of behavioral statements that would
later become the behavioral anchors (Appendix E) were
generated from the subject-mater-experts. They were asked
to give examples of a behavior that was suitable for a
score of "1" (Fails to meet performance expectations), "3"
(Meets performance expectations) and "5" (Far exceed
performance expectations). The list of behavioral examples
provided by the SMEs were then compiled and returned to the
SMEs for final approval. The behavioral anchors were
placed on separate pages because of the large number of
behaviors and to keep the basic rating form uncluttered.
The final 13-item rating scale consisted of items
associated with nine basic dimensions of driver manager
.. ;mY.:gi kL,. wum:: : at ii :;y1i. - 4, a1 $ 1wa: :iis ; .. , r.,,Fi: K . :A:.&d 2slG i
22
effectiveness: driver relations, customer relations, sales
and marketing relations, DOT (Department of Transportation)
and safety compliance, personal work habits and stress
management, general management of drivers, cost management,
data accuracy, and timeliness. See Appendix B for complete
definitions of criterion scales. Scale items were
presented in a five point Likert-type format with responses
ranging from 1 ("Fails to meet performance expectations")
to 5 ("Far exceeds performance expectations"). Accuracy
and timeliness scales were altered on the final scale
because they were considered by the SMEs to be better
represented with different anchors. Scale items for
accuracy and timeliness were presented in a five-point
Likert-type format ranging from 1 ("Below average
performance"), to 3 ("Average performance") to 5 ("Standard
performance"). The scale uses concise definitions of the
dimensions being measured and a separate set of behavioral
anchors which were provided to assist the rating process.
Phase two: Ratings. The driver managers' immediate
supervisors, which included the Fleet Managers and the Vice
President of Operations, received a general introduction to
the research and a brief explanation of the rating scale
used in the study. The driver manager's supervisors were
instructed to read the handout while the investigator
orally reviewed and discussed the information. The handout
.+ , I .eat .+,.,..,.. a iw':ai .d, wl.,k :ar< .asa.W~ u:,vi uGx.w ,a., <. .1 ;... ,. .,.,,:?a.,u -.. _
23
(Appendix F) included a description of (a) common rater
errors (i.e., leniency/severity), (b) warnings not to
provide overall evaluations of a ratee by rating the
individual at the same level on all dimensions, and (c)
reminders that often job incumbents display strong points
and weak points in their performance and that the ratings
should reflect those strengths and weaknesses. The
supervisors were informed that the purpose of the
performance appraisal was for research purposes only (see
Appendix G). The training session lasted approximately 20
minutes. Using the rating scale described earlier, the
supervisors, who directly oversaw the driver managers
activities and were all familiar with the driver manager
job, independently evaluated their driver managers.
Phase three: 3iodata development. A search for
appropriate items for the background information form was
found by asking subject-matter-experts what biographical
information would be helpful to them. Some of the items
were required for descriptive purposes and the rest of the
items were developed from managerial suggestions and
requests.
Phase four: Testing (Predictor data). The three
paper-and pencil tests described earlier (the Wesman PCT,
the Watson-Glaser CTA, and the California Psychological
Inventory) were administered to the driver managers who had
24
not yet been tested by trained test administrators at the
driver manager's location. These were then sent to the
corporate headquarters for scoring. Some of the test
scores utilized by this study were from previous testing of
the driver managers. The driver managers were sent a cover
letter (Appendix G) stating the purpose of the testing,
that they would not be identified individually, and that
they could decline to take part if they had strong
objections.
Data Analysis
Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated
between the scores obtained on the predictive tests and the
subjective ratings of the driver managers to test the four
hypotheses stated earlier. Also, a factor analysis was
conducted of the items on the criterion measure to
investigate the factor structure of the rating scale.
Results
The mean score for driver managers on the Wesman PCT
verbal portion was 19.50 with a standard deviation of 6.88
and a range from six to 34. The driver managers' mean can
be compared to norms for the Wesman. The closest category
would be supervisors and with that normative group a score
of 20 falls at the 39th percentile.
The mean for the Watson-Glaser CTA was 53.89 with a
standard deviation of 10.20 and a range from 33 to 73. The
Ali,
25
closest norm category would be sales representatives and
with that normative group a score of 53 falls at the 25th
percentile. See Appendix H for further statistics for the
Wesman PCT and the Watson-Glaser CTA.
Appendix I shows the means and standard deviations of
the California Psychological Inventory, in standard scores,
of male and female driver managers. The CPI average
(standardized) score of the CPI is 50, with a standard
deviation of 10. Most of the driver managers' scores
stayed within one standard deviation of the mean except on
the Dominance scale. The Dominance scale for males (60.59)
is 10.59 points above the mean, slightly more than one
standard deviation. The females' mean on the Dominance
scale is also somewhat high (57.44). Another point of
interest in Appendix I includes the low scores on the
Flexibility scale for both males and females. These two
scores are the lowest scores for all of the CPI scales with
males scoring 43.19 and females scoring 44.00.
Hypotheses Results
Four hypotheses were addressed in this study. The
first hypothesis states that there is an absence of
relationship between performance of driver managers on the
Wesman Personnel Classification Test with behaviorally
anchored supervisory ratings. According to Table 1, this
hypothesis appears to be supported with the exception of
3- kt4 Ii'aiaFh l4 .rc., ,.rl .e Wb.n _ w... ,:v7 ... r."
26
the correlation of the "availability" subscale of the
criterion with the Wesman PCT (r = .30, p < .05).
The second hypothesis states that there is an absence
of relationship between performance of driver managers on
the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Inventory with
behaviorally anchored supervisory ratings. According to
Table 1, this hypothesis is supported with the exception of
the "availability" subscale (r = .28, p < .05) and the
"personal work habits and stress management" subscales, (r
= .24, p < .05).
The third hypothesis states that there is an absence of
relationship between performance of driver managers on the
California Psychological Inventory with behaviorally
anchored supervisory ratings. As shown in Table 2, there
are several criterion subscales that correlated and the
criterion total scale significantly correlates with the
Dominance scale (r = .25, p < .05), Self-control scale, (r =
-.25, p < .05), Communality scale (r = .29, p < .05), and
Flexibility scale (r = -.37, p < .05). "Data Accuracy" and
"Timeliness" were taken out of the scale because the anchors
were different from the other subscales. Self-control (r =
-. 26, p < .05) , Communality (r = .30, p < .05), and
Flexibility (r = -.45, p < .05), significantly correlates
with the altered scale. Customer relations, miles per
gallon, and general management of drivers, each
27
significantly correlated with six scales on the CPI. The
Flexibility scale on the CPI significantly correlated with
five parts of the appraisal form, the total scale, and the
altered subscale. However, since a large majority of the
correlations were nonsignificant, hypothesis three must be
accepted. Also, one must keep in mind the possibility of
experiment wise error rate when interpreting the results.
This could explain the significant correlations that did
occur.
The fourth hypothesis states that there is an absence
of relationship between the driver managers' biographical
information and behaviorally anchored supervisory ratings.
According to Table 3, "number of drivers supervised"
correlated with "personal work habits and stress
management" (r = .26, p < .05) "timeliness" (r = .34, p
< .05), "Data Accuracy and Timeliness" (r = .28, p < .05),
"All except Data Accuracy and Timeliness" (r = .32, p
< .05), and with the total scale (r = .34, p < .05). The
"number of trucks supervised" scale correlated with
"DOT/Safety Compliance" (r = -.32, p < .05) and with
"Turnover" (r = -.40, p < .05).
"Truck driving experience" negatively correlated with
"Driver Relations" (r = -.29, p < .05), "Utilization" (r =
-. 34, p < .05), "Turnover" (r = -.25, p < .05), and
"General Management of Drivers" (r = -.40, p < .05). A
28
large majority of scales were nonsignificant, therefore,
one must accept hypothesis four.
Table 1
Correlation of the Wesman PCT and the Watson-Glaser CTA
with Ratings for the Total Carriers
Wesman Watson-Glaser(n = 48) (n = 46)
Driver Relations .13 .07
Customer Relations .04 .02
Sales/Marketing Relations .01 .02
DOT/Safety Compliance .05 .18
Personal Work Habits andStress Management .17 .24*
Miles Per Gallon .02 .16
Utilization -.03 .02
Out-of-Route -.07 .07
Turnover .09 .11
Availability .30* .28*
General Management of Drivers .04 .17
Timeliness .09 .15
Data Accuracy .16 .13
Data Accuracy and Timeliness .14 .16
All Except Data Accuracy andTimeliness .15 .22
Total .16 .22
Note. Wesman scores are verbal scores only.
*p < .05
,. , r wr r.YU ii.: :vtiw . r:uk:
29
Co CD N C CD- C) C1 N N
o r-+ N N CoO *-- O N o
C/7)
0V,)
al)
W
o Nt-i r-
MC')
*- N ( .O C'o 0) N CD O
LO M
o CT
o 0)o cNj
C'i N-
C- CD
0-) e-4
o C ' -re- e- e- r-
LACD
Wd
CD
CoCD
03ID
CDIO
1
0cm C')o) *-
-M
1'
LO 0:rO O
to100
N
M' CO - -dM O r-+ r-
r r- r rO
t~0 C' LC) M'
ChN 0"e N'K
1.0
LO r- 0 0 .0 - LA )- 0CV r-- N r-i r-1 0 Q - 0 ,-
C>0C') N N M ) c C') - 0') N.
D r-+ Q N N N Q -
LO Nr*-. m C- CJ r-e CD
CO Mo C')
"-4 LA)O C'
O l 0 w:- d-r-- tr-i Q r-1 r-1
) (N LA Co o'- e- e- e- e-
C0O
-r-
a)
a)4--O
y
UC'-
V/')
C"rOC
U ('1o- C C"r
CS " --r-. r- cT
r---' a)
a) (IS..
C) 0. a) &C E2 0
-r- 0 .et-E-) C SCa) o0CII- seS.- -N(I a) r-- )
4- t-ISco C oV) (V) 0S--
r- 1- 5...C/
V O
M'
'K
LA NJ - w ( N tOO C') - N N N
O - M N M Co toCV ,-+ N - 0 -
C') r- LAN d *-
LA OO cD
Q- -, Co
C
0- 0
O
r--
C.D C &O =
O - c OCL. cc i
N 'a) -r- OO r- I-r- r 0)a) = O
C')C)
.0 e- - 0' NN + -f N r- N
e- C' CD w Coo M cD - 0
N t'C-J o
a)
0CS.--
-r-.r-
-r 4r--(-
(IS
r-i cor-1 N
-r-a)
4-0
C
CE
r-
5--
a
QCa)
'kto LAr-4 N
> )
N 5.-(P)a) UC U
r- cD0 R3" cif
(I)
aC
V...-E
C
UtU
4tCD
U *CO LAN N
I I
oD C)
IO ?O- -
1 I
o-) 0-)- -
Co Co
N -
Co C
- MN
o O
d- LAN N
"0
C
DC)
V!
+3W
(::
0 C
LU 2 r
40
1.0 LACD U,
0C,)
LI)
0aD
(I)
--
S.-S.-
'Q.
S.0
4-
CLI
C.0 0.
co 0
H --.0 S.r-- 0-~- C'-)
r.C0
e--
a)
.-a)
5.-
e A
Chr-'
r-- 4+-+ N
N M
Co0
4'
0
NC)
.)"
0I~-
c0
r-)
N
4
(%
(\J
0
NcJ
CO :'
1 1
0:t01
CoN
d- NL CO
I 1 I
C C COD c 0 CoO r- Q - C -
Co Lt)r- CVJ
1 I
CD r%% CDM to
r-i 0 ) 0 L.Qr-i 0 - ) -
r% Co 1o Co Co- r- I
1 1 1 I i
Lt d' (C1o N+ 0
LO 00r- 1 Q
r-
C' M e-0 CJ -e
N40
CAO1
+-- )
M C MCV- N
M0
CNJO
o ro C- 0 -N(CD C Cs O -a
*-4 MC 0
Co r-
r-0 Q
4'o
r-i Q-e"
r% o)0 e-
-- i o Nsr-I 0 0
' -p" Co - LA C) LAN 49 0 -- + 0 - - C 0 CM
" (-- 4
N ~
d,
0
--
V) O a"
0 ::
o 4 -
e- -Cr- SC
r - -: -+ -F- S-a) S.-D: S- cT
a) Z
S- 2 r_.a) 0._ V-F.- C-r-S- = (Ti
Ln r-LA e4
U-o
c - r-
"r- .4.)r .ip
C
o -
M ~a) r-Ci)
H- S...-'0 C&0 o .-
4C
N~ 01~-
0r-
F-
(T- a)iS.. "r- 0a) -F,~
N 4-t/ -r- 0
a) r- r- "r- "4-3-F.- . =
0
S.-.
0
3-
Co e- N r -or- r-1 (\J Q0 r-
0
4)
.C0
(-\N
S.-a)
}S-.
4-
0
-)
a0l)c
c
S.-
a)
CUC.'3
M C?
t/'1CM'a).r
C)H-
S..UU
-)
(Ti
0
we
C
-
Er
2-o
cif
S.U
Cd)
C-)
(T
(Tis..
t LO0 C')
30
0 0 qz94d- Q r-1
. i 1
0)
4'
Co0
0-a
0
MO
h"0s
4'
cy
V t-V O
N N0 -
" o
C) C-)
xU.-
V
0
- -
r-1 0
1 1
LA Coe- e-
Co0
N
t~
CN J
LA
1-
LAe UOe- e-
N 0D0 0D C')
0
MQI'
L-)
LA (D00
C)M
c4N~
0 CoC-0 0
Q
y-
0
"r-
4-Cu
-o
c13
C.
C-S.-0
-
-o
0.
C)
C)IoloVO 4
-0
co
:-
=
.0 (A
K)si a0. ca) "--U r-
)<a)Sa
--0
F-
cn a
- S -.0 x
uJ
Q-o.
" 0)
s..)
>
>=
-o)s..
)
S --> 0)
S.>-o S..
0)
cCO
-S.-F--
c d
0i) C.)F-
0
LUW
W-
M No -- 4
I I
I oI
0) LO- 0
I I
S..S.
S.
-
C
..C
(4-
r-
coS.o
- -
"r
(a
"-
3
+->
0
0
0
4j
i)
0
CO
0
S.-0)
(0
V-)
C' 0Q Q
0 -
Q r-,
. .0
') CoQ
C.
0
0)
to
t/)
-
(a
-)-
ci)(a
- N N d -) 1.L 0 CO Q L 0C0 0C? tom) 0 NC C7 d-0C r-0
1 1 I 1 I 1
- -I0 ,- LO 0- Co 0 C to C 00 0 ,- ,:-) 0 0 0 - -
1 I 1 I ( 1
C) N + ,-+ C t o - o C10No N 0 ci d - N CD *--+ M o aSC') - . ( 0 - C -
N
C)
0
CJ
C')0
Mo'"
00 0'1 d'0 0D
N.0
0
0 0 .-
t. ' ) to ' - ! - r- ')
-o
O (a
CI C-ca -r-
-r- .0 4r- c E0. =i)t 0E Cn r-
C.. S. O (a ci)
S
--*pS 0
4-) C-) ci)a. G1
(a O ) N 4-.~+/) O S". ... -r- O
H C/) r- 4-0 0) *i- +"r- =7
03 ( ) " - 0C -L,.-- >
S-.0)
0
S..=H
0Q
0,-, 1o
N. Co 0 .00 ,- r- -
--
.r.(a(a
S..U?
a
a)
5-0
CU)
C3
r--ci)5..-(a(a
(a
(I1)
C)
c).-0)-2EH
>a
s.-
(a(a0:t
4)
r-
.r.
Cci)
.-RS
+>1
LI
31
I IC31 o T -o 0 O C)
I I
N% 0O N
0 - - C".- .*.+.N
0 rMC) -,
r r
Ne-M M
. .
C') r
r r
Coo
NoN- -
4D 0
G)
ra
-r-
0)
+.->
S.-
0-
c)
0)
0e
S.-0
0.
S.-
co
a
0
0
-.-0.ci0+II
C
V
(a
w E
(a
S.
0 V)
-,-
0H
roY. .rF .;; , - .drF :::,., w~;. ,., -.- , .... , i .e; apt+o,.,.e.?siw;r
32
A supplementary factor analysis was performed to
investigate the factor structure of the criterion measure.
The results appear in Table 4. Using the Varimax Rotated
Maximum Likelihood method, four factors were found in the
analysis. The first factor includes the Driver Relations,
Personal Work Habits and Stress Management, Utilization,
and General Management of Drivers subscales from the
criterion. This factor was labeled "Management Style,"
because these scales represent personal characteristics
that affect the management style of a driver manager. The
second factor includes the Customer Relations,
Availability, and Data Accuracy subscales. This factor was
labeled "Dependability," because all of these scales
represent reliable and dependable behavior. The third
factor includes the Sales and Marketing Relations subscale
and the fourth factor includes the DOT/Safety Compliance
subscale. The last two scales had one subscale that loaded
on that factor, so they were named for that subscale. It
was decided that four factors would be more efficient than
five factors because the third, fourth, and fifth factors
had just one subscale that loaded on it. The Chi Square
significance levels were the same, .99 for both four and
five factors and .94 for three factors. The items that
loaded highly on all four factors were omitted.
r ,,. ., . .,...,. .=.m..,,;.x;, ., 'a,_ , . . ... , _l.u .... .......... - .x .. aS 4S i bi'Nq 77a. .
33
Table 4
Varimax Rotated Maximum Likelihood Factor Loadings for the
Criterion Measure
FactorsI II III IV
Variables Mgt. Depend. Sales/ ComplianceStyle Mktg.
Driver Relations .75* .19 .05 -.06
Customer Relations .26 .72* .24 .00
Sales/MarketingRelations .11 .18 .98* -.04
Personal Work Habits .66* .15 .35 .11
Utilization .69* -.02 -.08 -.04
Availability -.01 .45* -.08 -.04
DOT/Safety Compliance -.13 -.04 .01 .78*
Out-of-Route .42 .18 -.02 .52
Turnover .50 .04 .01 .39
General Managementof Drivers .67* .29 -.01 .16
Data Accuracy .15 .74* .22 .13
Timeliness .39 .54 .28 .33
Total Varianceaccounted for 35.4% 13.6% 12.3% 9.0%
Eigenvalue 4.24 1.63 1.47 1.08
Common Varianceaccounted for 26.2% 14.3% 8.9% 8.0%
Note. * = inclusion in scale; Depend. = Dependability;
Mktg. = Marketing; Mgt. = Management.
34
Table 5
Factor Correlations with the Predictors
FactorsI II III IV
Variables Mgt. Depend. Sales/ ComplianceStyle Mktg.
Wesman PCT 12 22 .05 .01
Watson-Glaser CTA .17 .18 .18 .02
Dominance .12 .25* .18 .15
Capacity for Status -.05 -.11 .14 .04
Sociability .16 .26* -.11 .14
Social Presence .10 .32* -.14 .19
Self-acceptance .17 .34* -.07 .13
Independence .13 .14 .12 -.02
Empathy .07 .11 .06 .22
Responsibility -.17 -.27* .12 .10
Socialization -.13 -.05 .22 .02
Self-Control -.33* -.24 .20 .07
Good Impression -.22 -.05 .24 .01
Communality .26* .13 .08 .16
Well-being -.07 .05 .22 .03
Tolerance -.22 -.18 .13 .23
Achievement viaConformance .09 -.08 .17 .02
Achievement viaIndependence -.22 -.09 .01 .22
.. : _ _ .
35
Table 5--Continued
FactorsI II III IV
Variables Mgt. Depend. Sales/ ComplianceStyle Mktg.
IntellectualEfficiency -.18 .07 -.04 -.01
Psychological-mindedness -.11 -.12 -.04 .01
Flexibility -.25* -.26* -.19 .08
Femininity/Masculinity -.07 .01 -.13 .35*
Educational Level .03 .14 -.08 .12
Tenure (Company) -.10 -.09 -.01 .10
No. of Drivers
Supervised .22 .09 .21 .16
No. of Trucks
Responsible for -.04 .04 -.32* .21
Truck DrivingExperience -.29* .02 .08 .09
Note. Mgt. = Management; Mktg. = Marketing; Depend =
Dependability.
*p < .05
Discussion
The major issue that the present study attempted to
address was the proper selection of future driver managers.
It sought to answer the question of whether the test
36
battery presently being used will be of use to this company
in the future, and to select driver managers who will be
successful.
The first hypothesis, which states that there would be
no relationship between a test of general intelligence and
behaviorally based supervisory ratings, was supported, with
the exception of one subscale of the supervisory ratings.
This leads one to assume that intelligence, beyond some
minimum level, is not a requirement for success in the
driver management position.
The second hypothesis, which states that there would
be no relationship between a measure of critical thinking
and behaviorally based supervisory ratings, was supported
with similar results, which would lead one to presume that
critical thinking is not predictive of driver management
success. The Watson-Glaser results were close enough to
significance to suggest continuing the use of the test on
an experimental basis.
The hypothesis stating that there would be no
relationship between a personality measure with
behaviorally based supervisory ratings was supported, but
it also showed some significant results. The Dominance,
Self-control, Communality, and Flexibility scale from the
personality measure did present interesting results. The
more successful driver managers revealed more dominant and
37
communal characteristics than the less successful driver
managers. Perhaps confidence, assertive behavior, and
seeing oneself as fitting in with the crowd, facilitate
successful performance in a driver manager's job. Also,
the more successful driver managers revealed less self-
control and less flexibility than the less successful
driver managers. This would suggest that someone who
expresses his or her emotions and is not flexible would be
more successful in the driver management position.
It is suggested that the CPI should be retained as
part of the selection process. It correlated well enough
with the total ratings to suggest that it would be useful
in the future. A simple, unweighted linear composite
comprised of the four scales (Do + Cm - Sc - Fx) would
appear to be promising, but cross validation would be
needed.
The hypothesis stating that there would be no
relationship between biographical information and
supervisory ratings did reveal some significant items. The
biodata scales, "number of drivers supervised," and "truck
driving experience," seemed to relate to more of the scales
than the other items. It could be assumed that the driver
managers who were better able to tolerate more stressful
situations and had better work habits were assigned more
drivers to supervise. The "number of drivers supervised"
z- , -prim m
38
subscale significantly correlated with most of the scales
and the total scale. Unfortunately, scores on this item
are not available for driver managers who have been recently
hired or recently promoted.
The driver manager with more trucks to oversee could
manifest more safety violations and turnover because they
could not supervise all trucks as closely as other driver
managers with less trucks to oversee. This information
should be incorporated into the performance appraisal system
so that driver managers with more trucks to oversee are not
penalized. An investigation as to the optimal number of
trucks to supervise may be of value to the company in
reducing the costs of turnover and safety violations.
The driver managers who had prior truck driving
experience have better driver relations are better at
organizing their drivers, have less turnover among their
drivers, and are better managers of their drivers in
general. Fortunately, the "truck driving experience" item
is a biographical item that would be available from new
hires. This would make further predictive research more
convenient.
Because these types of tests have been so successful in
the past with the prediction of management success, the lack
of positive findings in the present study is puzzling.
There are many problems that could have affected the
39
results. One possible explanation could have been due to the
size of the sample (range restriction). Perhaps with a
larger sample size the results would have turned out more
favorably.
Possibly better and more extensive rater training would
have affected the results in a positive way. The raters did
seem to score everyone toward the middle of the scale
(possibly indicating a central tendency error). Range
restriction would reduce the possibility of significant
results. This is considered to be a central tendency rater
error. Also, it is possible that the scores on the
criterion represent a normal distribution.
A factor analysis was conducted for the criterion
variables. The analysis uncovered four different factors
from the rating scale that supposedly measured four distinct
aspects of performance including Management Style,
Dependability, Sales and Marketing Relations, and
Compliance. These four factors were then reanalyzed for
significant relationships. Unfortunately, these new scales
only correlated significantly with a few of the predictors.
The Dependability factor correlated with more of the
subscales than the other three. The results of the factor
analysis is tentative considering the small sample size.
These results lead to what recommendations can be
suggested to the company involved. First of all, the
r + , ,y .. ., . ..
40
experimenter observed that the job analysis techniques were
nonstandard. The job analysis was extensive, but it did not
have enough structure. Comments about the job and what
activities the employees were involved in were written down
from observations. Some of the observations included the
amount of time taken to complete a task and others did not.
Perhaps the job analysis could have been more precise in
capturing the important aspects of a driver manager's
position. New, standardized methods of analyzing the jobs
at the company would greatly facilitate any future
validation research and keep the supervisors and employees
more aware of the important aspects of their jobs.
Next, the job descriptions for the driver manager
position revealed that employees at each of the four sites
felt that different activities were important. This
confusion about the position could have affected the results
of the research. The experimenter suggests a standardized
job description throughout the company for each job
position.
The testing should be systematic and standardized. This
step would facilitate future validation research and create
a feeling that all employees are being treated equally.
Another problem within the company is the lack of
standardized performance appraisal methods for each position
throughout the company and across all carriers. When
tid Ak iV MC!!':sbsAYFkl9ifiai ky7&# F 7+B ' , . F.;.. fi... .1J....; ' ;ir:L,-,
I
41
employees know what is expected of them in behavioral terms,
they are more likely to succeed in the job and supervisors
will know what important aspects of the job to stress when
training employees. The experimenter suggests developing
behaviorally based performance appraisal systems for each
position in the company and across all carriers. This
again, would facilitate future research projects.
Furthermore, some method of training the people who
will be rating employees on the appraisal forms is needed.
Training will produce better results for future research and
will create a feeling that an attempt is being made to
control favoritism and bias.
As a final recommendation to the company, the
experimenter suggests choosing other tests for the driver
manager position. If time and money permit, an assessment
center that simulates a typical driver manager's day could
possibly aid in selecting appropriate candidates.
Assessment centers can even be used with present employees
to correct problems that already exist.
In conclusion, the tests presently being used have
proven themselves in the past to predict managerial behavior
in other jobs so the problem could either exist in the
criterion or in the methods used. More research is needed
with the tests and more standardized methods would be
useful.
.r#JF fidpez'' i .w.;::3 i.p@lW4K n".:',;atrw . , s'.., .,"" ;:i" .,d 1
APPENDIX A
DRIVER MANAGER PERFORMANCE RATING FORM
42
-. .. _._ . w;: :l".,... : i$Ai+ 4 - ;.:M Y,... ,... .ar'r ... ;5. l . _..., . ,. . .. r., .- p. -- .. _. - -
43
Vice President Operations:
Company:
Fleet Manager:
Driver Manager:
Date:
Driver Manager Performance Rating Form
Please rate the driver managers using the following scale:
1.2.3.4.5.
Fails to meet performance expectationsMeets performance expectations at timesMeets performance expectationsExceeds performance expectationsFar exceeds performance expectations
(circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 Driver Relations--Develops rapport with thedrivers in such a way that the driverperforms effectively. Listens and talks todrivers to facilitate better understandingand performance and to enhance driverquality of work life.
1 2 3 4 5 Customer Relations--Communicates serviceproblems and potential service problems in atimely manner. Understands and is concernedwith quality of service.
1 2 3 4 5 Sales and Marketing Relations--Effectivelyrepresents his/her driver to sales andmarketing personnel. Works cooperatively tomeet the needs of both drivers andcustomers.
1 2 3 4 5 D.O.T./Safety Compliance--Monitors hours ofservice and falsifications. Ensurescompliance with valid medical and driverslicense certificates. Promotes an accident-free working environment. Stresses behaviorthat is consistent with the D.O.T./safetycompliance of the company.
NNW . _
44
1 2 3 4 5 Personal Work Habits and Stress Management--Prepares worksheets or other aids to useduring the day. Checks with night duty formessages upon arrival to work. Followsthrough on issues left over from theprevious day. Plans for the next day. Isseldom absent or tardy. Maintainscomposure, good judgment, and adequateperformance when working under pressure.
1 2 3 4 5 Cost Management--Maintains standards set forthe fleet of trucks this Driver Manager isresponsible for.
1 2 3 4 5 MPG
1 2 3 4 5 Utilization
1 2 3 4 5 Out-of-Route
1 2 3 4 5 Turnover
1 2 3 4 5 Availability
1 2 3 4 5 General Management of Drivers--Sets andenforces reasonable performance standards fordrivers. Requires and tracks check calls.Monitors all information pertinent to presentor upcoming dispatches. Ensures timelyservicing of trucks. Willing to makedecisions, anticipate outcomes, and followthrough.
When rating with the following two dimensions, keep in mindthat a rating of 5 represents standard performance (that is,the performance we hope for from all Driver Managers), 3represents average performance and 1 represents belowaverage performance.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Data Accuracy--Accurately and completelyrecords information such as location, time,trailer number, condition, and hours ofservice (logs). Ensures that all driver andload activity is reflectted on the computerscreens. Monitors fleet screen for accuracy.
Timeliness--Performs and handles daily tasksin a timely fashion, i.e., acceptingpreassignments, answering/sending messages,service failure reporting, updating ETA's/availability, dispatching trucks and loadedcheck call.
APPENDIX B
DRIVER MANAGER RATING FORM ANCHORS
45
OMWAMOMMAQW-i mwm -
46
a)
Cc13E5. .O C
4- 0
N Ua) 4.)
a) 0x w
W
LU5.-
U.
C Nco CCO
S.. "r4- MS. +a)O U
0.N x+- W
O
a- )
N0
C)
+" W
U-
aO N
O- aO X
-)L
-0
C-r
5-O
rS-
4.)5a)
"C C"r C
3E
- C
C 4
-r (4.
EO C
C
a)5.>a)" CSC> b
Ea)
+a Ca)
4. 0
3 4-4
a)+p-o
0 .C-r- 3Ca)
EOE o
0
5..a)
-r--
V Ca)
4. 0.C -r-
3 -34-.
Cra)CE
NES-*a- a
CE
) a)L) a)
O w
O Ctd N M
0 O
- -C 0
S - Co.4-a c1)
V + C a)C4- 0
>on >E-0C 3 -r- 5.-
+ 5C- 0
" r- "1- L7
.1.- 4 . .a
+3 0 a) 0.>A 0 E" V
04. C 00O
0 5...r->-r a).O a)0 > c-"r-C.-- .CO - to.U
(.") -r-
V)5.a)
S.. 0-> r
0 -o-) 0
C O
a) 0
-r" RS
0. 02 V0
a)O .)
0 C
r-3
04.)OC
W 0
>0c
.- Ca)
W
n o
aO C
a1) 0.S. p
-. -r-
0
0cn sa CL
S)
.4) .r-
V 0
2 V
r- tct >
C 0.
cn S
C c.
u 4
-- C
r-- -r-
r- 5..V- a)
S..
0S" G
Cr
5..-r- .
).C)
V--5.r
a)5...
o c
a)>
0S..
r t
a)5 rEaa)>
fl. 5..
a)
S0as Rs
0..
r- 0
O S..
05...
-r-0
5..-o
.0
00
v +J
Ca -o
r-- 00.EcM0
-o
C .c
O~ C
5.. .CL3
4-C
04.
3
5..00.0.
5-aO
5.
( 5..
cT3G >0
S-a)
.g>)
r- -
a 0.
3) 0
5 .= 0
2)-.C-
D5..V &
}.0
-5.-
V-o
.
.-
5..
0
C
0(T-=
C
O
(Ti
a)
a)>
(1)
91-111- RW-
47
S.-
02W -r- E r-a)Wr 0_).C 0 V)-C Q)a) t)r-.Oa r- 4-a +
4- 0(r> -O0-S.- - a U0 r .. 5 3m-r- O C
O) - CCL- -. 0 4J U U r- -CUV +- CL.V U +Je a) NC )) a) U(-- . a)= -r-
co OCU C W C U ( RS .. .. m . O 3E UOa) -C Ur-a) 4-J .S--N X -r--J+. -r- >.. CO C -V r-
O CU +4 d > Sr.co O S.. 0 .C C ..4--O a Ut SC >S- - OS.- 0 -CV -r-S..--r- -4-) ) a C- .. C 3-r-3a)++a C U X -r- () V aN 3 )L-( a O O 3 r- C (N OO V: -LC) 4CL.0- V cu O) O N N O 0(AOU (AXVV) N a-V - r- ( S.- + ) -a) 0V) a) - O C ) +.) +- w U .C. C (-.. N)O C- C C CCU U N -)(Q )N.-a)X ccS- a) UOC C .. 2 -V ::::pX W +- a)a E - r-- co "* NN O C )W E2U4 CO>C E 35- .U0 .-.S- O-r--r- OC.-V O )0 0-r > -r- 01- a) > E E 2 -r- -4-) r- .C E
Vo'NS- VE E " i r- - 3 N 0U- C a 0D o O C CU a 0) iOr--C R S..3U(n) U ) -r-C : ZU U L-S.- <-r- 4.- C.
a)5-. Ua
2 >-- Vo S-> S- CN 4)S ... ) a)C NCNa)r->o -- C -M (- ::
U (N)Wa) r1)Ui-CU-C a)4-J C3 C NS..- Ca) .C 0SC .C -- CE
a C N + ) U -e CN co O .C _."r-c C -r- C -S.- 4- 4 a -::..C20 Ci Ca) Q) NN " "r - O
+ .---- E 2 S S- '- 3 Uraa04 20 0 a -r-4.2 M 4- 20- CO V S.. C C0 S-+.) U 0 N C) a) r- a4-) a)U a)UA U S.- a) .C > C C .
N C-a) X4-3 O U 4-r-"r-C- a)C > C > > V r-) NfX a) r- N),- r--4-- r- 5--N
+a W A E 5- L - r- 0 - NO r-4 ) o(D )U0. C c-)E) r-r -r.-ir- C0 S.-. r-- ir- OCmE -O0. -.- - "-JS-a)Vr
2 0E O O C 0. Ca) 0)a o Ci0 0 Q)S- S- 00- ) a) a) NL/:O
U 0-.0- C.)C C.C D CU
S OO U-r- "N ..a) U > C
a) U "r5-L a)CU)NUC ->a) C a 0C X4-1 S- .) -r- 4)a)C a) a) S.- )2a D i- -C a) CS..S.- O E 4) > U Wa)o 4-+ - " ("Cr--E9"'-Ci -r- a) V r-- .C 30O5--C 2 4E+-C C a W - 4-+O O r -E Ca crc, V- -r- "r N
0-r- 0 U0 U4- 43S.- 34-. CO - Oa) Ci) OUO
4-M U- C - 5-2 a) r- a)a)4a) S.- )0o "r- o -.i.-CE U r 2E- VE9 S-r-4-)- - )>' S.-.r4-
0- C O 0 S .. a) 03O X (a)) U U a) -. >. > U4-)LW -N (A E22 +- > 0 "r 0)C) >a a) O- a) C4- 4-MC-"r- U -- rr- CC S- U 0"r
i- C, CU)00- CC)4- a)1 ) /N Cr-- Ca S-00 a0 ) > C) 4-. cOc-C o c .--. 04- a) 04- N a
- (-) 4 -J = .L CL o :|| o a) -O
48
Oa) o
L~V +3) C)LC) L C C a) >4)N +3 +3 a) CTr--
-r-" -v C C o co 3-a) 3 a) C cu N a +- L. a C CU c ->C N 0 0r U C C)- C +3
3 a) 3 N O O ) .C N= S- J ..-
E- N c Cm o a) + C) a)O C U C -r- C. C N N C>y C4- O 0r- +) -- r- - & .- " . - OS.- -r.- C 4- M N r- "F L- C & - L U
to E- U 0 tC - " O E C N D .V.O-M E OO M.V--3 E -r- >,U
L+ E L -"r- r- - N C .C a CN U O o CL-> -r- o ( > M re- co-r-.C L.
"U t1 U X "r- co -. r---r-r- +3 .+-C0- ()V-e + > N cO a)C X >aO C C ) U -0 U + Cx W r- CLO() C> a) C CW s5- t o u U E (A CC-r- + oa) (C S...,
U E 0. C m + .. . -J. V- r- O L ".r- L. c! U -r- C.L (3 N-r- (
c O )+-C).C a)0 C > C)4-..c7- Gr- .. C N CL r- 0 C +3 -r- r- C U a)2 (3 3& (1 o L- O a) L. co O L ..
0 U O o +) . C...) .C) ) U N C.
C C- -3 C
-r c r- C S-0 -l-4C) C) r a)r-- N .N > ,
r -) N O .- r(/).0 0 0. >O
a- S- - .C) OC C/T)C) ) S'r- U- +3 ~ C ~ C Cr o . a) + N
C N -r- S . C > C C a) (Ato C 3 ) E r e t -r U + ML I O N N .p a) s L
CU 0+- T- 4+3 a) -0. 4-l)- - - - . .o e . .
V) 4- n7v O 0 >L . r- . -"-rL- + O ) >- co 0 co 4.. .C >>
C) U L .C ) C U r-C OC) .C r-- a) O O ---(U ~ O L +3 O) (- L- O -0 U M M
X C C C +j C CSW -r- OC) (0j C L O
03 r- r- N > o -r-
LL OC/) D+r- (/)0Zer- a 4 N r - C) O . N
r-.aL co C U.. 0)L to
U)r-- S.- Ur- O 3 r- () CUO
-E C V) " 3& ) UE
C)-C C -
0 -r- 00 O ZN -r- 3 a) C CU
. 3 ) r- CC a) r-L -
- ) - r- L. o
C) - -r-C -0- nO 4-3C) "rC) "r - C )4- N C C C C) C>
L- C CO -r- "-r- > (U "r--r- O
0- 3 - U -
O- -- N a) E O e N a
+3 co O ..- +3 a) .. >+3 (5 S- U L. L. r- L- C a)
a) 4 .9C(a U O o CO-r- .
C 3:OXM C N C L C C Cnp4- W ca +3 ( a)& M . -r-
C C .. iw o-r- Nr- (O (/- v! U N 4 .C ')-"-'oC)-
W)r - C) rt- CU 00L 0 C)0 OS) - 0 S V U ..
0)
a)Owo c
0 U0. 0
.+- t1
-c 4..C O
A " 0r-
U. 4-), 0c r-
C -r- O
E C-r-04- S.-(-.)0 0 0
O
EC N
5- v)OC
4- OS- r--O+'
t- cS U
SOa)a) 0.)Xw
X WL
S.-coU-
CAC N
c't C
EO
i +)O U
0.
4-
C
4U
S-C
4- (A5 -Ca) O
4.
4.) (0a) 4.)
ta)0
O XSN
+LL
U-
+
4
9-
.
r
"r
-E-
4.(4V
C
-
- NS. O .C)0 -> - 0. C
- 4- N.. 0- O O -"-
J r- N a)+--OI N C toM
Sr-- a) ." r-
.)-r- >-r- 0.: -"r-r--o X
n > 5 - - (1)
b 0 E a)- O N S a)S.L.. O E-r-.C O
S.- 0.4Z4-A-)V O X a)
-a) 4-a) .Ov N C CU> R3 -r-0) -
S-r-O CV (00 E.-N- >) E S- "
- ( 3v-SS--o r-0.C a)
r- < CO 4-)
a)N S..a)0
4- a) -aO N 0.0
5a)U>i %-
-r-r-r--r-S - M E
"T 'C O S.-O VN 5-.a)(Aa)
S. S.. (1)S.. 0.-O a)O X C E4- a) ( 0 oCr- .00
r- ~ -r-) (r--0-r-00 N E
O.r- E "r- S..- Oa( 9Er
00(>Q 7 0.a N -C- C X
C14)a)aa
r-
C
+) EO S
r- C W r
4- 0a)X
-- e 4-
Sr.C a)
-r > -0 a)-
"r\O -a) C.
S-a) \ t 0 a
C C -)N (1) e O c rE U 4- .) -
S- O o x
C O) -r -.C Cu-r-C "-+-) C
S. E S. O .a) O -.- N O> U.CX 4- aaC 3 O 5. .
49
a)
4.)V Ca) C tS-4-O -r-W CO "r- -r- r--
> u & ..j.C1-r- N M 5..E
S- r-- O O-0 }- O 3 V
() O > .t> >r-C -S--3O4-m.a) a)-a)S. C0.4-
04- O 54 04-
(A(A.0 (4-o t o,] a)O4.-a)
4)) (
" r- W .) (I(04- ( a)a)V a)C 5-0)5..
Ca "r- o-a)'3 r-- -r r----a)
E 0. 03OEa E o EO OO.CO U a)CS..
- C" >)
".a)a() -M 4-_C Sr
0 4-. O4-04-.o a)C00 .(
S.--c n n Ca -r-C4-a) e---O +)r- CT 0.
-r-C C4- a)Ecb-r--"r- C M
+-3C0a)"r"- M =. 0 V34..4- r- E a)"r- O E a) a) --S-)-i-0.C 0 (0aea0 >04.) C 5.._0)s.C (0 41-0
>> (1) .S_-r- (n a)-css-- .C a)r- C r--- W
a)a)(A>. 0304- ,,.r E E O O
4- CL) .. 0 o C 5..-< V).= -7 V (M.,C C.
a)U
..
0L.)
.)a)4-co
a.1
Mv
S-C
- UW5.
L. 4. S..0)4- (- o
o 4- (0-) (0.C
S0
O ."r-3 .4.)
- OS >I- -r- >
-00-- O>
Cc
2 C 4.)
a) 4-1)CV)20O
a)(Ar-
> r-.r- "r"
-C C
C)4.) 0
C a)(0')
r- (0
E)0-- r-4-3
EXC/ C.
X '
C -C
(oAIa s
S.-,-
S.- .--
V (0C
a)c
>(A
S.-"
>
-C0O
r (I
CL "C
=r--M
(A0)
0
r-
4-
C00.
0
0U-(A
0)0
a)
F-
(04-
C
0.
3
r-a)--a)
x ._ ; : a.., «t.;.x, o M' i" ¬4sAg . : ... a::a. :.s .:,:; . : ... _ :._ ,,. ,..:. -,: .a . :.. ;. , .. _.,..:u=^;?.:A +ka 816Ph MfM i -
a)VOC
( 0-r-V0.
0)CO
-r- 0
3 tUA e
4-0 cC(Aa)cn 4-.
4) V)
S. ) S..4- o O
4) V SL
0 0Q e o
. e .
LO
S:
..
C
+-)
ECO
CC
Q.
V
C
CO
4.)
O
0
0S..0)
C0.
a)U
ES. ")OC
4- 05. -r--
(1) CO
O XX W
0) 0a)X
CO
E OS_ -r--
04.)4- O
)U-. 0C.
N-X
a))
)UC
CO4- N5.-C
4) O03) +.
O Ua )
OX+- W
r--
[CO
VIa)CORS
c)E
S.-O4-
VIUa)
-C
a)
(0
VI
cSa)E
-Ca)
r-
CO
-CCO
S- C) *--
C"N C
S- r-S- -.
5 -C5- CO
4-0)C
C "Ca) C.r- -
-0
''"" a.
-. )
r- a)
v)
W3)E>o
E- S--S...) 4-.
V)
E S-W0)
+) 0
a) -) (N 4-V
r- )C =
VI-r-ci -
Li- N 0
r- CU
Ewa)
!L "r- CL
CO
~O .!
CS..COVI"N
Ci
0C Ca)C
C. -C-
r- '
0.0.
vE"
0) s
COCC
-- r
r-
a)4+.) 4
00
)E40)
s
CO
N
a)
-
. +a)
-C +U.) S
C
v) (
c) c0 v~
41O 3
- -0
S.-0 o
0)4-
O C41 0 >
M - CO(/4+) 0
CO 0
a - a oS4- O
5C 0CL."r- Q
S-* S --ci
0 -o.C4- 0a4-)
' MCd 30) 0.= X
C CN 0...he CO04- S..o O C
r- 0>)0)
t-- 0 "
S.- r- +-.)0)C
C- -
C "r--
-Jr- a00
r-
O N
C
0)
C>V a
S-
4-) N4-)
0. 00.E 0 0.0 r- X0 a
5.CC 0)CC >
C 04-+ Z o
4-0
00
- " co a
4-
0a)
ci)-ocO V
a)
N>a
o 0o c
0 0MO
4-0
.c
V"0
" --c c.NC0a U4.
N U
"r- 5'O
>c 0
0)C
-- N
r c.
NOO
C.
0)CC
r- E
C o
N-CUa c
4-0
-v V
S -a C
a .C
Z
.C r-0)0.
C O
V CSO
-r- .C
4-3CV E
COS.
(I 4-.-
00)
EWOS.- 4-)4. 5--
4).) (V!
s..o V!
(A or- V
V) r-4.> CO00o) - 0)
4-0
= V
05
n U
CD o.C
> 4.)--00
COEC
CO>) 0
-r-
y .p
.- 0
CO 4-V3 0
0. RS0
r- V) S.
.) CL) 4.)W V)
E >OS.a0)U-c
M ar-- i)5)C
4-0
S..
"O>C O
E Q
4.)
Q -h>r----
VO
Q V
C
S..
Ots
Q E
0)
Cv V
C
4-) C
(-0
cc a
= co
.p .3
.pC
CO
4 -
50
VI
S..-00.
0)S-.
V)0CCOVIS..-0)
C
C
S""a)
.
a
..-
'I
E)
1)
E.
A,-D
.df.ai.::« ;4 f.a.......:r.-:: :: ., : -. tz:vnF.--. .- r:...i:3Y ., ,, ...... - . . ., ... .,..-t:-. ,,.,,, -.. : -,;. .,-... ,.
LOC
aa)
0
0
+V) C
0
a)UC
O C4- 0
S-. -r-
(A UV0 a)a) a.O XX W
LU-S -
LL-
a)
C N
Rf CE OS... r-
4- R!S.- 4a)U0- a)
0.(A X
+- Wa)
a)a)C
S-04- C)s. Ca) 0
a) "N-.a) UZ a)
OX
+-)
U-
S.-N
Lf)C
N(U
N
U
aO >
"E- )C 4
N U
C >
"r- .
OctL) N
5--
C &
t/-
"O
-.- )
C.
r 0
C O
u U
Oa)
4)
OaE >C
O
4- E
0V U
0 -Q
a) -oo ~
(.M (.1
a)
a)
N
0
RS
-r-
a)
5.-
TJ
a)
Na
0
N
r-
0
a) (
z.-
C
N
-0
0
-)
r-0
a)
51
llta aw . ,,. ~ .:u x., .. r. ,+1:rr:.r'--. ,. ... , tv:+ .. n::a",,. + ii . + r'rJ. v a . . : ,.., _ ,. .. .... .. r . Jps, -
a)WC
tC5. N4- 0
a)i)4)
COOV Wa) 0.
(1 x
x LU
5-
LI.
c)0CC")
EO(
0 44-- CO
O- c)
N x
SU
OX
a)Uci)
O-+- W
0
C
L.-
Or--
4) 0
> (0
e-'- U
COO 4..
0 -- ---
C C
WCE4. CO 5.C, W
r- -d c
C
o -
CO)
W--LU
4.)-
NC)CO
V)
5.-S-
4-
a cC..
S )Qci
N
O0 V4- 5-C (ci) V
C5.-CO
O W2
in C
C OC
CO 4
OW5--.
$.-
W5-
0..C
00.
CO3
0 0
0
C-
0
4-C
r F-
(0=0
3 O
-C
C
COC00
CC
4
C-r
LC
-r
4-
C-
cV,
VCci
n s_O>
.-V
C0
0.
U 01 -C
0
N ) r-
c
0 0
O
5-o
4- 0-
C 4.
Cr " -- t
0.o -o
r- 0
C -4C)
024.)
Cr- C
-r- M
(04.)
O.e a5.. -
= a
c)
+-
C.&
00
E &
C
0
> C
r- 0
r r-
= 5.
WD 4-.0S r-
0
(0C
-CES..
04-)
rO.Cv,-r- -C
0r- 4-)cn
o "r2C
CC -F,-
Ct--.rci-)
W.C
(4-0
-oaO-C(CO
5.--0
cc3
S 5
U 005.
C
a) 0.()0
U U
xS
N c
>2
5-.-o-o C
()
S C
V-OWC. "CV) a
(2)W i-c c
SU
C0
o
E c-.O .4- C.
-r- C
4) ..r a
o (
-r-
(A V .r- S 4-0 a) 4V) >
"r- C
(/)5-- (r - 'L7 -
- 4-E C
0
CO
S5- .c
-- 4- -
C
o -0
4-~ Wp
SOWO U
. R)
"r- 0C 4-j
C" C
C
(1)S-0 a
C
0
4-.C
-r-2
-r
"--
0
".
4-.
C
.c0C-
Q 5-
U4--
C O05.
V00
0
tV0 0CV (0
o 2
Cv
-WO
C -o 4-y E
-. C 4-4.) 5.-
1) r- W-a W 0.
C0
4-.)--
W
O "r.
>0
(4-C
4 .
r 0
0 -I-(05..
-
05..
COV
C>'
4.)CO -r--5..>
> U
0
a)CL
-F-- 0
- 0)(3.. 5..
Sa
tv o
C a
52
5.a)
5.-
0
C4-
c)
a)0)
C
CO
Ca)
o7.
OW5-U a)C>yCO -i-" r-.- W
0 -o(4-.
0..C W3d.)3 =
"r- V!(4-- C W-r- 0 5..r -- CO
U."r. c
0. CO C"'n-'.-)3S0
C) W) 't.) 0. C
W X -r-(/) 3
S.04-
5--
C
5.-S..
-.. wcs -<::o..a. nA._.:ih. ... i ad IGi4 Ka Y6k,;!V u «.,.: ., ::rtz i ,., ... :, ,. t.,K :..:.. ,. ., :.:__. -. : .: : t=w .;<.... ® - -- _ - -
a1)0C
OC4- 0a)+4.0.. c',
Vt a)a) 0.
X W
WXX LU
U
S.-.
C',C C
S.- r-0
4- C'
- +sO-
NXW
a)0
4-)LU
a)
a)
C
S-.O
-Ca) O
4.)
a) 4.
tea)0.
O X
4-)L
"F)OL
N'
C0Or-.
a)
'
O
O
C0
4 .
I3- ."r
CO
LO S.
0 0)
-
tLt") 5-
C0
C)
0
4.)a)
-
aL)O NO
O .0
S.-
0
O a)r- S-
0.
O S."F- CU
4.) a)CO U
WO-r- 0
0)
a)CC r-
r- cr- C',
C O VC
U 0OW UC',S-
OS.00
-C
4-30
0
S.-U0
W a- a)
V W
CW
o -
d 4-
0-r-
EV 0
- O4-
-r.
a) S
+" O
al)
SO -
(I) rW E00
0
a)a)
4-
r-S.
C Sr4 0
1)4
-r- a)C ..
o u
0V
C. O
r.r-
RSES..
-
4.)-NU
S.- UO W
US..
-r- OU
OQ
-r-- 00
O cc V
r--
O S.C) 0
co-34.)
C,
04.)
a)
v-)a)0)
C
LJ
0
53
1.0
O-r-
O4-C,
-r-2
U
..0
O-4-
CO
"r
0
a)
r--4-)
a)
3--(--
CO
r-
C',
C
00O-r-000
COS...
S -a)
0.)-
0
Z c
01
-1- 5
4-E S
S4- S
C Z
S-
U0
4-
a)a)S.-0
CO
S..O
4)4) "r-Ua)COs- - 4.
OS.-CS.-
uo (1)
r 0
VW4)
0",
CO Vr
U)O )WV
O
04-3-
W. {M--
S.. L
ETA
CO
- r- -
WV)
C
-r- V
C
0"
SC
0)
0 -3-V C-- O
" -r-
4/) 2
S...U0
C)'-
:.roLL. .:.w r : rF. r.. :,. -we e cr. .+tn r, u:-a: ry soa ::,. _, _, s ::N j..
L)O
ai)C.r-
r-a)2r
a3)
C)
o Ca4- 0S- r-
a) 4.)
+.)(AUV aal)0.x W
a)XX W
S.-
U-
CUC Ncti OS.. r-o4.)
4-(s
SaU0. a)
0.N X
+)wa)a)
a)U
C
S .O
S.. Oa) O
C-.r-
+-) COa)+4.a)Utea)
CLO x
r-
faLL.
-r-
-r-
a)S-
3S..
a)CLE.-
o d2 VU 4.
..o """
a) 0.O a)
SN
S -.0
a) a)Sr -cA
r 0
-r-O
c. r-
0(~fa)S S..S
r.- C
o .S
s..
3u
00.
C"a)
O M Q
O C O
ca)(ASa)C-o r-
C)3 c
V)
0r-
ES..0
4... aC r-
a(AN
4.) 0
U"r- (A
-r-
20
O ew
0r C rC w0 C
C)a
0.-r- 4.
SE 'L73 v002
r- C. 2r- -r-
04N4- c (
sEI- S.. a-
a) 0.05.. 0.0sE S..
*c r- 0.
54
a
0E
-r.
U.
V
C
-r
EWU "r-
O u
E toO "'-
"O t)-r
4- >
C CU
O S".
UV
" rN a)
O
.- r-
O or43 .. 3
"r 0( U--
cc
t)S ..
O . a)2 0
CL - U
*1a) -
5- -- S..
Q c4.) .a)--E
(A 4.)O
.: .;;ikel4.w.kaz n"r n Y, i 4gEtl An'd' "". ̂ 1,45Y+ Put+: - _ .; - . ;c . .. k9 8y i 6"OfE ,.... .,. ..-.. T.w .. <,,.. .. y_.... .... _ , .... .. , ... >
APPENDIX C
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
55
rv._...;i _^%rt 4:_'. - k...,. a : '.., ... NC ' i_'. _ ?t.. J.-. : :t. - .... : . .. :, ,., . ::Sti# .. : 'h itil dV. N" __- -
56
Driver Manager Background Data Sheet
Name:_Company:
1. Your Month and Year of Birth: MonthYear
2. Your Sex: (circle one)
3. Indicate yourhighest level ofeducation:
1. Male2. Female
(circle one) 1. Did not finish highschool
2. High school graduate3. Some college/technical
training4. College graduate
Major?5. Graduate Degree
Major?
4. How long have you worked: At YearsMonths
In trucking: YearsMonths
5. How many truck drivers doyou currently supervise?
6. How many units (trucks) areyou currently responsible for?
drivers
units
7. Have you ever driven (circle one) 1. Yesa truck (over the road)for a living? 2. No
8. Have you ever servedin the military?
(circle one) 1. Yes2. NoRank:
9. Have you ever worked (circle one) 1. Yesin a "service" type job? 2. No
10. Marital Status: (circle one) 1.2.3.4.
Single (never married)MarriedDivorced/SeparatedWidowed
YearsMonths
57
11. How far do you travel toget to work? miles
12. Do you own or rent (circle one)your home?
13. Do you smokecigarettes?
(circle one)
1.2.
1.2.
Own homeRent home
YesNo
14. Hobbies andRecreational Activities
15. Career: What do you see yourself doing 5 years fromnow? What type of job?=111111
1 I | I l
'96yka A fi57 'd;e s c " ' 4v+r :W "} t ' - '4i-a. z, 4w .. : a L. ..
APPENDIX D
WATSON-GLASER CRITICAL THINKING APPRAISAL
DIMENSION DEFINITION
58
59
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal
Scale Definitions
1. Inference: Discriminating among degrees of truth orfalsity of inferences drawn from givendata.
2. Recognition of Assumptions: Recognizing unstatedassumptions or presuppositions in givenstatements or assertions.
3. Deduction: Determining whether certain conclusionsnecessarily follow from information ingiven statements of premises.
4. Interpretation: Weighing evidence and deciding ifgeneralizations or conclusions based ongiven data are warranted.
5. Evaluation of Arguments: Distinguishing betweenarguments that are strong and relevant toa particular question at issue.
Source: Watson & Glaser, 1980.
,a, . uNxar «., 4wl..., Ms 1.c u,.... -.... s. . ... . .. _. .. ,. ... t, , , r 7A. &<iF;
APPENDIX E
CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY
DIMENSION DEFINITIONS
60
"
61
CPI Scale Definitions
Scale Name and Implications of Higher and Lower Scores
Do (Dominance)Higher: confident, assertive, dominant, task orientedLower: unassuming, not forceful
Cs (Capacity for Status)Higher: ambitious, wants to be a success, independentLower: unsure of self, dislikes direct competition
Sy (Sociability)Higher: sociable, likes to be with people, friendlyLower: shy, feels uneasy in social situations, prefers
to keep in the background
Sp (Social Presence)Higher: self-assured, spontaneous, a good talker, not
easily embarrassedLower: cautious, hesitant to assert own views or
opinions, not sarcastic or sharp-tongued
Sa (Self-acceptance)Higher: has good opinion of self, sees self as talented,
and as personally attractiveLower: self-doubting, readily assumes blame when things
go wrong, often thinks others are better
In (Independence)Higher: self-sufficient, resourceful, detachedLower: lacks self-confidence, seeks support from others
Em (Empathy)Higher: comfortable with self and well-accepted by
others, understands the feelings of othersLower: ill at ease in many situations; unempathic
Re (Responsibility)Higher: responsible, reasonable, takes duties seriouslyLower: not overly concerned about duties and
obligations; may be careless or lazy
So (Socialization)Higher: comfortablyy accepts ordinary rules and
regulations; finds it easy to conformLower: resists rules and regulations; finds it hard to
conform; not conventional
. ,: ..
,y . :r:=:....,. _ tii .. _. _ o '6"sf35u:, v. :r.:tir. , ,,,., .. . u __,.. -. .... r; , _ ,ro7F yP
62
Sc (Self-control)Higher: tries to control emotions and temper; takes pride
in being self-disciplinedLower: has strong feelings and emotions and makes little
attempt to hide them; speaks out when angry orannoyed
Gi (Good Impression)Higher: wants to make a good impression; tries to do what
will please othersLower: insists on being himself or herself even if this
causes friction or problems
Cm (Communality)Higher: fits in easily; sees self as a quite average personLower: sees self as different from others; does not have
the same ideas, preferences, etc., as others
Wb (Well-being)Higher: fells in good physical and emotional health;
optimistic about the futureLower: concerned about health and personal problems;
worried about the future
To (Tolerance)Higher: is tolerant of others' beliefs and values, even
when different from or counter to own beliefsLower: not tolerant of others; skeptical about what they
say
Ac (Achievement via Conformance)Higher: has strong drive to do well; likes to work in
settings where tasks and expectations are clearlydefined
Lower: has difficulty in doing best work in situationswith strict rules and expectations
Ai (Achievement via Independence)Higher: has strong drive to do well; likes to work in
settings that encourage freedom and individualinitiative
Lower: has difficulty in doing best work in situationsthat are vague, poorly defined, and lacking inclear-cut methods and standards
Ie (Intellectual Efficiency)Higher: efficient in use of intellectual abilities; can
keep on at a task where others might get bored ordiscouraged
Lower: has a hard time getting started on things andseeing them through to completion
law
63
Py (Psychological-mindedness)Higher: more interested in why people do what they do
than in what they do; good judge of how peoplefeel and what they think about things
Lower: more interested in the practical and concretethan the abstract; looks more at what people dothan what they feel or think
Fx (Flexibility)Higher: flexible; likes change and variety; easily bored
by routine life and everyday experience; may beimpatient and even erratic
Lower: not changeable; likes a steady pace and well-organized life; may be stubborn and even rigid
F/M (Femininity/Masculinity)Higher: sympathetic, helpful; sensitive to criticism;
tends to interpret events from a personal pointof view; often feels vulnerable
Lower: decisive, action-oriented; takes the initiative;not easily subdued; rather unsentimental
fr dird .,,, . . . $ ... ..
. A FY SP,+_:.: 4 l aii G .4un1 :.:.: W:. , .,,rH . i4+a ',ue o.
APPENDIX F
RATER TRAINING FOR DRIVER MANAGER
PERFORMANCE RATING FORM
64
65
Rater Training for Driver Manager
Performance Rating Form
***READ THIS FIRST***
Job incumbents display relative strong points and weak
points in their performance, and your ratings should
reflect those strengths and weaknesses. Some common rater
errors that should be avoided are listed below.
1. Rate behavior not ability--rate what the driver
manager does not what you think he/she is capable of
doing.
2. Just because a person is strong in one area doesn't
mean they are strong in all areas. This is a
classification error called "Halo" error. Don't let
one attribute affect how you rate all other areas.
3. People are naturally different--your ratings should
be, too. The impact of lumping everyone around one
part of the scale will not let your star performers
stand out, and will give your poor performers a place
to hide--use the whole scale.
*Please remember that these ratings are for research
purposes only.
APPENDIX G
COVER LETTER TO DRIVER MANAGERS
66
Vt
--- -
67
MemorandumFort Worth, TexasMay 4, 1989
TO: Driver Managers/Driver Coordinators
FROM:
RE: Driver Manager Research Project
is currently researching the Driver Manager position inthe hopes that when hiring future Driver Managers, we willbe able to predict if a job applicant will be successful.To get at this goal we are seeking answers to the followingquestions:
1. Who are our current driver managers and what kindsof life experiences are typical among the drivermanagers?
2. Are there similarities in the personalities of thedriver managers?
To complete this project we need your help. First, there isa background data sheet enclosed with this package. It asksa number of questions about you such as your educationalbackground, whether or not you have ever driven over theroad, etc.
Next, if you have not had the opportunity to take part in theManagement Assessment process previously, this will be yourchance. The enclosed inventories are widely used in thistype of research and will NOT be put in your personnel file.
You will never be identified individually in this study. Youwill, however, receive a personal copy of the study summaryof the results if you take part.
Because there are not many driver managers, we really do needyour help. However, if you have strong objections to takingpart in this project, you can decline to take part.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free totalk to your local Vice President-Operations, or call me inFort Worth at
Thank you for your help.
Director-Human Resources,
APPENDIX H
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF
DRIVER MANAGER ON THE
WESMAN PCT AND THE WATSON-GLASER CTA
68
.1.:_ .Js :+rviSH '-.-Y;tw.: ;,.r + - r:isr,;.r , .. axa ', '6 ei,.cw-
69
Means and Standard Deviations on Two Ability Tests
Groups
A B C D Total(n=15) (n=3) (n=18) (n=12) (n=48)
The Wesman PCT
Mean 22.47 16.33 17.06 20.25 19.50
SD 6.66 4.93 5.92 7.86 6.88
Watson-Glaser CTA
Mean 58.43 51.00 49.00 56.25 53.89
SD 10..12 5.00 9.58 9.76 10.20
Note. A, B, C, and D are carriers that represent different
areas of the country.
APPENDIX I
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF
DRIVER MANAGER ON THE
CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY
70
-R ...- e~~-k a t, .}. ' s r.,.ay. ,. ,n.: 1,a1 _ __. _,. .= . ... u43 ki 6t rlbt W.4w N9"..
71
California Psychological Inventory Mean and Standard
Deviation in Standard Scores
Males (n = 39) Females (n = 9)Mean SD Mean SD
Do
Cs
Sy
Sp
Sa
In
Em
Re
So
Sc
Gi
Cm
Wb
To
Ac
Ai
Ie
Py
Fx
F/M
60.59
51.82
53.54
48.19
52.73
52.97
51.65
51.22
51.03
51.08
53.24
56.19
51.11
47.16
53.89
48.65
47.95
51.89
43.19
46.68
11.68
8.52
9.67
11.47
9.73
7.35
10.91
8.98
10.20
9.44
11.18
5.74
7.88
7.28
9.11
6.51
8.62
8.60
7.26
10.15
57.44
46.67
53.44
50.00
56.67
53.78
49.44
46.78
48.56
47.78
50.22
55.44
48.00
45.22
51.11
46.89
46.44
45.56
44.00
46.89
10.71
10.02
7.63
7.98
9.51
7.90
7.47
7.36
7.65
6.94
9.09
5.25
5.27
8.83
8.04
4.48
5.27
8.02
7.05
13.55_._...,
REFERENCES
Abt, L. E. (1949). A test battery for selecting technical
magazine editors. Personnel Psychology, 2, 75-91.
Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing (5th ed.).
New York: MacMillan.
Ash, P. (1960a). Validity information exchange, No. 13-
05. Personnel Psychology, 13, 454.
Ash, P. (1960b). Validity information exchange, No. 13-
06. Personnel Psychology, 13, 454.
Barrett, G. V., Phillips, J. S., & Alexander, R. A.
(1981). Concurrent and predictive validity designs: A
critical reanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6,
1-6.
Bass, B. M., & Barrett, G. V. (1984). People, work, and
organizations (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bemis, S. E. (1968). Occupational validity of the General
Aptitude Test Battery. Journal of Applied Psychology,
52, 240-249.
Bogard, H. M. (1960). Union and management trainees--A
comparative study of personality and occupational
choice. Journal of Applied Psycholog, 44, 56-63.
Borman, W. C. (1975). Effects of instructions to avoid
halo error on reliability and validity of performance
evaluation ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6_0,
556-560.
72wt : ;+.',I. ts. «' S da"MF6Tl#+.:..yn :+-iW ftt : .'. .::..-r - ;. ... i',.. - hh. .J. :.::.
73
Cascio, W. F. (1987). Applied psychology in personnel
management (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Crites, J. 0. (1972). Review of test: Watson-Glaser
Critical Thinking Appraisal. In 0. K. Burson (Ed.), The
sevent mental measurements yearbook (Vol. 2). New
Jersey: Gryphon Press.
Cronbach, L. J. (1959). Review of the California
Psychological Inventory. In 0. K. Buros (Ed.), The
fifth mental measurements yearbook. New Jersey:
Gryphon Press.
Freyd, M. (1923). Measurement in vocational selection:
An outline of research procedures. Journal of Personnel
Research, 2, 377-385.
Ghiselli, E. E. (1973). The validity of aptitude tests in
personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 26, 461-477.
Goodstein, L. D., & Schrader, W. J. (1963). An
empirically-derived managerial key for the California
Psychological Inventory. Journal of Applied Psychology,
47, 42-45.
Gough, H. G. (1987). Manual for the California
Psychological Inventory (rev. ed.). California:
Consulting Psychologists.
Grant, D. L. (1980). Issues in personnel selection.
Professional Psychologist, 11, 369-384.
: .. L.'+ :Y -4X11 j 'v +Y.. . ... i.11b .- ". Nw.. ., a. L1r. r. ... .. 1 a :V
74
Guion, R. M. (1965). Personnel testing. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Guion, R. M. (1976). Recruiting, selection, and job
placement. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 777-828).
Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Guion, R. M. (1987). Changing views for personnel
selection research. Personnel Psychology, 723, 199-213.
Guion, R. M., & Cranny, C. J. (1982). A note on
concurrent and predictive validity designs: A critical
reanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 239-244.
Guion, R. M., & Gibson, W. M. (1988). Personnel selection
and placement. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 349-
374.
Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of
personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel
Psychology, .18, 135-164.
Hakstian, R. A., Woolsey, L. K., & Schroeder, M. L.
(1987). Validity of a large-scale assessment battery in
an industrial setting. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 42, 165-178.
Helmstadter, G. C. (1972). Review of test: Watson-Glaser
Critical Thinking Appraisal. In 0. K. Buros (Ed.), The
seventh mental measurements yearbook (Vol. 2). New
Jersey: Gryphon Press.
.- <.... .:r4 >b..,.ax:,.:,rW . - i' ',.,.. > ... air,. .. ,. ... _ ..
1 4 NMI 11m..
75
Heneman, H. G. (1975, June). Research roundup. Personnel
Administrator, 64.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1983). Quantifying the
effects of psychological intervention on employee
performance and work force productivity. American
Psychologist, 38, 473-478.
Kelly, E. L. (1965). Review of the California
Psychological Inventory. In 0. K. Buros (Ed.), The
sixth mental measurements yearbook. New Jersey: Gryphon
Press.
Kleiman, L. S., & Faley, R. H. (1985). The implications
of professional and legal guidelines for court decisions
involving criterion-related validity: A review and
analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 803-833.
Labor Letter (1984, August 28). Wall Street Journal, 1.
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating.
Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107.
Latham, G. P., Wexley, K. N. Pursell, E. D. (1985).
Training managers to minimize rating errors in the
observation of behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
.60, 550-555.
Lee, R., Miller, K. J., & Graham, W. K. (1982).
Corrections for restriction of range and attenuation in
criterion-related validation studies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 67, 637-639.
76
Lent, R. H., Aurbach, H. A., & Levin, L. S. (1971).
Research design and validity assessment. Personnel
Psychology, 24, 247-274.
Lent, R. H., Levin, L. S., Aurbach, H. A. (1971).
Predictors, criteria, and significant results.
Personnel Psychology, 2, 519-533.
Linn, R. L., Harnisch, D. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1981).
Corrections for range restriction: An empirical
investigation of conditions resulting in conservative
corrections. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 655-
663.
Magargee, E. I. (1972). The California Psychological
Inventory handbook. London: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Modjeski, R. B., & Michael, W. B. (1983). An evaluation
by a panel of psychologists of the reliability and
validity of two tests of critical thinking. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 4.4, 1187-1197.
Moskal, B. S. (1989). Shippers in for a rude awakening.
Industry Week, 38, 20-21.
Munsterberg, H. (1913). Psychology and Industrial
Efficiency. New York: Riverside Press.
Parisher, D., Rios, B., & Reilly, R. R. (1979).
Psychologists and psychnological services in urban
police departments: A national survey. Professional
Psychologist, 10, 6-7.
-""'4"W
77
Rawls, D. J., & Rawls, J. R. (1968). Personality
characteristics and personal history data of successful
and less successful executives. Psychological Reports,
23, 1032-1034.
Ryan, A. M., & Sackett, P. R. (1987). A survey of
individual assessment practices by I/O psychologists.
Personnel Psychologist, 40, 455-488.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1981). Employment
testing--old theories and new research findings.
American Psychologist, 36, 1128-1137.
Schmitt, N., Gooding, R. Z., Noe, R. A., & Kirsch, M.
(1984). Metaanalyses of validity studies published
between 1964 and the investigation of study
characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 31, 407-422.
Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of
expectations: An approach to the construction of
unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 47, 149-155.
Spooner, L. (1985). Personality tests help when hiring.
Savings Institution, 106, 158-162.
Sussman, M., & Robertson, D. U. (1986). The validity of
validity: An analysis of validation study designs.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 711, 461-468.
Taylor, G. S., & Zimmerer, T. W. (1988). Personality
tests for potential employees: More harm than good.
Personnel Journal, 61, 60-64.
w..
78
Tziner, A. (1984). A fairer examination of rating scales
when used for performance appraisal in a real
organization setting. Journal of Occupational Behavior,
5, 103-112.
Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Manual for the
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. New York:
The Psychological Corporation.
Wesman, A. G. (1965). Manual for the Wesman Personnel
Classification Test (Rev. ed.). New York: The
Psychological Corporation.
Westbrook, B. W., & Sellers, J. R. (1967). Critical
thinking, intelligence, and vocabulary. Educational
Psychological Measurement, 27, 443-446.
Wysocki, B. (1981, February 25). More companies try to
spot leaders early, guide them to the top. Wall Street
Journal.
Zdep, S. M. (1969). Intragroup reinforcement and its
effect on leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 4, 284-298.
