By Lucy Surhyel Newman, CPT, DBA

Newstrom and Davis (2002) said “organizations require consistent levels of high performance from individual employees in order to enhance overall corporate performance and survive in a highly competitive environment” (p. 139). In a similar perspective, Addison (2004) indicated that “performance architecture is the design of the organizational house where all three levels are integrated to smoothly support the raison d’etre of the entity, be it a business, civil service, or non-governmental organization” (p. 14). In this instance, performance architecture, as presented, shows the “organizational house” framework where all three levels, namely workplace, workflow, and the worker, integrate to support the organization’s mission, vision, and strategy (Addison, 2004). The Addison proposition tends to complement the Newstrom and Davis’s (2002) proposition, as it relates to performance management and some aspects of benchmarking, including (a) establishing appropriate goals, (b) monitoring performance through internal and external feedback, (c) taking corrective action if needed, (d) communicating appropriately, (e) allocating resources to support efficient achievement of goals, and (f) making sure that all parts of the organization cooperate effectively to achieve the organization’s purpose. The evidence-based repositioning of FITC tends to support these two perspectives.

Based on THE Performance Improvement Conference theme “Many approached; what works,” the session presents an insight into FITC’s three-year repositioning road map, as a real-life example of a successful application of the principles of open and axial coding in grounded theory generation, to reposition a 30-year-old special purpose not-for-profit professional services organization. This was done within theoretical defined frameworks and the 10 Standards of Performance Improvement in a third-world developing nation, with tangible results and still growing.

The session demonstrates an example of opportunities for the growth of human performance technology (HPT) practice in a highly diversified and complex, yet promising, global environment. Both experienced HPT practitioners and new entrants in the field should find the session engaging and refreshing.

References
Addison, M. R. (2004, July). Performance architecture: A performance improvement model. Performance Improvement, 43(6), 14.

Newstrom, J. W., & Davis, K. (2002). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

LucyNewmanLucy Surhyel Newman, CPT, DBA, has over 26 years of industry and consulting experience, including 9 years in four banks in Nigeria. She has been the MD/CEO of FITC since May 2009 when she left the Business Advisory and Performance Improvement Practice of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Nigeria.

To learn more about this and other educational sessions at THE Performance Improvement Conference 2013 in Reno, NV, April 14-17, please go to www.ispi.org/content.aspx?id=1582. Register today at www.ispi.org/content.aspx?id=1600!