Correlational study finds no significant link between HR technology and performance management scores among college faculty, indicating digital tools alone cannot fix evaluation challenges.
The digital transformation of human resource management has created opportunities for higher education institutions to improve the efficiency, transparency, and responsiveness of faculty performance systems. However, implementing HR technology does not necessarily produce corresponding improvements in performance-management outcomes. This study examined HR technology and faculty performance management at a vocational college in China. It employed a descriptive-correlational design involving 224 full-time faculty members who had used the institution's HR technology and participated in its performance-evaluation process. Data were collected using a researcher-developed four-point questionnaire. The instrument demonstrated acceptable to excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging from .782 to .902. Weighted means and rankings were used for descriptive analysis, while Spearman's rho was used to test the relationships between the constructs. Respondents generally agreed that the HR technology was usable, accessible, available, and supportive of performance-related feedback and communication. Feedback and communication support received the highest assessment, whereas data accuracy and transparency received the lowest. Faculty performance management was also assessed positively, particularly regarding evaluation fairness and timeliness, although clarity of performance standards received the lowest rating. None of the tested cross-construct correlations reached statistical significance. The findings indicate that technological availability alone may be insufficient without stronger data governance, clearer role-aligned standards, and closer integration between HR systems and institutional evaluation processes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xiaofang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: