0,"> 0,">
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aic/journl/y2009v56p515-536.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A New Method Of Job Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Wiktor ADAMUS

    (Social Management and Communication Department of the Jagiellonian University, Poland)

Abstract
Job within organization can be discussed in the context of its quantity possible to do, quality re-sulting from its difficulty level and effect achieved by the employee that is effects of his work. To measure job from a quantitative point of view we use work norms as a function of time standards, pro-ducts quantity or service level. It is much more difficult to measure qualitative job parameters than measuring quantity of job and its effects. In the literature we know several methods to job evaluation. However, none of them de-termines precisely the value of individual job evaluation within organization. The paper aims to develop a new method to measure and assess qualitative parameters of job in a simple, transparent, universal and timeless way. When evaluating a given feature, factor, object, subject we weight various quality and quantity criteria relative to an accepted pattern or value in a given organization, society or culture. Weight (priorities) determined based on comparisons designate relative value of a comparative factor. Building a system of job evaluation in the organization 7. synthetic criteria were taken: kno-wledge, experience, wisdom, psychological and physical effort, intellectual effort, responsibility and cooperation. Each synthetic criterion was given a few analytical criteria, which in turn was assigned a verbal, adjective level of intensity. To solve the problem we used a multicriterial problem solution me-thod AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process). By pairwise comparison of each synthetic criteria (on a verbal scale) in relation to job quality in the Saaty’s fundamental scale we arrived a weight compari-son matrix (priorities) within the range [> 0,

Suggested Citation

  • Wiktor ADAMUS, 2009. "A New Method Of Job Evaluation," Analele Stiintifice ale Universitatii "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" din Iasi - Stiinte Economice (1954-2015), Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 56, pages 515-536, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:aic:journl:y:2009:v:56:p:515-536
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://anale.feaa.uaic.ro/anale/resurse/41_S01_Adamus.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://anale.feaa.uaic.ro/anale/en/Arhiva%202009%20Adamus/297
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erev, Ido & Cohen, Brent L., 1990. "Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-18, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wojciech Koziol & Anna Mikos, 2020. "The measurement of human capital as an alternative method of job evaluation for purposes of remuneration," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 28(2), pages 589-599, June.
    2. Hisham Alidrisi, 2021. "An Innovative Job Evaluation Approach Using the VIKOR Algorithm," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-19, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "The Effect of Numerical Statements of Risk on Trust and Comfort with Hypothetical Physician Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(3), pages 265-271, June.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:6:p:683-695 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Juanchich, Marie & Sirota, Miroslav & Butler, Christina Lea, 2012. "The perceived functions of linguistic risk quantifiers and their effect on risk, negativity perception and decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 72-81.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Hovanov, Nikolai & Yudaeva, Maria & Hovanov, Kirill, 2009. "Multicriteria estimation of probabilities on basis of expert non-numeric, non-exact and non-complete knowledge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(3), pages 857-863, June.
    6. Michael Dietrich, 2010. "Efficiency and profitability: a panel data analysis of UK manufacturing firms, 1993-2007," Working Papers 2010003, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics, revised Jan 2010.
    7. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim W. F. Passchier & Nanne N. K. De Vries, 2009. "Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 267-287, February.
    8. Jean Baratgin & Guy Politzer, 2006. "Is the mind Bayesian? The case for agnosticism," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 5(1), pages 1-38, June.
    9. de Bruin, Wandi Bruine & Fischhoff, Baruch & Millstein, Susan G. & Halpern-Felsher, Bonnie L., 2000. "Verbal and Numerical Expressions of Probability: "It's a Fifty-Fifty Chance"," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 115-131, January.
    10. Honekopp, Johannes, 2003. "Precision of probability information and prominence of outcomes: A description and evaluation of decisions under uncertainty," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 124-138, January.
    11. David R. Mandel & Daniel Irwin, 2021. "Facilitating sender-receiver agreement in communicated probabilities: Is it best to use words, numbers or both?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 363-393, March.
    12. Jessop, Alan, 2014. "IMP: A decision aid for multiattribute evaluation using imprecise weight estimates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 18-29.
    13. Bradley J. Stastny & Paul E. Lehner, 2018. "Comparative evaluation of the forecast accuracy of analysis reports and a prediction market," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(2), pages 202-211, March.
    14. Tian Zhou‐Richter & Mark J. Browne & Helmut Gründl, 2010. "Don't They Care? Or, Are They Just Unaware? Risk Perception and the Demand for Long‐Term Care Insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 77(4), pages 715-747, December.
    15. Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Survey Measurement of Probabilistic Macroeconomic Expectations: Progress and Promise," NBER Macroeconomics Annual, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 411-471.
    16. Huizingh, Eelko K. R. E. & Vrolijk, Hans C. J., 1997. "A Comparison of Verbal and Numerical Judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 237-247, June.
    17. William A. Boettcher III, 1995. "Context, Methods, Numbers, And Words," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 39(3), pages 561-583, September.
    18. Dickerson, Andy & Green, Francis, 2012. "Fears and realisations of employment insecurity," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 198-210.
    19. Vivianne H.M. Visschers, 2017. "Judgments under uncertainty: evaluations of univocal, ambiguous and conflicting probability information," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 237-255, February.
    20. Noel T. Brewer & Janice P. Tzeng & Sarah E. Lillie & Alrick S. Edwards & Jeffrey M. Peppercorn & Barbara K. Rimer, 2009. "Health Literacy and Cancer Risk Perception: Implications for Genomic Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(2), pages 157-166, March.
    21. Robert N. Collins & David R. Mandel, 2019. "Cultivating credibility with probability words and numbers," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(6), pages 683-695, November.
    22. Teigen, Karl Halvor & Brun, Wibecke, 1999. "The Directionality of Verbal Probability Expressions: Effects on Decisions, Predictions, and Probabilistic Reasoning, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 155-190, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aic:journl:y:2009:v:56:p:515-536. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sireteanu Napoleon-Alexandru (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feaicro.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.