Avaliação dos Critérios do Plano de Participação nos Lucros por Meio de Indicadores de Desempenho
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X9829Abstract
This study is focused on a research and evaluation of the criteriaof the Participation on the Profits and Results plan - PPR - applied 7 yearsago at CERTHIL. The multivariate descriptive method was used. Thisresearch aims at suggesting a methodology that could make it easy thefuture plans application and evaluation in participating in the profits ofother companies. A questionnaire based on Likert scale was applied to theCERTHIL managers and collaborators and CERMISSÔES managers, whointend to apply to PPR. The descriptive analysis was useful to check therespondents' understanding and opinion about PPR, of both cooperatives,in relation to its implantation, influence in the quality, profitability,administrative management, motivation, relationship and commitment. Theevaluation of the indicators, through the multivariate analysis, enabled theselection of an ideal group of variables for the analysis. The factorial analysisidentifies the important level of each studied indicator, making easier theprocess of following the indicators of higher and lower importance in theplan composition. The principal components analysis enables the reductionand the identification of the variables with relevance which explains thefactors to be analyzed and identifies the variables that should maintain ahigher management control. The proposed methodology confirms itsimportance on the evaluation and implantation of the participation on theprofits and results plan of the company. It is possible to use that method asa tool to monitor performance indicators applied to PPR and contribute toadministrative management.Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
