“Performance Management: Time Wasting or Harm Causing?”

WARNING:

May contain Stick

People

Simon Guilfoyle

The Stick People’s Perspective

PhD Study: Key Research Questions

1: How do micro-level activities contribute towards macro-level phenomena in the police performance management context?

2: Do different modes of information policy lead to predictable behaviours on the part of principals?

“Police Performance Management: Do Different Modes of Information Policy Predict

Behavioural Phenomena in Agency Models?”

Theory Building

Psychometric tests - Design

Some facts and figures…

• N = 4173 (minimum)

• Respondents: PC to ACPO inclusive

• All UK police forces represented, including Police Scotland and PSNI

• Overall confidence level: 99.99%

• Consistently high levels of statistical significance (p= <.001)

• Statistical power: .989 (to detect an effect size of .1)1.000 (to detect effect sizes >.15)

Thematic Blocks – Binary Comparisons Stimulus

Frequency Percent Increasing 4806 89.6

Decreasing 41 .8 Stable 189 3.5 Don't Know 330 6.1 Total 5366 100.0

Emotional Response (Level of concern)

Thematic Blocks – Binary Comparisons

Likelihood of concern Frequency Percent

Very unlikely 182 3.5

Unlikely 1156 22.0

Don't know 532 1.1

Likely 2719 51.7

Very likely 667 12.7

Total 5256 100.0

Behavioural Response

Thematic Blocks – Binary Comparisons

How likely?

• Do nothing• Ask for an explanation about

performance• Communicate an expectation

there should be an improvement• Initiate an operational response

(e.g. commission further research, change tactics, deploy resources)

Key Findings

Theoretical Proposition: Binary Comparisons

If binary comparisons are used within the police performance environment, the following tendencies are highly predictable:

1. Individuals are highly likely to inappropriately ascribe meaning to the binary comparison (i.e. to assume the two isolated values represent a trajectory), and therefore draw unwarranted conclusions. 2. As a consequence, individuals are highly likely to experience an emotional response that influences their decision making (i.e. to become unduly concerned if the perceived trajectory appears to indicate a different orientation to the desired direction of travel). 3. Individuals are highly likely to enact disproportionate / unwarranted behavioural responses as a consequence of (1) and (2).

These outcomes occur independently of exogenous influences; they are triggered by innate properties of the stimulus itself.

What does it mean though?

1. Using binary comparisons, league tables or numerical targets to assess performance information predictably leads to misguided assumptions and disproportionate / unwarranted behavioural responses.

2. Conversely, using control charts and contextualised peer comparisons to assess performance information predictably leads to more accurate interpretations and better decision making.

It’s as simple as that.

So… Performance management: Time wasting or harm causing?

It depends if it’s done properly…

(Otherwise, it’s ‘YES’ to both!)

References

• Coleman, J. S. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

• Foss, N. J. (2010) ‘Micro-Foundations for Management Research: What, Why and Whither?’ Cuadernos de Economia y Dirección de la Empresa. 42: 11-34. ISSN: 1138-5758

• Foss, N. J. and Stea, D. (2014) ‘Putting a Realistic Theory of Mind into Agency Theory: Implications for Reward Design and Management in Principal-Agent Relations’. European Management Review. 11: 101–116

• Guilfoyle, S. J. (2015) ‘Binary Comparisons and Police Performance Measurement: Good or Bad?’ Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. doi: 10.1093/police/pav004

• Jacobides, M. G. and Cronson, D. C. (2001) ‘Information Policy: Shaping the Value of Agency Relationships’. Academy of Management Review. 26: 202–223