Measurement and management of competences by enterprise social networking

Abstract

Purpose Literature describes the transformation process of employees’ individual competences into firm-specific competences as a great challenge in the performance management and management field. Recently, to favor the transformation of competences, some companies have adopted enterprise social networking (ESN). However, not enough studies support the understanding of its role in performance management and measurement and scant attention is given to the inclusion of competences in a holistic performance measurement and management system (PMMS). To help close this gap, the purpose of this paper is to develop knowledge on the role of ESN in measurement and management of competences to favor the development of a holistic PMMS. Design/methodology/approach The research adopts a multiple case study methodology using a qualitative meta-analysis. It investigates 32 multinational companies by case studies available in the scientific literature. Findings The results highlight the use of ESN as a relevant support for the development of a holistic PMMS based on a high maturity in performance measurement and a democratic and participative approach in performance management. ESN provides real-time data collection, analysis and reports that encourage a democratic and participative performance management. It facilitates relationships, knowledge sharing and favors a high maturity performance measurement. Originality/value The paper provides implications for theory, practice and society. First, the paper rationalizes the impact of ESN usage on performance measurement and management. Second, it offers new knowledge supporting practitioners in the development of holistic PMMS. Third, it highlights that ESN favors people in self-expression of own capacity, sharing artwork and knowledge on specific topics.

Evolutionary paths of performance measurement and management system: the longitudinal case study of a leading SME

“…Performance measurement maturity highlights characteristics such as the balance of target setting, interval control and the time of performance reviews (Speckbacher et al, 2003); whereas the maturity of performance management process depends by industrial democracy, the degree of autonomy and job enrichment. This framework was recently upgraded with the new characteristics shown in Figure 1 (Sardi et al, 2018). In terms of performance measurement dimension, this upgrade highlighted the growing use of technological tools (e.g.…”

“…social media and enterprise social networking) to increase a real-time data collection, analysis and reports; self-control of activity reports and the major use of key performance indicators. Considering the performance management dimension, the increasing use of these tools shows the growing relevance of continuous feedback, relationships, discussions and an inclination at a self-performance measurement (Sardi et al, 2018). The effective balance of the performance's dimensions supports the design, the implementation and the use of a PMMS (Bititci, 2015) encouraging people to discuss performance (Otley, 2012;Smith and Bititci, 2017).…”

“…Adopting a contingency approach, Garengo and Bititci, (2007) showed the relationship between contingency factors and performance measurement, and they highlighted the role of organizational governance structure, business model (Afuah and Tucci, 2003), management information system (Garengo and Biazzo, 2013;Mithas et al, 2011;Sardi et al, 2018;Sørensen et al, 2010), organizational culture and management style (Bititci et al, 2006;Jardioui et al, 2019;Schein, 1996) (Table 1). They also showed that advanced information practices and behaviours impact people engagement, a necessary condition for the effective its implementation and adoption in SMEs (Garengo and Bititci, 2007).…”

“…gathering, elaborating and analysing performance , as well as performance management activities, e.g. communicating, learning and improving performance (Sardi et al, 2018;Smith and Bititci, 2017;Willis et al, 2018). It provides feedback to employees on the outcome of actions reflecting the procedures used to implement business strategy, as well as the information needed for strategy validation (Bititci, 2015;Bititci et al, 1997;Goshu and Kitaw, 2017;Ittner and Larcker, 2003).…”

Dynamic Performance Management: An Approach for Managing the Common Goods

“…Performance measurement and management can be the key processes for linking common goods and organizational performance [1]. The performance measurement process is defined as "what to measure" and includes technical activities such as collecting, analyzing and reporting [35], whereas the performance management process is defined as "how to manage performance" and includes social activities such as communicating, rewarding, learning and improving [36,37]. The balance between performance measurement and management establishes the roots of performance measurement systems, that is, the reporting process that gives feedback to employees on the outcome of actions [38,39].…”