CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF TWO ARTICLES

Posted: January 4th, 2023

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF TWO ARTICLES

Student’s Name

Course

Professor’s Name

University

City

Date

Critical Analysis of Two Articles

Introduction

            The purpose of this analysis is to compare two studies on a shared topic to evaluate their similarities and differences regarding purpose and methodology. Both studies focus on the correlation between satisfaction, compensation, and employee performance but they apply different approaches to provide their results. The first study by Darma and Supriyanto (2017) sought to determine the impact of compensation on these two variables along with how satisfaction could function as a mediating factor on the effect of compensation. Similarly, Sudiardhita et al. (2018) examined how employee motivation, variable compensation, and job satisfaction had an impact on overall performance. The comparison of the two studies will focus on their overview, literature review, methodology, and the findings and conclusion.

Overview of the Articles

            Darma and Supriyanto (2017) introduce the purpose of the study in the paper’s first section, outlining the correlation between the three variables (compensation, satisfaction, and performance). They also define these concepts and explain how they affect organisations on a global scale.  The authors provide background information to highlight the research gap that they intend to fulfil by completing this research. From their findings, Darma and Supriyanto (2017) found contradicting research on the influence of compensation on employee performance with some studies indicating a strong influence while others indicating that compensation is less influential. The purpose of this study, is therefore, to determine the influence that compensation has on performance and how employee satisfaction impacts both variables. Despite having a clearly defined objective, the study does not outline the research questions or the conceptual framework that would guide the methodology.

            Sudiardhita et al. (2018), conversely, provide a very brief introduction section that focuses on the background supporting the purposes of this research. The authors outline the significance of human resource management within an organisation in terms of integrating change and using appraisal systems to improve performance. The study also recommends the need to improve performance by focusing on three main variables including job satisfaction, work motivation, and compensation. However, it fails to clearly highlight the objective of the study and the research questions are absent in the first section. The reader can derive the study’s purpose from the abstract although it is not related in the introduction. Additionally, the authors fail to provide a purpose statement of hypothesis that would form the framework of their study.

Literature Review

            The first study by Darma and Supriyanto (2017) has segmented this chapter into three sections for the three variables. The authors provide a general overview of existing research on performance, compensation, and employee satisfaction. However, it was noted that this chapter mainly centres on describing the key terms rather than explaining how these variables are associated. The literature review is generally broad and thin and it fails to capture the general purpose of the study. Another weakness in this study is that the authors didn’t use recent data for this section. As the study was conducted in 2017, it would have been recommended if a majority of the sources were less than five years old (from 2012). The authors only used one study from 2014, while the rest of the review focuses on research dated as far back as 2002. According to Xiao and Watson (2019), it is important to review recent information to avoid duplication and at the same time identify research gaps and contradicting findings from previous studies. By failing to use recent research, Darma and Supriyanto (2017) fail to prove the significance of their study and how it would build to the knowledge that is currently in circulation. They nevertheless complete this chapter by highlighting the hypotheses to be tested in their study.

            Conversely, Sudiardhita et al. (2018) provide a more comprehensive and in-depth literature review that focuses on the three variables and other associated factors. The study also provides a theoretical framework based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Schaffer’s need fulfilment theory. The literature review appears to be more thorough with the intention of highlighting how these factors are related and the role they play in influencing overall performance. It, however, fails in the recency of the information since the most recent data was collected from 2013. As such, it is not possible to determine whether their proposed research gap is still existent and how they arrived to this conclusion. To add on, the study by Darma and Supriyanto (2017) researches similar variables and within the same context and geographical location. It may have been necessary for Sudiardhita et al. (2018) to use such a study as a point of reference to identify potential gaps and to explore how their findings would add to the existing knowledge.

Methodology

            Darma and Supriyanto (2017) incorporated an explanatory research for their study. Rahl (2017) explains that this design is used in instances where a research problem was not thoroughly-researched in the past, thereby creating a need for further explanation in a detailed approach. It is also used to guarantee that future researchers factor in additional studies in the future for a comprehensive assessment of the subject in addition to data collection, research priorities, and refining specific subjects. This research design is useful as the foundation for future research, although it fails to differentiate between cause-and-effect relationships and coincidences (Rahl, 2017). Additionally, there might be a wide range of social factors that might not be taken into consideration when determining the causal relationship. Darma and Supriyanto (2017) do not provide a suitable justification for selecting this research design. Additionally, previous research in this field has primarily applied a qualitative approach as it allows for the effective evaluation of each research variable. The study applies saturation sampling which was convenient in this case since the population was relatively small (Darma and Supriyanto, 2017). The researchers fail to justify their choice of methodology and also do not indicate potential weaknesses or the consequences they would have on the research findings. The data collection method is also not highlighted in addition to the research timeline.

            On the other hand, Sudiardhita et al. (2018) apply a qualitative research design to explore the correlation between the variables. While the design is not clearly explicated, it is possible to derive its approach from the structure of the methodology section. Data was collected through the survey method and the population sample of 346 respondents was selected through random sampling from a population of 2,759 employees. The sample was an effective representation of the total population and was vital in ensuring the validity of the results. Additionally, the study explains how the data was collected through close-ended questionnaires that were distributed to the respondents with a 5% error rate. A Likert scale was used for measurement, and the researchers tested for data reliability and validity before conducting their analysis. It was however noted that a justification for the methodology was not provided, its limitations, and the weaknesses it presented to the study. In comparison to the study by Darma and Surpiyanto (2017), Sudiardhita et al. (2018) provide a more comprehensive and clearly-outlined methodology that justifies their research findings and they provide a timeline for when the research would be conducted.

Analysis

            Darma and Surpiyanto (2017) prove to have control over their data by selecting an analysis approach that allows them to evaluate the validity and reliability of their variables. They also focused on assessing the structural models to identify the correlation between R-square, construct, and significance value (Darma & Surpiyanto, 2017, p. 76).  Additionally, the researchers used the Sobel test to assess the mediation hypothesis and they provide a suitable justification for using this approach in their study. Their analysis approach proves to be beneficial for this study and it has allowed them to evaluate the interaction between the variables. However, since the methodology section was poorly developed, it may be difficult to determine how this information was collected for analysis.

            Conversely, Sudiardhita et al. (2018) analysed their data using the Structural Equation Modelling approach. They also provide a justification for using this technique by factoring in the complexity of their variables. These findings were evaluated by testing the six hypotheses using the Good of Fit Index Criteria, which enabled the researchers to specifically focus on the three variables and their correlation. However, satisfaction, compensation, and performance are highly complex variables and there is a possibility that other factors were overlooked by selecting this analysis approach. This also makes it difficult for the researchers to distinguish between key and peripheral findings.

Conclusions and Recommendations

            From their findings, Darma and Surpiyanto (2017) prove to have achieved their objective in testing their hypotheses. They explore the interrelationship between the variables and how employee satisfaction functions to mediate the impact of compensation on employee performance. The study also outlines these findings effectively in different sections for better comprehension and has identified consistencies with previous research.  It is important to note that the cited research is relatively old, and it may be necessary to validate the findings using more recent studies. The researchers also identify the study’s limitations regarding the focus on general compensation, and recommend that future research should focus on the different types of compensation in organizations. They however do not note the limitations presented by the research instrument, and it is not clear where this thesis is applicable in a practical setting.

            Similarly, Sudiardhita et al. (2018) have shown a comprehension of their scope of research although they may not have had sufficient time to reflect on their overall thesis. The discussion section is relatively limited and it only focuses on proving two out of their six hypotheses. They have also supported and linked the findings to previous, more recent research. Regarding limitations, the authors acknowledge that their sample was relatively small (12.54%) and recommend that future research should focus on a larger sample to ensure generalisability. They also encourage using a different testing method aside from parametric testing since this approach is limited to a small population sample. The authors recommend their study to be applied in developing human resource practices at PT. Bank XYZ (Persero) Tbk (Sudiardhita et al., 2018).

House-keeping

            For both articles, the authors portray an ability to maintain a logical flow of concepts across the thesis, making it easier for the audience to understand the need for research and the findings. However, some sections in each study are too concise to provide sufficient information to the reader. All previous research was properly cited within the document and in the reference page, and there were no spelling errors identified.

Reference List

Darma, PS & Supriyanto, AS 2017, ‘The effect of compensation on satisfaction and employee performance’, Management and Economics Journal (MEC-J), vol.1, no.1, pp. 69-82.

Rahi, S 2017, ‘Research design and methods: a systematic review of research paradigms, sampling issues and instruments development’, International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.1-5.

Sudiardhita, KI, Mukhtar, S, Hartono, B, Sariwulan, T. & Nikensari, SI 2018. ‘The effect of compensation, motivation of employee and work satisfaction to employee performance Pt. Bank Xyz (Persero) Tbk’, Academy of Strategic Management Journal, vol.17, no.4, pp.1-14.

Xiao, Y. & Watson, M 2019, ‘Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 39, no.1, pp.93-112.