Performance-management: managing the resultivity of achieving the organization's HRM-goals

Introduction. Performance management (PM) plays a critical role in achieving organizational goals, but traditional research has focused on its technical aspects, ignoring employee perceptions and the contextual features of developing countries. This study focuses on the education sector, where performance management effectiveness (PMSE) faces unique challenges: conflict between academic and administrative goals, low trust in formal assessments.

Purpose. The aim of the work is to empirically test a comprehensive PM model combining technical accuracy (PMSA) and perceived fairness (PMSF) and assess their impact on employee engagement (WE) and productivity (Task Performance (TP); Contextual Performance (CP).

Methods. The study combines theoretical analysis of the conceptual models of performance management system Job Demands-Resources Model (JD-R), Ability-Motivation-Opportunity (AMO), Social Exchange and quantitative approach. The data were collected through anonymous surveys of 500 employees of educational organizations in Russia. To test the hypotheses, second-order structural modeling was used to evaluate the direct and indirect effects of the influence of performance-management system accuracy and perceived fairness on employees' involvement in decision-making, task performance, and their extra-role behavior. The analysis included an assessment of the reliability of the scales, convergent and discriminant validity.

Results. The effectiveness of the performance-management system shows a significant effect on employee involvement in the decision-making process (β = 0.58, p < 0.01) and on their productivity (TP: β = 0.42; CP: β = 0.35). Involvement partially mediated the correlation of performance management resultivity and extra-role performance, 41% of the effect, and fully mediated the correlation of performance management resultivity and task performance, the effect was 63%. The key determinant of performance-management resultivity was found to be perceived fairness (β = 0.47) vs. accuracy of the management system (β = 0.21), especially in the context of academic uncertainty. The model explained 52% of the variance in employee engagement, and 45% of the variance in task completion, confirming its relevance to the educational sector.

Conclusions. The results highlight that performance management in education requires a balance between goal accuracy and procedural fairness. Practical recommendations include the introduction of anonymous fairness assessments and training for managers using the Situation-Behavior-Impact (SBI) methodology, the integration of contextual performance into key performance indicators by taking into account mentoring and research initiatives, and the use of OKR (Objectives and Key Results) platforms for joint goal setting. Limitations of the study include the regional specificity of the sample (Russia) and the focus on the education sector. Prospects include studying PMSE in the context of digitalization and cross-cultural comparisons.

1. Armstrong M. Armstrong’s Handbook of Performance Management. 6th ed. London: Kogan Page; 2015. 456 p.

2. Kennerley M., Neely A. Measuring performance in a changing business environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 2003;23(2):213–229.

3. Sharma N., Sharma T., Agarwal M. Measuring effectiveness of the performance management system: Role of system fairness and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance. 2016;3(3):244–267.

4. Busco C., Giovannoni E., Scapens R.W. Performance management systems and public sector reform: A case study. Management Accounting Research. 2008;(2):103–124.

5. Ohemeng F.L.K. The dangers of internationalization and “one-size-fits-all” in public sector management: Lessons from performance management policies in Ontario and Ghana. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2009;22(5):440–463.

6. Audenaert M., Decramer A., George B., Verschuere B., Van Waeyenberg T. When employee performance management affects individual innovation in public organizations: The role of consistency and LMX. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2019;30(5):815–834.

7. Mishra K. Dynamics of performance management systems in knowledge-intensive organizations: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2014;18(3):511–529.

8. Lazareva E. I., Gavrilova Y. V. Identification of socio-economic factors of human capital development in HR-management of the organization. Russian Journal of Management. 2023;21(1):89–114. (In Russ.)

9. Lazareva E. I., Karpova S. V. Personnel motivation as a source of increasing the effectiveness of organizational management: adaptation of foreign models. In: Innovative trends in international business and sustainable management. Proceedings of the II International Scientific and Practical Conference. Novokuznetsk; 2023:172–177 (in Russ.)

10. Lawler E. E. Reward practices and performance management system effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics. 2003;32(4):396–404.

11. Devettinck K., van Dijk H.M. The role of employee engagement in creating value. Human Resource Management Review. 2013;23(4):321–331.

12. Brinkerhoff D.W., Brinkerhoff J.M. Public sector management reform in developing countries: Perspectives beyond best practice. Public Administration and Development. 2015;35(4):222–237.

13. Broadbent J., Laughlin R. Performance management systems: A conceptual model. Management Accounting Research. 2009;20(4):283–295.

14. Saratun M. Performance management to enhance employee engagement for corporate sustainability. Asian Social Science. 2016;12(9):27–34.

15. Astratova G.V., Klimuk V.V. Research of labor efficiency of university teaching staff. Labor Economics. 2022;9(3):655–674 (in Russ.)

16. Lazareva E. I., Gavrilova Yu. V. Effective management of human capital of the organization in the conditions of sustainable-innovation development of the economy. Issues in the innovation economy. 2020;.(2):737–746 (in Russ.)

17. Kropachev N. M., Eremeev V. V., Popov A. V. Development of the system of indicators of effectiveness of educational and scientific activity of the teaching staff: the experience of St. Petersburg State University. Vestnik of St. Petersburg University. Management. 2023;22(2):133–150. (in Russ.)

18. Tirovengadum G., Thomas S., Gronwald K. Aligning individual and organizational goals in higher education. Studies in Higher Education. 2019;(12):2235–2248.

19. Christian M. S., Garza A. S., Slaughter J. E. Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology. 2011;64(1):89–136.

20. Kurochkina A. A., Lukina O. V., Klincheva V. Yu. Application of IT Performance management tools in the sphere of personnel management. Economics and Management. 2024;30(1):43–49 (in Russ.)

21. Bakker A.B., Demerouti E. The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2007;22(3):309–328.

22. Saks A. M. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2006;21(7):600–619.

23. Alarcon G. M., Edwards J. M. The role of work engagement in organizational outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2011;32(5):678–700.

24. Karatepe O. M., Olugbade O. A. The effects of work social support and career adaptability on career satisfaction and turnover intentions. Journal of Management & Organization. 2016;22(3):307–325.

25. Noronha E., Dhume R., Taskar S. end others. Employee well-being and organizational commitment: The mediating role of work engagement. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance. 2018;5(2):150–168.

26. Brinkerhoff D. W., Brinkerhoff J. M. Public sector management reform in developing countries: Perspectives and practices. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2015;28(2):99–117.

27. Korff J. Innovative approaches to performance management in dynamic environments. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness. 2017;(3):45–60.

28. Appelbaum E., Bailey T., Berg P. end others. Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off. ILR Review. 2000;54(2):331–358.

29. Schleicher, Deidra J. et al. Putting the System into Performance Management Systems: A Review and Agenda for Performance Management Research. Journal of Management. 2018;(44):2209–2245.

30. Smith J., Bititci U.S. Integrated performance management systems: A framework for analysis. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 2017;37(4):450–470.

31. Dyer L., Shafer R. A. Dynamic organizations: Achieving marketplace agility through workforce scalability. Organizational Dynamics. 2003;(3):245–261.