Sensitivity Training: An Established Management Development Tool?

Kearney, William J.; Martin, Desmond D.

doi:10.5465/255651

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, these models, in the past, have always been used as a behaviour changing or training device. Given a general predisposition to resist change and a lack of empirical evidence to document the effectiveness (Campbell, 1971;Hinrichs, 1976) or transferability (Kearney and Martin, 1974) of many training techniques in organizational contexts, it may be beneficial to apply such models as a selection device. For example, if there are reliable individual differences with respect to selfregulation of work behaviours and these differences are related to job performance, then organizations could select individuals who already demonstrate the desired behaviours rather than attempt to change the employees once they are hired.…”

Section: Theoretical Orientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

An exploratory study of self‐regulating activities and their effects on job performance

Brief

Hollenbeck

1985

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study attempted to assess the extent to which job incumbents engage in performance relevant self-regulatory activities. Specifically, the degrees to which 62 insurance salespersons; (1) set performance goals, ( 2 ) monitored performance levels, and ( 3 ) exercised contingent self-reward or punishment with respect to goal achievement or goal failure were measured; and, the consequences that such activities had on performance were examined. The results of this study indicate that, in general, subjects set goals, but typically of a distal/result-orientated, as opposed to a proximal/behaviourally orientated-nature. Goal setting per se had no effects on sales performance, although an objective measure of goal difficulty was related to this criterion. With respect to self-monitoring, it was discovered that the greatest amount of performance feedback came from oneself and one's supervisor, as opposed to one's co-workers. In terms of performance, there was an interaction of feedback source and feedback preference such that the ability to generate internal feedback was related to performance only for individuals who had a preference for such internal feedback. There appeared to be n o substantial amount of contingent self-reward occurring within this organization, although contingent self-punishment (in the form of self-criticism) was in evidence; and, such self-admonishment seemed to have detrimental effects on performance. While the three classes of variables independently explained 26 per cent of the variance in performance, the interactive effects suggested by theories of self-regulation (Bandura, 1977;Kanfer, 1971) were not in evidence. SELF-REGULATION IN THE WORKPLACE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDYMost contemporary approaches to understanding employee motivation are seen as influenced by various assumptions on the part of researchers about the nature of managerial work. Two of these assumptions are, (1) managers are responsible for regulating the behaviours of their subordinates, i.e., for getting work done effectively through their subordinates, and (2) managers can best fulfill this responsibility by somehow arranging the work environments of their subordinates so as to have a positive effect on employee motivation. For example, the literatures concerned with goal setting, performance appraisal, and compensation reflect these assumptions, in that managers are viewed as key'determinants of the direction, amount, and persistence of their subordinate's efforts by assigning goals, providing performance feedback, and allocating financial rewards. Thus, current research on employee motiva-

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Orientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

An exploratory study of self‐regulating activities and their effects on job performance

Brief

Hollenbeck

1985

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was clear that T-groups were becoming unfashionable. Surveys of personnel and training directors showed that sensitivity training was no longer seen as an important part of management development by the mid 1970s (Kearney & Martin, 1974; Rettig & Amano, 1976). Figure 2 shows the number of references to the T-group in periodicals registered on the PsycINFO database.…”

Section: Antidote or Epidemic?mentioning

confidence: 99%

A history of the T-group and its early applications in management development.

Highhouse

2002

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growth of the field of group dynamics was synonymous with the rise of the T-group in leadership education. This article documents the tumultuous history of the T-group movement in the United States, particularly as it has been applied in management development. Although the T-group is commonly dismissed as a management fad, the author suggests that it represented an important phenomenon in the history of applied behavioral science and was the first serious attempt at large-scale management and leadership development. The notion of providing managers with feedback on how their behavior impacts others is as popular today as it was 50 years ago. What has changed is the mechanisms by which such feedback is provided.

show abstract

Sensitivity Training: An Established Management Development Tool?

Cited by 2 publications

References 2 publications

An exploratory study of self‐regulating activities and their effects on job performance

An exploratory study of self‐regulating activities and their effects on job performance

A history of the T-group and its early applications in management development.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About