Performance dialogue

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide guidelines for improving performance dialogue with a specific process and framework, leveraging existing literature. Design/methodology/approach Building upon Mengis and Eppler’s (2008) framework for conversation management, this study follows an action research approach, involving a process of co-creation, split into several distinct stages including two series of 20 semi-structured interviews with top executives of a major pharmaceutical company. These executives were directly involved in using the performance measurement system (PMS) in order to provide guidelines for improving performance dialogue. The data were analysed using content analysis, and the authors helped to develop a solution. Findings The analysis reveals a variety of recurrent communicative challenges and practices, which all appear to be characteristic for the performance dialogue process. The proposed framework consists of four separate phases, namely: data collection and identification of the main under and over-performance gaps, root cause analysis and action plans formulation, dialogue and solution implementation and dissemination of best practices. Originality/value This research contributes to the literature by introducing work on organisational communication into the field of PMS, by proposing a communication model for performance dialogue implementation. Furthermore, it addresses companies’ issues on how to successfully use their PMS and proposes a framework with specific prerequisites to be put into practice. Finally, this study offers a different explanation in the form of the lack of performance dialogue for the failure of PMS, compared to the current explanations found in the literature.

Designing and implementing performance measurement systems based on enterprise engineering guidelines

“…, 2004). It is necessary to comprehend each individual as a fundamental part of organizational development and identify the ideal system for each organization (Couturier and Sklavounos, 2019; Sena Ferreira, 2012).…”

“…individual as a fundamental part of organizational development and identify the ideal system for each organization (Couturier and Sklavounos, 2019;Sena Ferreira, 2012). Nudurupati et al (2011) observe that the success of a PM system is in the change in behavior that it generates toward a progressive performance improvement and organizational culture change.…”

How Different Are Performance Management Systems? Empirical Typology of Performance Management Systems

“…PMSs are considered as effective reactions to conceptual and practical calls faced by firms in changing world (Nudurupati et al, 2021;Cuccurullo et al, 2016;Choong, 2014;Hoque, 2004). However, research on PMSs also presents drawbacks associated with the implementation and use of PMSs (Couturier & Sklavounos, 2019;Choong, 2014;Taticchi et al, 2012;Bourne, 2008;Franco-Santos et al, 2007;Neely, 2005;Bourne et al, 2000). Moreover, different performance consequences of implemented PMSs are found mixed and contradicting (de Waal, 2018;Franco-Santos et al, 2012;Bedford et al, 2008;Yu et al, 2008;Neely, 2008;Davis & Albright, 2004;Malina & Selto, 2001).…”

Unpredictable cocktails or recurring recipes? Identifying the patterns that shape collaborative performance summits

“…A final component, often hard to observe for external researchers, is the nature of the personal relationships between the individuals sitting around the table. Partners in a collaboration may have built up a history of distrust, conflict, and disparity over the years, or face the challenge of building relationships with new partners (Gerlak and Heikkila 2011;Couturier and Sklavounos 2019).…”