April 2001
Volume 8 • Number 2

Contents

The Impact of a Performance Management Intervention on Work Processes and Operational Indicators

by Marla E. Hacker, Oregon State University, Tygh J. Newton, Performance Center, Akinyinka Akinyele, U.S. Postal Service

Organizations are constantly seeking new ways to improve performance. Currently a popular management intervention called performance management seeks to more closely link employee activities to organizational objectives. Often it is difficult to determine whether changes initiated by management in the name of performance improvement actually do contribute to improvements in performance. It is difficult to objectively assess what has changed following an improvement intervention. This paper discusses an actual field study undertaken to improve performance through the design and installation of a performance management intervention. Using quasi-experimentation methods, the study evaluates the impact of an intervention on management work processes and operational performance indicators, while concurrently demonstrating a more systematic method for analyzing management interventions.

Key words: management intervention, quasi- experimentation, statistical process control

INTRODUCTION

Many organizations attempt to address performance through team training. Often team training is aimed at increasing positive interpersonal behaviors (for example, listening and conflict management) or increasing the rational processes used by the group (Kernaghan and Cooke 1990). Rational processes include the use of procedural structure to analyze a problem, develop alternative solutions, and select the best alternative based upon predetermined criteria. To date, though, evaluative studies of the effectiveness of team training have shown conflicting results or only moderately effective results (Burke and Day 1986). Also, it has been seen that formalizing the work group processes may have limited impact on performance (Hacker and Kleiner 1999). The result is that managers are still unclear about how to improve performance.

This study is about a performance improvement intervention. An intervention takes training a step further in an attempt to increase the likelihood of achieving the specified objectives. In this study, following the training sessions, managers were expected to accomplish specific tasks and to report the outcomes at future training sessions. The focus of this intervention was to put in place a more formalized system for managing the strategy deployment and implementation process. The desire was to increase the linkage between lower-level management activities and the strategic objectives of the organization. The expectation was that a tighter linkage would improve operational performance.

The intervention was designed to integrate key concepts from the body of literature relating to goal theory, strategic management, large group interventions, and self-efficacy (Figure 1).

Goal theory research by Yearta, Maitlis, and Briner (1995), and Hinsz (1995) has found that well-defined, challenging, and attainable goals improve performance. Additionally, leading goal theory scholars, Locke and Latham (1990), have found that performance is enhanced when goals exist that are specific, difficult but possible, generate commitment, and provide feedback mechanisms. The VMS intervention process requires each manager, without regard to hierarchical level, to specify his or her unit’s performance goals, develop associated action plans, and systematically review progress on a regular basis with organizational leaders.

Strategic management is defined as the set of decisions and actions resulting in the formulation and implementation of strategies or means designed to achieve the objectives of the organization (David 1987).Strategic management can be operationalized through three phases of activity: (1) formulating the strategic plan based on customer requirements, competitive analysis, and long-term vision; (2) deploying the plans throughout the organizations; (3) implementing activities or projects required to achieve the plan (Collins and Huge 1993). The VMS intervention process ensures that unit performance goals are linked to the organization’s strategic plan and objectives.

Large groups are considered to be seven or more participants. Large group intervention theory asserts that performance is improved when the group responsible for implementation has a thorough understanding of the need for the improvement, and participates in designing the activities required to achieve the improvement (Bunker and Alban 1997; Weisbord 1992). The VMS intervention process is consistent with large group intervention theory. Time is spent during the intervention sharing and discussing the corporate strategic plan. With their employees, lower-level managers are required to identify the critical activities required to achieve performance targets within their areas of responsibility.

Self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s convictions (or confidence) about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, resources, and action required to successfully execute specific tasks (Locke and Latham 1990). The importance of this human characteristic is that in times of higher levels of self-efficacy (holding other variables constant), people perform at higher levels. The VMS intervention process includes individual and group exercises designed to encourage individuals and their work group to reflect on their self-efficacy relative to achieving performance objectives.

The intervention process brings self-efficacy to a conscious level, which enables individuals to assess and address their personal confidence issues. The intervention was executed through a series of workshops spaced several weeks apart. The workshops were designed to operationalize concepts from goal theory, strategic management, large-scale interventions, and self-efficacy. The workshops culminate in the data-based, systematic performance review process that is ongoing for the organization. During the reviews, improvement plans are evaluated in terms of their execution and their ultimate impact on performance results.

back