There to Delaney & Huselid ( 2013,p.969), who defines

are many definitions of organizational performance, but little consensus about
them. One of more widespread, according to Delaney & Huselid ( 2013,p.969),
who defines performance as the difference between the value of an organization
created through the use of its productive assets and the value owners of these
same goods expect to obtain. The level of success achieved in terms of
performance is determined by the ability to generate the expected value. An
organization can have its performance evaluated positively or negatively
against expectations of the owners, which can also be added to their employees
and customers. Using the opinion of Cania (2016.p.56), greater precision is
required as regards the form how organizational performance should be defined
and evaluated. The lack of clear definition and validity of the performance
construct may be a limiting factor in the current research on HRM and impact on
organizational performance. The importance of the process by which a set of HR
practices adds value to the organization became a concern of the investigators
since it was concluded that the evaluation of the effect of an isolated
practice can lead to biased effects (Guest, 2014,p.67).

 The authors also draw attention to the
complexity of this subject and suggest the multidisciplinary perspective, of
experimental designs that contemplate conceptual and experimental, micro and
macro, of different disciplines, such as strategy, leadership, and management. Gelade
& Ivery,(2013,p.404), has characterized in conceptual terms the different
aspects that have been present in the investigation around the relation GRH and
performance. In its perspective: (a) it can be treated as a general relation,
although there is the question of whether or not it is mediated by the
involvement and commitment of employees as well as their skills; (b) can be
treated as contingent, moderated by a third factor, namely organizational
strategy; (c) is affected by the fact that employees are involved in
production, or (d) is moderated by integration of HRM throughout the
organization in both the institutional and cognitive fields. The measurement of
performance has involved a great variability(Thite,2015,p.258). 

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

addition to coexisting different performance definitions, researchers have
sometimes adapted to the same studies, different levels of analysis (eg,
individual or organizational) and indicators. The need for a consensual
adoption of measures to evaluate HRM practices and systems was verified and
defended by Rees & Smith (2017.p.34), among others. These authors, in a
research in this field, draw attention to some important aspects. To the impact
of HRM on organizational performance, researchers some difficulty in identifying
measures that meet the needs of managers, so they adapted different indicators,
such as productivity, profits, quality and survival organizational structure
(Melton &Meier,2017,p.130). Buller & McEvoy(2014,p.56) proposed four
types of measures for organizational performance: (1) HRM results ( turnover,
absenteeism, job satisfaction); (2) results organizational (productivity,
quality, service); (3) financial results (profitability); and (4) capital
market results (stock price, growth, return). Cania (2016.p.56), points to the
fact that HRM strategies when designed, their impact on HRM outcomes (eg,
decrease in absenteeism), followed by results in the organizational, financial,
and capital market aspects(Guest, 2014,p.67). However, the increasing
complexity of factors influencing (organizational or capital market, for
example) mitigates the relative contribution of-of HRM factors for
organizational performance, when it is expressed on the basis of other
indicators than those specific to HRM (Huselid, 2011,p.188). For example,
the appreciation in the stock market of an organization does not highlight the
specific actions developed within the scope of HRM. This lack of specialized
evidence on organizational results leads to the perception that results of HRM
are, in fact, deficient from the point of view of most executives, and explain
why it is that much of HRM Strategic organizational results, for example,
instead of other possible, such as HRM, of the capital and financial resources.