BA450 Unit 2 Performance Measurement Paper Example

Ticked Boxes and Taught Skills: A BA450 Unit 2 Performance Measurement Paper

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

BA450: Organizational Behavior Management

Unit 2 Performance Measurement Paper

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The writer, the agency, the homes, the staff and every figure are composite and illustrative; the articles and book cited are real.

The Performance in Question

At the residential services agency where I coordinate programs, thirty-one adults with intellectual disabilities live in four group homes across Sioux Falls. Our behavior analyst writes two or three skill programs for every resident, that evening direct support staff are expected to run between 5 and 9 p.m. Making a sandwich, sorting laundry by color, counting change for the bus and using a phone to call family are typical. Staff record each teaching trial on a data sheet.

In September, our agency director asked me a simple question: are the programs being run? I realized I could not answer it. I knew how many data sheets were filled in, but not whether filled-in sheets meant teaching had happened.

Pinpointing

Daniels and Bailey (2014) describe pinpointing as the first step in performance management: specifying exactly what behavior or result is wanted, in terms that are observable and measurable, so that everyone agrees on what counts. "Staff should support residents' growth" is not a pinpoint. "Staff run each scheduled program at least once per evening, following the written steps, and record each trial" is closer.

They also distinguish results, the outcomes of work, from behaviors, the actions that produce them. Results are often easier to measure and matter most to the organization, but behaviors tell a manager what to change when results fall short.

For our programs, I wrote three pinpoints. The result: residents' skill data show progress toward each program's goal. The behavior: staff run each scheduled program once per evening, following its written steps. The record: staff complete the data sheet accurately for each trial.

A ticked box measures the record; it does not measure the teaching.

Choosing Measures

Each pinpoint needed its own measure. For the record, I used permanent products: the percentage of scheduled programs with a completed data sheet each evening, counted from the binders every Monday. Permanent-product measures are cheap and do not require anyone to be present during the shift.

For the behavior, permanent products are not enough, because a sheet can be completed without the program being run, or run incorrectly. I added spot-check observations. Twice a month, at an unannounced time, I or a house manager observe one program at each home and score it against a checklist of its steps. The result is a percentage of steps done correctly.

For the result, our behavior analyst already graphs residents' progress monthly. I added one figure to her report: the percentage of programs showing progress over the past two months.

Checking Accuracy

A measure is only useful if it is accurate. In October, I compared data sheets with my own observations on six evenings. On four, the sheets matched what I had seen. On two, staff had recorded ten trials when I had seen five, writing the remaining trials from memory at the end of the shift. That gap was not dishonesty so much as a form that asked for trial-by-trial data during a busy evening. We changed the sheet to record only the first five trials, which made it accurate and less burdensome.

Baseline

Baseline across the four homes in October showed large differences. Completed data sheets ranged from 31 percent of scheduled programs at one home to 88 percent at another. Spot-check accuracy of program steps ranged from 52 to 90 percent. Resident progress was strongest at the homes with high scores on both, which suggested the measures were capturing something real.

Graphing for Decisions

Numbers in a spreadsheet rarely change what anyone does, so the design sends each measure to a simple graph, to start once the causes of low completion were known. Every home will get one page each Monday with three lines across the weeks: completed sheets, spot-check accuracy and the share of programs showing progress. A dashed line marks the goal the home's staff agreed on. House managers will post the page beside the whiteboard, and I will keep a combined version for the director. The graphs also set up decisions in advance. If a home's completed sheets fall below 70 percent for two weeks in a row, the house manager and I meet that week to find out why, before anyone is blamed. If spot-check accuracy drops while sheets stay high, the problem is likely teaching quality, which points toward observation and coaching rather than reminders.

Learning From Long-Term Data

Langeland et al. (1998) described a project in a community mental health setting in which staff performance was improved through job analysis, training, goal setting and feedback, and then tracked over several years. Their job analysis clarified exactly what each role required, and their long-term data showed that improvements could be maintained when measurement and feedback became part of routine operations rather than a temporary project. They noted that the measurement system itself needed to be practical enough to continue.

Their work shaped two decisions. First, our measures had to be simple enough that house managers could keep collecting them after my project ended; the Monday binder count takes about ten minutes per home. Second, staff should see their own data, since measurement that disappears into a manager's office cannot support feedback or goal setting.

Involving Staff

I presented the pinpoints and measures at a staff meeting in each home. Staff suggested two changes: listing each evening's scheduled programs on a whiteboard by the kitchen, and allowing a program to be marked "resident declined" rather than left blank. Both made the measures fairer. Wilder et al. (2009) note that involving employees in designing measurement and goals can increase acceptance and performance, and I saw that in how quickly staff began using the whiteboards.

What the Measures Do Not Show

The measures do not show the quality of interactions during teaching, such as warmth or patience, which matter greatly to residents. Spot checks capture some of this, but only twice a month. They also do not show why performance differs across homes, a question for the diagnostic work in the next unit.

Conclusion

The question "are the programs being run?" required three pinpoints and three measures. Following Daniels and Bailey, I separated the record, the behavior and the result, using permanent products, spot-check observations and resident progress data. Accuracy checks led to a simpler data sheet, and Langeland and colleagues' long-term work shaped a system practical enough to last. Baseline showed large differences across homes, setting up a diagnosis of why.

References

Daniels, A. C., & Bailey, J. S. (2014). Performance management: Changing behavior that drives organizational effectiveness (5th ed.). Performance Management Publications.

Langeland, K. L., Johnson, C. M., & Mawhinney, T. C. (1998). Improving staff performance in a community mental health setting: Job analysis, training, goal setting, feedback, and years of data. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 18(1), 21-43. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v18n01_03

Wilder, D. A., Austin, J., & Casella, S. (2009). Applying behavior analysis in organizations: Organizational behavior management. Psychological Services, 6(3), 202-211. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015393