A Systems Critique of Gilbert’s PIPs

by William B. Abernathy, Ph.D.
Abernathy & Associates

In Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance, Gilbert describes a seven step ‘performance audit’. Accomplishments and requirements are identified and then exemplar and typical performances are determined. An index of Potential for Improvement Performance (PIP) is computed and then the value or ‘stakes’ of the improvement potential is assessed. Gilbert summarizes this process by stating, “Remember, our only reason for measuring is to discover our opportunities for performance engineering.”

Tom Gilbert and I worked together at Union National Bank. I found Tom’s ability to engineer solutions to specific performance problems, especially training issues, to be nothing less than remarkable. After work, we would argue late into the night about the role of measurement and systems vs. local interventions. Tom’s view was that there was no reason to measure or reinforce ‘accomplishments’ that were already ‘worthy.’ Such a practice was a diversion of focus and resources. The purpose of measurement was simply to identify improvement opportunities.

Is this really our only reason for measuring? A well-organized, formal measurement system prompts employees to focus on key outcomes, provides on-going performance feedback, and can be linked to other human resource functions including job design, selection, training, performance appraisal, and compensation. My experience has been that limiting the role of performance measures to a ‘diagnostic’ function results in unsustainable improvements. This is so, because there has been no change in the fundamental contingencies of reinforcement within the organization. The PIP-based measure is ‘ad-hoc’ and is typically reinforced through temporary recognition and low-value award programs. No change is made in how the organization really works. That is, no change is made in the basic bureaucratic structure of the organization, managing through exception, subjective performance reviews, and the wage and salary pay plan. This narrow project approach to a systems problem is like moving deck chairs on the Titanic or putting a band-aid on a cancer patient.
A second rationale for comprehensive measurement is that no single measure adequately describes performance. Imagine a pilot who is scanning dozens of gauges to determine the condition and location of the plane. What if we simply turned off all the gauges that were displaying acceptable (worthy) conditions? Is this any way to fly a plane? Yet, most OBM projects describe only the effects of a procedure on one dimension of the performance. This is like saying the pilot maintained the goal airspeed 98% of the time. Unfortunately the plane ran out of fuel and crashed – but the intervention was a success! I suspect this one-dimensional view is “rodentiamorphic.”

A final rationale for comprehensive measurement concerns the interdependencies among performance dimensions. If a person types faster, they often make more mistakes. If a person is very careful and makes no mistakes, he will likely take longer to complete the letter. In organizations, these interdependencies are quite common. I learned the hard way that a narrow intervention focused on one performance dimension will likely produce problems in other dimensions. For example, a salesperson’s performance is measured on revenue. Perhaps, a commission is also paid. The result is usually that revenue increases, but at what cost? The sales person sells to people who won’t pay, discounts the product to the point that there is no profit, makes delivery promises that create expensive overtime in operations, and ignores good customers who are not likely to buy something in the short term.

Gilbert’s concept of the PIP was an important improvement over previous intervention logics because it focused the OBM practitioner on outcomes that were important to the organization. Improvements in job satisfaction and the like were replaced with measured improvements in specific objective accomplishments that had real value. This model should be expanded to more of a ‘systems’ view that considers the complex interrelations between performances and among performances and organizational contingencies. The first step in expanding the model is to measure all relevant performance dimensions systematically over the long term. The second step is to integrate the measures with the organization’s contingencies of reinforcement.

References

Gilbert, T. F. (1996) Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance. Tribute Edition. International Society for Performance Improvement: Washington, DC.