In terms of consensus, her performance would be rated low, because others in her same resistances generally perform better and faster, instead of about the same. Given her credentials, it could be assumed that she would perform at least as well as her coworkers, but since they are all performing better, it must be a problem specific to Joan causing her low performance. 2. Do you attribute Jean’s performance to internal or to external causes? What is the rationale for your decision? I would attribute Jean’s performance to internal causes. A high level of consistency in her case suggests an internal cause.
She is consistently rated average to marginal on peer performance views, and often her work cannot be used until it has been redone because of its poor organization. A low level of distinctiveness also suggests an internal cause for poor performance. Her performance does not vary across situations and therefore cannot be attributed to external factors. Additionally, the consensus for Joan is low in that her coworkers do not have the same performance issues, which implies an internal cause of problems. 3. Which of the four types of corrective actions do you think is most appropriate?
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
Explain. I think the most appropriate actions in this tuition are coaching actions. The performance issues she is having are not a result of low ability and therefore transferring her or demoting her to another position won’t alleviate the problem. Coercive actions may make her resentful given her extended tenure with the company, and the Apollonian Principle states that people process pleasant events (such as coaching) more effectively than unpleasant events (such as being reprimanded for poor performance). It would be more effective if she were encouraged instead of punished.
If nothing were done to correct her reference, or if she were offered a raise to improve her performance, management would not have the opportunity to coach and guide her to the correct expectations for her position. Because people behave consistently with others’ expectation and simultaneously give her the confidence to meet them. If she is treated positively, she will react positively, and her performance should improve. Further Analysis: In this case, Joan Murphy is a senior aerospace engineer at Lockheed Martin. She has worked at Lockheed for her entire career and has been having issues with her reference.
The case states that Joan “seems unmotivated and rarely has her assignments completed on time. ” Joan typically spends more time on both “routine” programs and “major problems” than her coworkers. She misses an average on one workday per month. Her finished work is often so unrecognized that the departments and customers who receive it cannot use or understand it until someone else has redone it. The key problem in this case is Jean’s performance. This problem is most likely attributed to internal factors affecting Joan. It is clear that her performance has high inconsistency in that her behavior has remained the same for long periods of time.
Her performance has low distinctiveness because they type of project does not influence her results. Her performance also has low consensus because other engineers at Lockheed do not behave in a similar fashion. These three factors all suggest an internal cause for her issues at work. It is important to note, however, that there is no indication as to whether or not Joan has received any coaching or training to change her behavior in the past. It is also not stated if her coworkers have received any coaching or training that may cake their work higher quality than hers.
The case does not provide details on anything that might be an external factor for her performance, so my recommendation will go solely on the internal causes suggested. The problem that needs to be addressed is Jean’s performance. There are several options to improve her results. She could be reprimanded for poor performance, she could be transferred or demoted, she could be given coaching and encouragement, or there could be no action taken at all. I would put into place an action plan that soused on coaching and encouragement to raise Jean’s supervisors’ expectations and her own expectations of herself.
She would participate in training programs that focus on efficiency and organized final products. In a timestamp of three months, Joan would be required to reduce her average time per project by 10 hours (as measured by time clocked per project), and she would be required to produce organized and legible programs (as measured by customer feedback). Jean’s level of self-efficacy could be a potential issue, because if she does not believe she can improve, it will be official to change her behavior.
If Joan has a self-serving bias, she may not agree that her failures or poor performance are caused by internal factors. However, self- fulfilling prophecy suggests that if her managers have high expectations for her performance, she can and will improve. I believe three months, coupled with adequate training and coaching, is more than enough time for Jean’s work to improve too level that is satisfactory and comparable to her peers. If it does not, management should review her progress (or lack thereof) and decide if demotion or separation are appropriate.