IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/poicbe/v14y2020i1p878-892n84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Study on methods for evaluating employees performance in the context of digitization

Author

Listed:
  • Fogoroş Teodora Elena

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania)

  • Maftei Mihaela

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania)

  • Biţan Gabriela Elena

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania)

  • Kurth Bastian L.

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania)

Abstract

This paper highlights the main elements of a doctoral research regarding the efficiency of workers evaluation process in the workplace. Based on the global competition, organizations are in continuous quality improvement of their processes to stay competitive. The focus is on motivating and constantly offering constructive feedback to the employees by evaluating them on the following criteria: job description requirements, operational objectives and behavioral objectives. The aim of this study is to confirm that in the context of digitization, both evaluation based on objectives and 360-degree evaluation have its advantages and disadvantages and to analyze the impact of it in organization’s performance. Since this process is divided in two parts (mid-year review and final review), an interesting research question would be how useful is to offer feedback to employees at the middle of the evaluation period and its impact on the final review. The first part of the paper will focus on defining the evaluation process and its scope, pursue by an analysis of 360-degree evaluation, evaluation based on objectives, and the evaluation process in the digital era. It would be a challenge to discover the inclination of organizations for different types of evaluations as well as perception differences between employees and employers. Many researches consider that one of the used methods implemented in companies is the evaluation based on objectives. A larger documentation on this subject would delimit the types of evaluations to help companies to easily choose the type that fits its culture. For this purpose, we will perform an outline on the existing literature by analyzing authors’ opinions on this subject and identifying advantages and disadvantages of the two types of evaluation specified above.

Suggested Citation

  • Fogoroş Teodora Elena & Maftei Mihaela & Biţan Gabriela Elena & Kurth Bastian L., 2020. "Study on methods for evaluating employees performance in the context of digitization," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 14(1), pages 878-892, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:poicbe:v:14:y:2020:i:1:p:878-892:n:84
    DOI: 10.2478/picbe-2020-0084
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2020-0084
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/picbe-2020-0084?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karkoulian, Silva & Assaker, Guy & Hallak, Rob, 2016. "An empirical study of 360-degree feedback, organizational justice, and firm sustainability," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1862-1867.
    2. Schwarzmüller, Tanja & Brosi, Prisca & Duman, Denis & Welpe, Isabell M., 2018. "How Does the Digital Transformation Affect Organizations? Key Themes of Change in Work Design and Leadership," management revue - Socio-Economic Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 29(2), pages 114-138.
    3. Carson, Mary, 2006. "Saying it like it isn't: The pros and cons of 360-degree feedback," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 49(5), pages 395-402.
    4. Pulakos, Elaine D. & Hanson, Rose Mueller & Arad, Sharon & Moye, Neta, 2015. "Performance Management Can Be Fixed: An On-the-Job Experiential Learning Approach for Complex Behavior Change," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 51-76, March.
    5. W. Edwards Deming, 2000. "Out of the Crisis," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262541157, April.
    6. Angelovski, Andrej & Brandts, Jordi & Sola, Carles, 2016. "Hiring and escalation bias in subjective performance evaluations: A laboratory experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 114-129.
    7. Nicky J. Welton & Howard H. Z. Thom, 2015. "Value of Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 564-566, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lee, Alice J. & Ames, Daniel R., 2017. "“I can’t pay more” versus “It’s not worth more”: Divergent effects of constraint and disparagement rationales in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 16-28.
    2. Hussain, Hadia & Murtaza, Murtaza & Ajmal, Areeb & Ahmed, Afreen & Khan, Muhammad Ovais Khalid, 2020. "A study on the effects of social media advertisement on consumer’s attitude and customer response," MPRA Paper 104675, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. A. G. Fatullayev & Nizami A. Gasilov & Şahin Emrah Amrahov, 2019. "Numerical solution of linear inhomogeneous fuzzy delay differential equations," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 315-326, September.
    4. Arun Advani & William Elming & Jonathan Shaw, 2023. "The Dynamic Effects of Tax Audits," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(3), pages 545-561, May.
    5. Philippe Aghion & Ufuk Akcigit & Matthieu Lequien & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2017. "Tax simplicity and heterogeneous learning," CEP Discussion Papers dp1516, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    6. Marie Bjørneby & Annette Alstadsæter & Kjetil Telle, 2018. "Collusive tax evasion by employers and employees. Evidence from a randomized fi eld experiment in Norway," Discussion Papers 891, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    7. Chuangen Gao & Shuyang Gu & Jiguo Yu & Hai Du & Weili Wu, 2022. "Adaptive seeding for profit maximization in social networks," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 82(2), pages 413-432, February.
    8. Koessler, Frederic & Laclau, Marie & Renault, Jérôme & Tomala, Tristan, 2022. "Long information design," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 17(2), May.
    9. Annette Alstadsæter & Wojciech Kopczuk & Kjetil Telle, 2019. "Social networks and tax avoidance: evidence from a well-defined Norwegian tax shelter," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 26(6), pages 1291-1328, December.
    10. Sebastian Kaumanns, 2019. "“Some fuzzy math”: relational information on debt value adjustments by managers and the financial press," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(2), pages 755-794, December.
    11. Samuel J Gershman, 2015. "A Unifying Probabilistic View of Associative Learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, November.
    12. Arun Advani, 2022. "Who does and doesn't pay taxes?," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 5-22, March.
    13. Steve Fortin & Ahmad Hammami & Michel Magnan, 2021. "Re‐exploring Fair Value Accounting and Value Relevance: An Examination of Underlying Securities," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 57(2), pages 220-250, June.
    14. de Camargo Fiorini, Paula & Roman Pais Seles, Bruno Michel & Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel Jose & Barberio Mariano, Enzo & de Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes, 2018. "Management theory and big data literature: From a review to a research agenda," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 112-129.
    15. Jacobs, Mattis & Kurtz, Christian & Simon, Judith & Böhmann, Tilo, 2021. "Value Sensitive Design and power in socio-technical ecosystems," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 10(3), pages 1-26.
    16. Kristian D. Allee & Daniel D. Wangerin, 2018. "Auditor monitoring and verification in financial contracts: evidence from earnouts and SFAS 141(R)," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1629-1664, December.
    17. Avner Engel & Shalom Shachar, 2006. "Measuring and optimizing systems' quality costs and project duration," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 259-280, September.
    18. Bertschek, Irene & Kesler, Reinhold, 2022. "Let the user speak: Is feedback on Facebook a source of firms’ innovation?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    19. Peretzke, Julia & Sandhaus, Gregor, 2017. "Einsatzpotentiale von Cognitive Computing zur Unterstützung der Entscheidungsfindung im Supply Chain Management," ild Schriftenreihe 53, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Institut für Logistik- & Dienstleistungsmanagement (ild).
    20. Németh Tamás, 2019. "How to back up Modules with blended learning The e-Learning platform of FAME," Prosperitas, Budapest Business University, vol. 6(1), pages 102-112.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:poicbe:v:14:y:2020:i:1:p:878-892:n:84. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.