Step 2: Measure and compare actual with planned results

As with setting standards, the objectivity of the measurement and the person who
measures and compares the performance are important. Measuring and comparing ca
n be accomplished by the person performing the task, by the boss, or by a staff
person; even an automated system can measure and compare. From a behavioral stan
dpoint, the last method is the least popular, followed by measurement by a staff
person only.
An employee believes an automated system, a staff person, or even the boss does
not know enough about the conditions of the job to make a fair comparison betwee
n actual and planned results.
Also, the employee often distrusts the staff person and sometimes even the boss.
At the same time, the employee is usually not trusted enough by the company to
perform the measurement and comparison alone. The best solution is to have the m
easurement done by the person most trusted by the employee and to allow the empl
oyee some input.
Behavioral Responses to Control Systems
When employees have relatively low trust in a control system, they sometimes beh
ave in various ways that are harmful to the organization. They may do what is re
quired by the system.
For example, when bonuses for salespeople in a department store were based on sa
les volume, many employees soon lost interest in customers who did not immediate
ly purchase an item, and they spent little time helping customers, making mercha
ndise attractive, or performing stock work.
Quite often employees will report data in such a way that performance will look
good for a particular time period. Some control systems will also cause employee
s to report invalid or misleading data about what can be done.
For example, it is not uncommon at budget time for managers to ask for larger am
ounts than needed if they believe their requests will be reduced. In many organi
zations budget setting sessions are largely negotiating games with little effort
given to establishing realistic standards. The advent of computer-based managem
ent information systems has also caused invalid data to be provided. These syste
ms sometimes require historical cost, production, and other data that are simply
not available and cannot be provided. When pressed, however, the data are estim
ated, often inaccurately.
Finally, control systems that employees view as clearly threatening will cause s
trong resistance, perhaps the best example of this is automatic data systems. Th
ese systems create new experts with much power, are often not well understood, a
nd, therefore are feared by many employees