Enhancing the performance feedback system of the internal audit department of a government agency
2023
- 162Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage162
- Abstract Views140
- Downloads22
Artifact Description
This action research discusses how an internal audit department of a government agency addressed the lapses noted in its performance feedback system, specifically the lack of upward feedback. This issue allowed some gaps in managerial skills to remain unresolved which negatively impacts the conduct of audit engagements in the form of diminishing employee morale, unbalanced distribution of workload, and improper guidance from supervisors.Through focus group discussions, interviews, and surveys, the collaborators (myself and colleagues representing different ranks) identified the underlying causes and effects of the issue. The first cycle focused on formulating the implementation plan for the adoption of the upward feedback mechanism, including the feedback form to be used. The plan was tested through a dry run. The second cycle focused on improving the implementation plan after evaluating the results of the dry run and presenting the final version to top management for their disposition.The research achieved its goal of getting approval from management to further review and test the upward feedback mechanism crafted by the collaborators on a wider scale, involving the whole department. As they worked towards a common goal, the research resulted in stronger bond among the collaborators as well. Major findings of the research include: (1) feedback cannot be completely anonymous as feedback providers may lack accountability and (2) a well-designed upward feedback mechanism results in improved receptiveness from personnel, especially supervisors.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know