formerly National Police Research Unit

Handbook of effective supervisory behaviour

Report Series No. 107.2

This publication was obtained from www.acpr.gov.au

 HANDBOOK OF EFFECTIVE
SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOUR

Dr Neil Brewer†

†
Department of Psychology, Flinders University of South Australia
Produced by the National Police Research Unit
298 Payneham Road, Payneham SA 5070

© 1995 National Police Research Unit

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER 1. THE NATURE OF EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION AND

LEADERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Existing theory and research ................................................................................ 3
A behavioural approach ...................................................................................... 4
Behavioural correlates of effective supervision ..................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2. CONVEYING PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS:

INSTRUCTIONS, MODELLING AND GOAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Instructions .......................................................................................................... 7
Modelling............................................................................................................ 9
Goal setting ....................................................................................................... 11
Management by objectives ................................................................................ 13

CHAPTER 3. PROVIDING PERFORMANCE CONSEQUENCES:

REINFORCEMENT, FEEDBACK, AND AVERSIVE CONSEQUENCES . . . 15
Using consequences to increase desirable behaviour ......................................... 16
Types and selection of consequences ........................................................... 16
Corrective feedback or knowledge of results ................................................. 18
Neutral feedback ......................................................................................... 19
Delivering performance consequences ......................................................... 20
Negative reinforcement ................................................................................ 22
Using consequences to reduce undesirable behaviour ....................................... 23
Punishment .................................................................................................. 23
Non-aversive approaches ............................................................................. 24
Police supervision and the use of consequences ................................................ 25

CHAPTER 4. PROVIDING PERFORMANCE CONSEQUENCES:

FEEDBACK EFFECTIVENESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Task characteristics ............................................................................................ 27
Feedback acceptance ........................................................................................ 28
Feedback delivery and distortion ....................................................................... 28
Group feedback ................................................................................................ 30

National Police
Research Unit
i
 CHAPTER 5. MONITORING PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
The role of performance monitoring ................................................................... 31
Methods of monitoring ...................................................................................... 32
Using different methods of monitoring ............................................................... 34
The extent of monitoring .................................................................................... 35
Police supervision and performance monitoring ................................................. 35

CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

National Police
Research Unit
ii
Introduction

It is generally recognised that one of the key functions of individuals in supervisory or

leadership roles is the promotion of the attainment of organisational goals by their
colleagues and subordinates. Knowing how supervisors should go about influencing
their colleagues and subordinates has implications not only for improving
organisational performance but also for some fundamental organisational practices
such as those associated with the selection, training and appraisal of supervisors and
leaders.

The aim of this Handbook is to spell out precisely what we know about how
supervisors can influence their subordinates to achieve organisational goals. Broad
empirical support exists for the influence on performance of most of the principles
outlined in the following chapters. In those few cases where supporting empirical
evidence is not yet available, there are strong theoretical grounds underlying the
principles put forward.

The Handbook spans the following content areas. Chapter 1 provides a brief
overview of existing theory and data on the characteristics of effective supervision
and leadership. This review encompasses all of the major perspectives on leadership
and supervision, but particular emphasis is placed on recent work which has focused
on behavioural characteristics associated with effective leadership across various
occupational situations. The reason for this emphasis is a straight-forward one: clear-
cut implications for supervisory practice emerge from this work.

Chapter 2 focuses on the various methods of conveying performance expectations to

subordinates. Content encompasses procedures for providing instructions, modelling
new behaviours, setting goals for subordinate performance, and the procedure called
management by objectives. Variables which influence the effectiveness of these
procedures are also reviewed.

Chapters 3 and 4 deal with the principles and methods of providing performance
consequences to subordinates. Chapter 3 focuses on identification of effective
performance consequences such as access to preferred activities, social reinforcers,
and motivating and corrective feedback; the scheduling of reinforcement; shaping and
chaining of behaviour; the nature and role of corrective feedback; the use of negative
reinforcement; the use of aversive stimuli to reduce undesirable behaviour; and
extinction. Chapter 4 examines variables that influence the effectiveness of feedback
on both individual and group performance. These variables encompass supervisor,
subordinate and task characteristics. This chapter also examines those factors which
influence whether or not feedback is given, how often it is given, and its accuracy.

Chapter 5 is concerned with the role of performance monitoring in supervision. The

relationships between performance monitoring, performance consequences and
subordinate performance are highlighted and the advantages and disadvantages of the
various methods of monitoring are reviewed. The way in which methods of
monitoring should vary with task and individual characteristics are also examined.

National Police
Research Unit
1
 The final chapter provides some suggestions on how this material might be
incorporated into training, and some comments on how to supervise the supervisor.

Two remaining points should be noted before embarking on the following chapters.
First, some may see these principles as applying particularly to the supervisory level
of sergeant, particularly given the earlier work with this group (Brewer, 1991). It is
important to emphasise at the outset, however, that the broad empirical support
underpinning these principles argues for their general application to supervisors or
leaders at all organisational levels. Second, many will doubtless recognise some of
the principles outlined in these chapters as matching some of their current supervisory
practices (perhaps minus the formal name). Nevertheless, it is important to bear in
mind not only that some people seldom apply such principles (as will be shown in
Chapter 1), but also that most people fail to use them in a systematic and consistent
manner. The position adopted here is that these principles work and should be
applied systematically by supervisors at all organisational levels.

National Police
Research Unit
2
Chapter 1
The Nature of Effective Supervision and
Leadership

The role of a leader or supervisor can be broadly conceptualised as encompassing

two major components. One is perhaps best described as problem analysis and
decision making and includes the dimensions of information gathering, identifying
and evaluating possible strategies and courses of action, and deciding upon and
implementing the chosen course. The other component involves what is commonly
referred to as motivation or communication and encompasses attempts to influence
colleagues and subordinates in the pursuit of organisational goals. The principal
concern of this and subsequent chapters is this second component.

EXISTING THEORY AND RESEARCH

Attempts to come to grips with the motivational aspect of effective leadership and
supervision have spawned extensive theorising and empirical research. While
researchers have approached this question from a variety of perspectives, the
dominant approaches have been those provided by trait, style and situational theories.
Trait theory approaches to understanding leader effectiveness have been concerned
with establishing whether or not effective leaders can be reliably distinguished from
ineffective leaders in terms of particular individual characteristics (e.g., age, sex,
height, intelligence, masculinity, self-confidence, authoritarianism, creativity, social
perceptiveness) or combinations of characteristics. Although popular
conceptualisations of the effective leader tend to emphasise particular traits or
personality features, and evidence indicates that personal traits may influence
people’s perceptions of leadership (Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986), the existence of
relationships between stable leader traits and leader effectiveness in motivating
subordinates is not in fact supported by the hard evidence (Stogdill, 1974).

Much more influential in discussions on the nature of leadership have been those
leadership theories which emphasise the leader’s style or predisposition to behave
according to a particular pattern (e.g., Blake & Mouton, 1969; Fleishman, 1953;
Likert, 1967) or the interaction between the leader’s style and situational variables
(e.g., Fiedler, 1967; Hersey & Blanchard, 1982; House & Mitchell, 1974). Leadership
theories have typically represented leadership style as varying along a continuum
from directive to supportive or along two independent, but similarly described,
dimensions. Situational theories basically postulate that leader effectiveness is
dependent upon the compatibility of the leader’s style and the situation or context in
which he or she is operating. The situational variables emphasised vary across specific
theories and include, for example, factors such as the leader-group relations, the
degree of task structure and the leader’s position power, or various subordinate and
environmental characteristics.

National Police
Research Unit
3
 The aim of the majority of these approaches has been, in essence, to identify
invariants of leader behaviour or leader-subordinate relations which are associated
with effective group performance. While these theoretical approaches and the
associated empirical work have significantly expanded our understanding of
leadership processes, none of the models can claim unequivocal research support
(Luthans, 1989; Scott & Podsakoff, 1982).

Furthermore, when it comes to prescribing what it is that leaders or supervisors

should do and say to get the best out of their subordinates, these perspectives are not
particularly helpful. They provide a basis for discussing the broad dimensions of
leadership and the way in which people perceive leaders, but not the precise
behavioural detail that can be incorporated into sharply focused supervisory or
leadership training.

A BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH
An alternative approach is to conceptualise supervision and leadership as a behaviour
or a set of behaviours that, in turn, influence the behaviour and, therefore, the
performance of others. Examples of this theoretical approach have been articulated
in the leadership literature by Davis and Luthans (1979) and Scott and Podsakoff
(1982). Such an approach is appealing because it provides much more obvious
implications for practice than most alternative approaches (i.e., it is possible to train
people to behave in certain ways). However, before this behavioural approach can be
applied to supervisor training, it is important to demonstrate that certain supervisor
behaviours consistently improve subordinate performance.

Recently, this issue has been addressed by Komaki and her collegues (Komaki, 1986;
Komaki, Desselles, & Bowman, 1989; Komaki, Zlotnick, & Jensen, 1986) in a series of
studies designed to identify the behavioural correlates of effective supervision. The
cornerstone of their approach was the development of a measuring instrument (the
Operant Supervisory Taxonomy and Index, or OSTI) - based on the well-established
principles of operant conditioning - which permitted the systematic categorisation of
behavioural interactions between supervisors and their subordinates. Thus, in contrast
with much of the research in this area where the predominant methodological
approaches have involved psychological testing, analyses of verbal descriptions of
supervisor or leader behaviour, or ratings of characteristics of individuals perceived as
leaders or emergent leaders, the emphasis of this approach has been on direct
behavioural measurement.

Influenced by the pivotal role assigned to performance antecedents and

consequences in operant accounts of behaviour, Komaki et al. (1986) argued that
effective supervisors would be more likely than their not-so-effective peers (a) to
make clear their expectations of subordinate performance (referred to as antecedents),
(b) to provide appropriate consequences for subordinate performance, and (c) given
that the delivery of contingent consequences requires accurate data on performance,
to collect information on or monitor subordinate performance systematically.

National Police
Research Unit
4
Thus, the particular focus of the OSTI was on the performance-related categories of
antecedents, consequences and monitoring, although every other observed
supervisory behaviour could be classified into one of a number of other categories
(i.e., own performance, work related, non-work related and solitary activity).
Performance antecedents refer to the instructions, rules and goals which cue
behaviour or draw attention to the likely relationships between behaviour and its
consequences. Performance consequences encompass behaviours which indicate
knowledge of subordinate performance (e.g., positive recognition or reinforcement,
neutral encouragement, corrective feedback and reprimands), and may serve either a
motivational or instructional function, or both. Performance monitoring refers to the
collection of information on subordinate performance (e.g., by observing
performance, inspecting work products, obtaining self-reports from subordinates, or
obtaining reports from a third party). Monitoring provides the data on which
performance consequences are based, as well as providing a cue which indicates the
relative importance of various components of the work and, in turn, affects
performance via a redirection of individual resources. (For a more detailed
description of the OSTI and how it is actually used to collect data, refer to Komaki et
al. [1986] and Brewer [1991]).

BEHAVIOURAL CORRELATES OF EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION

Several examinations of supervisory behaviour have now been conducted with the
OSTI. Komaki et al. (1986) established that measurements using the OSTI could be
conducted reliably, that as few as 20 half-hour observation sessions provided
representative data on supervisory behaviour, and that the instrument could
discriminate between individual supervisors and across occupations. In a follow-up
study, Komaki (1986) contrasted the behaviour of two groups of supervisors,
respectively identified by their superiors as highly effective and marginally effective
leaders. The two groups differed in the time they spent collecting performance
information and in the way that they did so. Effective supervisors spent significantly
more time monitoring subordinates’ performance. Moreover, they spent more time
directly sampling their subordinates’ work, either by watching them perform the work
or by inspecting their work products or output. Although the two groups did not differ
in the extent of their delivery of performance consequences, the effective supervisors
were, through their closer monitoring, better placed to provide consequences that
were directly linked to performance.

In a subsequent study in a different commercial setting, Jensen and Komaki (see

Komaki et al., 1989) found that when the level of monitoring was sufficient, effective
and not-so-effective supervisors were discriminated by the amount of time they spent
recognising or correcting subordinate performance. In their most recent study,
Komaki et al. (1989) obtained further support for their model in an exploration of
supervisory behaviours associated with effective team performance. In the context of
a round robin sailing regatta (with type of boat, crew size and expertise controlled
and randomly allocated to skippers), significant correlations were found between
both the skippers’ use of performance monitoring and consequences and the
objective index of team performance provided by the series standings of the skippers’
boats after the series of races.

National Police
Research Unit
5
 More recently, Brewer (1991) examined the generality of Komaki et al.’s (1986) model
of effective supervision in an organisation characterised by a quasi-military or much
more rigid chain of command (i.e., a police department). The patrol sergeant, the
supervisor of a team of general duties officers, was the supervisory level targetted,
with supervisory effectiveness referenced by performance ratings of the team of
subordinates. Consistent with Komaki’s earlier work, Brewer (1991) found that
effective supervisors (i.e., those with high-performing teams) spent more time
monitoring subordinate performance and providing positive, negative and neutral
consequences or feedback. Moreover, team performance was strongly correlated
with the time supervisors allocated to those solitary activities which provided more
opportunities for monitoring performance and providing contingent consequences.
Thus, for example, sergeants who spent a lot of time on the road were less likely to
interact with subordinates and, hence, opportunities for monitoring and providing
contingent consequences were reduced. Conversely, those who spent more time at
their desks had increased opportunities for interaction (as patrols passed through the
station for any of a number of reasons) and, hence, for monitoring and providing
contingent consequences.

Brewer (1991) also drew attention to some potentially important characteristics of

supervision within the police organisation. Contrasts of police supervisors with
supervisors in other organisational settings revealed differences in the use of
antecedents and consequences, and in the methods of monitoring performance. The
nature and implications of these differences are discussed further in the subsequent
relevant chapters.

In summary, there is now a consistent body of evidence obtained from a variety of

organisational settings which (a) supports the behavioural conceptualisation of
effective supervision advanced by Komaki and her colleagues, and (b) allows us to
advocate some important general principles of effective supervision. In particular, the
critical roles of performance monitoring and performance consequences have been
highlighted. Subsequent chapters expand on the ways in which these behaviours
should be enacted, and on variables influencing their effect on performance. Further,
although in these recent studies effective and not-so-effective supervisors were not
discriminated by the extent of their use of antecedents, there are a number of other
parameters of antecedent delivery which research has shown are directly related to
performance effectiveness. Consequently, the next chapter is devoted to the use of
performance antecedents.

National Police
Research Unit
6
Chapter 2
Conveying Performance Expectations:
Instructions, Modelling and Goal Setting

This chapter focuses on the various methods of conveying performance expectations

to subordinates or what are generally referred to as performance antecedents. These
encompass procedures such as instructions, the modelling of behaviours, goal setting,
and the more global organisational procedure of management-by-objectives.

The key feature of performance antecedents is that they draw attention to the likely
relationship between behaviour and its consequences and, in many cases, to exactly
those circumstances in which particular consequences are likely to be associated
with behaviour. One fundamental (though apparently frequently unrecognised or
ignored) implication of this is that the effectiveness of performance antecedents is
dependent upon the provision of appropriate consequences for target behaviour.
Supervisors, therefore, should not expect that procedures such as instructions,
modelling and goal setting will inevitably produce the desired levels of performance.
Combined with the use of appropriate performance consequences (see Chapters 3
and 4), however, these procedures form a valuable part of the supervisor’s repertoire.

INSTRUCTIONS
Instructions are doubtless the most commonly used form of antecedents, typically
specifying the behaviour that is required and any particular conditions associated
with the production of that behaviour. Many instructions are perhaps more
appropriately referred to as commands. Commands encompass those cases where a
supervisor directs a subordinate to carry out some activity which is clearly within the
subordinate’s capabilities. In other words, the expectation is that the subordinate can
perform that activity without any further learning.

Examples of such commands (taken from actual supervisor-subordinate interactions)

might include:

If it’s quiet it may pay to get some of the typing done.

Give the owners a call to make sure they know there was damage to the
property.

Leave the shotgun up there, mate.

Commands can be expressed in a variety of ways. They may be very direct

expressions of what is required (e.g., 'Leave the shotgun up there, mate.').
Alternatively, they may be expressed more tentatively or gently, often prefaced, for
example, by phrases such as 'It would be a good idea if ...', 'Why don’t you think
about ...', or 'If you could ...'. There is no evidence to suggest that such variations in
the way in which instructions are expressed will affect subsequent performance,
provided that (a) the expectations of behaviour or performance are made specific, and
(b) the person(s) responsible for carrying out the behaviour is clearly identified.
National Police
Research Unit
7
 While these last two qualifications may seem obvious, and even trite, anyone who
has worked in an organisational setting for even a brief period of time could doubtless
bring to mind numerous examples of situations where subordinates were not clear as
to exactly what they were supposed to do, when they were supposed to do it, or even
exactly who was supposed to do it. Perhaps it is because commands require minimal
preparation, are used so frequently, and apparently do not require special
qualifications or experience, that we often take little care in ensuring that they are
well-structured and unambiguous, and that the recipient understands exactly what is
required.

The other major category of instructions is, of course, accurately described by the
label 'instructions', and refers to those cases where supervisors are trying to develop
new skills or to improve existing skills of their subordinates. There is now an
extensive body of knowledge available in the area of instructional principles and
design (Gagné, 1987; Gagné, Briggs, & Wager, 1988), and supervisors - particularly
those whose supervisory role incorporates a substantial instructional or training
component - should be advantaged by expanding their skills in these areas.

There are, however, certain basic instructional principles with which all supervisors
should be familiar. The first step is to identify the procedure or rule which prescribes
how the activity or skill to be acquired is executed. This provides the content of the
instruction. Next, the supervisor must decide upon the form in which the instructions
are to be presented; that is, are they to be presented verbally or in written form?
Verbal instructions have the obvious advantage of being more readily modifiable as
learning progresses. This is important because, in the early stages of learning,
instructions need to be more explicit or precise than during later stages. Given that
we are limited in our capacity to recall detailed instructions, the development of
more complex skills will require that verbal instructions be carefully broken down
into smaller, more manageable components. Under these circumstances, written
instructions can prove advantageous because a readily accessible record of the
various components of the instructions is always available.

If instruction is to be effective, it is crucial that the subordinate practises or rehearses

the target behaviour, and the supervisor monitors and provides feedback on the
subordinate’s attempts. Instructions may cue the desired behaviour, and the
behaviour may even approach the desired form; but it is most unlikely that all aspects
of the instructions will be adhered to from the outset. Consequently, the development
of the target behaviour must be carefully monitored and appropriate corrective
feedback given if the behaviour is to be shaped in the desired direction. One
procedure which has been shown to be a useful adjunct to external instruction is to
encourage the use of self-instruction, a process involving the active rehearsal of the
instructions by the individual. Self-instruction may be either overt (i.e., aloud) or
covert. (Overt self-instruction may be preferable because, especially in the earlier
stages of learning, it allows the supervisor to monitor the subordinate’s mastery of
instructions.) It is important to re-emphasise, therefore, that it is inappropriate to
assume or even to expect, that the supervisor’s responsibility should end with the
delivery of instructions.

Another important consideration in providing effective instruction is the planning of

the withdrawal of instructions. Abrupt cessation or withdrawal of instructions is likely
to cause disruption to the newly established behaviour, with the likelihood of the
disruption increasing with increasing task complexity. To avoid such disruption,

National Police
Research Unit
8
instructions should be gradually removed using a process known as fading. Fading of
the instructional cues should begin as soon as the behaviour is occurring reliably in
the presence of the instructions. This ensures that the subordinate does not become
dependent on the instructions for continued production of the behaviour. At the same
time it reduces the likelihood that the behaviour will be disrupted by relatively minor
changes to the instructions.

As the term applies, fading should occur over a number of graduated steps, the
number of steps and the difference between these steps (i.e, the amount by which
instructions are changed) being determined by the ability of the subordinate to adapt
to the progression. There are several obvious ways of fading instructions. One is
simply to reduce or to abbreviate the amount or content of the information. Another is
to present the instructions more intermittently. A third fading procedure allows the
subordinate more and more time to initiate the behaviour before the supervisor
prompts performance with the instructions.

To conclude this section, it is appropriate to draw attention to one of the findings

reported by Brewer (1991) in a study of supervisory behaviour in a policing context.
It was expected that, in a quasi-military organisation such as the police service,
supervisors would be more likely to use antecedents to manage performance than
would supervisors in other organisational settings. Not only was this expectation not
confirmed, but it was also found that police supervisors spent only about half as much
time providing performance antecedents as supervisors from a variety of other
settings. A typical interpretation of this difference is that many of the instructional
functions of the police supervisor are provided by the more experienced subordinates
on the team. Yet, in the other organisations examined there were also likely to be
experienced subordinates who assumed various instructional or directional roles. An
alternative, more pessimistic explanation for the low level of antecedents is that
supervisors in such tightly controlled organisational settings may operate under the
premise that it is the subordinate’s responsibility to know what is expected of them
and to carry out these expectations. Should this explanation be accurate, the obvious
implication is that junior police officers, especially those with limited experience,
may often be unclear or misdirected in their interpretations of the performance
standards expected of them.

MODELLING
Just as instructions can be used to draw attention to likely relationships between
behaviour and its consequences, so can the use of a model. In essence, a model
provides a demonstration of a target behaviour, and when people learn in this way it
is referred to as modelling, observational learning or imitation learning. Modelling is
often used in conjunction with other antecedents such as instructions.

As in the area of instructional principles and design, there is a substantial literature on

modelling (e.g., Bandura, 1969, 1971, 1977; Manz & Sims, 1981) which allows us to
identify a number of basic principles governing the likelihood of effective modelling.
In this section, these basic principles are summarised, and an account of a study
which used modelling to improve the performance of first-line supervisors is provided
to illustrate the efficacy of the procedure.

National Police
Research Unit
9
 The nature or form of the model is likely to be an important determinant of the
effectiveness of modelling. For example, a model that merely illustrates the outcome
or end result of the behaviour may illustrate what has to be done, but not how to do
it. Much preferred, therefore, is a model that clearly illustrates the actual production
of the behaviour. It is also advantageous to exaggerate or to accentuate the key
features of the behaviour (e.g., by demonstrating the behaviour in slow motion),
particularly during the initial stages of learning.

Another important variable is the medium of presentation which, of course, can range
from a real-life model through various representational forms such as video, still
photographs and drawings. Previous research has consistently shown that the more
realistic or life-like the model, the more effective it is likely to be. Thus, a real-life
demonstration or a video of an actual person modelling the behaviour will generally
prove more effective than diagrammatic representations of the behaviour. The
characteristics of the model are also important. For example, the model is more likely
to be effective if he or she is liked and respected by the observer and is perceived as
having credibility and expertise or as being in some senses similar to the observer
(e.g., has had to grapple with the task before eventually mastering it). Often,
therefore, a supervisor might choose to have a well-respected subordinate model
desired behaviours for his or her peers.

Two other considerations have been shown to influence model effectiveness. First,
subordinates’ performance will be facilitated if, instead of passively observing the
model, they are required to engage in some kind of active verbal or symbolic coding
of the modelled activities. Such coding might, for example, involve the observer
taking note of the key points demonstrated by the model and writing them down in
their own words, or imagining themselves carrying out the various steps demonstrated
by the model (cf. Decker, 1982).

Second, the model should indicate the likely consequences of carrying out the
behaviour effectively. When the model has completed the demonstration of the
relevant behaviour, he or she should be seen to receive any feedback or
consequences that would normally follow the behaviour. These consequences should
be of a kind that is valued by the observer. Take for example, officers faced with an
ethically challenging situation. Those who have seen a model receive positive
consequences for certain behaviour in a similar situation are more likely to reproduce
this behaviour.

The importance of the subordinate systematically rehearsing the desired or target

behaviour and receiving appropriate corrective feedback on the development of the
behaviour has been emphasised previously, and is no less applicable when using a
model to promote behavioural change.

The same principles outlined earlier when discussing instructions also apply to the
termination of modelling. In other words, the model should be gradually faded rather
than abruptly terminated. The most appropriate ways of fading a model will be to
present it more intermittently, to allow the subordinate more and more time to initiate
the behaviour before prompting with a model, or to increase gradually the delay
between the presentation of the model and the opportunity for the individual to carry
out the behaviour.

National Police
Research Unit
10
One example of the use of modelling is found in the often cited study by Latham and
Saari (1979). This study is particularly relevant because the focus of the modelling
program was on the improvement of supervisory effectiveness. The study was carried
out with first-line supervisors in an industrial setting. Supervisors received nine, two-
hour, weekly training sessions on separate topics such as orienting a new employee,
giving recognition, motivating poor performers, and correcting poor work habits. The
focus of each training session was a film showing a supervisor handling the particular
interaction with a subordinate, and highlighting a small set of learning points (e.g., 3-
6) to facilitate encoding of the modelled behaviour. After viewing the model,
supervisors practised the target behaviour in role play exercises and experienced a
feedback session on their performance in the role play. Thus, the program
incorporated the key elements of a life-like model, a technique to help encoding of
the modelled information, rehearsal of the behaviour, and feedback on progress.
Supervisors trained in this way showed superior performance to a control group on a
variety of measures encompassing supervisors’ own evaluations of the utility of the
program, independent evaluations of their performance in novel role play situations,
and the frequency of on-the-job occurrence of various supervisory behaviours as
assessed by their superiors over an eight month period.

GOAL SETTING
Another procedure that has been shown to be effective in influencing subordinate
performance is goal setting. A goal typically refers to a specific level of task
proficiency or a specific pattern of task performance. In goal setting, the aim is for
the individual to achieve a given goal or target, usually within a specific period of
time.

In recent years numerous laboratory and field studies have examined the effects of
goal setting on performance and the variables which influence the effectiveness of
goal setting (see Locke & Latham [1990] and Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham [1981] for
reviews). There are several major findings of particular relevance to the focus of this
handbook. First, positive relationships between goal difficulty and task performance
have been demonstrated across a variety of tasks. More particularly, the evidence
indicates that specific, difficult goals result in higher levels of performance than either
do your best goals or no goals, with the latter two conditions generally not differing.
This finding has proven to be highly reliable (although later discussion will reveal
some exceptions) and has been attributed to the fact that specific, difficult goals
produce more specific task focus, strategic redirection and increased effort.

One issue which has commanded considerable attention is the question of who
should set the goals. Stimulated by the often-stated position that participation in
setting goals will promote greater commitment and enhanced performance, a number
of studies have compared the effects of assigned versus participative goal setting.
While differences in both commitment and performance between the two conditions
have been reported, factors such as goal difficulty and specificity generally have not
been equivalent across conditions. When those variables have been controlled,
considerable doubt exists as to whether assigned and participative goal setting
differentially affect commitment and performance. Interestingly, there is also
evidence to suggest that whether goals are assigned or set participatively may
influence goal difficulty (which, of course, influences performance). Unfortunately,
however, the evidence available to date does not allow us to specify which of these
conditions will lead to the setting of optimum goals.
National Police
Research Unit
11
 It has also been noted that goal setting is more effective when accompanied by
specific feedback to subordinates on how they are progressing towards the goal.
However, no consistent evidence has emerged linking the effects of goal setting to
individual characteristics such as age, sex, race, education, job tenure, or a variety of
personality variables (e.g., need for achievement, independence, self-esteem).

Overall, therefore, the picture that clearly emerges is that goal setting is a procedure
that supervisors can employ to improve subordinate performance. By carefully
setting quite specific, challenging goals, supervisors can encourage significantly better
performance. Exactly who devises the targets appears not to be so important, but
keeping subordinates in touch with their progress towards the goals is.

There are, however, two important qualifications to these recommendations. First, the
effects of goal setting on performance are less for more complex tasks than for
relatively simple tasks (Wood, Mento, & Locke, 1987). Second, there are certain
situations in which specific, difficult goals will result in lower levels of performance
than more general, do your best goals (Earley, Connolly, & Ekegren, 1989).

What factors then determine whether goal setting will produce significant and
beneficial effects? It seems that goal setting works well in relatively simple tasks
(e.g., clerical tasks, manipulative tasks) where increased attention and effort are
closely correlated with improved performance. Also, because setting difficult goals
encourages the exploration of possible strategies for maximising performance, goal
setting also seems to work well where the number of possible strategies that can be
employed on a task is limited, and the success of any that are tried quickly becomes
obvious. However, a different picture emerges in more complex tasks where
numerous alternative strategies might be applied and the long term effectiveness of
any particular strategy is not immediately obvious. Setting difficult goals in such tasks
has negative effects, apparently because it encourages people to keep experimenting
with different strategies instead of more carefully evaluating and refining each
possible strategy.

The above argument is perhaps best illustrated by a couple of examples. Imagine that
patrol officers were set a specific and difficult goal (worked out on the basis of past
performance) of effecting a certain proportion of apprehensions of juvenile offenders
without becoming involved in physical conflict. Goal setting would encourage
officers to try out several strategies for dealing with offenders. They would receive
prompt feedback on the efficacy of those approaches, and could adjust their
approach accordingly in order to meet the goal.

Consider instead, however, an officer who is responsible for conducting extended

negotiations with offenders in a siege or hostage situation. Doubtless there is a
variety of strategies or tactics that the officer could implement in such negotiations,
but the success, or likely success, of such strategies generally would not be
immediately obvious. Rather, it probably would only be by careful and systematic
testing of each strategic alternative over a period of time that the officer would be
able to identify the most appropriate strategy for resolving the incident. In such a
case, setting a specific, difficult goal (e.g., resolve a certain proportion of situations
within n minutes) would, however, encourage the less appropriate approach of trying
out a variety of quite different strategies. Similarly, to approach a complex strategic
problem such as reducing crime in a particular patrol area by setting subordinates a
specific goal of reducing crime by n% within a certain period would probably lead to

National Police
Research Unit
12
an unsystematic or piecemeal exploration of a range of strategies (without ever
properly evaluating their effectiveness), rather than a systematic testing and
refinement of a well-conceived strategic approach.

Despite these qualifications on the efficacy of goal setting, for most supervisors there
will be a wide range of activities for which employing goal setting procedures,
combined with appropriate monitoring and feedback, can be expected to improve
subordinate performance significantly.

MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES
One procedure which is used in one form or another in many organisational settings
is management by objectives. The procedure closely parallels goal setting, but is
designed for implementation throughout the entire organisation. The procedure is
discussed here because, when implemented correctly, it involves supervisors at all
organisational levels.

When reduced to its essential elements, management by objectives can be

considered to encompass the following steps. First, the top levels of management
within the organisation identify a number of specific overall objectives for the
organisation. They do this by (a) formulating major objectives based on the key
aspects of organisational functioning, (b) identifying an appropriate set of
performance indicators or measures, (c) translating the objectives into specifications
for performance which are measurable, (d) reviewing these objectives with all upper-
level management personnel, and agreeing on a final set of objectives, and
(e) determining a set of target dates and action plans for achieving the objectives.

Next, instead of just issuing an edict regarding the organisational objectives and
performance targets, the process just described is systematically repeated down
through the organisation. Individual objectives are established at each organisational
level via detailed supervisor-subordinate negotiations concerning their respective key
performance areas, performance measures, targets and action plans. As the program
is implemented throughout the organisation, individuals at all levels receive appraisal
and feedback on their progress towards the objectives on a regular basis (e.g., every
quarter). Objectives may be revised and updated where intervening organisational
changes so necessitate. Finally, at the completion of the year, a final appraisal is
conducted, and objectives etc. are re-established for the subsequent year.

The traditional argument for the use of management by objectives to manage

organisational performance is based on the fact that the procedure incorporates three
component processes that are considered crucial for improving organisational
performance. They are (1) goal setting (see earlier in this chapter), (2) participation of
all organisational members in order to increase the understanding of the process by
subordinates, and to allow information on possible courses of action, possible
impediments to progress, etc. to be fed upwards through the organisation, and
(3) feedback on progress towards the set goals (see Chapters 3 and 4).

Determining the precise impact of this procedure on organisational performance is

not a simple task because of the difficulties associated with conducting well-
controlled studies into its effectiveness. However, a recent examination of some
seventy evaluation studies (Rodgers & Hunter, 1991) provides some indication as to
the possible outcomes of implementing such a procedure.
National Police
Research Unit
13
 In nearly all studies examined, productivity gains were evident, with gains averaging
in the vicinity of 40%. While there is likely to be a range of variables that contribute
to the size of the gain, Rodgers and Hunter’s work highlighted two key variables: the
support and the participation of top-management personnel. By far the largest effects
of management by objectives programs have been obtained under conditions of high
commitment (i.e., high support and high participation) from upper management. The
effects have been much reduced when upper management commitment was only
moderate (i.e., high support and no participation or participation and low support),
and relatively minor when commitment was low (i.e., low support and no
participation). In other words, given upper management commitment, the
management by objectives procedure appears to be an extremely valuable form of
goal setting and performance management which involves all supervisory levels
throughout the organisation.

National Police
Research Unit
14
Chapter 3
Providing Performance Consequences:
Reinforcement, Feedback, and Aversive
Consequences

This chapter deals with the various methods of providing consequences for
subordinate performance. After outlining the key role of performance consequences
in developing and maintaining subordinate performance, two broad issues are
covered. The first is concerned with how performance consequences are used to
develop or to increase desirable behaviour. Discussion here focuses on the sorts of
things that can serve as consequences, and the ways in which consequences should
be delivered to maintain or to improve performance. The second issue is concerned
with the use of consequences to reduce or to eliminate undesirable behaviour. The
focus here is on procedures for reducing the frequency of behaviour, and on some of
the problems associated with the use of these procedures. Many of the terms used in
this chapter are commonly expressed in discussions about managing people, and
many of the principles outlined are used (often unknowingly) to some degree by most
people when trying to influence others. Since these principles and procedures are
central to the provision of effective supervision and leadership, the emphasis here is
on providing a framework for using them in a systematic manner. There is a
substantial literature on the use and effects of performance consequences which can
be used to supplement the material presented here (e.g., Frederiksen, 1982; Luthans
& Kreitner, 1985; O’Brien, Dickinson, & Rosow, 1982).

Quite simply, performance consequences are events that occur after behaviour. The
important thing, however, is that consequences which are contingent upon the
occurrence of a particular behaviour can (if chosen appropriately) strengthen that
behaviour. In other words, the behaviour will occur more frequently if a desirable
outcome is likely to follow. This process is referred to as reinforcement, and
represents one of the most well-established psychological principles. Conversely,
there are other events or consequences which, when provided contingent on the
occurrence of a particular behaviour, weaken or reduce that behaviour. This process -
which has also been the subject of much research - is referred to as punishment.

Performance consequences are important in the present context not only because
they are known to influence the frequency of subsequent behaviour, but also because
they have been shown to be related to supervisory or managerial effectiveness. As
was indicated in Chapter 1, there is now a body of quite compelling evidence
indicating that effective supervisors (including supervisors within a police
organisation) (a) are generally better placed (via more effective performance
monitoring) than their less effective peers to provide consequences contingent on
subordinate performance, and (b) are likely to provide such consequences more
frequently.

National Police
Research Unit
15
 USING CONSEQUENCES TO INCREASE DESIRABLE BEHAVIOUR
A major application of performance consequences is in the development of new
behaviours and the strengthening of existing, performance-related or desirable
behaviours. Before examining how consequences are actually delivered in order to
achieve this aim, let us first consider what sort of things may be used as
consequences, and how appropriate consequences might be identified.

Types and selection of consequences

A wide range of consequences may strengthen or reinforce behaviour if administered
contingent on that behaviour. Typical examples include food; money; a wide array of
consumable or purchasable items; access to preferred activities; social reinforcers
such as attention or praise; and feedback. Some of these can be described as
inherently reinforcing (e.g., food, drink), while others (e.g., social reinforcers) are
reinforcing because they commonly occur in combination with inherently reinforcing
events.

In most organisational settings, the range of consequences that can be used will
obviously be limited by various practical and/or financial considerations. Thus, for
example, the use of money and consumables as ongoing consequences for
subordinate performance will generally be impractical. Even where such
consequences are used, seldom is their administration arranged so that they are
delivered contingent on performance.

However, it is difficult to imagine any organisational setting which could not exploit
the use of potentially reinforcing stimuli such as access to preferred activities, social
reinforcers and feedback. These also have the advantage of being cheap, they can be
linked closely to performance, and the recipients are unlikely to satiate or grow tired
of them.

Let us then briefly consider each of these categories of potentially reinforcing stimuli,
beginning with access to preferred activities. It is well-established that behaviour
which is performed with high frequency, when the opportunity to choose among
alternative behaviours is provided, can reinforce or strengthen low frequency
behaviours. Thus, one way of strengthening a desired or target behaviour is to
provide access to a preferred activity contingent upon completion of the target
behaviour. How does a supervisor identify such activities for their subordinates? This
information can be obtained in a variety of ways, such as asking the subordinate or
his or her peers, or observing what the subordinate does when given an opportunity
to select an activity of their choice. Typical examples of preferred activities might
include undertaking a work task involving more responsibility or kudos, or pursuing a
work related activity of particular personal interest.

Another category of potentially reinforcing stimuli includes a wide array of what are
typically described as social reinforcers. As foreshadowed earlier, this category
includes such things as giving attention or recognition, praise, smiles and approving
gestures, and solicitations of suggestions or advice. In other words, this category
encompasses a whole array of social stimuli that many people find reinforcing.

National Police
Research Unit
16
The final category is feedback, a term with which most of us are familiar and which is
probably employed far more liberally than the behaviour(s) encompassed by the term.
Feedback may take any of a number of different forms. One simple form consists of a
direct and positive indication of whether a target behaviour is correct, accurate, or
appropriate. This is generally referred to as positive feedback. In many cases, this
kind of feedback may be indistinguishable from the use of praise as a social
reinforcer. Here are some examples of positive feedback from interactions between
patrol sergeants and their subordinates (the patrol sergeant's feedback is shown in
bold):

What shall I do with this gun? I’ll put it in here (Patrol Officer). Yep, thanks!

I’ve got some correspondence in the car for you (Patrol Officer). OK!!

I’ll go and get the gear (Patrol Officer). Thanks!

The victim is full of praise for this team, and in particular our response times.
(To parade assembly).

Well I hope so, I’ve finished the report (Patrol Officer). Good!!

Yeh, that’s the right way to do that. (To constable who has shown him a
report).

We’ll take the offender to the cells (Patrol Officer). Yeh, OK. Good.

Oh that’s right. That was a very successful job you did!!

There have been no reported breaks in our area. Very good! (To parade
assembly).

Oh, you’re reading 'Corporate Directions' are you? That’s very important if
you’re going for jobs.

Good copper aren’t you!! (To Patrol Officer who chased the two house
breakers).

Oh perfect! That’s what I’m looking for! (To Patrol Officer handing in report).

Yep, yep. (As he watches a Patrol Officer practise using an alcotester).

Well that covers that. Yeh, that one’s OK. (To Patrol Officer re report).

So you’ve finished that tasking. Excellent!

That’s excellent! (To Patrol Officer handing in report).

I’m going to put a report in about that incident next week (Patrol Officer). Yes,
I think you should.

National Police
Research Unit
17
 Other forms of feedback include (a) what has been variously referred to as knowledge
of results, corrective feedback, instructional feedback, or negative feedback (a
somewhat inappropriate label), and (b) neutral feedback. Since the mechanisms via
which these forms of feedback influence performance are a little different from those
governing the effectiveness of positive feedback, they will be discussed separately in a
later section of this chapter.

First, however, there is one crucial point to be made about the so-called 'reinforcing'
consequences discussed thus far (i.e., access to preferred activities, social stimuli or
reinforcers, and positive feedback). Supervisors cannot assume that particular
consequences will automatically reinforce or strengthen behaviour. These types of
reinforcers are not inherently reinforcing; rather, as indicated earlier, they have
acquired their reinforcing properties through previously being linked with inherent
reinforcers. Thus, it is possible that what is reinforcing for a particular individual (or
behaviour) may not be so for another. The only true guide as to whether the
consequences provided are effective is in fact whether the target behaviour increases
in frequency. So when a supervisor protests that his or her subordinates are not
responsive, one possibility is that the consequences provided are not reinforcing.
Another possibility, which will be discussed later in this chapter, is that the
consequences are not being delivered effectively. Fortunately, most people seem to
respond positively to a range of social reinforcers, positive feedback and access to
preferred activities. Further, by observing and talking to subordinates, supervisors can
identify the sorts of things that will motivate different individuals. However, these
consequences may not go on reinforcing or strengthening behaviour forever and may
need to be coupled occasionally with other reinforcing events if their influence is to
be sustained.

Corrective feedback or knowledge of results

When people refer to the use of feedback (rather than reinforcement), they generally
are referring to what has been variously labelled as knowledge of results, corrective
feedback, instructional feedback, or negative feedback. The essential element of such
feedback is that it is designed to inform subordinates as to how they are progressing
towards their performance target or goal, and what sort of adjustments they may need
to make to achieve the desired level of performance. Generally, this feedback
information should provide some kind of contrast between what the subordinate has
achieved and the target. Where appropriate, it should also provide some guidance or
instruction designed to assist the subordinate to achieve the targetted performance
level. Thus, corrective feedback can be regarded as providing cues for subordinates
regarding the level of performance that should be associated with reinforcement.

The impact of such feedback would be expected to vary across individuals or

situations. Indeed, there is a range of factors which may determine the extent and
nature of such variations, and these are discussed in Chapter 4. Nevertheless, given
the appropriate context, the supervisor’s expectation should be that corrective
feedback or knowledge of results, particularly when used in conjunction with goal
setting (Locke & Latham, 1990), will be an important determinant of the levels of
performance achieved by their subordinates.

National Police
Research Unit
18
Here are some examples of verbal or written corrective feedback, also taken from
interactions between patrol sergeants and their subordinates. The patrol sergeant's
feedback is shown in bold.

I don’t know how many of you have been checking the premises like you’re
supposed to be. I haven’t seen it written in too many logs. (To parade
assembly).

Yes, I can appreciate that, but the way the brief reads, the offender came
back voluntarily. Left like that we’ll be open to all sorts of accusations.
(To constable re a report written incorrectly).

There is a tendency to leave some information a little in the air and this makes
it hard for the prosecutors reading the file. (To parade assembly).

How many of these reports have faint writing on the yellow copies? (To
constable who has been told before to press harder when writing duplicate
reports).

This situation will eventually turn into a 'blue docket'. (Complaint against
police) So doing that should at least cover us.

You said there was a pipe (Written in a report) but what was the pipe for?

You should have a property report to finish, I reckon.

It is your job as Union delegate to go to the meeting.

You’re up to date aren’t you? What have you got besides a crime report?

You haven’t finished that report yet.

Writing a suggested modification on a submission from his team re a law

change.

If we’re going out to pinch him we should really have a statement.

Neutral feedback
Another way in which feedback may be provided is in the form of what might be
called 'neutral encouragement' messages which provide neither a positive nor a
negative evaluation of performance. Some very common examples are:

Keep working as hard as you can.

Do your best.

Keep at it.

See what you can do with it.

National Police
Research Unit
19
 These neutral feedback messages also can be regarded as providing a cue indicating
that, somewhere down the track, appropriate performance will be reinforced. Thus,
whereas corrective feedback and goal setting can be regarded as complementary
procedures, neutral feedback has a similar overlap with 'do your best' goals. Further
mention of the use of neutral feedback will be provided in Chapter 4.

Delivering performance consequences

Here we examine the important considerations in scheduling consequences such as
(a) reinforcing stimuli, positive feedback, access to preferred activities and, in fact,
any other reinforcing events, and (b) corrective feedback or knowledge of results. In
addition, the processes of shaping and chaining, which involve the use of
consequences to modify behaviour, will be described.

Reinforcing stimuli
There are several fundamental principles that should be observed when delivering
reinforcing stimuli. First, the consequences must be provided contingent on
performance. That is, they must be clearly linked to the behaviour which it is hoped
they will strengthen. The use of contingent reward by supervisors has been shown to
be linked not only to subordinate performance, but also to satisfaction with work,
supervision, colleagues, pay and advancement opportunities. Conversely, the use of
noncontingent rewards (i.e., delivered randomly or without regard to subordinate
performance) is not related to performance, and has even been shown to be
negatively related to subordinates’ job satisfaction (Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, & Huber,
1984; Podsakoff, Todor, & Skov, 1982).

Hence, the best way to provide contingent consequences is to provide them

immediately, rather than delaying their presentation. This is even more crucial when
the subordinate is learning a new task, developing new skills, etc. If a close temporal
link between performance consequences and behaviour cannot be established, the
supervisor should make quite explicit the link between the delayed consequences
and the behaviour to which they refer.

When trying to establish a new behaviour pattern, it is also important to try to

reinforce every occurrence of the behaviour during the initial stages of learning.
More frequent reinforcement will help get the behaviour established by producing
more frequent responding. As the behaviour becomes established, reinforcement
should be provided on an intermittent basis. Gradually, the behaviour should be
reinforced less and less frequently and less predictably. Intermittent reinforcement is
important because if offers what is referred to as increased resistance to extinction.
What this means is that if reinforcement is withdrawn or unable to be provided for
some reason, the behaviour is much less likely to decline.

Intermittent reinforcement may be administered according to various schedules. For

example, it may be provided on the basis of a fixed or variable number of
occurrences of the behaviour, or on the basis of the passage of a fixed or variable time
interval before the next occurrence of the behaviour is reinforced. In general,
presentation based on a variable number of occurrences or variable interval tends to
generate much steadier or more consistent patterns of responding.

National Police
Research Unit
20
Corrective feedback
Nowhere near as much research has been done on the use of corrective feedback as
has been completed on the scheduling of reinforcement. Consequently, not as much
is known about those parameters of the administration of corrective feedback that will
produce the maximum improvements in performance. Nevertheless, there are some
general findings.

For example, we do know that any type of feedback should be contingent on

performance. We also know that more frequent feedback is directly linked to
improved performance. Presumably, at some point, increasing the amount of
feedback provided to subordinates will prove counter-productive because
subordinates will consider that they have no autonomy or control over what they are
doing. In most organisational settings, however, it seems unlikely that supervisors
would be in danger of reaching that point.

Another important variable affecting performance is the timing of the feedback

information. Two aspects of feedback timing are important: the delay between an
occurrence of the behaviour and the corrective feedback, and the delay between the
corrective feedback and the next opportunity to perform the behaviour (Ilgen, Fisher,
& Taylor, 1979; Welford, 1968). Keeping the delay between an occurrence of the
behaviour and the corrective feedback to a minimum makes it less likely that the
subordinate’s memory of their original performance - which is, of course, what they
are comparing with the feedback information - will be subject to interference. Under
such conditions, the feedback information will prove more valuable. Similarly,
ensuring that the subordinate has an opportunity to repeat his or her performance as
soon as possible after receiving the feedback information will increase the likelihood
that the feedback is recalled and exploited.

In addition to the way in which corrective feedback is actually administered, there are
a number of other factors which affect, or are likely to affect, the nature and extent of
the influence of feedback on performance, the likelihood that feedback is delivered,
the way in which it is delivered, and so on. Supervisors should be aware of these
factors and the associated implications for the way in which they should behave when
dealing with subordinates. These issues are, therefore, discussed in some detail in
Chapter 4.

Shaping and chaining

What if the desired behaviour is not within the subordinate’s present repertoire, or
does not conform to the desired pattern? Under these circumstances, procedures
known as shaping and chaining can be used to facilitate the gradual development of
the desired pattern of behaviour.

Shaping is a procedure used to develop a target behaviour not presently in the

subordinate’s repertoire. Initially, the supervisor should only reinforce those instances
of behaviour that most closely approximate or resemble the target behaviour. When
the subordinate is able to produce that behaviour consistently, the supervisor should
set a new criterion for securing reinforcement which is a little more demanding. The
criterion is reset again when the subordinate meets this new criterion. Thus, the
supervisor gradually shapes the subordinate’s behaviour by reinforcing successive
approximations to the desired behaviour.

National Police
Research Unit
21
 Chaining is a procedure which is used under circumstances that are a little different.
It is applicable when the target behaviour represents a complex sequence of
component behaviours and the performance of the complete sequence is beyond the
subordinate’s immediate capacity. The complex behaviour pattern (or chain) can be
built up gradually by prompting and guiding the subordinate through the task,
providing reinforcement after the completion of each component in the chain. As the
subordinate comes to grips with each step, the intervening reinforcements are faded
out. An alternative chaining procedure involves prompting the subordinate to
perform one or two steps initially, and reinforcing their completion. Gradually,
further steps are added on, and the reinforcements after the earlier steps are faded
out. Eventually, all the steps are performed, with reinforcement only coming at the
completion of the sequence.

Negative reinforcement
One final way in which consequences may be manipulated to develop desirable
behaviour patterns is by a procedure known as negative reinforcement. In negative
reinforcement, the removal or termination of an aversive stimulus (negative reinforcer)
is contingent upon the occurrence of a particular target behaviour. As a result, the
target behaviour should become more frequent. Although an aversive event or
stimulus is manipulated in an attempt to manage behaviour, the process is quite
different to punishment where the aim is to reduce or to eliminate a particular
behaviour. Negative reinforcement is commonly used by supervisors and managers
at all organisational levels in an attempt to manage performance. Although in the
short term the procedure often appears to have the desired effect on performance, the
longer term effects are often detrimental. The aversive events which are most
typically manipulated are criticism, threats or ultimatums foreshadowing all sorts of
dire consequences if performance does not conform to certain expectations. If the
subordinate exhibits the required behaviour thereby terminating or removing the
aversive event, the behaviour is likely to become stronger. Thus, if a subordinate can
terminate a supervisor’s criticism by completing a task more rapidly, that particular
pattern of behaviour is likely to become better established. Similarly, if performing in
a particular way removes the threat of some aversive event (e.g., a reprimand,
demotion), that particular pattern of performance should also be strengthened. Often,
where the relationship between supervisor and subordinate is not very favourable, the
mere withdrawal of the supervisor’s presence contingent upon the subordinate
performing in a particular way (e.g., looking busy) will strengthen that behaviour.

There will obviously be occasions in any organisational setting where a supervisor

feels that it is so crucial that the desired behaviour be executed immediately or
effectively, that the foreshadowing of very significant negative consequences if
performance is not up to the mark seems warranted. Despite this, and despite the fact
that the use of negative reinforcement is common practice among supervisors and
managers, a reliance on negative reinforcement is not recommended. There are two
major and related reasons for advocating this position. One is that the use of aversive
stimuli is frequently associated with a number of undesirable organisational
consequences. The other is that the systematic positive reinforcement can be used
instead to strengthen the desired behaviour. The issues are explored in more detail in
the next section.

National Police
Research Unit
22
USING CONSEQUENCES TO REDUCE UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIOUR
Apart from increasing desirable behaviours, another major function of the
manipulation of performance consequences is to reduce undesirable behaviour or
patterns of performance. This is typically approached by using aversive consequences
or stimuli, and the first part of this section will consider this approach. The reduction
of undesirable behaviour need not, however, involve the use of aversive stimuli, and
the latter part of this section will consider some non-aversive approaches.

Punishment
The delivery of aversive consequences designed to reduce the occurrence of a
particular behaviour - i.e., punishment - is a widely used supervisory practice. We
are all aware that a wide range of punishing stimuli are available and used in
organisational settings. These vary in severity and may include disapproving
expressions and gestures, verbal and written reprimands, threats, the assignment of
unpleasant or undesirable tasks, negative performance evaluations, transfer,
demotion, suspension, dismissal, and the withdrawal of privileges, valued activities or
positive reinforcers (e.g., fines or penalties).

Verbal reprimands, such as those illustrated below, are of course the most commonly
used punishing stimuli:

When I said ASAP I meant a soon as possible, not when you felt like it. (To
patrol team).

You’ve been running the show now, and that brief’s been sitting there for at
least 24 hours! (To senior constable).

Sorry, I got stuck on the phone (Officer who is late). That’s what you say every
week.

As with positive reinforcement, punishment needs to be clearly linked to the

undesirable behaviour if it is to be effective. The not uncommon supervisory practice
of 'showing subordinates who is in charge' by using noncontingent punishment is
dysfunctional in that it produces a deterioration in performance and in indices of job
satisfaction and organisational commitment (Podsakoff et al., 1982, 1984).

The punishing stimuli which are typically used by supervisors do not necessarily have
the same impact on all behaviours or individuals. In other words, what is aversive for
some individuals may not be for others. If the administration of the so-called aversive
event does not reduce the frequency of the targetted behaviour, then that event does
not constitute an effective punishing stimulus. Frequently, for example, the effects of
the reprimands and criticisms delivered to subordinates by a disgruntled supervisor or
manager may be inconsequential when compared with the approval or social
reinforcement which emanates from the subordinate’s peers as a consequence of both
the behaviour and the reaction elicited from the supervisor. It is necessary, therefore,
for supervisors to consider carefully the potential problems associated with a
particular form of punishment.

National Police
Research Unit
23
 From the perspective of the day-to-day management of subordinates, however, there
are a number of strong grounds for supervisors using aversive consequences and
punishment sparingly as basic personnel management strategies (Luthans & Kreitner,
1985). Frequently, the undesirable behaviour is only temporarily suppressed, and
often only in the context in which the behaviour was punished or in the presence of
the punishing agent or supervisor. A side effect of this is that the supervisor is
perceived or recognised as a cue for punishment and, in turn, is unlikely to be
acknowledged or trusted as an effective reinforcing agent. This means that the
supervisor’s capacity to strengthen behaviour using positive procedures may be
diminished.

Obviously, under some circumstances, some form of punishment may be the only
appropriate organisational consequence because it is imperative to terminate the
behaviour as quickly as possible. For example, behaviour that threatens safety or
property will often be most appropriately dealt with by an immediate and forceful
reprimand. In addition, most organisations have in place formal or informal
punishment routines for what are considered to be serious transgressions of
behavioural and performance standards.

However, an over-reliance on punishment has been shown to be associated with the

emergence of behaviour patterns that, from an organisational perspective, are
extremely maladaptive. Increases in emotional and aggressive behaviour, and various
forms of escape and avoidance behaviour, are all possible and likely consequences of
a reliance on punishment for managing behaviour. All of these have the capacity to
undermine organisational performance and commitment.

Non-aversive approaches
Fortunately, the use of aversive stimuli is not the only approach for reducing
undesirable behaviour that is open to supervisors. Extinction, for example, is one
procedure which has the same aim as punishment - that is, the reduction of some
behaviour - but does not involve the use of aversive stimuli. The use of extinction to
control undesirable behaviour is based on the premise that such behaviour is
maintained by some positive event that systematically follows its occurrence. The
aim in extinction is to remove those consequences. If this can be achieved, the
frequency of the behaviour will gradually decline.

The challenge in these situations is first to identify those consequences which are
sustaining the undesirable behaviour, and then to ensure that they are no longer
available. Take, for example, the case of a police supervisor who is endeavouring to
control excessive aggressiveness shown by some subordinates towards offenders.
Despite the best efforts of the supervisor to change the subordinates’ behaviour via
procedures such as instructions, modelling and goal setting, the subordinates’
aggressive behaviour may be consistently reinforced by approval or feedback from
their peers. To extinguish the subordinates’ behaviour, the supervisor will have to
manipulate the environment to reduce the likelihood of such reinforcement occurring
- for example, by pairing aggressive officers with working partners who are unlikely to
reinforce the aggressive behaviour. The process will be hastened somewhat if the
supervisor also is seen to be providing consistent positive consequences for those
subordinates who exhibit more adaptive patterns of dealing with offenders in conflict
situations.

National Police
Research Unit
24
A basic goal when trying to extinguish undesirable behaviour should be to pursue the
parallel development (using positive consequences) of a more appropriate pattern of
behaviour. This approach obviously requires more detailed analysis and planning on
the part of the supervisor than is required in administering punishment. The tradeoff
is that the undesirable behaviour can be replaced by a more appropriate mode of
responding, without the adverse side effects that so frequently accompany
punishment.

It is timely at this point to note that the process of extinction is not restricted to
undesirable behaviours. Failing to recognise desirable or good performance also sets
in place the conditions that can lead to a gradual diminution of those behaviour
patterns. In other words, lack of positive reinforcement may lead to the extinction of
desired subordinate behaviour.

POLICE SUPERVISION AND THE USE OF CONSEQUENCES

The significance of the supervisory behaviours described in this chapter for police
organisations cannot be over-emphasised. We know, for example (see Chapter 1),
that effective supervisors and managers in a variety of occupational settings are
distinguished from their less effective peers by their use of performance consequences
such as positive reinforcement, and corrective and neutral feedback. We also know
that this applies within a police organisation (Brewer, 1991). In addition, there is
evidence to suggest that police supervisors use consequences somewhat more
sparingly than their counterparts in other occupational settings (Brewer, 1991).

The evidence suggests that limited use of feedback and positive consequences may be
characteristic of the police organisational culture. This characteristic is perhaps best
illustrated by the perception that subordinates should be able to recognise whether or
not their performance is satisfactory, and should only require feedback when
performance falls well short of the mark. Such a perception is, of course,
incompatible with the achievement of optimal organisational performance. If it does
in fact reflect the reality, the need to attend to principles such as those outlined in this
chapter assumes even greater importance.

National Police
Research Unit
25
National Police
Research Unit
26
Chapter 4
Providing Performance Consequences:
Feedback Effectiveness

In the preceding chapter some basic parameters associated with the administration of
effective corrective feedback were discussed. Factors which were emphasised were
the contingent relationship between performance and feedback, the frequency of
feedback, and the timing of feedback in relation to both prior and subsequent
performance.

There are, however, a number of other variables which are important and should be
recognised by supervisors and prospective supervisors. This chapter examines these,
focusing particularly on (a) the relationship between task characteristics and the
delivery of corrective feedback, (b) the likelihood that feedback will be accepted by
the recipient, (c) the likelihood that accurate or non-distorted feedback will actually
be delivered, and (d) the effects of giving group rather than individual feedback.

TASK CHARACTERISTICS
One important determinant of how much feedback supervisors should provide is the
degree to which the task itself provides feedback to the subordinate. The nature of
some tasks is such that the individual receives a considerable amount of prompt
feedback just by virtue of having carried out and completed the task. In other words,
the finished product, and/or the time taken to achieve it, provide a very clear
indication as to the level of proficiency attained. This applies particularly to many
manipulative tasks, technical activities and routine clerical activities. Under such task
conditions, frequent externally provided corrective feedback (i.e., from a supervisor)
is not so critical for maintaining effective performance, although the provision of
motivating feedback is no less important.

However, in many other tasks, task completion may provide neither prompt nor
unambiguous feedback on performance. This is likely to be the case where (a) there
are various alternative strategies or courses of action open to the subordinate, and
(b) there is either no specific or objective criterion by which to evaluate performance
outcomes, or information on the outcome of the strategy adopted is not available for
some length of time.

Policing provides many examples of such activities. Many of the activities carried out
by patrol officers, for example, may be approached in various ways, and there is often
no way of determining whether or not the right approach has been adopted. The
same could doubtless be said of various activities performed by investigative police,
or police personnel involved in determining and evaluating policy on complex
policing issues. Under circumstances such as those just outlined, feedback on
performance from an experienced supervisor assumes much greater significance and,
consequently, relatively high levels of supervisor feedback are desirable.

National Police
Research Unit
27
 The importance of feedback from supervisors is accentuated even more when the
subordinates are particularly inexperienced. One characteristic of the performance of
inexperienced individuals is likely to be that they will be less adept at detecting
various relatively subtle cues inherent in the task regarding the appropriateness of
their performance. For such individuals, it is the supervisor’s feedback which teaches
them to recognise and to respond to these more subtle cues re their performance. In
other words, where task characteristics do not provide adequate feedback, for
whatever reason, supervisor feedback is critical.

FEEDBACK ACCEPTANCE
Unfortunately, the mere availability of corrective feedback does not mean that
performance will improve. The effectiveness of the feedback will, of course, be
dependent upon the subordinate’s acceptance of and response to the information
provided. Whether or not the subordinate accepts and reacts positively to corrective
feedback is, of course, not completely under the supervisor’s control. Nevertheless,
supervisors should - at the very least - be cognisant of those factors likely to influence
the acceptance of any corrective feedback they provide.

One critical factor influencing feedback acceptance is the perceived expertise or

credibility of the supervisor or feedback source. If the supervisor is perceived to have
familiarity with and expertise in the relevant performance area, then the likelihood of
the subordinate accepting and responding to that feedback will be enhanced (Ilgen et
al., 1979). This makes it easier to understand why corrective feedback from superiors
a long way removed from the subordinates is often not well-received. Indeed, while
subordinates may accept very specific feedback from a credible, high-power source,
general feedback from such a source is likely, in fact, to produce negative reactions
and reduced effort on the part of those for whom it is intended.

The acceptance of and reaction to feedback information is also influenced by

individual characteristics of the recipients. For example, socially anxious individuals
tend to perceive corrective feedback as being more negative than those who are less
anxious. Similarly, negative feedback will lead to greater reductions in confidence in
their ability, with likely detrimental effects on subsequent performance, for individuals
with low (compared with high) self-esteem. Older or more experienced subordinates
are less likely to accept corrective feedback than their younger less experienced
peers. And, of course, some subordinates are much more likely to be responsive to
feedback from others (i.e., supervisors, peers) than they are to the feedback provided
by task completion and accomplishment. The effective supervisor is likely to be more
sensitive to individual characteristics of subordinates and to monitor their reactions to
feedback.

FEEDBACK DELIVERY AND DISTORTION

The delivery of corrective feedback, and the accuracy of that feedback, are definitely
under the supervisor’s control. However, there are a number of factors, other than the
actual level of performance of the subordinates, which influence the likelihood that
supervisors will give corrective feedback, and also the likelihood that the feedback

National Police
Research Unit
28
will faithfully reflect the true level of performance (Larson, 1984). Some of these
factors are not directly under the control of the supervisor. Supervisors should be
aware of these influences and of how they may ultimately limit the levels of
performance that their subordinates can attain.

There are circumstances under which supervisors are more likely to deliver
appropriate feedback and, conversely, others in which the delivery of appropriate
feedback is less likely. For example, highly salient performance may be the focus of
much corrective feedback. Thus, the performance of subordinates which is
particularly conspicuous, either by virtue of its level or the fact that it is very different
from that of other subordinates, is more likely to attract feedback at the expense of
that provided for the performance of others.

Further, feedback delivery is likely to be influenced by historical factors. For

example, supervisors’ attention to subordinates’ current performance is likely to be
influenced unduly by those past occasions on which the subordinates’ performance
warranted corrective feedback. Also, previous occasions on which feedback resulted
in appropriate performance adjustments by subordinates will increase the likelihood
of supervisors perceiving that they can control subordinates’ performance. In turn,
supervisors will become more likely to make subsequent attempts to influence
subordinates’ performance. Conversely, because the performance of high-performing
subordinates often appears to be little affected by feedback, supervisors may perceive
that they have little influence over them, and may pay less and less attention to their
performance. A likely and unfortunate outcome of this is that the high-performing
subordinate will gradually slip backwards.

Organisational characteristics are also likely to influence feedback delivery. For

example, supervisors are more likely to give feedback when their own job outcomes
(e.g., appraisal outcomes, promotion, pay) are dependent upon subordinate
performance. Conversely, where supervisors’ job outcomes are not specifically linked
to subordinate performance, feedback will be provided more sparingly. Similarly,
when the organisation values supervisor-subordinate communication, feedback
delivery is more likely. On the other hand, feedback is less likely to occur in rigid
organisational structures where the expectations at each level are assumed to be
much more clearly delineated.

The second major concern is the accuracy of the feedback information that is given.
There is a tendency for the source or provider of corrective feedback to perceive that
feedback as representing 'bad news' for the subordinate, and there is evidence from a
variety of areas indicating a reluctance on most people’s parts to transmit bad news
(Tesser & Rosen, 1975). Does this reluctance extend to the delivery of corrective
feedback? The evidence suggests that it does.

Several studies have shown that supervisors who are aware that their feedback will be
conveyed to the relevant subordinate(s) are less likely to give corrective feedback.
Also, they are likely to distort that feedback information so that it provides a much
more positive perspective of the subordinate’s performance (Fisher, 1979; Ilgen &
Knowlton, 1980; Larson, 1986). This tendency is much reduced if the supervisor
believes that his or her evaluation of subordinate performance does not have to be
communicated to the subordinate. Perhaps one redeeming feature of supervisors’

National Police
Research Unit
29
 behaviour in such situations is that, while they may not provide the appropriate
corrective feedback, they often substitute some form of neutral encouragement or
feedback. This hopefully provides a cue to the subordinate that some improvement in
performance should still be pursued.

The failure to provide appropriate corrective feedback, and the tendency to distort
that which is provided, places a major limitation on the extent to which subordinate
performance can improve and the speed at which that improvement can occur.
Having said this, this is an appropriate place to issue a reminder about a key point
that was made in Chapter 3. There are some supervisors who appear to equate (quite
mistakenly) corrective feedback with verbal forms of punishment and who have no
hesitation in delivering the latter frequently and in a non-contingent manner. As was
indicated in Chapter 3, such behaviour is detrimental to both job performance and
commitment. On the other hand, corrective feedback is a valuable tool for improving
performance if skilfully delivered by a credible supervisor.

GROUP FEEDBACK
In the typical work situation, supervisors are responsible for a number or group of
subordinates who collaborate to varying degrees in the pursuit of organisational goals.
A relevant issue when delivering feedback, therefore, is whether feedback on
performance should be delivered individually, to the group as a whole, or to both. A
considerable amount of research has focused on this and related issues (Nadler,
1979), and this research permits a number of generalisations about the effects of
feedback on group performance and on a number of other non-performance
measures.

The effects of feedback on group performance vary depending on the nature of the
task(s) being carried out. When group performance is, in essence, just the sum of a
number of individuals' performance - that is, there is minimal interdependence
among group members - the greatest effects on group performance are produced
when feedback is provided on both individual and group performance. When,
however, the group’s task demands interdependence or collaboration among group
members, group (rather than individual) feedback is more beneficial to group
performance.

With respect to other non-performance measures, the impact of group versus

individual feedback may vary depending on the characteristics of the subordinates.
For example, achievement-oriented individuals seem to be particularly responsive to
individual, task-oriented feedback, whereas less achievement-oriented subordinates
are more responsive to group, process-oriented feedback. Taken overall, however, the
evidence does indicate that group feedback has a greater effect than individual
feedback on a variety of attitudes towards the group. For example, group feedback
tends to promote more positive group attitudes such as feelings of involvement,
attraction to the group, perceptions of cohesiveness, and so on. All of these attributes
or dimensions are likely to increase group satisfaction and commitment.

National Police
Research Unit
30
Chapter 5
Monitoring Performance

This chapter focuses on the role of performance monitoring in effective supervision.

Several major issues are examined. First, the role of performance monitoring in
developing and maintaining subordinate performance is outlined. Second, the
different ways in which performance can be monitored are explored. Third, the
conditions under which different types of monitoring are likely to benefit performance
are considered. Following this, the question of how much monitoring is appropriate is
addressed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of monitoring in relation to police
supervision.

Although several recent studies indicate that performance monitoring is the most
critical element of effective supervision, surprisingly little research has been
conducted on this aspect of supervisory behaviour. Hopefully, futher research will
refine our understanding of the relationships between monitoring, performance
consequences, and performance. In the meantime, however, existing theory and
research highlight a number of important basic principles associated with the effective
use of performance monitoring.

THE ROLE OF PERFORMANCE MONITORING

Performance monitoring involves the collection of information on subordinate
performance using any of a variety of methods. What specific functions does this
collection of information perform? For many supervisors, monitoring appears to be
conceptualised as something akin to a 'safety procedure'. For those supervisors,
monitoring is a routine process which is carried out to minimise the likelihood of a
major performance breakdown or disaster. While monitoring can, of course, serve
this end, it can also fulfil other critical roles of a proactive nature. Frequently, these
seem to be ignored.

There are at least two mechanisms by which performance monitoring can exert a
significant influence on subordinate performance. First, it has been shown that a
supervisor’s performance monitoring provides a cue or guide for subordinates
regarding the relative importance of various components of the job. In turn, the
perceived importance of particular components of the work affects the way in which
subordinates distribute their work efforts. For example, subordinates tend to devote a
greater proportion of their resources to highly monitored components which, as a
result of the intense monitoring, they perceive to be important (Larson & Callahan,
1990). In other words, performance monitoring by itself can affect performance.
Herein, of course, lies a danger. If supervisors spend a lot of time monitoring job
components of lesser importance - perhaps because they are easy to monitor -
subordinates’ perceptions of the importance of those components are likely to be
enhanced, and they are likely to devote greater resources to the performance of these
activities.

National Police
Research Unit
31
 Performance monitoring also has what is referred to as a conjunctive effect on
performance (Larson & Callahan, 1990). That is, it affects performance when it
occurs in conjunction with the provision of performance consequences by the
supervisor. From this perspective, performance monitoring is important because it
provides information to supervisors on how the subordinates are performing. This
information can then be used by supervisors to provide contingent consequences
such as positive reinforcement or feedback, and corrective feedback. It can also be
used as a basis for setting goals for future performance. Thus, monitoring provides
what could be referred to as a data-base for goal setting and for the provision of a
whole range of consequences which can lead to performance improvements.

The significance of these mechanisms for promoting subordinate performance has

been highlighted by a series of recent studies (see Chapter 1) which demonstrated
strong relationships between subordinate performance and the performance
monitoring behaviours of their leaders. Indeed, while performance monitoring need
not (in most cases) consume a large proportion of a supervisor’s time, the extent of
monitoring and the way in which it is carried out are the major factors which
discriminate effective from not-so-effective supervisors in police and other
organisational settings.

METHODS OF MONITORING
Performance monitoring can be enacted in a variety of ways, with the most
appropriate method of collecting information being dependent upon a number of
situational variables. The most obvious and direct method of monitoring performance
involves what is referred to as work sampling. Work sampling may be directed at the
work product or performance outcome, or at the actual process by which those
outcomes are achieved. That is, the supervisor can either check what the subordinate
has done or monitor how they go about the job (or both). For a supervisor of patrol
officers, for example, sampling work products might involve checking that
subordinates’ logs are filled out correctly, checking that crime reports or court briefs
are accurately documented, and so on. Sampling the work process might involve
watching subordinates perform a tasking, listening to them interviewing an offender
or victim, watching them complete a training exercise or addressing a neighbourhood
watch meeting, and many other similar activities. The advantage of work sampling is
that it provides the most accurate data on subordinate performance.

Another important method of monitoring involves the soliciting of verbal or self-

reports from subordinates. That is, the supervisor requires the subordinate to provide
a verbal account of some work activity. This may range from a relatively formal
request for a detailed briefing on a particular activity to a more subtle prompt or
request for further information on some aspect of their performance.

A number of actual examples of this kind of monitoring are outlined below. The
supervisor's comment or action is shown in bold.

Should you have included other offences in the report maybe? (To constable).

But you can’t put syringes in a bag (Constable). Yeh, so what did you do with
them?

National Police
Research Unit
32
 What have you done about this report?

Is this just the rough copy?

What are you working on?

What addresses did you get?

Everything OK? (To team member at the scene of a break in).

Are you still checking that place on Black Street?

Right. Arranged for a mechanic ... or have you to do that tomorrow?

What did you write on that ticket?

An inevitable consequence of relying on this method of monitoring (rather than on

work sampling) is that it may sometimes be difficult to determine exactly how
accurate the information obtained on performance is. However, as will be illustrated
later, there are circumstances under which this form of monitoring is particularly
appropriate.

Information on subordinate performance can also be solicited from a secondary

source:

He didn’t say it in as many words, but I think they did some plea bargaining.
(Listening to constable re another officer’s court case).

What’s the cadet like? Willing to learn?

Did you say that Smithy got a report on this?

Listening to the Senior Sergeant talk about an incident where a patrol upset a
landlady.

The accuracy of the performance information obtained via this method of monitoring
is also difficult to determine, and supervisors who rely extensively on this monitoring
method may be operating on the basis of a poor quality data-base. Of course, the
poorer the performance data the supervisor has at his or her disposal, the less likely it
is that maximally useful feedback information can be provided, and the more likely it
is that inappropriate feedback will be provided.

A final way of monitoring performance involves accessing information contained in

archival records. Examples of such information include routinely recorded
performance data (e.g., productivity figures, absenteeism, instances of problem
behaviour) and data provided by formal appraisals of various dimensions of employee
performance. The use of such information will be discussed shortly.

National Police
Research Unit
33
 USING DIFFERENT METHODS OF MONITORING
No single method of collecting performance information will be appropriate under all
conditions. Indeed, an effective supervisor will be likely to collect and to integrate
information on performance from a variety of sources. In this section, however, those
broad conditions which are conducive to the different types of monitoring are
outlined.

There are certain conditions in which monitoring via work sampling is clearly the
most appropriate way of collecting performance information. For example, where the
most effective strategy for performing the task is clearly defined and well-learned,
checking work products or outcomes will provide the best data-base for feedback
provision. This method is also appropriate where the actual behaviour or
performance cannot be observed, either for logistical reasons or because the
important processes associated with achieving the end-product are cognitive in
nature (i.e., they take place in the subordinate’s head and are, therefore, not
observable).

When, however, the processes leading to the eventual outcome are directly
observable, monitoring the actual work processes (i.e., observing the work) can
provide a valuable source of information on how the subordinate is progressing, and
on what sort of corrective feedback may be necessary to produce any required
performance adjustments. This type of information is also critical when subordinates
are learning new work activities or are relatively inexperienced.

Monitoring via the soliciting of verbal or self-reports becomes important under

somewhat different conditions. In complex cognitive or problem-solving tasks or in
situations where the appropriate task strategy is neither obvious nor easily
identifiable, and where most of the key task processes take place 'inside the head',
soliciting verbal or self-reports will prove to be the most appropriate way of checking
and evaluating the efficacy of various strategies employed by subordinates. Given
appropriate rapport between supervisor and subordinates, this form of monitoring is
also more likely to stimulate supervisor-subordinate interactions and valuable
feedback exchanges than is the routine checking of work products.

Self-report monitoring is also likely to be an important technique where subordinates

are highly competent or skilled, and performing activities for which the subordinates
themselves are best able to judge their performance. Under such conditions, direct
work sampling is likely to be seen as an intrusion or a threat to a subordinate’s
autonomy from a supervisor who is not recognised as having relevant expertise or
credibility.

The use of archival information for monitoring performance will be of limited utility
from the perspective of ongoing monitoring and feedback provision. Instead, its
major use is in the formal (and generally less regular) performance review process.
Although this is a major issue in itself which cannot be dealt with in this context, a
brief comment is warranted here. Even when the monitoring of archival data is used
in the performance review process, its utility is constrained by the quality of the data
which have actually been recorded. Where, for example, the information on record
constitutes subjective judgments of dubious reliability (e.g., ratings along poorly
defined personality and performance dimensions), or conceals the influence on
performance of variables which were beyond the control of the subordinate (e.g.,
inadequate training or technology, poor supervision, inappropriate workload), its
value for guiding future performance will be limited.
National Police
Research Unit
34
Overall, each of the three forms of monitoring has a place in the day-to-day
supervisory repertoire, with each being appropriate in different situations. A critical
issue for the supervisor is to determine how much of each method is appropriate to
which situation.

THE EXTENT OF MONITORING

The question of what constitutes enough monitoring cannot be answered in simple
terms. It will be influenced by a large array of interacting variables such as the
experience and abilities of the subordinates, task characteristics and conditions, the
supervisor-subordinate relationship, and organisational characteristics.

Some important generalisations are, however, worth noting. Although monitoring is a

critical activity in the supervisory process, it is not necessarily a time-consuming one.
Evidence from a variety of occupational settings indicates, for example, that even the
most effective supervisors and managers spend only between 5% and 10% of their
time monitoring subordinates’ performance. The evidence also indicates, however,
that this percentage should increase under certain conditions which demand a
sustained focus on subordinate performance. The most obvious examples of such
conditions would include activities where every decision and step may be crucial for
achieving an effective outcome (e.g., many of the operations carried out by special or
tactical response groups), and activities being carried out by inexperienced or
'trainee' subordinates.

Conditions will also exist where close monitoring will not be effective. For example,
just as feedback effectiveness is likely to be reduced when it comes from a supervisor
who lacks expertise or credibility, the same is likely to be the case for performance
monitoring. Also, as was foreshadowed earlier when discussing the applicability of
different methods of monitoring, there is a fine line between monitoring performance
in an adaptive manner, and maintaining such close scrutiny on subordinate
performance that the subordinates no longer perceive that they have any autonomy or
responsibility for their own actions.

POLICE SUPERVISION AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING

The preceding material provides a basic set of principles for supervisors at all levels in
police organisations. However, there is at least one more general observation that
warrants consideration.

Despite the established relationship between performance monitoring and

performance, well-controlled investigations of the strengths and deficiencies of
supervisors’ monitoring in any organisational setting are few and far between.
Further, the only systematic, behavioural study of monitoring by police supervisors
was one which focused on the supervisory level of patrol sergeant (Brewer, 1991).
Although it is difficult to generalise from this level to other organisational levels, that
study drew attention to some supervisory characteristics which, if reflective of the
broader police organisational culture, are likely to have important implications for
performance.

National Police
Research Unit
35
 In particular, although on average police sergeants spent more time monitoring
performance than supervisors in many other organisational settings, a substantial
proportion of that monitoring was devoted to the checking of paperwork. A
negligible proportion focused directly on subordinates’ performance in their patrol
and other activities. In the police patrol context, the vetting of documents prepared by
subordinates was undoubtedly a fundamental component of their supervisory role -
but so too, presumably, was the monitoring of other activities. If monitoring at any
supervisory level becomes predominantly concerned with some subordinate activities
to the exclusion of other important dimensions - perhaps because the latter are more
difficult to monitor, or perhaps because they are activities which are less likely to be
scrutinised by their own superiors - invaluable information on those other dimensions
of performance will seldom be tapped. In turn, the capacity to deliver incisive
feedback on important work processes will be limited, and subordinates’ perceptions
of which job dimensions are important will be unbalanced. In conclusion, police
supervisors must pay more attention to appropriate levels of monitoring if they wish to
maximise their subordinates' performance.

National Police
Research Unit
36
Chapter 6
Summary

The preceding chapters have dealt with a wide range of practical procedures which
supervisors can exploit to motivate or to improve the performance of their
subordinates. These include the use of instructions, modelling of desired behaviour,
goal setting and management by objectives, reinforcing events to increase desirable
behaviour, punishment and other procedures for reducing undesirable behaviour,
corrective feedback or knowledge of results, and performance monitoring. The
emphasis has been on how these procedures should be applied to supervision in
order to maximise their impact on performance.

A key feature of this approach is that, regardless of the organisational level,

supervision has been conceptualised as encompassing a repertoire or set of
behaviours that can be enacted by the supervisor. Further, the position taken has
been that supervisory effectiveness will be dependent upon a careful and systematic
implementation of the principles outlined. Brief flirtations with the procedures
outlined are unlikely to yield any significant benefits.

One implication of conceptualising supervision as a set of behaviours is, of course,

that supervisory effectiveness is not dependent upon some magical characteristics
with which only some individuals are blessed. Rather, the opportunity exists to
develop these behaviours in any potential supervisor or leader. This can take place
via formal supervisory training and through on-the-job development. Furthermore, the
principles and procedures detailed in the earlier chapters can all be directly
incorporated into training modules. Given the emphasis on behaviour (rather than on
attitudes, beliefs, personality traits, etc.), such modules can be focused squarely on
the development of skills or competencies in the implementation of these principles.
Training officers can develop an enormous variety of 'real-life' exercises which will
provide opportunities not only for potential supervisors to practise these skills under
expert guidance, but also for ongoing situational assessment of the trainees’
competencies in applying the various principles.

It is commonplace in organisational settings to attribute supervisory weaknesses to

training deficiencies, or to the personal inadequacies or deficiencies of the individual
supervisor (e.g., laziness, lack of motivation). Consequently, organisations place a
heavy emphasis on selecting the right types of people and providing what is
considered to be appropriate training. However, the development and maintenance
of effective supervisory behaviours (and other desirable organisational behaviours)
involve somewhat more than training.

Supervisory behaviours are no different to a whole range of other behaviours, in that

they too are responsive to a variety of antecedents, reinforcing events, feedback and
monitoring. Such events should, of course, be provided on-the-job by superiors, or
higher-level supervisors. A major responsibility of supervisors at all organisational
levels is, therefore, to attend directly to the supervisory performance of those
individuals in lower-level supervisory roles.

National Police
Research Unit
37
 In other words, a fundamental responsibility of individuals who have someone in a
supervisory capacity below them is to motivate that supervisor to supervise
effectively. How can they go about achieving this? The answer is clear-cut. As has
already been indicated on more than one occasion, the principles advocated in the
earlier chapters are applicable to supervisors at all organisational levels. Indeed,
senior officers will find them just as applicable to the development of supervisory
behaviours as they are to the promotion of other aspects of performance.

National Police
Research Unit
38
References

Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.

Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1971). Psychological modeling: Conflicting theories. Chicago:

Aldine-Atherton.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1969). Building a dynamic corporation through grid
organization development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Brewer, N. (1991). Identifying effective supervisory behaviour. Technical Report.

Adelaide, South Aust.: National Police Research Unit.

Davis, T.R.V., & Luthans, F. (1979). Leadership re-examined: A behavioral approach.

Academy of Management Review, 4, 237-248.

Decker, P.J. (1982). The enhancement of behavior modeling training of supervisory

skills by the inclusion of retention processes. Personnel Psychology, 35, 323-332.

Earley, P.C., Connolly, T., & Ekegren, G. (1989). Goals, strategy development, and
task performance: Some limits on the efficacy of goal setting. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 24-33.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leader effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fisher, C.D. (1979). Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates:

A laboratory investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 534-540.

Fleishman, E.A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 37, 1-6.

Frederiksen, L.W. (Ed.). (1982). Handbook of organizational behavior management.

New York: Wiley.

Gagné, R.M. (1987). Instructional technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gagné, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W.W. (1988). Principles of instructional design
(3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1982). Management of organizational behavior (4th
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

House, R.J., & Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of
Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97.

Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D., & Taylor, M.S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback
on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349-371.

National Police
Research Unit
39
 Ilgen, D.R., & Knowlton, W.A., Jr. (1980). Performance attributional effects on
feedback from superiors. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25,
441-456.

Komaki, J.L. (1986). Toward effective supervision: An operant analysis and

comparison of managers at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 270-279.

Komaki, J.L., Desselles, M.L., & Bowman, E.D. (1989). Definitely not a breeze:
Extending an operant model of effective supervision to teams. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 522-529.

Komaki, J.L., Zlotnick, S., & Jensen, M. (1986). Development of an operant based
taxonomy and observational index of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 260-269.

Larson, J.R., Jr. (1984). The performance feedback process: A preliminary model.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 42-76.

Larson, J.R., Jr. (1986). Supervisors’ performance feedback to subordinates: The

impact of subordinate performance valence and outcome dependence.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 391-408.

Larson, J.R., Jr., & Callahan, C. (1990). Performance monitoring: How it affects work
productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 530-538.

Latham, G.P., & Saari, L.M. (1979). Application of social learning theory to training
supervisors through behavioral modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 239-
246.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.M., Saari, L.M., & Latham, G.P. (1981). Goal setting and task
performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.

Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L., & Alliger, G.M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation
between personality traits and leadership: An application of validity
generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410.

Luthans, F. (1989). Organizational behavior (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Luthans, F., & Kreitner, R. (1985). Organizational behavior modification and beyond.
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Manz, C.C., & Sims, H., Jr. (1981). Vicarious learning: The influence of modeling on
organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 6, 105-113.

Nadler, D.S. (1979). The effects of feedback on task group behavior: A review of the
experimental research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23,
309-338.

National Police
Research Unit
40
O’Brien, R.M., Dickinson, A.M., & Rosow, M.P. (1982). Industrial behavior
modification. New York: Pergamon.

Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., Grover, R.A., & Huber, V.L. (1984). Situational
moderators of leader reward and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction?
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 21-63.

Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., & Skov, R. (1982). Effects of leader contingent and
noncontingent reward and punishment behaviors on subordinate performance and
satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 810-821.

Rodgers, R., & Hunter, J.E. (1991). Impact of management by objectives on

organizational psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 24-33.

Scott, W.E., Jr., & Podsakoff, P.M. (1982). Leadership, supervision, and behavioral
control: Perspectives from an experimental analysis. In L.W. Frederiksen (Ed.),
Handbook of organizational behavior management (pp. 39-69). New York: Wiley.

Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research.

New York: Free Press.

Tesser, A., & Rosen, S. (1975). The reluctance to transmit bad news. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp.193-232). New
York: Academic Press.

Welford, A.T. (1968). Fundamentals of skill. London: Methuen.

Wood, R.E., Mento, A.J., & Locke, E.A. (1987). Task complexity as a moderator of
goal effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 416-425.

National Police
Research Unit
41