Identification of barriers to the implementation of Article 81 of the Law on the Management of National Services in order to evaluate the performance of the staff of the Qazvin Post Administration

Rahmani, Hamed; Beigymogadam, Fereshteh; Asghari, Hormat

doi:10.30473/ipom.2019.42847.3360

Document Type : Descriptive

Authors

¹ assistant professor of management, Qazvin Islamic Azad University, Iran

² MS of public management, Islamic Azad university, Qazvin branch, Qazvin, Iran

³ Assistant professor of public Administration, Islamic azad university, science and research branch, tehran,Iran.

https://doi.org/10.30473/ipom.2019.42847.3360

Abstract

Chapter 11 and Article 81 of the Law of civil service Management have a clear emphasis on the implementation of the performance management system and the measurement of the performance of government agencies. Given that the post office of Qazvin province complies with this law and that performance measurement is not done in the form of regular reports, and only those reports were based on the completion of an evaluation form and had no effect on payments and the compensation system, the present article seeks to address barriers to the implementation of Article 81 in the post office of Qazvin province. In order to identify the barriers, the background of the research, and then the current status of the post office was examined and the topic analysis was used to analyze the data and the content validity rate and finally identification of the barriers were applied for screening. In this research, the method of data collection is using interviews with experts and experts of Qazvin Post Office and distributing Content Validity Questionnaire. To extract barriers, open and axial coding and finally to validate the content validity rate and distribution of questionnaires and interviews with 14 experts at the post office were used. The results showed that the obstacles with the most frequency and the coefficient rate of validity are the main obstacles as follows: lack of access and performance of customers in the evaluation score, weakness in the accuracy and bias of the evaluator, evaluation of all employees with every grade in one category, low attention of the employees to the evaluation score, the one-step evaluation, lack of familiarity of evaluators with the appropriate methods of evaluation.

Keywords

20.1001.1.2322522.1398.7.0.30.6

Main Subjects

Pathology

References

امیری، مهدی و پرتابیان، اکبر (1393). «ارزیابی عملکرد کارکنان دانشگاه پیام نور مرکز لامرد». فصلنامه مطالعات اندازه‌گیری و ارزشیابی آموزشی، 8 (4)، 63-93.

امیران، حیدر؛ غفاری، میثم و شیخ، علیرضا (1392). مدیریت و اندازه‌گیری عملکرد سازمان از ایده تا اجرا. تهران: نشر امیران.

ابیلی، خدایار (1381). «تحلیلی بر اثربخشی نظام ارزشیابی کارکنان دولت». دانش مدیریت، 58 (4)، 20- 5.

بابایی، محمدرضا و مصلی، مینا (1394). ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﻭ اولویت‌بندی چالش‌های ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﻋﻤﻠﮑﺮﺩ ﮐﺎﺭﮐﻨﺎن دﺭ سازمان‌های ﺩﻭﻟﺘﯽ ﺍﯾﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩﯼ: ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﺑﺮﻕ ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ، ﺩﻭﻣﯿﻦ ﮐﻨﻔﺮﺍﻧﺲ بین‌المللی آینده‌پژوهی، ﻣﺪﯾﺮﯾﺖ ﻭ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﯼ.

بابایی نژاد، عباس؛ شمس‌الدینی، سهیلا؛ تخعی، سعید و حسینی نسب، آناهیتا (1393). مدیریت استعداد و ارزیابی عملکرد. سومین همایش ملی سالیانه علوم مدیریت نوین.

حسن‌زاده، قاسم (1383)، ارزشیابی عملکرد کارکنان، کتاب ماه علوم و فنون، 79 (2) . 42-43.

فرانک اسکات، لنون، فن‌های ارزشیابی پرسنل، ترجمه: دنیادیده، علی، 1386.

قربانزاده، منصور (1392). مدیریت عملکرد کارکنان، ماهنامه اجتماعی، اقتصادی، علمی و فرهنگی کار و جامعه. شماره 160، 39-53

یار احمدزهی، محمدحسین و بساوند، فرخنده (1392). موانع ارزیابی مدیریت عملکرد کارکنان سازمان‌ها و شهرداری‌ها. اولین کنفرانس ملی حسابداری و مدیریت.

Bernardin, H. J. (2003). Human Resource Management: an experiential approach. 3thedition. New York: Mc Graw Hill.

Fichman, P. (2011). “A comparative assessment of answer quality on four question answering sites”. Journal of Information Science, 37(5), 476-486.

Frederiksena, Ansder., Lange, F. & Kriechel, B. (2017). “Subjective performance evaluations and employee careers”. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 134(4), 408-429.

Islami, Xhavit, M. E. & Mustafab, N. (2018). “Using Management by Objectives as a performance appraisal tool for employee satisfaction”. Future Business Journal, 4(3), 94–108.

Ivancevich, J. M. (2007). Human Resource Management. New York: Mc GrawHill.

Gfoster, C. (2004). “Using commen formative assessment as a surce of professinonal development in American school”. Teaching and teacher education, 25(5), 674-680

Greenwood, G. E., Bridges, C.M., Ware, W. B. & McLean, J. E. (2006). “Student evaluation of college teaching behaviors Instrument: a factor analysis”. The Journal of Higher Education, 44(8), 596-604.

Levin, R. (2003). “Evaluation and REsearch: Differences and Simil Arities”. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 18(2), 1–31.

Lin, Y.C. & Kellough, J. E. (2018). “Performance Appraisal Problems in the Public Sector: Examining Supervisors’ Perceptions”. Public Personnel Management, 47(1), 1-24.

Rusli, A. (2013). “Issues and challenges in the practice of performance Appraisal Activities I the 21 century”. International Journal of Education and Research, 1)4(, 1-8.

Sink, D.S. & Tuttle, T.C. (1989). Planning and Measurement in Your Organisation of the Future, Ch. 5, Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Norcross, GA, 170-84.

Suen, H. & Wu, Qi. (2006). “sychometric paradox of very high-stakes assessment and solutions”. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 3(1), 113-129.

Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1992). “The Balanced scorecard: Measures that Drive performance.” Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-9.

Snell, S.A. & Bohlander, G.W. (2007). Managing Human Resources. Thomson publishing company.

Wiemann, M., Meidert, N. & Weibel, A. (2018). “Good” and “Bad” Control in Public Administration: The Impact of Performance Evaluation Systems on Employees’ Trust in the Employer”. Public Personnel Management, 48(3), 283-308.

Williams, P., Nicholas, D., Huntington, P. & McLean, F. (2002). Surfing for health: User evaluation of a health information website. Part two: Fieldwork. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 19(4), 214-225.

Public Organizations Management

Identification of barriers to the implementation of Article 81 of the Law on the Management of National Services in order to evaluate the performance of the staff of the Qazvin Post Administration

References

References

Suen, H. & Wu, Qi. (2006). “sychometric paradox of very high-stakes assessment and solutions”. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 3(1), 113-129.

Volume 7, Issue 2 - Serial Number 26
April 2019
Pages 165-178

Identification of barriers to the implementation of Article 81 of the Law on the Management of National Services in order to evaluate the performance of the staff of the Qazvin Post Administration

References

References

Suen, H. & Wu, Qi. (2006). “sychometric paradox of very high-stakes assessment and solutions”. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 3(1), 113-129.

Volume 7, Issue 2 - Serial Number 26April 2019Pages 165-178

Volume 7, Issue 2 - Serial Number 26
April 2019
Pages 165-178