• Users Online: 250
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

Table of Contents
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 48-53

Attitude of staff of Kashan university of medical sciences concerning their annual performance

1 Department of Management, Faculty Member of Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran
2 Expert in Research and Academic Services for Shahid Beheshti Hospital of Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran
3 Department of Environmental Health, Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran
4 English Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kashan University of Medical Science, Kashan, Iran

Date of Web Publication29-May-2018

Correspondence Address:
Mr. Abbas Ansaritabar
Expert in Research and Academic Services for Shahid Beheshti Hospital of Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/iahs.iahs_1_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: Performance assessment in organizations can lead to healthy relationships in the workplace, and it also pays grounds for intellectual growth and improvement of staff performance. This study examines the attitudes of Staff of Kashan University of Medical Sciences and Health Services about their annual performance. Materials and Methods: In this descriptive study, 714 staff were randomly selected. The data of this study were collected by a questionnaire, whose validity and credit were tested. Then, in two stages, samples of 52 and 56 persons were taken and by two-half method and calculating the homogeneity coefficient and the Cronbach's coefficient alpha and Kuder-Richardson coefficients in the second step get to the Cronbach's coefficient alpha 93% that final validity was acceptable. The collected data were analyzed using the SPSS Inc. Released 2007. SPSS for Windows, Version 16.0. (Chicago, SPSS Inc.). Results: The results of this study showed that the mean and standard deviation of age of the employees were 37.16 ± 7.1 years and their working history was 12.4 ± 7.7 years. A total of 256 participants (35.8%) considered the current evaluation as inappropriate or completely inappropriate performance assessment, 303 participants (42.4%) almost appropriate, 155 participants (21.7%) suitable or perfectly suitable. About 47.9% of participants rated the best period of evaluation yearly, and 552 participants (77.3%) of the statistical society were considered assessment in the presence of the employee appropriate. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that the attitude of more than 50% of employees was positive about the annual performance assessment.

Keywords: Assessment, attitude, performance, university staff

How to cite this article:
Golafshani SA, Ansaritabar A, Hoseindoost G, Atharizadeh M. Attitude of staff of Kashan university of medical sciences concerning their annual performance. Int Arch Health Sci 2018;5:48-53

How to cite this URL:
Golafshani SA, Ansaritabar A, Hoseindoost G, Atharizadeh M. Attitude of staff of Kashan university of medical sciences concerning their annual performance. Int Arch Health Sci [serial online] 2018 [cited 2020 May 31];5:48-53. Available from: http://www.iahs.kaums.ac.ir/text.asp?2018/5/2/48/233483

  Introduction Top

Performance evaluation can be defined as “systematically and regular evaluation of the work of individuals in relation to how they perform their tasks and determine their potential for growing and improving.”[1] To determine the merit and competency of employees, the evaluation system should be activated in each organization as evaluation is an integral part of management.[2] In other words, final control and evaluation as one of the general tasks of human resource management is a systematic effort to achieve standard goals.[3] The evaluation of the performance of the staff under topics of the system promotion, the determination of competence and performance evaluation, etc., is common in most state and private organizations and companies. Evaluation is an effective tool in the management of human resources by which organizations achieve their goals and employee benefits efficiently. During a performance evaluation, a manager evaluates employees' work behaviors by measuring and comparing them with predetermined criteria, records the results, and informs them to the employees of the organization. Correct and accurate performance of the evaluation process is relatively difficult because evaluation process requires a judgment and referee about the behavior and performance of individuals; therefore, it is necessary to carry out a qualitative assessment and a method that has the least harmful effects.[4],[5] The usual methods of evaluation are mental and qualitative. Sometimes, qualitative evaluation criteria are consciously or unconsciously biased by the support of specific staff and deviations from evaluation goals. If the staff of the organization concludes that awarding and paying bonuses is not based on the performance criterion and is not based on real evaluation, it makes employees to be discouraged.[6] Hence, nowadays, an important part of managers' time is just thinking about how to deal with the underemployed, which using the correct system of performance assessment, it can be somewhat overcome these problems and help the organization to achieve its goals and motivates more efforts in employees.[7] During studies conducted inside the country, it was found that the variables of motivation, feedback of performance (evaluation), and organizational support are the factors that have the greatest impact on productivity. Staff evaluation is done in a variety of ways, many techniques, and methods are easy-to-use, and some require more effort, expertise, and training. Ultimately, the goal of all performance evaluation methods is highly efficiency. Among the latest studies conducted in Iran, Farhadi study entitled “The relationship between the content of general education training courses for employees of the National Iranian Oil Company with their performance assessment in 2017” can be mentioned. The performance of the National Iranian Oil Products Distribution Company has been in line with the content of public in-service courses at the time of employee evaluation.[8]

Azami and Dehghan in their study titled “Assessing the Role of the Officers' Evaluation System on their Performance at NZAJA Headquarters in 2012” showed that the annual evaluation is effective on the effectiveness of officers and to improve their efficiency, attention should be paid to individual factors, capabilities, motivation, organizational commitment, and discipline, respectively. In addition, Mousavi et al., in their investigation entitled “the viewpoints of professors of the dental university of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, about the teacher evaluation system and the factors influencing their evaluation” showed that more than half of the professors believed that there was a moderate relation between the assessment score and the reality of the teaching method.[9] Among the reasons for the increase in the evaluation score from the viewpoints of the professors, the first priority was the ability and mastery on the content of the courses compared to other participants, and the least priority was given to the redefinition of teaching. Furthermore, to achieve better and more realistic results in evaluations, it is recommended to modify and to upgrade assessment tools and evaluation processes.[10] Kazimian et al. in their review of the relationship between job satisfaction and nursing staff performance in hospitals in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province showed that the job satisfaction of nursing staff was low although there was not a meaningful relationship between this finding and job performance.[11] Considering the importance of the issue and the lack of similar studies that helped to assess the quality of the study, we aimed to examine the attitudes of the staff of Kashan University of Medical Sciences about how they evaluate their annual performance. The aim of the study is, according to the results of this research to promote the level of performance of the employees, is promoted and to overcome the problems related to the performance assessment plan, all employees are evaluated by criteria and predetermined performance measurement criteria.

  Materials and Methods Top

This research is a descriptive-survey study. The statistical population of research was 714 staff of different units of university affiliated that selected in quota and randomly. In this study, census method was used. The data were collected through a questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 10 questions related to the personal and occupational characteristics of the staff and 25 questions about their attitude to the current evaluation, whose responses based on the Likert scale were completely agree, agree, fairly agree, disagree and completely disagree, and two questions were open. In this study, the view of completely agree and agree considered as the positive attitude and disagree and completely disagree considered as negative attitude. The validity of the questionnaire was prepared through content review and consultation with experts, as well as the use of various educational and managerial resources and modeling of similarly of similar plans. It was delivered to management experts, and its validity was confirmed. Then, in two stages, samples of 52 and 56 persons were taken and by two-half method and calculating the homogeneity coefficient and the Cronbach's coefficient alpha and Kuder-Richardson coefficients in the second step get to the Cronbach's coefficient alpha 93% that final validity was acceptable. Considering the accuracy of d = 0.04, the expected sample size with 95% confidence was calculated for the sample.

  Results Top

Of 714 participants were studied, 148 persons (20.7%) were <30 years old, 320 (44.8%) between 30 and 39 years, 312 (29.7%) between 40 and 49 years, and only 34 persons (4.3%) were over 50 years old [Figure 1]. The mean and standard deviation of the employees were 37.16 ± 7.1 years and their working history was 12.4 ± 7.7 years. A total of 111 were single (15.5%) and 603 (84.5%) were married, 332 were male (46.5%), and 382 were female (53.5%). A total of 41 cases (5.7%) had MSc. degree and 442 cases (61.9%) bachelor, 102 cases (96.3%) associate and 90 cases (12.6%) diplomas, and 39 cases (5.5%) under diploma [Figure 2]. Nearly 343 cases (48%) were morning workers, 48 cases (6.7%) two times, 323 cases (45.3%) rotatory shifts [Figure 3]. 5.2% of the participants disagreed about evaluating the performance, 38.4% were relatively dissatisfied, 45.6% relatively agreed, and 7.8% agreed.(The sum of the two views of rather agree and agree was more than 50%). Nearly 66 participants (9.1%) of the employees had two jobs and the remaining 649 cases (90.9%) did not have another jobs. Of the 714 staff who had the responsibility of evaluating, 608 cases (85.2%) were direct supervisor, 13 cases (1.8%) colleagues, 8 cases (1.1%) self-assessment, and 41 cases (5.7%) selected the evaluation committee. A total of 342 subjects (47.9%) selected once a year as the most suitable period of the evaluation period, 180 subjects (25.2%) twice a year, 113 subjects (15.8%) three times a year, 77 subjects (10.8%) daily, and 2 participants (0.3%) 5 times a year. Type of employee assessment criterion, respectively, include 82 participants (11.5%) by visiting the office of registration of events at the separate office and 260 participants (36.4%) direct observation of the employee's behavior by the supervisor, 78 participants (10.9%) comparison employee behavior with others, 225 participants (31.5%) Supervisor's personal tact and 69 participants (9.7%) selected I do not know as their preferred option. Most employees (251 participants; 35.2%) are considered validation based on evidence and correct information more efficient, also, 42 participants (9.9%) never, 121 participants (16.9%) rarely, 258 participants (36.1%) sometimes, and 42 participants (5.9%) known the always evaluates based on evidence and information as the correct option. A total of 105 participants (14.7%) known the assessment completely confidential, 552 participants (77.3%) in the presence of the employee, 35 participants (4.9%) have no difference, and 22 participants (1.3%) in the presence of others. A total of 68 participants (9.5%) known current evaluation of the performance as completely inappropriate, 188 participants (26.3%) inappropriate, 303 subjects (42.4%) almost appropriate, 125 participants (17.5%) appropriate, and 30 participants (4.2%) completely appropriate. In addition, employees regarding positive and important points of the annual performance assessment referred to 312 points, some of which are suggestive, and the rest are important and positive points of evaluation of performance. Only 346 cases were noted for the weaknesses of the annual performance assessment.
Figure 1: Frequency distribution of attitude to the evaluation of annual performance according to the age of the staff of Kashan University of Medical Sciences

Click here to view
Figure 2: Frequency distribution of attitude of employees toward annual performance evaluation based on the education of employees of Kashan University of Medical Sciences

Click here to view
Figure 3: Frequency distribution of attitudes of employees towards annual performance evaluation regarding work shift of employees of Kashan University of Medical Sciences

Click here to view

  Discussion Top

The findings of this research indicate that 47.9% of employees have a positive attitude toward the necessity of annual evaluation. In this regards, Ahmed et al. also stated in their research that 40% of employees considered the evaluation necessary.[12] Most of the staff considered the evaluation necessary, but they did not have positive attitude toward the current evaluation or were indifferent. Perhaps, this kind of attitude comes from the methods, and criteria used in the evaluation. The most important component in improving the process of evaluating the performance of employees are familiarizing them with the mission and policy of the organization, clarifying the method, and objectives of evaluation and providing appropriate feedback from managers and supervisors. The study of Mirsepasi shows that 95% of all participants in the six periods of the management of the Center for Public Administration Education recognized the need for employee evaluation.[13] The difference in the results of this research can be due to the difference in the research community. In this sense, the research community in the above research was those who evaluated their employees, and the community under study in the present study was those who were themselves evaluated. On average, 70.28% of the employees had a positive attitude about doing the evaluation. In a study, Kaviani stated that almost half of studied nursing staff (57.7%) had a positive attitude in this regard. The average time of employee performance evaluation is, on average, 1 or 2 times a year. If the interval time between two evaluations is high, many of the things that can be effective in evaluating may be forgotten, and on the other hand, if the time interval between overestimation is close, the process may be routineness.[14] The results of our study indicate that 82.98% of employees have a positive attitude toward the self-evaluation. Mohebi in his research also revealed that 34.3% of employees considered the necessary of self-evaluation of employees very high, 44% high, 14.3% moderate, 4% low, and 3.3 very low. Findings of the present study show that 70.28% of employees agree that officials are focusing on weaknesses in their annual evaluation. In another study, Kaviani also said that 71.2% of employees agree with this view.[14] According to the results of this study, 45.4% of staff believe that the annual evaluation in the present method causes discrimination among colleagues. Moreover, Kaviani stated that from the perspective of 64% of nurses, the annual evaluation of the current method causes hatred and discrimination among colleagues. The results of this study indicate that 32.7% of employees believe that the annual evaluation increases individual motivation to overcome technical and special deficiencies. Another study in this field shows that 82% of employees believed that the current status of performance evaluation system was effective on employee motivation and efficiency. The results of that study are different from the findings of present study. The results of the present study showed that only 13.35% of employees have stated that after the completion of the evaluation, officials are discussing the results with them. The results of another study, conducted among 380 employees of Kerman University of Medical Sciences hospitals, showed that the current system of evaluation on the level of knowledge and technical knowledge of employees, had a little effect on increasing creativity of staff, increasing the level of employee participation, and improving organizational communication among employees.[15]

Performance assessment is important because of the importance of deciding and judging each employee and identifying their potential capabilities, ethical duties and ethical goals, and achieving the goals of the organization. Since the behavior of individuals in every participant necessary for their knowledge and good performance requires a rational attitude and belief that is due to the person's focus on the participants, many studies have been done in evaluating the performance of the staff. Some of these studies have significant results and showed a satisfaction of employees regarding performance evaluation while in some cases, these results indicate poor performance of employees and have a significant negative impact on management and employees of the organization. In some cases, evaluations carried out by officials, both formal and informal, appear to have deficiencies and lack scientific aspects.[16],[17],[18],[19] In the present study 47.9% of the employees has a positive attitude about the annual evaluation of employees. While Torabi and Sotoudeh reported in their research, 70.28% of the surveyed staff had a positive attitude in this regard.[20] Kavanians also reported half of the nursing staff (57.7%) had a positive attitude in this regard.[14] The results of these three studies do not match. In another study, 39.75% of the staff had negative attitude about the annual assessment.[21]

The findings of this study indicate that 35.8% (total of two views of completely inappropriate and appropriate) of staff in this field had a negative view. The results of these two studies are consistent. The results of this study showed that 41.9% of staff had positive attitude about the effect of performance evaluation on motivation and job satisfaction [Table 1]. Bandari also showed that 82% of staff believed that the current status of performance evaluation system was effective on motivation and work efficiency.[2] The results of these two studies are contradictory. The results of this study showed that 12.6% of the employees stated after completion of the evaluation, authorities are discussing the final interviews of the evaluation period to provide feedback to the employee, while the results of the other study showed that only 13.35% of the staff were interviewed in this regard.[22] The results of these two studies are very consistent. In the present study, 11.5% of the statistical population were agreed with the registration of the events by the supervisor in a separate office. However, Sharifian in his research stated that 20% of the medical records sections that subject to the evaluation method, agreed with daily notes.[23] In general, the most important component in improving the process of evaluation of performance is the familiarity of employees with the organization's policies and clarifying of the method and objectives of the evaluation, as well as providing appropriate feedback from the managers and supervisors.[24],[25],[26] The information obtained from this study shows that employees at different organizational levels with different perspectives pay attention to the negative and positive aspects of performance evaluation. In this regard, supervisors and managers of educational, medical, health, research, and administrative departments should use their full potential and knowledge and technical skills to address the deficiencies and to achieve the goals of the organization (promotes public health and education).[27]
Table 1: Frequency distribution of response to some questions related to staff attitudes toward performance assessment of employees of the University of Medical Sciences

Click here to view

  Conclusion Top

The study suggests that the attitude of more than 50% of the staff was positive toward the evaluation method. There was no significant correlation between attitude and age, sex, marriage status, level of knowledge, job position, and work experiences (P > 0.05). While there was a significant correlation between attitude and shift of work and organizational position (P< 0.05). The efforts of healthcare enthusiasts are to increase the positive attitude of the staff and to show itself in their performance. By creating equal opportunities, officials provide the groundwork for innovation, creativity, and employee innovation and the ability of true observation, the ability to make decisions, the power of discussion, and logical conclusions without interfering of mistakes, such as generalization, attention to particular performance, the involvement of individual tendencies, beliefs toward some individuals, hastily evaluation, and throughout the evaluation period, the performance of each employee should be taken into account.

In this regard, necessary training should be given to supervisors, officials, and managers to achieve organizational goals by utilizing standards and performance criteria to evaluate the effectiveness and desirability and by developing and implementing job training programs, to make changes in staff attitudes toward evaluate performance.


The authors would like thank staff and authorities of Kashan University of Medical Sciences and Health Services for their cooperation.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

  References Top

Cartwright S, Cooper CL. Towards organizational health: Stress, positive organizational behavior, and employee well-being. In: Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health. Dordrecht: Springer; 2014. p. 29-49.  Back to cited text no. 1
Bandari M. Applied methods for promotion of production, the role of personnel assessment for human resource development. Gov Manage J 1995;(38):42.  Back to cited text no. 2
Giauque D. Attitudes toward organizational change among public middle managers. Public Pers Manage 2015;44:70-98.  Back to cited text no. 3
Osborne J, Simon S, Collins S. Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. Int J Sci Educ 2003;25:1049-79.  Back to cited text no. 4
Lehmann BA, Ruiter RA, Wicker S, Chapman G, Kok G. Medical students' attitude towards influenza vaccination. BMC Infect Dis 2015;15:185.  Back to cited text no. 5
Judge TA, Thoresen CJ, Bono JE, Patton GK. The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychol Bull 2001;127:376-407.  Back to cited text no. 6
Morey JC, Simon R, Jay GD, Wears RL, Salisbury M, Dukes KA, et al. Error reduction and performance improvement in the emergency department through formal teamwork training: Evaluation results of the MedTeams project. Health Serv Res 2002;37:1553-81.  Back to cited text no. 7
Farhadi A, Doshman Ziyari E. The relationship between the content general of on the job training (OJT) NIOPDC employees and the criteria of their operations evaluation. Farayandno 2017;12:98-107.  Back to cited text no. 8
Azami A, Dehghan H. Investigating the role of officers' evaluation system on their performance in Nazaja headquarters. Mil Manage 2012;45:147-86.  Back to cited text no. 9
Osibanjo OA, Adeniji AA, Falola HO, Helrsmac PT. Compensation packages: A strategic tool for employees' performance and retention. Leonardo J Sci 2014;(25):65-84.  Back to cited text no. 10
Kazemian A, Noriyan K, Parvin N. Survey the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance of nurses in Chaharmahal Bakhtiari. J Holist Nurs Midwifery 2005;15:39-44.  Back to cited text no. 11
Ahmed AM, Elamin AM, Elsamani M, Hassan WB. Knowledge and performance of radiographers towards radiation protection, Taif, Saudi Arabia. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2015;14:63-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
Mirsepasi N. Government management in three perspectives. Gov Manage J Applied Res Center Public Adm Educ 1997;(36):1-14.  Back to cited text no. 13
Kaviani S. Attitude of Nursing Personnel of Shahid Faghihi Hospital on the Evaluation of Annual Performance. Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. Faculty of Management and Medical Information; 2002. p. 13-6.  Back to cited text no. 14
Moosavi H, Makarem A, Bonyadimanehs M. Instructors' viewpoints about the teacher evaluation system and the influencing factors at the faculty of dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. J Mashhad Dent Sch 2017;40:371-80.  Back to cited text no. 15
Vakola M, Tsaousis I, Nikolaou I. The role of emotional intelligence and personality variables on attitudes toward organisational change. J Manag Psychol 2004;19:88-110.  Back to cited text no. 16
Lindenauer PK, Lagu T, Ross JS, Pekow PS, Shatz A, Hannon N, et al. Attitudes of hospital leaders toward publicly reported measures of health care quality. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:1904-11.  Back to cited text no. 17
Hameed A, Ramzan M, Zubair HM. Impact of compensation on employee performance (empirical evidence from banking sector of Pakistan). Int J Bus Soc Sci 2014;5:302-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
Cox K, Imrie BW, Miller A. Student Assessment in Higher Education: A Handbook for Assessing Performance. Routledge: Routledge; 2014.  Back to cited text no. 19
Torabi A, Setodeh S. Attitude of staff of faculties of Ahwaz University of medical sciences regarding their evaluation of their performance in 2007. J Iran Univ Med Sci 2009;12:20-1.  Back to cited text no. 20
Nikpeyma N, Abed Saeedi Z, Azargashb E, Alavi Majd H. Problems of clinical nurse performance appraisal system: A qualitative study. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci) 2014;8:15-22.  Back to cited text no. 21
Fernandez S, Moldogaziev T. Employee empowerment, employee attitudes, and performance: Testing a causal model. Public Adm Rev 2013;73:490-506.  Back to cited text no. 22
Sharifian R. Master's Thesis of Iran University of Medical Sciences, directed by Abbas Bazargan Attitude of Staff of Medical Records Departments of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Hospitals Regarding their Performance Evaluation Methods and Providing Suggestions for Improvement; 2006. p. 258-65.  Back to cited text no. 23
Ford JK, Noe RA. Self-assessed training needs: The effects of attitudes toward training, managerial level, and function. Pers Psychol 1987;40:39-53.  Back to cited text no. 24
Boswell WR, Boudreau JW. Employee satisfaction with performance appraisals and appraisers: The role of perceived appraisal use. Hum Resour Dev Q 2000;11:283.  Back to cited text no. 25
Nafei WA. Assessing employee attitudes towards organizational commitment and change: The case of King Faisal hospital in Al-Taif governorate, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J Manage Sustainability 2014;4:204.  Back to cited text no. 26
Bamber AR, Quince TA, Barclay SI, Clark JD, Siklos PW, Wood DF, et al. Medical student attitudes to the autopsy and its utility in medical education: A brief qualitative study at one UK medical school. Anat Sci Educ 2014;7:87-96.  Back to cited text no. 27


  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]

  [Table 1]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
Materials and Me...
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded157    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal