Scientific Method in Organizational Research Students of management often complain about “theoretical” or “abstract” approaches to a subject; they argue instead in favor of “relevant” and “applied” approaches. The feeling is that there usually exist two distinct ways to study a topic, and from a managerial standpoint, a focus on application is the preferred way. Serious reflection about this problem may suggest a somewhat different approach, however. Consider the following situation. As a personnel manager for a medium-sized firm, you have been asked to discover why employee turnover in your firm is so high. Your boss has told you that it is your responsibility to assess this problem and then to offer suggestions aimed at reducing turnover. What will you do? Several possible strategies come to mind: Talk with those who have quit the organization. Talk with those who remain. Talk to the employees’ supervisors. Consult with personnel managers in other companies. Measure job satisfaction. Examine company policies and practices. Examine the jobs where most turnover occurs. None of these actions will likely be very successful in helping you arrive at sound conclusions, however. Talking with those who have left usually yields a variety of biased responses by those who either want to “get back at” the company or who fear that criticism will negatively affect their chances for future recommendations. Talking with those still employed has similar problems: why should they be candid and jeopardize their jobs? Talking with supervisors will not help if they themselves are the problem. Asking other personnel managers, while comforting, ignores major differences between organizations. Measuring job satisfaction, examining company policies, or examining the jobs themselves may help if one is fortunate enough to hit upon the right problem, but the probability of doing so is minimal. In short, many of the most obvious ways a manager can choose to solve a problem may yield biased results at best, and possibly no results at all. A more viable approach would be to view the situation from a research standpoint and to use accepted methods of scientific inquiry to arrive at a solution that minimizes biased results. Most of what we know about organizational behavior results from efforts to apply such methods in solving organizational problems (e.g., How do we motivate employees? How do we develop effective leaders? How do we reduce stress at work?). An awareness of the nature of scientific inquiry is useful for understanding how we learned what we know about organizations as well as in facilitating efforts to solve behavioral problems at work. Theory Building in Organizations Briefly stated, a theory is a set of statements that serves to explain the manner in which certain concepts or variables are related. These statements result both from our present level of knowledge on the topic and from our assumptions about the variables themselves. The theory allows us to deduce logical propositions, or hypotheses, that can be tested in the field or laboratory. In short, a theory is a technique that helps us understand how variables fit together. Their use in research and in management is invaluable. Uses of a Theory Why do we have theories in the study of organizational behavior? First, theories help us organize knowledge about a given subject into a pattern of relationships that lends meaning to a series of observed events. They provide a structure for understanding. For instance, rather than struggling with a lengthy list of factors found to relate to employee turnover, a theory of turnover might suggest how such factors fit together and are related. Second, theories help us to summarize diverse findings so that we can focus on major relationships and not get bogged down in details. A theory “permits us to handle large amounts of empirical data with relatively few propositions.” [M. E. Shaw and P. R. Costanzo, Theories of Social Psychology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), p. 9.] Finally, theories are useful in that they point the way to future research efforts. They raise new questions and suggest answers. In this sense, they serve a useful heuristic value in helping to differentiate between important and trivial questions for future research. Theories are useful both for the study and for the management of organizations. As Kurt Lewin said, “There is nothing so practical as a good theory.” What Is a Good Theory? Abraham Kaplan discusses in detail the criteria for evaluating the utility or soundness of a theory. [A. Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry (San Francisco: Chandler, 1964).] At least five such criteria can be mentioned: Internal consistency. Are the propositions central to the theory free from contradiction? Are they logical? External consistency. Are the propositions of a theory consistent with observations from real life? Scientific parsimony. Does the theory contain only those concepts that are necessary to account for findings or to explain relationships? Simplicity of presentation is preferable unless added complexity furthers understanding or clarifies additional research findings. Generalizability. In order for a theory to have much utility, it must apply to a wide range of situations or organizations. A theory of employee motivation that applies only to one company hardly helps us understand motivational processes or apply such knowledge elsewhere. Verification. A good theory presents propositions that can be tested. Without an ability to operationalize the variables and subject the theory to field or laboratory testing, we are unable to determine its accuracy or utility. To the extent that a theory satisfies these requirements, its usefulness both to researchers and to managers is enhanced. However, a theory is only a starting point. On the basis of theory, researchers and problem solvers can proceed to design studies aimed at verifying and refining the theories themselves. These studies must proceed according to commonly accepted principles of the scientific method. Scientific Method in Organizational Behavior Research Cohen and Nagel suggested that there are four basic “ways of knowing.” [M. Cohen and E. Nagel, An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Inquiry (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1943). See also E. Lawler, A. Mohrman, S. Mohrman, G. Ledford, and T. Cummings, Doing Research That Is Useful for Theory and Practice (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985).] Managers and researchers use all four of these techniques: tenacity, intuition, authority, and science. When managers form a belief (e.g., a happy worker is a productive worker) and continue to hold that belief out of habit and often in spite of contradictory information, they are using tenacity. They use intuition when they feel the answer is self-evident or when they have a hunch about how to solve a problem. They use authority when they seek an answer to a problem from an expert or consultant who supposedly has experience in the area. Finally, they use science —perhaps too seldom—when they are convinced that the three previous methods allow for too much subjectivity in interpretation. In contrast to tenacity, intuition, and authority, the scientific method of inquiry “aims at knowledge that is objective in the sense of being intersubjectively certifiable, independent of individual opinion or preference, on the basis of data obtainable by suitable experiments or observations.” [C. G. Hempel, Aspects of Scientific Explanation (New York: The Free Press, 1965), p. 141.] In other words, the scientific approach to problem-solving sets some fairly rigorous standards in an attempt to substitute objectivity for subjectivity. The scientific method in organizational behavior consists of four stages: (1) observation of the phenomena (facts) in the real world, (2) formulation of explanations for such phenomena using the inductive process, (3) generation of predictions or hypotheses about the phenomena using the deductive process, and (4) verification of the predictions or hypotheses using systematic, controlled observation. This process is shown in . When this rather abstract description of the steps of scientific inquiry is shown within the framework of an actual research study, the process becomes much clearer. A basic research paradigm is shown in . In essence, a scientific approach to research requires that the investigator or manager first recognize clearly what research questions are being posed. To paraphrase Lewis Carroll, if you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there. Many managers identify what they think is a problem (e.g., turnover) only to discover later that their “problem” turnover rate is much lower than that in comparable industries. Other managers look at poor employee morale or performance and ignore what may be the real problem (e.g., poor leadership). A Model Depicting the Scientific Method Source: Adapted from E. F. Stone, Research Methods in Organizational Behavior (Glenview, III.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1978), p. 8. (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) A Model of the Empirical Research Process Source: Adapted from E. F. Stone, Research Methods in Organizational Behavior (Glenview, III.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1978), p. 17. (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) On the basis of the research questions, specific hypotheses are identified. These hypotheses represent best guesses about what we expect to find. We set forth hypotheses to determine if we can predict the right answer so we can select a study design that allows for suitable testing. On the basis of the study design (to be discussed shortly), we observe the variables under study, analyze the data we collect, and draw relevant conclusions and management implications. When we follow this process, the risks of being guided by our own opinions or prejudices are minimized, and we arrive at useful answers to our original research questions. Basic Research Designs Although a detailed discussion of the various research designs is beyond the scope of this Appendix, we can review several common research designs that have been used to collect data in the study of people at work. Specifically, we will examine five different research designs that are frequently used to study behavior at work: (1) naturalistic observation, (2) survey research, (3) field study, (4) field experiment, and (5) laboratory experiment. In general, the level of rigor of the design increases as we move from naturalistic observation toward laboratory study. Unfortunately, so do the costs, in many cases. Criteria for Evaluating Research Designs Before examining the five designs, it will be helpful to consider how a researcher selects from among the various designs. Clearly, no one strategy or design is superior in all cases. Each has its place, depending upon the research goals and the constraints placed on the research. However, when choosing among the potential designs, researchers generally must consider several things. For example, does the design require that you specify hypotheses a priori? If you specify appropriate hypotheses and are able to confirm them, then you can predict behavior in organizations. As a manager, being able to predict behavior in advance allows you to intervene and make necessary changes to remedy problem situations. The ability to accurately predict behavior is clearly superior to simply being able to explain behavior after the fact. Other factors to examine are the method of measurement and the degree of control to be used. Does the method of measurement use qualitative or quantitative measures? Although qualitative measures may be useful for generating future hypotheses, quantitative measures add more perceived rigor to results. Also, if you are interested in demonstrating causal relationships, it is necessary to have a high degree of control over the study variables. You must be able to manipulate the primary study variable to determine the results of this manipulation while at the same time keeping other potentially contaminating variables constant so they do not interfere in the results. In addition, a researcher must know to what extent they can generalize the results from the study to apply to other organizations or situations. Results that are situation-specific are of little use to managers. External validity is of key importance. And, of course, in practical terms, how much is it going to cost to carry out the study and discover a solution? Cost can be measured in many ways, including time and money. The analysis of the previous five criteria provides insight concerning the overall level of rigor of the research design. The more rigorous the design, the more confidence one has in the results. This is because more rigorous designs typically employ more accurate measures or interventions and attempt to control for contaminating influences on study results. With this in mind, we can now consider various research designs. Naturalistic Observation Naturalistic observations represent the most primitive (least rigorous) method of research in organizations. Simply put, naturalistic observations represent conclusions drawn from observing events. At least two forms of such research can be identified: (1) authoritative opinions and (2) case studies. Authoritative opinions are the opinions of experts in the field. When Henri Fayol wrote his early works on management, for example, he was offering his advice as a former industrial manager. On the basis of experience in real work situations, Fayol and others suggest that what they have learned can be applied to a variety of work organizations with relative ease. Other examples of authoritative opinions can be found in Barnard’s The Functions of the Executive, Sloan’s My Years with General Motors, and Peters and Waterman’s In Search of Excellence. Throughout their works, these writers attempt to draw lessons from their own practical experience that can help other managers assess their problems. The second use of naturalistic observation can be seen in the case study. Case studies attempt to take one situation in one organization and to analyze it in detail with regard to the interpersonal dynamics among the various members. For instance, we may have a case of one middle manager who appears to have burned out on the job; his performance seems to have reached a plateau. The case would then review the cast of characters in the situation and how each one related to this manager’s problem. Moreover, the case would review any actions that were taken to remedy the problem. Throughout, emphasis would be placed on what managers could learn from this one real-life problem that can possibly relate to other situations. Survey Research Many times, managers wish to know something about the extent to which employees are satisfied with their jobs, are loyal to the organization, or experience stress on the job. In such cases, the managers (or the researchers) are interested mainly in considering quantitative values of the responses. Questionnaires designed to measure such variables are examples of survey research. Here we are not attempting to relate results to subsequent events. We simply wish to assess the general feelings and attitudes of employees. Surveys are particularly popular with managers today as a method of assessing relative job attitudes. Hence, we may make an annual attitude survey and track changes in attitudes over time. If attitudes begin to decline, management is alerted to the problem and can take steps to remedy the situation. Field Study In a field study, the researcher is interested in the relationship between a predictor variable (e.g., job satisfaction) and a subsequent criterion variable (e.g., employee turnover or performance). Measures of each variable are taken (satisfaction, perhaps through a questionnaire, and turnover, from company records) and are compared to determine the extent of correlation. No attempt is made to intervene in the system or to manipulate any of the variables, as is the case with experimental approaches. To continue the simple example we began with, a manager may have a hypothesis that says that satisfaction is a primary indicator of employee turnover. After measuring both, it is found that there is a moderate relationship between the two variables. Hence, the manager may conclude that the two are probably related. Even so, because of the moderate nature of the relationship, it is clear that other factors also influence turnover; otherwise, there would be a much stronger relationship. The manager concludes that, although efforts to improve job satisfaction may help solve the problem, other influences on turnover must also be looked at, such as salary level and supervisory style. Field Experiment A field experiment is much like a field study, with one important exception. Instead of simply measuring job satisfaction, the manager or researcher makes efforts to actually change satisfaction levels. In an experiment, we attempt to manipulate the predictor variable. This is most often done by dividing the sample into two groups: an experimental group and a control group. In the experimental group, we intervene and introduce a major change. Perhaps we alter the compensation program or give supervisors some human relations training. The control group receives no such treatment. After a time, we compare turnover rates in the two groups. If we have identified the correct treatment (that is, a true influence on turnover), turnover rates would be reduced in the experimental group but not in the control group. In other words, in a field experiment, as opposed to a field study, we intentionally change one aspect of the work environment in the experimental group and compare the impact of the change with the untreated control group. Thus, we can be relatively assured that the solution we have identified is, in fact, a true predictor variable and is of use to management. Laboratory Experiment Up to this point, we have considered a variety of research designs that all make use of the actual work environment, the field. In this last design, laboratory experiments, we employ the same level of rigor as that of the field experiment and actually manipulate the predictor variable, but we do so in an artificial environment instead of a real one. We might, for instance, wish to study the effects of various compensation programs (hourly rate versus piece rate) on performance. To do this, we might employ two groups of business students and have both groups work on a simulated work exercise. In doing so, we are simulating a real work situation. Each group would then be paid differently. After the experiment, an assessment would be made of the impact of the two compensation plans on productivity. Comparing Research Designs Now that we have reviewed various research designs, we might wonder which designs are best. This is not an easy call. All designs have been used by managers and researchers in studying problems of people at work. Perhaps the question can best be answered by considering the relative strengths and weaknesses of each, on the basis of our earlier discussion of the criteria for evaluating research designs (see ). We should then have a better idea of which design or designs would be appropriate for a particular problem or situation. Specification of Hypotheses in Advance. It was noted earlier that the ability to specify a priori hypotheses adds rigor to the study. In general, hypotheses are not given for naturalistic observations or survey research. These two techniques are used commonly for exploratory analyses and for identifying pertinent research questions for more rigorous future study. On the other hand, the remaining three designs (field study, field experiment, and laboratory experiment) do allow explicitly for a priori hypotheses. Hence, they are superior in this sense. A Comparison of Various Research Designs Research Design A Priori Hypotheses Qualitative vs. Quantitative Measures Control External Validity Cost Overall Level of Rigor Note: This table represents general trends; exceptions can clearly be identified. Naturalistic observation No Qualitative Low Low Low Low Survey research No Qualitative and quantitative Low High Low Medium Field study Yes Quantitative Medium High Medium Medium Field experiment Yes Quantitative High High High High Laboratory experiment Yes Quantitative High Low High High (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Qualitative versus Quantitative Measures. Naturalistic observations typically involve qualitative data, whereas field studies and both forms of experiment typically involve quantitative data. Survey research most often provides for both. Hence, if it is important to collect hard data concerning a problem (e.g., what is the magnitude of the relationship between satisfaction and turnover?), quantitative designs are to be preferred. On the other hand, if one is more concerned about identifying major reasons for turnover and little prior knowledge about the problem exists, qualitative data may be preferred, and survey research may be a better research strategy. The selection of an appropriate design hinges in part on the intended uses for the information. Control. As noted earlier, control represents the extent to which potentially contaminating influences can be minimized in a study. Clearly, experimental procedures allow for better control than do nonexperimental ones. The researcher or manager can systematically structure the desired work environment and minimize irrelevant or contaminating influences. As a result, conclusions concerning causal relations between variables can be made with some degree of certainty. Where it is not possible to secure such high control, however—perhaps because the organization does not wish to make a major structural change simply for purposes of an experiment—a field study represents a compromise design. It allows for some degree of control but does not require changing the organization. External Validity. The question of external validity is crucial to any study. If the results of a study in one setting cannot be applied with confidence to other settings, the utility of the results for managers is limited. In this regard, survey research, field studies, and field experiments have higher levels of external validity than naturalistic observations or laboratory experiments. Naturalistic observations are typically based on nonrandom samples, and such samples often exhibit characteristics that may not allow for transfers of learning from one organization to another. A clear example can be seen in the case of a small company in which the president implemented a unique compensation plan that proved successful. It would be impossible to predict whether such a plan would work in a major corporation, because of the different nature of the organizations. Similarly, there is some question about how realistic a work environment is actually created in a laboratory situation. If managers are to learn from the lessons of other organizations, they should first learn the extent to which the findings from one kind of organization are applicable elsewhere. Cost. As one would expect, the quality of information and its price covary. The more rigorous the design (and thus the more accurate the information), the higher the cost. Costs can be incurred in a variety of ways and include actual out-of-pocket expenses, time invested, and residue costs. The organization is left with the aftermath of an experiment, which could mean raised employee expectations and anxieties, as well as the possibility of disillusionment if the experiment fails. It should be noted that, in survey research, a large amount of general information can be gathered quickly and cheaply. Overall Level of Rigor. In summary, then, the real answer to the question concerning which strategy is best lies in the degrees of freedom a manager has in selecting the design. If an experiment is clearly out of the question (perhaps because one’s superior doesn’t want anything altered), a field study may be the best possible strategy, given the constraints. In fact, field studies are often considered a good compromise strategy in that they have a medium amount of rigor but are also fairly quick and inexpensive. On the other hand, if one simply wishes to take an attitude survey, survey research is clearly in order. If one is not allowed to do anything, authoritative opinions from others may be the only information available. However, if constraints are not severe, experimental methods are clearly superior in that they allow for greater certainty concerning major influences on the criterion variable and on the problem itself.

Business


Scoring Keys for Self-Assessment Exercises Chapter 2 What Is Your Locus of Control? This assessment measures your locus of control. After completing the instrument, score it by assigning a zero (0) to any A you assigned and a one (1) to any B . Add up your total score, and compare it to the following norms: 1–3 = an external locus of control 4–5 = a balanced locus of control 6–7 = an internal locus of control What Values Are Most Important to You? This instrument is intended as an informal measure of instrumental and terminal values. There are no right or wrong answers here. This is simply a way for you to see what your value structure looks like. Simply examine the pattern of responses you made for both sets of values. What did you learn about yourself? Which values are most important to you? Chapter 3 Can You Understand This Passage? The appropriate frame of reference for reading the passage in this self-assessment is washing clothes . How Do You Feel about Women Executives? This questionnaire asks 10 questions concerning people’s attitudes toward women in managerial positions. To score this instrument, total up your score and compare your results to this national sample. 10–21 = an unfavorable attitude toward women as managers 22–38 = a neutral attitude toward women as managers 39–50 = a favorable attitude toward women as managers What did you learn about yourself on the basis of this exercise? Are You Satisfied with Your Job? Two scales are used here, one for satisfaction with the level of personal recognition you receive and one for your satisfaction with pay of salary. To score this, add up your responses for questions 1–5 and 6–10. Items 1–5 refer to your satisfaction with the level of personal recognition you receive, and items 6–10 refer to your satisfaction with compensation. For both factors, scoring norms are as follows: 5–10 = low satisfaction 11–19 = moderate satisfaction 20–25 = high satisfaction How did you do on each factor? If you were a manager and saw these results, what would you do to improve the scores of your coworkers? Chapter 4 Designing Your Own Behavioral Self-Management Program The key to this exercise is to see if you can put the concepts of behavioral self-management into practice. Were you able to identify a specific problem that lends itself to the BSM approach? Does your own BSM program follow the procedures outlined in the chapter? What were the major problems you encountered when you tried to apply the procedures to your program? Did the program work? What did you learn about yourself from this exercise? Chapter 8 How Would You Rate Your Supervisor? There are no right or wrong answers to this exercise. You are asked to evaluate the performance of a current or past supervisor. Because it is typically the supervisor who evaluates the subordinate, this is usually an interesting experience. When you are done, share your evaluation with another student in your class and explain or defend your evaluation. Are there any rating biases in your evaluation? Is this a fair appraisal? How would your coworkers evaluate this supervisor/boss? How Much Feedback Are You Getting from Your Job? This exercise gives you the opportunity to analyze feedback patterns for your current or previous job. Add up your four scores according to the four types of job-related feedback. Corrective feedback (add up items 1–3) Positive supervisory feedback (add up items 4–6) Positive coworker feedback (add up items 7–9) Self-administered feedback (add up items 10–12) When finished, examine and study the results. Where did you get the most feedback? Where did you get the least feedback? Chapter 9 How Do You Behave in a Group? This questionnaire asks you to describe your own behavior within a group setting. To score the instrument, add up your scores as follows for the three categories of behavior. Task-oriented behavior (add up items 1–4) Relations-oriented behavior (add up items 5–8) Self-oriented behavior (add up items 9–12) Examine the resulting pattern in your answers. As usual, there are no correct or incorrect answers. Instead, this is an opportunity to view how you describe your own role-related activities in a group. What did you learn about yourself? How does your role in a group differ from those of other individuals? How Effective Is Your Work Group? This instrument measures the relative effectiveness of a group to which you belong. Count the number of times that you answered “mostly yes.” The larger the number, the more productive and satisfied the group members should be. There are no norms for this exercise, so you might wish to create your own norms by comparing scores amongst others in your class who have completed this instrument for the groups that they belong to. Look at the range of scores, and then describe the characteristics of each group. Are there any common characteristics that distinguish the groups with the highest scores? The lowest scores? Why do these differences occur? You could also use this questionnaire to compare groups to which you belong. If you were the leader of one of these groups, what would you do to make the group more effective? Why hasn’t this been done already? Chapter 13 What Are Your Bases of Power? This instrument examines the five bases of power. When you have finished the questionnaire, add up your score for each scale as follows: Referent power (add up items 1–3) Expert power (add up items 4–6) Legitimate power (add up items 7–9) Reward power (add up items 10–12) Coercive power (add up items 13–15) To interpret the scores, consider the following: A score of 3–6 points indicates a weak power base on a particular scale. A score of 7–11 points indicates a moderate power base on a particular scale. A score of 12–15 points indicates a strong power base on a particular scale. On the basis of all of this, what does your power profile look like? Does this seem to be an accurate reflection of your actual situation? If you wished to change your power bases, which would you change? How would you try to change these bases? How Political Are You? This questionnaire is designed to measure your political behavior. You have been asked to answer “true” or “false” to 10 questions. When you have finished, consider the following. If you answered true to almost all of the questions, you should consider yourself a confirmed politician. (This is meant to be a compliment!) If you answered false to questions 5 and 6, which deal with deliberate lies and uncharitable behavior, you have shown yourself to be someone with high ethical standards. Finally, if you answered false to almost all of the questions, you are most definitely not a politician; rather, you are a person who rejects manipulation, incomplete disclosure, and self-serving behavior. On the basis of this instrument, how political are you? How political are your friends? On the basis of your answers to these questions, what have you learned about political behavior in organizations? What implications follow from these results concerning your future management style? Chapter 14 What Is Your Approach to Conflict Resolution? In this exercise there are no right or wrong answers. Instead, you are simply asked to describe your own approach to conflict resolution. To do this, score the instrument as follows: Competition (add up items 1–3) Collaboration (add up items 3–6) Compromise (add up items 7–9) Avoidance (add up items 10–12) Accommodation (add up items 13–15) Compare the relative strengths of your preferences in each of the five conflict-resolution modes. The higher your score on any of the scales, the more you favor this mode of resolution. What pattern do you see in this analysis? How will this inform you in future negotiations? Chapter 18 How Stressful Is Your Job? To score this instrument, first add up your score: If you scored 1–18 points, you see yourself as having a normal amount of stress. If you scored 19–38 points, you feel that stress is becoming a problem. If you scored 39–50 points, you feel that stress is a serious problem. Where did you score on this instrument? Does this seem like an accurate description of the real situation? On the job you described, what could you do to reduce stress levels? Are You a Type A? This instrument is somewhat complicated to score. Follow these instructions carefully: Time urgency: Time urgency reflects one’s race against the clock, even on items when there is little reason to hurry. It is measured by the following items 1, 2, 8, 12, 14. For each A or B answer you gave on these questions, give yourself 1 point. Put the total number on the line on the left. Inappropriate aggression and hostility: This dimension reflects excessively competitive behavior and frequent displays of hostility. It is measured by items 3, 4, 9, and 10. For each A or B answer you gave on these questions, give yourself 1 point. Put the total number on the line on the left. Polyphasic behavior: This is the tendency to undertake several activities simultaneously at inappropriate times. As a result, individuals often end up wasting time instead of saving it, which leads to wasted energy. It is measured by items 6 and 11. For each A or B answer you gave on these questions, give yourself 1 point. Put the total number on the line on the left. Goal directedness without proper planning: This is the tendency to rush into work without knowing how to accomplish the desired result. Consequently, incomplete work or errors are likely to occur. It is measured by items 5 and 7. For each A or B answer you gave on these questions, give yourself 1 point. Put the total number on the line on the left. Now add up your total score. If you received a total of 5 or greater, you may possess some of the attributes of a Type A personality. How did you do? If you received a high score, what are some things that you can do to reduce your stress level? How Stable Is Your Life? This instrument attempts to assess your rate of life change—that is, how much activity and change do you have that may cause stress? To score this instrument, add up the score or units assigned to the various life units assigned to the events listed in the past year. If your total score is less than 150, this suggests that you should remain generally healthy during the next year. If your total score is 150 to 300, this suggests that there is a 50 percent chance that you will experience illness during the coming year. If your total score is over 300, this suggests that there is a 70 percent chance of impending illness during the coming year. Remember that when evaluating your result, a high score does not automatically mean an illness is imminent. Rather, it means that statistically speaking an illness is more likely for you than for those with lower scores. Where did you score? Is this a reasonable description of your current situation? If so, what actions could you undertake to reduce your score? Are You Suffering from Burnout? This instrument measures your self-perceptions regarding burnout. To score it, add up the number of times you answered “mostly true.” If you answered mostly true seven or more times, you may be suffering from burnout. If you received a high score, consider what actions you can undertake to reduce the level of burnout.

Business