Workplace Performance: A Comparison of Subjective and Objective Measures in the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey
By J. Forth, R. Mcnabb. 2008
115 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: General Health Professions, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Public Administration
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/299bfc883728045c9efdf60ed2f6f7f6529b7bc8
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In General Health Professions
In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
In Public Administration
Citations in the corpus
- Perceived Labor Productivity in Small Firms—The Effects of High–Performance Work Systems and Group Culture through Employee Retention (2012, background): “Third, in an extensive survey Forth and McNabb (2008) found correlations between various subjective and objective measures of productivity in HR contexts to be between 0.38 and 0.65, with most correlation coefficients larger than 0.5, and all of them statistically significant.”
- Employee Trust and Workplace Performance (2014, background): “…relatively consistent across 2011 and 2004, also suggest that bias exists towards responding in the average and above categories.5 It may be the case that the three workplace performance variables are subject to measurement error (see Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2001, and Forth and McNabb, 2008).”
- The impact of HR practices, HR effectiveness and a ‘strong HR system’ on organisational outcomes: a stakeholder perspective (2011, result): “Forth and McNabb (2008), based on careful analysis of a large sample of workplaces, offered qualified support for the view that ‘both types of performance measure produce similar results when used in structural models of the determinants of workplace performance’ (p. 119).”
- Does employees’ subjective well-being affect workplace performance? (2017, result): “Third, earlier studies have validated the subjective performance measures, confirming that they are predictive of subsequent workplace closure, for example, and are associated with other workplace features in the way theory might predict (Forth and McNabb, 2008; Machin and Stewart, 1990, 1996).”
- Human resource practices, employee attitudes and small firm performance (2017, background): “Comparing the subjective and objective measures of firm performance in the WERS2004, Forth and McNabb (2008) find strong correlations between the measures, suggesting subjective measures of financial performance and labour productivity can be considered as appropriate alternatives to objective measu”