Performance increasing of the Dusseldorf Turkish General Consulate

Authors

  • Murat Erkan Eren Bingöl Emniyet Müdürlüğü

Keywords:

performance increasing, employee engagement, job satisfaction

Abstract

This study aims to reduce the citizens’ waiting time by increasing employees’ performance in the Turkish General Consulate (TGC). The current waiting time to complete processes for citizens is not satisfactory. Therefore, both the TGC administration and citizens complain about this issue. In this study, the client is the TGC administration. The first step is performance analysis. It includes organizational analysis, environmental analysis, and gap analysis. The first step also includes examining the TGC’s mission, vision, human resources policies, workflow and other aspects. The second step is investigating the gap between current waiting time and ideal waiting time. The third step is finding out the reasons that cause the gap between current and desired performance by implementing cause analysis. The interview questions are based on Gilbert’s Behavior Engineering Model (BEM). Telephone interviews are conducted with 16 employees to collect data. According to findings, the employees perceive the long waiting time as the most critical problem. The factors that cause the long waiting time can be stated as follows: inappropriate physical and psychological work environment, the lack of materials, tools, and time, inadequate financial and non-financial incentives. In this study, human performance technology model’s performance analysis and cause analysis stages are practiced.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biography

Murat Erkan Eren, Bingöl Emniyet Müdürlüğü

3. Sınıf Emniyet Müdürü

References

Elliott, P. (1996). Power-charging people's performance. Training & Development, 50(12), 46.

Chevalier, R. (2009). Analyzing Performance: An example. Performance Improvement, 48(7), 15-19.

International Society for Performance Improvement. (2010). What is HPT? Retrieved May 2, 2010, from www.ispi.org.

Kinnaird, B. (2007). Exploring liability profiles: A proximate cause analysis of police misconduct: Part I. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 9(2), 135-144. doi:10.1350/ijps.2007.9.2.135.

Langdon, D. (2003). Should we conduct cause analysis or change-of-state analysis? Performance Improvement, 42(9), 8-13.

Marker, A. (2007). Synchronized analysis model: Linking Gilbert's behavior engineering model with environmental analysis models. Performance Improvement, 46(1), 26-32.

Martin, F., Hall IV, H., Blakely, A., Gayford, M., & Gunter, E. (2009). The HPT model applied to a kayak company's registration process. Performance Improvement, 48(3), 26-35.

Mengis, J., & Nicolini, D. (2010). Root cause analysis inclinical adverse events. Nursing Management - UK, 16(9), 16-20.

Pershing, J.A. (2006) Handbook of human performance technology. Pfeiffer. p.6-7.

Robinson, D., & Robinson, J. (2006). Performance consulting: The art and the science. Performance Improvement, 45(4), 5-8.

Schaffer, S., & Douglas, I. (2004). Performance Support for Performance Analysis. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 48(2), 34-39.

Williams, L. (2008). The value of a root cause analysis. Long-Term Living: For the Continuing Care Professional, 57(11), 34-37.

Downloads

Published

2014-11-05

How to Cite

Eren, M. E. (2014). Performance increasing of the Dusseldorf Turkish General Consulate. Journal of Human Sciences, 11(2), 1062–1081. Retrieved from https://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/view/2962

Issue

Section

Public Administration