PNAHPTrevised

Running head: PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR ARNDTSEN GROUP

Performance Needs Assessment for the Arndtsen Group Jessica A. Haak Concordia University

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

2

Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 3 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Data Collection........................................................................................................................................ 3 Restated Request ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Performance ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Current Performance ............................................................................................................................. 5 Ideal Performance .................................................................................................................................. 6 Performance Errors Leading to Contamination ................................................................................. 7 Workspace preparation......................................................................................................................... 7 Working inside the glove box. ............................................................................................................. 7 Workspace cleanup............................................................................................................................... 8 Ideal Tasks ................................................................................................................................................... 8 Job One .................................................................................................................................................... 8 Main and Supporting Tasks .................................................................................................................. 8 Description of Performers .......................................................................................................................... 8 Demographics.......................................................................................................................................... 9 Character Sketches ............................................................................................................................... 10 Context ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 Issues at the Individual Level .............................................................................................................. 11 Knowledge and skills. ........................................................................................................................ 12 Capacity.............................................................................................................................................. 13 Motives............................................................................................................................................... 13 Issues at the Environmental Level ...................................................................................................... 13 Data. ................................................................................................................................................... 13 Resources............................................................................................................................................ 14 Incentives and consequences.............................................................................................................. 14 Constraints................................................................................................................................................. 15 Project Constraints ............................................................................................................................... 15 Product Constraints.............................................................................................................................. 15 Causes of the Problem .............................................................................................................................. 16 Causes Related to the Environment .................................................................................................... 16 Causes related to the Individual .......................................................................................................... 18 Objectives................................................................................................................................................... 18 Business Objectives............................................................................................................................... 18 Performance Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 19 Main & Supporting Objectives.................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Summative Evaluation...................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Engagement Survey ...................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Short Term Individual Performance Measure I.....................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Short Term Individual Performance Measure II ...................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Long Term Individual Performance Survey ...........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Organizational Performance Assessment................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

References .................................................................................................................................................. 20 Appendix .................................................................................................................................................... 21

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

3

Introduction Summary The purpose of this report is to highlight the need for a performance improvement campaign for the Arndtsen research group (located in the chemistry department at McGill University). The glove box heads have noted issues with atmospheric and physical surface contamination in the group’s two glove boxes, which has led to potential health and safety issues as well as revenue losses. Figure 1 outlines the current issues, the types of contamination and the impacts on the system. The sponsor for this project, Jeffrey Quesnel, a PhD candidate and glove box head in the Arndtsen research group has asked that I develop a campaign with several possible interventions to be piloted in the Arndtsen group and potentially extended to other labs in the department.

Data Collection Information for this report was collected through surveys from two glove box heads, and three glove box performers in the Arndtsen research group, as well as, additional interviews with the two glove box heads. (This data is summarized in Table 1 and Table 2 in the appendix). The survey included open-ended and close-ended questions. The project sponsor, Jeffrey Quesnel served as the SME for the project. Additionally, I was regularly present in the group’s lab to observe working conditions, performance, and to myself walk through the glove box job tasks.

Further information on topics related to performance improvement (e.g. performance aids, strategic alignment, goal-setting, and job feedback) was taken from the academic literature.

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

4

Restated Request The sponsor has requested that I create a performance campaign on the topic of glove box contamination and issues that are linked to poor glove box practices. The sponsor indicated that the atmospheric conditions and clean surfaces inside the glove box are very important as deviations in these conditions can result in incidents of decomposition, cross-contamination, and problems with equipment accuracy, leading to safety errors and loss of work. Furthermore, he has asked that this project facilitate the development of a written protocol on glove box contamination, as policies and procedures are currently only being delivered verbally to glove box performers.

Business Needs The central business need for this performance campaign is to comply with health and safety policies and procedures as prescribed by McGill Chemistry Department and the group’s supervisory professor. Such regulations are meant to ensure on-going safety of all lab members.

Additionally, in the case of contamination safety measures can also have a large impact on cost control in terms of chemical waste, poor research results, time spent recalibrating equipment, damage to workspaces, and legal costs when serious injury does occur. Furthermore, McGill University’s success is based upon its international reputation, which would be negatively impacted by major safety incidents. It is important to note that all graduate level and postgraduate level students in McGill’s Chemistry Department receive salaries for their work in their laboratories. Success of the campaign will be measured by the reduction of reported safety violations over a period of six months to a year after implementing the campaign. Cost control would be hard to measure at this point, as there are limited metrics available for this purpose, but may be a worthwhile exploration if more detailed metrics are collected in the future.

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

5

Performance Current Performance Kelly the Masters Level Novice. Kelly is a first year masters student and has been working in the glove box for a few months. He has been offered some training opportunities and feels relatively confident on the equipment. Sometimes Kelly gets confused because the glove box heads give him conflicting information on what is expected of him. One of the glove box heads recently yelled at Kelly because he put chemicals on the scale inside the glove box. Kelly found this upsetting because one of the other senior lab members had specifically stated that this was okay to do. When Kelly is in a hurry he sometimes rushes inside the box. His most serious infractions were when he accidently punctured the gloves with a broken pipette and when he did not do three full vacuum cycles before bringing a chemical into the glove box. On several occasions he has accidently dropped chemicals on the surfaces of the glove box and avoided cleaning it up because he was in a hurry. During one of these incidents he was embarrassed about this and neglected to tell a senior lab member, but doesn’t think this is a big deal because he figures the senior lab members check the atmosphere and surfaces regularly. It’s rare that Kelly gets feedback about his performance. He thinks he’s doing a good job, but every now and then his glove box head looks irritated when he is working in the glove box.

Wendy the PhD Level Expert & Supervisor. Wendy is a fifth year chemistry student working on her PhD and a glove box head in her group. She has two publications in the works and is determined to defend her thesis in the next year. For this reason she really does not enjoy training and managing junior lab members, particularly master-level students and undergraduate students, who require more coaching. Every now and then Wendy notices that mistakes are made in the box, but rarely has time to track down who made the mistake, as there are currently

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

6

five students using her glove box. She has a suspicion that one of the undergraduate students has been lying to her about his activities in the box, but she is too stressed to deal with the situation.

She often finds herself repeating the same points over and over again to different students, but sometimes misses important details or unknowingly contradicts herself. Recently, she was in the office, when she noticed that the gloves had moved inside the glove box, resulting in a strong spike in the O2 level. She and another lab member ran over to the glove box and luckily were able to fix the problem. She is happy this did not happen when no one was in the lab.

Ideal Performance Trish the PhD Level Novice. Trish is a first year doctoral student at McGill University.

She has been working in the glove box for eight months. It’s been a great experience. She gets regular feedback and encouragement from her supervisor about her performance in the glove box. Trish has never been cited with a safety violation by her glove box head and knows exactly what to do to prevent atmospheric and physical surface contamination. She is careful to hook up the pump correctly, run three full vacuum cycles, transport chemicals into the glove box, and avoid the transportation of reactive chemicals. One time she spilled a chemical on the glove box scale, and one time she accidently forgot to mark a chemical. In both instances she noticed her mistake in a short period of time and self-corrected her error. She has found that the resources in the lab have been very helpful when using the glove box and when her glove box coach is not around she can easily reference them. Overall, her glove box head is pleasant towards her and willing to coach her through any details she needs practice with.

Jian the PhD Level Expert & Supervisor. Jian’s glove box is pristine. He has been the glove box supervisor for two years and has found that he and the other group members that work in his box are far more productive; they have been publishing articles at a steady rate.

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

7

Additionally, they worry less about breathing in carcinogens and toxic chemicals. Jian regularly checks in on his team. All of Jian’s team members are well aware of the policies and have been provided with both a written and verbal review of them. Jian regularly talks to the other glove box heads and keeps notes of any issues that arise and is quick to follow up on them. He regularly assesses the work of the performers in his box, and documents their performance.

There is less conflict in Jian’s team than has been the case in previous years, because the glove box is in good order and everyone knows what is expected. Additionally, Jian’s supervisory professor has noted that a steep decline in safety violations in the lab, and finds that all of his performers have good glove box habits.

Performance Errors Leading to Contamination Below is a list of contamination issues that are not being successfully diagnosed and corrected by in the current glove box performance.

Workspace preparation. 

Performers do not evaluate glove box conditions on the glove box computer before transporting chemicals into the glove box.



Performers do not ensure that items going into the glove box are non-reactive.



Performers do not ensure that items going into the glove box are O2 and H2O free.



Performers do not do three full vacuum cycles.



Performers leave antechamber doors partially open.



Performers do not ensure the liquid nitrogen level is sufficient before beginning work.

Working inside the glove box. 

Performers do not monitor the glove computer while working in the glove box.

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP



Performers spill chemicals on glove box surfaces without cleaning them.



Performers use the same pipette for different chemicals.



Performers puncture the glove box gloves.



Performers do not refill the liquid nitrogen Dewar.

Workspace cleanup. 

Performers leave antechamber doors partially open.



Performers do not check for puncture marks on the glove box gloves.



Performers do not label all chemicals.

Ideal Tasks Job One To prevent major safety incidents in the glove box, by encouraging an open and cooperative environment for dealing with contamination issues in a continuous and timely manner.

Main and Supporting Tasks

1. Diagnose glove box contamination cooperatively.

1.1. Recognize there is a contamination issue in the glove box.

1.2. Communicate the issue to another user, preferably the glove box head 1.3. Judge, cooperatively, the intervention that is necessary.

2. Correct glove box conditions using teamwork.

2.1. Develop a plan for targeting the issue.

2.2. Determine the roles of the performers involved

8

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

9

2.3. Execute the plan for improving the issue.

2.4. Re-evaluate the conditions in a reasonable timeframe.

3. Report glove box experiences openly.

3.1. Describe the events that led to the contamination.

3.2. Report the process that was followed to diagnosis and correct the issue 3.3. Outline what can be learned from the incident for other performers.

4. Recognize the benefits of cooperatively, communally, and openly working to prevent contamination issues.

Description of Performers Demographics This campaign is intended for university-level performers who are undergraduate honorsundergraduate, master’s level, doctoral level, or postdoctoral level students at McGill University from the novice to expert levels. Although the program will be piloted on a small scale (one research group), it could be extended to include the entire department. The demographics for the Chemistry department provided by the sponsor are listed below. The sponsor indicated that the statistics related to demographics are approximations of the current climate as there is a high turnover rate in each research group. 

60 % male / 40 % female



50% of students are international students



6 research groups currently have glove boxes



9 glove box units are currently in use with 9 PhD level supervisors



The majority of the departmental glove boxes were manufactured by mBraun

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP



60 students currently use the glove boxes in their chemical research



60% of performers are PhD candidates



15% of performers are Masters candidates



15% of performers are Post Doctoral students



10% of performers are honors students



5-6 honors projects a year require the use of a glove box



All performers are under the age of 40



All glove box supervisors are fourth and fifth year PhD candidates

10

Character Sketches Novice Performer. Lisa is in her fourth year of study at McGill University. She is twenty-one years old and an international student from Hong Kong. She is somewhat unsure of where her research interests lie but thinks that organometallic chemistry sounds interesting. She has decided to begin a summer position in a lab in the department to help finance her degree.

Lisa had never used a glove box before entering her new lab, but is at the top of her class and regularly performs well in undergraduate level labs. She figures it won’t be a problem to master the glove box.

Indifferent Performers. Keith is a twenty three year old from Toronto, and has recently moved to Quebec to study at McGill. He doesn’t speak much French, so he’s signed up for evening classes. He is enrolled in two courses this term, and is a teaching assistant for the first time. He is a bit overwhelmed by his new environment. He is hoping to work in industry when he graduates. This is his first experience using a glove box for lab work, as it was never covered in his undergraduate labs and he did his summer placement with a lab that did not have a glove box. He has a good grasp of the general science behind using a glove box, but has limited

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

11

troubleshooting skills, and makes errors from time to time. He doesn’t like admitting he is wrong and would sooner lie than admit a mistake.

Veteran Performer. Audrey is a fourth year doctoral student from France. She wants to get back home and isn’t sure when her supervisor will let her begin on her dissertation. She is hoping to find work at a lab back home. She tries to do things quickly as she is strapped for time, and every now and then becomes careless. Her boyfriend will be finishing his degree in a year and she would like to finish as close to he does as she can. Her publication rate is low and she is worried this will limit her prospects for placements when she finishes her degree. Overall, she is stressed.

Supervisors. Alex is from Spain, and 32 years old. He hopes to find a professorship in the coming months and is actively looking for a position. This is his second post doc position; previously he was working in the United States. He has found that the policies and procedures vary a bit from place to place but has learned to adapt. He is well aware of the glove box procedures and is comfortable trouble shooting problems, although the model in his new lab has several distinct variations from the previous boxes his has worked on (e.g. the doors and the glove box computer). Other lab members have mentioned that he is more competent than the previous post doc who made frequent errors in the glove box. He has three publications in the works, and has a well-established publication record, and his highly professional in his work.

Context Issues at the Individual Level The information provided in this section was collected from survey results (see Table 1 and Table 2), as well as, interviews with the two glove box heads. Additionally, I observed the

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

12

workspace and workers in the Arndtsen research group and myself walked through some of the glove box job tasks they perform on a daily basis. The survey included open and closed-ended questions targeting performance issues covered in Gilbert’s Behaviour Engineering Model (BEM) (Gilbert, 2007). The following section has been broken up into the headings described in the BEM commonly used in performance improvement diagnoses.

Knowledge and skills.  Range of prior knowledge of performers varies considerably between an undergraduate level performer and postdoctoral performer.  Knowledge acquired at other labs and universities may not fully transfer, as procedures are glove box model specific.  Roughly 50% of performers in the chemistry department are international students and may have previously worked in different conditions than those at McGill University (in the Arndtsen group 6 of 8 students are currently international students).  Roughly 50% of performers in the chemistry department are English as a second language speakers, and may require additional supports when accessing information and documents in English (in the Arndtsen research group 6 of 8 students speak English as a second language).  Students coming from the McGill University undergraduate program do not receive glove box training during their bachelor degree, unless they do a summer internship or a research project during the school year.  An informal training program currently exists, with one formal training module on transporting chemicals being piloted in the Arndtsen research group.

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

13

 Performers receive informal coaching from glove box heads, but no formal measures such as tracking the number of hours spent coaching, the content to be covered in coaching sessions, or the progress of these sessions are in place.

Capacity.  McGill has an in-depth selection process that has generally been successful in ensuring that performers working in its chemistry labs have the capability to perform researchbased tasks.  Survey results suggest that glove box performers and glove box heads in the Arndtsen research group believe that they are capable of completing their job tasks.

Motives.  All glove box performers in the survey reported that they enjoy working in the glove box.  Survey results suggest that performers believe there is a direct link between their personal research results and the cleanliness of the group’s glove boxes, which may be an avenue for encouraging engagement in the proposed performance campaign.  Survey results suggested that one glove box head enjoys overseeing performer performance and the other does not and doing glove box maintenance.  Survey results also suggested that one glove box head believes that performers are motivated to keep the glove box clean, whereas, the other glove box head believes the opposite.  There are currently no individual or strategic goal-setting programs in place.

Issues at the Environmental Level Data.

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

14

 Survey results suggest that the glove box performers in the Arndtsen research group believe that the glove box procedures have been clearly explained verbally.  A written version of the policies and procedures has not been made available to the performers.  Performers sometimes receive conflicting reports from glove box supervisors.  Glove box heads believe that a written protocol of glove box procedures could have a positive impact on glove box performance, but need assistance in developing such a document.  Survey results suggest that performers in the Arndtsen lab have different expectations with regards to receiving feedback.  The glove box heads indicated that they believe that they should provide additional information to performers about their glove box expectations.  One glove box head would like to develop a written code of conduct for performers.

Resources.  Resources indicated as lacking in the survey and interviews were a time management system, job aids, and chemical inventory list.

Incentives and consequences.  Survey results suggest that Arndtsen group glove box performers would like a more structured incentivization and punitive measure system for glove box use.  Glove box heads both believe that an incentivization and punitive measure system may help to improve performance.

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

15

Constraints Project Constraints Budget. There is currently no budget for this project. All work to be conducted will be unpaid, which must be considered in the design. Where possible designs will be fully produced in order to encourage possible sponsorship from the McGill Chemistry Department in order to extend the campaign to the full department.

Schedule. The schedule for this project is contingent on the course schedule for ETEC 712. The final submission date on the course outline is listed as April 12, 2013.

Quality. The limited budget for this project will undoubtedly have an impact on the quality level of the produced materials. That being said, a smart campaign with clear, witty, and enticing imagery is likely to have an impact on the engagement of performers in the under 40 demographic.

Product Constraints 

The campaign must be in line with McGill Chemistry Departmental policies and procedures.



All interventions must be approved by each group’s supervisory professor.



The campaign will be designed with a third year undergraduate chemistry student to a postdoctoral level performer in mind.



In terms of visibility high traffic and communal areas should be targeted (e.g. near glove boxes and research group computers).



The McGill Chemistry Department is a multicultural community and therefore imagery should be culturally neutral and accessible.

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP



16

Many members of the McGill Chemistry Department are English as a second language speakers, and therefore the language should be accessible to English speakers of different levels.

Causes of the Problem Causes Related to the Environment Performance Feedback. According to London (2003) many individuals do not enjoy the process of providing or accepting feedback, but in light of this fact feedback is vital part of workplace performance as it helps in ‘directing, motivating and rewarding job behaviors’ (p. 21).

It is not surprising then that there were mixed opinions in the survey results from the Arndtsen research group. Currently there is no formal feedback process for the lab in terms of glove box performance.

Group Assessment and Goal Setting. Ramsay and Lynch (2004) argued that group performance should be regularly assessed and supported by three levels of goal setting: long term objectives, short-term objectives, and daily goals. In the case of the Arndtsen research group limited goals have been established to aid in the advancement of performance, additionally until this report little has been done to formally report the status of performance. Currently, there are limited formal metrics on group performance beyond safety violations in the lab.

Knowledge Management. Haney and Driggers (2010) defined knowledge management as ‘controlling the process of identifying, organizing, storing, disseminating, using, and maintaining knowledge in order to support strategic goals’ (p. 366). Currently in the Arndtsen group, there are few written protocols for new glove box performers to review. The majority of training and knowledge dissemination on the topic of glove box usage is verbal, which has

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

17

particular drawbacks. Firstly, when a senior lab member is not available, new performers are left to their own devices and may be asked to make judgment calls that they do not have the expertise to make. Secondly, because there is a regular turn over in senior lab members, when they leave knowledge that is not written down or disseminated verbally can be easily lost. Thirdly, as suggested in Haney and Driggers, it is difficult to support goals without systems for organizing knowledge.

Performance Aids. Beyond the performance aids developed for the training module on transporting chemicals in and out of the glove box there are no formal performance aids available to performers. Lane (2010) suggested that performance aids are most useful for expert level performers. In the case of the McGill Chemistry department the majority of glove box performers are doctoral students who will develop an extensive level of expertise in glove box usage through their five to seven years in the department. No performance aids currently exist for this demographic or for novice level learners (outside of those developed for the training module on transporting chemicals).

Incentivization and Punitive Measures. Enos (2007) suggested that the optimum method for motivating individuals in an organization is to ‘find the connection between the personal goals of the individual and the goals of the organization’ (p. 203). In this sense goal setting may serve a greater purpose than simply providing employees with guidelines for performance, they may also impact engagement and desire to complete tasks. In the case of the Arndtsen group, all of the performers surveyed indicated that they believe there is a link between glove box cleanliness and their research success. There has been limited coordination in aligning glove box performance goals with individual lab member’s goals. Additionally, there is no

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

18

formal incentiviation program, nor a formal punitive system for low glove box performance to reinforce good performance.

Causes related to the Individual Training and Coaching. According to Enos (2007) a good training program is aligned with the strategic goals of an organization. In the case of the Arndtsen group a lack of goal setting and parameters for passable or fail-worthy glove box performance have meant that training may not be focusing its attention on areas that will provide performers with the skills necessary to thrive in their environments, nor will they likely align with the bigger picture of the groups research mandate. Currently, training is at the discretion of glove box heads who have no formal process of assessment of learning or list of glove box topics to cover. For this reason there may be unidentified knowledge gaps in the different performer groups. Additionally, there is no targeted strategy for dealing with training of members of different demographic groups.

Furthermore, glove box heads themselves have limited training in how to coach other glove box performers.

Objectives Business Objectives As indicated the primary business objective is to reduce injury as the result of chemical contamination. The primary measure for this is reported safety violations, which could be traced over an extended period of time. Additionally, in the future tracking the impact of glove box performance on revenue losses may be useful for cost reduction in the greater chemistry department. Such an undertaking would require an action plan for increasing metrics in

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

chemical waste, inaccurate research results, lost time, damage to workspaces/equipment, and legal costs as a result of contamination.

Performance Objectives

1. Diagnose glove box contamination cooperatively.

2. Correct glove box conditions using teamwork.

3. Report glove box experiences openly.

4. Recognize the benefits of cooperatively, communally, and openly working to prevent contamination issues.

19

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

20

References Enos, D. D. (2007). Performance management: making it happen. New York, NY: Auerbach Publications.

Gilbert, T. F. (2007). Human competence: engineering worthy performance. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer & International Society for Performance Improvement.

Haney, D. & Driggers, J. T. (2010). In Watkins, R. & Leigh, D. (1). Handbook of improving performance in the workplace: volume 2 selecting and implementing performance interventions. San Fransicso, CA: Pfeiffer & International Society for Performance Improvement.

Lane, M. (2010). Performance aids. In Watkins, R. & Leigh, D. (1). Handbook of improving performance in the workplace: volume 2 selecting and implementing performance interventions. San Fransicso, CA: Pfeiffer & International Society for Performance Improvement.

London, M. (2003). Job feeback. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrece Erlabaum Associates, Publsihers.

Ramsay, J. & Lynch, J. (2004). Coaching for performance. New York, NY: University Press of America.

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

Appendix

21

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

22

Table 1 Glove Box Performance at the Individual Level Gilbert’s Model

Glove Box Performer Perspective

Knowledge & Skills

 All performers said that they feel confident about their skills in preventing O2 and H2O from entering the glove box.  Performers varied in their desire to receive coaching on the glove box to further their skills and knowledge.  One performer would like general more training on the glove box.  One performer believes that more training should be provided on troubleshooting issues.

Capacity

 All performers felt confident that they are capable of performing their job tasks.

Motives

 All performers said they enjoy working in the glove box.  All performers said they believe it is important to keep the glove box clean.  All performers believe they should keep the glove box clean in order to improve their personal research.  All performers believe it is important to prevent glove punctures.

Glove Box Head Perspective  Both glove box heads feel confident that they have the knowledge and skills to develop a written protocol for the project.  Both glove box heads feel that they can troubleshoot and resolves issues in the glove box.  One glove box head would like it if performers had more knowledge of how to troubleshoot small problems.  Both performers feel confident that they can offer coaching and mentorship to their performers.  Both glove box heads feel that their performers have the capability to complete the necessary job tasks.  Glove box heads varied in their enjoyment in overseeing performers’ performance.  Glove box heads varied in their enjoyment in doing glove box maintenance.  Glove box heads varied in how motivated they believe their performers are to keep their glove boxes clean (one was neutral the other positive).

Note. Three regular glove box performers were surveyed (two at the doctoral level and one at the post doctoral level). Two glove box heads were surveyed, both at the doctoral level. All participants are from the same lab.

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

23

Table 2 Glove Box Performance at the Environmental Level Gilbert’s Model

Glove Box Performer Perspective

Glove Box Head Perspective

Data

 All performers believe that the glove box policies and procedures have been well articulated verbally.  All performers believe that the glove box policies and procedures have not been articulated well in a written format.  Performers varied in the amount of feedback they feel they have received on their glove box performance.  One performer would like more feedback.

 Glove box heads varied in the amount of feedback they believe they offer.  Both glove box heads confirmed that they have not offered written protocols to the performers.  Both glove box head believe that a global list of policies and procedures on the glove box would help to improve performance.  Both glove box heads believe that they should provide more information to performers on what is expected of them.  One glove box head would like a signed written code of conduct from performers.

Resources

 Performers varied in their satisfaction with glove box resources, ranging from neutral to very positive.  One performer would like better job aids.  One performer would like a chemical inventory list in the glove box.  Majority of performers asked for more incentivization for high glove box performance.  Majority of performers asked for more punitive measures for performers who have glove box safety and chemical violations.

 One glove box head would like to develop a better time management system for glove box use.

Incentives & Consequences

 Glove box heads varied in the amount of incentivization that they provide their performers.  Both glove box heads believe that incentivization and/or punitive measures could improve performance.

Note. Three regular glove box performers were surveyed (two at the doctoral level and one at the post doctoral level). Two glove box heads were surveyed, both at the doctoral level. All participants are from the same lab. The survey included both open and closed-ended questions

PERFORMANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ARNDTSEN GROUP

24