Content uploaded by A. J. Lewry
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by A. J. Lewry on Jun 09, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Finding the performance gap
Abstract
We have the ability to design good buildings and the knowledge to operate them in an effective and efficient manner – so why doesn’t it happen?
The construction industry has in general been “designing for compliance” using software with “standardised driving conditions”. We know how to build good performance buildings but the issue seems to be having the design feed through to performance-in-use.
However, the real truth is nobody knows and this presents an opportunity for whoever finds the evidence for the underpinning causes and then presents practical solutions to solve them. The main barrier to this is quality data from a large enough sample with full access to the building and their occupants – we have now been presented with that opportunity. What was missing is “real-life” exemplars to investigate the actual causes of the performance gap and propose practical solutions.
Coaching aims to enhance "self propelling force" of an individual to work effectively. Whereas, the mentor has expertise to guide and influence other individuals in a positive way, that leads to the development of an employee's career in an organization. They both have positive impact on individual performances that is the reason coaching and mentoring is considered to be an important part of new practices of management. They "inspire" and "empower" employees, to gain organizational commitment, boost up the productivity level that leads to organizational success. This research paper aims to differentiate coaching and mentoring and acknowledge the impact of its practices on organizational performance and on employees' workplace learning. The current research attempted to investigate the aim, style, goals and focus of coaching and mentoring and its mechanism for improved individual performance. Researchers have presented two major conceptual models of coaching and mentoring. First model comprehensively characterize strategic differences between two practices, whereas the second model explains the premeditated collision of said two practices with organizational performance.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.