IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v207y2010i3p1599-1607.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance appraisal based on distance function methods

Author

Listed:
  • de Andrés, Rocío
  • García-Lapresta, José Luis
  • González-Pachón, Jacinto

Abstract

Performance appraisal is a process used by some firms to evaluate their employees' efficiency and productivity in order to plan their promotion policy, salary policy, layoffs policy, etc. Initially this process was just carried out by the executive staff, but recently it has evolved into an evaluation process based on the opinion of different reviewers, supervisors, collaborators, customers and the employees themselves (360-degree method). In such an evaluation process the reviewers evaluate some indicators related to employees performance appraisal. In this paper we propose an evaluation framework where there are different sets of reviewers taking part in the evaluation process. Since reviewers have a different knowledge about the evaluated employee, it seems suitable to offer a flexible framework in which different reviewers can express their assessments in different finite scales according to their knowledge. The final aim is to compute a global evaluation for each employee, that can be used by the management team to make their decisions regarding their human resources policy. In this way, to obtain a global evaluation for each employee, we propose a methodology able to aggregate individual valuation in a metric Lp framework. In this context, the associated optimization problems can be reduced to an Extended Goal Programming formulation that is very easy to compute.

Suggested Citation

  • de Andrés, Rocío & García-Lapresta, José Luis & González-Pachón, Jacinto, 2010. "Performance appraisal based on distance function methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1599-1607, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:207:y:2010:i:3:p:1599-1607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(10)00418-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. González-Pachøn, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 1999. "Distance-based consensus methods: a goal programming approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 341-347, June.
    2. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    3. P. L. Yu, 1973. "A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(8), pages 936-946, April.
    4. Romero, Carlos, 2001. "Extended lexicographic goal programming: a unifying approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 63-71, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lucie Lidinska & Josef Jablonsky, 2018. "AHP model for performance evaluation of employees in a Czech management consulting company," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(1), pages 239-258, March.
    2. Jones, Dylan & Jimenez, Mariano, 2013. "Incorporating additional meta-objectives into the extended lexicographic goal programming framework," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 227(2), pages 343-349.

    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. González-Pachón, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 2016. "Bentham, Marx and Rawls ethical principles: In search for a compromise," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 47-51.
    2. J González-Pachón & C Romero, 2006. "An analytical framework for aggregating multiattribute utility functions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1241-1247, October.
    3. Rohmer, S.U.K. & Gerdessen, J.C. & Claassen, G.D.H., 2019. "Sustainable supply chain design in the food system with dietary considerations: A multi-objective analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1149-1164.
    4. María Romero & María Luisa Cuadrado & Luis Romero & Carlos Romero, 2020. "Optimum acceptability of telecommunications networks: a multi-criteria approach," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 1899-1911, September.
    5. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    6. Benítez-Fernández, Amalia & Ruiz, Francisco, 2020. "A Meta-Goal Programming approach to cardinal preferences aggregation in multicriteria problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    7. Marchamalo, M. & Romero, C., 2007. "Participatory decision-making in land use planning: An application in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 740-748, September.
    8. Roberto Cervelló-Royo & Francisco Guijarro & Victor Martinez-Gomez, 2019. "Social Performance considered within the global performance of Microfinance Institutions: a new approach," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 737-755, September.
    9. Escobar, María Teresa & Moreno-Jiménez, José María, 2002. "A linkage between the Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Compromise Programming Models," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 359-365, October.
    10. Jones, Dylan, 2011. "A practical weight sensitivity algorithm for goal and multiple objective programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(1), pages 238-245, August.
    11. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & João C. Azevedo, 2021. "A Goal Programming Model to Guide Decision-Making Processes towards Conservation Consensuses," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, February.
    12. Gonzalez-Pachon, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 2004. "A method for dealing with inconsistencies in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(2), pages 351-361, October.
    13. Gebrezgabher, Solomie A. & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2014. "A multiple criteria decision making approach to manure management systems in the Netherlands," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 643-653.
    14. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mariano Jiménez & Mar Arenas-Parra, 2016. "A group decision making model based on goal programming with fuzzy hierarchy: an application to regional forest planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 137-162, October.
    15. Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & José Gómez-Limón, 2008. "Reconsidering Heterogeneity and Aggregation Issues in Environmental Valuation: A Multi-attribute Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 551-570, August.
    16. Milad Zamanifar & Seyed Mohammad Seyedhoseyni, 2017. "Recovery planning model for roadways network after natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(2), pages 699-716, June.
    17. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    18. Chen, Lisa Y. & Wang, Tien-Chin, 2009. "Optimizing partners' choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 233-242, July.
    19. Kun Chen & Gang Kou & J. Michael Tarn & Yan Song, 2015. "Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 155-175, December.
    20. Thierry Denœux & Marie-Hélène Masson, 2012. "Evidential reasoning in large partially ordered sets," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 195(1), pages 135-161, May.

    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:eee:ejores:v:207:y:2010:i:3:p:1599-1607. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Nithya Sathishkumar). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.