Job Performance Model
Case Study 1, Joan Murphy
Questions from the book:
1. What is your evaluation of Joan’s performance in terms of consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus?
Joan’s performance is very high in terms of consistency. In her case, she is consistently slower than her coworkers when completing assignments. She takes, on average, 13 more hours to complete a “routine” program and 15 more hours to complete programs classified as “major problems.” She is assigned more difficult tasks because of her technical competency, but her ability should outweigh the difficulty of the assignment, and programs should be completed in about the same amount of time as other engineers.
Her performance is low on the distinctiveness scale in that it does not vary in different situations. If she averaged the same amount of time as others on “routine” programs, but took longer on “major problems,” it could be that the difficulty of the program, an external cause, was influencing her performance. However, because the type of situation does not change her behavior, is cannot be deemed distinctive.
In terms of consensus, her performance would be rated low, because others in her same circumstances generally perform better and faster, instead of about the same. Given her credentials, it could be assumed that she would perform at least as well as her coworkers, but since they are all performing better, it must be a problem specific to Joan causing her low performance.
2. Do you attribute Joan’s performance to internal or to external causes? What is the rationale for your decision?
I would attribute Joan’s performance to internal causes. A high level of consistency in her case suggests an internal cause. She is consistently rated average to marginal on peer performance reviews, and often her work cannot be used until it has been redone because of its poor organization. A low level of distinctiveness also suggests an internal cause for poor performance. Her performance does not vary
Questions from the book:
1. What is your evaluation of Joan’s performance in terms of consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus?
Joan’s performance is very high in terms of consistency. In her case, she is consistently slower than her coworkers when completing assignments. She takes, on average, 13 more hours to complete a “routine” program and 15 more hours to complete programs classified as “major problems.” She is assigned more difficult tasks because of her technical competency, but her ability should outweigh the difficulty of the assignment, and programs should be completed in about the same amount of time as other engineers.
Her performance is low on the distinctiveness scale in that it does not vary in different situations. If she averaged the same amount of time as others on “routine” programs, but took longer on “major problems,” it could be that the difficulty of the program, an external cause, was influencing her performance. However, because the type of situation does not change her behavior, is cannot be deemed distinctive.
In terms of consensus, her performance would be rated low, because others in her same circumstances generally perform better and faster, instead of about the same. Given her credentials, it could be assumed that she would perform at least as well as her coworkers, but since they are all performing better, it must be a problem specific to Joan causing her low performance.
2. Do you attribute Joan’s performance to internal or to external causes? What is the rationale for your decision?
I would attribute Joan’s performance to internal causes. A high level of consistency in her case suggests an internal cause. She is consistently rated average to marginal on peer performance reviews, and often her work cannot be used until it has been redone because of its poor organization. A low level of distinctiveness also suggests an internal cause for poor performance. Her performance does not vary