Abstract
Identifying the effective factors on human resources effectiveness can help management and leadership to obtain success, organization goals and fulfillment of high effectiveness and efficiency. Thus, they always have to survey the effective factors on effectiveness of these valuable and transformational resources. Effective factors on employee effectiveness have different aspects and varieties. For instance, Hay Group® model which is in order to compare organizations based on employee effectiveness. The model includes different factors located in two groups of ENGAGEMENT and ENABLEMENT. The main purpose of this study is to assess and prioritize effective factors on employee effectiveness in Tehran Industrial Parks. Furthermore, it is required to be surveyed and determined according to organizational properties and content dimensions of under study organization, and use of latent knowledge amongst organization experts (senior managers). This cross-sectional and descriptive- analytical research was performed in 2017. So, it is trying to achieve the purposes of study through interview, Delphi method, Multiple Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP).
Keywords: Human Resources Management, Hay Group®, Effectiveness, Engagement, Enablement
Specifications Table
| Subject area | Human Resources Management |
| More specific subject area | Hay Group® model of Effectiveness, Iran Small Industries and Industrial Parks, Tehran Industrial Parks |
| Type of data | Tables, Diagram |
| How data was acquired | This cross-sectional and descriptive-analytical research was performed in 2017. |
| Data format | Raw, Analyzed |
| Data source location | Tehran Industrial Parks Organization as the main organization of Iran Small Industries and Industrial Parks (isipo) included 18 active industrial parks. |
| Data accessibility | Data is included in this article |
Value of the data
-
•
Investigating the factors of employee effectiveness in Iran Small Industries and Industrial Parks for the first time.
-
•
Studying the global models of employee effectiveness and choose Hay Group® model as the basis.
-
•
Using of Delphi and AHP techniques as selected research method in order to make effective decisions in Human Resources.
-
•
Impact of effectiveness improvement in growth of organization and employee productivity.
1. Data
First, some demographic information about experts, including their position, department, work experience and degree are shown below in the following (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4).
Table 1.
Total numbers of participants according to position.
| Amount | Experts position |
|---|---|
| 1 | CEO |
| 2 | Consultant |
| 3 | Assistant |
| 12 | Manager |
| 18 | Total |
Table 2.
Available participants according to departments.
| Amount | Experts department |
|---|---|
| 5 | CEO zone |
| 3 | Deputy of Planning and Economic Affairs |
| 4 | Deputy of Small Industries |
| 3 | Deputy of Civil and Environmental |
| 2 | Deputy of Support and Human Resources |
| 17 | Total |
Table 3.
Participants work experience.
| Amount | Experts work experience (Year) |
|---|---|
| 4 | 8–12 |
| 4 | 13–17 |
| 6 | 18–23 |
| 3 | Over 23 |
| 17 | Total |
Table 4.
Participants degree.
| Amount | Experts degree |
|---|---|
| 5 | B.Sc. |
| 12 | M.Sc. |
| 17 | Total |
Table 1 shows total numbers of senior managers and experts of research community according to their position.
Table 2 indicates available experts based on their departmentsand due to interview time and willingness of participating in the study.
Table 3 expresses experts work experience within management positions for years.
Also, Table 4 describes experts׳ last degree; though some of these experts were studying PhD in their own expertise.
In Delphi process and after initial interviews, experts have reached a consensus and declared three criteria (choices) accepted to be scored and compared for ranking. Table 5 shows participants responses to Delphi questionnaire.
Table 5.
Participants׳ responses to Delphi questionnaire.
 |
AHP tables: (Table 6, Table -7, Table 8, Table 9)
Table 6.
Raw data for paired comparisons matrix of criteria.
| Participants criteria | Likert scale | Participants criteria | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensiveness | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Influence level |
| Accessibility | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Influence level |
| Accessibility | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Comprehensiveness |
Table -7.
Participants’ responses for paired comparisons of criteria.
 |
Table 8.
Paired comparisons matrix of criteria.
| The participants criteria for effectiveness | Influence level | Comprehensiveness | Accessibility | Mean | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Influence level | 1.00 | 1.14 | 0.74 | 0.96 | 31.59 |
| Comprehensiveness | 0.88 | 1.00 | 1.07 | 0.98 | 32.35 |
| Accessibility | 1.35 | 0.93 | 1.00 | 1.10 | 36.06 |
Table 9.
Raw data for paired comparisons matrix of effective factors on human resources effectiveness (based on Hay Group effectiveness factors).
| • The criterion of "Influence level of employee effectiveness factors" | ||||||||||||||||||
| 1. Paired comparisons matrix between factors of employee engagement based on criterion of "Influence level" | ||||||||||||||||||
| Confidence in leaders | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Clear and promising direction |
| Quality and customer focus | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Clear and promising direction |
| Respect and recognition | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Clear and promising direction |
| Development opportunities | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Clear and promising direction |
| Pay and benefits | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Clear and promising direction |
| Quality and customer focus | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Confidence in leaders |
| Respect and recognition | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Confidence in leaders |
| Development opportunities | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Confidence in leaders |
| Pay and benefits | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Confidence in leaders |
| Respect and recognition | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Quality and customer focus |
| Development opportunities | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Quality and customer focus |
| Pay and benefits | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Quality and customer focus |
| Development opportunities | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Respect and recognition |
| Pay and benefits | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Respect and recognition |
| Pay and benefits | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Development opportunities |
| 2. Paired comparisons matrix between factors of employee enablement based on criterion of "Influence level" | ||||||||||||||||||
| Authority and empowerment | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Performance management |
| Resources | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Performance management |
| Training | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Performance management |
| Collaboration | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Performance management |
| Work, structure and processes | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Performance management |
| Resources | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Authority and empowerment |
| Training | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Authority and empowerment |
| Collaboration | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Authority and empowerment |
| Work, structure and processes | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Authority and empowerment |
| Training | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Resources |
| Collaboration | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Resources |
| Work, structure and processes | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Resources |
| Collaboration | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Training |
| Work, structure and processes | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Training |
| Work, structure and processes | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Collaboration |
| • The criterion of "Comprehensiveness of employee effectiveness factors" | ||||||||||||||||||
| 1. Paired comparisons matrix between factors of employee engagement based on criterion of "Comprehensiveness" | ||||||||||||||||||
| Confidence in leaders | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Clear and promising direction |
| Quality and customer focus | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Clear and promising direction |
| Respect and recognition | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Clear and promising direction |
| Development opportunities | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Clear and promising direction |
| Pay and benefits | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Clear and promising direction |
| Quality and customer focus | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Confidence in leaders |
| Respect and recognition | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Confidence in leaders |
| Development opportunities | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Confidence in leaders |
| Pay and benefits | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Confidence in leaders |
| Respect and recognition | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Quality and customer focus |
| Development opportunities | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Quality and customer focus |
| Pay and benefits | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Quality and customer focus |
| Development opportunities | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Respect and recognition |
| Pay and benefits | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Respect and recognition |
| Pay and benefits | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Development opportunities |
| 2. Paired comparisons matrix between factors of employee enablement based on criterion of "Comprehensiveness" | ||||||||||||||||||
| Authority and empowerment | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Performance management |
| Resources | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Performance management |
| Training | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Performance management |
| Collaboration | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Performance management |
| Work, structure and processes | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Performance management |
| Resources | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Authority and empowerment |
| Training | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Authority and empowerment |
| Collaboration | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Authority and empowerment |
| Work, structure and processes | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Authority and empowerment |
| Training | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Resources |
| Collaboration | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Resources |
| Work, structure and processes | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Resources |
| Collaboration | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Training |
| Work, structure and processes | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Training |
| Work, structure and processes | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Collaboration |
| • The criterion of "Accessibility to employee effectiveness factors" | ||||||||||||||||||
| 1. Paired comparisons matrix between factors of employee engagement based on criterion of "Accessibility" | ||||||||||||||||||
| Confidence in leaders | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Clear and promising direction |
| Quality and customer focus | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Clear and promising direction |
| Respect and recognition | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Clear and promising direction |
| Development opportunities | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Clear and promising direction |
| Pay and benefits | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Clear and promising direction |
| Quality and customer focus | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Confidence in leaders |
| Respect and recognition | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Confidence in leaders |
| Development opportunities | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Confidence in leaders |
| Pay and benefits | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Confidence in leaders |
| Respect and recognition | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Quality and customer focus |
| Development opportunities | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Quality and customer focus |
| Pay and benefits | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Quality and customer focus |
| Development opportunities | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Respect and recognition |
| Pay and benefits | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Respect and recognition |
| Pay and benefits | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Development opportunities |
| 2. Paired comparisons matrix between factors of employee enablement based on criterion of "Accessibility" | ||||||||||||||||||
| Authority and empowerment | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Performance management |
| Resources | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Performance management |
| Training | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Performance management |
| Collaboration | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Performance management |
| Work, structure and processes | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Performance management |
| Resources | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Authority and empowerment |
| Training | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Authority and empowerment |
| Collaboration | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Authority and empowerment |
| Work, structure and processes | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Authority and empowerment |
| Training | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Resources |
| Collaboration | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Resources |
| Work, structure and processes | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Resources |
| Collaboration | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Training |
| Work, structure and processes | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Training |
| Work, structure and processes | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Collaboration |
In AHP process, accepted criteria were compared in pair, and their rank was extracted. Then, comparison of factors (alternatives) has done according to each criterion. So, alternatives or factors were ranked separately.
After consensus, participants (experts) in interview have stated common criteria for identifying factors affecting on employee effectiveness. Prioritized criteria in this research collected by experts based on Delphi method are included:
-
•
Accessibility
-
•
Comprehensiveness
-
•
Influence level
According to Table 10, the priority of the factors affecting on employee engagement based on criterion of "Accessibility" are respectively:
-
1.
Pay and benefits
-
2.
Development opportunities
-
3.
Respect and recognition
-
4.
Quality and customer focus
-
5.
Clear and promising direction
-
6.
Confidence in leaders
Table 10.
The result of paired comparisons matrix between factors of employee engagement based on criterion of "Accessibility".
| 1. The criterion of "Accessibility to factors of employee effectiveness" | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factors of employee engagement | Clear and promising direction | Confidence in leaders | Quality and customer focus | Respect and recognition | Development opportunities | Pay and benefits | Geometric mean | Percentage (%) | Rank |
| Clear and promising direction | 1.00 | 0.54 | 1.77 | 0.40 | 0.50 | 0.39 | 0.99 | 12.94 | 5 |
| Quality and customer focus | 0.57 | 0.57 | 1.00 | 0.55 | 0.58 | 0.29 | 1.00 | 13.03 | 4 |
| Respect and recognition | 2.50 | 0.87 | 1.81 | 1.00 | 1.35 | 0.87 | 1.30 | 17.06 | 3 |
| Development opportunities | 2.01 | 1.19 | 1.72 | 0.74 | 1.00 | 0.57 | 1.55 | 20.31 | 2 |
| Pay and benefits | 2.56 | 1.50 | 3.41 | 1.15 | 1.77 | 1.00 | 1.90 | 24.85 | 1 |
According to Table 11, the priority of the factors affecting on employee enablement based on criterion of "Accessibility" are respectively:
-
1.
Training
-
2.
Resources
-
3.
Performance management
-
4.
Authority and empowerment
-
5.
Collaboration
-
6.
Work, structure and processes
Table 11.
The result of paired comparisons matrix between factors of employee enablement based on criterion of "Accessibility".
| 2. The criterion of "Accessibility to factors of employee effectiveness" | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factors of employee enablement | Performance management | Authority and empowerment | Resources | Training | Collaboration | Work, structure and processes | Geometric mean | Percentage (%) | Rank |
| Performance management | 1 | 1.23 | 1.20 | 0.40 | 0.93 | 1.10 | 0.98 | 15.13 | 3 |
| Authority and empowerment | 0.81 | 1 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 1.01 | 1.14 | 0.95 | 14.61 | 4 |
| Resources | 0.83 | 1.03 | 1 | 0.78 | 1.04 | 0.77 | 1.37 | 21.21 | 2 |
| Training | 2.48 | 1.02 | 1.28 | 1 | 2.53 | 2.71 | 1.4 | 21.56 | 1 |
| Collaboration | 1.08 | 0.99 | 0.96 | 0.40 | 1 | 1.31 | 0.91 | 14.08 | 5 |
| Work, structure and processes | 0.91 | 0.88 | 1.29 | 0.37 | 0.77 | 1 | 0.87 | 13.41 | 6 |
According to Table 12, the priority of the factors affecting on employee engagement based on criterion of "Comprehensiveness" are respectively:
-
1.
Pay and benefits
-
2.
Respect and recognition
-
3.
Development opportunities
-
4.
Confidence in leaders
-
5.
Clear and promising direction
-
6.
Quality and customer focus
Table 12.
The result of paired comparisons matrix between factors of employee engagement based on criterion of "Comprehensiveness".
| 1. The criterion of "Comprehensiveness of employee effectiveness factors" | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factors of employee engagement | Clear and promising direction | Confidence in leaders | Quality and customer focus | Respect and recognition | Development opportunities | Pay and benefits | Geometric mean | Percentage (%) | Rank |
| Clear and promising direction | 1 | 0.92 | 1.46 | 0.35 | 0.53 | 0.30 | 0.76 | 10.69 | 5 |
| Quality and customer focus | 0.68 | 0.45 | 1 | 0.79 | 0.57 | 0.39 | 0.65 | 9.13 | 6 |
| Respect and recognition | 2.89 | 1.21 | 1.27 | 1 | 1.13 | 0.55 | 1.34 | 18.88 | 2 |
| Development opportunities | 1.90 | 1.83 | 1.74 | 0.89 | 1 | 0.60 | 1.33 | 18.69 | 3 |
| Pay and benefits | 3.28 | 1.51 | 2.56 | 1.80 | 1.66 | 1 | 1.97 | 27.76 | 1 |
According to Table 13, the priority of the factors affecting on employee enablement based on criterion of "Comprehensiveness" are respectively:
-
1.
Training
-
2.
Authority and empowerment
-
3.
Collaboration
-
4.
Resources
-
5.
Performance management
-
6.
Work, structure and processes
Table 13.
The result of paired comparisons matrix between factors of employee enablement based on criterion of "Comprehensiveness".
| 2. The criterion of "Comprehensiveness of employee effectiveness factors" | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factors of employee enablement | Performance management | Authority and empowerment | Resources | Training | Collaboration | Work, structure and processes | Geometric mean | Percentage (%) | Rank |
| Performance management | 1 | 0.64 | 1.38 | 0.44 | 0.89 | 0.73 | 0.85 | 12.75 | 5 |
| Authority and empowerment | 1.56 | 1 | 1.41 | 0.68 | 1.03 | 1.46 | 1.19 | 17.88 | 2 |
| Resources | 0.73 | 0.71 | 1 | 0.69 | 0.92 | 1.29 | 0.89 | 13.37 | 4 |
| Training | 2.25 | 1.46 | 1.45 | 1 | 3.05 | 2.09 | 1.88 | 28.35 | 1 |
| Collaboration | 1.12 | 0.97 | 1.09 | 0.33 | 1 | 1.60 | 1.02 | 15.31 | 3 |
| Work, structure and processes | 1.36 | 0.69 | 0.77 | 0.48 | 0.62 | 1 | 0.82 | 12.34 | 6 |
According to Table 14, the priority of the factors affecting on employee engagement based on criterion of "Influence level" are respectively:
-
1.
Pay and benefits
-
2.
Development opportunities
-
3.
Respect and recognition
-
4.
Confidence in leaders
-
5.
Clear and promising direction
-
6.
Quality and customer focus
Table 14.
The result of paired comparisons matrix between factors of employee engagement based on criterion of "Influence level".
| 1. The criterion of "Influence level of employee effectiveness factors" | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factors of employee engagement | Clear and promising direction | Confidence in leaders | Quality and customer focus | Respect and recognition | Development opportunities | Pay and benefits | Geometric mean | Percentage (%) | Rank |
| Clear and promising direction | 1 | 0.76 | 1.93 | 0.45 | 0.37 | 0.28 | 0.80 | 9.72 | 5 |
| Quality and customer focus | 0.52 | 0.32 | 1 | 0.37 | 0.27 | 0.22 | 0.45 | 5.47 | 6 |
| Respect and recognition | 2.20 | 1.62 | 2.72 | 1 | 1.01 | 0.44 | 1.50 | 18.24 | 3 |
| Development opportunities | 2.68 | 1.80 | 3.75 | 0.99 | 1 | 0.61 | 1.80 | 21.95 | 2 |
| Pay and benefits | 3.54 | 2.00 | 4.46 | 2.27 | 1.64 | 1 | 2.49 | 30.25 | 1 |
According to Table 15, the priority of the factors affecting on employee enablement based on criterion of "Influence level" are respectively: (Table 16, Table 17)
-
1.
Training
-
2.
Collaboration
-
3.
Work, structure and processes
-
4.
Authority and empowerment
-
5.
Resources
-
6.
Performance management
Table 15.
The result of paired comparisons matrix between factors of employee enablement based on criterion of "Influence level".
| 2. The criterion of "Influence level of employee effectiveness factors" | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factors of employee enablement | Performance management | Authority and empowerment | Resources | Training | Collaboration | Work, structure and processes | Geometric mean | Percentage (%) | Rank |
| Performance management | 1 | 0.80 | 0.78 | 0.31 | 0.67 | 0.90 | 0.74 | 11.11 | 6 |
| Authority and empowerment | 1.26 | 1 | 1.05 | 0.56 | 0.67 | 0.68 | 0.87 | 13.00 | 4 |
| Resources | 1.28 | 0.95 | 1 | 0.53 | 0.66 | 0.55 | 0.83 | 12.37 | 5 |
| Training | 3.24 | 1.79 | 1.88 | 1 | 1.26 | 1.77 | 1.82 | 27.28 | 1 |
| Collaboration | 1.48 | 1.49 | 1.52 | 0.79 | 1 | 1.72 | 1.33 | 19.94 | 2 |
| Work, structure and processes | 1.11 | 1.46 | 1.83 | 0.56 | 0.58 | 1 | 1.09 | 16.30 | 3 |
Table 16.
Priority of engagement factors of employee effectiveness based on prioritized criteria.
|
Factors of employee engagement | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The participants criteria for effectiveness | Priority of criteria | Clear and promising direction | Confidence in leaders | Quality and customer focus | Respect and recognition | Development opportunities | Pay and benefits |
| Accessibility | 1 | 12.94 | 11.81 | 13.03 | 17.06 | 20.31 | 24.85 |
| Priority of factors | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| Comprehensiveness | 2 | 10.69 | 14.85 | 9.13 | 18.88 | 18.69 | 27.76 |
| Priority of factors | 5 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | |
| Influence level | 3 | 9.72 | 14.37 | 5.47 | 18.24 | 21.95 | 30.25 |
| Priority of factors | 5 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
Table 17.
Priority of enablement factors of employee effectiveness based on prioritized criteria.
|
Factors of employee enablement | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The participants criteria for effectiveness | Priority of criteria | Performance management | Authority and empowerment | Resources | Training | Collaboration | Work, structure and processes |
| Accessibility | 1 | 15.13 | 14.61 | 21.21 | 21.56 | 14.08 | 13.41 |
| Priority of factors | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 6 | |
| Comprehensiveness | 2 | 12.75 | 17.88 | 13.37 | 28.35 | 15.31 | 12.34 |
| Priority of factors | 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 6 | |
| Influence level | 3 | 11.11 | 13.00 | 12.37 | 27.28 | 19.94 | 16.30 |
| Priority of factors | 6 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
2. Materials and methods
This cross-sectional and descriptive-analytical research was performed at Tehran Industrial Parks Organization in 2017. This organization has 18 active scattered industrial parks in Tehran province which are heterogeneous in terms of some features. The study sampling method for determining prioritized criteria was purposive, non-random and non-probable. For this purpose, the statistical population has been selected among senior managers of the research community in the sample of 18 people whom were asked by designed questionnaire and interview through Delphi method and Hierarchy Analytical Process (AHP) to score their criteria and determine the priority and rank of each criterion(choice) and factor(alternative). Subsequently, by multivariate decision the weight of each criterion and weights has been obtained and the criteria are analyzed according to purpose of the effectiveness of human resources and the priority is determined accordingly [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]
Acknowledgement
This project was supported from Iran Small Industries and Industrial Parks Organization. The authors express their highest regards and appreciation to CEO of Tehran Industrial Parks Organization and all deputies and managers participated in this study.
Footnotes
Transparency data associated with this article can be found in the online version at 10.1016/j.dib.2018.07.017.
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at 10.1016/j.dib.2018.07.017.
Transparency document. Supplementary material
Supplementary material
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary Table.
References
- 1.Bass B.M., Stogdill R.M. A survey of theory and research. J. Manag. 1989;12(2) [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hay Group®.
- 3.Bakker A.A., Albrecht S.L., Leiter M.P. Key question regarding work engagement. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2011;20(1):1–23. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Emery C., Barker K. Effect of commitment, job involvement and teams on customer satisfaction and profit, team performance management. Learn. Pedagog. 2007;13(3-4):90–101. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ijose O. Strategic human resource management, small and medium sized enterprises and strategic partnership capability. J. Manag. Mark. Res. 2010;2:1. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kazlauskaite R., Buciuniene I., Turauskas L. Organization and psychological empowerment in the HRM-performance linkage. Empl. Relat. 2011;2(34):138–158. [Google Scholar]
- 7.S. Meshksar, A comparative study of HRM practices based on hofstede cultural dimensions; Submitted to the Institute of Graduate Studies and Research In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Master of Arts in Marketing Management. Eastern Mediterranean University Gazimangusa, North Cyprus, Prof. Dr. Elvan Yilmaz, Director, 2012.
- 8.Özaralli N. Linking empowering leader to creativity: the moderating role of psychological (felt) empowerment. Social. Behav. Sci. 2015;181:366–376. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Rauch A., Hatak I. A meta-analysis of different HR-enhancing practices and performance of small and medium sized firms. J. Bus. Ventur. 2016;31(5):485–504. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Giauque D., Resenterra F., Siggen M. The relationship between HRM practices and organizational commitment of knowledge workers. Facts obtained from Swiss SMEs. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 2010;13(2):185–205. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Holton E.F., III Holton׳s evaluation model: new evidence and construct elaborations. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 2005;7(1):37–54. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kadiresan V., Kamil N.M., Mazlan M.R.M., Musah M.B., Selamat M.H. The influence of human resource practices on employee retention: a case study. Int. J. Human. Resour. Stud. 2016;6(3):122–148. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary material
Supplementary Table.