Bernardin, Harold John

This dissertation investigates the nature of the relationship that exists between job satisfaction among temporary workers and general customer perceptions of service quality, customer-based appraisal of specific service provider performance, and customers' future behavioral intentions concerning doing business with the firm in the future (e.g., to increase business, to recommend the organization to others, etc.). The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and its related Job-in-General scale were used to measure employee satisfaction. SERVQUAL was used to gauge general customer perceptions of service quality. A 13-item battery derived from marketing literature was used to measure customer future behavioral intentions. The customer appraisal of service provider performance was based on performance appraisal literature. Results indicated significant correlation between worker satisfaction and customer perceptions of service quality (r = .27; p < .01), customer-based appraisal of specific service provider performance (r = .30; p < .01), and customer intentions concerning doing business with the organization in the future (r = .20; p < .05). Customer quality perceptions were significantly associated with their future intentions (r = .71; p < .01) and with specific customer performance appraisal (r = .63; p < .01). However, when combined with general customer service perceptions (SERVQUAL), specific customer appraisal of service provider performance did not contribute unique predictive or explanatory capability. Unexpectedly, temporary workers' satisfaction with co-workers on their job assignment was significantly related to all customer outcome measures. The results are described and discussed in comparison with meta-analyses about job satisfaction, and in terms of other studies concerning contingent workers.

This study compares the levels of criterion-related validity and the extent of statistical adverse impact against minorities based on supervisors' top-down (TD) performance appraisals, a multirater appraisal (MRA) system and a traditional assessment center (AC). Data from all three sources were collected as a part of a predictive validity study using criterion data completely independent of the predictor data and where managers who provided criterion data had no knowledge of the predictor scores. The performance of the selected managers was used as the dependent variable. This is the first study in which direct comparisons were made for predictive validity and adverse impact among these three methods of staffing decisions for the same subjects. As hypothesized, the assessment center (uncorrected r = .32) and multirater methods (uncorrected r = .31) had the highest levels of predictive validity. The predictive validity of the top-down managerial assessment was significantly lower than the other two methods, and the correlation with subsequent managerial performance was not statistically significant (uncorrected r = .13). It was also hypothesized that multirater appraisal and assessment centers would result in less adverse impact than top-down appraisal. After examination by several commonly used methods, only partial support was found for these hypotheses. Analyses using the 80% rule and z-scores found that data from the AC and MRA methods did not indicate adverse impact against minorities while TD data resulted in adverse impact. Possible reasons for the discrepant findings of the various methods of analysis and implications for expert witness testimony are discussed.

Florida State Law (1981) requires each school district to implement a researched-based method for identifying and selecting school administrators. In 1986 the Palm Beach County, Florida school district began a Potential Administrator Program. Legal and utilitarian concerns required that analyses of various instruments and methods of candidate assessment and selection be undertaken. The purpose of the present study was to examine the relative validity of peer raters compared with other sources in selecting participants for inclusion in a principal training program. The other sources were superordinate and self-ratings. The relationship between peer raters who were nominated and those who were not nominated by the candidates was also explored to determine the effect of using nominated raters exclusively. The sample for this study was drawn from 262 secondary school teachers in Palm Beach County who were eligible to apply for the training program. Using a Likert type scale, peer raters (n = 958) and superordinate raters (n = 42) evaluated the subjects (n = 54) on thirteen behavioral dimensions determined by research to be characteristic of high performing principals. Each candidate also completed a self-rating on the same behavioral dimensions. Finally, each candidate underwent a work sample assessment based on three of the dimensions. This assessment was divided into a communications and a content portion for evaluation purposes. Thirty candidates were chosen for the training program. An analysis of multi-trait multi-method matrices of the rating sources and behavioral traits, as well as an analysis of variance of the composite rating source means, and a stepwise multiple regression analysis predicting the work sample assessment from the three ratings sources indicated support for using peer ratings in selecting principal candidates. Peers added unique information to that provided by superordinate and self-raters relative to the targeted dimensions. Data on using raters nominated by candidates was inconclusive. Analyses were performed on: (1) a multi-trait multi-method matrix of nominated and non-nominated peer ratings and behavioral traits; 2) an analysis of correlations between these two rating sources and superordinate ratings, self-ratings, and work sample assessments. Further studies using larger samples and including elementary school candidates are recommended.