DOT/FAA/AM-90/2 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Management Assessment: 

Implications for 

Development and Training 

Jennifer G. Myers, Ph.D. 

Civil Aeromedical Institute 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

January 1990 

Final Report 

This document is available to the public 

through the National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 
1. Report No . 2. Gover nmen t Acc e s s •on No . 

DOT/FAA/AM-90/ 2 

4 . T ,tl e and Su bt ,•l e 

MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT: IMPLICATIONS 

FOR DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING 

Technical keport Documentation Page 

3. Rec •p •en t' s C ata lo g No . 

5. Repo rt Cl a re 

Januarv 1990 6 . Perform rng Orgon • za t•o n Code 

r- --------------------------~ f-:;,------,--------------------------------------------------j a. perform 1 n Q 0 rg on I zat i On t( t! Oort ~ 0 . 

7. Au tho r' s' 

Jennifer G. Myers, Ph.D. 

9. Perform in g Or g on • za t •on ame d Aodress 

FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute 

P. 0. Box 25082 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

10 . 'Nork Un , t No . IT RA IS I 

1 1 . Co n tr a c t or Gra n t N o. 

13 . Ty pe of Rep o rt on d Pe r~ od :~v ere d 

~------------------------ ---------------------------~ 12. ponsor~ng Agency Nome an d A. d d re s s 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 14 . Spo n soring Agenc y Cod e 

Washington, D. C. 20591 ~------~----------------------------------------------~----------------------------~' 15 . Supplemen t ary Note s 

This work was performed under tasks AM-C-89-HRR-101 and AM-C-89-HRR-102. 

16. Abstruc t 

Training needs of first level, middle level, and upper level managers within the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were assessed through the analysis of two 

current agency surveys: the bienniel Job Satisfaction Survey and the new, 

annual Survey-Feedbac~-Action Program. Areas of analysis included the 

identification of areas of strong and weak performance among managers, comparisons of percept1ons of management at different levels within an 

organization, supervisory skills among managers, differences between ratings of 

male and female managers, and the relationship between responses to job context 

and management items. J 

Results of the analyses indicated that the relative weak areas of performance 

among FAA management. were in communication and performance management. Differences in perceptions of management among employees at different 

organizational levels suggested a need for additional study of potentially dysfunctional communication patterns in large facilities to enhance development 

of training in communication skills. Integration of these results with the 

study of mid-level managerial functions and competencies is also necessary for 

application to training. The job satisfaction surveys served to provide a first 

step toward improved systematization of management development and training in 

the FAA. 

17. Key Words 18. Distri bution Statement 

Management, training, needs assessment Document is available to the public 

through the National Technical 

Information Service, Springfield, 

Virginia 22161. 

19. Sec:urity Classif. (of th is report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Pri c:e 

Unclassified Unclassified 13 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72! Reproduction of completed page outhori zed 
MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT: 

IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING 

INTRODUCTION 

A recent survey of United States corporations found that only 27% of those 

companies responding conducted training needs assessments for their managers, and 

that the large majority of the companies focused their needs assessment at the first 

level supervisor (Saari, Johnson, McLaughlin, & Zimmerle, 1988). Even without the 

benefit of a systematic assessment of training and development needs, almost all of 

the companies reported that some type of management training program was being 

used. Like many of the companies that were surveyed in the Saari et al. (1988) study, 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed and maintained 

management trammg programs without truly systematic data on training and 

development needs. Recently, however, the FAA made a long term commitment to 

improve management development and training beginning with 1) assessing 

management development and training needs, 2) exammmg current management 

development and training programs, and 3) determining the management skills 

needed to ensure that the FAA is ready to meet the challenges of the future National 

Airspace System. This paper will focus on the results of the needs assessment and the 

implications for management development and training. 

The assessment of training and development needs can be accomplished in a 

number of ways. Basic methods for collecting needs assessment information include 

interviews, surveys, observations, focus groups, and examination of documentation 

on job tasks. Typically, data collection focuses on self-assessments of training needs 

or assessments by supervising managers. In this study, results from two surveys -

one used to assess facets of job satisfaction and the other a subordinate appraisal of 

managers and first level supervisors - were used to identify areas of performance 

that could be improved through development and training programs. 

Data from the FAA's biennial Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) and the new SurveyFeedback-Action Program (SFA) served as the basis for assessing the training and 

development needs of managers within the FAA. The responses of 5,088 FAA 

employees to the 1988 administration of the JSS were used in the data analysis. These 

responses represented a proportionally stratified sample of occupational groups 

within each of nine national regions and random samples of employees from the 

Aeronautical Center, Technical Center, and National Headquarters. The response rate 

was sufficient to achieve a bound on the error of estimation of between 1% and 5% 

for each of the organizational groups examined. 

The JSS contained 142 questions regarding attitudes toward and satisfaction with 

aspects of the job, such as supervision and Federal issues, with an additional 13 

questions on demographic characteristics and organizational location. Overall 

satisfaction with the job was assessed by a single global item. Scales that depicted 

different aspects of organizational climate were identified by factor analysis and 

item analysis. 

The SFA questionnaire was administered to all FAA employees in February 1989. 

Over 37,00 individuals returned their questionnaires from a total agency population 

of approximately 48,000. The questionnaire contained 37 items; eight items regarding 

the context in which the job is performed, six items on the manager of the 

employee's organization, and 23 items on the employee's immediate supervisor. The 

names of the manager and supervisor were printed on the questionnaire and 

1 
distributed to the appropriate subordinates for responding. Factor analysis confirmed 

the existence of two scales, a Management scale and a Supervision scale. Results from 

the SFA were generated for the major organizational groups and field occupations. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Stren~ths and Weaknesses. The five items with the highest percentage of 

positive responses (relative strengths) and the lowest percentage of positive 

responses (relative weaknesses) for managers in each organizational group were 

identified from the JSS and SFA. The SFA item, "Assures that supervisors and 

managers in this organization do a good job both in managing people and in getting 

the job done" received the lowest percentage of positive responses from employees in 

all organizational groups except for one. The highest percentage of positive 

responses for all organizational groups occurred for the SF A item, "Encourages 

honesty and openness at all levels." 

Strengths and weaknesses were further examined using the JSS because of its 

greater number of items pertaining to attitudes toward management. Agency-wide, 

the highest percentage of positive responses occurred for the item regarding 

"Clearly established lines of authority and responsibility." Other management 

strengths included: "Authority and responsibility is appropriately shared," 

"Employee Participation Groups expressed concerns to management," and "Sensibly 

organized work activities." There were some slight deviations from this national 

pattern of results for several of the organizational groups. For example, 

"Opportunities for training" was considered a strength among agency personnel in 

National Headquarters and regional staff offices, but not among field personnel. 

Relative weaknesses of management identified through the JSS included issues 

related to policies and practices that encourage hard work, perceived discrepancies 

in formal and informal procedures for promoting and rewarding employees, and the 

extent of management action in response to the results of the 1986 JSS. 

Approximately half of the organizational groups also identified the management of 

conflict as an area in need of improvement. The items included under the "Agency 

and Change" section on the JSS also provided clues to the weaknesses and strengths of 

management. In general, management received relatively few positive responses 

regarding 1) the degree to which they solicit employee feedback before and after 

organizational change and 2) the amount of information provided to employees 

regarding the effect of organizational change. In fact, most of the items in this 

factor received positive responses from less than half of the sample. The primary 

exceptions were "Agency successful in performing its mission" and "Agency policies 

and procedures are helpful" (see Table 1). 

Perceptions of Mana~ement at Different Or~anizational Leyels. Level 4 and 5 air 

traffic towers and en route facilities have several levels of supervision within their 

organizations. Ratings of management by employees in staff, first level supervision, 

and operational positions were compared using the SF A Management Scale. In the en 

route option, ratings for the facility managers were significantly different among 

the groups (F=55.87, df=2,4378, p<.001). Post hoc tests showed that operational 

controllers gave the lowest ratings to management (X=3.14). Employees in staff 

positions gave the highest ratings (X=3.60), with ratings by first level supervisors 

(X=3.38) in between- these two groups. The difference between the hierarchical levels 

within Level 4 and 5 tower facilities was statistically significant (F=29.24, df=3,5247, 

p<.OOl) and showed a pattern essentially identical to that of the en route facilities 

(operational controller X=3.31, first level supervisor X=3.54, satellite tower manager 

2 
X=3.55, staff X=3.78). The same pattern of responding among the groups was apparent 

in the percentage of positive responses given to each Management item (see Table 2). 

TABLE 1. - JSS MANAGEMENT FACTOR STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 

Management Factor - Strengths 

Clearly established lines of authority and responsibility 

Employee Participation Groups expressed concerns to management 

Work activities are sensibly organized 

Organization encourages suggestions from employees 

Authority and responsibility is appropriately shared in organization 

Management Factor- Weaknesses 

Management acted on 1986 sutvey 

Promotions are given to the best qualified 

Conflicts are managed. rather than avoided 

Rewards or recognition given for good performance 

Best qualified are selected for supeiVisory positions 

Policies, practices, or conditions encourage hard work 

Agency and Change Factor - Strengths 

Agency successful in performing its mission 

Agency policies and procedures are helpful 

Kept informed about what is happening in the agency 

Agency changes agree with initial information received 

Agency and Change Factor - Weaknesses 

Positive change toward managing people 

Agency takes into account the impact of change on employees 

Receive sufficient information on the effect of the changes 

Agency seeks feedback about proposed organizational change 

Agency seeks feedback after organizational changes 

3 

Positive 

Responses 

78.6% 

71.3% 

65.9% 

65.0% 

64.8% 

Positive 

Responses 

50.8% 

50.3% 

50.2% 

49.9% 

49.9% 

47.1% 

Positive 

Responses 

78.4% 

76.4% 

57.1% 

54.8% 

Positive 

Responses 

43.7% 

43.1% 

42.6% 

35.9% 

35.00Al 
TABLE 2. - RESPONSES TO MANAGEMENT ITEMS 

BY EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL 

EN ROUTE 

STAFF SUPV ATCS 

MANAGEMENT INDEX 62.1 55.5 44.9 

SUPS/MGRS MANAGE PEOPLE/JOB 55.8 54.6 35.4 

DECISIONS CONSIDER JOB/EMP 62.8 52.8 46.0 

PAYS ATfENTION TO MY IDEAS 60.2 49.3 43.3 

ENCOURAGES HONES1Y /OPENNESS 69.7 62.3 53.0 

COMMUNICATES GOALS/OBJS 63.2 62.2 50.9 

EFFECTIVE COORDINATION 59.1 50.7 40.5 

TOWER 

MGR .STAFF SUPV 

59.1 70.8 62.7 

56.9 62.2 56.7 

54.0 70.2 60.6 

54.7 77.3 61.9 

65.8 70.4 71.6 

59.2 72.5 64.6 

58.6 70.4 62.2 

PERCENTAGE OF POSITIVE RESPONSES 

ATCS 

' 49.6 

41.4 

45.8 

48.7 

59.5 

53.0 

50.0 

Satisfaction with management as measured on the JSS was compared for five 

different organizational levels of employees, from nonsupervisors to associate 

administrators. Overall, the higher the organizational level of the employee, the 

greater the satisfaction with the next level of management (F=35.29 df=4,4914, p<.001). 

Mean ratings of management from each organizational level were: 1) 

nonsupervisors X=2.86, 2) first line supervisors X=3.13, 3) second level or higher 

supervisor X=3.46, 4) branch/facility/sector manager X=3.64, 5) division manager or 

regional, service/office director and higher X=3.90. 

Perceptions of Mana&ement by Field and Re&ional Office Personnel. A 

comparison of ratings of regional division managers on the SFA Management Scale 

by their subordinate office and field employees was conducted for Airway Facilities, 

Flight Standards, and Air Traffic organizational groups. A statistical difference was 

not found between field and regional office subordinate ratings of Airway Facilities 

regional division managers. Flight Standards field managers rated their division 

manager significantly lower (X=3.51) than did regional office employees (X=3.69; 

F=5.03, df=1,574, p<.05). Air traffic division managers were also rated differently by 

their regional office and field subordinates (F=4.4015, df=4,1714, p<.01). Post hoc tests 

demonstrated that regional office personnel gave significantly higher ratings 

(X=3.88) to division managers than did FSS/AFSS (X=3.61) and Level 1-3 tower 

personnel (X=3.61). No other air traffic groups were significantly different from 

each other. In examining the percentage of positive responses to each Management 

Scale item, notable differences were found between regional office and field subordinates' responses to "Pays attention to my ideas." Fewer field personnel gave positive 

responses to that item than did regional office employees in each of the 

organizational groups (see Appendix A). 

Mana&ers as Supervisors. Individuals who were rated on the supervisor items on 

the SFA represented a variety of levels of management. For example, those rated on 

supervisory skills ranged from first level supervisors with three subordinates to 

division managers with over 100 employees. Managers, assistant managers, and 

supervisors were compared on the SFA Supervisor Scale score using a one-way 

analysis of variance. The differences in average scores between the levels of 

4 
management were statistically significant (F=33 .17; df=2,34049; p<.OO 1 ). Duncan's 

Multiple Range Test showed that managers' average scores (X=3.80) were significantly different from those of supervisors (X=3 .69) and assistant managers (X=3.69). 

The means of the latter two groups did not differ significantly from each other. 

Managers were rated positively by a higher percentage of employees on each of the 

supervisor items than were assistant managers or first level supervisors. However, 

those items receiving the lowest percentage of positive responses for each of the 

groups were quite similar and generally dealt with performance management issues 

(see Appendix B). 

A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to determine differences between 

subordinate ratings of male and female managers. Female managers received lower 

ratings (X=3.36) on the Management Scale than did male managers (X=3.38; F=3.26, 

df=1,31160, p<.05). However, the practical difference between the ratings is 

insignificant. As shown in Figure 1, the percentage of positive responses to each 

management item is essentially the same for males and females. 

MANAGE PEOPLE/JOB 'mlfffi®P 44 :~. 5 

DEC CONSIDER JOB/EMP 

PAYS ATTENTION TO MY IDEAS I 

ER.~B!""S-8m!S 

52.9 

52.2 

52.11 

53.4 

ENCOUR HONESTY/OPENNESS - 113•

8 

82.0 

COMM GOALS/OBJS --

54

·

8 

57.2 

EFFECT COORDINATION --

2 

53.8 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

SEX 

~ FEMALE 

~MAlE 

Figure 1. Percentage of Positive Responses to Management Items for 

Males and Females 

Mana2ement Influence on the Job Context. Pearson correlations were computed 

between SPA items that assessed responses to the context in which the job is 

performed and management items. Overall, small but" significant correlations were 

found between all the items. The largest correlations were between the management 

items and the perceived interference of local policies and procedures with doing the 

job well. The item dealing with the acceptability of the amount of overtime worked 

showed the smallest correlations with the management items (see Table 3). 

5 
TABLE 3.- CORRELATIONS BETWEEN 

JOB CONTEXT AND MANAGEMENT ITEMS 

Su:gs/M~s mana~e :geo:gle/Job 

Q!::~l~iQmi ~Qn~!d!::r JobL!::m:glQl!:!::!::~ 

~a~s att!::nttQD tQ m~ id!::a~ 

EncQ:YI:a~!::~ hQD!::~[Q:g!::Dn!::~~ 

Communicates 

goal~ L obj~~tiv~~ 

I Eff!::~!iV!::~ 

Adequate training 28 24 24 23 26 26 

Work related to mission 29 27 27 27 30 29 

Adequate resources 32 29 26 23 27 30 

Local policies/procedures 43 41 38 37 36 38 

Region/natl policies 26 24 23 21 23 26 

Amount of overtime 18 18 18 17 17 18 

Adequate time off 28 27 26 25 25 26 

Working conditions 28 25 23 22 25 25 

• all correlations •tatiatically •ignificant at p<.OOl 

CONCLUSIONS 

The differences found among organizational levels in their ratings of 

management in the large air traffic field facilities suggested that upward and 

downward communication and control of information are areas in need of 

improvement among FAA managers. The. intra-organizational assessments afforded 

by the analysis of the SFA survey suggested that management needs to improve 

communications with different levels of their organizational constituency. Similar 

weaknesses in communication might also underlay the relatively few positive 

responses to issues in soliciting and providing feedback on organizational change 

identified in the JSS. In addition, the relationships between perceptions of 

management and the interference of local policies and procedures in accomplishing 

the job might be moderated by communicating the necessity for certain policies 

and/or reasons for instituting specific procedures. The comparison of regional office 

and field employees pointed to the need for division managers to acknowledge and 

integrate information or ideas from field personnel into their decision-making. 

Although a majority ·of employees felt the division manager encouraged honest and 

open communication, relatively fewer employees felt that the upward flow of 

information was being heeded. 

The results also showed that performance management skills constitute a 

relative weak area for managers. Although managers were rated higher than first 

level supervisors on supervision skills assessed in the SFA, they were similar to 

supervisors in their relative strengths and weaknesses. Similarly, the JSS revealed 

management weaknesses in the areas of employee development, performance 

feedback, and human resource utilization. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The identification of communication problems in analyses of both of the surveys 

served to confirm the need for management training in this area. The development 

of training to correct deficiencies in communication skills could be further refined 

by additional study ·· in several areas. Examining communication patterns in large 

facilities (e.g., en route centers) or large geographic areas (e.g., Airway Facilities 

sectors) under a single manager could help identify dysfunctional patterns that 

6 
could be corrected by onsite training. These identified "risk" areas could also be 

incorporated into training for new managers. Skill areas to be trained might include 

techniques for identifying information important to employees, methods for 

confirming the accuracy of receipt of information by different levels of employees, 

and identifying and resolving obstacles to communication flow. 

The information on management development and training needs derived from 

the surveys should also be integrated with the study of mid-level managerial 

functions and competencies recently conducted for the FAA (Human Technology, 

Inc., 1989). The linkages between functions and competencies can help identify the 

content and structure of training to address needs determined by the present study. 

For example, Communication was an identified competency that was linked to the 

performance of all the managerial functions in the study conducted by Human 

Technology, Inc. Flunctions could be reviewed to determine where the types of 

communications problems identified by the current study might occur. Training 

scenarios could then be developed to address those current or potential problems. The 

identified need for training in performance management in the analysis of surveys 

could be similarly addressed by focusing on the competencies associated with 

performance of the Supervision and Human Resource Administration functions. 

The use of the job satisfaction surveys for identification of management training 

and development needs provided an alternative to more traditional techniques of 

training needs assessment. However, the analyses described here should be 

supplemented with self-assessments of training needs as well as a review of 

operating issues that affect management effectiveness and subsequently influence 

job satisfaction. The combination of these assessments will provide a complete picture 

of the training and development needs of managers. Given the relative lack of other 

systematic information on management training needs, the analysis of current 

surveys already in use provide a first step toward improved systematization of 

management development and training in the FAA. 

REFERENCES 

Human Technology, Inc. (1989). Refined FAA managerial performance model: 

Validated function/KSA linkages. Unpublished report: author. 

Saari, L.M., Johnson, T.R., McLaughlin, S.D., & Zimmerle, D.M. (1988). A survey 

of management training and education practices in U.S. companies. 

Personnel Psychology, 41, 731-743. 

7 
Appendix A 

RATINGS OF AIRWAYS FACILITIES DIVISION MANAGERS 

BY REGIONAL OFFICE AND FIELD EMPLOYEES 

ITEM REG OFFICE FIELD 

MANAGEMENT INDEX 67.9 67.1 

SUPS/MGRS MANAGE PEOPLE/JOB 64.3 63.8 

DECISIONS CONSIDER JOB/EMP 67.7 64.1 

PAYS ATTENTION TO MY IDEAS 71.3 62.9 

ENCOURAGES HONESTY /OPENNESS 72.8 70.5 

COMMUNICATES GOALS/OBJS 68.1 72.8 

EFFECTIVE COORDINATION 64.9 65.2 

PERCENTAGE OF 

POSITIVE RESPONSES 

RATINGS OF FLIGHT STANDARDS DIVISION MANAGERS 

BY REGIONAL OFFICE AND FIELD EMPLOYEES 

ITEM REG OFFICE FIELD 

MANAGEMENT INDEX 65.9 58.6 

SUPS/MGRS MANAGE PEOPLE/JOB 57.9 54.3 

DECISIONS CONSIDER JOB/EMP 62.6 50.8 

PAYS ATTENTION TO MY IDEAS 65.8 54.4 

ENCOURAGES HONESTY /OPENNESS 70.4 67.1 

COMMUNICATES GOALS/OBJS 66.7 65.5 

EFFECTIVE COORDINATION 68.2 55.9 

PERCENTAGE OF 

POSITIVE RESPONSES 

RATINGS OF AIR TRAFFIC DIVISION MANAGERS 

BY REGIONAL OFFICE AND FIELD EMPLOYEES 

REG EN TOWER TOWER 

ITEM OFFICE ROUTE L.l-3 L.4-5 

MANAGEMENT INDEX 72.8 65.0 60.6 67.1 

SUPS/MGRS MANAGE PEOPLE/JOB 71.8 61.1 55.9 67.0 

DECISIONS CONSIDER JOB/EMP 72.5 61.6 59.4 67.8 

PAYS ATIENTION TO MY IDEAS 72.3 57.4 51.8 60.9 

ENCOURAGES HONES1Y /OPENNESS 75.0 75.8 64.6 74.8 

COMMUNICATES GOALS/OBJS 69.3 67.9 66.9 68.3 

EFFECTIVE COORDINATION 75.1 62.3 59.1 62.6 

FSS 

62.8 

62.5 

59.0 

51.7 

67.1 

67.0 

63.2 

PERCENTAGE OF POSITIVE RESPONSES 

A-1 
Appendix B 

RELATIVE WEAK AREAS IN SUPERVISORY SKILLS 

MANAGER 

POS RESPONSES 

M Of! VA TES ME TO DO MY BEST 57 .9% 

GOOD PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 63.5% 

HELPS FIND WAYS TO DO JOB BETTER 64.1% 

MAKES CLEAR, SOUND, TIMELY DECISIONS 64. 7% 

HELPS OVERCOME OBSTACLES TO JOB 66.0% 

ASSISTANT MANAGER 

POS RESPONSES 

MOTIVATES ME TO DO MY BEST 51.1 % 

HELPS FIND WAYS TO DO JOB BETTER 57.4% 

GOOD PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 58.4% 

MAKES CLEAR, SOUND, TIMELY DECISIONS 60.1% 

HELPS OVERCOME OBSTACLES TO JOB 61.2% 

FIRST LEVEL SUPERVISOR 

POS RESPONSES 

MOTIVATES ME TO DO MY BEST 52.5% 

HELPS FIND WAYS TO DO JOB BETTER 60. 5% 

GOOD PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 60.8% 

GIVES THINKING BEHIND DECISIONS 60.8% 

MAKES CLEAR, SOUND, TIMELY DECISIONS 61.6% 

B-! 
Appendix B (continued) 

RELATIVE STRONG AREAS IN SUPERVISORY SKILLS 

MANAGER 

POS RESPONSES 

TREATS PEOPLE FAIRLY 81.4% 

ENCOURAGES HONEST AND OPEN COMMUNICATION 78.5% 

ASKS FOR/CONSIDERS MY IDEAS ABOUT WORK 76.7% 

SUPPORTS SKILL DEV:8LOPMENT 76.1% 

CLEAR EXPECTIONS 75.7% 

ASSISTANT MANAGER 

POS RESPONSES 

TREATS PEOPLE FAIRLY 80.8% 

ENCOURAGES OPEN AND HONEST COMMUNICATION 75.0% 

ASKS FOR/CONSIDERS MY IDEAS ABOUT WORK 72.9% 

SINCERELY LISTENS 72.5% 

CLEAR EXPECTATIONS 69.9% 

FIRST LEVEL SUPERVISOR 

POS RESPONSES 

TREATS PEOPLE FAIRLY 78.4% 

ENCOURAGES HONEST AND OPEN COMMUNICATION 74.3% 

CLEAR EXPECTATIONS 74.1% 

SINCERELY LISTENS 71.9% 

DISCUSSES PERFORMANCE HONESTLY 71.8% 

B-2 .