Performance Measurement System in Malaysian Higher Education Institutions: Driving Success or Inducing Stress?
Abstract
An effective performance measurement system (PMS) is crucial for higher education institutions (HEIs) to drive success, but an unfair one may lead to stress and negative behaviors. Currently, academics are expected to excel in various areas, leading to overwhelming tasks and responsibilities. The existing system for evaluating academic performance is considered unfair as it overly prioritizes quantitative measures. The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are also perceived as inadequate in capturing the essence of the academic role, which should emphasize content and quality. This study aims to explore Malaysian academics' perceptions of the performance measurement system adopted by HEIs, their views on what constitutes a fair measurement system, and their opinions about the current system. This study targeted academics at Malaysian HEIs using convenience sampling due to the large number of institutions. A total of 379 participants responded to an online survey distributed via email with the help of university representatives. The instrument included sections on demographics, perceptions of PMS, opinions on fair PMS, and open-ended questions, utilizing a slider scale for precise data collection. The findings indicate that higher education institutions tend to adopt a directive performance measurement approach, relying heavily on quantitative indicators for monitoring. To create a fairer system, emphasis should be placed on effort and qualitative measures. Many academics express frustration over the numerous measures employed in the PMS, contributing to their excessive workload and work-life imbalance. Therefore, a fairer measurement system is needed to ensure a better work-life balance and reduce stress for academics.
Downloads
References
Adnan, N. L., Muda, R., Wan Jusoh, W. N. H & Yusoff, R. (2022). Is the vitality of Malaysian academics at stake? Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 14 (4), 1536-1553
Adnan, N. L., Wan Jusoh, W. N. H., Muda, R., & Yusoff, R. (2021). A proposed Islamic Performance Management Model (IPMM): Towards more productive employees with better quality of work life. Advances in Business Research International Journal, 7(2), 145-160.
Che Omar, I., Md Yunus, A., Azman, N., & Mohd Zain, A. (2014). Academic Promotion in Malaysian Public Universities: Amidst Changing Priorities and Multiple Reward Systems. Paper presented at the Education Research Institutes Network in the Asia Pacific (ERI-Net) Expert Meeting, Hangzhou, China.
Chen, W. S., Haniff, J., Siau, C. S., Seet, W., Loh, S. F., & Abd, M. H. (2014). Burnout in academics: An empirical study in private universities in Malaysia. The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention, 1(2), 62-72.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the Millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 424.
Cooman, R. D., Gieter, S. D., Pepermans, R., Jegers, M., & Acker, F. V. (2009). Development and validation of the work effort scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 266-273.
Cuguero´-Escofet, N., & Rosanas, J. M. (2016). The ethics of metrics: Overcoming the dysfunctional effects of performance measurements through justice. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3049-2.
Cui, Z. C. (1989). Allowable limit of error in clinical chemistry quality control. Clinical Chemistry, 35(4), 630–631. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/35.4.630.
de Waal, A., & Kourtit, K. (2013). Performance measurement and management in practice. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(5), 446–473. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2012-0118.
Flamholtz, E. (1996). Effective organizational control: a framework, applications, and implications. European Management Journal,, 14, 596-611.
Franco-Santos, M., & Doherty, N. (2017). Performance management and well-being: A close look at the changing nature of the UK higher education workplace. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(16), 2319-2350.
Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L., & Bourne, M. (2012). Contemporary performance measurement systems: A review of their consequences and a framework for research. Management Accounting Research, 23(2), 79-119.
Franco-Santos, M., Rivera, P., & Bourne, M. (2014). Performance Management in UK Higher Education Institutions: The need for a hybrid approach. Cranfield university: Cranfield school of management.
Ghasemy, M., Hussin, S., Megat Daud, M. A. K., Md Nor, M., Ghavifekr, S., & Kenayathulla, H. B. (2018). Issues in Malaysian higher education: A Quantitative Representation of the Top Five Priorities, Values, Challenges, and Solutions From the Viewpoints of Academic Leaders. (January-March), 1–15.
Groen, B. A. C., Wilderom, C. P. M., & Wouters, M. J. F. (2017). High job performance through co-developing performance measures with employees. Human Resource Management, 56(1), 111-132.
Janudin, S. E., & Maelah, R. (2016). Performance measurement system in Malaysian public research universities: is it contemporary? Int. J. Management in Education, 10(3), 219–233.
Kallio, K. M., & Kallio, T. J. (2014). Management-by-results and performance measurement in universities – implications for work motivation. Studies in Higher Education, 39(4), 574-589.
Kallio, K.-M., Kallio, T. J., Tienari, T., & Hyvonen, T. (2016). Ethos at stake: Performance management and academic work in universities. Human Relations, 69(3), 685-709.
Khan, A. (2019). Sources and adverse effects of burnout among academic staff: A systematic review. City University Research Journal, 9(2).
Khan, B., Farooq, A., & Hussain, Z. (2010). Human resource management: An Islamic perspective. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 2(1), 17-34.
Kim, T., & Holzer, M. (2016). Public employees and performance appraisal: A study of antecedents to employees’ perception of the process. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36, 31-56. doi:10.1177/0734371X14549673.
Lawler, E. E. (2003). Reward practices and performance management system effectiveness. CEO Publication, Center for Effective Organizations Marshall School of Business University of Southern California July 2003 g 03-21 (449).
Maisel, L. S. (2001). Performance Measurement Practices: Survey Results
Melnyk, S. A., Bititci, U., Platts, K., Tobias, J., & Andersen, B. (2014). Is performance measurement and management fit for the future? Management Accounting Research, 25(2), 173-186.
Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2018). Employee Engagement through Effective Performance Management: A Practical Guide for Managers (Vol. Second Edition). New York: Routledge.
Mujeeb, E. M., Masood, M. M., & Ahmad, M. A. (2011). Relationship between organizational culture and performance management practices: A Case of the university in Pakistan. Journal of Competitiveness, 3(4), 78-86.
Newton-Lewis T, Munar W., & Chanturidze, T. (2021). Performance management in complex adaptive systems: A conceptual framework for health systems. BMJ Global Health, 6, e005582. doi:10.1136/ bmjgh-2021-005582
Noman, M. (2021, 18 Nov). Universities Must Acknowledge Excessive Workload Problem. NST Online. Retrieved from https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2021/11/746290/universities-must-acknowledge-excessive-workload-problem.
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2004). Students' perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 331-347.
Yusoff, R. (2019). Ruler & Option Scale: Development of an Interval Measurement Technique. (PhD). Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.
Yusoff, R., & Mohd Janor, R. (2014). Generation of an interval metric scale to measure attitude. Sage Open, 4(1), 2158244013516768.
Zuriekat, M., Salameh, R., & Alrawashdeh, S. (2011). Participation in performance measurement systems and level of satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(8), 159 – 169.
Copyright (c) 2025 Rokiah Muda, Noor Liza Adnan, Wan Noor Hazlina Wan Jusoh, Rohana Yusoff
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Author (s) should affirm that the material has not been published previously. It has not been submitted and it is not under consideration by any other journal. At the same time author (s) need to execute a publication permission agreement to assume the responsibility of the submitted content and any omissions and errors therein. After submission of revised paper in the light of suggestions of the reviewers, the editorial team edits and formats manuscripts to bring uniformity and standardization in published material.
This work will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and under condition of the license, users are free to read, copy, remix, transform, redistribute, download, print, search or link to the full texts of articles and even build upon their work as long as they credit the author for the original work. Moreover, as per journal policy author (s) hold and retain copyrights without any restrictions.
