Abbott Q Paper0102

Q-Method Survey
David R Donohue, M.A.
Intranet Human Resources/ Information Benefits System
Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL
Corporate Human Resources
June 2000
The process of implementing an Intranet Human Resources Information Benefits System
(IHRIBS) often takes months or even years. After all the time is spent assessing needs, defining
requirements, assessing return on investment, evaluating vendors and negotiating a contract, a
company’s management may think the process is complete. In reality, it is just beginning.
Much has been written about project management, implementation planning, gap analysis,
prototyping, customization, testing and installation of a new IHRIBS. There is little debate about
the merits of a rigorous, disciplined and well-staffed effort to successfully install the system. But
other key ingredients for success, which focus on users of the new IHRIBS are often neglected
and may prove elusive. Those vital elements—user adaptation, acceptance, training, marketing of
the new system, and ongoing support—are arguably more critical factors for most organizations
than the technical aspects of system implementation.
A familiar system design scenario in many organizations could follow this pathway.
Although system users were involved in identifying the needs for a new IHRIBS, technology-
driven methods then took over to yield detailed system requirements, business case data, vendor
short lists, RFP’s, demos and system selection. User participation diminished as technical
installation tasks were planned and accomplished. Installation of the standard vendor product was
usually followed by software customization, unit testing, parallel testing, and finally the “live”
operation.
One very critical question remained unanswered: What happened to the individual user? Who are
they, how will they relate to the new system, and how will HR process changes affect them? How
can those changes be managed, what individual (group) training is needed, and what post-
implementation support be available? These are just a few of the user issues brought about by a
new system design and implementation. To help in answering the many questions and challenges
in implementing a new online HR systems, and to understand the attitudes and viewpoints of a
very diverse customer base(s), Abbott corporate HR elected to test customer opinions to a new
online HR benefits system through a Q-methodology survey instrument in January 2000.
A Brief History of Q-Methodology
Q-methodology was created by British physicist/psychologist William Stephenson (1902-1989),
but has been applied and has continued to evolve primarily in the United States and outside
academic psychology, most notably in the fields of communication and political science, and
more recently in the health sciences. The principles of Q methodology are restated, and contrasts
are drawn with the earlier understandings prevalent in 1930s British psychology, with
contemporary illustrative applications drawn from a variety of disciplines. The conclusion is
reached that adherence to an outdated Newtonianism plus concern for psychometric assessment
led British psychology to embrace R methodology and to miss Q's parallels with quantum theory
and its implications for a science of subjectivity, and that postmodern developments have enabled
social scientists, including a new generation of researchers to reestablish contact with Q
1

methodology and to take advantage of the leverage which it provides in understanding human
behavior.
What in 1999 is referred to as Q methodology was introduced in a letter to Nature, written by
William Stephenson (1935a), a physicist (Ph.D. 1926,University of Durham) and psychologist
(Ph.D. 1929, University of London), who served as the last assistant to Charles Spearman, the
inventor of factor analysis.
Spearman once referred to his protégé as the most creative statistician in psychology, but from
virtually the moment of its inception, the broader considerations of Q as a methodology were
destined to be controversial and to be shunned by most of academic psychology. Today, Q
methodology is being widely adopted in the social sciences, but for the most part is little
remembered in psychology itself, save (in the United States) for the technical procedure of Q
sorting. Only recently has there been evidence that a younger generation of psychologists is
rediscovering Q methodology and becoming acquainted with the vision
which William Stephenson promoted for more than a half century.
Stephenson's most celebrated work was, The Study of Behavior: Q-technique and Its
Methodology (1953), and something of the controversy surrounding Q and its originator can be
glimpsed by revisiting some of the reviews which greeted this publication. Charlotte Banks
(1954) of Britain, for instance, while noting "Stephenson's cheerful belligerence," his "lively and
entertaining style," and his "new and original ideas," also implied that some of his innovations
had been preceded by Stern and Burt in particular. Banks may have been encouraged in this
regard by Burt (1955) himself, who also referred to Stern's prior work as a way to assert his own
position contra Stephenson--namely, that "if we confine ourselves to measurements obtained on a
single occasion, we may either average the persons and correlate the traits, or average the traits
and correlate the persons." Thus, for Burt, there was always only a single matrix of data that was
at issue, and multiple ways to average across that matrix. The most stinging criticism perhaps
came from Eysenck (1954), who accused Stephenson of "a somewhat disingenuous tendency to
change the meaning of the term Q-technique over the years, whilst pretending that what he now
means by it is what he has meant by it all along."
In the United States, McNemar (1954) criticized the author of The Study of Behavior for being
obscure and for attacking "such intellects as Godfrey Thomson and Cyril Burt," and was
especially skeptical of the value of single-case studies. In the most thorough critique, to which
Stephenson (1954a) was invited to respond, Cronbach and Gleser (1954) summarized technical
innovations such as card sorting and the incorporation of Fisher's principles of experimental
design, but then issued a warning: "It is imperative to discourage students of personality
and social psychology from copying Stephenson's designs as he presents them" (p. 330, emphasis
in original). Stephenson's alleged showiness and carelessness were also noted. Finally, Turner
(1955) accused the author of Q methodology of "misplaced contentiousness," "repetitiousness,"
of "dwelling on irrelevancies" and making "excessive claims," and of "apparent unfamiliarity
with much work others have done," but also concluded that Q would "undoubtedly stand with
Guttman scaling as one of the two most important recent contributions to technique."
Once a step is taken outside academic psychology and its related fields, the
mood changes, Psychiatrist Bernard Glueck (1954) welcomed Q as furnishing "the long-awaited
stable and dependable frame of reference" for addressing the "universality of uniqueness."
Russell Ackoff (1955), one of the founders of operations research, predicted that "this book will
have to be taken into account in psychological methodology for a long time to come." And
2

Psychotherapist Lyman Wynne, while noting Stephenson's "florid and rather megalomaniac style
of writing," also stated that the book would have "widespread, immediate appeal to the clinical
investigator in psychiatry and related fields." Social worker Gershenson (1955), on the other
hand, while complaining that The Study of Behavior constituted "a running argument between the
author and his critics," acknowledged that much of what seemed to him incomprehensible
stemmed from the lack of statistical sophistication of his field.
Main Principles of Q Methodology
There was little room for Stephenson's views when he originally proposed them in the latter half
of the 1930s. This was in part due to Cyril Burt's overshadowing influence in British psychology
(which helps account for why Stephenson took his family to the United States following World
War II), and partly to the character and complexity of what Stephenson had to say. With a long
list of eminent factor analysts arrayed against him--including the likes of Burt, Banks, Cattell,
Eysenck, Thomson (to a lesser extent), McNemar, and others--it became an easy matter to
dismiss him as unclear, careless, and lacking in other intellectual virtues. There is mounting
evidence, however, that the tide is turning and that a new generation of human researchers and
psychologists in particular, and also a growing number of social scientists and technologists are
beginning to take an interest in Stephenson's ideas and to glimpse the vision that escaped his
contemporaries (see, for example, Curt, 1994; R. Stainton Rogers, 1995; W. Stainton Rogers,
1991; Stenner & Marshall, 1995). Rather than going into great detail concerning the principles of
Q methodology, it is useful to touch base with at least some of the more fundamentals. As will be
seen throughout, the concepts and principles, which Stephenson advanced, were influenced by his
training in both physics and psychology, as Logan (1991) has made clear.
Subjective Communicability
First and foremost is the axiom of subjectivity and its centrality in human affairs. Subjectivity is
everywhere, from the loftiest philosophizing and diplomatic negotiating to the street talk of the
Latin King gang members, and the self-talk of the daydreamer, and it is the purpose of Q
technique to enable the person to represent his or her viewpoint for purposes of holding it
constant for inspection and comparison. Communicability of this kind is typically shared
understanding, (Stephenson, 1980), and is consequently about fairly ordinary things--about
soccer, Microsoft’s antitrust ruling, yesterday's debate in Congress, the ongoing scandal
surrounding President Clinton's political fund-raising activities, and the recent death of former
Chicago Bear’s great Walter Payton, and anything else under the sun. What is considered
"ordinary" will, of course, depend on context, so that even the Abbott HR study about Q
methodology was about a fairly ordinary topic among those entering into that discussion: Each
participant generally understood what the others were talking about.
R methodology, on the other hand, has almost wholly to do with assessments of one kind or
another (of intelligence, mathematical ability, social anxiety, and such), and these assessments are
typically of traits about which the participant is at best only dimly aware--i.e. the measurements
are not about the kinds of ordinary things that enter into shared communicability; rather, they
represent specialized knowledge and stand outside life as it is lived moment to moment. Two
Individuals may be assessed for their intelligence, for instance, yet be none the wiser about what
the assessment was for; afterwards, however, they may enter into all manner of discussion about
their experiences--e.g. "I didn't like the math part, but then I never was really good at numbers,"
or "I kind of liked putting those blocks together," or "What did you think about those pictures? I
know we were supposed to say something about them, but my mind just went blank," and on and
3

on. Q models this communicative situation and provides measures for it, just as R provides
measures for intelligence and other traits, and neither is convertible into the other through
transposition or any other matrix manipulation.
Q technique can, of course, be used for assessment purposes, as indicated in Block's (1961) well-
known monograph and as Stephenson (1954b) himself has shown, but this can be accomplished
in at least two different ways. When Block's California Q-Set is employed, it is invariably the
psychologist who uses it as a way to provide an overall portrayal of the person under scrutiny, as
Miller, Prior, and Springer (1987), for example, have demonstrated: This provides an "external"
perspective on the person, but says nothing directly about the structure of subjectivity (except,
perhaps, that of the psychologist who performed the Q sort!).The alternative is to include the
"internal" perspective by permitting the person to provide Q sorts that become part of the
assessment, thereby including the subjective record alongside the person's other "vital signs"
(Stephenson, 1985).
Quantum Theoretical Aspects of Q
Quantum mechanics represents one of several branches of physics. It emerged on the scientific
scene at the beginning of the 20th
Century. No convention of physicists voted to start a new
branch of physics, and there are several branches of physics, but it was hoped in the early 1900’s
that QM would be the key to uniting it all under one theory. Many physicists today believe that
sooner or later they will construct an overview large enough to incorporate it all under one roof.
A quantum is a quantity of something, a specific amount. Mechanics is the study of motion.
Therefore, quantum mechanics is the study of the motion of quantities, not unlike the Q-sort study
of the motion within the subjective realm of human viewpoints. Quantum theory says that nature
comes in bits and pieces (quanta) and quantum mechanics is the study of that phenomenon.
Q-sort analysis will not replace quantitative analysis, nor will Quantum mechanics replace
Newtonian physics, it includes it. The physics of Newton today still remain valid within its limits.
To say that we have made new discovery about nature is one side of the coin. The other side of
the coin is to say that we have found the limits of our previous theories or practices. What we
actually discovered is that the way we have been looking at nature is no longer comprehensive
enough to explain all that we have observe, and we are forced to develop a more robust and
inclusive view. Creating a new theory/practice is not like destroying an old barn in Door County,
and erecting a skyscraper in its place. It is rather like climbing a mountain, gaining a new and
wider view as we ascend, discovering unexpected connections between our starting point and its
rich environment. But the point from which we started out still exists and can be seen, although it
appears smaller and forms a tiny part of our broader view gained by the mastery of the obstacles
faced on our way up.
According to quantum point of view, we eventually will develop in principle, a theory (such as
Superstring theory) that is capable of explaining everything so well that there will be nothing left
to explain. This does not mean, of course, that our explanation necessarily will reflect the way
that things actually are. For example, (1979) Albert Einstein wrote in 1938, “ Physical concepts
are free concepts of the human mind, and are not, however uniquely determined by the external
world. In our endeavor to understand reality, through subjective analysis by a Q-sort, we are
somewhat like a person trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. We see the face
and the hands moving, even hear the ticking, but we have no way of opening the watchcase to
look inside. If one is ingenious, we may form some picture of a mechanism responsible for all the
things we observe, but we may never be quite sure if this picture is the only one that could
4

explain our observation. One will never be able to compare their picture with the real mechanism,
and would not even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison.”
Under a super theory, we will still not be able to open the watch as Einstein puts it, but every
occurrence in the real world (inside the watch) will be accounted for by a corresponding element
of our supertheory. We’ll have at last a theory that is consistent with itself, and which explains all
observable phenomena. Einstein called this state, the ideal limit of knowledge.
It was the very study of elementary particles that brought physicists nose to nose with the most
devastating (to a physicist) discovery: Newtonian physics do not work in the realm of the very
small. Quantum mechanical experiments repeatedly produced results that the physics of Newton
could neither predict nor explain. Yet, although Newton’s physics, like quantitative analysis,
could not account for phenomena in the microscopic realm, it continued to explain macroscopic
phenomena very well, even though the macroscopic world is made up of the microscopic. This
was perhaps the most profound discovery of science.
Newton’s laws are based upon observations of the everyday world. They predict events, much
like quantitative analysis has done for years in its factor analysis. These events pertain to real
things like baseball and bicycles. Quantum mechanics, like subjective analysis, is based upon
experiments conducted in the subatomic realm. It predicts probabilities. These probabilities
pertain to the subatomic phenomena, much like the subjective side of Q-analysis.
Related to subjective considerations, on the other hand, was Stephenson's recognition, as well as
Burt's (1938) that the mathematics of factor analysis and Heisenberg's matrix mechanics were
virtually identical. Subjective communicability is indeterminant, as are the Q factors which
document that subjectivity. During a typical discussion over dinner or a game of cards, for
instance, it is impossible to predict who will speak next or what that person will say, and the same
is true at the individual level, e.g., or in a person’s day dreaming, For Burt, factor analysis and
quantum theory were linked by analogy only, and this was due in large part to the phenomena
being measured: R methodology measures objective variables, such as intelligence, whereas
quantum mechanics measures not variables, but states (of energy). R methodology therefore
remains necessarily within the classical paradigm of Newtonian mechanics and of determinant
causation (hence of reductionism), and this remains true even when its basic data matrix is
transposed and recorrelated by rows: Burt's version of correlating persons keeps the previously
understood world intact.
In Q methodology, by way of contrast, the quantum character of subjectivity is not an analogy,
but a reality, although its theory is rooted in Spearman's factor theory rather than in physics;
moreover, it gains meaning in relation to actual measurements (Brown, 1992; Stephenson, 1988,
p. 180). In classical mechanics, each effect is determined by a cause, and this remains intrinsic to
the logic of dependent and independent variables; in quantum theory, however, there are no
quantities that determine an individual subatomic collision, and similarly in Q methodology
"there is no quantity hitherto put forward to explain a psychological event that determines operant
factors" (Stephenson, 1995-1996, p. 3n). In short, Q technique does not measure variables as
such, but states of mind; and when Q studies are made of single cases, several factors are
typically shown to exist simultaneously in a state of complementarity (Stephenson, 1986), i.e.,
communicability exists in various states of probability. Moreover, the complementarity at issue
in Q methodology, as in particle physics, is a function of measurement rather than a vague
metaphor: It is the Q factors, which are in a relationship of complementarity.
5

Finally, measurement and meaning are as inextricably entwined in Q as in Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle: The observer of the person's subjectivity is the person him or herself (rather
than the external researcher), and it is the person who also provides the Q-sort measurements.
Operantcy and Interbehaviorism
Operantcy, can be traced to Skinner, and before that to Spearman and Watson, who were on the
trail of this idea even before it became a central principle in physics. Science deals with
operations associated with confrontable events, and in Q methodology self and subjectivity are
rendered operational through Q technique. In the process of Q sorting, the person operates with
statements or other measurable stimuli by rank-ordering them under some experimental
condition. The operation is subjective inasmuch as it is me rather than someone else who is
providing a measure of my point of view, and the factors, which emerge, are therefore categories
of operant subjectivity (Stephenson, 1977).
The factors are also naturalistic in the sense that they are naturally-occurring events (Brown,
forthcoming): The statements, unlike scale items, are naturally rendered (usually in the course of
interviews or surveys and in no way implicate variables or pretend to be a test of anything, and
the Q sorts are a function of the person's understanding; hence, the factors which emerge from
this process must, of necessity, be a natural consequence of all that preceded, and relatively
uncontaminated by the scientist's intrusions. It is this naturalism, in part, that drew Stephenson to
the interbehavioral psychology of Kantor (1959) and to the confluence of Kantor, Spearman, and
quantum theory (Stephenson, 1982, 1984). Kantor wished to avoid the nonsecular metaphysics of
surface effects as indirect indicators of hidden causes and constructs, and to base human science
on confrontable events and field conditions, and this comported well with the presuppositions of a
science of subjectivity (Smith & Smith, 1996). Kantor's was a thorough-going behaviorism, yet
not of the "decontextualizing" variety about which Stenner and Marshall (1995, p. 634) complain;
rather, field and contextual principles were central to it.
Interbehaviorism also entered into Q methodology itself at the stage of factor rotation. Unlike any
other major factor analyst, Stephenson retained the centroid method of factor analysis for
essentially the same reason that others abandoned it--namely, because of its statistically imprecise
nature. Given their imprecision, centroid factors were typically rotated to simple structure so as
to render them more determinant, but Stephenson saw in their imprecision the opportunity to save
this particular method of factor analysis from all of the determinant presumptions of the other
methods and to use it as a way to probe subjective space. Just as a Q sorter interbehaves with
statements, therefore, so does the factor analyst interbehave with factor space, so that theory and
data can interact within their own field also. It was because of this that Thompson (1962) was
able to see that Stephenson's view of factor analysis, unlike those of Burt, Cattell, Eysenck, and
others, could never be routinized and reduced to generally applicable algorithms.
The 2000 Abbott Corporate HR Q-Sort Survey
In the movie, Field of Dreams, one of the film’s most memorable lines was, “if we build it, they
will come.” That may work very well in baseball where the rules of the game are universally
understood, but the enormous complexity of designing, building and introducing a new corporate
HR benefits intranet system to a changing and diverse work community is a never-ending
challenge. To help in understanding this diverse Abbott community, and to measure associates
feelings and perspectives on using a new Abbott Intranet based HR benefits system, Gail
Denham, executive vice president of Human Resources Strategy and Information Systems agreed
6

to test a new prototype Q-sort survey among a select group of corporate HR associates at Abbott
Park.
The process of developing the Q-sort survey instrument began with two Abbott HR focus groups
that were asked a series of discovery questions intended to that focused on two critical issues:
#1 Delivery side: What needed to make an Intranet based HR self-service benefits system
successful. #2 Find-out side: What are your present HR processes and methods. What are they?
What is it that is needed in the new Intranet system? We needed to measure people’s attitudes
towards these objectives. We must always be in the process of discovering what’s going to work.
What are people’s attitudes towards a new HR process system and new technology?
Within our focus groups we need to poll people of representative groups by asking, what do they
think about this? Is this going to help you be successful? We were after statements that are fairly
common with a very watchful eye on areas of consensus and divergence. Below are the results of
our two focus groups and their responses.
HR focus group(s) results on Corporate HR benefits and self-service
1/4A Question Responses - 11 a.m.-12 p.m. Abbott HR Focus Group One
1/3B Question Responses - 3:00 - 4:00 p.m. Abbott HR Focus Group Two
Question #1A/1B: What do you see as your customer's most important need(s) in using a
self-service HR Intranet system? What are the benefits and outcomes that will add value
and effectiveness to the organization?
Group 1A Responses: 11-12 p.m.
Results of Benefits: Maintain payroll information (1) direct deposit amounts (2) W4 withholding
amounts (3) review pay stubs
Decrease in manager's time spent on benefits.
Update personal information: Home address and emergency contacts
Able to update personal information
HR manager as customers: (a) easy access to information (b) accuracy (c) efficient
Employees as customers: (a) easy to understand (b) easy to use
Access: The benefits of accessibility with a decrease in manager's time in administrative
functions. This will increase time with the guests and employee functions.
Keep it simple
Speed: increase in cycle time
Accessibility: anytime/anyplace
7

Access to information: The ability to access information from a variety of locations i.e. stations
throughout Abbott.
Self-service HR Internet must have easy access and availability
Group 1B RESPONSES: 3-4 p.m.
Having access to a computer that is linked to the Abbott Intranet
Easy access to current information processes and forms. Need to improve our overall
communication and processes.
Having access to this type of information will save everyone a lot of time, not only there time, but
people's time as well.
To obtain information quickly, at anytime, even after usual business hours.
More effective service information put into a database will be easier to access.
Availability and easy access to information. Fast, less paper work, more direct contact.
Less likely to have errors
As an informational tool, the Internet can prevent much of the unnecessary communications that
floods all out means of communications (i.e. e-mail, faxes, and phones).
Improve efficiency by providing access to routine forms and information and decrease
duplication of services.
Less paper work and red tape by using an electronic approval process on the Intranet.
Question 2A/2B: What do you need in order to do your work on a HR Intranet (support,
resources)? What do you see as barriers, as well as, enablers to providing quality self-
service to the customer?
2A RESPONSES 11-12 p.m.
Barriers: (a) Not the correct computer equipment (b) difficult to use
Barriers: (a) PC availability (b) easy to use
Barriers: Will be the system be inviting/unfriendly?
Enabler: Intuitive interface
Barrier: Slow computers and network speed
Enabler: Support and resources (a) training (b) help deck
Enablers: Training, training and more training. Support on help deck by phone.
8

Barriers: If the customer does not have access and necessary training.
Enabler: Good communications, training and intuitive design.
Enabler: System is knowledgeable, backed up by a help desk
Enabler: Training on how to use the Intranet and its services
Enabler: Training opportunities
2B RESPONSES 3 - 4 p.m.
Enabler: The necessary hardware and software to handle the Intranet. Training to use it properly.
Enabler: A comprehensive explanation (communication) on what services are available through
the Intranet.
Enabler: Detailed outline and index (menu’s) on where to locate different items.
Barriers: Lack of understanding as to what benefits are on-line.
Enabler: Easy to access on-line forms. Mistake proof forms.
Barriers: Lack of access. Lack of awareness regarding what information is available through the
intranet.
Barrier: Would need someone within the HR community who could help with technical
problems, rather than our current staff of non-HR tech's.
Enabler: Would need to feel confident that all information is highly confidential and secure.
Barrier: Would want certain information blocked from employee view, i.e. salary increases.
Barrier: Easy conversion of documents or other files to a universal format throughout the
company.
Barriers: How many people will use the Intranet versus continuation of present process?
Enabler: Less paperwork, more efficient processing of forms.
Question 3A/3B: What are your expectations now and in the future for HR self-service?
What is your vision for self-service as a deliver of service and trainer of people across the
organization?
3A Responses: 11- 12 p.m.
I expect the services to be updated with the most recent information. This is from my self-
updating as well as the developers (i.e. menus, nutritional analysis).
System needs to be visually attractive, with point, click and go format. Got to be fast.
9

Employees will find updating their own information "user friendly"
Ability to view/update all personal information without involving a manager’s input.
Envision this self-service tool to be an open line of communication across all departments.
Make sure it is what we are looking for, example: profile
Eliminate approval routing and bureaucratic delays
Most transactions handled on-line by the originator
Ability to give client the information they need.
Ability to do address changes, ability to change names in case of marriage or divorce.
3B RESPONSES 3-4 p.m.
Provide information and evaluation on different services and departments at Abbott to employees
in all divisions.
Less time spent on routing paperwork and more time spent on goal-oriented tasks and activities
An easy way to review information and make modifications as needed.
Speed up the processes, less paperwork, more convenience
I look for employee to become more pro-active in updating their own profiles with more accuracy
and timeliness. How many Abbott headcount will be displace as we move forward? We are
projected to grow at 3% per year.
All new hires into exempt management positions should have a 30, 60, 90-day orientation via the
Intranet. This could include employee adaptations, sexual harassment, EAP, AA, EEO,
Performance Mgt., etc. Each new employee could be expected to complete each interactive
tutorial.
Question 4A: Who are your customer now and in the future? What do you see as key
critical success factors to serving those customers, and how are you to do that?
Customers: Abbott employees and Abbott managers
Abbott as a corporation
Success factors: Ease of use, reliability, support resources (help desk).
The system has easy accessibility and use.
Success factors: Efficient, and decrease in administrative time.
Success factor: Support business strategies
10

Success factor: Effective communication
Success factors: Accuracy in employee information, ease of user training. Must be cost effective.
Need faster HR processing cycle time.
Success factors: Efficient and reliable administration
Customer are: Abbott Employees, HR managers & Staff, and Legal
Customers are: Abbott employees
Success factors: To offer the latest trends and to make this information (promote it) available to
all. Give the most up-to-date information available to all, and make it simple to use.
Customers: Abbott employees, our employees, non-managers and managers.
Customers: Managers and employees of Abbott
Question 4B: No responses from B group due to time expiring.
Observations made by focus group consensus:
Issue 2A: Abbott HR people need to understand life's events and why changes get made.
Training: Training needs to be fast and simple.
Network speed has to be upgraded. Bandwidth and more RAM in our desktop PC's.
A critical question is: What is the amount of time an employee will take (agree to take) to learn a
business process that directly affects their job, versus, the amount of time they will agree to take
to learn a generic business process, or technology application?
3A/3B In many of our processes what do we have to do to take out the middleman?
Abbott HR is focused on correct and timely information in all of their self-service applications
and processes. How can we make this happen?
4A: Security and level of access. How much is enough?
How do we track and measure the new Intranet process system for success factors?
1B: Abbott employees for the most part don't know anything about the new Corporate Intranet
system. How can we best educate them across the organization on the applications of and
capabilities of the new Corporate Intranet?
2B: Security? People around Abbott have a low opinion of Intranet security. How can their
information be protected?
We need to integrate many of our systems: For example, when a resume comes into HR there can
be as many as 15 different kinds of software to interact with that one resume. Access to that
11

resume is a problem. We need to have the ability to access the same information across the
organization. Many lost hours are spent on the converting information so different managers can
see that one resume.
3B: Easy assessable information is key. Another key are requiring addressing is how do we
absorb our expected 3% annual growth in people. In only a few years we will have 75,000 to
80,000 people. All our HR benefits and communications will be on the net.
Today many of our front line managers are in the dark about critical HR issues. They just don’t
know about things! We need to look at self-paced learning and professional development issues
The Survey
From the cumulative results of two Abbott HR factor groups, 25 Q-statements were incorporated
into the final Q-sort survey distributed to 53 respondents within corporate HR. In Q-Methodology
we are ranking the statements from the respondents. The key point is what people are thinking on
the issues that’s important. We want to build these into categories and cluster them around people
types that are built into descriptive categories. In a focus interview we are after common
statement from people. Convergence and divergence are what sets the factor groups apart, and
how you can look at things on how people react and respond to (+ -) things. Items in your sort
instrument can then be built into descriptive stories using the following formats:
Documentation
Visual
Chart
Numeric
Graphics
Clusters of like-minded answers are then built into factor groups. Question statements that
separate the various groups are also used in identifying the distinctive factor groups.
Within the survey results we look for characteristics types of attitudes. How people see things and
how people can think about something that can be measured. #1 How they can broadly see things
#2 How they compare to individuals in the other factor groups. We are after cluster of types and
that where the story is, information that is based on needs and attitudes. We can then use this
information from the results to #1 Design the system #2 Use it for marketing purposes #3 Use it
to train various groups successfully and communicate with them, #4 Investigate a challenge, and
chart a course of action that will solve it.
Factor groups then are the things that identify particular clusters and are the critical input from
Q-sort. Within the results are stories that you can tell you what values various group hold that
separate them from one another. They are actual descriptions on what’s important and what’s not.
Also very important are the negative things that focal groups tell you that are barriers to the
group. In our case the acceptance and use of a new Intranet system, and its successful adoption
across the enterprise. For example, from the Q-sort we now have valuable information on how
you can market the new HR Intranet benefits system to the various groups. You can then use this
information to see what are the issues that make the rollout both fluid and more successful. We
discovered four factors groups among the 53 respondents giving a fairly good description of what
people are thinking within technology and Intranet based HR benefits processes.
12

Abbott Factor Group(s) Survey Results
In the fifty-three (53) persons HR survey the Q-sort software analysis broke the respondents
down into four factor groups. Note: in all factor groups, the measurement benchmarks were
broken down in the following order: (---) = responses measuring greater than –2.00; (--) -1.00 to
--2.00; (-) -.5 to -1.00; 0 = -.5 to +.5; (+) .5 to 1.00; (+ +) 1.00 to 2.00; (+ + +) great than 2.00.
Factor Group #1: Security and Data Integrity/Technology Oriented
The leading important positive issue for this group was (+ + +) security and confidentially of
information on the new Intranet system.
Also along with confidentially and security issues, group one was looking for an integrated
system where information needs to be timely and accurate all the time. Training is not an
important issue with them.
Group one already feels Abbott provides a good level of communication and education, directly
affect their job performance, and are a technology-oriented group that is comfortable with
technology. A major concern below security issues, were that the new HR system has to be fast
and simple, because training is not an important issue. What makes this group stands out from the
others is they as a whole are interested in data integrity/security. Before we can successful train
them, and have them accept the new Intranet HR processes we need to market to this group that
the system is safe and secure 24/7. This is a potentially very strong group that will support the
new Intranet system. Below are the major statements from the survey that group one was mainly
focused on.
Group #1 comprises 18 out of 53 respondents, approximately 32% of the mean total. This group
is mainly interest in security and data integrity of the new system.
Statements that were important to this group are:
24. I feel Abbott HR needs to address security and confidentiality issues of HR data use before
implementing HR self-service. (+ + +)
6. Training on Intranet applications is not important to me. (+ +)
16. The HR Intranet has to be fast, simple and accessible to all employees. (+ +)
18. We need to integrate all Abbott HR systems to make HR information timely, accurate, and
secure across the enterprise. (+ +)
21. I feel Abbott HR provides a good level of communication and education on new technology
applications that directly affect my job performance. (+ +)
Factor Group #2: Self-Sufficient/Training not Important (negative experience with
Abbott training in the past)
The leading important positive/negative issues for this group were in the positive category that
the group believed (+ + +) Abbott currently provides a good level on Intranet connectivity that
13

easily allows associates to access and use Intranet based resources. Most strongly on the negative
side this group also felt (- - -) it’s important to have HR Intranet services anytime/anyplace.
Group two appears to hold the point of view that Abbot does not provide a good level of training,
or that it doesn’t provide communication and education of technology application that directly
affect their job performance. Group members seems to have had negative experiences with
Abbott training in the past.
This group is strongly in favor of being able to use the Intranet with little or no training and
overall does not look at training on Intranet applications as being important. There appears to be a
negative attitude towards training with this group. This group is self-sufficient group, with no
interest in training and they want an Intranet system with simplicity of operation.
Group #2 comprises 13 out of 53 respondents, approximately 26% of the mean total. This group
is mainly interest in being self-sufficient, they want a system that is simple to use with no
training. Statements that were important to this group are:
2. I believe Abbott provides a good level of Intranet connectivity that easily allows associates to
access and use Intranet-based resources. (+ + +)
3. It's important to me to have HR Intranet services anytime/anyplace. (- - -)
applications that directly affect my job performance. (- -)
5. Being able to use Intranet self-service with little or no training is important to me. (+ +)
6. Training on Intranet applications is not important to me. (+ +)
9 Having simplicity of operation in an Intranet self-service system is important. (+ +)
Factor Group #3: Negative Technologist/Possible source of negative influence
The leading important positive/negative issues for this group were in the positive category the
group believed (+ + +), the HR Intranet has to be fast, simple and accessible to all employees.
Most strongly on the negative side, group three felt (- - -) that they would not spend 3-5 hours to
learn a new business process on the Intranet.
Group three strongly believes having the Intranet available anyplace/anytime is not important,
and is not willing to spend anytime (1-2 hours) to learn about the new system or its processes. It’s
important to the group to have the Intranet system available with no training with simplicity of
operation.
Group three appears to focus on HR benefits processes with human intervention, best described
as, alternatives to the old ways. Training on the new Intranet system may not help this group
adapt to the new HR processes successfully. Group members could be a possible source of
negative influence.
Group # 3 comprise 11 out of 53 respondents, approximately 21% of the mean total. Group three
appears uncomfortable with technology, and probably want HR human interaction. They as a
whole do not want to spend anytime learning anything. The need for functionality could be a key
14

in marketing the new Intranet system to this group. This group could potentially be a negative
influence on Intranet self-service. Statements that were important to this group include:
16. The HR Intranet has to be fast, simple and accessible to all employees. (+ + +)
23. I would spend 3-5 hours to learn a new business process on the Intranet. (- - -)
3. It's important to me to have HR Intranet services anytime/anyplace. (- -)
13. I am willing to spend 1-2 hours to learn how to use a self-service system on the Intranet. (- -)
5. Being able to use Intranet self-service with little or no training is important to me. (+ +)
9. Having simplicity of operation in an Intranet self-service system is important. (+ +)
Factor Group #4: Important to Support Intranet Self-Service
The leading important positive issue for this group was (+ + +) was it was important to support
Intranet self-service. Group four is not afraid of technology per se, but its key in winning their
support and acceptance to show them where the safety nets and lifeboats are for the new system.
This group as a whole strongly believes using new technology is not overwhelming, but says
Abbott does a poor job in providing a good level of Intranet access. In the same framework they
sees a lack of overall connectivity at Abbott as a barrier for allowing associates to access and use
Intranet based resources. This group can best be described as technically supported consumers
who will use and support the system if they themselves are supported by a help desk and other
Intranet system resources.
Group # 4 comprise 11 out of 53 respondents, approximately 21% of the mean total. Person from
Group one and four could be a good combination of supporting the rollout and acceptance of the
system. My suggestion would be to market this system by focusing on support for the Intranet
and involving strong champions from group one in the process. Statements that were important to
this group include:
7. It's important to support Intranet self-services. (+ + +)
10. Using new technology is sometimes overwhelming. (- -)
17. Abbott provides a good level of Intranet access. (- -)
access and use Intranet-based resources. (- -)
15

Demographic Respondent Breakouts
Respondent Group Age Sex Job Category
ABBT 01 2 30-54 F Nonexempt/professional
ABBT 04 1 30-54 F Supervisor/mgr.
ABBT 05 1 30-54 F Exempt professional
ABBT 09 1 30-54 M Nonexempt/professional
ABBT 13 3 30-54 M Supervisor/mgr.
ABBT 16 1 Under 30 F Nonexempt/professional
ABBT 22 3 Under 30 F Exempt professional
16

ABBT 42 3 30-54 M Exempt professional
ABBT 43 1 30-54 M Exempt professional
ABBT 47 4 55 & over M Supervisor/mgr.
ABBT 48 2 55 & over M Exempt professional
ABBT 53 1 55 & over F Nonexempt/professional
17

Strong Core Statements of the Four Groups
The following statements were selected by the four factor groups as areas of strong
(+) positive or (-) negative attitudes on issuers in designing, implementing, using and
maintaining a self service Intranet HR benefits system at Abbott Laboratories.
These statements can be used in future Q-sort surveys to establish individual group
designations, and to better understand Abbott associate (group) needs and
expectations within the Intranet HR benefit system.
24. I feel Abbott HR needs to address security and confidentiality issues of HR data use before
implementing HR self-service.
3. It's important to me to have HR Intranet services anytime/anyplace.
applications that directly affect my job performance.
16. The HR Intranet has to be fast, simple and accessible to all employees.
access and use Intranet-based resources.
7. It's important to support Intranet self-services.
5. Being able to use Intranet self-service with little or no training is important to me.
9. Having simplicity of operation in an Intranet self-service system is important.
6. Training on Intranet applications is not important to me.
23. I would spend 3-5 hours to learn a new business process on the Intranet.
18

References
Stephenson, W. (1935a). Technique of factor analysis. Nature, 136, 297.
Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Banks, C. (1954). [Review of the book, The study of behavior]. British Journal of
Statistical Psychology, 7, 62-63.
Burt, C. (1955). [Review of the book, The study of behavior]. Occupational
Psychology, 29, 58.
Eysenck, H.J. (1954). [Review of the book, The study of behavior]. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 45, 374-376.
McNemar, Q. (1954). [Review of the book, The study of behavior]. Psychological
Bulletin, 51, 527-528.
Stephenson, W. (1954a). Comments on Cronbach and Gleser's review of: The
study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Psychometrika, 19, 331-333.
Cronbach, L.J. & Gleser, G.C. (1954). [Review of the book The study of
behavior]. Psychometrika 19, 327-330.
Turner, R.H. (1955). [Review of the book The study of behavior]. American
Journal of Sociology, 61, 167-169.
Glueck, B. (1954). [Review of the book The study of behavior]. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 111, 479-480.
Ackoff, R.L. (1955). [Review of the book The study of behavior]. Philosophy of
Science, 22, 67
19

Gershenson, C.P. (1955). [Review of the book The study of behavior]. Social
Service Review, 29, 333.
Curt, B.C. (1994). Textuality and tectonics: Troubling social and psychological
science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Stainton Rogers, R. (1995). Q methodology. In J.A. Smith, R. Harré, & L. Van
Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 178-192). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stainton Rogers, W. (1991). Explaining health and illness: An exploration of
diversity. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Stenner, P. & Marshall, H. (1995). A Q methodological study of rebelliousness.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 621-636.
Logan, R.A. (1991). Complementarity, self and mass communication: The
contributions of William Stephenson, 1902-1989. Mass Comm Review, 18, 27-39.
Stephenson, W. (1954b). Q-technique and the Rorschach test. In S.J. Beck, The
six schizophrenias (Research Monograph No. 6). Chicago: American
Orthopsychiatric Association.
Zukav, Gary, (1979), The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Bantam Books
Miller, M.J., Prior, D., & Springer, T. (1987). Q-sorting Gloria. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 27, 61-68.
Stephenson, W. (1985). Perspectives in psychology: Integration in clinical
psychology. Psychological Record, 35, 41-48.
Burt, C. (1938). The unit hierarchy and its properties. Psychometrika, 3, 151-168.
Brown, S.R. (1992, October 23). Q methodology and quantum theory: Analogies
and realities. Read at a meeting of the International Society for the Scientific
Study of Subjectivity, Columbia, MO.
Stephenson, W. (1988). Quantum theory of subjectivity. Integrative Psychiatry,
6, 180-187.
Stephenson, W. (1995-1996). Quantum theory media research: I. Reception
analysis. Operant Subjectivity, 19, 1-11.
Stephenson, W. (1986). William James, Niels Bohr, and complementarity:
II--Pragmatics of a thought. Psychological Record, 36, 529-543.
Stephenson, W. (1977). Factors as operant subjectivity. Operant Subjectivity, 1,
3-16.
Kantor, J.R. (1959). Interbehavioral psychology: A sample of scientific system
20

construction (2nd ed.). Granville, OH: Principia Press.
Stephenson, W. (1982). Q-methodology, interbehavioral psychology, and
quantum theory. Psychological Record, 32, 235-248.
Stephenson, W. (1984). Methodology for statements of problems: Kantor and
Spearman conjoined. Psychological Record, 34, 575-588.
Stenner, P. & Marshall, H. (1995). A Q methodological study of rebelliousness.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 621-636.
Thompson, J.W. (1962). Meaningful and unmeaningful rotation of factors.
Psychological Bulletin, 59, 211-223.
21

Abbott Q Paper0102

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to Abbott Q Paper0102

Similar to Abbott Q Paper0102 (20)

More from David Donohue

More from David Donohue (19)

Abbott Q Paper0102