What is performance?
Before we embark on ‘managing’ performance, a task often embraced in companies and central to HR, it is imperative to grasp the essence of what we mean by performance.
Standard Definitions
The standard definitions I’ve encountered primarily revolve around measurement theories — already, in my opinion, a step too far, as they often sidestep more fundamental questions. Take, for example, a definition by Taris and Schaufeli (2018: 21): ‘Process performance refers to the actions or behaviors employees engage in to achieve the goals of their job, i.e., what they do at work. Conversely, outcome performance refers to the products or services that are produced and whether these are consistent with the overall strategic goals of the organization.’
While I’ve come across more on types of performance, such as the differentiation between in-role and extra-role performance (which I will delve into later), I find myself yearning for a more comprehensive understanding. This is somewhat peculiar because performance is, after all, the most frequently used dependent variable in industrial and organizational psychology and in OB.
A Critical View
In a German book examining the ‘invention of performance,’ the author, Nina Verheyen, provides a more critical lens by elucidating the social construction aspects inherent in the term ‘performance.’ ‘But there is no performance independent of human attributions and social contexts. Performance is always a matter of perspective. Should one assess the degree of effort or the resulting outcome? How can performances in economic, cultural, sporting, and scientific fields be compared? Who decides what counts as performance? Which perspective prevails?’
She questions the underlying ontology, pondering whether we can ever discuss individual performance since ‘the conventional understanding of performance consistently overlooks the supportive efforts of others. Ultimately, behind everything that people achieve, there are the efforts of many.’
Open Questions
Now, I seek more insights. To all HR researchers and managers out there, where can I find critical views on performance? Have you ever taken a step back to reflect on ‘what is performance’? Is performance for achieving clearly defined goals, or is it also for enabling new goals and redirecting wrongly specified goals? Is your understanding of performance more closely linked to the ideals of the sporting or cultural field? In redefining performance management, whose voices are heard, and whose voices are implemented in the evaluation of performance? How much does your performance practice drive your understanding of performance, rather than the other way around?”
Concluding Thoughts
As we navigate the intricate landscape of performance, let us not merely measure and manage but pause to question the very essence of what constitutes performance. The definitions and perspectives we adopt shape not only our evaluation processes but also the way we perceive individual and collective achievements.
In the pursuit of a comprehensive understanding, the critical lens offered by thinkers like Nina Verheyen reminds us that performance is deeply embedded in social constructions, always subject to interpretation and dependent on human attributions.
For HR researchers and managers alike, the journey into the heart of performance raises essential inquiries. Have we, in our pursuit of measurable outcomes, overlooked the nuanced interplay between effort, outcomes, and the supportive efforts of others? Does our understanding of performance align more with rigidly defined goals or the fluidity of enabling and redirecting objectives?
Reflecting on the symbiotic relationship between our performance practices and our understanding of performance itself is not just an academic exercise but a vital step toward fostering a more nuanced, and effective approach to navigating the world of achievements and aspirations.
