Performance Analysis and Intervention in the Workplace

Introduction to Human Performance Technology

An entire field of study has grown up around the issue of job performance. It goes by various names — workplace engineering, quality control, human performance technology, performance technology, and performance engineering, among others. Performance only becomes an issue when there is a gap between the desired objective and current output. There are numerous models used to analyze job performance and to guide productive intervention methodology. One thing they all have in common is that any attempt to correct insufficient job performance must begin with a complete analysis of current performance compared to desired performance. Furthermore, in order to formulate an effective correction technique, one must thoroughly understand the problem. Only by completing a thorough analysis can one implement an effective fix.

The means of analysis vary widely, and there is a substantial body of literature regarding performance analysis. The first step in identifying performance issues and intervention plans entails defining the possible causes of poor performance. According to Rossett, "Without analysis, there is no Human Performance Technology (HPT). Analysis provides the foundation for HPT, a profession and a perspective that demands study before recommendations, data before decisions, and involvement before actions" (Rossett, p. 139).

There are numerous lists of categories for classifying performance problems, but most analysts agree that performance issues essentially fall under three basic categories identified by Rosenberg (1996): "The work… The workplace… The worker" (Rosenberg, p. 374). This may seem simplistic, but even an extensive list of specific problems can be placed under one of these three headings. For example, the following have been identified as types of work performance problems:

Frameworks for Analyzing Performance Gaps

Poor prioritizing, timing, and scheduling; lost time, lateness, absenteeism, leaving without permission, excessive visiting, phone use, break time, use of the internet, and misuse of sick leave; slow response to work requests and untimely completion of assignments; preventable accidents; inaccuracies and errors; failure to meet expectations for product quality, cost, or service; customer and client dissatisfaction; spoilage and waste of materials; inappropriate or poor work methods; negativism, lack of cooperation, and hostility; failure or refusal to follow instructions; unwillingness to take responsibility; insubordination and power games; unwillingness, refusal, or inability to update skills; resistance to policy, procedure, or work method changes; lack of flexibility in response to problems; inappropriate communication styles such as over-aggressiveness or passivity; impatience, inconsideration, and argumentativeness; destructive humor, sarcasm, horseplay, and fighting; inappropriate conflict with customers, coworkers, or supervisors; smoking, eating, or drinking in inappropriate places; sleeping on the job; alcohol or drug use; problems with personal hygiene; and threatening, hostile, or intimidating behaviors ("Types of Work Performance Problems").

Though this list is extensive, it is descriptive, and upon analysis each item falls under Rosenberg's (1996) category of "The work," "The workplace," or "The worker" (Rosenberg, p. 374).

According to the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI), Tom Gilbert — widely regarded as the father of Human Performance Technology — identified six categories for analyzing performance gaps: "consequences, incentives, or rewards; data, information, and feedback; environmental support, resources, and tools; individual capacity; motives and expectations; and skills and knowledge" ("Human Performance Technology (HPT) Primer"). These categories were adopted by the ISPI as a universal means of classifying the causes of performance gaps.

Another notable pioneer in Human Performance Technology is Robert Mager. According to the ISPI, he is known for "3-part objectives," "What Every Manager Should Know About Training," and the "Mager Six-Pack" ("Human Performance Technology (HPT) Primer"). Mager also developed a performance analysis flow diagram for identifying performance problems (Dunning). Together, Robert Mager and Peter Pipe developed a flowchart to facilitate the identification of performance issues and solutions.

The Mager and Pipe Performance Analysis Process

In the Mager and Pipe model, a supervisor or analyst works through the following steps:

Step 1 — Define the performance gap. Look at the goals, objectives, and standards established by the organization. If these are not being met, they are indicators of performance problems. The following must be stated in quantifiable terms: What is the actual performance? What is the desired performance? The difference between the two is the "gap" that must be closed by management action or training. Determine whether the problem is worth fixing by calculating the costs, consequences, or lost opportunity related to the gap. If it is worth fixing, proceed to Step 2.

Step 2 — Look for management causes and fixes. Have performance standards been set so that individuals know what is expected of them? If not, set them. Is adequate feedback being provided so that individuals can correct their performance? If not, provide it. Are there obstacles preventing the desired performance — such as manpower shortages, inadequate equipment, poor supervision, or ineffective policies? If so, remove them. Are there negative consequences for poor performance? If not, change the consequences so that individuals are not effectively "rewarded" for poor performance. If these actions do not fix the problem, it may be a knowledge, skill, or attitude deficiency. Proceed to Step 3.

Step 3 — Identify knowledge, skill, or attitude causes. Are there fast fixes available, such as providing a job aid or additional practice? If so, implement them. Can the job be redesigned so that others with greater proficiency accomplish the task? If so, change the job. Does the person have the capability to perform if trained? If so, set up training. If not, consider transfer or termination (Dunning).