ML20203P893
| ML20203P893 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1986 |
| From: | Arvey R MINNESOTA, UNIV. OF, MINNEAPOLIS, MN |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203P887 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8605080306 | |
| Download: ML20203P893 (30) | |
Text
'
Ty 1.
i.
pit.g curum>rvM 1986 May 2,dhil))%
ld%
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA r ~
x.$(,
'Q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
?-
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 7 I9866:-.
T:m:;.
,I,'
\\,.
__ (Q:
.a j ar In the Matter of:
)
' (%l 'f'fjgD(.
'~
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD D. ARVEY 01:
State your name, address and occupation.
A1:
My name is Richard D. Arvey.
I am a Professor of Industrial Relations at the University of Minnesota.
02:
State your field of study and work.
A2:
I am an industrial-organizational psychologist.
I hold a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Minnesota and have taught at several Universities during the past 15 l
years.
My field of study involves, among other issues, the l
kinds of factors that influence work behavior, and the kinds of methodologies which may be applied to studying individuals in organizations.
I am a member of the Editorial Board of the Academy of Management Journal and of Personnel Psychology.
In addition tr teaching, publishing and research, my consulting clients have included Ford Motor Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone kR l0 D
1 T
i
7 y
Company, the American. Petroleum Institute, Control Data Corporation, Exxon Corporation, Shell Oil Company and Wells -
Fargo Bank, among others.
I have conducted research for the Office of Naval Research under a grant to investigate the effects of discipline on organizational behavior, and for the National Science Foundation.
I have published and presented numerous articles and professional papers.
A more complete statement of my professional cualifications appears in my Vita attached hereto as Arvey Exhibit 1.
03:
Has any of your research and writing been of relevance to the possible impacts of harassment and intimidation on work performance?
A3:
Yes.
In the field of industrial and organizational psychol-ogy, there are certain fundamental principles which have general applicability to work place settings.
On the basis of these principles the likely effects of harassment and intimidation may be analysed.
The testimony of Dr. Daniel Ilgen in this case, for example, sets forth some of the more pertinent of these general principles, and shows how they may be applied to the evidence of harassment and intimida-tion in this case.
In my opinion, he has set forth an appropriate conceptual framework for such analysis.
In addition, my research and publications have also addressed issues specifically relating to the effects of punishment, discipli a and harassment in organizations.
I have studied the impact of punitive behavioral styles 2
7
~
~.
exhibited by supervisors on employees and the impact of such styles on employee morale and performance.
In 1980 I co-authored the article " Punishment In Organizations: A Review, Propositions And Research Suggestions," in Academy of Manage-ment Review, 5, 123-32.
(This article was reprinted in
- Hampton, D.
- Summer, D.
- Webber, R.
(1982), Organizational Behavior and the Practice Of Management, Scott, Foresman &
Company).
During June 1980 through June 1982 I studied the effects of discipline on organizational behavior as princi-pal investigator for the Office of Naval.Research.
In 1984 I co-authored the article, " Discipline In Organizations: A Field Study," in the Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 448-60.
In 1985 I co-authored the chapter, "The Use of Disci-pline In Organizational Settings," in Cummings, L.L.
and
- Staw, B.
( Ed s.), Pesearch In Organizational Behavior, JAI Press Inc.
Most recently, I have served as an expert wit-ness for the defendant organization in a case dealing with sexual harassment.
In this role, I reviewed the research and research methodologies involved in studying sexual harassment in organizations and the potential impact of harassment on individual employees.
04:
Have you reviewed or studied materials pertaining to the Braidwood Nuclear Generating station?
A4:
Yes.
I have reviewed several documents.
I have reviewed the Nuclear Begulatory Commission's Quality Assurance Criteria for nuclear power plants (10 CFB Part 50, Appendix 3
.Y.
B), the Braidwood Quality Control Inspector Harassment and Intimidation contention and supporting documents, including the two NRC Staff memoranda dated March 29, 1985 and one dated April 5,1985, which I understand were attached to Intervenors' July 15, 1985 filing with this Board.
05:
What is the purpose of your testimony?
A5:
I have been asked by counsel for Intervenors how, f rom the perspective of industrial and organizational psychology, one coupd seek to determine whether perceived or experienced harassment and/or intimidation from the Comstock supervisors and management figures might have influenced the work behav-ior of individual inspectors, and, more specifically, might have compromised their emphasis on quality.
06:
Given evidence of the experience or perception of harassment and/or intimidation how might one from a behavioral scientist perspective, proceed to study the effect of such harassment on inspector performance?
A6:
There are several behavioral science methods by which one might attempt to determine whether harassment has any speci-fic impact on work behavior.
For example, one might attempt to design a survey instrument or an experiment to test this proposition or hypothesis.
Other examples include the pos-sible use of longitudinal methods relying on archival data,
" naturalistic observational" studies, or in-depth inter-views.
However, each methodology, in varying degrees, has 4
A I
m 7
?.
difficulties in terms of its implementation at the Braidwood facility currently.
07:
Could you elaborate on these methodologies and problems?
Let's take the survey methodology first.
A7:
Yes I will.
Survey methodology is a commonly applied social science tool.
Surveys are used to study a variety of pheno-mena in a wide variety of situations.
For example, surveys are conducted to assess employee satisfaction and opinioas, to assess ps. itical sentiments, to measure employee feelings about employee benefits, and so forth.. Notice that there is a wide range of phenomena which might be " measured" using survey or guestionnaire methods.
Some of the phenomena measured may be clearly perceptual or affective in aature.
That is, we are clearly talking about measuring employee feelings or attitudes towards some object.
!7 other cases, however, surveys might be used to assess perception of behavior events.
That is, whether employees experienced some actual behavioral event which occurred.
In this case, it is the perception of some external event which is being measured and not the experience or feeling associated with some event.
Obviously there are measures which blur this distinction.
The point I am making is that survey methodol-ogies attempt to measure a variety of phenomena, some of which are more subjective and some which are more objective in nature.
In the present context, a survey tool might be implemented which has as its objective the measurement of 5
u.
the impact of harassing behaviors on employee behavior.
Such an instrument would probably ask employees to think back over their careers with the organization or at least over the past two or three years and self-report such effects.
Given this type of scenario, I believe there are a number of potential problems using such a survey approach which make statistical estimates considerably shaky or imprecise.
First, there is the problem of individuals who are apparently already sensitized to these issues.
There apparently has been a great deal of information floating about concerning this harassment issue in this organization.
One can detect this from the depositions involved in this case.
The question which naturally arises is whether individuals will accurately report the effects of harass-ment.
Fespondents may be influenced by the perceived rewards or punishments which may accrue to them by reporting in any particular way.
A second major problem is the retrospective nature of such a survey.
People are not particularly accurate when asked about events which occurred in the past.
Evidence suggests that the longer the time period which intervenes between the event and the curvey, the less accurate the respondents are in their recollections.
We have a good deal of evidence which suggests that individuals are not particu-larly accurate in recalling instances which occurred even quite recently (such as car accidents, criminal acts, e tc.).
6
7.
S.
A third problem with a survey approach in this instance is that becaut respondents may be sensitized to the issue they may define harassment, or effects of harassment, differently than if they had not been sensitized.
- Moreover, any survey or questionnaire may potentially " prime" them to recall events in a particular way, when they might not have so perceived the events prior to the survey or when the issue became so prominent.
Even if a survey is constructed carefully in an effort to not to provide " cues", this problem is difficult to avoid because the intent of the survey is to somehow capture the particular conten.t domain.
A fourth problem associated with such a survey is that of representativeness.
Most studies of this sort to do not have everyone complete the survey.
Thus, one is left with questions of whether there exists any possible bias in the data which is captured.
For example, if 50% of the popula-tion responds to the questionnaire, is this 50% of those individuals who were the "ones" who experinced harassment and the other 50% those who did not?
Or can one safely generalize to the population as a whole?
With issues such as the effects of harassment on inspection performance, I am not confident that we can really ever determine with certainty the representativeness of the sample.
Another major problem has to do with whether such survey responses are reliable and valid.
Reliability has to do with consistency of measurement.
The question of whether respondents who answer a question er set of questions at one 7
7
~ ',
time will answer the same on another occasion.
If consi-stency is not achieved, then any results are largely uninterpretable.
While there are a number of methods which might be employed to assess the reliability of such survey instruments, one must review these data carefully.
More important, however, is whether survey responses such as these are valid.
That is, do they reflect reality?
This is a major question with a survey methodology of this sort.
There typically is no external verification of whether the responses are accurate or not.
In this case, how could any verification be made of the impact of harassment on the performance of specific individuals without compromising the confidentiality of the individuals?
In a similar vein, we do know that the perceptions of one group of employees sometimes differ considerably from those of others asso-ciated with the organization.
For example, in some of my own research, my data reveals that employees have quite different perceptions of certain punitive aspects of their jobs compared to supervisors.
Or that the correlation between the supervisors and their own employees for similar kinds of events differs considerably.
Who is correct?
The point I am making here is that survey guestion-naires take the respondent answers gipically at " face value."
lio weve r, there are severe validity and accuracy issues involved, especially in the present instance.
08:
Are there some additional problems with survey research of 8
r-
?.
this kind?:
A8:
Yes.
Another major problem I see is the extreme difficulty in scientifically determining whether experiences of harass-ment had performance implications.
That is, most surveys
~
would ask the respondents to self-report the impact of harassment.
In this case, a survey would probably attempt to gather data concerning their perceptions about whether their quality went down, up, or was unchanged.
Regardless of the leading nature of such questions, we again have no
, external verification of whether quality was impaired or influenced.
Thus survey methodology yields little informa-tion concerning cause and effect relatier. ships.
The infor-mation may provide some cues or hints but there is a need for additional verification.
A final comment on this is that employees are seldom going to admit that they personally did something in viola-tion of policy (e.g.,
approved welds without all research required) because of their fears of self-incrimination.
In fact, there are some ethical issues raised by asking employees on a survey instrument to self-identify themselves as engaging in behaviors whic.1 are against policy.
09:
Given these limitations, are survey methods useless for attempting to study social science phenomena?
A9:
Not at all.
Questionnaire and survey methods may be quite useful.
However, a good deal of work needs to be carried out to establish the reliability and validity of such 9
7.
measures.
In my opinion, the survey methods are much better at assessing present opinions, attitudes, and senti-ments about the work place than attempting to measure on a retrospective basis whether certain kinds of behaviors occurred or did not occur.
That is, there generally needs to be a time boundary on the period being measured and the survey should study something which took place relatively recently if not presently.
Moreover, attitudes and feelings may be assessed directly because nobody else could verify these feelings other than the persons yielding the responses.
- However, retrospective measures of behavior are notoriously defi-cient.
Another big limitation of a survey method in this instance, as I have mentioned, is the reactive nature of the specific situation.
In my opinion, these two factors place considerable limitations on any interpretations based on a survey study.
However, not all survey methods will be subject to these problematic features; survey methods might be designed to permit the assessment of reliability and validity.
Q10:
What about an experimental methodology?
A10:
I was talking about some kind of experimental paradigm where an actual experiment is set up.
There could be an instance where workers are subjected to conditions of harassment and compared to a control group set of workers l
10 t
e.
%e who were not harassed.
The impact of their work quality I.
could be reviewed. -This kind of experiment is almost impossible to conduct in a situation like the Braidwood plant.
Again, there is too much knowledge about the situa-tion.
Second, there are major ethical problems of using harassment experimentally.
And third, I suspect that there is no realistic manner in which a study such as this could be implemented.
Oll: -Are there any additional studies which might be employed?
All:
Another methodology is to use longitudinal methods where archival data arae gathered and inspected over time.
Dr.
Ilgen has described these as behavioral " trace" studies and I'will let him comment on this type of design.
012:
Are there any additional " tools" which a behavioral scientist might use or bring to bear in attempting to study this. phenomenon?
A12:
One might attempt what is called a " naturalistic observa-tional" study where the investigator installs him/herself j
in the actual work place and keeps accurate track of the i
stream of behaviors which occur.
For example, a supervisor might interact with a subordinate and this behavioral epi-sode is observed by the investigator.
The behaviors and the consequences of the behavior are recorded and classi-fled according to a coding scheme worked out.
Later anal-yses are performed on these data.
Naturally, not all l
11
7<
behavioral episodes can be observed and thus some kind of sampling plan must be employed.
Moreover, there are poten-tial problems of employees and supervisors changing their behaviors as a result of being observed.
In fact, when the.
t object is to study aversive kinds of behaviors in the work 5
place, my hunch is that bo;th supervisors and employees are
\\
on-the "best behavior" and that these kinds of episodes
)
will not. be witnessed.
- However, this is only a hypothesis and needs verification.
Most fundamentally, however, this type of study cannot be done retroactively; it can only study present behavior.
013:
What about the in-depth interview approach?
Al$: ' An in-depth interview could potentially provide reliable information, subject to at least two conditions (as well as a number of the limitat' ions mentioned earlier with respect to survey research).
These conditions are, first, the
\\
respondents must be assured total anonymity and confiden-tiality.
Otherwise gtheir perceptions of the desired i
response are likely to affect their actual response.
Second, the questions must be designed in such a way as to guard against biasing the answers one way or the other.
014:
In sum, what are your recommendations to the Board in this case?
A14:
With regard to the issue of determining the impact of l
harassment and/or intimidation on inspectors with preci-12 3
n
./,
k.
sion, any one social science methodology is probably not sufficient.
My recom nendation would be to use multiple methods and complement these data with some kind of infor-mation dealing with the work itself (such as reinspec-tions).
If I were attempting to deal with this issue strictly using behavioral science methods, I would probably use an interview approach followed by a carefully constructed survey.
I also believe that, as explained by Dr. Ilgen, the use of archival data and behavioral trace measures has poten-tial usefulness.
By implication, I do not believe that it would be helpful to design an actual experiment using this population or to conduct a naturalistic observation study.
A major point I want to make is that we will not be able to conclusively assess any cause and effect relation-ship in a scientific fashion, but that we can gain know-ledge of the impact of harassment and intimidation on inspector performance using multiple behavioral science procedures.
Ilo weve r, these estimates will.be imprecise at best.
Therefore I recommend that data concerning the work itself be ascertained prior to reaching a conclusive deter-mination.
I 13 L
y; ARVEY EXHIBIT 1 VITA Richard D. Arvey
=
4-l 8..
l l
's mg
~
August, 1985 VITA RICHARD DAVID ARVEY Home Address Business Address 4912 Ewing Avenue South Industrial Relations Center Minneapolis, MN 55410 University of Minnesota 537 Management & Economics Building 271 - 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455
'Home Phone:(612) 929-7681 Business Phone: (612) 373-5392 Date of Birth: 7-5-44 Social Security Number: 557-64-2944 Licensed by Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists Certificate number 2-1877-6 EDUCATION 1962-1966 Undergraduate - Occidental College, Los Angeles, California Major:
Psychology Degree:
B.A. - June, 1966 1966-1970 Graduate - University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Major:
Psychology Supporting Field: Statistics - Measurement Major Advisor: John P. Campbell Degrees:
M.S. - June, 1968 Ph.D. - August, 1970 Thesis:
The Effects of Two Kinds of Subjective Probabilities on the Performance of a Laboratory Task i:
m--
- l, l Richard D. Arvey Dr. Richard D. Arvey is a Professor of Industrial Relations at the University of Minnesota. He is also president of Richard D. Arvey and Associates, Inc. located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Arvey has been active as an Industrial / Organizational Psychologist for over 15 years.
After recejving his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in 1970 and working briefly with Personnel Decisions, Inc., a consulting firm in Minneapolis, he joined the Department of Industrial Management at the Univer-sity of Tennessee, Knoxville. While there he taught and conducted research in the areas of personnel selection, motivation and organizational behavior, and compensation administration.
In 1978 he was a visiting professor for one year at the Department of Psychology, University of California-Berkeley.
Subsequently, he joined the staff of the Department of Psychology at the University of Houston and taught there for five years.
In 1983, he joined the Industrial Relations Center at the University of Minnesota where he teaches and conducts research in a broad array of' areas. He is an Adjunct Professor with the Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota.t His areas of interest and research include the following:
Selection and placement of employees, the employment interview, employment testing, discrimi-nation and bias in selection and employment, job analysis and classification, motivation and job satisfaction, work redesign, aversive control system in employment, job evaluation and comparable worth, wage-based sex discrimination, and training and development.
Over the years, Arvey has conducted many research activities which have provided leadership in the human resource profession. He has served as the academic advisor to over 50 graduate students working toward their Master's or Ph.D. degrees and published more than 75 articles, chapters, or techni-cal reports. His best known work is his book Fairness in Selecting Employees published in 1979.
He founded Richard D. Arvey & Associates, Inc. in 1983 and has had a sizab'le number of consulting experiences including doing work with the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon, Southwestern Bell, and National Car Rental.
He serves on the Editorial Board of two national professional journals, is a Fellow of the Division of Industrial / Organizational Psychology, American Psychological Association, and has served in numerous professional offices and positions.
r _.
Position and Dates Senior. Associate Personnel Decisions, Inc.
9/69 - 9/71 2515 Foshay Tower Minneapolis, Minnesota Supervisor:
Dr. Marvin Dunnette Assistant Professor Industrial /0rganization Psychology Program 9/71 - 8/74 Associate Professor Department of Industrial &
9/74 - 8/77 Personnel Management College of Business Administration The University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee Visiting Professor Department of Psychology 9/77 - 6/78 University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California 94720 Associate Professor, Professor Department of Psychology 9/78 - 8/83 University of Houston Houston, Texas 77004 Professor Industrial Relations Center 9/83 -
University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Adjunct Professor Department of Psychology 12/83 -
University of Minnesota Books:
Arvey, R.D. (1979).
Fairness in Selecting Employees. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.
Papers Published in Chronological Order:
Arvey, R.D. (1971). Consistency in high school and predictability in college.
Experimental Publication System, February, 10, MS no. 388-6.
Arvey, R.D. (1972). Task performance as a function of perceived effort-performance and performance-reward contingencies.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performanco, 8, 423-443.
-Arvey, R.D. (1972). Some comments on culture-fair tests. Personnel Psychol-ogy, 25_, 443-448.
Arvey, R.D., Mussio, S.J. & Payne, G. (1972).
Relationships between Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory scores and job performance measures of firemen. Psychological Reports, g, 199-202.
Arvey, R.D. & Hoyle, J.C. (1973). Evaluating EDP personnel.
Datamation, 19, 69-73.
Arvey, R.D. & Mussio, S.J. (1973).
A test of expectancy theory in a field setting 'using female clerical employees.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 421-432.
Arvey, R.D. & Mussio, S.J. (1973).
Determining the existence of unfair test discrimination for female clerical workers.
Personnel Psychology, 26, 559-568.
Arvey, R.D. & Mussio, S.J. (1973). Testing, job performance, and aging.
Industrial Gerontology, 6, 22-29.
Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Arvey, R.D. & Hellervik, L.W. (1973).
The development and eyaluation of behaviorally based rating scales for first level retail managers.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 15-22.
Dunnette, M.D., Arvey, R.D. & Banas, P. (1973).
Why do they leave? Personnel, 50, 25-39.
Gordon, M.E. & Arvey, R.D. (1973). Attitude measurement in highway corridor studies: Past, present, and future. High Speed Ground Transportation Journal, 7, 322-340.
Hoyle, J.C. & Arvey, R.D. (1973). The development of behaviorally based rating scales for systems analysts, programmer / analysts, and computer operators.
Proceedings of the Special Interest Group on Computer Personnel Research of the Association for Computing Machinery, Tenth Annual Conference, 85, 103.
Arvey, R.D. (1974). Motivational Models and Professional Updating. Mono-graph: Maintaining Professional and Technical Competence of the Older Engineer, American Society for Engineering Education.
Arvey, R.D. & Hoyle, J.C. (1974).
A Guttman approach to the development of behaviorally based rating scales for systems analysts and programmer /
analysts.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 264-267.
Arvey, R.D. & Mussio, S.J. (1974).
A validation strategy for the non-sample.
Professional Psychology, 264-267.
Arvey, R.D. & Mussio, S.J. (1974).
Job expectations and valences of job rewards for culturally advantaged and disadvantaged clerical employees.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 230-232.
Arvey, R.D. & Neel, C.W. (1974). Moderating effects of employee expectancies on the relationships between leadership consideration and job performance of engineers.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 4_, 213-222.
i R9 e
w
.w
-m
- - - - -g, g-,,+
4 w
-,,,,y w
- 5, Arvey, R.D. & Neel, C.W. (1974). Testing expectancy theory predictions using behaviorally based measures of motivational effort for engineers.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 4_, 299-310.
Gordon, M.E., Arvey, R.D., Daffron, W.C. & Umberger, D.C. (1974). Racial differences in the impact of mathematics training at a man-power develop-ment program. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 253-258.
Arvey, R.D. & Begalla, M.E. (1975).
Analyzing the homemaker job using the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ).
Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 513-517.
Arvey, R.D., Gordon, M.E., Massengill, 0.P. & Mussio, S.J. (1975).
Differ-ential dropout rates of minority and majority job conditions due to
" time lags" Detween selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 28, 175-180.
Gordon, M.E. & Arvey, R.D. (1975). The relationship between education and satisfaction with job content.
Academy of Management Journal, 18, 889-891.
Arvey, R.D., Dewhirst, H.D. & Boling, (1976). Relationships between goal clarity, participation in goal setting, and personality characteristics on job satisfaction in a scientific organization.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 103-105.
Arvey, R.D.- & Neel, C.W. (1976). Motivation and obsolescence in engineers.
Industrial Gerontology, 3, 113-120.
Dewhirst, H.D. & Arvey, R.D. (1976). Range of interests vs. job performance and satisfaction. Research Management, XIX,18-23.
Arvey, R.D. & Dewhirst, H.D. (1976).
Goal setting attributes, personality variables, and job satisfaction.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 179-189.
Dipboye, R.L., Arvey, R.D. & Terpstra, D.E. (1976). Equal employment and the interview.
Personnel Journal, 5_5, 520-524 Arvey, R.D. & Dewhirst, H.D. (1979). Relationships between diversity of interests, age, job satisfaction and job performance.
Journal of Occupa-tional Psychology, 52, 17-23.
2 Dipboye, R.L., Arvey, R.D. & Terpstra, D.E. (1977). Sex and physical attrac-tiveness of the interviewer and interviewee as determinants of employment decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 288-294.
Gross, R.H. & Arvey, R.D. (1977). Marital satisfaction, job satisfaction, and task distribution in the homemaker job. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1_1, 1-13.
Arvey, R.D., Passino, E.M. & Lounsbury, J.W. (1977).
Job analysis results as influenced by sex of incumbent and sex of analyst.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 411-416.
i--
Arvey, R.D. & Mossholder, R.W. (1977).
A proposed methodology for determining similarities and differences among jobs. Personnel Psychology, 30, 363-374.
Arvey R.D., Dewhirst, H.D. & Brown, E.M. (1978).
A longitudinal study of the impact of changes in goal settir.y on employee satisfaction.
Personnel Psychology, H, 595-608.
Zultowski, W.H., Arvey R.D. & Dewhirst, H.D. (1978). Moderating effects of organizational climate on relationships between goal-setting attribute and employee satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, R, 217-229.
Zultowski, W.H. & Arvey, R.D. (1978).
Post-secondary education requirements in employment decisions: A legal perspective. Professional Psychology, August, 507-525.
Dipboye, R.L Zultowski, W.H., Dewhirst, H.D. & Arvey,.R.D. (1978). Self-esteem as a moderator of the relationship between vocational interests and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6_3, 289-294.
3 Webber, R. & Arvey, R.D. (1978). The women industrial psychologist: An emerging reality. American Psychologist, 33, 963-965.
Arvey, R.D. & Gross, R.L. (1977). Satisfaction levels and correlates of satisfaction in the homemaker job. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10, 13-34.
Arvey, R.D. (1979).
Unfair discrimination in the employment interview:
Legal and psychological aspects.
Psychological Bulletin, 86, 736-765.
Reprinted in:
1)
Dreher G.F. & Sackett P.R. (1983) oerspectives on Employee Staffing and Selection, Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Arvey, R.D., Maxwell, S.E. & Mossholder, K.M. (1979). Even more ideas about methodologies for determining job differences and similariti~es. Personnel Psychology, 32, 529-538.
2 Dipboye, R.L., Zultowski, W.H., Dewhirst, H.D. & Arvey, R.D. (1979).
Self-esteem as a moderator of performance-satisfaction relationships.
Journal of Vocational Behavior,_15_, 193-206.
Arvey, R.D. & Ivancevich, J.M. (1980). Punishment in organizations:
A review, i
propositions, and research suggestions.
Academy of Management Review, 5, 123-132.
Reprinted in:
Hampton, D.,' Summer, D. & Webber, R. (W 82) 1)
Organizational Behavior and the Practice of Management.
l Scott, Foresman & Company.
l Maxwell, S.E., Camp, C.J. & Arvey, R.D. (1981). Measures of strength of association in completely randomized designs.
Journal of Applied Psycho-logy, 66, 525-534.
l
's.
Mossholder, K.W., Dewhirst, H.D. & Arvey, R.D. (1981). Vocational interests and personality differences between development and research personnel: A field study.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 19, 232-243.
Arvey, R.D., Davis, G. A., McGowen, S.L. & Dipboye, R.L. (1982).
Potential sources of bias in job analytic processes.
Academy of Management Journal, H,618-629.
Arvey, R.D., Maxwell, S.E., Gutenberg, R.L. & Camp, C. (1981).
Detecting job differences:
A monte carlo study. Personnel Psychology, 34, 709-730.
Arvey, R.D. & Campion, J.C. (1982). The employment interview:
A summary and review of recent research. Personnel Psychology, 35, 281-322.
Reprinted in:
1)
Schuler, R.S. & Youngblood, S.A. (1984). Readings in Personnel and Human Resource Management (2nd edition).
St, Paul:
West Publishing C3.
2)
Journal of Library Administration (1983), 3, 61-90.
3)
Dreher, G.F. & Sackett, P.R. (1983) Perspectives on Employee Staffing and Selection. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Wheeler, C.L. & Arvey, R.D. (1981).
Division of household labor in the family.
Home Economics Research Journal, 10,, 10-20.
Maxwell, S.E. & Arvey, R.D. (1982). Small sample profile analysis with many variables.
Psychological Bulletin, H, 778-785.
Arvey, R.D., Davis, G. A., & Nelson, S. (1984).
Discipline in organizations:
A field study.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 6_9, 448-460.
Arvey, R.D. & McGowen, S. (1983). The use of experience requirements in selecting employees: A legal review. Personnel Selection & Training Bulletin, 4, 28-42.
Gutenberg, R.L., Arvey, R.D., Osburn, H.G., & Jeanneret. P.R. (1983). The' moderating effects of decision-making /information processing job dimen-sions on test validities.
Journal of Applied Psychology, M, 322-333.
Mossholder, K. & Arvey, R.D. (1984).
Synthetic validity: A conceptual and comparative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, g, 322-333.
Arvey, R.D., Maxwell, S.E., & Abraham, L. (1985). Reliability artifacts in comparable worth procedures.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 695-705.
Arvey, R.D., Cole, D. A.Ining evaluation designs. Fisher, J.,
and Hartanto, F.M. (1985). Statis-tical power of tra Personnel Psychology, 38,,
493-507.
Fossum, J. A., Arvey, R.D., Paradise, C. A., and Robbins, N.E. (in press).
Modeling the skills obsolscence process:
A Psychological and Economic Integration.
Academy of Management Review.
m Arvey, R.D.
Sex Bias in Job Evaluation Procedures (submitted).
Personnel Psychology.
Gordon, R. A. & Arvey, R.D. (in press). Perceived and actual ages of workers.
Journal of Vocational Behavior.
Chapters:
Arvey, R.D. & Campion, J.C. (1984).
Person perception in the employment interview.
In Cook, M. (Ed. ), Interpersonal Perception. Methuens.
Arvey, R.D. & Shingledecker, P.S. (1982). Methods in research in personnel management.
In Rowland, K. & Ferris, J. (Eds.), Personnel Management, Allyn & Bacon.
Arvey, R.D. & Jones, A.P. (1985 ).
The use of discipline in organizational settings.
In Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B. (Eds.), Research in Organiza-tional Behavior, Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc.
Arvey, R.D. (in press).
Potential Problems in Job Evaluation and Processes.
In Gomez-Mejia, L.R.
The Practice of Compensation:
An Applied Perspec-tive. Reston Publishing Corp.
Book Reviews:
Arvey, R. D. (1972 ).
Review of Klein,.S.M.
Workers under stress: The impact of work pressure on group cohesion.
Personnel Psychology, g, 589-590.
Arvey, R.D. (1973). Review of Fredericksen, N., Jensen, O. & Beaton, A.E. with a contribution by Bloxom, B.
Prediction of organization behavior.
-Personnel Psychology, 26, 299-302.
Arvey, R.D. (1973). Review of Schultz, D.P.
Psychology and industry today.
Personnel Psychology, 26, 437-439..
Arvey, R.D. (1974). Review of Wilson, J. A. (Ed. ), with the assistance of Byham, W.C.
The four day work week:
Fad or future? Personnel Psychol-ojy, 27_, 203.
Arvey, R.D. (1975 ).
Review of Yoder, D. & Heneman, H.G., Jr. (Eds. ), Motiva-tion and commitment, ASPA Personnel Psychology, 2_8, 640.
Bullock, R.J. & Arvey, R.D. (1983). Review of Zammutop, R.F.
Another approach to organizational effectiveness. Contemporary Psychology.
Arvey, R.D. (1983). Review of Munchinsky, P.M.
Psychology Applied to Work.
Contemporary Psychology, 2_8, 12.
4 Technical Research Papers to Private Organizations:
Arvey, R.D. & Hough, L. (1970, September).
A description and evaluation of the Minneapolis Teacher Cadre Training Program. Confidential report to the Minneapolis Public School Systems.
Dunnette, M.D. and Arvey, R.D. (1970, May). Evaluation report:
South High School flexible modular schedule. Confidential report submitted to Minneapolis Public 5chool System.
Arvey, R.D. (1971, September). A procedural manual for conducting validity studies in the Minneapolis Civil Service. Confidential report to the Minneapolis Civil t5ervice, Personnel Department.
Arvey, R.D., Dunnette, M.D. & Hellervik, L.W. (1971, June). Job motivation demonstration project. Confidential report to the Ford Motor Company.
Dunnette, M.D. & Arvey, R.D. (1971, July).
Job expectations and job percep-
. ions among college graduates working for Ford Motor Company. Confiden-tial report submitted to the Ford Motor Company.
Dsnnette, M. D., Arvey, R.D. & Arnold, J. A. (1971, July).
Validity study results for jobs relevant to the petroleum industry. Manuscript prepared under the general direction of the American Petroleum Institute Project Advisory Committee on Selection Techniques.
Hellervik, L.W., Dunnette, M.D. & Arvey, R.D. (1971, July).
Development an pretesting of behaviorally defined job performance measures for foremen in Ford Motor Company's Transmission and Chassis and Automation Assembly Divisions. Confidential report submitted to Ford Motor Company.
Arvey, R.D. & Gordon, M.E. (1975, January).
Final report:
Validation of test instruments for the identification of successful and unsuccessful police patrol offices. Report submitted to the Municipal Technical Advisory.
Service.
Arvey, R.D. (1976, June). Employment test validation project for maintenance jobs. Confidential report submitted to Mead Paper.
Arvey, R.D. (1978, December). A review of selection procedures at Houston area Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. Confidential report to Southwestern Bell Telephone Company.
Arvey, R.D. & Davis, G. A. (1983, July).
Development of a performance appraisal instrument for blue-collar jobs in the petroleum-petrochemical industry.
Report submitted to The American Petroleum Institute, July.
Arvey, R.D., Fossum, J. A., Robbins, N. & Paradise, C.
'(1984, June). Skills Obsolescence:
Economic and Psychological Perspectives. Confidential report submitted to Control Data Corporation.
^;.
's.
Arvey, R.D. & Strand, J. (Nov,1985). Motivational Aspects of Volunteer Firefighters: Recruitment Concerns. Technical Report submitted to the Fire Information, Research, and Education Center, University of Minnesota.
Papers Presented:
' Arvey, R.D. (1970, May). High school variability as a moderator of college success.
Paper presented at Midwestern Psychological Association Conven-tion.
Arvey, R.D. (1971, January). The development and evaluation of behaviorally based rating scales for department store managers. Paper presented at an Air Force Officer Evaluation Systems Workshop, San Antonio, Texas.
Arvey, R.D. (1971, May). Chairman of symposium, "The Psychologist in Police Settings". Midwestern Psychological Association Convention.
Gordon, M.E. & Arvey, R.D. (1974, September ).
The relationship between education and job content: A reconsideration.
Paper presented at American Psychological Association, New Orleans.
Arvey, R.D., Habinger, R. & Dewhirst, H.D. (1975, March). Relationships between diversity of interest, job performance and job satisfaction.
Paper presented at South Eastern Psychological Association Convention.
Arvey, R.D., Dewhirst, H.D. & Brown, E.M. (1977, August ).
A longitudinal study of the impact of changes in goal setting on employee satisfaction and effort. Paper presented at the 37th meeting of the Academy of Management.
Arvey, R.D. (1977, April). Subjective factors in employment decisions:
A legal review. Paper presented to the Southern Regionasl International Personnel Management Association, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Arvey, R.D., Passino, E. & Loundsbury, J. (1977, August). Sex effects in. job analysis. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, San Francisco.
Arvey, R.D. (1978, August).
Federal regulations and their impact on Indus-trial / Organizational Psychology. Paper presented.at the American Psycho-logical Association Convention, Toronto.
Arvey, R.D. (1979, July).
Unf air discrimination in the employment interview:
Legal and psychological aspects. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Personnel Management Association.
Arvey, R.D. & Ivancevich, J.M. (1979, August). Punishment in organizations: A review and research suggestions.
Paper presented at the Academy of Management Convention, Atlanta.
Arvey, R.D. & Maxwell, S.E. (1979, August). Comparative differences among quantitative methodologies for determining job differences / similarities.
Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, New York.
Arvey, R.D. & McGowen, S. (1982, August). The use of experience requirements in selecting employees: A legal review.
Paper presented at the American Psychological Association.
Arvey, R.D. & Fossum, J. A. (1985). Age and obsolescence:
A review and discussion. Paper presented at American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.
Court Cases:
1978 Kilkowski vs. Psychology Examining Committee Served as expert witness for plaintiff presenting testimony concerning reliability and validity of employment interview.
1979 Carter vs. Gallager Expert witness for City of Minneapolis (Defendant). Testimony revolved around appropriateness of content validity strategies for selection purposes.
1980 Mireles, et. al vs. Arthur Brothers, Inc.
Expert witness for plaintiff regarding discrimination against Hispanics in promotional practices.
1983 E.E.0.C. vs. Western Electric Expert witness for plaintiff (E.E.0.C.) regarding the employment interview as possible vehicle for selection bias and discrimina-tion.
Grants:
Coinvestigator with H.D. Dewhirst on National Science Foundation Research Improvement Grant (NM44352) to investigate the impact of a Management-By-Objectives program from January, 1974-July, 1976 ($85,000).
Principal Investigator on National Science Foundation Grant (DAR-7822145) to investigate quantitative methods of detecting job differences, April,1979-1981, ($40,000).
f Principal investigator for Office of Naval Research Grant to investigate the l
effects of discipline on organizational behavior, June,1980-June,1982, l-
-($105,000).
Principal investigator of McKnight Foundation grant to: investigate sex based wage discrimination, $10,760, summer: 1985.
(
Principal investigator of McKnight Foundation grant to investigate sex stereo-typing in job evaluation procedures, $10,000, summer. 1984.
c.
8, Workshop Presentations:
Job Analysis: Analyzing Performance Requirements for Guideline Compliance.
Workshop leader for a three day seminar sponsored by International Personnel Management Association, 1984.
E.E.0.C. Updating. Workshop leader, one day professional workshop for person-nel psychologists, sponsored by Division of Industrial / Organizational Psychology, American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada,1984.
Basic Compensation. Workshop leader, one day workshop, sponsored by Industrial Relations center, 1985.
Comparable Worth. Workshop leader, several one day seminars, sponsored by International Personnel Management Association, 1985.
Other Areas-Served on Tennessee Commission on the Status of Women, 1975-1976.
Chairperson, College of Business Editorial Advisory Council, 1975-76. This Council reviewed and made recommendations concerning all of the College publications.
Occasional reviews for Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior &
Human Perfarmance, Psychological Bulletin.
Invited member of Society for Organizational Behavior - an organization consisting of 50 organizational psychologists who meet informally once a year.
Editorial Board, Academy of Management Journal, 1982-85, 1985-88.
Editorial Board, Personnel Psychology,1985-Present.
Chairperson, University of Tennessee task force on long range planning for student services and programs, 1977.-
Fellow, Division 14 - Industrial /0rganizational Psychology of American Psycho-logical Association.
Member of Academy of Management.
Elected President of Houston Area Industrial / Organizational Psychology Associa-tion, 1980-1981.
R Consulting Experience:
1971-Ford Motor Company. Conducted research project to determine reasons for high level of turnover among college graduates.
1972-1975 Cumberland Clarklift, Knoxville, Tennessee. Long term consult-ing arrangement involving organizational development efforts of diagnosis, feedback, and change processes.
1975-Knoxville Utility Board.
Developed and administered company-wide attitude survey.
1975-1977 Mead Paper Company. Test validation project to develop tests to help select employees into maintenance craftlines.
1977-Wells Fargo Bank, San Francisco. Reviewed and interpreted opinion survey results.
1978-Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. Evaluation of present selection system of hiring non-exempt employees.
1979-Exxon Corporation.
Devglopment of task-inventory for manage-ment, professional and ':echnical employees.
1981-A & S Steel Incorporated.
Assessment of job candidates.
1981-Texas Rural Legal Aid. Consultation concerning discrimination Case.
1982-Diamond-Shamrock.
Validation study.
1982-Shell Oil Company. Organizational development effort to investigate th~e effects of discipline on cmnloyee morale and satisfaction.
1982-Vitrotec, Monterrey, Mexico. Consultation concerning the reduction in force process.
1982-American Petroleum Institute. Project developing performance appraisal instruments for blue-collar jobs in the petroleum-petrochemical industry.
1984-MSI Insurance.
Project involving restructing and reorganizing 150 employee division.
1984-Hickory Farms.
Validation of employment interview.
1985-National Car Rental. Test validation project for sales person-nel.
1985-University of Minnesota Hospital. Consultation concerning comparable worth pay equity increases.
r p
i.*
1985-Police & Fire Commission, City of Milwaukee. Co-director of project to develop selection procedure for police sergents.
References:
Dr. Marvin D. Dunnette Department of Psychology University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Dr. Mario F. Bognanno Industrial Relations Center University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Dr. John P. Campbell Department of Psychology University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Dr. Robert D. Pritchard Department of Psychology University of Houston Houston,-Texas 77004 I
L
g w w m,o O
As May 2, 486 D
4_
kg n
g qjp3 b UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I'
VSr
'N
][
In the Matter of:
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served copies of the Testimony of David J.
McKirnan the and Testimony of Richard D. Arvey on each party to this proceeding as listed on the attached Service List, by having said copies placed in envelopes, properly addressed and postaged (first class), and deposited in the U.S.
mail at 109 North
Dearborn,
Chicago, Illinois 60602, on this 2nd day of May, 1986, except that Edison counsel Michael Miller was served by personal delivery.
b h
l l'
l l
BRAIDWOOD SERVICE LIST Herbert Grossman, Esq.
Michael I.
Miller, Esq.
Chairman and Administrative Judge Peter Thornton, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Isham, Lincoln & Beale U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Three First National Plaza Washington D.C.
20555 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Richard F.
Cole Docketing & Service Section Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washing ton D.C.
20555 washington D.C.
20555 A.
Dixon Callihan C. Allen Bock, Esq.
Administrative Judge P.O. Box 342 102 Oak Lane Urbana, Illinois 61801 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Bridget Little Forem Stuart Treby, Esq.
117 North Linden Street NRC Staff Counsel Essex, Illinois 60935 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Road Thomas J. Gordon, Esq.
Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Waller, Evans & Gordon 2503 South Neil Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Champaign, Illinois 61820 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1150 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
Lorraine Creek Suite 1100 Route 1, Box 182 Washington D.C.
20036 Manteno, Illinois 60950 Region III Office of Inspection &
Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal' Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing ton D.C.
20555 l
__