provide key insights that you gathered from this seminar that were not on the PPT or mentioned directly by the lecturer.

Venona 2.0

Lorem Ipsum

25

Week 4

Seminar Notes Semester 2, 2019, Module 1

Week 4 Managing People

Welcome to Topic 4

Welcome to the fourth topic of the course Evidence-based Foundations of Management. This topic will introduce you to relational management and evidence-based methods for developing the interpersonal skills required to manage other people effectively in a variety of contexts.

It might be said, that one of our primary jobs as a manager is to create a work environment that facilitates optimal levels of motivation and brings out the best in our employees. This can be, at least partly achieved through two-way communication, listening to hear rather than to respond and being empathic in your communication style. Done well, these factors serve to manage performance, often without the need for further intervention, however, the application of coaching skills to performance management processes can further enhance outcomes. This topic will explore the importance of taking a relational approach to effective business and performance management.

Topic Learning Outcomes

By the end of this topic, participants will be able to address the following learning objectives:

TLO 4.1   Recognise the antecedents and consequences of optimal work motivation.

TLO 4.2   Discuss the role of emotional intelligence in communicating effectively.

TLO 4.3   Explain the interaction between motivation, communication and performance.

TLO 4.4   Recognise the importance of coaching skills and the implications these have for performance management.

Introduction: Lesson 1

Thanks to the Hawthorne Studies in the 1920s and 30s, we now have an understanding of the effects that managers can have on their subordinates as a result of the relationship they share. Now known as the human relations or the relational approach to management, the perspective places emphasis on the relationships with or between people. Scholars such as business strategy Professor Edward Hess at the Darden School of Business, suggest that it will be the ability to establish relationships that enable and empower others that will define leadership success and create competitive advantage for organisations as we move toward the Smart Machine Age.

Mini-case: The Surprising Power of Human Relationships

Opthomologist Dr Starla Fitch shares a number of stories about the power of connecting with people and how this can change the way you see the world. In her talk, Dr Fitch draws on both personal experience and research evidence to demonstrate the importance of human relations in the workplace, at home and in life more generally.

Connect or Die: The Surprising Power of Human Relationships | Starla Fitch - https://youtu.be/z-WwsALhH04

Cheryl Conner (2015). For personal and business success, connection’s the key. Forbes. Available online at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/cherylsnappconner/2015/03/21/for-personal-and-business-success-connections-the-key/#796b1018491a

Jing Guo (2014). The power of powerless communication: How to influence others softly. Available online at: https://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/power-powerless-communication-how-influence-others-softly

Note from Michael Hess: This is a particularly interesting voice in the contemporary debate. I was unable to access this in July 2019. If anyone can find it or a similar source and let me know how it is accessible I’d appreciate it.

Case Question

In the video, The surprising power of human relationships, Dr Fitch tells a number of stories about how we can get the wrong idea about a person or a situation as a result of not fully connecting with other people. We’d like you to think of an example, at work or in your life more generally, when a lack of connection between two people has led to a miscommunication or a poor outcome.

>> Share a story about a time when two people didn’t fully or properly connect and it led to a negative outcome for one or both of them.

Theory: Human Relations and the Relational Approach to Management

Often referred to as the soft skills of management, being able to connect with other human beings is not only an essential management capability, it is essential for a healthy, happy life. Elton Mayo, one of the researchers who performed the Hawthorne Studies and who played a key role in founding the human relations movement in management studies, suggested than all that was needed to improve the effectiveness and happiness of people at work was to improve the social skills of the managers in an organization (Argyle, 1989).

In 1973, Mintzberg found that the CEOs of five large corporate organizations spent 78 per cent of their time with other people. In a replication of Mintzberg’s study, Tengblad (2006) found that there had been little change in the time CEOs spend with other people and if anything, it had gone up slightly and more time was spent with subordinates in team settings rather than with one on one meetings with stakeholders. There are many more studies, both case studies and experiments similar to the Hawthorne studies, which highlight the importance of managers being able to effectively build, manage and maintain relationships with other people.

History of the Human Relations Movement

The human relations movement arose, accidently, from the work of a group of Harvard researchers, headed by Elton Mayo. In 1924, the researchers conducted a series of experiments on worker productivity at the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric Company in Illinois. Mayo and his colleagues were initially studying the effects of lighting and other environmental factors on productivity but instead found that the way people were treated had a more substantial impact on performance and productivity. Individual and social processes were found to play a major role in influencing worker attitudes and behaviour. It has been concluded, on the basis of these studies and many more following in the tradition, that management must acknowledge and act on a worker's needs for recognition and social satisfaction in order to generate optimal performance. Mayo referred to this concept as the social man (even though most of the participants in the original experiments were women), and concluded that individuals are motivated by social factors, such as good on-the-job relationships, and respond more positively to work-group norms than to attempts by management to control their activity (Argyle, 1989). Thus, the human relations movement, is concerned primarily with finding ways of increasing employee motivation but is also interested in related factors such as morale, leadership, cooperation in teams, employee empowerment and the wellbeing of workers. 

Human Relations. Chapter 1. ‘What is human relations?’ https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_human-relations/s05-what-is-human-relations.html

Taking a Relational Approach to Management

The Human Relations movement has been the subject of criticism including:

· further research has found that the style of supervision may not have as strong effects on performance as first thought;

· there is too much emphasis on employee satisfaction at the ‘expense’ of making a profit; and

· the movement didn’t pay enough attention to organisational structure, technology and job design factors in understanding individual motivation (Argyle, 1989).

However, despite these and other criticisms, the human relations movement has made a significant contribution to our understanding of human performance and productivity and to the health, happiness and overall wellbeing of people at work.

Links to the human relations movement can be seen in the work of many prominent scholars and researchers today. Professors such as Mary Uhl-Bien, Adam Grant, Daniel Goleman, and Richard Boyatzis talk about the importance of connecting with others and developing resonant relationships, while industry leaders such as Gary Hamel, William Ury, and Sheryl Sandberg echo this sentiment in their corporate work.

The social nature of managerial work is clear, being able to manage relationship with and between people is fundamental to being a manager. In reviewing Mintzberg’s framework for understanding the nature of managerial work, we see that at least 7 out of the 10 roles Mintzberg describes are social in nature: figurehead, leader, liaison, disturbance handler, disseminator, spokesperson and negotiator. Further to this, examining the 11 competency clusters provided by Spreitzer and colleagues (1997) to help identify people with the potential for success as an international executive, reveals that at least 6 of the 11 clusters are either social in nature or have implications for your relationships with others, particularly the cluster represented by the competency to bring out the best in others.

Essentially, the relational approach suggests that management effectiveness has to do with the ability of the manager to create positive relationships with people both within and external to the organisation. While research and experience tell us that social and interpersonal skills are not the only competencies required by managers (for example, managers also need information management skills such as the EBM competencies), the emphasis placed on professional networks, circles of influence, mentors, role models and other relationship based means of enhancing your career, serves to highlight the need for managers to be good at managing relationships.

Principles of Management. Chapter 9. Available online at: https://open.lib.umn.edu/principlesmanagement/

EBM Spotlight: Evidence for connection

This lesson focuses on the importance of being able to establish and maintain good relationships as a manager. Drawing upon the EBM capabilities that you developed in the Evidence-Based Practice in Management course, we would like you to gather evidence from 3-4 people you know who have had at least 2 different managers during their working lives. Ask these people who they think were their best managers and who were the worst and the reasons for these evaluations. Once you have collected the responses, read back over them and see what evidence you have for whether or not having good ‘people skills’ is a factor contributing to whether other people see you as a good manager or not.

Activity: Lesson 1

Activity: Connecting with others

In the mini-case at the beginning of this lesson Dr Starla Fitch describes several situations with other people where she tried something different in an attempt to increase the depth of connection between them. For example, in her operating theatre she introduced the idea of the team members each sharing 3 things that they were grateful for. As she describes in her video, people initially thought she was a bit weird but after a while, people outside of her team were participating in her experiment to bring people closer together.

We’d like for you to try a ‘connection experiment’ of your own. Next time you are doing something with someone, for example washing and drying the dishes, or waiting for the microwave in the lunch room, ask them an unusual (but not too personal) question that might inspire a deeper connection between you. For example, you might ask;

· What’s today like for you?

· What do you love about your work?

· What do you find challenging about your work?

After conducting this ‘experiment’ please answer the following questions.

Question #1: With regard to the person who participated in your experiment, would you say that their response to you was positive or negative? Please describe their initial response.

Question #2: Please describe any beneficial outcomes of this experiment for either yourself or your unsuspecting participant.

Question #3: Would you say that your attempt to connect more deeply with this person was successful? Why / why not?

Question #4: If you were to do the experiment again, what would you do differently in order to connect more deeply with the next person?

Introduction: Lesson 2

This lesson introduces you to theories for understanding motivation in the workplace.

There are many theories of motivation, some are derived from psychological approaches to behavior modification, rewarding desired behavior and punishing undesirable behavior. Other theories of motivation stem from research in behavioural economics and attempt to create conditions that increase the likelihood that people will act in a predetermined way.

Self Determination Theory (SDT) (Ryan and Deci, 2000) however, provides an empirically based framework for understanding the nature of motivation in the workplace and how this varies both within and between individuals and contexts. SDT also helps us to understand why employee empowerment has become such an important concept for managers to understand.

Mini-case: What makes us feel good about our work?

Behavioural economist Dan Ariely describes a number of behavioural experiments looking at the conditions that can be created that significantly affect our motivation for work. Meaning and purpose come in many forms, in this video, Professor Ariely examines a number of different factors that affect our motivation for different task, factors that perhaps managers can consider in their approach to managing other people?

What makes us feel good about our work? | Dan Ariely | TEDx Rio de la Plata - https://youtu.be/5aH2Ppjpcho

Principles of Management, Chapter 14. Available at:  https://open.lib.umn.edu/principlesmanagement/

Case question

We’d like you to think about managerial work specifically, and how people come to be in management positions

>> What do you think motivates people to become managers? And on this basis, what meaning do you think they derive from holding the position? What does being a manager mean to people?

Theory: Motivation

Understanding an individual’s relationship with their work is an essential skill for effective management. Each person comes to work and gets on with the job for their own reasons. Many will tell you it is for the money, but the reason they want or need the money will most likely vary from person to person. Other people come to work for the satisfaction they get from their achievements, some come for the company and the network of people associated with their role and still others do it for the sense of meaning and purpose it instills in their life.

From time to time, almost everyone lacks motivation for their work for some reason or another, it is during these times that a manager’s role becomes vital in ensuring that necessary work continues to be done, and in helping the employee to rediscover their motivation for the job. This is when it is essential for a manager to be able to decipher what motivates this particular individual and how to use this information to create an environment that supports the employee in re-establishing optimal levels of motivation.

Let’s take a look at a theory that provides a framework for managers who wish to provide a sustainable source of motivation – Self Determination Theory.

Understand your motivations – Human Relations chapter 6. Available online at https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_human-relations/s10-understand-your-motivations.html

Self Determination Theory (A Macro Theory of Human Motivation)

Self Determination Theory (SDT) (Ryan and Deci, 2000) focuses on the nature of motivation per se, that is, the process of being inclined to act (or not) in a particular way. The theory is based on the underlying assumption is that “human beings are active, growth-oriented organisms who are naturally inclined toward integration of their psychic elements into a unified sense of self and integration of themselves into larger social structures” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 229).

The theory was initially proposed by Edward Deci (University of Rochester) and Richard Ryan (Australian Catholic University), and has been developed and refined by many scholars from many different countries over the past 20-30 years. Several scales have been developed to measure and better understand various components of the theory, some examples of these measures include:

· Problems at Work Questionnaire (PAW)

· Work-related Extrinsic-Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS)

· Work-related Basic Needs Satisfaction scale (W-BNS)

· Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)

· Self-Determination Scale (SDS)

· Perceived Competence Scale (PCS)

SDT suggests that people experience positive psychological outcomes from pursuing goals or activities that provide them with opportunities to experience a sense of effectiveness, connectedness and coherence leading to purpose or meaning which is aligned with both their sense of self and the sense they make of the world around them (Deci and Ryan, 2000). In this sense, your motivation for a particular task and your capacity for self-regulation toward getting a particular task done, is a product of your sensemaking about this task.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. Available online at:  https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation for Work

A group of Canadian researchers developed a scale to look at relative levels of self-determination at work. The Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS) is an 18-item measure of work motivation theoretically grounded in self-determination theory (Tremblay, Blanchard, Taylor, Pelletier and Villeneuve, 2009). People hoping to increase levels of motivation at work might use a scale such as the WEIMS to measure the effectiveness of their efforts.

It is argued that in the new knowledge economy, a motivated workforce represents both a competitive advantage and a critical strategic asset. Indeed, increasing numbers of studies are indicating a relationship between your motivational relationship with your work and levels of creativity and innovation (e.g. Fidan and Ozturk, 2015; Cassidy, 2011).

Your motivational relationship with your work might vary depending on the task you are engaged in, the role you currently hold or the nature of the work more generally. SDT distinguishes between three broad types of motivation:

· intrinsic motivation - doing an activity for its own sake because one finds the activity inherently interesting and satisfying; and

· extrinsic motivation - doing an activity for an instrumental reason; and

· amotivation – having no motivation for an activity or inclination to undertake particular behaviours.

Intrinsic motivation and amotivation are distinct categories in themselves, however extrinsic motivation is separated into 4 different sub-types which differ in terms of the source of the impetus for the regulation of behaviour. Behaviour which is extrinsically motivated can be regulated by external factors (such as rewards and incentives) or it can be relatively autonomous (i.e., self-regulated as a result of the individual’s acquired goals and values). This continuum is illustrated in figure 1.

Figure 1. SDT continuum of motivation

The SDT continuum of motivation illustrated in figure 1 is not developmental, but rather, an individual can cultivate a more internalised sense of motivation for an activity as they become more competent or start to understand the purpose for it. The theory also acknowledges that people have different motivational relationships with different activities and can be at once intrinsically motivated toward some aspects of their work and lack all motivation (i.e. be amotivated) for other work tasks. This could happen when an employee’s role entails a mix of high-level tasks (e.g. engaging with external stakeholders) and mundane responsibilities (e.g. emptying the recycling). At this point you might also start to see how sensemaking is an important aspect of motivation; for example, someone who interprets recycling as meaningful and contributing to the sustainability of the planet, is more likely to be motivated to do it than someone who doesn’t make sense of this task in a meaningful way. As a manager who needs a job done you may need to help employees see the meaning and purpose in a task to help them find motivation for doing it well.

Managerial Style and Work Motivation

SDT emphasises that it is important for individuals to feel autonomous and competent and to experience a sense of relatedness in order to display optimal motivation, performance and well-being at work (Deci, Connell & Ryan, 1989).

To explore this further, researchers asked ‘do managers with an understanding and acceptance of SDT and who interact with their team members with this mindset have more positive workplace outcomes’? A study was designed to measure the effect of a managerial training course on supporting self-determination in the workplace on subordinate outcomes. The factors measured in this study included the work climate (e.g. current levels of job security and issues around remuneration), and the motivational relationship, job satisfaction, and job attitudes of the subordinates.

The study found that managers who were oriented more toward supporting their subordinates’ autonomy had subordinates who were more satisfied with their jobs and had a higher level of trust in the organization (Deci, Connell & Ryan, 1989). However, the research also found that managerial support for self-determination at work is only important for trust and satisfaction when the overall organisational climate is secure, for example, when jobs are not under threat or pay is being cut. The researchers concluded therefore, that managerial support for self-determination in the workplace is not enough to buffer employees from major problems in an organisation, but when an organisation is functioning well, support for self-determination becomes a very important part of keeping employees happy at work.

Promoting Self-Determination at Work

The value of promoting self-determination in a healthy, well functioning organisation has been demonstrated by numerous studies. Deci, Olafsen and Ryan (2017) suggest that anyone interested in improving the work environment of an organization, and thus the performance and wellness of its employees, could evaluate the policies or practices of the organisation in terms of whether they are likely to:

a) allow the employees to gain competencies and/or feel confident;

b) experience the freedom to experiment and initiate their own behaviors and not feel pressured and coerced to behave as directed; and

c) feel respect and belonging in relation to both supervisors and peers.

Based on a review of research using SDT to understand workplace motivation, Deci, et. al. (2017) suggest that “policies or practices that are likely to support the employees in each of the three ways outlined above are likely to facilitate autonomous motivation, well-being, and high-quality performance. Those that thwart any of these employee experiences are likely to promote controlled motivation or amotivation, along with ill-being and, at best, quantity but not quality of performance” (p.38).

Motivation and Money

A number of studies have examined the relationship between money and motivation. One such study looked at whether pay for performance (PFP) schemes increase performance. The researchers found that performance contingent rewards (such as a PFP scheme) were negatively correlated with autonomous motivation, meaning that people perceive PFP as controlling, which in turn, leads them to exert less effort at work and have a greater desire to leave their jobs (Kuvaas, Buch, Gagne, Dysvik and Forest, 2016).

Another study, in the telecommunications industry where employees worked entirely on commission so that their pay was based wholly on their performance, found that 75% of employees had left the industry within 12 months – this level of employee turnover is obviously very costly for organisations (Harrison, Virick and William, 1996).

In another line of research looking at the relationship between pay and performance, researchers asked whether incentive schemes undermine intrinsic motivation in employees. A meta-analysis on such studies found that extrinsic incentives (such as money) led to better performance on simple tasks but poorer performance on complex tasks (Weibel, Rost and Osterloh, 2010). These researchers also found that intrinsic motivation was a stronger predictor of performance quality whereas extrinsic motivation was a stronger predictor of performance quality (Weibel, et al., 2010). Thus, research suggests that managers who need high-quality outcomes on complex tasks should not use extrinsic incentives or performance-contingent reward systems, but instead should be supportive of the employees’ autonomy.

On the basis of their literature review, Deci et al. (2017) conclude that contingent-based reward and incentive schemes are not compatible with optimal motivation. Rather, equitable pay that is not directly contingent on performance is a key ingredient to creating optimal motivation in the workplace, which in turn, leads to high-quality performance and employee well-being.

Organizational Behavior. Chapter 6 section 5 – Motivating Employees through performance incentives. Available via link in this week’s readings on Wattle.

Employee Empowerment

Overall, SDT research suggests that in order to create work environments that lead to both high-quality performance and wellness among employees (Deci et. al., 2017) managers should:

· acknowledge employees’ perspectives,

· encourage initiative,

· offer choices for individuals and groups,

· provide meaningful feedback,

· assign tasks that are optimally challenging, and

· give a rationale when requesting a behavior.

Essentially, being supportive of employee self-determination and autonomous motivation is about empowering your employees. It is suggested that interest in empowerment in the workplace has risen since global competition and market disruptions have led to a demand for employee initiative and innovation (Drucker, 1988, Spreitzer, 1995).

Empowering management practices may include processes such as the delegation of decision making from higher organizational levels to lower ones and increasing access to information and recourses for employees at the lower levels (Spreitzer, 1995). However, whether or not an employee experiences a sense of empowerment as a result of these practices is a separate issue. The psychological empowerment of an individual employee is thought arise from the integration of a number of key factors including;

· a sense of meaning in the work;

· feelings of competence or self-efficacy;

· a sense of self-determination in having choice about initiating and regulating one’s own actions; and

· the capacity for impact on workplace processes and outcomes.

As you can see, empowerment, defined by Spreitzer (1995) is very similar to autonomous motivation as described Deci and Ryan (2000).

Based on the findings of a study with 208 engineers, researchers Doll and Deng (2010) suggest that psychological empowerment leads to increased effort and innovation. The findings of this research also support the notion that taking a relational approach to management (i.e. demonstrating an understanding of the needs of the individual employee) can enhance psychological empowerment and thus have a positive impact on the cycle of knowledge creation (through applied effort) and innovation. Doll and Deng (2010) provide a model for understanding this relationship and suggest that management practices that take a relational approach increase employee psychological empowerment, which in turn, leads to increased effort and innovation. This is depicted in figure 1.

Figure 1. Doll and Deng’s (2010) model for employee empowerment

Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19-43. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108

Available online at: selfdeterminationtheory.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017_DeciOlafsenRyan_annurev-orgpsych.pdf

EBM Spotlight: Meaning and motivation

We would like for you now to take a case study approach to exploring a real example of someone who you admire and believe to be highly successful. Find an interview with this person online and see if you can pick up on any evidence for the motivational relationship this person has with their work and how this might be related to the sense of meaning that they have attached to what they do. Also take notice of any evidence suggestive of how this person might relate to colleagues or subordinates.

Drawing upon the EBM capabilities that you developed in the Evidence-Based Practice in Management course, we would like you to use the information you have gathered about the person you admire to reflect on your personal perceptions about the connection between meaning and motivation and how this understanding might influence the way you manage other people.

Activity: Lesson 2

Activity: Explore your motivation

We would like you now to take some time to reflect on the content of this lesson and how it relates to you personally. Create a table with three column headings: amotivation (things you are not inclined to do, but possibly should), extrinsic motivation (things you do to please someone else, avoid punishment, to substantiate your role or membership of a group or reinforce an identity you value) and intrinsic motivation (things you do because you love to). In this table, list as many of the tasks and activities you undertake at work as you can think of.

Question #1: What do your lists suggest about the motivational relationship you have with the tasks you undertake at work?

Question #2: Do the lists correspond with your feelings of satisfaction and self-esteem at work and also with your attitude to work and perceived performance in your role?

Question #3: Do you believe an individual needs to experience intrinsic motivation for their work in order to find a sense of meaning or purpose in what they do?

Question #4: In your opinion, what can a manager do to help an employee find a sense of meaning or purpose in their work?

Introduction: Lesson 3

Performance management is a key factor in a manager’s suite of responsibilities, however, it is neither well defined nor well practiced for the most part (Gifford, 2016). Generally speaking, performance management involves establishing objectives, encouraging and facilitating improved performance and ensuring people are accountable for their actions. In order to achieve this a manager needs to focus, not only on performance outcomes, but also on the skills, knowledge and behaviour of the employees they are responsible for.

Mini-case: Underlying biases and assumptions in managing performance

Susan Colantuono, CEO and founder of Leading Women, shares an important insight in this video stating that people forget to tell middle managers that the key to moving into senior executive roles is business, strategic and financial acumen, the competency underlying the ability to achieve and sustain extraordinary outcomes.

Susan Colantuono | The career advice you probably didn’t get | TEDx Beacon Street - https://youtu.be/JFQLvbVJVMg

Paola Cecchi Dimeglio (2017). How Gender Bias Corrupts Performance Reviews, and What to Do About It. HBR https://hbr.org/2017/04/how-gender-bias-corrupts-performance-reviews-and-what-to-do-about-it%20

Case Question

Gender bias is just one form of bias that affects people’s judgments in performance management, recruitment and promotion. Most of us will be subject to bias at some time or another in our lives.

>> Describe a time when you (or someone you know) were judged harshly or treated unfairly because of an assumption that someone made about you (or your friend).

Theory: Performance Management

Introduction

Performance management is often regarded as a complex activity due to the need to align its processes with the way work is organised, central human resource procedures, recruitment practices and reward systems. There is also a wide variety of tools that can be used to facilitate the process of performance management including objective setting, performance appraisals, 360-degree feedback, learning and development programs and reward and recognition schemes (Gifford, 2016).

Interestingly, organisations across a range of industries are either completely reinventing performance management processes or getting rid of them altogether. Since 2013 companies such as Accenture, Microsoft, Adobe, GE and Netflix have all abolished performance management systems or developed entirely new processes for doing so. Organisations that have questioned the value and relevance of traditional methods of performance management are trending toward processes that are aligned with shifts in business practices more generally. We now need performance management systems that address the need for greater agility, the need to account for more short-term targets, and the need to manage more team work rather than individual performance (Gifford, 2016). In redesigning and realigning performance management systems we first need to know what actually works in improving and enhancing employee performance and for this, we need to review the evidence.

Evidence for what works in performance management

“There has been a great deal of interest in alternative approaches to performance

management over recent years, borne of a sense that traditional methods do not work. However, popular articles on new practices present little if any evidence on what is and isn’t effective in improving performance. This report sets out to address this gap.” (Gifford, 2016, p. 9). The report referred to in this quote is based on a rapid evidence assessment, which is essentially a truncated version of a systematic review. Gifford’s (2016) report outlines his findings from a review of the literature on two core aspects of performance management: goal setting and performance appraisals, and represents an evidence-based summary of what we know from empirical research about these processes. The following sections summarise the main points from these findings.

Goal Setting

“Goal setting is the process of consciously deciding goals you or the organisation want to accomplish and within what timeframe” (Gifford, 2016, p. 10). In the context of management, goals can be defined as observational or measurable organizational outcomes to be achieved within a specified time limit (Locke and

Latham 2002). Goal-setting theory was jointly developed by Edwin Locke and Gary Latham (Locke and Latham 1990 cited in Gifford, 2016). This theory suggests that goal setting is linked to task performance and that specific and challenging goals, combined with appropriate feedback, contribute to enhanced task performance (Williams and McWilliams, 2014).

According to goal-setting theory, goals affect performance through four causal mechanisms (Locke and Latham 2002):

· Goals provide direction, guiding an employee’s attention and effort towards goal-relevant activities;

· Goals can be motivating, research has found that ambitious goals lead to greater effort than low goals;

· Goals increase persistence, when people are allowed to control the time they spend on a task they generally spend longer on challenging goals; and

· Goals lead to the development and use of task-relevant knowledge and strategies, and thus indirectly contribute to performance.

In order to better understand why goal setting has a motivational influence on employee behaviour a meta-analysis was conducted, the findings of which suggest that monitoring goal progress is a crucial step from goal setting to goal attainment (Harkin et al., 2016). Therefore, in order for goal setting to be useful in managing performance, employees need to be able to track their progress and see how far they have to go toward completing the goal (Gifford, 2016).

In his analysis of the literature Gifford (2016) found that the empirical evidence supports the use of goal setting to improve workplace performance, however, the goals need to match the nature of the work being undertaken, which is not always easy to do. For example, behavioural (e.g. good time management) and learning goals (skill or knowledge gained in the process of work) tend to be more effective than straight forward, outcome oriented SMART goals (SMART goals are specific, measureable, attainable, realistic and timely – however the constructs represented by the acronym vary), when the work is complex and outcomes are somewhat ambiguous or ill-defined. Therefore, matching a goal to the work for the purposes of improving performance may require discussion and negotiation between the manager and the employee.

Organizational Behavior. Chapter 6 section 3 – Motivating Employees through goal setting. Available via link in this week’s readings on Wattle. http://open.lib.umn.edu/organizationalbehavior/chapter/6-3-motivating-employees-through-goal-setting/

Performance Appraisals

Following on from goal setting, performance appraisals typically comprise a formal evaluation of an employee’s job performance to determine whether or not they are performing effectively (i.e. meeting their goals). The way performance appraisals are conducted vary from organisation to organisation, and may involve ratings applied by a manager or third person but can also be based on self-evaluation or decided on in conversation between the manager and employee.

Performance appraisals generally have three main components:

1. Setting performance ratings or assessment criteria that will be applied to employees;

2. Judging employees against the ratings; and

3. Providing feedback about the judgment to the employee.

Gifford (2016) notes that performance appraisals can serve two main functions;

1. Developmental – they can be used to help individuals and teams improve their performance through greater awareness which can be translated into greater focus, motivation or effort or used to determine development and training needs.

2. Administrative – in this sense performance appraisals are used as the basis for decisions about rewards, promotions, training or for human resource purposes such as determining contract renewal or redundancies.

Feedback, in the form of a performance appraisal, is also a necessary ingredient for the effectiveness of goal setting. What’s the point of setting a goal if we don’t know how we’re going in relation to the goal? Based on his analysis of the empirical research conducted on performance appraisals Gifford (2016) emphasises that the critical aspect of performance appraisals is that the information provided to the employee is credible and enables employees to track their progress towards established goals.

Another important finding from the review undertaken by Gifford (2016) is that, in order to be effective in improving an employee’s performance, discussions about the developmental components of a performance appraisal need to be kept separate from conversations about the administrative aspects. The reason for this is that managers tend to apply a different mindset to decision making when assessing workers for administrative compared to developmental purposes (Gifford, 2016). Research has shown that managers generally rate people more generously for developmental purposes and more harshly for administrative purposes (Jawahar and Williams, 1997). Therefore, there seems to be good evidence for keeping these conversations separate.

Organizational Behavior. Chapter 6 section 4 – Motivating Employees through performance appraisals. Available via link in this week’s readings on Wattle. http://open.lib.umn.edu/organizationalbehavior/chapter/6-4-motivating-employees-through-performance-appraisals/

Performance Feedback

With regard to performance management, the reaction of the employee to the feedback provided is crucial in determining any change and improvement in future performance and the way the feedback is communicated is paramount to it being of benefit (Gifford, 2016). On this basis, it is important to follow-up with employees after performance appraisals. In particular managers need to ensure that employees perceive the performance appraisal process as being fair as this perception has also been found to have a significant effect on whether or not feedback is used to improve future performance.

Research has also found that positive feedback is more effective for the purposes of managing performance than negative feedback. Framing feedback as constructive suggestions with a focus on ‘enhancing performance’ rather than ‘correcting poor performance’ has a much greater likelihood of being effective (Gifford, 2016). In particular, feedback that threatens an employee’s sense of self-esteem tends to lead to negative responses (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996).

The final factor contributing to the effectiveness of feedback in improving future performance is the relationship between the manager and the employee. Genuine two-way conversations that the employee can fully participate in and contribute to are perceived as more fair and are more likely to led to improved performance than directive orders (Gifford, 2016). Managers who are able to take a strengths-based approach to performance management and draw on coaching skills to engage the employee in processes of continual learning and growth will get batter outcomes from performance review conversations than managers who simply inform and direct.

Boyatzis, R., Smith, M., and Van Oosten, E. (2010). Coaching for Change. People Matters. June, 2010. https://www.peoplematters.in/article/training-development/coaching-for-change-422

EBM Spotlight: Goal Attainment Feedback

You are a team manager in a consulting firm and it is time for your team’s annual performance reviews. Drawing upon the EBM capabilities that you developed in the Evidence-Based Practice in Management course, you decide, prior to speaking to any of your team members, to start by gathering the best-available evidence regarding how to provide feedback on the fact that several of your team members have fallen short of their performance goals this year.

Based on the "best-available" evidence, what might be the most effective way to approach this delicate conversation with your team members?

Activity: Lesson 3

Activity: Overcoming bias

The mini-case at the beginning of this lesson highlighted how bias can affect people’s judgments in performance management, recruitment and promotion. Unconscious bias can even influence the simple and well-intended act of offering advice. Keeping in mind the theory and evidence introduced in this lesson, we would like you to take a moment to think about strategies you could use to avoid bias influencing the way you manage employee performance.

Question #1: What would be the first step you would take to help ensure you were unbiased in the way you manage employee performance?

Question #2: How might you go about checking in to see if any unconscious bias is influencing your approach to performance management?

Question #3: How would you respond to an employee who suggested you were in some way biased in your performance appraisals?

Question #4: What would you suggest as the key elements in a performance management system designed specifically to avoid unconscious bias?

References

Argyle, M. (1989). The Social Psychology of Work. Penguin Books: London.

Cassidy, S. E. (2011). Web-based training for innovation: An examination of training regimens, training environment and the moderating influence of creative personal identity and intrinsic motivation Unpublished doctoral dissertation. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University.

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580-590.

Doll, W. and Deng, X. (2010). A technology empowerment model for engineering work. Information Systems, 41(4), 52-74.

Drucker, P. (1988). The Coming of the New Organization. Harvard Business Review. January-February, pp1-19.

Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19-43.

Fidan, T. and Ozturk, I. (2015). The Relationship of the Creativity of Public and Private School Teachers to Their Intrinsic Motivation and the School Climate for Innovation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 905-914.

Gifford, J. (2016). Could Do Better? Assessing What Works in performance Management. Centre for Evidence-Based Management.

Harkin, B., Webb, T.L., Chang, B.P., Prestwich, A., Conner, M.,

Keller, I., Benn, Y. and Sheeran, P. (2016) Does monitoring goal

progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental

evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 198–229.

Harrison, D., Virick, M., and William, S. (1996). Working without a net: time, performance, and turnover under maximally contingent rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 331-345.

Jawahar, I. and Williams, C. (1997). Where all the children are above average: The performance appraisal purpose effect. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 905-925.

Kluger, A. and DeNisi, A.(1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284.

Kuvas, B., Buch, R., Gagne, M., Dysvik, A., and Forest, J. (2016). Do you get what you pay for? Sales incentive and implications for motivation and changes in turnover intention and work effort. Motivation and Emotion, 40(5), 667-680.

Locke, E. and Latham, G. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35 year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Ryan, R. and Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67

Spreitzer, G., McCall, M., and Mahoney, J. (1997). Early identification of international executive potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 6-29.

Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.

Tengblad, S. (2006). Is there a new 'managerial work'? A comparison with Henry Mintzberg's classic study 30 years later. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 1437-1461.

Tremblay, M., Blanchard, C., Villeneuve, M., Taylor, S., and Pelletier, L. (2009). Work extrinsic and intrinsic motivation scale: Its value for organizational psychology research. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 41(4), 213-226.

Weibel, A., Rost, K., & Osterloh, M. (2010). Pay for performance in the public sector: Benefits and (hidden) costs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 387–412.

Williams, A. and McWilliams, C. (2014). MGMT2: Asia-Pacific Edition. Cengage learning; Australia.