The Methods of Monitoring Scales

Abstract

The Methods of Monitoring Scale (MMS), initially developed by Niehoff and Ghartey-Tagoe in 1991, is a specialized instrument designed to measure the frequency and type of supervisory control behaviors utilized by general managers. The scale was later adapted for use in significant organizational research, notably by Niehoff and Moorman (1993), who refined the dimensions to focus on three distinct methods: Observation, Manager-Initiated Discussions, and Formal Meetings. The instrument uses a brief, self-report format where employees rate the frequency of managerial behaviors on a six-point scale. The MMS provides researchers in organizational psychology with a structured tool to investigate how specific monitoring practices influence employee perceptions of justice and their engagement in Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB).

Keywords

Monitoring, Supervision, Managerial Control, Manager-Employee Relationship, Organizational Behavior, Work Progress, Organizational Justice, Organizational Citizenship Behavior.

Authors

Niehoff, Brian P.; Ghartey-Tagoe, David; Moorman, Robert H.

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Methods of Monitoring Scale is to systematically quantify the various ways in which supervisors, particularly general managers, track and assess the performance and efficiency of their subordinates. By isolating different monitoring behaviors—ranging from passive observation to structured discussion—the scale allows for nuanced analysis of managerial style.

In academic research, the scale is crucial for examining the antecedents and consequences of different supervisory control methods. For instance, its application in the 1993 study by Niehoff and Moorman aimed to determine how differing monitoring methods affect employee perceptions of procedural and interactional justice, which, in turn, influences the likelihood of employees engaging in discretionary behaviors like Organizational Citizenship Behavior.

Construct

The Methods of Monitoring Scale measures the overarching Psychological Construct of Supervisory Monitoring Methods, which is conceptualized as comprising distinct, measurable behaviors employed by management to ensure work compliance and productivity. In its adapted form, the construct is operationalized through three key dimensions:

• Observation: This dimension covers direct, passive, or active surveillance behaviors, such as walking around the workplace or closely examining completed work. (Five items)
• Manager-Initiated Discussions (Informal Discussions): This dimension measures unscheduled or brief, one-on-one interactions initiated by the manager to discuss work details, problems, or progress reports. (Five items)
• Formal Meetings: This dimension assesses structured, scheduled meetings, whether individual, small group, or departmental, specifically dedicated to discussing work progress. (Three items)

Validity

Specific quantitative psychometric evidence concerning the construct and criterion Validity of the MMS was not detailed in the available source excerpt. However, the development process described indicates a strong focus on enhancing content validity. The researchers explicitly state that items were added to ensure constructs were “adequately represented” and items that “seemed to stray from the intended constructs” were deleted. This refinement process aims to maximize the degree to which the scale items accurately cover the domain of supervisory monitoring behaviors.

Reliability

Detailed Reliability coefficients, such as Cronbach’s alpha, for the subscales (Observation, Discussions, Formal Meetings) were not provided in the source material. In standard academic practice, researchers utilizing this adapted scale are expected to report high internal consistency estimates for each factor to demonstrate that the items within each dimension reliably measure the same underlying aspect of monitoring behavior.

Factor Analysis

The scale development implies a rigorous factor analytic procedure was utilized to confirm the dimensionality of the instrument. The researchers specifically state that items were modified and grouped into three resulting scales: Observation (five items), Manager-Initiated Discussions (five items), and Formal Meetings (three items). This structure strongly suggests that either Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) or Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was employed during the scale adaptation phase to ensure that the items loaded distinctly onto the three hypothesized factors, thereby confirming the multidimensional nature of the supervisory monitoring construct.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire, utilized by subordinates to rate their Manager’s behavior.

Format: 13 items distributed across three distinct subscales (Observation, Informal Discussions, Formal Meetings). All items are measured on a six-point frequency scale.

Language Available: English (Original development and primary usage).

Population Group: Employees/Subordinates in organizational settings.

Age Group: Adult working population.

Population Details: Applicable to employees who report to a general manager or supervisor whose monitoring behaviors are the focus of measurement.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate the frequency with which their general manager exhibits each specified monitoring behavior. The six-point scale ranges from “behavior not exhibited” to “behavior exhibited more than once per day.”

Keywords

Supervisory Behavior, Employee Perception, Organizational Justice, Construct Measurement, Work Environment, Performance Monitoring, Management Style.

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source content.

Correspondence Address: Correspondence for the 1993 study was associated with Brian P. Niehoff (Kansas State University) and Robert H. Moorman (West Virginia University).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was initially developed in 1991 (Niehoff and Ghartey-Tagoe). Its prominent usage and adaptation appeared in the 1993 publication by Niehoff and Moorman in the Academy of Management Journal. As an academically published instrument, it is generally available for non-commercial research purposes, provided appropriate citation is given. Specific fee or licensing information for commercial use is not detailed in the source material.

Reference’s

Niehoff, B. P., & Ghartey-Tagoe, D. (1991). The Methods of Monitoring Scale.

Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527-556.

[quads id=5]

Items of the The Methods of Monitoring Scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Informal discussions

How frequently does your general manager …

1. Schedule meetings with you to talk about your work progress?
2. Discuss details of your work with you?
3. Ask you to clarify a few points on a report written about your work?
4. Ask you to come to his/her office to discuss a work problem?
5. Ask you about the work progress of your coworkers?

Observation

How often does your general manager …

1. Walk around the workplace?
2. Watch you as you work?
3. Just stand or sit and observe everyone working?
4. Carefully examine the work you have completed?
5. Check to see if you are working efficiently?

Formal meetings

How often does your general manager meet to discuss work progress with …

1. You individually?
2. You and a few coworkers?
3. Your entire department?