Down with the Man

One of the major jobs of Human Resource Development is to analyze company performance and look for weaknesses or problem areas. To this extent there are a variety of performance models aimed at the HRD professional do just that. I think that Rummler and Brache’s nine-cell matrix (think tic tac toe board closed in) performance model best represent the constructs of HRD. Presented with a holistic approach, the underlying point of their model is that organizational failures are not a matter of poor effort or simple laziness, but a lack of understanding regarding the variables that influence organizational operations. This point is critical in diagnosing organizational problems which management all too quickly blames on an employee or department error. Instead Rummler and Brache discuss three levels of performance: 1) organization (including market relationships and major functions of the organization); 2) process (how work actually gets done); and 3) job/performer (the people actually doing the jobs). Within these performances they define three variables: 1) goals (specific standards that reflect the customers expectations); 2) design (structure necessary to meet the goals); and 3) management (practices that assure goals are being achieved). Allowing for these measures provides a much better framework to diagnosis potential problems within organizational environments.

Rummler and Brache’s performance model is one of several multilevel performance models being utilized by HRD. Others include Swanson’s Performance Diagnosis Matrix which examines performance levels and performance variables; Holton’s Taxonomy of performance Domains which examines the four domains of mission, process, social sub-system, and individual; and the Organization Development Performance Model which includes examination of defined levels of process performance, group, and individual. Such multilevel models are important tool to analyze the complex nature of organizational systems. Just as businesses have grown and evolved to include many sublevels of process and function, so must an effective analytical tool. Trying to identify weakness or problem areas in only one part of that system will almost always lead to failure.

However while performance models will provide increased diagnostic advantage, their misuse may diminish organizational learning. Systems thinking emphasizes that the whole is greater than the sum of their parts. However, in performance models each part is analyzed within its own sphere. The danger lies in compartmentalizing each process (for example workers, management, goals, etc.) for examination so completely, that the holistic value is lost. When happens, the idea of learning becomes so focused within the boundaries of a particular process that those in other spheres stop trying to learn or unrestrained what is happening elsewhere. While no one expects one person within an organization to be an expert in all matters, and trying to do so would undoubtedly stifle growth, when people stop trying to learn what others do the whole idea of learning suffers within the organization.

It is with the same idea that performance models are often seen as useful by mangers, but disliked by employees. Mangers may appreciate the diagnostic evaluation of the company, but then leave it up to the workers to make any “necessary changes” in the organizational process. By claiming ignorance of the workers process, they may far too easily excuse themselves from contributing to the challenge of company improvement in a fundamental level while at the same time taking all the credit for any organizational growth that occurs. In essence on party (workers) are doing all of the change/work while another party (mangers) are taking all the glory that such work produces. Down with the man!