Performance-management: managing the resultivity of achieving the organization's HRM-goals

Abstract

Introduction. Performance management (PM) plays a critical role in achieving organizational goals, but traditional research has focused on its technical aspects, ignoring employee perceptions and the contextual features of developing countries. This study focuses on the education sector, where performance management effectiveness (PMSE) faces unique challenges: conflict between academic and administrative goals, low trust in formal assessments. Purpose. The aim of the work is to empirically test a comprehensive PM model combining technical accuracy (PMSA) and perceived fairness (PMSF) and assess their impact on employee engagement (WE) and productivity (Task Performance (TP); Contextual Performance (CP). Methods. The study combines theoretical analysis of the conceptual models of performance management system Job Demands-Resources Model (JD-R), Ability-Motivation-Opportunity (AMO), Social Exchange and quantitative approach. The data were collected through anonymous surveys of 500 employees of educational organizations in Russia. To test the hypotheses, second-order structural modeling was used to evaluate the direct and indirect effects of the influence of performance-management system accuracy and perceived fairness on employees' involvement in decision-making, task performance, and their extra-role behavior. The analysis included an assessment of the reliability of the scales, convergent and discriminant validity. Results. The effectiveness of the performance-management system shows a significant effect on employee involvement in the decision-making process (β = 0.58, p < 0.01) and on their productivity (TP: β = 0.42; CP: β = 0.35). Involvement partially mediated the correlation of performance management resultivity and extra-role performance, 41% of the effect, and fully mediated the correlation of performance management resultivity and task performance, the effect was 63%. The key determinant of performance-management resultivity was found to be perceived fairness (β = 0.47) vs. accuracy of the management system (β = 0.21), especially in the context of academic uncertainty. The model explained 52% of the variance in employee engagement, and 45% of the variance in task completion, confirming its relevance to the educational sector. Conclusions. The results highlight that performance management in education requires a balance between goal accuracy and procedural fairness. Practical recommendations include the introduction of anonymous fairness assessments and training for managers using the Situation-Behavior-Impact (SBI) methodology, the integration of contextual performance into key performance indicators by taking into account mentoring and research initiatives, and the use of OKR (Objectives and Key Results) platforms for joint goal setting. Limitations of the study include the regional specificity of the sample (Russia) and the focus on the education sector. Prospects include studying PMSE in the context of digitalization and cross-cultural comparisons.