See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/255717549

Evaluation of Human Resources in the Specific Environment of Public Sector

Article · January 2013

DOI: 10.7726/jgbm.2013.1004

CITATIONS READS
0 224

2 authors:

Jolita Vveinhardt Palmira Papšienė

Vytautas Magnus University 17 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS   
335 PUBLICATIONS   1,267 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Social Business Models: application and tendencies View project

Impact of Social Context on Strategic Philanthropy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jolita Vveinhardt on 03 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Columbia International Publishing
Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71
doi:10.7726/jgbm.2013.1004
Research Article

Evaluation of Human Resources in the Specific

Environment of Public Sector

Jolita Vveinhardt1*, Palmira Papsiene1

Received 11 April 2013; Published online 3 August 2013

© The author(s) 2013. Published with open access at www.uscip.org

Abstract
In this article it is aimed to determine the specifics of evaluation of human resources in the public sector,
while discussing the tendencies of evaluation of human resources in the public sector. In order to get a more
comprehensive view, the dimensions comprising the evaluation of human resources provided by foreign and
Lithuanian scientists are analyzed. Authors of the article examine the problems of evaluation of human
resources in the public sector, and suggest evaluating the national aspects of human resource management
system, traditions and culture when implementing models created by foreign authors. The idea that cultural
changes may indirectly provide a new quality to public sector activities is formulated in the article.

Keywords: Evaluation of human resources; Public sector

1. Introduction
Complicated experience of Lithuania, as a Central European country, which has lead to the fall of
the Soviet Empire, in restoring the structure of the public sector can be a good and a bad example
for other states seeking to increase the efficiency of work of public sector servants. The reform of
the sector, started a decade ago, has failed to reach the set objectives and has attracted some
criticism, first of all from the position of local scientists, which has not been given an ear.
Democratic societies, which delegate their representatives to elective institutes, must mature in
order to realize and rationally assess mistakes and achievements. In this context, the study of the
practical situation is important, together with considering global experience, integrating it, but not
cloning.

The evaluation of human resources is one of the most important elements of management in public
sector organizations, having not only old and strong traditions of working with the personnel, but

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Corresponding e-mail: jolitaw@gmail.com
1 Lithuanian Sports University 54
Authors' contribution (in per cent): Vveinhardt 80 %, Papsiene 20 %
 Jolita Vveinhardt, Palmira Papsiene / Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71

also focusing its attention and raising discussions between researchers and practitioners further
on. Especially it applies to Lithuania, where the administration of public sector is still a developing
field of management science, raising more questions than providing optimal answers, since it is
necessary to adapt various models when implementing them, as well as evaluate reality and
tendencies of socio-cultural society development that are influenced by outward aspects which are
becoming global, as well as internal political and civil processes, axiological transformations and
many other factors. Thus, it is necessary to analyze the theoretical aspects and models of human
resource evaluation prior to implementing them in practice. According to E. Chlivickas (2010), the
content of public administration could be understood as a modern state governance administration
problem and determination of functions requiring development of the theory and allowing
improving the formulation of management solutions and their implementation, as well as
modernizing governance of the state. The evaluation of human resources assumes the important
role in this context.

Relevance of the research. While there is the shortage of a strong control of civil society, the
model of assessment of public sector servants gives a free hand to narrow interests, which
dysfunctionally affect the processes of activities of the public servants.

Functioning of public sector activity influences not only country economy and investment climate,
but psycho-emotional climate as well, to which society members are very sensitive: it affects their
trust in state and municipal institutions and planning of their and their children’s future. The
problematics of evaluation of human resources in the public sector is much more relevant than in
the private sector, where the performance quality is also regulated by market mechanisms, which
are basically eliminated in the public sector. Evaluation procedures are still quite formal, and the
attitude towards the role of human resources in the public sector and their efficient use changes
rather slowly, which determines slower improvement of administrational abilities as well.

Problem of the research. A practical problem is the gap between evaluation system and its
practical realization, partially determined by social and cultural tendencies of society evolution. The
formulation and adaptation of theoretical human resource evaluation criteria remains a relevant
problem. Therefore, the problem is brought forward with the question: what are human resource
evaluation tendencies in public sector, and how the specifics of those tendencies unfolds in the
activity of organizations.

Problem exploration level. The evaluation of human resources is analyzed by many Lithuanian
(Arimaviciute, 2007; Segaloviciene and Snapstiene, 2007; Lobanova, 2008; Matuziene and
Gaidamaviciene, 2009; Liukineviciene and Garoliene 2009; Staras and Siopiene, 2010; Zuperkiene
and Zuperka, 2010; Maceika and Janciauskas, 2012; Vveinhardt and Papsiene, 2013a, 2013b; etc.)
and foreign (Prigozhin, 1995; Venkateswara, 2004; Bazarova and Eremina, 2002; Martin, 2009;
Gilley et. al., 2009; Mahapatro, 2010; etc.) scientists.

Object of the research. The specifics of evaluation of human resources.

Aim of the research: to determine the specifics of evaluation of human resources in the public
sector.

55
 Jolita Vveinhardt, Palmira Papsiene / Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71

The following research tasks were formulated in order to achieve the aim:
1. To discuss the tendencies of evaluation of human resources in the public sector.
2. To analyze the dimensions of evaluation of human resources in the public sector.

Methods of the research: analysis of academic literature based on its systematization,

synthesization, generalization and comparison. Academic literature on human resource
management, personnel management, management, psychology, sociology and other fields was
used.

2. Tendencies of Evaluation of Human Resources in the Public

Sector
In Lithuania, the civil service system is constructed in accordance with the career model, which
does not promote the development of career civil servants, as the training and development
processes are not regulated and functionally linked to the assessment process. Therefore,
improvement instruments are used eclectically, focusing on the areas financed by the European
Union, or training does not take place, explaining it by a difficult budget situation.

The perception of personnel necessity, place, role and personnel evaluation in an organization
management has progressed through a few stages historically, and scientific management theories
replacing one another set various requirements for personnel selection, evaluation and allocation.
Scientific management organizational theory of the beginning of the 20th century emphasized the
bureaucratic culture of an organization requiring from the personnel the ability to work in strictly
defined framework and perform a certain role (Klimova, 1999). Due to this point of view,
innovations were not promoted both in personnel training, and in personnel evaluation. Impeded
individual contemplations with regard to work improvement compelled organization employees to
work in conditions, where individuality was unacceptable. In a couple of recent decades, the
attitude towards human resources and their management in public sector underwent quite a few
transformations in Lithuania. One of those is an intensifying employment of business models in the
activity of public sector organizations.

One of the few recent achievements of public administration theory and practice is the creation of
the new public management model, which stipulates the application of all private sector methods in
public administration (Papsiene, 2010). For example, the principle of strategic planning. Strategic
planning, as an important method of organization development, primarily was applied in private
sector organizations. Most strategy formation and realization methodologies are designed for the
prediction of the future of business organizations and determination of possible changes
(Gedvilaite-Moan and Zakarevicius, 2010). According to J. Ruzevicius et al. (2012), it was
established that after the implementation of business process management, the aspects of quality
assurance have changed in the most beneficial way, and the most insignificant changes have
happened in the expenses area. I. Klimaviciene and V. Mykolaitiene (2007) claim that in order to
carry out the delegated functions (use obtained funds and assets effectively) in the modern
economy, it is necessary to become an institution performing in market conditions, and the
recipient of its services becomes a client. This directs the public sector towards modernization and
innovations. However, models implemented in the public sector should not be evaluated
56
 Jolita Vveinhardt, Palmira Papsiene / Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71

unambiguously. E. Chlivickas (2010) emphasized that the employment of so called “market model”
in the public sector trying to combine it with the elements of citizen participation ideology is
usually suitable for lower levels of an organization. Practice showed that market and participation
models are difficult to combine with traditional hierarchic management models established in the
administration (Chlivickas, 2010). Nowadays weak administrative abilities are especially
characteristic for state governance, and one of the weakest links is the weakly developed abilities to
employ strategic planning methods and methodologies. Both business and public sector
management systems do not present the suitable background for the efficient social economic
development (Chlivickas, 2006).

Problems experienced by public sector are as follows: corruption (Burda, 2012), nepotism and
favouritism (Vveinhardt, 2012), pressure to implement changes urgently (Melnikas, 2006), limited
administrative abilities (Chlivickas, 2006), corporate responsibility formation tasks (Konieczna,
2010), rather unfavourable organizational climate manifesting itself via such criteria as
relationships with managers, tolerance, joining and leaving the organization, communication,
creativity, values, traditions (Vveinhardt, 2010), ethics, working culture, conflicts (Perkumiene and
Raupeliene, 2008). Officials admit that higher standards are applicable to public sector employees.
Since the need in responsible and effective performance is still increasing in the service sector, the
public sector cannot suffer a failure with regard to implementation of quality initiatives.
Management of quality initiatives is important in order to ensure their successful implementation
and thus achieve the aims of organization (Mukhtar and Ali, 2011). The essential elements of
formation of corporate reputation are the corporate identity and corporate image. It is important to
emphasize that apart from those elements organizations must pay attention to political,
economical, social and technological environment, as well as render high-quality services. This is
the way to earn the trust of the interested parties (Konieczna, 2010).

Among the challenges faced by the public sector is the need to implement qualitative changes that
were consistently developing for many decades in Western states within a relatively short period.
According to B. Melnikas (2006), as Lithuania and other Baltic states joined the European Union, a
necessity originated to modernize all management potential in a high-quality manner within a very
short time, and this requires real solutions of many problems in the management professionals’
education area. However, the reconstruction of public sector in the new EU member states is
restricted to copying of the experience of European countries and USA. This attitude noticeably
weakens the methodological role of public institution reforms, and, first of all, their systematic and
creative origination, and does not allow using all opportunities to improve the public
administration system (Chlivickas, 2010). When increasing functionality of organizations, which is
determined by concentration, team actions, mutual trust, partnership and incentive management, it
is necessary to transform the content of managerial roles of managers. Traditional managerial roles
(instructions, control, inclination to punish) more characteristic to managers-administrators make
way for roles (support, coordination, provision of opportunities, backup) oriented to leadership
(Marcinskas and Diska, 2009). Managers create the climate on an organization, influence the team
spirit and individual motivation of employees, support and evaluate their activity. Important factors
in the activity of managers are their attention to behavioural standards and following of those, as
well as relationships in the staff. Management style (autocratic, liberal, bureaucratic, democratic)
and manager’s relationships with employees influence their performance. The management has

57
 Jolita Vveinhardt, Palmira Papsiene / Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71

negative effect on employees only is cases when they feel pushed aside from the matters of
organization management (Palidauskaite, 2008).

Not only the distinctive culture of public sector organizations strongly influences the resistance to
changes, but also the values of society itself, slowly changing traditions of society behaviour, and
cultural and national structure of the society. As various occupational (e.g. unemployment,
distribution in profession groups), educational and other empirical data is analyzed and
summarized, it is stated that regardless of created equal preconditions for political participation, in
the unipolar society the public sector is inclined to accept and apply characteristics of the national
state ensuring the advantage of majority with respect to minority groups. This determines the
weaker integration of minority groups into public sector. When comparing various ethnic groups, it
is possible to notice some manifestations of social inequality, which are confirmed by social well-
being of ethnic groups, i.e. the evaluation of the change of their status (Kasatkina and
Beresneviciute, 2010).

Thus, in a brief summary it should be noted that the employment of models created by the example
of private organizations is rather problematic regardless of the fact that it is considered
progressive. Performance quality and sector image is influenced by the culture of public sector
organizations that definitely affects the evaluation of human resources as well.

3. Dimensions of Evaluation of Human Resources in the Public

Sector
Changes have determined the rapid improvement and flexible reaction of human resources to the
changing organization that had to cope with specific features of modern economy. Employee
productivity achieved in teamwork applying modern organization methods became especially
important. Personal abilities of an employee are important in the perspective of organizational
development. Knowledge on the subject, initiative, reliability, relationships with co-workers,
quality of work, etc., improves the productivity. However, this proposition is as morally declaratory
as a poster on a billboard pole.

Evaluation of employees is defined as a system that measures, evaluates and influences employee
work results and their behaviour, while determining the level of productivity and quality of
employee’s performance, includes the evaluation of personality, behaviour, utilization,
compatibility, potential and abilities (Sakalas, 2003; Klupsas, 2006; Bakanauskiene, 2008; et al.).
Evaluation is the estimation of planned, permanent and final activities and interventions in the
activity in order to determine the significance and relevance, effectiveness, efficacy, effect and
stability of those interventions (H. Honsen, 2005 is cited) (Segaloviciene and Snapstiene, 2007). To
evaluate an employee is to establish employee’s abilities, correspondence to his/her position,
potential for innovations, work dynamics, loyalty to an organization, to find out about employee’s
interest in organization’s perspective, desire to improve his/her skills, make a career and gain
personal benefit. M. N. Berulava (1995) defines the evaluation of personnel as a complex of means
applied in order to find out professional, business, individual and typological qualities of an
employee. E. V. Maslov (1999) claims that the evaluation of personnel is a procedure, which aim is
to “find out how personal qualities of an employee correspond to certain results of his/her activity” (p.
58
 Jolita Vveinhardt, Palmira Papsiene / Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71

218), moreover, the requirements themselves are determined by the content of employee’s work
and efficient organization of the activity. G. Dessler (2008) describes the evaluation of personnel as
a procedure defining the nature of works and types of people (in terms of knowledge and skills)
carrying out those works, in order for an employee to correspond to his/her position. R. Ginevicius
et al. (2006) considers the evaluation of employee performance as a formal, structured system that
measures, evaluates and influences employees’ work results and their behaviour, allowing to
establish the level of employee productivity and their abilities to work effectively in the future in
such a way that they would deliver the maximum benefit for themselves, organization and the
society.

According to the authors, personnel evaluation from the perspective of performance defines the
necessity to improve the activity performed by employees, motivation for work and career planning
(Samygin and Stoljarenko, 1997). From the point of view of other authors, the personnel evaluation
is the “establishment of the potential of a person, their individual professional possibilities, allowing
them to realize their knowledge and experience on a certain time” (Prykin et al. 1998, p. 372).
Additional motivation of employees encourages them seek better results, feel emotional satisfaction
with their work and their value while achieving the set goals. Employees’ dissatisfaction with the
internal atmosphere, management philosophy, etc., encourages employees’ passiveness.

T. Bazarova and L. Eremina (2002) note that personnel evaluation was perceived as employee’s
correspondence to his/her workplace or position. Human relations theory corresponded to
organization’s culture, which required engaging personnel in group values and norms, ability to
oppose their interests to the interests of the majority, communication abilities, ability to adapt in
the team of colleagues, etc. Those were the evaluation criteria. Technology development and
individualization of the activity determined the origination of responsibility and enterprise in
public sector organizations, where employees were required to be able to work in competitive
conditions. Evaluation of human resources is the collection and analysis of information about the
employees’ performance of their functions and finding out to what extent their work performance
and individual qualities correspond to organization and management requirements (Kaimakova,
2008). The evaluation allows employees not only seeing tasks and problems more clearly, but also
finding out how good their performance is, how this affects their future. Employee’s attitude and
desire to achieve the best result is very important. Evaluation is an inseparable mean of employee
management control implementation in an organization. It should be noted that evaluation results
should be used for making managerial and administrative decisions related to employee transfer to
other positions, revision of salary, dismissals, etc. J. Palidauskaite (2008) notes that employee’s
performance is influenced by his/her work evaluation. Employees’ contribution to organization’s
performance and their reward for carried out activities are interrelated factors. When individuals
feel injustice (their contribution or efforts were not valued enough), they are inclined to correct
their efforts in the context of an organization. Injustice acts like a demotivational factor, and low
salary creates dissatisfaction.

Evaluation of human resources in public sector remains a complicated scientific and practical
problem due to several reasons. Unlike in private sector, market influence mechanisms are
eliminated here. Evaluation efficiency largely depends on the formed organizational culture,
changing political-administrational policy and the influence of dysfunctional factors, such as
nepotism and favouritism, in separate organizations or in the divisions of a specific organization.
59
 Jolita Vveinhardt, Palmira Papsiene / Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71

Social-civic culture, which could be the object of a separate research, still strongly affects
administrative relations developing in organizations.

As aspects of human resource evaluation carried out recently are reviewed, the directions of
performed researches become apparent. Research objects are provided in Table 1.

Table 1 Objects of Human Resource Evaluation Studies

Year Author / authors Research object
1995 R. Kociunas Evaluation of quality of human relationships
1995 J. B. Shah and J. Murphy Performance appraisal as improvement of productivity
1996 B. Martinkus and Evaluation of labour supply and demand factors and their
A. Savaneviciene interaction on the labour market
1996 D. E. Gundersen, Personnel evaluation potential
D. B. Tinsley and
D. E. Terpstra
1997 R. Jankauskas and B. Evaluation of psychosocial labour factors
Pajarskiene
1997 R. W. Stoffey and R. R. Reilly Personnel evaluation training
1998 I. Bakanauskiene Estimation of employee suitability both for present and future
positions
1998 A. Tziner, K. R. Murphy, Personnel evaluation and evaluation quality in the organizational
J. N. Cleveland, G. Beaudin and context
S. Marchand
1999 A. Makstutis System of personnel certification in the collective
1999 R. L. Jr. Holbrook Organizational justice and personnel evaluation
2000 A. Sakalas and V. Silingiene Personnel evaluation goals and tasks
2000 C. Viswesvaran and D. S. Ones Models of job performance
2001 B. Leoniene Employee performance level evaluation
2001 C. Fletcher Personnel evaluation management
2002 I. Bakanauskiene Personnel evaluation process
2002 K. A. Aldakhilallah and Total quality management and personnel evaluation
D. H. Parente
2003 E. Gustas Stages of implementation of performance evaluation system in
public service
2003 B. A. Crawford Documentation of personnel evaluation
2004 N. Paliulis, E. Chlivickas and A. Evaluation of divisions’ performance results
Pabedinskaite
2004 R. Alonderienė and Employee evaluation in teams
I. Bakanauskiene
2004 D. N. den Hartog, P. Boselie Strategic human resource management and personnel evaluation
and J. Paauwe / Strategic HRM evaluation process
2005 J. Merkevicius Personnel management efficiency evaluation in a virtual
organization
2005 G. J. Yun, L. M. Donahue, Impact of performance appraisal ratings
N. M. Dudley and L. A.
McFarland
2006 F. Klupsas Evaluation links with employee motivation and expectations;
efficiency of evaluation activity
2006 K. B. Kalb, N. M. Cherry, Evaluation of personnel competences
J. Kauzloric, A. Brender, K.
60
 Jolita Vveinhardt, Palmira Papsiene / Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71

Year Author / authors Research object

Green, L. A. Miyagawa and A.
Shinoda-Mettler
2007 M. Arimaviciute Personnel evaluation in organizational strategy
2007 H. J. Whiting and Performance appraisal oriented towards performance results
T. J. B. Kline
2008 L. Lobanova Opportunities of improvement of evaluation of personnel in
public sector
2008 R. Herdlein, H. Kukemelk and Higher education performance appraisal
K. Turk
2009 L. Lobanova and E. Chlivickas Evaluation of human resource competences in public sector
2009 J. Vveinhardt and K. Kigaite Evaluation and development of human resources in the context
of constant learning
2009 V. Giziene and Z. Economic evaluation of human resources and education
Simanaviciene
2009 I. Matuziene and Evaluation of employee motivation system
D. Gaidamaviciene
2009 C. C. Yee and Y. Y. Chen Performance appraisal system and multifactorial evaluation
2010 E. Zuperkiene and A. Zuperka Improvement of personnel evaluation procedures
2010 A. Raipa and A. Problematics of human resources in the sector of culture
Pauliukeviciute
2010 K. Staras and A. Siopiene Evaluation system in the situation of health care institutions,
qualification problem
2010 S. K. Gul, O. Dolu and C. Personnel evaluation system
Dogutas
2011 E. Chlivickas, N. Paliulis and Human resource management functions
J. Raudeliuniene
2011 A. Ishfaq, R. Muhammad, The relationship between perceived fairness in performance
M. S. Khushi and I. Talat appraisal and organizational citizenship behavior considering the
mediation effect of organizational commitment
2012 A. Maceika and B. Janciauskas Evaluation aspects of organization’s intellectual and creative
process
2012 G. K. Karyeija Impact of the reform on performance appraisal in the cultural
sector
Source: comprised by the authors.

Conclusions of performed studies show that economic evaluation systems are applied insufficiently;
employees do not have enough opportunities to participate in training programmes that are one of
the factors of commitment to an organization. Employees experience the problem of organizational
goals. It is necessary to pay attention that presently the important conditions of adjustment to
changes are the evaluation of individual abilities, growing potential, orientation to achievement of
results, flexibility in actions and thinking, development of creativity, etc. Team management
paradigm defines the requirement for employees to work with their colleagues in one team solving
non-standard tasks. In current conditions, the activity became so difficult that it cannot be carried
out by one specialist (Prigozhin, 1995; Kaimakova, 2002; etc.). The personnel evaluation changes
accordingly. The orientation towards control is characteristic to the traditional evaluation.
Nowadays this point of view is no longer acceptable. Organizations must constantly accept changes
and take new initiatives in order to survive. Long-term success of an organization depends on the
reliable employee evaluation, and the evaluation must be characterized by a “philosophy”
61
 Jolita Vveinhardt, Palmira Papsiene / Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71

understandable to everyone and modern standards. Therefore, the mutual constant growth and
improvement between an organization and its employees is necessary. In addition, the emotional
relations interfere with the impartial evaluation.

At first sight, the evaluation of human resources seems to be a clear and explicable phenomenon.
However, in many fields it is difficult to determine personnel’s performance and behaviour in
absolute numbers and substantiate them with decisions. It should be noted that managers admit
that due to performance evaluation and instructions with regard to its improvement some
difficulties emerge (Stoner et al., 2006). J. Martin (2009) claims that the level of result achievement
according to established parameters is easy to evaluate only in manufacturing, i.e. it is easy to
“know” what was achieved and what could be achieved. However, it is not always easy to evaluate
employees’ performance. The problem is how to convey the evaluation to an employee in a
constructive manner and use the feedback for performance improvement in the future, as well as
determine the suitable compensation for an employee after the evaluation. J. Merkevicius (2005)
notes that during the evaluation of the personnel (G. L. Boomer, 2004 is cited), it is necessary to
consider employee’s efforts to create the surplus value for an organization. Professional personnel
evaluation ensures the efficiency of their supervision process, encourages the efficiency of
personnel’s performance and clarity of expectations. B. B. Mahapatro (2010) claims that human
resource evaluation results help establishing the strengths and flaws, loyalty and skill improvement
of the personnel, and, upon consideration of evaluation results, planning the opportunity to raise a
salary or, in extreme cases, to demote or dismiss an employee. Fierce competition encourages the
informal development of every employee and does not ensure feeling of security and reliability.
Employees seek knowledge individually and improve their skills in order to avoid the extreme
consequences of negative evaluation. Employees are stressed out by the “global” review of their
knowledge, disclosure of their relationships with the colleagues and not knowing the development
perspectives. However, the direct discussion decreases the negative factors.

Future Present Past

Personality + Behaviour + Situation = Achievements

ability desire obligation quality and quantity

of work results

Abilities Motivation Circumstances Work results

Potencies Resolution Conditions

Input factors Output factors

Employee evaluation

Fig 1. Dimensions of employee evaluation

Source: Thom, N., Ritz, A. (2004). Viesoji vadyba. Inovaciniai viesojo sektoriaus valdymo metmenys. Lietuvos
teises universiteto Leidybos centras, p. 256.

62
 Jolita Vveinhardt, Palmira Papsiene / Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71

According to A. Sakalas (2003), when evaluating personnel using the complex approach, three
dimensions of evaluation are distinguished: assessors themselves, content of the evaluation and
time aspect. N. Thom and A. Ritz (2004) claim that employee evaluation is based on four
dimensions: abilities, motivation, circumstances and performance. Behaviour and achievements are
affected by three factors: ability (capability), resolution (desire) and circumstances (allowable
and/or obligatory). The system of those evaluation dimensions and their links is presented in Fig. 1.
Comprehensive evaluation of employees encompasses all four dimensions.

As R. T. Venkateswara (2004) states, evaluation defines the performance efforts of an employee or

employee group within a certain period and the quality of achieved result, as well as distinguishes
the dimensions of efficient evaluation: efficiency or result, contribution or costs, time,
concentration, quality, price or expenses. Employee’s personal qualities and acquired experience
allow assuming that achieved results will be of high quality and will be achieved with the lowest
expenditure, which will allow the organization to compete efficiently. The efficient performance of
an organization is determined by not only employee’s personal qualities and gained experience, but
also by work atmosphere, interrelations and relations with managers (Fig. 2).

Employee’s personal Relations

qualities and gained among employees
experience
Time and
quality

Efficiency or
Dimensions of efficient Contribution or
result
employee evaluation costs

Price or
expenses

Relations with Work

managers atmosphere

Fig 2. Dimensions of efficient employee evaluation

Source: comprised by the J. Vveinhardt.

According to J. Martin (2009), the scientific discussion in the aspect of evaluation raises questions
about the management philosophy and style, psychological contact, work organization and
environment, clarity of goals and their fields of application, viewpoint on the evaluation of activity
results, motivation towards the performance, and reward practice. In order to achieve good results,
63
 Jolita Vveinhardt, Palmira Papsiene / Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71

it is necessary to coordinate values, aims, expectations of the manager and members of the group,
to be able to listen out and involve all employees in active work. Autocratic manager, who does not
consider neither group, nor society interests or universally accepted ethic norms and values, is
hardly able to manage and develop successfully. Liberal managers perform poorly, if their
subordinate employees are dependent, unenterprising, not accustomed to assume responsibility.
Such staffs have a lot of problems due to the quality of work relation management and poor
psychological climate (Jeciuviene, 2006). As J. Zaptorius (2007) states, goals of an organization are
impossible to achieve without the long-term dedication of organization employees, and the
motivation is one of the several factors determining personal performance results: abilities,
resources and conditions, in which this is carries out. P. S. Horton (2006) notes that in many
organizations the formal performance evaluation process is separated from the reward process,
since the evaluation of performance related to reward does not motivate employees to evaluate
themselves and speak openly about the need of training or problems encountered at work. This is
also not compatible with the goals of development of the evaluation process. Practically, it is rather
hard to distinguish the formal performance evaluation process from reward and decisions with
regard to salary, and in the civil service and many other parts of public sector (e.g., in the United
Kingdom) the reward is closely related to performance.

Evaluation becomes the intervention, initiative and partnership of measurement activity

improvement and various means of impact, as well as strategic actions in the whole organization.
Thus, the evaluation fixates the extent of impact of human resource intervention and practices on
an organization (Gilley et. al., 2009). Employee’s contribution to organization’s performance
perspective is not single, but composed of many aspects that comprise personal and experiential
qualities. A. Sakalas (2003) claims that poor initiative and unsuitable attitude towards work reduce
the efficiency of personnel performance. This influences organization philosophy, culture,
personnel policy and areas of activity. The following goals and tasks are distinguished in personnel
evaluation analysis: 1) improvement of management process: it improves, since work results are
evaluated, employees’ strengths and weaknesses are established, and means for elimination of
flaws are scheduled; 2) optimization of personnel introduction process: the most suitable candidates
are selected for the position in consideration of workplace requirements and employee qualities,
employee transfer and dismissal are organized purposefully; 3) organization of payment according
to work results or characteristics: employee evaluation is a substantiated base of introduction of one
or another system; 4) improvement of personnel training system: purposeful employee selection and
their improvement (training and qualification improvement) system is organized; 5) increase of
intensity of cooperation: during the evaluation, conversations are carried out and cooperation flaws
are discussed; 6) improvement of motivation of the colleagues: employee knows what he or she has
to do in order for his/her professional level to advance, and in order to be able to pursue a career.

In P. Falcone’s and R. T. Sachs’ (2007) opinion, the goal of evaluation is not only to inform
employees about the evaluation of their work. Productive performance evaluation can do much
more: employees find out about their personal qualities, set new goals and tasks for themselves,
participate actively in the evaluation process, relations between managers and colleagues become
better, effective work is carried out in teams, employees are interested in perspectives and become
a part of the organization, participate in trainings wilfully, aim for quality, feel that they have been
“heard” by their manager, and that the manager cares about their needs and goals.

64
 Jolita Vveinhardt, Palmira Papsiene / Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71

In many works on personnel evaluation, different attitude of authors towards goals achieved with
the help of evaluation is apparent (Bazarova and Eremina, 2002; Sakalas, 2003; Falcone, Sachs,
2007; Dessler, 2008 et al.), etc. Those tasks could be formulated as follows: personnel’s work
efficiency and correspondence to occupied position; identification of potential personnel’s
possibilities; identification of potential growth and training programs for the personnel; team
formation; formation of a reserve for the occupation of higher positions; creation of rational
management structures. T. Coens and M. Jenkins (2002) note that the evaluation became more than
just a personnel management mean requiring the responsible attitude of the manager towards the
organization development. Each evaluation reveals employee’s strengths and weaknesses,
employee’s disappointments, therefore, experiments with evaluation should not be carried out, and
the distribution of results should not be delayed. Evaluation is a complicated process, during which
it is disclosed if the planned goals are achieved, and if not, if there are any alternatives in order to
achieve the desired result; evaluation is a method with which not only results, but also the running
of the process is evaluated; the efficiency of employee’s individual activity and created value is
defined, feedback is created, career opportunities become apparent. Evaluation is the tool of
organization development and communication with personnel. Achieved work results
corresponding to requirement criteria are evaluated. However, as a rule, evaluation invokes a lot of
stress in employees. From the preparation for the evaluation until its conclusion, employees
concentrate on the evaluation itself, and not on the activities carried out directly. Quality of work
suffers and productivity decreases due to this. In addition, the assumption that evaluation becomes
the mean to get rid of undesired employees should not be dismissed as well.

S. Armstrong, M. Appelbaum and K. Henches (2003) note that the evaluation is an important
element of activity management. During the evaluation, interaction between employees and
managers should not induce stress, and during interviews activity results and goals should be
constructively discussed, organization’s fairness with regard to employees and possibility to
encourage open communication between employees, making of collective decisions and team
cooperation, and the possibility to discover available human resource potential should be
demonstrated. Authors (Kline and Sulsky, 2009) notice that the evaluation frightens employees due
to inaccuracy of measurements and inappropriate evaluation system. Evaluation is defined as an
activity, during which it is aimed to evaluate employee’s efficiency, abilities, and make the decision
regarding incentives. Evaluation should not become a tradition organized every year and a routine
to managers. Evaluation takes a lot of time from its preparation until implementation, and evokes
rather big confusion in employees’ activity, i.e. an extraneous interference emerges, which does not
allow fully concentrating on the direct work, and therefore is not welcome neither by managers, nor
by employees. If evaluation results are unsuitable, managers are obliged to organize additional
training, and this is an additional time and money consumption. In order to change the situation,
the efficient and simple evaluation model is required, which would be clear to the whole personnel
of an organization. Defined evaluation criteria of a certain area do not allow the assessors to deflect
to “global” criteria, which is characteristic to another area.

In changing conditions, when the complexity of work frequently does not allow one employee to
carry it out, it is necessary to consider the potential of human resources of an organization as an
integral system, without summing up the potential of separate employees. Unanimous task requires
the capacity, integration and teamwork of various professionals. Therefore, the personnel are
evaluated not only according to work results and personal qualities of each employee. In modern
65
 Jolita Vveinhardt, Palmira Papsiene / Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71

human resource management, many authors see the evaluation of personnel as the systematic
activity of the whole organization, and the evaluation itself is not limited only to a separate
personality anymore (Klimova, 1999; Bazarova and Eremina, 2002 et al.). For this broader
explanation of perception, sometimes the word combination “social-psychological diagnostics”
(including the object: personality, group, organization) is used in academic literature. S. A. Lipatov
(2001) notes that although psychodiagnosticians analyze personality differences, a personality
does not exist outside the social environment and may not be understood in a non-social context.
Summarizing various viewpoints on this issue, he defines the social-psychological diagnostics as
“the evaluation of social-psychological processes, states and qualities of a personality and groups with
special diagnostic procedures, methods and programmes“ (Lipatov, 2001, p. 89). I. G. Kokurina
(2007) also showed interested in this scientific discussion, noting that not only impartial criteria
(personnel fluctuation, discipline, work productivity) are used, but also such subjective indexes as
individuals’ attitude towards their work, motivation, etc. In M. V. Kaimakova’s (2008) opinion, apart
from employee’s qualities, it is necessary to form the potential of human resources and create
activities for personnel development, and that would correspond to the aims and principles of
public sector organization policy. According to this perception, this is the basis of human resource
policy when obtaining the necessary information about organization employees. L. Liukineviciene
and E. Garoliene (2009) note that various authors defining the evaluation of personnel in academic
literature distinguish employees’ competence, qualification and performance indexes. Evaluation is
defined as a managerial action, when special methods are applied for the evaluation of person’s
qualities, abilities, knowledge and skills. In other words, personnel evaluation is used to evaluate
specific competences of existing and future employees.

Nevertheless, it is important to evaluate the experience; it makes sense to discuss briefly the socio-
cultural system, which has been formed. The reform started in Lithuania a decade ago postulates
the requirement to evaluate the performance results. According to R. Vanagas and A. Tumėnas
(2008), the performance management system, which would record specific works and they would
be ranked in order of importance, has not been created, as well as the performance measurement
system. As a result, the assessment of the employees is basically subjective. Why? An important and
perhaps determinative role in the assessment system is carried out by servants of political
confidence, the control of activities of whom may only be ensured by a formed active citizenship
community, which in developing societies (and not only) is an aspiration, and not a fact. Although
the Law on Public Service of the Republic of Lithuania (1999) provides quite high requirements for
public sector officials, professional competence of servants of political confidence is not discussed
in the Law. Visually speaking, with the implementation of the principle of democracy, the tool for
public sector management is in the hands of representatives of electors, moral criteria have been
formed; however, professional qualities remain uninstitutionalised. Moreover, in Lithuania, like in
other post-Soviet Central and Eastern European countries, legal business practices take place only
for two decades, although, the experience of a significant part of entrepreneurs of working illegally,
bypassing the system obstacles, is longer. Although today it is considered to be characteristic of
entrepreneurship, but the constant confrontation and attempts to bypass the system requirements
(we don’t evaluate them), have formed a specific character, which we call the duplicity or
conformism. A part of the representatives of this subculture, who have accumulated financial
capital, participate in public life and become political confidence administrators in public-sector
organizations.

66
 Jolita Vveinhardt, Palmira Papsiene / Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71

In summary, it is possible to claim that irrespective of the relevance and significance of human
resource evaluation, it should be stated that some authors formulating evaluation definitions and
emphasizing its importance limit themselves with the scientific management organizational theory
and culture principles of a bureaucratic organization, when the potential of human resources is
considered as easily replaced material resources. Other majority of authors emphasize the
importance and benefit of evaluation both for the organization and for human resources. The
evaluation in organizations frequently becomes the manipulation of employees by managers in
order to gain personal advantage.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

In spite of efforts to implement business models in public sector, market laws promoting economic
activities do not function here, and the competition, both inner and outer, is minimal. Civil maturity
of the society is not that engine yet that would encourage public sector organizations to aim for
maximum performance efficiency. Systematic and cultural problems impeding the development
and inner self-development of human resources in the public sector are experienced. Potential
development obstructions, such as the high level of corruption, nepotism, favouritism, mechanical
and formalized implementation of management innovations, lack of corporate responsibility, low
level of tolerance, axiological and ethical conformism should be mentioned. All those problems
aggravate the ambition to evaluate human resources in the public sector as impartially as possible.

Evaluation of public sector human resources is defined as the estimation of suitability of resources
for work in a specific public sector activity with the consideration of perspective of activity of the
organization, its people and the whole sector. Dimensions of abilities, motivation, circumstances
and efficiency could be supplemented by expectations, values and feedback or control. People
adjust to strong organizational culture; therefore, the culture based on high professional and moral
criteria should be one of the essential landmarks of the public sector in order for human resource
evaluation not to become only formal, autotelic procedure, satisfying private but not public
interests. When solving problems of the evaluation of human resources in the public sector,
stronger influence of citizens and associated professional structures is aspired. When implementing
models created by foreign authors, it is necessary to evaluate national aspects of human resource
management system, traditions and culture.

With the view of the changes in the social system in public-sector organizations it is relevant to
create the structure of personnel assessment, in which the assessment of employees would be
passed to professionals, thus reducing the subjective influence of the servants of political
confidence, formulating clear criteria of performance and the achieved results of the evaluation
process, including professional organizations in the assessment process, and the leaders of political
confidence should be oriented towards the duty to develop the strategic aspects of human resource
management in the public sector organization.

The system does not encourage management in accordance with the principle of leadership, and
the mandate of civil democracy, given to elected politicians, is implemented only formally.
During the discussion, it is suggested to debate the theme of how much democratic processes in the
public sector become the functional models.

67
 Jolita Vveinhardt, Palmira Papsiene / Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71

References
Aldakhilallah, K. A. and Parente, D. H., 2002. Redesigning a square peg: Total quality management
performance appraisals. Total Quality Management 13 (1), 39–51.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544120120098555
Alonderiene, R. and Bakanauskiene, I., 2004. Darbuotoju vertinimas komandose. Organizaciju vadyba:
sisteminiai tyrimai, 30, 21–33.
Arimaviciute, M. (2007). Funkciniu veiklu strateginis valdymas viesojo sektoriaus institucijose. Viesoji
politika ir administravimas 20, 81–89.
Armstrong, S., Appelbaum, M., Henches, K. 2003. Stress-free Performance Appraisals: Turn Your Most Painful
Management Duty Into a Powerful Motivational Tool. New York: Career Press.
Bakanauskiene, I. 1998. Personalo valdymas Lietuvos organizacijose: pagrindiniu ypatumu analize.
Organizaciju vadyba: sisteminiai tyrimai 8, 17–30.
Bakanauskiene, I. 2002. Personalo valdymas. Kaunas: VDU leidykla.
Bakanauskiene, I. 2008. Personalo valdymas. Kaunas: VDU leidykla.
Bazarova, T. J., Eremina, B. L. 2002. Upravlienija personalom. Moskva: Juniti.
Berulava, M. N. 1995. Psihologija i pedagogika menedzhmenta. Biisk: Biiskii gos. pedagogicheskii institut.
Burda, R. 2012. Korupcija privaciame sektoriuje: apibrezties ir teisinio reguliavimo galimybes. Verslo ir teises
aktualijos 7 (1), 201–220.
Chlivickas, E. (2006). Verslo ir viesojo sektoriaus zmoniskuju istekliu potencialo pletra. Verslas: teorija ir
praktika 7 (2), 98–107.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/btp.2006.12
Chlivickas, E. (2010).Viesasis administravimas Europos Sajungoje: zmogiskuju istekliu vadyba. Public
Administration, Vol. 3/4 Issue 27/28, p. 25–36.
Chlivickas, E., Paliulis, N., Raudeliuniene, J. 2011. Zmogiskuju istekliu administravimo funkciju ir proceduru
efektyvumas viesajame sektoriuje. Viesasis administravimas 3 (31), 63–76.
Coens, T., Jenkins, M. 2002. Abolishing performance appraisals: Why they backfire and what to do instead. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
PMid:11858987
Crawford, B. A. 2003. Performance appraisals: the importance of documentation. Fire Engineering 156 (7),
100–102.
den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., Paauwe, J. 2004. Performance management: a model and research agenda.
Applied Psychology: An International Review 53 (4), 556–569.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00188.x
Dessler, G. 2008. A Framerwork for human resource management. New York: Prentice Hall.
Falcone, P., Sachs, R. T. 2007. Productive performance appraisals. New York: American Management
Association.
Fletcher, C. 2001. Performance appraisal and management: the developing research agenda. Fletcher, Clive,
Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology 74 (4), 473–484.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317901167488
Gedvilaite-Moan, A., Zakarevicius, P. 2010. Strateginio planavimo ypatumu viesajame sektoriuje teoriniai
aspektai. Organizaciju vadyba: sisteminiai tyrimai 54, 53–66.
Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., Quatro, S. A., Dixon, P. 2009. The Praeger handbook of human resource management.
Santa Barbara CA: Praeger.
Ginevicius, R., Paliulis, N. K., Chlivickas, E., Merkevicius, J. 2006. XXI amziaus issukiai: organizaciju ir
visuomenes pokyciai. Vilnius: Technika.
Giziene, V., Simanaviciene, Z. 2009. Zmogiskuju istekliu ekonominis vertinimas. Ekonomika ir vadyba 14,
237–244.
Gul, S. K., Dolu, O., Dogutas, C. 2010. Performance appraisal system in the Turkish National Police: the case of
Ankara Police Department. Police Practice and Research11 (6), 505–519.
68
 Jolita Vveinhardt, Palmira Papsiene / Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2010.497367
Gundersen, D. E., Tinsley, D. B., Terpstra, D. E. 1996. Empirical assessment of impression management biases:
the potential for performance appraisal error. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality11 (5), 57–76.
Gustas, E. 2003. Zmogiskuju istekliu valdymo ypatumai valstybes tarnyboje: tarnautoju veiklos vertinimas ir
kvalifikacijos tobulinimas. Viesoji politika ir administravimas 5, 65–70.
Herdlein, R., Kukemelk, H., Turk, K. 2008. A survey of academic officers regarding performance appraisal in
Estonian and American universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 30 (4), 387–
399.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600800802383067
Holbrook, R. L. Jr. 1999. Managing reactions to performance appraisal: the influence of multiple justice
mechanisms. Social Justice Research 12 (3), 205–221.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022196301372
Horton, P. S. 2006. Personalo veiklos vertinimo tendencijos ir issukiai: Jungtines Karalystes patirtis. Valstybes
tarnautoju vertinimas: patirtis ir isuukiai, 2006 m. geguzes 23-24 d., Vilnius.
Ishfag, A., Muhammad, R., Khushi, M. S., Talat, I. 2011. Relationship between perceived fairness in
performance appraisal and OCB: mediating role of organizational commitment. International Journal of
Academic Research 3 (5), 15–20.
Yee, C. C., Chen, Y. Y. 2009. Performance appraisal system using multifactorial evaluation model. Proceedings
of World Academy of Science: Engineering & Technology 41, 231 – 235.
Yun, G. J., Donahue, L. M., Dudley, N. M., McFarland, L. A. 2005. Rater personality, rating format, and social
context: implications for performance appraisal ratings. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment 13 (2), 97–107.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2005.00304.x
Jankauskas, R., Pajarskiene, B. 1997. Psichini stresa darbe sukeliantys veiksniai ir ju ivertinimas: metodines
rekomendacijos. Vilnius: Higienos institutas.
Jeciuviene, M. 2006. Darbo santykiu valdymo aspektai, p. 92–101. Personalo vadybos teorijos ir praktikos
aktualijos: moksliniu straipsniu rinkinys. Ats. red. A. Malovikas, Generolo Jono Zemaicio Lietuvos karo
akademija.
Kaimakova, M. V. 2008. Analiz ispolzovanija chelovecheskih resursov. Uljanovsk: UlGTU.
Kalb, K. B., Cherry, N. M., Kauzloric, J., Brender, A., Green, K., Miyagawa, L. A., Shinoda-Mettler, A. 2006. A
competency-based approach to public health nursing performance appraisal. Public Health Nursing 23
(2), 115–138.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1446.2006.230204.x
PMid:16684187
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1525-1446.2006.230204.x/pdf
Karyeija, G. K. 2012. The impact of culture on performance appraisal reforms in Africa: the case of Uganda's
civil service. Asian Social Science 8 (4), 159–174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n4p159
Kasatkina, N., Beresneviciute, V. 2010. Ethnic structure, inequality and governance of the public sector in
Lithuania. Etniskumo studijos 1, 7–25.
Klimaviciene, I., Mykolaitiene, V. 2007. Changes in the accounting system of the public sector in Lithuania.
Ekonomika ir vadyba 12, 63–71.
Klimova, E. A. 1999. Psihologicheskaja diagnostika v upravlenii personalom: uchebnoe posobie dlja
sotrudnikov kadrovyh sluzhb. Moskva: Rossiiskoe psihologicheskoe obshcestvo.
Kline, T. J. B., Sulsky, L. M. 2009. Measurement and assessment issues in performance appraisal. Canadian
Psychology 50 (3), 161–171.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015668
Klupsas, F. 2006. Darbuotoju veiklos vertinimo aktualijos. Management Theory & Studies for Rural Business
& Infrastructure Development 7, 62–64.
Kociunas, R. 1995. Psichologinis konsultavimas. Vilnius: Lumen.

69
 Jolita Vveinhardt, Palmira Papsiene / Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71

Kokurina, I. G. 2007. Socialno-psihologicheskii analiz smysloobrazyjushcei funkcii motivacii

zhiznedejatelnosti socialnogo individa. Vestnik Moskv. un-ta, ser. 14, Psihologija 1, 73–86.
Konieczna, J. 2010. Corporate reputation formation principles: public sector. Informacijos mokslai, 54, 98–
114.
Leoniene, B. 2001. Darbuotoju vadyba. Kaunas: Sviesa.
Lietuvos Respublikos valstybes tarnybos istatymas (1999). Istatymas skelbtas: Zin., 1999, Nr. 66-2130 (1999
m. liepos 8 d. Nr. VIII-1316). Aktuali redakcija nuo 2012-06-19.
Lipatov, S. A. 2001. Metody socialno-psihologicheskoi diagnostiki organizacii. Vvedenie v prikladnuju
socialnuju psihologiju. Moskva: Smysl.
Liukineviciene, L., Garoliene, E. 2009. Studiju aplinkos personalo vertinimo kryptingumas kuriant personalo
veiklos vertinimo sistema aukstojoje mokykloje. Ekonomika ir vadyba: aktualijos ir perspektyvos 2 (15),
162–173.
Lobanova, L. 2008. Personalo vertinimas viesajame sektoriuje: tobulinimo galimybes. Viesasis
administravimas 4 (20), 52–60.
Lobanova, L., Chlivickas, E. 2009. Zmogiskuju istekliu kompetenciju vertinimas viesajame sektoriuje. Viesasis
administravimas1 (21), 63–72.
Maceika, A., Janciauskas, B. 2012. Inovatyvios zinios: ju kilme, isskyrimas ir naudojimas gamybineje veikloje.
Verslas: teorija ir praktika 13(3), 228–233.
Mahapatro, B. B. 2010. Human Resource Management. New Delhi, India: New Age International (P) Ltd.
Makstutis, A. 1999. Veiklos vadyba: teorija ir praktika. Vilnius: LR svietimo ir mokslo m-jos Leidybos centras.
Marcinskas, A., Diska, V. 2009. Priorities of Leaders' Managerial Roles in the Public Sector. Public
Administration 3/4 (23/24), 45–54.
Martin, J. 2009. Human Resource Management. London: Sage.
Martinkus, B., Savaneviciene, A. 1996. Darbo ekonomika. Kaunas: Technologija.
Maslov, E. V. 1999. Upravlenie personalom predprijatija. M: INFRA-M; Novosibirsk: NGAEiU.
Matuziene, I., Gaidamaviciene, D. 2009. Assessment of the Employee Motivation System: a Case Study of a
Production Enterprise. Socialiniai tyrimai 2 (16), 55–66.
Melnikas, B. 2006. Management specialist development systems: internationalization processes and the
lifelong learning. Engineering economics 2 (47), 77–90.
Merkevicius, J. 2005. Virtualios organizacijos personalo valdymas. Daktaro disertacija. Vilnius: Technika.
Mukhtar, R., Ali, N. A. 2011. Quality governance of human aspects of quality initiatives in the public service
sector. Verslo ir teises aktualijos 6 (1), 111–128.
Palidauskaite, J. 2008. Valstybes tarnautoju motyvavimas: lyginamasis aspektas. Viesoji politika ir
administravimas 25, 7–18.
Paliulis, N., Chlivickas, E., Pabedinskaite, A. 2004. Valdymas ir informacija. Vilnius: Technika.
Papsiene, P. 2010. Viesojo sektoriaus reformos poveikis zmogiskuju istekliu vadybai. Management Theory &
Studies for Rural Business & Infrastructure Development 20, 100–107.
Perkumiene, D., Raupeliene, A. 2008. Ethics and working culture of employees in the public sector.
Organizaciju vadyba: sisteminiai tyrimai 46, 99–116.
Prigozhin, A. I. 1995. Sociologijam sovremennoi organicii. Moskva: Juniti.
Prykin, B. V., Prykina, L. V., Eriashvili, M. D., Usman, Z. A. 1998. Obshcii kurs menedzhmenta v tablicah i
grafikah. Moskva: Juniti.
Raipa, A., Pauliukeviciute, A. 2010. Huhuman resource management in the culture sector: problems and
solutions. Viesasis administravimas 3/4 (27/28), 85–93.
Ruzevicius, J., Klimas, D., Veleckaite, R. 2012. Influence of organizational culture on the success of business
process management in Lithuanian public sector organizations. Verslo ir teises aktualijos 7 (1), 1–16.
Sakalas, A. 2003. Personalo vadyba. Vilnius: Margi rastai.
Sakalas, A., Silingiene, V. 2000. Personalo valdymas. Kaunas: Technologija.
Samygin, S. I., Stoljarenko, L. D. 1997. Menedshcment personala. Moskva: Feniks.
Segaloviciene, I., Snapstiene, R. 2007. Viesojo administravimo stebesenos ir vertinimo sistema i rezultatus
orientuotame valdyme, p. 166–193. A. Raipa (ats. red.) ir kt. Naujoji viesoji vadyba. Kaunas: Technologija.
70
 Jolita Vveinhardt, Palmira Papsiene / Journal of Globalization and Business Management
(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 54-71

Shah, J. B., Murphy, J. 1995. Performance appraisal for improved productivity. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 11 (2), 26–29.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1995)11:2(26)
Stoffey, R. W., Reilly, R. R. 1997. Training appraisees to participate in appraisal: effects on appraisers and
appraisees. Journal of Business & Psychology, 12 (2), 219–239.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025026303119
Stoner, J. A. F., Freeman, R. E., Gilbert, Jr. D. R. 2006. Vadyba. Kaunas: Poligrafija ir informatika.
Staras, K., Siopiene, A. 2010. VsI Centro poliklinikos veiklos efektyvumo vertinimas. Socialiniu mokslu studijos
3(7), 163–176.
Thom, N., Ritz, A. 2004. Viesoji vadyba. Inovaciniai viesojo sektoriaus valdymo metmenys. Vilnius: Lietuvos
teises universiteto leidybos centras.
Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., Cleveland, J. N., Beaudin, G., Marchand, S. 1998. Impact of rater beliefs regarding
performance appraisal and its organizational context on appraisal quality. Journal of Business &
Psychology 12 (4), 457–467.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025003106150
Vanagas, R., Tumenas, A. 2008. Savivaldybes darbuotoju tarnybines veiklos vertinimas veiklos valdymo
kontekste. Viesoji politika ir administravimas 25, 57–67.
Venkateswara, R. T. 2004. Performance management and appraisal systems: HR tools for global
competitiveness. London: Sage.
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S. 2000. Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of
Selection & Assessment 8 (4), 216–226.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00151
Vveinhardt, J. 2010. Organizacijos klimato bukle padalinio ir organizacijos lygmenyse: tyrimo rezultatu
lyginamoji analize. Organizaciju vadyba: sisteminiai tyrimai 54, 115–129.
Vveinhardt, J. 2012. Nepotism variations: public and private sectors. Dostizhenija vysshei shkoly – 2012.
Bolgarija, g. Sofija: Bjal GRAD-BG.
Vveinhardt, J., Kigaite, K. 2009. Zmogiskuju istekliu vystymas nuolatinio mokymosi kontekste: turizmo
administravimo studiju katedros destytoju potencialo tyrimas. Profesines studijos: teorija ir praktika
5,184–193.
Vveinhardt, J., Papsiene, P. 2013a. Problematics of application of human resource evaluation models and
methods to improve public sector performance. Problems and Perspectives in Management 11 (1), 94–
105.
Vveinhardt, J., Papsiene, P. 2013b. The structure of human resources assessment process: conditions for
criteria formation. Business and Management Research 2 (2), 69–84.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/bmr.v2n2p69
Whiting, H. J., Kline, T. J. B. 2007. Testing a model of performance appraisal fit on attitudinal outcomes.
Psychologist-Manager Journal 10 (2), 127–148.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10887150701451288
Zaptorius, J. 2007. Darbuotoju motyvavimo sistemos kurimas ir jos teorine analize. Filosofija. Sociologija 18
(4), 105–117.
Zuperkiene, E., Zuperka, A. 2010. Personalo vertinimo proceso tobulinimo teoriniai aspektai. Management
theory and studies for rural business and infrastructure development 20, 182–190.

71

View publication stats