• 139 •
Anduli
Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales
ISSN: 1696-0270 • e-ISSN: 2340-4973
MAPPING ORGANIZATIONAL DETERMINANTS OF
WORK PERFORMANCE
MAPEO DE LOS DETERMINANTES ORGANIZATIVOS
DEL RENDIMIENTO LABORAL
Eduardo Infante-Rejano
einfante@us.es
Universidad de Sevilla
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1914-1084
Abstract
The purpose of the present research was to
identify and assess key organizational fac-
tors affecting work performance via Gilbert´s
Behavioral Engineering Model (BEM). The-
refore, a self-made scale considering BEM´s
dimensions was developed and tested. Data
were gathered from the 1st of April to end of
May 2023, using a randomly stratied sample
of 297 Mexican companies of Sonora State.
The nal questionnaire named ADOPT-
proved adequate psychometric properties to
assess eight organizational factors of human
performance proposed. ADOPT liability and
validity are shown in the light of commented
literature and data on present organizational
effectiveness and corporate longevity. Main
results indicate a global alpha scale liability
of .92 being Task Support, knowledge/Com-
petences, and Context most valued predic-
tors of organizational effectiveness, followed
by Aims/Objectives and Feedback factors. It
was also conrmed that both contextual (en-
vironmental level) and behaviour (individual
level) type of supports are equally important
in predicting work performance. Evidence
indicates that organizational performance
management in SMEs is highly achieved
on a long-term basis by attending these key
factors in a specic loop, i.e. contextualising,
system maintenance (feedback), and em-
powering. This sequence support personnel
assessments as essential for empowering
decision-making processes.
Keywords: Gilbert´s BEM, work performan-
ce, EFA, organizational effectiveness, cor-
porate longevity.
Resumen
El propósito de la presente investigación fue
identicar y evaluar factores organizacionales
clave que afectan el desempeño laboral a través
del Modelo de Ingeniería del Comportamiento
(BEM) de Gilbert. Para ello, se diseñó una es-
cala de elaboración propia considerando las di-
mensiones presentes en dicho modelo para su
evaluación. Los datos se recogieron desde el 1
de abril hasta nales de mayo de 2023 a través
de una muestra estraticada aleatoriamente de
297 empresas mexicanas del Estado de Sono-
ra. El cuestionario nal, denominado ADOPT,
demostró propiedades psicométricas adecua-
das para evaluar los ocho factores organiza-
cionales del desempeño humano propuestos.
La abilidad y validez de ADOPT se demuestra
considerando su relación con el rendimiento
organizacional y la longevidad corporativa. Los
resultados principales indican una abilidad glo-
bal de .92 (alpha), siendo Apoyo a las Tareas,
Conocimiento/Competencias y Contexto los
predictores más valorados de la ecacia orga-
nizacional, seguidos de la denición de Metas/
Objetivos y la Realimentación (feedback). Se
conrmó que tanto el tipo de apoyo contextual
(nivel ambiental) como el conductual (nivel in-
dividual) son igualmente importantes para pre-
decir el desempeño laboral. La evidencia indica
que la gestión del desempeño organizacional
en las PYMES se logra a largo plazo si se atien-
den estos factores claves en el orden exacto de
(1) contextualización, (2) mantenimiento del sis-
tema (retroalimentación) y (3), empoderamien-
to. Esta secuencia respalda la importancia del
uso de las evaluaciones del personal previo a
su empoderamiento.
Palabras claves: Modelo de ingeniería del
comportamiento (BEM), desempeño laboral,
AFE, efectividad organizacional, longevidad
empresarial.
Como citar este artículo/ citation: Infante-Rejano, Eduardo (2024). Mapeo de los determinantes organizativos del
rendimiento laboral. ANDULI, Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales, (25), 139-163.
https://doi.org/ 10.12795/anduli.2024.i25.06
Recibido: 13.06.2023 Revisado; 18,09.2023. Aceptado: 15.12.2023.. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.12795/anduli.2024.i25.06
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 140 •
1. INTRODUCTION
The most stressing concern of contemporary managers relates to the development,
consolidation, or at least maintenance of their businesses. One way to guarantee
a business development is through the correct and efcient use of organizational
resources to achieve its goals (Brethower et al., 2021). Organizational performance
management is the process of making sure that a company uses resources properly
in the pursuit of its goals. Companies rely on various resources that allow the achieve-
ment of positive or negative outcomes, being workforce a key element in the process
(Pinto, 2010; Brethower et al., 2021; Wallace & Addison, 2023). Studies on organiza-
tional performance management are essential in HR management as they serve as
the basis on how to excel in human motivation and satisfaction. As stated by Quin-
tero, Africano and Faría (2008), organizational performance inuences factors such
as climate that impact nal human work outcomes, i.e., individual work or team perfor-
mance. Despite the fast environmental changes of contemporary organizations, the
existence of a well-designed organizational performance management is an asset to
their maintenance and progress. As indicated by Chrisman et al. (2018), governance
of both goals and resources are key determinants in SME identity and heterogeneity.
With the activation of organizational performance policies, an organization can map
and trace the effects of its workplace relationships onto organizational performance.
Organizational performance management can be dened from two different but com-
plementary points of view: effectiveness and efciency (Malacara-Castillo, Sandoval
& Becerra, 2013). While the effectiveness denition understands organizational per-
formance management as the level of achievement of planned objectives in each
hierarchical level (mapping), the efciency point of view underlines the relationship
between organizational achievements and proper use of resources (tracing). While
the mapping stage underlines where to go at the start, the tracing stage monitors the
best route to take, all of which are embedded in continuous loops of management
revisions and adjustments. A role or a mission accomplished is a nal performance
(state) that depends upon the act of performing (process) in a ‘map’ that is common-
ly dened or guided by customers (Brethower, 2007; Muchinsky, 2007; Bernárdez,
2009; Chen & Lin, 2018; Rosellini & Bank, 2021). In this sense, Brethower under-
stands organizational performance management as a pending gap between timely
set achievements (ideal context) and what is actually being done (real context) at
any level. So as to be efcient, organizations should manage their workows and la-
bour contexts to guarantee excelling efforts and outcomes by means of positive staff
job motivation and satisfaction. However, organizational performance is a complex,
multidimensional term in which internal and external organizational factors intertwine
under the company’s environment (Cruz, Rojas & Rivero-Villar, 2012).
The organizational performance policy design of a company must provide a work-
ing environment free of low productivity, labour absenteeism, lack of training, among
others, all which impact on organizational commitment and performance (Pershing,
2006; Rothwell, Hohne & King, 2007; Irlbeck, 2008). In this line, the human perfor-
mance technology (HPT) is an area to research procedures to assess organizational
needs and to develop tools to help employees to increase their productivity (Woodley,
2005; Pershing, 2006). HPT feeds managerial duties in adopting highly designed
organizations that best suit individual and group needs for better performance under
the consideration of contextual constraints of workloads and workows (Irlbeck, 2008;
Kang, 2012).
Artículos • Eduardo Infante Rejano
• 141 •
In line with the HPT, many organizational models of organizational performance have
been proposed since the 1950s that have progressively increased their number of
variables (Day, 1997; Pershing, 2006; Irlbeck, 2008). Models of organizational im-
provements are highly complex as they involve interdisciplinary theoretical and prac-
tical approaches such as systemic theory, experimental psychology or theories of
management and organizations (Bernárdez, 2006; Brethower et al., 2021; Fu et al.,
2023). Thus, evidence seems to indicate no single approach nor factor to be better
than the next one. For instance, in the apex of programed instruction - a research-
based system that helps learners work successfully- Gilbert and Harless showed
cases in which a carefully designed set of instructions did not improve work/organiza-
tional performances (see Pershing, 2006). They ended up stating that training is just
one of the vital factors predicting human performance.
Literature revision points out a host of human factors inuencing performance, such
as abilities, skills, needs, knowledge, perception, etc. that interact with work and the
nature of the job to yield performance outcomes (Queipo & Useche, 2002). According
to Gilbert (1978), all performance factors are equally important and must be present
for performance to occur. In general, most of them coincide in using predictable vari-
ables of organizational performance early dened by him in the Behavior Engineering
Model (BEM).
1.1. Literature revision
Thomas Gilbert - known as `the father of performance technology’- initially identi-
ed key elements in six areas that increase organizational performance taking into
account variables of both the work environment and the employee (Gilbert, 1978,
2007). The work environment is required to inform about specic data, resources,
and incentives, while knowledge, individual capacities, and motives are considered in
the case of employees (see Figure 1). Gilbert developed the BEM tool with the belief
that the greatest barrier to the so-called worthy performance - characterized by a
person’s exemplary behavior and accomplishments- comes from a lack of information
and support by management rather than an individual’s lack of desire to perform well
(Gilbert, 1978, 2007).
By stressing external factors of individual performance that depend upon the organi-
zational system, the BEM model can be used as an aprioristic tool to better design
organizations for the improvement of work performance. External factors may exert
a crucial positive impact on both individuals and workteams because they assure the
adequate feedback bases to coherently adjust their efforts and thus obtaining higher
awards aligned with higher accurate performance (Crossman, 2010; Colquitt et al.,
2012).
Many models on organizational performance have supported and/or expanded these
factors. For instance, Roger Chevalier updated Gilbert’s model noticing that envi-
ronmental factors are the starting point for analysis because they pose the greatest
barriers to exemplary organizational performance (Chevalier, 2003). Although some-
how implicit in BEM model, Chevalier proposed to include enough time for the action
or decision to be made, safe work conditions, opportunity to succeed and develop
careers (i.e., positive environment), proper place to use and share knowledge, and
relevant recruitment techniques. Thus, we can improve performance by addressing
the information present in the work environment by communicating clear expecta-
tions, providing the necessary guides to do the work, and giving timely, behaviorally
specic feedback.
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 142 •
Figure 1. Theoretical approach in Gilbert BEM (Gilbert, 1978).
Type of support Information Instrumentation Motivation
Environmental
support Data Resources Incentives
Person’s repertory of
behavior Knowledge Capacity Motives
Source: Adapted from Gilbert (1978)
In a replicated survey made by Bernárdez in 2003, participants were asked to es-
timate the predictive value of seven different performance factors in a percentage
scale. The classication resulted in clear standards (27%), feedback (25.3%), task
support (12.1%), incentives (11.3%), knowledge and competences (10.5%), individual
abilities (7.5%), and context (6.3%) (Bernárdez, 2005). The same results were found
in a national US military study in 2003, with clear standards and feedback (35%) as
primary factors explaining performance errors followed by tools and resources (30%),
and skills and knowledge (12%) (see Piersol & Paris, 2007).
In 2006, Mager and Pipe’s ow chart model was thought to avoid cost effectiveness
in solving organizational performance problems and including seven decision-making
steps concerning resources, skills, data, tools, feedback, and behavior contingencies
(rewards and punishments) (Mager & Pipe, 2006). Following Gilbert’s model, a quali-
tative and longitudinal study was conducted with 30 companies to validate certain
steps in the development of organizational performance: (1) performance analysis,
(2) performance causes, (3) selection, design and development of an organizational
intervention program, (4) intervention, accomplishment, and change, and (5) nal
evaluation (Kang, 2012). The study stated that performance causes (second step)
were mainly covered by most companies (20 cases) using data, information, and
feedback, while knowledge and skills were used in 13 cases and consequences,
incentives and rewards in only 8 cases. It seems that environmental support factors
appear to be more relevant than person´s repertory of behavior factors in assuring
outstanding organizational performances. On average, environmental predictive fac-
tors of organizational performance outlined in literature nearly triple those referring to
the individual´s predictive factors (3 versus 1.3) and are considered in 46.4% of cases
compare to 21.1% (Table 1).
Table 1. Percentage weights of organizational performance predictive factors
(in brackets, number of predictive factors)
Bernárdez,
2005
Piersol &
Paris, 2007 Kang, 2012 Average
Environmental supports 13.9 (5) 32.5 (2) 93 (2) 46.4 (3)
Person´s repertory of
behavior 8.7 (2)
12 (1) 43 (1) 21.2 (1.3)
Source: own elaboration
Many other recent papers have also studied BEM dimensions on different organiza-
tional outcomes such as communication (Crossman, 2010), barriers to technology
(King, 2013), turnover (Shaheen, 2016), employee retention (Silva et al. 2019), and
business performance and innovation (Farida & Setiawan, 2022), but few of them
have provided precise weights on each of the six dimensions nor distinguished be-
tween the two types of support.
Artículos • Eduardo Infante Rejano
• 143 •
1.2. Gilbert BEM revisited
Gilbert´s BEM and related literature was revisited in an attempt to include contem-
porary and agreed predictive factors in a new instrument (Figure 2). Considering the
theoretical structure of the BEM, we understand the denition and design of an organ-
izational performance management in three separate but linked longitudinal steps.
The rst two steps are inside the so-called mapping loop that oversees settling bases
of the performance strategic program of the company and includes contextualizing
(step 1) and empowering the staff (step 2). The tracing loop includes step 3 refer-
ring to the maintenance of the system and would also affect previous step 2 when
the performance program is activated and constantly revised. Although this division
is quite theoretical, the mapping loop must be perceived as a business-related and
rather stable process in comparison with the tracing loop, which is highly dynamic and
unpredictable.
Figure 2. Theoretical process of organizational performance management
Type of support
Step1
Contextualising
organizational
performance
Step 2
Empowering
participants
Step 3
System
maintenance
Organizational
performance
outcomes
(examples)
Environmental
level
-Context
-Aims and
objectives
-Task support
-Work processes -Sanctions
-Incentives -Corporate
longevity
-Overall
performance
Individual level -Knowledge/
Competences -Feedback
Source: Adapted from Gilbert BEM framework
The scientic literature screening on organizational performance management and
models of organizational performance factors that predict and assess organizational
performance outcomes have frequently given greater support to the environmental
level rather the individual one (Bernárdez, 2005; Mager & Pipe, 2006; Brethower,
2007; Piersol & Paris, 2007; Del Castillo & Vargas, 2009; Crossman, 2010; Kang,
2012; Chrisman et al., 2013, 2018; Rosellini & Bank, 2021). Despite the level distinc-
tion, most of HPT performance models analyze employees in a general sense, i.e.,
viewing the average person with no specic individual psychological characteristics
(needs, traits, habits, etc.) (see Irlbeck, 2008).
Once the organization functions towards its targets, the individual levels get ahead
by adjusting the system and retrieving new information to improve initial performance
policies. However, individual behavior at this level is perceived again as an effect of
the macro-system with no singularities being considered. As stated by Rummler and
Brache (1995), “if you pit a good performer against a bad system, the system will win
almost every time” (op. cit., 1995, p. 13). Within the BEM framework, our literature re-
vision (see Hersey & Chevalier, 2006; Bernárdez, 2005, 2009; Del Castillo & Vargas,
2009) lead us to nally rename and expand up to eight different factors or areas of
organizational performance, each of them theoretically dened as it follows:
F1. Aims and objectives: Includes the collection of actions made by an organiza-
tion to clearly state task contents and standards of behaviors in relation to what
we expect from employees.
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 144 •
F2. Feedback: Involves any organizational procedure to inform employees on
how they are performing.
F3. Task support: Organizational set of actions to guarantee sufcient task and
job resources to perform work properly.
F4. Incentives: Involves the existence and presentation of any coherent, honest,
and fair reward system for employees.
F5. Knowledge/Competences: Includes actions to assure that employees know
how to do their task especially in relation to the requested competences.
F6. Context: It denes any positive organizational environment with the required
job facilities (e.g., risk prevention policy) and mission-aligned culture values (e.g.,
total quality management).
F7. Sanctions: It refers to those regulated actions that eliminate or diminish devia-
tion behaviors by means of negative consequences.
F8. Work processes: It involves the existence of clear protocols in the develop-
ment of tasks with the correct allocation of staff roles and duties.
Firstly, we have included Aims, Task support, and Context factors in Step 1, an initial
process labeled as ‘contextualizing’, where its design and development would serve
structural bases for organizational performance policies and strategies relatively
stable in time. Secondly, Work processes and Knowledge/Competences factors are
clustered in Step 2, labeled as ‘empowering participants’, because the company man-
ages employees with specic assigned role, duty, and training that would increase
their initial power bases (Wyer & Mason, 1999). Finally, Feedback, Sanctions, and
Incentives factors are timed at Step 3, named as ‘system maintenance’, due to their
function of controlling and adapting employees’ behavior by means of contingencies
and communications. From a managerial point of view, the individual level of organi-
zational performance policy gains relevance only at Steps 2 and 3 when the system is
active and employees have ‘personalized’ it – i.e., act on it- although it will affect Step
1 in a continuous looping process.
A correct organizational performance management contributes to both organizational
and individuals benets normally in a long-term basis. From a managerial point of
view, the model could include nal consequences of the systems that refer to the
organizational effectiveness (OE). OE can be dened in a broad sense and may refer
to individual or team learnings, nancial prots or even environmental impact, not to
mention multi-level inuences between them.
Corporate longevity (CL) is another common variable to evaluate organizational per-
formance plans. Although the topic is highly debatable, increases in performance may
foster stronger group afliation within an organization and this leads to lower turnover
and therefore enables organizational continuity, which is associated with retention of
knowledge (Senge, 1990; Chermack et al., 2006; Burt & Chermack, 2008; De Geus,
1988, 2002).
For any business to sustain itself, it must be continuous, stable and durable (Paw-
lowski, 2000). As indicated by De Geus (2002), performance is a critical element
that contributes to organizational longevity. Long-lived companies are good examples
of learning units of work with high levels of environmental adaptability to frequent
changes. According to Swanson (2007), corporate longevity is a good predictor of or-
ganizational innovation and advancement, especially in terms of nancial investment
Artículos • Eduardo Infante Rejano
• 145 •
innovations. Others did not nd any relationship between organizational longevity and
performance in terms of organizational learning, organizational identity or innovation
(Ces & Marsili, 2005; Weitzman & Chermack, 2013; Weitzman, 2014). Overall, or-
ganizational effectiveness and corporate longevity will be used as outcome variables
in the present study
The adequate organizational performance factor design should be in accordance with
the type of business and context nature of the company. In this sense, contingent
analyses based on environmental factors can provide useful information to ponder
specic performance factors in the detriment of others that will also enable the con-
struction of contingent proles for organizational performance improvements. Like-
wise, it might be practical to implement a questionnaire that could positively assess
organizational performance management above individual´s performance and in the
ambitious and forecast attitude of Gilbert´s model. Both assessment instruments pro-
posed by Gilbert (1978, 2007), and Hersey and Chevalier (2006) used open-ended
questions to promote conversation and thus, making impossible the detection of
quantitative criteria for adequate organizational performance management.
Thus, the present study aims at developing a new organizational performance man-
agement questionnaire, which focus on the BEM and further literature revisions,
thereby making a concise quantitative instrument to assure basic designs of organi-
zational performance. In the following paragraphs, the development of the so-called
ADOPT (Assured Design of Organizational Performance Test) instrument and the
examination of its psychometric properties are presented (for the items see Appendix
1, in Spanish).
2. METHOD
2.1. Procedure
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) i.e. up to 250 employees in indus-
try and 100 in commercial or service companies (Diario Ocial de la Federación,
2019)- of Ciudad Obregón city at Sonora Mexican State were considered for this
study. Through the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI), a list of
1,409 active companies was obtained. Given this population and considering a 95%
condence interval and 5% error, a sample of 302 companies was needed. As com-
panies belonged to the commercial, industrial and service sectors, a stratied random
sampling was considered with 500 SMEs.
Thus, formal ofcial letters through corporate emails invited companies from three dif-
ferent economic sectors: service (n=242, 48.4%), commercial (n=140, 28%), and in-
dustrial (n=118, 23.6%) companies. Three reminders were sent fortnightly in a 6-week
period of data gathering. Response rate was 60.4% and yielded a nal sample of 297
companies from the service (n=109, 36.7%), commercial (n=97, 32.6%), and indus-
trial (n=88, 29.6%) sectors. Thus, the nal maximum sample error is 5.1%. Targeted
founders, directors or business owners answered the proposed questionnaire that
did not mention the specic purpose of the study in any case. While our sample only
includes SMEs, Gilbert’s model is mainly a performance diagnostic tool adaptable to
any workplace environment (Hersey & Chevalier, 2006; Crossman, 2010).
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 146 •
ADOPT instrument
Despite the long-term theoretical support, little efforts have been made to made up
an instrument to assess organizations under Gilbert BEM. The PROBE (i.e. PROling
BEhavior Model) qualitative instrument initially developed by Gilbert included open
ended conrmation and directional questions. However, many of those questions
addressed to employees but to evaluative the organizational 6 dimensions of BEM´s
environmental supports and behaviors (see Figure 1)- are rather complex, general,
and dichotomous and may condition afrmative answers. In addition, dimensions
were assessed with uneven number of questions ranging from 1 to 8.
Latter attempts by Chevalier (2006) and Hersey and Chevalier (2006), yielded a new
42-item PROBE quantitative instrument based on a revised Gilbert BEM. However,
the purpose of this new PROBE version is to determine how the six dimensions – i.e.
Information, resources, incentives, knowledge and skills, capacity, and motives- impact
on the employee´s perception of motivation and therefore do not address an overall
assessment of the company´s HPT –i.e organizational system design towards perfor-
mance-. In contrast to the aforementioned PROBE instruments, ADOPT is targeted to
managers or alike with a managerial focus aim to assess organizational HR policies
and the optimal loop for organizational performance equally based on Gilbert BEM.
For ADOPT questionnaire, between 30 and 40 items were nally expected to be ob-
tained out of the 103 items initially proposed, thus covering at least 79.2% (103/120)
of the recommended triple-ratio per factor indicated by Anstey (Anstey, 1966). Up to
six new factors could have been considered in the case of some items with ‘double
entries’, but they were re-redacted to try to exhaust all proposed factors and make
them exclusive. Potential factors referred to organizational characteristics of total
quality management, systemic vision, resources administration, benets, individual
capacity, and staff measuring/follow up. The native Spanish-speaker and author of
this paper served as unique judge in two temporal moments to properly reformulate
and include each item into the correct factor. Composition of items took into consid-
eration the forecast perspective dened in Steps 1 to 3 of the organizational perfor-
mance management by only using future (mapping) or past (tracing) verbs tenses
accordingly. Coincident indexes between judgements for item-step allocations varied
from .69 to .82, while nal decisions were reached after revision based on Gilbert
descriptions of model factors. All items that had to be answered using a 5-point Likert
scale were once randomized and grammatically presented in positive terms.
The rest of the scales used in this study referred to Corporate Longevity (CL) of the
company (in number of years) and to Organizational Effectiveness (OE). Measure of the
OE was obtained by answering the recent models-based organizational effectiveness 40-
item scale of Nwanzu and Uhiara in which four models are considered to its composition:
goal attainment, system resources, internal processes, and stakeholder’s approaches
(Nwanzu & Uhiara, 2018). In their study, a test-retest reliability coefcient of .73 was ob-
tained and the whole scale proved to have a Cronbach’s Alpha of .96. For example, some
of the items were “The desired level of output is always attained”, “Needed manpower is
always acquired”, “Employees attitude to work is always encouraging” or “Needs and ex-
pectations of the customers are often met”. While the ADOPT scale is aimed at mapping
and tracing organizational performance management, the OE scale reects the overall
outcome of such process and thus, it will be used as a criterion for external validity.
An additional set of questions to collect respondents´ sociodemographic information
(gender, work experience and level of education) and aspects of the Company (size
and gender composition) was also used.
Artículos • Eduardo Infante Rejano
• 147 •
2.2. Sample
Table 2 shows the simple characteristics for this study. Nearly 70% (n=207) of the
respondents were male. The mean experience of the sample was 11.69 (SD=10.0)
while 61.6% (n=183) of the sample had work experience of less than 10 years. Most
of respondents hold a university degree (80.4%, n=239) and most of them were man-
aging a small-sized company (75.7%, n=222). Furthermore, the mean average of
corporate longevity was 20.4 years (SD=17.0) with the vast majority of companies
having lived for 30 years or less (83.8%, n=249). Finally, only 12.1% of the companies
had balanced presence of male and female employees. In summary, most common
respondent in the study was a novel male manager, with university studies, in a gen-
dered small-sized company with less than 30 years of history.
Table 2. Sample characteristics
Characteristic
N=297
%
Manager´s gender
• Male
• Female
69.7
30.3
Manager´s work experience (in years)
• 1-10
• 11-20
• 21-30
• 31-40
• 41-50
61.6
19.8
11.7
3.7
1.3
Manager´s level of education
• Educational level (10 years)
• High School (12 years)
• Tertiary Education (16 years)
8.1
11.4
80.5
Company size
• 6-20 employees 75.7
• 21-100 employees 25.2
Corporate longevity (in years)
• 1-10 34
• 11-20 30
• 21-30 19.9
• 31-40 6.0
• 41-50 4.0
• 51-60 1.0
• 61-70 4.0
• 71-80 .3
• 100 .7
Company gender composition
• Male organization
• Balanced organization
• Female organization
34.9
12.1
35
Source: Own elaboration
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 148 •
3. RESULTS
3.1. Factor analysis
In the rst step, obtained data was analyzed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
to determine the inner factorial structure of the items and to identify low-load items
to be dropped. Principal components analysis with Varimax orthogonal rotation was
used as it is independent of distributional assumptions and thus, less likely to produce
improper solutions and produces factors that are uncorrelated (Fabrigar et al., 1999).
From the initial total scale, 61.2% of low-load items were eliminated while the rest
were re-examined and recoded if necessary. Table 3 shows the resulting factorial
structure for the 40 items for the total sample, 5 items per theoretical dimension.
Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis of the proposed ADOPT instrument
Factors
Retained items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Communalities
El directivo ja los objetivos y son
comunicados a la mayor parte del
personal de la organización
.71 .79
Los objetivos generales de la empre-
sa están por escrito .69 .73
Se promueve el cambio por medio de
procesos para toda la organización .68 .69
La información obtenida por la
empresa se utiliza para tomar
decisiones
.72 .80
Los objetivos jados en la empresa
son alcanzables .69 .76
Los empleados progresivamente me-
joran el desempeño con la realimen-
tación recibida
.80 .79
La realimentación es relevante en
contenidos .79 .79
La realimentación proporcionada a
los empleados resulta suciente para
mejorar el desempeño individual
.80 .80
La realimentación a los trabajadores
es oportuna en el tiempo .79 .82
La realimentación es particular para
cada puesto o cargo .80 .79
En la organización se trabaja en
equipo y se mantiene la comunica-
ción entre áreas
.62 .73
Los empleados saben cuándo y
porqué actuar .62 .79
Los empleados tienen el tiempo ne-
cesario para llevar a cabo su trabajo .69 .74
La empresa conoce las normas o
leyes que debe cumplir .60 .73
Artículos • Eduardo Infante Rejano
• 149 •
Factors
Retained items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Communalities
Los recursos proporcionados son
claros y relevantes para apoyar el
desempeño de los empleados
.63 .69
En la empresa existe un programa de
incentivos .88 .88
Los incentivos son efectivos para
modicar el desempeño .89 .89
Los incentivos están alineados con
los objetivos de la organización .89 .89
Los incentivos son relevantes en
contenidos .88 .86
Los incentivos se otorgan de manera
oportuna en el tiempo .90 .91
Los empleados tienen la información
necesaria para alcanzar los objetivos .64 .76
Los trabajadores cuentan con las
habilidades (saber hacer) requeridas .65 .78
Los empelados poseen las habili-
dades sociales necesarias en sus
puestos
.63 .71
Los trabajadores tienen las actitudes
necesarias para lograr los objetivos .68 .78
Los empleados cuentan con el cono-
cimiento requerido para alcanzar los
objetivos organizacionales
.67 .78
El ambiente de trabajo se encuentra
seguro, limpio, organizado y permite
un excelente desempeño
.77 .76
La empresa ofrece seguridad a los
empleados dentro de la organización .75 .75
El ambiente de trabajo es estimulan-
te para el logro de los estándares de
trabajo
.72 .74
La infraestructura de la empresa
facilita que los empleados trabajen
de manera satisfactoria
.79 .74
La empresa proporciona un ambiente
agradable .75 .63
Las sanciones se aplican a los
empleados que muestran un bajo
rendimiento laboral
.81 .89
Las sanciones van de acuerdo a la
falta laboral cometida por parte del
empleado
.80 .87
Las sanciones aplicadas coinciden
con las de otras organizaciones del
mismo ámbito
.85 .82
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 150 •
Factors
Retained items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Communalities
En la empresa existe un programa de
sanciones .84 .83
Aplicar sanciones ayuda a que los
empleados mejoren su desempeño .80 .83
Todos los empleados conocen los
procedimientos para laborar y contri-
buir al logro de los objetivos
.70 .79
Los procesos y procedimientos están
denidos para que los empleados
mejoren su rendimiento
.70 .78
Los procedimientos de trabajo de-
nen el alcance de cada proceso, sus
objetivos e indicadores
.67 .80
La organización tiene documentado
los requisitos legales y reglamenta-
rios del cliente
.72 .74
Los empleados actúan de acuerdo
con los procedimientos establecidos .71 .78
% variance explained 4.70 7.2 2.43 4.16 41.9 1.9 2.29 3.11
Cumulative variance 4.78 11.9 14.4 18.5 60.5 62.3 64.6 67.8
Cronbach´s α .91 .94 .90 .97 .90 .90 .95 .92
Source: own elaboration.
Note: Obtained pattern matrix containing factor loadings in 8-identied factors of ADOPT scale.
EFA on the sample conrmed the 8-factor solution with a cumulative variance of
67.8%. Consequently, the initial 103 items were nally reduced to 40 every 5 of them
corresponding to the following factors: Aims and Objectives (factor 1), Feedback (F2),
Task Support (F3), Incentives (F4), Knowledge and Competences (F5), Context (F6),
Sanctions (F7), and Work Processes (F8). Most contributing factors to the construct
of organizational performance were F5 (Knowledge and Competences) and F4 (In-
centives) while F6, F7, and F3 contributed the least. Overall reliability of the 40-item
OE scale was highly adequate in this study (α= 0.92).
3.2. Construct Validity
In Table 4 the descriptive statistics of the eight ADOPT organizational performance fac-
tors are shown. These results are similar to those at the item level, which are therefore
not included in this article. Keeping in mind the recording of the items and test scale,
the means show that, in general, selected companies in Mexico describe a good level
of criteria in their performance policy, with a total average score of 4.06 (SD=1.04). For
the purpose of preserving high excellent standards of performance, these companies
primarily rely on creating Context (factor 6), providing Knowledge and Competences
(factor 5), and giving Task Support (factor 3), and less on Sanctions (factor 7) or Incen-
tives (factor 4). However, highest standard deviations were obtained in these two last
factors, which indicate high variability in their use within the sample.
Artículos • Eduardo Infante Rejano
• 151 •
Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations between the eight factors
and outcomes variables (*p<.05, in Italic, p<.01)
Factor
Sample (N=297) M SD F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 CL
F1. Aims and
objectives 4.0 1.1
F2. Feedback 4.1 1.0 .53
F3. Task support 4.2 .9 .56 .57
F4. Incentives 3.7 1.4 .41 .37 .34
F5. Knowledge/
Compet. 4.2 .8 .55 .49 .69 .34
F6. Context 4.4 .8 .54 .46 .68 .32 .79
F7. Sanctions 3.6 1.4 .47 .39 .36 .30 .36 .30
F8. Work processes 4.1 1.0 .65 .47 .56 .42 .62 .54 .43
Corporate longevity
(CL) 20 17 -.02 -.03 -.05 -.02 -.12* -.06 -.05 -.04
Organizational eff.
(OE) 4.2 .78 .64 .67 .82 .57 .76 .74 .42 .64 -.03
Source: own elaboration
All factors in the sample correlate signicantly and positively with each other. Most
evident correlations were obtained between factor 5 and 3, and factor 5 and 6. Thus,
when efforts are made for the sake of staff training, contextual and cultural aspects
of organizational performance seem to increase, and vice versa. In addition, when
job competencies seem to increase in staff, resources increase to guarantee the ac-
complishment of task, and vice versa. Moreover, the increase of context-dependent
aspects of performance (factor 6) would contribute to the staff coordination and dis-
tribution of resources (factor 3). To a lesser extent, factor 8 (Work Processes) was
also eminently correlated with factor 1 and factor 5, thus indicating that the design of
work protocols may increase both clear perception of aims and objectives and /or staff
learnings, and vice versa.
Finally, correlations between ADOPT factors and outcomes variables should be com-
mented on. No signicant correlation between organizational performance factors and
corporate longevity was obtained. In fact, all scores were null and slightly negative
except for factor 5 (Knowledge and Competences), that was statistically signicant
and negative (ρ= -0.12, p<0.05). No signicant bicorrelations were found between
ADOPT factors and OE organizational effectiveness.
With a view to examine the construct validity of the proposed scale, two hierarchical
regression analyses were calculated using SPSS 20, one with the OE -organizational
effectiveness- scale (40-items) as the outcome variable, and with Corporate Longev-
ity (in years) as the outcome variable. In step 1, manager´s gender, work experience,
and level of education were entered in the model. In step 2, company size and
gender composition of the company were entered in the model. All variables have
been z-standardized and Durbin-Watson scores for self-correlation were obtained as
expected. Table 5 summarizes the hierarchical regression analyses for the outcome
variables organizational effectiveness (OE) and Corporate Longevity (CL).
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 152 •
Table 5. Results of the hierarchical regression analyses
Outcome variable Predictor b t
Organizational
Effectiveness (OE)
Step 1
Constant
F1. Aims and objectives
F2. Feedback
F3. Task support
F4. Incentives
F5. Knowledge/Competences
F6. Context
F7. Sanctions
F8. Work processes
Manager´s gender
Manager´s work experience
Manager´s level of education
.005
.088
.198
.320
.222
.215
.130
.031
-.038
-.004
.031
.022
.058
2.00*
2.00**
6.44**
6.33**
3.83**
2.33*
.951
-.792
-.137
1.06
.738
R2= .84; F=97.2**
Step 2
Constant
F1. Aims and objectives
F2. Feedback
F3. Task support
F4. Incentives
F5. Knowledge/Competences
F6. Context
F7. Sanctions
F8. Work processes
Company size
Gender org. composition
(omitted)
.000
.041
.189
.362
.243
.181
.150
-.007
.024
.056
.000
1.24
6.38**
10.2**
9.49**
4.44**
3.87**
-.27
.717
2.42*
R2= .85; F=173.1**
Source: own elaboration
Concerning the rst outcome variable, it appears that 6 out of 8 organizational per-
formance factors predicted organizational effectiveness (OE) with at least factors 2,
3, 4, and 5 as highly signicant. In Step 1, the results of the regression indicate that
the model explained 84% (R2=0.84, F (11) = 97.2, p<0.01) also including factor 1 and
factor 6 as predictive variables while excluding the rest. In Step 2, company size was
included as predictive variable of organizational effectiveness among with factors 2
to 6 (R2=0.85, F (9) = 173.1, p<0.01). In the distinction of environmental versus in-
dividual level of organizational performance anticipated in Gilbert´s model, average
data indicate that environmental supports account for 22% of the prediction with 4
factors while the person’s repertory of behavior contributed to the outcome variable
up to 19.8% with only 2 factors (i.e., knowledge/competences and feedback1).
1 Differently from Gilbert´s classication, we have included ‘feedback” organizational performance
factor in the individual level because we consider that job expectations and task guidelines cannot
be given without a two-way communication between managers and employees.
Artículos • Eduardo Infante Rejano
• 153 •
Table 5. Cont.
Outcome variable Predictor b t
Corporate Longevity
(CL)
Step 1
Constant
F1. Aims and objectives
F2. Feedback
F3. Task support
F4. Incentives
F5. Knowledge/Competences
F6. Context
F7. Sanctions
F8. Work processes
Manager´s gender
Manager´s work experience
Manager´s level of education
.120
-.007
.098
.077
-.285
.103
.013
-.038
.070
.441
-.023
1.359
1.188
-.083
.856
.949
-2.21*
.802
.170
-.343
1.05
6.45**
-.334
R2= .23; F=4.99**
Step 2
Constant
F1. Aims and objectives
F2. Feedback
F3. Task support
F4. Incentives
F5. Knowledge/Competences
F6. Context
F7. Sanctions
F8. Work processes
Company size
(omitted)
Gender org. composition
(omitted)
.062
.033
.060
.013
-.11
.063
-.005
.045
.000
.893
.488
.736
.216
-2.02*
.670
-.084
.616
R2= .10; F=4.08*
In the case of Corporate Longevity outcome of Step 1, factor 5 (Knowledge and Com-
petences) and manager´s work experience managed to explain 23% of its variance
(R2=0.23, F (11) = 4.99, p<0.01). In Step 2, only factor 5 was able to explain 10% of
the outcome variable (R2=0.10, F (8) = 4.08, p<0.05) being all non-factor variables
omitted in the model. Finally, Graphic 1 shows performance factors means consider-
ing the process of organizational performance management under a time perspective
approach.
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 154 •
Graphic 1. Factor means under the organizational performance time perspective.
As shown in the graphic 1, performance factors are being attended by the sample as
empirically expected in each step. Precisely, Aims, Task support, and Context factors
are generally considered in the appropriated amount of interest at step 1, followed by
step 3 Feedback, Sanctions, and Incentives factors-, and nally, step 2 Work pro-
cesses and Knowledge/Competences factors-. Interestingly, swapping steps 2 and
3 could be a common indicator of SMEs’ functioning that may enhance the system
maintenance in the detriment of empowering strategies to further improve stable or-
ganizational routines. As pointed out by Penney and Combs (2013) when addressing
insights from family science, family structure affects the level of innovation within a
family rm depending on how exible or rigid it might be.
4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
A review of organizational performance management literature and the current need
of companies for organizational improvement has shown pertinent the development
of a questionnaire to assess and monitor organizational factors inuencing organi-
zational performances. Based on pioneer Gilbert´s model (BEM) and revisions of
theoretical models of performance improvement, the rst analyses of psychometric
properties of ADOPT instrument was presented. An AFA showed an eight-factor solu-
tion for the 40 items of the ADOPT questionnaire.
The eight factors reect dimensions widely cited in the organizational performance liter-
ature aligned with the BEM framework: aims and objectives, feedback, task support, in-
centives, knowledge/competences, context, sanctions, and work processes. Reliability
analyses on the different factors showed highly acceptable Cronbach´s alphas ranging
from 0.90 to 0.97, with an overall reliability of the ADOPT of 0.92. Correlations between
the item and the factor level show mostly moderately to high positive correlations.
This could be seen as evidence for mediation effects between different organizational
performance factors as we recall for broad assessments of organizational policies
that impact employees on long-term bases. For instance, investing in staff knowledge
Artículos • Eduardo Infante Rejano
• 155 •
or competences would only increase potential staff incentives if acquired learnings
can be really applied at the workplace (Lin, 2017). Alternatively, sanctions may be
weak related to the contextual values of the company if they are wrongly or poorly
informed by inadequate communication channels (Obeidat et al., 2017). Descriptive
data analysis showed that managers primarily rely on new training, contextual vari-
ables and task support to implement policies on organizational performance.
Lower average scores were obtained in factors referring to incentives and sanctions.
These ndings may suggest a clear move from contingent, behaviorist theories of staff
behavior control towards contemporary frameworks of positive environment and infor-
mation-driven management to subtly guarantee and control staff performance (King,
2013; Kim, 2018). As expected, all ADOPT factors signicantly correlated with organi-
zational effectiveness, those factors being those referring to task support, knowledge
and competences, and contextual aspects the highest. These relationships have re-
ceived empirical evidence on long-supported literature (see Rothwell et al., 2007).
In the case of corporate longevity, no signicant correlation was shown except for
knowledge and competence factors that were negative but statistically signicant.
The relationship between corporate longevity and organizational performance is likely
to have greater complexity than expected and probably does not describe a linear
tendency. As indicated by Galadanchi and Bakar (2018), many factors contribute to
business longevity that are based on strategic elements and nancial excellence that
may mediate between these variables. Long-term companies are ‘living companies’,
the purpose of which is to fulll their potential and perpetuate themselves as ongoing
communities. Thus, strategic decisions made on organizational performance factors
such as on culture values or work processes may continuously change in contents, di-
rections, and timings for the sake of adaptation no matter their importance. As stated
by Burgelman and Grove (2007), corporate longevity depends on matching cycles of
autonomous and induced strategy processes to different forms of strategic dynamics,
turning organizational performance management rather chaotic in action.
In the case of learnings and competences, undoubtedly essential for a performance
management, what an organization knows or creates today will be obsolete in a three
or ve-year period and in doing so, making their knowledge and competences irrel-
evant for organizational effectiveness (Pazy, 2004; Jain, 2015).
The separate regression analyses showed that organizational effectiveness is sig-
nicantly predicted by ADOPT organizational performance factors. Precisely, factors
referring to aims, feedback, task support, incentives, knowledge/competences, and
context are very good predictors of present organizational effectiveness. This is in
line with previous research underlying the impact of organizational macro-variables
such as data, feedback, task design, incentives, learnings, or contextual variables on
organizational performance (Chevalier, 2003; Bernárdez, 2005; Mager & Pipe, 2006;
Brethower, 2007; Piersol & Paris, 2007; Del Castillo & Vargas, 2009; Crossman,
2010; Kang, 2012; Fu, 2023; Fu et al., 2023). Despite internal consistency as factors,
‘sanctions’ and ‘work processes’ did not explain the company’s nal organizational
effectiveness. However, previous studies have found that the existence of work sanc-
tions policies can give rise to inefcient allocation of resources, resulting in structural
rigidity and organizational stagnation (Olson, 1982; Nee, 1998).
These results reect the denition of nowadays organization based on the promo-
tion and control of employees by positive environment designs rather than external
negative stimuli. Additionally, the existence of job protocols to guide employees in
the development of tasks may be subjected to timely adequate ways of informing
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 156 •
on such work processes, taking for granted the acceptance of allocated duties and
roles amongst the staff (Chen and Lin, 2018). As previously mentioned, strict alloca-
tion of individual roles may be counterproductive for innovative adaptation towards
organizational productivity. Following job crafting positions, it is known that the en-
couragement of employee involvement and usage of knowledge, skills and abilities
may improve work performance (Guan & Frenkel, 2007). The predictive model did not
vary upon respondents’ gender, experience nor level of education.
Finally, we have found support to indicate that organizational performance factors at the
environmental level are of similar importance in predicting organizational performance
than factors at the individual level. This is contrary to information given by previous
surveys that overestimated the rst level (Pierce, et al., 2003; Piersol & Paris, 2007;
Crossman, 2010; Kang, 2012), and more in the line of balancing both types of factors
(Rummler & Brache, 1995; Bernárdez, 2005; Gilbert, 2007; Rosellini & Bank, 2021).
On the other hand, corporate longevity is signicantly predicted only by ‘knowledge and
competences’ organizational performance factor, though weak and negative, regardless
company size and gender organizational composition. This fact partially matches our
literature revision on the relationship of organizational learning and corporate longevity
(Ces & Marsili, 2005; Weitzman & Chermack, 2013; Weitzman, 2014; Wallace & Addi-
son, 2023). While serving the bases and structure of constant learning in organizations
is essential for a company´s survival, its nal long-term impact on corporate longevity
will certainly depend upon both learning contents and strategic nancial investments of
the on-going success (Pawlowski, 2000; Weiztman, 2014).
Finally, results have been considered under the time perspective proposed in our
theoretical model of organizational performance. Organizational performance model
within this perspective foresees a loop of three consecutive steps to achieve organi-
zational targets: (1) contextualizing, (2) empowering, and (3), providing feedbacks.
Each step can be tracked using the self-made ADOPT questionnaire with items refer-
ring to Aims, Task support, and Context for Step 1, Work processes and Knowledge/
Competences for Step 2, Feedback, Sanctions, and Incentives for Step 3.
According to our sample, organizational performance management of SMEs is at-
tained by primarily considering contextualizing factors (step 1), followed by organiza-
tional factors of the system maintenance (step 3) and to a lesser extent, organizational
factors of empowering participants (step 2). Consequently, the nal optimal loop for
organizational performance follows the sequence of contextualizing, providing feed-
backs, and empowering, therefore indicating that staff assessments are essential for
positive decisions on empowering.
In addition, ndings indicate that empowerment action is not as common a theme for
SMEs as for large companies while this might be due to limited resources and closer
supervision of these latter (Wyer & Mason, 1999; Penney & Combs, 2013). Never-
theless, the relationship between company size and empowerment strategy was not
the main purpose of the present study. Further research could then pay attention to
how empowerment strategies can contribute to SME´s organizational performance
outcomes. In future attempts, economic organizational outcomes such as income
statements and not only scale-based quantication could be used to measure overall
performance of the organization.
The methodological approach of this research provides ADOPT instrument with
both academic and managerial implications. Consequently, ADOPT instrument can
be academically used to continue exploring the robustness of Gilbert´s BEM and its
Artículos • Eduardo Infante Rejano
• 157 •
theoretical bases. In addition, ADOPT instrument is probably a swift and effortless
way for HR practitioners or managers to monitor the evolution of the company both
in terms of the 8 key areas of organizational development and also to map and trace
managerial decision makings in the optimal time loop for organizational performance
(i.e. contextualizing, providing feedbacks, and empowering).
5. LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
Organizational effectiveness and work performance are conditioned upon many vari-
ables in complex intertwined relationships. A theoretical model based on Gilbert´s def-
inition of worthy performance was successfully translated into the so-called ADOPT
instrument composed of 40 Spanish-written items. Despite showing good internal and
external consistency, ADOPT must be analysed under the considerations of present
study limitations.
First of all, this research made an extended interpretation of Gilbert´s model includ-
ing eight key variables to be considered. While this classication was based on the
revised literature on the HPT and the inner Mexican national studies, its contents are
subjected to alternative interpretations of the market economy in which the company
operates. For instance, data was obtained in this study to revise ADOPT Factor 5, so
future studies should look at the pertinence of separating knowledge from competen-
cies within the organizational analysis.
Secondly, organizational effectiveness and corporate longevity were used as out-
comes variables of the theoretical model among many potential options. Organi-
zational effectiveness was too broadly dened and may have conditioned positive
relationships between the studied variables. Therefore, future studies should include
other indicators of organizational effectiveness such as economic growth, sustain-
ability, or labour productivity.
Finally, other shortcomings in the present research may affect the generalization of
results and consequently, the validity of ADOPT instrument. Representativeness of
the sample relied on a response rate of 60,4% of the selected pool of companies. The
reason of the rest of companies for not taking part in the consultation was unknown
but could include very successful companies whose data were not acknowledged.
Moreover, nothing was mapped out to guarantee that only company managers (or
founders) answered the questionnaire despite using corporate emails directly to
them. In addition, a stratied sample was needed to match a Mexican labour market
concentrated on the service sector that accounted for almost 50% of the population.
However, nal sample by which ADOPT analyses was made showed an equal dis-
tribution of the three sectors (services, commercial, and industrial). Further studies
should then test ADOPT instrument using qualitative procedures (i.e. direct interviews
with managers) in single economic sectors and scenarios.
Acknowledgements:
The author wishes to express his gratitude to Professor María del Carmen Vásquez
Torres, from the Instituto Tecnológico de Sonora (ICTON) in Mexico, whose brief stay
in Spain allowed us to contextualize this research in its rst drafts and to gain access
to the initial sample.
Conicts of interest:
The author declares that he has no conicts of interest.
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 25 - 2024
• 158 •
6. REFERENCES
Anstey, E. (1966). Psychological test. London: Nelson.
Bernárdez, M.L. (2005). Achieving business success by developing clients and
community: lessons from leading companies, emerging economies and a nine-
year case study. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(3) pp. 37-55. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2005.tb00340.x.
Bernárdez, M.L. (2009). Desempeño Humano Manual de consultoría. Vol. I. Bloomington,
Ind.: Author House.
Brethower, D. (2007). Performance analysis. Knowing what to do and how. United States
of America and Canada: HRD Press, Inc. & International Society for Performance
Improvement.
Brethower, D.M., Dickinson, A.M., Johnson, D.A, & Johnson, C.M. (2022). A History
of Organizational Behavior Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 42,1, 3-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2021.1924340.
Burgelman, R.A., & Grove, A.S. (2007). Let chaos reign, then rein in chaos—repeatedly:
managing strategic dynamics for corporate longevity. Strategic Management, (28), 10,
965-979. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.625.
Burt, G. & Chermack, T.J. (2008). Learning with scenarios: summary and critical
issues. Advances in Developing Human Resources, (10), 2, 285-295. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1523422307313334.
Ces, E., & Marsili, O. (2005). A matter of life and death: Innovation and rm survival.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 1167-1192. https://ssrn.com/abstract=650832.
Chen, H.L., & Lin, Y. L. (2018). Goal orientations, leader-leader exchange, trust, and the
outcomes of project performance. International Journal of Project Management, (36),
5, 716-729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.03.009.
Chermack, T.J., Lynham, S.A., & Van der Merwe, L. (2006). Exploring the relationship
between scenario planning and perceptions of learning organization characteristics.
Futures, 38 (7), 767-777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.004.
Chevalier, R. (2003). Updating the Behavior Engineering Model. Performance Improvement,
42 (5), 8-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/p.4930420504.
Chevalier, R. (2006). Leadership in performance consulting. In J. Pershing, Handbook of
human performance technology: Principles, practices, and potential (p. 964-985). San
Francisco, CA: Wiley/Pfeiffer.
Chrisman, J. J., Sharma, P., Steier, L. P., & Chua, J. H. (2013). The inuence of family
goals, governance, and resources on rm outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 37(6), 1249–1261. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12064.
Chrisman, J.J., Jess H. Chua, J.H., Le Breton-Miller, I., Miller, D., & Steier, L.P. (2018).
Governance mechanisms and family rms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
42(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717748650.
Colquitt, J., LePine, J., & Wesson, M. (2012). Organizational behavior: Improving
performance and commitment in the workplace. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Artículos • Eduardo Infante Rejano
• 159 •
Crossman, D.C. (2010). Gilbert’s Behavior Engineering Model: Contemporary support for
an established theory. Performance Improvement Quarterly, (23), 1, 31-52. https://doi.
org/10.1002/piq.20074.
Cruz, J., Rojas, G., & Rivero-Villar, M.J. (2012). Evaluación de la relación aprendizaje
organizativo y desempeño organizacional. Un estudio empírico en las empresas de la
industria manufacturera que cotizan en la Bolsa Mexicana de Valores. XIII Asamblea
General de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Facultades y Escuelas de Contaduría y
Administración. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
De Geus, A.P. (1988). Planning as learning. Harvard Business Review, 66 (2), 70-74.
De Geus, A.P. (2002). The living company. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Del Castillo, C., & Vargas, B. (2009). El proceso de gestión y el desempeño organizacional.
Una aproximación a la nueva gestión pública desde el ámbito de los gobiernos locales.
http://www.ief.es/documentos/recursos/publicaciones/revistas/107presu_gasto_
publico/41-06_FranciscoLongo.pdf
Diario Ocial de la Federación [Ofcial Diary of the Federation] (2019). DECRETO por el
que se reforman y derogan diversas disposiciones de la Ley para el Desarrollo de la
Competitividad de la Micro, Pequeña y Mediana Empresa. https://www.diputados.gob.
mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/247_130819.pdf
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the
use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods,
4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272.
Farida I., & Setiawan D. (1). Business Strategies and Competitive Advantage: The Role
of Performance and Innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and
Complexity. 8(3):163. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030163.
Fu, F.Q. (2023). Sales performance improvement methodology: continuous improvement
of sales performance to achieve organizational goals and gain sustainable competitive
advantages. Performance Improvement Journal, 62 (2): https://doi.org/10.56811/
PFI-23-0006.
Fu, F.Q.; Hong Yi, & Brock, T.R. (2023). The relevance and robustness of Gilbert’s
Behavioral Engineering Model in an emerging market environment: empirical