A case study outlining a hypothetical performance issue, including an executive summary, assessments, interventions, and results, using performance management tools and behavioral science principles.

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=worg20

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management

ISSN: 0160-8061 (Print) 1540-8604 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/worg20

The Use of the Performance Diagnostic Checklist to Guide Intervention Selection in an Independently Owned Coffee Shop

Ralph N. Pampino Jr. , Paul W. Heering , David A. Wilder , Carolyn G. Barton & Liberty M. Burson

To cite this article: Ralph N. Pampino Jr. , Paul W. Heering , David A. Wilder , Carolyn G. Barton & Liberty M. Burson (2004) The Use of the Performance Diagnostic Checklist to Guide Intervention Selection in an Independently Owned Coffee Shop, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 23:2-3, 5-19, DOI: 10.1300/J075v23n02_02

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v23n02_02

Published online: 07 Sep 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1529

View related articles

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

RESEARCH ARTICLES

The Use of the Performance Diagnostic Checklist

to Guide Intervention Selection in an Independently Owned Coffee Shop

Ralph N. Pampino, Jr. Paul W. Heering David A. Wilder

Carolyn G. Barton Liberty M. Burson

ABSTRACT. The utility of the Performance Diagnostic Checklist (PDC) (Austin, 2000) as an assessment tool to design an intervention for increas- ing maintenance tasks in an independently owned coffee shop was exam- ined. The PDC, which was administered to four employees, identified a lack of appropriate antecedents and consequences as areas in need of in- tervention. Based on the results of the PDC, task clarification and a lottery were implemented in a multiple baseline across tasks design to increase

Ralph N. Pampino, Jr., Paul W. Heering, Carolyn G. Barton, and Liberty M. Burson are affiliated with the University of the Pacific, Stockton, California.

David A. Wilder is affiliated with the Florida Institute of Technology, School of Psychology.

Address correspondence to: David A. Wilder, School of Psychology, Florida Institute of Technology, 150 W. University Blvd., Melbourne, FL 32901 (E-mail: dawilder@ fit.edu).

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 23(2/3) 2003 http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JOBM

 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J075v23n02_02 5

employees’ completion of maintenance tasks. The results for task group 1 yielded baseline and intervention means of 44% and 86%, respectively. The results for task group 2 yielded baseline and intervention means of 32% and 67%, respectively. A social validity measure indicated that em- ployees thought that the appearance of the shop had improved, believed the changes helped to improve customer satisfaction, and claimed that the new procedures made their job easier. Overall, results suggest that the PDC can be an effective assessment tool for identifying and subsequently targeting specific areas of improvement within an organization. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Functional assessment, lottery, observer effect, Perfor- mance Diagnostic Checklist (PDC), task clarification

Functional assessment refers to methods used to identify the vari- ables maintaining behavior (Horner, 1994). Although functional assess- ment methodologies have been used with much success in clinical areas of behavior analysis (e.g., Derby et al., 1992; Iwata et al., 1994), main- taining variables are rarely assessed or reported in the organizational behavior management (OBM) literature (Austin, Carr, & Agnew, 1999). Austin, Carr, and Agnew (1999) discussed three possible reasons for the lack of assessment in OBM: (a) the success of many OBM interventions despite their relative inattention to measurement of maintaining vari- ables; (b) the problem of measurement for behavior analysts, in that much of organizational behavior is rule-governed and many main- stream (non-behavioral) approaches to organizational problem analysis and diagnosis involve the use of questionnaires, and (c) the fact that OBM practitioners are generally interested in increasing, rather than de- creasing, the frequency of behavior. Austin et al. conclude that work be- havior probably cannot be examined using experimental procedures under analog contingency conditions in an attempt to identify maintain- ing variables at work.

However, this does not mean that methods of functional assessment should not be developed for use in organizational settings. Instead, meth- ods of functional assessment in OBM will likely differ from methods em- ployed in clinical areas in that they will primarily utilize informant or indirect assessment techniques, as well as descriptive assessment meth- ods obtained through direct observation. In fact, several demonstrations

6 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

of functional assessment in organizations utilizing these methods have already been forwarded. For example, Austin and LaFleur (1998) com- bined Gilbert’s troubleshooting algorithm (1978/1996) and Austin’s performance diagnostic model (1999) to assess and subsequently improve the performance of a small business in the chimney service industry. Also, Austin and Warden (1998) used an interview-based as- sessment to determine the least-intrusive intervention for improving timeliness in a restaurant. Austin, Olson, and Wellisley (2001) used Gilbert’s (1978/1996) Behavior Engineering Model to analyze and im- prove customer service at an insurance agency. Finally, Rohn, Austin, and Lutrey (2002) used a combination of direct observation and infor- mal interviews based on the Performance Diagnostic Checklist (Austin, 2000) (see below) to assess and subsequently design an intervention to decrease cash register shortages in a retail store.

Recently, a formal functional assessment tool has been developed for use in organizational settings. The Performance Diagnostic Checklist (PDC) is designed to identify areas in need of improvement or interven- tion within an organization. The four areas of the organization that are examined with the PDC are antecedents, equipment and processes, knowledge and skills, and consequences. Austin (1996) designed the PDC by interviewing professionals working as management consul- tants. These interviews consisted of presenting the consultants with a scenario consisting of an organizational problem, asking them to think aloud when trying to assess the problem, and then recording the most common questions asked by the consultants.

Although the PDC was systematically designed using the knowledge of many successful management consultants, few studies have exam- ined its effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utility of the PDC as an assessment tool to design an intervention targeted at increasing maintenance tasks in an independently owned coffee shop.

METHOD

Setting and Participants

This study was conducted in an independently owned coffee shop in a mid-size city in the Western United States. The store consisted of an outdoor patio, a main floor, and an upstairs lounge area, which were all accessible to customers. The shop offered a variety of hot and cold bev- erages and small food items. The shop also supported local artists by

Research Articles 7

showcasing their poetry and artwork. The primary responsibility of the employees was customer counter service. However, employees were also responsible for secondary duties such as restocking commonly used items (e.g., cups, lids) and cleaning the store (e.g., sweeping and mopping).

The owner of the coffee shop and four employees participated in the study. The owner assumed a dual role in the business by also perform- ing as an employee. All 5 participants were responsible for completing the daily closing duties during their scheduled shifts.

Assessment. During assessment, the experimenters interviewed the owner and the four employees. At the initial meeting, the owner informed the experimenters that the primary duty of customer service was being fulfilled. However, she expressed dissatisfaction with the completion of the secondary duties (i.e., general maintenance tasks that require comple- tion before closing the shop). The remainder of the interview with the owner and interviews with employees were conducted using the PDC (see Appendix A).

Dependent Variable and Data Collection

Following assessment, the experimenters and the owner agreed that the dependent variable for the study would be the percentage of closing tasks completed. The experimenters operationally defined the closing tasks and developed a detailed 95-item closing duties checklist (see Ap- pendix B) based on an existing general description of closing tasks, cre- ated by the owner, prior to the onset of the study. The 95 closing tasks were divided into 2 task groups. Task group 1 consisted of stocking du- ties related to appearance of the store (i.e., stocking commonly used items, organizing furniture in the customer area). Task group 2 con- sisted of cleaning duties related to maintenance of the store (i.e., sweep- ing/mopping the floor, wiping/cleaning equipment). Data were collected daily on the percentage of closing tasks completed. Data were collected by the experimenters the following day before the shop opened for busi- ness.

Independent Variable

The independent variable consisted of task clarification, training in and use of a 95-item checklist, a lottery in which employees had the op- portunity to earn a prize of twenty dollars each month, and public post- ing of the number of lottery tickets earned by each employee. In

8 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

addition, as part of the lottery system, employees collected data on the performance of fellow employees (see below for details). The behavior of collecting data on fellow employee performance was also a compo- nent of the independent variable. Task clarification consisted of a staff meeting in which employees were provided with a one-page list of 95 objectively defined tasks and a corresponding daily checklist. The ex- perimenters and the employees reviewed the definitions of the closing tasks and the corresponding checklist. The experimenters demonstrated and modeled any tasks that employees identified as ambiguous or con- fusing.

Each participating employee was able to earn one lottery ticket for completing 90% to 99% of the tasks or two lottery tickets for complet- ing 100% of the tasks for each shift they worked. The number of lottery tickets each employee earned was tracked with the use of stickers placed on a simple data sheet that contained each participant’s name and a space for the stickers. These data were publicly posted in an employee common area. One sticker equaled one lottery ticket. A peer review sys- tem was used to collect data on the percentage of closing tasks com- pleted by each employee. The employees used the 95-item checklist and definitions to assess the previous employee’s performance before the start of their shift. Employees then awarded the appropriate number of stickers/lottery tickets if the performance met the criteria. The shop owner conducted periodic checks to ensure that employees were accu- rately collecting and reporting data on their fellow employees. This peer review system of data collection was used to award the appropriate number of stickers/lottery tickets to each employee. It was not used as the main measure of the dependent variable. Data representing the de- pendent variable were collected by the experimenters the following day before the shop opened for business.

Experimental Design

The 95 tasks were divided into two task groups, stocking and clean- ing, based on the topography of the task. A multiple baseline design across these two task groups was used to evaluate intervention effec- tiveness. The experimenters used the same task checklist as the employ- ees used for data collection. During baseline, the experimenters recorded completion of tasks on a daily basis until a relatively stable pattern of performance was observed. Next, the implementation of the package intervention was introduced across task groups in a staggered fashion.

Research Articles 9

Interobserver Agreement

To assess interobserver agreement (IOA), a second observer inde- pendently collected data. IOA data were calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100%. IOA data were collected during 50% of base- line sessions and agreement averaged 83%. IOA data were collected during 60% of the first task group’s intervention sessions and agree- ment averaged 80%. During the second task group’s intervention ses- sions, IOA data were collected during 40% of sessions and agreement averaged 82%. Overall, IOA data were collected during 50% of ses- sions and averaged 82%.

Social Validity

Immediately after the study was concluded, the four employees and the owner completed a survey comprised of questions answered using a Likert rating scale (see Appendix C). The survey assessed staff opinion of intervention effectiveness, in addition to suggestions for program en- hancement.

RESULTS

The results of the PDC showed that a lack of appropriate antecedents and consequences may have been responsible for pre-intervention per- formance (see Figure 1).

Figure 2 displays the percentage of tasks completed throughout the study. For task group 1, the percentage of tasks completed during base- line ranged from 33% to 52% with a mean of 44% (SD = 5.8). During intervention, the percentage of tasks completed ranged from 75% to 96% with a mean of 86% (SD = 7.5). For task group 2, the percentage of tasks completed during baseline ranged from 22% to 43% with a mean of 32% (SD = 6.8). This performance remained stable until the interven- tion was implemented. During intervention, the percentage of tasks completed ranged from 62% to 79% with a mean of 67% (SD = 6.9).

Effect sizes were quantified by calculating d statistics for the change from baseline to intervention phases for each of the two task groups. For task group 1, d = 6.2 and for task group 2, d = 5.1.

10 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

Research Articles 11

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Emp #1 Emp #2 Emp #3 Emp #4

Area

Antecedents & Info Equip & Processes Training Consequences

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Antecedents & Info Equip & Processes Training Consequences

Employees

A ve

ra ge

d P

er ce

nt of

Q ue

st io

ns fo

r A

ll In

te rv

ie w

ee s

(4 )

P er

ce nt

of Q

ue st

io ns

Id en

tif yi

ng a

P ot

en tia

l P ro

bl em

FIGURE 1. Top Panel: Results of the Performance Diagnostic Checklist for In- dividual Interviewees of the Coffee Shop; Bottom Panel: Averaged Results of the Performance Diagnostic Checklist for All (4) Interviewees of the Coffee Shop

12 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

100%

100%

90%

90%

80%

80%

70%

70%

60%

60%

50%

50%

40%

40%

30%

30%

20%

20%

10%

10%

0%

0%

P er

ce nt

ag e

of Ta

sk s

C om

pl et

ed

Task Group 1

Task Group 2

1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 18 19 204 8 13 14 15 16 17

Baseline Task Clarification, Checklist, and Lottery

FIGURE 2. Results of the Package Intervention Across Task Groups in the Coffee Shop

Due to the short period of time that was available for completion of the intervention, the lottery was conducted only one time during the course of data collection (after data point # 17). Therefore, one partici- pant received the agreed upon 20 dollar prize.

The results of the social validity survey indicated that 3 of the 5 staff better understood the expectations for closing duties after implementa- tion of the treatment. All 5 staff members indicated that the appearance of the shop had improved. They believed the changes helped to improve customer satisfaction and, overall, they rated the new procedures as ac- ceptable. In addition, 4 out of 5 employees stated that the new proce- dures made their job easier. See Figure 3 for detailed Social Validity Questionnaire results.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study suggest that the Performance Diagnostic Checklist can be an effective assessment tool for identifying possible areas of improvement within an organization. Although the information obtained from using the PDC is subjective in nature, it can be valuable when attempting to design an intervention. Collecting these subjective data (i.e., employees’ opinions) can provide the consultant with a spe-

Research Articles 13

5

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0 Q1-Clean Before Q2-Clear After Q3-Rating Q4-Appearance Q5-Effect/Job Q6-Effect/Cust

Questions

M ea

n S

co re

FIGURE 3. Results of the Social Validity Questionnaire

cific direction for intervention. In the current study, the PDC helped to identify antecedents and consequences as areas most in need of inter- vention. The use of task clarification and a checklist were implemented as antecedents, and a lottery was implemented as a consequence-based intervention. The combination of these techniques produced an increase in the dependent variable (i.e., percentage of tasks completed). This pack- age intervention helped to maintain employee performance throughout the intervention period.

Although the results for task group two showed improvement and in- creased over baseline, they were not quite as dramatic as the results for task group one. This may be partially attributed to the physically de- manding and/or unpleasant nature of the tasks in this group (e.g., mop- ping, sweeping, and cleaning of bathroom), as compared to the rela- tively easy duties included in task group 1.

Even though the precise behavioral mechanisms responsible for the effects of the various intervention components employed in the study are unknown, they are worthy of speculation. The modeling of correct task performance during the task clarification portion of the interven- tion may have established imitation of the correct performance as a reinforcer. In addition, the 95-item checklist presumably controlled per- formance by serving as a prompt to complete all required tasks. Winning the lottery may have served to reinforce the behaviors of the individual who won, although it is likely that various rules or contingency specify- ing stimuli provided in the context of informing the employees about the lottery mediated any reinforcement effect that may have occurred. For those employees who did not win the lottery, a history of participation in lotteries, the verbal stimuli (i.e., rules) that specified the contingen- cies involved in the lottery, and the decent odds of winning the lottery (i.e., winning the lottery was a fairly probable and perhaps even sizeable consequence of appropriate performance) may have prompted employ- ees to engage in the behaviors that maximized their chance of winning. In addition, the public posting of the number of lottery tickets earned by each employee was a source of feedback about performance, and as such may have acted as a reinforcer and/or punisher for employee behaviors related to completion of the items on the checklist.

Although it is impossible to determine for sure, the peer review sys- tem of data collection employed as part of the lottery system may have had a powerful effect on the performance of employees in and of itself. Observing and evaluating the performance of others has been shown to improve the performance of the observer (the “observer effect”; see Alvero & Austin, in press). This method of data collection, which has

14 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

been utilized in behavioral safety research and practice (see Phillips, Sutherland, and Makin, 1994), is advantageous in that it frees consul- tants from gathering direct observation data on their own.

No data are available on intervention maintenance. However, a few months after data collection ended the owner of the coffee shop reported that she maintained the intervention after the consultants withdrew from the organization. The only concern she expressed with long-term main- tenance was the costs involved with the monthly lottery. Although the monthly time frame was chosen specifically to keep costs low, future researchers should investigate longer time frames for lotteries, or per- haps the fading of time frames (i.e., starting with a short inter lottery in- terval and subsequently increasing it).

The study has several limitations. The first limitation is that the deliv- ery of a package intervention does not allow for conclusion of which component of the package, or combination of components, was respon- sible for the results. Second, although intervention selection was guided by the PDC, it is not known for certain if similar results would have been obtained without the use of the PDC. Third, there was a small amount of staff turnover that occurred during the experiment. Follow- ing baseline data collection session number 6, two participants were re- placed by the owner. However, at least 4 baseline data collection sessions were conducted with all participants involved in the interven- tion. Therefore, it is unlikely that this change in staff had any effect on the results of the study. Finally, because the lottery was conducted only one time during the course of data collection, it is impossible to deter- mine the extended effects of the use of the lottery system on employee performance. Although the store owner reported that she continued the lottery for at least a few months after the study and that the intervention was effective during this time, no data are available to support this.

Future Research

Future research should further examine the effectiveness of the PDC as an assessment device. More creative and original methods of testing are needed to document this seemingly useful tool. For example, com- paring a PDC derived intervention vs. an arbitrarily derived interven- tion might be useful. Future research may also involve a comparison of the results of the PDC with the results of a descriptive assessment method of functional assessment. Finally, future research should focus on the evaluation of the long-term effects of the lottery system and the peer review system of data collection used in the current study.

Research Articles 15

REFERENCES

Alvero, A. M., & Austin, J. (in press). The observer effect: The effects of observing on the behavior of the observer. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.

Austin, J. (1996). Organizational troubleshooting in expert management consultants and experienced managers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State Uni- versity, Tallahassee, FL.

Austin, J. (2000). Performance analysis and performance diagnostics. In J. Austin & J. E. Carr (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Behavior Analysis (pp. 321-349). Reno, Ne- vada: Context Press.

Austin, J., Carr, J. E., & Agnew, J. L. (1999). The need for assessment of maintaining variables in OBM. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19, 59-87.

Austin, J., & LaFleur, D. (1998, May). Functional assessment in organizations: A case study. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Convention of the Association for Ap- plied Behavior Analysis, International, Orlando, FL.

Austin, J., Olson, R., & Wellisley, J. A. (2001). The behavior engineering model at work on a small scale: Using task clarification, self-monitoring, and public posting to improve customer service. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14, 53-76.

Austin, J., & Warden, K. A. (1998). Using a function-based least intrusive intervention to improve timeliness in a restaurant. Manuscript in preparation.

Derby, K. M., Wacker, D. P., Sasso, G., Steege, M., Northrup, J., & Cigrand, K. (1992). Brief functional assessment techniques to evaluate aberrant behavior in an outpa- tient setting: A summary of 79 cases. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 713-721.

Gilbert, T. (1978/1996). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Horner, R. H. (1994). Functional assessment: Contributions and future directions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 401-404.

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1992/ 1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197-209 (Reprinted from Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3-20, 1982).

Phillips, R. A., Sutherland, V. J., & Makin, P. J. (1994). Reducing accidents using goal setting and feedback: A field study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 219-240.

Rohn, D., Austin, J., & Lutrey, S. M. (2002). Using feedback and performance ac- countability to decrease cash register shortages. Journal of Organizational Behav- ior Management, 22(1), 33-46.

16 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

Pampino, et al. 17

APPENDIX A The Performance Diagnostic Checklist (PDC)

Performance Diagnostic Checklist ANTECEDENTS AND INFORMATION Yes No

Is there a written job description telling exactly what is expected of the employee?

Has the employee received adequate instruction about what to do?

(Instructions like: “I want you to do this and this before we leave today”)

Are employees aware of the mission of the department/organization?

If yes, can they tell you what that mission is?

Are there job or task aids in the employees’ immediate environment?

If yes, are those aids visible while completing the task in question?

Are there reminders to prompt the task at the correct time/duration?

Is the supervisor present during task completion?

Are there frequently updated, challenging and attainable goals that employees are comfortable with?

If yes, do employees feel these goals are fair?

EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES Yes No

If equipment is required, is it reliable?

Is it in good working order?

Is it ergonomically correct?

Is the equipment and environment optimally arranged in a physical sense?

Are larger processes suffering from certain incomplete tasks along the way (process disconnects)?

Are these processes arranged in a logical manner, without unnecessary repetition?

Are these processes maximally efficient?

Are there any other obstacles that are keeping the employee from completing the task?

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS - TRAINING Yes No

Can the employee tell you what he/she is supposed to be doing and how to do it?

If yes, have they mastered the task?

If fluency is necessary, are they fluent?

Can the employee physically demonstrate completion of the task?

If yes, have they mastered the task?

If fluency is necessary, are they fluent?

Does the employee have the capacity to learn how to complete the task?

CONSEQUENCES Yes No

Are there consequences delivered contingent on the task?

frequency?______________________________________________________________________

immediacy?______________________________________________________________________

consistency/probability?____________________________________________________________

positive or negative? (circle one)

Are there Premack reinforcers?

Do employees see the effects of performance?

If yes, How?__________________natural?_________________arranged?____________________

Do supervisors deliver feedback?

If yes, written or verbal? (circle one) other______________________________________________

direct or indirect?(circle one) other____________________________________________________

Is there performance monitoring?

If yes, self -- supervisor direct -- supervisor indirect (circle one)

Is there a response effort associated with the performance?

Are there other behaviors competing with the desired performance?

18 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

main floor lights upstairs lights basement lights string lights a/c off cash register off

6 non-fat milks 8 half and half 4 heavy cream 3 rows of juice rice milk soy milk sweet cond. milk 3 rows of water chai milk caramel

bottom shelf inside door face of fridge top of door

large medium iced tea

large medium bubble

to bottom of band

to bottom of band

Chocolate

White Chocolate

lids >20

cups (high as machine) SMALL FRIDGE STOCKING WIPING ESPRESSO MACHINE SILVER RACK BIG FRIDGE

coffee pots outside wiped hot water rinsed

wiped and cleaned

cleaned

ice machine (wiped) face sides

brew basket backwash steam pitchers brew cups boat spoons wipe tray face sides top

counter underneath grinder filled to top

MISCELLANEOUS hours filled out fill out tips

cups (1 sleeve each) large medium iced tea

hot cold bubble

lids (1 sleeve each)

coffee plastic containers

1/3 filled 3 ground filters

inside pastries iced tea at least

1/3 full cleaned/wiped

bottom shelf inside door outside door sides of fridge face of fridge

all dishes clean sink clean

3 BIN SINK

SWEEPING

MOPPING

WOMEN’S BATHROOM swept mopped sink and toilet

swept mopped sink and toilet

CUSTOMER STATION sweeteners maxed straw jar filled napkins all 4 filled

lids > 20

hot cold

MAIN FLOOR furniture organized main floor swept main floor mopped

Check tables wiped

OUT FRONT pull in furniture pull in signs pull in plants

Check tables wiped ashtrays swept

UPSTAIRS

GARBAGE

TABLES

staircase swept floor swept hallway mopped furniture organized

taken out clean bags

all wiped

TURNED OFF

behind counter main hall & strip

behind counter main hall & strip

hand wash sink

white milk container

wipen clean

BEHIND COUNTER

MEN’S BATHROOM

APPENDIX B. Closing Duties Checklist

Research Articles 19

1) How clear were you on what was expected before the end of each shift (cleaning, wiping, stocking duties, etc.) BEFORE the checklists were introduced?

1 2 3 4 5

I had no idea what to do at closing

Some things I knew, some I didn’t

I knew exactly what to do at closing

I still have no idea what to do at closing

Some things I knew, some I know now

Now, I know exactly what to do at closing

1 2 3 4 5

54321

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

4

5

5

5

The new procedures have made no difference at all

The appearance of the store is a little better, but could be better

The new procedures have made a big difference

I love the new procedures and think they are great for the coffee shop

They’re OK, I don’t love them and don’t hate them

I hate the new procedures and wish they would go away

The new procedures make it more difficult to do my job

The new procedure have had no effect on my job

My job is much easier now. Everything is done for me when I come in.

Our customers seem to be less satisfied

There was no difference in customer satisfaction

Our customers seem to be more satisfied

2) How clear were you on what was expected before the end of each shift (cleaning, wiping, stocking duties, etc.) AFTER the checklists were introduced?

3) I would rate the new procedures as follows:

4) How much of an effect do the new procedures have on the appearance of the coffee shop?

5) How much of an effect do the new procedures have on your job in the coffee shop?

6) What effect have the new procedures had on customer satisfaction?

s

APPENDIX C Social Validity Questionnaire

Please complete this survey on the new procedures (the checklists, checking on each other’s work, and the lottery). This survey is confidential and anonymous. Your identity will not be revealed so please answer HONESTLY! On the 1-5 scale, please circle the number closest to your opinion.