Factors That Influence The Effectiveness Of Performance

Factors that influence the effectiveness of performance

File Name: Factors-That-Influence-the-Effectiveness-of-Performance-Management-System-Adoption-in-Organisation.pdf

File Size: 464.25 KB

File Type: Application/pdf

Last Modified: 5 years

Status: Available

Last checked: 13 days ago!

This Document Has Been Certified by a Professional

100% customizable

Language: English

We recommend downloading this file onto your computer


Global Journal of Human Resource Management
Vol.6, No.1, pp.51-66, March 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Dr. Assish Jugmohun (DBA)
Open University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius
ABSTRACT: The focus of this paper is to review and discuss the main factors that influence
the effectiveness of Performance Management System in organisation. Performance
Management System can be viewed as one of the most important and constructive
developments that has gained momentum in the recent years. Consequently, it has become
crucial for many organisations in their quest to improve and enhance their competitiveness
through its introduction and implementation. Public and private organisations are gradually
moving towards the adoption of Performance Management System as it provides an integrated
and coherent range of Human Resources processes which can be supportive in terms of
contributing to the overall improvement of organisational and individual performance. A
number of key factors are responsible for the effectiveness of Performance Management
System and they are critically discussed in this literature study. The study reveals that factors
such as balance scorecard, training, top management commitment, employee engagement,
reward management, enterprise resource planning, culture and behaviour influence the
effectiveness of a Performance management System adoption in organisation

KEYWORDS: Factors, Performance Management System, Effectiveness
The idea of Performance Management System (PMS) constitutes one of the important and
positive developments that has gained momentum in the domain of Human Resource
Management (HRM) recently (Armstrong, 1994; Ratnawat and Jha, 2013). At the very outset,
it is worthwhile to point out that there is nothing new in the concept of PMS as its origin can
be traced back as early as 221-265 AD (Chamberlin, 2011). The various forms in which PMS
has existed were Performance Appraisal System (PAS), Merit Rating (MR) and Management
by Objective (MBO) (McGregor, 1957; Drucker, 1964; Fowler, 1990; Armstrong and Baron,
1998; Armstrong, 1999; Armstrong, Brown and Reilly, 2011). These concepts have contributed
to the enhancement of performance both at the individual and organisational levels. Studies
have revealed that these systems have been discredited in the public and private sectors
throughout the world as a result of which much emphasis and attention is being directed
towards PMS (Mc Gregor, 1957; Drucker, 1964; Levinson, 1970; Boyatzis, 1982; Fowler,
1990; Armstrong and Baron, 1998; Baird, Schoch and Chen, 2012; Ramgutty-Wong, 2014;
Upadhaya, Munir and Blount, 2014; Akhtar and Mittal, 2015)

Numerous attempts were made by researchers in their quest to evaluate the effectiveness of
PMS by making use of the contingency factors (Chan, 2004; Cheng, Dainty and Moore, 2007;
Hoque and Adams, 2008; Burney, Henle and Widener, 2009). However, the studies were not
conclusive since the analysis of the related factors was made in isolation, that is, an integrated
approach was missing

ISSN: 2052-6350(Print) ISSN: 2052-6369(Online)
Global Journal of Human Resource Management
Vol.6, No.1, pp.51-66, March 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Purpose of the Paper
The purpose of the paper is to review the literature on the key factors that influence the
effectiveness of PMS adoption. The reason for choosing these critical factors identified for this
paper is based on the fact that they have been widely acclaimed as key success factors that have
a positive influence on the effectiveness of a PMS (Elzinga, Albronda and Kluijtmans, 2009;
Tung, Baird and Schoch, 2011; Baird et al., 2012; Hao, Kasper and Muehlbacher, 2012;
Dermol and Cater, 2013; Murphy, Cooke and Lopez, 2013). Despite the good intention and
efforts made by organisations, examining the effectiveness of PMS remains an area that
requires considerable attention and it is the subject matter that will be discussed

With the evolution of the PMS concept, researchers have provided a set of multi-dimensional
measures in the form of the balanced scorecard and the organisational factors that can be used
to evaluate the PMS effectiveness (Tung et al., 2011; Baird et al., 2012; Ratnawat et al., 2013)

As mentioned earlier, this paper aims at examining the factors that influence the effectiveness
of PMS and will incorporate work used by Tung et al. (2011), Baird et al. (2012) and Hawke
(2012) to fill the gap in the literature. However, few studies have examined the factors
influencing the effectiveness of PMS (Lawler, 2003; Padovani, Yetano, Orelli, 2010; Biron,
Farndale and Paauwe, 2011; Tung et al., 2011; Baird et al., 2012; Hawke, 2012). The factors
that have emerged focuses on the multi-dimensional factors namely balanced scorecard (BSC)
and organisational factors such as training, top management support, employee engagement,
reward management, enterprise resource planning, culture and behaviour

Balanced Scorecard
Research has shown that organisations are more and more eager to implement an upgraded
PMS, one which concentrates on various aspects of the organisation and is in line with the
organisational strategy (Tardivo and Viassone, 2010). As a result, this has given rise to the
development of numerous multi-dimensional performance measurement systems such as the
BSC, performance pyramid and the determinants framework. There is growing evidence within
the literature which has demonstrated that the use of multidimensional measures contributes to
the PMS effectiveness (Malina and Selto, 2001; Ittner, Larcker and Randall, 2003; Braam and
Nijssen, 2004; Crabtree and DeBusk, 2008; Baird et al., 2012). The usage of BSC as part of a
PMS has been highly recommended by Baird et al. (2012) because of its cascading effect. It
facilitates in the provision of accurate and meaningful measurement of performance which in
turn encourages appropriate employee behaviour within the workforce, thus, providing better
and reliable information to management in their decision-making process. The BSC concept
has been introduced by Kaplan and Norton (1992) and recently celebrated its 25-year
anniversary (Madsen and Stenheim, 2015). It is worthy to point out that the first cohort of BSC
was principally a PMS which provided a specific structure for the measurement of tangible and
intangible elements (Kaplan and Norton, 1996). The BSC in this context constitutes one of the
most popular and widely used tools to increase and improve the performance of employees in
both the private and public sectors as it encompasses the strategic objectives of a business into
a distinct and balanced framework (Baird et al., 2012). A study carried out by Baird et al

(2012) revealed that the adoption rate in the Australian local government was 13.8%. However,
other studies carried out in the private sector by Speckbacher, Bischof and Pfeiffer (2003),
ISSN: 2052-6350(Print) ISSN: 2052-6369(Online)
Global Journal of Human Resource Management
Vol.6, No.1, pp.51-66, March 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
26%; Chung, Gibbons and Schoch (2006), 31%; Rigby and Bilodeau (2009) showed an
adoption rate of 53%. Furthermore, a research conducted by Tung et al. (2011) on the factors
influencing the effectiveness of PMS concluded that only 33.1% of organisations were using
the BSC, which is in line with prior findings namely: Whorter (2003), 35% , and Crabtree and
DeBusk (2008), 35%. According to Kaplan and Norton (1996) and Horvath and Partners
(2002), the concept of BSC is made up of four perspectives namely: financial, customer,
internal business processes, learning and growth. Through the four components of the BSC, an
organisation tries to achieve equilibrium between its short-term and long-term objectives,
performance drivers, desired results and hard and soft measures. According to De Geuser,
Mooraj and Oyon (2009), a BSC in practice may serve as a strategic management system that
encourages managers across the organisation to make decisions based on the common
strategies of the company. It helps employees to understand the cause and effect relationships
of the various tasks they undertake (Papalexandris, Ioannou and Prastacos, 2004). Afande
(2015) indicated that benefits from using BSC in organisations include linking targets and
annual budgets to the strategic objectives, align departmental and personal goals to the strategy,
identify and align strategic initiatives. According to Madsen and Stenheim (2015), research on
BSC is not only confined to discipline-based journals in accounting and management, but can
also be found in context-specific journals covering hotels and tourism (Vila, Costa and Rovira,
2010; Sainaghi, Phillips and Corti, 2013; Palatkova, 2015), education (Sayed, 2013), health
sector (Trotta, Cardamone, Cavallaro and Mauro, 2012) and the public sector (Northcott and
Taulapapa, 2012)

Various approaches linking human resource practices and performance have been provided in
the literature (Delery and Doty, 1996; McMahan, Virick and Wright, 1999). They have been
developed and categorised into universalist, contingent and configurational. The universalist
style proved to be better than others as it highlights the existence of HRM practices, thus,
organisations adopting the universalist approach and providing training will be more effective
(Wright, Gardner and Moynihan, 2003). However, the contingent stand specifies that an
organisation’s training policy will depend on their strategic approach (Bae and Lawler, 2000;
Chan, Shaffer and Snape, 2004; Pena and Villasalero, 2010). The configurational approach, on
the other hand, lays emphasis on the concept of complementarities between the different HRM
practices. It advocates that training improves organisational effectiveness to a large extent
when combined with other corresponding human resource practices (Ostroff and Bowen,

Performance related training is another form of training that has gathered momentum since the
1990’s (Armstrong, 1994). The basis of this type of training is that it makes provision for the
improvement of abilities and aptitudes which have a direct effect on individual and team
performance. According to Dermol et al. (2013), it is worthy to note that researchers such as
Gupta and Govindarajan (2000), Lane, Salk and Lyles (2001), Conner (2002), Minbaeva
(2005), Campbell (2006), Lyles and Salk (2007), Heathfield (2009) and Vyas (2010) have
mainly focused their attention on exploring the current results of training at either the individual
or organisational level. Though these studies have revealed that the impacts of training can
improve employee flexibility and productivity, they have failed to provide empirical evidence
about their links. However, the positive point is that several academics have established a
relationship between training and the PMS effectiveness (Chan, 2004; Emerson, 2009). As
pointed out by Baird et al. (2012), PMS related training supports employees and managers to
ISSN: 2052-6350(Print) ISSN: 2052-6369(Online)
Global Journal of Human Resource Management
Vol.6, No.1, pp.51-66, March 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
understand PM, procedures, objectives and the operationalisation of PMS. This can only take
place if all the performance measures are clearly communicated, observed as pertinent and
trustworthy in the decision-making process

Top management support
According to Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian (1974) and Salancik and Pfeffer (1977),
commitment refers to attachment and readiness to put extensive effort on behalf of the
organisation. Walton (1985) has emphasised on the importance of commitment as it leads to
improved performance in the event organisations decide to shift from traditional control-
oriented approach to workforce management. On the other hand, Cheng et al. (2007) have
highlighted that for the successful implementation of a PMS process, companies should have
active senior management support, participation and leadership. This is mainly in the event that
top management commitment and leadership acceptance for PMS implementation is absent,
employees will have the tendency to give less or no priority to the new system (Krumwiede,
1998). Developing and implementing a new PMS in itself represents a major organisational
change intervention that requires radical adjustments in management activities and practices
(Seotlela and Miruka, 2014). The impact of these changes can in the long-run, become a cause
for resistance. As rightly put forward by Pace (2011), the most critical challenges that any
organisation has to face during the implementation stage of a PMS are related to poor
management support. The absence of commitment from senior and line management can
further complicate matters as employees from lower levels will certainly not take PMS
seriously (Ochurub, Bussin and Goosen, 2012). Hence, for a PMS to be effective, it must be
owned, driven and delivered by line managers (Nel, Van, Haasbrack, Schultz, Sono and Werner
2004; Armstrong and Baron, 2005; Rao, 2007)

Employee engagement
Markos and Sridevi (2010) view employee engagement as a vast concept that encompasses
almost all the facets of HRM. It is a relatively new concept for the business and academic
world (Swarnalatha and Prasanna, 2014). Although the term employee engagement is still
being debated and researched by academicians and the corporate world, it has become the buzz
word of the current globalised economy (Das and Mishra, 2014). On the other hand, Gruman
and Saks (2011) indicated that employee engagement being a new concept, has received much
attention in the past five years in the media and has been considered to be vital to an
organisation’s success. From a theoretical point of view, employee engagement has been
related to job performance, and this is the reason why the theme has attracted so much interest
over the past decades (Albrecht, Bakker, Gruman, Macey and Saks, 2015). However, it is
important to note that Kahn (1990) views that an employee is considered to be engaged in a
position only when physically and psychologically present. On the other hand, Robinson,
Perryman and Hayday (2004), describe employee engagement as an employees’ positive
attitude towards his/her organisation and its aims, objectives and core values. In addition,
Robinson et al. (2004) stated that an employee who is engaged is conscious about the goals of
the organisation and will aim at improving job performance for the benefit of the organisation

The literature on employee engagement has also shown that low engagement and job
satisfaction can lead to a number of problems such as labour turnover, absenteeism and other
potential costs associated with low performance (Kahn, 1990; Gruman and Saks, 2011; Das
and Mishra, 2014; Swarnalatha and Prasanna, 2014)

ISSN: 2052-6350(Print) ISSN: 2052-6369(Online)
Global Journal of Human Resource Management
Vol.6, No.1, pp.51-66, March 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Reward Management
The concept of reward has gained much popularity in the previous years that it has not only
captured the attention of researchers but managers as well (Mandal and Dalal, 2006). This is
mainly because reward constitutes one of the key components of a PMS, which is directly
linked to the motivation, performance and expected behaviour of the workforce in their quest
to put additional effort for the discharge of assigned duties and responsibilities (Njanja, Maina,
Kibet and Njagi, 2013). Organisations can have recourse to two types of rewards while
designing their reward management strategies namely intrinsic and extrinsic (Armstrong and
Murlis, 1994; Stajkovic and Luthans, 2001; Edirisooriya, 2014). Humphrey (1987) pointed out
that reward is conducive when the employees show readiness to contribute to the profitability
of the organisation through additional efforts. Another pre-requisite of the reward system is
that employees should see a visible link between their day to day tasks and the expected reward
through enhanced motivation and improved performance (Bajorek and Bevan, 2015). Various
researches have shown that employee satisfaction is caused by a properly implemented reward
system, which has a direct effect on their performance (Quereshi, Hijazi, Ramey and
Mohammad, 2007; Pratheepkanth, 2011). Ajila and Abiola (2004) showed that a good reward
package can have a positive impact on performance of employees, while Allen and Kilmann
(2001) argue that reward strategies are essential in increasing the performance of employees
and to achieve the aims of the organisation. Purkayastha and Chaudhari (2011) came up with
the conclusion in their research that a firm dealing in the financial services took care of its
employees even in the turbulent environment since they believed that PM and reward system
was responsible for this. In addition, they argued that management should give food for thought
on the most effective system of reward to be devised which caters for the needs of the
workforce, the specificities of the organisation and congruence between the individual interests
and strategic goals of the institution. As is the case for training, the prospective reward system
should be well communicated and marketed to all the employees and stakeholders irrespective
of their hierarchy levels, receive top management support and commitment and above all be
owned, managed and driven by line managers (Armstrong et al., 2011; Mehmood, Ramzan and
Akbar, 2013; Yamoah, 2014). This will ensure that resistance from employees would be
minimal and the effectiveness of the PMS is easily evaluated and measured

Enterprise resource planning
With the rapid changes occurring in the dynamic environment, organisations can no longer
avail themselves to the traditional way of doing things (Kallunki, Laitinen and Silvola, 2011;
Lecic and Kupusinac, 2013). Abugabah, Sanzogni and Alfarraj (2015) are of the opinion that
ERP system has become famous in a lot of companies so as to deal with environmental change
and to face challenges while Panayiotou, Evangelopoulos, Katimertzzoglou and Gayalis (2013)
opined that ERP implementation can provide a competitive edge to organisation and help to
achieve operational excellence. According to Mabert, Soni and Venkataramanan (2003), some
30,000 firms have applied an ERP system across the world necessitating a yearly investment
of US$ 10 billion. However, according to Shatat (2015), during the years 1996 to 2003, a
remarkable positive growth has been noted in the number of ERP system. This was mainly
because the purpose and outcome of such a system which inter alia consisted in facilitating the
information flow between all the business units within and outside the boundaries of the
organisation was well understood by management (Njihia and Mwirigi, 2014). An ERP system
implementation can have a domino effect in an organisation as it provides a number of
advantages (Akbulut and Motwani, 2005; Amid, Bagheri and Ghasrodashti, 2010; Lecic and
ISSN: 2052-6350(Print) ISSN: 2052-6369(Online)
Global Journal of Human Resource Management
Vol.6, No.1, pp.51-66, March 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Kupusinac, 2013; Njihia and Mwigiri, 2014). It can lead to an increase in efficiency and hence,
an improvement in the global competitiveness of the organisation can be registered. This is
evidenced by the quantifiable benefits that have been derived by the Aberdeen Group due to
the implementation of an ERP system: 22% reduction in operating costs, 20% reduction in
administrative costs, 17% inventory reductions, 19% improvements in on-time delivery, and
17% improvements in schedule compliance. According to Yazgan, Boran and Goztepe (2009),
savings in terms of time and money can be made in areas such as on-time inventory delivery,
lead time, product diversity and co-ordination of the supply chain. Koh, Gunasekaran and
Cooper (2009) argue that improvement in business process performance can be achieved
through control and integration of the data flow into a single database accessible via a unified
interface due to which problem-solving and more informed decision-making would be
facilitated to a very large extent. ERP system contributes to enhanced corporate business
process flows, decision-making and efficient customer service management (Shanks, Parr, Hu,
Corbitt and Seddon, 2000; Woo, 2007)

Pettigrew (1979) started with the formal writing on the concept of organisational culture. There
is unanimous consensus among academics and practitioners who are of the view that
organisational performance depends on the extent to which the culture values are broadly
shared (Ouchi, 1981). Much attention has been given to organisational culture in the past
twenty years owing to its potential impact on the success of organisations (Johari and
Sanbasivan, 2003). Various studies have integrated organisational culture as contingent factors
that can enhance organisational performance (Kotter and Heskett, 1992; Ogbonna and Harris,
2000; Chan et al., 2004; Deshpande and Farley, 2004). The widespread popularity and interest
in organisational culture stem from the common belief that corporate culture usually leads to
superior organisational financial performance. Three organisational factors namely innovation,
outcome orientation and teamwork have been proposed by Baird et al. (2012) in his
examination relating to the impact of organisational culture on performance. According to
Baird et al. (2012), innovation is merely the conception of a qualitatively new thing, through
the course of learning and knowledge building which supports a culture that are responsive to
new prospects, shift from prevailing paradigms, risk-taking and acceptance for mistakes. In
other words, innovation is challenging the ways things are being done in an organisation. The
key determinant leading to the process of innovation is none other than organisational culture
(Laforet, 2008; Tellis, Prabhu and Chandy, 2009). Research has provided evidence that
innovative organisations are more likely to cope with changes emanating from the external
environment compared to the traditional ones (Naveh and Erez, 2004). Literature has also
suggested that innovative organisations have the ability to develop and enhance performance
due to the adoption of the participative approach (Mohanty, 1999). As a result, the decision-
making process is eased to a very large extent. Based on the well-documented link established
between culture and innovation which has been provided in the literature, several researches
have confirmed that there is a positive link between innovation and organisational culture (Du
and Farley, 2001; Roper and Love, 2002; Naveh and Erez, 2004; Garcia-Morales, Moreno,
Llorens-Montes, 2006). Outcome orientation refers to the extent to which a competitive
organisation gives consideration to actions, results, expectations and performance (Sheridan,
1992). Literature and research have pointed out that employees in outcome-oriented
organisations are usually more motivated, dedicated and have a high sense of belongingness
(Hofstede, 1998). Given that the aim of a PMS is to achieve enhanced organisational
performance through employees’ commitment and motivation, it can be concluded that
ISSN: 2052-6350(Print) ISSN: 2052-6369(Online)
Global Journal of Human Resource Management
Vol.6, No.1, pp.51-66, March 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
outcome oriented organisations are more apt to attain these set objectives (Baird et al., 2012)

Teamwork has gained popularity in today’s challenging business environments. Teamwork is
the integration of individuals’ unique skills in view to increase performance across various
tasks that could not have been attained by an employee working on his own or by employees
working outside a team (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993). It is a popular concept whose main
responsibility is to plan, lead, organise, control, monitor and co-ordinate the team activities to
achieve the company’s goals through judicious use of resources (Pineda and Lerner, 2006)

Elzinga, Albronda and Kluijtmans (2009) highlighted that in recent years behavioural factors
have played a vital role in the positive use of a PMS in organisations. Studies led by researchers
have noted that although PMS has been implemented in many firms, these are not being used
to their full extent (Holloway, Lewis and Mallory, 1995; Franco and Bourne, 2003). One of
the main reasons that have given rise to such a state of affairs is employee behaviour
(Marchand, Kettinger and Rolling, 2000). They also added that though particular attention has
been given in the literature to the direct relationship between the behavioural factors and PMS,
this has simply been discarded by organisations. There has been extensive debate in the
literature as regards the behavioural factors and the use of PMS, the outcome of which has
generated very conflicting views (De Waal, 2006; Elzinga, Albronda and Kluijtmans, 2009;
De Waal, 2010; Karim, 2015). Behavioural factors are crucial for a successful PMS
implementation. They have supported their argument by giving prime importance on the laying
foundation of any PMS which is based on the behavioural and outcome approach or a
combination of both (Karim, 2015). Lipe and Salterio (2000) and Malina and Selto (2001)
highlighted that behavioural factors are key to the effective use of a PMS while on the other
hand authors like Krause (2000), Vagneur and Peiperl (2000) and De Waal (2002) are of the
opinion that the literature provides very little empirical evidence which indicate the effect of
behavioural factors on PMS. However, they admit that though a few studies have been
conducted, the focus was centred on the procedures for the design and implementation of a
PMS rather than on the link between behavioural factors and the use of a PMS. Previously,
there was not a direct link between PMS, human nature and outcome. This issue was tackled
by Argyris (1952) and later by Simon, Guetzkow, Kozmetsky and Tyndall (1954) by exploring
the human behavioural side of PMS. Holloway, Lewis and Mallory (1995), argue that effective
PMS implementation depends above all on the accommodation and understanding of the
human factor. Simons (2000) stated that a PMS cannot be successfully designed and
implemented without considering human behaviour. Martins (2000), on the other hand, is of
the opinion that many research on PMS focus on technicalities of implementation rather than
on behavioural issues

While the findings highlight the importance of adopting a PMS, it also provides management
with insight into the specific factors that warrant their attention to enhance PMS effectiveness

Given that the adoption of a PMS can constitute a major change initiative, care should be taken
so as to mitigate the incidence of resistance to change. The following is being recommended

Top management support, participation and leadership are pre-requisites for the PMS
implementation process as studies have proven that lack of management commitment can have
ISSN: 2052-6350(Print) ISSN: 2052-6369(Online)
Global Journal of Human Resource Management
Vol.6, No.1, pp.51-66, March 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
a detrimental impact on the implementation process. It is worthy to note that the role of top
management should not only be limited to the provision, control and monitor of financial
resources, they should also show their commitment throughout the whole process from its
inception, design, introduction and implementation of the PMS. Senior management support is
crucial for any change initiative until it is fully established and accepted

BSC has emerged as an important factor regarding PMS adoption. To proceed and be
successful in the implementation of a BSC, it is important to have a vision and mission,
perspectives, success factors, objectives, measures, strategies and action plans. This can be
achieved by adopting the seven steps as advocated by Hallgarde and Johansson (1999) which
consists of developing a vision, strategies, critical success factors and perspectives, corrective
measures, evaluation and monitoring of performance and creation of action plans. Developing
a strategy of how to achieve the mission and vision is crucial for the implementation of a BSC

The main strategy will involve the allocation of resources to achieve the objectives

Before embarking on PMS adoption, issues such as ERP infrastructure, good management of
the system, education about ERP, human resource planning, top management commitment,
training facilities should be taken into consideration. A complete overhaul of the ERP
infrastructure (hardware and software) will be required to meet the growing needs of the
business. While considering PMS adoption, systematic ERP training should be given to the
employees so that success can be assured. On the other hand, recommendation is geared
towards the retention of employees so as not to lose employees who have successfully been
trained in ERP

Organisation should consider the concept of training as an investment instead of a cost and
training should be an ongoing process and not a one-off exercise. A thorough needs assessment
must be conducted before training is designed and delivered. This would help to set appropriate
goals for training and ensure employees are ready to participate. Conducting training needs
have been advocated by several authors (Fowlkes, Salas, Baker, Cannon-Bowers and Strout,
2000; Baranzini, Bacchi and Cacciabue, 2001). The approach adopted during the training
process should not be selective, it should rather cater for the needs and requirements of all the
employees at the different hierarchy levels

Employee behaviour constitutes a crucial factor that should be given due attention while
considering an eventual adoption of a PMS. The recommendation will be based on four
instrumental dimensions namely: accountability, management style, action orientation and
communication. Accountability by top management can be ensured by minimising the
elements of subjectivity and bias from the PMS results generated. Management should seek a
change in management style to explicitly steer on results while simultaneously giving support
to help employees in obtaining the expected results. In this context, Management By Walking
Around (MBWA) as advocated by (Tucker and Singer, 2013) is a very plausible alternative
which top management could explore as the results in terms of employee behaviour are assured
within a very short lapse of time. On the other hand, management can use the 360- degree
feedback and regular face-to-face meetings so as to stimulate the clarity and visibility of the
PMS to other members of the organisation. The forum can be used to hold discussions about
the progress achieved and problems encountered in the course of the exercise and thereafter,
come up with necessary corrective actions and measures. Employee engagement constitutes
one of the cardinal elements essential for the adoption of a PMS. For an organisation to have
engaged employees, the inception of its employee engagement strategy starts from day one
itself, that is, on the day the newly hired employee joins the organisation. As such, senior
ISSN: 2052-6350(Print) ISSN: 2052-6369(Online)
Global Journal of Human Resource Management
Vol.6, No.1, pp.51-66, March 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
management should ensure that the value, mission, vision statements, policies and procedures
are inculcated in the prospective employees by having recourse to an induction and orientation
exercise. This can be achieved through the provision of a continuous well-crafted
communication strategy from the part of top management that promotes a two-way
communication. Studies have shown that when employees are cognizant of what are expected
from them, they tend to show gradual commitment, engagement and a sense of belongingness
to the organisation

It has also been noted from the literature that a number of reward management strategies have
not yielded the expected results though they are attractive. This is mainly because they have
been imposed by top management. To avoid such a situation, management should come up
with a reward management strategy that caters for the needs, specificities and requirements of
the organisation. A participative approach should be adopted whereby employees at all levels
are involved in the framing of the strategy. This would ensure congruence between the
individual and organisational objectives, hence, a proper sense of direction for the company

In addition, management will be in a better position to incorporate the best practices regarding
intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for inclusion in the PRP strategy

The concept of PMS has during the past years registered prominence in both the public and
private sectors. As such, the introduction and implementation of this organisation-wide
intervention in public and private owned companies have encountered a rising trend because
of its ability to encompass all the functional areas of organisations under one umbrella in their
quest to maintain, sustain and enhance competitive advantage. The review of the literature has
been very conclusive as it has led to the identification of the measures of BSC and
organisational factors that are considered critical for the implementation of a PMS

Abugabah, A, Sanzogni, L and Alfaraj, O (2015) “Evaluating the impact of ERP systems in
higher education”, The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology,
Vol. 32, No.1, pp. 45-64

Afande, F O (2015) “Adoption of the Balanced Scorecard by state corporations within the
Ministry of Information and Communication, Kenya”, Public Policy and
Administration Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 74-91

Ajila, C and Abiola, A (2004) “Influence of rewards on work performance in an
organisation”, Journal of Social Science, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 7-12

Akbulut, A Y and Motwani, J (2005) “Critical factors in the implementation and success of
enterprise resource planning”, Seidman Business Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, Article 8

Akhtar, M and Mittal, R K (2015) “Implementation issues and the impact on strategic
performance management system effectiveness – An empirical study of Indian oil
industry”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 71-82

Albrecht, S L, Bakker, A B, Gruman, J A, Macey, W H and Saks, A M (2015) “Employee
engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage: An
integrated approach”, Journal of Organisational Effectiveness: People anf
Performance, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 7-35

ISSN: 2052-6350(Print) ISSN: 2052-6369(Online)
Global Journal of Human Resource Management
Vol.6, No.1, pp.51-66, March 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Allen, R S and Kilmann, R H (2001) "The role of the reward system for a total quality
management based strategy", Journal of Organisational Change Management, Vol. 14,
No. 2, pp.110 – 131

Amid, A, Bagheri, M and Ghasrodashti (2010) “Analysis of the impact of Enterprise
Resource Planning systems on organisational effectiveness”, International Journal of
systems applications, engineering and development, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 76-86

Argyris, C (1952) The Impact of Budgets on People, The Controllership Foundation, Cornell
University, New York, NY

Armstrong, M (1994) Performance Management, Kogan Page, London

Armstrong, M (1996) Human Resource Management, Strategy and Action, Kogan Page,

Armstrong, M and Baron, A (1998) Performance Management: The New Realities, Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development, London

Armstrong, M and Murlis, H (1994) Reward Management: A Handbook of Remuneration
Strategy and Practice, (3rd edn) Kogan Page, London

Armstrong, M, Brown, D and Reilly, P (2011) “Increasing the effectiveness of reward
management: an evidence-based approach”, Employee Relations, Vol.33, No.2, pp

Bae, J and Lawler, J J (2003) “Organisational and HRM strategies in Korea: impact on firm
performance in an emerging economy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.43, pp

Baird, K, Schoch, H, and Chen, Q (2012) “Performance Management System Effectiveness
in Australian Local Government”, Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 161-

Bajorek, Z M and Bevan, S M (2015) “Performance-related-pay in the UK public sector. A
review of the recent evidence on effectiveness and value for money”, Journal of
Organisational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 94-109

Baranzini, D, Bacchi, N and Cacciabue, P C (2001) “A tool for evaluation and identification
of training needs in aircraft. Hum. Aerospace. Saf, Vol. 1, pp. 167-193

Biron, M, Farndale, E and Paauwe, J (2011) “Performance management effectiveness:
lessons from world leading firms”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 1294-311

Boyatzis, R (1982) The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance, Wiley,
New York, NY

Braam, G J M and Nijssen, E J (2004) “Performance effects of using the Balanced Scorecard:
a note on the Dutch experience”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 335-349

Burney, L L, Henle, C A and Widener, S K (2009) “A path model examining the relations
among strategic performance measurement system characteristics, organisational
justice, and extra- and in-role performance”, Journal of Accounting, Organisations and
Society, Vol. 34, No. 3/4, pp. 305-21

Campbell, M (2006) “Counting the value of learning”, Training Journal, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp

Chamberlain, L (2011) Does Your Performance Management Need a Tune-Up? Strategic
Finance, pp. 18-21

Chan, L L, Shaffer, M A and Snape, E (2004) “In search of sustained competitive advantage:
the impact of organisational culture, competitive strategy and human resource
management practices on firm performance”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol.1, No.15, pp. 17-35

ISSN: 2052-6350(Print) ISSN: 2052-6369(Online)
Global Journal of Human Resource Management
Vol.6, No.1, pp.51-66, March 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Chan, Y C L (2004) “Performance measurement and adoption of balance scorecards: a survey
of municipal governments in the USA and Canada”, The International Journal of
Public Sector Management, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 204-21

Cheng, M I, Dainty, A and Moore, D (2007) “Implementing a new performance management
system within a project-based organisation: a case study”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol.56, No.1, pp. 60-75

Chung, L H, Gibbons, P T and Schoch, H P (2006) “The management of information and
managers in subsidiaries of multinational corporations”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 153-165

Conner, M L (2002) “How do I measure return on investment for my learning program?”
Training and Learning FAQ’s [online] (cited 12 September 2015) Available from

Das, S P and Mishra, P (2014) “Employee Engagement: Developing a Conceptual
Framework”, The International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 2, No. 6,
pp. 224-229

De Geuser, F, Mooraj, S and Oyon, D (2009) “Does the balanced scorecard add value?
Empirical evidence on its effect on performance”, European Accounting Review, Vol

18, No. 1, pp. 93-122

De Waal, A A (2006) “The role of behavioral factors and national cultures in creating
effective Performance Management systems”, Systematic practice and Action Research,
Vol. 19, No. 1

De Waal, A A (2010) Performance-driven behaviour as the key to improved organisational
performance”, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 79-95

Debusk and Crabtree (2008) “BSC Adoption Boosts Shareholder Returns”, Findings from a
Recent Study, Vol. 12, No. 3

Delery, J E and Doty D H (1996) “Modes of theorising in strategic human resource
management: tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance
predictions” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 802-835

Dermol, V and Cater, T (2013) “The influence of training and training transfer factors on
organisational learning and performance”, Personnel Review, Vol. 42, No. 3

Deshpande, R and Farley, J (2004) “Executive insights: corporate culture and market
orientation: comparing Indian and Japanese firms”, Journal of International Marketing,
Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 111-27

Drucker, P (1964) Managing for Results, Heinemann, London

Du, Y and Farley, J U (2001) “Research on technological innovation as seen through the
Chinese looking glass”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 53-89

Edirisooriya, W A (2014) “Impact of Rewards on Employee Performance: With Special
Reference to ElectriCo”, Reshaping Management and Economic Thinking through
Integrating Eco-Friendly and Ethical Practices. Paper presented at the Third
International Conference on Management and Economics, 26-27 February 2014, Sri

Elzinga, T, Albronda, B and Kluijtmans, F (2009) “Behavioral factors influencing
performance management systems’ use”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 58, No. 6, pp. 508-522

Emerson B (2009) “Training for performance measurement success: an effective training
program can help get performance measurement off the ground and sustain the system
as it matures into a catalyst for government accountability and improvement”, [online]
(cited 12 July 2015) Available from
ISSN: 2052-6350(Print) ISSN: 2052-6369(Online)
Global Journal of Human Resource Management
Vol.6, No.1, pp.51-66, March 2018
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Fowler, A (1990), “Performance Management: the MBO of the 90s”, Personnel
Management, Vol.22, No 7, pp. 48-51

Fowlkes, J E, Salas, E, Baker, D P, Cannon-Bowers, J A and Strout, R J (2000) “The utility
of event-based knowledge elicitation”, Hum factor, Vol. 42, pp. 24-35

Franco, M and Bourne, M (2003) Factors That Play a Role in ‘Managing through Measures’
Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield Scholl of Management, Cranfield
University, Cranfield

Garcia-Morales, V J, Moreno, A R and Llorens-Montos, F J (2006) “Strategic capabilities
and their effect on performance”, Entrepreneurial Learning Innovator and Problematic

Gruman, J and Saks, A (2011), “Performance management and employee engagement”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol.21, pp. 123-36

Gupta, A K and Govindarajan, V (2000), “Knowledge flows within MNC’s”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 473-96

Hallgarde, U and Johansson, A (1999) Att infora Balanced Scorecard student literature

Hao, Q, Kasper, H and Muehlbacher, J (2012) “How does organisational structure influence
performance through learning and innovation in Austria and China”, Chinese
Management Studies, Vol. 6, No.1, pp. 36-52

Hawke, L (2012) “Australian public sector performance management: success or
stagnation?” International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol

61, No. 3, pp. 310-328

Heathfield, S M (2009) ‘Training: your investment in people development and retention’,
[online] (cited 20 August 2015) Available from http//humanresources.about.com/od/educationgeneral/a/training_invest.htm>
Hofstede, G (1998) “Attitudes, values and organisational culture: disentangling the
concepts”, Organisational Studies, Vol.19, No 3, pp. 477-92

Holloway, J, Lewis, J and Mallory, G (1995) Performance measurement and evaluation,
Sage Publications, London

Hoque, Z and Adams, C (2008) “Measuring Public Sector Performance: A Study of
Government Departments in Australia”, CPA Melbourne, Australia

Humphrey, W S (1987) Managing for Innovation: Leading Technical People, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey

Ittner, C D, Larcker, D F and Randall, T (2003) “Performance implications of strategic
performance measurement in financial services firms”, Accounting Organisations and
Society Vol. 28, pp. 715-741

Johari, J and Sanbasivan M (2003) “The influence of corporate culture and organisational
commitment on performance”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22, No. 8,
pp. 708-728

Kahn, W A (1990) “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 692-724

Kallunki, J P, Laitinen, E K and Silvola, H (2011) “Impact of enterprise resource planning
systems on management control systems and firm performance” International Journal
of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 20-39

Kaplan, R S and Norton, D P (1992) “The balanced scorecard - measures that drive
performance”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70, pp. 71-9

Kaplan, R S and Norton, D P (1996) “Linking the balance scorecard to strategy”, California
Management Review, Vol. 39, No 1, pp. 53-79

ISSN: 2052-6350(Print) ISSN: 2052-6369(Online)

KEYWORDS: Factors, Performance Management System, Effectiveness INTRODUCTION The idea of Performance Management System (PMS) constitutes one of the important and

Download Now

Documemt Updated


Popular Download


Frequently Asked Questions

What factors most influence employee performance?

Key Factors that Affect Employee Performance

  • Working Environment. An employee exposed to repetitive movements and static postures at work is at high risk for musculoskeletal injuries.
  • Peers and Leaders. Working with different people creates an impact on employee performance, which can either be positive or negative.
  • Skills and Workloads. ...
  • Feedback. ...

What are the factors affecting employee performance?

The Factors Impacting Employee Performance in 2022

  • Organizational Culture. Organizational culture enables the means to achieve organization’s strategic objectives, attract & retain talent and sustain success.
  • Flexibility. ...
  • Empowerment. ...
  • Reward and Recognition. ...
  • Employee Wellbeing. ...
  • Tools and Techniques. ...

What are the factors affecting academic performance?

Academic performance is a complex process that is influenced by several factors, such as study habits. In other words, study habits include behaviors and skills that can increase motivation and convert the study into an effective process with high returns, which ultimately increases the learning.

What factors affect the performance of a combined cycle?

Performance of combined Cycle Power Plant. 1) Compressor Inlet Temperature: The parameters whichaffect the performance of the combined cycle are compressor inlet temperature, pressure ratio, turbine inlet and exit temperatures and compressor and turbine efficiencies. Increasing T1 the compressor work increases but at the same time, heat input ...