**The Global Success Measures Model (GSM-8):

J Jayanthi Chandran
2 days ago
17 min read

An Eight-Quadrant Ethical–Psychological Framework for Sustainable Human and Institutional Success**

Abstract

Prevailing definitions of success across healthcare, governance, organizations, and development remain predominantly outcome-centric, often neglecting ethical legitimacy, psychological sustainability, and human dignity. This paper proposes the Global Success Measures Model (GSM-8)—an eight-quadrant integrative framework that reconceptualizes success as a balanced system of ethical, cognitive, social, and institutional conditions. Synthesizing foundational contributions from Beauchamp and Childress, Viktor Frankl, Erving Goffman, Keltner et al., Lazarus and Folkman, and the World Health Organization, GSM-8 identifies eight non-negotiable dimensions: Non-Maleficence, Dignity, Meaning, Continuity, Role Integrity, Appraisal Justice, Power Restraint, and Participation-Based Trust. The model asserts that sustainable global success exists only when all eight dimensions operate simultaneously; failure in any quadrant undermines legitimacy regardless of performance outcomes.

Keywords: Global success, dignity, meaning, ethical governance, appraisal justice, power restraint, systems ethics

1. Introduction

Across disciplines, success is commonly measured through efficiency, growth, output, or compliance indicators. While such metrics offer operational clarity, they routinely fail to capture whether systems preserve humanity while performing effectively. This has led to a growing paradox: institutions may appear successful by quantitative standards while simultaneously producing burnout, alienation, ethical violations, and systemic distrust.

Global crises in mental health, governance legitimacy, organizational integrity, and care ethics reveal a deeper conceptual gap—success has been detached from dignity, meaning, and ethical restraint. This paper argues that success must be reframed as a human-sustaining condition, not merely an instrumental achievement.

To address this gap, the paper introduces the Global Success Measures Model (GSM-8)—an eight-quadrant framework that integrates ethics, psychology, social identity, cognitive appraisal, power regulation, and rights-based participation into a single evaluative structure.

2. Conceptual Foundations and Literature Review

2.1 Non-Maleficence as Ethical Floor

Principles of Biomedical Ethics establish non-maleficence as a foundational ethical principle. Any system that causes harm—particularly dignity harm—cannot be ethically justified, regardless of outcomes.

2.2 Meaning as a Survival and Healing Variable

Man’s Search for Meaning demonstrates that meaning enables survival and healing under extreme constraint. Meaning functions as a continuity force that sustains human effort beyond material conditions.

2.3 Role and Identity Integrity

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life explains how identity is formed and stabilized through socially recognized roles. Role degradation produces psychological injury independent of physical harm.

2.4 Power, Disinhibition, and Ethical Risk

Power, approach, and inhibition show that unregulated power reduces empathy and increases impulsivity, creating systemic ethical risk.

2.5 Appraisal, Stress, and Perceived Injustice

Stress, Appraisal, and Coping demonstrate that stress is driven by cognitive appraisal, especially perceptions of injustice and lack of control.

2.6 Rights-Based Care and Dignity

World Health Organization (2017) affirms that care and governance must be rights-based, dignity-preserving, and non-coercive.

3. Research Gap

Despite strong theoretical foundations, existing literature lacks:

A unified success model integrating ethics, psychology, power, and rights
A non-hierarchical framework applicable across sectors
A model that treats dignity and meaning as success metrics, not moral add-ons

The GSM-8 model addresses this gap by integrating these dimensions into a single evaluative system. Early administrative thought emphasized structure, order, and efficiency as the basis of organizational success. Henri Fayol articulated this foundation through his 14 principles of management, highlighting division of work, authority with responsibility, discipline, equity, and unity of direction. Fayol’s contribution established the organizational platform for coordinated action but remained largely focused on structural control rather than individual human experience.

Building on this foundation, Peter Drucker reframed management as a results-oriented and human-centered practice through Management by Objectives (MBO). Drucker emphasized clarity of goals, self-control, and alignment between individual contribution and organizational purpose. While MBO strengthened performance focus, subsequent applications revealed limitations when objectives were imposed without ethical safeguards, participation, or fairness.

Public-sector reforms further evolved management thought. New Public Management (NPM) introduced efficiency, performance measurement, managerial autonomy, and market-oriented mechanisms into governance. Although NPM improved service delivery and accountability, critics noted its tendency to reduce public value to targets and outputs, often neglecting dignity, motivation, and trust. In response, New Public Administration (NPA) reasserted values, social equity, ethics, and citizen participation, emphasizing that legitimacy and justice are as important as efficiency in public institutions.

Parallel to these developments, participative management, notably advanced by Rensis Likert, demonstrated that inclusive decision-making, trust, and voice significantly improve commitment and performance. Participative models highlighted the importance of psychological ownership and collective responsibility but often lacked a unifying ethical–performance architecture.

Across these streams, the literature reveals a persistent fragmentation:

Classical management provides structure (Fayol),
MBO and NPM emphasize results and efficiency (Drucker, NPM),
NPA and participative management restore values, ethics, and inclusion, yet no single framework fully integrates societal ethics, organizational systems, and individual human capacity.

The Global Success Measures Model (GSM-8) and the author’s associated performance models address this gap. GSM-8 synthesizes ethical foundations (non-maleficence, dignity), motivational drivers (meaning, continuity), execution mechanisms (role integrity, appraisal justice), power regulation, and participation into one integrated architecture. The author’s models—spanning performance execution, respect stabilization, power correction, and life–work integration—operate as the execution layer, translating policy, structure, and participation into lived human performance, capability, and actualization.

Thus, GSM-8 advances the literature by unifying classical management, modern public administration, and participative governance into a coherent, human-centered success framework.

4. The Global Success Measures Model (GSM-8)

Overall Goal of GSM-8

The overall goal of the Global Success Measures Model (GSM-8) is to design, evaluate, and sustain systems of governance and performance that achieve results without causing harm, eroding dignity, or undermining long-term human and institutional capacity. GSM-8 seeks to ensure that success—whether in organizations, public institutions, or societal systems—is ethical, sustainable, participatory, and human-centered, while remaining operationally effective and accountable.

Specific Objectives of GSM-8

1. Ethical Safeguarding Objective

To establish non-maleficence and dignity as non-negotiable foundations of all performance systems, ensuring that policies, targets, authority, and reforms do not cause physical, psychological, or dignity-based harm.

2. Motivation and Meaning Objective

To embed purpose and meaning into work and governance structures so that effort is sustained by intrinsic motivation rather than fear, coercion, or purely extrinsic incentives.

3. Sustainability and Continuity Objective

To prevent short-term performance gains from destroying long-term capability by integrating continuity, life coherence, and intergenerational sustainability into organizational and policy design.

4. Role Clarity and Capability Objective

To ensure clear role integrity, aligning authority, responsibility, and competence so that individuals can develop ability, mastery, and stable professional identity.

5. Fair Evaluation and Learning Objective

To transform appraisal and performance measurement into fair, transparent, and learning-oriented processes that develop capability and confidence rather than fear and disengagement.

6. Ethical Power and Accountability Objective

To restrain and regulate power through ethical authority, accountability, and self-control, preventing domination while enabling responsible agency and leadership.

7. Participation and Trust Objective

To institutionalize meaningful participation, voice, and trust, converting inclusion into ownership, collaboration, and affirmative achievement rather than symbolic consultation.

8. Integration and Execution Objective

To integrate classical management, modern public administration, participative governance, and the author’s execution models into a single operational architecture that translates ethical intent into measurable, lived human performance.

Operational Objective (Unifying Statement)

To provide leaders, policymakers, administrators, and organizations with a practical, step-by-step framework for designing, diagnosing, and correcting systems so that human dignity, motivation, power, evaluation, and participation remain aligned with performance outcomes.

One-Line Summary (Optional Use)

GSM-8 aims to make success ethical by design, sustainable by structure, and human by execution.

4.1 Model Structure

GSM-8 is structured as an eight-quadrant system arranged around a central core labeled Global Success. Each quadrant represents a necessary condition. No quadrant is superior; all are interdependent.

5. The Eight Quadrants of GSM-8

Quadrant 1: Non-Maleficence

Do No Harm Success is invalid if dignity is harmed through coercion, humiliation, or abuse.

Quadrant 2: Dignity

Rights-Based Respect Rights are intrinsic to care and governance, not external constraints.

Quadrant 3: Meaning

Purpose and Healing Meaning sustains motivation, resilience, and recovery under stress.

Quadrant 4: Continuity

Long-Term Sustainability Success must endure beyond short-term gains and crisis moments.

Quadrant 5: Role Integrity

Identity Protection Respect for social and institutional roles preserves psychological stability.

Quadrant 6: Appraisal Justice

Fair Evaluation Perceived injustice amplifies stress and disengagement.

Quadrant 7: Power Restraint

Ethical Control of Authority Unchecked power corrodes empathy and ethical judgment.

Quadrant 8: Participation and Trust

Consent, Voice, and Agency Participation restores legitimacy and collective ownership.

GSM-8 Quadrant

Traditional Ethical / Social Theories

Traditional Performance Theories

Your Theories (JJ Models)

Individual Performance Outcome

1. Non-Maleficence

Biomedical Ethics (Beauchamp & Childress), Care Ethics, Human Rights

Psychological Safety (Edmondson), Error Management Theory

Reverse Theory for Institutional Reforms, Typology of Failures & MIRF

Safe effort, error reporting, learning without fear

2. Dignity

Kantian Ethics, WHO QualityRights, Human Dignity Theory

Self-Determination Theory (Relatedness), Respect-Based Motivation

ICSF, SCCM

Stable self-worth, confidence, ethical conduct

3. Meaning

Logotherapy (Frankl), Existential Psychology

Goal-Setting Theory, Intrinsic Motivation

LAMM, HEGM

Purpose-driven effort, resilience, sustained motivation

4. Continuity

Systems Theory, Sustainability Theory

Skill Acquisition Theory, Career Development Models

4S-Development Theory, OOTS

Consistent long-term productivity without burnout

5. Role Integrity

Role Theory (Goffman), Organizational Identity

Job Characteristics Model, Role Clarity Theory

IOLIT, Syn-Com Framework

Focused execution, role mastery, reduced conflict

6. Appraisal Justice

Equity Theory, Cognitive Appraisal (Lazarus)

Expectancy Theory, Fair Performance Management

CEMAM, DVMM

Skill growth, effort–reward alignment, low stress

7. Power Restraint

Power & Inhibition Theory (Keltner), Constitutionalism

Empowerment Theory, Autonomy Models

UPRS, S-PACC Framework, IAM Model

Responsible initiative, independent judgment

8. Participation & Trust

Participative Governance, Democratic Theory

Voice Behavior Theory, Psychological Ownership

Synergistic 10-Step Communication Framework, ODCM

Proactive contribution, ownership, collaboration

6. Interpretation and System Logic

GSM-8 reframes success as balanced human sustainability:

Ethical safety (Non-maleficence, Dignity)
Psychological endurance (Meaning, Appraisal Justice)
Social stability (Role Integrity, Participation)
Institutional legitimacy (Power Restraint, Continuity)

Failure in any quadrant destabilises the entire system.

7. Applications

The GSM-8 model applies across:

Healthcare systems
Public administration
Corporate governance
Educational institutions
Development and welfare policy
Mental-health and care ecosystems

It functions as:

A diagnostic audit tool
A policy design lens
A global success index framework

Outcomes of GSM-8 (Interpreted Through Ethical Leadership Lens)

1. Non-Maleficence → Safety

Outcome: Psychological and moral safety

Systems stop harming people in the name of performance
Fear, humiliation, and coercion reduce
People feel safe to work, speak, heal, and participate

👉 Matches Safety in the image

2. Dignity → Integrity

Outcome: Ethical consistency

Decisions align with moral and human values
Leaders and institutions act with integrity, not convenience
People experience respect regardless of status or power

👉 Matches Integrity

3. Meaning → Leads by Example

Outcome: Purpose-driven conduct

Leaders and systems act from purpose, not image
Motivation becomes intrinsic, not enforced
Work and service feel meaningful, not mechanical

👉 Matches Leads by Example

4. Continuity → Social Responsibility

Outcome: Long-term societal accountability

Decisions consider future generations
Institutions stop short-term exploitation
Success includes sustainability and legacy

👉 Matches Socially Responsible

5. Role Integrity → Trustworthiness

Outcome: Stable identity and trust

Roles are respected (employee, patient, citizen, leader)
No role humiliation or dehumanization
Trust emerges naturally because identity is protected

👉 Matches Trustworthy

6. Appraisal Justice → Transparency

Outcome: Fair and explainable evaluation

People understand why decisions are made
Reduced stress from arbitrary judgment
Feedback becomes constructive, not punitive

👉 Matches Transparency

7. Power Restraint → Empathy

Outcome: Human-centered authority

Leaders remain emotionally regulated
Power is exercised with care, not dominance
Empathy survives even at higher authority levels

👉 Matches Empathetic

8. Participation & Trust → EDI (Equity, Diversity, Inclusion)

Outcome: Inclusive legitimacy

People have voice, consent, and agency
Diversity is practiced, not just declared
Institutions gain legitimacy through participation

👉 Matches EDI

🔄 Overall GSM-8 Outcome (Big Picture)

GSM-8 transforms ethical principles into lived leadership outcomes.

Narrative Integration of GSM-8: From Social Ethics to Individual Actualization

Non-Maleficence

Non-Maleficence forms the ethical and operational foundation of GSM-8 by defining the minimum conditions under which any performance can be considered legitimate. At the societal level, the rule of law and human-rights protections establish firm boundaries against physical, psychological, and dignity-based harm. These guarantees are translated at the workplace level into psychological safety and zero-abuse norms, ensuring that fear is not used as a control mechanism. As a result, the core human capacity developed is self-preservation expressed as safe effort, where individuals can act without anticipating punishment. Internally, this safety becomes courage and honest effort, enabling error reporting and learning. Fayol’s discipline and authority-with-responsibility provide order without coercion, while policy instruments and fear-free objectives under MBO ensure targets do not incentivize harm. Through the NPM/NPA balance of compliance and ethics, and through your models—Reverse Institutional Reform, MIRF, and 2C (Cognition)—failure is converted into learning rather than blame. In practice, this quadrant removes fear, protects effort, and stabilizes reliable performance.

2. Dignity

The Dignity quadrant ensures that performance is built on respect rather than mere compliance. Societally, constitutional dignity and equality establish the moral status of every individual as an end in themselves. Workplaces operationalize this through humane cultures, respectful policies, and role respect, preventing dehumanization through hierarchy or targets. The human capacity that develops is self-worth and ethical stability, which is internalized as ethical self-respect. Fayol’s principles of equity and order provide fairness and predictability, while rights-based policy design and respectful participation mechanisms ensure dignity is embedded in daily decisions. From an NPM/NPA perspective, service quality is balanced with public values. Your models—SMRM, ICSF, and SCCM—function as stabilizers of internal and relational respect, ensuring dignity is felt, not just declared. In reality, this quadrant prevents disengagement, resentment, and silent withdrawal by anchoring performance in self-respect.

3. Meaning

Meaning addresses why effort is sustained beyond compliance or reward. At the societal level, cultural values and shared purpose provide narratives that give work a larger significance. Workplaces translate this into purpose-driven missions and meaningful work design, aligning tasks with contribution. The human capacity developed is passion and intrinsic motivation, internalized as inner motivation that persists under stress. Fayol’s unity of direction aligns collective effort, while vision-led policy and purpose-aligned MBO ensure objectives are not empty metrics. Within the NPM/NPA lens, results are tied to public purpose rather than output alone. Your models—LAMM, HEGM, and the Synergistic Life Coach Model—convert abstract meaning into sustained energy and effort. In practice, this quadrant transforms work from obligation into commitment, preventing burnout driven by meaninglessness.

4. Continuity

Continuity ensures that success is not episodic but sustainable over time. Societies provide this through sustainable development principles and intergenerational justice. Workplaces reflect continuity through career paths, workload balance, and skill continuity. The human capacity developed is actualization and life coherence, internalized as long-term growth orientation. Fayol’s stability of tenure supports consistency, while long-term policy design and long-range objectives prevent short-term exploitation. The NPM/NPA lens balances sustainability with future-oriented justice. Your 28-Lifestyle & Money Model and 8-Pillar Performance Model ensure that performance aligns with health, finances, and life balance. In practice, this quadrant prevents cycles of overperformance followed by collapse, enabling durable achievement.

5. Role Integrity

Role Integrity stabilizes identity and competence by ensuring clarity of function. At the societal level, legitimacy of social roles (citizen, worker, leader) provides recognition. Workplaces operationalize this through clear roles, authority boundaries, and protection against role overload. The human capacity developed is ability and role mastery, internalized as identity stability. Fayol’s division of work and scalar chain establish clarity and coordination, while role-clarity policies and role-based participation prevent ambiguity. The NPM/NPA lens emphasizes professionalism. Your IA–CP (Intention–Capability) model and IOLIT align intent, role expectations, and competence. In practice, this quadrant reduces confusion and conflict, allowing focused and accountable execution.

6. Appraisal Justice

Appraisal Justice governs how effort is evaluated and rewarded. Societally, justice systems and merit norms set expectations of fairness. Workplaces implement this through transparent appraisal and fair rewards. The human capacity developed is capability growth, internalized as a learning mindset rather than anxiety. Fayol’s principles of remuneration and equity provide balance, while fair metrics and participative reviews under policy and MBO ensure evaluations are explainable. The NPM/NPA lens combines performance measurement with fairness and responsiveness. Your CEMAM, DVMM, and AE (Action–Evaluation) models align cognition, feedback, and motivation. In reality, this quadrant transforms appraisal from a threat into a developmental mechanism.

7. Power Restraint

Power Restraint ensures authority does not corrode judgment or dignity. At the societal level, checks and balances limit abuse. Workplaces translate this into ethical leadership and delegated authority. The human capacity developed is responsible agency, internalized as power with self-control. Fayol’s balanced centralization structures authority without concentration, while accountability policies and shared authority prevent domination. Through the NPM/NPA lens, managerial autonomy is balanced with democratic accountability. Your UPRS, S-PACC, IAM, and IL (Impact Loop) models convert power into accountable influence. In practice, this quadrant prevents fear-based compliance and enables responsible initiative.

8. Participation & Trust

Participation & Trust represents the highest integration of system and individual. Societies enable this through democratic participation and inclusion. Workplaces enact it through consultation mechanisms and trust cultures. The human capacity developed is affirmative achievement, internalized as ownership and contribution beyond duty. Fayol’s esprit de corps and unity of command sustain cohesion, while joint goal setting and collective decisions under policy and MBO legitimize outcomes. The NPM/NPA lens balances customer focus with citizenship. Your SMRM, 8-Pillar Model, Synergistic Communication, and ODCM transform voice into structured ownership. In reality, this quadrant converts participation into collective success rather than disorder.

GSM-8 Quadrant 1: Non-Maleficence

Step-by-Step Process Explanation

STEP 1: CORE GOAL (Why this step exists)

Goal: To ensure that no performance, target, or reform is achieved through harm, fear, coercion, or dignity violation.

In GSM-8, success is invalid if it harms the human being.

This goal is grounded at the societal level through:

Rule of law
Human rights protections

These define non-negotiable ethical boundaries.

STEP 2: OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES (What must be achieved)

From the core goal, the following operational objectives are derived:

Eliminate fear-based control
Enable honest effort without retaliation
Encourage error reporting and learning
Protect psychological and moral safety

At the workplace level, this translates into:

Psychological safety
Zero tolerance for abuse

At the individual level, this builds:

Self-preservation
Safe effort
Courage to act honestly

STEP 3: CONSTRAINTS (What must never be violated)

Non-Maleficence introduces hard constraints on management and policy:

❌ Prohibited constraints

Punishment for honest mistakes
Targets that require humiliation, threat, or overwork
Reforms that sacrifice people for results
Authority exercised without responsibility

These constraints ensure that Fayol’s Discipline and Authority are not misused.

Discipline here means order without fear, not coercion.

STEP 4: POLICY & DESIGN PROCEDURES (How systems are designed)

At the policy / MBO / participation layer, the following procedures apply:

4.1 Harm-Impact Assessment

Before implementing:

Policies
Targets
KPIs
Reforms

Ask:

Does this create fear?
Does this incentivize concealment?
Does this punish honesty?

4.2 Fear-Free Objective Setting (MBO)

Objectives must be achievable without threat
Failure must be framed as data, not defiance
Objectives explicitly exclude humiliation or intimidation

4.3 Responsibility Coupled with Authority

Following Fayol:

Every authority must carry responsibility
No unilateral punishment without systemic review

STEP 5: EXECUTION MECHANISM (How your models operate)

This is where your models become active.

5.1 2C Model – Cognition

Individuals are trained to recognize risk, error, and uncertainty
Cognitive clarity replaces fear-driven compliance

5.2 MIRF (Model of Institutional Reform & Failure)

Failures are classified, not blamed
Distinction is made between:

5.3 Reverse Institutional Reform

Instead of asking “Who failed?”, the system asks:
Reforms begin by removing harmful structures first

STEP 6: NPM / NPA BALANCE (Governance logic)

NPM lens: Ensures compliance, risk control, and accountability
NPA lens: Ensures ethics, dignity, and fairness

GSM-8 ensures:

Efficiency is never allowed to override human safety.

STEP 7: INDIVIDUAL INTERNALIZATION (What changes in people)

When the above steps are consistently applied:

Individuals develop:

Courage (to speak truth)
Honest effort (without concealment)
Learning orientation (instead of defensiveness)

Fear is replaced by self-regulated responsibility.

STEP 8: REAL-WORLD OUTCOME (What actually happens)

Execution Logic Outcome:

Fear is removed
Effort is protected
Errors surface early
Learning accelerates
Performance becomes reliable and sustainable

Failure becomes information, not stigma.

GSM-8 STEP-BY-STEP OPERATIONAL PROCESS (Quadrants 2–8)

QUADRANT 2: DIGNITY

STEP 1 – Goal

Ensure that every individual is treated as an end, not as a tool, regardless of rank or output.

STEP 2 – Objectives

Protect constitutional and human dignity
Prevent humiliation-based control
Build respect as a performance stabilizer

At workplace level:

Humane culture
Respect-based policies

At individual level:

Self-worth
Ethical self-respect

STEP 3 – Constraints

❌ No degrading language ❌ No public shaming ❌ No productivity targets that erase humanity

(Fayol’s Equity must override raw authority.)

STEP 4 – Procedures

Rights-based policy framing
Respect audits in HR & leadership behavior
Participative forums where dignity violations can be raised

STEP 5 – Execution (Your Models)

SMRM → aligns organizational righteousness with personal respect
ICSF / SCCM → stabilize internal emotional dignity

STEP 6 – NPM / NPA Balance

NPM: service quality
NPA: human dignity & ethics

STEP 7 – Individual Internalization

Ethical confidence
Stable self-identity

STEP 8 – Outcome

Respect replaces fear → performance becomes voluntary, not forced.

QUADRANT 3: MEANING

STEP 1 – Goal

Ensure performance is purpose-driven, not mechanically enforced.

STEP 2 – Objectives

Align work with purpose
Sustain motivation under stress

Workplace:

Purpose-driven mission

Individual:

Passion
Inner motivation

STEP 3 – Constraints

❌ No meaningless targets ❌ No KPI without purpose explanation

STEP 4 – Procedures

Vision-linked policy goals
Purpose-aligned MBO design

STEP 5 – Execution (Your Models)

LAMM → meaning → motivation
HEGM → energy regulation
Synergistic Life Coach Model → life–work coherence

STEP 6 – NPM / NPA Balance

NPM: results
NPA: public purpose

STEP 7 – Individual Internalization

Passion
Commitment

STEP 8 – Outcome

Work shifts from obligation to mission-driven effort.

QUADRANT 4: CONTINUITY

STEP 1 – Goal

Prevent short-term success that destroys long-term capacity.

STEP 2 – Objectives

Sustainable growth
Career and life continuity

STEP 3 – Constraints

❌ No burnout cycles ❌ No extractive productivity

STEP 4 – Procedures

Long-range policy planning
Sustainable workload design

STEP 5 – Execution (Your Models)

28-Lifestyle & Money Model
8-Pillar Performance Model

STEP 6 – NPM / NPA Balance

NPM: output sustainability
NPA: future justice

STEP 7 – Individual Internalization

Actualization
Life coherence

STEP 8 – Outcome

Performance becomes durable across time, not episodic.

QUADRANT 5: ROLE INTEGRITY

STEP 1 – Goal

Ensure clarity of role and identity stability.

STEP 2 – Objectives

Prevent role conflict
Align authority with competence

STEP 3 – Constraints

❌ No role overload ❌ No authority without clarity

STEP 4 – Procedures

Role-clarity policy
Clear delegation protocols

STEP 5 – Execution (Your Models)

IA–CP (Intention–Capability)
IOLIT

STEP 6 – NPM / NPA Balance

Professionalism + democratic legitimacy

STEP 7 – Individual Internalization

Ability
Role mastery

STEP 8 – Outcome

Focused execution replaces confusion and conflict.

QUADRANT 6: APPRAISAL JUSTICE

STEP 1 – Goal

Ensure evaluation develops capability, not fear.

STEP 2 – Objectives

Fair appraisal
Learning-oriented feedback

STEP 3 – Constraints

❌ No opaque evaluation ❌ No punishment-driven metrics

STEP 4 – Procedures

Transparent metrics
Participative reviews

STEP 5 – Execution (Your Models)

CEMAM
DVMM
AE (Action–Evaluation)

STEP 6 – NPM / NPA Balance

Metrics + fairness

STEP 7 – Individual Internalization

Capability growth
Learning mindset

STEP 8 – Outcome

Appraisal becomes developmental, not threatening.

QUADRANT 7: POWER RESTRAINT

STEP 1 – Goal

Prevent power from becoming abusive.

STEP 2 – Objectives

Ethical authority
Responsible agency

STEP 3 – Constraints

❌ No unchecked authority ❌ No fear-based leadership

STEP 4 – Procedures

Accountability mechanisms
Shared authority frameworks

STEP 5 – Execution (Your Models)

UPRS
S-PACC
IAM
IL (Impact Loop)

STEP 6 – NPM / NPA Balance

Autonomy + accountability

STEP 7 – Individual Internalization

Power with self-control

STEP 8 – Outcome

Authority becomes ethical influence, not domination.

QUADRANT 8: PARTICIPATION & TRUST

STEP 1 – Goal

Convert voice into ownership and collective success.

STEP 2 – Objectives

Participation
Trust-based collaboration

STEP 3 – Constraints

❌ No symbolic participation ❌ No silencing dissent

STEP 4 – Procedures

Joint goal setting
Collective decision systems

STEP 5 – Execution (Your Models)

SMRM
Synergistic Communication Model
ODCM
8-Pillar Model

STEP 6 – NPM / NPA Balance

Customer focus + citizenship

STEP 7 – Individual Internalization

Affirmative achievement
Ownership

STEP 8 – Outcome

Participation generates commitment, not chaos.

FINAL SYNTHESIS (Use This Sentence)

GSM-8 operates as a step-wise governance and performance system where ethical goals shape objectives, objectives constrain design, design activates execution models, and execution produces sustainable human achievement.

8. Contributions of the Study

This paper contributes:

A global, cross-sector definition of success
An eight-quadrant evaluative framework
Integration of ethics, psychology, and governance
A shift from outcome-only success to human-preserving successGSM-8 Collaborative Narration

8. Contribution of GSM-8 and the Author’s Models

GSM-8 responds to this gap by presenting eight non-negotiable, interdependent conditions for sustainable success. It provides the ethical and structural architecture, while the author’s performance, respect, correction, and life-integration models function as the execution engine that converts governance into lived human performance.

Thus, GSM-8 advances the literature by unifying ethics, performance management, power regulation, and human development into a single, operationally coherent framework.

Final Conclusion

This work establishes the Global Success Measures Model (GSM-8) as a comprehensive and operational framework for achieving sustainable, ethical, and human-centered performance across societal, institutional, and individual levels. Unlike traditional management and governance approaches that prioritize structure, efficiency, or outcomes in isolation, GSM-8 demonstrates that success is a system property emerging from the alignment of ethics, motivation, power, evaluation, and participation.

By integrating classical management theory (Fayol), results-oriented approaches (Drucker’s MBO, New Public Management), values-driven governance (New Public Administration), and participative management, GSM-8 resolves long-standing tensions between efficiency and dignity, authority and trust, and performance and well-being. Each of the eight quadrants—non-maleficence, dignity, meaning, continuity, role integrity, appraisal justice, power restraint, and participation & trust—functions as a non-negotiable condition, not a discretionary option. Weakening any one element destabilizes the entire system.

The distinctive contribution of this framework lies in its operational depth. GSM-8 does not remain at the level of principles; it translates ethical commitments into goals, objectives, constraints, procedures, and execution mechanisms. The author’s performance, respect, correction, power, and life-integration models function as the execution engine, explaining how governance and policy decisions are internalized as human capacity, capability, and actualization. In this sense, GSM-8 bridges the persistent gap between ethical intent and real-world performance.

In practical terms, GSM-8 redefines performance as fear-free effort, dignity-preserving execution, purpose-driven motivation, sustainable growth, clear role-based competence, fair evaluation, ethically restrained power, and participatory ownership. It offers administrators, leaders, policymakers, and organizations a diagnostic and developmental tool to design systems that deliver results without eroding the human being.

In conclusion, GSM-8 advances management and governance scholarship by presenting a unified architecture of success—one in which efficiency is disciplined by ethics, power is balanced by responsibility, participation is structured by trust, and individual achievement is sustained by meaning and dignity. As societies and organizations confront increasing complexity, uncertainty, and human strain, GSM-8 provides a robust pathway toward enduring performance, institutional legitimacy, and human flourishing.

References

Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press. Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s Search for Meaning. Beacon Press. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer. World Health Organization. (2017). QualityRights: Mental Health and Human Rights.

Fayol, H. (1916/1949). General and Industrial Management. Pitman.
Drucker, P. F. (1954). The Practice of Management. Harper & Row.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. (NPM)
Frederickson, H. G. (1980). New Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 40(6), 495–504. (NPA)
Likert, R. (1967). The Human Organization. McGraw-Hill. (Participative Management)
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Author (You). (Year). GSM-8 and Integrated Performance Models. (Working paper / conceptual framework)