CONTINUOUS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF EMPLOYEES USING AHP AND MODIFIED PUGH MATRIX METHOD: CONTRASTING WITH TOPSIS, PROMETHEE AND VIKOR
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
Applications of the AHP for employee performance evaluation in organizations are widely discussed in the literature. Contemporary organizations are increasingly discarding the traditional periodic appraisal systems and moving towards a real-time continuous process of evaluation. The existing multi-criteria decision making method (MCDM)-based employee performance evaluations are not suitable for such continuous evaluations, due to the complexity of the MCDM method. The current appraisal system is notoriously difficult to administer which prevents organizations from using it as an ongoing evaluation. There is a need for a simple yet robust multi-criteria decision making method for continuous performance evaluation of employees (CPEE). In this article, a modified version of the Pugh Matrix Method (MPMM) is proposed as a robust outranking method. The MPMM in combination with the AHP can function as an effective tool for CPEE. The MPMM is compared with other established and popular methods including TOPISIS, PROMETHEE and VIKOR. A statistical comparison using correlation validates the evaluation by the MPMM. There appears to be no significant difference in the evaluation of the MPMM with the other MCDM methods. Owing to its robustness and ease of use, the MPMM can easily be adopted by organizations for CPEE. The managerial implications and agenda for future research are also discussed.
How to Cite
Downloads
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Continuous Performance Evaluation of Employees, Modified Pugh Matrix Method, Multi-criteria decision making, AHP, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, VIKOR
Aguinis, H., Joo H. and Gottfredson, R. K. (2011). Why we hate performance appraisal-And why we should love it. Business Horizons, 54(6), 503–507. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.06.001
Alves, I., & Lourenço, S. M. (2023). Subjective performance evaluation and managerial work outcomes. Accounting and Business Research, 53(2), 127–157.
Bagautdinova, N., & Validova, A. (2014). Defining optimal span of control for an enterprise. Procedia Economics and Finance, 14, 30–34. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00682-0
Boice, D. H. and Kleiner, B. H. (1997). Designing effective performance appraisal systems. Work Study, 46(6), 197–201. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00438029710367622
Brans, J.-P., & Vincke, P. (1985). Note—A preference ranking organisation method: (The PROMETHEE method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making). Management Science, 31(6), 647–656. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647
Burge, S. (2009). The Systems Engineering Tool Box, http://www.burgehugheswalsh.co.uk/uploaded/1/documents/pugh-matrix-v1.1.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2023)
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661
DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 421–433. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000085
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 and Applied Sciences, 28(1), 73–79. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/25765299.2021.1890909
Donegan, H. A., Dodd, F. J., & McMaster, T. B. M. (1992). A new approach to AHP decision‐making. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 41(3), 295–302. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2348551
Ferratt, T. W., Agawal, R., Moore, J. E. & Brown, C. V. (1999). Observation from ‘The Front’: IT executives on practices to recruit and retain information technology professionals. Proceedings SIGCPR’99, New Orleans, US, 102–112. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/299513.299628
Fisher, C. M. (1994). The differences between appraisal schemes: Variation and acceptability -Part 1. Personnel Review, 23(8), 33–48. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483489410072271
Giotopoulos, K. C., Michalopoulos, D., Karras, A., Karras, C., & Sioutas, S. (2023). Modelling and analysis of neuro fuzzy employee ranking system in the public sector. Algorithms, 16(3), 151. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/a16030151
Heidemeier H. & Moser K. (2009). Self-other agreement in job performance ratings: a meta-analytic test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 353–70. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.94.2.353
Ishizaka, A., & Pereira, V. E. (2016). Portraying an employee performance management system based on multi-criteria decision analysis and visual techniques. International Journal of Manpower, 37(4), 628–659. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ijm-07-2014-0149
Jacobsen, C. B., Hansen, A. K. L., & Pedersen, L. D. (2023). Not too narrow, not too broad: Linking span of control, leadership behavior, and employee job satisfaction in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 83(4), 775–792. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/puar.13566
Jahan, A., Mustapha, F., Ismail, M. Y., Sapuan, S., & Bahraminasab, M. (2011). A comprehensive VIKOR method for material selection. Materials & Design, 32(3), 1215–1221. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2010.10.015
Jawahar, I. M. (2006). Correlates of satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Labor Research, 27(2), 213–236. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12122-006-1004-1
Lai, Y.-J., Liu, T.-Y., & Hwang, C.-L. (1994). TOPSOS for MODM. European Journal of Operational Research, 76(3), 486–500. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(94)90282-8
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 178(2), 514–529.
Palaiologos, A., Papazekos, P., and Panayotopoulou, L. (2011). Organizational justice and employee satisfaction in performance appraisal. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(8), 826–840. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.020
Pichler, S. (2012). The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal reactions: A meta-analysis. Human Resource Management, 51(5), 709–732.
Pichler, S., Beenen, G., & Wood, S. (2020). Feedback frequency and appraisal reactions: A meta-analytic test of moderators. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(17), 2238–2263. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1443961
Powell, D., & Lorenz, R. (2019). The effect of team size on the performance of continuous improvement teams: is seven really the magic number? In Advances in Production Management Systems. Production Management for the Factory of the Future: IFIP WG 5.7 International Conference, APMS 2019, Austin, TX, USA, September 1–5, 2019, Proceedings, Part I (pp. 69–76). Springer International Publishing. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30000-5_9
Pugh, S. (1981). Design decision-how to succeed and know why. Session Sa, Paper 8, Design Engineering Conference. http://edge.rit.edu/edge/P10505/public/Pugh%20Concept%20Selection.pdf
(accessed 20 Nov 2022)
Pugh, S. (1991). Total design: Integrated methods for successful product engineering. New York: Addison Wesley.
Rivera, M., Qiu, L., Kumar, S., & Petrucci, T. (2021). Are traditional performance reviews outdated? An empirical analysis on continuous, real-time feedback in the workplace. Information Systems Research. 32(2), 517–540. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2020.0979
Schraeder, M., Becton, B. J., and Portis, R. (2007). A critical examination of performance appraisals: An organization's friend or foe? Journal for Quality and Participation, 30(1), 20–25.
Shekshina, S. (1998). Western multinationals’ human resource practices in Russia. European Management Journal, 16(4), 460–465. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0263-2373(98)00022-x
Singh, A., Gupta, A., & Mehra, A. (2021). Best criteria selection based PROMETHEE II method. OPSEARCH, 58(1), 160–180. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12597-020-00464-7
Smeets, V. (2017). Can firms oversee more workers with fewer managers?. IZA World of Labor. https://wol.iza.org/articles/can-firms-oversee-more-workers-with-fewer-managers/long Doi: https://doi.org.10.15185/izawol.333
Sreejith S.S. & Mathirajan M. (2020). Development of a conceptual framework for continuous performance evaluation of employees to offer reward and recognition, Journal of Management Research, 20(4), 225–256. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781315152653-11
Sreejith, S.S., & Mathirajan, M. (2022). A modified Pugh matrix method for continuous performance evaluation of employees. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, 9(1), 149–163. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23220937221081946
Vafaei, N., Ribeiro, R. & Camarinha-Matos, L. Normalization techniques for MultiCriteria Decision Making: Analytical Hierarchy Process case study. 7th Doctoral Conference on Computing, Electrical and Industrial Systems (DoCEIS), Apr 2016, Costa de Caparica, Portugal. pp.261-269, Doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-31165-4_26ff.
Yoon, K. P., & Kim, W. K. (2017). The behavioral TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 89, 266–272. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.07.045
Copyright of all articles published in IJAHP is transferred to Creative Decisions Foundation (CDF). However, the author(s) reserve the following:
- All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
- The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain permission from CDF as well. However, CDF may grant rights with respect to journal issues as a whole.
- The right to use all or parts of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, textbooks, or reprint books.
- The authors affirm that the article has been neither copyrighted nor published, that it is not being submitted for publication elsewhere, and that if the work is officially sponsored, it has been released for open publication.
The only exception to the statements in the paragraph above is the following: If an article published in IJAHP contains copyrighted material, such as a teaching case, as an appendix, then the copyright (and all commercial rights) of such material remains with the original copyright holder.
CDF will receive permission for publication of copyrighted material in IJAHP. This permission is not transferable to third parties. Permission to make electronic and paper copies of part or all of the articles, including all computer files that are linked to the articles, for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage.
This permission does not apply to previously copyrighted material, such as teaching cases. In paper copies of the article, the copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date should be visible. To copy otherwise is permitted provided that a per-copy fee is paid.
To republish, to post on servers, or redistribute to lists requires that you post a link to the IJAHP article, which is available in open access delivery mode. Do not upload the article itself.
Authors are permitted to present a talk, based on a paper submitted to or accepted by IJAHP, at a conference where the paper would not be published in a copyrighted publication either before or after the conference and where the author did not assign copyright to the conference or related publisher.