Performance management theory A look from the performer s perspective with implications for HRD PDF

Preview

Summary

Human Resource Development International ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: Performance management theory: A look from the perspective with implications for HRD Thomas W. Buchner To cite this article: Thomas W. Buchner (2007) Performance management theory: A look from the perspective with impl...

Description

Human Resource Development International

ISSN: 1367-8868 (Print) 1469-8374 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhrd20

Performance management theory: A look from the performer's perspective with implications for HRD Thomas W. Buchner To cite this article: Thomas W. Buchner (2007) Performance management theory: A look from the performer's perspective with implications for HRD, Human Resource Development International, 10:1, 59-73, DOI: 10.1080/13678860601170294 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860601170294

Published online: 28 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2791

Citing articles: 32 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rhrd20

Human Resource Development International, Vol. 10, No. 1, 59 – 73, March 2007

Performance Management Theory: A Look from the Performer’s Perspective with Implications for HRD THOMAS W. BUCHNER University of Minnesota

ABSTRACT Performance management methods are receiving increased attention as organizations seek performance gains from their workforces during challenging economic times. In this paper, the construct of performance management is challenged along two lines: how applied models do not take full advantage of existing theories of work motivation; and how the impact of performance management will continue to be constrained as long it remains a predominantly topdown process. Several relevant theories of motivation are examined to illustrate gaps between theory and practice and to provide a basis for looking at performance management from the performer’s perspective. Resulting implications for the human resource development (HRD) field are discussed. KEY WORDS: Performance management, performance appraisal, motivation, self-management

In recent years, challenging economic conditions have stressed organizations, some to the breaking point. Rather than waiting for external improvements, such as market growth or technological advances, many organizations are looking internally for performance and productivity gains. Consequently, the concept of performance management is receiving increased attention as a route to improved results (Boxall and Purcell, 2003). At the same time, regrettably, lingering concerns over the effectiveness (Coens and Jenkins, 2000) and dissatisfaction (Bernardin et al., 1998) have not been resolved. Theoretical Questions Performance management is a topic of interest to human resource development (HRD) professionals, especially those engaged in helping organizations rethink and

Correspondence Address: Tom Buchner, 2009 Evergreen Court, Roseville MN 55113, USA. Email: [email protected] ISSN 1367-8868 Print/1469-8374 Online/07/010059-15 Ó 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13678860601170294

60

T. W. Buchner

redesign their performance management systems. From a theoretical standpoint, a number of questions reach out to the HRD field as it considers the impact of performance management systems in organizations. Two of these questions are raised in this conceptual paper to encourage and stimulate further discussion. First, to what degree is applied performance management supported by valid theories? In other words, is there clear evidence of theoretical research supporting how organizations manage performance? Second, what fresh insights might we discover if we seriously looked at performance management from the performer’s perspective? These questions suggest potential for fundamental change in how performance is managed and opportunity for increasing the impact of performance management systems in organizations. Given the substantial resources organizations commit to performance management, it does not appear as well supported by theory as one might expect. There are advanced models available (e.g. Rummler and Brache, 1995), but typically performance management is described in process terms (e.g. Grote, 1996; Swan, 1991). Such descriptions present the standard steps of performance management from objective setting, through formal appraisal, to the start of the next cycle. Although there may well be theory behind these descriptions, the explicit connections are weak and the average manager would be hard pressed to explain the theoretical support. This is unfortunate because volumes of relevant theory exist, especially concerning work motivation. The average manager would benefit from a stronger grasp of how leading theories of motivation link to the practice of performance management. Given the central role played by the performer, it is also surprising that performance management continues to be a predominantly top-down effort. One does not have to delve deeply into this field to get the impression that performers are at the mercy of their organizations’ performance management systems. In the worst cases, performance management is something done to people. These employees and their supervisors tend to think of performance management in compliance terms – something forced or required. Progressive philosophies of performance management as something done for, or in partnership with, performers are more palatable and imply possibilities for alternate strategies. Yet, most organizations lag behind, and most employees do not look to performance management as a helpful or valued element of their jobs (Coens and Jenkins, 2000). In this paper, the construct of performance management is challenged and discussed along these two lines. To what degree does theoretical support for performance management exist as it is applied in organizations? From the performer’s perspective, how might performance management be improved? After a brief orientation to performance management, the following section highlights several relevant motivation theories and considers the strength of their connections to applied models and processes. These same theories are then considered from the performer’s perspective. Finally, implications for HRD will be presented and explored. Growing Readiness for Progressive Performance Management Traditionally, performance management has been the responsibility of the immediate supervisor (e.g., Barnes-Farrell, 2001; Cardy and Dobbins, 1994; Latham and

Performance Management Theory

61

Wexley, 1994). However, changes in the workplace have made it harder for supervisors to be effective managers of others’ performance. Specific trends affecting performance management include decentralized workforces, enlarged spans of control, lack of direct experience, and evolving performer expectations (Fletcher, 2001). Decentralization and remote work sites mean supervisors are often not able to directly observe performers, making it difficult for them to credibly manage performance in the traditional sense. Downsizing and flattening of organizations are other recognized trends in business (Barnes-Farrell, 2001; Latham and Wexley, 1994). As organizations get flatter, spans of control get larger and managers voice concern that they do not have enough time to monitor the performance of all the performers reporting to them. Another concern is the increasing likelihood of managers never having held one or more of the positions that report to them. Without the expertise, knowledge, and understanding that come with having performed the work, the credibility of feedback is suspect (Coens and Jenkins, 2000). Managers who have successfully performed the work themselves are better suited to recognize performance from others and provide relevant feedback than those who have not. Finally, modern employees also have different expectations when it comes to performance management and feedback. Over the past several decades, increasing numbers of employees have been exposed to participation and empowerment in the workplace. Many now expect to be involved to a significant degree in determining the performance management processes that affect them (Mohrman et al., 1989). These trends combine to call for the rethinking of performance management. They explain why research suggests the start of a shift of responsibility for employee motivation from the manager to the employee (Kanfer and Heggestad, 1997). As Anne Saunier of the business magazine Fast Company put it, ‘Ultimately, managers aren’t responsible for their people’s performance. People are responsible for their own performance. There’s feedback all around you – if you pay attention. If you’re not getting enough feedback, ask for it’ (cited in Coens and Jenkins, 2000, p. 115). If effective performance management is not occurring in organizations due to changing workplace circumstances and pressure on managerial roles, while at the same time growing numbers of employees are interested in taking charge of their own performance, then significant opportunity exists for the HRD profession to progressively and confidently advance the practice of performance management. Performance Management Traditionally, the term performance management has been defined as management’s systematic application of processes aimed at optimizing human performance in an organization (Warren, 1982). The emphasis on process stands out. Defined this way, performance management carries a somewhat negative connotation when considered from the performer’s perspective – as something done to people. More progressive definitions bring the communication aspect to the forefront, as in Weiss and Hartle’s (1997): ‘A process for establishing a shared understanding about what is to be achieved, and how it is to be achieved, and an approach to managing people that increases the probability of achieving success’ (p. 3). While an improvement, this definition continues to represent a top-down orientation.

62

T. W. Buchner

The emphasis on process carries through in prevailing performance management models. For example, Rummler and Brache’s (1995) human performance system places the performer at the centre, receiving inputs and resources, carrying out tasks and performance activities, and producing outputs. This basic performance system is enhanced by performance standards to cue behaviours and direct outputs; a performance feedback loop for monitoring activities and outputs; and a formal performance appraisal step (Gilley et al., 1999). Rummler and Brache’s (1995) itemization of factors that affect their conceptualized performance system pose important questions to management from six domains: (a) is performance specified?, (b) is there adequate task support?, (c) are consequences aligned with targeted performance?, (d) is feedback provided?, (e) do performers have required skills and knowledge?, and (f) do performers have the capacity to perform? Rummler and Brache detail these domains with fifteen additional questions, several of which come very close to looking at performance management from the performer’s perspective. For example, ‘Do performers consider the standards attainable?’ and, ‘Are consequences meaningful from the performer’s viewpoint?’ This is a thoughtful, insightful model, and one that has been widely embraced. However, although there are indications of underlying theories, they are not made explicit, so users of this model may not fully grasp the connections between the model’s components and desired results. Nor do the questions imbedded in the model fully represent leading motivational theories from organizational psychology. Why should this concern HRD? Because lack of a reasonable understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of performance management may contribute to the rote application of performance management processes so common in organizations. And rote application is not the key to unleashing human performance. Underlying Theories of Work Motivation Psychologists have provided an exceptionally vast and rich array of motivational theories (see reviews by Eccles and Wigfield, 2002; Donovan, 2001; Kanfer, 1990; and Mitchell, 1982). Yet, there is much room for improvement in how applied performance management takes advantage of motivation theory. Ask working managers about motivation theory and you will be fortunate to hear a passable rendering of Mazlow’s needs hierarchy. How disheartening when there are so many streams of motivation theory to consider. For example, Guest (1997) lobbies for Expectancy Theory as the key linkage between motivation and performance. Justice Theory (Latham et al., 2005) and Self-Determination Theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000) are current topics. Donovan (2001) lists Equity Theory, Expectancy Theory, Cognitive Evaluation Theory, Goal-Setting Theory, Control Theory, and Social Cognitive Theory as those that have received the most attention in recent years. Of this array, I’ve selected three to use as examples: Goal-Setting Theory, because goals are central to even the most basic performance management systems (Locke and Latham, 1990); Control Theory, because feedback also is central to the essence of performance management and for growing interest in self-regulated performance (Carver and Scheier, 1998); and third, Social Cognitive Theory, for how it adds explicit goal-focused aspects to the social learning view of motivation (Donovan,

Performance Management Theory

63

2001). HRD’s reflection on these and other theories is needed for two purposes: first, to respond to the question of whether or not applied performance management is taking full advantage of advancing theory; and second, these theories help draw forth challenging questions when they are considered from the performer’s perspective. The following overview of each theory provides background for further discussion. Goal-Setting Theory The effects of goal-setting on performance have been studied extensively and have been found to be exceptionally reliable, valid, and useful across diverse work situations (Locke et al., 1981). Locke and Latham (2002) have championed and led the development of goal-setting theory for more than thirty-five years. As they worked to understand the core properties of effective goals, goal difficulty and goal specificity stood out as having the strongest effect on performance. In particular, difficult and specific goals led to higher performance when compared to vague doyour-best goals (Locke and Latham, 2002). For a full presentation of goal-setting theory, see Locke and Latham (1990). Goal-setting theory highlights four mechanisms that work to connect difficult and specific goals to performance outcomes (Locke and Latham, 2002). Goals direct attention to priorities and they energize and stimulate effort. Specific, difficult goals tend to lead to sustained task performance. And such goals challenge people to bring to bear the knowledge they possess or strategies they might deploy to increase their chances of success. The more difficult the goal, the more people must draw on their full repertoires of skills, and the more likely they will be compelled to deliberately plot innovative strategies. In their model of goal-setting theory, Locke and Latham (2002) describe five moderators that further affect goal-driven performance. Most critical is goal commitment, especially for more challenging and difficult goals. The second moderator, goal importance, affects the commitment level. A variety of tactics can increase goal importance, including public statements, organizational vision-goal alignment, goal assignment, participation in goal-setting and monetary incentives. An individual’s self-efficacy level is another moderating influence. People with strong self-beliefs and confidence in their capabilities exhibit stronger commitment to difficult goals. Feedback and task complexity complete the list of moderators. Goalsetting research has established that higher performance results from the combination of goals and feedback than from goals or feedback separately (Locke and Latham, 2002). Control Theory Control theory – also referred to as feedback control or cybernetics – is described in self-regulation terms as an ongoing comparative process aimed at reducing the discrepancy between standards for behaviour and the observed effects of actual behaviour (Carver and Scheier, 1981, 1998). Whereas goal-setting theory places the emphasis on goal specificity and difficulty, with feedback given secondary status, control theory essentially reverses the order. It is this focus on feedback as a primary

64

T. W. Buchner

behaviour regulatory device that explains the ongoing attention given to control theory and why it is included in this discussion. Carver and Scheier (1981, 1998) illustrate how control theory explains the shaping of behaviour through feedback. At their model’s centre is a sensor that continuously compares current behaviour to some standard or goal set for that behaviour. According to control theory, people are self-regulating following the same principles that allow a thermostat to continuously regulate a home’s heat. However, instead of a mechanical device, regulation in humans entails a cognitive process. Control theory asserts performers monitor their behaviour and its effects relative to behavioural standards. As long as actual-standard discrepancies are minimal, no change in behaviour is called for. But as discrepancies between standards and current behaviours increase, a call for change eventually occurs. Control theory states that performers either change their behaviours to reduce this negative gap, or they may attempt to change the standard itself (Carver and Scheier, 1981). The main criticism against control theory is its mechanistic origins. Recent arguments that human motivation cannot be adequately explained using simple cybernetic models have resulted in variations termed Rational Control Theory (Donovan, 2001). These rational perspectives make several points relative to the strict mechanistic model, one being that people are not automatically reactive to set discrepancy thresholds and can handle some range in behaviour-standard gap size. Furthermore, humans are able to and do set higher goals in response to goal achievement, whereas machines do not. The rational control theorists also factor in human tendencies to past success and expectancies for future success when controlling their behaviour (Klein, 1989). Social Cognitive Theory Bandura (1986) drew his conception of social cognitive theory from his earlier and larger work on social learning theory. In his view, motivation is influenced by the interaction of three key elements: the work environment itself, what the performer thinks, and what the performer does. Each influences the other. Bandura emphasizes the importance of performers monitoring their behaviours and self-reacting, much like control theory. But his central concept of self-efficacy, what people think or believe about their capabilities, helps explain how a performer’s beliefs about what he or she can or cannot do moderates performance (Bandura, 1994). Strong performance requires positive self-beliefs of efficacy in addition to appropriate skills and abilities. Self-efficacy not only affects the choice of goals, the difficulty level, and commitment to them, but fundamental choices of work and career as well. If healthy self-efficacy is important to performance, then developing and strengthening positive self-beliefs in employees is a meaningful performance management objective. Self-efficacy can be improved through four influences, according to Bandura (1986, 1994, 1997). The first, mastery experiences, is given more weight as a particularly effective shaping influence on personality. In essence, mastery experiences provide progressive successes, which build efficacy. People who are able to overcome obstacles and find success become relatively assured performers, but outright failure, especially early and repeated failures, can disrupt self-efficacy growth or even create a negative capability assessment. Therefore, careful management of mastery experiences is

Performance Management Theory

65

critical up until a point where strong self-efficacy is able to weather occasional setbacks. A second influence on self-efficacy perce...