ISSN 2320 -5083 Journal of · PDF fileJournal of International ... Shehu Shagari College of...
Transcript of ISSN 2320 -5083 Journal of · PDF fileJournal of International ... Shehu Shagari College of...
Journal of International Academic Research for Multidisciplinary
ISSN 2320 -5083
A Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, Monthly, Open Access, Online Research Journal
Impact Factor – 1.393
VOLUME 1 ISSUE 11 DECEMBER 2013
A GLOBAL SOCIETY FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
www.jiarm.com
A GREEN PUBLISHING HOUSE
Editorial Board
Dr. Kari Jabbour, Ph.D Curriculum Developer, American College of Technology, Missouri, USA.
Er.Chandramohan, M.S System Specialist - OGP ABB Australia Pvt. Ltd., Australia.
Dr. S.K. Singh Chief Scientist Advanced Materials Technology Department Institute of Minerals & Materials Technology Bhubaneswar, India
Dr. Jake M. Laguador Director, Research and Statistics Center, Lyceum of the Philippines University, Philippines.
Prof. Dr. Sharath Babu, LLM Ph.D Dean. Faculty of Law, Karnatak University Dharwad, Karnataka, India
Dr.S.M Kadri, MBBS, MPH/ICHD, FFP Fellow, Public Health Foundation of India Epidemiologist Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, Kashmir, India
Dr.Bhumika Talwar, BDS Research Officer State Institute of Health & Family Welfare Jaipur, India
Dr. Tej Pratap Mall Ph.D Head, Postgraduate Department of Botany, Kisan P.G. College, Bahraich, India.
Dr. Arup Kanti Konar, Ph.D Associate Professor of Economics Achhruram, Memorial College, SKB University, Jhalda,Purulia, West Bengal. India
Dr. S.Raja Ph.D Research Associate, Madras Research Center of CMFR , Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Chennai, India
Dr. Vijay Pithadia, Ph.D, Director - Sri Aurobindo Institute of Management Rajkot, India.
Er. R. Bhuvanewari Devi M. Tech, MCIHT Highway Engineer, Infrastructure, Ramboll, Abu Dhabi, UAE Sanda Maican, Ph.D. Senior Researcher, Department of Ecology, Taxonomy and Nature Conservation Institute of Biology of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania Dr. Reynalda B. Garcia Professor, Graduate School & College of Education, Arts and Sciences Lyceum of the Philippines University Philippines Dr.Damarla Bala Venkata Ramana Senior Scientist Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA) Hyderabad, A.P, India PROF. Dr.S.V.Kshirsagar, M.B.B.S,M.S Head - Department of Anatomy, Bidar Institute of Medical Sciences, Karnataka, India. Dr Asifa Nazir, M.B.B.S, MD, Assistant Professor, Dept of Microbiology Government Medical College, Srinagar, India. Dr.AmitaPuri, Ph.D Officiating Principal Army Inst. Of Education New Delhi, India Dr. Shobana Nelasco Ph.D Associate Professor, Fellow of Indian Council of Social Science Research (On Deputation}, Department of Economics, Bharathidasan University, Trichirappalli. India M. Suresh Kumar, PHD Assistant Manager, Godrej Security Solution, India. Dr.T.Chandrasekarayya,Ph.D Assistant Professor, Dept Of Population Studies & Social Work, S.V.University, Tirupati, India.
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.393, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 1, Issue 11, December 2013
53 www.jiarm.com
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AS AN ASSURED REMEDY TO INEFFECTIVE DECISION MAKING IN ORGANIZATIONS: AN INVESTIGATION ON
HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN SOKOTO AND KEBBI STATES, NIGERIA
ABUBAKAR ALLUMI NURA* OSMAN NOR HASNI**
*Dept. of Technology & Operations Management, School of Technology Management & Logistics, College of Business,
University Utara Malaysia, Kedah, Malaysia **Dept. of Technology & Operations Management, School of Technology Management & Logistics, College of Business,
University Utara Malaysia, Kedah, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
One of the proven antidotes to one of the greatest impediments standing the way of
higher institutions of learning in the whole of Nigeria particularly Sokoto and Kebbi states
and which prevents them from competing favorably with their counterparts around the globe
as a result of inability to effectively decide, and confidently act on issues, is a sound
Performance Management System (PMS). This paper unravels how the variables are
associated to one another. A questionnaire was designed to dig out into the respondents view
on organization objective, employee development, employee satisfaction and effective
decision making using a structural equation modeling (SmartPLS) to analyze the data
gathered from (Waziri Umaru Federal Polytechnic Kebbi State, Kebbi State University of
Technology Aleiro, Shehu Shagari College of Education Sokoto, Sokoto State Polytechnic
and Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto) five higher institutions of learning in Sokoto and
Kebbi states. Three hypothesized relationships were tested and the findings indicate that two
out of the three hypothesized relationships were supported and only one hypothesis was not
supported. The findings are discussed in the perspective of a sound PMS in higher institutions
of learning in Sokoto and Kebbi states, Nigeria.
KEYWORDS: PMS, Organization Objective, Employee Development, Employee
Satisfaction, Effective Decision Making
1.1 INTRODUCTION
In the contemporary world of today, the forces of globalization have forced
institutions of learning to commit resources (human and material) to be able to stand the ever
growing competitive world as competition remains a major issue in foreign affairs. To this
end, higher institutions of learning in the developed economies of Europe, America and some
parts of Asia have been placing strong emphasis on PMS (Frigo & Krumwiede, 2000).
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.393, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 1, Issue 11, December 2013
54 www.jiarm.com
But, conventionally, the management and administration of higher institutions of learning in
Nigeria are distinguished by a bureaucratic based approach. The spotlight of the system in
Nigeria is on route regulation; total compliance with prescribed standards and rules; simply
put, what should and shouldn’t be done. With such spotlight on route, organizations
(especially higher institutions of learning) are oriented towards assessing input usage and
effectiveness of decisions on how much income, staff, student and amenities are deployed in
an institution, and if such deployment is in harmony with the stipulated rules and regulations.
The main performance measure therefore, is the amount of money used up and the number of
graduates produced that are by and large appraised in terms of the inputs consumed.
1.2 LITERATURE
PMS means setting performance expectations and goals for groups and individuals, to
channel their efforts towards achieving organizational objectives (Armstrong & Angela,
2002). In the opinion of Osborne and Gaebler (1993) Performance management depicts a
systematic process by which the organization involves its employees, as individuals and
members of a group, in improving organizational effectiveness geared towards the
accomplishment of organizational mission and goals. Thimmaiah (1984) argued that PMS as
it exists in government includes conventional apparatus such as budgetary exercise, annual
reports published by the Ministries/Departments, performance budgets and the outcome budget.
Osborne and Plastrik (1997), declare that Performance Management is an art of managing,
and the primary “vehicle” for accomplishing the most preferred results through employees at
all levels in the organization. Osborne and Plastrik (1997) further stressed that PMS provides
an opportunity for the employee and performance manager to confer developmental issues
and together work out a plan for realizing those issues. As far as this paper is concerned,
three constructs were used to measure PMS as provided by Pradhan, and Chaudhury (2012)
these are, organization objective, employee development and employee satisfaction.
1.2.1 PMS practices around the globe
The value of the procedure of PMS is an achievement of pecuniary as well as non- pecuniary
objectives, the development of skills and competencies of departments and their integration,
and the improvement of customer care and process quality (Waal, 2007). There is also sort of
substantiation that PMS is implemented in approximately 70% of firms in the US, Europe
and part of Asia, in many governmental departments and institutions (Silk, 1998; Marr and
Neely, 2003; Rigby, 2001; Williams, 2001; Speckbacher et al., 2003; Neely et al., 2004; Marr
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.393, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 1, Issue 11, December 2013
55 www.jiarm.com
et al., 2004). It has been argued that companies and institutions who have implemented a
sound PMS perform better than companies that do not use it (Hronec, 1993; Lynch and
Cross, 1995; Lingle and Schiemann, 1996, 1999; Kaplan and Norton, 1996; Rheem, 1996;
Atkinson et al., 1997; Armstrong and Baron, 1998; Lawson et al., 2003). Even though some
of these studies are not academically robust (are not so much grounded in thorough research)
as Bourne et al., (2000) neely and Bourne, (2000) Neely and Austin, (2000) Bourne et al.,
(2003) Neely et al., (2004) opinionated, they provide some meaningful insights about PMS
practice in organizations. It has been established that PMS brings along with it a lot of
advantages that are qualitative and quantitative in nature (Kourtit and André de Waal 2007).
From the qualitative perspective, it has been pictured that it brings about better understanding
of organizational members and the strategy (Lovell et al., 2002; Heras, 2004; Neely et al.,
2004). Dumond, (1994) Mooraj et al., (1999) Kald and Nilsson, (2000) added that PMS
brings about improvement in the decision-making Process. It is also incorporated that, higher
commitments of organizational departments to the organization add a lot of benefits to
organizational progress (Neely et al., 2004 & Bititci et al. 2004). More clarity of people about
their contribution towards achievement of the strategy and organizational goals also remain
an outstanding lead (Lawson et al., 2004; Neely et al., 2004; Papalexandris et al., 2004). In
the opinion of Sim and Koh, (2001) higher innovativeness and more pro-activity of
organizational members among others which invariably make effective decisions attainable
(Waal, 2002; Self, 2004). From the quantitative angle however, increase in revenue is indeed
assured in modern organizations (Malina & Selto, 2001; Sim & Koh, 2001; Waal, 2002;
Said et al., 2003; Braam & Nijssen, 2004; Davis & Albright, 2004; Neely et al., 2004;
Robinson, 2004) Increase in profit is another term that has been spotted as a very powerful
value addition brought to fore by PMS (Davis & Albright, 2004; Waal, 2002; Said et al.,
2003 Braam & Nijssen, 2004; Neely et al, 2004; Robinson, 2004). It has been opined that
reduction in costs is also an improvement that resulted through PMS ( Sim & Koh, 2001;
Neely et al., 2004).
1.2.2 PMS and agility in Higher institutions
Ashby sighted in Kravchuck and Schack (1996) posited that only complexity can absorb
complexity. Rigid information systems will not be able to apprehend and to understand rising
complexity in the environment without a sound PMS. The main connotation would be that,
PMS ought to be used for learning, and not just for accountability probing issues (Delancer,
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.393, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 1, Issue 11, December 2013
56 www.jiarm.com
2008). PMS based accountability requires stability for the period for which targets are set.
Van Dooren and Thijs (2010) asserted that PMS dogma has a vague attitude towards
expertise and professionals (Kettl 1997). Davies and Lampel (1998), argue that managers
primarily used PMS in a tactical way, in order to intervene in what they describe as “doctor-
patient relationship”. Radin (2006) provides the example of the British Research Assessment
Exercise (RAE) which audited the research quality of higher institutions of learning based on
a number of performance indicators such as the number and type of publications. She asserts
that the most vigorous critique of PMS was on the standardized assessment that purportedly
did not leave enough room for teachers’ discretion.
1.3 PROBLEM FORMULATION
Higher institutions of learning in Nigeria, whether government owned or private, and
irrespective of national structures of finance and governance, are faced with a number of
challenges related to PMS and management of human resources which in variably affects the
effectiveness of their decisions (Idemobi et al, 2010). Indeed effective PMS in higher
education is an issue that has received significant thought of late, (O'Neill & Palmer, 2004;
Steyn & Schulze, 2003). This is perhaps so because there is a high demand for higher
education as greater part of the Secondary school certificate holders that are qualified for
admission to higher institutions of their choice could not do so because of ardent competition
at the approved conventional schools available. Reports indicates that no less than 1million
candidates apply for admissions in higher institutions of learning every year of which less
than 20% are offered places, due to lack of enough facilities (human and material).
Nakpodia (2011) argued that, PMS was habitual and nominal thus, the procedure viewpoint
of Human Resource Management was troubled with the techniques of handling personnel
problems and not understanding why the institutions are ill performing.
Esu and Inyang, (2009) opined that, higher institutions are ill performing in Nigeria because
of ineffective and inefficient performance management system. Again, in public sector, the
PMS of staff of executing agencies or public enterprises is limited to budget monitoring and
annual performance evaluation. Nonetheless, it has been contended that, there is no link
between organization performance and financial data (Pollitt & Bouckaert 2004). The need
therefore for organizations particularly higher institutions of learning to give sufficient
attention to PMS reviews to attain effective decision making becomes very imperative.
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.393, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 1, Issue 11, December 2013
57 www.jiarm.com
In essence the productivity of an organization is jointly determined by the effectiveness of its
decision and a robust PMS with which the organization exploits to successfully attain its
stipulated objectives. As it were therefore, one can conceive of an effective decision making
terms by weighing how sound an organization’s PMS is, within given and stated constraints
in an organization which is otherwise known as the organizational dilemma (Ouchi, 1981). In
view of the above, the following paragraph wraps up the problem.
1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT
Performance management system as an assured remedy to ineffective decision making in
organizations: an investigation on higher educational institutions in sokoto and kebbi states, nigeria.
1.5 OBJECTIVES
Major objective
To examine why some higher institutions in Nigeria are ill performing
Subsidiary objectives
1. To assess the relationship between Organizational objective and effective decision making
2. To examine the relationship between employee development and effective decision making
3. To examine the relationship between employee satisfaction and effective decision making
1.6 HYPOTHESES
1. There may be a positive relationship between Organizational objective and effective
decision making in higher institutions of learning in Sokoto and kebbi states
2. There may be a positive relationship between employee development and effective
decision making in higher institutions of learning in Sokoto and kebbi states
3. There may be positive relationship between employee satisfaction and effective
decision making in higher institutions of learning in Sokoto and kebbi states
1.7 POPULATION
All the departments and units of Waziri Umaru Federal Polytechnic, Kebbi State; Kebbi State
University of Technology Aleiro; Shehu Shagari College of Education Sokoto; Sokoto State
Polytechnic and Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto comprise the targeted population. The
total population reads all the departments and units of the five selected higher institutions of
learning in Sokoto and kebbi states.
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.393, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 1, Issue 11, December 2013
58 www.jiarm.com
1.8 RESEARCH DESIGN
This paper focused mainly on Performance Management System adoption and effective
decision making in higher institutions of learning in Sokoto and kebbi states, Nigeria. The
nature of study is more of a fact finding. Thus, this study pursues descriptive study design as
its map of action.
1.9 SAMPLING
The paper however adopted Systematic probability Sampling technique. Systematic sampling
is a statistical method involving the selection of elements from an ordered sampling frame.
The most common form of systematic sampling is an equal-probability method, in which
every kth element in the frame is selected, where k, the sampling interval (sometimes known
as the skip), is calculated as
Where n is the sample size, and N is the population size. This is one of the methods that have
been used. Using this procedure each element in the population has a known and equal
probability of selection, twenty (20) departments/ units were however selected in that order.
1.10 INSTRUMENT
A single instrument was used for data collection which was designed on 7-point Likert scales
to measure the various variables. To check response bias, a variety of items even within the
same construct group were randomized. The study did content and construct analysis by
making use of extensive literature and previously validated constructs. It establishes further
the incorporation of the representativeness of the items in the questionnaire for adequate data
collection.
1.11 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
As earlier stated, this study used Smart PLS to estimate the study model. The first step
usually undertaken in this type of analysis is the assessment of measurement model. In doing
this, two main strategies are involved i.e. reliability analysis and validity tests. For the
former, convergent validity assessment is done and composite reliability and average
variance extracted (AVE) are as well reported, the latter on the other hand presents the
discriminant validity assessment of the items used to determine whether the items actually
measure what they were set to measure.
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.393, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 1, Issue 11, December 2013
59 www.jiarm.com
The second step deals with evaluation of the structural model. Structural model evaluation
concerns the test of hypotheses and decisions based on t-values and corresponding p-values
of each relationship. As far as this study is concerned however, the decision on the
acceptance or otherwise of the study hypotheses was based on 10% level of significance (0.1).
These steps were discussed sequentially beginning with the convergent validity in 1.11.1.
1.11.1 Convergent Validity
The convergent validity results in the table 1 shows the convergent validity test for the entire
construct having a strong loading of 0.7 and above. Hence, the number of items arrived at per
construct are: OO (2 items); ED (3 items); ES (4 items) and DS (3 items).
Table 1Convergent Validity
OO ED ES DS
OO1 0.783 0.338 0.321 0.286
OO2 0.826 0.361 0.334 0.380
ED1 0.331 0.926 0.304 0.403
ED2 0.259 0.946 0.289 0.365
ED3 0.305 0.878 0.362 0.299
ES1 0.388 0.116 0.834 0.437
ES2 0.461 0.340 0.868 0.392
ES3 0.340 0.229 0.821 0.375
ES4 0.290 0.378 0.746 0.407
DS1 0.369 0.512 0.377 0.896
DS2 0.343 0.515 0.427 0.920
DS3 0.327 0.522 0.462 0.884 Note: the bolded and highlighted values identify items that belong to one construct
1.11.2 Composite Reliability and AVE
To be able to determine the validity and reliability of the constructs, composite reliability and
the AVE for each of the constructs was shown in Table 2.
Table: 2 Composite Reliability and AVE Variable Composite Reliability AVE
OO 0.820 0.551 ED 0.860 0.675 ES 0.820 0.670 DS 0.840 0.632
The four variables in table 2 shows composite reliability values of 0.80 and above which
according to Hair et al. (2010), are very good and indicates complete reliability.
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.393, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 1, Issue 11, December 2013
60 www.jiarm.com
1.11.3 Discriminant Validity
Table 3 below shows results of the discriminant validity analysis of the scales that were used
in this study. It displays along the diagonal the square root of AVE for all the scales. They all
possess a value that is greater than the corresponding coefficients that are off the diagonals
which indicates an achievement of discriminant validity.
Table 3 Discriminant Validity
Variable OO ED ES SD
OO 0.7420 ED 0.5100 0.8218 ES 0.3400 0.5300 0.8187
SD 0.6000 0.4800 0.3400 0.7949 Note: the bolded values that appear in diagonals represent the square root of AVE and those
of the diagonals represent the squared correlations
The figure below, displays the research model.
Figure 1: Research Model
The research model depicted above displays the path relationship among the study variable
and factor loadings.
1.12 HYPOTHESES TESTING
This segment presents the results of the hypotheses testing. As shown in Table 4, all the
hypotheses that were accepted possess a p-value that is not greater than 0.50 and those that
were not supported have their values greater than 0.50. i.e hypothesis one that there may be a
positive relationship between Organizational objective and effective decision making in
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.393, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 1, Issue 11, December 2013
61 www.jiarm.com
higher institutions of learning in Sokoto and kebbi states displays a t-value of 3.3, and a
corresponding p-value of 0.03 hence accepted at 10%. The second hypothesis that there may
be a positive relationship between employee development and effective decision making in
higher institutions of learning in Sokoto and kebbi states was not supported in this study
because it indicates a t-value of 0.45 and a high p-value of 0.65 thus could not be accepted at
the 10% that is the threshold for this study. The third hypothesis that there may be positive
relationship between employee satisfaction and effective decision making in higher
institutions of learning in Sokoto and kebbi states was also supported because the t-value
result is 1.97 and a p-value of 0.33, thus supported and accepted at the 10% level of
significance. Table 4 below provides the results of the test.
Table 4 Results of hypotheses testing
Variable relationship
Original Sample
(O)
Standard Error
(STERR) T Statistics
(|O/STERR|) P-value Findings OO -> DS 0.34 0.11 3.03 0.03 Supported ED -> DS 0.06 0.14 0.45 0.65 not supported ES -> DS 0.10 0.10 1.97 0.33 supported
1.13 DISCUSSION
The findings of this study clearly signify that, there is positive relationship between
organizational objective and effective decision making in higher institutions of learning in
Sokoto and kebbi states thus, the first hypothesis was supported. This perhaps tallies with the
views of Hronec, (1993) Lynch and Cross, (1995) Lingle and Schiemann, (1996; 1999)
Kaplan and Norton, (1996) Rheem, (1996) Atkinson et al., (1997) Armstrong and Baron,
(1998) Sim and Koh, (2001) Neely et al., (2004) and Lawson et al., (2003).
The second hypothesis “that employee development is related to effective decision making
was not supported. This is perhaps contrary to the findings of Kettl (1997) Davies and
Lampel, (1998) and Radin (2006), Kourtit and André de Waal (2007) who pointed out that
the advantages of employee development that are qualitative and quantitative in nature are
enough to drive organizations to successful accomplishment of objectives. This study wants
to argue here that if organizations develop their employees simply to simplify the attainment
goal and not along with employee personal growth, it will only incur expenses (Heath field,
2012; Pool & Pool, 2007).
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.393, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 1, Issue 11, December 2013
62 www.jiarm.com
The third hypothesis that “ employee satisfaction is related to effective decision making “ was
supported as the research portrays this in fact is in line with the findings of Malina and Selto,
(2001) Neely et al., (2004) Bititci et al., (2004) who believed employee satisfaction leads to
commitment which lead to organizational progress in many aspects and effective decisions
are no exception.
1.14 POLICY IMPLICATION
The literature review and the findings of this research further establish that PMS is a needed
remedy to ineffective decision making in every organization particularly higher institutions of
learning regardless of motive. Akin to other industrial organizations, PMS is a pre requisite
to the educational institutions. Contextualizing the topic to the Nigerian scenario, in fact
shouldn’t have come any time better than now because over the years the manner in which
higher educational institutions are run is not favorable, partly due to excessive bureaucracy
and lack of effective PMS which invariably affect the effectiveness of decisions. Scholarly
views indicates that, improved skills and development, higher innovation, vision for career
planning, closer collaboration and better knowledge sharing and information exchange
between organizational units and overall effective decision making power are all achievable
through a sound PMS. The need therefore for a supportive effort from the authorities concern
such as Ministry of Education and even the legislative arm in terms of supportive policies
than can reap better outcomes and productivity in higher educational institutions in Nigeria is
not only necessary but an in evitable task.
1.15 CONCLUSION
This research work on performance management system as an assured remedy to
ineffective decision making in organizations: an investigation on higher educational
institutions in Sokoto and Kebbi states, Nigeria, affirms that higher institutions of learning in
Nigeria particularly in Sokoto and Kebbi states have lack of a sound PMS to blame for their
ineffective decision making ability and perhaps in ability to stand tall amidst counterparts
globally. The findings indicate that, two out of the three hypothesized relationships were
supported hypotheses and only one hypothesis was not supported. Issues on individual
objective and employee compensation as pointed out by other scholars as measures of PMS
could not be exhausted by this paper hence remain areas for further explorations. Again,
further studies need to be conducted across countries for generalization to be possible.
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.393, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 1, Issue 11, December 2013
63 www.jiarm.com
REFERENCES
1. Armstrong, M. & Angela, B.(2002).Performance Management of the Civil Servants. Jaico Publishing House. & T VRao
2. Armstrong, M., & Baron, A. (1998). Performance management – the new realities. London: The Institute for Personnel Development.
3. Atkinson, A.A., Balakrishnan, R., Booth, P., Cote, J.M., Groot, T., Malmi, T., Roberts, H. et al., (1997).New directions in management accounting research. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 9, 70-108.
4. Bititci, U., Mendibil, K., Nudurupati, S., Turner, T. & Garengo, P. (2004).The interplay between performance measurement, organizational culture and management styles. In: A. Neely, M. Kennerly & A. Waters (Eds.), Performance measurement and management: public and private, 107-114, Cranfield University, Cranfield. Centre for Business Performance.
5. Bourne, M., Franco, M. & Wilkes, J. (2003).Corporate Performance Management. Measuring Business Excellence, 7, 15-21.
6. Bourne, M., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A., & Platts, K. (2000).Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20 (7), 754-71.
7. Braam, G.J. & Nijssen, E.J. (2004).Performance effects of using the balance scorecard: a note on the Dutch experience, Long Range Planning, 37 (4), 335-349.
8. Davis, S. & Albright, T. (2004). An Investigation of the Effect of Balanced Scorecard Implementations on Financial Performance, Management Accounting Research 15 (2), 135-153.
9. Davies, H. T. & Lampel. J.(1998).Trust in performance indicators? Quality and Safety in Health Care, 7 (3), 159-162.
10. Delancer, J., P.(2008).Performance measurement beyond instrumental use. In Performance information in the Public sector: how it is used. W. van Dooren & S.van de Walle S. Houndmills (Eds) : Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.
11. Dooren, W.V & Thijs, N. (2010).Paradoxes of improving performance management (systems) in public administration retrieved from http://www.eipa.eu
12. Dumond, E. J. (1994). Making best use of performance-measures and information, International Journal of Operations & Production Management 14 (9), 16-32.
13. Esu, B.B & Inyang, B.J. (2009). A Case for Performance Management in the Public Sector of Nigeria, 4 (4).
14. Frigo, M. L. & Krumwiede, K. R. (2000). The balanced scorecard. Strategic Finance. 81, 7, 50-54.
15. Heras, M.A. (2004). Performance measurement and quality systems: results of qualitative research carried out in companies that had won the Catalan quality award. In: A. Neely, M. Kennerly & A. Waters (Eds.), Performance measurement and management: public and private, 459-466, Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield, Cranfield University.
16. Hronec, S. M. (1993).Vital Signs: using quality, time, and cost performance measurements to chart your company's future, New York: AMACOM.
17. Idemobi, Ellis, I., Onyeizugbe & Chinedu. (2011). Performance Management as an Imperative for Effective Performance in Delta State of Nigerian Public owned Organizations, Sacha Journal of Policy and Strategic Studies. 1, (2) 46-54
18. Kald, M. & Nilsson, F.(2000).Performance measurement at Nordic companies, European Management Journal, 14 (1), 113-27.
19. Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D. P. (1996).The balanced scorecard – Translating Strategy into Action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
20. Kettl, D. F.(1997). The Global Revolution in Public Management: Driving Themes, Missing Links. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 16 (3), 446-462.
21. Kourtit, K. & de waal, A.(2007). Strategic Performance Management in practice: Advantages, Disadvantages and reasons for use Netherlands: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and Maastricht School of Management
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.393, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 1, Issue 11, December 2013
64 www.jiarm.com
22. Kravchuk, R. S. & Schack, R. W.(1996).Designing effective performance measurement systems under the government performance and results act of 1993. Public Administration Review 56 (4), 348-358.
23. Lawson, R., Stratton, W. & Hatch, T.(2003a).The benefits of a scorecard system, CMA Management, 77 (4), 24-26.
24. Lawson, R., W. Stratton & Hatch, T.(2004b). Automating the Balanced Scorecard, CMA Management, 77 (9), 39-43.
25. Lingle, J.H. & Schiemann, W.A.(1996).From balanced scorecard to strategic gauges: is measurement worth it? Management Review, 5 (3), 56-61.
26. Lingle, J.H & Schiemann, W.A. (1999).Bulls eye! Hitting Your Strategic Target through High Impact Measurement, Free Press, New York, NY.
27. Lovell, B., Radnor, Z. & Henderson, J. (2002). A pragmatic assessment of the balanced scorecard: an evaluation of a new performance system for use in a NHS multi agency setting in the UK, University of Bradford Working Paper Series, 2 (13), 339-346.
28. Lynch, R &. Cross, K. (1995). Measure up! Yardsticks for continuous improvement, Cambridge: Basil Blackwell
29. Malina, M.A. & Selto, F.H. (2001). Communicating and controlling strategy: an empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 13, 47-90
30. Marr, B. & Neely, A. (2003).Balanced Scorecard Software Report, Gartner, Inc. and Cranfield School of Management, Stamford, CT.
31. Marr, B., Schiuma, G. & Neely, A.(2004).The dynamics of value creation: mapping your intellectual performance drivers, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5 (2),312-325.
32. Mooraj, S., Oyon, D. &. Hostettler .(1999).The balanced scorecard: a necessary good or an unnecessary evil?, European Management Journal, 17, 481-91.
33. Nakpodia, E.D.(2011). Principals and teachers’ perceptions of communication and human resources management and their compliance with culture in Nigerian educational system, Journal of Language and Culture, 2 (5),82-90
34. Neely, A. & Austin, R. (2000).Measuring operations performance: past, present and Future, In: A. Neel (ed.), Performance Measurement: Past, Present and Future, 419- 426, Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University.
35. Neely, A. & Bourne, M. (2000).Why measurement initiatives fail. Measuring Business Excellence, 4 (4), 3-6.
36. Neely, A., Kennerley, M. & Martinez, V. (2004).Does the balanced scorecard work: an empirical investigation”. In: A. Neely, M. Kennerly & A. Waters (ed.), Performance measurement and management: public and private, 763-770, Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield University, Cranfield.
37. Nunally, J.C. (1970). Introduction to psychological measurement. New York: Mc Grow – Hill 38. O’Neill, M. & Palmer, A.(2004). Importance-performance analysis: a useful tool for directing
continuous quality improvement in higher education, Journal of Quality Assurance in Education, 12 (1), 39-52.
39. Ouchi, W.G. (1981). Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
40. Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1993). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is transforming the Public Sector from Schoolhouse to State House. City Hall to Penagon, MA.: Addison Wesley.
41. Osborne & Plastrik. (1997).Banishing Bureaucracy. Retrieved on June 16tth 2013 from http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/perfmangmt/appfdbck/perfapp.htm
42. Papalexandris, A., Ioannou, G. & Prastacos, G.P. (2004).Implementing the balanced scorecard in Greece: a software firm’s experience, Long Range Planning, 37 (4), 347–362
43. Pollitt, C. & Bouckaert, G.(2004). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.393, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 1, Issue 11, December 2013
65 www.jiarm.com
44. Pradhan, S.K. & Chaudhury, S.K. (2012).A survey on Employee Performance Management and its Implication to their Retention in OCL India Ltd. Asian Journal of Research in Social Science & Humanities, 2(4), 249
45. Radin, B. A. (2006). Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity, and Democratic Values: Georgetown University Press.
46. Rheem, H. (1996).Performance management programs, Harvard Business Review, 74 (5), 8-10
47. Rigby, D. (2001). Management tools and techniques: a survey, California Management Review, 43 (2): 139-160.
48. Robinson, S.P.(2004).The Adoption of the Balanced Scorecard. Performance measurement motives, measures and impact. In: A. Neely, M. Kennerly and A. Waters (eds.), Performance measurement and management: public and private, 883-890, Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield University, Cranfield.
49. Said, A.A. HassabElnaby H.R. & Wier, B.(2003). An empirical investigation of the performance consequences of nonfinancial measures, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 15, 193-223
50. Self, J. (2004).Metrics and management: applying the results of the balanced scorecard, Performance Measurement and Metrics, 5 (3), 101-105
51. Silk, S. (1998). Automating the balanced scorecard, Management Accounting, 79 (11), 38- 44.
52. Sim, K. L. & Koh, H.C.(2001).Balanced Scorecard: a rising trend in strategic performance measurement, Measuring Business Excellence, 5 (2),18–28.
53. Speckbacher, G., Bischof, J. & Pfeiffer, T.(2003).A descriptive analysis on the implementation of balanced scorecards in German speaking countries. Management Accounting Research, 14, 361-387.
54. Steyn, G.M. & Schulze, S. (2003). Assuring Quality of Module in Human Resource Management: Learners’ Perceptions. Education, 123 (4), 668-680.
55. Th immaiah, G. (1984).Budget Innovation in India: An evaluation, Public Budgeting and Finance (4), 40-54
56. Waal, A.A. de. (2002).The role of behavioral factors in the successful implementation and use of performance management systems, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
57. Waal, A. A. de. (2007).Strategic Performance Management, A Managerial and Behavioural Approach, London: Palgrave MacMillan
58. Williams, M. S. (2001).Is intellectual capital performance and disclosure practices related?, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2 (3),192-203.