Page 36 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

14 performance concepts and performance theory
is crucial for high performance. A study in the domain of software design showed that
excellent and moderate performers differed with respect to problem comprehension,
planning, feedback processing, and task focus (Sonnentag, 1998).
Roe (1999) suggested a very broad approach to performance regulation, in which
he incorporated the action theory approach as one of five perspectives. The other four
components of performance regulation are: energetic regulation, emotional regulation,
vitality regulation, and self-image regulation. Roe assumes that all these five types of
regulation are involved in performance regulation.
The process regulation perspective is closely linked to specific performance improve-
ment interventions. The most prominent interventions are goal setting (Locke & Latham,
1990) and feedback interventions (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979). The basic idea of goal
setting as a performance improvement intervention is that setting specific and difficult
goals results in better performance than no or ‘do-your-best’ goals (Locke & Latham,
1990). Goal-setting theory assumes that goals affect performance via four mediating
mechanisms: effort, persistence, direction, and task strategies. The benefits of goal set-
ting on performance have been shown in virtually hundreds of empirical studies (Locke &
Latham, 1990; Latham, Locke, & Fassina, this volume). Meta-analyses showed that goal
setting belongs to one of the most powerful work-related intervention programs (e.g.,
Guzzo et al., 1985). The performance regulation perspective suggests that an improve-
ment of the action process itself improves performance. For example, individual should
be encouraged to set long-range goals and to engage in appropriate planning, feedback
seeking, and feedback processing. This perspective assumes that training interventions
can be useful in achieving such changes. Additionally, job design interventions can help
to improve the action process (Wall & Jackson, 1995).
There is a long tradition within psychology which assumes that feedback has a positive
effect on performance (for a critical evaluation, cf. Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Indeed,
there is broad evidence that feedback enhances performance if the feedback is task-
related. Feedback which refers primarily to self-related processes, however has no or at
least a detrimental effect on performance—even if it is ‘positive’ feedback (Kluger &
DeNisi, 1996). Moreover, a combination of a goal-setting intervention with a feedback
intervention results in better performance than a goal-setting intervention alone (Neubert,
1998). A specific intervention approach which draws on the benefits of goal setting
and feedback is the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES;
Pritchard, Jones, Roth, Stuebing, & Ekeberg, 1989). ProMES suggests a procedure of
how organizational units can improve their productivity by identifying their products,
developing indicators, establishing contingencies, and finally putting the system together
as a feedback system (for details see Van Tuijl et al., this volume).
A rather different approach to performance regulation is the behavior modification
perspective. Based on reinforcement theory (Luthans & Kreitner, 1975) this approach
is not primarily interested in the processes within the individual which regulate perfor-
mance but in regulative interventions from outside the individual, particularly positive
reinforcement. Such reinforcements can comprise financial interventions, non-financial
interventions such as performance feedback, social rewards such as attention and recog-
nition, or a combination of all these types of reinforcements. Meta-analytic findings
suggest that such behavior modification interventions have a positive effect on task per-
formance, both in the manufacturing and in the service sector (Stajkovic & Luthans,
1997).