Performance Hierarchy

I know what is meant by a critique of a performance managent system. For example: What is measured in performance (should be financial and non-financial). How are these qualities measured? How are objectives set? How are results interpreted (there should be some flexibility) How are rewards given? Think of Fitzgerald and Moon's building block model. I don't really know what the tipster is getting at when a critique of a performance hierarchy is suggested. Perhaps the buikding block model or the performance pyramid.

Can we say the critique of a performance management system can be under the following headings: Link to objectives Link to rewards Long term/short term Internal/external Financial/non financial (already mentioned by you tho) Flexibility Or is that for performance measures only? And is the controllability principle valid in the pointers you gave, it is a part of the building blocks...

Your suggestions are fine. Controllability also valid.

Thank you sir! Can you give some explanation of your point: how are results interpreted? Like give an example maybe...

Sales are below budget. However, investigation shows there had been an economic downturn since targets were set. So, how should sales performance be interpreted? Strict comparison to budget, or shouls an allowance be made?

Understood! One more question, "how are objectives set?" has to do with the same thing right, like considering the external environment before setting sales targets/objectives??

Objectives are set in advance and should consider both internal factors such as maximum production volume and external factors such as customer demand. Benchmarking is also important to try to ensure objectives are jb line with eg competors' performance.

Got it, thanx! :)