Lack of Environmental Support
One cause of performance problems is a lack of environmental support. Environmental support includes those things that management provides and that the performer needs to perform effectively and efficiently . According to Gilbert, environmental performance support includes the following: [17]
-
Information (data, information, and feedback)
-
Instrumentation (environment support, resources, and tools)
-
Motivation (consequences, incentives, and rewards)
A gap between the available environmental support components shown Table 4-4 and the performance support requirements or needs of the worker usually drives or causes a performance gap. This section will focus on how to analyze environmental support components (information, instrumentation, and motivation) to determine the cause of a performance gap.
| Information | Instrumentation | Motivation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental Support | Data Information Feedback | Work Environment Support Resources Tools | Consequences Incentives Rewards |
| Repertory of Behaviors | Skills Knowledge | Individual Capacity | Motivation Expectations |
Data, Information, and Feedback
How do data, information, and feedback support performance and relate to why people do what they do? According to Rossett, "A successful performer knows how to do what is expected and when it is appropriate to do it." [18] Part of this knowledge may come from schooling or past experience; however, complete, clear, unambiguous, and up-to-date data on performance expectations and information regarding correct procedures are required for successful on-the-job performance. The data or information must also be available and easily accessible to the performer. Data and information that are vital to successful performance may include organizational policies, job or task procedures, tolerance levels for machinery, customer requirements, or supplier concerns. "Lack of information is not identical to 'lack of timely information.' Instead, it means that performers receive no information and remain in the dark about changes affecting the organization." [19]
Performers also need frequent and timely feedback on the results of their performance:
Lack of feedback on consequences means that performers are not being given feedback on the results of their work activities. They are performing in a vacuum ... No timely feedback means that the time lag is excessive between worker performance and feedback received about that performance. People do not know what they are responsible for doing or what results they should be achieving. Hence they are not accountable for what they do. [20]
Environment Support, Resources, and Tools
Environment support, resources, and tools are those things that management provides to support or assist the performer. Environment support may include ergonomic, health, wellness , and safety factors that have an impact on performance. For example, problems with such diverse factors as air quality, workspace, rest areas, lighting, workload, hazardous material handling, work flow design, or workstation construction may cause performance gaps.
The term resources refers to the time, money, materials, and personnel allocated to the performance. Resources must be adequate and of sufficient quality to allow for successful accomplishment of the performance. Allocating inadequate resources or substituting poor quality resources may cause performance problems.
Tools are instruments required to complete the job, such as a computer and software for filling out tax forms or the correct equipment to attach a car part on the assembly line. Tools should be available, accessible, efficient, and safe.
How do environment support, resources, and tools support performers and cause people to do what they do? Sometimes employees do not have the environment support, resources, and tools they need to do their job ”either what they need does not exist because the company has not made the investment, or what they need exists, but is not functioning properly.
Performing an appendectomy in a hospital operating suite is a routine procedure. The operating room has a sterile, controlled environment, state-of-the-art machinery and instruments, and qualified personnel. Emergency equipment and staff are on hand in case of complications. In contrast, performing an appendectomy in the wilderness without the appropriate facilities, machinery, tools, staff, or emergency backup would not be routine and could cause a gap between desired and actual performance.
Consequences, Incentives, or Rewards
Consequences are events or effects produced by a preceding act. For example, inappropriate lighting may cause eye-strain and prevent an employee from doing a stellar job.
Incentives are the stimuli that influence or encourage people to do their jobs. Incentives may be internal or external. Going the extra mile with a work task may be sufficient for one employee to earn merit, while another employee may need feedback from a supervisor. On the other hand, rewards are items given in return for services. Rewards may be monetary or nonmonetary. Gilbert lists three types of performance-based incentives: [21]
-
Monetary incentives
-
Nonmonetary incentives
-
Career development opportunities
Examples of monetary performance-based incentives include:
-
Suggestion systems that offer money to employees whose suggestions are adopted
-
Profit sharing
-
Stock options
-
Bonuses
Career development opportunities may be monetary or nonmonetary depending on whether the opportunities include tuition reimbursement or an increase in pay upon completion of a program.
Examples of nonmonetary performance-based incentives include the following:
-
Teacher rewards a young child by placing a star on the child's paper to indicate a creative drawing
-
Time off with pay
-
Gifts
-
Simple recognition awards or programs
Both monetary and nonmonetary incentives can contribute to increasing productivity and self-esteem. Assessing consequences, incentives, or rewards helps determine why people do what they do. Most employees perform tasks , react to their environment, and interact with colleagues based on perceptions of rewards for performance and consequences of actions. They maximize positive consequences, incentives, or rewards and minimize negative forces.
Analyzing Environmental Factors That Influence Performance
"It is one thing to acknowledge that the work environment can cause performance problems, but another to find out from where in the work environment the problem stems ." [22] In addition to assessing consequences, incentives, and monetary or nonmonetary rewards, the PT practitioner should also assess whether the organization consciously or unconsciously supports a policy of disincentives. Rossett writes about companies "speaking with two voices" and cites two common examples of disincentives:
-
One common problem is ignoring desired performance. When you ask a group of training professionals about the incentives for excellent performance, they'll often laugh . Too frequently, they perceive none. In fact, some contend that there is punishment associated with excellence, with the best people getting the thorniest clients or challenges. [23]
-
Another typical problem with incentives is when they conflict, i.e., when the organization is rewarding behavior that crowds out the desired performance. This happens to customer service people who are often measured and applauded for the quantity of their contacts but exhorted to deliver high-quality , relationship and loyalty building interactions. [24]
Recognizing that the Behavior Engineering Model was not sufficient in itself to pinpoint the causes of performance gaps within the work environment, Tom Gilbert developed the PROBE model. [25] The model provides a series of questions that help the PT practitioner probe and assess the work environment for performance gap drivers or causes (Job Aid 4-1 at the end of this section).
 |
This job aid is an adaptation of Gilbert's PROBE Model. [26] Answers to the following questions help to establish the drivers or causes of performance gaps. Some of the answers may be found in documentation for the performance gap analysis. Other answers may require additional input from actual performer(s).
| Category | Questions | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| Feedback |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| Tools |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| Information |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| Resources |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| Incentives |
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| Dean, P.J. and Ripley, D.E. (Eds.), (1997) . Performance Improvement Pathfinders: Models for Organizational Learning Systems, pp. 57-58. Washington, D.C.: The International Society for Performance Improvement. Used with permission . | |||
ISPI 2000 Permission granted for unlimited duplication for noncommercial use .
| |
Some of the answers to the questions in the PROBE model may be found in documentation from the performance gap analysis. In fact, seeking for answers during the gap analysis may save time and resources in the performance analysis process and shortcut the cause analysis process. If the answers are not available, the PT practitioner will need to interview or survey the performer(s).
| |
Situation
The operation produces air bag covers for steering wheels. They are injection molded and have to meet tight tolerance standards due to their inclusion as part of a safety feature. A typical molding station consists of two molding machines; two bins of hard plastic frames , which are inserted into the mold machines and on which the rubber compound is molded; and a finishing/inspection/rework area. The performance improvement opportunity involved a redesign of the work area to achieve greater throughput. Prior to the intervention it took approximately five minutes to complete each step. A second opportunity involved reducing the number of people required to staff the station from three to two, one operator per machine and one person at the take off/inspection/ rework area.
Intervention
The intervention was a week-long Kaizen project. Kaizen is the Japanese term for a process improvement exercise. A team of people, led by the Kaizen project operator, conducted time studies, discussed new ways of doing things, then redesigned the work area and processes to achieve the two objectives. Any new tooling or equipment requests would be presented to plant management by the team, and a decision would be made that day as to its viability. The physical layout of the work area was open , so work was rerouted to allow for a one-day shutdown of the cell for physical rearrangement .
The cell was completely redesigned to reduce the number of turns required by the machine operators. Also, the hard plastic frames, which were originally kept in a bin that the operator had to bend down to access, were relocated to "trees." The plastic frames now hung from the tree's "branches" so the operator could reach them without bending. The trees could be rotated to expose more frames.
Results
The results of the week-long Kaizen effort were as follows :
-
There was a reduction of nearly two minutes to produce a part. This resulted in an increased capacity for output from 12 pieces per hour to 20. In other words, what once took one hour to produce could now be done in 40 minutes.
-
The operators were able to use the extra time for doing finishing work, inspection, and rework. Because two people could now accomplish the work of three, the third person was reassigned.
-
A six-week follow up determined that the improvements were not only maintained , but improved on by the operators. Operators commented that in spending more time with the product during the finishing work, inspections, and rework phases, they were getting a better feel for the process and could anticipate problems.
Lessons Learned
The most obvious lesson learned is that when employees are provided with the right equipment (in this case, the "tree"), the right environment (the redesigned work area), and the right resources, performance can be improved. The new equipment was inexpensive and the redesign required no additional floor space. In fact, the redesigned work area actually used less space and opened up a new aisle.
The second lesson may be even more important ”involving employees in the change appeared to motivate them to employ other strategies for efficiency. Also, by involving the operator, who functioned as lead expert in the process, the Kaizen changes not only survived, but were improved on in the true spirit of continuous improvement.
The case study was contributed by Douglas Swiatkowski, M.Ed., Tenneco Automotive. Used with permission.
| |
[17] Gilbert, 1978
[18] Rossett, 1999, p. 38
[19] Rothwell, 1996b, p. 161
[20] Rothwell, 1996b, pp. 159 “160
[21] Gilbert, 1996, p. 88
[22] Dean, 1997, p. 55
[23] Rossett, 1999
[24] Rossett, 1999, p. 43
[25] Gilbert, 1982, September; 1982, October
[26] Dean, 1997, pp. 57 “58
EAN: 2147483647
Pages: 98