Administration and Interpretation of the Managerial Inbasket Simulation

1. Administration and Interpretation of theManagerial Inbasket Simulation Kenneth M. Nowack Ph.D. 2621 6th Street Suite 2  Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 450-8397  (310) 450-0548 Fax http://www.opd.net knowack@opd.net

2. ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS Organizational Performance Dimensions (OPD) is a behavioral sciences consulting company specializing in personnel assessment and selection, assessment centers, executive/management coaching, succession planning, employee health promotion/wellness, training needs analysis, career management and applied research and evaluation. OPD offers a wide variety of assessment instruments and software for use in employee selection, pre-supervisory training, executive and management development, wellness/employee health promotion, career management and organizational development. OPD was founded in 1985 by Kenneth M. Nowack, Ph.D. who is a licensed psychologist. He has over 15 years of experience in the human resources field as both an internal and external consultant. Dr. Nowack received his doctorate degree in Counseling Psychology from the University of California, Los Angeles and has published extensively in the areas of 360 degree feedback, assessment, training evaluation, health promotion and stress management.

3. Managerial Inbasket Simulation Purpose Assess 8 task/project management competencies of supervisors and managers Outcome Identify strengths/development areas Predict future supervisory/management performance Train and develop supervisors and managers To be used for Selection or development

4. A. PERSONALITY B. REFERENCES C. INTERVIEWS D. INTELLIGENCE TESTS E. EDUCATION/GPA F. WORK SAMPLE TESTS G. ASSESSMENT CENTERS H. PEER RATINGS I. INTERESTS/VALUES J. AGE K. WORK HISTORY L. TRAINING RATINGS M. SELF-RATINGS RANKING APPROACHES TO PERSONNEL SELECTION: WHICH ARE MOST PREDICTIVE?

5. A. WORK SAMPLE TESTS B. INTELLIGENCE TESTS C. ASSESSMENT CENTERS D. PEER RATINGS E. WORK HISTORY F. INTERVIEWS G. PERSONALITY TESTS H. REFERENCE CHECKS I. TRAINING RATINGS J. SELF RATINGS K. EDUCATION/GPA L. INTERESTS/VALUES M. AGE AVERAGE VALIDITY .38 to .54 .38 to .54 .41 to .43 .41 to .43 .24 to .38 .15 to .36 .15 to .26 .14 to .26 .13 to .15 .10 to .15 .10 to .15 .10 to .15 .00 to .10 APPROACHES TO PERSONNEL SELECTION: WHICH ARE MOST PREDICTIVE?

6. The OPD Inbasket is a work sample simulation that assesses the leadership, task and project management competencies of a typical manager. The participant is given a brief description of the situation surrounding a fictitious organization they are assigned to work for and asked to respond to 23 Inbasket memos. The Inbasket memos contain work situations, requests from customers and employees, personnel problems, and decisions that a typical manager might be asked to handle. The participant’s task is to go through as many of the 23 Inbasket memos within 90 minutes, making appropriate decisions, answering letters and memos from internal and external customers, planning meetings, and solving problems. Description of the OPD Managerial Inbasket Simulation

7. Initiative Interpersonal Sensitivity Planning/Organizing Delegation Follow-up/Administrative Control Problem-Analysis Decisiveness Judgment OPD Inbasket Simulation Management Competencies

8. Content for the OPD Inbasket Simulation was derived from job analyses of managerial positions in diverse industries Average inter-rater reliability across the eight competencies was .93 in one study Validity study 1 explored the association between Inbasket scores and job performance for 132 aerospace managers (average correlation was .26, p < .05) Validity study 2 explored assessment center performance and Inbasket scores for 72 utility managers. Overall scores were significantly correlated with assessor performance ratings (r= .26, p < .05) Validity study 3 explored assessment center performance and Inbasket scores for 144 production supervisors. Overall Inbasket scores were significantly correlated with both assessor and supervisory performance ratings (average r’s = .29, all p’s < .05) Reliability and Validity of the OPD Managerial Inbasket Simulation

9. Read the administration instructions to the participant aloud Emphasize that they will have only 90 minutes to complete the exercise At the completion, the participant will be asked to fill out the Participant Report Form found in the Inbasket materials Emphasize that they can not cancel the trip they will be asked to go on as described in the instructions Participants can take breaks during the exercise but not allowed additional time beyond 90 minutes Participants are asked to attach any written responses to Inbasket items to the appropriate memo and number them to facilitate the scoring process Administration of the OPD Managerial Inbasket Simulation

10. The competency-based scoring key is based on observed behaviors demonstrated on the Inbasket Simulation The objective scoring key provides overall scores for each of the eight Inbasket competencies Points are given for specific actions and decisions observed by the Inbasket participant Comments from the Participant Report Form are utilized during the Inbasket scoring process Scoring ranges and norms from diverse US companies are provides in the back of the Inbasket scoring key Scoring the OPD Managerial Inbasket Simulation

11. The OPD Managerial Inbasket Software program generates an individual feedback report summarizes strengths and development areas across the eight competencies The feedback results results are both graphic and narrative and are based on US norms with approximately 5,000 supervisors and managers in diverse industries The one-page graphic summary provides feedback in standard scores (t-scores) with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10 The Inbasket software requires pre-purchased authorizations to add new participants to the database The Inbasket Software program provides for export of raw data for determination of local norms and research OPD Managerial Inbasket Software

12. OPD Inbasket Simulation SoftwareSample Graphic Summary Results

13. Initiative is defined as the ability to influence events to achieve specific outcomes through individual actions (i.e., originates action rather than waiting for direction from others). Individuals who take initiative tends to make plans, decisions, and solve problems without waiting for direction from others Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency made decisions, took actions, and delegated assignments to others indicating a willingness to frequently take initiative. These individuals did not express hesitation to act and make decisions on their own in specific situations. For example, those with high scores tended to request additional information about a problem or decide to hold a special meeting to resolve an important issue. Individuals with low scores did not tend to take such actions or make such decisions as frequently Scoring the OPD Inbasket SimulationInitiative

14. Were actions taken on specific Inbasket items to prevent future problems and issues from occurring again? Were specific actions taken or decisions made that were proactive, rather than, just responding to the issues and challenges presented? Scoring the OPD Managerial InbasketInitiative

15. Interpersonal sensitivity is defined as the ability to take actions that indicate consideration for the feelings and needs of others. Some demonstrations of sensitive and empathetic behaviors include: asking questions about work and non‑work activities, expressing concern about problems, taking an interest in others, and making decisions that take into account the feelings of others Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency tended to respond in writing to others in a manner that expressed caring and empathy in the handling of specific interpersonal situations and problems. High scores suggest more frequent demonstration of written praise, compliments, positive feedback, and recognition than towards others than those with low scores. For example, individuals with high scores might have written a note of congratulations to an employee for exceptional performance or expressed sensitivity in not approving a vacation request at an inappropriate time Scoring the OPD Inbasket SimulationInterpersonal Sensitivity

16. Were internal and external customers responded to in a timely manner? Were internal and external customers responded to in a sensitive and caring manner? Did the tone of the response to specific Inbasket items express a level of understanding, warmth, and empathy? Scoring the OPD Managerial InbasketInterpersonal Sensitivity

17. Organizing, Planning, and Scheduling are defined as the ability to effectively schedule time and establish a course of action to accomplish specific goals for self or others. In general, organizing refers to longer‑range plans and activities, whereas, planning and scheduling refers to the management of daily tasks and time Individuals who scored high in this Inbasket competency demonstrated the ability to effectively manage their time, organize their schedule, and plan for future activities. These individuals approached the in‑basket simulation by prioritizing each item rather than attempting to tackle them in the order they were placed. Individuals with high scores tended to demonstrate the effective use of planning tools by utilizing the monthly calendar or preparing an action item list of meeting dates and phone calls to be made Scoring the OPD Inbasket SimulationPlanning/Organizing

18. Were the Inbasket items prioritized or done in order presented (I.e., were the items grouped and addressed in some logical order and attention given to high priority items)? Was the calendar used to assist in scheduling and planning efforts? Was there awareness of of specific scheduling conflicts and problems (I.e., notes or comments suggesting scheduling problems, meeting dates, etc.)? Scoring the OPD Managerial Inbasket Planning/Organizing

19. Delegation is defined as the ability to allocate necessary authority and resources to subordinates in order to accomplish a task, assignment, or project Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency demonstrated the ability to select the appropriate individual to delegate tasks, projects, and assignments. Individuals who scored high also demonstrated good judgement in determining what was to be delegated in specific situations (e.g., making specific decisions, researching pertinent information, etc.). For example, individuals with high scores tended to select the right subordinate to carry out appropriate assignments in their absence and specified clear actions to be taken in writing. Those with low scores tended to take action or make decisions themselves rather than delegate these to others on many in‑basket items Scoring the OPD Inbasket SimulationDelegation

20. Was there awareness of the need to delegate on specific Inbasket items? Were tasks/assignments delegated for appropriate reasons (e.g., attend a meeting or gather additional information)? Were tasks/assignments delegated to the appropriate individuals? Were tasks/assignments that were delegated clear, specific, measurable, and have appropriate authority? Scoring the OPD Managerial Inbasket Delegation

21. Administrative Control is defined as the ability to develop procedures to track & monitor activities, tasks, and delegated assignments on a timely manner Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency demonstrated the ability to monitor and follow-up on tasks, projects, and delegated assignments to others. For example, these individuals wrote notes on their calendars to check on the progress of an assignment or delegated a task to their subordinate with specific outcomes and progress to be reported on. Individuals with low scores tended to delegate a great deal of authority and responsibility but did not attempt to implement formal or informal feedback mechanisms to check the progress of the task or assignment very often Scoring the OPD Inbasket SimulationAdministrative Control/Follow-Up

22. Were arrangements made to follow-up on tasks, projects, assignments, and meetings related to specific Inbasket items? Were future dates and meetings scheduled to monitor and track delegated tasks, projects, and assignments (e.g., request written report or schedule a meeting upon return from the business trip)? Scoring the OPD Managerial Inbasket Administrative Control

23. Problem Analysis is defined as the ability to accurately define a problem, gather and analyze information relevant to the problem, and determine possible causes and solutions to the problem Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency demonstrated the ability to see relationships between in‑basket items, and correctly identify incongruent dates, times, and meetings. For example, individuals with high scores might have written a note to someone pointing out a potential meeting conflict and asking to change the date and/or time in order to accommodate their schedule. Individuals who scored high might also have linked several in‑basket items together that were logically connected to each other by the people involved or the specific problem mentioned. Individuals with low scores tended not to point out the various scheduling conflicts or relationships between various in‑basket items Scoring the OPD Inbasket SimulationProblem-Analysis

24. Was there awareness of the interrelationships between Inbasket problems? Was there recognition of the need for additional information about some of the Inbasket items before decisions were made? Was there recognition of the need to research and investigate specific incidents further before actions were taken? Scoring the OPD Managerial Inbasket Problem Analysis

25. Decisiveness is defined as the ability and willingness to make a decision, render judgments, or take actions when required Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency demonstrated the capacity to make quick and numerous decisions when presented with the opportunity. These individuals actually made a greater number of decisions than those with lower scores on this competency. Individuals who scored lower tended to ask for more information before making a decision or taking action whether or not it was appropriate to do so. A highly decisive individual generally is characterized as taking in a small to moderate amount of information and assimilating that data or information quickly. Such individuals tend to arrive at a single focused solution rather than multiple or prioritized solutions Scoring the OPD Inbasket SimulationDecisiveness

26. Were actions and decisions taken that required immediate attention (e.g., vacation requests, deadline dates, etc.)? Were actions and decisions deferred on specific Inbasket items requiring additional investigation or information? Scoring the OPD Managerial Inbasket Decisiveness

27. Judgment is defined as the ability to make decisions of high quality and consider alternative courses of action based upon available information and logical assumptions Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency demonstrated the ability to correctly identify the highest quality decisions and actions given the information available to them. These individuals tended to take actions considered being most appropriate given the specific information available to them in the Inbasket exercise Scoring the OPD Inbasket SimulationJudgment

28. Were major requests and issues requirements responded to (e.g., request for a department plan from the boss)? Were appropriate decisions made (e.g., meeting with the company Vice President rather than attending a strategic planning meeting scheduled at the same time)? Was correct action taken on specific Inbasket items (e.g., disapproving the vacation request)? Scoring the OPD Managerial Inbasket Judgment

29. Inbasket SimulationDecision Style Low Decisiveness Flexible Analytical High Decisiveness Decisive Integrative Low Problem Analysis High Problem Analysis

30. SELECTED REFERENCES • Wimer & Nowack (1998). 13 Common mistakes in implementing multi-rater systems. Training and Development, 52, 69-79. • Nowack, K. & Wimer, S. (1997). Coaching for human performance. Training and Development, 51, 28-32. • Nowack, K. (1997). Congruence between self and other ratings and assessment center performance. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 12, 145-166 • Nowack, K. (1994). The secrets of succession. Training & Development, 48, 49-54 • Nowack, K. (1993). 360-degree feedback: The whole story. Training & Development, 47, 69-72 • Nowack, K. (1992). Self-assessment and rater-assessment as a competency of management development. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 3, 141-155. • Nowack, K. (1988). Approaches to validating assessment centers. Performance & Instruction, 11, 14-16