Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ISSN: 2040-7467
Maxwell Scientific Organization, 2012
Submitted: January 19, 2012
Accepted: February 17, 2012
Published: June 15, 2012
Abstract: This study analyzes the relationship between performance management, productivity and efficiency
for organizations working at Chabahar Municipality. In order to achieve the above objectives, research
questions were developed. Two hypotheses were developed for the study. Survey and Interview were used as
main tools data collection of primary data. Respondents were selected using simple random sampling technique.
The responses were entered and analyzed by using SPSS. The findings of this study indicates that majority of
respondents (38%) agree that performance management system determines productivity level at their
organization and majority of the respondents (40%) agree that they believe that performance management
system determines efficiency level at their organization. The major finding from the correlation analysis was
that there is a strong positive relationship between performance management and productivity. Furthermore,
the analysis also showed that performance management and efficiency have strong positive relationship. These
findings led to acceptance of two alternative hypotheses and rejection of the null hypotheses.
Key words: Chabahar, effectiveness, efficiency, performance management, productivity
INTRODUCTION
Performance management comprises all activities that
guarantee that organizational objectives are constantly
being attained in an efficient and effective manner.
Normally, performance management focuses on the
organizational performance, employees, departments and
to some extent the processes that are usually employed to
build a service or product, as well as other key areas of an
organization. Performance management is actually a
broad term that was initially used in the 1970s to depict a
technology-science entrenched in application methods
basically intended to assist the institutional managements
to manage both results and behavior, which are the two
vital aspects of what is commonly identified as
performance.
Mostly, performance management is employed in the
place of work, but this does not mean it cannot be used in
other places. Some other places that have in the past been
identified with performance management are: schools,
community meetings, churches, sports teams and to some
extent in political environments or in short anyplace in the
world where human beings can intermingle with their
settings to generate the effects that are desired. Baron and
Armstrong define performance management as an
integrated and a strategic approach towards enhancing the
organizational effectiveness by bettering the performance
of employees as well as through developing the
individuals and teams capabilities (Baron and Armstrong,
2007). This study therefore discusses the effect of
1767
1768
C
C
C
Government publications
Industry analysis
Media
1769
1770
28%
26%
Frequency
25%
20%
18%
16%
15%
12%
10%
5%
Fig. 1: Gender
i on
vis
pe r
S u
Se
In
c o n d i vi d
trib u al
ut o
r
M
ma e ddle
n ag
er
ni
ex e o r lea
cu t der
i ve s h i
p/
S
ma e n ior
n ag
er
0%
Opinions
Fig. 4: Position
50%
52%
44%
Frequency
40%
30%
20%
10%
40%
4%
34%
0%
Frequency
30%
in We h
per ave
fo r form b een
som an ce in v
e ti m a e s ti
me n ag ng
W
n o em
er
w e nt
p er ec en
f o r tl y
m a st a r
n ce ted
m a to
nag inv
W
e m e st
ea
en t in
r
p er e p
for lan
ma nin
n ce g t
m a o in
na g v e
e m s t in
W
e nt
ea
r
e
per n o
for t i
m a n te
nce res
ma t e d i
n ag nve
e m st i
e nt n
0%
26%
20%
16%
14%
10%
10%
ear
s
n1
9y
0y
ear
s
Opinions
tha
Fig. 5: PM theme
M
o re
4-
Opinions
7-
6y
ear
s
ear
s
3y
ths
on
2m
n1
L
e
ss
th a
1-
0%
30%
28%
24%
25%
Frequency
22%
20%
16%
15%
10%
6%
5%
0% 0%
rod
uc t
s&
ina
y
ate
g
0%
nce
Sa
s e r le s
v ic
e s.
O
..
p er
H
In
a
ti o
um
fo r
n
an
s
ma
r es
ti o
ou r
ns
ce s
ys t
em
C
s
us t
om an d..
..
er
se r
v ic
M
e
R
a r k s
i sk
e ti n
a nd
g
c om
pli
anc
P
roc
ure e
me
n t
0%
0%
St
r
2%
2%
Opinions
1771
35%
30%
Frequency
30%
25%
20%
18%
18%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0%
CEO
CFO
COO
CIO
CPO
Opinions
1772
40%
Frequency
30%
26%
24%
20%
10%
10%
2%
24%
45%
40%
14%
10%
a gr
ee
gr e
e
ng
ly
40%
35%
Frequency
5%
B
usi
ne
ss
rul
es
an
aly
E
sis
du
cat
ion
an
dt
rai
nin
g
C
ult
ure
ch
M
ang
ana
e
ge
me
nt
spo
nso
rsh
T
ip
im
er
eq
uir
ed
to
im
ple
me
nt
0%
30%
30%
25%
20%
18%
15%
10%
10%
5%
2%
ro n
e
ag r
e
e
ly
A
g re
ral
Opinion
St
60%
S
tr o
ng
g ly
Opinions
N
eu t
d is
a gr
ee
0%
e
15%
10%
54%
St
ro n
g
ag r
ee
gly
ly
4%
r on
d is
a gr
ee
6%
Opinion
St
ly
ag r
e
e
S
tr o
ng
A
g re
ral
N
eu t
e
D
is a
g re
ee
a gr
d is
g ly
ro n
St
Opinion
14%
g re
e
4%
2%
0%
30%
ra l
10%
46%
eu t
14%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
20%
Frequency
26%
is a
g re
e
40%
30%
50%
Frequency
eu t
ral
i sa
20%
20%
D
is a
g re
Frequency
25%
Opinion
St
r
32%
30%
S
tro
on
g ly
35%
dis
a
g re
gr e
e
0%
1773
32%
28%
Frequency
25%
20%
20%
15%
10%
10%
10%
5%
ag r
ee
ly
ng
S
tr o
Opinion
40%
35%
32%
30%
Frequency
25%
20%
15%
10%
10%
10%
10%
5%
agr
ly
ng
S
tr o
Opinion
St
r
ee
gre
e
A
eu t
ral
gre
e
is a
D
on
g ly
d is
agr
ee
0%
40%
35%
32%
30%
Frequency
A
g re
e
ral
N
eu t
D
is a
g re
e
g ly
d is
a gr
e e
0%
St
ro n
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
12%
10%
10%
6%
5%
ee
agr
ly
gre
e
S
tr o
ng
Opinion
eu t
ral
gre
e
D
i sa
on
g ly
d is
agr
ee
0%
St
r
1774
1775
N
50
50
50
50
50
50
1
1
1
1
1
1
Maxm
2
3
5
5
3
9
Mean
1.32
2.1
2.84
3.22
1.52
5.48
S.D
0.471212
0.863075
1.251285
1.266362
0.579937
2.597016
50
3.42
1.40102
50
1.84
0.976458
50
1.98
0.742033
50
1.78
0.815413
50
1.94
0.793082
50
1.92
0.778276
50
1.86
0.808375
50
50
1
1
5
5
2.7
4.26
1.233048
0.985818
50
50
50
50
50
50
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
3.72
3.52
2.8
3.58
3.28
3.18
1.01096
0.973946
0.903508
1.27919
1.107304
1.100835
1776
35%
30%
Frequency
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
15%
10%
10%
5%
0%
5-10
Years
11-20
Years
21-30
Years
Opinion
31-40
Years
30
Years and
above
1777
40%
20%
10%
10%
5%
8 or more venders
4 to 7 venders
2 to 3 venders
1 vender
None
Workflow and
collaborating
OLAP tools
Dashboards/scorecards
tools
Standard reporting
tools
0%
0%
0%
20%
Dont know
25%
30%
Frequency
25%
25%
35%
40%
40%
40%
20%
40%
0%
75%
60%
30%
60%
55%
80%
25% 20%
100%
20%
120%
80%
Yes
No
Do not know
45%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
10%
30%
20%
0%
r ta
im
nt
a
po
rt
t al
a nt
l
utr
a
Ne
po
t so
t im
Dont know
8 or more venders
4 to 7 venders
2 to 3 venders
1 vender
None
Ex
tr e
0%
0%
No
me
ly
5%
or t
t
im
po
10%
10%
ant
0%
Im
p
20%
20%
rta
n
Frequency
40%
40%
No
50%
50%
50%
1778
Data integration
and data
warehousing (%)
90
5
5
Workflow and
collaboration (%)
85
10
5
Percentage (%)
25
20
15
15
15
10
Senior
managers (%)
55
30
15
Middle
managers(%)
75
5
20
Supervisor (%)
55
30
10
Frontline
personnel (%)
30
50
20
Senior
managers (%)
65
25
10
Middle
managers(%)
55
30
15
Supervisor (%)
70
20
10
Frontline
personnel (%)
65
20
15
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784