Sherri Harrelson, Jessica Scheufler 1

Implementing Gilberts First Three Theorems: A Performance Support Tool

WHEN/WHERE It is especially useful in situations where there is a strong desire to improve performance in a particular person or group of people in order to provide increased benefits within a system or company (e.g. better customer service, financial growth, improved employee satisfaction and retention rates, etc.). Furthermore, the BEM portion of the tool can be used, not only in determining factors surrounding a particular performance, but also in developing strategic factors to alter performance levels (Chyung, 2008, p. 114). WHAT/HOW The tool that we are presenting is a chart that a performance practitioner would use while conducting a performance and cause analysis at the beginning of a project. The chart was created based off of Gilberts first three theorems of his four leisurely theorems and can help guide the practitioner through the performance and cause analysis phase of the project systematically (Gilbert, 2007). The questions are intended to act as starting points for the practitioner, but it is likely that the practitioner may have additional questions to ask depending on the project. It is, however, expected that the chart would be completed in order starting with the first questions of the first section Is performance worthy? Following the chart, we will provide a checklist that will assist the practitioner in determining some of the whys behind particular performance levels. Frequently, practitioners dive into the creation of interventions without firmly establishing the reasoning behind performance excesses or deficits, which can ultimately lead to failure of the selected interventions (Austin, Olsen, & Wellisley, 2001). By first determining the worthiness of a performance and the possibility for improvement, and subsequently using the checklist to determine some of the aspects contributing to the performance, the practitioner will be more informed and better able to manipulate contributory factors. In the next few pages we will be discussing each section of the tool separately with instructions on how to use the tool and helpful hints and notes. An example of the completed tool is presented on page 6 of this document. SECTION I - Performance Analysis - Is the performance worthy? The first four questions in the chart should be asked during an interview/introductory meeting with the sponsor and stakeholders. These questions can help the practitioner identify the performance deficiencies and goals. Questions 5-8 can help the practitioner determine whether the performance is worthy and worth pursuing. 1 According to Gilbert (2007), we should not train someone to do
1

It is important that the practitioner gather as much information as possible about the current performance deficiencies, costs, and performance goals because the data gathered during this phase will help the practitioner determine next steps.

Sherri Harrelson, Jessica Scheufler 2 something differently unless we place value on the consequence (p. 17) so the questions in SECTION I are intended to help the practitioner discover which accomplishments the organization values. Once all the answers are added to the first section of the chart, the practitioner will then use Gilberts formula for worthy performance to calculate whether the performance is worthy (Gilbert, 2007). If the calculation is greater than 1, the performance is considered worthy and the practitioner should proceed to the next section in the chart entitled What is the potential for improving performance? (Gilbert, 2007). If the performance is less than 1, the performance is not considered worthy so the performance practitioner will need to collaborate with the sponsor/stakeholders to determine next steps (Gilbert, 2007).

Sherri Harrelson, Jessica Scheufler 3

SECTION II - Performance Analysis - What is the potential for improving performance? If the practitioner determined that the performance is worthy, the practitioner should then determine the degree of potential for improving performance (Gilbert, 2007). First, the practitioner would gather data Information about the exemplary and typical performers through interviews and/or surveys. Once the information is gathered, the practitioner would fill out the chart using the questions as a guide. Finally, the practitioner would calculate the potential for improving performance using Gilberts formula for performance (Gilbert, 2007).

Sherri Harrelson, Jessica Scheufler 4

SECTION III - Cause Analysis - Behavior Engineering Model Checklist After completing the previous steps, if the PIP is large enough to warrant interventions for improvement, then Gilberts third theorem, also known as the Behavior Engineering Model (BEM), can be utilized to determine the causes of performance inequalities (Chyung, 2008, p. 114). Gilbert advises practitioners to follow a prescribed method to review the environmental and individual factors affecting a persons behavior, and thus, performance (Chyung, 2008, p. 111). The recommended guide is to proceed through the environmental components as follows: 2 Data: feedback, job descriptions, guidelines Instruments: available tools, provided materials Incentives: financial, benefits, career growth, perks The practitioner should then proceed through the following individual factors: Knowledge: training, job aids Capacity: proper employee selection, capability, job readiness Motives: attitude, underlying feelings, encouragement Key starter questions to determine causes of the performance disparities: Environmental: 1. How frequently is/ are the performer(s) receiving feedback on the performance? 2. Is this feedback relevant to the job with specific criteria (as opposed to vague generalizations) provided? 3. What type, if any, guidelines are available to assist the performer in determining adequate performance? 4. What tools and/or materials are available to performers? 5. Are these tools adequately related to the performance expected? 6. What types of financial incentives are available? 7. What, if any, career advancement opportunities are in place? Personal: Has the performer been provided with relevant job training? What types of training have been made available? What types of job aids, if any, are in place to assist with performance? How was the performer selected for this particular job area? How capable is the performer in completing this job? Are there any physical barriers that could limit the performers ability to perform in this capacity? How does the performer feel about the job? What motivates the performer to succeed in this job performance (e.g. financial, good feelings, personal recognition, etc.)?

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

These questions are meant to act as starter questions, and others may be implemented as needed.

Sherri Harrelson, Jessica Scheufler 5

CASE STUDY

In an effort to assist with better understanding and to facilitate greater ease of use in utilizing this tool, we are providing a hypothetical scenario implementing the tool and making predictions regarding the outcome below. The manager at the local division of a cable company has received many complaints from customers regarding customer service. Upon further review of the situation, the manager has discovered that customers with technical difficulties are experiencing delayed resolution of their problems because the field support staff does not always have the necessary equipment to resolve certain technical issues. In certain instances, two or three visits over a number of days, or sometimes even weeks, are required before customers receive full resolution of technical issues. Approximately 3% of the total number of customers have cancelled their services in the last 6 months, citing poor customer support as the number one reason for leaving. This has resulted in a significant loss of revenue for the company, and it is apparent to the manager that something must be done. The manager reviews each of his six field support technicians log histories and discovers that two technicians resolve their scheduled technical support assignments on the first visit an average of 96.5% (97% and 96% respectively) of the time. This group of technicians is the exemplary performance group because they have the greatest number of resolutions on the first visit. The other four technicians resolve their scheduled technical support assignments on the first visit an average of 77.4% of the time. Approximately 85% of the customers that have left the company in the last 6 months for poor customer support were visited by one of these four technicians in order to resolve a technical issue. The manager decides to use the tool presented here to determine the worthiness of the technicians performances, as well as the potential for improving performance in order to boost the companys revenue. The completed chart is shown on the next page (page 6).

Sherri Harrelson, Jessica Scheufler 6

Sherri Harrelson, Jessica Scheufler 7 After completing the chart, the manager decides to continue with the BEM in order to determine the causes behind each groups performance. Through asking the questions provided previously, he discovers that the two technicians in the exemplary group review the background information of the complaint calls that lead to their scheduled technical support assignments. They do this by reviewing a database of notes made by call center representatives that accepted the calls and scheduled the assignment. Although initially this was not an easy task, they developed the ability to understand the nature of the complaint and the most likely equipment necessary for resolving the complaint by working with senior field technicians, who have since left the company, and through trial-and-error. In this manner, they are able to ensure that the necessary equipment is available, or they can call the customer directly to reschedule the visit if equipment needs to be ordered prior to the visit. In addition, these two technicians have been with the company an average of 9 months longer than those technicians in the average group. Through further review, he discovers that neither the exemplary or average group has received a great deal of relevant feedback from the administration, nor have they received any training other than the initial training provided on how to service and repair technical equipment. While job aids are in place in the form of troubleshooting manuals on repairing or replacing equipment, there are no guides available on accessing the database or interpreting call center notes. Furthermore, there are no set criteria in place on the number of technical support visits that should be required to resolve technical issues. Up to this point, the administrations primary focus has been on whether the field support technicians could repair or replace technical equipment at a satisfactory level, not on the number of visits required to do so. In terms of capacity, none of the technicians have physical barriers that would hamper performance. They were chosen for this particular job based on previous technical training in school and/or the results of a technical aptitude exam initially provided by the company. In addition, they receive a higher than average salary based on their education levels and are satisfied with benefits provided by the company. There is a performance review conducted each year that assesses the technicians abilities to resolve technical issues, and they are eligible for a salary increase based on the results of this review. Finally, the average group of technicians notes that they are uncomfortable making multiple visits to resolve technical issues because customers are sometimes angry that the issue is unresolved on the first visit and that they have to miss work or other obligations in order to be available at home to let the field technicians into the home to work on the equipment. The primary reason necessitating these multiple visits is the lack of information the technicians have prior to the visit, often resulting in the need to order equipment before having the ability to resolve the technical issue. This group of technicians knows that the database is available, but they are unsure about accessing it, and they have expressed confusion on reading the call center personnels notes that are written in a shorthand format. SECTION III - BEM Breakdown Environmental Components: Data: Little relevant feedback, no guidelines on number of visits necessary to resolve technical

Sherri Harrelson, Jessica Scheufler 8 complaints Instruments: Database is available to determine nature of technical problem in order to ensure adequate materials and equipment are on hand Incentives: Higher than average salary, comparable benefits, yearly salary increases possible

The practitioner should then proceed through the following individual factors: Knowledge: Limited training on database use and interpretation of shorthand notes made by call center reps Capacity: Adequate capacity in resolving technical issues, strong technical aptitude Motives: Employees have suggested that negative customer feedback is discomforting, satisfied with financial and other benefits Results: The cause of the disparity in performance between the two groups appears to be related to the inability to access the database and read shorthand notes with regards to the average group. ALthough this is meant to be a cause analysis tool, some preliminary guidance on intervention selection can be made after conducting this review. The first intervention would be to provide a brief training seminar on accessing the database and reading the shorthand notes made by the call center representatives. Furthermore, a job aid could be provided to the technicians in the form of a guide reminding them how to access the database and read notes. Technicians should also be provided with a guide of key information to look for within the customers technical complaint in order to determine the most likely equipment required for resolution of the issue. Furthermore, they should be instructed to call the customer directly to reschedule the visit if the necessary equipment needs to be ordered. Other recommended interventions would included providing a guideline on the number of visits necessary to resolve specific technical issues, providing more relevant feedback, and publicly rewarding technicians that meet the newly mandated requirement of resolving technical issues in the first visit 95% of the time. Finally, in addition to basing yearly reviews on the ability to resolve technical issues, the technicians should also be assessed on the ability to resolve the issue on the first visit. This can be done by reviewing the technicians logs and determining the percentage of technical complaints that were resolved on the first visit compared to the number that required multiple visits to achieve resolution.

References Austin, J., Olson, R., & Wellisley, J.A. (2001). The Behavior Engineering Model at work on a small scale: Using task clarification, self-monitoring, and public posting to improve customer service. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(2) pp. 53-76. DOI: 10.1111/j.19378327.2001.tb00209.x Chyung, S. Y. (2008). Foundations of instructional and performance technology. Amherst, MA: HRD Press, Inc.

Sherri Harrelson, Jessica Scheufler 9

Gilbert, T. F. (2007). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance (Tribute ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.