Journal of Human Resource Management Future Studies
Volume 1, Issue 1 (6-2026)
Journal of human resource management future studies 2026, 1(1): 107-124 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Pouresmaili H, Pourmousa R. An Integrated Model of Weighted Composite Index and Stochastic Frontier Analysis for Performance Evaluation and Reward Allocation. Journal of human resource management future studies 2026; 1 (1) :107-124
URL: http://jhrmfs.khu.ac.ir/article-1-163-en.html
URL: http://jhrmfs.khu.ac.ir/article-1-163-en.html
Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman
Abstract: (30 Views)
Background and Objective: Performance evaluation and reward allocation in human resource management often rely on subjective judgment. This study examines a combination of two approaches, a weighted composite index (performance index, PI) and stochastic frontier analysis (SFA), for assessing employee performance and efficiency.
Methodology: A mixed-method design was applied in a private mining company in Kerman province. All 43 administrative employees participated (census sampling). The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) assigned weights to seven performance indicators. SFA analyzed input-output data (working hours, task complexity, support assistance, work experience). The PI combined accuracy, speed, quality, satisfaction, delay, collaboration, and error. Bootstrap with 1000 repetitions examined model stability.
Findings: With α = 0/5, final scores ranged from 0/54 to 0/92. A one-sided LR test rejected the no-inefficiency hypothesis (LR = 24/6, p-value < 0/001). Bootstrap 95% confidence intervals remained within ±0.02 of point estimates. The exponential distribution for the inefficiency component showed a better fit than the half-normal distribution (AIC: 45/2 vs. 48/7).
Conclusion: The PI-SFA model provided rankings of 43 employees by performance and efficiency. These results are specific to one company. Application to other organizations would require separate investigation.
Methodology: A mixed-method design was applied in a private mining company in Kerman province. All 43 administrative employees participated (census sampling). The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) assigned weights to seven performance indicators. SFA analyzed input-output data (working hours, task complexity, support assistance, work experience). The PI combined accuracy, speed, quality, satisfaction, delay, collaboration, and error. Bootstrap with 1000 repetitions examined model stability.
Findings: With α = 0/5, final scores ranged from 0/54 to 0/92. A one-sided LR test rejected the no-inefficiency hypothesis (LR = 24/6, p-value < 0/001). Bootstrap 95% confidence intervals remained within ±0.02 of point estimates. The exponential distribution for the inefficiency component showed a better fit than the half-normal distribution (AIC: 45/2 vs. 48/7).
Conclusion: The PI-SFA model provided rankings of 43 employees by performance and efficiency. These results are specific to one company. Application to other organizations would require separate investigation.
Keywords: Performance Evaluation, Stochastic Frontier Analysis, Reward Allocation, Weighted Performance Index, Technical Efficiency, Future Studies, Human Resources, Human Analytics.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2026/04/6 | Accepted: 2026/06/3 | Published: 2026/06/7
Received: 2026/04/6 | Accepted: 2026/06/3 | Published: 2026/06/7
References
1. رفرنس های متنی مثل خروجی کراس رف را در اینجا وارد کرده و تایید کنید
سرمد، زهره؛ بازرگان، عباس؛ و حجازی، الهه (۱۳۹۵). روشهای تحقیق در علوم رفتاری. تهران: آگاه.
هومن، حیدرعلی). ۱۳۹۵.(مدلسازی معادلات ساختاری. تهران: سمت.
2. Aguinis, H. (2019). Performance Management (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
3. Aigner, D. & Lovell, C. A. K. & Schmidt, P. (1977). Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. Journal of Econometrics, 6(1), 21-37.
4. Armstrong, M. & Baron, A. (2005). Performance management: The new realities. CIPD.
5. Battese, G. E. & Coelli, T. J. (1995). A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data. Empirical Economics, 20(2), 325-332.
6. Coelli, T. J. & Rao, D. S. P. & O'Donnell, C. J. & Battese, G. E. (2005). An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis (2nd ed.). Springer.
7. Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, 7(1), 1-26.
8. Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 120(3), 253-281.
9. Hooman, H. A. (2016). Structural Equation Modeling. Tehran: Samt Publications. (In Persian)
10. Jondrow, J., Lovell, C. A. K., Materov, I. S., & Schmidt, P. (1982). On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic frontier production function model. Journal of Econometrics, 19(2-3), 233-238.
11. Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard. Harvard Business Press.
12. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill.
13. Sarmad, Z., Bazargan, A., & Hejazi, E. (2016). Research Methods in Behavioral Sciences. Tehran: Agah Publications. (In Persian)
14. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.
15. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
16. سرمد، زهره؛ بازرگان، عباس؛ و حجازی، الهه (۱۳۹۵). روشهای تحقیق در علوم رفتاری. تهران: آگاه.
هومن، حیدرعلی). ۱۳۹۵.(مدلسازی معادلات ساختاری. تهران: سمت.
17. Aguinis, H. (2019). Performance Management (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
18. Aigner, D. & Lovell, C. A. K. & Schmidt, P. (1977). Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. Journal of Econometrics, 6(1), 21-37.
19. [5] Armstrong, M. & Baron, A. (2005). Performance management: The new realities. CIPD.
20. [6] Battese, G. E. & Coelli, T. J. (1995). A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data. Empirical Economics, 20(2), 325-332.
21. [7] Coelli, T. J. & Rao, D. S. P. & O'Donnell, C. J. & Battese, G. E. (2005). An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis (2nd ed.). Springer.
22. [8]Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, 7(1), 1-26.
23. [9] Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 120(3), 253-281.
24. [10] Hooman, H. A. (2016). Structural Equation Modeling. Tehran: Samt Publications. (In Persian)
25. [11] Jondrow, J., Lovell, C. A. K., Materov, I. S., & Schmidt, P. (1982). On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic frontier production function model. Journal of Econometrics, 19(2-3), 233-238.
26. [12] Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard. Harvard Business Press.
27. [13] Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill.
28. [14] Sarmad, Z., Bazargan, A., & Hejazi, E. (2016). Research Methods in Behavioral Sciences. Tehran: Agah Publications. (In Persian)
29. [15] Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.
30. [16] Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |