IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijmdma/v18y2019i4p333-351.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selecting a robust decision making method to evaluate employee performance

Author

Listed:
  • M. Haddad
  • D. Sanders
  • N. Bausch

Abstract

This paper investigates how to select a robust decision making method to evaluate employee performance. Two multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods are considered for the evaluation of US coast guard officers. Sensitivity analysis is conducted to understand the nature of uncertainty in evaluation criteria and employee performance. Outcomes from this analysis provide an understanding of the most critical factors governing the evaluation. MCDM methods dealing with discrete sets of alternatives are considered. The stability of two MCDM methods' outcomes are compared and the method with the most stable outcome is recommended. The minimum percentage change in criteria weights and performance scores required to alter the outcome of the evaluation is calculated. An MCDM method is recommended based on a best compromise in minimum percentage change required in inputs to alter the outcome of a method.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Haddad & D. Sanders & N. Bausch, 2019. "Selecting a robust decision making method to evaluate employee performance," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 18(4), pages 333-351.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijmdma:v:18:y:2019:i:4:p:333-351
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=102646
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Haddad, M. & Sanders, D. & Tewkesbury, G., 2020. "Selecting a discrete multiple criteria decision making method for Boeing to rank four global market regions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-15.

    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:ids:ijmdma:v:18:y:2019:i:4:p:333-351. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=19 .

    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.