Factors Influencing an Efficient Performance Management System in Telecommuting  Small High-tech Enterprises in Beijing

Ao Wang; Siriporn  Sajjanand; Supatra  Chantanasiri; Thananwarin   Kosithanin

doi:10.60027/iarj.2025.288010

Authors

Ao Wang Bangkokthonburi University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4424-0718
Siriporn Sajjanand Bangkokthonburi University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0009-0003-4500-7345
Supatra Chantanasiri Bangkokthonburi University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6587-8662
Thananwarin Kosithanin Bangkokthonburi University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6134-332X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.60027/iarj.2025.288010

Keywords:

Telecommuting, Performance Management, Small Enterprises

Abstract

Background and Aims: The rise of teleworking has reshaped the operational landscape for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), introducing new complexities in performance management. Remote work environments challenge traditional monitoring methods, employee engagement strategies, and performance evaluation frameworks. SMEs, with their limited resources and adaptive structures, face significant hurdles in maintaining productivity and ensuring alignment with organizational goals. This study aims to investigate the primary challenges of performance management in teleworking environments, identify key factors that influence employee performance under remote work conditions, and develop strategic recommendations for optimizing performance management systems. By fostering self-management, enhancing engagement, and implementing effective feedback and incentive mechanisms, this research seeks to provide SMEs with a dynamic and adaptable framework to navigate the evolving demands of telecommuting.

Methodology: A mixed-methods approach was employed, integrating both quantitative and qualitative techniques. A survey was conducted among 400 managers and employees from small high-tech enterprises in Beijing's Haidian, Tongzhou, Chaoyang, and Mentougou districts. Additionally, in-depth interviews were conducted with 10 experts in SME management and telework performance evaluation.

Results: The findings highlight key challenges, including unclear performance metrics, reduced team collaboration, and difficulties in tracking progress. The study reveals that structured feedback mechanisms and digital performance tracking tools significantly enhance employee engagement and productivity. Hybrid work models offer a balanced approach, mitigating the negative effects of full-time remote work.

Conclusion: Optimizing teleworking performance management in SMEs requires the implementation of clear performance indicators, enhanced virtual collaboration, and well-structured feedback and incentive systems. A dynamic and adaptive performance management framework can improve motivation, accountability, and overall organizational efficiency.

References

Anderson, A. H., McEwan, R., Bal, J., & Carletta, J. (2015). Virtual team meetings: A multimedia study. Journal of Business Communication, 42(2), 160–187.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day's work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491.

Barrero, J. M., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. (2021). Why working from home will stick. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w28731

Bian, G. (2021). Performance evaluation in telecommuting environments: A strategic approach. Journal of Management Studies, 58(3), 456–472.

Bloom, N., Han, R., & Liang, J. (2022). From remote work to hybrid work: Emerging trends and challenges. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/remote-work-hybrid

Chen, B. (2022). The impact of flexible work arrangements on employee satisfaction. Workplace Research Journal, 40(1), 78–92.

Chen, J. (2022). Customer satisfaction as a performance metric in remote work. International Journal of Business Performance, 20(4), 305–322.

Chen, J., Zhang, L., & Wang, P. (2022). Performance appraisal strategies in remote work settings: Challenges and solutions. Asian Business Review, 15(2), 233–250.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.

Cui, X. (2020). The role of self-discipline in telecommuting productivity. Chinese Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(3), 189–205.

Dabbish, L., & Kraut, R. E. (2006). Email overload at work: An analysis of factors associated with email strain. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 431–440). https://doi.org/10.1145/1180875.1180931

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.

Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, C. (1995). The triple helix: University-industry-government relations in innovation systems. Research Policy, 24(1), 55–76.

Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 399–441.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Hamidreza, J., Kaveh, A., & Reza, S. (2018). Telecommuting and innovation: The paradox of distance and collaboration. Journal of Telework Studies, 27(2), 112–130.

Han, R. (2023). The relationship between job satisfaction and team performance in virtual work environments. Organizational Behavior Review, 18(1), 76–94.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Kraimer, M. L., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 305–325.

Liu, Fei. (2012). Government policies and high-tech SMEs in Beijing: A case study. Journal of Innovation and Development, 5(2), 110–125.

Liu, Q. (2023). Hybrid work models: A study on balancing efficiency and teamwork. Human Resource Management Review, 35(1), 223–240.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice-Hall.

Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 805–835.

Muller, T., & Antoni, C. H. (2020). Digital collaboration in dispersed teams. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(4), 453–471.

Rudnicka, P., Nowak, M., & Kowalski, T. (2020). Effective digital communication in virtual teams: Best practices. European Journal of Business Communication, 32(2), 150–175.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. John Wiley & Sons.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. McGraw-Hill.

Wang, Xintong. (2022). Market competition and adaptation strategies for high-tech SMEs in China. Chinese Journal of Economic Studies, 14(1), 78–92.

Xu, J. (2023). Optimal telecommuting hours and their impact on employee engagement. Journal of Work-Life Balance Studies, 21(1), 56–74.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson.

Zakrzewska-Bielawska, A. (2010). High-technology enterprises: Innovation and competitive advantage. International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 2(3), 45–60.