Page 253 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

facilitating learning in the implementation phase of pROmes 237
RO
FACILITATING LEARNING IN THE IMPLEMENTATION
PHASE OF PROMES

ProMES performance management systems are potentially effective tools for continuous
improvement. One reason for that is that the core of such systems consists of valid
performance indicators which are under the control of employees. Another reason is
that employees, having participated in the design of their ProMES system, experience
feelings of ownership towards it and, as a result, are willing to use the system as a control
loop for self-regulation. However, participatory system design alone is not enough to
sustain attempts towards productivity improvement in the long run. The latter requires
that the system is actively, and again participatorily, used in an environment stimulating
self-management and continuous learning and improvement.
In the phase of system design, the facilitator plays a crucial role in fostering employee
participation. In the implementation phase, the immediate supervisor will have to take
over this crucial role and adapt it to the demands of this new phase. The main difference
between the two phases boils down to the different contents of the interaction among
employees and between employees and the management. In the design phase, this inter-
action is primarily concerned with the “what” of the performance to be delivered, i.e. the
performance indicators and their relative importance. In the implementation phase, in-
teraction largely concerns the “how” of the required performance, i.e. the question of
effective task strategies. The supervisor will have to guide the employees through partici-
patory problem-solving processes called for by ProMES feedback and aimed at directing
employee attention towards applying available, or discovering new and more adequate
task strategies. This section delineates effective supervisor behaviours for that purpose.

CRITICAL SUPERVISOR BEHAVIOUR DURING PROMES
PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT SESSIONS

We will explore the ways in which supervisors should discuss a ProMES feedback report
with their employees to achieve the desired effect, namely securing their willingness to
work actively and self-managing on improving their performance.
Two kinds of supervisor behaviour will be looked at separately: supervisor behaviour
in dealing with acceptance problems and supervisor behaviour aimed at achieving per-
formance enhancement through the use of the feedback and goal setting. This twofold
approach fits with the model of the accepted control loop (van Tuijl, 1997). The first
question a supervisor should ask with regard to the performance of one of his employees
reads: “Is there, in the eyes of this employee, an accepted discrepancy between feed-
back and goals?” The second question is: “Given that there is an accepted discrepancy,
does this person possess sufficient knowledge and skill to reduce the discrepancy?”
Formulated in more simple terms: does the employee have a problem and if so does
he or she have sufficient resources to solve the problem? The sets of critical supervisor
behaviours designed to deal with these questions have been based on Latham and Saari
(1979), Latham and Wexley (1981, 1994), Pritchard (1990), and on our own experiences
in working with the ProMES method.
We will discuss these behaviours in the context of a ProMES system which has been
developed in a service organisation. A short description of this ProMES system is given
in the following case study.