Blog: How Has The Concept of ‘High Performance’ Evolved?

What does it mean, and where did it come from?

The concept of ‘high performance organisation’ has taken root over the last three decades, and evolved from an eventual integration of two main forms of organisation theory – scientific management and human relations. Subsequently, socio-technical systems thinking became a significant influence on organisation improvement strategies.

More recently, the notions of culture, empowerment, learning and reward, among others, have assumed increasing importance for high performance – which also shapes HR’s role in performance improvement.

But where did the concept originate from? How has it changed, what does it mean today, and what’s it got to do with HR?

1910s

In the early days of management engineering, Taylor (1911) and Frank and Lillian Gilbreth (1914) focused their research efforts on work specialisation, job design, job specification and management control, to improve individual performance and attain optimal productivity.

The influx of managers in workplaces and factories, combined with the growing availability of automation in manufacturing, made the question of high performance an urgent one.

1930s

As the idea of human relations gained ground, Mayo (1933) expanded on it, arguing that an individual’s performance could not be explained by a single factor – he emphasised collaboration, social cohesion, interpersonal relations and balancing at work both human and economic needs.

He suggested that different assumptions shaped work and organisation life: people inherently want to give of their best, collaborate, participate and be involved in the organisation’s purpose, for instance. Innovations included participative management, team building, job enrichment, management-style training, and so on. However, from a design point of view, these approaches tended to be bolted on to the existing structure, resulting in two fundamentally different models of organising being used simultaneously.

1940s

By the 1940s, there was an understanding that holistic systems might produce better results. Weber (1947) believed that large organisations could function more systematically through a bureaucracy of positions, hierarchical relationships, established chain of command, defined rules/procedures and technical competence.

Meanwhile, Fayol (1949) espoused the importance of managerial ability, in addition to structure and job design, to improve organisational performance – physical, mental and moral qualities, specific sets of knowledge and experience, and so on. Among his principles of management were unity of direction, job stability and esprit de corps.

These approaches produced breakthrough levels of performance compared with previous standards, but also some unforeseen consequences – employee alienation, untapped potential, weak communication, complexity of decision-making and actions, and brittle company structures.

1950s

In the late-1940s, Tavistock Institute researchers studied the introduction of technology into British coal mines, finding that it alone could not explain the subsequent improvement in performance – or, in fact, that it could cause a decline.

Trist and Bamforth (1951) and Rice (1958) thus reasoned that high, or breakthrough, performance would occur only when the technical and social systems of work were in congruence – the notion of ‘fit’ had arrived.

1960s

In the 1960s-70s, a further perspective was added, guided by Lawrence and Lorsch (1969). They believed organisation structure – the rate of change in the business environment, for example – is a critical influence on performance. The most successful organisations were able to understand and adjust effectively to such contextual factors.

1970s/80s

In the 1970s, socio-technical systems thinking emerged (Cherns 1979, Hanna 1988) to shape organisational design – this took the form of fewer rules, autonomous work teams, multiskilling, boundary management and information systems tied to actions and problem-solving.

As practical examples, manufacturing plants of the 1970s-80s and beyond in the US and Sweden flourished from system integration, achieving previously unheard-of performance standards and results through new structures and re-engineered processes.

They employed minimal hierarchy, employee selection, information sharing, autonomous working, skill-based rewards and intensive training to great effect.

Today

All of these new concepts, structures and definitions helped to refine the means of developing today’s ‘high performance organisation’.

André De Waal, who developed this research for CRF, used a definition of an HPO as ‘one that achieves financial and non-financial results that are better than those of its peer group over at least five to ten years’ (2007). However, fundamental questions exist about what high performance looks like in real terms and what factors make the most difference in terms of performance.

High performance organisations have become the role models and sought-after benchmarks of business management. Typically, they consistently outperform competitors, sustain this, and tend to respond better to threats and challenges. But how they achieve ‘HPO’ status, and how others can do the same, is an ongoing debate.

Taking an overview of this evolution in thinking about high performance, the American Management Association in its 2007 study concluded: “More high performance studies are likely to emerge in the future, partly because the business environment continues to change and partly because the science of analysis also continues to improve.”

What does this mean for HR?

HR’s primary role in high performance is as a facilitator and guide: taking an evidence-based approach; choosing good coaches, mentors and storytellers; and reviewing the efficacy of current processes regularly.

Ultimately, HR can help management groups think through the important questions of what high performance means for them, how company culture and structures can create it, and what practical steps they need to take towards it.

Interested in how your company could learn more about building a high performance culture? Check out CRF Learning’s new On Demand course.