Organizational Assessment and Discovery

RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2015

www.PosterPresentations.com

Validation of the existing business strategy is

paramount. Conventionally, businesses define

objectives and structure the organization to meet them,

applying strategy to the inputs of environment and

structure (Cummings, 2014). A values-based alternative

is to decide the purpose of the business and define

which values are to govern the processes, then to weigh

the processes against these values and ethics (Cascio,

2010). Initially a review of the foundational documents

and evaluation of the agency personnel’s understanding

is requisite. Researching the topics: does the mission

coincide with the purpose of the organization? Do the

employees know what the mission is? Does it guide

their day-to-day interactions?

Under the Microscope: Organizational Assessment

Objectives

Organizational assessment places the agency under a

microscope, determining organizational alignment with

mission (Cummings, 2014), vision, ethics and goals (the

foundational documents.) Development of the

division’s org-chart graphically defines the pathways of

managerial control and the specific goals of each

interdisciplinary care team as well as indicates the

functions of the support staff. Evaluation continues

through contrasting the job descriptions with job

requirements, assuring intrinsic cross-coherence and

operational cohesion with the foundational documents.

The I/O Psychologist’s role is to assure that the

processes advance and fulfill the agency’s purpose or

identify misalignment.

S.W.O.T.

Job Analysis

D. R. I. V. E.

Conclusions

Applicable to most client acquisition, the organizational

assessment is tantamount to a full biographic work-up

preparatory to the prescriptive recommendations. An

appropriate sequence of analysis, discovery and

diagnosis of the organization will provide indications of

the root cause breakdowns within the organizational

hierarchy and processes. Understanding the leadership

style, culture and employee engagement suggests the

means to achieve clarity, competence and confidence.

The organization’s culture and commitment to

acceptable standards of diversity will be uncovered

during the assessment. Determination of the employee

levels of clarity and explanation and of how their duties

support the mission, vision and goals will be evident, as

will the general temper of employee satisfaction and

engagement. A properly implemented, intervention will

increase effectiveness and the bottom line.

References

Abdulghani, H. M., Shaik, S. A., Khamis, N., Al-Drees, A. A., Irshad, M.,

Khalil, M. S., & ... Isnani, A. (2014). Research methodology workshops

evaluation using the Kirkpatrick's model: Translating theory into

practice. Medical Teacher, 36S24-S29.

doi:10.3109/0142159X.2014.886012.

Al-Araki, M. (2013). SWOT analysis revisited through PEAK-framework.

Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 25(3), 615-625.

doi:10.3233/IFS-120668.

Cascio, W. F., Aguinis, H. (2010). Applied Psychology in Human Resource

Management, 7th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved

from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781269713474.

Clark, W. A. (2016). Leadership: not just taking a walk. (Unpublished course

work). Argosy University, Dallas.

Coman, A., & Ronen, B. (2009). Focused SWOT: diagnosing critical

strengths and weaknesses. International Journal of Production Research,

47(20), 5677-5689. doi:10.1080/00207540802146130.

Cummings, T. G. (2014). Organization Development and Change, 10th

Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from

https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781305339330.

Fleming, M. J., & Wilson, J. B. (ED). (2001). Effective HR Measurement

Techniques. Alexandria, Virginia: Society for Human Resource

Management.

Identification and remediation of causal behaviors

within the organization, such that the organization can

meet or surpass competitors’ best efforts, guides the I/O

practitioner’s endeavors. As an advisor, the I/O

practitioner leads organizational stakeholders to a

mutual determination and subsequent design for the

needed remediation plan. The design of the intervention

is to positively alter employee behavior and increase

efficiency. That said, countering resistance to change

with full and recurrent implementation of the

intervention is an overarching objective.

Kirkpatrick’s Model

Organization Assessment and Discovery:Clarity, Competence and Confidence

Job Analysis

Psychological Constructs

Job Description KSAOs

Job Specifications

The next step is the planning of resources and disbursal

of duties. This allocation comes through the review,

pruning and preparation of the org-chart to validate the

job structures and managerial lines of control. Within

this layout, the assignment of job positions as well as

the job descriptions are in alignment with the

foundational documents and define the required skills

for task completion.

Performance of a comprehensive Strengths,

Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)

analysis follows foundational review, augmenting

confrontation through the constructs of Power, Earning,

Artistry, and Knowledge (PEAK) and Solidity, Extent,

Type, and Segment (SETS). PEAK provides us with

arguments and SETS directs us to a weighted

confrontation (Al-Araki, 2013). Coman and Ronen

(2009) recommend a further clarification of the SWOT

analysis, specifying that identified items be of highest

priority and that the list be concise, actionable,

significant and authentic. Once completed, the results

of the SWOT indicate either necessary redeployment or

vindication of the organization’s existing strategy.

Methods

The final step is Discovery, Remediation,

Implementation, Validation and Evaluation (DRIVE)

(Clark, 2016). Discovery involves enacting the research

aspects of I/O Psychologists through quantitative, scaled

employee survey and qualitative open-ended review

(Fleming, & Wilson, 2001). Portions of the discovery

phase would involve a review of employee, customer,

and complaint records, with an eye to trends or

consistent negative/weak comments. If/when discovery

led to diagnosis of competency issues, performance of

training needs analysis would follow.

Remediation incorporates group discussion to propose,

consider, weigh and decide on optimal methods of

redress. Implementation is the rollout of the

intervention. Validation ensures that the intervention,

once implemented, actually corrects the issues

discovered. Validation would ensue utilizing

Kirkpatrick’s model, assessing the intervention along the

lines of reaction, learning, behaviors and results

(Abdulghani, et al, 2014). Evaluation determines

whether the intervention has effectively altered the

behaviors and will remain in effect until intentionally

altered anew.

Reinforcement and Validation

Job Usability

Validated Knowledge Transfer

Favorable Reaction to intervention and subject

Results

Behavior

Learning

Reaction

W. Adair Clark

Argosy University, Dallas, Texas

Results

Strengths:What do you do well?What unique resources can you draw on?What do others see as your strengths?

Weaknesses:What could you improve?Where do you have fewer resources than others?What are others likely to see as weaknesses?

Opportunities:What opportunities are open to you?What trends can you take advantage of?How can you turn your strengths into opportunities?

Threats:What threats could harm you?What is your competition doing?What threats do your weaknesses expose you to?



This program will focus an agency on high performance

and tighten the strategic alignment between skills and

business goals (Armitage, & Parrey, 2013). The job

descriptions will correspond with and dictate

recruitment as well as continual education for

incumbents, setting the stage for employee development

and succession planning.

The purpose of an effective performance management

system is for employees to have a clear understanding of

the work expected from them, to receive ongoing

feedback regarding how they are performing relative to

expectations, to distribute rewards accordingly, to

identify development opportunities, and to address

performance that does not meet expectations.

Introduction

Methodology

Performance Management devolves from the

organizational structure and overarching purpose to

determine the metrics for fulfillment of the agency

mission. The purpose of an effective performance

management system is for employees to have a clear

understanding of the work expected from them, to

receive ongoing feedback regarding how they are

performing relative to expectations, to distribute rewards

accordingly, to identify development opportunities, and

to address performance that does not meet expectations.

A comprehensive performance management system

empowers employees to have greater input into their

personal career progression and will enable managers to

better identify, recognize, and reward individuals based

upon an agreed set of criteria. The role of an I/O

Psychologist is one of assessment, alignment and

appraisal homogenization.

Objectives A.D.A.I.R. Conclusions

The Performance Management System is a

methodology of intentional collaboration that brings

duty performance into alignment with managerial

objectives, translating them into a metric of measured

performance. Managing performance is central to

effective strategic planning and fulfillment of

departmental goals. “A critical issue is to ensure that

each unit’s or department’s mission and vision

statements, [purpose,] goals, and strategies are

consistent with those at the organizational level”

(Aguinis, 2012, p. 62). Furthering this objective, job

descriptions should align with the particular goal set of

the departments they support, as well as lay out the

purpose for completion of the duties. Understanding the

organization’s purpose, job requirements, means of

fulfillment and their measure suggests the means to

achieve clarity, competence and confidence.

References

Aguinis, H. (2012). Performance Management, 3rd Edition

[VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from


Armitage, A., & Parrey, D. (2013). Reinventing performance

management: creating purpose-driven practices. People &

Strategy, 36(2), 26-33.

Clark, W. A. (2016). Banks Industries: Performance Management

System. (Unpublished course work). Argosy University, Dallas.

Pichler, S. (2012). The social context of performance appraisal and

appraisal reactions: A meta-analysis. Human Resource

Management, 51(5), 709-732. doi:10.1002/hrm.21499.

Sudin, S. (2011). Fairness of and satisfaction with performance

appraisal process. Journal of Global Management, 2(1), 66-83.

Whited, M. (2008). SMART goal setting. Campus Activities

Programming, 41(3), 11-13.

Specific Recommendations

The Adaptive Departmental Appraisal Implementation

Recommendations (ADAIR) provide the framework

within to which manage performance. Adaptive, insofar

that modification to meet the requirements is

permissible for an organization or sub-department

therein. Departmental refers to the organization’s

breakdown of function by department, and the

uniqueness of its processes. Appraisal is the design and

implementation of the key metrics used to evaluate the

employee. Recommendations refer to the flexibility of

the system and the optional use of the varying facets:

Governance, Coaching, Development, Feedback,

Evaluation and Appraisal.

The Performance Management System is predicated on

the existence of the agency’s foundational documents

(mission, vision, purpose, values and goals.) Systems of

performance management transcend the “managed”

individual duties performed. Employees have the right

of clarity and need for a functional orientation to agency

and the foundational documents to specify exactly how

they support the agency’s purpose. Preliminary to the

design /implementation of the system, performance of

an organization assessment culminating in a duty

analysis for each position identified on the org-chart is

required (Clark, 2016).

Evaluation comes at the completion of a project to

determine the shortfalls and wins. Appraisal evaluates

the performance in contrast to the agreed upon goals

evolving through governance. “These components are

closely related to each other, and the poor

implementation of any of them has a negative impact on

the performance management system as a whole”

(Aguinis, 2012, p. 38).

Each of these facets requires active participation from

the staff. The facets come together to ensure that there

are no unplanned outages, nor unplanned work episodes

in the routine and daily service provision.

Results

W. Adair Clark


Performance Management and Mission Alignment:Clarity, Competence and Confidence

Job Analysis

Psychological Constructs

Job Description KSAOs

Job Specifications

To be effective, a Performance Management System

must be applicable and equally enforceable for all

employees without regard to employment level. Sudin

warns us that “organizational justice affects employee

reaction toward performance appraisal system

implemented by the organization and, in turn, this will

affect the effectiveness and efficiency of the system”

(Sudin, 2011). The requirement for consistent

applicability is guard and defense against legal exposure

for alleged disparity in employee management and

treatments. The laws with which equal treatment insure

compliance are The Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Age

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, among

others. “The bottom line here is that ratees react more

positively to their appraisals, regardless of how

favorable they were in an instrumental sense, when they

have a good working relationship with their supervisor”

(Pichler, 2012, p. 726).

Collaboration is key: both employee and supervisor

must agree on the goals. The recommendation is for

utilization of the SMART (Specific, Measurable,

Attainable, Relevant and Timely) goal method (Whited,

2008).

The purpose of governance is to align foundational

documents with job tasking as dictated by duty position

while providing a structure within which to perform and

to assure diligent scheduling of project planning and

subsequent feedback. Coaching builds upon the

employees’ knowledge, skills, aptitude and other

attributes (KSAOs) to maximize performance, and when

needed to increase functional knowledge as it pertains to

the duty position. Development expands upon the

existing KSAOs to empower the employees for

autonomous performance, achievement or advancement.

Feedback is an on-going conversation between

supervisor/employee and/or trainer/trainee. Ongoing

alludes to prompt, pertinent critique or clarification

during times of need.

SMART Goal Development

The results of an effective performance management

system, is a trained and functional workforce. When the

employees realize that they too are instrumental in the

objectives and goals that guide their performance

appraisal they become more engaged, and increase job

satisfaction, as well as reduce stress with a correlational

enhanced performance efficacy.



Following from a presumption of the fulfillment of

Maslow’s hygienic hierarchy of needs, at least those of

security, safety and belonging (Ghanbarpour, &

Najmolhoda, 2013), contemporary motivation follows:

security assumes a “living wage”, safety the freedom

from fear of termination, and belonging is the inclusive

“fit”. “Everyone has three basic psychological needs,

that is, the need for autonomy, competence, and

relatedness” (Haivas, Hofmans, & Pepermans, 2014, p.

327). Not all motivations are equal: as the sources of

our motivational trends vary, so too do the targets of our

motivation. To propagate employee motivation a

system of collaborative involvement should be

instituted. Jacobsen, Hvitved, and Andersen (2014)

demonstrate that strict controls (micro-management)

decrease levels of motivation.

Introduction Objectives

Motivation has undergone arguably the greatest depth of

research and theorization, predating formalized

“behavioral science”, from Plato to Maslow. Clark

(2016) informs us that motivations vary across family,

cultures, age, race and societal affiliations. Each of

these can go as far as to dictate the career an individual

pursues as it does the variety of fulfillments within those

careers. Effective employers strive to maintain the level

of motivation within their staff, realizing that high

motivation when merged with competence increases

efficiencies. Macauley (2015) notes that a disengaged

employee is more likely to miss work and/or self-

terminate, thereby decreasing performance levels.

Methodology

The objective of increased employee motivation will

follow three phases: mentorship, self-worth and self-

efficacy. Mentorship is directive behavior that inspires,

instructs and informs accountability. Self-worth is a

belief, held by the employees, of their intrinsic value to

the organization, the historical baggage, packed and

carried through life and thinking highly of themselves.

Self-efficacy is the knowledge of ability, confidence of

competence and prowess.

Three Phases

Conclusion

Management must become familiar enough with the

employees to drive motivation in response to their

desires. Mentorship, self-worth and self-efficacy are

requisite to the development of motivation. As stated,

individuals are guided by their own needs, wants and

desires. Improvement of an employee’s perception of

self-value and self-efficacy, with an attendant increase

of motivation, will follow through an applied

mentorship and the expansion of clarity, competence

and confidence.

References

Clark, W. A. (2016). Increasing Confidence in Efficacy.

(Unpublished course work). Argosy University, Dallas.

Fernet, C., Trépanier, S., Austin, S., Gagné, M., & Forest, J.

(2015). Transformational leadership and optimal

functioning at work: on the mediating role of employees'

perceived job characteristics and motivation. Work &

Stress, 29(1), 11-31.

Ghanbarpour, Z., & Najmolhoda, F. S. (2013). Contemporary

theories of motivation in organizational leadership and

behavior. International Research Journal of Applied and

Basic Sciences, 6(1): 1-7.

Haivas, S., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (2014). “What

motivates you doesn’t motivate me”: individual

differences in the needs satisfaction–motivation

relationship of romanian volunteers. Applied Psychology:

An International Review, 63(2), 326–343 doi:

10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00525.x.

Jacobsen, C. B., Hvitved, J., & Andersen, L. B. (2014).

Command and motivation: how the perception of external

interventions relates to intrinsic motivation and public

service motivation. Public Administration, 92(4), 790-

806. doi:10.1111/padm.12024.

Macauley, K. (2015). Employee engagement: how to motivate

your team?. Journal of Trauma Nursing, 22(6), 298-300.

doi:10.1097/JTN.0000000000000161.

Muscalu, E., & Muntean, S. (2013). Motivation - a stimulating

factor for increasing human resource management

performance. Review of International Comparative

Management / Revista De Management Comparat

International, 14(2), 303-309.

Ramanauskienė, J., Vanagienė, V., & Klimas, E. (2011).

Suggestions for increasing employee motivation to work.

Proceedings of The International Scientific Conference:

Rural Development, 5(1), 204-209.

Results

Development of self-efficacy adds to the increase of

self-worth, which feeds ability to accept mentorship.

Minimization of directive (autocratic) management and

instillation of levels of autonomous responsibility

through an increase in the employees’ perception of

their inherent efficacy and value to the organization will

increase motivation and employee engagement. The

ultimate goal of upholding competitiveness and increase

of the bottom line is fulfilled.

The objective is to manage and increase employee

levels of job satisfaction, motivation and employee

engagement, such that an employee will enjoy, within

reason, performance of duty. “To remain competitive

and to ensure sustainability, today’s organizations must

adopt practices that foster high-quality functioning in

their employees” (Fernet, Trépanier, Austin, Gagné, &

Forest, 2015, p. 11).

Enhancement of an employee’s sense of self-worth

occurs when an organization demonstrates the

employee’s value. Inclusive collaboration, seeking out

the employee’s opinions and ideas, empowers the

employee. As the employees learn that their ideas and

opinions may have impact on the future programs of the

organization, their self-worth is enhanced. Advancing

the concepts of self-direction or autonomous

responsibility advances self-worth.

Self-Worth

W. Adair Clark


Employee Motivation and Perception of Self-Value:Clarity, Competence and Confidence

Applied motivation has evolved from a fear of

retribution for non-performance through the paradigm of

a “carrot or a stick” to the potential for anything or

nothing. The importance of motivation to business is

fundamental: if an employee dawdles, is repeatedly late,

or experiences unplanned absences, the effectiveness of

the business is at risk. Planning for set production

levels becomes no better than guesswork, increasing the

stress levels and hardships of the other workers. This

lack of motivation becomes a contagion that spreads and

eats away at the productivity of motivated workers. Just

as the business and performance are managed, so too

must managers motivate their subordinates and

employees.

Self-Actualization

Esteem

Belonging

Safety

Physiological

Building upon the constructs of performance

management, such that the employees are involved with

the metrics governing their performance appraisal,

improves motivation. The recommended performance

management system is a step toward transformational

leadership, increasing employee response and “buy-in”

(Muscalu, & Muntean, 2013). To incite employee

motivation, instill within them the sense of their value to

the organization. Allowing employee discretion within

guidelines in the manner of duty performance enhances

their motivation. Satisfaction and engagement should

increase.

Performance and Organizational Alignment

Mentorship

Mentorship is an extrinsic behavior conducted by a

supervisor, trainer or manager, who explains the

peculiarities of the organization’s purpose and culture,

filling intrinsic gaps and fine-tuning the employee’s

processes. The mentor answers questions and provides

guidance to assist employees in their sense of belonging.

Being mentored implants a sense of value in the one

mentored while providing surety in the hope of

continuance.

Self-efficacy is confidence of an aptitude or ability that

allows one to accept “voluntarily” new duties or to

perform, free of assistance, assigned tasks and job

duties. The knowledge that one can perform, without

fear of failure, is motivation to act.

Self-Efficacy

Motivation

Self-Efficacy

Mentorship

Self-Worth

Case Study: LEADERSHIP’S MOVING TARGETUsing D.R.I.V.E. – to find Clarity, Competence and Confidence

W. Adair ClarkArgosy University, Dallas, Texas

1 2 3

6 5 4

7 8 9

Define the symptoms Diagnose the Symptoms D.R.I.V.E.

Implementation;

Buy In & Roll Out

Remediation;Focus Group &

Recommendations

Discovery;

Literature & Analysis

Validation;

Cure vs Causes

Evaluation;

Achieving Longevity

Clarity, Competence & Confidence

(Clark, 2016).

CHANGE CATALYST

• An Excess of 30 Years Experience• Root Cause Analysis• Motivation and Empowerment• Training Development• Provision of Training• Team building

• Decades as a Systems Analysis• Research and Development• Conducting SWOT Analysis• Assessing Processes and Procedures• Development of Plans and Counter-plans• Software Design• Intervention Implementation

THE CLIENT

• Division – CMS Home Health Agency• Nursing

• Wound Care• Diabetes

• Physical Therapy

• Speech Pathology

• Occupational Therapy

• Medical Social Work

• Support• Supply• Clerks• Information Technology

(Lusthaus, Adrien, Anderson, Carden, & Montalván, 2002).

D.R.I.V.E.

Discovery

Remediation

Implementation

Validation

Evaluation

(Clark, 2016).

1 2 3 4 5

PLAN OF DISCOVERY

Assessment and evaluation of issues, root causes and contributing factors…

WHAT DOES RESEARCH TEACH US?

• Employee Satisfaction

• Employee Engagement

• Employee Motivation

• Ergonomic factors and Stress

Style of leadership

Autonomy – Self Direction

Ideation of Corporate Worth

Environmental factors

(Fleming, & Wilson, 2001; Lester, 2013; Cohen, 2014; Roelen, Koopmans, Noten, & Groothoff, 2008; SHRM, 2015; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002, p. 274; Wallace, 2009; Lewis, 2016; ).

IS THERE FOUNDATIONAL COHESION?

Without a clear and decisive articulation of purpose, the ultimate conclusion is foregone

– business FAIL!

(Understanding How Organizations Operate: A Primer for I-O, 2015; Lusthaus, Adrien, Anderson, Carden, & Montalván, 2002; Pearce, 1982;Scott, 2015, p. 32 )

IS MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVE?

CultureLeadershi

p

• Evaluation of leadership Style

• Definition of organizational culture

• Compliance with EEOC guidelines

• Commitment to Diversity

DO JOB REQUIREMENTS MEET THE GOALS?

• Job Analysis

• Job Descriptions

• Psychological Constructs

• KSAOs

(Dayal, 1969; Morgeson, & Campion, 2000; Cekada, 2010; Köksal, Ertekin, & Çolakoglu, 2014; Cascio, 2010).

TRAINING NEEDS ANALYSIS

• Foundational Documents

• Job Descriptions

• Performance Management

• Skills Development

(Arneson, Rothwell, & Naughton, 2013).

THE RIGHT EMPLOYEE?

• Knowledge, Skills, Aptitude & Other Attributes

• Personality Battery

• Satisfaction Survey

• Cognitive Evaluation

• Employee Engagement

(Markova, & McArthur, 2015).

BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER

• Dysfunctional Management

• Stratified employee value

• Micro-Management

• Dearth of exit interviews

Retention

Leadershi

p

Motivation

Satisfaction

Engagement

Autonomy

Collaboration

(Maxwell, 2009).

COLLABORATIVE REMEDIATION

• Explanation of Discovery

• Expansion of Root Cause(s)

• Focus Group Collaboration

• Determination of Remediation

• Recommendations…

(Lusthaus, Adrien, Anderson, & Carden, 1999; Shenge, 2014; Glamuzina, 2015).

IMPLEMENTING THE INTERVENTION

• Providing Leadership Training

• Enacting a Full Performance Management System

• Intentionally increasing employee value

(Maxwell, 1993; Lusthaus, Adrien, Anderson, & Carden, 1999; Miller, 2014; Markova, & McArthur, 2015).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

• Collaborative Intelligence

• Transformational Leadership

• Employee Motivation

• Demonstration of Value

VALIDATION OF EFFECTIVENESS

• Reaction (level 1)• reengineering,

• process motivation, and

• strategic plan

• Learning (level 2)• Coaching and mentoring

• Behavior (level 3)

• Performance appraisals

• Results (Level 4)

• engagement

• competitive advantage

Results

Behavior

Learning

Reaction

(Kirkpatrick, Kirkpatrick, 2009; Abdulghani, Shaik, Khamis, Al-Drees, Irshad, Khalil, & ... Isnani, 2014).

EXTRINSIC INFLUENCES

OF INTRINSIC COMPLICATIONS

• Ethical issues

• Legal issues

• Diversity

• Cultural issues

Leadership

Competence

Engagement

Clarity

Confidence

MAKING THE PIECES FIT…

The overarching

remediation is institution

of a policy of equitable

treatment and staff

development…

D.R.I.V.E

Culture

REFERENCESAamodt, M. G. (2016). Industrial/Organizational Psychology: An Applied Approach [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from


Abdulghani, H. M., Shaik, S. A., Khamis, N., Al-Drees, A. A., Irshad, M., Khalil, M. S., & ... Isnani, A. (2014). Research methodology workshops evaluation using the

Kirkpatrick's model: Translating theory into practice. Medical Teacher, 36S24-S29. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2014.886012.

Aguinis, H. (2012). Performance Management, 3rd Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781269659116.

Al-Araki, M. (2013). SWOT analysis revisited through PEAK-framework. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 25(3), 615-625. doi:10.3233/IFS-120668.

Armitage, A., & Parrey, D. (2013). Reinventing performance management: creating purpose-driven practices. People & Strategy, 36(2), 26-33.

Arneson, J., Rothwell, W., & Naughton, J. (2013). Training and development competencies redefined to create competitive advantage. T + D, 67(1), 42-47,6. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1270282908?accountid=34899.

Barclay, J. M. (2001). Improving selection interviews with structure: Organisations' use of "behavioural" interviews. Personnel Review, 30(1), 81. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/214802174?accountid=34899.

Cascio, W. F., Aguinis, H. (2010). Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management, 7th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from


REFERENCESCekada, T. L. (2010). Training needs assessment. Professional Safety, 55(3), 28-33. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200355535?accountid=34899 Ginsburg,

R. S. (2014). Strategic planning for small law firms. Nebraska Lawyer Magazine, 17(2), 25.

Clark, W. A. (2016). Banks Industries: Performance Management System. (Unpublished course work). Argosy University, Dallas.

Clark, W. A. (2016). Increasing Confidence in Efficacy. (Unpublished course work). Argosy University, Dallas. Retrieved October 6, 2016 from

http://myeclassonline.com/re/DotNextLaunch.asp?courseid=13244946&userid=33992326&sessionid=dccec4ac68&tabid=wMz58J4XhYnnj3SxURTRlMX1vh1eVjW07JUlh

N8NX2ajJsmlzJCPLdO+7f18DdqS&sessionFirstAuthStore=true&macid=cf0EsZLR53iruD5ESekqMRrcTdFOViokaEwtuB8t4VV9ranM1g/ZLJrH/9z3BuqbMft9BbksFbg6

KwNOSRmvpjt4xn773fLucwhTxIsIU0UL32DRSXlpWaQUXiBxIW96yZp6iMkNqBgcGaA4TeDTt/vCLpE/BwUp5hTK/DLI5AUM6vUShkm4WwEHmudolgr9tSvst8PzV0

DOXq7IrAngPkFAD1etLcQQeL7cgFgz8Gw=.

Clark, W. A. (2016). Leadership: not just taking a walk. (Unpublished course work). Argosy University, Dallas.

Clark, W. A. (2016). Networking the elevator. (Unpublished course work). Argosy University, Dallas.

Clausen, T. S., Jones, K. T., & Rich, J. S. (2008). Appraising employee performance evaluation systems. CPA Journal, 78(2), 64-67.

Cohen, D. (2014). Employment Engagement. People & Strategy, 36(4), 12-14.

REFERENCESComan, A., & Ronen, B. (2009). Focused SWOT: diagnosing critical strengths and weaknesses. International Journal of Production Research, 47(20), 5677-5689.

doi:10.1080/00207540802146130.

Cummings, T. G. (2014). Organization Development and Change, 10th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from


Dayal, I. (1969). Role Analysis Technique in Job Descriptions. California Management Review, 11(4), 47-50.

Fernet, C., Trépanier, S., Austin, S., Gagné, M., & Forest, J. (2015). Transformational leadership and optimal functioning at work: on the mediating role of employees' perceived

job characteristics and motivation. Work & Stress, 29(1), 11-31.

Fleming, M. J., & Wilson, J. B. (ED). (2001). Effective HR Measurement Techniques. Alexandria, Virginia: Society for Human Resource Management.

Ghanbarpour, Z., & Najmolhoda, F. S. (2013). Contemporary theories of motivation in organizational leadership and behavior. International Research Journal of Applied and

Basic Sciences, 6(1): 1-7.

Glamuzina, M. (2015). Levels of leadership development and top management's effectiveness: is there a clear-cut relationship?. Management: Journal of Contemporary

Management Issues, 20(1), 89-131. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01335.

Haivas, S., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (2014). “What motivates you doesn’t motivate me”: individual differences in the needs satisfaction–motivation relationship of

romanian volunteers. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 63(2), 326–343 doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00525.x.

REFERENCESHarter, J. K., Schmidt, F., L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-

analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Schmidt10/publication/11367971_Business-unit-

level_relationship_between_employee_satisfaction_employee_engagement_and_business_outcomes_a_meta-analysis/links/53e298320cf275a5fdda31d0.pdf.

Jacobsen, C. B., Hvitved, J., & Andersen, L. B. (2014). Command and motivation: how the perception of external interventions relates to intrinsic motivation and public service

motivation. Public Administration, 92(4), 790-806. doi:10.1111/padm.12024.

Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2009). The kirkpatrick model: past, present and future. Chief Learning Officer, 8(11), 20-55.

Köksal, M. S., Ertekin, P., & Çolakoglu, Ö. M. (2014). How differences among data collectors are reflected in the reliability and validity of data collected by likert-type scales?.

Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(6), 2206-2212.

Lester, D. (2013). Measuring maslow's hierarchy of needs. Psychological Reports, 113(1), 15-17. doi:10.2466/02.20.PR0.113x16z1.

Lewis, J. (2016). Problems Encountered with Workplace Culture. Chron. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/problems-encountered-workplace-culture-15376.html.

Lombardi, M. (2013). Unlocking your organization's value: the emergence of workforce management in the greater human capital management model. Workforce Solutions

Review, 4(4), 4-6.

Long, C. S., Kowang, T. O., Ismail, W. K. W., & Rasid, S. Z. A. (2013). A review on performance appraisal system: an ineffective and destructive practice? Middle-East Journal

of Scientific Research 14(7), pp. 887-891.

REFERENCESLusthaus, C., Adrien, M., Anderson, G., & Carden, F. (1999). Enhancing organizational performance. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre. Retrieved

October 9, 2016 from https://www.idrc.ca/en/book/enhancing-organizational-performance-toolbox-self-assessment.

Lusthaus, C., Adrien, M., Anderson, G., Carden, F., & Montalván, G. P. (2002). Organizational assessment a framework for improving performance. Ottawa, Canada:

International Development Research Centre. Retrieved October 9, 2016 from https://www.idrc.ca/en/book/organizational-assessment-framework-improving-

performance?PublicationID=241.

Macauley, K. (2015). Employee engagement: how to motivate your team?. Journal of Trauma Nursing, 22(6), 298-300. doi:10.1097/JTN.0000000000000161.

Markova, D. & McArthur, A. (2015). Collaborative intelligence: thinking with people who think differently. New York. 978-0-8129-9491-9.

Maxwell, J. C. (1993). Developing the Leader Within You. Nashville, TN, USA: Thomas Nelson.

Miller, S. P. (2014). Next-generation leadership development in family businesses: the critical roles of shared vision and family climate. Frontiers in Psychology, 51-14.

Muhammad Ikhlas, K. (2012). The impact of training and motivation on performance of employees. IBA Business Review, 7(2), 84-95.

Muscalu, E., & Muntean, S. (2013). Motivation - a stimulating factor for increasing human resource management performance. Review of International Comparative

Management / Revista De Management Comparat International, 14(2), 303-309.

REFERENCESNoe, R. (2009). Employee Training & Development, 5th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/0077606086.

Pearce, I. A. (1982). The company mission as a strategic tool. Sloan Management Review, 23(3), 15-24.

Pichler, S. (2012). The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal reactions: A meta-analysis. Human Resource Management, 51(5), 709-732.

doi:10.1002/hrm.21499.

Ramanauskienė, J., Vanagienė, V., & Klimas, E. (2011). Suggestions for increasing employee motivation to work. Proceedings of The International Scientific Conference: Rural

Development, 5(1), 204-209.

Roelen, C. A. M., Koopmans, P. C., Notenbomer, A., & Groothoff, J. W. (2008). Job satisfaction and sickness absence: a questionnaire survey. Occupational Medicine, 58, 567–

571. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqn113.

Scott, J. (2015). Moving Mountains. (cover story). Landscape Management, 54(4), 32-40.

Shenge, N. A. (2014). Training Evaluation: Process, Benefits, and Issues. IFE Psychologia, 22(1), 50-58.

Sudin, S. (2011). Fairness of and satisfaction with performance appraisal process. Journal of Global Management, 2(1), 66-83.

Wallace, M. (2009). Business and leadership. occupational health nurses -- the solution to absence management?. AAOHN Journal, 57(3), 122-127 6p.

Whited, M. (2008). SMART goal setting. Campus Activities Programming, 41(3), 11-13.