Identifying and Implementing Performance KPIs Using the Socratic Questioning Method: A quasi-experimental field study

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 A graduate Ph.D. of Human Resource Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Full Professor of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior and HRM, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

4 Associate Professor of HRM, Faculty of Management and Economics, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Extended Abstract
Abstract
 The purpose of this study is to design and implement an effective performance management system in a public financial Fund using the Socratic method and dialogues. The first stage of the study seeks to intervene using this method while identify performance criteria and indicators and in the second stage, based on the findings of the previous stage, the purpose is to investigate the impact of interventions on staff performance, employees' perception of supervisor’s behaviors in the performance management process, and PM-related behavioral and attitudinal consequences.
As an explorative mixed method, this study has used the method of dialogue and questioning approach as an intervention technique to extract the key criteria and performance indicators. In the second stage, in order to investigate the effect of the interventions, a quasi-experimental design with unequl groups consisting of three experimental groups, control 1 and control 2 was used. A sample of 166 people was selected from the three groups so that 53 people were selected for the intervention group, 68 people for the control group 1, and 45 people for the control group 2. 
In the qualitative stage, performance criteria were identified, reviewed, and modified. In the quasi-experimental study section, post-test results showed that employees who effectively participated in the process of designing and implementing the performance management system performed better than the control groups.
Introduction
New conditions in public organizations, including lack of satisfaction with government performance and environmental pressure for high-quality services from the public, requires a paradigm shift from a traditional and focused perspective of the performance to a result-based and customer-oriented performance management system (PSM) (Lin and Lee, 2011). Moynihan (2008) shows that multiple stakeholders can interpret performance data from different perspectives, which can lead to different outputs and results. Divers stakeholders' participation and dialogues in the performance management process help to improve performance with a variety of feedbacks (Hörisch et al., 2015). However, Current approaches to performance dialogues does not include diverse perspectives, flexibility, and contextual limitations of public organizations (Pulakos et al., 2015). It is argued that implementing an effective PSM in the public sector requires different metrics for all tasks and participation of various internal and external stakeholders (Deschamps & Mattijs, 2018; Verbeeten, 2008). The Socratic questioning dialogues supports a fluid and dynamic view and considers multiple perspectives. By engaging different participants in the dialogues, firstly this research seeks to identify performance indicators and KPIs, and secondly by implementing the system it tries to investigate its effect on employee’s performance and PM-related attitudes and outcomes.  
Case study
The population of the study was a public Fund consisted of 250 employees. A sample of 166 full-time employees was selected in the experiment and control groups. The number of participants for control group 1 and control group 2 was 45 and 68 people respectively, while for the experiment group it was 53 participants.  
Materials and Methods
Grounding the study in constructive theory, the Socratic questioning and dialogues as a reflective and thoughtful approach were adopted to acquire the performance indicators and KPIs. In order to facilitate the design and implementation of the performance management, this study aims to use a quasi-experimental design with three control, comparison, and intervention groups in a public Fund of over a 3-years study. ANOVA was used to analyze the research data.
Discussion and Results
In the qualitative phase, PM indicators and KPIs were identified. In the quantitative phase, results indicated that employees who participated in the experiment experienced a higher level of performance, perceived desirable supervisor’s behaviors related to the PM process, and showing better PM-related outcomes than control groups. Although the performance of the control groups in some conditions due to a lower level intervention is improved, the performance of both control groups remained constant.
Conclusion
The results of a field study using the Socratic questioning with three groups in a public Fund were provided. Findings indicated that the experimental group performance has significantly increased than control groups. This research indicated the significant role of the questioning and dialogue method in designing and implementing the performance management.

Keywords

References

References
Bang, H., Fuglesang, S. L., Ovesen, M. R., & Eilertsen, D. E. (2010). Effectiveness in top management group meetings: The role of goal clarity, focused communication, and learning behavior. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51(3), 253-261.
Bernasconi, L. E. (2010). Socratic seminars: fostering an environment of critical thinking and self-confidence in the classroom. Capstone Projects and Master's Theses.
Bianchi, C. (2016). Fostering Sustainable Organizational Development Through Dynamic Performance Management. In Dynamic Performance Management (pp. 71-139). Springer, Cham.
Bowling, A., Khazon, S., Alarcon, M., Blackmore, E., Bragg, B., Hoepf, R., ... & Li, H. (2017). Building better measures of role ambiguity and role conflict: The validation of new role stressor scales. Work & Stress, 31(1), 1-23.
Buick, F., Blackman, A., O'Donnell, E., O'Flynn, L., & West, D. (2015). Can enhanced performance management support public sector change?. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28 )2(,271-289.
Carey, T.A., & Mullan, R.J. (2004). What is Socratic questioning?. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41(3), 217.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. United Kingdom: Academic Press. 
Couturier, J., & Sklavounos, N. (2019). Performance dialogue: A framework to enhance the effectiveness of performance measurement systems. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 68(4), 699-720.
De Bruijn, H. (2002), Managing Performance in the Public Sector, Routledge, London.
De Waal, A. A., & Coevert, V. (2007). The effect of performance management on the organizational results of a bank. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 56 (5/6), 397-416.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Edmondson, A. C. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. In Kramer RM, Cook KS (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 239-272). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Erdogan, B. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisal. ­Human Resource Management Review,12(4),555-578.
Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment, 2007(1), 1-23.
Folger, R., & Bies, R. J. (1989). Managerial responsibilities and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 79-90.
Hall, M. (2011). Do comprehensive performance measurement systems help or hinder managers’ mental model development?. Management Accounting Research, 22(2), 68-83.
Keleş, S., & Aycan, Z. (2011). The relationship of managerial values and assumptions with performance management in Turkey: understanding within culture variability. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(15), 3080-3096.
Kim, S. E., & Rubianty, D. (2011). Perceived fairness of performance appraisals in the federal government: Does it matter?. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31(4), 329-348.
Kinicki, A. J., Jacobson, K. J., Peterson, S. J., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). Development and validation of the performance management behavior questionnaire. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), 1-45.
Kleingeld, A. D., Van Tuijl, H., & Algera, J. A. (2004). Participation in the design of performance management systems: a quasi‐experimental field study. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(7), 831-851.
Krone, K. J. (1993). A review and assessment of communication research on questioning. Progress in Communication Sciences, 11, 179-206.
Laihonen, H., and Mäntylä, S. (2017). Principles of performance dialogue in public administration. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 30 (5),1-16. 
Leatherdale, S. T. (2019). Natural experiment methodology for research: a review of how different methods can support real-world research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(1), 19-35.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In Social exchange (pp. 27-55). Gergen, Kenneth J.; Greenberg, Martin S.; Willis, Richard H. (eds.), Springer, Boston, MA.
Lin, S., & Lee, Y. (2011). Performance Management in Public Organizations: A Complexity Perspective. International Public Management Review, 12(2).
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
Lowe, A., & Jones, A. (2004). Emergent strategy and the measurement of performance: The formulation of performance indicators at the microlevel. Organization Studies, 25(8), 1313-1337.
Macey, W. H., Barbera, K. M., Young, S. A., Schneider, B. (2011). Employee Engagement: Tools for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage. Germany: Wiley.
Mone, E.M., & London, M. (2018). Employee Engagement Through Effective Performance Management: A Practical Guide for Managers (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315626529.
Moynihan, D.P. (2008). The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Neenan, M. (2008). Using Socratic questioning in coaching. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 27(4), 249–264.
Oyler, D. R., & Romanelli, F. (2014). The fact of ignorance revisiting the Socratic method as a tool for teaching critical thinking. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(7), 144.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2007). Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(1), 36.
Pritchard, R. D., Harrell, M. M., DiazGranados, D., & Guzman, M. J. (2008). The productivity measurement and enhancement system: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 540–567.
Rainey, H. G. (1993). Toward a theory of goal ambiguity in public organizations. Research in Public Administration, 2(1), 121-166.
Rajala, T. & Laihonen, H. (2022). Fragmentation and performance dialogues in public management. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 35 (2), 211-235.
Rajala, T., Laihonen, H. and Haapala, P. (2018), "Why is dialogue on performance challenging in the public sector?", Measuring Business Excellence, 22 (2), 117-129.
Rentsch, R. (1990).Climate and culture: Interaction and qualitative differences in organizational meanings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 668.
Rousseau, D. M., & Barends, E. G. (2011). Becoming an evidence‐based HR practitioner. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(3), 221-235.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716.
Schleicher, D. J., Baumann, H. M., Sullivan, D. W., & Yim, J. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of performance management: A 30-year integrative conceptual review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(7), 851.
Verbeeten, F.H.M. (2008). Performance management practices in public sector organizations: Impact on performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21 (3), 427-454.
Wang, W. (2007). Evaluation of 2+ 2 alternative teacher performance appraisal program in Shanxi, People's Republic of China. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1012-1023.
Yang, Y. T. C., Newby, T. J., & Bill, R. L. (2005). Using Socratic questioning to promote critical thinking skills through asynchronous discussion forums in distance learning environments. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 163-181.
Youngcourt, S., leiva, I., & jones, G. (2007).Perceived purposes of performance appraisal: correlates of individual‐and position‐focused purposes on attitudinal outcomes. Human resource development quarterly, 18(3), 315-343.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics