‘Organizational Linkages: Understanding tho Productivity Paradox (1984) iptv ng edioperoneD009045042hra 183 Hl copy 1684, 2060 The Ral Academy of Seles igh ese Decouposunc rise PRODUCTIVITY LINKAGES papapox + 183 closer it is to performing at the maximum performance level. If the ‘unit's overall effectiveness is negative (i., below expectations), anegative value of the percentage-of:maximum score is calculated, ‘The advantage of the pereentage-of-maximum index is that it al- lows the performance of groups doing very different things to be com- pared. The group with the highest percentage-of- maximum score is the highest-performing work group. This comparison is valid even if the groups have different indicators because the contingency process seales all indicators on a common metric, overall effectiveness. ‘The comparison between different groupsiis then based on this common mete. ‘The ProMES methodology was first developed and evaluated in five units of an Air Force base (Pritchard et al., 1989). Tt resulted in large gains in productivity, and those gains were maintained for the entire time of measurement—at least 20 months. The methodology has also been successfully implemented in other organizations in the United States and Europe (Janssen and van Berkel, 1991; Jones, 1995; Kleinbeck et al., 1991; Kleingeld et al., 1991; Roth et al., 1995; Hedley et al., 1995; ‘Schmidt, 1991; Stout and Jones, 1989; Thierry and Miedema, 1991; van Tufil, 1991). ProMES and Linkage Issues ProMBS is one methodology that can be used for dealing with conflicts in objectives that can produce the pro- ductivity paradox. The technique can be seen as a way of formally iden- tifying organizational policy, Products, indicators, and contingencies reflect what the objectives of each subsystem are, what measures will communicate how well the subsystem is fulfilling those objectives, the relative importance of each measure, what is expected on each mea- sure, and what level of output is defined as good or bad. This isa state- ment of policy. Ttis developed subjectively, but policy is by nature sub- Jective. What ProMES does is to give organizational personnel a meth- odology with which to define policy in a way that people can under- stand, that people can agree with or not, and that can be communi- cated clearly. By going through the process of developing the system, incumbents, supervisors, and managers can come to terms with the fact that there are disagreements in policy. These disagreements almost always occur somewhere in the development of a system. However, because the sys- ‘tem gives personnel a structured method for dealing with the disagree- ments, it can make reaching a satisfactory compromise easier. ‘This approach can be used across organizational levels and at the same level. ‘Through the process of getting incumbents and supervisors to agree on the elements of the system and then presenting those elements to higher management and gaining approval, disagreements in objectives and