Sustainable Development and Chinese Tourism Industry
5. CONCLUSION
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
JUNE 2011 VOL 3,NO 2
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
JUNE 2011 VOL 3,NO 2
there is a strong positive relationship between three factors and effectiveness of PMS. A PMS system that is implemented very strongly and positively is influenced by three factors providing significant effectiveness. In addition, this will cause high performance. However, as an important factor, management commitment is still inadequate. In order to increase effectiveness of PMS, this factor should be deemed carefully and strictly.
Overall, this study has achieved the objectives and the purpose intended. From the findings, the authors found that organizational factors are very fundamental parts of PMS. PMS is very important in increasing performance in any workplace, especially in higher educational institutions such as UTM.
In conclusion, this study can be a reference for future researchers in PMS in higher education institution settings which have very unique characteristics compared to business oriented industries.
Hence, the authors hope that this study can be beneficial for properly improving the design, quality, implementation, and effectiveness of future PMS. UTM at the last stage of this study has informed of taking further actions and developments to move this system forward for the better of its system users. In additin making it more a powerful tool for measuring employee performance.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
JUNE 2011 VOL 3,NO 2
References
Armstrong, M., & Baron, A. (1998). Performance Management: The New Realities. Great Britain:
The Cromwell Press, Wiltshire.
Burns, J., & Vaivio, J. (2001). Management Accounting Change. Management Accounting Research, 12(4).
Cardy, R. L. (2004). Performance management: Concepts, skills, and exercises. Armonk, NY: M. E.
Sharpe
Cieri, H.D., & Kramar, R. (2005). Human Resource Management in Australia 2E: Strategy People Performance. Australia: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Dreher, G.F., & Dougherty, T.W. (2002). Human Resource Strategy: A Behavioral Perspective for the General Manager. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Economic and Social Council of United Nations (2003)
Helm, C., Holladay, C.L., & Tortorella, F.R. (2007). The performance management system:
applying and evaluating a pay-for-performance initiative. Healthcare Management.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/158907312_1.html
Johnson, H. T. & Kaplan, R. S. (1987). This paper appears in: Engineering Management Review, 15(3), pp 36- pp 44.
Lauras, M., Marques, G., & Gourc, D. (2010). Towards a multi-dimensional project Performance Measurement System. Decision Support Systems. 48(2), pp 342- pp 353.
Lawler, E.E. (2003). Reward and Performance Management System Effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 32(4), pp 396- pp 404.
Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. (2009). Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. Malden, WA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2010). Employee engagement through effective performance management: A practical guide for managers. New York: Routledge.
Otley, D. (1999). Performance management: a framework for management control systems research.
Management Accounting Research, 10(4), pp 363- pp 382.
Pallant, J. (2007). Survival Manual: A step by step Guide to Data Analysis using SPSS for windows third edition. USA. New York. Open University Press.
San, S. B., & Wong, A. (2001) Performance Management: A Study of Current and Future Practices in Malaysia, Development Dimensions International, Malaysia
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
JUNE 2011 VOL 3,NO 2
Shepherd, C., & Gunter, H. (2006). Managing supply chain performance: current research and future directions. Productivity and performance management, 55(¾), pp 242- pp 258.
Sole, F. (2009). A management model and factors driving performance in public organizations.
Measuring Business Excellence, 13(4), pp 3.
Stone, D.L., & Romero, E.F.S., Lukaszewski, K., (2006). Factor affecting the acceptance and effectiveness of electronic human resource systems. Human Resource Management Review, 16(2), pp 229- pp 244.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
JUNE 2011 VOL 3,NO 2
Annexure
Table 1: KMO and Bartlett’s Test of the Study
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .716
Approx. Chi-Square 1.5922.849
Df 66
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Sig. .000
Table 2: Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Component
Total % of Variance
Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative %
1 4.869 40.573 40.573 4.869 40.573 40.573
2 1.805 15.043 55.615 1.805 15.043 55.615
3 1.480 12.332 67.947 1.480 12.332 67.947
4 .890 7.419 75.366
5 .752 6.264 81.629
6 .544 4.535 86.165
7 .503 4.192 90.357
8 .424 3.535 93.892
9 .372 3.097 96.990
10 .223 1.857 98.846
11 .133 1.112 99.959
12 .005 .041 100.000
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
JUNE 2011 VOL 3,NO 2
Table 3: Cronbach Alpha Values for PMS
Factors Alpha Number
of Items Items of each factor 1. Employee Involvement 0.84 5 E2, E1, E3, IMC3, IMC4 2. Performance Oriented Culture 0.81 4 P1, P2, P3, E5
3. Management Commitment 0.81 3 L4, L5, IMC2
* The items are coded after factor analysis
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for Organisational Factors (n=100) Item Mean Std.
Deviation Cronbach Alpha
Organizational Factors (Overall) 3.78 0.66 0.86
Employee Involvement 3.68 0.84
E1= Employees feel involved during the development of
PMS. 3.40 1.146
E2= employees are informed about development of PMS
3.82 1.114
E3= Employees are made accountable to their own
development. 4.07 1.148
IMC3= There is sufficient training provided on PMS 3.37 1.089 IMC4= There is strong support from top managers about
involving in PMS 3.77 .863
Performance Oriented Culture 3.99 0.76
P1= Employees are encouraged to monitor their
performance. 3.95 .903
P2= Everyone is concerned of meeting performance target. 4.11 1.004 P3= There is a strong drive towards performing well. 3.94 .897 E5= Employees understand how their work contributes to
their organization performance. 3.94 1.003
Management Commitment 3.68 0.92
L4= The system is perfect to evaluate the job has been
done. 3.72 1.181
L5= It assists staffs adapting any innovation and change 3.87 1.134 IMC2= Manager constantly monitors activities performed
by staff through PMS 3.45 .936
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
JUNE 2011 VOL 3,NO 2 Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Effectiveness of PMS (n=100)
Mean Std. Deviation Cronbach Alpha
Effectiveness of PMS (overall) 3.65 .443 0.7
C1= Performance appraisal system helps me to do my job better. 4.15 .936 C2= Performance appraisal system helps me to develop my skill
and potential. 4.01 .904
C3= The objectives/performance standards agree with my manager
are realistic 3.77 .952
C4= I get useful feedbacks from my performance management
review. 3.67 1.055
C5= I am not satisfied with the way my manager/team leader
conducts my performance review. 3.17 .985
C6= Assessments of my performance are consistent, fair and
unbiased 3.75 .936
C7= I feel motivated after a review meeting. 3.82 .857
C8= I do not understand how my manager/team leader decides my
rating assessment. 3.61 1.118
C9= Managers/team leaders give the best rating/ assessments to
people they like. 3.39 1.127
C10= I fully understand how my objectives/performance standards
relate to the business needs of the organization. 3.98 .932 C11= I have received adequate training in performance
management 3.26 .960
C12= The system of performance management used here works
well and does not need to change 3.02 1.025
C13= Time spent on performance management is worthwhile 3.75 .968 C14= The information disclosed in performance reviews is used
sensitively and productively by the organization 3.69 .929
Table 6: Correlations between Organisational Factors and Effectiveness of PMS Effectiveness of Performance
Pearson Correlation .518**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Employee Involvement
N 100
Pearson Correlation .603**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Performance Oriented Culture
N 100
Pearson Correlation .341**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
Management Commitment
N 100
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
JUNE 2011 VOL 3,NO 2 Table 7: Interview Responses
Questions Answers (Main points)
1. What are the factor influencing PMS while you are implementing it?
• Human Factors and Demographic affects
• Technical Factor
• Maturity of PMS
• Management factors 2. How is the effectiveness of PMS?
• Providing feedback
• Increasing Performance
• Developing skills and potential 3. Is there any relationship between factors and
effectiveness of PMS? How?
• There is a strong relationship between some factors and effectiveness of PMS
Fig 1: Scree Plot of the Items in the Study
Less than Eigenvalue 1.0 is not extracted as factor.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
JUNE 2011 VOL 3,NO 2