The Effect of Training in Verbal Self-Guidance on Performance Effectiveness in a MBA Program

The Effect of Training in Verbal Self-Guidance on

Performance Effectiveness in a MBA Program

TRAVOR C. BROWN,

GARY P. LATHAM,

Abstract

The present field experiment examined the effects of

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

intervention, goal setting, on the performance effectiveness

of students in a MBA program. Performance effectiveness

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

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

a composite criterion (performance effectiveness). MBA

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

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

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

effectiveness. There was an interaction effect

such that participants who were trained in VSG and set

goals had the highest level of performance effectiveness.

A subsequent analysis revealed that the main effect for

VSG on performance was spurious due to an ordinal

interaction effect. Hence, VSG may be most effective

when combined with goal setting.

Verbal self-guidance (

VSG) involves people verbalizing

their thought processes as they consider a problem,

discover information relevant to this problem,

generate potential solutions, consider the advantages

and disadvantages of each alternative solution, and

implement what is considered to be the best solution

(Brown, 2003). Thus,

VSG refers to self-talk, but one’s

self-discourse can vary widely, depending on what

aspect of one’s functioning one seeks to influence.

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

developed a

VSG training method, which

he labeled functional self-talk. This training teaches

people to systematically talk themselves through

ways to overcome obstacles to performing effectively.

In essence, this technique involves training people to

change their negative, dysfunctional self-statements

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

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

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

consists of a three-step process whereby a participant:

1) observes a clinician model effective selfstatements

that guide the person to the actions needed

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

verbally instructing oneself, and 3) performs a task

while verbally instructing oneself covertly.

Research Concerning

VSG

Much of the research concerning

VSG is limited to

studies of children in clinical, counseling or educational

settings. In these settings,

VSG has been shown

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

For example, training in

VSG reduces errors made by

impulsive children (Meichenbaum & Goodman,

1971), increases reading and listening comprehension

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

improves the creativity of students (Meichenbaum,

1975).

The purpose of the present study was to examine

the external validity of

VSG training for adults performing

organizationally relevant tasks, namely, peo-

ple in a

MBA program. A potential boundary condition

for

VSG may be the age of the participants.

Previous studies showing the effectiveness of

VSG

have primarily involved children. Children may be

more amenable to learning to focus on and change

their self-talk than are adults. As William James

noted more than a century ago, habits are formed

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

(James, 1892, p. 375).

A second boundary variable for the effectiveness

of

VSG may be the setting. Adults in an MBA program

may be less willing to acquire the skills necessary for

changing their dysfunctional self-talk than are clients

in clinical/counseling settings. As Halpern (2004)

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

depends in part on the characteristics of the environment.

A clinical/counseling setting may be more

amenable for teaching

VSG skills than an organizational

setting as the former allows the person to conceal

difficulties mastering a new task, and will not

threaten a person’s status among group members. A

pilot test of

VSG training in a previous year’s MBA

class revealed that many people derisively labeled

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

potential theoretical significance of

VSG is that it may

be a self-regulation process that explains in part a

person’s performance effectiveness in an organizational

setting. As Vygotsky (1962) noted, inner speech

is the primary vehicle for thought and self-direction.

The practical significance of a positive finding is that

VSG

is an inexpensive training technique. As such,

VSG

may prove to be a relatively straightforward,

self-administered intervention.

To date, there have been very few

VSG training

studies involving adults in organizational settings.

Moreover, in two of those studies

VSG was imbedded

within other training interventions. Neck and Manz

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

(

TSL) that included VSG and mental imagery. The

training had no effect on job performance.

Waung (1995) found no significant effects for

VSG

in her study of two orientation-training programs. In

addition to

VSG, the treatment package included cognitive

restructuring and a realistic job preview. The

comparison group received a realistic job preview

that included inculcating coping behaviours. Four

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

there were no significant differences between the

two conditions in terms of anxiety, intention to

remain in, and commitment to, the organization.

Moreover,

VSG participants experienced higher voluntary

turnover than those in the comparison group.

One potential explanation for these findings, offered

by Waung, is that

VSG participants reported that they

had received more negative information than did the

participants in the comparison group.

A second explanation, not reported by Waung

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

namely a maximum of 35 minutes. This time

period may have increased participants’ awareness of

their negative self-statements without allowing for

the acquisition of requisite skills for changing these

statements to positive self-guidance. Third, the comparison

group was not a control group per se as these

participants were given training on coping behaviours.

This training may have bolstered the dependent

variables.

Using

VSG only, Millman and Latham (2001) found

that seven, two-hour training sessions, conducted

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

greater number of displaced managers

finding jobs within nine months of training, relative

to participants in the control group. Two limitations

of the study included the use of a quasi-experimental

design, as not all participants were randomly

assigned to conditions, and the small sample size.

Brown (2003) also used a quasi-experimental

design to examine the effect of

VSG training on team

performance on simulated tasks. Performance

increased significantly relative to a control group. As

the unit of analysis was the team, the effect of

VSG on

an individual’s performance was not examined.

Based on the fact that two of these four studies

found that training in

VSG affects performance positively

in organizational contexts, we hypothesized

that

VSG should improve the performance of adults

in a MBA program.

Goal Setting

None of the previously cited

VSG studies in clinical/

counseling or industrial organizational psychology

examined the explicit effects of goals on performance.

Yet, goal setting is implicitly imbedded in

VSG

. VSG requires an individual to turn specific negative

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

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

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

In the present study, goal setting was made explicit in

order to determine if it improves the effectiveness of

VSG

. However, because of theory and empirical

research, we did not hypothesize a main effect for

goal setting. As a theory of motivation, goal setting

assumes that: 1) the person has the requisite knowledge

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

activates this task knowledge (Locke, 2000;

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

cues the individual’s attention to choose to exert

effort and persistence to attain it, resulting in a main

Verbal Self-Guidance 3

effect for goals on performance. When a task is complex

and the person lacks the requisite task knowledge

or skill, setting a specific, difficult performance

goal can have a deleterious effect on performance.

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

study of Air Force trainees who were mastering a

flight simulator, found that during the declarative

stage of learning, participants need to focus their

attention on understanding ways to perform the task.

Hence, setting a specific, difficult goal decreased performance

as it diverted participants’ attention away

from discovering and encoding the necessary strategies

to perform the task. They concluded that goal

setting is effective only after individuals encode and

store the necessary task rules, as well as integrate the

sequencing of motor and cognitive processes for performing

the task effectively. These findings have been

replicated by others (Seijts & Latham, 2001; Winters

& Latham, 1996).

The assumption underlying the present study is

that first year

MBAs enter a new environment where

they have yet to develop the necessary behavioural

skills to work effectively in a team setting. The

MBA

program differs from a traditional undergraduate

program in at least three ways. First, unlike most

undergraduate programs, some classes are only several

weeks long while others run a full semester.

Second, the people with whom they regularly interact

have widely different academic backgrounds

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

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

MBA

students do not have an undergraduate degree in

business. Third, and most importantly, the

MBA program

requires extensive teamwork. Group assignments

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

People are permanently assigned to a team for at

least an entire semester, and sometimes for a full academic

year. Furthermore, there is fierce competition

among people for grades as many organizational

recruiters use grade point average (

GPA) as a criterion

for selection. The business school puts great pressure

on

MBA students to secure jobs with prestigious firms

as starting salaries and place of employment can

impact both the prestige and the ranking of a business

school in the popular press. Adding to the

expectations of, and stress placed on

MBA students, is

the emphasis by recruiters on evidence of interpersonal

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

environment of the

MBA program requires the acquisition

of interpersonal skills, a high GPA, and the

motivation to do so.

Goal Setting and

VSG

Based on the extant research, we hypothesized

that

VSG, with its emphasis on the discovery and

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

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

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

an interaction effect such that participants who

receive training in

VSG and set a specific high goal

have the highest level of performance effectiveness.

Locke argued that on a complex task there is typically

an interaction effect between task knowledge and

goals. Specifically, he argued that this interaction

occurs when: 1) the goal alone cannot activate existing

task knowledge because the person lacks such

knowledge and 2) this task knowledge is derived

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

when combined with goals, results in the highest

level of performance in the high goal, high task

knowledge condition. Thus, we hypothesized that

the motivational effects of goal setting are beneficial

in this study only when training in

VSG enables an

individual to develop and affirm behaviours to overcome

obstacles to his/her performance.

VSG facilitates

the discovery of task behaviours because it

focuses attention on discovering and encoding the

necessary strategies to perform the task at hand.

Performance Criteria

There has been a long debate in the literature concerning

the choice of an appropriate performance criterion

(see Latham & Wexley, 1994). The performance

criteria in the present study were dictated by the setting.

MBA

programs have been criticized by both the

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

Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, which is the

accreditation body for

MBA programs in North

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

who graduate with strong analytical yet weak interpersonal

skills. Business leaders and educators have

demanded that this situation be corrected (Mason,

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

The MBA director in the business school, where

this study took place, assigns

MBA students to teams.

Both MBA students from previous years, as well as

faculty, had observed that poor interpersonal skills

had an adverse effect on students’ academic performance

in the program, namely

GPA. Sue-Chan and

Latham (2004) found that

MBA students lack the

knowledge and skills necessary to improve themselves

as team-players. Consequently, both an outcome

and a behavioural measure of performance

effectiveness were used to evaluate the effect of the

VSG

training program on the person’s performance.

The outcome measure in the present study was the

student’s

GPA. As noted earlier, many organizational

recruiters use this measure as a basis for hiring grad-

4 Brown and Latham

uating

MBA students, and faculty use GPA as an indicator

of a student’s mastery of course material.

Hence, this measure is highly relevant to a

MBA student.

A limitation of an outcome measure is that it is

often influenced by factors beyond the individual’s

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

scheduled in a given day; idiosyncratic grading bias

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

effectiveness was also used in this study, namely,

the person’s interpersonal skills. Interpersonal

skills are defined as the ability to communicate, work

collaboratively with others, manage time, empower/

delegate, as well as motivate/persuade self and

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

& Cameron, 2002).

A limitation of behavioural criteria is their susceptibility

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

contrast effects). Multiple operationalization of performance

effectiveness in terms of an outcome and

behavioural measure decreases the likelihood of a

Type II error. In

MBA programs in general, and in this

MBA

program in particular, interpersonal skills and

GPA

are interrelated. This is because a student’s GPA

is affected by how well individuals perform as team

members in their respective teams. Team assignments

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

in each course of the

MBA program. Previous

research has shown that behavioural performance

measures, developed through a systematic job analysis,

correlate with performance outcome measures

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

Thus a composite criterion was also used in this

study as this measure is the norm for making administrative

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

settings (Schmidt & Kaplan, 1971).

In summary, the present study differs from the

four earlier

VSG studies in industrial-organizational

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

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

experimental rather than a quasi-experimental

design, where there was no confounding of treatments,

and where the consequences for the individual

were “real.” People were randomly assigned to

conditions. The effect of goal setting was examined

explicitly rather than implicitly. The outcomes for the

person included an appraisal of interpersonal skills

by peers as well as grades assigned by faculty members.

The evaluation of the training program included

both behavioral and outcome performance measures

as well as a composite criterion. Thus the probability

of making a Type II error regarding the effect

of the intervention in bringing about a change in the

person’s effectiveness was minimized. Two hypotheses

were tested.

Hypothesis 1: People trained in VSG have significantly

higher performance than those who are not trained in

VSG.

Hypothesis 2: There is an interaction effect between VSG

and goal setting on performance.

Method

Sample

Adults enrolled in the first year

MBA class (n =

126) of a Canadian university were randomly

assigned to a 2 (

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

factorial design. This number represented 95.46% of

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

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

employment experience. Participants did not

differ significantly from nonparticipants on sex, age,

or work experience.

Procedure

The procedure used in this experiment consisted

of the following steps: 1) development of a behavioural

measure of interpersonal skills, 2) random

assignment to experimental conditions, 3) goal setting

intervention, 4) training in

VSG, and 5) data collection.

Interpersonal skills. Interpersonal skills (see Table 1)

were assessed using behavioural observation scales

(

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

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

MBA

class, a job analysis, namely, the critical

incident technique (Flanagan, 1954), was conducted

with faculty who teach in the

MBA program as well

as

MBA students. This job analysis asked people to

recall examples of both effective and ineffective teamwork

or interpersonal behaviours that led to high or

low

GPA in the program. These behaviours were used

to develop

BOS. BOS were used because they are reliable

and valid, and they correlate positively with performance

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

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

Assignment to teams. Each year the director of the

MBA

program assigns each student to a team. Steps

are taken to ensure that the teams are relatively balanced

in terms of sex, quantitative/qualitative

undergraduate degrees, and international/national

students. Group size in the present study ranged

from five to six individuals. The tasks performed by

these teams were similar to those performed by

teams in other organizational settings. Specifically,

these tasks included multidisciplinary analyses and

presentations, as well as consulting projects based on

Verbal Self-Guidance 5

organizational site visits. As consulting groups, the

teams met client organizations, analyzed data, made

recommendations, and presented their findings to

key stakeholders. These team projects, as noted earlier,

represented a minimum of 40% of the final grade

in each MBA course.

The roles of team members were highly interdependent.

Each team was identifiable by a name (they

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

total authority on project planning regarding assignment

of tasks to individuals among the team. Each

team also made decisions that had important consequences

for them, both as a team and as individuals

within the team, in terms of

GPA. The only directions

given to the teams by faculty members were the task

assignments and their completion dates.

Experimental conditions. A 2 (

VSG/control) by 2

(goal setting/no goal setting) factorial design was

used in this experiment. All participants were shown

the

BOS and informed that the interpersonal skills

contained on them were important for performing

well in the

MBA program. Given the use of teams in

the business school, behaviours on the

BOS were

labeled teamwork skills. Immediately following the

presentation of the BOS, participants were invited to

participate in the study. Specifically, they were

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

assess the effectiveness of different approaches to

performing effectively in the MBA program; b) it was

important not to share training program details with

other people as it could cause contamination; and c)

we randomly assigned participants to conditions in

order to control for extraneous variables. This was

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

analysis in this study was the individual. At no time

did we share our hypotheses with participants or faculty

members.

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

condition met in a large room for approximately

30 minutes. There they were explicitly asked to set a

specific, difficult goal for the

BOS score that they

would work to attain as individuals. They then met

in small groups of four to six people to discuss their

rationale for their goal because discussing one’s goal

can increase goal commitment (Locke & Latham,

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

informed that they could modify their goals based on

this conversation. Goal difficulty and goal commitment

were assessed at this time. We did not require a

goal for

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

Participants in the no goal setting, do your best

(

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

They, too, received the

BOS. Rather than setting a specific,

difficult goal, they were urged to do their best to

demonstrate the interpersonal skills listed on the

BOS

for the reasons cited earlier. They then met in groups

of four to six people to discuss the importance of

doing their best to demonstrate the

BOS items.

Consistent with previous goal-setting studies (see

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

questionnaires concerning a goal as they were

not in a goal-setting condition.

Training in

VSG. Three weekly 90-minute VSG

training sessions were provided. In the first session,

immediately following the goal-setting intervention,

the participants (n = 60) discussed ways that their

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

self-talk affected their behaviour in the

MBA

program. Each person identified three dysfunctional

self-statements concerning their performance. These

statements were the focus of training in

VSG.

Consistent with Meichenbaum (1975, 1977), people

were taught to change their dysfunctional self-statements

to functional self-talk. A three-step process

was used. Specifically, they were trained to become

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

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

themselves specific ways they could improve the situation,

and finally to develop positive self-statements

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

give positive feedback…I can use positive feedback

to energize my team-mates.”).

Consistent with Meichenbaum and Goodman

(1971), each statement was initially modeled by the

trainer. Then each trainee repeated the statement

overtly. Finally, each trainee repeated the statement

covertly. The session ended with the trainees receiving

logbooks to record their self-statements concerning

their performance over the coming weeks.

The second session contained three components.

First, the trainer reviewed the

VSG technique. Second,

trainees reviewed their logbooks and gave examples

of areas in which they had engaged in functional or

dysfunctional self-talk concerning their performance.

Third, for each dysfunctional statement, the trainees

applied the

VSG technique.

The third session replicated the second session. In

addition, trainees identified obstacles to successfully

using

VSG to increase their performance in the MBA

program. As a group, participants discussed these

obstacles and strategized ways to overcome them.

The session ended with questionnaires assessing

trainees’ reactions to the

VSG training.

In order to minimize demand effects, people in the

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

VSG

, took part in a simulation exercise where they

assumed the roles of members of a city council. This

council was asked to review several proposals concerning

the use of a building donated to the city. The

rationale given to the participants in this control condition

was that the simulation was designed to teach

them the importance of working effectively as individuals

in teams. Participants had 90 minutes to

reach group consensus concerning the proposal that

they would accept.

Data collection. At the end of the semester manipulation

checks were conducted. Prior to receiving their

grades, peers assessed one another’s interpersonal

skills anonymously. The dean’s office calculated the

GPA

for each individual.

Measures

VSG

manipulation checks. VSG manipulation checks

included trainee reactions and

VSG skills usage.

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

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

VSG participants:

a) would recommend this training to others,

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

trainer helpful). In assessing

VSG usage, all participants

(

VSG and control) were asked the extent to

which they were aware of their self-statements, monitored

their self-statements, generated positive selfstatements,

and converted negative statements to

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

strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).

Goal-setting manipulation checks. Consistent with

the recommendations of Locke and Latham (1990),

people in the goal condition completed questionnaires

assessing actual goal difficulty level (i.e.,

desired

BOS score), perceived goal difficulty level,

goal specificity, and goal commitment. The latter

three measures were assessed using a 5-point Likerttype

scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 =

strongly agree. Perceived goal difficulty and specificity

were assessed at the end of the study using questions

adapted from Winters and Latham (1996).

Specifically, two goal difficulty questions asked if

participants saw their goal as difficult (Question 1) or

easy (Question 2, reverse scored). Goal specificity

was measured using three questions, namely, the

extent to which participants believed that their goal

Verbal Self-Guidance 7

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

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

person’s goal was operationalized in terms of

BOS

score; goal commitment was assessed using the fiveitem

goal commitment scale developed by Klein,

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

Performance. The behavioural measure of an individual’s

interpersonal skills was anonymously

assessed by peers. Specifically, peers rated the frequency

with which they observed a team member

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

almost never and 4 = almost always). These peers

worked with the person throughout the entire semester.

Thus, peers were arguably the most important

source of information regarding a person’s behaviour.

The outcome measure of a person’s performance

(i.e.,

GPA) was measured by faculty who were

neither aware of the purpose of the study, nor the

experimental condition to which a person had been

randomly assigned. The composite criterion, performance

effectiveness, was created by summing each

person’s z-score for

GPA and BOS.

Results

VSG

Manipulation Checks

Responses indicated that the

VSG participants

were satisfied with the training (

M = 39.46; SD = 5.02;

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

greater use of

VSG skills (M = 19.28; SD = 3.51;

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

(

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

p < .001.

Goal-Setting Manipulation Checks

Goal-setting manipulation checks revealed that

the mean goal set by goal-setting participants was am

47.07 (

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

participants were highly committed to their goals (

M

= 21.12;

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

that they perceived their goals to be both specific (

M

= 11.42;

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

difficult (

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

= 10).

ANOVA confirmed that there were no significant

differences in these four measures between the

goal-setting participants in the

VSG condition and

those in the control condition,

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

F

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

.01, p > .05, respectively.

Performance

GPA

. GPA was available for 121 participants; 5 had

left the

MBA program. GPA ranged from 2.68 to 3.89

(

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

with the first hypothesis, a 2 x 2

ANOVA revealed a

main effect for

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

addition, there was an interaction effect between

VSG

and goal setting,

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

Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported. No main effect

was found for goal setting,

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

means and standard deviations are shown in Table 2.

The interaction effect is presented in Figure 1.

Bobko (1986) argued that a spurious main effect

can result in a 2 x 2

ANOVA when an ordinal interaction

is present. Given our hypotheses that the participants

in the

VSG/goal-setting condition would have

the highest performance level, we tested the interaction

using Bobko’s ordinal interaction technique. This

technique involves two planned contrasts: 1) testing

the equality of the means of the three noninteraction

conditions (i.e.,

VSG/DYB; Control/ Goal Setting;

Control/

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

the means of the interaction (i.e.,

VSG/goal

setting) versus the average of the remaining three

conditions using a planned t-test. Contrast one was

not significant,

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

no significant difference among the means of the

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

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

with the

VSG/goal-setting condition having the highest

level of

GPA relative to the other three study conditions.

Interpersonal skills. For the behavioural measure of

performance,

BOS scores were obtained for 117 participants

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

among raters was calculated using the average

interrater agreement statistic, r

wg, (James, Demaree,

& Wolf, 1993). The r

wg, for the 11 behavioural items

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

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

Verbal Self-Guidance 9

peer ratings per person was four. Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient for the 11-item

BOS was .90. The grand

mean of the 11-item

BOS was 36.26 (SD = 4.17; maximum

score = 44).

The correlation between GPA and interpersonal

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

Hypothesis 2, a 2 x 2

ANOVA revealed a significant

interaction effect,

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

no main effects for either

VSG or goal setting on interpersonal

skills,

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

> .05, respectively. The means and standard deviations

of this

ANOVA are shown in Table 2; the interaction

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

(1986) ordinal interaction analysis was conducted.

For contrast one,

ANOVA revealed no significant differences

among the three conditions of

VSG only, goal

setting only, and Control/

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

In addition, there was no significant difference

between the means of the

VSG/goal setting and the

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

.16.

Composite criterion. A 2 x 2

ANOVA of the composite

criterion of performance effectiveness revealed a

main effect for

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

also an interaction effect between

VSG and goal setting

,

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

2 were supported. No main effect was found for goal

setting,

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

deviations are shown in Table 2. The interaction

effect is presented in Figure 3.

Again, Bobko’s (1986) ordinal interaction analysis

was conducted to see if the main effect for

VSG was

spurious. For contrast one,

ANOVA revealed no significant

differences among the three conditions of

VSG

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

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

difference between the mean of the

VSG/goal-setting

condition versus the mean of the other three conditions,

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

of an ordinal interaction for the composite criterion.

Discussion

The theoretical and practical significance of this

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

goal-setting theory and training in

VSG is the interaction

effect found for

VSG and goal setting on performance.

The lack of a main effect for goal setting alone

is consistent with previous findings that when people

are in a learning mode, setting a specific, difficult

performance goal does not improve performance

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

the present study, the task of mastering the MBA curriculum

and the requisite interpersonal skills,

required more than motivation in terms of choice,

effort, and persistence; it required learning interpersonal

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

that the highest level of performance occurs

when participants have high task knowledge and

high motivation. In the present study, performance

was highest in the condition where participants were

trained to use

VSG and to set a high performance goal

that motivated them to apply their newly acquired

knowledge and skill.

Second, this study, when examined in conjunction

with the four previous industrial-organizational psychology

studies involving

VSG, suggests three tentative

answers to the question: “When is

VSG training

effective?” First,

VSG appears to be a skill that

requires multiple training sessions of several hours

duration. In the present study, and that of both

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

trainees took part in two or more training sessions

where the total training program lasted at least 100

minutes. In contrast, a single, short training session

of less than 40 minutes failed to result in a significant

main effect (Waung, 1995). Second,

VSG appears to be

effective when people lack the knowledge and skill to

perform the task at hand. When participants have

already mastered a task, and thus have the requisite

knowledge and skill,

VSG does not appear to increase

performance. This argument is supported by the

findings of Neck and Manz (1996), where

VSG did

not increase the performance of employees. In that

study, the sample consisted of experienced employees

who had already gained the knowledge and skill

needed to effectively perform their jobs. Third,

Bobko’s (1986) ordinal interaction analysis suggests

that the main effect for

VSG on GPA as well as the

composite criterion was spurious.

VSG appears to be

most effective when combined with an explicitly set

behavioural goal.

An unexpected finding was that there was not an

ordinal interaction when the dependent variable was

interpersonal skills, despite the moderately high correlation

between the two performance measures (i.e.,

GPA

and BOS score). As previously mentioned,

behavioural measures are prone to observation errors

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

the 11-item

BOS, most participants received a rating

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

BOS

scale, where the maximum score for each item

was four. Restriction in range is likely responsible for

the present finding.

Third, the results of this study may prove useful

for increasing the persuasiveness of

MBA directors’

messages regarding the importance of teamwork

skills for people who enter the

MBA program with little

appreciation for interpersonal effectiveness.

Interpersonal skills are important for one’s

GPA. The

present study shows that only five hours of training

(i.e., 270 minutes for

VSG plus 30 minutes for goal setting)

can provide

MBA students the self-regulation

skills necessary for increasing their overall performance.

Training in

VSG is a practical intervention that

can be included in existing organizational behaviour

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

Potential limitations of this experiment include the

sample and the context. In this study, participants

were adults enrolled in an educational institution.

While the participants were, on average, 29 years old

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

which the findings from the present sample generalize

to older adults, particularly adults working in the

public and private sector organizations, remains to be

tested.

References

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

hypotheses about ordinal interactions.

Journal of

Applied Psychology, 71,

323-326.

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

training on collective efficacy and team performance.

Personnel Psychology, 56, 935-964.

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

Interpersonal skills in organizations. Toronto, ON:

McGraw Hill.

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

Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358.

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

Understanding constancy and change in adult

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

Leader development for transforming organizations.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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

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

FP1, FP2.

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

assessment of within-group interrater agreement.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.

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

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

Verbal Self-Guidance 11

nitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment

interaction approach to skill acquisition.

Journal of

Applied Psychology, 74,

657-690.

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

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

A measurement model meta-analysis.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

85, 32-55.

Latham, G. P. (1997).

Correlates of executive education program

revenue, repeat business and the satisfaction of client

organizations and individual participants.

Millington, NJ:

University Consortium for Executive Education (UNICON).

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

scales for performance appraisal purposes

.

Personnel Psychology, 30

, 255-268.

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

Increasing productivity

through performance appraisal

(2nd ed.). Reading,

MA: Addison-Wexley.

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

analysis of studies of task goals and knowledge.

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

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

A theory of goal setting

and task performance.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

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

customer demand. Management Review, 81, 10.

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

what subjects say to themselves.

American

Educational Research Journal, 12

, 129-145.

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

in reducing avoidance behavior.

Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 17

, 298-307.

Meichenbaum, D. H. (1977).

Cognitive behavior modification.

An integrative approach

. New York: Plenum Press.

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

children to talk to themselves: A means of developing

self-control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77,

115-126.

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

through training in verbal self-guidance. In M.

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

Work

Motivation in the Context of a Globalizing Economy

(pp.

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

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

The impact of mental strategies training on

employee cognition, behavior, and affect.

Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 17

, 445-467.

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

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

AACSB International:

Management Education Task Force

(Draft IV). St. Louis,

MO: The Association to Advanced Collegiate Schools

of Business International.

Pfeffer, J. (1998).

The human equation: Building profits by

putting people first

. Boston, MA: Harvard Business

School Press.

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

criteria: A review and resolution of the controversy.

Personnel Psychology, 24, 419-434.

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

during remedial listening comprehension

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

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

strategies: Effects on children’s achievement

outcomes. Human Learning, 4, 1-10.

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

learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately

complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,

291-302.

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

of external, peer, and self-coaches.

Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 52

, 260-278.

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

behaviors: Development and validation of BOS and a

hierarchical factor structure. Small Group Research, 32,

698-726.

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

MIT Press.

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

orientation on newcomer adjustment and job survival.

Personnel Psychology, 48, 633-651.

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

Developing management

skills

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

Wesley.

Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com