Driving SMEs’ Performance in South Africa: Investigating the Role of Performance Appraisal Practices and Managerial Competencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Managerial competencies and performance appraisal practices are often ignored when considering the performance of Small-to-Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Yet, these competencies and practices are fundamental for the survival of the SMEs. SMEs are critical for economic growth and job creation in many economies. The current study sought to establish whether managerial competencies and performance appraisal practices correlate with SMEs’ performance in South Africa. Firm performance was measured using two variables: innovation and return on investment (ROI). The study adopted a structural equation modelling analytical approach. Interpersonal competencies were found to be a significant factor of managerial competencies, but conceptual and political competencies were not. The study also found that managerial competencies, and not performance appraisal practices, significantly correlated with both innovation and ROI. The study recommends that performance appraisal practices be tailored to suit SMEs in the developing countries context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".