Skip to main content

A new tool for coaching employee performance

Introduction

In his behavior engineering model, Thomas Gilbert advocates providing “relevant and frequent feedback about the adequacy of performance” as an effective means for improving employee performance. Timely evaluations enable workers to see the relationship between what they are doing and desired performance outcomes. Traditionally, feedback comes well after-the-fact during an annual performance appraisals. The authors of this article point to shifts in that approach and propose a feedback system based on the concept of “mystery shoppers” used by retail organizations to provide credible, actionable performance data to employees.

Article

Ford, R.C., Latham, G.P., & Lennox, G. (2011). Mystery shoppers: A new tool for coaching employee performance improvement. Organizational Dynamics, 40(3), 157-164. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.04.002

Background

Research on employee performance improvement suggests that the value of the traditional annual performance review is limited. These fixed-interval assessments are delivered out of context. Feedback on job performance has its greatest impact when delivered continuously as work is occurring, allowing workers to immediately adjust or continue their behavior in order to achieve desired results.

In recent years organizations have added coaching as a means for providing more frequent feedback to employees. Coaches, typically supervisors, assess and provide immediate feedback on performance on an ongoing basis. Providing continuous feedback, however, is a costly and impractical endeavor when done for each individual. Managers typically don’t have time to roam the workplace offering feedback to each and every employee under their supervision.

Some organizations have opted to use 360-degree feedback from peers and clients in lieu of or in addition to coaching, but such feedback, like the annual performance review, is provided at fixed-intervals well after the observed behavior has taken place. Another problem is the tendency of workers to “put their best foot forward” when they know they are being assessed, demonstrating behaviors somewhat different from those in which they typically engage. The limitations of fixed-interval or regularly scheduled feedback systems are well known, but the time and costs associated with ongoing coaching make that an impractical solution for most organizations.

Variable Interval Feedback

The authors propose a solution using a variable interval feedback system. Variable interval (VI) feedback has seen good results in laboratory settings; animals who receive feedback, or reinforcement, on VI schedules, cannot predict when that reinforcement may be offered and thus maintain high levels of performance to ensure they attain a reward when it becomes available. Humans have exhibited similar behavior in settings where VI reinforcement schedules are common, such as in gambling casinos. Gamblers who have experienced occasional wins persist in placing bets in the hope that doing so will ultimately lead to desired payoffs.  Variable interval schedules consistently motivate ongoing desired behavior.

The authors suggest that this principle could be applied in organizations using a version of a technique known as “mystery shopping.” Mystery shoppers are frequently used in service industries to catch the customer experience as it is happening and evaluate it using predetermined criteria. The shopper appears at random intervals and incognito to assess employee performance. Companies such as The Cheesecake Factory and Restaurant Partners Incorporated have used mystery shoppers a minimum of ten times per location to assess worker and workplace performance. The shoppers appeared at different times, recorded feedback on an appraisal form developed by the company, and sent those data to the restaurant manager the following day. Managers trained in coaching then met one-on-one with employees to discuss successes and shortfalls, and then discuss strategies for improvement.

The results for these organizations was noteworthy. Customer head counts and overall service performance scores at each location improved significantly. Management found that the cost of using mystery shoppers more than paid for itself in increased business. And, there was an observed spillover effect. Employees, because they witnessed these coachings, were aware that their work was being evaluated periodically, but not on a predetermined schedule. The VI schedule led them to monitor their own performance on an ongoing basis to ensure it aligned to the organization’s expectations. Thus, it was necessary to actually assess and meet with every employee to get every employee to self-monitor and to regulate their own performance.

The authors propose a way to adapt the mystery shopper technique used in service industries to other types of organizations. They suggest using a “Pop Feedback” system as follows:

  1. One employee from a department is randomly selected by an automated process.
  2. A person who regularly interacts with that employee (coworker, manager, subordinate) is asked to anonymously evaluate that employee using preset job performance criteria.
  3. The form is completed by the designated evaluator and submitted to the employee’s boss to review with the employee the following day. Coaching sessions could be scheduled based on the assessment.

Over a prolonged period, a collection of assessments from various sources would constitute 360-degree feedback on an employee’s performance and would make it possible to chart improvements and professional growth.

Conclusions

The authors see four benefits to organizations and employees using a Pop Feedback VI system similar to the mystery shopper technique:

  1. It offers an assessment of employee performance using predefined, observable, and measurable performance factors.
  2. It provides continuous feedback at random intervals rather than at a single, annual performance review.
  3. It includes more objective feedback from sources other than the employee’s immediate supervisor.
  4. It provides a basis for coaching to help the employee improve performance and help the organization achieve its goals.

Questions for OPWL-N Members

Do you see variable interval feedback as a viable performance review tool for your organization? How might you adapt the techniques described to suit your situation? Are there any potential pitfalls associated with using a Pop Feedback VI system?

Workplace Oriented Research Central (WORC)
Prepared by OPWL Graduate Assistant, Susan Virgilio
Directed by OPWL Professor, Yonnie Chyung
Posted on April 2, 2014