Bridging Dichotomies beyond Silos: The CORE Model’s Integration of Performance Theories across Multi-Level Analysis—Firm and Individual Levels

INTRODUCTION

Marshall, Aguinis, and Beltran (2024) article, Theories of Performance: A Review and Integration, published in the Academy of Management Annals, presented an integrative review of the theory of performance. Since 1946, numerous scholars have explored performance theory introducing a wide range of theoretical frameworks that address and measure performance either on a micro level which the authors considered as the individual or team level or on a macro level which the authors considered as the firm level. The authors emphasized the importance of addressing performance on both levels, the firm and the individual or team level due to the interconnectedness between the two levels and the difficulty of separating them. Therefore, their study has addressed the performance theory adopting a multi-level analysis, addressing both firm and individual or team levels simultaneously. The significance of their study relies on the popularity of the theory of performance among scholars represented by the extensive literature that addressed the theory of performance from different perspectives. Strategic management scholars were particularly interested in addressing performance on a firm level, entrepreneur scholars emphasized the entrepreneurial view, and organizational behaviour scholars addressed performance on an individual level.

The authors highlighted the confusion in the definition of performance and how it was defined in the literature in various ways, as a process, as an outcome, or as an output or even both. This confusion was extended to the terminology describing the performance and the author attributed such confusion to the diversity of management subfields from where scholars have addressed performance in addition to the dichotomous levels of analysis addressed throughout the literature whether it is from a micro or macro perspective. The article addressed a critical view of an existing gap in the existing literation, highlighting that significant scholarly efforts have been done by scholars to develop new theory to define and measure performance with integrating these theories together. This led to theories that lack organization, coherence, and often contradict or overlap with each other. Therefore, the author states that their overarching goal is to connect and integrate all the theories of performance into a meta-theory of performance. Subdivided from their primary goal is three sub-goal, first to prevent the proliferation of redundant theory of performance, second to introduce new research opportunities for scholars, focusing on the theoretical and empirical aspect of the introduced meta-theory of performance and its meta-theoretical constructs, third to advocate for the collaboration and integration of the theory of performance meta-theoretical constructs on a multi-level, the firm and the individual levels. These goals have guided the methodology of the study setting this study apart from the previous literature in three major aspects, first, this study is examined multiple level of analysis whether on a micro or macro level. Second, this study examined multiple domains across the subfields of management. Third, this study focused on the collaboration of the theories of performance into a meta-theory emphasizing the relationship between its meta-theoretical constructs that interconnect at both firm and individual level.

METHODOLOGY

The authors’ methodology focused on developing a meta-theory of performance by merging 239 unique performance theory extracted from reviewing 15535 journal articles from 44 top management-related journals, published between 1946 and 2022. These journal articles were selected using keywords related to “performance” from the web of science. The authors applied computer-aided analysis using keyword cluster analysis to organize literature. Then the authors developed and applied human coding to identify the level of analysis, firm versus individual level, and the agent orientation intra-agent versus inter-agent to categorize performance theory into thematic groups. Finally, they identified and named the key meta-theoretical constructs and tested the belonging of all theories into this new theoretical framework.?

META-THEORY AND META-THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS OF PERFORMANCE

The authors conceptualized performance as “a system composed of interconnected meta-theoretical constructs—what we call the ‘CORE’ model of performance” (Marshall, Aguinis, & Beltran, 2024, p. 609). Marshall, Aguinis, and Beltran (2024) identified six meta-theoretical constructs that frame performance at both firm and individual levels. The introduced CORE model of performance included three key components: Capacity ("C"), Opportunity ("O"), and Relevant Exchanges ("RE"). Capacity includes firm-level capabilities and individual-level KSAOs (Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other characteristics). Opportunity includes firm-level structures and individual roles. Relevant Exchanges includes firm-level transactions and individual relationships. Together, these elements determine performance ("P") (Marshall, Aguinis, & Beltran, 2024, p. 601).

To provide an integrated overview of the CORE model’s meta-theoretical constructs and their dynamic relationships, Figure 1 merges the six meta-theoretical constructs with their interactions across firm and individual levels, adapted from the original figures by Marshall, Aguinis, and Beltran (2024). According to the authors, two fundamental elements inform the conceptualization of the meta-theoretical performance notions, as depicted in Figure 1: the performance level (individual or firm) and whether the activities take place within (intra) or between (inter) agents. The concepts include KSAOs, which stand for the skills and knowledge people bring to their professions; Capabilities, which describe a firm's capacities based on its resources and expertise; Roles, which delineate specific roles within an organization; Structures, which define an organization's organizational framework; Relationships—which highlight the ties between people that influence cooperation and productivity—and Transactions—which center on the interactions between the company and its external environment. Unlike previous theories that treated performance as a static process or outcome, the CORE model positions performance as a dynamic outcome arising from the complex interplay of these elements. It provides an integrated framework that integrates the various constructs at both the individual and firm levels.

FIGURE 1

Adapted Overview of the CORE Model: Meta-Theoretical Constructs and Relationships (Marshall, Aguinis, & Beltran, 2024, pp. 601-602).

NEW INSIGHTS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS DERIVED FROM THE CORE PERFORMANCE MODEL

The authors discouraged management researchers from studying performance in research silos whether on a micro or a macro level, from aiming for developing new theoretical frameworks, and from either addressing their performance-related scholarly research dichotomously or limiting the definition of performance to a process, output or an outcome. Meanwhile, the authors encourages management researchers to focus on the parsimonious CORE model, start exploring the research opportunities for the CORE model, the meta-theory of performance, and the meta-theoretical constructs, and examine the impact of performance process on performance outcomes and vice versa.

CONCLUSION

Since performance is a significant construct across various subfields of management, this study has integrated 239 theories across 15535 journal articles from 1946 to 2022 to unravel a meta-theory of performance with six meta-theoretical constructs that are isomorphic in nature, introducing three key components of the performance system represented in the parsimonious CORE model which is applicable at multiple levels whether it is a firm, individual and even on a team level. Therefore, researchers are discouraged from pursuing new theoretical frameworks, ones that either work in silos or take a dichotomous view of performance. Meanwhile, researchers are encouraged to further explore the research opportunities associated with the CORE model and the six meta-theoretical constructs of performance.

REFERENCES

1. Marshall, J. D., Aguinis, H., & Beltran, J. R. (2024). Theories of performance: A review and integration. Academy of Management Annals, 18(2), 595–625. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2022.0049