東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Evaluating effects of forced ranking...

Northcentral University.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Evaluating effects of forced ranking on employee performance and productivity.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Evaluating effects of forced ranking on employee performance and productivity./
Author:	Barksdale, Nathaniel, Jr.
Description:	209 p.
Notes:	Adviser: Rebekah Blakley.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International69-04A.
Subject:	Business Administration, Management. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3310165
ISBN:	9780549585091

Evaluating effects of forced ranking on employee performance and productivity.
Barksdale, Nathaniel, Jr.

Evaluating effects of forced ranking on employee performance and productivity. - 209 p.

Adviser: Rebekah Blakley.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Northcentral University, 2008.

Each year managers conduct employee performance appraisals, sometimes using forced ranking performance management (forced ranking) to rank employees from best to worst. Managers use forced ranking to help identify high-potential employees, help make difficult decisions related to reductions in force, remove underperforming employees, and help in deciding the allocation of pay and incentives. Assessing the extent to which use of forced ranking performance management systems for a performance appraisal is related to a decline in employee productivity, performance, and morale was explored in this investigation. The quantitative research method and design was employed by the use of an Internet survey (49 items, alpha = .954), targeted to the population of interest, 5000 potential respondents from various businesses and professions. Of the eligible sample, 360 respondents provided usable quantitative and qualitative data. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to examine the results of the investigation, and to compare the results with those of previous studies, for example, Becker, 1995; Novations Group, 2004; Steel, 2003. Based on the current study results, there is no evidence that performance or productivity is negatively correlated with the use of forced ranking, contradicting findings from previous studies. No relationship between performance rank and performance after a receipt of the performance ranking in 2005, &khgr;2(6, N = 203) = 11.963, p = .063, or 2004, &khgr;2(6, N = 200) = 6.291, p = .391 was indicated. A relationship between performance rank and productivity after a receipt of the 2005 performance ranking, &khgr;2(6, N = 204) = 15.820, p = .015 and 2004 performance ranking, &khgr;2(6, N = 201) = 18.573, p = .005 was found. Observed was a relationship between performance rank and morale after a receipt of the 2005 performance ranking &khgr;2(6, N = 204) = 28.001, p = .000 and 2004 performance ranking, &khgr; 2(6, N = 201) = 15.621, p = .016. Results reported here, when used in combination with previous studies and literature could help to close the gap of misunderstanding about forced ranking performance management systems between the empirical data and opinion.

ISBN: 9780549585091Subjects--Topical Terms:

626628
Business Administration, Management.

Evaluating effects of forced ranking on employee performance and productivity.
LDR:03108nmm 2200277 a 45 001 868793
005 20100812
008 100812s2008 eng d
020 $a 9780549585091
035 $a (UMI)AAI3310165
035 $a AAI3310165
040 $a UMI $c UMI
100 1 $a Barksdale, Nathaniel, Jr. $3 1037939
245 1 0 $a Evaluating effects of forced ranking on employee performance and productivity.
300 $a 209 p.
500 $a Adviser: Rebekah Blakley.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 69-04, Section: A, page: 1430.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Northcentral University, 2008.
520 $a Each year managers conduct employee performance appraisals, sometimes using forced ranking performance management (forced ranking) to rank employees from best to worst. Managers use forced ranking to help identify high-potential employees, help make difficult decisions related to reductions in force, remove underperforming employees, and help in deciding the allocation of pay and incentives. Assessing the extent to which use of forced ranking performance management systems for a performance appraisal is related to a decline in employee productivity, performance, and morale was explored in this investigation. The quantitative research method and design was employed by the use of an Internet survey (49 items, alpha = .954), targeted to the population of interest, 5000 potential respondents from various businesses and professions. Of the eligible sample, 360 respondents provided usable quantitative and qualitative data. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to examine the results of the investigation, and to compare the results with those of previous studies, for example, Becker, 1995; Novations Group, 2004; Steel, 2003. Based on the current study results, there is no evidence that performance or productivity is negatively correlated with the use of forced ranking, contradicting findings from previous studies. No relationship between performance rank and performance after a receipt of the performance ranking in 2005, &khgr;2(6, N = 203) = 11.963, p = .063, or 2004, &khgr;2(6, N = 200) = 6.291, p = .391 was indicated. A relationship between performance rank and productivity after a receipt of the 2005 performance ranking, &khgr;2(6, N = 204) = 15.820, p = .015 and 2004 performance ranking, &khgr;2(6, N = 201) = 18.573, p = .005 was found. Observed was a relationship between performance rank and morale after a receipt of the 2005 performance ranking &khgr;2(6, N = 204) = 28.001, p = .000 and 2004 performance ranking, &khgr; 2(6, N = 201) = 15.621, p = .016. Results reported here, when used in combination with previous studies and literature could help to close the gap of misunderstanding about forced ranking performance management systems between the empirical data and opinion.
590 $a School code: 1443.
650 4 $a Business Administration, Management. $3 626628
650 4 $a Sociology, Industrial and Labor Relations. $3 1017858
690 $a 0454
690 $a 0629
710 2 0 $a Northcentral University. $3 1018547
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 69-04A.
790 $a 1443
790 1 0 $a Blakley, Rebekah, $e advisor
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2008
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3310165