General Framework - Revision history

Flc: /* Introduction */

2026-03-07T02:12:55Z

Introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:12, 7 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=Introduction=		=Introduction=
	[[File:Use of Assessment Techniques_Simplified.png\|right\|~~300px~~]]		[[File:Use of Assessment Techniques_Simplified.png\|right\|450px]]
	This article introduces the GRI general framework. The framework was initially developed in accordance with academic standards to address the specific question of how personality measures used by executives can improve organizational performance. The question was subsequently expanded to include other assessment techniques, users, and uses.		This article introduces the GRI general framework. The framework was initially developed in accordance with academic standards to address the specific question of how personality measures used by executives can improve organizational performance. The question was subsequently expanded to include other assessment techniques, users, and uses.

Flc: /* Qualitative Analyses */

2026-01-13T22:35:12Z

Qualitative Analyses

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:35, 13 January 2026
Line 83:		Line 83:
	The framework has deepened understanding of the variables at play in the use of assessment techniques and has fostered a more qualitative approach, rather than blindly relying on statistical reports. It has brought into focus the most frequently used parallel techniques and compared them with others, not only in terms of their intrinsic qualities but also of their upfront qualities, results, theories, and documentation. The framework also underscores the roles of users and their learning, as well as those of the environment and of publishers and consultants.		The framework has deepened understanding of the variables at play in the use of assessment techniques and has fostered a more qualitative approach, rather than blindly relying on statistical reports. It has brought into focus the most frequently used parallel techniques and compared them with others, not only in terms of their intrinsic qualities but also of their upfront qualities, results, theories, and documentation. The framework also underscores the roles of users and their learning, as well as those of the environment and of publishers and consultants.

	When properly designed, assessment techniques become necessary to address essential, costly human challenges in organizations, beyond subjective and intuitive limitations that adversely affect performance. Only when users become aware of those limitations can they adopt new ones. The new technique and knowledge can gradually become part of a company’s culture and ~~realize~~ their full potential.		When properly designed, assessment techniques become necessary to address essential, costly human challenges in organizations, beyond subjective and intuitive limitations that adversely affect performance. Only when users become aware of those limitations can they adopt new ones. The new technique and knowledge can gradually become part of a company’s culture and be realized to their full potential.

	=Notes=		=Notes=

Flc: /* Opening New Perspectives */

2026-01-13T22:32:29Z

Opening New Perspectives

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, 13 January 2026
Line 77:		Line 77:

	In these situations, the quality of the assessment technique is of little importance relative to the story being built around it. It occurs similarly with tools based on types used in coaching, as well as with others based on traits for recruitment. Statistics have helped improve measurement quality, but they are still often part of the story that exploits the medium effect, regardless of the quality of the technique.		In these situations, the quality of the assessment technique is of little importance relative to the story being built around it. It occurs similarly with tools based on types used in coaching, as well as with others based on traits for recruitment. Statistics have helped improve measurement quality, but they are still often part of the story that exploits the medium effect, regardless of the quality of the technique.

	Users need not be experts for use in organizations; they can be trained to use the tools, with the understanding that the tools were designed for that purpose. This opens up new possibilities for studying the impact of using such techniques on performance.		Users need not be experts for use in organizations; they can be trained to use the tools, with the understanding that the tools were designed for that purpose. This opens up new possibilities for studying the impact of using such techniques on performance.

	==Qualitative Analyses==		==Qualitative Analyses==
	The framework has deepened understanding of the variables at play in the use of assessment techniques and has fostered a more qualitative approach, rather than blindly relying on statistical reports. It has brought into focus the most frequently used parallel techniques and compared them with others, not only in terms of their intrinsic qualities but also of their upfront qualities, results, theories, and documentation. The framework also underscores the roles of users and their learning, as well as those of the environment and of publishers and consultants.		The framework has deepened understanding of the variables at play in the use of assessment techniques and has fostered a more qualitative approach, rather than blindly relying on statistical reports. It has brought into focus the most frequently used parallel techniques and compared them with others, not only in terms of their intrinsic qualities but also of their upfront qualities, results, theories, and documentation. The framework also underscores the roles of users and their learning, as well as those of the environment and of publishers and consultants.

	When properly designed, assessment techniques become necessary to address essential, costly human challenges in organizations, beyond subjective and intuitive limitations that adversely affect performance. Only when users become aware of those limitations can they adopt new ones. The new technique and knowledge can gradually become part of a company’s culture and realize their full potential.		When properly designed, assessment techniques become necessary to address essential, costly human challenges in organizations, beyond subjective and intuitive limitations that adversely affect performance. Only when users become aware of those limitations can they adopt new ones. The new technique and knowledge can gradually become part of a company’s culture and realize their full potential.

Flc: /* Framework’s Development */

2026-01-13T22:29:22Z

Framework’s Development

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:29, 13 January 2026
Line 32:		Line 32:
	The observations from the large field were from primary sources: direct observations of companies and their people, and secondary sources: testimony from publishing companies, consultants, journalists, and various documents collected. The interaction between the large and small fields happened once the first framework was built. Observations from the small field and between the two case studies stimulated new observations in the large field, and vice versa, while moving back and forth between the large and small fields after the testing phase began.		The observations from the large field were from primary sources: direct observations of companies and their people, and secondary sources: testimony from publishing companies, consultants, journalists, and various documents collected. The interaction between the large and small fields happened once the first framework was built. Observations from the small field and between the two case studies stimulated new observations in the large field, and vice versa, while moving back and forth between the large and small fields after the testing phase began.

	The framework was built <ref>See more information in these articles about [[Hypotheses_Formulation \| the formulation of the hypotheses]], [[ Anticipated_Conclusions\| the anticipated conclusions]], and [[Indicators_and_Their_Measurement \| the indicators of the framework and their measurement]]</ref>, and successfully tested on case studies of the small testing field<ref>[[Framework_First_Test \| See here nore information about the two case studies used to test the first framework.]]</ref>. The concepts, assessment techniques, and theories supporting the frameworks in psychology, sociology, social interactionism, organizational behavior, leadership, and semiotics (the analysis and philosophy of signs) have been documented<ref>See [[ Theories_Behind_the_Framework \| here about the theories beind the framework]], and [[Operationalization_of_Concepts \| here about the operationslizations of the concepts.]]</ref>.		The framework was built <ref>See more information in these articles about [[Hypotheses_Formulation \| the formulation of the hypotheses]], [[ Anticipated_Conclusions\| the anticipated conclusions]], and [[Indicators_and_Their_Measurement \| the indicators of the framework and their measurement]].</ref>, and successfully tested on case studies of the small testing field<ref>[[Framework_First_Test \| See here nore information about the two case studies used to test the first framework.]]</ref>. The concepts, assessment techniques, and theories supporting the frameworks in psychology, sociology, social interactionism, organizational behavior, leadership, and semiotics (the analysis and philosophy of signs) have been documented<ref>See [[ Theories_Behind_the_Framework \| here about the theories beind the framework]], and [[Operationalization_of_Concepts \| here about the operationslizations of the concepts.]]</ref>.

	The first framework laid the foundation for the second phase, which lasted from 2006 to 2012. Personality research has firmly confirmed the universality and nature of the factors employed. The Internet enabled unprecedented levels of data collection, usage, and analysis. Although observations were saturated after the first framework was created, the rise of coaching, advancements in well-being, and the use of typology assessments created new opportunities for observation. After 2005, major exploration areas became increasingly focused on the U.S., particularly the Bay Area.		The first framework laid the foundation for the second phase, which lasted from 2006 to 2012. Personality research has firmly confirmed the universality and nature of the factors employed. The Internet enabled unprecedented levels of data collection, usage, and analysis. Although observations were saturated after the first framework was created, the rise of coaching, advancements in well-being, and the use of typology assessments created new opportunities for observation. After 2005, major exploration areas became increasingly focused on the U.S., particularly the Bay Area.

Flc: /* Framework’s Development */

2026-01-13T22:28:27Z

Framework’s Development

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:28, 13 January 2026
Line 32:		Line 32:
	The observations from the large field were from primary sources: direct observations of companies and their people, and secondary sources: testimony from publishing companies, consultants, journalists, and various documents collected. The interaction between the large and small fields happened once the first framework was built. Observations from the small field and between the two case studies stimulated new observations in the large field, and vice versa, while moving back and forth between the large and small fields after the testing phase began.		The observations from the large field were from primary sources: direct observations of companies and their people, and secondary sources: testimony from publishing companies, consultants, journalists, and various documents collected. The interaction between the large and small fields happened once the first framework was built. Observations from the small field and between the two case studies stimulated new observations in the large field, and vice versa, while moving back and forth between the large and small fields after the testing phase began.

	The framework was successfully tested on case studies of the small testing field<ref>[[Framework_First_Test \| See here nore information about the two case studies used to test the first framework.]]</ref>. The concepts, assessment techniques, and theories supporting the frameworks in psychology, sociology, social interactionism, organizational behavior, leadership, and semiotics (the analysis and philosophy of signs) have been documented<ref>See [[ Theories_Behind_the_Framework \| here about the theories beind the framework]], and [[Operationalization_of_Concepts \| here about the operationslizations of the concepts.]]</ref>.		The framework was built <ref>See more information in these articles about [[Hypotheses_Formulation \| the formulation of the hypotheses]], [[ Anticipated_Conclusions\| the anticipated conclusions]], and [[Indicators_and_Their_Measurement \| the indicators of the framework and their measurement]]</ref>, and successfully tested on case studies of the small testing field<ref>[[Framework_First_Test \| See here nore information about the two case studies used to test the first framework.]]</ref>. The concepts, assessment techniques, and theories supporting the frameworks in psychology, sociology, social interactionism, organizational behavior, leadership, and semiotics (the analysis and philosophy of signs) have been documented<ref>See [[ Theories_Behind_the_Framework \| here about the theories beind the framework]], and [[Operationalization_of_Concepts \| here about the operationslizations of the concepts.]]</ref>.

	The first framework laid the foundation for the second phase, which lasted from 2006 to 2012. Personality research has firmly confirmed the universality and nature of the factors employed. The Internet enabled unprecedented levels of data collection, usage, and analysis. Although observations were saturated after the first framework was created, the rise of coaching, advancements in well-being, and the use of typology assessments created new opportunities for observation. After 2005, major exploration areas became increasingly focused on the U.S., particularly the Bay Area.		The first framework laid the foundation for the second phase, which lasted from 2006 to 2012. Personality research has firmly confirmed the universality and nature of the factors employed. The Internet enabled unprecedented levels of data collection, usage, and analysis. Although observations were saturated after the first framework was created, the rise of coaching, advancements in well-being, and the use of typology assessments created new opportunities for observation. After 2005, major exploration areas became increasingly focused on the U.S., particularly the Bay Area.

Flc: /* Framework Design */

2026-01-13T22:22:18Z

Framework Design

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:22, 13 January 2026
Line 14:		Line 14:
	The general framework is represented below. It includes nine independent variables on the use of assessment techniques (in blue), regrouped into two subsets: practical uses in organizational development, leadership, coaching, recruitment, and clinical settings, and abstract uses in self- and social-awareness, learning, language, and signs that span all practical uses<ref>See for more details in this wiki [[Assessments_Potential_Uses#Potential_Use_in_Organizational_Development \| about the nine independent variables.]] The nine are summarized [[ Hypotheses_Formulation \| in the hypotheses formulation.]] See also how the nine categories were analyzed and formed [[Uses Analysis \| with the different techniques used for that purpose.]]</ref>.		The general framework is represented below. It includes nine independent variables on the use of assessment techniques (in blue), regrouped into two subsets: practical uses in organizational development, leadership, coaching, recruitment, and clinical settings, and abstract uses in self- and social-awareness, learning, language, and signs that span all practical uses<ref>See for more details in this wiki [[Assessments_Potential_Uses#Potential_Use_in_Organizational_Development \| about the nine independent variables.]] The nine are summarized [[ Hypotheses_Formulation \| in the hypotheses formulation.]] See also how the nine categories were analyzed and formed [[Uses Analysis \| with the different techniques used for that purpose.]]</ref>.

	The framework includes four antecedent variables (in yellow): the assessment technique, the user, the environment in which the method is used, and the publisher and consultant<ref> The four antecedent variables are analyzed separately in the following articles on [[Assessment Techniques \| the assessment techniques]], [[Users Analysis\|users]], [[Environment_and_Organization_Analysis \| the environment and the organization]], and [[ Publisher and Consultant Analysis\| the publisher and consultant]]. The assessment technique and user variables are ~~listed~~ in [[Operationalization of Concepts \| this other article ~~on the operationalization of concepts~~.]] The codes used during the exploration phase are indicated in the articles.</ref>.		The framework includes four antecedent variables (in yellow): the assessment technique, the user, the environment in which the method is used, and the publisher and consultant<ref> The four antecedent variables are analyzed separately in the following articles on [[Assessment Techniques \| the assessment techniques]], [[Users Analysis\|users]], [[Environment_and_Organization_Analysis \| the environment and the organization]], and [[ Publisher and Consultant Analysis\| the publisher and consultant]]. The assessment technique and user variables are described in [[Operationalization of Concepts \| this other article.]] The codes used during the exploration phase are indicated in the articles.</ref>.

	The dependent variables (in green) include three variables. Strategic performance is measured by the gap between the strategic intent for organizational performance and its realization. Social performance measures how people adapt and engage at the group level by interacting with others. Economic performance includes typical KPIs and KRIs that may, for instance, be of a production or financial nature. Strategic and Social performances are contingent upon how individual performance is measured with the adaptive profiles<ref>The dependent variables are first introduced in this [[Operationalization_of_Concepts#Performance \| article about the operationalization of concepts]] and with more details in this other article on [[Organizational Performance Measurement \| how organizational performance is measured]]. Social and strategic performance are [[Performance Models \| discussed at large in this other article where they are also compared with other forms of performance.]]</ref>.		The dependent variables (in green) include three variables. Strategic performance is measured by the gap between the strategic intent for organizational performance and its realization. Social performance measures how people adapt and engage at the group level by interacting with others. Economic performance includes typical KPIs and KRIs that may, for instance, be of a production or financial nature. Strategic and Social performances are contingent upon how individual performance is measured with the adaptive profiles<ref>The dependent variables are first introduced in this [[Operationalization_of_Concepts#Performance \| article about the operationalization of concepts]] and with more details in this other article on [[Organizational Performance Measurement \| how organizational performance is measured]]. Social and strategic performance are [[Performance Models \| discussed at large in this other article where they are also compared with other forms of performance.]]</ref>.

Flc: /* Adapting the Framework for Research */

2026-01-13T22:14:50Z

Adapting the Framework for Research

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:14, 13 January 2026
Line 67:		Line 67:
	=Opening New Perspectives=		=Opening New Perspectives=
	==Adapting the Framework for Research==		==Adapting the Framework for Research==
	The general framework provides a basis for research on specific topics that employ adaptive profiles to analyze social behavior and performance and aim to clarify users' roles. The framework helps ensure greater thoroughness in elaborating on general and specific questions and in constructing the model to be tested, including its hypotheses, variables, indicators, and anticipated conclusions. Interview guides and synthesis need to be adapted too.		The general framework provides a basis for research on specific topics that employ adaptive profiles to analyze social behavior and performance and aim to clarify users' roles.

			The framework helps ensure greater thoroughness in elaborating on general and specific questions and in constructing the model to be tested, including its hypotheses, variables, indicators, and anticipated conclusions. Interview guides and synthesis need to be adapted too.

	Such specific frameworks have been developed to date for analyzing the performance of sports teams and boards of directors.		Such specific frameworks have been developed to date for analyzing the performance of sports teams and boards of directors.

Flc: /* Opening New Perspectives */

2026-01-13T22:14:00Z

Opening New Perspectives

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:14, 13 January 2026
Line 66:		Line 66:

	=Opening New Perspectives=		=Opening New Perspectives=
	~~Probably~~ the ~~most significant barrier~~ to ~~adopting new assessment techniques is the belief that only experts can use them~~. ~~This belief has been rooted~~ in the ~~use of whatever technique has been employed since the beginning of time. Techniques such as astrology~~, ~~tarot readings~~, and ~~crystal balls have been used in the same way for centuries; they have worked in some respects for some applications, but hardly so in organizations~~. ~~The fact that some techniques work, at least in telling stories~~ and ~~creating connections, led us~~ to ~~use the term "mediating effects"~~ to ~~describe~~ the ~~phenomenon~~.		==Adapting the Framework for Research==
			The general framework provides a basis for research on specific topics that employ adaptive profiles to analyze social behavior and performance and aim to clarify users' roles. The framework helps ensure greater thoroughness in elaborating on general and specific questions and in constructing the model to be tested, including its hypotheses, variables, indicators, and anticipated conclusions. Interview guides and synthesis need to be adapted too.
			Such specific frameworks have been developed to date for analyzing the performance of sports teams and boards of directors.

			==Removing Barriers==
			The most significant barrier to the use and study of new assessment techniques is the belief that only experts can use them. This belief has been rooted in the use of whatever technique has been employed since the beginning of time. Techniques such as astrology, tarot readings, and crystal balls have been used in the same way for centuries; they have worked in some respects for some applications, but hardly so in organizations. The fact that some techniques work, at least in telling stories and creating connections, led us to use the term "mediating effects" to describe the phenomenon.

	In these situations, the quality of the assessment technique is of little importance relative to the story being built around it. It occurs similarly with tools based on types used in coaching, as well as with others based on traits for recruitment. Statistics have helped improve measurement quality, but they are still often part of the story that exploits the medium effect, regardless of the quality of the technique.		In these situations, the quality of the assessment technique is of little importance relative to the story being built around it. It occurs similarly with tools based on types used in coaching, as well as with others based on traits for recruitment. Statistics have helped improve measurement quality, but they are still often part of the story that exploits the medium effect, regardless of the quality of the technique.
			Users need not be experts for use in organizations; they can be trained to use the tools, with the understanding that the tools were designed for that purpose. This opens up new possibilities for studying the impact of using such techniques on performance.

	The ~~challenge for~~ the ~~market is to adopt~~ a more qualitative approach ~~to assessing techniques~~ rather than blindly relying on statistical reports. When properly designed, ~~tools are~~ necessary to address essential, costly human challenges in organizations, beyond subjective and intuitive limitations. Only when ~~this new knowledge becomes part~~ of ~~a company’s culture~~ can a new ~~assessment~~ technique ~~deliver its full potential.~~		==Qualitative Analyses==
			The framework has deepened understanding of the variables at play in the use of assessment techniques and has fostered a more qualitative approach, rather than blindly relying on statistical reports. It has brought into focus the most frequently used parallel techniques and compared them with others, not only in terms of their intrinsic qualities but also of their upfront qualities, results, theories, and documentation. The framework also underscores the roles of users and their learning, as well as those of the environment and of publishers and consultants.
	~~Knowledge of the framework~~ and ~~adaptive profiles is available on this wiki, but only through a rigorous process~~ can the GRI framework and language be learned through concrete examples and a step-by-step, incremental path. Often, users begin their journey by comparing the learning to what they have seen in other systems. Because of the nature and scope of the adaptive profiles and the deconstruction and reconstruction of meaning at play, it cannot be learned any other way. The process is counterintuitive, but that’s what makes it ultimately more beneficial. We like to use the analogy of ~~learning~~ a ~~new language to describe this process. Indeed, the new language helps relearn about people~~ and their ~~organization.~~		When properly designed, assessment techniques become necessary to address essential, costly human challenges in organizations, beyond subjective and intuitive limitations that adversely affect performance. Only when users become aware of those limitations can they adopt new ones. The new technique and knowledge can gradually become part of a company’s culture and realize their full potential.

	~~The same learning is required for users as when conducting research with the GRI framework using adaptive profiles. Doing so requires rapid skill development and the acquisition of the new language~~.

	=Notes=		=Notes=

Flc: /* Re-learning about People and Their Organization */

2026-01-13T22:12:24Z

Re-learning about People and Their Organization

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:12, 13 January 2026
Line 61:		Line 61:

	==Re-learning about People and Their Organization==		==Re-learning about People and Their Organization==
	Unlike working with trait and typology models, learning with a factor-based model and the adaptive profiles is counterintuitive: the factor model uncovers previously unobserved characteristics, albeit ones that can be managed positively, that invite relearning about people and their organization. The framework has enabled us to delve into learning and using the adaptive profiles for this purpose, in the same way that a language is learned: by working on real case studies, those of the participants. Much like learning a new sport or cooking, relearning about people requires practice, not just reading.		Unlike working with trait and typology models, learning with a factor-based model and the adaptive profiles is counterintuitive. But that’s what makes it ultimately more beneficial. Because of the sensitive nature and scope of the adaptive profiles, a deconstruction and reconstruction of meaning is at play. The factor model uncovers previously unobserved characteristics, albeit ones that can be managed positively, that invite relearning about people and their organization.

			The framework has enabled us to delve into learning and using the adaptive profiles for this purpose, in the same way that a language is learned: by working on real case studies, those of the participants. Much like learning a new sport or cooking, relearning about people requires practice, not just reading.

	=Opening New Perspectives=		=Opening New Perspectives=

Flc: /* Defining Social and Strategic Performance */

2026-01-13T20:08:02Z

Defining Social and Strategic Performance

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:08, 13 January 2026
Line 46:		Line 46:

	==Defining Social and Strategic Performance==		==Defining Social and Strategic Performance==
	The framework enabled the identification of what social performance can stand for within organizations and its operationalization through adaptive profiles. Adaptive profiles not only capture naturally expressed social behaviors but also environmental adaptation, whether or not one is engaged. Those characteristics not only measure how effective people are but also how efficient they are from an emotional standpoint. Additionally, the profiles represent the social behaviors expected at the job and group levels, thereby formalizing management's strategic intent, with nuances and comparisons that are not possible without a symbolic feature such as the adaptive profile. Social and strategic performance should be analyzed alongside other key dimensions of production, revenue, and financial performance, as captured by KPIs and KRIs.		The framework enabled the identification of what social performance can stand for within organizations and its operationalization through adaptive profiles. Adaptive profiles not only capture naturally expressed social behaviors but also environmental adaptation and whether or not one is engaged. Those characteristics not only measure how effective people are but also how efficient they are from an emotional standpoint. Additionally, the profiles represent the social behaviors expected at the job and group levels, thereby formalizing management's strategic intent, with nuances and comparisons that are not possible without a symbolic feature such as the adaptive profile. Social and strategic performance should be analyzed alongside other key dimensions of production, revenue, and financial performance, as captured by KPIs and KRIs.

	==Clarifying the Nature of Social Behavior==		==Clarifying the Nature of Social Behavior==

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:22, 13 January 2026
Line 14:		Line 14:
	The general framework is represented below. It includes nine independent variables on the use of assessment techniques (in blue), regrouped into two subsets: practical uses in organizational development, leadership, coaching, recruitment, and clinical settings, and abstract uses in self- and social-awareness, learning, language, and signs that span all practical uses<ref>See for more details in this wiki [[Assessments_Potential_Uses#Potential_Use_in_Organizational_Development \| about the nine independent variables.]] The nine are summarized [[ Hypotheses_Formulation \| in the hypotheses formulation.]] See also how the nine categories were analyzed and formed [[Uses Analysis \| with the different techniques used for that purpose.]]</ref>.		The general framework is represented below. It includes nine independent variables on the use of assessment techniques (in blue), regrouped into two subsets: practical uses in organizational development, leadership, coaching, recruitment, and clinical settings, and abstract uses in self- and social-awareness, learning, language, and signs that span all practical uses<ref>See for more details in this wiki [[Assessments_Potential_Uses#Potential_Use_in_Organizational_Development \| about the nine independent variables.]] The nine are summarized [[ Hypotheses_Formulation \| in the hypotheses formulation.]] See also how the nine categories were analyzed and formed [[Uses Analysis \| with the different techniques used for that purpose.]]</ref>.

	The framework includes four antecedent variables (in yellow): the assessment technique, the user, the environment in which the method is used, and the publisher and consultant<ref> The four antecedent variables are analyzed separately in the following articles on [[Assessment Techniques \| the assessment techniques]], [[Users Analysis\|users]], [[Environment_and_Organization_Analysis \| the environment and the organization]], and [[ Publisher and Consultant Analysis\| the publisher and consultant]]. The assessment technique and user variables are ~~listed~~ in [[Operationalization of Concepts \| this other article ~~on the operationalization of concepts~~.]] The codes used during the exploration phase are indicated in the articles.</ref>.		The framework includes four antecedent variables (in yellow): the assessment technique, the user, the environment in which the method is used, and the publisher and consultant<ref> The four antecedent variables are analyzed separately in the following articles on [[Assessment Techniques \| the assessment techniques]], [[Users Analysis\|users]], [[Environment_and_Organization_Analysis \| the environment and the organization]], and [[ Publisher and Consultant Analysis\| the publisher and consultant]]. The assessment technique and user variables are described in [[Operationalization of Concepts \| this other article.]] The codes used during the exploration phase are indicated in the articles.</ref>.

	The dependent variables (in green) include three variables. Strategic performance is measured by the gap between the strategic intent for organizational performance and its realization. Social performance measures how people adapt and engage at the group level by interacting with others. Economic performance includes typical KPIs and KRIs that may, for instance, be of a production or financial nature. Strategic and Social performances are contingent upon how individual performance is measured with the adaptive profiles<ref>The dependent variables are first introduced in this [[Operationalization_of_Concepts#Performance \| article about the operationalization of concepts]] and with more details in this other article on [[Organizational Performance Measurement \| how organizational performance is measured]]. Social and strategic performance are [[Performance Models \| discussed at large in this other article where they are also compared with other forms of performance.]]</ref>.		The dependent variables (in green) include three variables. Strategic performance is measured by the gap between the strategic intent for organizational performance and its realization. Social performance measures how people adapt and engage at the group level by interacting with others. Economic performance includes typical KPIs and KRIs that may, for instance, be of a production or financial nature. Strategic and Social performances are contingent upon how individual performance is measured with the adaptive profiles<ref>The dependent variables are first introduced in this [[Operationalization_of_Concepts#Performance \| article about the operationalization of concepts]] and with more details in this other article on [[Organizational Performance Measurement \| how organizational performance is measured]]. Social and strategic performance are [[Performance Models \| discussed at large in this other article where they are also compared with other forms of performance.]]</ref>.