formerly National Police Research Unit

Identifying effective supervisory behaviours

Report Series No. 107

This publication was obtained from www.acpr.gov.au

 IDENTIFYING EFFECTIVE
SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOURS

Dr Neil Brewer

National Police Research Unit

Produced by the National Police Research Unit
298 Payneham Road, Payneham SA 5070

© 1991 National Police Research Unit

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

IDENTIFYING EFFECTIVE SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOURS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Leadership theory and research .............................................................................. 1
A behavioural approach to effective supervision .................................................... 2
The study ................................................................................................................ 3

METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The setting .............................................................................................................. 5
Selection of participants ......................................................................................... 5
The participants ...................................................................................................... 6
Study design and measures ..................................................................................... 7
Operant Supervisory Taxonomy and Index (OSTI) ................................................... 7
Ratings of team performance ................................................................................ 14

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

How patrol sergeants distribute their time ............................................................ 17
How patrol sergeants compare with supervisors in other settings .......................... 20
Which supervisory behaviours were related to effective subordinate
performance? ........................................................................................................ 21
Behaviour differences between high and low performance oriented
sergeants .............................................................................................................. 23

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Implications for other supervisory positions ........................................................... 26
The broader implications ...................................................................................... 27
Who provides the consequences for effective supervision? ................................... 28

National Police
Research Unit
i
 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

APPENDIX 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

National Police
Research Unit
ii
Acknowledgments

The successful completion of this study owes much to the cooperation, assistance and
advice of a number of individuals. I am pleased to acknowledge the particular
contributions of those listed below:
• Sgt. Peter Wilum, Sgt. Jeff Oats, Snr. Sgt. Bob Job, Inspector Lindsay Saul,
Constable Michael Hourigan, Assistant Commissioners John Lockhead and John
Beck, Chief Supt. Frank Byrne and (especially) Chief Supt. Bob Potts, all of whom
contributed valuable counsel during the planning stages;
• Snr. Sgt. Peter Walsh, Snr. Sgt. Bob Nash, Snr. Sgt. Peter Parfitt, Sgt. David Neale
and the Police Association of South Australia for their endorsement of the study;
• Mr Ray Whitrod for acting as an intermediary in the 'confidentiality coding'
protocol; The Inspectors/Chief Inspectors and Senior Sergeants who completed
the ratings of supervisory effectiveness and team performance, and helped us set
the data collection in progress; Snr. Sgt. Rick Mawdsley for training and acting as
a reliability observer;
• Dr Judith Komaki (Purdue University) for providing all protocols for the Operant
Supervisory Taxonomy and Index and assisting with queries on the use of the
instrument.

Special acknowledgments go to:

• Karen Beck for conducting so capably the observation sessions at all hours of the
day and night, and ensuring a splendid rapport with the participants;
• The anonymous patrol sergeants, and their teams, who were prepared to
participate, made the researchers feel comfortable, and ensured the study’s
success by just going about their jobs.

National Police
Research Unit
iii
National Police
Research Unit
iv
Executive Summary

Most previous research on the nature of effective supervision or leadership has used
pencil-and-paper instruments to examine individual characteristics, situational
variables, and the characteristics of supervisors’ work (rather than supervisory)
activities. This research has not, however, produced an adequate prescription of what
supervisors ought to do and say to maximise the chances of their subordinates
achieving work-related goals. This means that procedures for the selection, training
and performance appraisal of supervisors are less effective than they might be.

The aim here was, therefore, to identify - in clearly specified behavioural terms - what
effective supervisors do and say that distinguishes them from their peers. The target
group was patrol sergeants, chosen because most officers come under their
supervision for several years at formative stages of their police careers. A sample,
representing various levels of supervisory effectiveness, was chosen on the basis of
their superiors’ assessments of 'their effectiveness in influencing and motivating their
subordinates in accomplishing work related goals'.

Two measures were obtained for all participants, with these providing the basis for
correlational analyses. The index of supervisory effectiveness was provided by
superior officers’ evaluations of the performance (along a number of dimensions) of
each sergeant’s team. The measure of supervisory behaviour was obtained by
systematic behavioural recording using a recently developed, elaborate taxonomy of
supervisory behaviour, the Operant Supervisory Taxonomy and Index (OSTI).
Supervisors’ interactions with their teams were recorded over several months,
encompassing over 400 half-hour recording sessions. Quantitative techniques
demonstrated that both measures were reliable measures of their respective domains.

The major findings were:

• Patrol sergeants spent more time monitoring their subordinates’ performance than
did supervisors in other occupations, but delivered fewer performance
consequences (e.g., motivational, corrective or instructional feedback). They
seldom, however, directly monitored patrol work, their major focus being the
vetting of crime reports, court briefs etc.
• More effective supervisors spent more time than less effective supervisors dealing
with the performance of subordinates.
• More effective supervisors spent more time monitoring their subordinates’
performance. Although the group as a whole seldom directly monitored their
subordinate’s patrol work, more effective supervisors solicited more frequent
verbal reports (predominantly about patrol work) from their subordinates.
• More systematic collection of information about subordinates’ performance,
allows supervisors to deliver performance consequences that are more effective,
via an increased likelihood that consequences will be directly linked to an
accurate indication of subordinate performance.

National Police
Research Unit
v
 • More effective supervisors were not only better placed (because of their
monitoring) to provide effective positive, negative and neutral consequences
(particularly about patrol activities), but they also provided more frequent
performance consequences (and more neutral consequences) to their
subordinates.
• More effective supervisors spent less time in their cars/driving on patrol and more
time alone at their desks engaged in paperwork (not including vetting). The
sergeants who remained at their desks, rather than driving around, almost
certainly had greater opportunity for contact with their subordinates, thereby
providing increased opportunities to monitor their performance (via verbal
reports) and to provide contingent consequences.

In summary, a number of very specific behaviours emerged as correlates of effective

supervision. It is recommended that these behaviours should be directly targeted in
the training, selection and appraisal of supervisors, with the focus being on the
development of behavioural competencies. The recommendations address (a) content
guidelines for supervisory training programs, and (b) the development of assessment
instruments which would enable key supervisory behaviours to be evaluated for
selection and appraisal purposes.

National Police
Research Unit
vi
Identifying Effective Supervisory Behaviours

One of the key functions of individuals in a supervisory or leadership role is to

promote the accomplishment of work-related or organisational goals by their
subordinates. Knowing how supervisors should go about influencing or motivating
their subordinates will have far-reaching implications for organisational practices in
the areas of supervisor selection, training and appraisal. The more precisely an
organisation is able to specify the what, when and how of what effective supervisors
should do and say, the more discriminating its selection, training and appraisal
procedures can become.

LEADERSHIP THEORY AND RESEARCH

What then do we know about how supervisors can get the best out of their
subordinates? Previous theorising and research on supervision and leadership has
been dominated by trait, style, and situational theories. The aim of trait theory
research has been to identify those unique individual characteristics, or
combinations of characteristics, that distinguish the effective from the ineffective
leader (see Stogdill [1974] for a review). A number of other leadership theories have
assigned a central role to leadership style, or the leader’s predisposition to behave in
a particular way (e.g., Blake & Mouton, 1969; Fleishman, 1953; Likert, 1967).
Although these theories differ in terms of their precise formulations, they have
generally represented leadership styles as varying along a continuum from supportive
(variously represented in different theories as consideration, concern for people,
democratic etc.) to directive (represented as initiating structure, concern for
production, 'exploitive', autocratic etc.).

Perhaps the most influential theories, however, have been those that have
emphasised situational variables. Examples of these include Fieldler’s contingency
model (Fiedler, 1967), Hersey and Blanchard’s lifestyle approach (Hersey &
Blanchard, 1982), the Vroom-Yetton normative leadership model (Vroom & Yetton,
1973), and the path-goal leadership theory (Evans, 1970; House & Mitchell, 1974).
Like the leadership style theories, the situational theories differ considerably in terms
of their theoretical detail. All, however, posit some degree of interaction between
the leader’s style and the situation or setting. In essence, these theories propose that
the effectiveness of the leader will depend upon the compatibility of the leader’s
style and the situation: either the leader’s style must match the situation (cf. the
contingency model) or the leader must adapt his/her style to the situation (cf. path-
goal theory). Situational variables that have been identified as important by these
theories have included the leader-member relationship, the degree of task structure,
and the leader’s position power (contingency model); the maturity of subordinates, as
defined by degree of achievement motivation, willingness to take on responsibility,
and amount of education and experience (Hersey and Blanchard’s life cycle
approach); the way in which particular problems affect the quality/acceptance of a
decision and the degree of participation (Vroom-Yetton normative leadership model);
and the personal characteristics of subordinates and the demands upon them (path-
goal theory).

National Police
Research Unit
1
 There have, of course, been other approaches to understanding effective supervision
or leadership which do not fit into the frameworks described above. Perhaps the most
widely canvassed of these have been (a) the group and exchange theories which
emphasise how the accomplishment of organisational goals is dependent on the
positive exchange between leaders and followers (e.g., the Vertical Dyad Linkage
Model of Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975); (b) the social learning approach which
emphasises the situation, the behaviour of leader and subordinates, and how the
ongoing behavioural interactions between leader and subordinate shape leadership
effectiveness (e.g., Luthans, 1979); and (c) the substitutes for leadership approach
which emphasises characteristics of the subordinate, task and organisation that
neutralise the influence of the leader (e.g., Kerr & Jermier, 1978).

Although all of these models have contributed something to our understanding of

leadership processes, none could claim particularly robust research support (Luthans,
1989; Scott & Podsakoff, 1982). More important from the perspective of this study,
these theories do not provide specific information on exactly what supervisors/leaders
should do and say to maximise the chances of their subordinates achieving work-
related goals.

A BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH TO EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION

A model
In response to the limitations of existing theory and research, Komaki (Komaki, 1986;
Komaki, Deselles, & Bowman, 1989; Komaki, Zlotnick, & Jensen, 1986) has pursued
a systematic research program designed to identify exactly what constitutes
effective supervisory behaviour. Based on well established psychological principles,
Komaki (Komaki et al., 1986) developed the Operant Supervisory Taxonomy and
Index (OSTI), an observational instrument for categorising supervisory behaviour. The
focus of this approach is on measuring directly what supervisors actually say and do.
This contrasts with much of the existing leadership research where methodologies
have typically involved psychometric testing, post-hoc analyses of verbal reports or
questionnaire descriptions of supervisor behaviour provided by supervisors, their
subordinates etc., and the compilation of taxonomies of supervisors’ work (rather
than their supervisory) activities.

Although every observed supervisory behaviour can be classified by the OSTI into
one of seven major behavioural categories, the particular focus of the measuring
instrument is on how supervisors deal with subordinates’ performance. The key
categories of performance related behaviours are performance antecedents (i.e., the
events that occur before behaviour), performance consequences (i.e., the events that
occur after behaviour) and performance monitors. Antecedents refer to the
instructions, rules and procedures, goals and targets which cue or prompt behaviour.
They are important because they highlight or clarify the likely relationships between
behaviour and its consequences. Consequences refer to those behaviours which
indicate knowledge of subordinate performance. Depending upon their exact nature
and the method of delivery, they may serve an instructional, corrective or feedback
function and/or a purely motivational function. Monitors refer to the collection of
information about subordinate performance. Monitoring is important for two main
reasons. First, by providing accurate information about subordinate performance, it
provides the basis for the delivery of contingent consequences (i.e., consequences
that are linked directly to performance). Second, recent research (Larson & Callahan,

National Police
Research Unit
2
1990) has clearly demonstrated that a supervisor’s monitoring can - even in the
absence of subsequent consequences - influence a subordinate’s perceptions of an
activity’s importance, the amount of effort subsequently devoted to that activity, and
performance on that activity.

Research findings
Several studies have now been conducted using this instrument. The first (Komaki et
al., 1986) demonstrated the reliability of the instrument and the representativeness of
the information obtained. A subsequent study (Komaki, 1986) contrasted the
behaviour of two groups of supervisors in a medical insurance business; the two
groups had been assessed by supervisors as highly and marginally effective
supervisors, respectively. The effective supervisors spent significantly more time
monitoring subordinates’ performance. They also differed in the way they collected
performance information: effective supervisors spent more time sampling the work,
either by inspecting the work output or by watching subordinates perform the work.
No other behavioural differences were found. The failure to find a difference in the
amount of performance consequences delivered was attributed to the fact that
effective managers may not necessarily give more consequences, but rather - because
they have monitored work accurately - may be more effective in giving contingent
consequences (i.e., consequences directly linked to performance).

In another study involving managers in the newspaper industry, however, Jensen and
Komaki (see Komaki et al., 1989) found that when monitoring was sufficient, the
amount of consequences delivered was the distinguishing feature between effective
and marginally effective supervisors, with effective supervisors spending more time
recognising or correcting subordinate’s performance. Further, in a recent study of
supervisory behaviours associated with effective team performance, Komaki et al.
(1989) reported significant correlations between sailboat skippers’ performance
monitoring and providing of consequences and the series standings of the skippers’
craft in a sailing regatta. (The effect of boat and crew were controlled for by using
standard boats, rotating crews and boats etc.).

In summary, there is now a small, but relatively consistent, body of evidence

indicating relationships between supervisory effectiveness and one or more of the
behaviour categories of performance monitoring, monitoring via work sampling and
performance consequences. These behavioural categories are very specific and,
therefore, have the potential for translation into quite precise performance objectives
for use in selection, training and appraisal.

THE STUDY
The aim of this study, therefore, was to identify the key behavioural dimensions of
effective police supervisors. Supervisory effectiveness was indexed by independent
ratings of the performance of the supervisor’s subordinates. Supervisory behaviour
was measured using the OSTI (Komaki et al., 1986). The target population involved
those at the key supervisory level of patrol sergeant: that is a group which is
responsible for supervising nearly all junior officers for an extended period of time at
formative stages of their careers.

National Police
Research Unit
3
 The work of Komaki and her colleagues leads to the prediction that the following
supervisory behaviours should correlate positively with subordinate performance:
time spent dealing with subordinate performance, performance monitoring,
performance monitoring via work sampling, and performance consequences.
Furthermore, research on the effects of performance feedback (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor,
1979; Larson, 1984) provides grounds for expecting that the effective supervisor may
well be characterised by more effective delivery of the various types of
consequences (i.e., positive, negative and neutral). This is likely to be reflected in
positive correlations between subordinate performance and the respective types of
consequences.

Whether or not there are particular features of the police organisation which will
shape the supervisory behaviour of its personnel in directions other than those
suggested is difficult to predict. While, for example, it seems reasonable to expect
that, in a quasi-military structure, supervisors would make more use of performance
antecedents (i.e., instructions, rules etc.), the likely impact on the other performance
categories of monitoring and consequences is more difficult to foreshadow. The study
should, therefore, help clarify some of these issues, as well as identifying the critical
dimensions of effective supervision.

National Police
Research Unit
4
Method

THE SETTING
The focus of the study was the supervisory level of patrol sergeant within the South
Australia police force.1 The study was conducted within the metropolitan area of
Adelaide which is organised into 16 divisions and subdivisions, each of which rosters
5 patrol sergeants. Each patrol sergeant supervises a relatively stable team ranging in
size from 5 to 14 constables and senior constables, although in most cases the team
comprises 5 - 7 officers.

At some stage during their career about 95% of South Australian patrol officers are
supervised by a patrol sergeant. Generally officers spend 3 - 6 years under the patrol
sergeant’s supervision, primarily at the outset of their police careers. At any one time
it is estimated that up to about 40% of the force are under a patrol sergeant’s
supervision. In other words, patrol sergeants supervise a very large proportion of
police officers during the formative stages of their careers, and are considered by
many to occupy the key supervisory positions in the force.

SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS
Twenty participants representing varying degrees of supervisory effectiveness were
selected according to the following procedure.
(i) A letter was sent to the Inspector/Chief Inspector of each of the 16 divisions/
subdivisions outlining the purpose of the study, the methodology, and the
procedures designed to ensure confidentiality of data collected. It also advised
that they would be asked to provide confidential ratings of the supervisory
effectiveness of all patrol sergeants under their command. The signatories to the
letter were the author, the Deputy-Director of the NPRU, a nominee (patrol
sergeant) of the Police Association of South Australia, and the coordinator of the
NCO course at the South Australian Police Academy.
A similar letter was sent to all patrol sergeants. The letter advised them that,
following the initial assessment process, a number of them would be invited to
participate in the study. They were encouraged to direct any queries regarding
the study to any of the signatories to the letter.
(ii) Each Inspector was visited and asked to complete two assessments for each
patrol sergeant under his command. The first required them to rank order (i.e., 1
to 5) all patrol sergeants under their command in terms of 'their effectiveness in
influencing and motivating their subordinates in accomplishing work related
goals.'
The second required them to rate, using a scale from A (outstanding) ... F (very
poor), each patrol sergeant under their command in terms of 'their effectiveness
in influencing and motivating their subordinates in accomplishing work related
goals'.

1
The implications of our findings for different supervisory levels, forces with different organisational
structures, etc., are discussed in detail later.

National Police
Research Unit
5
 The Inspector entered this information on a rating form and the sergeant’s name
on a detachable cover sheet, and all forms were sealed in an envelope
addressed to Mr. R. Whitrod (an independent party - widely known in police
circles - who had agreed to act as an intermediary for our confidentiality
protocol).
(iii) When all assessments had been completed, Mr. Whitrod detached the names
from the rating forms and inserted an alphanumeric code before giving the forms
to the author. Assessment forms were available for 69 patrol sergeants.
(iv) While observing the general constraint that participants should be distributed as
evenly as possible across the various subdivisions/divisions (to randomise the
effects of variables such as workload, team size, patrol area etc.), the author
selected those individuals who
(a) were ranked 1 or 2 and rated A or B,
(b) were ranked 4 or 5 and rated D, E or F, and
(c) received rankings and ratings from a second assessor (in most cases, their
senior sergeant) that were identical or no more than one ranking/rating
category apart.
Since each assessor was only ranking/rating a maximum of five individuals who, in
terms of supervisory effectiveness, may often not have been easily discriminable, the
above selection mechanism was used in order to maximise the likelihood that the
sample represented a wide range of supervisory effectiveness.
(v) The alphanumeric codes for those individuals meeting the criteria outlined in (iv)
were returned to Mr. Whitrod in exchange for a list of patrol sergeants’ names.
(vi) Each patrol sergeant thus selected was visited on duty by the author. At this
meeting the study background and methodology was explained in detail and the
sergeant was invited to participate. Prospective participants were advised that
data on individual performance would not be made available to anyone inside/
outside the organisation, that the information would be used for research
purposes only, that there would be a feedback debriefing session at the
completion of the project, and that they could discontinue their participation at
any time. All participants signed a consent form which acknowledged these
conditions.
Two of the selected participants were subsequently excluded because of
recreation leave/long service leave commitments that intruded significantly into
the study period.

THE PARTICIPANTS
The final sample comprised 20 patrol sergeants (all males), spread across 13 of the 16
divisions/subdivisions within the Adelaide metropolitan area. Data on the age,
experience, and supervisory experience of the sample are summarised in Table 1.

Nineteen of the 20 participants had at some earlier date received supervisory

training in a 2 - 4 week NCO course (plus refresher seminars) or an NCO seminar
(less than a week’s duration).

When asked to (a) 'rate your own effectiveness in influencing and motivating your
subordinates in accomplishing work related goals', and (b) 'rate your own "technical"
knowledge/expertise in your position' on a 6-point scale, all (bar one on each scale)
rated themselves as either good or average on both dimensions.
National Police
Research Unit
6
Table 1. Age, Experience and Supervisory Experience (in years) of Participants

Age Experience Supervisory

Experience

Range 40-54 19-33 2-18

Mean 45.6 28.6 10
Stand dev 4.0 3.3 4.6

STUDY DESIGN AND MEASURES

Two principal measures were obtained for all participants, with these providing the
basis for correlational analyses. The measure of supervisory behaviour was the
Operant Supervisory Taxonomy and Index or OSTI (Komaki et al., 1986). The index of
supervisory effectiveness was provided by superior officers’ ratings of the performance
(along a number of dimensions) of each patrol sergeant’s team.

OPERANT SUPERVISORY TAXONOMY AND INDEX (OSTI)

The OSTI is an observational instrument for measuring supervisory behaviour. Its
development was guided by a theoretical model of supervisory behaviour (Komaki et
al., 1986). The instrument has demonstrated applicability in a variety of settings and
has been shown to possess appropriate reliability (Komaki et al., 1986). In addition,
evidence of its validity is provided by recent studies demonstrating its capacity to
discriminate between supervisors for whom independent measures indicate
differences in supervisory effectiveness (Komaki, 1986; Komaki et al., 1989).

The OSTI provides for seven broad categories of supervisory behaviour, and all
observed behaviour can be classified into these categories. The broad categories,
most of which include a number of subcategories, are (cf. Komaki et al., 1986, pp.
262-263):
(i) Performance consequences: indicating knowledge of someone else’s
performance
(ii) Performance monitoring: collecting information about an individual’s
performance
(iii) Performance antecedents : instructing, reminding or conveying expectations of
performance
(iv) Own performance: refers to own performance
(v) Work related: refers to the work but not to performance
(vi) Nonwork related: not referring to work issues
(vii) Solitary: referring to situations in which the supervisor is not interacting.

The interrelationships between the various behavioural subcategories are illustrated

in Figure 1. Behaviours are first categorised according to whether the supervisor is
interacting or not interacting (i.e., solitary activity). Behavioural interactions are
then categorised into those that are work related and those that are not. Work related
interactions are then divided into those that are concerned with performance2 and
National Police
Research Unit
7
 those that are not. Performance related interactions are further categorised into those
relating to someone else’s performance and those that simply relate to the
supervisor’s own performance. Finally, interactions dealing with someone else’s
performance are categorised into those indicating some knowledge of performance
(performance consequences), those involving collection of information about
performance (performance monitoring), and those involving the provision of
instructions about performance (performance antecedents).

Figure 1. Interrelationships of the OSTI’s behavioural categories.

Supervisory
Behaviours

Interaction?

Yes No

Work Solitary
related? activity

Yes No

Performance? Nonwork
related

Yes No

Someone else’s Work

performance? related

Yes No

Performance Performance Performance Own

consequences monitoring antecedents performance

The broad task when administering the instrument is to categorise supervisory

behaviour in the manner outlined in Figure 1. However, the full instrument provides
for more subtle discriminations within behavioural categories, thereby allowing a
much more fine-grained analysis of supervisory behaviour. For example, performance
consequences may be categorised according to whether they are delivered directly
to the relevant subordinate or indirectly to their subordinates, and according to
whether the evaluation is positive, negative or neutral. Performance monitoring may
be categorised according to whether the supervisor obtains information on
subordinate performance by work sampling (i.e., direct observation, inspection of
work products), verbal report from the subordinate, verbal report from a secondary
source, or by reference to archival records (e.g., personnel files, performance
reports). Likewise, antecedents may be further categorised according to whether or
not they are delivered directly, the degree of specificity, whether or not
responsibility for carrying out the request is clearly identified, and so on.

2
Performance refers to work related behaviours for which specific individuals or groups inside or outside
the organisation are considered responsible and for which there would be adverse organisational
consequences for performance deficiencies or excesses (Komaki, 1988).
National Police
Research Unit
8
In Table 2 all of the OSTI subcategories are spelled out, and specific examples of
each are provided.

Observer training
Detailed instructions/protocols for using the instrument were provided by the OSTI
Training Guide (Komaki, 1988). In addition, numerous practice and discussion
sessions, incorporating tape recorded sessions with more than one observer, were
conducted over several weeks until the observers were proficient in the use of the
instrument. Finally, all codings for the first two observation sessions for each
participant were screened by the author.

One observer conducted all but 8 of the observation sessions. Another observer
conducted all the reliability sessions (see reliability section below).

Neither the observers nor the author were aware of the ratings of the individual
sergeants or their teams because of the confidentiality procedures employed. Nor
were they aware of the theoretical significance of the various coding categories.

Observational procedures
The observer sat/stood as unobtrusively as possible within hearing distance of the
supervisor. As the supervisor moved from place to place (e.g., walked to another area
of the station, drove out on patrol etc.), the observer shadowed/accompanied him.

An observation session lasted 30 minutes, and was divided into 30 one minute
sampling intervals. Each sampling interval was broken into a 10 second observation
period, a 40 second period for recording and coding the behaviour, and a 10 second
period to establish the context of the next observation interval.

The observer recorded exactly what the supervisor said and did during each sampling
interval on the appropriate data sheet (see Appendix 1), and then coded the behaviour
into the appropriate category. If more than one supervisory behaviour category
occurred in the one observational interval, or if a single statement could be coded in
more than one category, the observer gave priority to the category listed highest on
the data record sheet (i.e., consequences over monitors, monitors over antecedents
etc.). When any doubt existed as to who had said what, or exactly what was said,
the behaviour was categorised as 'Didn’t hear'.

Each supervisor was observed for up to 20 half hour observation sessions. Previous
research with the instrument has shown, based on a generalisability analysis
(Cronbach, Gleser, Nanda, & Rajarathnam, 1972), that 20 observation sessions
provide acceptably representative information (i.e., a high proportion of the variance
accounted for and a low error of measurement) on a particular supervisor’s behaviour
(Komaki et al., 1986) for the relatively low frequency behaviour categories such as
consequences, monitors and antecedents.

Observations for each supervisor spanned a three month period. Observation periods
were evenly distributed across all hours of the three shifts (day, afternoon, night).
Supervisors were observed at parade, at their desks, in the lunch room, on the road,
at taskings etc.

National Police
Research Unit
9
 Research Unit
National Police
Table 2: OSTI Categories and Examples of Supervisory Behaviour

Category or subcategory Definition Example

Performance Consequences Indicates knowledge of performance

Delivery Direct Delivered to the person about his or her 'You’re doing it the right way'
performance
Indirect Delivered to someone else 'He tends to elevate himself and not treat juniors well'

Evaluation Positive Expresses favourable evaluation or approval 'Are these the two we were chasing last
of a person’s work week? Give us a look at the memo
OH YEH!'
Negative Conveys disapproval or doubt about a 'There has been a deterioration in the paperwork'

10
person’s work
Neutral Expresses neither approval nor disapproval 'You need a statement from the driver to complete
of a person’s work the report'

Performance Monitoring Collects information about a person’s performance

Method Work sampling Direct observation or inspection of a Listening to Constables deal with member of
person’s work for at least 9/10 s public after an assault on her child. Vetting Constable’s
court brief/crime report

Archival records Consultation of personnel files, performance Checking logs to see what patrols have done
reports, etc.

Verbal report Gathering information directly from the person Listening to officer give details of job. 'How up to
date are you with these crime reports?'

Secondary source Gathering information via someone else 'What’s the cadet like? Willing to learn?'
 Table 2 continued

Category or subcategory Definition Example

Performance Antecedent Instructs, reminds or conveys an expectation
of performance
Delivery Direct Delivered to the person 'Leave the shotgun up there'
Indirect Delivered to the person about someone else 'Can you see him and tell him to fill out this form'
Specificity Action only Refers to single observable behaviour 'That goes in the arrest file'
Action and condition Action plus explicit statement of when, where, 'You take this piece and put it here and this goes
how well, or how many here. Then they label that'
Outcome only Refers to a group of connected observable or 'You have to ensure that prosecution can tell
unobservable behaviours which result in what the offender did at this time'
some kind of recognisable end product
Outcome and condition Outcome plus explicit statement of when, where 'Just be conscious of the situation tomorrow night'
how well or how many

11
No outcome/no action Includes neither action nor outcome
Responsibility Clear The specific person(s) responsible for
performing the behaviour is apparent
Unclear The specific person(s) responsible for
performing the behaviour is not apparent
Planning Current Refers to behaviour that a supervisor expects
a subordinate to carry out in response to some
ongoing objective or problem
Anticipated Suggests behaviour that a supervisor predicts
will facilitate some eventual goal or prevent a
future problem from occurring or re-occurring
'This is for you - questions for training day on
Thursday' (to officer who must research & present
answers)
'Stick in a couple of field reports and also pay
attention to the railway station'
'Alright - we’re going to handle that job from here.
We’ll try & look him up'
'I’ve got to have logs for you for the 23rd and ...22nd'
'Let me know if you are going out of area. Call me up'

Research Unit
National Police
 Research Unit
National Police
Table 2 continued
Category or subcategry Definition Example
Type Invited Explicitly solicits a response other than yes 'Please send me information about the job you’re
attending'
Not invited Does not request a subordinate response 'If there’s anything that is not self-explanatory
beyond a yes in your report, then add a note for the prosecution'

Own Performance Refers to his or her own performance

Consequences Indicates knowledge of own performance 'I won’t have time to go and see the other witnesses -
too much on now'
Monitoring Collects information on own performance Checking some typing he has just finished
Antecedents Conveys expectations for own performance 'If it gets too busy I’ll put on another patrol'

12
Work Related Refers to work but not subordinate performance
Type Invited Explicitly solicits a response other than yes 'What do you think about the offender? '
Not invited Does not request a response beyond yes 'No, he’s not from here. Could have been from
another station'
Not speaking Interacting but not talking Listening to officer describe an offender. Listening to
a member of public on the phone.

Nonwork Related Does not refer to work issues or concerns 'We might be going (to party) Saturday night too.'
Talking to wife on phone regarding dinner.

Solitary Activity Not oriented towards or attending to other Doing paperwork. Driving. Walking between offices.
individuals, and/or other individuals are not
oriented towards or attending to the supervisor
The importance of not rearranging work activities to accommodate the observer was
emphasised. Participants were not informed in advance as to exactly when they
would be observed. If they were out on a specific job when an observation session
was due to commence/finish, they continued with that job, with the observer
meeting them at the job or remaining (beyond the end of the observation session)
until it was completed. If the sergeant considered any particular job too dangerous,
or the presence of an observer too intrusive, the observer would be instructed to
remain in the car. While the observer was still able to monitor some such situations
from the car, others obviously were classified as 'Didn’t hear'. The total number of
'Didn’t hear' codings (which also included situations other than those just described),
however, represented only 1% of all observations.

Inter-observer reliability
Although previous research has indicated acceptable levels of reliability for the
OSTI, we also conducted inter-observer checks during the data collection period.
For 8% of the observation sessions, two observers simultaneously, but independently,
observed the supervisors and coded the supervisory behaviours. The codings of the
two observers were compared interval-by-interval and a percentage agreement score
was calculated (i.e., number of agreements/number of intervals observed x 100),
with an agreement defined as an interval in which the two observers coded the same
category.

Reliability scores for each of the coding categories and over all categories are shown
in Table 3. Overall, the percentage agreement was a high 95%, with all category
measures indicating appropriate reliability (Miller, 1980). In other words, the OSTI
data reflect highly reliable classifications of supervisory behaviour, and not merely
the idiosyncratic judgements of individual observers.

Table 3. Inter-Observer Reliability for OSTI Categories

Category % Agreement
Score
Performance consequences 86
Performance monitors 98
Performance antecedents 91
Own performance 96
Work related 90
Non work related 95
Solitary 98
Overall 95

Observer effects on behaviour

A concern expressed in relation to most observational studies involves the possible
influence of the observer on ongoing behaviour. In this study, however, there are
several grounds for arguing that observer effects have not confounded any of the
outcomes.

National Police
Research Unit
13
 First, since those supervisors of lesser effectiveness presumably have the greatest
scope for adjusting their behaviour, any attempts by participants to change their
behaviour would, if anything, be expected to narrow the gap between participants.
Thus, significant effects that emerge under this study design are likely to be robust in
nature.

Second, questionnaires administered separately to the participants and their team

members following completion of the observational study failed to identify any
significant behavioural changes. It is perhaps not surprising that the participants
reported that their behaviour remained generally unchanged in the presence of the
observer. However, for the twenty sergeants included in the final sample, team
members recorded that there were few apparent behavioural changes. Minor changes
were reported for two participants: one was reported to be more communicative with
his team, the other was reported to spend more time monitoring his team’s work. In
both cases (given the effectiveness ratings for these participants), these behavioural
changes would have weakened (rather than strengthened) correlations between
supervisory behaviour and team performance reported in the Results section.

The absence of any major behavioural change probably reflected a number of

influences. We believe, however, that the level of rapport established when setting up
and conducting the study, and the participants’ confidence in the confidentiality
procedures were probably of crucial importance. Consistent with this position was the
fact that all but three participants reported that they were quite at ease with the
observer present within one session; two reported that they felt comfortable within
two sessions and the other within 3 - 4 sessions.

Data summaries
At the completion of each observation session a data summary sheet recording the
frequency of each category/subcategory coding in that session was completed. At
the end of the study, these data were summed across sessions for each participant,
and the frequency for each category/subcategory was expressed as a percentage of
the total number of intervals observed. For example, if (a) a participant was observed
for 20 sessions, each of 30 sampling intervals, (b) 6 sampling intervals were coded as
'did not hear', and (c) consequences (positive) were coded for 10 intervals,
consequences (positive) would be scored as representing 1.68% of the supervisor’s
time. (i.e. 10/([20 x 30] - 6) x 100).

At this stage, the participant’s names were re-exchanged for the alphanumeric code
that would identify them in the subsequent correlational analyses.

RATINGS OF TEAM PERFORMANCE

The other major measure, the index of supervisory effectiveness, was provided by
superior officers’ ratings of the performance of each patrol sergeant’s team. Two of
each patrol sergeant’s superiors - the Inspector and (generally) the Senior Sergeant -
independently rated the performance of each sergeant’s team on twelve separate
performance dimensions.3 They were encouraged to focus on the performance of the
sergeant’s team, not on the sergeant himself. Ratings for each dimension were made
on an 7-point scale ranging from Very Poor - Outstanding (see Figure 2).

3
The 12 performance dimensions were generated with the assistance of two Senior Constables on
general duties patrol, a patrol sergeant, and an Assistant Commissioner (Operations). All dimensions
were considered to represent aspects of a patrol team’s performance with which the Inspector/Senior
National Police Sergeant should be familiar, even if objective data were not routinely available.
Research Unit
14
Figure 2. Rating form for evaluating performance of each sergeant’s team.

Code Number
(entered by Mr. Whitrod)

Location
(entered by Mr. Whitrod)

RATING OF THE PERFORMANCE OF EACH SERGEANT’S SUBORDINATES

(for each performance area, circle the category which best describes the performance of this
Sergeant’s subordinates)

Efficiency in dealing with tasks Very Poor Fair Average Good Very Outstanding
(i.e., speed, accuracy etc.) Poor Good

Field reports Very Poor Fair Average Good Very Outstanding

Poor Good

Local knowledge Very Poor Fair Average Good Very Outstanding

(i.e., area, residents, Poor Good
criminals etc.)

Legal/procedural Very Poor Fair Average Good Very Outstanding

knowledge Poor Good

Convictions : arrest ratio Very Poor Fair Average Good Very Outstanding
Poor Good

Arrest/report quality Very Poor Fair Average Good Very Outstanding

Poor Good

Citizen complaints against Very Poor Fair Average Good Very Outstanding
police service Poor Good

Radio protocol Very Poor Fair Average Good Very Outstanding

Poor Good

Care/maintenance of Very Poor Fair Average Good Very Outstanding

equipment, property Poor Good

Concern for occupational Very Poor Fair Average Good Very Outstanding
safety issues Poor Good

Absenteeism (sickness or Very Poor Fair Average Good Very Outstanding

injury) Poor Good

Evidence of principled Very Poor Fair Average Good Very Outstanding

behaviour Poor Good

National Police
Research Unit
15
 The performance rating for the team was obtained by (a) assigning a score of 1 - 7 (1
= Very Poor, 2 = Poor, ... 7 = Outstanding) to the ratings of each performance
dimension, and (b) summing scores across the 12 dimensions to get an overall
performance rating. (No attempt was made to weight the various dimensions
according to relative importance). The final score for each sergeant’s team was the
average of the two raters’ scores. Scores ranged from 37 to 70.5 (minimum possible =
12, maximum possible = 84), with a mean of 58.0 and standard deviation of 8.0.

Reliability
Two indices of reliability were obtained for the team performance ratings. One
measure, inter-item or internal consistency, indicates the consistency of the rater’s
responses to items in the test. The other, inter-rater reliability, assesses the degree of
agreement between independent assessors. Internal consistency was very high,
indicated by a coefficient alpha (Anastasi, 1982) of 0.94. Not unexpectedly, inter-rater
reliability was not as high, although the correlation (Spearman’s rho) between judges’
ratings was still 0.63. Taken together, the two measures confirmed that the team
performance ratings constituted an appropriately reliable measure.

National Police
Research Unit
16
Results and Discussion

The data summaries and analyses presented in this section address a number of
issues. First, we present a detailed profile of how the patrol sergeant uses his time,
highlighting in particular the time they spend - and the way they spend it - dealing
with the performance of subordinates. Second, we draw comparisons between how
police supervisors spend their time - again with particular reference to their dealings
with the performance of subordinates - and how supervisors from a range of other
settings handle their subordinates. Third, we examine the relationships between
supervisory behaviour (as measured by the OSTI) and supervisory effectiveness (as
measured by the ratings of team performance for each of the sergeants). We focus on
identifying those behaviour patterns that are correlated with effective team
performance. Finally, we use an extreme groups contrast to illustrate how effective
supervisors might allocate their time to their various responsibilities.

HOW PATROL SERGEANTS DISTRIBUTE THEIR TIME

Figure 3 provides a global picture of the percentage of time spent by the patrol
sergeants as a group on each of the major behavioural categories. On average, 12.5%
of their time was spent dealing with the performance of others. More specifically, they
spent 3.4% of their time providing performance consequences, 6.6% of their time
monitoring performance, and 2.5% providing antecedents. Over 75% of their time
was spent in work related and solitary activities. The remaining small proportion of
their time was spent in discussing their own performance and in nonwork related
activities.

Figure 3. Percentage of Time Spent by Patrol Sergeants on Categories of the OSTI.

Solitary Activity 58.3%

Consequences 3.4%

Monitors 6.6%

Nonwork Related 6.0% Antecedents 2.5%

Own Performance 1.7%

Work-Related 21.5%

National Police
Research Unit
17
 Table 4 provides a much more detailed breakdown by including data for all OSTI
subcategories. In addition, we have further partitioned several of the OSTI
subcategories to provide even more specific data on how patrol sergeants spend their
time. Performance monitoring, both by the methods of work sampling and verbal
report, was further partitioned according to whether it involved monitoring of patrol
activities, vetting of arrest/crime reports, or monitoring other station work. Solitary
activity was partitioned into paperwork, driving and other, and nonwork related
activity into meal breaks and other.

The most striking aspects of the data provided by the use of these additional
categories were that (a) such a small proportion (< 5%) of the total time spent in
performance monitoring was devoted to work sampling of patrol activities, and (b)
such a substantial proportion of monitoring via work sampling (77%), and indeed of
all performance monitoring (45%), was devoted to vetting of arrest/crime reports,
court briefs etc.

Table 4. Percentage of Time Spent by Patrol Sergeants on Categories of the OSTI

Category Percentage of Time

Mean Stand Dev (s) +1s*

Consequences: Overall 3.4 1.8 1.6-5.2

Delivery
Direct 1.4 0.8 0.6-2.2
Indirect 2.0 1.4 0.6-3.4
Evaluation
Positive 1.1 1.2 0.0-2.3
Negative 1.1 0.7 0.4-1.8
Neutral 1.2 0.8 0.4-2.0

Monitors: Overall 6.6 3.0 3.6-9.6

Work sample
Patrol 0.3 0.3 0.0-0.6
Vetting 2.7 2.4 0.3-5.1
Station 0.4 0.8 0.0-1.2
Total 3.5 2.2 1.3-5.7
Verbal report
Patrol 1.4 0.7 0.7-2.1
Vetting 0.3 0.3 0.0-0.6
Station 0.4 0.3 0.1-0.7
Total 2.3 1.0 1.3-3.3
Archival record 0.2 0.5 0.0-0.7
Secondary source 0.6 0.4 0.2-1.0

National Police
Research Unit
18
 Category Percentage of Time
Mean Stand Dev (s) + 1s*

Antecedents: Overall 2.5 1.2 1.3-3.7

Delivery
Direct 2.4 1.2 1.2-3.6
Indirect 0.1 0.0 0.1-0.1
Specificity
Action/condition 0.5 0.4 0.1-0.9
Action only 1.1 0.5 0.6-1.6
Outcome/condition 0.2 0.2 0.0-0.4
Outcome only 0.6 0.4 0.2-1.0
No outcome/no action 0.1 0.1 0.0-0.2
Responsibility
Clear 2.5 1.2 1.3-3.7
Unclear 0.0 0.1 0.0-0.1
Planning
Current 2.3 1.2 1.1-3.5
Anticipated 0.2 0.1 0.1-0.3
Type
Invited 0.0 0.1 0.0-0.1
Not invited 2.5 1.2 1.3-3.7

Performance: Overall 12.5 4.8 7.7-17.3

Own performance: Overall 1.7 1.1 0.6-2.8

Content
Consequences 0.7 0.6 0.1-1.3
Monitors 0.3 0.5 0.0-0.8
Antecedents 0.7 0.5 0.2-1.2

Work related: Overall 21.5 6.4 15.1-27.9

Type
Invited 3.8 2.1 1.7-5.9
Not invited 12.8 4.0 8.8-16.8
Not speaking 4.9 2.5 2.4-7.4

Solitary activity: Overall 58.2 9.4 48.8-67.6

Type
Paperwork 17.7 8.1 9.6-25.8
Driving 26.8 13.5 13.3-40.3
Other 13.7 4.1 9.6-17.8

Nonwork related: Overall 6.0 5.2 0.8- 11.2

Type
Meal break 2.6 3.4 0.0-6.0
Other 3.4 2.8 0.6-6.2

+1s indicates the percentage of time encompassed by a standard deviation either side of the mean.
Approximately 68% of sergeants will fall in this range.
National Police
Research Unit
19
 HOW PATROL SERGEANTS COMPARE WITH SUPERVISORS IN OTHER
SETTINGS
Table 5 contrasts the percentage of time spent by patrol sergeants dealing with their
subordinates’ performance with equivalent data (i.e., gathered using the OSTI)
reported for supervisors in various other occupational areas (Komaki, 1986; Komaki
et al., 1986, 1989). The most useful comparison data are those for supervisors in the
insurance, newspaper and banking industries and, therefore, the contrasts below
focus on these. Data for the remaining two categories were gathered in
circumstances involving an intense, ongoing focus on performance, thereby making
comparisons less meaningful.

Table 5. Percentage of Time (%) Spent by Patrol Sergeants and Other Supervisors on
Performance Categories of the OSTI.

Supervisor Performance Category

Antecedents Monitors Consequences Overall

Patrol sergeants 2.5 6.6 3.4 12.5

Insurance managers 4.8 2.6 6.0 13.4
Newspaper managers 4.9 4.1 4.8 13.8
Bank managers 5.8 4.3 4.9 15.0
Theatre managers 11.1 11.3 5.3 27.7
Sailboat skippers
Race 37.0 11.7 11.8 60.5
Preparation 22.9 12.2 6.5 41.6

Non-police supervisors, on average, spent over 10% more time dealing with the
performance of their subordinates. Particularly noteworthy, however, are the
differences for the various performance categories of antecedents, monitors and
consequences. Patrol sergeants spent only half as much time as other supervisors
providing antecedents (i.e., instructions, rules, goals), a finding that was unexpected
given the quasi-military structure within police forces. A possible explanation for this
finding is that police supervisors expect subordinates to consult the abundance of
manuals on rules and procedures to determine performance guidelines. When it
came to monitoring subordinate performance, patrol sergeants spent about 80% as
much time again as other supervisors. As indicated earlier, however, nearly half of
this monitoring was made up of vetting of court briefs etc. that are passed to other
sections (e.g., prosecutions).

Despite the comparatively high percentage of time devoted by patrol sergeants to

monitoring performance, they only spent 65% of the time spent by other supervisors
in providing consequences or information on subordinate performance. This result is
particularly striking given the higher rate of monitoring by patrol sergeants, and even
though (as indicated earlier) performance monitoring may affect subsequent
performance independent of the provision of consequences - it suggests that
providing insufficient performance consequences may be a particular characteristic
of police supervisors.

National Police
Research Unit
20
WHICH SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOURS WERE RELATED TO EFFECTIVE
SUBORDINATE PERFORMANCE?
To identify those behaviours which were predictive of effective subordinate
performance, supervisory behaviour measures (from the OSTI) were correlated4 with
the ratings of the performance of each sergeant’s team. Table 6 shows the correlation
coefficients (including statistically significant and non-significant values) for those
relationships which were predicted, and for several significant relationships that
were not predicted.5

Table 6. Correlation Coefficients (Spearman rho) for Correlations Between

Supervisory Behaviour and Ratings of Team Performance

Supervisory Behaviour rrho

Predicted
Performance : Total .51*
Monitors : Total .41*
Work sampling .12
Consequences : Total .39*
Positive .22
Negative .31
Neutral .44*
Not Predicted
Monitors : Verbal report .54**
Solitary : Driving -.59**
Paperwork .49**

*significant, p < .05 (one tail)

**significant, p < .05 (two tails)

Performance oriented behaviour

As expected, total time spent on performance related behaviours correlated
significantly with team performance. That is, the more time patrol sergeants spent
dealing with the performance of the team, the better the team performed.

Performance monitoring
Total time spent on monitoring subordinate performance correlated significantly with
team performance, with higher levels of performance associated with more frequent
monitoring. In contrast with previous research (Komaki, 1986), monitoring via direct
sampling of subordinates’ work did not correlate with team performance. The most
plausible explanation for this difference stems from the fact that the major
component (77%) of work sampling involved vetting of arrest/crime reports, court
briefs etc. Although sergeants may differ with respect to the quality of their vetting
of subordinates’ paperwork, there are strong organisational constraints which make it
likely that all patrol sergeants, regardless of their supervisory effectiveness, will

4
Correlation coefficients can vary from 0 to + 1.00: the former indicates no relationship between two
variables, the latter indicates a perfect relationship. A positive relationship means that individuals scoring
high on one variable tend to score high on the other variable. A negative relationship means that
individuals scoring high on one variable tend to score low on the other.
5
Correlations between supervisory effectiveness and the categories of performance antecedents, own
performance, work related activity, solitary activity and nonwork related activity were all non-significant.
National Police
Research Unit
21
 spend a significant proportion of their time engaged in such vetting. Under these
circumstances, a correlation between team performance and monitoring via work
sampling would not be expected.

What did emerge, however, was a strong (unpredicted) correlation between team
performance and monitoring via verbal report. That is, those sergeants who more
frequently required subordinates to report on their performance had better performing
teams. Further, a substantial proportion (over 60%) of this reporting or monitoring
focussed on subordinates’ patrol activities. Thus, although sergeants seldom directly
sampled or monitored the performance of their subordinates while on patrol, the
effective supervisor kept up with his subordinate’s patrol work via the more frequent
soliciting of verbal reports. (Verbal reports specifically on subordinates’ patrol
activities also correlated significantly with supervisory effectiveness).

Performance consequences
A significant correlation emerged between performance consequences and team
performance, indicating a direct relationship between the amount of information that
sergeants gave their subordinates about their performance and the performance of
those subordinates.

Although the extent of positive and negative consequences was not related to team
performance, there was a significant correlation with neutral consequences, with
more effective supervisors providing more neutral consequences. Neutral
consequences tended to be of two main types. About half were instructional in
nature, with subordinates either receiving direct instructional feedback about their
own performance (e.g., 'You need a statement from the driver to complete that
report') or indirect instructional information via discussion of other people’s
performance (e.g., 'He’s then required to log-in with the on-duty sergeant'). The other
half primarily indicated neutral encouragement (e.g., 'Yep. That’s alright', 'Another
one?').

Other behaviour categories

Although total time spent in solitary activity did not correlate with effectiveness,
significant correlations were found between supervisory effectiveness and two of the
subcategories of solitary activity. The amount of time the sergeant spent in his car/
driving correlated negatively: that is, the more time the sergeant spent in his car, the
worse the team performance. And conversely, the time the sergeant spent at his desk
on paperwork (Solitary: paperwork does not include vetting) correlated positively
with team performance. It seems likely that these correlations reflect, at least in
part, the fact that when the sergeant is not out in his car, he is better placed to deal
with subordinate performance via monitoring and providing consequences.

National Police
Research Unit
22
BEHAVIOUR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW PERFORMANCE
ORIENTED SERGEANTS
As predicted, effective supervisors spent more time dealing with the performance of
their subordinates. It is informative, therefore, to contrast the supervisory behaviour
of high and low performance oriented supervisors. Table 7 shows the proportion of
time spent on the various performance oriented supervisory behaviours (and two
solitary activity subcategories) by two subgroups within the sample: the 30% of
sergeants who spent most time dealing with subordinates’ performance and the 30%
who spent least time doing same.

Table 7. Percentage of Time (%) Spent by High and Low Performance Oriented Patrol
Sergeants on Various OSTI Categories.

Category Performance Oriented

High Low

Performance: Overall 18.2 7.2

Antecedents 3.0 1.6
Monitors
Work sample 5.6 2.2
Verbal report 3.2 1.5
Overall 10.1 4.0
Consequences
Positive 1.6 0.2
Negative 1.6 0.6
Neutral 1.9 0.9
Overall 5.1 1.7
Solitary activity
Driving 15.8 38.1
Paperwork 21.5 11.1

The behaviour patterns displayed by high performance oriented sergeants should not
be interpreted as prescriptive. The correlations reported in the preceding section do
not indicate perfect relationships. The extent to which the various performance
oriented behaviours are required will clearly vary with a variety of situational factors
(e.g., subordinate competence and experience, task characteristics, etc.) and
individual characteristics (e.g., supervisor technical knowledge and expertise,
credibility with subordinates, etc). Nevertheless, the data do provide an indication of
possible behaviour targets.

National Police
Research Unit
23
National Police
Research Unit
24
Conclusions

Unlike most research on supervision and leadership, this study focussed on (reliably
measured) behavioural characteristics of the effective supervisor. An examination of
the key supervisory level of patrol sergeant produced the following major findings:
• Patrol sergeants spent more time monitoring their subordinates’ performance,
than did supervisors in other occupations, but delivered fewer performance
consequences (e.g., motivational, corrective or instructional feedback). They
seldom, however, directly monitored patrol work, their major focus being the
vetting of crime reports, court briefs etc.;
• More effective supervisors (defined in terms of subordinate performance) spent
more time than less effective supervisors dealing with the performance of
subordinates;
• More effective supervisors spent more time monitoring their subordinates’
performance. Although the group as a whole seldom directly monitored their
subordinate’s patrol work, more effective supervisors solicited more frequent
verbal reports (predominantly about patrol work) from their subordinates. More
systematic collection of information about subordinates’ performance allows
supervisors to deliver performance consequences that will be more effective.
That is, there is an increased likelihood that consequences will be directly
linked to an accurate indication of subordinate performance;
• More effective supervisors were not only better placed (because of their
monitoring) to provide effective positive, negative and neutral consequences
(particularly about patrol activities), but they also provided more frequent
performance consequences (and more neutral consequences) to their
subordinates;
• More effective supervisors spent less time in their cars/driving on patrol and
more time alone at their desks engaged in paperwork (not including vetting).
The sergeants who remained at their desks, rather than driving around, almost
certainly had greater opportunity for contact with their subordinates, thereby
providing increased opportunities to monitor their performance (via verbal
reports) and to provide contingent consequences.

Before considering the broader implications of these findings, several issues warrant
further discussion. The first concerns the focus on performance monitoring. As has
already been argued, accurate information on subordinate performance is an
essential pre-requisite for the delivery of accurate, contingent performance
consequences. At least with respect to patrol work, sergeants only obtained a very
limited amount of direct information, relying instead on verbal reports and vetting of
written reports. In fact, frequent direct monitoring of patrol work appears to be
frowned upon by many subordinates and (consequently) avoided by many supervisors
(except under specific circumstances). To the extent that these values are preserved,
it has to be recognised that patrol sergeants will always be restricted in terms of the
accuracy of the feedback they are able to provide on that particular aspect of their
subordinates’ work.

National Police
Research Unit
25
 A second issue concerns performance consequences. One thing that psychological
research can tell us with considerable certainty is that performance, or performance
improvement, is a function of the consequences provided. In other words, appropriate
consequences, delivered in the most effective way and made contingent on
performance, will be a key factor in shaping and maintaining desired performance.
This is particularly the case in some areas of policing - such as patrol work - where
there are often not immediately obvious indications of performance quality. Our data
confirm this, but they also provide grounds for suggesting that insufficient use of
performance consequences may also be a general feature of supervision in police
organisations that should be addressed.

The final issue concerns the implications of these findings for supervisory positioning
in different sections of the force, for different supervisory levels, and for different
organisational structures etc.

IMPLICATIONS FOR OTHER SUPERVISORY POSITIONS

The findings of this study are consistent with existing theorising (Komaki, 1986;
Komaki et al., 1986) concerning the nature of effective supervision. Furthermore, they
strengthen a now growing body of evidence involving supervisors from different
occupational groups and levels. Consequently, there are strong grounds for arguing
that those behaviours identified here - namely, the performance related behaviours of
monitoring and consequences - will be related to supervisory effectiveness, regardless
of section, level or organisational structure.

One thing that is likely to vary, however, is the absolute level of particular behaviours,
rather than the behaviour differential between effective and not-so-effective
supervisors. For example, officers working in areas where there is a relatively high
degree of prompt performance feedback from the task itself (e.g., prosecutors, traffic
police) may require a lower level of performance consequences than those in areas
where clear feedback from the task itself is often less likely or immediate (e.g., policy
and planning, personnel, operational personnel). Officers training intensely for some
special operation(s) would be expected to be the recipients of more performance
oriented behaviour, including antecedents, monitoring and consequences. Or when a
supervisor’s subordinates are not a stable or relatively permanent group, and
consequently not familiar with the supervisor’s expectations etc., higher levels of
performance oriented behaviour again would be expected.

Other likely variations would involve the specific ways in which particular
supervisory behaviours are enacted. In particular, performance monitoring is likely to
be enacted in different ways. For example, the effective patrol sergeant’s monitoring
was distinguished by the more frequent soliciting of verbal reports. In other areas,
where supervisors are not required to monitor such diverse aspects of performance,
the effective supervisor’s monitoring most likely will be characterised by more
prevalent direct sampling of work performance, as has been found elsewhere
(Komaki, 1986).

National Police
Research Unit
26
THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS
This study has identified - in specific behavioural terms - supervisory behaviours that
are associated with more effective subordinate performance. These behaviours
therefore warrant close attention in the training, selection and appraisal of
supervisors.

Training
One of the goals of supervisory training should be the development of competencies
in the specific supervisory behaviours of performance monitoring and delivering
performance consequences. Training in monitoring could encompass identifying the
behaviours to be monitored, the alternative methods of monitoring, and the extent of
monitoring. Most importantly, it should emphasise the relationship between
monitoring, performance feedback or consequences, and performance improvement.

Training in the delivery of performance consequences should also encompass a

number of different dimensions. Of particular importance are the following factors: an
understanding of the relationship between performance monitoring, performance
consequences, and the learning/performance of new skills and the improvement/
maintenance of existing skills; distinguishing between the various types of
consequences, the circumstances under which they should be used, as well as the
identification of the most appropriate frequency and mode of consequence delivery
for particular subordinates; and how consequences should be scheduled during the
development of new skills and the performance of existing skills.

In addition, it is important to recognise that there are obviously other variables which
will interact with performance consequences in influencing subordinate performance.
These include subordinate characteristics such as experience, competence and
personality variables (e.g., self-esteem, achievement motivation) which have been
shown to influence the effects of feedback on performance (cf. Ilgen et al., 1979).
They also include supervisor characteristics such as their perceived professional
expertise and trustworthiness (cf. Ilgen et al., 1979), and situational variables such as
workload and geographical/logistical considerations. How such factors interact, or
are likely to interact, with the delivery of performance consequences warrants
systematic attention in training courses.

There is now a substantial literature on the use and effects of performance

consequences which can guide the content of training courses in this area (e.g.,
Fairbank & Prue, 1982; Ilgen et al., 1979; Larson, 1984; Luthans & Kreitner, 1985;
Nadler, 1979; O’Brien, Dickinson, & Rosow, 1982). In addition to the development of
appropriate content designed to improve the potential supervisor’s knowledge base, a
major emphasis should be placed on developing skills/competencies in the
behaviours of monitoring and performance consequence delivery.

Selection and appraisal

Just as training will be enhanced if it effectively targets those behaviours shown to
be predictive of supervisory effectiveness, so will the selection of supervisory
personnel. A priority in the personnel selection area should be the development of
procedures that will reliably assess an individual’s competencies in the supervisory
behaviours identified. Thus, for example, the key behaviours identified in this study
could provide the basis for the development of assessment centre or work sample
exercises. Similarly, they could be incorporated into low fidelity simulation

National Police
Research Unit
27
 procedures such as the situational interview which has been shown to assist in
predicting managerial performance (Motowidlo, Dunnette, & Carter, 1990).
Furthermore, another useful adjunct to existing selection procedures would be the
development and implementation of procedures for the systematic monitoring of
critical supervisory behaviours during any period of probationary appointment.

The latter should not, however, be seen simply as applicable to assessments during
probationary periods. Just as the supervisor needs to monitor the performance of
subordinates to obtain accurate information on which to base the delivery of
performance consequences, so any reliable and useful appraisal of that supervisor’s
performance will be dependent on the monitoring of those behaviours that are
predictive of supervisory effectiveness. Thus, procedures developed to evaluate
supervisory behaviour during probationary periods will be equally valuable for the
purposes of performance appraisals/reviews.

The exact nature of the assessment procedures which will prove to be the most
reliable and practical is something which can only be determined by a systematic
program of instrument development and testing. However, types of procedures which
are generally overlooked - but should be considered in this context - include
instruments involving self recording and/or subordinate monitoring.

WHO PROVIDES THE CONSEQUENCES FOR EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION?

Effective supervisors sometimes receive performance consequences/feedback from
their subordinates, peers and superiors, and from their subordinates and their own
task accomplishments. Periodically, the performance consequences are even
manifested in job promotions with its associated rewards. Frequently, however,
effective supervisors are not provided with performance consequences in any
systematic manner. Likewise, the not-so-effective supervisor may only be provided
with performance feedback when a critical performance problem is encountered. The
effectiveness of carefully developed mechanisms for selecting, training and
appraising supervisors is always at risk of being eroded if supervisors are expected to
function or perform in an environment which is relatively devoid of consequences
contingent on their performance. Unless supervisors systematically receive
knowledge about their supervisory performance from their superiors, the possibility
that their performance will gradually deviate from the ideal - with attendant
ramifications for their subordinates’ performance - will be heightened.

National Police
Research Unit
28
References

Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing (5th ed). New York: Macmillan.

Blake, R.R., & Mouton, L.S. (1969). Building a dynamic corporation through grid
organization development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Cronbach, L.J., Gleser, G.C., Nanda, H., & Rajarathnam, R. (1972). The
dependability of behavioral measures. New York: Wiley.

Dansereau, E., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach
to leadership within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 13, 46-78.

Evans, M.G. (1970). The effect of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 277-298.

Fairbank, L.A., & Prue, D.M. (1982). Developing performance feedback systems. In
L.W. Frederiksen (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior management (pp.
281-299). New York: Wiley.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leader effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fleishman, E.A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 37, 1-6.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1982). Management of organizational behavior (4th
ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

House, R.L., & Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of
Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97.

Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D., & Taylor, M.S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback
on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349-371.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, L.M. (1978). Substitutes of leadership: Their meaning and
measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 375-403.

Komaki, J.L. (1986). Toward effective supervision: An operant analysis and

comparison of managers at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 270-279.

Komaki, J.L. (1988). Operant Supervisory Taxonomy and Index (OSTI) Training Guide.
West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.

Komaki, J.L., Desselles, M.L., & Bowman, E.D. (1989). Definitely not a breeze:
Extending an operant model of effective supervision to teams. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 522-529.

Komaki, J.L., Zlotnick, S., & Jensen, M. (1986). Development of an operant based
taxonomy and observational index of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 260-269.
National Police
Research Unit
29
 Larson, J.R., Jr. (1984). The performance feedback process: A preliminary model.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 42-76.

Larson, J.R., Jr., & Callahan, C. (1990). Performance monitoring: How it affects work
productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 530-538.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Luthans, F. (1979). Leadership: A proposal for a social learning theory base and
observational and functional analysis techniques to measure leader behavior. In
J.G. Hunt and L.L. Larson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in leadership (pp. 201-208).
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Luthans, F. (1989). Organizational behavior (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Luthans, R., & Kreitner, R. (1985). Organizational behavior modification and beyond.
Glenview, EL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Miller, L.K. (Ed.). (1980). Principles of everyday behavior analysis. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.

Motowidlo, S.L., Dunnette, M.D., & Carter, G.M. (1990). An alternative selection
procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 640-
647.

Nadler, D.A. (1979). The effects of feedback on task group behavior: A review of the
experimental research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23,
309-338.

O’Brien, R.M., Dickinson, A.M., & Rosow, M.P. (1982). Industrial behaviour
modification. New York: Pergamon.

Scott, W.E., Jr., & Podsakoff, P.M. (1982). Leadership, supervision, and behavioral
control: Perspectives from an experimental analysis. In L.W. Frederiksen (Ed.).,
Handbook of organizational behavior management (pp. 39-69). New York: Wiley.

Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New
York: Free Press.

Vroom, V.H., & Yetton, P.M. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh, OH:
University of Pittsburgh Press.

National Police
Research Unit
30
Appendix 1: OSTI Data Recording Form
Supervisor’s Code No. Primary Observer

Date Time AM/PM Reliability Observer

Session No. Meeting Other

Didn't Hear MINUTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Performance direct (D)

Delivery
Consequences indirect (I)

neutral (L)
Evaluation negative (N)
positive (P)

work sample (W)

Performance archival records (A)
Method
Monitoring verbal report (V)
verb rept from other (VO)

Performance direct (D)

Delivery
Antecedents indirect (I)

action & condition (AC)

action (A)
Specificity outcome & cond (OC)
outcome only (OC)
no out/no act (NO)

clear (C)
Responsiblity
unclear (U)

anticipated (A)
Planning
current (C)

invited (I)
Type
not invited (NI)

consequence (C)
Own
Other monitor (M)
performance
antectedent (A)

invited (I)
Work related not invited (NI)
not speaking (NS)

Non-work
related

Solitary
activity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 Didn't Hear MINUTES 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Performance direct (D)

Delivery
Consequences indirect (I)

neutral (L)
Evaluation negative (N)
positive (P)

work sample (W)

Performance archival records (A)
Method
Monitoring verbal report (V)
verb rept from other (VO)

Performance direct (D)

Delivery
Antecedents indirect (I)

action & condition (AC)

action (A)
Specificity outcome & cond (OC)
outcome only (OC)
no out/no act (NO)

clear (C)
Responsiblity
unclear (U)

anticipated (A)
Planning
current (C)

invited (I)
Type
not invited (NI)

consequence (C)
Own
Other monitor (M)
performance
antecedent (A)

invited (I)
Work related not invited (NI)
not speaking (NS)

Non-work
related

Solitary
activity

16 17 18 19 21 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

16

17

18

19

20

21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30