"Arts, Faculty of"@en . "Psychology, Department of"@en . "DSpace"@en . "UBCV"@en . "Woolley, Ross M."@en . "2009-06-05T17:34:15Z"@en . "1995"@en . "Doctor of Philosophy - PhD"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "The purpose of the present research was to examine the behavioral and individual-differences\r\ncharacteristics of a key figure in the innovation process\u00E2\u0080\u0094the champion. The\r\nchampion, also known as corporate entrepreneur (Kanter, 1982), and intrapreneur\r\n(Pinchot, 1985) is an individual who emerges informally in an organization to introduce\r\nand promote innovation. These individuals have been described as forceful, driven,\r\nenergetic, and visionary and have been found to be critical players in the success of\r\norganizational innovation.\r\nThe majority of research on the champion has not, however, been conducted with\r\na focus on this key figure. Rather, the emphasis of much of the previous research has\r\ntypically been on the process of innovation, with the champion acknowledged and\r\ndiscussed, but not featured or described in detail. Given the importance of the champion\r\nin promoting innovation, it would be desirable to conduct research in which this figure\r\nwas the focus of attention. The three studies carried out as part of this research project\r\nwere designed with this purpose in mind. Methods of individual-differences assessment\r\nwere applied to the study of the champion.\r\nThe present research began with a study of the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s behavior. Techniques\r\nfrom the act frequency approach (Buss & Craik, 1980) were used to develop a\r\ncomprehensive behavioral profile of the champion in order to establish a structural model\r\nof championship. Acts describing championship were generated by panels of middle- and\r\nsenior-level managers and these items were factor analyzed separately in two samples,\r\ninvolving over 600 managers from seven Western Canadian organizations. Ultimately,\r\n10 first- and two second-order factors were identified and named by subject matter\r\nexperts. Evidence was found for a heroic and a dark side to championship at the second\r\norder factor level. In Study 2, the focus turned to predictor measurement. Supervisory ratings of\r\nchampionship on the criterion dimensions identified in Study 1 were obtained for 174\r\nmiddle- and senior-level managers. These same managers had been participants in a\r\nthree-day Assessment Center in which they were administered: (a) cognitive ability tests,\r\n(b) personality inventories, (c) management simulations, and (d) a structured interview.\r\nCorrelations computed between the Assessment Center measures, on the one hand, and\r\nthe criterion dimensions on the other, led to the conclusion that the dark side of\r\nchampionship could be predicted, but that, unfortunately, the heroic side could not. On\r\nthe basis of the Assessment Center scale correlations with the dark side, the champion\r\nwas found to be: dominant, assertive, exhibitionistic, aggressive, independent,\r\ncompetitive, driven, impulsive, impatient, and likely to break rules and take risks.\r\nThe results of Study 3 led to the development of a low-fidelity simulation, based\r\non the behavioral consistency model (Wernimont & Campbell, 1968). This simulation,\r\ncalled the Management Practices Simulation (MPS), was administered to the Assessment\r\nCenter participants involved in Study 2 and scores on the MPS were correlated with\r\nscores on the criterion dimensions from Study 1. Two higher-order MPS scales were\r\nfound to correlate significantly with the two second-order criterion factor scales identified\r\nin Study 1. Moreover, the criterion-related validity of these scales surpassed that\r\nachieved with any component of the Assessment Center.\r\nThe results of Studies 1, 2, and 3 indicate that championship is a multi\r\ndimensional construct that, at a higher-order level, can be described with reference to two\r\northogonal dimensions, labeled the dark and heroic side. Individuals can be ordered\r\nalong a continuum on these dimensions and this scaling reflects meaningful differences in\r\nbehavior. Psychological tests can be used to predict ratings of championship, at least\r\nthose associated with the dark side. Finally, application of the behavioral consistency\r\nmodel to the development of a low-fidelity simulation, led to the creation of a new instrument\u00E2\u0080\u0094the Management Practices Simulation\u00E2\u0080\u0094whose scales correlated\r\nsignificantly and at a slightly higher-level with the criterion than any of the Assessment\r\nCenter battery scales."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/8821?expand=metadata"@en . "11186512 bytes"@en . "application/pdf"@en . "THE TWO FACES OF CHAMPIONSHIP: AN EXAMINATION OF THEBEHAVIORAL AND INDWIDUAL-DllFbRENCES CHARACTERISTICS OFTHE CHAMPIONbyROSS M. WOOLLEYB.A. University of British Columbia, 1985M.A. University of British Columbia, 1990A THESIS SUBMiTTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTSFOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESDepartment of PsychologyWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAMarch 1995\u00C2\u00A9 Ross Murray Woolley, 1995In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives, It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)_________________________________Department of________________________The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate_____DE.6 (2)88)11ABSTRACTThe purpose of the present research was to examine the behavioral and individual-differences characteristics of a key figure in the innovation process\u00E2\u0080\u0094the champion. Thechampion, also known as corporate entrepreneur (Kanter, 1982), and intrapreneur(Pinchot, 1985) is an individual who emerges informally in an organization to introduceand promote innovation. These individuals have been described as forceful, driven,energetic, and visionary and have been found to be critical players in the success oforganizational innovation.The majority of research on the champion has not, however, been conducted witha focus on this key figure. Rather, the emphasis of much of the previous research hastypically been on the process of innovation, with the champion acknowledged anddiscussed, but not featured or described in detail. Given the importance of the championin promoting innovation, it would be desirable to conduct research in which this figurewas the focus of attention. The three studies carried out as part of this research projectwere designed with this purpose in mind. Methods of individual-differences assessmentwere applied to the study of the champion.The present research began with a study of the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s behavior. Techniquesfrom the act frequency approach (Buss & Craik, 1980) were used to develop acomprehensive behavioral profile of the champion in order to establish a structural modelof championship. Acts describing championship were generated by panels of middle- andsenior-level managers and these items were factor analyzed separately in two samples,involving over 600 managers from seven Western Canadian organizations. Ultimately,10 first- and two second-order factors were identified and named by subject matterexperts. Evidence was found for a heroic and a dark side to championship at the secondorder factor level.111In Study 2, the focus turned to predictor measurement. Supervisory ratings ofchampionship on the criterion dimensions identified in Study 1 were obtained for 174middle- and senior-level managers. These same managers had been participants in athree-day Assessment Center in which they were administered: (a) cognitive ability tests,(b) personality inventories, (c) management simulations, and (d) a structured interview.Correlations computed between the Assessment Center measures, on the one hand, andthe criterion dimensions on the other, led to the conclusion that the dark side ofchampionship could be predicted, but that, unfortunately, the heroic side could not. Onthe basis of the Assessment Center scale correlations with the dark side, the championwas found to be: dominant, assertive, exhibitionistic, aggressive, independent,competitive, driven, impulsive, impatient, and likely to break rules and take risks.The results of Study 3 led to the development of a low-fidelity simulation, basedon the behavioral consistency model (Wernimont & Campbell, 1968). This simulation,called the Management Practices Simulation (MPS), was administered to the AssessmentCenter participants involved in Study 2 and scores on the MPS were correlated withscores on the criterion dimensions from Study 1. Two higher-order MPS scales werefound to correlate significantly with the two second-order criterion factor scales identifiedin Study 1. Moreover, the criterion-related validity of these scales surpassed thatachieved with any component of the Assessment Center.The results of Studies 1, 2, and 3 indicate that championship is a multidimensional construct that, at a higher-order level, can be described with reference to twoorthogonal dimensions, labeled the dark and heroic side. Individuals can be orderedalong a continuum on these dimensions and this scaling reflects meaningful differences inbehavior. Psychological tests can be used to predict ratings of championship, at leastthose associated with the dark side. Finally, application of the behavioral consistencymodel to the development of a low-fidelity simulation, led to the creation of a newinstrument\u00E2\u0080\u0094the Management Practices Simulation\u00E2\u0080\u0094whose scales correlatedsignificantly and at a slightly higher-level with the criterion than any of the AssessmentCenter battery scales.ivVTABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT.iiLIST OF TABLES xixLIST OF FIGURES xxiiiACKNOWLEDGMENT xxivINTRODUCTION 1Overview 1Objectives of The Present Research 5LITERATURE REWEW 7I. An Historical Sketch of the Study of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 7Entrepreneurship 8Corporate Entrepreneurship 8Innovation 9Summary 10II. Evidence For the Role of the Champion in Innovation Success 10Overview 10Descriptive Studies 11Empirical Studies 12ifi. Toward a Definition and Understanding of the Champion Role 15Overview 15The Champion Role Defined 17Elements of the Definition 17Champions, Innovators, Entrepreneurs, Corporate Entrepreneurs,and Intrapreneurs 22A Two-Dimensional Conceptualization of the Champion Role 23Summary 25IV. Champions of Innovation: Their Individual-Differences Characteristics 26viOverview.26Personality!Motivational Traits 28Interpersonal Effectiveness 28Components of Interpersonal Effectiveness 30Interpersonal Influence 30Interpersonal Awareness 31Summary 31Determined Achievement Orientation 32Openness! Willingness to Change 33From Personality to Ability 34Cognitive Ability 34Innovative Idea Generator 35Analytical Evaluative Ability 35Effective Communication Skills 36Summary 36RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES 38Section I: Evaluation of Research on the Role of the Champion andDevelopment of Hypotheses Related to Criterion Measurement 38Limitations of Past Research 38Hypotheses 39Hypothesis 1 39Hypothesis 2 40Section II: Implications of Research on the Individual-DifferencesCharacteristics of the Champion and Development of HypothesesRelated to Predictor Measurement 40Limitations of Past Research 40Hypotheses 42viiPersonality/Motivational Characteristics 42Interpersonal effectiveness 42Determined achievement orientation 42Openness/willingness to change 43Cognitive Abilities 43Innovativeness 43Analytical evaluative ability 43Effective communication skills 44Summary 44STUDY 1: THE STRUCTURE OF CHAMPIONSHIP AND THEDEVELOPMENT OF CHAMPION CRITERION SCALES 46Overview and Rationale for Methods 46Hypotheses 49Hypothesis 1 49Hypothesis 2 49Hypothesis 3 50Hypothesis 4 50Phase I: The Generation of Champion Acts 50Method 50Participants 50Developmental Steps 51Stepi 51Step2 53Step3 53Results 53Phase II: The Scaling of the Acts for Social Desirability 54Overview 54vi\u00E2\u0080\u009DMethod.54Participants 54Design of the Questionnaire 55Calculation of Item Social Desirability 55Results 55Phase ifi: Sample 1 Factor Analysis With Self-Report Data 55Overview 55Method 56Participants and Data Collection 56Data Analysis 57Structural analysis 58Scale development 58Results 59The Component Solution 59The Development of Preliminary Championship Scales 61Social desirability and the balancing of champion and non-champion items 62Scale reliability 64Phase IV: Sample 2 Factor Analysis With Supervisory Report Data and theApplication of Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1964) Method One Procedure in the Derivation of aCommon Factor Pattern 65Overview 65Method 65Participants 65The Rating Form 66Distribution of The Rating Form 68Data Analysis 68ixFirst-order factor structure 69First-order factor congruence 70Scale development 70Second-order factor structure 72Results 72First-Order Factor Congruence 72The First-Order Championship Factor Scales 75Scale social desirability 75Scale internal consistency reliability 77Second-Order Factors of Championship 77Second-order factor congruence 81Summary 81Phase V: Conceptualization of the Factor Structure of Championship 83Overview 83Method 84Participants 84Data Analysis 86Factor labels 86Prototypicality of the factors 86Criterion measurement of championship 86Overall management performance (OMP) 87Results 87Labels for the First-Order Factor Scales of Championship 87Persistent Dominance (PD) 88Impatient Expediency (IE) 92Rebellious Drive (RD) 93Self Promotion (SP) 94xConfrontive Candor (CC) . 95Influence and Political Savvy (IPS) 95Driven Commitment (DC) 96Immediate Responsiveness (IR) 97Collaboration and Support (CS) 97Visibility and Growth Seeking (VGS) 98Labels for The Two Second-Order Factor Scales ofChampionship 99Forceful Drive and Expediency (FDE) 100Influence and Visible Drive (IVD) 100Prototypicality of the First- and Second-Order Factor Scales 102Correlates of the Dimensions of Championship 105The 3-item and 5-item self-report measures ofchampionship 105The championship factor scales and overall managementperformance (OMP) 107Discussion 108Overview 108A Two-Factor Conceptualization of Championship 112Agency and communion 112A Closer look at Forceful Drive and Expediency 116The dark side of leadership 116Narcissism and Forceful Drive and Expediency 119Psychopathy and Forceful Drive and Expediency 121Summary 123A closer look at Influence and Visible Drive 123xiThe relationship between transformational leadershipand IVD 125Summary 127The Prototypicality of The First- and Second-OrderFactor Scales 127Correlates of Championship 129The 5-item supervisory-report criterion measureof championship and the factor scales 129OMP and the factor scales 130Summary 132STUDY 2: AN EXAMINATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCESCHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHAMPION 133Overview 133Hypotheses 135Method 135Participants and Setting 135The Assessment Center Measures 135Cognitive Ability (Intellectual Measures) 135Personality Inventories and Measures of Temperament 141Management Simulations: In-Basket Exercises 142The Telephone Supervisor In-Basket Exercise (TS) 142The Consolidated Fund In-Basket Test 142Management Simulations: Role-plays 142The Employee Performance Role-play 143Industrial Relations Role-play 143The Marketing Role-play 143The New Manager Role-play 144xiiSummary Role-play Dimension Scores.144Structured Interview 144Biographical Information Form 145Criterion Measurement 145Data Analysis 145Correlational Analyses Involving the AC Measures and theChampionship Criteria 145Contrasted Groups Analyses Involving the AC Battery Scalesand the Championship Criteria 146Analysis of the biographical information forms 148Inter-rater agreement 149Category frequency counts 150A Case Study Analysis of Championship 151Results 152The Criterion Rating Scales 152Correlational Analyses: Predictor-Criterion Correlations 154Cognitive Ability 154Measures of Personality and Temperament 156California Psychological Inventory (CPI) 156The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (1 6PF) 159The Personality Research Form (PRF) 161Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory (ROCI-il) 163Jenkins Activity Survey 165Management Simulations: In-Basket Exercises 166The Consolidated Fund In-Basket Test 166The Telephone Supervisor In-Basket Exercise (TSIB) 166Management Simulations: The Role Plays 166xliiThe Structured Interview.169Summary 171Correlational Analyses: Criterion Correlations of Optimal LinearCombinations of AC Battery Scales 172Regression Analyses Involving The CPI Scales 173Regression Analyses Involving The 16PF Scales 173Regression Analyses Involving The PRF Scales 173Regression Analyses Involving The JAS Scales 177Regression Analyses Involving The Role play Scales 177Regression Analyses Involving The Interview Scales 177Regression Analyses Involving The CPI, 16PF, PRF, andJAS Scales 181Stepwise results for FDE 181Stepwise results for IVD 183Summary 183A Contrasted Groups Analysis 183A Discriminant Analysis For FDE 184Conceptualization of the discriminant function 184Classification based on the discriminant function 188A Championship Profile Based on the Biodata Form 19QInter-rater agreement 190Category proportion comparisons 190Question 6. What is your own approach to supervision, i.e.,your management style? 192Question 12. How do your leisure and social activities relateto your career? 195xivQuestion 13. What are your most outstanding personalqualities9 196Question 14b. What are your shortcomings; your areas fordevelopment? 196Summary 197The Two Cases 197The case of Mr. A: high FDE 197The case of Mr. W: low FDE 201Summary 203Discussion 204Overview 204Correlational Findings 205Cognitive ability 209Personality 210Management simulations 211Structured interview 213Regression Analyses 214Contrasted Groups Analysis 216The Case Studies 218Overall Summary 218STUDY 3: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A LOW-FIDELITYSIMULATION 220An Overview of The Behavioral Consistency Model 220Work Samples and Simulations 221Low-Fidelity Simulations 225An Overview of the Development of the Management PracticesSimulation (MPS) 226xvMethod.229Participants and Setting 229Development of the Management Practices Simulation 230Scripting of the scenarios 230Generating the initial pool of response options 231Fitting the response options to the scenarios 231Drafting of instructions 232Pilot testing the simulation 232Rating of the MPS response options for social desirability.... 233Distribution of the MPS to the assessment centerparticipants 233The Criterion Measure 234Data Analysis 234Scale Development 234Examination of Primary and Secondary Scale Construct Validity.. 235Results 236Psychometric Properties of the Primary and Secondary MPS Scales 236Social Desirability 238Internal Consistency Reliability 239MPS Scale-Criterion Correlations 239Incremental Validity of the MPS Scales 241Construct Validity of the MPS 244Substantive Considerations 245Structural Considerations 246Inter-item structure 246Structural Fidelity 247External Considerations 250xviA multitrait-multimethod examination of championship 250Cross-correlations between the MPS scales and scales fromthe AC battery 255The MPS primary scales .. 261The MPS measure of Forceful Drive and Expediency 263The MPS measure of Influence and Visible Drive 265Summary and Discussion 269Overview 269The Meaning of High Scores on the Management PracticesSimulation 270The Predictive Usefulness of the Management PracticesSimulation 272Low-Fidelity Simulations as Measures of Multi-DimensionalConstructs 275Application of the Management Practices Simulation 276SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 279Study 1 279Replication of the Factor Structure of Championship 281Validation of the Criterion Dimensions 282Championship and Psychopathy 283Study 2 284Individual-Differences Characteristics and The Two Faces ofChampionship 286Study 3 287The Criterion-Related Validity of the Management PracticesSimulation 288Construct Validity of the Management Practices Simulation 289xviiInnovations in Low-Fidelity Simulation Design 290An Overall Summary and Synthesis of the Three Studies 291Implications for Application and Theory 293REFERENCES 297APPENDICES 314Appendix A Booklets Used In First Two Panels To GenerateThe Behavioral Incidents or Acts 314Appendix B Booklets Used In The Third Panel To GenerateThe Behavioral Incidents or Acts 320Appendix C List of Edited Non-Redundant Behavioral Incidents,Organized Into Four Groups: (a) Champion Undesirable,(b) Champion, (c) Non-Champion, and(d) Non-Champion Desirable 326Appendix D Booklets Used To Obtain Social Desirability Ratings 339Appendix E Booklets Used To Obtain Self-Report Data For the FirstFactor Analysis 355Appendix F Company and Participant Feedback Reports 370Appendix G Scale Composition at the Conclusion of Phase ifi 390Appendix H BCTe1 Company Feedback Report 401Appendix I Booklet Used to Obtain Supervisory-Report Data For theSecond Factor Analysis 413Appendix J The Twelve Dimensions and Their Items Used to MeasureOverall Management Performance (OMP) 423Appendix K Scale Composition at the Conclusion of Phase IV 426Appendix L The Rating Booklet Used to Obtain the Factor Labels andPrototypicality Ratings from the Subject Matter Experts 432xviiiAppendix M The 5-item and 4-item Criterion Measures ofChampionship 448Appendix N The Scoring Form for the Biographical Information Form 449Appendix 0 Sample Feedback Report for the Management PracticesSimulation 454Appendix P Form B of the Management Practices Simulation Used toObtain the Item Social Desirability Means 462Appendix Q The Management Practices Simulation 474Appendix R Item Content of the Primary and Secondary Scales of theManagement Practices Simulation 487Appendix S Cross-Correlations Between the Assessment Center BatteryScales and The Primary and Secondary Scales From theManagement Practices Simulation 493xixLIST OF TABLESTable 1 Champion, Corporate Entrepreneur, and Intrapreneur Definitions 18Table 2 Dimensions of Championship 24Table 3 Logically-Derived Trait Dimensions of the Champion 27Table 4 Psychometric Properties of the Preliminary Championship Scales at theConclusion of Phase III 63Table 5 Congruence Coefficients Among The Three Pattern Matrices ForThe Eleven First-Order Factor Scales 74Table 6 Psychometric Properties of the Final First-Order Factor Scales 76Table 7 Primary Common-Factor Pattern Matrices for the Aggregatedand Separate Samples and the Related Primary-Factor CorrelationMatrices for the Second-Order Factors (Decimal Points Omitted) 80Table 8 Congruence Coefficients Among the Three Pattern MatricesFor the Two Second-Order Factor Scales 82Table 9 The Subject Matter Experts 85Table 10 A Listing and Description of the First-Order Factor Scales 89Table 11 Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Common Factor Pattern and a Synthesis of theLabels Generated By the Raters 101Table 12 Mean Prototypicality Ratings For the Factor Scales, Listed inDescending Order 103Table 13 Bivariate Correlations Between the 3-item and 5-item Championship Criteria (3CC and 5CC), the Overall ManagementPerformance (OMP) and the Championship Factor Scales 106Table 14 A Summary of Hypotheses on the Individual-DifferencesCharacteristics of the Champion 136Table 15 Measures Used in the Assessment Center (AC) Battery 138xxTable 16 Descriptive Statistics for the Championship Criterion Scales 153Table 17 Correlations Between the Scales From the Cognitive AbilityTests and the 13 Championship Criteria (Decimal Points areOmitted) and Scale Descriptive Statistics 155Table 18 Correlations Between the CPI Scales and the 13 ChampionshipCriteria (Decimal Points are Omitted) and Scale Descriptive Statistics.... 157Table 19 Correlations Between the 16PF Scales and the 13 ChampionshipCriteria (Decimal Points are Omitted) and Scale Descriptive Statistics.... 160Table 20 Correlations Between the PRF Scales and the 13 Championship Criteria(Decimal Points are Omitted) and Scale Descriptive Statistics 162Table 21 Correlations Between the Rahim Organizational ConflictInventory (ROCI-Il) and the Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS)Scales and the 13 Championship Criteria (Decimal Points areOmitted) and Scale Descriptive Statistics 164Table 22 Correlations Between Scales From The Two In-Basket Exercisesand the 13 Championship Criteria (Decimal Points areOmitted) and Scale Descriptive Statistics 167Table 23 Correlations Between the Role-play Scales and the 13Championship Criteria (Decimal Points are Omitted) andScale Descriptive Statistics 168Table 24 Correlations Between the Interview Scales and the 13Championship Criteria (Decimal Points are Omitted) andScale Descriptive Statistics 170Table 25 Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the CPI: OptimalVariable Sets 174Table 26 Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the 16PF: OptimalVariable Sets 175xxiTable 27 Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the PRF: OptimalVariable Sets 176Table 28 Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the JAS: OptimalVariable Sets 178Table 29 Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the Role-play: OptimalVariable Sets 179Table 30 Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the Interview: OptimalVariable Sets 180Table 31 Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the CPI, 1 6PF, PRF,and JAS Scales: Optimal Variable Sets 182Table 32 Results of the Discriminant Analysis For FDE 185Table 33 Classification Results From the Discriminant Analysis of FDE 189Table 34 Results of The Inter-Rater Agreement Analysis Based on Flanders\u00E2\u0080\u0099 it 191Table 35 Results From the Analysis of the Biodata Form 193Table 36 Psychometric Properties of the Primary and Secondary MPS Scale 237Table 37 Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the CPI, 16PF, PRF,and MPS Secondary Scales: Incremental Validity 242Table 38 Two-Factor Exploratory and Oblique Procrustes Solutionsfor The MPS 249Table 39 A MultiTrait-Multimethod Matrix For The MPS PrimaryScales and The First-order Factor Criterion Scales 252Table 40 A MultiTrait-Multimethod Matrix Analysis of The MPSSecondary Scales and The Second-order FactorCriterion Scales 254Table 41 A Comparison of Correlates For the MPS Primary Scales andthe First-Order Criterion Factor Scales 256xxiiTable 42 A Comparison of Correlates For the MPS Secondary Scalesand the Second-Order Criterion Factor Scales 259xxiiiLIST OF FIGURESFigure 1 Management Simulations in the Larger Context of Work Samples 222xxivACKNOWLEDGMENTSA number of people were of assistance in the execution of this research project.Many of these people are mentioned throughout the document. A special thanks goes outto the several hundred managers from the following companies who gave of theirvaluable time: B.C. Hydro, B.C. Telephone, B.C. Transit, the Insurance Corporation ofB.C., Manitoba Telephone System, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and theUniversity of B.C.I wish to single out the managers of BC Tel for their repeated support at variousstages during data collection. In particular, I am indebted to Don Champion, Ken Crump,Pauline Elliott, and Joan Grant for agreeing to support this project. I am particularlygrateful for the unending and unfailing championship of Ms. Pauline Elliott, BCTe1Human Resource Development Coordinator, whose support and skill cleared roadblocksand smoothed passage for data collection.The assistance of the following members of the Industrial/OrganizationalPsychology laboratory at the University of British Columbia was gratefully appreciated:Kim Barchard, Allison McLeod, Derek Sam, and Linda Scratchley. Many thanks to Kimwho contributed, enthusiastically, many hours of her time and expertise to addresschallenges encountered in Study 1.Finally, my thanks go out to my thesis committee members\u00E2\u0080\u0094Drs. Peter Frost,Ralph Hakstian, and Jerry Wiggins\u00E2\u0080\u0094for their guidance and erudition. In particular, Iwish to single out Ralph, my academic advisor, and thank him for his repeated and longstanding support of my research interests.INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of the present research, outlined in three studies, is to further ourunderstanding of a central figure in the innovation process\u00E2\u0080\u0094the champion. Althoughchampions have been found to be critical players in the success of organizationalinnovation (e.g., Rothwell, Freeman, Horlsey, Jervis, Robertson, & Townsend, 1974),their characteristics have not been carefully studied. Past research on thechampion hasbeen primarily anecdotal and descriptive (e.g., Delbecq & Mills, 1985;Schon, 1963),based on researchers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 general impressions of the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s personalitytraits and, to alesser extent, abilities. As well, the reports have been generally \u00E2\u0080\u009Cglowing\u00E2\u0080\u009D with littlemention of undesirable traits related to championship. With one recentexception(Howell & Higgins, 1990a), the characteristics of the champion have not been studiedusing well-established, reliable and valid methods of individual-differences assessment.The present research builds on and tests the validity of the descriptive conclusionsforwarded by organizational researchers over the past several years. Astructural modelof championship is developed in which champion behavior is featured. Next, theindividual-differences characteristics of the champion are examined usingwell-established assessment instruments. Finally, the present research goes astep further bydeveloping a simulation designed to measure behaviors specifically related to the role ofthe champion. Notwithstanding its contribution to theory-building onchampionship, thisresearch is of relevance to organizations wishing to develop methods of identifying,selecting, placing, and developing champions, initiatives that couldresult in substantialutility for organizations seeking to improve their competitiveness through the promotionof innovation (Schuler, 1986).OverviewThe topics of corporate entrepreneurship and innovation have enjoyedever-increasing attention in the management literature. Rogers (1983) noted that over 3,000articles on innovation had been published at that time. The recent surge in interest, noted2by Frost and Egri (1991), likely m\u00C3\u00A7ans that this number has increased substantially.Popular business writers like Kanter (1989) and Pinchot (1985) have joined the fray aswell, predicting that innovation and entrepreneurship are the new competitive strategiesof the 1990\u00E2\u0080\u0099s and beyond.Why has the topic of innovation\u00E2\u0080\u0094at the core of corporate entrepreneurship (e.g.,Burgelman, 1984)\u00E2\u0080\u0094enjoyed such popularity in the organizational behavior literature?Briefly, it is because innovation has been linked to a whole host of positive organizationaloutcomes, like productivity, growth, and survival (e.g., Morgan, 1988; Nayak &Ketteringham, 1986; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Pettigrew, 1985; Zaitman, Duncan, andHolbek, 1973). Although some have noted a pro-innovation bias\u00E2\u0080\u0099 in innovation research(e.g., Frost & Egri, 1991; Rogers, 1983), the majority of studies have pointed to thedesirability of innovation in fostering organizational productivity.Given its importance, organizational researchers have attempted to developmodels of organizational innovation. Toward this objective, many have investigated therole of organizational variables (e.g., formalization and specialization) in theimplementation and adoption of innovation. The disappointing consensus opinion hasbeen that findings are unstable across studies (Damanpour, 1987; Downs & Mohr, 1976).The field has coped with this instability by proposing sub theories of innovations Thusthe following distinctions have been made: (a) administrative vs. technical innovation(Ettlie, Bridges, & O\u00E2\u0080\u0099Keefe, 1984), (b) radical vs. incremental innovation (Nord &Tucker, 1987), and (c) stage of adoption (Zmud, 1982).In a recent meta-analysis, Damanpour (1991) challenged the validity of these subtheories. His findings revealed the consistent importance of, among other things, highinternal and external communication (exchange of ideas), team and interdepartmentalexchange, decentralization of decision making, and the presence of a managerial staff1 Rogers (1983) defined a pro-innovation bias as follows: \u00E2\u0080\u009C...the implication of most diffusion researchthat an innovation should be diffused and adopted by all members of a social system... (p. 92).3supportive of change. In their review, Frost and Egri (1991) made similar observations,stressing the importance of enhanced communication within organic structures in thecontext of an organizational culture that supports innovation and risk taking.The role of key individuals in the innovation process has also been studied (e.g.,Smith, McKeon, Hoy, Boysen, Shechter, & Roberts, 1984), although less frequently. Inone of the most exhaustive and extensive comparative studies of innovation success andfailure (Project SAPPHO2),Achilladelis, Jervis, and Robertson (1971) and Rothwell et al.(1974) reported that key individuals (i.e., sponsors, champions) were central toinnovation success. Freeman (1982) noted that key individuals and accuratecommunication were more important for success than organizational structure or processvariables. More than any other key individual, the champion has emerged as a centralfigure in the innovation process (Schon, 1963; Galbraith, 1982). His/her presence hasbeen linked to innovation success in a number of studies (e.g., Burgelman, 1983; Ettlie etal., 1984).The champion, also referred to as corporate entrepreneur (Kanter, 1982; Kierulff,1979) and intrapreneur (Pinchot, 1985) is the individual who emerges informally in anorganization to introduce and promote an innovation (Schon, 1963). Schon, the first toidentify the role of the champion in innovation success, noted that such individuals areneeded to overcome the indifference and resistance that technological change provokes.He remarked that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...the new idea either finds a champion or dies\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p. 84).Although the role of the champion in the innovation process has been identifiedand acknowledged, her/his characteristics\u00E2\u0080\u0094basic traits and skills\u00E2\u0080\u0094have been described,primarily, on the basis of researcher\u00E2\u0080\u0099s general impressions, with one recent exception(Howell & Higgins, 1990a). What we currently know about the individual-differencescharacteristics of the champion is based, primarily, on descriptive reports of their2 SAPPHO stands for Scientific Activity Predictor from Patterns with Heuristic Origins.Knight (1985) used all three terms interchangeably.4personality from either personal or second-hand observation. Although such qualitativeand descriptive accounts provide great depth and richness of information, it is difficult toknow, from such research, whether champions possess certain traits more than othermanagers. The methods and tools of psychological assessment have rarely been used inthe study of this role. It seems likely that their use would aid greatly in the identificationof champions and the description of their behavior and characteristics.When we consider the importance of innovation for today\u00E2\u0080\u0099s organizations and theestablished importance of the champion for innovation success, research aimed atdeveloping a better understanding of: (a) the role of the champion, and (b) the individual-differences characteristics of individuals demonstrating championship, would haveobvious relevance and importance. The development of assessment procedures toidentify and predict individuals likely to emerge as champions would have particularimportance and application in the areas of personnel selection, placement, and,potentially, training.The potential for such an application has been noted in the past (Gaibraith, 1982;Howell & Higgins, 1990b; Schuler, 1986), but work in pursuit of these objectives has notbeen reported, at least in the research literature. Gaibraith noted, prematurely it seems,that the attributes of successful champions were known. He stated that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...the ability ofthe innovating organization to generate new business ideas can be increased bysystematically developing and selecting those people who are better at innovating thanothers.\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p. 21). Howell and Higgins (1990b) remarked that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...individuals who havechampion potential can be identified through validated personality and leadershipmeasures or by observing behavior in interviews or assessment centers. Managementcould use the results of such assessment to select individuals with the requisite qualitiesfor undertaking innovation.\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p. 54).5Objectives of The Present ResearchThe individual was the unit of analysis in the present research. Althoughorganizational-level variables may be significantly related to aspects of innovation, thefocus here was a psychological one. The role of the champion was featured. The purposeof this study was to develop assessment procedures to: (a) reliably identify individualswho behave as champions in the work setting, and (b) identify individual-differencescharacteristics predictive of champion behavior. These two purposes correspond tocriterion and predictor measurement, respectively.As a first step in developing a prediction system, a careful criterion analysis wasperformed. In past research on the champion, researchers have glossed over the issue ofchampion identification. Little information has been supplied on how these individualsbehave; that is, how they act when they are carrying out their role as a champion. Pastoperational definitions have assumed a dichotomy: individuals have been classified aseither champions or non-champions; no recognition of a middle ground\u00E2\u0080\u0094the notion of acontinuum\u00E2\u0080\u0094has been considered. In the present research, dimensions of championshipwere identified and scaled as continuous variables.Before adequate prediction of championship can be accomplished, more carefulattention must be focused on the behavioral description of championship. It is time to\u00E2\u0080\u009Cjunk the criterion\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Dunnette, 1963) in research on the characteristics of the championand instead explore the possibility that this role is likely multi-dimensional.In summary, the main purposes of the present research were to:1. Develop a comprehensive behavioral profile of the champion to be usedto:(a) establish a structural model of championship, and(b) serve as criteria in the identification and validation of predictormeasures.62. Develop a comprehensive psychological profile of the champion in orderto:(a) test the validity of previous descriptive profiles of the champion, and(b) assemble a reliable and valid battery of psychological tests for use inpersonnel selection and classification.3. Develop and explore the reliability and validity of a behaviorally-basedchampionship simulation.In the next section, a review of research on the champion is provided. Thepurposes of this review are to: (a) give an historical overview of innovation research and,in the process, define key terms, (b) provide evidence to demonstrate the importance ofthe champion role in the innovation process, (c) define and describe the champion role,and (d) develop a psychological profile of the champion.7LITERATURE REVIEWTwo central issues are addressed in the review. One, the role of the champion isexamined in order to answer the question \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwhat does the champion doT\u00E2\u0080\u0099 A definition ofthe champion role is developed from previous researchers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 descriptions. As well, a modelof championship is proposed. Secondly, studies in which the traits and characteristics ofthe champion have been reported are reviewed. The outcome of this review is theorganization of the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s traits into logically-derived dimensions. This analysis,based primarily on anecdotal reports of champion traits, will serve as a tentative guidetoward the generation of hypotheses relating to the individual-differences characteristicsof the champion.Before moving to the central themes of this literature review, two issues must firstbe addressed. First, a brief historical overview is provided in which key terms aredefined. The study of innovation occurring in corporations (and the individuals who playkey roles in innovation) can be traced to the earlier (largely econometric) literature on thesmall-business innovator\u00E2\u0080\u0094the entrepreneur. The relatively recent literature on corporateentrepreneurship and the intrapreneur is built on a foundation whose constructs anddefinitions were first articulated some 250 years ago. Next, a rationale for the study ofthe champion is given; evidence relating to the centrality of the champion role ininnovation and his/her importance toward the success of the process is presented.I. An Historical Sketch of the Study of Innovation and EntrepreneurshipIn the study of innovation, the following terms have often been usedinterchangeably: entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, and innovation. They do,however, have unique meanings which follow from their definitions as originallyproposed.8EntrepreneurshipEntrepreneurship was first conceived of and defined by theoretical economists.The first formal theory of entrepreneurship was forwarded by Richard Cantillon (Long,1983) who saw entrepreneurship as self-employment of any and every kind. He definedentrepreneurship as an economic function which involved risk since goods werepurchased at certain prices but sold at future uncertain prices. He described theentrepreneur as a rational decision maker who assumed risk and provided managementfor the firm (Kilby, 1971).In contrast to Cantillon, Schumpeter (1934)\u00E2\u0080\u0094often referred to as the father ofmodem entrepreneurial thought\u00E2\u0080\u0094argued that risk taking was not necessarily acharacteristic of the entrepreneur. He observed that, although risk taking may be inherentin ownership, not all entrepreneurs are owners. Instead, Schumpeter focused oninnovation and initiative as central components of entrepreneurship. Distinct fromspeculators and inventors, entrepreneurs were seen by Schumpeter as creators of newbusiness combinations.Corporate EntrepreneurshipSchumpeter (1934) recognized that innovation was not necessarily limited to thesmall business context. Conversely, all persons who own a small business are notnecessarily entrepreneurial (Martin, 1982). More recently, large corporations have beendescribed as engaging in entrepreneurial behavior; the notion of CorporateEntrepreneurship (CE) was born in the late 1970\u00E2\u0080\u0099s and developed in the 1980\u00E2\u0080\u0099s and 90\u00E2\u0080\u0099s(e.g., Jennings & Lumpkin, 1989; Schollhammer, 1982).Corporate entrepreneurship refers to the entrepreneurial activities of the firm thatreceive organizational sanction. It is conceived of as a multi-dimensional constructinvolving: (a) innovation, (b) risk taking, and (c) proactiveness on the part of the firm(Miller, 1983). These three dimensions are clearly not unique to the CE literature.9Instead, they are dimensions (most notably the first two) that overlap with thoseintroduced in the context of small business entrepreneurship.It has been argued that, at the core of corporate entrepreneurship is innovation.Burgelman (1984), who developed a model to explain the CE process, argued that thedefinition of CE parallels the Schumpterian (1934) definition of individualentrepreneurship, the central component of which is innovation. Drucker (1985)described the process of innovation as central in both the corporate and small-businesscontexts. As well, Zahra (1986) summarized the various definitions of CE as revolvingaround: \u00E2\u0080\u009Centrepreneurial activities which receive organizational sanction and resourcecommitment for the purpose of innovative corporate endeavors\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p. 71).InnovationNumerous definitions of innovation have been proposed. A sampling of fourfollow: (a) organizational innovation is the successful implementation of creative ideaswithin an organization; it can refer to ideas for new products, processes, services withinthe organization\u00E2\u0080\u0099s line of business, or new policies or procedures within the organizationitself (Amabile, 1988), (b) \u00E2\u0080\u009C...any idea, practice, or material artifact perceived to be newby the relevant unit of adoption\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Zaltman et al. 1973), (c) the \u00E2\u0080\u009C...creation of any product,service or process which is new to a business unit\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Tushman and Nadler, 1986, p. 75),and (d) \u00E2\u0080\u009C...a significant change within the organization or its line of services or productsthat (a) requires a substantial adjustment in functions and/or structures, and (b) issuccessfully introduced, decided upon, and incorporated into the organization\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Delbecq& Mills, 1985, p. 25). Synthesizing these definitions, the reader will note a commontheme: a novel idea is proposed and application/implementation is attempted.Innovations may or may not be successful, in other words, developed through tocommercialization.10SummaryThe distinction between entrepreneurship in the two contexts\u00E2\u0080\u0094small-businessfounder/owner and corporate-wide entrepreneurship\u00E2\u0080\u0094is clear. As well, the centrality ofinnovation to entrepreneurship, in either context, is well recognized. Definitions becomeless clear, however, when the focus shifts to the individuals involved in the processes ofentrepreneurship and innovation\u00E2\u0080\u0094the key players. Some clarity can, however, beachieved by examining closely the terms used to describe the functions and roles of thechampion/corporate entrepreneur/intrapreneur. This is done in Section III of the literaturereview. First, research on the importance of the role of the champion in innovation isreviewed.II. Evidence For the Role of the Champion in Innovation SuccessOverviewInnovation is a process involving many people at the various initiation andimplementation stages. It is a process driven by economic, social, and political forces(Frost & Egri, 1991). It is not always rational, it unfolds over time, and typically fails(i.e., is not implemented through to commercialization). With a multitude of variablespotentially influencing the success of a given organizational innovation, it is notsurprising that one variable\u00E2\u0080\u0094the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0094cannot, alone, consistently account for thesuccess or failure of a given innovation. It is, therefore, surprising to see the number ofresearchers who have found the champion to be an integral part of innovation success.Recently, both Frost and Egri (1991) and Howell and Higgins (1990a) pointed tothe importance of the champion as a critical factor related to innovation success. Thefollowing review documents efforts to identify and relate the role of the champion toinnovation success. This review begins with the seminal work of Schon (1963) onmilitary innovation and concludes with the work of Smith et al. (1984). The reader will11note that, in some cases, authors point out the importance of the champion in innovationsuccess but fail to present data to support their claims (e.g., Schon). In other cases, morequantitative evidence is presented (e.g., Rothwell et a!., 1974). Taken together, there isevidence for the importance of the champion in moving invention to application.Descriptive StudiesEvidence for the role of the champion in innovation success has been reportedinformally by a number of researchers. Schon (1963), who is generally credited withintroducing the term product champion, reported the findings of 25 case studies ofinnovation in the military. He argued for the primary importance of the productchampion in opposing organizational inertia and resistance to change. He stated: \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwhereradical innovation is concerned, the emergence of a champion is required\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p.84).Langrish, Gibbons, Evans, and Jevons (1972), cited in Parker (1978), in a study of 84British companies that had won the Queen\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Award for Technological Innovationbetween 1966 and 1967, reported that the most important factor related to the successfulmanagement of innovation, across all industry types studied, was the champion.Fernelius and Waldo (1980) studied 78 case histories of successful commercialindustrial innovations. By analyzing the case histories to isolate the variousorganizational, technical, and economic factors associated with the innovation process,the authors were able to identify eighteen key factors. These were rank-ordered; the firstand third most important factors were: (a) the recognition of a technical opportunity by anindividual, and (b) the recognition of a market opportunity by an individual. Both ofthese functions are typically carried out by the project champion. Fernelius and Waldoconcluded by pointing out that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...almost without exception, there was a project championfor the cases involved in this study.. .although the same person might not have been thechampion in all phases of the innovation process, there was a champion at all times\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p.39).12Daft and Bradshaw (1980), in a study of horizontal differentiation\u00E2\u0080\u0094the formationof new organizational departments in five universities (a form of administrativeinnovation)\u00E2\u0080\u0094identified idea champions as instrumental in the formation of newdepartments. An idea champion was identified in all but 2 of the 30 innovations. Theauthors concluded that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...without idea champions, few new departments would beformed\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p.4.50). The authors noted that the idea champions\u00E2\u0080\u0099 role seemed similar to thatof the entrepreneur: the idea champion provides energy to move the system to gainacceptance for a change.Others have also noted the importance of the champion toward the success oforganizational innovation (e.g., Burgelman, 1983; Curley & Gremillion, 1983; Galbraith,1982; Quinn, 1979; Smith et al., 1984). Popular business writers have stressed that, fororganizations to remain competitive, all employees must become champions: \u00E2\u0080\u009C...we needmany more people to sign up for projects with much lower odds for success just to stayeven. In short, we need impassioned champions by the thousands\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Peters, 1987, p. 248).Although Peters may be overstating the case, his message is one that places theresponsibility for championship on the shoulders of all employees.Empirical StudiesThe most compelling evidence for the importance of the champion would comefrom research in which successful and unsuccessful innovations were compared. Suchstudies avoid the potential methodological shortcomings of single-sample studies inwhich only successful innovations are considered. Ideally, such studies would also reportdata indicating differences between the two groups (successful and unsuccessful) oncritical variables (i.e., the presence of champions); alternately, correlations between thenumber of champions and innovation success would also give evidence for theimportance of the champion. With regard to the latter method, it would seem unlikelythat the relationship between the number or presence of champions, on the one hand, and13a global, complex, organizational outcome like innovation, on the other, could becaptured in the form of a linear relationship. Nevertheless, there is some evidence forsuch a relationship.The most thorough and widely-cited study into the variables related to innovationsuccess was carried out under the name of Project SAPPHO. Achilladelis et al. (1971)and Rothwell et al. (1974), in studies of product and process innovations in the chemicaland instrument industries, made paired-comparisons of successful and unsuccessfulcommercial innovations. In Phase I of the study, Achilladelis et al. compared 29 pairs ofsuccessful and unsuccessful innovations. In Phase II, Rothwell et al. reported findings ona new sample of 43 pairs. Success in both studies was defined as an innovation whichobtained a worthwhile market share and profit. The authors reported data on 122independent variables in an attempt to discover key elements related to innovationsuccess. Although in both studies the authors stressed that their results indicated that nosingle factor could, by itself, explain the success/failure of an innovation, one of the mostimportant variables to emerge in the innovation process was the role played by keymanagers and technologists, especially the business innovator and the product champion.In the first of the two Project SAPPHO studies, Achilladelis et al. (1971) reportedthat the business innovator\u00E2\u0080\u0094the individual actually responsible within the managementstructure for the overall progress of the project\u00E2\u0080\u0094was an important factor in the success ofthe innovation. Six characteristics of the business innovator were found to distinguishsignificantly successful from unsuccessful innovations. The authors included only onevariable related to the product champion: \u00E2\u0080\u009CCan a single individual be regarded as theproduct champion?\u00E2\u0080\u009D The presence of a product champion was found to be related tosuccess/failure of innovation only for the instruments industry. The presence of a productchampion was particularly critical when s/he also played the role of the businessinnovator.It was in Phase II of the SAPPHO project, that Rothwell et al. (1974) found14stronger evidence that product champions\u00E2\u0080\u0094the individuals who make decisivecontributions to the innovation by actively and enthusiastically promoting its progressthrough critical stages\u00E2\u0080\u0094played a significant role in differentiating between successfuland unsuccessful innovations. The presence of a product champion was judged to weighin favor of success in 16 of the 43 innovations; in 22 of the innovations, their presencewas found to be unrelated to success, while in 5 of the 43 innovations they were judged tobe inversely related to success.Rothwell et al. (1974) also reported a significant role for the business innovator:the individual responsible within the management structure for the overall progress of theproject. The presence of a product champion who also played the role of businessinnovator was judged to weigh in favor of success in 15 of the 43 innovations; in 26 ofthe innovations, they were judged not to be related to success, while in only 1 of the 43innovations were they judged to be inversely related to success. Interestingly, the authorsfound that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...neither the presence of a single, nor several, technical innovators (inventors)significantly distinguished between success and failure\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p. 279).In summary, the Project SAPPHO findings lend partial support to the keyindividual\u00E2\u0080\u0094in this case, champion\u00E2\u0080\u0094explanation. The champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s presence cannot beused to explain all cases of innovation success or failure, however. Not surprisingly,Rothwell et al. (1974) found other variables to be important for success. Among them,the degree of communication\u00E2\u0080\u0094both internal and external\u00E2\u0080\u0094was significantly related toinnovation success. This finding was echoed much later by Damanpour\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1991) metaanalysis (described earlier) in which he reported the consistent importance of, amongother things, high internal and external communication. An open exchange of ideas willinvolve team and interdepartmental exchange and decentralization of decision making.Of course, such an organizational environment would be a excellent forum for the effortsof the champion.Ettlie et al. (1984) studied product innovation in 192 firms in meat, canning, and15fish industries. All firms were implementing a new technological innovation: aConsumer Retort Pouch technology (a new way of packaging instant foods). Productchampions were identified by one interview question: \u00E2\u0080\u009CIs there a person in your firm whois currently advocating consumer retortable pouch technology?\u00E2\u0080\u009D The authors measured anumber of other variables through both questionnaire and interview methods. Theyreported a correlation of .45 (p < .01) between the dichotomous champion variable(presence/absence) and the stage of adoption of the given innovation (this latter variableranged from \u00E2\u0080\u009Cimplemented\u00E2\u0080\u009D to \u00E2\u0080\u009Crejected\u00E2\u0080\u009D). Ettlie et al. concluded that the stage ofadoption (a necessary development condition for innovation success) of a radicalinnovation is significantly promoted by the presence of an innovation champion.Taken together, the above research demonstrates a degree of consistency inpointing to: (a) the omnipresence of the champion role, and (b) the importance of this rolein the movement of organizational innovation toward implementation and success.Although the champion is clearly not the only and, typically, not the most importantvariable in predicting the success of organizational innovation, his/her role has beenconsistently identified and described as critical by those who carry out research oninnovation in organizations.In the next section, a comprehensive definition and profile of the champion role isdeveloped. Past research is reviewed and synthesized and the terms entrepreneur,corporate entrepreneur, innovator, intrapreneur, and champion are discussed.III. Toward a Definition and Understanding of the Champion RoleOverviewIn this section a definition of the champion role is developed based on a review of25 studies in which the role of the champion has been identified and examined. A profileor model of the champion role is proposed, drawing on the definition as a foundation.16Before proceeding to this discussion, it should be acknowledged that much of theresearch to be reviewed in this section does not feature the study of the champion as theprimary focus. Much of the research on the champion has been conducted by researchersmore interested in organizational-level correlates or predictors of innovation success orstage of implementation. The importance and existence of the champion is recognizedand discussed in such research, but not in detail. Past researchers often have not beencareful to communicate clearly how the champion was identified. When suchinformation has been supplied, the identification methods employed appear to have beenless than thorough.For example, Smith et al. (1984) used only one interview question to identify thechampions in their study: \u00E2\u0080\u009CHow were you involved in this case?\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p. 24). Similarly,Ettlie et al. (1984), in an interview, used the question: \u00E2\u0080\u009CIs there a person in your firm whois currently advocating consumer retortable pouch technology?\u00E2\u0080\u009D (cited in Howell &Higgins, 1990a, p. 319). Others simply neglected to report how the champions in theirstudies were identified (e.g., Burgelman, 1983; Chakrabarti, 1974; Galbraith, 1982;Knight, 1985; Schon, 1963). Such omissions could, potentially, call into question thevalidity of the trait descriptions given to such \u00E2\u0080\u009Cchampions\u00E2\u0080\u009D, an issue discussed in moredetail in Section IV of the literature review.Having recognized the apparent methodological limitations of the literature to bereviewed, it is, nevertheless, clear that the various definitions used for the champion rolehave, over time, converged significantly. Thus, although past researchers have nottypically been either: (a) diligent in detailing the manner in which champions wereidentified, or (b) methodical in establishing criteria for role identification, a commonfigure in the innovation process does appear to have been consistently identified. Andthat figure is the champion.17The Champion Role DefinedIn Table 1 is a listing of definitions that have been used to describe the champion.These definitions are given in chronological order. The primary label used is given aswell (e.g., champion, internal entrepreneur). Various labels have been applied to describethe individual who performs this key role in the innovation process: champion, corporateentrepreneur, entrepreneur, intrapreneur, innovator. Interestingly, the definitionsconverge to describe a common set of key functions. The term champion has beenchosen for use in the present study because: (a) this label, more than the others, has beenlinked to the innovation process, and (b) in the context of corporate innovation this termcan be traced further back in the historical development of the topic4.Synthesizing the results in Table 1, it is clear that the champion takescreative/inventive ideas and promotes their implementation. The champion role bringstogether the inventive efforts of the idea generator with the business needs of theorganization. Thus, s/he serves a coordinating function, by uniting the autonomousefforts of the inventor with the strategic management objectives of the organization. Inthe present study, the following definition for the champion role was used. Thisdefinition has been gleaned from the definitions and descriptions listed in Table 1.The champion is an individual who takes a new ideafor either an administrative ortechnical innovation (an idea s/he may or may not have generated) and introduces,pushes, promotes, and sells the idea to others in the organization.Elements of the DefinitionThe reader should be aware of the following points that combine to make up thedefinition. Typically, the champion will emerge informally to take up the responsibilityAlthough the entrepreneur was the focus of study well before the champion role was identified(Cantillon, c. 1730), the role of the entrepreneur has typically been equated with that of the smallbusiness owner (see, Carland, Hoy, Boulton, & Carland, 1984).18Table 1Champion, Corporate Entrepreneur, qnd Intrapreneur DefinitionsSchon (1963)Product Champion: informally emerges--is not appointed; identifies with a newidea as his/her own; see its promotion as a cause that goes beyond their job;pushes and promotes against the prevailing opposition to change in theorganization interests must cut across various departments.Knight (1967)InnovatorIEntrepreneur: introduces and carries out the introduction of a newidea; possesses desire and means to implement idea; sells idea to organization.Roberts (1968)Internal Entrepreneur/Product Champion used interchangeably: theindividual who champions the translation of science and technology into use.Achilladelis, Jervis, and Robertson (1971)Project Champions: distill creative ideas from information sources and thenenthusiastically promote them within the organization.Langrish, Gibbons, Evans, and Jevons (1972) cited in Parker (1978)Champion: the individual who initiated the project, who promoted itenthusiastically, who took a personal interest in the project, and who ensured thatfunds were available.Chakrabarti (1974).Product Champion: sells idea to management and gets management sufficientlyinterested in the project.Rothwell, Freeman, Horlsey, Jervis, Robertson, and Townsend (1974)Product Champion: any individual who made a decisive contribution to theinnovation by actively and enthusiastically promoting its progress through criticalstages.Frohman (1974;1978)Product Champion/Entrepreneur: recognizes and pushes a new technical idea,approach, or procedure for formal management approval. Takes risks. Works toget support and resources for his/her idea. Is an advocate for the idea. Tends tobe aggressive and persistent.Cox (1976)Corporate Entrepreneur: perform a coordinating function; they bring scienceand technology into the marketplace; they get things done, are risk takers.19Table 1 cont.Kierulff (1979)Corporate Entrepreneur: examines potential new market opportunities, obtainsresources to meet attractive opportunities, and initiates production and sales;starts a new business venture within the company.Quinn (1979)Champion: bring forward, market new ideas to management team; competeagainst others for approval of idea.Fernelius & Waldo (1980)Project Champion: someone who thoroughly believes in the project, works hardat it, inspires others to do the same, and defends the project even to the point ofrisking his own standing.Roberts & Fusfield (1981)Entrepreneur/Champion: the individual who recognizes, proposes, pushes, anddemonstrates a new technical idea, approach or procedure for formal managementapproval; gets resources needed; takes risks.Galbraith (1982)Idea Champion: the inventor of the idea, the entrepreneur, or risk taker.Dedicated person whose success or failure depends on developing theidea/Sponsor: promotes idea through to implementation; gives authority andresources to an idea to carry toward implementation; usually middle managers;functions of sponsor similar to those of champions identified by others.Kanter (1982; 1988)Corporate entrepreneur/Innovative manager: envision an accomplishmentbeyond the scope of their job; acquire power needed; seek and find additionalstrength needed for new initiates--build coalitions; possess political savvy.Burgelman (1983)Product Champions: turn a new idea into a concrete new project in whichtechnical and marketing development begin to take shape; mobilizes resources todo what conventional corporate wisdom classifies as impossible.Curley & Gremillion (1983)System Champion: demonstrate commitment to, and enthusiasm for, the system(MIS) in a variety of ways. Internal change agents or missionaries; influence theattitudes of others toward the system and aid them in understanding and using it;support, sell, lead, urge use of the system; respond to and help overcomeresistance to change involved in its adoption.Ettlie, Bridges, and O\u00E2\u0080\u0099Keefe (1984)Innovation Champion: an individual who is an advocate for a new technology.20Table 1 cont.Smith, McKean, Hoy, Boysen, Shechter, & Roberts (1984)Process/Product Champion/Entrepreneur: takes idea from the creativescientist/engineer and takes it to the stage at which it is attractive for businesssponsorship.Knight (1985)Intrapreneur: \u00E2\u0080\u009C...a corporate employee who introduces and manages aninnovative project within the corporate environment, as if he or she were anindependent entrepreneur.Pinchot (1985)Intrapreneurs: take new ideas (which they may or may not have generated)and turn them into profitable realities; take project to the stage at which they arefunctioning and solid businesses and then turn over project to a manager; areleaders, have good team building skills; go outside job description to accomplishgoals; decisive, risk taking, action-oriented, dedicated; have vision and long-termperspective.Tushman & Nadler (1986)Champions/Internal Entrepreneurs: take creative ideas (which they may ormay not have generated) and bring the ideas to life. They possess aggressiveness,energy, and are risk takers.White (1988)Intrapreneur: entrepreneurs operating in large companies; take risks, implementideas; self-confident; innovative self-starters; team leaders; able to visualizesolutions.Price & Bailey (1989)Corporate Entrepreneur/Intrapreneur: test new ideas in the marketplace andlaunch new ventures. Authors do not give a specific behavioral definition butlikens the intrapreneur to Kanter\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1982) definition of the corporateentrepreneur/innovative manager.Howell & Higgins (1990a)Project Champion: same definition used as Achilladelis et al. (1971).21for pushing and promoting innovation. Rarely are individuals appointed to champion aninnovation. Thus, their role in the innovation process has typically not been defined as aformal, necessary component of the job, as in a job description, for example. Championscan, potentially, emerge from any department, in any type of organization. Mostresearchers have argued that formalizing the function and responsibilities of thechampion role would serve to undermine the intrinsic motivation assumed to underlie anddrive individuals to champion innovation (Howell & Higgins, 1990a; Tushman & Nadler,1986).Secondly, most authors stated that champions need not be the original inventor ofan idea. Their role is to take an idea for an invention and develop it to the stage at whichit becomes acceptable to upper management as a viable corporate initiative. Galbraith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s(1982) definition for the idea champion included the notion of invention, although hissample of innovators were lower-level personnel than those typically studied.Third, virtually all definitions of the champion converge in stressing theimportance of the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s role in promoting and selling ideas to management. Thechampion uses his/her skills to take a given innovation to the stage at which it becomesattractive for business sponsorship. The importance of their role is summarizedemphatically by Schon (1963): \u00E2\u0080\u009C...the new idea either finds a champion or it dies\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p. 84).Fourth, the degree of radicalness of the innovation is not explicitly stated in theabove definition. Schon\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1963) original use of the term champion was based on asample of champions of radical innovations. Since that time, champions have also beenstudied in the context of more incremental innovation (Howell & Higgins, 1990a; Kanter,1982; Knight, 1985). Given the substantially-lower base rate of radical vs. incrementalinnovation, the potential utility of personnel selection in the context of the latter is likelyconsiderably greater.Fifth, both technical and administrative innovations were included in the presentstudy in the interests of completeness. Briefly, the former innovations pertain to new22developments in products, services, and production process technology; technicalinnovations relate to basic work activities and are the more commonly-occurring (andstudied) form of innovation than are administrative innovations (Damanpour & Evan,1984; Damanpour, 1991). Administrative innovations involve organizational structureand administrative processes (i.e., a re-organization of a department or company); suchinnovations are not directly related to basic work activities, but are, instead, more directlyrelated to an organization\u00E2\u0080\u0099s management (Damanpour, 1991). Since the champion hasbeen identified as instrumental in both types of innovation, the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s activities inboth contexts will be examined in the present study.Champions, Innovators, Entrepreneurs, Corporate Entrepreneurs, and IntrapreneursThe many labels that have been used to describe the champion role can lead toconfusion and ambiguity in definition. Since an inclusive definition was gleaned fromTable 1, it may be that the variety of labels do not reflect heterogeneity of meaning.Instead, it may be that the more current labels of corporate entrepreneur andintrapreneur, are recent re-iterations on a theme whose arrival may have more to do witha surge in interest in innovation research than in the discovery of substantively new rolesin the innovation process.Frost and Egri (1991) noted that the use of the term intrapreneur (andentrepreneur) to refer to the champion role is potentially misleading. The termentrepreneur has typically been used in the small business context (see Carland et al.,1984), although it need not be limited to this. Small-business entrepreneurs areinnovators who operate more autonomously than does the champion. It is very likely thatindividuals who operate as entrepreneurs within a large organization\u00E2\u0080\u0094those whochampion, promote, and sell innovation\u00E2\u0080\u0094will be different from persons who establishtheir own business (Hill, 1987).By referring to the champion as an entrepreneur or using the term corporate23entrepreneur, researchers are borrowing from the more extensive psychological literatureon the small-business entrepreneur (see, Brockhaus & Horwitz, 1986, for a review on thepsychological characteristics of the small-business entrepreneur) and, implicitly,sometimes explicitly, applying this knowledge to the study of her/his corporatecounterpart. Although there may be some similarities in the psychological characteristicsof the small-business entrepreneur and the champion, the degree of overlap is, at present,difficult to determine, given the scarcity of information on the individual-differencescharacteristics of the champion. The extent to which the characteristics of the corporateentrepreneur and the small business entrepreneur overlap is an empirical issue which hasnot, to date, been addressed adequately.A Two-Dimensional Conceptualization of the Champion RoleIn the previous section a summary definition of the champion role was gleanedfrom the literature review. This definition can be understood as containing twocomponents. These are presented in Table 2. The two components or dimensions havebeen labeled: (a) Conceptualizing, Developing, and Designing Innovation, and (b)Working to Promote Innovation. They correspond to the two main components of thedefinition: (a) the conceptualization and development of an idea into a potentially viableinnovation, and (b) the promoting and selling of that idea to upper management. Thebehavioral statements reported for each dimension are included to serve as examples toillustrate representative behaviors for each dimension.A two-dimensional framework is proposed in recognition of the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s roleas a coordinator, between the inventive efforts of the innovator, on the one hand, and thebusiness and strategic priorities of upper management, on the other (e.g., Burgelman,1983; Pinchot, 1985). The champion must be aware of new technologies and approachesand be capable of envisioning new applications. At the same time, champions must beable to communicate their vision to others\u00E2\u0080\u0094to encourage, inspire, persuade, and24Table 2Dimensions of ChampionshipConceptualizingffleveloping/Designing Innovation\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 generating a new idea for either a technical or administrative innovation.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 developing an idea proposed by someone else.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 gathering needed information to develop idea.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 visualizing application/market opportunity.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 developing a scheme to market or promote idea.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 planning for adoption of innovation.II. Working to Promote Innovation\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Promoting/selling/advocating ideas within the organization.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 securing upper management support; using political contacts.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 coordinating activities of various divisions.. .working cooperatively.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 competing against others for approval of ideas.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 using resources and contacts from outside of own job responsibilities topromote.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 mobilizing needed resources: cash, personnel, equipment, time, etc.25promote. Thus, the champion must be capable of working with and developing ideas,determining which ideas/proposals may be most appropriate and marketable as well asselling and promoting those ideas to the strategic decision makers.It may be possible for some individuals to envision, design, and develop aninnovation, but fall short in their efforts to convince others of its importance. Suchinnovators will be valuable sources of new ideas for an organization, but may lack theskills to convince others of their importance. Similarly, some managers may be excellentsalespersons, capable of promoting ideas and securing support, but fall short in theirability to evaluate the initial appropriateness of new ideas (or even generate new ideas inthe first place). Such managers would likely have a strong voice and perhaps yieldconsiderable power and influence but would need to rely on others to develop theconceptual groundwork. It is likely that organizations would find both types of managersvaluable. Individuals who excel in both\u00E2\u0080\u0094who have the ability to envision newopportunities and the skills to promote them\u00E2\u0080\u0094will likely be most valuable of all. Theseare the champions, those who distill creative ideas from information sources and thenenthusiastically promote them within the organization (Achilladelis et al., 1971).SummaryThe proposed two-dimensional model of championship was rationally, notempirically, derived. It must be seen, therefore, as speculative. No prior research hasbeen conducted in this area; no previous dimensional models of championship have beenproposed. Thus, a key objective of the present research is to systematically study thechampion role; the rationally-derived model will be empirically tested.In the next section, research on the individual-differences characteristics of thechampion is reviewed. The focus shifts from the identification and definition ofchampionship to the description of the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s abilities and traits. In the context ofthe present study, this represents a shift from the criterion to the predictor.26IV. Champions of Innovation: Their Individual-Differences CharacteristicsOverviewThe characteristics of the champion have been an object of speculation since thisspecial breed of innovator was first identified by Schon (1963). With few exceptions, themajority of studies in which the traits of the champion have been described, suffer frommethodological shortcomings; much of what has been reported in the past has beenlargely anecdotal. Described as energetic, persistent, visionary, and politically-astute, forexample (e.g., Burgelman, 1983; Chakrabarti, 1974; Schon, 1963), the methods used toarrive at these descriptions have been largely unstructured and often unreported. Thechampion has been described based on researchers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 impressions. With one exception(Howell & Higgins, 1990a), the characteristics of the champion have not been carefullystudied using reliable and valid standardized assessment instruments.Major findings of the reviewed literature are summarized in Table 3. Traitdescriptions have been rationally clustered into four dimensions: three related topersonality traits and the fourth related primarily to aspects of cognitive ability. Thisclustering reflects the present author\u00E2\u0080\u0099s dimensionalization of the literature around globalindividual-differences dimensions5.The intent of the clustering was to present a tentativepsychological framework\u00E2\u0080\u0094an organization of the research to date\u00E2\u0080\u0094in a form amenableto empirical testing.Using largely qualitative, rather than quantitative methods, the majority ofresearchers whose studies are referenced in Table 3 reached similar conclusions about theindividual-differences characteristics of the champion. Considerable consistencyemerges, pointing to promising areas which could contribute to a meaningful profiling ofThe reader will likely note the similarity of these dimensions to the Big Five (Tupes & Christal, 1961)personality factors of Extraversion, Openness, Conscientiousness, and Intellectance; conspicuous by itsabsence is Neuroticism. Clearly the flavor of the trait profile is decidedly positive. We are left with theimpression that the champion must be a decidedly excellent manager and person.27Table 3Logically-Derived Trait Dimensions of the ChampionA. PERSONALITY/MOTIVATIONAL TRAITSINTERPERSONAL EFFECTIVENESSI. Interpersonal Influence: influences others, exercises power, persuades;possesses confidence, assurance (Burgelman, 1983; Chakrabarti, 1974;Gaibraith, 1982; Kanter, 1982; Price & Bailey, 1989).II. Interpersonal Awareness: tact, sensitivity, able to work with others,participative-collaborative style (Chakrabarti, 1974; Kanter, 1982;Kieruiff, 1979).DETERMINED ACHIEVEMENT-ORIENTATIONifi. Persistent Drive: achievement orientation, drive, persistence,determination, dedication (Chakrabarti, 1974; Galbraith, 1982; Howell &Higgins, 1990a; Kierulff, 1979; Pinchot, 1985; Price & Bailey, 1989;Roberts, 1968; Schon, 1963; Smith et al., 1984.IV. Action-Oriented Competition: energy, aggressiveness, competitive,decisive (Chakrabarti, 1974; Kieruiff, 1979; Pinchot, 1985; Price &Bailey, 1989; Schon, 1963.OPENNESS/WILLINGNESS TO CHANGEV. Openness to Change/Visionary: irreverence for status quo, willingness totry new things; orientation toward the future and constant change(Galbraith, 1982; Kierulff, 1979; Pinchot, 1985; Price & Bailey, 1989).VI. Willingness to Take Risks: opportunistic, bends rules (Galbraith, 1982;Howell & Higgins, 1990a; Kierulff, 1979; Pinchot, 1985; Price & Bailey,1989; Schon, 1963).B. COGNITIVE ABILITIESVII. Innovative Idea Generator: creative, inventive, innovative (Galbraith,1982; Howell & Higgins, 1990a; Kierulff, 1979; Price & Bailey, 1989).VIII. Analytical Evaluative Ability: good evaluative skills; ability toconceptualize ideas in new ways (Burgelman, 1983).IX. Effective Communication Skills: good negotiator, bargainer, open/willingto communicate with others (Burgelman, 1983; Chakrabarti, 1974;Gaibraith, 1982; Kanter, 1982; Kierulff, 1979; Price & Bailey, 1989).28the champion. With regard to the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s personality traits, elements of interpersonaleffectiveness, achievement-orientation or drive, and openness to change have beenreported consistently. Specific references to cognitive abilities have been less frequentlymade. When intellectual abilities have been mentioned, it is difficult to determine if theauthor intended to refer to a trait or an ability. For example, Howell and Higgins (1990a)discussed the innovativeness of the champion, but measured this characteristic as apersonality trait using the Jackson Personality Inventory (JPI; Jackson, 1976). Insummary, the potential importance of cognitive variables has not been carefully examinedto date.In the following four sections\u00E2\u0080\u0094corresponding to the four main dimensions inTable 3\u00E2\u0080\u0094research on the champion is reviewed. This is not intended to represent anempirically-based or definitive profile of the champion. Instead, the profile has beenorganized in order to identify patterns of consistency in the literature that can be used togenerate hypotheses to be subjected to empirical testing.Personality/Motivational TraitsInterpersonal EffectivenessChampions have repeatedly been described as possessing good interpersonal skills(e.g., Price & Bailey, 1989). They have been characterized as politically astute(Burgelman, 1983; Chakrabarti, 1974; Kanter, 1982). Demonstrating self-confidence andassurance (Price & Bailey, 1989), they have been described as able to inspire andinfluence others (e.g., Galbraith, 1982; Howell & Higgins, 1990a).Running throughout this dimension appears to be a theme of extraversion\u00E2\u0080\u0094apeople orientation. The champion accomplishes objectives through others. At times, thismay involve persuading and exerting influence. At other times, the champion may berequired to encourage and inspire more collaboratively, less forcefully. To know when touse each style, it is likely that the champion will need to be interpersonally aware. Thus,29two aspects of interpersonal effectiveness are identified in Table 3: (a) InterpersonalInfluence, and (b) Interpersonal Awareness.Burgelman (1983), described the champion as fulfilling a linking or coordinatingfunction between the autonomous strategic efforts and ideas of inventors, on the onehand, and the induced strategic behavior of upper management, on the other. He notedthat successful champions were able to tap into, and use effectively, the organizationalpower structure. Since their projects typically cut across organizational lines, championsmust be able to call upon others (in powerful and influential positions) to help. At thesame time, they must remain influential among employees operating in the autonomousstrategic loop (the inventors and technical specialists). They must know when to usevarious means of relating to and influencing others.Howell and Higgins (1990a) noted that the champion is frequently described ascapable of instilling enthusiasm in others; as possessing a special quality that enableshim/her to sell their vision to others. They found their sample of champions to besignificantly higher on the two transformational leadership factors (Bass, 1985) ofcharisma and inspiration than a matched sample of non-champions [mean differenceswere particularly significant (p < .00 1) for the inspiration dimension]. Charisma wasdefined by Bass as the leader\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to communicate a compelling vision, to inspire andencourage strong effort in others, while inspiration was defined as the leader\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability touse emotional appeals, communicate in a vivid and persuasive manner, and enhancefollowers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 confidence and motivation to go after challenging goals.Anecdotal evidence of traits related to charisma and the ability to inspire havebeen noted by others. Kierulff (1979), in a survey of 91 executives, found thatenthusiasm, on the part of the corporate entrepreneur or champion was rated as necessaryfor success. The champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s success in building a coalition of supporters (as noted byKanter, 1982) depends, in part, on his/her ability to inspire others with the potential ofhis/her vision. Price and Bailey (1989) found that enthusiasm was one of the more30frequently rated traits of the intrapreneur. Pinchot (1985) also stressed the importance ofthe champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to inspire and motivate others in his case studies of successfulintrapreneuring. Clearly, the champion is able to share his/her vision with others in a waythat encourages, motivates, and inspires people.What specific interpersonal skills, then, allow the champion to inspire andencourage others? What specific traits allow the champion to be effective in his/herdealings with individuals from various departments occupying different levels in theorganizational hierarchy? In general, it appears that champions must be extroverts. Inorder to fulfill their coordinating function, in order to initiate and maintain their networkof contacts, in order to persuade and influence, and in order to understand other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099point of view, they must be oriented toward people.Components ofInterpersonal EffectivenessA more finely-grained analysis of the interpersonal style of the champion is givenbelow. Research in which elements of ascendance or forcefulness have been reported ispresented first. Next, evidence for the role of interpersonal awareness will be presented.Interpersonal Influence. Kanter (1982), in a study of effective innovative middlemanagers (whom she termed corporate entrepreneurs; see Table 1), reported thatinnovative managers were more persuasive than their more conventional counterparts.She reported that the corporate entrepreneurs were capable of acquiring the power andinfluence they needed to accomplish their objectives. Gaibraith (1982) reached a similarconclusion to Kanter in his study of radical innovation in an electronics firm. He alsostressed the ability of champions to persuade and push. Chakrabarti (1974), reporting thefindings of 45 case studies of technical innovation, described champions as aggressive.A common theme emerging from these studies is the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to influence31others through persuasive or forceful means.6In addition to being characterized frequently as dominant and assertive, thechampion has also been described as interpersonally aware, as possessing tact andsensitivity. Kanter (1982) emphasized the champions ability to work collaborativelywith others. The champion has been described as capable of changing, of adaptinghis/her style to new situations and people. Of course, a precursor to such adaptations isan initial awareness of people and their needs.Interpersonal Awareness. Serving a coordinating function, the champion must becareful not to alienate Others and, thus, lose contacts and influence in the organization.The champion has frequently been described as an interpersonally-aware manager,possessing tact and sensitivity. Burgelman (1983) noted that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...astute organizationalchampions learned what the dispositions of top management were and made sure that theprojects they championed were consistent with the current corporate strategy11 (p. 238).Going beyond the formal limits of their position, the champion will need to treadsoftly, carefully, and tactfully (Chakrabarti, 1974). They must be capable of workingwell with others. Kierulff (1979) found that executives rated an inability to work withothers as the most detrimental trait for a champion to possess. Kanter (1982) found thatmanagers known for their innovative accomplishments were more likely than the less-innovative managers to employ a participative-collaborative management style. Shestressed that such a management style allows the innovative manager to influence,motivate, and encourage others in the process of building a team or coalition ofsupporters.Summary. Considered together, the research reported in this section paints thepicture of a manager who is interpersonally skilled. S/he is likely outgoing, sociable, and6 Champions are also noted for their ability to influence others through less forceful means; this will bediscussed under the heading of Interpersonal Awareness.32warm. As well, they possess a degree of dominance or ascendancy.DeterminedAchievement OrientationSome of the most frequently-cited traits of the champion can be understood asfalling within a dimension labeled here as Determined Achievement Orientation (DAO).Paralleling the psychological literature on the small-business entrepreneur, a number ofresearchers have described the champion as driven to achieve (e.g., Chakrabarti, 1974;Roberts, 1968; Schon, 1963). S/he possesses dedication to the task at hand andpersistence and resolve in the face of challenge and opposition. The champion has alsobeen described as action-oriented, independent, and aggressive\u00E2\u0080\u0094as able to cut to theheart of an issue and take action.The two components of DAO\u00E2\u0080\u0094Persistent Drive (PD) and Action-OrientedCompetition (AOC)\u00E2\u0080\u0094can be distinguished in the following ways. The first componentcan be understood as work ethic. Individuals scoring high on Persistent Drive would bedetermined and resolved to achieve. They would remain focused on the task at hand andmaintain their energies on accomplishing what they set out to do. The secondcomponent, Action-Oriented Competition, refers to the individual\u00E2\u0080\u0099s work style\u00E2\u0080\u0094how s/heaccomplishes objectives. Individuals scoring high in this area could be described aspossessing great energy and zeal. Such persons may come across to others as aggressiveand passionate. They are oriented to compete against others and are able to decide on acourse of action quickly. They may be focused on work and accomplishments, to thepoint of impatience and pre-occupation.Since the seminal work of McClelland (1961) on the need characteristics of thesmall-business entrepreneur, a number of scholars have described entrepreneurs andcorporate entrepreneurs to be driven to achieve (e.g., Chakrabarti, 1974; Howell &Higgins, 1990a). Described variously as determined, persistent, and dedicated, thesedescriptive characteristics appear to converge on a common theme: a strong and33ambitious achievement ethic. The above finding in the championship literature is a veryrobust one. In a variety of samples and industry and innovation types, champions haveconsistently been described as driven to achieve. A similar link between achievementand entrepreneurial status has been demonstrated in a number of studies of the small-business entrepreneur as well (e.g., Hornaday & Aboud, 197 l;Komives, 1972;McClelland, 1965).Champions have also typically been characterized as possessing great energy andfocus characterized by an action-oriented management style (Chakrabarti, 1974; Pinchot,1985; Schon, 1963). What is labeled here as Action-Oriented Competition relates to thechampion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s style of pursuing objectives. They have been described as aggressive,competitive, independent, and decisive (Kierulff, 1979; Price & Bailey, 1989).Champions are able to see a clear course of action, make a decision, and thenaggressively stand behind their decision. They push and fight to meet their objectives.Openness! Willingness to ChangeBy definition, a champion is actively involved in a major change process. S/he isthe motivational spark behind innovation. Champions have been described as open tochange (e.g., Pinchot, 1985), as willing to try new things and experiment with new ideas.Not satisfied with the status quo, the champion has often been described as possessing anorientation toward the future. Price and Bailey (1989) described the champion aspossessing vision.Having visualized a commercial opportunity, the champion must be willing totake the risk of rallying behind a product or idea and promoting it to others in theorganization (e.g., Pinchot, 1985). Thus, it is not surprising to find that the champion hasbeen described frequently as willing to take risks (e.g., Galbraith, 1982; Schon, 1963). Apropensity toward risk taking is one of the most frequently-reported traits found in studiesof the small-business entrepreneur (see Brockhaus & Horwitz, 1986 for a review).34From Personality to AbilityThis section of the review is notably brief. Few researchers have commented onthe potential role that cognitive factors might play in determining champion success or indifferentiating champions from non-champions. It may be that cognitive abilities havelittle to do with championship. Alternately, the brevity of this section may reflect thenarrow focus of past research.Cognitive AbilityThe relative neglect of cognitive explanations of champion behavior mayrepresent a significant omission, since reliable and valid measures of intellectual abilityhave been found to be valid predictors of overall managerial performance, typically morepowerful than personality traits (e.g., Ghiselli, 1973; Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Reilly &Chao, 1982). Although general management performance is not the concern in thepresent study, it is possible that selected cognitive variables may possess some validity aspredictors of championship. Given the essentially innovative nature of the role of thechampion, of special interest may be cognitive abilities related to cognitive flexibility.Taxonomies or models of intelligence have developed over the years in much thesame manner as have taxonomies of personality. Building on the work of Thurstone(1938) who first demonstrated the existence of primary abilities (components ofSpearman\u00E2\u0080\u0099s g), others have sought to identify an exhaustive list of primary abilities (e.g.,Hakstian & Cattell, 1978). Recently, Cattell (1987) summarized past research on primaryabilities as demonstrating 20 empirically-based (but tentative) primary ability concepts.Of relevance to the next section, are the two primary abilities wordfluency and ideationalfluency.35Innovative Idea GeneratorThe champion is frequently described as an innovative idea generator\u00E2\u0080\u0094as onewho is able to visualize how an idea or product might generate revenue for theorganization (Gaibraith, 1982; Howell & Higgins, 1990a). The champion may be theindividual to generate the original idea, but not always. In some cases, they may rely onthe technical inventions of others. Thus, the champion is innovative, but not alwaysinventive. In other words, the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s creative act comes not necessarily ingenerating the original idea for a new product or process, but, instead, in visualizing howa new product or process might be applied in the marketplace in order to generaterevenue.Although the champion has often been described as innovative (e.g., Galbraith,1982; Howell & Higgins, 1990a), this characterization appears to have been targeted atthe champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s personal style. Thus, innovativeness has been conceived of in terms ofpersonality not ability. For example, in the Howell and Higgins study, champions werefound to score significantly higher than non-champions on the WI Innovation scale.Defined as \u00E2\u0080\u009C...develops novel solutions to problems\u00E2\u0080\u009D, innovation was conceived of as astyle of approaching problems. It was not measured as a cognitive ability\u00E2\u0080\u0094a capacity forinnovation.Price and Bailey (1989), in polling 2,400 managers about the characteristics of theintrapreneur, reported that the second-most-frequently cited attribute of the intrapreneurwas that s/he was creative/innovative/inventive. Similarly, Kieruiff (1979) reported thatthe 91 executives he surveyed also stressed the importance of creativity for success in thecorporate entrepreneurial role.Analytical Evaluative AbiliiyBurgelman (1983) noted that the champion typically possesses good evaluativeskills. He remarked that the champion must be able to evaluate the appropriateness of36technological proposals. Burgelman\u00E2\u0080\u0099s observation stands alone in the championliterature; no other mention of the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s general ability was discussed.Effective Communication SkillsChampions must be capable of selling their ideas to others. Thus, they have beendescribed as possessing good communication skills (Price & Bailey, 1989). Kanter(1982) described the corporate entrepreneur as able to seek out and communicateinformation to others effectively. Gaibraith (1982) noted the importance of persuasivebargaining and negotiating. Finally, Kieruiff (1979) stressed that corporate entrepreneursmust be able and willing to communicate freely and openly.SummaryResearch on the role of the champion and his/her characteristics has been featuredin the literature review. Limitations of the research have been noted. At present, ourknowledge of the champion is based primarily on descriptive, albeit rich and detailed,accounts of his/her characteristics. The present research was designed to expand ourknowledge of championship through a careful and exhaustive empirical study of thechampion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s role and characteristics.Such a program of research has both theoretical and practical appeal. A study ofthe champion role would add considerably to the present use of simplistic (unidimensional) models of championship. The development of a more comprehensive,empirically-based model could be used to standardize the identification of champions. Atthe very least, such a model would provide a starting point (or comparative standard) forfuture research.Naturally, the identification of dimensions of championship would be useful forIndustrial/Organizational Psychologists and other practitioners involved in selection workwho, in various organizational contexts, are asked the question: How does our companybecome more innovative? If a comprehensive model of championship were developed37and replicated, it could be used as a blueprint to develop rating scales to aid organizationsin the identification of current employees already demonstrating aspects of championship.A central purpose of the present research is the development of such a rating scale.A careful study of the individual-differences characteristics of the championwould serve to test the validity of findings from past research. Standardizedpsychological assessment procedures could be used to study the champion with referenceto some well-established taxonomies of personality and ability. Such research has beenconducted with the small-business entrepreneur, but is lacking in connection with thechampion.If tests could be found that correlated with dimensions of championship, therewould be justification for using those tests to screen applicants for champion potential. Inthose organizations seeking to become more innovative, one approach would be to hireindividuals whose predicted scores on dimensions of championship are high. Carefullydeveloped and normed, a battery of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cchampion tests\u00E2\u0080\u009D would have tremendous utility toorganizations seeking to increase the number of champions in their work force.Before moving to a detailed discussion of the present research, a brief evaluationof the literature review is presented. This evaluation is used to develop a more detailedrationale for the present research. Hypotheses related to the role and characteristics of thechampion are gleaned from this evaluation and are presented in the next section as well.38RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESESThe literature review was divided into four main sections. The first two wereprovided to define key terms and present evidence on the importance of the championrole in the innovation process. The latter two sections\u00E2\u0080\u0094corresponding to an examinationof the role of the champion and his/her individual-differences characteristics\u00E2\u0080\u0094providedthe foundation for the present research. In the paradigm of personnel selection and, moregenerally, assessment, the latter two sections correspond to criterion and predictormeasurement, respectively.This chapter is divided into two sections, corresponding to the role andcharacteristics of the champion. In both, a summary and discussion of the literature isprovided. Limitations of past research are discussed and gaps in knowledge identified.Finally, hypotheses are presented to address these limitations and gaps.Section I: Evaluation of Research on the Role of the Champion and Development ofHypotheses Related to Criterion MeasurementLimitations ofPast ResearchPrevious research on the champion can be criticized with respect to twoassumptions underlying the methods used to identify the champion role. Past researchershave not explicitly acknowledged that the champion role may be a multi-dimensionalone. As well, it has not been recognized that championship may also be a matter ofdegree; we may be losing significant information by conceiving of individuals as eitherchampions or non-champions, with no recognition of gradations or degrees.An implicit assumption of past researchers has been that the champion role can beadequately characterized by a summary dimension called championship. It seems likelythat the role of the champion is a complex one that may be subsumed by a number ofdimensions (e.g., risk taking, political skill). Understanding of the complexity of39championship cannot be furthered as long as researchers ignore the possibility thatchampionship may represent a multi-dimensional role. This possibility will be examineddirectly in the present study.A second assumption has been that individuals can be sorted into one of twocategories: champion and non-champion. No attempt has been made to conceive of andmeasure championship as a continuous variable. Just as managers are not either leadersor non-leaders, it is likely that individuals vary in the degree to which they demonstratechampionship. Thus, more information might be gained by placing or orderingindividuals along a continuum reflecting the degree to which they exhibit championship.Even more information could be gained by assuming a multi-dimensionalcriterion with continuous measurement within dimension. Individuals could be placedalong a continuum reflecting their level of participation on dimensions of championship.Such a continuum would run from individuals of extraordinary inventive and persuasiveabilities (to name just two of the frequently-identified components of championship) atone end, through persons of more typical and modal propensities, to persons whodemonstrate none of such attributes. Such an approach to criterion development wouldpermit the testing of some important hypotheses related to the nature of the championrole. These are outlined below.HypothesesHypothesis 1It is hypothesized that the construct of championship can be meaningfullyrepresented by a hierarchical factor model. Three levels or strata are hypothesized toexist. The highest level, in this case a third-order construct, is labeled Championship.This higher-order construct will subsume two second-order constructs, paralleling the twodimensions in the model of championship (see Table 2). Thus, the two second-orderconstructs will relate to elements of innovativeness, on the one hand, and salesmanship40and promotion, on the other. Each of these two second-order constructs will furthersubdivide into a number of more specific first-order or primary constructs.Hypothesis 2Secondly, past researchers have tended to stress the salience of salesmanship andpromotion over innovation, for the champion. For example, it is clear from the definitionthat the champion need not have been the one to originally generate the new idea. Therelative importance of salesmanship and promotion is also apparent from the attentiongiven to personality traits related to extraversion, ascendancy, and persistence by pastresearchers, to the relative neglect of cognitive abilities. It is hypothesized thatdimensions of overall championship related to salesmanship and promotion will be foundto be the most central or characteristic aspects of the general construct.Section II: Implications of Research on the Individual-Differences Characteristics of theChampion and Development of Hypotheses Related to Predictor MeasurementLimitations ofPast ResearchResearch on the individual-differences characteristics of the champion wasreviewed earlier. Four main clusters of characteristics were identified, each roughlycorresponding to a type of ability or trait described as characteristic of the champion.Evidence of consistency was found, especially with respect to personality characteristics.Numerous researchers converged in identifying common traits as characteristic of thechampion.In spite of the apparent consistency, the studies and, hence, the findings, haveseveral shortcomings. First, the reviewed studies give little evidence that would enableone to conclude that champions possess the cited traits and abilities to a greater degreethan do non-champions. With the exception of the Howell and Higgins (1990a) study,researchers have not typically included a control or comparative sample. Thus, it is41difficult to know if dominance, for example, is a trait that distinguishes champions fromnon-champions. If most managers are dominant, then managers identified as championswill also tend, on average, to be dominant. But this trait will not distinguish them fromother managers, and, thus, scores on a test measuring such a trait could not be used topredict group membership.7Secondly, to repeat a concern cited earlier, most of the findings from studiesreported in Table 3 were not obtained using standardized measurement tools. With theexception of the Howell and Higgins (1990a) study, previous researchers appear to haveformed impressions of the champion personality. They typically do not, however, reporthow those impressions were formed. The descriptively-based profiles presented byprevious researchers serve as a rich source of data. Our knowledge in this area would beon more methodologically-solid footing, however, if more rigorous methods were used toprofile the champion.Thirdly, previous research can be criticized in that very little attention has beenfocused on the cognitive abilities of the champion. Instead, in the vast majority ofprevious research, the personality characteristics of the champion have been the solefocus. Only a few anecdotal reports on the general or specific skills of the champion canbe found, accounting for the brevity in this section of the literature review.The final primary concern, not raised before, relates to the issue of genderdifferences. Virtually all past research on the champion appears to have been limited to astudy of the male champion. Some authors do not describe the gender composition oftheir samples (e.g., Price & Bailey, 1989). Others, perhaps revealing the now-historicalnature of their work, merely assume that the reader must recognize that male championsare the obvious focus (e.g., Roberts, 1968; Schon, 1963). More recently, Howell andHiggins (1990a) acknowledged that all 50 participants in their study were males.\u00E2\u0080\u009C For the sake of simplicity, a dichotomous criterion has been assumed here.42The issue of gender differences will be addressed in the present research. Giventhe absence of past research in this area, no specific hypotheses are proposed. Ratheranalyses on gender differences will be conducted in an exploratory spirit.HypothesesPersonality/Motivational CharacteristicsInterpersonal effectiveness. The consistency of findings from studies reviewedwithin this dimension gives strong evidence that aspects of interpersonal effectiveness arelikely related to championship. It is hypothesized that individuals who demonstrate manyof the behaviors associated with championing will tend to be more: (a) extraverted, and(b) dominant than individuals who demonstrate fewer of the champion behaviors.Related to the issue of interpersonal effectiveness is the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s style ofdealing with interpersonal conflict; this specific aspect of the champion profile has notbeen mentioned in past research. It is likely that, in promoting ideas, champions willremain focused on their objectives; they will tend to use conflict resolution strategies thatreflect a high concern for their own needs and initiatives. At times this may involvepushing an idea, through a dominating strategy. In other situations, the champion willseek to maximize his/her own gains while at the same time, showing concern for others,thus employing an integrating strategy. It is hypothesized that individuals high inchampionship will tend to use strategies that show a paramount concern for their ownneeds and initiatives in resolving interpersonal conflict to a greater extent thanindividuals low in championship.Determined achievement orientation. Drive, ambition, and determination arefrequently-cited characteristics of the champion. These findings are similar to thosereported in the literature on the small-business entrepreneur. It is hypothesized, therefore,that individuals high in championship will tend to be more: (a) achievement oriented, (b)independent, and (c) driven and competitive than individuals low in championship.43Openness/willingness to change. The champion has been described as open tonew ways of thinking and behaving. Indeed, some writers have characterized thechampion as restless and unwilling to tolerate the status quo. Thus, it is hypothesizedthat individuals high in championship will tend to be more: (a) tolerant, (b) flexible, and(c) imaginative than individuals low in championship. They will be open toexperimentation and new approaches and experiences.Cognitive AbilitiesThe paucity of research on the cognitive abilities of the champion was notedearlier. Thus, unlike the above hypotheses on the personality traits of the champion, thehypotheses presented in this section have limited foundation. The are presented,nonetheless, on rational grounds. Given the established validity and utility of cognitiveabilities in the context of personnel selection (see, for example, Hunter & Hunter, 1984),it seems likely that selected specific abilities (as well as overall cognitive ability) mayhave a significant role to play in ordering individuals along a continuum on dimensionsof championship, assuming, of course, that championship is related to overallperformance.Innovativeness. Although researchers of the champion have, in the past, oftendefined innovation as a personality trait, the construct of innovation in the present studywill be understood and measured as a cognitive ability, It is hypothesized that individualshigh in championship will tend to be more innovative than individuals low inchampionship.Analytical evaluative ability. There has been very little discussion of thechampion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s general analytical abilities in the literature. The general cognitive demands ofeither generating or applying new ideas seem to be substantial, however. Thus, it ishypothesized that individuals high in championship will tend to possess a level of generalability that is superior to individuals low in championship.44Effective communication skills. Limited mention has been made of thechampion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s communication skills. When discussed, the focus is often on the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099sability to persuade and bargain. In addition to persuasiveness, however, it is likely thatthe champion will need to possess a solid profile of English language skills. Thus, it ishypothesized that individuals high in championship will tend to possess English languageskills (e.g., writing skills, grammar, etc.) that are superior to individuals low inchampionship.SummaryDrawing on the results of the literature review, a series of hypotheses related toboth the role and characteristics of the champion have been presented. In the next threechapters, three studies are described that: (a) address these hypotheses8,and (b) developnew methods of measuring and predicting championship. The goals of the presentresearch are, therefore, both theoretical and applied, as noted earlier. To reiterate, theoverarching purpose of the present research is the description and prediction ofchampionship.In Study 1, champion behavior is the focus. The emphasis is on criterionmeasurement. Job-analytic and factor-analytic techniques are used to identify criticaldimensions of championship. A rating form is developed and administered to close to200 managers in order to obtain supervisory ratings of championship on the identifieddimensions. The development of this scale permits the testing of Hypotheses 1 and 2. Aswell, the supervisory ratings obtained would serve as criterion data for Studies 2 and 3.Methods related to the prediction of championship are presented in Studies 2 and3. The focus of these studies is on the predictor side of the prediction equation. The twomain objectives of Study 2 are to: (a) address hypotheses related to the individual-differences characteristics of the champion, and (b) develop a championship scale\u00E2\u0080\u0094a8 These hypotheses are articulated in more detail in the following chapters.45linear combination of test scales predictive of dimensions of champio nship. Naturally,these two objectives overlap to some degree. If the hypothesis of a correlation betweenextraversion and championship, for example, is not rejected, then the test(s) used tomeasure extraversion will be likely candidates for the championship scale.An extensive battery of standardized tests and simulation exercises are used inStudy 2 [e.g., the California Psychological Inventory (CPI); Gough, 1975). Theseassessment devices were designed to measure a broad range of abilities, traits, and skillsbeyond those needed to test the hypotheses articulated in this section. Given the scarcityof carefully-conducted research in this area, a comprehensive approach to measurementwas deemed important so that relevant traits, abilities, or skills would not be overlookedin the development of the championship scale.Study 3 features the development of a management simulation. This simulation isgrounded in the logic of the behavioral consistency model (Wernimont & Campbell,1968) and was designed to correlate with dimensions of championship identified in Study1. The psychometric properties of this simulation are examined and its validity iscompared with that of the various predictor devices employed in Study 2.46STUDY 1: THE STRUCTURE OF CHAMPIONSHIP AND THE DEVELOPMENT OFCHAMPION CRITERION SCALESOverview and Rationale for MethodsTo accomplish the objectives of Study 1, a careful and programmatic study of thecriterion\u00E2\u0080\u0094championship\u00E2\u0080\u0094-was carried out. Established methods of instrumentdevelopment were brought to bear on this measurement challenge. The present authorenlisted the aid of industrial/organizational psychologists, management consultants,professors of management and business and roughly 700 managers from a variety oforganizations in the development and refinement of the dimensional structure ofchampionship.Criterion development work in the present study followed the recommended stepsset forth by Guion (1961). It began with input from managers who defined the behavioraldomain. Three panels of managers composed several hundred behavioral statementsreflecting the domain of championship. The concern at this stage was with contentvalidity (comprehensiveness) and relevance. Next a search for dimensions ofchampionship was undertaken. Two separate factor analyses were carried out involvingover 600 managers in order to identify generalizable dimensions of championship.Finally, common dimensions arising from the two factor analyses were named by subjectmatter experts (professionals knowledgeable about championship and corporateinnovation) using a method called the Recaptured Item Technique (RIT; Meehl, Lykken,Schofield, & Tellegen, 1971) and each factor was rated for prototypicality (Buss & Ciaik,1980).The present study made use of aspects of techniques developed for performanceappraisal, like Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS; Smith & Kendall, 1963) andBehavioral Observation Scales (BOS; Latham & Wexley, 1981). Selected proceduresfrom the actfrequency approach (Buss & Craik, 1980; 1981), developed in the context of47personality research, were used as well. Although the precise steps that go intodeveloping rating scales vary across these approaches, they share some commonelements. All feature a behavioral specification of the criteria. This is accomplishedthrough the use of panels, familiar with the construct(s) or job dimension(s) under study.Finally, all share a concern for establishing homogeneous clusters of behaviors.More specifically, the development of BARS and BOS involve the use of panelsof job experts who: (a) identify and define critical performance dimensions, and (b) scriptbehavioral incidents reflecting various levels of performance on each dimension. BARSbehavioral incidents are assigned scale values by panel members (numbers that rangetypically from 1 to 5), while BOS behavioral incidents are scaled as either effective orineffective. Both BARS and BOS result in the development of rating scales designed byjob experts to measure relevant performance dimensions.BARS are graphically distinct from BOS in that raters are typically presentedwith a vertical 5-point rating scale anchored by roughly four to seven behavioralincidents inserted at points along the vertical scale according to their scaled numericalvalue. Unlike the BARS layout, a 5-point rating scale is attached to each of the BOSbehavioral incidents. Raters then indicate the frequency with which they have observedthe ratee engage in the various behaviors.Unlike BARS and BOS, the act frequency method was not developed as aperformance appraisal technique but, instead, was designed as a means of describingdispositional categories, like dominance. In a series of articles, Buss and Craik (1980;1981; 1983a) outlined the actfrequency approach to personality. With this approach,dispositions are understood to be cognitive categories of acts or behaviors. Buss andCraik saw dispositions as summaries of act frequencies\u00E2\u0080\u0094behaviors in which individualsengage. One can arrive at a dispositional statement about a person if s/he engages in ahigh frequency of acts belonging in a given category. The logic is similar to thatassociated with BOS in that, if one engages in a high frequency of behaviors indicative of48high levels of leadership, for example, that person will likely be rated as high onleadership.Buss and Craik drew on the work of Rosch & Mervis (1975) invoking the notionof prototypicality\u00E2\u0080\u0094that acts differ in terms of their membership within a dispositionalcategory. Some acts are more central, ideal examples of the dispositional category thanothers. For example, the act of striking someone is likely to be seen as more prototypic ofthe dispositional category of aggression than is the act of wringing one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s hands.The BARS, BOS, and act frequency approaches each contain features that wereseen as desirable and were, therefore, applied in the methodology of Study 1.Specifically, the instructions given to subjects used by Buss and Craik (1980) ingenerating acts (or behavioral incidents) were adapted in the present study. As well,behavioral statements were scripted to represent the opposite pole of championship inorder to anchor the low end of the opposing conceptual space. Such an approach parallelsBuss and Craik\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1983b) efforts to apply the Wiggins (1979) circumplex model ofinterpersonal dispositions to the examination of act bipolarity.One key difference in the present study, however, is the absence of a clear modelto define, for the construct of championship, the opposing conceptual space. Thischallenge is discussed in more detail below. The additional step of anchoring theopposing pole of the championship continuum was carried out in recognition of the finalpurpose of rating scale development; raters presented with examples of only high (largelydesirable) levels of championship would likely fall into a response set (e.g., acquiescence,social desirability).Behavioral statements were identified with dimensions empirically (using factoranalysis), rather than rationally. Such an approach is different from that used in thedevelopment of BARS., but consistent with both the BOS and act frequency approach.Finally, prototypicality ratings, as used by Buss and Craik (1980), adapted from researchin cognitive psychology (e.g., Rosch and Mervis, 1975) were obtained at the scale (rather49than item) level. The purpose of this step was to examine the relative prototypicality ofthe factors to the category of championship.The methodology used and results obtained in Study 1 will be outlined below infive phases. This organizational structure was deemed necessary in light of both thecomplexity and sequential nature of Study 1. In Phase I, the generation of severalhundred behavioral statements will be described. The rating of the behavioral statementsfor social desirability will then be described in Phase II. In Phase Ill, the first factoranalysis, involving self-report data, will be outlined. In Phase IV, a second factoring,involving, this time, supervisory-report data, will be described. As well, a common,summary structure of championship will be derived. Finally, in Phase V the dimensionsof championship arising from the factor (and item) analyses above will be named, ratedfor prototypicality by subject matter experts, correlated with two criterion measures, anddiscussed.HypothesesHypothesis 1The two factor analyses will demonstrate that behavioral statements written todescribe championship can be understood in terms of homogeneous and meaningfulfactors, each representing unique (but not orthogonal) first-order dimensions ofchampionship. Moreover, the factors identified will be similar across the two factoranalyses.Hypothesis 2Two second-order factors will emerge from the intercorrelations among the firstorder factors identified in both factor solutions. These two second-order factors willcorrespond to the dimensions presented in Table 2: (a)- 50Conceptualizing/Developing/Designing Innovation, and (b) Working to PromoteInnovation.Hypothesis 3First-order factors that relate to aspects of salesmanship and promotion will bejudged by a panel of subject matter experts to be more prototypic of championship thanthe factors related to other aspects of the champion role.Hypothesis 4Finally, it is hypothesized that first-order factors related to salesmanship will beseen as more important components of championship than will first-order factors relatedto innovation. First-order factors related to salesmanship will show positive andsignificant correlation with a criterion championship scale (containing items drawn fromthe definition of championship) that exceed the correlations of first-order factors relatedto innovation.Phase I: The Generation of Champion ActsMethodParticipantsPanel member participants were nine female and 17 male managers from theBritish Columbia Telephone Company (BC Tel). Participants came from a variety ofdivisions in the company: New Business Initiatives (3 panel members), Finance andAdministration (2), Human Resource Development (1), Corporate Planning (1), BusinessCustomer Operations (2), Business Division (2), Strategic Customer Relations (1),Business Planning (1), Corporate Performance (1), General Business Sales (1), Marketing(3), Emerging Business (e.g., BC Tel Mobility) (4), Residential Sales and Services (2),Telecommunication Operations (1), and Engineering (1). Panel members came fromentry-, middle-, and senior-level management groups.51Participants were recruited by a manager from Human Resources Development(HRD).9 This HRD representative selected managers if she knew them to be: (a)knowledgeable about corporate innovation and championship, (b) champions ofinnovation themselves (either on the basis of past or present activity), or (c) involved inwork projects that had given them first-hand experience with innovation andchampionship.Developmental StepsBehavioral incidents (or acts) describing championship were generated by threepanels of managers. The objective at this initial stage of criterion development was toobtain a large number of behavioral statements that would later serve as the foundationfor dimension (scale) generation. Thus, both relevance and comprehensiveness of thechampion behaviors obtained were concerns. Relevance was built into the process byinvolving managers in the scale construction process. Concerns of comprehensivenesswere addressed by soliciting input from managers working in a variety of functional areasat different levels of responsibility and by soliciting a large number of behavioralstatements. The precise sequence of steps involved in the criterion development isoutlined below.Step 1. Two panels of 10 managers each from BC Tel were convened in order togenerate behavioral incidents (Smith & Kendall, 1963), analogous to acts (Buss & Craik,1980; 1981)\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00C2\u00B0 that reflected both: (a) high levels of championship, and (b) the poiaropposite of championship. The procedure used to generate behaviors highlycharacteristic of championship was identical to the process of act generation employed byBuss and Craik. The additional generation of statements reflecting the absence ofPauline Elliott, Human Resource Development Coordinator at BC Tel, was an invaluable ally andsponsor in securing the support of participants at this stage and throughout the research project.10 For simplicity, henceforth, the term act will be used to refer to the behavioral statements. The readershould understand that the terms behavioral incident and act can be used interchangeably.52championship was carried out in order to permit measurement at the other end of thechampionship continuum.In order to accomplish the objectives of Step 1, managers underwent a trainingprocess. First, they were introduced to the role of the champion in the innovationprocess. Managers were provided with the definition used in the present study: Thechampion is an individual who informally emerges to take a new ideafor either anadministrative or technical innovation (an idea s/he may or may not have generated) andintroduces, pushes, promotes, and sells the idea to others in the organization.Aspects of the definition were discussed in an open forum. The distinctionbetween technical and administrative innovation was, for example, pointed out and panelmembers were encouraged to generate acts that pertained to both. The notion that thechampion need not have been the original inventor of the idea was also stressed. Thetwo-dimensional conceptualization of championship (Table 2) was introduced anddiscussed in detail. Time was provided for group debate. Most managers were veryfamiliar with the notion of championship and there was little confusion among the panelmembers about the role of the champion.Next, these same managers were asked to compose acts using a modification ofthe directions used by Buss and Craik (1980): Please think of two people you know whoyou would describe as champions, ideally, one man and one woman. With theseindividuals in mind, write down 15 or 20 statements describing behaviors they mightperform that would reflect their status as a champion. The notion of a behavioralincident (or act) was stressed to panel participants. Panel members were instructed tocompose the behavioral statements and record them in a booklet provided for the ratingprocess (See Appendix A).Panel members were then asked to consider the individual whom they wouldconsider to be entirely lacking in the characteristics of the champion. Such a personwould never engage in any of the behaviors characteristic of the champion. Raters were53given the following instructions: Now, consider the individual whom you would considerto be entirely lacking in the characteristics of the champion. Such a person would neverengage in any of the behaviors characteristic of the champion. Think of two people youknow who you would describe as completely lacking in any of the characteristics of thechampion. Such individuals would never have engaged in any of the behaviors you havejust scripted. These people could, however, be very good-performing managers, valuedpeople in the company operating at junior or senior levels.Step 2. Roughly four weeks later, a third panel of six managers was convened.After studying the acts generated by the first two panels, the present author found that themajority of championship behaviors generated appeared to be very desirable behaviors(e.g., \u00E2\u0080\u009C....volunteers for task forces or other projects where they can be a change agent\u00E2\u0080\u009D),while the majority of non-championship behaviors were generally undesirable (e.g.,puts up barriers to change; keeps a closed mind\u00E2\u0080\u009D). In the interests of ultimatelybalancing the final rating form for social desirability, the task for the third panel was togenerate desirable non-championship acts and undesirable championship acts. Panelmembers were instructed to record their behavioral statements in the booklet provided(see Appendix B).Step 3. The behavioral statements were edited (and reduced) by eliminating: (a)obvious redundancies, (b) non-act statements (e.g., adjectives), (c) vague statements, and(d) grammatical errors. Editing followed the reconimendations of Buss and Craik (1981).ResultsA total of 363 acts survived the editing described in Step 3 above. The 20managers from the first two panels generated 171 non-redundant acts reflecting highlevels of championship and 110 non-championship acts. After editing for redundancy,the six managers in the third panel composed 48 champion acts and 34 non-champion54acts. Thus, across all panels, 219 champion and 144 non-champion behavioral statementswere written, for a total of 363 (see Appendix C for a listing of the 363 acts).Phase II: The Scaling of the Acts for Social DesirabilityOverviewSince a subset of the 363 acts would, eventually, comprise a criterion rating form(to obtain supervisory ratings of championship for Studies 2 and 3), the social desirabilityof these behavioral statements was a concern. Looking ahead to a multi-dimensionalrating form, each dimension would, ideally, be measured by the same number ofchampion and non-champion acts (to control for acquiescence). Further, the averagesocial desirability of champion and non-champion acts would be very similar. Otherwise,ratings of individuals on championship could reflect the bias of social desirability; rateescould obtain high scores on dimensions of championship because their rater judged them,generally, to be good, \u00E2\u0080\u009Clikable\u00E2\u0080\u009D managers (assuming that champion acts are more sociallydesirable than non-champion acts). Achieving a balance on social desirability forchampion and non-champion items would mean that the influence of social desirabilitywould be neutralized or held constant. In order to obtain the item-level social desirabilitydata needed for later decision-making during scale construction, Phase II was undertaken.MethodParticipantsParticipants were 14 managers from a variety of organizations in the LowerMainland and six Ph.D. students in organizational behavior at the University of BritishColumbia (UBC). Participants agreed to take part in rating the social desirability ofbehaviors describing different types of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmanagement activity\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Participants were not toldthat the behavioral statements they were rating were designed to measure championship.55Design of the QuestionnaireThe 363 edited acts (hereafter referred to as items) obtained in Phase I werescripted in the third person, assembled into a questionnaire (see Appendix D), andadministered to the 20 participants who rated each item for social desirability. The judgesused a 9-point rating scale, ranging from 1 = extremely desirable to 9 = extremelyundesirable. Participants were instructed to judge whether each statement reflected agenerally desirable or undesirable activity as performed by a manager in a large companyin North America. They were told that they should judge the desirability of theseactivities as they would seem if performed by other managers and not how desirable theywould be if performed by the rater him/herself.Calculation ofItem Social DesirabilityMean social desirability figures were computed for each of the 363 items acrossthe 20 raters. Item social desirability standard deviations were also computed in order tocheck for the degree of agreement among the raters.ResultsItem social desirability means were obtained for all 363 items. They ranged froma low of 1.4 to a high of 8.55. Item social desirability standard deviations were generallybelow 2.0, indicating that the majority of judges were in general agreement as to thesocial desirability of each item. These mean social desirability figures were archived foruse during scale development in Phases III and IV and will be reported in the Resultssection of Phase III.Phase III: Sample 1 Factor Analysis With Self-Report DataOverviewThe 363 items obtained at the conclusion of Phase I (and rated for socialdesirability in Phase II) were then assembled into a questionnaire. Each of the items was56scripted in the first person, and champion and non-champion items were cycledthroughout (see Appendix E). These questionnaires were distributed to 433 managerswho rated themselves on each of the 363 items. These data, obtained via self-reportratings, were used to conduct a principal component analysis and a series of item analyseson this initial pool of 363 items.Two important scale development processes began in Phase III. First, an initialfactoring of the data resulted in the development of a preliminary structure ofchampionship. Secondly, a series of item analyses conducted following the structuralanalyses, began the process of scale development. A large number of items wereeliminated following these two main analyses, setting the stage for a more refined refactoring of the data involving a new sample in Phase IV.MethodParticipants and Data CollectionParticipants were 292 male and 141 female managers from seven Canadianorganizations: The British Columbia Hydroelectric Corporation (BC Hydro), ManitobaTelephone System (MTS), the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), TheBritish Columbia Transit Corporation (BC Transit), the Ministry of Transportation andHighways, H.A. Simons Ltd., and the University of British Columbia (UBC).Participation rates for each company, broken down by gender were as follows: (a) 71 menand 20 women.from BC Hydro, (b) 8 men and 21 women from MTS, (c) 31 men and 42women from UBC, (d) 40 men and 2 women from H.A. Simons, (e) 40 men and 4women from B.C. Transit, (0 34 men and 3 women from the Ministry of Transportationand Highways, (g) 68 men and 49 women from ICBC.Organizational support was initially solicited by mail. The present authorobtained the names and addresses of Human Resource (HR) managers from roughlythree dozen organizations. A request was sent out by mail, asking for the support of the57company in the present research. A covering letter and a research proposal was enclosed.This initial request was followed up by a phone call to the HR contact person.The HR contact person from each company was promised two things in exchangefor the organization\u00E2\u0080\u0099s support of the project: (a) each participant would receive apersonalized, feedback report in which his/her standing on a number of dimensionsrelated to championship would be featured, and (b) the company would receive asummary feedback report, in which the organization\u00E2\u0080\u0099s overall standing on thechampionship dimensions would be reported, relative to the other participatingcompanies (see Appendix F). Five organizations agreed to support the project. Thesupport of the two other organizations was obtained through more informal means(personal contacts), bringing the total number of participating organizations to seven.Data collection began in the spring of 1993 and continued into the late summer ofthat year. Questionnaires were distributed through internal mail in each of the sevenorganizations. Questionnaires were accompanied by a covering letter from both the HRproject coordinator and the present researcher. Confidentiality was assured by havingparticipants choose a 6-digit code number to identify themselves. They were not requiredto place their name anywhere on the questionnaire. Participants were told that, in order toobtain their feedback report, they would, of course, need to remember their code number,since this would be the only identifying information that would appear on the feedbackform.Data AnalysisThe analyses in Phase III were organized around the two primary and relatedobjectives of Study 1: (a) the identification of the structure of championship, and (b) thedevelopment of criterion rating scales for Studies 2 and 3. Thus, in the pursuit of the firstobjective, the 363 items were subjected to a principal component analysis. This structuralanalysis was followed by an item analysis conducted within each component. Items were58identified and retained within a component if they possessed desirable psychometricproperties. These structural and item-level analyses will now be described in more detail.Structural analysis. In order to pool the data from the seven organizations, thescores were mean-deviated, within each organization, in order to eliminate the possibilityof between-groups correlation. The 363 items were then subjected to a principalcomponent analysis in order to obtain the eigenvalues needed to address the number-of-factors issue, through the scree test (Cattell, 1966) and the KaisePGuttman number ofeigenvalues greater than unity rule. A third approach was also used to examine thenumber-of-factors issue. A number of different component solutions were chosen (fornumbers of components ranging from 5 to 15 inclusive) and each unrotated pattern wastransformed via a Harris-Kaiser transformation at three different degrees of obliquity (c =0, .25, and .5), and the best solution chosen on the basis of complexity and hyperplanarcount. Each of these 11 best rotated component patterns was then examined forconceptual clarity. More detail on the component analysis is given in the results.Scale development. Once the component analysis was complete, the transformedcomponent pattern was examined and a series of analyses performed to identify a subsetof psychometrically sound items to measure each component. Naturally, it was neitherdesirable (nor possible) to retain the original set of 363 items used in the componentanalysis. Thus, the objective was to identify and retain a much smaller subset of itemsthat: (a) loaded significantly on a component, and (b) possessed desirable psychometricproperties.First, factorially-complex items were identified and retained on the componentwhere they had the highest loading (and made the most conceptual sense). Secondly, andconcurrent with the previous analysis, items were identified and eliminated that had notsuccessfully \u00E2\u0080\u009Cretranslated\u00E2\u0080\u009D in the component analysis, i.e., items that were originallywritten as, for example, champion items that subsequently loaded on the non-champion59end of a scale (or items originally written as non-champion items that loaded on thechampion end of a scale).Next, the following results were considered, concurrently, in choosing the itemsfor each component: (a) item-scale correlations (to maximize internal consistency), (b)item-total championship correlations11 (to ensure that the items retained were related tooverall championship), (c) mean social desirability of the items (items were retained suchthat, within a scale, the mean social desirability value for all champion items was close tothe mean social desirability value for all non-champion items), and (d) balance of thenumber of champion and non-champion items within each scale (to control foracquiescence). Obvious item redundancies were eliminated and an attempt was made toeliminate items that, although retained in only one scale, were factorially complex (hadloaded on one of the other components). Finally, items were examined for conceptualclarity and considered for elimination if apparently inconsistent with the general theme ofthe component.ResultsThe Component SolutionStandard number-of-factors rules were difficult to follow in arriving at an optimalcomponent solution, given the vast number of variables in the analysis. Cattell\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1966)scree test was inconclusive, indicating 3, 6, and 11 components. The Kaiser-Guttmannumber of eigenvalues greater than unity rule indicated 107 components. A maximum-likelihood solution was not possible, precluding the examination of this source ofinformation on the number-of-factors issue.\u00E2\u0080\u0099211 A total championship score (TCS) was calculated by summing all 363 items (with the non-championitems reflected). Then, item-TCS correlations were computed.12 A maximum likelihood solution could not be obtained because the correlation matrix could not beinverted. With 363 items, the eigenvalues of the last few items were very close to 0; thus, thedeterminant\u00E2\u0080\u0094the product of all the eigenvalues\u00E2\u0080\u0094approached 0. Therefore, a likelihood ratiosignificance test could not be conducted to examine the optimal number of common factors to extract.60Ultimately, the number of factors issue was settled by means of the third approachdescribed briefly in the Method section. Eleven component solutions were obtained (fornumbers of components ranging from 5 to 15 inclusive) and each was rotated, via aHarris-Kaiser transformation, at three different degrees of obliquity (c = 0, .25, and 5).Within each of the 11 solutions, the \u00E2\u0080\u0098best\u00E2\u0080\u009D transformed solution was obtained accordingto the criteria for simple structure (Thurstone, 1947). Specifically, simple structure wasoperationalized by two methods: (a) the number of complex, and (b) the number ofhyperplanar (values < .10 in absolute value) coefficients in the transformed pattern. Theone optimal transformation for each of the 11 solutions was then examined with respectto component homogeneity and conceptual clarity. Thus, the final decision on thenumber of factors to retain was made according to the interpretability and parsimony ofthe overall solution.Ultimately, a 12-component solution was chosen. A fair degree of factor fusionwas apparent with small numbers (5 to 8) of components. That is, large components wereidentified that appeared to measure more than one conceptual theme. At the other end ofthe continuum (13 to 15 components), homogeneous components began to divide (factorfission). Solutions for 9 through 13 components resulted in the emergence of eight corecomponents\u00E2\u0080\u0094components that appeared in all five solutions. In the 11-componentsolution, a new component emerged, and in the 12-component solution, a heterogeneouscomponent split into two clearly interpretable components, a desirable outcome. The 13-component solution resulted in the emergence of a new heterogeneous, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnon-championcomponent (all items were non-champion statements). At the 14- and 15-componentsolutions, splitting of homogeneous components continued to occur.The components contained in the 12-component solution were easily interpretableand relatively homogeneous; as well, each component contained a sufficient number ofitems, such that item deletion would be possible following an item analysis (in the 14 and6115-component solutions, some small\u00E2\u0080\u00948 to 10-item\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u0094components were identified thatwould likely have been reduced down to 4 or 5 items following an item analysis).For the 12-component solution chosen, the most orthogonal transformation (c =.50) resulted in the greatest number of hyperplanar entries in the pattern (2546) and thelowest complexity count (88). Thus, this transformation of the 12-component solutionwas chosen and served as the starting point for the item-level analyses described below.The Development ofPreliminary Championship ScalesThe second objective of Phase Ill was to build on the results of the structuralanalyses described above in order to develop scales that possessed superior psychometricproperties (e.g., high internal consistency). At the conclusion of Study 1, it was desiredthat each of the scales: (a) contain equal numbers of champion and non-champion items,(b) be balanced for social desirability, and (c) possess high internal consistency.Ultimately, the 363 items were reduced to 119 items that possessed the mostdesirable psychometric properties. Decisions on item elimination were made with regardto a number of considerations noted earlier in the Method section (e.g., item-scalecorrelations). Following an initial culling of complex items and items that failed to\u00E2\u0080\u0098retranslat&\u00E2\u0080\u0099, the 363 items were pared down to 250 items. An additional 131 items weredeleted following the various item-level analyses (e.g., item-scale correlations). In somecases, candidates for deletion were obvious, while in other cases, the choice was madedifficult by the fact that, for example, item-scale correlations might have been high(indicating an item that would contribute positively toward internal consistency), butsocial desirability ratings on the item would lead one to eliminate the item in order tobetter balance the scale for social desirability.Following the item-level analyses, 11 scales measured by a total of 119 itemswere retained. One of the 12 components was eliminated because: (a) it was made up ofonly nine items, (b) contained only non-championship items, and (c) posed interpretive62difficulties. A complete listing of the items retained in each scale is presented inAppendix G, along with item social desirability figures, item loadings, scale alphacoefficients, and preliminary, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cworking\u00E2\u0080\u009D scale labels, the latter generated by the authorwith the assistance of four colleagues\u00E2\u0080\u00993.A more concise summary listing of the scales ispresented below in Table 4.Social desirability and the balancing of champion and non-champion items.Although every attempt was made to balance all 11 scales with equal numbers ofchampion and non-champion items, the reader will note from Table 4 that some scaleswere marked by only two or three items at one pole (typically the non-champion pole),with one extreme exception, Big Picture Perspective, where all eight items were non-championship items. Further, some scales emerged unbalanced for social desirability;typically, the more socially desirable items were found anchoring the champion pole ofthe scale.In order to address these two scale development concerns, 17 new items werewritten by the present author in cooperation with a colleague; these new items are clearlylabeled in Appendix G. The present author returned to the participants who had rated thesocial desirability of the original pool of 363 items and, once again, enlisted their help inrating the social desirability of these new items.Items were written for six of the 11 scales; those scales unbalanced for: (a)number of champion and non-champion items, and (b) mean social desirability. Forexample, new items for Self Promotion and Action Orientation were scripted in the hopesthat these items would, in a future structural analysis, load on the scales for which theywere written and, thus, better balance the scale for champion vs. non-champion items13 The generation of final scale labels will be described in Phase V of Study 1. The labeling was done bysubject matter experts after a second factor analysis and item analysis was conducted. The labels shownin Appendix G and Table 4 are preliminary attempts to sunmiarize the general theme of the component.63Table 4Psychometric Properties of the Preliminary Championship Scales at the Conclusion ofPhase IIINo. of Items Social Desirability Cronbach\u00E2\u0080\u0099sCh1 Non-Ch2 Ch Non-Ch Alpha1. Verbal Dominance 7 3 7.13 5.13 .772. Rushed Disorganization 5 7 6.14 3.11 .853. Rule Breaking 7 6 5.24 4.58 .854. Self Promotion 8 1 4.87 4.11 .605. Willingness to Confront 6 4 4.96 5.79 .676. Persuasiveness & Political Savvy 8 3 2.27 7.41 .817. Job Involvement 7 5 5.38 5.42 .748. Action Orientation 8 3 2.22 5.69 .759. Collaboration and Support 8 3 1.78 6.98 .8210. Openness to Change 7 5 2.34 6.01 .8211. Big Picture Perspective 0 8 N/A 4.20 .70Across the 119 items 71 48 4.23 5.31 N/A1 Number of champion items in the scale.2 Number of non-champion items in the scale.64(particularly in the case of Self Promotion). At the same time, these new items were alsowritten such that they would better balance the scale for social desirability. Thus, the twoitems written to anchor the non-champion pole of Action Orientation, for example, werescripted to be socially desirable non-champion items (a considerable challenge given thegenerally positive valence attributed to North American managers who are decisive andaction oriented). The social desirability ratings obtained on these two new items (3.61and 2.83) give evidence that this objective was met, assuming, of course, that these twoitems would load on Action Orientation in a subsequent factor analysis.At the conclusion of Phase III, across all scales, the champion items were judgedto be roughly one scale point more desirable than the non-champion items (rated on a 9-point scale). Thus, an overall championship social desirability balance was not, at thisstage, achieved. As well, the overall rating form contained 71 champion and 48 non-champion items. In general, scales contained more champion than non-champion items.Thus, the response set of acquiescence could operate if such a scale were put into use forobtaining ratings of behavior. In order to address these shortcomings, the key objectivesof Phase IV would be to better balance: (a) the scales for social desirability, (b) theoverall rating form for social desirability, and (c) the number of champion vs. non-champion items within each scale, while maintaining high levels (oc .80) of internalconsistency reliability.Scale reliability. The internal consistency reliabilities for each of the 11 scales arealso listed in Table 4. These ranged from a low of .60 to a high of .85, with a mean alphacoefficient of .76. With the exception of Self Promotion and Willingness to Confront, thescale alpha coefficients reached levels of .70 or greater. The most problematic scale wasSelf Promotion (oc = .60), for which three new items were written. All things considered,however, the 11 scales showed acceptable internal consistency reliability at thispreliminary stage of scale development.65Phase IV: Sample 2 Factor Analysis With Supervisory Report Data and the Applicationof Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1964) Method One Procedure in the Derivation of a Common FactorPatternOverviewIn Phase IV, the items surviving the structural and item-level analyses describedin Phase Ill were re-factored in a new data set, this time, obtained via supervisory-reportratings. Ratings of 168 managers by their supervisors on the various championship items,thus provided the data needed to conduct: (a) a second factor analysis, and (b) a secondseries of item analyses.The second factor analysis permitted application of Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1964) MethodOne procedure, in which the data (unrotated pattern matrices) from the two factoranalyses were combined, and, ultimately summarized, in the form of a common patternmatrix, that was then rotated for interpretation. This common pattern was then used as astarting point for item-level analyses that yielded the final rating scales. Finally, asecond-order factor analysis was carried out, once again via Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Method Oneprocedure. Thus, at the conclusion of Phase IV, a higher-order structural model ofchampionship was articulated and rating scales were refined that would serve as criterionmeasures for Studies 2 and 3. The scales arising from this higher-order structure ofchampionship will be described and interpreted in the final phase of Study 1, Phase V.MethodParticipantsParticipants were 86 managers who provided ratings on 168, entry-, middle-, andsenior-level managers at BCTe1. Of the 168 ratees, 124 were male and 44 were female.The managers who provided the ratings were asked to take part in a researchproject being conducted by the present author on \u00E2\u0080\u009CManagement Practices\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Participation66was voluntary, but encouraged by the company Human Resource coordinator. Inexchange for participation, each rater was provided with a feedback report in which theoverall company profile on championship was featured (see Appendix H). In the interestsof securing the cooperation of the raters (and, at the request of the HRD coordinator), nofeedback was generated for the ratees.The managers being rated had been participants in an annual assessment centerconducted with company managers. A total of 286 managers had taken part in theassessment center over a period of six years. Ratings on 28 of the original sample of 286managers could not be obtained for a variety of reasons (the manager had resigned orpassed away). Thus, the present author attempted to obtain ratings on 258 managers. Anattempt was made to obtain the support and cooperation of all BC Tel employees whocould provide ratings on these 258 managers (the 258 managers were supervised by 110higher-level managers). On December 15, 1993 the 110 managers were sent a package(described below), which contained materials soliciting their support of the project. Bythe middle ofMarch, after several follow-up phone calls, 168 ratings had been received.Data collection for Phase IV of Study 1 was terminated on March 18, 1994. Thus, 78%(86/110) of the raters participated, yielding ratings for 65% (168/258) of the ratees.14The Rating FormAll items contained in the rating form were scripted in the third person and beganwith the stem: \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe manager I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m rating\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Each rater was instructed to consider theactivity of the manager being rated over the past 12 months and rate the extent to whichthe ratee had engaged in each behavior (see Appendix I for a copy of the rating form).The 136 championship items (the 119 items surviving the analyses in Phase Illplus the 17 new items) made up the majority of the items contained in the rating formadministered to the raters. An additional 36 items were included in the questionnaire toOne month later, an additional 6 ratings were received. These could not be used in Study 1, but docomprise part of the sample for Studies 2 and 3.67measure dimensions of general management performance\u00E2\u0080\u00995(e.g., Leadership, WrittenCommunications; see Hakstian, Woolley, Woolsey, & Kryger, 1991 for a detaileddescription of the development and meaning of the dimensions). These 36 BOS itemswere similar in form and style to the championship items (e.g., \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe manager I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m rating isunshakable under heavy pressure and confrontation; does not lose confidence\u00E2\u0080\u009D). In thepresent study, the dimension scores were summed and used as a measure of overallmanagement performance in order to examine the relationship between overallmanagement performance and championship.In addition to the 172 items described above, 5 \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccriterion\u00E2\u0080\u009D championship itemswere scripted and included. One of the five items was taken directly from the definitionof championship: \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe manager I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m rating takes new ideas for an innovation (an idea s/hemay or may not have generated) and introduces, pushes, promotes, and sells ideas toothers in the organization.\u00E2\u0080\u009D The other four items were written to tap into discretecomponents of the definition, for example: \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe manager I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m rating generates a numberof new ideas on his/her own.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Taken together, these five items can be seen as a criterionmeasure of championship, since they were written to directly measure the behaviorsconnected with the definition of championship.\u00E2\u0080\u00996The inclusion of these items permittedthe present researcher to examine the extent to which scores on this criterion correlatewith ratings of championship on the various dimensions. Thus, it was possible to orderthe dimensions on a continuum ranging from closely related to ratings of overallchampionship (high positive correlation) to unrelated to overall ratings of championship(low to zero, non-significant correlation), to negatively correlated with overallchampionship. This analysis will be discussed in more detail in Phase V.These items are reproduced in Appendix J.16 Four of these five items were also administered to participants in Study 3 (the ratees in Phase IV, Study1), appended to the championship simulation. Study 3 participants were asked to indicate whether theyhad engaged in each of the four championship behaviors. Thus, both self- and supervisory-report datawere collected to serve as \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccriterion\u00E2\u0080\u009D ratings of championship; both will be reported and discussed inPhases IV and V.68Distribution of The Rating FormThe present author assembled a package to be mailed out to the raters containing:(a) one rating form and the appropriate number of answer sheets (one for each managerthe rater supervised), (b) a covering letter from the present author, (c) a covering letterfrom the Director of Human Resources, and (d) an envelope stamped confidential to beused to return the completed answer sheets. Instructions indicated that answer sheetswere to be returned, sealed, in the envelope to a contact person in Human Resources, careof the present author. Raters were told that their ratings would be seen by the presentauthor only and that no individual-level feedback would be given to their subordinates.Data AnalysisThe procedures used in this section were chosen in response to a need to: (a)obtain a structural model of championship that was a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbest-fit\u00E2\u0080\u009D to both the self-report dataobtained in Phase III and the supervisory-report data collected in Phase IV, and (b)further refine and improve upon the psychometric properties of the scales arising from thestructural analyses.To accomplish the first objective, Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1964) Method One procedure wasused. Briefly, this procedure involved the aggregation of unrotated sample factor patternmatrices (in the present application, two sample factor patterns) to obtain a single,common, factor pattern matrix. The sample patterns were then rotated into congruencewith this common pattern. The Meredith procedure permitted a more elegant pooling ofthe data than if the data from the two samples had been simply combined and factoranalyzed in a single, pooled factoring of the data. The generation of a single commonpattern was a key priority for the present study, in that it would permit the interpretationof a single structure of championship. It was also of interest to examine the extent towhich each of the two sample patterns fit the common pattern. The procedures used inthe present study will now be explained in more detail.69First-orderfactor structure. As a first step in the application of Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1964)Method One procedure, the 119 items identified in Phase Ill were subjected to anunweighted least-squares common factor analysis in both Sample 1 (the self-report datacollected in Phase III) and Sample 2 (the supervisory-report data collected in Phase IV).Thus, the Sample 1 data set was re-analyzed, using, this time, an unweighted least-squares common factor model. This same factor model was then used to analyze thesame 119 items, but in Sample 2. Since Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s procedure is critical to Phase IV, thealgebraic model will now be outlined in a bit more detail.Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1964) Method One procedure permits the derivation of a single,common factor pattern matrix. It is a least-squares procedure that results in the derivationof two matrices, Q and T, where T1 is a nonsingular transformation matrix and Q is asemi-orthogonal matrix. The matrix Q and the k sample matrices T1 provide a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbest fit\u00E2\u0080\u009Dto the various sample patterns in that they minimize the sum of squares in the error matrixe, where e1 =F1T- Q.The solution to the minimization problem is an Eckart-Young factorization of amatrix G, where G =(1k) E F (F\u00E2\u0080\u0099F)\u00E2\u0080\u0099 F\u00E2\u0080\u0099 (F is the unrotated sample factor pattern matrix,and the summation is over the k groups, in the present study, two). The product G isobtained for the k samples and then averaged. Note that the data from the k samples iscombined, but at the factor pattern, rather than the raw data, level and, therefore, anybetween-groups (in this case, between the two samples) correlation that might arisebecause of group mean differences on the variables is precluded. In summary, Q is thedecomposition of G, whose columns are the normalized eigenvectors corresponding tothe m largest eigenvectors in G. Q is the common primary factor pattern matrix.In the present study, the matrix Q was transformed to simple structure. This latterstep was taken in order to enable the interpretation of the common primary factor patternmatrix. Recall that, since Q is a matrix containing normalized eigenvectors (and, thus,the columns sum to unity), the coefficients in this matrix, although analogous to70\u00E2\u0080\u009Cloadings\u00E2\u0080\u009D, will be much smaller. It can be shown (see Hakstian, 1976) that anorthogonal rotation (such as Quartimax) does not affect the least-squares criterion, andthat, like Q, QR (where R is the transformation matrix) also minimizes the sum of squaresin the error matrix e, where e =F1T - QR.Finally, the sample factor patterns (in this case, two) are rotated into congruencewith the common pattern. Typically, the transformation of the sample factor patternmatrices is done using procrustean methods; this same approach was followed in Study 1.Thus, QR was conceptualized as the \u00E2\u0080\u009Chypothesized\u00E2\u0080\u009D, true structure of championship, andan attempt was made to fit each of the two sample pattern matrices to this target. Theoblique procrustes procedure, while allowing the factors to correlate, minimizes, in aleast-squares sense, the differences between the sample matrices and the target matrix.First-orderfactor congruence. Following application of Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1964)Method One procedure, three patterns were obtained: (a) the common rotated pattern(QT), (b) the Sample 1 factor pattern transformed into congruence with QT, and (c) theSample 2 factor pattern matrix similarly transformed. In order to examine the similarityof the two sample factor patterns to each other and the similarity of each of the twosample patterns to the common pattern, congruence coefficients (Tucker, 1951) werecomputed between each of the corresponding factors across the three patterns. Thus, thisanalysis provided a check on the extent to which Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s procedure was successful inderiving a common pattern that was a close fit to both sample factor patterns, in that thedegree of congruence could be directly assessed. As well, the corresponding factors fromthe two sample patterns could also be examined directly for similarity or congruence.Scale development. Following the structural analyses and the calculation ofcongruence coefficients, the two primary factor pattern solutions for Samples 1 and 2(arising from the two transformations to congruence) were then reviewed in order tomake decisions on item retention. In choosing items for each factor, the loadings in both71of the sample patterns were examined.\u00E2\u0080\u00997 The following decision rule was applied indetermining whether or not each item had a salient loading on the given factor: the itemloadings across the two sample patterns had to average to >.25, and not be < .20 in eithersample. Thus, an attempt was made to ensure that an item chosen for membership in agiven factor demonstrated a relationship to that factor in both samples, a conservativeprocedure made possible as a result of the Meredith procedure.Finally, the 17 new items written following the first factor analysis wereconsidered. These items could not, of course, be included in the main analysis involvingthe Meredith (1964) Method One procedure, since the two sample unrotated patternsmust be based on the same number of items (in this case, 119). It was, however,important to discover if the new items written to supplement the factors obtained inSample 1, could be used to augment the factors arising from the Meredith One procedure.Thus, bivariate correlations were computed between the 17 new items, on the one hand,and unit-weighted linear combinations (simple sum) of the items having salient loadingson each of the 11 factors, on the other. Using this procedure, selected new items could beplaced onto scales with which they correlated significantly.Once the salient loadings in the two sample rotated patterns had been identified,the issue of complexity was addressed. Items with salient loadings on more than onefactor were examined and a decision made to include such items on only one factor. Inmaking this decision, the factor loadings and the item scale correlations were considered.An attempt was also made to retain items on factors where they made the mostconceptual sense. These decisions were generally straightforward, because of converginglines of evidence between the three decision criteria.17 Note that the loadings from the two sample patterns rotated into congruence with the common patternwere examined rather than the loadings from the common pattern. This was done because the commonrotated pattern (QT) does not contain \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctrue factor loadings. Recall that QT is a matrix of rotatedeigenvectors (where the sum of squared entries for each column, must, by definition sum to unity).Thus, the numerical entries in the matrix are in a different scale (smaller) than are the numbers in aconventional rotated pattern matrix.72Two further analyses were conducted to refine the scales. An item analysis, aswell as a social desirability analysis, was undertaken. Item-scale correlations werecomputed, and items were removed if their deletion improved significantly the scale\u00E2\u0080\u0099sinternal consistency reliability. A final sweep was made with consideration given tosocial desirability. The objective here was to balance the mean social desirability for allchampion items with the mean social desirability for all non-champion items for all thescales.Second-orderfactor structure. A second-order factor analysis was thenundertaken. The correlation matrices among the scales were subjected to an unweightedleast-squares common factor analysis and Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1964) Method One procedure wasonce again implemented. A second-order common factor pattern was obtained, and thetwo sample patterns were each transformed into congruence with the second-ordercommon pattern. Congruence coefficients were once again calculated among the factorsarising from the three second-order factor patterns in order to examine thegeneralizability of this higher-order structure of championship, across two samplesinvolving two different forms of ratings\u00E2\u0080\u0094self- and supervisory-report.ResultsFirst-Order Factor CongruenceFollowing the application of Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1964) Method One procedure, threepatterns were obtained: (a) the common primary pattern, (b) the Sample 1 patterntransformed into congruence with the common pattern, and (c) the Sample 2 patterntransformed into congruence with the common pattern. Before proceeding to adiscussion of the factor solution, the issue of factor congruence will first be addressed.That is, to what extent has the use of the Meredith Method One procedure resulted in thespecification of factors in the three patterns that are highly similar (or congruent) witheach other?73Congruence coefficients between each of the two sample patterns as well asbetween the common and each of the two sample patterns were calculated. These arereported in Table 5. Looking across the first two rows, the 11 factors show relativelyhigh ( .90) congruence between each sample pattern and the common pattern, indicatingthat the use of Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1964) Method One procedure resulted in the specification of acommon pattern that provided a good fit to each of the two individual sample patterns foreach factor. For example, the overall average sample-common pattern congruencecoefficient was .92, ranging from a low of .87 (Factor 9\u00E2\u0080\u0094Openness to Change) to a highof .96 (Factor 3\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rushed Disorganization). Comparing the first two rows, it appears thatthe Sample 1 and 2 patterns fit the common pattern equally well. As would be expected,the between-sample congruence coefficients are somewhat lower, ranging from .61(Factors 9 and 10) to .86 (Factor 3). The overall mean between-sample factor congruencecoefficient was .73.It is difficult to state precisely the degree of fit that these numbers represent, orwhether a congruence coefficient of .61, for example, indicates a lack of fit, sincecongruence coefficients cannot be tested for significance. Like correlation coefficients, avalue of unity indicates perfect agreement, or, more accurately in the case of congruencecoefficients, perfect proportionality. Unlike correlation coefficients, congruencecoefficient values around .60 are not typically considered to reflect good fit, however.Although there exist no definitive rules to guide the interpretation of congruencecoefficients, some general guidelines can be gleaned from the work of variousresearchers. Harman (1976), for example, described congruence coefficients in the rangeof .86 to .98 as all indicating good congruence. Hakstian and Vandenberg (1979)characterized congruence coefficients in the range of .77 to .95 as indicating highcongruence, while Tucker (1951), as cited in Harman (1976), considered coefficientsranging from .999984 down to .939811 as defining congruent factors.74Table SCongruence Coefficients Among The Three Pattern Matrices For the Eleven First-OrderFactor ScalesFirst-Order Factor Scales1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11(VD) (RD) (RB) (SP) (WC) (PPS) (JI) (AO) (CS) (OC) (BPP)Sample 1 .93 .96 .92 .91 .90 .95 .91 .94 .91 .88 .88(Self-Report) &Common PatternSample 2 .92 .96 .93 .91 .90 .95 .91 .94 .91 .87 .88(Sup.-Report) &Common PatternSample 1 & .77 .86 .76 .71 .68 .83 .72 .78 .70 .61 .61Sample 2 PatternsNote. The column headings refer to the following first-order factors: VD = Verbal Dominance;RD = Rushed Disorganization; RB = Rule Breaking; SP = Self Promotion; WC = Willingness toConfront; PPS = Persuasiveness and Political Savvy; JI = Job Involvement; AO = ActionOrientation; CS = Collaboration and Support; OC = Openness to Change; BPP = Big PicturePerspective.75Given these general guidelines, it seems likely that at least two of the factors(Openness to Change and Big Picture Perspective) differed appreciably in the self- andsupervisory-report data samples. The remainder of the between-sample congruencecoefficients, ranging from .68 to .86, showed adequate, but not strong, congruence.The First-Order Championship Factor ScalesFollowing the structural and item-level analyses, 10 first-order factor scales wereobtained.\u00E2\u0080\u00998 The 10 scales are summarized in Table 6 (see Appendix K for a detailedlisting of each scale including the item content). Ninety-two items out of the originalpool of 136 (119 items + 17 new items) were retained. Eleven of the 17 new items(written to better anchor one pole of the scales generated at the conclusion of Phase Ill)were retained, although not necessarily on the scale for which they were originallywritten. For example, two items originally written to measure the champion pole of BigPicture Perspective were retained on Persuasiveness and Political Savvy.With the exception of Persuasiveness and Political Savvy, the scales summarizedin Table 6 are generally well balanced for numbers of champion and non-champion items.Across all scales, the final rating form is made up of 51 champion and 41 non-championitems. Thus, although not completely eliminated, one possible source of response bias(acquiescence) has been minimized.Scale social desirability. Turning to the social desirability figures in Table 6, theoverall 92-item scale is very close to being perfectly balanced. The 51 champion itemsare only slightly more desirable ( .24 on a 9-point scale) than the 41 non-champion items.Thus, when used as a rating form, overall scores should not be affected significantly by18 One of the eleven factors, Big Picture Perspective, was dropped because: (a) it had the lowestcongruence coefficient across the two samples (.61), (b) even after a careful item analysis, it had arelatively low alpha (cc = .57), (c) 6 of the 8 items were complex, and (d) the scale contained only nonchampion items.76Table 6Psychometric Properties of the Final First-Order Factor ScalesNo. of Items Social Desirability Cronbach\u00E2\u0080\u0099sCh Non-Ch Ch Non-Ch alpha1. Verbal Dominance 6 4 7.53 3.53 .832. Rushed Disorganization 4 6 5.97 3.03 .843. Rule Breaking 5 5 5.72 4.40 .784. Self Promotion 5 5 5.32 3.28 .825. Willingness to Confront 4 5 4.68 4.57 .806. Persuasiveness & Political Savvy 8 0 2.72 N/A .807. Job Involvement 5 4 4.80 6.33 .828. Action Orientation 5 4 3.00 5.25 .809. Collaboration and Support 5 3 1.89 6.98 .7910. OpennesstoChange 4 5 2.84 5.91 .83Total 51 41 4.40 4.64 N/A77social desirability, since this potential response set has been anticipated and held constantby balancing champion and non-champion items for social desirability.With the exception ofWillingness to Confront, the championship scales are notwell balanced for social desirability. In some cases, the champion items are moredesirable, while in other cases, the opposite is true. Clearly, high scores on some of thescales would be seen as inherently positive by most managers. For example, notice thepositive desirability given to the championship items on the Collaboration and Supportscale. Such scales pose a challenge for item writers, seeking to develop a scale to ratebehavior. Items describing unsupportive, uncollaborative, independent managementbehavior are viewed by most managers as generally undesirable. Their use will likelylead to the development of scales that correlate significantly with measures of socialdesirability.Scale internal consistency reliability. The scale internal consistency reliabilitiesare reported in the last column of Table 6. They range from a low of .78 (Rule Breaking)to a high of .84 (Rushed Disorganization). The scales show very satisfactory internalconsistency reliability based, as they are, on extensive structural and item-level analyses.Second-Order Factors of ChampionshipWithin each of the two samples, intercorrelations were then computed among thefactor scales reported in Table 6. These two intercorrelation matrices were then subjectedto principal component and maximum likelihood factor analyses. In Samples 1 and 2Cattell\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1966) scree and Kaiser-Guttman tests both indicated that three factors waslikely the correct number of second-order factors to extract (in Sample 1, the eigenvaluesof R were: 2.73, 1.89, 1.16, 0.91, 0.77, 0.70,0.52, 0.50, 0.47, 0.35; in Sample 2 theeigenvalues of R were: 3.00, 2.67, 1.09, 0.78,0.64, 0.51,0.40, 0.35, 0.31, 0.26). InSample 1, the likelihood ratio test indicated five factors; at five factors, the results of thelikelihood ratio test reached non-significance x2 (5) = 10.87, p < .06. In Sample 2, the78likelihood ratio test indicated four factors; at four factors, the results of the likelihoodratio test were x2 (11) = 13.72, p < .25.The results of the three tests were inconclusive, although a three-factor solutionseemed indicated, given the convergence between both the scree and the Kaiser-Guttmancriteria. Four and five-factor solutions seemed undesirable and would have resulted inlittle data simplification for a 10-variable correlation matrix. Therefore, an exploratoryapproach to the number-of-factors issue was undertaken. Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1964) Method Oneprocedure was applied, once again, but this time at the second-order factor level, in orderto examine the quality and interpretability of solutions obtained for various numbers offactors.An unweighted least-squares common-factor model was employed and thefollowing analyses were done separately for both the two- and three-factor solutions: (a)Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s procedure was used to obtain Q, the common unrotated factor pattern, (b) Qwas then rotated to simple structure by means of a Quartimax rotation, resulting in thematrix QT (the common rotated factor pattern, and (c) the Sample 1 and 2 unrotatedsample factor patterns were transformed into congruence with the common pattern. Thus,for each of the two- and three-factor second-order solutions, three rotated patterns wereobtained: (a) the common rotated factor pattern (QT), (b) the Sample 1 patterntransformed into congruence with QT, and (c) the Sample 2 pattern transformed intocongruence with QT.Factorial complexity was carefully examined in arriving at a decision between the2-factor and 3-factor solutions. A related concern was the meaningfulness of the second-order factors arising from the 2-factor and 3-factor solutions. Beginning with the 3-factorsolution, a relatively high degree of factorial complexity\u00E2\u0080\u00999was apparent, particularly inthe two sample patterns rotated into congruence with the common pattern. For example,19 A scale was considered factorially complex if it had a loading of> .25 on more than one of the higherorder factors.79four of the 10 scales were complex in Sample 1, while seven of the scales were complexin Sample 2. This was in contrast to the 2-factor solution where complexity was of lessconcern (3 complex scales in Sample 1 and 2 complex scales in Sample 2).The greater factorial complexity evident in the 3-factor solutions made factorinterpretation more difficult than in the 2-factor solutions. As well, the implications forsecond-order scale development were troublesome (i.e., a given first-order scale might beincluded in a linear combination for two [even three] second-order factors). For thesereasons, the 2-factor second-order structure was chosen.The three rotated pattern matrices for the 2-factor second-order structure arepresented in Table 7, along with the primary-factor intercorrelations. In subsequentdiscussions of this second-order structure, the greatest interpretive weight will be given tothe common pattern, based, as it is, on an aggregation of 601 subjects across two samplesof both self- and supervisory-report data.The common factor pattern matrix meets many of the requirements for simplestructure. That is, factorial complexity was evident for only one of the 10 variables,Rushed Disorganization, and each column contained at least two (the number of factors)hyperplanar coefficients. The first-order factors Verbal Dominance, Rule Breaking, SelfPromotion, Persuasiveness and Political Savvy, and Action Orientation clearly loaded ononly one of the two second-order factors, while four of the remaining five first-orderfactors were only moderately complex (i.e., their loadings on the second factor were <.20). The loadings for Rushed Disorganization across the three patterns indicate that itlikely belongs with Factor I, but its loading was high enough on Factor II to suggestcomplexity.80Table 7Primary Common-Factor Pattern Matricesfor the Aggregated and Separate Samples andthe Related Primary-Factor Correlation Matrices for the Second-Order Factors(Decimal Points Omitted)Sample 1 Sample 2Common Pattern Self-Report Supervisory-ReportFactor Factor FactorI II I II I IIFirst-Order Factor Scale1. Verbal Dominance 51 -08 66 -05 81 -152. Rushed Disorganization 42 -24 70 -35 46 -273. Rule Breaking 54 04 76 04 81 094. Self Promotion 28 09 29 26 54 -035. Willingness to Confront 32 14 33 17 62 226. Pers. & Political Savvy 03 47 05 69 06 587. Job Involvement 14 26 21 22 21 528. Action Orientation -04 45 -03 48 -06 769. Collab. & Support -17 40 -14 53 -35 5410. OpennesstoChange 17 51 26 59 23 81Primary-Factor IntercorrelationsI II I III 100 22 100 -08II 22 100 -08 10081At the bottom of Table 7, the primary-factor intercorrelations are reported for thetwo samples. In Sample 1 the two second-order factors were moderately correlated (r =.22), while in Sample 2, a non-significant negative correlation was found (r = -.08).Taken together, these results suggest that Factors I and II are largely orthogonaldimensions of championship. Thus, managers rated high on Factor I, for example, areequally likely to be rated either high or low on Factor II.Second-orderfactor congruence. In order to examine the similarity of thesecond-order factor solutions across the two samples, congruence coefficients werecalculated between each of the two sample patterns as well as between the commonpattern, on the one hand, and each of the two sample patterns, on the other. Congruencecoefficients are reported in Table 8. The two factors show very high congruence (.99 and.98) between each sample pattern and the common pattern. Thus, the use of Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s(1964) Method One procedure at the second-order factor level resulted in thespecification of a single common factor pattern that provided a very good fit to each ofthe two individual sample patterns. The between-sample congruence coefficients aresomewhat lower, but still indicative of good convergence (.95 and .93).SummaryAt the conclusion of Phase IV a first- and second-order conceptualization ofchampionship emerged. This structural model was based on two independent factoranalyses as well as a series of item-level analyses, the latter designed to developpsychometrically-sound scales to mark each factor.Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1964) Method One procedure was applied in order to obtain a single,summary factorial conceptualization of championship. By rotating each of the twosample patterns into congruence with the common pattern (at both the first- and secondorder factor levels), the present author was able to estimate the extent to which the twosample pattern solutions converged with the common pattern and with each other.82Table 8Congruence Coefficients Among the Three Pattern Matrices For the Two Second-OrderFactor ScalesSecond-Order Factor ScaleFactor I Factor IISample 1 & .99 .98Common PatternSample 2 & .99 .98Common PatternSample 1 & .95 .93Sample 2 Patterns83Although the structural and item-level analyses were done with an eye to themeaning and interpretability of the factors (ultimately scales), the focus, thus far, hasbeen primarily a psychometric one. In the last phase of Study 1\u00E2\u0080\u0094Phase V\u00E2\u0080\u0094the structureof championship identified in Phase IV will be described and interpreted. Managementconsultants, psychologists, and professors of business and psychology, chosen because oftheir expertise in the area of championship and corporate innovation, were asked toconceptualize and describe the first- and second-order factors developed thus far. Theirinput resulted in: (a) the articulation of labels for the various factors by means of theRecaptured Item Technique (Meehl et al., 1971), and (b) the generation ofprototypicalityratings for the various factors (Buss & Craik, 1980).Phase V: Conceptualization of the Factor Structure of ChampionshipOverviewIn this final phase of Study 1, the first- and second-order factors reported inTables 6 and 7 were labeled and discussed in detail. As noted above, subject matterexperts conceptualized and labeled each using the Recaptured-Item Technique (Rif;Meehi et al., 1971). Subject matter experts were provided with items (behaviors) anditem loadings sorted by factor and asked to name each factor. In cooperation with others,the present author examined their work and gleaned from it summary labels for each ofthe factors.In addition, the prototypicality (Buss & Craik, 1980) of the various factors wasconsidered, at both the first- and second-order factor levels. Subject matter experts ratedeach of the factors for its prototypicality to championship. The method of obtainingratings of prototypicality was borrowed from Buss and Craik\u00E2\u0080\u0099s act frequency approach topersonality. Buss and Craik argued that acts, or behavioral indicators of dispositionalcategories, differ with respect to their prototypicality and that not all acts within adispositional category possess equal status; some are more prototypic than others.84The prototypicality of each factor (not the items that load on each) was rated bythe SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s. This information was useful in providing a check, of sorts, on the relevanceof the dimensions arising from the factor analyses. Dimensions found to be peripheral(non-prototypic) could be seen as poor markers of championship.Finally, the relationship between the various championship factors and twocriteria of interest were examined: (a) overall championship, obtained via self- andsupervisory-report ratings, and (b) overall general management performance (seeAppendix J). Both criteria were correlated with the 10 first-order and two second-orderfactor scales.MethodParticipantsParticipants were 11 psychologists, management consultants, and professors ofbusiness and psychology chosen because of their knowledge in corporate innovation andchampionship. A mailing list of 31 subject matter experts (SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s) was compiled, based,in large part, on the names summarized in Table 1 of the literature review. A request forparticipation was sent out to the 31 SMEs. Each was promised a feedback report inwhich the ratings of all participants would be reported and summarized if they took part.Eleven of the 31 SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s agreed to take part; their names are listed in Table 9.Following the conclusion of Phase IV of Study 1 (April, 1994), the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s weremailed a rating booklet designed to solicit two pieces of information: (a) labels anddescriptive adjectives for the first- and second-order factor scales, and (b) prototypicalityratings of the factors (see Appendix L for a copy of the rating booklet). Rating bookletswere returned by all 11 SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s by June of 1994.85Table 9The Subject Matter ExpertsDr. John BaileyDr. Greg BanwellMr. Joe BattenDr. Alok ChakrabartiDr. Andr\u00C3\u00A9 DelbecqDr. Carolyne EgriDr. Russell KnightDr. Elizabeth NewtonDr. Walter NordDr. Randall SchulerDr. Malcolm WeinsteinDirector, Clark, Hummerston Bailey (levers Terrace, Carlton,Australia).Vice President, Wilson, Banwell & Assoc., Ltd. (Vancouver,B.C., Canada).Chairman of the Board, The Batten Group (Des Moines, Iowa,USA).Dean, School of Industrial Management (Newark, New Jersey,USA).Professor of Management, Santa Clara University (Santa,Clara, California, USA).Professor of Management, Simon Fraser University (Burnaby,B.C., Canada).Professor of Management, The University ofWestern Ontario(London, Ontario, Canada).Consultant, Wilson, Banwell & Assoc., Ltd. (Vancouver, B.C.,Canada).Professor of Management, University of Southern Florida(Tampa, Florida, USA).Professor of Management, Stern New York University (NewYork, New York, USA).Consultant, Wilson Banwell & Assoc. Ltd. (Vancouver, B.C.,Canada).86Data AnalysisFactor labels. The present author examined and summarized the factor labelsgenerated by the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s. Common, core themes were identified for each factor on thebasis of the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s labels and descriptive adjectives. A label was chosen for each thatwas an adequate synthesis and summary of the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s work.Protolypicality of the factors. The prototypicality ratings supplied by the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099sfor each of the factors were analyzed, and mean factor prototypicality ratings werecalculated across SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s. Prior to this analysis, the present author checked for \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdeviant\u00E2\u0080\u009DSME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s\u00E2\u0080\u0094those whose ratings differed significantly and consistently from the ratings ofthe others. No deviant SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s were identified.Criterion measurement ofchampionship. Criterion measurement ofchampionship was obtained from both supervisory- and self-report data. Subjects weremeasured on: (a) a 5-item supervisory-report criterion described earlier, and (b) a 4-itemself-report measure of championship20;these nine items were extracted from thedefinition of.championship. The nine items appear in Appendix M.The 5-item supervisory-report criterion was embedded in the larger ratinginstrument. Managers were rated by their supervisors on these five items using a 5-pointLilcert-type response format. The distribution of the total score was found to be normal,with a mean of 18.68 and a standard deviation of 2.80. The 5-item criterion had an alphacoefficient of .81, thus showing an acceptable level of internal consistency reliability.The 4-item self-report criterion scale was appended to the championshipsimulation. Managers rated themselves using a true/false response format. A reliabilityanalysis showed that one of the items had zero variance. Thus, the scale alpha coefficientcould be based on 3 items only; this 3-item criterion measure had an alpha coefficient of.53, showing an adequate but not high level of internal consistency reliability. As well,20 The four self-report items were appended to the championship simulation, described in Study 3.87the distribution of scores for the 3-item self-report criterion was severely negativelyskewed with the vast majority (135/147) of the respondents answering true (indicatinginvolvement in championship) on all three items. The scale mean was 5.88 (the totalpossible score was 6) with a standard deviation of .41.In order to examine the relative importance of the various dimensions ofchampionship, the self- and supervisory-report ratings were each correlated with the first-and second-order factor scales. Given the psychometric concerns raised above inconnection with the 3-item self-report criterion, the greatest interpretive weight was givento the supervisory-report data.Overall management peiforinance (OMP). The 36 items designed to measuredimensions of management performance were unit-weighted and sunmied to form ameasure of overall management performance (OMP). As noted earlier, the 36 BOS itemswere designed to measure 12 dimensions of management performance (e.g., Leadership,Analysis, Oral Communication; see Appendix J for a listing of the 36 items). OMP wasof most relevance, in the present application, since it was of interest to examine therelationship between ratings of overall management performance and championship.The 36-item BOS measure of OMP had an alpha coefficient of .95, indicatingsignificant inter-correlation among the items from the 12 dimensions. Scores on OMPwere then correlated with scores on the 10 first- and two second-order factor scales.ResultsLabelsfor the First-Order Factor Scales of ChampionshipLabels for the first- and second-order factor scales were obtained using theRecaptured Item Technique (RIT; Meehi et al., 1971). Briefly, this method involvessubject matter experts (SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s) in labeling obtained factors. The method was initiallyproposed as a way of minimizing the likelihood that factors would be labeled in an88idiosyncratic way by a single researcher. Using the RIT, SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s are provided with theitems (behaviors) and item loadings sorted by factor and asked to name each factor. Arange of expertise and judgment is harnessed in such a method. Overlap among the labelsthe various raters generate is, of course, desirable, in that greater confidence can beplaced on labels that describe themes seen by a variety of subject matter experts.As initially proposed, the RIT includes a process for facilitating discussion onrater disagreement. Briefly, the process is an iterative one, in which labels aresummarized and fed back to the raters. Such an involved process was not feasible in thepresent study. Instead, the labels generated by each SME were reviewed by the presentauthor and, with help from local colleagues, summary labels for each were gleaned fromthe SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s work. For the most part, this was a straightforward process, in that, for manyof the factors, the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s generated very similar labels.The labels generated by the various SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s are summarized in Table 10, alongwith the present author\u00E2\u0080\u0099s summary label for each factor. As noted above, for the majorityof factors, it was a relatively straightforward matter to synthesize the 11 labels into one,common, summary label that captured the meaning of the factor. The reader will notethat, in many cases (e.g., Self Promotion), a fair degree of overlap was found between thelabels generated by the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s. For other factors, the derivation of a single, final,summary label was a slow and involved process (e.g., Visibility and Growth Seeking)that required the present author to revisit the items in light of the various labels generatedby the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s. A final, summary label was, however, generated for all 10 first-orderfactors. These labels are described below.Persistent Dominance (PD). Many of the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s generated labels containingsome form of the word dominance or included dominance as one of the adjectivaldescriptors (e.g., Dominant Discussant). Other labels from Table 10 include the word89Table 10A Listing and Description of the First-Order Factor Scales1. Persistent Dominance: persistent, domineering, dominant, aggressive, argumentative,assertive, stubborn, dogmatic, opinionated, forceful, self oriented, overpowering.Two sample items: I monopolize discussions.I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m persistent in voicing my opinion over and over again, even ifmy ideas are rejected.SME labels: Dogged Interpersonal Persistence; Exploitive Expediency; AssertiveDominance; Dogmatism; The Dominant Leader; CommunicationProminence; Internal Focus; Dominant Discussant; Self-OrientedAssertion; Communication Skills; Self Centered.2. Impatient Expediency: impulsive, spontaneous, loose, impatient, unsystematic,unmethodical, impetuous, non-detail, non-documenter, non-bureaucratic, improviser.Two sample items: I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t usually take the time and effort to document all my plans andactivities.I have no patience for the more tedious tasks.SME labels: Impatient Undocumented Spontaneity; Uncrafted Expediency; LowDetail Tolerance; Spontaneous Improviser; The Big PictureConceptualizer; Detail Avoidance; Spontaneous; DocumentAverse;Free Wheeling; Personal Organization Skills; Disinterest in Detail.3. Rebellious Drive: rule bender, rebellious, iconoclastic, opportunistic, non-conforming,anti-authority, risk taking, challenging, boat rocker, non bureaucratic, bold, manipulator,maverick, inner directed, rebel.Two sample items: I some company rule or procedure gets in my way, I go around it.I have persisted in pursuing an idea even when I was explicitlydirected to stop.SME labels: Non-Conforming Opportunism; Omnipotent Drive; Non-Conformist;Corporate Rebel; The Rule Breaker; Inner Directed; Persistence;Organizational Chain Breaker; Counter Dependent; IndividualInitiative; Rule Breaker.4. SelfPromotion: manipulator, power seeker, boastful, immodest, self serving, competitive,success oriented, promoter, arrogant, impression managing, network wise, visible, staging,personal promoter, well connected.Two sample items: I ensure that my successes in the company are known.I make sure I rub shoulders with powerful individuals in otherdepartments and business units in the company.SME labels: Machievellian SelfPromotion; Manipulative SelfPromotion;Manipulative SelfPromotion; Self-Serving Promotion; The SelfPromoter; Power Oriented; Visibility; Achievement Orientation;Impression Managing; SelfFufillment; High-Profile Manipulator.90Table 10 cont.5. Confrontive Candor: straight shooter, blunt, direct, confrontational, combative, assertive,forthright, straightforward, demanding, evaluative, confident, low need for social approval,task oriented.Two sample items: I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not afraid to tell others, in a direct and forceful manner, whatshould be done.I am willing to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cweed out\u00E2\u0080\u009D team members who are not immediatelyproductive.SME labels: Straight-Shooting Combativeness; Forthright Expediency; DirectIntervention; Assertive Task Orientation; The ConfrontationalManager; Peiformance Oriented vs. Affihiative; Self Confidence;Confrontational; Low Needfor Social Approval; Practice of Tough-Minded Candor; Confronter ofReality.6. Influence & Political Savvy: salesmanship, influential, well connected, strategic, savvy,promoter, conceptualizer, implementor, communicator, persuasive, discriminating,networker, assertive, visionary, big thinker.Two sample items: I am able to get the time of executives in the company in order tocommunicate my ideas.I think at a conceptual level; I let others worry about the details andspecifics of projects.SME labels: Strategic Selling; Organizational Influence; Political Savvy; ThePromoter; Political Boundary Spanner; Influence; IdeaCommunicator; Discriminating Politically; Emotionally Secure--Good SelfEsteem; Politically-Astute Influencer.7. Driven Commitment: driven, absorbed, passionate, committed, dedicated, energetic,involved, task oriented, work centered, focused.Two sample items: I tend to start early and work late when I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m emotionally involvedin a particular project.I tend to make personal sacrifices in my work when I am dedicated toa task or project.SME labels: Project Passion; Obsessive Commitment; High Job Commitment;Workaholism, The Workaholic; High Task Energy; Dedicated; TaskDriven; Effective Time Management; Obsessive Compulsive.8. Immediate Responsiveness: deadline driven, time urgent, responsive, prompt, impatient,immediate responder, non-procrastinating, a compulsive doer, action oriented, other personoriented, goal oriented.Two sample items: I always meet my deadlines at work.I address every task with urgency.SME labels: Deadline Driven; Urgent Responsiveness; Action Oriented; EfficientAction Orientation; The Goal-Oriented Doer; Action Oriented;Compulsive; Antonym ofProcrastinator; Immediate Responsiveness;Applied Empathy; Rapid Responsiveness.91Table 10 cont.9. Collaboration & Support: supportive, team player, empowering, encouraging, nurturing,collaborative, recognizer, reinforcer, recognizes achievement, delegator, instructor, coach,rewarder.Two sample items: I recognize the achievement and accomplishments of others bothpublicly and privately.I work to motivate teamwork--cooperation and collaboration amongteam members.Team Cheer leadership; Collaborative Influence; SupportiveTeamwork; Supportive Collaboration; The Team Coach; TeamOriented; Developer ofOthers; Supportive; Motivates OthersThrough Rewardsfor Performance; Leadership; Team Leader.10. Visibility & Growth Seeking: volunteer, explorer, influence seeker, visible, publicityseeking, generalist, exposure seeking, challenge seeking, role flexible, initiative taking,outgoing.Two sample items: I volunteer for tasks forces and other related activities that allowme to be a change agent.I enjoy working outside of my own office or department.Visibility; Role Flexibility; Initiative Taking; Diverse Generalist; TheVolunteer Generalist; The Volunteer Extrovert; Intrapreneurial;Liaison/Politician; Willingness to Work Outside Own Department;Exposure and Growth Seeking; Positive and FocusedAggressiveness;Seeker ofChallengeSME labels:SME labels:92assertiveness in some form. Two of the less value-laden (but also less descriptive) labelsgenerated were Communication Skills and Communication Prominence, the latter comingsomewhat closer than the former to characterizing the predominant theme ofassertiveness/dominance.Another theme running through the scale is one of persistence (e.g., DoggedInterpersonal Persistence, Dogmatism). High scorers on this factors would likely repeattheir assertive/dominant style, until getting their way. Looking at the item content of thisscale (see Appendix K), many of the items refer to behavior occurring in group settings(i.e., meetings). Thus, by inference, high scorers would likely be comfortable persistentlyand assertively voicing their opinion in a public forum.As a champion of a new, controversial idea, a manager might need to demonstratemany of the behaviors reflected in the items in this scale. In the face of opposition andresistance to change, the champion might need to persist in arguing his/her points. S/hemight be called upon to defend ideas against angry opponents. A strategy of persistentdominance might, in some situations, be a necessary and successful one if the new idea isnot to die before implementation.Three of the SMEs noted elements of self absorption/self interest in this factor(self oriented assertion, self centered, internal focus), while a fourth SME acknowledgedthat some form of exploitation/manipulation was involved (Exploitive Expediency).Although aspects of self interest and exploitation may be the forces driving the behaviorcontained in the item content of this scale, they are less apparent and salient than thethemes of persistence and dominance. The themes of persistence/dogmatism, selfinterest, and dominance were summarized as Persistent Dominance.Impatient Expediency (IE). Many of the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s appeared to use the non-championpole of this scale as the starting point for labeling, which contains items having to do withdetail orientation. Thus, three of the labels contain the notion of detail avoidance (Low93Detail Tolerance, Detail Avoidance, Disinterest in Detail). Attempts to label thechampion pole of this scale using synonyms for detail avoidance included the notion ofspontaneity: Impatient Undocumented Spontaneity, Spontaneous Improviser,Spontaneous.Some variation on the word impatience is either seen directly or implied in theitem content (\u00E2\u0080\u009CI have no patience for the more tedious tasks.\u00E2\u0080\u009D), the descriptive adjectives(impatient, impulsive, impetuous), and the labels (Impatient Undocumented Expediency).Indeed, the discussion of low detail tolerance above, implies impatience. High scorers onthis scale would likely avoid documenting their activities and avoid details. Set in a morepositive light, high scorers would likely consider the big picture (The Big PictureConceptualizer).Ultimately, the label Impatient Expediency was chosen for this scale. The themeof impatience is evident from both the SMEs work and the item content. Expediency iscontained in one of the labels (Uncrafted Expediency), and is less cumbersome than \u00E2\u0080\u009Clowdetail orientation\u00E2\u0080\u009D. It is likely that high scorers on this dimension get things done quicklywith little regard for minor details and protocol often associated with decision making inorganizations. They expedite and drive to implement as quickly as possible.Rebellious Drive (RD). Two themes predominate in what has been labeledRebellious Drive. These are: (a) rule and authority challenging, and (b) expediency andpersistence toward some objective. High scorers on this scale would likely bypasscorporate rules and ignore those who make and enforce them in order to meet theirobjectives.A number of SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s acknowledged lack of conformity as a critical theme in thisfactor. Words such as non-conforming, omnipotent, non-conformist, rebel, rule breaker,and chain breaker were found among the labels. One of the more colorful labelsgenerated was Corporate Rebel. Words such as initiative, persistence, and drive were94also found among the labels. Thus, it appears that the rule and authority challengingfound in the item content is purposeful\u00E2\u0080\u0094some goal or objective is met.Two SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s used the term inner-directed, suggesting that high scorers arebehaving in ways that satisfy their own needs. This theme is not a new one; it wasacknowledged in connection with Persistent Dominance and will surface again when SelfPromotion is discussed. Self interest and rebelliousness overlap in that those who rebeloften do so to satisfy their own needs. Persons who break rules and ignore authority arelikely following their own desires, and, in so doing, subordinating the concerns and needsof the larger collective (i.e., the company or society).SelfPromotion (SP). The word \u00E2\u0080\u0098self\u00E2\u0080\u0099 was used in six of the 11 labels, and somevariation on the word promotion appears in five of the labels. Self promotion is a clearand consistent theme throughout the items, the adjectives, and the labels generated by theSME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s. Other popular adjectives included: manipulative and impression managing.The SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s were in agreement that managers who achieve high scores on thisscale would be out for themselves. Such managers would seek out opportunities at workto present themselves in a positive light. They might choose visible, high profile workassignments. There was also a theme of manipulation running through the item content(Manipulative Self Promotion was used twice, and High-Profile Manipulator).This scale shares with Persistent Dominance and Rebellious Drive the theme ofself interest. Unlike PD and RD, however, high scorers on Self Promotion would likelyshow self interest in a more subtle, manipulative way, rather than through either directand outspoken confrontation or rule breaking. Although it might be tempting to see highscoring managers on this scale in a less than desirable light, the types of behaviorsreflected in the item content might very well be necessary and highly adaptive in thecontext of promoting and selling innovation. High scorers on this scale would likelywork to craft a high-profile reputation as a success in the company. Certainly, the95champion cannot shy away from the limelight in his/her role as advocate of new productsand processes.Confrontive Candor (CC). Two clear themes emerge from this scale. First is thenotion of candidness. A number of SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s acknowledged this by using the followingwords in some part of their scale label: Straight-Shooting, Forthright, Direct, Candor,Confronter of Reality. The second and related theme of confrontation also emerges fromthe labels and descriptive adjectives.Although similar in some respects to Persistent Dominance, the item content ofConfrontive Candor is more performance-oriented. That is, high scorers on thisdimension could be expected to be direct with others in pointing out performanceproblems (i.e., \u00E2\u0080\u009CI am willing to weed out team members who are not immediatelyproductive\u00E2\u0080\u009D). Such candidness would, typically, be associated with a willingness to enterinto confrontation with others. Two of the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s used labels indicating that high scorersare able to confront others because of their self confidence and low need for socialapproval (e.g., Self Confidence). These labels are more inferential, however, thandescriptive of the behavior reflected in the item content.Confrontive Candor measures one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to be straight with others aboutperformance expectations\u00E2\u0080\u0094to communicate and expect high standards and drive forproductivity and achievement. Thus, according to this dimension, champions are taskoriented, bottom-line managers, willing to enter into conflict and confrontation withothers to raise and maintain high standards.Influence and Political Savvy (IPS). Four of the 11 SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s used some form of theword political in their label (e.g., Politically-Astute Influencer). This scale contains itemsrelating to one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to access power (e.g., \u00E2\u0080\u009CI know how to use my politicalconnections in the company to make things happen.\u00E2\u0080\u009D). High scorers on Influence and96Political Savvy can likely secure the help and support of other, influential people in thecompany.This scale also contains a clear theme of influence and salesmanship, two relatedlabels. Those good at securing others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 sponsorship will also tend to be influential people.A high scorer on this scale would influence others by using his/her political savvy. Thus,this scale is not a measure of boisterous, flamboyant salesmanship. Instead, it appears tomeasure those sales skills needed to influence colleagues and superiors: longer terminfluence \u00E2\u0080\u009Cprojects\u00E2\u0080\u009D requiring tact, social skill, and good judgment.The label Influence and Political Savvy captures the main themes running throughthis scale. Influence and political skill are acknowledged directly in the label, whilejudgment and sophistication are reflected by the word savvy. A clear picture of asocially-skilled and polished power player emerges from a consideration of the itemcontent of this scale. These themes were consistently acknowledged by the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s.Driven Commitment (DC). Themes of commitment and dedication surfaceconsistently in the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s labels for this scale. Indeed, some SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s saw this scale ascommitment beyond what is psychologically normal or \u00E2\u0080\u009Chealthy\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Thus, we see labelssuch as: Obsessive Commitment, Obsessive Compulsive, Workaholism, and TheWorkaholic, reflecting the extreme nature of the drive and commitment to task. Sincecurrent researchers consider Workaholism to be a multi-dimensional construct, containingbehaviors not found in this scale (see, for example, Schaef, 1987), this label was notchosen. The word obsessive was not chosen for similar reasons. Interestingly, theconstruct not mentioned here (or, in connection with the scale ImmediateResponsiveness) by any of the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s, but considered to be closely related by the presentauthor, is the Type A behavioral syndrome.The word driven was chosen for the label to emphasize the- urgency and personalinvestment connected with the commitment to task. High scorers could be expected to97invest themselves in their work, to attack their tasks with high energy and drive. As well,they would likely work with a high degree of urgency, perhaps feeling pressured toachieve as much as they can in the time available. Themes of driven commitment havebeen described repeatedly in previous research on the champion (recall Table 3 of theIntroduction section and the label Persistent Drive). Champions have been described asfocused, passionate advocates who work with intensity and commitment when they alignthemselves with a new idea.Immediate Responsiveness (IR). Time is a critical factor in this scale, as virtuallyall the items reflect behaviors involving Eapid, urgent responsiveness. One of the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099slabeled this scale \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe opposite of procrastinator\u00E2\u0080\u009D, an apt but cumbersome label. Thecentral theme of Immediate Responsiveness is time urgency.Three of the 11 SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s used a slight variation of the final label chosen for thisscale (Urgent Responsiveness, Immediate Responsiveness, and Rapid Responsiveness).The theme of responsiveness is central. In addition, this responsiveness is driven by asense of time urgency. Managers high on Immediate Responsiveness take action rightaway, rather than delay. They are responsive, but they are also proactive, oriented towardtaking immediate action on issues.Immediate Responsiveness is similar in some ways to Impatient Expediency,except that the latter contains elements of disinterest in detail and impatience. Highscorers on Immediate Responsiveness do not appear driven by impatience or expediency.Instead, their urgency and responsiveness appears to be more a function of a desire tomaximize efficiency without decreasing the quality of what they accomplish.Collaboration and Support (CS). This ninth first-order factor scale contains aclear interpersonal theme\u00E2\u0080\u0094one of collaboration/teamwork, support, coaching, andempowerment. The words team or collaboration were used by seven of the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s. Aswell, some variation on support was contained in three of the. labels (Supportive98Teamwork, Supportive Collaboration, and, simply, Supportive). Two of the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s notedthe presence of items relating to coaching and development (The Team Coach, Developerof Others), while three others stressed the theme of leadership (Leadership, Team Leader,Team Cheer leadership).The label Collaboration and Support was chosen to reflect the two predominantthemes running through the item content of this scale: (a) teamwork/collaboration, and(b) support/coaching. High scorers on this scale would likely work cooperatively andcollaboratively with others, supporting and encouraging people to achieve and do theirbest. As well, they would likely consider the needs of others and act in ways that arerespectful and supportive. They would likely delegate and share responsibility and powerwith others. Such managers would appear mindful of other people and open to sharingwith them both the processes and outcomes of accomplishment.Visibility and Growth Seeking (VGS). A theme of openness to new experiencemixed with personal ambition emerges in this scale. This theme, one component ofVisibility and Growth Seeking, has been labeled as growth seeking\u00E2\u0080\u0094an active, ambitiousdrive to voluntarily and proactively expose oneself to new situations that provideopportunities to learn and develop one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s competencies. The words volunteer andinitiative surface in the item content of this scale, the adjectival descriptors, and the scalelabels. High scorers on this scale would be likely to show initiative and volunteer forprojects and assignments in order to develop further their skills by meeting newchallenges.Also of note in this scale is the theme of visibility, found in the item content andrepeatedly among the adjectival descriptors generated by the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s. Working in tandemwith the theme of growth seeking is a willingness to be visible and on display. This doesnot appear to be a promotional, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgrand-standing\u00E2\u0080\u009D form of visibility as seen in SelfPromotion, but appears, instead, to be related to a desire to interact with new people in99new situations\u00E2\u0080\u0094an openness to novelty and new experiences. Ultimately, the themes ofvisibility and growth seeking were combined to label this factor.High scorers on Visibility and Growth Seeking appear to be open and receptive tonew work opportunities. Specifically, this openness appears to be in the service of careerdevelopment. It is not a generalized openness to new things and experiences (perhapsarising out of curiosity) unrelated to career advancement. Those managers who workoutside of their office and volunteer for new projects are behaving in ways thatdemonstrate an eagerness to develop new competencies, perhaps in order to further one\u00E2\u0080\u0099scareer. High scorers would, then, likely be able to access greater resources (one indicatorof power) than would low scorers.Labelsfor The Two Second-Order Factor Scales of ChampionshipAfter supplying labels for the 10 first-order factor scales, subject matter expertsthen went on to name the two second-order factor scales. The labels generated for thesetwo second-order factor scales show substantial variability. In consultation with others,the present author was, however, able to decipher two labels that captured each of the twosecond-order factors in an overall sense.21 These two labels are reported in Table 11,along with the common factor pattern and the labels for the ten first-order factor scales.The two second-order factor scales appear to be orthogonal (see Table 7). Theycorrelated .22 in Sample 1 and -.08 in Sample 2 for a mean correlation of .15. Thus,Forceful Drive and Expediency (FDE) appears to be independent from Influence andVisible Drive (IVD). They are both salient aspects of championship emerging, as theydid from the acts generated in the very early stages of Study 1, but managers high on FDEcan be either high or low on IVD.21 I wish to thank Drs. Peter Frost, Ralph Hakstian, Robert Hare, Robert Hogan, and Jerry Wiggins fortheir help as SMEs of the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s\u00E2\u0080\u009D in the labeling and conceptualization of the two second-orderfactors.100Forceful Drive and Expediency (FDE). Five of the 10 first-order factor scalesloaded on FDE: Persistent Dominance (PD), Impatient Expediency (IE), Rebellious Drive(RD), Self Promotion (SP), and Confrontive Candor (CC). As discussed earlier, theindividual first-order factor scales contained themes of dominance (PD, CC),rebelliousness (RD), self interest (SP, RD, PD), and impatience (IE). It may be tempting,at first blush, to conceptualize such a factor as a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbad manager\u00E2\u0080\u009D factor, particularly giventhe current ethos in the business world of empowerment and teamwork. It may be,however, that, depending on the situation, championing new ideas may require the kindof forcefulness and persistence likely found among managers high on FDE.Managers high on FDE would likely be able and willing to wield power in adirect, confrontive, and, perhaps, manipulative way. They would likely face issues andother people head on and do what was necessary to get things done. They might breakrules and impatiently drive ahead despite what others say, and go around establishedcorporate protocol. Moreover, it is possible that they would do these things because theyare driven by their own personal needs and motives. The label Forceful Drive andExpediency was chosen to emphasize the themes of urgency, forcefulness, and drive.Influence and Visible Drive (IVD). The following five first-order factors havesalient loadings on IVD: Influence and Political Savvy (IPS), Driven Commitment (DC),Immediate Responsiveness (IR), Collaboration and Support (CS), and Visibility andGrowth Seeking (VGS). The label influence was chosen to represent the interpersonalflavor of IVD. Some variation on the word influence (e.g., persuasion) was used by threeof the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s. The second part of the label\u00E2\u0080\u0094Visible Drive\u00E2\u0080\u0094was chosen to emphasize thehigh degree (and profile) of job involvement, responsiveness, and drive reflected in theitem content of the three remaining first-order factor scales (DC, IR, VGS).101Table 11Meredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Common Factor Pattern and a Synthesis of the Labels Generated By theRatersForceful Drive Influence & Visible& Expediency1 Drive2Persistent Dominance .51 -.08Impatient Expediency .42 -.24Rebellious Drive .54 .04Self Promotion .28 .09Confrontive Candor .32 .14Influence & Political Savvy .00 .47Driven Commitment .14 .26Immediate Responsiveness -.04 .45Collaboration & Support -.17 .40Visibility & Growth Seeking .17 .511 Other labels generated by the subject matter experts: Charismatic Opportunism,Unbounded Drive & Exploitation, Self Expression, Aggressive Producer, The DrivingEntrepreneur, Concept Driven, Promoter, Pace Setter, Socially-Oriented Self Assertion,Tough-Minded Leadership, Self-Confident Visionary.2 Other labels generated by the subject matter experts: Passionate Persuasion, ObsessiveInfluence & Responsiveness, Success Orientation, Effective Collaboration, The TeamEntrepreneur, High Mission Identity, Focused, Team Performer, Get The Job Done,Focused & Integrated Skills, Influential, Action-Oriented Leader.102Two of the five first-order factor scales (IPS and CS) relate to one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability toaccomplish things through other people. In contrast to Persistent Dominance andConfrontive Candor (two first-order factor scales relating to assertive interpersonalinfluence that loaded on FDE), Influence and Political Savvy and Collaboration andSupport contain items that relate to one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to influence others in more collaborativeand subtle (less confrontive) ways. The focus is on building alliances and developingrelationships.Visibility and Growth Seeking contains items that an extrovert might respond toaffirmatively. VGS is distinct from SP in that the behavior is not self aggrandizing ormanipulative, but appears, instead, designed to increase one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s skill level and competence.Immediate Responsiveness also has a salient loading on IVD. The focus in JR is onaccomplishing objectives for the good of the organization. The content of JR is decidedlyless interpersonal than for CS, IPS, and VGS, but continues the theme of unselfishnessevident in the other four first-order factor scales that loaded on IVD. In contrast to FDE,managers high on IVD appear motivated to succeed and achieve for the good of theorganization.Prototypicality of the First- and Second-Order Factor ScalesAs noted earlier, each factor scale was rated for prototypicality by the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s.Prototypicality is of interest here in that not all of the 10 first-order factor scales might beequally central to the more general construct of championship. Some might be moreprototypic (or ideal, best) examples of championship than others.The prototypicality ratings supplied by the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s are reported in Table 12. Thefirst-order factor scales are listed in descending order by mean rated prototypicality, whilethe second-order factor scales are reported at the bottom of the table. All of the 10 firstorder factor scales have mean prototypicality ratings of greater than 4, meaning that all103Table 12Mean Prototypicalily Ratings For the Factor Scales, Listed in Descending OrderFactor Label Mean Prototypicality1Rating ModeDriven Commitment 6.27 7.0Influence & Political Savvy 6.00 7.0Visibility & Growth Seeking 5.73 7.0Immediate Responsiveness 5.64 6.0Rebellious Drive 5.55 5.0Collaboration & Support 5.36 6.0Confrontive Candor 5.27 7.0Persistent Dominance 4.91 7.02Impatient Expediency 4.73 5.02Self Promotion 4.27 3.0Influence & Visible Drive 6.20 6.0Forceful Drive & Expediency 5.80 7.01 Each factor for Championship was rated using the following 7-point scale:1 = Very Unprototypic; is a poor example of Championship4 = Moderately Prototypic; is a moderately good example of Championship7 = Very Prototypic; is a very good example of Championship2 The distribution of SME ratings for both Persistent Dominance and ImpatientExpediency was bi-modal: (a) PD 5.0 and 7.0, (b) IE 4.0 and 5.0.104first-order factor scales were seen as at least moderately prototypic of championship bythe SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s.While all 10 scales appear to be at least moderately prototypic of championship,there is a gradient of prototypicality ratings, ranging from a high of 6.27 for DrivenCommitment to a low of 4.27 for Self Promotion. The four factor scales rated highest forprototypicality all loaded on the second-order factor Influence and Visible Drive; the fifthmember of IVD occupies the 6th position in the rank ordering. The individual first-orderfactor scales loading on Forceful Drive and Expediency were seen as less prototypic tothe construct of championship by the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s than the scales loading on IVD. But, onceagain, the factor scale with the lowest mean rating was still rated as moderately prototypicof championship.It was hypothesized that first-order factor scales related to salesmanship would bejudged as more prototypic of championship than would factors related to other aspects ofthe champion role, initially conceptualized as related to innovation. Partial support forthis hypothesis was found. This hypothesis could not be tested at the second-order factorlevel as originally intended, since IVD is more than just salesmanship. The first-orderfactor scale Influence and Political Savvy comes closest to the original conception ofsalesmanship. This factor was rated as the second-most prototypic first-order factorscale; it received a mean rating of 6 on a 7-point scale, second only to DrivenCommitment (mean prototypicality = 6.27). Thus, salesmanship was seen by the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099sas a central component of championship.Turning to the two second-order factor scales, SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s rated both IVD and FDE asprototypic of championship. The mean ratings were very similar (6.20 to 5.80), bothfalling close to 6 on the 7-point scale. The modal rating for FDE was 7, while for IVDthe modal rating was 6. Thus, when the two clusters of first-order factor scales wereconsidered as members of two larger factors, the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s rated each as roughly equal inprototypicality for championship.105Correlates of the Dimensions of ChampionshipIn this section, the relationship between the first- and second-order championshipfactor scales and selected criteria of interest are reported in order to address hypothesesrelated to the prototypicality and importance of the factor scales. First, correlationsbetween the various championship factor scales and overall championship are reported.As discussed earlier, two sources of information were used to measure overallchampionship: (a) a 5-item supervisory-report scale, and (b) a 3-item self-report scale.Recall that items for these two scales were drawn directly from the definition forchampionship; thus, these two scales can be seen as criterion measures of overallchampionship. Secondly, the factor scales were correlated with rated overallmanagement performance (OMP). As described earlier, OMP was measured by 36 BOSitems.The 3-item and 5-item self-report measures of championship. Bivariatecorrelations between the 3-item and 5-item criterion measures of championship (3CC and5CC), on the one hand, and the first- and second-order factor scales, on the other, arereported in Table 13. Beginning with 5CC, the first-order factor scales associated withIVD correlated significantly and positively with this criterion measure of championship.Correlations ranged from .37 (Driven Commitment) to .66 (Visibility and GrowthSeeking). In contrast, the correlations between the FDE first-order factor scales and 5CCwere generally low and, in three cases, failed to reach significance at p < .05. Turning tothe second-order factor scales, IVD was much more closely related to 5CC than was FDE.A correlation of .73 (p < .001) is reported in Table 13 between 5CC and IVD. In contrast,FDE and 5CC correlated .07 (p> .05).The results for the 3-item self-report criterion are markedly different from thosereported above in connection with 5CC. The majority of correlations reported in the 3CCcolumn of Table 13 are low; there is no strong trend for either the IVD or FDE first-order106Table 13Bivariate Correlations Between the 3-item and 5-item Championship Criteria (3CC and5CC), the Overall Management Performance (OMP) and the Championship FactorScalesFactor Scale 3CC 5CC OMP(n=147) (n=174) (n=174)Forceful Drive and ExpediencyPersistent Dominance .10 .03 -.54Impatient Expediency .07 -.15 -.50Rebellious Drive .20 .19 -.26Self Promotion .24 .04 -.38Confrontive Candor .18 .19 -.08Influence and Visible DriveInfluence and Political Savvy .16 .61 .59Driven Commitment .14 .37 .36Immediate Responsiveness .09 .57 .75Collaboration and Support .06 .42 .61Visibility and Growth Seeking .19 .66 .58Forceful Drive and Expediency .22 .07 -.50Influence and Visible Drive .18 .73 .80Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .05: .15; .01: .195;.005: .213; .001: .247.107factor scales to correlate significantly with 3CC. These results may, in part, be an artifactof the low variability of the criterion. As discussed in a previous section, whenparticipants rated themselves on the four items designed to measure championship, thevast majority indicated that they had indeed generated new ideas on their own, adapted orbuilt on the ideas of others, introduced and promoted new ideas in the company, andworked to sell and champion new ideas in the company (all 147 participants respondedaffirmatively to the second item above). The present results suggest that either: (a) thereare an inordinate number of champions working for BC Tel, or (b) the self-reportcriterion suffers from some shortcomings. The latter possibly seems more tenable thanthe first. The present results call into question the validity of self-report measures ofchampionship, particularly those based on such a relatively small number of items (recallthat 1-item self-report criterion measures of championship have been reported in theliterature). Given the limitations of 3CC, the 5-item supervisory-report measure ofchampionship, 5CC, will be featured in subsequent analyses and discussions.It was hypothesized that salesmanship would correlate most significantly with anoverall criterion measure of championship. Since the two hypothesized second-orderfactors did not emerge in the present study, this hypothesis could not be tested directly atthe second-order factor scale level.As discussed earlier, the first-order factor scale that most closely resemblessalesmanship is Influence and Political Savvy; IPS correlated positively and significantlywith 5CC (r = .6 1), surpassed only by Visibility and Growth Seeking (r = .66).Salesmanship appears to be both a central (on the basis of the prototypicality results) andimportant component of rated overall championship, at least as measured by 5CC.The championship factor scales and overall managementperfonnance (OMP).The correlations between OMP and the championship factor scales are reported in thethird column of Table 13. With the exception of Confrontive Candor, the FDE factor108scales correlated significantly and negatively with OMP, while the IVD factor scalescorrelated significantly and positively with OMP. Turning to the bottom of Table 13,IVD correlated .80 with OMP, while FDE correlated -.50 with OMP.Clearly, then, IVD and it\u00E2\u0080\u0099s constituent factor scales are closely related to overall,general management performance, while FDE appears to represent behaviors anchoringthe opposite pole of OMP. Thus, managers who champion items by exhibiting thebehaviors associated with IVD will likely be seen by their supervisor as generally high-performing, successful, competent managers. In contrast, managers who receive highscores on FDE would likely be seen by their supervisor as generally low-performing,unsuccessful managers.DiscussionOverviewIn this section, the results reported in Phase V at the conclusion of Study 1 will bediscussed. This discussion will begin with a conceptualization of the two second-orderfactor scales and conclude with a discussion of their prototypicality and correlates.Throughout this section, parallels will be drawn between theories and constructs frompsychology and organizational behavior, on the one hand, and the dimensions ofchampionship on the other. This discussion is intended to: (a) further explore thepsychological meaning of championship, and (b) place the study of the champion withina broader framework and tradition of knowledge.The hypothesized hierarchical model of championship did not emerge in thepresent study. First, two levels or strata, rather than the three that were hypothesized,were uncovered. The two second-order factors obtained were uncorrelated. Thus, athird-level factor\u00E2\u0080\u0094overall championship\u00E2\u0080\u0094could not be calculated as hypothesized.Instead, the behavioral description of championship must stop at the second-order factorlevel. Given the orthogonality of FDE and IVD, it would be inadvisable to, for example,109compute an overall score for championship and then conceptualize and discuss themeaning of this score.Secondly, the two second-order factor scales that emerged do not correspond tothe two that were hypothesized\u00E2\u0080\u0094salesmanship and innovation. The two second-orderfactors obtained relate to: (a) an aspect of salesmanship, labeled as Influence and VisibleDrive, and (b) a variable seemingly unrelated to innovation, labeled Forceful Drive andExpediency. Thus, the structure obtained suggests a two-factor explanation ofchampionship, but not salesmanship and innovation. Instead, a dark and a heroic side tochampionship emerged, a conceptualization that will be discussed in detail below22.Salesmanship emerged as Influence and Political Savvy, and, thus, is a componentof Influence and Visible Drive. But IVD is more than just salesmanship. As will bediscussed below, IVD taps into elements of achievement and collaboration, among otherthings. Nevertheless, salesmanship is clearly represented in the structural model ofchampionship obtained in the present study. And, as was shown in Table 12, it was seenas a prototypic aspect of championship by a panel of subject matter experts.The fact that innovation did not appear, even at the first-order factor scale level, isan interesting finding. Recall that the two-factor model of championship (see Table 2)was used to train the panel members who generated the behavioral statements in Phase I.A substantial amount of time was devoted to the discussion of the role of innovation inchampionship. Panel members were clearly instructed to consider innovation as one oftwo dimensions central to championship. But innovation did not surface.22 Although 1VD will be characterized as the heroic side of championship, this does not rule out thepossibility that there may also be heroic qualities associated with some aspects of FDE behavior.Similarly, the use of the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdark\u00E2\u0080\u0099 side as a label for FDE should not be construed as a condemnation ofthis constellation of behaviors. Rather, it serves as a convenient, descriptive term to characterize a sideof championship that may be viewed by some (particularly those with communal tendencies) as less thandesirable, supportive, and prosocial.110A perusal of Appendix C reveals oniy five items (from the pooi of 363 items) thatappear related to the theme of innovation:I hold brainstorming sessions to determine the ideal world. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to generate easilya number of new ideas each day. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll go after new ideas, before following through onprevious ones. When confronted with a new idea, I tend to think through the reasonswhy it can\u00E2\u0080\u0099t be done (e.g., lack of people, no money, against company policy, etc.). Ienjoy the implementation stage, more than the stages of planning and idea generating[the latter two items are reverse keyed for championship].Clearly, innovation had no chance of emerging as a factor, with so few variables relatedto the construct in the analysis. Why, then, were so few behavioral statements related toinnovation generated? This question has a number of possible answers.One hypothesis is that the panel members who originally composed the behavioralstatements were biased in some way toward seeing the champion as a salesman andpromoter, not an innovator. This might have occurred if, for example, the majority ofpanel members worked in areas of the company where sales and persuasion were stressedover idea generation and innovation (i.e., marketing and sales). But only five of the 26panel members worked in the sales and marketing divisions at BC Tel. Many came fromthe more technical divisions (e.g., Engineering, Finance, Operations), where technicalproduct and process innovations would likely be a frequent topic of discussion. Thus, itappears unlikely that the business backgrounds of the panel members could havesystematically distorted the generation of acts in such a significant and pervasive way.Another concern related to the composition of the panel from Phase I is that BCTel managers might, as a group, see championship differently from managers in otherorganizations and industries in such a way that they downplay the importance ofinnovation. Such a possibility seems unlikely, however, given that managers working forBC Tel operate in a high-technology business environment in which product innovationsdrive business success (particularly since de-regulation of the telecommunications111industry). Managers at BC Tel are very cognizant of the importance of productinnovation for the continuing success of the company.A second hypothesis relates to the act frequency methodology. When panelmembers were asked to think about people they know who they would describe aschampions, they likely generated examples of behavior that they had observed in the past.Persuasiveness, collaboration, assertiveness, confrontation, rule breaking, self promotion,drive, commitment, growth seeking, and expediency are largely public acts, easilyobserved by others. In contrast, the processes that occur when one innovates (primarilycognitive) are largely private. Thus, it is possible that the use of the act frequencyapproach might have resulted in the generation of behavioral profiles slanted towardinterpersonal acts. The act frequency approach was, after all, designed to measuredispositional (e.g., dominance), rather than cognitive tendencies.A third hypothesis is that the two-dimensional conceptualization of championshipoutlined in the Introduction was inaccurate. Championship may be largely persuasion,promotion, and drive, with innovation left to the inventors and pioneers working inresearch and development. A review of the personality/motivational and cognitive traitslisted in Table 3 reveals that inventiveness and creativity are not dominant features of thechampion profile, despite their mention in many of the definitions of championship.Based, as it was, on the definition of championship gleaned from previous research, thetwo-dimensional model of championship outlined in Table 2 may have been a poorconceptual summary of the key features of championship. Too much emphasis may havebeen placed on innovation and inventiveness.For whatever reason, innovation does not appear to be an important aspect ofchampionship on the basis of the results from the present study. Clearly, more research isneeded to determine whether this finding is an artifact of some element of the studydesign or if indeed innovation is more the domain of the inventor and scientist than the112champion. At present, the disappearance of innovation from the face of championship isbest seen as a suggestive result that merits further investigation.The hierarchical structure of championship that was obtained in the present studywill now be discussed in some detail. I will begin with a general discussion of two factormodels in the social sciences, in order to place the factor analytic solution within abroader context. The discussion will then move to a detailed consideration of the twosecond-order factors, FDE and IVD.A Two-Factor Conceptualization of ChampionshipTwo-factor explanations of human behavior abound in the social sciences andhumanities. They are as general as sociological/anthropological conceptions ofmasculinity/femininity and as specific and assessment-based as Norman\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1963)surgency and agreeableness. A number of two-factor conceptual systems might haverelevance to the two-factor second-order structure obtained in the present study,especially those developed from research on leadership. These include consideration vs.initiating structure (Fleishman, 1953), democratic vs. autocratic leadership (Morse &Reimer, 1956), and person vs. task (Blake & Mouton, 1964). Each of these two-factorleadership-based models can, however, be represented by two primary, encompassing,higher-order modalities of human existence\u00E2\u0080\u0094agency and communion. The discussion ofthe factors arising from Study 1 will begin with an overview of agency and communionand an integration of these two orthogonal modalities with FDE and IVD.Agency and communion. Recently, Wiggins (1991) discussed an extensiveliterature on the concepts of agency and communion in the social sciences andhumanities, drawing on the writings of a diverse range of influential philosophers andscholars, including religious figures like Confucius, pioneers in psychology like Freud,and more recent contributors to psychology, like Erikson, Bern, and Norman. One ofWiggins\u00E2\u0080\u0099 goals was to suggest that \u00E2\u0080\u009Cagency and communion should serve as the113conceptual coordinates for the measurement of interpersonal behavior\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p. 90). Theconcepts of agency and communion are broad, encompassing, and generalizable overtime and across a wide variety of academic disciplines (e.g., religion, psychology,anthropology; Bakan, 1966). Given the broad scope of these two orthogonal concepts,they will be used as a starting point for the placement of FDE and IVD into a conceptualframework.The discussion below is not intended to suggest that FDE and IVD fit perfectlythis two dimensional structure. Instead, the discussion is intended as a broad introductionto the exploration of the psychological meaning of the two orthogonal dimensions ofchampionship. Areas of overlap between agency and communion, on the one hand, andFDE and IVD, will be discussed below. But the overlap is not close enough to warrant aconceptualization of championship based solely on agency and communion. Morespecific discussion of FDE and IVD will follow.Bakan (1966) characterized agency and communion as \u00E2\u0080\u009C...two fundamentalmodalities in the existence of living forms, agency for the existence of an organism as anindividual, and communion for the participation of the individual in some larger organismof which the individual is a part\u00E2\u0080\u009D (pp. 14-15). Agency is manifested by strivings formastery and power that serve to set the individual apart from others\u00E2\u0080\u0094the condition ofbeing a differentiated individual. Agency is a way of relating to one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s environment thatreinforces one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s independence and distinctiveness. In contrast, communion is manifestedby \u00E2\u0080\u009C...strivings for intimacy, union, and solidarity with the larger entity\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Wiggins, 1991,p. 89). Communion involves being at one with others and in contact and openness.Moreover, communion involves a recognition of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s obligations in the larger socialorder.Parallels between FDE and agency are evident. Recall that managers rated highon FDE can be described as forceful, strong-willed, tenacious, and outspoken. Theirbehavior reinforces their differentiation. This theme of differentiation was particularly114evident in Rebellious Drive, but also appears in Self Promotion and PersistentDominance. High scorers on FDE behave in ways that satisfy their internal needs: theirbehavior sets them apart from, it does not bring them into communion with, others.Bakan (1966) described the focus on self associated with agency in terms of selfprotection, self assertion, and self expansion. A focus on self is a familiar themeconnected with the first-order factor scales that load on FDE, most obviously SP, but alsoPD and RD. FDE has much to do with personal gain and little to do with considerationof others and forging of links with a larger collective whole. FDE is about success for theindividual, not the group.In contrast, the IVD factor scales reflect a more prosocial, affihiative orientation.This is particularly evident from Collaboration and Support and, to a lesser extentInfluence and Political Savvy and Visibility and Growth Seeking. Action is taken inorder to facilitate the development and support of others (CS). Interpersonal influence isof a more participative nature, involving others in the process of championship (IPS).And voluntarism and openness to new experience is evident (VGS). Even ImmediateResponsiveness and Driven Commitment, although not containing items having to dowith interpersonal behavior, relate to strivings to accomplish organizational, rather thanindividual objectives: commitment and drive in the service of the company.Bakan (1966) discussed the importance of balance between the two modalities.He noted that agency can serve to mitigate communion, while communion can serve tomitigate agency. Bakan\u00E2\u0080\u0099s prime concern appeared to have been with unmitigated agency,and the resultant alienation, isolation, and repression that results. Moreover, he arguedthat the very split of agency from communion is a feature of agency itself and that agencyrepresses communion from which it has separated. Unmitigated FDE would likelyappear as aggression and selfish exploitation, dominance, self promotion, andrebelliousness taken to their extreme.115Unmitigated communion, on the other hand, might lead to submission, loss ofself, and passivity (Bakan, 1966). Unmitigated IVD might appear as absorption in theneeds of others (or the organization) with little attention given to one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s needs andpriorities. Extremes of either modality may be counterproductive. Wiggins (1991)argued that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...agentic strivings mitigated by a concern for others and communal feelingsmitigated by a sense of self are the much preferred expression of these two modalities\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p.106).The parallels between FDE and IVD and agency and communion discussed in thissection are not perfect. Most notably, DC and IR, both loading on IVD, appear related toachievement, a variable typically associated with agency. Indeed, Bakan (1966)discussed McClelland\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1961) early work on need for achievement in connection withagency. Moreover, FDE contains a manipulative, unsocialized component that may gobeyond agency. Nevertheless, agency and communion provide an informative contextwithin which to view FDE and IVD; a way of placing these dimensions of championshipwithin a much larger, interpersonal context.The areas \u00C3\u00A2f overlap do, however, suggest that these two fundamental modalitiesof existence are useful to consider at a general level in the discussion of championship.Managers high on FDE are likely out for themselves; they may show little concern forothers and their place in the larger social collective. Their agenda would likely be todominate and win. This is the cornerstone of agency, particularly agency unmitigated bycommunion. Managers high on IVD collaborate with others and make efforts to operatesmoothly and effectively within the political arena of an organization; they work hard forthe sake of the company and show commitment. This cooperative, prosocial orientationis the cornerstone of communion.The modalities of agency and communion provide an informative introductorycontext within which to view FDE and IVD. Given the generality of these twomodalities, however, the discussion, thus far, has been relatively abstract. In the next116section, each of the two higher-order championship dimensions will be examined,separately, and in detail, in order to explore further their psychological meaning. Theanalysis will become more focused and specific and will involve the examination oftheories of leadership behavior and, in the case of FDE, psychopathology.A Closer look at Forceful Drive and Expediency. FDE was conceptualized aboveas representing agentic strivings for mastery and accomplishment. A closer inspection ofthe scales and items loading on FDE reveals what was called earlier the dark side ofchampionship. Taken to their extreme, dominance, aggression, impulsivity,manipulation, and rule breaking reflect antisocial behavior that may representunmitigated, unbridled agency. In this section, the possibility of a dark side ofchampionship will be explored, first by examining a related literature on the dark side ofcharismatic leadership, and then by exploring the relationship between FDE and bothnarcissism and psychopathy.The dark side of leadership. The dark side of leadership, in particular, charismaticleadership (Conger & Konungo, 1987), has been explored from a variety of perspectives,including psychoanalytic (e.g., Kets de Vries, 1989; Kets de Vries & Miller, 1991),research on individual differences (e.g., Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini, 1990), and leaderbehavior (e.g., Conger, 1990; Howell, 1988). This literature has relevance to the study ofthe champion, since the champion emerges as a leader of others, among other things, inthe service of promoting innovation. Interestingly, the dark side of leadership looks verysimilar from this diverse body of literature. As will be discussed below, the area ofcommunality is narcissism. A variety of researchers have ascribed narcissistic personalitytraits to influential, powerful, and dynamic leaders.In a discussion of the link between the psychological characteristics of keyorganizational members (CEO\u00E2\u0080\u0099s) and the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cneurotic styles\u00E2\u0080\u009D of their organizations, Kets deVries & Miller (1991) discussed the charismatic leader, whom they described as117grandiose, dramatic, exhibitionistic, lacking in self discipline, and driven by a need forexcitement and stimulation. Such leaders possess a sense of entitlement, are superficiallywarm and charming, but are often exploitive. In so doing, Kets de Vries & Miller drew alink between charisma and narcissism. They went on to suggest that such traits in theCEO would lead to the creation of a neurotic organizational style, as manifested by aI?charismaticu culture.Hogan et al. (1990) described the narcissistic leader who is able to rise quickly inorganizations because of his/her social skills. Citing research on the NarcissisticPersonality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979), they point out the overlap betweennarcissism and assertive, forceful, self confident, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cleader like\u00E2\u0080\u009D behavior. Hogan et al.argued that recent research on narcissism shows \u00E2\u0080\u009C...a persistent and surprisingly largerelationship between measures of narcissism and attitudes and characteristics oftenthought to typify aggressive managers, athletic coaches, military commanders, andpolitical leaders\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Hogan et a!., 1990, p. 350).Hogan et al. (1990) cited research in which significant correlation between theNPI and the CPI scales of Dominance (.71), Sociability (.66), Social Presence (.62), andCapacity for Status (.37) was shown, providing further evidence of a link betweennarcissism and dominant, forceful, assertive behavior. Ramanaiah, Detwiler, andByravan (1994) reported similar results. They divided subjects into narcissistic and non-narcissistic groups on the basis of NPI scores. Mean scores for the narcissistic group onNEO-PI Extraversion were higher than the non-narcissistic group and lower than the nonnarcissistic group on Agreeableness. Mean differences were not significant on the otherthree NEO-PI scales.In a related literature, Conger (1990) discussed the dark side of charismaticleadership. Charismatic leaders inspire trust, respect, even idolization and worshipamong their followers (Bass, 1985). According to House (1977), indicators ofcharismatic leadership include: (a) followers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 trust in the correctness of the leader\u00E2\u0080\u0099s118beliefs, (b) unquestioning acceptance of the leader, (c) affection for the leader, and (d)obedience.Conger (1990) argued that when \u00E2\u0080\u009C...a leader\u00E2\u0080\u0099s behaviors become exaggerated, losetouch with reality, or become vehicles for purely personal gain, they may harm the leaderand the organization\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p. 44). His point was that when normally functional andproductive charismatic leader behaviors are taken to their extreme (perhaps unmitigatedby communion), they become dysfunctional. When vision becomes obsession, andjudgment is clouded, the dark side of leadership emerges and poor decisions are made.In a theoretical paper on charismatic leadership, Howell (1988) also discussed thedark side of charismatic leader behavior. She argued for a more precise definition ofcharismatic leadership and a reconciliation of the fact that both Mahatma Gandhi andAdolf Hitler have been described as charismatic leaders. Drawing on the work ofMcClelland (1985), Howell hypothesized and described two faces of charismaticleadership\u00E2\u0080\u0094personalized and socialized.Personalized charismatic leaders, Howell hypothesized, articulate goals thatoriginate from leaders\u00E2\u0080\u0099 private motives or intentions. Such leaders recognize \u00E2\u0080\u009C...followers\u00E2\u0080\u0099needs only to the degree necessary to achieve leaders\u00E2\u0080\u0099 goals\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p. 225). In contrast,socialized charismatic leaders articulate goals \u00E2\u0080\u009C...that originate from followers\u00E2\u0080\u0099fundamental wants [and recognize] followers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 needs in order to help them develop in theirown right\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p. 225).The personalized charismatic leader is forceful and dominant and will manipulateothers to get his/her way. Such leaders expect and require followers to submit and obeyto their novel and self-serving goals. Such leaders see their followers as objects to bemanipulated. Thus, Howell comes to a similar conclusion to Conger (1990) in describinga dark side to charismatic leadership and portraying it as generally dysfunctional andpotentially harmful to the organization and its members. Howell also goes on to119acknowledge that personalized leadership could be valuable during times of crisis anduncertainty, when strong and decisive leadership may be needed.Collectively, the literature on the dark side of leadership points up thedysfunctionality of extreme leader behavior: that some leaders are driven by excessiveneeds for power, prestige, and control.23 Interestingly, the possibility of a dark side ofchampionship has not previously been acknowledged and explored, even though some ofthe \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdarker\u00E2\u0080\u0099 traits summarized in Table 3 (like rule-bending and aggressiveness) havebeen previously, albeit infrequently, acknowledged. But, insofar as champions assumeleadership roles in promoting innovation, sometimes in the face of strong opposition, onemight expect to find narcissistic traits among champions. Given the item content of FDE,it seems advisable to explore further the relationship between championship andnarcissism.Narcissism and Forceful Drive and Expediency. Narcissism involves a turninginward for gratification and a reliance on the self. Narcissists are typically pre-occupiedwith power and prestige; they see themselves as better, stronger, and more important thanothers. They seek out and need admiration from others. The Diagnostic and StatisticalManual-Version IV (DSM-IV) criteria include: (a) a grandiose sense of self-importance,(b) pre-occupations with fantasies of unlimited success and power, (c) a perception ofspecial uniqueness; a desire to associate only with those of high status, (d) admirationseeking, (e) a sense of entitlement, (f) interpersonal exploitiveness, (g) a lack of empathy,(h) a display of arrogant behaviors/attitudes, and (i) envy of others (American PsychiatricAssociation [APA], 1994).Although the FDE factor scales do not map one-on-one with the various criteriafor the diagnosis of narcissism, there is sufficient overlap between the constructs ofnarcissism and championship to warrant a discussion and exploration of the connection.23 A number of researchers have noted that narcissists often end up in leadership positions because of theirneed for power and prestige (e.g., Emmons, 1987; Kernberg, 1979; Person, 1986).120This is not to suggest that a manager rated high on FDE would receive a diagnosis ofnarcissism, based on the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria; rather, that persons high on FDEdemonstrate some of the traits associated with narcissism. Such behavior might be seenas reflective of narcissism as a personality trait rather than narcissism as a psychiatriccategory. The measurement of the former was Raskin & Hall\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1979) objective inconnection with the development of the NPI.Themes of both exploitiveness and admiration seeking are evident from the itemcontent of the Self Promotion scale, although not in extreme form. Exploitiveness isevident from the following items, the first reverse keyed when scored for Self Promotion:\u00E2\u0080\u009CI don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t exploit political connections in the company just to get ahead\u00E2\u0080\u009D, and \u00E2\u0080\u009CI orchestratesituations (e.g., meetings, one-on-one conversations) so that my wishes are approved.\u00E2\u0080\u009DAdmiration-seeking tendencies are revealed in the following two items: \u00E2\u0080\u009CI promote ideasthat have the highest visibility and likelihood of success\u00E2\u0080\u009D, and \u00E2\u0080\u009CI ensure that my successesin the company are known.\u00E2\u0080\u009D An inclination toward associating with those of high statusis revealed from the SP item: \u00E2\u0080\u009CI make sure I rub shoulders with powerful individuals inother departments and business units in the company.\u00E2\u0080\u009DTurning to other FDE first-order factor scales, Persistent Dominance andConfrontive Candor contain items that reflect a dominant, combative approach tointerpersonal relationships, thus revealing an arrogance and general lack of regard orempathy for others, (e.g., \u00E2\u0080\u009CWhen I think that someone is incompetent I tell them\u00E2\u0080\u009D, and\u00E2\u0080\u009CI\u00E2\u0080\u0099m persistent in voicing my opinion over and over again, even if my ideas are rejected\u00E2\u0080\u009D).Grandiosity and entitlement can be inferred from the item content of Rebellious Drive;perceptions of self importance, uniqueness, and entitlement may lead one to see oneselfas above the rules and conventions most people must follow.Considered together, the FDE first-order factor scales contain items that reflecttraits associated with narcissism. But the fit is far from perfect. Elements of impulsivity,rule breaking, deceit, and aggression, found in the item content of FDE are not listed as121indicators of NPD in DSM-IV or in the related measurement literature on narcissismassociated with the NPI (e.g., Emmons, 1987; Raskin &Terry, 1988). As well, some ofthe symptoms of NPD are not well represented in the item content of FDE. In order tomore fully examine the psychological meaning of FDE, the literature on a personalitydisorder conceptually related to narcissism, psychopathy, will now be examined, andparallels between psychopathy and FDE discussed.Psychopathy and Forceful Drive and Expediency. Psychopathy has traditionallybeen characterized by traits similar to narcissism, (tough-minded, glib, superficial,exploitive, and unempathic). It is distinct from narcissism in that it is diagnosed from apattern of interpersonal, affective, and behavioral indicators that include, among otherthings, impulsivity, aggression, deceit, and various forms of rule breaking or antisocialbehavior. Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by interpersonal, affective,and behavioral symptoms (Cleckley, 1976; McCord & McCord, 1964). Interpersonally,psychopaths are grandiose, manipulative, dominant, egocentric, and forceful. Affectively,they display shallow, labile emotions, are unable to form long-lasting bonds with people,and are lacking in empathy, anxiety and guilt. Behaviorally, psychopaths are impulsiveand sensation seeking; they violate social norms as manifested by criminality, substanceabuse, and a failure to fulfill social obligations and responsibilities (Hart, Hare, & Forth,1994).Virtually all research on psychopathy has been conducted on those in prisons orforensic hospitals, where the incidence of psychopathy is approximately 10%, ascompared with roughly 1% in the general population (Hare, 1993). Increasingly,however, the while-collar (or \u00E2\u0080\u009Csub criminal\u00E2\u0080\u009D) psychopath is receiving attention in theliterature (e.g., Babiak, in press; Hare, 1993). Such individuals demonstrate theinterpersonal and affective traits of the psychopath, but are able to mask their anti-social,122irresponsible behavior with a veneer of charm. The interpersonal traits associated withpsychopathy are instrumental in the cover up of criminal and/or antisocial behavior.Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) are two labels often usedinterchangeably to describe the same disorder, but they are different. A diagnosis of APDis made solely on the basis of behavioral indicators reflecting antisocial and criminalactivity. Thus, APD criteria do not include the interpersonal and affective characteristicsthat have traditionally been seen as central to psychopathy (e.g., Cleckley, 1976), with theresult that persons diagnosed as APD can be heterogeneous with respect to the personalitytraits that define psychopathy. The distinction between APD and psychopathy is animportant one to make in the context of studying the sub criminal psychopath, where areliance on the DSM-IV criteria for APD would lead one to fail to diagnosis any personprior to documentation of blatantly antisocial and/or criminal activity, even though theymight demonstrate many of the interpersonal and affective indicators associated withpsychopathy.Turning to the first-order factor scales associated with FDE, a number of thebehavioral and interpersonal symptoms associated with psychopathy are evident. Forexample, the Rebellious Drive dimension, contains items that reflect antisocial andirresponsible behavior. RD contains a number of items having to do with norm- andauthority-challenging. High scorers on RD would likely ignore authority and do as theyplease. The impulsivity noted by the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s in connection with Impatient Expediency isanother behavioral indicator for psychopathy (and, of course, APD). Finally, elements ofdeceitfulness are seen in the item content of Self Promotion, the latter item reverse keyedfor scoring on SP (e.g., \u00E2\u0080\u009CI will sometimes bend the truth in order to achieve my goals\u00E2\u0080\u009D,and \u00E2\u0080\u009CI will not compromise my integrity just to get ahead\u00E2\u0080\u009D).FDE does not appear to contain the affective symptoms associated withpsychopathy (e.g., low anxiety, guilt), however. Such affective indicators are difficult tomeasure with behavioral scales. The connection between FDE and affective indicators of123psychopathy will, however, be re-visited in Study 2, when the individual-differencecharacteristics of the champion are reported discussed.As discussed earlier in connection with narcissism, high scorers on FDE wouldlikely be described as dominant, forceful, even cold hearted. Item content from thePersistent Dominance and Confrontive Candor scales reveal an aggressive, forceful,dominant interpersonal style (e.g., \u00E2\u0080\u009CI monopolize discussions\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009CI am stubborn andresistant, even in the face of legitimate criticism\u00E2\u0080\u009D, and \u00E2\u0080\u009CI have risked disappointing othersin order to get my own ideas across\u00E2\u0080\u009D). Also an indicator of narcissism, grandiosity wasdiscussed earlier in connection with the item content of Rebellious Drive. Egocentricitywas a theme discussed earlier as well in connection with the FDE factor scales SelfPromotion, Rebellious Drive, and Persistent Dominance. A strong theme of self interestunites these three first-order factor scales. Finally, Self Promotion contains a clear themeof manipulation, as noted earlier by the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s.Summary. The parallels drawn between FDE and both narcissism andpsychopathy warrant further investigation. An empirical study of the relationshipsbetween championship and narcissism and psychopathy is needed in order to more fullyexamine the dark side of championship. At present, the linkages between championship,narcissism, and psychopathy should be seen as suggestive only. The parallels do appear,however, strong enough to warrant closer study.A closer look at Influence and Visible Drive. Parallels between FDE and twopersonality disorders (narcissism and psychopathy) were drawn in the previous section.IVD, on the other hand, does not appear related to personality disorders. If FDE tappedthe dark side of championship, then IVD is measuring, not the opposite of the dark side(since this would require FDE and IVD to be negatively correlated), but rather a side ofchampionship that is orthogonal to FDE; one that bears close similarity to the glowingdescriptions of the champion forwarded by past researchers. In recognition of this fact,124IVD has been labeled as the heroic side of championship since it reflects the prosocialand desirable behaviors and traits so frequently cited by others in the literature.There are a number of similarities between IVD and the trait profile of thechampion developed from the literature review reported in Table 3. For example,Burgelman (1983) described the champion as politically astute, while othersacknowledged the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to influence and inspire others (e.g., Galbraith,1982; Howell & Higgins, 1990a). The overlap here with the IVD dimension Influenceand Political Savvy is obvious. The champion is able to garner support through his/herinfluence tactics. The dimension labeled Interpersonal Awareness in Table 3 is similar, inmany ways, to the IVD factor scale Collaboration and Support. Both have an obviouslystrong interpersonal flavor and both relate to cooperation and support. Kanter (1982)emphasized the importance of collaboration in working toward the implementation ofinnovation. Other have acknowledged the general importance of interpersonal skills(one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to work well with others) for the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s success.Other parallels between IVD and the dimensions identified in Table 3 relate todrive and achievement. Persistent Drive and Action-Oriented Competition bear a strikingsimilarity to the first-order factor scales Immediate Responsiveness and DrivenCommitment. Finally, Visibility and Growth Seeking appears similar to the dimensionlabeled Openness to Change/Visionary in Table 3, although the latter has a morerebellious, excitement-seeking theme to it than does VGS. Pinchot (1985) has describedthe champion as open and willing to try new things. Recall that much of the item contentof VGS relates to seeking out of opportunities for new challenges, described by some ofthe SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s as voluntarism or role flexibility.All of the scales that load on IVD reflect behaviors and traits that have beendiscussed by previous researchers in connection with the champion. Taken together, thedimensions of IVD represent the heroic- and the most frequently cited-side of125championship. Clearly, there is significant overlap between IVD and researchers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 pastdescriptions of the champion.Going beyond the literature on championship, parallels can be drawn betweenIVD and both charismatic and transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978), theformer being a subset of the latter. As discussed briefly in a previous section, Howell\u00E2\u0080\u0099s(1988) application of McClelland\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1985) work on power motives to charismaticleadership led to the proposal of two faces of charismatic leadership\u00E2\u0080\u0094socialized andpersonalized. While personalized leadership was related to FDE, socialized leadershipappears similar in at least two respects to IVD.The socialized leader expresses goals that are mutual and shared: follower andleader pursue a common purpose. The socialized leader takes into consideration theindividualized needs of the followers and provides them with developmentalopportunities. The socialized leader is a more collaborative and subtle influencer thanhis/her personalized counterpart. These behavioral characteristics point up parallelsbetween Collaboration and Support and Influence and Visible Commitment, on the onehand, and socialized leadership, on the other, areas of communality that will be discussedin more detail below in the section on transformational leadership (Bass, 1985).The relationship between transformational leadership and IVD. The link betweeninnovation and transformational leadership has been made previously by several authors(e.g., Bass, 1985; Conger & Konungo, 1987). Of more direct relevance to the presentstudy is the research of Howell and Higgins (1990a) who demonstrated recently a linkbetween championship and transformational leadership. Howell and Higgins found thatchampions reported using transformational leadership behaviors to a greater extent thannon-champions. Thus, the connection between transformational leadership andchampionship warrants further examination.126Transformational leadership refers to the process of influencing significantchanges in the attitudes and assumptions of organizational members. The leadertransforms the organization\u00E2\u0080\u0099s members and, in so doing, effects significant culturalchange in the organization. The transformational leader inspires followers24to transcendtheir self interests for a higher collective purpose (Burns, 1978). The leader\u00E2\u0080\u0099s effect onfollowers is to empower them to participate; the transformational leader works to earntheir commitment.Building on the earlier work of Bums (1978) in connection with political leaders,Bass (1985) defined transformational leadership as made up of four components: (a)charismatic leadership\u00E2\u0080\u0094the leader articulates a vision, inspires and encourages others;instills respect, faith, and loyalty, (b) inspirational leadership25\u00E2\u0080\u0094u es emotional appeals,communicates a vivid, persuasive image of how things could be; provides examples toenhance followers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation\u00E2\u0080\u0094suggests creative, novel ideasthat challenge others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 conceptualization, comprehension, and understanding of the natureof problems, and (d) individualized consideration\u00E2\u0080\u0094the leader takes a developmental andindividualized approach to followers. Thus, Bass (1985) sees transformational leadershipas more than just charisma. Transformational leaders seek to empower and elevatefollowers, whereas some charismatic leaders may seek to keep their followers weak anddependent (i.e., personalized charismatic leadership).IVD can be related to transformational leadership in the following ways. First, ona general level, transformational leadership is clearly about influencing others. Asdiscussed earlier, IVD dimensions Influence and Political Savvy and Collaboration andSupport both relate to interpersonal influence, especially support and persuasion.Collaboration and Support overlaps, in particular, with Bass\u00E2\u0080\u0099 (1985) factor individualized24 Burns (1978) noted that transformational leadership may be exhibited by anyone in the organization, inany type of position; thus, it may involve people influencing, not only subordinates, but also peers andsuperiors.25 Inspirational leadership emerged as a component of the first and largest of the factors, charismaticleadership, but is described separately by Bass (1985).127consideration, while the more political influence tactics evident in IFS overlap withcharismatic and inspirational leadership.The connection between Immediate Responsiveness, Driven Commitment, andVisibility and Growth Seeking, on the one hand, and transformational leadership, on theother, is more difficult to make. As discussed previously, items comprising JR and DCreflect a hard-working committed, dedicated approach to one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s work, while itemscomprising Visibility and Growth Seeking relate to one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s openness to new challenges andworking environments. High scorers on IR, DC, and VGS could be seen as modeling\u00E2\u0080\u0094providing examples of commitment and determination in order to enhance followers\u00E2\u0080\u0099motivation. Thus, IR, DC, and VGS could be seen as overlapping with Bass\u00E2\u0080\u0099inspirational leadership component, although the overlap here is far from perfect.Missing from the IVD factor scales is intellectual stimulation, a component oftransformational leadership that appears to overlap, to some extent, with one of the twohigher-order dimensions of championship that was hypothesized to emerge\u00E2\u0080\u0094innovation.The issue of innovativeness and, more generally, cognitive ability, will be re-examined inStudy 2.Summary. Drawing on the findings of previous research on the champion as wellas the literature on transformational leadership, the psychological meaning of Influenceand Visible Drive has been further explored. In contrast to Forceful Drive andExpediency, IVD has been conceptualized as the heroic side of championship. IVDappears to represent that which is \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgood\u00E2\u0080\u009D and desirable about the champion. And, assuch, it overlaps with previous, mostly descriptive research on the champion in which thisfigure is described as the heroic advocate of innovation and change.The Prototypicality of The First- and Second-Order Factor ScalesMean prototypicality ratings on the various factor scales were reported in aprevious section. Ratings for the two second-order factor scales were very similar; both128were rated as prototypic of championship. A gradient of ratings was observed for thefirst-order factor scales, with higher prototypicality ratings being assigned to the first-order factor scales loading on IVD.It is possible that this gradient may reflect a view of the champion that isinfluenced by an historic bias among those who have researched and read about thisfigure. As noted before, in the majority of research the champion has typically beendescribed as a near-heroic, energetic, highly-skilled advocate. Thus, if the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099sbelieved that champions were inherently prosocial, supportive, hard-working, and tactfulinfluencers, they would see the IVD scales designed to measure such behavior as close tothe category of champion and, as well, see the scales comprising FDE as less prototypicof the category of champion. An historical positively-biased view of the champion may,in part, account for the pattern of prototypicality ratings observed in Table 12.It is interesting, then, to see just how similar the overall prototypicality ratings arefor FDE and IVD, despite the possible operation of such a bias. When required toconsider the individual first-order factor scales as marking two global dimensions ofchampionship and to rate these two global dimensions for prototypicality, the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099scontinued to see the IVD factor scales as prototypic of championship but now saw thegroup of five FDE factor scales as almost equally prototypic.Although the dark side of championship has not been explicitly discussed inprevious literature, the SME\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ratings indicate that the dark side is nearly as central to thecategory of champion as is the heroic side. These findings suggest that the dark side ofchampionship may have been with us for some time, but that the stereotype of thepositive, prosocial champion has colored our views in such a way as to block from viewthe darker aspects of this role, unless they are examined at a concrete, behavioral level.129Correlates of ChampionshipThe correlations between the 5-item criterion measure of championship (5CC) andoverall management performance (OMP), on the one hand, and the championship factorscales, on the other, were reported in Table 13. These correlations will now be discussed.The 5-item supervisory-report criterion measure ofchampionship and the factorscales. Taken at face value, it would appear that the IVD factor scales are the mostimportant components of championship, while the FDE factor scales are less important.The 5-item criterion measure of championship is not, however, without it\u00E2\u0080\u0099s shortcomings.It represents a brief assessment of global, overall, championship, based on the originaldefinition of championship that inspired the present research, a definition that is biasedtoward positive views of the champion role. Thus, it is not surprising to see suchsignificant convergence between IVD (and the related first-order factor scales) and 5CC.This criterion measure of championship was, after all, designed to measure the mostfrequently-cited and desirable side of championship.Moreover, 5CC is not an objective independently-obtained criterion measure ofchampionship. Thus, the correlations represent convergence between ratings of behaviorrather than associations between ratings on the factor scales and consensually-validated,documented on-the-job achievements as a champion. Therefore, the correlations reportedin Table 13 are likely inflated by method variance and should not be seen asdemonstrating either: (a) the unimportance of the FDE factor scales, or the supreme orexclusive importance of the IVD factor scales.A next step in research on these first- and second-order factor scales would be toexamine their validity as predictors of: (a) participation rates in technical andadministrative innovations, and (b) success rates (defined as implementation ofinnovation). It would be particularly interesting, for example, to see if both 1VD and FDEcorrelate with success. At present, the relationships between IVD and FDE and130organizational-level variables, like implementation, are unknown, but a possible scenariowill be proposed.Although IVD would be seen by most people as the more desirable side ofchampionship, it is likely that, in some situations (perhaps depending on the degree ofradicalness of the innovation or the perceived risks to implementation by organizationalmembers), an approach typified by FDE might be necessary. When resistance is strongand the innovation must be implemented despite widespread resistance, the dark side ofchampionship might be highly adaptive, at least in the short term, as suggested by Howell(1988) in connection with personalized charismatic leadership. It is possible that thedegree of association between FDE and IVD, on the one hand, and implementationsuccess, on the other, is moderated by the degree of resistance to the idea.OMP and the factor scales. We see further evidence of a dark and a heroic side tochampionship when we examine the relationship between OMP and the two second-orderfactor scales. IVD is clearly associated (r = .80) with positive appraisals of generalmanagerial competence, while FDE is associated (r = -.50) with negative appraisals ofgeneral managerial competence. The two higher-order dimensions of championship bearmarkedly different relationships to OMP. IVD appears to be tapping into bothchampionship and general management effectiveness, at least managerial effectiveness asmeasured by OMP.Both OMP and the championship factor scale scores are based on supervisoryratings. Thus, it is likely that the correlations reported above are inflated due to methodvariance; recall that the 36-item OMP was embedded in the larger 141-item instrument.In other words, the true degree of relationship between overall management effectiveness,on the one hand, and the two sides of championship (particularly the heroic side), on theother, may not be as strong as might be suggested by the results in Table 13.131A related methodological concern is halo. The halo effect is the tendency forraters to rate all traits (dimensions) in the direction of some general impression\u00E2\u0080\u0094the rateeis good or bad, hard-working or lazy. In the application of performance appraisal, thehalo effect results in inflated inter-correlations among oblique but conceptually distinctdimensions of performance (e.g., planning and analysis). A manager viewed as a veryeffective planner, might also be rated as high on analysis, for example, in spite of the factthat such a manager might have poor analytical skills.In the present study, halo may be inflating the correlations between championshipand OMP. Managers seen by their supervisors as generally likable and good performersmight have received high scores on both OMP and IVD, while those seen as generallypoor performers might have received low scores on OMP and high scores on FDE due, inpart, to the halo effect. Although the halo effect and method variance might account forsome of the overlap between OMP and championship, the correlations are strong enoughto suggest that these relationships exist in spite of the likely operation of these statisticalartifacts.Given the relationships between OMP and the two second-order factor scales,implications for selection seem clear. First, if organizations wished to select for bothgeneral management competence and championship (perhaps by assessing a pool ofincumbents via supervisory, peer, or subordinate [bottom-up] ratings), their best strategywould be to select on the basis of IVD. If such a strategy were pursued, the organizationwould be likely to select in managers who: (a) show many of the behaviors characteristicof champions, and (b) are likely to be high-performing managers.If, on the other hand, it was felt that more forceful drive and opportunisticleadership were needed to, for example, implement an unpopular but necessaryinnovation, then FDE might be emphasized. There would, however, likely be a costassociated with selecting for FDE. That cost, at the least, might be low performance as amanager (at least as perceived by supervisory ratings). At the worst, the cost could be the132selection of a low-performing manager who is prone to engage in a range of antisocialand counterproductive behaviors.SummaryA hierarchical structural model of championship was developed in Study 1. Tenreplicable and clearly interpretable first-order and two second-order factors were labeledand discussed. Although all ten of the first-order factors were related to championship,some were found to be more central or prototypic than others. The two second-orderfactors were found to be very similar to one another in rated prototypicality; thus, bothsides of championship\u00E2\u0080\u0094the heroic and the dark\u00E2\u0080\u0094are prototypic of championship.Finally, the relationships between the factor scales and overall management performance,as well as a 5-item criterion measure of championship were discussed in order to examinefurther the psychological meaning of the factor scales. The scales arising from thisstructural model of championship will now serve as criteria for Studies 2 and 3.133STUDY 2: AN EXAMINATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCESCHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHAMPIONOverviewThe purpose of Study 2 was to examine the characteristics of the champion thatdistinguish him or her from the non-champion. Three approaches were used to identifythese distinguishing characteristics. First, correlational methods were used to examinethe relationships between the various components of the assessment center (AC) batteryand rated championship. These correlational analyses were based on the complete sampleof managers (n = 174) who participated in the assessment center. Secondly, a contrasted-groups design was used to study managers with very high and very low scores on bothFDE and IVD. Information from all components of the AC battery, including an open-ended biographical information form, was examined in order to identify thecharacteristics that distinguished: (a) managers low and high on FDE, and (b) managerslow and high on IVD. Finally, a case study approach was used to explore in moredescriptive detail the characteristics of the manager receiving high and low scores on thetwo second-order factor scales.The characteristics of the champion were of interest for two primary reasons\u00E2\u0080\u0094theory and application. First, Study 2 was designed to test hypotheses and contribute totheory on the individual-differences characteristics of the champion. As noted in theIntroduction chapter, much of what is currently known about the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s personalityis based on descriptive research\u00E2\u0080\u0094primarily case studies\u00E2\u0080\u0094in which one or two championswere studied intensively by the researcher. Such research leads to the development ofdescriptively-rich and compelling profiles. The validity of these profiles can, however,be challenged when viewed from the perspective of a quantitative research paradigm.They typically include no comparison groups and, by definition, make no use ofstandardized assessment tools. Salient characteristics that appear to substantiate commonwisdom can be reported and seemingly contrary evidence disregarded or de-emphasized.134Thus, the theory-driven objective of Study 2 was to develop an empirically-basedprofile of the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0094a profile that distinguished him or her from the non-champion.The results from this analyses would permit the present researcher to test the validity ofthe descriptive profile of the champion outlined in Table 3. Qualitative research methodswere also used in Study 2, in part, for the purpose of \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctriangulation\u00E2\u0080\u009D. That is, the resultsfrom the contrasted groups and case study analyses were compared with the results fromthe correlational component of Study 2 in order to identify areas of communality andconvergence. Hypotheses were tested on the basis of results from the correlationalanalyses. The case study and contrasted-groups approaches were used to add furtherdepth and descriptive detail to the profile of the champion.The second reason the champion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s characteristics were of interest was todevelop an optimally-predictive championship scale. Using multiple regressionmethods, scales from the various standardized instruments were differentiallyweighted and combined to predict the two second-order factor scales, FDE and IVD.The results arising from this analysis would have implications for managementassessment, selection in particular. If acceptable levels of criterion-related validitycould be achieved between rated championship and linear combinations of variousassessment measures, then it might be possible to use psychological testing to assistthe human resource function in accomplishing strategic objectives related tochampionship. A championship screening test (or battery) could be added to existingselection methods to raise the probability of hiring employees likely to take a newidea for either an administrative or technical innovation (an idea s/he may or may nothave generated) and introduce, promote, and sell the idea to others in theorganization.135HypothesesHypothesized correlations between scales from the various components of the ACbattery (described in detail below) and ratings of championship are presented in Table 14.The reader will note that the hypotheses have been organized according to the fourindividual-differences clusters featured in Table 3.MethodParticipants and SettingThe participants were 174 entry, middle-, and senior-level managers at the BritishColumbia Telephone Company (BC Tel; the same group of managers rated in Phase IVof Study 1). Of the 174 participants, 44 were female and 124 were male. To review, thesample was composed of managers who participated in a three-day assessment center atBC Tel, between the years of 1989 and 1994. A variety of assessment procedures wereused in the assessment center, including both standardized tests and simulation exercises.The Assessment CenterMeasuresThe measures used in the assessment center appear in Table 15. Cognitive abilitytests, personality inventories, management simulations, a structured interview, and abiographical information form made up the assessment battery. Each component of theAC battery will now be described in more detail.Cognitive Ability (Intellectual Measures)The Wonderlic Personnel Test, Form A (E. F. Wonderlic & Associates, 1983), theConcept Mastery Test, Form T (Terman, 1956), and the Culture Fair Intelligence Test,Scale 3, Form A (Cattell, 1973) were used to assess general intelligence. The first twotests are culturally-influenced measures of general intellectual ability. They measureone\u00E2\u0080\u0099s acquired level of functional ability. The Culture Fair Intelligence Test wasdesigned to measure individual intelligence by reducing \u00E2\u0080\u009C...the influence of verbal136Table 14A Summary ofHypotheses on the Individual-Differences Characteristics of the ChampionA. Personality/Motivational TraitsInterpersonal Effectiveness1. Positive and significant correlations will be found between managers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 scoreson the 16PF Qj Extraversion second-order scale, the 16PF Factor E and FactorH scales, the CPI Sociability (Sy) scale, Dominance (Do), Capacity for Status(Cs), Social Presence (Sp), and Psychological Mindedness (Py) scales, and thePRF Affiliation (At), Dominance (Do), and Exhibition (Ex) scales and theirscores on the championship factor scales.2. Positive and significant correlations will be found between managers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 scoreson the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory (ROCI-Il) scales Dominating(Do) and Integrating (In) and their scores on the championship factor scales.3. Positive and significant correlations will be found between managers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 scoreson the summary Role-play and Interview Interpersonal dimensions and theirscores on the championship factor scales. The Interpersonal dimension scalesin the role-play and interview measures aspects of interpersonal effectiveness,poise, sensitivity, assertiveness, and tact. They are summary measures ofone\u00E2\u0080\u0099s overall rated interpersonal effectiveness.DeterminedAchievement Orientation4. Positive and significant correlations will be found between managers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 scoreson the 16PF Qw second-order scale, the CPI Achievement via Independence(Ai), and the PRF Achievement (Ac), Endurance (En), and Autonomy (Au)scales and their scores on the championship factor scales.5. Positive and significant correlations will be found between managers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 scoreson the championship factor scales and their scores on the four Jenkins ActivitySurvey (JAS) scales: Type A, Factor S (Speed and Impatience), Factor J (JobInvolvement), and Factor H (Hard-Driving and Competitive).6. A positive and significant correlation will be found between managers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 scoreson the championship factor scales and their scores on both the Interview andRole Play dimension of Entrepreneurship. The Entrepreneurship dimensionmeasures aspects of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s drive, ambition and independence.137Table 14 cont.Openness/Willingness to Change7. Positive and significant correlations will be found between managers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 scoreson the championship factor scales and their scores on the CPI Tolerance (To),Flexibility (Fx), 16PF Factor M and Factor Qi\u00E2\u0080\u0099 and the PRF Change (Ch)scales.8. Negative and significant correlations will be found between managers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 scoreson the championship factor scales and their scores on the CPI Socialization(So) and Self-Control (Sc) scales, and the PRF Cognitive Structure (Cs) scale.9. Positive and significant correlations will be found between managers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 scoreson the championship factor scales and their scores on the summary Role-playand Interview Initiative/Innovation dimension.B. Cognitive Abilities10. Positive and significant correlations will be found between managers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 scoreson the championship factor scales and their scores on the ComprehensiveAbility Battery (CAB) measures of Ideational Fluency and SpontaneousFlexibility.11. Positive and significant correlations will be found between managers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 scoreson the championship factor scales and their scores on the following measuresof general intellectual level: the Wonderlic Personnel Test, the Culture FairIntelligence Test, Scale 3, Form A, and the Concept Mastery Test, Form T.138Table 15Measures Used in the Assessment Center (AC) BatteryCognitive Ability (Intellectual Measures)Wonderlic Personnel Test (Form A): measures general intellectual ability; this is alanguage-dependent measure.Concept Mastery Test (Form T): measures general intellectual ability; developed as ameasure of ability to deal with abstract ideas at a high level. This test is a language-dependent measure.Culture Fair Intelligence Test (Scale 3, Form A): measures general reasoning ability;this is a measure that is free of English language proficiency.Nelson-Denny Reading Test (Form E)Reading SpeedReading Comprehension: comprehension of material read.VocabularyFlanagan Industrial TestsExpression (Form A): writing skills--grammar and style.Comprehensive Ability Battery (CAB)Ideational Fluency (Fi): idea generation, brainstorming ability.Spontaneous Flexibility (Fs): freedom from rigid thought modes.Personality Inventories and Measures of TemperamentCalifornia Psychological Inventory (Revised) (CPI): yields scores on 19 scalesmeasuring aspects of personality: Dominance (Do), Capacity for Status (Cs),Sociability (Sy), Social Presence (Sp), Self-acceptance (Sa), Responsibility (Re),Socialization (So), Self-Control (Sc), Good Impression (Gi), Communality (Cm),Sense of Well-being (Wb), Tolerance (To), Achievement via Conformance (Ac),Achievement via Independence (Ai), Intellectual Efficiency (le), PsychologicalMindedness (Py), Flexibility (Fx), Femininity/Masculinity (FJM), and Anxiety (An).Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF): measures 16 dimensions ofpersonality as well as four \u00E2\u0080\u009CSecond Order\u00E2\u0080\u009D factors assessing more global orcomprehensive measures of personality. The second-order factors, labeled with thedescriptor for high scorers are: Extraversion (Qj), Tough Poise (Qiji)\u00E2\u0080\u0099 Independence(QIv)\u00E2\u0080\u0099 and Adequacy of Adjustment (AA). The primary factors (again, the label139Table 15 cont.associated with high scores is reported) are: A (Outgoing), B (Bright), C (EmotionallyStable), E (Assertive), F (Happy-go-lucky), G (Conscientious), H (Venturesome), I(Tender-minded), L (Suspicious), M (Imaginative), N (Astute), 0 (Apprehensive), Qi(Experimenting), Q2 Self-sufficient), Q (Controlled), Q (Tense).Personality Research Form (Form E) (PRF): yields scores on 22 scales: Achievement(Ac), Affiliation (Af), Aggression (Ag), Autonomy (Au), Dominance (Do), Endurance(En), Exhibition (Ex), Harm avoidance (Ha), Impulsivity (Im), Nurturance (Nu), Order(Or), Play (P1), Social Recognition (Sr), Understanding (Un), Infrequency (In),Abasement (Ab), Change (Ch), Cognitive Structure (Cs), Defendence (De), Sentience(Se), Succorance (Su), Desirability (Dy).Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-Il (ROCI-il): designed to measure fiveindependent dimensions that represent styles of handling interpersonal conflict:Integrating (IN), Obliging (OB), Dominating (DO), Avoiding (AV), andCompromising (CO).Jenkins Activity Survey (Form C) (JAS): measures Type A behavior. Provides a TypeA score and factor scores for three components of Type A behavior: Speed andImpatience (5), Job Involvement (J), and Hard-Driving and Competitive (H).Management SimulationsIn-Basket Exercises:Telephone Supervisor In-Basket Exercise. Yields scores on seven dimensions:Planning and Organizing Work, Interpersonal Relations, Leadership in aSupervisory Role, Managing Personnel, Analysis and Synthesis in DecisionMaking, Productivity, Quality of Judgment. An overall performance score is alsocomputed.Consolidated Fund In-Basket Test. Yields scores on nine dimensions: TakingAction Toward Solving Problems, Exercising Supervision or Control, ProblemAnalyzing and Relating, Communicating in Person, Delegating, SchedulingSystematically, Amount ofWork Accomplished, Quality of Actions Taken, Scorer\u00E2\u0080\u0099sRating of Overall Performance.140Table 15 cont.Role-plays:Employee Performance Role-play. Yields scores on seven dimensions: Leadership,Commitment, Communication, Interpersonal, Conceptual and Analytical, Controland Follow Up, Appraisal and Development of Subordinates. A summary oroverall mean dimension score is also reported.Industrial Relations Role-play. Yields scores on seven dimensions: Leadership,Communication, Interpersonal, Initiative/Innovation, Conceptual and Analytical,Entrepreneurship, Performance Stability.Marketing Role-play. Yields scores on seven dimensions: Leadership,Communication, Interpersonal, Decision Making, Commitment, Conceptual andAnalytical, Initiative/Innovation. A summary or overall mean dimension score isalso reported.New Manager Role-play. Yields scores on eight dimensions: Leadership,Communication, Commitment, Initiative/Innovation, Interpersonal, DecisionMaking, Conceptual and Analytical, Appraisal and Development of Subordinates.A summary or overall mean dimension score is also reported.Summary Role Play Dimension Scores. Scores are summed across the three role-plays and an average computed for each dimension. The following nine summaryscores are reported: Leadership, Communication, Commitment, Interpersonal,Initiative/Innovation, Decision Making, Conceptual and Analytical, Control andFollow Up, Appraisal and Development of Subordinates.Structured InterviewYields scores on eleven dimensions: Leadership, Communication,Entrepreneurship, Conmiitment, Interpersonal, Performance Stability,Initiative/Innovation, Decision Making, Planning and Organizing, Control andFollow Up, Appraisal and Development of Subordinates.Biographical Information FormContains 16 open-ended questions measuring general background factors such as:(a) education, (b) leisure/social activities, (c) career history, and (d) self appraisalsof attributes and skills. Each of the 16 questions is scored according to acategorical scheme derived from the responses of the participants.141fluency, culture, climate, and educational level\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Cattell, 1973, P. 5). It has beendescribed as a measure of abstract-reasoning ability.Tests that measure an individual\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to process written information were alsogiven. The Nelson-Denny Reading Test, Form E (Brown, Bennett, & Hanna, 1981)yields scores on Reading Speed, Reading Comprehension, and Vocabulary. TheFlanagan Industrial Tests\u00E2\u0080\u0094Expression, Form A (Flanagan, 1975) provides a measure ofWriting Skills (grammar and style). Finally, the Ideational Fluency (Fi) and SpontaneousFlexibility (Fs) tests of the Comprehensive Ability Battery (CAB; Hakstian & Cattell,1975) were administered to assess imaginative and divergent thinking.Personality Inventories andMeasures of TemperamentThree widely-used standardized personality batteries were administered: theCalifornia Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1975), the Sixteen Personality FactorQuestionnaire (1 6PF; Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1972), and thePersonality Research Form - Form E (PRF; Jackson, 1984). In total, the three personalityinventories yield scores on 60 scales. Although different test construction methods wereused for each of the three inventories, the major purpose of each is to measure broadlyrelevant personality traits that might be useful in a variety of settings. The focus is onnormalfunctioning, rather than upon psychopathology.In addition to the three large personality inventories, two other instruments weregiven: the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-Il (ROCI-Il; Rahim, 1983) and theJenkins Activity Survey - Form C (JAS; Jenkins, Zyzanski, & Rosenman, 1979). Theformer inventory yields measures of five styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Thelatter instrument is a well-known measure of Type A behavior. Scores on three factors\u00E2\u0080\u0094components of Type A behavior\u00E2\u0080\u0094are also given: Speed and Impatience (Factor 5), JobInvolvement (Factor J), and Hard-Driving and Competitive (Factor H).142Management Simulations: In-Basket ExercisesThe Telephone Supervisor In-Basket Exercise (TSIB). The TSIB is a simulationexercise designed to measure administrative/organizational skills. The TSIB wasoriginally developed at BC Tel for use in selecting entry-level managers (Hakstian,Woolsey, & Schroeder, 1986). The instrument has recently been revised and refined withthe result that scoring time has been significantly reduced (Hakstian & Harlos, 1993).The TSIB yields scores on seven dimensions. An Overall Performance score\u00E2\u0080\u0094anunweighted average of all seven dimensions\u00E2\u0080\u0094was also computed.The Consolidated Fund In-Basket Test. The Educational Testing Service (ETS, c.1970) in-basket exercise is, like the TSIB, a management simulation designed to measureadministrative/organizational skills. It yields scores on nine dimensions, one of which isthe scorer\u00E2\u0080\u0099s rating of Overall Performance. The ETS exercise dimensions have beenfound to correspond closely to the TSIB dimensions (Hakstian & Harlos, 1993). Bothwere included in the present research in the interests of comprehensiveness.Management Simulations: Role-playsFour role-plays developed by Hakstian, Woolsey & Associates, Ltd. for the BCTel Career Development Program were administered (three of the four role-plays wereused in any one year). In each role-play, managers were required to assume a role and actas f they were actually on the job. Managers were given some background informationfor each of the three roles. In each role-play, managers interacted with a role-player (amanagement consultant hired for the role-play) who assumed a different role for each ofthe three role-plays. Each role-play lasted 15 minutes and was videotaped; scoring wasdone independently, at first, by two raters (using a videotape of the role-plays). Eachrater made use of a standardized recording form to rate, for each role-play, the extent towhich the manager demonstrated specific behaviors associated with dimensions ofperformance. After making their independent ratings, the two raters compared theirassessments, discussed any ratings that diverged significantly, and then modified their143individual ratings as necessary. Such a practice is a common feature of the assessmentcenter method (e.g., Thornton & Byham, 1982).The Employee Performance Role-play. In this role-play, the manager must giveperformance feedback to an employee\u00E2\u0080\u0094a Ms. Jane Foster\u00E2\u0080\u0094who, although technically-skilled, has been identified as having caused problems in the company due to her abrasiveand insensitive interpersonal style. The employee is, however, highly valued for hertechnical skills. Thus, the manager\u00E2\u0080\u0099s task is to deliver unpopular feedback in a way thatencourages and inspires the employee to work on identified areas of weakness. This role-play is scored for seven dimensions.Industrial Relations Role-play26. In this role-play, the manager is acting as chiefnegotiator for the company and has been trying, over the past six months, to reach anagreement for a new one-year collective agreement with the union. Negotiations havebeen lengthy and involved, and the contentious issue of wages must now be discussed.The manager has made a previous commitment to the President of the company to holdany wage increase to a maximum of 3.5%. Thus, the manager\u00E2\u0080\u0099s task in the role-play is toachieve agreement to a 3.5% wage settlement with the union. This role-play is scored forseven dimensions.The Marketing Role-play27. In this scenario, the manager assumes the role of theleader of a team involved in developing and marketing a new technology. Although themajority of test research on the new technology has been very promising, some veryrecent test data has raised concerns. The manager has found evidence that the excellenttest results to date may have been the result of either a systematic error or deliberatedistortion on the part of a project team member. The manager is meeting with a potentialcustomer immediately and does not have time to investigate further the anomalies in the26 The Industrial Relations role-play was used in the first two years of the assessment center, 1989 and1990, and was then replaced with the Marketing role-play. Thus, data is available on only 83 cases.27 The Marketing role play replaced the Industrial Relations Role Play in 1991. Thus, data is available ononly 89 cases.144data. The role-play involves the manager meeting with the potential customer. This role-play yields scores on seven dimensions.The New Manager Role-play. In this role-play, the manager assumes the role of amiddle-manager, newly appointed to a division of a company that has been identified aslagging in productivity. The manage?s mandate is to work cooperatively with a seniormanager\u00E2\u0080\u0094a Mr. Joseph Staywell\u00E2\u0080\u0094and implement changes to increase performance andproductivity. The manager interacts with Mr. Staywell, who has just decided,unilaterally, to put an indefinite hold on the plan for change. The managers task is todecide how best to handle this situation. The New Manager Role-play yields scores oneight dimensions.Summary Role-play Dimension Scores. In total, nine dimensions were assessedacross the three role-plays used in a given year. Not all role-plays measure alldimensions. Nevertheless, it was of interest to obtain an overall measure of performanceacross the role-plays on specific dimensions. Thus, dimension scores were summedacross the three role-plays and an average computed for each dimension. The dimensionsare reported in Table 15 as well.Structured InterviewA structured interview was developed, again by Hakstian, Woolsey & Associates,Ltd., for BC Tel for the Career Development Program. All managers were interviewedby a psychologist. Interviews lasted approximately 1 1/4 hours and were recorded onvideotape. The interviewer followed a structured format, posing a series of 20 questionseach followed by probes, when necessary. Following the interview, the psychologist andone trained company employee each completed an interview rating form for eachmanager. This rating form was divided into dimensions, each anchored by a number ofbehavioral statements. Scores were averaged across the two raters for each dimension.The interview yielded scores on 11 management dimensions.145Biographical Information FormPrior to the interview, each manager completed an open-ended biographicalinformation form (biodata form), designed to provide an historical introduction to eachparticipant. Some examples of questions from the biographical form were: \u00E2\u0080\u009CComment onthe strengths and weaknesses of your educational background in relation to your career\u00E2\u0080\u009D,\u00E2\u0080\u009CWhat is your own approach to supervision, that is, your management style?\u00E2\u0080\u009D, and \u00E2\u0080\u009CWhattypes of tasks or assignments bring out the best in you?\u00E2\u0080\u009DCriterion MeasurementThe development and content of the questionnaire used to collect criterion data onchampionship was described in detail in Phase IV of Study 1. Briefly, the first- andsecond-order factor scales obtained at the conclusion of Study 1 were used to computescale scores for the 174 AC participants. Thus, each participant was rated on the 92 itemsthat survived the factor and item-level analyses described in Phase IV of Study 1, inaddition to the 5 criterion championship items (5CC). In summary, scores for the 174managers were computed for: (a) scales arising from the first-order factor analyses\u00E2\u0080\u0094Persistent Dominance, Impatient Expediency, Rebellious Drive, Self Promotion,Confrontive Candor, Influence & Political Savvy, Driven Commitment, ImmediateResponsiveness, Collaboration & Support, and Visibility & Growth Seeking, (b) scalesarising from the second-order factor analyses\u00E2\u0080\u0094Forceful Drive & Expediency andInfluence & Visible Drive, and (c) the 5-item supervisory-report criterion measure ofchampionship.Data AnalysisCorrelational Analyses Involving the ACMeasures and the Championship CriteriaWith the exception of the biodata form, bivariate correlations were computedbetween each of the scales listed in Table 15, on the one hand, and (a) the 10 first-orderfactor scales, (b) the two second-order factor scales, and (c) 5CC, on the other, in order toaddress the hypotheses outlined earlier. Given the vast number of bivariate correlations146that were computed (cross correlations between 128 predictor scales and 13 criteriondimensions), Type I error rate was a concern. The probability of committing a Type Ierror was set to p = .005 (2-tailed) ; thus, only .5% of the 1,664 correlations computed(approximately 8) could be expected to be significant, purely by chance.A step-wise multiple regression model was then used to obtain: (a) inventory-specific optimally-predictive linear combinations of scales (one for each of the CPI,16PF, PRF, JAS, Role-play, and Interview), and (b) a cross-inventory optimally-predictive championship linear combination for FDE and IVD based on the standardizedinstruments included in the AC battery. The s\u00C3\u00A9ales from the standardized paper-and-pencil tests listed in Table 15 found to correlate significantly (p < .05) with the relevantcriterion of championship constituted the predictor set for the cross-inventory multipleregression analysis.Contrasted Groups Analyses Involving the AC Battery Scales and the ChampionshipCriteriaAs a supplement to the correlational analyses above, a subset of the 174 managerswas studied in detail. The focus was on examining the mean scores achieved on thevarious components of the AC by managers whose criterion scores placed them into oneof four groups: (a) low FDE, (b) high FDE, (c) low IVD, or (d) high IVD. Thus, thecriterion data collected in Phase III of Study 1 was used to rank-order the sample of 174managers on both FDE and IVD. The managers with the 20 highest and lowest scores oneach of the two criterion scales were then identified leading to the development of thefour groups.A discriminant analysis was then performed using the scales from the AC batterythat correlated significantly (p < .01) with the relevant criterion. The first discriminantfunction is an equation that, when applied to the independent variables, yields acomposite score that maximizes variance between groups while minimizing within-groupvariances, thus maximally differentiating the groups. The results of a discriminant147analysis can be used to: (a) develop a linear equation that can be used to classify subjectsinto groups according to their scores on a set of independent variables, and (b) explore thepsychological meaning of the linear combination of independent variables that maximallydifferentiates between the two groups. With respect to classification, the accuracy of thediscriminant function (DF) can be examined in correctly predicting group membership.That is, since the group to which a case actually belongs is known, this can be comparedwith the predicted group membership (based on the DF). Three indices can be examined:(a) hit rate (the number of correct classifications), (b) sensitivity (proportion of high FDEor IVD managers who are correctly classified), and (c) specificity (proportion of low FDEor IVD managers who are correctly classified). Thus, one application of the DF in thepresent study would be to develop an equation that could be used in much the same wayas the equations that will be developed in connection with multiple regression\u00E2\u0080\u0094fordecision making and classification.A second potential application of the DF is conceptual. The output from a DF canbe used to examine the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdimensions\u00E2\u0080\u009D of group differences (Tatsuoka & Lohnes, 1988),thus shedding light on the relative centrality of the various independent variables to thelinear equation that maximizes group differences. This analysis can be used to explorefurther the psychological meaning of high scores on the criteria. Two coefficients aretypically of most interest in the interpretation of a DF: (a) standardized DF coefficients(analogous to beta weights in multiple regression), and (b) structure coefficients(representing the correlation between a given independent variable and the DF as awhole). Univariate t-values (univariate t-tests of group mean differences) were alsocomputed in the present study in order to examine directly the mean differences betweenthe extreme groups on each of the independent variables included in the DF.Given the relatively small sample sizes involved in the discriminant analysis (n =40), it was necessary to limit, in some way, the number of independent variables included.Like multiple regression, discriminant analysis requires a relatively large ratio of number148of subjects to independent variables in order to obtain results that are stable. At the sametime, it was important to include all possible AC battery scales, given the exploratorynature of the analysis. To address these issues, a stepwise selection approach was taken.That is, all scales that correlated significantly (p < .01) with the relevant criterion wereconsidered for inclusion in the DF and scales were either entered or removed from the DFequation depending upon their relative contribution to the discriminant function.Analysis of the biographical inforinationforins. The biodata forms were alsoexamined in order to broaden the nature of information considered (e.g., backgroundfactors like education) in this section. The open-ended biodata forms of the managers ineach of the four groups were examined, coded, and scored. Since the biodata form is anopen-ended instrument with no previously-established scoring key, the procedures used toscore these forms will now be explained.The first step in scoring the biodata forms was to develop a system for coding themanagers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 responses to the open-ended questions. Techniques from grounded theory(Glaser & Strauss, 1967) were used in the development of categories for each of thequestions. A key feature of grounded theory is that categories emerge from the data athand, rather than being imposed, a priori, by the researcher. Glaser & Strauss\u00E2\u0080\u0099 approachensures that all data fit the categories developed and, therefore, can be coded.The responses of the 70 managers28 from the four groups to each of the 16questions in the biodata form were broken down into discrete units of meaning (a unit ofmeaning represents a single theme, as compared to a complete response that may containa number of distinctive themes). For each question, the present researcher examined themanagers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 responses and extracted from these responses general themes or categories(typically five to six categories for each question). Armed with a discrete number ofcategories for each question, the responses of the 70 managers for each question were28 The biodata forms of 70 (not 80) managers were coded, because there was overlap between IVD andFDE. That is, 10 managers in the top or bottom 20 on FDE were also in the top or bottom 20 on IVD.149then re-examined in order to confirm that all units of meaning could be coded into one ofthe available categories. This was done for all 16 questions, until all units of meaning foreach question could be coded.Inter-rater agreement. Each of the biodata forms was then coded independentlyby two raters. The present author (Rater 1) trained a Ph.D. student (Rater 2) in the use ofthe coding system. The two raters used five biodata forms (not part of the 70 used in thestudy) for the purposes of training. A scoring form listing the categories and a briefdescription of each was developed in order to structure and standardize the coding (seeAppendix N for a copy of the scoring form). Raters 1 and 2 coded two of the five biodataforms together, in order to train Rater 2 on the meaning of the various categories. Raters1 and 2 then independently coded three biodata forms and discussed their ratings.Although there were some differences of opinion, a substantial amount of overlap wasapparent and, after discussing areas of disagreement, it was felt that Raters 1 and 2 werein agreement as to the meaning or general theme of each category.In order to assess the degree of inter-rater agreement, Flanders\u00E2\u0080\u0099 (1967)modification of it was computed, where itf = (P0f-1ef) 1(1 - \u00E2\u0080\u0098ef) Conceptually, ltfreflects the amount that the ratings of two observers exceed chance agreement divided bythe amount that perfect agreement exceeds chance (Flanders, 1967). The coefficient canrange from a low of 0 (indicating no agreement) to a high of 1 (indicating perfectagreement). Flanders recommended that a coefficient of .85 or higher be seen asreflecting a reasonable level of inter-rater agreement.Computationally, Flanders\u00E2\u0080\u0099 (1967) coefficient is similar to one developed by Scott(1955), except that Flanders modified the calculation of both P0f and Pef to permitestimation of inter-rater agreement when two raters have not coded the same number oftotal categories for a given question. This situation will arise when a given responserequiring coding contains a number of themes and can, therefore, be coded legitimately as150falling into a number of different categories. Such was the case in the present study,given the open-ended response format of the biodata form.With the Flanders (1967) formula, the two components of the equation (P0fand\u00E2\u0080\u0098ef) are computed on the basis of category marginals (total frequencies) for each rater foreach question. Thus, for each of the raters, a frequency count is made of the number oftimes each category is indicated for each question and these category frequency counts arecompared across the two raters. This can be contrasted with methods based on nominalagreement (like kappa or percentage agreement) where a contingency table is constructedfor each question in which the cells of the table represent the nominal agreement of tworaters for each category. Nominal procedures, the more common method for computingindices of inter-rater agreement, require that, for each question, each rater assign the exactsame number of total frequencies across the categories. This condition can only be met,however, when the responses to be coded contain only one theme and, therefore, can becoded as falling into one (and only one) category.In summary, Flanders\u00E2\u0080\u0099 (1967) index of inter-rater agreement was chosen instead ofa simple percentage agreement for a number of reasons. First, as noted above, with thecoding system used it was possible for one rater to fail to code meaning units that werecoded by the other rater. This precluded use of simple percentage agreement or indiceslike kappa to estimate inter-rater agreement. Moreover, it was a preferable index topercentage agreement in that, like kappa, Flanders\u00E2\u0080\u0099 it includes a correction for chanceagreement and is, therefore, a conservative estimate of inter-rater agreement. Finally,Flanders\u00E2\u0080\u0099 it has been found to be more appropriate in situations when the intended unit ofanalysis is category proportions (Frick & Semmel, 1978), as in the present application.Categoryfrequency counts. The coding work done by Rater 1 was summarizedfor each of the four groups in the form of a category frequency breakdown. That is, foreach of the four groups separately, a frequency count was made, for each of the 16questions, of the number of managers whose response to a given question was coded as151falling into a given category. For example, for the low FDE group and Question 12, acount was made of the number of responses coded as belonging to each of the sixcategories associated with this question (this frequency count could then be comparedwith that associated with the high FDE group on Question 12). Frequency counts weredone for each of the 16 questions and within each of the four groups separately in order toobtain category frequencies for each question. These category frequencies were thentransformed to category proportions to permit z-tests of the differences betweenproportions for each category across the two relevant comparison groups (i.e., Question 1category 2, for low vs. high FDE groups).Thus, each of the categories (90 in total) across the 16 questions was examinedand a z-test for proportions conducted. Although a X2 analysis of each question wouldhave constituted a simpler and more elegant analysis procedure, this approach could notbe followed because of the manner in which the data were collected: a given manager\u00E2\u0080\u0099sresponse to a single question was often coded as falling into multiple categories. Asnoted above, the open-ended response format used in the biodata form meant that answersoften contained more than one theme and, therefore, had to be coded as falling into morethan one category. A manager\u00E2\u0080\u0099s response to one question might contain three units ofmeaning, leading the scorer to code that response for three categories. As a result, foreach question, the marginal frequencies across categories for the two groups weretypically unequal. That is, a total of 15 responses might have been coded for the low FDEgroup on Question 12 across the six categories, while 10 responses might have beencoded for the high FDE group on this same question.A Case Study Analysis of ChampionshipAn illustrative case study approach was used to examine more closely thedifferences between managers high and low on championship. The AC files of two152managers\u00E2\u0080\u0094one high and one low on FDE\u00E2\u0080\u0094were examined.29 These two managers werechosen because their biodata form profile was prototypic of the group biodata profile.That is, the biodata forms of the two managers chosen for study conformed to the groupprofile for FDE and, thus, represented 11best case11 examples of high and low FDEmanagers.The information used to develop these two case studies was drawn not only fromthe biodata form, containing, as it does, a rich source of descriptive information, but alsofrom the complete file of AC data and notes available on these two managers. Furtherdescriptive information was available from the written comments made by two observerswho had watched the managers interact during the role plays. Of course, the informationfrom the two days of standardized tests was also used.ResultsThe Criterion Rating ScalesScores were computed for the 174 managers on the 10 first- and two second-orderfactor scales described in Study 1. Means and standard deviations for each of the criterionscales are reported in Table 16 for the total sample and separately by gender.Mean raw scores were higher on the IVD, than on the FDE, factor scales, despitethe fact that the former scales contained fewer items. As discussed earlier, these scalesmeasure more positive, prosocial behaviors representing championship and, as well, tapinto overall management competence (recall the correlation of .80 between OMP andIVD). Thus, as a group, the managers appear to have been rated very favorably by theirsupervisors, with the group mean on IVD sitting at 74% of the maximum possible score.The possibility of gender differences in the criterion data was examined. AHotelling\u00E2\u0080\u0099s T2 analysis testing for gender differences on the 10 first-order factor scales29 Cases for low and high IVD were not examined because: (a) none of the AC measures correlatedsignificantly with IVD, and (b) only one of the 90 categories measured in the biodata form differentiatedbetween low and high IVD groups. Thus, there was no AC information on which to base an illustrativecase study.153Table 16Descriptive Statistics for the Championship Criterion ScalesTotal Sample Males FemalesMax. Poss.First-Order Factor Scale Score M SD MSD M SDPersistent Dominance 50 24.24 5.72 24.795.33 22.67 6.52Impatient Expediency 50 23.68 5.37 24.265.44 22.02 4.86Rebellious Drive 50 26.74 4.91 27.304.73 25.13 5.12Self Promotion 50 27.44 5.73 27.67 5.29 26.78 6.88Confrontive Candor 45 27.76 4.49 27.87 4.2327.47 5.22Influence & Political Savvy 40 29.05 4.23 29.094.14 28.96 4.53Driven Commitment 45 33.24 5.32 33.325.44 33.00 5.00Immediate Responsiveness 45 33.72 4.54 33.81 4.58 33.49 4.50Collaboration and Support 40 29.36 3.90 29.053.60 30.24 4.58Visibility & Growth Seek\u00E2\u0080\u0099g 45 32.82 4.89 32.884.71 32.64 5.42ForcefulDrive&Exped. 245 129.87 19.12 131.88 17.83 121.26 21.57Influence&Visible Drive 215 158.19 16.45 158.1216.12 158.39 17.53154was non-significant [T2 (10, 163) = 1.46; p> .10]. Univariate t-tests revealed only onedimension on which males and females differed significantly at p < .01 (RebelliousDrive). Thus, for this sample of managers, men and women do not appear to differsignificantly in mean levels of championship. One can observe a trend in the data formales to receive slightly higher mean scores than females on some of the first-order factorscales (e.g., Persistent Dominance, Impatient Expediency), but this trend was notstatistically significant overall. As a result, the data for all subsequent correlationalanalyses were pooled for men and women.Correlational Analyses: Predictor-Criterion CorrelationsThe correlations between the various predictor measures, on the one hand, and thechampionship criteria, on the other, are reported in the following five sections,corresponding to: (a) cognitive ability measures, (b) personality and temperamentmeasures, (c) in-basket exercises, (d) role play exercises, and (e) the structured interview.Cognitive AbilityCross-correlations were computed between the nine cognitive ability tests listed inTable 15, on the one hand, and the 13 championship criterion scales (10 first-order factorscales, two second-order factor scales, and 5CC), on the other. These are reported inTable 17. Not one of the 117 correlations was significant at p < .005.Various facets of cognitive ability were assessed, including general intelligence(g), word fluency, ideational fluency, and communication skills (vocabulary, reading andwriting ability). In the present sample of managers, those persons high on various facetsof cognitive ability were not rated more highly on championship. Thus, although asalient predictor of general management performance (e.g., Hunter & Hunter, 1984),cognitive ability does not appear to covary with rated championship.The results obtained in this section were not consistent with hypotheses outlinedin an earlier section in connection with cognitive predictors of championship. Positiveand significant correlations were hypothesized between managers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 scores on two subtests155Table 17Correlations Between the Scales From the Cognitive AbilityTests and the 13 ChampionshipCriteria (Decimal Points are Omitted in Correlations) andScale Descriptive StatisticsM SD PD IE RD SP CC IPS DC IRCs VGS FDE IVD 5CCG1 60.41 5.70 -18 -00 -09 -04 -11 12-04 -07 15 02 -12 04 -02G2 67.66 23.48 -11 -10 02 -07 -01 09 10 02 04 06 -08 09 -02G3 61.31 6.93 -15 -01 -11 -13 -09 -02-07 -02 -03 -01 -13 -04 -10RS 55.49 6.85 -06 06 02 02 -15 11 -02 -10 05 07 -02 02 02RC 59.28 8.04 -09 -07 -04 -08 -05 05 02 00 03 10 -09 06 -02Vo 68.45 5.31 -09 -04 -00 -03 02 16 02-05 16 03 -04 08 01Wr 52.86 7.97 -10 -18 -07 01 07 20 -03 02 17 12 -08 13 05Fu 48.11 8.85 -02 -06 04 11 -05 -02-00 -11 -03 08 01 -02 -04Fx 48.63 9.26 01 -08 01 09 06 1002 05 03 13 03 09 13Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .01: .195; .005:.213; .001: .247. Correlations significant atp < .005 (two-tailed) have been bolded.The column headings refer to the following: M: scale mean; SD: scale standard deviation;PD: Persistent Dominance; IE: Impatient Expediency; RD: Rebellious Drive; SP: SelfPromotion; CC: Confrontive Candor; 1PS: Influence andPolitical Savvy; DC: DrivenCommitment; IR: Immediate Responsiveness; CS: Collaboration and Support; VGS:Visibility and Growth Seeking; FDE: Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD: Influence andVisible Drive; 5CC: 5-Item Championship Criterion.The row headings refer to the following measures of cognitive ability: Gi: WonderlicPersonnel Test; G2: Concept Mastery Test; G3: CultureFair Intelligence Test; RS:Nelson-Denny Reading Test (Reading Speed); RC: Nelson-Denny Reading Test (ReadingComprehension); Vo: Nelson-Denny Reading Test (Vocabulary); Wr: Flanagan IndustrialTests (Expression); Fu: CAB Ideational Fluency; Fx: CABSpontaneous Flexibility.Means and standard deviations were calculated from T-scores, referenced to the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgeneralpopulation\u00E2\u0080\u009D, with the exception of G2 (the Concept Mastery Test) where means andstandard deviations were based on raw scores; the maximum possible raw score on theConcept Mastery Test is 190.156from the CAB (ideational fluency and flexibility) and championship. None were found.Similarly, the expected correlations between measures of general intelligence andchampionship were not obtained.Measures ofPersonality and TemperamentCorrelations between the scales from the California Psychological Inventory, the16 Personality Factor Questionnaire, the Personality Research Form, The RahimOrganizational Conflict Inventory, and the Jenkins Activity Survey, on the one hand, andthe 13 championship criteria, on the other, are reported in Tables 18 through 21. Resultswere generally consistent with hypotheses outlined in Table 14.California Psychological Inventory (CPI). Correlations between the 19 scales ofthe CPI and the 13 championship criteria are reported in Table 18. As hypothesized,significant and positive correlations were found between the CPI scales of Dominanceand Capacity for Status and elements of championship. Significant correlations were alsoobtained on the related scale of Self Acceptance, although this result was nothypothesized. These results paint the picture of an ascendant, dominant, and poisedmanager, a view of the champion that is consistent with hypotheses outlined earlier.Dominance appears to be a salient characteristic of the champion. The CPIDominance scale correlated significantly with Forceful Drive and Expediency (FDE) aswell as Persistent Dominance (PD) and Self Promotion (SP). Thus, it appears thatmanagers rated by their supervisors as outspoken, assertive, power seeking, andmanipulative, also tend to be dominant, confident and assertive. Not surprisingly,Dominance appears to be most closely related to the five first-order factor scales that loadon FDE. The Dominance scale does not correlate significantly with Influence and VisibleDrive (IVD) or any of the 5 first-order factors that loaded on IVD.CPI Capacity for Status correlated significantly with the first-order factor scaleDriven Commitment and correlated .20 with FDE (p < .0 1). Managers rated by theirsupervisors as driven, committed, energetic, and dedicated, also tended to obtain high157Table 18Correlations Between the CPI Scales and the 13 Championship Criteria (Decimal Points areOmitted in Correlations) and Scale Descriptive StatisticsM SD PD IE RD SP CC IPS DC IR Cs VGS FDE IVD 5CCDo 63.29 8.17 23 13 17 26 17 11 09 -04-05 13 27 07 05Cs 55.33 8.31 16 12 19 17 09 07 22 -07-10 18 20 10 08.Sy 57.85 8.37 07 01 -01 19 04 09 11 -06-04 18 09 09 02Sp 59.56 9.71 09 20 05 18 01 12 08 0002 18 15 11 -00Sa 62.41 7.72 17 14 10 23 13 18 14 0200 22 21 17 12Wb 54.72 6.56 01 -03 03 07 14 02 03 -03 -07 06 05 01 -01Re 48.51 7.75 -01 -03 00 -04 05 09 06 -03-03 09 -01 05 -03So 52.66 8.60 -25 -02 -05 -09 -27 -01 -14 -04-08 00 -18 -08 -09Sc 51.46 7.73 -14 -18 -14 -16 -07 -05 -06 -05-03 -02 -19 -06 00To 55.02 6.54 -00 -01 -01 -02 08 07 02 -10 06 10 01 04 08Gi 52.99 9.66 04 -11 04 04 05 -02 15 -06-14 09 01 03 05Cm 53.87 7.53 07 03 -02 00 -05 -02 08 0301 -03 01 02 -01Ac 58.37 6.85 -12 -03 -08 03 -14 02 -00 -13-01 03 -09 -02 -07Ai 58.53 7.31 -02 -06 -04 -07 08 11 05 03 19 18 -04 15 09le 55.25 8.14 -08 -01 -04 -01 00 19 11 -03 16 18 -04 17 05Py 57.51 8.72 -07 03 02 -15 -03 -02 05 -05 00 01 -06 00 -05Fx 52.36 9.89 -05 -06 -04 -08 04 -02 11 0014 11 -06 09 03Fe 47.99 7.52 -06 -20 -15 -12 -08 -05 -06 09-03 -17 -17 -06 -11An 37.86 6.01 -19 -08 -11 -13 -10 -01 11 1415 -03 -17 10 04Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .01: .195; .005:.213; .001: .247. Correlations significant atp < .005 (two-tailed) have been bolded.The colun-m headings refer to the following: M: scale mean; SD: scalestandard deviation;PD: Persistent Dominance; TB: Impatient Expediency; RD: RebelliousDrive; SP: SelfPromotion; CC: Confrontive Candor; IPS: Influence and Political Savvy; DC: DrivenCommitment; IR: Immediate Responsiveness; CS: Collaboration andSupport; VGS:Visibility and Growth Seeking; FDE: Forceful Drive and Expediency;IVD: Influence andVisible Drive; 5CC: 5-Item Championship Criterion.The row headings refer to the following CPI scales: Do: Dominance;Cs: Capacity forStatus; Sy: Sociability; Sp: Social Presence; Sa: Self Acceptance; Wb:Well Being; Re:Responsibility; So: Socialization; Sc: Self Control; To: Tolerance; Gi: Good Impression;Cm: Communality; Ac: Achievement via Conformance; Ai: Achievement viaIndependence; le: Intellectual Efficiency; Py: Psychological Mindedness;Fx: Flexibility;Fe: Femininity; An: Anxiety.Means and standard deviations for the CPI scales were calculated from T-scores,referenced to the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgeneral population\u00E2\u0080\u009D.158scores on Capacity for Status. Gough (1975) described high scorers on this scale asambitious, independent, and driven to succeed.CPI Self Acceptance correlated significantly with FDE and two first-order factorscales (SP and VGS). Gough (1975) described individuals high on Self Acceptance aspossessing a good opinion of themselves and as seeing themselves as attractive andtalented. The two first-order factors with which Self Acceptance correlated (VGS andSP) both measure the extent to which one is oriented toward taking on roles that arevisible and provide opportunities for self advancement and promotion.Also of note, Socialization correlated negatively with rated championship,consistent with hypotheses outlined in Table 14. Socialization correlated significantlywith two of the first-order factor scales, Persistent Dominance and Confrontive Candor.The Socialization scale is a measure of conformity, conventionality and rule followingand, in a modified form\u00E2\u0080\u0094the Personnel Reaction Blank (PRB; Gough, 1972)\u00E2\u0080\u0094a measureof \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwayward impulsive\u00E2\u0080\u009D or integrity. Gough (1975) described high scorers onSocialization as honest, serious, and industrious, while low scorers tend to be defensive,rebellious, and deceitful. Managers rated as outspoken and dominant (PD) and likely toconfront others in a forceful and direct way (CC) tended to obtain low scores onSocialization. Thus, building on the results of Study 1, we see evidence of a tendencytoward rule breaking, rebelliousness, and non-conformity among champions.In summary, results in Table 18 lead to a description of the high scorer on FDE asdominant, socially-poised, and self confident. In addition, elements of impulsivity andunconventionality were seen. Individuals who possess a CPI profile very similar to theone described above, have been described b McAllister (1986), in an interpretive manualfor the CPI, as \u00E2\u0080\u009C...likely to have strong sales abilities; they enjoy managerialresponsibility and are generally effective at getting their own way.\u00E2\u0080\u009D He noted that \u00E2\u0080\u009C...thiscombination suggests executive effectiveness and success\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p. 33).159The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Correlations between the 16primary and four second-order factors of the 1 6PF and the 13 championship criteria arereported in Table 19. Significant correlations were found between the 16PF measures ofAssertiveness (16PF-E) and Extraversion (16PF-Q),on the one hand, and FDE, on theother. Elements of assertiveness, social enthusiasm and boldness, group dependence, andextraversion showed significant (p < .005) correlation with individual first- and second-order factor scales. Results obtained for 16PF Factors E (Assertiveness), H(Venturesomeness), and Qj (Extraversion) were consistent with hypotheses outlined inTable 14.Once again, we see evidence that managers rated high on championship aredominant, as measured by standardized personality scales. The 16PF measure ofAssertiveness correlated significantly with FDE, and three of the five first-order factorsthat load on FDE. Thus, managers rated as outspoken, dominant, confrontational, andself promoting (PD, SP, CC) obtained a score on the 16PF scales suggesting an assertive,aggressive, independent, and competitive interpersonal style. High scorers onAssertiveness tend to disregard authority and break rules, a finding consistent with thecorrelations between the CPI Socialization scale and FDE.Further evidence that managers rated high on championship possess an ascendantinterpersonal style is seen from the correlations between the 1 6PF second-orderExtraversion scale and the championship criteria. This 16PF factor correlated .22 withFDE and .31 with Self Promotion. In the 16PF manual, persons high on Extraversion aredescribed as outgoing, extraverted, and uninhibited... \u00E2\u0080\u009Cthey are likely good at making andmaintaining interpersonal contacts\u00E2\u0080\u009D (IPAT, 1972, p. 26). The Extraversion scale appearsto be most strongly related to aspects of championship that have to do with selfpromotion, dominance, and manipulation. Other correlations give further evidence thatsocial enthusiasm and expressiveness (as measured by the 16PF Factors F and H) arerelated to championship, at least the Self Promotion scale. Finally, the 16PF measure of160Table 19Correlations Between the 16PF Scales and the 13 Championship Criteria (Decimal Points areOmitted in Correlations) and Scale Descriptive StatisticsM SD PD ifi RD SP CC IPS DC JR Cs VGS FDE IVD 5CCA 50.25 10.38B 60.68 7.52C 53.30 7.65E 58.90 8.94F 54.11 10.42G 53.20 9.23H 57.45 10.61I 47.05 9.82L 47.98 8.55M 52.62 8.47N 44.17 8.810 42.57 7.29Qi 52.74 10.35Q2 48.99 9.43Q 52.51 8.29Q 45.86 8.79QI 56.81 9.21Qifi 57.13 8.76QIV 57.60 8.04AA 58.51 7.94-01 06-00 -05-05 06-05 12-06 06-06 -04-04 1510 0302 0113 16-06 02-02 -1404 01-04 -10-14 -13-01 -05-05 13-09 0403 12-06 0807 03 -00-09 -06 -06-02 02 0228 06 0214 -01 00-03 -04 0013 06 -00-08 05 0311 02 -02-04 17 13-07 06 05-04 -10 -11-00 02 03-10 -07 -01-14 -17 -1409 -02 -0222 04 -0019 -03 -0114 09 0508 01 0303 04 06 15 -06 06 08 -10-10 04 -05 -18 -01 -04 -07 -03-03 -02 -04 00 02 00 04 -0125 16 14 22 21 04 12 -0607 09 09 23 01 -01 05 -10-02 -07 -06 04 -03 06 -12 0309 02 05 22 09 06 09 -06-08 -10 -01 -02 -07 05 06 -0604 13 04 16 01 15 -02 -06-00 -03 -00 -14 04 10 14 09-04 -12 -04 -06 02 05 02 2003 -00 -12 -01 -07 -04 -12 -03-00 04 -07 05 -05 08 05 -10-07 05 01 -21 -12 -08 02 -06-17 -10 -18 -05 -02 -06 -19 -0812 12 08 00 00 -02 -03 0217 10 10 31 10 05 07 -0916 15 09 11 16 -03 -03 -0212 14 08 07 08 07 15 -0902 -08 03 14 06 02 05 -06Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .01: .195; .005:.213; .001: .247. Correlations significant atp < .005 (two-tailed) have been bolded.The column headings refer to the following: M: scale mean; SD: scale standard deviation;PD: Persistent Dominance; ]E: Impatient Expediency; RD: Rebellious Drive; SP: SelfPromotion; CC: Confrontive Candor; IPS: Influence and Political Savvy; DC: DrivenCommitment; IR: Immediate Responsiveness; CS: Collaboration and Support; VGS:Visibility and Growth Seeking; FDE: Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD: Influence andVisible Drive; 5CC: 5-Item Championship Criterion.The row headings refer to the following 16PF scales (the meaning of high scores islisted): Factor A: outgoing; Factor B: bright; Factor C: emotionally stable; Factor E:assertive; Factor F: happy-go-lucky; Factor G: conscientious; Factor H: venturesome;Factor I: tender-minded; Factor L: suspicious; Factor M: imaginative; Factor N: astute;Factor 0: apprehensive; Factor Qi: experimenting; Factor Q2: self sufficient; Factor Q3:controlled; Factor Q4: tense; Factor QI: extraversion; Factor Qifi: tough poise; FactorQVI: independence; Factor AA: adequacy of adjustment.Means and standard deviations for the 16PF scales were calculated from T-scores,referenced to the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgeneral population\u00E2\u0080\u009D.161Group Dependence (1 6PF-Q2)correlated negatively, once again with the Self Promotionscale. Managers rated high on SP tend to depend on other people for social approval andadmiration. Cattell described people low on this 16PF scale as group dependent\u00E2\u0080\u0094asjoiners and followers and as needing group approval and support.The Personality Research Form (PRF). Correlations between the 20 PRF scalesand the 13 championship criteria are reported in Table 20. Five PRF scales correlatedsignificantly with at least one of the first-order factor scales. Of those five scales,Aggression, Exhibition, and Impulsivity showed the most consistent relationship withchampionship. Of these three, the correlation between Exhibition and championship washypothesized. Managers rated high on FDE appear to be aggressive and argumentative,exhibitionistic and impulsive.The PRF Aggression scale correlated significantly with three of the five first-orderfactor scales that load on FDE, as well as FDE itself. Managers rated by their supervisorsas outspoken and dominant (PD), impatient and impulsive (JE), and self promoting (SP)tended to score high on Aggression. Jackson (1984) described high scorers onAggression as quarrelsome, irritable, argumentative, blunt, belligerent, and antagonistic.Such people tend to be combative and argumentative. Further, \u00E2\u0080\u009C...they are sometimeswilling to hurt people to get their own way\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p. 6).The PRF Exhibition scale also correlated significantly with FDE. This significantcorrelation was largely the result of a high correlation between Exhibition and SelfPromotion. Once again, the SP criterion scale figured prominently in the predictorcriterion correlations. Given that the SP scale was designed to measure the extent towhich one is attention seeking, it is not surprising to see such a high (r = .34) correlationbetween SP and Exhibition. Jackson (1984) described persons high on Exhibition ascolorful, entertaining, exhibitionistic, conspicuous, and pretentious. They want \u00E2\u0080\u0098....to bethe center of attention [and enjoy] having an audience\u00E2\u0080\u009D (p. 6).162Table 20Correlations Between the PRF Scales and the 13 Championship Criteria (Decimal Points areOmitted in Correlations) and Scale Descriptive StatisticsM SD PD IE RD SP CC PS DC JR CS VGS FDE IVD 5CCAb 45.08 9.03 11 06 08 -00 05 -18 11 -03 -10 -02 08 -05 -07Ac 57.60 6.54 17 -00 01 18 00 00 15 -05 -25 -00 11 -03 -02Af 53.43 8.75 06 01 -06 18 -06 -04 12 -08 -08 11 05 02 -05Ag 47.59 7.63 23 24 15 23 13 05 -03 -08 -12 00 27 -04 -03Au 41.55 9.33 08 04 13 05 09 05 05 05 -01 05 11 05 15Ch 48.72 8.92 13 16 10 11 13 03 10 01 -02 07 17 06 05Cs 51.75 9.33 -09 -11 -09 00 -12 10 -12 -02 -01 -01 -11 -02 05De 48.08 7.51 04 11 09 07 -00 09 -13 -01 -01 -06 09 -04 -03Do 58.14 5.52 14 07 -05 23 04 -00 -01 -09 -00 07 13 -01 -02En 54.36 6.34 06 -09 -07 10 -06 00 01 -01 -10 01 -01 -02 03Ex 53.25 9.35 16 12 05 34 08 0.8 10 -02 -01 20 21 10 08Ha 51.17 8.62 -09 -05 -09 -00 -13 06 -19 -14 04 -07 -10 -10 -07Tm 46.12 8.25 25 16 13 04 16 03 12 06 -01 08 21 09 07Nu 51.26 7.61 05 09 01 16 01 -03 10 -14 -07 -05 09 -05 -09Or 54.53 8.15 03 -09 -06 12 02 11 -14 06 -06 04 01 -01 03P1 46.72 9.02 -07 08 03 10 -04 08 08 -01 09 13 03 10 05Se 49.03 8.85 -07 -08 -01 13 02 16 11 -06 18 08 00 13 10Sr 52.16 8.37 -07 -05 -05 07 -03 -01 02 06 07 07 -04 06 01Su 49.78 9.34 03 06 05 09 -06 -13 -01 -08 -03 -05 05 -08 -12Un 45.98 10.03 -08 -05 -05 -04 -06 10 20 04 07 10 -08 15 03Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .01: .195; .005:.213; .001: .247. Correlations significant atp < .005 (two-tailed) have been bolded.The column headings refer to the following: M: scale mean; SD: scale standard deviation;PD: Persistent Dominance; IE: Impatient Expediency; RD: Rebellious Drive; SP: SelfPromotion; CC: Confrontive Candor; PS: Influence and Political Savvy; DC: DrivenCommitment; IR: Immediate Responsiveness; CS: Collaboration and Support; VGS:Visibility and Growth Seeking; FDE: Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD: Influence andVisible Drive; 5CC: 5-Item Championship Criterion.The row headings refer to the following PRF scales: Ab: Abasement; Ac: Achievement;Af: Affiliation; Ag: Aggression; Au: Autonomy; Ch: Change; Cs: Cognitive Structure;De: Defendence; Do: Dominance; En: Endurance; Ex: Exhibition; Ha: Harm Avoidance;Im: Impulsivity; Nu: Nurturance; Or: Order; P1: Play; Se: Sentience; Sr: SocialRecognition; Su: Succorance; Un: Understanding.Means and standard deviations for the PRF scales were calculated from T-scores,referenced to the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgeneral population\u00E2\u0080\u009D.163The PRF Impulsivity scale showed a significant correlation with FDE. Morespecifically, Impulsivity correlated .25 with Persistent Dominance (PD). Managers ratedhigh on PD, then, will tend to be spontaneous, hasty, reckless, quick-thinking, impatient,and excitable. Jackson (1984) further described persons high on Impulsivity as tending toact on the spur of the moment. They speak freely and vent readily their emotions andneeds.Further significant correlations were found between the PRF Dominance andAchievement scales and selected first-order factor scales. The Dominance scalecorrelated positively and significantly with Self Promotion; its correlation with theconceptually related criterion of Persistent Dominance (PD), while in the correctdirection, was non-significant. The theme of dominance is clearly a recurring one, beingseen from the CPI, 16PF, and PRF criterion correlations.In one of the few significant correlations with an IVD factor scale, the PRFAchievement scale correlated negatively with Collaboration and Support (Cs). It appearsthat managers rated as collaborative and supportive tend to respond poorly tocompetition. Such managers may tend to focus more on the needs of the group than ontheir own priorities.Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory (ROd-h). The ROCI-il yields scoreson five dimensions each representing one style of handling interpersonal conflict:Integrating (In), Obliging (Ob), Dominating (Do), Avoiding (Av), and Compromising(Co). It was hypothesized that significant and positive correlations would be foundbetween the ROCI-il scales Dominating and Integrating and championship. However, asshown in the upper half of Table 21, none of the correlations between the five ROCI-Ilscales, on the one hand, and the 13 championship criteria, on the other, was significant atp < .005. Thus, at least in the present sample, one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s style of dealing with conflict, at leastas measured by the ROCI-fi, does not appear related to championship.164Table 21Correlations Between the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory (ROCJ-li) and the JenkinsActivity Survey (JAS) Scales and the 13 Championship Criteria (Decimal Points are Omitted inCorrelations) and Scale Descriptive StatisticsM SD PD IE RD SP CC IPS DC JR Cs VGS FDE IVD 5CCROCI-lI ScalesI 167.83 26.31 03 02 -07 07 -02 10 07 -04 -03 08 01 06 090 151.13 22.48 -06 05 -14 -06 -09 12 -01 -02 09 05 -08 06 16D 165.68 21.63 03 11 14 08 04 11 17 -00 15-03 11 11 01A 136.49 22.85 -13 00 -06 -16 -12 01 -16 04 -04-04 -13 -06 -08C 168.93 21.00 -08 02 -14 04 -02 18 02 -02 1604 -05 10 01JAS ScalesA 57.05 7.00 34 05 10 31 14 08 02 -06 -13 07 23 00 01S 50.85 8.93 23 14 22 13 18 09 08 08 -05 11 25 09 051 61.17 6.06 15 05 18 21 12 17 10 -01 -0811 20 09 09H 51.32 8.79 12 -10 04 31 06 03 06 -03 -17-02 13 -03 03Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .01: .195; .005:.213; .001: .247. Correlations significant atp < .005 (two-tailed) have been bolded.The column headings refer to the following: M: scale mean; SD: scale standard deviation;PD: Persistent Dominance; IE: Impatient Expediency; RD: Rebellious Drive; SP: SelfPromotion; CC: Confrontive Candor; IPS: Influence and Political Savvy; DC: DrivenCommitment; IR: Immediate Responsiveness; CS: Collaboration and Support; VGS:Visibility and Growth Seeking; FDE: Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD:Influence andVisible Drive; 5CC: 5-Item Championship Criterion.The row headings refer to the following ROCI-JI and JAS scales: I: ROCI-il Integrating;0: ROCI-il Obliging; D: ROCI-Il Dominating; A: ROCI-il Avoiding; C: ROCI-ilCompromising; A: JAS Type A; JAS FactorS: Speed and Impatience;JAS-Factor J: JobInvolvement; JAS-Factor H: Hard Driving and Competitive.Each of the five ROCI-il scale scores is a sum of three T-scores, each of which wasreferenced to the present BC Tel Assessment Center sample. Means and standarddeviations for the JAS scales were calculated from T-scores, referencedto \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmiddlemanagement\u00E2\u0080\u009D norms provided in the JAS test manual..165Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS). The JAS was designed to measure Type Abehavior: \u00E2\u0080\u009C...an overt behavioral syndrome or style of living characterized by extremecompetitiveness, striving for achievement, aggressiveness, impatience, haste, restlessness,and feelings of being challenged by responsibility and under the pressure of time\u00E2\u0080\u009D(Jenkins et al., 1979, p. 3). Correlations between the overall JAS scale (Type A) as wellas the three JAS factors and the 13 championship criteria are reported in the lower half ofTable 21. As hypothesized, the JAS scales correlated significantly with championship,more specifically, FDE. The behavioral pattern associated with Type A behavior appearsto be a central aspect of championship, at least the behaviors associated with FDE.Overall Type A scores correlated significantly with two of the first-order factorscales that load on FDE, Persistent Dominance and Self Promotion (as well as with FDE).Thus, managers rated high on FDE tend to be competitive, aggressive, hard driving andimpatient. This is consistent with the conceptualization of Forceful Drive andExpediency developed in Study 1, where themes of aggressiveness, tough-mindedness,and drive were present.Turning to the three Factor scales, managers who received high ratings on FDEtended to obtain high scores on Speed and Impatience and, to a lesser extent, JobInvolvement. Jenkins et al. (1979) described high scorers on Speed and Impatience asreporting feelings of time urgency. They may, for example, react impatiently with others,hurry other people, have strong tempers, and become irritated easily (Jenkins et al.,1979). Speed and Impatience correlated significantly with Persistent Dominance (PD)and Rebellious Drive (RD). Thus, managers rated as dominant and likely to break orbend rules, also tended to obtain high scores on Speed and Impatience indicatingconsiderable feelings of impatience and time urgency.Job Involvement also appears related to championship, at least Self Promotion.Jenkins et al. (1979) described persons high on Job Involvement as dedicated to theiroccupation. Such persons tend to work overtime and typically have challenging, high-166pressure jobs. Finally, Hard Driving and Competitive also correlated significantly withSelf Promotion. Thus, people rated as attention seeking and self promoting, tended todescribe themselves as hard driving, conscientious, responsible, and competitive\u00E2\u0080\u0094asputting forth more effort than others.Management Simulations: In-Basket ExercisesThe Consolidated Fund In-Basket Test. Correlations between the dimensionsarising from the ETS Consolidated Fund In-Basket Test and the championship criteria arereported in the upper half of Table 22. As hypothesized, none of the correlations betweenthe nine scales from this in-basket test and the 13 championship criteria were significantatp < .005. Administrative/organizational skills, as measured by the ETS in-basket, donot appear significantly related to ratings of championship.The Telephone Supervisor In-Basket Exercise (TSIB). Correlations between thedimensions arising from the TSIB exercise and the championship criteria are reported inthe lower half of Table 22. Of. the seven In-Basket dimensions, only one, Quality ofJudgment, showed significant correlation with any of the championship criteria (nocorrelations were hypothesized between the In-Basket exercise dimensions andchampionship). Quality of Judgment correlated .33 with Visibility and Growth Seeking(VGS).3\u00C2\u00B0 Quality of Judgment scores reflect the appropriateness and effectiveness ofactions taken during the In-Basket exercise. High scores suggest managerial performancecharacterized by effective judgments about how best to handle work problems.Management Simulations: The Role PlaysCorrelations between the role play exercise dimensions and the championshipcriteria appear in Table 23. Six of the 11 dimensions measured by the role play exercises30 These analyses are based on a sample size of 89. Quality of Judgment and the six Stylistic Dimensionscould be measured only in the last 4 years.167Table 22Correlations Between Scales From The Two In-Basket Exercises and the 13 ChampionshipCriteria (Decimal Points are Omitted in Correlations) and Scale Descriptive StatisticsM SD PD lB RD SP CC IPS DC JR Cs VGS FDE IVD 5CCThe ETS In-Basket ExerciseEl 70.81 23.03 -04 05 12 -02 06 06 03 -11 05 -02 04 00 -04E2 57.02 27.43 -07 -12 -02 -06 00 03 -02 -05 04 -02 -08 -01 -07E3 65.25 26.08 -01 -12 -04 04 -03 02 07 -04 01 -02 -04 01 -07E4 76.84 19.72 -01 07 03 -01 -02 -03 -04 -17 -02 -10 02 -10 -10E5 54.99 27.30 -04 01 -02 01 -08 -02 -06 -05 -15 -07 -03 -09 -09E6 65.19 24.32 11 08 11 17 04 -02 -08 -12 -05 -06 14 -10 -09E7 61.28 23.79 -03 -06 -03 01 04 05 -01 -10 03 -04 -02 -02 -08E8 65.29 23.71 -05 -01 09 01 04 06 08 -08 05 -03 02 03 -05E9 63.59 17.10 -05 -04 01 02 03 03 02 -10 01 -05 -01 -03 -12The TSIB ExerciseB1 50.24 8.48 16 16 18 21 09 05 10 07 -05 11 24 08 12B2 60.20 9.32 11 03 12 01 14 01 19 02 -22 14 11 06 -08B3 61.25 9.96 -08 -02 05 -08 -01 04 03 04 -15 04 -05 01 -17B4 64.63 10.01 07 -04 08 -00 -08 00 08 07 -16 -06 01 -01 -01B5 52.08 7.64 04 10 22 -01 11 09 15 12 -02 12 12 13 11B6 60.44 9.43 04 12 19 03 -01 15 05 13 -13 08 11 08 02B7 58.67 10.37 12 05 25 02 21 17 21 17 -06 33 18 23 12Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .01: .195; .005: .213;.001: .247 for El through E9. For Bl through B7, critical values for r for various (two-tailed)significance levels: .01: .27; .005: .29; .001: .34. Correlations significant atp < .005 (two-tailed) have been bolded.The column headings refer to the following: M: scale mean; SD: scale standard deviation;PD: Persistent Dominance; IE: Impatient Expediency; RD: Rebellious Drive; SP: SelfPromotion; CC: Confrontive Candor; IPS: Influence and Political Savvy; DC: DrivenCommitment; IR: Immediate Responsiveness; CS: Collaboration and Support; VGS:Visibility and Growth Seeking; FDE: Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD: Influence andVisible Drive; 5CC: 5-Item Championship Criterion.The row headings refer to: El: Taking Action Toward Solving Problems; E2: ExercisingSupervision or Control; E3: Problem Analyzing and Relating; E4: Communicating in Person;ES: Delegating; E6: Scheduling Systematically; E7: Amount ofWork Accomplished; E8:Quality of Actions Taken; E9: Overall Performance; B 1: Planning & Organizing Work; B2:Interpersonal Relations; B3: Leadership in a Supervisory Role; B4: Managing Personnel; B5:Analysis and Synthesis in Decision Making; B6: Productivity; B7: Quality of Judgment.Means and standard deviations for the ETS In-Basket dimensions (Bl through B9) werecalculated from percentiles scores, supplied by the publisher. Means and standard deviationsfor the TSIB exercise were calculated from T-scores, referenced to \u00E2\u0080\u009Centry-level management\u00E2\u0080\u009Dnorms available for the TSIB exercise.168Table 23Correlations Between the Role-play Scales and the 13 Championship Criteria (Decimal Pointsare Omitted in Correlations) and Scale Descriptive StatisticsM SD PD JE RD SP CC IPS DC JR CS VGS FDE IVD 5CCLed 3.55Corn 3.71Ent 4.01Cmt 3.69Tnt 3.38PSt 4.21In 3.09Dec 3.68Cnl 3.38Ctr 2.71App 3.03.79.67.97.74.74.79.96.79.831.151.1024 14 1019 11 1018 04 -0720 10 0722 09 0725 -01 -0326 00 -0011 11 0717 08 0508 07 1012 04 03Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .01: .195; .005:.213; .001: .247 for Led, Corn, Cmt, Int, In, Dec, Cnl, Ctr, App. Critical values for r forvarious (two-tailed) significance levels: .01: .27; .005: .29; .001: .34 for Ent and PSt.Correlations significant at p < .005 (two-tailed) for all variables have been bolded.The column headings refer to the following: M: scale mean; SD: scale standard deviation;PD: Persistent Dominance; TB: Impatient Expediency; RD: Rebellious Drive; SP: SelfPromotion; CC: Confrontive Candor; IPS: Influence and Political Savvy; DC: DrivenCommitrnent; IR: Immediate Responsiveness; CS: Collaboration and Support; VGS:Visibility and Growth Seeking; FDE: Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD: Influence andVisible Drive; 5CC: 5-Item Championship Criterion.The row headings refer to the following role-play scales: Led: Leadership; Corn:Communication; Ent: Entrepreneurship; Cmt: Commitrnent; Int: Interpersonal; PSt:Performance Stability; In: Initiative/Innovation; Dec: Decisiveness; Cnl: Conceptual andAnalytical; Ctr: Control and Follow Up; App: Appraisal and Development ofSubordinates.Means and standard deviations for the Role-play dimensions were calculated from rawscores; the maximum possible score attainable on a single dimension is 6.0.19 09 15 28 16 17 20 05 03 0515 07 10 24 13 14 12 05 04 0519 -04 21 06 29 -08 21 16 -11 -0917 08 12 25 09 11 15 01 03 0319 08 15 26 10 07 16 01 -01 0726 05 26 05 35 -05 23 -01 -13 -1524 13 19 26 12 04 12 -03 -13 -0310 04 11 08 06 07 19 10 -03 0416 04 15 16 10 08 16 07 -08 0105 -01 12 05 09 03 16 04 -06 0315 04 03 17 03 08 06 01 -04 01169correlated significantly with at least one of the first-order factor scales. Those sixdimensions were: (a) Leadership, (b) Entrepreneurship, (c) Communication, (d)Commitment, (e) Interpersonal, and (t) Initiative/Innovation. Significant and positivecorrelations were hypothesized between championship and the role play dimensionsInterpersonal, Entrepreneurship, and Initiative/Innovation.Once again, we see evidence, this time from the role play results, thatinterpersonal factors are related to championship. The role play exercise dimensionsLeadership, Communication, Commitment, and Interpersonal measure one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability toinfluence other people through: (a) taking a leadership role in the role play interaction bypersuading and influencing the role player, (b) effectively communicating ideas\u00E2\u0080\u0094bothverbally and through body language\u00E2\u0080\u0094such that the role player is won over, (c)successfully strengthening the commitment of the role player to the manager\u00E2\u0080\u0099s proposalsand, in the process, maintaining a professional and business-like manner, and (d) using anappropriate interpersonal style in the interaction\u00E2\u0080\u0094showing tact and social skill. TheInitiative/Innovation dimension is a measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to come up with inventive,new ideas in response to challenges that arise during the role play. Managers whoobtained high scores on this dimension can be described as flexible and able to think ontheir feet.All things considered, managers who were rated on the role play as sociallyskilled, able to take on a leadership role, and able to influence and persuade others, alsotended to obtain high ratings on FDE. The prominence of interpersonal characteristics aspredictors of championship was seen once again. Innovativeness also appeared related tochampionship, at least innovation in the sense that the role player was able to beinnovative in a spontaneous and socially-effective way.The Structured InterviewCorrelations between the 11 scales derived from the structured interview, on theone hand, and the 13 championship criteria, on the other, are reported in Table 24.170Table 24Correlations Between the Interview Scales and the 13 Championship Criteria (Decimal Pointsare Omitted in Correlations) and Scale Descriptive StatisticsM SD PD IE RD SP CC IPS DC JR Cs VGS FDE IVD 5CCLed 4.35Corn 4.22Ent 4.22Cmt 4.25mt 4.26PSt 4.41In 4.23Dec 4.44Pin 4.53Ctr 4.40App 4.23.73.77.88.68.68.64.67.76.61.76.9222 -01 -0406 -09 -1333 06 0316 -03 -0410 -08 -1021 -03 -0523 10 0507 -12 -0910 06 0912 -00 -0020 00 03Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .01: .195; .005:.213; .001: .247. Correlations significant at p < .005 (two-tailed) for all variables havebeen bolded.The column headings refer to the following: M: scale mean; SD: scale standard deviation;PD: Persistent Dominance; TE: Impatient Expediency; RD: Rebellious Drive; SP: SelfPromotion; CC: Confrontive Candor; IPS: Influence and Political Savvy; DC: DrivenCommitment; IR: Immediate Responsiveness; CS: Collaboration and Support; VGS:Visibility and Growth Seeking; FDE: Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD: Influence andVisible Drive; 5CC: 5-Item Championship Criterion.The row headings refer to the following interview scales: Led: Leadership; Corn:Communication; Ent: Entrepreneurship; Cmt: Commitment; Int: Interpersonal; PSt:Performance Stability; In: Initiative/Innovation; Dec: Decisiveness; Pln: Planning andOrganizing; Ctr: Control and Follow Up; App: Appraisal and Development ofSubordinates.Means and standard deviations for the interview dimensions were calculated from raw18 10 10 27 15 17 -01 -15 03 -08-04 03 01 14 07 15 -09 -17 00 -1727 19 24 31 20 16 08 -03 -06 0414 04 06 22 12 16 -01 -11 -02 -1107 01 02 17 07 03 -02 -15 06 -1713 13 08 26 16 09 02 -18 01 -0514 08 17 26 19 20 05 -03 09 0603 01 02 11 06 04 -07 -08 -10 -1901 03 07 20 03 22 -02 -02 08 -0012 03 06 16 05 10 -00 -06 06 -0922 02 12 23 12 08 07 -10 04 -09scores; the maximum possible score attainable on a single dimension is 6.0.171Seven of the interview dimensions were significantly related to at least one aspect ofchampionship. The Entrepreneurship dimension figured most prominently in thebivariate correlations.Of all the predictors considered thus far in Study 2, the structured interviewdimension of Entrepreneurship correlated the highest with FDE (r = .33).Entrepreneurship, as measured in the interview, relates to seeking out challenges, takingrisks, and experimenting with new approaches and ideas. Thus, managers rated as highon these aspects of entrepreneurship were also rated by their supervisors asdemonstrating many of the behaviors associated with championship, most notably, PD,RD, and SP.Paralleling the results from the role play exercise, Leadership, Commitment, andInitiative/Innovation, were also related to aspects of championship. Once again,interpersonal factors correlated with championship, at least FDE. Performance Stability,Appraisal and Development of Subordinates, and Planning and Organizing also correlatedsignificantly with aspects of championship. Performance Stability is a measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099sability to maintain effectiveness under pressure, while Appraisal and Development ofSubordinates measures one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to provide constructive feedback to subordinates inways that enhance their performance and effectiveness. Planning and Organizing was theonly interview scale that correlated significantly with an IVD factor scale, Influence andPolitical Savvy. One\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to organize and plan effectively activities appears related topersuasiveness and influence.SummaryThe results reported in Tables 17 through 24 build on the behavioral profile of thechampion developed in Study 1. In particular, our understanding of FDE is enhanced.Findings in this connection were consistent with those reported and discussed in Study 1.High FDE managers were found to be dominant, forceful, exhibitionistic, impulsive,likely to break rules, and driven by feelings of impatience and challenge. Our172understanding of IVD, however, has not been similarly enhanced. Rather, IVD (and5CC) could not be predicted beyond chance levels of significance using the measurescontained in the AC battery.Having reported the bivariate correlations between the various individual ACbattery scales and the three championship criteria, attention now shifts to a considerationof the criterion-related validity of multiple-scale combinations. In the following section,multiple regression analysis was used to develop optimally-predictive championshiplinear combinations. The purpose in the next section was to develop: (a) inventory- (anddomain-) specific linear combinations of scales, and (b) an optimally-predictive cross-inventory linear combination of scales.CorrelationalAnalyses: Criterion Correlations ofOptimal Linear Combinations ofAC Battery ScalesIn this section, scales from the various AC battery components were combined inorder to develop optimally-predictive linear combinations of scales. A stepwise multipleregression approach was used in order to identify both inventory-specific optimal linearcombinations and cross-inventory optimal linear combinations. The stepwise algorithmpermits variables to enter and exit the equation on the basis of each variable\u00E2\u0080\u0099s contributionto criterion prediction and on the basis of its relationship to the variables already in theequation. The two second-order factor scales were each regressed onto: (a) scales fromthe CPI, (b) scales from the 1 6PF, (c) scales from the PRF, (d) scales from the JAS, (e)scales from the role play, (f) scales from the interview, and (g) scales from the fourstandardized inventories (the CPI, 16PF, PRF, and JAS) that showed a bivariatecorrelation with the relevant criterion significant at p < .O51 Multiple correlationcoefficients were also calculated for the complete predictor data set (all predictors with abivariate r significant at p < .05 with the relevant criterion), but the description and31 The alpha level was relaxed top < .05 for the multiple regression analyses in order to permit calculationof multiple regression equations for IVD. As noted earlier, not one of the AC battery scales correlatedwithlVDatp<.O1.173interpretation of the results is based on the stepwise analyses. These results are reportedin Tables 25 through 31.Regression Analyses Involving The CPI ScalesResults of the multiple regression analyses involving the CPI appear in Table 25.A significant multiple correlation coefficient was found for the Forceful Drive andExpediency criterion (Rs32 = .340; F (3, 170) = 8.54, p < .0001). A significant multiplecorrelation coefficient was also found for Influence and Visible Drive (Rs = .198; F (2,171) = 4.52, p < .05), but this second-order factor scale was clearly not as predictable aswas FDE. At least for FDE, criterion correlations can be boosted substantially by usingmore than one CPI scale to predict championship.Regression Analyses Involving The 16FF ScalesResults of the multiple regression analyses involving the 16PF appear in Table 26.Significant multiple correlation coefficients were achieved. Once again, they werestronger for FDE (Rs = .264; F (1, 172) = 14.00, p < .00 1) than for IVD (Rs = .209; F (2,171) = 4.97, p < .01). The 16PF scales do an adequate job of predicting the twochampionship criteria, although they do not perform as well as do the CPI scales.Regression Analyses Involving The PRF ScalesIn Table 27 the two championship criteria were regressed onto the PRF scales. Asignificant multiple correlation coefficient was achieved for the FDE equation (Rs = .317;F (2, 171) = 10.70, p < .0001). The PRF linear combinatiOn for FDE reached a level ofprediction similar to that achieved with the CPI. No PRF scales correlated significantlywith IVD.32 Rs represents the multiple correlation coefficient corrected (or \u00E2\u0080\u009Cshrunken\u00E2\u0080\u009D) for sampling error by meansof the Wherry (1931) formula. This formula is an attempt to correct for capitalization on chance thatoccurs in the calculation of predictor weights in multiple regression. The Wherry correction is a moreimmediate and less onerous alternative to empirical cross-validation of predictor weights.174Table 25Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the CPI: Optimal Variable SetsI. Second-Order Factor Forceful Drive and Expediency (FDE) Criterion Regressed ontothe CPI Scales: An, Fe, Sc, Do, So, Cs, Sa, Sp.Predictor Scale 13II. Second-Order Factor Influence and Visible Drive (IVD) Criterion Regressed onto theCPI Scales: le, Sa, Ai.Predictor Scale r p 13 pCPI-Achieve. via Indep. .15 .050 .149 .047CPI-Self Acceptance .17 .050 .164 .029Note: Rs is the shrunken multiple correlation coefficient; r is the bivariate correlationbetween the predictor and criterion. Predictor variables were included in the regressionequation if they possessed a significant (p < .05) correlation with the relevant criterion.All Entered Method:Stepwise Method:R=.403;Rs=.349;F(8, l65)=3.99,p<.OO1.R = .362; Rs = .340; F(3, 170) = 8.54.,p <.0001.r p pCPI-Anxiety -.17 .050 -.172 .020CPI-Dominance .27 .001 .239 .001CPI-Socialization -.18 .050 -.207 .005All Entered Method:Stepwise Method:R = .234; Rs = .195; F(3, 170) = 3.28,p <.05.R = .224; Rs = .198; F(2, 171) = 4..52,p <.05.175Table 26Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the 16PF: Optimal Variable SetsI. Second-Order Factor Forceful Drive and Expediency (FDE) Criterion Regressedonto the 16FF Factors: Qjjj, Qj, E.All Entered Method:Stepwise Method:R = .307; Rs = .280; F (3,R= .274;Rs= .264;F(l,170) = 5.89,p <.001.172) = l4..OO,p <.001.Predictor Scale r p 13 p16PF-Assertiveness .27 .001 .274 .000II. Second-Order Factor Influence and Visible Drive (IVD) Criterion Regressed ontothe 16PF Factors: M, Q.All Entered Method: R = .234; Rs = .209; F (2, 171) = 4.97, p < .01.Stepwise Method: R = .234; Rs = .209; F (2, 171) = 4.97, p < .01.Predictor Scale r p 13 p16PF-Controlled -.17 .050 -.159 .03416PF-Imaginative .17 .050 .162 .031Note: Rs is the shrunken multiple correlation coefficient; r is the bivariate correlationbetween the predictor and criterion. Predictor variables were included in the regressionequation if they possessed a significant (p < .05) correlation with the relevant criterion.176Table 27Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the PRF: Optimal Variable SetsI. Second-Order Factor Forceful Drive and Expediency (FDE) Criterion Regressedonto the PRF Scales: Im, Ch, Ag, Ex.All Entered Method: R = .367; Rs = .338; F (4, 169) = 6.56,p < .0001.Stepwise Method: R = .333; Rs = .3 17; F (2, 171) = lO.\u00E2\u0080\u009970,p < .0001.Predictor Scale r p pPRF-Change .17 .050 .190 .009PRF-Aggression .27 .001 .286 .001II. Second-Order Factor Influence and Visible Drive (IVD) Criterion Regressed onto thePRF Scales: No PRF scales correlated signflcantly with IVD.Note: Rs is the shrunken multiple correlation coefficient; r is the bivariate correlationbetween the predictor and criterion. Predictor variables were included in the regressionequation if they possessed a significant (p < .05) correlation with the relevant criterion.177Regression Analyses Involving The JAS ScalesThe multiple regression analyses involving the four JAS scales are reported inTable 28. A familiar pattern emerges once again, with the results for FDE reachingsignificance (Rs = .28 1; F (2, 171) = 8.44, p < .001). The results are comparable to thoseobtained with the 16PF and PRF. No JAS scales correlated significantly with IVD.Regression Analyses Involving The Role play ScalesResults of the regression analyses involving the role play dimension scales appearin Table 29. A significant multiple correlation was achieved in connection with FDE (Rs= .272; F(l, 164) = l4.l7,p < .001). Although six role play scales could have enteredthe equation, only one scale\u00E2\u0080\u0094Initiative/Innovation\u00E2\u0080\u0094remained following the stepwiseanalysis. This was due largely to the fact that the role play scales were highly inter-correlated (their mean inter-correlation was r = .66. Since none of the role play scalescorrelated significantly (p < .05) with IVD, a predictive equation could not be derived forthis second-order factor scale.Regression Analyses Involving The Interview ScalesThe multiple regression analyses involving the interview scales are reported inTable 30. Since none of the Interview scales correlated significantly with IVD, multipleregression results could be reported in connection with FDE only. A significant multiplecorrelation was achieved with the FDE criterion (Rs = .327; F(l, 171) = 2l.57,p <.0001). Like the results reported above in connection with the role play, only oneindependent variable (Entrepreneurship) remained in the equation at the conclusion of thestepwise procedure. The mean inter-correlation among the interview scales was r = .57.Although six interview scales were included in the equation, only one remained at the endof the stepwise procedure, due largely to the high degree of inter-correlation among thescales.178Table 28Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the JAS: Optimal Variable SetsI. Second-Order Factor Forceful Drive an4 Expediency (FDE) Criterion Regressedonto the JAS Scales: Type A, J, and S.All Entered Method:Stepwise Method:R=.311;Rs=.285;F(3,170)=6.08,p<.O01.R = .300; Rs = .281; F(2, 171) = 8A4,p <.001.Predictor Scale r p pJAS-Job Involvement .22 .005 .173 .019JAS-Speed & Impatience .26 .001 .229 .002II. Second-Order Factor Influence and Visible Drive (IVD) Criterion Regressed onto theJAS Scales: No JAS Scales correlated signflcantly with IVD.Note: Rs is the shrunken multiple correlation coefficient; r is the bivariate correlationbetween the predictor and criterion. Predictor variables were included in the regressionequation if they possessed a significant (p < .05) correlation with the relevant criterion.179Table 29Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the Role-play: Optimal Variable SetsI. Second-Order Factor Forceful Drive and Expediency (FDE) Criterion Regressedonto the Role-play Scales: Led, Com, Cmt, Int, In, Ctr.All Entered Method:Stepwise Method:R = .313; Rs = .253; F (6, 159) = 2.88,p <.01.R=.282;Rs=.272;F(1, 164)= l4..l\u00E2\u0080\u00997,p<.OO1.Predictor Scale r p 13 pInitiative/Innovation .26 .001 .282 .000II. Second-Order Factor Influence and Visible Drive (IVD) Criterion Regressed ontothe Role-play Scales: No Role-play Scales Correlated Significantly with IVD.Note: Rs is the shrunken multiple correlation coefficient; r is the bivariate correlationbetween the predictor and criterion. Predictor variables were included in the regressionequation if they possessed a significant (p < .05) correlation with the relevant criterion.180Table 30Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the Interview: Optimal Variable SetsI. Second-Order Factor Forceful Drive and Expediency (FDE) Criterion Regressedonto the Interview Scales: Led, Ent, Cmt, PSt, In, App.All Entered Method:Stepwise Method:R=.363;Rs=.317;F(6, l66)=4..20,p<.OOl.R = .335; Rs = .327; F(1, 171) = 2l.57,p <.0001.Predictor Scale r p pEntrepreneurship .33 .001 .335 .000 1II. Second-Order Factor Forceful Drive and Expediency (FDE) Criterion Regressedonto the Interview Scales: No Interview Scales Correlated Significantly with IVD.Note: Rs is the shrunken multiple correlation coefficient; r is the bivariate correlationbetween the predictor and criterion. Predictor variables were included in the regressionequation if they possessed a significant (p < .05) correlation with the relevant criterion.181Regression Analyses Involving The CPI, 16PF, PRF, and JAS ScalesWhile the results above give information on the level of prediction possible usinginventory-specific linear combinations, in this section a broader search was undertakenfor an optimally-predictive linear combination of scales from the various inventories.Thus, the bivariate correlations between all scales from the standardized instruments wereexamined and chosen for inclusion in this section if the scale correlated with the relevantchampionship criterion atp < .05. The analyses in this section were designed to improveupon the predictive accuracy of inventory-specific prediction approaches.Results of the stepwise multiple regression analyses are reported in Table 31. Ahighly significant shrunken multiple correlation coefficient was achieved between thevarious scales, on the one hand, and FOE, on the other. A statistically significant (p <.01), but practically unimpressive, shrunken multiple correlation coefficient was obtainedbetween IVD and the predictor scales.Stepwise resultsfor FDE. A shrunken multiple correlation coefficient of .42 wasachieved when FDE was regressed onto the predictor set in Table 31 (Rs = .420; F (4,169) = 10.29, p < .0001). The CPI Dominance and PRF Aggression scales figuredprominently in the equation in terms of their beta weights. The 16PF Tough Poise scalealso entered the equation and carried the third-largest beta weight. Finally, the CPISocialization scale had a negative beta weight in the regression equation, indicating thatlow scores on Socialization were associated with high scores on the FOE criterion.Once again, we see themes of dominance and assertiveness associated with FDE,this time on the basis of the stepwise regression analyses. The CPI Dominance and thePRF Aggression scales are familiar correlates of FOE. With respect to the 1 6PF measureof Tough Poise, Cattell described high scorers on this scale as typically decisive,enterprising, and resilient. Finally, like dominance, the theme of low socialization wasalso a familiar one. Low scorers tend to be rebellious, impulsive, even manipulative; lowscorers are willing to take risks and question conventions.182Table 31Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the CPI, 16FF, PRF, and JAS Scales: OptimalVariable SetsI. Second-Order Factor Forceful Drive and Expediency (FDE) Criterion Regressed ontothe Following Scales: JAS-J, JAS-Type A, JAS-S; CPI-Sc, CPI-An, CPI-Fe, CPI-Cs,CPI-So, CPI-Do, CPI-Sa, CPI-Sp, J6PF-Q111 16PF-E, J6PF-Qj; PRF-Ch, PRF-Im,PRF-Ex, PRF-Ag.All Entered Method: R = .506; Rs = .412; F (18, 155) = 2.97, p < .0001.Stepwise Method: R = .443; Rs = .420; F (4, 169) = 10.29, p < .0001.Predictor Scale r p p16PF-Tough-Poise .190 .050 .154 .029CPI-Socialization -.182 .050 -.150 .033PRF-Aggression .27 .001 .241 .001CPI-Dominance .27 .001 .277 .001II. Second-Order Factor Influence and Visible Drive (IVD) Criterion Regressed onto theFollowing Scales: CPI-Sa, CPI-Ai, CPI-Ie; J6PF-M, J6PF-Q3;PRF-Un.All Entered Method: R = .288; Rs = .223; F(6, 167) = 2.5l,p < .05.Stepwise Method: R = .234; Rs = .209; F (2, 171) = 4.97, p < .01.Predictor Scale r p p16PF-Imaginative .17 .050 .162 .03116PF-Controlled -.17 .050 -.159 .034Note: Rs is the shrunken multiple correlation coefficient; r is the bivariate correlationbetween the predictor and criterion. Predictor variables were included in the regressionequation if they possessed a significant (p < .05) correlation with the relevant criterion.183Stepwise resultsfor IVD. The multiple regression analyses conducted inconnection with IVD yielded minimal dividends in terms of increasing our ability topredict this type of behavior. Two 1 6PF scales\u00E2\u0080\u0094Imaginative (M) and UndisciplinedSelf-Conflict (Q3)\u00E2\u0080\u0094were included in the stepwise algorithm.High scores on the 16PF Imaginative scale indicate an imaginative open-mindedorientation\u00E2\u0080\u0094an openness to new things and experiences. The negative beta weight forthe other 16PF scale (Q) indicates that high scorers on IVD may be relativelyundisciplined and lax. They may tend to follow their own urges rather than theconventions and social rules of their environment. Thus, some degree ofunconventionality and imaginativeness is associated with IVD, although the readershould bear in mind that these two scales correlated only .17 (p < .05) with the IVDcriterion.Summary. In this section, stepwise multiple regression was used to identifyoptimally-predictive linear combinations of scales. Results were encouraging for FDE.That is, a multiple regression approach led to the development of inventory-specific andcross-inventory linear combinations that achieved levels of prediction surpassing thoseachieved with the individual scales featured in Tables 17 through 24. Results for WDwere generally disappointing, not surprisingly, given that so few scales correlated withIVD at p < .05 (recall that none of the scales listed in Table 15 correlated with IVD at p <.01).A Contrasted Groups AnalysisIn this section, the characteristics of extreme groups of managers both high andlow on FDE and IVD were examined. As noted earlier, in order to identify the fourextreme groups, the sample of 174 managers was rank-ordered on the basis of theiroverall scores on the two second-order championship factor scales. The managers withthe 20 lowest and highest scores on each of FDE and IVD constituted the four extremegroups. Two analyses were performed.184First, a discriminant function (DF) analysis was undertaken. Scales from thevarious standardized tests, the simulation exercises, and the structured interview thatcorrelated significantly (p < .01) with the relevant second-order factor scale were includedin the DF. For FDE, it was possible to identify 20 scales (e.g., CPI-Dominance,Interview-Entrepreneurship) that correlated significantly with FDE. A parallel DFanalysis on IVD could not be carried out, because not one of the elements of the ACbattery correlated significantly (p < .01) with IVD.Secondly, the category proportions arising from the scoring of the biodata formwere examined. Given the relatively small sample sizes in this section of Study 2 and theresulting low power of tests of proportional differences, the alpha level for the z-test wasset at p < .01. For each of IVD and FDE, category proportions were compared for thehigh and low groups. For FDE, four category proportions were significantly different at p<.01. For IVD, the high and low groups differed in proportion on only one category.Thus, a comparison of low and high IVD managers was not made.A Discriminant Analysis For FDEConceptualization of the discriminantfunction. Table 32 presents the results of adiscriminant analysis comparing low and high FDE managers. Group means and standarddeviations on the scales included in the DF are reported for the two groups. In addition,the standardized DF and structure coefficients are reported. Finally, the results ofunivariate t-tests comparing the group means are listed in the last column.As noted in the Method section, a stepwise procedure was used to select the ACbattery scales that would be included in the DF. Twenty scales initially entered theanalysis; of those 20, 10 met the DF statistical criterion for inclusion. These 10 variablesare reported in Table 32 in descending order by the size of their structure coefficients.At the bottom of Table 32, the reader will note that the overall DF was highlysignificant [F (10, 29) = 11.74, p < .001] indicating that the null hypothesis that the twosets of population means are equal is very unlikely. The canonical correlation for the DF185Table 32Results of the DiscriminantAnalysis For FDEStandardized StructureVariable Groupa. Mean SD DF Coeffnt Coeffntb tC1. Interview-Entre- Low 3.71 .67 .291 .427 5.30****preneurship High 4.80 .622. JAS-TypeA Low 53.10 6.06 1.001 .317 394****(JAS-A) High 60.70 6.153. 16PF-Assertive- Low 53.40 7.20 .655 .309 3.83****ness (16PF-E) High 62.40 7.654. 16PF-Extraversion Low 53.40 8.04 1.126 .278 3\u00E2\u0080\u00A245***(16PF-QI) High 61.55 6.855. Interview-Perfor- Low 4.02 .69 1.344 .273 3\u00E2\u0080\u00A239***mance Stability High 4.66 .496. Interview-Lead- Low 4.03 .69 -1.53 .258 3.20***ership High 4.71 .657. Role-play Low 3.25 .94 .732 .212 2.63*Leadership High 3.92 .638. Interview-Appr- Low 4.00 .99 .455 .170 2.10*aisal & Dev\u00E2\u0080\u0099t High 4.63 .919. PRF-Impulsivity Low 44.15 6.79 -.739 .140 1.74(PRF-Im) High 48.75 9.6610. JAS-Factor J Low 59.75 6.81 -.424 .137 1.70(JAS-J) High 62.85 4.50a Low = low score on FDE (n = 20); High = high score on FDE (n = 20).b Correlation with the discriminant function composite score.c * < .05; ***p < .005; ****p < .001.Note: Wilkes lambda = .198, F(10, 29) = 11.74, p <.001, R = .90.186composite was R = .90. This represents the degree of association between the overalldiscriminant function score and group membership (low vs. high FDE). There is clearly avery high degree of association between group membership and the weighted linearcombination of the 10 AC battery scale scores obtained from the DF analysis.Turning to the individual 10 scales featured in Table 32, the group means arereported in the first column of numbers. Means are based on both raw and T-scores (Tscores have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10). T-scores were calculated basedon normative data supplied in each of the 16PF, PRF, and JAS test manuals. For the16PF, the normative sample was roughly equivalent to the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgeneral population\u00E2\u0080\u009D; for thePRF, the normative sample was made up of college students, while for the JAS, thenormative sample consisted of middle- to senior-level managers. The interview and roleplay means were based on raw scores. These raw scores could range from a low of 1.00to ahigh of 6.00.Mean differences were significant for eight of the 10 scales; significance levelsare reported with each t value. The first six scales showed the largest group meandifferences. The largest difference between the low and high FDE groups was on theinterview measure of Entrepreneurship. The next largest was for JAS-Type A, followedclosely by the 16PF measure of Assertiveness. Mean differences were not significant forthe PRF-Impulsivity and JAS-Factor 3 scales.An examination of the standardized DF coefficients in Table 32 shows the largestweights for the interview measures of Performance Stability, and Leadership, 1 6PF-Extraversion, JAS-Type A, PRF-Impulsivity, and the role play measure of Leadership.These are the dominant variables in the discriminant function as revealed by the size oftheir standardized DF coefficients. Interpretation of the DF will not, however, be basedon these coefficients. Rather, the interpretation will be drawn from the structurecoefficients for the following reasons.187First, standardized DF coefficients are analogous to beta weights obtained inmultiple regression analysis. They show each variable\u00E2\u0080\u0099s degree of relationship with theDF in the context of the other variables in the equation. What was of most interest in thepresent study was the interpretation of the overall DF, not the relative weight assigned toeach variable in the DF linear combination. More specifically, it was of interest to knowwhich of the 10 AC battery scales, on their own, were most similar to the DF. Suchinformation would be of assistance in developing an overall understanding of thepsychological meaning of high and low scores on the DF.Secondly, several variables appear as suppressers in the DF, making interpretationof the standardized DF coefficients problematic. Suppressers are measures with relativelyweak correlation with the dependent variable but substantial correlation with otherindependent variables that have high validity for the dependent variable. Three suchvariables in the present study were: (a) the interview measure of Leadership, (b) PRFImpulsivity, and (c) JAS-Factor J. High FDE managers scored higher than low FDEmanagers on each of these scales, as indicated by the group means. These three scales allcorrelated positively with the DF composite, yet all three received negative weights in theDF. Suppresser variables tend to be unstable and, for this reason, these results are notemphasized. Rather, the structure coefficients will be examined in order to explore themeaning of the DF.The largest structure coefficient was for the Entrepreneurship scale of theinterview (.427). This means that the DF composite is carrying information very similarto that measured by the Entrepreneurship scale. This scale is a measure of thepsychologist\u00E2\u0080\u0099s overall impressions of the assesses desire and ability to take risks, seek outchallenges, and innovate and experiment with new approaches. The construct underlyingthe Entrepreneurship scale is a relatively large part of what is measured by the DFcomposite.188In addition to Entrepreneurship, five AC battery scales showed substantialcorrelation with the DF: (a) JAS-Type A (.3 17), (b) 16PF-Assertiveness (.309), (c) 16PF-Extraversion, (d) Interview-Performance Stability, and (e) Interview-Leadership. Ofthese five, three share a common psychological thread: 16PF-Assertiveness, 16PF-Extraversion, and the interview measure of Leadership. High scorers on these threescales are likely outgoing and socially uninhibited. They are likely direct and assertive intheir interpersonal interactions and able to take on high-profile, leadership roles. Thetheme of interpersonal ascendancy is a familiar one, having been discussed in connectionwith results reported in previous sections.The other two AC battery scales that showed high structure coefficients were JASType A and the interview measure of Performance Stability. High scorers on the DF willtend to be competitive and driven to achieve. As well, the result for PerformanceStability indicates that the DF contains a theme of low neuroticism: a resistance andtolerance for challenge and uncertainty.Despite their significant correlation with the FDE criterion (for the entire sample),the PRF-Impulsivity and JAS-Factor J scales did not figure prominently in the DF. Themean scores of the low and high FDE groups did not differ significantly on these twoscales.Classification based on the discriminantfunction. The second reason for carryingout a DF analysis in the present study was to examine the extent to which AC batteryscales could be used to correctly classify managers into either the low or high FDE group.The results of this analysis are reported in Table 33.Although the results appear to be highly promising, the weights used to derivegroup membership need to be cross-validated in a new sample. The apparent accuracy ofthe present equation is likely due, in part, to error fitting. Nonetheless, the present resultsare encouraging and warrant further study in a new sample.189Table 33Classification Results From the DiscriminantAnalysis ofFDEActual Group MembershipLow Highn=18 n=090% 0%n=2 n=2010% 100%1822LowPredictedGroupMembershipHighHit Rate =Sensitivity =Specificity =20 20 4095%100%90%190The tabled results show that 38 of the 40 managers were correctly classified withthe DF, for a hit rate of 95%. All 20 of the high FDE managers were correctly classified;thus, the sensitivity of the classification was 100%. Two of the 20 low FDE managerswere incorrectly classified as belonging in the high FDE group, for a specificity of 90%.A Championship Profile Based on the Biodata FormInter-rater agreement. Before turning to the results of the biodata form analysis,the inter-rater reliability of each of the 16 questions will first be reported. Flanders\u00E2\u0080\u0099(1967) Ic was computed for the 16 questions. These coefficients are reported in Table 34.They ranged from a low of .81 to a high of .94, with a mean coefficient of .88. Twelve ofthe 16 coefficients exceeded the criterion of .85 that Flanders recommended. Of the fourthat fell below this criterion, none fell below .81. Thus, all things considered, thecoefficients reported in Table 34 reflect acceptable levels of inter-rater agreement. Itappears that the categories chosen and the rater training provided resulted in thedevelopment of a coding procedure that was followed reliably (consistently) by the tworaters.Category proportion comparisons. As discussed in the Method section, for eachquestion, a frequency count was made of the number of categories endorsed by the twogroups of managers (high and low FDE). These category frequencies were thentransformed to category proportions to permit z-tests of the differences betweenproportions for each category across the two comparison groups. A p value of .01 waschosen for the comparisons, rather than the more stringent p value of .005 used inconnection with the bivariate correlational analyses reported in the first part of Study 2.A more liberal p value was chosen in this section given the relatively small samples sizesinvolved and the resulting low power of tests of proportional differences.As noted earlier, four category proportions were significantly (p < .01) different forlow vs. high FDE groups, while for IVD the high and low groups differed in proportionon only one category. The discussion below is, therefore, based on the FDE191Table 34Results of The Inter-Rater AgreementAnalysis Based on Flanders\u00E2\u0080\u0099 itQuestion # # of Categories Flanders\u00E2\u0080\u0099 itQ1 4 .92Q2 6 .89Q3 3 .89Q4 4 .84Q5 5 .89Q6 4 .82Q7 8 .82Q8 7 .92Q9 6 .81Q1O 9 .93Qil 4 .94Q12 6 .90Q13 7 .86Q14A 2 .86Q14B 8 .88Q15 7 .92192results alone. The categories on which managers high and low on FDE differed arereported in Table 35. Where a significant category difference was found, all categoriesassociated with that question were reported, in the interests of completeness. Each of thequestions will now be discussed.Question 6. What is your own approach to supervision, i.e., your managementstyle? This question was coded for three categories. The intent was to measure the extentto which managers from either group reported using: (a) a participative and collaborativestyle (emphasizing teamwork, empowerment, and joint decision making), (b) a directiveand closely monitoring style (providing direction, focusing on task objectives, trackingperformance), or (c) a style that changes with the needs of the person being supervised.Of the three categories, significant differences in proportions were found on categories 2and 3.Of the 20 managers in the low FDE group, 17 (85%) reported that they used astyle coded as participative/collaborative, while 9 of the 20 managers high on FDE (45%)reported using such a management style. Some sample answers from the low FDE grouprepresenting category 2 answers were: \u00E2\u0080\u009C...open approach; believe in people and believethat if you treat them correctly (with respect, give them challenging work etc.) they willreact in a positive manner\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. .respectful of people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s feelings; honest, open\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgroupinvolvement and group decision making\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009C. ..total team involvement with open boxsupervision\u00E2\u0080\u009D.Turning to category 3, a significantly greater proportion of managers in the highFDE group (70%) reported using a management style coded as directive than in the lowFDE group (30%). Some examples of high FDE group responses representing category 3answers were: \u00E2\u0080\u009C..set objectives, ensure people know what is expected, keep employeesinformed\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009CI will work as hard as my subordinates; demanding but fair and honest\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009CIget along well with most people...I have a low tolerance for people who can\u00E2\u0080\u0099t do their jobor will not do their job\u00E2\u0080\u009D.193Table 35Results From the Analysis of the Biodata FormQuestion 6. What is your own approach to supervision, i.e., your management style?Low FDE High FDEFrequency Proportion Frequency Proportion1 = Depends on Subordinate 0 .00 3 .152 = Collaborative/Participative 17 .85 9 .453 = Directive/Monitoring 6 .30 14 .70Question 12. How do your leisure and social activities relate to your career?Low FDE High FDEFrequency Proportion Frequency Proportion0 = No answer 0 0 1 .051 = They don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t 8 .40 1 .052 = Stress Relief 6 .30 5 .253 = Socialize with Same People 3 .15 5 .254 = Develop Contacts/Skills 10 .50 5 .255 = Enjoy/Do Similar Things 1 .05 6 .30194Table 35 cont.Question 13. What are your most outstanding personal qualities?Low FDE High UDEFrequency Proportion Frequency Proportion1 = Conscientiousness 20 1 14 .702 = Calm/Stable 4 .20 4 .203 = Extraversion-warmth 17 .85 16 .804 = Extraversion-assertiveness 6 .30 10 .505=Openness 5 .25 7 .356 = Cognitive/Intellectual 8 .40 8 .40Question 14b. What are your shortcomings; your areasfor development?Low FDE High FDEFrequency Proportion Frequency Proportion1 = Need More Education 2 .10 1 .052 = Need More Experience 6 .25 0 .003 = Specific Skill Deficiency 8 .40 11 .554 = Interpersonal Skill Deficiency 6 .30 6 .305 = Work Habits 0 00 0 .006 = Openness to Innovation 1 .05 0 .007 = Neuroticism (e.g., impatience) 7 .35 12 .60195Considered together, the category 2 and 3 differences paint a coherent picture ofdifferences between high and low FDE managers. Consistent with previously-reportedfindings on the interpersonal style of the manager high on FDE (e.g., dominant,aggressive, forceful), it appears that high FDE managers are less likely than low FDEmanagers to employ a participative and collaborative management style. Instead, they aremore likely to keep power centralized rather than allowing the group to decide. Of the 20high FDE managers, 70% indicated that they supervised by setting clear and demandingobjectives and then tracking performance.Question 12., How do your leisure and social activities relate to your career?This question was coded for six categories. The purpose of question 12 was to explorethe relationship between leisure and social activities on the one hand, and work/career onthe other. Of the six categories, the group proportions were significantly different oncategory 1.Eight of the 20 low FDE managers (40%) indicated in their open-ended responsethat career and leisure were separate domains of their lives\u00E2\u0080\u0094that there was no connectionbetween what they did for pleasure and what they did for work. Only one of the 20 highFDE managers reported this separation of work and leisure. It appears that, for the 20high FDE managers, work and leisure/social activities were tied together in ,some way.We see some evidence hinting at a connection from the proportion differences incategory 5 [note, however, that this difference was not significantly (p < .01) different].Of the 20 high FDE managers, six reported that they enjoyed doing similar things in workas in leisure. Some example answers reflecting category five answers were: \u00E2\u0080\u009CMost leisureactivities are teaching/coaching/leading situations. This is exactly what I enjoy the mostin my career. Work mates are no different from teammates or fellow church members inthis matter\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009CThey all display work ethic and a competitiveness to be the best you can\u00E2\u0080\u009D,\u00E2\u0080\u009C...I realize now that both on and off the job I look for opportunities to help others out oftheir current difficulty and get them going again\u00E2\u0080\u009D, and \u00E2\u0080\u009CI do find myself coaching and196giving guidance, planning and organizing activities\u00E2\u0080\u009D. A common theme running throughthese answers was influence and guidance.Question 13. What are your most outstanding personal qualities? The categoriesfor this question were designed to measure the \u00E2\u0080\u009CBig Five\u00E2\u0080\u009D dimensions of personality: (a)conscientiousness, (b) (low) neuroticism, (c) extraversion-warmth, (d) extraversionassertiveness, and (e) openness. Cognitive/intellectual ability was added as a sixthcategory, while agreeableness was not operationalized.The low and high FDE groups differed significantly on category 1,Conscientiousness. All low FDE group managers described themselves as conscientious(reliable, hard working, dependable, etc.), while 14 of the 20 high FDE managers (70%)described themselves in this way. Clearly, we cannot describe the high FDE management \u00E2\u0080\u0098group as low in conscientiousness; 70% is a relatively high endorsement rate. Comparedwith the low FDE group, however, the high FDE group was less likely to describethemselves in ways that were indicative of conscientiousness. Other proportiondifferences between the two groups on question 13 were non-significant. The trend in thedata for category 4 was consistent with previous descriptions of FDE, but the proportionaldifferences were not significant.Question 14b. What are your shortcomings; your areas for development? On thebasis of the responses of the 70 managers to question 14b, seven categories were createdand scored. High FDE managers differed from low FDE managers on category 2. Aninteresting trend appeared for category 7, but the proportion difference between the twogroups on this category was not significant.Six of the 20 low FDE managers responded that they perceived a shortcoming inthat they needed greater experience (more seasoning), while none of the 20 high FDEmanagers indicated a shortcoming in this area. Some sample answers were: \u00E2\u0080\u009CI need moreexperience supervising\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009C. . .experience is narrow; I must develop a career plan\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009C...newthings that I haven\u00E2\u0080\u0099t been exposed to\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009C...I need experience in different areas of the197company\u00E2\u0080\u009D. A theme running through these answers was one of naivet\u00C3\u00A9 and a narrownessof experience. Presumably, high FDE managers felt that their shortcomings were in otherareas unrelated to their level of experience and seasoning.Although the proportion differences on category 7 were not significant, it wasinteresting to note that, of the 12 managers who acknowledged a shortcoming related tosome form of neuroticism (perfectionism, impatience, impulsivity, etc.), all 12 describedthemselves as impatient, while three of the six low FDE managers who fell in category 7acknowledged that they were perfectionistic in some way (e.g., detail oriented). Had adifferent categorical scheme been used (i.e., a separate category for impatience, forexample) this difference would have emerged as significant. It is hi lighted in the presentcontext because such a difference would be consistent with results reported earlier inStudy 2 in which significant correlations were reported between FDE and PRFImpulsivity and JAS Speed and Impatience.SummaryIn this section a contrasted-groups design was used to identify elements of the ACbattery that distinguished between extreme groups on FDE. A coherent picture of thehigh FDE manager emerged from this analysis, based, as it was, on the variouscomponents of the AC battery as well as the biodata form. Once again, results were nonsignificant for the IVD criterion.In the next section, a case study approach was used to illustrate the resultsreported thus far. Files for two managers\u00E2\u0080\u0094one high and one low on FDE\u00E2\u0080\u0094wereexamined, in order to develop a richer, more descriptive profile of the low and high FDEmanager.The Two CasesThe case ofMr. A: high FDE. Mr. A graduated with a high school degree in theearly 1960\u00E2\u0080\u0099s. After a few years in the family business, he joined BC Tel and began hiscareer by working in a junior clerk position. After a few years with the company, he198began a three-year part-time diploma in marketing. Mr. A was promoted steadily up andinto the management ranks, and, after a few years, was working in sales. With over 30years of experience with the company, Mr. A currently holds a senior position inmarketing.In his life outside of work, Mr. A reported active involvement with a fraternalorder, attending weekly meetings and participating in various social and fundraisingevents. At the time of assessment (1991), he was also an active member of a politicalparty. Mr. A reported that these activities filled an important social need in his life. Mr.A noted that social activities were a very enjoyable and important part of his life.Mr. A\u00E2\u0080\u0099s scores on the various measures of cognitive ability indicate average levelsof general and specific ability. Compared with general population norms, his scores onthe Wonderlic Personnel Test and the Culture Fair averaged to a T-score of 54. Similarly,on the various tests used to measure English language skills\u00E2\u0080\u0094reading comprehension andwriting skills\u00E2\u0080\u0094Mr. A also achieved average scores. Mr. A turned in a low-average scoreon Innovative Thinking (an average of the two CAB subtests, ideational fluency andspontaneous flexibility). Mr. A\u00E2\u0080\u0099s intellectual results reveal adequate levels of general andspecific ability, but they are not exceptional in any way. Rather, when his scores on thevarious tests are considered relative to norms for the general population, Mr. A appearsabout average with respect to cognitive ability.Mr. A\u00E2\u0080\u0099s personality results from the various tests paint a more dramatic picture; heappears to be a highly dominant, independent, tough-minded, and aggressive man. Hisscores from the 16PF [Factor A (outgoing, warmhearted) = 75; Factor E (assertive,aggressive) = 63; Factor H (venturesome, socially uninhibited) = 67; Factor Qj(extraverted) 67; Factor Qiv (independent) = 61], CPI [Do (dominant) = 70; Cs(ambitious, forceful) = 70; Sy (outgoing, competitive) = 63; Sp (enthusiastic, expressive)= 63; Sa (outspoken, aggressive) = 68], and PRF [Ag (aggressive, combative) = 63; Do =199(dominant, forceful) 63; Ex (exhibitionistic, dramatic) = 67] converge in portraying Mr. Aas assertive, direct, socially uninhibited, outgoing, competitive, and resilient.Scores from the both the role play and interview, for the most part, are consistentwith the results from the CPI, 16PF, and PRF reported above. Mr. A was rated as highlyinfluential. Of the three role plays used in 1991 (New Manager, Employee Performance,and Marketing), Mr. A achieved the highest scores on the Marketing role play, notsurprisingly, given his background. The raters coding the role plays made comments suchas: \u00E2\u0080\u009C. . .has ability to think on his feet\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009C.. .uses metaphors effectively\u00E2\u0080\u009D, develops rapportwith ease\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009C...is able to be direct and pleasant through his informal approach\u00E2\u0080\u009D, and \u00E2\u0080\u009C...incontrol in all three role plays\u00E2\u0080\u009D.Mr. A\u00E2\u0080\u0099s responses on the biodata form give further evidence of an assertive andpoised interpersonal style. Mr. A noted something that none of the other 69 managersinvolved in the contrasted groups analysis did\u00E2\u0080\u0094he noted that he had presence. Mr. Aseemed to be portraying himself as more than just socially effective. He was portrayinghimself as charismatic.Other results from the AC battery relating to Mr. A\u00E2\u0080\u0099s personality indicate a fairlyhigh degree of unconventionality and low socialization in the personality profile. Mr. A\u00E2\u0080\u0099sT-score of 33 on the CPI Socialization scale indicates a tendency toward rule breakingand impulsivity. As well, we see a T-score of 43 on Self Control, indicating a moderatelyhigh degree of impulsivity and excitability. At the same time, Mr. A appears to be a fairlycalm and stable person. His low score on the CPI Anxiety scale (T = 34) and high scoreon the 16PF Second-order scale Qj (T = 60) were both in a direction indicating lowanxiety. Mr. A\u00E2\u0080\u0099s results indicate a lack of inner tension and worry.Mr. A\u00E2\u0080\u0099s scores on the JAS were very high, falling between a T-score of 63 (JobInvolvement) and 76 (Speed and Impatience). His overall JAS score was 69 (97thpercentile). His overall profile reveals an intense Type A pattern. Mr. A appears to be anextremely hurried and impatient person. His high score on Hard Driving and Competitive200indicates high levels of competitiveness, especially when coupled with his extreme scoreon Factor S. With such a pattern of scores, it is likely that Mr. A\u00E2\u0080\u0099s career has been onemarked by high levels of striving and achievement. These JAS results are consistent withMr. A\u00E2\u0080\u0099s self appraisal, based on his answers in the biodata form. When asked to describehimself, Mr. A noted that he had drive, ambition and dedication; that he was honest, loyaland committed.Mr. A\u00E2\u0080\u0099s scores show an interesting pattern on the ROCI-JI. He stated a preferencefor using integrating, dominating, and compromising strategies when dealing withconflict. Mr. A\u00E2\u0080\u0099s scores on obliging and avoiding were very low. These latter twostrategies might be used, for example, as a way of minimizing one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s involvement inconflict; neither strategy results in the satisfaction of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s own needs. Both integratingand compromising strategies involve searching for areas of communality and mutualbenefit, while when using a dominating strategy, one seeks to maximize one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ownoutcomes.When asked to reflect on his shortcomings, Mr. A acknowledged two areas:empathy and patience. He lacked both. While acknowledging his leadership skills andinterpersonal \u00E2\u0080\u009Cpresence\u00E2\u0080\u009D as outstanding personal qualities, Mr. A seemed to beacknowledging an inability to deal with others in a sensitive and empathic way.Moreover, his mention of impatience is likely relevant to his behavior when interactingwith others. Dominant and forceful in his approach, Mr. A may not take the time toconsider the impact his behavior has on others.All things considered, Mr. A\u00E2\u0080\u0099s profile is a fairly accurate reflection of thecharacteristics of the high FDE manager developed in the previous sections of Study 2.His determination, drive, competitiveness, and social forcefulness are evident from avariety of sources of information. Mr. A\u00E2\u0080\u0099s results paint the picture of the prototypicallyhigh FDE manager.201The case ofMr. W. low FDE. Mr. W achieved a Bachelo?s degree in Engineeringin the late 1970\u00E2\u0080\u0099s and then went on to get his MBA (with a specialization in Finance) inthe mid 1980\u00E2\u0080\u0099s. He also pursued further specialized training in computer andtelecommunications technology. When describing his strengths on the biodata form, Mr.W acknowledged a strong technical educational background.Mr. W reported no involvement in any social clubs or organizations. In terms ofsocial activities, he reported that occasions with the family were very important but thatother types of social get-togethers (friends) were relatively unimportant. His mostenjoyable social activities with family involved \u00E2\u0080\u009Cparty games\u00E2\u0080\u009D and dinner and lunchconversation.Mr. W\u00E2\u0080\u0099s results on the intellectual tests indicate a fairly high level of overallgeneral intelligence. Relative to norms for the general population, Mr. W\u00E2\u0080\u0099s averagedWonderlic and Culture Fair test score falls at roughly the 90th percentile of thedistribution for the general population. His analytical-reasoning ability appears to befairly strong. On the various tests used to measure English language skills\u00E2\u0080\u0094readingcomprehension and writing skills\u00E2\u0080\u0094Mr. W\u00E2\u0080\u0099s scores were average, as were his scores onthe two measures of Innovative Thinking.Mr. W\u00E2\u0080\u0099s results from the various personality tests revealed a moderately retiringand socially-reserved interpersonal style. His low scores on Dominance from the CPI (T= 39), Exhibition from the PRF (T = 39) and Aggression from the PRF (T = 40) were themost obvious indicators. Mr. W\u00E2\u0080\u0099s scores on a number of other personality scales relatedto extraversion and social dominance were roughly average [e.g., 16PF Factor E (T = 55);16PF Factor H (T = 47); 16PF Q (T = 52)]. In contrast to the results discussed inconnection with Mr. A, Mr. W cannot be described as an assertive, socially uninhibited,outgoing, and competitive man.Mr. W\u00E2\u0080\u0099s overall performance on the role play indicated a sensitive, supportive, andempathic interpersonal style. The raters coding the role play videotapes made the202following comments: \u00E2\u0080\u009C...cooperative and coaching style; quite sensitive in his approach\u00E2\u0080\u0094demonstrated strong commitment to a participative management team\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Mr. W\u00E2\u0080\u0099s lowestscore was on the Industrial Relations role play (T = 45), in which the objective was tonegotiate a settlement to a collective agreement. It is likely that Mr. W\u00E2\u0080\u0099s moreparticipative and gentle style was a handicap in this scenario.Other results from the AC battery indicated moderately high levels ofconscientiousness, but low levels of achievement motivation. Mr. W\u00E2\u0080\u0099s scores on both16PF Factor G (T = 69) and Q (T = 64) revealed a tendency toward careful andmethodical planning and organizing of activities. Mr. W appears to be a precise,controlled, and deliberate man. On the CPI Achievement via Conformance scale, hisscore was low (T = 33). This scale measures one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s drive to do well and preference forworking in environments where expectations are clearly defined. Although seeminglyconscientious and deliberate in his approach, Mr. W may not possess high levels of driveand ambition. Like Mr. A, Mr. W appears to be a calm and stable person. His score onthe CPI Anxiety scale was about average (T = 45), while his score on the 16PF Second-order scale Q was just slightly above average (T = 60). Mr. W\u00E2\u0080\u0099s results indicate a lackof inner tension and worry.Turning to his results on the JAS, Mr. W\u00E2\u0080\u0099s profile reveals a general absence of theType A behavioral pattern. His T-scores on the scales ranged from 43 to 49; his overallT-score was 47 (38th percentile). Mr. W does not appear to be a particularly driven orimpatient man. Rather, he shows average levels of job involvement and dedication. Mr.W is likely not terribly competitive in his job. Unlike Mr. A, he probably does not hurryhimself in his work and, instead, shows patience when working toward objectives.Mr. W\u00E2\u0080\u0099s scores on the ROCI-Il indicate that his preferred style of handling conflictis to use a compromising strategy; he tends to shy away from using dominating strategies.Compromising strategies involve one searching for middle ground; such strategies show a203concern for both self and others and usually involve giving up something in order to reacha mutually acceptable outcome.When asked to reflect on his shortcomings, Mr. W acknowledged two areas:leadership and innovation. Mr. W appears to see himself as a hard-working dedicatedtechnical contributor. Over his twelve years with the company, he has had no supervisoryresponsibilities. Mr. W has likely had few opportunities to practice and develop hiscompetencies in the area of leadership.With respect to his negative self appraisal on innovation, Mr. W acknowledgedthat assignments requiring creativity bring out the worst in him. Mr. W appears to find itdifficult to think in non-linear ways. This was born out by his scores on the two measuresof innovative thinking included as part of the cognitive assessment (Ideational Fluency Tscore = 39; Flexibility T-score = 46).In summary, Mr. Wts profile is generally consistent with the characteristics of thelow FDE manager developed in the previous sections of Study 2. His retiring andgenerally unassertive interpersonal style is evident from the results from a variety of theassessment procedures. As well, Mr. Ws methodical approach and low levels of drive,urgency, and job involvement are consistent with previous descriptions of the low FDEmanager. Mr. Ws case study adds further descriptive detail to the profile of the low FDEmanager.Summary. Two case studies were examined in order to further illustratedifferences between managers low and high on FDE. The cases of Mr. W and Mr. Awere used to add descriptive richness to the correlational and contrasted-groups resultsreported earlier. The individual results for Mr. W and Mr. A reflected, for the most part,the results found in connection with the empirical examination of the individualdifferences characteristics associated with FDE. That is, these two descriptive casestudies support and add to the findings of the correlational analyses.204DiscussionOverviewThe two sides of championship identified in Study 1 were carried forward toStudy 2 and used as criterion rating scales. In the first part of Study 2, scores for 174managers on an extensive assessment center battery were used to predict supervisoryratings on: (a) the two second-order factor scales, (b) the 10 first-order factor scales, and(c) the 5-item supervisory-report criterion measure of championship (5CC). Acontrasted-groups analysis was used to expand on the correlational findings. Finally, acase study approach was used to develop a descriptively-based profile of the champion.Across these three methods, a clear and consistent picture emerged of the managerhigh on FOE. A number of scales from the standardized personality tests and dimensionsfrom the role play and interview were found to be related to FDE. The individual-differences profile that emerged was consistent with the meaning of FDE developed inStudy 1. The individual-differences characteristics identified supported many of thehypotheses outlined in Table 14 and, thus, were consistent with previous researchers\u00E2\u0080\u0099descriptively-based accounts of the champion summarized in Table 3. Finally, resultsacross the three methods of analysis led to a common interpretive profile of the high FDEmanager.Results were less illuminating for the second of the two higher-order factor scales,IVD. None of the scales from the various tests and simulation exercises correlatedsignificantly with IVD (p < .01). Only one of the 90 categories considered in the biodataform distinguished between high and low IVD managers. Study 2 does little to add to ourtrait-based understanding of the heroic side of championship developed in Study 1. Thisside of championship was not predictable using what Wernimont & Campbell (1968)termed signs, as distinguished from samples, of behavior.The picture of the champion that emerged from Study 2 was slanted toward thedark side, unavoidably, given the failure of the AC battery scales to correlate with IVD.205This may represent a shortcoming of Study 2 if significant correlation should haveemerged; that is, if some limitation in the IVD criterion scales precluded their correlationwith the AC battery scales. If, on the other hand, IVD represents a class of behaviors\u00E2\u0080\u0094anaspect of championship\u00E2\u0080\u0094that cannot be predicted with standard tools of managementassessment, then the lack of correlation is an illuminating, albeit disappointing andunexpected, outcome.Correlational FindingsThe most salient feature of Tables 17 through 24 containing the bivariatecorrelations is the lack of significant AC battery scale correlation with IVD (and 5CC).The discussion of the correlational results will, therefore, start with an explanation for thisoutcome. Two seem possible. First, it may be that the heroic side of championshipcannot be predicted using various forms of psychological assessment. It may be thatdrive, impatience, dominance, aggression, competitiveness, and impulsivity are the traitsthat set apart the champion from the non-champion and that FDE is the side ofchampionship predictable from trait assessment. IVD, on the other hand, may be that sideof championship that is largely behavioral and learned and can, therefore, be developedand demonstrated regardless of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s individual-differences profile.Although possible, this explanation seems unlikely. The AC battery wasextensive. A large number of both standardized and simulation exercises were employed.Recall that IVD correlated significantly with OMP, the latter being a measure of overallmanagement performance. Much evidence exists from the meta analytic research ofSchmidt, Hunter, and colleagues that psychological tests are powerful predictors ofgeneral management performance. Some elements of the AC battery should, therefore,have correlated with IVD, since the latter overlaps significantly with general managementperformance. As well, although not reported in Studies 1 or 2, OMP was also notpredictable with the various components of the AC battery. Thus, it seems likely that206some characteristic of the IVD criterion and/or the present sample may be the causativefactor.Firstly, it is possible that the IVD criterion scales suffer from psychometricshortcomings that limit their ability to correlate with other measures. Although both FDEand IVD possessed high levels of internal consistency reliability (FDE x = .92; IVD X =.9 1), the distributional characteristics of these two second-order factor scales differed.FDE was more variable than IVD (FDE s = 19.12; IVD s = 16.45). Thus, restriction inrange could be part of the reason for the lowered correlations, since variables possessinggreater variability will, other things being equal, correlate more highly with othervariables, in this case, the AC battery scales. As well, the IVD distribution wasnegatively skewed (sk = -.45), while the distribution for FDE was neither positively nornegatively skewed. The mean of the IVD distribution was much higher than the mean ofthe FDE distribution, when the means are considered as percentages of the total score oneach scale.The overall mean for both men and women on FDE was 129.87, while the totalpossible score was 245 (53% of the total possible score). Ninety-five percent of thescores on FDE fell within the range of 90.65 (37% of total) to 168.11. (69% of total).Compare this with the IVD scale, where the raw score mean was 158.19 (74% of total)and 95% of the scores fell within the range of 124.70 (58%) to 191.35 (89%). Clearly,when rating their subordinates, managers were using the extreme scale points more oftenin connection with the IVD, than with the FDE, factor scales. Thus, we have a ceilingeffect operating for IVD. The IVD items on which managers were rated may not havebeen of a sufficiently \u00E2\u0080\u009Cchallenging\u00E2\u0080\u009D (or high level) nature, in the sense that theyrepresented examples of behaviors that the vast majority of managers were capable ofexhibiting.The 174 participants in Study 2 were largely middle- to upper-level managers whohad been nominated for participation in an assessment center for the purposes of career207development. Thus, Study 2 consists of a sample of primarily successful, high-performing managers who, because they have shown potential for advancement in thecompany, have been given the opportunity to participate. Since there is evidence thatIVD overlaps significantly with overall management effectiveness, it is not surprising todiscover that the majority of managers in Study 2 were rated by their supervisors as highon IVD and its constituent elements. It appears that the IVD factor scales measuredimensions of championship on which effective managers show high levels ofcompetence.Focusing, then, on FDE\u00E2\u0080\u0094the dark side of championship and the side that waspredictable in Study 2\u00E2\u0080\u0094a consistent and coherent picture of the champion emerged. Thispicture is consistent with that developed in Phase V of Study 1 when FDE and its first-order factor scales were discussed. Firstly, the manager high on UDE was found to bedominant, assertive, exhibitionistic, even aggressive. Support was found for hypothesis 1under Interpersonal Effectiveness in Table 14; many of the scales hypothesized tocorrelate with championship correlated with FDE. Further support for hypothesis 1 camefrom the discriminant analysis and the case studies. Given the failure of the ROCI-fiscales to correlate with either FDE or IVD, hypothesis 2 was not supported, although thecase study results were suggestive. Finally, some support for hypothesis 3 was found inconnection with the role play Interpersonal dimension.The manager high on FDE was also found to be independent, competitive, anddriven. Support was found for hypotheses 5 and 6 under Determined AchievementOrientation in Table 14, but not hypothesis 4. The Entrepreneurship dimension from theinterview emerged as a significant correlate of FDE, as did the JAS overall score and thefactor scales. Thus, the hard driving, competitive side of Determined AchievementOrientation emerged. Interestingly, elements of independence and achievement measuredby the scales listed in connection with hypothesis 4 were not significantly correlated withFDE. In fact, PRF Achievement correlated negatively with Collaboration and Support.208The scales listed in hypothesis 4 might have been expected to correlate with DrivenCommitment and Immediate Responsiveness, both dimensions of IVD related toachievement orientation. These relationships did not emerge, however.Thirdly, the manager high on FDE was found to be impulsive, impatient, andlikely to break rules and take risks\u00E2\u0080\u0094unsocialized and unconventional. Hypotheses 7, 8,and 9 were grouped under the heading of Openness/Willingness to Change. None of thescales listed in hypothesis 7 correlated with championship. Thus, with respect to FDE,tolerance, flexibility, openness to experimentation and change do not appear related tochampionship. Instead, low socialization and, to a lesser extent, low self control wererelated to championship, at least FDE. Supporting the findings from Study 1, elements ofrule breaking, impulsivity, and unconventionality were found to be related to FDE.Support for hypothesis 9 was also found, in that the Initiative/Innovation dimensioncorrelated significantly with FDE for both the role play and the interview. Thisdimension measures one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to come up with imaginative and novel ideas in aspontaneous and effective way. It calls for both creativity and social poise, and,sometimes, risk taking in that \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccreative\u00E2\u0080\u009D solutions are offered without all the facts.Having gleaned a profile of the high FDE manager from the results obtained inStudy 2, it is still true that, a perusal of the FDE and IVD columns in Tables 17 through24 reveals a substantial number of non-significant correlations. Moreover, thosecorrelations that were significant at p < .005 fell below .30, with one exception (theinterview measure of Entrepreneurship). A rationale for the lack of criterion correlationfor IVD was provided above. Assuming that FDE was an adequate criterion measure ofone side of championship, the following question bears consideration: how does the levelof correlation reported in connection with FDE in Study 2 compare with that typicallyreported in other individual-differences research on championship? More specifically,how do the criterion correlations for scales from the four main areas or domains ofassessment\u00E2\u0080\u0094cognitive ability, personality and temperament, management simulation,209and the structured interview\u00E2\u0080\u0094compare with those typically reported in the literature?Are the present results uncharacteristically low?In order to address directly this question, previous validity research onchampionship would be needed. Since this information was not available, the level ofcriterion correlation obtained in Study 2 will be compared with that reported in metaanalyses of various predictor types (e.g., cognitive ability, personality, interview, etc.)against ratings of general management performance. This comparison will permit theresults obtained in connection with each domain of assessment (i.e., personality,cognitive ability) to be viewed in a larger context in order to assess the extent to whichcriterion correlations were: (a) uncharacteristically low, (b) uncharacteristically high, or(c) roughly typical for that domain.Cognitive ability. Not one of the cognitive ability tests correlated significantlywith FDE. It was hypothesized that intelligence and thinking fluency and diversity wouldcorrelate with dimensions of championship, but these relationships did not emerge. It ispossible that the nature of the criterion dimensions may have caused this lack ofcorrelation. Had a cognitively-oriented criterion dimension emerged from Study 1 (like\u00E2\u0080\u009Cinnovation\u00E2\u0080\u009D or \u00E2\u0080\u009Cconceptual analysis\u00E2\u0080\u009D), general intelligence and/or innovative thinkingmight have emerged as correlates. But given the present dimensional structure of thecriterion, overall cognitive ability and innovative thinking do not appear related to any ofthe scales associated with either of the two sides of championship.The present results can be considered in the context of Hunter and Hunter\u00E2\u0080\u0099s(1984) findings related to general cognitive ability. In a meta-analysis of 515 validitystudies of management performance, these authors reported a corrected (for both criterionunreliability and range restriction) validity coefficient of .53 between cognitive abilityand rated performance. Uncorrected validity coefficients ranged from roughly .25 to .30.The Hunter and Hunter results suggest that cognitive ability is a salient correlate ofoverall management performance.210Interestingly, in earlier research, Korman (1968) reported that intelligence was afair predictor of first-level supervisory performance, but not of higher-level managementperformance. He explained this difference as due to pre-selection. Although, of course,Korman (1968) could not critique the Hunter and Hunter review, it is worth noting thatthe majority of samples included in the Hunter and Hunter meta analysis consisted oflower-level managers. In contrast, the present sample consisted of primarily middle-tosenior-level managers. Korman\u00E2\u0080\u0099s earlier observations may apply to the present sample.Returning to Table 17, the reader will note that the mean scores for the presentsample on both the Wonderlic Personnel Test and the Culture Fair were above 60 (recallthat these means were based on T-scores; thus, they represent fairly high group means).The Study 2 management group appears to be a fairly select group of managers, whopossess a high level of general ability and aptitude for learning. Moreover, the lowstandard deviations reported in connection with the Wonderlic and the Culture Fairindicate that very few managers in this sample would have low scores on either of thesetwo tests. In conclusion, the low and non-significant correlations noted in Table 17 werelikely due to pre-selection, with a resulting restriction in range.Personality. A number of the personality scales correlated with FDE. Of the 28correlations that were predicted (for the CPI, 16PF, PRF, and JAS scales), the meancorrelation was .13. Individual scale-FDE correlations ranged from 0 to .28. Some ofthe predicted relationships did not emerge. Although these correlations were low, resultswere consistent across the various inventories for a given trait. That is, for scalesdesigned to measure ascendancy or dominance (e.g., CPI-Dominance, 16PF-Assertiveness), the mean correlation was .19. How do these results compare with resultsreported in the meta-analytic research?In two recent meta-analyses of personality traits and job performance, Barrick andMount (1991) and Tett, Jackson, and Rothstein (1991) reported validities for each of the\u00E2\u0080\u009CBig Five\u00E2\u0080\u009D dimensions. Focusing just on results for managers, Barrick and Mount211reported an uncorrected33mean correlation of .13 (.22) for Conscientiousness and .11(.18) for Extraversion. Mean validities for the other three dimensions of personality wereclose to zero. Tett et al. reported mean uncorrected34validity coefficients of .12 (.16) forConscientiousness and .10 (.13) for Extraversion. Their figures were based on a pooledsample of management and non-management personnel. The highest uncorrected validitycoefficient reported by Tett et al. was for Agreeableness .22 (.28).The magnitude of correlation reported in the meta-analytic research is not unlikethat found in the present study, except that Conscientious was positively correlated withratings of management performance, while it was negatively correlated with ratings onFDE [e.g., CPI-Socialization (r = -.18), CPI-Self Control (r = -.19), PRF-Impulsivity (r =.2 1)]. Barrick and Mount (1991) concluded that, for management samples,Conscientiousness and Extraversion were valid predictors of performance, but that thedegree of association was not strong. They explained this as due to the fact thatpersonality scales were not, after all, originally developed to predict performance, butrather to be valid measures of traits.In summary, the magnitude of correlation reported between the personality scalesand FDE was similar to that found in the meta-analytic research, despite the fact that, inthe latter case, the criterion of interest was general management performance. If the signof the correlations for Conscientious are reversed in the present study (to reflect the factthat FDE is largely a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbad manager\u00E2\u0080\u009D dimension given its negative, significant correlationwith OMP reported in Study 1), the prominence of Extraversion and Conscientious isevident in Study 2, just as it was in the meta-analytic review of Barrick and Mount(1991).Management simulations. While the typical validity for the in-basket reported inthe research literature is roughly .25 (e.g., Schippman, Prien, and Katz, 1990), the two inValues in brackets have been corrected for range restriction and criterion unreliability.Tett et al. corrected for criterion unreliability only.212baskets featured in Study 2 failed to correlate with either FDE or IVD. Administrativeskill does not appear to be related to championship, although it has been found to be avalid predictor of management performance (e.g., Hakstian and Harlos, 1993).In contrast, results for the role play were much more favorable. The relativesuperiority of assessment centers (the managerial equivalent of a work sample) andsituational exercises is generally acknowledged by the majority of reviewers, with theexception of Hunter and Hunter (1984) who stressed the superiority of cognitive abilitytests. Reviews of assessment centers indicate that the typical validity is about .40 (Hunterand Hunter, 1984; Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, & Kirsch, 1984).The criterion correlations reported in Table 23 for the role play scales ranged from.08 to .26 with a mean correlation of .18. The results from the role play scalesdemonstrated higher criterion correlation than those achieved with the personality scales.Although the individual role play scales did not correlate more highly with the FDEcriterion than did the personality scales, they did, as a group, show a more consistentrelationship. This was, in part, a function of their high inter-correlation. It may also havereflected the fact that the role play scale scores were not based on self-report data, like thepersonality data. Since the FDE criterion was obtained via supervisory ratings, thecriterion correlations in Table 23 reflect the degree of association between other- (rater-)report and supervisory-report ratings (recall that the role plays were scored by two raterswho observed a videotape of the manager interacting in the role plays).Both the criterion and the role play scales were based on behavior, the latter,admittedly, based on considerably less behavior than that available to the supervisor inconnection with the criterion data. Nevertheless, this fact may, in part, account for thegenerally higher validities found in connection with the role play in the present study, andthe generally favorable results summarized in the meta-analytic research on assessmentcenters. Still, the level of validity found in connection with the role play in Study 2 waslower than that typically reported. Assessment centers, however, typically contain a213number of situational exercises, each of which might be scored by a number of raters.Role plays are typically included in assessment centers, but may be only one of severalexercises employed. Thus, to some extent, the present comparison may not be a fair one,given that overall assessment center ratings are typically based on considerably more dataand, therefore, may be more stable and valid than ratings based solely on performance ina role play.Structured interview. Results for the interview were, like those reported for therole play, relatively positive. Four of the 11 Interview scales correlated significantly withFDE, and these correlations ranged from .21 to .33. These figures certainly appearfavorable when compared with the Hunter and Hunter (1984) meta-analysis, in whichthey reported an average validity of .10 for the interview. More recent reviews have beenmore positive, however. A meta-analysis by Wiesner & Cronshaw (1988) and a recentseries of studies by Motowidlo, Carter, Dunnette, Tippins, Werner, Burnett, and Vaughan(1992) suggest that the validity of the structured interview is roughly .20 to .25 forpredicting overall management performance (after corrections for criterion unreliabilityand range restriction). These latter figures are likely more reasonable comparativestandards for the present study, since a structured interview was used in Study 2 in that:(a) dimensional rating scales were used and, (b) an interview panel was employed.Like the correlational results discussed in connection with the role play,correlations between the interview scales and the FDE criterion were based on otherreport data in both the predictor and the criterion. The Interview scales may possesssuperior criterion validity to that achieved with the personality and cognitive ability testsbecause of this fact. Nevertheless, the interview performed well in the present study,particularly the Entrepreneurship scale\u00E2\u0080\u0094a dimension conceptually related to the FDEcriterion. The level of correlation achieved (r = .33) was similar to that often reported inconnection with situational interviews. Although not based on a job (or, in this case,214criterion) analysis, the interview questions and rating scales were designed to measure aconstruct intimately related to the championship criterion of FDE.Regression AnalysesThe purpose in this section was to boost criterion correlation through thedevelopment of optimally-predictive linear combinations of AC battery scales. This goalwas only partially achieved. It was possible to bolster significantly the level of predictionfor FDE through the use of a multiple regression approach. This approach did not,however, pay dividends with respect to IVD.Although the disappointing results for IVD may be a function of the psychometriclimitations of the criterion, the fact remains that the heroic side of championship was notpredictable at practically-useful levels of validity in the present study. Given the lowcorrelations between IVD and the AC battery scales, there was little hope of improvingoverall IVD prediction through the use of multiple regression. Nevertheless, inclusioncriteria were dropped from p < .005 to p < .05 and an attempt was made to identifypredictor sets that correlated significantly with IVD. These attempts were not successful.On the other hand, prediction of FDE was bolstered by use of multiple regressiontechniques. Results for the PRF and CPI were the most promising of the inventory-specific linear combinations. If the results reported in connection with these two scaleswere to replicate in future research, one could use either of these two inventories topredict FDE, by linearly combining scores at the scale level and using the regressionweights reported in Tables 25 and 27 to differentially weight the scales. Such anapproach would permit a broad-based assessment of personality, while also permitting themeasurement of a special-purpose, linear composite, designed to predict Forceful Driveand Expediency. Such application should, however, likely be postponed until a parallelset of correlational analyses have been conducted in a new sample\u00E2\u0080\u0094a sample not used todevelop the regression weights. The present weights may be unstable.215Multiple regression results for both the role play and the interview weredisappointing, given that such a high percentage of the scales correlated significantly withFDE. These disappointing results were due, largely, to multicollinearity: a high degree ofinter-correlation among the independent variables in the regression equation. Theinterview and role play scales show poor discriminant validity.The dimension scores arising from these two assessment procedures were basedon ratings (pooled across two raters). It is possible that the dimensions inter-correlated tosuch a high degree due to rating bias, most notably halo. Although raters were carefullytrained and the rating task was structured in that each dimension was anchored by variousbehavioral descriptors, it is possible that the ratings reflect an overall impression, eitherfavorable or unfavorable of the ratee. An alternate and equally plausible explanation forthe high degree of inter-correlation is that the various dimensions measure one higher-order construct (something analogous to social competence or skill seems the most likelycandidate). If a ratee is socially-poised, able to think on his/her feet, persuasive, tactful,and otherwise effective, they will likely receive high scores on the various dimensions.Since these are the same interpersonal traits found repeatedly to correlate with ratings ofchampionship in Study 2, it is not surprising to see the relatively large number ofinterview and role play dimensions that correlated with UDE.Of final note, a shrunken multiple correlation coefficient of .42 was achieved forthe cross-inventory linear combination made up of four scales from the CPI, PRF, and16PF. Although this level of criterion-related validity might not hold up in a new sample,a modest decrement in criterion-related validity would still leave a linear combinationwith a practically useful level of validity. By using four scales from the 16PF, CPI, andPRF, a fairly high degree of predictive accuracy was attained for FDE.Even if this equation held up upon cross validation, would organizations want toscreen in managers with high predicted scores on FDE? As discussed earlier in Study 1,moderate levels of rule breaking, forcefulness, impatience, and competitiveness may be216adaptive in the context of promoting innovation, particularly when there might beconsiderable resistance to change. But how advisable would it be to select in managerswith an extreme FDE profile, perhaps a profile approaching a clinical definition ofpsychopathy? Probably not advisable, given the upheaval they might cause during timeswhen competitiveness and aggressiveness were neither adaptive nor required.Thus, if the present results were used as a basis upon which to make selectiondecisions, it would be prudent to examine applicants\u00E2\u0080\u0099 mean scores on the variouspredictor scales used to predict FDE. Extremely elevated scores on CPI Socialization andPRF Aggression, for example, might indicate areas of concern that would lead one toreject such applicants. Indeed, if one were selecting for both championship and integrity,one would be caught in a bind between choosing an applicant because of their high scoreon Socialization (indicating integrity) and yet wishing to reject that same applicant fortheir low predicted score on FDE.Contrasted Groups AnalysisThe contrasted groups analyses allowed a closer examination of the profile of thehigh FDE manager. These analyses contributed little to a better understanding of WD,however. Beginning with results from the discriminant analysis, an equation wasobtained for low vs. high FDE group that led to a remarkably high degree of classificationaccuracy (a hit rate of 95%). As acknowledged in a previous section, however, theseresults should not be understood as reflecting the degree of accurate classificationpossible using the 10 scales listed in Table 32 with a new sample of managers. Thecaveat in this section is the same one issued above in the discussion of the multipleregression results. Cross validation is needed.An interesting feature of Table 32 is that four of the 10 scales included in the DFequation originated from the interview. Given the prominence of this assessmentprocedure in the DF, a separate, supplementary analysis was run which included the fiveInterview scales that correlated significantly (p < .01) with FDE. The hit rate fell from217that reported in Table 33 (95%), but was still very respectable (80%). Thus, 32 out of the40 cases were correctly classified. The implication from this result is that the use of astructured interview procedure might, on its own, pay dividends in accurately classifyingmanagers as either low or high on FDE.In summary, the discriminant function analyses did little to change theconceptualization of championship. The results echoed and supported those reported inother sections of Study 2. The high FDE manager continues to be described as driven,outgoing, assertive, independent, and opportunistic, and as willing to take risks. Thestructure coefficients reported in Table 32 stress the salience of: (a) an entrepreneurialapproach (a willingness to take risks and innovate), (b) an interpersonal approachcharacterized by assertiveness and extraversion, (c) drive, impatience, and persistence,and (d) a high degree of composure and level-headedness. These were the individual-differences characteristics that were found to maximally differentiate between the twoextreme groups.Results from the biodata form lend further support to the results reported in theprevious sections of Study 2. High FDE managers were more likely than low FDEmanagers to use a directive, and less likely to use a collaborative and participative,supervisory style. These results were consistent with and related back to the correlationalresults reported in connection with dominance. Managers who use a collaborativesupervisory style (low FDE) are probably less likely to interact with others in a dominant,forceful, and aggressive manner. Thus, although the biodata form items measured adifferent type of information from the personality tests, for example (supervisory style vs.traits), a familiar and common theme emerged.Also of note, the high FDE managers tended to see their business and personallives as connected to a greater extent than did the low FDE managers. This result,considered in combination with the JAS-FDE correlations, indicated that the high FDEgroup were likely job involved and absorbed in their work. Other results suggested that218high FDE managers saw themselves as conscientious, but not to such a degree as did thelow FDE managers. This result was consistent with the negative correlation foundbetween the CPI Socialization scale and FDE. The high FDE management group wassomewhat more rebellious and willing to go around authority.None of the high FDE managers reported needing more work/supervisoryexperience, while six of the 20 low FDE managers did so. This latter result leads to aview of the high FDE manager as a person who sees him/herself as relatively well-seasoned and experienced. Although the proportional difference was not significant, alarger proportion (75% vs. 45%) of the high FDE managers reported work-relatedachievements when asked to reflect on their major accomplishments in life.The Case StudiesAn illustrative case study approach concluded the reporting of results for Study 2.The objective was to use the case study as a vehicle to illustrate or \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbring to life\u00E2\u0080\u009D findingsfrom the other analyses. Clearly, the cases of Mr. A and Mr. W were illustrations of verydifferent people with different needs and interests. Moreover, the differences found weregenerally illustrative of relationships discovered from the other analyses. The variousmethods of analysis employed in Study 2 led to convergence, or, in the language ofqualitative analysis, triangulation. A clear profile of the manager low and high on FDEhas emerged from the various analysis strategies.Overall SummaryThe individual-differences characteristics that have been reported have beendrawn primarily from the dark side of championship. Support was, however, found forthe majority of hypotheses outlined in Table 14, based on the individual-differencescharacteristics of the champion gleaned from the literature review summarized in Table 3.Thus, although only one side of championship was predictable in Study 2, its correlateswere similar to those reported by previous researchers.219The trait profile of the high IVD manager remains a mystery at the conclusion ofStudy 2. Such a gap is clearly undesirable, given the prominence that has been given theheroic side of championship. Although the psychometric shortcomings of the IVDcriterion scales may, in part, account for the lack of significant findings, the magnitude ofthe effect suggests that criterion measurement may not be the sole culprit. It may be thatthe general approach to measurement taken in the assessment center is at fault. It ispossible that a measurement approach designed around samples of behavior rather thansigns or indicators might be a more fruitful approach, at least in connection with IVD.Such an approach was taken in Study 3. The behavioral consistency model ofWemimont and Campbell (1968) was used as a guiding framework in the development ofa low-fidelity championship simulation. This instrument was designed to measure thecriterion dimensions arising from the analyses in Study 1. Given the degree of built-inpoint-to-point correspondence between the instrument and the criterion, the hope was thatvalidity would be boosted over that which was achieved with the AC battery scales thatwere, after all, designed to measure constructs not directly related to championship.220STUDY 3: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A LOW-FIDELITYSIMULATIONAs a supplement to the procedures described in Study 2, a low-fidelitychampionship simulation was developed, based on the behavioral consistency model(Wemimont & Campbell, 1968). The focus remained on criterion-related validity inStudy 3 (as in Study 2), and the stmctural model of championship described in Study 1was used as a starting point for instrument development. Before describing thedevelopment of the simulation, work samples and simulations in general will bediscussed in order to provide a context and theoretical rationale for Study 3.An Overview of The Behavioral Consistency ModelThe aim of most selection procedures is to be valid, practical, and legallydefensible. The accurate prediction of future job performance\u00E2\u0080\u0094criterion-related validity\u00E2\u0080\u0094is a necessary but not sufficient cause for celebration. Other concerns relate to thepracticality of the selection procedure: how long it will take to administer and score. Aswell, increasingly, attention has focused on issues related to the legal defensibility ofselection devices.One approach to instrument development designed to meet all three goals is thebehavioral consistency model (Wernimont & Campbell, 1968). Wernimont andCampbell\u00E2\u0080\u0099s model is grounded in the logic that the closer the predictor is to the criterion,the greater its potential validity. They noted that the standard validity model was tooclosely-tied to the use of tests as signs or indicators of predispositions. They argued thatit would be more fruitful to focus on samples of behavior instead. Thus, theyrecommended the development of predictor measures that were as close to the criterion aspossible. The authors cited advantages such as: (a) increased criterion-related validity,(b) reduction of the problem of faking, and (c) reduction in charges of discrimination andinvasion of privacy in testing.221Asher and Sciarrino (1974) later remarked on a key implication of the behavioralconsistency model: predictors possessing a high degree of point-to-point correspondencewith the criterion should be better predictors than those more dissimilar to the criterion.Following this logic, tests designed as mini-replicas of specific aspects of the job shouldhave close point-to-point correspondence with the criterion and, hence, possess goodcriterion-related validity. Most management simulations have been developed around thebehavioral consistency model and have incorporated the point-to-point correspondencenotion (e.g., in-basket exercises).Work Samples and Simulations35Both work samples and simulations are examples of performance tests, designedto evaluate what a person can do rather than what one knows (Cascio & Phillips, 1979).A work sample is an example of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s job, work, or profession. A typing test given to asecretarial applicant is an example of a work sample; a typing test is a mini-replica of thejob. A simulation is a work sample, but a simulated one (Howard, 1983). A popularexample of a simulation used in management assessment is the in-basket exercise. Thein-basket exercise is a simulation because the stimulus materials used do not exactlymirror the on-the-job situation.While all simulations are work samples, not all work samples are necessarilysimulations. Those work samples that are actual mini-replicas of the job are not referredto as simulations, since nothing is simulated. Instead, aspects of the job are recreated andadministered to the test taker.Work sample tests involve the test taker in performing a task or set of tasks whichhave direct and central relevance to the job in question; their relevance is typicallydetermined from a job analysis. Work samples have been categorized as either motor orverbal (Asher & Sciarrino, 1974). Motor work samples involve the physicalmanipulation of things (e.g., operating a typewriter), while verbal work samples involveThe reader will find it helpful to refer to Figure 1 while reading this section.222Figure 1. Management Simulations in the Larger Context ofWork SamplesNVerbal Work SamplesManagementSimulations/Low-FidelityWork Samples or Performance TestsMotor Work Samples/Verbal Work SampleNot SimulatedHigh-Fidelity223a problem situation that is primarily language-oriented or people-oriented. When used inthe context of management selection, virtually all work samples have been of the verbaltype.Work samples vary along a key dimension: the extent to which test takers eitherengage in work behaviors or are asked to act as fthey were actually on the job. Ingeneral, motor work samples tend to engage the examinee in behavior that is essentiallyidentical to that in the job under examination. A typing test is an example of a motorwork sample. An example of a verbal work sample might be a technical magazineeditor\u00E2\u0080\u0099s test designed to evaluate writing skills, choice of picture headlines, layout, etc.(Howard, 1983). Some work samples, however, can also be characterized assimulations. As noted earlier, a simulation is a work sample, but is a simulated one. Thesimulation is an imitative representation of the work involved in the job.Virtually all of the commonly-applied work-sample exercises for managementselection are verbal work-sample simulations (Thornton & Byham, 1982). A variety ofsimulations36have been developed over the years. Some examples are: (a) the situationalinterview (Latham, Saari, Pursell, & Campion, 1980), (b) the in-basket exercise (Lopez,1965), (c) the leaderless group discussion (Bass, 1954; Wollowick & McNamara, 1969),and (d) the small business game (Hinrichs, 1969). Initial applications of simulations infield settings showed considerable promise. For example, Bray and Campbell (1968) andBray and Grant (1966) documented impressive evidence for the predictive validity ofmanagement simulation exercises.Results of meta-analyses (e.g., Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Schmitt et al., 1984) havealso showed favorable results. Hunter and Hunter (1984) reported that work samplespossessed the highest mean validity of all predictors (r = .54) across a variety of jobsagainst a criterion of supervisory ratings of job performance. The mean validity of work36 Henceforth, the term simulation will be used to refer to managerial work sample exercises, such as inbasket exercises, role-plays, and business games.224samples exceeded that associated with cognitive ability tests by the very-slight margin of.01.Simulations vary in the extent to which they present the test taker with realisticmaterials and equipment. Recently, Motowidlo, Dunnette, and Carter (1990)distinguished between high- and low-fidelity simulations.37 High fidelity simulations userealistic materials and equipment to represent a task situation; they provide test takerswith an opportunity to respond as if they were actually in the job situation. Examples ofhigh-fidelity simulations include the in-basket exercise and the role play, both often usedin assessment centers. In a low-fidelity simulation, test takers might be presented with awritten description of a work situation and be asked to describe how they would respond,instead of having them actually carry out some action or behavior in response to the teststimuli. An example of a low-fidelity simulation is the situational interview (Latham etal., 1980).The strength of the simulation\u00E2\u0080\u0094whether high or low fidelity\u00E2\u0080\u0094appears to lie inthe fact that it incorporates elements of the criterion one is attempting to predict. Basedon a job analysis, simulations possess a high degree of content (and face) validity. Theveridicality of the point-to-point correspondence argument forwarded by Asher andSciarrino (1974) has been supported by the favorable results of two meta-analysesreported earlier (Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Schmitt et al., 1984). Management simulationsappear to possess criterion-related validity that is superior to tests designed to measuresigns of predispositions.Although it may seem preferable to design and use high- vs. low-fidelitysimulations, given th\u00C3\u00A7ir greater realism and documented validity in assessment centers,they present at least two challenges in practice. First, in order to achieve high fidelity,37 The termfidelity used in connection with simulations by Motowidlo et al. (1990) should not be confusedwith the classic psychological testing definition of fidelity (and bandwidth) discussed by Cronbach andGleser (1965). In the context used by Motowidlo et al., fidelity does not refer to the degree of clarity ordependability of information (typically associated with narrow band tests).225simulations must typically be complex both in terms of their presentation and supportmaterials. As a result, in-basket exercises, to use one example of a high-fidelitysimulation, can be both expensive and time-consuming to develop. Secondly, high-fidelity simulations pose a scoring challenge in two ways. They can be very timeconsuming to score. Assessors must be trained; in some types of high-fidelitysimulations, like role play exercises and business games, assessees must be carefullyobserved in order for the assessors to rate behavior. As well, time must be taken tocombine information across raters in order to obtain summary ratings of performance. Asecond area of concern related to scoring is inter-rater reliability, always an issue whenscoring is not objective.Low-Fidelity SimulationsBecause of the concerns raised above, Motowidlo et al. (1990) and Motowidloand Tippins (1993) developed and validated an objectively-scored low-fidelitysimulation. Their objective was to achieve levels of validity comparable to thoseassociated with high-fidelity simulations, but without the associated costs. Thus, theymoved down the fidelity continuum but still hoped to take advantage of the predictivelogic of the behavioral consistency model.In a sample of 120 entry-level management incumbents in thetelecommunications industry, Motowidlo et al. (1990) reported correlations betweenscores on their situational judgment test and supervisory ratings of job performance in therange of .28 (p < .01) to .37 (p < .01). In a more recent article, Motowidlo and Tippins(1993) reported correlations of .25 and .20 between their instrument and rated jobperformance. These correlations were not corrected for either criterion unreliability orrestriction in range.As noted earlier, the situational interview (Latham et al., 1980) is also an exampleof a low-fidelity simulation. The validity evidence on the situational interview isencouraging as well. In a review article, Latham (1989) summarized several studies on226the reliability and validity of the situational interview. Concurrent validity coefficientsranged from .30 to .46, while predictive validity coefficients ranged from .14 to .45against criteria of supervisory ratings and sales data. It appears, then, that low-fidelitysimulations based on the behavioral consistency model can achieve respectable levels ofcriterion-related validity when evaluated against both objective and subjectiveperformance criteria.Low-fidelity simulations have typically been developed to predict overallperformance for specific jobs or job families (i.e., management and sales positions). Asingle score is computed that represents the extent to which one is likely to do well in agiven job. These overall scores have no direct or implied psychological meaning.Rather, they serve a predictive, rather than interpretive, purpose. In contrast, it was thepurpose of Study 3 to design a simulation to measure a construct or role, that of thechampion. Scale development procedures typically used in connection with low-fidelitysimulations were adapted to the needs of the present application.An Overview of the Development of the Management Practices Simulation (MPS)38Motowidlo et al. (1990) broke down the development of their low-fidelitysimulation into the following steps. First, several hundred behavioral incidents weregenerated, each reflecting examples of managerial effectiveness and ineffectiveness.These critical incidents were then used to script scenarios or task situations that were thengiven to managers who wrote sentences describing effective things that they might do inresponse to each scenario. Finally, each response for each scenario was rated foreffectiveness by a group of experienced, senior managers, in order to develop an\u00E2\u0080\u009Ceffectiveness\u00E2\u0080\u009D scoring key for the instrument. In its final form, test takers werepresented with a series of scenarios/situations and, for each, were asked to select the one38 The simulation was given a generic, non-descriptive name, the Management Practices Simulation,rather than a name alluding to championship, in order to disguise the purpose of measurement.227response they would most likely take and the one they would least likely take in eachsituation.Some of the approach and logic outlined above was retained in the developmentof the MPS, but some innovations in development and scoring were introduced that setthe present instrument apart from previous low-fidelity simulations. These innovationswere introduced, in large part, because the objective in Study 3 was to design a low-fidelity simulation to measure a multi-dimensional construct, rather than a single job orjob family, as was the objective, for example, in the typi\u00C3\u00A8al application of the low-fidelitysimulation. Since the meaning of high scores on the MPS was of interest, carefulattention was given to the development of content-valid, homogeneous subscalesdesigned to measure the first- and second-order factors of championship identified inconnection with criterion development in Study 1. The results of Study 1 were used as ablueprint for instrument development. The act statements were re-visited and adapted foruse in the simulation.Recall that acts (behavioral incidents) were generated by three panels ofmanagers/incumbents representing examples of both championship and non-championship (refer to Phase I of Study 1 for a detailed description of the act generation).This early stage paralleled the approach of Motowidlo et al. (1990). Scenarios were thenwritten based on: (a) the behavioral incidents, (b) research and popular business literatureon championship, and (c) consultation with experienced managers. The purpose at thisstage was to draft scenarios that would enable the present researcher to use the actsalready generated at the conclusion ofStudy 1 as response options. Thus, the acts wereused, in part, to script scenarios, but their primary purpose was to serve as responseoptions already keyed for championship and dimensional membership.The key innovation in the development of the MPS was the use of factor analysisto develop response options and a scoring key. Decisions related to response optionkey.ing were made on the basis of the results of the factor analyses conducted in Study 1,228rather than through the use of expert panels. This approach enabled the instrument to bescored for a number of dimensions, rather than just overall championship (analogous tooverall effectiveness, as has been the norm with previously-developed low-fidelitysimulations).The factor analyses in Study 1 accomplished what the subject matter expertstypically do when they rate the effectiveness of each response option for a given scenarioin the development of a situational interview or low-fidelity simulation. The results ofthe factor analyses enabled acts to be: (a) classified as either champion (analogous toeffective) or non-champion (analogous to ineffective), and (b) assigned to a specificdimension of championship (e.g., Self Promotion, Rebellious Drive). The challenge,then, was to draft scenarios that would fit with the response options already generated andkeyed for championship, thus allowing the simulation to be scored for the 10 first- andtwo second-order factor scales identified in Study 1.What was needed was a series of contexts within which the keyed acts could beembedded as response options. The contexts would provide challenging situations withinwhich a champion could emerge and show him/herself to be champion-like by endorsingresponse options keyed as reflecting championship. The challenge of drafting appropriatescenarios was met with only minor modifications (typically stylistic) needed to theresponse options.The fact that response options were generated and keyed prior to the scripting ofscenarios was, perhaps, the biggest difference between the methodology used in Study 3and the approach of previous developers of low-fidelity simulations. This approach was,however, followed for good reason. The scales generated at the conclusion of Study 1represented carefully-constructed, empirically-based dimensions of the construct understudy. This dimensional work was an important first step in the understanding of theconstruct under study and it was considered desirable to attempt to measure these samedimensions with the simulation. Had scenarios been scripted and new response options229generated, it is likely that the simulation would not have been scoreable for more thanjust overall championship. At the least, a new factor analysis of the simulation responseoptions would have been needed in order to identify subscales, and this factor analysiswoUld, by necessity, have been based on a relatively small sample size (n 150). Since acareful structural analysis of championship had already been accomplished in Study 1,this model of championship was applied in Study 3 for the purpose of scale definition.One concern with the present approach was that the keyings based on the factoranalysis might not be relevant when the response options were considered embeddedwithin the context of the scenarios. Thus, scales that emerged in the context of self- andsupervisory ratings, might no longer be present when measured with the MPS. Thisconcern was addressed empirically in Study 3, by examining the degree of correlationbetween the various MPS scale items and their conceptually-related criterion scales asmeasured in Study 1. Thus, a response option keyed for Rebellious Drive in the MPSshould correlate with the first-order criterion factor scale Rebellious Drive. Thesecriterion-related validity issues were considered in selecting final item sets for the MPS,along with other relevant data.MethodParticipants and SettingThe participants were 147 entry, middle-, and senior-level managers at BC Tel (asubset of the 174 managers from Study 2 who agreed to participate in Study 3,representing an 84% response rate). Of the 147 participants, 37 were female and 110were male. Once again, the sample was composed of managers who participated in athree-day assessment center at BC Tel between the years 1989 and 1994.Participation was voluntary but encouraged by the Human Resource coordinator.Considerable effort was made to obtain the participation of all 174 participants who tookpart in Study 2. As an inducement, each of the 174 managers contacted was promised a230personalized feedback package in which their results on the simulation would be reported(see Appendix 0 for a sample feedback report).Data collection began in early July 1994. After roughly six weeks, each of theparticipants who had not returned a simulation was contacted by telephone andencouraged to participate. A second, follow-up by telephone was done in the middle ofSeptember, 1994. Data collection was terminated in late September.Development of the Management Practices SimulationScripting of the scenarios. As noted above, a large pool of acts (hereafter referredto as items or response options), was available for use in the simulation, already keyed fordimension membership and championship vs. non-championship. The challenge, then,was to compose several scenarios in order to provide a number of contexts within whichthe various response options would represent reasonable ways of responding. Thepresent author was guided by three sources of information in scripting these scenarios.Firstly, and in all cases, the themes of the various scenarios were taken from thebehavioral incidents generated in Study 1. Secondly, biographical vignettes of well-known champions were reviewed. Pinchot\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1985) book Intrapreneuring and Peters\u00E2\u0080\u0099(1987) Thriving on Chaos were valuable sources of information in this regard. Thirdly,the present author informally consulted with several business managers and asked them todescribe situations in which they had seen champions emerge.Twelve preliminary scenarids were drafted. An attempt was made to representexamples of both product and process innovations. As well, the various stages ofinnovation were featured, from idea conception to implementation. In each scenario, thetest-taker would be presented with a role or identity (e.g., a middle manager), a context(e.g., you are working for a large \u00E2\u0080\u009Chigh tech\u00E2\u0080\u009D Canadian organization), and a problemsituation (e.g., a new, but risky product innovation). They would then be instructed toimagine themselves in such a situation and indicate how likely it is that they wouldrespond in each of a number of ways.231Generating the initial pool of response options. A total of 124 items were used asresponse options. The 92 items obtained at the conclusion of Phase IV of Study 1 wereused as well as an additional 32 items taken from the results of the first factor analysis.These 32 items were added in order to obtain adequate measurement with the simulationat the dimension level. If only 92 items had been converted to response options, each ofthe 10 dimensions would have been measured by only 8 to 10 response options. Theaddition of 32 response options meant that each dimension could, initially, be measuredby 12 or 13 response options, allowing a modest number of items to be deleted from eachdimension following an item analysis of the simulation.Fitting the response options to the scenarios. The 124 items were then distributedacross the 12 scenarios. Some items, if modified slightly, could be placed with a numberof the scenarios, while others could be placed in only one or two. In the process of fittingitems to scenarios, it became clear that two of the scenarios were problematic; they fitwith very few of the items. Although most scenarios could be matched with 15 to 20items, these two problematic scenarios fit with only five or six items. They were,therefore, deleted. An additional scenario was deleted because it was redundant. Thus 9of the 12 scenarios were retained.An attempt was made to include response options representing a variety ofdimensions in a given scenario. It was considered undesirable to use only responseoptions originating from Persistent Dominance, for example, in a given scenario (in mostcases, four or five dimensions were represented in each scenario). This step was taken inorder to minimize the likelihood that test takers would \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfigure out\u00E2\u0080\u009D the test, understandwhat was being measured, and, perhaps as a result, fall into a response set within ascenario. As well, this step ensured that a given dimension was measured in a variety ofcontexts (scenarios). If a test taker endorsed response options keyed for the dimensionCollaboration and Support, for example, across a variety of scenarios, this would be a232compelling indication of an orientation toward collaborating with and supporting withothers.Drafting of instructions. Although each scenario provided a clear set ofinstructions to the test-taker, in the interests of thoroughness and standardization, a one-page set of instructions was drafted to introduce the MPS and provide an illustration ofhow it should be completed. Test takers were instructed to act as if they were themanager in each scenario and indicate what they would do. As well, the instructionsstressed that all response options following each scenario should be rated, not just theresponse options they considered best and worst, as in the Motowidlo et al. (1990)simulation. This was done in the interests of boosting the reliability and validity of the10 individual dimension scores by obtaining measurement on a larger number of itemsand, therefore, having a larger item pool for the item analysis.Pilot testing the simulation. A preliminary version of the MPS was administeredto a sample of 14 managers working for a variety of lower-mainland organizations. Thepresent author interviewed each manager after s/he had completed the simulation andasked for his/her reactions. Feedback from the pilot study participants led to minorchanges in the scenarios. For example, abbreviations like \u00E2\u0080\u009CR&D\u00E2\u0080\u009D were changed to\u00E2\u0080\u009CResearch and Development\u00E2\u0080\u009D, a product innovation was replaced with a processinnovation, and, in general, details were added to each scenario, providing the test takerwith more Information about the context.As well, response options that did not appear to fit the scenario they followedwere moved. In some cases, the response option could be slightly modified and retainedin the same scenario, while, in other cases, response options were moved to a moresuitable scenario. After incorporating the changes suggested by the pilot studyparticipants, the simulation was ready for administration. At the same time, a Form B ofthe MPS was developed to obtain social desirability ratings on the response options.233Rating of the MPS response options for social desirability. As in Study 1, thesocial desirability of the items (response options) in the MPS simulation was a concern.Ideally, each of the 10 dimensions measured by the MPS would be balanced for socialdesirability across champion and non-champion items. Or, alternatively, this balancemight be achieved at the second-order factor level. In order to obtain the informationneeded for a social desirability analysis, Form B of the MPS (see Appendix P) wasdeveloped and administered to 16 managers who rated each response option for its socialdesirability.The respondents were instructed to judge the desirability of each response optionin the context of each scenario. Form B of the MPS was identical in item content to thefull (self-report) version of the MPS except that the instructions were varied and, ofcourse, the response scale was modified to a nine-point social desirability responseformat. Although the response options had been rated for social desirability in theirprevious form as items in Study 1, these ratings were not, of course, made in the contextof the scenarios used in the MPS. Thus, each social desirability rater was provided withForm B of the MPS and asked to indicate how desirable they judged each of the responseoptions to be for the given scenario.Distribution of the MPS to the assessment center participants. The present authorassembled a package that was mailed to the participants that contained: (a) a ManagementPractices Simulation (see Appendix Q), (b) a covering letter from the present author, (c) acovering letter from the Director of Human Resources, and (d) an envelope stampedConfidential and Personal to be used to return the completed simulations. Instructionsindicated that the simulations were to be returned, sealed, in the envelope to a contactperson in Human Resources, care of the present author. As noted earlier, each participantwas promised a personalized feedback report, in which his/her results on the simulationwould be featured.234The Criterion MeasureThe questionnaire used to collect criterion data on championship was described inconnection with Study 2. Once again, the first- and second-order factor scales obtained atthe conclusion of Study 1 were used to compute scale scores for the 147 participants inStudy 3. Scores for the 147 managers were computed for: (a) scales arising from thefirst-order factor analyses\u00E2\u0080\u0094Persistent Dominance, Impatient Expediency, RebelliousDrive, Self Promotion, Confrontive Candor, Influence & Political Savvy, DrivenCommitment, Immediate Responsiveness, Collaboration & Support, and Visibility &Growth Seeking, (b) scales arising from the second-order factor analyses\u00E2\u0080\u0094Forceful Drive& Expediency and Influence & Visible Drive, (c) the 5-item supervisory-report criterionmeasure of championship, and (d) the 36-item BOS measure of OMP.Data AnalysisScale DevelopmentThe item-level analyses carried out in this section were designed to produce twolevels of scale scores for the MPS, primary and secondary, corresponding to the first- andsecond-order factor scales reported in Study 1. This was accomplished by examiningboth reliability (internal consistency) as well as criterion-related validity informationwhile carrying out the item analyses. These primary and secondary scales were designed,therefore, to mirror the criterion scales developed and discussed in connection with Study1.When analyzing each of the 10 primary and two secondary scales, four pieces ofitem-level information were examined: (a) item-total correlation (in order to maximizescale internal consistency reliability), (b) item-criterion correlation, in order to maximizethe criterion-related validity of the scale, (c) item mean social desirability (in order toachieve a balance on social desirability for the champion and non-champion items), and(d) balance of the number of champion and non-champion items within each scale (tocontrol for acquiescence).235The 10 primary MPS scales were developed first. A similar item-level analysiswas then conducted in order to develop the two secondary MPS scales. Thus, the 124items were re-examined in light of the four item-analytic criteria described above.Following the development of the primary and secondary scales, the issue ofincremental validity was considered. The MPS scales were used in combination with theAC battery scales that, in Study 2, showed the highest multivariate correlation with thecriteria. Multiple regression techniques were used to examine the extent to which theMPS secondary scales boosted the level of criterion correlation accomplished with thepredictive equations reported in Table 31. Since Study 3 is based on a subset of the 174Study 2 participants, it was necessary to re-compute the multiple regression resultsinvolving the AC battery scales for the present analyses in order to provide a baselineagainst which the incremental validity of the MPS scales could be examined.Examination ofPrimary and Secondary Scale Construct ValidityFollowing the scale development analyses, issues related to the construct validityof the MPS scales were examined. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of theprimary scales were undertaken in order to examine the extent to which the factorialstructure of the MPS mirrored that found in connection with the first-order criterionfactor scales. In the case of the exploratory analysis, the 10 MPS primary scales weresubjected to an unweighted least-squares common factor analysis (assuming a two-factormodel), followed by a Harris-Kaiser transformation at three different degrees of obliquity(c =0, .25, and .5); the best solution was chosen on the basis of complexity andhyperplanar count. This exploratory analysis was undertaken in order to examine thestructure of the MPS scales unencumbered by any a priori imposed structural target.A confirmatory factor analysis was then undertaken. The common patternobtained via the Meredith (1964) Method One procedure in Study 1 was used as a targetmatrix, and the unrotated MPS factor pattern was transformed via standard oblique236procrustes techniques, to fit this target. The degree of fit obtained by both the exploratoryand confirmatory factor analyses was then estimated with congruence coefficients.Next, two multi-trait multi-method (MTMM) matrices were constructed (for theprimary and secondary scales, respectively) in order to examine the patterns ofconvergence and divergence between the scales measured by the two methods (themanagement simulation and the supervisory-report data). Finally, in the interests offurther exploring the psychological meaning of the MPS scales, bivariate correlationswere computed between the MPS primary and secondary scales and the variouscomponents of the AC battery listed in Table 15.ResultsPsychometric Properties of the Primary and Secondary MPS ScalesReliability, validity, social desirability, and summary scale information for the 10primary and two secondary MPS scales are reported in Table See Appendix R for adetailed listing of the item content of the primary and secondary MPS scales.Following the various item-level analyses, 87 of the original pool of 124 itemswere retained in connection with the 10 primary scales. Eight of the 10 scales listed inTable 36 were reasonably well-balanced for numbers of champion and non-championitems. Influence and Political Savvy and Collaboration and Support were not adequatelybalanced. A good balance of champion and non-champion items was achieved on theForceful Drive and Expediency (FDE) secondary scale, while the Influence and VisibleDrive (IVD) scale was, like two of its five primary elements, unbalanced, containingmore than twice the number of champion as non-champion items. In general, many fewernon-champion items were available in connection with the MPS primary scales related toIVD, making it difficult, therefore, to properly balance the primary and secondary scales.The MPS primary and secondary scales have been given the same labels as their criterion counterpartsfrom Study 1, given that these scales contain very similar item content. They are distinguished from thecriterion scales by the prefix \u00E2\u0080\u009CMPS\u00E2\u0080\u009D in the prose that follows.237Table 36Psychometric Properties of the Primary and Secondary MPS ScalesMPS Scale # C # NC SD SD 1st-Order FDE IVDitems items C NC a Crit. r Crit. r Crit. rThe Primary ScalesPersistent Dominance 6 4 6.20 3.66 .48 .25 (.27) .20 (.21) -.04(-.04)Impatient Expediency 4 6 7.41 2.51 .76 .13 (.14) .17 (.18) .12 (.13)Rebellious Drive 5 5 6.84 3.54 .70 .23 (.26) .21 (.22) .07 (.07)Self Promotion 5 4 5.73 4.96 .65 .26 (.29) .14 (.15) .02 (.02)Confrontive Candor 6 4 4.76 4.13 .49 .10 (.11) .27 (.28) -.03(-.03)Influence & Pol. Savvy 7 0 2.76 N/A .45 .18 (.20) .19 (.20) .10 (.11)Driven Commitment 5 3 4.40 7.08 .44 .16 (.18) .07 (.07) -.05(-.05)Immed. Responsiveness 4 3 3.75 5.60 .37 .02 (.02) -.09(-.09) .02 (.02)Collaboration & Support 6 2 2.26 7.69 .65 .09 (.10) .02 (.02) .16 (.17)Visib & Growth Seek\u00E2\u0080\u0099g 5 3 3.01 6.94 .71 .22 (.24) .10 (.10) .17 (.18)The Secondary ScalesMPS-FDE 11 11 4.86 4.20 .70 NA .35 (.37) .03 (.03)MPS-IVD 11 5 3.07 7.04 .72 NA .11 (.12) .25 (.26)Note. Critical values for r for various (one-tailed) significance levels: .05: .137; .01: .192;.005: .213; .001: .254. Correlations significant atp < .01 have been bolded.The column and row headings refer to the following: MPS-FDE: the MPS measure ofForceful Drive and Expediency; MPS-IVD: the MPS measure of Influence and VisibleDrive; FDE: the criterion measure of Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD: the criterionmeasure of Influence and Visible Drive.The values in brackets in the last three columns represent MPS scale-criterioncorrelations corrected for criterion unreliability.238Social DesirabilityWith respect to the primary scales, the overall 87-item simulation was essentiallybalanced for social desirability. The 53 champion items were only slightly moredesirable (.08 on a 9-point scale) than the 34 non-champion items. The mean socialdesirability for the champion items was 4.59, while the mean social desirability for thenon-champion items was 4.67. Since it was virtually impossible to achieve a balance forsocial desirability at either the primary or secondary scale level (as it was in Study 1), theoverall simulation was balanced for social desirability instead. This represents ashortcoming of the MPS scales.With two exceptions (Self Promotion and Confrontive Candor), the primary MPSscales were not properly balanced for social desirability. In the case of the primary scalesrelated to FDE, the championship items tended to be more undesirable, while for theother five primary scales, the non-champion items tended to be more undesirable. Asdiscussed in connection with criterion measurement of the heroic side of championship, itis difficult to conceptualize championship items as representing undesirable behavior.Turning to the secondary MPS scales, an attempt was made to balance each of thetwo scales for social desirability, rather than the overall simulation. This was very nearlyaccomplished for FDE, with the mean champion vs. non-champion social desirabilityfigures being 4.86 and 4.20 respectively. The IVD secondary scale could not be balancedfor social desirability, however. Of the 38 items that could potentially be used for thisscale, only 11 were non-champion items and these 11 items had a mean social desirabilityof 6.75, while the mean social desirability for the available pool of 27 champion itemswas 2.99. Even if reliability and validity issues had been ignored and social desirabilityconsiderations given exclusive focus, the MPS-IVD scale could not have been balancedfor social desirability.239Internal Consistency ReliabilityThe primary and secondary scale internal consistency reliabilities are reported inthe fifth column of Table 36. For the primary scales the alpha coefficients ranged from alow of .37 (Immediate Responsiveness) to a high of .76 (Impatient Expediency). Five ofthe 10 primary scales showed acceptable levels of internal consistency reliability, meetinga modest standard of .65, whereas the remaining five scale internal consistencyreliabilities fell below .65.The two secondary scales showed more satisfactory levels of internal consistencyreliability, based, as they were, on a relatively large number of items. This adequate levelof internal consistency reliability was achieved despite the fact that these two scales weredesigned to measure a broader, higher-order dimension of championship than the primaryscales.In summary, it is possible that the MPS primary and secondary scales mightpossess higher levels of other forms of reliability, such as stability. On the other hand, itshould be noted that, since MPS items were chosen, in part, on the basis of theircorrelation with the total scale score, the internal consistency reliability figures reportedin Table 36 may be inflated estimates; they would likely shrink somewhat, if these samefigures were calculated in a new sample. On the basis of the internal consistencyreliability results reported for the present sample, half of the primary scales must be seenas lacking in item homogeneity.MPS Scale-Criterion CorrelationsEvidence for the criterion-related validity of the primary and secondary scales isreported in the last three columns of Table 36. The three criteria were: (a) the relevantfirst-order criterion factor scale (which depended on the primary scale being examined),(b) Forceful Drive and Expediency, and (c) Influence and Visible Drive. Criterioncorrelations appearing in brackets in the last three columns of Table 36 have beenadjusted (upwards) for criterion unreliability, and, therefore, represent the \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctrue\u00E2\u0080\u009D240correlation between a fallible predictor and a completely reliable criterion (Schmidt &Hunter, 1977).Correlations in these last three columns were based on pooled-gender data, sincemean scores for men and women did not differ, overall, across the 10 primary scales(T2 (10, 136) = 1.23; p> .10). Moreover, follow-up t-tests revealed that none of theindividual 10 primary scale means were significantly different for men and women.Thus, the two groups could be combined for the criterion-related validity analyses.Three of the first five primary scales correlated significantly with their criterioncounterpart. The first five MPS primary scales listed in Table 36 correlated between .10and .26 with their conceptually-related first-order factor scale. Correlations betweenthese same primary scales and the FDE criterion fell in the range of .14 to .27, with amean correlation of .20. As was expected (and desired), bivariate correlations in the lastcolumn were low and non-significant, since these five MPS primary scales were notdesigned to correlate with IVD.Turning to the lower part of Table 36, the MPS-FDE scale correlated .35 (p <.005) with the UDE criterion. This is a solid result for a 22-item scale. Comparing thisresult with criterion correlations achieved with the various components of the AC battery,the MPS-FDE scale-criterion correlation surpassed all validity coefficients reported inStudy 2, even the Entrepreneurship dimension measured by the structured interview. Aswell, the MPS-FDE scale correlated .03 with the IVD criterion, showing evidence ofdiscriminant validity (this issue will be discussed in more detail in connection with themultitrait-multimethod results).In what is, by now, a familiar pattern from Study 2, the bivariate correlations(uncorrected) between the second set of five MPS primary scales, on the one hand, andtheir related first-order criterion factor scales, on the other, were low, and, with only oneexception (Visibility and Growth Seeking), failed to reach significance at p < .01. Whenthese five primary scales were considered as a group, they correlated similarly in both the241FDE and IVD columns (the mean validity coefficient was .09 in the FDE column and .10in the IVD column), indicating that these MPS scales do not converge with theirconceptual counterpart, IVD, to a greater extent than with FDE. The five MPS primaryscales fared no better than the many variables examined in Study 2 with respect to theircorrelation with the IVD criterion.The secondary IVD scale (MPS-IVD) correlated .25 (p < .005) with its relatedsecond-order criterion factor scale. The MPS-IVD scale far surpassed the level ofcriterion correlation achieved with the various AC battery scales, although it should benoted that this level of validity was attained in the same sample that was used to makeitem retention decisions. The MPS-IVD scale correlated .11 with the FDE criterion,showing evidence of discriminant validity.Corrections for criterion unreliability in Table 36 (\u00E2\u0080\u009Ctrue\u00E2\u0080\u009D validities are reported inparentheses) resulted in small increases in the magnitude of the predictor-criterioncorrelations. These increases were small because of the relatively high level of internalconsistency reliability achieved in connection with the first- and second-order criterionfactor scales. Given that the second-order criterion factor scales possessed particularlyhigh levels of internal consistency reliability (both were> .90), the convergent validitiesfor MPS-FDE and MPS-IVD reported near the bottom of Table 36 increased only slightlyafter correction for criterion unreliability. The corrected convergent validities were .37and .26 for MPS-FDE and MPS-IVD, respectively.Incremental Validily of the MPS ScalesResults of the multiple regression analyses involving the two criteria\u00E2\u0080\u0094FDE andIVD\u00E2\u0080\u0094are reported in Table 37. For both criteria, the addition of the conceptually-relatedMPS scale led to increases in both R and R over that achieved with optimal linearcombinations of AC battery scales.For the FDE criterion, the addition of the MPS-FDE scale led to a significantmultiple correlation coefficient (Rs = .424; F (5, 141) = 7.38, p < .0001) that represented242Table 37Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the CPI, 16PF, PRF, and MPS SecondaryScales: Incremental ValidityI. Second-Order Factor Forceful Drive and Expediency (FDE) Criterion Regressedonto the Following Scales. CPI-So, CPI-Do, 16PF-Q11 PRF-Ag, andMPS-FDE.Without MPS-FDE: Baseline Multiple Regression ResultsAll Entered Method: R = .402; Rs = .37 1; F (4, 142) = 6.83, p < .0001.Predictor Scale r p p16PF-Q11 .19 .050 .133 nsCPI-So -.18 .050 -.134 nsPRF-Ag .27 .001 .183 .05CPI-Do .27 .001 .291 .001With MPS-FDE: Evidence for Incremental ValidityAll Entered Method: R = .456; Rs = .424; F(5, 141) = \u00E2\u0080\u00987.38,p < .0001.Predictor Scale r p pMPS-FDE .35 .001 .242 .00516PF-Q11 .19 .050 .130 nsCPI-So -.18 .050 -.152 .05PRF-Ag .27 .001 .105 nsCPI-Do .27 .001 .206 .01243Table 37 cont.Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the CPI, J6PF, PRF, andMPS SecondaryScales: Incremental ValidityII. Second-Order Factor Influence and Visible Drive (IVD) Criterion Regressed ontothe Following Scales. J6PF-Q3,J6PF-M, andMPS-IVD.Without MPS-IVD: Baseline Multiple Regression ResultsAll Entered Method: R = .201; Rs = .165; F (2, 144) = 3.03, p < .05.Predictor Scale r p 13 p16PF-Q3 -.17 .050 -.163 .0516PF-M .17 .050 .116 nsWith MPS-IVD: Evidence for Incremental ValidityAll Entered Method: R = .313; Rs = .281; F(3, 143) = 5.18,p <.005.Predictor Scale r p 13 pMPS-IVD .25 .005 .240 .00516PF-Q3 .-. 17 .050 -.147 ns16PF-M .17 .050 .113 nsNote: Rs is the shrunken multiple correlation coefficient; r is the bivariate correlationbetween the predictor and criterion. AC battery predictor scales were included based onthe results of the cross-inventory stepwise multiple regression results reported in Table 31of Study 2.244a .053 increase in the multiple correlation coefficient reported for the regression equationwithout the MPS scale. Inspection of the lower section of Table 37 shows that the MPSFDE scale carried the largest beta weight of all predictors in the equation, followedclosely by CPI Dominance. Beta weights for two of the scales (16PF Tough Poise andPRF Aggression) were non-significant.Turning to results for the IVD criterion (reported on the second page of Table 37),the addition of the MPS-IVD scale led to an increase of .116 in the multiple correlationcoefficient. The multiple correlation for the linear combination involving the MPS-IVDwas significant (Rs = .28 1; F (3, 143) = 5.18, p < .005). The beta weight for MPS-IVDwas the only significant one in the equation. The inclusion of the two 16PF scales madeonly a minimal impact on the level of overall criterion correlation with IVD.Construct Validity of the MPSIn the previous section, the psychometric properties of the primary and secondaryscales were reported. In this section, attention shifts to issues of construct validity\u00E2\u0080\u0094themeaning of scores on the various scales. Loevinge?s (1957) conceptualization ofconstruct validity was used to organize the presentation and discussion of results. Hermodel of construct validity is broad and includes criterion-related validity and internalconsistency reliability as subcomponents; thus, some of the results reported above will bere-visited in the discussion below since they provide information on the psychologicalmeaning of the MPS scale scores. It must be recognized that construct-related validationrequires the gradual accumulation of information from a variety of sources (Anastasi,1988). Thus, the analyses reported in this section begin a process requiring considerablefurther work.According to Loevinger (1957), construct validity is examined with respect tosubstantive, structural, and external criteria. Loevinger\u00E2\u0080\u0099s conceptualization of substantivecriteria is analogous to content validity. She argued for a comprehensive sampling of thedomain of interest\u00E2\u0080\u0094the collection of items that cover the substantive domain represented245by the theory. Phase I of Study 1 outlined this approach in connection withchampionship. The use of the behavioral consistency model has resulted in thedevelopment of MPS scales that sample the domain of interest in a comprehensive wayand that reflect the substantive domain developed in Study 1.Loevinger\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1957) structural considerations relate to both inter-item structure(internal consistency) and structural fidelity. Thus, the internal consistency reliabilityanalyses reported earlier can, in Loevinger\u00E2\u0080\u0099s broad view of construct validity, be seen asone source of information on construct validity, in that high scale internal consistencyindices indicate that one is measuring a uniform measure of a single construct. Structuralfidelity refers to how well the structural characteristics of the test mirror the structuralcharacteristics of non-test manifestations of the trait. To a large extent, structural fidelityhas been built in to the MPS at the level of item keying and final item selection. In thepresent study, the issue of structural fidelity was addressed at the primary scale (ratherthan the item) level. Factor analytic methods were used to examine the extent to whichthe higher-order structure of the MPS primary scales mirrored the structure ofchampionship obtained via criterion measurement in Study 1.Finally, Loevinger\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1957) external considerations relate to the pattern ofrelationships between the test and other measures of the trait, including non-test behavior.Thus, in Loevinger\u00E2\u0080\u0099s view, criterion-related validity is a component of construct validity.Campbell and Fiske\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1959) notions of convergent and discriminant validity were ofrelevance in this section. While substantive and structural considerations relate primarilyto issues associated with test construction, external considerations address the question:what does the overall test measure?Substantive ConsiderationsIn contrast to strictly empirical approaches to item selection and, more generally,test design, Loevinger (1957) argued that, from a standpoint of substantiveconsiderations, test constructors should generate their test items from theory and then246rigorously test those items to ensure that they conform to the theory. First, Loevingercalled for systematic item sampling from a theory-based universe of content. This callhas been answered by test developers who use the behavioral consistency model and/orconduct analyses of the criterion.In the present study, the initial item pool for the MPS was extensive. Asdescribed in Study 1, items were generated by managers trained in the theory ofchampionship. The items eventually considered for use in the MPS were those that hadsurvived item and factor analyses designed to derive a comprehensive dimensional modelof championship. The surviving items used in the MPS, then, qualify as theoretically-based, and were clearly sampled comprehensively from a highly-relevant domain ofinterest.Structural ConsiderationsInter-item structure. In a previous section it was noted that only five of the 10MPS primary scales had internal consistency reliability coefficients that exceeded .65.They ranged from a low of .37 to a high of 76, while the secondary scale internalconsistency reliabilities were .70 and .72. Loevinger (1957) argued that the degree ofinter-item structure on test items that one can expect depends upon the degree of inter-item correlation among the criterion behaviors. The degree of inter-correlation amongcriterion behaviors (items, in the present study) places an upper limit on the degree ofitem structure for a given trait and, therefore, the test item correlations should not exceedthe criterion behavior inter-correlations.The IVIPS scale items clearly do not exceed the criterion scale item intercorrelations in this regard. They are, in all cases, lower, and, in some cases, substantiallylower. Some explanations for these low internal consistency reliability figures areoffered below.First, the MPS item format is different from that associated with most tests, in thatthe MPS items were embedded within a variety of contexts (i.e., scenarios). Thus, it is247possible that, for example, two items keyed for Persistent Dominance appearing inseparate scenarios might not be highly correlated if the two scenarios were markedlydifferent. This design feature distinguishes the MPS from the traditional test ofpersonality, for example, that contains items embedded, implicitly, within a singlecontext\u00E2\u0080\u0094one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s most typical or usual behavior.Another factor likely reducing the inter-item correlation was that the MPS scaleitems were not identified from a factor analysis of the MPS. Rather, the items wereassigned to MPS scales as response options on the basis of item inter-correlationsobtained on the criterion rating form discussed in Study 1. Thus, to the extent that theitem structure of championship was different in the MPS, scale internal consistencyreliabilities would be lower.Regardless of the reason for the low internal consistency reliability figures, with afew exceptions, the MPS primary scales should not be seen as homogeneous. Thissuggests the following possibilities: (a) a different factorial structure exists among theMPS response options from that found in connection with criterion measurement, (b) theMPS primary scales are multi-dimensional, (c) the MPS primary scales measuredimensions of behavior that are context dependent. Given the multi-scenario format ofthe MPS, it may be unrealistic to expect the primary scales to achieve levels of internalconsistency reliability typically associated with personality scales, for example.Structural FidelitySince the MPS primary scales were patterned after the 10 first-order criterionfactor scales, and their items were chosen, in part, because of significant correlation withthe criterion scales, it was reasonable to expect that the pattern of inter-correlationsamong the scales arising from these two methods of measurement would be similar.More specifically, the second-order structure of championship arising from the intercorrelations among the MPS primary scales should be similar to the second-orderstructure of the first-order criterion factor scales reported in Table 7. If a high degree of248correspondence were found, it would follow that the structural characteristics of the \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctest\u00E2\u0080\u009Dscales (the MPS) mirrored the structural characteristics of the criterion, an indication ofstructural fidelity.The degree of structural similarity or fidelity between the MPS and the criterionwas operationalized as the degree of fit between the factor structure of the 10 MPSprimary scales, on the one hand, and a \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctarget\u00E2\u0080\u009D factor structure, as represented by thecommon pattern obtained via the Meredith (1964) Method One procedure in connectionwith criterion development in Study 1. As described briefly in the Method section, twoprocedures were used to examine the degree of fit between the criterion and MPSstructure.An unweighted least-squares factor analysis of the 10 MPS primary scales wasconducted in which two factors were extracted. This unrotated factor pattern matrix wastransformed in two ways. First, an exploratory approach was taken in which theunrotated factor pattern matrix was rotated, via a Harris-Kaiser transfonnation, at threedifferent degrees of obliquity (c = 0, .25, and 5). The transformed solution that best metthe criteria for simple structure was the most oblique transformation (c = 0). Second, thesame unrotated factor pattern matrix was transformed, this time, via oblique procrustesprocedures, into congruence with the target matrix. The criterion target matrix, thederived exploratory and procrustes patterns, congruence coefficients, and factor inter-correlations are reported in Table 38.A visual inspection of the three pattern matrices reveals a high degree of similarityacross the solutions, particularly between the two MPS patterns, not surprisingly. Thetwo-dimensional higher-order structure obtained in connection with the criterion scalesappears to provide a good fit for the 10 MPS primary scales, regardless of how theprimary scales are transformed. The same two groups of primary scales clusteredtogether in the two MPS patterns as in the criterion. A two-factor higher-order structureappears tenable in connection with the primary simulation scales.249Table 38Two-Factor Exploratory and Oblique Procrustes Solutionsfor The MPSTarget Pattern: Exploratory Procrustes PatternMeredith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Common H-K Pattern Based Based on thePattern from Study 1 on the MPS MPSFactor Factor FactorFirst-Order/Primary Scales FDE IVD M-FDE M-IVD M-FDE M-IVDPersistent Dominance .51 -.08 .46 -.08 .46 -.09Impatient Expediency .42 -.24 .38 -.17 .37 -.17Rebellious Drive .54 .04 .48 .18 .49 .17Self Promotion .28 .09 .46 .10 .47 .09Confrontive Candor .32 .14 .47 .14 .48 .13Influence & Political Savvy .03 .47 .17 .44 .21 .43Driven Commitment .14 .26 .18 .20 .20 .20Immediate Responsiveness -.04 .45 -.04 .55 .01 .55Collaboration & Support -.17 .40 -.41 .59 -.36 .59Visibility & Growth Seeking .17 .51 .07 .77 .13 .77Congruence CoefficientsCriterion-Target MPS-ExploratoryFDE WD FDE IVDMPS- FDE .986 -.015Exploratory IVD .086 .968MPS- FDE .945 .070 .994 .091Procrustes WD .069 .963 -.016 .999Primary-FactorInter-CorrelationsTarget Exploratory ProcrustesFDE IVD FDE IVD FDE IVDM-FDE 1.00 1.00 1.00M-IVD .15 1.00 .08 1.00 .02 1.00The column and row headings refer to the following: M-FDE: the MPS measure ofForceful Drive and Expediency; M-IVD: the MPS measure of Influence and Visible Drive;FDE: the criterion measure of Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD: the criterion measureof Influence and Visible Drive.250Congruence coefficients were calculated between the second-order criterionfactors scales and the two versions of the MPS second-order factors. For the two MPSpatterns, the coefficients between the related factors were, of course, very high (.994 forFDE and .999 for IVD). Of more relevance, are the correlations between the relatedfactors of the criterion, on the one hand, and the two MPS factor patterns, on the other.Congruence coefficients between the factors of the exploratory MPS pattern and therelated criterion factors were very high (.986 for FDE and .968 for IVD), indicating goodcongruence. The degree of congruence between the factors reported in the procrustesMPS pattern and their related criterion factors was very high as well (.945 for FDE and.963 for IVD). The higher-order structure of the criterion and MPS appears to be highlysimilar.Finally, results in the bottom third of Table 38 indicate that the two MPSsecondary scales were orthogonal (r = .08 for the exploratory and r = .02 for theprocrustes solutions), paralleling the results from Study 1 in this regard, despite the factthat oblique exploratory and procrustes transformations were performed.4\u00C2\u00B0All thingsconsidered, the structural characteristics of the MPS mirror closely those obtained inconnection with criterion measurement, thus providing evidence of structural fidelity atthe primary scale level.External ConsiderationsA multitrait-multimethod examination of championship. Campbell and Fiske\u00E2\u0080\u0099s(1959) multitrait-multimethod matrix was used in this section to examine further theconstruct validity of the MPS primary and secondary scales. While evidence ofconvergent validity was presented in an earlier section (see Table 36 for monotraitheteromethod correlations), discriminant validity is also an important requirement whendeveloping new tests and/or examining issues of construct validity. Campbell and Fiske40 An oblique transformation (whether to a target or not) allows the factors to correlate. The fact that thetwo higher-order MPS factors did not correlate significantly gives further evidence of similarity betweenthe MPS and the criterion higher-order structures.251argued that, in order to estimate the relative contributions of method and trait variance,more than one method, as well as more than one trait must be employed in the validationprocess. This information can be conveniently summarized in a multitrait-multimethodmatrix.Campbell and Fiske (1959) outlined four issues bearing on validity that can begleaned from an examination of the matrix. First, the coefficients in the validity diagonal(heteromethod-monotrait) should be significantly different from zero; this is, of course,evidence of convergent validity. Secondly, the validity diagonal coefficients should belarger than the values contained in the heteromethod-heterotrait triangles. Althoughseemingly obvious, Campbell and Fiske noted that this requirement is often not met inapplication. Thirdly, the validity coefficients should be higher than the coefficients in themonomethod-heterotrait triangles. Finally, a similar pattern of trait inter-correlationsshould be seen in all of the heteromethod and monomethod blocks. The last three issuesrelate to discriminant validity.Multitrait-multimethod matrices for the primary and secondary MPS scales arereported in the next two tables. Beginning with results for the primary scales in Table 39,four of the 10 validity coefficients were significantly different from zero (p < .01), whilethe remaining six validity coefficients ranged from .02 to .18. The MPS primary scalesdo not, as a group, show strong convergent validity.Evidence for discriminant validity was not encouraging. Two of the four MPSscales (VGS and PD) that correlated significantly in the monotrait-heteromethoddiagonal, showed evidence of discriminant validity according to the first criteria; that is,the validity coefficients were greater than the correlations between each of these twovariables and any other variable having neither method nor trait in common. Theremaining eight scales failed to meet this criterion.With respect to the second criterion for discriminant validity, a perusal of themonomethod triangles indicates, in some trait combinations, a fairly high degree ofTable39AMultiTrait-MultimethodMatrixForTheMPSPrimaryScalesandTheFirst-orderFactorCriterionScalesMethodI:TheManagementPracticesSimulationMethodII:SupervisoryCriterionRatingTraitsPDIERDSPCCIPSDCJRCSVGSPDTBRDSPCCIPSDCJRCSVGSMethodIPD(48)lB08(76)RD2242(70)SP170412(65)CC30072036(49)1PS-0310321904(45)DC150405180608(44)JR-01-241102112222(37)CS-.24-2000-21-08230227(65)VGS-00-1016172134184242(71)MethodIIPD25142209-00-0601-08-0602(83)TB1113090525080501171341(84)RD1706230924-0011-0503145246(78)SP01071526000916-11-1201493136(82)CC241516271011-01-09-210851074832(80)IPS00142322101805-060713-16-03-021614(80)DC13-010213-03-1316-07-17-0208-1522-031912(82)JR-02-11-07-03-08-050602-0305-19-3802-22173738(80)CS03-060104070316130912-40-26-28-30-13461238(79)VGS0600012304151502012202-0628012647455737(83)Note.Validitycoefficientsintheheteromethod-monotraitdiagonalhavebeenboldedanditalicized.Rowandcolumnheadingsrefertothefollowing:PD:PersistentDominance;TB:ImpatientExpediency;RD:RebelliousDrive;SP:SelfPromotion;CC:ConfrontiveCandor;IPS:InfluenceandPoliticalSavvy;DC:DrivenCommitment;JR:ImmediateResponsiveness;CS:CollaborationandSupport;VGS:VisibilityandGrowthSeeking.253monomethod-heterotrait inter-correlation. This was to be expected given the two-dimensional structure obtained for both the first-order criterion factor scales and the MPSprimary scales. Thus, these inflated coefficients were not solely a function of methodvariance. Nevertheless, the values in the validity diagonal, in all cases, failed to exceedsome of the values in the monomethod triangles. Campbell and Fiske (1959)acknowledged that this was common in individual-differences research, but was likelypronounced in the present study given the structural properties of the scales arising fromthe two methods.Given the number of variables contained in the matrices in Table 39, it wasdifficult to determine, from a visual inspection, the degree to which the variables inter-correlated similarly in the three heteromethod and monomethod blocks. This issue was,in part, addressed in connection with the exploratory and oblique procrustes analysesreported earlier. Given the relatively high degree of structural similarity that wasreported, this third criterion for discriminant validity was met, at least with respect to themonomethod blocks.Turning to Table 40, an MTMM matrix is reported for the MPS secondary scales.Results in Table 40 support the convergent and discriminant validity of the MPSsecondary scales. The first criterion with respect to convergent validity was met.Validity coefficients of .35 and .25 were reported for each of Forceful Drive andExpediency and Influence and Visible Drive. These coefficients were both significantlydifferent from zero (p < .005).With respect to discriminant validity, the two validity coefficients were clearlyhigher than the two heterotrait-heteromethod values (r = .03 and .11). As well, they werehigher than the monomethod-heterotrait values in the upper-left and lower-right trianglesof Table 40 (r = .15 and .19). The third criterion for discriminant validity (structuralsimilarity) could not be assessed with only two traits. Clearly, the MTMM results related254Table 40A MultiTrait-MultimethodMatrix Analysis of The MPS Secondary Scales and The Second-order Factor Criterion ScalesMethod I: The MPS Method II: Supervisory RatingMPS-FDE MPS-IVD FDE IVDMethod I MPS-FDE (.70)MPS-IVD .19 (.72)Method II FDE .35 .11 (.92)IVD .03 .25 .15 (.91)Note. Critical values for r for various (one-tailed) significance levels: .05: .137; .01: .192;.005: .213; .001: .254. Correlations significant atp < .01 have been bolded.The column and row headings refer to the following: MPS-FDE: the MPS measure ofForceful Drive and Expediency; MPS-IVD: the MPS measure of Influence and VisibleDrive; FDE: the criterion measure of Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD: the criterionmeasure of Influence and Visible Drive.255to convergent and discriminant validity were more positive in connection with thesecondary, than the primary, scales.Cross-correlations between the MPS scales and scales from the AC battery.Further information bearing on the construct validity of the MPS can be gleaned from thepattern of correlations between the MPS scales and scales from the various tests andexercises in the AC battery listed in Table 15. Like the preceding section, analyses arereported separately for the MPS primary and secondary scales.Correlations between all components of the AC battery, on the one hand, and theMPS primary and secondary scales are reported in Appendix S. A more concisesummary of results is presented in Tables 41 and 42, corresponding to results for theprimary and secondary scales, respectively. These two tables were organized to permithead-to-head comparisons between the championship dimensions measured via the MPSand the criterion scales; thus one can examine the extent to which the two methods (theMPS and supervisory ratings) share a common set of correlates. Assessment centerscales were included in Tables 41 and 42 if they correlated significantly (p < .005) withthe relevant dimension measured by either the MPS or the criterion. Thus, in the firstpart of Table 41, for example, 10 AC battery scales are reported in connection withPersistent Dominance because these 10 scales correlated significantly with PD measuredby either the MPS scale or the criterion scale. Given that: (a) the MPS scales share itemsin common with the criterion scales, and (b) their items were chosen, in part, because ofcorrelation with the respective criterion scale, it was expected that the MPS scales wouldbe found to measure constructs similar to those identified and discussed in connectionwith the criterion scales.With respect to the relative magnitude of correlations that might be expectedacross the two columns for a given AC battery scale, it is likely that the AC battery scaleswould, other things being equal, correlate more highly with the MPS, rather than thecriterion, scale as a result of method variance. Correlations based solely on self appraisal256Table 41A Comparison of Correlates For the MPS Primary Scales and the First-Order CriterionFactor ScalesPersistent Dominance Impatient ExpediencyScale MPS Criterion Scale MPS CriterionCPI-Dominance .06 .23 CPI-Capacity for Status .25 .13CPI-Socialization .07 -.25 CPI-Social Presence .26 .2016PF-Assertiveness .07 .25 CPI-Self Control -.27 -.18PRF-Aggression .23 .23 CPI-Intellectual Efficiency .25 -.01PRF-Impulsivity .13 .25 1 6PF-Assertiveness .25 .16JAS-Type A Overall .10 .34 16PF-Conscientiousness -.26 -.07JAS-Speed & Impatience .11 .23 16PF-Imaginative .24 -.03RP-Initiative/Innovation -.03 .24 16PF-Controlled -.41 -.10hit-Entrepreneurship -.01 .27 1 6PF-Independence .28 .14hit-Appraisal & Dev\u00E2\u0080\u0099t -.01 .22 PRF-Aggression .06 .24PRF-Autonomy .26 .04PRF-Cognitive Structure -.40 -.11PRF-Harm Avoidance -.29 -.05PRF-Impulsivity .42 .16PRF-Order -.32 -.09ROd-il-Integrating .25 .02ROCI-Dominating .25 .11257Table 41 cont.A Comparison of Correlates For the MPS Primary Scales and the First-Order CriterionFactor ScalesSelf Promotion Rebellious DriveScale MPS Criterion Scale MPS CriterionCPI-Dominance .24 .26 CPI-Dominance .23 .17CPI-Self Acceptance .18 .23 1 6PF-Imaginative .24 -.00CPI-Self Control -.27 -.16 16PF-Independence .29 .081 6PF-Assertiveness .15 .22 PRF-Autonomy .25 .1316PF-Enthusiastic .11 .23 PRF-Change .24 .1016PF-Venturesome .09 .22 PRF-Harm Avoidance -.29 -.0916PF-Suspicious .32 .16 PRF-Understanding .24 -.0516PF-Group Dependent -.11 -.21 JAS-Speed & Impatience -.07 .2216PF-Extraversion .14 .31 Tnt-Entrepreneurship .32 .24PRF-Aggression .30 .23 ROCI-il-Obliging -.25 -.14PRF-Defendence .29 .07PRF-Dominance .12 .23PRF-Exhibition .25 .34PRF-Social Recognition .29 .07JAS-Type A Overall .34 .31JAS-Job Involvement .25 .21JAS-Hard Drv\u00E2\u0080\u0099g & Compet. .14 .31Confrontive Candor Influence and Political SavvyScale MPS Criterion Scale MPS CriterionCPI-Socialization .04 -.27 PRF-Play .25 .08CPI-Flexibility -.25 .04 Tnt-Entrepreneurship .25 .16CPI-Anxiety -.32 -.10 Tnt-Planning & Organizing .26 .2216PF-Assertiveness .23 .21PRF-Abasement -.28 .05PRF-Aggression .34 .13RP-Entrepreneurship .04 .29RP-Performance Stability .07 .35ROCI-lI-Compromising -.27 -.02258Table 41 cont.A Comparison of Correlates For the MPS Primary Scales and the First-Order CriterionFactor ScalesDriven Commitment Immediate ResponsivenessScale MPS Criterion Scale MPS CriterionCPI-Capacity for Status .12 .22 Concept Mastery -.26 .02lAS-Hard Drvg & Compet. .23 .06 ReadtgComprehension -.25 .00RP-Leadership .26 .20 PRF-Change .26 .01RP-Commitment .26 .15 PRF-Dominance .26 -.09Tnt-Appraisal & Dev\u00E2\u0080\u0099t .23 .07 JAS-Type A Overall .26 -.06Collaboration & Support Visibility & Growth SeekingScale MPS Criterion Scale MPS CriterionPRF-Achievement -.08 -.25 CPI-Dominance .30 .13PRF-Change .23 -.02 CPI-Self Acceptance .26 .2216PF-Enthusiastic .27 .0616PF-Venturesome .31 .1516PF-Adequacy of Adjust. .26 .08PRF-Change .32 .07PRF-Dominance .36 .07PRF-Exhibition .24 .20mt-Performance Stability .27 -.05Note. Critical values for r for various (one-tailed) significance levels: .05: .137; .01: .192;.005: .213; .001: .254. Correlations significant atp < .005 have been bolded.Row headings refer to the following: Tnt: interview; RP: role play; JAS-Hard Drv\u00E2\u0080\u0099g &Compet.: Hard Driving and Competitive; Tnt-Appraisal & Dev\u00E2\u0080\u0099t: Appraisal andDevelopment of Subordinates; Read\u00E2\u0080\u0099g Comprehension: Nelson Denny ReadingComprehension; 16PF-Adequacy of Adjust.: 16PF-Adequacy of Adjustment.259Table 42A Comparison of Correlates For the MPS Secondary Scales and the Second-OrderCriterion Factor ScalesFDE Scales IVD ScalesMPS Criterion MPS CriterionMeasures ofPersonality and TemperamentCPI Dominance .33 .27 .33 .07CPI Capacity for Status .23 .20 .14 .10CPI Social Presence .23 .15 .19 .11CPI Self Acceptance .30 .21 .24 .17CPI Self Control -.28 -.19 .03 -.0616PF Factor E (Assertive) .29 .28 .10 .061 6PF Factor H (Venturesome) .12 .13 .26 .061 6PF Factor L (Suspicious) .31 .11 .03 .0216PF Factor Q (Extraversion) .17 .22 .22 .0416PF Factor Qiv (Independence) .28 .14 .13 .09PRF Aggression .29 .27 -.07 -.04PRF Exhibition .27 .21 .18 .10PRF Impulsivity .17 .21 .08 .09ROCI-il Integrating -.26 .01 .29 .06ROCI-Il Obliging -.24 -.08 .09 .06JAS Type A Overall Score .28 .23 .16 .00JAS Job Involvement .26 .20 .23 .09JAS Speed & Impatience .16 .25 -.03 .09260Table 42 cont.A Comparison of Correlates For the MPS Secondary Scales and the Second-OrderCriterion Factor ScalesFDE Scales IVD ScalesMPS Criterion MPS CriterionManagement SimulationsIn-Basket Quality of Judgment .47 -.02 .22 -.02Role play Leadership .27 .24 .22 .14Role play Initiative/Innovation .17 .26 .15 .00Role play Interpersonal .23 .22 .23 .09Structured InterviewLeadership .22 .22 .23 -.01Communication .23 .06 .21 -.09Entrepreneurship .25 .33 .29 .06Commitment .19 .16 .26 -.03Initiative/Innovation .16 .23 .20 .10Performance Stability 26 .21 .28 -.03Planning/Organizing .22 .10 .28 .06Appraisal and Development .07 .20 .23 .00Criterion Measures From Study 1Overall Management Performance -.14 -.50 .07 .805-Item Championship Criterion .05 .07 .18 .73Note. Critical values for r for various (one-tailed) significance levels: .05: .137; .01: .192;.005: .213; .001: .254. Correlations significant atp < .005 have been bolded. With theexception of 1B7, all correlations are based on a sample size of 147; the 1B7 correlation isbased on a reduced sample size of 76.261data should be higher than correlations based on both self- and other-report data. Thisrelationship holds true for the results in Table 42; the correlations in the first column(corresponding to the MPS) are generally higher than those reported in the second column(corresponding to the criterion). The same is not true in connection with Table 41. Thismay, in large measure, be due to the low internal consistency reliabilities of the MPSprimary scales.The MPS primary scales. Results in Table 41 show that, with one exception (SelfPromotion), scale scores arising from the two methods (the MPS and the criterion ratingscales) correlated with different components of the AC battery. This was, to some extent,due to the fact that very few of the AC battery scales correlated with the first-ordercriterion factor scales that loaded on IVD (see the second page of Table 41). Thus, an ACbattery scale that correlated with these MPS primary scales would represent a departurefrom the criterion correlates. Correlations between the two measures of PD, JE, RD, andCC, on the one hand, and the AC battery scales, on the other, also showed little overlap,however. Clearly, with the exception of Self Promotion, the AC battery correlates for theMPS primary scales were different from those reported in connection with the first-orderfactor scales in Study 2. In some cases, these different correlates would lead to differentconceptualizations of the MPS scale, while in other cases, common themes arose from thedifferent correlates.Although each of the MPS primary scales was designed to predict its criterioncounterpart, results in Table 36 showed that this objective was met in connection withonly four scales and even here the level of correlation obtained, although significant, wasnot high. It was, therefore, not surprising to discover that these two methods ofmeasurement yielded scales that correlated with different components of the AC battery.Correlations between the AC battery scales and some of the MPS primary scales led todescriptive conceptualizations that were intuitive and supported the general theme of thedimension, as originally conceptualized in Study 1, while other MPS primary scales262correlated with so few AC battery scales (e.g., Collaboration and Support) that it wasdifficult to develop a conceptual understanding based on such limited convergence.Confrontive Candor was an example of an MPS primary scale that shared onlyone common correlate with its criterion counterpart (16PF-Assertiveness) but appeared tomeasure a similar theme. Its correlates indicated that high scorers on this primary scalewould likely be assertive, aggressive, somewhat inflexible and low in anxiety. Moreover,high scorers would likely not be self-effacing, would not show a high degree of humility(PRF-Abasement: r = -.28), and would not typically compromise when in conflictsituations (ROCI-Il-Confronting: r = -.27). Similarly, Rebellious Drive shared only onecommon correlate, Entrepreneurship, (as measured by the structured interview), but thecorrelates of this MPS primary scale led to a descriptive profile of the high scorer thatwas similar to that developed in connection with the item content of the RD criterionscale. Based on the correlations reported in Table 41, high scorers on MPS-RD wouldlikely be dominant, independent, and imaginative. Moreover, they could be expected toenjoy and seek out change and opportunities for excitement and risk.Given the results reported in Tables 36, 39, and 41 in connection with the primaryscales, it would appear inadvisable to attach much interpretive significance to scoresobtained via the MPS at the primary-scale level of measurement. The psychometricproperties of the primary scales reported in Table 36 indicated, in some cases, lowreliability and validity. The MTMM analyses provided further evidence of a lack ofconvergent and discriminant validity for the majority of the primary scales. Given thesefacts, it seems prudent, then, to examine the feasibility of using the MPS to measure thetwo higher-order championship dimensions. Thus far, the factor analytic and MTMManalyses support measurement at this level. In the section below, the correlates of thetwo secondary MPS scales will be reported in a format similar to that used in Table 41.Thus, head-to-head comparisons can be made of the degree to which the two methodsshare common correlates.263The MPS measure ofForceful Drive and Expediency. Results for the MPSsecondary scales reported in Table 42 suggest that the behavioral consistency approachhas led to the development of simulation scales that tap into similar constructs to thesecond-order criterion factor scales. Beginning with the first two columns in Table 42, ofthe nine personality scales that correlated significantly with the criterion measure of FDE,six of those scales correlated significantly with the MPS-FDE scale (CPI-Dominance,CPI-Self Acceptance, 16PF-Assertiveness, PRF-Aggression, PRF-Exhibition, JAS-TypeA Overall); the three personality scales that did not correlate significantly with MPS-FDEcorrelated in the expected direction (16PF-Extraversion: r = .17; PRF-Impulsivity: r =.17; JAS-Speed and Impatience: r = .16). Thus, there is evidence that the MPS-FDEscale converges with similar scales and measures similar constructs to those discovered inconnection with the criterion measure of FDE. Familiar themes of aggressiveness,dominance, assertiveness, social boldness, and competitiveness emerged.The MPS-FDE scale also correlated significantly with eight personality scales thatits criterion counterpart did not. They were: CPI-Capacity for Status, CPI-SocialPresence, CPI-Self Control (-), 16PF-Suspiciousness, 16PF-Independence, ROCI-ilIntegrating, ROCI-il-Obliging, and JAS-Job Involvement. Related themes of socialboldness (1 6PF-H), independence (1 6PF-Qjv), status seeking (CPI-Cs), social presence(CPI-Sp), and job involvement (JAS-Factor J) were evident. Like the related criterionscale, MPS-FDE appears to be tapping into social competence and dominance. Thenegative correlation between MPS-FDE and CPI-Sc (Self Control) was an interestingresult in that this parallels the correlations found in connection with CPI-So and PRF-Imin Study 2. There is, therefore, some evidence that high scorers on MPS-FDE tend to beimpulsive, excitable, and rebellious. Finally, the significant correlation with 16PF-Suspiciousness indicates that the high scorer on MPS-FDE is likely not trusting, but may,instead, be rather suspicious and self-opinionated.264The results in connection with the two ROd-il scales indicated that high scorerson MPS-FDE are less likely than low scorers to use the two conflict resolution strategieslabeled Integrating and Obliging. Interestingly, the common feature of these twostrategies is a concern for others. Thus, the high scorer on the MPS-FDE scale tends notto use conflict resolution strategies that reflect a high degree of concern for others.Results from the simulation exercises provided further information on themeaning of high scores on the MPS-FDE scale. One of the Telephone Supervisor In-Basket (TS]B) dimensions, Quality of Judgment, correlated significantly with MPS-FDE(r = .47). Recall that none of the dimensions from the two in-basket exercises correlatedwith the second-order criterion factor scales. Quality of Judgment was designed tomeasure the overall appropriateness and quality of actions taken in the in-basket exercise.This correlation suggests that high scorers on MPS-FDE possess sound judgment, clearlydistinguishing this secondary scale from its criterion counterpart.Correlations between the role-play exercise dimensions and the two measures ofFDE were very similar. For the most part, they built on, and were consistent with, resultsin connection with the personality tests. That is, high scorers on MPS-FDE were found tohave strong interpersonal skills and were likely to take on leadership roles. The MPSFDE scale did not correlate significantly with the Initiative/Innovation dimension,pointing up another potential source of difference between the two measures of FDE.Turning to results for the structured interview, the two measures of FDEcorrelated significantly with Leadership, Entrepreneurship, and Performance Stability,while the MPS-FDE scale also correlated significantly with Communication. BothLeadership and Entrepreneurship are familiar themes. The Performance Stabilitycorrelation indicates that high scorers on MPS-FDE are likely able to react to pressureand challenge in a calm and level-headed manner. Finally high scorers on MPS-FDE alsoappear to be good communicators. The Communication dimension measures one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s abilityto present ideas and interact with others in an interpersonally-effective manner. It265includes both oral communication and body language and, therefore, can be seen as ameasure of interpersonal poise and social effectiveness, at least in the context of one-on-one interactions.Finally, at the bottom of Table 42, the correlations between the two criterionvariables discussed in Study 1 [Overall Management Performance (OMP) and the 5-itemChampionship Criterion (5CC)], on the one hand, and the MPS and criterion measures ofFDE, on the other, are reported in the first two columns. Unlike the criterion measure ofFDE, the MPS-FDE scale did not correlate significantly with OMP. This result shifts,somewhat, the interpretation of the MPS-FDE scale away from its criterion counterpart.High scorers on the MPS-FDE scale are no more likely than low scorers to be rated aspoor managers, overall. Finally, like its criterion counterpart, the MPS-FDE scale did notcorrelate significantly with the 5-item criterion measure of championship.In summary, results in Table 42 indicate that the high scorer on the MPS-FDEscale is a dominant, outspoken, socially-poised, and independent person. When inconflict with others, s/he typically does not use strategies that show a concern for theother person\u00E2\u0080\u0099s needs and objectives. S/he may be somewhat impulsive and mistrusting.The high scorer is likely very committed to his/her work and would tend to strive hard toachieve and compete. At the same time, the high scorer appears able to maintain a calmand level-headed approach to his/her work. S/he has a tendency to take on leadershiproles and behaves in ways characteristic of entrepreneurs (e.g., risk taking). Finally, thehigh scorer is a good communicator who presents him/herself effectively in interpersonalsituations.The MPS measure of Influence and Visible Drive. Turning to the last column inTable 42, none of the AC battery scales correlated significantly with the criterion measureof IVD. This finding was reported and discussed in Study 2. The MPS-IVD scale, on theother hand, correlated significantly with a number of the variables measured in the ACbattery, thus providing information on the meaning of MPS-IVD scores.266The profile of the high scorer on the MPS-IVD scale shares a common core themeof interpersonal effectiveness and poise with that developed in connection with MPSFDE. Of the 12 AC battery scales that correlated significantly with MPS-IVD, seven alsocorrelated significantly with MPS-FDE. Although there are some core similarities, thetwo MPS secondary scales can be clearly distinguished from one another. The MPSmeasure of IVD does not appear to measure the aggressiveness, assertiveness, andimpulsivity found in connection with MPS-FDE. Evidence of suspiciousness andmistrustfulness do not appear to be present as well. Moreover, the high scorer on MPSIVD does not appear to be as driven as is the high scorer on MPS-FDE. Finally, the highscorer on MPS-IVD is likely to use an Integrating style of handling interpersonal conflict,thus showing a concern for the views and needs of the other party. The correlates ofMPS-IVD will now be discussed in more detail.High scorers on MPS-IVD appear to be dominant, self confident, and outspokenpeople (CPI-Do: r = .33; CPI-Sa: r = .24; 16PF-H: r = .26). They can also be describedas extraverted, sociable, and uninhibited. Evidence of these characteristics can also beseen from the role play and interview results, particularly the latter. The role playInterpersonal dimension correlated significantly with MPS-IVD (as it did with MPSFDE). Thus, high scorers on MPS-IVD appear to be socially skilled and effective in one-on-one interactions.As noted briefly above, the high scorer on MPS-IVD is different from the highscorer on MPS-FDE in that the former is likely less aggressive, forceful, and independent.The MPS-IVD scale did not correlate significantly with some of the MPS-FDE correlateslike CPI-Capacity for Status, CPI-Self Promotion, 16PF-Assertiveness, 16PF-Independence, PRF-Aggression, and PRF-Exhibition. Thus, although outgoing, sociable,and dominant, to a point, the high scorer on MPS-IVD would likely not display thedegree of aggressiveness or hostility that a high MPS-FDE manager might. Moreover,the high scorer on MPS-IVD does not appear to be outgoing to the point that s/he engages267in behavior in order to draw others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 attention. Rather, they appear to be assertive andoutgoing, but not to the point of overpowering other people with demands that their needsbe met and their ideas accepted.A similar theme is seen from results on the ROCI-IT. The manager high on MPSIVD is likely to use an integrating style when dealing with interpersonal conflict. Suchan approach reflects an attempt to meet both one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s own and others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 needs. Rahim (1983)noted that an integrating style involves an exchange of information and an examination ofdifferences in order to reach a solution acceptable to both parties. It is a style that henoted often leads to creative solutions.Turning to results for the structured interview, there is overlap between the MPSFDE and MPS-IVD correlates. The Leadership, Entrepreneurship, and PerformanceStability interview scales correlated significantly with both of the MPS secondary scales.Thus, like the high scorer on MPS-FDE, the manager with a high score on MPS-IVDcould be expected to readily assume a leadership role in group situations and behave inways characteristic of an entrepreneur. Finally, high scorers on MPS-IVD would likelybe able to tolerate pressure and uncertainty effectively, with minimal disruption to theirjob performance.Other results from the interview suggest that high scorers are well organized andcarefully plan for future events. Moreover, their scores reveal a high level ofcommitment and dedication. They likely follow through on their promises and workdiligently toward objectives. Finally, the significant correlation between Appraisal andDevelopment and MPS-IVD suggests that high scorers pay attention to the needs of theirsubordinates and take the time to provide them with feedback and opportunities fordevelopment.In terms of their attitudes and orientation toward work, the high scorer on MPSIVD tends to be job involved\u00E2\u0080\u0094dedicated to his/her occupation. The JAS overall Type Ascale did not correlate significantly, however, with MPS-IVD, as it did with MPS-FDE.268Although job involved and committed, the high scorer on MPS-WD would notnecessarily display the prototypic Type A behavioral pattern, manifested by extremecompetitiveness, aggressiveness, impatience, and haste.Turning to the lower right-hand corner of Table 42, the correlations with the twocriteria collected in Study 1 are reported. Unlike the criterion rating scale measure ofIVD, MPS-IVD does not appear to be significantly related to either OMP or 5CC. Thelack of correlation with OMP suggests that MPS-IVD measures a construct unrelated togeneral management performance. One might expect (and hope) that the MPS-IVD scalewould, however, correlate significantly with 5CC, the 5-item championship criterion thatcorrelated significantly with IVD in Study 1 (r = .73). The MPS-IVD scale correlationwith 5CC, although significant at p < .05, cannot be construed as indicating strongevidence of convergence or overlap between these two variables. Whether this is ashortcoming of the MPS scale or the 5-item championship criterion is not clear. As notedand discussed in Study 1, it would be beneficial, in future research, to obtain an objectivemeasure of the criterion (rather than supervisory ratings) in order to more definitivelyexamine the validity of both the MPS, and the criterion, scales.In summary, resultsin Table 42 suggest that the manager high on the MPSmeasure of Influence and Visible Drive tends to be outgoing, poised, and, in general,interpersonally effective. S/he likely lacks some of the abrasiveness and aggressivenessof the manager high on the MPS measure of Forceful Drive and Expediency. Suchmanagers could be expected to take on leadership and entrepreneurial roles. When inconflict with others, high MPS-FDE managers likely work toward solutions thatrecognize the needs of the other party while also seeking to maximize their own needs.The high scorer is likely involved in and committed to his/her job, but is not likely toexhibit the extreme range of behaviors associated with the Type A behavioral syndrome(as was the high MPS-FDE manager).269The high MPS-IVD manager is likely to carefully plan and organize his/heractivities, unlike the high scorer on the MPS-FDE scale who was likely to be somewhatimpulsive. As well, s/he is likely to pay attention to the needs of his/her subordinates byproviding feedback and developmental suggestions. The high MPS-IVD scorer may bemore of a team player than the high MPS-FDE manager, who appears to have a strongstreak of independence. Finally, high MPS-FDE managers tend to deal with stress andpressure in a manner that enables them to maintain a high level of effectiveness.Summary and DiscussionOverviewThe higher-order model of championship developed for criterion measurement inStudy 1 was used as a starting point for the development of a low-fidelity simulation ofchampionship, called the Management Practices Simulation (MPS). Based on thebehavioral consistency model, the MPS was scored for 10 primary and two secondaryscales, corresponding to the first- and second-order criterion factor scales.Internal consistency reliabilities for the MPS primary scales ranged from a low of.37 to a high of .76. Correlations between the primary scales and their first-ordercriterion factor counterparts ranged from .02 to .26. As discussed, the psychometricadequacy of the 10 primary scales varied widely. A variety of techniques was used toexamine the construct validity of the primary scales. A consideration of the availablereliability and validity data led to the conclusion that, in its present form, the MPSprimary scales suffered from shortcomings that would limit their usefulness as predictorsof behavior.MPS secondary scale internal consistencies were .70 and .72. These twosecondary scales correlated .35 and .25 with their conceptually-related second-ordercriterion factor scale (.37 and .26 after correction for criterion unreliability). A variety ofanalyses designed to examine the construct validity of these secondary scales indicated270that the scales: (a) possessed adequate levels of internal consistency reliability, (b)showed adequate convergent and discriminant validity, (c) demonstrated a second-orderfactor structure highly similar to that associated with the first-order criterion factor scales,(d) correlated with many of the same AC battery scales as did their two criterioncounterparts, and (e) were largely orthogonal, thus mirroring the orthogonality of the twosecond-order criterion factor scales.Social desirability was, however, still a concern in connection with one of the twosecondary scales, MPS-IVD. As reported earlier, this scale could not be balanced forsocial desirability. As a result, the measurement of championship and social desirabilityis confounded: high scores on MPS-IVD may reflect both high levels of championship aswell as a tendency to present oneself in a positive light. This was, to some extentunavoidable, given the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cheroic\u00E2\u0080\u009D or desirable elements of this secondary scale. The MPSFDE scale is well-balanced for social desirability. In fact, the champion items wereslightly more undesirable than the non-champion items.The Meaning ofHigh Scores on the Management Practices SimulationA variety of methods were used to provide information on the construct validity ofthe MPS scales. Synthesizing the results from these various methods, it was found thatmeasurement at the primary scale level was problematic. Many of the scales showed poorconvergent and discriminant validity. The primary scales were, in some cases,empirically unrelated to the criterion scale they were designed to measure, despite the factthat they shared similar item content. A decision was made, therefore, to consider onlythe secondary scales as meaningful units of measurement, given their relatively superiorpsychometric properties.The MPS-FDE scale was found to covary with many of the same AC batteryscales as its criterion counterpart. The meaning of high scores on MPS-FDE was,therefore, similar in some respects to the meaning attached to high scores on the relatedcriterion scale. It was found that high scorers could be described as dominant, assertive271and socially poised. They are likely somewhat impulsive and tend to be hard driving andjob involved. Finally, the high scorer has a tendency to take on leadership roles andbehave in ways characteristic of the entrepreneur. For the most part, this profile can begleaned from both operationalizations of FDE.The two most salient differences between the MPS-FDE scale and its criterioncounterpart are found on the second page of Table 42. The MPS-FDE scale correlatedsignificantly (r = .47) with Quality of Judgment as measured by the TSIB; as well, itfailed to correlate significantly with Overall Management Performance. These tworesults converge to suggest that high scores on the MPS-FDE scale are not necessarilyindicative of low overall management performance, as they were in connection with thecriterion measure of FDE. Rather, high scores on MPS-FDE appear to be unrelated toone\u00E2\u0080\u0099s overall management performance, but are, rather, significantly related to one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s levelof judgment when carrying out administrative tasks.Still, the MPS-FDE scale, like its criterion counterpart, taps into themes ofinterpersonal behavior that support the conceptualization of this simulation scale as ameasure of the dark side of championship. The pattern of correlations reported in Table42 together with the item content (reported in Appendix R) suggest that high scorers onthis simulation scale would likely be similar to high scorers on the criterion scale. Thedark side appears to have been replicated in a new context of measurement.Turning to the MPS-IVD scale, there is evidence to suggest that the simulation ismeasuring components of the heroic side of championship. What it fails to measure isoverall management performance. The IVD criterion scale correlated .80 with OMP,while the MPS-IVD scale correlated .07 with OMP. This secondary MPS scale appearsto be unrelated to OMP.The MPS-IVD scale correlations with the AC battery scales listed in Table 42 leadto a characterization of the high scorer as outgoing, poised, and socially effective and, asnoted earlier, lacking in the aggressiveness and abrasiveness associated with high scorers272on MPS-FDE. High scorers on both secondary scales would likely be outgoing andascendant people, but the high scorer on MPS-IVD might not have the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cedge\u00E2\u0080\u009D that thehigh scorer on MPS-FDE might demonstrate. Like the high scorer on the MPS-FDEscale, the high MPS-IVD manager would tend to take on roles related to leadership andentrepreneurship. As well, the high scorer would tend to be involved in their job, but notto the point of demonstrating the typical Type A behavioral pattern of impatience andextreme haste. Rather, s/he would likely be planful and level-headed. S/he would tend topay attention to the needs of others, by developing and providing feedback to his/hersubordinates and by considering other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 needs when working through conflict.Thus, although the MPS-IVD and MPS-FDE scales contain a common theme ofinterpersonal assertiveness and extraversion, they can be meaningfully distinguished onthe basis of both their item content and their correlates. The picture of the high scorer onMPS-IVD that emerged from the analyses in Study 3 was one of dedication, focus,steadiness, planfulness, and concern for others. This dimension contained an element ofcommunion that did not emerge from a consideration of both the item content andcorrelates of MPS-FDE. The high scorer on MPS-IVD may be a champion who is ableto consider the other person and the needs of the organization.The Predictive Usefulness of the Management Practices SimulationGiven that the main purpose of Study 3 was to design an instrument that could beused as an assessment tool to aid in the identification and selection of organizationalchampions, the relative predictive validity of the MPS is of central importance. Can theMPS be used to predict championship and would its use result in more accurateprediction of championship than the use of standardized, widely-used, generic assessmentprocedures? The results of Study 3 allow a conditional, not an absolute, answer to thisquestion.The two MPS secondary scales correlated with their conceptually-related criterionscales .35 and .25, respectively. None of the scales reported in Study 2 correlated with273these two criteria at levels that exceeded the MPS results. Recall that none of the ACbattery scales correlated significantly at all with the IVD criterion. Thus, the presentvalidity coefficient of .25, while not outstanding, represents the best measurement optionin connection with the heroic side of championship reported thus far. The nearestcompetitor to the MPS-FDE scale was the Entrepreneurship dimension measured by thestructured interview. Interestingly, this variable (along with the Entrepreneurshipdimension scored from the role play exercises) comes closest to having been designedspecifically for the purpose of measuring behavior relevant to championship.Results of the multiple regression analyses demonstrated that the MPS scalesadded to the overall criterion-related validity of the AC battery scale linear combinations.In fact, for both the FDE and IVD criteria, the conceptually-related MPS scales had thelargest beta weights. The results of Study 3 suggest that the MPS scales can be used toboost substantially the level of criterion-related validity achieved with scales fromstandardized personality inventories.The present results do not, however, permit an unqualified celebration of therelative superiority of the MPS secondary scales as criterion correlates of championship.First, the MPS scales were constructed by means of item-analytic procedures that resultedin the selection of the most promising items from a larger item pooi. The items includedin the secondary (and primary) scales were chosen, in part, on the basis of item-criterioncorrelation. It is likely that the validity coefficients calculated overestimate the truevalidity of the instrument. The MPS items chosen because of their high item-criterioncorrelation may not, in a new sample, sum to yield secondary scales that are equally asvalid as the level of validity obtained in Study 3. The issue is one of generalizability andthe appropriate resolution calls for cross validation, a goal that should be pursued infuture research.The same is also true of the scale internal consistency reliabilities. These figuresmay be over-estimates of the level of scale homogeneity that might be found if the MPS274were administered and evaluated in a new sample. Ideally, both reliability and validityestimates of tests and their scales should be based on a sample separate from the one usedto make item selection decisions. Thus, at present, the reliability and validity figuresreported in connection with the MPS secondary scales must be interpreted with cautionand viewed as possible over-estimates of true internal consistency reliability andcriterion-related validity.The 22- and 16-item versions of the two secondary scales should be validated ina new sample against criterion ratings of championship that incorporate the two-dimensional structure identified in Study 1. If such research were done, it is likely thatthe validity coefficients obtained in Study 3 would shrink. But this is an empirical issueand should be addressed in this manner.A second issue in connection with the criterion-related validity of the MPS scalesrelates to criterion measurement. The MPS scales were correlated against supervisoryratings of championship. This approach is typical of validity studies in general. Rarelyare objective criteria of performance available or even relevant. In the present study,criterion measurement was carefully done with a high level of reliability. Nevertheless, itshould be noted that the validity coefficients reported in both Studies 2 and 3 relate toratings of championship behavior rather than documented on-the-job accomplishments inthe context of product or process innovation. To the extent that supervisory ratings ofchampionship might disagree with actual, documented accomplishments related tochampioning products and processes, the findings of both Studies 2 and 3 can bechallenged.Finally, in connection with the two secondary MPS scales, it should be noted that,while it was possible to very-nearly balance the MPS-FDE scale for social desirability,such a balance could not be achieved on the MPS-IVD scale. Thus, if used as anassessment tool, it is likely that one could achieve a high score on IVD by choosing themost desirable response options. As noted in both Studies 1 and 3, it was difficult to275conceptualize the IVD dimension as anything other than a desirable, prosocial componentof championship. This heroic side of championship is inherently socially desirable; itsmeasurement was, therefore, plagued with this reality.Notwithstanding these limitations, results from the MPS were encouraging andsupport its further study. Its overall level of validity (at the secondary scale level)compares favorably with validity coefficients reported by Motowidlo et al. (1990) inconnection with their low-fidelity simulation, although, clearly, the MPS needs to bevalidated in a new sample. Importantly, as well, satisfactory levels of validity wereachieved even though significant modifications were made to the traditional methodologyof low-fidelity instrument development. This latter issue bears further discussion.Low-Fidelity Simulations as Measures ofMulti-Dimensional ConstructsThe development of the MPS, although patterned after the low-fidelity simulationapproach ofMotowidlo et al. (1990) was unique in a number of ways. First, it wasdesigned to predict behavior related to a role rather than a job. Second, because that rolewas found, in Study 1, to be multi-dimensional, the MPS was designed to be scored for anumber of discrete dimensions. In order to address these unique measurement objectives,response options were generated and keyed for championship and dimensionalmembership prior to the drafting of scenarios. Dimensional keying (as well as keying forchampionship) was then done on the basis of results from two factor analyses.Despite these modifications to the traditional developmental methodology of thelow-fidelity simulation, respectable levels of criterion-related validity were achieved atthe secondary scale level. Moreover, unlike the low-fidelity simulations designed topredict overall job performance, a moderate degree of interpretive significance can beattached to high and low scores on the two secondary scales: the scale scores arepsychologically meaningful. Indeed, Motowidlo et al. (1990) acknowledged that theirsimulation was not designed to measure \u00E2\u0080\u009C...any particular predispositional sign or276construct\u00E2\u0080\u0099 (p. 641). Its usefulness and utility was its predictiveness rather than its powerto explain or describe behavior.The results of the present study suggest that low-fidelity simulations can bedeveloped as valid measures of a construct and that the methodology can be generalizedfrom the analysis of jobs to the analysis of constructs or roles. There is some question,however, as to the ability of these simulations to measure a number of dimensions relatedto such constructs. In the present study, satisfactory measurement was achieved with thetwo secondary scales, but, as has been discussed throughout, this was not the case at theprimary scale level.It may be that, in a multi-scenario simulation, the various contexts change themeaning of response options originally designed to measure the same thing. Thus, whatmight be construed as an obvious and flagrant example of rule breaking in one contextmay be a trivial, insignificant impropriety in another. The context can change themeaning (certainly the degree) of the behavior. This is not a problem in connection withthe Motowidlo et al (1990) approach because the dimensional membership of a responseis irrelevant; rather, total scores represent the number of \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccorrect\u00E2\u0080\u009D response optionsendorsed across the various scenarios.Application of the Management Practices SimulationAs noted in the introductory section of this study, the aim of most selectionprocedures is to be valid, practical, and defensible in court (Schmitt & Ostroff, 1986). Inthis regard, the MPS was found to correlate significantly with supervisory ratings ofchampionship and at levels that exceeded criterion correlations of a variety ofstandardized tests and simulation exercises. There is preliminary evidence, then, ofcriterion-related validity for the MPS secondary scales, but, as noted before, these scalesshould be cross-validated.The MPS is practical. It takes approximately 30 minutes to complete. It can beadministered in a group setting and its instructions are simple and straightforward.277Finally, it can be objectively scored in a matter of minutes. The MPS enjoys many of thebenefits associated with low-fidelity simulations.The issue of legal defensibility is one that, in Canada, is decided on a case by casebasis. Like our neighbours to the south, we have professional standards for testconstruction [i.e., the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) Guidelines] but thesehave not been codified by the judicial system. Our Guidelines clearly articulate standardsfor test development and validation that require publishers and distributors of tests toreport information related to reliability, validity, and adverse impact. But the legaldefensibility of a test is established in court, following, typically, a complaint by anindividual who charges adverse impact. In such a court case, our CPA Guidelines areconsulted by the court as a reflection of the professional standards of practicingpsychologists but not as a legally-binding document.As noted above, the legal process in Canada is complaint driven. Thecomplainant must establish that the selection instrument shows adverse impact\u00E2\u0080\u0094a termthat has been borrowed from the United States federal government as defined in their1978 Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. To demonstrate adverseimpact, the complainant must show that the selection rate for a given protected group isless than four-fifths the rate for the group with the highest selection rate. In practice, theCanadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has considered other information, as well,in determining adverse impact.If a case of adverse impact can be proven, then it is up to the defendant (typicallyan organization) to show that the test is job related. This is done by showing that the testwas developed following a careful job analysis and/or that the test is valid. In short, theymust show evidence that the test is related to and relevant for the job in question.The extent to which use of the MPS might result in adverse impact for variousminority groups is, at present, unknown. The Study 3 sample was almost exclusivelyCaucasian. There is, however, gender data relevant to adverse impact. Mean scores for278men and women did not differ significantly overall on the 10 primary MPS scales. Inaddition, individual t-tests comparing mean scores for men and women for each primaryscale failed to reveal any significant differences. There is no reason, therefore, to suspectthat the MPS is likely to adversely affect the selection rate for women.The technical information currently available on this test is likely adequate toenable the MPS to withstand a legal challenge if it were put into use and, in the future,found to adversely effect a given ethnic minority group. The MPS is based on a carefulrole (job) analysis, and, therefore, satisfies the CHRC specifications pertaining to jobrelatedness. Moreover, results related to criterion-related validity have been presentedand are positive, at least in connection with the secondary scales. The research results, todate, are encouraging, but clearly, from a professional standpoint, further research isneeded to: (a) cross-validate the present findings, and (b) examine issues related toadverse impact with minority groups.In closing, the MPS is a special-purpose low-fidelity simulation that incorporatesa number of innovations in simulation development. It was designed to measure a role orconstruct and it measures more than one dimension related to that construct. Itssecondary scales correlated significantly with supervisory ratings of championship and atlevels that exceeded the criterion correlations of a variety of scales from an extensiveassessment center battery. The results thus far are promising and support the validity,practicality, and legal defensibility of the MPS. Nevertheless, further research on thisinstrument is needed before it is put into use for organizational decision making.279SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSThe overarching and common purpose of the present research was to examine, indepth, the champion, with special attention given to an examination of his/her role andindividual-differences characteristics. A structural model of championship wasdeveloped in Study 1 in which the champion role was defined by two levels of behavioraldimensions. In Study 2, individual-differences correlates of championship were reportedand a psychological profile of the champion was developed in order to: (a) betterunderstand the psychological profile of the champion, and (b) predict ratings of championbehavior. Finally, in Study 3, a low-fidelity simulation of championship, based on thebehavioral consistency model, was developed and its psychometric properties examined.The purpose of this chapter is to summarize concisely the main findings of thethree studies and discuss the extent to which the results are consistent with the hypothesesoutlined in the chapter preceding Study 1. That is, have the results reported in Studies 1,2, and 3 changed our conceptualization of championship? Which hypotheses wereconfirmed and which were rejected and to what extent did new findings emerge thatindicate interesting and promising areas for further investigation? Issues related to thegeneralizability of the results will be discussed throughout. Finally, some discussion onthe implications of the results for theory and application will be offered.Study 1In this study, it was hypothesized that a hierarchical model of championshipwould emerge to define and describe championship. This model would consist of threelevels or strata. At the highest level would be championship, subsumed by two secondorder dimensions, labeled Conceptualizing/Developing/Designing Innovation andWorking to Promote Innovation in Table 2. These two second-order dimensions would,in turn, each be subsumed by a number of more specific behavioral dimensions. Thedimension labeled Working to Promote Innovation would be judged to be most prototypicor central to championship.280The hypothesized structural model of championship did not emerge in Study 1.Instead, championship was represented by two (not three) levels or strata. Two second-order factors emerged that were orthogonal; thus, a third-level construct, championship,could not be defined. Moreover, the two second-order dimensions that emerged did notcorrespond to those hypothesized. Innovation was not one of the two second-orderdimensions, as hypothesized. Rather, as discussed in some detail in Study 1, a dark and aheroic side to championship emerged and these two dimensions were judged to beroughly equal in prototypicality to overall championship.Based upon the results obtained, the following conclusions appear warranted.First, championship is a multi-dimensional construct. Those persons who championprojects engage in a variety of behaviors that can be coherently organized into a numberof discrete and specific dimensions. Application of the act frequency approach to theconstruct of championship led to the development of a refined and concrete multidimensional model of championship that illustrates the specific acts that championsperform.Second, championship is a matter of degree. Managers can be ordered along acontinuum of championship on the various first- and second-order dimensions. It appearsjustified to measure championship as a continuous, rather than discrete, variable.Managers are not either champions or non champions; behavior varies in degree. Likemost variables in the behavioral sciences, championship is not truly dichotomous.Third, championship is not solely the domain of the hero; rather, there exists adark side to championship that is equally as central or prototypic to the construct as is theheroic side. In order to achieve their objectives, champions will, at times, need to breakrules, promote themselves, behave impulsively, and aggressively dominate others.Fourth, the heroic side of championship overlaps considerably with overallmanagement performance (r = .80), while the dark side correlates negatively with thissame criterion (r = -.50). The heroic champion will tend to be a successful manager, as281defined by conventional performance indicators (e.g., Communication Skills, Reasoning,Planning and Organizing), while the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdark\u00E2\u0080\u009D champion will tend to be rated as a lower-performing manager. There may be a price to pay for organizations who encouragebehaviors that anchor the dark side.The following research projects would represent logical \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnext steps\u00E2\u0080\u009D in the studyof championship. First, the two dimensional higher-order structure should be replicated.Although steps were taken to obtain a stable and generalizable higher-order structure ofchampionship in Study 1 (i.e., through the use of both self- and supervisory-report dataand the generation of a common pattern), the existence of a heroic and dark side shouldbe confirmed in a new sample. As well, the criterion-related validity of the first- andsecond-order factors should be explored. That is, do ratings on these dimensionscorrelate with objective indicators of championship? Finally, the implications of a darkside of championship for innovation should be pursued. Are innovations more likely tosucceed if championed by a manager high on FDE or IVD? What types of innovationsrequire forceful vs. collaborative championship? A brief outline of proposed research isgiven below.Replication of the Factor Structure of ChampionshipA limitation of Study 1 was that the panel members who generated the initial poolof behavioral incidents were all BC Tel managers. This issue was discussed briefly inStudy 1 and it was pointed out that the panel members: (a) worked in a variety ofdifferent operational divisions in the company (e.g., Finance, Sales and Marketing), and(b) worked in a \u00E2\u0080\u009Chigh-tech\u00E2\u0080\u009D business environment and, therefore, should be cognizant ofissues related to product innovation. Nevertheless, if it was desired to replicate Study 1,it would be prudent to involve managers from a variety of industry types in the actgeneration process. As well, it would also be advisable to stress to panel members thatsome acts or behaviors might be cognitive in nature\u00E2\u0080\u0094that some behavior may be282designed to solve problems and create new things\u00E2\u0080\u0094in the hopes of obtaining statementsrelated to innovation, a dimension absent from the present structural model.In the interests of further testing the boundaries of the structural model,subordinate and/or peer (rather than self and supervisory) ratings might be used to obtainthe item-level data needed for the factoring. As in Study 1, large samples would berequired in order to obtain stable results. If these various steps were undertaken and asimilar structure emerged, this would be compelling evidence for the generalizability ofthe dimensional structure reported in Study 1, and the existence of a heroic and dark sideto championship.Validation of the Criterion DimensionsAlthough scores on the first- and second-order factor scales were correlated with a5-item criterion\u00E2\u0080\u009D measure of championship, this cannot be seen as a rigorous test of thevalidity of the factor scales. All data were obtained from supervisory ratings. The factorscales require validation against an objective, verifiable, criterion measure of championparticipation and status\u00E2\u0080\u0094an index approaching an ultimate criterion, to use Dunnette\u00E2\u0080\u0099s(1963) term for the ideal, but unreachable, criterion for validation research.A realistic and suitable objective criterion measure of championship could beobtained through use of an approach similar to that employed by Howell and Higgins(1990a). It would start with the identification of innovation projects across a variety ofindustries and organizations. Individuals intimately involved in the innovation projectwould be asked to nominate a key figure who championed the project. Individuals wouldbe recognized as champions only if nominated by all knowledgeable parties. Theseindividuals would be administered the criterion checklist and their mean scores comparedwith the scores of managers who were also involved in the innovation project but not aschampions. Such an approach would result in the development of a dichotomouscriterion and the formation of two extreme groups. The group of champions should283receive significantly higher mean scores on the various first- and second-order factorscales than the non-champion group.Championship and PsychopathyThe connection between the dark side of championship and psychopathy wasdiscussed in Study 1 and overlap between these two constructs was noted. The literatureon psychopathy was used to better understand the meaning of high scores on FDE. At thesame time, it was stressed that high scorers on FDE were not necessarily psychopaths.This connection bears further examination.Beginning with a case study approach, the following research issues might beaddressed. First, are there psychopaths among the corporate champions and how do these\u00E2\u0080\u009Ccorporate psychopaths\u00E2\u0080\u009D or white-collar/sub criminal psychopaths behave? Do theydemonstrate the interpersonal and affective traits of the psychopath? Are they able tocover up their anti-social and irresponsible behavior by acting in charming and otherwisesocially-effective ways? Secondly, what is the incidence of psychopathy among self-selected champions of innovation? It is almost certainly not as high as in the criminalpopulation, but is likely higher than in the adult general population where the incidence isroughly 1% (Hare, 1993).The relationship between psychopathy and innovation success would also beworth examining. Specifically, is there a relationship between both: (a) initial innovationsuccess (implemented vs. not implemented), and (b) long-term innovation success, on theone hand, and psychopathy? It seems likely that a champion motivated by his/her innerneeds is more likely that a heroic champion to persist with \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbad\u00E2\u0080\u009D ideas that are likely tofail or lead to negative organizational outcomes. Thus, one might expect a negativecorrelation between psychopathy and long-term innovation success, but no correlationbetween psychopathy and initial innovation success.284Study 2Hypotheses for Study 2 (as reported in Table 14) were drawn from the findings ofprevious research, organized in Table 3 into dimensions of personality and cognitiveability. Some of the hypothesized relationships emerged, whereas others did not. Asdiscussed in Study 2, it is possible that some relationships did not emerge due topsychometric limitations acknowledged in connection with IVD.Hypotheses were originally proposed with reference to overall championship.Since the two second-order factor scales uncovered in Study 1 were orthogonal, anoverall score for championship was not computed. Instead, hypotheses were examined inlight of AC battery scale correlations with the two second-order criterion factor scales.Not one of the AC battery scales correlated significantly (p < .01) with IVD. Thus, asnoted in Study 2, the individual-differences profile of the champion was based,exclusively, on AC battery scale correlations with FDE.Notwithstanding these limitations, a number of hypotheses were supported and aclear and consistent profile of the champion emerged at the conclusion of Study 2. Thefollowing conclusions appear warranted.First, the champion is an interpersonally forceful, dominant, even aggressive andexhibitionistic figure. A number of previous researchers had commented on this aspect ofthe champion personality. Correlations between a number of scales from the personalityinventories, the role play, and the interview support this conclusion.The sensitivity, consideration, and tact reported by previous researchers did notemerge, although this was not hypothesized. Although collaboration and support was acomponent of the criterion scales, traits related to this criterion did not emerge. Thechampion\u00E2\u0080\u0099s interpersonal effectiveness appears to come from forceful persuasion ratherthan considerate accommodation and empathic support.Second, the champion is a competitive, ambitious, and driven individual. Theseconclusions are based on the criterion correlations involving the JAS and the285Entrepreneurship scale from the Interview. These relationships support hypotheses 5 and6 in Table 14.Third, the champion is somewhat impulsive, impatient, and likely to break rules.These relationships were predicted in hypothesis 8. Hypothesis 9 was also supported inthat the role play and interview measures of Initiative/Innovation correlated withchampionship. Taken together, these results paint the picture of a manager willing to takerisks, try new things, bend the rules, and behave in an opportunistic manner.None of the hypotheses related to cognitive ability were supported. Generalcognitive ability and innovation do not appear to covary with rated championship. Themanagers in Study 2 were, on average, a fairly select group, in terms of generalintelligence (the group average on the Wonderlic Personnel Test was just above 60).Thus, pre-selection may have driven down the correlations for general intelligence, butthe same explanation would not apply to innovative thinking, given that the mean scorefor the group was just below 50.Some limitations apply to the Study 2 results. This study was supported by onelarge Western Canadian organization. This was desirable since the objective was toconduct a validity study (cross-organizational validity studies pose a number ofmethodological problems). The generalizability of the results from the present research,are, as a result, limited somewhat by this fact. To the extent that the correlates ofchampionship at BC Tel are different from the correlates that might be found in otherorganizations, the present results may not generalize. These are empirical issues that canand should be addressed in future research.In support of the generalizability of the present results, the profile obtainedoverlapped significantly with that reported in Table 3, based on the literature review.Thus, in a sense, the descriptively-based individual-differences profile of the championreported in Table 3 can be seen as a retrospective cross-validation of the Study 2 findings.Moreover, it was also encouraging to see the same traits emerging as correlates of286championship across the various tests (e.g., CPI and PRF) and assessment domains (e.g.,personality assessment and the interview).Individual-Differences Characteristics and the Two Faces of ChampionshipAs noted before, the psychological profile of the champion obtained was basedlargely on AC battery scale correlates with FDE. As a result, the individual-differencesprofile is slanted toward the dark side. There are two possible explanations for the lackof AC battery scale correlation with IVD. As noted before, this may be a methodologicalartifact; that is, the low IVD criterion scale variability may be to blame for the lack ofsignificant AC battery scale correlation. A second possibility is that the heroic side ofchampionship is largely unrelated to basic traits.The plausibility of this latter possibility could be examined in future research. Ifthe dark side is largely trait related, then, barring concerted and long-term efforts atchange (i.e., psychotherapy), one might expect this class of behavior to remain relativelyconstant within people over time. If the heroic side is not trait related, but, instead,develops with experience and training, then one might expect to see shifts in people\u00E2\u0080\u0099sbehavior over time. It appears likely that many of the behaviors associated with WDmight develop with exposure to corporate life. For example, political skill andcompetence related to collaboration and teamwork could be expected to develop withexperience in most people.This issue could be operationalized, for example, as part of a longitudinal studyin the spirit of the Management Progress Studies conducted by Bray and Campbell (1968)and Bray and Grant (1966) at American Telephone & Telegraph (AT&T). Managerscould be rated by their supervisors on the criterion checklist after one year of employmentwith the organization (to provide an entry base-line) and, then, at 5-year intervals over thecourse of, say, 20 years. If the heroic side of championship is largely a result of training(rather than predisposition), then one might expect to see changes in the IVD scale scoresover time that exceed those associated with the FDE scales.287This would be, obviously, an ambitious research project, that might pay onlyminimal dividends. A simpler and more direct approach would be to attempt to replicatethe results of Study 2 in a new sample. Future research on the individual-differencescharacteristics of the champion should include criterion measurement of the two sides ofchampionship in order to test empirically this issue.Study 3The purpose of Study 3 was to develop a new instrument, a low-fidelitysimulation. Based on the behavioral consistency model, this instrument was designed tomeasure the factor scales obtained in Study 1. Items were chosen for the simulationscales in order to both maximize scale: (a) internal consistency reliability, and (b)criterion-related validity. No hypotheses were made with respect to Study 3. Rather, theobjective was to develop a new assessment tool that should, based on the logic of thebehavioral consistency model, possess criterion-related validity exceeding that achievedwith conventional assessment instmments.Results of Study 3 point to five major conclusions. First, the ManagementPractices Simulation (MPS) secondary scales possessed a satisfactory level of criterion-related validity. The MPS-FDE and MPS-IVD scales correlated .35 and .25 with theirtwo criterion counterparts FDE and IVD, respectively. Second, the criterion correlationsexceeded those achieved in connection with any scale contained in the assessmentbattery. Third, the secondary scales measure what they were designed to measure\u00E2\u0080\u0094theconstructs articulated and discussed in connection with criterion measurement in Study 1.Fourth, significant modifications can be made to the traditional methodology of lowfidelity simulation development that still lead to the development of an instrument withdesirable psychometric properties. Fifth, low-fidelity simulations can be designed tomeasure validly multi-dimensional constructs. Their use need not be restricted toprediction of overall job performance.288The Criterion-Related Validity of the Management Practices SimulationAn attempt was made to obtain adequate measurement with the MPS at theprimary scale level. As discussed in Study 3, this objective was not met. Although thecriterion correlations of some of the primary scales (particularly those associated withFDE) were significant, results of the MTMM analysis revealed poor discriminant validityfor the primary scales, overall. As well, a comparison of the correlates of the MPSprimary and conceptually-related first-order factor scales revealed, in most cases, minimalconceptual overlap. As a result, MPS measurement was restricted to the secondary scalelevel.As noted above, the MPS-FDE and MPS-1VD secondary scales correlated .35 and.25 respectively, with their criterion counterparts. Admittedly, this level of criterioncorrelation was achieved by selecting items on the basis of their correlation with thecriterion. Although this was not the sole criterion for item selection (item-total scalecorrelations and item social desirability were also salient concerns), the MPS secondaryscale validities will likely shrink somewhat upon cross validation. A higher level ofcriterion-correlation for each scale could easily have been achieved if concerns related tointernal consistency reliability and/or balance for social desirability were neglected. Thiswas, however, deemed unwise, given that the scales were designed to be used in aselection context where applicants would likely be motivated to present themselves in apositive light.In terms of the relative validity of the MPS secondary scales, recall that none ofthe AC battery scales correlated significantly (p < .01) with the IVD criterion. Since theMPS-IVD scale correlated r = .25 (p < .005) with its criterion counterpart, it surpassedthe level of criterion-related validity achieved with any component of the AC battery.The same was also true for the MPS-FDE scale. Its criterion correlation of .35 surpassedeven that achieved with the interview measure of Entrepreneurship. Results of themultiple regression analyses demonstrated the incremental validity of the MPS secondary289scales over the level of multivariate correlation that can be achieved with standardizedpersonality scales. The MPS secondary scales do a better job of correlating with the twosecond-order factor scales than any component of the AC battery.As noted above and in the discussion section of Study 3, the MPS secondary scalecriterion validities will likely shrink somewhat upon cross-validation. Thus, althoughthey correlated with the criteria to a greater extent than any of the AC battery scales, thisrelative advantage might not hold up if the study were replicated in a new sample.Nevertheless, the validity results achieved are promising and compare favorably with thevalidities reported in connection with other low-fidelity simulations (e.g., Motowidlo etal., 1990; Motowidlo and Tippins, 1993). The use of the behavioral consistency modelappears to have resulted in the development of an instrument with two secondary scalesthat possess desirable psychometric properties.Construct Validity of the Management Practices SimulationThe secondary scales of the MPS appear to measure constructs similar to thosemeasured by the second-order criterion factor scales. This was demonstrated by: (a) theMTMM analysis, (b) the exploratory and oblique procrustes factor pattern solutions, and(c) the correlational analyses in which it was shown that the AC battery scale correlates ofthe MPS secondary and second-order criterion factor scales were very similar. A highdegree of construct similarity was, of course, expected, since the MPS items were takenfrom the criterion scales, thus building in item overlap, and, as a result, content validity.Based on the results reported in Study 3, the high scorer on MPS-FDE can bedescribed as dominant, assertive and socially poised, familiar adjectives from Studies 1and 2. They are likely somewhat impulsive and tend to be hard-driving and job involved.Finally, the high scorer has a tendency to take on leadership roles and behave in wayscharacteristic of the entrepreneur. The high scorer on MPS-IVD can be described asoutgoing, poised, and socially effective but lacking in the aggressiveness and abrasivenessassociated with high scorers on MPS-FDE. Like the high scorer on the MPS-FDE scale,290s/he would likely take on roles related to leadership and entrepreneurship. The highscorer would tend to be involved in his/her job, but not to the point of demonstrating thetypical Type A behavioral pattern of impatience and extreme haste. Finally, the highscorer would tend to pay attention to the needs of others, by developing and providingfeedback to his/her subordinates and by considering other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 needs when workingthrough conflict.The overlap between MPS-FDE and its criterion counterpart is obvious. Therelationship between MPS-IVD and its conceptually-related second-order factor scale ismore difficult to ascertain, in large part because none of the AC battery scales correlatedwith this second-order criterion factor scale. Nevertheless, the MPS-IVD correlates dopaint a prosocial picture of the high scorer on MPS-IVD. Moreover, the MTMM andfactor analytic solutions support the notion that the two operationalizations of IVDconverge.Innovations in Low-Fidelity Simulation DesignAs discussed in some detail in Study 3, the development of the MPS did notfollow closely the developmental steps outlined by Motowidlo et al. (1990). Thesedifferences were due largely to the fact that: (a) the MPS was designed to measure aconstruct rather than ajob or job family, and (b) the MPS was designed to measure amulti-dimensional construct. Even though significant modifications were made to thetraditional methodology, promising levels of criterion-related validity were achieved.The secondary scale validities achieved in Study 3 (r = .25 and .35) compare favorablywith those reported by Motowidlo et al. (r = .28 to .37).It appears reasonable to conclude that low-fidelity simulations can be designed tomeasure more than overall job effectiveness. The results of Study 3 show that a lowfidelity simulation can be developed and scored to measure reliably and validly twodimensions of championship. Multi-dimensional measurement was likely achievedsuccessfully because the dimensionality of the criterion was established as a first step,291thus providing a solid, empirically-based blueprint for the development of multiple MPSscales. Admittedly, adequate measurement was not possible at the primary scale level,but this might be asking too much of a relatively brief assessment tool.An Overall Summary And Synthesis of the Three StudiesConsidering the results of all three studies together, some common and corethemes are apparent. First, and most generally, championship can be meaningfullystudied using an individual-differences, assessment-based paradigm. That is, individualscan be scaled along a continuum on criterion and predictor scales and this scaling reflectsmeaningful differences in behavior and temperament. Second, championship appears tobe a multi-dimensional construct that can be described according to a number ofbehavioral and trait dimensions. Third, a heroic and dark side of championship emergedin all three studies. Fourth, championship is, in large part, an interpersonal phenomenon.It has little to do with cognitive ability, general or specific. Fifth, men and women do notappear to differ with respect to their group mean scores on the various scales\u00E2\u0080\u0094bothcriterion and predictor\u00E2\u0080\u0094at least in Studies 1 and 3 where mean differences could betested.Given that the champion has been found to be such an important figure in theprocess of innovation, it seemed desirable to explore this role in the context ofassessment. The development of behavioral scales and the identification of traitcorrelates of these scales was guided by few precedents. As has been acknowledgedthroughout this document, quantitative data on the behavioral and/or the individualdifferences characteristics of the champion is scant. The application of traditionalassessment methodology to this construct has led to the development of an empiricallybased view of the champion that overlaps but is different in a few key respects from theimage reported by others.Part of this unique view of the champion involves the notion of a continuum: thatmanagers can be ordered along a scale reflecting their degree of championship. The292implication is that championship is not a true dichotomous variable, as it has been treatedby previous researchers. Just as people in the general population can be ordered along acontinuum on such variables as extraversion or leadership, individuals who work inorganizations can be meaningfully characterized as possessing varying degrees ofchampionship. Some will be prototypic champions or non-champions, but most will fallsomewhere in between.Moreover, championship is a multi-dimensional construct and should be treated assuch in future research. Such a treatment reflects the individual-differences paradigmadopted in the present research and respects the complexity of the phenomenon whenstudied at this level. The finding of two orthogonal higher-order dimensions ofchampionship forces one to consider that there might be more than one side tochampionship.. .more than one road or path that leads to implementation of innovation.This finding, if corroborated, could lead to interesting new research on the relationshipbetween championship and innovation success. At the least, perhaps we should stopdiscussing championship as if it were a single, coherent, homogeneous construct andbegin recognizing its diversity.Championship appears to be largely a function of personality, rather thancognitive ability. This is reflected by the absence of criterion dimensions related toanalytical reasoning ability and, especially, innovation in the structural model ofchampionship developed in Study 1. It is also reflected by the failure of the cognitiveability tests in the AC battery to correlate with the criterion dimensions. Themes ofdominance, persistence, interpersonal skill, drive, impulsivity, and unconventionalitysurfaced repeatedly. But intelligence or creativity appear to have little to do with theconstruct.Interestingly, and surprisingly, no gender differences were found. That is, meanscores on the criterion and simulation scales did not differ significantly for men andwomen (mean differences on the various components of the AC battery could not be293examined). For the select group of men and women studied, championship was unrelatedto gender.ImplicationsforApplication and TheorySince this research project was guided by an assessment paradigm, with a focus onselection, the application of the present findings must be considered. That is, has thepresent research resulted in the development of instruments that can be used to assist theHuman Resource function in identifying and selecting champions? A definitive answermust await the results of further investigation.A variety of assessment tools have been developed in this research project thatshow promise for identifying champions. But these are new instruments, and, therefore,require further evaluation. This does not preclude their use, but it does call for anongoing commitment to instrument development and refinement. Specifically, the issueof the validity of the criterion scales was raised earlier as was their generalizability.Similarly, the generalizability of the criterion-related validities reported in Studies 2 and 3should be addressed. At present, it seems fair to conclude that the results of the threestudies have led to the development of instruments that have been tailored specifically tothe measurement of championship and that these instruments show desirablepsychometric properties.Should others wish to use the instruments developed in this research project, theyshould be counseled to make a commitment to collect further data on the reliability andvalidity of these tools. With respect to the criterion scales developed in Study 1, normsare currently available for self- (n = 433) and supervisory- (n = 174) report ratings. Giventhe current intetest in bottom-up appraisal, it might be of interest to use the criterionscales for this purpose. At present, no norms exist for ratings made by either subordinatesor peers; this data would need to be collected if subordinate or peer ratings onchampionship were desired.294Of the various instruments examined in Studies 2 and 3, the following showedpromise in the prediction of one side of championship, Forceful Drive and Expediency:(a) the MPS, (b) the structured interview, (c) the JAS, and (d) a combination of 16PF,CPI, and PRF scales (based on the multiple regression results). Organizations who wishto select champions using psychological assessment, should be informed, clearly, that thismay be possible for one side or aspect of championship, that associated with forcefulness,self promotion, rebelliousness, and impatience, but that prediction of the other side hasnot been adequately demonstrated. The MPS shows promise for this purpose and shouldbe evaluated further, but, at present, it appears that selection systems may have onlyminimal utility in the prediction of the heroic side of championship.Turning to less applied concerns, has the theory of championship been advanced?The answer to this question is, I believe, an unqualified yes for many of the reasons notedearlier. First, we have a structural model of championship, based on the behavior of thechampion. This model is empirically-based and was found to generalize across both self-and supervisory report data. The emergence of a dark side raises interesting and highlyrelevant research issues that, if pursued, should lead to further developments in the theoryof championship.The present results confirm the findings of previous descriptive research on thechampion. Thus, a common core set of traits and characteristics have been identifiedfrom both empirical and descriptive research. As a result, we can have greater confidencein the validity of the trait profile of the champion that has, until now, been based largelyon general impressions of character and style. It was both re-assuring (and, in some ways,ironic) that the results of Study 2, based, as they were, on highly standardized andstructured assessment tools, lent support to the validity of trait descriptions obtained vialargely descriptive and unstructured methods.The results of Study 3 lend support to the behavioral consistency model. Apredictor instrument was designed based on the criterion. Wernimont and Campbell295(1968) and Asher & Sciarrino (1974) predicted that the closer the predictor to thecriterion, the greater its potential validity. As discussed earlier, the MPS secondary scalesshowed greater criterion-related validity than any of the AC battery scales in Study 2.The results of Study 3 thus confirm this early prediction, as do many of the reports ofassessment center, situational interview, and low-fidelity simulation validity.Looking toward future research on championship, the two most central issuesappear to revolve around the two-dimensional structure of championship obtained. First,we need to examine further the relationship between the dark side and psychopathy. If amore definitive connection between the two is established, how high should scores onFDE be before they signal trouble? Second, we need to think very carefully about theimplications of selecting managers on the basis of high predicted scores on the dark side.Selection for the dark side may be advantageous if forceful championship is needed.There may a cost, however, if the behavior of persons so selected is, in other respects,counterproductive.As in most industrial assessment situations, selection decision making is (shouldbe) guided by corporate strategy. Given the relationship established earlier betweeninnovation success and championship, organizations wishing to pursue a strategy ofinnovation would be advised to hire managers who can champion projects. Organizationspursuing a maintenance or low-growth strategy will, other things being equal, be lesslikely to require champions and their selection (and performance appraisal) systems willlikely reflect this difference.The results of the present research can be of value to those organizations pursuinga strategy of innovation. But, with respect to selection, given the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cunpredictability\u00E2\u0080\u009D of theheroic side of championship, those who design and implement selection systems andthose who make hiring decisions need to consider carefully the potential costs associatedwith the selection of managers based on tests that correlate with the dark side.Unmitigated and high levels of FDE among those selected could lead to a variety of296negative outcomes like internal conflict, even white-collar crime. If such a selectionstrategy were pursued, then it would also be important to examine the extent to whichthose hired later demonstrate the behaviors associated with the heroic side. Assumingthese behaviors can be trained, efforts toward this end might permit the more communaland heroic aspects of championship to balance those associated with the dark side.297REFERENCESAchilladelis, B., Jervis, P., & Robertson, A. (1971). A study ofsuccess andfailure inindustrial innovation. Sussex, England: University of Sussex Press.Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M.Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 123-167).London, England: JAI Press Inc.American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual ofmentaldisorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological Testing (6th ed). New York: Macmillan PublishingCompany.Asher, J. J., & Sciarrino, J. A. (1974). Realistic work sample tests: A review. PersonnelPsychology, 27, 5 19-533.Babiak, P. (in press). When psychopaths go to work: A case study of an industrialpsychopath. Applied Psychology: An International Review.Bakan, D. (1966). The duality ofhuman existence: Isolation and communion in Westernman. Boston: Beacon.Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and jobperformance: A meta analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.Bass, B. M. (1954). The leaderless group discussion as a leadership evaluation instrument.Personnel Psychology, 7,470-477.Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: FreePress.Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.298Bray, D. W., & Campbell, R. J. (1968). Selection of salesmen by means of an assessmentcenter. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 52, 36-4 1.Bray, D. W., & Grant, D. L. (1966). The assessment center in the measurement ofpotential for business management. Psychological Monographs, 80(17, Whole No.625).Brockhaus, R. H., Sr., & Horwitz, P. S. (1986). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In D.L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship (pp. 25-48). Cambridge Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co.Brown, J. I., Bennett, J. M., & Hanna, G. (1981). The Nelson-Denny Reading Test FormsE and F. Lombard, IL: Riverside.Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in thediversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 223-244.Burgelman, R. A. (1984). Designs for corporate entrepreneurship in established firms.California Management Review, 26, 154-166.Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1980). The frequency concept of disposition: Dominance andprototypically dominant acts. Journal ofPersonality, 48, 379-392.Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1981). The act frequency analysis of interpersonaldispositions: Aloofness, gregariousness, dominance and submissiveness. Journal ofPersonality, 49, 174-192.Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983a). The act frequency approach to personality.Psychological Review, 90(2), 105-126.299Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983b). Act prediction and the conceptual analysis ofpersonality scales: Indices of act density, bipolarity, and extensity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 45, 108 1-1095.Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by themultitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.Canadian Psychological Association (1986). Guidelinesfor Educational andPsychological Testing. Old Chelsea, Quebec: Author.Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., & Carland, J. C. (1984). Differentiatingentrepreneurs from small business owners: A conceptualization. Academy ofManagement Review, 9(2), 354-359.Cascio, W. F., & Phillips, N. F. (1979). Performance testing: A rose among thorns?Personnel Psychology, 32, 751-766.Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate BehavioralResearch, 1, 245-276.Cattell, R. B. (1973). Technical supplementfor the Culture Fair Intelligence Tests Scales2 and 3. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. Amsterdam: ElsevierScience Publishers.Chakrabarti, A. K. (1974). The role of champion in product innovation. CaliforniaManagement Review, 17(2), 58-62.Cleckley, H. R. (1976). The mask of sanity. Saint Louis: Mosby.Conger, J. A. (1990). The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, Autumn, 44-55.300Conger, J. A., & Konungo, R. N. (1987). Towards a behavioral theory of charismaticleadership in organizational settings. Academy ofManagement Review, 12, 637-647.Cox, L. A. (1976). Industrial Innovation: The role of people and cost factors. ResearchManagement, 19(2), 29-32.Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C . (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions (2nded). Urbana, IL: University of illinois Press.Curley, K. F., & Gremillion, L. L. (1983). The role of the champion in DSSimplementation. Information andManagement, 6, 203-209.Daft, R. L., & Bradshaw, P. J. (1980). The process of horizontal differentiation: Twomodels. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(3), 441-456.Damanpour, F. (1987). The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillaryinnovations: Impact of organizational factors. Journal ofManagement, 13, 675-688.Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects ofdeterminants and moderators. Academy ofManagement Journal, 34, 555-590.Damanpour, F, & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance: Theproblem of organizational lag. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 392-409.Delbecq, A. L., & Mills, P. K. (1985). Managerial practices that enhance innovation.Organizational Dynamics, 14, 24-34.Downs, G. W., & Mohr, L. B. (1976). Conceptual issues in the study of innovation.Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 700-714.Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship\u00E2\u0080\u0094 Practice and principles. NewYork: Harper and Row.Dunnette, M. D. (1963). A note on the criterion. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 47, 251-254.301Educational Testing Service. (c. 1970). ETS Consolidated Fund In-Basket Test (LongForm). Princeton, NJ: Author.E. F. Wonderlic and Associates, Inc. (1983). Wonderlic Personnel Test manual.Northfield, 1L: Author.Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal ofPersonality andSocial Psychology, 52, 11-17.Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P., & O\u00E2\u0080\u0099Keefe, R. D. (1984). Organizational strategy andstructural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. ManagementScience, 30(6), 682-695.Fernelius, W. C., & Waldo, W. H. (1980). Role of basic research in industrial innovation.Research Management, 23(4), 36-40.Flanagan, J. C. (1975). Flanagan Industrial Tests examiner\u00E2\u0080\u0099s manual. Chicago: ScienceResearch Associates.Flanders, N. A. (1967). Estimating reliability. In E. J. Amidon & J. B. Hough (Eds.),Interaction analysis: Theory, research, and application (pp. 16 1-166). Reading,Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The measurement of leadership attitudes in industry. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 37, 153-158.Freeman, C. (1982). The economics of industrial innovation. (Second edition). London:Frances Pinter.Frick, T., & Semrnel, M. I. (1978). Observer agreement and reliabilities of classroomobservational measures. Review ofEducational Research, 48, 157-184.Frohman, A. L. (1974). Critical functions for an innovative R&D organization. BusinessQuarterly, 39(4), 72-81.302Frohman, A. L. (1978). The performance of innovation: Managerial Roles. CaliforniaManagement Review, 20(3), 5-12.Frost, P. J., & Egri, C. P. (1991). The political process of innovation. In L. L. Cummings& B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 229-295). London,England: JAI Press Inc.Gaibraith, J. R. (1982). Designing the innovating organization. Organizational Dynamics,10(3), 5-25.Ghiselli, E. E. (1973). The validity of aptitude tests in personnel selection. PersonnelPsychology, 26, 461-477.Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery ofgrounded theory: Strategies forqualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.Gough, H. G. (1972). Manualfor the Personnel Reaction Blank. Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.Gough, H. G. (1975). Manualfor the California Psychological Inventory (Rev. Ed.) PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Guion, R. M. (1961). Criterion measurement and personnel judgments. PersonnelPsychology, 14, 141-149.Hakstian, A. R., & Cattell, R. B. (1975). The Comprehensive Ability Battery. ChampaignIL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Hakstian, A. R., & Cattell, R. B. (1978). An examination of inter-domain relationshipsamong some ability and personality traits. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 38, 275-290.303Hakstian, A. R., & Harlos, K. P. (1993). Assessment of in-basket performance by quickly-scored methods: Development and psychometric evaluation. International JournalofSelection andAssessment, 1, 135-142.Hakstian, A. R., & Vandenberg, S. G. (1979). The cross-cultural generalizability of ahigher-order cognitive structure model. Intelligence, 3, 73-103.Hakstian, A. R., Woolley, R. M., Woolsey, L. K., & Kryger, B. R. (1991). Managementselection by multiple-domain assessment: I. Concurrent validity. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 51, 883-898.Hakstian, A. R., Woolsey, L. K., & Schroeder, M. L. (1986). Development and applicationof a quickly-scored in-basket exercise in an organizational setting. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 46, 385-396.Hare, R. D. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths amongus. New York: Pocket Books.Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University ofChicago Press.Hart, S. D., Hare, R. D., & Forth, A. E. (1994). Psychopathy as a risk marker for violence:Development and validation of a screening version of the revised psychopathychecklist. In J. Monahan & H. J. Steadman (Eds.), Violence andMental Disorder:Developments in Risk Assessment (pp. 8 1-98). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Hill, I. D. (1987). An intrapreneur\u00E2\u0080\u0094turned\u00E2\u0080\u0094--entrepreneur compares both worlds.Research Management, 30(3), 33-37.Hinrichs, J. R. (1969). Comparison of \u00E2\u0080\u009Creal-life\u00E2\u0080\u009D assessments of management potentialwith situational exercises, paper-and-pencil ability tests, and personality inventories.Journal ofApplied Psychology, 53,425-432.304Hogan, R., Raskin, R., & Fazzini (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K.E. Clark & M.B. Blark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 343-354). West Orange: LeadershipLibrary of America, Inc.Homaday, J. A., & Aboud, J. (1971). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs.Personnel Psychology, 24, 141-153.House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L.Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-204). Carbondale, IL:Southern Illinois Univ. Press.Howard, A. (1983). Work samples and simulations in competency evaluation.Professional Psychology: Research and Practise, 14, 780-796.Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership inorganizations. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership:The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 213-236). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers.Howell, 3. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990a). Champions of technological innovation.Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317-341.Howell, 3. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990b). Champions of change: Identifying,understanding, and supporting champions of technological innovations.Organizational Dynamics, 19, 40-55.Hunter, J. B., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of jobperformance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. (1972). Manual for the 16 PF. Champaign,IL: Author.305Jackson, D. N. (1976). Jackson Personality Inventory: Manual. Port Huron, MI: ResearchPsychologists Press.Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research Form manual. Goshen, NY: ResearchPsychologists Press.Jenkins, C. D., Zyzanski, S. J., & Rosenman, R. H. (1979). Jenkins Activity Survey. NewYork: The Psychological Corporation.Jennings, D. F., & Lumpkin, J. R. (1989). Functionally modeling corporateentrepreneurship: An empirical integrative analysis. Journal ofManagement, 15(3),485-502.Kanter, R. M. (1982). The middle manager as innovator. Harvard Business Review, 61,95- 105.Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, andconditions for innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),Research in organizational behavior (pp. 169-2 11). London, England: JAI PressInc.Kanter, R. M. (1989). When giants learn to dance. New York: Simon and Schuster.Kemberg, 0. (1979). Regression in organizational leadership. Psychiatry, 42, 29-39.Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1989). Leaders who self-destruct: The causes and cures.Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 5-17.Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1991). Leadership styles and organizationalcultures: The shaping of neurotic organizations. In M. F. R. Kets de Vries (Ed.),Organizations on the couch: Clinical perspectives on organizational behavior andchange (pp. 243-263). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.306Kieruiff, H. E. (1979). Finding and keeping corporate entrepreneurs. Business Horizons,22, 6-15.Kilby, P. (1971). Entrepreneurship and economic development. New York: Free Press.Knight, K. B. (1967). A descriptive model of the intra-firm innovation process. Journal ofBusiness, 40, 478-495.Knight, R. M. (1985). Corporate innovation and entrepreneurship in Canada. BusinessQuarterly, 50(4), 83-90.Komives, J. L. (1972). A preliminary study of the personal values of high technologyentrepreneurs. In C. A. Cooper & J. L. Komives (Eds.), Technical entrepreneurship:A symposium (pp. 231-242). Milwaukee: The Center for Venture Management.Korman, A. K. (1968). The prediction of managerial performance: A review. PersonnelPsychology, 21, 295-322.Latham, G. P. (1989). The reliability, validity, and practicality of the situational interview.In R. W. Eder and G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory researchandpractice (pp. 169-182). Newburg Park, CA: Sage.Latham, G. P., & Wexley, K. N. (1981). Increasing productivity through performanceappraisal. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Latham, G. P., Saari, L. M., Pursell, E. D., & Campion, M. A. (1980). The situationalinterview. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 65, 422-427.Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory [Monograph].Psychological Reports, 3, 635-694.Long, W. (1983). The meaning of entrepreneurship. American Journal ofSmall Business,8(2), 47-59.307Lopez, F. M., Jr. (1965). Evaluating executive decision making: The in-basket technique.New York: American Management Association.Martin, A. (1982). Additional aspects of entrepreneurial history. In C. A. Kent, D. L.Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship. (pp. 15-19).Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.McAllister, L. W. (1986). A practical guide to CPI interpretation. Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.McClelland, D. C. (1965). N achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study.Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 1(4), 389-392.McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL.: Scott, Foresman.McCord, W., & McCord, J. (1964). The psychopath: An essay on the criminal mind.Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.Meehi, P. E., Lykken, D. T., Schofield, W., & Tellegen, A. (1971). Recaptured-itemtechnique (RIT): A method of reducing somewhat the subjective element in factornaming. Journal ofExperimental Research in Personality, 5, 17 1-190.Meredith, W. (1964). Rotation to achieve factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 29, 187-206.Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. ManagementScience, 29, 770-791.Morgan, G. (1988). Riding the waves of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Morse, N. C. & Reimer, E. (1956). The experimental change of a major organizationalvariable. Journal ofAbnormal Social Psychology, 51, 120-129.308Motowidlo, S. J., Carter, G. W., Dunnette, M. D., Tippins, N., Werner, S., Burnett, J. R., &Vaughan, M. J. (1992). Studies of the structured behavioral interview. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 77, 57 1-587.Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selectionprocedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 75(6), 640-647.Motowidlo, S. J., & Tippins, N. (1993). Further studies of the low-fidelity simulation inthe form of a situational inventory. Journal ofOccupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 66, 337-344.Nayak, P. R., & Ketteringham, J. M. (1986). Break-throughs! New York: RawsonAssociates.Nord, W. R., & Tucker, S. (1987). Implementing routine and radical innovations.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes. JournalofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583.Parker, J. E. S. (1978). The economics of innovation. (2nd edition). London: LongmanGroup Ltd.Person, E. S. (1986). Manipulativeness in entrepreneurs and psychopaths. In W. H. Reid,D. Doff, J. I. Walker, & J. W. Bonner (Eds.), Unmasking the psychopath: Antisocialpersonality and related syndromes (pp. 256-274). New York: Norton.Peters, T. J. (1987). Thriving on chaos: Handbookfor a management revolution. NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf.Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. M. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper andRow.309Pettigrew, A. M. (1985). The awakening giant. New York: Basil Blackwell.Pinchot, J. 111(1985). Intrapreneuring. New York: Harper and Row.Price, C., & Bailey, J. (1989). Characteristics of corporate entrepreneurs: Aninternational comparison. Paper presented at the T1MS Conference, Osaka Japan.Quinn, J. B. (1979). Technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategy. SloanManagement Review, 20(3), 19-30.Rahim, M. A. (1983). Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventories: Professional manual.Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Ramanaiah, N. V., Detwiler, F. R. J., & Byravan, A. (1994). Revised NEO personalityinventory profiles of narcissistic and nonnarcissistic people. Psychological Reports,75, 512-514.Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. PsychologyReports, 45, 590.Raskin, R. & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissisticpersonality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 54, 890-902.Reilly, R. R., & Chao, G. T. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative employeeselection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 35, 1-62.Roberts, E. B. (1968). A basic study of innovators; how to keep and capitalize on theirtalents. Research Management, 11(4), 249-266.Roberts, E. B., & Fusfield, A. R. (1981). Staffing the innovative technology-basedorganization. Sloan Management Review, 22(3), 19-34.Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. (Third edition). New York: The FreePress.310Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structureof categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.Rothwell, R., Freeman, C., Horisey, A., Jervis, V. T. P., Robertson, A. B., & Townsend, J.(1974). SAPPHO updated--project SAPPHO phase II. Research Policy, 3, 258-291.Schaef, A. W. (1987). When society becomes an addict. San Francisco, CA: Harper andRow Publishers.Schippmann, J. 5, Prien, E. P., & Katz, J.A. (1990). Reliability and validity of In-Basketperformance measures. Personnel Psychology, 43, 837-859.Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the problemof validity generalization. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 62, 529-540.Schmitt, N., Gooding, R. F., Noe, R. A., & Kirsch, M. (1984). Meta-analyses of validitystudies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study differences.Personnel Psychology, 37,407-422.Schmitt, N., & Ostroff, C. (1986). Operationalizing the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbehavioral consistency\u00E2\u0080\u009Dapproach: Selection test development based on a content-oriented strategy.Personnel Psychology, 39, 9 1-108.Scholihammer, H. (1982). Internal corporate entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L.Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 209-223).Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Schon, D. A. (1963). Champions for radical new inventions. Harvard Business Review,41, 77-86.Schuler, R. S. (1986). Fostering and facilitating entrepreneurship in organizations:Implications for organization structure and human resource management practices.Human Resource Management, 25(4), 607-629.311Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). Theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits,capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. New York: Oxford University Press.Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding.Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321-325.Smith, J. J., McKeon, J. E., Hoy, K. L., Boysen, R. L., Shechter, L., & Roberts, E. B.(1984). Lessons from 10 case studies in innovation-I. Research Management, 2 7(5),23-27.Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to theconstruction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal ofAppliedPsychology, 47, 149-158.Tatsuoka, M. M., & Lohnes, P. R. (1988). Multivariate analysis: Techniquesforeducational and psychological research (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan PublishingCompany.Terman, L. M. (1956). Concept Mastery Test manual. New York, NY: The PsychologicalCorporation.Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors ofjob performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.Thornton, G. C., & Byham, W. C. (1982). Assessment centers and managerialperformance. New York: Academic Press.Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Tucker, L. R. (1951). A methodfor synthesis offactor analysis studies. PersonnelResearch Section Report No. 984. Washington, D. C.: Department of the Army.312Tupes, B. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on traitratings. Technical Report ASD-TR-61-97. Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U.S. AirForce.Tushman, M., & Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for innovation. California ManagementReview, 28 (Spring), 74-92.Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures (1978). Federal Register, 43,38290-38315.Wemimont, P. F., & Campbell, J. P. (1968). Signs, samples, and criteria. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 52, 372-376.Wherry, R. J. (1931). A new formula for predicting shrinkage of the coefficient ofmultiple correlation. Annuals ofMathematical Statistics, 2,440-457.White, J. S. (1988). Intrapreneuring. Markham, Ontario: Penguin Books Canada Ltd.Wiesner, W. H., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1988). A meta-analytic investigation of the impact ofinterview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview.Journal ofOccupational Psychology, 61, 275-290.Wiggins, J. 5. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: Theinterpersonal domain. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 37, 395-4 12.Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for theunderstanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In W. M. Grove & D.Cicchetti (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology. Volume 2: Personality andpsychopathology (pp. 89-113). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Wollowick, H. B., & McNamara, W. J. (1969). Relationship of the components of anassessment center to management success. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 53, 348-352.313Zahra, S. A. (1986). A canonical analysis of corporate entrepreneurship antecedents andimpact on performance. Proceeding, NationalAcademy ofManagement, 46, 7 1-75.Zaitman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York:Wiley.Zmud, R. W. (1984). Diffusion of modern software practices: Influence of centralizationand formalization. Management Science, 28, 1421-143 1.314APPENDICESAPPENDIX ABOOKLETS USED IN FIRST TWO PANELS TO GENERATE THE BEHAVIORALINCIDENTS OR ACTSCORPORATE INNOVATION AND THE IDENTIFICATION OFCHAMPIONSRATING BOOKLET FOR BCTEL PANELMEMBERSPART ANAME:_________________GENDER:__ __DEPARTMENT:ROSS M. WOOLLEY\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGYDECEMBER 1992315PART AThe champion is an individual who informally emerges to take anew idea for either an administrative or technical innovation (anidea s/he may or may not have generated) and introduces, pushes,promotes, and sells the idea to others in the organization.Please think of two people you know who you would describe as champions, ideally,one man and one woman. With these individuals in mind, write down 15 or 20statements describing behaviors they might perform that would reflect their status as achampion.Please keep in mind the following things when composing the statements below:1. The champion can be either male or female2. The champion can be involved with either technical or administrative innovation3. The champion need not have been the one to originally generate the new idea4. Please ensure that the statements you write describe behaviors--things thechampion does--and are not just adjectives (e.g., creative, innovative, aggressive)that describe the champion5. The statements you write need not describe either positive/desirable ornegative/undesirable behaviorPlease record your 15 to 20 statements below:1.2.3.4.5.316PART A cont.Remember The champion is an individual who informally emergesto take a new idea for either an administrative or technical innovation (anidea s/he may or may not have generated) and introduces, pushes,promotes, and sells the idea to others in the organization.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.317CORPORATE INNOVATION AND THE IDENTIFICATION OFCHAMPIONSRATING BOOKLET FOR BCTEL PANELMEMBERSPART BNAME:______________ROSS M. WOOLLEYDEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGYDECEMBER 1992318PART BNow, consider the individual who you would consider to be entirely lacking in thecharacteristics of the champion. Such a person would never engage in any of thebehaviors characteristic of the champion. Think of two people you know who you woulddescribe as completely lacking in any of the characteristics of the champion. Suchindividuals would never have engaged in any of the behaviors you have just scripted.These people could, however, be very good--performing managers, valued people in thecompany operating at junior or senior levels.In thinking about these two individuals, reconsider, the highly-characteristic championbehaviors you just composed. These next 15 to 20 statements should reflect a completeabsence of the fifteen behaviors you just wrote. They should not be merely a negative restatement of the highly-characteristic champion behaviors. Please write down 15 to 20behaviors that would reflect or exemplify a complete absence of championship.Please keep in mind the following things:1. The non-champion can be either male or female2. Please ensure that the statements you write describe behaviors--thingsthe non-champion does--and are not just adjectives that describe the non-champion.3. The statements you write need not describe either positive/desirable ornegative/undesirable behaviorPlease record your 15 to 20 statements below:1.2.3.4.5.6.3197.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.PART B cont.320APPENDIX BBOOKLETS USED IN THE THIRD PANEL TO GENERATE THE BEHAVIORALINCIDENTS OR ACTSCORPORATE INNOVATION AND THE IDENTIFICATION OFCHAMPIONSRATING BOOKLET FOR BCTEL PANELMEMBERSPART ANAME:_________________GENDER:_____DEPARTMENT:ROSS M. WOOLLEYDEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGYJANUARY 1993321PART AThe champion is an individual who informally emerges to take anew idea for either an administrative or technical innovation (anidea s/he may or may not have generated) and introduces, pushes,promotes, and sells the idea to others in the organization.Please think of two people you know who you would describe as champions, ideally,one man and one woman. With these individuals in mind, write down 15 or 20statements describing behaviors they might perform that would reflect their status as achampion. Please focus exclusively on generating behaviors that are not particularlydesirable or are less than desirable.Please keep in mind the following things when composing the statements below:1. The champion can be either male or female2. The champion can be involved with either technical or administrative innovation3. The champion need not have been the one to originally generate the new idea4. Please ensure that the statements you write describe behaviors--things thechampion does--and are not just adjectives (e.g., creative, innovative, aggressive)that describe the championPlease record your 15 to 20 statements below:1.2.3.4.5.322PART A cont.Remember The champion is an individual who informally emergesto take a new idea for either an administrative or technical innovation (anidea s/he may or may not have generated) and introduces, pushes,promotes, and sells the idea to others in the organization.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.323CORPORATE INNOVATION AND THE IDENTIFICATION OFCHAMPIONSRATING BOOKLET FOR BCTEL PANELMEMBERSPART BNAME:________________ROSS M. WOOLLEYDEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGYJANUARY 1993324PART BNow, consider the individual who you would consider to be entirely lacking in thecharacteristics of the champion. Such a person would never engage in any of thebehaviors characteristic of the champion. Think of two people you know who you woulddescribe as completely lacking in any of the characteristics of the champion. Suchindividuals would never have engaged in any of the behaviors you have just scripted.These people could, however, be very good--performing managers, valued people in thecompany operating at junior or senior levels.In thinking about these two individuals, reconsider, the highly-characteristic championbehaviors you just composed. These next 15 to 20 statements should reflect a completeabsence of the fifteen behaviors you just wrote. They should not be merely a negative restatement of the highly-characteristic champion behaviors. Please write down 15 to 20behaviors that would reflect or exemplify a complete absence of championship. Thesestatements should reflect highly desirable behavior.Please keep in mind the following things:1. The non-champion can be either male or female2. Please ensure that the statements you write describe behaviors--thingsthe non-champion does--and are not just adjectives that describe the non-champion.Please record your 15 to 20 statements below:1.2.3.4.5.6.3257.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.PART B cont.326APPENDIX CLIST OF EDITED NON-REDUNDANT BEHAVIORAL INCIDENTS, ORGANIZEDINTO FOUR GROUPS: (A) CHAMPION, (B) CHAMPION UNDESIRABLE, (C)NON-CHAMPION, AND (D) NON-CHAMPION DESIRABLECHAMPIONSHIP BEHAVIORS GENERATED BY FIRST TWO PANELS1. I relate daily to individuals at all levels in the department (e.g., talk with clerks,check on progress of team members).2. I use humor to put people at ease.3. I listen attentively to people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ideas and feelings.4. I present a professional image to others through clothing choice.5. I only speak in meetings when I have a thought or idea that I strongly believe in; Idon\u00E2\u0080\u0099t make comments simply to attract attention.6. I make sure I rub shoulders with powerful individuals in other departments andbusiness units in the company.7. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to sell ideas to subordinates one-on-one.8. I publicly announce my intentions and objectives (e.g., we will get this contractby years end).9. I can display anger and frustration at the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwork-to-rule\u00E2\u0080\u009D attitudes of others.10. I tend not to bow/defer to the voice of authority.11. I tend to use effectively my political contacts in the company.12. I tend to do everything very quickly (walking, talking, writing, driving, etc.).13. I am generally aware of news of current events both nationally andinternationally, especially in terms of how that news might impact the businessworld.14. I am informed and aware of outside market influences on the company.15. I tend to start early and work late when I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m emotionally involved in a particularproject.16. I tend to dominate meetings with my opinions and visions when I wish toconvince others to accept my point of view.17. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to sell ideas to subordinates in meetings.18. I ensure that my successes in the company are known.19. I socialize primarily with people in the company and key suppliers.20. I network with company people in other departments.21. I enjoy challenging established methods at work; I rather enjoy rocking the boat.22. I volunteer for task forces and other related activities that allow me to be a changeagent.23. I develop and mentor others in the company.24. I am involved in personal development both at work and outside of work (e.g.,continuing education, cooking classes, etc.).25. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to sell ideas to superiors in meetings.26. When I speak about topics at work, I do so in a very enthusiastic manner.27. I make very distinct eye contact with others when I talk with them.32728. When I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m at a meeting or in a more casual setting at work, I tend to be the centerof attention.29. I am constantly organizing and re-organizing my daily, weekly, and monthlyschedule to maximize efficiency.30. I am involved in community activities.31. I am very serious when at work, maintaining my focus on the task at hand.32. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not afraid to speak up when with large groups of people.33. When I communicate, I tend to do so with my body (e.g., hands, arms) as well asmy voice.34. I tend to greet people at work in a very enthusiastic and friendly manner.35. I work to motivate teamwork--cooperation and collaboration among teammembers.36. I am successful when I attempt to \u00E2\u0080\u009Crally the forces\u00E2\u0080\u009D in support of an idea.37. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to sell ideas to superiors one-on-one.38. When I make a decision, I like to push ahead and take action--implement.39. I try to keep an open mind to new ideas.40. I work to communicate with others frequently by practicing \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmanagement bywalking around\u00E2\u0080\u009D.41. I empower subordinates to take action on their own.42. I use a wide variety of skills to analyze a situation when working toward making adecision.43. I focus on the pragmatics of the situation at hand; I work to find a solutionwithout allowing more peripheral issues or outside forces to complicate the issue.44. I hold brainstorming sessions to determine the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cideal world\u00E2\u0080\u009D.45. I analyze a situationlproblem from a variety of perspectives and consider alloptions before selecting a solution.46. I obtain the needed resources to do the job; I convince people of the need forchange so that others will resource the idea.47. I have a keen ability to see the process or the \u00E2\u0080\u009Coverall picture\u00E2\u0080\u009D: I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able tounderstand inter-relationships and effect an action linked through multipledisciplines.48. I am able to often gain the cooperation of others through various means.49. I get frustrated when I see things that have been done at work that are not correct.50. I have good time management skills.51. I am able to reduce an overall process to it\u00E2\u0080\u0099s smaller parts and then systematically,take action on each of the parts.52. When I hand off ajob to someone else, I go out of my way to include all detailsthat the new person will need.53. When I make a promise to someone in the organization, I always keep it.54. I am considerate of other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 well being in the company.55. I take a positive and optimistic stance in working toward the resolution ofproblems.56. I am good at getting people and groups to clarify their points.57. I have a vision of how I would ideally like to see things accomplished at work.58. After I have spent time pondering and considering an idea, I won\u00E2\u0080\u0099t leave it aloneuntil some action begins.32859. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not afraid to tell others, in a direct and forceful manner, what should be done.60. I support people to get the best out of them.61. I coach others about their weaknesses.62. I usually think of other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 needs and priorities before making decisions.63. I celebrate my own and other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 accomplishments at work.64. I develop a comprehensive \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgame plan\u00E2\u0080\u009D complete with time frames and then stickto it.65. I remain focused on tasks; I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not easily distracted.66. I am always able to find solutions to old and new problems by myself.67. I tend to challenge existing ways of doing things.68. I never take \u00E2\u0080\u009Cno\u00E2\u0080\u009D for an answer.69. When someone says that a new idea just won\u00E2\u0080\u0099t work, I always challenge thatbelief.70. I initiate status updates: I follow up in meetings or on the phone.71. I usually deliver persuasive presentations.72. I hold others accountable for delivering what they promise.73. I recognize the achievements and accomplishments of others both publicly andprivately.74. I sell ideas to senior managers through presentations, reports, or voice messages.75. I tend to speak my mind, regardless of the audience.76. I always come to meetings well prepared.77. I address every task with urgency.78. When confronted with a series of tasks, I do the most important one first, do itonly once, and don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t over analyze or agonize over my actions.79. I rebound from disappointments easily and quickly and get back to work.80. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m good at identifying winning solutions and then aligned myself with them.81. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to motivate individuals required to participate in projects.82. I have worked, over time, to develop credibility with peers, subordinates, andsuperiors.83. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m comfortable taking risks at work and moving out into unknown businessareas.84. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to generate easily a number of new ideas each day.85. I am able to get the time of executives in the company in order to communicatemy ideas.86. I enjoy getting recognition from others in the company for my accomplishments.87. I am able to thrive when working under conditions of unusually high pressure.88. I embrace and truly enjoy change in the workplace.89. I push my ideas to others every chance I get.90. I am interested in other people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ideas and work to support and encourage them.91. I solicit and incorporate input from others.92. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t tend to back down in the face of negative political pressure at work.93. I am not discouraged or side-tracked by other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 resistance to my ideas.94. I have risked disappointing others in order to get my own ideas across.95. I rarely have any free time at work; I always find myself doing something.96. I am stubborn and resistant, even in the face of legitimate criticism.32997. I have taken on challenges and responsibilities unrelated to my area of jobresponsibility.98. I am easily consumed by challenges, sometimes to the point where I will neglectsome of my normal responsibilities.99. I have persisted in pursuing an idea even when I was explicitly directed to stop.100. I have too little time to accomplish my work.101. I am able to use time and other resources to my best advantage.102. I track projects/activities on more than one level, blending ideas and actions fromvarious projects together.103. I tend to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwing it\u00E2\u0080\u009D; I improvise on the spot.104. In my daily activities at work, I am not restricted by norms or conventions in thecompany.105. I am able to draw others to my ideas.106. I am able to link--to connect--what may appear, at first, to be entirely unrelatedideas, items, situations.107. I seek out diversity in people, places, things.108. I am able to adapt quickly to changing situations.109. I tend to remain focused on the end product and persist until I achieve myobjective, regardless of what happens.110. I am able to obtain the very best from the resources I obtain.111. I am able to admit to having made mistakes when I make them.112. I know when to push hard for an idea and when to back off.113. I am able to easily shake off personal criticism.114. I readily accept constructive criticism.115. I tend not to obey established rules, and instead, create rules for myself andothers.116. I take action immediately on important projects or initiatives; I never \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdrag it out\u00E2\u0080\u009Dif the item is critical.117. I am very careful in the way I choose my words in communicating with others.118. I have a good understanding of organizational psychology.119. I get much of my work done in the back room. I convince others of my ideasbefore holding large-group discussions.120. I frequently consult with inside of outside specialists if I need help.121. I track and manage the financial aspect of my projects at work; I rarely let othersdo it.122. I make sure that every discussion I have with someone has a definitive outcome.123. I interact with others in the office very differently from how I interact outside ofthe office.124. I have an excellent memory for details and conversations.125. I tend to write very short and cryptic memos/notes.126. When I am having a discussion with another person, I am always able to remaincompletely focused on my own ideas.127. I orchestrate situations (e.g., meetings, one-on-one conversations) so that mywishes are approved.128. I become very impatient with trivial details that interrupt my plans.330129. I am often able to very accurately anticipate the reactions of others in theorganization to my plans.130. I always rigorously review plans to ensure their accuracy prior to them beingpresented.131. I confront situations head on; I never \u00E2\u0080\u009Costrich\u00E2\u0080\u009D.132. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t usually attend a lot of large-group meetings.133. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t compare myself with others.134. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t follow many routines in my work life; I like a lot of change.135. If some company rule or procedure gets in my way, I go around it.136. I have difficulty engaging myself--getting involved and enthusiastic--in projectsthat I have not \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbought into\u00E2\u0080\u009D.137. I tend to work pretty irregular hours.138. I read a diverse range of business literature.139. I tend to make personal sacrifices in my work, when I am dedicated to a task orproject.140. I tend to share moments of doubts about projects with only a select few.141. I tend to work well in team settings: I get along with others in a group and candelegate.142. I have very clearly defined goals both for myself and for the projects in which I\u00E2\u0080\u0099minvolved.143. I watch other successful managers and try to adopt the methods they use thatwork.144. I spent a fair bit of time gathering information about my work environment (e.g., Iask others both inside and outside of my work unit how they are doing).145. If I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m asked to become involved in a project, I rarely ever say no.146. I hate waiting for things to be completed; I tend to get impatient with people ifthey take too long.147. I always meet my deadlines at work.148. I am almost always willing to deal with difficult decisions, such as redundantemployees.149. I question and challenge all processes and procedures.150. I evaluate risks just once, and then go on to act.151. I always make time for people.152. In meetings, I tend to seek out both pros and cons.153. When engaged in some form of problem-solving, I always consider and list itemsthat will need follow up.154. I am able to inspire and motivate others.155. I have made quick decisions, that later turn out to be poor ones.156. I have taken a bad plan for a good idea and changed it to make it work.157. When I give advice to others, I give them the whole picture.158. When I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m at the office, I have an \u00E2\u0080\u009Copen-door\u00E2\u0080\u009D policy.159. I always join in in company social functions.160. When someone asks me for information, I give a quick response, and then followup.161. I am very careful to always keep my time commitments.331162. I share the concerns of upper management, with those in entry-level managementjobs.163. When someone complains about a problem, I ask them what, specifically, theywould do.164. When working on a project, I delegate items to people I know will take a positiveand inspired approach.165. I can easily recognize and appreciate talent in others; I always try to use otherpeople\u00E2\u0080\u0099s talents.166. I get impatient with others when they don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t work to my own high standards.167. I am very direct in expressing what I want; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbeat around the bush\u00E2\u0080\u009D.168. I am always willing to share information with others.169. I am fairly good at managing upwards.170. I know a lot of people in the company and I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to ask for their input andcommitment when its needed.171. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m always looking for ways to do things just a little bit better and a little bitfaster.332CHAMPION BEHAVIORS GENERAThD BY This THIRD PANEL1. I disregard rules and procedures.2. I focus only on results without regard for important sideline issues.3. I am typically unwilling to listen to others.4. I am always willing to \u00E2\u0080\u0098weed out\u00E2\u0080\u009D team members who are not immediatelyproductive.5. I focus on my own needs, not the needs and vision of the corporation.6. I do not pay attention to administrative details.7. When I think that someone is incompetent, I tell them.8. I typically disregard the financial implications of risk.9. I am unwilling to consider recovery strategies if things don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t go as initially planned.10. I compromise on issues in order to keep projects going.11. When attending a meeting, I often disregard the topic of the meeting, and, instead,talk about what interests me.12. I show up late for meetings and appointments.13. I will often argue with others, if I disagree with their ideas on an intellectual level.14. I tend to disrupt meetings.15. I communicate my ideas using a loud voice.16. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m candid with people; I tell them exactly what\u00E2\u0080\u0099s on my mind and what I think ofthem.17. I ignore authority.18. I show others when I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m angry.19. If I think that somebody has made a mistake or is not measuring up, I will makenegative comments about that person to others.20. I talk down to those who are not \u00E2\u0080\u009Cup to speed\u00E2\u0080\u009D or operating at a highly competentlevel.21. When I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m annoyed, I show it through my body language.22. I frequently act without a well-thought-through action plan.23. In meetings, I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t tend to build on other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 observations; instead, I disagreewith them.24. When talking about something I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m interested in, I tend to \u00E2\u0080\u009Crun ahead\u00E2\u0080\u009D with my ideas,assuming my points are linked for the listener.25. I take action without first seeking approval; I\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll get forgiveness later.26. I will always reject others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 attempts to control my behavior.27. I assume that all problems can be sorted out in the future.28. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t recognize hierarchies in the organization; I bypass management levels inworking toward my goals.29. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t keep my superiors informed of all my activities.30. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically take the time and effort to document all my plans and activities.31. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll go after new ideas, before following through on previous ones.32. I monopolize discussions.33. I have written letters and memos that attack others personally.34. I came and go as I please (i.e., meetings).35. I lead others into confrontational situations.36. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not afraid to confront an opponent in public.33337. I will sometimes bend the truth in order to achieve my goals.38. I ignore people who are not key players in my area of business and work.39. I usually don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t take the time to document things.40. I know how to use my political connections in the company to make things happen.41. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not averse to pointing out other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 faults and shortcomings behind theirback.42. I will break confidences with others, if it will increase the likelihood that I will meetmy own goals.43. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t always credit the person who originally comes up with a new idea; instead, Iwill, at times, take credit for the idea myself.44. I promote ideas that have the highest visibility and likelihood of success.45. I communicate only what I absolutely have to about a new project; I leave areas ofchallenge or doubt in the background.46. I focus on the long-range goal, sometimes at the expense of managing short-termneeds.47. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t concern myself with the people I offend or annoy in the pursuit of myobjectives.48. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m persistent in voicing my opinion over and over again, even if my ideas arerejected.334ABSENCE OF CHAMPION BEHAVIORS GENERATED BY THE HRST TWO PANELS1. When confronted with a new idea, I tend to think through the reasons why it can\u00E2\u0080\u0099tbe done (e.g., lack of people, no money, against company policy, etc.).2. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t usually persist in arguing a point.3. I tend to defer or pass on responsibility to other departments outside of my owncontrol.4. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically expend a lot of energy in accomplishing my job.5. I usually try to fit in fairly long coffee and lunch breaks when I get the chance.6. I typically don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t volunteer for extra work projects.7. I spend most of my day behind my desk.8. My own department is my priority; I make decisions that maximize payoff for mydepartment.9. I always try to stay within budget; even if extra work is anticipated, I try to get bywith the current staff.10. I am sometimes slow to take action in solving problems; I like to take my timeand carefully consider the options first.11. I tend to work fairly slowly, but consistently.12. I usually start work at around 8 and leave pretty close to 4.13. When I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m on a coffee break, I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t like to talk about work issues.14. I usually don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t work overtime.15. I have difficulty admitting to my mistakes.16. I prefer to work independently, rather than in a team setting.17. I concentrate on doing what needs to be done to complete a task, and then movingon to the next issue.18. I accept the rules and guidelines at work; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t question why we do things theway we do.19. I like to focus on specific aspects of a project; I prefer looking at the smaller,rather than the larger, picture.20. I sometimes run into snags at the implementation stage of projects in which I aminvolved.21. I sometimes put important items on the back burner for a bit too long.22. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not always that clear in conveying messages to others; at times, the subjectmatter may be just too complicated to get the point across.23. I like to get deeply involved in the more specific details of projects.24. I try to have a hand in all aspects of a project; I prefer not to delegateresponsibilities.25. I. focus on the issue at hand; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t worry about future issues until they arise.26. My base of operation is my office; I conduct my business from there.27. I expect others to comply with company guidelines, no exception.28. I will confront others for bending or going around company guidelines and rules.29. I easily conform to company expectations.30. I will always try to obtain consensus from others when proposing a given courseof action.31. I prefer to avoid conflict and, instead, work to smooth out disagreements andreach consensus.33532. I am good at playing a mediating role.33. I take all the time that is needed to discuss important issues..34. I can be critical of others if their recommendations are flawed in some way.35. I like to play a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdevils advocate\u00E2\u0080\u009D role at times; I encourage people to examineboth sides carefully before making decisions.36. When a request for action comes down from above, I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m very quick to respond.37. I defend the position of my department.38. I take tight control of projects, and very closely monitor their progress.39. I think it is sometimes best not to speak your mind.40. I sometimes have difficulty really \u00E2\u0080\u009Cseeing\u00E2\u0080\u009D other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 points of view.41. I tend to accept ideas and situations at face value.42. I am a methodical, orderly worker, carefully considering and taking action on oneissue, and then moving on to the next.43. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m happy to sit and talk with people at work at any time.44. I prefer to delay decision making at times, so that I can think through the issuesmore carefully.45. I am usually very patient in my dealings with others.46. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m good at following the direction of others.47. I prefer to work within my own departmentloffice.48. I am good at finding faults in new ideas and explaining why they likely will notwork.49. It\u00E2\u0080\u0099s important to let upper management know if the departmental workloadbecomes excessive.50. I have blamed other people and their demands on me for being overworked.51. If I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t like an idea, I\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll try to secure the support of upper management so that it\u00E2\u0080\u0099sdelayed, or not implemented.52. If someone has made a mistake, I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not afraid to pass on criticism to that personin a public forum.53. If things get too hot, I prefer not to participate.54. I prefer to let others worry about the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbig picture\u00E2\u0080\u009D.55. I see the company from the perspective of my own department.56. I prefer to be asked, rather than to volunteer, for new assignments.57. When faced with a number of alternatives, I seek out direction from others.58. I sometimes have difficulty working under pressure.59. I relate best to people at my own management level in the company.60. I enjoy being with people who have similar attitudes to mine.61. I can react jealously to other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 accomplishments.62. I stay in one job for a long time, so that I become an expert in that one area.63. I am interested in the technical side of projects.64. I tend to listen more than talk when Fm around other people.65. I enjoy routine, anduse routine to organize my work schedule.66. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m. able to say \u00E2\u0080\u009Cno\u00E2\u0080\u009D to others, when I feel that I have enough work to do already.67. I favor concrete rewards, such as pay and a nice office, over less concrete awards(e.g., praise, opportunities for participation in other projects).68. I enjoy working with new technology, tinkering with new gadgets, new software,etc.33669. I keep my office very neat and tidy.70. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m more concerned with getting all the details right on a project, than withmeeting a deadline.71. I prefer working on my own.72. I tend to present options and let someone else make the final decision.73. My focus is more on the specifics of the task at hand, rather than the environmentaround me.74. I work best in a highly structured work environment.75. I study carefully all issues and then pass on decision making to someone else.76. When I communicate with others, it is usually through mail (or voice mail), ratherthan face-to-face.77. I accept and follow company guidelines/rules even if they appear to be poor ones.78. I manage upward, sometimes at the expense of people below me.79. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t shy away from confrontations.80. I am an extremely reliable team player.81. I do my best work when I am given specific tasks and then guided through theircompletion.82. I carefully analyze situations; I work to understand all details, maybe more than iseven necessary.83. When a project I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m working on runs into an impasse, I look to others to solve theproblem.84. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t speak up at meetings.85. I follow a fairly precise schedule at work (e.g., coffee at 9:00, lunch at 12:00)86. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t tend to spend time socializing at work; I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m there to focus on the job, notother people.87. I maintain an immaculate work area and an empty \u00E2\u0080\u009Cin\u00E2\u0080\u009D basket.88. I refer to policies and procedures to define and support my work behavior.89. I define success, in part, by the quantity of work generated.90. I enjoy and seek out repetitive tasks.91. I dislike and avoid customer contact.92. I take my time when working on assignments.93. I wait for others to contact me regarding project updates, missed deliverables, etc.94. I tend to follow the direction of superiors without question.95. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not very comfortable meeting new people.96. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not very comfortable speaking in front of others.97. I can experience difficulty arranging my work in order of priority.98. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t ask an awful lot of questions at work.99. I avoid conflict and confrontation in my day-to-day work.100. I will not take risks with company time, people, and money.101. I have a lot of patience for completing the more tedious tasks.102. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m always punctual, arriving at meetings and other work obligations right ontime.103. I listen carefully when others debate a point, but I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t usually participate.104. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll take on boring tasks without complaint.105. If told to, I\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll do ajob even if I believe it\u00E2\u0080\u0099s the wrong move for the company.337106. I enjoy the implementation stage, more than the stages of planning and ideagenerating.107. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able and willing to do repetitive tasks.108. I prefer to work in a fairly stable and unchanging work environment.109. I will resist taking on a leadership role in a team.110. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t volunteer for \u00E2\u0080\u009Cvisible\u00E2\u0080\u009D jobs, preferring to remain more in the background.338NON-CHAMPION BEHAVIORS GENERATED BY THE THIRD PANEL1. I know and follow the corporate rules very closely.2. I have no problem completing the more tedious and repetitious tasks at work.3. I follow instructions very accurately.4. I refer all difficult or \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnon standard\u00E2\u0080\u009D issues on to a higher level in management.5. I pay close attention to the details of what I am doing.6. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t criticize others in their work.7. I do my best to accommodate to other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 wishes in order to keep them happy.8. I am very punctual.9. I keep very good records, documenting all events and activities.10. I enjoy working closely with others in a parallel manner.11. I find the time to take care of personal details in my work (i.e., writing letters ofthanks).12. I approach most issues in a very systematic, analytical, and disciplined manner.13. I respond to problems immediately.14. I am usually polite and sensitive to others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 feelings.15. I support people consistently; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t change allegiances with projects.16. I try to support and help others in the organization meet their goals.17. I always keep my appointments.18. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m very good at planning and organizing my activities.19. I recognize and can anticipate potential problems before they occur.20. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t seek out attention from others.21. I plan my actions well in advance.22. I follow direction easily and accurately.23. I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t go out of my way to look for new opportunities or change.24. I communicate very clearly and succinctly.25. I turn in a solid and consistent performance every day I come in to the office.26. I always strive to meet my performance objectives.27. When I communicate with others, I do so in a clear manner and get right to the point.28. I typically do what is correct and accepted in the company.29. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m a good team player; I work easily with peers with few conflicts.30. I embrace changes in procedures, processes and practices willingly.31. I try to get consensus on issues before taking action.32. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m almost always willing to compromise somewhat.33. If I come up with a new idea, I get the team to carry it forward.34. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m usually willing to take on extra tasks, if asked to do so.339APPENDIX DBOOKLET USED TO OBTAIN SOCIAL DESIRABILITY RATINGSMANAGERIAL ACTIVITY PROJECTCONDUCTED BY ROSS WOOLLEYUNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAFEBRUARY 1993340On the following pages, you will find some statements that describe activities in whicha manager might engage. Using the nine-point scale shown below, please judge whethereach statement reflects a generally desirable or undesirable activity as performed by amanager in a large company in North America. You should judge the desirability ofthese activities as they would seem if performed by other managers and not how desirablethey would be if performed by yourself. Base these judgements on your own, personalattitudes about how managers should manage.Please record your judgements on the answer sheet appended to the back of thispackage. For each item, circle the number corresponding to your choice on the answersheet. Please respond to every item. Note that this form is to be completedanonymously. Your judgements will be combined with judgements made by a largenumber of other people in determining the desirability of each of the managementactivities contained in this booklet.RESPONSE SCALEDESIRABLE UNDESIRABLEExtreme Strong Moderate Mild Neutral Mild Moderate Strong Extreme1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Heres an example item: S/he is able to sell ideas to subordinates one-on-one.If you think that the above item relates to a very desirable behavior--that the act ofselling ideas to subordinates one-on-one is a very desirable and positive one--then youwould circle the number \u00E2\u0080\u009C1 \u00E2\u0080\u009C. Remember, we are interested in your own, personal ratingsof the desirability of the statements contained in this booklet.Thanks for your participation.341(1) S/he refers all difficult or \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnon standard\u00E2\u0080\u009Dissues on to a higher level inmanagement.(2) S/he relates daily to individuals at alllevels in the department (e.g., talks withclerks, checks on progress of teammembers).S/he uses humor to put people at ease.S/he knows and follows the corporaterules very closely.(5) S/he disregards rules and procedures.(6) S/he listens attentively to people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ideasand feelings.(7) When confronted with a new idea, s/hetends to think through the reasons why itcan\u00E2\u0080\u0099t be done (e.g., lack of people, nomoney, against company policy, etc.).(8) S/he presents a professional image toothers through clothing choice.(9) S/hefocuses only on results withoutregard for important sideline issues.(10) S/he has no problem completing the moretedious and repetitious tasks at work.(11) S/he only speaks in meetings when s/hehas a thought or idea in which s/hestrongly believes; s/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t makecomments simply to attract attention.(12) S/he\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll take on boring tasks withoutcomplaint.(13) S/he makes sure to rub shoulders withpowerful individuals in other departmentsand business units in the company.(14) S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t usually persist in arguing apoint.(15) S/he is typically unwilling to listen toothers.(16) S/he is able to sell ideas to subordinatesone-on-one.(17) S/he follows instructions very accurately.(18) S/he publicly announces his/her intentionsand objectives (e.g., \u00E2\u0080\u009CWe will get thiscontract by years end\u00E2\u0080\u009D).(19) S/he can display anger and frustration atthe \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwork-to-rule\u00E2\u0080\u009D attitudes of others.(20) S/he tends to defer or pass onresponsibility to other departmentsoutside of his/her own control.(21) S/he tends not to bow/defer to the voiceof authority.(22) S/he does not pay attention toadministrative details.(23) S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically expend a lot ofenergy in accomplishing his/her job.(24) S/he tends to use effectively his/herpolitical contacts in the company.(25) S/he is always punctual, arriving atmeetings and other work obligations righton time.(26) S/he tends to do everything very quickly(walking, talking, writing, driving, etc.).(27) S/he pays close attention to the details ofwhat s/he is doing.(28) S/he is generally aware of news of currentevents both nationally and internationally,especially in terms of how that newsmight impact the business world.(29) S/he is informed and aware of outsidemarket influences on the company.(30) S/he usually tries to fit in fairly longcoffee and lunch breaks when s/he getsthe chance.(31) S/he typically disregards the financialimplications of risk.(32) S/he tends to start early and work latewhen s/he is emotionally involved in aparticular project.(33) S/he typically doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t volunteer for extrawork projects.(34) S/he is very punctual.(35) S/he tends to dominate meetings withhis/her opinions and visions when s/hewishes to convince others to accepthis/her point of view.(36) S/he is unwilling to consider recoverystrategies if things don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t go as initiallyplanned.(37) S/he spends most of his/her day behind a(3)(4)desk.342(38) S/he is able to sell ideas to subordinates inmeetings.(39) S/he ensures that his/her successes in thecompany are known.S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t criticize others in their work.S/he socializes primarily with people inthe company and key suppliers.(42) S/he networks with company people inother departments.(43) His/her own department is the priority;s/he makes decisions that maximizepayoff for the department.(44) When attending a meeting, s/he oftendisregards the topic of the meeting, and,instead, talks about what interestshim/her.(45) S/he enjoys challenging establishedmethods at work; s/he rather enjoysrocking the boat.(46) S/he always tries to stay within budget;even if extra work is anticipated, s/he triesto get by with the current staff.(47) S/he volunteers for task forces and otherrelated activities that allow him/her to bea change agent.(48) S/he shows up late for meetings andappointments.(49) S/he does her/his best to accommodate toother peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 wishes in order to keepthem happy.(50) S/he develops and mentors others in thecompany.(51) S/he is involved in personal developmentboth at work and outside of work (e.g.,continuing education, cooking classes,etc.).(52) S/he is sometimes slow to take action insolving problems; s/he likes to takehis/her time and carefully consider theoptions first.(53) S/he will often argue with others, if s/hedisagrees with their ideas on anintellectual level.(54) S/he is able to sell ideas to superiors inmeetings.(55) S/he tends to work fairly slowly, butconsistently.(56) When s/he speaks about topics at work,s/he does so in a very enthusiasticmanner.S/he tends to disrupt meetings.S/he usually starts work at around 8 andleaves pretty close to 4.(59) S/he makes very distinct eye contact withothers when s/he talks with them.(60) S/he listens carefully when others debatea point, but doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t usually participate.(61) When s/he is at a meeting or in a morecasual setting at work, s/he tends to be thecenter of attention;(62) When s/he is on a coffee break, s/hedoesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t like to talk about work issues.(63) S/he communicates ideas using a loudvoice.(64) S/he is constantly organizing and reorganizing daily, weekly, and monthlyschedules to maximize efficiency.S/he usually doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t work overtime.S/he is involved in community activities.S/he is candid with people; S/he tellsthem exactly what\u00E2\u0080\u0099s on his/her mind andwhat s/he thinks of them.(68) S/he finds the time to take care ofpersonal details in his/her work (i.e.,writing letters of thanks).(69) S/he is very serious when at work,maintaining his/her focus on the task athand.(70) S/he is not afraid to speak up when withlarge groups of people.S/he has difficulty admitting to mistakes.S/he ignores authority.When s/he communicates, s/he tends todo so with his/her body (e.g., hands,arms) as well as voice.(74) S/he approaches most issues in a verysystematic, analytical, and disciplinedmanner.(75) S/he tends to greet people at work in avery enthusiastic and friendly manner.(40)(41) (57)(58)(65)(66)(67)(71)(72)(73)343S/he shows others when s/he\u00E2\u0080\u0099s angry.S/he prefers to work independently, ratherthan in a team setting.(78) S/he works to motivate teamwork--cooperation and collaboration amongteam members.(79) S/he is successful when s/he attempts to\u00E2\u0080\u009Crally the forces\u00E2\u0080\u009D in support of an idea.(80) S/he concentrates on doing what needs tobe done to complete a task, and thenmoves on to the next issue.(81) If s/he thinks that somebody has made amistake or is not measuring up, s/he willmake negative comments about thatperson to others.(82) S/he is able to sell ideas to superiors one-on-one.S/he responds to problems immediately.When s/he makes a decision, s/he likes topush ahead and take action--implement.(85) S/he talks down to those who are not \u00E2\u0080\u009Cupto speed\u00E2\u0080\u009D or operating at a highlycompetent level.(86) S/he accepts the rules and guidelines atwork; s/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t question why we dothings the way we do.(87) S/he tries to keep an open mind to newideas.(88) S/he works to communicate with othersfrequently by practicing \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmanagement bywalking around\u00E2\u0080\u009D.(89) S/he likes to focus on specific aspects of aproject; s/he prefers looking at thesmaller, rather than the larger, picture.(90) S/he empowers subordinates to takeaction on their own.(91) When s/he is annoyed, s/he shows itthrough his/her body language.(92) S/he is usually polite and sensitive toothers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 feelings.(93) S/he uses a wide variety of skills toanalyze a situation when working towardmaking a decision.(94) S/he enjoys the implementation stage,more than the stages of planning and ideagenerating.(95) S/he is able and willing to do repetitive(96) S/he focuses on the pragmatics of thesituation at hand; s/he works to find asolution without allowing more peripheralissues or outside forces to complicate theissue.(97) S/he sometimes runs into snags at theimplementation stage of projects in whichs/he is involved.(98) S/he holds brainstorming sessions todetermine the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cideal world\u00E2\u0080\u009D.(99) S/he frequently acts without a well-thought-through action plan.(100) S/he supports people consistently; s/hedoesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t change allegiances with projects.(101) S/he analyzes a situation/problem from avariety of perspectives and considers alloptions before selecting a solution.(102) S/he obtains the needed resources to dothe job; s/he convinces people of the needfor change so that others will resource the(103) S/he sometimes puts important items onthe back burner for a bit too long.(104) S/he has a keen ability to see the processor the \u00E2\u0080\u009Coverall picture\u00E2\u0080\u009D: s/he is able tounderstand inter-relationships and effectan action linked through multipledisciplines.(105) In meetings, s/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t tend to build onother peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 observations; instead, s/hedisagrees with them.(106) S/he tries to support and help others in theorganization meet their goals.(107) S/he is able to often gain the cooperationof others through various means.(108) S/he gets frustrated when s/he sees thingsthat have been done at work that are notcorrect.(109) S/he is not always that clear in conveyingmessages to others; at times, the subjectmatter may be just too complicated to getthe point across.(110) S/he has good time-management skills.(76)(77) tasks.(83)(84)idea.344(111) When talking about something s/he isinterested in, s/he tends to \u00E2\u0080\u009Crun ahead\u00E2\u0080\u009Dwith ideas, assuming points are linked forthe listener.(112) S/he likes to get deeply involved in themore specific details of projects.(113) S/he is able to reduce an overall processto it\u00E2\u0080\u0099s smaller parts and thensystematically, take action on each of theparts.(114) When s/he hands off a job to someoneelse, s/he goes out of his/her way toinclude all details that the new person willneed.(115) S/he always keep his/her appointments.(116) When s/he makes a promise to someonein the organization, s/he always keeps it.(117) S/he takes action without first seekingapproval; s/he\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll get forgiveness later.(118) S/he tries to have a hand in all aspects ofa project; s/he prefers not to delegateresponsibilities.(119) S/he is considerate of other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 wellbeing in the company.(120) S/he takes a positive and optimistic stancein working toward the resolution ofproblems.(121) S/he focuses on the issue at hand; s/hedoesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t worry about future issues untilthey arise.(122) S/he is good at getting people and groupsto clarify their points.(123) S/he will always reject others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 attempts tocontrol his/her behavior.(124) S/he is very good at planning andorganizing his/her activities.(125) S/he has a vision of how s/he wouldideally like to see things accomplished atwork.(126) After s/he has spent time pondering andconsidering an idea, s/he won\u00E2\u0080\u0099t leave italone until some action begins.(127) His/her base of operation is his/her office;s/he conducts business from there.(128) S/he is not afraid to tell others, in a directand forceful manner, what should bedone.(129) S/he supports people to get the best out ofthem.(130) S/he expects others to comply withcompany guidelines, no exception.(131) S/he assumes that all problems can besorted out in the future.(132) S/he coaches others about theirweaknesses.(133) S/he recognizes and can anticipatepotential problems before they occur.(134) S/he usually thinks of other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099needs and priorities before makingdecisions.(135) S/he celebrates his/her own and otherpeoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 accomplishments at work.(136) S/he will confront others for bending orgoing around company guidelines andrules.(137) S/he develops a comprehensive \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgameplan\u00E2\u0080\u009D complete with time frames and thensticks to it.(138) S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t recognize hierarchies in theorganization; s/he bypasses managementlevels in working toward his/her goals.(139) S/he easily conforms to companyexpectations.(140) S/he remains focused on tasks; s/he is noteasily distracted.(141) S/he is always able to find solutions to oldand new problems by him/herself.(142) S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t seek out attention fromothers.(143) S/he tends to challenge existing ways ofdoing things.(144) S/he never takes \u00E2\u0080\u009Cno\u00E2\u0080\u009D for an answer.(145) S/he will always try to obtain consensusfrom others when proposing a givencourse of action.(146) If told to, s/he will do ajob even ifs/hebelieves it\u00E2\u0080\u0099s the wrong move for thecompany.(147) S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t keep his/her superiorsinformed of all activities.345(148) When someone says that a new idea justwon\u00E2\u0080\u0099t work, s/he always challenges thatbelief.(149) S/he prefers to avoid conflict and, instead,works to smooth out disagreements andreach consensus.(150) S/he initiates status updates: s/he followsup in meetings or on the phone.(151) S/he usually delivers persuasivepresentations.S/he is good at playing a mediating role.S/he holds others accountable fordelivering what they promise.(154) S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically take the time andeffort to document all his/her plans andactivities.S/he plans his/her actions well in advance.S/he recognizes the achievements andaccomplishments of others both publiclyand privately.(157) S/he sells ideas to senior managersthrough presentations, reports, or voicemessages.(158) S/he takes all the time that is needed todiscuss important issues.(159) S/he tends to speak his/her mind,regardless of the audience..(160) S/he always comes to meetings wellprepared.(161) S/he can be critical of others if theirrecommendations are flawed in someway.(162) S/he\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll goes after new ideas, beforefollowing through on previous ones.S/he addresses every task with urgency.S/he likes to play a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdevils advocate\u00E2\u0080\u009D roleat times; s/he encourages people toexamine both sides carefully beforemaking decisions.(165) When confronted with a series of tasks,s/he does the most important one first,does it only once, and doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t overanalyze or agonize over his/her actions.(166) S/he rebounds from disappointmentseasily and quickly and gets back to work.(167) When a request for action comes downfrom above, s/he is very quick to respond.(168) S/he is good at identifying winningsolutions and then aligning him/herselfwith them.S/he monopolizes discussions.S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t go out of his/her way to lookfor new opportunities or change.(171) S/he is able to motivate individualsrequired to participate in projects.(172) S/he has worked, over time, to developcredibility with peers, subordinates, andsuperiors.(173) S/he defends the position of his/herdepartment.(174) S/he is comfortable taking risks at workand moving out into unknown businessareas.(175) S/he is able to generate easily a number ofnew ideas each day.(176) S/he takes tight control of projects, andvery closely monitors their progress.(177) S/he has written letters and memos thatattack others personally.(178) S/he is able to get the time of executivesin the company in order to communicatehis/her ideas.(179) S/he thinks it is sometimes best not tospeak your mind.(180) S/he enjoys getting recognition fromothers in the company for his/heraccomplishments.(181) S/he is able to thrive when working underconditions of unusually high pressure.(182) S/he sometimes has difficulty really\u00E2\u0080\u009Cseeing\u00E2\u0080\u009D other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 points of view.(183) S/he embraces and truly enjoys change inthe workplace.(184) S/he comes and goes as s/he pleases (i.e.,meetings).(185) S/he turns in a solid and consistentperformance every day s/he comes in tothe office.(186) S/he pushes his/her ideas to others everychance s/he gets.(169)(170)(152)(153)(155)(156)(163)(164)346(187) S/he is interested in other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ideas (206) S/he is good at following the direction ofand works to support and encourage them. others.(188) S/he tends to accept ideas and situations (207) S/he will sometimes bend the truth inat face value, order to achieve his/her goals.(189) S/he solicits and incorporates input from (208) S/he is able to use time and otherothers. resources to his/her best advantage.(190) S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t tend to back down in the face (209) S/he prefers to work within his/her ownof negative political pressure at work. departmentloffice.(191) S/he is a methodical, orderly worker, (210) S/he tracks projects/activities on morecarefully considering and taking action on than one level, blending ideas and actionsone issue, and then moving on to the next. from various projects together.(192) S/he leads others into confrontational (211) S/he tends to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwing it\u00E2\u0080\u009D; s/he improvisessituations. on the spot.(193) S/he is not discouraged or side-tracked by (212) S/he is good at finding faults in new ideasother peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 resistance to his/her ideas. and explaining why they likely will not(194) S/he is happy to sit and talk with people at work.work at any time. (213) S/he prefers to work in a fairly stable and(195) S/he has risked disappointing others in unchanging work environment.order to get his/her own ideas across. (214) In his/her daily activities at work, s/he is(196) S/he rarely has any free time at work; s/he not restricted by norms or conventions inalways finds him/herself doing the company.something. (215) S/he ignores people who are not key(197) S/he prefers to delay decision making at players in his/her area of business andtimes, so that s/he can think through the work.issues more carefully. (216) S/he is a good team player; s/he works(198) S/he is stubborn and resistant, even in the easily with peers with few conflicts.face of legitimate criticism. (217) S/he is able to draw others to his/her(199) S/he is not afraid to confront an opponent ideas.in public. (218) S/he is able to link--to connect--what may(200) When s/he communicates with others, appear, at first, to be entirely unrelateds/he does so in a clear manner and gets ideas, items, situations.right to the point. (219) S/he let\u00E2\u0080\u0099s upper management know if the(201) S/he has taken on challenges and departmental workload becomesresponsibilities unrelated to his/her area excessive.of job responsibility. (220) S/he will resist taking on a leadership role(202) S/he is easily consumed by challenges, in a team.sometimes to the point where s/he will (221) S/he seeks out diversity in people, places,neglect some of his/her normal things.responsibilities. (222) S/he is able to adapt quickly to changing(203) S/he is usually very patient in his/her situations.dealings with others. (223) S/he has blamed other people and their(204) S/he has persisted in pursuing an idea demands for being overworked.even when s/he was explicitly directed to (224) S/he usually doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t take the time tostop. document things.(205) S/he has too little time to accomplish (225) S/he tends to remain focused on the endhis/her work. product and persists until s/he achieves347his/her objectives, regardless of whathappens.(226) S/he embraces changes in procedures,processes and practices willingly.(227) S/he is able to obtain the veiy best fromthe resources s/he obtains.(228) S/he is able to admit to having mademistakes when s/he makes them.(229) If s/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t like an idea, s/he will try tosecure the support of upper managementso that it\u00E2\u0080\u0099s delayed, or not implemented.(230) S/he knows when to push hard for an ideaand when to back off.(231) S/he knows how to use his/her politicalconnections in the company to makethings happen.(232) If someone has made a mistake, s/he isnot afraid to pass on criticism to thatperson in a public forum.(233) S/he is able to easily shake off personalcriticism.(234) S/he readily accepts constructivecriticism.(235) S/he tries to get consensus on issuesbefore taking action.(236) S/he tends not to obey established rules,and instead, creates rules for him/herselfand others.(237) S/he takes action immediately onimportant projects or initiatives; s/henever \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdrags it out\u00E2\u0080\u009D if the item is critical.(238) If things get too hot, s/he prefers not toparticipate.(239) S/he is not averse to pointing out otherpeoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 faults and shortcomings behindtheir back.(240) S/he is very careful in the way s/hechooses his/her words in communicatingwith others.(241) S/he prefers to let others worry about the\u00E2\u0080\u009Cbig picture\u00E2\u0080\u009D.(242) S/he has a good understanding oforganizational psychology.(243) S/he gets much of his/her work done inthe back room. S/he convinces others ofhis/her ideas before holding large-groupdiscussions.(244) S/he sees the company from theperspective of his/her own department.(245) S/he frequently consults with inside andoutside specialists if s/he needs help.(246) S/he will break confidences with others, ifit will increase the likelihood that s/hewill meet his/her own goals.(247) S/he is almost always willing tocompromise somewhat.(248) S/he tracks and manages the fmancialaspects of his/her projects at work; s/herarely lets others do it.(249) S/he makes sure that every discussions/he has with someone has a definitiveoutcome.(250) S/he prefers to be asked, rather than tovolunteer, for new assignments.(251) S/he interacts with others in the officevery differently from how s/he interactsoutside of the office.(252) S/he has an excellent memory for detailsand conversations.(253) When faced with a number ofalternatives, s/he seeks out direction fromothers.(254) S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t always credit the person whooriginally comes up with a new idea;instead, s/he will, at times, take credit forthe idea him/herself.(255) S/he tends to write very short and crypticmemos/notes.(256) S/he sometimes has difficulty workingunder pressure.(257) When s/he is having a discussion withanother person, s/he is always able toremain completely focused on his/herown ideas.(258) S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t volunteer for \u00E2\u0080\u009Cvisible\u00E2\u0080\u009D jobs,preferring to remain more in thebackground.(259) S/he orchestrates situations (e.g.,meetings, one-on-one conversations) sothat his/her wishes are approved.348(260) If s/he comes up with a new idea, s/hegets the team to carry it forward.(261) S/he becomes very impatient with trivialdetails that interrupt his/her plans.(262) S/he promotes ideas that have the highestvisibility and likelihood of success.(263) S/he relates best to people at his/her ownmanagement level in the company.(264) S/he is often able to very accuratelyanticipate the reactions of others in theorganization to his/her plans.(265) S/he always rigorously reviews plans toensure their accuracy prior to them beingpresented.(266) S/he enjoys being with people who havesimilar attitudes to his/her own.(267) S/he confronts situations head on; s/henever \u00E2\u0080\u009Costriches\u00E2\u0080\u009D.(268) S/he is usually willing to take on extratasks, if asked to do so.(269) S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t usually attend a lot of large-group meetings.(270) S/he can react jealously to other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099accomplishments.(271) S/he communicates only what s/heabsolutely has to about a new project; s/heleaves areas of challenge or doubt in thebackground.(272) S/he stays in one job for a long time, sothat s/he becomes an expert in that one(273) S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t compare her/himself withothers.(274) S/he is interested in the technical side of(275) S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t follow many routines inhis/her work life; s/he likes a lot ofchange.(276) S/he tends to listen more than talk whens/he is around other people.(277) If some company rule or procedure gets inhis/her way, s/he\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll go around it.(278) S/he communicates very clearly andsuccinctly.(279) S/he has difficulty engaging her/himself--getting involved and enthusiastic--inprojects that s/he has not \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbought into\u00E2\u0080\u009D.(280) S/he enjoys routine, and uses routine toorganize his/her work schedule.S/he tends to work pretty irregular hours.S/he is able to say \u00E2\u0080\u009Cno\u00E2\u0080\u009D to others, whens/he feels that s/he has enough work to doalready.(283) S/he focuses on the long-range goal,sometimes at the expense of managingshort-term needs.(284) S/he favors concrete rewards, such as payand a nice office, over less concreteawards (e.g., praise, opportunities forparticipation in other projects).(285) S/he reads a diverse range of businessliterature.(286) S/he enjoys working with newtechnology, tinkering with new gadgets,new software, etc.(287) S/he tends to make personal sacrifices inhis/her work, when s/he is dedicated to atask or project.(288) S/he keeps his/her office very neat andtidy.(289) S/he tends to share moments of doubtabout projects with only a select few.(290) S/he is more concerned with getting allthe details right on a project, than withmeeting a deadline.(291) S/he tends to work well in team settings:s/he gets along with others in a group andcan delegate.S/he prefers working on his/her own.S/he has very clearly defmed goals bothfor him/herself and for the projects inwhich s/he is involved.(294) S/he typically does what is correct andaccepted in the company.(295) S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t concern him/herself with thepeople s/he offends or annoys in thepursuit of his/her objectives.(296) S/he tends to present options and letsomeone else make the fmal decision.(281)(282)area.projects. (292)(293)349(297) S/he watches other successful managers (315) S/he always makes time for people.and tries to adopt the methods they use (316) S/he does his/her best work when s/he isthat work. given specific tasks and then guided(298) His/her focus is more on the specifics of through their completion.the task at hand, rather than the (317) In meetings, s/he tends to seek out bothsurrounding environment, pros and cons.(299) S/he spends a fair bit of time gathering (318) S/he carefully analyzes situations; s/heinformation about his/her work works to understand all details, maybeenvironment (e.g., s/he asks others both more than is even necessary.inside and outside of his/her work unithow they are doing).(319) S/he focuses on his/her own needs, not theneeds and vision of the corporation.(300) S/he works best in a highly structuredwork environment.(320) When a project s/he is working on runs(301) If s/he is asked to become involved in ainto s/he looks to others toproject, s/he rarely ever says no.solve the problem.(321) When engaged in some form of problem-(302) S/he studies carefully all issues and then solving, s/he always considers and listspasses on decision making to someone items that will need follow up.else. (322) S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t speak up at meetings.(303) S/he hates waiting for things to becompleted; s/he tends to get impatient(323) S/he is able to inspire and motivatewith people if they take too long,others.(304) When s/he communicates with others, it is(324) S/he follows a fairly precise schedule atusually through mail (or voice mail),work (e.g., coffee at 9:00, lunch at 12:00)rather than face-to-face. (325) S/he has made quick decisions, that later(305) S/he always meets his/her deadlines atturn out to be poor ones.work. (326) S/he enjoys working closely with others(306) S/he accepts and follows companyin a parallel manner.guidelines/rules even if they appear to be (327) S/he has taken a bad plan for a good ideapoor ones. and changed it to make it work.(307) S/he is persistent in voicing his/her (328) S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t tend to spend timeopinion over and over again, even if socializing at work; s/he is there to focushis/her ideas are rejected. on the job, not other people.(308) S/he manages upward, sometimes at the (329) When s/he gives advice to others, s/heexpense of people below him/her. gives them the whole picture.(309) S/he is almost always willing to deal with (330) S/he maintains an immaculate work areadifficult decisions, such as redundant and an empty \u00E2\u0080\u009Cin\u00E2\u0080\u009D basket.employees. (331) S/he is always willing to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cweed out\u00E2\u0080\u009D team(310) S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t shy away from members who are not immediatelyconfrontations. productive.(311) S/he questions and challenges a1 (332) S/he follows direction easily andprocesses and procedures. accurately.(312) S/he always strives to meet his/her (333) When s/he is at the office, s/he has anperformance objectives. \u00E2\u0080\u009Copen-door\u00E2\u0080\u009D policy.(313) S/he evaluates risks just once, and then (334) S/he refers to policies and procedures togoes on to act. defme and support his/her work behavior.(314) S/he is an extremely reliable team player.. (335) S/he always joins in in company socialfunctions.350(336) S/he defines success, in part, by the (357) S/he is always willing to share information withquantity of work generated. others.(337) When someone asks him/her for (358) S/he avoids conflict and confrontation in his/herinformation, s/he gives a quick response, day-to-day work.and then follows up. (359) S/he is fairly good at managing upwards.(338) S/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t ask an awful lot of questions (360) S/he will not take risks with company time,at work. people, and money.(339) S/he is very careful to always keep his/her (361) S/he knows a lot of people in the company andtime commitments. is able to ask for their input and commitment(340) S/he enjoys and seeks out repetitive tasks. when it is needed.(341) When s/he thinks that someone is (362) S/he is always looking for ways to do things justincompetent, s/he tells them. a little bit better and a little bit faster.(342) S/he dislikes and avoids customer contact. (363) S/he has a lot of patience for completing the(343) S/he shares the concerns of upper more tedious tasks.management, with those in entry-levelmanagement jobs.(344) S/he takes his/her time when working onassignments.(345) When someone complains about aproblem, s/he asks them what,specifically, they would do.(346) S/he waits for others to contact him/herregarding project updates, misseddeliverables, etc.(347) When working on a project, s/hedelegates items to people s/he knows willtake a positive and inspired approach.(348) S/he keeps very good records,documenting all events and activities.(349) S/he can easily recognize and appreciatetalent in others; s/he always tries to useother peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 talents.(350) S/he tends to follow the direction ofsuperiors without question.(351) S/he compromises on issues in order tokeep projects going.(352) S/he is not very comfortable meeting newpeople.(353) S/he gets impatient with others when theydon\u00E2\u0080\u0099t work to his/her own high standards.(354) S/he is not very comfortable speaking infront of others.(355) S/he is very direct in expressing what s/hewants; she doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbeat around the bush\u00E2\u0080\u009D.(356) S/he can experience difficulty arranginghis/her work in order of priority.351DESIRABLE UNDESIRABLEExtreme Strong Moderate Mild Neutral Mild Moderate Strong Extreme1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (34)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (35)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (36)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (37)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (38)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (39)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (40)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (41)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (42)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (43)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (44)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (45)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (46)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (47)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (48)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (49)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (50)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (51)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (52)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (53)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (54)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (55)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (56)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (57)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. (58)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (59)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (60)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (61)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (62)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (63)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (64)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (65)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (66)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (67)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (68)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (69)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (70)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (71)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (72)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (73)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (74)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (75)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (76)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (77)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (78)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (79)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (80)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (81)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (82)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (83)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (84)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9(85)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (86)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (87)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (88)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (89)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (90)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (91)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (92)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (93)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (94)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (95)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (96)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (97)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (98)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (99)123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789.123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)352DESIRABLE UNDESIRABLEExtreme Strong Moderate Mild Neutral Mild Moderate Strong Extreme1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91234567891234567891234567891 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891 23 4 5 6 7 8 9123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789(100) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (133) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (166)(101) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (134) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (167)(102) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (135) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (168)(103) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (136) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (169)(104) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (137) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (170)(105) 123456789(138) 123456789(171)(106) 123456789(139) 123456789(172)(107) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (140) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (173)(108) 123456789(141) 123456789(174)(109) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (142) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (175)(110) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (143) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (176)(111) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (144) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (177)(112) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (145) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (178)(113) 123456789(146) 123456789(179)(114) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (147) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (180)(115) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (148) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (181)(116) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (149) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (182)(117) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (150) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (183)(118) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (151) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (184)(119) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (152) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (185)(120)123456789(153)123456789(186)(121) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (154) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (187)(122) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (155) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (188)(123)123456789(156) 123456789(189)(124) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (157) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (190)(125) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (158) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (191)(126) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (159) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (192)(127) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (160) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (193)(128) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (161) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (194)(129) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (162) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (195)(130) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (163) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (196)(131) 123456789(164) 123456789(197)(132) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (165) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (198)353DESIRABLE UNDESIRABLEExtreme Strong Moderate Mild Neutral Mild Moderate Strong Extreme1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9(199)(200)(201)(202)(203)(204)(205)(206)(207)(208)(209)(210)(211)(212)(213)(214)(215)(216)(217)(218)(219)(220)(221)(222)(223)(224)(225)(226)(227)(228)(229)(230)(231)1234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (265)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (266)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (267)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (268)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (269)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (270)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (271)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (272)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (273)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (274)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (275)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (276)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (277)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (278)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (279)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (280)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (281)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (282)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (283)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (284)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (285)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (286)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (287)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (288)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (289)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (290)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (291)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (292)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (293)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (294)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (295)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (296)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (297)123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789(232)(233)(234)(235)(236)(237)(238)(239)(240)(241)(242)(243)(244)(245)(246)(247)(248)(249)(250)(251)(252)(253)(254)(255)(256)(257)(258)(259)(260)(261)(262)(263)(264)354(298)(299)(300)(301)(302)(303)(304)(305)(306)(307)(308)(309)(310)(311)(312)(313)(314)(315)(316)(317)(318)(319)(320)(321)(322)(323)(324)(325)(326)(327)(328)(329)(330)(331)(332)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (333)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (334)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (335)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (336)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (337)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (338)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (339)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (340)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (341)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (342)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (343)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (344)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (345)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (346)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (347)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (348)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. (349)1234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891 2 3 4 5 \u00E2\u0080\u00A26 7 8 91234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891234567891 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9123456789DESIRABLE UNDESIRABLEExtreme Strong Moderate Mild Neutral Mild Moderate Strong Extreme1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9(350)(351)(352)(353)(354)(355)(356)(357)(358)(359)(360)(361)(362)(363)355APPENDIX EBOOKLET USED TO OBTAIN SELF REPORT DATA FOR THE FIRST FACTORANALYSISMANAGERIAL ACTIVITY PROJECTCONDUCTED BY MR. ROSS WOOLLEY(604) 822-5626&DR. A. R. HAKSTIAN(604) 822-5067UNIVERSiTY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAAPRIL 1993356Thanks very much for taking part in this research project. This study is part of a largereffort to develop testing and appraisal procedures to measure an aspect of managementperformance, leadership style. Your input will be combined with the work of roughly 400managers at BCTe1 to develop new methods of selecting managers.We recognize that this booklet will take approximately 45 to 60 minutes of your time tocomplete. In return for your participation, we will provide you with a detailed feedback.report in which your results--your standing on a number of management dimensions--will beprofiled relative to other managers in your own and other organizations. You will receivethis feedback package roughly one month after we receive your completed questionnaire.Please note that you should complete this form anonymously. Identify yourself bychoosing a 6-digit code number of your choice, and recording that code number in the spaceprovided at the top of the front page of the answer sheet; the only other identifyinginformation we need is the name of your company (a number of different organizations areparticipating in the project), your management level in the company, and your gender; pleaserecord this information in the space provided on the front page as well. When we return thefeedback packages, you will, of course, need to remember your code number in order toreceive your correct package so choose a number that\u00E2\u0080\u0099s easy to remember!Contained in this booklet are a series of statements. Each statement refers to a type ofactivity a manager may perform. In each of the statements below, you are asked to consideryour activity over the past 12 months. In responding to each of the statements, use theanswer sheet appended to this test package. For each statement, circle the numbercorresponding to your choice on the answer sheet.You will note, below, that each of the five numbers on the response scale is anchoredby a brief descriptor. For each number there is a descriptive anchor relating to the frequencyas well as the likelihood of your participation. When possible, please respond by indicatingthe frequency of your involvement. If, however, you have not had the opportunity to engagein a given activity contained in this booklet, then we ask that you consider the likelihood thatyou would have engaged in this behavior, given the opportunity. It is very important that yourespond to every item if we are to generate accurate feedback for you.Some of the items may appear to overlap or seem redundant. This instrument is in itsearly stages of development and we will be using your responses to each item to pare it downto a more manageable and concise form. At this stage of the process, our purpose is to be ascomprehensive as possible.357You\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll be asked to respond on the following scale:Never true Rarely true Occasionally Often true Very frequently true(or extremely (or unlikely to true (or somewhat (or likely to be (or extremely likelyunlikely to be true) be true) or likely to be true) true) or descriptive to be true) oror descriptive of descriptive of or descriptive of my behavior descriptive ofmy behavior my behavior of my behavior my behavior1 2 3 4 5Here\u00E2\u0080\u0099s an example item: \u00E2\u0080\u009CI\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to sell ideas to subordinates one-on-one\u00E2\u0080\u009D.Let\u00E2\u0080\u0099s say that you have often done the above then you would respond by circling thenumber \u00E2\u0080\u009C4\u00E2\u0080\u009D. If, on the other hand, you have never before been in a position to sell an idea toa subordinate (perhaps you have never had someone report to you), then you would considerhow likely it is that you would engage in this behavior. In this case, if you thought it likelythat you would sell ideas to subordinates one-on-one, you would still circle the number \u00E2\u0080\u009C4\u00E2\u0080\u009D.Naturally, you have the right to withdraw at any time, by refusing to complete thequestionnaire. If you do complete it, we will assume consent to participate has been given.358(1) I refer all difficult or \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnon standard\u00E2\u0080\u009Dissues on to a higher level inmanagement.(2) I relate daily to individuals at alllevels in the department (e.g., talkwith clerks, check on progress of teammembers).I use humor to put people at ease.I know and follow the corporate rulesvery closely.(5) I disregard rules and procedures.(6) I listen attentively to people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ideasand feelings.(7) When confronted with a new idea, Itend to think through the reasons whyit can\u00E2\u0080\u0099t be done (e.g., lack of people,no money, against company policy,etc.).(8) I present a professional image toothers through clothing choice.(9) I focus only on results without regardfor important sideline issues.(10) I have no problem completing themore tedious and repetitious tasks atwork.(11) I only speak in meetings when I havea thought or idea that I stronglybelieve in; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t make commentssimply to attract attention.(12) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll take on boring tasks withoutcomplaint.(13) I make sure I rub shoulders withpowerful individuals in otherdepartments and business units in thecompany.(14) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t usually persist in arguing apoint.(15) I am typically unwilling to listen toothers.(16) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to sell ideas to subordinatesone-on-one.I follow instructions very accurately.I publicly announce my intentions andobjectives (e.g., we will get thiscontract by years end).(19) I can display anger and frustration atthe \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwork-to-rule\u00E2\u0080\u009D attitudes of others.(20) I tend to defer or pass onresponsibility to other departmentsoutside of my own control.(21) 1 tend not to bow/defer to the voice ofauthority.(22) I do not pay attention toadministrative details.(23) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically expend a lot of energyin accomplishing my job.(24) I tend to use effectively my politicalcontacts in the company.(25) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m always punctual, arriving atmeetings and other work obligationsright on time.(26) I tend to do everything very quickly(walking, talking, writing, driving,etc.).(27) I pay close attention to the details ofwhat I am doing.(28) I am generally aware of news ofcurrent events both nationally andinternationally, especially in terms ofhow that news might impact thebusiness world.(29) I am informed and aware of outsidemarket influences on the company.(30) I usually try to fit in fairly long coffeeand lunch breaks when I get thechance.(31) I typically disregard the financialimplications of risk.(32) I tend to start early and work latewhen I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m emotionally involved in aparticular project.(33) I typically don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t volunteer for extrawork projects.I am very punctual.I tend to dominate meetings with myopinions and visions when I wish toconvince others to accept my point ofview.(3)(4)(17)(18)(34)(35)359(36) I am unwilling to consider recovery (53) I will often argue with others, if Istrategies if things don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t go as initially disagree with their ideas on anplanned. intellectual level.(37) I spend most of my day behind my (54) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to sell ideas to superiors indesk. meetings.(38) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to sell ideas to subordinates (55) I tend to work fairly slowly, butin meetings. consistently.(39) I ensure that my successes in the (56) When I speak about topics at work, Icompany are known. do so in a very enthusiastic manner.(40) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t criticize others in their work. (57) I tend to disrupt meetings.(41) I socialize primarily with people in the (58) I usually start work at around 8 andcompany and key suppliers, leave pretty close to 4.(42) I network with company people in (59) I make very distinct eye contact withother departments. others when I talk with them.(43) My own department is my priority; 1 (60) I listen carefully when others debate amake decisions that maximize payoff point, but I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t usually participate.for my department. (61) When I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m at a meeting or in a more(44) When attending a meeting, I often casual setting at work, I tend to be thedisregard the topic of the meeting, center of attention.and, instead, talk about what interests (62) When I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m on a coffee break, I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099tme. like to talk about work issues.(45) I enjoy challenging established (63) I communicate my ideas using a loudmethods at work; I rather enjoy voice.rocking the boat. (64) I am constantly organizing and re(46) I always try to stay within budget; organizing my daily, weekly, andeven if extra work is anticipated, I try monthly schedule to maximizeto get by with the current staff. efficiency.(47) I volunteer for task forces and other (65) I usually don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t work overtime.related activities that allow me to be a (66) I am involved in community activities.change agent.(67) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m candid with people; I tell them(48) I show up late for meetings andexactly what\u00E2\u0080\u0099s on my mind and what Iappointments,think of them.(49) I do my best to accommodate to other (68) I fmd the time to take care of personalpeoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 wishes in order to keep themdetails in my work (i.e., writing lettershappy.of thanks).(50) I develop and mentor others in the (69) I am very serious when at work,company. maintaining my focus on the task at(51) I am involved in personal hand.development both at work and outside (70) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not afraid to speak up when withof work (e.g., continuing education, large groups of people.cooking classes, etc.).(71) I have difficulty admitting to my(52) I am sometimes slow to take action in mistakes.solving problems; I like to take mytime and carefully consider the (72) I ignore authority.options first.360(73) When I communicate, I tend to do so (91) When I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m annoyed, I show it throughwith my body (e.g., hands, arms) as my body language.well as my voice. (92) I am usually polite and sensitive to(74) I approach most issues in a very others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 feelings.systematic, analytical, and disciplined (93) I use a wide variety of skills tomanner. analyze a situation when working(75) I tend to greet people at work in a very toward making a decision.enthusiastic and friendly manner. (94) I enjoy the implementation stage,(76) I show others when I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m angry. more than the stages of planning and(77) I prefer to work independently, rather idea generating.than in a team setting. (95) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able and willing to do repetitive(78) I work to motivate teamwork-- tasks.cooperation and collaboration among (96) I focus on the pragmatics of theteam members. situation at hand; I work to find a(79) I am successful when I attempt to solution without allowing more\u00E2\u0080\u009Crally the forces\u00E2\u0080\u009D in support of an peripheral issues or outside forces toidea. complicate the issue.(80) I concentrate on doing what needs to (97) I sometimes run into snags at thebe done to complete a task, and then implementation stage of projects inmoving on to the next issue. which I am involved.(81) If I think that somebody has made a (98) I hold brainstorming sessions tomistake or is not measuring up, I will determine the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cideal world\u00E2\u0080\u009D.make negative comments about that (99) I frequently act without a well-person to others. thought-through action plan.(82) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to sell ideas to superiors one- (100) I support people consistently; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099ton-one. change allegiances with projects.(83) I respond to problems immediately. (101) I analyze a situation/problem from a(84) When I make a decision, I like to push variety of perspectives and considerahead and take action--implement. all options before selecting a solution.(85) I talk down to those who are not \u00E2\u0080\u009Cup (102) I obtain the needed resources to do theto speed\u00E2\u0080\u009D or operating at a highly job; I convince people of the need forcompetent level, change so that others will resource the(86) I accept the rules and guidelines atidea.work; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t question why we do (103) I sometimes put important items onthings the way we do. the back burner for a bit too long.(87) I try to keep an open mind to new (104) I have a keen ability to see the processideas. or the \u00E2\u0080\u009Coverall picture\u00E2\u0080\u009D: I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to(88) I work to communicate with others understandinter-relationships andfrequently by practicing \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmanagementeffect an action linked throughby walking around\u00E2\u0080\u009D.multiple disciplines.(89) I like to focus on specific aspects of a(105) In meetings, I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t tend to build onproject; I preferlooking at the smaller, other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 observations; instead, Irather than the larger, picture. disagree with them.(90) I empower subordinates to take action (106) Itry to support and help others in theon their own. organization meet their goals.361(107) I am able to often gain the cooperation (125) I have a vision of how I would ideallyof others through various means. like to see things accomplished at(108) I get frustrated when I see things that work.have been done at work that are not (126) After I have spent time pondering andcorrect. considering an idea, I won\u00E2\u0080\u0099t leave italone until some action begins.(109) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not always that clear in conveyingmessages to others; at times, the (127) My base of operation is my office; Isubject matter may be just too conduct my business from there.complicated to get the point across. (128) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not afraid to tell others, in a direct(110) I have good time management skills, and forceful manner, what should be(111) When talking about something I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m done.interested in, I tend to \u00E2\u0080\u009Crun ahead\u00E2\u0080\u009D (129) I support people to get the best out ofwith my ideas, assuming my points them.are linked for the listener. (130) I expect others to comply with(112) I like to get deeply involved in the company guidelines, no exception.more specific details of projects. (131) I assume that all problems can be(113) I am able to reduce an overall process sorted out in the future.to it\u00E2\u0080\u0099s smaller parts and then (132) I coach others about their weaknesses.systematically, take action on each of (133) I recognize and can anticipatethe parts. potential problems before they occur.(114) When I hand off a job to someone (134) I usually think of other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 needselse, I go out of my way to include all and priorities before makingdetails that the new person will need. decisions.(115) I always keep my appointments.(135) I celebrate my own and other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099(116) When I make a promise to someone in accomplishments at work.the organization, I always keep it. (136) I will confront others for bending or(117) I take action without first seeking going around company guidelines andapproval; I\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll get forgiveness later. rules.(118) I try to have a hand in all aspects of a (137) I develop a comprehensive \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgameproject; I prefer not to delegate plan\u00E2\u0080\u009D complete with time frames andresponsibilities, then stick to it.(119) I am considerate of other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 well (138) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t recognize hierarchies in thebeing in the company.. organization; I bypass management(120) I take a positive and optimistic stance levels in working toward my goals.in working toward the resolution of (139) I easily conform to companyproblems. expectations.(121) I focus on the issue at hand; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t (140) I remain focused on tasks; I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m notworry about future issues until they easily distracted.arise. (141) I am always able to find solutions to(122) I am good at getting people and old and new problems by myself.groups to clarify their points. (142) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t seek out attention from others.(123) I will always reject others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 attempts to (143) I tend to challenge existing ways ofcontrol my behavior, doing things.(124) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m very good at planning and (144) I never take \u00E2\u0080\u009Cno\u00E2\u0080\u009D for an answer.organizing my activities.362(145) I will always try to obtain consensusfrom others when proposing a givencourse of action.(146) If told to, I\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll do ajob even if I believeit\u00E2\u0080\u0099s the wrong move for the company.(147) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t keep my superiors informed ofall my activities.(148) When someone says that a new ideajust won\u00E2\u0080\u0099t work, I always challengethat belief.(149) I prefer to avoid conflict and, instead,work to smooth out disagreements andreach consensus.(150) I initiate status updates: I follow up inmeetings or on the phone.(151) I usually deliver persuasivepresentations.I am good at playing a mediating role.I hold others accountable fordelivering what they promise.(154) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically take the time andeffort to document all my plans andactivities.I plan my actions well in advance.I recognize the achievements andaccomplishments of others bothpublicly and privately.(157) I sell ideas to senior managers throughpresentations, reports, or voicemessages.(158) I take all the time that is needed todiscuss important issues.(159) I tend to speak my mind, regardless ofthe audience.(160) I always come to meetings wellprepared.(161) I can be critical of others if theirrecommendations are flawed in someway.(162) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll go after new ideas, beforefollowing through on previous ones.I address every task with urgency.I like to play a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdevils advocate\u00E2\u0080\u009D roleexamine both sides carefully beforemaking decisions.(165) When confronted with a series oftasks, I do the most important onefirst, do it only once, and don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t overanalyze or agonize over my actions.(166) I rebound from disappointments easilyand quickly and get back to work.(167) When a request for action comesdown from above, I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m very quick torespond.(168) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m good at identifying winningsolutions and then aligned myself withthem.I monopolize discussions.I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t go out of my way to look fornew opportunities or change.(171) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to motivate individualsrequired to participate in projects.(172) I have worked, over time, to developcredibility with peers, subordinates,and superiors.(173) I defend the position of mydepartment.(174) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m comfortable taking risks at workand moving out into unknownbusiness areas.(175) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to generate easily a numberof new ideas each day.(176) I take tight control of projects, andvery closely monitor their progress.(177) I have written letters and memos thatattack others personally.(178) I am able to get the time of executivesin the company in order tocommunicate my ideas.(179) I think it is sometimes best not tospeak your mind.(180) I enjoy getting recognition fromothers in the company for myaccomplishments.(181) I am able to thrive when workingunder conditions of unusually high(152)(153)(169)(170)(155)(156)(163)(164)at times; I encourage people to pressure.363(182) I sometimes have difficulty really (201) I have taken on challenges and\u00E2\u0080\u009Cseeing\u00E2\u0080\u009D other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 points of view, responsibilities unrelated to my area(183) I embrace and truly enjoy change in of job responsibility.the workplace. (202) I am easily consumed by challenges,(184) I came and go as I please (i.e., sometimes to the point where I willmeetings). neglect some of my normal(185) I turn in a solid and consistent responsibilities.performance every day I come in to (203) I am usually very patient in mythe office. dealings with others.(186) I push my ideas to others every chance (204) I have persisted in pursuing an ideaI get. even when I was explicitly directed to(187) I am interested in other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ideas stop.and work to support and encourage (205) I have too little time to accomplish mythem. work.(188) I tend to accept ideas and situations at (206) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m good at following the direction offace value, others.(189) I solicit and incorporate input from (207) I will sometimes bend the truth inothers. order to achieve my goals.(190) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t tend to back down in the face (208) I am able to use time and otherof negative political pressure at work. resources to my best advantage.(191) I am a methodical, orderly worker, (209) I prefer to work within my owncarefully considering and taking department/office.action on one issue, and then moving (210) I track projects/activities on more thanon to the next. one level, blending ideas and actions(192) I lead others into confrontational from various projects together.situations. (211) I tend to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwing it\u00E2\u0080\u009D; I improvise on the(193) I am not discouraged or side-tracked spot.by other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 resistance to my (212) I am good at finding faults in newideas. ideas and explaining why they likely(194) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m happy to sit and talk with people will not work.at work at any time. (213) I prefer to work in a fairly stable and(195) I have risked disappointing others in unchanging work environment.order to get my own ideas across. (214) In my daily activities at work, I am(196) I rarely have any free time at work; I not restricted by norms or conventionsalways find myself doing something. in the company.(197) I prefer to delay decision making at (215) I ignore people who are not keytimes, so that I can think through the players in my area of business andissues more carefully, work.(198) I am stubborn and resistant, even in (216) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m a good team player; I work easilythe face of legitimate criticism, with peers with few conflicts.(199) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not afraid to confront an opponent (217) I am able to draw others to my ideas.in public. (218) I am able to link--to connect--what(200) When I communicate with others, I do may appear, at first, to be entirelyso in a clear manner and get right to unrelated ideas, items, situations.the point.364(219) It\u00E2\u0080\u0099s important to let upper management (238) If things get too hot, I prefer not toknow if the departmental workload participate.becomes excessive. (239) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not averse to pointing out other(220) I will resist taking on a leadership role peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 faults and shortcomingsin a team. behind their back.(221) I seek out diversity in people, places, (240) I am very careful in the way I choosethings. my words in communicating with(222) I am able to adapt quickly to changing others.situations. (241) I prefer to let others worry about the(223) I have blamed other people and their \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbig picture\u00E2\u0080\u009D.demands on me for being overworked. (242) I have a good understanding of(224) I usually don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t take the time to organizational psychology.document things. (243) I get much of my work done in the(225) I tend to remain focused on the end back room. I convince others of myproduct and persist until I achieve my ideas before holding large-groupobjective, regardless of what happens. discussions.(226) I embrace changes in procedures, (244) I see the company from theprocesses and practices willingly, perspective of my own department.(227) I am able to obtain the very best from (245) I frequently consult with inside andthe resources I obtain, outside specialists if I need help.(228) I am able to admit to having made (246) I will break confidences with others, ifmistakes when I make them. it will increase the likelihood that I(229) If I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t like an idea, I\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll try to secure will meet my own goals.the support of upper management so (247) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m almost always willing tothat it\u00E2\u0080\u0099s delayed, or not implemented. compromise somewhat.(230) I know when to push hard for an idea (248) I track and manage the financialand when to back off. aspect of my projects at work; I rarely(231) I know how to use my political let others do it.connections in the company to make (249) I make sure that every discussion Ithings happen. have with someone has a defmitive(232) If someone has made a mistake, I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m outcome.not afraid to pass on criticism to that (250) I prefer to be asked, rather than toperson in a public forum. volunteer, for new assignments.(233) I am able to easily shake off personal (251) I interact with others in the office verycriticism, differently from how I interact outside(234) I readily accept constructive criticism, of the office.(235) I try to get consensus on issues before (252) I have an excellent memory for detailstaking action.and conversations.(236) I tend not to obey established rules, (253)When faced with a number ofand instead, create rules for myselfalternatives, I seek out direction fromand others. others.(237) I take action immediately on (254) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t always credit the person whoimportant projects or initiatives; originally comes up with a new idea;never \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdrag it out\u00E2\u0080\u009D if the item is instead, I will, at times, take credit forcritical, the idea myself.365(255) I tend to write very short and cryptic (273) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t compare myself with others.memos/notes. (274) I am interested in the technical side of(256) I sometimes have difficulty working projects.under pressure. (275) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t follow many routines in my(257) When I am having a discussion with work life; I like a lot of change.another person, I am always able to (276) I tend to listen more than talk whenremain completely focused on my I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m around other people.own ideas. (277) If some company rule or procedure(258) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t volunteer for \u00E2\u0080\u009Cvisible\u00E2\u0080\u009D jobs, gets in my way, I go around it.preferring to remain more in the (278) I communicate very clearly andbackground.succinctly.(259) I orchestrate situations (e.g., meetings, (279) I have difficulty engaging myself--one-on-one conversations) so that my getting involved and enthusiastic--inwishes are approved,projects that I have not \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbought into\u00E2\u0080\u009D.(260) If I come up with a new idea, I get the (280) I enjoy routine, and use routine toteam to carry it forward. organize my work schedule.(261) I become very impatient with trivial (281) I tend to work pretty irregular hours.details that interrupt my plans.(282) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to say \u00E2\u0080\u009Cno\u00E2\u0080\u009D to others, when I(262) I promote ideas that have the highest feel that I have enough work to dovisibility and likelihood of success. already.(263) I relate best to people at my own (283) I focus on the long-range goal,management level in the company. sometimes at the expense of managing(264) I am often able to very accurately short-term needs.anticipate the reactions of others in the (284) I favor concrete rewards, such as payorganization to my plans.and a nice office, over less concrete(265) I always rigorously review plans to awards (e.g., praise, opportunities forensure their accuracy prior to them participation in other projects).being presented.(285) I read a diverse range of business(266) I enjoy being with people who have literature.similar attitudes to mine. (286) I enjoy working with new technology,(267) I confront situations head on; I never tinkering with new gadgets, new\u00E2\u0080\u009Costrich\u00E2\u0080\u009D, software, etc.(268) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m usually willing to take on extra (287) I tend to make personal sacrifices intasks, if asked to do so. my work, when I am dedicated to a(269) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t usually attend a lot of large- task or project.group meetings. (288) I keep my office very neat and tidy.(270) I can react jealously to other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 (289) I tend to share moments of doubtsaccomplishments, about projects with only a select few.(271) I communicate only what I absolutely (290) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m more concerned with getting allhave to about a new project; I leave the details right on a project, than withareas of challenge or doubt in the meeting a deadline.background. (291) I tend to work well in team settings: I(272) I stay in one job for a long time, so get along with others in a group andthat I become an expert in that one can delegate.area. (292) I prefer working on my own.366(293) I have very clearly defined goals both (309) I am almost always willing to dealfor myself and for the projects in with difficult decisions, such aswhich I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m involved, redundant employees.(294) I typically do what is correct and (310) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t shy away from confrontations.accepted in the company. (311) I question and challenge all processes(295) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t concern myself with the people and procedures.I offend or annoy in the pursuit of my (312) I always strive to meet myobjectives. performance objectives.(296) I tend to present options and let (313) I evaluate risks just once, and then gosomeone else make the fmal decision. on to act.(297) I watch other successful managers and (314) I am an extremely reliable teamtry to adopt the methods they use that player.work.(315) I always make time for people.(298) My focus is more on the specifics ofthe task at hand, rather than the(316) I do my best work when I am givenenvironment around me.specific tasks and then guided through(299) I spent a fair bit of time gatheringtheir completion.(317) In meetings, I tend to seek out bothinformation about my workenvironment (e.g., I ask others bothpros and cons.inside and outside of my work ui\u00C3\u00B1t (318) I carefully analyze situations; I workhow they are doing). to understand all details, maybe more(300) I work best in a highly structuredthan is even necessary.work environment. (319) I focus on my own needs, not the(301) If I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m asked to become involved in aneeds and vision of the corporation.project, i rarely ever say no. (320) When a project I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m working on runs(302) I study carefully all issues and theninto an impasse, I look to others topass on decision making to someonesolve the problem.else. (321) When engaged in some form of(303) I hate waiting for things to beproblem-solving, I always considercompleted; I tend to get impatientand list items that will need follow up.with people if they take too long. (322) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t speak up at meetings.(304) When I communicate with others, it is (323) I am able to inspire and motivateusually through mail (or voice mail), others.rather than face-to-face. (324) I follow a fairly precise schedule at(305) I always meet my deadlines at work. work (e.g., coffee at 9:00, lunch at(306) I accept and follow company12:00)guidelines/rules even if they appear to (325) I have made quick decisions, that laterbe poor ones. turn out to be poor ones.(307) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m persistent in voicing my opinion (326) I enjoy working closely with others inover and over again, even if my ideas a parallel manner.are rejected. (327) I have taken a bad plan for a good idea(308) I manage upward, sometimes at the and changed it to make it work.expense of people below me. (328) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t tend to spend time socializingat work; I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m there to focus on the job,not other people.367(329) When I give advice to others, I givethem the whole picture.(330) I maintain an immaculate work areaand an empty \u00E2\u0080\u009Cin\u00E2\u0080\u009D basket.(331) I am always willing to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cweed out\u00E2\u0080\u009Dteam members who are notimmediately productive.(332) I follow direction easily andaccurately.(333) When I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m at the office, I have an\u00E2\u0080\u009Copen-door\u00E2\u0080\u009D policy.(334) I refer to policies and procedures todefine and support my work behavior.(335) I always join in in company socialfunctions.(336) I defme success, in part, by thequantity of work generated.(337) When someone asks me forinformation, I give a quick response,and then follow up.(338) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t ask an awful lot of questions atwork.(339) I am very careful to always keep mytime commitments.I enjoy and seek out repetitive tasks.When I think that someone isincompetent, I tell them.I dislike and avoid customer contact.I share the concerns of uppermanagement, with those in entry-levelmanagement jobs.(344) I take my time when working onassignments.(345) When someone complains about aproblem, I ask them what, specifically,they would do.(346) I wait for others to contact meregarding project updates, misseddeliverables, etc.(347) When working on a project, I delegateitems to people I know will take apositive and inspired approach.(348) I keep very good records,documenting all events and activities.(349) I can easily recognize and appreciatetalent in others; I always try to useother peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 talents.(350) I tend to follow the direction ofsuperiors without question.(351) I compromise on issues in order tokeep projects going.(352) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not very comfortable meeting newpeople.(353) I get impatient with others when theydon\u00E2\u0080\u0099t work to my own high standards.(354) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not very comfortable speaking infront of others.(355) I am very direct in expressing what Iwant; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbeat around the bush\u00E2\u0080\u009D.(356) I can experience difficulty arrangingmy work in order of priority.(357) I am always willing to shareinformation with others.(358) I avoid conflict and confrontation inmy day-to-day work.I am fairly good at managing upwards.I will not take risks with companytime, people, and money.(361) I know a lot of people in the companyand I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to ask for their input andcommitment when it is needed.(362) I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m always looking for ways to dothings just a little bit better and a littlebit faster.(363) I have a lot of patience for completingthe more tedious tasks.(359)(360)(340)(341)(342)(343)368Never true Rarely true Occasionally Often true Very frequently true(or extremely (or unlikely to true (or somewhat (or likely to be (or extremely likelyunlikely to be true) be true) or likely to be true) true) or descriptive to be true) oror descriptive of descriptive of or descriptive of my behavior descriptive ofmy behavior my behavior of my behavior my behavior1 2 3 4 5(1) 12345(37) 12345(73)12345(109)12345(145)12345(2) 12345(38) 12345(74) 12345(110)1 2345(146)12345(3) 12345(39) 12345(75) 12345(111)12345(147)12345(4) 12345(40) 12345(76) 12345(112)12345(148)12345(5) 1.2345(41) 12345(77) 12345(113)12345(149)12345(6) 12345(42)12345(78)12345(114)12345(150)12345(7) 12345(43) 1 2345(79) 12345(115)12345(151)12345(8) 12345(44) 12345(80) 12345(116)12345(152)12345(9) 12345(45) 12345(81) 12345(117)12345(153)12345(10) 12345(46) 12345(82) 12345(118)12345(154)12345(11) 12345(47) 12345(83) 12345(119)12345(155)12345(12) 12345(48) 12345(84) 12345(120)12345(156)12345(13) 12345(49) 12345(85) 12345(121)12345(157)12345(14) 12345 (50) 123 45 (86) 12345 (122) 12345 (158) 12345(15) 12345(51) 12345(87) 12345(123)12345(159)12345(16) 12345(52) 12345(88) 12345(124)12345(160)12345(17) 12345(53) 12345(89) 12345(125)12345(161)12345(18) 12345 (54) 123 45 (90) 12345 (126) 12345 (162) 12345(19) 12345(55) 12345(91) 12345(127)12345(163)12345(20) 12345(56) 12345(92) 12345(128)12345(164)12345(21)12345(57)12345(93)12345(129)12345(165)12345(22) 12345(58) 12345(94) 12345(130)12345(166)12345(23) 12345(59) 12345(95) 12345(131)12345(167)12345(24) 12345(60) 12345(96) 12345(132)12345(168)12345(25) 12345(61) 12345(97) 12345(133)12345(169)12345(26) 12345(62) 12345(98) 12345(134)12345(170)12345(27) 12345(63) 12345(99) 12345(135)12345(171)12345(28) 1 2 3 4 5 (64) 1 2 3 4 5 (100) 1 2 3 4 5 (136) 1 2 3 4 5 (172) 1 2 3 4 5(29) 12345(65) 12345(101)12345(137)12345(173)12345(30) 12345(66) 12345(102)12345(138)12345(174)12345(31) 12345(67) 12345(103)12345(139)12345(175)12345(32) 12345(68) 12345(104)12345(140)12345(176)12345(33)12345(69)12345(105)12345(141)12345(177)12345(34) 12345(70) 12345(106)12345(142)12345(178)12345(35) 12345(71) 12345(107)12345(143)12345(179)12345(36) 12345(72) 12345(108)12345(144)12345(180)12345369Never true Rarely true Occasionally Often true Very frequently true(or extremely (or unlikely to true (or somewhat (or likely to be (or extremely likelyunlikely to be true) be true) or likely to be true) true) or descriptive to be true) oror descriptive of descriptive of or descriptive of my behavior descriptive ofmy behavior my behavior of my behavior my behavior1 2 3 4 5(181)12345(219)12345(257)12345(295)12345(333)12345(182)12345(220)12345(258)12345(296)12345(334)12345(183) 12 3 45 (221) 12 345 (259) 123 45 (297) 12345 (335) 123 45(184)12345(222)12345(260)12345(298)12345(336)12345(185) 12 3 45 (223) 12 345 (261) 12 3 45 (299) 123 45 (337) 12345(186)12345(224)12345(262)12345(300)12345(338)12345(187) 12 3 45 (225) 12 345 (263) 123 45 (301) 12345 (339) 123 45(188)12345(226)12345(264)12345(302)12345(340)12345(189)12345(227)12345(265)12345(303)12345(341)12345(190)12345(228)12345(266)12345(304)12345(342)12345(191) 12 3 45 (229) 12 345 (267) 12 345 (305) 12345 (343) 12 3 45(192)12345(230)12345(268)12345(306)12345(344)12345(193) 12 3 45 (231) 12 345 (269) 123 45 (307) 12345 (345) 12345(194)1 2345(232)12345(270)12345(308)12345(346)12345(195)12345(233)12345(271)12345(309)12345(347)12345(196)12345(234)12345(272)12345(310)12345(348)12345(197) 12 3 45 (235) 12 345 (273) 123 45 (311) 12345 (349) 12345(198)12345(236)1 2345(274)12345(312)12345(350)12345(199)12345(237)12345(275)12345(313)12345(351)12345(200) 12 3 45 (238) 1234 5 (276) 123 45 (314) 12345 (352) 12345(201) 12 3 45 (239) 12 345 (277) 123 45 (315) 12345 (353) 123 45(202)12345(240)12345(278)12345(316)12345(354)12345(203)12345(241)12345(279)12345(317)12345(355)12345(204)12345(242)12345(280)12345(318)12345(356)12345(205)123 45(243)12345 (281)1 2345(319)12345(357)12345(206)12345(244)12345(282)12345(320)12345(358)12345(207)12345(245)1 2345(283)12345(321)1 2345(359)12345(208)12345(246)12345(284)12345(322)12345(360)12345(209)12345(247)12345(285)12345(323)12345(361)12345(210)12345(248)12345(286)12345(324)12345(362)12345(211)12345(249)12345(287)12345(325)12345(363)12345(212)12345(250)12345(288)12345(326)12345(213)12345(251)12345(289)12345(327)12345(214)12345(252)12345(290)12345(328)12345(215) 12 3 45 (253) 12 345 (291) 12345 (329) 12345(216) 12 3 45 (254) 12 345 (292) 12 345 (330) 12345(217) 12 3 45 (255) 12 345 (293) 123 45 (331) 12345(218) 12 3 45 (256) 12345 (294) 123 45 (332) 12345370APPENDIX FCOMPANY AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK REPORTSCORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIPPROJECT: COMPANY FEEDBACKASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR:Company ADate of Report: December 15, 1993Prepared by:Mr. Ross WoolleyDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of BritishColumbia2136 West MallVancouver, B.C.V6T 1Z4822-5626371INFORMATION FOR PARTICIPATING COMPANIES iN THE MANAGERIALACTIVITY PROJECTWe\u00E2\u0080\u0099d like to take this chance to thank you as a corporation for your participation in thisstudy. Organizational research requires the input of many participants. This study has beenno exception. Over the past few months, 435 managers from the following seven companieshave taken part in this study: BC Hydro, Manitoba Telephone System, the University ofBritish Columbia, BC Transit, H.A. Simons, the Insurance Corporation of B.C., and theMinistry of Transportation and Highways. The collection of information began in May withBC Hydro and continued until early September with H. A. Simons, UBC, BC Transit, and theMinistry of Highways.The participation of Company A has helped us move one step further toward thedevelopment of an assessment tool--a much refined (and shortened!) version of thequestionnaire you completed, that could be used for management assessment. We envision itbeing used for \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctop-down\u00E2\u0080\u009D assessment (traditional supervisory ratings of subordinateperformance) or \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbottom-up\u00E2\u0080\u009D assessment (ratings of managers by subordinates). Ratingsobtained through such an assessment could be used to supplement current appraisal andperformance management practices, or serve organizational development needs.This report is a summary of corporate results from the questionnaire your managerscompleted. We have conducted a number of different analyses that we hope will be ofinterest to your organization. Your managers, as a group, are profiled. Subgroups ofmanagers are compared (men vs. women) and managers in your company, as a whole, arecompared with managers from the other six participating companies.Before turning to the results, we thought you might appreciate learning more about thehistory of the project and the study objectives. The original questionnaire was made up of363 items. It was lengthy and we appreciate that many of your managers took longer tocomplete it than our original estimate of one hour! Reports ranged anywhere from a low of45 minutes to a high of about 2 hours.The items contained in the questionnaire were written by 26 managers from BCTe1. Theirtask was to write down statements describing what corporate entrepreneurs (or champions)do. They were also asked to describe things that people do who are the exact opposite of thechampion. The questionnaire your managers completed was designed to measure corporateentrepreneurship.. .the extent to which people behave at work in ways that are characteristicof a corporate entrepreneur.The corporate entrepreneur has been defined in the research literature as an individual whoinformally emerges to take a new idea for an innovation (an idea s/he may or may not havegenerated) and introduces, pushes, promotes, and sells the idea to others in the organization.Such individuals operate as entrepreneurs in the corporate environment. They generate oradapt new ideas and promote their implementation. Corporate entrepreneurs have beendescribed as innovative, driven to achieve, and committed to their ideas. They are often wellconnected in the organization (good networkers) and possess the interpersonal skill andpolitical savvy to convince others of the importance of their ideas.372Corporate entrepreneurs have been studied and described by Rosabeth Moss Kanter, forexample, in her books \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Change Masters\u00E2\u0080\u009D, and \u00E2\u0080\u009CWhen Giants Learn to Dance\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Or, PeterDrucker\u00E2\u0080\u0099s name may be more familiar to you and his book \u00E2\u0080\u009CInnovation andEntrepreneurship\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Finally, the popular \u00E2\u0080\u009Cguru\u00E2\u0080\u009D of management science, Tom Peters, haswritten about the importance of corporate entrepreneurs in his books \u00E2\u0080\u009CThriving on Chaos:Handbook for a Management Revolution\u00E2\u0080\u009D, and his earlier book with Waterman entitled \u00E2\u0080\u009CInSearch of Excellence\u00E2\u0080\u009D. All these references are excellent and very readable sources if you\u00E2\u0080\u0099dlike tO learn more about corporate entrepreneurship and its role in today\u00E2\u0080\u0099s businessenvironment.The present research was motivated by our desire to better understand corporateentrepreneurship from a behavioral perspective--what is it that corporate entrepreneurs do?-and to develop instruments that could be used to identify corporate entrepreneurs. CompanyA\u00E2\u0080\u0099s participation has enabled us to identify dimensions of corporate entrepreneurship. Thesedimensions were used to structure the contents of the individual feedback packages returnedto the participants previously. These dimensions will also be used to structure the companyfeedback. Thus, you\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll see your organization\u00E2\u0080\u0099s standing on what we\u00E2\u0080\u0099ve called \u00E2\u0080\u009COpenness toChange\u00E2\u0080\u009D and \u00E2\u0080\u009CRule Challenging\u00E2\u0080\u009D, to use two examples. Our analyses have enabled us tounderstand corporate entrepreneurship as made up of a number of independent dimensions,each measured by roughly 10 to 15 key items or questions from the questionnaire.GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF COMPANY RESULTSAs noted above, we\u00E2\u0080\u0099re in the process of developing an instrument. Thus, the corporateresults presented in this report must be interpreted with caution. All measurement containserror; this means that the scores recorded for your organization are estimates. Theseestimates contain a degree of error, so interpret them with appropriate caution. It\u00E2\u0080\u0099s alsoimportant to bear in mind a caution we communicated to the individual participants.. .thatthere\u00E2\u0080\u0099s no ideal management profile. It\u00E2\u0080\u0099s not necessarily good or bad for yourorganization to be profiled as low or high on the dimensions measuring corporateentrepreneurship. Much depends on the culture of your company--the kinds ofbehaviors that are rewarded and seen as desirable.Another note of caution. In cases where we \u00E2\u0080\u0098break down\u00E2\u0080\u009D results by gender ormanagement level, the number of individuals on which scores are based may, in some casesbe quite small. You\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll notice this, particularly with respect to scores based on middle- andupper-level females. Notice the number of persons such scores are based on, and, if quitesmall ( < 5 ) consider them suggestive only, and likely to change if based on a larger numberof employees.This company feedback report is divided into two sections. In Section I we profile yourmanagers on the dimensions of corporate entrepreneurship. Information is presented in bothgraphic and tabular form. We describe your organization\u00E2\u0080\u0099s standing in an absolute sense, byreporting average \u00E2\u0080\u009Craw\u00E2\u0080\u009D scores achieved by your managers: the average level ofchampionship shown on the various dimensions of corporate entrepreneurship by managersin your company.373In Section II, we report your organization\u00E2\u0080\u0099s standing relative to a combined pooi ofmanagers from the other six companies in the study. We\u00E2\u0080\u0099ve reported this information in twoforms. First, we report average T-Scores (standard scores having a mean [or average] of 50and a standard deviation of 10) for managers at Company A, broken down by gender andmanagement level. You should understand T-scores as follows. The vast majority of Tscores (95%) fall within the range of 30 to 70 and roughly 68% of T-scores fall between 40and 60. A T-score would be characterized as LOW if it fell below 40, and VERY LOW ifbelow 30. Scores in the 40-60 range are regarded as AVERAGE. Those scores above 60 areseen as HIGH, with those above 70 regarded as VERY HIGH. Of course, what is meant hereby LOW and HIGH, etc., is LOW and HIGH in comparison with the other managers whocompleted the questionnaire. You should keep in mind that T-scores reflect how yourmanagers compare with the other managers in the study.Secondly, we report average raw scores for managers in your organization and a combinedsample of managers from the other six companies, broken down by gender and managementlevel. This information should allow you to make more finely-grained comparisons,examining, for example, how your middle-level male managers compare with a large sampleof middle-level male managers from the other companies.Section I: A Profile of Your OrganizationHow to Interpret The ResultsIn Tables 1 and 2 we report summary information on managers in your company on thevarious dimensions of corporate entrepreneurship. From Table 1, you\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll notice that, in thethird column, we report the \u00E2\u0080\u009Caverage raw score\u00E2\u0080\u009D for each of the 11 dimensions as well as theOverall Championship scale. We obtained these numbers by calculating a scale score (e.g., ascore on Job Involvement, Rule Challenging, etc.) for each manager and then computing anaverage across all managers in your company for each scale. Thus, this figure provides youwith our best estimate of your organization\u00E2\u0080\u0099s standing on this dimension (based, of course, onthe sample of managers who took part in the study). Naturally, there will be a degree ofvariability or scatter around this average; some individual managers will score much higherand others much lower than this average, but most will hover fairly close to the average rawscore reported in column 3 of Table 1.To obtain the percentage figures in the last column, we divided the average raw score bythe maximum score possible on each scale. These percentages have been plotted to provideyou with a picture of your organization\u00E2\u0080\u0099s profile. The information provided in Table 1provides interesting diagnostic information, in that highs and lows are apparent. It does not,however, give much information on the absolute level of championship present in yourmanagers on the various scales. This information is contained in Table 2.374In Table 2 we present each scale separately, with a description of the meaning of scoresfalling toward the high and low ends of the five-point scale. The placement of the arrow wasdetermined by dividing the \u00E2\u0080\u009Caverage raw score\u00E2\u0080\u009D (column 3 in Table 1), by the number ofitems in the scale. Thus, the arrow indicates the average score of your managers on anoverall 5-point scale for the particular dimension; so you can understand the placement of thearrow relative to the 5 anchor points used in the original questionnaire. We also indicate oneach scale the range of scores achieved by managers in your organization (marked by aparallel horizontal line). Thus, you get an indication of the score variability (and, of course,the minimum and maximum scores) among your managers.A Discussion of Your Organization ResultsYou\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll notice from the % Profile in Table 1 and the scales outlined in Table 2 thatCompany A managers are highest on Persuasion and Political Savvy, Action Orientation, andCollaboration and Support. Scores are in all three of these areas are above the mid-point (seeTable 2), particularly the last two results; thus, we can characterize them as roughly aboveaverage. Company A managers described themselves as fairly persuasive in their dealingswith others. They appear able to sell ideas to others.. .to promote projects and work to get abuy-in from others in the company. Managers from Company A also appear to be fairlydecisive and action-oriented. The majority reported that they follow through oncommitments, ensuring that projects and other priorities are delivered on time. Company Amanagers are particularly high on Collaboration and Support; this was the highest scoreachieved. Company A managers reported behaving in ways that encourage others to do theirbest. They may empower others and generally behave in ways that are supportive of peoplearound them. Teamwork and collaboration appear to be strong components of Company Aculture.With the exception of Candid Persistence (and, to a lesser extent, Willingness toConfront), the remainder of scores hover fairly close to the midpoint of the 5-point scale.Company A managers do not, as a group, appear to be blunt and argumentative when dealingwith others. Although an aspect of corporate entrepreneurship, high levels of CandidPersistence may not necessarily be a positive thing in many situations.Over all dimensions, on average, Company A managers appear to be just slightly aboveaverage on championship (see the Overall Championship scale at the end of Table 2).Although not a strong part of the Company A culture, some managers in the company doappear to take new ideas and promote and sell them to others in the organization.375Table 1Overall Company Results Reported in Raw\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ScoresScale Name # items Avg Max. % of Max. % ProfileScore Possible2 Possible 50 55 60 65 70 75 80Persuasion &Political SavvyCandidPersistenceSpontaneity &ImprovisationJob InvolvementRule Challeng\u00E2\u0080\u0099gAction Orient\u00E2\u0080\u0099nSelf PromotionCollaboration &SupportOpenness toChange\u00E2\u0080\u009CBig Picture\u00E2\u0080\u009DPerspectiveWillingness toConfrontOverallChampionshipA raw score is simply the number of items responded to in a manner reflecting championship; the score is notconverted, like a T-score.2 A 5-point response scale was used, ranging from 1= Never True; 2 = Rarely True; 3 = Occasionally True; 4 =Often True;5 = Very Frequently True. Thus, for a 15-item scale, the maximum score possible = 75.15 50.7 7515 39.1 7515 45.8 7515 44.315 44.615 55.212 35.115 56.9757575607568526159597459766362576315 47.3 7514 43.2 7015 42.4 75161 504.6 805376Table 2A Detailed Description of the 11 Scales and a Profile of Your Managers on Each Scale3Persuasion and Political Savvy: A measure of salesmanship and persuasiveness. Taps intoone\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to develop and use effectively political connections in the company.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099Quiet, reserved; un- Socially persuasive;assertive in group situations. able to sell ideas;knows how to develop& use connections.Candid Persistence: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s directness and persistence.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099Good listening skills; Blunt and direct;attentive and patient in persistent in arguingdealings with others. a point; outspoken.Spontaneity and Improvisation: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s inclination to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwing it\u00E2\u0080\u009D; to makedecisions without careful consideration and caution.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099Planful and methodical; Intuitive, focused, andkeeps careful records, spontaneous; tends to\u00E2\u0080\u009Cwing it\u00E2\u0080\u009D.See Appendix A for a listing of sample items from each of the scales.377Table 2 cont.Job Involvement: A measure of job commitment, drive, and determination.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099Doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically Committed; hard-work overtime; expends driving; hard working;minimal energy at work, goes after tasks with asense of time urgency.Rule Challenging: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s inclination toward questioning rules and people inauthority positions.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099Accepting of authority & Questions authority; gorules; follows policies obstacles; non-and guidelines, conforming.Action Orientation: A measure of decisiveness and thoroughness.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099Slow to take action; Decisive; proactive;may procrastinate by meets deadlines andputting items on the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cback commitments; dealsburner\u00E2\u0080\u009D, with issues immediately.378Table 2 cont.Self Promotion: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s need for recognition and publicity in the company.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099Doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t seek out attention; Enjoys recognition;prefers to stay in the back- publicizes successes.ground.Collaboration and Support: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s inclination toward developing and fosteringa team approach through empowerment and encouragement.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 59\u00E2\u0080\u0099Prefers to work indep- Supports and encouragesendently; resists delegation. others; works to foster apositive teamenvironment.Openness to Change: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s willingness and preference for change andunpredictability in the work environment.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099Prefers predictability & Adapts quickly to change;structure; resists risk & enjoys change and newchange. responsibilities.379Table 2 cont.\u00E2\u0080\u009CBig Picture\u00E2\u0080\u009D Perspective: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s preference for systems and \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbig picture\u00E2\u0080\u009D thinking,rather than an orientation toward detail.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099Pays close attention to Focuses on larger issues,detail; willing and able to rather than specific details;do repetitive tasks; enjoys dislikes routine.technical side of projects.Willingness to Confront: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s willingness to engage in discussion and debate inworking through a conflict.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099Prefers to avoid conflict; Deals directly withaccommodates to others. conflict; confronts otherson weaknesses.Overall Championship: A weighted average of the 11 individual scales.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099The champion is an individual who takes a new idea (an idea s/he may or may not havegenerated) and introduces, pushes, promotes, and sells the idea to others in theorganization.380Section II: A Comparison of Your Organization with The Other Six Participating CompaniesIn this section, we compare managers at Company A with managers from the other sixparticipating companies on the various dimensions of corporate entrepreneurship.At the beginning of this study, we had anticipated that significant differences might arisebetween the seven participating companies. On the basis of the information reported inTables 3, 4, and 5, however, it would appear, instead, that few differences exist. This was asurprising result for our research team.Results in Tables 3 and 4 are reported as T-Scores (refer back to page 3 for a definition ofT-scores). These scores were obtained by computing an overall average, across all managersin the study, for each of the entrepreneurship scales. Then, each of your managers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 scoreswas compared with this overall average and a company average T-score calculated. Thus, thegreater the distance your organization\u00E2\u0080\u0099s average T-score from the overall average, the morethe T-score will deviate from the average--50.The majority of T-scores reported in Tables 3 and 4 fall in the average range. This meansthat, on balance, Company A managers are not particularly different from managers in theother organizations on the various dimensions of corporate entrepreneurship. This result istelling us that the % Profile presented in Table 1 is fairly similar across the sevenparticipating companies. Although no comparison groups appear on Tables 3 and 4, eachscore does represent your organizations relative standing on each dimension, compared withthe other managers in the study. Thus, a T-score of 39 on one of the dimensions wouldindicate that managers from your organization are LOW compared with the other managers.Notice that the sample sizes for upper-level men and women are small, so interpret anydifferences in involving these groups cautiously.A few general trends emerge from Tables 3 and 4. Female managers, as a group(particularly lower-level female managers) appear to score lower than male managers onOverall Championship and most of the individual 11 dimensions. An exception isCollaboration and Support, where male and female average scores are very similar. Thus, asa group, when compared with the other female managers in this study, female managers atCompany A report less activity related to developing new ideas and promoting theirimplementation to others in the company.The Company A male managers, as a group, are very similar to the other (roughly 250)male managers in the study. Their T-scores in Table 4 hover very close to the midpoint of50. When we break down the male results by management level, we see some differencesacross the three levels (note that the sample size for upper-level managers is small). Upper-level male managers tend to score higher on Persuasiveness and Political Skill and Opennessto Change, and lower on Rule Challenging and Willingness to Confront. Operating at ahigher level of management, these men appear to have developed their skills in presentingideas to others in ways that are persuasive and convincing. They appear willing to changeand adapt to new circumstances. They tend to conform to the rules and guidelines of thecompany and are less likely than lower- and middle-level male managers to enter intoconflict with others through confrontation.381In Table 5, we report average raw scores for your organization alongside average raw scoresfor the total sample of managers in the study (minus the managers from your company), eachbroken down by gender and management level. This is very finely-grained information andmight be of interest to some readers. The differences that do exist between Company Amanagers and all other managers in the study are few in number and small in magnitude.382Table 3T-Scores for Company A Managers, Broken Down by Gender and Within Gender,Management LevelMen WomenLower Middle Upper Lower Middle Upper All(n=34) (n=34) (n=3) (n=14) (n=6) (n=0) Mngrs1. Persuasiveness 47.8 51.7 57.5 46.5 45.7 49.3and Political Skill2. Candid Persistence 51.7 51.6 52.0 42.0 50.0 50.13. Spontaneity and 52.2 48.7 47.0 44.1 43.5 48.9Improvisation4. Job Involvement 50.9 50.5 50.9 42.7 43.9 49.05. Rule Challenging 50.1 51.2 41.6 44.1 51.5 49.46. Action Oriented 49.8 51.3 50.1 46.3 49.7 49.87. Self Promoting 50.4 52.6 50.1 46.5 47.3 50.48. Collaboration and 49.4 48.2 47.9 50.8 51.8 49.2Support9. Openness to Change 50.8 49.4 60.3 43.9 43.6 49.010. Big Picture 51.3 46.9 50.0 52.0 44.4 49.3Perspective11. Willingness to 50.4 53.0 42.2 40.7 51.1 49.7ConfrontOverall Championship 50.9 50.6 50.1 41.5 45.4 49.0383Table 4T-Scores for Company A Managers, Broken Down by Gender and Management LevelMen Women Entry- Middle- Upper(n=71) (n=20) Level Level Level(n=48) (n=40) (n=3)1. Persuasiveness 50.1 46.5 47.2 51.2 57.5and Political Skill2. Candid Persistence 51.7 44.4 48.9 51.4 52.03. Spontaneity and 50.3 43.9 49.8 47.9 47.0Improvisation4. Job Involvement 50.7 43.1 48.5 49.5 50.95. Rule Challenging 50.3 46.3 48.3 51.3 41.66. Action Oriented 50.5 47.3 48.8 51.1 50.17. Self Promoting 51.4 46.7 49.3 51.8 50.18. Collaboration and 48.8 50.8 49.7 48.7 47.9Support9. Openness to Change 50.5 43.8 48.8 48.5 60.31O.Big Picture 49.2 49.7 51.5 46.5 50.0Perspective11.Willingness to 51.3 43.8 47.6 52.7 42.2ConfrontOverall Championship 50.7 42.7 48.2 49.8 50.1Table5AComparisonofRawScoresofCompanyAManagersandAllManagersCombined,BrokenDownbyGenderandManagementLevel00.CompanyAAllOtherCompaniesMenWomenMenWomenLowerMiddleUpperLowerMiddleUpperLowerMiddleUpperLowerMiddleUpper(n=34)(n=34)(n=3)(n=14)(n=6)(n=0)(n=81)(n=102)(n=40)(n=66)(n=48)(n=5)1.Persuasiveness50.051.954.749.050.349.651.652.850.152.655.8andPoliticalSkill2.CandidPersistence39.939.840.035.239.038.040.041.337.738.540.43.Spontaneityand47.145.745.043.843.546.846.645.846.046.145.6Improvisation4.JobInvolvement45.044.945.042.142.544.944.944.444.744.545.65.RuleChallenging44.945.242.042.945.344.745.645.344.443.847.46.ActionOriented55.255.855.353.955.255.454.855.755.655.258.07.SelfPromoting35.136.135.033.533.834.635.235.634.335.235.48.Collaborationand57.056.556.357.458.058.156.857.456.957.857.2Support9.OpennesstoChange47.947.451.045.645.547.547.647.347.648.250.61O.BigPicture44.541.643.744.940.045.644.039.844.442.642.2Perspective11.Willingnessto42.743.839.338.743.042.843.043.441.541.944.6ConfrontOverallChampionship509.2508.6507.3486.9496.2507.8510.1508.6503.2506.2522.8Max.ScoreonDimensions1to6,8-9,and11is75;Max.ScoreonDimension7=60;Max.ScoreonDimension10=70;Max.ScoreonOverallChampionship=805.385CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROJECT:PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR:CODE #:_____________386INFORMATION FOR PARTICIPANTS IN THE MANAGERIAL ACTIVITY PROJECTWe\u00E2\u0080\u0099d like to take this chance to, once again, thank you for your participation in this study.Organizational research requires the input of many participants. This study has been noexception. Over the past few months, 435 managers from the following seven companieshave taken part in this study: BC Hydro, Manitoba Telephone System, the University ofBritish Columbia, BC Transit, H.A. Simons, I.C.B.C., and the Ministry of Highways. Thecollection of information began in May with BC Hydro and continued until early Septemberwith H. A. Simons, UBC, BC Transit, and the Ministry of Highways. We wish to thank allmanagers, and in particular those who have waited so very patiently for their results. Weapologize for the long delay; our only excuse is that research involving large numbers ofparticipants (from a number of companies) takes time to coordinate and conduct.This report is a summary of your results on the questionnaire you completed. Your resultsare compared with those of managers from your organization as well as the overall results ofmanagers from the six other companies involved in this study. But before turning to yourresults, we thought you might appreciate learning more about the objectives of the survey.The form you completed was made up of 363 items. It was lengthy and we appreciate thatmany of you took longer to complete it than our original estimate of one hour! Reportsranged anywhere from a low of 45 minutes to a high of about 2 hours.The items contained in the questionnaire were written by 30 managers from BCTe1. Theirtask was to write down statements describing what it is that corporate entrepreneurs (orchampions) do. As well, they were also asked to describe things that people do who are theexact opposite of the champion. The questionnaire you completed was designed to measurecorporate entrepreneurship.. .the extent to which you behave at work in ways that arecharacteristic of a corporate entrepreneur.The corporate entrepreneur has been defined in the research literature as an individual whoinformally emerges to take a new idea for an innovation (an idea s/he may or may not havegenerated) and introduces, pushes, promotes, and sells the idea to others in the organization.Such individuals operate as entrepreneurs in the corporate environment. They generate oradapt new ideas and promote their implementation. Corporate entrepreneurs have beendescribed as innovative, driven to achieve, and committed to their ideas. They are often wellconnected in the organization (good networkers) and possess the interpersonal skill andpolitical savvy to convince others of the importance of their ideas.Corporate entrepreneurs have been studied and described by Rosabeth Moss Kanter, forexample, in her books \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Change Masters\u00E2\u0080\u009D, and \u00E2\u0080\u009CWhen Giants Learn to Dance\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Or, PeterDrucker\u00E2\u0080\u0099s name may be more familiar to you and his book \u00E2\u0080\u009CInnovation andEntrepreneurship\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Finally, the popular \u00E2\u0080\u009Cguru\u00E2\u0080\u009D of management science, Tom Peters, haswritten about the importance of corporate entrepreneurs in his books \u00E2\u0080\u009CThriving on Chaos:Handbook for a Management Revolution\u00E2\u0080\u009D, and his earlier book with Waterman entitled \u00E2\u0080\u009CInSearch of Excellence\u00E2\u0080\u009D. All these references are excellent and very readable sources if you\u00E2\u0080\u0099dlike to learn more about corporate entrepreneurship and its role in today\u00E2\u0080\u0099s businessenvironment.387The present research was motivated by our desire to better understand corporateentrepreneurship from a behavioral perspective--what is it that corporate entrepreneurs do?-and to develop instruments that could be used to identify corporate entrepreneurs. Yourparticipation has enabled us to identify dimensions of corporate entrepreneurship. Thesedimensions have been used to structure the contents of your feedback package. Thus, you\u00E2\u0080\u0099llsee your standing on what we\u00E2\u0080\u0099ve called \u00E2\u0080\u009COpenness to Change\u00E2\u0080\u009D and \u00E2\u0080\u009CRule Challenging\u00E2\u0080\u009D, touse two examples. Our analyses have enabled us to understand corporate entrepreneurship asmade up of a number of independent dimensions, each measured by roughly 10 to 15 keyitems or questions from the questionnaire.Your participation has also helped us move one step further toward the development of anassessment tool--a much refined (and shortened!) version of the questionnaire you completed,that could be used for \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctop-down\u00E2\u0080\u009D (or \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbottom-up\u00E2\u0080\u009D) assessment. Ratings obtained throughsuch an assessment could augment or supplement current appraisal and performancemanagement practices, or serve organizational development needs.GUIDELINES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF YOUR SCORESAs noted above, we\u00E2\u0080\u0099re in the process of developing an instrument. Thus, the resultsreported below must be interpreted with caution. All measurement contains error; this meansthat the scores recorded for you are estimates of your \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctrue\u00E2\u0080\u009D level on the various dimensions.These estimates contain a degree of error; thus your results should be interpreted withappropriate caution. It\u00E2\u0080\u0099s also important to bear in mind that there\u00E2\u0080\u0099s no ideal managementprofile. It\u00E2\u0080\u0099s not necessarily good or bad to obtain high or low scores on the dimensionsmeasuring corporate entrepreneurship. Much depends on the culture of the organization inwhich you work--the kinds of things that are rewarded and seen as acceptable or desirable.Two sets of scores are reported in the table below, corresponding to two frames ofreference. In the first, your standing on each dimension is reported relative to othermanagers in Western Canada (the sample of roughly 400 managers (minus the managersfrom your organization). In the second column, you\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll see your standing relative to othermanagers in your organization.Your results have been presented in the form of \u00E2\u0080\u009CT-scores\u00E2\u0080\u009D. T-scores are standard scoreshaving a mean (or average) of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. The vast majority of Tscores (95%) fall within the range of 30 to 70. Roughly 68% of T-scores fall between 40 and60. A T-score would be characterized as LOW if it fell below 40, and VERY LOW if below30. Scores in the 40-60 range are regarded as AVERAGE. Those scores above 60 are seenas HIGH, with those above 70 regarded as VERY HIGH. Of course, what is meant here byLOW and HIGH, etc., is LOW and HIGH in comparison with other managers who havecompleted the questionnaire.388PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK REPORT FOR MANAGERS INVOLVED IN THEMANAGEMENT ACTIVITY PROJECTSCORES ON THE DIMENSIONS OF CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIPNORM GROUPS: FIRST COLUMN: 435 MANAGERSSECOND COLUMN: COMPANY A MANAGERSCODE# DIMENSION ALL MNGRS COMPANYA MNGRS123456 PERSUASIVENESS & POLITICAL SAVVY 58.22 59.64CANDID PERSISThNCE 64.58 63.73SPONTANEITY & IMPROVISATION 37.48 37.61JOB INVOLVEMENT 48.13 49.11RULE CHALLENGING 53.51 54.04ACTION ORIENTATION 49.25 49.43SELF PROMOTION 73.90 74.45COLLABORATION & SUPPORT 41.12 47.85OPENNESS TO CHANGE 45.16 46.32BIG PICTURE PERSPECTIVE 33.55 34.77WILLINGNESS TO CONFRONT 41.41 42.46OVERALL CHAMPIONSHIP 49.55 50.57ALL SCORES ARE REPORThD AS T-SCORESREFER BACK TO THE PREVIOUS PAGE FOR INFORMATION ON THE MEANING OF TSCORES TO AID THE INTERPRETATION OF YOUR RESULTSTHE SCORE MARKED OVERALL IS AN AVERAGED SUM OF YOUR SCORES ON THE 11INDIVIDUAL DIMENSION SCORES389DIMENSIONS OF CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIPMeaning of DimensionDimension Measured (Description of a HIGH TO VERY HIGH Scorer)(PS) Persuasiveness and Socially persuasive; able to sell ideas; knows how to developPolitical Savvy and use political connectionsExample item: \u00E2\u0080\u009CI know how to use my political connections inthe company to make things happen.(CP) Candid Persistence Blunt and direct; persistent in arguing a point; outspoken.Example item: \u00E2\u0080\u009CI tend to dominate meetings with my opinionsand visions when I wish to convince others to accept myideas.\u00E2\u0080\u009D(SI) Spontaneity and Intuitive, focused, spontaneous; tends to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwing it\u00E2\u0080\u009D; operatesImprovisation without a well-thought-through plan.Example item: \u00E2\u0080\u009CI don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically take the time and effort todocument all my plans and activities.\u00E2\u0080\u009D(JI) Job Involvement Committed; hard-driving; hard-working; goes after tasks witha sense of time urgency.Example item: \u00E2\u0080\u009CI tend to start early and work late when I\u00E2\u0080\u0099memotionally involved in a particular project.\u00E2\u0080\u009D(RC) Rule Challenging Questions authority; goes around procedural obstacles; nonconforming.Example item: \u00E2\u0080\u009CIf some company rule or procedure gets in myway, I go around it.\u00E2\u0080\u009D(AO) Action Orientation Decisive: proactive; meets deadlines and commitments; dealswith issues immediately.Example item: \u00E2\u0080\u009CWhen I make a promise to someone in theorganization, I always keep it.\u00E2\u0080\u009D(SP) Self Promotion Enjoys recognition; publicizes successes.Example item: \u00E2\u0080\u009CI enjoy getting recognition from others in thecompany for my accomplishments.\u00E2\u0080\u009D(CS) Collaboration and Support Supports and encourages others; works to foster a positiveteam environment.Example item: \u00E2\u0080\u009CI work to motivate teamwork\u00E2\u0080\u0094cooperationand collaboration among team members.\u00E2\u0080\u009D(OC) Openness to Change Adapts quickly to change; enjoys change and newresponsibilities.Example item: \u00E2\u0080\u009CI embrace and truly enjoy change in theworkplace.\u00E2\u0080\u009D(BP) Big Picture Perspective Focuses on larger issues, rather than specific details; dislikesroutine.Example item: \u00E2\u0080\u009CI like to get deeply involved in the morespecific details of projects.\u00E2\u0080\u009D (reserve keyed)(WC) Willingness to Confront Deals directly with conflict; confronts others on weaknesses.Example item: \u00E2\u0080\u009CI\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not afraid to tell others, in a direct andforceful manner, what should be done.\u00E2\u0080\u009D(CH) Overall Championship An averaged sum of the 11 scales described above.Demonstrates a variety of behaviors that, together, epitomizechampionship.390APPENDIX GSCALE COMPOSITION AT THE CONCLUSION OF PHASE III1. Persuasiveness and Political Savvy (coefficient o = .81)Loading1 S.D.2 Item0.60 2.95 I know how to use my political connections in the company to makethings happen.0.56 2.05 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to sell ideas to superiors one-on-one.0.55 2.90 I am often able to very accurately anticipate the reactions ofothers in the organization to my plans.0.51 1.85 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to sell ideas to subordinates in meetings.0.50 2.00 I usually deliver persuasive presentations. V0.49 2.50 I am able to get the time of executives in the company in order tocommunicate my ideas.0.48 2.05 I know when to push hard for an idea and when to back off.0.45 2.40 I know a lot of people in the company and I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to ask for theirinput and commitment when it is needed.-0.27 7.25 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not very comfortable meeting new people.-0.33 7.45 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t speak up at meetings.-0.39 6.55 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not very comfortable speaking in front of others.New Items2.74 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t exploit political connections in the company in order to get myVway.6.43 When my ideas meet with criticism and opposition, I stop trying topersuade people.1 The item loading from the principal component analysis of the 363 items. Positiveloadings indicate championship.2 judged mean social desirability for the item, based on ratings obtained in Phase II.High numbers indicate undesirable behavior. Mean ratings can range from a low of \u00E2\u0080\u009C1\u00E2\u0080\u009D(highly desirable) to a high of \u00E2\u0080\u009C9\u00E2\u0080\u009D (very undesirable).3912. Disruptive Insensitivity (coefficient a = .77)Loading S.D. Item0.51 7.75 I monopolize discussions.0.49 8.05 I tend to disrupt meetings.0.46 6.20 I tend to dominate meetings with my opinions and visions when Iwish to convince others to accept my point of view.0.43 6.05 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m persistent in voicing my opinion over and over again, even ifmy ideas are rejected.0.42 4.70 I tend to speak my mind, regardless of the audience.0.38 8.30 When attending a meeting, I often disregard the topic of themeeting, and, instead, talk about what interests me.0.38 8.20 I am stubborn and resistant, even in the face of legitimatecriticism.-0.26 5.70 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t usually persist in arguing a point.-0.31 6.30 I listen carefully when others debate a point, but I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t usuallyparticipate.-0.46 3.50 I tend to listen more than talk when I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m around other people.New Items3.00 I try not to overpower people with my ideas.1.96 I won\u00E2\u0080\u0099t use a strategy of domination or intimidation in order toget my way.3923. Spontaneity and Improvisation (coefficient o = .85)Loading S.D. Item0.55 6.15 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically take the time and effort to document all my plansand activities.0.46 6.70 I usually don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t take the time to document things.0.38 4.80 I tend to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwing it\u00E2\u0080\u009D; I improvise on the spot.0.34 6.25 I am easily consumed by challenges, sometimes to the pointwhere I will neglect some of my normal responsibilities.0.33 6.80 I frequently act without a well-thought-through action plan.-0.41 3.65 I keep very good records, documenting all events and activities.-0.43 2.20 I concentrate on doing what needs to be done to complete a task,and then moving on to the next issue.-0.45 3.25 I approach most issues in a very systematic, analytical, anddisciplined manner.-0.50 3.70 I am a methodical, orderly worker, carefully considering andtaking action on one issue, and then moving on to the next.-0.51 4.00 I keep my office very neat and tidy.-0.58 1.90 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m very good at planning and organizing my activities.-0.63 3.00 I plan my actions well in advance.3934. Job Involvement (coefficient o = .74)Loading S.D. Item0.48 4.65 I rarely have any free time at work; I always find myself doingsomething.0.47 3.85 I tend to start early and work late when I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m emotionally involvedin a particular project.0.47 5.00 I tend to work pretty irregular hours.0.45 3.20 I tend to make personal sacrifices in my work, when I amdedicated to a task or project.0.44 6.80 I have too little time to accomplish my work.0.31 8.35 I show up late for meetings and appointments.0.25 5.15 I address every task with urgency.-0.29 1.80 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m always punctual, arriving at meetings and other workobligations right on time.-0.33 5.95 I follow a fairly precise schedule at work (e.g., coffee at 9:00,lunch at 12:00)-0.42 6.05 I usually start work at around 8 and leave pretty close to 4.-0.48 7.55 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically expend a lot of energy in accomplishing my job.-0.53 6.05 I usually don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t work overtime.3945. Rule and Authority Challenging (coefficient a = .85)Loading S.D. Item0.64 4.50 If some company rule or procedure gets in my way, I go aroundit.0.53 4.45 I take action without first seeking approval; I\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll get forgivenesslater.0.49 3.25 I enjoy challenging established methods at work; I rather enjoyrocking the boat.0.49 7.15 I ignore authority.0.49 5.75 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t recognize hierarchies in the organization; I bypassmanagement levels in working toward my goals.0.49 5.60 I have persisted in pursuing an idea even when I was explicitlydirected to stop.0.47 4.60 I question and challenge all processes and procedures.-0.36 3.70 I follow instructions very accurately.-0.39 5.15 I refer to policies and procedures to define and support my workbehavior.-0.43 4.20 I easily conform to company expectations.-0.45 5.25 I know and follow the corporate rules very closely.-0.48 5.80 I expect others to comply with company guidelines, no exception.-0.55 4.30 I typically do what is correct and accepted in the company.3956. Action Orientation (coefficient a = .75)Loading S.D. Item0.46 1.60 When I make a promise to someone in the organization, I alwayskeep it.0.46 2.45 I always meet my deadlines at work.0.42 2.40 I am very careful to always keep my time commitments.0.40 1.90 I take action immediately on important projects or initiatives; Inever drag it out if the item is critical.0.38 1.95 When I make a decision, I like to push ahead and take action--implement.0.33 2.20 I hold others accountable for delivering what they promise.0.32 3.45 When someone asks me for information, I give a quick response,and then follow up.0.28 1.80 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m always looking for ways to do things just a little bit better and alittle bit faster.-0.26 7.60 I sometimes put important items on the back burner for a bit toolong.-0.29 5.35 I tend to work fairly slowly, but consistently.-0.30 4.75 I am sometimes slow to take action in solving problems; I like totake my time and carefully consider the options first.New Items:3.61 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll re-evaluate risks and put a halt to progress on a project if I amunsure about something.2.83 I will put the brakes on a project if I feel that more reflection ordeliberation is needed.3967. Self-Promotion (coefficient x = .60)Loading S.D. Item0.50 3.45 I enjoy getting recognition from others in the company for myaccomplishments.0.43 4.65 I ensure that my successes in the company are known.0.41 5.05 I make sure I rub shoulders with powerful individuals in otherdepartments and business units in the company.0.37 3.10 I watch other successful managers and try to adopt the methodsthey use that work.0.29 5.20 I orchestrate situations (e.g., meetings, one-on-one conversations)so that my wishes are approved.0.28 6.75 I will sometimes bend the truth in order to achieve my goals.0.27 5.95 I get impatient with others when they don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t work to my own highstandards.0.26 4.95 I promote ideas that have the highest visibility and likelihood ofsuccess.-0.30 3.95 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t seek out attention from others.New Items4.7 It\u00E2\u0080\u0099s not important to me that my accomplishments andachievements are known to others in the company.3.39 I will accept low-profile projects; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t need \u00E2\u0080\u009Cpublic\u00E2\u0080\u009Drecognition for what I do.1.48 I will not compromise my integrity just to get ahead.3978. Support and Collaboration (coefficient x = .82)Loading S.D. Item0.58 1.55 I work to motivate teamwork--cooperation and collaborationamong team members.0.58 1.95 I am considerate of other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 well being in the company.0.57 1.85 I am interested in other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ideas and work to support andencourage them.0.54 1.75 I recognize the achievements and accomplishments of others bothpublicly and privately.0.53 2.80 I usually think of other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 needs and priorities before makingdecisions.0.49 1.55 I support people to get the best out of them.0.46 1.45 I can easily recognize and appreciate talent in others; I always tryto use other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 talents.0.35 1.75 I empower subordinates to take action on their own.-0.26 7.75 I try to have a hand in all aspects of a project; I prefer not todelegate responsibilities.-0.37 5.70 I prefer working on my own.-0.43 6.45 I prefer to work independently, rather than in a team setting.New Items2.91 I encourage others in my group to work independently.2.30 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t interfere in the work of my co-workers and subordinates; Iencourage self-sufficiency.3989. Openness to Change (coefficient CL = .82)Loading S.D. Item0.45 2.25 I embrace and truly enjoy change in the workplace.0.43 2.40 I volunteer for task forces and other related activities that allowme to be a change agent.0.40 1.95 I am able to adapt quickly to changing situations.0.39 3.55 I have taken on challenges and responsibilities unrelated to myarea of job responsibility.0.33 1.90 I am able to thrive when working under conditions of unusuallyhigh pressure.0.28 2.80 I seek out diversity in people, places, things.0.27 2.05 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m comfortable taking risks at work and moving out intounknown business areas.-0.28 5.05 I stay in one job for a long time, so that I become an expert in thatone area.-0.28 5.65 I will not take risks with company time, people, and money.-0.45 6.55 I prefer to work in a fairly stable and unchanging workenvironment.-0.49 6.45 I typically don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t volunteer for extra work projects.-0.51 5.75 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t volunteer for \u00E2\u0080\u009Cvisible\u00E2\u0080\u009D jobs, preferring to remain more inthe background.39910. Big Picture Perspective (coefficient x = .70)Loading S.D. Item-0.54 5.20 I like to get deeply involved in the more specific details ofprojects.-0.52 4.30 I am interested in the technical side of projects.-0.50 4.40 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able and willing to do repetitive tasks.-0.48 4.30 I have a lot of patience for completing the more tedious tasks.-0.40 2.40 I pay close attention to the details of what I am doing.-0.30 3.95 I prefer to delay decision making at times, so that I can thinkthrough the issues more carefully.-0.30 4.80 I prefer to work within my own department/office.-0.28 4.75 My focus is more on the specifics of the task at hand, rather thanthe environment around me.New Items3.00 I have a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbig picture\u00E2\u0080\u009D perspective; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t get bogged down by thedetails of a project.3.43 I enjoy working outside of my own office or department.4.39 I think at a conceptual level; I let others worry about the detailsand specifics of projects.6.30 I have no patience for the more tedious tasks.40011. Willingness to Confront (coefficient a = .67)Loading S.D. Item0.44 2.40 I am almost always willing to deal with difficult decisions, suchas redundant employees.0.42 3.55 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not afraid to tell others, in a direct and forceful manner, whatshould be done. V0.39 5.75 When I think that someone is incompetent, I tell them.0.29 4.20 I have risked disappointing others in order to get my own ideasacross.0.27 5.05 I am willing to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cweed out\u00E2\u0080\u009D team members who are notimmediately productive.0.26 8.35 I have written letters and memos that attack others personally.-0.31 5.05 I do my best to accommodate to other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 wishes in order tokeep them happy.-0.33 7.60 if things get too hot, I prefer not to participate.-0.43 4.35 I prefer to avoid conflict and, instead, work to smooth outdisagreements and reach consensus.-0.51 5.65 I avoid conflict and confrontation in my day-to-day work.New Items4.26 I find areas of compromise and accommodation in order to keepothers happy.3.43 I give people a second chance, rather than confront them onissues right away.Overall Mean Social Desirability Across the Eleven Scales (not including new items)Champion Items: 4.21Non-Champion Items: 5.26Overall Mean Social Desirability Across the Eleven Scales (including new items)Champion Items: 4.24Non-Champion Items: 4.74401APPENDIX HBCTEL COMPANY FEEDBACK REPORTCHAMPIONSHIP PROJECT:COMPANY FEEDBACKASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR:BCTe1 ManagersDate of Report: June 10, 1994Prepared by:Mr. Ross WoolleyDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of British Columbia2136 West MallVancouver, B.C.V6T 1Z4(604) 822-5626402INFORMATION FOR PARTICIPANTS FROM THE BCTEL CHAMPIONSHIP PROJECTWe would like to take this chance to thank you very sincerely for your participation in thisstudy. Organizational research requires the input of many participants. This study has been noexception. Over the past three months, 86 managers from BCTe1 completed ratings on 165participants from the annual BCTe1 Career Development Project (CDP). BCTe1\u00E2\u0080\u0099s participationhas helped us move one step further toward the development of an assessment tool for \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctop-down\u00E2\u0080\u009D assessment (traditional supervisory ratings of subordinate performance) or \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbottom-up\u00E2\u0080\u009Dassessment (ratings of managers by subordinates). Ratings obtained through such an assessmentcould be used to supplement current appraisal and performance management practices, or serveorganizational development needs.This report is a summary of corporate results obtained by averaging your ratings with theratings of the 85 other managers in the company who took part in the study. We have conducteda number of different analyses that we hope you\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll find interesting. The BCTe1 managementgroup is profiled. As well, BCTe1 managers are compared with a sample of 435 managerssurveyed earlier this year from the following companies: BC Hydro, Manitoba TelephoneSystem, UBC Administration, H.A. Simons, BC Transit, The Ministry of Transportation andHighways, and ICBC.Before turning to the results, we thought you might appreciate learning more about thehistory of the project and the study objectives. The original questionnaire used this past summerwas made up of 363 items. The items or questions were originally written by 26 managers fromBCTe1 whose task it was to compose statements describing what champions (or corporateentrepreneurs) do. Thus, the original questionnaire was designed to measure championship,defined below.The champion is an individual who takes a new idea for either an administrative ortechnical innovation (an idea s/he may or may not have generated) and introduces,pushes, promotes, and sells the idea to others in the organization.A series of statistical analyses were performed with the questionnaire (item analysis, factoranalysis), resulting in the identification of 11 dimensions or aspects of championships. Thesepreliminary analyses allowed us to come back to BCTe1 with a much refined (and shortened)instrument. Our next step was to administer the revised questionnaire to the managers of thoseBCTe1 employees who had been involved in the Career Development Project and obtain ratingson those employees on the 11 dimensions of championship.To expand on the definition above, the champion operates as an entrepreneur, but in thecorporate environment. Such individuals generate or adapt new ideas and promote theirimplementation. Champions have been described as innovative, driven to achieve, andcommitted to their ideas. They are often well connected in the organization (good networkers)and possess the interpersonal skill and political savvy to convince oth\u00C3\u00A7rs of the importance oftheir ideas.403Champions have been studied and described by Rosabeth Moss Kanter, for example, in herbooks \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Change Masters\u00E2\u0080\u009D, and \u00E2\u0080\u009CWhen Giants Learn to Dance\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Or, Peter Drucker\u00E2\u0080\u0099s namemay be more familiar to you and his book \u00E2\u0080\u009CInnovation and Entrepreneurship\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Finally, thepopular \u00E2\u0080\u009Cguru\u00E2\u0080\u009D of management science, Tom Peters, has written about the importance ofcorporate entrepreneurs in his books \u00E2\u0080\u009CThriving on Chaos: Handbook for a ManagementRevolution\u00E2\u0080\u009D, and his earlier book with Waterman entitled\u00E2\u0080\u009D In Search of Excellence\u00E2\u0080\u009D. All thesereferences are excellent and very readable sources if you\u00E2\u0080\u0099d like to learn more about corporateentrepreneurship and its role in today\u00E2\u0080\u0099s business environment.The present research was motivated by our desire to better understand championship from abehavioral perspective--what is it that champions do?-- and to develop instruments that could beused to identify these individuals. BCTe1\u00E2\u0080\u0099s participation has enabled us to: (a) further refine abehavioral rating scale, and (b) identify tests (from the CDP assessment battery) that predictchampionship.This feedback report is structured around the eleven dimensions of championship, identifiedin the first phase of this research project. You\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll see BCTe1\u00E2\u0080\u0099s overall standing on what we\u00E2\u0080\u0099vecalled \u00E2\u0080\u009COpenness to Change\u00E2\u0080\u009D and \u00E2\u0080\u009CRule Challenging\u00E2\u0080\u009D, to use two examples. Our analyses haveenabled us to understand championship as made up of a number of independent dimensions,each measured by roughly 10 to 15 key items or questions from the questionnaire.GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF COMPANY RESULTSAs noted above, we\u00E2\u0080\u0099re in the process of developing an instrument. Thus, the corporate resultspresented in this report must be interpreted with caution. All measurement contains error; thismeans that the scores recorded for BCTe1 are estimates. These estimates contain a degree oferror, so interpret them with appropriate caution. It\u00E2\u0080\u0099s also important to bear in mind that there\u00E2\u0080\u0099sno ideal management profile. It\u00E2\u0080\u0099s not necessarily good or bad for your organization to beprofiled as low or high on the dimensions measuring championship. Much depends on theculture of your company--the kinds of behaviors that are rewarded and seen as desirable.A second caution. These scores were obtained from ratings of behavior, and ratings containerror. They may be influenced by a variety of things. Friendship and leniency will tend to raisescores, while strained relations between a rater and ratee may lower scores. As well, theseratings reflect one perspective: a top-down, supervisory perspective. These ratings could beexpected to change with the perspective and role of the rater.This company feedback report is divided into two sections. In Section I we profile BCTe1managers on the dimensions of championship. Information is presented in both graphic andtabular form. We describe your organization\u00E2\u0080\u0099s standing in an absolute sense, by reportingaverage \u00E2\u0080\u009Craw\u00E2\u0080\u009D scores achieved by your managers: the average level of championship shown onthe various dimensions of championship by managers in your company.404In Section II, we report results for BCTe1 managers relative to a combined pooi of managersfrom the seven companies involved in an earlier phase of the study. We report average T-Scores(standard scores having a mean [or average] of 50 and a standard deviation of 7) for managersat BCTe1, broken down by gender. You should understand T-scores as follows. The vastmajority of T-scores (95%) fall within the range of 36 to 64 and roughly 68% of T-scores fallbetween 43 and 57. A T-score would be characterized as LOW if it fell below 43, and VERYLOW if below 36. Scores in the 43-57 range are regarded as AVERAGE. Those scores above57 are seen as HIGH, with those above 64 regarded as VERY HIGH. Of course, what is meanthere by LOW and HIGH, etc., is LOW and HIGH in comparison with the other managers whowere rated with this questionnaire. You should keep in mind that T-scores reflect how yourmanagers compare with the other managers in the study.Section I: A Profile ofBCTe1 ManagersHow to Interpret The ResultsIn Tables 1 and 2 we report summary information on BCTe1 managers on the variousdimensions of championship. From Table 1, you\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll notice that we report the \u00E2\u0080\u009Caverage raw score\u00E2\u0080\u009Dfor each of the 11 dimensions as well as the Overall Championship scale. We obtained thesenumbers by calculating a scale score (e.g., a score on Job Involvement, Rule Challenging, etc.)for each manager and then computing an average across all BCTe1 managers for each scale.Thus, this figure provides you with our best estimate of your organization\u00E2\u0080\u0099s standing on thisdimension (based, of course, on the sample of managers who took part in the study). Naturally,there will be a degree of variability or scatter around this average; some individual managerswill score much higher and others much lower than this average, but most will hover fairly closeto the average raw score reported in Table 1.To obtain the percentage figures in the last column, we divided the average raw score by themaximum score possible on each scale. These percentages have been plotted to provide youwith a picture of your organization\u00E2\u0080\u0099s profile. The information provided in Table 1 providesinteresting diagnostic information, in that highs and lows are apparent. More detailedinformation on the organization\u00E2\u0080\u0099s standing on each of the individual scales is given in Table 2.In Table 2 we present each scale separately, with a description of the meaning of scoresfalling toward the high and low ends of the five-point scale. The placement of the arrow wasdetermined by dividing the \u00E2\u0080\u009Caverage raw score\u00E2\u0080\u009D (from Table 1), by the number of items in thescale. Thus, the arrow indicates the average score of your managers on an overall 5-point scalefor the particular dimension; so you can understand the placement of the arrow relative to the 5anchor points used in the original questionnaire. We also indicate on each scale the range ofscores (minimum and maximum) achieved by managers in your organization (marked by aparallel horizontal line). Thus, you get an indication of the score variability.405A Discussion ofBCTeI\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ResultsYou will notice from the % Profile in Table 1 and the scales outlined in Table 2 that BCTe1managers are highest on Action Orientation, Persuasion and Political Savvy, Collaboration andSupport, and Openness to Change. Scores in all four of these areas are above the mid-point (seeTable 2); thus, we can characterize them as roughly above average. The BCTe1 managers wererated as decisive and action oriented: as inclined to deal with issues right away, rather thandelaying for consideration or study. The majority were rated as likely to follow through oncommitments, ensuring that projects and other priorities are delivered on time.The percentile score on Persuasion and Political Savvy is high as well, indicating that BCTe1managers are persuasive in their dealings with others. They appear able to sell ideas.. .topromote projects and get a buy-in from others in the company. BCTe1 managers were alsorated high on Collaboration and Support. They were rated as behaving in ways that encourageothers to do their best. BCTe1 managers empower others and behave in ways that support thosearound them. Teamwork and collaboration appear to be strong components of the BCTe1culture. Finally, BCTe1 managers were rated as open to change--as willing and eager to adapt tonew work situations and strategic directions.Further evidence of an orientation toward support and encouragement is seen from therelatively low overall company score on Candid Persistence. BCTe1 managers do not, as agroup, appear to be blunt and argumentative when dealing with others. Although an aspect ofchampionship, high levels of Candid Persistence may not necessarily be a positive thing in manysituations.The lowest score from Table 1 is seen on Spontaneity and Improvisation. BCTe1 managersappear to be, as a group, planful and methodical. They prefer to make decisions after carefullyconsidering all available information. BCTe1 managers were rated as cautious and conservative\u00E2\u0080\u0094as unlikely to improvise and take risks. BCTe1 managers were also rated relatively low onBig Picture Perspective and Rule Challenging. The BCTe1 management group appears to bedetail oriented and likely to follow carefully policies and guidelines in carrying out theirresponsibilities.Over all dimensions, on average, BCTe1 managers appear to be just slightly above average onchampionship (see the Overall Championship scale at the end of Table 2). This overall rating isobtained by averaging across the eleven dimensions. As discussed above, the BCTe1management group was rated as high in some areas and low in others. Although apparently nota strong part of the BCTe1 culture, some managers in the company do appear to take new ideasand promote and sell them to others in the organization.406Table 1Overall Company Results Reported in Raw4 Scores for the 165 BCTe1 Managers RatedScale Name Av. Raw % ofMax. % ProfileScore Possible 50 55 60 65 70 75 801. Persuasion & 42.2 77%Political Savvy2. Candid 26.0 52%Persistence3. Spontaneity & 28.0 47%Improvisation4. Job Involvement 40.1 67%5. Rule Challeng\u00E2\u0080\u0099g 36.5 56%6. Action Orient\u00E2\u0080\u0099n 43.2 79%7. Self Promotion 27.1 60%8. Collaboration & 41.2 75%Support9. Openness to 43.9 73%Change10. \u00E2\u0080\u009CBig Picture\u00E2\u0080\u009D 22.0 55%Perspective11. Willingness to 31.6 63%Confront12. Overall 382.2 64%Championshipraw score is simply the number of items responded to in a manner reflecting championship; the score is notconverted, like a T-score.407Table 2A Detailed Description of the 11 Scales and a Profile of Your Managers on Each Scale51. Persuasion and Political Savvy: A measure of salesmanship and persuasiveness. Tapsinto one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ability to develop and use effectively political connections in the company.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 5Quiet, reserved; un- Socially persuasive; able toassertive in group situations. sell ideas; knows how todevelop & use connections.2. Candid Persistence: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s directness and persistence.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099Good listening skills; Blunt and direct; persistentattentive and patient in in arguing a point;dealings with others. outspoken.3. Spontaneity and Improvisation: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s inclination to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwing it\u00E2\u0080\u009D; to makedecisions without careful consideration and caution.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099Planful and methodical; Intuitive, focused, andkeeps careful records. spontaneous;tends to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwing it\u00E2\u0080\u009D.See Appendix A for a listing of sample items from each of the scales.408Table 2 cont.4. Job Involvement: A measure of job commitment, drive, and determination.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099Doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically Committed; hard-driving;work overtime; expends hard working; goes afterminimal energy at work. tasks with a sense of timeurgency.5. Rule Challenging: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s inclination toward questioning rules and people inauthority positions.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099Accepting of authority & Questions authority; goesrules; follows policies around obstacles; non-and guidelines, conforming.6. Action Orientation: A measure of decisiveness and thoroughness.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099Slow to take action; Decisive; proactive; meetsmay procrastinate by deadlines and commitputting items on the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cback ments; deals with issuesburner\u00E2\u0080\u009D, immediately.409Table 2 cont.7. Self Promotion: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s need for recognition and publicity in the company.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 5+Doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t seek out attention; Enjoys recognition;prefers to stay in the back- publicizes successes.ground.8. Collaboration and Support: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s inclination toward developing andfostering a team approach through empowerment and encouragement.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099Prefers to work indep- Supports and encouragesendently; resists delegation. others; works to foster apositive team environment.9. Openness to Change: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s willingness and preference for change andunpredictability in the work environment.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 5+Prefers predictability & Adapts quickly to change;structure; resists risk & enjoys change and newchange. responsibilities.410Table 2 cont.10. \u00E2\u0080\u009CBig Picture\u00E2\u0080\u009D Perspective: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s preference for systems and \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbig picture\u00E2\u0080\u009Dthinking, rather than an orientation toward detail.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 5+Pays close attention to Focuses on larger issues,detail; willing and able to rather than specific details;do repetitive tasks; enjoys dislikes routine.technical side of projects.11. Willingness to Confront: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s willingness to engage in discussion anddebate in working through a conflict.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 54\u00E2\u0080\u0099Prefers to avoid conflict; Deals directly withaccommodates to others. conflict; confronts otherson weaknesses.12. Overall Championship: A weighted average of the 11 individual scales.Never True Rarely True Occasionally Often True Very FrequentlyTrue True1 2 3 4 5+The champion is an individual who takes a new idea (an idea s/he may or may not have generated)and introduces, pushes, promotes, and sells the idea to others in the organization.411Section II: A Comparison ofBCTe1 Managers with Managers From The OtherSeven Participating CompaniesIn this section, we compare BCTe1 managers with managers from the other sevenparticipating companies on the various dimensions of championship.At the beginning of this study, we had anticipated that significant differences might arisebetween the various participating companies. On the basis of the information reported inTable 3, however, it would appear, instead, that few differences exist.Results in Table 3 are reported as T-Scores (refer back to pages 3 and 4 for a definition ofT-scores). These scores were obtained by computing an overall average, across themanagers from the other seven participating companies, for each of the championship scales.Then, each of your managers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 scores was compared with this overall average and a BCTe1average T-score calculated. Thus, the greater the distance BCTe1\u00E2\u0080\u0099s average T-score from theoverall average, the more the T-score will deviate from the average\u00E2\u0080\u009450.The majority of T-scores in Table 3 fall in the average range. This means that, onbalance, BCTe1 managers are not particularly different from managers in the otherorganizations on the various dimensions of championship. This result is telling us that the %Profile presented in Table 1 is fairly similar across the seven participating companies.Although no comparison groups appear on Table 3, each score represents BCTe1\u00E2\u0080\u0099s relativestanding on each dimension, compared with the other managers in the study. Thus, a Tscore below 43 on one of the dimensions would indicate that managers from yourorganization are LOW compared with the other managers.Compared with the managers from the other companies sampled, BCTe1 managers wererated as high on Willingness to Confront. Thus, although the company\u00E2\u0080\u0099s overall percentilescore on this dimension (reported in Table 1) is about average, compared with the 435managers from the other companies sampled, they appear to be very willing to deal in adirect manner with conflict--to confront other people and speak candidly.The same appears to be true for Rule Challenging. BCTe1 managers were rated asrelatively low on Rule Challenging in Table 2. And yet, compared with the other managerssampled, the BCTe1 management group appears to question rules and people in authority to agreater extent than the other managers tested.The BCTe1 management group achieved the lowest T-scores on the dimensions ofSpontaneity and Improvisation and Collaboration and Support. Thus, compared with othermanagers sampled, BCTe1 managers appear less likely to improvise and experiment than theother manager sampled. Even though the overall BCTe1 management group scores abovethe midpoint on Collaboration and Support (see Table 2), when we compare their standingrelative to managers from the other companies sampled, they are relatively low.In summary, over the eleven dimensions assessed, the BCTe1 management group is aboutaverage on championship, compared with the other managers tested. They appear verysimilar on overall championship to the other managers sampled.412Table 3T-Scores for the BCTe1 Managers, Broken Down by Gender, in Comparison to the ManagersFrom the Other Seven Participating CompaniesMen Women Men and WomenCombined(n=121) (n=44) (n=165)1. Persuasiveness 51.2 52.2 51.4and Political Skill2. Candid Persistence 54.0 49.8 52.93. Spontaneity and 45.9 43.7 45.3Improvisation4. Job Involvement 50.6 49.5 50.35. Rule Challenging 56.6 52.8 55.76. Action Orientation 50.7 50.9 50.77. Self Promotion 53.1 51.4 52.68. Collaboration and 44.4 47.6 45.2Support9. Openness to Change 49.6 49.2 49.510. Big Picture 50.0 49.3 49.9Perspective11. Willingness to 59.0 57.5 58.6Confront12. Overall Championship 52.6 50.2 52.0413APPENDIX IBOOKLET USED TO OBTAIN SUPERVISORY-REPORT DATA FOR THESECOND FACTOR ANALYSISMANAGEMENT ACTIVITYPROJECTFebruary, 1994Conducted by:Ross WoolleyDepartment of PsychologyUBC822-5626414DIRECTIONSContained in this questionnaire is a series of statements, each referring to a type of activity amanager might perform. In each of the statements below, you are asked to consider the activity ofthe person you are rating over the past 12 months. In responding to each of the statements, use theanswer sheet appended to this test package. For each statement, circle the number corresponding toyour choice on the answer sheet.You will note, below, that each of the five numbers on the response scale is anchored by abrief descriptor. For each number there is a descriptive anchor relating to the frequency as well asthe likelihood of participation for the person you\u00E2\u0080\u0099re rating. When possible, please respond byindicating the frequency of involvement. If, however, you have not had the opportunity to observethe manager engage in a given activity contained in this booklet, then we ask that you consider thelikelihood that s/he would have engaged in this behavior, given the opportunity. It\u00E2\u0080\u0099s very importantthat you respond to every item in order for us to generate an accurate profile.Some of the items may appear to overlap or be redundant. This instrument is in its earlystages of development and we will be using your responses to each item to pare it down to a moremanageable and concise form. At this stage of the process, our purpose is to be as comprehensive aspossible.You\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll be asked to respond on the following scale:Never true Rarely true Occasionally Often true Very frequently true(or extremely (or unlikely to true (or somewhat (or likely to be (or extremely likelyunlikely to be true) be true) or likely to be true) true) or descriptive to be true) oror descriptive of descriptive of or descriptive of of his/her descriptive ofhis/her behavior his/her behavior his/her behavior behavior his/her behavior1 2 3 4 5Here\u00E2\u0080\u0099s an example item:The manager I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m rating \u00E2\u0080\u009Cis able to sell ideas to subordinates one-on-one.\u00E2\u0080\u009DLet\u00E2\u0080\u0099s say that you have observed the manager you\u00E2\u0080\u0099re rating do the above fairly often....then youwould respond by circling the number \u00E2\u0080\u009C4\u00E2\u0080\u009D. If, on the other hand, you have never before seen him orher sell an idea to their subordinate (perhaps s/he never had someone report to him/her), then youwould consider how likely it is that s/he would engage in this behavior. In this case, if you thought itlikely that s/he would sell ideas to subordinates one-on-one, you would still circle the number \u00E2\u0080\u009C4\u00E2\u0080\u009D.415Never true Rarely true Occasionally Often true Very frequently true(or extremely (or unlikely to true (or somewhat (or likely to be (or extremely likelyunlikely to be true) be true) or likely to be true) true) or descriptive to be true) oror descriptive of descriptive of or descriptive of of his/her descriptive ofhis/her behavior his/her behavior his/her behavior behavior his/her behavior1 2 3 4 5The manager I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m rating.1. Knows how to use political connections in the company to make things happen.2. Won\u00E2\u0080\u0099t use a strategy of domination or intimidation in order to get his/her way.3. Doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically take the time and effort to document all his/her plans and activities.4. Inspires and motivates others to achieve or exceed levels of performance.5. Usually doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t work overtime.6. Will go around company rules or procedures if they get in his/her way.7. Will put the brakes on a project if s/he feels that more reflection or deliberation is needed.8. Fails to meet schedules, deadlines, and targets; is always behind; makes excuses or findsreasons to cover up his/her inadequacies.9. Enjoys getting recognition from others in the company for his/her accomplishments.10. Prefers to work independently, rather than in a team setting.11. Embraces and truly enjoys change in the workplace.12. Delivers clear and concise presentations at all levels of the corporation in a manner readilyaccepted by adults.13. Likes to get deeply involved in the more specific details of projects.14. Is almost always willing to deal with difficult decisions, such as redundant employees.15. Is able to sell ideas to superiors one-on-one.16. Fails to identify problems other than in the simplest scenarios, even then requires assistance togather facts.17. Tries not to overpower people with her/his ideas.18. Usually doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t take the time to document things.19. Doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically expend a lot of energy in accomplishing his/her job.20. Reaches logical conclusions that are well-founded and \u00E2\u0080\u009Csupportable\u00E2\u0080\u009D.21. Takes action without first seeking approval; s/he will get forgiveness later.22. Re-evaluates risks and puts a halt to progress on a project if he/she is unsure about something.416The manager I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m rating.23. Ensures that his/her successes in the company are known.24. Will not commit him/herself or take action without lengthy procrastination; s/he is difficult to\u00E2\u0080\u009Cpin down\u00E2\u0080\u009D or \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccorner\u00E2\u0080\u009D.25. Prefers working on her/his own.26. Volunteers for task forces and other related activities that allow him/her to be a change agent.27. Is interested in the technical side of projects.28. Puts in the extra effort and time to ensure that his/her work is of the highest quality; s/heconsistently does more than is expected without being asked.29. Is not afraid to tell others, in a direct and forceful manner, what should be done.30. Is often able to very accurately anticipate the reactions of others in the organization to her/hisplans.31. Tends to listen more than talk when around other people.32. Generates a number of new ideas of his/her own.33. Tends to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwing it\u00E2\u0080\u009D; improvises on the spot.34. Usually starts work at around 8 and leaves pretty close to 4.35. Enjoys challenging established methods at work; s/he rather enjoys rocking the boat.36. Does not question the way things are done; s/he does not offer more effective solutions; s/herefuses to enter into \u00E2\u0080\u009Cuncharted waters\u00E2\u0080\u009D.37. Is sometimes slow to take action in solving problems; s/he likes to take his/her time andcarefully consider the options first.38. Makes sure to rub shoulders with powerful individuals in other departments and business unitsin the company.39. Tries to have a hand in all aspects of a project; s/he prefers not to delegate responsibilities.40. Demonstrates rigidity in the way s/he deals with others; s/he will not modify behavior to meetchanging needs.41. Is able to adapt quickly to changing situations.42. Is able and willing to do repetitive tasks.43. Tells others when s/he thinks that someone is incompetent.44. Demonstrates diplomacy and tact; s/he works easily with difficult customers and employees.45. Is able to sell ideas to subordinates in meetings.46. Listens carefully when others debate a point, but doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t usually participate.47. Is easily consumed by challenges, sometimes to the point where s/he will neglect some ofhis/her normal responsibilities.48. Handles pressure poorly; devotes energies to excuses rather than production.417The manager I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m rating.49. Follows a fairly precise schedule at work (e.g., coffee at 9:00, lunch at 12:00).50. Ignores authority.51. Tends to work fairly slowly, but consistently.52. Produces written work that is clear, concise, and usually requires no corrections; ideas areorganized and presented in a logical manner.53. Watches other successful managers and tries to adopt the methods they use that work.54. Doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t interfere in the work of his/her co-workers and subordinates; s/he encourages self-sufficiency.55. Has taken on challenges and responsibilities unrelated to his/her area of job responsibility.56. Takes a passive role in group situations; willingly allows others to take control.57. Has a lot of patience for completing the more tedious tasks.58. Has risked disappointing Others in order to get his/her own ideas across.59. Usually delivers persuasive presentations.60. Adapts or builds on the ideas of others in the organization.61. Doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t usually persist in arguing a point.62. Frequently acts without a well-thought-through action plan.63. Is always punctual, arriving at meetings and other work obligations right on time.64. Establishes a plan for the fiscal year; maps out when each event must take place in order tomeet the stated goals; allows for unexpected circumstances.65. Doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t recognize hierarchies in the organization; s/he bypasses management levels in workingtoward his/her goals.66. Sometimes puts important items on the back burner for a bit too long.67. Orchestrates situations (e.g., meetings, one-on-one conversations) so that his/her wishes areapproved.68. Confuses others by mumbling and \u00E2\u0080\u009Crambling on\u00E2\u0080\u009D when talking.69. Encourages others in his/her group to work independently.70. Is able to thrive when working under conditions of unusually high pressure.71. Pays close attention to the details of what s/he is doing.72. Is able to consistently analyze complex problems and quickly assess the situation at hand.73. Is willing to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cweed out\u00E2\u0080\u009D team members who are not immediately productive.74. Is able to get the time of executives in the company in order to communicate his/her ideas.75. Is stubborn and resistant, even in the face of legitimate criticism.76. Frequently makes inappropriate judgments that lack a factual basis; usually misses obviousalternatives.418The manager I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m rang.77. Keeps very good records, documenting all events and activities.78. Addresses every task with urgency.79. Has persisted in pursuing an idea even when s/he was explicitly directed to stop.80. Makes timely decisions after weighing risks and benefits for the company, department, and self.81. Is always looking for ways to do things just a little bit better and a little bit faster.82. Will sometimes bend the truth in order to achieve his/her goals.83. Is considerate of other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 well being in the company.84. Needs help to finish work; projects and other responsibilities are not done on time.85. Seeks out diversity in people, places, things.86. Prefers to delay decision making at times, so that s/he can think through the issues morecarefully.87. Has written letters and memos that attack others personally.88. Introduces and promotes new ideas in the company.89. Knows when to push hard for an idea and when to back off.90. Often disregards the topic when attending a meeting, and instead talks about what interestss/he.91. Concentrates on doing what needs to be done to complete a task, and then moves on to the nextissue.92. Can adjust quickly in the face of resistance (i.e. pressure, errors, different personalities).93. Shows up late for meetings and appointments.94. Questions and challenges all processes and procedures.95. Gives a quick response when someone asks for information, and then follows up.96. Makes no allowance for individuality--for personal needs; is abrasive in handling others.97. Gets impatient with others when they don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t work to his/her own high standards.98. Works to motivate teamwork--cooperation and collaboration among team members.99. Is comfortable taking risks at work and moving out into unknown business areas.100. Completes assigned work and then initiates new work toward the success of a higher mandate;is eager to take on more responsibilities.101. Prefers to work within his/her own department/office.102. Does his/her best to accommodate to other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 wishes in order to keep them happy.103. Knows a lot of people in the company and is able to ask for their input and commitment whenit is needed.104. Is \u00E2\u0080\u009Cunshakable\u00E2\u0080\u009D under heavy pressure and confrontation; does not lose confidence.419The manager I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m rating.105. Tends to speak his/her mind, regardless of the audience.106. Approaches most issues in a very systematic, analytical, and disciplined manner.107. Has too little time to accomplish his/her work.108. Produces letters/reports that are unclear or inconclusive, reflecting a poor and often superficiallevel of initial analysis.109. Follows instructions very accurately.110. Holds others accountable for delivering what they promise.111. Promotes ideas that have the highest visibility and likelihood of success.112. Frequently displays a negative attitude; has little enthusiasm or commitment to goals.113. Is interested in other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ideas and works to support and encourage them.114. Stays in one job for a long time, so that s/he becomes an expert in that one area.115. Focuses on the specifics of the task at hand, rather than the environment around him/her.116. Meets deadlines, targets, and time schedules; has time for more than one project or job.117. Prefers not to participate if things get too hot.118. Is not very comfortable meeting new people.119. Is persistent in voicing his/her opinion over and over again, even if his/her ideas are rejected.120. Works aggressively to sell and champion new ideas in the company.121. Is a methodical, orderly worker, carefully considering and taking action on one issue, and thenmoving on to the next.122. Tends to make personal sacrifices in his/her work, when s/he is dedicated to a task or project.123. Refers to policies and procedures to define and support his/her work behavior.124. Refuses to speak to a group in a formal setting.125. Likes to push ahead and take action--implement--when s/he makes decisions.126. Doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t seek out attention from others.127. Recognizes the achievements and accomplishments of others both publicly and privately.128. Gathers all appropriate information before attempting to diagnose a situation; logicallystructures information in order to present a strong case as to why a particular conclusion isreached.129. Will not take risks with company time, people, and money.130. Has a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbig picture\u00E2\u0080\u009D perspective; s/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t get bogged down by the details of a project.131. Prefers to avoid conflict and, instead, works to smooth out disagreements and reach consensus.132. Offers opinions that are consistently viewed as \u00E2\u0080\u009Cout in left field\u00E2\u0080\u009D.133. Doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t speak up at meetings.420The manager I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m rating.134. Tends to dominate meetings with his/her opinions and visions when s/he wishes to convinceothers to accept his/her point of view.135. Keeps his/her office very neat and tidy.136. Takes decisive action when situations arise.137. Tends to start early and work late when emotionally involved in a particular project.138. Easily conforms to company expectations.139. Takes action immediately on important projects or initiatives; s/he never \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdrags it out\u00E2\u0080\u009D if theitem is critical.Is not willing to take the extra time and make the extra effort in his/her work.Doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t think that it\u00E2\u0080\u0099s important that his/her accomplishments and achievements are known toothers in the company.Usually thinks of other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 needs and priorities before making decisions.Prefers to work in a fairly stable and unchanging work environment.Recognizes when something needs to be done and takes action without being told.Enjoys working outside of his/her own office or department.Avoids conflict and confrontation in his/her day-to-day work.Is not very comfortable speaking in front of others.Listens to all sides of an issue; can change his/her position and support the change.Tends to disrupt meetings.Is very good at planning and organizing his/her activities.Tends to work pretty irregular hours.Makes decisions, takes actions, and expresses opinions without regard for impacts.Knows and follows the corporate rules very closely.Is very careful to always keep his/her time commitments.Will accept low-profile projects; s/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t need \u00E2\u0080\u009Cpublic\u00E2\u0080\u009D recognition for what s/he does.Juggles work load while remaining cool, calm, and collected; has a calming influence onothers.Supports people to get the best out of them.Typically doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t volunteer for extra work projects.Thinks at a conceptual level; s/he lets others worry about the details and specifics of projects.Produces correspondence that is ambiguous and poorly organized; requires follow-up.Finds areas of compromise and accommodation in order to keep others happy.Doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t exploit political connections in the company in order to get his/her way.140.141.142.143.144.145.146.147.148.149.150.151.152.153.154.155.156.157.158.159.160.161.162.421The manager I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m rating........163. Monopolizes discussions.164. Takes new ideas for an innovation (an idea s/he may or may not have generated) andintroduces, pushes, promotes, and sells ideas to others in the organization.165. Plans his/her actions well in advance.166. Rarely has any free time at work; s/he always finds him/herself doing something.167. Expects others to comply with company guidelines, no exceptions.168. Always meets his/her deadlines at work.169. Will not compromise his/her integrity just to get ahead.170. Easily recognizes and appreciates talent in others; s/he always tries to use other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099talents.171. Doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t volunteer for \u00E2\u0080\u009Cvisible\u00E2\u0080\u009D jobs, preferring to remain more in the background.172. Has no patience for the more tedious tasks.173. Gives people a second chance, rather than confronting them on issues right away.174. Stops trying to persuade people when his/her ideas meet with criticism and opposition.175. Typically does what is correct and accepted in the company.176. Always keeps his/her promises to others in the organization.177. Empowers subordinates to take action on their own.422Never true Rarely true Occasionally Often true Very frequently true(or extremely (or unlikely to true (or somewhat (or likely to be (or extremely likelyunlikely to be true) be true) or likely to be true) true) or descriptive to be true) oror descriptive of descriptive of or descriptive of of his/her descriptive ofhis/her behavior his/her behavior his/her behavior behavior his/her behavior1 2 3 4(1) 12345(41)12345(81)12345(121)12345(161)12345(2) 12345(42) 12345(82) 12345(122)12345(162)12345(3) 12345(43)12345(83)12345(123)12345(163)12345(4) 12345(44) 12345(84)12345(124)12345(164)12345(5) 12345(45)12345(85)12345(125)12345(165)12345(6) 12345(46) 12345(86) 12345(126)12345(166)12345(7) 12345(47)12345(87) 12345(127)12345(167)12345(8) 12345(48) 12345(88)12345(128)12345(168)12345(9) 12345(49)12345(89)12345(129)12345(169)12345(10) 123 45 (50) 12345 (90) 12345 (130) 123 45 (170) 12345(11) 12345(51) 12345(91) 12345(131)12345(171)12345(12) 12345(52) 12345(92) 12345(132)12345(172)12345(13) 12345(53) 12345(93) 12345(133)12345(173)12345(14) 12345(54) 12345(94) 12345(134)12345(174)12345(15) 12345(55) 12345(95) 12345(135)12345(175)12345(16) 123 45 (56) 12345 (96) 123 45 (136) 12345 (176) 12345(17)12345(57)12345(97)12345(137)12345(177)12345(18) 123 45 (58) 12345 (98) 12345 (138) 123 45(19)12345(59)12345(99)12345(139)12345(20) 12345(60) 12345(100)12345(140)12345(21) 12345(61) 12345(101)12345(141)12345(22) 12345(62) 12345(102)12345(142)12345(23) 12345(63) 12345(103)12345(143)12345(24) 1 2 3 4 5 (64) 1 2 3 4 5 (104) 1 2 3 4 5 (144) 1 2 3 4 5(25) 1 2 3 4 5 (65) 1 2 3 4 5 (105) 1 2 3 4 5 (145) 1 2 3 4 5(26) 1 2345(66) 1 2345(106)1 2345(146)12345(27) 12345(67) 12345(107)12345(147)12345(28) 1 2 3 4 5 (68) 1 2 3 4 5 (108) 1 2 3 4 5 (148) 1 2 3 4 5(29) 12345(69) 12345(109)12345(149)12345(30) 1 2 3 4 5 (70) 1 2 3 4 5 (110) 1 2 3 4 5 (150) 1 2 3 4 5(31) 12345(71) 12345(111)12345(151)12345(32) 12345(72) 12345(112)12345(152)12345(33) 1 2 3 4 5 (73) 1 2 3 4 5 (113) 1 2 3 4 5 (153) 1 2 3 4 5(34) 12345(74) 12345(114)12345(154)12345(35) 1 2 3 4 5 (75) 1 2 3 4 5 (115) 1 2 3 4 5 (155) 1 2 3 4 5(36) 1 2 3 4 5 (76) 1 2 3 4 5 (116) 1 2 3 4 5 (156) 1 2 3 4 5(37) 1 2 3 4 5 (77) 1 2 3 4 5 (117) 1 2 3 4 5 (157) 1 2 3 4 5(38) 12345(78) 12345(118)12345(158)12345(39) 12345(79) 12345(119)12345(159)12345(40) 12345(80)12345(120)12345(160)12345423APPENDIX 3THE TWELVE DIMENSIONS AND THEIR ITEMS USED TO MEASURE OVERALLMANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE (OMP)Leadership\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Inspires and motivates others to achieve or exceed levels of performance.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Takes a passive role in group situations; willingly allows others to take control. (r)\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Frequently displays a negative attitude; has little enthusiasm or commitment to goals. (r)Planning/Organizing/Control\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Fails to meet schedules, deadlines, and targets; is always behind; makes excuses or findsreasons to cover up his/her inadequacies. (r)\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Establishes a plan for the fiscal year; maps out when each event must take place in orderto meet the stated goals; allows for unexpected circumstances.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Meets deadlines, targets, and time schedules; has time for more than one project or job.Oral Communication\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Delivers clear and concise presentations at all levels of the corporation in a mannerreadily accepted by adults.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Confuses others by mumbling and \u00E2\u0080\u009Crambling on\u00E2\u0080\u009D when talking. (r)\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Refuses to speak to a group in a formal setting. (r)Analysis\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Fails to identify problems other than in the simplest scenarios, even then requiresassistance to gather facts. (r)\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Is able to consistently analyze complex problems and quickly assess the situation at hand.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Gathers all appropriate information before attempting to diagnose a situation; logicallystructures information in order to present a strong case as to why a particular conclusionis reached.Judgment\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Reaches logical conclusions that are well-founded and \u00E2\u0080\u009Csupportable\u00E2\u0080\u009D.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Frequently makes inappropriate judgments that lack a factual basis; usually missesobvious alternatives. (r)\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Offers opinions that are consistently viewed as \u00E2\u0080\u009Cout in left field\u00E2\u0080\u009D. (r)424Decisiveness\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Will not commit him/herself to take action without lengthy procrastination; s/he isdifficult to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cpin down\u00E2\u0080\u009D or \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccorner\u00E2\u0080\u009D. (r)\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Makes timely decisions after weighing risks and benefits for the company, department,and self.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Takes decisive action when situations arise.Work Ethic\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Puts in the extra effort and time to ensure that his/her work is of the highest quality; s/heconsistently does more than is expected without being asked.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Needs help to finish work; projects and other responsibilities are not done on time. (r)\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Is not willing to take the extra time and make the extra effort in his/her work. (r)Initiative\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Does not question the way things are done; s/he does not offer more effective solutions;s/he refuses to enter into \u00E2\u0080\u009Cuncharted waters\u00E2\u0080\u009D. (r)\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Completes assigned work and then initiates new work toward the success of a highermandate; is eager to take on more responsibilities.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Recognizes when something needs to be done and takes action without being told.Behavior Flexibility\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Demonstrates rigidity in the way s/he deals with others; s/he will not modify behavior tomeet changing needs. (r)\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Can adjust quickly in the face of resistance (i.e., pressure, errors, different personalities).\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Listens to all sides of an issue; can change his/her position and support change.Sensitivity\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Demonstrates diplomacy and tact; s/he works easily with difficult customers andemployees.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Makes no allowance for individuality\u00E2\u0080\u0094for personal needs; is abrasive in handling others.(r)\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Makes decisions, takes actions, and expresses opinions without regard for impacts. (r)Performance Stability\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Handles pressure poorly; devotes energies to excuses rather than production. (r)\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Is \u00E2\u0080\u009Cunshakable\u00E2\u0080\u009D under heavy pressure and confrontation; does not lose confidence.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Juggles work load while remaining cool, calm, and collected; has a calming influence onothers.425Written Communications\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Produces written work that is clear, concise, and usually requires no corrections; ideas areorganized and presented in a logical manner.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Produces letters and reports that are unclear or inconclusive, reflecting a poor and oftensuperficial level of initial analysis. (r)\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Produces correspondence that is ambiguous and poorly organized; requires follow-up. (r)426APPENDIX KSCALE COMPOSITION AT THE CONCLUSION OF PHASE IV1. Persuasiveness & Political Savvy1Loading LoadingS.D.2 Si3 S24 Item2.94 0.55 0.45 I know how to use my political connections in the companyto make things happen.2.06 0.54 0.45 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to sell ideas to superiors one-on-one.2.83 0.48 0.48 I am often able to very accurately anticipate the reactions ofothers in the organization to my plans.2.39 0.60 0.69 I am able to get the time of executives in the company inorder to communicate my ideas.2.06 0.61 0.50 I know when to push hard for an idea and when to back off.2.06 0.48 0.38 I know a lot of people in the company and I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to askfor their input and commitment when it is needed.3.00 0.65 I have a big picture perspective; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t get bogged downby the details ofa project54.39 0.60 I think at a conceptual level; I let others worry about thedetails and specifics ofprojects.1 The scale names given here are working names only. Subject matter experts will name thescales in Phase V of Study 1.2 The mean social desirability rating assigned to that item.3 S 1 - The factor loading for that item, arising from the rotation of the sample i unrotatedpattern matrix into congruence with the common pattern.S 2 - The factor loading for that item, arising from the rotation of the sample 2 unrotatedpattern matrix into congruence with the common pattern. New items give only sample 2loadings. Where loadings are not available, item-scale correlations are given instead.The eleven new items are italicized.4272. Verbal DominanceLoading LoadingS.D. 51 S2 Item7.72 0.61 0.85 I monopolize discussions.8.11 0.49 0.57 I tend to disrupt meetings.6.39 0.51 0.54 I tend to dominate meetings with my opinions and visionswhen I wish to convince others to accept my point of view.6.44 0.45 0.67 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m persistent in voicing my opinion over and over again,even if my ideas are rejected.8.33 0.35 0.55 When attending a meeting, I often disregard the topic of themeeting, and, instead, talk about what interests me.8.17 0.41 0.45 I am stubborn and resistant, even in the face of legitimatecriticism.5.56 -0.25 -0.33 Ldon\u00E2\u0080\u0099t usually persist in arguing a point.3.61 -0.56 -0.46 I tend to listen more than talk when I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m around otherpeople.3.00 -0.33 I try not to overpower people with my ideas.1.96 -0.29 I won\u00E2\u0080\u0099t use a strategy ofdomination or intimidation inorder to get my way.3. RushedDisorganizationLoading LoadingS.D. Si S2 Item6.00 0.61 0.63 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically take the time and effort to document all myplans and activities.6.56 0.65 0.55 I usually don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t take the time to document things.5.00 0.33 0.44 I tend to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwing it\u00E2\u0080\u009D; I improvise on the spot.6.30 0.61 I have no patience for the more tedious tasks.3.83 -0.58 -0.50 I keep very good records, documenting all events andactivities.2.89 -0.43 -0.29 I approach most issues in a very systematic, analytical, anddisciplined manner.1.89 -0.47 -0.41 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m very good at planning and organizing my activities.4.17 -0.29 -0.31 I have a lot of patience for completing the more tedioustasks.3.00 -0.63 -0.36 I plan my actions well in advance.2.39 -0.22 -0.34 I pay close attention to the details of what I am doing.4284. Job InvolvementLoading LoadingS.D. Si S2 Item6.72 0.41 0.39 I have too little time to accomplish my work.3.28 0.39 0.65 I tend to make personal sacrifices in my work when I amdedicated to a task or project.4.00 0.51 0.57 I tend to start early and work late when I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m emotionallyinvolved in a particular project.5.22 0.53 0.55 I tend to work pretty irregular hours.4.78 0.47 0.33 I rarely have any free time at work; I always find myselfdoing something.5.94 -0.63 -0.75 I usually don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t work overtime.7.61 -0.55 -0.47 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically expend a lot of energy in accomplishingmy job.5.94 -0.45 -0.76 I usually start work at around 8 and leave pretty close to 4.5.83 -0.39 -0.51 I follow a fairly precise schedule at work (e.g., coffee at9:00, lunch at 12:00).5. Rule BreakingLoading LoadingS.D. 51 S2 Item4.61 0.74 0.49 If some company rule or procedure gets in my way, I goaround it.7.56 0.51 0.50 I ignore authority.5.94 0.52 0.24 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t recognize hierarchies in the organization; I bypassmanagement levels in working toward my goals.5.72 0.53 0.51 I have persisted in pursuing an idea even when I wasexplicitly directed to stop.4.78 0.38 0.26 I question and challenge all processes and procedures.3.39 -0.39 -0.25 I follow instructions very accurately.3.94 -0.47 -0.27 I easily conform to company expectations.5.11 -0.55 -0.55 I know and follow the corporate rules very closely.4.06 -0.55 -0.59 I typically do what is correct and accepted in the company.5.5 -0.29 -0.39 I will not take risks with company time, people, andmoney.4296. Action OrientationLoading LoadingS.D. Si S2 Item2.44 0.54 0.63 I always meet my deadlines at work.5.33 0.41 0.67 I address every task with urgency.1.83 0.37 0.53 I take action immediately on important projects orinitiatives; I never \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdrag it out\u00E2\u0080\u009D if the item is critical.3.61 0.33 0.38 When someone asks me for information, I give a quickresponse, and then follow up.1.78 0.29 0.42 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m always looking for ways to do things just a little bitbetter and a little bit faster.7.50 -0.44 -0.40 I sometimes put important items on the back burner for abit too long.5.17 -0.41 -0.48 I tend to work fairly slowly, but consistently.4.39 -0.40 -0.35 I am sometimes slow to take action in solving problems; Ilike to take my time and carefully consider the options first.3.94 -0.27 -0.47 I prefer to delay decision making at times, so that I canthink through the issues more carefully.7. SelfPromotionLoading LoadingS.D. Si S2 Item4.83 0.38 0.47 I promote ideas that have the highest visibility andlikelihood of success.7.17 0.28 0.24 I will sometimes bend the truth in order to achieve my goals.4.94 0.28 0.48 I orchestrate situations (e.g., meetings, one-on-oneconversations) so that my wishes are approved.4.83 0.45 0.56 I make sure I rub shoulders with powerful individuals inother departments and business units in the company.4.83 0.50 0.68 I ensure that my successes in the company are known.4.11 -0.27 -0.32 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t seek out attention from others.2.74 -0.38 1 don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t exploit political connections in the company inorder to get my way.4.70 -0.66 It\u00E2\u0080\u0099s not important to me that my accomplishments andachievements are known to others in the company.3.39 -0.47 1 will accept low-profile projects; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t need \u00E2\u0080\u009Cpublic\u00E2\u0080\u009Drecognitionfor what I do.1.48 -0.23 I will not compromise my integrity just to get ahead.4308. Collaboration and SupportLoading LoadingS.D. 51 S2 Item1.72 0.44 0.53 I empower subordinates to take action on their own.2.78 0.52 0.63 I usually think of other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 needs and priorities beforemaking decisions.1.72 0.56 0.74 I recognize the achievements and accomplishments ofothers both publicly and privately.1.78 0.59 0.65 I am interested in other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ideas and work to supportand encourage them.1.44 0.63 0.64 I work to motivate teamwork--cooperation andcollaboration among team members.6.83 -0.38 -0.42 I prefer to work independently, rather than in a teamsetting.6.00 -0.29 -0.22 I prefer working on my own.8.11 -0.34 -0.21 I try to have a hand in all aspects of a project; I prefer not todelegate responsibilities.9. Openness to ChangeLoading LoadingS.D. Si S2 Item2.33 0.54 0.34 I volunteer for task forces and other related activities thatallow me to be a change agent.3.72 0.51 0.21 I have taken on challenges and responsibilities unrelated tomy area of job responsibility.1.89 0.31 0.20 I am able to thrive when working under conditions ofunusually high pressure.3.43 0.64 I enjoy working outside ofmy own office or department.5.28 -0.25 -0.33 I stay in one job for a long time, so that I become an expertin that one area.6.78 -0.39 -0.54 I prefer to work in a fairly stable and unchanging workenvironment.6.83 -0.64 -0.40 I typically don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t volunteer for extra work projects.5.67 -0.63 -0.57 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t volunteer for \u00E2\u0080\u009Cvisible\u00E2\u0080\u009D jobs, preferring to remainmore in the background.5.00 -0.35 -0.24 I prefer to work within my own departmentloffice.43110. Willingness to ConfrontLoading LoadingS.D. Si S2 Item3.72 0.35 0.47 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not afraid to tell others, in a direct and forceful manner,what should be done.5.72 0.28 0.42 When I think that someone is incompetent, I tell them.4.28 0.28 0.27 I have risked disappointing others in order to get my ownideas across.5.00 0.20 0.59 I am willing to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cweed out\u00E2\u0080\u009D team members who are notimmediately productive.5.28 -0.44 -0.54 I do my best to accommodate to other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 wishes inorder to keep them happy.5.44 -0.62 -0.69 I avoid conflict and confrontation in my day-to-day work.4.44 -0.50 -0.59 I prefer to avoid conflict and, instead, work to smooth outdisagreements and reach consensus.4.26 -0.36 Ifind areas of compromise and accommodation in order tokeep others happy.3.43 -0.25 I give people a second chance, rather than confront themon issues right away.432APPENDIX LTHE RATING BOOKLET USED TO OBTAIN THE FACTOR LABELS ANDPROTOTYPICALITY RATINGS FROM THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTSYour Name:___________________________Factor Labeling forChampionship Research ProjectApril 25, 1994Please return by FAX or Air Mail to:Ross M. WoolleyDepartment of Psychology2136 West MallUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver, B.C.Canada V6T 1Z4FAX: (604) 822-6923TEL: (604) 822-5626433Championship Defined The champion takes a new idea for either an administrative ortechnical innovation (an idea s/he may or may not have generated)and introduces, pushes, promotes, and sells the idea to others in theorganization.This definition was gleaned from definitions and descriptions taken from25 independent research reports on the champion and corporateinnovation. It may be slightly different from your own workingdefinition, but it should come close to capturing the core ofchampionship. Please use this definition to guide your work in thisbooklet.Background ofProject The items contained in this booklet have been organized into dimensionsaccording to the results of two factor analyses, involving over 600managers. In the first sample, just over 400 managers rated themselveson 363 items written by a panel of experienced managers to measurechampionship. These 363 items were factored into 11 dimensions (136items remained). This reduced pool of items was assembled into aquestionnaire and administered to a new sample of roughly 200 managerswho were rated by their supervisors. Thus, in the second sample, theratings were obtained by means of supervisory report. Ultimately, thetwo factor solutions (arising from the two different kinds of samples)were combined to obtain a common pattern; a 10-factor solutionobtained; and a common set of items identified as central to each factor.These 10 factors are subsequently referred to as first-order factors. Thecorrelations among the 10 factors were themselves factor analyzed,providing two more global second-orderfactors of championship.Directions Your task is to conceptualize and then label the 10 first-order and 2second-order factors contained in this booklet and then to rate theprototypicality of the factors. By prototypicality we mean the extent towhich each factor is a central or core aspect of championship. Please notethe following:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 First, for each factor, the items marking the champion end of the scaleare presented first, and they have positive loadings. The non-championitems for each scale have negative loadings and follow after the championitems. These non-champion items were written to measure the oppositepole of championship--to describe a person who is the exact opposite ofthe champion.434Second, please take note of the size of the factor loadings. Factorloadings can be understood as correlations, thus revealing the strength ofassociation between a given item and the associated factor. Wheninterpreting the factor, give most weight to the items possessing thelargest loadings (i.e., those items most central to the factor). For yourconvenience, the items for each factor are presented in descending order,according to the size of the factor loadings.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Please work to first conceptualize the factor before naming it; recordadjectives that come to mind in the space provided. After you have aclear understanding of each factor, record a 2 or 3-word label for each.Please try to name every factor, but if you cannot clearly understand themeaning of a factor, leave it blank rather than recording a label that youfeel is inaccurate.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Finally, be sure to name the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cchampion\u00E2\u0080\u009D end of the scale; for eachfactor, these are the items that have positive loadings. Use the items withthe negative loadings to understand the opposite pole of the factor. Theitems marking the champion end of the scale always appear first. Pleasekeep this in mind when naming the second-order factors as well.Returning Your Results Please return this booklet by FAX (or Air Mail) by May 16, 1994. I\u00E2\u0080\u0099veenclosed a $5.00 money order to help cover the cost of either the FAX orpostage. I realize that I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m asking for a turnaround time of just under threeweeks. Please understand that the next phase of this project cannot beginuntil your ratings have been received and analyzed. You will receive yourfeedback package approximately 2 weeks after I receive the lastbooklet.. .so roughly late May, early June. If you have any questions,please don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t hesitate to call at the number listed on the booklet cover.Thank you so much for agreeing to take part in this project.435PART ATHE FIRST-ORDER FACTORSFactor 1 Label__________________________________________________Descriptive Adjectives____ ____ ___ ___ ___ ____ItemLoading Item From Questionnaire0.73 I monopolize discussions.0.56 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m persistent in voicing my opinion over and over again, even if my ideas arerejected.0.53 I tend to disrupt meetings.0.52 I tend to dominate meetings with my opinions and visions when I wish toconvince others to accept my point of view.0.45 When attending a meeting, I often disregard the topic of the meeting, and,instead, talk about what interests me.0.43 I am stubborn and resistant, even in the face of legitimate criticism.-0.51 I tend to listen more than talk when I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m around other people.-0.33 I try not to overpower people with my ideas.-0.29 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t usually persist in arguing a point.-0.29 I won\u00E2\u0080\u0099t use a strategy of domination or intimidation in order to get my way.Factor 2 LabelDescriptive AdjectivesItemLoading Item From Questionnaire0.62 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically take the time and effort to document all my plans and activities.0.60 I usually don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t take the time to document things.0.40 I have no patience for the more tedious tasks.0.38 I tend to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwing it\u00E2\u0080\u009D; I improvise on the spot.-0.54 I keep very good records, documenting all events and activities.-0.50 I plan my actions well in advance.-0.44 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m very good at planning and organizing my activities.-0.36 I approach most issues in a very systematic, analytical, and disciplined manner.-0.30 I have a lot of patience for completing the more tedious tasks.-0.28 I pay close attention to the details of what I am doing.436Factor 3 Label__________________________________________________Descriptive Adjectives___ ____ ___ ___ ____ ___ ___ItemLoading Item From Questionnaire0.54 I tend to work pretty irregular hours.0.54 I tend to start early and work late when I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m emotionally involved in a particularproject.0.52 I tend to make personal sacrifices in my work when I am dedicated to a task orproject.0.40 I rarely have any free time at work; I always find myself doing something.0.40 I have too little time to accomplish my work.-0.69 I usually don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t work overtime.-0.61 I usually start work at around 8 and leave pretty close to 4.-0.51 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically expend a lot of energy in accomplishing my job.-0.45 I follow a fairly precise schedule at work (e.g., coffee at 9:00, lunch at 12:00).Factor 4 LabelDescriptive AdjectivesItemLoading Item From Questionnaire0.61 If some company rule or procedure gets in my way, I go around it.0.52 I have persisted in pursuing an idea even when I was explicitly directed to stop.0.51 I ignore authority.0.38 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t recognize hierarchies in the organization; I bypass management levels inworking toward my goals.0.32 I question and challenge all processes and procedures.-0.57 I typically do what is correct and accepted in the company.-0.55 I know and follow the corporate rules very closely.-0.37 I easily conform to company expectations.-0.34 I will not take risks with company time, people, and money.-0.32 I follow instructions very accurately.437Factor 5 Label___________________________________________________Descriptive Adjectives___ ___ ____ ___ ___ ____ ___ItemLoading Item From Questionnaire0.65 I am able to get the time of executives in the company in order to communicatemy ideas.0.60 I think at a conceptual level; I let others worry about the details and specifics ofprojects.0.55 I know when to push hard for an idea and when to back off.0.55 I have a big picture perspective; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t get bogged down by the details of aproject.0.50 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to sell ideas to superiors one-on-one.0.50 I know how to use my political connections in the company to make things happen.0.48 I am often able to very accurately anticipate the reactions of others in theorganization to my plans.0.43 I know a lot of people in the company and I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to ask for their input andcommitment when it is needed.Factor 6 LabelDescriptive AdjectivesItemLoading Item From Questionnaire0.58 I always meet my deadlines at work.0.54 I address every task with urgency.0.45 I take action immediately on important projects or initiatives; I never \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdrag it out\u00E2\u0080\u009Dif the item is critical.0.36 When someone asks me for information, I give a quick response, and then follow up.0.35 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m always looking for ways to do things just a little bit better and a little bit faster.-0.45 I tend to work fairly slowly, but consistently.-0.42 I sometimes put important items on the back burner for a bit too long.-0.38 I am sometimes slow to take action in solving problems; I like to take my timeand carefully consider the options first.-0.37 I prefer to delay decision making at times, so that I can think through the issuesmore carefully.438Factor 7 Label___________________________________________________Descriptive Adjectives___ ___ ____ ___ ___ ____ ___ItemLoading Item From Questionnaire0.59 I ensure that my successes in the company are known.0.51 I make sure I rub shoulders with powerful individuals in other departments andbusiness units in the company.0.42 I promote ideas that have the highest visibility and likelihood of success.0.38 I orchestrate situations (e.g., meetings, one-on-one conversations) so that mywishes are approved.0.26 I will sometimes bend the truth in order to achieve my goals.-0.66 It\u00E2\u0080\u0099s not important to me that my accomplishments and achievements are known toothers in the company.-0.47 I will accept low-profile projects; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t need \u00E2\u0080\u009Cpublic\u00E2\u0080\u009D recognition for what I do.-0.38 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t exploit political connections in the company in order to get my way.-0.32 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t seek out attention from others.-0.23 I will not compromise my integrity just to get ahead.Factor 8 LabelDescriptive AdjectivesItemLoading Item From Questionnaire0.65 I recognize the achievements and accomplishments of others both publicly andprivately.0.63 I work to motivate teamwork--cooperation and collaboration among teammembers.0.62 I am interested in other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ideas and work to support and encourage them.0.58 I usually think of other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 needs and priorities before making decisions.0.48 I empower subordinates to take action on their own.-0.40 I prefer to work independently, rather than in a team setting.-0.27 I try to have a hand in all aspects of a project; I prefer not to delegateresponsibilities.-0.26 I prefer working on my own.439Factor 9 Label___________________________________________________Descriptive AdjectivesItemLoading Item From Questionnaire0.44 I volunteer for task forces and other related activities that allow me to be a changeagent.0.42 I enjoy working outside of my own office or department.0.36 I have taken on challenges and responsibilities unrelated to my area of jobresponsibility.0.26 I am able to thrive when working under conditions of unusually high pressure.-0.60 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t volunteer for \u00E2\u0080\u009Cvisible\u00E2\u0080\u009D jobs, preferring to remain more in the background.-0.52 I typically don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t volunteer for extra work projects.-0.47 I prefer to work in a fairly stable and unchanging work environment.-0.29 I prefer to work within my own department/office.-0.29 I stay in one job for a long time, so that I become an expert in that one area.Factor 10 LabelDescriptive AdjectivesItemLoading Item From Questionnaire0.41 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not afraid to tell others, in a direct and forceful manner, what should be done.0.39 I am willing to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cweed out\u00E2\u0080\u009D team members who are not immediately productive.0.35 When I think that someone is incompetent, I tell them.0.28 I have risked disappointing others in order to get my own ideas across.-0.66 I avoid conflict and confrontation in my day-to-day work.-0.55 I prefer to avoid conflict and, instead, work to smooth out disagreements andreach consensus.-0.49 I do my best to accommodate to other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 wishes in order to keep themhappy.-0.36 I find areas of compromise and accommodation in order to keep others happy.-0.25 I give people a second chance, rather than confront them on issues right away.440PART B DIRECTIONSIn this section, we\u00E2\u0080\u0099re asking you to label two second-order factors that arose from afactoring of the 10 first-order factors. These two second-order factors represent a much-simpler structure of championship than do the 10 first-order factors. We wish to understandthe meaning of these two second-order factors, and ask that you go through a similar exerciseto that in Part A, by first conceptualizing and then naming each of the two factors.You\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll notice that we have reproduced the first-order factors in Part B, but this time theyare sorted into two groups, corresponding to the two second-order factors. First-order factors1, 2, 4, 7, and 10 loaded onto second-order Factor I, while first-order factors 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9loaded onto second-order Factor II. We recommend that you do the following in derivingnames for the two second-order factors:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Transcribe the factor labels you used in Part A into the appropriate place in Part B; thatway, all the information is in one place.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Read through the items (and the first-order factor labels) that you have transcribed ontopages 10 through 13. Conceptualize the factor; try to see the inter-relationships amongthe first-order factors. Jot down any descriptive adjectives as they come to mind.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Finally, after you have a clear understanding of the factor, please record a 2 or 3-wordlabel for each of the two second-order factors.You may find it interesting to know that the two second-order factors are uncorrelated inboth of the research samples. That is, these 2 second-order factors appear to be independentaspects of championship. A manager high on one, will not necessarily be high on the other.441PART BTHE SECOND-ORDER FACTORSSecond-Order Factor I: BASED ON FIRST-ORDER FACTORS 1,2,4,7, & 10Factor Label________________________________________________Descriptive Adjectives___ ___ ___ ____ ____ ___ ___Factor 1 (Please transcribe Factor 1 label here)_ _ _ ___ __0.73 I monopolize discussions.0.56 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m persistent in voicing my opinion over and over again, even if my ideas arerejected.0.53 I tend to disrupt meetings.0.52 I tend to dominate meetings with my opinions and visions when I wish toconvince others to accept my point of view.0.45 When attending a meeting, I often disregard the topic of the meeting, and,instead, talk about what interests me.0.43 I am stubborn and resistant, even in the face of legitimate criticism.-0.51 I tend to listen more than talk when Pm around other people.-0.33 I try not to overpower people with my ideas.-0.29 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t usually persist in arguing a point.-0.29 I won\u00E2\u0080\u0099t use a strategy of domination or intimidation in order to get my way.Factor 2 (Please transcribe Factor 2 label here)0.62 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically take the time and effort to document all my plans andactivities.0.60 I usually don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t take the time to document things.0.40 I have no patience for the more tedious tasks.0.38 I tend to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwing it\u00E2\u0080\u009D; limprovise on the spot.-0.54 I keep very good records, documenting all events and activities.-0.50 I plan my actions well in advance.-0.44 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m very good at planning and organizing my activities.-0.36 I approach most issues in a very systematic, analytical, and disciplinedmanner.-0.30 I have a lot of patience for completing the more tedious tasks.-0.28 I pay close attention to the details of what I am doing.442Second-Order Factor I Cont.: BASED ON FIRST-ORDER FACTORS 1,2,4,7, & 10Factor 4 (Please transcribe Factor 4 label here)_________________________________0.61 If some company rule or procedure gets in my way, I go around it.0.52 I have persisted in pursuing an idea even when I was explicitly directed tostop.0.51 I ignore authority.0.38 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t recognize hierarchies in the organization; I bypass management levelsin working toward my goals.0.32 I question and challenge all processes and procedures.-0.57 I typically do what is correct and accepted in the company.-0.55 I know and follow the corporate rules very closely.-0.37 I easily conform to company expectations.-0.34 I will not take risks with company time, people, and money.-0.32 I follow instructions very accurately.Factor 7 (Please transcribe Factor 7 label here)0.59 I ensure that my successes in the company are known.0.51 I make sure I rub shoulders with powerful individuals in other departmentsand business units in the company.0.42 I promote ideas that have the highest visibility and likelihood of success.0.38 I orchestrate situations (e.g., meetings, one-on-one conversations) so that mywishes are approved.0.26 I will sometimes bend the truth in order to achieve my goals.-0.66 It\u00E2\u0080\u0099s not important to me that my accomplishments and achievements areknown to others in the company.-0.47 I will accept low-profile projects; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t need \u00E2\u0080\u009Cpublic\u00E2\u0080\u009D recognition for what Ido.-0.38 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t exploit political connections in the company in order to get my way.-0.32 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t seek out attention from others.-0.23 I will not compromise my integrity just to get ahead.443Factor 10 (Please transcribe Factor 10 label here)________________________________0.41 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m not afraid to tell others, in a direct and forceful manner, what should bedone.0.39 I am willing to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cweed out\u00E2\u0080\u009D team members who are not immediatelyproductive.0.35 When I think that someone is incompetent, I tell them.0.28 I have risked disappointing others in order to get my own ideas across.-0.66 I avoid conflict and confrontation in my day-to-day work.-0.55 I prefer to avoid conflict and, instead, work to smooth out disagreements andreach consensus.-0.49 I do my best to accommodate to other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 wishes in order to keep themhappy.-0.36 I find areas of compromise and accommodation in order to keep others happy.-0.25 I give people a second chance, rather than confront them on issues right away.444Second-Order Factor II: BASED ON FIRST-ORDER FACTORS 3,5,6,8, & 9Factor Label________________________________________________Descriptive AdjectivesFactor 3 (Please transcribe Factor 3 label here)0.54 I tend to work pretty irregular hours.0.54 I tend to start early and work late when I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m emotionally involved in aparticular project.0.52 I tend to make personal sacrifices in my work when I am dedicated to a task orproject.0.40 I rarely have any free time at work; I always find myself doing something.0.40 I have too little time to accomplish my work.-0.69 I usually don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t work overtime.-0.61 I usually start work at around 8 and leave pretty close to 4.-0.51 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typically expend a lot of energy in accomplishing my job.-0.45 I follow a fairly precise schedule at work (e.g., coffee at 9:00, lunch at 12:00).FactorS (Please transcribe Factor 3 label here)0.65 I am able to get the time of executives in the company in order tocommunicate my ideas.0.60 I think at a conceptual level; I let others worry about the details andspecifics of projects.0.55 I know when to push hard for an idea and when to back off.0.55 I have a big picture perspective; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t get bogged down by the details of aproject.0.50 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to sell ideas to superiors one-on-one.0.50 I know how to use my political connections in the company to make thingshappen.0.48 I am often able to very accurately anticipate the reactions of others in theorganization to my plans.0.43 I know a lot of people in the company and I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m able to ask for their inputand commitment when it is needed.445Second-Order Factor II Cont.: BASED ON FIRST-ORDER FACTORS 3,5,6,8, & 9Factor 6 (Please transcribe Factor 6 label here)0.58 I always meet my deadlines at work.0.54 I address every task with urgency.0.45 I take action immediately on important projects or initiatives; I never \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdrag itout\u00E2\u0080\u009D if the item is critical.0.36 When someone asks me for information, I give a quick response, and thenfollow up.0.35 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m always looking for ways to do things just a little bit better and a little bitfaster.-0.45 I tend to work fairly slowly, but consistently.-0.42 I sometimes put important items on the back burner for a bit too long.-0.38 I am sometimes slow to take action in solving problems; I like to take my timeand carefully consider the options first.-0.37 I prefer to delay decision making at times, so that I can think through theissues more carefully.Factor 8 (Please transcribe Factor 8 label here)0.65 I recognize the achievements and accomplishments of others both publicly andprivately.0.63 I work to motivate teamwork--cooperation and collaboration among teammembers.0.62 I am interested in other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ideas and work to support and encouragethem.0.58 I usually think of other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 needs and priorities before making decisions.0.48 I empower subordinates to take action on their own.-0.40 I prefer to work independently, rather than in a team setting.-0.27 I try to have a hand in all aspects of a project; I prefer not to delegateresponsibilities.-0.26 I prefer working on my own.446Factor 9 (Please transcribe Factor 9 label here)_________________________________0.44 I volunteer for task forces and other related activities that allow me to be achange agent.0.42 I enjoy working outside of my own office or department.0.36 I have taken on challenges and responsibilities unrelated to my area of jobresponsibility.0.26 I am able to thrive when working under conditions of unusually high pressure.-0.60 I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t volunteer for \u00E2\u0080\u009Cvisible\u00E2\u0080\u009D jobs, preferring to remain more in thebackground.-0.52 I typically don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t volunteer for extra work projects.-0.47 I prefer to work in a fairly stable and unchanging work environment.-0.29 I prefer to work within my own department/office.-0.29 I stay in one job for a long time, so that I become an expert in that one area.447PART C: PROTOTYPICALITY RATINGSIn this last section, your task is to examine each factor of championship and rate the extentto which it is a prototype--a central component--of the champion role. Since the notion ofprototypicality is central, here\u00E2\u0080\u0099s what we mean by prototype. Take the word bird as anexample. Imagine a true bird. You may have an image of a robin, an eagle, or a seagull.Now imagine a bird that is less typical--perhaps a penguin. Although you could still call thepenguin a bird, it is not as good an example of a bird as a robin or seagull, for example. Inshort, some birds are more bird-like than others.In Part C, please judge how good an example of a category various instances of thecategory are. The category is THE CHAMPION. Your task is to rate how good an exampleof the category of champion each factor is on a 7-point scale. A \u00E2\u0080\u009C7\u00E2\u0080\u009D means that you feel thedimension is a very good example of your idea of championship; a \u00E2\u0080\u009C1\u00E2\u0080\u009D means that you feelthe factor fits very poorly with your idea of championship (or is unrelated to championship).A \u00E2\u0080\u009C4\u00E2\u0080\u009D means you feel that dimension fits moderately well. Use the other numbers of the 7-point scale to indicate intermediate judgments.Transcribe your factor labels onto this page and then make your prototypicality ratings, bycircling the appropriate number next to that factor.Very Unprototypic Moderately Prototypic Very PrototypicIs a Poor Example of Is A Moderately Good Is a Very Good ExampleChampionship Example of Championship of Championship1 2 3 4 5 6 7Factor 1 label:___________________________________1 2 3 4 5 6 7Factor 2 label:_____ ____1 2 3 4 5 6 7Factor 3 label:_1 2 3 4 5 6 7Factor 4 label:_ _ _1 2 3 4 5 6 7Factor 5 label: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Factor 6 label: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Factor 7 label: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Factor 8 label:_ _ _ _1 2 3 4 5 6 7Factor 9 label:_ _1 2 3 4 5 6 7Factor 10 label:_ _ _ __1 2 3 4 5 6 7Second-OrderFactor I label: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Second-OrderFactor II label:_ __ _1 2 3 4 5 6 7448APPENDIX MTHE 5-ITEM AND 4-ITEM CRITERION MEASURES OF CHAMPIONSHIP5-items obtained from supervisory-report data:The manager Im rating\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Generates a number of new ideas of his/her own.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Adapts or builds on the ideas of others in the organization.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Introduces and promotes new ideas in the company.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Works aggressively to sell and champion new ideas in the company.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Takes new ideas for an innovation (an idea s/he may or may not have generated) andintroduces, pushes, promotes, and sells ideas to others in the organization.4-items obtained from self-report data:Ihave\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 generated new ideas on my own.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 adapted or built on the ideas of others in the company.*\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 introduced and promoted new ideas in the company.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 worked to sell and champion new ideas in the company.* This item had zero variance and, therefore, was not included in the self-report criterionmeasure of championship.449APPENDIX NTHE SCORING FORM FOR THE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION FORMGuidelines for Coding the Open-Ended Biodata FormEducationHow far did you go in school or in some form of post-high school education, such astechnical school, college, or university?1 = High School Graduation2 = Some University/College Technical School3 = University Bachelo?s Degree4 = Post-Graduate Training2. What degrees or diplomas have you obtained?o No degrees/diplomas (check 1 for clarification, if necessary)1 = 1 degree/diploma\u00E2\u0080\u00A22 = 2 degrees/diplomas3 = 3 degrees/diplomash = n degrees/diplomas3. If you obtained some form of post-high school education, what area or areas did youspecialize in?o = No area mentioned/have not completed1 = Business and Commerce2 = Not Business/Commerce related (e.g., technical training, B Eng., RN,Psychology)3 = Bothland24. Comment on the strengths of your educational background in relation to your career.o = None mentioned1 = Those mentioning business education courses as helpful in career (accounting,business, finance)2 = Those mentioning technical/professional programs as helpful in career3 = Those mentioning both business and technical programs as helpful in career4 = Those mentioning other types of programs as helpful in career4505. Comment on the weaknesses of your educational background in relation to your career.o = no weaknesses mentioned or no effect1 = lacking in technical/practical skills (e.g., computers, writing)2 = lacking in business training (e.g., finance, accounting, marketing, businessmgt., sales)3 = lacking in education in general (e.g., need a degree for advancement) orcurrent knowledge is out of date4 = education too theoretical and didn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t prepare for real life/businessCareer6. What is your own approach to supervision, i.e., your management style?o = Don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know/no answer given1 = Depends on the subordinate2 = Collaborative/Participative/Teamwork approach*empower, trust others*person focused; considerate; involve others;*power is decentralized3 = Setting Expectations/goals and tracking performance*task and performance focussed*clear communication of objectives/expectations* lead by example; show the way*power is centralized; willing to make decisions*provide direction; clear guidance (coach)7. What type of tasks or assignments bring out the best in you? Why?o = None mentioned1 = Innovativeness/creativity2 = Influence and Change making*leadership3 = Planning, organizing, and controlling*dealing with details; structuring things; administrative tasks4 = Taking on challenges and responsibilities*feeling a sense of ownership and investment in your work5 = Analysis/conceptualization*mental/jntellectuaj stimulation6 = Pragmattic, results oriented, structured, time-bounded tasks7 = People oriented: team work opportunities; working closely with others4518. What type of tasks or assignments bring out the worst in you? Why?o = None mentioned1 = Work that is routine, repetitive/redundant, and predictable2 = Work with no clear purpose or value; work with no clear definition/nonessential work (e.g., filling out surveys; unnecessary meetings; bureaucracy)3 = Long, drawn out projects/tasks4 = Tasks requiring specialized skills (e.g., math, writing, computers)5 = Tasks requiring interpersonal contact/coordination6 = Tasks with little/no people contactLeisure and Social Influences on Life and Career Satisfaction9. To what social clubs or organizations do you belong?o = none1 = Business/professional: sales/marketing clubs; professional societies; IRMA,etc2 = Athletic/recreational: skiing, painting, shooting, coaching, fitness clubs, etc3 = Civic/political: Rotary, Kiwanis, Chamber of Commerce, PTA, etc4 = Religious/cultural: church; YMCA5 = Humanitarian/service: Big sisters, Scouts10. Describe the leisure activities that help you cope with stress0 = none mentioned1 Reading (business or pleasure); music, movies, TV, radio2 = Participating in sports: working out, golf, tennis, etc.3 = Social activities4 = House and yard work5 = Hobbies; model building, woodworking, cooking, art, painting, crafts6 = Family activity7 = Outdoor recreational activities: camping, fishing, hunting8 = Religion, mediation45211. Your reaction to social situations and how important social activities are to you.o = Didn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t answer; it depends; very vague response1 = Not particularly important*faipAly more important*uncomfortable in large groups*value time to myself*stay away from larger social gatherings2 = Moderately important*enjoy small groups, dinner conversation*enjoy time with people, but time alone also important*enjoy social situations--some important, others not so important3 = Very important*fundamental to my weekly life*higffly enjoyable*vely important; chance to meet new people12. How do your leisure and social activities relate to your career?o = no answer1 = They don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t2 = Leisure activities provide a stress relief3 = Meet people at work with whom I socialize4 = Develop skills, info., contacts in leisure that are useful in business5 = I enjoy/do similar things in my work and leisureSelf Appraisal13. What are your most outstanding personal qualities?o = did not complete1 = Conscientiousness: e.g., reliable, honesty, genuine, hard working, loyal,fair, professional, well organized, good admin. skills2 = Calm stability: calm assured, patient, courage, good under pressure3 = Extraversion--Warmth, Gregariousness: get along well with others,humorous4 = Extraversion--Influence and Assertiveness: can motivate others leadershipskills, charming, etc5 = Openness: adaptable, innovative, creative, visionary, risk taker6 = Cognitive/Intellectance: breadth of knowledge, analytical skills, objective,conceptual, good English language skills45314a. What are your shortcomings; your areas for development? (General)1 = Remediable skills/competencies: finance, accounting, writing skills2 = Trait/dispositional: assertiveness14b. What are your shortcomings; your areas for development? (Specific)o = None mentioned1 = Need more education2 = Need more work experience (specific or general: supervisory, experience indifferent departments)3 = Deficient in specific skill area (e.g., writing, computers, budgets)4 = Interpersonal deficiency5 = Conscientiousness6 = Openness/Innovation7 = Neuroticism (e.g., impatience, impulsivity, perfectionistic)15. What do you consider your major accomplishment in life up to this point?o None listed1 = Work-related achievement2 = Family-related achievement3 = Education-related achievement4 = Financial accomplishment5 = Personal achievement (e.g., overcoming adversity)6 = Other achievement/accomplishments454APPENDIX 0SAMPLE FEEDBACK REPORT FOR THE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SIMULATION455CHAMPIONSHIP PROJECT:INDIVIDUAL FEEDBACKFOR PARTICIPANTSASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR:SampleDate of Report: November 7, 1994Prepared by:Ross M. WoolleyDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of British Columbia2136 West MallVancouver, B.C.V6T 1Z4(604) 822-5626\u00C2\u00A9 Ross Woolley, 1994456Thank you BC Tel managers!\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 As this research project draws to a close, I find that I have many, many people to thank.Close to a thousand managers from a variety of companies in Western Canada haveparticipated at various stages in this study on championship. And the BC Tel managershave been the most consistently supportive sponsors. This feedback report is my way ofthanking each of you for taking the time to complete the questionnaire I sent out and,in so doing, helping the company to update their assessment tools and helping astudent to graduate. I sincerely appreciate the fact that you put aside the time tocomplete the Management Practices Simulation.A definition of championship: The champion is an individual who takes a newidea for either an administrative or technical innovation (an idea s/he may ormay not have generated) and introduces, pushes, promotes, and sells the idea toothers in the organization.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Champions operate as entrepreneurs in the corporate environment. They generate oradapt new ideas and promote their implementation. Champions have been describedas innovative, driven to achieve, and committed to their ideas. They are often wellconnected in the organization (good networkers) and possess the interpersonal skill andpolitical savvy needed to convince others of the importance of their ideas.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Consultants and academics have acknowledged and discussed the importance of thechampion in the implementation of innovation. Without a champion, many new andpromising--but risky--ideas are not implemented. Of course, it is also true thatchampions will implement new products and processes that later fail. Implementationdoes not equal success.The purpose of the research\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The present research was motivated by my desire to develop tools to measurechampionship. Thus, in an earlier phase of the study, I developed a rating formdesigned to measure dimensions of championship (e.g., Influence and Political Savvy,Self Promotion, Collaboration and Support). This tool was designed for use as either atop-down or bottom-up appraisal instrument (ratings supplied by either one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s directreport(s) or supervisor).\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The questionnaire that you completed recently was designed to measure dimensions ofchampionship as well, with one difference. While taking the questionnaire \u00E2\u0080\u0094 called theManagement Practices Simulation \u00E2\u0080\u0094 you were asked to imagine yourself in a variety ofsituations and indicate how you would react. Thus, this tool was designed to be used asa selection instrument, administered to applicants in order to measure their potentialfor championship if hired. Naturally, it is important to validate such a tool; and one ofthe objectives of the present research was to do just that.\u00C2\u00A9 Ross Woolley, 1994457Understanding your results\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The feedback that you will find on the next few pages is based on the ManagementPractices Simulation that you completed. You will notice that this feedback isstructured around 10 dimensions of championship. The solid bold horizontal lineindicates the range within which the majority (95%) of other managers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 scores fall onthat dimension. The pointer below this line indicates the average score for the BC Telmanagement group. Your score is indicated by the pointer above the line.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Recall that when you completed the questionnaire, you were presented with 9 scenariosand asked to consider how you would react. For each scenario you were presented witha list of different ways of reacting and you were instructed to indicate, for each, howlikely it would be that you would behave in this way. You used a 4-point scale torespond, anchored by scale points ranging from 1 = \u00E2\u0080\u009CI Would Definitely Not Do This\u00E2\u0080\u009D to4 = \u00E2\u0080\u009CI Would Definitely Do This\u00E2\u0080\u009D.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 You\u00E2\u0080\u0099ll notice that your scores in this feedback package are presented on this same four-point scale. So, if you receive a score of 3.5, for example, on the Collaboration andSupport scale, this is a fairly high score and it indicates that, when responding to thevarious scenarios, you were fairly certain that you would behave in ways that wouldinvolve you supporting and collaborating with others.What are these dimensions of championship and where did they come from?\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 As noted above, your scores on the following pages are reported for 10 dimensions ofchampionship. These dimensions were uncovered as a result of research with wellover 600 managers from a variety of different companies in Western Canada. Eachdimension measures one key component of championship and, taken together, theymeasure overall championship. Each dimension represents a class of behaviors thatbelong together. For example, your score on Collaboration and Support is made up ofyour responses to a number of statements relating to your attitudes about workingcollaboratively and supportively with others. Thus, your scores on these dimensionsare the result of a consistent pattern of responding....they\u00E2\u0080\u0099re not based on just one ortwo (or even five or six) of your answers.Be cautious in interpreting your results\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 First warning: I\u00E2\u0080\u0099m in the process of developing an instrument. Thus, the questionnaireyou completed is new and, therefore, relatively untested. As a result, you should viewyour results with caution and understand your scores as estimates that contain error.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Second warning: As you well know there is no one ideal management profile! It\u00E2\u0080\u0099s notnecessarily good or bad to be profiled as high or low on the dimensions ofchampionship. Much depends on the culture of the company--the kinds of behaviorsthat are rewarded and seen as desirable.\u00C2\u00A9 Ross Woolley, 1994Your Scores Compared with the Company Average onThe Ten Dimensions of Championship4581. Influence and Political Savvy: A measure of salesmanship and persuasiveness. Taps intoyour ability to develop and use effectively political connections in the company.Quiet, reserved; unassertive in group situations;Does not push for ideas.1 2Socially persuasive; able tosell ideas; knows how todevelop & use connections.3 42. Confrontive Candor: A measure of directness and persistence. Measures the extent towhich you are forthright and assertive in communicating with others, especially regardingyour expectations about their performance.Prefers to avoid conflict;accommodates to others;Gives people a second chance.Deals directly with conflict;confronts others directlyregarding areas needingdevelopment.3 43. Expediency: A measure of the extent to which you take action without lengthy deliberation,make decisions without all information, and avoid or put aside the more tedious tasks.Planful and methodical;keeps careful records;Patient while completing themore tedious tasks.1 2Intuitive and spontaneous;unsystematic and unmethodical;avoids record keeping; dislikesdetail and routine.3 4AV1\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 2VAVA\u00C2\u00A9 Ross Woolley, 19944594. Driven Commitment: A measure of job commitment and involvement; measures yourdrive to achieve and degree of energy, focus, and task orientation.Doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t typicallywork overtime; expendsminimal energy at work; relaxedand unhurried approach.1 2Committed and job involved;goes after tasks with timeurgency and focus; makespersonal sacrifices; dedicated.3 45. Rule Challenging: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s inclination toward challenging rules and proceduresand those in positions of authority.Accepting of authorityand rules; follows policiesand procedures; does nottake risks.1 2Questions authority; goes aroundobstacles; rebels and challengesstandard practice; persists withideas even when told to stop.3 46. Action Orientation: A measure of decisiveness and responsiveness, and drive to accomplishand meet goals.Reflective and thoughtful;slow to take action; mayprocrastinate; puts itemson the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cback burner\u00E2\u0080\u009D.1 2Decisive and proactive; strivesto meet and beat deadlines;deals with issues immediately;attacks projects with a sense ofurgency.3 4VVAVAA\u00C2\u00A9 Ross Woolley, 19944607. Self Promotion: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s need for publicity and recognition.Doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t seek out attention;prefers to stay in the background; is modest, evenself deprecating.1 2Enjoys recognition; publicizessuccesses; chooses high-profileprojects; orchestrates situationsso that needs for success are met.3 48. Collaboration and Support: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s tendency to work as a member of a teamrather than on one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s own; taps into aspects of support, coaching, empowerment andencouragement.Prefers to work independently;resists delegation; tries tohave a hand in all aspectsof a project; does not placepriority on meeting others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 needs1 2Supports and encourages others;works to foster a team culture;empowers others to takeaction; considers thepeople side of business.3 49. Visibility and Growth Seeking: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s tendency to seek out new opportunitiesfor professional growth and development.Prefers predictability andstructure to change anduncertainty; resists risksand change; prefers to remainin the background.1 2Adapts quickly to change; seeksout growth opportunities; showsinitiative in planning owncareer development; enjoys therole of a change agent.3 4VAVAVA\u00C2\u00A9 Ross Woolley, 199446110. Persistent Dominance: A measure of one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s tendency to speak his/her mind regardless of howothers might be effected; measures persistence, forcefulness, and assertiveness.Listens more than talks when Monopolizes discussions;around other people; does not forcefully presents ideas;voice one\u00E2\u0080\u0099s own opinions; persists in arguing points;takes a passive role; accommodates reacts stubbornly and resiststo others. criticism.1 2 3 4VAOverall Championship: An average of scores on the 10 championship dimensions.The Champion is an individual who takes a new idea (an idea s/he may or may not havegenerated) and introduces, pushes, promotes, and sells the idea to others in the organization.1 2 3 4VA\u00C2\u00A9 Ross Woolley, 1994462APPENDIX PFORM B OF THE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SIMULATION USED TO OBTAINTHE iTEM SOCIAL DESIRABILITY MEANSManagement Practices SimulationForm B: Social Desirability RatingsYour Name:463INSTRUCTIONSThis simulation contains descriptions of situations that managers often find themselves in atwork. You will be asked to make a series of judgments about how desirable you think it is toreact in various ways in these situations. Begin by reading the situation and then read andrate each of the statements that follow using the nine-point scale shown below.Your job is to judge whether each statement reflects a generally desirable or undesirableactivity as performed by Kelly Davidson, a manager who works for a large company in NorthAmerica. For each statement, circle the number corresponding to your choice right in thisrating booklet.Please read the following example before you begin.DESIRABLE UNDESIRABLEExtreme Strong Moderate Mild Neutral Mild Moderate Strong Extreme1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Kelly Davidson has an idea about how to speed up customer service; however, it wouldinvolve making changes to the existing procedure: how orders are received and tracked.Kelly doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know whether or not the idea will work or how others in the company will reactto it. Kelly has not yet talked to anyone, except her/his closest colleague at work. If Kellypromotes the idea and it bombs, his/her career will be damaged. If s/he does nothing,someone else might steal the spotlight.Please use the nine-point scale to indicate whether each statement below represents agenerally desirable or undesirable response to the present situation if done by KellyDavidson.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (a) meet with key people one-on-one to discuss his/her idea.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (b) talk to the customers to find out if they would see thechange as a big improvement.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (c) encourage his/her colleague to \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctest the waters\u00E2\u0080\u009D in thecompany.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (d) be cautious; s/he would want to collect more informationbefore doing something.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (e) drop the idea; s/he wouldn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t jeopardize his/her career oversomething that might not work.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (f) stay in the background and let someone else present theidea.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (g) tell his/her colleague not to tell anyone else about his/heridea.464If, in the example, you felt that it would be an extremely desirable thing for Kelly to meetwith key people one-on-one to discuss the idea and encourage his/her colleague to \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctest thewaters\u00E2\u0080\u009D, you would circle the number \u00E2\u0080\u009C1\u00E2\u0080\u009D next to statements (a) and (c). If you thought that itwould be a moderately desirable thing for Kelly to talk to the customers and be cautious and\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 collect more information, then you would circle the number \u00E2\u0080\u009C3\u00E2\u0080\u009D next to statements (b) and(d). If you thought that it would be a mildly undesirable thing for Kelly to tell his colleagueto keep quiet, then you would circle the number \u00E2\u0080\u009C6\u00E2\u0080\u009D next to statement (g). Finally, if you feltthat it would be an extremely undesirable thing for Kelly to drop the idea and stay in thebackground, then you would circle the number \u00E2\u0080\u009C9\u00E2\u0080\u009D next to statements (e) and (f).Please remember to rate all statements following each of the nine situationsEND OF INSTRUCTIONS: PLEASE TURN THE PAGE AND BEGIN465DESIRABLE UNDESIRABLEExtreme Strong Moderate Mild Neutral Mild Moderate Strong Extreme1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91. A meeting has been called, involving a number of people that Kelly Davidson works with:peers, subordinates, and his/her boss. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss issues thathave come up in connection with the proposed implementation of a new performancetracking system. The discussion becomes heated as some of the people in attendanceargue that more time is needed for study, others claim that the proposed system does notrepresent an improvement over the existing one, while others believe that enough time hasbeen wasted in discussing the system.Please use the nine-point scale below to indicate whether each statement represents agenerally desirable or undesirable activity if done by Kelly Davidson in response to thepresent situation.Kelly Davidson would1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (a) push hard for his/her ideas, but know when to back off.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (b) try to draw the others to his/her own input and ideas.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (c) do his/her best to accommodate other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 wishes inorder to keep them happy.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (d) disrupt the discussion if s/he disagreed with what wasbeing said.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (e) not persist in arguing his/her points.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (f) disregard the issues being raised in the meeting, and,instead, talk about his/her concerns.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (g) speak his/her mind, regardless of who is in attendance atthe meeting.1 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (h) avoid conflict and confrontation.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (i) plan to work on his/her own in the future.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (j) not speak up at the meeting.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (k) bend the truth slightly in order to get his/her way.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (1) tell others, in a direct and forceful manner, what shouldbe done.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (m) lead others into a confrontation.466DESIRABLE UNDESIRABLEExtreme Strong Moderate Mild Neutral Mild Moderate Strong Extreme1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 92. Kelly Davidson is a manager working in the Information Systems division of a largeutilities company. Kelly is working with a project team to implement a new process thats/he believes will increase the productivity of sales staff. Kelly\u00E2\u0080\u0099s group has made anumber of presentations to all levels of management; their ideas are well known and most(but not all) people have reacted positively to their presentations. They\u00E2\u0080\u0099re having troublegetting a firm commitment from the decision makers. The team has been told to back offand wait; to put the project on hold. Kelly\u00E2\u0080\u0099s boss is worried that s/he and the other teammembers are developing reputations as troublemakers.Please use the nine-point scale below to indicate whether each statement represents agenerally desirable or undesirable activity if done by Kelly Davidson in response to thepresent situation.Kelly Davidson would1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (a) avoid conflict and, instead, work to smooth outdisagreements and reach consensus on a plan of action.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (b) use his/her political connections in the company to makethings happen.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (c) not overpower people with his/her ideas.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (d) continue to ask for other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 input and commitment.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (e) keep pushing the idea and dominate others with his/heropinions and visions if s/he wished to convince them toaccept his/her point of view.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (0 follow closely the corporate expectations (or rules).1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (g) react stubbornly and resist, even in the face of legitimatecriticism.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (h) follow instructions given to him/her very accurately.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (i) continue to start early and work late if s/he wereemotionally involved in the project.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (j) challenge the way things are decided and done at work;s/he would enjoy \u00E2\u0080\u009Crocking the boat\u00E2\u0080\u009D.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (k) not expend a lot of energy in pursuing things.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (1) take action without first seeking approval; s/he would getforgiveness later.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (m) push ahead and take action--implement--despite whathis/her boss says.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (n) refer to company policies and procedures to define andsupport his/her work behavior.467DESIRABLE UNDESIRABLEExtreme Strong Moderate Mild Neutral Mild Moderate Strong Extreme1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 93. Kelly Davidson is a middle manager working for a large \u00E2\u0080\u009Chigh-tech\u00E2\u0080\u009D Canadianorganization. S/he has just heard of a bright new product idea coming out of the Research& Development division in the company. Kelly believes that it has great market potential,but it\u00E2\u0080\u0099s a bit of a long shot since the product would represent a significant departure fromthe company\u00E2\u0080\u0099s traditional line. In addition, the company\u00E2\u0080\u0099s manufacturing equipment wouldhave to be changed in order to produce this product, resulting in additional start-up costs.Please use the nine-point scale below to indicate whether each statement represents agenerally desirable or undesirable activity if done by Kelly Davidson in response to thepresent situation.Kelly Davidson would1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (a) sell the idea to superiors one-on-one.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (b) not use a strategy of intimidation in order to get his/herway.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (c) conform to company expectations about how new ideasshould be introduced and discussed.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (d) take action inimediately; s/he would not delay getting theidea out to others if s/he thought it was a good one.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (e) deliver presentations that influence and persuade others.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (f) not take risks with company time, people, and money.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (g) persist in voicing his/her opinion over and over again,even if his/her ideas were rejected.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (h) not exploit political connections in the company in orderto promote the idea.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (i) ignore authority in formulating a plan in connection withthe idea.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (j) get the time of executives in the company in order tocommunicate the new product idea.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (k) persist in pursuing the idea even if explicitly directed tostop.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (1) not volunteer to be involved if it meant extra work.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (m) follow through with the idea; after s/he has spent timepondering and considering something, s/he won\u00E2\u0080\u0099t leave italone until some action begins.468DESIRABLE UNDESIRABLEExtreme Strong Moderate Mild Neutral Mild Moderate Strong Extreme1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 94. A consultant was hired by the executive to examine how Kelly Davidson\u00E2\u0080\u0099s department atwork is structured. The consultant reported a number of inefficiencies which, if remedied,would result in a much smoother operation. For example, some job responsibilitiesoverlap, while some necessary tasks are not covered in any job description. The consultantmade a number of recommendations. Four people (Kelly is one of the four) from thedepartment have been made jointly responsible for sifting through the recommendationsand formulating a plan for implementation. Kelly agrees with some of their findings but,as an insider, can also see where they missed the mark with other ideas.Please use the nine-point scale below to indicate whether each statement represents agenerally desirable or undesirable activity if done by Kelly Davidson in response to thepresent situation.Kelly Davidson would1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (a) try to anticipate the reactions of others in the organizationto the consultant\u00E2\u0080\u0099s recommendations and formulate plansaccordingly.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (b) keep very good records, documenting all events andactivities.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (c) work only with others from his/her immediate workgroup.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (d) monopolize the discussion of issues.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (e) approach his/her responsibilities in a methodical, orderlymanner, carefully considering and taking action on oneissue at a time.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (f) react impatiently when dealing with the more tedioustasks.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (g) try to have a hand in all aspects of the project, preferringnot to share or delegate responsibilities.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (h) bypass management levels in working toward goals.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (i) orchestrate situations (e.g., meetings, one-on-oneconversations) so that others listen to his/her ideas.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (j) become impatient with trivial details connected withhis/her involvement in the project.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (k) work independently, rather than with the team.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (1) not take the time and effort to document all plans andideas.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (m) not take a visible role in the project, preferring to remainmore in the background.469DESIRABLE UNDESIRABLEExtreme Strong Moderate Mild Neutral Mild Moderate Strong Extreme1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 95. Kelly Davidson has just recently begun to work with a group of people from various areasin the company who are each experts in their own field. Some are researchers andscientists, some are specialists in production, while others are very knowledgeable aboutthe marketplace. As the project leader, and as the individual who originally came up withthe idea driving the team, Kelly must find a way to utilize the various expertise availablein the best, most efficient way possible. The team has a deadline of one year, at whichtime they must either outline a feasible plan for implementation or drop the projectaltogether.Please use the nine-point scale below to indicate whether each statement represents agenerally desirable or undesirable activity if done by Kelly Davidson in response to thepresent situation.Kelly Davidson would1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (a) adopt a big picture perspective; s/he would not get boggeddown by the details of the project.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (b) listen to others more than talk.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (c) think at a conceptual level and lets others worry aboutdetails and specifics.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (d) always find him/herself doing something and have littlefree time.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (e) carefully plan and organize activities.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (0 argue if s/he disagreed with the others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ideas.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (g) recognize the achievements and accomplishments of theproject team members as they work towards their goals.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (h) listen carefully when others debate, but not participate.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (i) work to motivate teamwork--cooperation andcollaboration among the project members.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (j) be very direct in expressing what s/he wants; s/hewouldn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbeat around the bush\u00E2\u0080\u009D.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (k) work slowly, but consistently.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (1) be considerate of the other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 well being.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (m) delay decision making in order to think through issuescarefully.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (n) risk disappointing others in order to get his/her own ideasacross.470DESIRABLE UNDESIRABLEExtreme Strong Moderate Mild Neutral Mild Moderate Strong Extreme1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 96. A deadline is rapidly approaching for implementation of a new product that KellyDavidson and a number of team members have been developing over the past severalmonths at work. All the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbugs\u00E2\u0080\u009D haven\u00E2\u0080\u0099t quite been worked out yet, but Kelly feels that theteam is getting close to being able to deliver a product. It is important that the product bedelivered on time, but it is also crucial that it not be introduced before the team is satisfiedthat it is ready. Significant problems at the implementation stage could result in theproduct being \u00E2\u0080\u009Cshelved\u00E2\u0080\u009D, while if Kelly\u00E2\u0080\u0099s team fails to meet the deadline the company willlose their window of opportunity.Please use the nine-point scale below to indicate whether each statement represents agenerally desirable or undesirable activity if done by Kelly Davidson in response to thepresent situation.Kelly Davidson would1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (a) work pretty irregular hours in order to meet his/hercommitments.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (b) go around company rules or procedures that got in his/herway.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (c) take tight control of the project and very closely monitorthe progress of the team members.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (d) be sure to meet deadlines.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (e) hold others accountable for delivering what they hadpromised.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (f) be patient while completing the more tedious tasks.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (g) empower others to take action on their own.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (h) show interest in other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ideas and work to supportand encourage them.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (i) not compromise his/her integrity just to meet the deadline.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (j) recognize and use the talents of the various teammembers.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (k) pay close attention to the details of what s/he was doing.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (1) talk down to those who are not up to speed or operating ata highly competent level.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (m) thrive when working under conditions of such highpressure.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (n) continue to work fairly regular hours: starting work ataround 8 and leaving pretty close to 4.471DESIRABLE UNDESIRABLEExtreme Strong Moderate Mild Neutral Mild Moderate Strong Extreme1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 97. Kelly Davidson is beginning to work with a project team to look into the viability ofdeveloping an information system (to track expenditures) that would benefit the company.Kelly has taken on a role in this project in addition to his/her regular responsibilities.Kelly has discovered that s/he is over-committed, but it\u00E2\u0080\u0099s getting a bit too late to back outnow. S/he possesses knowledge that would greatly aid the project team. It is unclear, atthis point, how viable this new system might be. As a result, support for the project is notunanimous among the senior management group.Please use the nine-point scale below to indicate whether each statement represents agenerally desirable or undesirable activity if done by Kelly Davidson in response to thepresent situation.Kelly Davidson would1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (a) not take the time to document things.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (b) continue to follow a fairly routine schedule at work (e.g.,coffee at 9:00, lunch at 12:00).1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (c) tend to wing it; improvise on the spot.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (d) become consumed by the challenges of the new project, tothe point where s/he might neglect some of his/her otherresponsibilities.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (e) plan all his/her actions well in advance.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (t) be so busy that s/he would have too little time toaccomplish his/her regular work.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (g) show up late for meetings and appointments if s/he hadother, more pressing, matters to attend to.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (h) not work overtime.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (i) be very careful to keep all of his/her time commitments.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (j) give quick answers to people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s comments and requests forinformation, and then follow up later.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (k) do what is correct and accepted in the company.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (1) work to ensure that his/her many involvements andaccomplishments in the company were known to others.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (m) put some important items on the back burner for a bit too long.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (n) think of others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 needs and priorities in deciding what to do.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (o) adapt quickly to changing situations and demands onhis/her time.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (p) be very punctual, arriving at meetings and other workobligations right on time.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (q) have difficulty adjusting, preferring to work in a fairlystable and unchanging work environment.472DESIRABLE UNDESIRABLEExtreme Strong Moderate Mild Neutral Mild Moderate Strong Extreme1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 98. Kelly Davidson has been successful in getting the backing of senior management for thedevelopment of a new product. Kelly and his/her project team have been assignedseparate office and warehouse space and Kelly has been put in charge of managingroughly 3 dozen people working in various production, clerical, and marketing capacities.This project represents a significant investment for the company. Lately, the project hasexperienced a number of setbacks and delays and those who were originally supportive aretelling Kelly to make it work fast, or the plug will be pulled. Kelly feels that the problemsstem from team productivity problems.Please use the nine-point scale below to indicate whether each statement represents agenerally desirable or undesirable activity if done by Kelly Davidson in response to thepresent situation.Kelly Davidson would1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (a) sell the importance of the project to subordinates and gettheir commitment.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (b) make personal sacrifices if dedicated to the project.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (c) give people a second chance, rather than confront them onissues right away.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (d) question and challenge all processes and procedurescurrently in place in order to fix the productivityproblems.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (e) address every task with urgency.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (f) be somewhat slow to take action in solving the problem;s/he would want to carefully consider his/her options first.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (g) look for ways to do things just a little bit better and a littlebit faster.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (h) tell people that there was a problem if s/he thought theywere incompetent.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (i) weed out those who were not productive.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (j) approach all issues in connection with the project in avery systematic, analytical, and disciplined manner.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (k) be willing to deal with difficult decisions, such asredundant employees.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (1) find areas of compromise and accommodation to keepthose working on the project happy.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (m) support the people involved to get the best out of them.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (n) become impatient if others weren\u00E2\u0080\u0099t working up to his/herown high standards.473DESIRABLE UNDESIRABLEExtreme Strong Moderate Mild Neutral Mild Moderate Strong Extreme1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 99. Kelly Davidson is a middle manager employed by a large manufacturing company. S/hehas just spent the last two years pursuing the development of a new customer-servicesystem that failed. It was a good idea, a useful innovation, but others in the companyweren\u00E2\u0080\u0099t enthusiastic and lobbied against implementation. Kelly now finds him/herself in atransition period in the company as her/his involvement in the now-defunct project windsdown.Please use the nine-point scale below to indicate whether each statement represents agenerally desirable or undesirable activity if done by Kelly Davidson in response to thepresent situation.Kelly Davidson would1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (a) promote new ideas that have high visibility and are likelyto lead to success.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (b) meet new people, but be rather uncomfortable.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (c) make sure to rub shoulders with powerful individuals inother departments and business units in the company.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (d) lay low for a while and tell him/herself that it\u00E2\u0080\u0099s notimportant that his/her accomplishments and achievementsare known in the company.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (e) volunteer for task forces and other related activities thatwould allow him/her to be a change agent.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (f) accept a new low-profile project; s/he doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t need publicrecognition for what s/he does.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (g) take on challenges and responsibilities unrelated to his/herarea of job responsibility.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (h) not seek out attention from others.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (i) seek out opportunities to work outside of his/her ownoffice or department.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (j) move out into unknown business opportunities; s/hewould be comfortable taking risks at work.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (k) return to his/her old job and stay in that one job so thats/he became an expert in that one area.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (1) seek out opportunities to do new things, with new people,in new environments.474APPENDIX QTHE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SIMULATIONManagement Practices SimulationA Situational ExerciseYour Name:475INSTRUCTIONSThis simulation contains descriptions of situations you might find yourself in at work. Youwill be asked to act as fyou were a manager in that situation and to indicate what you woulddo. Begin by reading the situation and think about how you would handle it. Then, read andrate each statement that follows according to the 4-point rating scale displayed at the top ofthe page. Before beginning the simulation, please read and complete the following example.EXAMPLE:1 = I Would Definitely Not Do This2 = I Probably Would Not Do This, But I Might3 = I Probably Would Do This, But IMight Not4 = I Would Definitely Do ThisYou have an idea about how to speed up customer service; however, it would involvemaking changes to the existing procedure: how orders are received and tracked. Youdon\u00E2\u0080\u0099t know whether or not the idea will work or how others in the company will react toit. You have not yet talked to anyone, except your closest colleague at work. If youpromote your idea and it bombs, your career will be damaged. If you do nothing,someone else might steal the spot light. Imagine yourself in such a situation andindicate, for each of the 7 statements below, how likely it is that you would do each ofthe following:I would1 2 3 4 (a) meet with key people one-on-one to discuss my idea.1 2 3 4 (b) talk to our customers to find out if they would see the change as a bigimprovement.1 2 3 4 (c) encourage my colleague to \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctest the waters\u00E2\u0080\u009D in the company.1 2 3 4 (d) be cautious; I would want to collect more information before doingsomething.1 2 3 4 (e) drop the idea; I wouldn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t jeopardize my career over something thatmight not work.1 2 3 4 (1) stay in the background and let someone else present the idea.1 2 3 4 (g) tell my colleague not to tell anyone else about my idea.If, in the example above, you felt that you would definitely meet with key people one-on-oneto discuss the idea and encourage your colleague to \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctest the waters\u00E2\u0080\u009D, you would circle thenumber \u00E2\u0080\u009C4\u00E2\u0080\u009D next to statements (a) and (c). If you thought that you would probably talk to thecustomers and be cautious and collect more information, then you would circle the number\u00E2\u0080\u009C3\u00E2\u0080\u009D next to statements (b) and (d). If you thought that you would probably not tell your476colleague to keep quiet, then you would circle the number \u00E2\u0080\u009C2\u00E2\u0080\u009D next to statement (g). Finally,if you felt that you would definitely not drop the idea, and would definitely not stay in thebackground, then you would circle the number \u00E2\u0080\u009C1\u00E2\u0080\u009D next to statements (e) and (f).We realize that there may be other, perhaps more effective, ways of dealing with thesituations in this simulation. For the purposes of this exercise, however, please limit yourselfto the statements given.Please remember to respond to all statements following each of the nine situationsEND OF INSTRUCTIONS: PLEASE TURN THE PAGE AND BEGIN477I Would Definitely I Probably Would Not I Probably Would I Would DefinitelyNot Do This Do This, But Do This, But I Do ThisI Might Might Not1 2 3 41. A meeting has been called, involving a number of people you work with: peers,subordinates, and your boss. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss issues that havecome up in connection with the proposed implementation of a new performance trackingsystem. The discussion becomes heated as some of the people in attendance argue thatmore time is needed for study, others claim that the proposed system does not represent animprovement over the existing one, while others believe that enough time has been wastedin discussing the system.Imagine yourself in such a situation and indicate, for each of the 13 statements below, howlikely it is that you would do each of the following:I would1 2 3 4 (a) push hard for my ideas, but know when to back off.1 2 3 4 (b) try to draw the others to my own input and ideas.1 2 3 4 (c) do my best to accommodate other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 wishes in order to keep themhappy.1 2 3 4 (d) disrupt the discussion if I disagreed with what was being said.1 2 3 4 (e) not persist in arguing my points.1 2 3 4 (1) disregard the issues being raised in the meeting, and, instead, talk aboutmy concerns.1 2 3 4 (g) speak my mind, regardless of who was in attendance at the meeting.1 2 3 4 (h) avoid conflict and confrontation.1 2 3 4 (i) plan to work on my own in the future.1 2 3 4 (j) not speak up at the meeting.1 2 3 4 (k) bend the truth slightly in order to get my way.1 2 3 4 (1) tell others, in a direct and forceful manner, what should be done.1 2 3 4 (m) lead others into a confrontation.478I Would Definitely I Probably Would Not I Probably Would I Would DefinitelyNot Do This Do This, But Do This, But I Do ThisI Might Might Not1 2 3 42. You are a manager working in the Information Systems division of a large utilitiescompany. You are working with a project team to implement a new process that youbelieve will increase the productivity of sales staff. Your group has made a number ofpresentations to all levels of management; your ideas are well known and most (but notall) people have reacted positively to your presentations. You\u00E2\u0080\u0099re having trouble getting afirm commitment from the decision makers. Your team has been told to back off andwait; to put the project on hold. Your boss is worried that yourself and the other teammembers are developing reputations as troublemakers.Imagine yourself in such a situation and indicate, for each of the 14 statements below, howlikely it is that you would do each of the following:I would1 2 3 4 (a) avoid conflict and, instead, work to smooth out disagreements and reachconsensus on a plan of action.1 2 3 4 (b) use my political connections in the company to make things happen.1 2 3 4 (c) not overpower people with my ideas.1 2 3 4 (d) continue to ask for other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 input and commitment.1 2 3 4 (e) keep pushing the idea and dominate others with my opinions and visionsif I wished to convince them to accept my point of view.1 2 3 4 (f) follow closely the corporate expectations (or rules).1 2 3 4 (g) react stubbornly and resist, even in the face of legitimate criticism.1 2 3 4 (h) follow instructions given to me very accurately.1 2 3 4 (i) continue to start early and work late if I were emotionally involved in theproject.1 2 3 4 (j) challenge the way things are decided and done at work; I would enjoy\u00E2\u0080\u009Crocking the boat\u00E2\u0080\u009D.1 2 3 4 (k) not expend a lot of energy in pursuing things..1 2 3 4 (1) take action without first seeking approval; I would get forgiveness later.1 2 3 4 (m) push ahead and take action--implement--despite what my boss said.1 2 3 4 (n) refer to company policies and procedures to define and support my workbehavior.479I Would Definitely I Probably Would Not I Probably Would I Would DefinitelyNot Do This Do This, But Do This, But I Do ThisI Might Might Not1 2 3 43. You\u00E2\u0080\u0099re a middle manager working for a large \u00E2\u0080\u009Chigh-tech\u00E2\u0080\u009D Canadian organization. You\u00E2\u0080\u0099vejust heard of a bright new product idea coming out of the Research & Developmentdivision in the company. You believe that it has great market potential, but it\u00E2\u0080\u0099s a bit of along shot since the product would represent a significant departure from the company\u00E2\u0080\u0099straditional line. In addition, the company\u00E2\u0080\u0099s manufacturing equipment would have to bechanged in order to produce this product, resulting in additional start-up costs.Imagine yourself in such a situation and indicate, for each of the 13 statements below, howlikely it is that you would do each of the following:I would1 2 3 4 (a) sell the idea to superiors one-on-one.1 2 3 4 (b) not use a strategy of intimidation in order to get my way.1 2 3 4 (c) conform to company expectations about how new ideas should beintroduced and discussed.1 2 3 4 (d) take action immediately; I would not delay getting the idea out to othersif I thought it was a good one.1 2 3 4 (e) deliver presentations that would influence and persuade others.1 2 3 4 (f) not take risks with company time, people, and money.1 2 3 4 (g) persist in voicing my opinion over and over again, even if my ideas wererejected.1 2 3 4 (h) not exploit political connections in the company in order to promote theidea.1 2 3 4 (i) ignore authority in formulating a plan in connection with the idea.1 2 3 4 (j) get the time of executives in the company in order to communicate thenew product idea.1 2 3 4 (k) persist in pursuing the idea even if I was explicitly directed to stop.1 2 3 4 (1) not volunteer to be involved if it meant extra work.1 2 3 4 (m) follow through with the idea; after I have spent time pondering andconsidering something, I won\u00E2\u0080\u0099t leave it alone until some action begins.480I Would Definitely I Probably Would Not, I Probably Would I Would DefinitelyNot Do This Do This, But Do This, But I Do ThisI Might Might Not1 2 3 44. A consultant was hired by the executive to examine how your department at work isstructured. S/he reported a number of inefficiencies which, if remedied, would result in amuch smoother operation. For example, some job responsibilities overlap, while somenecessary tasks are not covered in any job description. The consultant made a number ofrecommendations. Four of you from the department have been made jointly responsiblefor sifting through the recommendations and formulating a plan for implementation. Youagree with some of their findings but, as an insider, also see where they missed the markwith other ideas.Imagine yourself in such a situation and indicate, for each of the 13 statements below, howlikely it is that you would do each of the following:I would1 2 3 4 (a) try to anticipate the reactions of others in the organization to theconsultant\u00E2\u0080\u0099s recommendations and formulate any plans accordingly.1 2 3 4 (b) keep very good records, documenting all events and activities.1 2 3 4 (c) work only with others from my immediate work group.1 2 3 4 (d) monopolize the discussion of issues.1 2 3 4 (e) approach my responsibilities in a methodical, orderly manner, carefullyconsidering and taking action on one issue at a time.1 2 3 4 (0 react impatiently when dealing with the more tedious tasks.1 2 3 4 (g) try to have a hand in all aspects of the project; I prefer not to share ordelegate responsibilities.1 2 3 4 (h) bypass management levels in working toward goals.1 2 3 4 (i) orchestrate situations (e.g., meetings, one-on-one conversations) so thatothers listened to my ideas.1 2 3 4 (j) become impatient with trivial details connected with my involvement inthe project.1 2 3 4 (k) work independently, rather than with the team.1 2 3 4 (1) not take the time and effort to document all plans and ideas.1 2 3 4 (m) not take a visible role in the project; I prefer to remain more in thebackground.4815. You have just recently begun to work with a group of people from various areas in thecompany who are each experts in their own field. Some are researchers and scientists,some are specialists in production, while others are very knowledgeable about themarketplace. As the project leader, and as the individual who originally came up with theidea driving the team, you must find a way to utilize the various expertise available in thebest, most efficient way possible. Your team has a deadline of one year, at which time youmust either outline a feasible plan for implementation or drop the project altogether.Imagine yourself in such a situation and indicate, for each of the 14 statements below, howlikely it is that you would do each of the following:I would1 2 3 4 (a) adopt a big picture perspective; I wouldn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t get bogged down by thedetails of the project.1 2 3 4 (b) listen to others more than talk.1 2 3 4 (c) think at a conceptual level and let others worry about details andspecifics.1 2 3 4 (d) always find myself doing something and have little free time.1 2 3 4 (e) carefully plan and organize activities.1 2 3 4 (f) argue if I disagreed with the others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ideas.1 2 3 4 (g) recognize the achievements and accomplishments of the project teammembers as they work towards their goals.1 2 3 4 (h) listen carefully when others debate, but not participate myself.1 2 3 4 (i) work to motivate teamwork--cooperation and collaboration among theproject members.1 2 3 4 (j) be very direct in expressing what I want; I wouldn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbeat around thebush\u00E2\u0080\u009D.work slowly, but consistently.be considerate of the other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 well being.delay decision making in order to think through issues carefully.risk disappointing others in order to get my own ideas across.I Would Definitely I Probably Would Not I Probably Would I Would DefinitelyNot Do This Do This, But Do This, But I Do ThisI Might Might Not1 2 3 41 2 3 4 (k)1 2 3 4 (1)1 2 3 4 (m)1 2 3 4 (n)482I Would Definitely I Probably Would Not I Probably Would I Would DefinitelyNot Do This Do This, But Do This, But I Do ThisI Might Might Not1 2 3 46. A deadline is rapidly approaching for implementation of a new product that you and anumber of team members have been developing over the past several months at work. Allthe \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbugs\u00E2\u0080\u009D haven\u00E2\u0080\u0099t quite been worked out yet, but you feel that the team is getting close tobeing able to deliver a product. It is important that the product be delivered on time, but itis also crucial that it not be introduced before your team is satisfied that it is ready.Significant problems at the implementation stage could result in the product being\u00E2\u0080\u009Cshelved\u00E2\u0080\u009D, while if you fail to meet the deadline your company will lose their window ofopportunity.Imagine yourself in such a situation and indicate, for each of the 14 statements below,how likely it is that you would do each of the following:I would1 2 3 4 (a) work pretty irregular hours in order to meet my conmitments.1 2 3 4 (b) go around company rules or procedures that got in my way.1 2 3 4 (c) take tight control of the project and very closely monitor the progress ofthe team members.1 2 3 4 (d) be sure to meet my deadlines.1 2 3 4 (e) hold others accountable for delivering what they had promised.1 2 3 4 (0 be patient while completing the more tedious tasks.1 2 3 4 (g) empower others to take action on their own.1 2 3 4 (h) show interest in other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ideas and work to support and encouragethem.1 2 3 4 (i) not compromise my integrity just to meet the deadline.1 2 3 4 (j) recognize and use the talents of the various team members.1 2 3 4 (k) pay close attention to the details of what I was doing.1 2 3 4 (1) talk down to those who are not up to speed or operating at a highlycompetent level.1 2 3 4 (m) thrive when working under conditions of such high pressure.1 2 3 4 (n) continue to work fairly regular hours: starting work at around 8 andleaving pretty close to 4.483I Would Definitely I Probably Would Not I Probably Would I Would DefinitelyNot Do This Do This, But Do This, But I Do ThisI Might Might Not1 2 3 47. You are beginning to work with a project team to look into the viability of developing aninformation system (to track expenditures) that would benefit the company. You\u00E2\u0080\u0099ve takenon a role in this project in addition to your regular responsibilities. You\u00E2\u0080\u0099ve discovered thatyou\u00E2\u0080\u0099re over-committed, but it\u00E2\u0080\u0099s getting a bit too late for you to back out now. You possessknowledge that would greatly aid the project team. It is unclear, at this point, how viablethis new system might be. As a result, support for the project is not unanimous among thesenior management group.Imagine yourself in such a situation and indicate, for each of the 17 statements below, howlikely it is that you would do each of the following:I would1 2 3 4 (a) not take the time to document things.1 2 3 4 (b) continue to follow a fairly routine schedule at work (e.g., coffee at 9:00,lunch at 12:00).1 2 3 4 (c) tend to wing it; improvise on the spot.1 2 3 4 (d) become consumed by the challenges of the new project, to the pointwhere I might neglect some of my other responsibilities.1 2 3 4 (e) plan all my actions well in advance.1 2 3 4 (f) be so busy that I would have too little time to accomplish my regular work.1 2 3 4 (g) show up late for meetings and appointments if I had other, morepressing, matters to attend to.1 2 3 4 (h) not work overtime.1 2 3 4 (i) be very careful to keep all of my time commitments.1 2 3 4 (j) give quick answers to people\u00E2\u0080\u0099s comments and requests for information,and then follow up later.1 2 3 4 (k) do what is correct and accepted in the company.1 2 3 4 (1) work to ensure that my many involvements and accomplishments in thecompany were known to others.1 2 3 4 (m) put some important items on the back burner for a bit too long.1 2 3 4 (n) think of others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 needs and priorities in deciding what to do.1 2 3 4 (o) adapt quickly to changing situations and demands on my time.1 2 3 4 (p) be very punctual, arriving at meetings and other work obligations righton time.1 2 3 4 (q) have difficulty adjusting; I prefer to work in a fairly stable andunchanging work environment.484I Would Definitely I Probably Would Not I Probably Would I Would DefinitelyNot Do This Do This, But Do This, But I Do ThisI Might Might Not1 2 3 48. You have been successful in getting the backing of senior management for thedevelopment of a new product. You and your project team have been assigned separateoffice and warehouse space and you\u00E2\u0080\u0099ve been put in charge of managing roughly 3 dozenpeople working in various production, clerical, and marketing capacities. Your projectrepresents a significant investment for the company. Lately, the project has experienced anumber of setbacks and delays and those who were originally supportive are telling you tomake it work fast, or the plug will be pulled. You feel that the problems stem from teamproductivity problems.Imagine yourself in such a situation and indicate, for each of the 14 statements below, howlikely it is that you would do each of the following:I would1 2 3 4 (a) sell the importance of the project to subordinates and get theircommitment.1 2 3 4 (b) make personal sacrifices if I were dedicated to the project.1 2 3 4 (c) give people a second chance, rather than confront them on issues rightaway.1 2 3 4 (d) question and challenge all processes and procedures currently in place inorder to fix the productivity problems.1 2 3 4 (e) address every task with urgency.1 2 3 4 (t) be somewhat slow to take action in solving the problem; I like tocarefully consider my options first.1 2 3 4 (g) look for ways to do things just a little bit better and a little bit faster.1 2 3 4 (h) tell people that there was a problem if I thought they were incompetent.1 2 3 4 (i) weed out those who were not productive.1 2 3 4 (j) approach all issues in connection with the project in a very systematic,analytical, and disciplined manner.1 2 3 4 (k) be willing to deal with difficult decisions, such as redundant employees.1 2 3 4 (1) find areas of compromise and accommodation to keep those working onthe project happy.1 2 3 4 (m) support the people involved to get the best out of them.1 2 3 4 (n) become impatient if others weren\u00E2\u0080\u0099t working up to my own highstandards.485I Would Definitely I Probably Would Not I Probably Would I Would DefinitelyNot Do This Do This, But Do This, But I Do ThisI Might Might Not1 2 3 49. You are a middle manager employed by a large manufacturing company. You have justspent the last two years pursuing the development of a new customer-service system thatfailed. It was a good idea, a useful innovation, but others in the company weren\u00E2\u0080\u0099tenthusiastic and lobbied against implementation. You now find yourself in a transitionperiod in the company as your involvement in the now-defunct project winds down.Imagine yourself in such a situation and indicate, for each of the 12 statements below, howlikely it is that you would do each of the following:I would1 2 3 4 (a) promote new ideas that have high visibility and are likely to lead tosuccess.1 2 3 4 (b) meet new people, but be rather uncomfortable.1 2 3 4 (c) make sure to rub shoulders with powerful individuals in otherdepartments and business units in the company.1 2 3 4 (d) lay low for a while and tell myself that it\u00E2\u0080\u0099s not important that myaccomplishments and achievements are known in the company.1 2 3 4 (e) volunteer for task forces and other related activities that would allow meto be a change agent.1 2 3 4 (f) accept a new low-profile project; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t need public recognition for whatIdo.1 2 3 4 (g) take on challenges and responsibilities unrelated to my area ofjobresponsibility.1 2 3 4 (h) not seek out attention from others.1 2 3 4 (i) seek out opportunities to work outside of my own office or department.1 2 3 4 (j) move out into unknown business opportunities; I would be comfortabletaking risks at work.1 2 3 4 (k) return to my old job and stay in that one job so that I became an expert inthat one area.1 2 3 4 (1) seek out opportunities to do new things, with new people, in newenvironments.PLEASE TURN THE PAGE AND RESPOND TO THE STATEMENTSAND QUESTIONS ON THAT PAGE, THEN PLACE THIS BOOKLETIN THE ENCLOSED RETURN ENVELOPE486Consider your involvement in various projects at BCTeJ over the past 12 months, andrespond to each of the statements below by circling either \u00E2\u0080\u009CT\u00E2\u0080\u009D for True or \u00E2\u0080\u009CF\u00E2\u0080\u009D for False.I haveT F (a) generated new ideas on my own.T F (b) adapted or built on the ideas of others in the company.T F (c) introduced and promoted new ideas in the company.T F (d) worked to sell and champion new ideas in the company.For the next eight questions, think about how you typically are at work and answer each bycircling the number corresponding to your choice.1 = Completely False2 = Somewhat False3 = Somewhat True4 = Completely True1 2 3 4 (e) I tend to challenge existing ways of doing things.1 2 3 4 (f) I enjoy and seek out repetitive tasks.1 2 3 4 (g) I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t follow many routines in my life; I like a lot of change.1 2 3 4 (h) I find it difficult to have something unexpected interrupt my dailyroutine.1 2 3 4 (i) I prefer to work in a fairly stable and unchanging work environment.1 2 3 4 (j) I like to keep things neat, tidy, and in good order.1 2 3 4 (k) I have a lot of patience for completing the more tedious tasks in life.1 2 3 4 (1) I enjoy routine, and use routine to organize my work schedule.Please answer YES or NO to the following questions, by circling either \u00E2\u0080\u009CY\u00E2\u0080\u009D or \u00E2\u0080\u009CN\u00E2\u0080\u009D.Y N (m) Do you currently own (or have you ever owned) your own business?Ifyou answered \u00E2\u0080\u009CNo\u00E2\u0080\u009D to (m), then please place this booklet in the return envelope. If youanswered Yes to (m), please respond to these lastfew questions.Y N (n) Were you the founder of this business?Y N (o) Has this business been (or was it) in operation for more than 5 years?Y N (p) Did this business result in the introduction of new goods/products?Y N (q) Did this business result in the introduction of new methods ofproduction?Y N (r) Did this business result in the opening of new markets?Y N (s) Did this business result in the opening of new sources of supply?487APPENDIX RITEM CONTENT OF THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCALES OF THEMANAGEMENT PRACTICES SIMULATIONPrimary ScalesPersistent DominanceI would1 2 3 4 1(d)1 2 3 4 1(e)1 2 3 4 1(g)1 2 3 4 2(c)1 2 3 4 2(e)1 2 3 4 2(g)1 2 3 4 3(b)1 2 3 4 3(g)1 2 3 4 5(b)1 2 3 4 5(f)Impatient ExpediencyI woulddisrupt the discussion if I disagreed with what was being said.not persist in arguing my points (r).speak my mind, regardless of who was in attendance at the meeting.not overpower people with my ideas (r).keep pushing the idea and dominate others with my opinions andvisions if I wished to convince them to accept my point of view.react stubbornly and resist, even in the face of legitimate criticism.not use a strategy of intimidation in order to get my way (r).persist in voicing my opinion over and over again, even if my ideaswere rejected.listen to others more than talk (r).argue if I disagreed with the others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ideas.1 2 3 4 4 (b) keep very good records, documenting all events and activities (r).1 2 3 4 4 (e) approach my responsibilities in a methodical, orderly manner, carefullyconsidering and taking action on one issue at a time (r).react impatiently when dealing with the more tedious tasks.not take the time and effort to document all plans and ideas.carefully plan and organize activities (r).be patient while completing the more tedious tasks (r).not take the time to document things.tend to wing it; improvise on the spot.plan all my actions well in advance (r).approach all issues in connection with the project in a very systematic,analytical, and disciplined manner (r).1 2 3 4 4(t)1 2 3 4 4(1)1 2 3 4 5(e)1 2 3 4 6(f)1 2 3 4 7(a)1 2 3 4 7(c)1 2 3 4 7(e)1 2 3 4 8(j)488Rebellious DriveI would.1 2 3 4 2 (t) follow closely the corporate expectations (or rules) (r).1 2 3 4 2 (h) follow instructions given to me very accurately (r).1 2 3 4 2 (j) challenge the way things are decided and done at work; I would enjoy\u00E2\u0080\u009Crocking the boat\u00E2\u0080\u009D.1 2 3 4 2 (n) refer to company policies and procedures to define and support mywork behavior (r).1 2 3 4 3 (c) conform to company expectations about how new ideas should beintroduced and discussed (r).1 2 3 4 3 (i) ignore authority in formulating a plan in connection with the idea.1 2 3 4 3 (k) persist in pursuing the idea even if I was explicitly directed to stop.1 2 3 4 4 (h) bypass management levels in working toward goals.1 2 3 4 6 (b) go around company rules or procedures that got in my way.1 2 3 4 7 (k) do what is correct and accepted in the company (r).Self PromotionI would1 2 3 4 3 (h) not exploit political connections in the company in order to promotethe idea (r).1 2 3 4 4 (j) become impatient with trivial details connected with my involvementin the project.1 2 3 4 6 (i) not compromise my integrity just to meet the deadline (r).1 2 3 4 6 (1) talk down to those who are not up to speed or operating at a highlycompetent level.1 2 3 4 7 (1) work to ensure that my many involvements and accomplishments inthe company were known to others.1 2 3 4 8 (n) become impatient if others weren\u00E2\u0080\u0099t working up to my own highstandards.1 2 3 4 9 (c) make sure to rub shoulders with powerful individuals in otherdepartments and business units in the company.1 2 3 4 9 (f) accept a new low-profile project; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t need public recognition forwhat I do (r).1 2 3 4 9 (h) not seek out attention from others (r).489Confrontive CandorI would1 2 3 4 1 (c) do my best to accommodate other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 wishes in order to keepthem happy (r).1 2 3 4 1 (h) avoid conflict and confrontation (r).1 2 3 4 1 (1) tell others, in a direct and forceful manner, what should be done.1 2 3 4 1 (m) lead others into a confrontation.1 2 3 4 2 (a) avoid conflict and, instead, work to smooth out disagreements andreach consensus on a plan of action (r).1 2 3 4 5 (j) be very direct in expressing what I want; I wouldn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbeat around the bush\u00E2\u0080\u009D.1 2 3 4 5 (n) risk disappointing others in order to get my own ideas across.1 2 3 4 8 (c) give people a second chance, rather than confront them on issues rightaway (r).1 2 3 4 8 (i) weed out those who were not productive.1 2 3 4 8 (k) be willing to deal with difficult decisions, such as redundantemployees.Influence and Political SavvyI would1 2 3 4 1 (a) push hard for my ideas, but know when to back off.1 2 3 4 2 (b) use my political connections in the company to make things happen.1 2 3 4 3 (a) sell the idea to superiors one-on-one.1 2 3 4 3 (e) deliver presentations that would influence and persuade others.1 2 3 4 5 (a) adopt a big picture perspective; I wouldn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t get bogged down by thedetails of the project.1 2 3 4 5 (c) think at a conceptual level and let others worry about details andspecifics.1 2 3 4 9 (j) move out into unknown business opportunities; I would becomfortable taking risks at work.Driven CommitmentI would1 2 3 4 2 (i) continue to start early and work late if I were emotionally involved inthe project.1 2 3 4 2 (k) not expend a lot of energy in pursuing things (r).1 2 3 4 5 (d) always find myself doing something and have little free time.1 2 3 4 6 (a) work pretty irregular hours in order to meet my commitments.1 2 3 4 6 (n) continue to work fairly regular hours: starting work at around 8 andleaving pretty close to 4 (r).1 2 3 4 7 (g) show up late for meetings and appointments if I had other, morepressing, matters to attend to.1 2 3 4 7 (h) not work overtime (r).1 2 3 4 8 (b) make personal sacrifices if I were dedicated to the project.490Immediate ResponsivenessI would1 2 3 4 3 (d) take action immediately; I would not delay getting the idea out toothers if I thought it was a good one.1 2 3 4 5 (m) delay decision making in order to think through issues carefully.1 2 3 4 6 (d) be sure to meet my deadlines.1 2 3 4 6 (e) hold others accountable for delivering what they had promised.1 2 3 4 7 (i) be very careful to keep all of my time commitments.1 2 3 4 7 (m) put some important items on the back burner for a bit too long.1 2 3 4 8 (f) be somewhat slow to take action in solving the problem; I like tocarefully consider my options first.Collaboration and SupportI would1 2 3 4 4 (g) try to have a hand in all aspects of the project; I prefer not to share ordelegate responsibilities (r).1 2 3 4 4 (k) work independently, rather than with the team (r).1 2 3 4 5 (1) be considerate of the other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 well being.1 2 3 4 6 (g) empower others to take action on their own.1 2 3 4 6 (h) show interest in other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ideas and work to support andencourage them.1 2 3 4 6 (j) recognize and use the talents of the various team members.1 2 3 4 7 (n) think of others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 needs and priorities in deciding what to do.1 2 3 4 9 (1) seek out opportunities to do new things, with new people, in newenvironments.Visibility and Growth SeekingI would1 2 3 4 4 (m) not take a visible role in the project; I prefer to remain more in thebackground (r).1 2 3 4 6 (m) thrive when working under conditions of such high pressure.1 2 3 4 7 (o) adapt quickly to changing situations and demands on my time.1 2 3 4 7 (q) have difficulty adjusting; I prefer to work in a fairly stable andunchanging work environment (r).1 2 3 4 9 (e) volunteer for task forces and other related activities that would allowme to be a change agent.1 2 3 4 9 (g) take on challenges and responsibilities unrelated to my area of jobresponsibility.1 2 3 4 9 (i) seek out opportunities to work outside of my own office or department.1 2 3 4 9 (k) return to my old job and stay in that one job so that I became an expertin that one area (r).491Secondary ScalesMPS-Forceful Drive and ExpediencyI wouldCC 1 (c) do my best to accommodate other peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 wishes in order to keep themhappy (r).PD 1 (e) not persist in arguing my points (r).CC 1 (h) avoid conflict and confrontation (r).CC 1 (1) tell others, in a direct and forceful manner, what should be done.CC 2 (a) avoid conflict and, instead, work to smooth out disagreements and reachconsensus on a plan of action (r).RD 2 (f) follow closely the corporate expectations (or rules) (r).RD 2 (h) follow instructions given to me very accurately (r).RD 2 (j) challenge the way things are decided and done at work; I would enjoy\u00E2\u0080\u009Crocking the boat\u00E2\u0080\u009D.SP 4 (j) become impatient with trivial details connected with my involvement in theproject.PD 5 (f) argue if I disagreed with the others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ideas.CC 5 (j) be very direct in expressing what I want; I wouldn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbeat around the bush\u00E2\u0080\u009D.CC 5 (n) risk disappointing others in order to get my own ideas across.RD 6 (b) go around company rules or procedures that got in my way.TE 6 (f) be patient while completing the more tedious tasks (r).SP 6 (i) not compromise my integrity just to meet the deadline (r).RD 7 (k) do what is correct and accepted in the company (r).CC 8 (i) weed out those who were not productive.CC 8 (k) be willing to deal with difficult decisions, such as redundant employees.SP 8 (n) become impatient if others weren\u00E2\u0080\u0099t working up to my own high standards.SP 9 (c) make sure to rub shoulders with powerful individuals in other departmentsand business units in the company.SP 9 (f) accept a new low-profile project; I don\u00E2\u0080\u0099t need public recognition for what Ido(r).SP 9 (h) not seek out attention from others (r).492MPS-Influence and Visible DriveI wouldIPS 2 (b) use my political connections in the company to make things happen.IPS 3 (a) sell the idea to superiors one-on-one.CS 4 (k) work independently, rather than with the team (r).1PS 5 (c) think at a conceptual level and let others worry about details and specifics.CS 6 (g) empower others to take action on their own.VGS 6 (m) thrive when working under conditions of such high pressure.DC 6 (n) continue to work fairly regular hours: starting work at around 8 and leavingpretty close to 4 (r).CS 7 (n) think of others\u00E2\u0080\u0099 needs and priorities in deciding what to do.VGS 7 (q) have difficulty adjusting; I prefer to work in a fairly stable and unchangingwork environment (r).JR 8 (0 be somewhat slow to take action in solving the problem; I like to carefullyconsider my options first (r).VGS 9 (e) volunteer for task forces and other related activities that would allow me tobe a change agent.VGS 9 (g) take on challenges and responsibilities unrelated to my area of jobresponsibility.VGS 9 (i) seek out opportunities to work outside of my own office or department.PS 9 (j) move out into unknown business opportunities; I would be comfortabletaking risks at work.VGS 9 (k) return to my old job and stay in that one job so that I became an expert in thatone area (r).CS 9 (1) seek out opportunities to do new things, with new people, in newenvironments.493APPENDIX SCROSS-CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSMENT CENTER BATTERYSCALES AND THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCALESMANAGEMENT PRACTICES SIMULATIONFROM THEPD IE RD SP CC IPS DC JR CS VGS FDE IVDMeasures of Cognitive AbilityWonderlic -02 06 03 -09 -01 -13 13 -12 -05 -09 01 -07Culture-Fair 00 16 12 -11 07 -16 09 -16 -15 -07 03 -11ConceptM -08 16 00 10 -00 -01 12 -26 -07 -11 08 -05Read\u00E2\u0080\u0099g Sp -03 20 11 -02 01 00 03 -06 04 02 08 05Read\u00E2\u0080\u0099gCmp -10 19 07 07 13 -11 -04 -25 -10 -02 14 -03Vocab -07 07 -00 -00 06 -02 03 -17 -02 -08 08 -01Writing -11 08 -02 04 06 02 07 -10 03 -01 07 03Fluency -06 05 03 09 05 03 -03 -09 -11 08 11 07Flexibility -12 28 18 -00 -01 10 05 -13 -08 05 08 09Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .05: .162; .01: .212;.005: .230; .001: .269. Correlations significant atp < .005 have been bolded.The column headings refer to the following MPS primary and secondary scales: PD:Persistent Dominance; IB: Impatient Expediency; RD: Rebellious Drive; SP: Self Promotion;CC: Confrontive Candor; IPS: Influence and Political Savvy; DC: Driven Commitment; IR:Immediate Responsiveness; CS: Collaboration and Support; VGS: Visibility and GrowthSeeking; EDE: Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD: Influence and Visible DriveThe row headings refer to the following measures of cognitive ability: Wonderlic: WonderlicPersonnel Test; Culture-Fair: Culture Fair Intelligence Test; ConceptM: Concept MasteryTest; Read\u00E2\u0080\u0099g Sp: Nelson-Denny Reading Speed; Read\u00E2\u0080\u0099g Cmp: Nelson-Denny ReadingComprehension; Vocab: Nelson-Denny Vocabulary; Writing: Flanagan Industrial TestsExpression; Fluency: Comprehensive Ability Battery (CAB) Ideational Fluency; Flexibility:CAB Spontaneous Flexibility.494APPENDIX S CONT.PD JR RD SP CC IPS DC JR CS VGS FDE IVDCalifornia Psychological Inventory ScalesDo 06 14 23 24 19 16 10 04 12 30 33 33Cs 09 25 21 12 00 12 12 -09 -07 11 23 14Sy 04 19 15 04 08 11 05 -03 01 18 15 17Sp 07 26 13 15 09 16 -02 -07 -07 20 23 19Sa 08 20 16 18 19 14 04 03 05 26 30 24Wb -11 -00 05 -15 -06 -00 -07 08 14 06 -11 12Re -00 -01 11 -07 -09 05 05 -01 16 14 02 18So 07 -15 -03 06 04 -02 06 05 -05 01 04 -01Sc -14 -27 -08 -27 -20 -10 01 12 12 05 -28 03To -07 07 11 -10 00 10 11 -06 01 18 02 20Gi 06 -11 15 -15 -06 02 -01 13 15 19 -06 19Cm 05 -17 -18 01 05 -08 08 01 17 03 01 05Ac -10 -17 -05 -02 -01 07 11 07 04 10 -04 16Ai -19 10 06 -11 -13 -10 07 -20 -11 -02 -08 -02le -09 25 17 -01 03 20 04 -02 -06 11 12 21Py 05 -04 20 -10 -12 00 08 -12 04 -01 -02 01Fx -09 19 12 -06 -25 02 11 -06 00 08 -08 09Fe -18 -21 -19 -06 -17 -11 -03 -08 12 -14 -18 -13An -06 -01 -03 02 -32 09 -08 06 01 00 -14 -01Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .05: .162; .01: .212;.005: .230; .001: .269. Correlations significant atp < .005 have been bolded.The column headings refer to the following MPS primary and secondary scales: PD:Persistent Dominance; IE: Impatient Expediency; RD: Rebellious Drive; SP: Self Promotion;CC: Confrontive Candor; IPS: Influence and Political Savvy; DC: Driven Commitment; IR:Immediate Responsiveness; CS: Collaboration and Support; VGS: Visibility and GrowthSeeking; FDE: Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD: Influence and Visible Drive.The row headings refer to the following CPI scales: Do: Dominance; Cs: Capacity for Status;Sy: Sociability; Sp: Social Presence; Sa: Self Acceptance; Wb: Well Being; Re:Responsibility; So: Socialization; Sc: Self Control; To: Tolerance; Gi: Good Impression; Cm:Communality; Ac: Achievement via Conformance; Ai: Achievement via Independence; Je:Intellectual Efficiency; Py: Psychological Mindedness; Fx: Flexibility; Fe: Femininity; An:Anxiety.495APPENDIX S CONT.PD IE RD SP CC IPS DC JR Cs VGS FDE IVD16 Personality Factor Questionnaire ScalesA -05 02 -03 11 03 14 09 -00 06 16 05 17B -07 05 01 -11 -04 -03 21 -03 -01 00 -01 -01C 03 -02 15 -17 07 -06 -04 12 -04 14 -02 07B 07 25 20 15 23 07 Q5 02 -01 12 29 10F 01 19 09 11 11 19 -02 11 02 27 15 22G 05 -26 -16 -02 08 -17 -01 -00 06 -15 -03 -14H 04 09 17 09 02 19 -02 08 07 31 12 26I 00 01 10 06 04 11 10 -01 01 07 08 10L 16 11 08 32 16 14 -04 -04 -02 -01 31 03M -04 24 24 -09 -03 -03 02 -04 -02 -04 06 01N -04 -13 -03 02 -07 10 09 06 03 -06 -03 -030 01 -02 -08 02 -08 -02 -02 07 -01 -12 -05 -11Qi 02 13 06 07 10 04 01 03 06 07 13 09Q2 -08 -09 12 -11 06 01 -03 03 08 -09 00 -05Q -15 -41 -22 -05 -00 00 -06 11 02 -04 -15 -07Q 07 -02 -07 04 -01 -05 -03 -09 -05 -18 01 -12Q 05 17 10 14 10 16 00 06 03 27 17 22Q 11 13 18 -03 04 02 -10 12 -01 07 09 02Q 03 28 29 09 21 10 02 00 03 12 28 13AA -01 12 11 -00 15 05 -00 10 03 26 10 15Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .05: .162; .01: .212;.005: .230; .001: .269. Correlations significant at p < .005 have been bolded.The column headings refer to the following criterion scales: PD: Persistent Dominance; IE:Impatient Expediency; RD: Rebellious Drive; SP: Self Promotion; CC: Confrontive Candor;IPS: Influence and Political Savvy; DC: Driven Commitment; IR: ImmediateResponsiveness; CS: Collaboration and Support; VGS: Visibility and Growth Seeking; FDE:Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD: Influence and Visible Drive.The row headings refer to the following 16PF scales (the meaning of high scores is listed):Factor A: outgoing; Factor B: bright; Factor C: emotionally stable; Factor B: assertive; FactorF: happy-go-lucky; Factor G: conscientiousness; Factor H: venturesome; Factor I: tenderminded; Factor L: suspicious; Factor M: imaginative; Factor N: astute; Factor 0:apprehensive; Factor Qi: experimenting; Factor Q2: self sufficient; Factor Q3: controlled;Factor Q4: tense; Factor Qi: extraversion; Factor Qjjj: tough poise; Factor Qvi:independence; Factor AA: adequacy of adjustment.496APPENDIX S CONT.PD IE RD SP CC IPS DC R Cs VGS FDE IVDPersonality Research Form ScalesAb -00 00 06 -20 -28 -01 09 -03 11 -08 -21 00Ac 12 -04 09 12 10 -11 15 15 -08 09 13 06Af -04 -06 -03 03 -07 06 04 07 09 22 -01 13Ag 23 06 -06 30 34 -00 06 -02 -16 -02 29 -07Au 12 26 25 02 11 17 13 14 02 09 19 17Ch 05 16 24 -07 02 20 09 26 23 32 05 37Cs -04 -40 -11 10 09 -01 00 11 -00 -05 00 -05De 17 -04 -17 29 18 -06 03 -04 -13 00 18 -08Do 10 07 14 12 15 12 19 26 15 36 18 34En -02 -10 06 -15 05 -07 04 04 09 09 -09 05Ex 05 14 16 25 12 17 09 04 05 24 27 18Ha 01 -29 -29 04 -03 -11 -11 -02 -05 -06 -08 -11Im 13 42 19 05 07 09 06 05 -12 03 17 08Nu -03 -05 -02 -03 -06 05 06 -06 16 10 -06 13Or 03 -32 -08 14 16 04 -12 19 05 07 07 03P1 02 15 13 03 07 25 04 07 -02 11 11 15Se -09 19 14 22 10 20 21 -00 15 19 20 29Sr -09 -10 -17 29 06 -07 02 -05 -01 -00 06 -08Su -14 -21 -18 07 -13 -10 03 -11 -03 -09 -12 -09Un -13 16 24 08 02 10 06 -02 -01 08 13 13Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .05: .162; .01: .212;.005: .230; .001: .269. Correlations significant atp < .005 have been bolded.The column headings refer to the following criterion scales: PD: Persistent Dominance; TE:Impatient Expediency; RD: Rebellious Drive; SP: Self Promotion; CC: Confrontive Candor;IPS: Influence and Political Savvy; DC: Driven Commitment; IR: linmediateResponsiveness; CS: Collaboration and Support; VGS: Visibility and Growth Seeking; FDE:Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD: Influence and Visible Drive.The row headings refer to the following PRF scales: Ab: Abasement; Ac: Achievement; Af:Affiliation; Ag: Aggression; Au: Autonomy; Ch: Change; Cs: Cognitive Structure; De:Defendence; Do: Dominance; En: Endurance; Ex: Exhibition; Ha: Harm Avoidance; Im:Impulsivity; Nu: Nurturance; Or: Order; P1: Play; Se: Sentience; Sr: Social Recognition; Su:Succorance; Un: Understanding.497APPENDIX S CONT.PD JE RD SP CC IPS DC IR Cs VGS FDE IVDJenkins Activity Survey ScalesType A 10 -04 07 34 22 08 20 26 -02 21 28 16Factor S 11 15 -07 17 19 -05 13 -00 -03 -08 16 -03FactorJ 03 09 14 25 15 13 02 -06 -03 21 26 23Factor H 01 -18 07 14 -00 08 23 13 11 17 08 14Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .05: .162; .01: .212;.005: .230; .001: .269. Correlations significant atp < .005 have been bolded.The column headings refer to the following criterion scales: PD: Persistent Dominance; IE:Impatient Expediency; RD: Rebellious Drive; SP: Self Promotion; CC: Confrontive Candor;IPS: Influence and Political Savvy; DC: Driven Commitment; IR: ImmediateResponsiveness; CS: Collaboration and Support; VGS: Visibility and Growth Seeking; FDE:Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD: Influence and Visible Drive.The row headings refer to the following JAS scales: Type A: Type A; Factor S: Speed andImpatience; Factor J: Job Involvement; Factor H: Hard Driving and Competitive.498APPENDIX S CONT.PD IE RD SP CC IPS DC IR Cs VGS FDE IVDTelephone Supervisor In-Basket ExerciseIB1 09 12 18 21 19 07 -01 09 -08 01 29 04182 05 04 25 18 22 09 07 04 -15 17 30 16183 15 -12 10 16 19 00 -04 -02 -15 09 20 04184 18 -01 04 21 25 -24 04 -29 -11 -11 24 -16185 -03 06 05 10 11 -05 -03 -23 -17 05 17 -02186 07 -07 08 19 18 -11 -10 -23 -11 -01 24 -08187 13 09 30 35 31 20 10 03 -07 23 47 22188 08 02 03 06 08 -11 -01 -13 -09 -04 12 -09Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .05: .233; .01: .304;.005: .332; .001: 383 for 181 to 187. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significancelevels: .05: .162; .01: .212; .005: .230; .001: .269. for 188. Correlations significant atp <.005 (two-tailed) for all variables have been bolded.499APPENDIX S CONT.PD IE RD SP CC IPS DC JR CS VGS FDE IVDRole Play Exercise DimensionsLead 08 13 13 20 15 15 26 12 -06 17 27 22Comm 05 09 05 18 14 12 20 14 -06 16 21 18Entre 07 10 09 13 04 -12 24 -09 -03 -04 12 -00Comit 02 10 08 13 08 10 26 12 -04 16 18 22Inter 05 07 07 19 18 16 19 14 -05 18 23 23PerSt 01 09 18 20 07 07 09 -09 -08 01 23 06In/Inn -03 08 10 09 11 13 20 04 -12 09 17 15Decis -02 -08 -04 06 03 -02 18 14 -03 05 07 07Concp -02 01 -02 11 07 09 10 05 -10 07 13 13Cntrl -03 -03 04 12 06 07 02 -02 -02 05 11 10Apprs -01 00 00 12 03 12 13 14 -02 15 10 19Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .05: .162; .01: .212;.005: .230; .001: .269 for Lead, Comm, Comit, Inter, In/Inn, Decis, Concp, Cntrl, and Apprs.Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .05: .233; .01: .304; .005:.332; .001: 383 for Entre and PerSt. Correlations significant at p < .005 (two-tailed) for allvariables have been bolded.The column headings refer to the following criterion scales: PD: Persistent Dominance; IE:Impatient Expediency; RD: Rebellious Drive; SP: Self Promotion; CC: Confrontive Candor;IPS: Influence and Political Savvy; DC: Driven Commitment; IR: ImmediateResponsiveness; CS: Collaboration and Support; VGS: Visibility and Growth Seeking; FDE:Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD: Influence and Visible Drive.The row headings refer to the following role-play scales: Lead: Leadership; Comm:Communication; Entre: Entrepreneurship; Comit: Commitment; Inter: Interpersonal; PerSt:Performance Stability; In/Inn: Initiative/Innovation; Decis: Decisiveness; Concp: Conceptualand Analytical; Cntrl: Control and Follow Up; Apprs: Appraisal and Development ofSubordinates.500APPENDIX S CONT.PD TB RD SP CC IPS DC JR Cs VGS FDE IVDStructured Interview DimensionsLead -04 16 15 22 04 19 18 20 03 18 22 23Comm -04 15 17 21 06 20 05 08 -03 15 23 21Entre -01 19 32 09 11 25 13 09 08 19 25 29Comit -04 15 17 16 05 20 13 11 07 20 19 26Inter -01 08 07 15 -07 16 16 13 08 08 09 15PerSt -06 12 22 20 10 20 -03 11 08 27 26 28In/Inn -02 22 20 08 -01 22 10 08 08 10 16 20Decis -16 11 13 11 04 11 08 02 01 05 16 11PlnOrg -01 04 14 17 09 26 -00 16 -01 22 22 28Cntrl 08 05 15 07 06 11 13 14 00 07 14 13Apprs 03 09 09 05 -01 13 23 13 11 15 07 23Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .05: .162; .01: .2 12;.005: .230; .001: .269. Correlations significant at p < .005 have been bolded.The column headings refer to the following criterion scales: PD: Persistent Dominance; IF:Impatient Expediency; RD: Rebellious Drive; SP: Self Promotion; CC: Confrontive Candor;PS: Influence and Political Savvy; DC: Driven Commitment; IR: ImmediateResponsiveness; CS: Collaboration and Support; VGS: Visibility and Growth Seeking; FDE:Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD: Influence and Visible Drive; 5CC: 5-ItemChampionship Criterion.The row headings refer to the following interview scales: Lead: Leadership; Comm:Communication; Entre: Entrepreneurship; Comit: Commitment; Inter: Interpersonal; PerSt:Performance Stability; In/Inn: Initiative/Innovation; Decis: Decisiveness; PinOr: Planning andOrganizing; Cntrl: Control and Follow Up; Apprs: Appraisal and Development ofSubordinates.501APPENDIX S CONT.PD IE RD SP CC IPS DC JR CS VGS FDE IVDScales From the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-Form IIROCI-ll-I -07 25 -18 -13 -09 -04 04 03 11 15 26 29ROCI-ll-O -20 -07 -25 -15 -15 03 03 07 15 08 -24 09ROCI-ll-D 04 25 05 17 15 08 02 -09 10 -01 21 09ROCI-ll-A -03 -01 -17 -02 -10 03 -06 -10 -05 -10 -14 -07ROCI-II-C -17 -11 -08 -11 -27 13 04 15 14 21 -20 17Note. Critical values for r for various (two-tailed) significance levels: .05: .162; .01: .212;.005: .230; .001: .269. Correlations significant at p < .005 have b\u00C3\u00B3en bolded.The column headings refer to the following criterion scales: PD: Persistent Dominance; IE:Impatient Expediency; RD: Rebellious Drive; SP: Self Promotion; CC: Confrontive Candor;IPS: Influence and Political Savvy; DC: Driven Commitment; IR: ImmediateResponsiveness; CS: Collaboration and Support; VGS: Visibility and Growth Seeking; FDE:Forceful Drive and Expediency; IVD: Influence and Visible Drive.The row headings refer to the following JAS scales: Type A: Type A; FactorS: Speed andImpatience; Factor J: Job Involvement; Factor H: Hard Driving and Competitive."@en . "Thesis/Dissertation"@en . "1995-05"@en . "10.14288/1.0088861"@en . "eng"@en . "Psychology"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en . "Graduate"@en . "The two faces of championship: an examination of the behavioral and individual-differences characteristics of the champion"@en . "Text"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/8821"@en .