S

Notes: Q2 – Human Resources Management (Performance Management & Goal Setting)

Q2 – Human resources management: Performance management and goal setting (Anna Sonnenschein)

  • Overall focus: how managers guide employees to achieve organizational goals efficiently and effectively. Key areas: leadership, goal setting, conflicts management, performance mechanics, etc.

  • Core model: Locke & Latham’s Goal Setting Theory (GST)

    • GST as a foundation for performance management; empirical support exists, but can be extended with additional theory for complexity.

    • Basis: setting clear goals to elicit high performance; goals tell employees what is expected and how to direct effort.

    • Practical mechanism: set targets (e.g., increase sales by 10% by year-end) and evaluate outcomes against them.

    • Risks of not setting goals: three adverse outcomes:
      1) workers wait (passive); 2) workers do what they want (mission drift) — diverse interpretations can divert the mission; analogy: if goals drift, the organization’s purpose can dilute (the doctor/activist analogy used to illustrate mission drift and “cold turkey” as a quick, imperfect fix);
      3) workers guess what you want — ambiguity leads to misalignment; need specificity.

  • 1.1 Challenging SMART goals

    • SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable/Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound (context implies measurable targets and deadlines).

    • Challenging/stretch goals: ambitious yet attainable; intended to push growth and skill development without risking burnout.

    • Balancing act:

    • Level 1 (too easy): under-motivating; risks boredom and no growth.

    • Level 2 (optimal): challenging but attainable; fosters growth and motivation.

    • Level 3 (too hard): likely to fail; causes low motivation and burnout.

    • Example dynamics: hiring a candidate who is slightly overqualified can lead to boredom (level 1), while an overly challenging role may reduce effort or lead to burnout (level 3).

  • 1.2 Target setting pitfalls and related concepts

    • Peter Principle: employees rise to their level of incompetence; pushing promotions without sustainability can lead to demotions or departures when people cannot perform at higher levels.

    • Forced growth: managers pushing employees into tasks beyond current capabilities to force development; often backfires by lowering performance and self-confidence.

    • Market conditions matter: challenges are not constant; external factors (e.g., a pandemic) can render targets unrealistic (e.g., 10% growth when market is down). Goals must reflect real conditions.

    • Up/Out culture (consulting firms): some organizations promote aggressively, causing a cascade where people feel compelled to accept promotions to avoid holding back others; can cause burnout and turnover. Goals should be set near the curve’s top but not so high as to cause burnout.

  • 1.3 Discretionary behavior and engagement

    • Goal mechanisms map to performance but can be enhanced by discretionary behavior: extra effort beyond the basic requirements.

    • Discretionary vs non-discretionary behavior:

    • Non-discretionary: perform as required, even if external factors limit performance (e.g., delays due to weather/suppliers).

    • Discretionary: go the extra mile (extra hours, creative workarounds) to achieve goals.

    • Engagement: a form of discretionary behavior where employees invest extra effort because they want to (not just because they are paid to).

  • 1.4 Job crafting (Forms of job crafting)

    • Job crafting emerges when employees tailor their job to fit their needs and strengths.

    • Four forms:

    • Task crafting: add, remove, or change tasks beyond the formal job description.

    • Relational crafting: adjust the quality/volume of interactions with others.

    • Cognitive crafting: change the interpretation/meaning of the job (e.g., seeing one’s role as contributing to a larger mission).

    • Contextual crafting: alter the work environment or context (e.g., telework setup, office design).

    • Engagement vs job crafting:

    • Engagement aims to improve outcomes for the organization (organization-centric).

    • Job crafting aims to improve outcomes for the individual (self-centric) while still benefiting the organization.

    • Pareto optimality: changes should ideally improve outcomes for all involved; excessive crafting by some can burden others unless aligned.

    • 38-point working week (Walkers): a concept where tasks are scored by estimated effort, and workers pick tasks to fit a 38-hour week; aims to maximize job satisfaction and efficiency.

    • Advantages of task-based crafting: clear task points, faster completion when workers select tasks they enjoy; fosters autonomy.

    • Disadvantages: yearly reallocation of tasks; new hires create dynamic changes; complex to oversee; potential misalignment with client needs.

    • Collaboration matters: when many craft their jobs, coordination is essential to avoid Pareto inefficiencies; collaboration can help reach Pareto improvements.

2. How do you optimize employee performance?

  • 2.1 Target mechanisms and performance

    • Setting goals directs attention, energy, strategies, and persistence to reach targets.

    • The relationship between goal setting and performance relies on alignment with the external environment and internal capabilities.

  • 1. Discretionary behavior: going the extra mile (repeated)

    • Engagement vs job crafting: engagement is organization-focused (go to the extra mile for the organization), while job crafting is self-focused but can yield organization-wide benefits.

  • 2. Forms of targeted performance management

    • Emphasis on balance between task demands, employee capabilities, and external conditions; avoid overloading employees with unattainable goals; acknowledge that different team members have different goals and performance baselines.

  • 2.2 Discretionary behavior in practice

    • Constructive engagement: employees willingly exceed basic requirements to fix issues or improve outcomes when external pressures (e.g., delays) threaten deadlines.

    • Non-discretionary behavior can be insufficient in the face of external obstacles; managers should encourage discretionary efforts where feasible.

  • 2.3 Job crafting and its consequences

    • Job crafting is common but not universal; some employees prefer their job as-is, some lack motivation, and some lack time to craft due to deadlines.

    • To foster craft, managers can encourage collaborative crafting and align individual crafting with organizational goals; consider Pareto efficiency when multiple workers craft differently.

  • 2.4 The 38-point approach and task packaging

    • Task scoring and self-selection can improve efficiency and satisfaction if managed carefully; ensure tasks are completed and coordinate with others to avoid bottlenecks.

3. How is performance optimized? Theoretical foundations and practical implications

  • 3.1 Distributive and Procedural justice in rewards

    • Distributive justice: fairness of outcomes relative to input (equal pay for equal work; fair distribution of rewards).

    • Procedural justice: perceived fairness of the processes used to determine rewards (e.g., how performance is measured and how promotions are decided).

    • HR practices influence perceived fairness and motivation.

  • 3.2 Performance and satisfaction relationship

    • Job satisfaction alone does not guarantee performance; employees can be satisfied yet underperform if not challenged.

    • Managers should provide new goals and challenges to sustain performance over time.

    • There is a feedback loop between satisfaction, motivation, and performance.

  • 3.3 Reward systems and goal regulation

    • Reward systems influence goal regulation; the more valuable the reward, the more effort employees may invest, up to legal and ethical limits.

    • The link between reward and performance can be complex; misaligned rewards can demotivate if perceived as unfair or not tied to actual results.

  • 3.4 Vroom’s Expectancy Theory (a key model used)

    • Performance is predicted by the multiplicative model: Motivation = Expectancy imes Instrumentality imes Valence

    • Expectancy (E): belief that effort will lead to performance; if the perceived chance is too low, motivation collapses.

    • Instrumentality (I): belief that performance will lead to a reward; if rewards are perceived as unpredictable or biased, motivation drops.

    • Valence (V): value the rewards hold for the individual; rewards must be valued to motivate.

    • If any component is zero, motivation collapses: E imes I imes V = 0

  • 3.5 The cafeteria plan (flexible benefits)

    • Employees can choose among a set of benefits (car, bonus, vacation, etc.) to maximize personal value (valence).

    • Pros: increased perceived value of rewards, customization, potentially tax advantages.

    • Cons/risks: administrative burden, higher costs, tax considerations, potential inequities, and loss of economies of scale; legal and social implications (e.g., energy-cost cafeteria plans and tax avoidance concerns).

    • Economic critique: cafeteria plans can reduce tax revenue and raise distributional costs; sometimes not socially optimal.

  • 3.6 Motivation, capability, and supervisor role

    • Effort alone is not enough; employees must have the capability (skills) and opportunity; leadership should ensure clear goals and provide necessary resources.

    • Supervisors should avoid blaming employees solely for failures; assess whether goals were clear and aligned with capabilities and resources.

  • 3.7 The Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

    • Three universal needs underpin intrinsic motivation and well-being:

    • Autonomy: decision-making freedom and alignment with personal values.

    • Competence: belief in one’s ability to perform tasks successfully; linked to expectancy in Vroom.

    • Belongingness (relatedness): sense of being part of a supportive work community.

    • Universalism without uniformity: the same needs can be satisfied through different means because individuals have diverse paths to fulfillment.

    • SDT supports that motivation is not simply intrinsic vs extrinsic; regulation types exist along a continuum (see below).

  • 3.8 Regulation types (Self-Determination Theory continuation)

    • Extrinsic motivation spectrum (Regulation types): External regulation, Introjected regulation, Identified regulation, Integrated regulation; moving from controlled to autonomous regulation.

    • Intrinsic motivation corresponds to fully self-determined engagement (Self-Determination) when activities are inherently enjoyable or aligned with values.

  • 3.9 The 다양한 regulation types in practice

    • Introjected regulation example: work demands create internal pressure (e.g., a Sunday investors’ day; you’re offered a day off but feel compelled to work to avoid guilt or shame, or to maintain pride).

    • Identified regulation: tasks are not inherently pleasant but aligned with personal goals (e.g., nurses performing tasks because they see the importance of cleanliness and patient safety).

    • Integrated regulation: task alignment with personal values; actions feel like part of one’s identity (e.g., a nurse who internalizes care as part of who she is).

  • 3.10 The danger of extrinsic rewards (crowding-out effect)

    • Over time, extrinsic rewards can crowd out intrinsic motivation: people focus on the reward and lose interest in the task itself.

    • Example: vaccination campaigns with monetary incentives can erode intrinsic motivation to get vaccinated for health reasons; when incentives end, motivation may drop.

    • Caveat: while extrinsic rewards can anchor motivation, excessive reliance can undermine long-term intrinsic motivation and lead to overjustification effects.

  • 3.11 Feedback and the performance cycle (target interview to evaluation)

    • The cycle typically involves: 1) Target interview: agree on goals; sign off on the plan. 2) Ongoing monitoring and adjustments; mid-year review. 3) End-year evaluation: three parallel evaluations:

      • Performance evaluation (outcomes and deliverables): connection to pay or bonuses; what was accomplished.

      • Process evaluation (how results were achieved): ensure sustainable, ethical, and proper methods.

      • Potential assessment: readiness for promotion or role expansion; training needs and development plans.

    • The supervisor bears responsibility for the team’s outcomes; accountability extends to leadership and process, not just individual performers.

  • 3.12 The intensity of follow-up and situational leadership (Blanchard/Blanchart concepts)

    • Leadership styles depend on two factors: task mastery (competence) and commitment (motivation).

    • Four leadership styles:

    • Directing (Directing manager): strong commitment/low task mastery; need explicit instructions, more planning, frequent feedback.

    • Coaching (Coaching manager): low commitment/low task mastery; high guidance with development focus; frequent feedback and mentoring.

    • Supporting (Supporting manager): low commitment/high task mastery; provide social support, keep motivation high, less task direction.

    • Delegating (Delegating manager): high commitment/high task mastery; minimal direction; empower and let the team self-organize.

    • Change of leadership style should reflect evolving competencies and commitment over time for the same employee; avoid rigid one-size-fits-all approaches.

  • 3.13 In-group/out-group dynamics

    • In-group members receive more attention and support; out-group members tend to be marginalized; this dynamic can undermine team performance and fairness.

    • Leaders should actively mitigate in-group/out-group biases to maintain fairness and collaboration across the team.

  • 3.14 The importance of feedback and avoiding common pitfalls

    • Feedback should be constructive, timely, and focused on development rather than blame.

    • Use of corrective feedback to align performance with goals; avoid rumors and personal attacks; ensure procedural justice in evaluations.

  • 3.15 The role of time, autonomy, and team dynamics in job design

    • Autonomy and discretion can drive performance but must be balanced with organizational needs and team collaboration.

    • Some employees require higher autonomy; others need more direction; adapt leadership style accordingly.

    • Autonomy must be supported by adequate resources and clarity around goals to avoid misalignment.

4. Notable concepts and models cited

  • Peter Principle: people get promoted to their level of incompetence; may require demotion rather than further promotion.

  • Up or out culture: promotion above current level or departure; impacts motivation and promotions dynamics.

  • 38-point week concept: a task-packing and point-assignment system to optimize workload and reduce time pressure while maintaining productivity.

  • Pareto Optimality: improving one actor’s outcome without harming another is not always possible; collaborative craft should aim for Pareto improvements where possible.

  • Reality of market conditions: challenging goals must reflect external market realities (e.g., COVID, economic downturns) to avoid demotivation.

  • Communication and ownership: goals should be agreed upon and documented; employees should sign off on calculation and evaluation methods to prevent disputes.

  • Legal/ethical constraints: rewards and practices must comply with law and organizational ethics; avoid exploitative or illegal targets.

5. Summary takeaways

  • Goals are a prerequisite for performance: clear, challenging, SMART goals align effort with organizational aims.

  • Balance is essential: avoid under-stretching (boring) and over-stretching (burnout); tailor goals to individual curves and market realities.

  • Discretionary behavior and job crafting can boost performance but require alignment with team goals and organizational context.

  • Motivation is multi-faceted: intrinsic vs extrinsic, regulation types, SDT needs (Autonomy, Competence, Belongingness) explain how people regulate behavior.

  • Reward systems can motivate, but misalignment (crowding-out, excessive focus on outcomes, or unfair processes) hurts long-term performance; procedural and distributive justice matter.

  • Leadership style should adapt to the employee and situation (situational leadership; intensity of follow-up; in-group/out-group awareness).

  • The performance cycle (target interview, ongoing monitoring, end-year evaluation) integrates goal setting, feedback, and development; ownership and transparency are key to acceptance.

  • Real-world constraints (market conditions, resource limits, legal considerations) must shape goal setting and performance management strategies.

E imes I imes V is the core expectancy model for motivation, where E = Expectancy, I = Instrumentality, V = Valence. The model shows that motivation collapses if any factor is zero.

Note: This notes compilation follows the transcript content closely, capturing major and minor points, examples, and practical implications across goal setting, motivation, job design, performance management, and leadership dynamics.