【文章內(nèi)容簡(jiǎn)介】 ly have a better time of it. Productivity and satisfaction will go up, and the pensations field is a way to catch up to the anizational development people who have had several years of glory with quality circles and team building. But this onecure brand of wizardry is blind to the fact that the 39。90s will run in a real time mode in which only open systems can survive. Many practitioners have a program orientation. Specific programs are designed and implemented to deal with a fixed set of challenges or to afford control over the way the anization39。s resources are expended. These programs are administered within an anizational framework and in accordance with administrative policies. Stability and consistency are sought and decisions flow vertically through the chain of mand. This type of approach is often supported by considerable research. Unfortunately, the research assumes a deterministic, Newtonian world, thereby suggesting that results can be used to establish causation linkages, which enable the anization to plan rigid, longterm courses of action. Regrettably, research results from a deterministic system cannot be assumed to be applicable to an open system. Many anizations continue to use directpay programs which purport to pay level and pay increases to individual performance, even though they have shifted to production teams which require cooperative, often selfeffacing behaviors. Assume you are on one of those teams, behaving in a cooperative manner to support team goals. At the end of the year, you receive a small pay increase because the budget is limited and your supervisor feels several others performed better as individuals. How will you be motivated to behave during the next performance period? Look out for 1 and upstage others whenever possible? Isn39。t that the message sent during the performance review? After all, supervisors talk team goals but reward individuals based on how well they feel they have done. (Or perhaps on how well they like them?). Organizations want to provide highquality timely service which will produce high levels of customer satisfaction and the economic success which goes with it, all at a reasonable cost. Yet when one looks at the factors which determine an employee39。s pay one typically finds: size of budget available, individual performance appraisal (based on quantity of work, quality of work and dependability), how many skills the employee has mand of and the average direct labor cost for the period. One finds almost everything BUT customer satisfaction, number of new customers, number of existing customers lost, market perception of product/service, and so forth. Promotions are also based on how brightly the individual shines and for what successes that person has been given, or has taken credit. Performance models The key issues are as follows: How to determine what is needed at each level within an anization to produce anizational performance. How to measure and reward performance at each level. How to refocus individuals and units on satisfying customers rather than on pleasing those higher in the anizational hierarchy. The first step is to identify the appropriate anizational level at which performance can be reliably recognized and measured and to reward it at that level.(2) Once the appropriate level is identified, the criteria to use in measuring and rewarding performance bee clear. Exhibit 1, Performance Model, illustrates how an anization can identify each of its performance units (individual, group or unit which has an identifiable output impacting anizational performance). Each employee is a participant in one or more performance units and by identifying them, the anization can clarify for each individual what is important and what will be rewarded. The CEO and the COO are evaluated and rewarded based on the performance of their unit the anization. A field sales representative may be a oneperson performance unit. A research scientist may also be a oneperson unit, or may at times be a member of a project team and/or research anization. The real value in having a defined performance model is that it anizes and clarifies roles and focuses on objectives, rather than emphasizing the formal hierarchical structure as defined in an anizational chart. Once a performance model has been created by an anization, it can be used as the basis for establishing effective strategies for staffing, development and rewards. When a unit39。s mission and objectives are clear, the criteria for measuring performance bee easier to define. The alternative approaches to staffing and human resource development (select for the job。 train for the job。 design the job to fit the people) can be evaluated. An appropriate strategy can be selected once the performance units are defined and their performance charters developed. The alternative approaches to rewards (pay for the job held。 pay for the individual39。s capabilities。 pay for results) can also be evaluated. Finally, the staffing, rewards and development strategies can be integrated with each other to ensure that they fit with and support the overall human resource strategy. It should be emphasized that the performance model of an anization may look very much like the anizational chart or may bear little resemblance to it, depending on the formal structure. If business units have been created, with selfcontained staff functions, the similarity may be great. If, on the other hand, the structure is based on centralized corporate management, performance units may have entirely different boundaries than units in the formal structure. The performance model will also be changeable. Task forces will be formed and dismantled, staff functions will be shifted aro