DIAGNOSING GROUP CLIMATE TO IMPROVE SUPERVISORY EFFECTIVENESS Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 11, 1984 72 DIAGNOSING GROUP CLIMATE TO IMPROVE SUPERVISORY EFFECTIVENESS Peter D. Couch, Illinois State University Lee A. Graf, Illinois State University ABSTRACT In a multiple section introductory management course, students participate in weekly lab sessions conducted by undergraduate “lab section managers.” The Moos Group Environment Scale was used to measure student perceptions of ten characteristics of climate in their labs. The climate dimensions of leader supportiveness, group cohesiveness, order and organization, and task orientation correlated positively with an overall rating given to lab section managers by their lab members. As a result, lab managers now are given guidance on specific approaches to building positive climates in their labs. INTRODUCTION Climate has been defined as “a set of properties” of the work environment which are specific to a particular organization, that may be assessed by the way the organization deals with its employees and its societal and task environments” [1]. While a number of studies to identify climate properties have been conducted, the precise set of properties that make up climate has yet to be agreed upon [2]. This led Ivancevich, Szilagyi and Wallace to offer some general opinions about climate, the most important of which was that “if managers are to more fully understand the people with whom they work they must think about the climate properties that have the largest impact on performance” [1]. This paper reports the findings of one study on the relationship between climate dimensions and supervisory performance In 1979, the faculty in the introductory management course at a large midwestern university worked with several staff psychologists and counselors from the University Counseling Center on a project involving administration of the Moos “Group Environment Scale” [31. This instrument measures perceptions on ten dimensions of group climate or atmosphere. The joint project involved measuring climate perceptions in each of 25 student experiential labs, feeding back data about those perceptions to an experimental group of the lab managers, then comparing against a control group at the end of the semester to determine if the feedback treatment contributed to changes in climate perceptions. For approximately ten years, students in the introductory management class have learned through a lecture-laboratory approach. Lectures on typical management topics are supplemented by weekly labs using experiential activities and group projects. A relatively unique feature of the program is that the labs are conducted, under general faculty supervision, by undergraduate “Lab Section Managers” [4]. The LSM’s are carefully selected and given training weekly on how to carry out their responsibilities for administering exercises and leading discussions in the labs. Efforts are made to place the lab managers in supervisory roles, as opposed to the usual teaching- assistant role. This report seeks to (1) relate findings of the initial joint study on the impact of the feedback treatment on lab climate, (2) indicate the climate factors which correlated with measures of LSM effectiveness, and (3) outline ways in which group climate data are being used to help undergraduate students learn about supervising. THE FEEDBACK TREATMENT PROJECT During one semester, course faculty and Counseling Center staff members conducted an experiment to see if feedback to the lab managers about student perceptions of lab climates would lead to changes in behavior and thus to changes in climate perceptions. The Moos Group Environment Scale (GES) was given to over 400 students in 25 lab section. The GES assesses the social environment of various groups including task oriented groups. Measures on three broad dimensions (relationships, personal growth, and system maintenance and change) were divided into ten sub-scales: cohesion, leader support, expressiveness, independence, task orientation, self-discovery, anger and aggression, order and organization, leader control, and innovation. The instrument was administered five weeks into the semester and then at the end of the semester. Thirteen of the lab managers comprised an experimental group. The experimental group was given two group presentations about the climate study results in their labs after the first measurement. In addition, the experimental group went through individual feedback interviews about the results in their individual labs. It was hypothesized that this presentation and feedback process would stimulate the lab managers to modify their behavior in efforts to move their group’s climate to a more ideal level.’ However, analysis of variance showed that changes in the pre and post perceptions were not different for the experimental and control section managers, and thus, the feedback treatment had no effect. It was concluded that the feedback treatment was simply too brief, and was not supported by other training adequate to result in any significant new actions by the lab managers in the experimental group. In spite of the failure of the treatment to bring about changes in lab climate, the climate profiles generated by the GES were interesting. They permitted comparison of the climates considered desirable by the faculty with the actual perceptions of students in the various labs. Figure 1 illustrates that the “ideal” climate as perceived by faculty had a similar slope to that climate perceived by students in the experimental lab sections, even though there were differences in emphasis. Faculty desired to have labs with greater cohesion, encouragement of independent action by members, task orientation, and innovation within the groups than students perceived to be occurring. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 11, 1984 73 Upon reflection, it appeared that faculty expectations were somewhat too idealistic, given that the labs were relatively structured and that the short term duration of a course works against high levels of group cohesion. FIGURE 1 IDEAL CLIMATE AS PERCEIVED BY FACULTY COMPARED WITH ACTUAL CLIMATE AS PERCEIVED BY STUDENTS IN EXPERIMENTAL SECTIONS In its report, the Counseling Center staff made several observations [5]. Given the relatively structured, time limited nature of the groups, it may be unrealistic to expect changes on climate dimensions such as cohesion, self-discovery and innovation. Further, people in supervisory positions such as those of the lab section managers may incorrectly perceive the climate on characteristics such as leader supportiveness (perhaps most supervisors feel they are more supportive than their subordinates think they are.) Supervisors may need to learn that a price they pay for having to evaluate subordinates’ performance is that those subordinates develop more negative perceptions about their leader’s supportiveness and control, and are more willing to express personal anger and aggressiveness. These and other observations suggested to the program faculty the possible value of more extensive work with the lab section managers both on how to diagnose group climate and on specific actions which may influence climate. Also, because the lab section managers were evaluated on another instrument by their lab members, it became possible to analyze the climate existing in labs administered by the most highly rated people with climates in labs of the lower rated lab managers. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN LAB MANAGER EFFECTIVENESS AND CLIMATE At the end of each semester, students in the program evaluate various aspects of the course. Lab Section Managers are rated on the clarity with which they gave instructions and helped students understand the purposes of exercises, on their general degree of supportiveness, and in a global sense, on their overall job performance. By using the ratings of overall performance, it is possible to compare the various lab managers. Although most receive high ratings, the range of evaluations is adequate for distinguishing between the top and the lower individuals. To determine whether climates in the labs of top rated managers differ from the climates in other labs, rank order correlations between the LSM overall ratings and each of the ten climate dimensions were performed. As a second measurement, the climate dimension scores for the top rated labs (n of 11) were compared with the climate scores for the lower rated labs (n of 9).2 In both cases some significant differences in climates appeared. Figure 2 profiles the Group Environment Scale scores for the top and lower rated sections managers’ labs. 2Five middle-rated lab groups were omitted from the analysis. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 11, 1984 74 TABLE 1 MEAN SCORES ON GES, COMPARING TOP RATED MANAGERS’ LABS WITH LOWER RATED MANAGERS’ LABS Top Group Climate Scale (N 179) Lower Group (N 132) F Value 2-Tail Prob. T* Value 2-Tail Prob. 1. Cohesion 6.6034 5.2303 1.40 0.030 5.05 0.000 2. Leader Support 7.1989 6.4211 2.44 0.000 6.02 0.000 3. Expressiveness 5.4246 5.2105 1.35 0.054 0.94 0.349 4. Independence 6.1117 5.6316 1.14 0.415 2.39 0.018 5.0 Task Orientation 7.2905 6.1842 1.21 0.222 4.61 0.000 6. Self-Discovery 2.5698 2.171t 1.11 0.506 1.84 0.066 7. Anger & Aggression 2.7318 3.0461 t.48 0.012 -1.21 0.226 8. Order a Organization 7.0112 5.1237 1.46 0.016 5.01 0.000 9. Leader Control 5.7263 5.6842 1.04 0.797 0.20 0.840 10. Innovation 5.1620 4.5000 1.18 0.278 2.64 0.009 *Separate variance estimate Table 1 shows that there are significant differences between top and lower rated labs on several climate dimensions. The top labs clearly rated higher on cohesion, leader support, task orientation, and order and organization. Table 2 shows the Pearson Correlation Coefficients between the climate dimensions and the lab manager evaluations. TABLE 2 PEARSON RANK ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN GES SCORES ON EACH CLIMATE SCALE AND OVERALL LAB MANAGER EVALUATIONS (n = 25) Climate Scale r Level of Significance 1. Cohesion .6538 .000 2. Leader Support .7272 .000 3. Expressiveness .1823 .192 4. Independence .4021 .023 5. Task Orientation .5786 .001 6. Self-Discovery .2187 .147 7. Anger & Aggression -.1360 .258 8. Order & Organization .6449 .000 9. Leader Control .0512 .404 10. Innovation .4456 .013 Overall, in the labs in which the section managers were given the highest ratings, members perceived a relative high degree of cohesion, strong leader support, a fairly strong task orientation, and well organized and orderly activities. Correlation analysis only hints at causal relationships, of course. Nevertheless, in terms of leadership theory, it appears that the more effective lab section managers did relatively well on both task and group maintenance functions. Given the general inexperience of the students in the course, strong needs both for direction and for support probably exist, and the most effective LSMs helped people meet those needs better than did less effective LSMs. In a more advanced course, with more sophisticated students, somewhat different leader behaviors might be called for. On most of the other climate dimensions, differences between top and lower rated groups do not appear particularly meaningful. At first the similarity of all groups on the dimension of leader control was perplexing, since it might seem that more effective lab managers would be more in control. However, the GES items on leader control include statements such as: “The leader often tells members how to do things,” and “The leader usually decides what to do next.” The basic approach used in the lab program is one in which the lab managers are trained to administer exercises in a uniform way, following standard procedures generally. The lab managers simply do not have much latitude to alter the tasks and activities, and their own personal methods may not enter in very much. In fact, the degree of task structure imposed by faculty in the program may help account for uniformity on other climate dimensions, in that individual freedom of managers is somewhat restricted. Within the structured framework, some aspects of individual style still are possible, however. The more effective lab managers apparently do things which generate feelings of group unity, friendship and spirit. They show supportiveness to members by being encouraging, taking personal interest, helping out. They are well organized and communicate effectively about the goals and processes involved in lab activities. And, they help the group maintain a task orientation, possibly by showing the practicality and real world application of lab activities. USING THE CLIMATE STUDY FINDINGS In the experiential program, having a base of data drawn from prior semesters’ labs is useful in several ways. Faculty can use the data as criteria for evaluating attitudes in the course. Students in the basic course have meaningful information for discussing topics of climate and leadership. And, the lab section managers have starting points for personal goal setting and planning some of their supervisory actions. For the lab managers, what happens in their labs is real world. They move beyond reading about supervisory problems and leadership techniques and find themselves in situations where they get feedback about their own behavior. The availability of instruments for measuring climate perceptions, combined with opportunity to compare results against twenty or so very similar situations in other labs, provides unusual learning possibilities. There are realistic risks and frustrations, but the lab managers stand to learn considerable about their roles in influencing the climates of their groups. Further, they may improve their diagnostic skills since they have a conceptual model of the climate dimensions. They can sharpen their expectations and standards, and by focusing on the four key climate dimensions distinguishing superior performance, can learn relatively specific leadership skills. The general plan of action being followed in the program at present is to first provide newly appointed lab managers with general background on the group climate concept, then have them identify their personal “ideal” group climates using the Moos scale. Then as part of this process of clarifying expectations, data from the lab managers are compared against faculty target profiles and against the historical data about climates in the more effectively led labs. At this point the lab managers may choose to modify their objectives Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 11, 1984 75 and clarity possible developmental goals. Following this planning phase, over the course of several weeks sessions are held on how to build team cohesiveness, provide leader support, maintain task orientation and provide order and organization. Lab managers are asked to maintain personal journals and specifically are asked to record and analyze their efforts on each of the four key dimensions. Then, about three-fourths of the way through the semester, students in all the labs complete the Group Environment Scale. Results are made available to managers, who have the chance to evaluate their efforts and to identify future developmental needs. A final synthesizing report is required. CONCLUSION Using a measuring instrument such as the Moos Group Environment Scale serves as a means to a number of ends. Not only does it introduce students to the concept of group climate, but it allows for genuine involvement and feedback in the experiential program. The consistency between current leadership theory and the correlational findings about lab manager effectiveness is helpful. Overall, the experiential approach using climate measures appears to be of real value in helping students improve their personal supervisory and leadership skills. REFERENCES [1] Ivancevich, John M., Andrew D. Szilagyi, Jr., and Marc J. Wallace, Jr. , Organizational Behavior and Performance (Santa Monica: Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc. , 1977), p. 325. [2] See G.H. Litwin and R. Stringer, “The Influence of Organizational Climate on Human Motivation,” (Paper presented at conference on organizational climates, Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, Ann Arbor, Michigan, March 1966) and B. Schneider and C.J. Bartlett, “Individual Differences and Organizational Climate in the Research Plan and Questionnaire Development,” Personnel Psychology (1968), pp. 323-334; for more information concerning disagreement on properties that make up climate see Robert M. Guion, “A Note on Organizational Climate,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (February 1972), pp. 120-25, and R.E. Johanesson, “Some Problems in the Measurement of Organizational Climate,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (August 1973), pp. 188-44). [3] Moos, Rudolf H., and Barrie Humphrey, Group Environment Scale (Form A) (Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.), 1974. [4] For more detail on this experiential approach in management education see Lee A. Graf and Peter D. Couch, “A Learning Through Managing Program,” Experiential Learning Enters the 80’s (Daniel C. Brenenstuhl and William D. Biggs, Editors), (Dallas: The Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 1980), pp. 29-31; and Peter D. Couch and Lee A. Graf, “In Support of Experiential Learning: Results of a Follow-Up Survey,” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises (William D. Biggs and David J. Fritzsche, Editors), (Orlando: The Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference or the Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 1981), pp. 255-59. [5] Berger, Robert J., Donald Cochran, Robert Conyne, and Lynn Rapin, “A Report of Research on Various Perceptions of Student Led Labs,” (Chicago: Unpublished Paper, July 1979). (Mimeographed.) Table of Contents Volume 11, 1984 Simulation Gaming as a Means of Researching Substantive Issues: Another Look A Further Test of the Group Formation and its Impacts in a Simulated Business Environment Impact of Economic Patterns on Student Performance in Computer Business Simulation Games Majority Fallacy Game with Independent Student Simulation and a Case Introducing the Marketing Channel Laboratory A Comparative Evaluation of a Marketing Game A Study of Comparative Effectiveness of Problem-Solving Technologies The Impact of Hierarchical and Egalitarian Organization Structure on Group Decision Making and Attitudes Risk-Free Decision Making The EX-STRA Export Strategy Game Computer Education for Management Students Developing a Computer Game/Job Simulation to Teach Functional Literacy Skills Experiencing Socialization First Hand: An Experiential Exercise in Organizational Socialization Networking Distributive Versus Integrative Approaches to Negotiation: Experiential learning Through a Negotiation Simulation Managerial Education and the Real World: Foudations for Designing Educational Tools Diagnosing Group Climate to Improve Supervisory Effectiveness Student background as a Factor in Simulation Outcomes: The Collective bargaining Example The Use of Pre-Plays in Management Education Experiencing the Process Debrief: A Workshop ABSEL Megatrend Roots MEGATRENDS for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning The Effects and Consequences of the Megatrends on Simulation Gaming: One View Opportunities for the Future: ABSEL's Role Experiential Learning-Based Discussion vs. Lecture Based Discussion: A Comparative Analysis in a Classroom Setting An Evaluation of the Minitab Package in Teaching Business Statistics Concepts A Path Analytic Study of the Effects of Alternative Pedagogies Developing and Using Weighted Application Blanks: An Experiential Exercise Building Airplanes Individual vs. Group Grade: An Exercise in Decision making A Marketing Plan Exercise: Development of Interteam Cooperation Using a Coordinated Experiential Approach Using Student Experience as the Basis for a Consumer Behavior Learning Exercise Student Evaluations of Instructors: What do Students Believe? A Description of the SOFTCAT Computer Assisted Teaching System Comparisons of Practitioners' and Professors' Perceptions of Business Policy Content and Learning Methods The Perceived Relationship Between Pedagogies and Attaining Course Objectives in the Business Policy Course The Use of Simulation in the Teaching of Business Policy A Research Study on Strategic Decisions in a Business Simulation Strategic Management Decision Making Researched Via Simulation Gaming Using Simulation to Investigate Factors in Competitive Bidding Combining Experiential Learning and management Assistance A Model for Teaching Management Skills Putting Experience Back into Experiential Learning: A Demonstration The Teaching and Behavioral Measurement of Managerial/Organizational Competencies: Developing Experiential Exercises and Simulations A Simulation Game Model for Conglomerates QCLAB - A Microcomputer Laboratory in Quality Control CTSS: A Commodity Trading Simulation System Problem Solving: An Exercise on Learning, Coaching, and Operant Conditioning A Demonstration of the Effects of Feedback as a Category of Reinforcement The Assessment of Feedback and Disclosure in Interpersonal Relations: An Experiential Exercise A Study to Determine Whether the Teaching of Basic Grammar Skills in Business Communication Classes Improves Students' Business Letter Writing Corporate Maladies Through the Eyes of the Memo Writer: A Seldom Used Experiential Tool Executive Bailout at Shake & Spear, Inc. The H.E./L&P Merger Intercultural Nonverbal Communications: An Experiential Exercise The Evolving Business Policies Course - Is Management Gaming the Logical Pedagogy? The Use of Decision Simulations in Management Training Programs: Current Perspectives Humanizing the Business of Medicine: The Use of Simulated Patients to Train medical Students Systematic Integration of Simulation Methods in a Graduate Management Curriculum Modeling Non-Price Factors in the Demand Functions of Computerized Business Using Spacial Relationships to Estimate Demand in Business Simulations Two Algorithms For Redistribution Of Stockouts In Computerized Business Simulations Leadership And Strategic Behavior A Comparison Of Two Business Strategy Simulations For Microcomputers Incorporating Decision Support Systems Into Management Simulation Games: A Model And Methodology Using Micro-Computers To Support The Analysis Of Complex Cases: It's As Easy As 1-2-3 Strategic Formulation Consistent With Pims: A Micro-Computer Application