Page 261 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

case study 245
Criteria for effective goals
Effective goals have the following features (e.g. Locke & Latham, 1990): they are spe-
cific, difficult and attainable. Above all, they should be accepted. To some extent, ac-
ceptance will be the result of the way in which the previous part of the performance
enhancement sessions has been handled; discussing feedback and analysing the situa-
tion. If feedback is understood, recognised and accepted, and if a feeling of dissatisfaction
exists about performance results (in the sense of ‘it ought to be better’ or ‘could I still
do better?’), and if, moreover, ideas exist about the way in which performance might be
improved (if adequate task strategies are available) and the prospects for doing so are
regarded with optimism, setting specific, difficult, and attainable goals may be no more
than just the ‘finishing touch’.

Critical supervisor behaviours in setting goals
In this case study, the following steps would be appropriate in setting goals:

Stimulate the technician to have a look at his performance during the past six months

and ask him to make a suitable estimate of a reasonable performance for himself, (not
good, not bad), a suitable estimate of a maximum performance and a suitable estimate
of a minimum performance.

This question can be asked at several levels, which are overall performance, performance
on a specific indicator across copier models, overall performance per copier model, or
indicator performance per copier model. Quite probably, it will not be immediately
clear to every technician how his overall performance, expressed in terms of ProMES
scores, has been arrived at. Also, he will probably not be able to understand which
changes in behaviour will cause his performance to rise or fall on certain indicators.
It might also not be immediately clear what consequences (through the contingencies)
performance variations on separate indicators will have for his overall performance.
Probably it would be best to start discussions at the lowest level possible, i.e. at the level
of separate indicators per copier model. From there, and depending on the situation (see
below), one can turn to either overall indicator level or to the level of overall performance
per copier model.
In the previous part, discussions about the feedback reports should have resulted in the
selection of one or two indicators which, at first sight, would seem to be the most suitable
to direct ‘improvement activities’ to. Or one or two models should have been selected
on which the technician frequently scores poorly, which suggests that ‘improvement
activities’ are needed. Although Pritchard (1990, p. 170) advocates setting goals in
terms of overall effectiveness scores, it is obvious that this is very difficult in this case
study (as long as the technician does not understand how the overall scores have been
arrived at).
Suppose the diagnosis reveals that the technician scores poorly on a certain indicator.
In that event, a good starting point would be to assess the performance variation of
the technician on the horizontal axis (indicator scores) of the performance effectiveness
curve of the indicator in question (if necessary this can be done for each of the models
under consideration). Then the question is asked: what do you consider ‘not good,
not bad’, what is your maximum, what is your minimum?