The
Problem
and
the
Solution. Performance is multidimensional and often poorly defined. A review of the performance literature in other fields revealed the need for a general performance model that embraces multiple measures and fits any organization. This chapter presents a functional taxonomy of performance that incorporates performance outcomes, performance drivers, and their evaluation In addition, implications for practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bierema, L.L. (1997). Development of the individual leads to a more productive workplace. In R. Rowden (Ed.), Workplace learning: Debating five critical questions of theory and practice (pp. 21-28). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
Campbell, J.P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 678-732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
3.
Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C.G. (1993). Organization development and change (5th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
4.
Dansereau, F., & Markham, S.E. (1982). Levels of analysis in personnel and human resources management. In M. D. Dunnette and E. A. Fleishman (Eds.), Human performance and productivity: Human capability assessment (pp. 35-84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
Davenport, T.H. (1993). Process innovation: Reengineering work through information technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
6.
Dirkx, J.M. (1997). Human resource development as adult education: Fostering the educative workplace. In R. Rowden (Ed.), Workplace learning: Debating five critical questions of theory and practice (pp. 41-47). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
Edvinsson, L., and Malone, M.S. (1997). Intellectual capital: Realizing your company's true value by finding its hidden brainpower. New York: HarperCollins.
8.
Gilbert, T.F. (1996). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance (tribute ed.).
9.
Washington, DC: International Society for Performance Improvement.
10.
Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation. New York: HarperCollins.
11.
Holton, E.F. Iii ( 1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 5-29.
12.
Holton, E.F. III (1997). HRD change leadership in organizations. In E. F. Holton III (Ed.), In action: Leading organizational change. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
13.
Holton, E.F. III (1998). An integrated model of performance domains: Bounding the theory and practice. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14.
Hronec, S.M. (1993). Vital signs: Using quality time and cost performance measurements to chart your company's future. New York: American Management Association.
15.
Juran, J.M. (1992). Juran on quality by design. New York: Free Press.
16.
Kaiser, S.M., & Holton, E.F., III. (1998). The learning organization as a performance improvement strategy. In R. Torraco (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1998 Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Meeting.
17.
Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (1996). The balanced scorecard. Boston : HarvardBusiness School Press .
18.
Langdon, D.G. (1995). The new language of work. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
19.
Lewin, D., & Mitchell, D.J.B. (1995). Human resource management: An economic approach (2nd ed.). Cincinnati: South-Western.
20.
McClernon, T.R., & Swanson, R.A. (1997). Redefining HRD's role in organizations: A case study on becoming a world-class business partner. In E. F. Holton III (Ed.), In action: Leading organizational change. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
21.
McGehee, W., & Thayer, P.W. (1961). Training in business and industry. New York: Wiley.
22.
Moore, M.L., and Dutton, P. (1978). Training needs analysis: Review and critique. Academy of Management Review, 532-545.
23.
Morrow, C.C., Jarrett, M.Q., & Rupinski, M.T. (1997). An investigation of the effect and economic utility of corporate-wide training. Personnel Psychology, 50, 91-119.
24.
Ostroff, C., & Ford, J.K. (1989). Assessing training needs: Critical levels of analysis . In I. Goldstein & Assoc., Training and development in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.
26.
Rashford, N.S., & Coghlan, D. (1994). The dynamics of organizational levels: A change framework for managers and consultants. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
27.
Reichheld, F.F. (1996). The loyalty effect. Boston, MA: HarvardBusiness School Press.
28.
Rummler, G., & Brache, A. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29.
Silber, K.H. (1992) Intervening at different levels in organizations . In H. Stolovitch & E. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology (pp. 50-65). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
30.
Sink, D.S., Tuttle, T.C., & DeVries, S.J. (1984). Productivity measurement and evaluation What is available? National Productivity Review (pp. 265-289).
31.
Sleezer, C.M. (1991). Developing and validating the performance analysis for training model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 2(4), 355-372.
32.
Stolovitch, H.D., & Keeps, E.J. (1992). What is human performance technology? In H.
33.
Stolovitch & E Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology (pp. 3-13). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34.
Swanson, D. L (1995). Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social responsibility performance model. Academy of Management Review, 20, 43-64.
35.
Swanson, R.A. (1994) Analysis for improving performance: Tools for diagnosing organizations and documenting workplace expertise. San FranciscoBerrett-Koehler
36.
Swanson, R.A. (1995) Human resource development: Performance is keyHuman Resource Development Quarterly, 6(2), 207-213.
37.
Swanson, R.A., & Arnold, D.E. (1997) The purpose of HRD is to improve performance.
38.
In R Rowden (Ed.), Workplace learning: Debating five critical questions of theory and practice (pp. 13-19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
39.
Swanson, R.A., & Holton, E.F., III (1999). Results: How to evaluate performance, learnmg, and perceptions in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
40.
Watkins, K.E., & Marsick, V.J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
41.
Watkins, K.E., & Marsick, V.J. (1995). The case for learning. In E. F. Holton III (Ed.), Academy of Human Resource Development 1995 Conference Proceedings. Baton Rouge, LA. Academy of Human Resource Development.
