PS391 Unit 5 Leading Performance Paper Example

"You're Just Not a Fast Person": A PS391 Unit 5 Leading Performance Paper

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PS391: Psychology of Leadership

Unit 5 Leading Performance Paper

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The writer, the warehouse, the crew and every figure are composite and illustrative; the articles cited are real.

The Sentence

Seven months into supervising nights, I had a picker named Trevor who was consistently below the rate standard, picking about eighty percent of the cases per hour our system expects. One night, frustrated after a late truck, I told him, "You're just not a fast person, Trevor. You need to figure out how to keep up." His rate the following week fell further, his accuracy stayed the same, and he called in sick twice, which he had never done before.

My comment was meant to motivate him. It did the opposite, and I wanted to understand why.

When Feedback Hurts

Kluger and DeNisi (1996) gathered hundreds of experiments in which someone was told how well they had done and then measured again. Most managers assume that telling people how they did helps. On average it did, yet in more than one comparison in three the people who heard about their performance went on to do worse. Their explanation centered on where feedback directs a person's attention. A comment that keeps the person looking at the work, at which step went wrong and what to try next, usually helps. A comment that turns the person's eyes toward themselves, their worth or their talent or their place on the team, usually hurts, because energy goes into protecting a self-image instead of into the task.

I had given Trevor a verdict about who he was, and he spent the next week defending himself against it instead of picking.

"You're just not a fast person" was feedback about Trevor, not his picking. It offered no information about what to change and suggested the problem was fixed in his nature.

What I Learned About Trevor's Work

I took a different approach the next week. I watched Trevor work for twenty minutes and asked him to talk me through an aisle. He was careful to the point of rechecking every label twice, because a mispick early in his first month had earned him a write-up from my predecessor. His accuracy was nearly perfect. His speed problem was a fear of errors.

Goals and Feedback Together

In the long program of research by Locke and Latham (2002) of research, a stretch target only lifts output when the worker has signed on to it and can watch the gap close, which is why they treat the target and the running score as a pair. A rate standard with no path to reach it, and a comment about his character, gave Trevor neither.

We set a goal together: raise his rate to ninety percent of standard within four weeks, while keeping accuracy above ninety-eight percent. I gave him a strategy, check each label once and trust the scanner's confirmation beep, and arranged for his rate and accuracy to show on the handheld after each aisle so that he could see progress without waiting for me.

How the Problem Started Before Me

Trevor's caution had a history. In his first month, under the supervisor before me, he mispicked a pallet of baby formula that went to the wrong store, and he received a written warning in front of two coworkers. Nobody told him afterward what a normal error rate was or that the scanner would catch most mistakes. He decided, reasonably, that speed was dangerous and care was safe. The rate standard then punished him for the lesson the warning had taught. Seen this way, his slow rate was not a motivation problem at all; it was a learned response to an earlier piece of self-focused, public feedback. Kluger and DeNisi's analysis helped me see that feedback does not only affect performance in the moment; it can shape habits that last long after the person who gave it has moved on.

Applying the Lesson to the Crew

I looked for other Trevors. Using the handheld data, I found three pickers whose accuracy was near perfect and whose rates lagged, the same pattern. In each case, a short conversation turned up a reason: one was new to the reach truck, one had a sore shoulder he had not reported, and one, like Trevor, had been warned harshly for an early error. Each needed something different, and none needed to be told to try harder.

Recognizing Progress

Judge and Piccolo (2004) found that spelling out what is expected and then noticing when someone gets there, the pattern they call contingent reward, goes with crews who are satisfied with their leader and leaders who are rated as effective. I made a point of noting Trevor's progress specifically: "Your rate on aisle twelve was ninety-one percent with no errors." The recognition was about the task and tied to the goal.

Results

Within three weeks, Trevor reached ninety-two percent of standard with accuracy still above ninety-eight percent. By the end of the second month he was at standard, and his accuracy had not slipped at all. He told me later that the label double-checking had been a habit he did not know how to drop until someone told him it was safe to.

Changing My Habits

The episode changed how I give feedback to the whole crew. I now try to describe what someone did and what to do differently, never who they are. When I feel frustrated, I wait until I can say something specific. Before I decide someone is not trying, I ask what is slowing them down. When a write-up is necessary for safety or accuracy, I give it privately, explain exactly what went wrong and what normal looks like, and check back within a week so the person knows the matter is closed. The crew's next feedback survey will show whether these habits are visible from their side, and I have asked my manager to sit in on a few of my floor conversations each month to keep me honest.

Limits

Kluger and DeNisi's findings describe averages across many settings; not every self-focused comment will backfire, and not every task-focused one will help. Trevor's improvement may also reflect the extra attention he received. But the pattern was clear enough to change my habits.

Conclusion

My comment to Trevor was the kind of self-focused feedback Kluger and DeNisi found can lower performance. Locke and Latham's research pointed to a specific goal with progress feedback, and Judge and Piccolo's findings supported recognizing task progress. Watching his work, setting a goal with him and giving task-focused feedback brought him to standard within two months.

References

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705