Review of the Manager Profile Record by WILLIAM I. SAUSER, JR., Associate Vice President
and Professor, Office of the Vice President for Extension, Auburn University, Auburn, AL:
Citation of the article: Sauer, W. I. (1985). Review of the Manager Profile Record. Retrieved from
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=f8dbb5e790bc-4fee-bc449a86b698bd2c%40sessionmgr120&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=t
est.884&db=mmt
The early identification of management potential through the use of self-reported biographical,
attitudinal, and judgmental data has been the focus of several major research projects over the
past few decades (Bentz, 1990; Howard & Bray, 1990; Owens, 1976). The Manager Profile
Record (MPR) is based upon one such project, a collaborative effort begun in the 1950s
between Richardson, Bellows, Henry and Company (the authors of the MPR) and Standard Oil
of New Jersey (Sparks, 1990).
This reviewer concurs with its authors that the MPR appears suitable for several purposes,
including (a) to serve as an inexpensive prescreen for assessment center systems and as an
objective check against center results; (b) to audit present staff to inventory potential
managers; (c) to identify potential candidates for managerial training, particularly for
affirmative action purposes; and (d) to be used as one component of a management
recruitment and selection program. Throughout their descriptive materials the authors properly
warn potential users that the MPR does not measure intellectual capacity or past achievement,
thus it should certainly not be used as the sole selection device for promotion into managerial
ranks.
The MPR test booklet is very professional in appearance. Part I contains 196 multiple-choice
items, the last 57 of which are intended only for examinees with at least 5 years of full-time
work experience. Items deal with such topics as high school, work, and college experiences;
preferred work environment and managerial style; and personal habits and tendencies. The
items are clearly worded, face valid, and not overly intrusive; no racial, gender, or cultural bias
is evident in any of the items. Many of the items call for self-assessments, and may be subject
to faking, social desirability, or other such response sets. Part II consists of 46 situational item
stems followed by multiple-choice options, of which the examinee selects a first and second
choice; it is clearly intended to measure managerial judgment. These items are more complex
than those in Part I, are quite challenging, and are intrinsically interesting to potential and
practicing managers; they appear much less susceptible to response set bias.
Instructions to the examinee are clear and easy to follow, the machine-scorable answer sheet
presents no problems, and the authors provide useful suggestions to test administrators
regarding such issues as standardization of testing conditions, test security, confidentiality, and
interpretation. The test is not timed. Although the authors suggest providing a generous 3
hours or more to complete the MPR, this reviewer's experience indicates that most examinees
likely will finish within 90 to 120 minutes.
Scoring procedures for the MPR are proprietary; they are evidently based on an empirically
keyed profile matching technique. (Potential users should note that this approach tends to
identify individuals with response patterns similar to successful current managers, and may
serve to perpetuate current managerial styles while hindering the development of new
approaches to management.) Results are reported for the 11 categories noted above, but the
authors suggest using only the overall score for decision-making purposes; the others are for
research use only (a caveat which this reviewer suspects is often ignored in practice).
The authors correctly note that longitudinal, predictive validation research would be ideal for
the MPR, but admit that most of the validation and normative work has been concurrent in
nature, employing various measures of managerial progression as the criterion. Sixteen such
studies are outlined in the manual, typically employing several hundred managers and potential
managers as subjects and yielding validity coefficients in the .27 to .70 range. Results of a
cumulative study, based on the scores of over 5,000 examinees, show a correlation of .51 using
progression to the top half of the hierarchy of management as the criterion. Results of this
study are reported in the form of an expectancy chart for each of seven segments of the range
of overall scores, making interpretation of MPR scores very easy for potential users. Users also
are urged by the authors to carry out their own local validation studies, with the authors'
assistance at little or no cost.
From a technical standpoint the MPR manual has several important shortcomings. For example,
no reliability coefficients, standard error of measurement data, or standard error of estimate
data are reported. There is no information given regarding the stability of scores or predictions
over time. Norm tables are not provided. Although the authors claim that the MPR is equally as
predictive for minorities and women as for white males, no evidence for this claim is displayed
in the manual. (The authors do, however, offer to provide "Washington representation if MPR
problems arise with federal equal employment agencies.") Another shortcoming is that the
potential problems of faking and other response set difficulties are never addressed in the
manual, nor are any procedures described to detect examinees who desire to portray
themselves in a false but more favorable light. The authors are urged to address these issues in
future editions of the test manual.
In summary, the MPR is a well-designed self-report measure which appears useful as an aid to
the identification of prospective managers. Despite the technical shortcomings mentioned
above, the test appears well grounded in research and theory and has an impressive track
record for identifying individuals with a profile of biographical, attitudinal, and judgmental
scores which relate to success in the managerial ranks. The MPR, when used in conjunction
with measures of job-related aptitude and achievement, could be a valuable tool for
management recruitment and selection.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment