Enhancing Performance through Feedforward Intervention

Transcription

The Best in You: Enhancing Performance through
Feedforward Intervention
Thesis submitted for the degree of
"Doctor of Philosophy"
By
Eyal Rechter
Submitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
December 2010
Feedforward Interview
Eyal Rechter
This work was carried out under the supervision of
Prof. Avraham N. Kluger
ii
Eyal Rechter
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation could not have completed without the help and support of many:
Prof. Avraham N. Kluger was my advisor during my Masters and Doctoral studies. I have
learnt from him more than from anyone else, and I am grateful for it.
Prof. Gervase Bushe kindly agreed to serve as a committee member for my PhD. His writings
and his comments on my progress were both illuminating and inspiring.
I owe Prof. Lilach Sagiv more than can be expressed in words. As a committee member, a
teacher and a mentor, I received endless guidance and support, professionally and personally. I
could not have come this far without it.
I am grateful for the support, help, example, advice and belief of Tammar Zilber and Yanko
Goldenberg from the Hebrew University's Business School.
I was fortunate to enjoy my fellow PhD students' support and friendship: Liad Uziel, Nir
Halevy, Adi Amit, Sharon Ariely-Langer, Dina Nir, and especially Liat Levontin, Varda
Wasserman, Edith Levintz-Gilai – partners, colleagues and friends for life.
I thank students of the MBA Research Methods course of 2006 and 2007, for their curiosity,
creativity and motivation in their work at the initial phases of FFI experimental examination:
Benny Guna, Shimon Biton, Benny Shlezinger, Lior Nissman, Osnat Vroom-Golan, Salem Hatib,
Zipi Goodman, Tali Dahan-Rosenfelder, Sara Marjen, Osnat Nitzan, Efrat Sutzkever, Noa
Shelach, Liat Kofman, Betti Bruchim, Natali Varbitzky-Katzav, Einat Arviv, Moran Ben-Aharon,
Mariela Kantor, Noa Tirosh, Did Shamas (2006); Avivit Hagoel, Maya Goldstein, Shirley
Bitansky, Shalom Veil, Ofra Elhasid, Yael Blitz, Yoni Snapiri, Racheli Kaplan (2007). To Itzhak
Leibovitch and Yael Cohen from 2006 MBA Emotions in Business Seminar for important
insights from the field; and Micha Shaham from 2009's seminar for his research involvement.
To the dedicated research assistants: Adi Kazav Adir Mor, Rita Levinson, Shirley Bitansky,
Maya Oren, Efrat Peretz, Nurit Polancheck, Yaakov Ofir, Sivan Alfi, Dafna Fein, Ofer Waldman,
Nirit Gordon, Merav Flum, Keren Dartal and to Andrey Elster who was always on call to lend a
hand.
To Hana Or-Noy and Noga Sverdlick, for friendship, advice, belief and support.
The following friend and acquaintances shared their work experiences, promoting my
research and developing my interviewing skills: Alon Marom, Lior Maayan, Amir Or, Adva
Margolis, Idit Newman-Steiner, Orit Rubin, Daphie Ben-Ari, Hamutal Fishman, Anat Zecharia,
Eli Elyahu, Merav Jeanou, Almog Behar, Dalia Alev, Liora Jonpur, Naomi Gafni, Mali Nevo,
Pnina Fisher, Keren Haddad, Lior Granot, Reuven Sela, Ran Aisenberg and Dorit Zioni; to
Nitzan Guy, Or Porat, Yael Zidky, Anat Zafran and Reli Brikner, for admitting me into their
organizations.
My work was supported by scholarships for PhD students and the Recanati Fund of the
Business Administration School, and an ARI grant to Prof. Avraham N. Kluger.
I thank my family members, who supported, understood, helped and provided enlightening
ideas: and helped me remember that what is really important is life is placed outside my
computer: Tzila and Danni Ben-Nachum, Gal and Etti Rechter, Netta and Koby Ben Barak, my
parents, Dorit and Danny and my wonderful grandmother, Michal. And last, but surely not least,
Efrat, who's been there along the way, supporting, sharing, absorbing, and paying a high-price to
my preoccupation with my work. Thank you. And for sharing with me the most wonderful
creation, my dear boy Rotem, who carries the sunshine in his smile. You're going to get your
father back, now.
iii
Eyal Rechter
This work is dedicated to my late Grandfather, Zvi Rechter,
who more than anyone else would have been thrilled to see this work completed.
iv
Eyal Rechter
ABSTRACT
Feedforward Interview (FFI) is an organizational intervention designed as a
replacement of or an augmentation to various feedback interventions (Kluger & Nir, 2010).
FFI consists of a systematic analysis of a story regarding peak experience of top performance,
aiming at improving performance and strengthening relationships between participants. The
FFI reveals the crucial conditions that enabled past top performance. These conditions are
used as guidelines for future plans to recreate and expand their presence, thus promoting a
work environment that encourages people to perform at their best through expressing their
strengths and providing them with the necessary conditions for top performance.
FFI is based on the appreciative interview, the first stage of Appreciative Inquiry (AI)
method for organizational change (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). AI is based upon the
assumptions that in every human system some things works well and that reality can be
changed through altering the way we perceive it (Gergen, 1994). Thus, AI strives at revealing
the positive aspects of the system, and use this 'positive core' to ignite the change. FFI is a
variation of AI's appreciative interview, constructed as a stand-alone intervention that can be
applied at the individual level as well as the group or organizational levels. It can potentially
overcome known shortcomings of current employee feedback and development interventions
(Coens & Jenkins, 2002; Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Smither,
London, & Reilly, 2005).
As a newly-developed organizational intervention, there is a need of empirical
research of FFI, to better understand and assess its effects. Considering the lack of empirical
research of AI (Grant & Humphries, 2006) – the foundation of FFI – such an empirical
assessment of FFI is necessary. Thus, the goal of this thesis is to expand the theoretical
foundation of the FFI and to subject it to empirical tests. I suggest four variables that mediate
FFI's effects on performance: affect, self-efficacy, learning and bonding; and suggests
attachment style as a moderator of the benefits people draw from FFI. The theoretical model
v
Eyal Rechter
was examined in three preliminary studies, two lab experiments and two small sample field
experiments.
Preliminary Study 1 (N=1,180) was a measurement study, aimed at establishing the
distinction between social emotions, that are specifically directed toward other people (e.g.,
empathy, jealousy), and general emotions (e.g., excitement, sadness). Participants filled out a
self-report emotions questionnaire comprised of the PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,
1988) with added items representing social emotions. Both factor analysis and Smallest
Space Analysis (Guttman, 1968) indicated that social emotions (both positive and negative)
represent distinct (though related) constructs from general emotions (both positive and
negative).
Preliminary Study 2 (N=36) provided initial support for the positive effect of FFI on
affect. Using a within-subject design, participants reported an increase in general and social
positive affect and decrease in general and social negative affect, following FFI. Considering
social affect as a proxy for bonding (emotions toward another person), results provide some
support for the bonding hypothesis as well.
Toward Study 1, a pilot study was performed (N=116), that aimed at choosing a
performance task for Study 1. Out of four tasks that were tested, FFI led to improved
performance in one – brainstorming – that was subsequently used in study 1. Results further
provide some weak support for the affect and bonding hypotheses.
Study 1 (N=264), comparing FFI with control treatments, provided strong support for
FFI's positive influence on affect and learning, and some support for FFI's positive influence
on bonding. It provided partial support for the moderating role of participants' attachment
style. Results regarding performance were mixed, with some measures influenced in
accordance to hypotheses, while other measures affected in a direction opposite to the
hypotheses. The self-efficacy hypothesis was not supported.
Study 2 (N=236) compared FFI to control treatments using a different task – striving
to achieve personal goals of students. Participants were either at the end (N=132) or the
vi
Eyal Rechter
beginning (N=104) of their first academic year. Unexpectedly, results significantly differed
between the two sub-samples. For the senior students, FFI had a clear positive effect on affect
and bonding, as expected. There was partial support for the self-efficacy, learning and
attachment hypotheses, and mixed support for FFI's influence on performance. For junior
participants, however, results regarding affect, bonding and performance were opposite to the
hypotheses. The self-efficacy, learning and attachment hypotheses again received partial
support. These results suggest that some contextual and participants' characteristics should be
considered while applying FFI.
Field Study 1 (N=22) was conducted in an army base, using a within-subject design.
Participants were senior officers about to participate in a career-planning process. Following
an FFI workshop, they felt their career objectives were clearer to them and reported higher
commitment to the process. Self-efficacy and perceived organizational commitment to the
process were also higher, but effect sizes were not significant, probably due to small sample
size.
Field Study 2 (N=28) was conducted in a high-technology firm. Participants were
managers about to perform an annual performance evaluation process with their subordinates,
and were divided to FFI and control groups. Results indicated better performance of the
evaluation process for managers in the FFI group, who also displayed a more positive tone in
their evaluations, while still providing critical information to their subordinates.
Taken together, the findings show FFI is potentially an effective intervention that can
promote performance in various contexts, positively influencing emotions and strengthening
bonding between people. While all theoretical hypotheses received some support, results
were not unequivocal. Being a relatively novel intervention, further research is needed to
determine specific variables that makes FFI effective and contexts for which it is especially
suited.
vii
Eyal Rechter
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... v
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
The Purpose of this Work ........................................................................................................... 1
Chapter Overview ....................................................................................................................... 2
What is Feedforward? ................................................................................................................. 2
Appreciative Inquiry – the Origin of Feedforward ..................................................................... 4
AI in Practice .......................................................................................................................... 6
Empirical Findings of AI ........................................................................................................ 7
Feedforward Interview (FFI) ...................................................................................................... 9
Description of Feedforward .................................................................................................. 10
Alternative Uses of FFI......................................................................................................... 23
Theoretical Considerations of FFI ........................................................................................ 25
Theoretical Model and Research Hypotheses ....................................................................... 27
EXPERIMENTAL DATA ............................................................................................................ 38
Chapter Overview ..................................................................................................................... 38
Preliminary Studies ................................................................................................................... 40
Preliminary Study 1: Measurement Study ............................................................................ 40
Preliminary Study 2: Emotional Reaction to FFI ................................................................. 45
Study 1: Brainstorming ............................................................................................................. 50
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 50
Method .................................................................................................................................. 51
Results ................................................................................................................................... 57
Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 67
Study 2: Students' Personal Goals in Academic Life ............................................................... 71
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 71
Method .................................................................................................................................. 73
Results ................................................................................................................................... 82
Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 93
Field Studies.............................................................................................................................. 99
Introduction to Field Studies ................................................................................................. 99
Field Study 1: FFI at an Army Base ..................................................................................... 99
Field Study 2: Performance Evaluation at a High-Technology Firm ................................. 104
GENERAL DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 113
Chapter Overview ............................................................................................................... 113
Summary and Discussion of Findings ................................................................................ 113
Implications of Current Findings ........................................................................................ 120
Future research .................................................................................................................... 130
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 135
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 136
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 152
viii
Eyal Rechter
List of Tables
Table 1: FFI protocol (left column) and directions and considerations for the interviewer
(right column) (from Kluger & Nir, 2010) ..................................................................... 18
Table 2: Measurement Study: Version 1's Emotions Scales' Intercorrelations and Cronbach
Alphas ............................................................................................................................. 43
Table 3: Measurement Study: Version 2's Emotions Scales' Intercorrelations and Cronbach
Alphas ............................................................................................................................. 43
Table 4: Preliminary Study 2: Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations and
Reliabilities of Emotions Scales ..................................................................................... 46
Table 5: Preliminary Study 2: Paired-Sample t-test Comparisons of T2-T1 Emotion Scales ...... 47
Table 6: Percentage of Participants' Emotional Reaction to FFI in light of Research
Hypothesis ...................................................................................................................... 48
Table 7: Linear Regression of T2 Emotions Scales as Predicted by the Corresponding
Scales of T1 .................................................................................................................... 48
Table 8: Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations between T2-T1 Emotions Deltas,
Self-Efficacy, Learning and FFI Assessment ................................................................. 49
Table 9: Study 1: Individual Measures: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations
Individual Measures: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations ..................... 58
Table 10: Study 1: Group Measures: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of
Group Measures: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations ........................... 59
Table 11: Study 1: One-Way ANOVAs Testing the Effects of the Experimental
Manipulation (FFI vs. Control vs. No-treatment) on the Dependent Variables ............. 59
Table 12: Study 1: Individual Measures: Means (M), Standard Deviation (SD) of
Dependent variables by experimental conditions, and mean comparisons with
Cohen’s d values ............................................................................................................. 61
Table 13: Study 1: Group Measures: Means (M), Standard Deviation (SD) of Dependent
variables by experimental conditions, and mean comparisons with Cohen’s d
values .............................................................................................................................. 61
Table 14: Study 1: Chi-Square Comparisons of Likelihood to Reach a Decision........................ 62
Table 15: Study 1: Two-way ANOVAs testing the effects of the experimental manipulation
(FFI, control interview, and no interview), four attachment styles, and their
interaction on affect, learning, self efficacy and performance measures. ...................... 62
Table 16: Study 1: t-comparison of PA/NA between Experimental Conditions .......................... 64
Table 17: Study 1: t-comparison of SPE/SNE between Experimental Conditions ...................... 65
Table 18: Study 1: t-comparison of Learning between FFI and FB Conditions ........................... 66
Table 19: Study 1: One-way ANOVA of the Effect of Experimental Condition on SelfEfficacy by Attachment Style ......................................................................................... 66
Table 20: Correlations between Performance and Related Cognitions Measures ........................ 78
Table 21: Study 2: Dependent Variables and Attachment: Means, Standard Deviations and
Correlations..................................................................................................................... 83
Manipulation (FFI Interviewees vs. FB Interviewees vs. Reflection) on the
Dependent Variables ....................................................................................................... 85
Table 23: Study 2: MANOVA for the Effects of Experimental Condition (FFI vs. FB) x
Role (Interviewee vs. Interviewer) on the Dependent Variables .................................... 86
Table 24: Study 2: One-Way ANOVAs Testing the Significant Effects of Condition (FB
vs. FFI) x Role (Interviewee vs. Interviewer) on the Dependent Variables ................... 87
Table 25: Means (M), Standard Deviation (SD) of Dependent Variables and Attachment by
Experimental Conditions, and Mean Comparisons with Cohen’s d Values ................... 88
ix
Eyal Rechter
Table 26: Study 2: MANOVA for the Interaction between Experimental Manipulation (FFI
interviewees vs. FB interviewees vs. Reflection) and Attachment Style on the
Dependent Variables ....................................................................................................... 90
Table 27: Study 2: MANOVA for the Interaction of Experimental Condition (FFI vs. FB) x
Role (Interviewee vs. Interviewer) and Attachment Style on the Dependent
Variables ......................................................................................................................... 90
Table 28: Field Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach alphas and
Intercorrelations of the Four Scales, Before and After the FFI .................................... 101
Table 29: Field Study 1: Paired-Comparisons of Before and After Scales ................................ 103
Table 30: Field Study 1: Percentage of Responses Consistent or Contradictory to
Hypothesis .................................................................................................................... 103
Table 31: Field Study 2: Means (M), Standard Deviation (SD) of Part 1 Dependent
Variables by Experimental Conditions, and Mean Comparisons with Cohen’s d
Value ............................................................................................................................. 108
Table 32: Field Study 2: Means (M), Standard Deviation (SD) of Part 3 Dependent
Variables by Experimental Conditions, and Mean Comparisons with Cohen’s d
Value ............................................................................................................................. 109
Table 33: Field Study 2: HLM results of the experimental effect on the proportion variables .. 110
Table 34: Summary of experimental findings ............................................................................ 113
Table 35: Preliminary Study 3: Dependent Variables Comparisons of Individual and
Groups Performance Measures Between FFI and Control Conditions – Survival
Task............................................................................................................................... 157
List of Figures
Figure 1: AI's 4-D cycle (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005, p. 16) .................................................... 6
Figure 2: Theoretical Model of FFI .............................................................................................. 37
Figure 3: Measurement Study: SSA Results of PA, NA, SPE and SNE Scales ........................... 44
Figure 4: Study 1: Experimental Effects on PA/NA by Attachment Style ................................... 63
Figure 5: Study 1: Experimental Effects on SPE/SNE by Attachment Style ............................... 64
Figure 6: Study 1: Experimental Effects on NA by Attachment Style. ........................................ 65
Figure 7: Study 2: ANOVAs for the Significant Effects of Experimental Condition on
Dependent Variables – Between Subjects Comparison ............................................... 85
Figure 8: Study 2: MANOVA for the Significant Effects of Experimental Condition (3
conditions) on Dependent Variables – Between Subjects Comparison ....................... 87
Figure 9: Interaction between Experimental Condition and Role and Attachment Style on
Learning........................................................................................................................ 92
Figure 10: Interaction between Experimental Condition and Attachment Style on Personal
Resources for Goal 1 .................................................................................................... 92
Figure 11: MANOVAs for the Effects of Experimental Manipulation (FFI Interviewees vs.
FB Interviewees vs. Reflection; Left or FFI vs. FB; right) Interaction with
Seniority on the Dependent Variables .......................................................................... 97
Figure 12: Field Study 2: Part 1 Number of Words and Number of Items of FFI and Control
Groups ........................................................................................................................ 109
Figure 13: Field Study 2: Part 3 Number of Words (left) and Number of Items (right) of FFI
and Control Groups .................................................................................................... 110
x
Eyal Rechter
List of Appendices
Appendix 1:
Appendix 2:
Appendix 3:
Appendix 4:
Appendix 5:
Appendix 6:
Appendix 7:
Appendix 8:
Appendix 9:
General and Social Emotions, Versions 1, 2, 3…………………………..
Pilot Study…………………………………………………………………
Attachment Questionnaire (used in Studies 1 and 2)…………………….
Study1: HLM Results……………………………………………………...
Study 2: Emotions Questionnaire…………………………………………
Study 2: Interviewee questionnaire (FFI and Feedback conditions)………
Study 2: Interview Protocols that Were Projected During Experimental
Conditions………………………………………………………………….
Study 2: Main Effects and Interactions between Attachment Styles and
Experimental Manipulation (condition x role, FFI vs. FB) on the
Dependent Variables………………………………………………………
Field Study 1: Self-Report Questionnaire…………………………………
152
153
159
160
162
163
166
167
168
xi
Eyal Rechter
INTRODUCTION
The Purpose of this Work
Feedforward Interview (FFI) is an organizational intervention that focuses on analyzing
work peak experiences of top performance through a constructed interview, aiming at improving
performance and strengthening relationships between participants. FFI was developed and
examined in the Hebrew University's Organizational Behavior department during the last years
(Kluger & Nir, 2010). It can potentially bridge the gap between the goals of existing
organizational interventions (e.g., performance improvement, employees development) and their
actual consequences, who often fail to achieve these goals (e.g., Kluger & DeNisi, 1996;
Smither, London, & Reilly, 2005) and are characterized by negative attitudes of both managers
and employees (e.g., Coens & Jenkins, 2002; Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979; Rechter, 2006).
Being a new method, while enjoying increasing popularity (Bouskila-Yam & Kluger, in
press; Budworth & Latham, work in progress; Chinotti, 2008), devising a theoretical model of
FFI and empirically examining its outcomes is highly important at this stage, and is the precise
goal of this dissertation. Such theory and empirical data have potential importance for both
scholars and practitioners. For scholars, this dissertation can direct further theoretical
development and future lines of research of FFI specifically, and of organizational interventions
and people's behavior at the workplace at large. For practitioners, it can serve to provide
guidelines for optimal application, and specific contexts and situations that should be considered
while practicing FFI.
In this work I describe FFI, suggest a theoretical model of its consequences and
empirically examine the model's hypotheses.
1
Eyal Rechter
Chapter Overview
The current chapter has three main parts: In the first, after introducing FFI, I shortly
review Appreciative Inquiry approach to organizational change, from which FFI evolved. In the
second part I describe FFI in details, its practice and various uses and the rationale behind it. In
the third part I suggest a theoretical model of FFI and the processes through which it affects the
people who participate in it. The empirical research I have been conducting during the past years
is based on this model and is detailed in the following chapter.
What is Feedforward?
"You have 99 percent customer satisfaction and the first thing everybody says is let's look at that 1
percent and determine what the company is doing wrong."
Bob Stiller, CEO, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (Kinni, 2003)
Liran Vaxberger will probably always remember the last days of 2005 as a down-point of
his professional career. One of Israel's leading soccer referees, young and promising at the time,
suffered from a sequence of bad matches, where controversial decisions have drawn harsh
criticism by the covering media, fans and soccer professionals. In an article published by Moshe
Boker (Boker)1, it was reported that "the referees union will conduct a special meeting tomorrow
regarding the problem named Liran Vaxberger." It was further said that there is unanimous
agreement in the union that Vaxberger is an excellent referee. Officials of the referees union and
former referees were interviewed, providing their views of how to solve Vaxberger's problem
and "the Vaxberger problem" of the union. They all agreed that he lost his confidence, could not
participate in higher-division matches for time being and that suspension was in place, with only
its lengths left to be determined. Personal meetings with a superior and the assignment of a
mentor were also advised. Everyone agreed Vaxberger is good and capable, and it was evident
1
All references regarding this case are taken from Boker's article. Translations to English are mine.
2
Eyal Rechter
that all interviewees genuinely wanted the best for him. One of them was the head of the
committee that later decided about the actions to be taken, another one a member.
Reading the article, I wondered whether the proposed solutions, and the way they were
discussed publicly, were indeed the best way to get Vaxberger back on track. He was surely
familiar with the criticism against him and knew the mistakes he made. Is this public debate, a
suspension, a formal meeting and a mentor were really the best means to establish his lost
confidence? Or was this public discussion causing even more damage to his confidence and
professional self-esteem? Since he displayed high performance in the past, perhaps looking back
at those high times of his career could have been a more productive starting-point. Considering
great performances he displayed in the past could help realizing what enabled him to perform
well – was it the team he was leading (three supporting referees in each game)? The support and
confidence in his skills he received from his superiors? Confidence he had in himself?
Understanding these conditions that enabled him to perform highly in the past could then be used
as guidelines, directing his actions and plans for the future, to recreate these conditions. I further
asked myself, what would it feel like for him, to seat with his superior and discuss these peak
matches, instead of the worst ones he ever had? How would it affect his supervisor's view of
him, his own view of himself, their relationships and his performance in the future?
The practical thinking and ethical standpoint I take here is that underlying FFI, which
involves a systematic analysis of peak work experiences through a constructed interview, to
improve performance in the future. The interview aims at understanding the enabling conditions
for top performance, both at the individual and group levels, and make future plans accordingly
to recreate and expand these conditions that allow people to perform at their best. FFI is based on
the appreciative interview of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) approach to organizational change. In the
3
Eyal Rechter
following section I briefly review AI, before detailing FFI. Following my description of FFI
practice, I suggest a theoretical model and empirical hypotheses of the variables through which
FFI affects performance – affect, self-efficacy, learning and bonding. Finally, I suggest
Attachment Style as a moderator of FFI's effects.
Appreciative Inquiry – the Origin of Feedforward
Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987) – AI – is an approach to
organizational transformation that – unlike traditional approaches – builds upon what works well
(Johnson, 2001), and upon people's ability to change and shape their realities (Cooperrider,
1990). Rooted in the action-research tradition (Lewin, 1947) – though criticizing it – AI was
termed "one of the more significant innovations in action research in the past decade" (Bushe &
Coetzer, 1995, p.13). Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987), in the first publication of AI, stress the
constructive role social scientists should have in changing the organizational systems they study:
"Instead of attempting to present oneself as an impartial… the social scientist conceives of himself
or herself as an active agent, an invested participant whose work might well become a powerful
source of change in the way people see and enact their worlds."
(Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987, p. 344).
While most variants of action research adopt the logical positivist paradigm, viewing
social and psychological realities as stable and concrete (Bushe & Coetzer, 1995), Cooperrider
and Srivastva adopt Gergen's (1982; 1990) socio-rationalist view. Gergen suggests that social
order and social reality are open to continuous revision and reconstruction, and that the reality
we live in is shaped by our theories of it and by the meanings we assign to various stimuli around
us. Thus, change can be achieved through reshaping and transforming the meanings and
interpretations people assign to events and objects in the organization, and through developing
novel theories of the organization, its goals, capabilities and aspirations. A favorite quote by AI
4
Eyal Rechter
scholars is that of Marcel Proust: "The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new
landscapes, but in having new eyes." This 'having new eyes', or developing new theories, is
achieved through open, free and unconstrained dialogue between the members of the social
system under investigation (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987).
Following the socio-rationalist view, AI holds the view that social systems evolve in the
directions they inquire, which is the result of the questions they ask. Change in organizations
should not focus on eliminating problem, but rather on striving to new heights. This is achieved
through focusing on positive questions, and studying the systems at their best moments.
Placing AI in the context of other contemporary forms of action research (such as
participatory action research (Whyte, 1989), action science (Argyris, 1995), and action learning
(Marsick & O'Neil, 1999)), Newman and Fitzgerald (2001) suggest they all emphasize "(1) full
client-consultant partnership, (2) collaborative learning throughout the action research process,
(3) the importance of local tacit knowledge, (4) a willingness to examine assumptions in the
system, and (5) organizational transformation. These newer approaches might be viewed as
extending an action research “continuum” that ranges from more traditional, consultant-directed,
linear applications toward increasingly collaborative, systemic, transformational change
processes" (Newman & Fitzgerald, 2001, p.13).
Two specific 'outcome claims' distinguish AI from other organizational development
(OD) interventions (Bushe & Kassam, 2005): First, AI should result in new knowledge and
theories, thus changing not only how people do their work, but rather how they think. Second, AI
results in a generative theory regarding the organization, which provokes its members to action.
5
Eyal Rechter
AI in Practice
AI intervention starts in defining the affirmative topic of inquiry – a central (positive)
topic of investigation of the system. For example, in Avon Mexico (Morris & Schiller, 2003;
Schiller, 2002), what started as a concern about sexual harassment and a wish to diminish
harassment incidents, became an inquiry about the affirmative topic of high-quality inter-gender
relationships in the workplace; At British Airways, concerns about lost luggage led to the
affirmative topic 'exceptional arrival experience'2.
Evolving around the affirmative topic, AI is a four-stage process – the 4-D Cycle:
Discovery, in which organizational members share peak work experiences regarding the
affirmative topic; Dream, in which people envision the future of the organization; Design, in
which the ideal organization is portrayed; and Destiny (called Delivery in earlier versions), in
which a momentum of positive change and top performance is built (Cooperrider & Whitney,
2001, 2005). It is a continuous, cyclical, ever-adapting process, as illustrated in figure 13.
Discovering
what gives life
(The best of what is)
Appreciating
Affirmative
Topic
Choice
Dream
Destiny
What might be?
How to empower, learn,
and adjust/improvise
(What is the world calling for)
Envisioning Results
Sustaining
Design
What should be the ideal?
Co-Constructing
Figure 1: AI's 4-D cycle (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005, p. 16)
2
3
Described in Cooperrider & Whitney (2005), pp. 18-23.
Reprinted with permission of the publisher. From Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change,
copyright© 2005 by Cooperrider & Whitney, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, CA. All rights
reserved. www.bkconnection.com.
6
Eyal Rechter
AI intervention "can take as little as a week or two to complete, or as long as several
months" (Johnson & Leavitt, 2001, p. 131). The process does not seek to create structured
processes, but rather to encourage actions by members of the system (Bushe & Kassam, 2005).
During the discovery phase, there is a strong emphasis on the power of 'unconditional
positive questions' (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001; Ludema, Cooperrider, & Barrett, 2001),
carefully crafting the appreciative interview, and the importance of stories as powerful change
agents and meaning-providers (Ludema, 2002). Bushe & Kassam (2005) perceive the idea of
discovery, upon which FFI is based, as the main characteristic that defers AI from other
intervention. Explaining its rationale in the AI thought, they write (pp. 167-168):
"The importance of narrative to processes of organizing has been stressed by some AI
theorists who, after Gergen (1994), describe organizational life as a narrative. Organizations make themselves understandable to their members and stakeholders through stories they tell (Ludema, 2002) and members make sense of their
experience in organizations through the stories they tell each other (Bushe, 2001b). A
change in the stories that are told and used for sense-making can, therefore, lead to
change in the informal organization or “inner dialogue” of the organization (Bushe,
2001a). Just as importantly, organizational life tends to unfold like a narrative,
following “storylines” that exist in the social environment in which organizations
operate. Usually there is dominant storyline, or macronarrative, used to understand the
past, present and future of an organization and a change in that storyline can occur as
dozens of micronarratives are collected and told that allow a new dominant storyline to
emerge (Ludema, 2002)."
Empirical Findings of AI
AI theory coincides with the growing field of positive organizational behavior (e.g.,
Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Luthans, 2002; Wright, 2003), or positive organizational scholarship
(e.g., Dutton & Sonenshein, 2007), following increasing interest in positive psychology (e.g.,
Fredrickson, 2003a; Seligman, 1999). Examining its actual influence on systems is it applied to,
however, there is a void in quantitative evaluation of AI's influence (Grant & Humphries, 2006).
7
Eyal Rechter
The existing literature of AI consists mainly of case studies, and Bush & Kassam (2005) claim
that despite AI's increasing popularity, "an almost complete lack of published research exists
examining it." (p. 161). Yaeger, Sorensen & Bengtsson (2005) point that "much of the work
reported continues to be anecdotal to a great extent" (p. 313) and Ven der Haar & Hosking
(2004) claim that "calls for evidence of its value are increasingly urgent." (p. 1017).
There are a few exceptions, however, and from those the most prominent is Bushe &
Kassam's (2005) meta-case analysis, reviewing 20 published cases4 using AI for changing social
systems, trying to assess both interventions' adherence to AI principles and their effectivity in
achieving transformational outcomes, such as the achievement of new knowledge, models or
theories, and a "generative metaphor that compels new action" (p. 163). They assessed 7 cases
(35%) as having transformational outcomes. Though all cases adhered to AI principles, it seems
that what distinguished cases that resulted in transformational outcomes from those that did not
was (a) creation of new knowledge; (b) creation of generative metaphor; (c) penetration of the
ground of the organization; and (d) using an improvisational approach to the destiny phase.
Cases that did not result in transformational change were still characterized as successful firstorder change processes (though they rightly note that unsuccessful interventions are rarely
published). They conclude that the transformational results occurred when AI was used in a more
radical, less controlled way, and that "when AI techniques are used in more conventional change
processes, more conventional change outcomes result" (p. 177).
Another quantitative examinations found AI to result in 30-32 percent increase in return
rate and decrease in employees' intentions to leave a large fast-food chain, compared with control
branches (Jones, 1998, 1999). In teams, AI was found to be an effective team-development
intervention in terms of both process and outcomes (Bushe & Coetzer, 1995), and lead to higher
4
Appearing in 5 separate publications, 10 of which are taken from Fry, Barrett, Seiling, & Whitney, (2002).
8
Eyal Rechter
group potency and identification (Peelle, 2006). A second extensive empirical evaluation of AI
was conducted by Yaeger, Sorensen & Bengtsson (2005), who reviewed the literature and found
50 studies, of which (only) 5 included experimental design. In addition to Jones (1999) and
Bushe & Coetzer (1995), they site three other cases, in which AI led to superior group
performance (Head, 20005; in Yaeger et al., 2005), increased willingness to participate in
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; White-Zappa, 20016; in Yaeger et al., 2005), and
better relationships, collaboration and understanding between groups in an international merging
setting (Miller, Fitzgerald, Murrell, & Preston, 20027; in Yaeger et al., 2005). Overall, Yaeger et
al. conclude that those cases that used experimental designs, "although limited in number, are
highly supportive of the effectiveness of AI, and [provide] general superior results when AI is
compared with alternative change methods and control groups." (Yaeger et al., 2005, p. 313).
Finally, using AI following a negative change to provide social account of the process led to
increased perception of justice, higher positive emotions and job satisfaction and lower negative
emotions, compared with several control treatments (Spatz, 2002).
Feedforward Interview (FFI)
"The goals of FFI are to (a) facilitate positive change by sparking a self-evaluation of
one's current behavior and plans in relation to one's strengths and proven practices, (b)
enrich the interviewer's knowledge of the interviewee's strengths and the conditions
that facilitate the expression of these strengths in the organization, and (c) build and
improve the relationship, existing or new, between interviewer and interviewee."
(Kluger & Nir, 2010, p. 236)
5
Head, R. L. (2000). Appreciative inquiry as a team-development intervention for newly formed heterogeneous
groups. OD Practitioner, 32, 59–66.
6
White-Zappa, B. (2001). Hopeful corporate citizenship: A quantitative and qualitative examination of the
relationship between organizational hope, appreciative inquiry, and organizational citizenship behaviors.
Benedictine University unpublished doctoral dissertation.
7
Miller, M. G., Fitzgerald, S. P., Murrell, K. L., & Preston, J. (2002, August). The efficacy of appreciative inquiry
in building relational capital in a transcultural strategic alliance. Academy of Management Meeting Best Paper
Proceedings CD-ROM, Academy of Management Meeting, Denver, CO.
9
Eyal Rechter
Like AI, FFI belongs to the broader context of positive organizational behavior, focusing
on "how organizations and individuals within them function at their very best" (Fredrickson,
2003a, p. 164) and positive organizational scholarship (e.g., Dutton & Sonenshein, 2007)
focusing on the study of positive and flourishing organizations.
Description of Feedforward
Feedforward Interview (FFI) was developed by Kluger & Nir (2010). Acknowledging the
powerful potential of AI, FFI is based on the appreciative interview, though its development is
anchored in somewhat different, or additional, theoretical considerations:
"Our version of the Appreciative Interview that is incorporated into the FFI protocol
retains the original spirit of Appreciative Inquiry, and at the same time is guided by
four theoretical considerations: (1) utilizing the advantages of episodic memory in
eliciting success stories (e.g., Robinson & Clore, 2002), (2) incorporating a win-win
approach that focuses on maintaining employee-organization alignment (e.g., Pruitt &
Rubin, 1986), (3) formally adding the benefits of active listening to the process (e.g.,
Drollinger, Comer, & Warrington, 2006), and finally (4) using the motivating force of
cognitive discrepancies to facilitate change (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1981). While the
first consideration is well established within the AI approach, the other considerations
add new perspectives to the process, which are unique to FFI."
(Kluger & Nir, 2010, p. 236)
FFI focuses on the developmental possibilities of the appreciative interview alone, and
does not go through the whole 4D cycle.
FFI begins by the interviewer acknowledging that he or she is certain that the
interviewee's career or current work-life must consist of both positive and negative experiences,
but wishes to concentrate at the moment on the positive aspects of the interviewee's work-life.
The interviewee is then asked to tell a story of a specific peak experience in his work. When the
story is concluded the interviewee is requested to describe the peak moment of the event and
10
Eyal Rechter
describe his or her thoughts and emotions at that moment. Next, the interviewee is asked to
consider the conditions that enabled this event to happen, thus forming a list of necessary
conditions for top performance. Finally, the interview is concluded with the Feedforward
question, asking the interviewee to consider his or her plans for the future in light of these
conditions, and whether they will bring him or her closer to, or further away from, the enabling
conditions.
FFI can be done either individually or in groups. A detailed description of FFI and its
various uses can be found below, in the "FFI in Practice" section (pp. 11-25).
While AI is "often involving hundreds or sometimes thousands of people" (Cooperrider
& Whitney, 2001), FFI can be applied to small groups or teams, and even individuals, so
potentially needs the cooperation of no more than a single person. Another difference is that
while AI ranges from few days and up to months, FFI can be as short as a few hours' workshop,
and can still be advantageous to those who use it. The interview itself ranges from 15-20 minutes
(in experimental or organizational workshop settings) and up to 1-2 hours (when time is
available). Lastly, "FFI requires little training, is easy to implement and can be used for different
purposes by all levels of the organizational echelon" (Kluger & Nir, 2010). Thus, FFI is far less
demanding on the system, in terms of physical, financial and human resources. I will now give a
detailed description of how FFI is conducted.
FFI in Practice
Setting the Stage
FFI is a structured interview, ideally conducted in a quiet, no-interruptions surrounding.
It is important to make enough time to enable a meaningful interview, which is done sitting face
to face without barriers (such as a table). This way the interviewee receives full and undivided
attention, and is aware of it through the interviewer's gestures (like turning a mobile phone off or
11
Eyal Rechter
moving a chair around the table to sit face-to-face). As in AI's appreciative interview, FFI begins
by the interviewer acknowledging that he or she is certain that the interviewee's career or current
worklife must consist of both positive and negative experiences. Experience shows that this
opening acknowledgement is highly important, as most people's professional lives involve many
hardships and frustrations. Speaking with people about their work, they are often more inclined
to talk about their problems and express their complaints and discomforts of their worklife than
to discuss their positive aspects. With this opening statement, that normally gets a reaction of
agreement, the interviewer implies the realization that (work) life is not always good and people
are not always happy. The interviewer does not ignore the problems and the negative aspects of
work (neither they are neglected as an intervention topic, as will be shown below), only today,
right now, he or she wishes to concentrate on the positive aspects of work8.
A Success Story
The interview begins with asking the interviewee to think about a specific incident in
which he or she felt at their best, were full of life, curious, energetic and engaged in what they
were doing – even before they knew the outcome of the process. There are two important aspects
to the story: it should describe a specific incident, and its 'life-giving' aspects should be grounded
in the process and not the outcome. Reliance on a specific incident, rather than broad
generalizations (such as 'I need managerial support to be at my best'), shifts the interviewee's
focus from semantic to episodic memory (e.g., Tulving, 1993; Tulving & Thomson, 1973). This
focus enables considering the past in new light and reach new conclusions and insights – 'using
new eyes' as it may be, thus extracting and creating new knowledge. The focus on a 'processbased' (as opposed to 'outcome-based') peak experience leads the interviewee away from the
common theme (especially among managers) of 'victory' stories. Such stories are often
8
When time permits, usually in a one-on-one setting, it is sometimes helpful to let interviewees begin by expressing
their complaints, and when they feel ventilated, to move on to discuss the positive aspects of their experiences.
12
Eyal Rechter
characterized by a painful and harmful struggle to everyone involved. The final 'victory' may
result in feelings of pride and accomplishment, but this success not only demanded a costly price
from the interviewee, but was also at the expense of others. It is suggested that process-based
stories have a stronger potential to lead to an integrative win-win outcome (Kluger & Nir, 2010).
This is especially important when considering not only the individual's best interests, but also
those of the organization that strives at maximizing the accomplishments of all its members.
Both as an interviewer and an observer in workshops I facilitate, I usually see that with
the advancement of the story, both sides become highly involved in and excited about the story
the interviewee describes. As the interview advances, body language becomes more open, facial
expressions soften, and smiles become frequent.
Ideally, the interviewer should use active listening (e.g., McNaughton, Hamlin,
McCarthy, Head-Reeves, & Schreiner, 2007), or active empathetic listening (Drollinger et al.,
2006): making empathetic comments, asking encouraging questions, attuning him or herself to
the speaker’s situation and mood and paraphrasing the story in his or her own words. Doing so
promotes a full comprehension of the story and its meaning to the speaker, and recognizing
important aspects of the situation that might not be fully clear to him or her. It further establishes
and communicates that the interviewer is interested in the speaker’s story, listening carefully and
genuinely doing his or her best to understand it from the interviewee's point of view. The
practice of active listening also ensures a clear, full and precise understanding of the story and
encourages the interviewee to speak and add more information that might be important, while
reviewing the story as it is being retold by the interviewer. Active listening was found to build
trust between people and create a sense of importance and respect for the interviewee (e.g.,
McNaughton et al., 2007). Naturally, the use of active listening is time-consuming and requires
practice, both of which are not always available.
13
Eyal Rechter
Experienced Emotions
When the story is concluded and the interviewee confirms he or she were fully
understood and have no more details to add, they are asked what the peak moment of the event
was, what did they think at that moment and how did they feel. This question aims to tap the
interviewee's emotional state during the event, both to intensify its vividness in his or her mind,
and as a signal, to both sides, that the experience was indeed process-based – thus characterized
nearly exclusively by positive emotions – and not outcome-based, which is normally
characterized by a mixed emotional tone. It begins with directing the interviewee's attention to
the peak moment of the event to make these emotions more vivid and accessible, and let him or
her describe their thoughts first. Experience shows that many people find it difficult to describe
their feelings, and tend to relate to cognitive content when asked about emotions (and to answer
'how did you feel?' with 'I thought that…'). This approach allows the interviewee to first express
relevant cognitions, which seems to make it easier to move on to describe emotions (or make it
harder to bypass them by talking about thoughts instead). If the event described was a true peak
process-based experience, the emotions that arise at this moment will normally be ones of elation
and excitement (joy, pride, happiness, enthusiasm and so forth). However, if it was a story of
victory, the emotions are usually more on the line of spite and revenge ('I showed them'),
exhaustion and relief (tired, worn out). If positive emotions were involved they are most likely to
have appeared at the end of the event, when its outcome became known (usually feelings of
pride, relief and satisfaction). If the latter is the case and the story was not characterized by
positive emotions throughout, the interviewer will stop and ask the interviewee to tell another
story, of an event he or she felt good during the event and not only when it was concluded9.
9
In practice, time constrain often prevent from asking for a second story (and sometimes more). This is usually the
case in workshops when interview time is constrained. In such contexts, those who failed to choose a 'good' story
14
Eyal Rechter
Facilitating/Enabling Conditions
Next, the interviewee is asked to think "what were the conditions that enabled this event
to happen?" He or she is directed to recognize conditions both in themselves and external to
them (such as other people that were present or otherwise participated, the organization, the
physical conditions, the timing, etc.). Since some interviewees are naturally inclined to interpret
their successes as only depending on themselves, while others tend to recognize only conditions
outside of themselves, they are directed to come up with both types of conditions. This focus
helps forming a more balanced (and accurate) picture of the enabling conditions. For this reason,
in the latest adjustment of FFI (Kluger & Nir, 2010), enabling conditions are prompted using
three separate questions, regarding internal conditions, conditions supplied by others and those
supplied by the organization (see table 1 below). The interviewer repeats the list of conditions,
making sure both parties remember them. If the interviewer feels he or she recognizes additional
conditions to the ones the interviewee brought up, they suggest them ('it also seems like the fact
that you were doing something you really like helped as well'). The final decision regarding his
or her own enabling conditions is left to the interviewee. The enabling conditions that are raised
here are crucial to a successful intervention, and the goal is to provide (and equip for the future)
interviewees with a list of enabling conditions that are necessary for them personally to be at
their best, according to the story they told. If time enables it (normally in one-on-one session),
asking the interviewee to tell another story (and even more), can potentially enrich and broaden
this list, which is viewed as a personal code for top performance.
can still benefit from the small-groups work that follows. In experimental settings without group work, however, this
is a crucial problem that prevents participants from fully enjoying FFI's potential on one hand, and to provide
supporting empirical results for FFI's effectiveness on the other hand. This issue will be discussed further in the
general discussion section of this dissertation.
15
Eyal Rechter
The Feedforward Question
At this point, when the list of enabling conditions is finalized and clear to both
interviewer an interviewee, the Feedforward question is asked. The interviewee is asked to
review his or her plans for the near- and far-future, in light of these conditions as a personal code
for top performance and success. Interviewees are instructed to ask themselves whether their
plans will bring them closer to or away from these conditions, and to think how they can adjust
their plans to bring them closer. Depending on the context, the Feedforward question is
sometimes not elaborated on in a form of an interview, but rather left open for the interviewee to
consider privately. The main goal of the Feedforward question is to let (or help) the interviewee
think about ways to increase the presence of these personal enabling conditions in his or her
everyday work-life. The interviewee is instructed to consider each condition individually, actions
that can taken to recreate and enhance it, possible challenges or roadblocks that might interfere,
and how to overcome them.
The Feedforward question is the main part where FFI defers from AI's appreciative
interview. It is based upon the strong agreement between researchers from various areas and
theoretical thinking, that creating (or identifying) discrepancies between current state and a
desired goal or end-state creates motivation to act to decrease these discrepancies (Higgins,
1987; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Defining specific performance goals while providing feedback
regarding a current state is a central principle of goal-setting theory (Locke, 2001; Locke &
Latham, 2002, 2006), drawing attention to the discrepancy is necessary for performing goaldirected actions (Carver & Scheier, 1981), and breaking an ultimate desired goal (i.e., topperformance or reliving a peak experience) into sub-goals (achieving the enabling conditions)
and realizing ways to encounter them is a central concept in Gollwitzer and colleagues' model of
action phases (e.g., Gollwitzer, 1990, 1999; Gollwitzer & Brandstatter, 1997). Lastly, a person's
belief in his or her own ability to achieve personal goals, as the aim in relating interviewees to
16
Eyal Rechter
past relevant experience, is a central part in various motivational theories and concepts, such as
self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), goal
orientation theory (Dweck, 2006), Bandura's work on self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1997) and
Oettingen and colleagues' work on goal attainment (e.g., Oettingen & Stephens, 2009).
Naturally, for some conditions it might not be clear how one can ensure their
reoccurrence. In such cases, the creation of these specific conditions can be the subject of an
additional interview. For example, an interviewee might realize that receiving her teammates'
support was a crucial condition that enabled her to be at her best, but she feels that right now she
does not receive this support and is not sure how to get it. A follow-up interview can evolve
around an experience where she did not have others' support initially, but managed to create it
eventually. Exploring such a case through FFI, and understanding the conditions that enabled her
to establish others' support, can show her the path to achieve it again in the future.
FFI is geared towards revealing facilitating conditions (both individual and communal)
that allow employees to be full of life, and ultimately create a work-environment that enables
them to express their personal strengths. A successful interview extracts new knowledge and
insights about the necessary conditions for top performance, similar to AI's appreciative
interview. It further facilitates initial ideas, or concrete plans, to achieve them again in the future.
When future plans are elaborated on, the interviewer helps the interviewee to consider these
plans, relating to gaps between conditions' importance and their actual existence at present.
Above the emphases described, interviewer-interviewee chemistry and an honest
willingness to help the interviewee are also crucial to FFI's success.
If done in a one-on-one context, this is where FFI generally ends. Table 1 describes FFI's
protocol, alongside directions and consideration for the interviewer. Next, I describe an actual
one-on-one intervention I conducted.
17
Eyal Rechter
Table 1: FFI protocol (left column) and directions and considerations for the interviewer (right column) (from Kluger & Nir, 2010)10
FFI Protocol
Step 1 – Eliciting a success story
Address your interviewee with the following statement:
“I am sure that you have had both negative and positive
experiences at work. Today, I would like to focus only on
the positive aspects of your experiences."
Directions and Considerations
Sit face to face, preferably without a barrier between you, and without any papers,
pens or pencils in your hands, so that you will be able to concentrate entirely on the
interview process.
Ask your interviewee the following questions:
1. “Could you please tell me a story about an experience
at work during which you felt at your best, full of life and
in flow, and you were content even before the results of
your actions became known?”
The story elicited at this point is the basis of the intervention. Therefore, it is
important to make sure you hear a specific story (i.e., specific details such as time,
space, and action), rather than a summary of an event or a generalization (i.e., “I
usually enjoy…”).
Active listening: Reflect the story back to the interviewee by summarizing the story
in your own words. Then ask: “Did I miss anything in the story?”, and “Do you want
to add anything else?” (If there are corrections or additions reflect them as well).
2. “Would you be happy to experience a similar process
again?”
If the interviewee answers YES, continue to the next question, as the story most
likely holds information that is worthwhile inquiring into and learning from.
However, if the interviewee answers NO, ask for another story that the interviewee
would be happy to experience once again.
3. “What was the peak moment of this story? What did
you think at that moment?”
Make sure you hear the details of a single peak or two at most. The question about
thoughts is designed to help some interviewees relate to the next questions.
4. “How did you feel at that moment (including your
emotional and physiological reaction)?”
If the interviewee describes positive emotions, reflect the emotions back and
proceed.
However, if the interviewee describes negative emotions, or mixed feelings, ask for
another story, and start over with question 1.
When people are asked to describe how they felt in a certain situation, they
sometimes report a thought they had rather than an emotion. If this is the case with
your interviewee, simply acknowledge their thought and ask again about the
emotions they experienced. Some interviewees describe the emotions in general
terms (e.g., “I felt good”), if so ask for the details of the feeling including how the
interviewee felt these emotions in the body.
Active listening: Reflect the emotions back to the interviewee.
Step 2 – Discovering your personal success code
Ask your interviewee the following questions:
1. “What were the conditions in you, such as things you
did, your capabilities and your strengths that made this
story possible? “
2. “What did others do that enabled this story?”
3. “What were the conditions facilitated by the
organization (even physical or temporal) that enabled this
story”?
Step 3 – The feedforward question
State the following to your interviewee:
“The conditions you have just described seem to be your
personal code for reaching [insert the key achievement in
the story, e.g., happiness at work, optimal performance, or
outstanding leadership].
Add the question:
“If this is so, think of your current actions, priorities and
plans for the near future (e.g., next quarter), and consider
to what extent they incorporate all of these conditions.”
10
To elicit the underlying conditions that facilitated the interviewee's best performance
– his or her personal code of success– it is important to reveal as many diverse
conditions as possible.
Therefore, make sure the interviewee recognizes and describes facilitating conditions
in him or her, in others and in the organization.
Active Listening: Reflect the conditions back to the interviewee. For a full and rich
description of facilitating conditions, encourage your interviewee to reveal more
conditions by asking “…and what else?” - until you have confirmed that all the
conditions in the mind of the interviewee are accounted for.
Depending on the situation the answer to this question may either be elaborated and
discussed in detail or left as a question for the interviewee to ponder privately.
Used with permission by the owner (License no. 2490180632975).
18
Eyal Rechter
An Example of FFI Practice
During the summer of 2006, a mid-level manager in the public sector came to me for
counseling. With ten year tenure and being highly successful and esteemed, she felt dissatisfied
with her job, and wanted a change. I asked her to tell me a story about a time when she did feel
good at her work, enjoyed what she was doing and was excited about it. She told me about a time
when she represented her organization in an international conference, giving a talk about projects
she managed. Since this event did not belong to her usual role, and time was available, I asked
her for an additional story. She told me about a time she designed, implemented and supervised a
training program for new recruits for a project she was managing. In a third story she told me
about a time she was training employees for yet another project she led. I pointed out to a
common theme in all three stories, one of presenting, instructing and guiding others about what
needed to be done. When I said that, her eyes practically lit and she said: "you know what? Now
I'm sure this is it! This is what I need to do."
The accumulating enabling conditions also evolved around this theme: analyzing a
project, planning and training others, creating something new and following the process
throughout, and in a more abstract level, being given a responsibility that is solely 'her own',
using her outstanding interpersonal skills to help and guide others, combining analytical thinking
in private with being under the spotlight in public, being independent and feeling competent and
challenged. Since the events she described were not a central part of her job-description or
everyday worklife, in a traditional inquiry (done either by her supervisor or an internal
counselor) that seeks to understand what aspects in her job she was dissatisfied with and why,
there was a good change to miss these high points that were so meaningful to her. When she
came to me she could not clearly phrase the reasons for her dissatisfaction. When I asked her to
19
Eyal Rechter
review her plans and consider whether they bring her closer to or away from the enabling
conditions, her demeanor marked sadness and despair. And when I asked what can she do get
closer to them, she looked me in the eyes and said with determination, "I have to leave my job."
Three months later she quitted her job and started to work as a free-lance organizational
training professional. She works much harder now than she ever did at her former job, and earns
significantly less. But she is glowing with excitement and enthusiasm whenever she talks about
her new career. Had her supervisors known what she have learnt about herself, they could have
searched together for ways to let her express and develop this newly-recognized desire, without
losing a young and competent manager. But considering the prevalent discourse at her previous
workplace (and many other organizations), it seems highly unlikely this new passion would have
been revealed.
This case exemplifies FFI's potential to create new self-knowledge and awareness for the
interviewee that would otherwise might remain hidden or obscured.
FFI is often conducted in groups, rather than individual counseling. In such cases, the
interview is only the first part of an FFI workshop.
FFI Workshops: Small Groups and Plenum
If FFI is done in a workshop context, participants interview each other in pairs, and at this
point switch roles, so that former interviewees now interview their partners. Interviews are
normally limited to 20-25 minutes each. When the second interview is concluded, pairs are
broken and participants form small groups, without their original partner. Depending on the
organization and the workshop's context, groups can be organized around a common theme,
usually work teams or units. In these groups, tipically consisted of 4-6 participants, members
share an overview of the stories they told, so each group forms a mass of peak experience stories
20
Eyal Rechter
and their enabling conditions. They are instructed to look for common conditions, thus forming a
list of shared conditions that are crucial for top performance and are perceived by group
members as necessary conditions at the group or unit level. The groups then move to assess each
condition's importance for top performance, and the extent to which it is currently present in
their work. Following, while considering the gaps between importance and presence of each
condition, they plan specific actions to enhance it, forecast possible obstacles to this objective,
and consider ways to overcome them.
Following the group work, which takes approximately 45-60 minutes, each group
presents its working process and outcome to the plenum, focusing on issues of practical interest
and relevance to others. Such issues can be insights regarding the FFI process and its possible
uses, issues regarding condition-implementation, or the list of common conditions, whose
implementations can be now the ground for further inquiry. For example, in a workshop I
facilitated for managers in a high-technology firm, the topic of inquiry was providing effective
feedback to their subordinates during employee evaluation meetings11. After analyzing past
events of effective feedback-giving, participants wrote down on a flipchart a list of common
conditions for best feedback practices. Among them was affording enough time both before the
evaluation meeting to prepare it, and during the meeting so a thorough discussion was possible.
From the top management's side it became clear that if they wish the evaluation process to be
effective, they need to allow managers the time to prepare their meetings, and take it into account
while planning managers' tasks. From the managers' side it was understood that not only setting a
timely meeting (60-90 minutes) was required, but also to schedule it early in the morning, before
the daily events take priority and make it harder to clear both time and mind for the meeting.
11
This workshop was conducted prior to and towards an upcoming performance evaluation process (see Field Study
2 in the methodological chapter of this dissertation for further details).
21
Eyal Rechter
This exemplifies the use of FFI workshop to provide participants with practical actions or
guidelines to achieve the enabling conditions and exchange ideas with colleagues who face
similar challenges, concerns and needs. The process also provides top management with an
overview of necessary conditions for those under their supervisions to achieve top performance.
The session was concluded in a discussion of the potential integration of FFI in the evaluation
meetings, and some managers did ask their subordinates later to tell them about their highmoments during the evaluation period.
An alternative way to move on from the interview phase was done by me in a different
context, when I gave a workshop to senior officers in an army base, geared towards a careerplanning process they were about to conduct with their subordinates12. In this workshop my
intention was not to use FFI to understand the path to top performance, but rather to advise them
to use FFI as a working tool with their subordinates to perform an effective career planning.
Since FFI is highly foreign to the strict and hierarchical army culture, following the interviews I
instructed the groups to choose one personal story and consider how the story and the enabling
conditions can be used as guidelines for future career planning. My goals were to make
participants realize the potential of FFI and the novel learning their subordinates can extract from
it to help them plan their professional future, to show them how they can personally use it to
review and plan their own careers, and to make them as comfortable as possible in using FFI.
This design also enabled participants to control their level of participation and realize, through
either helping their colleagues or getting help from them, how the enabling conditions can serve
as guidelines for future planning even in the rigid military culture.
To sum, FFI aims at showing the path (both to employees and their supervisors) to top
performance, and to make top performance concrete in the employees' mind, as well as provide
12
See Field Study 1 in the methodological chapter of this dissertation.
22
Eyal Rechter
them with direction and means to achieve it. In the organizational context, in addition, it aims at
establishing an organizational understanding of these conditions, and the path to recreate them in
the future. FFI also emphasizes the responsibility of managers and the organization's leadership
to provide these conditions, if they are to expect top performance from their subordinates. Thus,
FFI emphasizes mutual responsibility for the future of both supervisors and subordinates, and the
organization as a whole. This emphasis is often absent from traditional interventions such as
performance evaluations, where employees are given behavioral instructions and the
responsibility to perform them is considered their own.
An additional characteristic of FFI is that supervisors and subordinates participate as
equals. Formal authority and hierarchy is momentarily ignored, encouraging parties to engage in
an open dialogue promoting mutual knowledge, understanding each other's needs, and bringing
people closer together.
Alternative Uses of FFI
FFI is a generic and modular intervention that can be used as a personal counseling tool,
group intervention and up to involving the whole system. It can be general (inquiring about
professional peak experiences in their broad context) or focused on a specific context or desired
behavior (such as feedback-giving or team-work). FFI can also be used in an iterative manner
where, after the initial interview, specific enabling conditions can be the subject for further
inquiries. For example, in an intervention Kluger and I conducted in a municipal education
system, mutual trust was recognized as a crucial condition for success. However, the means to
establish this trust between seemingly opposing parties – municipality, school managers and
parent's representatives – were not clear. We then facilitated an additional inquiry on situations
23
Eyal Rechter
in which participants managed to build trust where it was not initially present, and the conditions
that enabled them to build this trust.
Despite its positive inclination, FFI can be used to solve problems – through approaching
them from a positive (and constructive) viewpoint. When aims to solve problems, interviewees
are instructed first to picture the ideal opposite situation, and look for a past experience when this
opposite occurred. For example, in a personal counseling process I conducted my counselee
complained about the deteriorating relationships between her and one of her subordinates. After
she pictured the ideal opposite – relationships that involved mutual respect, accepting
organizational hierarchy and authority and commitment to the job and the team – I interviewed
her on past events where she created such an attitude within a subordinate.
It happens at times, when facing novel situations, that pervious experience is scarce or
absent (such as in selection processes), so there are no past experiences to draw upon. In such
cases the interview can be directed to important aspects or characteristics of the job that are less
task-specific, such as team-work, openness to learning and the like. An example of such a case is
depicted in Kluger & Nir's (2010) description of FFI's use in selection interviews. In a technicalsupport department of the Hebrew University, the interviewer asked applicants to tell him about
a time where they helped others and felt great. This new approach led some applicants, which
possessed the relevant technical knowledge, to understand that giving support to others will not
make them happy. In such cases it became clear to both the interviewer and the applicant that
this was not the right job for them, and enabled them to part ways with mutual understanding,
without feelings of rejection and failure. When using FFI in a selection process, the Feedforward
question (regarding future plans) is omitted (Kluger & Nir, 2010).
24
Eyal Rechter
Theoretical Considerations of FFI
My theoretical model of FFI (described in the next section) focuses on four variables that
mediate FFI's influence on performance: Affect, self-efficacy, learning and bonding; and one
moderator – attachment style. Before arguing my hypotheses, I briefly relate FFI to two
organizational processes that place FFI in a broader theoretical and practical context:
performance evaluation processes, which, like FFI, aim at enlightening employees regarding
their behaviors to improve performance; and reflected best self, that is suggested to help bring
out the best in people (Roberts, Dutton, Spreitzer, Heaphy, & Quinn, 2005) – again, like FFI.
Organizational Feedback (FB) and Performance Evaluation
FFI is suggested as a complement, and even a replacement, to traditional performance
evaluation processes (Kluger & Nir, 2010). Recently, Kluger & Bouskila-Yam (Bouskila-Yam &
Kluger, in press; Kluger & Bouskila-Yam, 2010) incorporated FFI in a ‘strengths-based
performance evaluation’ in an Israeli private company, and reported high satisfaction of the
firm’s employees and management. Research suggests that traditional FB have only marginal
(and often negative) effect on performance (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Smither et al., 2005). FFI
corresponds to the growing evidence of employee evaluation processes’ shortcomings, and calls
for a shift from performance appraisal to performance management (Bach, 2000) and even
dropping performance evaluation altogether (Coens & Jenkins, 2002).
While traditional intervention process is a communication in which a sender (the source)
conveys a message to a recipient (Ilgen et al., 1979), in FFI information is revealed and assessed
in a mutual way, in which the employee is the central source – in accordance to people’s natural
preference to the self as a source of information (Greller & Herold, 1975). Combined with the
25
Eyal Rechter
fact that FFI establishes a self-set performance standard (as opposed to external standards), this
should lower the risk of rejecting the FB (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).
Examining the human interactionist aspects of FB interventions, Rechter (2006) have
found that among the necessary conditions for effective FB are good relationship and bonding,
unthreatening situation, belief in the source's good intentions, mutual trust and appreciation,
revealing of new information and understanding what needs to be changed and the means to
achieve this change. FFI, if done correctly, can surely produce and support these conditions,
perhaps better than traditional FB encounters that are often perceived as threatening, judgmental
and confrontational (Coens & Jenkins, 2002; Rechter, 2006).
Finally, FFI also corresponds to Ilgen et al.'s (1979) claim that "there is a need to modify
the nature of feedback to fit the individuals for whom it is intended" (p. 386), since FFI affords
high flexibility and places control of the process' content and nature largely (though not
exclusively) in the hands of the employee.
Reflected Best Self (RBS)
A reflected best self (RBS) is "a person's cognitive representation of the qualities and
characteristics that a person displays when one is at his or her best" (Roberts, Dutton et al., 2005,
p. 713). Roberts, Dutton et al. suggest that revealing and enhancing employees' RBS is a fine
method of employee development, helping organizations to bring the best out of employees,
when they are at their best. Instead of using performance evaluations to recognize who is the best
employee, they suggest building the human capital in a way that brings out the best in each and
every employee. They further suggest this practice eliminates employees' weaknesses.
Roberts, Dutton et al. (2005) stress the important role organizations have in finding their
employees' RBS through formal and informal 'appreciation jolts' – events in which employees
26
Eyal Rechter
have an opportunity to receive expressions of appreciation. Such events cause individuals to
integrate new information into their RBS portrait and reveal hidden aspects of their RBS through
enhancing their knowledge base of personal strengths and capabilities. FFI can serve as such an
appreciation jolt, since "engaging in experience that draws upon one's strengths and competencies may make the RBS portrait more vivid" (p. 720). In the spirit of AI, they too suggest that
organizations gain the most in human development when they focus on what people do best.
Theoretical Model and Research Hypotheses
The theoretical model I present here suggests four variables that mediate FFI's effects on
performance and are known to have important consequences for performance: Affect, selfefficacy, learning and bonding; and suggests individuals' attachment style as a moderator of the
benefit people might draw from FFI. For each variable, I first discuss its importance, mainly in
the work-life context, and then suggest why I believe it is influenced by FFI.
At its current stage of development and research, it is not yet possible to provide a
complete and comprehensive theory of FFI (Kluger & Nir, 2010). Hence, there is no claim that
the suggested variables are exhaustive. These considered here seems to be: a) important to
performance; b) influenced by FFI; c) relevant for an experimental testing; and d) measurable.
Affect
Emotions play an organizing part in our behavior and perception of the world around us
(Isen, 2003). Our emotional reactions signal us who to trust and who to avoid, when to mate,
fight, engage or run for our lives. Emotions are claimed to be “at the core of the human
experience” (Muchinsky, 2000, p. 801), to influence attention and information processing
(Salovey & Mayer, 1990) and to be tightly linked to motivation and behavior (Carver & Scheier,
1981; Carver, Sutton, & Scheier, 2000). Specifically, there is growing evidence of various
27
Eyal Rechter
positive effects of positive emotions and affect (as well as negative effects of negative emotions)
for individuals and organizations (e.g., Fredrickson, 2003; Hareli & Rafaeli, 2008; Isen, 2003).
Positive affect “encourages and supports flexible, open-minded cognitive processing that
enables people to do what needs to be done and make the most of the situations they are in”
(Isen, 2003, p. 180) and “has important facilitating effects on thinking and on people’s ability to
function" (Isen, 2003, p. 182). It promotes helping (Isen, Clark, & Schwartz, 1976), generosity,
social responsibility and interpersonal understanding (Isen, 2001); encourages approach behavior
(Carver et al., 2000; Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999) and engagement in adaptive
activities (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). Fredrickson's Broaden-and-Build theory (Fredrickson,
1998; 2001; 2005; 2002) suggests that positive emotions build intellectual and social resources
and broaden people's thought-action repertoires and scope of attention. Other findings show
positive affect to be related to thought-processes that are unusual and diverse (Isen, Johnson,
Mertz, & Robinson, 1985), flexible (Isen & Daubman, 1984), creative (Isen, Daubman, &
Nowicki, 1987), integrative and open to information (Estrada, Isen, & Young, 1997) innovative
and efficient (Isen, 2001). Furthermore, Fredrickson & Losada (2005) suggest that a positive-tonegative-affect ratio of 2.9 and above characterizes flourishing individuals (connoting goodness,
generativity, growth and resilience) – suggesting the importance of positive affect experiences in
people's life and work.
Raghunathan and Trope's (2002) mood-as-a-resource hypothesis regards positive mood
as a resource people rely on while processing self-relevant information (such as about themselves or their performance), that might have an emotional immediate cost, but holds long-term
benefits (see also Trope & Netter, 1994). This effect of mood-as-a-resource is especially relevant
when individuals have control over future outcomes. FFI, like AI, although positive in nature,
28
Eyal Rechter
can still bring forth problems and weaknesses (Newman & Fitzgerald, 2001). The mood-as-aresource hypothesis suggests that the overall positive context of FFI will be advantageous in
dealing with such problems, as employees will approach them in a positive mood.
More specific to organizational context, Anat Rafaeli nicely expresses the importance of
the study of emotions to organizations:
“People cannot park their emotions along with their cars when they come to work in
the morning. Business and management scholars must come to understand emotion in
order to understand work and organization.”
(Rafaeli, 2004, p. 1344)
In organizational-relevant contexts, positive affect was shown to facilitate creativity,
problem-solving and decision-making (Estrada, Isen, & Young, 1994; Estrada et al., 1997; Isen,
2001; Isen et al., 1987; Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002), integrative bargaining (Carnevale &
Isen, 1986), openness to information and more regard to information that do not fit prior
hypotheses (Estrada et al., 1997), and to lead to customer satisfaction (Pugh, 2001). It was found
to increase helping behaviors and innovation, and reduce risk-taking and negative perceptions of
and behaviors toward out-group members (see Isen et al., 1987 for a review). Positive affect was
further found to increase expectancy motivation (Erez & Isen, 2002), intrinsic motivation and
responsible work-behavior (Isen, 2001, 2002; Isen & Reeve, 2005), to guide feedback-seeking
(Gervey, Igou, & Trope, 2005; Trope & Pomerantz, 1998), influence outcomes of feedback
interventions (Atwater & Brett, 2005; Brett & Atwater, 2001; Smither et al., 2005) and to be
positively related to performance (Erez & Isen, 2002; Isen, 2001). Job satisfaction, stress and
organizational justice – all central work psychology concepts – are related to emotions and are
partly defined as affective responses (Muchinsky, 2000).
Finally, leadership research has recently focused on emotional characteristics of leadersfollowers interactions. Charismatic and transformational leadership are characterized by
29
Eyal Rechter
emotional attachment to the leader (Bono, Foldes, Vinson, & Muros, 2007; Shamir, 1991;
Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Positive mood of the leader was found to facilitate coordination
among followers (Sy, Coˆte´, & Saavedra, 2005), prosocial behavior and decreased turnover,
both at the individual (George, 1991) and group (George & Bettenhausen, 1990) levels.
Hypothesis 1a – FFI's influence on general emotions
Roberts, Dutton et al. (2005) suggest that appreciation induces positive emotions and
Seligman, Steen, Park & Peterson (2005) have found that reflecting on situations where
participants were at their best and the strengths they displayed raised self-reported happiness and
lowered self-reported depression (though this effect was only short-termed). Trope & Netter
(1994) have found that recalling past positive experiences improved subjects' mood. Hareli &
Weiner (2002) suggest that experiences of success elicit pride, while experiences of failure (quite
often present in formal FB interventions) elicit guilt or shame. On the contrary, negative
feedback can lead to feelings of anger and discouragement (Brett & Atwater, 2001).
Since FFI in its essence is about recalling and reliving past (positive) experiences of
success, while avoiding criticism, discussing failures and negative feedback, it is hypothesized to
have a positive effect on people's affect.
Hypothesis 1a: Participation in FFI will increase positive emotions, and reduce negative
emotions, relative to control treatment.
Social emotions. Kemper (1991) suggests that our social environment is a central
generator of emotions. Indeed, Wallbott & Scherer (1986) have found that people were most
likely to specify social relations and encounters when asked about emotional incidents. Despite
this recognized importance of emotions in the social context, most research on, and specifically
available measures of emotions focus on general emotions (such as joy or distress), while
30
Eyal Rechter
disregarding the fact that a large scope of emotions occur in the interpersonal realm (e.g.
sympathy, jealousy). We have suggested elsewhere (Levontin & Rechter, 2008; Rechter,
Levontin, & Kluger, Work in progress) that social emotions can be considered as a separate
(though related) construct distinguished from general emotions.
Hypothesis 1b – FFI's influence on social emotions
AI literature stresses the major importance of interpersonal reality and positive affect, a
claim that provides an additional reason to examine whether emotions between people are
distinct from positive emotions generally. As FFI is a (positive) interaction between people, it is
hypothesized to have positive effect also on social affect.
Hypothesis 1b: Participation in FFI will increase positive social emotions and decrease
negative social emotions, above and beyond its effect on positive and negative general emotions,
relative to control treatment.
Self-Efficacy
"Perceived self-efficacy is defined as people's beliefs about their capabilities to
produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that
affect their lives. Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate
themselves and behave. Such beliefs produce these diverse effects through four major
processes. They include cognitive, motivational, affective and selection processes."
(Bandura, 1994, p. 71)
"Those who regard themselves as highly efficacious act, think, and feel differently
from those who perceive themselves as inefficacious. They produce their own future,
rather than simply foretell it."
(Bandura, 1997, p. 395)
Self-efficacy is a component of an overall self-concept regarding a person's perceived
capacity to perform a particular task (Bandura, 1982, 1997). It is related to performance (Wood
& Bandura, 1989b), predicts performance improvement (Smither et al., 2005) and is "both
31
Eyal Rechter
antecedent and a consequence of performance" (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is specifically
related to people's persistence and resilience facing challenges, difficulties and failures (Wood &
Bandura, 1989b), willingness to try new things (Roberts, Dutton et al., 2005), motivation (Wood
& Bandura, 1989b), greater improvement following feedback (Heslin & Latham, 2004), and the
tendency to participate in development activities (Atwater & Brett, 2005). Low self-efficacy, on
the other hand, might lead to learned helplessness (Mikulincer, 1988).
Research on goal orientation theory (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweek, 1986) have shown
self-efficacy to be related to learning orientation and overall performance (Dweek, 1986;
Vandewalle, 2001). Self-efficacy is also an essential component of expectancy motivation
(Vroom, 1964), intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and goal-setting theory (Locke, 2001;
Locke & Latham, 2002). Self-efficacy, or the belief in one's ability to accomplish goals, in also
related to successful intelligence (Sternberg, 1997). When a person views a desired outcome in
his future, the most advantageous strategy to achieve this outcome is by developing positive
expectations regarding its occurrence through envisioning relevant behaviors (Oettingen &
Stephens, 2009). Developing these positive expectations about the future is done through
reliance on past experience (Oettingen & Stephens, 2009), as is done in FFI.
Hypothesis 2 – FFI's influence on self-efficacy
Wood & Bandura (1989b) report that self-efficacy can be situationally induced, and
stress that organizations should take steps to heighten employees' levels of self-efficacy through
experiences of success. Future expectation to succeed relies on memories of past experience, and
favorable memories raise expectations and effort (Carver & Scheier, 1990). Considering the fact
the FFI is based upon recollections of one's own past successful experiences, and specifically his
personal contribution to the event, I hypothesize that
32
Eyal Rechter
Hypothesis 2: Participation in FFI will increase state self-efficacy, relative to control
treatment.
Positive emotions were found (Saavedra & Earley, 1991) or suggested (Raghunathan &
Trope, 2002) to be positively related to self-efficacy, or perception of personal control over
outcomes. Carver & Scheier (1990) suggest reciprocal relationships between positive
expectations and positive emotions, such that they tend to heighten each other. This suggests a
possibility that positive affect and self-efficacy mutually enhance each other.
Learning
Learning is at the core of our everyday experiences, and is often a goal in itself, as in
educational contexts or organizational training and development programs. Learning, particularly
from past experiences, is suggested to be related to various outcomes, such as professional and
personal performance and success (e.g., Sternberg, 1997) and performance improvement
following organizational feedback (Heslin & Latham, 2004). It is related to change (hopefully to
the better) in behavior in most psychology and OB text books (e.g., Baumeister & Bushman,
2010; Greenberg & Baron, 2008; Plotnik & Kouyoumdjian, 2008; Robbins & Judge, 2009).
Learning is also related to the development and expansion of one's abilities (Dweck, 2002), and
to intelligence, via the ability to acquire and create new knowledge (H. Gardner, 1983).
FFI aims to improve performance (though not only), and is assumed to do so also through
learning, via guided systematic consideration of past events. I suggest that participation in FFI
contributes to the individual's learning, in the sense that it helps people know themselves better
(professionally) and what they need, and can do, to perform at their best. Aiming to show that, I
will try to assess learning by measuring the perception of participants that they gained new
33
Eyal Rechter
knowledge and insights from the intervention, and hypothesize that as one of the main goals of
FFI is the uncovering of new knowledge,
Hypothesis 3: Participation in FFI will increase learning and revealing of new
information, relative to control treatment.
Bonding
Bonding is a central construct in many psychological theories, ranging from personality
theories such as Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1987), through counseling theories such as Rogers’
Client-Centered therapy (Rogers, 1946). Central motivation theories like Maslow’s Theory of
Human Motivation (Maslow, 1943) and Self-Determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000)
specifically posit the importance of human bonding and relatedness as a central component in
their conception of motivation and its detriments. Recently, Levontin (2008) has extended Goalorientation theory (Dweck, 1986) by introducing amity as a central achievement motivation.
These theories, as well as many others, share the common view that safe and accepting close
relationships with others are a crucial factor in people’s well-being and adjustive functioning in
their environment. Baumeister & Leary (1995), in their extensive review of belonging, see it as a
“powerful, fundamental and extremely pervasive motivation.” (p. 497).
Dutton & Heaphy (2003) suggest that high-quality connections create feelings of vitality
and aliveness. Such connections have the capacity to influence people’s ability to examine
alternative, valued identities and feelings of worthiness and positive meaning. Ultimately, highquality connections have strong effects on organizational functioning, building organizational
strengths, health, flourishing and virtues. They can help people develop, enhance their
commitment and effort at work and facilitate learning through knowledge exchange and creation.
34
Eyal Rechter
Carmeli & Gittell (2009) founded that psychological safety enables people to speak more
freely about their mistakes, thus learning from them. Their findings point to another advantage of
high-quality relationships, between managers and subordinates in particular.
Finally, Rechter (2006) suggests that bonding, mutual trust, good relationships and good
intentions are among the necessary conditions for effective organizational feedback.
Hypothesis 4 – FFI's influence on bonding
Bonding can be related to Hallowell’s (1999) ‘human moment’: an authentic
psychological encounter that involves physical presence and cognitive and emotional attention. It
requires the full attention of one person to another, and is suggested to bring people together and
have long-lasting effects on their well-being and performance at work. FFI strongly corresponds
to Hallowell's notion of a human moment, and combined with Carmeli & Gitell's (2009)
suggestion that sharing stories of peak experiences creates bonding between people, I argue that
Hypothesis 4: FFI will increase bonding between interviewer and interviewee, relative to
control treatment.
Attachment Style as a Moderator
Probably not all people can benefit to the same extent from FFI. The individual's
attachment style (Bowlby, 1987; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008) might be a possible moderator of
the benefit people can draw from FFI.
Research on adult attachment show that people with secure attachment style are happier,
friendlier, more trusting and understanding, develop closeness with others easily (Hazan &
Shaver, 1987), tend to self-disclose more (Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991), and can more easily
seek and accept from, and offer to others support in time of need (Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan,
1992; Simpson, Rholes, Orina, & Grich, 2002). At work, secure individuals report higher
35
Eyal Rechter
satisfaction from their work and co-workers (Hazan & Shaver, 1990) and have productive
relationships with subordinates (Johnston, 2000; Popper, Mayseless, & Castelnovo, 2000).
Anxious/ambivalent individuals tend to be obsessive, emotionally unstable and preoccupied with
personal relations and intimacy (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). At work, they worry about their
performance and others' appreciation of them (Hazan & Shaver, 1990) and suffer from negative
interactions with subordinates (Johnston, 2000). Avoidant individuals are characterized by fear of
intimacy, and are uncomfortable being close to others and trust them (Hazan & Shaver, 1987),
dismiss the importance of relationships, maintain distance from others, inhibit emotional display,
experience more negative emotions interacting with self-disclosing partners and their own selfdisclosure does not correspond to their partner's (Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991). At work, they
prefer to work alone (Hazan & Shaver, 1990) and suffer from conflictual interactions with their
subordinates (Johnston, 2000).
The interpersonal dynamics of FFI is crucial to its successful outcome. The ability to selfdisclose, share a special moment and the feelings it brought, and to discuss one's virtues and
interactions with his or her surrounding, are all necessary components of the insights one can
draw from FFI. As people with avoidant attachment style tend to avoid and dislike selfdisclosure and feel uncomfortable with it, it is hypothesize that
Hypothesis 5a: Following FFI, avoidant individuals will show less increase (possibly a
decrease) in positive emotions and less decrease (possibly an increase) in negative emotions,
both general and social, relative to secure and anxious/ambivalent individuals.
As anxious individuals tend to be preoccupied with relationships, FFI might appeal to
them, but this preoccupation, combined with their concern about their performance (Hazan &
Shaver, 1987), might impair their learning on the one hand, and not be enough to boost their selfefficacy on the other, therefore
36
Eyal Rechter
Hypothesis 5b: Anxious individuals will show a lesser raise in self-efficacy and amount of
learning following FFI, relative to secure individuals.
Following the above hypothesis, it is implicated that secure individuals will be most
positively affected by FFI (higher affect, self-efficacy and learning) and hence I argue that
Hypothesis 5c: Securely attached individuals will show a greater increase in
performance following FFI, relative to avoidant and anxious individuals.
FFI's Effect on Performance
Finally, I argue of course that FFI will contribute to performance, hence
Hypothesis 6: FFI will lead to improved performance, relative to control treatment13.
Figure 2 summarizes the theoretical model presented here.
PA
Attachment
Style
+
NA
H1a
H5a
+
SP
H1b
+
-
H5c
SN
+
H6
FFI
Performance
H5b
+
H5b
H2
+
SelfEfficacy
+
+
H3
H4
Learning
Bonding
Figure 2: Theoretical Model of FFI
13
As FFI aims at deciphering the individual's personal code of top performance, it might be that the task in question
moderates FFI's effectiveness. It is likely that FFI will be more effective for tasks for which individual
characteristics are stronger determinants of performance (e.g., teaching vs. technical tasks). However, examining
task as a boundary condition is beyond the scope of this dissertation.
37
Eyal Rechter
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
Chapter Overview
In this part of the dissertation I discuss the experiments examining various aspects of the
theoretical model proposed in the introduction. This chapter consists of three parts: in the first
part, I discuss two preliminary studies designed to develop the tasks and measurements and
perform initial examinations of some of the hypotheses. Next, I discuss in details the two major
lab experiments testing the theoretical model, while using control groups to compare FFI's
influence on the mediating variables and on performance variables, and their interactions with
attachment style. In the third part, I briefly discuss two small-scale field studies, in which FFI
produced some positive results that can direct future, larger-scale field studies.
Preliminary Study 1 explored affect – a central variable in my proposed theory – and
shows that positive and negative social emotions – emotions that are directed to other persons
(e.g., empathy, jealousy) – can be viewed as distinct constructs from the more commonly used
positive and negative general emotions (e.g., anxiousness, happiness). Preliminary Study 2
examined FFI's effect on participants' emotions. Participants reported higher positive emotions
and lower negative emotions following FFI, compared with their reports prior to it. It was further
found that the changes in the new social emotions scales developed in Preliminary Study 1
maintain their significance while controlling for the general emotions scales. Thus, results further
establish the unique contribution of social emotions to the understanding of people's emotional
reactions. Lastly, results provide initial examination of the relationships between affect, selfefficacy and learning, two other mediators in my proposed theory. Viewing social emotions as a
38
Eyal Rechter
proxy of interpersonal bonding is also discussed, as well as the validity of interviewer's
assessment of the FFI they conducted.
In the second part, in Study 1, 256 participants were divided to FFI, control or notreatment groups, and performed a brainstorming task in groups of 3-5. The task was chosen
based on a pilot study in which four task were examined, and which showed FFI to have some
benefit to positive emotions and brainstorming performance, compared with control groups.
Participants in the experimental conditions were interviewed by trained research
assistants. Results show that FFI was advantageous to participants' affect, bonding (assessed
through social emotions) and learning, but not to self-efficacy and performance. Participants'
attachment style interacted with experimental condition in its effect on emotions, in a pattern
consistent with the hypotheses, but did not significantly interact with condition in its effect on
any other dependent variable.
In Study 2, 236 students participated and worked on their own personal goals during their
studies period. They were divided to FFI or Feedback conditions, where they worked in pairs and
interviewed each other, or reflection condition, where they worked individually. Results show
that the different experimental treatments affected the dependent variables, but these effects were
not always in the hypothesized direction: FFI's positive influence on emotions, self-efficacy,
learning, and bonding was found for one sub-sample (more senior students), but not the other
(junior students). Effects on performance were mixed, some of them consistent with the
hypotheses. Surprisingly, participants were better off in the interviewer role. Lastly, attachment
style did not interact with experimental condition, but did interact with experimental role.
In the third part I examined FFI in the field with small sample sizes, thus results should
be interpreted with caution. The first study (N=22), carried out with senior army officers as a
39
Eyal Rechter
start-off of a career-development process, showed that participants felt their career objectives
were clearer to them, and they were more committed to the process following FFI workshop,
compared with their reports immediately prior to the workshop. In the second study (N=28),
carried out with high-technology company managers prior to the company's annual performanceevaluation process, participants were divided into experimental and control group (who received
the FFI workshop after the process were concluded). Managers in the FFI group used more text
and more content-items compared with control participants, and included more positive items in
their evaluations, with no decrease in the number of negative items. These findings might
indicate that managers in the FFI group have put more thought and consideration to the
evaluation process, and were more serious about it.
Preliminary Studies
Preliminary Study 1: Measurement Study
Introduction
In the last few decades there has been a growing interest in emotions as a research topic
and with it, a growing need, and many attempts, to measure and assess emotions of research
participants. Since emotions are defined as subjective reactions, it is common to use self-reported
measures in studies of emotions (though see Davidson (2003) for a counter-argument), and there
are some available measures, such as the popular PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).
The PANAS distinguishes between the two broad (perhaps the broadest) constructs of emotions,
positive affectivity and negative affectivity. However, I suggest that adding the parallel
constructs of social positive and negative affectivity can be of theoretical consequences. By
social emotions I refer to emotions that are specifically directed to other people (e.g., sympathy,
jealousy), unlike most of those consisting the PANA and other measures, that can be
40
Eyal Rechter
conceptualized as general, or not necessarily target-directed (e.g. elation, sadness). Indeed, many
scholars posit that a significant part of people's emotional experiences are inter-personal in
nature (C. B. Gardner & Gronfein, 2005; Scheff & Retzinger, 2003). Kemper (1991) suggests
our social environment is a powerful generator of emotions, and Wallbott & Scherer (1986) have
found that people were most likely to specify social relations and encounters when asked about
incidents when they felt anger, fear, joy or sadness.
There is no known available measurement of social emotions, which are perceived as a
central variable in FFI’s influence on participants. It was therefore needed to develop such
measure that could be integrated with available measurements of general emotions. The goal of
Preliminary Study 1 was to develop such a measure and test the hypothesis that social emotions
represent a separate construct, distinct from (though related to) general emotions. Thus, items
representing social emotions were added to the self-reported PANAS scale, and two versions
were run (analyzing the data and refining the questionnaire for each version)14.
Hypotheses
H1: Adding social emotions to the PA<AS questionnaire will result in additional, distinct
constructs, representing social positive emotions (SPE) and social negative emotions (S<E).
Since the PANAS was developed without considering the suggested distinction, two of
its negative items (hostility and shame) are hypothesized to belong to the new SNE scale.
H2: The PA<AS' <A items 'hostility' and 'shame', which represent social emotions, will
be closer to the new S<E items than the PA<AS' <A.
14
This research project is done with collaboration with Liat Levontin.
41
Eyal Rechter
Method
Participants
A total of 1,180 participants filled out one of the first two versions of the questionnaire:
363 filled out the version 1 and 817 filled out version 2.
Measurements
The questionnaires consisted of 51 (version 1, see appendix 1 for items' list) or 44
(version 2, see appendix 1) emotions. The first 20 were the original PANAS (Hebrew version
translated and tested by Uziel, 2006), followed by various positive and negative social emotions.
Participants were asked to indicate, using a 1-5 Likert-type scale, to what extent they feel each
emotion now.
Procedure
Participants filled out the questionnaire in various ways, such as a part of class
requirement, internet survey or a larger experiment, or being approached by friends or relatives.
Results
Version 1: Factor Analysis with Varimax rotation yielded 7 factors, of which the first
four roughly correspond with the four emotional constructs hypothesized, accounting for a total
of 49% of the variance, thus supporting H1. Hostility and shame were not clearly loaded on
either NA or SNE factors. However, while dropping them from the NA scale had a meager effect
on its Cronbach alpha (a decrease from .87 to .8615), adding them to the SNE scale significantly
improved its Cronbach alpha (from .60 to .70), thus supporting H2 as well. Considering the
factor analysis results and items' effect on scales' Cronbach alphas, PA16, NA17, SPE18 and SNE19
scales were computed. Table 2 shows scales' intercorrelations and Cronbach alphas.
15
16
Calculated without the item Jittery, that negatively affected the scale's Cronbach alpha, dropping it from .87 to .57.
Without the item Strength, who had a strong negative effect on the scale's Cronbach alpha, dropping it from .84 to .59.
42
Eyal Rechter
Table 2: Measurement Study: Version 1's Emotions Scales' Intercorrelations and Cronbach Alphas
PA
NA
SPE
SNE
PA
(.84)
.16 **
.58 **
.03
NA
SPE
SNE
(.86)
-.04
.67 **
(.87)
-.11 *
(.70)
<otes: N=363; ** p<.01, * p<.05; Cronbach alphas are displayed in the diagonal.
While the factor analysis results support the hypothesis that positive and negative social
emotions are distinct from, though related to general positive and negative emotions, the
intercorrelations are in the magnitude of the cross product of the respective reliabilities, raising a
question of whether or not these constructs are indeed distinct.
Version 2: Based on version 1's results, and considering translation issues (since this
version was translated to English), some of the social emotions items were replaced in version 2.
Factor analysis with Varimax rotation again yielded 7 factors, of which the first four roughly
correspond with the four emotional constructs hypothesized, accounting for a total of 54% of the
variance, again supporting H1. NA items hostility and shame had higher loadings on the SNE
than on the NA scale, supporting H220. Based on these results, PA21, NA22, SPE23 and SNE24
scales were computed. Table 3 shows the scales intercorrelations and Cronbach alphas.
Table 3: Measurement Study: Version 2's Emotions Scales' Intercorrelations and Cronbach Alphas
PA
NA
SPE
SNE
PA
(.87)
.13
.72 **
.01
NA
(.92)
-.04
.70 **
SPE
SNE
(.91)
-.05 *
(.90)
<otes: N=817; ** p<.01, * p<.05; Cronbach alphas are displayed in the diagonal.
17
Consisting of seven items as explained before.
9 items: sympathy liking closeness, honesty, understanding, empathy, openness, appreciation, intimacy.
19
6 items: embarrassment, detachment, insult, humiliation, hostility, shame.
20
These two items were the only ones with higher than .4 loading on both scales.
21
With all 10 items.
22
8 items, excluding hostility and shame.
23
10 items: sympathy, liking, partnership, understanding, empathy, appreciation, intimacy, brotherhood, love, fondness.
24
10 items: hostility, shame, insult, humiliation, jealousy, hate, pity, contempt, loath, averse.
18
43
Eyal Rechter
Analysis of version 2 of the questionnaire showed similar results to version 1's, although
versions differed with respect to the individual items representing the social emotions facets.
An additional analysis of the data was done using Smallest Space Analysis (SSA) maps
(Guttman, 1968), with items representing the four scales. SSA results produced a twodimensional space, with COA=.074 and CI for angular separation was .98 (see figure 3). While
the positive items of both scales are widely spread and general and social items clearly distinct,
the negative items are more closely grouped, with general and social items somewhat mixed.
SSA map of PA & NA and Social Emotions
(N= 820, C0A = .07)
Figure 3: Measurement Study: SSA Results of PA, NA, SPE and SNE Scales
Discussion
Data analysis shows that, corresponding to the theoretical suggestion, social emotions,
ones that are directed to other people, are distinct from general emotions. These distinct (though
related) constructs have both theoretical and practical implications, both to the understanding of
people's emotions and to measure and asses reactions to various stimuli. The four separate scales
will be used throughout this dissertation in testing FFI's effects on emotions.
44
Eyal Rechter
Preliminary Study 2: Emotional Reaction to FFI
Introduction
Preliminary Study 2 was conducted in preparation for Study 1. It was done as a part of
research assistants' training in conducting FFI, interviewing participants regarding peak
teamwork experiences, as was to be done in Study 1. Its main goal was to examine the first
theoretical hypothesis, regarding FFI's positive influence on emotions, in a within-subject design.
A second goal was to examine whether FFI's quality can be assessed by the interviewer, and if
this assessment can serve as a valid predictor of FFI's outcomes. The last goal was to provide a
preliminary examination of possible relationships between FFI's quality and the mediating
variables: effect, self-efficacy and learning (bonding was not measured directly).
Hypotheses
H1: Participants will report higher levels of positive emotions (both general and social)
and lower levels of negative emotions (both general and social) following FFI.
H2: Interviewer's assessment of the interview will be positively related to the change in
positive emotions (both general and social) and negatively related to the change in negative
emotions (both general and social) following FFI.
H3: Interviewer's assessment of the interview will be positively related to perceived level
of self-efficacy and learning of the interviewee, following FFI.
Method
Participants
A total of 36 subjects participated voluntarily or in exchange for course credit (26 of
which were personal acquaintances of the interviewer).
45
Eyal Rechter
Measurements
Emotions. Participants filled out a new version of the emotions questionnaire described in
Preliminary Study 1 (version 3; see appendix 1), with the PANAS items followed by 23 items
representing social emotions. The questionnaire was filled out twice, before and after the FFI.
Table 4 displays means, standard deviations, intercorrelations and reliabilities of the scales.
Table 4: Preliminary Study 2: Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations and Reliabilities of Emotions Scales
T1
M
SD
PA
PA
NA
2.98
1.85
3.45
1.41
3.30
1.59
.80
.67
.78
.53
.84
.60
(.86)
.32
.66
.40
.83
.31
SPE
SNE
3.64
1.27
.79
.44
PA
NA
T1
SPE
SNE
T2
NA
25
T2
SPE
SNE
*
**
**
**
*
(.86)
.12
.73 **
.18
.81 **
(.89)
.20
.55 **
.06
(.83)
.25
.68 **
.65 **
.43 **
.08
.63 **
.88 **
.13
.11
.90 **
1
PA
NA
(.89)
.19
(.89)
.62 **
.28 †
SPE
SNE
-.01
(.90)
.63 **
.09
(.84)
N=36; ** p<.01, * p<.05, † p<.1.
Emotions deltas. The change in each scale following the interview was measured by
calculating the difference between T2 and T1 (e.g., D_PA = PA-T2 – PA-T1 = .32). Positive
values of the deltas indicate an increase in the relevant scales and negative values indicate a
decrease, following FFI.
Self-efficacy. Following the interview, participants noted, on a 1-5 likert-type scale, to
what extent they feel they are able successfully participate in teamwork.
Learning. Following the interview, participants noted, on a 1-5 likert-type scale, to what
extent did the feel they have learnt from the interview.
FFI assessment. Following the interview, interviewers filled out a short report, briefly
summarizing the interview's content and assessing it by replying on a 1-7 likert-type scale the
25
Without the items hostility and shame who were moved to the SNE scale.
46
Eyal Rechter
following items: 1. general assessment of the interview; 2. the interviewee self-disclosed; 3. the
interviewee was open; 4. the interviewee was cooperative; 5. the story was detailed; 6. I felt the
interviewee would have liked to experience again the situation he described. Cronbach alpha of
the six items was .89, and an interview assessment scale was computed.
Procedure
Participants were interviewed in their own time by research assistants in training, about
peak teamwork experiences. Interviews took approximately 30 minutes. Participants filled out
the emotions questionnaire twice, once immediately before the interview (T1) and once
immediately after (T2). The second questionnaire included the self-efficacy and learning items,
following the emotions. Following the FFI, experimenters filled out an interview report, in which
they assessed the interview.
Results
Each emotion scale was compared before and after the interview, using paired-sample ttest (see table 5). All four comparisons were significant and in the hypothesized direction, such
that participants reported increase in positive emotions, both general and social, and decrease in
negative emotions, both general and social.
Table 5: Preliminary Study 2: Paired-Sample t-test Comparisons of T2-T1 Emotion Scales
t (35)
PA
NA
SPE
SNE
4.01
-3.88
2.86
-3.78
**
**
**
**
** p<.01
These results support hypothesis 1, regarding FFI's positive effect on emotions26.
26
Though the deltas of the general scales are higher than those of the social scales, these differences (D_PA vs.
D_SPE and D_NA vs. D_SNE) were not significant.
47
Eyal Rechter
Examining the emotional data at the individual level, an average of 62% of the
participants reacted in the hypothesized direction (i.e., increase in the positive emotions scales
and decrease in the negative emotions scales), while 17% reacted in a contradictory manner
(22% did not report a change; see table 6).
Table 6: Percentage of Participants' Emotional Reaction to FFI in light of Research Hypothesis
PA
NA
SPE
SNE
Average
Consistent
72%
56%
67%
53%
62%
No Change
0%
39%
8%
39%
22%
Contradictory
28%
6%
25%
8%
17%
An additional analysis was performed to test the unique variability of the general and
social emotions scales, which is not explained by the social and general emotions scales,
respectively. For each T2 social emotions scale (SPE and SPN), the corresponding T1 general
scale (PA for SPE and NA for SPN) was entered as a first predictor in a linear regression, and the
social T1 scale was entered as the second. For each T2 general emotions scale, the corresponding
T1 social scale was entered as a first predictor, and the general scale was entered as the second.
As can be seen in table 7, despite the significant correlations between the general and social
scales, both T1 general scales lose their significance as predictors of T2 social scales, while both
T1 social scales maintain their significance. A corresponding pattern is seen for the general T2
scales. These results can be interpreted as further supporting the validity of viewing social
emotions as separate constructs from general emotions.
Table 7: Linear Regression of T2 Emotions Scales as Predicted by the Corresponding Scales of T1
SPE - T2
SNE - T2
Predictors
PA - T1
SPE - T1
NA - T1
SNE - T1
Beta
.13
.79 **
-.05
.94 **
PA - T2
NA - T2
Predictors
SPE - T1
PA - T1
SNE - T1
NA - T1
Beta
-.15
.85 **
.20
.67 **
** p<.001; df=2.
48
Eyal Rechter
Exploring the correlations between the DVs (see table 8) suggests that interviewers'
assessment of the FFI was related to interviewees' increase in PA following the interview but not
to changes in the other emotional scales, thus providing only partial support for hypothesis H2.
FFI's assessment was also correlated to interviewees' self-efficacy, but not to their perception of
learning from FFI, providing partial support to H3 as well. The amount of learning interviewees
felt they extracted from the interview was related to their increase in general positive emotions
and decrease in general negative emotions, and also to their level of self-efficacy, which suggest
overall relationships between the various FFI outcomes. None of T1's emotions scales correlated
significantly with self-efficacy, learning or FFI's assessment, suggesting these results can be
ascribed to the FFI and not reflect preliminary relationships between these DVs (such that
participants who felt better prior to FFI felt higher self-efficacy, for example).
Table 8: Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations between T2-T1 Emotions Deltas, Self-Efficacy, Learning and
FFI Assessment
M
SD
D_PA
D_NA
D_SPE
D_PA
.32
.48
D_NA
-.26
.40
.09
D_SPE
.18
.38
.27
-.09
D_SNE
-.14
.23
.10
.23
.28
SE
3.81
.98
.23
-.14
.16
.04
Learning
3.43
.95
.33 *
-.31 †
.09
.03
.33 *
Assessment
5.46
1.00
.54 **
.12
-.02
.51 **
.03
D_SNE
SE
Learning
.09
N=36; ** p<.01, * p<.05, † p<.1
Discussion
Results clearly show that following FFI participants report significantly higher positive
emotions, both general and social, and significantly lower negative emotions, both general and
social. This provides some support for hypothesis 1, regarding the positive influence of FFI on
emotions. However, these finding should be treated cautiously, since the current design was not
experimental which compared FFI to control treatments.
49
Eyal Rechter
Results also suggest that trained interviewers – here, already in the first 5-6 interviews –
can assess FFI in a way that reflects important aspects of its quality, and hence, its outcomes.
Lastly, results suggest some systematic relationships between the various outcomes of
FFI, specifically, between learning and the other two (emotions and self-efficacy). The
correlations do not allow causal explanations, but can raise some theoretical questions. For
example, if higher positive emotions (and/or lower negative emotions) would be found to lead to
more learning, a stronger emphasis on creating a pleasant and comfortable atmosphere can be
given during training; if learning would be found to lead to higher self-efficacy, FFI can be more
explicitly directed to the discovery of new knowledge, with an emphasis on more content in the
stories, or more stories. Such explorations, that are outside the scope of the current dissertation,
can provide deeper understanding of the way FFI acts, and the role its specific aspects (like
atmosphere, interpersonal relationships, amount of past experience, etc.) play in its outcomes.
Study 1: Brainstorming
Introduction
Following the results of the preliminary studies, Study 1 aimed at examining the overall
theoretical model presented in the introduction to this dissertation27. As a first stage, a pilot study
was conducted in order to choose the performance task to be used in Study 1. Since FFI is based
on positive interpersonal interaction, it was desired to find a task that involves teamwork and
interpersonal dynamics. Four tasks were tested (N=116), and based on the results, brainstorming
was chosen as the task to be used in Study 1 (for a detailed description of the pilot study see
appendix 2).
27
Hypothesis H4 of the original model, regarding bonding, was tested indirectly through the social emotions scales.
Since this hypothesis originated in later theoretical development, Study 1 did not use a direct measure to test it. This
will be done in Study 2, reported in the next section of this chapter.
50
Eyal Rechter
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1a: Participation in FFI will increase positive emotions, and decrease
negative emotions, relative to control treatment.
Hypothesis 1b: Participation in FFI will increase positive social emotions and decrease
negative social emotions, above and beyond its effect on positive and negative general emotions,
Hypothesis 2: Participation in FFI will increase state self-efficacy, relative to control
treatment.
Hypothesis 3: Participation in FFI will increase learning and revealing new information,
Hypothesis 4: FFI will lead to improved performance, relative to control treatment.
Hypothesis 5a: Following the FFI, avoidant individuals will show less increase (possibly
a decrease) in positive emotions and less decrease (possibly an increase) in negative emotions,
both general and social, relative to secure and anxious/ambivalent individuals.
Hypothesis 5b: Anxious individuals will show a lesser raise in self-efficacy and amount of
learning following FFI, relative to secure individuals.
Hypothesis 5c: Securely attached individuals will show a greater increase in
performance following FFI, relative to avoidant and anxious individuals.
Method
Participants
264 undergraduate students from the Hebrew University (mean age=22.6) participated in
the experiment in groups of 3-5. Eight participants were dropped from the experiment (incidents
where too few participants arrived to the lab). The remaining 256 participants were randomly
51
Eyal Rechter
assigned to experimental (FFI, 23 groups, 84 subjects), control (25 groups, 85 subjects) and no
treatment (22 groups, 83 subjects) conditions. Participation was in exchange for course credits.
Task and Measures
Emotions. Emotions were measured using the emotions questionnaire described above
(version 3, see appendix 1), Cronbach alphas for PA28, NA29, SPE and SNE scales were .83, .85,
.86 and .82, respectively.
Emotions Ratios. Two proportion measures were calculated by dividing the positive with
the negative general and social scales (PA/NA and SPE/SNE), such that the higher the ratio is,
the higher the proportion of positive over negative emotions.
Residualized emotions. Since SPE and SNE measures are new, it was important to
demonstrate that any experimental effect, if found, on these measures is not merely reflecting
effects on either PA or NA. Therefore, for each emotion measure (PA, NA, SPE, and SNE) I
calculated a residual score based on a regression with the other three measures. For example,
PA’ is the residual score in a regression predicting PA from NA, SPE, and SNE. The benefit of
these scores is that if any effect on these measures is found, it is a unique effect that cannot be
explained by co-linearity with the other emotion measure. The drawback of these scores is that
they run the risk of “throwing out the baby with the bath water” in that effects common to some
or all of the measures cannot be observed. Finally, I calculated residualized ratio scores. For
example, SPE/SNE’ is the residual score of SPE/SNE controlling for PA/NA. These residuals
have the benefit of controlling social emotions for general emotions, and vice versa.
28
29
Excluding the item attention, due to technical problem.
Excluding the items hostile and ashamed that were integrated in the SNE scale, following previous results.
52
Eyal Rechter
Self-efficacy. Participants were asked to rate on a 1-5 likert-type scale how well they
expected to perform in teamwork (a single-item measure was chosen for its simplicity; this
measure was previously used by Levontin & Kluger (2004)).
Learning. Subjects were asked to indicate on a 1-5 likert-type scale how much they felt
they have learnt from the interview (previously used by Nir (work in progress)).
Interview quality. Following FFI or control interview, each interviewer filled out a short
report, describing the story told and the interview's progress, and rated on a 1-7 likert-type scale
his or her general assessment of the interview and the participant’s disclosure, openness,
cooperation, how detailed the story was and whether it seemed the interviewee would like to
experience the described event again. Factor analysis of the six items yielded a single factor,
explaining 70% of the variance. An interview quality scale was calculated, with a Cronbach
alpha of .90. Scores of interview quality were significantly higher in the FFI condition than in the
control conditions (t(167)=3.4, p<.01). This provides evidence for the success of the manipulation.
Interview quality furthermore was positively correlated with PA (r=.20, p<.01), PA' (r=.20,
p<.01), and PA/NA (r=.20, p<.01), learning (r=.15, p<.05), and performance ratings of both
judges (r=.21, p<.01), though not with actual performance. However, interview quality did not
moderate FFI effects and thus this variable is not further discussed.
Attachment. Participants' attachment style was assessed using Brennan, Clark & Shaver's
(1998) Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) 36-items attachment style questionnaire
(Hebrew version by Mikulincer & Florian, 2000, see appendix 3). Cronbach alphas for anxious
and avoidance scales were .88 and .87, respectively. Participants were divided into high and low
anxious and avoidance using median split. Participants scoring high on anxious and low on
avoidance were classified as having anxious attachment style (51 subjects); participants scoring
53
Eyal Rechter
high on avoidance and low on anxious were classified as having avoidant style (50 subjects);
participants scoring low on both anxious and avoidance were classified as having secure
attachment style (76 subjects); finally, participants scoring high on both anxious and avoidance
were classified as having fearful attachment style (74 subjects). Anxiousness and avoidance
scores were also used as separate independent variables, using the continuous scores, thus
avoiding the loss of statistical power.
Brainstorming Task. Participants performed 20-minutes brainstorming, on the subject
"How to enhance awareness and treatment of environmental issues at campus?". When 15
minutes were concluded, participants were asked to choose and rate the best five ideas, in terms
of originality, applicability and return-of-investment. They were given five minutes to make their
choice. Subjects did not know before that they will be asked to choose the best ideas. The
brainstorming was facilitated by one experimenter and observed by a second – both blind to the
experimental condition of the group.
Individual Performance. Two measures were used to gauge individual performance.
First, quantity was measured by the number of ideas each participant came up with. Second, the
facilitator and observer rated all participants after each brainstorming session. They rated
between three to five participants they have just observed for 20 minutes (15 minutes of group
discussion and five minutes of group decision making). Raters reviewed coding forms before
using it for the first time, and when necessary, questions were answered and terms were clarified
for them. They rated the brainstorming participants on the following 1-7 Likert-type scales:
cooperation with other group members (ICC(2)=.65), openness to others' ideas (ICC(2)=.44),
creativity (ICC(2)=.73), interest and involvement in the task (ICC(2)=.66) and friendliness
toward other group members (ICC(2)=.67). Each of these five items were averaged across raters
54
Eyal Rechter
and subjected to a factor analysis which yielded one factor. I Therefore created a single measure
of rated performance (Cronbach’s alpha = .90). Inter-judges reliability for this 5-item scale was
ICC(2)=.8930.
Group Performance was measured by: (1) the average number of ideas generated by the
group members (since groups diverged in size, total number of ideas was divided by number of
group members), (2) whether or not the group reached a decision within the allotted five
minutes, (3) the time it took the group to choose the best ideas (groups failing to reach a decision
were given a value of 5 minutes)31, and (4) by the judges' ratings of two items, on a 7-point
scales: group cooperation (ICC(2)=.57) and communication (ICC(2)=.40). The average of these
two items across raters was reliable (alpha = .75) as was the inter-rater agreement across the two
averaged items (ICC(2)=.72)32.
Procedure
Upon arrival, participants were given general introduction to the experiment, and learnt
that they were going to participate in a brainstorming task where cooperation, openness and
creativity are required.
Participants in the FFI and control interview conditions were interviewed by a trained
experimenter, while participants in the no-treatment condition moved directly to the next part,
without being interviewed. Participants in the experimental groups sat face-to-face with their
interviewer in a private room or at a quiet corner of a class, with no barriers between them. FFI
30
At a later stage (after the experiment was concluded), a third measure was calculated: all ideas were divided into
categories, and each idea was given a score based on the rarity of its category within the total sample, thus providing
a creativity measure following Goncalo & Staw (2006). However, experimental manipulation did not have any
effect on this measure, thus it is not reported here.
31
The time needed to reach a decision can imply the level of cooperation between group members, with shorter time
indicating higher cooperation.
32
Group creativity was also measured using the average creativity scores of the group members (Goncalo & Staw,
2006). Another measure was ratings the chosen ideas' creativity (for groups who reached a decision). Again, these
two measures were not affected by the experimental manipulation and are not reported.
55
Eyal Rechter
interviewers started by stating "I am sure that in situations of teamwork, you had both negative
and positive experiences. Now, I wish to focus on a good experience." The interview was
conducted using the following protocol:
1. Would you please tell me about and experience in which you were part of a group, and
felt full of life and at your best, felt creative, open and cooperative – even before you
knew what the result of the experience will be?
2. What were the conditions that enabled this to happen? What was it in yourself, in the
surrounding, in the people with you, the organization and the timing?
3. What was the peak moment?
What did you think at that moment?
How did you feel at that moment (including physical sensation)?
Would you like to experience these feelings again?
The FF question:
Now, think about the conditions that enable you to be at your best. To what degree your plans
concerning teamwork bring you toward or away from the conditions that came up here? This
question is for you, and there is no need to answer it right now.
Control interviewers started by stating "I am sure that you have experienced many
situations of teamwork." They then asked the interviewee describe two experiences of teamwork.
Interviews lasted approximately 20 minutes. Participants in the no-treatment condition
did not participate in any interview. Next, all participants filled out the emotions questionnaire,
and answered the self-efficacy and learning items. Finally, participants performed the
experimental brainstorming task that lasted about 20 minutes.
When task was completed, participants filled out the attachment questionnaire, were
thanked, debriefed and released. Participation in the experiment took roughly 60 minutes for FFI
and control conditions and 40 minutes for the no-treatment condition.
Analysis
To test the hypotheses, I compared the means of the participants in the FFI condition to
the control interview, the FFI condition to the no-treatment, and the means of both FFI and the
56
Eyal Rechter
control interview to the no treatment. The first comparison is a stringent test of the benefit of FFI
over a general interview. The second comparison is a lenient test of the benefit of FFI relative to
no intervention. Finally, the last comparison shows the benefits of an interview (including FFI,
but not limited to FFI). I also built a contrast variable where FFI (+1) is expected to yield the best
results, followed by control interview (0) and by no treatment effect (-1). To test the hypotheses
regarding interaction with attachment style, I first performed ANOVAs with the experimental
conditions and attachment style as predictors. Interactions between these factors indicate possible
support for my hypotheses.
Results
Table 9 and Table 10 present the means, standard deviation, intercorrelations and
reliabilities (where relevant) for all individual level measures, and group measures, respectively.
Examining table 9, it can be seen that the experimental contrast is correlated with the emotions
scales and learning in a pattern consistent with the research hypotheses, but contrary to
hypothesis, is negatively correlated with self-efficacy. There is also evidence that emotions were
related to learning and self-efficacy, and that negative emotions were negatively related to
observers' ratings of participants, though there is no clear relations to actual performance.
57
Eyal Rechter
Table 9: Study 1: Individual Measures: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Individual Measures: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1. Experimental contrast
2. Anxious
3.19 0.95 -.11 (.88)
3. Avoidance
3.07 0.82 -.06
.22 (.86)
4. PA
2.78 0.70
.20
.06
5. NA
1.66 0.62 -.20
.39
.23
6. SPE
2.76 0.73
.16
.13
-.14
.67
.03 (.86)
7. SNE
1.26 0.38 -.24
.43
.20
.19
.57
8. PA/NA
1.87 0.78
.28
-.31
-.18
.62
-.70
.41
-.28
9. SPE/SNE
2.31 0.73
.33
-.24
-.26
.41
-.38
.69
-.52
10. PA’
-.00 0.52
.14
-.05
.06
.74
.00
-.01
.01
11. NA’
.00 0.50 -.05
.19
.12
.00
.82
.00
12. SPE’
.00 0.54
.07
.08
-.18
.01
.00
.74
-.01
13. SNE’
-.00 0.30 -.21
.23
.12
.01
.00
.00
.79
.01 -.56 -.06 -.58 -.15
14. PA/NA'
-.00 0.65
.11
-.21
-.04
.47
-.58
.03
.01
.83 -.01
15. SPE/SNE'
.00 0.61
.21
-.08
-.20
.08
.01
.55
-.44
.00
.83 -.35
16. Learning
2.43 1.04
.24
.23
-.04
.39
.01
.33
.17
.19
.17
.23 -.05
.06
.09
.13
.06
17. Self-efficacy
3.63 1.00 -.14
-.22
-.27
.20
-.20
.23
-.04
.28
.21
.06 -.18
.13
.02
.19
.07
18. No. of Ideas
9.35 5.27 -.09
-.09
-.07
-.05
-.10
-.13
-.14
.04 -.02
.06 -.03 -.12 -.08
.06
-.05 -.07 .02
19. Rated performance
5.28 1.06
-.08
-.11
.02
-.19
-.08
-.14
.11
.11 -.13 -.12 -.03
.10
-.03 -.09 .00 .51
.08
-.04 (.83)
.02 (.85)
.22 (.83)
.56
.47 -.03
.00 -.58
.01
.00
.04
.64 -.65
.03
.06
.58 -.70 -.42
.39
.39
.76 -.68 -.56
.10
Note : * r’s > |.12| are typed in bold and are significant at .05 level; r’s > |.16| are significant at .01 level; all N’s = 246 except for leaning N=167; numbers in the
diagonal are reliabilities (where relevant). Experimental contrast: FFI = 1; Control treatment = 0; no treatment = -1.
58
Eyal Rechter
Table 10: Study 1: Group Measures: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations
of Group Measures: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations
Mean
SD
1
9.27
4.55
.72
5.39
2.15
.74
.45
1.06
-.15
-.08
.02
1. Number of Ideas
2. Time to decide
3. Decision reached
4. Judges’ rating
2
-.38 **
.07
3
.13
**p<.01
Because this study had multiple dependent variables (DVs), as a first step an omnibus test
(MANOVA) was ran to examine whether the experimental manipulation had a general effect on
all the DVs33. Following, a series of ANOVAs were run, examining the effect on each DV
individually. The MANOVA indicates systematic differences in the outcome of the experimental
conditions, F16,394=3.84, p<.001, η2=.14. Examining the individual variables (see table 11) shows
that the mediating variables yielded significant differences, while there were no significant
differences in the performance measures.
Manipulation (FFI vs. Control vs. No-treatment) on the Dependent Variables
Experimental condition;
df = 2, 203
Dependent Variable
PA
NA
SPE
SNE
Self-efficacy
Number of Ideas
Observer rating
Facilitator rating
F
4.44
5.02
3.19
10.09
3.48
1.77
1.60
1.86
*
**
*
***
*
Eta2
.04
.05
.03
.09
.03
.01
.16
.16
<otes: * p < .05; ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Table 12 shows the means, standard deviations and three contrasts: between FFI and
control conditions; FFI and no-treatment conditions; and between both experimental conditions
33
PA, NA, SPE, SNE, Self-efficacy, Number of Ideas, Observer rating, Facilitator rating (excluding Learning, that
was not measured in the No-treatment condition).
59
Eyal Rechter
and no-treatment condition (measuring the effect of an interview), on the dependent measures of
emotions, learning, self-efficacy, number of ideas and judges ratings of the participants, as well
as on the anxiety and avoidance measures34. Table 12 shows that the level of attachment anxiety
was significantly higher in the no-treatment group relative to the other groups, and that it was
higher in the control interview group than in the FFI group despite the random experimental
assignment. Since attachment anxiety is correlated with the dependent variables (see Table 9),
this may slightly deflate the other effects found here, because anxiety produce the opposite
effects on mood predicted for FFI. Yet, given that the attachment measure was collected at the
end of the experiment, it could be that FFI, and to some extent the control interview, produced a
change in reporting attachment anxiety, perhaps as a result of the interaction with the
experimenter reducing attachment anxiety the participants (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008).
The comparison of FFI to the control interview shows that FFI yielded higher PA/NA
(supporting H1), higher SPE/SNE (supporting H1b, and to some extent the bonding hypothesis),
and higher perception of learning (supporting H3). There were no difference in self-efficacy and
in individual performance measures (failing to support H2 and H5).
Also, comparing both interviews to the no treatment condition suggests that people who
were engaged in an interview feel better, both in terms of general affect (PA/NA) and social
affect (SPE/SNE) and that the effects on SPE/SNE is unique (on SPE/SNE’) in that it is not
merely reflecting the benefit on PA/NA. Surprisingly, the no-treatment group reported the
highest level of self-efficacy, a finding that may be an artifact of self-presentation considerations.
Table 13 shows that, at the group level, FFI decreased the number of ideas participants
provided relative to the control interview (opposite to H4) and interview conditions increased
rated performance relative to the no-treatment (providing a weak form of support to H4).
34
Effects on performance measures were also tested using HLM. Since HLM analysis did not provide additional
information regarding the research hypothesis, they are not reported here, and can be found in Appendix 4.
60
Eyal Rechter
Table 12: Study 1: Individual Measures: Means (M), Standard Deviation (SD) of Dependent variables by experimental conditions, and mean
comparisons with Cohen’s d values
Variable
Anxious
Avoidance
PA
NA
SPE
SNE
PA/NA
SPE/SNE
PA’
NA’
SPE’
SNE’
PA/NA'
SPE/SNE'
Learning
Self-efficacy
No. of Ideas
Rated Performance
FFI (& = 82)
M
SD
3.12
1.00
3.01
0.82
2.96
0.67
1.49
0.50
2.88
0.70
1.17
0.33
2.16
0.78
2.57
0.75
0.11
0.56
-0.06
0.44
0.01
0.58
-0.05
0.28
0.12
0.66
0.12
0.64
2.66
1.06
3.52
1.01
8.55
4.35
5.34
1.02
Control (&=85)
M
SD
3.08
0.92
3.06
0.88
2.74
0.72
1.70
0.64
2.81
0.67
1.23
0.32
1.84
0.85
2.36
0.64
-0.06
0.50
0.07
0.59
0.08
0.46
-0.04
0.30
-0.07
0.74
0.07
0.57
2.18
0.94
3.52
1.03
9.80
5.38
5.38
0.99
&o Treatment
(&=79)
M
SD
3.38
0.91
3.14
0.78
2.62
0.66
1.79
0.67
2.59
0.79
1.39
0.45
1.62
0.60
1.97
0.68
-0.06
0.46
0.00
0.46
-0.09
0.56
0.10
0.30
-0.06
0.52
-0.20
0.57
3.87
0.91
9.71
5.94
5.12
1.16
FFI vs.
Control
d
.05
-.07
.32 *
-.36 *
.10
-.21
.39 **
.31 *
.33 *
-.25
-.15
-.03
.27 *
.08
.49 **
.01
-.26
-.05
FFI vs. &otreatment
d
-.27 *
-.17
.52 **
-.52 **
.39 *
-.57 **
.77 **
.85 **
.34 *
-.13
.17
-.53 **
.30 *
.53 **
-.36 *
-.23
.20 †
Interviews vs.
&o-treatment
d
-.28 *
-.12
.31 *
-.30 *
.33 *
-.48 **
.46 **
.67 **
.15
.02
.24 †
-.48 **
.12
.47 **
-.34 *
-.09
.22 †
*p<.05, **p<.01; one-tail. † p < .1
Table 13: Study 1: Group Measures: Means (M), Standard Deviation (SD) of Dependent variables by experimental conditions, and mean
comparisons with Cohen’s d values
Variable
Number of Ideas
Time to decide
Decision reached
Judges’ rating
FF (& = 20)
M
SD
8.53
1.60
4.63
.74
.85
.37
5.47
1.06
Control (&=23)
M
SD
9.65
1.99
4.48
.74
.70
.47
5.68
.93
&o Treatment
(&=20)
M
SD
9.57
2.66
4.55
.83
.60
.50
4.87
1.09
FFI vs.
Control
d
-.63 *
.21
.37
-.22
FFI vs. &otreatment
d
-.49
.10
.58 *
.57 *
Interviews vs.
&o-treatment
d
-.20
-.01
.35
.66 *
*p <. 05 one-tail.
61
Eyal Rechter
FFI groups were more likely to reach a decision within five minutes than
control and no-treatment groups. Table 14 shows the proportion of groups that
reached a decision in the allotted time, and Pearson Chi-Square comparisons between
the experimental conditions.
Table 14: Study 1: Chi-Square Comparisons of Likelihood to Reach a Decision
No. of groups (likelihood to reach a decision)
FFI
Control
NT
20 (85%)
24 (71%)
21 (62%)
FFI vs. NT
FFI vs. Ctrl+NT
2.78 *
2.32 †
FFI+Ctrl vs. NT
1.68 †
<otes: NT=no treatment; df=1; * p<.05, † p<.1, one-tailed;
As can be seen from table 14, FFI was beneficial to groups' ability to complete
the task of choosing the best five ideas, compared with no-treatment condition,
providing some further support to H4.
Table 15 presents ANOVAs testing the moderating effects of attachment style
on FFI effectiveness. Of interest here are the interactions. Two interactions with affect
scales were significant: with NA and with SPE/SNE. Since I had a prediction
regarding PA/NA I also explored this statistically marginal interaction (p<.06).
Table 15: Study 1: Two-way ANOVAs testing the effects of the experimental manipulation (FFI,
control interview, and no interview), four attachment styles, and their interaction on affect, learning,
self efficacy and performance measures.
Condition (A);
df = 2, 250
Dependent
Variable
PA
NA
PA/NA
SPE
SNE
SPE/SNE
PA’
NA’
SPE’
SNE’
PA/NA'
SP/SN'
Learning
Self-Efficacy
Number of Ideas
Judges’ rating
F
5.01
4.19
7.48
3.75
4.55
11.57
3.1
2.46
2.61
4.97
2.21
5.6
11.10
6.28
2.22
.62
**
*
**
*
*
**
*
†
†
**
**
**
**
Attachment style
(B); df = 3, 250
Eta2
F
.04
.03
.06
.03
.04
.09
.03
.02
.02
.04
.02
.04
.06
.05
.02
.01
.72
16.68
6.75
2.60
18.8
7.52
.82
3.55
2.24
4.22
3.01
3.56
4.54
8.32
.10
2.44
Eta2
**
**
**
**
*
†
**
*
*
**
**
.01
.17
.08
.03
.19
.09
.01
.04
.03
.05
.04
.04
.08
.10
.01
.03
A*B; df = 6, 250
F
.80
2.24 *
2.09
.65
1.49
2.29 *
.33
1.48
.40
1.24
1.12
1.27
.46
.54
.61
.76
Eta2
.02
.05
.05
.02
.04
.05
.01
.04
.01
.03
.03
.03
.01
.01
.02
.02
<otes: * p < .05; ** p < .01; † p < .1; df’s for learning 1,168, 3, 168, and 3,168, respectively
(excluding no-treatment participants, who were not interviewed).
62
Eyal Rechter
Figure 4 presents the means of PA/NA by experimental manipulation and
attachment style35. It shows that except for participants with avoidant attachment
style, FFI produced the highest PA/NA followed by the control interview, and then by
the no-treatment control. Those with avoidant attachment style reported the highest
PA/NA when they experienced no interview. However, all groups showed higher
PA/NA after FFI then after control interview.
3
2.5
PA/NA
2
FFI
1.5
Control
No Treatment
1
0.5
0
Avoidant
Anxious
Secure
Fearful
Attachement Style
Figure 4: Study 1: Experimental Effects on PA/NA by Attachment Style
Table 16 shows means-comparisons, where the FFI vs. control or no-treatment
differences are significant for secure and anxious, but not for avoidant participants.
35
Using the median split to determine participants' attachment style forces the use of the fourth,
fearful-avoidant category, that was suggested in later development of attachment theory (Bartholomew
& Horowitz, 1991). Data for fearful participants are thus exhibited, though there were no hypotheses
regarding fearful individuals.
63
Eyal Rechter
Table 16: Study 1: t-comparison of PA/NA between Experimental Conditions
FFI vs. control
FFI vs. no-treat.
Attachment Style
df
df
t
Secure
52
1.67 *
48
3.77 **
Anxious
36
2.10 *
29
3.13 **
Avoidant
36
.82
28
Fearful
37
1.00
53
t
-1.00
2.51 **
** p<.01, * p<.05.
Similar to Figure 4, Figure 5 suggests that except for participants with
avoidant attachment style, FFI produced the highest SPE/SNE followed by the control
interview and by the no-treatment conditions. Those with avoidant attachment style
appear relatively unaffected by the experimental manipulations.
3.5
3
SPE/SNE
2.5
2
FFI
Control
No Treatment
1.5
1
0.5
0
Avoidant
Anxious
Secure
Fearful
Attachement Style
Figure 5: Study 1: Experimental Effects on SPE/SNE by Attachment Style
Table 17 shows that the differences between FFI and control or no-treatment
conditions in SPE/SNE are significant (or marginally so) for all but avoidant
participants.
64
Eyal Rechter
Table 17: Study 1: t-comparison of SPE/SNE between Experimental Conditions
Attachment Style
FFI vs. control
df
t
FFI vs. no-treat.
df
t
Secure
Anxious
Avoidant
Fearful
47
29
28
53
51
36
36
37
4.53 **
2.89 **
-.27
2.65 **
2.17 *
1.62 †
-1.30
1.39 †
* p<.05, † p<.1.
Figure 6 presents the means of NA by experimental manipulation and
attachment style. The interaction is in line with H5a, and significant (Table 12).
Inspection of the interaction suggests that FFI produced lower NA for all participants,
except for secure individuals who showed low NA in both interviews. Also, whereas
secure and anxious individuals reported the highest NA in the no treatment condition,
fearful and avoidant individuals reported the highest NA in the control interview. This
pattern was not replicated in other affect measures and could be due to sampling error.
Nevertheless, FFI appears equal (for secure individuals) or superior (for all others) to
other experimental conditions in terms of producing low levels of NA.
2.5
2.0
1.5
NA
FFI
Control
No Treatment
1.0
0.5
0.0
Avoidant
Anxious
Secure
Fearful
Attachment Style
Figure 6: Study 1: Experimental Effects on NA by Attachment Style.
65
Eyal Rechter
Learning: supporting H3, perception of learning was significantly higher in the
FFI condition than in the control condition, and anxiety level, but not avoidance, was
positively correlated with learning. Comparing the perceived learning between the
experimental conditions separately for each attachment style (see table 18), suggests
that the FFI's advantage was significant for anxious and secure participants,
marginally significant for fearful participants, and not significant for avoidant ones.
Table 18: Study 1: t-comparison of Learning between FFI and FB Conditions
Attachment Style
FFI vs. control
df
t
Secure
Anxious
Avoidant
Fearful
51
36
36
37
1.98 *
2.32 *
.74
.64 †
* p<.05, † p<.1.
Self-efficacy: contrary to H2, self-efficacy was lower (and equal) in both FFI
and control conditions, compared with no-treatment condition. A one-way ANOVA
separately for each attachment style (see table 19) suggests that this difference is
related to avoidance level, and was marginally significant for avoidant and fearful
participants, while secure and anxious participants were similar in the three
conditions.
Table 19: Study 1: One-way ANOVA of the Effect of
Experimental Condition on Self-Efficacy by Attachment Style
Attachment Style
df
F
Eta2
Secure
2,73
.27
.01
Anxious
2,50
1.36
.05
Avoidant
2,49
2.98 †
.11
Fearful
2,71
2.79 †
.07
† p<.1.
66
Eyal Rechter
Discussion
Results suggest three general conclusions regarding FFI: it was clearly
beneficial for emotions and for learning, did not influence self-efficacy as predicted,
and yielded mixed and conflicting results regarding performance.
First, FFI produced more positive emotions and perception of learning than
control interview, which in turn produced more positive emotions than no
intervention. The positive effect of FFI relative to no-intervention is moderate to
strong (with many of the differences exceeding half of a standard deviation. This
contrast shows clear benefit not only for general emotions (e.g., PA, NA, or PA/NA)
but also unique benefits for social emotions controlled for general emotions (e.g.,
SPE/SNE’). FFI's unique benefit for social emotions can be interpreted as a form of
support for the bonding hypothesis (which was not tested directly in this study), since
it taps feelings of being close with others. The advantage of FFI for emotions over the
control interview is weaker but still significant for some of the measures (e.g., PA/NA
and SPE/SNE), suggesting that FFI has some unique benefit over other types of
interviews. Similarly, relative to the control interview, FFI produced a stronger
perception that learning occurred due to the interview. In summary, the weak form of
my hypothesis that FFI is beneficial for emotions is strongly supported, and the strong
form of my hypothesis that FFI is beneficial above and beyond a neutral interview
received weaker support both regarding emotions and perception of learning.
Importantly, the effects on emotions may be moderated by attachment style
such that the benefits of FFI (as well as the control interview) are not conferred on
participants characterized by avoidant attachment style. Yet, the moderating effects of
attachment style were sporadic, perhaps due to relatively small sample size to detect
interactions with six degrees of freedom. Hence, future assessment of the limitation of
FFI for some segments of the population should be carried out on larger samples.
67
Eyal Rechter
Second, my hypothesis regarding the benefits of FFI for self-efficacy was not
supported. Moreover, the result showed that the no-treatment group reported the
highest self-efficacy. The later finding may be an artifact of self-presentation. Yet, the
effect of FFI on self-efficacy was practically identical to the effect of the control
interview. Perhaps more idiosyncratic measures are needed to assess self-efficacy
because each interviewee may had considered a different aspects of one’s ability in
his or her story told in the FFI condition. It is also possible that the use of a singleitem measure masked potential FFI effects on different aspects of self-efficacy. Thus
future research should attempt to tailor self-efficacy measures to the specific content
of stories to be elicited in pre-testing.
Third, the effects of FFI on performance were mixed: there was no evidence of
FFI effects on individual performance measure; FFI was detrimental to performance
measured with average number of ideas generated by a group but FFI, at least relative
to no intervention, produced higher percentage of groups reaching decision within
five minutes and higher ratings of cooperation and communication as rated by the
judges. This pattern of results can stem either from lack of relevance of the
experimental task the FFI manipulation, complex performance effects, or both. The
underlying message in FFI is to support an idiosyncratic discovery of crucial
conditions to produce superior performance. In this process control is placed in the
hands of the interviewee. Yet, the experimental task might not have been related to
any of the discoveries of the conditions the interviewee requires for top team
performance. Rather, the experimental protocol imposed a task and setting without the
considering the voice of the interviewees. This might have destroyed whatever
motivational gain FFI produced relative to the control interview. Therefore, future
evaluation of FFI effects on performance, may wish to carefully tailor the
performance measures to the conditions discovered during FFI. Also, the significant
effects on reaching a decision and ratings relative to the no-treatment group combined
68
Eyal Rechter
with the detrimental effect for number of ideas may indicate that FFI has complex
performance effects. It may direct FFI recipients to qualitative aspects of team work at
the expense of production of quantity. Thus, it is possible that brainstorming might
not be an ideal task to examine FFI's benefits for performance. Again, future research
should carefully tailor both quality and quantity measures of performance to the tested
content of the FFI protocol.
FFI's advantages over the control interview in producing positive emotions
were all relatively weak (under half a standard deviation). Yet, the control interview
in this experiment was amicable. In organizations, many interviews could be conflictproducing such as a selection interview or performance appraisal review. Thus, the
effects found here could be an underestimate of the benefits of FFI in the field. For
example, in the field, FFI could be used before, or as a replacement, of the traditional
performance appraisal interview (Kluger & Nir, 2010). FFI is likely to produce much
better reaction that the known strife created in traditional performance appraisal
reviews (Coens & Jenkins, 2002). Moreover, recent organizational application of FFI
at Brembo (Italian manufacturer of high quality car breaks) indicated that after FFI,
360-degrees feedback review session with external consultants are characterized with
much higher managers’ openness than reviews without FFI (Chinotti, 2008).
Limitations
Study 1 has several limitations that may explain the partial support to the
research hypotheses. First, the FFI effects on performance were not clear. This might
be explained by the interview's topic which was pre-selected by me and might have
not been relevant to the lives of the participants. Alternatively, it is possible that the
relevance of the interview's content to the upcoming task was not clear, thus making it
difficult for participants to implement the enabling conditions discovered in the
interview in the brainstorming task – a novel task for most participants, limited in
time, with unfamiliar group members.
69
Eyal Rechter
Second, although the results of Study 1 supported the effect of FFI on
learning, the evidence was based on a single item. Third, the FFI and the control
interviews depressed reported self-efficacy and there was no difference in selfefficacy between these conditions. These results may be explained both by the
questionable relevance of the task to the participants and by reliance on a single-item
measure. Finally, while attachment style moderated as expected some of the FFI
effects, the effects were observed only for affect measures and they were weak.
Another possible limitation is the multi-cultural sample of the study. The
Hebrew University students' population (like the Israeli population in general) is a
multi-cultural, multi-religious one. Though participants' mother tongue and Hebrew
mastery (for FFI and control participants) were collected, it was not controlled, and
many groups were of mixed religion and culture. This heterogeneity might have
caused participants belonging to minority groups (such as Muslims, Christians or
immigrants) to feel uncomfortable to fully express themselves during the task. Indeed,
Hebrew mastery and having Hebrew as mother tongue positively correlated with the
number of ideas participants provided, their performance ratings by the observers, and
their avoidance and anxiousness levels. Participants' age also correlated positively
with number of ideas (and with having Hebrew as mother tongue, which makes this
complicated pattern of relationships difficult to control statistically while keeping a
satisfying sample size). It is known that despite the facilitator's encouragement,
participants in brainstorming do exert self-censorship regarding the ideas they express
(Elron & Goldenebrg, 1999; Goldenberg & Mazursky, 2002), and it is possible that
participants belonging to minority groups where more aware of how they are
perceived by other group members, or simply had language difficulties36.
36
This is a well-known issue in the Hebrew University and many researchers limit their sample
population to Hebrew-natives only. Due to moral and ethical considerations I chose not to prevent
minority students from participating.
70
Eyal Rechter
To sum, Study 1 provide a partial support for the overall theoretical model and
further explorations are needed in order to strengthen this support, while answering to
Study 1's limitations. With these I attempted to deal in Study 2.
Study 2: Students' Personal Goals in Academic Life
Introduction
Study 2 was designed with a number of goals in mind. The first one was
overcoming Study 1's design limitations: First, the task was made relevant by
instructing student participants to phrase the FFI (or control treatment) about topics
relevant to their academic studies. Second, participants were instructed to work on
their own goals for their studies, and to make a plan to achieve them. Third, the
interview was designed to establish a clear link between the interview's content and
the experimental task, so that the experimental manipulation would have a better
chance of affecting performance. Fourth, a multiple-item measures of self-efficacy
and learning were tailored to the experimental task. Fifth, bonding between
interviewer and interviewee was measured directly this time, through assessing liking
and appreciation of the other party and willingness to cooperate in the future. Sixth,
the control interview was designed to match a possible organizational feedback
intervention, in which participants received external guidance and feedback from their
partner regarding their plans to achieve their personal goal. A third condition, selfreflection, in which participants worked individually, was also used.
In addition to measurement and design improvements, Study 2 also tested
recent theoretical development of FFI (Kluger & Nir, 2010) that suggested that one
unique feature of FFI is its potential to benefit not only the interviewee but also the
interviewer. Therefore, in Study 2 all the outcomes (e.g., affect, self efficacy,
learning, bonding and performance) were measured on untrained interviewers (unlike
71
Eyal Rechter
Study 1, where interviewers were trained research assistants). This design permitted
the examination of FFI's effect on an individual, rather than group task, and to apply
FFI in a workshop context, using peer-interview, which is more similar to
organizational FFI interventions.
A last objective of Study 2 was to conduct a preliminary examination of
possible long-term effects of FFI. Some authors suggest that successfully achieving
personal goals leads to happiness and satisfaction (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, &
Griffin, 1985), and that engaging in activities that fulfill personal motives leads to
positive well-being and emotions (Brunstein, Schultheiss, & Grassmann, 1998). To
examine the possibility that FFI in this context can lead participants to more effective
goal-pursuit, their perceived success in pursuing their goals, their academic wellbeing and lasting emotions were measured a few weeks following the experiment.
Though admittedly not truly a measure a long-term benefit, these measures can
provide preliminary assessment of FFI's psychological benefits that are not solely
momentary.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: Participation in FFI will increase, relative to control treatments:
(a) Positive emotions, and reduce negative emotions.
(b) Positive social emotions and reduce negative social emotions, above and
beyond its effect on positive and negative affectivity.
(c) State self-efficacy.
(d) Learning and revealing of new information.
(e) Bonding between interviewer and interviewee.
Hypothesis 2: There will be in interaction between FFI and attachment style
such that
(a) Following FFI, avoidant individuals will show less increase (possibly a
decrease) in positive emotions and less decrease (possibly an increase) in negative
emotions, both personal and social, compared with secure and anxious individuals.
72
Eyal Rechter
(b) Following FFI, anxious individuals will show a lesser raise in selfefficacy and amount of learning, compared with secure individuals.
(c) Following FFI, securely attached individuals will show a greater increase
in performance, compared with avoidant and anxious individuals.
Hypothesis 3: FFI will lead to improved performance, relative to control
treatment.
Method
Participants
A total of 236 students (mean age = 23, 53% males) participated in groups of
3-14, randomly assigned to FFI, Feedback or Self-Reflection conditions. Participants
received course credits for their participation, and the chance to win 200 NIS
(~53USD; two prizes) cash or 50NIS (two prizes) shopping vouchers.
Measurements
Affect. Affect was measured as in Study 1 (using a newer version of the social
emotions items, see appendix 5). Cronbach alphas were .79 (PA, 10 items), .89 (SPE,
21 items37), .88 (NA, 8 items38) and .75 (SNE, 9 items39).
As in Study 1, a general and social affect ratios were calculated by dividing
the positive (PA, SPE) scales by the negative ones (NA, SNE, respectively). The
original PANAS was measured a second time, few weeks following the experiment,
asking participants to report to what extent did they experience each emotions during
the last few weeks (Watson & Clark, 1994). Cronbach alphas for the PA and NA
scales were .78 and .88, respectively40.
37
Sympathetic, fond, surprised, connected, grateful, understanding, empathic, confidence, caring,
honest, self-importance, open, belong, appreciative, closeness, intimacy, friendliness, forgiving,
admiring, trust, kindness.
38
Excluding 'hostile' and 'ashamed' that were moved to the SNE scale, following previous results.
Including these two items in the NA scale did not change its Cronbach alpha.
39 Hostile, ashamed, jealous, embarrassed, humiliated, supremacy, merciful, distant, contempt.
40
These items were part of a questionnaire that was administered a few weeks following the
experiment (T3).
73
Eyal Rechter
Self-efficacy in achieving personal goal. A 6-item scale was constructed
following Bandura's (2006) guidelines of tapping belief in ability to perform a task
(here, to achieve personal goals and face challenges and difficulties along the way).
Due to the open context here, the current scale did not assess exact probabilities to
succeed, as in Bandura's (2006) examples. Items were rated on a 1-5 likert type scale.
Interviewees rated their self-efficacy on the following items (see appendix 6):
(1) I can achieve the goal I worked on; (2) I will succeed in achieving the goal I
worked on; (3) I can overcome the difficulties on my way to achieve the goal I
worked on; (4) I can influence promoting the goal I worked on (5) Achieving the goal
I worked on depends on me; (6) I am on the right path to achieve the goal I worked
on. In the scales answered by Interviewers (see appendix 6) and participants in the
reflection condition (see appendix 6), "I worked on" was dropped from the end of
each item. Cronbach alpha for the self-efficacy items was .8041.
Self-efficacy was measured a second time (at T3) concerning general efficacy
in achieving personal goals for participants' studying period. Cronbach alpha for the
second self-efficacy measure was .86.
Learning. Learning from the process was measured using five items for
interviewees and four items for interviewers that were rated on a 1-5 likert type scale
(See appendix 6). Interviewees answered the following items: (1) I have learnt from
the process; (2) The process helped my reveal new knowledge about myself; (3) The
process helped me develop new thinking directions about my plans; (4) The process
helped me develop new thinking directions about my studies; (5) The process had a
personal contribution for me. Interviewers answered the following items: (1) I have
learnt from the process; (2) The process helped me reveal new knowledge about
41
Examined separately for Interviewees, interviewers and reflection participants, alphas were .85, .82
and .68, respectively. Self-efficacy scale was calculated by averaging the 6 items.
74
Eyal Rechter
myself; (3) The process provided me with learning that is relevant for me; (4) The
process had a personal contribution for me. Cronbach alpha for interviewees and
interviewers were .92 and .93, respectively. Learning was measured a second time (at
T3) a few weeks following the experiment, using the original interviewees' five items.
Cronbach alpha was .94.
Bonding. Bonding between interviewee and interviewer was measured using
items tapping participants' liking of their partner, appreciation of partner, and
interviewers' belief in their interviewee (see appendix 6). Liking of partner.
Participants rated the following 5 items: (1) I became closer to my partner following
the process; (2) I like my partner; (3) I think my partner is nice; (4) I enjoyed working
with my partner; (5) I would be happy to keep social contact with my partner.
Appreciation of and willingness to cooperate with partner. Participants rated the
following 7 items: (1) I appreciate my partner; (2) My partner helped me; (3) I feel
that I helped my partner; (4) I would like to cooperate with my partner in the future;
(5) I would be happy to work with my partner in the future; (6) I would have liked to
write papers with my partner during our studies; (7) My partner is an adequate partner
for consultation. Factor analysis of the 12 liking and appreciation items yielded a
single factor (explaining 50% of the variance), consisted of items 2-5 of the liking
scale and items 1 and 4-7 from the appreciation scales. Therefore, a single Bonding
scales was calculated, with a Cronbach alpha of .9342.
Belief in Interviewee. Interviewers rated additional three items: (1) My partner
can succeed in achieving his or her goals; (2) My partner will succeed in achieving his
or her goals; (3) My partner is successful. Cronbach alpha was .86.
42
Partners' bonding scales were positively correlated with each other, so were combined and tested
with only experimental condition as a between-subjects dependent variable. Though in the
hypothesized direction, results were not significant and will not be reported.
75
Eyal Rechter
Attachment Style was measured as in Study 1 (see appendix 3). Cronbach
alphas were .90 for the anxiousness scale and .89 for the avoidance scale. The scales
were positively correlated (r=.20, p<.01). Due to small sample sizes in cells created
by crossing the experimental conditions with the categorical definitions of attachment
style anxiousness and avoidance variables were analyzed as continuous variables.
Academic WB. Diener et al.'s (1985) Satisfaction With Life Scale was adjusted
to the academic context (e.g., 'In most ways my studies are close to my ideals').
Cronbach alpha of the five items was .6743.
Performance and Related Cognitions Measures
Performance was measured using the following measures (1) perception of the
clarity of personal goals and plans; (2) actions participants can perform to achieve
chosen goal; (3) intentions to actually perform these actions; and (4) personal
resources (strengths, skills, etc.) they hold that can help them achieve their goal.
Goals and Plans Clarity (as performance antecedents). Performance was also
assessed using seven-item 1-5 likert-type scale (see appendix 6): (1) My goals are
now clearer to me; (2) My plans are now clearer to me; (3) My intentions are now
clearer to me; (4) I intend to reconsider my plans; (5) I intend to change my plans for
the near future; (6) I intend to change my plans for the distant future; (7) I intend to
perform actions that will promote the goal. (* Item no. 7 was concluded with "I
worked on" in the interviewees' questionnaires). Cronbach alpha was .77.
Action items. A second performance measure was the number of action items
participants (excluding interviewers) indicated they can perform to achieve the goal
they worked on (open list with a space for up to 8 actions). Possible actions people
43
Collected at T3.
76
Eyal Rechter
can perform to achieve a future desired goal, has been consistently documented to be
a significant predictor of actual goal achievement (e.g., Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006).
Behavioral Intentions. Another variable that is known to be a predictor of
behavior is the intention to perform this behavior (Ajzen, 1985). Participants' mean
rating of intention to perform each action was used as a third performance measure
(see appendix 6).
Personal recourses. A fourth performance measure was the total number of
strengths, abilities and personal skills participants listed as personal resources they
posses and can use to achieve the goal they worked on (see appendix 6).
Action items, performance intentions and personal resources – second goal.
Interviewees and self-reflection participants were asked to think of an additional goal
they did not work on but was also important to them. Participants filled out these
performance measures for this second goal as well (see appendix 6).
Table 20 shows correlations between action-items, behavioral intentions,
personal resources and plans clarity. Actions, behavioral intentions and resources
items were submitted to factor analysis, yielding two factors (explaining 35 and 22
percent of the variance), with actions and resources items loaded together on the first
factor and behavioral intentions items loaded on the second one. Based on these
results, a combined scale for action items and personal resources and a second scale
for behavioral intentions were calculated. These two scales were calculated for each
goal separately and for both goals combined.
77
Eyal Rechter
Table 20: Correlations between Performance and Related Cognitions Measures
Goal 1
N
Clarity
Clarity
Actions
Behavioral
Intentions
Goal 2
Resources
Behavioral
Intentions
Actions
(.77)
Goal 1
Actions
Behavioral Intentions
Resources
Goal 2
Actions
Resources
* p<0.05, ** p<.01
235
234
234
.03
.15 *
.06
-.08
.47 **
154
150
151
.07
.17 *
.03
.49 **
-.08
.41 **
.02
-.02
.42 **
.06
.47 **
-.01
.59 **
-.07
.50 **
Procedure
Attachment questionnaire was collected during class 2-6 weeks before the
experimental sessions. Participants who were absent from class that day completed it
following the experimental session.
Procedure
The experimental sessions took place during the last month of the academic
year (N=132) or during the first semester of the following year (N=104). Participants
registered to the experiment via email, during class, or using an experiment
registration website of the Hebrew University. Experimental sessions were in groups
of 3-14, in a seminar room with a big oval table in the center, around which the
participants and the author sat. Upon arriving participants were asked for their name
and offered to pour themselves a glass of water from a bottle that was placed on the
table. Behind the author, a blank PowerPoint slide was projected on a screen. A
research assistant was sitting at the side of the room.
Before starting, participants were welcomed into the seminar room, and were
explained that they were participating in a research in which the author examines
various techniques aiming at helping students to achieve their personal goals during
78
.01
Eyal Rechter
their study period. Administrative issues like the credits they got and the other
questionnaires they filled out or were to fill out (see below) were explained. They
were asked not to disclose the content of the session to other students, since different
groups worked using different techniques. Participants were then given a chance to
clarify any administrative issues. At this point they were told by the author:
"It is known that there is large diversity of goals students have for the
duration of their studies at University, such as succeeding in their studies,
acquiring professional skills, learning interesting material, having fun or
making friends and contacts. Right now, I want each of you to think about
one goal that is especially important to you and would like to work on now."
After 15 seconds given to chose their goals, and making sure they each had a
goal in mind, participants in the experimental conditions were told: "We will work in
pairs. I will now assign you into pairs." At this point the author assigned participants
into pairs, according to their sitting order around the table, noting in each pair who
will be the interviewer. If the number of participants were odd, the last participant was
asked to wait outside, and a few minutes later, when the pairs started interviewing, the
author went outside and explained to the person waiting that he or she were
participating in the experiment like everybody else, only doing something a little
different since another participant was missing. At this point they were asked again to
make sure they have a personal goal in mind they wanted to work on, and were given
the reflection condition questionnaire, thus being assigned to the reflection condition.
After participants were divided to pairs and each knew their role (interviewer
or interviewee), the author provided interviewing instructions, stressing that
interviewers' goal was to help their interviewees to think how they can achieve their
goal. They were told that the interview protocol would be projected on the screen, so
they did not have to memorize anything, only to understand how they should act, what
79
Eyal Rechter
should they ask and pay attention to. They were instructed to introduce themselves,
and then to ask their interviewee what was the goal he or she chose to work on.
In the FFI condition, interviewers were requested to ask their interviewees to
tell them about a specific experience they had, in which they achieved the same or as
similar as possible goal. They were instructed to use the following protocol:
Could you please tell me a story about a specific experience where you succeed in
[personal goal here], during which you felt at your best, full of life, and you were
content even before the results of your actions became known to you?
- Would you be happy to experience a similar event again?
What was the peak moment of this story? What did you think at that moment? How
did you feel at that moment (including your emotional and physiological
reaction)?
What were the conditions in yourself, in others around you, and the physical
surrounding that made this story possible?
The conditions you have just described seem to be your personal code for achieving
[personal goal]. If this is so, think of your current actions, priorities and plans for
the near and distant future, and consider to what extent they lead you towards
these conditions, or away from them. What can you do to move closer to them?
Interviewers were encouraged to make sure they were told a specific
experience, to concentrate on listening and understanding the story, and to ask
clarifying questions to make sure they understood the story. They were also
encouraged to offer additional conditions to the ones given by their interviewees, if
they felt it was in place, and to help their interviewees review their plans in light of
the enabling conditions.
In the Feedback condition, interviewers used the following protocol:
1
2
3
4
What do you think you can do to achieve this goal?
What do you intend to do to achieve this goal?
[Interviewer:] provide feedback to your interviewee: tell him/her your opinion
about his or her plans – what is good about them, what is not so good, what can
be improved.
[Interviewer:] tell your interviewee what else you think he or she can do to
achieve his or her goal.
Interviewers were encouraged to ask clarifying questions regarding their
interviewees' ideas of what they can do and intend to do to achieve their goal.
80
Eyal Rechter
At this point participants in both conditions were invited to ask clarifying
questions regarding their role, and then were told to spread around the room, face
their partners and start interviewing. They were told the interview would take around
20 minutes, and that they can ask the author questions if they wished. The interview
protocol was then projected on the screen (see appendix 7).
Upon interview completion, participants received questionnaires and were
asked to sit apart to fill it out. Interviewees' questionnaires included the following
measures (in this order): emotions, indicating their chosen goal, learning, satisfaction,
self-efficacy, clarity, liking of partner, appreciation of partner, action items and
behavioral intentions, personal resources, action items and behavioral intentions for a
second goal, personal resources for a second goal and demographics (see appendices
6). Interviewers' questionnaires included the following measures (in this order):
emotions, learning, satisfaction, liking of partner, appreciation of partner, belief in
interviewee, recalling interviewee's goal, writing down their own goal of choice, selfefficacy, clarity, action items and behavioral intentions, personal resources and
demographics (see appendix 6).
Participants in the Reflection condition received the same instructions until the
point where participants in the experimental conditions were assigned to pairs. At that
point Reflection participants received the questionnaire. Reflection questionnaires
included the following measures (in this order): emotions, indicating their chosen
goal, self-efficacy, clarity, action items and behavioral intentions, personal resources,
action items and behavioral intentions for second goal, personal resources for second
goal and demographics (see appendix 6). The blank slide (same green template but
without the interview text) was projected on the screen during the whole session.
81
Eyal Rechter
When participants (in all conditions) were given the questionnaires, the author
left the room, to avoid experimenter's bias. The research assistant, who was blind to
the research hypotheses, stayed in the room, collected the questionnaires, gave
attachment questionnaire to those who didn't fill it out previously, and took
participants' emails on a separate page for contacting them at time 3 to fill out T3
questionnaires. Lastly, participants were given participation credit and thanked. After
leaving the room, participants were debriefed individually by the author.
Between 2 to 10 weeks after the experimental sessions were concluded,
participants were approached via email by a research assistant, asking them to fill out
the third questionnaire (PANAS, academic well-being and self-efficacy regarding
achievement of personal goals). They were asked to return the filled out questionnaire
via email or print and leave it at the author's mailbox. Due to insufficient responserate (N=69, representing 29% of the participants), T3 measures are not reported.
Results
Table 21 shows means, standard deviations and intercorrelations between all
the dependent variables.
82
Eyal Rechter
Table 21: Study 2: Dependent Variables and Attachment: Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations
M
SD
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
PA
3.06
.59
235
(.79)
2
NA - 8 Items
1.79
.69
235
(.89)
3
SPE
3.00
.57
235
(.88)
4
SNE
1.45
.41
235
General Aff. Ratio
1.91
.65
235
6
Social Aff. Ratio
2.20
.64
235
7
Self-Efficacy
4.36
.49
235
Learning
3.09
.96
161
Bonding
3.70
.73
161
.52
.35
.08
.18
.28
-.22
-.16
.16
.25
.43
.37
-.20
-.23
.09
.15
.19
-.19
-.21
(.92)
9
-.46
-.71
-.12
-.04
-.13
-.21
.39
.11
(.80)
8
.15
.22
.54
.11
.35
.45
.29
.20
-.20
(.75)
5
.16
.60
-.78
-.37
-.21
.10
.02
-.18
.28
.11
.30
.16
.19
-.11
(.93)
.35
-.02
-.08
(.85)
-.06
-.04
(.90)
.27
(.90)
10
Belief
4.27
.57
80
11
Anxious
3.37
1.00
176
12
Avoidance
3.31
.89
176
.29
.69
.17
.27
.30
.22
.33
.39
.25
.17
-.12
13
Clarity
3.12
.69
235
.26
.12
.26
.05
-.01
.13
.06
.44
.18
.13
.17
-.11
14
Goal 1
4.08
.62
235
15
Goal 2
4.05
.58
154
16
Both goals
3.97
.66
235
.18
.01
.09
-.06
-.14
-.09
.19
.08
.12
.00
-.11
-.06
.19
.15
.16
.13
.17
.15
.21
.24
.27
.15
-.09
.09
.19
.08
.16
.24
-
.02
-.05
-.02
-.01
-.15
-.07
Personal Resources
Goal 1
4.20
13
14
15
.15
.17
.22
.42
.83
.86
.08
.06
.04
.13
-.05
-.05
.04
-.02
.06
-.03
.27
.13
.19
.23
.13
-.01
.13
.02
.09
.04
.07
-.18
.00
.09
.07
.04
18 Goal2
3.30 1.37 154
.18
.03
.04
.10
.04
.08
.03
.06
.07
-.01
-.19
.20
.17
.22
19 Both goals
3.79 1.22 155
<ote: correlations significant at the .01 level are in bold italics; correlations significant at the .05 level are in bold; correlations marginally significant
(p<.1) are in italics. Cronbach alphas are at the diagonal when applicable.
17
1.32
235
-.05
-.03
-.04
16
17
18
-.05
.00
-.03
.63
.90
.90
83
Eyal Rechter
Because this study had multiple dependent variables (DVs), as a first step an
omnibus test (MANOVA) was ran to examine whether the experimental manipulation
had a general effect on all the DVs. Following, a series of ANOVAs were run,
examining the effect on each DV individually. Due to the unbalanced design (with
one condition – reflection – having no different roles), MANOVA was ran twice –
first, comparing interviewees from FFI and FB conditions and reflection participants,
and second, comparing only FFI and FB participants, examining condition x role
differences. Each MANOVA compares all the relevant DVs together, and is followed
by the matching ANOVAs.
The first MANOVA indicates systematic differences in the outcome of the
experimental conditions, with F18,280=2.20, p<.01, η2=.1244. However, examining the
means of variables that yielded significant differences (see table 22 and figure 7
below) shows that these differences were not always in the hypothesized direction.
The means suggest that FFI had a detrimental effect on interviewees' social emotions
compared with both FB interviewees and reflection participants, thus failing to
support H1, and on goals and plans clarity, compared with reflection participants. FFI
did have a positive influence on interviewees' behavioral intentions, compared with
both FB interviewees and reflection participants. FFI was also beneficial in its effect
on personal resources participants listed compared with FB interviewees, although
they scored lower than reflection participants, thus providing mixed support to
hypothesis H3, regarding FFI's influence on performance. To sum, FFI was somewhat
beneficial in terms of performance variables compared with FB condition, but was not
beneficial compared with FB in terms of the mediating variables, thus failing to
44
Variables examined: general affect ratio, social affect ratio, self-efficacy, clarity, behavioral
intentions both goals and personal resources both goal.
84
Eyal Rechter
support H2 as well, and beside its positive effect on behavioral intention, it was
mostly inferior to reflection.
Table 22: Study 2: One-Way ANOVAs Testing the Effects of the Experimental Manipulation
(FFI Interviewees vs. FB Interviewees vs. Reflection) on the Dependent Variables
Experimental condition;
df = 2, 155
Dependent Variable
PA
NA
SPE
SNE
General affect ratio
Social affect ratio
Self-efficacy
F
.39
.34
.39
1.42
.91
2.73 †
1.77
Eta2
.01
.00
.01
.02
.01
.03
.02
Clarity
3.49 *
.04
Goal 1
Goal 21
Both goals2
1.61
4.69 *
4.10 *
.02
.06
.05
Personal Resources
Goal 1
Goal22
Both goals
3.10 *
1.96
2.69 †
.04
.03
.03
<otes: * p < .05; † p < .1; 1 df = 2, 150; 2 df = 2, 154
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Social Aff.
Clarity
FFI Interviewees
FB Interviewees
Resources
Reflection
Figure 7: Study 2: ANOVAs for the Significant Effects of Experimental Condition on Dependent
Variables – Between Subjects Comparison
85
Eyal Rechter
Table 23: Study 2: MANOVA for the Effects of Experimental Condition (FFI vs. FB) x Role
(Interviewee vs. Interviewer) on the Dependent Variables
Source
df
F
η2
Condition
8,149
1.72 †
.08
Role
8,149
1.71 †
.08
8,149
.82
.04
Condition x Role
†
<otes: p=.1; variables examined: general affect ratio, social affect ratio, selfefficacy, learning, boding, clarity, behavioral intentions goal1, resources goal1.
Overall, the second MANOVA (see Table 23) provides only marginal support
the research hypothesis, and indicates that there might be systematic differences
between interviewers and interviewees – effects that were not hypothesized, and were
only marginally significant. Therefore, any significant ANOVAs reported below
should be considered with caution.
Examining the means of variables that yielded significant differences (see
table 24 and figure 8 below) suggests that in both FFI and FB conditions interviewers
felt better than interviewees, both in terms of their general affect (mainly through a
large difference in NA) and social affect. Social affect also marginally interacted with
condition, suggesting that FFI interviewers felt somewhat better than FB interviewers,
while FFI interviewees felt somewhat worse than FB interviewees. FFI did have a
positive influence of self-efficacy and behavioral intention, for both interviewers and
interviewees, compared with FB participants, thus providing some support for
hypotheses H2 and H3, respectively.
86
Eyal Rechter
Table 24: Study 2: One-Way ANOVAs Testing the Significant Effects of Condition (FB vs. FFI) x Role
(Interviewee vs. Interviewer) on the Dependent Variables
Condition; df = 1, 161
Dependent Variable
PA
NA
SPE
SNE
General affect ratio
Social affect ratio
Self-efficacy
Learning
Bonding
Clarity
Goal 1
Personal Resources
Goal 1
Role; df = 1, 161
.30
.87
.00
1.41
.05
.92
6.27 *
.27
1.62
Eta2
.00
.01
.00
.01
.00
.01
.04
.00
.01
.23
.00
.60
4.42 *
.03
1.47
.01
F
.82
.12
.69
.78
1.67
3.15 †
1.68
2.54
.00
Eta2
.01
.00
.01
.00
.01
.02
.01
.02
.00
.00
.23
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.12
.00
.17
.00
F
.26
8.24 **
2.31
2.05
9.97 **
4.01 *
.02
1.39
.03
Eta2
.00
.05
.01
.01
.06
.03
.00
.01
.00
Condition x Role;
df = 1, 161
F
<otes: * p < .05; ** p < .01; † p < .1.
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
General Affect
Interviewees FFI
Social Affect
Interviewees FB
Self-Efficacy
Interviewers FFI
Interviewers FB
Figure 8: Study 2: MANOVA for the Significant Effects of Experimental Condition (3 conditions) on
Dependent Variables – Between Subjects Comparison
87
Eyal Rechter
Table 25: Means (M), Standard Deviation (SD) of Dependent Variables and Attachment by Experimental Conditions, and Mean Comparisons with Cohen’s d Values
Interviewees
FFI
Variable
Interviewers
FB
FFI
Reflection
Interviewees
FFI vs. FFI vs.
FB
ref.
FB
M
SD
N
M
SD
N
M
SD
N
M
SD
N
M
SD
N
d
d
PA
NA - 8 Items
SPE
SNE
General Affect R.
Social Affect Rat.
3.00
1.96
2.89
1.57
1.71
1.96
.60
.72
.64
.52
.63
.54
44
44
44
44
44
44
3.04
1.83
2.98
1.43
1.82
2.24
.60
.70
.54
.41
.53
.68
37
37
37
37
37
37
3.14
1.63
3.11
1.41
2.17
2.34
.58
.63
.65
.38
.79
.77
43
43
43
43
43
43
3.00
1.57
3.04
1.39
2.01
2.26
.71
.48
.50
.32
.61
.52
37
37
37
37
37
37
3.09
1.87
2.98
1.44
1.86
2.20
.54
.77
.53
.40
.62
.62
74
74
74
74
74
74
-.06
.18
-.14
.29
-.19
-.46 *
-.16
.12
-.16
.29
-.25
-.41 *
Self-Efficacy
Learning
Bonding
Belief in Interviewee
Anxious
4.36
2.91
3.78
.51
.89
.64
4.26
3.08
3.63
.55
1.01
.78
3.22
.93
4.48
3.33
3.76
4.33
3.32
.46
.98
.73
.58
1.15
43
43
43
43
34
4.17
3.01
3.61
4.19
3.36
.56
.94
.77
.55
1.19
37
37
37
37
25
.39
.92
37
37
37
29
4.44
3.35
44
44
44
31
3.49
.92
74
57
.19
-.17
.20
.14
-.18
-.14
Avoidance
3.27
1.07
31
3.30
.76
29
3.12
.92
34
3.45
.74
25
3.39
.89
57
-.03
Action-items and
Personal Resources
Goal 1
Goal 2
Both goals
4.08
3.38
3.72
1.39
1.50
1.34
44
44
44
3.92
2.92
3.44
1.14
1.21
.97
37
37
37
4.23
1.28
43
-
3.91
1.24
37
-
4.53
3.45
3.99
1.39
1.35
1.23
74
73
74
Behavioral
Intentions
Goal 1
Goal 2
Both Goals
Clarity
4.20
4.22
4.22
3.00
.63
.56
.50
.82
44
43
44
44
3.98
3.89
3.95
3.00
.52
.64
.54
.72
37
34
37
37
4.19
.61
43
43
4.00
.73
36
37
4.04
3.85
3.95
3.29
.59
.69
.52
.56
74
73
74
74
3.15
.73
3.03
.66
Interviewers
FFI
FFI vs.
vs. FB
Ref.
d
Interviewers
vs. ref.
d
d
.08
-.33 *
.22
-.06
.44 *
.21
-.13
.04
-.09
.15
-.17
-.19
-.03
-.40 **
.17
-.09
.35 *
.16
.62 **
.33 †
.20
.25
-.03
.10
-.16
-.26
-.21
-.22
-.14
-.13
-.39
-.30 †
-.12
-.15
.13
.33 †
.24
-.32 †
-.05
-.21
.26
-
-.22
-
-.39 *
-.21
-.33 *
-.34 *
-
.38 *
.55 *
.51 **
.00
.26
.57
.51
-.44
.29 †
.16
.25 †
-.23
.09
.34 *
.27 *
-.43 **
.10
-.31 *
†
**
**
*
.22
.11
.12
.06
.22
.13
d
Interviewees
vs. ref.
** p<.01, * p<.05, † p<.1
88
Eyal Rechter
Goal Type
Goal setting theory (e.g., Locke & Latham, 2002) states that types of goals
mediate the effect of feedback on performance. As a consequence, it is possible that
the type of goal participants chose to work on mediated the manipulations' effects on
the dependent variables. Thus, the type of goals participants chose to work (academic
success, professional development or personal interests) was examined as a mediating
variable. Repeating the first MANOVA yielded no main effect for goal type, nor a
goal type x condition interaction. Repeating the second MANOVA did not yield a
main effect for goal type, but goal type did interact with condition (F24,236=1.61,p<.05,
η2=.14) and with role (F24,236=1.65,p<.05, η2=.14) in its effects on the dependent
variables (the three-way interaction was not significant). Since this effects was not
hypothesized, and since goal type was not balanced (resulting in cells with very small
Ns), this effect was not explored further.
Interactions between Attachment and Experimental Treatments
Attachment questionnaires were collected separately from the experiment,
resulting in only partial data (N=117, roughly half of the total sample). Thus, using
attachment style categorically resulted in very small sample sizes (down to N=2 in
some cells). Therefore, median split as described in Study 1 of the anxiousness and
avoidance dimensions was not used here. Categorical distinction is discussed only for
exploring the direction of significant interaction effects that immerged using the
continuous measures. These interactions were again examined first with MANOVA
analysis, followed by ANOVAs to examine the DVs individually; this set of analyses
was ran twice, once comparing FFI and FB interviewees and reflection participants,
and a second time comparing FFI and FB conditions and condition x role interactions.
89
Eyal Rechter
Table 26: Study 2: MANOVA for the Interaction between Experimental Manipulation (FFI
interviewees vs. FB interviewees vs. Reflection) and Attachment Style on the Dependent Variables
Source
df
F
η2
18,188
1.20
.10
Anxious
9,93
1.56
.13
Avoidance
9,93
2.58 *
.18
Condition
Condition x Anxious
18,188
1.19
.10
Condition x Avoidance
18,188
1.21
.10
1.90 †
.16
1.19
.10
Anxious x Avoidance
Condition x Anxious x Avoidance
9,93
18,188
<otes: *p<.05, †p<.1; variables examined: general affect ratio, social affect
ratio, self-efficacy, clarity, behavioral intentions and personal resources for
both goals.
The first MANOVA (table 26) did not support the research hypotheses, as there
were no systematic interactions of attachment dimensions and experimental conditions
on the DVs.
Table 27: Study 2: MANOVA for the Interaction of Experimental Condition (FFI vs. FB) x Role
(Interviewee vs. Interviewer) and Attachment Style on the Dependent Variables
Source
F (8,95)
η2
Condition
1.33
.10
Role
3.14 **
.21
Anxious
1.37
.10
Avoidance
1.12
.09
.86
.07
condition * Anxious
1.43
.11
condition * Avoidance
1.59
.12
Role * Anxious
2.68 *
.18
Role * Avoidance
3.18 **
.21
Anxious * Avoidance
1.10
.09
condition * Role * Anxious
.86
.08
condition * Role * Avoidance
.73
.06
condition * Anxious * Avoidance
1.71
.13
Role * Anxious * Avoidance
3.03 **
.20
condition * Role
condition * Role * Anxious * Avoidance
.76
.06
<otes: *p<.05, **p<.01; variables examined: general affect ratio, social affect ratio,
self-efficacy, learning, boding, clarity, behavioral intentions goal1, resources goal1.
90
Eyal Rechter
Again, the second MANOVA (table 27) indicates that attachment style did not
interact with experimental condition as hypothesized. It did interact systematically
with experimental role, however, an effect that was not directly hypothesized, but is
not surprising.
Examining the DVs individually (the full ANOVAs table can be found in
appendix 8) show that only learning yielded a systematic effect for both role and
condition (see figure 9). Examining the means show that anxious participants reported
the highest learning in both FFI and FB conditions. Anxious and avoidant participants
reported higher learning in the FB condition, while secure participants reported higher
learning in the FFI conditions. In the FFI condition avoidant participants reported
lowest learning, compared with secure and anxious participants. This finding is in line
with the interaction hypothesis, which predicts FFI to be more beneficial to secure
individuals than for anxious and avoidant ones. Regarding the roles participants were
assigned to, secure participants reported higher learning as interviewers than as
interviewees, while anxious and avoidant participants' learning was equal in both
roles. Here, too, anxious participants reported the highest learning in both roles.
Surprisingly, there was a main effect of attachment style on learning such that
anxious participants reported higher levels of learning compared with secure
participants in both conditions, contradictory to H2b. As anxious individuals are
preoccupied with how others perceive them (Hazan & Shaver, 1990), this might lead
to an increased desire to create positive impression through satisfying expectations by
claiming the experimental manipulation helped them.
91
Eyal Rechter
Condition
Role
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
Secure
Anxious
FFI
Avoidant
Secure
FB
Anxious
Interview ees
Avoidant
Interview ers
Figure 9: Interaction between Experimental Condition and Role and Attachment Style on Learning
A last finding that worth noting is regarding personal resources, where both
secure and avoidant participants had a tendency to list more personal resources in the
FFI condition, consistent with the hypotheses, while anxious participants, who
unpredictably performed better in both conditions, did not show a preference to either
condition (see figure 10). As personal resources is an objective measure, it indicates
an actual advantage of anxious participants. It might suggest that anxious individuals'
preoccupation with how they are perceived increased their motivation to perform
well. If this is the case, it suggest that participants' motivation had a stronger effect on
performance than the influence of the experimental manipulations.
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
Secure
Anxious
FFI
Avoidant
FB
Figure 10: Interaction between Experimental Condition and Attachment Style on Personal Resources for Goal 1
92
Eyal Rechter
Discussion
Overall, results of Study 2 show that FFI resulted in different outcomes,
compared with the alternative treatments, both for interviewers and interviewees.
However, these outcomes were not necessarily beneficial, and effects were mainly
small in magnitude. This could result from either methodological flaws of the
experimental design and its implementation or from theoretical issues regarding the
guiding hypotheses. At this stage of development of FFI's theory and experimental
research, it is premature to abandon the theory I presented. It does seem, however,
that several methodological flaws could account for Study 2's results.
Design of experimental conditions. In hindsight, there were design problems in
all experimental conditions. First, FFI condition was constructed as an attempt to
imitate as much as possible organizational workshops that were conducted by Kluger
& Nir (2010) and myself in the past years. However, due to time constrains and
experimental considerations, couples did not switch roles, which might have caused
them to feel less comfortable (interviewees knowing their partners will not have their
time to self-disclose in return; interviewers knowing they will not have the benefit of
working with their partners on their own goals). Also, the rationale behind FFI was
not explained to the participants, who only received the interview instructions. Two
facts strengthen the assumption that the experimental interventions (both FFI and FB)
did not work as intended: First, being an interviewee (rather than interviewer) did not
result in better performance, although partners supposedly worked on the
interviewee's goal. Second, securely attached participants (and only them) showed a
preference to the interviewer role in terms of affect and behavioral intentions. These
findings suggest that interviewees did not feel comfortable with their role and that
interviewers did not manage to perform their role as intended.
93
Eyal Rechter
Moreover, when performed in organizational context, participants move from
the interview to work in small groups, thus further consider the various outcomes on
one hand, and allowing participants who did not manage to perform a constructive
interview to benefit from the work of others. Lastly, participants were not allowed
sufficient time to consider the Feedforward question before moving to the
performance task. This might have masked an existing positive effect on self-efficacy.
Furthermore, Study 2 failed to replicate the results of Study 1, showing a
positive influence of FFI on interviewees' affect. The main differences between the
two experiments' FFI was the use of trained interviewers in Study 1, who were
research assistants, likely to create a sense of authority in their interviewees' mind,
compared with the use of untrained fellow-participants in Study 2. Though the current
design is more similar to organizational workshops (where untrained colleagues
interview each other), the failure to replicate Study 1's strongest result, suggests that it
was not done properly. Second, FB condition was designed trying to imitate
traditional organizational FB processes. In practice, participants were instructed to
work on future plans and not on past behavior, as is usually done in FB processes,
resulting in an intervention more similar to what Goldsmith terms Feedforward
(Goldsmith, 2009) and claims to be beneficial. Furthermore, FB interviewers were
encouraged to ask clarifying questions regarding their interviewees' plans, which is
not a common practice in organizational FB processes. Third, self-reflection condition
was initially intended to act as a no-treatment condition. Only following participants'
comments it was realized that rather than examine outcomes without intervention,
they were actually reflecting on their goals and ways to achieve them (and reported
they have learnt from it), thus resulting in another effective intervention (e.g., Anseel,
Lievens, & Schollaert, 2009). The absence of a true no-treatment condition might
94
Eyal Rechter
have masked positive outcomes of FFI, in case they were not stronger than those of
the two control treatments.
Lastly, is it possible that allowing participants to freely choose their own
goals, introduced an effect of goal type chosen on the results. It might have been
advisable to direct participants to choose goals in a certain context (e.g., academic
success), thus controlling for goal-type variance.
Following instructions. Despite the fact the following instructions in
conducting FFI is crucial to its outcome (i.e., analyzing a specific, process-based
event), it was not measured. Since FFI sometimes draws resistance from some
participants, it is possible that having controlled this aspect and separating participants
who performed FFI as intended from those who did not, might have resulted in
stronger outcomes. Another fact that suggests participants did not perform the
interview as well as possible, is that though the interview's time-constrain was tighter
than usual (15 minutes, compared with 20-25 minutes), there were no cases where
partners had to be hurried-up or stopped, as is common in FFI organizational
workshops. The fact that participants needed significantly less time than is normally
needed might suggest that the interviews were more superficial.
Interview topic. Participants were given absolute freedom in choosing the
goals they worked on. This was done in order to make the task as personally-relevant
to them as possible. However, the path to achieve some goals might be easier to
visualize and verbalize than others, and some goals might be easier to discuss than
others (e.g., getting good grades vs. meeting a significant other). It might be that
assigning a specific goal to all participants (instead of letting them choose for
themselves) would have reduced this variance (and a possible interaction between
goal's nature, individual differences and experimental outcome), and control for
95
Eyal Rechter
similarity between the first and the second goal and goal's importance to each
participant, thus decreasing some noise in the outcomes.
Cultural and sex differences. As discussed in Study 1's discussion above, the
research population consisted of few distinct cultures: Israeli-Jewish, IsraeliPalestinians (Muslims and Christians), and immigrants. These populations rarely mix
with each other in the academic environment, and the assignment of mixed-culture
couples surely resulted in further noise. Indeed, analyzing the results separately for
Hebrew speakers altered the results, though due to small sample size it was not
reported. Also, examining some of the extreme negative results (e.g., in the bonding
scale) showed them to belong to mixed-culture couples. Creating culturallyhomogeneous experimental groups (and perhaps using translated questionnaires to
overcome language barriers) could have eliminated cultural-differences-related issues,
instead of creating them. It is also possible that assigning males and females to work
together also created noise (for example, discussing the search for a significant other
with an opposite-sex partner), since the work was in pairs and in a somewhat intimate
manner, so it might have been advantageous to use same-sex couples.
Participants' seniority. When results were analyzed separately for roughly the
first half of the participants (those who participated at the end of their first academic
year, N=132), FFI had a more positive effect than was found in the full sample: FFI
had positive significant effect on emotions compared with both FB and reflection
conditions (thus does replicating results of Study 1); a significant effect on selfefficacy compared with FB (but not compared with reflection), and a significant effect
on bonding and belief in interviewee, compared with FB (bonding was still higher for
FFI in the full sample, but failed to reach significance). Repeating the first
96
Eyal Rechter
MANOVA, comparing FFI and FB interviewees and reflection participants45 while
entering seniority as a dummy variable did not yield a main effect for seniority, but
the condition x seniority interaction was marginally significant (F2,148=3.03, p=.05, η2
=.04). Examining the means suggests that senior participants performed better in the
FFI condition and worse than in the FB and reflection conditions, compared with
junior participants; and that senior participants in the FFI and reflection conditions
performed equally and better than participants in the FB condition. Junior participants
in the FFI condition performed the poorest, followed by FB and reflection
participants, who performed best.
Repeating the second MANOVA, comparing FFI and FB participants and
examining condition x role interaction46, again did not yield main effect for seniority,
but a significant condition x seniority interaction (F1,152=11.35, p<.01, η2=.07; role x
seniority and the three-way interaction were not significant). Examining the means
suggest that senior participants performed better in the FFI condition than in the FB
condition, while the opposite was true for junior participants. Figure 11 shows the two
MANOVAs results of the overall effects of the condition x seniority interactions on
all the relevant DVs.
3.50
3.50
3.00
3.00
2.50
2.50
End of 1s t Year
Beginning of 1st Year
FFI
FB
Reflection
End of 1s t Year
Beginning of 1st Year
FFI
FB
Figure 11: MANOVAs for the Effects of Experimental Manipulation (FFI Interviewees vs. FB Interviewees
Figure
5:
vs.
Reflection;
Left or FFI vs. FB; right) Interaction with Seniority on the Dependent Variables
45
Conducted on general affect ratio, social affect ratio, self-efficacy, clarity, behavioral intentions both
goals and personal resources both goal.
46
Conducted on general affect ratio, social affect ratio, self-efficacy, learning, boding, clarity,
behavioral intentions goal1, resources goal1.
97
Eyal Rechter
These differences between the results of the two sub-samples might suggest
that more experience with academic life (e.g., having one exam period behind them)
can help participants further enjoy FFI, that draws on relevant past experience.
Moreover, as was described in the introduction, when past experience is scarce or
absent FFI is more challenging and demands higher expertise from the interviewer, to
relate past experiences from other contexts to current circumstances. Having more
relevant experience is also closer to organizational FFI, as well as being more familiar
with the organization (the Hebrew university), academic life in general and
participation in experiments, which might have helped senior participants to feel more
at ease in the situation.
Role preference. The fact that participants, specifically those with secure
attachment style, preferred the role of interviewer also suggest that the experimental
conditions did not act as expected, contradicting the experience in organizations that
managers and employees often yearn to be heard. It is possible that students do not
have this need, and/or that the position of interviewee of a fellow-student made them
feel insecure and uncomfortable. It is worth noting that FFI resulted in higher selfefficacy and learning for interviewers, compared with FB condition. This might
suggest that there are some possible benefits to FFI that are yet to be understood.
To sum, results of Study 2 add to those of Study 1 in showing that there is a
potential in FFI to be an effective intervention, for interviewees and interviewers
alike, and that attachment style has the potential to explain individual differences in
reaction to FFI (or any other interpersonal interaction). Still, some methodological
improvements are necessary to further examine its effectiveness empirically, and to
scientifically support the theory behind its practice.
98
Eyal Rechter
Field Studies
Introduction to Field Studies
Since FFI is an organizational intervention, is was important to test its
effectiveness also in field studies. I cooperated with two organizations, performing
FFI workshops in a quasi-experimental design and collecting relevant data. In the first
one, I worked with senior Air-Force officers and introduced FFI as a practical tool for
career planning. My goal was to see whether participants feel the workshop helped
them in their own career planning, that is, if they perceive their knowledge regarding
their career planning following the FFI as better than it was before.
In the second field study I worked with managers high-technology firm
toward an upcoming employees-evaluation process. In this case I used the evaluation
forms as a more objective measure of actual performance, rather then participants'
perception of the process. Unfortunately, both samples were too small to provide solid
conclusions, though they both provide some support for FFI's positive effects.
Field Study 1: FFI at an Army Base
FFI workshop was given to senior officers of an Air-Force army base, as a part
of an introduction day to a forthcoming large scale career-planning process that was
conducted during the following months by participants with their subordinates. The
process aimed for short- and long-term career planning of the base's officers. I
introduces FFI as a practical tool that can be used for career planning, revealing
enabling conditions for top performance and considering possible future career
directions that will promote a working environment that provides these conditions.
99
Eyal Rechter
Method
Participants
A total of 22 officers (19 majors and 3 lieutenant colonels) participated in an
FFI workshop, as a part of a half-day mandatory seminar about the career planning
process. The seminar was organized by the base' organizational consultant and was
accompanied by her and the base' commander (a colonel). All participants were about
to participate in the career planning process both as participants (the 3 lieutenants with
supervisors outside the camp) and as supervisors of their own subordinates (thus, the
lieutenants' subordinates were among the participants). Seven participants were
excluded from the data due to failure to match their before and after questionnaires or
to complete all items, resulting in N=15.
Measures
Workshop self-report questionnaires. Immediately before and after the
workshop, participants filled out a 16-items self-report questionnaire, in which they
rated on a 1-7 likert-type scale: (1) to what extent they felt they their professional
objectives were clear to them (4 items); (2) to what extent they believed they can
perform their own career planning (self-efficacy, 5 items); (3) their commitment to the
process (4 items) and (4) their perception of the organizations' commitment to it (3
items; see appendix 9 for the full questionnaire). Since all items were inter-correlated,
they were combined into a single scale. Table 28 displays means, standard deviations,
intercorelations and Cronbach alphas of the scales.
100
Eyal Rechter
Table 28: Field Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach alphas and Intercorrelations of the Four Scales, Before and After the FFI
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
Clear Objectives - Before
5.37
1.18
2
Clear Objectives - After
5.67
1.02
.81 **
3
Belief in Ability - Before
5.97
.68
.42
.37
4
Belief in Ability - After
6.05
.58
.61 *
.62 *
.86 **
5
Commitment - Before
5.73
1.03
.30
.23
.59 *
.46 †
6
Commitment - After
5.95
.73
.29
.50 †
.68 **
.69 **
.80 **
7
Org. Commitment - Before
6.38
.74
.41
.33
.55 *
.55 *
.86 **
.76 **
8
Org. Commitment - After
6.42
.58
.49 †
.47 †
.56 *
.59 *
.85 **
.76 **
.92 **
9
All items - Before
5.85
.70
.69 **
.58 *
.79 **
.77 **
.86 **
.79 **
.86 **
.87 **
All items - After
5.99
.63
.71 **
.84 **
.73 **
.87 **
.63 *
.84 **
.68 **
.77 **
10
9
10
(.72)
(.74)
(.56)
(.49)
(.85)
(.77)
(.83)
(.74)
(.88)
.87 **
(.90)
N=15; ** p<.01, * p<.05, † p<.1, one tailed
101
Eyal Rechter
Procedure
The workshop. The workshop began with a general overview of the
approaching career planning process, given by the base' commander. Following, the
base' organizational consultant discussed the personal meetings with subordinates as a
central part of the process, and its goals. Next, I conducted an FFI workshop.
After a general introduction to AI and FFI, participants interviewed each other
in pairs. They were instructed to discuss specific events of professional peak
experiences, and review their future career plans in light of the enabling conditions for
top performance. They had 40 minutes for both interviews. Next, participants were
divided to groups of four (breaking former pairs), and each group chose one personal
story of one of its members, as a basis of further development. The idea was to work
extensively on few examples, to teach them how to use peak experiences and enabling
conditions as guidelines for short- and long-term career planning, so that later they
will be able to (1) improve their own career planning as participants in the process;
and (2) better plan with their subordinates their careers later. Participants worked in
groups for 45 minutes. During these group discussions the base' commander, the
organizational consultant and I moved around the groups and helped when necessary.
Finally, participants were given a theoretical review of FFI's potential, and
were given the opportunity to ask questions and discuss possible challenges and
concerns regarding using FFI with their subordinates. Unfortunately, time constrains
prevented this last (and important) discussion from being fully developed.
Results
Table 29 shows effect sizes for the differences between T1 and T2 scales. It
can be seen that they were all in the hypothesized direction, though only medium-size
effect were marginally significant due to the small sample,.
102
Eyal Rechter
Table 29: Field Study 1: Paired-Comparisons of Before and After Scales
Scale
d
Clear Objectives
Belief in Ability
Commitment
Org. Commitment
All items
.61
.33
.56
.24
.57
†
†
†
df=14, † p<.1, one-tailed
In a second analysis I counted the number of participants that responded in a
way consistent to the hypothesis (i.e., an increase of each scale following the
workshop), the number of participants that responded contradictory to the hypothesis
and those who showed no change. Table 30 indicates that beside participants'
perception of the organizations' commitment to the process, there was a strong
tendency for participants to respond in a way consistent with the hypothesis.
Table 30: Field Study 1: Percentage of Responses Consistent or Contradictory to Hypothesis
Consistent
Clear Objectives
Belief in Ability
Commitment
Org. Commitment
All items
Contradictory
67%
47%
53%
13%
67%
13%
33%
27%
13%
17%
No change
20%
20%
20%
73%
17%
Discussion
Results of Field Study 1 provide some indication that the FFI workshop was
effective. Participants felt that their career objectives were clearer to them following
FFI and reported higher commitment to the process they were facing. However, the
study had some limitations: First, sample size is very small, and there is some
possibility that the results are random. Second, there is no control group. It is possible
that other types of activities working toward the career planning process would have
produced positive results, or even that simply filling out the questionnaire twice in
103
Eyal Rechter
proximity would have created the same effect. However, the fact that one of the scales
(perception of organization's commitment) did not change counteracts this possibility.
Third, there is a risk of bias in the reports, either due to experimenter bias or fear of
participants for their anonymity, since they indicated their army ID number on the
questionnaires.
To sum, Field Study 1 provided some support, though not conclusive, that FFI
is beneficial to participants' cognitions relevant to performance, such as self-efficacy,
clarity of future plans and goals, and commitment to the task.
Field Study 2: Performance Evaluation at a High-Technology Firm
Introduction
Field Study 2 was conducted in a medium-size international communication
(high-technology) company, before the annual performance evaluation process. The
FFI workshop I conducted with junior and senior managers was defined as a
developmental activity.
Method
Participants
A total of 28 managers participated in the experiment. They were divided by
the company's HR manager to experimental and control groups based on their
previous experience in performance evaluation, attempting to equate experience
between the experimental and control groups. Five of the participants were top-level
managers who conducted the performance evaluation to the other managers who
participated in the study. In total, 15 managers were assigned to the experimental
group, receiving FFI prior to the performance evaluation process, and 13 managers
were assigned to the control group, receiving FFI four months later, when the
evaluation process was concluded.
104
Eyal Rechter
The final data consisted of 47 performance-evaluation forms. One manager
(evaluating 3 employees) could not be identified and was dropped from the analysis,
as well as one additional form that was partly filled out in English47, leaving 43 forms
for the analysis, filled out by ten managers in the FFI condition and six managers in
the control condition.
Measures
The evaluations forms had three parts. In the part 1, managers responded to
open-ended questions regarding the subordinate's (1) job description; (2) knowledge
and professionalism; (3) keeping schedule; (4) job performance; (5) responsibility and
adhering to protocol; (6) interpersonal relationships and cooperation and (7)
leadership ability. While filling out these open ended questions, the amount of text
and richness of content can be considered to represent the rater's effort and investment
in the process. Therefore, the total number of words and the number of different
issues (content items) considered in response to each question were both used as
performance measures, totaling seven measures of text length and seven measures of
number of content items considered. Data for each manager was collapsed across the
forms he filled out. Mean number of forms for each manager was 2.63 (ranging from
1 to 6). Empty sections were coded as zero, except leadership ability (question 7),
which might have been left blank due to irrelevance. Submitting the seven word-count
measures to factor analysis yielded a single factor, explaining 81% of the variance. A
number-of-words scale was calculated, with Cronbach alpha = .96. Submitting the
seven number-of-items measures to factor analysis yielded two factors. The first
factor explained 74% of the variance and all items were loaded on it, thus a number-
47
Since performance measures (see below) were based mainly on words-count, the use of a different
language deemed this form irrelevant for comparison with the others.
105
Eyal Rechter
of-items scale was calculated, with Cronbach alpha = .9348. To control for
confounding between these two measures, a words-per-item measure was also
calculated by dividing number of words by number of items.
In addition, the number of positive and negative items in each section was
counted as well49. Since the first question – job description – is inherently neutral
(75% of the items were classified as neutral), it was not analyzed. The other six
questions were factor analyzed. Positive items yielded a single factor, explaining 79%
of the variance, and were averaged to a single number-of-positive-items scale with
Cronbach alpha = .96. Factor analyzing the six negative items yielded two factors,
explaining 42% and 34% of the variance. A negative-items scale was computed by
averaging questions 3, 4 and 5, with Cronbach alpha = .74. To better compare positive
and negative scales on common grounds, a corresponding positive-items scales of
questions 3, 4 and 5 was calculated with Cronbach alpha = .87.
The last measures were the proportion of positive and negative items from the
total number of items (thus controlling for a confound between measures). These
proportions were calculated for each positive/negative scale from the mean number of
items for the same questions (i.e., proportion of positive and negative scales that are
based on questions 3, 4 and 5 are calculated for the mean number of items of
questions 3, 4 and 5).
Part 2 was filled out by the subordinate and was not analyzed50.
48
The second factor accounted for 15% of the variance, and only the first item had a higher load on it
than on the first factor.
49
Number of items and characterizing them as positive, negative or neutral was coded by me. A second
rater, an experienced manager familiar with performance evaluations, coded half of the forms,
randomly chosen, with ICC(2) = .94.
50
Since some of the subordinates were junior managers who participated in the experiment, and since
there was no account of the various instructions they received on how to fill out part 2 (at their own
time, during the meeting, with certain emphases, etc.), it is unlikely that this part can uncover any effect
of the supervisor's experimental group.
106
Eyal Rechter
In part 3, managers listed (1) goals of the evaluation term and to what extent
they were achieved; (2) goals for the coming term; (3) strengths; (4) points for
improvement; (5) successes and (6) failures. Parts 1 and 6 were characterized by low
response rate (50% and 31%, respectively, compared with 86% average for the other
parts) and were dropped from the analysis. Number of items listed and number of
words for each part were used as performance measures. Factor analyzing the number
of words yielded a single factor, explaining 78% of the variance. A number-of-words
scale was calculated with Cronbach alpha = .79. Factor analyzing the number of items
yielded a single factor, explaining 81% of the variance. A number-of-items scale was
calculated with Cronbach alpha = .91. A words-per-item measure was calculated by
dividing the number of words scale by number-of-items scale for each question. One
manager in each group did not fill out this section, and was dropped from the analysis
of part 3.
Procedure
Managers in the FFI group received FFI workshop before the evaluation
process began. The workshop was performed in the context of evaluation process as
feedback giving, and interviews were conducted on past effective feedback-giving
experiences. After participants finished interviewing each other (20 minutes for each
interview), pairs were broken and participants worked in small groups, identifying
common conditions for effective feedback-giving. Finally, we made a list of common
conditions and discussed few of them as examples of how participants should go on
considering what they have learnt. The workshop lasted two hours, and the evaluation
process started a week later and lasted over three months. Managers in the control
group participated in FFI workshop (focusing on successful communication
experiences) four months later, after the evaluation process was concluded.
107
Eyal Rechter
Results
Averaging the data for each manager across his or her various employees
resulted in a very small sample size, which makes it difficult to arrive to solid
conclusions regarding FFI's effectiveness.
Part 1
First, a MANOVA was ran (based on the nine measures displayed in table 31
below) to examine whether the experimental manipulation had a general effect on all
the DVs. The MANOVA suggests a marginally significant advantage to FFI mangers
(F(2,14)=1.82, p<.1 (one-tailed), η2=.81).
Table 31 shows means, standard deviations and Cohen's d values of mean
comparisons between FFI and control managers for the DVs in part 1 of the
evaluation form.
Table 31: Field Study 2: Means (M), Standard Deviation (SD) of Part 1 Dependent Variables by
Experimental Conditions, and Mean Comparisons with Cohen’s d Value
FFI (& = 10)
Variable
Control (&=6)
M
SD
M
SD
d
Number of Words
41.74
17.02
28.52
26.32
.64
Number of Items
4.25
.91
2.92
1.84
1.04 *
Words per Item
9.57
2.71
8.06
3.57
.51
Positive Items
3.04
.89
1.77
1.36
1.22 *
Positive Items (2)
3.13
.97
1.66
1.41
1.33 *
Negative Items
1.06
.42
1.04
.74
.03
Proportion of Positive Items
.73
.12
.51
.24
.82 †
Proportion of Positive Items (2)
.72
.10
.56
.29
.90 †
Proportion of Negative Items
.24
.08
.41
.31
-.89 †
df=14; * p<.05, † p<.1; one-tail
The MANOVA and table 31 show FFI did have a beneficial effect on
performance in the evaluations, in terms of the total number of items, the number and
proportion of positive items and the proportion of negative items – while not affecting
108
Eyal Rechter
the actual number of negative items. FFI managers also tended to use more words in
their forms, and more words for each item they addressed, although these differences
did not reach statistical significance. This can be interpreted as FFI causing managers
to be more serious in their approach to the evaluation process, and directing their
attention to the positive aspects of their subordinates functioning, without neglecting
the negative aspects.
Examining the means of number of words and items in part 1 shows that FFI
p
er
sh
i
Le
ad
e
In
vo
lve
m
en
t
R
el
at
io
ns
hi
ps
m
an
c
Pr
Jo
b
of
es
sio
n
p
Le
ad
er
sh
i
m
an
ce
fo
r
Pe
r
Sc
he
du
al
is
m
sio
n
b
Pr
of
es
Jo
fo
r
0.00
Pe
r
0.00
Sc
he
du
le
2.00
De
sc
.
4.00
20.00
In
vo
lve
m
en
t
R
el
at
io
ns
hi
ps
40.00
le
6.00
De
sc
.
60.00
al
is
m
managers performed better in each and every one of these variables (see figure 12).
FFI
Control
FFI
Control
Figure 12: Field Study 2: Part 1 Number of Words and Number of Items of FFI and Control Groups
Part 3
Table 32 shows means, standard deviations and Cohen's d values of mean
comparisons between FFI and control managers for the DVs in part 3 of the
evaluation form.
Table 32: Field Study 2: Means (M), Standard Deviation (SD) of Part 3 Dependent Variables by
Experimental Conditions, and Mean Comparisons with Cohen’s d Value
Variable
Number of Words
Number of Items
Words per Item
FFI (& = 10)
Control (&=6)
M
14.58
3.18
4.45
M
7.55
2.38
3.08
SD
6.51
.93
1.35
SD
3.12
.44
1.03
d
1.30 *
1.03 †
1.13 *
df=12; * p<.05, † p=.05; one-tail.
Figure 13 shows that here, too, there is a consistent advantage of managers in
the FFI group over those in the control group.
109
Eyal Rechter
30
5
25
4
20
3
15
2
10
1
5
0
0
Future Goals
Strengths
FFI
Successes
Improve
Future Goals
Control
Strengths
FFI
Successes
Improve
Control
Figure 13: Field Study 2: Part 3 Number of Words (left) and Number of Items (right) of FFI and
Control Groups
Results were also analyzed using HLM (analyzing the proportion variables),
providing corresponding results, as seen in table 33:
Table 33: Field Study 2: HLM results of the experimental effect on the proportion variables
Variable
Coefficient
SE
T-ratio
Words per Item
1.60
1.59
1.00
Proportion of Positive Items
0.15
.06
2.72 *
Proportion of Negative Items
-0.17
.09
-1.99 *
Words per Item – part 3
1.00
.66
1.53 †
<otes: Approx. df=15; * p<.05, † p<.1; one-tailed.
Variables (measured at level 1) were tested separately, with experimental
condition inserted to the equation at the manager's level 2.
Discussion
First, it is important to remember the small sample size of Field Study 2, so
results need to be considered with caution. Still, results indicate a clear advantage of
managers who participated in FFI prior to the evaluation process, in terms of number
of words they wrote and the number of content-units they considered, as well as the
proportion of positive content-units. They were no clear outliers that biased the
results. This advantage might indicate that these managers took the process more
seriously, and spent more time thinking about it and preparing it, while giving more
attention to positive aspects of their subordinates' performance. FFI managers also set
more future goals to their subordinates, described more strengths and successes, but
also more points for improvement for them – and they were more detailed in their
description of each of these sections.
110
Eyal Rechter
Current application of FFI includes a more thorough and systematic
consideration of enabling conditions-implementation, as described in the introduction.
It is likely that incorporating this practice here would have increased FFI's effect.
Also, data consists of performance done during three months following the
intervention, thus suggesting a long-term benefit of FFI.
Limitations
Field Study 2 had several limitations. Since there was no control treatment, it
is possible that FFI's positive effects was due to the fact that managers participated in
some kind of intervention that brought the upcoming performance reviews to their
attention, while emphasizing its importance to the organization. Future studies should
include control treatments to determine whether FFI has also relative advantage.
Some managers in the final data are represented by a singe form (one subordinate evaluated), while others are represented by up to six subordinates. This fact
impairs the reliability of the measures for some of the participants, and can also have
various effects on performance. It is possible, on one hand, that managers with fewer
subordinates can afford more resources to the process, and spend more time preparing
and conducting the evaluation. On the other hand, being an experienced evaluator can
also have positive effect on performance. Larger sample sizes can enable controlling
for this variable, as well as for tenure and length of knowledge with the subordinate.
HLM analysis do showed no effect for number of subordinates, but the small sample
size suggests this consideration should be examined further.
Also, assignment to experimental conditions was not completely randomized,
and was done manually by the organization's HR director. Although attempting to
control for experience, seniority and position in assigning to experimental groups, it is
naturally possible that there were some biases that might have affected the results.
111
Eyal Rechter
Lastly, the measures used here do not necessarily support positive effect of
FFI on performance. Number of words, content units and positive tone were used as
proxies for evaluation quality, but a proof of evaluation quality would lie in the ratees
future performance. It is not necessarily clear that the measures used here, even if they
do indicate more consideration of the process, actually led to better performance of
the evaluation. It might be that more information causes an overload for the
subordinate, for example, or that abundance of text might cost in over-simplicity of
the information provided.
To sum, Field Study 2's results display FFI's potential as an effective
organizational intervention, but cannot be considered has hard evidence regarding.
112
Eyal Rechter
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Chapter Overview
This chapter have four parts. First, I summarize and discuss the accumulated
empirical findings presented in the methodological section above. I then move to
suggest some implications of these findings to the fields of organizational
interventions, performance evaluations, Appreciative Inquiry, positive organizational
behavior, social emotions at the work place, strengths development and the emotions
research. Next, I suggest some lines of research aims at a deeper understanding of
FFI's influence on work-related variables. Lastly, I conclude this dissertation.
Summary and Discussion of Findings
In this part I overview the findings presented in the methodological chapter of
this dissertation. Considered from a bird's eye view, and in relation to FFI theory I
proposed, there is some supportive evidence for each theoretical proposal and
research hypothesis (though not consistent). Table 34 summarizes the findings from
all the studies, regarding each hypothesis.
Table 34: Summary of experimental findings
Preliminary Pilot
Hypothesis
Study 2
Study
H1: affect
H2: self-efficacy
H3: learning
H4: bonding
H5: performance
H6: interaction with attachment
++
+
+
+
+
Study 1
++
++
+
+
+
Field Studies
1
2
Study 2
Juniors
Seniors
0
+
+
+
++
+
+
++
+
+
+
+
<otes: ++ supported; + weak or partial support; - not supported; 0 evidence opposite to hypothesis. Preliminary Study
1 was aimed at establishing the uniqueness of social emotions and the construction of relevant measures, and is not
relevant to my theoretical hypotheses regarding FFI.
113
Eyal Rechter
FFI's influence on Affect
Hypotheses 1a and 1b predicted that FFI will be beneficial to participants'
general and social affect. These hypotheses received support in Preliminary Study 2
and strong support in Study 1's. However, results were mixed in the pilot study, and
were only partially replicated in Study 2.
Study 2's data indicated that FFI was beneficial to students at the end of their
academic year, but detrimental for those at the beginning of the academic year. Thus,
the reason for the overall lack of support seems to lie in the participants'
characteristics or the context of the intervention. Specifically, senior students had
more relevant and recent experience to rely on regarding the interview content
(academic life goals). Since FFI draws on past experience, its relative absence for
students at the first weeks of their academic lives might have been detrimental to FFI's
effectivity. When interviewees lack relevant past experience, administrating FFI is
more challenging to the interviewer and requires higher degree of expertise in guiding
the choice of event to describe and finding ways to relate past experience from other
fields or contexts to current circumstances and future plans51. The use of novices in
Study 2 might have caused FFI to be less effective under these circumstances. Lastly,
senior students are more familiar with academic life in general, with the organization
and participation in experiments in particular and probably also with each other. Each
of these factors potentially helped them feel more at ease and less threatened during
the interview, another requirement of FFI.
Overall, results support the assumption that FFI has a distinct effect on
participants' emotions, although in some conditions, this effect might be negative.
51
This issue was discussed in the introduction chapter and is also implicated in Kluger and Nir (2010).
114
Eyal Rechter
FFI's Influence on Self-efficacy
Hypothesis 2 predicted that FFI will positively influence participants' selfefficacy. Study 1 (in which self-efficacy was measured using a single-item measure)
found that self-efficacy was higher for no-treatment participants. Study 2 showed that
FFI led to higher self-efficacy compared with FB condition (interestingly, also for
interviewers), but equal to reflection condition. These findings suggest a possible
advantage of FFI over some common organizational interventions, but their complex
patterns calls for more thorough consideration of the nature of FFI's effect selfefficacy. The fact that FFI and reflection led to equal levels of self-efficacy might
suggest that the self-reflection aspect of FFI has a unique contribution to self-efficacy.
Experiences of success have been shown to increase self-efficacy (Wood & Bandura,
1989a), as they strengthen people's belief in their ability to achieve similar desired
outcomes in the future. It is possible that reliving a past success and deeply processing
it, as is done in FFI, operates in a different manner than the actual experience of
present success. The realization of enabling conditions for top performance was
initially supposed to increase people's sense of self-efficacy. However, sometimes the
path to recreate these conditions is not immediately clear. In such cases perhaps the
Feedforward question – how can future plans bring one closer to his or hers enabling
conditions – while hypothetically increases motivation (Carver & Scheier, 1981;
Kluger & Nir, 2010), might simultaneously lower self-efficacy.
Current application of FFI incorporates explicit consideration of the enabling
conditions and future plans to enhance and recreate them, while overcoming possible
obstacles. This elaborated processing of the enabling conditions aims at making the
path to top performance clearer, thus increasing participants' expectancy to succeed.
115
Eyal Rechter
FFI's Influence on Learning
Hypothesis 3 predicted that FFI will result in learning. Results of Study 1
(using a single-item measure) supported H3 and showed FFI to be beneficial for
participants' learning. Study 2 found this advantage for interviewers, with no
significant differences among interviewees. This effect on interviewers, which is in
line with FFI theory, might suggest that the use of novices (without explaining FFI's
rationale, as was discussed above) caused interviewers to be preoccupied with their
own learning, or that FFI was more novel to them and therefore more difficult to
administer relative to feedback providing, with which they might have been more
comfortable.
FFI's Influence on Bonding
Hypothesis 4 predicted that FFI will strengthen bonding between interviewers
and interviewees. Considering the social affect scales as a proxy for interpersonal
bonding, both Preliminary Study 2 and Study 1 provided support for H4, while the
pilot study's results were mixed. In Study 2, that explicitly measured bonding, results
were in the hypothesized direction, though did not reach significance. Again, results
were significant for the senior students, both for bonding and the social emotions
scale, with the two measures positively correlated.
Attachment Style as a Moderator of FFI's Influence on Participants
Hypotheses 5a-c predicted interactions between FFI and attachment style on
the dependent variables – emotions, self-efficacy, learning and performance. Study 1's
finding that anxiety level was higher in the no-treatment group than both experimental
groups suggests a possible influence of FFI (and other interpersonal interactions) on
the attachment system. This effect was not predicted and might result from response
bias, but it is not surprising, and therefore should be considered. FFI's effect on the
116
Eyal Rechter
attachment system, if existent, can be either calming down the system or activating it,
and might be different for participants with different initial levels of anxiety and
avoidance. For example, secure and anxious participants might react by feeling more
at ease, while avoidant participants might become increasingly insecure. This
possibility calls for caution in interpreting the current findings regarding attachment,
and to further explore FFI's influence on the attachment system in the future.
H5a predicted that FFI will not have a positive effect on emotions for avoidant
participants. The results of Study 1 are in line with this prediction. Findings show that
secure and anxious participants feel better following FFI relative to alternative
treatments, while avoidant individuals do not show any preference. As was discussed
in Study 1, this pattern of differing preferences can be ascribed, at least partly, to the
treatments' level of self-exposure. These results are in line with Mikulincer &
Nachshon's (1991) finding that avoidant individuals tend to avoid self-disclosure,
anxious individuals tend to embrace it and secure individuals tend to match their
behavior to the situation, self-disclosing when appropriate.
In Study 2 attachment style did not interact with experimental manipulation's
influence on participants' affective reaction. However, having only partial data
(N=117), some of which was again collected following the intervention, might have
prevented evaluating the actual influence of attachment style on participants
emotional reaction to different treatments. Lastly, consistent with attachment literature
(Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005), both studies found negative
correlations of anxiety and avoidance with affect.
Hypothesis 5b predicted that anxious participants will show less increase in
self-efficacy and learning following FFI, compared with secure participants. This
hypothesis was partially supported in study 2. In Study 1 both secure and anxious
117
Eyal Rechter
participants reported higher learning following FFI. In Study 2, secure participants
reported higher learning, while anxious participants reported lower learning following
FFI, compared with FB, in accordance to H5b. In both studies the interaction between
condition and attachment style was not significant in its influence on self-efficacy.
Managing self-efficacy better, as was discussed above, and considering possible
influence of FFI on the attachment system, is necessary in order to further assess this
possible interaction.
Hypothesis 5c predicted that secure participants will show higher
performance improvement following FFI. Study 2 provided partial support.
Specifically, secure and avoidant participants, but not anxious ones, performed better
after FFI compared with FB, on one performance measure (i.e., personal resources).
Interestingly, in Study 2 interviewers' avoidance negatively correlated with
interviewee's self-efficacy (r=-.32, p<.05), the performance measure of personal
resources (r=-.53, p<.01), and marginally with interviewee's learning (r=-.24, p<.1).
Interviewer's anxiety in the FFI condition negatively correlated with interviewee's
learning (r=-.33, p=.01). These results suggest that attachment style of the person
administering FFI might affect its influence on the interviewee, such that interviewers'
high levels of anxiety and avoidance impair FFI's effects. It is also worth noting that
participants, especially secure, showed a preference to the interviewer's role. These
findings suggest that participants high on either avoidance or anxiety, might be less
willing to perform as interviewers and be less suited for the role.
FFI's Influence on Performance
Finally, H6 predicted FFI to have positive influence on performance. Some of
the pilot study's findings have shown benefits to FFI compared with no-treatment. H6
also received weak support in Study 2. FFI led to stronger behavioral intentions,
118
Eyal Rechter
compared with FB and reflection, and to realizing more personal resources, compared
with FB. Further support for H6 were found in Field Studies 1 and 2, where FFI led to
somewhat improved performance, either in a within-subject design (Field Study 1) or
relative to no-treatment condition (Field Study 2).
To sum, the accumulated data provides some support to all research
hypotheses. The cases where hypotheses were not fully supported can be used to
extract insights regarding FFI's benefits. Considering the differences between Study 1
and Study 2's design and results, it seems that untrained interviewers should receive
elaborated instructions regarding what they should do, why and how they should do it,
in order to encourage positive affect and learning.
It is important to note that since FFI is a new intervention, it has been
constantly developing and more deeply understood, both theoretically and practically,
during the years I have been studying it. During this time, some changes have been
made in the way FFI is being practiced. Specifically, nowadays participants are
instructed to consider specific actions they can take to promote the enabling
conditions. They are further instruct to consider possible obstacles and how they
would overcome them. This focus can potentially enhance participants' self-efficacy.
It is also might be advisable to consider individual and task characteristics for
which FFI might be more adequate. For example, FFI might be found especially
effective for tasks that are relatively complex, not completely novel, and those that
performance relies on individual characteristics that are less suited for formal training.
Prior knowledge with the interviewer, or interviewer being in a position authority,
might also be beneficial, rather than a stranger peer.
Lastly, attachment style seems to moderate FFI's effects but also be affected
by it, in a complex manner that should be more thoroughly researched, with specific
119
Eyal Rechter
attention not only to interviewees' attachment, but also to interviewers' and their
possible dyadic inter-relationships.
Implications of Current Findings
The current work contributes to several fields of organizational research and
practice as well as to emotion literature. I will now suggest some implications of this
work to organizational interventions, performance evaluations, Appreciative Inquiry,
positive organizational behavior, social emotions at the workplace and strengths
development. Next, I present some general implications to the study of emotions.
Individual Differences in Organizational Interventions
One important finding of this work is the focus it places on individual
differences in people's reaction to FFI. Organizations have long since been attempting
to modify various aspects of their employees' behavior in order to improve their
performance. Such interventions range from individual-level training such as
feedback interventions (e.g., Ilgen & Davis, 2000), enhancing motivation through job
enlargement (e.g., Campion & McClelland, 1991, 1993) and job enrichment (e.g.,
Cherrington & England, 1980; Griffeth, 1985), through group-level training (e.g.,
Bushe & Coetzer, 1995), and up to organizational-level interventions (e.g., Whitney
& Trosten-Bloom, 2003). With the exception of Goal Setting theory (Locke, 2001;
Locke & Latham, 2002), organizations usually use the 'one-size-fits' all approach,
implementing interventions uniformly, mostly disregarding Ilgen et al.' (1979) call
from over 40 years ago to consider individual differences in organizational
interventions. The few exceptions (e.g., Heslin & Latham, 2004) seem to be those that
prove the rule, rather than represent a true change in the field.
Adopting the view that interventions' effectivity can differ for different people,
this work shows that attachment style influences participants' reaction to and
120
Eyal Rechter
performing of (as interviewers) FFI. These results suggest several implications
regarding individual differences in organizational interventions, considering emotions,
self-efficacy and learning, and their overall effectiveness.
Current results show an overall negative correlation of attachment dimensions
and affect, and distinct pattern of affective reaction to interpersonal interactions,
resulting, at least to some extent, from the level of self-disclosure required (higher in
FFI). Results further show anxiety and avoidance to be negatively related to selfefficacy, thus deepening our understanding of individual differences in self-efficacy
(see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). These findings can be generalized to other types of
social interactions at work, suggesting organizations and managers should adopt a
more individualized approach that takes people's attachment style into account, as
different training and development programs can be effective to employees with
different levels of anxiety and avoidance.
The current findings imply that actions that have positive influence on affect
for some people, might not work for others. While a positive and close interpersonal
interaction can serve to improve people's mood and enjoy its benefits, the effect will
not happen, and possibly be reversed, for those with high avoidance. Thus, while
employees with low avoidance might benefit from training programs that include
human interaction (e.g., group-tasks, mentoring), those with high avoidance might
benefit more from impersonalized training (e.g., computerized, reading material).
When interpersonal interaction does take place, employees with high avoidance might
benefit more when the it is less personal and intimate and more strictly professional,
and might require different treatments to positively influence their affect.
This line of thinking can also help organizations counteract known
disadvantages of anxious employees in terms of performance, satisfaction from work
121
Eyal Rechter
and earnings (Hazan & Shaver, 1990) and their impaired relationships with
subordinates (Johnston, 2000). Individualized training programs, with pleasant and
attentive interaction and specific focus on recognizing the professional contribution of
anxious employees, might help them feel more comfortable and confident, thus more
professionally, rather than personally oriented.
Further research is still needed to assess the validity of participants' selfreports, as the positive correlation between anxiousness and learning was not
hypothesized, and might be the result of response bias rather than a true effect.
Study 2 showed that attachment style of the interviewer interacts with FFI's
effectivity. Combined with the finding that attachment style predicted participants'
preference to the role they were assigned to (interviewer or interviewee), these results
can promote the designing of more effective interventions, with participants with high
avoidance and anxiety not being assigned to roles comparable to FFI's interviewer. It
might further suggest a general advantage to people with relatively low levels of
anxiety and avoidance in training and development positions.
This interaction between interviewers' attachment style and FFI's effectiveness
can be considered in the context of Levints-Gilai's (2008) findings of the relationships
between managers' attachment style and subordinates' commitment to the
organization. Current results support Levints-Gilai' view that attachment style should
be explored not only at the individual level, but also at the manager-subordinate
dyadic level. This suggests the possibility of a fruitful future line of research that will
explore the influence of one persons' attachment on others he or she interacts with.
Taking attachment style into account can also promote the effectiveness of
performance evaluation processes. Considering anxious individuals' preoccupation
with how they are valued (Hazan & Shaver, 1990), it might be found effective to
122
Eyal Rechter
provide anxious subordinates with clear behavioral goals that will make their
managers more satisfied with their performance. On the other hand, considering
avoidant individuals' preference to work alone (Hazan & Shaver, 1990), for
employees higher on avoidance it might be more effective to know what behaviors
will grant them more autonomy and decrease their reliance on others.
Considering the dyadic relationships can also help organizational placement to
be more effective. Secure managers might be better capable to adapt to varying needs
of their subordinates and anxious managers might be specifically equipped to provide
the natural needs of anxious subordinates. Other combinations might be found less
effective due to incompatible needs, such as avoidant managers finding it hard to
decentralize to avoidant subordinates and anxious managers having difficulties in
maintaining personal distance from them.
Performance Evaluations
Performance evaluations and feedback interventions are commonly used by
organizations (mainly) to improve performance. However, such interventions often
fail to achieve performance improvement (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Smither et al.,
2005) and lead to conflict and frustration (Coens & Jenkins, 2002). One reason for
this failure is that performance evaluations are characterized by anxiety and rejection,
by managers and employees alike (Coens & Jenkins, 2002; Rechter, 2006). These
negative emotions can lower employees' willingness to receive feedback about their
behavior (Trope & Netter, 1994), to remember less of what they are told (Ravid,
Rafaeli, & Grandey, in press) and to focus their attention mostly on cues that will help
them feel better, while disregarding important information (Trope & Netter, 1994).
On the other hand, positive emotions increase people's interest in and deep processing
of self-relevant critical information (as is normally required in performance
123
Eyal Rechter
evaluations and training programs), leading to stronger attitude change and behavioral
intentions (Raghunathan & Trope, 2002; Trope & Netter, 1994).
The finding that FFI can improve participants' mood (except for those with
low avoidance), suggests that people will be more open to critical information about
themselves (Trope & Netter, 1994) and to information that does not fit their previous
expectations (Isen, 2002). Thus, incorporating FFI in performance evaluations can be
not only effective through its focus on top performance and how to achieve it, but
help improve the effective use of the corrective approach traditionally used in
performance evaluations. Furthermore, FFI's positive influence on emotions can
potentially broaden employees' scope of attention and behavioral repertoire (e.g.,
Fredrickson, 1998). Thus, FFI can help both managers and employees to consider
more relevant information and realize more possible actions that can promote desired
goals (Gollwitzer, 1990). This is consistent with Kluger & Nir's (2010) call to use FFI
before using traditional performance appraisal and with the experience gained from a
few such applications (Kluger & Nir, 2010).
Appreciative Inquiry (AI)
Appreciative Inquiry is being practiced for nearly 25 years and its popularity
increases with time: a PsychNet database search of the keywords "appreciative" and
"inquiry" (done in October, 2010) provided 3 results in the first three years since
appreciative inquiry's first publication (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987), and 74 results
in the years 2008-2010. Though calls have been made to empirically examine its
effectivity (e.g., Grant & Humphries, 2006), response is still scarce (e.g., Bushe &
Kassam, 2005; Peelle, 2006). FFI is developed from the first stage of AI, the
appreciative interview, which is also focused on peak experiences, and is
characterized in large variations in length and protocol.
124
Eyal Rechter
There is no known theoretical attempt in the existing literature to explain the
specific mechanisms through which the appreciative interview affects participants.
The theory presented here suggests specific variables that are affected by FFI –
emotions, self-efficacy, learning and bonding. These variables are likely to be
influenced by AI's appreciative interview as well. Understanding these mechanisms,
and the specific aspects of FFI through which they operate, can promote the
effectiveness of AI through focusing on important aspects of the interview that should
be maintained, while others can be varied to fit specific circumstances and context.
For example, in some cases enhancing positive emotions might be more
important, while in others an increase of self-efficacy. In the former case, interviewers
can be instructed to focus on making their interviewees feel comfortable and to pay
special attention to the interview's atmosphere, surrounding and timing. In the latter
case, special attention can be directed to analyzing the enabling conditions and the
ways to recreate them in the future. Lastly, FFI can possibly offer an alternative to AI
when circumstances do not allow the resources for AI, which is highly demanding in
terms of time and manpower. Understanding the mechanisms through which FFI
operates can further enhance its effectiveness, as it provides opportunities to
specifically tailor an intervention to meet organization's most urgent needs.
Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS) / Positive Organizational Behavior (POB)
FFI is consistent with POS's goal of finding ways through which organizations
and their members function at their best (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003). It is also
consistent with POB's explicit goal of enhancing positive emotions (e.g., Fredrickson,
2003b; Isen, 2003). FFI provides a mean to positively influence people's emotions
while directly considering their work. This might be more effective to organizational
125
Eyal Rechter
performance than using alternative interventions that simply target emotions (e.g.,
Fredrickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek, & Finkel, 2008).
FFI aims at finding ways to enhance enabling conditions for top performance,
and through the Feedforward question, enhance the motivation to achieve it. This
approach corresponds to the concept of hope in positive organizational studies,
defined as having the combination of willpower – the drive to achieve a certain goal –
and waypower – the realization of ways to achieve it (Luthans & Jensen, 2002). Hope
and self-efficacy are two components of organizational positive psychological capital
(Avolio & Luthans, 2007), thus FFI might be found to increase it as well.
Lastly, findings related to Job Demands-Resources model (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007) suggest that social resources at the workplace moderate the
negative effects of the psychological and physiological demands of the job:
disengagement, exhaustion, absenteeism and leaving (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
FFI, through its effect on bonding, can build people's social resources, thus
diminishing negative effects of job demands.
Social Emotions at the Workplace
This work provides evidence regarding the unique contribution of social
emotions to the understanding of people's emotional states. Its contribution to
emotions research and theory are discussed below. However, people's emotional
reactions to organizational interventions provide specific contribution to the research
of emotions at the workplace.
Emotions are recognized to play in important part in various fields such as
performance (Fredrickson, 2003a; Hareli & Rafaeli, 2008; Isen & Reeve, 2005),
leadership (Bono et al., 2007), feedback (Raghunathan & Trope, 2002) and decision
126
Eyal Rechter
making (Isen, 2001). For each of these concepts, it is likely that social emotions can
have an explanatory power above and beyond that of general emotions.
For example, social emotions might be found especially important to
performance of tasks involving social interactions, such as sales and customer service.
Leadership research emphasizes the emotional bond between leaders and followers
(e.g., Shamir, 1991). Social emotions are likely to be part of this emotional bond, such
that not only the affective tone of interactions with a leader would affect her followers
(Bono et al., 2007), but specifically the social emotions they feel toward each other.
Social emotions between managers and subordinates might have a unique
explanatory power of subordinates' openness to and acceptance of feedback they
receive from their managers. They can also affect decision making (Isen, 2001), as
many decision making processes are done groups. Social emotions can potentially
influence group cohesiveness (Lott & Lott, 1965) and might also be related (either
positively or negatively) to groupthink (Janis, 1972).
Lastly, in the field of motivation, interpersonal relationships and bonding hold
a central importance in Maslow's (1943) social and esteem needs and Alderfer's
(1972) relatedness needs, McClelland's (1985) need for affiliation and in intrinsic
motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Naturally, social emotions constitute, at least partly,
people's social bonding with others.
FFI, as was shown here, provides organizations with effective means to
strengthen bonding between people in a professional context, and can therefore
contribute to effective management and development of the above concepts (i.e.,
performance, leadership, performance evaluations, decision making and motivation).
Such a measure that is developed here, that can tap people's social emotions
alongside their general emotions, can be of interested to other related fields such as
127
Eyal Rechter
emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990), or for Hareli and
Weiner's (2002) model of emotional consequences of success and failure, which they
see as emotions that include consideration of others, and even term them as social
emotions.
Strengths Development
Recently there has been a growing interest in strengths development (Roberts,
Spreitzer, Dutton, Heaphy, & Barker, 2005). Strengths are suggested to represent a
combination of natural talent, knowledge and skill in a certain area (e.g., analytical
skills or developing others), resulting in optimal performance across situations
(Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). This view is in line with Holland's (1985) claim that
people's occupational preferences and individual skills match, since through life,
personal preferences guide people's choice of activities, consequentially developing
their skills. Indeed, some findings suggest that managers' focus on subordinates'
strengths rather than weaknesses leads to higher engagement and increase loyalty to
the organization (Gallup, 2008).
FFI, through the analysis of peak experiences and focusing on personal
contribution, can be used to reveal employees' strengths and situations that enable
their expression. Organizations can use FFI to help employees to better craft their jobs
(e.g., Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) in a way that maximizes the use of their
strengths, while simultaneously enhancing their emotional well-being (Seligman et
al., 2005).
Implications to Emotions Research and Theory
This work suggests and establishes the concept of social emotions as a distinct
construct. Adopting the dimensional view of emotions (Russell, 1980; Russell &
Barrett, 1999; Tellegen, Watson, & Clark, 1999; Watson et al., 1999), current results
128
Eyal Rechter
have shown that the broad dimensions of positive and negative social emotions (SPE
and SNE) have a unique contribution to the understanding of people's emotional
reactions and states.
SSA analysis indicates that the social and general negative items are closer
together and tend to mix, while the social and general positive items are widely spread
and clearly distinct (see Preliminary Study 1's results). This might indicate either that
general and social negative emotions are more closely related to each other, or that the
items chosen do not represent the underlying constructs well enough. Fredrickson's
view of the differences between positive and negative emotions (Fredrickson, 1998)
coincides with the first alternative. Fredrickson suggests that the evolutionary role of
negative emotions is to preserve the organism's life, therefore direct behavior with
specific action tendencies (e.g., rage leads to attack). Positive emotions, on the other
hand, play a role in broadening people's resources, and do not have specific action
tendencies. This view can suggest that the facets of positive emotions might be wider
and more obscure than those of negative emotions.
As in the case of general emotions, social emotions can too be further
subdivided to more subtle categories, such as feelings of resentment (e.g., contempt,
scorn), hostility (e.g., rage , hatred), feelings of closeness (e.g., friendliness, intimacy)
or feelings of admiration (e.g., appreciation; Rechter et al., Work in progress). Further
research is still needed in order to construct a valid measure of social emotions, and to
establish its importance as an antecedent to other dependant variables, such as wellbeing, self-evaluation, and performance in various contexts.
A further contribution of the current findings is the use of a novel
manipulation to enhance positive emotions. The recall of positive personal
experiences is commonly used as an experimental manipulation to enhance positive
129
Eyal Rechter
mood (e.g., Isen, 2003; Raghunathan & Trope, 2002). Here it was found that sharing
such experiences is another alternative to achieve this goal. It was further found that
sharing such experiences through FFI simultaneously strengthen bonding between
partners. It will be interesting to examine, for example, if sharing past negative
experiences have a positive effect on social emotions, but a negative effect on general
emotions. Another point worth noting is that FFI was found to increase positive
emotions, despite the attention it directs to the gap between present situation and a
desired one that can potentially create negative emotions (e.g., Higgins, 1987).
Future research
At this point of FFI's development, future research should first focus on
deepening our understanding of FFI's influence on work-related variables (i.e., affect,
self-efficacy, learning, bonding and performance), while considering the part
attachment style plays on their correlations. FFI enjoys increasing popularity,
conducted both in Isreal (Bouskila-Yam & Kluger, in press) and world wide
(Budworth & Latham, work in progress; Chinotti, 2008), and can be easily practiced
using Kluger and Nir's (2010) detailed protocol (see also Kluger & Van Dijk, 2010).
A possible growing interest and practice of FFI (as any other novel practice) brings
with it the risk of misuse (Abrahamson, 1996; Bushe & Kassam, 2005). Thus,
establishing FFI's theoretical basis and its influence on performance should be the first
goals of future studies. Such understanding can help pointing out important aspects of
FFI that should be maintained and offer possible adjustments to better fit it to specific
circumstances and needs. This section will therefore mainly focus on future research
directly derived from the current work, and only briefly consider other variables that
might be relevant for future research.
130
Eyal Rechter
Two main future lines of research could best achieve these goals of providing
deeper theoretical understanding and further establish FFI's influence on performance:
controlled experiments, where variables can be manipulated and measured, should be
used to further establish the theoretical model suggested here; and field studies,
conducted in natural environment and professional context, should be done to further
assess FFI's practical implications, through measuring its influence on performance
and performance-related measures such as self-efficacy and bonding in the workplace.
I now provide guidelines and points to consider while planning future research.
Controlled Experiments
Using trained interviewers. Controlled experiments should be done using
trained interviewers, preferably ones with relatively lower levels of attachment
anxiety and avoidance. Using trained interviewers would minimize variations in FFI's
actual administration and the influence of the interpersonal interactions between
partners, and guarantee adherence to protocol. Moreover, trained research assistants
(rather than peers) can enhance interviewers' cooperation, and monitor and assess the
process. Results of Preliminary Study 2 suggest that trained interviewers (already
during the first interviews) can assess the FFI in a way that reflects important aspects
of it quality, and hence, its outcome. This would enable evaluating specific aspects of
FFI that contribute to it effectiveness when done appropriately. Such design can
further be used to assess the effect of ongoing training of FFI's administration.
Results could be used to improve instructions, guidance and training when
using peer interviews, increasing novice interviewers' ability to conduct FFI.
Following lines of research could then focus on the dyadic aspects of the interaction
and its consequences to FFI's results, in terms of attachment dimensions and relevant
individual differences. It is possible, for example, that FFI would be found more
131
Eyal Rechter
effective for participants with higher levels of extraversion. When using peer
interviews, experiments should incorporate group discussions of the interviews and
their implications to performance, similar to how FFI is done in organizations. Such
group work would allow participants who did not perform FFI as intended to learn
from their peers' experience and still benefit from the process.
Cultural differences. While conducting controlled experiments, samples
should be initially homogeneous (e.g., Israeli-born, native Hebrew speakers),
eliminating cultural differences that likely influenced the results of Studies 1 and 2.
Later, using different samples (such as immigrants, Muslims, Christians and Orthodox
Jews) can be generalized to cultural differences that predict FFI's effectiveness. For
example, it is possible that cultures characterized with low power distance (Hofstede
& Hofstede, 2005) or organizations whose cultures are less hierarchical (Greenberg &
Baron, 2008) or promote theory Y (McGregor, 2006) are more naturally suited for FFI
than cultures characterized with high distance power or organizations that are more
hierarchical or promote theory X.
Self-efficacy. Controlled experiments should allow consideration of ways to
promote the enabling conditions. This should be done though a guided written
processing (assessing possible measures to enhance or recreate conditions and
considering possible challenges and ways to overcome them). Alternatively,
participants could be given some time to consider the Feedforward question in private.
Self-efficacy is a part of Core Self Evaluation, (CSE; Judge, Erez, Bono, &
Thoresen, 2003), which encompasses generalized self-efficacy (Locke, McClear, &
Night, 1996), self-esteem (Harter, 1990), locus of control (Rotter, 1966) and
neuroticism (Watson, 2000). CSE was found to be a significant predictor of job
satisfaction, job performance and life satisfaction (Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge et al.,
132
Eyal Rechter
2003)52. As FFI focuses on the strengths and abilities people displayed during past
successes, and considering the possible reciprocal relationships between self-esteem
and strengths (Dodgson & Wood, 1998), FFI is likely to increase self-esteem.
Through its emphasis of the interviewees' influence and control over past and future
successes, FFI can situationally increase locus of control. Thus, FFI might be found to
positively influence not only self-efficacy, but also these aspects of CSE.
FFI's influence on the attachment system. Following results of study 1, FFI's
influence on the attachment system should be treated as a DV, examining whether this
influence does occur, its magnitude and length. Such examination can also provide
insight to the direction of influence and individual differences. It is possible, for
example, that while successful FFI eases the system, unsuccessful FFI activates it,
thus increasing anxiety and/or avoidance levels. It is also possible that participants'
avoidance level moderates the attachment system's activation by FFI.
Relationships between FFI's outcomes. Results suggest some systematic
relationships between the various outcomes of FFI, specifically, between learning and
emotions and self-efficacy. The correlations found here cannot lead to causal
explanations, but raise some theoretical questions with practical implications. For
example, if more positive emotions (and/or less negative emotions) would be found to
promote learning, a stronger emphasis to enhancing positive emotions can be given
during training. If learning would be found to lead to higher self-efficacy, FFI can be
more explicitly directed to the discovery of new knowledge, emphasizing detailed
stories, or additional stories. Such explorations can provide deeper understanding of
the ways FFI operates, and the role its specific aspects (like atmosphere, interpersonal
relationships, amount of past experience, etc.) play in its various outcomes.
52
Though see Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, (2003) for counter arguments and findings.
133
Eyal Rechter
Field Studies
Field studies offer a number important advantages to the exploration of FFI.
Employees have richer relevant experience to rely on when selecting the story they
share, and past work experience can be clearly linked to future plans. People with
some work experience can better understand FFI's rationale, and its potential
relevance to their own career. They can better relate to the rarity of a situation in
which they openly discuss their peak experience, recognizing their own contribution
and skills. They have more prior knowledge with each others and common
professional and organizational background. These differences between employees
and students enhance the likelihood of FFI's leading to actual performance
improvement, as was suggested in Field Studies 1 and 2.
On the individual level, FFI might be more effective for tasks that are less
structured, and those where individual characteristics have important consequences
for performance. In such tasks, such as teaching or service providing, crucial
conditions for top performance can be more idiosyncratic, and their understanding
through FFI especially beneficial. On the group level, group tasks that require
interpersonal cooperation, communication and knowledge of self and others'
individual strengths, are especially likely to benefit from FFI.
Beside obvious performance measures, such as supervisor' evaluations, sales
or customer satisfaction, other measures can be used to assess FFI's consequences,
such as group cooperation and communication or mutual knowledge and appreciation.
Since FFI can be fully incorporated in organizational worklife, rather then
used as a single incident, future field research can also examine reactions to multiple
FFIs, with participants who are familiar with the process. In this context, broader
organizational consequences can be measured, such as organizational commitment,
134
Eyal Rechter
absenteeism and turnover. If ongoing use of FFI can contribute to positive and
empowering work environment, it is likely to influence these often desired outcomes.
Conclusion
Along with being a first attempt to empirically examine a newly-developed
organizational intervention, this dissertation may be the first to offer a quantitative
evaluation of (FFI's variant of) the discovery stage of AI. While showing various
positive outcomes of the appreciative interview to most people, it also provides a
challenge to interpersonal interventions as a whole, by demonstrating that not all
participants react to it positively. This challenge calls to consider individual
differences in applying various interventions, since different people sometime react to
the same situation in a different manner. Following, there is a need to develop
interventions to address varying needs of individuals with different personalities.
The current findings further emphasis the need to consider contextual and
situation variables that, in addition to individual differences, can impact the effectivity
of such interventions.
Lastly, this work have shown that it is possible to induce positive mood,
enhance people's self-efficacy and create a sense of learning and belonging – all of
which have known benefits that were discussed throughout this dissertation – through
FFI. It was further showed that FFI can be used as an effective and economical means
to boost some aspects of work performance, thus being a useful method that can be
easily adopted by organizations.
135
Eyal Rechter
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management Fashion. Academy of Management Review,
21(1), 254-285.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In J.
Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior (pp.
11- 39). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, Relatedness, and Growth; Human <eeds in
Organizational Settings. New York: Free Press.
Anseel, F., Lievens, F., & Schollaert, E. (2009). Reflection as a Strategy to Enhance
Task Performance after Feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 110(1), 23-35.
Argyris, C. (1995). Action Science and Organizational Learning. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 6, 20-26.
Atwater, L. E., & Brett, J. F. (2005). Antecedents and Consequences of Reactions to
Developmental 360 Feedback. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 532-548.
Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive Psychological Capital: Measurement and
Relationship with Performance and Satisfaction. Personnel Psychology 60(3),
541-572.
Bach, S. (2000). From Performance Appraisal to Performance Management. In S.
Bach & K. Sisson (Eds.), Personnel Management: A Comprehensive Guide to
Theory and Practice (3 ed., pp. 241-263). Oxford: Blackwell Business.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources Model: State of
the Art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328.
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive Organizational Behavior: Engaged
Employees in Flourishing Organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
29(2), 147-154.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. American
Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human
Behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). Academic Press: New York Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
136
Eyal Rechter
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. In F. Pajares & T.
Urdan (Eds.), Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents (pp. 307-337). Greenwich,
CT: Information Age Publishing.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment Styles Among Young
Adults: A Test of Four-Category Model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.
Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2010). Social Psychology and Human <ature
(2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does High
Self-Esteem Cause Better Performance, Interpersonal Success, Happiness or
Healthier Lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1-44.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for
Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.
Boker, M. (2005, December 19th). Reinforcements, Shoulder, Conversation and
Perhaps Suspension. What's Changed? Haaretz, p. 2.
Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. (2007). Workplace Emotions:
The Role of Supervision and Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(5), 1357-1367.
Bouskila-Yam, O., & Kluger, A. N. (in press). Strength-Based Performance Appraisal
and Goal Setting Human Resource Management Review.
Bowlby, J. (1987). Attachment and Loss: Volume 1: Attachment: Penguin Books.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. (1998). Self-report Measurement of Adult
Attachment: An Integrative Overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes
(Eds.), Attachment Theory and Close Relationships (pp. 46-76). New York:
Guilford Press.
Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360º Feedback: Accuracy, Reactions, and
Perceptions of Usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 930-942.
Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., & Grassmann, R. (1998). Personal Goals and
Emotional Well-Being: The Moderating Role of Motive Dispositions. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 494-508.
Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. O. (2001). <ow, Discover Your Strenghts. New York:
The Free Press.
137
Eyal Rechter
Budworth, M.-H., & Latham, G. P. (work in progress). Looking Forward to
Performance Improvement: A Field Test of the Feedforward Interview for
Performance Management.
Bushe, G. R. (1998). Appreciative Inquiry with Teams. The Organizational
Development Journal, 16(3), 41-50.
Bushe, G. R. (2001a). Clear Leadership. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black.
Bushe, G. R. (2001b). Five Theories of Change Embedded in Appreciative Inquiry. In
D. Cooperrider, P. F. Sorenson, D. Whitney & T. Yeager (Eds.), Appreciative
Inquiry: An Emerging Direction for Organization Development (pp. 117-128).
Champaign, IL: Stipes.
Bushe, G. R., & Coetzer, G. (1995). Appreciative Inquiry as a Team-Development
Intervention: A Controlled Experiment. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 31(1), 13-30.
Bushe, G. R., & Kassam, A. F. (2005). When is Appreciative Inquiry
Transformational? A Meta-Case Analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 41(2), 161-181.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Positive Organizational
Scholarship: Foundations of a <ew Discipline. San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler Pubishers, Inc.
Campion, M. A., & McClelland, C. L. (1991). Interdisciplinary Examination of the
Costs and Benefits of Enlarged Jobs: A Job Design Quasi-Experiment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 186-198.
Campion, M. A., & McClelland, C. L. (1993). Follow-Up and Extension of the
Interdisciplinary Costs and Benefits of Enlarged Jobs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78(3), 339-351.
Carmeli, A., & Gittell, J. H. (2009). High-Quality Relationships, Psychological safety,
and Learning from Failures in Work Organizations. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 30, 709-729.
Carnevale, P. J. D., & Isen, A. M. (1986). The Influence of Positive Affect and Visual
Access on the Discovery of Integrative Solutions in Bilateral Negotiation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(1), 1-13.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and Self-Regulation: A ControlTheory Approach to Human Behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag Inc.
138
Eyal Rechter
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and Functions of Positive and Negative
Affect: A Control-Process View. Psychological Review, 97(1), 19-35.
Carver, C. S., Sutton, S. K., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Action, Emotion, and
Personality: Emerging Conceptual Integration. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26(6), 741-751.
Cherrington, D. J., & England, J. L. (1980). The Desire for an Enriched Job as a
Moderator of the Enrichment-Satisfaction Relationship. Organizational
behavior and Human Decision Performance, 25, 139--159.
Chinotti, O. (2008). Feedforward Technique to Strengthen Human Capital. Bergamo, Italy.
Coens, T., & Jenkins, M. (2002). Abolishing Performance Appraisals: Why They
Backfire and What to Do Instead. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Cooperrider, D. L. (1990). Positive Image, Positive Action: The Affirmative Basis of
Organizing. In S. Srivastva & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Appreciative
Management and Leadership: The Power of Positive Thought and Action in
Organizations (pp. 91-125). San Francisco - Oxford: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational
Life. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in
Organizational Change and Development: An Annual Series Featuring
Advances in Theory, Methodology and Research (Vol. 1, pp. 129-169). US:
Elsevier Science / JAI Press.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2001). A Positive Revolution in Change:
Appreciative Inquiry (draft). Retrieved October 25, 2006, from
http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/uploads/whatisai.pdf
Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive
Revolution in Change. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers Inc.
Davidson, R. J. (2003). Seven Sins in the Study of Emotion: Correctives from
Affective Neuroscience. Brain and Cognition, 52, 129-132.
DeLillo, D. (1985). White <oise. New York: Penguin.
Diehl, M., & Strpebe, W. (1987). Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Toward the
Solution of a Riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 489-509.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With
Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(4), 71-75.
139
Eyal Rechter
Dodgson, P. G., & Wood, J. V. (1998). Self-Esteem and the Cognitive Accessibility
of Strengths and Weaknesses After Failure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75(1), 178-197.
Drollinger, T., Comer, L. B., & Warrington, P. T. (2006). Development and
Validation of the Active Empathetic Listening Scale. Psychology &
Marketing, 23, 161−180.
Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. (2003). Coming to life: The Power of High Quality
Connections at Work. In K. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. Quinn (Eds.), Positive
Organizational Scholarship (pp. 263-278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Berrett-Kohler.
Dutton, J. E., & Sonenshein, S. (2007). Positive Organizational Scholarship. In S. Lopez &
A. Beauchamps (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology. London: Blackwell.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational Processes Affecting Learning. American
Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048.
Dweck, C. S. (2002). Beliefs That Make Smart People Dumb. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Why Smart People can be so Stupid (pp. 24-41). New Haven & London: Yale
University Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The <ew Psychology of Success (V. Ya'ari, Trans.).
New York: Random House.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A Social-Cognitive Approach to Motivation
and Personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273.
Dweek, C. S. (1986). Motivational Processes Affecting Learning. American
Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048.
Eady, P. M., & Lafferty, J. C. (1974). The Subarctic Survival Problem. Plymouth,
Mich.: Experiential Learning Methods.
Elron, E., & Goldenebrg, J. (1999). Brainstorming - Thunder and Lightening or a
Storm in a Teacup? Executive, 32 10-15.
Erez, A., & Isen, A. M. (2002). The Influence of Positive Affect on the Components
of Expectancy Motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1055-1067.
Estrada, C. A., Isen, A. M., & Young, M. J. (1994). Positive Affect Improves Creative
Problem Solving and Influences Reported Source of Practice Satisfaction in
Physicians. Motivation and Emotion, 18(4), 285-299.
Estrada, C. A., Isen, A. M., & Young, M. J. (1997). Positive Affect Facilitates Integration
of Information and Decreases Anchoring in Reasoning among Physicians.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(1), 117-135.
140
Eyal Rechter
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What Good Are Positive Emotions? Review of General
Psychology, 2(3), 300-319.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology.
American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003a). Positive Emotions and Upward Spirals in Organizations.
In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational
Scholarship (pp. 163-175). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, Inc.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003b). The Value of Positive Emotions. American Scientist, 91,
330-335.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive Emotions Broaden the Scope of
Attention and Though-Action Repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19(3), 313-332.
Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open
Hearts Build Lives: Positive Emotions, Induced Through Loving-Kindness
Meditation, Build Consequential Personal Resources. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1045-1062.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive Affect and the Complex
Dynamics of Human Flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678-686.
Fry, R., Barrett, F., Seiling, J., & Whitney, D. (Eds.). (2002). Appreciative Inquiry and
Organizational Transformation: Reports from the Field. Westport, CT: Quorum.
Gallup. (2008). Strengths-Based Development Brochure. Retrieved November, 04,
2010, from
http://www.gallup.com/consulting/File/122993/Strengths_Based_Developmen
t_Overview_Brochure.pdf
Gardner, C. B., & Gronfein, w. P. (2005). Reflections of Varieties of Shame
Induction, Shame Management, and Shame Avoidance in Some Works of
Erving Goffman. Symbolic Interaction, 28(2), 175-182.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New
York: Basic Books.
George, J. M. (1991). State or Trait: Effects of Positive Mood on Prosocial Behaviors
at Work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 299-307.
George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding Prosocial Behavior, Sales
Performance, and Turnover: A Group-Level Analysis in a Service Context.
141
Eyal Rechter
Gergen, K. J. (1982). Toward Transformation in Social Knowledge. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Gergen, K. J. (1990). Affect and Organization in Postmodern Society. In S. Srivastva
& D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Appreciative Management and Leadership: The
Power of Positive Thought and Action in Organizations (pp. 153-174). San
Francisco - Oxford: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and Relationships. Cambridge, MA.
Gervey, B., Igou, E. R., & Trope, Y. (2005). Positive Mood and Future-Oriented SelfEvaluation. Motivation and Emotion, 29(4), 269-296.
Goldenberg, J., & Mazursky, D. (2002). Creativity in Product Innovation: Cambridge Press.
Goldsmith, M. (2009). Try Feedforward Instead of Feedback [Electronic Version].
Retrieved July 2010 from
http://www.summary.com/_resources/www/soundview/_system/content/Auth
orNetwork/TryFeedforward.pdf.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. New
York: Bantam Books.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action Phases and Mindsets. In E. T. Higgins & J. R. M.
Sorrentino (Eds.), The Handbook of Motivation and Cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 53–
92). New York: Guilford.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation Intentions and Goal
Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of Effect and Processes. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119.
Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-Collectivism and Group Creativity.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 96-109.
Grant, S., & Humphries, M. (2006). Critical Evaluation of Appreciative Inquiry.
Action Research, 4(4), 401-418.
Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2008). Behavior in Organizations (9th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Educational.
Greller, M. M., & Herold, D. M. (1975). Sources of Feedback: A Preliminary
Investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 244-256.
Griffeth, R. W. (1985). Moderation of the Effects of Job Enrichment by Participation:
A Longitudinal Field Experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 35, 73-93.
142
Eyal Rechter
Guttman, L. (1968). A General Nonmetric Technique for Finding the Smallest
Coordinate Space for a Configuration of Points. Psychometrica, 33, 469-506.
Hallowell, E. M. (1999). The Human Moment at Work. Harvard Business Review, 77,
58-64.
Hareli, S., & Rafaeli, A. (2008). Emotion Cycles: On the Social Influence of Emotion
in Organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 35–59.
Hareli, S., & Weiner, B. (2002). Social Emotions and Personality Inferences: A
Scaffold for a New Direction in the Study of Achievement Motivation.
Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 183-193.
Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates and the Functional Role of Global Self-Worth: A
Life Span Perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & J. J. Kollingan (Eds.), Competence
Considered (pp. 67-97). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic Love Conceptualized as an Attachment
Process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and Work: An Attachment-Theoretical
Perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 270-280.
Heslin, P. A., & Latham, G. P. (2004). The Effect of Upward Feedback on Managerial
Behavior. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(1), 23-37.
Higgins, T. E. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect.
Psychological Review, 94(3), 319-340.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the
Mind, 2nd edition (2nd ed.): McGraw-Hill.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of vocational personalities
and work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ilgen, D. R., & Davis, C. A. (2000). Bearing Bad News: Reactions to Negative Performance
Feedback. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(3), 550-565.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of Individual Feedback
on Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349-371.
Isen, A. M. (2001). An Influence of Positive Affect on Decision Making in Complex
Situations: Theoretical Issues With Practical Implications. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 11(2), 75.
Isen, A. M. (2002). Missing in Action in the AIM: Positive Affect's Facilitation of Cognitive
Flexibility, Innovation, and Problem Solving. Psychological Inquiry, 13(1), 57-65.
143
Eyal Rechter
Isen, A. M. (2003). Positive Affect as a Source of Human Strength. In L. G.
Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A Psychology of Human Strengths:
Fundamental Questions and Future Directions for a Positive Psychology (pp.
179-195). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Isen, A. M., Clark, M., & Schwartz, M. F. (1976). Duration of the Effect of Good
Mood on Helping: "Footprints on the Sands of Time". Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 34(3), 385-393.
Isen, A. M., & Daubman, K. A. (1984). The Influence of Affect on Categorization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1206-1217.
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive Affect Facilitates Creative
Problem Solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1122-1131.
Isen, A. M., Johnson, M. M. S., Mertz, E., & Robinson, G. F. (1985). The Influence of
Positive Affect on the Unusualness of Word Associations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1413-1426.
Isen, A. M., & Reeve, J. (2005). The Influence of Positive Affect on Intrinsic and
Extrinsic Motivation: Facilitating Enjoyment of Play, Responsible Work
Behavior, and Self-Control. Motivation and Emotion, 29(4), 297-325.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Johnson, G. (2001). Building on Success: Transforming Organizations Through an
Appreciative Inquiry. Public Personnel Management, 30(1), 129-131.
Johnson, G., & Leavitt, W. (2001). Building on Success: Transforming Organizations
Through an Appreciative Inquiry. Public Personnel Management, 30(1), 129-136.
Johnston, M. A. (2000). Delegation and Organizational Structure in Small Businesses:
Influences of Manager's Attachment Patterns. Group and Organization
Management, 25(1), 4-22.
Jones, D. A. (1998). A Field Experiment in Appreciative Inquiry. Organization
Jones, D. A. (1999). Appreciative Inquiry: A Field Experiment Focusing on Turnover in
the Fast Food Industry. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Benedictine University.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of Core Self-Evaluations Traits Self-Esteem, Generalized Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and Emotional
Stability - With Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis.
144
Eyal Rechter
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations
Scale (CSES): Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303-331.
Kemper, T. D. (1991). Predicting Emotions from Social Relations. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 54(4), 330-342.
Kinni, T. (2003). Exploit What You Do Best. Harvard Management Update, 8(8).
Kluger, A. N., & Bouskila-Yam, O. (2010). Strengths-Based Performance Evaluation.
Paper presented at the IPAA.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). Effects of Feedback Intervention on
Performance: A Historical Review, a Meta-analysis, and a Preliminary
Feedback Intervention Theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284.
Kluger, A. N., & Nir, D. (2010). The Feedforward Interview. Human Resource
Management Review 20(3), 235-246.
Kluger, A. N., & Van Dijk, D. (2010). Feedback, the Various Tasks of the Doctor,
and the Feedforward Alternative. Medical Education, 44, 1166-1174.
Levints-Gilai, E. (2008). Attachment Style – The Organizational Glue: The Relationship
between Attachment Style and Organizational Commitment. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.
Levontin, L. (2008). Victory with no Victims: Amity Achievement Goals. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.
Levontin, L., & Kluger, A. N. (2004). Goal-Orientation Theory and RegulatoryFocus Theory: The "Conflicting" Effects of <egative Feedback. Paper
presented at the The 19th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology.
Levontin, L., & Rechter, E. (2008). More than PA & <A : The Activation of Social
Emotions. Paper presented at the The Israeli Forum for the Research of Emotions.
Lewin, K. (1947). Group Decision and Social Change. In T. M. Neweomb & E. L.
Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
Locke, E. A. (2001). Motivation by Goal Setting. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook
of Organizational Behavior (2 ed., pp. 43-54). New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting
and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New Directions in Goal-Setting Theory.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268.
145
Eyal Rechter
Locke, E. A., McClear, K., & Night, D. (1996). Self-Esteem and Work. International
Review of Industrial/Organizational Psychology, 11, 1-32.
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group Cohesiveness as Interpersonal Attraction: A
Review of Relationships with Antecedent and Consequent Variables.
Psychological Bulletin, 64(4), 259-309.
Ludema, J. D. (2002). Appreciative Storytelling: A Narrative Approach to
Organization Development and Change. In R. Fry, F. Barrett, J. Seiling & D.
Whitney (Eds.), Appreciative Inquiry and Organizational Transformation:
Reports from the Field (pp. 239-261). Westport, CT: Quorum.
Ludema, J. D., Cooperrider, D. L., & Barrett, F. J. (2001). Appreciative Inquiry: The
Power of the Unconditional Positive Question. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury
(Eds.), The Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry & Practice
(pp. 189-199). London: Sage.
Luthans, F. (2002). The Need for and Meaning of Positive Organizational Behavior.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 695-706.
Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2002). Hope: A New Positive Strength for Human
Resource Development. Human Resource Development Review, 1(3), 304-322.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There's No Place like Home? The
Contributions of Work and Nonwork Creativity Support to Employees'
Creative Performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 757-767.
Marsick, V. J., & O'Neil, J. (1999). The Many Faces of Action Learning.
Management Learning, 30(2), 159-176.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50,
370-396.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). How Motives, Skills and Values Determine What People
Do. American Psychologist, 40(7), 812-525.
McGregor, D. (2006). The Human Side of Enterprise: Anotated Edition: McGraw-Hill.
McNaughton, D., Hamlin, D., McCarthy, J., Head-Reeves, D., & Schreiner, M. (2007).
Learning to Listen: Teaching an Active Listening Strategy to Preservice Education
Professionals. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27(4), 223-231.
Mikulincer, M. (1988). Reactance and Helplessness Following Exposure to
Unsolvable Problems: The Effects of Attributional Style. Journal of
146
Eyal Rechter
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2000). Exploring Individual Differences in Reactions
to Mortality Salience: Does Attachment Style Regulate Terror Management
Mechanisms? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 260-273.
Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon, O. (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of selfdisclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 321-331.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment Theory and Emotions in Close
Relationships: Exploring the Attachment-Related Dynamics of Emotional
Reactions to Relational Events. Personal Relationships, 12(2), 149-168.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure,
Dynamics, and Change. New York: Guilford Press.
Morris, D., & Schiller, M. (2003). AI in Diversity Work: Avon Mexico [Electronic
Version]. Retrieved July 08, 2009 from
http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/uploads/Avon%20Short%20CaseDebbie%20Morris.doc.
Muchinsky, P. M. (2000). Emotions in the Workplace: The Neglect of Organizational
Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 801-805.
Newman, H. L., & Fitzgerald, S. P. (2001). Appreciative Inquiry with an Executive
Team: Moving Along the Action Research Continuum. Organizational
Nir, D. (work in progress). The "negotiational self": Applying integrative (win-win)
strategies to resolve inner conflict.
Oettingen, G., & Stephens, E. J. (2009). Fantasies and Motivationally Intelligent Goal
Setting. In G. B. Moskowitz & H. Grant (Eds.), The psychology of goals (pp.
153-178). New York: Guilford Press.
Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied Imagination. New York: Scribner.
Peelle, H. E. I. (2006). Appreciative Inquiry and Creative Problem Solving in CrossFunctional Teams. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(4), 447-467.
Plotnik, R., & Kouyoumdjian, H. (2008). Introduction to Psychology (8th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
Popper, M., Mayseless, O., & Castelnovo, O. (2000). Trasnsformational Leadership
and Attachment. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 267-289.
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and
Settlement. New York: Random House.
147
Eyal Rechter
Pugh, S. D. (2001). Service With a Smile: Emotional Contagion in the Service
Encounter. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1018-1027.
Rafaeli, A. (2004). Book Review: Emotions in the Workplace: Understanding the
Structure and Role of Emotions in Organizational Behavior. Human Relations,
57, 1343-1350.
Raghunathan, R., & Trope, Y. (2002). Walking the Tightrope Between Feeling Good
and Being Accurate: Mood as a Resource in Processing Persuasive Messages.
Ravid, S., Rafaeli, A., & Grandey, A. (in press). Expressions of Anger in Israeli Workplaces:
The Special Place of Customer Interactions. Human Resource Management Review.
Rechter, E. (2006). <ot all Employees are the Same: Organizational Feedback as an
Interpersonal Encounter. Paper presented at the International Congress of
Applied Psychology.
Rechter, E., Levontin, L., & Kluger, A. N. (Work in progress). Social Emotions.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Organizational Behavior (13th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Educational.
Roberts, L. M., Dutton, J. E., Spreitzer, G. M., Heaphy, E. D., & Quinn, R. E. (2005).
Composing the Reflected Best-Self Portrait: Building Pathways For Becoming
Extraordinary in Work Organizations. Academy of Management Review,
30(4), 712-736.
Roberts, L. M., Spreitzer, G., Dutton, J., Heaphy, E., & Barker, B. (2005). How to
Play to your Strengths. Harvard Business Review, 83, 74-80.
Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and Feeling: Evidence for an Accessibility
Model of Emotional Self-Report. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 934-960.
Rogers, C. R. (1946). Significant Aspects of Client-Centered Therapy. American
Psychologist, 1, 415-422.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of
Reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1-28.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A Circumplex Model of Affect. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161-1178.
Russell, J. A., & Barrett, L. F. (1999). Core Affect, Prototypical Emotional Episodes,
and Other Things Called Emotion: Dissecting the Elephant. Journal of
148
Eyal Rechter
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of
Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American
Saavedra, R., & Earley, P. C. (1991). Choice of Task and Goal Under Conditions of
General and Specific Affective Inducement. Motivation and Emotion, 15(1), 45-65.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition,
and Personality, 9, 185-211.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job Demands, Job Resources, and their
Relationship with Burnout and Engagement: A Multi-Sample Study. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315.
Scheff, T. J., & Retzinger, S. M. (2003). Shame As The Master Emotion Of Everyday
Life. Journal of Mundane Behavior, 1(3), 303-324.
Schiller, M. (2002). Imagining Inclusion: Men and Women in Organizations. In R.
Fry, F. Barrett, J. Seiling & D. Whitney (Eds.), Appreciative Inquiry and
Organizational Transformation: Reports from the Field (pp. 149-164).
Westport, Connecticut Quorum Books.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1999). The President's Address. American Psychologist, 54(8),
559-562.
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive
Psychology Progress: Empirical Validation of Interventions. American
Shamir, B. (1991). The Charismatic Relationship: Alternative Explanations and
Predictions. The Leadership Quarterly, 2, 81-104.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The Motivational Effects of
Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory. Organizational
Science, 4(4), 577-594.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support Seeking and Support
Giving Within Couples in an Anxiety-provoking Situation: The Role of
Attachment Styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 1992.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Ori‫ס‬a, M. M., & Grich, J. (2002). Working Models of
Attachment, Support Giving, and Support Seeking in a Stressful Situation.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 598-608.
149
Eyal Rechter
Smither, J. E., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does Performance Improve
Following Multisource Feedback? A Theoretical Model, Meta-Analysis, and
Review of Empirical Findings. Personnel Psychology, 58, 33-66.
Spatz, D. A. (2002). Justice Perceptions and Emotional Reactions to Different Social
Account Episodes: Creating a Case for and Appreciative Account.
Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Benedictine University.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful Intelligence: How Practical and Creative
Intelligence Determine Success in Life. New York: Plume.
Sy, T., Coˆte´, S. p., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The Contagious Leader: Impact of the
Leader’s Mood on the Mood of Group Members, Group Affective Tone, and
Group Processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 295-305.
Tellegen, A., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1999). On the Dimensional and
Hierarchical Structure of Affect. Psychological Science, 10(4), 297-303.
Thompson, L. (1990). An Examination of Naive and Experienced Negotiators.
Trope, Y., & Netter, E. (1994). Reconciling Competing Motives in Self-Evaluation:
The Role of Self-Control in Feedback Seeking. Journal of Personality and
Trope, Y., & Pomerantz, E. M. (1998). Resolving Conflicts Among Self-Evaluative
Motives: Positive Experiences as a Resource for Overcoming Defensiveness.
Motivation and Emotion, 22(1), 53-72.
Tulving, E. (1993). What is Episodic Memory. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 2(3), 67-70.
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding Specificity and Retrieval Processes
in Episodic Memory. Psychological Review, 80(5), 352-373.
Uziel, L. (2006). The Extraverted and the Neurotic Glasses are of Different Colors.
Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 745-754.
Van der Haar, D., & Hosking, D. M. (2004). Evaluating Appreciative Inquiry: A
Relational Constructionist Perspective. Human Relations, 57(8), 1017-1036.
Vandewalle, D. (2001). Why Wanting to Look Successful Doesn’t Always Lead to
Success. Organizational Dynamics,, 30(2), 162-171.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.
150
Eyal Rechter
Wallbot, H. G., & Scherer, K. R. (1986). The Antecedents of Emotional Experience. In K.
R. Scherer, H. G. Wallbott & A. B. Summerfield (Eds.), Experiencing Emotion: A
Cross-cultural Study (pp. 69-83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wanous, J. P., & Youtz, M. A. (1986). Diversity and the Quality of Group Decisions.
The Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 149-159.
Watson, D. (2000). Mood and Temperament. New York: Guilford.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule - Expanded Form [Electronic Version]. Retrieved
May 10, 2006 from http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/Clark/PANAS-X.pdf.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and Validation of
Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The Two General
Activation System of Affect: Structural Findings, Evolutionary
Considerations, and Psychobiological Evidence. Journal of Personality and
Whitney, D., & Trosten-Bloom, A. (2003). The Power of Appreciative Inquiry: A Practical
Guide to Positive Change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publisher, inc.
Whyte, W. F. (1989). Advancing Scientific Knowledge through Participatory Action
Research. Sociological Forum, 4(3), 367-385.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989a). Impact of Conceptions of Ability on SelfRegulatory Mechanisms and Complex Decision Making. Journal of
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989b). Social Cognitive Theory or Organizational
Management. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384.
Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive Organizational Behavior: An Idea Whose Time Has
Truly Come. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4), 437-442.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a Job: Revisioning employees as
Active Crafters of their Work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.
Yaeger, T. F., Sorensen, P. F., & Bengtsson, U. (2005). Assessment of the State of
Appreciative Inquiry: Past, Present, and Future. Research in Organizational
Change and Development, 15, 297-319.
151
‫‪Feedforward Interview‬‬
‫‪Eyal Rechter‬‬
‫‪APPENDICES‬‬
‫‪Appendix 1: General and Social Emotions Item, Versions 1, 2, 3‬‬
‫השאלון הנוכחי כולל מספר מילים המתארות רגשות‪ .‬קרא‪/‬י כל מילה וסמן‪/‬י לצידה את הספרה המתאימה לתיאור הרגשתך‪.‬‬
‫סמן‪/‬י בהתאם להרגשתך כעת‪ ,‬כלומר‪ ,‬הרגשתך ברגע זה‪ .‬בסימונך‪ ,‬השתמש‪/‬י בסולם הבא‪:‬‬
‫הרבה מאוד‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫עניין‬
‫‪Version 1‬‬
‫קירבה‬
‫הרבה‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫עניין‬
‫חיבור‬
‫במידה מסוימת‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫מעט מאוד או כלל לא‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫מעט‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫)‪Version 2 (English‬‬
‫‪interested‬‬
‫‪lonely‬‬
‫עניין‬
‫מבוכה‬
‫מצוקה‬
‫שותפות‬
‫התרגשות‬
‫בדידות‬
‫הבנה‬
‫אמפתיה‬
‫אשמה‬
‫ניתוק‬
‫כנות‬
‫מצוקה‬
‫הבנה‬
‫מצוקה‬
‫בדידות‬
‫אמפתיה‬
‫הבנה‬
‫‪empathic‬‬
‫דאגה‬
‫ניתוק‬
‫דאגה‬
‫אמפתיה‬
‫‪detached‬‬
‫‪upset‬‬
‫חוזק‬
‫כנות‬
‫חוזק‬
‫ניתוק‬
‫‪disjointed‬‬
‫‪strong‬‬
‫אשמה‬
‫עלבון‬
‫אשמה‬
‫כנות‬
‫‪honest‬‬
‫‪guilty‬‬
‫פחד‬
‫השפלה‬
‫פחד‬
‫עלבון‬
‫‪insulted‬‬
‫‪scared‬‬
‫פחד‬
‫עוינות‬
‫פתיחות‬
‫עוינות‬
‫השפלה‬
‫‪affronted‬‬
‫‪hostile‬‬
‫עוינות‬
‫עלבון‬
‫התלהבות‬
‫ריחוק‬
‫פתיחות‬
‫‪humiliated‬‬
‫‪enthusiastic‬‬
‫השפלה‬
‫גאווה‬
‫הערכה‬
‫גאווה‬
‫ריחוק‬
‫‪open‬‬
‫‪proud‬‬
‫גאווה‬
‫פתיחות‬
‫מתח‬
‫קנאה‬
‫מתח‬
‫הערכה‬
‫‪distant‬‬
‫‪irritable‬‬
‫מתח‬
‫ריחוק‬
‫עירנות‬
‫אינטימיות‬
‫עירנות‬
‫קנאה‬
‫‪appreciative‬‬
‫‪alert‬‬
‫עירנות‬
‫הערכה‬
‫בושה‬
‫עצב‬
‫בושה‬
‫‪jealous‬‬
‫‪ashamed‬‬
‫בושה‬
‫קנאה‬
‫השראה‬
‫הנאה‬
‫השראה‬
‫געגוע‬
‫‪intimate‬‬
‫‪inspired‬‬
‫השראה‬
‫עצבנות‬
‫הקלה‬
‫עצבנות‬
‫אהבה‬
‫‪longing‬‬
‫‪nervous‬‬
‫עצבנות‬
‫אהבה‬
‫נחישות‬
‫עוצמה‬
‫נחישות‬
‫רחמים‬
‫‪loving‬‬
‫‪determined‬‬
‫נחישות‬
‫רחמים‬
‫קשב‬
‫שלווה‬
‫חוסר‪-‬שקט‬
‫בוז‬
‫‪merciful‬‬
‫‪attentive‬‬
‫בוז‬
‫חולשה‬
‫פעלתנות‬
‫סלידה‬
‫‪contemptuous‬‬
‫‪jittery‬‬
‫סלידה‬
‫אכזבה‬
‫חשש‬
‫הערצה‬
‫‪scornful‬‬
‫‪active‬‬
‫חשש‬
‫ערך עצמי‬
‫סימפטיה‬
‫תיעוב‬
‫‪loathsome‬‬
‫‪afraid‬‬
‫חשש‬
‫הערצה‬
‫חרדה‬
‫חיבה‬
‫שביעות רצון‬
‫‪averse‬‬
‫‪sympathetic‬‬
‫חיבה‬
‫תקווה‬
‫מבוכה‬
‫תחושת גדילה‬
‫‪admiring‬‬
‫‪fond‬‬
‫מבוכה‬
‫תסכול‬
‫‪abhorrent‬‬
‫‪affectionate‬‬
‫שותפות‬
‫שביעות רצון‬
‫‪satisfied‬‬
‫‪embarrassed‬‬
‫כעס‬
‫תחושת גדילה‬
‫‪growing‬‬
‫‪connected‬‬
‫שמחה‬
‫‪152‬‬
‫‪understanding‬‬
‫‪distressed‬‬
‫‪excited‬‬
‫דאגה‬
‫חוזק‬
‫חיבה‬
‫תיעוב‬
Eyal Rechter
Appendix 2: Pilot Study for Study 1
Preliminary Study 3: Pilot Study
Introduction
The main goal of the pilot study was to choose the performance task to be used
for testing the theoretical model in Study 1. Additional goals were to provide
preliminary examination of FFI's effects on emotions, individual and group
performance, and assessment of the process by participants and observers. The
experiment was performed as a project in an MBA Research Methods in
Organizational Behavior course, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (academic
year 2006-7); the students were the experimenters of the pilot study.
Since FFI is based on positive interpersonal interaction, it was desired to find a
task that involves teamwork and interpersonal dynamics. Using AI (of which FFI is a
variant of the appreciative interview stage) has been found before to be an affective
intervention in teams, specifically in newly-formed teams (Bushe, 1998; Peelle,
2006). These findings suggest that FFI can have a strong effect on performance in
teamwork context. Another important condition for task choice was that participants
would be able to relate relevant past experiences (that they were to describe in the
FFI) to the task they were facing. This way, meaningful interview-questions could be
tailored to the specific task, helping participants recall relevant past experiences to
enable meaningful (and applicable) learning.
Four tasks were tested: presenting a dialogue in front of an audience, survival
task, stimulation of a negotiation, and brainstorming (which was subsequently
chosen). I will now describe the each task and the rationale behind choosing it.
Giving a presentation in front of an audience can be an anxiety-enhancing
situation. FFI relating to past experiences where the interviewee enjoyed giving a
153
Eyal Rechter
presentation or facing others could relieve this anxiety, above FFI's other influences,
and therefore help participants to per-form better. Survival tasks
(e.g., Eady &
Lafferty, 1974), in which participants rate importance of various objects to survival in
a certain setting (such as in tropical or subarctic conditions), are popular group tasks
that provide measures of individual and group performance, as well as group
cohesiveness, communication and cooperation (e.g., Wanous & Youtz, 1986). FFI
may enhance group cooperation, above its other influences. <egotiation is a situation
where non-optimal strategies of competition and optimal strategies of cooperation can
be clearly distinguished. While competing, each side is focused on maximizing his
own outcome at the expense of his counterpart (leading to win-lose solutions). While
cooperating, both sides join forces in an effort achieve an integrative outcome that
will fulfill both' important interests (win-win outcome; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986).
Integrative bargaining (leading to win-win outcomes) was found to be related to
positive affect (Carnevale & Isen, 1986), so FFI may encourage participants to
consider both sides and be more cooperative in a negotiation situation, above FFI's
other influences. Brainstorming (Osborn, 1957) is a popular ideation method aimed to
enhance creativity through mutual inspiration and group synergy, and can provide
both individual and group performance measures. Though not superior to other
methods (Diehl & Strpebe, 1987), successful brainstorming requires participants to
avoid self-censorship while expressing their own ideas, and to cooperate with and be
open to others' ideas so mutual fertilization can occur, leading to better group
performance (Osborn, 1957; Goldenberg & Elron, 1999). It is therefore seems like a
group task that can be positively affected by FFI, through helping participants feel
more comfortable, facilitate their creativity and increase their cooperation, above its
other influences.
154
Eyal Rechter
Method
Participants
A total of 116 subjects participated, either as a voluntary class activity
(survival task, N=23 and brainstorming task, N=30), for course credits (negotiation
task, N=32), or as an activity of a pre-army leadership training program (presentation
task, N=31). Participants were randomly assigned to FFI or no-treatment conditions,
and performed the task in groups of 2-6 (depending on the task).
Tasks and Measures
Emotions. Emotions were measured using the emotions questionnaire
described above (version 3, see appendix 1).
Group tasks and performance measures. Measures ranged from judges' ratings
(presenting a dialogue), participants' ratings (brainstorming) and various quantitative
measures derived from each task.
Procedure
In each task, half of the participants were randomly assigned to FFI or control
(no treatment condition). Participants in the FFI conditions were interviewed first
(except in the survival task when they made their individual ratings before), then all
participants filled out the emotions questionnaires, and performed their task.
Results
Since this was a pilot study, and sample sizes were small, results are
summarized and not detailed here.
Emotions. Both PA and SPE scales were significantly higher in the FFI
condition than in the control condition in the brainstorming task (PA: t28=1.70, p<.05;
SPE: t28=1.78, p<.05). They were marginally higher in the survival task (PA: t20=1.66,
p<.1; SPE: t20=1.62, p<.1), and there were no significant differences in the other two
155
Eyal Rechter
tasks. The negative emotions scales were not affected by the experimental
manipulations.
t values of Emotions Differences between FFI and Control Conditions
Cronbach
Survival Negotiation Brainstorming
Alphas
df=20
df=30
df=28
PA
.81-.87
1.66†
0.83
1.70*
NA
.80-.84
0.8
-0.98
0.39
SPE
.82-.89
1.62†
0.77
1.78*
SNE
.50-.70
-0.07
-1.31
-0.5
* Raw data for the dialogue task is missing; there were no significant
differences.
Performance. Most performance measures were not affected by the
experimental manipulations. Only in the brainstorming task, FFI participants
produced marginally more ideas than control participants (6.67 vs. 9.13, t28=1.5,
p<.1). Ratings of the process were higher in the FFI condition by both participants'
(t28=1.59, p<.1) and judges' (t28=2.93, p<.01). Moreover, FFI groups took significantly
longer time (t18=10.80, p<.001) to choose the best five ideas, and while none of the
FFI groups failed to reach a decision within the allotted time, two of the three control
groups failed to reach a decision at all.
156
Eyal Rechter
Survival
Brainstorming
Table 35: Preliminary Study 3: Dependent Variables Comparisons
of Individual and Groups Performance Measures Between FFI and
Control Conditions – Survival Task
Control Conditions – Brainstorming Task
t
Individual Measures
Performance
Flexibility
-3.00 **
1.3
Group Measures
Performance
Flexibility
-2.86 *
2.01 †
t
N=23, df (individual)=21, df(group)=4, **p<.01, *p<.05, †p<.1
Since individual performance was done before the experimental
manipulation, it cannot be ascribed to it, and can explain the
group performance difference, that opposed the hypothesis.
Individual Measures
Judges Ratings
Participants Ratings
Number of Ideas
2.93 **
1.59 †
1.50 †
Group Measures
Total no. of ideas
Number of categories
Judges ratings
Members ratings
1.28
.72
3.18 *
2.52 *
Negotiation
Control Conditions – Survival Task
t
Individual Measures
Individual Performance
Willingness to cooperate
in the future
Group Performance
.14
.95
.35
++ Raw data for the dialogue task is missing; there were no
significant differences between the groups.
Discussion
Results suggest a possible (though weak) support for the positive influence of
FFI on positive emotions, but not on negative emotions. Since in most tasks (except
for the survival task) FFI and emotions reports were conducted prior to the
experimental task, differences in results could not be ascribed to the tasks, but rather
to other characteristics such as experimenter effect, contextual variables or simply
statistical noise. Results also suggest that FFI can increase positive emotions even
when performed by untrained participants, as was done in the survival task (which
used peers-interview design). It should be noted, however, that FFI's effects in this
157
Eyal Rechter
case were found when it was conducted during the experiment and not prior to it,
which may indicate a short-lived effect. Furthermore, since FFI was compared with
no-treatment, it is possible that merely the pleasant interaction made participants feel
good (where it did). Results further provide weak support to the hypothesis that FFI
positively influence performance (in the brainstorming task). Lastly, it was found that
both participants' and observers' perceptions can be used to measure FFI's outcomes.
Some facts should be taken into account while considering these results: First,
in some cases FFI was conducted by untrained interviewers (some of the research
assistants or participants themselves), and in non-optimal conditions (background
noises, public place, strict time-constrains) which are likely to impair its effect.
Second, weak statistical power (sample sizes up to 30 for each task) may hinder
detecting small to medium effect sizes.
Since brainstorming showed some performance differences (37% higher in the
FFI compared with no-treatment condition) and significant difference in performance
rating, this task was chosen for Study 1.
Overall, the pilot study achieved its goals: suggesting a task of choice for
Study 1 – brainstorming; and providing some further support for FFI's positive
influence on emotions.
158
‫)‪Appendix 3: Attachment Questionnaire (used in Studies 1 and 2‬‬
‫נבדק‪/‬ת יקר‪/‬ה‪,‬‬
‫המשפטים שלפניך מתייחסים לאיך את‪/‬ה מרגיש‪/‬ה במערכות יחסים קרובות עם אנשים אחרים‪ ,‬במשפטים‬
‫הבאים המונח "אנשים אחרים" מתייחס לאנשים הנמצאים ביחסים קרובים אתך‪ .‬אנו מתעניינים בדרך שבה את‪/‬ה חווה‬
‫בדרך כלל מערכות יחסים‪ .‬התייחס‪/‬י לכל משפט ע"י דירוג עד כמה את‪/‬ה מסכים‪/‬ה או אינך מסכים‪/‬ה אתו‪ ,‬על ידי‬
‫שימוש בסולם שלהלן‪:‬‬
‫מאד לא‬
‫מאד מסכימה‬
‫מסכימה‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫‪9‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫‪11‬‬
‫‪12‬‬
‫‪13‬‬
‫‪14‬‬
‫‪15‬‬
‫‪16‬‬
‫‪17‬‬
‫‪18‬‬
‫‪19‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫‪21‬‬
‫‪22‬‬
‫‪23‬‬
‫‪24‬‬
‫‪25‬‬
‫‪26‬‬
‫‪27‬‬
‫‪28‬‬
‫‪29‬‬
‫‪30‬‬
‫‪31‬‬
‫‪32‬‬
‫‪33‬‬
‫‪34‬‬
‫‪35‬‬
‫‪36‬‬
‫‪159‬‬
‫אני מעדיפה לא להראות לאנשים אחרים כיצד אני מרגישה בפנים‬
‫אני מודאגת מכך שאנטש‬
‫אני מרגישה בנוח להיות קרובה לאנשים אחרים‬
‫אני דואגת לגבי מערכות היחסים שלי‬
‫אני מתרחקת כאשר אנשים אחרים מתחילים להתקרב אלי‬
‫אני מודאגת שמא לאנשים אחרים לא יהיה איכפת ממני באותה מידה שבה לי‬
‫איכפת מהם‬
‫אני מרגישה לא בנוח כאשר אנשים אחרים רוצים להיות קרובים אלי‬
‫אני מודאגת מכך שאאבד את האנשים הקרובים לי‬
‫אני לא מרגישה בנוח להיפתח לאנשים אחרים‬
‫הייתי רוצה שרגשותיהם של אנשים אחרים כלפי יהיו חזקים כמו רגשותיי כלפיהם‬
‫אני רוצה להתקרב לאנשים אחרים אבל אני ממשיכה לסגת מהם‬
‫לעיתים קרובות אני רוצה להתמזג באופן מוחלט עם אנשים אחרים‪ ,‬וזה לפעמים‬
‫מרחיק אותם ממני‬
‫אני נעשית מתוחה כאשר אנשים אחרים מתקרבים אלי יותר מידי‬
‫אני חוששת מלהיות לבד‬
‫אני מרגישה נוח לחלוק את המחשבות והרגשות הפרטיים שלי עם אנשים אחרים‬
‫הרצון שלי להיות מאד קרובה‪ ,‬לעיתים מרחיק ממני אנשים‬
‫אני מנסה להימנע מלהתקרב יותר מידי לאנשים אחרים‬
‫אני נזקקת להרבה אישורים לכך שאני אהובה על ידי אנשים הקרובים לי‬
‫אני מרגישה שזה קל לי יחסית להתקרב לאנשים אחרים‬
‫לפעמים אני מרגישה שאני מכריחה אנשים אחרים להראות יותר רגשות ויותר‬
‫מחויבות‬
‫קשה לי להיות תלויה באנשים אחרים‬
‫אינני מודאגת לעיתים קרובות מדי מכך שינטשו אותי‬
‫אני מעדיפה שלא להיות קרוב מדי לאנשים אחרים‬
‫אם אינני מצליחה לגרום לאנשים אחרים להראות בי עניין‪ ,‬אני נעשית כועסת או‬
‫מתוסכלת‬
‫אני מספרת לאנשים הקרובים לי הכל‬
‫אני מרגישה שאנשים אחרים אינם רוצים להתקרב כפי שאני הייתי רוצה‬
‫בדרך כלל אני דנה בבעיות ובדאגות שלי עם אנשים הקרובים לי‬
‫כאשר אני לא מעורבת במערכת יחסים‪ ,‬אני מרגישה חרדה וחוסר ביטחון מסוים‬
‫אני מרגישה בנוח להיות תלויה באנשים אחרים‬
‫אני נעשית מתוסכלת כאשר אנשים אחרים לא נמצאים איתי במידה בה הייתי‬
‫רוצה שיהיו‬
‫לא איכפת לי לפנות לאנשים אחרים על מנת לבקש נחמה‪ ,‬עצה או עזרה‬
‫אני נעשית מתוסכלת אם אנשים אחרים אינם זמינים כאשר אני זקוקה להם‬
‫זה עוזר לי לפנות לאנשים אחרים ברגעים שאני זקוקה להם‬
‫כאשר אנשים אחרים אינם נותנים לי אישור‪ ,‬אני מרגישה ממש רע לגבי עצמי‬
‫אני פונה לאנשים אחרים בקשר להרבה דברים כולל נחמה ואישור‬
‫זה מעורר בי התנגדות כאשר אנשים קרובים לי מבלים זמן רב הרחק ממני‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
Eyal Rechter
Appendix 4: Study 1: HLM Results
The outcome variable is NUMIDEAS
Final estimation of fixed effects:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------Standard
Approx.
Fixed Effect
Coefficient
Error
T-ratio
d.f.
P-value
---------------------------------------------------------------------------For
INTRCPT1, B0
INTRCPT2, G00
16.291381
2.830795
5.755
60
0.000
COND12_3, G01
-0.501729
0.816153
-0.615
60
0.541
COND1_2, G02
-0.482599
0.838035
-0.576
60
0.566
GRPN, G03
-1.726580
0.722806
-2.389
60
0.020
For
SP slope, B1
INTRCPT2, G10
-6.581406
5.747665
-1.145
211
0.254
COND12_3, G11
2.668133
1.542453
1.730
211
0.085
COND1_2, G12
-3.781093
1.650472
-2.291
211
0.023
GRPN, G13
1.454091
1.444481
1.007
211
0.316
For
SN slope, B2
INTRCPT2, G20
-0.324832 10.557685
-0.031
211
0.976
COND12_3, G21
4.639041
3.187779
1.455
211
0.147
COND1_2, G22
-2.897454
3.556660
-0.815
211
0.416
GRPN, G23
-0.874381
2.750428
-0.318
211
0.751
For SELFEFF slope, B3
INTRCPT2, G30
1.533775
4.156619
0.369
211
0.712
COND12_3, G31
-0.009469
1.180226
-0.008
211
0.994
COND1_2, G32
-0.911947
1.176981
-0.775
211
0.439
GRPN, G33
-0.293937
1.073361
-0.274
211
0.784
For
ANX slope, B4
INTRCPT2, G40
-1.782628
4.233714
-0.421
211
0.674
COND12_3, G41
-1.306811
1.308693
-0.999
211
0.320
COND1_2, G42
0.349321
1.216504
0.287
211
0.774
GRPN, G43
0.695917
1.079462
0.645
211
0.520
For
AVO slope, B5
INTRCPT2, G50
3.669274
5.508622
0.666
211
0.506
COND12_3, G51
-1.381848
1.287795
-1.073
211
0.285
COND1_2, G52
0.891008
1.367184
0.652
211
0.515
GRPN, G53
-1.120595
1.413167
-0.793
211
0.429
--------------------------------------------------------------------------The outcome variable is NUMIDEAS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------Standard
Approx.
Fixed Effect
Coefficient
Error
T-ratio
d.f.
P-value
---------------------------------------------------------------------------For
INTRCPT1, B0
INTRCPT2, G00
16.291407
2.864865
5.687
60
0.000
COND12_3, G01
-0.501716
0.825973
-0.607
60
0.546
COND1_2, G02
-0.482597
0.848118
-0.569
60
0.571
GRPN, G03
-1.726590
0.731505
-2.360
60
0.022
For
PA slope, B1
INTRCPT2, G10
-6.343081
5.189702
-1.222
211
0.223
COND12_3, G11
3.367388
1.596108
2.110
211
0.036
COND1_2, G12
-2.369143
1.505593
-1.574
211
0.117
GRPN, G13
1.381379
1.308422
1.056
211
0.293
For
NA slope, B2
INTRCPT2, G20
-12.457930
6.900799
-1.805
211
0.072
COND12_3, G21
2.869968
1.763302
1.628
211
0.105
COND1_2, G22
-3.340448
2.049227
-1.630
211
0.104
GRPN, G23
2.859574
1.753862
1.630
211
0.104
INTRCPT2, G30
1.459806
4.237435
0.345
211
0.731
COND12_3, G31
0.686878
1.188994
0.578
211
0.564
COND1_2, G32
-1.727857
1.208474
-1.430
211
0.154
GRPN, G33
-0.380872
1.099554
-0.346
211
0.729
For
ANX slope, B4
INTRCPT2, G40
-1.582248
4.325089
-0.366
211
0.715
COND12_3, G41
-0.653707
1.283938
-0.509
211
0.611
COND1_2, G42
0.059337
1.191155
0.050
211
0.961
GRPN, G43
0.471074
1.094768
0.430
211
0.667
For
AVO slope, B5
INTRCPT2, G50
6.893748
5.190794
1.328
211
0.186
COND12_3, G51
-1.407246
1.309732
-1.074
211
0.284
COND1_2, G52
1.111618
1.329914
0.836
211
0.404
GRPN, G53
-1.904333
1.333520
-1.428
211
0.155
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
160
Eyal Rechter
The outcome variable is INDTOTAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Standard
Approx.
Fixed Effect
Coefficient
Error
T-ratio
d.f.
P-value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------For
INTRCPT1, B0
INTRCPT2, G00
5.405302
0.759627
7.116
60
0.000
COND12_3, G01
0.245057
0.224000
1.094
60
0.279
COND1_2, G02
-0.072924
0.231660
-0.315
60
0.754
GRPN, G03
-0.067030
0.195645
-0.343
60
0.733
For
PA slope, B1
INTRCPT2, G10
-0.089743
0.934063
-0.096
211
0.924
COND12_3, G11
0.120446
0.287274
0.419
211
0.675
COND1_2, G12
-0.165059
0.270982
-0.609
211
0.543
GRPN, G13
0.056688
0.235495
0.241
211
0.810
For
NA slope, B2
INTRCPT2, G20
-1.711188
1.242033
-1.378
211
0.170
COND12_3, G21
0.617876
0.317366
1.947
211
0.052
COND1_2, G22
-0.125716
0.368828
-0.341
211
0.733
GRPN, G23
0.256547
0.315667
0.813
211
0.417
INTRCPT2, G30
-0.280565
0.762670
-0.368
211
0.713
COND12_3, G31
0.232763
0.214000
1.088
211
0.278
COND1_2, G32
-0.308719
0.217506
-1.419
211
0.157
GRPN, G33
0.064409
0.197902
0.325
211
0.745
For
ANX slope, B4
INTRCPT2, G40
-0.017631
0.778446
-0.023
211
0.982
COND12_3, G41
-0.102490
0.231088
-0.444
211
0.657
COND1_2, G42
0.126800
0.214389
0.591
211
0.554
GRPN, G43
0.021041
0.197041
0.107
211
0.916
For
AVO slope, B5
INTRCPT2, G50
1.661575
0.934259
1.778
211
0.076
COND12_3, G51
-0.309630
0.235731
-1.313
211
0.191
COND1_2, G52
0.279542
0.239363
1.168
211
0.245
GRPN, G53
-0.440713
0.240012
-1.836
211
0.067
--------------------------------------------------------------------------The outcome variable is INDTOTAL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------Standard
Approx.
Fixed Effect
Coefficient
Error
T-ratio
d.f.
P-value
---------------------------------------------------------------------------For
INTRCPT1, B0
INTRCPT2, G00
5.405316
0.759284
7.119
60
0.000
COND12_3, G01
0.244876
0.223984
1.093
60
0.279
COND1_2, G02
-0.072894
0.231673
-0.315
60
0.754
GRPN, G03
-0.066987
0.195586
-0.342
60
0.733
For
SP slope, B1
INTRCPT2, G10
-0.660492
1.035756
-0.638
211
0.524
COND12_3, G11
-0.014197
0.277957
-0.051
211
0.960
COND1_2, G12
-0.532503
0.297423
-1.790
211
0.074
GRPN, G13
0.235823
0.260302
0.906
211
0.366
For
SN slope, B2
INTRCPT2, G20
0.021844
1.902544
0.011
211
0.991
COND12_3, G21
1.754501
0.574452
3.054
211
0.003
COND1_2, G22
-0.495808
0.640926
-0.774
211
0.440
GRPN, G23
-0.300771
0.495640
-0.607
211
0.544
INTRCPT2, G30
-0.489971
0.749042
-0.654
211
0.513
COND12_3, G31
0.140469
0.212682
0.660
211
0.509
COND1_2, G32
-0.224619
0.212097
-1.059
211
0.291
GRPN, G33
0.140522
0.193425
0.726
211
0.468
For
ANX slope, B4
INTRCPT2, G40
-0.278050
0.762935
-0.364
211
0.716
COND12_3, G41
-0.273202
0.235833
-1.158
211
0.248
COND1_2, G42
0.287502
0.219220
1.311
211
0.191
GRPN, G43
0.093796
0.194524
0.482
211
0.630
For
AVO slope, B5
INTRCPT2, G50
0.821540
0.992679
0.828
211
0.409
COND12_3, G51
-0.431645
0.232067
-1.860
211
0.064
COND1_2, G52
0.213461
0.246373
0.866
211
0.388
GRPN, G53
-0.206529
0.254659
-0.811
211
0.418
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
161
‫‪Appendix 5: Study 2: Emotions Questionnaire‬‬
‫רגשות ‪5‬‬
‫השאלון הנוכחי כולל מספר מילים המתארות רגשות‪ .‬קרא‪/‬י כל מילה וסמן‪/‬י לצידה את הספרה המתאימה‬
‫לתיאור הרגשתך‪ .‬סמן‪/‬י בהתאם להרגשתך כעת‪ ,‬כלומר‪ ,‬הרגשתך ברגע זה‪ .‬בסימונך‪ ,‬השתמש‪/‬י‬
‫בסולם הבא‪:‬‬
‫מעט מאוד או‬
‫מעט‬
‫במידה מסוימת‬
‫הרבה‬
‫הרבה מאוד‬
‫כלל לא‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫עניין‬
‫_______‬
‫קשב‬
‫מצוקה‬
‫_______‬
‫חוסר‪-‬שקט _______‬
‫עליונות‬
‫_______‬
‫_______‬
‫חשיבות‬
‫עצמית‬
‫_______‬
‫דאגה‬
‫_______‬
‫חשש‬
‫_______‬
‫פתיחות‬
‫_______‬
‫חוזק‬
‫_______‬
‫_______‬
‫שייכות‬
‫_______‬
‫אשמה‬
‫_______‬
‫חיבה‬
‫_______‬
‫הערכה‬
‫_______‬
‫פחד‬
‫_______‬
‫הפתעה‬
‫_______‬
‫קרבה‬
‫_______‬
‫עוינות‬
‫_______‬
‫קנאה‬
‫_______‬
‫_______‬
‫_______‬
‫חיבור‬
‫_______‬
‫רחמים‬
‫_______‬
‫גאווה‬
‫_______‬
‫הכרת‬
‫תודה‬
‫_______‬
‫ידידותיות‬
‫_______‬
‫מתח‬
‫_______‬
‫הבנה‬
‫_______‬
‫סלחנות‬
‫_______‬
‫עירנות‬
‫_______‬
‫מבוכה‬
‫_______‬
‫ריחוק‬
‫_______‬
‫בושה‬
‫_______‬
‫אמפתיה‬
‫_______‬
‫הערצה‬
‫_______‬
‫השראה‬
‫_______‬
‫בטחון‬
‫_______‬
‫אמון‬
‫_______‬
‫עצבנות‬
‫_______‬
‫אכפתיות‬
‫_______‬
‫חביבות‬
‫_______‬
‫נחישות‬
‫_______‬
‫השפלה‬
‫_______‬
‫זלזול‬
‫_______‬
‫שפת אם‪____________ :‬‬
‫‪162‬‬
‫_______‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫גיל‪________ :‬‬
‫כנות‬
‫_______‬
‫_______‬
‫מין‪ :‬זכר ‪ /‬נקבה‬
‫)‪Appendix 6: Study 2: Interviewee questionnaire (FFI and Feedback conditions‬‬
‫מהי המטרה עליה בחרת לעבוד‪__________________________________________ :‬‬
‫ענה על השאלות הבאות בהתייחס לתהליך העבודה שעברת‪ .‬עבור כל משפט‪ ,‬סמן באיזו מידה אתה‬
‫מסכים או אינך מסכים עמו‪ .‬בתשובותיך‪ ,‬השתמש בסקאלה הבאה‪:‬‬
‫מסכים בהחלט‬
‫מסכים‬
‫ניטראלי‬
‫לא מסכים‬
‫בהחלט לא מסכים‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪ .1‬למדתי מהתהליך‪.‬‬
‫‪ .2‬התהליך עזר לי לגלות ידע חדש לגבי עצמי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .3‬התהליך עזר לי לפתח כיווני מחשבה חדשים לגבי התכניות שלי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .4‬התהליך עזר לי לפתח כיווני מחשבה חדשים לגבי הלימודים שלי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .5‬התהליך תרם לי באופן אישי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .6‬אני שבע רצון מהתהליך‪.‬‬
‫‪ .7‬אני מעוניין לעבוד בצורה דומה גם על מטרות נוספות‪.‬‬
‫‪ .8‬עבודה על מטרות נוספות בצורה דומה יכולה לסייע לי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .9‬אמליץ לחבריי להשתתף בתהליך כזה‪.‬‬
‫‪ .10‬תהליך עבודה כזה יכול לסייע לסטודנטים להשיג את מטרותיהם‪.‬‬
‫‪ .11‬אני יכול להשיג את המטרה שעבדתי עליה‪.‬‬
‫‪ .12‬אני אצליח להשיג את המטרה שעבדתי עליה‪.‬‬
‫‪ .13‬אני מסוגל להתגבר על הקשיים שיעמדו בדרכי להשגת המטרה‬
‫שעבדתי עליה‪.‬‬
‫‪ .14‬אני יכול להשפיע על קידום המטרה שעבדתי עליה‪.‬‬
‫‪ .15‬השגת המטרה שעבדתי עליה תלויה בי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .16‬אני בדרך הנכונה להשגת המטרה שעבדתי עליה‪.‬‬
‫‪ .17‬המטרה עליה עבדתי חשובה לי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .18‬אני מחוייב להשגת המטרה שעבדתי עליה‪.‬‬
‫‪ .19‬תהליך העבודה היה רלוונטי עבורי באופן אישי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .20‬נושא העבודה היה רלוונטי עבורי באופן אישי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .21‬המטרות שלי כעת ברורות לי יותר‪.‬‬
‫‪ .22‬התכניות שלי כעת ברורות לי יותר‪.‬‬
‫‪ .23‬הכוונות שלי כעת ברורות לי יותר‪.‬‬
‫‪ .24‬אני מתכוון לשקול מחדש את התכניות שלי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .25‬אני מתכוון לשנות את התכניות שלי בתקופה הקרובה‪.‬‬
‫‪ .26‬אני מתכוון לשנות את התכניות שלי בטווח הארוך‪.‬‬
‫‪ .27‬אני מתכוון לבצע פעולות שיקדמו את המטרה שעבדתי עליה‪.‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫כעת‪ ,‬התייחס לבן הזוג שלך לתהליך העבודה‪ ,‬תוך שימוש באותה סקלה‪:‬‬
‫‪ .1‬יש לי היכרות מוקדמת עם בן הזוג שלי )עוד לפני המפגש(‪.‬‬
‫‪ .2‬התקרבתי אל בן הזוג שלי בעקבות התהליך‪.‬‬
‫‪ .3‬אני מחבב את בן הזוג שלי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .4‬בן הזוג שלי נחמד בעיני‪.‬‬
‫‪ .5‬נהניתי לעבוד עם בן הזוג שלי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .6‬אשמח להישאר בקשרים חברתיים עם בן הזוג שלי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .7‬אני מעריך את בן הזוג שלי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .8‬בן הזוג שלי עזר לי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .9‬אני מרגיש שאני עזרתי לבן הזוג שלי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .10‬אני מעוניין לשתף פעולה עם בן הזוג שלי גם בעתיד‪.‬‬
‫‪ .11‬אשמח לעבוד עם בן הזוג שלי בעתיד‪.‬‬
‫‪ .12‬הייתי רוצה לכתוב עבודות יחד עם בן הזוג שלי בהמשך הלימודים‪.‬‬
‫‪ .13‬בן הזוג שלי הוא שותף ראוי להתייעצות‪.‬‬
‫‪163‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫חשוב על פעולות שונות שאתה יכול לבצע כדי להשיג את המטרה עליה עבדת‪ .‬בכל שורה רשום פעולה‬
‫אחת כזו )אין צורך למלא את כל השורות‪ ,‬אבל נסה לחשוב על כמה שיותר פעולות(‪.‬‬
‫עבור כל פעולה‪ ,‬ציין באיזו מידה אתה מתכוון לבצע אותה תוך שימוש בסולם הבא‪:‬‬
‫במידה רבה ביותר‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫במידה בינונית‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫במידה רבה‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫במידה מעטה‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪.1‬‬
‫‪.2‬‬
‫‪.3‬‬
‫‪.4‬‬
‫‪.5‬‬
‫‪.6‬‬
‫‪.7‬‬
‫‪.8‬‬
‫כלל לא‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫פרט את היכולות‪ ,‬התכונות והכישורים האישיים שלך שיכולים לסייע לך להשיג מטרה זו‪:‬‬
‫‪.5‬‬
‫‪.1‬‬
‫‪.6‬‬
‫‪.2‬‬
‫‪.7‬‬
‫‪.3‬‬
‫‪.8‬‬
‫‪.4‬‬
‫לפניך קווים המתארים את המרחק שאתה עשוי להרגיש מהמטרה שלך‪ .‬המספר ‪ 100‬מייצג את השגת‬
‫המטרה‪ ,‬והמספר ‪ 0‬את המרחק הגדול ביותר ממנה‪ .‬סמן בבקשה ב‪ X -‬על כל קו את המרחק שאתה‬
‫מרגיש שהיית מרוחק מהמטרה לפני התהליך‪ ,‬המרחק בו אתה מרגיש שאתה נמצא עכשיו‪ ,‬והמרחק‬
‫שאתה משער שתהיה מהמטרה בעוד שבועיים ובסוף שנת הלימודים‪ ,‬במידה ותיישם את מה שלמדת היום‪.‬‬
‫המטרה שלך‬
‫‪100‬‬
‫‪90‬‬
‫‪80‬‬
‫‪70‬‬
‫‪60‬‬
‫‪50‬‬
‫‪40‬‬
‫‪30‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫‪ 0‬לפני התהליך‬
‫‪100‬‬
‫‪90‬‬
‫‪80‬‬
‫‪70‬‬
‫‪60‬‬
‫‪50‬‬
‫‪40‬‬
‫‪30‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫‪ 0‬כעת‪ ,‬לאחר התהליך‬
‫‪100‬‬
‫‪90‬‬
‫‪80‬‬
‫‪70‬‬
‫‪60‬‬
‫‪50‬‬
‫‪40‬‬
‫‪30‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫‪ 0‬בעוד שבועיים‬
‫‪100‬‬
‫‪90‬‬
‫‪80‬‬
‫‪70‬‬
‫‪60‬‬
‫‪50‬‬
‫‪40‬‬
‫‪30‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫‪ 0‬בסוף שנת הלימודים‬
‫חשוב כעת על מטרה אישית נוספת לתקופת הלימודים שחשובה בשבילך‪.‬‬
‫מה המטרה‪____________________________________ :‬‬
‫פרט את הפעולות שאתה יכול לבצע כדי להשיג מטרה זו‪ .‬עבור כל פעולה‪ ,‬ציין באיזו מידה אתה מתכוון לבצע אותה‪.‬‬
‫‪.1‬‬
‫‪.2‬‬
‫‪.3‬‬
‫‪.4‬‬
‫‪.5‬‬
‫‪.6‬‬
‫‪.7‬‬
‫‪.8‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫פרט את היכולות‪ ,‬התכונות והכישורים האישיים שלך שיכולים לסייע לך להשיג מטרה זו‪:‬‬
‫‪.5‬‬
‫‪.1‬‬
‫‪.6‬‬
‫‪.2‬‬
‫‪.7‬‬
‫‪.3‬‬
‫‪.8‬‬
‫‪.4‬‬
‫‪164‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫כעת‪ ,‬סמן בבקשה ב‪ X -‬על כל קו את המרחק שאתה מרגיש שהיית מרוחק מהמטרה השניה שבחרת לפני‬
‫התהליך‪ ,‬המרחק בו אתה מרגיש שאתה נמצא עכשיו‪ ,‬והמרחק שאתה משער שתהיה מהמטרה בעוד‬
‫שבועיים ובסוף שנת הלימודים‪ ,‬במידה ותיישם את מה שלמדת היום‪.‬‬
‫המטרה שלך‬
‫‪100‬‬
‫‪90‬‬
‫‪80‬‬
‫‪70‬‬
‫‪60‬‬
‫‪50‬‬
‫‪40‬‬
‫‪30‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫‪ 0‬לפני התהליך‬
‫‪100‬‬
‫‪90‬‬
‫‪80‬‬
‫‪70‬‬
‫‪60‬‬
‫‪50‬‬
‫‪40‬‬
‫‪30‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫‪ 0‬כעת‪ ,‬לאחר התהליך‬
‫‪100‬‬
‫‪90‬‬
‫‪80‬‬
‫‪70‬‬
‫‪60‬‬
‫‪50‬‬
‫‪40‬‬
‫‪30‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫‪ 0‬בעוד שבועיים‬
‫‪100‬‬
‫‪90‬‬
‫‪80‬‬
‫‪70‬‬
‫‪60‬‬
‫‪50‬‬
‫‪40‬‬
‫‪30‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫‪ 0‬בסוף שנת הלימודים‬
‫למטה כתובות מספר הצהרות לגביך‪ ,‬שאתה יכול להסכים או לא להסכים עמן‪ .‬ציין את מידת הסכמתך או‬
‫חוסר הסכמתך עם כל פריט‪ ,‬באמצעות כתיבת המספר המתאים על הקו שלפני הפריט‪.‬בתשובותיך‪,‬‬
‫השתמש בסקאלה הבאה‪:‬‬
‫בהחלט לא מסכים‬
‫לא מסכים‬
‫ניטראלי‬
‫מסכים‬
‫מסכים בהחלט‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪ .1‬אני בטוח שאגיע להצלחה לה אני ראוי בחיים‪.‬‬
‫‪ .2‬לפעמים אני מרגיש מדוכא‪.‬‬
‫‪ .3‬כשאני מנסה‪ ,‬אני בדרך‪-‬כלל מצליח‪.‬‬
‫‪ .4‬לפעמים כשאני נכשל אני מרגיש חסר‪-‬ערך‪.‬‬
‫‪ .5‬אני משלים מטלות בהצלחה‪.‬‬
‫‪ .6‬לפעמים אני לא מרגיש בשליטה על עבודתי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .7‬באופן כללי אני שבע רצון מעצמי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .8‬אני מלא ספקות לגבי היכולת שלי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .9‬אני קובע מה יקרה בחיים שלי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .10‬אני לא מרגיש בשליטה על הצלחת הקריירה שלי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .11‬יש לי יכולת להתמודד עם רוב הבעיות שלי‪.‬‬
‫‪ .12‬יש רגעים שהדברים נראים לי די עגומים וחסרי תקווה‪.‬‬
‫שפת אם‪____________ :‬‬
‫גיל‪________ :‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫מין‪ :‬זכר ‪ /‬נקבה‬
‫חוגי לימודים‪__________________________ :‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ספרות אחרונות של תעודת הזהות )כולל ספרת ביקורת(‪_ _ _ - _ :‬‬
‫‪----------------------------------------------------------‬‬‫במידה ותפתחו תהליך עבודה דומה בעתיד‪ ,‬אשמח לשמוע עליו ולשקול את האפשרות להשתתף בו )סמן ‪ X‬במקום‬
‫המתאים‪ ,‬ניתן לסמן יותר מאפשרות אחת(‪ .‬שים לב‪ ,‬אין בציון פרטיך למטה שום התחיבות מצדך להשתתף בתהליך‬
‫גם בעתיד‪:‬‬
‫___ לצרכים אקדמיים‬
‫___ לצרכים מקצועיים‬
‫___ לצרכים אישיים‬
‫___ אחר‪____________ :‬‬
‫פרטי התקשרות )תישמר אנונימיות מוחלטת של המשתתפים בניסוי(‪_________________________ :‬‬
‫‪165‬‬
‫‪Appendix 7: Study 2: Interview Protocols that Were Projected During Experimental‬‬
‫‪Conditions‬‬
‫הנחיות לעבודה בזוגות‬
‫‪.1‬‬
‫ספר לי בבקשה על אירוע ספציפי בו הצלחת להשיג‬
‫]מטרה אישית[ והרגשת התלהבות ושמחה‪ ,‬עוד לפני‬
‫שתוצאות האירוע היו ידועות לך?‬
‫האם היית שמח לחוות סיטואציה דומה שוב?‬
‫‪.2‬‬
‫‪.3‬‬
‫‪.4‬‬
‫מה היה רגע השיא באירוע? מה חשבת באותו רגע?‬
‫איך הרגשת באותו רגע )כולל תחושות פיסיות(?‬
‫מה היו התנאים בך‪ ,‬באחרים ובסביבה‪ ,‬שאפשרו‬
‫לאירוע להתרחש?‬
‫התנאים שתיארת כרגע נראים כמפתח האישי שלך‬
‫להשגת ]מטרה אישית[‪ .‬אם זה כך‪ ,‬חשוב עכשיו על‬
‫הפעולות שאתה עושה‪ ,‬סדרי העדיפויות והתכניות שלך‪,‬‬
‫לעתיד הקרוב ולעתיד הרחוק יותר‪ ,‬וחשוב באיזו מידה‬
‫הם מקרבים אותך אל התנאים האלה‪ ,‬או מרחיקים‬
‫אותך מהם‪.‬‬
‫מה יש ביכולתך לעשות כדי להתקרב אליהם?‬
‫הנחיות לעבודה בזוגות‬
‫‪.1‬‬
‫‪.2‬‬
‫‪.3‬‬
‫‪166‬‬
‫מה אתה חושב שאתה יכול לעשות כדי להשיג‬
‫מטרה זו?‬
‫מה אתה מתכוון לעשות כדי להשיג מטרה זו?‬
‫]למראיין[‪ :‬ספק למרואיין משוב על דבריו‪ :‬אמור‬
‫לו מה דעתך לגבי התכניות שלו – מה טוב בהן‪,‬‬
‫מה פחות טוב‪ ,‬מה ניתן לשפר‪.‬‬
‫]למראיין[‪ :‬אמור למרואיין מה עוד לדעתך הוא‬
‫יכול לעשות כדי להשיג את מטרתו‪.‬‬
Eyal Rechter
Appendix 8: Study 2: Main Effects and Interactions between Attachment Styles and Experimental Manipulation (condition x role, FFI vs. FB) on
the Dependent Variables
Role
Condition
Eta2
F
F
Anxiousness
Anxious x
Avoidance
Avoidance
Anxious x Role
Eta2
F
Eta2
F
Eta2
F
Eta2
F
.01
.01
.02
.03
.09
1.52
.00
4.11
.00
.01
.00
.04
1.93
2.88
6.69
.20
.00
.00
.03
.00
.01
.00
1.14
1.13
1.20
.90
1.37
.20
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
5.32
4.01
.14
5.16
.19
-
Eta2
F
.02
.03
.06
.00
2.08
3.30
7.04
0.21
.05
.04
.00
.05
.00
5.60
4.55
0.28
3.47
0.61
-
PA
NA
SPE
SNE
3.51
2.80
8.89
.06
†
†
**
.03
.03
.08
.00
.97
.28
.24
.24
.01
.00
.00
.00
2.20
.05
1.21
.10
.02
.00
.01
.00
.84
1.15
1.86
3.32
G. aff. ratio
S. aff. ratio
Self-efficacy
Learning
Bonding
Belief
6.72
4.67
.06
4.81
.17
-
*
*
.06
.04
.00
.04
.00
.82
.00
.66
7.01
.68
.00
.01
.00
.01
.06
.01
.00
.59
.30
1.92
3.00
1.11
.25
.01
.00
.02
.03
.01
.00
.05
.00
3.76
.02
.54
.21
Clarity
Action-items and
Personal Resources
Goal 1
1.66
.02
.53
.00
1.66
0.02
.11
.00
.15
.00
1.31
.01
2.82
1.92
.02
2.15
.02
.20
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
.99
.01
Goal 1
2.32
.02
.09
.00 2.64
.02
<otes: ** p<.01, * p<.05, + p<.1; Dfs = 1, 119, except for Belief, df = 1, 59
5.80
.05
4.47
.04
2.80
.03
*
**
†
†
†
*
*
*
†
*
*
*
*
†
Anxious x
Condition
Avoidance x Role
Eta2
F
Avoidance x
Condition
Anx. x Avoid. x
Role
Eta2
F
Eta2
F
.02
.03
.06
.00
.00
.17
.35
.29
.00
.00
.00
.00
1.24
.14
.01
.19
.01
.00
.00
.00
1.50
4.29
6.00
.78
.05
.04
.00
.03
.01
.05
.43
.20
8.72
.77
.00
.00
.00
.00
.08
.01
.00
.89
.05
1.27
7.19
1.82
.08
.01
.00
.01
.06
.02
.00
5.37
4.95
.40
4.66
.71
-
.03
1.33
.01
.60
.01
1.17
.01
1.55
.01
4.06
2.51
.02
.43
.00
.02
*
**
*
*
†
†
**
**
*
Eta2
Anx. x Avoid. x
Condition
Eta2
F
.01
.04
.05
.01
.00
.12
.81
.14
.00
.00
.01
.00
.05
.04
.00
.04
.01
.08
.65
.46
9.31
2.23
.17
.00
.01
.00
.08
.02
.00
2.16
.02
1.55
.04
.62
.01
3.15
.00
2.86
.03
.14
*
*
*
*
*
†
167
**
.01
†
.03
.00
‫‪Appendix 9: Field Study 1: Self-Report Questionnaire‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫יעדיי המקצועיים לטווח הקצר )לשנה הקרובה( ברורים לי‪.‬‬
‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 7‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫יעדיי המקצועיים לטווח הארוך )מעבר לשנה( ברורים לי‪.‬‬
‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 7‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫אני יודע מה עלי לעשות על מנת להשיג את יעדיי המקצועיים‪.‬‬
‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 7‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫קשה לי לנסח את יעדיי המקצועיים‪.‬‬
‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 7‬‬
‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 7‬‬
‫יש לי את הידע הדרוש כדי להצליח בתכנון התפתחותי המקצועית‪.‬‬
‫יש ביכולתי להשפיע על תהליך ההתפתחות המקצועית שלי‪.‬‬
‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 7‬‬
‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 7‬‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫‪9‬‬
‫אני מסוגל להיות פעיל בניהול התפתחותי המקצועית‪.‬‬
‫אני חושש מהאתגרים שבניהול התפתחותי המקצועית‪.‬‬
‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 7‬‬
‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 7‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫אני מרגיש מחוייב לתהליך ניהול התפתחותי המקצועית‪.‬‬
‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 7‬‬
‫‪11‬‬
‫אני מאמין בחשיבות תהליך ניהול התפתחותי המקצועית‪.‬‬
‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 7‬‬
‫‪12‬‬
‫‪13‬‬
‫אני מאמין שתהליך התפתחותי המקצועית יהיה אפקטיבי‪.‬‬
‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 7‬‬
‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 7‬‬
‫‪14‬‬
‫‪15‬‬
‫אני מרגיש שהתפתחותי המקצועית חשובה לארגון‪.‬‬
‫אני מאמין שחשוב לארגון שאהיה מעורב בניהול התפתחותי המקצועית‪.‬‬
‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 7‬‬
‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 7‬‬
‫‪16‬‬
‫אני מרגיש שחשוב לארגון לאפשר לי לתפקד במיטבי‪.‬‬
‫‪1 2 3 4 5 6 7‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫לא ברור לי מה דרוש לקדם את התפתחותי המקצועית‪.‬‬
‫אני רוצה להיות שותף בניהול התפתחותי המקצועית‪.‬‬
‫‪168‬‬

Enhancing Performance through Feedforward Intervention

Transcription

Similar documents

Sander Kleinenberg

Escape to the Other Cape

EU-WISE Conference Southampton: A. Kennedy

friendship force

Click Here - Excel Group of Institution

when animal research hits the headlines

Humans of MY World Toolkit

doiv`s e]vterprise - Don`s Special Event Rentals

Untitled - VHS Graduates-Home