Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (Reference Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad and Moye2015) have stated that performance management (PM) best practices have resulted in the dissatisfaction of employees and managers with PM reviews and systems. The authors have suggested that the focus should be on driving critical PM behaviors that have been shown to increase engagement and performance. Corporate Leadership Council (2004) research demonstrated that increased engagement takes place when PM behaviors such as setting clear expectations, providing regular feedback, and helping employees develop and succeed occur. In addition, effective PM happens when employees are contributing to the process as well.

Although Pulakos et al. (Reference Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad and Moye2015) have proposed a new five-step plan for PM reform based on the premise that embedding effective PM behavior in daily work is foundational for driving performance and engagement, we believe that the well-established Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES; Pritchard, Reference Pritchard1990; Pritchard, Harrell, DiazGranados, & Guzman, Reference Pritchard, Harrell, DiazGranados and Guzman2008) already provides the reform that these authors have called for. The ProMES PM system has been successfully implemented in manufacturing, service, sales, consulting, and educational settings among different types of workers with various educational backgrounds. Traditionally, ProMES success is measured by calculating performance based on the ProMES performance scores before and after feedback has started (Pritchard et al., Reference Pritchard, Harrell, DiazGranados and Guzman2008). The effect size is calculated to then determine the impact that ProMES was able to have on the employees in the organization. Pritchard et al. (Reference Pritchard, Harrell, DiazGranados and Guzman2008) reported an average effect size of d = 1.44 from 83 field studies, assessed in 40 organizations across nine countries by 13 research groups, which is regarded as a very large effect size (Cohen, Reference Cohen1969).

This effective PM intervention works by targeting motivation and productivity in organizations, and the intervention is based on the motivational principles from the Naylor, Pritchard, and Ilgen (Reference Naylor, Pritchard and Ilgen1980; NPI) Theory of Behavior in Organizations. According to this theory, motivation is the process that is used to allocate energy to maximize need satisfaction (Pritchard & Ashwood, Reference Pritchard and Ashwood2008). Employees will only be motivated if they have clear links (i.e., contingencies) among the specific actions, the resulting outputs, the evaluation of outputs, the expected outcomes, and the needs that are satisfied by these outcomes. In this facilitated, participative management approach, people in organizations are involved in the development of their objectives, performance indicators, and priorities. Regular feedback reports and priority meetings foster increased performance in teams and individuals over time.

Typical ProMES design teams consist of five to eight team members, including managers and lower level employees (Pritchard, Reference Pritchard1990). By bringing together this design team, the ProMES user is able to effectively carry out Pulakos et al.'s (Reference Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad and Moye2015) “Step 1. Plan change,” which is evaluating the current PM system and developing a strategy to transform the PM process. ProMES promotes deep and thorough discussions with relevant stakeholders on important topics such as what issues the employees are currently facing and what needs to be done to make improvements moving forward. On the basis of these conversations, the design team develops the ProMES PM system in three major steps: (a) identifying objectives, (b) defining indicators that measure the objectives, and (c) designing contingency graphs that differentiate the priorities of these indicators.

Objectives can be considered the main tasks of a work group. They should be the most important work aspects that, when combined and improved, lead to better overall team performance (i.e., reliability, quality, customer satisfaction). Objectives are developed during brainstorming sessions with the design team, and these sessions normally result in four to six objectives (Pritchard, Young, Koenig, Schmerling, & Wright, Reference Pritchard, Young, Koenig, Schmerling, Wright, Locke and Latham2013). This objective-setting process is strongly aligned with Pulakos et al.'s (Reference Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad and Moye2015) recommendation to “establish role descriptions” in “Step 2. Streamline the current system,” which highlights how clearly defining major duties and responsibilities for a given position is critical for facilitating productive conversations about priorities and challenges experienced on the job.

After objectives are agreed on, the facilitators direct brainstorming sessions to develop indicators. Indicators are quantitative measures of how well objectives are being met. There can be multiple indicators for each objective so that indicators can completely encompass the objective. In addition, indicators that employees have full (or the most) control over must be identified (Pritchard et al., Reference Pritchard, Young, Koenig, Schmerling, Wright, Locke and Latham2013). The indicators must also measure what they are intended to measure, and they must be fully understood by employees (Pritchard, Reference Pritchard1990). For more information on the indicator stage of ProMES, see Pritchard, Weaver, and Ashwood (Reference Pritchard, Weaver and Ashwood2012). The brainstorming sessions focus on one objective at a time until the design team agrees that the indicators fully encompass the objective, typically resulting in 8 to 12 indicators (Pritchard et al., Reference Pritchard, Young, Koenig, Schmerling, Wright, Locke and Latham2013). We believe this process of collaboratively establishing indicators coincides with and provides a clear mechanism for Pulakos et al.'s (Reference Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad and Moye2015) recommendation to “identify meaningful performance measures” in Step 2 because the driving focus of these discussions is to pinpoint those critical behaviors that can be measured in real time.

Once the design team establishes objectives and indicators, the facilitators explain contingencies and their importance to the system. A ProMES contingency operationalizes the product-to-evaluation connection and is a type of utility function that defines how much of an indicator is beneficial to the overall performance of the team (Pritchard, Reference Pritchard1990). Contingencies capture the relative importance of different indicators, translate how much was done (descriptive feedback) into how good that was (evaluative feedback), allow for an overall performance score, and identify priorities for improvement. The steps to produce contingencies are described in Pritchard et al. (Reference Pritchard, Harrell, DiazGranados and Guzman2008).

After contingencies have been developed, ProMES can be used to start collecting measures and to provide feedback. Feedback is provided through the standard ProMES feedback report process and is used as the basis for regular meetings to identify and later evaluate better task strategies. A key part of the feedback meetings is establishing priorities for making improvements. Specifically, the feedback is examined to decide which aspects of work will be focused on during the next performance cycle. The length of a performance cycle is determined by the design team but is usually about 1 month (Pritchard et al., Reference Pritchard, Young, Koenig, Schmerling, Wright, Locke and Latham2013).

Priorities to focus on for the next performance cycle are determined by comparing standardized effectiveness scores for each indicator and examining which indicators (typically three to five), if improved, would lead to the largest gains in effectiveness scores. After determining which indicators should be targeted for improvement, management works with employees in the feedback meetings to discuss strategies for how they can focus on and improve those behaviors in the next performance cycle (Pritchard et al., Reference Pritchard, Young, Koenig, Schmerling, Wright, Locke and Latham2013). This cycle of feedback is continual and has no end point. We see this component of ProMES aligning well with Pulakos et al.'s (Reference Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad and Moye2015) suggestions around “conduct career conversations” in Step 2, as the emphasis of these frequent discussions is always forward looking (e.g., where can an employee improve most and how can he or she do so) versus the typical backward-looking yearly reviews (e.g., where did an employee fail over the past year). Over longer periods of time, it is appropriate to go back and reevaluate the various components of ProMES to ensure that all objectives and indicators are still pertinent to the system and make any changes that are necessary.

One of the main issues that Pulakos et al. (Reference Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad and Moye2015) have recognized is that current PM systems do not motivate employees to improve performance. In “Step 3. Motivate change,” the authors have outlined four critical PM behaviors (inspire, adapt, align, and grow) managers can use to build communication and trust with employees, and we believe that ProMES exemplifies these behaviors. The “inspire” behavior is described as linking each individual's work to the organization's mission and its success. At the onset of the ProMES process, success is discussed and operationalized. Then all behavioral measures are built on this foundation, creating a strong link from the behaviors employees are evaluated on to the organization's mission and definition of success. The “adapt” behavior is defined as setting shorter term goals and expectations that flex with changing situations. Throughout the article, Pulakos et al. (Reference Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad and Moye2015) have discussed how burdensome it is to initiate a traditional PM cycle with formal goal-setting sessions, which often result in goals that have little to no relevance by the end of the year. ProMES allows for flexibility based on changing situations and uses the idea of short-term goals to make long-term improvements. Proponents of ProMES understand the importance of setting performance indicators and contingencies and then regularly revising them.

The authors have described the “align” behavior as providing and receiving regular, informal feedback to praise and course correct employees in real time. The pain point Pulakos et al. (Reference Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad and Moye2015) have identified is the series of mandatory review sessions that occur at the midpoint and end point of a traditional PM cycle. We agree that feedback is needed to correct behavior, and ProMES addresses this point through feedback reports. Feedback is provided to employees on a regular basis—most often once per month. The feedback reports consist of scores on contingencies that inform employees about how well they are currently performing and where to focus their efforts during the next performance period. ProMES emphasizes constant developmental feedback and brainstorming of strategies to improve particular behaviors in shorter time frames than 1 year. These feedback reports are also used as a way to evaluate the PM system. It is not uncommon for ProMES objectives, indicators, or contingencies to be changed, adjusted, moved, or added during feedback sessions to better align ProMES with the organization's mission in real time.

Last, Pulakos et al. (Reference Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad and Moye2015) have defined the “grow” behavior as an employee developing as part of his or her daily work by leveraging work experiences and others’ expertise. In ProMES feedback reports, managers are provided with richer data and are able to work with employees to identify areas for growth. Through these feedback reports, employees are also able to easily track their progress and improvement over time. Furthermore, the authors have pointed to research showing that it is important for managers to take a genuine interest in their direct reports as a part of the growth behavior; the development and feedback processes of ProMES encapsulate this concept as managers are required to work hand in hand with their direct reports to build out the system and make adjustments based on the employees’ capability levels.

ProMES is an alternative to the experiential on-the-job learning intervention that Pulakos et al. (Reference Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad and Moye2015) have described in “Step 4. Embed change.” The authors have operationalized embedding change as a general on-the-job experiential learning framework that teaches employees and managers how to effectively model PM behaviors. Although this is a suitable approach, many organizations may be intimidated by the prospect of designing an entire learning intervention framework. ProMES offers a concrete, comprehensive intervention framework that can be prescribed by organizational leaders without those leaders needing to devote additional effort and resources to build a unique system from the ground up. Employees are learning more about effective PM behaviors before ProMES is even implemented because the employees are actively engaged and collaborating during the development of the system's objectives, indicators, and contingencies. This engagement serves as a source of experiential learning and has been shown to increase productivity simply because of workforce participation in the process, with an average effect size of d = 0.7 (Paquin, Jones, & Roth, Reference Paquin, Jones and Roth1992).

As Pulakos et al. (Reference Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad and Moye2015) have highlighted in “Step 5. Evaluate,” it is critical to evaluate any new PM system or intervention at an organization with regards to perceptions of value and general attitudes from the workforce. Although this kind of evaluation is not a formal component of ProMES, it is highly recommended and has been included as part of previous research on ProMES implementations, which demonstrated generally positive reactions on behalf of the workforce (Pritchard, Reference Pritchard1995). The authors have also asserted that it often does not make sense to go through a specific and extensive PM development process, such as ProMES, because of the amount of time it takes upfront to develop the system. However, Janssen, van Berkel, and Stolk (Reference Janssen, van Berkel, Stolk and Pritchard1995) conducted a study to measure the actual return on investment that an organization would gain by implementing ProMES. Janssen et al. found that the increased effectiveness due to ProMES led to an increase of $8,200 in extra production per month for a single, small manufacturing force, whereas the upfront investment to build the system was only $10,600 (meaning it only took 39 days before the investment in developing ProMES was fully recouped). Therefore, this study (Janssen et al., Reference Janssen, van Berkel, Stolk and Pritchard1995) provides support for the fact that even with the amount of time it may take to develop the system, ProMES will likely prove to be cost effective in the long term. Furthermore, ProMES has been shown to have positive financial outcomes across many different contexts and occupations (Pritchard et al., Reference Pritchard, Weaver and Ashwood2012).

In summary, we are in full agreement with Pulakos et al. (Reference Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad and Moye2015) that there needs to be a reform to address the dissatisfaction and disappointment in PM systems across organizations. However, in lieu of continuing the vicious cycle of reinventing PM processes, we suggest implementing a system that Campbell (Reference Campbell, Pritchard, Weaver and Ashwood2012, back cover) has lauded as “one of Applied Psychology's premier achievements . . . [that] has no equal in terms of utilizing sound theory, previous research, careful measurement, and systematic implementation procedures to achieve performance improvements for a wide variety of organizations and organizational units,” and Latham (Reference Latham, Pritchard, Weaver and Ashwood2012, back cover) has described as “an outstanding example of evidence-based management.” Although there is still much that can be done to further validate and improve ProMES, we believe that focusing effort on refining such a system is more productive than is attempting to design and validate an entirely new approach to PM. Such focused efforts by the applied and academic community will ideally result in a PM approach that truly generates meaningful behavior change in organizations.