ASSESING THE EFFECTS OF ‘PERSONAL EFFECTIVENESS’ TRAINING ON PSYCAP, ASSERTIVENESS, AND SELF-AWARENESS USING THE SELF-OTHER AGREEMENT Faculty Social Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands Thesis Supervisor: Dr. E. Demerouti (Eva) Student: E. van Eeuwijk (Erik) Student Number: 0412570 Date: 30-06-2009 Summary:
The shift in sustained competitive advantage literature towards people has increased the need to assess the effects of training programs that contribute to human, and psychological capital. This study examines these effects of a ‘personal effectiveness’ training on both assertiveness and PsyCap that were monitored before and after the training (using 36 participants). In addition to self-ratings, other-ratings were assembled to explore two ways in which they can contribute to the monitoring of intervention effects. 1) To verify self-reported results, and 2) to predict participants performance through the use of self-other agreement. Overall, rater and ratee scores showed a similar increase on assertiveness and most components of PsyCap. Self-other agreement measures showed an increase in agreement for assertiveness and PsyCap after the training. Lastly, the type of relationship between rater and ratee appeared to have significant influence on the consistency between raters, such that agreement was higher for couples than colleagues, supervisors or friends.
2
Samenvatting:
De verschuiving binnen de ‘langdurig competitief voordeel’ literatuur naar mensen heeft ervoor gezorgd dat er meer behoefte is om effecten van trainingen te meten die iets toevoegen aan psychologisch kapitaal. Deze studie bekijkt deze effecten voor een ‘persoonlijke effectiviteit’ training op assertiviteit en psychologisch kapitaal, zowel voor als aan het einde van de training (met behulp van een steekproef van 36 mensen). Naast zelfgerapporteerde scores (self-ratings) zijn er ook scores gerapporteerd door kennissen (other-ratings) verzameld. Dit om 1) de zelfgerapporteerde resultaten te kunnen verifiëren, en 2) om de prestatie van participanten te voorspellen via de ‘zelf-ander overeenkomst’ (self-other agreement). Beide scores gaven eenzelfde stijging aan op assertiviteit en op de meeste componenten van PsyCap. Ook zelf-ander overeenkomst scores stegen na de training. Tot slot bleek de relatie tussen participant en kennis een significante invloed te hebben op de consistentie tussen beoordelaars: partners hadden meer overeenkomst met de participanten dan collega’s, leidinggevenden, of vrienden.
3
Introduction Sustained competitive advantage used to be all about technology, patents, and strategic position. However, the increase of technological innovations and an unstable organisational environment have changed the basis for competitive success towards employees and how they are managed (Pfeffer in Henry & Mayle, 2002; Luthans & Youssef, 2004). These factors continuously alter the nature of work tasks, requiring employees to learn additional skills and knowledge in order to perform their tasks effectively. Training programs are an important way to cope with these changes (Goldstein and Gilliam, 1990). They play a critical role in improving workers’ adaptability and flexibility. Because of this heightened focus on people, and the increasing complex nature of their tasks, there has been a larger demand to measure the effects of training programs that aim to contribute to sustained competitive advantage. This study will try and asses those effects for a ‘personal effectiveness’ training. First, we will rely on self-reported measures both before and after the training to monitor the training’s effectiveness. Second, we will compare the self-reported measures of the participants with other-ratings reported by acquaintances of the participants. By doing this we will explore two ways in which other-ratings can contribute to monitor intervention effects. First, it serves as verification of the selfreported measure. Second, it will provide additional information about the individual performance of participants through the use of self-other agreement, which is an operationalization of self-awareness.
The training’s contribution to sustained competitive advantage Training is an important way to help employees to cope with faster changing environments. It is a way to try and create a lasting change among participants that increase their individual performance. Those increases in individual performance should also translate to better organisational achievements. The training object of this study tries to make individual changes at three different levels. 1) At the level of cognitions, 2) at the level of behaviour, and 3) at the level of emotion and tension control (Zwaan, Burik, & Janssen, 2005).
4
To achieve the first goal, the training relies on Rational-emotive Therapy (RET). RET also plays an important role to accomplish the second goal, next to two other methods: the realisation of body tension and by teaching ways to reduce these tensions. The third goal finds its way in the training through the offering of several models (vicarious learning), as well as goal setting (stepping), sharing, shaping, and positive feedback to enforce new behaviour. Because Rational Emotive Therapy lies at the basis of the training, we will describe it in more detail. It is a psychotherapeutic approach based on six philosophical principles (Walen, DiGiuseppe & Dryden, 1992). 1) The most fundamental principle is that cognitions determine human emotions: we feel what we think. 2) Dysfunctional thinking is a very important determinant for emotional suffering. 3) Analysing thoughts is the first step towards reducing emotional problems. 4) Several factors, including genetic and contextual factors are the cause of dysfunctional thinking. 5) Although dysfunctional thinking might have originated in the past, it is sustained by present influences of behaviour. Therefore RET focuses on what makes people cling onto certain ways of dysfunctional thinking. 6) Thoughts and notions can be altered, thought it might not always go naturally. By focussing on these principles, RET is designed to create change on three levels: thoughts (cognitions), feelings, and behaviour. RET has been proven to reduce dysfunctional thoughts, stress, and to make people more assertive (e.g. Lyons & Woods, 1990; Kushnir & Malkinson, 1993). Individuals feel that they are more in control of their positive outcomes, that they have more influence over their behaviour, have higher confidence levels and less feelings of hopelessness (Chung, Preveza, Papandreous, 2006).
Luthans argues that training can only contribute to sustained competitive advantage of an organisation if the individual changes it causes meet four conditions. They should be 1) unique, 2) cumulative, 3) long-term oriented, and 4) interconnected, (Luthans & Youssef, 2004). This particular training meets at least three of these conditions. The training is 1) unique, because is helps to create positive psychological changes within the individual that are specific for that individual; 2) cumulative, because individuals can continue to work on their goals themselves; and 3) long-term oriented, because RET strives to change dysfunctional cognitions into more effective ones, and enforces
5
these new cognitions as well as their corresponding behaviours. The training also tries to increase a number of competencies that contribute to the participants’ effectiveness on the long run. However, the training does not fully qualify for the interconnectivity condition, since it was offered by an external training company. Only if several employees of the same organisation experience the same training, its teachings can truly become interconnected within that organisation. The training focuses more on creating positive changes within individuals to boost their performance, instead of creating sustained competitive advantages for an entire organisation. The goal of this study is to measure these positive psychological changes that are likely to increase individual performance.
The effects of the training
PsyCap as operationalization of sustained positive psychological change To measure the extent to which the training causes positive changes within participants, we use the work of Luthans and colleagues (Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2004; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007; Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007). Based on the ‘Positive Organisation Behavior’ (POB) movement, Luthans created a construct to measure sustained competitive advantage within an individual, as an addition to the already existing human capital and social capital constructs. Labelled as Positive Psychological Capital (PsyCap), it measures positive psychological aspects of an individual. It focuses on the strengths rather than the weaknesses (Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2004). It consists of four components: self-efficacy, resilience, hope and optimism. Self Efficacy is defined as “one’s confidence in his or her ability to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action within a given context” (Luthans & Youssef, 2004). Self efficacy is based on the theory and research of Bandura (e.g. Bandura, 1997, 2000, 2007; Bandura & Locke 2003) and can be increased by studying a relevant model (vicarious learning), by social persuasion, positive feedback and psychological arousal (Bandura, 1997, 2007; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007).
6
Resilience is defined as “the capacity to bounce back from adversity, uncertainty, failure, or even positive but seemingly overwhelming changes such as increased responsibility” (Luthans & Youssef, 2004, p 153). It is based on work in developmental and clinical areas (e.g. Masten 2001; Masten & Reed, 2002). It is best increased by “reducing the risks and stressors that can increase the probability of undesired outcomes” (Risk-focus strategy), by emphasizing and enhancing “resources that increase the probability of positive outcomes despite the presence of risks” (assetfocused strategies), and by mobilizing “the power of the adaptation system necessary for the utilization of one’s inventory of assets to manage emerging risk factors” (Luthans & Youssef, 2004, p 156). Hope is explained as “being a motivational state that is based on the interaction between three factors: goals, agency and pathways. People are driven to accomplish their goals by their sense of agency, which provides them with an internalized determination and willpower to invest the energy necessary to achieve their goals” (Luthans & Youssef, 2004, p 153). The construct is based on the work of positive psychologist Snyder (e.g. Snyder, 2000). In order to increase hope, goals must be clearly formulated or even broken up in sub-goals to make them more feasible (stepping) (Snyder, 2000). Optimism “involves a positive explanatory style that attributes positive events to internal, permanent, and pervasive causes, and negative events to external, temporary, and situation-specific ones” (Luthans & Youssef, 2004, p 153). The concept is based on the work of Seligman (e.g. Seligman 1998). Because optimistic people attribute favourable events in their lives to themselves, they experience higher self esteem and morale. Optimism can be increased by learning to accept the past, appreciating the present, and viewing the future as a source of opportunity (Schneider, 2001). Luthans’ study shows that each of these components has a significant positive relationship with performance and satisfaction, and it is also likely that PsyCap as a higher order core construct provides a better prediction of performance and satisfaction than the four individual factors (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). They also argue that PsyCap has a large input into who you are, what you believe you can do, and who you can become. There are several reasons why we chose to use PsyCap. First, the training implements similar methods to those that Luthans (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio,
7
2007) argues to increase PsyCap: mastery and successful experiences, stepping, vicarious learning, and social persuasion/positive feedback. Second, an objective of the training was to improve several participants’ competencies: assertiveness, confrontation, risk taking, self-efficacy, autonomy, dominance, resilience, and selfmanagement (Zwaan, Burik, & Janssen, 2005). Two of these constructs are also a part of PsyCap. Third, there is a decent body of empirical research that supports the predicting value of the construct on personal performance (e.g. Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007; Avey, Luthans, & Wernsing, 2008; Zhong, 2007; Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Li, 2005). Fourth, the constructs provide a measure of positive psychological change, well suited for the purpose of this study. And fifth, PsyCap’s components meet the POB requirements, making them a good tool to describe changes over time through training. These requirements not only ensure that PsyCap has positive psychological background, a scientific theoretical basis and valid means measurement. They also ensure that its components are related to performance, and that they are state-like. State-like constructs can be developed (e.g. trained) over time, as opposed to trait-like constructs, which tend to be more stable over time. This statelike property of the PsyCap constructs has been confirmed in previous study, showing that PsyCap can indeed be enhanced through training (Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008). These characteristics make PsyCap especially interesting for the purpose of this study, which is: assessing the positive psychological changes of the training on participants. This leads us to expect the following:
Hypothesis 1a: Participants self-reported levels of PsyCap are significantly increased after the training (t=2) as opposed to their level prior to the training (t=1).
By answering this hypothesis, we will also answer the call made by Avey et al. (2008) to conduct longitudinal research concerning psychological capital. These authors also mention that PsyCap could be used to monitor intervention effects, which corresponds to the use of PsyCap in this study.
8
In addition to the components of PsyCap, we are also interested in the development of the training’s most prominent competency: assertiveness. During the training assertiveness has been described as the capacity to state one’s needs or wishes clearly, with respect for oneself and the other person in the interaction. As stated earlier, assertiveness has been proved to be increased by RET methods of training in earlier studies (e.g. Lyons & Woods, 1990; Kushnir & Malkinson, 1993). It is therefore probable that participants of the training will report an increase of their assertiveness. Effects of the training on PsyCap and assertiveness have been demonstrated previously during the training (Snelder, 2008). This study will expand on the findings of Snelder (2008) by assessing the effects of the training after the training, as opposed to during the training.
Hypothesis 1b: Participants self reported levels of assertiveness are significantly increased after the training (t=2) as opposed to their level prior to the training (t=1).
The implications of other-ratings Although self-reported measures give us some indication of the effects of a training, it is a not a very objective method. Several studies have found that people cannot analyze themselves objectively enough to give accurate information (e.g. DeNisi & Shaw, 1977; Levine, Flory, & Ash, 1977). The human ability to self-report is subject to numerous factors that can influence the accuracy of the measurement. Examples of this are intelligence, high achievement status, and internal locus of control (Mabe & West, 1982); and the self-enhancement bias (Paulhaus, 1986; Sackheim, 1983; Taylor & Brown, 1988; Mabe & West, 1982; Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988). Because of the fluctuating accuracy of self-ratings, we will use ratings provided by acquaintances as a secondary indication of the effects of the training. The changes the training will be much greater if they would not only be noticeable for the participants, but also to the acquaintances of the participants. We assume that acquaintances will perceive any significant change in either assertiveness or PsyCap, because there are specific behaviours associated with them. Assertiveness actually is defined as behaviour: to clearly state your opinion with
9
respect to those of others. Self efficacy is reflected in the confidence to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed in challenging task; optimism involves making positive attributions about succeeding now and in the future; hope is reflected into the perseverance towards goals; and resilience can be seen when people sustain through and even bounce back problems to attain success (Luthans et al., 2007). Using acquaintances (ratees) as a source of information for participants (raters) has been widely applied in the form of 360 feedback to provide more information about the performance of managers (e.g. Fleenor, McCaulet, & Brutus, 1996; Heidemeier & Moser, 2009). Ratings provided by acquaintances, ranging from friends and partner, to peer colleagues and supervisors of the participants, are known as other-ratings (as opposed to self-ratings, which are reported by the participants). Therefore we have asked acquaintances of participants of the training to score the participants on PsyCap and assertiveness both before and after the training. When their scores show a similar effect as the self-ratings over time, that effect will be made more plausible.
Hypothesis 2: The levels of assertiveness and PsyCap as reported by acquaintances will be significantly higher after the training (t=2) as opposed to their level prior to the training (t=1).
It is important to note that the other-ratings are subject to biases as well. For example: the accuracy of the other rater increases when the rater-ratee relationship lasts longer (e.g. Kenny 1991; 1994; Biezanz et al., 2007); biographic (e.g., age, race, gender) and contextual factors (e.g., span of control, functional area) are the cause of some of the variance in the self-other (Ostroff et al. 2004); the type of relationship between rater and ratee makes a big difference on the accuracy of the other-ratings (Watson et al., 2000); and other-ratings are also influenced by the process in which the other rating is constructed (Heidemeier and Moser, 2009). Because both self-ratings (hypothesis 1) and other-ratings (hypothesis 2) are influenced by many of factors, we will look at both measures to monitor the effects of the training. Together they will provide a more reliable measure. It’s also important to realize that although the variance of each score at each measurement will be subject to many factors, the difference scores should be relatively unaffected from these biases. The factors influencing the ratings will be in effect at both measurements, cancelling
10
each other out. This makes the difference scores between conditions the most interesting for monitoring intervention effects.
The positive implications of self-other agreement In addition to comparing the difference scores of raters and ratees between conditions, we will also make use of the self-other agreement. It is the amount of agreement between rater and ratee on a given moment. Several studies have shown that the a large self-other agreement has positive implications for the target’s performance and other individual outcomes (e.g. McCaulley & Lombardo, 1990; McCall & Lombardo, 1983; Bass & Yammarino, 1991; Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, & Fleenor, 1998). There have been several theoretical explanations for this connection. First, control theory links the self-other agreement to self-awareness and completing personal goals. Carver & Scheier (1981) explain that individuals are continuously matching their behaviour to their goals or standards. The higher a person’s selfawareness, the better he will succeed in this regard. In organizations, those goals or standards could be changing the perceptions others have of the individual. For example, a starting employee might want to change the bad impressions peers have about his professional skills. In this situation his amount of self-awareness and his ability to accomplish his goal (i.e. reducing the discrepancy between his own and his peers’ perception) will be reflected in the amount of agreement between perceptions. Control theory therefore emphasizes the importance self-awareness for achieving personal goals, through which it predicts personal performance. It also explains why the agreement between raters and ratees is widely used to operationalize selfawareness (e.g. Berson & Sosik, 2007). Second, other theorists suggest that a high agreement between self- and otherratings is preferable for team communication (e.g. Atwater et. al., 2005; Chesser, 1981; Fletcher, 1997; Megerian & Sosik, 1996). Most notably, Atwater and colleagues (2005) highlight the influence of self-perception on the selfregulation process. When self-ratings are higher than other-ratings it could lead to ignoring criticism, discounting failure, and eventually with poorer performance. Fletcher (1997) has a similar line of thought: when self-perceptions differ from those of others “it is difficult to see how one can manage work relationships successfully, contribute
11
well as a team member and adapt one’s behaviour to circumstances and individuals” (p. 186).
Yammarino and Atwater (1996) have created the ‘self-other agreement’ model to describe the effects of agreement on individual performance in more detail. The model presents four possible outcomes of a self-other analysis based on two axes: 1) the height of the self- and other-ratings, and 2) the agreement between self- and otherratings. When both self-ratings and other-ratings are high, the feedback is considered ‘in agreement: good’. The performance of the participant will be high, and his or her need for development will be low. When self-ratings are high but other-ratings are low, the participant is labeled an ‘over estimator’. Participant’s performance will be very negative and his need for development will be high. When self-ratings are in agreement with other-ratings but are low, participants are put into the ‘in agreement: poor’ category. Their performance will also be negative and need for development high. Lastly, when other-ratings are high, but self-ratings are low, the participant will be labeled ‘underestimator’. His performance will be mixed and his development needs will be moderate. When applying Yammarino and Atwater’s (1996) model to training situations, we argue that the goal of a training should be the following: to increase participant’s skills and remove discrepancies between how the level of those skills is viewed by the participants and acquaintances as much as possible, therefore putting the participants into the ‘in agreement: good’, category. People in this category tend to be the best performing employees (Yammarino and Atwater, 1996).
We have several reasons to expect an increase of self-awareness, and thus an increase in the self-other agreement due to the training, placing more participants in the ‘in agreement: good’ category. 1) the training tries to change cognitions, emotions and behaviour. To achieve this, they must first be made explicit, forcing participants to become aware of their competencies, enhancing self-awareness. 2) The training relies on stepping, increasing the awareness of personal goals and whether or not they are achieved, encouraging the process described by control theory. 3) The training constantly uses positive feedback, which is a direct form of acquiring information on how others perceive the individual.
12
Hypothesis 3: there is more agreement between raters and ratees on time 2 than on time 1.
To measure the agreement, we turn to the work of LeBreton and colleagues (LeBreton et al. 2003; LeBreton and Senter, 2008). They distinguish two different ways to measure agreement between ratings. 1) Inter Rater Reliability (IRR) is an indication of the relative consistency between raters and has been named as an interrater reliability coefficient. It shows the extent to which two or more raters rank order multiple targets in a consistent manner. However, LeBreton and colleagues (2003) note that it is possible that IRR scores are high, while the raters’ scores aren’t similar at all, because IRR is affected by the level of between-target variance. Therefore, they suggest the use of a second agreement measure that does not have this restriction. They believe a measure well suited for this purpose is (2) the Inter Rater Agreement (IRA), which displays the absolute consensus between raters. It examines the extent that raters assign the same (or very similar) values on the rating scale. This form of rating similarity emphasizes the consensus or agreement among the raters (it shows whether raters actually agree with each other). IRA therefore is a better way to operationalize the increase of self-awareness. For this study we will use both types of measurement. To measure IRR we will asses use Pearson’s r correlation between rater and ratee scores. To measure IRA we will turn to the rWG indice as proposed by James et al. (1984). This divides hypothesis 3 into 2 sub-hypotheses. Hypothesis 3a concerns the IRR measure, and hypothesis 3b covers the measurement of IRA.
Hypothesis 3a: Self and other-ratings are more consistent on time 2 than on time 1: Pearson’s r correlations are higher on time 2 than on time 1
Hypothesis 3b: there is more absolute consensus between raters and ratees on time 2 than on time 1: the rWG indice shows stronger effects on time 2 than on time one.
Other implications of self-other agreement Before we continue we would like to highlight several concerns that have been made clear by other theorists when using the self-other agreement. First, many theorists have accumulated evidence for negative consequences when sharing discrepancies
13
between self- and other-ratings with participants (Heidemeier and Moser, 2009; Brett & Atwater, 2001; Farh, Werbel, & Bedeian, 1988; Halperin, Snyder, Shekel, & Houston, 1976; Wohlers, Hall, & London, 1993). However, in this study we use these results were mainly used for the purpose of measuring intervention effects. Second, it is important to note that most of the studies supporting the effect between self-other agreement and performance have been conducted in the United States. There has also been some indication that the implications the self- other agreement has on performance are less pronounced in European countries (Atwater et. al., 2005). We believe that further research is necessary to fully understand these possible differences between Europe and the United States. Until such research findings become more conclusive, we assume that the results found in American studies can still be generalised to other western countries.
The influence of the relationship between rater and ratee Lastly, we are interested in the influence the relationship between rater and ratee has on the self-other agreement, also known as the acquaintance effect. As stated before, Watson, Hubbard and Wiese (2000) found that the type of relationship between rater and ratee has a significant influence on the accuracy of the other-ratings. They found large differences between married couples (.46), and dating couples (.33) or friendship dyads (.30) when rating personality traits. They also note that the impact the ‘acquaintanceship effect’ depends on the visibility of the dimensions which are rated. Therefore we are interested to the extent the type of relationship will influence the self-other agreement on state-like properties, such as assertiveness and PsyCap. Since assertiveness and the components of PsyCap are dimensions that are relatively easy to perceive, because of the behaviour associated with them, we expect similar differences between groups to those found by Watson, Hubbard and Wiese (2000). Our study will cover 4 different ratee groups: partners, supervisors, colleagues, and friends. In line with the results of Watson, Hubbard and Wiese (2000), we believe the partner group will show a high correlation, since the intimacy such a relationship implies. Supervisor and colleague scores would show moderate correlations with selfratings, since they would know the participants better in regard to their work related competencies. Friend-ratings would show the weakest correlation with self-ratings, since friends have less chance to have work-related knowledge about participants.
14
Hypothesis 4: Correlations between rater and ratee measures are influenced by the type of relationship between the rater and ratee: correlations between self- and other-ratings will be highest when the acquaintance is a partner, will be moderate for colleagues and supervisors, and lowest for friends.
Method Participants Participants of this study were all enrolled in the ‘personal effectiveness’ training provided by the external training bureau ‘Schouten en Nelissen’. Originally, 190 people, participating in 20 different training groups starting between May 6 and June 18 of 2008, were contacted to participate in the current study. From these, 19 people were unable to participate in the study due to a difficulty with the questionnaires or because of a faulty registered email address. This reduces the potential participant group down to 171. 131 People completed the initial questionnaire (76.6 %), and 83 participants provided measurements from at least one other-rater (49%). However, four of the participants who provided other-ratings did not provide self-ratings. Between time 1, prior to the training (t1) and time 2, shortly after the training (t2), another 6 people were removed from the mailing list because they refused to continue with the study or the training. This reduces the potential participant group down to 165. At time 2, 75 participants responded to the questionnaire. However, 7 entries were removed either because participants filled in the questionnaire multiple times, or because more than half of the questions were not answered. This left 68 participants who successfully answered the questionnaire (41%), and 46 participants provided measurements from at least one other-rating (28%). From these, a total of 36 participants (22%) fully answered the questionnaire at both time 1 and 2, and provided ratings from one or more acquaintances at both time 1 and 2. This sample was used to answer hypotheses 1, 2 and 3. It consisted of 19 men (53%) and 17 woman (47%). The average age was 34.58 (SD=7.01; reach 22-50). 75% Successfully finished a higher vocational education or university education. The amount of ratees for each of these 36 participants fluctuated. Some participants had only 1 other rater, while others had up to 5. As a result a modification of the data was necessary to
15
perform the analysis concerning the ratees in this sample. For all participants who had more than 1 other rater, the other-ratings were combined into a mean score for each item in the questionnaire. However, the fact that so many people dropped out of the main sample, a drop out analysis was executed. All participants who provided self-ratings at time 1 were split into 2 groups: those who had provided information for all times, and those who had not. A one-way ANOVA was used to test if the differences between groups were significant on all variables. However, scores did not differ significantly between groups for most variables (Assertiveness: F (1, 129) = .44, p = .508; self-efficacy: F (1, 129) = .12, p = .725; Resilience: F (1, 129) = .06, p = .816; Hope: F (1, 129) = 1.03, p = .313; PsyCap: F (1, 129) = 1.11, p = .293). Only the scores on optimism showed a significant difference (optimism: F (1, 129) = 4.98, p = .027). This means that results from the sample of 36 participants should be representative for all participants, except for the scores on optimism.
For hypothesis 4, two different samples were used. The first sample consisted of all participants who provided data on time 1 for both self- and other-ratings. This group consisted of 202 ratees providing ratings for 80 participants. From these participants 46 were men (58%) and 34 were woman (43%). The average age was 34.80 (SD=7.29; reach 22-54). 58% Successfully finished a higher vocational education or university education. The second sample consisted of all participants who provided data on time 2 for both self- and other-ratings. This group was considerably smaller, with 93 ratees providing ratings for 46 participants. 21 Were men (46%) and 25 were woman (54%). The average age was 36.41 (SD=7.60; reach 22-51).
Procedure For this study, measurements were taken at two different times. Once before the first segment of the training, and once around the last week of the training, in which participants looked back at the entire training program and were not introduced to any new insights. Two weeks before the start of the training participants received a letter signed by the adjunct-director, which can be viewed in appendix A. In this letter the entire procedure of the study is explained, while also addressing the security of the data and asking participants of the training to volunteer for our study. When
16
participants did volunteer, they were sent an email reminding them of the study, and containing an internet link which redirected the participants to an electronic questionnaire. They were also asked to send a similar internet link to at least one acquaintance. Because of this, the participants themselves were responsible for the recruitment of the ratees. It is important to note that because ratees remained anonymous throughout the study, it is possible that ratees on time 1 are different than those on time 2.
Instruments
Self-Ratings Assertiveness: The scale, translated as the ‘list assertive behaviour’ (Lijst Assertief Gedrag) is based on clusters of behaviours that are assumed to represent assertiveness by the plan of action used in the training (Zwaan, Burik, & Janssen, 2005). The scale features 15 items and covers five clusters of behaviours: giving feedback (e.g. “I have told someone that I do not feel comfortable about his/her behaviour”), relaxation (e.g. “I have created a moment of relaxation when I felt the need for it”), defending a position (e.g. “I have given my opinion during a conversation or meeting”), applying principles of RET on the self (e.g. “I have gained insight in the reason why I get upset in certain situations”), and posing your own limits (e.g. “I have indicated that I need more time to finish a certain task”). With each of these items, participants were asked to portray how often one had shown such behaviours in the past four weeks on a scale from one to five, ranging from ‘never’, to ‘every day’. The intern consistency was proven to be more than adequate (T1 Cronbach’s α = .81; T2 Cronbach’s α = .86). Self-efficacy: Measured by a shortened version of the ‘General Self-Efficacy Scale’ (e.g. Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1986) of four items instead of ten (e.g. “Whatever happens, I will get out of it”). The scale has been previously used by Xanthopoulou (2007) and relies on a 5 point Likert scale; ranging from 1) “does not apply” to 5) “applies strongly”. T1 Cronbach’s α = .81; T2 Cronbach’s α = .76. Resilience: an ego-resilience list by Bakker (2008) was used, consisting of 5 items. Participants had to score the items (e.g. I like it to try different routes to get to a familiar place”) on 4 point scales, ranging from 1) ‘does not apply’ 4) ‘applies strongly’. T1 Cronbach’s α = .70; T2 Cronbach’s α = .81.
17
Hope: Hope was measured using the 6 item counting ‘state hope scale’ (Snyder, 1996). Participants would judge six different statements (e.g. “On this moment I work towards my working goals with full energy”) using a Likert 5-point scale, from 1) disagree entirely, to 5) agree entirely. T1 Cronbach’s α = .76; T2 Cronbach’s α = .81. Optimism: Optimism was measured using the ‘Life Orientation Test’ (Scheier & Carver, 1985) also existing from 6 items (e.g. “In unsure times I usually expect the best”), and relying on a five point Likert scale, where 1) was “disagree entirely”, and 5) was “agree entirely”. From the six items, three items were formulated negatively and were recoded accordingly. T1 Cronbach’s α = .84; T2 Cronbach’s α = .63. Psychological Capital (PsyCap): The scores from hope, optimism, self-efficacy and resilience were combined. To overcome the problem posed by the resilience scale, which features a 4 point scale in contrast to the other three constructs, which feature 5 point scales, all scores were transformed towards a 10 point scale. The internal consistency of the 21 combined items was more than adequate (T1 Cronbach’s α = .85; T2 Cronbach’s α = .90).
Table 1: Cronbach’s α for each scale on T1 & T2 Scale Assertiveness Self-Efficacy Resilience Hope Optimism PsyCap
T1SR .81 .81 .70 .76 .84 .85
Cronbach’s α T3SR T1OR T2OR .86 .72 .72 .76 .82 .83 .81 .77 .77 .81 .83 .85 .63 .83 .90 .90 .92 .93
Note: T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; SR = Self Rating; OR = Other Rating
Other-Ratings The formulation of all these questions was altered for the ratees’ questionnaire, but the content of the question remained the same. Some scales were also changed further. First, the ‘List Assertive Behaviour’ was replaced for a simpler version of the questionnaire. Where the rater version consisted of 15 items, the ratee version consisted of only 4 items, asking the acquaintance to judge the participant’s assertiveness on a 5-point Likert scale (where 1 = entirely disagree, and 5 = entirely
18
agree). An example of these questions is “In the last four weeks this person has taken a clear position during a conversation or discussion”. To avoid further inconvenience with the resilience scale, which is the only PsyCap construct that was measured with a 4 point Likert scale, ratees were presented a modified 5 point Likert scale, similar to the other 3 PsyCap constructs. An additional change was made in the optimism scale, where item 5 was removed from the ratee questionnaire. The original item asked the participant: “I rarely assume that something present will happen to me”. The question would become too ambiguous if reformulated into the ratee perspective. A similar change was made in the Hope scale, reducing it from 6 to 5 items. Item 3 “There are many possibilities to resolve the problems I face at my job now” was removed. Internal consistency of these scales were all more than adequate as depicted in table 1
Results The correlations between all variables at both measurement points can be viewed in the correlation matrix presented in table 2. At first glance, it appears that a lot less correlations at time 1 are significant, that those at time 2. Especially correlations between self- and other-ratings at time 1 appear low and insignificant. However, those correlations appear to increase at time 2, which is in correspondence with our expectations. Most of the correlations between self-ratings on time 1 with those on time 2 are not that high, and not significant. This is in contrast with the correlations between other-ratings on time 1 with those on time 2, which do show high and significant correlations. This could mean that there are larger differences between self-ratings between conditions than those of other-ratings. Another distinct feature of the data is that almost all of the other-ratings correlate high and significantly with each other. This is probably due to the fact that the otherratings in this sample are all mean scores, aggregating the other-ratings more towards the mean, making high and significant correlations more probable.
19
Table 2: overview of the means, standard deviations and correlations for all research variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
T1 SR Assertiveness Self-Efficacy Resilience Hope Optimism PsyCap T2 SR Assertiveness Self-Efficacy Resilience Hope Optimism PsyCap T1 OR Assertiveness Self-Efficacy Resilience Hope Optimism PsyCap T2 OR Assertiveness Self-Efficacy Resilience Hope Optimism PsyCap
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
4.72 6.88 6.21 6.70 7.44 6.81
.99 1.35 1.25 1.16 .94 .88
1 .45** .37* .19 .27 .44**
1 .66** .40* .36* .85**
1 .54** .12 .81**
1 .26 .74**
1 .53** 1
6.04 7.86 6.97 7.55 8.03 7.60
1.09 .96 1.43 1.14 1.07 .91
.51** .25 .25 .11 .06 .22
.59** .77** .63** .48** .42* .72**
.47** .66** .73** .50** .13 .65**
.41* .42* .53** .62** .09 .54**
.23 .28 .36* .18 .64** .46**
6.45 6.53 6.28 6.64 6.97 6.60
.97 1.05 .98 .97 .89 .83
.29 .12 .12 .17 .04 .13
.26 .28 .30 .23 .20 .30
.18 .20 .28 .22 .17 .26
.13 .30 .34* .48** .27 .41*
7.31 7.28 6.75 7.15 7.34 7.13
1.06 .98 1.10 1.24 1.13 .95
.14 .10 -.01 .15 .08 .10
.31 .39* .41* .40* .22 .42*
.20 .33* .33* .35* .24 .37*
.08 .19 .08 .29 .31 .26
.59** .74** .77** .61** .41* .81**
1 .59** .48** .54** .39* .62**
1 .67** .57** .43** .86**
1 .69** 1 .38* .24 .90** .80**
1 .63** 1
.24 .33* .39* .29 .49** .44**
.27 .37* .43** .40* .36* .45**
.51** .40* .43** .31 .29 .42*
.26 .31 .42* .32 .36* .41*
.25 .44** .55** .45** .45** .55**
.38* .44** .43** .55** .31 .51**
.31 .44** .62** .28 .48** .53**
-.06 .16 .12 .06 .32 .19
.20 .37* .33* .39* .36* .43**
.48** .61** .33* .46** .46** .54**
.33* .51** .56** .54** .31 .56**
.32 .50** .59** .56** .53** .64**
.43** .62** .39* .59** .53** .63**
.18 .33* .47** .19 .34* .39*
Note: T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; SR = Self Rating; OR = Other Rating ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
.37* .52** .64** .51** .51** .64**
1 .72** .49** .51** .43** .63**
1 .76** .78** .55** .91**
1 .64** .63** .89**
1 .45** 1 .85** .76** 1
.40* .62** .64** .61** .55** .71**
.51** .57** .39* .38* .50** .53**
.48** .64** .58** .57** .55** .68**
.27 .47** .67** .44** .59** .64**
.37* .52** .48** .62** .48** .62**
.39* .50** .56** .42* .61** .61**
18
.44** .63** .67** .60** .65** .75**
19
20
21
22
23
24
1 .78** .45** .69** .61** .74**
1 .65** .86** .62** .91**
1 .70** .49** .83**
1 .52** .91**
1 .77**
1
20
Effects of the training In order to test hypothesis 1a and 1b, which state that Participants self-reported levels of assertiveness and PsyCap are significantly increased after the training (t=2) as opposed to their level prior to the training (t=1), a paired-sampled t-test was used for assertiveness, self-efficacy, resilience, hope, optimism, and PsyCap. This tested the significance of the difference between the self reported measures between time 1 and time 2. As can be seen in table 4b, a significant mean difference on all six variables was found between T1 and T2 (p<.01). The most noticeable change occurred with assertiveness, having the largest mean difference (1.32) and effect size (1.27). These results confirm hypotheses 1 and 2. What’s further interesting to mention is that the effect size of PsyCap (.89) is larger than any of the parts (.85, .57, .74, & .58). Table 3a: Paired sample t-test descriptive statistics for self-ratings on time 1 and time 2 SD M (T=2) SD M (T=1) Assertiveness 4.72 .99 6.04 1.09 Self-Efficacy 6.88 1.35 7.86 .96 Resilience 6.21 1.25 6.97 1.43 Hope 6.70 1.16 7.55 1.14 Optimism 7.44 .94 8.03 1.07 PsyCap 6.81 .88 7.60 .91 Table 3b: Paired sample t-test results for self-ratings on time 1 and time 2 M Difference d t df p Assertiveness t2-t1 1.32 1.27 7.62 35 <.0005 two tailed Self-Efficacy t2-t1 .99 .85 6.77 35 <.0005 two tailed Resilience t2-t1 .76 .57 4.57 35 <.0005 two tailed Hope t2-t1 .85 .74 5.06 35 <.0005 two tailed Optimism t2-t1 .58 .58 4.05 35 <.0005 two tailed PsyCap t2-t1 .80 .89 8.55 35 <.0005 two tailed Note: T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2
The same method was used to test hypothesis 2, assuming that the levels of assertiveness and PsyCap as reported by acquaintances will be significantly higher after the training (t=2) as opposed to their level prior to the training (t=1).
21 Table 4a: Paired sample t-test descriptive statistics for other-ratings on time 1 and time 2 SD M (T=2) SD M (T=1) Assertiveness 6.45 .97 7.31 1.06 Self-Efficacy 6.53 1.05 7.28 .98 Resilience 6.28 .98 6.75 1.10 Hope 6.64 .97 7.15 1.24 Optimism 6.97 .89 7.34 1.13 PsyCap 6.60 .83 7.13 .95 Table 4b: Paired sample t-test results for other-ratings on time 1 and time 2 M Difference d t df p Assertiveness t2-t1 .86 .85 5.13 35 <.0005 two tailed Self-Efficacy t2-t1 .76 .74 5.23 35 <.0005 two tailed Resilience t2-t1 .47 .45 3.33 35 <.002 two tailed Hope t2-t1 .51 .46 3.06 35 <.004 two tailed Optimism t2-t1 .37 .36 2.40 35 <.022 two tailed PsyCap t2-t1 .53 .59 4.89 35 <.0005 two tailed Note: T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2
As can be seen in table 4, the overall effect is almost identical with the self-reported ratings: almost all of the constructs show a significant increase over time at p<.01, with the only exception being optimism, which was significant at p<.05. Here, assertiveness also has the largest mean difference (.86) and effect size (.85). However, all of the mean differences and effect sizes appear to be smaller compared to the selfreported ratings. These results confirm hypothesis 3 for all constructs apart from optimism.
Hypothesis 3 assumed that there is more agreement between raters and ratees on time 2 than on time 1. As measured by r (3a) and rWG (3b), two operationalizations of agreement were used: rater consistency and rater consensus. Table 6 shows the correlations. Table 5: Pearson’s r correlations between self- and other-ratings on similar constructs at time =1 and time = 2 and the difference between them T1SR * T1OR T2SR*T2OR Difference Assertiveness .29 .48** .19 Self-Efficacy .28 .51** .26 Resilience .28 .59** .30 Hope .48** .59** .31 Optimism .49** .34* -.15 PsyCap .45** .71** .26 Note: T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; SR = Self Rating; OR = Other Rating
22 As can be seen in the table, 3 of the 6 correlations for time 1 are not significant. At time 2, almost all correlations are larger and significant (p<.01). Only the correlation between self- and other-raters on optimism decreases at time 2 as apposed to time 1 but is still significant (p<.05). These results confirm hypothesis 3a for all constructs, except for optimism. Tests for the rWG indice were done with two different assumptions for the error variance (σE²): the amount of variance that is expected when there is a complete lack of agreement. According to LeBreton and Senter (2008) a value of 2 is expected when using 5-point Likert scales. And when a slight lenience bias is expected, which occurs when judges tend to rate in favour of the target, a value of 1.34 is expected. However, since all scores in our data are changed to a 1-10 scale, these error variances have been doubled to 4 and 2.68. In addition, values out of the 0-1 range were reset to 0 as is recommended by James et al. (1984). The results can be viewed in tables 7a and 7b. To interpret the meaning of the rWG scores, one can use the revised standards for interpreting interrater agreement estimates provided by LeBreton and Senter (2008), portrayed in table 6.
Table 6: revised standards for interpreting interrater agreement (IRA) estimates by LeBreton and Senter (2008). Level of IRA .00 to .30 .31 to .50 .51 to .70 .71 to .90 .91 to 1.00
Substantive Interpretations Lack of agreement Weak agreement Moderate agreement Strong agreement Very strong agreement
Table 7a: rWG indices between raters and ratees for all constructs on Time 1 both when equal probability is assumed, and when a slight leniency bias is assumed rWG (σE²=4) (N=36) SD rWG (σE²=2.68) (N=36) SD Assertiveness .55 .35 .43 .38 Self-Efficacy .77 .28 .69 .34 Resilience .80 .30 .74 .36 Hope .85 .22 .67 .36 Optimism .87 .15 .80 .22 PsyCap .90 .18 .85 .33 Note: rwg (σE²=4) = equal probability assumed rwg (σE²=2.68) =slight leniency bias assumed
23 Table 7b: rWG indices between raters and ratees for all constructs on Time 2 both when equal probability is assumed, and when a slight leniency bias is assumed rWG (σE²=2.68) (N=36) SD rWG (σE²=4) (N=36) SD Assertiveness .68 .33 .55 .48 Self-Efficacy .84 .22 .78 .28 Resilience .82 .23 .75 .29 Hope .84 .15 .76 .23 Optimism .78 .28 .70 .33 PsyCap .91 .10 .86 .14 Note:
rwg (σE²=4) = equal probability assumed rwg (σE²=2.68) =slight leniency bias assumed
What stands out is that PsyCap has the highest IRA level (.85 to .91), qualifying for a strong to very strong agreement on all times. All of it’s components show moderate to strong scores, while assertiveness shows the lowest amount of absolute consensus , ranging from weak to moderate (.43 to .68). However, for this hypothesis, we are more concerned with the difference between conditions. For assertiveness and selfefficacy, the agreement is increased. Resilience, hope and PsyCap remain relatively unchanged, and optimism is the only construct from which absolute rater consensus reduces over time. These results only confirm the hypothesis for assertiveness and self-efficacy.
The influence of the relationship between rater and ratee The fourth hypothesis stated that correlations between rater and ratee measures are influenced by the type of relationship between the rater and ratee: correlations between self- and other-ratings will be highest when the acquaintance is a partner, will be moderate for colleagues and supervisors, and lowest for friends. These effects were obtained for both time 1 and time 2. Table 8a shows the correlations for time 1. It shows that the partner group has the most significant correlations, followed by the executives. Colleagues and friends showed small and insignificant correlations overall, with the friend group being an exception. Table 8b shows the correlations on time 2. There are some notable differences with the results portrayed in table 8a. Colleagues appear to have larger and more significant correlations than on time 1. Also, most correlations in each group appear to be higher than time 1. There appears to be no consistency among the correlations for self-efficacy, resilience, hope, and optimism. But once the aspects are combined into PsyCap, there
24 appears to be a solid confirmation of the hypothesis. On both times, Partners showed the strongest correlation (T1=.57, p > 0.01, T2=.82, p > 0.01), followed by executives (T1=.31, p > 0.01, T2=.67, p > 0.01), and colleagues (T1=.21, p < 0.05, T2=.59, p > 0.01). In both samples, friends showed very extreme results, probably as a result of the small sample size. Table 8a: Pearson’s r correlations between self- and other-ratings on similar constructs at time =1 for different ratee groups: colleagues, executives, partners and friends Colleagues (N=80) Executives (N=55) Partners (N=48) Friends (N=19) Assertiveness .24* .07 .42** -.20 Self-Efficacy .09 .06 .20 .13 Resilience .12 .42** .40** .74* Hope .34** .45** .33* .29 Optimism .07 .28* .52** .10 PsyCap .21 .31* .57** .57* Table 8b: Pearson’s r correlations between self- and other-ratings on similar constructs at time =2 for different ratee groups: colleagues, executives, partners and friends Colleagues (N=29) Executives (N=35) Partners (N=21) Friends (N=8) Assertiveness .56** .33 .62** .37 Self-Efficacy .37* .44** .60** -.26 Resilience .56** .53** .69** .11 Hope .59** .53** .50* .50 Optimism .25 .60** .26 .23 PsyCap .59** .67** .82** -,02 Assertiveness also shows a solid effect: partners show the largest correlations (T1=.42, p > 0.01, T2=.62, p > 0.01) and colleagues show a smaller correlation (T1=.24, p > 0.05, T2=.56, p > 0.01). Executives show no significant effects on both measures.
Discussion The foremost goal of the current study was to measure the effects of a ‘personal effectiveness’ training program on assertiveness, self-efficacy, resilience, hope, optimism, and PsyCap. This was done by attaining participants’ self reported measures (self-ratings) as well as ratings reported by acquaintances of those participants (other-ratings). These two sources were compared to see if both groups reported similar changes over time on two aspects: the value of both scores, and the
25 correlation between them. In addition to those comparisons, this study tried to replicate earlier findings by Watson et al. (2000) that the type of a relationship has an influence on the self-other agreement for our sample. Both rater and ratee scores showed an significant increase of all constructs after the training; both self-other agreement measures showed an increase for most variables except for optimism; and partners showed stronger agreement scores than any other relationship group.
The training’s effects on assertiveness and psychological capital In this study, the effectiveness of the training was measured through three means. First the self-ratings were used to find out whether participants experienced a significant change after the training. Second, other-ratings were used to find out if acquaintances perceived a similar change over time. Third, the model by Yammarino and Atwater (1996) combined these two perspectives into the self-other agreement, predicting individual performance through self-awareness. First, self-reported ratings of assertiveness, self-efficacy, resilience, optimism, hope and PsyCap are significantly increased after the training as opposed to their level prior to the training. To measure this, a paired sample t-test was used to compare the mean differences between conditions. It showed a significant mean difference for all of the constructs in the direction that was expected: participants rated themselves significantly higher on all constructs after the training. This is a strong indication that the training has a significant impact on the assertiveness and the positive psychological capacities of the participants. Second, the other-ratings showed similar results. This suggests that the influence of the training was not just experienced by the participants, but also perceived by their acquaintances. This provides extra support for the assumption that the training causes a positive change among participants. However, there are some notable differences between these two analyses. First, the mean differences for the other-ratings were noticeably smaller than the ones in the self-ratings. This is in line with earlier findings (e.g. Mabe & West, 1982; Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988) that self-ratings tend to be higher when compared to other-ratings as a result of the self-enhancement bias. In addition, the significant mean difference for optimism reported by participants was not verified by the acquaintances. Third, the agreement between raters and ratees seem to produce mixed results. The IRR ratings showed a clear increase of all correlations apart from optimism, suggesting that the consistency between rater and ratee increased as a result of the
26 training, making the self-other agreement more reliable at time 2 than at time 1. This provides some indication that self-awareness increases over time, and with it, the participants, individual performance. However, the IRA ratings revealed different results. The absolute rater-ratee consensus increased only for assertiveness and self-efficacy. This means that selfawareness most definitely increased for assertiveness and self-efficacy. Most other constructs (resilience, hope and PsyCap) remained at a similar level. However, the level of these constructs was either strong (resilience and hope) or even very strong (PsyCap) at time 1, which means there was little room for improvement on these ratings. Thus the fact that those scores remain relatively unchanged could be caused by a ceiling effect. In comparison, assertiveness and self-efficacy were weak to moderate at time 1. Again, optimism was the only variable for which IRA ratings reduced over time. Taking these results together and viewing them from the perspective of the self-other agreement model (Yammarino and Atwater’s, 1996) they portray that participants fit more into the ‘in agreement, good’ category as a result of the training: Scores on the constructs are increased over time, while IRR scores all increased at time 2, and IRA scores were either already high in agreement, or increased as well. This means that for most constructs, the training had a positive influence on the self-other agreement. In terms of Yammarino and Atwater’s self-other agreement model, the results predict more favourable levels of performance on time 2 than on time 1. Thus, the results portray an overall positive image concerning the effectiveness of the training, not only on the training’s most prominent construct: assertiveness, but also on PsyCap, which operationalized positive psychological capital. These results are therefore in agreement with the assumption made by Avey, Luthans and Mhatre (2008) that the components of PsyCap are indeed trait like, and that they can be improved by a training program. It is also an indication that a training program can contribute to sustained competitive advantage through positive psychological change. However, additional measurements at a later time period are necessary to confirm such a long term effect. The results further show that in most of our test results PsyCap provides a stronger predicting value than any of its parts, which is in line with research findings by Luthans and colleagues (2007), and supports the theory behind psychological capital as a higher order construct.
27 However, optimism seems to be an exception to this positive image. Although selfratings indicated that optimism significantly increased between conditions when p > 0.01, the increase reported by other-raters was only significant when p > 0.05. A more pronounced difference was seen when answering hypothesis 3, where the correlation between self- and other-raters on optimism was smaller at time 2 as opposed to time 1, and the IRA indicated a decrease as well, while most other constructs showed a reversed effect in a positive direction. In addition, optimism showed the smallest mean differences when answering hypotheses 1 and 2. The most probable cause for these effects is the questionnaire used to operationalize optimism. Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio (2007, p 210) recommend the work of Scheier and Carver (1985) when measuring optimism. However, Scheier and Carver assume that optimism is a trait-like dimension, which does not match the POB criteria. As a result of this assumption, the questions have a rather large level of abstraction, instead of focussing on specific behaviours. We therefore advise researchers to use a different questionnaire which is more focussed on specific behaviour, when measuring optimism as a component of PsyCap. It could be that the training has a less pronounced effect on optimism than was expected. This can be explained by the fact that changing optimism was not a stated goal for the training. Also, according to Schneider (2001) optimism can be increased by learning to accept the past, appreciating the present, and viewing the future as a source of opportunity. This method was not actively incorporated in the training.
The effect of the rater-ratee relationship To test hypothesis 4, rater-ratee groups when compared to find out whether correlations between self- and other-ratings will be highest when the acquaintance is a partner, moderate for when the acquaintance is a supervisor or colleague, and lowest when the acquaintance is a friend. It shows that the partner group has the most significant correlations, followed by the executives. Colleagues and friends showed small and insignificant correlations overall, with some exceptions for the friend group. However, it is likely these extreme effects are explained by the small sample size of the friends group. Most correlations in each group at time 2 appeared to be higher than on time 1, confirming the earlier findings of hypothesis 3. Although at first glance there appeared to be a lot of randomness concerning self-efficacy, resilience, hope, and optimism; combining them into PsyCap showed more solid patterns. On both times,
28 Partners showed the strongest correlation, followed by executives, and colleagues. This is exactly what was expected in the hypothesis. In both samples, friends showed very extreme results, probably as a result of the small sample size, making them rather unreliable. Similar results were found when comparing the correlations on assertiveness. With the only exception that on both times supervisors showed no significant correlations. This could be explained by the notion that it is uncommon for subordinates to show assertive behaviour towards their executives. These results are similar to those found by Watson, Hubbard and Wiese (2000). There appears to be a similar acquaintance effect for state-like dimensions, as was found for trait-like ones by Watson, Hubbard and Wiese. Therefore we recommend that future studies control for the acquaintance effect when using the self-other agreement to monitoring intervention effects, because interventions usually involve changing state-like properties. Limitations A clear limitation is the size and composition of the sample used for most of the analyses. Although 165 participants initially started the training, only 36 actually provided measurements at both times for both self- and other-ratings. There are obvious limitations when working with such a small sample: it is unclear whether some of the insignificant correlations would have been significant when the sample was larger. It also prevented us from using more extensive analyses. An example of this would be dividing the participants into the four groups of Yammarino and Atwater’s model (1996) as was done in other studies concerning the self-other agreement (e.g. Fleenor, McCauley & Brutus 1996). Another limitation of the study concerns the amount of information that was obtained from other raters. The other-raters remained anonymous throughout the entire study: participants themselves were responsible for delivering the data by asking their acquaintances to fill in the questionnaire. This makes it impossible to check whether those who entered these questionnaires were in fact acquaintances of the participants. It forced us to use mean scores of the other-ratings, which aggregated the scores more towards the mean, removing much of the difference in the initial scores. Another limitation as a result of this was that it was not possible to truly compare other-ratings from time 1 with ratings from time 2, because the identity of the ratees was unknown. When comparing the current study to other studies concerning the self-other agreement, it is clear that the amount of information concerning ratees was limited. However, many researchers (e.g. Biezanz et al., 2007;
29 Heidemeier and Moser, 2009; Ostroff et al. 2004) have stretched the importance of factors that systematically influence the self-other agreement. We therefore recommend future studies to adapt their research design to attain more information about the ratees, as well as factors that influence the self-other agreement when deeper analysis of the self-other agreement is required. Lastly, we understand that it would have been better if raters and ratees were given the exact same questionnaire for the reliability of the self-other agreement measures. In our study, the questionnaires for assertiveness as well resilience and hope were adjusted for ratees, which could have caused added variance in the data.
Practical implications In an era where people have become the main source of competitive advantage, ways to monitor their psychological growth have become equally important. We found that the tools used in this study provide large contributions in this field. Throughout this study we found that PsyCap has more predicting value than its parts. Thus it can be a powerful tool to operationalize positive psychological change, and can contribute to monitor individual’s positive psychological changes. The self-other agreement model by Yammarino & Atwater (1996) also proved to be a welcomed addition to learn more about the positive growth of individuals. Therefore we recommend future intervention monitor studies to incorporate the use of self-other agreement in their research design. The results can give far more insight into the effectiveness of interventions than self-ratings alone. These insights could also give practitioners additional information to enhance their interventions. However, we do believe that there is more potential for the self-other agreement than is explored in this study. Future studies should incorporate more information about ratees to provide more encompassing and more precise predictions of individual performance We also provided support for training programs’ contribution to competitive advantage. The results show that training programs are well capable of increasing participants’ level of state-like properties, and increasing participants’ positive psychological capital. This should be an encouragement for organisations looking to increase their competitive advantage by increasing the individual performance of its employees through training. We hope that this study has created a better understanding of the contribution the self-other agreement and PsyCap can be when monitoring intervention effects. And
30 that it will serve as an encouragement for organisations to increase their competitive advantage through the training of its employees.
References Atwater, L., Johnson, K.M., Ostroff, C., Robie, C., & Waldman, D. (2005). Self– Other Agreement: Comparing its Relationship with Performance in the U.S. and Europe. International journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 1. 25-40 Atwater, L., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. and Fleenor, J. (1998) Self–other agreement: Does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51, 577–598. Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2008). A call for longitudinal research in positive organisational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 29, 705711 Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Wernsing T. S. (2008). Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44; 48-70 Bandura A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman Bandura A. (2000) Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In Locke EA (Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behaviour (pp. 120-136). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Bandura, A. (2007). An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In S. J. Lopez (ED.), The science of human flourishing. New York: Praeger Bandura A, & Locke EA. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87-99 Bass, B. and Yammarino, F. (1991) Congruence of self and others’ leadership ratings of naval officers for understanding successful performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 40, 437–454 Berson, Y., & Sosik, J. J. (2007). The relationship between self-other rating agreement and influence tactics and organizational processes. Group & Organization Management, 32, 675-698 Biesanz, West, & Millevoi (2007). What do you learn about someone over time: Length of acquaintance, consensus, self-other agreement in judgement of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 92, No. 1, 119–135
31 Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° Feedback: accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 930–942. Carver, C. and Scheier, M. (1981) Attention and self-regulation: A control theory approach to human behavior. New York: Chung, M. C., Preveza, E., & Papandreous K. (2006). The relationships between posttraumatic stress disorder following spinal cord injury and locus of control. Journal of affective disorders, 93, 229-32. DeNisi, A. S., & Shaw, J. B. (1997). Investigation of the uses of self-reports of abilities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 641-644. Farh, J. L., Werbel, J. D., & Bedeian, A. G. (1988). An empirical investigation of selfappraisal-based performance evaluation. Personnel Psychology, 41, 141–156. Fleenor, W. F., McCauley, C.D., & Brutus, S. (1996). Self-other rating agreement and leader effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 7. 487-506 Fletcher C. (1997). Self-awareness-A neglected attribute in selection and assessment. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5(3), 183-187., Halperin, K., Snyder, C., Shekel, R., & Houston, B. (1976). Effects of source status and message favorability on acceptance of feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 142–147. Jacobs, M. K., & Cochran, S. D. (1982). The effects of Cognitive Restructuring on Assertive Behavior. Cognitive Therapy Research, 6, (1), 63-76 James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98 Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1986). Self-efficacy. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.) Skalen zur Befindlichkeit und Personlichkeit, 5, 15-28. Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: GuilfordPress Kenny, D. A. (2004). PERSON: A general model of interpersonal perception. Psychological and Social Psychology Review, 8, 265–280. LeBreton, J. M., Burgress, J.R.D., Kaiser, R.B., Atchley, E.K.P., & James, L.R. (2003). The restriction of variance hypothesis and interrater reliability and agreement: Are ratings from multiple sources really dissimilar? Organizational Research Methods, 6, 80-128.
32 LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organisational Research Methods, 11, 815-852 Leising D., Rehbein D., & Sporberg D. (2006) Does a fish see the water in which it swims? A study of the ability to correctly judge one's own interpersonal behavior. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25. 963-974 Levine, E. L., Flory, A., & Ash, R. A. (1977). Self-assessment in personnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 428-435. Luthans, F.; Avey, J. B. & Patera, J. L. (2008) Experimental analysis of a web-based training intervention to develop positive psychological capital. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(2) 209-221 Luthans, F., Avolio, B, J., Li, W., &Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). The psychological capital of Chinese workers: Exploring the relationship with performance. Management and Organization Review. 1(2), 249-271. Luthans, F., Luthans, B., & Luthans, K. (2004). Positive psychological capital: beyond human and social capital. Business Horizons 47, 45-50. Luthans, F.Y. & Youssef, C.M. (2004). Human, social, and now positive psychology capital management: Investing in people for competitive advantage. Organisational Dynamics, 33 (2), 143-160 Luthans, F.Y., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge. ix, 246 pp. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press Mabe, P.A. & West, S.G. (1982). Validity of Self-Evaluation of Ability: a review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 67, 3, 280-296 McCall, M. and Lombardo, M. (1983) Off the track: Why and how successful executives get derailed (Technical Report No. 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. McCaulley, C. and Lombardo, M. (1990) Benchmarks: An instrument for diagnosing managerial strengths and weaknesses. In K.D. Clark and M.S. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 535–545). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. Ostroff, C., Atwater, L., & Feinberg, B.J. (2004) Understanding Self-Other Agreement: A Look at rater and ratee characteristics, context, and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 57, 333-375
33 Paulhaus, D. (1986) Self-deception and impression management in test responses. In A. Angleitner and J. Wiggins (Eds.), Perspectives in interactional psychology. NY: Plenum. Sackheim, H. (1983) Self-deception, self-esteem and depression: The adaptive value of lying to oneself. In J. Masling (Ed.), Empirical studies of psychoanalytic theories (pp. 101–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, Coping, and health: Assessment and Implications of Generalized Outcomes Expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247 Snelder, M. M. (2008). Het effect van de training ‘Persoonlijke Effectiviteit’ op assertiviteit, psychologische capaciteiten en bevlogenheid. Unpublished manuscript. Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S., Ybasco, F., Borders, T., Babyak, M., & Higgins, R. (1996). Development and validation of the state hope scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 321-335 Snyder, C. R. (2000). Handbook of Hope. San Diego: Academic Press. Taylor, S. and Brown, J. (1988) Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210. Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). Self-other agreement in personality and affectivity - the role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2000), 78, 3, 546558 Yammarino, F. J. & Atwater L.E. (1996). Do Managers See themselves as Others See them? Implications of Self-Other Rating Agreement for Human Resources Management. Organizational Dynamics, 25, Issue 4, p35-44 Walen, SR. DiGiuseppe R. & Dryden, W. (1992). A Practitioner’s Guide to Rational-emotive Therapy. Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press. Wohlers, A. J., Hall, M. J., & London, M. (1993). Subordinates rating managers: Organizational and demographic correlates of self/subordinate agreement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 263–275. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., Schoufeli, W.B. (2007). Work engagement: a cycle of job and personal resources.
34 Zhong, L. (2007). Effects of psychological capital on employees' job performance, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica. 39(2), 328-334 Zwaan, J., Burik, M. van, & Janssen, T. (2005). Draaiboek persoonlijke effectiviteit; assertiviteitstraining voor mensen in organisaties. Unpublished manuscript.
35
Appendix A Letter explaining the procedure to participants Geachte Heer/Mevrouw, U neemt binnenkort deel aan de training ‘Persoonlijke Effectiviteit’. Wij willen u vragen om mee te doen aan een onderzoek naar leereffecten van de training. Dit onderzoek maakt deel uit van een reeks onderzoeken met als doel de kwaliteit van onze trainingen blijvend te waarborgen. Het onderzoek wordt in opdracht van Schouten & Nelissen uitgevoerd door Margriet Snelder, studente Arbeids- en Organisatiepsychologie aan de Universiteit van Utrecht. Uw deelname is vrijwillig maar wordt zeer op prijs gesteld! Hieronder vindt u een nadere toelichting op de door u te nemen stappen. Wat vragen we van u? Met dit onderzoek willen we meten waar de training met name invloed op heeft. Kunt u beter uw grenzen stellen, zegt u vaker nee tegen mensen of werk en voelt u zich zekerder in lastige situaties? Om antwoord te krijgen op deze en andere vragen vult u op drie momenten een vragenlijst in. • De eerste keer zal dit zijn voorafgaand aan blok 1 van de training; het tweede moment is na blok 2 en de laatste keer is rond blok 4. Het invullen van de lijsten doet u via het internet. Op bovenstaande momenten ontvangt u een e-mail met daarin een link. U hoeft dus zelfs niets te onthouden want u ontvangt een e-mail. Deze klikt u aan en u komt direct bij uw eigen vragenlijst. Het invullen ervan vergt ongeveer 20 minuten. •
Ook willen we een aantal personen uit uw omgeving deze vragen stellen. Zij maken u dagelijks mee en kunnen ook veranderingen bij u waarnemen. We willen u vragen om drie personen uit uw omgeving te benaderen. Bij voorkeur zijn dit: een leidinggevende, een directe collega/ collega’s en uw partner en/of een goede vriend/vriendin. Ongeveer een week nadat u de lijst heeft ingevuld ontvangt u nogmaals een e-mail met een link die bestemd is voor de drie andere invullers. Het is van belang dat u deze link zo snel mogelijk aan hen doorstuurt.
Misschien is het spannend voor u om anderen hiervoor te benaderen. Wij verzekeren u dat zij op geen enkele manier inzicht krijgen in uw persoonlijke scores. Ook kiest u zelf wie u hiervoor benadert. Deze personen vragen we op twee momenten digitaal een vragenlijst in te vullen: rond blok 1 en rond blok 4. Het is belangrijk dat op beide momenten dezelfde personen de vragenlijst invullen. Wat gebeurt er met mijn gegevens? Deze methode is geheel beveiligd en de gegevens zullen anoniem en vertrouwelijk worden verwerkt. Dat betekent dat uw naam niet gekoppeld zal worden aan uw resultaten. Wij vragen u en de door u benaderde personen om uw naam in te vullen, om zo de samenhang tussen de gegevens van 1 persoon te bekijken. Voor het onderzoek gaat het niet om uw individuele score maar worden de scores samengenomen. Na het invullen van de vragenlijst krijgt u persoonlijke feedback over uw scores. Deze kunt u bewaren of naar uzelf e-mailen en uw scores op drie verschillende momenten in de training vergelijken.
36 Op deze manier heeft u nog meer inzicht in uw eigen ontwikkelproces! Uw persoonlijke uitkomsten worden in niet teruggekoppeld naar de personen die de vragenlijsten over u invullen. Wat vragen we u nu te doen? Stap 1: Wilt u nagaan welke drie personen voor u de vragenlijsten in kunnen vullen. U kunt deze mensen alvast vertellen over het onderzoek en de brief geven die in drievoud is bijgevoegd. Stap 2: Voor blok 1: U ontvangt een e-mail met daarin een link. Deze klikt u aan en u vult de vragenlijst zo snel mogelijk na ontvangst van de e-mail in. Stap 3: Eén week na blok 1: U ontvangt opnieuw een e-mail met daarin een link. Deze is bedoeld voor de drie personen die de vragenlijst over u invullen. U stuurt deze mail met link naar hen door. Het is van groot belang dat de vragenlijsten zo spoedig mogelijk worden ingevuld. Stap 4: Na blok 2: U ontvangt een e-mail met daarin een link. Deze klikt u aan en u vult de vragenlijst zo snel mogelijk na ontvangst van de e-mail in. Stap 5: Voor de terugkomdag: U ontvangt een e-mail met daarin een link. Deze klikt u aan en u vult de vragenlijst zo snel mogelijk na ontvangst van de e-mail in. Stap 6: Na de terugkomdag: U ontvangt opnieuw een e-mail met daarin een link. Deze is bedoeld voor de drie personen die de vragenlijst over u invullen. U stuurt deze mail met link naar hen door. Ook hier is het weer belangrijk dat de vragenlijsten zo spoedig mogelijk worden ingevuld. Tot slot Wij willen u alvast hartelijk bedanken voor uw medewerking. Door uw bijdrage helpt u mee om de kwaliteit van onze trainingen te waarborgen. Dit wordt erg op prijs gesteld! Naast de persoonlijke feedback die u zult ontvangen, willen we u ook op een andere manier belonen voor uw deelname. Onder de deelnemers wordt een aantal spellen en boeken van Uitgeverij THEMA verloot! Wanneer u hiervan winnaar bent, krijgt u aan het eind van de training hierover bericht! Met vriendelijke groet,
Ir. Drs. Nicole Eggermont, Directeur Training en Opleiding, Schouten en Nelissen, Drs. Ulrike Wild, Business Development Manager, Schouten en Nelissen Drs. Riemke Govaart, Opleidingsmanager training Persoonlijke Effectiviteit, Schouten en Nelissen Margriet Snelder Studente Arbeids- en Organisatiepsychologie, Universiteit Utrecht Dr. Eva Demerouti, Docent en Onderzoeker, Universiteit Utrecht
37
Appendix B Letter explaining the procedure to acquaintances Geachte Heer/Mevrouw, U bent de partner, collega of leidinggevende van degene die u deze brief heeft gegeven. Hij/zij neemt deel aan de training ‘Persoonlijk Effectiviteit’ en werkt mee aan een onderzoek naar de leereffecten van deze training. Met deze korte toelichting wil ik u informeren over het doel van dit onderzoek, de bijdrage die wij van u vragen en de wijze waarop u dat kunt doen. Het onderzoek Dit onderzoek wordt, in opdracht van Schouten & Nelissen, uitgevoerd door Margriet Snelder, studente Arbeids- en Organisatiepsychologie aan de Universiteit Utrecht,. Het onderzoek draagt bij aan de waarborging van de kwaliteit van de training. Wat wordt er van u verwacht? De deelnemer aan de training vult zelf een vragenlijst in over zijn/haar gedrag. Ook zijn we voor het onderzoek geïnteresseerd in uw inschatting, omdat u hem/haar dagelijks ziet en veranderingen waarschijnlijk zal opmerken. We willen u vragen twee keer een korte vragenlijst in te vullen. Het invullen hiervan neemt maximaal 10 minuten in beslag. U ontvangt aan het begin van de training via de deelnemer aan de training een e-mail met een link naar de vragenlijst (tussen nu en 2 weken). Aan het einde van de training (over ongeveer 5 maanden) ontvangt u nog email met een link naar de vragenlijst. Deze e-mails met link zult u ontvangen van degene over wie u de vragenlijst invult. Het is belangrijk dat u op allebei de momenten de vragenlijst volledig invult. Er wordt gevraagd om de naam van degene voor wie u de vragenlijst invult. Dit is om uw vragenlijst te koppelen aan die van deze persoon. Wilt u erop letten dat u de naam van degene voor wie u invult correct spelt? Wat is verder nog van belang? Wij willen benadrukken dat uw deelname aan dit onderzoek vrijwillig is, maar zeer op prijs gesteld wordt. De persoon over wie u de vragenlijst invult krijgt geen inzicht in wat u over hem/haar hebt ingevuld. Ook krijgt uzelf geen terugkoppeling van zijn/haar persoonlijke scores. Het is voor het onderzoek belangrijk dat u de vragenlijsten naar waarheid invult. Wij vertrouwen erop u voldoende geïnformeerd te hebben! Bij voorbaat dank, uw medewerking wordt erg op prijs gesteld! Met vriendelijke groet, Ir. Drs. Nicole Eggermont, Directeur Training en Opleiding, Schouten en Nelissen, Drs. Ulrike Wild, Business Development Manager, Onderzoeks- en stagebegeleider, Schouten en Nelissen Drs. Riemke Govaart,
38 Opleidingsmanager training Persoonlijke Effectiviteit, Schouten en Nelissen Margriet Snelder Studente Arbeids- en Organisatiepsychologie, Universiteit Utrecht Dr. Eva Demerouti, Docent en Onderzoeker, Universiteit Utrecht
39
Appendix C Mail preparing participants of the first measurement Beste deelnemer aan de training Persoonlijke Effectiviteit , Onlangs heeft u een brief ontvangen waarin u geïnformeerd bent over het onderzoek naar deze training en wat u daarin kunt betekenen. Om uw geheugen op te frissen kunt u de brief die u onlangs heeft ontvangen nog eens teruglezen. Mocht u deze niet meer kunnen vinden, dan verwijs ik u naar de leeromgeving waar deze geplaatst is (onder Onderzoek ATT). Klik op onderstaande link om naar de vragenlijst te gaan: http://player.c4obweb.nl?si=b6b846ea-82c1-4477-91ba-c473c98484c5&cul=nlNL&it=[it] Mocht u deze link niet kunnen openen, dan kunt u onderstaande regel kopiëren en plakken in de adresbalk van uw internet browser. Als u vragen heeft, dan kunt u mailen naar:
[email protected] Nogmaals hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking!
Met vriendelijke groet, Ir. Drs. Nicole Eggermont (Directeur Training en Opleiding, Schouten en Nelissen) Drs. Ulrike Wild (Business Development Manager, Schouten en Nelissen) Drs. Riemke Govaart (Opleidingsmanager training Persoonlijke Effectiviteit, Schouten en Nelissen) Margriet Snelder (Studente Arbeids- en Organisatiepsychologie, Universiteit Utrecht) Dr. Eva Demerouti (Docent en Onderzoeker, Universiteit Utrecht)
40
Appendix D Mail preparing acquaintances of the first measurement Beste deelnemer aan de training Persoonlijke Effectiviteit, Een tijdje geleden heeft u een mail ontvangen met een link naar uw eigen vragenlijst. Bedankt dat u uw vragenlijst heeft ingevuld! Als u dit nog niet heeft gedaan, zou u het dan alsnog willen doen? Deze mail is bestemd voor de drie personen die over u de vragenlijst invullen. U heeft eerder een brief per post ontvangen die u aan hen kon geven. Mocht u deze niet meer hebben: op de leeromgeving is ook deze brief geplaatst. In deze mail staat een link naar de vragenlijst voor uw collega/partner/leidinggevende. Dit is een andere vragenlijst dan die u heeft ingevuld. Zij kunnen met deze link direct naar de vragenlijst. Hier vullen zij uw naam in, om zo hun resultaten te koppelen aan die van u. Belangrijk is dat de naam correct gespeld wordt. Wilt u deze mail met link naar hen doorsturen? U kunt op onderstaande link klikken om de vragenlijst te openen. http://player.c4obweb.nl?si=f0f375a1-345c-427b-b1ac-be571bf4c1bc&cul=nl-NL& Mocht u de vragenlijst met bovenstaande link niet kunnen openen, dan kunt u onderstaande regel kopiëren en plakken in de adresbalk van uw internet browser. Hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking! Wij stellen dit zeer op prijs.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ir. Drs. Nicole Eggermont, Directeur Training en Opleiding, Schouten en Nelissen, Drs. Ulrike Wild, Business Development Manager, Onderzoeks- en stagebegeleider, Schouten en Nelissen Drs. Riemke Govaart, Opleidingsmanager training Persoonlijke Effectiviteit, Schouten en Nelissen Margriet Snelder Studente Arbeids- en Organisatiepsychologie, Universiteit Utrecht Dr. Eva Demerouti, Docent en Onderzoeker, Universiteit Utrecht
41
Appendix E Mail preparing participants of the last measurement Vragenlijst III onderzoek training persoonlijke effectiviteit Beste deelnemer aan de training Persoonlijke Effectiviteit, Zoals u heeft gelezen in de brief bij aanvang van het onderzoek, is nu (aan het einde van uw trainingstraject) het laatste meetmoment aangebroken! Door uw toewijding kunnen wij dit onderzoek laten slagen. Daarom willen we u vragen (ook indien u op meetmoment 1/meetmoment 2 verhinderd was, of de vragenlijst bent vergeten in te vullen) de vragenlijst voor de laatste keer in te vullen! Wanneer u opnieuw de vragenlijst invult, zal er genoeg informatie zijn om conclusies uit te kunnen trekken en het onderzoek waardevol te laten zijn. Uw deelname wordt als vanzelfsprekend enorm geapprecieerd! Tevens wordt na dit meetmoment een loting uitgevoerd onder de personen die de vragenlijst hebben ingevuld. Er worden spellen en boeken van uitgeverij THEMA verzonden naar de gelukkige winnaars. Op veler verzoek is er één wijziging met betrekking tot de feedback van de andere invullers. Na het invullen van de vragenlijst ontvangt de (andere) invuller feedback over wat hij/zij over u heeft ingevuld. Hij/zij kan deze feedback naar uw doorsturen indien u dit beiden wenst. Zo verkrijgt u nog meer informatie over uw eigen gedrag. Wij hopen u hiermee van dienst te zijn. Aan het einde van het onderzoek zult u een e-mail ontvangen met de resultaten. Indien u dit niet wenst, kunt u dit aangeven door een e-mail te sturen naar
[email protected] (of te reply’en op deze e-mail).
U kunt kikken op de onderstaande link om naar de vragenlijst te gaan: http://player.c4obweb.nl?si=b6b846ea-82c1-4477-91ba-c473c98484c5&cul=nlNL&it=[it] Mocht u deze link niet kunnen openen, dan kunt u onderstaande regel kopiëren en plakken in de adresbalk van uw internet browser. Mocht u met vragen zijn blijven zitten, mail dan naar:
[email protected] Met vriendelijke groet, Ir. Drs. Nicole Eggermont (Directeur Training en Opleiding, Schouten en Nelissen) Drs. Ulrike Wild (Business Development Manager, Schouten en Nelissen) Drs. Riemke Govaart (Opleidingsmanager training Persoonlijke Effectiviteit, S&N) Margriet Snelder (Studente Arbeids- en Organisatiepsychologie, Universiteit Utrecht) Dr. Eva Demerouti (Docent en Onderzoeker, Universiteit Utrecht)
42
Appendix F Mail preparing acquaintances of the last measurement Beste deelnemer aan de training Persoonlijke Effectiviteit, Dit is de mail die bestemd is voor uw andere invullers: uw partner, uw collega en/of uw leidinggevende. Net zoals in het begin van het onderzoek, worden aan hen vragen gesteld met betrekking tot u. Deze e-mail bevat een link die leidt naar de door hen in te vullen vragenlijst. Wilt u deze mail met link naar hen doorsturen? Geachte partner, collega of leidinggevende, De eerste vragenlijst van de andere invullers is door velen ingevuld. Wij danken u daarvoor hartelijk! Wanneer deze vragenlijst ook door eenieder wordt ingevuld, kunnen wij in dit onderzoek gefundeerde uitspraken doen. Wilt u deze vragenlijst nogmaals invullen, alstublieft? Dit wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Op veler verzoek is er één wijziging met betrekking tot de feedback die u aan het einde van de vragenlijst ontvangt. Indien u dit wenst, kunt u deze feedback doorsturen naar de persoon over wie het gaat. Op deze manier krijgt deze persoon nog meer inzicht in zijn/haar gedrag. Tot slot wil ik u eraan herinneren dat het belangrijk is de naam van de deelnemer over wie de vragenlijst gaat correct te spellen. U kunt op onderstaande link klikken om de vragenlijst te openen. http://player.c4obweb.nl?si=85e5ebe4-cfca-4a9c-bec2-609b7cc5b905&cul=nl-NL Mocht u de vragenlijst met bovenstaande link niet kunnen openen, dan kunt u onderstaande regel kopiëren en plakken in de adresbalk van uw internet browser. Hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking! Met vriendelijke groet, Ir. Drs. Nicole Eggermont, Directeur Training en Opleiding, Schouten en Nelissen, Drs. Ulrike Wild, Business Development Manager, Onderzoeks- en stagebegeleider, Schouten en Nelissen Drs. Riemke Govaart, Opleidingsmanager training Persoonlijke Effectiviteit, Schouten en Nelissen Margriet Snelder Studente Arbeids- en Organisatiepsychologie, Universiteit Utrecht Dr. Eva Demerouti, Docent en Onderzoeker, Universiteit Utrecht
43
Appendix G Mail reminding participants of the last measurement Beste deelnemer aan de training ‘Persoonlijke Effectiviteit’, Het is inmiddels al weer een tijd geleden dat u de training ‘Persoonlijke Effectiviteit’ bij Schouten en Nellissen volgde. U bent geruime tijd na afloop van de training voor een derde en laatste maal gemaild met een vragenlijst voor u en uw andere invullers (uw partner, uw
collega en/of uw leidinggevende) als deel van een onderzoek naar de training. Als u en uw andere invullers deze vragenlijst al hebben ingevuld, hoeft u de rest van deze mail niet te lezen, en willen we u bij deze van harte bedanken voor uw medewerking. Wij zullen alleen nog contact met u opnemen als u één van de spellen of boeken van Uitgeverij THEMA heeft gewonnen, die aan het begin van het nieuwe jaar verloot zullen worden. Als u en/of uw andere invullers deze vragenlijst destijds níet hebben kunnen invullen, zouden wij u willen vragen dit alsnog te doen. Uw zou Schouten & Nelissen daarmee helpen de training die u heeft gevolgd nog beter te maken. Daarbij is het onderzoek onderdeel van het afstudeerproject van Margriet Snelder, waardoor u ook haar een grote dienst bewijst. Tot slot is ook de Universiteit Utrecht u zeer dankbaar als u de lijst alsnog zou willen invullen. Wij zijn ons ervan bewust dat het invullen van de lijst u ongeveer 15 minuten van uw tijd kost. Desondanks hopen wij dat u ons van dienst zou willen zijn door de lijst alsnog in te vullen. Als vanzelfsprekend ontvangt u ook na het invullen van deze lijst een feedbackrapport! Daarnaast wordt er aan het begin van het nieuwe jaar een aantal spellen
en boeken van Uitgeverij THEMA verloot! Wanneer u hiervan winnaar bent, krijgt u zo spoedig mogelijk bericht! Een link naar de derde en laatste vragenlijst voor uzelf vind u hieronder: Link Een link naar de derde en laatste vragenlijst voor uw andere invullers (uw partner, uw
collega en/of uw leidinggevende) vind u hieronder. Het verzoek aan u of u deze link naar uw andere invullers zou willen sturen: Link Wanneer het niet lukt deze te openen door erop te klikken, kunt u de regel kopiëren en plakken in de adresregel van uw internetbrowser. Als u andere problemen ervaart met het invullen van de vragenlijst, kunt u altijd mailen naar
[email protected] Alvast hartelijk bedankt voor uw medewerking, en wij wensen u hoe dan ook fijne feestdagen Met vriendelijke groet, Ir. Drs. Nicole Eggermont (Directeur Training en Opleiding, Schouten en Nelissen) Drs. Ulrike Wild (Business Development Manager, Schouten en Nelissen) Drs. Riemke Govaart (Opleidingsmanager training Persoonlijke Effectiviteit, Schouten en Nelissen) Margriet Snelder (Studente Arbeids- en Organisatiepsychologie, Universiteit Utrecht) Dr. Eva Demerouti (Docent en Onderzoeker, Universiteit Utrecht)
44
Appendix H Questionnaire for participants on time
Introductie Voor u ligt een vragenlijst, die de leereffecten van de training ‘Persoonlijke Effectiviteit’ in kaart brengt. Deze lijst is ontwikkeld door Margriet Snelder, studente Arbeids- en Organisatiepsychologie aan de Universiteit van Utrecht, in opdracht van Schouten & Nelissen. De bedoeling van de vragenlijst is om inzicht te verkrijgen in uw leerervaringen tijdens de training en waar dit invloed op heeft. We zijn geïnteresseerd in het proces dat u doormaakt terwijl u de training volgt. Wellicht biedt het invullen van de vragenlijst u ook meer inzicht in dit proces. Alvast hartelijk bedankt voor uw medewerking! · De vragenlijst vervolgt zich in de 'je' vorm. Hierdoor is het makkelijker inleven in de vragen. · Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden. Geef aan wat u zelf het best passende antwoord vindt. · LET OP: de antwoordcategorieën kunnen per onderdeel verschillen. · De verstrekte informatie wordt anoniem en strikt vertrouwelijk behandeld. Alleen onderzoekers van de Universiteit van Utrecht krijgen uw gegevens te zien. · Als u vragen of opmerkingen heeft tijdens het invullen van deze vragenlijst, dan kunt u contact opnemen met de onderzoekers via e-mail:
[email protected] Zou u, in verband met de voortgang van het onderzoek, zo vriendelijk willen zijn de vragenlijst zo snel mogelijk in te vullen? Demografische gegevens
Achtergrondgegevens Er volgen enkele vragen over je achtergrond, functie en persoonlijke gegevens. Deze informatie zal strikt vertrouwelijk behandeld worden.
1
Op welk moment in de training bevind je je?
○ ○ ○
voor blok 1 na blok 2 rond blok 4
2
Wat is uw voornaam?
....................
3
Wat is uw achternaam
....................
4
Wat is je geslacht?
○ ○
man vrouw
45 5
Wat is je leeftijd?
....................
leeftijd in jaren
Demografische gegevens
Achtergrondgegevens Er volgen enkele vragen over je achtergrond, functie en persoonlijke gegevens. Deze informatie zal strikt vertrouwelijk behandeld worden.
6
7
Wat is je burgerlijke staat?
Wat is de hoogste opleiding die je hebt afgerond? (als je opleiding er niet bij staat, kruis dan de opleiding aan die het meest lijkt op de door jou gevolgde opleiding)
○
samenwonend of gehuwd, geen thuiswonende kinderen
○
samenwonend of gehuwd, wel thuiswonende kinderen
○ ○ ○ ○
alleenstaand, geen thuiswonende kinderen
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
lagere school
alleenstaand, wel thuiswonende kinderen inwonend bij ouders anders, namelijk: #other#
MAVO, LBO HAVO, MBO VWO HBO WO
Demografische gegevens
Achtergrondgegevens Er volgen enkele vragen over je achtergrond, functie en persoonlijke gegevens. Deze informatie zal strikt vertrouwelijk behandeld worden.
8
9
Heb je een leidinggevende functie?
Zoja, aan hoeveel mensen geef je leiding?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
ja nee
1-10 11-20 meer dan 20 niet van toepassing
10
Hoeveel werkervaring heb je?
....................
11
Wat is je beroep?
....................
jaren
46 Gedrag
Vaardigheden 1 Met de volgende vragen willen we een indruk krijgen van hoe je de laatste vier weken hebt doorgebracht. Kun je van de volgende punten aangeven in hoeverre dit op je van toepassing was, de afgelopen vier weken. De afgelopen vier weken heb ik... nooit
een keer per vier weken
elke week
een keer per dag
elke dag
1
2
3
4
5
25
gedrag1
iemand gezegd wat zijn/haar gedrag voor invloed op mij heeft
1
2
3
4
5
26
gedrag2
een moment van ontspanning gecreëerd als ik daaraan toe was
1
2
3
4
5
27
gedrag3
in een discussie mijn standpunt verkondigd aan de anderen
1
2
3
4
5
28
gedrag4
inzicht waarom ik mij gespannen voel in bepaalde situaties
1
2
3
4
5
29
gedrag5
een verzoek dat iemand mij deed geweigerd
1
2
3
4
5
Gedrag
Vaardigheden 2 Met de volgende vragen willen we een indruk krijgen van hoe je de laatste vier weken hebt doorgebracht. Kun je van de volgende punten aangeven in hoeverre dit op je van toepassing was, de afgelopen vier weken. De afgelopen vier weken heb ik... nooit
een keer per vier weken
elke week
een keer per dag
elke dag
1
2
3
4
5
30
gedrag6
iemand verteld dat ik me niet prettig voel bij zijn/haar gedrag
1
2
3
4
5
31
gedrag7
korte pauzes genomen tijdens werktijd als ik moe was of weinig energie had
1
2
3
4
5
32
gedrag8
een voorstel gedaan aan een
1
2
3
4
5
47 collega of mijn leidinggevende 33
gedrag9
inzicht waarom ik soms van slag raak in bepaalde situaties
1
2
3
4
5
34
gedrag10
de tijd genomen om even na te denken, in plaats van meteen 'ja' te antwoorden
1
2
3
4
5
Gedrag
Vaardigheden 3 Met de volgende vragen willen we een indruk krijgen van hoe je de laatste vier weken hebt doorgebracht. Kun je van de volgende punten aangeven in hoeverre dit op je van toepassing was, de afgelopen vier weken. De afgelopen vier weken heb ik... nooit
een keer per vier weken
elke week
een keer per dag
elke dag
1
2
3
4
5
35
gedrag11
een oefening gedaan om te ontspannen
1
2
3
4
5
36
gedrag12
mijn mening duidelijk gemaakt in een gesprek of vergadering
1
2
3
4
5
37
gedrag13
mijn negatieve gedachten omgebogen naar meer helpende, positieve gedachten
1
2
3
4
5
38
gedrag14
met mijn collega gepraat over hoe wij samenwerken
1
2
3
4
5
39
gedrag15
aangegeven dat ik meer tijd nodig heb om een bepaalde taak af te krijgen
1
2
3
4
5
Optimisme
Visie op het leven 1 De volgende vragen gaan over de manier waarop je denkt en doet. Wil je aangeven in hoeverre de uitspraken op je van toepassing zijn door steeds het best passende antwoord te kiezen? Geheel mee oneens Mee oneens 1
2
Niet mee eens, niet mee oneens 3
Mee eens Geheel mee eens 4
5
48 40
opt1
In onzekere tijden verwacht ik meestal het beste
1
2
3
4
5
41
opt2
Als er maar iets fout kan gaan, dan zal dat mij overkomen
1
2
3
4
5
42
opt3
Ik ben altijd optimistisch over mijn toekomst
1
2
3
4
5
43
opt4
Dingen lopen nooit op de manier zoals ik dat wil
1
2
3
4
5
44
opt5
Ik ga er zelden vanuit dat mij iets prettigs zal overkomen
1
2
3
4
5
45
opt6
Over het algemeen ga ik ervan uit dat mij meer positieve dingen zullen overkomen dan vervelende
1
2
3
4
5
Vertrouwen in eigen kunnen
Persoonlijkheid 1 De volgende vragen gaan over hoe je doet en denkt. Wil je aangeven in hoeverre de uitspraken op je van toepassing zijn door steeds het best passende antwoord te kiezen? geheel mee oneens
mee oneens
niet mee eens, niet mee oneens
1
2
3
mee eens geheel mee eens 4
5
52
self1
Ik vertrouw erop dat ik onverwachte gebeurtenissen doeltreffend aanpak
1
2
3
4
5
53
self2
Als ik geconfronteerd word met een probleem, heb ik meestal meerdere oplossingen
1
2
3
4
5
54
self3
Als ik in een benarde situatie zit, weet ik meestal wat ik moet doen
1
2
3
4
5
55
self4
Wat er ook gebeurt, ik kom er wel uit
1
2
3
4
5
Persoonlijkheid
Persoonlijkheid 2 De volgende vragen gaan over hoe je doet en denkt. Wil je aangeven in hoeverre de uitspraken op je van toepassing zijn door steeds het best passende antwoord te kiezen?
49 geheel mee oneens
mee oneens
niet mee eens, niet mee oneens
1
2
3
mee eens geheel mee eens 4
5
56
hope1
Als ik op mijn werk vast zou komen te zitten, zou ik meerdere manieren kunnen bedenken om eruit te komen
1
2
3
4
5
57
hope2
Op dit moment werk ik vol energie toe naar de doelen die ik heb in mijn werk
1
2
3
4
5
58
hope3
Er zijn allerlei mogelijkheden om moeilijkheden die ik nu heb op het werk op te lossen
1
2
3
4
5
59
hope4
Op dit moment zie ik mezelf als behoorlijk succesvol op mijn werk
1
2
3
4
5
60
hope5
Ik kan meerdere manieren bedenken om mijn werkgerelateerde doelen te bereiken
1
2
3
4
5
61
hope6
Op dit moment heb ik de werkgerelateerde doelen die ik voor mijzelf gesteld heb bereikt
1
2
3
4
5
Stressbestendigheid
Persoonlijkheid 3 De volgende vragen gaan over hoe je doet en denkt. Wil je aangeven in hoeverre de uitspraken op je van toepassing zijn door steeds het best passende antwoord te kiezen? helemaal niet van toepassing 1
beetje van toepassing van toepassing 2
zeer sterk van toepassing
3
4
62
res1
Ik geniet van het omgaan met nieuwe en ongewone situaties
1
2
3
4
63
res2
Ik hou ervan om ook eens via een andere route naar een vertrouwde plek te gaan
1
2
3
4
64
res3
Ik ben nieuwsgieriger dan de meeste andere mensen
1
2
3
4
65
res4
Ik vind het prettig om nieuwe en andere dingen te
1
2
3
4
50 doen 66
res5
Ik zou mezelf wel willen omschrijven als iemand met een behoorlijk sterke persoonlijkheid
1
2
3
Dank je wel! Bedankt voor het invullen van deze vragenlijst! Op de volgende pagina vindt u de feedback over bepaalde delen van de vragenlijst.
4
51
Appendix I Questionnaire for acquaintances on time 1
Introductie Voor u ligt een vragenlijst, die de leereffecten van de training ‘Persoonlijke Effectiviteit’ in kaart brengt. Deze lijst is ontwikkeld door Margriet Snelder, studente Arbeids- en Organisatiepsychologie aan de Universiteit van Utrecht, in opdracht van Schouten & Nelissen. De bedoeling van de vragenlijst is om inzicht te verkrijgen in leerervaringen van deelnemers tijdens de training. Dit inzicht verkrijgen we door zowel de deelnemer zelf, als personen uit zijn/haar omgeving, een aantal vragen te stellen en deze gegevens te vergelijken. Alvast hartelijk bedankt voor uw medewerking! · Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden. Geef aan wat u zelf het best passende antwoord vindt. · LET OP: de antwoordcategorieën kunnen per onderdeel verschillen. · De verstrekte informatie wordt anoniem en strikt vertrouwelijk behandeld. Alleen onderzoekers van de Universiteit van Utrecht krijgen uw gegevens te zien. · Als u vragen of opmerkingen heeft tijdens het invullen van deze vragenlijst, dan kunt u contact opnemen met de onderzoekers via e-mail:
[email protected] Zou u, in verband met de voortgang van het onderzoek, zo vriendelijk willen zijn de vragenlijst zo snel mogelijk in te vullen? Achtergrond/Vaardigheden
Achtergrondgegevens Deze informatie gebruiken we alleen voor onderzoek en koppeling van lijsten. De informatie zal strikt vertrouwelijk behandeld worden.
1
Wat is de voornaam van de persoon over wie u deze vragen beantwoordt?
2
Wat is de achternaam van de persoon over .................... wie u deze vragen beantwoordt?
4
....................
Collega
Leidinggevende
Partner
Vriend/vriendin
1
2
3
4
relatie
Wat is uw relatie tot deze persoon?
1
2
3
4
52 Vaardigheden
Vaardigheden Met de volgende vragen willen we een indruk krijgen van hoe deze persoon de laatste vier weken heeft doorgebracht. Kunt u van de volgende punten aangeven in hoeverre dit op hem/haar van toepasing was, de afgelopen vier weken. Deze persoon heeft in de laatste vier weken... geheel mee oneens
mee oneens
niet mee eens, niet mee oneens
1
2
3
mee eens geheel mee eens 4
5
5
gedrag1
neemt duidelijk een standpunt in tijdens een gesprek of discussie
1
2
3
4
5
6
gedrag2
vertelt anderen wat hun gedrag met hem/haar doet
1
2
3
4
5
7
gedrag3
komt ontspannen over in verschillende situaties
1
2
3
4
5
8
gedrag4
neemt de tijd om een mening te vormen en deze te uiten
1
2
3
4
5
Optimisme
Visie op het leven De volgende vragen gaan over de manier waarop hij/zij denkt en doet. Wilt u aangeven in hoeverre u denkt dat de uitspraken op hem/haar van toepassing zijn door steeds het best passende antwoord te kiezen? geheel mee oneens
mee oneens
niet mee eens, niet mee oneens
1
2
3
mee eens geheel mee eens 4
5
9
opt1
In onzekere tijden verwacht deze persoon meestal het beste
1
2
3
4
5
10
opt2
Als er maar iets fout kan gaan, dan zal deze persoon verwachten dat het hem/haar zal overkomen
1
2
3
4
5
11
opt3
Hij/zij is altijd optimistisch over zijn/haar toekomst
1
2
3
4
5
12
opt4
Deze persoon gaat er zelden vanuit dat hem/haar iets prettigs zal overkomen
1
2
3
4
5
53 13
opt5
Over het algemeen gaat deze persoon ervan uit dat hem/haar meer positieve dingen zullen overkomen dan vervelende
1
2
3
4
5
Vertrouwen in eigen kunnen
Persoonlijkheid 1 De volgende vragen gaan over hoe hij/zij doet en denkt. Wilt u aangeven in hoeverre u denkt dat de uitspraken op hem/haar van toepassing zijn door steeds het best passende antwoord te kiezen?
geheel mee oneens
mee oneens
niet mee eens, niet mee oneens
1
2
3
mee eens geheel mee eens 4
5
14
self1
Hij/zij vertrouwt erop dat hij/zij onverwachte gebeurtenissen doeltreffend aanpakt
1
2
3
4
5
15
self2
Als deze persoon geconfronteerd wordt met een probleem, heeft hij/zij meestal meerdere oplossingen
1
2
3
4
5
16
self3
Als deze persoon in een benarde situatie zit, weet hij/zij meestal wat hij/zij moet doen
1
2
3
4
5
17
self4
Wat er ook gebeurt, hij/zij komt er wel uit
1
2
3
4
5
Persoonlijkheid
Persoonlijkheid 2 De volgende vragen gaan over hoe hij/zij doet en denkt. Wilt u aangeven in hoeverre u denkt dat de uitspraken op hem/haar van toepassing zijn door steeds het best passende antwoord te kiezen?
geheel mee oneens
mee oneens
niet mee eens, niet mee oneens
1
2
3
mee eens geheel mee eens 4
5
18
hope1
Als deze persoon op zijn/haar werk vast zou komen te zitten, zou hij/zij meerdere manieren kunnen bedenken om eruit te komen
1
2
3
4
5
19
hope2
Op dit moment werkt deze peroon vol energie toe naar
1
2
3
4
5
54 de doelen die hij/zij heeft in zijn/haar werk 20
hope3
Op dit moment ziet deze persoon zichzelf als behoorlijk succesvol in zijn/haar werk
1
2
3
4
5
21
hope4
Deze persoon kan meerdere manieren bedenken om zijn/haar werkgerelateerde doelen te bereiken
1
2
3
4
5
22
hope5
Op dit moment heeft deze persoon de werkgerelateerde doelen, die hij/zij voor zichzelf gesteld heeft, bereikt
1
2
3
4
5
Stressbestendigheid
Persoonlijkheid 3 De volgende vragen gaan over hoe hij/zij doet en denkt. Wilt u aangeven in hoeverre u denkt dat de uitspraken op hem/haar van toepassing zijn door steeds het best passende antwoord te kiezen?
geheel mee oneens
mee oneens
niet mee eens, niet mee oneens
1
2
3
mee eens geheel mee eens 4
5
23
res1
Deze persoon geniet van het omgaan met nieuwe en ongewone situaties
1
2
3
4
5
24
res2
Deze persoon is nieuwsgieriger dan de meeste andere mensen
1
2
3
4
5
25
res3
Deze persoon vindt het prettig om nieuwe en andere dingen te doen
1
2
3
4
5
26
res4
Deze persoon zou zichzelf wel willen omschrijven als iemand met een behoorlijk sterke persoonlijkheid
1
2
3
4
5
27
res5
Deze persoon is stressbestendig te noemen
1
2
3
4
5
55 Bevlogenheid
Werkbeleving De volgende vragen gaan over hoe hij/zij zich voelt op je werk en wat het werk voor hem/haar betekent. Wilt u aangeven hoe vaak de uitspraken op hem/haar van toepassing zijn door steeds het best passende antwoord te kiezen? nooit
bijna nooit
af en toe
regelmatig
dikwijls
zeer dikwijls
altijd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
28
bevlog1
Deze persoon bruist op zijn/haar werk van de energie
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
29
bevlog2
Deze persoon voelt zich fit en sterk als hij/zij werkt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
30
bevlog3
Deze persoon is enthousiast over zijn/haar baan
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
31
bevlog4
Zijn/haar werk inspireert deze persoon
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
32
bevlog5
Deze persoon is trots op het werk dat hij/zij doet
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
33
bevlog6
Deze persoon gaat helemaal op in zijn/haar werk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Bedankt voor uw deelname! Wij stellen uw bijdrage erg op prijs!
Op de volgende pagina kunt u de feedback bekijken en deze e-mailen naar de persoon over wie u deze vragenlijst heeft ingevuld.
