Is the Employees’ Performance Appraisal Process Different in the Large Romanian Companies? An Empirical Research

  • Viorel LefterEmail author
  • Adriana Ana Maria Davidescu
  • Alexandra Beiu
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)


Knowing more in depth the process of employees’ performance process is important especially because it enables the identification of those characteristics that should be treated with an increased interest in order to improve organizational performance and finally the employees’ motivation and productivity.

The aim of the study is to highlight the key characteristics of the employee performance appraisal process in the Romanian companies using an empirical research based on a sample of 301 employees from micro-enterprises (21.9%), small enterprises (32.9%), medium enterprises (23.6%) and large companies (21.6%). The main research question of the study is: there are some significant differences regarding the employees’ performance evaluation according to the company size? In order to respond to this question, descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis test) were used.

The empirical results revealed that in most companies the evaluation of the employees’ performance is done once per year, the main elements of interest being the quality of work and the knowledge level of the job.

The majority of employees from all kind of companies declared that as a result of the assessments made in the last 3 years, their salary has increased, but the employees from large companies tend to be more satisfied with the results of the evaluations. Asked if they have been led to increase their professional training, only employees from large companies declared that they have participated in internal courses.


Employees’ performance Romanian companies Kruskal-Wallis test 


  1. Bretz RD, Milkovich GT, Read W. The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: concerns, directions, and implications. J Manag. 1992;18(2):1992.Google Scholar
  2. Bucurean M, Costin MA. Organizational stress and its impact on work performance. Ann Fac Econ Univ Oradea Fac Econ. 2011;1(special):333–7.Google Scholar
  3. Decotiis T, Petit A. The performance appraisal process: a model and some testable propositions. Acad Manag Rev. 1978;3(3):635–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fetcher F. Performance appraisal and management: the developing research agenda. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2001;74(4):473–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grigore A, Bâgu C, Radu C, Cătăneţ A. Competitiveness and performance on the cosmetics market. Ann Fac Econ. 2011;1(2):681–6.Google Scholar
  6. Keeping LM, Levy PE. Performance appraisal reactions: measurement, modeling, and method bias. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85(5):708–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kuvaas K. Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: mediating and moderating roles of work motivation. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2006;17(3):504–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kotey B, Slade P. Formal human resource management practices in small growing firms. J Small Bus Manag. 2005;43(1):16–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Levy PE, Williams JR. The social context of performance appraisal: a review and framework for the future. J Manag. 2004;30(6):881–905.Google Scholar
  10. MacMahon J, Murphy E. Managerial effectiveness in small enterprises: implications for HRD. J Eur Ind Train. 1999;23(1):25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Matei M, Abrudan M-M. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. An investigation of performance correlation on students. Ann Univ Oradea Econ Sci Ser. 2011;20(1):671–7. 7p. 5 Charts, 1 GraphGoogle Scholar
  12. Murphy KR, Cleveland JN. Human resource management series. Performance appraisal: an organizational perspective. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon; 1991.Google Scholar
  13. Murphy KR, Cleveland JN. Understanding performance appraisal: social, organizational and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1995.Google Scholar
  14. Pearce JL, Porter LW. Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback. J Appl Psychol. 1986;71:211–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pichler S, Beenen G, Wood S. Feedback frequency and appraisal reactions: a meta-analytic test of moderators. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2018;0:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Popescu D, Chivu I, Ciocârlan-Chitucea A, Popescu DO. Human resources motivation - a challenge for SMES economic performances. In: Conference proceedings - European integration-new challenges. 7th ed; 2011. p. 1715–20.Google Scholar
  17. Savlovschi LI, Robu NR. General considerations regarding the evaluation of performances of employees in a SME. Ann Fac Econ Univ Oradea Fac Econ. 2011;1(2):719–22.Google Scholar
  18. Selvarajan TT, Claninger PA. Can performance appraisals motivate employees to improve performance? A Mexican study. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2012;23(15):3036–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wiese DS, Buckley MR. The evolution of the performance appraisal process. J Manag Hist. 1998;4(3):233–49.Google Scholar
  20. Woehr DJ, Huffcutt AI. Rater training for performance appraisal: a quantitative review. J Occup Organ Psychol. 1994;67(3):189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Viorel Lefter
    • 1
    Email author
  • Adriana Ana Maria Davidescu
    • 2
    • 3
  • Alexandra Beiu
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Management, Bucharest Academy of Economic StudiesBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Department of Statistics and Econometrics, Bucharest University of Economic StudiesBucharestRomania
  3. 3.Department of Labour Policies, National Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social ProtectionBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations