BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Islam Rafikul (International Islamic University Malaysia, Malaysia), Periaiah Nagendran (International Islamic University Malaysia, Malaysia)
Tytuł
Overcoming the Pitfalls in Employee Performance Evaluation: an Application of Ratings Mode of the Analytic Hierarchy Process
Źródło
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI), 2023, vol. 19, nr 2, s. 127-157, tab., rys., aneks, bibliogr. s. 146-150
Tytuł własny numeru
Weathering the Storm: Innovation-Driven Human Resource Management Practices
Słowa kluczowe
Analityczny proces hierarchiczny, Zaangażowanie pracowników, Nagrody, Szkolenie pracowników, Ocena wyników
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Employees' engagement, Employee reward, Manpower training, Results evaluation
Uwagi
Klasyfikacja JEL: J89
streszcz., summ.
Abstrakt
CEL: Ocena wyników pracowników jest powszechnym zadaniem przeprowadzanym w wielu organizacjach. Pracownicy muszą znać informacje zwrotne od kierownictwa na temat ich wyników. Często wyniki ocen pracowniczych są wykorzystywane do awansów, potwierdzania stażu i przyznawania premii dla pracowników. Jednak ocena wyników często spotyka się z krytyką ze względu na obecność czynników subiektywnych, a zwłaszcza sposób, w jaki te czynniki są traktowane. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest pokazanie, w jaki sposób tryb Oceny Procesu Hierarchii Analitycznej (AHP) może być zastosowany do oceny wydajności pracowników przy użyciu zarówno obiektywnych, jak i subiektywnych kryteriów. METODYKA: AHP dla obecnej oceny wydajności pracowników zostało pokazane na przykładzie CLSB, firmy z Kuala Lumpur w Malezji. Czterech kierowników wyższego szczebla i dyrektor zarządzający firmy byli zaangażowani we wszystkie etapy niniejszej oceny, w tym w określenie kryteriów, podkryteriów i przypisanie im wag. Dane AHP analizowano za pomocą oprogramowania o nazwie AHP Calc wersja 24.12.13 opracowanego przez Klausa D. Goepela i dostępnego online. W szczególności do oceny wyników pracowników w CLSB wykorzystano tryb ocen AHP. WYNIKI: Pięć kryteriów, a mianowicie usługi, jakość, finanse, czas i praca zespołowa, zostało uznanych za ważne dla oceny wyników pracowników w CLSB. Każde z tych kryteriów ma kryteria podrzędne. Harmonijna praca, Umiejętności i Punktualność to trzy najważniejsze kryteria podrzędne niniejszej oceny. Wynikiem ćwiczenia ewaluacyjnego jest uporządkowany zestaw rankingów 20 pracowników zatrudnionych w firmie. Oprócz zastosowania AHP do oceny osiągnięć opracowano uporządkowany zestaw szczegółowych rubryk dla wszystkich kryteriów. Rubryki dostarczają ewaluatorom precyzyjnych wskazówek w momencie oceny wyników pracowników. IMPLIKACJE: Program ewaluacji, który jest naukowy i systematyczny, taki jak obecny, zminimalizuje krytykę nałożoną na ocenę wyników. Kiedy pracownicy będą świadomi ustalonych kryteriów i podkryteriów wraz z powiązanym schematem ważenia i samego procesu oceny, będą zmotywowani do wykonywania swoich zadań i odpowiedniego wykonywania swoich obowiązków. W związku z tym oczekuje się, że zadowolenie z pracy i produktywność pracowników wzrosną. Poprawi to nie tylko morale pracowników, ale także ogólną wydajność organizacji. ORYGINALNOŚĆ I WARTOŚĆ: W literaturze dostępnych jest wiele schematów oceny wyników pracowników. Często jednak metody te spotykają się z krytyką, ponieważ albo traktują wszystkie kryteria oceny jako równie ważne, albo nie potrafią znaleźć równowagi między czynnikami obiektywnymi i subiektywnymi. Głównym wkładem niniejszej pracy jest pokazanie, w jaki sposób AHP może złagodzić powyższe wady istniejących metod. W niniejszej pracy badawczej opracowano metodę oceny wydajności, która jest prosta i jednoznaczna, a szczegółowe kroki zostały opracowane, w jaki sposób metoda może być faktycznie zastosowana do pomiaru wydajności pracowników. Metodę można zastosować do pomiaru wydajności pracowników innych firm po niezbędnej modyfikacji ustalonych kryteriów i nadaniu im odpowiednich wag. (abstrakt oryginalny)

PURPOSE: Employee performance evaluation is a common exercise conducted in many organizations. Employees need to know the feedback on their performance from the management. Often the results of performance evaluation exercises are used for promotion, confirmation in service and awarding of bonuses for employees. However, the performance evaluation exercise often meets with criticism due to the presence of subjective factors and, specifically, the way in which these factors are handled. The purpose of the present paper is to show how the Ratings mode of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be applied to evaluate employee performance using objective as well as subjective criteria. METHODOLOGY: The whole AHP exercise for the present employee performance evaluation has been shown through a case study on CLSB, a company in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Four senior managers and the Managing Director of the company were involved in all phases of the present evaluation exercise, including elicitation of the criteria, sub-criteria and assigning weights to them. The AHP data were analyzed using software called AHP Calc version 24.12.13 developed by Klaus D. Goepel and available online. In particular, the Ratings mode of AHP was used to evaluate employees' performance at CLSB. FINDINGS: Five criteria, namely Services, Quality, Financial, Timing, and Teamwork, are found to be important for the evaluation of employee performance at CLSB. Each of these criteria has sub-criteria. Harmonious work, Skills, and Punctuality are found to be the three most important sub-criteria for the present evaluation exercise. The outcome of the evaluation exercise provides an ordered set of ranks of 20 employees working in the company. Apart from the application of AHP for performance evaluation, an ordered set of detailed rubrics for all the criteria have been developed. The rubrics provide precise guidelines to the evaluators at the time of evaluating employees' performance. IMPLICATIONS: An evaluation scheme that is scientific and systematic, such as the present one, will minimize criticism levied against the performance evaluation exercise. Once the employees are aware of the criteria and sub-criteria set along with the associated weighting scheme and the evaluation process itself, they will be motivated to perform their tasks and discharge their duties accordingly. Hence, employee job satisfaction and productivity are expected to increase. This will bolster not only the employees' morale but also the organization's overall performance. ORIGINALITY AND VALUE: In the literature, many schemes are available to evaluate employees' performance. But often, these methods are criticized as they either take all the criteria of evaluation as equally important or they lack the capability to strike a balance between objective and subjective factors. The main contribution of the present work is to show how AHP can alleviate the above drawbacks of the existing methods. The present research work has developed a performance evaluation method, which is simple and straightforward, and the detailed steps have been elaborated on how the method can actually be applied to measure the performance of employees. The method can be applied to measure employees' performance of other companies with the necessary modification of the criteria set and assigning appropriate weights to them. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Adler, S., Campion, M., Colquitt, A., Grubb, A., Murphy, K., Ollander-Krane, R., & Pulakos, E. D. (2016). Getting rid of performance ratings: Genius or folly? A debate. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 219-252. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.106
  2. Ahmad, I., Donia, M. B., Khan, A., & Waris, M. (2019). Do as I say and do as I do? The mediating role of psychological contract fulfilment in the relationship between ethical leadership and employee extra-role performance. Personnel Review, 48(1), 98-117. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-12-2016-0325
  3. Ajala, E. M. (2012). The influence of workplace environment on workers' welfare, performance and productivity. The African Educational Research Network, 12(1), 141-149.
  4. Ali, A. S., Chua, S. J. L., & Lim, M. E. L. (2019). Physical environment comfort towards Malaysian universities office employers' performance and productivity. Facilities, 37(11/12), 686-703. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-06-2016-0060
  5. Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128
  6. Anjomshoae, A., Hassan, A., & Wong, K.Y. (2019). An integrated AHP-based scheme for performance measurement in humanitarian supply chains. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 68(5), 938-957. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-04-2018-0132
  7. Arnold, M. (2021). Challenges of subjectivity in team performance evaluation. Pacific Accounting Review, 33(1), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-09-2020-0146
  8. Bol, J. (2008). Subjectivity in compensation contracts. Journal of Accounting Literature, 27, 1-32. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=771565
  9. Bruce, S. (2013). Performance Management Survey Results In; How Do You Compare? Retrieved from https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2013/06/13/performance-management-survey-results-in-how-do-you-compare/
  10. Chughtai, A., Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2015). Linking ethical leadership to employee wellbeing: The role of trust in supervisor. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(3), 653-663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2126-7
  11. Conteh, S. B., & Yuan, Y. (2022). The impact of high performance work system on employee service performance: The role of organizational support and organizational identification. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-08-2020-0439
  12. De Clercq, D., Jahanzeb, S., & Fatima, T. (2020). How abusive supervision ultimately might enhance performance ratings among silent, neurotic employees. Personnel Review, 50(5), 1297-1315. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2020-0007
  13. Derebew, B., Thota, S. Shanmugasundaram, P., & Asfetsami, T. (2021). Fuzzy logic decision support system for hospital employee performance evaluation with maple implementation. Arab Journal of Basic & Applied Science, 28(1), 73-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/25765299.2021.1890909
  14. Elgazzar, S., & Ismail, A. (2021). Enhancing Egyptian container terminals performance through managing efficiency and competitiveness. Marine Economics and Management, 4(1), 59-75. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAEM-12-2020-0006
  15. Grabner, I., Künneke, J., & Moers, F. (2020). How calibration committees can mitigate performance evaluation bias: An analysis of implicit incentives. The Accounting Review, 95(6), 213-233. https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2016-0662
  16. Grant, K., & Maxwell, G.A. (2018). Developing high performance working through case study evidence. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 32(2), 5-8. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-03-2017-0028
  17. Hassanpour, N., Barzoki, A. S., Javadi, M. H. M., & Safari, A. (2022). Designing employee performance evaluation model in Isfahan municipality: An inter-organizational experience. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 71(6), 2558-2581. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-08-2020-0411
  18. Halawi, A., & Haydar, N. (2018). Effects of training on employee performance: A case study of Bonjus and Khatib & Alami companies. International Humanities Studies, 5(2), 24-45.
  19. IBM. (2010). Capitalizing on complexity: insights from global chief executive office study. Report, IBM Global Business Services, Somers, New York, NY.
  20. Ic, Y.T., Celik, B., Kavak, S., & Baki, B. (2021). Development of a multi-criteria decision-making model for comparing the performance of Turkish commercial banks. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 18(2), 250-272. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-05-2020-0083
  21. Islam, R., & Rasad, S. (2006). Employee performance evaluation by the AHP: A case study. Asia Pacific Management Review, 11(3), 163-176.
  22. Jo, H., Aryee, S., Hsiung, H. H., & Guest, D. (2020). Fostering mutual gains: Explaining the influence of high-performance work systems and leadership on psychological health and service performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(2), 198-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12256
  23. Karadas, G., & Karatepe, O. M. (2019). Unravelling the black box: The linkage between high-performance work systems and employee outcomes. Employee Relations, 41(1), 67-83. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-04-2017-0084
  24. Khan, N., Ahmad, I., & Ilyas, M. (2018). Impact of ethical leadership on organizational safety performance: The mediating role of safety culture and safety consciousness. Ethics & Behavior, 28(8), 628-643. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2018.1427097
  25. Klaus D. Goepel (2013). Implementing the Analytic Hierarchy Process as a standard method for multi-criteria decision making in corporate enterprises - a new AHP excel template with multiple inputs. Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. https://doi.org/10.13033/ISAHP.Y2013.047
  26. Lansbury, R. (1988). Performance management: A process approach. Asia-Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 26(2), 46-54.
  27. Levy, P. E., & William, J. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal. Journal of Management, 30, 881-905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.005
  28. Mansor, N. N. A., Chakraborty, A. R., Yin, T. K., & Mahitapoglu, Z. (2012). Organizational factors influencing performance management system in higher educational institution of South East Asia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 584-590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.234
  29. Mo, S., & Shi, J. (2015). Linking ethical leadership to employees' organizational citizenship behavior: Testing the multilevel mediation role of organizational concern. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 151-162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2734-x
  30. Moore, C., & Gino, F. (2015). Approach, ability, aftermath: A psychological process framework of unethical behavior at work. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 235-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2015.1011522
  31. Murphy, K. R. (2020). Performance evaluation will not die, but it should. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 13-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12259
  32. Mursita, L. Y., & Nahartyo, E. (2022). How centrality bias in subjective evaluation affects positive and negative employee work behavior: A real-effort task experiment. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-01-2020-0002
  33. Na-Nan, K., Chaiprasit, K., & Pukkeeree, P. (2018). Factor analysis-validated comprehensive employee job performance scale. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 35(10), 2436-2449. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-06-2017-0117
  34. Nobari, B. Z., Gholipour, A., Ebrahimi, E., & Shoja, A. (2021). Employee performance appraisal system development in the National Library and Archives of Iran (NLAI): Soft operational research approach. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 22(2), 117-136. https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-09-2020-0050
  35. Peltokorpi, V. (2019). Abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion: The moderating role of power distance orientation and the mediating role of interaction avoidance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 57(3), 251-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12188
  36. Peretz, H., & Fried, Y. (2011). National cultures, performance appraisal practices, and organizational absenteeism and turnover: A study across 21 countries. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026011
  37. Razzaq, S., Iqbal, M. Z., Ikramullah, M., & van Prooijen, J. W. (2016). Occurrence of rating distortions and ratees' fairness perceptions per raters' mood and affect. Career Development International, 21(7), 726-743. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-03-2016-0036
  38. Rossi, C. A. (2012). Proposal of a Performance Measurement System for e-commerce SMEs in Denmark. Washington: Aarhus University.
  39. Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York, N.Y: McGraw- Hill.
  40. Saaty, T.L., & Peniwati, K. (2008). Group Decision Making: Drawing out and Reconciling Differences. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications. https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i3.533
  41. Saaty, T. L., & De Paola, P. (2017). Rethinking design and urban planning for the cities of the future. Buildings, 7(76), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings7030076
  42. Shi, W., Lai, J.H.K., Chau, C.K., Wong, P., & Edwards, D. (2021). Analytic evaluation of facilities performance from the user perspective: Case study on a badminton hall. Facilities, 39(13/14), 888-910. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-10-2020-0119
  43. Sipahi, S., & Timor, M. (2010). The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: An overview of application. Management Decision, 48(5), 775-808. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 00251741011043920
  44. Somerick, N. M. (1993). Strategies for improving employee relations by using performance appraisals more effectively. Public Relations Quarterly 38(3), 37-39. Retrieved from http://210.48.222.80/proxy.pac/scholarly-journals/strategies-improving-employee-relations-using/docview/222405614/se-2
  45. Speckbacher, G. (2021). Does performance evaluation kill creativity? A (re) interpretation of existing literature. Pacific Accounting Review, 33(1), 6-19. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-09-2020-0150
  46. Sullivan, J., Baird, G., & Donn, M. (2013). Measuring Productivity in the Office Workplace. Victoria: University of Wellington: Centre for Building Performance Research.
  47. Tudor, A.D., & Petre, A.G. (2022). The performance evaluation system and the impact on employee motivation: Do performance appraisal rewards play a role in motivating and engaging employees. Revista de Management Comparat International, 22(5), 721-728.
  48. Umphress, E. E., & Bingham, J. B. (2011). When employees do bad things for good reasons: Examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science, 22(3), 621-640. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.1100.0559
  49. Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader-member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.002
  50. Yidong, T., & Xinxin, L. (2013). How ethical leadership influence employees' innovative work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic motivation. Journal of business ethics, 116(2), 441-455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1455-7
  51. Yozgar, U., & Meşekıran, G. (2016). The impact of perceived ethical leadership and trust in leader on job satisfaction. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 4(2), 125-131. https://doi.org/10.7763/JOEBM.2016.V4.378
  52. Zhan, X., & Liu, Y. (2021). Impact of employee pro-organizational unethical behavior on performance evaluation rated by supervisor: a moderated mediation model of supervisor bottom-line mentality. Chinese Management Studies, 16(1), 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-07-2020-0299
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
2299-7075
Język
eng
URI / DOI
https://doi.org/10.7341/20231924
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu