Comments on: Performance Management Defined (PM Series)

By: David Axson

David Axson — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:59:30 +0000

We love definitions and we also love making them far too complicated. To me performance management today should be simply defined as “anything an organization does to promote fast, confident decision-making.” Ultimately performance is about two things – deciding what to do and doing it – everything else is peripheral.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:05:44 +0000

Performance Management is a popular term but that doesn’t means it’s a mature discipline and there certainly is widespread confusion on what it really means. Most people still use the term “performance management” to mean workforce or human capital management, and the disciplines of financial, operational, and IT performance are related, but largely independent.

Three years after the post you point to, I’m not sure the market has evolved as much as I would have guessed. This is disappointing but maybe not terribly surprising. After all, many organizations still don’t have tightly linked CRM strategies for sales, service, and marketing and that market is arguably a decade more mature than performance management.

I’ve added some thoughts over on my blog (http://alignment.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/pm-defined-and-debated/).

By: Performance Management Defined (and Debated) « Manage By Walking Around

Performance Management Defined (and Debated) « Manage By Walking Around — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:01:55 +0000

[...] Management Defined (and Debated) Throwing down the blogging gauntlet, Michael asks a simple – but provocative – question: How would […] you define Performance Management and [...]