Search results

States that ProMES (Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System) can be interpreted as a method for the development of control loops for self‐management: “accepted control loops”. Whether practical applications of the ProMES method will lead to “accepted control loops” is believed to depend on the course of the development process. Describes the stages of this process, together with possible sources of resistance that may arise during each phase. Formulates the hypothesis that behind these sources could be a common factor, viz. that the people involved in the development process adhere to diverging patterns of values. Notes that the ProMES method requires the explication of values. At the same time, the development process offers possibilities to test to what extent actual behaviours reflect these values in a consistent way. Depending on the results of these tests, one of three reactions to the ProMES method is more likely to occur: “acceptance”, “compliance”, or “rejection”.

To evaluate a proposed prescriptive model for the design of effective combinations of performance goals and pay‐for‐performance plans for the performance management of teams.

The idea underlying the model – in which task, goal, and reward interdependence and their fit play a dominant role – is that a pay‐for‐performance plan should support the team goals and the goals of individual team members as well as support the way in which team members need to cooperate. To obtain a first notion on the model's validity, it was applied to evaluate a pay‐for‐performance plan for management teams at a large IT company. This evaluation consisted of an in‐depth study of three management teams, using a case study methodology.

Combinations of fit among type of team, performance goals, and pay‐for‐performance plan (established by a fit between the interdependence constructs and/or by an overlap in the content of the goal and pay indicators) are more effective than combinations of misfit.

The case study was limited to intra‐team interdependence relationships and did allow for a analysis of the separate effects of a fit between the interdependence constructs versus content fit.

This study shows that pay‐for‐performance plans should not be designed in isolation, but rather in alignment with performance goals and existing task interdependencies.

This is the first study to investigate the three inter‐dependence constructs in conjunction in a field setting.

ProMES, a method for the measurement and feedback of performance data is related to the concepts of goal setting and feedback (Locke, 1991; Locke and Latham, 1990), and to the concept of self‐control (Bandura, 1991). The result is a model for self‐management: the “accepted control loop”. Whether practical applications of the ProMES method will lead to “accepted control loops” is believed to depend on the course of the development process. The ProMES method requires the explicitation of values. At the same time, the development process offers possibilities to test to what extent these values are consistently translated into behaviour. Depending on the results of these tests, one of three reactions to the ProMES method is more likely to occur: “acceptance”, “compliance”, or “rejection”.