1 / 31

Developing a Measure for Auditing Feedback Interventions in Performance Management Systems

This dissertation proposal aims to develop and validate a comprehensive measure for auditing feedback interventions within performance management systems (PMS). Effective feedback is critical for enhancing employee performance and aligning individual goals with organizational objectives. Despite its importance, current approaches to feedback often yield inconsistent results, with many managers and employees dissatisfied with existing PMS. This study seeks to address the gaps in current research and practice by systematically auditing feedback characteristics, delivery methods, and associated contextual factors to improve performance outcomes.

peers
Télécharger la présentation

Developing a Measure for Auditing Feedback Interventions in Performance Management Systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Brandon L. Young Dissertation Proposal Auditing Feedback Interventions: Development and Validation of a Measure

  2. Overview • Performance management systems • Feedback and feedback Intervention Defined • What we know about feedback • What we do not know about feedback • Problems with current practice and research • Purpose of Current Study • Measure Developmentand validation process • Contributions

  3. Performance Management • “a continuous process of identifying, measuring, and developing the performance of individuals and teams and aligning performance with the strategic goals of the organization” (Aguinis, 2009; p.3) • Impacts profits, returns on investment, and stock prices (Huselid, 1995). • Firms with strong performance management systems more likely to outperform their competitors (Bernthal, Rogers, & Smith, 2003)

  4. Purpose of PMS • Motivate and develop employees by generating and delivering performance feedback (Cascio& Aguinis, 2011) • Communicate and negotiate performance expectations • Inform employees as to how well they are meeting those expectations

  5. What is Feedback? • Information or data regarding performance (Latham & Locke, 1991) • Individual resource used for monitoring and inquiry (Ashford, 1986; Ashford & Cummings, 1983).

  6. Feedback  interventions (FIs) • “actions taken by (an) external agent(s) to provide information regarding some aspect(s) of one's task performance” - Kluger& DiNisi, 1996; p. 255 • Embedded in performance appraisal, assessment centers, training, selection

  7. Why Feedback? Consensus among practitioners that, “feedback is an essential feature of all stages of the performance review process.” -Performance Management: American National Standard published by the Society for Human Resource Management (2012, p. 20)

  8. Feedback Intervention Effectiveness • Objective reviews • Consistent or mixed effects in 99% of reviewed applications (Alvero et al.,2001) • Meta-analyses • Improved performance by .40 SD (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996) • Improved productivity by .50 SD (Guzzo et al., 1985) • 68 out of 70 primary studies showed productivity gains (MBO; Rodgers & Hunter, 1991) • Productivity under ProMES feedback 1.16 SD higher than baseline (Pritchard et al., 2008)

  9. Here’s the thing… • Feedback does not uniformly improve performance (Alvero et al., 2001) • More than one-third of the 607 calculated effect sizes indicated negative performance effects (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996) • Effect sizes ranged from -2.53 to 5.37 (Pritchard et al., 2008)

  10. What don’t we know? “in spite of the large and varied literature, generalizations about the effects of feedback on individuals are few.” - Ilgen, Fisher, and Taylor (1979)

  11. Why don’t we know what we don’t know? • Research focused on • psychometric properties of performance appraisal rating systems(Tziner & Latham, 1989), • accuracy and rater errors (Bretz, Milkovich, & Reed, 1992; Saal, Downey, Lahey, 1980) and • rater bias during the appraisal process (Landy & Farr, 1980). • Clouds the more important goal of performance management; giving FEEDBACK to guide PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT

  12. Where should we focus? • Feedback strategies are only as effective as the user’s ability and willingness to use them(Lizzio, Wilson, and MacKay, 2008) • Research support that reactions to feedback interventions are critical to effectiveness (e.g., Dipboye & de Pontbriand, 1981; Bernardin & Beatty, 1984; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995) • Reaction criteria are of more interest to practitioners than the psychometric properties of performance appraisals (Thomas & Bretz, 1995; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995; Keeping & Levy, 2000).

  13. What’s the problem? • Attitudes toward PMS are generally unfavorable. • 13% of managers and 6% of CEOs believed that their organization’s current performance management system is useful (Leadership IQ, 2005). • More recent survey results • 34% of participants felt they received useful feedback from managers during performance reviews. • 26% of participants indicated the receipt of regular performance feedback would motivate them to stay in their current positions. (CornrstoneOnDemand, 2013)

  14. Problem with Current Approaches • Complex interactions between characteristics of feedback interventions • Content • Processes • Contexts • Left with ill means of measurement

  15. Purpose of Current Study • Comprehensive, parsimonious means to systematically audit feedback interventions • Perceptions regarding the properties of; • Performance measurement • Feedback content • Feedback delivery • Source • Organizational Support

  16. Measurement Characteristics Measurement Performance Standards • Observation • Judgment

  17. Feedback Characteristics

  18. Contextual Factors

  19. How will this be accomplished? • Scale development and validation • item generation and SME review • establishing factor structure & internal consistency • examining convergent and discriminant validity • testing the empirical validity of the instrument • examining relationships with reactions to feedback

  20. Item Generation • Items refer to characteristics of system components • Performance standards… • The feedback I receive… • Feedback is delivered… • My supervisor… • The organization… • At least two items per characteristic • 7-point agreement scale

  21. Item Review • At least 5 SMEs will review instructions and items for clarity • Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test • At least 5 SMEs will review item content • Retranslation process

  22. Scale Development • Revised items will be administered • Item total correlations and alphas will be calculated • Principle axis factor analysis, promax rotation • Items will be revised or eliminated based on analyses and domain coverage

  23. Factor Structure • Revised items will be administered • Four models will be tested with CFA • One-factor model • Two-factor model (i.e., System, Contextual) • Four-factor model (i.e., Measurement, Feedback, Source, Organizational Support) • Five-factor model (i.e., Measurement, Feedback Content, Feedback Delivery Process, Source, Organizational Support)

  24. Convergent & Discriminant Validity • Convergent Validity • Landy et al. (1978) • Burke et al. (1978) • Dipboye & de Pontbriand (1981) • Discriminant Validity • Brayfieldand Rothe (1951) • Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979)

  25. Reaction Mediated Model

  26. Feedback Acceptance • Cognitive Reactions • Accuracy (5 items; adapted from several sources) • Fairness (4 items; adapted from Kendharnath et al., 2010) • Utility (6 items; adapted from Jawahar, 2010) • Achievability (3 items; adapted from Kendharnath et al., 2010)

  27. Feedback Acceptance • Affective reactions • Satisfaction with feedback discussion (4 items; adapted from Giles & Mossholder, 1990 & Dobbins et al., 1990) • Satisfaction with feedback intervention (3 items; adapted from Giles & Mossholder, 1990) • Satisfaction with feedback source (3 items; adapted from multiple sources) • Affect toward the feedback intervention (12 adjectives developed by Zuwerink & Devine, 1996)

  28. Behavioral Reactions • Motivation to use feedback (8 items; adapted from Dorfman et al., 1986; Kendharnath et al., 2010) • Motivation (Pritchard, 2006) • Effort – amount of energy exerted (3 items) • Direction – how effectively effort is applied (8 items)

  29. Control Variables • Demographics (i.e., age, gender, race, tenure) • Recalled task performance • Job Satisfaction (8 items; Brayfieldand Rothe, 1951; Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979)

  30. Contributions • Theoretical • Holistic approach to exploring feedback intervention characteristics • Mediated Model • Practical • Diagnostic tool for auditing feedback intervention

More Related