The regulation of effect, the cornerstone of operant psychology, says that
conduct is a characteristic of its consequences; tremendous effects improve
behaviors, which results in their being repeated and expanded. Simply organising
a degree and feeding again the outcomes to the worker may be seemed as a
shape of reinforcement; personnel generally tend to paintings on the idea of the
degree in any circumstances. If there may be a internet incentive for excessive
performance, the hyperlink among conduct and the degree could be more
potent. The extra the incentive, the more potent the connection among the two.
Goal Alignment model.
Following the same logic, the productivity measurement system at each level of
analysis should be developed to direct behaviors and performance at one level of
the organization to the goals at the next higher level. These relationships are
depicted in their ideal state in my Goal Alignment model, Across the top of the
model, the organization attempts to make business unit goals (at all intermediate
levels) congruent with organizational goals. Since the organization has no control
over the individual's goals or the non-work-related goals of the group, it must
accept them as given and design the organization to be compatible with them.
Goal Alignment model. The compatibility of individual goals with group goals, or
the resultant effects on performance, but it assumes that the behavior of one or
the other, individual or group, is the basic unit of analysis determined by the
process. Productivity measures at the individual or group level direct behaviors to
the business unit goals, if properly aligned.
That is, the individuals or groups will work to the measures; it is the responsibility
of the organization to ensure that the measures are in line with the goals. The
model indicates that the productivity (performance) of a business unit is a direct
function of the productive behavior of each of the individuals and groups within
the unit. In turn, organizational productivity is a function of the productivity of
each of the units. The degree to which this is true depends on the definition of
productivity at each level and the interactions among the elements. Also, in this
ideal model, the individual or group productivity results would sum to the
productivity of the next higher business unit and ultimately to the productivity of
the organization. At the business unit level, managers will direct activities,
allocate resources, and make other decisions to maximize performance as
specified in the measurement system (especially if rewards are tied to
performance). At each intermediate level of analysis, therefore, productivity
measures should be selected and positioned such that the performance of the
unit directly contributes to the goals at the next higher level. The Goal Alignment
model suggests that individuals, groups, and business units are not goal driven,
but measurement driven. It is one thing for a firm to establish and communicate
goals. It is quite another to devise and implement measurement systems that can
be maximized only by behavior and performance that lead directly to goal
accomplishment. Organizations are real, not ideal. The Goal Alignment model, as
well as many of the other models and concepts in this chapter, represent targets
toward which organizations should strive. The degree to which they can achieve
these targets, resolve the related issues, and design perfect productivity
measurement systems determines their probability of survival and success.
Researchers can help in this effort by empirically testing the relationships
suggested in the Goal Alignment model. TWO MODELS OF INDIVIDUAL
PRODUCTIVITY from one perspective, virtually everything that is known about
technology and the behavior of people at work is a factor affecting individual
productivity. Attempts to amalgamate all of that knowledge into a
comprehensive, unified theory of individual productivity would likely prove
fruitless. What is needed is a framework that will provide guidance for theory
development, model building, empirical studies, and other forms of research
1. One such framework is the separation of the factors affecting individual
productivity into five distinct, but interacting, sets of variables: (1)
individual characteristics (e.g., size, strength, stamina); (2) psychological
variables (e.g., individual attitudes and beliefs); (3) sociological variables
(i.e., factors that come into play when individuals interact in groups of
various sizes); (4) technological variables (e.g., tools, equipment, materials);
and (5) system variables (e.g., policies, management style, communication
systems).Each of these sets of variables involves one or more disciplines;
together they approach the boundaries of the body of knowledge of work.
Obviously, they overlap and interact. But somewhere within the complex
interactions of all of these variables lie the determinants of individual
productivity. Development of a comprehensive theory of individual
productivity is too much to ask, but perhaps it can be approached as would
building a cathedral—one stone at a time. To develop a theory or build a
cathedral, one needs plans and models. In this section, I discuss two models
of individual productivity that encompass a wide range of variables.
They categorized the variables as primary factors, secondary factors, individual
factors, organizational controllable, individual and organizational demographics,
and bodies of knowledge or files of information. In this section, I use a revised and
greatly simplified version of their model as a basis for explaining the principal
influences on the productivity of the individual worker. In this Conceptual
Productivity model, productivity is a function of four major factors: task capacity,
individual capacity, individual effort, and uncontrollable interferences. Taken
together, the first two factors establish the potential productivity of the task.
When this potential meets the individual effort, moderated by possible
interferences, the actual productivity of the task for a given time period results.
Interference cannot be controlled by the individual worker, and it may or may not
be controllable by the organization
The Productivity Servosystem Model
Whereas the Conceptual Productivity model attempts to relate a few major
antecedents of productivity but with little emphasis on the nature of their
relationships, the Productivity Servosystem model developed by Hershauer and
Ruch (1978) attempts to present a normative model that illustrates the
interaction of factors influencing worker performance
Thus, many of the factors shown in could be disaggregated into several levels of
analysis. The term performance is used in this model to indicate productivity as
well as other work-related behaviors.
Individual worker performance is shown as the focal point of the model;
organizational and individual factors either directly or indirectly affect this
performance. Any factor shown can be traced through the model as an input to
worker performance. In fact, many factors can also be traced to performance as
an output. Because of this feedback effect and the time delay mechanism in the
model, the model is called a Servosystem.
