> Dear PCP Group Members,
>
... lots snipped ....
>
> My Repertory Grid Question:
> ---------------------------------------
> Presently, after one pilot test after another (3 in total), I still
> haven't been able to "WORD MY ELEMENTS" in such a way so that they
> appear to be comparing APPLES WITH APPLES; rather they apear to be
> apples with organes - as they presently are.
>
> For example, in evaluating the effectiveness of an appraisal system
> (performance management system), the main elements within my domain
> would be: E1: Performance Appraisal (PA) training E2: PA annual
> interview E3: PA communication (including notes and guidelines,
> brochures) E4: PA progress reveiws (done informally throughout the
> year) E5: PA standards & critieria used to appraise performance E6:
> Link to recognition of good performance E7: Self-appraisal E8: PA
> form design E9: PA objective / work goal setting
>
> (these 9 elements fundamentally represent the typical employee
> performance appraisal system)
>
> But my concern is, during my Pilot test Repertory Grid Interviews,
> the respondents had great difficulty in comparing say E2, E5 & E8
> (E2=PA annual interview; E5=stds & criteria; E8=PA form).
>
> Onc interviewee objected with great frustration, stating that I was
> forcing him to compare between a piece of paper with what I actually
> do in the interview!!!
>
> The more I thought about this, the more I realised that my elements
> may not be apples and apples!
>
> I feel confident that the 9 elements do make up the framework - or
> the four corners - of an appraisaly system. And to appropriately
> evaluate the effectiveness of any appraisal system, I needed to
> include these elements. But I can see what some of the respondents
> are saying. IT IS DIFFICULT TO COMPARE AN APPRAISAL FORM WITH ONE'S
> ACTUAL APPRAISAL ANNUAL INTERVIEW.
>
> So my QUESTION IS: Then how can I evaluate a "system" of performance
> managment when the KEY ELEMENTS THEMSELVES ARE NOT THE SAME IN
> NATURE. (remember that Kelly emphasised that elements must be either
> ALL people, or ALL events, or ALL situations, or ALL objects ... I
> suspect that my problem is with the "wording of my elements".
>
> Can any one provide me with some insights into what I am doing wrong
> or not doing right?
>
Dear Robert,
Sounds like you are already getting very clear evidence of the
non-comparability of some things but that you're getting drawn away
from your focus of interest.
What I'd suggest is that you "tune up" or "tighten" the focus in the
session so that you are constantly making it clear that your
elements are
"how the xxxx affects/inputs into the PA system" e.g. "how the
annual interview affects/inputs into the PA system" as opposed to
just
"the annual interview"
That way it's clear that you are forcing apples and oranges to be
compared as fruits, not as visual stimuli (or whatever), i.e. you set
the range and focus of convenience of the whole process. It's easier
said than done and sometimes you may actually have to live with
finding that some things really aren't seen to input or affect the
system at all but at least you can now make that explicit.
Hope that makes some sense. It may or may not be feasible but it's
worth a try!
Chris
Chris Evans, Senior Lecturer in Psychotherapy,
Locum Consultant to the
Prudence Skynner Family Therapy Clinic,
St. George's Hospital Medical School, London University
C.Evans@sghms.ac.uk http://psyctc.sghms.ac.uk/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%