=Introduction=
[[File:GRI_Model_dep_variables.png|right|450px]]
Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.

This article explains how the Behavior Intelligence Quotient, or BIQ (Read Be IQ), is calculated by combining adaptive profiles’ metrics with strategic and social performance indicators, along with other, more traditional economic indicators, at the organizational level.

The BIQ mnemonic reflects the understanding that although measuring social behavior and the resulting adaptive profiles provide powerful, valuable, and acute information far beyond what intuition and private techniques can offer, their benefits are realized only through the people who use them. As explained below, the quotient is calculated at the organizational level. It augments the capacity of those responsible for the organization and its people to see what is otherwise subjective and blurry, and make better-informed decisions on the spot, resulting in increased engagement and alignment over time.

=Construction of Performance Indicators=

The unique properties of the adaptive profiles enable a precise understanding of people’s performance in context. Two key properties of their metrics are incorporated into the construction of performance indicators that can then be used at a group level. In summary, they are the following:
* '''Property 1''': Adaptive profiles effectively indicate the level of individuals' involvement, engagement, and effectiveness within their environment. Low adaptation combined with high engagement suggests that people are in roles that align with their values, expectations, interests, and social behavior preferences. Conversely, high adaptation and low engagement indicate disengagement, demotivation, and negative emotions among individuals in their roles. These levels of adaptation and engagement reflect either a mismatch between a person’s social behavior values and their position, or ineffective personal development.
* '''Property 2''': Adaptive profiles, including their factors, scales, indicators, and profiles, offer a detailed view of people’s performance, encompassing social behaviors, values, preferences, styles, interests, and more. This view is based on both how people behave and how they think and feel about those social behaviors. Our best estimate at GRI is that the profiles capture up to 90% of people’s social behaviors across the short, medium, and long term. The intensity of these behaviors is influenced by Property 1 above. As a result, we not only gain a better understanding of how people function but also when their social behaviors are likely to be expressed.

=Strategic Performance Indicators=
In fact, people consistently exhibit measurable social behaviors, preferences, and values. On the other hand, positions also have behavioral requirements that reflect the choices of the organization and its stakeholders. If the organization, its management, shareholders, pressure groups, etc., want efforts to be focused in a particular direction and in a relatively consistent and uniform manner, then this should occur. Conversely, if this is not the case, it suggests that management and recruitment efforts are not meeting their goals: behaviors are out of alignment with the objectives.

By comparing actual behaviors of individuals with desired behaviors at the position level, the organization can assess and manage the relationship between actors' behaviors and the organization’s needs, using the same behavioral dimensions. In practice, the difference can be measured between the behaviors described by the PBI (Position Behavior Indicator) profiles of positions and the actual behaviors of people, as shown in the Effective graph of the GRI adaptive profile. The gap between these indicates which actions should be taken to maximize the effectiveness of social behavior at each position.

This performance is called strategic because understanding how to do things across all positions at every level is crucial when setting goals, planning, and controlling. The ways of selecting personnel, implementing processes, innovating, managing change, taking risks, defending, and gaining market share—highlighted by the adaptive profiles—shape how the organization functions. They involve decisions that are hard to reverse at the highest levels of hierarchy. The measurement of strategic performance is operationalized as the variable 'iopstra' (the Objective Indicator of Strategic Performance).

=Social Performance Indicators=
The measures of adaptation and engagement enable us to evaluate the gap between what might be deemed satisfactory from an organizational perspective, whether agreed upon by stakeholders or not, and what manifests at the individual level in terms of personal effectiveness. The organization may desire certain behaviors, but these behaviors may require efforts that create tension and reduce commitment, as noted in property 1 above.

This performance is referred to as social performance. It reflects consideration of people's expectations and values, a good fit between job and personal profiles, a positive understanding of individual differences by management, employees' self-awareness of their capacities and talents, and the proper adjustment of compensation and reward systems. The measure of social performance is represented by the variable 'iopsoc' (the Objective Indicator of Social Performance).

=Economic Performance Indicators=
Performance beyond the strategic and social performance outlined earlier is classified as economic performance. This includes aspects related to finance, production, marketing, sales, and customer relations. It covers the three dimensions of Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard<ref>Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1998) The Balanced Scorecard. Organization Editions. Translation of the original 1996 edition: The balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action.</ref>: financial, customer, internal processes, and innovation, along with part of the fourth dimension, learning and growth. As long as the indicators are outside the performance measures listed in the strategic and social indicators above, they fall within the scope of economic performance. Absenteeism and staff turnover rates, which can be translated into costs, are also included among economic performance criteria.

Economic performance indicators should be broken down into as many indicators as needed, depending on the context. The measurement of economic performance is represented by the variable 'iopecon' (the Objective Indicator of Economic Performance).

=Types of performance=

The strategic performance ('iopstra') and social performance ('iopsoc') indicators are calculated from individual adaptive profiles and expectations in positions (PBI) and expectations in teams (TBI).

Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.

Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined into the BIQ.

Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about BIQ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.

===Optimal Performance===
If the three indicators of social ('iopsoc'), strategic ('iopstra'), and economic ('iopecon') performance all improve positively over the period considered, we can refer to this as 'optimal performance'. This indicates that people are more satisfied and engaged, that roles in the organization are aligned with the strategy in the short and medium/long term, and that economic goals are met.

'iopsoc' is rising and 'iopstra' is rising, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Lagging Performance===
If only economic and social performance improve, one might conclude there is a 'lagging performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, economic goals are met, but job roles are not filled as originally planned.

It is very likely that there is a selection issue. 'iopsoc' is rising, 'iopstra' is falling, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Performance Under Pressure===
If only strategic and economic performance show positive changes, we can conclude that overall performance is under pressure. This indicates that economic performance has improved, aligning people's adaptive profiles more closely with job profiles, but at the same time, people are experiencing more stress, lower motivation, and less engagement. It is likely there are issues with people management.

The indicator 'iopsoc' is decreasing, 'iopstra' is increasing, and 'iopecon' has been reached.

===Pending Performance===
If only the social and strategic performances improve positively, we can classify this as a 'pending performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, with social behavior more aligned with the strategy, but the economic objectives have not yet been achieved.

This scenario is categorized under the first 'optimal performance' as a special case. The organization is awaiting economic outcomes while avoiding adverse effects on stakeholders. The economic objectives might not have been realistic, yet the organization remains committed. 'iopsoc' is up, 'iopstra' is up, 'iopecon' is not achieved.

===Lack of performance===
If all economic, social, and strategic indicators decline, we can conclude that performance is lacking. People are less involved; the adaptive profiles are less aligned with the strategy; the economic results are also lacking. 'iopecon' is not reached, 'iopsoc' is down, 'iopstra' is down.

The following table summarizes the four possible results for performance values:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|-
! !! Optimal Performance (and pending) !! Lagging Performance !! Performance Under Pressure !! Lack of Performance
|-
| '''Strategic performance''' ''iopstra'' || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Social performance''' ''iopsoc'' || Increase ↗ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Economic performance''' ''iopecon'' || Achieved (or to be achieved) || Achieved || Achieved || Not Achieved
|}

=Deployment of the Measures=

The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc', and their combination into the BIQ, reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.

* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.
* The indicator 'iopstra' measures how the strategy is reached as set with the TBI indicators for the teams, departments, and the organization.

The profiles enable performance measurement that closely tracks the development of the two indicators 'iopsta' and 'iopsoc' over time, aligning as closely as possible with where the measures are applied: at the individual level with the adaptive profile and at the management level responsible for executing the strategy.

Given the rapid pace of change and organizational complexity, it is essential to reduce non-performance, as indicated by the indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc'. It’s unrealistic to expect that all stakeholders' adaptive profiles will perfectly align with the expectations of their roles, as reflected in the strategic performance indicator ‘iopstra’, or that all social performance indicators will reach their maximum levels, as shown by the social performance indicator ‘iopsoc’.

Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.

Decentralizing the management of BIQs to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.

=Notes=

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Performance]]
[[Category:General Framework]]

File:GRI Model dep variables.png

2026-04-30T22:15:16Z

Flc: Flc uploaded a new version of File:GRI Model dep variables.png

Acute Intelligence Quotient (AIQ)

2026-04-30T22:14:49Z

Flc: Flc moved page Acute Intelligence Quotient (AIQ) to Behavior Intelligence Quotient (BIQ)

#REDIRECT [[Behavior Intelligence Quotient (BIQ)]]

Behavior Intelligence Quotient (BIQ)

2026-04-30T22:14:49Z

Flc: Flc moved page Acute Intelligence Quotient (AIQ) to Behavior Intelligence Quotient (BIQ)

=Introduction=
[[File:GRI_Model_dep_variables.png|right|450px]]
Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.

This article explains how the Acute Intelligence Quotient, or AIQ, is calculated by combining adaptive profiles’ metrics with strategic and social performance indicators, along with other, more traditional economic indicators, at the organizational level.

The AIQ mnemonic reflects the understanding that although measuring social behavior and the resulting adaptive profiles provide powerful, valuable, and acute information far beyond what intuition and private techniques can offer, their benefits are realized only through the people who use them. As explained below, the quotient is calculated at the organizational level. It augments the capacity of those responsible for the organization and its people to see what is otherwise subjective and blurry, and make better-informed decisions on the spot, resulting in increased engagement and alignment over time.

=Construction of Performance Indicators=

The unique properties of the adaptive profiles enable a precise understanding of people’s performance in context. Two key properties of their metrics are incorporated into the construction of performance indicators that can then be used at a group level. In summary, they are the following:
* '''Property 1''': Adaptive profiles effectively indicate the level of individuals' involvement, engagement, and effectiveness within their environment. Low adaptation combined with high engagement suggests that people are in roles that align with their values, expectations, interests, and social behavior preferences. Conversely, high adaptation and low engagement indicate disengagement, demotivation, and negative emotions among individuals in their roles. These levels of adaptation and engagement reflect either a mismatch between a person’s social behavior values and their position, or ineffective personal development.
* '''Property 2''': Adaptive profiles, including their factors, scales, indicators, and profiles, offer a detailed view of people’s performance, encompassing social behaviors, values, preferences, styles, interests, and more. This view is based on both how people behave and how they think and feel about those social behaviors. Our best estimate at GRI is that the profiles capture up to 90% of people’s social behaviors across the short, medium, and long term. The intensity of these behaviors is influenced by Property 1 above. As a result, we not only gain a better understanding of how people function but also when their social behaviors are likely to be expressed.

=Strategic Performance Indicators=
In fact, people consistently exhibit measurable social behaviors, preferences, and values. On the other hand, positions also have behavioral requirements that reflect the choices of the organization and its stakeholders. If the organization, its management, shareholders, pressure groups, etc., want efforts to be focused in a particular direction and in a relatively consistent and uniform manner, then this should occur. Conversely, if this is not the case, it suggests that management and recruitment efforts are not meeting their goals: behaviors are out of alignment with the objectives.

By comparing actual behaviors of individuals with desired behaviors at the position level, the organization can assess and manage the relationship between actors' behaviors and the organization’s needs, using the same behavioral dimensions. In practice, the difference can be measured between the behaviors described by the PBI (Position Behavior Indicator) profiles of positions and the actual behaviors of people, as shown in the Effective graph of the GRI adaptive profile. The gap between these indicates which actions should be taken to maximize the effectiveness of social behavior at each position.

This performance is called strategic because understanding how to do things across all positions at every level is crucial when setting goals, planning, and controlling. The ways of selecting personnel, implementing processes, innovating, managing change, taking risks, defending, and gaining market share—highlighted by the adaptive profiles—shape how the organization functions. They involve decisions that are hard to reverse at the highest levels of hierarchy. The measurement of strategic performance is operationalized as the variable 'iopstra' (the Objective Indicator of Strategic Performance).

=Social Performance Indicators=
The measures of adaptation and engagement enable us to evaluate the gap between what might be deemed satisfactory from an organizational perspective, whether agreed upon by stakeholders or not, and what manifests at the individual level in terms of personal effectiveness. The organization may desire certain behaviors, but these behaviors may require efforts that create tension and reduce commitment, as noted in property 1 above.

This performance is referred to as social performance. It reflects consideration of people's expectations and values, a good fit between job and personal profiles, a positive understanding of individual differences by management, employees' self-awareness of their capacities and talents, and the proper adjustment of compensation and reward systems. The measure of social performance is represented by the variable 'iopsoc' (the Objective Indicator of Social Performance).

=Economic Performance Indicators=
Performance beyond the strategic and social performance outlined earlier is classified as economic performance. This includes aspects related to finance, production, marketing, sales, and customer relations. It covers the three dimensions of Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard<ref>Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1998) The Balanced Scorecard. Organization Editions. Translation of the original 1996 edition: The balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action.</ref>: financial, customer, internal processes, and innovation, along with part of the fourth dimension, learning and growth. As long as the indicators are outside the performance measures listed in the strategic and social indicators above, they fall within the scope of economic performance. Absenteeism and staff turnover rates, which can be translated into costs, are also included among economic performance criteria.

Economic performance indicators should be broken down into as many indicators as needed, depending on the context. The measurement of economic performance is represented by the variable 'iopecon' (the Objective Indicator of Economic Performance).

=Types of performance=

The strategic performance ('iopstra') and social performance ('iopsoc') indicators are calculated from individual adaptive profiles and expectations in positions (PBI) and expectations in teams (TBI).

Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.

Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined into the AIQ.

Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about AIQ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.

===Optimal Performance===
If the three indicators of social ('iopsoc'), strategic ('iopstra'), and economic ('iopecon') performance all improve positively over the period considered, we can refer to this as 'optimal performance'. This indicates that people are more satisfied and engaged, that roles in the organization are aligned with the strategy in the short and medium/long term, and that economic goals are met.

'iopsoc' is rising and 'iopstra' is rising, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Lagging Performance===
If only economic and social performance improve, one might conclude there is a 'lagging performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, economic goals are met, but job roles are not filled as originally planned.

It is very likely that there is a selection issue. 'iopsoc' is rising, 'iopstra' is falling, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Performance Under Pressure===
If only strategic and economic performance show positive changes, we can conclude that overall performance is under pressure. This indicates that economic performance has improved, aligning people's adaptive profiles more closely with job profiles, but at the same time, people are experiencing more stress, lower motivation, and less engagement. It is likely there are issues with people management.

The indicator 'iopsoc' is decreasing, 'iopstra' is increasing, and 'iopecon' has been reached.

===Pending Performance===
If only the social and strategic performances improve positively, we can classify this as a 'pending performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, with social behavior more aligned with the strategy, but the economic objectives have not yet been achieved.

This scenario is categorized under the first 'optimal performance' as a special case. The organization is awaiting economic outcomes while avoiding adverse effects on stakeholders. The economic objectives might not have been realistic, yet the organization remains committed. 'iopsoc' is up, 'iopstra' is up, 'iopecon' is not achieved.

===Lack of performance===
If all economic, social, and strategic indicators decline, we can conclude that performance is lacking. People are less involved; the adaptive profiles are less aligned with the strategy; the economic results are also lacking. 'iopecon' is not reached, 'iopsoc' is down, 'iopstra' is down.

The following table summarizes the four possible results for performance values:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|-
! !! Optimal Performance (and pending) !! Lagging Performance !! Performance Under Pressure !! Lack of Performance
|-
| '''Strategic performance''' ''iopstra'' || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Social performance''' ''iopsoc'' || Increase ↗ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Economic performance''' ''iopecon'' || Achieved (or to be achieved) || Achieved || Achieved || Not Achieved
|}

=Deployment of the Measures=

The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc', and their combination into the AIQ, reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.

* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.
* The indicator 'iopstra' measures how the strategy is reached as set with the TBI indicators for the teams, departments, and the organization.

The profiles enable performance measurement that closely tracks the development of the two indicators 'iopsta' and 'iopsoc' over time, aligning as closely as possible with where the measures are applied: at the individual level with the adaptive profile and at the management level responsible for executing the strategy.

Given the rapid pace of change and organizational complexity, it is essential to reduce non-performance, as indicated by the indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc'. It’s unrealistic to expect that all stakeholders' adaptive profiles will perfectly align with the expectations of their roles, as reflected in the strategic performance indicator ‘iopstra’, or that all social performance indicators will reach their maximum levels, as shown by the social performance indicator ‘iopsoc’.

Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.

Decentralizing the management of AIQs to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.

=Notes=

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Performance]]
[[Category:General Framework]]

File:GRI Model dep variables.png

2026-04-30T16:29:23Z

Flc: Flc uploaded a new version of File:GRI Model dep variables.png

Behavior Intelligence Quotient (BIQ)

2026-04-30T16:23:02Z

Flc: /* Introduction */

=Introduction=
[[File:GRI_Model_dep_variables.png|right|450px]]
Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.

This article explains how the Acute Intelligence Quotient, or AIQ, is calculated by combining adaptive profiles’ metrics with strategic and social performance indicators, along with other, more traditional economic indicators, at the organizational level.

The AIQ mnemonic reflects the understanding that although measuring social behavior and the resulting adaptive profiles provide powerful, valuable, and acute information far beyond what intuition and private techniques can offer, their benefits are realized only through the people who use them. As explained below, the quotient is calculated at the organizational level. It augments the capacity of those responsible for the organization and its people to see what is otherwise subjective and blurry, and make better-informed decisions on the spot, resulting in increased engagement and alignment over time.

=Construction of Performance Indicators=

The unique properties of the adaptive profiles enable a precise understanding of people’s performance in context. Two key properties of their metrics are incorporated into the construction of performance indicators that can then be used at a group level. In summary, they are the following:
* '''Property 1''': Adaptive profiles effectively indicate the level of individuals' involvement, engagement, and effectiveness within their environment. Low adaptation combined with high engagement suggests that people are in roles that align with their values, expectations, interests, and social behavior preferences. Conversely, high adaptation and low engagement indicate disengagement, demotivation, and negative emotions among individuals in their roles. These levels of adaptation and engagement reflect either a mismatch between a person’s social behavior values and their position, or ineffective personal development.
* '''Property 2''': Adaptive profiles, including their factors, scales, indicators, and profiles, offer a detailed view of people’s performance, encompassing social behaviors, values, preferences, styles, interests, and more. This view is based on both how people behave and how they think and feel about those social behaviors. Our best estimate at GRI is that the profiles capture up to 90% of people’s social behaviors across the short, medium, and long term. The intensity of these behaviors is influenced by Property 1 above. As a result, we not only gain a better understanding of how people function but also when their social behaviors are likely to be expressed.

=Strategic Performance Indicators=
In fact, people consistently exhibit measurable social behaviors, preferences, and values. On the other hand, positions also have behavioral requirements that reflect the choices of the organization and its stakeholders. If the organization, its management, shareholders, pressure groups, etc., want efforts to be focused in a particular direction and in a relatively consistent and uniform manner, then this should occur. Conversely, if this is not the case, it suggests that management and recruitment efforts are not meeting their goals: behaviors are out of alignment with the objectives.

By comparing actual behaviors of individuals with desired behaviors at the position level, the organization can assess and manage the relationship between actors' behaviors and the organization’s needs, using the same behavioral dimensions. In practice, the difference can be measured between the behaviors described by the PBI (Position Behavior Indicator) profiles of positions and the actual behaviors of people, as shown in the Effective graph of the GRI adaptive profile. The gap between these indicates which actions should be taken to maximize the effectiveness of social behavior at each position.

This performance is called strategic because understanding how to do things across all positions at every level is crucial when setting goals, planning, and controlling. The ways of selecting personnel, implementing processes, innovating, managing change, taking risks, defending, and gaining market share—highlighted by the adaptive profiles—shape how the organization functions. They involve decisions that are hard to reverse at the highest levels of hierarchy. The measurement of strategic performance is operationalized as the variable 'iopstra' (the Objective Indicator of Strategic Performance).

=Social Performance Indicators=
The measures of adaptation and engagement enable us to evaluate the gap between what might be deemed satisfactory from an organizational perspective, whether agreed upon by stakeholders or not, and what manifests at the individual level in terms of personal effectiveness. The organization may desire certain behaviors, but these behaviors may require efforts that create tension and reduce commitment, as noted in property 1 above.

This performance is referred to as social performance. It reflects consideration of people's expectations and values, a good fit between job and personal profiles, a positive understanding of individual differences by management, employees' self-awareness of their capacities and talents, and the proper adjustment of compensation and reward systems. The measure of social performance is represented by the variable 'iopsoc' (the Objective Indicator of Social Performance).

=Economic Performance Indicators=
Performance beyond the strategic and social performance outlined earlier is classified as economic performance. This includes aspects related to finance, production, marketing, sales, and customer relations. It covers the three dimensions of Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard<ref>Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1998) The Balanced Scorecard. Organization Editions. Translation of the original 1996 edition: The balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action.</ref>: financial, customer, internal processes, and innovation, along with part of the fourth dimension, learning and growth. As long as the indicators are outside the performance measures listed in the strategic and social indicators above, they fall within the scope of economic performance. Absenteeism and staff turnover rates, which can be translated into costs, are also included among economic performance criteria.

Economic performance indicators should be broken down into as many indicators as needed, depending on the context. The measurement of economic performance is represented by the variable 'iopecon' (the Objective Indicator of Economic Performance).

=Types of performance=

The strategic performance ('iopstra') and social performance ('iopsoc') indicators are calculated from individual adaptive profiles and expectations in positions (PBI) and expectations in teams (TBI).

Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.

Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined into the AIQ.

Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about AIQ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.

===Optimal Performance===
If the three indicators of social ('iopsoc'), strategic ('iopstra'), and economic ('iopecon') performance all improve positively over the period considered, we can refer to this as 'optimal performance'. This indicates that people are more satisfied and engaged, that roles in the organization are aligned with the strategy in the short and medium/long term, and that economic goals are met.

'iopsoc' is rising and 'iopstra' is rising, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Lagging Performance===
If only economic and social performance improve, one might conclude there is a 'lagging performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, economic goals are met, but job roles are not filled as originally planned.

It is very likely that there is a selection issue. 'iopsoc' is rising, 'iopstra' is falling, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Performance Under Pressure===
If only strategic and economic performance show positive changes, we can conclude that overall performance is under pressure. This indicates that economic performance has improved, aligning people's adaptive profiles more closely with job profiles, but at the same time, people are experiencing more stress, lower motivation, and less engagement. It is likely there are issues with people management.

The indicator 'iopsoc' is decreasing, 'iopstra' is increasing, and 'iopecon' has been reached.

===Pending Performance===
If only the social and strategic performances improve positively, we can classify this as a 'pending performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, with social behavior more aligned with the strategy, but the economic objectives have not yet been achieved.

This scenario is categorized under the first 'optimal performance' as a special case. The organization is awaiting economic outcomes while avoiding adverse effects on stakeholders. The economic objectives might not have been realistic, yet the organization remains committed. 'iopsoc' is up, 'iopstra' is up, 'iopecon' is not achieved.

===Lack of performance===
If all economic, social, and strategic indicators decline, we can conclude that performance is lacking. People are less involved; the adaptive profiles are less aligned with the strategy; the economic results are also lacking. 'iopecon' is not reached, 'iopsoc' is down, 'iopstra' is down.

The following table summarizes the four possible results for performance values:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|-
! !! Optimal Performance (and pending) !! Lagging Performance !! Performance Under Pressure !! Lack of Performance
|-
| '''Strategic performance''' ''iopstra'' || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Social performance''' ''iopsoc'' || Increase ↗ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Economic performance''' ''iopecon'' || Achieved (or to be achieved) || Achieved || Achieved || Not Achieved
|}

=Deployment of the Measures=

The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc', and their combination into the AIQ, reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.

* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.
* The indicator 'iopstra' measures how the strategy is reached as set with the TBI indicators for the teams, departments, and the organization.

The profiles enable performance measurement that closely tracks the development of the two indicators 'iopsta' and 'iopsoc' over time, aligning as closely as possible with where the measures are applied: at the individual level with the adaptive profile and at the management level responsible for executing the strategy.

Given the rapid pace of change and organizational complexity, it is essential to reduce non-performance, as indicated by the indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc'. It’s unrealistic to expect that all stakeholders' adaptive profiles will perfectly align with the expectations of their roles, as reflected in the strategic performance indicator ‘iopstra’, or that all social performance indicators will reach their maximum levels, as shown by the social performance indicator ‘iopsoc’.

Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.

Decentralizing the management of AIQs to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.

=Notes=

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Performance]]
[[Category:General Framework]]

Behavior Intelligence Quotient (BIQ)

2026-04-30T16:01:58Z

Flc: /* Introduction */

=Introduction=
[[File:GRI_Model_dep_variables.png|right|450px]]
Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.

This article explains how the Acute Intelligence Quotient, or AIQ, is calculated by combining adaptive profiles’ metrics with strategic and social performance indicators, along with other, more traditional economic indicators, at the organizational level.

The AIQ mnemonic reflects the understanding that although measuring social behavior and the resulting adaptive profiles provide powerful, valuable, and acute information far beyond what intuition and private techniques can offer, their benefits are realized only through the people who use them. As explained below, the quotient is calculated at the organizational level. It augments the capacity of those responsible for the organization and its people to see what is otherwise subjective and blurry, develop an interest in people management, and make better-informed decisions on the spot, resulting in increased engagement and alignment over time.

=Construction of Performance Indicators=

The unique properties of the adaptive profiles enable a precise understanding of people’s performance in context. Two key properties of their metrics are incorporated into the construction of performance indicators that can then be used at a group level. In summary, they are the following:
* '''Property 1''': Adaptive profiles effectively indicate the level of individuals' involvement, engagement, and effectiveness within their environment. Low adaptation combined with high engagement suggests that people are in roles that align with their values, expectations, interests, and social behavior preferences. Conversely, high adaptation and low engagement indicate disengagement, demotivation, and negative emotions among individuals in their roles. These levels of adaptation and engagement reflect either a mismatch between a person’s social behavior values and their position, or ineffective personal development.
* '''Property 2''': Adaptive profiles, including their factors, scales, indicators, and profiles, offer a detailed view of people’s performance, encompassing social behaviors, values, preferences, styles, interests, and more. This view is based on both how people behave and how they think and feel about those social behaviors. Our best estimate at GRI is that the profiles capture up to 90% of people’s social behaviors across the short, medium, and long term. The intensity of these behaviors is influenced by Property 1 above. As a result, we not only gain a better understanding of how people function but also when their social behaviors are likely to be expressed.

=Strategic Performance Indicators=
In fact, people consistently exhibit measurable social behaviors, preferences, and values. On the other hand, positions also have behavioral requirements that reflect the choices of the organization and its stakeholders. If the organization, its management, shareholders, pressure groups, etc., want efforts to be focused in a particular direction and in a relatively consistent and uniform manner, then this should occur. Conversely, if this is not the case, it suggests that management and recruitment efforts are not meeting their goals: behaviors are out of alignment with the objectives.

By comparing actual behaviors of individuals with desired behaviors at the position level, the organization can assess and manage the relationship between actors' behaviors and the organization’s needs, using the same behavioral dimensions. In practice, the difference can be measured between the behaviors described by the PBI (Position Behavior Indicator) profiles of positions and the actual behaviors of people, as shown in the Effective graph of the GRI adaptive profile. The gap between these indicates which actions should be taken to maximize the effectiveness of social behavior at each position.

This performance is called strategic because understanding how to do things across all positions at every level is crucial when setting goals, planning, and controlling. The ways of selecting personnel, implementing processes, innovating, managing change, taking risks, defending, and gaining market share—highlighted by the adaptive profiles—shape how the organization functions. They involve decisions that are hard to reverse at the highest levels of hierarchy. The measurement of strategic performance is operationalized as the variable 'iopstra' (the Objective Indicator of Strategic Performance).

=Social Performance Indicators=
The measures of adaptation and engagement enable us to evaluate the gap between what might be deemed satisfactory from an organizational perspective, whether agreed upon by stakeholders or not, and what manifests at the individual level in terms of personal effectiveness. The organization may desire certain behaviors, but these behaviors may require efforts that create tension and reduce commitment, as noted in property 1 above.

This performance is referred to as social performance. It reflects consideration of people's expectations and values, a good fit between job and personal profiles, a positive understanding of individual differences by management, employees' self-awareness of their capacities and talents, and the proper adjustment of compensation and reward systems. The measure of social performance is represented by the variable 'iopsoc' (the Objective Indicator of Social Performance).

=Economic Performance Indicators=
Performance beyond the strategic and social performance outlined earlier is classified as economic performance. This includes aspects related to finance, production, marketing, sales, and customer relations. It covers the three dimensions of Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard<ref>Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1998) The Balanced Scorecard. Organization Editions. Translation of the original 1996 edition: The balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action.</ref>: financial, customer, internal processes, and innovation, along with part of the fourth dimension, learning and growth. As long as the indicators are outside the performance measures listed in the strategic and social indicators above, they fall within the scope of economic performance. Absenteeism and staff turnover rates, which can be translated into costs, are also included among economic performance criteria.

Economic performance indicators should be broken down into as many indicators as needed, depending on the context. The measurement of economic performance is represented by the variable 'iopecon' (the Objective Indicator of Economic Performance).

=Types of performance=

The strategic performance ('iopstra') and social performance ('iopsoc') indicators are calculated from individual adaptive profiles and expectations in positions (PBI) and expectations in teams (TBI).

Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.

Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined into the AIQ.

Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about AIQ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.

===Optimal Performance===
If the three indicators of social ('iopsoc'), strategic ('iopstra'), and economic ('iopecon') performance all improve positively over the period considered, we can refer to this as 'optimal performance'. This indicates that people are more satisfied and engaged, that roles in the organization are aligned with the strategy in the short and medium/long term, and that economic goals are met.

'iopsoc' is rising and 'iopstra' is rising, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Lagging Performance===
If only economic and social performance improve, one might conclude there is a 'lagging performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, economic goals are met, but job roles are not filled as originally planned.

It is very likely that there is a selection issue. 'iopsoc' is rising, 'iopstra' is falling, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Performance Under Pressure===
If only strategic and economic performance show positive changes, we can conclude that overall performance is under pressure. This indicates that economic performance has improved, aligning people's adaptive profiles more closely with job profiles, but at the same time, people are experiencing more stress, lower motivation, and less engagement. It is likely there are issues with people management.

The indicator 'iopsoc' is decreasing, 'iopstra' is increasing, and 'iopecon' has been reached.

===Pending Performance===
If only the social and strategic performances improve positively, we can classify this as a 'pending performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, with social behavior more aligned with the strategy, but the economic objectives have not yet been achieved.

This scenario is categorized under the first 'optimal performance' as a special case. The organization is awaiting economic outcomes while avoiding adverse effects on stakeholders. The economic objectives might not have been realistic, yet the organization remains committed. 'iopsoc' is up, 'iopstra' is up, 'iopecon' is not achieved.

===Lack of performance===
If all economic, social, and strategic indicators decline, we can conclude that performance is lacking. People are less involved; the adaptive profiles are less aligned with the strategy; the economic results are also lacking. 'iopecon' is not reached, 'iopsoc' is down, 'iopstra' is down.

The following table summarizes the four possible results for performance values:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|-
! !! Optimal Performance (and pending) !! Lagging Performance !! Performance Under Pressure !! Lack of Performance
|-
| '''Strategic performance''' ''iopstra'' || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Social performance''' ''iopsoc'' || Increase ↗ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Economic performance''' ''iopecon'' || Achieved (or to be achieved) || Achieved || Achieved || Not Achieved
|}

=Deployment of the Measures=

The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc', and their combination into the AIQ, reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.

* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.
* The indicator 'iopstra' measures how the strategy is reached as set with the TBI indicators for the teams, departments, and the organization.

The profiles enable performance measurement that closely tracks the development of the two indicators 'iopsta' and 'iopsoc' over time, aligning as closely as possible with where the measures are applied: at the individual level with the adaptive profile and at the management level responsible for executing the strategy.

Given the rapid pace of change and organizational complexity, it is essential to reduce non-performance, as indicated by the indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc'. It’s unrealistic to expect that all stakeholders' adaptive profiles will perfectly align with the expectations of their roles, as reflected in the strategic performance indicator ‘iopstra’, or that all social performance indicators will reach their maximum levels, as shown by the social performance indicator ‘iopsoc’.

Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.

Decentralizing the management of AIQs to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.

=Notes=

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Performance]]
[[Category:General Framework]]

Performance Models

2026-04-30T15:21:55Z

Flc: /* Social Performance */

[[File:Performance_Models.png|right|400px]]

=Introduction=
This article explores various models of organizational performance studied over recent decades and the increasing understanding of how individuals function and perform in organizations.

When assessed precisely, measures of individual performance are relevant across a variety of topics related to a company’s strategy and daily operations, including attracting, recruiting, and empowering the talent it needs. They provide a new basis for understanding and improving organizational performance.

=Performance Models=
Organizational performance can be approached through various models, which address aspects of its measurement and control on the one hand, and its conceptualization on the other.

Organizational performance can be approached through various models, which address aspects of its measurement and control on the one hand, and its conceptualization on the other.

Until the 1980s, management control research had focused on performance measures within the cybernetic model, an extension of the more popular command-and-control model that had dominated until the 1950s. Considering new individual and cultural factors alongside non-financial measures has enabled the holistic model to gradually overcome some limitations of the cybernetic model<ref>Henri, J. F. (2004). Performance measurement and Organizational Effectiveness: Bridging the gap. Managerial Finance. Vol. 30, No. 6, pp 93-123.</ref>. Since the 2000s, thanks to capabilities from software platforms, the Internet, and later AI, Management Control System (MCS) packages have integrated and powered management control systems as integral parts of organizational management, most often aligned with holistic models. The three grand models are summarized in this table and detailed in separate articles.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|+ Performance Management
! Models !! Focus
|-
| [[Command_and_Control_Perspective | Command and Control]] || Traditional hierarchical top-down approach, with original management control systems for planning and controlling.
|-
| [[Cybernetic_Perspective | Cybernetic]] || Accounts for the first-order loop feedback, learning, and communication in addition to financial and production metrics.
|-
| [[Holistic_Perspective | Holisitc]] || Holistic_Perspective | Extends the cybernetic model with a second-order feedback loop and emphasizes the relationships and interactions among the organization’s different parts, including its culture, vision, mission, and reward systems.
|}

Regarding its conceptualization, several approaches have been proposed to categorize performance by context: research, society, leadership, organizational development, and more. For example, the models can be grouped into three categories according to their origins in economics, organizational studies, and social research<ref>Vibert C. (2004). Theories of macro organizational behavior: a handbook of ideas and explanations.</ref>. Others have suggested categorizing them into three categories: objectives, systems, and stakeholders<ref>Campbell, J. P. (1977). On the nature of Organizational effectiveness. In P. S. Godman & J. M. Pennings (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 13-55. Zammuto, R. F. (1982). Assessing organizational effectiveness: Systems change, adaptation, and strategy. Albany, N.Y.:Suny-Albany Press. Quinn, R. E., Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis. Management Science. Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 363-377. Cameron, K. S., Whetten, D. A. (1983). Organizational Effectiveness: One Model or Several? Preface. Orlando: Academic Press.</ref> which is the one we adopted here. The value model was analyzed separately from the stakeholders model because it provides a distinct, overall understanding of how individuals and organizations behave. The non-performance model was added because it stands apart and continues to be a powerful model for understanding and managing performance. This grouping allows highlighting different analytical focus points, limitations, and relationships with management control systems.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|+ Performance Conceptualization
! Models !! Focus
|-
| [[Performance_by_Objectives|Objectives]] || Objectives are set and managed at different levels of the organization. Techniques such as cost-benefit analysis, management by objectives, individual criteria, or behavioral goals are used.
|-
| [[Systems%27_Performance|Systems]] || Systemic models emphasize the importance of an organization's means, such as inputs, outputs, resource acquisition, and processes. They include the operations research model, the structural contingency model, and the culturalist and social regulation models.
|-
| [[Stakeholders%27_Performance|Stakeholders]] || Stakeholders' performance models emphasize the expectations of individuals and interest groups that are either within or surrounding the organization. It includes the organizational development model, satisfaction, and expectancy models.
|-
| [[Performance_by_Values|Values]] || Value models extend the stakeholder model to understand organizations in terms of individual values and preferences. The concept of values encompasses broad aspects of social behavior that, unlike others, can be described, measured, and shared.
|-
| [[Non_Performance|Non-performance]] || It is easier, more precise, consensual, and beneficial to address performance issues by problems and faults rather than by skills and performance criteria.
|}

Organizational performance models have evolved over time, not to replace earlier ones but to improve them, expand their scope, and develop new models that meet current needs. Since the 2000s, with the rise of the Internet and more recently, AI, our ability to collect and analyze people's data has greatly increased. Similarly, management control systems have advanced, enhancing our capacity to better understand and manage people. How organizations can improve their performance over time is closely connected to how individuals and teams can enhance their performance.

=Individual Performance=
[[File:Performance_Individual.png|right|300px]]

As the conceptualization of organizational performance and management control systems has dramatically progressed over the past decades, so has the understanding of people and their management. Although it takes more time than in technology, research in the social sciences has had the opportunity to build, break, challenge, and test the limits of many models and techniques. Adaptive profiles emerged from research in the 1950s in the USA and gradually began to penetrate organizations of all sizes worldwide.

<blockquote>'''Adaptive profiles measure how people perform in context, their social behavior, adaptation efforts, and engagement.'''<ref>See more information [[Operationalizing_Performance|here on how adaptive profiles are used to operationalize performance at an individual level.]]</ref></blockquote>

Just like in the entertainment industry, actors perform in various ways, taking on different roles in different movies, influenced not only by their individual characteristics but also by how they are asked to act on stage. How does personal performance on the field actually happen, and what results does it produce? The adaptive profiles offer some answers.

The same concept applies in sports, where team members are expected to collaborate and adapt their behavior when playing together, rather than strictly sticking to their personalities and positions on the field. In companies, different roles also require acting and adapting in various ways.

[[File:Profile Detailed.png|right|300px]]
Adaptive profiles, like the one on the right, are constructed using a two-question, open-scenario, adjective format. The process helps remove biases and improve objectivity. The results are profiles that subtly show how people behave, feel, and think. They provide insights to maximize individual performance in flow, ways to support adaptation and engagement, and the conditions to prevent underperformance. The profiles are also used to enhance organizational performance<ref>The adaptive profiles are discussed [[Adaptive Profile|with greater detail in other articles on this wiki]].</ref>.

Today, markets are familiar with tools that measure traits and types. These tools are widely used in recruitment and coaching. Adaptive profiles differ because they are based on factors. They add details that help improve individual assessments by eliminating major limits in how measures are represented, learned, and applied, and providing greater precision across many applications in recruitment, management, leadership, and organizational development.<ref>See more [[Assessments_Potential_Uses | here in this wiki about the various potential uses of assessment techniques.]]</ref>.

=Organizational Performance=
[[File:Performance_Group.png|right|300px]]

Adaptive profiles are also used at the position, team, company, and even industry and societal levels, to represent the performance expected for jobs and for small- to large-group activities.
Working with social behavior at the organizational level is especially useful and practical because behaviors are observable. We can describe, analyse, and discuss them more effectively than when working with abstract concepts that can only be inferred rather than observed. As evidenced by performance models based on values<ref>See for more information [[Performance by Values | here in this wiki about increasing value-based performance.]]</ref>, working on social behavior applies universally to a variety of situations, stakeholders, industries, and cultures.

==Social Performance==
<blockquote>'''By aggregating adaptive profiles, we can analyse a group's social performance.'''</blockquote>

An organization and team’s success relies not only on each individual's participation but also on their ability to focus their collective efforts. Leaders and managers, as in sports with coaches and captains, play a vital role in building group cohesion, increasing team member involvement, and maintaining high levels of engagement. But how do these performances on the field actually occur, and what results do they generate? The adaptive profiles can explain that<ref> See in this article [[Acute Intelligence Quotient (AIQ)#Social_Performance_Indicators| here on how social performance indicators are calculated based on the adaptive profiles]].</ref>.

In sports, the trust and cohesion built during training are crucial to success. The disengagement of one teammate can impact the rest of the team. During competition, coaches and captains give real-time calls and directions. Some team members may also assume leadership roles. The team’s success relies on social performance and support from leadership, the organization, and the broader community, including educators, families, sponsors, and advocates. In sports, this also includes supporters.

==Strategic Performance==
<blockquote>'''Strategic performance, from a social behavior standpoint, can be established to determine how success will be achieved.'''</blockquote>

As with other characteristics of experience and skills, some social behaviors are expected in positions. The adaptive profiles enable the modeling of expected behaviors in jobs. They enable comparisons of how those behaviors occur over time for individuals in those jobs.
Does performance occur at the group level as intended, with appropriate fit among people and with enough diversity? The answer comes by comparing the adaptive profiles of individuals, positions, teams, and organizations. Once a company's management has defined the behaviors expected in positions and teams, aggregating profiles and calculating strategic indicators based on them formalizes the intent and helps manage performance gaps over time<ref> See in this article, [[Acute Intelligence Quotient (AIQ)#Strategic_Performance_Indicators| here on how strategic performance indicators are calculated based on the adaptive profiles]].</ref>.

Discussing these behaviors at the team and organizational levels increases the likelihood of reaching consensus. If social behaviors must be expressed differently across jobs and teams at varying levels of intensity and frequency, recruitment and management must ensure this.

In our sports example, different social behaviors are expected of team members during competition. When training and socializing, athletes are expected to exhibit other social behaviors. How does their profile match what’s expected of them during training and while competing? Once aggregated, the adaptive profiles provide the answer.

[[File:Performance_Models_Full.png|right|400px]]

==Social Behavior Across Other Forms of Performance==
As illustrated on the right, a more nuanced understanding of social behavior provides insights into other performance models, including how they are discussed, implemented, and complement one another. Whether a company deploys command-and-control, cybernetic, or holistic management control systems, its approach to performance analysis and management is informed by the adaptive profiles. This is summarized in the table below.

By comparing management intent with individuals’ adaptive profiles (measuring which social behaviors are present vs. absent), organizations can move beyond intuition and ensure their strategic focus—whether systemic, cybernetic, holistic, or values-based—is informed by a rigorous understanding of their most central asset: their people.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|+ Performance from a Social Behavior Standpoint
! Models !! Insights from Adaptive Profiles
|-
| Objectives || Where objectives are managed through techniques such as Management by Objectives (MBO) and behavioral goals, the adaptive profile provides the individual criteria for assessing how the person will set, communicate, and meet those goals.
|-
| Systems || These models emphasize organizational means (inputs, processes, outputs). The adaptive profile provides a critical input metric—the human factor—that affects processes (e.g., collaboration) and outputs (e.g., results).
|-
| Stakeholders || These models focus on the expectations of internal and external interest groups. The adaptive profile provides an understanding of the individual and group values and behaviors that drive these stakeholders' satisfaction and expectations.
|-
| Values || This is the model that the adaptive profile most directly informs, as it extends the stakeholder model by understanding organizations in terms of individual values and preferences, which are expressed through social behavior. The adaptive profile provides a framework for describing, measuring, and sharing these values across the organization.
|-
| Non-performance || This model suggests it is often easier to address performance by focusing on problems and faults rather than skills and criteria. The adaptive profile aids this by clearly identifying conditions that can prevent underperformance (e.g., high adaptation effort and disengagement) and by providing precise language (observable behavior) for problem resolution.
|}

=Notes=

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Performance]]

Performance Models

2026-04-30T15:21:22Z

Flc: /* Strategic Performance */

[[File:Performance_Models.png|right|400px]]

=Introduction=
This article explores various models of organizational performance studied over recent decades and the increasing understanding of how individuals function and perform in organizations.

When assessed precisely, measures of individual performance are relevant across a variety of topics related to a company’s strategy and daily operations, including attracting, recruiting, and empowering the talent it needs. They provide a new basis for understanding and improving organizational performance.

=Performance Models=
Organizational performance can be approached through various models, which address aspects of its measurement and control on the one hand, and its conceptualization on the other.

Organizational performance can be approached through various models, which address aspects of its measurement and control on the one hand, and its conceptualization on the other.

Until the 1980s, management control research had focused on performance measures within the cybernetic model, an extension of the more popular command-and-control model that had dominated until the 1950s. Considering new individual and cultural factors alongside non-financial measures has enabled the holistic model to gradually overcome some limitations of the cybernetic model<ref>Henri, J. F. (2004). Performance measurement and Organizational Effectiveness: Bridging the gap. Managerial Finance. Vol. 30, No. 6, pp 93-123.</ref>. Since the 2000s, thanks to capabilities from software platforms, the Internet, and later AI, Management Control System (MCS) packages have integrated and powered management control systems as integral parts of organizational management, most often aligned with holistic models. The three grand models are summarized in this table and detailed in separate articles.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|+ Performance Management
! Models !! Focus
|-
| [[Command_and_Control_Perspective | Command and Control]] || Traditional hierarchical top-down approach, with original management control systems for planning and controlling.
|-
| [[Cybernetic_Perspective | Cybernetic]] || Accounts for the first-order loop feedback, learning, and communication in addition to financial and production metrics.
|-
| [[Holistic_Perspective | Holisitc]] || Holistic_Perspective | Extends the cybernetic model with a second-order feedback loop and emphasizes the relationships and interactions among the organization’s different parts, including its culture, vision, mission, and reward systems.
|}

Regarding its conceptualization, several approaches have been proposed to categorize performance by context: research, society, leadership, organizational development, and more. For example, the models can be grouped into three categories according to their origins in economics, organizational studies, and social research<ref>Vibert C. (2004). Theories of macro organizational behavior: a handbook of ideas and explanations.</ref>. Others have suggested categorizing them into three categories: objectives, systems, and stakeholders<ref>Campbell, J. P. (1977). On the nature of Organizational effectiveness. In P. S. Godman & J. M. Pennings (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 13-55. Zammuto, R. F. (1982). Assessing organizational effectiveness: Systems change, adaptation, and strategy. Albany, N.Y.:Suny-Albany Press. Quinn, R. E., Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis. Management Science. Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 363-377. Cameron, K. S., Whetten, D. A. (1983). Organizational Effectiveness: One Model or Several? Preface. Orlando: Academic Press.</ref> which is the one we adopted here. The value model was analyzed separately from the stakeholders model because it provides a distinct, overall understanding of how individuals and organizations behave. The non-performance model was added because it stands apart and continues to be a powerful model for understanding and managing performance. This grouping allows highlighting different analytical focus points, limitations, and relationships with management control systems.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|+ Performance Conceptualization
! Models !! Focus
|-
| [[Performance_by_Objectives|Objectives]] || Objectives are set and managed at different levels of the organization. Techniques such as cost-benefit analysis, management by objectives, individual criteria, or behavioral goals are used.
|-
| [[Systems%27_Performance|Systems]] || Systemic models emphasize the importance of an organization's means, such as inputs, outputs, resource acquisition, and processes. They include the operations research model, the structural contingency model, and the culturalist and social regulation models.
|-
| [[Stakeholders%27_Performance|Stakeholders]] || Stakeholders' performance models emphasize the expectations of individuals and interest groups that are either within or surrounding the organization. It includes the organizational development model, satisfaction, and expectancy models.
|-
| [[Performance_by_Values|Values]] || Value models extend the stakeholder model to understand organizations in terms of individual values and preferences. The concept of values encompasses broad aspects of social behavior that, unlike others, can be described, measured, and shared.
|-
| [[Non_Performance|Non-performance]] || It is easier, more precise, consensual, and beneficial to address performance issues by problems and faults rather than by skills and performance criteria.
|}

Organizational performance models have evolved over time, not to replace earlier ones but to improve them, expand their scope, and develop new models that meet current needs. Since the 2000s, with the rise of the Internet and more recently, AI, our ability to collect and analyze people's data has greatly increased. Similarly, management control systems have advanced, enhancing our capacity to better understand and manage people. How organizations can improve their performance over time is closely connected to how individuals and teams can enhance their performance.

=Individual Performance=
[[File:Performance_Individual.png|right|300px]]

As the conceptualization of organizational performance and management control systems has dramatically progressed over the past decades, so has the understanding of people and their management. Although it takes more time than in technology, research in the social sciences has had the opportunity to build, break, challenge, and test the limits of many models and techniques. Adaptive profiles emerged from research in the 1950s in the USA and gradually began to penetrate organizations of all sizes worldwide.

<blockquote>'''Adaptive profiles measure how people perform in context, their social behavior, adaptation efforts, and engagement.'''<ref>See more information [[Operationalizing_Performance|here on how adaptive profiles are used to operationalize performance at an individual level.]]</ref></blockquote>

Just like in the entertainment industry, actors perform in various ways, taking on different roles in different movies, influenced not only by their individual characteristics but also by how they are asked to act on stage. How does personal performance on the field actually happen, and what results does it produce? The adaptive profiles offer some answers.

The same concept applies in sports, where team members are expected to collaborate and adapt their behavior when playing together, rather than strictly sticking to their personalities and positions on the field. In companies, different roles also require acting and adapting in various ways.

[[File:Profile Detailed.png|right|300px]]
Adaptive profiles, like the one on the right, are constructed using a two-question, open-scenario, adjective format. The process helps remove biases and improve objectivity. The results are profiles that subtly show how people behave, feel, and think. They provide insights to maximize individual performance in flow, ways to support adaptation and engagement, and the conditions to prevent underperformance. The profiles are also used to enhance organizational performance<ref>The adaptive profiles are discussed [[Adaptive Profile|with greater detail in other articles on this wiki]].</ref>.

Today, markets are familiar with tools that measure traits and types. These tools are widely used in recruitment and coaching. Adaptive profiles differ because they are based on factors. They add details that help improve individual assessments by eliminating major limits in how measures are represented, learned, and applied, and providing greater precision across many applications in recruitment, management, leadership, and organizational development.<ref>See more [[Assessments_Potential_Uses | here in this wiki about the various potential uses of assessment techniques.]]</ref>.

=Organizational Performance=
[[File:Performance_Group.png|right|300px]]

Adaptive profiles are also used at the position, team, company, and even industry and societal levels, to represent the performance expected for jobs and for small- to large-group activities.
Working with social behavior at the organizational level is especially useful and practical because behaviors are observable. We can describe, analyse, and discuss them more effectively than when working with abstract concepts that can only be inferred rather than observed. As evidenced by performance models based on values<ref>See for more information [[Performance by Values | here in this wiki about increasing value-based performance.]]</ref>, working on social behavior applies universally to a variety of situations, stakeholders, industries, and cultures.

==Social Performance==
<blockquote>'''By aggregating adaptive profiles, we can analyse a group's social performance.'''</blockquote>

An organization and team’s success relies not only on each individual's participation but also on their ability to focus their collective efforts. Leaders and managers, as in sports with coaches and captains, play a vital role in building group cohesion, increasing team member involvement, and maintaining high levels of engagement. But how do these performances on the field actually occur, and what results do they generate? The adaptive profiles can explain that<ref> See in this article [[Organizational_Performance_Measurement#Social_Performance_Indicators| here on how social performance indicators are calculated based on the adaptive profiles]].</ref>.

In sports, the trust and cohesion built during training are crucial to success. The disengagement of one teammate can impact the rest of the team. During competition, coaches and captains give real-time calls and directions. Some team members may also assume leadership roles. The team’s success relies on social performance and support from leadership, the organization, and the broader community, including educators, families, sponsors, and advocates. In sports, this also includes supporters.

==Strategic Performance==
<blockquote>'''Strategic performance, from a social behavior standpoint, can be established to determine how success will be achieved.'''</blockquote>

As with other characteristics of experience and skills, some social behaviors are expected in positions. The adaptive profiles enable the modeling of expected behaviors in jobs. They enable comparisons of how those behaviors occur over time for individuals in those jobs.
Does performance occur at the group level as intended, with appropriate fit among people and with enough diversity? The answer comes by comparing the adaptive profiles of individuals, positions, teams, and organizations. Once a company's management has defined the behaviors expected in positions and teams, aggregating profiles and calculating strategic indicators based on them formalizes the intent and helps manage performance gaps over time<ref> See in this article, [[Acute Intelligence Quotient (AIQ)#Strategic_Performance_Indicators| here on how strategic performance indicators are calculated based on the adaptive profiles]].</ref>.

Discussing these behaviors at the team and organizational levels increases the likelihood of reaching consensus. If social behaviors must be expressed differently across jobs and teams at varying levels of intensity and frequency, recruitment and management must ensure this.

In our sports example, different social behaviors are expected of team members during competition. When training and socializing, athletes are expected to exhibit other social behaviors. How does their profile match what’s expected of them during training and while competing? Once aggregated, the adaptive profiles provide the answer.

[[File:Performance_Models_Full.png|right|400px]]

==Social Behavior Across Other Forms of Performance==
As illustrated on the right, a more nuanced understanding of social behavior provides insights into other performance models, including how they are discussed, implemented, and complement one another. Whether a company deploys command-and-control, cybernetic, or holistic management control systems, its approach to performance analysis and management is informed by the adaptive profiles. This is summarized in the table below.

By comparing management intent with individuals’ adaptive profiles (measuring which social behaviors are present vs. absent), organizations can move beyond intuition and ensure their strategic focus—whether systemic, cybernetic, holistic, or values-based—is informed by a rigorous understanding of their most central asset: their people.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|+ Performance from a Social Behavior Standpoint
! Models !! Insights from Adaptive Profiles
|-
| Objectives || Where objectives are managed through techniques such as Management by Objectives (MBO) and behavioral goals, the adaptive profile provides the individual criteria for assessing how the person will set, communicate, and meet those goals.
|-
| Systems || These models emphasize organizational means (inputs, processes, outputs). The adaptive profile provides a critical input metric—the human factor—that affects processes (e.g., collaboration) and outputs (e.g., results).
|-
| Stakeholders || These models focus on the expectations of internal and external interest groups. The adaptive profile provides an understanding of the individual and group values and behaviors that drive these stakeholders' satisfaction and expectations.
|-
| Values || This is the model that the adaptive profile most directly informs, as it extends the stakeholder model by understanding organizations in terms of individual values and preferences, which are expressed through social behavior. The adaptive profile provides a framework for describing, measuring, and sharing these values across the organization.
|-
| Non-performance || This model suggests it is often easier to address performance by focusing on problems and faults rather than skills and criteria. The adaptive profile aids this by clearly identifying conditions that can prevent underperformance (e.g., high adaptation effort and disengagement) and by providing precise language (observable behavior) for problem resolution.
|}

=Notes=

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Performance]]

Behavior Intelligence Quotient (BIQ)

2026-04-30T15:20:35Z

Flc: Flc moved page Behavioral Intelligence Quotient (B-IQ) to Acute Intelligence Quotient (AIQ) without leaving a redirect

=Introduction=
[[File:GRI_Model_dep_variables.png|right|450px]]
Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.

This article explains how the Acute Intelligence Quotient, or AIQ, is calculated using measures of adaptive profiles and combining strategic and social performance indicators with other, more traditional economic indicators at the organizational level.

=Construction of Performance Indicators=

The unique properties of the adaptive profiles enable a precise understanding of people’s performance in context. Two key properties of their metrics are incorporated into the construction of performance indicators that can then be used at a group level. In summary, they are the following:
* '''Property 1''': Adaptive profiles effectively indicate the level of individuals' involvement, engagement, and effectiveness within their environment. Low adaptation combined with high engagement suggests that people are in roles that align with their values, expectations, interests, and social behavior preferences. Conversely, high adaptation and low engagement indicate disengagement, demotivation, and negative emotions among individuals in their roles. These levels of adaptation and engagement reflect either a mismatch between a person’s social behavior values and their position, or ineffective personal development.
* '''Property 2''': Adaptive profiles, including their factors, scales, indicators, and profiles, offer a detailed view of people’s performance, encompassing social behaviors, values, preferences, styles, interests, and more. This view is based on both how people behave and how they think and feel about those social behaviors. Our best estimate at GRI is that the profiles capture up to 90% of people’s social behaviors across the short, medium, and long term. The intensity of these behaviors is influenced by Property 1 above. As a result, we not only gain a better understanding of how people function but also when their social behaviors are likely to be expressed.

=Strategic Performance Indicators=
In fact, people consistently exhibit measurable social behaviors, preferences, and values. On the other hand, positions also have behavioral requirements that reflect the choices of the organization and its stakeholders. If the organization, its management, shareholders, pressure groups, etc., want efforts to be focused in a particular direction and in a relatively consistent and uniform manner, then this should occur. Conversely, if this is not the case, it suggests that management and recruitment efforts are not meeting their goals: behaviors are out of alignment with the objectives.

By comparing actual behaviors of individuals with desired behaviors at the position level, the organization can assess and manage the relationship between actors' behaviors and the organization’s needs, using the same behavioral dimensions. In practice, the difference can be measured between the behaviors described by the PBI (Position Behavior Indicator) profiles of positions and the actual behaviors of people, as shown in the Effective graph of the GRI adaptive profile. The gap between these indicates which actions should be taken to maximize the effectiveness of social behavior at each position.

This performance is called strategic because understanding how to do things across all positions at every level is crucial when setting goals, planning, and controlling. The ways of selecting personnel, implementing processes, innovating, managing change, taking risks, defending, and gaining market share—highlighted by the adaptive profiles—shape how the organization functions. They involve decisions that are hard to reverse at the highest levels of hierarchy. The measurement of strategic performance is operationalized as the variable 'iopstra' (the Objective Indicator of Strategic Performance).

=Social Performance Indicators=
The measures of adaptation and engagement enable us to evaluate the gap between what might be deemed satisfactory from an organizational perspective, whether agreed upon by stakeholders or not, and what manifests at the individual level in terms of personal effectiveness. The organization may desire certain behaviors, but these behaviors may require efforts that create tension and reduce commitment, as noted in property 1 above.

This performance is referred to as social performance. It reflects consideration of people's expectations and values, a good fit between job and personal profiles, a positive understanding of individual differences by management, employees' self-awareness of their capacities and talents, and the proper adjustment of compensation and reward systems. The measure of social performance is represented by the variable 'iopsoc' (the Objective Indicator of Social Performance).

=Economic Performance Indicators=
Performance beyond the strategic and social performance outlined earlier is classified as economic performance. This includes aspects related to finance, production, marketing, sales, and customer relations. It covers the three dimensions of Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard<ref>Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1998) The Balanced Scorecard. Organization Editions. Translation of the original 1996 edition: The balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action.</ref>: financial, customer, internal processes, and innovation, along with part of the fourth dimension, learning and growth. As long as the indicators are outside the performance measures listed in the strategic and social indicators above, they fall within the scope of economic performance. Absenteeism and staff turnover rates, which can be translated into costs, are also included among economic performance criteria.

Economic performance indicators should be broken down into as many indicators as needed, depending on the context. The measurement of economic performance is represented by the variable 'iopecon' (the Objective Indicator of Economic Performance).

=Types of performance=

The strategic performance ('iopstra') and social performance ('iopsoc') indicators are calculated from individual adaptive profiles and expectations in positions (PBI) and expectations in teams (TBI).

Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.

Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined into the AIQ.

Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about AIQ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.

===Optimal Performance===
If the three indicators of social ('iopsoc'), strategic ('iopstra'), and economic ('iopecon') performance all improve positively over the period considered, we can refer to this as 'optimal performance'. This indicates that people are more satisfied and engaged, that roles in the organization are aligned with the strategy in the short and medium/long term, and that economic goals are met.

'iopsoc' is rising and 'iopstra' is rising, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Lagging Performance===
If only economic and social performance improve, one might conclude there is a 'lagging performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, economic goals are met, but job roles are not filled as originally planned.

It is very likely that there is a selection issue. 'iopsoc' is rising, 'iopstra' is falling, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Performance Under Pressure===
If only strategic and economic performance show positive changes, we can conclude that overall performance is under pressure. This indicates that economic performance has improved, aligning people's adaptive profiles more closely with job profiles, but at the same time, people are experiencing more stress, lower motivation, and less engagement. It is likely there are issues with people management.

The indicator 'iopsoc' is decreasing, 'iopstra' is increasing, and 'iopecon' has been reached.

===Pending Performance===
If only the social and strategic performances improve positively, we can classify this as a 'pending performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, with social behavior more aligned with the strategy, but the economic objectives have not yet been achieved.

This scenario is categorized under the first 'optimal performance' as a special case. The organization is awaiting economic outcomes while avoiding adverse effects on stakeholders. The economic objectives might not have been realistic, yet the organization remains committed. 'iopsoc' is up, 'iopstra' is up, 'iopecon' is not achieved.

===Lack of performance===
If all economic, social, and strategic indicators decline, we can conclude that performance is lacking. People are less involved; the adaptive profiles are less aligned with the strategy; the economic results are also lacking. 'iopecon' is not reached, 'iopsoc' is down, 'iopstra' is down.

The following table summarizes the four possible results for performance values:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|-
! !! Optimal Performance (and pending) !! Lagging Performance !! Performance Under Pressure !! Lack of Performance
|-
| '''Strategic performance''' ''iopstra'' || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Social performance''' ''iopsoc'' || Increase ↗ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Economic performance''' ''iopecon'' || Achieved (or to be achieved) || Achieved || Achieved || Not Achieved
|}

=Deployment of the Measures=

The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc', and their combination into the AIQ, reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.

* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.
* The indicator 'iopstra' measures how the strategy is reached as set with the TBI indicators for the teams, departments, and the organization.

The profiles enable performance measurement that closely tracks the development of the two indicators 'iopsta' and 'iopsoc' over time, aligning as closely as possible with where the measures are applied: at the individual level with the adaptive profile and at the management level responsible for executing the strategy.

Given the rapid pace of change and organizational complexity, it is essential to reduce non-performance, as indicated by the indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc'. It’s unrealistic to expect that all stakeholders' adaptive profiles will perfectly align with the expectations of their roles, as reflected in the strategic performance indicator ‘iopstra’, or that all social performance indicators will reach their maximum levels, as shown by the social performance indicator ‘iopsoc’.

Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.

Decentralizing the management of AIQs to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.

=Notes=

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Performance]]
[[Category:General Framework]]

Behavior Intelligence Quotient (BIQ)

2026-04-30T15:18:30Z

Flc:

=Introduction=
[[File:GRI_Model_dep_variables.png|right|450px]]
Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.

This article explains how the Acute Intelligence Quotient, or AIQ, is calculated using measures of adaptive profiles and combining strategic and social performance indicators with other, more traditional economic indicators at the organizational level.

=Construction of Performance Indicators=

The unique properties of the adaptive profiles enable a precise understanding of people’s performance in context. Two key properties of their metrics are incorporated into the construction of performance indicators that can then be used at a group level. In summary, they are the following:
* '''Property 1''': Adaptive profiles effectively indicate the level of individuals' involvement, engagement, and effectiveness within their environment. Low adaptation combined with high engagement suggests that people are in roles that align with their values, expectations, interests, and social behavior preferences. Conversely, high adaptation and low engagement indicate disengagement, demotivation, and negative emotions among individuals in their roles. These levels of adaptation and engagement reflect either a mismatch between a person’s social behavior values and their position, or ineffective personal development.
* '''Property 2''': Adaptive profiles, including their factors, scales, indicators, and profiles, offer a detailed view of people’s performance, encompassing social behaviors, values, preferences, styles, interests, and more. This view is based on both how people behave and how they think and feel about those social behaviors. Our best estimate at GRI is that the profiles capture up to 90% of people’s social behaviors across the short, medium, and long term. The intensity of these behaviors is influenced by Property 1 above. As a result, we not only gain a better understanding of how people function but also when their social behaviors are likely to be expressed.

=Strategic Performance Indicators=
In fact, people consistently exhibit measurable social behaviors, preferences, and values. On the other hand, positions also have behavioral requirements that reflect the choices of the organization and its stakeholders. If the organization, its management, shareholders, pressure groups, etc., want efforts to be focused in a particular direction and in a relatively consistent and uniform manner, then this should occur. Conversely, if this is not the case, it suggests that management and recruitment efforts are not meeting their goals: behaviors are out of alignment with the objectives.

By comparing actual behaviors of individuals with desired behaviors at the position level, the organization can assess and manage the relationship between actors' behaviors and the organization’s needs, using the same behavioral dimensions. In practice, the difference can be measured between the behaviors described by the PBI (Position Behavior Indicator) profiles of positions and the actual behaviors of people, as shown in the Effective graph of the GRI adaptive profile. The gap between these indicates which actions should be taken to maximize the effectiveness of social behavior at each position.

This performance is called strategic because understanding how to do things across all positions at every level is crucial when setting goals, planning, and controlling. The ways of selecting personnel, implementing processes, innovating, managing change, taking risks, defending, and gaining market share—highlighted by the adaptive profiles—shape how the organization functions. They involve decisions that are hard to reverse at the highest levels of hierarchy. The measurement of strategic performance is operationalized as the variable 'iopstra' (the Objective Indicator of Strategic Performance).

=Social Performance Indicators=
The measures of adaptation and engagement enable us to evaluate the gap between what might be deemed satisfactory from an organizational perspective, whether agreed upon by stakeholders or not, and what manifests at the individual level in terms of personal effectiveness. The organization may desire certain behaviors, but these behaviors may require efforts that create tension and reduce commitment, as noted in property 1 above.

This performance is referred to as social performance. It reflects consideration of people's expectations and values, a good fit between job and personal profiles, a positive understanding of individual differences by management, employees' self-awareness of their capacities and talents, and the proper adjustment of compensation and reward systems. The measure of social performance is represented by the variable 'iopsoc' (the Objective Indicator of Social Performance).

=Economic Performance Indicators=
Performance beyond the strategic and social performance outlined earlier is classified as economic performance. This includes aspects related to finance, production, marketing, sales, and customer relations. It covers the three dimensions of Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard<ref>Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1998) The Balanced Scorecard. Organization Editions. Translation of the original 1996 edition: The balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action.</ref>: financial, customer, internal processes, and innovation, along with part of the fourth dimension, learning and growth. As long as the indicators are outside the performance measures listed in the strategic and social indicators above, they fall within the scope of economic performance. Absenteeism and staff turnover rates, which can be translated into costs, are also included among economic performance criteria.

Economic performance indicators should be broken down into as many indicators as needed, depending on the context. The measurement of economic performance is represented by the variable 'iopecon' (the Objective Indicator of Economic Performance).

=Types of performance=

The strategic performance ('iopstra') and social performance ('iopsoc') indicators are calculated from individual adaptive profiles and expectations in positions (PBI) and expectations in teams (TBI).

Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.

Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined into the AIQ.

Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about AIQ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.

===Optimal Performance===
If the three indicators of social ('iopsoc'), strategic ('iopstra'), and economic ('iopecon') performance all improve positively over the period considered, we can refer to this as 'optimal performance'. This indicates that people are more satisfied and engaged, that roles in the organization are aligned with the strategy in the short and medium/long term, and that economic goals are met.

'iopsoc' is rising and 'iopstra' is rising, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Lagging Performance===
If only economic and social performance improve, one might conclude there is a 'lagging performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, economic goals are met, but job roles are not filled as originally planned.

It is very likely that there is a selection issue. 'iopsoc' is rising, 'iopstra' is falling, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Performance Under Pressure===
If only strategic and economic performance show positive changes, we can conclude that overall performance is under pressure. This indicates that economic performance has improved, aligning people's adaptive profiles more closely with job profiles, but at the same time, people are experiencing more stress, lower motivation, and less engagement. It is likely there are issues with people management.

The indicator 'iopsoc' is decreasing, 'iopstra' is increasing, and 'iopecon' has been reached.

===Pending Performance===
If only the social and strategic performances improve positively, we can classify this as a 'pending performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, with social behavior more aligned with the strategy, but the economic objectives have not yet been achieved.

This scenario is categorized under the first 'optimal performance' as a special case. The organization is awaiting economic outcomes while avoiding adverse effects on stakeholders. The economic objectives might not have been realistic, yet the organization remains committed. 'iopsoc' is up, 'iopstra' is up, 'iopecon' is not achieved.

===Lack of performance===
If all economic, social, and strategic indicators decline, we can conclude that performance is lacking. People are less involved; the adaptive profiles are less aligned with the strategy; the economic results are also lacking. 'iopecon' is not reached, 'iopsoc' is down, 'iopstra' is down.

The following table summarizes the four possible results for performance values:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|-
! !! Optimal Performance (and pending) !! Lagging Performance !! Performance Under Pressure !! Lack of Performance
|-
| '''Strategic performance''' ''iopstra'' || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Social performance''' ''iopsoc'' || Increase ↗ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Economic performance''' ''iopecon'' || Achieved (or to be achieved) || Achieved || Achieved || Not Achieved
|}

=Deployment of the Measures=

The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc', and their combination into the AIQ, reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.

* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.
* The indicator 'iopstra' measures how the strategy is reached as set with the TBI indicators for the teams, departments, and the organization.

The profiles enable performance measurement that closely tracks the development of the two indicators 'iopsta' and 'iopsoc' over time, aligning as closely as possible with where the measures are applied: at the individual level with the adaptive profile and at the management level responsible for executing the strategy.

Given the rapid pace of change and organizational complexity, it is essential to reduce non-performance, as indicated by the indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc'. It’s unrealistic to expect that all stakeholders' adaptive profiles will perfectly align with the expectations of their roles, as reflected in the strategic performance indicator ‘iopstra’, or that all social performance indicators will reach their maximum levels, as shown by the social performance indicator ‘iopsoc’.

Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.

Decentralizing the management of AIQs to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.

=Notes=

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Performance]]
[[Category:General Framework]]

Behavior Intelligence Quotient (BIQ)

2026-04-30T04:44:30Z

Flc: /* Deployment of the Measures */

=Introduction=
[[File:GRI_Model_dep_variables.png|right|450px]]
Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.

This article explains how the Behavioral Intelligence Quotient, or B-IQ, is calculated using measures of adaptive profiles and combining strategic and social performance indicators with other, more traditional economic indicators at the organizational level.

=Construction of Performance Indicators=

The unique properties of the adaptive profiles enable a precise understanding of people’s performance in context. Two key properties of their metrics are incorporated into the construction of performance indicators that can then be used at a group level. In summary, they are the following:
* '''Property 1''': Adaptive profiles effectively indicate the level of individuals' involvement, engagement, and effectiveness within their environment. Low adaptation combined with high engagement suggests that people are in roles that align with their values, expectations, interests, and social behavior preferences. Conversely, high adaptation and low engagement indicate disengagement, demotivation, and negative emotions among individuals in their roles. These levels of adaptation and engagement reflect either a mismatch between a person’s social behavior values and their position, or ineffective personal development.
* '''Property 2''': Adaptive profiles, including their factors, scales, indicators, and profiles, offer a detailed view of people’s performance, encompassing social behaviors, values, preferences, styles, interests, and more. This view is based on both how people behave and how they think and feel about those social behaviors. Our best estimate at GRI is that the profiles capture up to 90% of people’s social behaviors across the short, medium, and long term. The intensity of these behaviors is influenced by Property 1 above. As a result, we not only gain a better understanding of how people function but also when their social behaviors are likely to be expressed.

=Strategic Performance Indicators=
In fact, people consistently exhibit measurable social behaviors, preferences, and values. On the other hand, positions also have behavioral requirements that reflect the choices of the organization and its stakeholders. If the organization, its management, shareholders, pressure groups, etc., want efforts to be focused in a particular direction and in a relatively consistent and uniform manner, then this should occur. Conversely, if this is not the case, it suggests that management and recruitment efforts are not meeting their goals: behaviors are out of alignment with the objectives.

By comparing actual behaviors of individuals with desired behaviors at the position level, the organization can assess and manage the relationship between actors' behaviors and the organization’s needs, using the same behavioral dimensions. In practice, the difference can be measured between the behaviors described by the PBI (Position Behavior Indicator) profiles of positions and the actual behaviors of people, as shown in the Effective graph of the GRI adaptive profile. The gap between these indicates which actions should be taken to maximize the effectiveness of social behavior at each position.

This performance is called strategic because understanding how to do things across all positions at every level is crucial when setting goals, planning, and controlling. The ways of selecting personnel, implementing processes, innovating, managing change, taking risks, defending, and gaining market share—highlighted by the adaptive profiles—shape how the organization functions. They involve decisions that are hard to reverse at the highest levels of hierarchy. The measurement of strategic performance is operationalized as the variable 'iopstra' (the Objective Indicator of Strategic Performance).

=Social Performance Indicators=
The measures of adaptation and engagement enable us to evaluate the gap between what might be deemed satisfactory from an organizational perspective, whether agreed upon by stakeholders or not, and what manifests at the individual level in terms of personal effectiveness. The organization may desire certain behaviors, but these behaviors may require efforts that create tension and reduce commitment, as noted in property 1 above.

This performance is referred to as social performance. It reflects consideration of people's expectations and values, a good fit between job and personal profiles, a positive understanding of individual differences by management, employees' self-awareness of their capacities and talents, and the proper adjustment of compensation and reward systems. The measure of social performance is represented by the variable 'iopsoc' (the Objective Indicator of Social Performance).

=Economic Performance Indicators=
Performance beyond the strategic and social performance outlined earlier is classified as economic performance. This includes aspects related to finance, production, marketing, sales, and customer relations. It covers the three dimensions of Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard<ref>Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1998) The Balanced Scorecard. Organization Editions. Translation of the original 1996 edition: The balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action.</ref>: financial, customer, internal processes, and innovation, along with part of the fourth dimension, learning and growth. As long as the indicators are outside the performance measures listed in the strategic and social indicators above, they fall within the scope of economic performance. Absenteeism and staff turnover rates, which can be translated into costs, are also included among economic performance criteria.

Economic performance indicators should be broken down into as many indicators as needed, depending on the context. The measurement of economic performance is represented by the variable 'iopecon' (the Objective Indicator of Economic Performance).

=Types of performance=

The strategic performance ('iopstra') and social performance ('iopsoc') indicators are calculated from individual adaptive profiles and expectations in positions (PBI) and expectations in teams (TBI).

Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.

Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined into the Behavioral Intelligence Quotient (B-IQ).

Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about B-IQ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.

===Optimal Performance===
If the three indicators of social ('iopsoc'), strategic ('iopstra'), and economic ('iopecon') performance all improve positively over the period considered, we can refer to this as 'optimal performance'. This indicates that people are more satisfied and engaged, that roles in the organization are aligned with the strategy in the short and medium/long term, and that economic goals are met.

'iopsoc' is rising and 'iopstra' is rising, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Lagging Performance===
If only economic and social performance improve, one might conclude there is a 'lagging performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, economic goals are met, but job roles are not filled as originally planned.

It is very likely that there is a selection issue. 'iopsoc' is rising, 'iopstra' is falling, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Performance Under Pressure===
If only strategic and economic performance show positive changes, we can conclude that overall performance is under pressure. This indicates that economic performance has improved, aligning people's adaptive profiles more closely with job profiles, but at the same time, people are experiencing more stress, lower motivation, and less engagement. It is likely there are issues with people management.

The indicator 'iopsoc' is decreasing, 'iopstra' is increasing, and 'iopecon' has been reached.

===Pending Performance===
If only the social and strategic performances improve positively, we can classify this as a 'pending performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, with social behavior more aligned with the strategy, but the economic objectives have not yet been achieved.

This scenario is categorized under the first 'optimal performance' as a special case. The organization is awaiting economic outcomes while avoiding adverse effects on stakeholders. The economic objectives might not have been realistic, yet the organization remains committed. 'iopsoc' is up, 'iopstra' is up, 'iopecon' is not achieved.

===Lack of performance===
If all economic, social, and strategic indicators decline, we can conclude that performance is lacking. People are less involved; the adaptive profiles are less aligned with the strategy; the economic results are also lacking. 'iopecon' is not reached, 'iopsoc' is down, 'iopstra' is down.

The following table summarizes the four possible results for performance values:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|-
! !! Optimal Performance (and pending) !! Lagging Performance !! Performance Under Pressure !! Lack of Performance
|-
| '''Strategic performance''' ''iopstra'' || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Social performance''' ''iopsoc'' || Increase ↗ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Economic performance''' ''iopecon'' || Achieved (or to be achieved) || Achieved || Achieved || Not Achieved
|}

=Deployment of the Measures=

The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc', and their combination into B-IQ, reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.

* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.
* The indicator 'iopstra' measures how the strategy is reached as set with the TBI indicators for the teams, departments, and the organization.

The profiles enable performance measurement that closely tracks the development of the two indicators 'iopsta' and 'iopsoc' over time, aligning as closely as possible with where the measures are applied: at the individual level with the adaptive profile and at the management level responsible for executing the strategy.

Given the rapid pace of change and organizational complexity, it is essential to reduce non-performance, as indicated by the indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc'. It’s unrealistic to expect that all stakeholders' adaptive profiles will perfectly align with the expectations of their roles, as reflected in the strategic performance indicator ‘iopstra’, or that all social performance indicators will reach their maximum levels, as shown by the social performance indicator ‘iopsoc’.

Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.

Decentralizing the management of B-IQ and the adaptive profiles to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.

=Notes=

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Performance]]
[[Category:General Framework]]

Behavior Intelligence Quotient (BIQ)

2026-04-30T04:43:28Z

Flc: /* Deployment of the Measures */

=Introduction=
[[File:GRI_Model_dep_variables.png|right|450px]]
Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.

This article explains how the Behavioral Intelligence Quotient, or B-IQ, is calculated using measures of adaptive profiles and combining strategic and social performance indicators with other, more traditional economic indicators at the organizational level.

=Construction of Performance Indicators=

The unique properties of the adaptive profiles enable a precise understanding of people’s performance in context. Two key properties of their metrics are incorporated into the construction of performance indicators that can then be used at a group level. In summary, they are the following:
* '''Property 1''': Adaptive profiles effectively indicate the level of individuals' involvement, engagement, and effectiveness within their environment. Low adaptation combined with high engagement suggests that people are in roles that align with their values, expectations, interests, and social behavior preferences. Conversely, high adaptation and low engagement indicate disengagement, demotivation, and negative emotions among individuals in their roles. These levels of adaptation and engagement reflect either a mismatch between a person’s social behavior values and their position, or ineffective personal development.
* '''Property 2''': Adaptive profiles, including their factors, scales, indicators, and profiles, offer a detailed view of people’s performance, encompassing social behaviors, values, preferences, styles, interests, and more. This view is based on both how people behave and how they think and feel about those social behaviors. Our best estimate at GRI is that the profiles capture up to 90% of people’s social behaviors across the short, medium, and long term. The intensity of these behaviors is influenced by Property 1 above. As a result, we not only gain a better understanding of how people function but also when their social behaviors are likely to be expressed.

=Strategic Performance Indicators=
In fact, people consistently exhibit measurable social behaviors, preferences, and values. On the other hand, positions also have behavioral requirements that reflect the choices of the organization and its stakeholders. If the organization, its management, shareholders, pressure groups, etc., want efforts to be focused in a particular direction and in a relatively consistent and uniform manner, then this should occur. Conversely, if this is not the case, it suggests that management and recruitment efforts are not meeting their goals: behaviors are out of alignment with the objectives.

By comparing actual behaviors of individuals with desired behaviors at the position level, the organization can assess and manage the relationship between actors' behaviors and the organization’s needs, using the same behavioral dimensions. In practice, the difference can be measured between the behaviors described by the PBI (Position Behavior Indicator) profiles of positions and the actual behaviors of people, as shown in the Effective graph of the GRI adaptive profile. The gap between these indicates which actions should be taken to maximize the effectiveness of social behavior at each position.

This performance is called strategic because understanding how to do things across all positions at every level is crucial when setting goals, planning, and controlling. The ways of selecting personnel, implementing processes, innovating, managing change, taking risks, defending, and gaining market share—highlighted by the adaptive profiles—shape how the organization functions. They involve decisions that are hard to reverse at the highest levels of hierarchy. The measurement of strategic performance is operationalized as the variable 'iopstra' (the Objective Indicator of Strategic Performance).

=Social Performance Indicators=
The measures of adaptation and engagement enable us to evaluate the gap between what might be deemed satisfactory from an organizational perspective, whether agreed upon by stakeholders or not, and what manifests at the individual level in terms of personal effectiveness. The organization may desire certain behaviors, but these behaviors may require efforts that create tension and reduce commitment, as noted in property 1 above.

This performance is referred to as social performance. It reflects consideration of people's expectations and values, a good fit between job and personal profiles, a positive understanding of individual differences by management, employees' self-awareness of their capacities and talents, and the proper adjustment of compensation and reward systems. The measure of social performance is represented by the variable 'iopsoc' (the Objective Indicator of Social Performance).

=Economic Performance Indicators=
Performance beyond the strategic and social performance outlined earlier is classified as economic performance. This includes aspects related to finance, production, marketing, sales, and customer relations. It covers the three dimensions of Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard<ref>Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1998) The Balanced Scorecard. Organization Editions. Translation of the original 1996 edition: The balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action.</ref>: financial, customer, internal processes, and innovation, along with part of the fourth dimension, learning and growth. As long as the indicators are outside the performance measures listed in the strategic and social indicators above, they fall within the scope of economic performance. Absenteeism and staff turnover rates, which can be translated into costs, are also included among economic performance criteria.

Economic performance indicators should be broken down into as many indicators as needed, depending on the context. The measurement of economic performance is represented by the variable 'iopecon' (the Objective Indicator of Economic Performance).

=Types of performance=

The strategic performance ('iopstra') and social performance ('iopsoc') indicators are calculated from individual adaptive profiles and expectations in positions (PBI) and expectations in teams (TBI).

Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.

Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined into the Behavioral Intelligence Quotient (B-IQ).

Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about B-IQ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.

===Optimal Performance===
If the three indicators of social ('iopsoc'), strategic ('iopstra'), and economic ('iopecon') performance all improve positively over the period considered, we can refer to this as 'optimal performance'. This indicates that people are more satisfied and engaged, that roles in the organization are aligned with the strategy in the short and medium/long term, and that economic goals are met.

'iopsoc' is rising and 'iopstra' is rising, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Lagging Performance===
If only economic and social performance improve, one might conclude there is a 'lagging performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, economic goals are met, but job roles are not filled as originally planned.

It is very likely that there is a selection issue. 'iopsoc' is rising, 'iopstra' is falling, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Performance Under Pressure===
If only strategic and economic performance show positive changes, we can conclude that overall performance is under pressure. This indicates that economic performance has improved, aligning people's adaptive profiles more closely with job profiles, but at the same time, people are experiencing more stress, lower motivation, and less engagement. It is likely there are issues with people management.

The indicator 'iopsoc' is decreasing, 'iopstra' is increasing, and 'iopecon' has been reached.

===Pending Performance===
If only the social and strategic performances improve positively, we can classify this as a 'pending performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, with social behavior more aligned with the strategy, but the economic objectives have not yet been achieved.

This scenario is categorized under the first 'optimal performance' as a special case. The organization is awaiting economic outcomes while avoiding adverse effects on stakeholders. The economic objectives might not have been realistic, yet the organization remains committed. 'iopsoc' is up, 'iopstra' is up, 'iopecon' is not achieved.

===Lack of performance===
If all economic, social, and strategic indicators decline, we can conclude that performance is lacking. People are less involved; the adaptive profiles are less aligned with the strategy; the economic results are also lacking. 'iopecon' is not reached, 'iopsoc' is down, 'iopstra' is down.

The following table summarizes the four possible results for performance values:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|-
! !! Optimal Performance (and pending) !! Lagging Performance !! Performance Under Pressure !! Lack of Performance
|-
| '''Strategic performance''' ''iopstra'' || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Social performance''' ''iopsoc'' || Increase ↗ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Economic performance''' ''iopecon'' || Achieved (or to be achieved) || Achieved || Achieved || Not Achieved
|}

=Deployment of the Measures=

The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc', and their combination into B-IQ, reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.

* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.
* The indicator 'iopstra' measures how the strategy is reached as set with the TBI indicators for the teams, departments, and the organization.

The profiles enable performance measurement that closely tracks the development of the two indicators 'iopsta' and 'iopsoc' over time, aligning as closely as possible with where the measures are applied: at the individual level with the adaptive profile and at the management level responsible for executing the strategy.

Given the rapid pace of change and organizational complexity, it is essential to reduce non-performance, as indicated by the indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc'. It’s unrealistic to expect that all stakeholders' adaptive profiles will perfectly align with the expectations of their roles, as reflected in the strategic performance indicator ‘iopstra’, or that all social performance indicators will reach their maximum levels, as shown by the social performance indicator ‘iopsoc’.

Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.

Decentralizing adaptive profiles to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.

=Notes=

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Performance]]
[[Category:General Framework]]

Behavior Intelligence Quotient (BIQ)

2026-04-30T04:41:14Z

Flc: /* Lack of performance */

=Introduction=
[[File:GRI_Model_dep_variables.png|right|450px]]
Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.

This article explains how the Behavioral Intelligence Quotient, or B-IQ, is calculated using measures of adaptive profiles and combining strategic and social performance indicators with other, more traditional economic indicators at the organizational level.

=Construction of Performance Indicators=

The unique properties of the adaptive profiles enable a precise understanding of people’s performance in context. Two key properties of their metrics are incorporated into the construction of performance indicators that can then be used at a group level. In summary, they are the following:
* '''Property 1''': Adaptive profiles effectively indicate the level of individuals' involvement, engagement, and effectiveness within their environment. Low adaptation combined with high engagement suggests that people are in roles that align with their values, expectations, interests, and social behavior preferences. Conversely, high adaptation and low engagement indicate disengagement, demotivation, and negative emotions among individuals in their roles. These levels of adaptation and engagement reflect either a mismatch between a person’s social behavior values and their position, or ineffective personal development.
* '''Property 2''': Adaptive profiles, including their factors, scales, indicators, and profiles, offer a detailed view of people’s performance, encompassing social behaviors, values, preferences, styles, interests, and more. This view is based on both how people behave and how they think and feel about those social behaviors. Our best estimate at GRI is that the profiles capture up to 90% of people’s social behaviors across the short, medium, and long term. The intensity of these behaviors is influenced by Property 1 above. As a result, we not only gain a better understanding of how people function but also when their social behaviors are likely to be expressed.

=Strategic Performance Indicators=
In fact, people consistently exhibit measurable social behaviors, preferences, and values. On the other hand, positions also have behavioral requirements that reflect the choices of the organization and its stakeholders. If the organization, its management, shareholders, pressure groups, etc., want efforts to be focused in a particular direction and in a relatively consistent and uniform manner, then this should occur. Conversely, if this is not the case, it suggests that management and recruitment efforts are not meeting their goals: behaviors are out of alignment with the objectives.

By comparing actual behaviors of individuals with desired behaviors at the position level, the organization can assess and manage the relationship between actors' behaviors and the organization’s needs, using the same behavioral dimensions. In practice, the difference can be measured between the behaviors described by the PBI (Position Behavior Indicator) profiles of positions and the actual behaviors of people, as shown in the Effective graph of the GRI adaptive profile. The gap between these indicates which actions should be taken to maximize the effectiveness of social behavior at each position.

This performance is called strategic because understanding how to do things across all positions at every level is crucial when setting goals, planning, and controlling. The ways of selecting personnel, implementing processes, innovating, managing change, taking risks, defending, and gaining market share—highlighted by the adaptive profiles—shape how the organization functions. They involve decisions that are hard to reverse at the highest levels of hierarchy. The measurement of strategic performance is operationalized as the variable 'iopstra' (the Objective Indicator of Strategic Performance).

=Social Performance Indicators=
The measures of adaptation and engagement enable us to evaluate the gap between what might be deemed satisfactory from an organizational perspective, whether agreed upon by stakeholders or not, and what manifests at the individual level in terms of personal effectiveness. The organization may desire certain behaviors, but these behaviors may require efforts that create tension and reduce commitment, as noted in property 1 above.

This performance is referred to as social performance. It reflects consideration of people's expectations and values, a good fit between job and personal profiles, a positive understanding of individual differences by management, employees' self-awareness of their capacities and talents, and the proper adjustment of compensation and reward systems. The measure of social performance is represented by the variable 'iopsoc' (the Objective Indicator of Social Performance).

=Economic Performance Indicators=
Performance beyond the strategic and social performance outlined earlier is classified as economic performance. This includes aspects related to finance, production, marketing, sales, and customer relations. It covers the three dimensions of Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard<ref>Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1998) The Balanced Scorecard. Organization Editions. Translation of the original 1996 edition: The balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action.</ref>: financial, customer, internal processes, and innovation, along with part of the fourth dimension, learning and growth. As long as the indicators are outside the performance measures listed in the strategic and social indicators above, they fall within the scope of economic performance. Absenteeism and staff turnover rates, which can be translated into costs, are also included among economic performance criteria.

Economic performance indicators should be broken down into as many indicators as needed, depending on the context. The measurement of economic performance is represented by the variable 'iopecon' (the Objective Indicator of Economic Performance).

=Types of performance=

The strategic performance ('iopstra') and social performance ('iopsoc') indicators are calculated from individual adaptive profiles and expectations in positions (PBI) and expectations in teams (TBI).

Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.

Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined into the Behavioral Intelligence Quotient (B-IQ).

Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about B-IQ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.

===Optimal Performance===
If the three indicators of social ('iopsoc'), strategic ('iopstra'), and economic ('iopecon') performance all improve positively over the period considered, we can refer to this as 'optimal performance'. This indicates that people are more satisfied and engaged, that roles in the organization are aligned with the strategy in the short and medium/long term, and that economic goals are met.

'iopsoc' is rising and 'iopstra' is rising, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Lagging Performance===
If only economic and social performance improve, one might conclude there is a 'lagging performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, economic goals are met, but job roles are not filled as originally planned.

It is very likely that there is a selection issue. 'iopsoc' is rising, 'iopstra' is falling, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Performance Under Pressure===
If only strategic and economic performance show positive changes, we can conclude that overall performance is under pressure. This indicates that economic performance has improved, aligning people's adaptive profiles more closely with job profiles, but at the same time, people are experiencing more stress, lower motivation, and less engagement. It is likely there are issues with people management.

The indicator 'iopsoc' is decreasing, 'iopstra' is increasing, and 'iopecon' has been reached.

===Pending Performance===
If only the social and strategic performances improve positively, we can classify this as a 'pending performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, with social behavior more aligned with the strategy, but the economic objectives have not yet been achieved.

This scenario is categorized under the first 'optimal performance' as a special case. The organization is awaiting economic outcomes while avoiding adverse effects on stakeholders. The economic objectives might not have been realistic, yet the organization remains committed. 'iopsoc' is up, 'iopstra' is up, 'iopecon' is not achieved.

===Lack of performance===
If all economic, social, and strategic indicators decline, we can conclude that performance is lacking. People are less involved; the adaptive profiles are less aligned with the strategy; the economic results are also lacking. 'iopecon' is not reached, 'iopsoc' is down, 'iopstra' is down.

The following table summarizes the four possible results for performance values:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|-
! !! Optimal Performance (and pending) !! Lagging Performance !! Performance Under Pressure !! Lack of Performance
|-
| '''Strategic performance''' ''iopstra'' || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Social performance''' ''iopsoc'' || Increase ↗ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Economic performance''' ''iopecon'' || Achieved (or to be achieved) || Achieved || Achieved || Not Achieved
|}

=Deployment of the Measures=

The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc' reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.

* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.
* The indicator 'iopstra' measures how the strategy is reached as set with the TBI indicators for the teams, departments, and the organization.

The profiles enable performance measurement that closely tracks the development of the two indicators 'iopsta' and 'iopsoc' over time, aligning as closely as possible with where the measures are applied: at the individual level with the adaptive profile and at the management level responsible for executing the strategy.

Given the rapid pace of change and organizational complexity, it is essential to reduce non-performance, as indicated by the indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc'. It’s unrealistic to expect that all stakeholders' adaptive profiles will perfectly align with the expectations of their roles, as reflected in the strategic performance indicator ‘iopstra’, or that all social performance indicators will reach their maximum levels, as shown by the social performance indicator ‘iopsoc’.

Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.

Decentralizing adaptive profiles to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.

=Notes=

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Performance]]
[[Category:General Framework]]

Behavior Intelligence Quotient (BIQ)

2026-04-30T04:38:26Z

Flc: /* Types of performance */

=Introduction=
[[File:GRI_Model_dep_variables.png|right|450px]]
Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.

This article explains how the Behavioral Intelligence Quotient, or B-IQ, is calculated using measures of adaptive profiles and combining strategic and social performance indicators with other, more traditional economic indicators at the organizational level.

=Construction of Performance Indicators=

The unique properties of the adaptive profiles enable a precise understanding of people’s performance in context. Two key properties of their metrics are incorporated into the construction of performance indicators that can then be used at a group level. In summary, they are the following:
* '''Property 1''': Adaptive profiles effectively indicate the level of individuals' involvement, engagement, and effectiveness within their environment. Low adaptation combined with high engagement suggests that people are in roles that align with their values, expectations, interests, and social behavior preferences. Conversely, high adaptation and low engagement indicate disengagement, demotivation, and negative emotions among individuals in their roles. These levels of adaptation and engagement reflect either a mismatch between a person’s social behavior values and their position, or ineffective personal development.
* '''Property 2''': Adaptive profiles, including their factors, scales, indicators, and profiles, offer a detailed view of people’s performance, encompassing social behaviors, values, preferences, styles, interests, and more. This view is based on both how people behave and how they think and feel about those social behaviors. Our best estimate at GRI is that the profiles capture up to 90% of people’s social behaviors across the short, medium, and long term. The intensity of these behaviors is influenced by Property 1 above. As a result, we not only gain a better understanding of how people function but also when their social behaviors are likely to be expressed.

=Strategic Performance Indicators=
In fact, people consistently exhibit measurable social behaviors, preferences, and values. On the other hand, positions also have behavioral requirements that reflect the choices of the organization and its stakeholders. If the organization, its management, shareholders, pressure groups, etc., want efforts to be focused in a particular direction and in a relatively consistent and uniform manner, then this should occur. Conversely, if this is not the case, it suggests that management and recruitment efforts are not meeting their goals: behaviors are out of alignment with the objectives.

By comparing actual behaviors of individuals with desired behaviors at the position level, the organization can assess and manage the relationship between actors' behaviors and the organization’s needs, using the same behavioral dimensions. In practice, the difference can be measured between the behaviors described by the PBI (Position Behavior Indicator) profiles of positions and the actual behaviors of people, as shown in the Effective graph of the GRI adaptive profile. The gap between these indicates which actions should be taken to maximize the effectiveness of social behavior at each position.

This performance is called strategic because understanding how to do things across all positions at every level is crucial when setting goals, planning, and controlling. The ways of selecting personnel, implementing processes, innovating, managing change, taking risks, defending, and gaining market share—highlighted by the adaptive profiles—shape how the organization functions. They involve decisions that are hard to reverse at the highest levels of hierarchy. The measurement of strategic performance is operationalized as the variable 'iopstra' (the Objective Indicator of Strategic Performance).

=Social Performance Indicators=
The measures of adaptation and engagement enable us to evaluate the gap between what might be deemed satisfactory from an organizational perspective, whether agreed upon by stakeholders or not, and what manifests at the individual level in terms of personal effectiveness. The organization may desire certain behaviors, but these behaviors may require efforts that create tension and reduce commitment, as noted in property 1 above.

This performance is referred to as social performance. It reflects consideration of people's expectations and values, a good fit between job and personal profiles, a positive understanding of individual differences by management, employees' self-awareness of their capacities and talents, and the proper adjustment of compensation and reward systems. The measure of social performance is represented by the variable 'iopsoc' (the Objective Indicator of Social Performance).

=Economic Performance Indicators=
Performance beyond the strategic and social performance outlined earlier is classified as economic performance. This includes aspects related to finance, production, marketing, sales, and customer relations. It covers the three dimensions of Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard<ref>Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1998) The Balanced Scorecard. Organization Editions. Translation of the original 1996 edition: The balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action.</ref>: financial, customer, internal processes, and innovation, along with part of the fourth dimension, learning and growth. As long as the indicators are outside the performance measures listed in the strategic and social indicators above, they fall within the scope of economic performance. Absenteeism and staff turnover rates, which can be translated into costs, are also included among economic performance criteria.

Economic performance indicators should be broken down into as many indicators as needed, depending on the context. The measurement of economic performance is represented by the variable 'iopecon' (the Objective Indicator of Economic Performance).

=Types of performance=

The strategic performance ('iopstra') and social performance ('iopsoc') indicators are calculated from individual adaptive profiles and expectations in positions (PBI) and expectations in teams (TBI).

Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.

Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined into the Behavioral Intelligence Quotient (B-IQ).

Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about B-IQ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.

===Optimal Performance===
If the three indicators of social ('iopsoc'), strategic ('iopstra'), and economic ('iopecon') performance all improve positively over the period considered, we can refer to this as 'optimal performance'. This indicates that people are more satisfied and engaged, that roles in the organization are aligned with the strategy in the short and medium/long term, and that economic goals are met.

'iopsoc' is rising and 'iopstra' is rising, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Lagging Performance===
If only economic and social performance improve, one might conclude there is a 'lagging performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, economic goals are met, but job roles are not filled as originally planned.

It is very likely that there is a selection issue. 'iopsoc' is rising, 'iopstra' is falling, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Performance Under Pressure===
If only strategic and economic performance show positive changes, we can conclude that overall performance is under pressure. This indicates that economic performance has improved, aligning people's adaptive profiles more closely with job profiles, but at the same time, people are experiencing more stress, lower motivation, and less engagement. It is likely there are issues with people management.

The indicator 'iopsoc' is decreasing, 'iopstra' is increasing, and 'iopecon' has been reached.

===Pending Performance===
If only the social and strategic performances improve positively, we can classify this as a 'pending performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, with social behavior more aligned with the strategy, but the economic objectives have not yet been achieved.

This scenario is categorized under the first 'optimal performance' as a special case. The organization is awaiting economic outcomes while avoiding adverse effects on stakeholders. The economic objectives might not have been realistic, yet the organization remains committed. 'iopsoc' is up, 'iopstra' is up, 'iopecon' is not achieved.

===Lack of performance===
If the economic, social, and strategic performances all declined, we can conclude that there is a lack of performance. People are less involved; the adaptive profiles are less aligned with the strategy; the economic results are also lacking. 'iopecon' is not reached, 'iopsoc' is down, 'iopstra' is down.

The following table summarizes the four possible results for performance values:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|-
! !! Optimal Performance (and pending) !! Lagging Performance !! Performance Under Pressure !! Lack of Performance
|-
| '''Strategic performance''' ''iopstra'' || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Social performance''' ''iopsoc'' || Increase ↗ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Economic performance''' ''iopecon'' || Achieved (or to be achieved) || Achieved || Achieved || Not Achieved
|}

=Deployment of the Measures=

The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc' reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.

* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.
* The indicator 'iopstra' measures how the strategy is reached as set with the TBI indicators for the teams, departments, and the organization.

The profiles enable performance measurement that closely tracks the development of the two indicators 'iopsta' and 'iopsoc' over time, aligning as closely as possible with where the measures are applied: at the individual level with the adaptive profile and at the management level responsible for executing the strategy.

Given the rapid pace of change and organizational complexity, it is essential to reduce non-performance, as indicated by the indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc'. It’s unrealistic to expect that all stakeholders' adaptive profiles will perfectly align with the expectations of their roles, as reflected in the strategic performance indicator ‘iopstra’, or that all social performance indicators will reach their maximum levels, as shown by the social performance indicator ‘iopsoc’.

Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.

Decentralizing adaptive profiles to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.

=Notes=

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Performance]]
[[Category:General Framework]]

File:GRI Model dep variables.png

2026-04-30T04:28:25Z

Flc: Flc uploaded a new version of File:GRI Model dep variables.png

Behavior Intelligence Quotient (BIQ)

2026-04-30T00:59:40Z

Flc: /* Introduction */

=Introduction=
[[File:GRI_Model_dep_variables.png|right|450px]]
Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.

This article explains how the Behavioral Intelligence Quotient, or B-IQ, is calculated using measures of adaptive profiles and combining strategic and social performance indicators with other, more traditional economic indicators at the organizational level.

=Construction of Performance Indicators=

The unique properties of the adaptive profiles enable a precise understanding of people’s performance in context. Two key properties of their metrics are incorporated into the construction of performance indicators that can then be used at a group level. In summary, they are the following:
* '''Property 1''': Adaptive profiles effectively indicate the level of individuals' involvement, engagement, and effectiveness within their environment. Low adaptation combined with high engagement suggests that people are in roles that align with their values, expectations, interests, and social behavior preferences. Conversely, high adaptation and low engagement indicate disengagement, demotivation, and negative emotions among individuals in their roles. These levels of adaptation and engagement reflect either a mismatch between a person’s social behavior values and their position, or ineffective personal development.
* '''Property 2''': Adaptive profiles, including their factors, scales, indicators, and profiles, offer a detailed view of people’s performance, encompassing social behaviors, values, preferences, styles, interests, and more. This view is based on both how people behave and how they think and feel about those social behaviors. Our best estimate at GRI is that the profiles capture up to 90% of people’s social behaviors across the short, medium, and long term. The intensity of these behaviors is influenced by Property 1 above. As a result, we not only gain a better understanding of how people function but also when their social behaviors are likely to be expressed.

=Strategic Performance Indicators=
In fact, people consistently exhibit measurable social behaviors, preferences, and values. On the other hand, positions also have behavioral requirements that reflect the choices of the organization and its stakeholders. If the organization, its management, shareholders, pressure groups, etc., want efforts to be focused in a particular direction and in a relatively consistent and uniform manner, then this should occur. Conversely, if this is not the case, it suggests that management and recruitment efforts are not meeting their goals: behaviors are out of alignment with the objectives.

By comparing actual behaviors of individuals with desired behaviors at the position level, the organization can assess and manage the relationship between actors' behaviors and the organization’s needs, using the same behavioral dimensions. In practice, the difference can be measured between the behaviors described by the PBI (Position Behavior Indicator) profiles of positions and the actual behaviors of people, as shown in the Effective graph of the GRI adaptive profile. The gap between these indicates which actions should be taken to maximize the effectiveness of social behavior at each position.

This performance is called strategic because understanding how to do things across all positions at every level is crucial when setting goals, planning, and controlling. The ways of selecting personnel, implementing processes, innovating, managing change, taking risks, defending, and gaining market share—highlighted by the adaptive profiles—shape how the organization functions. They involve decisions that are hard to reverse at the highest levels of hierarchy. The measurement of strategic performance is operationalized as the variable 'iopstra' (the Objective Indicator of Strategic Performance).

=Social Performance Indicators=
The measures of adaptation and engagement enable us to evaluate the gap between what might be deemed satisfactory from an organizational perspective, whether agreed upon by stakeholders or not, and what manifests at the individual level in terms of personal effectiveness. The organization may desire certain behaviors, but these behaviors may require efforts that create tension and reduce commitment, as noted in property 1 above.

This performance is referred to as social performance. It reflects consideration of people's expectations and values, a good fit between job and personal profiles, a positive understanding of individual differences by management, employees' self-awareness of their capacities and talents, and the proper adjustment of compensation and reward systems. The measure of social performance is represented by the variable 'iopsoc' (the Objective Indicator of Social Performance).

=Economic Performance Indicators=
Performance beyond the strategic and social performance outlined earlier is classified as economic performance. This includes aspects related to finance, production, marketing, sales, and customer relations. It covers the three dimensions of Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard<ref>Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1998) The Balanced Scorecard. Organization Editions. Translation of the original 1996 edition: The balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action.</ref>: financial, customer, internal processes, and innovation, along with part of the fourth dimension, learning and growth. As long as the indicators are outside the performance measures listed in the strategic and social indicators above, they fall within the scope of economic performance. Absenteeism and staff turnover rates, which can be translated into costs, are also included among economic performance criteria.

Economic performance indicators should be broken down into as many indicators as needed, depending on the context. The measurement of economic performance is represented by the variable 'iopecon' (the Objective Indicator of Economic Performance).

=Types of performance=

The strategic performance ('iopstra') and social performance ('iopsoc') indicators are calculated from individual adaptive profiles and expectations in positions (PBI) and expectations in teams (TBI).

Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.

Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined to form the Behavioral Intelligence Quotient, or B-IQ.

Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about the B-IQ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.

===Optimal Performance===
If the three indicators of social ('iopsoc'), strategic ('iopstra'), and economic ('iopecon') performance all improve positively over the period considered, we can refer to this as 'optimal performance'. This indicates that people are more satisfied and engaged, that roles in the organization are aligned with the strategy in the short and medium/long term, and that economic goals are met.

'iopsoc' is rising and 'iopstra' is rising, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Lagging Performance===
If only economic and social performance improve, one might conclude there is a 'lagging performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, economic goals are met, but job roles are not filled as originally planned.

It is very likely that there is a selection issue. 'iopsoc' is rising, 'iopstra' is falling, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Performance Under Pressure===
If only strategic and economic performance show positive changes, we can conclude that overall performance is under pressure. This indicates that economic performance has improved, aligning people's adaptive profiles more closely with job profiles, but at the same time, people are experiencing more stress, lower motivation, and less engagement. It is likely there are issues with people management.

The indicator 'iopsoc' is decreasing, 'iopstra' is increasing, and 'iopecon' has been reached.

===Pending Performance===
If only the social and strategic performances improve positively, we can classify this as a 'pending performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, with social behavior more aligned with the strategy, but the economic objectives have not yet been achieved.

This scenario is categorized under the first 'optimal performance' as a special case. The organization is awaiting economic outcomes while avoiding adverse effects on stakeholders. The economic objectives might not have been realistic, yet the organization remains committed. 'iopsoc' is up, 'iopstra' is up, 'iopecon' is not achieved.

===Lack of performance===
If the economic, social, and strategic performances all declined, we can conclude that there is a lack of performance. People are less involved; the adaptive profiles are less aligned with the strategy; the economic results are also lacking. 'iopecon' is not reached, 'iopsoc' is down, 'iopstra' is down.

The following table summarizes the four possible results for performance values:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|-
! !! Optimal Performance (and pending) !! Lagging Performance !! Performance Under Pressure !! Lack of Performance
|-
| '''Strategic performance''' ''iopstra'' || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Social performance''' ''iopsoc'' || Increase ↗ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Economic performance''' ''iopecon'' || Achieved (or to be achieved) || Achieved || Achieved || Not Achieved
|}

=Deployment of the Measures=

The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc' reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.

* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.
* The indicator 'iopstra' measures how the strategy is reached as set with the TBI indicators for the teams, departments, and the organization.

The profiles enable performance measurement that closely tracks the development of the two indicators 'iopsta' and 'iopsoc' over time, aligning as closely as possible with where the measures are applied: at the individual level with the adaptive profile and at the management level responsible for executing the strategy.

Given the rapid pace of change and organizational complexity, it is essential to reduce non-performance, as indicated by the indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc'. It’s unrealistic to expect that all stakeholders' adaptive profiles will perfectly align with the expectations of their roles, as reflected in the strategic performance indicator ‘iopstra’, or that all social performance indicators will reach their maximum levels, as shown by the social performance indicator ‘iopsoc’.

Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.

Decentralizing adaptive profiles to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.

=Notes=

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Performance]]
[[Category:General Framework]]

Behavior Intelligence Quotient (BIQ)

2026-04-30T00:59:04Z

Flc: /* Types of performance */

=Introduction=
[[File:GRI_Model_dep_variables.png|right|450px]]
Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.
This article explains how the Behavioral Intelligence Quotient, or B-IQ, is calculated using measures of adaptive profiles and combining strategic and social performance indicators with other, more traditional economic indicators at the organizational level.

=Construction of Performance Indicators=

The unique properties of the adaptive profiles enable a precise understanding of people’s performance in context. Two key properties of their metrics are incorporated into the construction of performance indicators that can then be used at a group level. In summary, they are the following:
* '''Property 1''': Adaptive profiles effectively indicate the level of individuals' involvement, engagement, and effectiveness within their environment. Low adaptation combined with high engagement suggests that people are in roles that align with their values, expectations, interests, and social behavior preferences. Conversely, high adaptation and low engagement indicate disengagement, demotivation, and negative emotions among individuals in their roles. These levels of adaptation and engagement reflect either a mismatch between a person’s social behavior values and their position, or ineffective personal development.
* '''Property 2''': Adaptive profiles, including their factors, scales, indicators, and profiles, offer a detailed view of people’s performance, encompassing social behaviors, values, preferences, styles, interests, and more. This view is based on both how people behave and how they think and feel about those social behaviors. Our best estimate at GRI is that the profiles capture up to 90% of people’s social behaviors across the short, medium, and long term. The intensity of these behaviors is influenced by Property 1 above. As a result, we not only gain a better understanding of how people function but also when their social behaviors are likely to be expressed.

=Strategic Performance Indicators=
In fact, people consistently exhibit measurable social behaviors, preferences, and values. On the other hand, positions also have behavioral requirements that reflect the choices of the organization and its stakeholders. If the organization, its management, shareholders, pressure groups, etc., want efforts to be focused in a particular direction and in a relatively consistent and uniform manner, then this should occur. Conversely, if this is not the case, it suggests that management and recruitment efforts are not meeting their goals: behaviors are out of alignment with the objectives.

By comparing actual behaviors of individuals with desired behaviors at the position level, the organization can assess and manage the relationship between actors' behaviors and the organization’s needs, using the same behavioral dimensions. In practice, the difference can be measured between the behaviors described by the PBI (Position Behavior Indicator) profiles of positions and the actual behaviors of people, as shown in the Effective graph of the GRI adaptive profile. The gap between these indicates which actions should be taken to maximize the effectiveness of social behavior at each position.

This performance is called strategic because understanding how to do things across all positions at every level is crucial when setting goals, planning, and controlling. The ways of selecting personnel, implementing processes, innovating, managing change, taking risks, defending, and gaining market share—highlighted by the adaptive profiles—shape how the organization functions. They involve decisions that are hard to reverse at the highest levels of hierarchy. The measurement of strategic performance is operationalized as the variable 'iopstra' (the Objective Indicator of Strategic Performance).

=Social Performance Indicators=
The measures of adaptation and engagement enable us to evaluate the gap between what might be deemed satisfactory from an organizational perspective, whether agreed upon by stakeholders or not, and what manifests at the individual level in terms of personal effectiveness. The organization may desire certain behaviors, but these behaviors may require efforts that create tension and reduce commitment, as noted in property 1 above.

This performance is referred to as social performance. It reflects consideration of people's expectations and values, a good fit between job and personal profiles, a positive understanding of individual differences by management, employees' self-awareness of their capacities and talents, and the proper adjustment of compensation and reward systems. The measure of social performance is represented by the variable 'iopsoc' (the Objective Indicator of Social Performance).

=Economic Performance Indicators=
Performance beyond the strategic and social performance outlined earlier is classified as economic performance. This includes aspects related to finance, production, marketing, sales, and customer relations. It covers the three dimensions of Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard<ref>Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1998) The Balanced Scorecard. Organization Editions. Translation of the original 1996 edition: The balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action.</ref>: financial, customer, internal processes, and innovation, along with part of the fourth dimension, learning and growth. As long as the indicators are outside the performance measures listed in the strategic and social indicators above, they fall within the scope of economic performance. Absenteeism and staff turnover rates, which can be translated into costs, are also included among economic performance criteria.

Economic performance indicators should be broken down into as many indicators as needed, depending on the context. The measurement of economic performance is represented by the variable 'iopecon' (the Objective Indicator of Economic Performance).

=Types of performance=

The strategic performance ('iopstra') and social performance ('iopsoc') indicators are calculated from individual adaptive profiles and expectations in positions (PBI) and expectations in teams (TBI).

Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.

Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined to form the Behavioral Intelligence Quotient, or B-IQ.

Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about the B-IQ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.

===Optimal Performance===
If the three indicators of social ('iopsoc'), strategic ('iopstra'), and economic ('iopecon') performance all improve positively over the period considered, we can refer to this as 'optimal performance'. This indicates that people are more satisfied and engaged, that roles in the organization are aligned with the strategy in the short and medium/long term, and that economic goals are met.

'iopsoc' is rising and 'iopstra' is rising, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Lagging Performance===
If only economic and social performance improve, one might conclude there is a 'lagging performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, economic goals are met, but job roles are not filled as originally planned.

It is very likely that there is a selection issue. 'iopsoc' is rising, 'iopstra' is falling, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Performance Under Pressure===
If only strategic and economic performance show positive changes, we can conclude that overall performance is under pressure. This indicates that economic performance has improved, aligning people's adaptive profiles more closely with job profiles, but at the same time, people are experiencing more stress, lower motivation, and less engagement. It is likely there are issues with people management.

The indicator 'iopsoc' is decreasing, 'iopstra' is increasing, and 'iopecon' has been reached.

===Pending Performance===
If only the social and strategic performances improve positively, we can classify this as a 'pending performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, with social behavior more aligned with the strategy, but the economic objectives have not yet been achieved.

This scenario is categorized under the first 'optimal performance' as a special case. The organization is awaiting economic outcomes while avoiding adverse effects on stakeholders. The economic objectives might not have been realistic, yet the organization remains committed. 'iopsoc' is up, 'iopstra' is up, 'iopecon' is not achieved.

===Lack of performance===
If the economic, social, and strategic performances all declined, we can conclude that there is a lack of performance. People are less involved; the adaptive profiles are less aligned with the strategy; the economic results are also lacking. 'iopecon' is not reached, 'iopsoc' is down, 'iopstra' is down.

The following table summarizes the four possible results for performance values:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|-
! !! Optimal Performance (and pending) !! Lagging Performance !! Performance Under Pressure !! Lack of Performance
|-
| '''Strategic performance''' ''iopstra'' || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Social performance''' ''iopsoc'' || Increase ↗ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Economic performance''' ''iopecon'' || Achieved (or to be achieved) || Achieved || Achieved || Not Achieved
|}

=Deployment of the Measures=

The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc' reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.

* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.
* The indicator 'iopstra' measures how the strategy is reached as set with the TBI indicators for the teams, departments, and the organization.

The profiles enable performance measurement that closely tracks the development of the two indicators 'iopsta' and 'iopsoc' over time, aligning as closely as possible with where the measures are applied: at the individual level with the adaptive profile and at the management level responsible for executing the strategy.

Given the rapid pace of change and organizational complexity, it is essential to reduce non-performance, as indicated by the indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc'. It’s unrealistic to expect that all stakeholders' adaptive profiles will perfectly align with the expectations of their roles, as reflected in the strategic performance indicator ‘iopstra’, or that all social performance indicators will reach their maximum levels, as shown by the social performance indicator ‘iopsoc’.

Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.

Decentralizing adaptive profiles to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.

=Notes=

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Performance]]
[[Category:General Framework]]