See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280731933

Performance Management through People

Article · July 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 1,019

2 authors:

Dhani Shanker Chaubey Kalpathy Ramaiyer Subramanian

Uttaranchal University Thninketh Labs, Chennai, India
170 PUBLICATIONS   364 CITATIONS    96 PUBLICATIONS   221 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SUSTAINING GLOBALIZATION IN AN ENVIRONMENT OF RISING NATIONALISM View project

SUSTAINING GLOBALIZATION IN AN ENVIRONMENT OF RISING NATIONALISM View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dhani Shanker Chaubey on 06 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 4, No. 7, July 2015
Performance Management through People
Prof (Dr.) D. S. Chaubey, Dean Research & Studies, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun
Dr. K. R. Subramanian, Visiting Professor and Independent Consultant
ABSTRACT
Performance management enables organizations to thrive
and grow in an environment where the nature of change
itself is changing. Progress can be achieved though
creating, maintaining and balancing an environment in
which people can work and contribute for organization
building. We strongly believe that this can be achieved
only through people. This can be achieved through a clear
vision, strategy implementation and follow up to ensure
continuity and sustained growth. Individual commitment,
participation and excellence have to be combined with an
organizational environment that promotes growth and
competence. Leaders will provide the necessary coaching
and mentoring for smooth skill transfer. A variety of
diagnostic instruments can be used to measure the health
of organizations for continued excellence in performance.
A quick survey and audit on a continuous basis is
recommended. Behavior modification and a continuous
measurement of the same are critical components of such
a plan. Planning, Monitoring and review and evaluation
on a continuous basis must form part of the day today
activities and organizational commitment to this business
model is critical. The strategic direction as defined in our
vision, mission, and values introduces a new approach to
leadership within the group that supports people doing the
right work. Our current management framework is
reviewed with a focus on strengthening both people and
technical systems so that, in our constantly changing
business contexts, performance is ensured! This research
paper attempts to understand the dimensions of
Performance Management in the current business
scenario and Indian context.
Key words:
Balancing environment, coaching and mentoring,
diagnostic instruments, behavior modification, new
approach to leadership, supporting and strengthening
people, changing business context, scenario, and context.
INTRODUCTION
At an organizational level this approach to Performance
Management will help you to be clear about the desired
future state of your organization based on analysis of who
the stakeholders are, what they need and the values which
will drive the way in which people behave in achieving it.
This will reveal the critical success factors and measures
which must then be reflected throughout the organisation.
i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium
ISSN: 2319-4421 58
These measures must be balanced by taking account of
customer feedback, internal efficiencies, capacity for
innovation and growth and financial progress.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Profitable growth of organizations depends on satisfaction
of stake holders and repeat business through long term
partnerships. Stake holders’ satisfaction is the end result of
a chain of supplier and customer relationships. Every link
in this chain must be swift, quality conscious and efficient.
The chain of supplier-customer relationships is forged as
the organization and the staff-members seize
opportunities to serve stakeholders. The chain is only as
strong as its weakest link! This can only be achieved by
actively listening to the technical and emotional needs of
the individuals, acting decisively and innovatively to meet
them and monitoring success in doing so. This approach
recognizes that it is imperative to create conditions in
which people are truly empowered to create, identify and
seize their service opportunities to participate and
contribute. People will only have the power to do this if in
addition to the authority required they are given the
necessary clarity, develop the required behavior,
knowledge and skills in a supportive environment. It is the
leader's job to create these conditions in which people will
become self motivated. People are only likely to become
self motivated if they have complete clarity, have
developed the appropriate behaviors, knowledge and skills
in an environment which is supportive.
Organizational teams and departments need to have
• Complete clarity of understanding of what is
expected of them in terms of what to do and how to
do.
• Opportunities to use their skills, creativity and
energy in pursuit of worthwhile goals for which
they feel a sense of ownership and commitment.
Cascading clarity through team workshops at every level
is a powerful tool which ensures that individual objectives
can be traced back to strategic level. We need to stress the
importance of self management and monitoring against
Objectives to free up management time away from close
supervision. Key Results and accountabilities based on
Corporate Objectives provide individuals with an
opportunity to regularly challenge the status quo and look
afresh at old assumptions. This is vital if Performance
Management interventions are to drive change rather than
inadvertently reinforce the status quo.
www.irjcjournals.org
International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR) ISSN: 2319-4421 59
Volume 4, No. 7, July 2015

Figure 1: Performance Management Model

BEHAVIOR, KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS
Preferred Behavior of individuals has resulted (correlates
best!) in better performance system as supported by
research in this area. We strongly believe, with self
awareness behavior can change quickly and dramatically.
Without self awareness this will be a slow process, if at
all! A key role of a Performance Management intervention
must be to enhance self awareness at an organizational and
individual level. While doing so, we need to recognize that
introduction of behavior modification needs cultural
change. The organization must be prepared to embrace
such changes smoothly!
Skill is seen as a cluster of behaviors being applied at the
same time as a process in a given situation. Such
demonstrated skill may be enhanced by the experience and
knowledge of the individual. For Example : To
demonstrate Competence in the skill of Selling may
require the following behavior, knowledge and skills (Fig
2).

Skill Knowledge Behavior Process

Selling Product Planning & Selling
Organizing Model

Client Active Listening

Persuasiveness
Interpersonal
Sensitivity
Judgment
Need to Achieve

Figure 2

ENVIRONMENT • Remain flexible in the face of political, social and

Clarity of purpose and values, along with appropriate
Knowledge, Skill and Behavior shall help shape and deal
with the external and internal environments. Clarity will
help to:
• Get ahead of increasingly aggressive competition
• Anticipate and meet rising stakeholder expectations
• Take advantage of the appropriate IT, Transport
and Communications
economic changes.
Internally Performance Management and intervention
systems can help you to balance:
• Pay and ratings
• Job evaluation and grading &
• Communications
Outcomes of Performance Management may not
necessarily be the justification for it. In other words

i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium www.irjcjournals.org

International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR) ISSN: 2319-4421 60
Volume 4, No. 7, July 2015

Performance Management is not the servant of the PRO-ACTIVE DIAGNOSIS

appraisal system, although it helps to ensure that appraisal
is objective and valid.
COACHING
It is a business activity. It is about creating the conditions
for success by previewing as well as reviewing
performance and enables participants to address difficult
issues, understand and celebrate success and learn the
lessons of past performance. Coaching helps one to one
interaction to solve business issues and is a style of
management to create motivation. Coaching is to
understand the individual needs of employees and how
best it can be fulfilled by designing the organizational
structure and process.
A number of diagnostic instruments can be used as
indicated below for self appraisal and awareness through a
360 degree appraisal and feed back for improvements:
• Customer Survey
• Employee survey
• Culture check instrument
• Team Behaviors Assessment
• Team strength inventory
• Preferred Behaviors – Self and 360 degrees
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
Given below is a diagrammatic representation of a
Performance Management system. The main components
are CLARITY, COACHING AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
These have been explained in the previous paragraphs.

Figure 3

PERFORANCE MANAGEMENT PROCESS rater assessors and Managers. Conduct performance

A five step process is indicated. These steps are
1. Planning: Set and communicate performance
expectations, expressing them as Competencies and
Goals. Create development plans
2. Interim reviews- midyear, quarterly or monthly to
assess progress to date and adjust goals and
development plans as needed and capture change in
priorities and expectations.
3. Annual Performance Review: Gather feedback and
ratings on performance from Employees, multi-
review meeting. Secure sign-off concurrence from
Employees and Manager.
4. Review of Performance review process results:
Ensure that all ratings are complete, ratings are fair
and accurate and performance gaps will be
addressed with development.
5. Review of the Process:
• Review the Organization’s performance-related
results for the year to identify trends and areas
for improvement.

i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium www.irjcjournals.org

International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR) ISSN: 2319-4421 61
Volume 4, No. 7, July 2015

• Review your performance management process
and forms and make adjustments as required
• Review Analysis with executives.
OBJECTIVES OF THE RESARCH PAPER
organizations match the requirement of an ideal system. A
Questionnaire survey was conducted in the Dehradun city,
industrial and metropolitan areas. Out of the 200
questionnaires circulated, valid responses of 152 were
selected for further analysis and conclusion

Research was conducted with the following Objectives:

• The extent of awareness of the utility of ANALYSIS OF DATA AND
performance management system CONCLUSIONS
• The current practices and process
• To what extent people in organizations are involved From Table 1, it is clear that the awareness is quite wide
in the process spread among all the age group of employees. Though the
• Recommendations based on the research gender wise classification in Table 2 would indicate a
higher percentage among male respondents this can be
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY overlooked as is not too significant and we may conclude
that the awareness is quite significant among all
After a Comprehensive review of available literature, it is employees. Further data analysis as indicated in through
concluded that the research paper must evaluate how the Tables 3-5, Demographic classifications of various
present Performance Management systems in sections of employees has been considered.

Table 1: Age wise Classification

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Up to 25 years 47 30.9 30.9 30.9
From 25 to 35 years 68 44.7 44.7 75.7
Valid From 36 to 45 Year 21 13.8 13.8 89.5
Above 65 years 16 10.5 10.5 100.0
Total 152 100.0 100.0

Table 2: Gender wise Classification

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Male 91 59.9 59.9 59.9
Valid Female 61 40.1 40.1 100.0
Total 152 100.0 100.0

Table 3: Marital Status wise Classification

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Married 96 63.2 63.2 63.2
Valid Unmarried 56 36.8 36.8 100.0
Total 152 100.0 100.0

Table 4: Classification based on Qualification

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Up to Graduation 26 17.1 17.1 17.1
ValiUp to Post Graduation 105 69.1 69.1 86.2
d Professional and other qualification 21 13.8 13.8 100.0
Total 152 100.0 100.0

i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium www.irjcjournals.org

International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR) ISSN: 2319-4421 62
Volume 4, No. 7, July 2015

Table 5: Nature of Organisation

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Manufacturing 9 5.9 5.9 5.9
Trading 11 7.2 7.2 13.2
Valid
Services 132 86.8 86.8 100.0
Total 152 100.0 100.0

This analysis also further reinforces the awareness of
Performance Management systems by employees of all
levels to the extent of almost 100 % in the various types of
organizations considered for the data collection and
analysis like manufacturing, trading and services though
the sample is dominated by service organizations.
Regarding current practices and processes some feedback
has been obtained.A large percentage of employees (88%).
The feedback (Ref. Tables 6 and 7) indicates that the
frequency of performance evaluation varies from weekly
to monthly basis for evaluation.

Table 6: Existence of Performance evaluation system in the organisation

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Yes 134 88.2 88.2 88.2
No 16 10.5 10.5 98.7
Valid
Cant Say 2 1.3 1.3 100.0
Total 152 100.0 100.0

Table 7: Frequency of Meeting of Management for Performance evaluation

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Once a Week 45 29.6 29.6 29.6
Twice a month 71 46.7 46.7 76.3
Valid
Once a month 36 23.7 23.7 100.0
Total 152 100.0 100.0

Demographic classification of Employees on the basis of sample would indicate that the following factors are
qualifications and by analysis through means of the appreciated by employees (Ref: Annexure 8)

Table 8: Analysis of Means w.r.to. Qualification

Education Qualification wise CLARITY KNOWLEDG BEHAVIOUR ENVIRON COACHING
Classification E, SKILLS MODIFICATIO MENT
NKNOWLEDG
ESKILLS
Mean 3.6731 3.5192 2.7885 3.5096 4.2949
Upto Graduation Std. Error of
.00641 .01923 .03846 .00962 .03846
Mean
Mean 4.2000 4.0929 3.7857 4.2167 3.7841
Upto Post Graduation Std. Error of
.04685 .04568 .07938 .07178 .08232
Mean
Mean 3.8254 3.0595 3.5119 3.2500 3.4286
Professional and other
Std. Error of
qualification .06349 .02381 .09524 .00000 .09524
Mean
Mean 4.0581 3.8520 3.5773 3.9622 3.8224
Total Std. Error of
.03780 .04448 .06413 .05870 .06191
Mean

i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium www.irjcjournals.org

International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR) ISSN: 2319-4421 63
Volume 4, No. 7, July 2015

• Clarity of the systems employed for performance
evaluation
• The physical and psychological environment in the
organization
• The benefit of skill development and knowledge
enhancement through performance management
systems.
• Employees are positive about the behavior
modification and coaching impact of the
performance management system.
Analysis of means on classification by age groups indicate
that (Ref: Annexure 9) benefits of clarity of roles,
behavior modification through knowledge and skills
enhancement are appreciated by younger group of
employees as perceived benefits of performance
management system.

Table 9: MPACT OF FACTORS ON AGEWISE CLASSIFICATION

Age wise Classification CLARITY KNOWLEDGE BEHAVIOUR ENVIRONME COACHING
SKILLS MODIFICATIO NT
N
KNOWLEDGE
SKILLS
Mean 3.9184 3.5638 3.1117 3.9255 3.7943
Upto 25 years Std. Error
.04019 .02340 .07084 .09216 .08928
of Mean
Mean 4.3309 3.9669 4.2574 4.0184 4.0343
From 25 to 35 years Std. Error
.05869 .08011 .07295 .10891 .10386
of Mean
Mean 3.9127 3.6310 2.8571 3.6429 3.3175
From 36 to 45 Year Std. Error
.07239 .07641 .05868 .08376 .17439
of Mean
Mean 3.5000 4.5000 3.0000 4.2500 3.6667
Above 65 years Std. Error
.00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .00000
of Mean
Mean 4.0581 3.8520 3.5773 3.9622 3.8224
Total Std. Error
.03780 .04448 .06413 .05870 .06191
of Mean

Senior employees in addition to appreciation of role about organizational policies as is relevant when you rise
clarity, have been impressed by benefits of knowledge up the ladder. As indicated in the Table 10.

Table 10: Impact of Performance evaluation system in the organization

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
My Level of Satisfaction
50 32.9 32.9 32.9
towards Job has increased
My Level of Commitment to
46 30.3 30.3 63.2
the job has increased
Valid
My willingness to expand has
51 33.6 33.6 96.7
increased
job loyalty 5 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 152 100.0 100.0

From the Tables 11 -13, Performance Management
systems have been described as having the following
benefits. Almost 99% of the respondents have expressed to
varying degrees the ability of the system to met
oganisational objectives. There are some concerns of
PMS, having a negative impact on employees due to fear
of loss of jobs in re-structuring and consequent
noncooperation among some sections of employees to
participate in the process.

i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium www.irjcjournals.org

International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR) ISSN: 2319-4421 64
Volume 4, No. 7, July 2015

Table 11: Ability of Performance evaluation system in Meeting the Organisational Objectives
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
To Great Extent 66 43.4 43.4 43.4
To a Considerable Extent 55 36.2 36.2 79.6
Valid To some Extent 30 19.7 19.7 99.3
To a little extent 1 .7 .7 100.0
Total 152 100.0 100.0
Table 12: Main Reasons of failure of Performance evaluation system in the organisation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Company resructuring, redundancing and
36 23.7 23.7 23.7
Labour turnover
Circle leader lacking time to organise
3 2.0 2.0 25.7
Valid meeting
Lack of Cooperation from middle and
113 74.3 74.3 100.0
front line management
Total 152 100.0 100.0

Table 13: Perceived Outcome of Performance evaluation system in the organisation

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
It has Increased my work Satisfaction 17 11.2 11.2 11.2
Improved communication with supervisors 17 11.2 11.2 22.4
Relation with Work group better 63 41.4 41.4 63.8
Organisation profitability has increased
46 30.3 30.3 94.1
Valid substantially
Others 4 2.6 2.6 96.7
employees are taken in consent before
5 3.3 3.3 100.0
decision making
Total 152 100.0 100.0

Table 14: Analysis of Variance w.r.to. Educational qualification

Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups (Combined) 7.106 2 3.553 20.609 .000
CLARITY * Education Within Groups 25.686 149 .172
Qualification wise Classification
Total 32.792 151
KNOWLEDGESKILLS * Between Groups (Combined) 22.159 2 11.079 70.971 .000
Education Qualification wise Within Groups 23.261 149 .156
Classification Total 45.419 151
BEHAVIOURMODIFICATION Between Groups (Combined) 20.830 2 10.415 21.092 .000
KNOWLEDGE Within Groups 73.575 149 .494
SKILLS * Education Qualification
Total 94.404 151
wise Classification
Between Groups (Combined) 22.777 2 11.388 30.130 .000
ENVIRONMENT * Education
Qualification wise Classification Within Groups 56.318 149 .378
Total 79.095 151
Between Groups (Combined) 9.215 2 4.607 8.716 .000
COACHING * Education
Within Groups 78.767 149 .529
Qualification wise Classification
Total 87.982 151

i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium www.irjcjournals.org

International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR) ISSN: 2319-4421 65
Volume 4, No. 7, July 2015

a. Too few cases - statistics for STRATEGICREVIEWANDANALYSIS * Education Qualification wise

Classification cannot be computed.
b. Too few cases - statistics for MOVINGFORWARD * Education Qualification wise Classification cannot
be computed.

Table 15: ANOVA w.r.to. Age

Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Between
(Combined) 11.404 3 3.801 26.305 .000
CLARITY * Age wise Groups
Classification Within Groups 21.388 148 .145
Total 32.792 151
Between
(Combined) 12.545 3 4.182 18.827 .000
KNOWLEDGESKILLS * Age Groups
wise Classification Within Groups 32.874 148 .222
Total 45.419 151
Between
BEHAVIOURMODIFICATION (Combined) 57.860 3 19.287 78.110 .000
Groups
KNOWLEDGESKILLS * Age
Within Groups 36.544 148 .247
wise Classification
Total 94.404 151
Between
(Combined) 3.745 3 1.248 2.452 .066
ENVIRONMENT * Age wise Groups
Classification Within Groups 75.350 148 .509
Total 79.095 151
Between
(Combined) 8.833 3 2.944 5.506 .001
COACHING * Age wise Groups
Classification Within Groups 79.149 148 .535
Total 87.982 151
a. Too few cases - statistics for STRATEGICREVIEWANDANALYSIS * Age wise Classification cannot be
computed.
b. Too few cases - statistics for MOVINGFORWARD * Age wise Classification cannot be computed.

CONCLUSION
Analysis of Variance (Table 14-15) with respect to
demographic factors of Age and Educational qualifications
brings out clearly that the following factors are most
relevant benefits of a good and well designed
Performance Management System (PMS):
• Clarity of objectives
• Enhancement of skills and knowledge
• Behavior modification to achieve Organizational
objectives
• Ability to anticipate and face environmental
changes
• The value of coaching and mentoring by seniors
It can be seen from the above, that Performance
Management is dynamic, and the process review will be
beneficial. Defining Performance in terms of Goal setting,
Specifying KPI (Key Performance Indicators), allocating
resources to achieve performance, Feedback review,
Evaluate and Reward Performance are the key components
of such an effective system.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The strategic direction as defined in the vision, mission,
values and five core strategies introduces a new approach
to leadership within the group that supports people doing
the right work. while reviewing our management
framework with a focus on strengthening both people and
technical systems so that, in our constantly changing
business contexts, we can reflect an aligned and consistent
working to maximise efficiencies and productivity, and
reduce costs so as to enable us to achieve our stated vision
and mission, and to ensure the company’s sustainability in
the longer term.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Aguinis, H. 2012. Performance Management (3rd
edition). Prentice Hall. (Human Resource
emphasis).

i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium www.irjcjournals.org

International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 4, No. 7, July 2015
[2] Atkins, T. C. 2006. Case Studies in Performance
Management: A Guide from the Experts (Wiley and
SAS Business Series). Wiley.
[3] Axson, D. A. J. 2010. Best Practices in Planning
and Performance Management: Radically
Rethinking Management for a Volatile World, 3rd
edition. Wiley.
[4] Baird, L. S., Beatty, R.W., and Schneier, C. E.
(1982). Performance appraisal sourcebook
,Amherst, Mass.: Human Resource Development
Press.
[5] Bernardin, H. J. and M. R. Buckley. 1981.
Strategies in rater training. Academy of
Management Review 6: Pgs. 205-212.
[6] Bernardin, H. J. and Walter C.S. (1977). Effects of
rater training and diary keeping on psychometric
error in rating. Journal of applied psychology, 62:
Pgs. 64 – 69.
[7] Bacal, R. 1999. Performance Management:
Energize every employee, Improve performance
through feedback, Learn how to measure
performance. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
(Human Resource emphasis).
[8] Bento, A. and L. F. White. 2006. Budgeting,
performance evaluation, and compensation: A
performance management model. Advances in
Management Accounting (15): 51-79.
[9] Blizzard, D. 2014. Effective performance
management. Journal of Accountancy (July): 18.
[10] Borgstrom, H.G. 2000. Performance management
for government internal services. Journal of Cost
Management (May/June): 28-34.
[11] Bremser, W. G. and W. P. Wagner. 2013.
Developing dashboards for performance
management. The CPA Journal (July): 62-67.
[12] Broadbent, J. and R. Laughlin. 2009. Performance
management systems: A conceptual model.
Management Accounting Research (December):
283-295.
[13] Bush, P. 2005. Strategic performance management
in government: Using the balanced scorecard. Cost
Management (May/June): 24-31.
[14] Chenhall, R. H. 2005. Integrative strategic
performance measurement systems, strategic
alignment of manufacturing, learning and strategic
outcomes: An exploratory study. Accounting,
Organizations, and Society 30(5): 395-422.
[15] Cokins, G. 2004. Performance Management:
Finding the Missing Pieces (to Close the
Intelligence Gap). John Wiley & Sons.
[16] Cokins, G. 2009. Performance Management:
Integrating Strategy Execution, Methodologies,
Risk and Analytics. John Wiley and Sons.
[17] Daniels, A. C. and J. E. Daniels. 2004. Performance
Management: Changing Behavior that Drives
Organizational Effectiveness, 4th edition.
Performance Management Publications.
i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium
ISSN: 2319-4421 66
[18] De Waal, A. 2001. Power of Performance
Management: How Leading Companies Create
Sustained Value. John Wiley & Sons.
[19] Engwall, R. L. 1988. Cost/benefit analysis. Journal
of Cost Management (Fall): 64-70.
[20] Faupel, C. 2012. Value-based performance
management. Advances in Management Accounting
(20): 187-208.
[21] Ferreira, A. and D. Otley. 2009. The design and use
of performance management systems: An extended
framework for analysis. Management Accounting
Research (December): 263-282.
[22] Fine, C. H. 1999. Clockspeed: Winning Industry
Control in the Age of Temporary Advantage. Basic
Books.
[23] Fine, C. H. 2012. Clockspeed: Winning Industry
Control in the Age of Temporary Advantage.
ReadHowYouWant.
[24] Fonvielle, W. and L. P. Carr. 2001. Gaining
strategic alignment: Making scorecards work.
Management Accounting Quarterly (Fall): 4-14.
[25] Gaiss, M. 1998. Enterprise performance
management. Management Accounting
(December): 44-46. (Recommended features of a
packaged software system).
[26] Harvard Business Essentials. 2006. Performance
Management: Measure and Improve the
Effectiveness of Your Employees. Harvard Business
Review Press.
[27] Institute of Management Accountants. 1998. Tools
and Techniques for Implementing Integrated
Performance Management Systems. Institute of
Management Accountants.
[28] Kerr, Deborah L. ‘Managing Rosie the Riveter: The
work between strategic planning and performance
measurement.’ Public Productivity and
Management Review 17, 3 (Spring 1994): 215-21.
[29] Kittredge, J. 2006. A new era in corporate
performance management. Cost Management
(May/June): 23-31.
[30] Lawson, R., T. Hatch and D. Desroches. 2011.
What influences achieving benefits from corporate
performance management? Cost Management
(November/December): 24-36.
[31] Lawson, R., T. Hatch and D. Desroches. 2013. How
corporate culture affects performance management.
Strategic Finance (January): 42-50.
[32] Marr, B. 2006. Strategic Performance
Management: Leveraging and Measuring your
Intangible Value Drivers. Butterworth-Heinemann.
[33] Otley, D. 1999. Performance management: A
framework for management control systems
research. Management Accounting Research
(December): 363-382.
[34] Paladino, B. 2007. Five Key Principles of
Corporate Performance Management. John Wiley
and Sons.
www.irjcjournals.org
 International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 4, No. 7, July 2015
[35] Paladino, B. 2007. 5 key principles of corporate
performance management: How do Balanced
Scorecard Hall of Fame, Malcolm Baldrige,
Sterling, Fortune 100, APQC, and Forbes award
winners drive value? Strategic Finance (June): 39-
45.
[36] Paladino, B. 2007. 5 key principles of corporate
performance management: Successful companies
plan, communicate, and manage strategy well.
Strategic Finance (July): 33-41.
[37] Paladino, B. 2007. 5 key principles of corporate
performance management: Award-winning
companies use them to improve their performance
and manage and leverage knowledge for success.
Strategic Finance (August): 39-45.
[38] Paladino, B. 2010. Innovative Corporate
Performance Management: Five Key Principles to
Accelerate Results. John Wiley and Sons.
[39] Paladino, B. 2011. Achieving innovative corporate
performance management. Strategic Finance
(March): 43-51.
[40] Paladino, B. 2011. Achieving innovative corporate
performance management. Strategic Finance
(April): 43-53.
[41] Ratnatunga, J. and L. Montali. 2008. Performance
management measures that enhance organisational
value: A review. Journal of Applied Management
Accounting Research (Summer): 1-16.
[42] Scapens, R. W. 2009. Frameworks for performance
management and control systems research.
Management Accounting Research (December):
262.
[43] Schonberger, R. J. 2008. Lean performance
management (Metrics don't add up). Cost
Management (January/February): 5-10. (Note:
Schonberger criticizes the KPI or scorecard
approach from the lean enterprise perspective.
[44] Sharman, P. 2000. Cost and performance
management in the age of global change. Journal of
Cost Management (September/October): 40-44.
[45] Sharman, P. 2008. Performance architecture: A
continuing story. Cost Management
(November/December): 26-33.
[46] Simons, R. 1995. Control in an age of
empowerment. Harvard Business Review (March-
April): 80-88.
[47] Simons, R. 1995. Levers of Control: How
Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive
Strategic Renewal. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
[48] Sorensen, D. 2013. EPM in manufacturing: Finally
coming of age. Strategic Finance (September): 38-
45.
[49] Stringer, C. 2007. Empirical performance
management research: Observations from AOS and
i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium
View publication stats
ISSN: 2319-4421 67
MAR. Qualitative Research in Accounting &
Management (4): 92-114.
[50] Tessier, S. and D. Otley. 2012. A conceptual
development of Simons’ Levers of Control
framework. Management Accounting Research
(September): 171-185.
[51] Varma, A., P. S. Budhwar and A. DeNisi (Eds.).
2008. Performance Management Systems: A Global
Perspective. Routledge.
[52] Wade, D. and R. J. Recardo. 2001. Corporate
Performance Management: How to build a better
organization through measurement-driven strategic
alignment. Butterworth-Heinemann.
[53] White, L. R. 2005. Strategic, cost, and performance
management in the Coast Guard and federal
environment. Cost Management (May/June): 7-15.
[54] Yigitbasioglu, O. M. and O. Velcu. 2012. A review
of dashboards in performance management:
Implications for design and research. International
Journal of Accounting Information Systems 13(1):
41-59.
[55] Harvard University, Kennedy School of
Government, Executive Session on Performance
Management, 2001
[56] Irwin, Tim. ‘An Analysis of New Zealand’s New
System of Public Sector Reform.’ Performance
Management in Government. Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris,
1996.
[57] Zeppau, Mary and Tatiana Sotuakou. ‘The ‘STAIR’
Model for Managing and Measuring Performance
in the Post-modern Era’. The International Journal
of Public Sector Management, 16, 4 (2003): 320-
32.
WEB REFERENCES
[1] [www.ksg.harvard.edu/visions/performance_manag
ement]
[2] Ashe-Edmunds, S. (2015). The effect of job
descriptions on employee performance. Houston
Chronicle. Retrieved from
http://work.chron.com/effect-job-descriptions-
employee-performance-23428.html
[3] http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492860.pdf
[4] Heiden, S., (2008, February 5). Build a
multigenerational performance management
strategy. Talent Management. Retrieved from
http://www.talentmgt.com/articles/build_a_multige
nerational_performance_management_strategy
[5] NSW Government. (2010-2011). Performance
management systems. Retrieved from
http://www.pscapabilities.nsw.gov.au/managers/per
formance-management/systems/
[6] Saxena, R. (2010). Role of communication in
employee development. International Transactions
in Humanities & Social Sciences, 2(2), 115-121.
http://aacsjournals.com/journal.php?Journal=ITHSS
www.irjcjournals.org