Productivity. Interviews with manag

Productivity. Interviews with managers and employees
were conducted to determine the productivity measures
collected, the degree to which they were contaminated or
deficient as criteria, and the extent to which they were
used to evaluate effectiveness. Indications were that the
measures most carefully collected and closely monitored
were indicators of the amount of work not finished on a
weekly basis which was received by the group from the
subterritory it supported. That is, the groups’ goals were
not to reach the highest productivity per se, but to
complete all the work that came in each week. Most
territories did not even record the amount of work
completed, but they did record most of these six measures
related to unfinished work per week: (1) New Work
Unfinished--number of new pieces of work not finished, (2)
Percentage of New Work Unfinished--amount of new work
unfinished as a percentage of new work received, (3)
Revisions Unfinished--number of revisions to existing
pieces of work not finished, (4) Percentage of Revisions
Unfinished-number of revisions unfinished as a percentage
of revisions received, (5) Calls Not Answered-number of
phone calls to members of the group not answered, and
(6) Percentage of Calls Not Answered--number of calls not
answered as a percentage of calls received.
Each piece of work required the same set of tasks (e.g.,
coding, computer keying, quality checking, etc.). Although
pieces of work varied somewhat in difficulty, distribution of
difficulty was considered equivalent across groups in a
given territory. Group size was used to adjust for
differences in workload generated by the subterritories or
skills among employees. Groups with higher workloads or
fewer trained employees were assigned more employees.
Group size did not change frequently because workload
was fairly stable. Thus, groups were comparable within a
territory, even though they differed in number of
employees, and there was no need to standardize
productivity data based on group size. There were
differences across territories, however, such as complexity
of the work and average group size. Therefore,
productivity measures were standardized across territories
using z-scores.
Although productivity is often stable (e.g., Deadrick &
Madigan, 1990), the range of jobs studied has been
limited. Thus, productivity data was collected and
aggregated for each group over a long period (M = 27.89
weeks per group, SD = 3.88). To avoid temporal
influences, the time period was the same for each group,
from 3 months before to 3 months after the collection of
the characteristics data. Intraclass correlations were used
to assess reliability, or the degree of variance in
productivity across weeks within a group compared to
between groups. They can be interpreted as the
correlations between the mean of this 30 weeks of
productivity and the mean of another (hypothetical) 30
weeks. Average intraclass correlations ranged from .77 to
.95 (p < .05), thus suggesting substantial reliability.
The six measures were intercorrelated, so they were
averaged into a composite (M = .00, SD = .42, internal
consistency = .74). All measures were not available for all
groups (range from 46-79), so the composite was based
on the available data for each group. Analyses with
measures having the least missing data were similar, so
only data for the composite are presented.2 The signs on
the correlations were reversed so that positive numbers
indicate relationships with higher productivity (i.e., less
work not finished).
Employee satisfaction. To avoid common method
variance, the organization’s opinion survey was used as
the measure of satisfaction rather than adding a scale to
the questionnaire. That is, it was administered at a
different point in time (3 months earlier) and for an
unrelated purpose, thus mitigating any consistency or
priming effects. Data were obtained from all employees
(total n = 1,175), not just the 5 who provided other
measures. This gave the maximum data for each group (M
= 14.87 employees per group, SD = 5.52), enhanced
interrater reliability, and further reduced common method
variance because satisfaction data were included from
many additional employees who did not provide
characteristics data.
The aggregate data from all employees in each group was
used as the satisfaction measure. Such aggregation of
satisfaction data is common, and may be somewhat
justified by the definition of morale as referring to either the
individual or group (Webster’s, 1965), even though the
practice is not without criticism (Roberts et al., 1978).
The survey consisted of 71 items on a range of topics.
Five-point response formats were used, usually ranging
from 5 = "very satisfied" or "strongly agree" to 1 = "very
dissatisfied" or "strongly disagree." A principal components
analysis revealed 12 factors explaining 61% of total
variance: supervision, job, quality of servi

結果 (中文) 1:

生产力。经理和员工的采访进行了确定生产力的措施收集，他们受到了污染的程度或作为标准和他们很大程度的不足用于评估成效。结果表明最精心搜集和密切监测措施了，大量的工作指标没有完成上每周从组接获的依据它支持的 subterritory。那就是，集团的目标是不是要到最高的生产力本身，但是对于完成所有的工作，每个星期会来。大多数界甚至没有记录的大量工作完成，但他们确实记录了大部分的六措施有关未完成每周的工作: (1) 新的工作未完成 — — 的新作品数不完，(2)新工作未完成 — — 新工时量的百分比未完成的新的工作，收到了，(3) 百分比修改未完成 — — 修订现有的数目作品不完成，修订的 (4) 百分比未完成数量的修订未完成百分比修订的获得，(5) 调用不回答-数目电话打到没有回答，组的成员和（6） 的调用没有回答 — — 调用次数百分比不回答接收呼叫的百分比。每份工作所需任务相同的集 （例如，编码、 计算机键控、 质量检查等）。虽然作品多少有些困难，分布在不同困难被认为是等效的跨组给定的领土。组的大小用来调节由 subterritories 生成的工作量差异或员工之间的技能。具有较高的工作负载组或较少受过训练的员工被分配了更多的员工。组的大小并不会频繁更改因为工作量是相当稳定的。因此，组均可比内领土，即使他们在数目不同雇员，并无需规范基于组大小的生产率数据。曾经有然而，差异跨界，如复杂性工作和平均组大小。因此，生产力的措施进行标准化处理跨界采用 z 分数。虽然生产力往往是稳定 (例如，Deadrick &马迪根，1990 年），研究工作的范围已有限。因此，收集了生产率数据和很长一段为每个组聚合 (M = 27.89每个组，SD 周 = 3.88)。为了避免世俗影响，时间段是一样的每个组，3 个月前到 3 个月后的集合特征数据。组内相关分析方法要评估可靠性或变化的程度周相比，组内的生产率之间的组。他们可以被解释为这 30 周的平均值之间的相关性生产力和另一个 （假想的） 30 的平均值周。介乎于.77 平均测度相关性.95 (p <.05 载脂从而表明大量的可靠性。六项措施进行关联，所以他们平均到合成 (M =.00，SD =.42，内部一致性 =.74 明显所有的措施都不供所有因此，复合材料基于群体 （范围从 46-79），对每个组的可用数据。与分析措施有至少丢失的数据相近，所以只为复合的数据是 presented.2 上的路标相关性被扭转这样的正数与更高的生产率 （即不指示关系工作没有完成）。员工的满意度。为了避免常见的方法该组织认为调查作为采用方差，这一措施的满意度，而不是添加到规模问卷调查。就是，它在进行管理不同点时间 （3 个月前）无关的用途，从而减轻任何一致性或启动效应。数据源自所有员工(总 n = 1,175)，不只是他们提供了其他 5措施。这给每个组 (M 的最大数据= 每个组，SD 14.87 员工 = 5.52)、 增强其可靠性和进一步减少常见的方法方差因为满意度数据包含从没有提供的许多其他雇员特征数据。The aggregate data from all employees in each group was used as the satisfaction measure. Such aggregation of satisfaction data is common, and may be somewhat justified by the definition of morale as referring to either the individual or group (Webster’s, 1965), even though the practice is not without criticism (Roberts et al., 1978).The survey consisted of 71 items on a range of topics. Five-point response formats were used, usually ranging from 5 = "very satisfied" or "strongly agree" to 1 = "very dissatisfied" or "strongly disagree." A principal components analysis revealed 12 factors explaining 61% of total variance: supervision, job, quality of servi

結果 (中文) 3:

生产力.与管理者和员工的面谈进行了确定生产力的措施收集到的，他们被污染或污染的程度作为标准的缺陷，以及他们在的程度用于评估有效性。迹象表明措施最仔细收集和密切监测指标的数量的工作没有完成的一个本集团于本集团于本集团之分区支持。也就是说，小组的目标是不达到最高的生产力本身，但完成每个星期来的所有工作。最领土甚至没有记录的工作量完成，但他们确实记录了这六项措施每周未完成的工作：（1）新工作未完成的-新作品的数量未完成，（2）新工作百分百的新工作未完成的作为收到的新工作的百分比，（3）修改未完成的-对现有的修改数件工作未完成，（4）修改百分比未完成的修改的数量作为一个百分比收到的修改，（5）调用没有回答的数量电话给该组的成员没有回答，和（6）打电话的百分比没有接听电话号码回答为收到的电话的百分比。每一件工作都需要相同的任务（例如，编码，计算机键控，质量检查等）。虽然作品中的作品在难度、分布上有所不同难度被认为是相当于跨组在一个鉴于领土。组大小被用来调整在由subterritories工作量差异或产生员工技能。具有更高的工作负载或训练有素的员工被分配更多的员工。组大小并没有频繁更改，因为工作负载相当稳定。因此，组在一个类似的领域，即使他们在数量上有所不同员工，没有必要规范基于组大小的生产率数据。有然而，在领土上的差异，如复杂性工作和平均组大小。因此，生产力的措施，跨越地区标准化使用的Z。虽然生产力通常是稳定的（例如，Deadrick &Madigan，1990），工作研究的范围已有限公司。因此，生产力数据收集和汇总为每个组在很长的一段时间（M = 27.89每个组周，标准差= 3.88）。为了避免时间影响，每个组的时间周期是相同的，从3个月前到3个月后的集合特征数据。用组内相关系数分别评估可靠性，或在一组内的生产力在一组相比组与组之间。他们可以被解释为这30个星期的平均值之间的相关性生产力和另一个（假设的）30的平均值周.平均组内相关系数为77。95（P＜。05），因而暗示实质性的可靠性。这六项措施intercorrelated，所以他们复合材料的平均值（M =。00，标准差=。42，内部一致性= 74）。所有的措施都不适用于所有的组（范围从46-79），所以复合基础对每个组的可用数据。分析具有至少丢失的数据的措施是相似的，所以该复合材料的唯一的数据被提出。2的迹象的相关性进行了逆转，使正数表明与更高的生产力（即，少的关系工作未完成）。员工满意度。避免常用方法方差，该组织的意见调查被用作满意度的衡量，而不是添加一个规模调查问卷。也就是说，它是在一个不同的时间点（3个月前）和一个无关的目的，从而减轻任何一致性或启动效应。数据来自所有员工（总N = 1175），不只是提供其他的5个措施。这给每个组的最大数据（M=每个组的5.52名员工，标准差= 14.87），增强间信度，进一步减少常见的方法方差，因为满意的数据包括许多额外的员工没有提供特性数据。每个组的所有员工的总数据是作为满意度衡量。这样的聚集满意的数据是常见的，可能有点有道理的士气的定义，指的是个人或团体（Webster，1965），即使实践不是没有批评（罗伯茨等，1978）。调查包括71个项目在一系列的主题。使用了五点的响应格式，通常范围从5 =“非常满意”或“强烈同意”到1 =“非常“不满意”或“强烈不同意”的主要组成部分分析显示，12个因素解释61%的总方差：监督、工作、质量