What is common to them is the fact that they both occur when individuals want their peers to improve their work efficiency. The difference between them is represented by how they are performed. For example, direct monitoring consists in directly observing the behavior and results of peers, praising or correcting them in accordance with the circumstances, reporting inappropriate behavior, and discussing other performance related subjects. This is very useful if included in a motivational system that can be used within the organization in case (Hultman, 2002). Indirect peer monitoring is based on gossip regarding the negative aspects, like poor performance, inappropriate behavior, and others. In such cases, the individuals observed by their peers may not be aware of this monitoring. The effects of the two types of peer monitoring are slightly different. Direct peer monitoring has a positive influence on problem-free performance only when supervisory monitoring is low, otherwise it has no effect. The same thing happens when task interdependence is high.

Indirect peer monitoring did not produce any significant effects on problem-free performance. But high levels of cohesiveness and supervisory monitoring were observed to lead to an increased number of employee behavior problems.

The research questions raised by the study are useful for people working in the human resources business, people who want to expand their knowledge in the field. The results provided by the study do not suffice for developing strategies for example, but they constitute a good starting point for further study in this field.

In order to benefit from better results, the sample used in the research study must be representative, and it must be expanded to a larger number and to a larger geographical area (Goddard & Melville, 2001). These are some of the limitations of the study proposed by the two authors. Furthermore, case studies can...

This can proof useful in adding more importance to the findings of the study. Several specific research goals should be established before conducting the research (McNamara, 2010). The specificity of the results of the research will depend on the specificity of the established objectives.
Reference list:

1. Loughry, M.L. & Tosi, H.L. (2008). Performance Implications of Peer Monitoring. Organization Science. Vol. 19, No. 6. Retrieved February 28, 2010.

2. Hause, M.L. & Woodroffe, M.R. (2001). Team Performance Factors in Distributive Collaborative Software Development. Department of Computing, the Open University. Retrieved February 28, 2010 from http://www.google.ro/search?hl=ro&q=group+performance+factors+of+influence&btnG=C%C4%83uta%C5%A3i&meta=&aq=f&oq=.

3. Hultman, K. (2002). Motivational system mapping. Organization Development Journal. Retrieved February 28, 2010 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5427/is_200201/ai_n21322405/.

4. Goddard, W. & Melville, S. (2001). Research Methodology: An Introduction. Juta & Co, Ltd. Second edition, Lansdowne. Retrieved February 28, 2010 from http://books.google.ro/books?id=bJQJpsU2a10C&printsec=frontcover&dq=research+methodology&source=bl&ots=XqtbOeBS9k&sig=pVH4gNbRciKwK0v2RfX0YxJUjrg&hl=ro&ei=zZaKS4DmDZrimgOWo8W1DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=&f=false.

5. McNamara, C. (2001). Basics of Developing Case Studies. Authenticity Consulting. Retrieved February 28, 2010 from http://www.managementhelp.org/evaluatn/casestdy.htm.

6. McNamara, C. (2010). Analyzing, Interpreting and Reporting Basic Research Results. Authenticity Consulting. Retrieved February 28, 2010 from http://www.managementhelp.org/research/analyze.htm.