A Brief Description of the Study Reviewed
Public service management faces various challenges when rating behavior of manager’s to improve their effectiveness, workforce productivity, and organizational changes. The study reviewed is determining to what extent if at all does a manager within public service exhibit behaviors such as providing clear expectations, offering frequent feedback, seeking staff input before making major decisions (Johnson, 2010).
Research Question and Hypothesis
The research question is “To what extent if at all does a manager within public service exhibit the three behaviors?” In this case researchers are interested in significance tests and tests for differences in a wide variety of situations (McNabb, 2013).
After four months officials from public service assessed the impact this behavior rating program had on the behaviors exhibited by the managers. The hypothesis indicated below seeks to determine whether the rating program improved the behavior of the manager or not.
H1: The behavior rating program has led to managers to provide clear expectations, offer frequent feedback and help them seek staff input before making major decisions.
H0: The behavior rating program has not led to managers to provide clear expectations, offer frequent feedback and help them seek staff input before making major decisions.
The Implications of Committing Type I and Type II Error in the Study
Rubin (2012) indicated that Type I error occurs whenever people reject a true null hypothesis.In the above study an example of committing Type I error would be falsely concluding that the rating had a positive effect and improved the behavior exhibited by the manager. When Type I error is made, the researcher will have concluded that the rating was scientifically meaningful when it really is not (Jex & Britt, 2008). The implication is that Type I error may lead an organization to spend a considerable amount of money on the behavior rating program that ultimately is not effective.
Type II error occurs when researchers fail to reject a false null hypothesis (Rubin, 2012). On the other hand, Type II error is committed when a researcher fails to detect a legitimate effect when it is present (Jex & Britt, 2008). In the above example Type II error would involve concluding a statistical test and falsely concluding that the above useful rating program had no impact on manager’s behavior. According to Jex & Britt (2008), the implication of committing Type II error when the behavior rating program is effective and research does not show it is that a great chance to improve manager’s performance in the organization is missed.