A methodological mini-study

2. BACKGROUND
• Park et al. (2008) stress the usefulness of
converging different measures, specifically self-
report with observation.
• Copeland and White (1991) discuss the issue of
asking observed participants to engage in a
specific task. Unlike in the family, where the task
is more ambiguous, in the workplaces studied,
the task is to serve the customer.
• Campos et al. (2009) note the importance of
naturalistic observation for analyzing interaction
opportunities.

3. FAMILY ADAPTABILITY
AND COHESION SCALE (FACES)
Rodick, Henggeler, and Hanson (1986)
developed the observational categories,
based on Olson’s (1986) FACES III self-
report (currently in 4th version).
Categories include:
• Supportive Communication
• Explicit Information
• Defensive Communication

4. OBSERVATIONAL CRITERIA OF THE FACES IV
Judgmental-dogmatic
Control and strategy-oriented
Indifferent/disregarding
Conveyed superiority
Explicit information
Problem solving
Empathic understanding
Mutual trust and support
After initial impressions were recorded, systematic observations were
made at each restaurant. Colors correspond to the categories on the
previous slide.

5. INITIAL NOTES: “DONUT SHOP”
After I got inside and got an iced coffee (I was going to get hot coffee,
but it was really hot inside the restaurant!), I had to change seats twice
until I was satisfied that I would be able to see and hear enough going
on. It was frustrating, in part, because, when I gained access to one
important area behind the counter, something else would block my view
of another area. Also, the radio (and to a lesser extent other customers)
made it very difficult to hear.
I thought about getting back in line or standing up at the area with the
straws and napkins, but my chart would have been obvious, and there
isn’t even a place for milk and sugar (they do that behind the counter),
so I had no excuse for dilly-dallying. Fortunately, two employees on
break sat down near me and had a short conversation, which gave me
more data.

6. “DONUT SHOP” RESULTS
Judgmental-dogmatic 1
Control and strategy-oriented 1
Indifferent/disregarding 2
Conveyed superiority 0
Explicit information 9
Problem solving 4
Empathic understanding 3
Mutual trust and support 2

7. INITIAL NOTES: “COFFEE SHOP”
At “Coffee Shop,” I walked in and there was only 1 seat open, and
unfortunately it was facing the window out at the street, so it wasn’t
ideal for looking inside. But I saved it with my bag and my folder only
to notice someone sitting up at the barista counter leave when his order
came up, and I snagged his seat as soon as I ordered. This meant I had
prime seating to observe at “Coffee Shop” that I didn’t have at “Donut
Shop.” Maybe this would make up for the serendipitous break time at
“Donut Shop.” However, it was harder to keep them from noticing that I
was watching.
At both places, I overheard employees talking about their schools.

8. “COFFEE SHOP” RESULTS
Judgmental-dogmatic 0
Control and strategy-oriented 0
Indifferent/disregarding 1
Conveyed superiority 1
Explicit information 5
Problem solving 1
Empathic understanding 2
Mutual trust and respect 1

9. CONCLUSIONS
• More employees and more communications at “Donut Shop”
• More supportive than defensive communications at both restaurants
• Expression of explicit information, often in the form of short story-telling or
expression of preference, was the most common form of communication in
both restaurants.
• Higher likelihood of defensive communication at “Donut Shop” than at
“Coffee Shop” (even the “defensive” comments made at “Coffee Shop” were
more like teasing and could be seen as positive)
• The disproportionately large percentage of personal, non-
task related comments at both restaurants suggests a
currently inadequate elaboration of a RELATIONAL (as
opposed to task or decision-making) theory of management
in the OB literature. Cohesion is understudied, but use of
FACES IV can change that.

10. REFERENCES
Campos, B., Graesch, A. P., Repetti, R., Bradbury, T., & Ochs, E. (2009).
Opportunity for interaction? A naturalistic observation study of dual-earner
families after work and school. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 798-807.
Copeland, A. P., & White, K. M. (1991). Studying Families. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Olson, D.H. (1986) Circumplex Model VII: validation studies and FACES III.
Family Process, 25, 337–351.
Park, I. J. K., Garber, J., Ciesla, J. A., & Ellis, B. J. (2008). Convergence among
multiple methods of measuring positivity and negativity in the family
environment: Relation to depression in mothers and their children. Journal
of Family Psychology, 22, 123–134.
Rodick, J.D., Henggler, S.W. & Hanson, C.L. (1986) An evaluation of family
adaptability, cohesion evaluation scales (FACES) and the Circumplex Model.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 77–87.

11. Thank You!