Page 255 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

case study 239
Mean Copies Between Calls (copier model A)

100
eff. value -50
50
0

-100
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
indicator score
FIGURE 11.1 Example of a performance effectiveness curve (contingency) for the indica-
tor: ‘Mean Copies Between Calls’

included in a feedback report. Contingencies take into account the differences in importance
between the indicators. Also, contingencies enable one to compare performance on differ-
ent indicators and to obtain an overall score, summed across indicators. As an example,
Figure 11.1 shows the contingency for the performance indicator ‘Mean Copies Between
Calls’. In this chapter, the actual construction of contingencies will not be dealt with (see,
for a detailed discussion, Pritchard, 1990, and Pritchard & Roth, 1991). We will restrict
ourselves to the following comments. Firstly, the relative importance of the indicators is re-
flected by the range of effectiveness scores on the vertical axis of the graph. Furthermore, on
each performance indicator, the zero effectiveness level is attached to the indicator score that
is assessed as ‘not good but not bad either’. The effectiveness scores of different indicators
can be added up, because they are all expressed in the same dimension.
Atechnician’sworkinputinvolvesdifferentmodelsofphotocopierswithdifferentcharac-
teristics (technical options, user intensity). Thus, the performance of a technician depends
on the models of photocopying machines he or she has to service. From the report, one
can see that the technician has realised on the indicator ‘Mean Copies Between Calls’,
an average of 26,300 copies between two breakdowns for copier model A, equivalent to an
effectiveness score of −1 (see Figure 11.1). For another model (copier model E), on which
the technician has also worked, a higher indicator score but a lower effectiveness score has
been realised. The reason is that the characteristics of model E are different from those
of model A, which has been taken into account in the construction of the performance–
effectiveness curves.

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK

Theliteratureonperformanceappraisal(see,forexample,Latham&Wexley,1981,1994)
distinguishes three basic approaches a supervisor can adopt in performance appraisal
sessions: ‘tell and sell’, ‘tell and listen’, and ‘problem-solving’. The ‘tell and sell’ style
1
isaone-wayapproach;themanagerpresentshis assessmentoftheperformanceachieved
and explains what he wants to see in the future. This style does not fit in the ProMES
approach which regards participation as a precondition for achieving consensus on the
need for improvement. In the ‘tell and listen’ style, the supervisor not only presents
his opinion, but also listens to the opinions of his employees on the subject. Although
this approach gives the employees more opportunity to voice their opinions, the session
is limited to an assessment of the performance achieved and lacks a future-oriented
outlook. The ‘problem-solving’ style gives employees plenty of opportunity for active