trends of employee performance. collaborative effort between managers and employees

26 www.ispi.org • MAY/JUNE 2006

Have you ever heard comments like these coming from an employee: “I justdon’t know what I am supposed to do.” Or, when asked why some activitywasn’t accomplished, “I decided not to do that part.” These comments fromemployees are not uncommon and are an area of concern when it comes to

employee performance and productivity. One would have to question how it is that anemployee would make such comments. Some additional questions include: “What isgoing on in the business environment, locally and globally?” “How have consumers,competition, and government regulations impacted businesses?” “What are the implica-tions of new technologies on business, organizational, and individual performances?”

Organizations exist for a specific purpose (Rummler & Brache, 1990). That purpose isto provide some product or service to other organizations or outside customers.Organizations hire people (employees) to perform assigned job tasks to produce desiredresults, to enable the organization to fulfill its function and purpose. This studyexplores how a change in a company’s strategic destination can affect the performanceand productivity of its employees.

Strategic destination is a company’s overall goal (Kaplan & Norton, 2001). An example iswhen a company decides what products or services to provide based on its vision andmission. The Boeing Company used to focus on the fabrication of the wings for its aircraftas one of its core competencies. But Boeing no longer focuses on fabrication. Its strategicdestination is one of large-scale systems integration and final assembly. Employees whoused to work fabricating parts now need to develop new skills to meet the requirementsof the new work environment. In this case an employee might need consulting and nego-tiating skills centered on an area of manufacturing expertise, something the employeeused to perform and now will provide insight to those performing those activities.

Background

The Notion of Jobs and How It All Began

The whole connotation of the word “job” conjures up various meanings. Its history goesback centuries. Around the year 1400, it meant “a small compact portion of some sub-stance; a piece, lump, a mouthful” (Bridges, 1994, p. 31). Then in 1627 it took on adifferent meaning: a piece of work such as a small miscellaneous piece of work undertakenon order for a specified rate. The assumption that a job also meant a role or position in anorganization was not accepted until the industrial revolution, when people left the agrar-ian life style and sought job positions at factories and other institutions (Bridges, 1994).

Trendsof EmployeePerformanceC O L L A B O R AT I V E E F F O R T B E T W E E N M A N A G E R S A N D E M P L OY E E S

by Vaughan P. Houger, CPT, MBA

The Evolution of Work

Over the course of the last 60 years, a majority of manufac-turing jobs in the United States have transitioned to otherparts of the globe. One example is the automobile industry.In 2002 U.S. auto manufacturers’ share of the U.S. marketfell to an all-time low of 58.8% (Walsh, 2002). Workersrequired new skills and knowledge to find meaningful workand continue generating revenue. Much work has shifted tothe service industries: restaurants, transportation, consult-ing, training and education, retail and wholesale sales, andgovernment service jobs.

Work, in the terms of job accomplishments (what is actuallyproduced), used to be clearly defined: For every job outputthere was an associated stimulus accompanied by a task list(Rand, 2002). Today, many of the “traditional jobs are gone,and in their place is a fluid, cross-trained team that doesthings that no job description can encompass” (Bridges,1994, p. 24).

Employees once responsible for producing various kinds ofproducts (e.g., computer hardware, electronics, and airplaneor auto parts) found themselves in the role of providingknowledge, insights, and expertise to others now responsi-ble for producing those parts. Employees’ value now is notone of doing the physical work, but of possessing the know-how to get that work accomplished. Employees’ value is oneof intellectual property. Intellectual property is defined as

the combined intangible assets owned or controlledby a company that provide competitive advantage.These include knowledge and expertise of employ-ees, brands, customer relationships, contracts;intellectual property such as patents and copyright;and organizational technologies, processes, andmethods. Intellectual capital can be implicit andintangible—stored in people’s heads—or explicitand documented in written or electronic format.(Goleman, 2002, p. 1265)

These knowledge and consulting roles carry with themmore ambiguous job descriptions requiring that theemployee have greater flexibility in performing the job func-tions and deciding the right thing to do. The United Statesin 1999 was the world’s largest exporter of intellectual prop-erty, resulting in the highest earnings of royalties andlicense fees (Goleman, 2002, p. 1390).

Employee Performance

Has anything changed over the last decade in employee per-formance expectations?

Expectations of knowledge workers in the past 10 yearswere, for example:• Job descriptions: Depending on the industry, jobs usually

had clearly defined expectations. A person applying for

a position understood what those expectations were.Job descriptions identified the necessary skills, abili-ties, and basic knowledge requirements.

• Performance behaviors: Jobs had very clearly definedoutputs: A document needed to be completed, a formfilled out, project proposals completed. Along withthose outputs, certain behaviors were also expected:This needs to be done, this is how it is done, this is whowill do it, and this is when it needs to be done.Additionally, the employee would follow the estab-lished processes and procedures, whether written ornot. A worker was expected to be competent in the areafor which he or she was hired.

• Feedback: When a worker performed a task correctly,there were a couple of possible responses: The boss orcoworker said nothing or stated that the person cor-rectly performed the task. If a worker performed a taskincorrectly, there was a good chance someone wouldpoint out the worker’s error. The worker probablywould receive some sort of specific feedback regardinghis or her performance.

• Competencies: Many articles and books are availableaddressing the area of competencies. Competencydevelopment models are used to identify requiredknowledge, skills, attitudes, capabilities, and job taskswithin a defined occupation role (Klein & Richey,2005). Competency identification begins with a well-defined job role. If a well-defined job role does notexist, then defining it becomes the initial step. Once ajob is defined, specific current practice and existingstandards are identified to facilitate competency devel-opment. Furthermore, the ethics and values commonlyused to evaluate such behaviors must also be deter-mined. A performance technologist can assist anorganization in defining job roles based on analyzingexpected individual accomplishments.

In contrast, here are the expectations of workers in the present:• Job descriptions: There seems to be a blend of “old-

school” job descriptions and a new way of describingjobs. Many of the traditional service industry jobs stilloperate the way they have for decades (e.g., waitress,truck driver, and stocker in a grocery store). Yet com-puterization of some of these traditional jobs hasrequired additional skills of the employee. In the infor-mation technology, computer programming, and digitaldesign industries, many of these jobs descriptions canbe ambiguous (Alexander, 1999). Whereas in the pastoutputs were clear, today the expected outputs are lessclear (Hansen, 2005). An example would be as follows:In the Boeing Company the expectation was that a per-son knew how to design a part, considering all thevariables of material, part feature tolerances, and so on.Today that same person may be required to take on aconsultant role representing the company because ofhis or her prior knowledge and experience. This personwill spend time in meetings providing expert advice—

Performance Improvement • Volume 45 • Number 5 27


what is possible, what not to do, or other options (Dunn,1993). When this subject matter expert applies for a posi-tion, the outcomes are broad and less definitive. Nolonger is it about specific skills; instead the focus is moreabout how one deals with hypothetical situations, timemanagement, and working with various personalities.

If a manager in today’s work environment is strug-gling with how to write a job description, assistance isavailable through the web. JobGenie© is one of thoseservices. This is an area ripe for a performance technol-ogist to use various human performance analysis toolssuch as Joe Harless’ Front-End Analysis Job Aid inassisting the manager writing job descriptions (Harless,1992). Begin by looking at the expected outcomes ofthe job.

• Performance behaviors: Today, jobs have some definedoutputs but also are open ended. Frequently a jobdescription includes the phrase “Be a self-starter and aleader.” What does that mean for the employee? Whatdoes that mean for the employer? Current jobs, in moreof the consulting and project management areas, stillhave certain tangible outcomes: Documents, such asproject plans and schedules, may be required, but forthe purpose of recording activities, events, milestones,recommendations, conclusions, and results. Along withthose outputs, employers expect certain behaviors: Thisneeds to be done, this is how it is done, this is who willdo it, and this is when it needs to be completed.

All work environments are not uniform when it comes toproviding individual performance feedback. A worker hasno guarantee of any kind of feedback based on performance.

Performance appraisals and evaluations are the same for tra-ditional jobs but can be more complex in the informationtechnology, information systems, and business analysts’ jobsbecause of the squishiness of the job descriptions (Alexander,1999). This does not preclude conducting the appraisal. Itdoes mean that the manager and employee must take the timeand form a contractual agreement on performance goals.Information and knowledge jobs today do not require anemployee to be physically present at an office. Many knowl-edge workers work from home or a temporary location. Themain emphasis is on completing work and finishing the pro-ject. The Microsoft Corporation is an excellent example offocusing on the work, not the location (Bridges, 1994).

Motivation and Influences on Employee Performance

One definition of motivation is “the processes that accountfor an individual’s intensity, direction, and persistence ofeffort toward attaining a goal” (Robbins, 2005, p. 170). In anorganizational work environment, once a goal is defined,the level of energy and enthusiasm required to meet thatgoal is up to the individual. There are varying levels ofintensity among employees. They all should be able to per-form within some prescribed performance boundaries thatenable them to meet the agreed-upon goals.

Leaders, thinkers, and human performance technology pro-fessionals across multiple disciplines struggle, analyze, andpostulate motivational behavior. Human behavior as it per-tains to motivation linked to performance seems to be anongoing journey of discovery.

One approach to understanding what motivates an individ-ual is learning about what drives him or her. Buckinghamand Coffman in their book First, Break All the Rules explainthree kinds of talent (1999). They refer to these as striving,thinking, and relating. • Striving talents explain the why of a person. They

explain why an individual is motivated to push and pushharder. Is the individual driven by a desire to stand out?Is the individual intensely competitive or intensely altru-istic or both?

• Thinking talents explain the how of a person. Theyexplain how an individual thinks, weighs alterna-tives—how that person arrives at decisions. Is theperson focused? Does he or she leave all options open?Is he or she disciplined and structured, a linear, practi-cal thinker, or strategic?

• Relating talents explain the who of a person. They explainwho an individual trusts, who he or she builds relation-ships with. Is the person drawn to win over strangers or atease only with close friends? Does this person think thattrust must be earned, or does he or she extend trust toeveryone in the belief that most will prove worthy of it?

Striving, thinking, and relating. These can be consideredthree basic categories of talent. Buckingham and Coffmansuggest that these talents are what intrinsically motivate oneinto action or inaction (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999, p. 85).

Other drivers that influence a person’s performance are bothcovert and overt in nature. For instance, a particular job role,when combined with an employee’s personality type, man-agement, and colleague personalities, can have a direct impacton performance. An exploration of those factors will revealsome cause and effect outcomes (Stolovitch & Keeps, 1992). • Compensation and incentives: How aligned are the

incentives for the work that is expected to be per-formed? In today’s environment, information is readilyavailable to anyone who wants to know the average payfor a job in a given industry. If an employee perceivesthe pay received is less than market value, this can havea direct correlation to level and quality of work perfor-mance (Stolovitch & Keeps, 1992).

• Job aids and procedures: Jobs require one to follow cer-tain processes and procedures. Whatever approach theorganization takes to teach and transfer process andprocedural knowledge to employees can be accom-plished through a variety of methods: formal training,orientation, or on-the-job training. Certain tasks of a jobare not performed on a routine basis. If those tasks arecomplex in nature, remembering a sequence of steps


correctly may be difficult, thus leading to possibleerrors. Job aids are a means to document a particularprocess such that the steps are easy to follow and mini-mize any possibility of error (Stolovitch & Keeps, 1992).

• Skills and knowledge: This area is critical. Employeeswho know exactly what to do and who have the skillsto perform required job functions contribute to the suc-cess of the organization. Additionally, they fulfill anintrinsic need for job satisfaction. Any gaps in the nec-essary skills and knowledge will reflect in the length oftime something takes to get done; possible increases inpoor work quality; employee frustration; loweremployee morale. Subsequent to the employer andemployee identifying, communicating, understanding,and agreeing to the job expectations and level of perfor-mance, an employee’s performance and productivityshould be close to, or exceed, the prescribed criteria(Stolovitch & Keeps, 1992).

• Tools and technology required for the job: All jobsrequire tools. An office worker expected to take phonemessages needs a phone, something to record messages,and means of communication. A carpenter needs vari-ous tools, from hammers, pliers, and tape measure toblueprints and schedules. If a required tool is absentfrom an employee’s “took kit,” work is either morelabor intensive or not done at all. It is imperative tohave the necessary tools and technology available(Stolovitch & Keeps, 1992).

• Work design: Is work flow logical? Are there unneces-sary steps included in the work process (Stolovitch &Keeps, 1992)? The intent here is to think out and provethe process for accomplishing work and that the stepsare easy for someone to follow. Many of the qualityimprovement process and business re-engineeringefforts come into effect when it comes to maximizingwork design efficiencies.

• Authority to perform: The job is based on what criteria?When employees are uncertain about their authority toperform a job, they can lose confidence in themselves.Performance is not a direct hit. When a person eitherdoes not have the authority to perform a job function orfeels he or she does not have it, he or she may hesitateto act. One’s confidence to perform is correlated to thespeed with which a task is accomplished and the qual-ity of that output. The authority to perform builds one’sconfidence and credibility (Stolovitch & Keeps, 1992).

• The physical environment: This is a factor in anemployee’s performance. Does safety belong in thisgroup? The environment affects employees’ perfor-mance if, for example, their job requires good lighting,and there is a poorly lit work area because lights areburned out (Stolovitch & Keeps, 1992).

Other factors play into an employee’s level of performance.One of those factors has to do with how dependent theemployee is on the job. Job performance appraisals areanother factor influencing employee performance. The

employee appraisal, the employee-to-manager relationship,and how the employee’s performance is rated all contribute tothe current and future level of performance (Robbins, 2005).

Coworker dynamics, ethnic mix, group norms, and personalitystyles also influence the employee’s level and quality of perfor-mance (Robbins, 2005). This mix impacts the overall teamperformance and its ability to work well together. Studies ofemployee characteristics, personality traits, and the changes inindustries and business provide more information and insightinto human behavior than at any time previously in history.

Workers’ Expectations of Jobs

Generally speaking, most employees expect to have a clearunderstanding of job criteria to effectively contribute to theorganization. Workers still want to know they can count onsome things of certainty related to the work they do.

Organizational Makeup. Organizations have their own per-sonalities or cultures. Some have clear strategies andprocesses linked to a clear vision and mission. Other organi-zations operate more casually, with great flexibility. Anorganization’s culture impacts individual employee perfor-mance (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). Herb Kelleher createdhis own culture when he started Southwest Airlines. Hisinfectious enthusiasm and work ethic transferred to the com-pany’s employees. Where other airlines puzzle at the successof Southwest operational efficiency, Southwest’s employeespossess the “can-do” attitude that makes things happen.

Management Accountability. Who is responsible for com-posing job descriptions? What should be included in a jobdescription? How do you match a candidate with a job?Peter Vessenes (2001) provides some possible answers in thearticle, “Are They Right for the Job?” First he lists the sevencritical elements of a job description as follows: 1. A statement of the overall objectives of the position as

it relates to the mission and vision of the practice.2. A statement of all the responsibilities of the position.

An example of a responsibility might be “making surepaperwork relating to insurance products is processedwithin two days of a client visit.”

3. A list of all the duties of the position. Duties are the actualtasks of the employee. The duty related to the previousexample might be “filling out all insurance paperwork.”

4. A statement of the level of authority the position has ineach duty and responsibility. There are five levels ofauthority: (1) Find out and tell me; (2) Find out, thinkabout it, and tell me; (3) Find out, think about it, tell me,and do it; (4) Find out, think about it, do it, and tell me; (5)Do it and tell me only if…. This is delegation of authority.

5. A statement of the lines of reporting. For example, “Thisposition reports to the office manager. This position hasthe administrative team report to it. This position worksin conjunction with the client managers.”

6. An Occupational Safety and Health Administration


statement. For example, “This position requires theability to sit for six hours a day in an office chair, towork with a keyboard on a computer for five hours aday, and to be able to lift boxes of 20 pounds or less.”

7. A statement of the skills, licenses, accreditation, and abili-ties required in the position. For example, “This positionrequires one year’s experience in life insurance form pro-cessing, a Series 63 license, and a four-year college degree.”

For employers, “documenting each job description beforeyou start your job search is the first step to clarifying qual-ified candidates for the position” (Vessenes, 2001, p. 52).

Managers must communicate job expectations, conduct for-mal and informal performance appraisals, and deal withorganizational conflict promptly.

Communication and Expectations. A critical aspect of expec-tations is the communication and receiving of thoseexpectations, or as Robbins puts it, “both the transference andthe understanding of meaning” (2005, p. 299). Different situ-ations warrant different methods of conveying the message.

Fortunately, we now know more about how people commu-nicate and learn than ever before. Training and education onhuman behaviors and learning have equipped both the man-ager and the employee with skills and knowledge of how tocommunicate. Dr. Howard Gardner was instrumental inidentifying how different intelligences and learning styleseffect communication (Armstrong, 2000).

Eighty percent of the people who fail at work do sofor one reason: They do not relate well to other peo-ple. One’s productivity as a supervisor or manager,nurse or secretary, mental health worker or janitor,laborer, attorney, physician, clerk, or minister isgreatly enhanced by the ability to communicate well.In fact, it is difficult to think of a single job in whichcommunication is unimportant. (Bolton, 1979)

Business Environment. The business environment is con-stantly in a state of change as information and the increaseddelivery speed of that information allow people to be able torespond quickly. Rapid request and response turnaroundgreatly affects the competitiveness of a business (Bridges, 1994,pp. 10-11). Additionally, the marketplace can change as well.

An additional phenomenon is a flurry of business acquisi-tions and mergers. The implications from these mergers isthat many positions are duplicated. While a need may existto retain more employees for a given job position due toexpanded business, a good percentage of employees willfind themselves displaced and looking for work (Haig &Addison, 2005).

During economic times of affluence, companies are moreapt to overlook poor performance. This is partly due to theavailability of fluid cash flow. As business picks up, employees

scramble to meet demand. Conversely, during economicdownturns, managers begin closer examination of employeeperformance and their effect on the bottom line. Anyonewho has even a hint of being a “coaster” in the organizationis at risk of losing his or her job. Clearly, this illustrates howimportant it is for employees to prepare themselves for achanging business world. Companies’ attitudes towardemployees are not universal. Some see employees as humancapital and therefore as assets (Stack & Burlingham, 1994).Other companies view human resources as expenses, asrecently demonstrated by the Ford Company (Stoll, 2005).Individuals will need to assess their goals and talents todetermine what companies best match their expectations.

Findings

So what kind of employee performance does the businesssystem reward? How are employees held accountable? Thepat answer to these questions is, “It depends.” The conse-quences, both good and negative, of an employee’s performancedepend on the business or industry, the physical and economicenvironments, the political and organizational culture, theorganization’s appraisal and rewards system, and a person’smakeup for motivation.

Yet, according to Buckingham and Coffman in First, BreakAll the Rules, people don’t change all that much (1999).They still have to meet their basic needs. They want to havesome sense of job security. They will adapt to new andchanging situations based on what motivates them. Thework may change. Jobs will go away, especially many in thetraditional sense of the word.

Employee performance comes down to a combination of tal-ent, incentives, motivation, having the right tools to do thejob, a little recognition every now and then, clear goals, andgood processes. All the things mentioned above, and a fewthat were not, contribute to understanding why a persondoes or does not perform to expectations. Mostly, it comesdown to the person and the manager for whom he or sheworks (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999).

“Not everyone prefers the freedom and flexibility of organicstructures. Some people are most productive and satisfiedwhen work tasks are standardized and ambiguity is mini-mized—that is, in mechanistic structures” (Robbins, 2005,p. 473). Boeing offers various business units within whichone can find a good fit, from the very structured to looselystructured. The challenge is matching the employee withthe organization that best fits him or her.

Conclusion

There is a delicate balance between managers managing andemployees performing. Arriving at the best possible combina-tion takes much effort up front. Each party, manager and

employee, must make a conscious choice to work toward win-win solutions. That requires managers to understand whatdrives their employees and examine whether their currentposition is a good fit for their skills and abilities. It also meansthat managers must make themselves available. Individualsmust understand their own needs and desires and communi-cate whether their current position fulfills those needs. Openand effective two-way communication is the conduit thatenables managers to successfully manage their business andallow employees to meet or exceed performance expectations

The human performance technologist can greatly assist anorganization and management by understanding organiza-tional performance goals, how employees’ performance andproductivity link to those goals, and where gaps and areas ofimprovement are noted. The initial hurdle is gaining organiza-tional acceptance, which can be done by demonstrating howperformance technology services and solutions improve indi-vidual and organizational performance. Once this is achieved,the human performance technologist needs to follow throughby focusing on specific business-critical performance areas.

References

Alexander, S. (1999). What’s in a job title? Less and less,some say. InfoWorld, 21(21), 94.

Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences. RetrievedNovember 7, 2005, fromhttp://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm

Bolton, R. (1979). People skills: How to assert yourself, listen to others, and resolve conflicts. New York: Simon &Schuster.

Bridges, W. (1994). JobShift: How to prosper in a work-place without jobs. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all therules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently.New York: Simon & Schuster.

Dunn, J.D. (1993). Re-writing job descriptions. BusinessMexico, 3(12), 46.

Goleman, D. (2002). Business: The ultimate resource.Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.

Haig, C., & Addison, R. (2005). TrendSpotters: FutureWatch Featuring Tony Wickham. PerformanceXpress.Retrieved November 2, 2005, from http://www.performancexpress.org

Hansen, D.A. (2005). Job descriptions help site. Retrieved November 5, 2005, fromhttp://home.att.net/~iso9k1/jobs/ descriptions.html

Harless, J.H. (1992). Project alignment & new performanceplanning front-end analysis. Newnan, GA: HarlessPerformance Guild, Inc.

Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (2001). The strategy-focusedorganization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive inthe new business environment. Boston: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Klein, J.D., & Richey, R.C. (2005). Improving individualand organizational performance: The case for internationalstandards. Performance Improvement, 44(10), 9-14.

Rand, J. (2002). Retrieved from class notes. AnalyzingPerformance Improvement, November 9, 2005.

Robbins, S.P. (2005). Organizational behavior (11th ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall Inc.

Rummler, G.A., & Brache, A.P. (1990). Improving perfor-mance: How to manage the white space on theorganization chart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stack, J., & Burlingham, B. (1994). The great game of busi-ness. New York: Doubleday.

Stoll, J.D., (2005). Ford is on track to unveil revamp planin January. The Wall Street Journal On-Line. Retrieved,November 22, 2005, fromhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB113268185950604287.html?mod=us_business_whats_news

Stolovitch, H.D., & Keeps, E.J. (Eds). (1992). Handbook ofhuman performance technology: A comprehensive guidefor analyzing and solving performance problems in organi-zations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Vessenes, P.M. (2001). Are they right for the job? Journal ofFinancial Planning, 14(4), 52.

Walsh, D. (2002). US manufacturing continues to decline:Thousands more layoffs. World Socialist. RetrievedNovember 9, 2005, from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/dec2002/jobs-d06.shtml

Since 1997, Vaughan P. Houger, CPT, MBA, has worked as a practicing per-formance consultant with the Share Services Group (SSG) and BoeingCommercial Airplane Company (BCA) within The Boeing Company. In thiscapacity Vaughan has consulted with organizations in identifying performanceimprovement opportunities and selecting effective interventions that link totheir organizational goals. He has consulted with several organizations onstrategic planning, goal setting, and decision making. Vaughan currently worksin BCA’s System Engineering group, facilitating various engineering groups indiscovering their organizational competencies and conducting value analysisworkshops. Additionally, he is pursuing a PhD in business leadership throughCapella University.

Outside of work and school, Vaughan enjoys spending time with family.He has two German shepherds who demand their share of his attention.Eventually, Vaughan squeezes some time in to build and fly remote controlledmodel airplanes. He may be reached at [email protected].
