Page 259 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

case study 243
Critical supervisor behaviours in giving feedback
Based on the above we propose the following supervisor behaviours for giving feedback:
Explain the purpose of the discussion: analysing feedback reports together, drawing

up plans of action and making agreements will help the technician to use ProMES as
a self-management system.
Ask the technician to give a precise description of how his performance has been

developing in the preceding period both overall and for each of the indicators.
This is to establish whether the technician is fully aware of his main areas of respon-
sibility, his performance in these areas and how his final score is obtained; allowing
the technician to describe details of his feedback reports himself will show whether he
clearly understands the system and can interpret his own scores.

Ask the technician if he recognises himself in the feedback report. Does the report

reflect his own ideas about his performance?
This question is not designed to find out whether he reacts rationally to what the report
apparently says about his performance, but whether he accepts the image of himself
(“yes, that’s me”) or rejects it (“that can’t be me”) or is not affected by it at all (“if it
says so then it will be so, but it’s all the same to me whatever it says”). Only the first
response reflects real acceptance. The second response at least indicates that he cares; it
might in the long run develop into acceptance. The last response is the most problematic
one, because it signals indifference. To bring the technician into closer contact with his
own performance, it may be wise to ask him to make some estimates of indicator scores.
If the picture given in the report leads to acceptance, the estimates he is asked to make
about, for example, the average labour time spent on a certain copier model, will be
closely related to the real indicator scores. In case of rejection or a ‘don’t know’ answer
considerable discrepancies may become apparent. As long as the image presented is not
really seen as a reflection of the technician’s true performance, further progression is
not possible. Quite likely the only thing to do is to arrange with the technician that in
the coming period he keeps track of his own scores on a specific indicator for a certain
copier model and compares his own observations with the scores in the feedback report.
It should be kept in mind that indicator scores with positive effectiveness values will be
more readily accepted compared to scores with negative effectiveness values.
Ask the technician to assess his overall performance and his performance on the

various performance components in terms of the standards he imposes on himself: is
he satisfied with the picture that is presented (assuming he considers the picture to be
correct)?
Again, a number of responses are possible: a technician who sets himself no goals has no
basis whatsoever on which to answer the question and, if he is honest, will say he does
not know. Because he does not know, he may also say that he is satisfied. So, satisfaction
can indicate either that his own norms or goals have been met or that he has no norms
or goals at all, and therefore accepts any outcome. Dissatisfaction can also result from
different sources. A technician may have clear ideas about the level of performance he
feels he ought to be able to attain and be dissatisfied with himself because he has not yet