• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.97-117
• /
• 2005

This study was designed to compare the differences m results of supervisor and subordinate rating. Data was collected from personnel evaluation and subordinate rating results for middle managers(n=68) in hospital from 3rd January to 20th March in 2004. Supervisor rating consisted of performance, ability and attitude evaluation. Subordinate rating consisted of leadership, ability and attitude evaluation. Collected data included sociodemographic characteristics, work department, work level, years of work, years at present level and whether working in a patient serving department. The difference of standardized supervisor and subordinate rating score was used to define groups as 'higher in supervisor rating group'. Groups were defined in total score, ability score and attitude score. Main results were as follows: 1. In total score, sectional chiefs were apt to be 'higher in subordinate rating group' while chief clerks were apt to be 'similar group' or 'higher in supervisor rating group'. Staffs in patient serving department were likely to be 'higher in supervisor rating group' and staffs in non-patient serving department were likely to be 'higher in subordinate rating group'. All these results were statistically significant. 2. In ability score, there were no statistically significant differences in age, sex, years of education, work department, work level, years of work and whether working in a patient serving department among 'higher in supervisor rating group', 'similar group' and 'higher in subordinate rating group'. 3. In attitude score, staffs in the department of medical affairs and the department of administration were apt to be 'higher in subordinate rating group'. Staffs in the department of nursing were apt to be 'higher in supervisor rating group'. Staffs in a patient serving department were likely to be 'higher in supervisor rating group' and staffs in a non-patient serving department were likely to be 'higher in subordinate rating group'. All these results were statistically significant. 4. Logistic analysis about total score showed that sectional chiefs had higher Odds Ratio(OR) to be in 'higher in subordinate rating group'. Staffs in a non-patient serving department had higher OR to be in 'higher in subordinate rating group'. Both these results were statistically significant. 5. Logistic analysis about ability score showed that sectional chiefs had higher OR to be in 'higher in subordinate rating group'. Staffs in a non-patient serving department had higher OR to be in 'higher in subordinate rating group'. These results were not statistically significant. 6. Logistic analysis about total score showed that sectional chiefs had higher OR to be in 'higher in subordinate rating group', but the difference was not statistically significant. Staffs in a non-patient serving department had significantly higher OR to be in 'higher in subordinate rating group'. In conclusion, there is no clear superiority between supervisor and subordinate rating in personnel evaluation. It would be better to use a mixed model. It's also suggested to use an intervening rate of application or scores considering work levels and work department in personnel evaluation. These results would be helpful for hospitals planning a supervisor and subordinate rating system for personnel evaluation.

• Journal of dental hygiene science
• /
• v.5 no.4
• /
• pp.211-220
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this study was to examine the job performance of dental coordinators and their perception of their job to lay the groundwork for utilizing dental personnels more efficiently. The subjects in this study were dental coordinators who worked at selected dental hospitals and clinics in Seoul, Gyeonggi province and Incheon. A survey was conducted to gather data from May 1 to August 8, 2005 and answer sheets from 108 respondents were analyzed. The findings of the study were as follows: 1. As for the length of service, 43.5 percent of the dental coordinators investigated had worked at dental institutes for five years or more, which was followed by less than two years(19.5%) and three years to less than five years(19.4%). Concerning the length of service as dental coordinators, 39.8 percent had served for less than two years, and 19.4 percent had worked for two years to less than three years and for five years or more respectively. Regarding the name of position, 38 percent were called team leaders, and 30.6 percent were called coordinators. As to duties, the largest group of them that stood at 30.6 percent were in charge of receiving, and in regard to department, the largest group, 57.4 percent, belonged to the treatment backup department. 2. Concerning education, the greatest number of them, 45.4 percent, had received education at private institutes, and 73.1 percent found it necessary for dental coordinators to take an authorized qualification test. 43.5 percent, the largest group, looked upon the central government as the best organization to authorize their qualifications and 70.8 percent believed that what they learned enabled them to perform their job successfully. As to the necessity of follow-up education as a means to improve job performance, 96.3 percent consented to it. As for the reason, 63.9 percent considered that necessary to enhance their own ability and 22.2 percent were in want of systematic education. Regarding educational expenses, 29.6 percent were subsidized by the dental institutes where they had worked and 25.9 percent had totally been responsible for that. Regarding a required course, medical service and marketing was most widely pointed out(66.7%), followed by theory and practice(65.7%) and introduction to dentistry(57.4%). As to what sort of education they wanted to receive more, dental service and marketing was selected the most, followed by practical health insurance(35.2%). 3. In regard to what type of job they performed as dental coordinators, 88.9 percent were in charge of appointment in the field of customer service, and 87.9 percent paid attention to having good manners as service providers in the area of self-management. In the field of hospital affairs, 81.3 percent were in charge of receiving. 4. As to their awareness of dental coordinator job, the largest group took pride in the job they performed ($3.99{\pm}0.76$), and the second largest group believed that dental coordinators made a great contribution to hospital management ($3.92{\pm}0.70$). The third largest group gave a great weight to their own job ($3.91{\pm}0.84$) in light of overall dental duties and the fourth largest group found themselves to get along with other employees regardless of position ($3.86{\pm}0.74$). The fifth largest group believed their job was of great use for promoting the oral health of patients ($3.76{\pm}0.75$), and the sixth largest group thought the future of dental coordinators was promising($3.74{\pm}0.86$). 5. In regard to their perception by age group, those who were older had a better opinion on every item of their job in general. Their age made a statistically significant difference to their view of the weight of dental coordinator job(P < 0.001) in light of overall dental duties, of being approved and trusted by managers(P < 0.01), of social awareness of dental coordinator, and of being understood and approved by other employees and dentists. Their pride in current job and their satisfaction with the name of their position were statistically significantly different according to their age as well. Besides, their age made a statistically significant difference to their opinion about whether or not there was an age limit to their occupation and about their contribution to hospital management (P < 0.05). 6. As for their perception by type of job, the dental hygienists were generally most satisfied with their job, followed by nursing aids and others. There was a statistically significant gap among their opinions about whether to make a job-related decision on their own(P < 0.001). the weight of their job in terms of overall dental duties, whether their job improved their ability, whether their job made a great contribution to enhancing the oral health of patients, whether their job was understood and approved by other employees(P < 0.01), social awareness of their job, whether they conflicted with other employees during job performance, and whether dental hospitals or clinics offered a self-development opportunity for them to take their ability to another level(P < 0.05). And their satisfaction with current pay was statistically significantly different as well.