You seem to have a moderate level of tolerance for change

endnotes

1. F.N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research (New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1964), p. 11.

2. J.B. Miner, Theories of Organizational Behavior (Hinsdale, IL: Dryden, 1980), pp. 7-9.

3. Ibid., pp. 6-7. 4. J. Mason, Qualitative Researching (London: Sage, 1996).

5. A. Strauss and J. Corbin (eds.), Grounded Theory in Practice (London: Sage Publications, 1997); B.G. Glaser and A. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Co, 1967).

6. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research, p. 13.

7. Strauss and Corbin, Grounded Theory in Practice; Glaser and Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory.

8. W.A. Hall and P. Gallery, “Enhancing the Rigor of Grounded Theory: Incorporating Reflexivity and Relationality:’ Qualitative Health Research, 11 (March 2001), pp. 257-72.

9. P. Lazarsfeld, Survey Design and Analysis (New York: The Free Press, 1955).

10. This example is cited by D.W. Organ and T.S. Bateman, Organiza- tional Behavior, 4th ed. (Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1991), p. 42.

11. Ibid., p. 45. 12. R.I. Sutton and A. Hargadon, “Brainstorming Groups in Context:

Effectiveness in a Product Design Firm:’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (1996), pp. 685-718.

483

 

 

Very accurate description of me = 4

Moderately accurate = 3

Neither accurate nor inaccurate = 2

Moderately inaccurate = 1

Very inaccurate description of me = 0

Very accurate description of me = 0

Moderately accurate = 1

Neither accurate nor inaccurate = 2

Moderately inaccurate = 3

Very inaccurate description of me = 4

FOR STATEMENT ITEMS

FOR STATEMENT ITEMS 1, 2, 6, 8, 9:

3, 4, 5, 7, 10:

Strongly Agree = 6

Moderately Agree = 5

Slightly Agree = 4

Slightly Disagree = 3

Moderately Disagree = 2

Strongly Disagree = 1

Strongly Agree = 1

Moderately Agree = 2

Slightly Agree = 3

Slightly Disagree = 4

Moderately Disagree = 5

Strongly Disagree = 6

FOR STATEMENT ITEMS

FOR STATEMENT 1, 2, 4, 5, 6:

ITEM 3:

Scoring Keys for Self-Assessment Activities The following pages provide the scoring keys for the self- assessments that are presented in each chapter of this text- book. These self-assessments, as well as the self-assessments summarized in this book, can be scored automatically in the Connect Library.

CHAPTER 2: SCORING KEY FOR THE EXTRAVERSION—INTROVERSION SCALE Scoring Instructions: Use the table below to assign numbers to each box you checked. For example, if you checked “Moderately Inaccurate” for statement #1 (“I feel comfort- able around people”), you would assign a “1” to that state- ment. After assigning numbers for all 10 statements, add up the numbers to estimate your extraversion-introversion personality.

Interpreting Your Score: Extraversion characterizes people who are outgoing, talkative, sociable, and assertive. It in- cludes several facets, such as friendliness, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity level, excitement-seeking, and cheer- fulness. The opposite of extraversion is introversion, which refers to the personality characteristics of being quiet, shy, and cautious. Extraverts get their energy from the outer world (people and things around them), whereas introverts get their energy from the internal world, such as personal reflection on concepts and ideas. Introverts are more in- clined to direct their interests to ideas rather than to social events.

This is the short version of the IPIP Introversion- Extraversion Scale, so it estimates overall introversion- extraversion but not specific facets within the personality dimension. Scores range from 0 to 40. Low scores indicate

introversion; high scores indicate extraversion. The norms in the following table are estimated from results of early adults (under 30 years old) in Scotland and undergradu- ate psychology students in the United States. However, introversion-extraversion norms vary from one group to the next; the best norms are likely based on the entire class you are attending or on past students in this course.

IPIP Extraversion-Introvevsioro Novans

IPIP EXTRAVERSION- INTROVERSION

INTERPRETATION

 

35-40 High extraversion

 

28–34 Moderate extraversion

 

21-27 In-between extraversion and introversion

 

7-20 Moderate introversion

 

0-6

High introversion

CHAPTER 3: SCORING KEY FOR THE WORK CENTRALITY SCALE Scoring Instructions: Use the table below to assign numbers to each box you checked. For example, if you checked “Moderately Disagree” for statement #3 (“Work should be only a small part of one’s life”), you would assign a “5” to that statement. After assigning numbers for all 6 statements, add up your scores to estimate your level of work centrality.

Interpreting Your Score: The work centrality scale mea- sures the extent that work is an important part of the indi- vidual’s self-concept. People with high work centrality define themselves mainly by their work roles and view

484

 

 

Appendix B 485

nonwork roles as much less significant. Consequently, peo- ple with a high work centrality score likely have lower com- plexity in their self-concept. This can be a concern because if something goes wrong with their work role, their non- work roles are not of sufficient value to maintain a positive self-evaluation. At the same time, work dominates our work lives, so those with very low scores would be more of the exception than the rule in most societies.

Scores range from 6 to 36 with higher scores indicating higher work centrality. The norms in the following table are based on a large sample of Canadian employees (average score was 20.7). However, work centrality norms vary from one group to the next. For example, the average score in a sample of nurses was around 17 (translated to the scale range used here).

CHAPTER 4: SCORING KEY FOR THE EMOTION L INTELLIGENCE SELF-ASSESSMENT Scoring Instructions: Use the table below to assign numbers to each box you checked. Insert the number for each state- ment on the appropriate line in the scoring key below the table. For example, if you checked “Moderately disagree” for statement #1 (“I tend to describe my emotions accu- rately”), you would write a “2” on the line with “(1)” under- neath it. After assigning numbers for all 16 statements, add up your scores to estimate your self-assessed emotional in- telligence on the four dimensions and overall score.

Work Centrality Norms FOR STATEMENT ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14,

FOR STATEMENT ITEMS 16: 5, 8, 12, 15:

Strongly Agree = 6 Strongly Agree = 1 WORK CENTRALITY SCORE INTERPRETATION

Moderately Agree = 5 Moderately Agree = 2 29-36 High work centrality Slightly Agree = 4 Slightly Agree = 3 24-28 Above average work centrality Slightly Disagree = 3 Slightly Disagree = 4 18-23 Average work centrality Moderately Disagree = 2 Moderately Disagree = 5 13-17 Below average work centrality Strongly Disagree = 1 Strongly Disagree = 6 6-12 Low work centrality

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE DIMENSION CALCULATION YOUR SCORE

Self -awareness of emotions (1) (7) (9) (12)

Self-management of emotions

(2) (5) (10) (14)

Awareness of others’ emotions

(3) (6) (13) (15)

Management of others’ emotions

(4) (8) (11) (16)

Emotional Intelligence Total Add up all dimension scores =

Interpreting Your Scores: This scale measures the four di- mensions of emotional intelligence described in this book. The four dimensions are defined as follows:

• Self-awareness of emotions. The ability to perceive and understand the meaning of your own emotions.

• Self-management of emotions. The ability to manage your own emotions. It includes generating or suppress- ing emotions and displaying behaviors that represent desired emotions in a particular situation.

• Awareness of others’ emotions. The ability to perceive and understand the emotions of other people, includ- ing the practices of empathy and awareness of social phenomena such as organizational politics.

• Management of others’ emotions. The ability to man- age other people’s emotions. It includes generating or

suppressing emotions in other people, such as reducing their sadness and increasing their motivation.

Scores on the four emotional intelligence self-assessment dimensions range from 4 to 20. The overall score ranges from 16 to 80. Norms vary from one group to the next. The following table shows norms from a sample of 100 MBA students in two countries (Australia and Singa- pore). For example, the top 10th percentile for self-aware- ness is 19, indicating that 10 percent of people score 19 or 20, and 90 percent score below 19 on this dimension. Keep in mind that these scores represent self-percep- tions. Evaluations from others (such as through 360- degree feedback) may provide a more accurate estimate of your emotional intelligence on some (not necessarily all) dimensions.

 

 

Very accurate description of me = 4

Moderately accurate = 3

Neither accurate nor inaccurate = 2

Moderately inaccurate = 1

Very inaccurate description of me = 0

Very accurate description of me = 0

Moderately accurate = 1

Neither accurate nor inaccurate = 2

Moderately inaccurate = 3

Very inaccurate description of me = 4

FOR STATEMENT ITEMS

FOR STATEMENT ITEMS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15:

1, 7, 10, 11, 13:

PERSONAL NEEDS DIMENSION YOUR SCORE CALCULATION

Need for achievement:

Need for social approval:

+ + + + + + — (2) (3) (6) (7) (9) (12) (14)

+—+ + + + +

(1) (4) (5) (8) (10) (11) (13) (15)

486 Appendix B

Emotional Intelligence Self-Assessment Norms

PERCENTILE SELF-AWARENESS

OF EMOTIONS MANAGEMENT OF OWN EMOTIONS

AWARENESS OF OTHERS’ EMOTIONS

MANAGEMENT OF OTHERS’ EMOTIONS TOTAL

Average Score 16.3 14.8 14.5 14.7 60.3

Top 10th percentile 19 18 17 18 70

Top 25th percentile 18 17 16 16 66

Median (50th percentile) 16 15 15 15 60

Bottom 25th percentile 15 13 13 13 56

Bottom 10th percentile 14 11 11 10 51

CHAPTER 5: SCORING KEY FOR THE PERSONAL NEEDS QUESTIONNAIRE

Scoring Instructions: Use the table at the right to assign numbers to each box you checked. Insert the number for each statement on the appropriate line in the scoring key below. For example, if you checked “Moderately inaccu- rate” for statement #1 (“I would rather be myself than be well thought of”), you would write a “3” on the line with “(1)” underneath it. After assigning numbers for all 15 statements, add up your scores to estimate your results for the two learned needs measured by this scale.

Although everyone has the same innate drives, our secondary or learned needs vary based on our personal- ity, values, and self-concept. This self-assessment pro- vides an estimate of your need strength on two learned needs: need for achievement and need for social approval.

Interpreting Your Need for Achievement Score: This scale, formally called “achievement striving:’ estimates the ex- tent to which you are motivated to take on and achieve challenging personal goals. This includes a desire to per- form better than others and to reach one’s potential. The scale ranges from 0 to 28. How high or low is your need for achievement? The ideal would be to compare your score with the collective results of other students in your class. Otherwise, the table at the right offers a rough set of norms with which you can compare your score on this scale.

Need for Achievement Norms

24 28 High need for achievement

18-23 Above average need for achievement

12-17 Average need for achievement

6-11 Below average need for achievement

0-5 Low need for achievement

Interpreting Your Need for Social Approval Score: The need for social approval scale estimates the extent to which you

 

 

Appendix B

are motivated to seek favorable evaluation from others. Founded on the drive to bond, the need for social approval is a secondary need, because people vary in this need based on their self-concept, values, personality, and possibly so- cial norms. This scale ranges from 0 to 32. How high or low is your need for social approval? The ideal would be to compare your score with the collective results of other stu- dents in your class. Otherwise, the following table offers a rough set of norms on which you can compare your score on this scale.

Need for Social Approval Norms

NEED FOR SOCIAL APPROVAL SCORE

INTERPRETATION

 

28-32 High need for social approval

 

20-27 Above average need for social approval

 

12-19 Average need for social approval

 

6-11 Below average need for social approval

 

0-5 Low need for social approval

CHAPTER 6: SCORING KEY FOR THE MONEY ATTITUDE SCALE Scoring Instructions: This instrument presents three dimen- sions with a smaller number of items from the original Money Attitude Scale. To calculate your score on each dimension, write the number that you circled in the scale over the corresponding item number in the scoring key at the top of the right column. For example, write the num- ber you circled for the scale’s first statement (“I sometimes purchase things . ..”) on the line above “Item 1.” Then add up the numbers for that dimension. The money attitude total score is calculated by adding up all scores on all dimensions.

487

MONEY ATTITUDE DIMENSION CALCULATION

YOUR SCORE

Money as + + +- (1) (4) (7) (10) Power/

Prestige

Retention

(2) (5) (8) (11) Time

Money

(3) (6) (9) (12) Anxiety

Total score Add up all dimension scores

Interpreting Your Score: The three Money Attitude Scale di- mensions measured here, as well as the total score, are de- fined as follows:

• Money as Power/Prestige: People with higher scores on this dimension tend to use money to influence and impress others.

• Retention Time: People with higher scores on this di- mension tend to be careful financial planners.

• Money Anxiety: People with higher scores on this di- mension tend to view money as a source of anxiety.

• Money Attitude Total: This is a general estimate of how much respect and attention you give to money.

Scores on the three Money Attitude Scale dimensions range from 4 to 20. The overall score ranges from 12 to 60. Norms vary from one group to the next. The follow- ing table shows how a sample of MBA students scored on the Money Attitude Scale. The table shows percentiles, that is, the percentage of people with the same or lower score. For example, the table indicates that a score of “13” on the retention scale is quite low because only 25 per- cent of students would have scored at this level or lower (75 percent scored higher). However, a score of “12” on the prestige scale is quite high because 75 percent of stu- dents score at or below this number (only 25 percent scored higher).

PERCENTILE PRESTIGE SCORE RETENTION SCORE ANXIETY SCORE TOTAL SCORE

Average Score 9.89 14.98 12.78 37.64

Top 10th percentile 13 18 16 44

Top 25th percentile 12 17 15 41

Median (50th percentile) 10 15 13 38

Bottom 25th percentile 8 13 11 33

Bottom 10th percentile 7 11 8 29

 

 

TEAM ROLE AND DEFINITION

INTERPRETATION

Encourager: People who score high on this dimension have a strong tendency to praise and support the ideas of other team members, thereby showing warmth and solidarity with the group.

Gatekeeper: People who score high on this dimension have a strong tendency to encourage all team members to participate in the discussion.

Harmonizer: People who score high on this dimension have a strong tendency to mediate intragroup conflicts and reduce tension.

Initiator: People who score high on this dimension have a strong tendency to identify goals for the meeting, including ways to work on those goals.

Summarizer: People who score high on this dimension have a strong tendency to keep track of what was said in the meeting (i.e., act as the team’s memory).

High: 12 and above

Medium: 9 to 11

Low: 8 and below

High: 12 and above

Medium: 9 to 11

Low: 8 and below

High: 11 and above

Medium: 9 to 10

Low: 8 and below

High: 12 and

above

Medium: 9 to 11

Low: 8 and below

High: 10 and above

Medium: 8 to 9

Low: 7 and below

488 Appendix B

CHAPTER 7: SCORING KEY FOR THE CREATIVE PERSONALITY SCALE Scoring Instructions: Assign a positive point (+1) after each of the following words that you checked off in the self-assessment:

Capable Inventive Clever Original Confident Reflective Egotistical Resourceful Humorous Self-confident Individualistic Sexy Informal Snobbish Insightful Unconventional Intelligent Wide interests

Assign a negative point (-1) after each of the following words that you checked off in the self-assessment:

Affected Honest Cautious Mannerly Commonplace Narrow interests Conservative Sincere Conventional Submissive Dissatisfied Suspicious

Next, sum the positive and negative points. Interpreting Your Score: This instrument estimates your creative potential as a personal characteristic. The scale recognizes that creative people are intelligent and persis- tent and possess an inventive thinking style. Creative personality varies somewhat from one occupational group to the next. The table below provides norms based on undergraduate and graduate university/college students.

CREATIVE PERSONALITY SCORE INTERPRETATION

Above +9

You have a high creative personality

+1 to +9

You have an average creative personality

Below +1

You have a low creative personality

CHAPTER 8: SCORING KEY FOR THE TEAM ROLES PREFERENCE SCALE Scoring Instructions: Write the scores circled for each item on the appropriate line in the scoring key at the top of the right column (statement numbers are in parentheses), and add up each scale.

TEAM ROLES DIMENSION CALCULATION

YOUR SCORE

Encourager + + (6) (9) (11)

Gatekeeper + + (4) (10) (13)

Harmonizer + + (3) (8) (12)

Initiator -I- (1) (5) (14)

Summarizer + + = (2) (7) (15)

Interpreting Your Score: The five team roles measured here are based on scholarship over the years. The following table defines these five roles and presents the range of scores for high, medium, and low levels of each role. These norms are based on results from a sample of MBA students.

Team Role Preference Definitions and Norms

CHAPTER 9: SCORING KEY FOR THE ACTIVE LISTENING SKILLS INVENTORY

Scoring Instructions: Use the first table below to score the response you marked for each statement. Then, in the scoring key, write that score on the line corresponding to

 

 

Appendix B 489

the statement number (statement numbers are in paren- theses) and add up each subscale. For example, if you checked “Seldom” for statement #1 (“I keep an open mind . .”), you would write a “2” on the line with “(1)” underneath it. Calculate the overall Active Listening Inventory score by summing all subscales.

FOR STATEMENT ITEMS FOR STATEMENT ITEMS 4, 7, 11: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12:

Rarely/never = 5

Rarely/never = 1

Seldom = 4

Seldom = 2

Sometimes = 3

Sometimes = 3

Often = 2

Often 4

Almost always = 1

Almost always = 5

ACTIVE LISTENING

YOUR DIMENSION CALCULATION

SCORE

Sensing + + (1) (4) (7) (10)

Evaluating + + + — (2) (5) (8) (11)

Responding — — — — =

(3) (6) (9) (12)

Active listening Add up all dimension

total scores =

Interpreting Your Score: The three active listening dimen- sions are defined as follows:

• Sensing: Sensing is the process of receiving signals from the sender and paying attention to them. Active

listeners improve sensing in three ways. They postpone evaluation by not forming an opinion until the speaker has finished, avoid interrupting the speaker’s conversa- tion, and remain motivated to listen to the speaker.

• Evaluating: This dimension of active listening includes understanding the message meaning, evaluating the message, and remembering the message. To improve their evaluation of the conversation, active listeners empathize with the speaker—they try to understand and be sensitive to the speaker’s feelings, thoughts, and situation. Evaluation also improves by organizing the speaker’s ideas during the communication episode.

• Responding: Responding, the third dimension of active listening, is feedback to the sender, which motivates and directs the speaker’s communication. Active listeners show interest through nonverbal cues (eye contact, nod- ding, symbiotic facial expression) and by sending back channel signals (e.g., “I see”). They also clarify the mes- sage, such as by summarizing or rephrasing the speaker’s ideas at appropriate breaks (“So you’re saying that . ?”).

Scores on the three Active Listening dimensions range from 4 to 20. The overall score ranges from 12 to 60. Norms vary from one group to the next. The following table shows norms from a sample of 80 MBA students in two countries (Australia and Singapore). For example, the top 10th per- centile for sensing is 17, indicating that 10 percent of people score 17 or above and 90 percent score below 17 on this dimension. Keep in mind that these scores represent self-perceptions. Evaluations from others (such as through 360-degree feedback) may provide a more accurate esti- mate of your active listening on one or more dimensions, particularly the responding dimension, which is visible to others.

Active Listening Norms

SENSING SCORE EVALUATING SCORE RESPONDING SCORE TOTAL SCORE

Average Score 14.6 14.4 16.6 45.6

Top 10th percentile 17 17 19 52

Top 25th percentile 16 16 18 48

Median (50th percentile) 14 14 16 45

Bottom 25th percentile 13 13 15 42

Bottom 10th percentile 11 12 14 39

CHAPTER 10: SCORING KEY FOR THE COWORKER INFLUENCE SCALE Scoring Instructions: To calculate your scores on the Coworker Influence Scale, write the number circled for each statement on the appropriate line in the scoring key below (statement numbers are in parentheses), and add up each scale.

Interpreting Your Score: Influence refers to any behavior that attempts to alter someone’s attitudes or behavior. There are several types of influence, including the eight measured by this instrument. This instrument assesses your preference for using each type of influence on coworkers and other people at a similar level as your position in the organization.

• Persuasion: Persuasion refers to using logical and emo- tional appeals to change others’ attitudes. This is one of

 

 

490 Appendix B

• TEAM ROLES DIMENSION CALCULATION

YOUR SCORE

Persuasion (1) (9) (17)

Silent Authority (2) (10) (18)

Exchange + = (3) (11) (19) •

Assertiveness (4) (12) (20)

Information Control —

(5) (13) (21) Coalition Formation •

(6) (14) (22) Upward Appeal =

(7) (15) (23) Ingratiation =

(8) (16) (24)

the most widely used influence strategies toward others in any position (e.g., coworkers, bosses, subordinates).

• Silent Authority: The silent application of authority occurs when someone complies with a request because her or she is aware of the requester’s legitimate or expert power. This influence tactic is very subtle, such as making the target person aware of the status or expertise of the person making the request.

• Exchange: Exchange involves the promise of benefits or resources in exchange for the target person’s compli- ance with your request. This tactic also includes re- minding the target of past benefits or favors, with the expectation that the target will now make up for that debt. Negotiation is also part of the exchange strategy.

• Assertiveness: Assertiveness involves actively applying legitimate and coercive power to influence others. This tactic includes demanding that the other person com- ply with your wishes, showing frustration or impa- tience with the other person, and using threats of sanctions to force compliance.

Information Control: Information control involves explicitly manipulating others’ access to information for the purpose of changing their attitudes and/or be- havior. It includes screening out information that might oppose your preference and embellishing or highlight- ing information that supports your position. According to one survey, more than half of employees believe their coworkers engage in this tactic. Coalition Formation: Coalition formation occurs when a group of people with common interests band together to influence others. It also exists as a perception, such as when you convince someone else that several people are on your side and support your position. Upward Appeal: Upward appeal occurs when you rely on support from people higher up the organiza- tional hierarchy. This support may be real (senior management shows support) or logically argued (you explain how your position is consistent with company policy).

• Ingratiation: Ingratiation is a special case of impres- sion management in which you attempt to increase the perception of liking or similarity to another person in the hope that he or she will become more supportive of your ideas. Flattering the coworker, becoming friend- lier with the coworker, helping the coworker (with expectation of reciprocity), showing support for the coworker’s ideas, and asking for the coworker’s advice are all examples of ingratiation.

Scores on the eight Coworker Influence Scale dimen- sions range from 3 to 15. Higher scores indicate that the person has a higher preference for and use of that particu- lar tactic. Norms vary from one group to the next. The fol- lowing table shows norms from a sample of 70 MBA students in two countries (Australia and Singapore). For example, the top 10th percentile for assertiveness is 9, indi- cating that 10 percent of people score 9 or above and 90 percent score below 9 on this dimension. Keep in mind that these scores represent self-perceptions. Evaluations from others (such as through 360-degree feedback) may provide a more accurate estimate of your preferred influ- ence tactics.

Coworker Influence Scale Norms

PERCENTILE PERSUASION SILENT AUTHORITY EXCHANGE ASSERTIVENESS

Average Score 12.6 10.0 7.3 5.4 Top 10th percentile 15 13 10 9 Top 25th percentile 14 12 9 6 Median (50th percentile) 13 10 8 5 Bottom 25th percentile 12 9 6 4 Bottom 10th percentile 10 7 4 3

(continued)

 

 

Appendix B

491

I I

Average Score 6.8 7.4 8.1 8.9

Top 10th percentile 10 10 11 13

Top 25th percentile 9 9 10 12

Median (50th percentile) 7 8 8 10

Bottom 25th percentile 5 6 6 7

Bottom 10th percentile 4 4 5 4

CHAPTER 11: SCORING KEY FOR THE CONFLICT HANDLING SCALE Scoring Instructions: To estimate your preferred conflict han- dling styles, use the first table below to score the response you marked for each statement. Then, in the scoring key below, write that score on the line corresponding to the state- ment number (statement numbers are in parentheses) and add up each subscale. For example, if you checked “Seldom” for statement #1 (“I went along with the others . . .”), you would write a “2” on the line with “(1)” underneath it.

FOR ALL STATEMENT ITEMS

Rarely/never = 1

Seldom = 2

Sometimes = 3

Often = 4

Almost always = 5

CONFLICT HANDLING YOUR DIMENSION CALCULATION SCORE

Yielding — — — —_ (1) (7) (16) (20)

Compromising +—+ — -= —+ (2) (10) (11) (17)

Forcing + + + (5) (8) (12) (15)

Problem solving = (3) (9) (13) (18)

Avoiding —+ + (4) (6) (14) (19)

Interpreting Your Score: This instrument measures your pref- erence for and use of the five conflict handling dimensions:

Conflict Handling Scale Norms

• Yielding: Yielding involves giving in completely to the other side’s wishes, or at least cooperating with little or no attention to your own interests. This style involves making unilateral concessions, unconditional promises, and offering help with no expectation of reciprocal help.

• Compromising: Compromising involves looking for a position in which your losses are offset by equally val- ued gains. It involves matching the other party’s con- cessions, making conditional promises or threats, and actively searching for a middle ground between the in- terests of the two parties.

• Avoiding: Avoiding tries to smooth over or avoid con- flict situations altogether. It represents a low concern for both self and the other party. In other words, avoid- ers try to suppress thinking about the conflict.

• Forcing: Forcing tries to win the conflict at the other’s expense. It includes “hard” influence tactics, particu- larly assertiveness, to get one’s own way.

• Problem Solving: Problem solving tries to find a mu- tually beneficial solution for both parties. Information sharing is an important feature of this style, because both parties need to identify common ground and potential solutions that satisfy both (or all) of them. Scores on the five Conflict Handling Scale dimensions

range from 4 to 20. Higher scores indicate that the person has a higher preference for and use of that particular conflict han- dling style. Norms vary from one group to the next. The fol- lowing table shows norms from a sample of 70 MBA students in two countries (Australia and Singapore). For example, the top 10th percentile for yielding is 14, indicating that 10 per- cent of people score 14 or above and 90 percent score below 14 on this dimension. Keep in mind that these scores represent self-perceptions. Evaluations from others (such as through 360- degree feedback) may provide a more accurate estimate of your preferred conflict handling style.

PERCENTILE YIELDING COMPROMISING AVOIDMIG FORCING PROBLEM SOLVING

Average Score 11.0 13.8 10.2 13.5 15.9

Top 10th percentile 14 17 14 17 19

Top 25th percentile 12 16 12 15 17

Median (50th percentile) 11 14 10 13 16

Bottom 25th percentile 10 12 8 12 15

Bottom 10th percentile 8 10 6 10 13

 

 

Strongly disagree = 5

Disagree = 4

Neutral = 3

Agree = 2

Strongly agree = 1

Strongly disagree = 1

Disagree = 2

Neutral = 3

Agree = 4

Strongly agree = 5

Tall Hierarchy (H)

Formalization (F)

Centralization (C)

Total score (Mechanistic)

=

(1) (4) (10) (12) (15) (H)

—+—+—+ + (2) (6) (8) (11) (13) (F)

—+ — + — + + (3) (5) (7) (9) (14) (C)

Add up all dimension scores (H + F + C) = Total

Not at all = 3

Not at all = 0

A little = 2

A little = 1

Somewhat = 1

Somewhat = 2

Very much = 0

Very much = 3

CONFLICT HANDLING

YOUR DIMENSION

CALCULATION

SCORE

492 Appendix B

CHAPTER 12: SCORING KEY FOR THE ROMANCE OF LEADERSHIP SCALE Scoring Instructions: Use the table below to score the re- sponse you marked for each statement. Then, add up the scores to calculate your Romance of Leadership score. For example, if you marked “Disagree” for statement #1 (“Even in an economic …”), you would write a “2” on the line with “(1)” underneath it.

FOR STATEMENT ITEMS FOR STATEMENT ITEMS 3, 5, 7, 9: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10:

+ +—+—+

11 I (2) (3) (4) (5)

+ + — + — + — (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Interpreting Your Score: Romance of leadership is a phe- nomenon in which followers (and possibly other stake- holders) want to believe that leaders make a difference in the organization’s success. People with a high romance of leadership score attribute the causes of organizational events much more to its leaders and much less to the econ- omy, competition, and other factors beyond the leader’s short-term control. This scale ranges from 10 to 50, with higher scores indicating that the person has a higher ro- mance of leadership. The following norms are derived from a large sample of European employees with an average age in their mid-30s and work experience averaging about 15 years. However, these norms should be viewed with cau- tion, because the romance of leadership scale is a recent development and norms for any instrument can vary from one group to the next.

Romance of Leadership Norms

ROMANCE OF LEADERSHIP SCORE INTERPRETATION

 

38-50 Above average romance of leadership

 

27-37 Average romance of leadership

 

10-26 Below average romance of leadership

CHAPTER 13: SCORING KEY FOR ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE PREFERENCE SCALE Scoring Instructions: Use the table below to assign numbers to each response you marked. Insert the number for each statement on the appropriate line in the scoring key. For example, if you checked “Not at all” for item #1 (“A person’s career ladder . . .”), you would write a “0” on the line with “(1)” underneath it. After assigning numbers for all 15 state- ments, add up the scores to estimate your degree of prefer- ence for a tall hierarchy, formalization, and centralization. Then calculate the overall score by summing all scales.

FOR STATEMENT ITEMS FOR STATEMENT ITEMS 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13

Interpreting Your Score: The three organizational structure dimensions and the overall score are defined below, along with the range of scores for high, medium, and low levels of each dimension based on a sample of MBA students.

Organizational Structure Preference Subscale Definitions and Norms

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE PREFERENCE SUBSCALE DEFINITION INTERPRETATION

Tall hierarchy: People with high scores on this dimension prefer to work in orga- nizations with several levels of hierar- chy and a narrow span of control (few employees per supervisor).

High: 11 to 15

Medium: 6 to 10

Low: Below 6

(continued)

Total score:

 

 

Formalization: People with high scores on this dimension prefer to work in orga- nizations where jobs are clearly defined with limited discretion.

Centralization: People with high scores on this dimension prefer to work in orga- nizations where decision making occurs mainly among top management rather than spread out to lower-level staff.

Total Score (Mechanistic): People with high scores on this dimension prefer to work in mechanistic organizations,

whereas those with low scores prefer to work in organic organizational struc- tures. Mechanistic structures are char- acterized by a narrow span of control and high degree of formalization and centralization. Organic structures have a wide span of control, little formaliza-

tion, and decentralized decision making.

High: 30 to 45

Medium: 22 to 29

Low: Below 22

High: 12 to 15

Medium: 9 to 11

Low: Below 9

High: 10 to 15

Medium: 7 to 9

Low: Below 7

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE PREFERENCE SUBSCALE DEFINITION

INTERPRETATION

Control Culture: This culture values the role of senior executives to lead the or- ganization. Its goal is to keep everyone aligned and under control.

Performance Culture: This culture val- ues individual and organizational perfor- mance and strives for effectiveness and efficiency.

Relationship Culture: This culture val- ues nurturing and well-being. It consid- ers open communication, fairness, teamwork, and sharing a vital part of organizational life.

Responsive Culture: This culture values its ability to keep in tune with the exter- nal environment, including being com- petitive and realizing new opportunities.

High: 6

Medium: 4 to 5

Low: 0 to 3

High: 3 to 6

Medium: 1 to 2

Low: 0

High: 5 to 6

Medium: 3 to 4

Low: 0 to 2

High: 6

Medium: 4 to 5

Low: 0 to 3

CORPORATE CULTURE DIMENSION

SCORE AND DEFINITION

INTERPRETATION

Strongly Agree = 7

Moderately Agree = 6

Slightly Agree = 5

Neutral — 4

Slightly Disagree = 3

Moderately Disagree = 2

Strongly Disagree = 1

Strongly Agree = 1

Moderately Agree = 2

Slightly Agree = 3

Neutral = 4

Slightly Disagree = 5

Moderately Disagree = 6

Strongly Disagree = 7

Appendix B 493

Corporate Culture Preference Subscale Definitions and Norms

CHAPTER 14: SCORING KEY FOR THE CORPORATE CULTURE PREFERENCE SCALE Scoring Instructions: On each line below, write in a “1” if you circled the statement and a “0” if you did not. Then add up the scores for each subscale.

Control Culture (2a) (5a) (6b) (8b) (11b)

Performance Culture (lb) (3b) (5b) (6a) (7a)

Relationship Culture (la) (3a) (4b) (8a) (10b)

Responsive Culture (2b) (4a) (7b) (9a) (10a)

CHAPTER 15: SCORING KEY FOR THE TOLERANCE OF CHANGE SCALE Scoring Instructions: Use the table below to assign num- bers to each box you checked. For example, if you checked “Moderately disagree” for statement #1 (“I gen-

erally prefer the unexpected . . .”), you would write a “2” beside that statement. After assigning numbers for all 10 statements, add up your scores to estimate your tolerance for change.

(12b)

(11a)

(12a)

(9b)

Interpreting Your Score: These corporate cultures may be found in many organizations, but they represent only four of many possible organizational cultures. Also, keep in mind that none of these cultures is inherently good or bad. Each is effective in different situations. The four corporate cultures are defined in the table at the top of the right col- umn, along with the range of scores for high, medium, and low levels of each dimension based on a sample of MBA students.

FOR STATEMENT ITEMS FOR STATEMENT ITEMS 1, 3, 7, 8, 10: 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 :

 

 

494 Appendix B

Interpreting Your Score: This instrument is formally known as the “tolerance of ambiguity” scale. The original scale, de- veloped 50 years ago, has since been revised and adapted. The instrument presented here is an adaptation of these re- vised instruments. People with a high tolerance for ambigu- ity are comfortable with uncertainty and new situations. These are characteristics of the hyperfast changes occurring in many organizations today. This instrument ranges from 10 to 70, with higher scores indicating a higher tolerance for change (i.e., higher tolerance for ambiguity). The table at the right indicates the range of scores for high, medium, and low tolerance for change. These norms are estimates from recent studies using some or all of these items.

TOLERANCE FOR CHANGE SCORE

INTERPRETATION

 

50-70 You seem to have a high tolerance for change.

 

30-49 You seem to have a moderate level of tolerance for change.

 

10-29 You seem to have a low degree of toler- ance for change. Instead, you prefer stable work environments.

"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"

ORDER NOW