Organisational Performance Analysis

1017 Words5 Pages

This section will discuss the organisation performance in QS consultancy firm. The organisation performance was reviewed to achieve the second objective of this study, which is to determine the relationship between the leadership behaviours with the Quantity Surveying firm’s performance. The respondents were asked to rate the organisation performance based on the ten key indicators. A five-point Likert scale was used, where “1” represented “strongly disagree” and “5” represented “strongly agree”. The ten key indicators to measure the organisation performance, including the value creation, financial measures, customer satisfaction, competitiveness, innovation, business process re-engineering, market orientation, service flexibility, …show more content…

The scoring of the mean value of the questions was determined which is essential to identify the organisation performance in QS firm. The mean range is use to determine the level of agreement, which (1.00 - 1.80 = Strongly Disagree), (1.81 – 2.60 = Disagree), (2.61 – 3.40 = Neutral), (3.41 – 4.20 = Agree), and (4.21 – 5.00 = Strongly Agree). Apart from that, the standard deviation and ranking use to identify the significant of each performance key indicators. The criterion variable for this study was the organisational performance. This section is to achieve the second research objective to determine the relationship between the leadership behaviours with the Quantity Surveying firm’s performance. The research question and the hypothesis for this section was: R2: What are the relationships between the leadership behaviour with the Quantity Surveying firm’s performance? H2: There is a relationship between the leadership behaviour with the Quantity Surveying firm’s performance. H0: There is no relationship between the leadership behaviour with the Quantity Surveying firm’s …show more content…

There were ten key indicators to measure the organisation performance, which includes the value creation, financial measures, customer satisfaction, competitiveness, innovation, business process re-engineering, market orientation, service flexibility, service quality, and employee satisfaction. Each of the key indicators was examined by three sub-question indicated in the questionnaire (Appendix A and B). In the table, besides the overall result, the respondent was classifying into two positions, which were QS and MD respectively. The mean, standard deviation and ranking were also stipulated in the

Open Document