Administration and Interpretation of the
Managerial Inbasket Simulation
Kenneth M. Nowack Ph.D.
2621 6th Street Suite 2  Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 450-8397  (310) 450-0548 Fax
http://www.opd.net
[email protected]
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS
Organizational Performance Dimensions (OPD) is a behavioral sciences consulting company
specializing in personnel assessment and selection, assessment centers, executive/management
coaching, succession planning, employee health promotion/wellness, training needs analysis,
career management and applied research and evaluation.
OPD offers a wide variety of assessment instruments and software for use in employee selection,
pre-supervisory training, executive and management development, wellness/employee health
promotion, career management and organizational development.
OPD was founded in 1985 by Kenneth M. Nowack, Ph.D. who is a licensed psychologist. He has
over 15 years of experience in the human resources field as both an internal and external
consultant. Dr. Nowack received his doctorate degree in Counseling Psychology from the
University of California, Los Angeles and has published extensively in the areas of 360 degree
feedback, assessment, training evaluation, health promotion and stress management.
Managerial Inbasket
Simulation
Purpose
Assess 8 task/project management competencies of supervisors and
managers
Outcome
Identify strengths/development areas
Predict future supervisory/management performance
Train and develop supervisors and managers
To be used for
Selection or development
3
APPROACHES TO PERSONNEL SELECTION: WHICH ARE
MOST PREDICTIVE?
A. PERSONALITY
B. REFERENCES
C. INTERVIEWS
D. INTELLIGENCE TESTS
E. EDUCATION/GPA
F. WORK SAMPLE TESTS
G. ASSESSMENT CENTERS
H. PEER RATINGS
I. INTERESTS/VALUES
J. AGE
K. WORK HISTORY
L. TRAINING RATINGS
M. SELF-RATINGS
RANKING
4
APPROACHES TO PERSONNEL SELECTION: WHICH ARE
MOST PREDICTIVE?
A. WORK SAMPLE TESTS
B. INTELLIGENCE TESTS
C. ASSESSMENT CENTERS
D. PEER RATINGS
E. WORK HISTORY
F. INTERVIEWS
G. PERSONALITY TESTS
H. REFERENCE CHECKS
I. TRAINING RATINGS
J. SELF RATINGS
K. EDUCATION/GPA
L. INTERESTS/VALUES
M. AGE
AVERAGE VALIDITY
.38 to .54
.38 to .54
.41 to .43
.41 to .43
.24 to .38
.15 to .36
.15 to .26
.14 to .26
.13 to .15
.10 to .15
.10 to .15
.10 to .15
.00 to .10
5
Description of the OPD Managerial
Inbasket Simulation
The OPD Inbasket is a work sample simulation that assesses the
leadership, task and project management competencies of a typical
manager. The participant is given a brief description of the situation
surrounding a fictitious organization they are assigned to work for
and asked to respond to 23 Inbasket memos. The Inbasket memos
contain work situations, requests from customers and employees,
personnel problems, and decisions that a typical manager might be
asked to handle. The participant’s task is to go through as many of
the 23 Inbasket memos within 90 minutes, making appropriate
decisions, answering letters and memos from internal and external
customers, planning meetings, and solving problems.
6
OPD Inbasket Simulation
Management Competencies
 Initiative
 Interpersonal Sensitivity
 Planning/Organizing
 Delegation
 Follow-up/Administrative Control
 Problem-Analysis
 Decisiveness
 Judgment
7
Reliability and Validity of the
OPD Managerial Inbasket Simulation





Content for the OPD Inbasket Simulation was derived from job
analyses of managerial positions in diverse industries
Average inter-rater reliability across the eight competencies was
.93 in one study
Validity study 1 explored the association between Inbasket
scores and job performance for 132 aerospace managers
(average correlation was .26, p < .05)
Validity study 2 explored assessment center performance and
Inbasket scores for 72 utility managers. Overall scores were
significantly correlated with assessor performance ratings (r=
.26, p < .05)
Validity study 3 explored assessment center performance and
Inbasket scores for 144 production supervisors. Overall Inbasket
scores were significantly correlated with both assessor and
supervisory performance ratings (average r’s = .29, all p’s <
.05)
8
Administration of the OPD
Managerial Inbasket Simulation
 Read the administration instructions to the participant
aloud
 Emphasize that they will have only 90 minutes to
complete the exercise
 At the completion, the participant will be asked to fill
out the Participant Report Form found in the
Inbasket materials
 Emphasize that they can not cancel the trip they will be
asked to go on as described in the instructions
 Participants can take breaks during the exercise but not
allowed additional time beyond 90 minutes
 Participants are asked to attach any written responses
to Inbasket items to the appropriate memo and number
them to facilitate the scoring process
9
Scoring the OPD Managerial
Inbasket Simulation
 The competency-based scoring key is based on observed
behaviors demonstrated on the Inbasket Simulation
 The objective scoring key provides overall scores for each
of the eight Inbasket competencies
 Points are given for specific actions and decisions observed
by the Inbasket participant
 Comments from the Participant Report Form are utilized
during the Inbasket scoring process
 Scoring ranges and norms from diverse US companies are
provides in the back of the Inbasket scoring key
10
OPD Managerial Inbasket Software
 The OPD Managerial Inbasket Software program generates an
individual feedback report summarizes strengths and development
areas across the eight competencies
 The feedback results results are both graphic and narrative and are
based on US norms with approximately 5,000 supervisors and
managers in diverse industries
 The one-page graphic summary provides feedback in standard scores
(t-scores) with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10
 The Inbasket software requires pre-purchased authorizations to add
new participants to the database
 The Inbasket Software program provides for export of raw data for
determination of local norms and research
11
OPD Inbasket Simulation Software
Sample Graphic Summary Results
12
Scoring the OPD Inbasket Simulation
Initiative
 Initiative is defined as the ability to influence events to achieve
specific outcomes through individual actions (i.e., originates action
rather than waiting for direction from others). Individuals who take
initiative tends to make plans, decisions, and solve problems without
waiting for direction from others
 Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency made
decisions, took actions, and delegated assignments to others indicating
a willingness to frequently take initiative. These individuals did not
express hesitation to act and make decisions on their own in specific
situations. For example, those with high scores tended to request
additional information about a problem or decide to hold a special
meeting to resolve an important issue. Individuals with low scores did
not tend to take such actions or make such decisions as frequently
13
Scoring the OPD Managerial Inbasket
Initiative
 Were actions taken on specific Inbasket items to
prevent future problems and issues from occurring
again?
 Were specific actions taken or decisions made that
were proactive, rather than, just responding to the
issues and challenges presented?
14
Scoring the OPD Inbasket Simulation
Interpersonal Sensitivity

Interpersonal sensitivity is defined as the ability to take actions that indicate
consideration for the feelings and needs of others. Some demonstrations of
sensitive and empathetic behaviors include: asking questions about work and
non-work activities, expressing concern about problems, taking an interest in
others, and making decisions that take into account the feelings of others

Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency tended to respond
in writing to others in a manner that expressed caring and empathy in the
handling of specific interpersonal situations and problems. High scores
suggest more frequent demonstration of written praise, compliments, positive
feedback, and recognition than towards others than those with low scores.
For example, individuals with high scores might have written a note of
congratulations to an employee for exceptional performance or expressed
sensitivity in not approving a vacation request at an inappropriate time
15
Scoring the OPD Managerial Inbasket
Interpersonal Sensitivity
 Were internal and external customers responded to
in a timely manner?
 Were internal and external customers responded to
in a sensitive and caring manner?
 Did the tone of the response to specific Inbasket
items express a level of understanding, warmth,
and empathy?
16
Scoring the OPD Inbasket Simulation
Planning/Organizing
 Organizing, Planning, and Scheduling are defined as the ability to
effectively schedule time and establish a course of action to
accomplish specific goals for self or others. In general, organizing
refers to longer-range plans and activities, whereas, planning and
scheduling refers to the management of daily tasks and time
 Individuals who scored high in this Inbasket competency
demonstrated the ability to effectively manage their time, organize
their schedule, and plan for future activities. These individuals
approached the in-basket simulation by prioritizing each item rather
than attempting to tackle them in the order they were placed.
Individuals with high scores tended to demonstrate the effective use of
planning tools by utilizing the monthly calendar or preparing an action
item list of meeting dates and phone calls to be made
17
Scoring the OPD Managerial Inbasket
Planning/Organizing
 Were the Inbasket items prioritized or done in
order presented (I.e., were the items grouped and
addressed in some logical order and attention
given to high priority items)?
 Was the calendar used to assist in scheduling and
planning efforts?
 Was there awareness of of specific scheduling
conflicts and problems (I.e., notes or comments
suggesting scheduling problems, meeting dates,
etc.)?
18
Scoring the OPD Inbasket Simulation
Delegation

Delegation is defined as the ability to allocate necessary authority and
resources to subordinates in order to accomplish a task, assignment, or project

Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency demonstrated the
ability to select the appropriate individual to delegate tasks, projects, and
assignments. Individuals who scored high also demonstrated good judgement
in determining what was to be delegated in specific situations (e.g., making
specific decisions, researching pertinent information, etc.). For example,
individuals with high scores tended to select the right subordinate to carry out
appropriate assignments in their absence and specified clear actions to be
taken in writing. Those with low scores tended to take action or make
decisions themselves rather than delegate these to others on many in-basket
items
19
Scoring the OPD Managerial Inbasket
Delegation
 Was there awareness of the need to delegate
on specific Inbasket items?
 Were tasks/assignments delegated for
appropriate reasons (e.g., attend a meeting
or gather additional information)?
 Were tasks/assignments delegated to the
appropriate individuals?
 Were tasks/assignments that were delegated
clear, specific, measurable, and have
appropriate authority?
20
Scoring the OPD Inbasket Simulation
Administrative Control/Follow-Up

Administrative Control is defined as the ability to develop procedures to track
& monitor activities, tasks, and delegated assignments on a timely manner

Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency demonstrated the
ability to monitor and follow-up on tasks, projects, and delegated assignments
to others. For example, these individuals wrote notes on their calendars to
check on the progress of an assignment or delegated a task to their
subordinate with specific outcomes and progress to be reported on.
Individuals with low scores tended to delegate a great deal of authority and
responsibility but did not attempt to implement formal or informal feedback
mechanisms to check the progress of the task or assignment very often
21
Scoring the OPD Managerial Inbasket
Administrative Control
 Were arrangements made to follow-up on tasks,
projects, assignments, and meetings related to
specific Inbasket items?
 Were future dates and meetings scheduled to
monitor and track delegated tasks, projects, and
assignments (e.g., request written report or
schedule a meeting upon return from the business
trip)?
22
Scoring the OPD Inbasket Simulation
Problem-Analysis

Problem Analysis is defined as the ability to accurately define a problem,
gather and analyze information relevant to the problem, and determine
possible causes and solutions to the problem

Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency demonstrated the
ability to see relationships between in-basket items, and correctly identify
incongruent dates, times, and meetings. For example, individuals with high
scores might have written a note to someone pointing out a potential meeting
conflict and asking to change the date and/or time in order to accommodate
their schedule. Individuals who scored high might also have linked several
in-basket items together that were logically connected to each other by the
people involved or the specific problem mentioned. Individuals with low
scores tended not to point out the various scheduling conflicts or relationships
between various in-basket items
23
Scoring the OPD Managerial Inbasket
Problem Analysis
 Was there awareness of the interrelationships
between Inbasket problems?
 Was there recognition of the need for additional
information about some of the Inbasket items
before decisions were made?
 Was there recognition of the need to research
and investigate specific incidents further before
actions were taken?
24
Scoring the OPD Inbasket Simulation
Decisiveness
 Decisiveness is defined as the ability and willingness to make a
decision, render judgments, or take actions when required
 Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency
demonstrated the capacity to make quick and numerous decisions
when presented with the opportunity. These individuals actually made
a greater number of decisions than those with lower scores on this
competency. Individuals who scored lower tended to ask for more
information before making a decision or taking action whether or not
it was appropriate to do so. A highly decisive individual generally is
characterized as taking in a small to moderate amount of information
and assimilating that data or information quickly. Such individuals
tend to arrive at a single focused solution rather than multiple or
prioritized solutions
25
Scoring the OPD Managerial Inbasket
Decisiveness
 Were actions and decisions taken that
required immediate attention (e.g.,
vacation requests, deadline dates, etc.)?
 Were actions and decisions deferred on
specific Inbasket items requiring
additional investigation or information?
26
Scoring the OPD Inbasket Simulation
Judgment
 Judgment is defined as the ability to make decisions of high
quality and consider alternative courses of action based upon
available information and logical assumptions
 Individuals who scored high on this Inbasket competency
demonstrated the ability to correctly identify the highest quality
decisions and actions given the information available to them.
These individuals tended to take actions considered being most
appropriate given the specific information available to them in
the Inbasket exercise
27
Scoring the OPD Managerial Inbasket
Judgment
 Were major requests and issues
requirements responded to (e.g., request for
a department plan from the boss)?
 Were appropriate decisions made (e.g.,
meeting with the company Vice President
rather than attending a strategic planning
meeting scheduled at the same time)?
 Was correct action taken on specific
Inbasket items (e.g., disapproving the
vacation request)?
28
Inbasket Simulation
Decision Style
Low
Decisiveness
High
Decisiveness
Flexible
Analytical
Decisive
Integrative
Low Problem
Analysis
High Problem
Analysis
29
SELECTED REFERENCES







Wimer & Nowack (1998). 13 Common mistakes in implementing multi-rater
systems. Training and Development, 52, 69-79.
Nowack, K. & Wimer, S. (1997). Coaching for human performance. Training
and Development, 51, 28-32.
Nowack, K. (1997). Congruence between self and other ratings and assessment
center performance. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 12, 145-166
Nowack, K. (1994). The secrets of succession. Training & Development, 48,
49-54
Nowack, K. (1993). 360-degree feedback: The whole story. Training &
Development, 47, 69-72
Nowack, K. (1992). Self-assessment and rater-assessment as a competency of
management development. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 3, 141155.
Nowack, K. (1988). Approaches to validating assessment centers.
Performance & Instruction, 11, 14-16
30