Journal of Management Development

The emerging measure of effectiveness for human resource management: An

exploratory study with performance appraisal
Shamima Ahmed
Article information:
To cite this document:
Shamima Ahmed, (1999),"The emerging measure of effectiveness for human resource management",
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 18 Iss 6 pp. 543 - 556
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 01:34 24 February 2016 (PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621719910279644
Downloaded on: 24 February 2016, At: 01:34 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 17 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4760 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Peter Prowse, Julie Prowse, (2009),"The dilemma of performance appraisal", Measuring Business
Excellence, Vol. 13 Iss 4 pp. 69-77 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13683040911006800
Deborah F. Boice, Brian H. Kleiner, (1997),"Designing effective performance appraisal systems", Work
Study, Vol. 46 Iss 6 pp. 197-201 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00438029710367622
Joseph F. Hair, Arthur H. Money, Philip Samouel, Mike Page, (2007),"Research Methods for
Business20072Research Methods for Business. New York, NY: Wiley 2007. , ISBN: 0 470 03404 0",
Education + Training, Vol. 49 Iss 4 pp. 336-337 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/et.2007.49.4.336.2

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:368933 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 01:34 24 February 2016 (PT)
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com

The emerging measure of The emerging

measure of
effectiveness for human effectiveness

resource management
543
An exploratory study with performance
appraisal
Shamima Ahmed,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 01:34 24 February 2016 (PT)

Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science,

Northern Kentucky University, USA
Keywords Human resource management, Effectiveness, Performance appraisal
Abstract This paper describes and explores an emerging integrated measure of effectiveness
for human resource management functions. The emerging measure basically incorporates both
the mission support and employee support goals as two criteria of effectiveness. The paper next
analyzes the measures of effectiveness that an agency uses for its performance appraisal function.
A questionnaire was sent to 298 members of the professional staff of a large state agency in the
mid-west. The objectives were to assess the need and feasibility for the application of this
emerging measure of effectiveness. The study found that even though performance appraisal was
widely practiced as a mission support function, there was strong support for the use of this
integrated measure of effectiveness. The paper concludes with offering a design for a
management development workshop session which focuses on developing a complementary
relationship among different personnel functions.

Introduction
Human resource management encompasses a variety of functions designed to
manage, support and develop employees working in organizations. Assessing
the effectiveness of human resource management is as much and may be more
complex than assessing any other organizational activity. The assessment of
any organizational activity, in general, is a complex process because there is
little agreement on the definition of ``effectiveness'' and its measurement ± a
situation attributed to the inherently subjective nature of any definition of the
term. The assessment of human resource management may be a more complex
process because its management, support, and development goals may be
inconsistent or in contradiction with one another.
A variety of measures of organizational effectiveness exist in the relevant
literature and in practice. However, a major limitation of the existing measures
is that they do not provide an integrative framework to assess the effectiveness
of the different human resource management functions. This paper first
describes and explores an emerging measure of effectiveness for human
resource management functions. This measure basically integrates the mission The Journal of Management
support and employee support goals of human resource management. Next, it Development, Vol. 18 No. 6, 1999,
pp. 543-556. # MCB University
reports the findings of a study done on the measures of effectiveness that a Press, 0262-1711
 Journal of state agency in Virginia, USA, uses to assess its performance appraisal
Management function ± a major human resource management function. The objectives of the
Development study are to assess the need and feasibility for this emerging measure of
effectiveness to be put into practice.
18,6
Current measures of effectiveness
544 The search for measures/criteria of organizational effectiveness has been a
central concern for both practitioners and researchers of organizational studies.
For practitioners, it is a practical necessity; for researchers it is a common
dependent variable in organizational studies. A proliferation of literature on
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 01:34 24 February 2016 (PT)

models/approaches of effectiveness reflects this concern. The widely studied

and practiced models include the goal model, the system model, the internal
process model, the human relations approach and the political approach. The
earliest and still the dominant one is the goal model of effectiveness, which sees
organizations as purposeful and coordinated agents (Georgopoulos and
Tannenbaum, 1971). Effectiveness here is measured in terms of an
organization's achievements of its stated official goals. The focus on goal
achievement has been widely criticized as goals are oftentimes unclear,
incompatible, and changing (Etzioni, 1960; Hannan and Freeman, 1977; Scott,
1977). However, goal-based approaches remain the most widely used
approaches. ``Their dominance is particularly pronounced in the public sector,
where they have the least validity'' (Heffron, 1989, p. 327).
The system model views organizations as open systems, which work in
close relationship with the environment. Here effectiveness is measured in
terms of an organization's ability to survive, adapt, and to secure the needed
resources from the environment (Katz and Kahn, 1978; Yuchtman and
Seashore, 1967). This approach has been criticized for placing too much
emphasis on the non-rational aspects of organizations (Gouldner, 1971; Scott,
1992). The internal process approach focuses on the internal functions of the
organization. ``The good organization is one whose internal operations are
characterized by smoothness, minimal conflict, orderliness, continuity, and
predictability'' (Heffron, 1989, p.337). Stability and efficiency remain two of the
criteria of such effectiveness.
The human relations approach focuses on the people and upholds the
satisfaction of employees' needs as the most important end (Argyris, 1964) or at
the minimal one of the most important ends of the organization. Under this
perspective, the effective organization is one that provides opportunities for the
fullest development of the capabilities of its human resources. The political
approach, as applied to the non-profit sector, uses criteria like responsiveness,
accountability, representativeness, and adherence to democratic values ± all
very difficult to conceptualize and measure (Heffron, 1989).
Additional new models are proposed and developed. These include the
multiple constituency model (Connally et al., 1980), the interpretation systems
model (Weick and Daft, 1983) and the contradiction model (Hall, 1996). The
constituency model measures effectiveness in terms of how well it satisfies the
 interests of the multiple constituencies (especially the dominant coalition) The emerging
associated with it. However, such expectations are not easy to know since they measure of
are not always clearly articulated, at times we may see conflicting expectations effectiveness
too. The contradiction model, by Hall (1996), recognizes that organizations have
multiple and conflicting goals, constituencies, time frames, and environmental
constraints. The interpretation system model basically emphasizes the
participants' and stakeholders' interpretation of the effectiveness of an agency 545
or its functions.
It appears, therefore, that the proliferation of literature on the matter has not
made the study of the concept of organizational effectiveness any simpler or
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 01:34 24 February 2016 (PT)

easier.

The emerging measure of organizational effectiveness

A description and the logic
One observation can be made on the state of the research on organizational
effectiveness: technically, all the above approaches of assessment are goal
based ± the differences lie in terms of the definitions and criteria. Such
differences emanate from researchers' and practitioners' deeply held
assumptions and values regarding the rationale and ethics of the existence and
functioning of work-organizations.
Nowhere have the differences created so much debate as in the human
resource management area. Specifically the debate centers on the purported
goals of human resource management functions. Some believe that human
resource management should predominantly serve the role of a business
partner; meaning that its different functions should aim to provide support to
organizational mission achievement. One can term this as the mission support
goals of human resource management. Others hold a contrasting view: human
resource management should predominantly serve the role of an employee
advocate thereby promoting and supporting employees' goals and needs
achievement. One can term this as the employee support goals of human
resource management. The former view is shaped by the traditional
organizational theorists' (e.g. Taylor, Weber) assumptions and prescriptions
regarding the role of work organizations where employees are considered as
passive tools or instruments. The contrasting employee advocate view, on the
other hand, is shaped by the human relations approach and the recent human
resource approach which strongly emphasize the role and responsibility of
organizations in providing opportunities for the fullest development of the
capabilities of their human resources Shafritz and Ott (1996, p. 150) state:
Human resource theory draws on a body of research and theory built around the following
assumptions:
(1) organizations exist to serve human needs (rather than the reverse);
(2) organizations and people need each other (organizations need ideas, energy, and talent;
people need careers, salaries, and work opportunities);
 Journal of (3) when the fit between the individual and the organization is poor, one or both will suffer:
individuals will be exploited, or will seek to exploit the organizations, or both;
Management
Development (4) a good fit between individual and organization benefits both: human beings find
meaningful and satisfying work, and organizations get human talent and energy that
18,6 they need.

Supporters of each view obviously criticize the other's position, thereby giving
546 an impression that the pursuit of one set of goals negates achieving the other
set. As Ellig (1997, p. 91) points out, ``The employee advocate is employee-
focused to the exclusion of business needs; the business partner is intent on
restructuring the organization leaving the employees to fend for themselves.''
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 01:34 24 February 2016 (PT)

``In each case, the reasoning results in proposing a single ideal model valid for
all organizations. It is the `one best way' conviction'' (Brassard, 1993, p. 152). As
a result, we still lack an integrated approach in terms of the goals to be pursued
and hence the measures to be used for assessing the effectiveness of human
resource management.
However, as Ellig (1997, p. 91) argues, ``To be optimally effective, the human
resource function must be both an employee advocate and a business partner.''
Such arguments basically indicate the emergence, at least in theory and
conceptualization, of a measure of effectiveness for human resource
management functions that include both the mission support goals and the
employee support goals as two criteria of assessment. In application, this
emerging measure would essentially include an evaluation of the effectiveness
of a human resource management function in terms of two different goals/
criteria:
(1) mission support goal: the function's contribution/support to
organizational mission accomplishment; and
(2) employee support goal: the function's contribution/support to providing
opportunities for the development of the potentialities/or need
satisfaction of employees.
In effect, this emerging measure contains the potentiality of providing an
integrated approach of looking into different human resource management
functions as promoting both the mission support goals and also the employee
support goals of an organization.
The next obvious question is: can this measure work as a realistic/practical
one? The answer is yes, due to the fact that most, if not all, human resource
functions can be developed to incorporate both these goals. This basically
entails a conceptualization of a human resource function as making some
contribution to both the employee support goal and the mission support goal of
an organization. Such contributions/goals can be secured in the targeted goals
of a function/or in the processes through which the function is carried out. As
an example, let us look into an organization's employee assistance program
(EAP). The common impression regarding EAP is that it is essentially an
employee support function providing assistance and counseling to employees.
 Such an impression does not allow one to look into its contribution to The emerging
organizational mission accomplishment. EAP can be, in fact should be, viewed measure of
as not only providing support to employees but also as a function which effectiveness
provides healthy (psychologically speaking) productive employees to an
organization ± an important factor in achieving any organization's mission.
Hence, both criteria can be, in fact should be, incorporated in any measurement
of EAP's effectiveness. Let us take another function understood as an 547
essentially mission support function ± performance appraisal. Still now most
organizations view this function with the traditional goals of rewarding,
disciplining, and identifying training needs ± all directly related to supporting
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 01:34 24 February 2016 (PT)

organizational mission accomplishment. However, recent research and

viewpoints are strongly endorsing performance appraisal as not only a mission
support function but also as an employee support function whereby
performance appraisal's goals include coaching/counseling, communicating
employees and organizational expectations to each other, motivating
employees along with the traditional goals.
Such a conceptualization of different human resource functions establishes a
complementary relationship among the functions and not a rivalry relationship
as currently exists in most organizations. In practice most human resource
functions, especially those predominantly assumed as mission supportive and
those predominantly assumed as employee supportive, are rarely approached
as complementary. Rather they are conceived either in isolation or in
competition and given financial constraints ± a matter of tradeoff where
employee support functions remain consistently under-emphasized.

Assessing the feasibility and need for the emerging measure of

effectiveness
Description of the study
A study was conducted with the following three objectives:
(1) To assess the feasibility of the emerging measure of effectiveness for
human resource management. Feasibility here is measured in terms of:
. Whether practitioners are aware of the relationship among and
between the different human resource functions as defined in this
emerging measure. The relationship that this measure upholds is
basically to view and practice different human resource management
functions as being both mission supportive and employee supportive;
and
. Whether this complementary relationship is reflected in the practice
of this agency's performance appraisal function.
(2) To gather information and analyze the measures of effectiveness that a
government agency (state level) uses to assess its performance appraisal
function.
 Journal of (3) To assess the opportunities/or need for the above-explained emerging
Management measure of effectiveness to be used in the assessment of this agency's
Development performance appraisal function.
18,6 A survey instrument was mailed to 298 members of the professional staff of a
large state agency (a multi-purpose service agency) located in Virginia, USA.
This agency was chosen because its human resource managers reported that
548 the agency
. has a well-established performance appraisal system; and
. occasionally assesses the effectiveness of its performance appraisal
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 01:34 24 February 2016 (PT)

function.
These two criteria were initially set for choosing an agency for this study. Also,
no less important, this agency was interested in the study and agreed to
participate in the survey. A total of 150 completed questionnaires were
returned. The return rate was 50.34 per cent. A total of 20 per cent of the
respondents were females.

Data analysis
The response data are analyzed in the following three sections.

Section I
In order to assess the level of awareness among managers and subordinates
regarding the relationship among the different human resource management
functions, respondents are given a list of some common human resource
management functions and are asked to categorize each function in terms of
whether the function is predominantly a mission support function (MSF), or
predominantly an employee support function (ESF), or both a mission support
and an employee support function (MS and ESF). The participants' responses
are presented in the following table (Table I).
Analysis. As the above table shows, majority of the respondents categorizes
six of the listed human resource management functions as both mission
support and employee support functions (MS and ESF). Notable exception to

Functions MSF ESF MS and ESF Not sure

Performance appraisal 52 (34.7) 98 (65.3)

Employee assistance program 70 (47.0) 70 (47.0) 10 (6.0)
Training and staff development 15 (10.0) 23 (15.3) 107 (71.3) 5 (3.3)
Recruitment 102 (68.0) 48 (32.0)
Human resource planning 70 (46.7) 74 (49.3) 6 (4.0)
Grievance management 10 (6.0) 55 (37.0) 85 (57.0)
Table I. EEO/affirmative action 20 (13.0) 11 (7.3) 114 (76.0) 5 (3.0)
Respondents' Employee recognition program 5 (3.3) 51 (34.0) 94 (62.7)
categorization of Benefits administration 9 (6.0) 51 (34.0) 90 (60.0)
different human
resource functions Note: Figures in parentheses denote percentages
 this is recruitment. Recruitment is considered a predominantly mission support The emerging
function. In case of performance appraisal, 65.3 per cent of the respondents measure of
think that it is both a mission support and an employee support function. An effectiveness
equal number of respondents (47 per cent) chose employee assistance program
as an employee support function (ESF) and as both a mission support and an
employee supportive function (MS and ESF). These are interesting findings as
they go against the commonly assumed goals of these functions. As for 549
example, performance appraisal is usually looked at as a mission support
function; employee assistance program is usually looked at as an employee
support function.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 01:34 24 February 2016 (PT)

Participants are next asked to focus on their own agency and to prepare lists
of:
. one to five important functions of their agency which they think are
practiced as mission support functions; and
. another one to five important functions of their agency which they think
are practiced as employee support functions.
A note was included in this section of the questionnaire which stated that if
applicable participants could put the same function/s in both lists. The
questionnaire defined mission support functions as those that promoted and
supported their agency's mission accomplishment. In a similar way, employee
support functions are defined as those that promoted and supported employees'
goals and needs achievement. These two questions are considered as indirect
questions for the study. The objective was to see whether respondents' listing
of their agency's mission support and employee support functions show
consistencies/or resembles with those in Table I. Very different responses are
found on the two lists as shown in Table II and Table III.
Analysis. As we compare the response patterns in Tables II and III, we find a
very different response pattern that does not support the responses in Table I.

Functions No. of respondents Percentage

Hiring/recruitment/attend job fair 90 60.0

Training 63 42.0
Compensation/employee recognition 57 38.0
Performance appraisal 65 43.3
Human resource planning 20 13.3
Retention efforts/building commitment 20 13.3
Employee orientation 13 8.7
Meetings 39 26.0
Strategic planning/mission statement 41 27.3
Reclassification 27 18.0 Table II.
Employee suggestion program 5 3.3 Respondents' listing of
Grievance management 10 6.7 their agency's mission
Employee assistance program 10 6.7 support functions
 Journal of As for example, Table I shows that 65.3 per cent of the respondents views
Management performance appraisal as both a mission support and an employee support
Development function (MS and ESF). However, as we look into Table III, only 8.7 per cent of
the respondents reports performance appraisal as an employee support
18,6
function of their agency; whereas 43.3 per cent (in Table II) of the respondents
lists it as a mission support function. These responses are inconsistent with the
550 findings in Table I on performance appraisal. Similar inconsistencies are found
in other functions including employee assistance program. On performance
appraisal, one sees a major discrepancy between these staff members'
conceptualization of the goals of performance appraisal and its practice within
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 01:34 24 February 2016 (PT)

their agency.
The last question in this section of the survey asks the respondents to
describe the goals/objectives of their agency's performance appraisal function.
This is an open-ended question and the different answers are categorized into a
list of six broad items as shown in Table IV.
Analysis. According to Table IV, respondents preponderantly refer to
different mission support goals (namely salary and promotion decision,
communication of performance expectations, assessing employees'
competencies) as the goals/objectives of performance appraisal in their agency.
Providing constructive criticism, career planning, improving superior
subordinate relationship ± all promoting employee support goals ± are
mentioned by only a few respondents. This is also inconsistent with the

Functions No. of respondents Percentage

Compensation/benefits administration 87 58.0

Employee recognition program 41 27.3
Grievance management/assistance 25 16.7
Training/education 67 43.3
Employee assistance program 37 24.7
Communication organizational expectations 25 16.7
Table III. Employee health and safety 22 14.7
Respondents' listing of Employee suggestion program 23 8.7
their agency's Performance appraisal 13 8.7
employee support Career development/mentoring 25 16.7
functions Recruitment/retention efforts 29 19.3

Goals/objectives of performance appraisal No. of respondents Percentage

Promotion and salary decisions 92 61.3

Table IV. Communication of performance expectations 43 28.7
Respondents' Assessing employees' competency 25 16.7
description of the goals Constructive feedback to improve performance 11 7.3
of performance Career planning 15 10.0
appraisal Improving supervisor-subordinate relationship 10 7.0
 response pattern in Table I on the function of performance appraisal. This The emerging
basically indicates that in this agency performance appraisal is mostly measure of
practiced as a mission support function. effectiveness
Section II
Section II of the questionnaire focuses on this agency's assessment of the
effectiveness of its performance appraisal function. Respondents are first asked 551
as to whether their agency assesses, at least occasionally, the effectiveness of
its performance appraisal function; those who said ``yes'' are next asked to list
the criteria they believe their agency uses for assessing its performance
appraisal function.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 01:34 24 February 2016 (PT)

Analysis. As Table V shows, 60 per cent of the respondents report that their
agency does not assess the effectiveness of its performance appraisal function.
Such a wide-scale perception contrasts with the views of the agency's human
resource officers who, during the telephone interview with this author, said that
this agency does assess its performance appraisal function. This may be an
indication that a majority of the employees who participated in the survey are
unaware of any such assessment.
Those who responded ``yes'' to the above question listed the following
criteria (Table VI) of effectiveness that they believe their agency uses for its
performance appraisal function.
Analysis. As the table shows, almost all of the criteria either focus on the
technical part (e.g. rater bias, documentation, criteria used) or the support they
lend to mission accomplishment (e.g. competency assessment, success with
agency performance criteria). Only one criterion (i.e. valuable feedback to
employees) focuses on promoting employee support goals.

Section III
The last section of the questionnaire has two items. All respondents are first
asked to offer their suggestions regarding criteria that an agency can use to
assess its performance appraisal function. Their suggestions of criteria are
listed below in Table VII.
Analysis. Here we see a few more criteria that are related to employee
support goals. Impact on employee motivation, employees' satisfaction with the
system, employees' perception regarding fairness/objectivity, providing
adequate/valuable feedback ± all these criteria promote the employee support
goals of performance appraisal.
The last item seeks respondents' degree of agreement or disagreement with
the following statement: ``Performance appraisal can be developed to

Not Table V.
Function Yes % No % sure % Performance appraisal
function: is there any
Performance appraisal 44 29.3 90 60 16 10.7 assessment?
 Journal of Criteria used for assessing effectiveness No. of respondents Percentage
Management
Development Forms completion within the time period 15 34.1
18,6 Controlling raters bias/inflation 19 42.2
Employees' competency assessment 33 75.0
Criteria used as acceptable performance level 20 45.5
552 Agency's policy compliance 15 34.1
Consistency among supervisors 9 20.5
Table VI. Valuable feedback to the employees 11 25.0
Criteria of effectiveness Overall agency's performance 21 47.7
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 01:34 24 February 2016 (PT)

that the agency uses Adequate documentation of employees' performance 25 56.8

Criteria than can be used for effectiveness No. of respondents Percentage

Criteria to support organizational objectives 19 12.7

Overall agency's performance 13 8.7
Provide adequate/valuable feedback to employees 12 15.3
Management's satisfaction with the process 7 5.3
Employees' perception regarding fairness/objectivity 12 8.0
Table VII. Divisional goal achievement 9 6.0
Respondents' Audits by HR staff 11 7.3
suggestions for Reliability 9 6.0
measuring effectiveness Impact on employees' motivation 10 6.7
of performance Employees' satisfaction with the system 11 7.3
appraisal Legally defensible system 8 5.3

accommodate both the mission support goals and employee support goals of
human resource management.'' This is used for further assessing the feasibility
for practicing the new measure of effectiveness. The statement and the
respondents' views are listed in Table VIII.
Analysis. The above table shows that there is a strong belief that
performance appraisal can be designed to accommodate both the mission and
the employee support goals of an organization. Of the respondents, 62.7 per
cent chose either ``strongly agree'' or ``agree'' to the above statement;
interestingly 24 per cent chose ``not sure''.

Performance appraisal can be developed to

accommodate both MSF and ESF's goals No. of respondents Percentage

Strongly agree 75 50.0

Agree 19 12.7
Table VIII. Strongly disagree 20 13.3
Respondents' views Not sure 36 24.0
 Analysis of the findings The emerging
The above discussion of the findings of the study shows some interesting measure of
patterns of responses, which shed several important insights: effectiveness
(1) While the majority (in most cases a significant majority) of the
respondents categorized most of the listed human resource functions as
both mission support and employee support functions (MS and ESF),
most of their responses regarding their agency's practice on related 553
items do not lend consistency to such a categorization. As for example,
65.3 per cent of the respondents viewed performance appraisal as
promoting both the mission and employee support goals. However,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 01:34 24 February 2016 (PT)

when participants are asked to focus on their agency and to list

separately the different mission support and the different employee
support functions of their agency, only 8.7 per cent of respondents listed
performance appraisal as an employee support function; whereas 43.3
per cent reported it as a mission support function. We find the same
inconsistencies in other functions including employee assistance
program.
(2) Respondents' descriptions of the goals of performance appraisal
however show consistencies with their lists of this agency's different
mission support and employee support functions. The goals of
performance appraisal as described by respondents predominantly
relate to organizational mission accomplishment.
How can we interpret or how do we interpret the above
inconsistencies in the response patterns? It appears that there is a gap in
the way these functions are actually practiced and the goals they are
geared to (as reflected in Tables II and III) with participants' opinions
regarding their goals (Table I). Going back to our first objective as to
whether practitioners are aware of the connection/or relationship among
different human resource functions, the above findings suggest that our
respondents are aware/conscious of such a relationship even though it is
not being implemented in practice in their agency.
(3) Almost all the criteria that this agency uses to assess the effectiveness of
performance appraisal, as listed by the respondents, relate to providing
support to organizational mission achievement. When participants'
opinions are sought on criteria that could be used to measure such
effectiveness, the situation looks more optimistic. Many listed criteria
that actually are the employee support goals of performance appraisal.
As we relate these findings to our second objective of analyzing the
measures of effectiveness that this agency uses to assess its
performance appraisal function we find a preponderant use of mission
support criteria as measures.
(4) Response patterns on the last statement in Section III that seeks
respondents' opinion on the feasibility of designing performance
appraisal function to accommodate both mission support and employee
 Journal of support goals shows wide-scale support (as expected). This finding
Management resembles the same pattern of responses that we received on our very
Development first question as shown in Table I, which shows that 65.3 per cent of the
respondents listed performance appraisal as both a mission support and
18,6 an employee support function.

554 Implications and a framework for management development

The above findings basically indicate that practitioners, at least in this agency,
are aware of the possibilities of the integration of both mission and employee
support goals in the conceptualization of the different personnel functions. The
findings that such conceptualizations are not being practiced in their agency
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 01:34 24 February 2016 (PT)

essentially boils down to the importance of supportive leadership and effective

management development programs. Obviously, leaders have to be willing to
create opportunities for managers to design and implement new forms for the
different human resource management functions. Top level support and
commitment are basic requirements for any type of organizational changes. As
Newstrom and Davis, among several others, say that ``leadership is ... the
catalyst that transforms potential into reality'' (1993, p. 222).
Another supportive mechanism is to design workshops or training sessions
focusing on the above matter. Specifically speaking, workshops can be
designed with the objective of raising participants' awareness of the
possibilities for the integration of mission support and employee support goals
in the various functions of human resource management. Below, is an outline of
a framework (Table IX) that organizational consultants or trainers can use for
such purposes.

Outline of a workshop
Step one. At this stage the consultant or the trainer will use the chart (Table IX)
and put it on the board. The first column in the Table lists some of the major
functions of human resource management. (The other option would be for the
trainer to hold a brainstorming session identifying the major functions of
human resource management.)

Employee Both mission and

HRM functions Mission support support employee support

Recruitment
Training
Appraisal
Grievance process
Table IX. Compensation and benefits admin.
A framework for EEO/affirmative action
analyzing human EAP
resource management Human resource planning
(HRM) functions Career planning
 Step two. The trainer will ask the participants to put a check mark against The emerging
functions they believe/or perceive to be the mission support or the employee measure of
support functions of human resource management. The last column asks effectiveness
participants to identify functions which they believe/perceive to promote
simultaneously the mission and employee support goals of human resource
management.
Step three. In this stage, participants will be asked to provide the logic/ 555
rationale behind their categorization of the different human resource
management functions.
Step four. In this final phase, the trainer will initiate a brainstorming session
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 01:34 24 February 2016 (PT)

to identify existing and possible processes, activities, policies, and goals for
each of these functions that could provide support to both the mission and
employee support goals of human resource management. In this phase,
participants will also be asked to identify actual or potential problems in the
effort to redesign human resource functions with such integrated goals.

Conclusion
This paper first explains and explores the emerging measure of effectiveness
for different human resource management functions. The emerging measure
basically incorporates both the mission support and employee support goals of
human resource management as two criteria of effectiveness. Essentially this
measure would assess a human resource management function on two different
criteria: its contribution to organizational mission accomplishment, and its
contribution in promoting and achieving employee support goals of an
organization.
The paper next analyzes the measures of effectiveness that a state agency
uses for its performance appraisal function. The objectives of the study are to
assess the need and feasibility for the practical application of the emerging
measure. The study found that even though performance appraisal was widely
practiced as a mission support function, there was strong support (in the form
of opinions) for the use of the emerging measure of effectiveness. Even though
this study uses performance appraisal as an illustration, other findings of the
study strongly indicate the feasibility for this emerging measure of
effectiveness for other human resource management functions too. The paper
concludes with offering a framework that can be used in a workshop on
management development.

References
Argyris, C. (1964), Integrating the Individual and the Organization, Wiley, New York, NY.
Brassard, A. (1993), ``Conceptions of organizational effectiveness revisited'', The Alberta Journal
of Educational Research, Vol. XXXIX No. 1, pp. 143-62.
Connally, T., Conlon, E.J. and Deutsch, S.J. (1980), ``Organizational effectiveness: a multiple-
constituency approach'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 211-7.
Ellig, B.R. (1997), "Is the human resource function neglecting the employees?", Human Resource
Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 91-5.
 Journal of Etzioni, A. (1960), ``Two approaches to organizational analysis: a critique and a suggestion'',
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 257-78.
Management Georgopoulos, B.S. and Tannenbaum, A.S. (1971), ``A study of organizational effectiveness'', in
Development Ghorpade, J. (Ed.), Assessment of Organizational Effectiveness: Issues, Analysis, and
18,6 Readings, Goodyear, Pacific Palisades, CA, pp. 177-88.
Gouldner, A.W. (1971), ``Organizational analysis'', in Ghorpade, J. (Ed.), Assessment of
Organizational Effectiveness: Issues, Analysis, and Readings, pp. 9-32.
556 Hall, R.H. (1996), Organizations. Structures, Processes, & Outcomes, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Hannan, M.T. and Freeman. J. (1977), ``Obstacles to comparative studies'', in Goodman, P.S. and
Pennings, J.M. (Eds), New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 01:34 24 February 2016 (PT)

Francisco, CA, pp. 106-31.

Heffron, F. (1989), Organizational Theory & Public Organizations. The Political Connection,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The Social Construction of Organizations (revised edition), John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Newstrom, J.W. and Davies, K. (1993), Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Scott, W.R. (1977), ``Effectiveness of organizational effectiveness studies'', in Goodman, P.S. and
Pennings, J.M. (Eds), New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA, pp. 63-95.
Scott, W.R. (1992), Organizations: Rational, Natural, & Open Systems, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Shafritz, J.M and Ott, J.S. (1996), Classics of Organization Theory, Hartcourt Brace & Co., Fort
Worth, TX.
Weick, K.E. and Daft, R.L. (1983), ``The effectiveness of interpretation systems'', in Cameron, K.S.
and Whetton, D.A. (Eds), Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models,
Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 71-93.
Yuchtman, E. and Seashore, S. (1967), ``A system resource approach to organizational
effectiveness'', American Sociological Review, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 891-903.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Hala F. Mansour, Geoffrey Heath, Matthew J. Brannan. 2015. Exploring the Role of HR Practitioners in
Pursuit of Organizational Effectiveness in Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Change Management
15, 210-230. [CrossRef]
2. Claire Gubbins, Thomas Garavan. 2015. Social Capital Effects on the Career and Development Outcomes
of HR Professionals. Human Resource Management n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
3. Pauline Stanton, Alan Nankervis. 2011. Linking strategic HRM, performance management and
organizational effectiveness: perceptions of managers in Singapore. Asia Pacific Business Review 17, 67-84.
[CrossRef]
4. John Simmons, Ian Lovegrove. 2005. Bridging the conceptual divide: lessons from stakeholder analysis.
Journal of Organizational Change Management 18:5, 495-513. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON At 01:34 24 February 2016 (PT)

5. John Simmons, Paul Iles, Maurice Yolles. 2005. Identifying those on board ‘the moving train’: towards
a stakeholder-focused methodology for organizational decision making. Systems Research and Behavioral
Science 22, 41-53. [CrossRef]
6. John Simmons. 2004. Managing in the post‐managerialist era. Management Decision 42:3/4, 601-611.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. John Simmons. 2003. Balancing performance, accountability and equity in stakeholder relationships:
towards more socially responsible HR practice. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management 10:10.1002/csr.v10:3, 129-140. [CrossRef]