Page 250 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

234 enhancing performance through goal-setting and feedback interventions
able to generate the feedback reports. In the study of Meeks (1994), implementation was
severely hampered because of the lack of an information system to provide the feedback
data at the start of the implementation phase.
In the implementation phase inconsistent links with other organisational control
systems can arise. If the designed goal-setting and feedback system is not compati-
ble with these other control systems it will probably not survive, unless the compatibility
is actually improved. Algera, Monhemius and Wijnen (1997) report on the compatibility
of ProMES and Statistical Process Control (SPC). The latter approach has its roots in
quality management and has been developed in the area of industrial engineering. It is
based on the concept of operator self-control supported by statistical tools. Both ProMES
and SPC aim at improving the task strategies used by employees. At first sight, these two
approaches are very different. For example, the primary goal of ProMES is productivity
improvement, while SPC aims at reduction of process variation. Furthermore, ProMES
is oriented to enhancing the motivation of employees and uses a bottom-up design ap-
proach, while SPC is focused on the identification of causes of process variation and uses
an expert design approach. In addition to this there is a difference between ProMES and
SPC in the time horizon for providing feedback. Algera et al. (1997) present a case in
which these two systems are combined. It turns out that ProMES and SPC can be made
compatible and even stronger: they can be designed to be supplementary. The focus of
SPC on “out of control” situations can lead to clues for better task strategies. These clues
are not usually provided by ProMES because of its focus on controllable performance
indicators.
Schmidt and Kleinbeck (1997) refer to the compatibility of performance feedback data
and organisational context factors. Important context factors are existing pay systems,
supervisory behaviour and the level of interdependence of individual tasks in a work
group setting. They conclude that incompatible constellations between goal-setting and
feedback systems and the organisational context factors can have detrimental conse-
quences for performance.

PHASE 3: MAINTENANCE

In this phase at least two important questions are at stake. The first question is how to
continue the goal-setting and feedback system as time goes by and context factors change.
For example, installing new technology may necessitate adaptations of performance
evaluation to keep the system alive (see, for example, Kleingeld, 1994). Janssen et al.
(1995) describe a case in which the initially designed ProMES system evolves, related to a
change in the strategy of the organisation. In the beginning operators had rather restricted
authority and responsibility but more and more self-management was introduced, and
the performance indicators for the operators changed accordingly.
In addition to changes in context factors, getting experience with the goal-setting and
feedback system leads to a higher employee awareness of performance constraints.
A main issue is the attitude and skills of management in handling feedback data.
Pritchard (1990) advocates a management attitude that can be expressed as “us against the
figures”, especially in situations of performance below expectations. Schmidt and
Kleinbeck (1997) refer to the same phenomenon in discussing the style of supervi-
sory behaviour that is needed to get a positive effect of performance feedback data.
To enhance performance, a goal-setting and feedback system should not only provide