This research constructs a performance evaluation mechanism in regard to the interdependence of evaluators and criteria. The interest in performance evaluation has spawned a number of studies that investigated criteria or evaluators for organizations’ performance evaluation. However, very little attention has been paid to address the relationship between the evaluators and criteria. It is quite clear that there are different standpoints exist in different evaluators, consequently particular evaluators usually emphasize certain groups of criteria more than others. On the other hand, considering different criteria the strength of relation of evaluator changes accordingly. We address the existence of interaction between evaluator and criteria, because the two factors play major roles in the performance evaluation. This consideration gives top managers the chance to explore and realize the relationship between evaluators and criteria. It also reveals the evaluators’ synthetic standpoints about criteria, which are meaningful for managerial purposes.
Human resource Performance evaluation Analytical network process Multi-criteria decision making
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Ahmad S., Schroeder R.G.: The impact of human resource management practices on operational performance: recognizing country and industry differences. J. Oper. Manag. 21, 19–43 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman D.S., Webster J.: The use of technologies in the recruiting, screening, and selection processes for job candidates. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 11(2/3), 113–120 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier D.W.: Measuring the performance of R&D department. Res. Manag. 20(2), 30–34 (1977)Google Scholar
Nankervis A., Compton R.L.: Performance management: theory in practice?. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 44(1), 83–101 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty T.L.: Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. University of Pittsburg, Pittsburg (1988)Google Scholar
Saaty T.L., Takizawa M.: Dependence/independence: from linear hierarchies to nonlinear network. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 26, 229–237 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty T.L.: Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (1996)Google Scholar
Sarkis J.: Evaluating environmentally conscious business practices. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 107(1), 159–174 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkis J., Sundarraj R.P.: Hub location at digital equipment corporation: a comprehensive analysis of qualitative and quantitative factors. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 137(2), 336–347 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh K.: Impact of HR practices on perceived firm performance in India. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 42(3), 301–317 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner B.M., Souder W.E.: Measuring R&D performance: state of the art. Res. Technol. Manag. 40(2), 34–42 (1997)Google Scholar
Whitley R., Frost P.A.: The measurement of performance in research. Hum. Relat. 24, 161–178 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson D.K., Mueser R., Raelin J.A.: New look at performance appraisal for scientists and engineers. Res. Technol. Manag. 37(4), 51–54 (1994)Google Scholar