أ ( ) The Impact of Using Technique Management By Objective (MBO) on Performance of Employees ( An applied Study in the National Oil Institution in State of Kuwait) (401130024) 2014
ب
ج
د..
ه............
و 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 11 12 41 52 : (11) : (21) : (31) : (41) : (51) : (61) : (71) : (81) : (91) : (12) : (22) : (32)
ز 54 55 55 55 57 61 62 64 66 67 68 68 82 97 98 101 103 104 109 111 : (13) : (23) : (33) : (43) : (53) : (63) : (73) : (83) : (14) : (24) : (34) : (15) : (25) : :
ح 57 58 58 59 60 65 66 69 71 73 75 77 80 83 84 ( ) "t" t t t "t" t (1 3) (2 3) (3 3) (4 3) (5 3) (6 3) (7 3) (1 4) (2 4) (3 4) (4 4) (5 4) (6 4) (7 4) (8 4)
ط 87 90 91 93 (9 4) (10 4) (11 4) (12 4) 95 (13 4)
ي (11)
ك 119 127.().() 1 2
ل ( ) (380)... :. 1 2 3 ) (.(α 0.05) 4 : ( ).
م ABSTRACT The Impact of Using Technique Management by Objectives (MBO) on Performance of Employees (An Applied Study in the National Oil Institution in State of Kuwait) Prepared by Mohammad Moubarl AlRashedi Supervisor Associate Prof. Dr. Kamel Mohammad Alhawajreh This study aimed to examine the impact of using technique management by objectives(mbo) on performance of employees in the National Oil Institution in State of Kuwait. The study sample consisted of (380) employees who were selected from the study population. The questionnaire was used as a tool for data collection; the study used a number of statistical methods: The questionnaire was used as a tool for data collection including statistical approach stepwise and multiple regression, averages and normal distribution. The results of the study showed : 1 The level of use of Management by Objectives way from the standpoint of workers was average. 2 The level of performance of employees from the perspective of workers in the National Oil Institution in State of Kuwait moderate 3 The results of the analysis to the presence of significant effect moral to use the method of Management by Objectives dimensions ( trust between superior and subordinate, the partnership between superior and subordinate in setting goals, commitment of employees in achieving goals and feedback between the superior and subordinates ) on the performance of employees at the level of (α 0.05). 4 The results indicate the commitment of employees in achieving the goals was the most influential in the performance of employees in the National Oil Institution in State of Kuwait. In light of the results that have been reached, the researcher recommends the following: a focus on activation method Management by Objectives dimensions combined (trust, commitment, participation, and feedback ) in the founders of the National Petroleum in Kuwait, to encourage employees to express their views and enhance organizational culture in the climate of the institution national Oil Company in Kuwait.
1 : (11) : (21) : (31) : (41) : (51) : (61) : (71) : (81) : (91)
2 :(11)...(2012 )...
3. : (21). : : : :
4 : : (31), :.1..2...3..4..5.
5.6..7..8. : (41) ) (. :.1..2.
6.3 :... ()..4..5. : (51) :Ho 1 ( ).(0.05 α) : : Ho 11.(0.05 α) : Ho 12.(0.05 α)
7 : Ho 13.(0.05 α) : Ho 14.(0.05 α) : (61) (11) : H0 H0 1 H0 2 H0 3 H0 4 شكل رقم (11) أنموذج الدراسة الافتراضي المصدر: من إعداد الباحث باعتماد الدراسات السابقة : متغير الادارة بالاهداف(الحربي 2008 العدوان 2006 الشريف 2003 الحسن 2002) متغير اداء العاملين ) ابو قاعود 2005 الحياصات 2007)
8 : (71) : :. :. :. 20142013 2014 : (2002 2003 2006 2008 ):.(2007 2005 ) : : (81) :.1...2..
9.3. : (91) : () :.(2011 :).( 22 1). :.(2009 ) :..(51) () : :.(2007)
10.(106). ). : :.(2002. ().(1611) : :...( 2217 ) : :. :.(2013 ).( 2923 ).
11 : (12) : (22) : (32) : (42)
12 : (12) 1912.(2003 ) :.....(2005 ).. ( )
13 ) ( ).(2011..(2007 ) " (1976 ) Drucker The Practice of " " " 1954 " ". "management (Druker,1976). (2002 )
14. " (2006 )." " ( 2006 )." " (2007 )." (2008 ). (2008 ).
15 ( 2010 ). :.,.,,, :(2008,).1..2..3.,
16..4 :,,.(2008) : (2003) 1. 2 ()
17. 3. 4. : ( 2008 ) : 1.
18.( 2003 ) : 2. ( 2003 ) : ( 2008 ) :.1.. :.2
19. :.3.. : : (2006 ) 1.. 2. 3
20 4. 5. : : (2007 ) : 1. : 2. : 3 :. : 4
21. : 5. (2008 ) : (2006 ). 1. 2. 3 : :(2008 ). 1. 2 3. 4.
22. 5. 6. 7 : (2006 ) : 1.. 2. 3. 4 5.. 6. 7. 8 9. 10,, (2007)
23 :. ) : (2008 1 2 3 : : : 1 : (2008 ), 1
24 2 3 4 5 : (2006,) 1.,. 2 3. 4 (2006 ) : : 1
25 :. 2 3 : 4 : 5. : ( 2006 ).1..2..3
26. (2006 ) : :..1.2.3. : (2008 ).
27 : :.1 (2003 ) (swees,2007 ). ( 2006 )
28 :..1..2.3..4 ( 2008 ). :..1...2.3..4..5..6.7 (2005 ) :.
29. : 2 " (1990 ). ( 1995 ) :...1.2 ( 1995 ). (2008 ).
30 :.1 2. 3 (2006 ). : (22) " (2008 )." (1996 ).
31 (2000 ). ( 2007 ). (2009 ) (2010 )... (2009)
32. : (2010 ) :. :. :. :(2010 ) :.1
33. :.2. :.3. :.4 %10 %10. :.5 ( ) ().
34 :.6 :. :.7 ( 2010 ) (2008 ).. (2010 ).
35 ( 2010 ) (Larson, 1995) :.1...2..3 : (wheelen and hunger,2002) (2006 ).. (2005 ). : (2003 ).. :(2004 ) : :
36 :.1. :.2. : : :.1. :.2. :.3. :.4. ( ) ( ) ( )
37... (2012 ) : :.1. :.2.(Edogar and Geare,2005) :.3.
38 (2001 ).(2007). (2006) "() " " (Kaplan,2004)." (Donald & :smith,1995)
39 :.1.. :.2.. :.3... :.4. :(Allerton, 1995) Performance Planning :.1 : :..
40 : : : level of Authority Tools : Access to Resources Additional training :.2.... :.3 :...
41.... : (32). : (132) " (2002,) 4 "1999/1/17 781 %50
42 100 :. (2002 ) (239) : ) ( " (2000) " ( 24)
43 8) (. " (2003) " () " ( 2005 ) " ( 48 ). 90% ().. " (2006) "
44 87 20062005 %20 (2429) :. : (2007 )."" "" (111) :... " (2008) " (261) (301)
45 20082007. : : (2009). 1978 47. 223. :..... : : (2009 )
46. 10 40 :.( ).... " " (2010) :. :
47 ) (. (232) " (Perlman,2000) ". " " (Antonio,2005) (176) (26) (21).
48 "Designing Effect : (Boice and Kleiner, 2007 ).performance Appraisal System". :.. (32) :. " (Brown,2008) ) " ( (82) : (328).
49 "Effective Performance In U.S.A: (Gill, 2008 ) Appraisals. 119 :.. "Creating Effective : (Longenecker and Laurance, 2009 ) Performance Appraisals" (60) :.
50.. Predictors of Performance Appraisal : (Samad, 2011 ) Among Managers in Malaysian Commercial Banks (250)....
51. Assessment And Assisting The College : ( Wisan, 2012) President Steer The SHIP: An Analytic Comparison Of Dashboard Indicators.(6σ BSC). 7 BSC. ( ).. "Employee : (Woodford and Jeanne, 2012 ) Performance Evaluations: Administrating and Writing them correctly in the Multi National Setting" :.
52.... : (42)..(2013 2004 ) : :. :
53. :. :.
54...... :(1 :(2 :(3 :(4 :(5 :(6 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3). :(73). :(8 3)
55 :(1 3).. :(2 3). :.1. :.2. :(3 3) :
56 ).(2013. 905 %50. (452) (392) (452) (12).(%86.72). (%96.93) (380).
57 (13) (%) (%) 0.099 39 0.100 43 50 0.056 22 0.049 22 33 0.140 55 0.126 57 65 0.089 35 0.077 35 42 0.052 20 0.049 22 22 0.099 39 0.088 40 47 0.136 53 0.121 54 66 0.169 66 0.150 68 70 0.066 26 0.057 26 29 0.063 25 0.055 25 28 96.93 380 86.72 392 452 :(4 3) (5 3) (4 3) (3 3) (2 3).( )
58 (2 3) (%) 88.43 11.57 336 44 100 380 %88.43 (2 3). %11.57. (3 3) (%) 19.73 75 30 36.32 22.37 138 85 40 30 50 40 21.58 82 50 100 380
59 %19.73 (2 3) %36.32 30 40 30 %22.37 50 40.%21.58 50. (4 3) (%) 14.47 55 5 20.52 27.63 78 105 10 15 6 10 37.38 142 15 100 380
60 (4 3) %20.52 5 %14.47.%27.63 10 5 15 10.%37.38 15. (5 3) (%) 40.79 155 49.21 187 10.00 38 100 380 %40.79 (5 3) %49.21.%10 ( )
61. :(5 3) :... Five Likert Scale SPSS V.20 : (4) : ( ).
62 : (22) ) : 6 6 5 5 2217 1611 10 6 5 1. (7) : : Five Likert Scale (5 1) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5). (29) ( ) :(6 3). SPSS V.20 Statistical Package for Social Sciences : Frequencies & Percent.
63 Mean. Standard Deviation. () Cronbach Alpha.. One sample Ttest T. Tolerance Variance Inflation Factor. Multicollinearity Multiple and Stepwise Regression analysis.. :
64 : 2.33 1 3.67 2.34 3.68 :(7 3) (17 3) (10) (2).(1) ( 27 3) (Cronbach Alpha)
65 (Alpha) (1 0) Cronbach.(Sekaran, 2006) (%60) (6 3). Alpha. (6 3) ( ) (α) 0.823 22 1 0.862 5 1 1 0.850 5 2 1 0.719 6 3 1 0.840 6 4 1 0.872 7 2 (6 3). (0.872) (0.823) Cronbach Alpha.(Sekaran, 2006) :(8 3)
66 Kolmogorov Smirnov..(7 3) :.(α > 0.05) :H O.(α < 0.05) :H A (α > 0.05) (7 3) (0.05).. Sig. * (7 3) Kolmogorov Smirnov 0.161 1.122 1 0.351 0.932 2 0.075 1.465 1 2 0.142 1.149 2 2 0.105 1.565 2 2 0.092 1.522 4 2 ( α > 0.05) *
67 :(1 4) :(2 4) :(3 4) :(4 4)
68 :(1 4). :(2 4) :(12 4).(1 4) "t" (1 4 )
69 (3.59 2.85) (3.42).. (0.672) (3.59) (0.615) (3.398). (0.537) (2.85). (1 4) "t" Sig* "t" 2 0.000 18.871 0.615 3.398 5 1 4 0.000 13.539 0.537 2,85 5 2 1 0.000 22.736 0.672 3.59 6 3 3 0.000 15.662 0.629 3.29 6 4 0.000 16.593 0.511 3.42 22
70.(1.650) (α 0.01) (t).(3) (t) (1 4).. (0.05). "t".(3 4) (2 4)
71 (2 4) (t) Sig* "t" 4 0.000 12.663 0.689 3.30. 1 2 0.000 15.229 0.777 3.56. 2 3 0.000 17.662 0.612 3.32. 3 5 0.000 13.991 0.861 2.96. 4 1 0.000 16.552 0.550 3.85 5 0.615 3.398.(1.650) (α 0.05) (t).(3) (t) (2 4) (3.398) (2.96 3.85)
72. (3.85) " " (0.550) (3.398) " ".(0.861) (3.398) (2.96). (0.05)..
73 (3 4) t Sig* "t" 1 0.000 14.583 0.741 4.105 6 3 0.000 10.362 0.727 3.379 7 2 0.000 11.272 0.785 3.536 8 4 0.000 11.614 0.918 3.115 9 5 0.000 10.883 0.871 2.995 10 0.648 3.426.(1.650) (α 0.05) (t).(3) (t) (3 4)
74 (4.105 2.995). (3.426) ". (4.105) " " (0.648) (3.426) " (2.995).(0.871) (3.426).
75. (0.05). (4 4) t Sig* "t 1 0.000 14.646 0.977 3.879 11 3 0.000 8.879 1.003 3.547 12. 4 0.000 6.439 0.953 3.377. 13 6 0.001 3.248 1.040 3.207 14 2 0.000 9.080 0.987 3.550 15 5 0.000 5.109 0.985 3.309 16 0.817 3.478
76.(1.650) (α 0.05) (t).(3) (t) (4 4) (3.879 3.207). (3.478) ". (3.879) " " (0.977) (3.478) " (3.207).(1.040) (3.478) (4 4)
77 (4 4).. (0.05). (5 4) t Sig* "t 1 0.000 14.646 0.977 3.779 17 3 0.000 8.879 1.003 3.547 18 4 0.000 6.439 0.953 3.377 19 6 0.001 3.248 1.040 3.207 20 2 0.000 9.080 0.987 3.550 21
78 5 0.000 5.109 0.985 3.309 22 0.817 3.478.(1.650) (α 0.05) (t).(3) (t) (5 4) 3.207) (3.478) (3.779 ". (3.779) " " (0.977) (3.478) " (3.478) (3.207).(1.040)
79 (5 4). (5 4). (0.05). :(22 4) "t".(6 4)
80 (6 4) "t" Sig* "t" 2 0.000 16.375 0.780 3.784 23 3 0.000 16.155 0.779 3.773 24 5 0.000 11.738 0.915 3.660 25 4 0.000 12.594 0.863 3.667 26 6 0.000 18.662 0.956 3.521 27 7 0.000 12.562 0.735 3.352 28
81 1 0.000 17.637 0.815 3.883 29 0.665 3.664.(1.650) (α 0.05) (t).(3) (t) (6 4) (3.883 3.352) (3.664) ". (3.883) " " (0.815) (3.664) " (3.664) (3.352).(0.735)
82 (5 4). (5 4). (0.05). :(3 4) Multicollinearity Tolerance (VIF) Variance Inflation Factor
83 (VIF).(0.05) Tolerance.(10) Normal Distribution Skewness. (7 4) (±1) (7 4) Skewness Tolerance VIF 0.643 0.796 1.629 1 0.445 0.735 1.298 2 0.367 0.778 1.726 3 0.511 0.629 1.962 4 (7 4) ( ) Multicollinearity ) (VIF) (1.962 1.726 1.298 1.629) (
84 0.629 ) (Tolerance).(10) (0.05) (0.796..(1) (Skewness). H O1 :Ho 1 ( ).(0.05 α) ) (.(8 4) (8 4) Sig* T Sig* DF F (R 2 ) (R)
85 β 0.004 2.546 0.116 4 0.000 0.012 3.572 6.351 0.139 0.193 0.000 375 78.686 0.597 0.673 0.016 2.517 0.129 379 ) (α 0.05) * (8 4) (. ( ) R (0.597) 2 R.(α 0.05) (0.673) (0.597) (0.139) (0.116) β (0.129) (0.193).
86 (0.116) (0.193) (0.139). (0.129).(α 0.05) (78.686) F () : ) (.(0.05 α) Stepwise.(9 4)
87 (9 4) Change Statistics Sig* F Change DF2 DF1 (R 2 ) F (R 2 ) (R) 0.000 378 1 0.310 17.984 0.310 0.556 0.000 377 2 0.030 67.490 0.340 0.583 + + 0.000 376 3 0.014 47.635 0.354 0.595 + 0.000 375 4 0.008 42.339 0.362 0.601 + +
88 + ) (9 4) (. ) ( (0.556) : R (0.583) (α 0.05) (0.595) (α 0.05) (0.601) (α 0.05) 2 R.(α 0.05) (α 0.05) (0.310) (0.340)
89 (0.354) (α 0.05).(α 0.05) (0.362) 2 (0.310) R Change (0.030) (α 0.05) (0.014) (α 0.05) (0.008).(α 0.05).(α 0.05). H O11.(0.05 α)
90.(10 4) (10 4) Sig* T β Sig* DF F (R 2 ) (R) 0.000. 15.003 0.574 0.000 1 378 379 225.097 0.410 0.640 (α 0.05) * (10 4).
91.(α 0.05) (0.640) R 2 (0.410) (0.410) R.( 0.574) β F..(α 0.05) (225.097) () :.(α 0.05) H O12.(0.05 α).(11 4)
92 Sig* 0.000. (11 4) T 12.819 β 0.531 Sig* 0.000 DF 1 378 379 F 164.318 (R 2 ) 0.336 (R) 0.580 (α 0.05) * (10 4)..(α 0.05) (0.580) R 2 (0.336) (0.336) R.(0.531) β F..(α 0.05) (164.318)
93 () : α ).(0.05 H O13.(0.05 α).(12 4) (12 4) Sig* T β Sig* DF F (R 2 ) (R) 0.000 14.600 0.630 0.000 1 213.167 0.397 0.630
94 378 379 (α 0.05) * (12 4). 2 R.(α 0.05) (0.630) R (0.397) (0.397).(0.630) β (213.167) F..(α 0.05) : ().(α 0.05)
95 : Ho 14.(0.05 α).(13 4) (13 4) Sig* 0.000 T 11.464 β 0.560 Sig* 0.000 DF 1 378 379 F 131.414 (R 2 ) 0.289 (R) 0.537 (α 0.05) * (13 4)..(α 0.05) (0.537) R
96 (0.397) (0.289) 2 R.(0.560) β..(α 0.05) (131.414) F () : α ).(0.05
97 : (15) : (25)
98 : : (15).1.. ) ( :.
99........2..3
100.(α 0.05)..4.(α 0.05) (2003) Antonio(2005)..5 (Perlman,2000).(α 0.05). (Antonio,2005).. (Boice and Kleinu,2007) Boice and Kleiner(2007).
101.6.(α 0.05) (Perlman,2000)..7.(α 0.05) (35) :.1..2.3.
102.4. :.1..2.
103
104 :.(2005). :. (2005) :.. 3 (2007) (2008) 1 (2008) (2003) (2008) (2008)
105 (2002) 1999/1/17 781.( 2010 )..83 (2008).(2007). 2 34.405 385 (1995) (2003) (2009)
106 ( 2005 ) 158 131 2 ( 21 ) (2004) 1715 (2003) 221 185 (66)17 (2006) (2006) (2008) 8153 30 (2010) (2002)
107 ( ) (1996) (2008) (2002) : (2010) (2007) (2000) (2006) (2003)
108. (2006) (2005) 2005 ( ) 139 (2008). (2007) 1 (1990) (41)12 163 : (1976) (2000).
109. (2002) (2005) : : Agus, A. (2011). Supply Chain Management, Product Quality and Business Performance, International Conference on Sociality and Economics Development IPEDR, 10: 98102. Antonio,C. (2005). Management by objectivesan effective role for teamwork? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(2), pp:174184 Brown, E. (2008). Dimension of transformation leadership with employ performance in hotel in front desk staff. U.M.I. Proudest information and learning company, library of university of Jordancenter of thesis deposit. Charles, J. & Pineno, P. (2004). Balanced scorecard application and model building A survey and comparisons of manufactured homes and motor homes industries, Management Accounting Quarterly, 6(1),Pp.2128 Daft, R. L. (2001). "Organization Theory and Design", Ohio: South western College PUB. Daving, W., Elbert, N. &Brown S. (2004). Implementing a strategic Planning Model for Small Manufacturing Firm: An Adaptation of the Balanced Scorecard, Advanced Management Journal, Winter, Pp.1823 Drucker, P.(1976). What results you should expect? Users Guide to MBO. Public Administration Review. 36 Ingram, H. and McDonnel, B. (1996). Effective Performance ManagementThe Teamwork Approach Considered, Management Service Quality, 6(6), Pp. 3842 Kaplan, R.,& Norton, D. (2004). "The Strategy Map: Guide to aligning intangible assets", Strategy and Leadership, 23(5), Pp1017. Kotler, P. (2000). Management Marketing, The Millennium Ed New Jersey Prenticehall International, Inc.
110 Perlman, D. (2000), Implementing Management by objectives in a University: A Progress Report. ED 123965, New York Rodgers, Robert, John E, Hunter (1991), Impact of management by Objectives on Organizational Productivity, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), Pp 1729. Swess, E. (2007). Public Management Systems Monitoring and Managing Government Performance, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
111 ( 1).........
112 : ( ) : : 1 50 4940 3930 2920 : 2 10 105 5 : 3 : 4
113 : (3) (4) (5) ( ). (1) (2) : :. ( ).....1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12
114..13..14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22
115 :. ( ).23.24.25.26.27.28.29
116 ( 2). 1.. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7