The Development of an Integrated Performance Category System for Supervisory Jobs in the U.S. Navy

Abstract

When a single job is the target, established job analysis approaches provide relatively straightforward methods for identifying performance requirements. However, when multiple jobs are involved, the identification of a single set of relevant performance dimensions can be more daunting. In the application here, there was also a compelling requirement to develop a dimension set that conformed with U.S. Navy fleet personnel perceptions of the performance domain. Accordingly, the behavioral performance constructs that experienced Navy officers believed differentiate effective from ineffective supervisory performance were gathered using a personal construct theory protocol. We then used a methodology suggested by Borman and Brush (1993) to integrate and summarize these personal work constructs, to provide-through a series of qualitative and quantitative strategies-a dimension set targeted toward supervisors in all Navy communities. The resulting dimensions revealed certain themes that might not have emerged if traditional job analysis strategies had been used. The dimension set and the resulting behaviorally anchored rating scales appear widely relevant to Navy supervisor jobs, and the performance appraisal system that employs the scales is nearing implementation. In addition, performance feedback and development tools were developed to complement the performance appraisal system.

A Criterion-Related Validation Study of the Army Core Leader Competency Model

“…It is important to keep more global performance models in mind, such as those proposed by Campbell et al (1993), Borman et al (1987), and Hedge et al (2004), when considering how leadership is related to overall performance within an organization. Further distinguishing how leadership constructs are related to other individual performance dimensions will assist in understanding how these constructs can be better described, measured and developed.…”

Exploring Methods for Developing Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales for Evaluating Structured Interview Performance

“…Alternatively, when resources are scarce and fewer SME groups are available, the same SMEs may be called upon to perform multiple tasks; often this entails the same group of SMEs rating and retranslating critical incidents (Bernardin et al, 1976;Campbell et al, 1973;Hedge et al, 2004;Kavanagh & Duffy, 1978). The retranslation process may also be extremely truncated; in Campion, Pursell, and Brown (1988), an analyst independent of the project reclassified 9% of the critical incidents.…”

“…Consequently, BARS development has been described many times over the past 50 years, and the following draws liberally on both primary studies (e.g., Bernardin, LaShells, Smith, & Alvares, 1976;Campbell et al, 1973;Hedge, Borman, Bruskiewicz, & Bourne, 2004;Smith & Kendall, 1963) and reviews (e.g., Borman, 1986;Guion, 2011;Jacobs et al, 1980;Schwab et al, 1975).…”

“…As BARS aim to capture the entire behavioral continuum constituting performance, when critical incidents are being generated, not only should highly effective and ineffective behaviors be sampled but also "merely satisfactory" behaviors. Critical incidents can be gathered in many different ways, including in large workshops (Motowidlo et al, 1992), small groups (Hedge et al, 2004;Motowidlo, Dunnette, & Carter, 1990), individual interviews (Martin-Raugh, Kell, & Motowidlo, 2016), or through the review of archival materials (Weekley et al, 2006). At least several hundred critical incidents are usually gathered, with the goal being to reach the point where saturation occurs and new incidents feature largely redundant material.…”

“…Both of them were terrible people in my mind, so I made no effort to mediate. (Leadership)The first four authors independently examined the remaining critical incidents and identified common themes they believed defined performance for each effectiveness range for each of the 12 questions (Borman, 1979;Hedge et al, 2004). Over the course of several meetings, they worked together to write and reach consensus on summary statements that captured these common themes.…”