Characteristics of High Performance Organisations

Abstract

The recent economic downturn has caused tremendous upheaval in the business world. It has spurred many companies to self-analysis and further organisational improvement. As a result, there is an increasing interest into the factors that determine sustainable organisational success. Managers all over the world are trying out various improvement concepts, seeing mixed results. One likely reason for this is the lack of consensus on the organisational characteristics that lead to high performance. Another reason may be that research into high performance is predominantly conducted in US companies, making it seem less relevant to management practice outside the North American continent. The research study described in this article aims at identifying the factors which have a positive relation with organisational performance. Through review of 290 research studies into high performance and subsequent testing in 1470 organisations worldwide, 35 characteristics -grouped into five factors -were identified which have a correlation with high performance and seem to be generic. The research results provide managers with a framework that adds focus to their continuous improvement efforts.

The Functions of a Servant Leader

“…This process of developing the capability and capacity frameworks and supporting it with relevant processes, policies, and systems relate well to the factors of a high performing organisation such as (a) establishing and communicating a clear vision, mission, and strategy; (b) being customer orientated; (c) having simple; standardised; and innovative processes and systems; (d) ensuring continuous learning and development; and (e) sustaining a quality workforce [3,4,89,90]. It also relates well to the Mckinsey's 7-S model that suggest an integration of seven factors to enhance organisational effectiveness, namely (1) strategy; (2) style; (3) skills; (4) systems; (5) structure; (6) staff; and (7) shared values [91][92][93].…”

Key Determinants of Effective Partnerships: The Case of Partnerships Between Lead Firms and Farmers in Pineapple Value Chains in Uganda and Kenya

“…We hypothesize that each of these three factors is positively and significantly related to the reported level of value chain upgrading. Justification for hypothesis H 2 : The HPO status of the lead firm is operationalized using de Waal's (2012) HPO Framework which has been tested and used in a wide range of countries and sectors of the economy (see, for example, de Waal, 2007de Waal, , 2010de Waal, , 2012de Waal & Sultan, 2012). The HPO model consists of five, in most empirical applications interrelated (nonorthogonal) factors, which are labeled: continuous improvement, openness and action orientation, quality of management, quality of workforce, and long-term orientation.…”

“…It was therefore not surprising to find the eight constructs in an empirical study on a Dutch cable company reduced to a smaller number of five factors: openness (containing items of the original concepts of coordination, communication, dependence, and trust); mutual interest in the partnership (related to trust and conflict); equality (derived from items on dependence and communication); conflict management (related to conflict and diversity); and closeness. In the same vein, it is interesting to note that strands of literature on partnerships, that differ in the scope and complexity of the partnerships examined, converge on similar determinants of success: mutual interest in the partnership=involvement (Ferroni & Castle 2011;de Waal, 2012); trust among the stakeholders (Drost et al, 2012) as indicated by mutual interest and openness in the partnership ; and the relational aspects of partnerships (Scott, 2011).…”

“…We would further argue that the elements of that model are non-compensatory: a high-performing partner cannot make up for a poorly managed partnership, and a high-performance partnership will not raise the level of a lowperformance organization; likewise we cannot imagine a high-performance partnership where at least one partner doubts the equality in the relationship. De Waal et al (2012) have implicitly used this line of reasoning when they linked the HPP outcomes of their study to the so-called High Performance Organization (HPO) framework (de Waal, 2007(de Waal, , 2010(de Waal, , 2012de Waal & Akaraborworn, 2013;de Waal & Chachage, 2011). An HPO is defined as an organization that achieves financial and non-financial results that are exceedingly better than those of its peer group over a period of time of five years or more, by focusing in a disciplined way on that what really matters to the organization ( de Waal, 2012, p. 5).…”

“…In Uganda managers and employees of 12 lead firms responded; the number of respondents per lead firm ranged from 3 to 7 (with an average of 4.8), and a total of 58 respondents. The questionnaire was based on de Waal's (2012) 35 items HPO framework, but two items were divided into two sub-items. The 35 items in de Waal's questionnaire (and the 37 items in this research; see Appendix 3) belong to five dimensions: continuous improvement (CI), openness and action orientation (OAO), management quality (QM), employee quality (QEMP), and long-term orientation (LTO).…”