Handbook of Management Scales/Performance
Compared to your competitors, indicate your position on the following dimensions (significantly lower - significantly higher)
- Market share
- Sales growth
- Anand/Ward (2004): Fit, Flexibility and Performance in Manufacturing: Coping with Dynamic Environments. Production and Operations Management, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 369–385.
Only two items were used, both of them being directed towards market-oriented aspects of performance only. In general, particular attention needs to be paid to the measurement of performance. A review of the operationalization of organizational performance by Richard et al. (2009) highlights the limited effectiveness of commonly accepted measurement practices. Their article is strongly recommended for reading: Richard et al. (2009): Measuring Organizational Performance: Towards Methodological Best Practice. Journal of Management, Vol. 35, Nr. 5, pp. 718-804.
Performance (alpha = 0.83)
Supervisors were asked to complete a seven-item performance-rating measure based on a scale originally employed by Mott (1972). Previous research using this measure (e.g., Fulk/Wendler, 1982; Schriesheim, 1980) has suggested that it has good reliability and significant correlations with other performance indicators.
Two sample items are presented here. The other items can be found in Mott (1972).
- Productivity—quantity: Thinking of the various things which this person does for his/her job, how much is he/she producing (e.g., units produced, customers served, forms completed, pallets loaded, etc.)? (A = his/her production is very low, B = it is fairly low, C = it is neither high nor low, D = it is fairly high, and E = it is very high)
- Production—quality: How good would you say is the quality of the performance of this person? (A = his/her quality is poor, B = his/her quality is not good, C = fair quality, D = good quality, and E = excellent quality).
- Schriesheim et al. (1998): Delegation and leader-member exchange: Main effects, moderators, and measurement issues. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 298-318. Previously used in Mott (1972).
Different performance aspects are measured. The measurement might be formative rather than reflective.