Organisational Behaviour
In 1990, Gerry Rummler and Alan Brache introduced a new methodology for improving organisational performance. Their Three-Levels of Performance Framework is a holistic model that provides concepts and techniques for conducting an organisational diagnosis then proceeds to furnish an approach for using the results of the diagnosis to improve organisational performance.
Although this framework goes well beyond the parameters of a diagnostic model, the diagnostics are of such rigour and robustness that they are capable of serving as the core of an analysis of organisational functioning.
Introduction to Diagnostic Aspects of the Three-Levels of Performance (T-LP) Framework
A model is an abstraction of reality, a simplified representation of some real world phenomenon (Robbins 1998, 22). Models assist in understanding organisational behaviour, classifying organisational data, interpreting organisational data, and providing a common, short-hand language (Howard 1994, cited in Falletta 2005). Diagnostic models are used to assess an organisation’s present level of functioning (Falletta 2005). Diagnostic aspects of Rummler and Brache’s T-LP Framework meet the definitional requirements of a model.
Rummler and Brache (1995) contend that many managers do not understand their businesses, attributing this to a flawed view of the organisations they manage. Many managers and non-managers alike do not fully consider customers, products and services, work flow and, especially, the interdependencies among these factors. Too many organisational members consider the factors to be independent of one another. Maycunich and Gilley (1998) emphasise the importance of crossdepartmental interactions and dependencies. Mckern (2003) echoes the importance of the interfaces in an organisation, which Rummler and Brache (1990, cited in McKern 2003) refer to as the white space on the organisational chart. To aid the members of an organisation in understanding the factors and their interdependencies, Rummler and Brache created the Three Levels of Performance Framework. The fundamental essence of this integrated framework is captured in the introductory quotation by John Muir (Rummler and Brache 1995) the organisation and everything in its universe are connected.
The T-LP Framework consists of two dimensions: three levels of performance organisation, process, and job-performer and three categories of performance needs goals, design, and management (Rummler and Brache 1995). Boughton and colleagues (1999) describe goals in this context as the specific performance outcomes expected from organisational departments, processes, and employees; design as how departments, processes, and employees are organised to achieve goals; and management as the practices used to ensure that goals are attained. Rummler and Brache (1995) place the performance levels and performance needs into a three-by-three grid consisting of nine performance variables. The top level of the grid consists of organisation goals, organisation design, and organisation management. The second level is comprised of process goals, process design and process management. And, the third level consists of job goals, job design, and job management. This integrated framework permits an organisational observer to visually connect all elements of the organisation from top-level goals down to the management of the individual job.
The diagnostic aspect of the T-LP Framework explores, through a series of questions, the level of functioning of the organisation for each performance variable (Rummler and Brache 1995). For example, for organisation goals, questions are posed about the articulation and communication of strategy and direction, consideration of external threats and opportunities as well as internal strengths and weaknesses, and determination and communication of external outputs and performance levels. And, for organisation design, questions are posed about the presence and necessity of functions, appropriateness of current flow of inputs and outputs, and degree of support offered by the organisational structure for the strategy. This line of questioning continues for the remaining seven performance variables with the goal of evaluating how each functions on its own and with other interdependent variables. In addition to the performance grid, Rummler and Brache use a separate relationship map to graphically depict the input, processes, and outputs and their interdependencies and to emphasise the systems nature of the organisation (Maycunich and Gilley 1998).
Gilley and Maycunich (2000) write that the T-LP Framework focuses at the organisation level on identifying cross-functional elements that are preventing desired performance; at the process level on identifying those process steps that are critical to successful performance but that are responsible for poor performance because they are not being performed properly; and at the job-performer level on assessing improvement needs in job outputs.
Comparison of Three-Levels of Performance Framework with Other Diagnostic Models
Eleven organisational diagnostic models were surveyed for possible selection for comparison with the T-LP Framework: the Burke-Litwin Model of Organisational Performance and Change, the Congruence Model for Organisation Analysis, Harrison’s Model for Diagnosing Individual and Group Behaviour, Force Field Analysis, High-Performing Programming, Leavitt’s Model, Likert System Analysis, the McKinsey 7S Framework, Open Systems Theory, Tichy’s Technical Political Cultural (TPC) Framework, and Weisbord’s Six-Box Model. Of these, three were selected: the Burke-Litwin Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change, the Congruence Model for Organisation Analysis, and Harrison’s Model for Diagnosing Individual and Group Behaviour. The selection was based on a subjective analysis to identify those that were most amenable to comparison with Rummler and Brache’s framework.
Burke-Litwin Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change (B-L Model)
The key features of the B-L Model, which was first developed in the 1960s then refined in the 1980s, are that: (1) it contains twelve organisational variables (external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, culture, structure, management practices, systems, work group climate, skills/job match, motivation, individual needs and values, and performance); (2) it differentiates between the organisational culture (i.e. norms, values, and beliefs held by members) and organisational climate (i.e. impressions, expectations, and feelings of members); (3) it differentiates between transformational (leadership) and transactional (management) dynamics; and (4) it identifies the nature and direction of the influence of organisational variables to show the manner in which specific variables affect others (Burke and Litwin 1992, cited in Falletta 2005). The B-L Model is a valuable tool for demonstrating the interrelationships of organisational variables that impact change (Jones 1998), for highlighting the relative weight of influence that various aspects of the organisation have on one another (Kissler 1991), and for showing how a change in one variable impacts others (Stickland 1998).
The most obvious distinction between the T-LP Framework and the B-L Model is in terms of the number of variables with the former consisting of nine and the latter of twelve. Common variables include (1) mission and strategy (B-L-Model)/organisation goals (T-LP Framework); (2) structure (B-L Model)/organisation, process, and job design (T-LP Model); and (3) management practices (B-L Model)/organisation, process, and job management (T-LP Model). Both models emphasise interrelationships between variables. The B-L Model explicitly shows the manner in which specific variables are related. In the T-LP Framework, interrelationships are shown on a separate relationship map. The external environment is a separate variable in the B-L Model; it is implied in the T-LP Framework and is reserved for later exploration through diagnostic questioning. The B-L Model does not explicitly address business processes; the T-LP Framework devotes an entire level to processes. The T-LP Framework does not explicitly address organisational culture and climate as does the B-L Model.
The strengths of the B-L Model vis-à-vis the T-LP Framework include its emphasis on organisational culture and climate as well as its integrated focus on interrelationships with other aspects of the organisation. The strengths of the T-LP Framework vis-à-vis the B-L Model are its logical, easy-to-understand format and its recognition that processes are what translate the goals of the organisation to its frontline job performers for action. The weaknesses of the T-LP model are its lack of explicit consideration of organisational culture and climate and portrayal of interrelationships on a separate relationship map. The weaknesses in the B-L Model are its somewhat complex format of and the absence of process considerations.
Tags: behaviour, diagnostics, framework, performance, Rummler
