1 / 11

A global overview of performance evaluation

A global overview of performance evaluation. Hugues Mouchamps , Ph.D . student – HEC- ULg 4th March 2011. Introduction At first sight / Complexity of performance evaluation Impacts on performance Variation in the characteristics of the tool Conclusions.

aron
Download Presentation

A global overview of performance evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A global overview of performance evaluation Hugues Mouchamps, Ph.D. student – HEC-ULg 4th March 2011

  2. Introduction • At first sight / Complexity of performance evaluation • Impacts on performance • Variation in thecharacteristics of the tool • Conclusions HuguesMouchamps, 4th March 2011 2 / 11

  3. 1. Introduction • State-of-the art review • Definingidealcharacteristics of a performance evaluationtool HuguesMouchamps, 4th March 2011 3 / 11

  4. HuguesMouchamps, 4th March 2011 4 / 11 2. At first sight/ Complexity • Definingwhat performance is and whatfactorsimpact performance • Performance is a social construct • Measuringthosefactorsthroughindicators • Intangible outputs • Abstract missions (Sawhill& Williamson, 2001) • No direct linkbetween inputs and outcomes(Nicholls, 2009; Taylor, 2004) • Summing up the scores of all indicators • Multidimensionalindicators

  5. HuguesMouchamps, 4th March 2011 5 / 11 3. Impact on performance • Boardeffectiveness(Herman & Renz, 2008; Stone & Cutcher-Gershenfeld, 2002) • Correct management practices (Herman & Renz, 2008) • Coherentstrategy • Responsiveness(Herman & Renz, 2008) • Organizational culture (Beck & Lengnick-Hall, 2008)

  6. 4. Variation intoolcharacteristics • Ideal characteristics of a performance evaluation tool should vary with : • Financing mix (Herman & Renz, 2008) • Institutional context (Bouchard, 2009) • Purpose of the evaluation • Type of the organization (Bouchard, 2009; Polonsky & Grau, 2008; Sawhill & Williamson, 2001; Beck, 2008; Bozzo, 2000; Herman & Renz, 2008) HuguesMouchamps, 4th March 2011 6 / 11

  7. 4. Variation in toolcharacteristicsPurposesof performance evaluation • Internalpurposes • To improve performance (Nicholls, 2009; Polonsky & Grau, 2008) • To assist management (Sawhill & Williamson, 2001; Mulgan, 2010) • To check progresstowards mission (Sawhill & Williamson, 2001; Mulgan, 2010) • Externalpurposes • To accessresources(Nicholls, 2009; Polonsky & Grau, 2008) • To report to stakeholders(Bozzo, 2000; Mulgan, 2010) • As a marketing tool(Sawhill & Williamson, 2001) • To buildorganizationallegitimacy(Nicholls, 2009) HuguesMouchamps, 4th March 2011 7 / 11

  8. 4. Variation in toolcharacteristicsType of organization • Heterogeneity in missions • Heterogeneity in activities • Heterogeneity in size and structure • Heterogeneity in institutionalcontext • A unique tool for all is not realistic(Herman & Renz, 2008) HuguesMouchamps, 4th March 2011 8 / 11

  9. HuguesMouchamps, 4th March 2011 9 / 11 7. Conclusions • The complexity of performance evaluationshouldbereflected in the characteristics of the evaluationtool • Characteristics of the toolshouldvary

  10. HuguesMouchamps, 4th March 2011 10 / 11 • Thankyou for yourattention

  11. HuguesMouchamps, 4th March 2011 11 / 11 Main References • BOUCHARD, M.J., (2009), The worth of the Social Economy P.I.E. Peter Lang, Bruxelles • BOZZO, S.L., (2000), Evaluation Resources for Nonprofit Organizations. Usefulness and Applicability. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Vol. 10(4), pp463-472 • HERMAN, R. D., RENZ, D. O., (2008), Advancing nonprofit organizational effectiveness research and theory. Nine theses. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Vol. 18(4), pp399-415 • KAPLAN, R.S., (2001), Strategic Performance Measurement and Management in Nonprofit Organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 11(3), pp353-370 • LINDGREN, L., (2001), The Non-profit Sector Meets the Performance-management Movement : A Programme-theory Approach. Evaluation, Vol. 7(3), pp285-303 • MULGAN, G., (2010), Measuring Social Value. Stanford Social Innovation Review, pp. 38-43 • NICHOLLS, A., (2009), 'We do good things, don't we?': 'Blended Value Accounting' in social entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, pp755-769 • POLONSKY, M.J. et GRAU, S.L., (2008), Evaluating the Social Value of Charitable Organizations: A Conceptual Foundation. Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 28(2), pp130-140 • SAWHILL, J.C., WILLIAMSON, D., (2001), Mission Impossible ? Measuring Success in Nonprofit Organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 11(3), pp371-386 • SPECKBACHER, G., (2003), The Economics of Performance Management in Nonprofit Organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Vol. 13(3), pp267-281 • TAYLOR, S., (2004), Confronting challenges related to performance in nonprofit organizations. University of Georgia WP

More Related