Performance Indicators of Peer Monitoring - Literature review Example

Performance Indicators of Peer Monitoring Introduction The issue of work performance and employee behaviour has remained a serious concern for many ahuman resource specialty across the world. It is this main issue that Misty Loughry and Henry Tosy seek to investigate about in their study. More specifically, the concern of the two researchers is whether or not peer monitoring is a viable option when employee behaviour has to be monitored (Henry and Misty, 2008). The research conducted by the researchers focus mainly on two issues: the definition and concept of peer monitoring, and the link between peer monitoring and work performance among employees in the same organization, department or work unit. This research comes in notice of the fact that the concept of peer monitoring has not been well defined and researched. Literature Review Loughry and Tosy are very keen to explore the issue of peer monitoring and commence their work by considering previous works and established theories – more so agency theory. One of the first questions that the article seeks to answer is the importance or applicability of peer monitoring in the organizational setup. Loughry and Tosy (2008) state that the practice gives employers, supervisors and managers the opportunity to get information that may be vital from workers about fellow workers. In addition to this, peers may impress influence upon their fellow workers which could end up improving work performance and employee behaviour. Referring to Arnott’s and Stiglitz’s work, the two researchers note that peer monitoring can be applied much like other forms of incentives in line with agency theory. Further to this, the practice may be applied in solving such problems as moral hazard, and adverse selection among other agency related problems. Methods The research involved both qualitative and quantitative methods of research. The research was conducted by testing four hypotheses (Loughry and Tosy, 2008): peer monitoring is correlated with work performance, supervision moderates the relationship between the practice and work performance and the interdependence of tasks moderate the good relationship between monitoring and performance. The fourth hypothesis tested stated that the cohesiveness of work units moderated the good relationship between work performance and monitoring. By seeking to confirm the hypotheses through tests, the study emerges to be applying a deductive approach. This study was accomplished in three stages; each stage involved the collection and analysis of primary data only. First, interviews were conducted with an aim of determining which behaviours could be considered to be peer monitoring activities. In this respect, an inductive research strategy was used. Secondly, a number of items were administered to students and the data obtained was analyzed to determine the measurement items that would be used during the actual research. The items were selected by applying explanatory factor analysis. The third phase involved a field survey in which a random sample was used to obtain data. In addition to the use of questionnaires, data was collected through observation; employees’ whereby the researcher spent time observing employees’ interactions. The sample included employees who worked in standard conditions and in various places. Based on the data collected in the third phase, hypotheses tests were conducted and the measure used for quantifying per monitoring was also refined. For the third phase, a confidence level of 99% was used in the inferential analysis of the data. Noting that peer monitoring is may be categorized into two; direct and indirect peer monitoring, a correlation analysis between these two was conducted. It emerged that there is no significant correlation between these two variables. In general, the methods used in the study were well thought out, highly professional and in line with international standards for conducting research. Results While it was originally expected that peer monitoring is single construct in line with agency theory’s claims, the research revealed otherwise. During the study, two types of peer monitoring were well defined and studied – direct and indirect peer monitoring. Direct peer monitoring involves a worker detecting their peers’ results or actions and responding openly and directly to them (Loughry and Tosy, 2008). On the other hand, indirect peer monitoring is accomplished whenever monitoring does not directly link consequences with the co-worker’s actions. During the statistical analysis, measures of central tendency were determined and inferential tests were conducted. Among the results that were obtained included means, standard deviations, regressions, correlations, and coefficient alpha reliabilities. The results of the hypothesis tests at 95% and 99% confidence levels were tabulated and presented in graphs. The results of the analysis revealed that work unit performance and peer monitoring were positively related in line with the first hypothesis. However, there was no significant correlation between indirect peer monitoring and performance. The second hypothesis also proved to hold as the results revealed that there was a relationship between supervisory and peer monitoring. Similarly, the third hypothesis was proved to hold especially when direct peer monitoring is considered. Generally, this shows that there is a significant relationship between task independence and peer monitoring. With regard to the fourth hypothesis, the results of the analysis show that no significant relationship existed between direct monitoring and cohesiveness. This, however, is not the case when indirect monitoring is considered; high peer monitoring and cohesiveness possibly leads to lower problem fee performance. Limitations A number of challenges and limitations are evident in the research as is always the norm. One main limitation with the study is the need for validation of certain measures if the results are to be applied in other contexts. To counter this limitation, other variables should be considered when research is to be conducted in other environments especially where no controls are instituted. However, the authors have failed to mention the variables that should be considered in such cases. Yet another major limitation of the study exists in the fact that the field chosen kept a number of factors constant. This means that the results obtained may not be applicable in other environments. For more practical results, the researchers should have considered drawing the sample from a wide range of environments and working conditions. Conclusion The research questions were original since there was need to find out if peer monitoring could be associated with increased unit work performance. The research questions were both answered to a significant level considering that the definitions and elements of peer monitoring were noted and the relationship between peer monitoring and work unit performance was revealed through different hypothesis tests. It may also be concluded that controls used in organizations have significant influences on the quality of employees’ lives. Reference Henry T. and Misty L. (2008) “Performance Implications of Peer Monitoring”, Organization Science, Vol. 19, No. 6, November–December, pp. 876–890. Read More