By the three, 3 performance laws the data would be normal when performance is optimum, it would be left-skewed for growth, and right-skewed for decay; which decay would be an indication of the dire need for the synergy that groups offer, as well as the inconsistencies and intolerance that are associated with work for sustenance

1. The 3 Laws of Performance:
In Fulfillment of HR’s Triple Bottom Line
By
Peter Anyebe
Abstract
Performance is conceptualized
to happen along a continuum,
between thought and behavior.
And both end points are linked
by process, which process is
the product of the thought
pattern. Given thought at the
shallow level of objectivity, f0p
therefore it would be sufficient
to perform at task by the
standard procedure, which
procedure may have been
derived by someone else. At
the deeper level of motives, f0b
however, the person would need to have derived the procedure by the self.
These two, 2 patterns of thought following which procedures are either derived by the self, f0b or
adopted from someone else, f0p distinguish between three, 3 groups of performers, including the
singles for whom the four, 4 features that define the content of the human character would be
stable; and for whom also the soul, S would predict the appraised performance, ROIApp. For the
survivors, only the prediction would be satisfied, then the features of the human character would
be unstable. And none of the two, 2 requirements would be sustained, for the hazardous.
The process that is derived according to the associated thought pattern is stored in the brain,
from where behavior is directed. And like the thought pattern and the process, the behavior
pattern defines three, 3 shapes, given the historical data of performance. At steady state when
the performance at task is optimum, the shape of the data would be normal. It would be left-
skewed, to signify growth; and right-skewed, to indicate decay in productivity as performance
drops. These shapes are associated with the singles, survivors, and hazardous, respectively.
While the three, 3 performance laws focus on the behavior pattern and therefore the shapes that
result, the focus of the corollaries is on the thought pattern and the associated groups. The
distinctions are important, to distinguish between work for sustenance which would be
Agape Consultants
8, De-Bangler Street
Gboko, Nigeria
+234(0)703-430-2486
anyebepeter@yahoo.com

2. associated with the survivors and hazardous; and work for soul, which characterizes the singles.
Moreover, leadership in the professions and in the industry would be exclusive to the singles;
who would be the domain experts, to derive the procedures by which the rest of the pack
performs at task. Then it would be feasible to put, the right workforce, C in the right
environment, EB and delivering profitable business growth, ROI; in fulfillment of HR’s triple
bottom line that include people, C planet, EB and profit, ROI respectively.
0.0 Preamble
Performance is conceptualized as a spectrum, which links thought and behavior. The link is
defined by processes, given which performance would be determined. Thus creative thought
culminates in a process, which directs behavior and therefore performance. But thought
happens at two, 2 levels, including objectivity, f0p and motives, f0b. This means that there would
be multiple kinds of thought patterns, leading equivalently to a multiplicity of performance
kinds and end products. With objectivity it would be sufficient that the standard procedure series,
SPS is approximated, to derive the four, 4 strategic objectives, by which to perform at task.
Motives however go beyond the process, to evaluate how it was derived. So while objectivity
answers to the ‘what’ question with respect to processes and procedures, motives answer to the
‘how’ question.
1.0 Thought Pattern
The distinction between objectivity and motives is necessitated by the duplication of the
fundamental purpose of the universe, to make souls. Thus because people need to survive in
order to build their souls, sustenance becomes equally fundamental, to distinguish between work
for soul and work for sustenance. To work for sustenance, f0p it would be sufficient to be
objective, which predicts value creation, PoF for Po = √f0p, and PoF = Po4
. And to work for
soul, f0b motives would need to be invoked, which predict the power to make wealth, ROIApp for
ROIApp = (22S – 1) / 21. Then the factor-S is evaluated from the relations presented below:
L = 1/A2 F2
A2 = f1f0b
f1 = tT, : 1. t = 1/ F2; t = Timing
2. T = √f0b; T = Tolerance
S = 1 / √L F2
= √(F1/F2),
F2 = 1 / Σ(Pm) x 67.00,
m
Pm + 1 = 2 (ΣPm ) + 1,
m=1
P1 = F1
F1 = 2√ (R) – 1,
R = 1/f
f = 1 - 1/ Fo : fo ≥ 0.50,
f =1 / Fo otherwise
Fo = √ (Lo Ao)
Lo = 1/(1- f0b)
Ao = 1/f0b

3. This reduces performance into the following four, 4 strategic features:
These features predict the personality, F according to the
quantity of entropy, F that is generated, given the person’s
motive, f0b. And from which factor-F the soul, S is derived,
as outlined in the relations presented above. The factors f0p
and f0b are derived from the factors Pc and Rn, according to
the relations presented below:
Given Pc and Rn therefore Fb and Fp are derived from the first, 1st
and second, 2nd
set of
relations respectively, according to which of f0b or f0p is required. Then the result is input to the
need profile, which is the third, 3rd
set of relations insert above right, for F = either Fb or Fp.
The profile transforms F into Po, which is a measure of the power, Po that is stored in the
personality, F for responses, R to stimuli, S. Recall the behavior model, for R = f (S, P) where in
this case F would be a reference to personality, for F = P. Then behavior, Po and thought, f0 are
linked by the relation, f0 = 2Po – 1 where f0 could be either f0p or f0b, as the case may be.
2.0 The Performance Laws
Following this conception of performance, the following three, 3 Laws of Performance are
suggested, along with their corollaries: Given a historical performance data therefore:
1. Optimum performance would be evident in the normality of the curve
1.1 The universe would be an investment in the human character, C with the
quality of soul, S that emerges as the expected return on investment;
according to the commitment, C’ to the task of soul building, which would
be evident in the quality of thought, f0
1.2 The typical human who is alive would be either a survivor or a hazard
according to what they know, which would be a consequence of work for
sustenance; but people would also be singles according to how the
knowledge was acquired, which would then be a consequence of work for
soul
3. ROIApp Performance
2. f0b 6. S
1. f0p 5. F
4. PoF
f0 = 2Po – 1,
Po = S / D2
D2 = D1 + S
S = 1 / √L
D1 = D - 2
D = Log (A) / Log (L)
A = LF2
L = 2F – 1
Given either Fp or Fb
Fb = Hm
Hm = 2Hr - 1
Hr = √ ((Rn / Fc) / (Pc / Sn))
Sn = 2Fc - 1
Fc = (3Pc + 1) / 4
Given Pc and Rn
Fp = √ (F’1F’2)
F’2 = (F’1 + 3) / 4
F’1 = Rn / √n’
√n’ = (4√n3 + 1) / 5
√n3 = √ (√n1 x √n2)
√n2 = (Rn + C) / 2
√n1 = 1/ C Pc2
C = (3Pc + 1) / 4
Given Pc and Rn

4. 2. Growth would be evident in a curve that is left skewed
2.1 Whether thought, f0 remains at the level of objectivity, f0p where people
are trained to adopt procedures, and to which training obedience is
expected; or whether it deeps into motives, f0b where learning entails the
reconstruction of the standard procedure for the performance at task as the
derivation of the four, 4 strategic objectives, thought, f0 would still predict
behavior, Po for f0 = 2Po – 1
2.2 The factors that distinguish between thought, f0 at the levels of objectivity,
f0p and motives, f0b would include the capacity to predict the appraised
performance, ROIApp from the soul, S as well as the stability of the features
that describe the four, 4 strategic contents of the human character, including
self-control, ScR self-containment, ScT retention, RtN and motives, f0b
3. A curve that is right skewed would indicate decay
3.1 People would usually be gregarious, needing to band together in groups; to
take advantage of the synergy, for ROIApp – ROIF in fulfillment of the
principle of one for all and all for one
3.2 For the fulfillment of the principle of from each according to their abilities
and to each according to their needs people would be valued according to
their perspectives of reality, F which perspective would be a product of the
resolution of the relativity question, as evident in their choices and
decisions; which choices and decisions define their worth, ROIApp for which
they may be retained, RtN or not
See data and charts at the end of the document.
3.0 Behavior Pattern
It would be the choices and decisions that people make over time, which add up in the historical
data, to define the shape of the curve that emerges; whether it is normal, left-skewed, or right-
skewed. The choices and decisions also locate the person uniquely, on the relativity continuum,
F that links the factors L and A, which define positivity and negativity respectively, for L= 1/A
F2
. Diagrammatically:
Moreover it is the choices and decisions that are captured, as measures of the factors Pc and Rn,
from which the factor-F is evaluated as presented above. And the factor-C is also evaluated from

5. these measures as, C = 1/19 A + 1 where A = LF2
. Recall that the universe is an investment into
the factor-C, which investment locates it at the root of the derivation of the factors Fp and Fb
from Pc and Rn, as well as the input to the model on which the ROIF is derived for each person,
for ROIF = 2(1 / (1 - 1 / C)) – 1. But the ROIApp is evaluated on the 6-metrics appraisal model,
although it may also be predicted from the factor-S as presented above. This means that if the
appraisal model is to be bye passed then the choice of measure for the factor-F necessarily has to
be Fb, and not Fp, for the compatibility of measurement scales. Notice also that it is f0b, and not
f0p that is included to define the four, 4 strategic features of the human character presented
above. Fp and f0p are reserved for the measure of productivity, for corroboration, as summarized
on the productivity model presented below:
4.0 The Workforce
Thus people would either be hazards, survivors, or singles according to how they go about the
acquisition of knowledge, which ‘how’ invokes f0b, and not f0p that is merely concerned with
the ‘what’ of objectivity. In general and for behavioral purposes, objectivity could be arrived at
in any of two, 2 ways. It could be derived personally, in the process of learning. This would be
when the person reduces the desired end product into a definite procedure, for its achievement.
But the procedure could also have been derived by someone else, in which case the beneficiary
would merely need to adopt it. Then the distinction between work for sustenance and work for
soul would involve who derives the procedure that is used at work. This would also define the
distinction between the leadership and the rest of the pack, among the workforce. The
leadership would be domain experts, who have learned to reduce tasks into procedures in their
professions. And this would be how they give, to be taken from, according to their abilities. The
rest of the pack would be takers, who adopt the procedures at work, according to their needs.
The shift from the pack into the fold of leadership could be made however, which would define
the bottom line for training and development (L & D?). Recall that as survivors, it would be
sufficient to be objective, f0p and therefore perform at task by the standard procedure, which
objectivity would be evident in the Po-Score, for 0.7 ≤ Po ≤ 0.98. In this case the person would
be able to identify and not necessarily derive, between one, 1 for Po = 0.7 and four, 4 for Po =
0.98 strategic components of procedures. Then the real shift would be, from mere identification
to derivation. This would be a function of the person’s temperament, Tt as indicated in the
behavior based measure of soul, for S = PoTt. The score on temperament serves as tolerance, to
reduce the factor-Po equivalently as the person is not able to learn, which would actually be a
manifestation of the inability to first, 1st
tolerate and thereafter overcome the vagaries of the
environment. It would be the intolerance that makes people hazards.

6. Recall that ultimately the lack of tolerance shows up as the observed inconsistencies in the scores
on the four, 4 strategic features that define the human character, C including self-control, ScR
self-containment, ScT retention, RtN and motives, f0b. The lack also manifests in the gap
between the observed value of the appraised performance, ROIApp and its expected value,
ROIApp’ which would be evaluated as ROIApp’ = √(S x CsT). Again the measure of consistency,
CsT serves as tolerance, to minimize the score on S which determines hazard. People would
usually be as hazardous as they are inconsistent. And in both cases, below a certain tolerable
limit, they would be un-retainable, for a measure of retention, RtN as RtN = ROIApp / ROIApp’.
Like hazard and inconsistency, engagement would be a shallower measure of retention, which
retention would then be a deeper feature of the workforce. Workforce engagement, EnG
measures the observed gap between ROIF and ROIApp, for EnG = ROIF / 10ROIApp. In this case
it is the person’s need, Nd for the synergy that the organization offers that is evaluated. The part
of the workforce that has been engaged would have moved into the leadership cadre. From
work for sustenance into work for soul, given that the conception of performance presented in
this work, applies. See data and charts at the end of the document.
The ability to predict engagement, EnG and retention, RtN from Pc and Rn makes it possible to
determine employability, EmP objectively as, EmP = √(EnG x RtN). And the skill gap, SkG
index would be evaluated as, SkG = EmP x EmP’ where EmP’ is evaluated by varying the
factor-√n in the process, to measure its expected value, √n’. Recall that this factor measures the
performance at task by
the standard procedure.
Given the scores on the
factors EnG, RtN, EmP,
and SkG the training need
would be determined for the workforce, as summarized in the series insert, above left: And the
value of the right workforce would be determined as defined on the series insert, above right:
3. EmP L & D
2. RtN 6. Leadership
1. EnG 5. Training
4. SkG
3. Retention, S, CsT Workforce
2. Hazard, Po, Tt 6. ROIApp
1. Survival, Po 5. PoF
4. Engagement, Nd