Managing for Peak Performance (2/3)

Typical concerns with current practice include:

• the rigidity of many of the approaches and resulting lack of flexibility to deal with changing circumstances and emerging events
• the bureaucracy associated with many of the systems, which causes managers and others to drown in a sea of paperwork, rather than allowing them to focus upon critical performance issues
• the seemingly impossible task of establishing clear links between individual goals and the overall performance of the organisation, especially where events are changing rapidly and priorities shifting constantly
• the tendency to focus role descriptions on inputs (activities to be carried out) rather than outputs (contributions to be made)
• the ritualistic nature of many assessment and review processes, rather than these encouraging and enabling open dialogue between managers and staff
• the arbitrarily selective nature of many of the frameworks, in relation to the factors that are measured - often with ease of measurability taking precedence over strategic importance
• the low impact on actual performance that most of these approaches seem to have

An Alternative Perspective

We believe that it is time for managers to move beyond this seductive but overly simplistic view of strategic management, and to readdress their fundamental beliefs about what it means to "manage performance" in a complex and constantly changing world. In particular, emphasis should be placed firmly on performance management ahead of performance measurement. In this respect, the use of the term "scorecard," whilst popular and memorable, perhaps directs attention too much towards measurement and not enough towards the thinking and action that needs to deliver improved performance and capability 'on the ground'.