Performance monitoring: how it affects work productivity

Article Abstract:

Performance monitoring refers to gathering information about the work effectiveness of others. Traditionally, monitoring has been assumed to influence people's work behavior only to the extent that it is accompanied by additional managerial action (e.g., delivering positive or negative performance consequences). It seems likely, however, that performance monitoring may also have an independent effect on work behavior by influencing the perceived importance of the monitored task. This hypothesis was tested in a laboratory experiment in which subjects worked at 2 tasks for 2 hr. Subjects' work output was significantly affected both by monitoring alone and by monitoring coupled with contingent performance consequences, and the effect of monitoring alone was mediated by perceptions of task importance. The latter result is discussed in terms of social-information-processing theory, especially as it relates to role-making processes in organizations. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Psychological aspects, Analysis, Employee performance appraisals, Performance appraisals, Labor productivity, Psychological research

---

Assembly bonus effect or typical group performance? A comment on Michaelson, Watson, and Black (1989)

Article Abstract:

Michaelson, Watson, and Black (1989) argued that, by using experienced groups working on relevant tasks with real rewards, they were a able to demonstrate an assembly bonus effect (Collins & Guetzkow, 1964) - group performance that is better than the performance of any individual group member or any combination of individual member efforts. Using computer simulations based on Michaelson et al.'s findings and some recent data collected under circumstances similar to those used by Michaealson et al., we demonstrate that it is highly unlikely that they found an assembly bonus effect and that their results are typical of those obtained in standard laboratory experiments on group problem solving. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Michaelson, Larry K.

---

It's not how you frame the question, it's how you interpret the results

Article Abstract:

Michaelson, Watson, Schwartzkopf, and Black (1992) were not convinced by our computer simulations and replication study that their original study (Michaelson, Watson, & Black, 1989) did not provide evidence of an assembly bonus effect. Therefore, we logically reiterate our position that, at the very least, demonstrating an assembly bonus effect requires evidence that interacting groups would have outperformed noninteracting or nominal groups. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Michaelsen, Larry K., Schwartzkopf, Albert

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Creating scholarship and journeying through academia: reflections and interpretations from the field. Autobiography and organizations: theoretical and methodological issues
• Abstracts: Corporal punishment and the mediating effects of parental acceptance-rejection and gender on empathy in a southern rural population
• Abstracts: Effects of product trial on consumer expectations, demand, and prices. A normative model of behavior based upon an activity hierarchy
• Abstracts: The effects of advertisement encoding on the failure to discount information: implications for the sleeper effect
• Abstracts: The effects of advertisement encoding on the failure to discount information: implications for the sleeper effect. part 2

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.