تحلیل ارزیابی عملکرد کارکنان سازمان‌های دولتی با محوریت توسعه پایداردرجهت ارتقای بهره‌وری

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه آزاد قزوین

2 استاد گروه مدیریت دولتی دانشکدة مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی،تهران،ایران

10.30495/qjopm.2020.569699.2120

چکیده

حرکت به ‌سوی توسعه پایدار، چالش‌های مهمی را درزمینه ارزیابی عملکرد دردولت به وجود می‌‌آورد، دولت به‌عنوان یک سازمان ویژه که تصمیماتش نقش مؤثری در شکل‌دهی به زندگی مردم و نیز محیط‌زیست ملی ایفا می‌‌کند، در قبال انجام رفتارهای اداری سازگار با توسعه پایدار مسؤول و پاسخگو است این پژوهش به عملیاتی سازی و سنجش الگوی ارزیابی عملکرد کارکنان سازمان‌های دولتی با محوریت توسعه پایدار در راستای افزایش بهره‌وری آنها می‌‌پردازد. پژوهش حاضر در پی عملیاتی­سازی و سنجش مدل ارزیابی عملکرد کارکنان با محوریت توسعه پایدار در نظام ارزشی ایران است. این پژوهش از نظر هدف اکتشافی و از بعد نتیجه توسعه‌ای، از نظر نوع داده‌ها کمّی و از لحاظ، زمان مقطعی است. لذا در تحقیق دیگری با توجه به مرور پیشینه، باروش تحلیل تماتیک به صورت کیفی با استفاده از نرم افزار NVIVO مدل  مورد نظر ارائه شد که برای سنجش الگوی مذکور از روش کمی استفاده شد. به این گونه که پرسش­نامه طراحی شده با استفاده از روش نمونه گیری تصادفی طبقه‌ای که با رابطه کوکران درجامعه مورد نظر، مقدار حجم نمونه  202 نفر ازکارکنان و مدیران وزارت بهداشت به­ دست آمد که به روش تحلیل معادلات ساختاری و تحلیلی عاملی و نرم افزار lisrel مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفت. در نتیجه اینکه، شاخص‌های ارزیابی عملکردکارکنان با محوریت توسعه پایدار در چهار بعد اقتصادی، اجتماعی فرهنگی،  سیاسی، زیست محیطی شناسایی شده درمدل پس ازآزمون بعد زیست محیطی و اجتماعی فرهنگی اولویت بیشتری داشته بر این اساس پیشنهادهایی جهت بهبودارزیابی عملکرد کارکنان درراستای توسعه پایدار ارائه شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Performance Appraisal Analysis of Governmental Agencies: Promoting Productivity via Sustainable Development

نویسندگان [English]

  • somayeh mohammadi 1
  • Seyed Mehdi Alvani 2
1 Azad University of Qazvin
2 Professor, Department of Public Administration, School of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Targeting at sustainable development provides the government with formidable challenges in performance assessment of governmental employees. As a particular organization whose decisions can greatly impact the environment and citizens’ personal lives, the government should be held accountable for the quality of executive behavior incongruence with sustainable development. Hence, the current exploratory, developmental study aimed to operationalize a performance assessment model based on sustainable development to assess employees in public organizations. Initially, the intended model was designed based on an in-depth literature review and interview with a snow ball sample of 23 expert executive managers in the ministry of health headquarters. Next, a questionnaire was designed and administered to a straight random sample of 202 employees and managers of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education selected based on Kukran Table. The collected data were then analyzed via structural equation modelling, factor analysis and Lisrel software. The results identified four factors of sustainable development-based performance assessment model including economic, social-cultural, political and environmental. The results also revealed that the environmental and social-cultural factors had priority. Accordingly, suggestions and applications of the model are discussed to improve the performance evaluation of staff sustainable development.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Employees Performance Assessment
  • Public Organizations
  • Sustainable Development

Aghajani, F, (2015), sustainable development: concepts Indicators models, Termeh Publishers, Tehran, 1, 115-126. (In Persian).

Atkinson, A, & McCrindell, J. Q. (1997). Strategic performance measurement in government, CMA Magazine, 71(3), 20-23.

Anderson, B., & Fagerhaug, T. (2001). Performance measurement Explained. Designing and Implementing Your State-of-the-Art System. ASQ Press Publisher.

Bouphan, p; Apipalakula, CH; Tang K. (2015), Factors Affecting Public Health Performance Evaluation of Sub District Health Promoting Hospital Directors Prachak Bouphana, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 185, 128 – 132.

Chai, N. ((sustainability performance Evaluation system in Government)), Nasrazadani, B and Malekipoor,B, tehran, Hamrah elm, (2016), 1, 47-59.

Coelho, J,  (2005), Sustainability performance evaluation management systems model for individual organizations and supply chains.  Dissertation, Central Queensland University, Australia.  Retrieved August 2007, from http://library- resources. Cqu. Edu.au/thesis / sdt-QCQU/uploads/ approved/ adt-QCQU 20060720. 094327/public/02whole.pdf

Giovanni, C; Carollob, S and Nicola, M. (2016), Infrastructural projects and Territorial Development in Veneto Dolomites: Evaluation of performances through AHP, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 223, 468 – 474.

Dias Sardinham, i, & Reijnders, L. (2001). Environmental performance evaluation and sustainability performance evaluation of organizations: An evolutionary framework. Eco Management and Auditing, 8(2), 71-79.

Dalal Clayton, B., & Sadler, B. (1999). Strategic environmental assessment: A rapidly evolving approach. International Institute for Environment And Development, 18.

In D. B. Dalal Clayton, A Donnelly, & R. Hughes (Eds.). (1998), Directory of impact assessment guidelines, 2nd ed., 31-42.

Elkington, J. (2004). Chapter 1: Henriques & J. Richardson (Eds), The triple bottonm kine: Does it all add up? Assessing the sustainability of business and CSR, 1-16. London: James & James/ Earthscan.

Etaat, j; Dejpasand, F; Dini Torkamani, A; Sariolghalam, M; Sarafi, M; Mahmoudi, V and Hadi Zunuz, B. (2013), The principles of sustainable development in Iran, Nashre elm, Tehran,1, 142-145. (In Persian).

Irshada, K. , (2015), Performance evaluation of PV Trombe wall for sustainable building development, Nagarajan Thirumalai swamya Procedia, 26, 624 – 629.

Sivarajah, U, Irani, Z, Weerakkody, V. (2015), Evaluating the use and impact of Web technologies in local government, Government Information Quarterly, 32, 473–487.

Jones, D.S. (2000), Uses and limitations of performance measurement in the civil service: An assessment of the Singapore and New Zealand experiences, Asian Journal of Political Science, 8(2):109-136.

Janicke, M., Jorgens, H., Jorgensen, k., & Nordbeck, R. (2001) Governance for sustainable development in Germany: Institutions and policy making, for schungsstelle fur Umweltpolitik (FFU), OECD. Retrieved April 2007, from http://www. OECD. Org/ dataoecd /27/32/1828117. Pdf

Liu, D., Wang, B., & Chen, J. (2002), Actual status, development tendency and technique of environmental auditing in Government, Audit Research, (6), 17-23.

Lawric, G., Kalff, D., & Anderson, H. (2005). Balanced scorecard and results based management: Convergent performance management systems. Paper presented at 3rd Annual Conference on Performance Measurement and Management Control, European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (EIASM), Nice, France.

Moldan, B, (1997), Chapter 4: National level indicators.  In B. Moldan, S. Billharz, & R. Matravers (Eds), Sustainability indicators: Report of the project on indicators of sustainable development (SCOPE58). Chichester and New York: John Wiley.  Retrieved August 2007, from Scientific Committee on Problems of Environment (SCOPE) WEBSITE: http://www.icsuscope. Org/ downoadpubs/ scope58/ch04-introd.htm.

Monssen, M, (2005), Environmental innovations in the chemical industry- case studies in a historical perspective, Indicator Systems for Sustainable Innovation, 125-141.

Rooshidi, R.R.R.M; Rahman, N.A; Baki, N.Z.U; Abdol Majid, M.Z.A and Ismail, F. (2014), An evaluation of sustainable design and construction criteria for green highway, Procedia Environmental Sciences, 20, 180 – 186.

Ilori, M.O; Nassar, M. L; Okolofo, J. O; Akarakiri, J. B and Oyebisi, T.O. (2003), An evaluation of business performance and technology development in the pre- and post-privatisation period of a public company in Nigeria, Technovation 23(2), 175-182.

Limaa, J. P; Lima, R. D. S; Rodrigues da Silva, A. N. (2014), Evaluation and selection of alternatives for the promotion of sustainable urban mobility, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 162, 408 – 418.

Pinter, L., Hardi, P., &Bartelmus, P. (2005). Sustainable development indicators: Proposals for the way forward.  IISD publisher.

Quivy, R., & Campenhoudt, L. (2005), Manuel de recherché en sciences socials, Abdolhoosein nikgohar, totia, Tehran, 2 , 57- 115.

Swanson, D., Pinter, L., Bregha, F., Volkery, A., & Jacob, K. (2004). National strategies for sustainable development: Challenges, approaches and innovations in strategic and co-ordinated action.  Retrieved August 2007, from IISD website: http:// www.iisd.org/ pdf/ 2004/ measure- nat- strategies- sd. Pdf.

Tochea, L; Arellano,L and Munoz, G. (2014),  Evaluation of profile of sustainable transport specialist in Mexico, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 160, 494 – 498.

Willians, D. W. (2004). Evolution of performance measurement until 1930. Administration & Society, 36(2) , 131-165.

Williams, D.W. (2002).  Before performance measurement.  Administrative Theory and Praxis, 24(3), 457-486.

Williams, D.W. (2004). Evolution of performance measurement until 1930. Administration and Society. 36(2), 131 – 165,

Zahedi,Sh, ,(2013),  sustainable development,Samt,1,79-92.

Zhang, L. (2004). Review of new public management: Theory and reflection.  Administrative Tribune, General No. 65, 87-89.