Untitled

programme, towards meeting stated goals and
objectives and relative to established and accepted
levels of achievement. They are commonly used
to monitor and evaluate, in quantitative terms, the
success or otherwise of an undertaking.
Forming judgements about performance involves
weighing multiple, competing and sometimes
contradictory objectives and measures, and
subjective, value-laden components that change
over time. Moreover, the process of performance
monitoring is multifaceted and should go beyond
the mere achievement of intended results. Attention
to unintended effects, to flexibility and
responsiveness to change internally and externally,
to appropriateness and relevance to the social
context and operational environment, and to the
pursuit of sustainability are all important aspects of
a project's performance. These take on added
significance for tourism developments where the
potential for impacts on the environment, both
negative and positive, is a recurring reflection on
performance.
Conventionally, measurement of performance
can be grouped under three basic elements:
economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The first
category is related to the achievement of standards
and the resources needed and the measures
required to reach these levels. However, the
relationship is not straightforward. Choices and
trade-offs among socioeconomic goals, environmental
sustainability, community interests and
public policies and institutional structures can blur
the picture and make the selection of performance
indicators complex. Again, this is often typical of
tourism undertakings where commercial realities
do not always mesh with community expectations
and compliance requirements. Efficiency
indicators are also concerned, in part, with
economic performance, but also with technological
and allocative efficiency, and accountability. Sustainability,
or the persistence of benefits over time,
is obviously important for tourism projects. Effectiveness
as an element of performance measurement
is about outcomes, not necessarily outputs.
This distinction is of particular relevance to
tourism where precise definition of the desire
product may not be possible. Rather, effort in
improving performance should be directed towards
upgrading the processes in place. This is far more
difficult to measure on an individual project basis,
but may be of much more widespread and lasting
benefit to the tourism industry as a whole.
Further reading
Cook, T., Van Sant, J., Stewart, L. and Jamie, A.
�1995) `Performance measurement: lessons
learned for development management', World
Development 23�8): 1303±15.
Mosse, R. and Southeimer, L. �1996) Performance
Monitoring Indicators Handbook, Washington: World
Bank.
performance standard
performance standard 433
JOHN J. PIGRAM, AUSTRALIA
Organisations must establish consistent performance
criteria and reward systems. Without these,
the opportunity for considerable conflict exists
within the system. In the absence of common
performance standards employees in different parts
of an organisation may attempt to attain disparate
goals. For instance, without consistent performance
standard sales and marketing personnel may place
all of their emphasis on attracting business. While
front desk managers or attendants in tourism, for
example, may concentrate on serving a specific
type of guest, these two goals are obviously in
conflict. Reward systems are useful in establishing
performance standards that are consistent. In the
final analysis, such systems must motivate individual
employees to work more productively; but,
unfortunately, not all of them have the same wants
and needs. As a result, not all compensation
programmes work for all employees.
Motivation theories fall into two principle types:
content and process theories. The former, more
important to understanding performance standards,
relate to how organisations can encourage
employees to work. The latter theories approach
employee behaviours from a different perspective.
Those that are widely acknowledged are the
expectancy, equity, and reinforcement theories.
The former assumes that people are always
motivated. The goal of managers is to get workers
to focus their motivation on organisational goals.