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

Thereare many definitions of organizational performance, but little consensus aboutthem. One of more widespread, according to Delaney & Huselid ( 2013,p.969),who defines performance as the difference between the value of an organizationcreated through the use of its productive assets and the value owners of thesesame goods expect to obtain.

The level of success achieved in terms ofperformance is determined by the ability to generate the expected value. Anorganization can have its performance evaluated positively or negativelyagainst expectations of the owners, which can also be added to their employeesand customers. Using the opinion of Cania (2016.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

p.56), greater precision isrequired as regards the form how organizational performance should be definedand evaluated. The lack of clear definition and validity of the performanceconstruct may be a limiting factor in the current research on HRM and impact onorganizational performance. The importance of the process by which a set of HRpractices adds value to the organization became a concern of the investigatorssince it was concluded that the evaluation of the effect of an isolatedpractice can lead to biased effects (Guest, 2014,p.

67). The authors also draw attention to thecomplexity of this subject and suggest the multidisciplinary perspective, ofexperimental designs that contemplate conceptual and experimental, micro andmacro, of different disciplines, such as strategy, leadership, and management. Gelade& Ivery,(2013,p.

404), has characterized in conceptual terms the differentaspects that have been present in the investigation around the relation GRH andperformance. 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 theinvolvement and commitment of employees as well as their skills; (b) can betreated as contingent, moderated by a third factor, namely organizationalstrategy; (c) is affected by the fact that employees are involved inproduction, or (d) is moderated by integration of HRM throughout theorganization in both the institutional and cognitive fields. The measurement ofperformance has involved a great variability(Thite et.al,2015,p.258).  Inaddition to coexisting different performance definitions, researchers havesometimes adapted to the same studies, different levels of analysis (eg,individual or organizational) and indicators.

The need for a consensualadoption of measures to evaluate HRM practices and systems was verified anddefended by Rees & Smith (2017.p.34), among others. These authors, in aresearch in this field, draw attention to some important aspects. To the impactof HRM on organizational performance, researchers some difficulty in identifyingmeasures 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 fourtypes of measures for organizational performance: (1) HRM results ( turnover,absenteeism, job satisfaction); (2) results organizational (productivity,quality, service); (3) financial results (profitability); and (4) capitalmarket results (stock price, growth, return). Cania (2016.

p.56), points to thefact 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 increasingcomplexity of factors influencing (organizational or capital market, forexample) mitigates the relative contribution of-of HRM factors fororganizational performance, when it is expressed on the basis of otherindicators than those specific to HRM (Huselid et.al, 2011,p.188). For example,the appreciation in the stock market of an organization does not highlight thespecific actions developed within the scope of HRM. This lack of specializedevidence on organizational results leads to the perception that results of HRMare, in fact, deficient from the point of view of most executives, and explainwhy it is that much of HRM Strategic organizational results, for example,instead of other possible, such as HRM, of the capital and financial resources.