The Effect of Training in Verbal Self-Guidance on


Performance Effectiveness in a MBA Program



TRAVOR C. BROWN,


GARY P. LATHAM,



Abstract


The present field experiment examined the effects of


training in verbal self-guidance (VSG) and a motivational


intervention, goal setting, on the performance effectiveness


of students in a MBA program. Performance effectiveness


was assessed in terms of outcome (i.e., GPA) and


behavioural (i.e., interpersonal skills) measures as well as


a composite criterion (performance effectiveness). MBA


students (n = 126) were randomly assigned to a 2 (VSG


training/control) x 2 (goal setting/do your best) factorial


design. The results revealed a main effect for VSG on performance


effectiveness. There was an interaction effect


such that participants who were trained in VSG and set


goals had the highest level of performance effectiveness.


A subsequent analysis revealed that the main effect for


VSG on performance was spurious due to an ordinal


interaction effect. Hence, VSG may be most effective


when combined with goal setting.



Verbal self-guidance (


VSG) involves people verbalizing

their thought processes as they consider a problem,


discover information relevant to this problem,


generate potential solutions, consider the advantages


and disadvantages of each alternative solution, and


implement what is considered to be the best solution


(Brown, 2003). Thus,


VSG refers to self-talk, but one’s

self-discourse can vary widely, depending on what


aspect of one’s functioning one seeks to influence.


Meichenbaum (1971, 1975, 1977), a clinical psychologist,


developed a


VSG training method, which

he labeled functional self-talk. This training teaches


people to systematically talk themselves through


ways to overcome obstacles to performing effectively.


In essence, this technique involves training people to


change their negative, dysfunctional self-statements


(e.g., I can’t solve this problem) to positive, functional


self-statements (e.g., I can break this problem into


parts and solve one part at a time). The training program


consists of a three-step process whereby a participant:


1) observes a clinician model effective selfstatements


that guide the person to the actions needed


to take to master a task, 2) performs a task while


verbally instructing oneself, and 3) performs a task


while verbally instructing oneself covertly.



Research Concerning


VSG

Much of the research concerning


VSG is limited to

studies of children in clinical, counseling or educational


settings. In these settings,


VSG has been shown

to have a positive effect on task mastery (i.e., ability).


For example, training in


VSG reduces errors made by

impulsive children (Meichenbaum & Goodman,


1971), increases reading and listening comprehension


skills of children (Schunk & Rice, 1984, 1985), and


improves the creativity of students (Meichenbaum,


1975).


The purpose of the present study was to examine


the external validity of


VSG training for adults performing

organizationally relevant tasks, namely, peo-


ple in a


MBA program. A potential boundary condition

for


VSG may be the age of the participants.

Previous studies showing the effectiveness of


VSG

have primarily involved children. Children may be


more amenable to learning to focus on and change


their self-talk than are adults. As William James


noted more than a century ago, habits are formed


early in life. By adulthood, they are “set like plaster”


(James, 1892, p. 375).


A second boundary variable for the effectiveness


of


VSG may be the setting. Adults in an MBA program

may be less willing to acquire the skills necessary for


changing their dysfunctional self-talk than are clients


in clinical/counseling settings. As Halpern (2004)


noted, an adult’s motivation to learn a new skill


depends in part on the characteristics of the environment.


A clinical/counseling setting may be more


amenable for teaching


VSG skills than an organizational

setting as the former allows the person to conceal


difficulties mastering a new task, and will not


threaten a person’s status among group members. A


pilot test of


VSG training in a previous year’s MBA

class revealed that many people derisively labeled


the process as “psycho-babble.” Nevertheless, the


potential theoretical significance of


VSG is that it may

be a self-regulation process that explains in part a


person’s performance effectiveness in an organizational


setting. As Vygotsky (1962) noted, inner speech


is the primary vehicle for thought and self-direction.


The practical significance of a positive finding is that



VSG


is an inexpensive training technique. As such,

VSG


may prove to be a relatively straightforward,

self-administered intervention.


To date, there have been very few


VSG training

studies involving adults in organizational settings.


Moreover, in two of those studies


VSG was imbedded

within other training interventions. Neck and Manz


(1996) used the “thought self-leadership technique”


(


TSL) that included VSG and mental imagery. The

training had no effect on job performance.


Waung (1995) found no significant effects for


VSG

in her study of two orientation-training programs. In


addition to


VSG, the treatment package included cognitive

restructuring and a realistic job preview. The


comparison group received a realistic job preview


that included inculcating coping behaviours. Four


weeks post-training, contrary to Waung’s hypotheses,


there were no significant differences between the


two conditions in terms of anxiety, intention to


remain in, and commitment to, the organization.


Moreover,


VSG participants experienced higher voluntary

turnover than those in the comparison group.


One potential explanation for these findings, offered


by Waung, is that


VSG participants reported that they

had received more negative information than did the


participants in the comparison group.


A second explanation, not reported by Waung


(1995), was the short duration of the training program,


namely a maximum of 35 minutes. This time


period may have increased participants’ awareness of


their negative self-statements without allowing for


the acquisition of requisite skills for changing these


statements to positive self-guidance. Third, the comparison


group was not a control group per se as these


participants were given training on coping behaviours.


This training may have bolstered the dependent


variables.


Using


VSG only, Millman and Latham (2001) found

that seven, two-hour training sessions, conducted


over a two and a half week period, resulted in a significantly


greater number of displaced managers


finding jobs within nine months of training, relative


to participants in the control group. Two limitations


of the study included the use of a quasi-experimental


design, as not all participants were randomly


assigned to conditions, and the small sample size.


Brown (2003) also used a quasi-experimental


design to examine the effect of


VSG training on team

performance on simulated tasks. Performance


increased significantly relative to a control group. As


the unit of analysis was the team, the effect of


VSG on

an individual’s performance was not examined.


Based on the fact that two of these four studies


found that training in


VSG affects performance positively

in organizational contexts, we hypothesized


that


VSG should improve the performance of adults

in a MBA program.


Goal Setting


None of the previously cited


VSG studies in clinical/

counseling or industrial organizational psychology


examined the explicit effects of goals on performance.


Yet, goal setting is implicitly imbedded in



VSG


. VSG requires an individual to turn specific negative

self-statements (e.g., I can’t find a job) to positive


self-statements (e.g., I can update my resume) in


order to attain a specific end goal (e.g., employment).


In the present study, goal setting was made explicit in


order to determine if it improves the effectiveness of



VSG


. However, because of theory and empirical

research, we did not hypothesize a main effect for


goal setting. As a theory of motivation, goal setting


assumes that: 1) the person has the requisite knowledge


and ability to perform the task, and 2) goal setting


activates this task knowledge (Locke, 2000;


Locke & Latham, 1990). Therefore, a difficult goal


cues the individual’s attention to choose to exert


effort and persistence to attain it, resulting in a main


Verbal Self-Guidance 3


effect for goals on performance. When a task is complex


and the person lacks the requisite task knowledge


or skill, setting a specific, difficult performance


goal can have a deleterious effect on performance.


For example, Kanfer and Ackerman (1989), in a field


study of Air Force trainees who were mastering a


flight simulator, found that during the declarative


stage of learning, participants need to focus their


attention on understanding ways to perform the task.


Hence, setting a specific, difficult goal decreased performance


as it diverted participants’ attention away


from discovering and encoding the necessary strategies


to perform the task. They concluded that goal


setting is effective only after individuals encode and


store the necessary task rules, as well as integrate the


sequencing of motor and cognitive processes for performing


the task effectively. These findings have been


replicated by others (Seijts & Latham, 2001; Winters


& Latham, 1996).


The assumption underlying the present study is


that first year


MBAs enter a new environment where

they have yet to develop the necessary behavioural


skills to work effectively in a team setting. The


MBA

program differs from a traditional undergraduate


program in at least three ways. First, unlike most


undergraduate programs, some classes are only several


weeks long while others run a full semester.


Second, the people with whom they regularly interact


have widely different academic backgrounds


(e.g., engineering, law, liberal arts, physical sciences,


education, health sciences, nursing, etc.). Many


MBA

students do not have an undergraduate degree in


business. Third, and most importantly, the


MBA program

requires extensive teamwork. Group assignments


are an integral part of most, if not all, courses.


People are permanently assigned to a team for at


least an entire semester, and sometimes for a full academic


year. Furthermore, there is fierce competition


among people for grades as many organizational


recruiters use grade point average (


GPA) as a criterion

for selection. The business school puts great pressure


on


MBA students to secure jobs with prestigious firms

as starting salaries and place of employment can


impact both the prestige and the ranking of a business


school in the popular press. Adding to the


expectations of, and stress placed on


MBA students, is

the emphasis by recruiters on evidence of interpersonal


(i.e., teamwork) skills. Thus adapting to the


environment of the


MBA program requires the acquisition

of interpersonal skills, a high GPA, and the


motivation to do so.



Goal Setting and


VSG

Based on the extant research, we hypothesized


that


VSG, with its emphasis on the discovery and

affirmation of one’s ability (e.g., “Ah, all I have to do


to succeed is…”), increases a person’s performance.


Based on Locke’s (2000) conclusions, we hypothesized


an interaction effect such that participants who


receive training in


VSG and set a specific high goal

have the highest level of performance effectiveness.


Locke argued that on a complex task there is typically


an interaction effect between task knowledge and


goals. Specifically, he argued that this interaction


occurs when: 1) the goal alone cannot activate existing


task knowledge because the person lacks such


knowledge and 2) this task knowledge is derived


from other sources (e.g., peers, professors), which


when combined with goals, results in the highest


level of performance in the high goal, high task


knowledge condition. Thus, we hypothesized that


the motivational effects of goal setting are beneficial


in this study only when training in


VSG enables an

individual to develop and affirm behaviours to overcome


obstacles to his/her performance.


VSG facilitates

the discovery of task behaviours because it


focuses attention on discovering and encoding the


necessary strategies to perform the task at hand.


Performance Criteria


There has been a long debate in the literature concerning


the choice of an appropriate performance criterion


(see Latham & Wexley, 1994). The performance


criteria in the present study were dictated by the setting.



MBA


programs have been criticized by both the

media (Jack, 2001), as well as the Association to


Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, which is the


accreditation body for


MBA programs in North

America (Olian et al., 2002), for developing people


who graduate with strong analytical yet weak interpersonal


skills. Business leaders and educators have


demanded that this situation be corrected (Mason,


1992; Olian et al., 2002; Pfeffer, 1998).


The MBA director in the business school, where


this study took place, assigns


MBA students to teams.

Both MBA students from previous years, as well as


faculty, had observed that poor interpersonal skills


had an adverse effect on students’ academic performance


in the program, namely


GPA. Sue-Chan and

Latham (2004) found that


MBA students lack the

knowledge and skills necessary to improve themselves


as team-players. Consequently, both an outcome


and a behavioural measure of performance


effectiveness were used to evaluate the effect of the



VSG


training program on the person’s performance.

The outcome measure in the present study was the


student’s


GPA. As noted earlier, many organizational

recruiters use this measure as a basis for hiring grad-


4 Brown and Latham


uating


MBA students, and faculty use GPA as an indicator

of a student’s mastery of course material.


Hence, this measure is highly relevant to a


MBA student.

A limitation of an outcome measure is that it is


often influenced by factors beyond the individual’s


control (e.g., quality of teaching; number of exams


scheduled in a given day; idiosyncratic grading bias


of instructors). Thus, a behavioural measure of a person’s


effectiveness was also used in this study, namely,


the person’s interpersonal skills. Interpersonal


skills are defined as the ability to communicate, work


collaboratively with others, manage time, empower/


delegate, as well as motivate/persuade self and


others (de Janasz, Dowd, & Schneider, 2002; Whetten


& Cameron, 2002).


A limitation of behavioural criteria is their susceptibility


to errors in observation (e.g., leniency, halo,


contrast effects). Multiple operationalization of performance


effectiveness in terms of an outcome and


behavioural measure decreases the likelihood of a


Type II error. In


MBA programs in general, and in this

MBA


program in particular, interpersonal skills and

GPA


are interrelated. This is because a student’s GPA

is affected by how well individuals perform as team


members in their respective teams. Team assignments


influence 40-80% of the person’s course grade


in each course of the


MBA program. Previous

research has shown that behavioural performance


measures, developed through a systematic job analysis,


correlate with performance outcome measures


(Latham & Wexley, 1977; Taggar & Brown, 2001).


Thus a composite criterion was also used in this


study as this measure is the norm for making administrative


decisions (e.g., hiring, promoting) in organizational


settings (Schmidt & Kaplan, 1971).


In summary, the present study differs from the


four earlier


VSG studies in industrial-organizational

psychology (Brown, 2003; Millman & Latham, 2001;


Neck & Manz, 1996; Waung, 1995) in that it used an


experimental rather than a quasi-experimental


design, where there was no confounding of treatments,


and where the consequences for the individual


were “real.” People were randomly assigned to


conditions. The effect of goal setting was examined


explicitly rather than implicitly. The outcomes for the


person included an appraisal of interpersonal skills


by peers as well as grades assigned by faculty members.


The evaluation of the training program included


both behavioral and outcome performance measures


as well as a composite criterion. Thus the probability


of making a Type II error regarding the effect


of the intervention in bringing about a change in the


person’s effectiveness was minimized. Two hypotheses


were tested.



Hypothesis 1: People trained in VSG have significantly


higher performance than those who are not trained in


VSG.


Hypothesis 2: There is an interaction effect between VSG


and goal setting on performance.



Method


Sample


Adults enrolled in the first year


MBA class (n =

126) of a Canadian university were randomly


assigned to a 2 (


VSG, control) x 2 (goal, do your best)

factorial design. This number represented 95.46% of


the students (n = 132). On average, these MBAs were


29 years old, male (59.50%) with 4 1/2 years of fulltime


employment experience. Participants did not


differ significantly from nonparticipants on sex, age,


or work experience.


Procedure


The procedure used in this experiment consisted


of the following steps: 1) development of a behavioural


measure of interpersonal skills, 2) random


assignment to experimental conditions, 3) goal setting


intervention, 4) training in


VSG, and 5) data collection.

Interpersonal skills. Interpersonal skills (see Table 1)


were assessed using behavioural observation scales


(


BOS; Latham & Wexley, 1977, 1994) developed by

Sue-Chan and Latham (2004). Using a previous firstyear



MBA


class, a job analysis, namely, the critical

incident technique (Flanagan, 1954), was conducted


with faculty who teach in the


MBA program as well

as


MBA students. This job analysis asked people to

recall examples of both effective and ineffective teamwork


or interpersonal behaviours that led to high or


low


GPA in the program. These behaviours were used

to develop


BOS. BOS were used because they are reliable

and valid, and they correlate positively with performance


outcome measures (e.g., Latham, 1997;


Latham & Wexley, 1977; Taggar & Brown, 2001).


Assignment to teams. Each year the director of the



MBA


program assigns each student to a team. Steps

are taken to ensure that the teams are relatively balanced


in terms of sex, quantitative/qualitative


undergraduate degrees, and international/national


students. Group size in the present study ranged


from five to six individuals. The tasks performed by


these teams were similar to those performed by


teams in other organizational settings. Specifically,


these tasks included multidisciplinary analyses and


presentations, as well as consulting projects based on


Verbal Self-Guidance 5


organizational site visits. As consulting groups, the


teams met client organizations, analyzed data, made


recommendations, and presented their findings to


key stakeholders. These team projects, as noted earlier,


represented a minimum of 40% of the final grade


in each MBA course.


The roles of team members were highly interdependent.


Each team was identifiable by a name (they


also had web folders, mailboxes, etc.) and each had


total authority on project planning regarding assignment


of tasks to individuals among the team. Each


team also made decisions that had important consequences


for them, both as a team and as individuals


within the team, in terms of


GPA. The only directions

given to the teams by faculty members were the task


assignments and their completion dates.


Experimental conditions. A 2 (


VSG/control) by 2

(goal setting/no goal setting) factorial design was


used in this experiment. All participants were shown


the


BOS and informed that the interpersonal skills

contained on them were important for performing


well in the


MBA program. Given the use of teams in

the business school, behaviours on the


BOS were

labeled teamwork skills. Immediately following the


presentation of the BOS, participants were invited to


participate in the study. Specifically, they were


informed that: a) the purpose of the study was to


assess the effectiveness of different approaches to


performing effectively in the MBA program; b) it was


important not to share training program details with


other people as it could cause contamination; and c)


we randomly assigned participants to conditions in


order to control for extraneous variables. This was


done without regard to a person’s team as the unit of


analysis in this study was the individual. At no time


did we share our hypotheses with participants or faculty


members.


Goal setting. Participants (n = 62) in the goal-setting


condition met in a large room for approximately


30 minutes. There they were explicitly asked to set a


specific, difficult goal for the


BOS score that they

would work to attain as individuals. They then met


in small groups of four to six people to discuss their


rationale for their goal because discussing one’s goal


can increase goal commitment (Locke & Latham,


1990). At the end of the discussion, they were


informed that they could modify their goals based on


this conversation. Goal difficulty and goal commitment


were assessed at this time. We did not require a


goal for


GPA as all of them wanted a “perfect” 4.0.

Participants in the no goal setting, do your best


(


DYB) condition (n = 64) met in a separate room.

They, too, received the


BOS. Rather than setting a specific,

difficult goal, they were urged to do their best to


demonstrate the interpersonal skills listed on the


BOS

for the reasons cited earlier. They then met in groups


of four to six people to discuss the importance of


doing their best to demonstrate the


BOS items.

Consistent with previous goal-setting studies (see


Locke & Latham, 1990), these people did not complete


questionnaires concerning a goal as they were


not in a goal-setting condition.



Training in


VSG. Three weekly 90-minute VSG

training sessions were provided. In the first session,


immediately following the goal-setting intervention,


the participants (n = 60) discussed ways that their


positive (i.e., functional) and negative (i.e., dysfunctional)


self-talk affected their behaviour in the


MBA

program. Each person identified three dysfunctional


self-statements concerning their performance. These


statements were the focus of training in


VSG.

Consistent with Meichenbaum (1975, 1977), people


were taught to change their dysfunctional self-statements


to functional self-talk. A three-step process


was used. Specifically, they were trained to become


aware of negative self-statements (e.g., “I just can’t


seem to motivate my team-mates”), then discover for


themselves specific ways they could improve the situation,


and finally to develop positive self-statements


to guide their actions (e.g., “I have already learned to


give positive feedback…I can use positive feedback


to energize my team-mates.”).


Consistent with Meichenbaum and Goodman


(1971), each statement was initially modeled by the


trainer. Then each trainee repeated the statement


overtly. Finally, each trainee repeated the statement


covertly. The session ended with the trainees receiving


logbooks to record their self-statements concerning


their performance over the coming weeks.


The second session contained three components.


First, the trainer reviewed the


VSG technique. Second,

trainees reviewed their logbooks and gave examples


of areas in which they had engaged in functional or


dysfunctional self-talk concerning their performance.


Third, for each dysfunctional statement, the trainees


applied the


VSG technique.

The third session replicated the second session. In


addition, trainees identified obstacles to successfully


using


VSG to increase their performance in the MBA

program. As a group, participants discussed these


obstacles and strategized ways to overcome them.


The session ended with questionnaires assessing


trainees’ reactions to the


VSG training.

In order to minimize demand effects, people in the


control condition (n = 66), who were not trained in



VSG


, took part in a simulation exercise where they

assumed the roles of members of a city council. This


council was asked to review several proposals concerning


the use of a building donated to the city. The


rationale given to the participants in this control condition


was that the simulation was designed to teach


them the importance of working effectively as individuals


in teams. Participants had 90 minutes to


reach group consensus concerning the proposal that


they would accept.


Data collection. At the end of the semester manipulation


checks were conducted. Prior to receiving their


grades, peers assessed one another’s interpersonal


skills anonymously. The dean’s office calculated the



GPA


for each individual.

Measures



VSG


manipulation checks. VSG manipulation checks

included trainee reactions and


VSG skills usage.

Reactions were assessed using a 10-item, 5-point


Likert-type scale (e.g., the extent to which


VSG participants:

a) would recommend this training to others,


b) were satisfied with the training, and c) found the


trainer helpful). In assessing


VSG usage, all participants

(


VSG and control) were asked the extent to

which they were aware of their self-statements, monitored


their self-statements, generated positive selfstatements,


and converted negative statements to


positive ones using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 =


strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).


Goal-setting manipulation checks. Consistent with


the recommendations of Locke and Latham (1990),


people in the goal condition completed questionnaires


assessing actual goal difficulty level (i.e.,


desired


BOS score), perceived goal difficulty level,

goal specificity, and goal commitment. The latter


three measures were assessed using a 5-point Likerttype


scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 =


strongly agree. Perceived goal difficulty and specificity


were assessed at the end of the study using questions


adapted from Winters and Latham (1996).


Specifically, two goal difficulty questions asked if


participants saw their goal as difficult (Question 1) or


easy (Question 2, reverse scored). Goal specificity


was measured using three questions, namely, the


extent to which participants believed that their goal


Verbal Self-Guidance 7


was specific (Question 1), vague (Question 2, reverse


scored), or uncertain (Question 3, reverse scored). A


person’s goal was operationalized in terms of


BOS

score; goal commitment was assessed using the fiveitem


goal commitment scale developed by Klein,


Wesson, Hollenbeck, Wright, and DeShon (2001).


Performance. The behavioural measure of an individual’s


interpersonal skills was anonymously


assessed by peers. Specifically, peers rated the frequency


with which they observed a team member


performing each behaviour using a 5-point scale (0 =


almost never and 4 = almost always). These peers


worked with the person throughout the entire semester.


Thus, peers were arguably the most important


source of information regarding a person’s behaviour.


The outcome measure of a person’s performance


(i.e.,


GPA) was measured by faculty who were

neither aware of the purpose of the study, nor the


experimental condition to which a person had been


randomly assigned. The composite criterion, performance


effectiveness, was created by summing each


person’s z-score for


GPA and BOS.

Results



VSG


Manipulation Checks

Responses indicated that the


VSG participants

were satisfied with the training (


M = 39.46; SD = 5.02;

maximum score = 50, α = .79). Moreover, they reported


greater use of


VSG skills (M = 19.28; SD = 3.51;

maximum score = 25; α = .91) than those in the control


(


M = 15.43; SD = 4.91) condition, F(1, 108) = 22.00,

p < .001.


Goal-Setting Manipulation Checks


Goal-setting manipulation checks revealed that


the mean goal set by goal-setting participants was am


47.07 (


SD = 4.08; maximum score = 56), that these

participants were highly committed to their goals (


M

= 21.12;


SD = 2.94; α = .71; maximum score = 25), and

that they perceived their goals to be both specific (


M

= 11.42;


SD = 2.30; α = .66; maximum score = 15) and

difficult (


M = 7.98; SD = 1.44; α = .65; maximum score

= 10).


ANOVA confirmed that there were no significant

differences in these four measures between the


goal-setting participants in the


VSG condition and

those in the control condition,


F(1, 58) = 1.50, p > .05;

F


(1, 57) = .15, p >. 05; F(1, 48) = .03, p > .05; F(1, 48) =

.01, p > .05, respectively.



Performance



GPA


. GPA was available for 121 participants; 5 had

left the


MBA program. GPA ranged from 2.68 to 3.89

(


M = 3.44; SD = .21; maximum score = 4). Consistent

with the first hypothesis, a 2 x 2


ANOVA revealed a

main effect for


VSG on GPA, F(1, 117) = 6.60, p < .01. In

addition, there was an interaction effect between


VSG

and goal setting,


F(1, 117) = 4.02, p < .05. Thus,

Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported. No main effect


was found for goal setting,


F(1, 117) = .01, p > .05. The

means and standard deviations are shown in Table 2.


The interaction effect is presented in Figure 1.


Bobko (1986) argued that a spurious main effect


can result in a 2 x 2


ANOVA when an ordinal interaction

is present. Given our hypotheses that the participants


in the


VSG/goal-setting condition would have

the highest performance level, we tested the interaction


using Bobko’s ordinal interaction technique. This


technique involves two planned contrasts: 1) testing


the equality of the means of the three noninteraction


conditions (i.e.,


VSG/DYB; Control/ Goal Setting;

Control/


DYB) using a one-way analysis; and 2) comparing

the means of the interaction (i.e.,


VSG/goal

setting) versus the average of the remaining three


conditions using a planned t-test. Contrast one was


not significant,


F(2, 90) = 2.01, p > .05); thus, there was

no significant difference among the means of the


three conditions. Contrast two was significant, t(119)


= 2.51, p < .05. Thus, there was an ordinal interaction


with the


VSG/goal-setting condition having the highest

level of


GPA relative to the other three study conditions.

Interpersonal skills. For the behavioural measure of


performance,


BOS scores were obtained for 117 participants

(response rate = 92.86%).The level of agreement


among raters was calculated using the average


interrater agreement statistic, r


wg, (James, Demaree,

& Wolf, 1993). The r


wg, for the 11 behavioural items

ranged from .71 to .84; the average level of agreement


across the 11 items was .77. The median number of


Verbal Self-Guidance 9


peer ratings per person was four. Cronbach’s alpha


coefficient for the 11-item


BOS was .90. The grand

mean of the 11-item


BOS was 36.26 (SD = 4.17; maximum

score = 44).


The correlation between GPA and interpersonal


skills was significant (r = .43, p < .01). Consistent with


Hypothesis 2, a 2 x 2


ANOVA revealed a significant

interaction effect,


F(1, 113) = 3.97, p < .05. There were

no main effects for either


VSG or goal setting on interpersonal

skills,


F(1, 113) = .01, p >.05; F(1, 113) = .22, p

> .05, respectively. The means and standard deviations


of this


ANOVA are shown in Table 2; the interaction

effect is presented in Figure 2. Again, Bobko’s


(1986) ordinal interaction analysis was conducted.


For contrast one,


ANOVA revealed no significant differences

among the three conditions of


VSG only, goal

setting only, and Control/


DYB, F(2, 88) = .99, p > .05.

In addition, there was no significant difference


between the means of the


VSG/goal setting and the

mean of the other three conditions, t(115) = 1.41, p =


.16.


Composite criterion. A 2 x 2


ANOVA of the composite

criterion of performance effectiveness revealed a


main effect for


VSG, F(1, 111) = 4.11, p < .05. There was

also an interaction effect between


VSG and goal setting

,


F(1, 111 ) = 5.12, p < .05. Thus, Hypotheses 1 and

2 were supported. No main effect was found for goal


setting,


F(1, 111) = .28, p > .05. The means and standard

deviations are shown in Table 2. The interaction


effect is presented in Figure 3.


Again, Bobko’s (1986) ordinal interaction analysis


was conducted to see if the main effect for


VSG was

spurious. For contrast one,


ANOVA revealed no significant

differences among the three conditions of



VSG


only, goal setting only, and Control/DYB, F(2, 87)

= .88, p > .05. For contrast two, there was a significant


difference between the mean of the


VSG/goal-setting

condition versus the mean of the other three conditions,


t(113) = 2.66, p < .01. Thus, there was evidence


of an ordinal interaction for the composite criterion.


Discussion


The theoretical and practical significance of this


experiment is three-fold. First, of significance to both


goal-setting theory and training in


VSG is the interaction

effect found for


VSG and goal setting on performance.

The lack of a main effect for goal setting alone


is consistent with previous findings that when people


are in a learning mode, setting a specific, difficult


performance goal does not improve performance


(Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Seijts & Latham, 2001). In


the present study, the task of mastering the MBA curriculum


and the requisite interpersonal skills,


required more than motivation in terms of choice,


effort, and persistence; it required learning interpersonal


skills. This finding supports Locke’s (2000) conclusion


that the highest level of performance occurs


when participants have high task knowledge and


high motivation. In the present study, performance


was highest in the condition where participants were


trained to use


VSG and to set a high performance goal

that motivated them to apply their newly acquired


knowledge and skill.


Second, this study, when examined in conjunction


with the four previous industrial-organizational psychology


studies involving


VSG, suggests three tentative

answers to the question: “When is


VSG training

effective?” First,


VSG appears to be a skill that

requires multiple training sessions of several hours


duration. In the present study, and that of both


Brown (2003) and Millman and Latham (2001),


trainees took part in two or more training sessions


where the total training program lasted at least 100


minutes. In contrast, a single, short training session


of less than 40 minutes failed to result in a significant


main effect (Waung, 1995). Second,


VSG appears to be

effective when people lack the knowledge and skill to


perform the task at hand. When participants have


already mastered a task, and thus have the requisite


knowledge and skill,


VSG does not appear to increase

performance. This argument is supported by the


findings of Neck and Manz (1996), where


VSG did

not increase the performance of employees. In that


study, the sample consisted of experienced employees


who had already gained the knowledge and skill


needed to effectively perform their jobs. Third,


Bobko’s (1986) ordinal interaction analysis suggests


that the main effect for


VSG on GPA as well as the

composite criterion was spurious.


VSG appears to be

most effective when combined with an explicitly set


behavioural goal.


An unexpected finding was that there was not an


ordinal interaction when the dependent variable was


interpersonal skills, despite the moderately high correlation


between the two performance measures (i.e.,



GPA


and BOS score). As previously mentioned,

behavioural measures are prone to observation errors


such as halo and leniency. With a mean of 36.26 on


the 11-item


BOS, most participants received a rating

of greater than three for each of the 11 items on the



BOS


scale, where the maximum score for each item

was four. Restriction in range is likely responsible for


the present finding.


Third, the results of this study may prove useful


for increasing the persuasiveness of


MBA directors’

messages regarding the importance of teamwork


skills for people who enter the


MBA program with little

appreciation for interpersonal effectiveness.


Interpersonal skills are important for one’s


GPA. The

present study shows that only five hours of training


(i.e., 270 minutes for


VSG plus 30 minutes for goal setting)

can provide


MBA students the self-regulation

skills necessary for increasing their overall performance.


Training in


VSG is a practical intervention that

can be included in existing organizational behaviour


courses (e.g., courses on management skills).


Potential limitations of this experiment include the


sample and the context. In this study, participants


were adults enrolled in an educational institution.


While the participants were, on average, 29 years old


with 4 1/2 years of work experience, the extent to


which the findings from the present sample generalize


to older adults, particularly adults working in the


public and private sector organizations, remains to be


tested.



References


Bobko, P. (1986). A solution to some dilemmas when testing


hypotheses about ordinal interactions.


Journal of

Applied Psychology, 71,


323-326.

Brown, T. C. (2003). The effect of verbal self-guidance


training on collective efficacy and team performance.


Personnel Psychology, 56, 935-964.


de Janasz, S. C., Dowd, K. O., & Schneider, B. Z. (2002).


Interpersonal skills in organizations. Toronto, ON:


McGraw Hill.


Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique.


Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358.


Halpern, D. F. (2004). The development of adult cognition:


Understanding constancy and change in adult


learning. In D. Day, S. Zaccaro, & S. Halpin (Eds.),


Leader development for transforming organizations.


Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


Jack, I. (2001, December 31). FP CEO Poll: MBAs good on


theory, lack people skills, CEOs say. National Post, pp.


FP1, FP2.


James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). RWG: An


assessment of within-group interrater agreement.


Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.


James, W. (1892). Psychology. London, UK: Macmillan.


Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cog-



Verbal Self-Guidance 11



nitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment


interaction approach to skill acquisition.


Journal of

Applied Psychology, 74,


657-690.

Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wright, P. M.,


& DeShon, R. P. (2001). The assessment of goal commitment:


A measurement model meta-analysis.


Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,


85, 32-55.


Latham, G. P. (1997).


Correlates of executive education program

revenue, repeat business and the satisfaction of client


organizations and individual participants.


Millington, NJ:

University Consortium for Executive Education (UNICON).


Latham, G. P., & Wexley, K. N. (1977). Behavioral observation


scales for performance appraisal purposes


.

Personnel Psychology, 30


, 255-268.

Latham, G. P., & Wexley, K. N. (1994).


Increasing productivity

through performance appraisal


(2nd ed.). Reading,

MA: Addison-Wexley.


Locke, E. (2000). Motivation, cognition, and action: An


analysis of studies of task goals and knowledge.


Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 408-429.


Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990).


A theory of goal setting

and task performance.


Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.


Mason, J. C. (1992). Business schools: Striving to meet


customer demand. Management Review, 81, 10.


Meichenbaum, D. (1975). Enhancing creativity by modifying


what subjects say to themselves.


American

Educational Research Journal, 12


, 129-145.

Meichenbaum, D. H. (1971). Examination of model characteristics


in reducing avoidance behavior.


Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 17


, 298-307.

Meichenbaum, D. H. (1977).


Cognitive behavior modification.

An integrative approach


. New York: Plenum Press.

Meichenbaum, D., & Goodman, J. (1971). Training impulsive


children to talk to themselves: A means of developing


self-control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77,


115-126.


Millman, Z., & Latham, G. P. (2001). Increasing reemployment


through training in verbal self-guidance. In M.


Erez, U. Kleinbeck, & H. Thierry (Eds.),


Work

Motivation in the Context of a Globalizing Economy


(pp.

87-97). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (1996). Thought self-leadership:


The impact of mental strategies training on


employee cognition, behavior, and affect.


Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 17


, 445-467.

Olian, J., Caldwell, L., Frank, H., Griffin, A., Liverpool, P.,


Thomas, H., et al. (2002, April).


AACSB International:

Management Education Task Force


(Draft IV). St. Louis,

MO: The Association to Advanced Collegiate Schools


of Business International.


Pfeffer, J. (1998).


The human equation: Building profits by

putting people first


. Boston, MA: Harvard Business

School Press.


Schmidt, F. J., & Kaplan, L. (1971). Composite vs. multiple


criteria: A review and resolution of the controversy.


Personnel Psychology, 24, 419-434.


Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1984). Strategy self-verbalization


during remedial listening comprehension


instruction. Journal of Experimental Education, 53, 49-54.


Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1985). Verbalization of comprehension


strategies: Effects on children’s achievement


outcomes. Human Learning, 4, 1-10.


Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2001). The effect of distal


learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately


complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,


291-302.


Sue-Chan, C., & Latham, G. P. (2004). The relative effectiveness


of external, peer, and self-coaches.


Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 52


, 260-278.

Taggar, S., & Brown, T. C. (2001). Problem-solving team


behaviors: Development and validation of BOS and a


hierarchical factor structure. Small Group Research, 32,


698-726.


Vygotsky, I. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA:


MIT Press.


Waung, M. (1995). The effects of self-regulatory coping


orientation on newcomer adjustment and job survival.


Personnel Psychology, 48, 633-651.


Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2002).


Developing management

skills


(5th ed.). Don Mills, ON: Addison-

Wesley.




Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top