During the interview sessions, Dave should inquire into what his employees like about their jobs, what they dislike about their jobs, which functions they like and dislike, what changes they would like to see, what suggestions they would offer to implement positive changes, and what types of rewards might increase motivation to perform at the highest level possible (Russell-Whalling, 2008).

Rationale

The rationale for implementing interviews of this nature is that they are likely to reveal information that could be useful to Dave. Specifically, he may be able to identify changes in the respective responsibilities of various individual employees that could increase their motivation. Similarly, to the extent the interviews are productive sources of information, Dave might identify various types of rewards (such as in the form of privileges, eligibilities, or opportunities) that could better motivate his poorer performers than any attempts to know them more personally or warnings of the type that have already proven ineffective at improving performance.

The rationale for abandoning the previous method of improving performance through social ingratiation is that this method does not address any of the reasons likely to be responsible for the low performance levels of employees. Equally important is the fact that social ingratiation, particularly when it suddenly increases on the part of a supervisor) is almost certainly counterproductive because it suggests the very opposite of what Dave needs to communicate: it suggests that Dave is pleased with his employees instead of communicating that changes are necessary. Finally, this method may actually undermine Dave's apparent authority or decrease the respect that his employees...

Specifically, warnings that improved performance is necessary followed by short-lived improvement and then a return to previous performance levels are counterproductive (Daft, 2005). In that regard, allowing a cycle of temporary improvement without any consequences once performance returns to unsatisfactory levels only devalues any further attempts to motivate through similar warnings (Daft, 2005). With respect to the mechanism of warnings, Dave should either have avoided using them altogether or used them only in conjunction with simultaneously establishing definitive negative consequences for failing to achieve and maintain high performance.
From a contemporary management and industrial psychology perspective, Dave's past attempt to improve performance by ingratiating himself socially into the lives of his subordinates was also a mistake. The fact that Dave increased his social presence in this manner only provided unintentional positive feedback that completely contradicted the message he meant to communicate in connection with any warnings about performance. Dave should have restricted his new interest in his employees to professional performance issues instead of doing so on a more personal level.