1

Leading from the front: The High Performance Working (HPW) Inventory

Dr Andrew ArmitageDr Diane Keeble-Allen

Anglia Ruskin University

Andrew.armitage@anglia.ac.ukDiane.keeble-allen@anglia.ac.uk

Rivermead CampusChelmsfordEssex

01245 493131

Conference stream: Leadership and management development

Submission type: Refereed

Abstract

The advent of performance metrics over the past two decades has heralded acultural shift how private, public and third sector organisations have to beenmanaged. At the heart of this cultural change are the aspirations of excellence ofdelivery that sit within wider strategic leadership and people centered issues. HighPerformance Working (HPW) is an approach that embraces an adaptive strategy inthe selection and application of different “bundles of practice” they employ as ameans meet the call for efficiency gains and potentially determine whether they meetthe needs of their mission, vision and values in their quest for stakeholderaccountability. This paper will give an overview of High Performance Managementand will present the design and development of the HPW Inventory that can be usedby organisations to assess their current performance against HPW practices againstcore “bundles of practice”.

Key words: Bundles of practice, performance measures, strategy, HighPerformance Working

2

Introduction: Overview of High Performance Working (HPW)

According to Lloyd and Payne (2004:13), defining HPW remains problematic since‘there is no clear definition or model and there remains a fundamental lack ofagreement about what specific practices might be incorporated in such a definition’.However, there is a general agreement that HPW encompasses terms such as “highcommitment’ and ‘high involvement’ and ‘bundles’ of organizational practices whichmight leverage work activities towards intended business outcomes (Sung andAshton, 2005). Thus, HPW management practices have included, according toJones and Wright (1992):

‘comprehensive and performance management systems, and extensiveemployee involvement and training, that can improve the knowledge, skillsand abilities of a firm’s current and potential employees, increase theirmotivation, reduce shrinkage, and enhance retention of quality employees’.

It can be argued that HPW is the successor or an extension of the Total QualityManagement (TQM) movement, which was at its zenith in the 1980’s and 1990’s(Keeble-Allen and Armitage, 2006 and 2007) and HPW like TQM, focuses uponhigh performance practices and people centered work systems. It offers a route tosales and revenue growth through quality tools and techniques such as statisticalprocess control, problem solving teams for example quality circles, job design andemployee empowerment these being the popular mantras of the quality gurus,Juran, Crosby, Deming and Feigenbaum.

The essential features of HPW represent a move from the reliance of managementcontrols towards flatter, non-hierarchical structures, team working or autonomousworking based on high levels of trust, communication and involvement (Kettley,1995). Individuals who work within HPW environments are regarded as beinghighly valued, skilled and having the intellectual resources to engage in lifelonglearning to master new skills and behaviours (see for example Bach, 2005). Thus,the importance of the workforce towards achieving competitive advantage remainscritical and it is people’s actions that “make it happen” (Philpott, 2006). Therefore,rather than represent an alternative to other management strategies, for examplefinancial investment, “lean practices” or continuous improvement, HPW isconsidered as a catalyst and binding agent that underpins the employer-employeerelationship (Huselid, 1995; Philpott, 2006). As such, HPW can be perceived as achallenge to the traditional “command and control” attitudes of performancemanagement practices that pervade the public services (Lawton, 2007). Thesepractices hold a resonance with the works of Ramsay et al (2000), and Sparhamand Sung (2005) regarding High Performance Working Practices (HPWP’s) whoemphasize that HPW deals with principles rather than pre-defined recipes, leavingits implementation and use to the discretion of individual organisations (see alsoKeeble-Allen and Armitage, 2006 and 2007). Beardwell (2001:12) notes that‘competitive advantage is derived not from the formal organization and shaping ofwork per se; but the constituent workforce via both functional flexibility andcommitment to organizational business plans and goals’ (see Harmon et al, 2003).

3

As such, the essential characteristics of HPW include decentralisation, devolvementto inclusive decision-making by those closest to the customer, such as, processowners. This enables a constant renewal and improvement of service and productofferings to customers (CIPD, 2007). HPW also focuses on people centred issues,such as the development of education and training programmes at all levels of theorganisation, individual empowerment, autonomy and team working skills. Alsocentral to its philosophy is the use of problem solving tools and techniques such asprocess mapping and analysis, and project management skills in order to enhanceperformance improvement of the individual and organisational effectiveness (CIPD,2007) and as Butler et al (2004) claims, it is a long-term strategy more likely tosucceed than alternative approaches. HPW therefore emphasizes self-management,team capabilities, and project based activities to enable and support performanceimprovement (Ashton and Sung, 2003; 2004). The “hidden” and unseen “know how”of organisational life can often be overlooked by those operating in turbulentenvironments, yet the recognition of tacit knowledge remains of critical importancein attaining competitive advantage (Ashton and Sung, 2003 and 2004). Therefore,nurturing tacit knowledge within HPW environments is fundamental, yet oftenoverlooked by those who attempt to apply performance measures and outcomes thatare devoid of human meaning. This implies that HPW should not be considered ashort-term morale boosting and efficiency improvement programme; by contrast itacts to recognise the “bundles” of practices that might be adopted by organisationsto suit particular contexts and competitive environments (Ashton and Sung, 2003and 2004).

The HPW Inventory: Design and methodological development

OverviewHPW Inventory (see Appendix) was developed by combining extant literature andempirical data within the model building methodologies of Kaplan (1964), Argyris andSchon (1974) and Tichy and Hornstein (1980). Nadler’s (1980) six criteria evaluationframework (see Table 3) was used to ensure that evidence and data sources hadsound theoretical and empirical foundations in the design and development of theHPW Inventory. The inventory emanates from the C-A-P model of Keeble-Allen andArmitage (2007) which has its foundations within the extant literature that wasdeveloped using the structured literature review methodology of Denyer, Tranfieldand Smart (2005) and empirical data collected from 160 HRM professionals (Keeble-Allen and Armitage, 2006 and 2007). What follows is a description of the two-stageprocess adopted in the development of the C-A-P model and the realization of theHPW Inventory.

4

Criteria EvidenceExplicitness This is articulated within stated and described constructs,

variables and relationships drawn from best practicesources and case examples (see Ashton and Sung,2003).

Theory-Researchdriven

These are linked to the paradigms of High PerformanceWorking and existing theory (Ashton and Sung, 2003;Butler et al, 2004).

Operationally defined These are defined with respect to fully stated operationalcriteria, which are required to measure them in operation,and are a central feature to the establishment of facevalidity (see DTI/HM Treasury/ DfES/DWT, 2003).

Empirically validated The inventory has been developed from primary datacollection from HR professionals thus demonstrating that‘networked’ relationships do indeed represent what isobserved in actual settings and that this is ‘how it is’ inpractice (see Keeble-Allen and Armitage, 2006 and 2007).

Face validity This was tested with 160 HRM and 120 public sectormanagement professional in that it makes sense in thereal world of organizational settings i.e. it ‘tells it as it is’(Ashton and Sung J, 2003; Keeble-Allen and Armitage,2007).

Generalisability The generalisability of the inventory has been developedfrom wide range organisational settings and has beentested with respondents from both public and privatesector based SME’s and large organisations (Keeble-Allenand Armitage, 2005 and 2007). Thus whilst the externalvalidity can never be certain across all possible settings,care has been taken to allow the inventory to betransferable from one organisational context to another.

Table 3 Development of the HPW Inventory (adapted from Nadler, 1980)

Stage 1 Model BuildingExplicitness and the theory based development of the C-A-P model was met bycharting the evolution of the HPW landscape from the Tayloristic principles of workstudy and measurement, Total Quality Management and Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) (Trofino, 2000; Teschler, 2006). At the turn of the millennium,management development had seen both lean management and six-sigma projectsbeing adopted by organisations contributing to the growth of HPW principles and itsassociated literature (see Figure 1).

5

Figure 1 Evolution of HRM and People Development

A Structured Literature Review (SLR) methodology (see Tranfield, Denyer andSmart, 2003) was consequently undertaken in order to interrogate the literature inmore detail. This revealed a set of conceptual approaches emerging from the extantliterature, stemming from strands of post-Fordist practices and TQM that underpinthe conceptual foundation of HPW (Butler et al, 2004). Table 4 presents theoutcomes of a structured literature review undertaken from the period 1999 - 2006and shows the main contributors to the HPW debate (see also Butler et al (2004).Figure 2 shows emergent themes that has developed and emerged over this period.

Year Author Main themes1999 Ashton Government Learning1999 IPD Learning Traditional thinking flexibility2001 McNabb and

WhitfieldCompatibility Commitment performance

2002 Rana Change/Transformation Team-working Culture2002 Powell Individual Learning Government intervention2002 Boyne Employee development Performance Management2003 Harding Innovation Re-structuring Customisation2002 Audit Commission Performance Management2003 Ashton and Sung Productivity, Profitability and Best Practice2003 Temple Culture, Recruitment and Selection2003 EEF Management attitudes relating to employee

performance2004 Ashton and Sung Leadership and Achieving management objectives2004 CIPD&DTI Softer HPWP’s and Retention2004 Seager Investment and Modern Practice2004 Miller and

SkidmoreChange

2005 Harris Targets for Learning and Culture Change2005 Jorgensen Integration and Collaborative networks2006 Tuckwood Adding Value Combination2006 Moss Leadership2006 Jusko Training and Performance

Table 4 Findings of HPW Literature

HPWRe-engineeringTQM

Six Sigma(GE)

LeanManufacturing

Taylorism

6

Figure 2 Evolution of HPW literature showing linkage of themes

The literature map illustrates that the issues of leadership, culture, employeeperformance, investment in people, employee development and training, featureprominently amongst the characteristics and attributes associated with HPW. TheSLR also shows that HPW espouses an approach that focuses on increasingcustomer value by differentiating an organisation's services and moving towardscustomisation in order to meet their needs. As such, this might suggest that the pathtowards employee focused practices and the need to meet customer requirementsmore exactly, supports the ethos that underpins SDAs and embraces the need forperformance management. The emergent themes that resulted from the structuredliterature review were used to inform the empirical data collection stage.

The collaborative model building approach of Tichy and Hornstein (1980) was usedto meet the requirements of the operational definition and empirical validity, and todevelop the issues that respondents perceived as being central to HPW practices.Eight focus groups were used, comprising of 60 HRM professionals. Theirperceptions of what HPW meant for them and their organizations were recorded.

1

1999

2 3 4

Change/TransformationTeam-working

Culture

5Innovation/Re-structuring/Customisation

6

Learning/Government

7

Learning/Change/Culture

8

Employeedevelopment/Performancemanagement

9

10Productivity/Profitability/BestPractice

11

Culture

12EmployeePerformance

13 Leadership

14HPWP 15

Investment/Modernpractice

16Change

17Integration

18

AddingValue

19

Leadership

20

CompatibilityCommitmentperformance

Learning/Flexibility

Learning/Government

Training/Performance

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

7

Whilst such data is not generalisable to a wider population, it is rich and providesinsights into participant’s meanings, which a more constrained research instrumentmay have limited. The eight focus groups were conducted over a four-week period,thus ensuring that we addressed the issue of construct validity (Rose, 1982). Theparticipants were asked to respond to the following issues:

1. What was their perception (viewing) of HPW?2. (in their opinion) How would they define HPW?3. Having defined HPW, what were the five most important issues that underpin

its philosophy?4. Considering these issues in turn, how might these be implemented into

contemporary organisations?

The focus groups contained respondents of varying background from both theprivate and public sectors. To ensure a more ‘balanced’ set of views, in terms oflengths of experience within the organization, they included those with limited HRcareers as well as those with extensive experience. This facilitated a balancebetween those with deep experience of their organizations and those who couldmake surface observations of organizational attributes possibly missed by thosecloser to the organisation (Tichy and Hornstein, 1980; Anderson, 2004). The ages ofthe participants ranged from 23 to 60. Using the grounded data analysis approach ofEasterby-Smith et al (2004), Keeble-Allen and Armitage (2007) identified three majorclusters and fourteen criteria that emerge from the evidence. These were, CulturalCognisance; Action Through People; and Performance Outcomes (see Table 5).

Cluster CriteriaCultural CognisanceThis cluster contains five criteria andexamines top management’scommitment and role in building andmaintaining cultural cognisance.

Leadership Strategic alignment to the external

environment Market positioning and customer

orientation People centred practice People rewards

Action Through PeopleThis cluster contains six criteria andexamines top management’scommitment and role in building andmaintaining action through people.

Investment in people Flexible working and diversity Strategy and tasks The thinking performer Loyalty and inclusiveness Self-motivation

Performance OutcomesThis cluster contains three criteria andexamines top management’scommitment and role in building andmaintaining action through people.

Measurable outputs and targetsetting

Added value activities andinnovation of processes

Quality assurance

Table 5 Criteria of the C-A-P Model

8

Stage 2 ValidationThe C-A-P model was translated into the HPW Inventory so that the fourteen criteriacould be validated as a means to evaluate the performance status of an organisationand was informed by the Regan’s (1992) Total Quality Management Inventory. Thevalidation of the HPW Inventory was in two phases in order to confirm thegeneralisability of the inventory. Respondents were asked to select a response tofive constructs associated with each criterion (see Appendix) and enter them onto ascoring sheet in order to evaluate the HPW status of their organisation (seeAppendices 2 and 3). In the first phase the face and content validity (see Nadler,1980:126; Lawler et al, 1980:323; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998:83) was confirmedby 120 management professionals from the public and private sector (Keeble-Allenand Armitage, 2007). It indicated that the three clusters and fourteen criteria meetthe requirements of both face and content validity. A second phase of validationfurther tested its face and content validity and it was distributed to 100 HRMprofessionals. The findings from phase two of the validation process confirmed theinventories face and content validity.

ConclusionsThis paper presents that High Performance Working (HPW) is not just a short-termmorale boosting and efficiency improvement programme. HPW remains a means bywhich an organisation can adopt ‘bundles’ of practices that suits its particular contextand competitive environment (Ashton and Sung, 2004). HPW, as a set of conceptualapproaches, stems from strands of post-Fordist practices. These can be groupedinto those referring to production management, those dealing with employeerelations and those stemming from human resource management advocacy (Butleret al, 2004). They can be viewed as a means of retaining and developingorganizational competencies and employee engagement (Swart and Kinnie, 2004). Itfurther remains a theme that both the government (DTI, 2003) and professionalbodies (e.g. CIPD, 2007) are investing time in promoting HPW as providingcompetitive advantage both for the nation and businesses within the UK.

The findings of our empirical study, regarding the perceptions of HPW practices,indicate similarities with the extant literature (see for example, Ashton and Greene,1996; Ashton and Sung, 2003 and 2004; Huselid, 1996), which we have captured inour C-A-P Model. The design, development and administration of HPW Inventoryindicate that it may be used with large and small public sector organisations.Therefore, based upon the evidence to date the inventory has accomplished thefollowing five major objectives:

1. To offer the respondents the opportunity to identify and to define fourteencriteria of HPW

2. To differentiate the importance of each criteria in terms of organisationaleffectiveness

3. To provide a framework for management in the public sector to assess theirorganisation’s current emphasis on each of the fourteen criteria

4. To initiate discussions about the adequacy of the organisation’s level ofactivity for each of the fourteen criteria

5. To stimulate planning designed to increase the organisation’s level of HPWinvolvement

9

Naturally, as for all models and inventories, we are fully aware that any empiricalfindings we present here can only be accepted as a temporary ‘view of reality’. Asmore data accumulates, the inventory model is open to amendments and may needto be modified as organisational landscapes, perspectives and underlying theories,which reflect organisational life, change. However, we hope that we have presenteda pragmatic and practical method for assessing HPW through the practices oforganisations by way of our inventory setting down some basic tenets for others tobuild upon in their future research, consultancy and management practices.

References

Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1974) Theory in practice, San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Ashton, D. and Green, F. (1996) Education, Training and the Global Economy,Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Ashton, D. and Sung, J. (2003) ‘Maximising employee potential and businessPerformance, Dec, CIPD/EEF.

Ashton, D. and Sung, J. (2004) High-Performance Work Practices: linking strategyand skills to Performance Outcomes, DTI in association with CIPD.

Bach, S. (2005) ‘Managing Human Resource’, Fourth Edition, Oxford, BlackwellPublishing.

Besterfield, D. (2003) Total Quality Management, Third Edition, New Jersey.

Brignall, S and Modell, S. (2000) An institutional perspective on performancemeasurement and management in the “new public sector”, Management AccountingResearch, Vol. 11, pp281-306.

Broadhead, R. and Rist, R. (1976) Gatekeepers and the social control of socialresearch, Social Problems, Vol. 23, pp325-326.

Butler, P., Felstead, A., Ashton, D., Fuller, A., Lee, T., Unwin, L. and Walters, S.(2004) High Performance Management: A Literature Review, Learning as Work:Teaching and Learning Processes in the Contemporary Work Organisation,Research Paper No 1, CLMS, University of Leicester.

Cobbold, I., Lawrie, G., and Issa, K. (2004) Designing a strategic managementsystem using the third generation balanced scorecard, International Journal ofProductivity and Performance Management, Vol. 53, No 7, pp.624-633.

Dowdy, J. (2007) Targeting Improved Performance: Creating and effectivemanagement system in the Defence Logistics Organisation of the Ministry ofDefence, Public Services Productivity Panel

DTI/HM Treasury/ DfES/DWT (2003) ‘21st century skills-realising our potential-individuals, employers, nations’, The Stationery Office, London

10

Fairhurst, E. (1983) “Organizational Rules and the Accomplishment of Nursing Workon Geriatric Wards”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 20, No 3, pp315-332.

Feigenbaum, A.V. (1991) Total Quality Management, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Franco-Santos M and Bourne M. (2005) “An examination of the literature relating toissues affecting how companies manage through measures”, Production Planningand Control, vol. 16, No 2, pp. 114-124.

Gershon Report (2004) Releasing resources to the front line: An independent reviewof public sector efficiency, HMSO

Greatbanks, R. and Tapp, D. (2007) “The impact of balanced scorecards in a publicsector environment: Empirical evidence from Dunedin City Council, New Zealand”International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 27, No 8, pp846-873.

Harmon, J., Scotti, D. and Behson, S. (2005) Effects of High-Involvement WorkSystems on Employee Satisfaction and Service Costs in Veteran Healthcare, Journalof Health Management, 48:16, pp.393-418.

Harris, L (2006a) ‘UK public sector reform and the ‘performance agenda’ in UK localgovernment’ Personnel Review, vol.34, No.6, p.681-696.

Harris, L, (2006b) The changing nature of the HR function in UK local Government -new challenges and dilemmas, CIPD Professional Standards Conference, Universityof Keele.

Huselid, M.A. (1995) The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices onTurnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance. Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol.38, (2), pp.635-672.

Johnston, R., Brignall, S. and Fitzgerald, L. ‘Good enough’ performancemeasurement: a trade-off between activity and action.” Journal of the OperationalResearch Society, Vol. 53, pp. 256-262.

Kaplan, A. (1964) The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science, SanFrancisco: Chandler.

Keeble-Allen D and Armitage A (2006) Total Quality Management meets HumanResource Management: Perceptions of the shift towards High Performance Working,CIPD Professional Standards Conference, Keele University.

Keeble-Allen, D. and Armitage, A, (2007) Using the Past to Improve our Future: CanHigh Performance Working learn from TQM? CIPD Professional StandardsConference, Keele University.

Kettley, P. (1995) ‘Is Flatter Better? De-layering the Management Hierarchy’, IESReport 290, 1995.

Lawler, E.E., Nadler, D.A. and Cammann, C. (1980) Organizational AssessmentMethods, in Organisational assessment, perspectives on the measurement oforganizational behaviour and the quality of life, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

11

Lawrie, G. and Cobbold, I. (2004) “Third generation balanced scorecard: evolution ofan effective strategic control tool”, International Journal of Productivity andPerformance Management, vol. 53, No 7, pp611-623.

Lawton, A., McKevitt, D., Millar, M. (2000) “Coping with ambiguity: reconcilingexternal legitimacy and organisational implementation in performancemeasurement”, Public Money and Management, July-September, pp13-19.

Lloyd, C. and Payne, J. (2004) The Only Show in Town (if a pretty pathetic one atthat)….Re Evaluating the High Performance Workplace as a vehicle for the UK. HighSkills Project. Paper presented at the International Labour Process Conference,Amsterdam.

MacDuffie, J. (1995) Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance,Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 48:2, pp.197-221.

Martinez, V., Kennerley, M. and Neely, A. (2004) Impact of performancemeasurement and management systems: a methodological approach. BritishAcademy of Management Conference, St Andrews, 30 Aug - 1 Sep 2004.

Morgan, G. (1997) Images of Organisations, California, Sage

Nadler, D.A. (1980) Role of models in organisational assessment. In: Lawler. E.E.Nadler, D.A. and Canmann, C. (1980) Organisational assessment, perspectives onthe measurement of organizational behaviour and the quality of life. New York: JohnWiley and Sons.

Norman, R. (2002) Managing through measurement or meaning? Lessons fromexperience with New Zealand’s public sector performance management systems”,International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 68, No 4, pp 619-628.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Local e-GovernmentPartnerships, HMSO

Powell, A. (2002) Improving workforce development Industrial and CommercialTraining, vol.34, No.5 p176-181. Prentice Hall

Rana, E. (2002) Flying Information.; People Management 11/7/2002,Vol.8 Issue 22,p30

Reagan, G. (1992) Total Quality Management (TQM) Inventory. In: Pfeiffer, J.W.(1992) The 1992 Annual: Developing Human Resources. San Diego, California,Pfeiffer and Company.

Rose, G. (1982) Deciphering Social Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H., and Marshall, M. (2002) Healthcare Performanceand Organisational Culture, Radcliffe, Oxford.

Simons, R. (1995) Levers of Control: How Managers Use Innovative ControlSystems to Drive Strategic Renewal, Boston, Harvard Business School Press.

Swart, J., & Kinnie, N. (2004) Managing the Careers of Professional KnowledgeWorkers. London: CIPD.

12

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (1998) Mixed Methodology. London: Sage.

Teschler, L (2006) TQM comes down to earth, Machine Design 8 Sep 2006Today 7/1/2003, p21.

Tichy, N.M. and Hornstein, H.A. (1980) Collaborative Model Building. In: Lawler.E.E., Nadler, D.A. and Canmann, C. (1980) Organisational assessment,perspectives on the measurement of organizational behaviour and the quality of life.New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart. P. (2003) Towards a Methodology forDeveloping Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of SystematicReview. British Journal of Management, vol.14, pp.207-222.

Trofino, J.(2000)Transformational leadership: moving total quality management toworld-class organisations, International Nursing Review, Dec1 Vol.47, Issue 4

Wisniewski, M. and Olafsson, S. (2004) “Developing balanced scorecards in localauthorities: a comparison of experience.” International Journal of Productivity andPerformance Management, vol. 53, No 7, pp 602-610.

Wisniewski, M. and Stewart, D. (2004) “Performance measurement for stakeholders:the case of Scottish local authorities”, International Journal of Public SectorManagement, vol. 17, No 3, pp 222-233.

13

Appendix

The High Performance Working (HPW) Inventory

Administration of the inventoryThe following suggestions for administrating the inventory are based upon thevalidity testing of the instrument and are offered as a helpful guide to the facilitatorwho administers the instrument:

1. Before respondents complete the inventory, discuss briefly the concept ofHPW. It is important that respondents understand that HPW is not anotherfaddish, short term, productivity-improvement ‘program’. Instead, HPW is astrategic culture- based commitment in meeting customer requirements and toa continually improving of products and services. The foundations on whichthe commitment is built can be found in the three clusters forming the core ofthe instrument and the fourteen criteria that these contain.

2. The purpose of this step is to clarify the meanings of the three clusters andfourteen criteria, not to encourage respondents to initiate a prematurediscussion of their organisations’ placements on the ranking scales.Distribute copies of the High Performance Working (HPW) Inventory TheorySheet Review the descriptions of the clusters and fourteen criteria to ensurethat respondents understand their focus. Explanatory remarks should besimple and to the point.

3. Distribute copies of the instrument and read the instructions aloud as therespondents follow.

4. Instruct the respondents to read each of the six statements listed under eachelement. Respondents choose the statement that best describes how theyperceive the present situation in their organisation. Choices range fromexceptionally strong performance to total absence of performance for eachelement.

5. Request that the respondents wait to score the instrument until everyone hascompleted it.

Scoring sheetEach respondent should be given a copy of the High Performance Working (HPW)Inventory Scoring Sheet. The left column of the scoring sheet lists the fourteencriteria that underpin high performance working. The right column of the scoringsheet has point values for each of the possible six responses to each element.Respondents simply transfer their answers from the High Performance Working(HPW) Inventory to the appropriate rows and columns on the scoring sheet. Afterresponses have been circled for all fourteen criteria, each respondent totals thecircled point values to obtain an overall score for the inventory.

14

Cluster 1: Cultural Cognisance

Leadership

A. All top management are directly and actively involved in open leadership,teamwork and decision making that is shared and communicated through theorganisation

B. All top management participate in open leadership, team work and decisionmaking that is shared and communicated through the organisation

C. Some top management are directly and actively involved in open leadership,teamwork and decision making that is shared and communicated through theorganization

D. Some top management participate in open leadership, teamwork anddecision- making that is shared and communicated through the organisation

E. No top management are directly and actively involved in open leadership,teamwork and decision making that is shared and communicated through theorganization

F. No top management participate in open leadership, teamwork and decisionmaking that is shared and communicated through the organisation

Strategic Alignment and the External Environment

A. All top management are actively and directly involved in the strategicalignment of operations and tactics and responses to the externalenvironment.

B. All top management participate in the strategic alignment of operations andtactics and responses to the external environment

C. Some top management are directly and actively involved in the strategicalignment of operations and tactics and responses to the externalenvironment

D. Some top management participate in the strategic alignment of operationsand tactics and responses to the external environment

E. No top management are directly and actively involved in the strategicalignment of operations and tactics

F. No top management participate in the strategic alignment of operations andtactics and responses to the external environment

15

Market Positioning and Customer Orientation

A. All top management are directly and actively involved in clear marketpositioning and customer orientation

B. All top management participate in clear market positioning and customerorientation

C. Some top management are directly and actively involved in clear marketpositioning and customer orientation

D. Some top management participate in clear market positioning and customerorientation

E. No top management are directly and actively involved in clear marketpositioning and customer orientation

F. No top management participate in clear market positioning and customerorientation

People Centred Practice and Culture

A. All top management are directly and actively involved in an open, creative,people centred culture

B. All top management participate in an open, creative, people centred culture

C. Some top management are directly and actively involved in an open, creative,people centred culture

D. Some top management participate in an open, creative, people centredculture

E. No top management are directly and actively involved in an open, creative,people centred culture

F. No top management participate in an open, creative, people centred culture

16

People and Rewards

A. All top management are directly and actively involved in people rewardsystems

B. All top management participate in people reward systems

C. Some top management are directly and actively in people reward systems

D. Some top management participate in people reward systems

E. No top management are directly and actively in people reward systems

F. No top management participate in people reward systems

17

Cluster 2: Action Through People

Investment in People

A. All top management are directly and actively involved in the investment inpeople such as education and training

B. All top management participate in the investment in people such as educationand training

C. Some top management are directly and actively involved in the investment inpeople such as education and training

D. Some top management participate in the investment in people such aseducation and training

E. No top management are directly and actively involved in the investment inpeople such as education and training

F. No top management participate in the investment in people such as educationand training

Flexible Working and Diversity

A. All top management are directly and actively involved in flexible working anddiversity

B. All top management participate in flexible working and diversity

C. Some top management are directly and actively involved in flexible workingand diversity

D. Some top management participate in flexible working and diversity

E. No top management are directly and actively involved in flexible working anddiversity

F. No top management participate in flexible working and diversity

18

Strategy and Tasks

A. All top management are directly and actively involved in the transparentalignment of tasks and functional roles to strategic requirements of theorganisation

B. All top management participate in the transparent alignment of tasks andfunctional roles to strategic requirements of the organization

C. Some top management are directly and actively involved in the transparentalignment of tasks and functional roles to strategic requirements of theorganisation

D. Some top management participate in the transparent alignment of tasks andfunctional roles to strategic requirements of the organisation

E. No top management are directly and actively involved in the transparentalignment of tasks and functional roles to strategic requirements of theorganisation

F. No top management participate in the transparent alignment of tasks andfunctional roles to strategic requirements of the organisation

The thinking performer

A. All top management directly and actively encourage the empowerment ofemployees such as the ‘thinking performer’

B. All top management participate in the encouragement of empowerment ofemployees such as the ‘thinking performer’

C. Some top management directly and actively encourage the empowerment ofemployees such as the ‘thinking performer’

D. Some top management participate in the encouragement of empowerment ofemployees such as the ‘thinking performer’

E. No top management are directly and actively involved in the encouragementof the empowerment of employees such as the ‘thinking performer’

F. No top management participate in the encouragement and empowermentsuch as the ‘thinking performer’

19

Loyalty and Inclusiveness

A. All top management are directly and actively involved in the encouragementof loyalty and inclusiveness

B. All top management participate in the encouragement of loyalty andinclusiveness

C. Some top management are directly and actively involved in theencouragement of loyalty and inclusiveness

D. Some top management participate in the encouragement of loyalty andinclusiveness

E. No top management are directly and actively involved the encouragement ofloyalty and inclusiveness

F. No top management participate in the encouragement of loyalty andinclusiveness

Self-motivation

A. All top management are directly and actively involved in the self-motivation ofemployees

B. All top management participate in the self-motivation of employees

C. Some top management are directly and actively involved in the self-motivationof employees

D. Some top management participate in the self-motivation of employees

E. No top management are directly and actively involved in the self-motivation ofemployees

F. No top management participate in the self-motivation of employees

20

Cluster 3: Performance Outcomes

Measurable Outputs and Target Setting

A. All top management are directly and actively involved in measurableoutcomes such as benchmarking and setting targets

B. All top management participate in measurable outcomes such asbenchmarking and setting targets

C. Some top management are directly and actively involved in measurableoutcomes such as benchmarking and setting targets

D. Some top management participate in measurable outcomes such asbenchmarking and setting targets

E. No top management are directly and actively involved in measurableoutcomes such as benchmarking and setting targets

F. No top management participate in measurable outcomes such asbenchmarking and setting targets

Value Added Activities and Innovation of Processes

A. All top management are directly and actively involved in value added activitiessuch as business re-engineering, cost benefits and innovation of processes

B. All top management participate in value added activities such as business re-engineering, cost benefits and innovation of processes

C. Some top management are directly and actively involved value addedactivities such as business re-engineering, cost benefits and innovation ofprocesses

D. Some top management participate in value added activities such as businessre-engineering, cost benefits and innovation of processes and innovation ofprocesses

E. No top management are directly and actively involved value added activitiessuch as business re-engineering, cost benefits and innovation of processes

F. No top management participate in value added activities such as business re-engineering, cost benefits and innovation of processes

21

Quality assurance and customer responsive and service

A. All top management are directly and actively involved in quality assurance,customer responsiveness and service

B. All top management participate in quality assurance, customerresponsiveness and service delivery

C. Some top management are directly and actively involved in quality assurance,customer responsiveness and service delivery

D. Some top management participate in quality assurance, customerresponsiveness and service delivery

E. No top management are directly and actively involved in quality assurance,customer responsiveness and service delivery

F. No top management participate in quality assurance, customerresponsiveness and service delivery

22

Scoring sheet

To determine the scores on the inventory follow the steps below:

1. For each of the clusters listed on the High Performance Inventory in the leftcolumn, find the letter under the heading labelled Response categories thatcorresponds to the one you choose on the questionnaire.

2. Then circle the number that corresponds to the number you choose.

3. Add up the total of each column and add to the score sheet to determine thescore for each cluster and the overall score across all the fourteen criteria.

23

High Performance Working Clusters Response categories

A B C D E FCriteria Cluster 1: Cultural Cognisance

1 Leadership 20 16 12 8 4 0

2 Strategic alignment and theexternal environment

20 16 12 8 4 0

3 Market positioning and customerorientation

20 16 12 8 4 0

4 People Centred Practice andculture

20 16 12 8 4 0

5 People and rewards 20 16 12 8 4 0

Cluster 1: Response scores ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Cluster 1: Total response score _____

Cluster 2: Action Through People

6 Investment in people 20 16 12 8 4 0

7 Flexible working and diversity 20 16 12 8 4 0

8 Strategy and tasks 20 16 12 8 4 0

9 The thinking performer 20 16 12 8 4 0

10 Loyalty and inclusiveness 20 16 12 8 4 0

11 Self-motivation 20 16 12 8 4 0

Cluster 2: Response scores ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Cluster 2: Total response score _____

24

Cluster 3: Performance Outcomes

12 Measurable Outputs and targetsetting

20 16 12 8 4 0

13 Added value activities andinnovation of processes

20 16 12 8 4 0

14 Quality assurance and customerresponsive and service

20 16 12 8 4 0

Cluster 3: Response scores ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Cluster 3: Total response score _____

Total response scores

Cluster 1___

Cluster 2___

Cluster 3___

Total overall response score ____

25

High Performance Working Inventory Interpretation Sheet

Total overall response score range 0-56 A score in their range indicates that anorganisation has no awareness of High Performance Working practices and has noinvolvement in the well being of its employees, its working practices, leadershipstyle, quality assurance and innovation processes. An organisation of this typeshould focus initially on small project lead initiatives that can yield short term andvisible results as a means to ‘buy-in’ the workforce and gain management supportand confidence.

Total overall response score range 57-112 A score in this range indicates that anorganisation needs to attain more awareness of what High Performance Workingmeans and how it can be applied to their current practices. An organisation in thisrange needs to address urgently their focus on people issues, working practices andleadership approaches if it is to compete in the current competitive environment.

Total overall response score range 113-168 A score in this range indicates that anorganisation has certain criteria in place and the foundations to become a HighPerforming organisation. It should focus its future attention on the weaker parts of itsprocesses, working environment and leadership approaches to move to the nextlevel of performance.

Total overall response score range 169-224 A score in this range indicates anorganisation that has a sound and well-organised approach to the management of itspeople, processes, working environment and leadership style.

Total overall response score range 225-280 A score in this range indicates anorganisation that has high commitment and long vision to its people, processes,working environment and leadership approach. An organisation in this category isbest in class.