Updated: Aug 10, 2019
Introducing the Basics of Performance Family Sustainability
More and more companies are using what's called a performance management system. Stanford University, for example, uses a performance management system to providing their employees with approaches, processes and tools to be the best employees that they can be. Likewise, the performance family sustainability system is characterized by providing families with the approaches, processes and tools they need to be the best families they can be.
Performance management systems are specifically characterized by feedback between leaders and employees. Zinger (2017) reports that when performance management systems are done well, there are positive outcomes. Other performance standards establish ongoing communication loops where performance is maintained on the basis of results (quality, quantity, timeliness).
Leading organizations today have devoted a great deal of their research and practice to understanding and improving the performance of families in legal trials. All of us who have participated in a family sustainability groups are united in our observance of unsustainable performances and the various differences in family sustainability performances. Variations that are crucial to other organizations and communities struggling to survive in competitive environments.
Before we get into the basics of performance family sustainability, we'll first consider what's called criterion measurement. A criteria (singular) is an evaluative standards like a yardstick we can use for measuring success or failure.
Dr. Voyles (2019) explains that there are ultimate criteria and actual criteria. Ultimate criterion (plural) encompasses all the aspects of performance that define success. Constructs that we develop as a goal to shoot for in measuring ultimate performance success. Thorndike (1949) describes ultimate criterion as very complex and not really accessible. We can never completely define and measure every aspect of performance.
Actual criterion, on the other hand, is the best real-world representation of the ultimate criterion Dr. Voyles (2019). We develop actual criteria to compare or overlap with the ultimate criterion as much as possible. This includes only those elements of the ultimate criterion that we intend to measure.
Based on extensive research with army enlisted personnel, Campbell developed a basic model for job performance which we can use to consider family performance (Campbell, 1990; Campbell, McHenry, & Wise, 1990). He proposes three determinants of performance: declarative knowledge, procedural (likeness), and motivation. By determinants of performance, he means the basic building blocks.
Campbell and his colleagues have proposed a model of work performance which can also be used as a model of family performance. Performance is behavior. In its ideal form, it is something that people actually do and that can be observed and measured. In many families, of course, the behavior is empathizing, thinking, planning, or problem solving and cannot actually be observed. Instead, it can only be described with the help of those in the family.
Families, organizations, society, and psychology deals with various behaviors. In the case of work psychology, this means behavior of workers, work performance, etc. In the case of families, this means behavior of basic home performance like cooking, cleaning, and empathy. Work psychology considers the following variables as an example to measuring performance:
- Time to complete a project
- Number of products produced
- Total days absent
- Total value of sales
Family psychology considers the following variables to measure performance:
- Time spent together
- Number of meals eaten together
- Number of missed meals
- Total days per year apart
- Rating those feelings of being together
- Rating those feelings of being apart
Basic Model of Performance Family Sustainability
Landy & Conte (2013) teach that positive psychology is a new lane in virtually all areas of psychology. And this is logical because without stable conditions, how could anyone unstable ever get know where to go? Likewise, without formal family sustainability conditions, then how can any family who is going through a trial ever know where to go?
One positive criterion is what's called family citizenship behavior (FCB). FCBs are those behaviors known for going above and beyond what is expected. Behaviors like seeing a single mother without food in the home for her children and bringing her groceries. Helpful behaviors such as offering to help a co-parent who is up against some deadline. FCBs can be assessed and measured and then used for overall FCBs.
Causes & Correlations of Citizenship Behavior
As often happens when a new concept or construct emerges, a good deal of research appears related to the causes and correlations. Hunt (2002) found that in very structured jobs, for example, where employees are expected to follow rigid rules, citizenship behaviors likely do as much harm as good. It appears that "initiative" might actually backfire on those who offer a more complete view.
Borman, Penner, Allen, and Motowidlo (2001) found evidence for a positive relationship between conscientiousness and citizenship behavior.
Witt, Kacmar, Carlson, and Zivnuska (2002) studied the relationship between negative organizational "politics" (e.g., a tendency to agree with superiors for the sake of going along, the role of unpopular but good ideas) and citizenship behavior. They found that the more negative the political environment, the less likely it was that citizenship behavior would appear.
This sample of research, currently in its infancy, shows a fascinating view of effective performance and how it can be achieved.
Counterproductive Family Behavior (CFB)
The elephant in the room when it comes to family citizenship behavior (FCB) is counterproductive family behavior (CFB). We previously considered the "sunny side" of performance. But there is a lightless side of performance.
CFBs are such things as absence, sabotage, taking advantage of, and other unsustainable behaviors. Behaviors done for self-gain and are destructive to the whole unit.
Let's look at two common CFBs: dishonesty and sabotage.
Dishonesty like theft is a major issue in many communities, particularly in retail businesses. Dishonesty can also involve theft of time or dishonest coercion and communications.
Sabotage is defined as "the intention to damage, disrupt, or subvert." Counterproductive behaviors can be thought of as magnets pulling the group apart. There are many dissatisfied community members, yet very few of them resort to sabotage (Landy & Conte, 2013).
Treatments for CFBs
Current research seems to identify personality factors closely associated with CFBs. However, proportionally speaking, CFBs are dwarfed by productive behaviors. So we should not jump to any conclusions regarding CFBs.
One of the most intriguing measurement projects for identifying people who are prone to aggression and counterproductive behavior has been conducted by Larry James and colleagues (Landy & Conte, 2013). James proposed that aggression like in the workplace stems from a flawed realization on the part of the aggressor that his or her behavior is somehow justified. Implicit tests of assessing reasoning and aggressive tendencies are showing promise in performance management.
Performance division measures are also well-known and are being further developed. Performance division measures may be literally unsustainable for many families. With no equal counter-balance for families to likewise absorb sustainability. Many organizations today have had to group together in order to preserve themselves.
The actual criterion here specifically divides families apart. The is no relevance between each individual piece of evidence, case and filing to family performance measures. In fact, only measurements of divorce are retained and no database of sustainability is used.
The ultimate criterion and actual criterion, in this case, are completely separate from each other. there's no relevance to share and no unadulterated feedback channels. But why would anyone in the world focus on family criteria when it's never going to be judged on anyway?
Another performance component is an area known as adaptive performance (Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000). Changing environments puts increased importance on those who are flexible and able to change circumstances. Pulakos and colleagues cited the following circumstances of today's workplace, for example, which favor adaptability:
- Changing technologies alter work tasks.
- Downsizing and corporate restructuring require learning new skills.
- Globalization requires individuals to work in different cultures.
For better or worse, it's often necessity that brings about the importance of adaptive performances. An example of this was the $700 billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the past decade. Work was altered, and corporations reconstructed. Individuals were required to then work in unfavorable environments which required adaptive performance.
Types of Family sustainability Performance Measures
Imagine if family sustainability performance measures where documented and used as evidence or guidance. Most literature distinguishes between different types of performance indicators. Three different categories are suggested for the work psychology industry: objective measures, judgement measures, and personnel measures (Guion, 1965).
Currently, there are no known links between between CFBs and FCBs. However, Clean Law is working hard to give us next-generation safety files to bridge these gaps. The criterion properties of tomorrow will like they've never looked before. Converging the motives to divide with the need to sustain is a given. Pain hurts the least of us the most. Even puppy dogs cry and are sad and often tear up the house when they are separated from their owners. Converging other motives like adult fighting files with child safety files leads to providing each individual family member with value of their own. And converging a mechanistic system with a life system, mechanistic records with life records, and divided homes with united homes all loves, connects and heals the least of us. Perhaps tomorrow all families will be sustainable!
Borman,, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52-69.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (eds.), Hand book of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 39-74). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Campbell, J. P., McHenry, J. J., & Wise, L. L. (1990). Modeling job performance in a population of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43, 313-333.
Guion, R. M., (1965). Personnel testing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hunt, S. T. (2002). On the virtues of staying "inside the box": Does organizational citizenship behavior detract from performance in Taylorist jobs? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 152-159.
Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2013). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to
industrial and organizational psychology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2002). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 612-624.
Performance Management Resources. (n.d.). Retrieved July 22, 2019, from
Thorndike, R. L. (1949). Personnel selection. New York: J. Wiley.
University Human Resources. (n.d.). Retrieved July 22, 2019, from
Voyles, D. (2019, July 21). Criterion Measurement[I-O Psychology Course: Work in the 21st Century]. Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL.
Witt, L. A., Kacmar, M., Carlson, D. S., & Zivnuska, S. (2002). Interactive effects of personality and organizational politics on contextual performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 911-926.
Zenger, J. (2017, February 16). The 6 Vital Elements Of Effective Performance Management Systems. Retrieved July 22, 2019, from