Proposing Processes of
Global Performance Management:
An Analysis of the Literature
Peter J. Dowling, La Trobe University, Australia
Allen D. Engle, Sr., Eastern Kentucky University, USA
Marion Festing, ESCP-Europe, Berlin, Germany
Cordula Barzantny, Groupe ESC Toulouse Business School, France
IFSAM 2010, Paris Track G7 – International Management
Introduction
Ongoing and growing interest in Global Performance Management:
• Macro Demand
– Global economic discontinuities
– Consolidating labour markets
– Talent translated into MNE competitiveness
• Micro Demand
– Sophisticated global strategies
– Mature markets
– Results and accountability focii
• Supply
– Technical developments in global decision support systems
– Global internet platforms
– Individual level information and access
Introduction
Three sources of GPM literature:
• Expatriate
• Cross cultural and comparative
• Strategic international human resource
Introduction
The proposed GPM model
• Captures various research streams (broad)
• Has a thorough analytical template (systematic)
• Leads to faster identification of patterns
in empirical research
• Determines areas that lack
o empirical evidence
o robust conceptual approaches
Introduction
Overview of this presentation:
• Review of 3 approaches to performance
management
• A 4-stage GPM model
Recent empirical and conceptual literature
is mapped to the 4 stages
• Concluding
Concludingobservations
observationsand
andsuggestions
suggestions
for further research
Review
Processes and systems
French (1982) distinguishes between:
• Human processes – such as social comparison,
envy, the definition and value of fairness,
interest in stability or achievement at work
• Organizational systems – HR systems
designed to harness and direct these
processes toward organizationally relevant
ends
Review
Processes and systems
Applied to GPM:
• What human processes must a GPM model be
able to accommodate?
• Imagery of the airliner
• More sophisticated, complete and firmspecific set of design parameters
• GPM systems designed and operated across
diverse process locations
Review
Processes and systems
Silverman’s five stage model (1989):
Preface - Issues/elements, forms, focus (traits, behaviors,
results), actors, conflict resolution
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Clarify employees’ major responsibilities
Develop performance standards
Give periodic feedback
Diagnose and coach
Review overall performance
Review
Processes and systems
Cascio’s (2006) three part process:
• Define performance – focus on goals, measures
and assessment
• Facilitate performance – eliminate roadblocks,
provide resources, select employees capable of
success in the position
• Encourage performance – sufficient rewards, a
connection between performance and rewards,
an assurance of “voice” and fairness
Review
Processes and systems
Cascio’s seven key issues:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Systems objective
Actors (assessors and assessed)
Assessor’s authority
Roles and leadership of the process (style)
Frequency of formal meetings
Form of feedback (critical/supportive, direct/oblique)
Form of praise and motivation (money, loyalty,
promotion)
Review
Processes and systems
Caligiuri’s (2006) strategic linkages:
• Strategic context:
– Global, multidomestic and transnational strategies
• Assignment context:
– Technical assignments
(low developmental intent/low cultural sensitivity needs)
– Developmental assignments
(High developmental intent/unknown cultural sensitivity needs
)
– Strategic assignments
(high development intent/high cultural sensitivity needs)
– Functional assignments
(low developmental goals/high cultural sensitivity requirements)
Review
Processes and systems
Caligiuri’s (2006) challenges:
1. Select performance constructs
2. Create conceptual equivalence
for performance dimensions
3. Determine performance measurement method
Review
Processes and systems
Caligiuri’s (2006) methods:
• How – explicit & objective, vs. open & informal
• Who – appropriateness of
supervisors, peers, subordinates
“Conceptual equivalence” (challenge 2) as bridge
between globally standardized performance
constructs (challenge 1) and locally tailored
methods and training (challenge 3)
A 4-stage GPM model
Proposing a 4-stage process model of GPM
1: GPM systems context
2: GPM systems design
3: GPM systems operation
4: GPM systems evaluation
A 4-stage GPM model
Systems
Context
Macro strategy
• Strategic interest:
- multidomestic
- global
- transnational
• Heritage – Origin
Scope of the system
• Actors
• Roles
• Information sources
Purpose of the system
Development, rewards
Design parameters >>
• Frequency
• Formalization
• Feedback capability
• Explicit – Implicit
• Focus:
- traits
- behaviors
- outcomes
Systems
Design
• Clarify major
responsibilities
• Develop performance
standards
• Select performance
constructs
• Create
conceptual equivalence
• Determine method of
measurement
• Decide how to assess
• Define measures
• Define performance
Train systems users >>
Systems
Operations
• Give
periodic feedback
• Dialogue & coach
Systems
Evaluation
• Evaluate individual
formal
performance:
- Review overall
performance
- Encourage
performance
• Facilitate
• Aggregate unit
performance:
performance
−Eliminate
profiles
roadblocks
−Provide resources, • Evaluate
ongoing basis
- Validity
- Acceptance
of the GPM system
in process
(Reaction)
A 4-stage GPM model
Stage 1: Systems context
•
•
•
•
Strategic intent
Heritage- origins
Scope of system
Design parameters (moving to systems design
stage)
–
–
–
–
Frequency of formal feedback
Formalized vs. normative emphasis
Actor feedback capabilities
Explicit/implicit, quantitative/qualitative, additive vs.
gestalt
– Focus on traits, behaviors and/or outcomes
A 4-stage GPM model
Stage 2: Systems design
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Clarifying major responsibilities
Developing performance standards
Selecting performance constructs
Creating conceptual equivalence
Determining measurement methods
Methods to assess
Defining performance
Training systems users (moving into systems
operations stage)
A 4-stage GPM model
Stage 3: Systems operation
• Giving periodic feedback
• Dialog and coach
• Facilitate performance
– Eliminate roadblocks
– Provide resources on an ongoing basis
A 4-stage GPM model
Stage 4: Systems evaluation
• Individual formal performance meeting
– Review overall performance
– Encourage performance
• Aggregated unit performance profiles
• Evaluation of the validity and acceptance of the
GPM system-in-process (reaction)
Concluding observations & recommendations
• Granted a U.S. bias, the framework can be adjusted as warranted by
– empirical results
– cultural context warrants
• A call for mechanisms (journals, academic institutes, interest groups
in academic associations, etc.) to track developments in this area
• Search for systematic cross cultural patterns in the degree of
divergence between system
– as envisioned in earlier stages
as opposed to
– used in/by the local social process at later stages in the model
(Bjorkman et al., 2009)
Concluding observations & recommendations
• Examples of empirical research were found
associated with every area of the 4-stage GPM
model, but remarkably little empirical
research found on how MNEs evaluate and
use the results of GPM for their various
potential purposes (stage four and how stage
four issues “loop” back into stage one)
Concluding observations & recommendations
• Design GPM for robust use over a variety of
potential operating conditions
• Design GPM:
Realize it will operate as a system in a variety
of potentially very different social process
contexts around the world
• Return to aircraft imagery
Concluding observations & recommendations
Thank you for your attention
Comments or questions?
IFSAM 2010, Paris Track G7 – International Management