Performance Models: Difference between revisions

From Growth Resources
 
(77 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:Performance_Group.png|right|450px]]
[[File:Performance_Models_Evidenced.png|right|450px]]


==Introduction==
=Introduction=
This article explores different models that have been researched for understanding performance. The importance of the behavior concept when analyzing group performance is discussed. How GRI’s adaptive profiles measure individual and organizational performance is presented.
This article introduces different models of organizational performance that have been researched over the past decades and the trend observed toward a better understanding of how individuals function and perform in groups.  


=Management Control=
When appropriately measured and condensed into results that can be used on a broad range of subjects related to a company’s strategy and day-to-day operations, the measures provide the new foundation for raising organizational performance to new levels.
The traditional, historical, and often implicit understanding of an organization’s performance is that the organization functions like a machine, with its performance measured by efficiency, predictability, and control. The goal of the organization is to optimize individual parts and processes to produce a specific, measurable output. With this vision in mind, management control, sometimes called "management audit," "management accounting," "managerial control," or simply “management,” depending on the context, has focused on
<ref>Simon, H. A. (1954). A formal theory of the employment relationship. Econometrica, 22(3), 293–305.<br/>Simons, R. (2000). Performance measurement and control systems for implementing strategy. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.</ref>:
<ul>
<li>Decision-making for improving the decision-making process through planning and coordination. Planning is about setting strategic and performance goals, monitoring the quality and variety of resources. Coordination is about integrating disparate elements to achieve goals.</li>
<li>Control for providing feedback and ensuring that the input-output system is properly aligned, and to motivate or evaluate employees.</li>
<li>Reporting information to managers throughout the organization that relates to their values, preferences, and what employees need to focus their attention and energy on.</li>
<li>Learning and training for understanding changes in the internal and external environment, as well as the connections between their various components.</li>
<li>External communication to disseminate information to constituents outside the organization: shareholders, analysts, suppliers, partners, customers, etc.</li>
</ul>
It’s only progressively that concerns for reporting, learning, and training have gradually emerged. Companies began to differentiate diagnostic from interactive control<ref>Simons, R. (1990). The role of management control systems in creating competitive advantage: new perspectives. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15 (1/2), pp. 127-143.</ref>. While the diagnostic refers to the piloting of routines and the implementation of strategy, interactive control relates to piloting by managers, the focusing of the attention of employees, learning, and the formulation of strategy.
 
=Gradual Evolution=
Anthony's seminal work played a major role in the development of management control systems<ref>Anthony, R. N. (1965). Planning and control systems: A framework for analysis. Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.</ref>. However, the definition he gave of control systems led to considering these systems as means of control by accounting measures of planning, steering, and integrating mechanisms<ref>Langfield-Smith, K. (1997). Management control systems and strategy: A critical review. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22, 2, pp. 207-232.</ref>. The focus was on accounting measures, but the non-financial measures were neglected<ref>Otley, D. (1999). Performance management: a framework for management control systems research. Management Accounting Research, 10, pp. 363-382.</ref>. The initial objective of accounting management systems, to provide information to facilitate cost control and measure the performance of the organization, was transformed into that of compiling costs with a view to producing periodic financial statements<ref>Johnson, H. T., Kaplan, R. (1987). Relevance lost: The rise and fall of management accounting. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.</ref>.
 
The role of short-term financial performance measures progressively became inappropriate for the new reality of organizations. The non-financial indicators based on the strategy of the organization were of crucial importance<ref>Kaplan, R. S. (1983). Measuring manufacturing performance: a new challenge for managerial accounting research. The Accounting Review LVIII(4), pp. 686-705.<br/>Eccles, R. G. (1991). The performance measurement manifesto. Harvard Business Review January-February, p. 131-137.</ref>. Gradually, the performance measurement framework began to reconcile the use of financial and non-financial measures. They evolved from a cybernetic vision where the measures are about costs, financial control, planning, and management control, towards a new era reflecting a holistic vision where the performance measures are focused on process efficiency and added value in management through non-financial measures<ref>Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F. (2001). Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: a value-based management perspective. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32, pp. 349-410.</ref>.


=Performance Models=
=Performance Models=
An organizational performance can be approached through various models, which address, on one hand, aspects of its measurement and control, and on the other hand, its conceptualization. Both perspectives refer to it using the terms efficiency or performance, which ultimately can be considered synonyms<ref> March, J. G., Sutton, R. I. (1997). Organizational Performance as a Dependent Variable. Organization Science. Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 698-706.</ref>. Management control research has traditionally focused on performance measures with the cybernetic model. Considering the human aspects amid non-financial measures has allowed 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>.
An organizational performance can be approached through various models, which address aspects of its measurement and control on one hand, and its conceptualization on the other hand.  
 
Other performance models each contribute to defining and implementing procedures and performance measures, depending on the context (research, societal, leadership, organizational development, etc.) and the authors. Several approaches have been proposed for categorizing these performance models. For example, they can be grouped into three categories based on their origins in economic, organizational, and social research<ref>Vibert C. (2004). Theories of macro organizational behavior: a handbook of ideas and explanations.</ref>. Others have suggested three clear categories: objectives, system, 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.<br/>Zammuto, R. F. (1982). Assessing organizational effectiveness: Systems change, adaptation, and strategy. Albany, N.Y.:Suny-Albany Press.<br/>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.<br/>Cameron, K. S., Whetten, D. A. (1983). Organizational Effectiveness: One model or Several? Preface. Orlando: Academic Press.</ref>.  


The different performance perspectives have been regrouped below into seven categories according to these three grand categories. This grouping enables highlighting different analytical anchor points and limitations. The seven approaches are summarized in the following table:
Until the 1980s, management control research had focused on performance measures with the cybernetic model, an extension of the more popular command and control model until the 1950s. Considering new individual and cultural aspects amid non-financial measures has allowed 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, the Management Control System (MCS) packages have integrated and powered management control systems in an integral system to manage organizations, most often in line with the holistic models. The three grand models are summarized in this table and detailed in separate articles.


{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|+ Models of performance
|+ Performance Management
! Models !! Focus  
! Models !! Focus  
|-
|-
| Cybernetic ||Accounts for the financial and production metrics.  
| [[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.  
|-
|-
| Holisitc || Extends from the cybernetic model with individual and social aspects.
| [[Holistic_Perspective | Holisitc]] || Holistic_Perspective | Extends from the cybernetic model with the second-order feedback loop and emphasizes the relationships and interactions between the organization’s different parts, including its culture, vision, mission, and reward systems.
|}
 
Regarding its conceptualization, several approaches have been proposed for categorizing performance depending on the context: research, societal, leadership, organizational development, etc.. For example, the models can be grouped into three categories based on their origins in economics, organizational, and social research<ref>Vibert C. (2004). Theories of macro organizational behavior: a handbook of ideas and explanations.</ref>. Others have suggested categorizing along the following three categories of 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.<br/>Zammuto, R. F. (1982). Assessing organizational effectiveness: Systems change, adaptation, and strategy. Albany, N.Y.:Suny-Albany Press.<br/>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.<br/>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 offers a distinct general overall understanding of how individuals and organizations behave. The non-performance model was added, which stands apart and continues to be a powerful model for understanding and managing performance. This grouping enables highlighting different analytical anchor points, limitations, and relations 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.
|-
|-
| [[Performance_by_Objectives|Objectives]] || [[Performance_by_Objectives|Objectives are set and managed at different levels of the organization.]]
| [[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.
|-
|-
| [[Performance_by_Systems|Systems]] ||[[Performance_by_Systems|As a system, an organization’s parts and intangible resources need to be managed.]]
| [[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_Stakeholders|Stakeholders]] || [[Performance_by_Stakeholders|Stakeholders' characteristics need to be leveraged.]]
| [[Performance_by_Values|Values]] || Value models extend from the stakeholder model to understand organizations based on individual values and preferences. The concept of values encompasses broad aspects of social behavior that, unlike others, can be described, measured, and shared.
|-
|-
| [[Performance_by_Values|Behavioral Values]] || [[Performance_by_Values|Extends from the stakeholder model to understand organizations based on individual behavioral values and preferences.]]
| [[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.
|-
| [[Non_Performance|Non-performance]] || [[Non_Performance|Minimize non-performance and ineffectiveness.]]
|}
|}


Besides performance models, which only depend on financial, production, and other tangible data, holistic and stakeholder models have increasingly used new research methods and included more sophisticated data and theories about people and their organizations. The nature of this data has evolved over time, from the early days of scientific psychology in the 1900s, which was firmly rooted in behavioral research, to today, where emotions and neuroscience play a significant role.  
Organizational performance models have grown over the years, not to supplant previous models but rather to refine them, better understand their scope, and create new models that better fit their times. Since the 2000s, with the Internet, and more recently with AI, our capacity to collect and analyze people's data has grown to incredible levels, and so has the capacity of management control systems, and our potential to better understand and manage people. How organizations can better perform over time remains a question tied to how people can better perform individually and in teams.
 
=Individual Performance: The Adaptive Profiles=
[[File:Performance_Individual.png|right|300px]]
 
As the conceptualization of organizational performance and management control systems has greatly progressed over the past decades, so has the understanding of people and their management. Although taking more time than in technology, research in social science has had the chance 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 started to penetrate small and large organizations worldwide progressively. They measure how people perform in context—not if they perform, but how they perform.


Personality has been a key concept in many models early on and continues to be widely used in research and practice. In research, it is present in sociology, anthropology, and psychology with its different schools. Personality carries many connotations, though. Despite its extensive use in recruitment, management science, and coaching in day-to-day business, the idea of personality remains coupled to the early days of psychometry, when it was used with deviant behaviors in psychiatry and clinical psychology. Using the personality concept while avoiding its negative connotation remains a constant challenge in practice.
The information is obtained from an assessment technique, which brings objectivity by applying statistics and removing important biases. The results are profiles that accurately depict with nuances the way people express, think, and feel about their behavior. The adaptive profiles also inform about people's adaptation and engagement, the conditions to avoid underperformance, and to maximize individual performance. At GRI, we have continued researching and refining the work initiated on these profiles and taken their use to adaptation and organizational performance levels. The adaptive profiles are discussed [[Adaptive Profile|in great detail in other articles such as this one accessible here]].  


=Centrality of Behaviors=
Today, markets are familiar with behavioral trait and type assessments that have been extensively used in recruitment and coaching. Adaptive profiles, however, are more recent and based on factors rather than traits and types. They exhibit different characteristics from those of other techniques. They help to rethink and enhance individuals' private techniques. They bring precision and additional benefits to numerous applications in recruitment, management, leadership, and organizational development.
Performance models based on actions and values include a behavioral component that makes them especially useful for research and practical applications. Behaviors are observable, which allows us to discuss and analyze them more effectively, increasing the chances of reaching consensus about what they are and what can be done with them. They are also a fundamental part of the personality concept, including within organizations. Behavioral traits and typologies have been extensively studied and utilized, both in recruitment and coaching. Aside from ethical conduct and social responsibility, the behaviors people value—or behavioral values—that they are emotionally interested in and most likely to express are central to how people perform.  


Analyzing and classifying behaviors using different models at the individual, team, company, and societal levels uncovers a limited set of behavioral factors. When combined, these factors can help explain behaviors; at GRI, we estimate that up to 90% of observable behaviors in organizations are explained by four factors. As science progressed, so has our sophistication in analyzing and assessing people and in modeling and representing their behaviors.
=Measuring Organizational Performance=
[[File:Performance_Group.png|right|300px]]
=Beyond Intuition=
As discussed in articles about holistic and stakeholder models, the concepts used by models for understanding people are numerous: intelligence, mindset, competencies, skills, preferences, styles, beliefs, motivation, drives, emotions, creativity, interests, and more. Some are broad and universal, while others are narrow and applicable only in limited contexts. Some are easy to change or adapt; others are less so. Some characteristics can be gathered in a few clicks on the Internet; others can only be attained through more sophisticated techniques than direct observation and intuition, or even AI, by making assumptions based on the Internet.


Discussion on assessment techniques, what they assess, and how they work goes beyond what can be addressed here in this article. In a few words, the survey technique can measure performance by applying statistics that we can’t do as human beings. We, however, apply our own and limited subjective statistics with our values and reference points, something we’ve referred to in our research at GRI as our private techniques. Private techniques are valuable individually, but not effective enough when used with others and group performance.
The adaptive profiles also apply to positions, teams, companies, and even at industry and societal levels, representing the performance required in jobs and those occurring at group levels.  


=Organizational Performance=
Performance models based on values include a behavioral component that makes them especially useful for practical applications and use in management control systems. Behaviors are observable. We can discuss and analyze them more effectively than abstract concepts that are inferred from observations. We can measure them as we do with adaptive profiles. At a company level, those aspects increase the chances of reaching consensus about what those behaviors are and what can be done with them to increase performance.  
[[File:Profile example_symbol.png|right|300px]]
Adaptive profiles, as we measure them at GRI and show in this example here on the right, accurately account for individual performance. The metrics produced reflect an individual's behaviors, affects<ref>Affect is the more proper technical term, often used interchangeably with emotion.</ref>, and mindset that all relate to each other as well as to the individual's preferences, interests, and values.


With adequate content and statistics, the metrics also apply to positions, teams, companies, and even at a societal level. When provided in a condensed way, the results can be learned, memorized, used— and in short, make sense— in multiple situations, where they can bring their value.  
For organizations, the information from the adaptive profiles can be regrouped and compared with that of position and group profiles to measure and analyze performance.<ref>[[Operationalizing_Performance|More information is presented here in this note on how adaptive profiles are used to operationalize performance at an individual level]]</ref>.  


The adaptive profile is produced by answering two questions and applying statistics. If you see this profile for the first time, it will not tell you much. It is shown here only to illustrate what it looks like<ref>[[Performance_at_Heart|See here some brief information about the adaptive profile]]</ref>. At an organizational level, the information from the adaptive profiles is regrouped and compared with that of position and group profiles for measuring and analyzing performance.<ref>[[Operationalizing_Performance|See here how the information is operationalized at a group level.]]<br/>[[Organizational_Performance_Measurement|See here how the information is used to calculate strategic and social indicators.]]</ref>
Once a company's management has defined the behaviors required in the positions and teams, strategic indicators can formalize the intent and help manage the gap in people's performance over time. Social indicators follow the adaptation, and engagement of employees in the organization. [[Organizational_Performance_Measurement| See here in this article how the information is used to calculate strategic and social indicators]].


=Notes=
=Notes=

Latest revision as of 21:16, 14 October 2025

Performance Models Evidenced.png

Introduction

This article introduces different models of organizational performance that have been researched over the past decades and the trend observed toward a better understanding of how individuals function and perform in groups.

When appropriately measured and condensed into results that can be used on a broad range of subjects related to a company’s strategy and day-to-day operations, the measures provide the new foundation for raising organizational performance to new levels.

Performance Models

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

Until the 1980s, management control research had focused on performance measures with the cybernetic model, an extension of the more popular command and control model until the 1950s. Considering new individual and cultural aspects amid non-financial measures has allowed the holistic model to gradually overcome some limitations of the cybernetic model[1]. Since the 2000s, thanks to capabilities from software platforms, the Internet, and later AI, the Management Control System (MCS) packages have integrated and powered management control systems in an integral system to manage organizations, most often in line with the holistic models. The three grand models are summarized in this table and detailed in separate articles.

Performance Management
Models Focus
Command and Control Traditional hierarchical top-down approach, with original management control systems for planning and controlling.
Cybernetic Accounts for the first-order loop feedback, learning, and communication in addition to financial and production metrics.
Holisitc Extends from the cybernetic model with the second-order feedback loop and emphasizes the relationships and interactions between the organization’s different parts, including its culture, vision, mission, and reward systems.

Regarding its conceptualization, several approaches have been proposed for categorizing performance depending on the context: research, societal, leadership, organizational development, etc.. For example, the models can be grouped into three categories based on their origins in economics, organizational, and social research[2]. Others have suggested categorizing along the following three categories of objectives, systems, and stakeholders[3] which is the one we adopted here. The value model was analyzed separately from the stakeholders model because it offers a distinct general overall understanding of how individuals and organizations behave. The non-performance model was added, which stands apart and continues to be a powerful model for understanding and managing performance. This grouping enables highlighting different analytical anchor points, limitations, and relations with management control systems.

Performance Conceptualization
Models Focus
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 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 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.
Values Value models extend from the stakeholder model to understand organizations based on 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 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 grown over the years, not to supplant previous models but rather to refine them, better understand their scope, and create new models that better fit their times. Since the 2000s, with the Internet, and more recently with AI, our capacity to collect and analyze people's data has grown to incredible levels, and so has the capacity of management control systems, and our potential to better understand and manage people. How organizations can better perform over time remains a question tied to how people can better perform individually and in teams.

Individual Performance: The Adaptive Profiles

Performance Individual.png

As the conceptualization of organizational performance and management control systems has greatly progressed over the past decades, so has the understanding of people and their management. Although taking more time than in technology, research in social science has had the chance 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 started to penetrate small and large organizations worldwide progressively. They measure how people perform in context—not if they perform, but how they perform.

The information is obtained from an assessment technique, which brings objectivity by applying statistics and removing important biases. The results are profiles that accurately depict with nuances the way people express, think, and feel about their behavior. The adaptive profiles also inform about people's adaptation and engagement, the conditions to avoid underperformance, and to maximize individual performance. At GRI, we have continued researching and refining the work initiated on these profiles and taken their use to adaptation and organizational performance levels. The adaptive profiles are discussed in great detail in other articles such as this one accessible here.

Today, markets are familiar with behavioral trait and type assessments that have been extensively used in recruitment and coaching. Adaptive profiles, however, are more recent and based on factors rather than traits and types. They exhibit different characteristics from those of other techniques. They help to rethink and enhance individuals' private techniques. They bring precision and additional benefits to numerous applications in recruitment, management, leadership, and organizational development.

Measuring Organizational Performance

Performance Group.png

The adaptive profiles also apply to positions, teams, companies, and even at industry and societal levels, representing the performance required in jobs and those occurring at group levels.

Performance models based on values include a behavioral component that makes them especially useful for practical applications and use in management control systems. Behaviors are observable. We can discuss and analyze them more effectively than abstract concepts that are inferred from observations. We can measure them as we do with adaptive profiles. At a company level, those aspects increase the chances of reaching consensus about what those behaviors are and what can be done with them to increase performance.

For organizations, the information from the adaptive profiles can be regrouped and compared with that of position and group profiles to measure and analyze performance.[4].

Once a company's management has defined the behaviors required in the positions and teams, strategic indicators can formalize the intent and help manage the gap in people's performance over time. Social indicators follow the adaptation, and engagement of employees in the organization. See here in this article how the information is used to calculate strategic and social indicators.

Notes

  1. ↑ Henri, J. F. (2004). Performance measurement and Organizational Effectiveness: Bridging the gap. Managerial Finance. Vol. 30, No. 6, pp 93-123.
  2. ↑ Vibert C. (2004). Theories of macro organizational behavior: a handbook of ideas and explanations.
  3. ↑ 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.
  4. ↑ More information is presented here in this note on how adaptive profiles are used to operationalize performance at an individual level
Retrieved from "https://wiki.gri.co/index.php?title=Performance_Models&oldid=2011"