IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aae/journl/v19y2023i2p127-157.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Overcoming the pitfalls in employee performance evaluation: An application of ratings mode of the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Author

Listed:
  • Rafikul Islam

    (Department of Business Administration, International Islamic University Malaysia, Jalan Gombak, 53100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

  • Nagendran Periaiah

    (Graduate School of Management, International Islamic University Malaysia, Jalan Gombak, 53100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

Abstract

PURPOSE: Employee performance evaluation is a common exercise conducted in many organizations. Employees need to know the feedback on their performance from the management. Often the results of performance evaluation exercises are used for promotion, confirmation in service and awarding of bonuses for employees. However, the performance evaluation exercise often meets with criticism due to the presence of subjective factors and, specifically, the way in which these factors are handled. The purpose of the present paper is to show how the Ratings mode of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be applied to evaluate employee performance using objective as well as subjective criteria. METHODOLOGY: The whole AHP exercise for the present employee performance evaluation has been shown through a case study on CLSB, a company in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Four senior managers and the Managing Director of the company were involved in all phases of the present evaluation exercise, including elicitation of the criteria, sub-criteria and assigning weights to them. The AHP data were analyzed using software called AHP Calc version 24.12.13 developed by Klaus D. Goepel and available online. In particular, the Ratings mode of AHP was used to evaluate employees’ performance at CLSB. FINDINGS: Five criteria, namely Services, Quality, Financial, Timing, and Teamwork, are found to be important for the evaluation of employee performance at CLSB. Each of these criteria has sub-criteria. Harmonious work, Skills, and Punctuality are found to be the three most important sub-criteria for the present evaluation exercise. The outcome of the evaluation exercise provides an ordered set of ranks of 20 employees working in the company. Apart from the application of AHP for performance evaluation, an ordered set of detailed rubrics for all the criteria have been developed. The rubrics provide precise guidelines to the evaluators at the time of evaluating employees’ performance. IMPLICATIONS: An evaluation scheme that is scientific and systematic, such as the present one, will minimize criticism levied against the performance evaluation exercise. Once the employees are aware of the criteria and sub-criteria set along with the associated weighting scheme and the evaluation process itself, they will be motivated to perform their tasks and discharge their duties accordingly. Hence, employee job satisfaction and productivity are expected to increase. This will bolster not only the employees’ morale but also the organization’s overall performance. ORIGINALITY AND VALUE: In the literature, many schemes are available to evaluate employees’ performance. But often, these methods are criticized as they either take all the criteria of evaluation as equally important or they lack the capability to strike a balance between objective and subjective factors. The main contribution of the present work is to show how AHP can alleviate the above drawbacks of the existing methods. The present research work has developed a performance evaluation method, which is simple and straightforward, and the detailed steps have been elaborated on how the method can actually be applied to measure the performance of employees. The method can be applied to measure employees’ performance of other companies with the necessary modification of the criteria set and assigning appropriate weights to them.

Suggested Citation

  • Rafikul Islam & Nagendran Periaiah, 2023. "Overcoming the pitfalls in employee performance evaluation: An application of ratings mode of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 19(2), pages 127-157.
  • Handle: RePEc:aae:journl:v:19:y:2023:i:2:p:127-157
    DOI: 10.7341/20231924
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://jemi.edu.pl/uploadedFiles/file/all-issues/vol19/issue2/JEMI_Vol19_Issue2_2023_Article4.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.7341/20231924?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adler, Seymour & Campion, Michael & Colquitt, Alan & Grubb, Amy & Murphy, Kevin & Ollander-Krane, Rob & Pulakos, Elaine D., 2016. "Getting Rid of Performance Ratings: Genius or Folly? A Debate," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 219-252, June.
    2. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chin-Tsai Lin & Chuan Lee & Wen-Yu Chen, 2007. "Using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to evaluate service performance of a travel intermediary," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 281-296, October.
    2. S Wheeler, 2006. "An analysis of combined arms teaming for the Australian defence force," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(11), pages 1279-1288, November.
    3. Oleg Uzhga-Rebrov & Peter Grabusts, 2023. "Methodology for Environmental Risk Analysis Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Values," Risks, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-22, May.
    4. Hughes, Warren R., 2009. "A statistical framework for strategic decision making with AHP: Probability assessment and Bayesian revision," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 463-470, April.
    5. Reza Vaziri & Mehran Mohsenzadeh & Jafar Habibi, 2016. "TBDQ: A Pragmatic Task-Based Method to Data Quality Assessment and Improvement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-30, May.
    6. Necla Öztürk & Hakan Tozan & Özalp Vayvay, 2020. "A New Decision Model Approach for Health Technology Assessment and a Case Study for Dialysis Alternatives in Turkey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-25, May.
    7. Cemal AKTÜRK & Sevinç GÜLSEÇEN, 2018. "Sipariş Teslim Tarihi Problemi İçin Çok Kriterli ve Çok Yöntemli Karar Destek Sistemi Önerisi," Istanbul Management Journal, Istanbul University Business School, vol. 29(84), pages 65-78, June.
    8. Ngan, Sue Lin & How, Bing Shen & Teng, Sin Yong & Promentilla, Michael Angelo B. & Yatim, Puan & Er, Ah Choy & Lam, Hon Loong, 2019. "Prioritization of sustainability indicators for promoting the circular economy: The case of developing countries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 314-331.
    9. Srinivas K. Reddy & Jay E. Aronson & Antonie Stam, 1998. "SPOT: Scheduling Programs Optimally for Television," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 83-102, January.
    10. Eric Sucky, 2006. "Kontraktlogistik—Ein stochastisch dynamischer Planungsansatz zur Logistikdienstleisterauswahl," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 131-153, June.
    11. Bentes, Alexandre Veronese & Carneiro, Jorge & da Silva, Jorge Ferreira & Kimura, Herbert, 2012. "Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 1790-1799.
    12. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    13. Jalilova, Gulnaz & Khadka, Chiranjeewee & Vacik, Harald, 2012. "Developing criteria and indicators for evaluating sustainable forest management: A case study in Kyrgyzstan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 32-43.
    14. Chauvy, Remi & Meunier, Nicolas & Thomas, Diane & De Weireld, Guy, 2019. "Selecting emerging CO2 utilization products for short- to mid-term deployment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 662-680.
    15. Amenta, Pietro & Lucadamo, Antonio & Marcarelli, Gabriella, 2021. "On the choice of weights for aggregating judgments in non-negotiable AHP group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 294-301.
    16. Fatih Yiğit & Şakir Esnaf, 2021. "A new Fuzzy C-Means and AHP-based three-phased approach for multiple criteria ABC inventory classification," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 1517-1528, August.
    17. Dragan Pamucar & Ali Ebadi Torkayesh & Sanjib Biswas, 2023. "Supplier selection in healthcare supply chain management during the COVID-19 pandemic: a novel fuzzy rough decision-making approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 328(1), pages 977-1019, September.
    18. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1801-1812, October.
    19. Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh & Kazim Topuz & Ali Dag & Asil Oztekin, 2019. "An AHP-IFT Integrated Model for Performance Evaluation of E-Commerce Web Sites," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 1345-1355, December.
    20. Emmanuel Kazuva & Jiquan Zhang & Zhijun Tong & Alu Si & Li Na, 2018. "The DPSIR Model for Environmental Risk Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste in Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-30, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aae:journl:v:19:y:2023:i:2:p:127-157. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Anna Ujwary-Gil (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://fundacjacognitione.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.