Challenges with Performance

Introduction

There is little consensus on the concepts of individual and group performance. Their multiple definitions and shifting aspects are challenging. Nevertheless, the notion of performance covers certain necessities, and key aspects emerge that are discussed in this article. GRI’s adaptive profiles challenge private assessment techniques and bring new indicators for managing and raising performance to new levels.

The Consensus

The notion of performance is well related to achieving objectives and removing constraints. Five points of consensus in performance research can be summarized:

• The concept of organizational performance is central and cannot be ignored.
• Different performance models are useful in different circumstances. Their usefulness depends on the goals and constraints that the organization imposes on itself in evaluating its performance. They are complementary.
• The conceptualization of what a performing organization stands for is changing as the view of it as a social contract evolves through metaphors. Metaphors make it possible to be aware of new phenomena and performance variables that previous metaphors would not have yet revealed.
• The criteria for selecting performance indicators are based on individual values ​​and preferences, which are difficult to identify, even by people themselves, and often contradictory between individuals. Depending on who is involved, a different set of criteria can be identified. What people say they prefer and what their behaviors suggest they prefer are not always the same thing.
• Questions of performance are mainly brought about through the problems encountered rather than through theories. The problems of an organization’s performance are not theoretical but practical and respond to criteria.

The Construct

Importantly, performance is a construct. A construct is an abstraction that cannot be pointed to, counted, or directly observed. It exists only because it is inferred from observable phenomena, but it has no objective reality. It is a mental abstraction used to understand ideas or interpretations. A concept, unlike a construct, can be linked to an empirical reality. It can be defined and precisely described by observable events. Constructs, however, cannot be defined in this way. Their boundaries cannot be drawn exactly.

Different Models

As a construct, performance cannot have a meaning that is definitively known and apprehended by a single model. One model includes elements not found in the other models; each of the models has a value. However, none has sufficient explanatory power to supplant the others.

Asking whether an organization is performing or not does not mean much before specifying different aspects that can be relatively independent of each other. Such a construct allows a wide variety of organizations to be simultaneously judged to be successful despite contradictory characteristics. A too narrow definition of performance limits this advantage.

Stakeholders Dependence

Some performance criteria may be considered important by one stakeholder but ultimately seen as unnecessary by others. The complexity and ambiguity of organizational performance mirror the complexity and ambiguity of the organizations and their stakeholders. Organizations can be viewed as entities engaged in numerous objectives and models, which often exhibit only a weak hierarchy of overall preferences. Simultaneously, these preferences depend on stakeholders' values, which others have accepted as valid.

Some have argued that the concept of performance is more relevant for engineering than for science. Recognizing stakeholders' priorities and identifying which models can be managed together and successfully over time are crucial for a company's leadership and management.

Standards and Indicators

A primary task related to performance models is to identify suitable indicators and standards. Closely related is the challenge of their measurement, which concerns an organization’s leaders and managers with a sense of what they consider effective to put into practice. Many indicators may already be at their disposal, and when it comes to people’s values, private assessment techniques are traditionally the solution. GRI’s adaptive profiles will objectively capture someone’s way of performing and adapting to the environment. They will challenge private assumptions and provide an organization with new ideas for effectively managing its performance.

When used at the job, team, and organizational levels, the profiles help to strategize the behaviors expected at these different levels, analyze the gap with their occupants, and find creative solutions, which can be a development or recalibration of the expectations in the job. The gaps will, over time, create friction, frustration, and disengagement. The measures can also be used to anticipate potential decisions and communication needs. They not only reveal clear indications of what’s happening and why, but also bring new solutions on how performance can be improved.