Literature review writing service makes the life of a student so much easier. PapersOwl is a professional team of writers who are ready to help you. You can always rely on their proficiency and as a result, you get high-quality papers Nov 18, · The literature review is the perfect place to develop your arguments. Try learning the earlier concepts brought forth by experts or researchers. Then start brainstorming about how you can evolve ideas that have not been introduced before review of related literature Factors that Affect Academic Performance Several studies have been conducted to find out students’ academic performance (Applegate and Daly, ; Cho and Chung, ; Krashen, ; Malik and Singh, ; Ali and Haider, )
Pay for performance (healthcare) - Wikipedia
Not a MyNAP member yet? Register for a free account to start saving and receiving special member only perks. The Office of Personnel Management OPM requested this study in preparation for reauthorization hearings, scheduled foron the troubled Performance Management and Recognition System PMRS.
Our charge was to review the research on performance appraisal and on its use in linking compensation to performance. To supplement the research findings, we were asked to look at private-sector practice as well, to see if there are successful compensation systems based on performance appraisal that might provide guidance for policy makers in reforming PMRS. We construed this charge as requiring an investigation of whether and under what conditions performance appraisal in the context of merit pay systems could assist the federal government in managing performance, pay for performance literature review employee equity, improving individual and organizational effectiveness, providing consistent and predictable personnel costs, and—not least—enhancing the legitimacy of public service.
The Civil Service Reform Act CSRA of provides the backdrop for this study. That act required the development of job-related and objective performance appraisal systems, the results of which were to be used as a basis for training, promotion, reduction in grade, removal, and other personnel decisions. The act also created performance-based compensation systems for middle and senior managers. Designed to revitalize the civil service, in part by bringing private-sector management strategies to the federal bureaucracy, the reforms have by most measures fallen short of expectations, despite fairly substantial midcourse corrections.
Yet the pay for performance literature review in merit principles remains strong, as does the expectation that performance appraisal and linking compensation to performance can provide incentives for excellence. Policy makers already have extensive documentation of the problems and employee dissatisfactions with the Merit Pay System MPS and the successor PMRS: consistent underfunding of the merit pool, the lag of merit salaries behind the salaries of employees still under the General Schedule, the widely held and annually reinforced belief that federal salaries have fallen far behind their private-sector equivalents, and the perceived politicization of the civil service and the merit pay system that seemed to be an outgrowth of the Civil Service Reform Act.
This study is intended to supplement that knowledge and experience with information drawn from the private sector, beginning with a systematic investigation of the research on performance appraisal and pay for performance systems and including an assessment of private-sector practices in the years since the passage of the Civil Service Reform Act. We began the report with a cautionary note about the difficulties inherent in trying to measure social phenomena in general, and about the particular evidentiary obstacles presented by the subject at hand Chapter 3.
Our research has taken us pay for performance literature review the literature of a variety of disciplines as we tried to piece together from fragmentary evidence the best possible scientific understanding of the adequacy of performance appraisal as a basis for making personnel decisions and of the effectiveness of using pay to improve performance.
Investigation of the effects of linking compensation to performance led us from the question of individual effectiveness to organizational effectiveness and required an examination of both merit and variable pay plans. Recent research trends also broadened the scope of the study beyond measurement instruments and appraisal processes to an examination of context and the attempt to identify conditions under which performance appraisal and merit plans operate best, pay for performance literature review.
In the course of our investigations it became clear that the theoretical and empirical literatures have posited at least four different types of benefits in discussing performance-based pay systems: 1 positive effects on the work behaviors of individual employees including decisions to join an organization, attend, perform, and remain ; 2 increased organization-level effectiveness; 3 facilitating socialization and communication; and 4 enhancing the perceived legitimacy of an organization to important internal and external constituencies.
We have been ecumenical in pulling together evidence and information that speak to these criteria for gauging the effectiveness of an organization's performance appraisal and pay systems.
The preceding pages have taken account of theory, empirical research, and clinical studies not only from many disciplines, but also from any research topics that seemed relevant. The formal evidence has been supplemented with information about current practices in private-sector firms.
The study's findings and conclusions are presented in this chapter as follows. The first section deals with the science and practice of performance appraisal, focusing first on measurement research, then on applied research, and ending with overall findings and conclusions.
The second section covers. performance-based pay systems, focusing first on evidence from research, pay for performance literature review, then on findings from practice, and again ending with overall findings and conclusions. The third section deals with the influence of context on performance appraisal and merit pay systems. The fourth section deals with the implications of the study's findings and conclusions for federal policy making.
The evaluation of workers' performance is directed toward two fundamental goals. The first of these is to create a measure that accurately assesses the level of an individual's performance on something called the job. The second is to create a performance measurement system that will advance one or more operational functions in an organization: personnel decisions, compensation policy, communication of organizational objectives, and facilitation of employee performance.
Although all performance appraisal systems encompass both goals, the two are represented in the literature by two pay for performance literature review, albeit overlapping, lines of development in theory and research. In part the difference in approach to performance appraisal reflects disciplinary orientation, pay for performance literature review, in part historical development.
One approach grows out of psychometrics and the measurement tradition, with its emphasis on standardization, objective measurement, psychometric properties validity, reliability, bias, etc. The other comes from the more applied fields—human resource management, pay for performance literature review, industrial and organizational psychology, organization science, sociology—and focuses on the pay for performance literature review context and the usefulness of performance appraisal for such things as promoting communication between managers and employees; clarifying organizational goals and performance expectations; providing information for managers to guide retention, dismissal, and promotion decisions; informing performance-based pay decisions; and motivating employees.
Both research fields are interested in the use of rating scales to evaluate job performance, although they have tended to focus on different questions and have different expectations of performance appraisal. At the risk of overemphasizing the distinctions, we have presented our discussion in this report in two parts, one focused on the measurement research, the second on the applied research.
It is, however, pay for performance literature review, a matter of general orientation, not unrelated polarities. Of the two goals, accuracy and organizational utility, most of the research in the measurement tradition has concentrated on aspects of accuracy, pay for performance literature review, the implicit assumption being that if the measures are accurate, pay for performance literature review, the functional goals will be met.
Research in the more applied fields tends to focus not on the measurement instrument and the accuracy of inferences drawn from the measurement, pay for performance literature review, but on the whole operational system of which it is a part.
The applied or management perspective tends to evaluate the performance measurement component by how well the whole operates, e.
designed to, pay for performance literature review, whether the system is accepted by all players. Accuracy of performance measurement tends to be ignored, not because it is considered unimportant, pay for performance literature review, but because it is assumed, at least implicitly, that if the system-level criteria are met, then the measurement component must be sufficiently accurate.
Apart from our own convenience in presenting findings from the measurement and applied traditions separately, it is important that federal policy makers, managers' groups, and employees understand these differences and tailor their language and expectations appropriately. Current federal policy is couched in the language of the measurement tradition. In the manner of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedureswhich elaborates the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ofOffice of Personnel Management regulations implementing the Civil Service Reform Act of called on federal agencies to develop job-related and objective performance appraisal systems.
The regulations required that performance standards and critical job elements be specified consistent with the duties and responsibilities outlined in an employee's position description. OPM suggested that performance pay for performance literature review be based on a job analysis to identify the critical elements of a job, and that each agency develop a method for evaluating its system to ensure its validity.
Although courts have not demanded of performance appraisal systems the degree of rigor required of tests and other selection instruments, the terms validity, objectivityand job-relatedness are all drawn from the context of psychological testing and performance measurement.
Psychometrics grows out of the theory of individual differences, namely, that humans possess characteristics and traits e. Drawing on findings in the biological sciences about the distribution of characteristics in a given plant or animal population, the founders of psychological measurement developed statistical techniques for expressing human mental characteristics and for relating the standing of one individual to that of a population of individuals.
From the beginning, these theories and measurement techniques were thought to hold great promise for matching people to jobs and for measuring job performance. They were also particularly compatible with the concept of meritocracy and the particularly American idea that jobs ought to be allocated on the basis of talent or ability and not as a function of family connection, social class, religious persuasion, or other criteria that are irrelevant to job performance.
In the realm of psychometrics, the scientific imperative is accuracy of measurement. Standardized multiple-choice tests, the most familiar type of instrument in this mode, are a product of that drive for precise measurement.
Just as test administration can be controlled to provide a high degree of consistency and uniformity in the conditions of testing, so does the format of the tests constrain response possibilities to allow direct comparison of the performance of all test takers.
Over the years a variety of sophisticated statistical analytics have been developed to evaluate the consistency of measurement reliability analyses and the accuracy and relevance of inferences drawn from the measurement results validity analyses. Prior topay for performance literature review, most research on performance appraisal was generated from within the psychometric tradition.
Performance appraisals were viewed in much the same way as tests: they were evaluated against criteria for validity and reliability and freedom from bias, and a primary goal of the research was to reduce rating errors. Our findings on how closely performance appraisal has been found to conform to these aspirations of measurement science follow. Applied psychologists have used job analysis as a primary means for understanding and describing job performance.
There have been a number of approaches to job analysis over the years, including the job element method, the critical incident method, the Air Force task inventory approach, and methods that rely on structured questionnaires to describe managerial-level jobs in large organizations.
All of these methods share certain assumptions about good job analysis practices, and all are based on a variety of empirical sources of information. There is an enormous body of job analysis research, the preponderance of which has been conducted for relatively simple, concrete jobs—military enlisted jobs, auto mechanics, sales, and other jobs pay for performance literature review by observable behaviors or tangible products.
The literature on complex, interactive, cognitively loaded jobs, and specifically on managerial jobs, is comparatively sparse and less conclusive. With few exceptions, the analysis of managerial performance is cast at a high level of abstraction; far less attention has been given to the sort of detailed, task-centered definition typical of simpler, more concrete jobs.
This global focus is reflected in managerial appraisal instruments, which typically present very broad performance dimensions for evaluation, pay for performance literature review.
A job may be more or less routinized, structured, pay for performance literature review, and constrained by the requirements of machinery or defined by training, but the evaluation of job performance will always depend in the final analysis on external judgments about what is most important number of units produced or quality of the. units produced; everyday performance or response to the infrequent emergency; single-minded pursuit of profits or avoidance of environmental damage.
As a consequence, describing job performance is not a straightforward or obvious process. Even for simple jobs, it involves judgment and inference combined with careful study of the job by such means as interviews, observation, and collection of data on tasks performed and skills required. For managerial jobs, the task of adequate description becomes pay for performance literature review more difficult, because much of what a manager does is fragmented, amorphous, and involves unobservable cognitive activities.
Job descriptions and the appraisal systems based on them reflect organizational values and judgments as well as some independent constellation of job tasks and performance requirements. To speak of objectivity with regard to job analysis and performance appraisal does not imply the absence of human judgment, but rather the absence of irrelevant or inappropriate judgments.
The commonly made dichotomy between objective and subjective measurement is more misleading than useful in the field of performance appraisal.
Organizations cannot use job analyses or other methods of specifying critical elements and performance standards as replacements for managerial judgment; at best such procedures can inform the manager and help focus the appraisal process.
The abstract character of the behaviors e. Reliance on global measures guarantees that evaluation of a manager's performance is of necessity based on a substantial degree of judgment, pay for performance literature review. An overly literal interpretation of the requirements of the Civil Service Reform Act—taking job-related to mean job-specific, or treating objective as the opposite of judgment, would be particularly destructive for managerial appraisal.
Reliability analysis provides an index of the consistency of measurement, from occasion to occasion, from form to form if there are several versions of a test or measure that are all intended to measure the same thingor from rater to rater. The first- and last-mentioned types of reliability analysis are particularly pertinent to performance pay for performance literature review. If the measurements are to. have any meaning, one would expect the rater to reach the same judgment from one week to the next assuming the employee's performance did not change significantlyjust as one would hope that several raters would reach substantially the same decision about a single individual's performance.
Data on reliability derive in part from operational settings and in part from laboratory experiments or from research projects undertaken in field settings, using special rating instruments developed for the purpose and administered with the proviso that no operational decisions will be based on the results.
There is substantial evidence in the research literature to support the premise that supervisors are capable of forming reasonably reliable estimates of pay for performance literature review employees' overall performance levels. For the mostly nonmanagerial jobs studied over the years, raters show substantial agreement in rating workers' performance.
There is also some data showing interrater agreement on managerial performance. It is important to remember, however, that consistency among raters cannot be taken simply at face value as proof of the accuracy of performance appraisal procedures; it can also cloak systematic bias or systematic error in valuing pay for performance literature review. Systematic bias is difficult to detect, the more so if it is pay for performance literature review product of unexamined views and conventional assumptions.
There is evidence of such bias, fragmentary but suggestive, in a small number of studies showing that white supervisors tend to rate white employees as a group somewhat higher than black employees and, conversely, that black supervisors rate black employees higher on average, pay for performance literature review. The studies have not been able to distinguish between real performance differences and rater bias but suggest the presence of both, although the variance accounted for by bias appears to be quite small.
From the psychometric perspective, the central question posed by any measurement system is whether it produces an accurate assessment of relevant performance. Validity is the technical term used to refer to the degree of accuracy and relevance that characterizes a measurement procedure. It is not meant to imply a static characteristic of a test or rating scale; rather, pay for performance literature review, the term has to do with the structure of meaning that can be built up to support the assessment results.
Validity, therefore, pay for performance literature review, is an accretion of evidence from many sources; it describes a research process that gradually lends confidence to the interpretations or judgments made on the basis of the measure. In the realm of job performance, validation begins in an important sense with an analysis of the job or category of jobs for which performance measures are to be developed. If an employment test or appraisal system can be linked to important aspects of the job—say typing accuracy and speed or a sonar.
technician's skill at recognizing patterns—then one building block is in place. The evidence of interrater reliabilities described above can provide another sort of clue to the accuracy of measurement systems like performance ratings, hands-on job sample tests, and other procedures that depend on an observer to judge the performance.
Statisticians and psychometricians have developed an array of sophisticated statistical methods to explore the relationships between the test or measure under study and other relevant variables correlational and regression analysis, multivariate analysis and ANOVA techniques.
LITERATURE REVIEW: Step by step guide for writing an effective literature review
, time: 23:44Leadership literature review | Leadership Styles and Job Performance
review of related literature Factors that Affect Academic Performance Several studies have been conducted to find out students’ academic performance (Applegate and Daly, ; Cho and Chung, ; Krashen, ; Malik and Singh, ; Ali and Haider, ) Nov 18, · The literature review is the perfect place to develop your arguments. Try learning the earlier concepts brought forth by experts or researchers. Then start brainstorming about how you can evolve ideas that have not been introduced before These findings provide some support for conceptual proposals about pay and the attraction of better employees, but they do not help us pinpoint the influence of pay for performance. In a review of research on turnover and retention, we found only one experimental study relating retention to the adoption of a merit pay system involving
No comments:
Post a Comment