Article

Avaliação de desempenho individual na administração pública federal: aspectos intervenientes no processo e nos resultados (Federal civil servants' individual performance eva luation: aspects intervening in the process and in the results)

ABSTRACT A pesquisa investigou aspectos intervenientes que i nfluenciam o processo e os resultados de sistemas de avaliação de desempenho individual util izados em duas organizações da administração pública federal. A revisão da literat ura e a análise de conteúdo de 15 entrevistas semi-estruturadas permitiram identifica r, de forma preliminar, os aspectos em estudo e estruturar um questionário, respondido por 523 servidores, em uma segunda etapa da pesquisa. A análise fatorial exploratória identi ficou quatro componentes que influenciam os sistemas de avaliação: características do sistem a; atuação de gerentes; impacto da avaliação sobre o indivíduo; e cultura. A regressão múltipla linear permitiu verificar que os aspectos culturais e os relativos à atuação de gere ntes são os que mais influenciam os processos e resultados dos sistemas de avaliação de desempenho e a percepção a respeito da avaliação difere de acordo com características func ionais e demográficas dos servidores. Palavras-chaves : Avaliação de desempenho; Administração pública; Remuneração por desempenho.

Full-text

Available from: Paulo Godoy, May 22, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
84 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this study, the authors attempted to comprehensively examine the measurement of performance appraisal reactions. They first investigated how well the reaction scales, representative of those used in the field, measured their substantive constructs. A confirmatory factor analysis indicated that these scales did a favorable job of measuring appraisal reactions, with a few concerns. The authors also found that the data fit a higher order appraisal reactions model. In contrast, a nested model where the reaction constructs were operationalized as one general factor did not adequately fit the data. Finally, the authors tested the notion that self-report data are affectively driven for the specific case of appraisal reactions, using the techniques delineated by L. J. Williams, M. B. Gavin, and M. L. Williams (1996). Results indicated that neither positive nor negative affect presented method biases in the reaction measures, at either the measurement or construct levels.
    Journal of Applied Psychology 11/2000; 85(5):708-23. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.708 · 4.31 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study addresses demographic differences between employees and their managers with regard to perceptions of performance appraisals, in general, and negative feedback, in particular. A sample of non-supervisory employees (n = 197) was surveyed from an organization whose members represent over 120 nationalities. We hypothesized from status characteristics theory (Ridgeway, 1991; Ridgeway & Balkwell, 1997; Webster & Hysom, 1998) that employees would react more favorably to performance evaluations from "high status" management groups, including males, Whites, and native English-speakers. Results indicate this is accurate regarding males and White managers. We further hypothesized from a relational demography perspective (Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989) that employees who share salient demographic characteristics with their managers would respond more favorably to performance evaluations from these individuals. This was partially supported for gender, in that males responded more positively to male managers following feedback. However, results show that race similarity had a significant, but opposite effect than predicted with regard to reactions to negative feedback. "Social identity threat," especially among minority employees, is offered as a possible explanation for the finding that employees react more unfavorably to negative feedback from same-race managers. Implications and future research are proposed.
    SSRN Electronic Journal 03/2002; DOI:10.2139/ssrn.304970
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Performance measurement is not an end in itself. So why should public managers measure performance? Because they may find such measures helpful in achieving eight specific managerial purposes. As part of their overall management strategy, public managers can use performance measures to evaluate, control, budget, motivate, promote, celebrate, learn, and improve. Unfortunately, no single performance measure is appropriate for all eight purposes. Consequently, public managers should not seek the one magic performance measure. Instead, they need to think seriously about the managerial purposes to which performance measurement might contribute and how they might deploy these measures. Only then can they select measures with the characteristics necessary to help achieve each purpose. Without at least a tentative theory about how performance measures can be employed to foster improvement (which is the core purpose behind the other seven), public managers will be unable to decide what should be measured.
    Public Administration Review 08/2003; 63(5):586 - 606. DOI:10.1111/1540-6210.00322 · 0.84 Impact Factor