DEFINING AND CREATING A HIGH PERFORMANCE ORGANISATION

Dr Lesley Willcoxson

ABSTRACT

Although the number of books on the topic would seem to indicate the existence of clearly
defined strategies for achieving organisational high performance, the concept of high
performance is in fact subject to diverse interpretations. This paper will examine the
concepts of high performance arising from a humanistic and from a rational process
framework, before looking at the leadership issues associated with each of these
frameworks and the impact of context upon the capacity for high performance. Finally,
discussion will focus upon actions and leverage points that have the potential to impact
fundamentally upon performance.

KEYWORDS

organisational high performance; organisational effectiveness; effective leadership;

leadership roles.

INTRODUCTION

In any discussion of high performance, whether it be in Olympic swimming events, in

examination results, or in the financial or service performance of an organisation, high
performance is defined in relation to a pre-determined set of expectations or in contrast with the
achievements of others. Organisational high performance may similarly be assessed by
comparing the achievement of several organisations in specific measurable areas (e.g. production
output, number of clients seen, percentage increase in profit), or by assessing the performance of
the whole organisation against a pre-determined set of expectations. While the basis for
comparison on measurable factors is necessarily explicit, the expectations underlying much
discussion of whole organisation high performance (e.g., Peters & Waterman 1982; Collins &
Porras 1994) are rarely made explicit, as will be discussed in this paper.

The paper commences by examining the concept of organisational high performance with
reference to the assumptions made about organisational best practice, about organisational
effectiveness, and about how to achieve organisational change. Subsequent discussion will focus
upon the effect of context and leadership upon performance. Finally, a summary outline of issues
in achieving high performance will be presented.

Dr Lesley Willcoxson is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Human Resource Management & Employment
Relations. She lectures in the areas of organisational behaviour and human resource management.

Australian Journal of Management & Organisational Behaviour, 4(1), 100-106

© L. Willcoxson
Defining & Creating a High Performance Organisation Willcoxson

TWO APPROACHES TO HIGH PERFORMANCE

In management research and practice, as in any field of study and work, there exist diverse
theoretical and philosophical approaches and these approaches condition the research questions
asked and the recommendations subsequently made. A clear example of the impact of the
approach taken is provided by the fall from grace of transactional leadership (associated both in
time and substance with Tayloristic, mechanistic views of organisations) and its replacement in
research activity and recommended practice by transformational leadership (associated with
views of organisations as human systems). A less clear, but nonetheless similar divergence of
approach also exists in literature relating to high performance, for high performance is variously
described with a predominant emphasis upon sociological and psychological outcomes or upon
the technical and ‘bottom line’ financial outcomes. This predominant emphasis does not deny the
likelihood of some effort being made to achieve other outcomes, but it does imply that
organisational high performance will be assessed with greater reference to one particular set of
variables, associated either with a humanistic framework or a with rational process framework.

When high performance is assessed by researchers or practitioners working within a humanistic

framework — exemplified by concepts such as the learning organisation (Senge 1990; Watkins &
Marsick 1993; Starkey 1996) or the principled organisation (Covey 1999) — high performance
will be attributed to organisations which value, trust and empower their people, work
collaboratively, and connect effectively with the wider community through, for example, the
involvement of stakeholders external to the organisation. While not denying the importance of
financial and productivity returns, organisational effectiveness goals within the humanistic
framework are likely to emphasise either the effectiveness of the organisation as a social system
located within the wider community, or the reconciliation and effective use of competing values
(Robbins & Barnwell 1994), leading to workplace harmony. Organisational change strategists
working within a humanistic framework are likely to perceive organisational culture as the key to
organisational success or failure and, therefore, work to achieve cultural change in order to
facilitate change in other areas. In any case, change processes will probably involve a holistic,
participative approach designed to enhance performance through increased competence, rather
than through the implementation of structures and systems pre-determined as necessary. As in
the change process described by Tichy (1982), change will be predicated upon the assumption
that an organisation is composed of interdependent elements not readily manipulable through a
sequential planned change approach.

When high performance is assessed by researchers or practitioners working within a framework

that may be loosely described as a rational process framework — exemplified by discussion of
high performance organisations (Hanna 1988; Neusch & Siebenaler 1993), visionary companies
(Collins & Porras 1994) and excellent companies (Peters & Waterman 1982) — high
performance will be attributed to organisations which exhibit characteristics such as the ability to
interpret the business environment, the ability to foresee and act upon new business opportunities,
the flexibility necessary to maintain ‘core values’ while adjusting output to meet new market
demands or conditions, and the willingness to implement employee remuneration strategies such
as stock ownership schemes which increase productivity and financial returns to the organisation.

101
Australian Journal of Management & Organisational Behaviour Volume 4, No. 1 2000

Organisational effectiveness is likely to be characterised in terms of the attainment of specified

goals such as financial or productivity outcomes and the satisfaction of strategic constituencies
such as owners, shareholders, customers, suppliers and creditors (Robbins & Barnwell 1994). In
keeping with the emphasis upon rational processes, organisational change strategists who work
within this framework are likely to perceive the organisation in terms of discrete elements, such
as those comprising the 7S model — structure, strategy, systems, skills, shared values, style, and
staff — proposed by Peters and Waterman (1982). For these change strategists, organisational
change will usually depend upon rational diagnosis of functional and dysfunctional elements of
an organisation, and a subsequent sequential, planned change process targeting dysfunctional
elements, described by Collins (1998) as n-step guides.

Despite the deliberately disparate characterisation of approaches to high performance presented

above, it must again be noted that researchers and practitioners working within the humanistic
framework do not neglect to aim for viable technical and financial outcomes, and those working
within a rational process framework do not neglect to effectively engage and use their human
resources. Nevertheless, the literature examining high performance currently tends to
characterise organisational success with greater reference either to technical and financial, or to
human outcomes. It generally fails to translate into performance criteria insights available from
systems theory which conceives of an organisation as a social and a technical system operating
within a larger ecosystem.

THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP IN HIGH PERFORMANCE

In keeping with diverse emphases upon rational and human processes, it might be expected that
the leadership considered appropriate for high performance would be characterised differently in
accordance with the underpinning management philosophy. In practice, however, while
transformational leadership is undoubtedly currently more strongly associated with humanistic
values (Sarros et al. 1996) than is transactional leadership, there is little to suggest that either style
of leadership is necessarily inimical to or predictive of high performance. As researchers working
within either the humanistic framework or the rational process framework point out, while all
leaders of high performance organisations are powerful builders or reinforcers of sustainable
human, technical and resource systems, not all leaders of high performance organisations are
charismatic or transformational (Collins & Porras 1994; Nelson 1999; Pfeffer 1999).

The extent to which effective leadership is context-dependent means that there is no one way to
build a high performance organization and no one leadership style associated with high
performance. Thus, for example, while participative management is likely to be associated with
high performance, especially in bureaucratic or service organisations where leaders typically have
to achieve their ends by the use of persuasion rather than power, participative management is not
necessarily associated with high performance (Leavy & Wilson 1994). Fundamentally, as Jaques
and Clement (1991, p. 7) observe in relation to the exercise of leadership throughout an
organisation,
everyone is capable of exercising effective leadership in roles that carry leadership accountability,
so long as they value the role and are competent to carry the basic requirements of that role, and so

102
Defining & Creating a High Performance Organisation Willcoxson

long as that role is properly structured and the organization has properly instituted practices ... [in
leadership] the prime ability is that required for carrying the total work of the particular type of role
and role relationships within which the leadership accountability happens to be embedded

Leadership roles and relationships may be different in organisations that value empowerment and
customer service to those in organisations that value efficiency and return to shareholders.
Organisational high performance is not necessarily associated with any one clearly definable set
of leader characteristics, but rather will in large part be determined by the capacity of the leader to
respond appropriately to the internal and external context of the organisation.

THE ROLE OF CONTEXT IN HIGH PERFORMANCE

Discussion of leadership and high performance often implies an ability to predict relevant
environmental influences and also implies a human capacity for control over the environment.
(e.g. Hanna 1998; Hammer & Champy 1993; see Collins 1998) However, as is so clearly
demonstrated by Peters and Waterman’s (1982) investigation of high performing organisations —
which within a decade had lost their way in the marketplace — studies of high performing
organisations are often decontextualised. They usually represent either a snapshot of
organisational performance at a particular time or a description of internal processes and values
compiled without reference to the external environmental conditions which may prejudice or
promote success. Thus, the set of generic principles commonly generated by such studies do not
adequately reflect the extent to which unpredictable political or social conditions may influence
or constrain the action of a leader. Similarly, generic principles of high performance have no
regard for the role that organisational history and culture may play in circumscribing potential
action or determining the effectiveness of any action taken (Leavy & Wilson 1994), and,
therefore, their usefulness must be called into question. As many writers have noted, in a
turbulent environment one of the greatest predictors of high performance — or even of survival
— is adaptability, especially of human systems and interactions (Limerick & Cunnington 1993;
Conner 1998).

In addition to the impact of the external context upon an organisation’s capacity for high
performance, the internal context of an organisation also strongly influences its capacity for high
performance. As Lenz (1993) argues, the size of an organisation, its existing structure, levels of
competence and the distribution of power in an organisation may all facilitate or militate against
development of high performance. Thus, high performance actually rests not on the capacity, for
example, to establish a ‘learning organisation’ or a visionary company as ideally conceptualised
in the literature, but rather on the capacity to draw upon or build internal strengths, minimise the
impact of internal weaknesses, and take action which is timely and effective given the
characteristics and requirements of the external environment.

TOWARDS REALISING THE HIGH PERFORMANCE ORGANISATION

As suggested above there are no clear guidelines that, when followed, will necessarily result in
the development of a high performance organisation. However, it is possible to identify some

103
Australian Journal of Management & Organisational Behaviour Volume 4, No. 1 2000

actions and some leverage points that have the potential to impact fundamentally upon
performance.

As a starting point, given the diverse criteria that may be used to assess high performance, there is
a need to identify guiding philosophical precepts as well as organisational effectiveness indicators
and characteristics and goals of the type of organization aspired to. Areas to be considered
include internal structures, technical, human, communication and resourcing systems, as well as
interactions with the wider environment. A comparison of the current organisational profile with
that of the organisation aspired to should provide an indication of areas for change, but the pace
of change (radical or incremental) and the change process will be affected in large measure by the
existing internal environment, organisational culture and leadership support. Adjustments that
may be made within the human systems area to increase both performance and adaptability will
encompass processes such as selection, reward, appraisal, work allocation, work roles, strategic
alliances and interactions.

Leadership also needs to be considered in light of the existing abilities and styles of leadership
compared with those required to develop and sustain the type of organisation aspired to. If
initiative, empowerment and leadership are to be embedded throughout organization, issues such
as the extent to which leadership control should be ceded and the areas in which it should be
ceded need to be addressed. These issues cannot be addressed in a vacuum, but rather must be
reviewed with reference to the underpinning approach to management, the type of organisation
aspired to and the practicalities of implementation within the existing organisation. The training
and development work necessary to achieve high performance must be outlined, together with
any anticipated obstacles to implementation and strategies for overcoming these. Finally,
evaluation processes need to be put in place: strategies for obtaining continuous feedback on
success with respect to both hard and soft factors should be developed, as should strategies for
implementing any further necessary change.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the prevalence of literature indicating that high performance is associated with a given
organisational model, high performance is not a construct free of value judgements. The
assessment of high performance is actually dependent upon the measurement criteria selected and
these are in turn derived from the underlying philosophy of management. Although, within a
given approach to management, the implementation of certain strategies and structures may be
more likely than others to produce high performance, there are no guarantees that this will be the
case. Performance is subject to influence from a variety of factors including not just internal
elements such as organisational culture, structures, processes and leadership, but also external
elements that are far less predictable. High performance, therefore, irrespective of the approach
to management adopted, necessarily depends upon the alignment of internal systems with the
larger ecosystem within which the organisation is located.

104
Defining & Creating a High Performance Organisation Willcoxson

REFERENCES

Collins, D. 1998, ‘N-step Guides for Change’, Organisational Change: Sociological

Perspectives, Routledge, London.

Collins, J. & Porras, J. 1994, Built to Last, Century, London.

Conner, D. 1998, Leading at the Edge of Chaos, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Covey, S. 1999, ‘The Habits of Effective Organizations’ in Leader to Leader, F. Hesselbein & P.
Cohen (eds), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Hanna, D. 1988. Designing Organizations for High Performance, Addison-Wesley,

Massachusetts.

Hammer, M. & Champy, J. 1993, Reengineering the Corporation, HarperCollins, New York.

Jaques, E. & Clement, S. 1991, Executive Leadership. Blackwell, Massachusetts.

Leavy, B. & Wilson, D. 1994, Strategy and Leadership, Routledge, London.

Lenz, R. T. 1993, ‘Strategic Management and Organizational Learning: A Meta-theory of

Executive Leadership’, in Strategic Thinking, eds J. Hendry, G. Johnson & J. Newton, John
Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Limerick, D. & Cunnington, B. 1993, Managing the New Organisation, Business & Professional
Publishing, Sydney.

Nelson, B. 1999, ‘Creating an Energised Workplace’, in Leader to Leader, F. Hesselbein & P.

Cohen (eds), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Neusch, D. & Siebenaler, A. 1993, The High Performance Enterprise, Oliver Wight Publications,
Vermont.

Peters, T. & Waterman, R. 1982, In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row, Sydney.

Pfeffer, J. 1999, ‘The Real Keys to High Performance’, in Leader to Leader, F. Hesselbein & P.
Cohen (eds), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Robbins, S. & Barnwell, N. 1994, Organisation Theory in Australia, Prentice Hall, Sydney.

Sarros, J., Butchatsky, O. & Santora, J. 1996, ‘Breakthrough Leadership’, in Leadership Research
and Practice, K. Parry (ed.), Pitman Publishing, Melbourne.

Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Random House, Sydney.

105
Australian Journal of Management & Organisational Behaviour Volume 4, No. 1 2000

Starkey, K. (ed.) 1996, How Organizations Learn, International Thomson Business Press,
London.

Tichy, N. 1982, ‘Managing Change Strategically: The Technical, Political and Cultural Keys’,
Organizational Dynamics, Autumn.

Watkins, K. & Marsick, V. 1993, Sculpting the Learning Organization, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.

106