Addis Ababa University School of Commerce

Department of Human Resource Management

An Assessment of the Performance

Appraisal Practice: The Case of Ambo
University
A thesis submitted to Addis Ababa University school of
Commerce in partial fulfillment of Masters of Arts in Human
Resource Management

By

Tekabe Getahun

Advisor:

Worku (PhD)
 DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, declare that this research is my original work, prepared under the
guidance of Worku (PhD). All sources of materials used for this research have been duly
acknowledged, the researcher further confirm that the research has not been submitted
either in part or in full to any other higher learning institution for the purpose of earning
any degree.

Tekabe Getahun ______________

Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa

September, 2018
 CERTIFICATE
This thesis has been submitted to Addis Ababa University, School of

Commerce for examination with my approval as university advisor.

____________________ _________________

Worku (PhD) Signature

 Approval Sheet
Members of the Board of Examiner

External Examiner Signature Date

_______________ ________________ _______________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

_______________ ________________ _______________

Advisor Signature Date

_______________ ________________ _______________

 Contents
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................... i

List of figures ...................................................................................................................... ii

List of tables ....................................................................................................................... iii

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iv

CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background of the Study ........................................................................................... 1

1.2 Background of Ambo University .............................................................................. 2

1.3 Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................... 3

1.4 Research Questions ................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................. 4

1.5.1 General Objective ............................................................................................... 4

1.5.2 Specific Objectives ............................................................................................. 4

1.6 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................... 4

1.7 Scope of the Study..................................................................................................... 5

1.8 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................... 6

1.9 Organization of the Study ......................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................ 7

RELATED LITRATURE REVIEW................................................................................... 7

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Theoretical Review ................................................................................................... 7

2.1.1 Overview of Performance Appraisal .................................................................. 7

2.1.2 Development of Performance Appraisal System................................................ 8

2.1.3 Performance Appraisal Theories ........................................................................ 9

 2.1.4 Objectives of performance Appraisal ............................................................... 10

2.1.5 Criteria of Performance Appraisal .................................................................... 13

2.1.6 Performance Appraisal Techniques .................................................................. 13

2.1.7 Developing Employee Performance Appraisal Plans (EPAP) ......................... 17

2.1.8 Periods of Performance Appraisal .................................................................... 18

2.1.9 Employee Participation in the Appraisal System ............................................. 19

2.1.10 Post Appraisal Feedback Interview ................................................................ 20

2.1.11 Challenges of Performance Appraisal ............................................................ 21

2.1.12 Limiting the Effects of Supervisory Bias ....................................................... 24

2.1.13 Effectiveness of Performance appraisal ......................................................... 24

2.1.14 Performance appraisal in university context .................................................. 25

2.2 Empirical Reviews .................................................................................................. 27

2.3 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................... 29

CHAPTER THREE .......................................................................................................... 30

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 30

3.1 Research Approach ................................................................................................. 30

3.2 Research Design ...................................................................................................... 30

3.3 Population and Sampling Method ........................................................................... 30

3.3.1 Target Population ............................................................................................. 30

3.3.2 Sampling Method ............................................................................................. 30

3.4 Data Type and Sources ............................................................................................ 31

3.5 Data Collection Procedures ..................................................................................... 32

3.6 Ethical consideration ............................................................................................... 32

3.7 Method of Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 32

3.8 Reliability and validity Test .................................................................................... 33

 3.8.1 Validity ............................................................................................................. 33

3.8.2 Reliability ......................................................................................................... 33

CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................. 34

RESULT AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................................... 34

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 34

4.1 Response Rate ......................................................................................................... 34

4.2 Demographic Information ....................................................................................... 34

4.3 Effectiveness of the performance appraisal system ................................................ 36

4.4 Outcomes of performance appraisal system............................................................ 40

4.5 Challenges of performance appraisal system .......................................................... 42

CHAPTER FIVE .............................................................................................................. 45

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 45

5.1 summary of Major Finding ..................................................................................... 45

5.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 45

5.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 46

References ......................................................................................................................... 47

Questionnaire .................................................................................................................... 50
 Acknowledgement

First and for most thanks to the Almighty God Who gave me power and patience in every
endeavor of my life. Next, I would like to extend my deeper indebtedness to my advisor
Worku (PhD) for his professional guidance, constructive comments, and valuable
suggestions.

Finally, my great thanks go to my family who provided me all the necessary assistance in
finishing my thesis.

i
 List of figures
Figure 1Conceptual framework developed by the author (2018) based on literature review ..... 29

ii
 List of tables
Table 1Reliablity test ........................................................................................................ 33
Table 2: Response Rate ..................................................................................................... 34
Table 3: Demographic information of Respondents ......................................................... 35
Table 4Effectiveness of the performance appraisal system .............................................. 36
Table 5Mean and standard deviation of effectiveness of PAS ......................................... 37
Table 6Frequency of Outcomes of PAS ........................................................................... 40
Table 7Mean of Outcomes of PAS ................................................................................... 40
Table 8Frequency of Challenges of PAS .......................................................................... 42
Table 9Mean of Challenges of PAS.................................................................................. 43

iii
 Abstract
This study was conducted with an objective examining employee performance appraisal
system of Ambo University. The researcher has used mixed research approach by using
both qualitative and quantitative methods. The data were collected from both
administrative and teaching staffs through questionnaire and interview. The data was
analyzed by descriptive analysis methods. The study has identified that performance
appraisal system of the university is ineffective in measuring the performance of
employees. Ineffectiveness of the system has resulted negative outcomes such as
minimizing cooperation and demotivating high performers. The appraisal system is
challenged by inefficiency of the raters. Therefore, the researcher recommends the
university to include promotion and reward opportunities with the system, link the
current and expected performance, and train raters.

Keyword: Employee Performance Appraisal System

iv
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Lansbury (1998) defines performance appraisal as a process of identifying, evaluating
and developing the work performance of the employee in the organization, so that
organizational goals and objectives are effectively achieved while, at the same time,
benefiting employees in terms of recognition, receiving feedback, and offering career
guidance. Its focus is measuring and improving the actual performance of the employee
and also the future potential of the employee. Lansbury (1998) further states that
performance appraisal is a formal and systematic process of identifying, observing,
measuring, recording and developing the job-relevant strengths and weaknesses of
employees.

According to Longenecker (1997) though performance appraisal system has been debated
by many, however, overall, it is viewed that performance appraisal is an inseparable part
of organizational life, mentioned several reasons that formal performance appraisals are
to stay in organizations. Formal appraisals are required to justify a wide range of human
resource decisions such as pay raises, promotions, demotions, terminations, training need
etc. According to Bacal, (1999) both employees and employers are benefited from
performance appraisal. For employers it provides information about employee
performance. Employees benefit by getting feedback about their performance to improve
themselves on their poor performance.

In today’s competitive business world, organizations can only compete with their rivals
by innovating, and organizations can be innovative by managing their human resources
well. The human resource system can become more effective by having a valid and
accurate performance appraisal system used for rating employees (Armstrong, 2003;
Bohlander & Snell, 2004). As reveled by Steers and Black (1994), “performance
appraisal is one of the most important and often one of the most mishandled aspects of
management.’’ It has also been said to be one of the most problematic components of

1
human resource management and is viewed as either a futile bureaucratic exercise or,
worse, a destructive influence on the employee-supervisor relationship (Coutts and
Schneider, 2004).

Somerick (1993) has proven that ineffective performance evaluation can be a cause for
many problems, such as low morale, low productivity, a lessening of an employee’s
enthusiasm and support for the organization, high rate of skilled employee termination,
high rate of customer turnover, high running costs and etc that leads the company to
shrink early. The problems of performance evaluation arise when the results of the
evaluation fail to reflect the actual performance of the employees, which in turn, leads to
wrong administrative decisions.

The effectiveness and success of an organization therefore lies on the people who form
and work within the organization. The ultimate objective of performance appraisal is
identifying, measuring, and managing of human performance in an organization and to
give feedback to employees who may improve their performance on job and also
organizations success. Therefore, the researcher assessed and evaluated performance
appraisal practices and its effectiveness in the case of Ambo University.

1.2 Background of Ambo University

Ambo university is public higher education institution located Oromia region in the town
of Ambo. It is approximately 119 kilometers west of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ambo
university is one of the foremost higher learning institution with significant contribution
in the country’s overall development by building the capacity of development of
development agents through short, medium and long term traings in various ffieds since
its establishment in 1939. After passing through various developmemt stages, it has
recently become independent with a status of a university organized into five colleges,
three institutes and two schools with 38 academic departments.

Ambo university is one of the fastest growing Ethiopia universities currently expanding
to four campuses. In addition to main campus, it has two functional campuses-woliso
business and economics and Awaro Technology campuses and Guder Campus which is
under construction.

2
Ambo university is dedicated to serve the Ethiopian and the world society in discovery,
development and application in eide range of disciplines. The university is committed to
maintain and ensure the provision of quality, cost effective, timely and need based
education at undergraduate and post graduate levels, engage in research and knowledge
transfer, conducts short term trainings and consultancy; and offer community service in a
professional and innovative manner so as to address the need of stakeholders.

1.3 Statement of the Problem

Organizational performance is cumulative result of the performance of all employees in
the organization. This being the truth, employee performance has to be properly
appraised and coached to ensure that it is contributing toward achieving organizational
goals. According to Armstrong (2009) the performance of an organization is highly
dependent on performance of the employees. The performance management system of
the organization is intended to improve the performance of the employees. According to
Bacal, (1999) the performance appraisal is the main function of performance
management. According to Obisi (2011), Muthuo (2010) and Caroline (2011) effective
performance appraisal results on motivated employees and improves their performance.
In contrast, ineffective appraisal system results on demotivated employees that result on
lower performance of the organization through their lower performance.

However, though Ambo University conducts performance appraisal periodically,

preliminary study of the researcher shown that some employees of Ambo University are
not happy with it by complaining that promotion is not based on performance appraisal
result. Rather, it is based on experience of employees. Additionally, there are many
challenges which are facing the current performance appraisal system by the Ambo
University.

Muthuo (2010) and Obisi (2011) identified only the effect of the appraisal system on the
performance of the employees and (Prowse & Prowse, 2009) identified the challenges of
the appraisal system. These studies did not include the effectiveness of the appraisal
system. Therefore, this study intends to fill this gap by including the effectives of the
appraisal system in addition to effects and challenges of the system. As far as the
knowledge of the researcher there are no empirical studies conducted on effectiveness,

3
outcomes and challenges of employee performance appraisal system in Ambo University.
Therefore, this study has assessed the performance appraisal practice in Ambo
University.

1.4 Research Questions

This study tried to answer the following basic research questions.

 To what extent is the performance appraisal of Ambo University effective?

 What are the major challenges of performance appraisal in Ambo University?

 What are the major outcomes of performance appraisal implemented in Ambo

University effective?

1.5 Objectives of the Study

1.5.1 General Objective
The general objective of this study is an assessment of the performance appraisal practice
in Ambo University.

1.5.2 Specific Objectives

Below listed are specific objectives which emanated from the general objective.

 To investigate the extent of performance appraisal effectiveness of Ambo

University;

 To assess the major challenges of performance appraisal system in Ambo

University; and

 To identify the major outcomes of performance appraisal system in Ambo

University.

1.6 Significance of the Study

This research can benefit Ambo University, its employees, and other interested
researchers. The university can be benefited through assessing its performance appraisal
system to see its strengths and weaknesses. A fair performance evaluation will boost
productivity by motivating employees and rewarding high performance. Accurate results

4
of Performance appraisal increase the quality of decisions made with respect to human
resource planning, training and development, recruitment and selection, career planning
and development, compensation programs, internal employment relations and assessment
of employee potential. Subsequently, the attainment of organizational goals will be
greatly improved.

In general, the research will have significance in:

 Performance appraisal helps employees of the organization by determining who

shall receive merit increase, counsels on their improvement, training needs;
promotion, and identifies those who should be transferred. To this end, it might
indicate the possible appropriate ways of PA process and practices to Ambo
University.

 The results of the effectiveness of PA process and challenges has important

managerial decision making implications. It provides management an insight to
make adjustment on performance appraisal variables in light of individual and
organizational development.

 The study will provide viable solutions for the effective implementation of PA in
Ambo University based on the empirical fingerings.

 The employees of Ambo University are also among the beneficiaries of this study
in enjoying the findings of this study.

 Additionally, the study can function as an input for future researchers interested in
the area.

1.7 Scope of the Study

Conceptually, the scope of this study is to assess the performance appraisal practice and
its effectiveness. This study has limited to effectiveness of the appraisal system in the
institution, outcome of the implemented appraisal system, and challenges to the the
appraisal system. Geographically, this study is delimited in Ambo University.

5
1.8 Definition of Terms
The following definition of terms are adopted from (Lansbury, 1998).

 Performance Appraisal: Performance appraisal is defined as “the process of

identifying, evaluating and developing the work performance of the employee in
the organization, so that organizational goals and objectives are effectively
achieved while, at the same time, benefiting employees in terms of recognition,
receiving feedback, and offering career guidance”

 Performance appraisal methods: are the techniques through which employee

performance is appraised.

 Performance appraisal Purposes: are the reasons underlying any performance

evaluation practice.

1.9 Organization of the Study

This research is composed of five chapters; fist chapter is about is the introduction of the
study that includes background of the study, statement of the problem, research
objectives, research questions, significance of the study and scope of the study; second
chapter reviews related both theoretical and empirical literatures; third chapter is about
research methodologies that include research approach, research design, study
population, sampling methods, type of data, method and procedure of data collection,
method of data analysis and ethical considerations; fourth chapter is about results and
discussion; and the final chapter is about the summary of the findings, conclusion and
recommendations.

6
 CHAPTER TWO

RELATED LITRATURE REVIEW

Introduction
This chapter focuses on basic concepts and issues that are discussed by different authors
on the research topic. Overview, purposes, methods, benefits of performance appraisal,
responsible body to conduct performance appraisal, time to conduct performance
appraisal, Challenges/problems of performance appraisal, guidelines for a successful
performance appraisal system (effectiveness), employee participation in performance
appraisal system and post appraisal feedback interview are discussed.

2.1 Theoretical Review

2.1.1 Overview of Performance Appraisal
Ainsworth et al., (2002) defines performance as an outcome, or result of an individual’s
actions. Performance Assessment (also performance appraisal, evaluation, measurement)
becomes a continual review of the job related task accomplishments or failures of the
individuals within the organization. A major consideration in performance improvement
involves the creation and use of performance measures or indicators; which are
measurable characteristics of products, services, processes, and operations the company
uses to track and improve performance.

According to Armstrong (2009) performance management is a systematic process for

improving organizational performance by developing the performance of individuals and
teams. Further this author states performance management as a means of getting better
results by understanding and managing performance within an agreed framework of
planned goals, standards and competency requirements.

Yong (1996) defines performance appraisal as an evaluation and grading exercise

undertaken by an organization on all its employees periodically on the outcomes of
performance based on the job content, job requirement and personal behavior in the
position. According to Longenecker, (1997) performance appraisal is a raft of strong

7
reactions, emotions, and opinions, when brought together in the organizational context of
a formal appraisal procedure. Similar to these authors Palaiologos et al. (2011) states
performance appraisal as a formal program in which employees are told the employer's
expectations for their performance and rated on how well they have met those
expectations. Palaiologos et al. (2011) further state performance appraisal as a process of
obtaining, analyzing and recording information about the relative worth of an employee.

Mathis & Jackson (1997) affirmed that performance appraisal can be done by anyone
who is familiar with the performance of individual being appraised. According to the
authors the possible options are supervisors who rate their employees, employee who rate
their supervisors team members who rate each other, outsider sources, employee self-
appraisals or multi-score (360o) appraisal.

2.1.2 Development of Performance Appraisal System

Prowse & Prowse (2009) indicated the development of performance appraisal systems. In
the 1940s behavioral methods were developed using a motivational approach. These
included behavioral anchored rating scales (BARS), behavioral observation scales (BOS),
behavioral evaluation scales (BES), critical incident, and job simulation. All these
judgments were used to determine the specific levels of performance criteria to specific
issues such as customer service and rated in factors such as “excellent”, “average”, “need
to improve” or “poor”. Post-1945 developed into the results-oriented approaches and led
to the development of management by objectives (MBO).

In the 1960s the development of self-appraisal by discussion led to specific time and
opportunity for the appraisees to evaluate their performance reflectively in the discussion
and the interview developed into a conversation on a range of topics that the appraise
needed to discuss in the interview. In the 1990s 360-degree appraisal developed, where
information was sought from a wider range of sources and the feedback was no longer
dependent on the manager-subordinate power relationship but included groups appraising
the performance of line managers and peer feedback from peer groups on individual
performance. So Since 1940s, the philosophy of performance appraisal has undergone
tremendous changes. The common terms used include merit rating, behavioral
assessment, employee evaluation, personnel review, staff assessment, and progress report

8
and performance appraisal. However, the most widely used term is performance appraisal
(Danielle and Buckley, 2005).

Moats (1999) explains that in the early part of the twentieth century performance
appraisals were used in larger organizations mostly for administrative purposes, such as
making promotions and determining salaries and bonuses. Since the 1960s, however,
companies and researchers have increasingly stressed the use of employee evaluations for
motivational and organizational planning purposes. Indeed, for many companies
performance appraisal has become an important tool for maximizing the effectiveness of
all aspects of the organization, from staffing and development to production and
customer service (Moats, 1999).

2.1.3 Performance Appraisal Theories

Even though there are many theories related to performance appraisal, the researcher
believes that equity and expectancy theories (Kellogg and Negros, 2002; Richer, 2002;
Vroom, 1964) and goal theory (Armstrong, 2006) are appropriate for the current study.

2.1.3.1 Equity and Expectancy Theories

Equity simply means fairness. Workers are motivated when they discover that they are
treated fairly in compensation, promotion and that there is transparency in their
evaluations. Workers reduce their efforts if they feel that they are treated inequitably
(Hyde, 2005).

According to Vroom (1964) expectancy theory indicates that employees will be

motivated to exert high level of effort when they believe that their efforts will lead to
higher performance (expectancy), higher performance will lead to rewards
(instrumentality) and rewards are valuable to them (valence). This effort will lead to good
performance appraisal and followed by organization rewards such as bonus, salary
increment or promotion which later satisfy personal goals (Vroom, 1964). This theory is
based on the hypothesis that individuals adjust their behavior in the organization on the
basis of anticipated satisfaction of valued goals set by them. The individuals modify their
behavior in such a way which is most likely to lead them to attain these goals. This theory

9
underlies the concept of performance management as it is believed that performance is
influenced by the expectations concerning future events (Salaman, 2005).

2.1.3.2 Goal Theory

Goal-setting theory had been proposed by Edwin Locke in 1968. This theory suggests
that the individual goals established by an employee play an important role in motivating
him/her for superior performance. This is because the employees keep following their
goals. If these goals are not achieved, they either improve their performance or modify
the goals and make them more realistic (Salaman, 2005). The theory emphasizes the
important relationship between goals and performance. Research supports predictions
that the most effective performance seems to result when goals are specific and
challenging, when they are used to evaluate performance and linked to feedback on
results, and create commitment and acceptance. The motivational impact of goals may be
affected by moderators such as ability and self-efficacy. Managers widely accept goal
setting as a means to improve and sustain performance (DuBrin, 2012). The major
findings of goal setting are that individuals who are provided with specific, difficult but
attainable goals perform better than those given easy, nonspecific, or no goals at all. At
the same time, however, the individuals must have sufficient ability, accept the goals, and
receive feedback related to performance (Latham, 2003).

2.1.4 Objectives of performance Appraisal

Performance appraisals are used to support HR decisions, including promotions,
terminations, training, and merit pay increases. The focus of the performance appraisal is
measuring and improving the actual performance of the employee and also the future
potential of the employee. Performance appraisal is intended to identify, measure and
manage employees’ performance in organizations and to provide important feedback and
coaches them to higher levels of performance. Regardless of whether they are large or
small, public or private, service or manufacturing, organizations use performance
appraisal with varying degrees of success, as a tool to achieve a variety of human
resource management objectives. These studies indicate that performance appraisals is
important part of organizational life because they can serve a number of

10
functions/purposes, including solving performance problems, setting goals, administering
rewards and discipline, and dismissal.

Palaiologos et al. (2011) state that the performance appraisal system to be successful with
its objectives it should be correlated with the organizational mission, philosophies and
value system; cover assessment of performance as well as potential for development; take
care of organizational as well as individual needs; help in creating a clean environment;
link rewards with achievements; generate information for the growth of the employee as
well as of the organization and suggests appropriate person-task matching and career
plans.

Performance appraisals are important for staff motivation, attitude and behavior
development, communicating organizational aims, and fostering positive relationships
between management and staff. The objectives of the appraisal scheme should be
determined before the system is designed in detail. The objectives will to a large extent
dictate the methods and performance criteria for appraisal so they should be discussed
with employees, managers and trade unions to obtain their views and commitment
(Fletcher, 1994). The main objectives of an appraisal system are usually to review
performance, potential and identify training and career planning needs. In addition the
appraisal system may be used to determine whether employees should receive an element
of financial reward for their performance (Derven, 1990).

Performance reviews give managers and employees opportunities to discuss how

employees are progressing and to see what sort of improvements can be made or help
given to build on their strengths and enable them to perform more effectively (Grote,
2002). Review of potential and development needs predicts the level and type of work
that employees will be capable of doing in the future and how they can be best developed
for the sake of their own career and to maximize their contribution to the organization.
Performance appraisal is used for reward reviews to determine the rewards that
employees will get for their past work. The reward review is usually a separate process
from the appraisal system but the review is often assisted by information provided by the
performance appraisal (Einstein, 1989).

11
Competent appraisal of individual performance in an organization or company serves to
improve the overall effectiveness of the entity. McGregor in Moats (1999) describes the
three main functional areas of performance appraisal systems as: administrative,
informative, and motivational. According to Addison-Wesley (2001), appraisals serve an
administrative role by facilitating an orderly means of determining salary increases and
other rewards, and by delegating authority and responsibility to the most capable
individuals. Again, Moats says the informative function is fulfilled when the appraisal
system supplies data to managers and appraisees about individual strengths and
weaknesses. Bodil finally describes the motivational role to entail creating a learning
experience that motivates workers to improve their performance. When effectively used,
performance appraisals will be seen to be playing a major role in helping employees and
managers establish goals for the period before the next appraisal (Addison-Wesley,
2001).

According to McNamara (2000) Performance Appraisal is done with the objectives of

maintaining records in order to determine compensation packages, wage structure,
salaries raises, etc.; identifying the strengths and weaknesses of employees to place right
men on right job; maintaining and assess the potential present in a person for further
growth and development; providing a feedback to employees regarding their performance
and related status; using as a basis for influencing working habits of the employees; and
review and retain the promotional and other training programs.

Wesley (2004) stated some objectives of performance appraisal are reviewing the
performance of the employees over a given period of time; judging the gap between the
actual and the desired performance; helping the management in exercising organizational
control; helping to strengthen the relationship and communication between management
and employees; diagnosing the strengths and weaknesses of the individuals so as to
identify the training and development needs of the future; provide feedback to the
employees regarding their past performance; providing information to assist in the other
personal decisions in the organization; provide clarity of the expectations and
responsibilities of the functions to be performed by the employees; judging the
effectiveness of the other human resource functions of the organization such as

12
recruitment, selection, training and development; and reducing the grievances of the
employees.

Reza (1997) stated that performance appraisal motivates employees, helps to identify
training and development need, monitor recruitment and induction, and employee
evaluation and control.

2.1.5 Criteria of Performance Appraisal

Robbins (1998) affirmed that criteria for evaluating job performances can be classified as
trait-based, behavioral based, or results based. Individual task outcomes measure job-
related results; behaviors: measure observable physical actions and movements; and trait
based criterion identifies a subjective character trait such as “pleasant personality”,
“initiative,” or “creativity” and has little to do with the specific job.

Generally, the criteria are relevant when they measure employees on the most important
aspects of their jobs. Mathis and Jackson (1997) again supplemented that jobs usually
include many duties and tasks, and so measuring performance usually requires more than
one dimension. If the performance criteria leave out some important job duties, they are
deficient. If some irrelevant criteria are included in the criteria, the criteria are said to be
contaminated. Managers use deficient or contaminated criteria for measuring
performance much more than they should.

2.1.6 Performance Appraisal Techniques

Jafari, et al, (2009) denominated that performance appraised by either of three
approaches; absolute standards, relative standards, objectives or 360 Degree Feedback.

2.1.6.1 Absolute Standards

In the absolute standards the employees are compared to a standard, and their evaluation
is independent of any other employee in a work group. Absolute approach includes the
essay appraisal, the critical incident appraisal, the checklist, graphic rating scale, forced
choice and behaviorally anchored rating scales.

The essay appraisal is the simplest evaluating method in which evaluator writes an
explanation about employee’s strong and weak points, previous performance, positional

13
and suggestion for his (her) improvement at the end of evaluation term. This kind of
evaluations usually includes some parts of other systems to cause their flexibility. This
method often combines with other methods. Essay appraisal focuses on behaviors.

Critical incident appraisal focuses on key factors which make difference in performing a
job efficiently. This method is more credible because it is more related to job and based
on individual’s performance than characteristics. The necessity of this system is to try to
measure individual’s performance in term of incidents and special episodes which take
place in job performance. In this method, the manager writes down the positive and
negative individual’s performance behavior in evaluation term. Critical incident evaluation
techniques require the assessor to record statements that describe good and bad job-related
behavior (critical incidents) exhibited by the employee. According to Moats, the statements
are grouped by categories such as cooperation, timeliness, and attitude. An advantage of this
system is that it can be used very successfully to give feedback to employees. Furthermore, it
is less susceptible to some forms of bias. On the other hand, critical incident assessments are
difficult because they require ongoing, close observation and because they do not lend
themselves to standardization and are time consuming (Kurt 2004).

The checklist method is a presentation of employee’s characteristics and performance. In

this method the evaluator has a list of situations and statements and compares it with
employees. The results can be quantitative and give weight to characteristics. According
to Moats (1999), some of the traditional forms of performance appraisals such as rating
scales and checklists remain popular despite their inherent flaws. They entail an assessor
providing a subjective assessment of an individual's performance based on a scale effectively
ranging from good to bad or on a checklist of characteristics. Typically, basic criteria such as
dependability, attitude, and attendance are listed. The obvious advantage of these techniques
is that they are inexpensive and easy to administer. Primary disadvantages include the fact
that they are: highly susceptible to all forms of bias; often neglect key job-related information
and include unnecessary data; provide limited opportunities for effective feedback; and fail to
set standards for future success. Furthermore, subjective techniques such as rating scales are
vulnerable to legal attack.

The graphic rating scale is the most commonly used method of performance appraisal
because they are less time-consuming to develop and administer and allow for

14
quantitative analysis and comparison. It is a scale that lists some characteristics and range
of performance of each individual. The employees are ranked by determining a score
which shows their performance level. The utility of this technique can be enhanced by
using it in conjunction with the essay appraisal technique.

Forced choice is a method in which the evaluator should rank individual work behavior
between two or more states. Each state may be favorable or unfavorable. The activity of
evaluator is to determine which state has an explanation of employee most. Forced-choice
appraisals consist of a list of paired (or larger groups of) statements. According to Moats
(1999) the statements in each pair may both be negative or positive, or one could be positive
and the other negative. The evaluator is forced to choose one statement from each pair that
most closely describes the individual He contends that Forced-choice appraisals are typically
easy to understand and inexpensive to administer, but they lack job relatedness and provide
little opportunity for constructive feedback.

Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) method replaces traditional numerical

anchors tools with behavioral prototypes of real work behaviors. BARS the evaluator
ranks employees based on observable behavioral dimensions. The elements of this
method are result of combination of major elements of critical incident and adjective
rating scale appraisal methods (Wiese, 2000). According to Moats (1999) a fairer
approach to performance appraisal is behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARSs),
which are designed to identify job-related activities and responsibilities and to describe
the more effective and less effective behaviors that lead to success in specific jobs. The
rater observes a worker and then records his or her behavior on a BARS. The system is
similar to checklist methods in that statements are essentially checked off as true or false.
Moats points out however that, BARS differ in that they use combinations of job-related
statements that allow the assessor to differentiate between behavior, performance, and
results.

Field review appraisal techniques entail the use of human resource professionals to assist
managers in conducting appraisals. Moats says that the specialist asks the manager and
sometime coworkers’ questions about an employee's performance, records the answers,
prepares an evaluation, and sends it to the manager to review and discuss with the

15
employee. This type of system improves reliability and standardization because a
personnel professional is doing the assessment. For the same reason, it is less susceptible
to bias or to legal problems. But field reviews are generally expensive and impractical for
most firms, and are typically utilized only in special instances—to counteract charges of
bias, for example ( McNamara 2000).

2.1.6.2 Relative Standards

In relative standards individuals are compared against other individuals. These methods
are relative standards rather than absolute measuring device. The most popular of the
relative method are group order ranking, individual ranking and paired comparison. In
group order ranking method employees are placed into a particular classification, such as
“top one-fifth”. Unlike group order ranking, in individual ranking individuals are ranked
from highest to lowest. It is assumed that the difference between the first and second
employee is equal to difference between 21st and 22nd employee. In this method, the
manager compares each person with others than work standards. Paired comparison
compares employees with all others in pairs. After doing all comparisons, the best person
is determined for each characteristic (Mondy, 2008).

2.1.6.3 Objectives
Employees are evaluated on how well they accomplished a specific set of objectives that
have been determined to be critical in the successful completion of their job. This
approach is referred to as Management by Objectives (MBO). Management by objectives
is a process that converts organizational objectives in to individual objectives. It consists
of four steps: goal setting, action planning, self-control and periodic reviews (Ingham,
1998). Moats (1999) describes this technique as usually goal oriented. In MBO, managers
and employees work together to set goals with the intent of helping employees to achieve
continuous improvement through an ongoing process of goal setting, feedback, and
correction. As a result of their input, employees are much more likely to be motivated to
accomplish the goals and to be responsive to criticism that arises from subsequent
objective measurements of performance (McNamara 2000).

16
2.1.6.4 360 Degree Feedback Appraisal
360 degree evaluations are the latest approach to evaluating performance. It is a popular
performance appraisal method that involves evaluation input from multiple levels within
the firm as well as external sources. Feedback on performance for each target rates using
standardized instruments. Rasheed et al (2011) state that 360-degree appraisal system is
more effective as compared to the other systems that are one sided and could be biased at
times. In 360-degree appraisal system, information is obtained from several sources; the
boss, top management, assistants, coworkers, customers, dealers and advisors. All these
can be classified into internal and external parties. In 360-degree appraisal system,
information can be obtained from anyone who interacts with the employee and can tell
how that employee behaves with him.

2.1.7 Developing Employee Performance Appraisal Plans (EPAP)

According to Wesley (2003), regulatory requirements for planning an employee’s
performance include first establishing the elements and standards in their EPAP. An
EPAP outlines the specific elements and standards that the employee is expected to
accomplish during the rating cycle. Wesley (2003) points out that performance elements
and standards should be measurable, understandable, verifiable, equitable, and
achievable. In addition, EPAPs should be flexible so that they can be adjusted for
changing program objectives and work requirements.

2.1.7.1Elements
According to Wesley (2003) elements established in appraisal plans should all be
considered critical. Through these elements, employees are held accountable as
individuals for work assignments and responsibilities of their position. A critical element
is an assignment or responsibility of such importance that unsatisfactory performance in
that element alone would result in a determination that the employee’s overall
performance is unsatisfactory.

2.1.7.2 Standards
The performance standards, according to Wesley (2003) are expressions of the
performance threshold(s), requirement(s), or expectation(s) that must be met for each

17
element at a particular level of performance. Kurt (2004) says they must be focused on
results and include credible measures such as quality, quantity, timeliness and cost-
effectiveness. Quality addresses how well the employee or work unit is expected to
perform the work and/or the accuracy or effectiveness of the final product. It refers to
accuracy, appearance, usefulness, or effectiveness. Measures can include error rates (such
as the number or percentage of errors allowable per unit of work) and customer
satisfaction rates (determined through a customer survey/feedback). Quantity addresses
how much work the employee or work unit is expected to produce. Measures are
expressed as a number of products or services expected, or as a general result to achieve.
Timeliness addresses how quickly, when, or by what date the employee or work unit is
expected to produce the work. Cost-Effectiveness addresses savings or cost control.
These should address cost-effectiveness on specific resource levels (money, personnel, or
time) that can generally be documented and measured. Cost-effectiveness measures may
include such aspects of performance as maintaining or reducing unit costs, reducing the
time it takes to produce or provide a product or service, or reducing waste (Wesley 2003).

2.1.8 Periods of Performance Appraisal

Organizations have their own time to conduct PA depending on their own philosophy of
time period. With the majority of schemes, staffs receive an annual appraisal and for
many organizations this may be sufficient. More frequent appraisals may be appropriate
for new members of staff, those recently promoted or appointed to a new position or for
those whose past performance has not been up to the required standard. First an informal
appraisal is conducted whenever the supervisor feels it is necessary. The day-to-day
working relationships between a manager and an employee performance have to be
judged. This judgment is communicated through conversation on the job or over coffee or
by an on-the-sport examination of a particular piece of work. Informal appraisal is
especially appropriate when time is an issue. The longer feedback is delayed the less
likely it is motivating behavior change. Frequent information feedback of employee can
also avoid surprises (and therefore problems) later when the formal evaluation is
communicated. Second, a systematic appraisal is used when the contact between manager
and employee is formalized and a system is established to report managerial impressions
and observations on employee performance. Although informal appraisal is useful, it

18
should not take the place of formal appraisal. When a formalized or systematic appraisal
is used, the interface between the HR unit and the appraising manager becomes more
important. Therefore, systematic appraisals typically are conducted once or twice a year.

Appraisals most often are conducted once a year, usually near the employee’s
anniversary date. For new employees, an appraisal at 90 days after employment, at six
months, and annually is common timing. This regular time interval is a feature of formal
appraisals and distinguishes them from informal appraisals. Both employees and
managers are aware that performance will be reviewed on a regular basis, and they can
plan for performance discussions. In addition, informal appraisals should be conducted
whenever a manager feels they are desirable.

Obisi (2011) asserted that for most people, objectives cannot be accomplished by a
performance appraisal given only once a year. Therefore, it is recommended that reviews
be conducted three to four times a year for most employees. It is also not in the interest of
the organization for performance appraisal to be conducted once in a year because it
would be difficult for the appraiser to know what happened throughout the year and be
able to remember them.

Boice and Kleine (1997), argued that employee reviews should be performed on a
frequent and ongoing basis. The actual time period may vary in different organizations
and with different aims but a typical frequency would be bi-monthly or quarterly. They
further strengthened their argument by stating added value of conducting performance
evaluation frequently. Two situations that are eliminated by conducting reviews
frequently are: selective memory by the supervisor or the employee; and surprises at an
annual review.

People generally tend to remember what happened within the last month or high profile
situations (good or bad). Frequent reviews help eliminate the effects of this, generally
unconscious, selective memory.

2.1.9 Employee Participation in the Appraisal System

Each employee should evaluate by his supervisor and to discuss each other to set
objectives for upcoming evaluation. This discussion should cover the review of overall

19
progress, problems encountered, performance improvement possibilities, long term career
goals, specific action plan about job description and responsibilities, employee
development interest and needs, to concentrate specific areas of development, to review
performance objectives and performance standard, ongoing feedback and periodic
discussions.

Rasheed et al. (2011), asserted their views about the participation of employees in
appraisal systems. They said that through participation, employees are given an
opportunity to raise their voice. They further added that biasness reduces and trust on the
supervisors develops when performance standards and criteria for evaluation are set with
the help of employee in a joint session between employee and supervisor. Decreased
employee participation increases appraisal related tension and appraiser- appraise
conflicts. Comprehensive and effective participation within the performance appraisal
consists of joint rater-rate development of: 1) performance standards, 2) the rating form,
3) employee self-appraisal, and 4) rate participation in the interview.

Clear and specific standards of performance are major elements of a valid and reliable
performance appraisal system. The key is to develop standards that measure the essential
job duties and responsibilities utilizing a balance of process, outcome, and individual and
group based performance standards. The development of reliable, valid, fair and useful
performance standards is enhanced by employee participation, as workers possess
requisite unique and essential information necessary for developing realistic standards.

Employee participation in developing the rating form and appraisal procedures is the
logical extension of the development of performance standards. The rating form
summarizes the formal operational definition of what the organization considers worthy
of formal appraisal. As such, it is important to gather employee input on the aspects of
performance formally appraised as well as the measurement scales provided (Roberts,
1996).

2.1.10 Post Appraisal Feedback Interview

Feedback is an important part of the PAS. The ratees should be given feedback on their
competence and overall progress within the organization. The feedback should be

20
specific and timely and be against the predetermined performance expectations. It's
within the employee’s rights to know how they are progressing in performing the
assigned tasks and to receive feedback. The feedback should be provided on a continuous
basis – daily, weekly or monthly reviews (Lee, 2005). There are three methods of post
appraisal feedback interview. These methods include tell and sell method, tell and listen
method, and problem solving method.

The aim of tell and sell method is to communicate evaluations to employees as accurately
as possible. The fairness of the evaluation is assumed and the manger seeks to let the
subordinate know how they are doing; to gain their acceptance of the evaluation; and to
get them to follow the manger’s plan for improvement. In the interview, supervisors are
in complete control; they do most of the talking. They attempt to influence and persuade
subordinates that their observation and recommendations are valid. Clearly, this method
leads to defensiveness, lack of trust, lack of open communication and exchange of invalid
information and it can hurt supervisor-subordinates relations.

The purpose of tell and listen method is to communicate the evaluation to the subordinate
and then let him /her respond to it. This method is apt to result in better understanding
between supervisor and subordinate than the -tell and sell method.

In problem solving method the subordinate is asked to look at his/her job critically and
constructively, to assess its problem and difficulties, to determine what actions and
resources are needed to improve work performance. The manager’s role is to help the
subordinate carry out this critical analysis and evaluate the proposed solutions which the
two have devised together.

2.1.11 Challenges of Performance Appraisal

Most employees have mixed feelings with performance appraisal systems. Whilst some
believe it carry some biases and largely fails to meet its objectives, others find it a means
to justify their performance (Rasch 2004). According to Rasch (2004), managers commit
mistakes while evaluating employees and their performance. Some of these biases are
perceived by employees as ways of unfairly interpreting their performances. Moats
(1999) points out that, even when a performance evaluation program is structured

21
appropriately, its effectiveness can be diluted by the improper use of subjective, as
opposed to objective, measures.

Objective measures are easily incorporated into an appraisal because they are quantifiable
and verifiable. In contrast, subjective measures are those that cannot be quantified and are
largely dependent on the opinion of an observer. Subjective measures have the potential
to dilute the quality of worker evaluations because they may be influenced by bias, or
distortion as a result of emotion (Moats, 1999). To overcome the effects of prejudice,
many organizations must train appraisers to avoid biases.

According to Schraeder & Simpson (2006) problems related to performance appraisal can
be of three general types: human errors, problems of criteria, and problems of
confidentiality.

2.1.11.1 Human errors (rating biases)

Human errors happen when supervisors may neither know about them nor have much
control over them. Evaluation is likely to be distorted because of single criterion,
strictness or leniency, halo error, central tendency errors, recency of events, or similarity
error.

Although a typical employee’s job is made up of a number of tasks, where employees are
evaluated on a single job criterion, and where successful performance on the job requires
good performance on a number of criteria, employees will emphasize the single criterion
to the exclusion of other job-relevant factors.

Some supervisors tend to rate all their subordinates consistently low or high. The strict
rater gives ratings lower than the subordinate deserves. This strictness error penalizes
superior subordinates. The lenient rater tends to give higher ratings than the subordinate
deserves. Just as the strictness error punishes exceptional subordinates, so does the
leniency error (Lunenburg, 2012).

Halo error is tendency for an evaluator to let the assessment of an individual on one trait
influence his or her evaluation of that person on other traits. A person who is good in one
trait rated as overall good. The result is that subordinates are rated consistently high,
medium, or low on all performance appraisal dimensions.
22
Some raters follow play safe policy in rating by rating employees around the middle point
of the rating scale and they avoid rating at both the extremes of the scale. They follow
play safe policy because of answerability to management or lack of knowledge about the
job and/or the employee rated or the appraiser’s lack of interest in their job.

Ideally, performance appraisals should be based on data collected about a subordinate’s

performance over an entire evaluation period (usually six months to a year). However, as
is often the case, the supervisor is likely to consider recent performance more strongly
than performance behaviors that occurred earlier. Failure to include all performance
behaviors in the performance appraisal of a subordinate can bias the ratings.

This occurs when appraisers rate other people giving special consideration to those
qualities they perceive in themselves. The similarity between the rater and ratee may take
demographic similarity, affective similarity, perceived similarity and mutual liking.

Another very common critic is the performance rating suffers from many biases like age,
ethnicity, and gender, physical appearance, attitudes and values, in a group/out a group,
personal like/dislike and so on.

2.1.11.2 Problems of Criteria

Appraisal has to be against certain criteria. If a discrepancy between expected and actual
performance is pointed out, the question is whether the expected was fully defined and
communicated to the employee. In the absence of such an attempt, the appraisal reports
can be questioned. The issue basically refers to job description. It is true that jobs can be
clearly defined at the lower levels in the organizational hierarchy. However, as one goes
up, it becomes more and more difficult to clearly specify the tasks one is supposed to
perform.

2.1.11.3 Problems of confidentiality

One important issue in performance appraisal has to do with sharing or keeping secret the
ratings on various items of appraisal report. While many organizations have a system of
selective feedback to the employee, the general policy is not to share the total report with
the employee. There are many reasons for this. First, each employee expects rewards if
the report is better than average, which may not be administratively possible. Secondly,

23
very often supervisors pass the challenge to top management by saying that while they
did give good ratings to the employee; top management did not take that into
consideration. Thirdly, giving rewards is not the only objective of appraising employees.
Given these reasons, it is emphasized that supervisory ratings of employees should be
kept confidential.

On the other hand, it is claimed that since there will always be differences between the
supervisor and employee’s perception of the subordinate’s job performance, perhaps the
employee should fully be aware of how he/she has been rated.

2.1.12 Limiting the Effects of Supervisory Bias

McNamara (2000) suggests awareness training, developing poor performers, and
counseling, transfer, termination to limit the effects of supervisory bias. Supervisors need
to be informed of the types of subtle bias that can interfere with their performance as
appraisers. They need to understand that the ingroup/outgroup bias, for instance, reduces
the morale and motivation of their subordinates. Incentives, financial or non-financial,
may be offered to encourage supervisors to make special efforts to help poor performers
improve. Supervisory appraisals, for example, might stress the importance of working
with poor performers to upgrade their performance. The possibilities are extensive. There
is always the possibility that an employee who receives poor appraisal results is in fact a
chronic poor performer. No employer is obliged to tolerate poor performance forever.
Consistently poor appraisal results will indicate a need for counseling, transfer or
termination. The exact remedy will depend on the circumstances.

2.1.13 Effectiveness of Performance appraisal

The effectiveness of a system is defined as an external standard “of how well the system
is meeting the demands of the various groups and organizations that are concerned with
its activities” (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978) which approximately is a construct “for doing
the right things” or having validity of outcome (Hines et al. 2000).

Effectiveness is by definition a qualitative measure set by evaluator. Möller and Törrönen

(2003) argue that effectiveness “refers to the system’s ability to invent and produce
solutions that provide more value to stakeholders of the institution”.

24
Moats (1999) points out those most effective systems of appraising performance are
pragmatic, relevant, and uniform. Bodil (1997) describes pragmatism as important
because it helps to ensure that the system will be easily understood by employees and
effectively put into action by managers. Moats (1999) further stresses that appraisal
structures that are complex or impractical tend to result in confusion, frustration, and
nonuse. Commenting further, Moats (1999) that systems that are not specifically relevant
to the job may result in wasted time and resources. Undeniably, most successful appraisal
programs identify and evaluate only the critical behaviors that contribute to job success.
Systems that miss those behaviors are often invalid, inaccurate, and result in
discrimination based on nonrelated factors (Bodil 1997).

Moats (1999) stresses again that the uniformity of the appraisal structure is vital because
it ensures that all employees are evaluated on a standardized scale. Appraisals that are not
uniform are less effective because the criteria for success or failure become arbitrary and
meaningless. Furthermore, uniformity allows a company to systematically compare the
appraisals of different employees with each other. Moats (1999) contends that companies
must address four decisions when structuring their appraisal systems: (1) What should be
assessed; (2) Who should make the appraisal; (3) Which procedure(s) should be utilized;
and (4) How will the results be communicated? In determining what to evaluate,
designers of an appraisal system usually consider not only results, but also the behaviors
that lead to the results (Bodil, 1997).

According to Shelley (1999) the actions and results that are measured will depend on a
variety of factors specific to the company and industry. Most importantly, criteria should
be selected that will encourage the achievement of comprehensive corporate objectives.
According to Moats (1999) this is accomplished by determining the exact role of each job
in accomplishing company goals, and which behaviors and results are critical for success
in each position. Furthermore, different criteria for success should be weighted to reflect
their importance.

2.1.14 Performance appraisal in university context

Higher education institutions have traditionally been independent institutions, where the
academic staff has been able to enjoy high levels of independence and autonomy, without

25
having to occupy themselves with commercial responsibility and accountability. The
academic staff has also been able to maintain themselves comparatively “free from any
sense of management” (Egginton 2010). As has been discussed earlier in the previous
chapter, times have changed during the past few decades, and demand on HEI’s about
e.g. quality and efficiency, as well as the expectations of students and other customers,
have been continuously increasing. This has led to new HR approaches, such as
performance appraisal, in the academic context.

Performance management is becoming one of the key strategic HRM practices also in the
university context. Attracting and retaining talent is one of the top priorities in
universities, as competition can be harsh and universities are not the only employers
competing for high achievers. According to Brink et. al. (2013) performance management
therefore plays a large strategic role, and the role is “reinforced by the trend of
universities switching from a collegial to a managerial model”. In the managerial model,
the old collegiality of academics is replaced by a new approach to evaluating
performance. This new approach has by Brink et.al (2013, 181) been described to be
seemingly more objective, fair, and transparent.

Embedding performance management and appraisal in the university context can be a

cultural challenge (Egginton 2010). Matthew (2013) criticizes human resource
management in the academic context that HRM does not completely fit into the academic
environment once characterized by democratic and collegiate values, including academic
freedom. He also argues that performance appraisal in university settings can be perceived
as something in which “academics are required to agree on quantifiable, or SMART, targets
in line with corporate objectives for teaching, research and income generation”. He sees that
such an approach presents a major challenge to the core values of the academic community.

HRM has been criticized to be “a Foucaldian control mechanism employing disciplinary and
self-disciplinary techniques” (Waring 2013). Such mechanisms, e.g. performance appraisal,
see employees as a “depersonalized unit of economic resource whose productivity and
performance must constantly be measured and enhanced”, and such resources are eliminated,
when they are no longer seen to add value to the organization.

26
Waring (2013) sees implementing HRM in university settings as problematic and conflicting
with traditional higher education values. Even though he points out, that the need for the
transformation to more business-like management in higher education is understandable, he
still feels, that the current way of implementation is a conflict between academic values (e.g.
freedom to pursue research) and budgets, performance monitoring, and efficiency and
effectiveness criteria. He even argues, that while aiming to be efficient and cost-effective,
universities have developed monitoring systems.

2.2 Empirical Reviews

According to Edwards & Wright (2011), there is a direct link between performance
appraisal and firm performance but Katou & Budhwar (2006), argue that performance
appraisal system do not lead directly to business performance but influence employee
motivation and its these employee outcomes which ultimately influence performance.

Maragwa (2007) identified performance appraisal as one of the tools used to identify
training and development needs. The aim of Performance appraisal is to improve
individual performance. Other benefits are improving motivation and morale; clarifying
expectations and reduction of ambiguity in performance; determining rewards;
identifying training and developmental capabilities; improving communication; selecting
employees for promotion; managing careers; counseling; discipline; planning remedial
action; and setting goals and targets.

Muthuo (2010) noted that performance appraisal has a positive impact on their
Performance. Performance appraisal gives employees job satisfaction and effectiveness.
The results indicated that majority of the officers reported that it helps the ministry to
achieve its targets, performance appraisal leads to employee effectiveness however its
prone to failure when there is lack of commitment from the top management. Both the
manager and the supervisor should provide feedback for the process to be effective.
However her findings revealed that performance appraisal alone should not be used for
assessment because it does not address some issues like motivation and the work
environment.

In her study on Performance Improvement in the Civil Service, Marangu (2004) noted
that performance management is a formal process through which employees and their
27
supervisors/managers world over jointly define goals, major areas of responsibilities in
terms of the expected results and the use of these measures as guides for future
performance and subsequent review of performance. Performance appraisal may
therefore be said to be a continuous process which entails setting direction and standards,
monitoring and measuring of performance.

Caroline (2011) found out the effect of performance appraisal on employee job
satisfaction in Kenya Revenue Authority by using both primary and secondary data that
was collected from one hundred and twenty two employees who were selected through
stratified sampling approach and by analyzing through both descriptive and inferential
specifically the mean score, standard deviation, Pearson correlation, and chi square tests
were used. The findings of the study show that performance appraisal helps employees to
meet set targets. The staffs are not satisfied because the management does not use the
performance appraisal to determine salary increments, rewards/penalties, promotions,
fringe benefits, training needs and career growth opportunities. The study revealed
positive and significant relationship between performance appraisals and job satisfaction.

28
2.3 Conceptual Framework
Figure 1Conceptual framework developed by the author (2018) based on literature
review

Effectiveness
promotion and reward
execptional performance
standards for job
targets based on responsibility
links current and targeted performance
feedbacks

Outcomes
Challanges accuracy
raters Performance motivation
job criteria appraisal
cooperation
System
evaluation period business objective
supervisor

Source: Own design, 2018

29
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Approach
According to Creswell (2005) the three methods that are commonly implemented in a
research are quantitative, qualitative and mixed, where one of them is not better than the
others, all of this depends on how the researcher want to conduct the study. This research
has employed both qualitative and quantitative method while conducting the study.

3.2 Research Design

This study is an applied research which follows descriptive research designs in order to
address the aforementioned objectives. It is conducted on Ambo University both for
supporting departments and instructors.

In order to assess the performance appraisal practice and its effectiveness in Ambo
University, the researcher suggested that descriptive study is suitable. In this particular
study descriptive survey approach is best suited to collect precise information concerning
the current status of performance appraisal. Hence, after the data are collected, the
researcher has analyzed the data by using descriptive analysis.

3.3 Population and Sampling Method

3.3.1 Target Population
The target populations of this study are employees of the university that are included in
the performance appraisal system implemented by the university. This study has targeted
both administrative departments and teaching departments since both the supporting
staffs and instructors of the university has direct relationship with the appraisal system.
According to the Ambo university human resource department there are 1672 instructors
and 1138 administrative staffs with the total of targeted population of 2,810 employees.

3.3.2 Sampling Method

The researcher has utilized stratified and simple random sampling technique so as to give
equal opportunity to be selected to be part of the study respondents who have direct or

30
indirect involvement in performance appraisal of the university (from department heads,
instructors, human resource managers, and employees in supporting departments).

A different sampling paradigm by Lowler (1984) noted that there is no a single precise
way for the determinations of sample size hence there are a number of inadequacy for
deciding on sample size. Malhotra & Peterson(2006) stated that, the larger the sampling
size of a research, the more accurate the data generated.

However, to determine the sample size, the researcher used Yamane’s (1967) formula.
He provided a simplified formula to calculate the sample size. This formula is based on a
95% desired confidence level and a 5% desired level of precision.
N
n=
1 + N(e)2

Where: - n = Sample size

N = population size
e = level of precision
Accordingly, 209 respondents were selected from teachers and 142 were selected from
administrative staffs.
The researcher has used both stratified and random sampling method. The respondents
are classified in to strata of administrative departments and teaching departments.
Respondents were randomly selected from each stratum.

3.4 Data Type and Sources

The researcher has used primary data that was collected through questionnaire and
interview. The questionnaire was employed as a main source of primary data from
employees of the university from department heads, instructors, human resource
managers, and other employees. Interview was collected from human resource manager
from human resource department. According to Biggam (2008) primary data helps to find
out relevant data for the study by the researcher him/herself regarding a specific topic.
The main advantage with this type of data is that it is collected with the research’s
purpose in mind. It implies that the information resulting from it is more consistent with
the research questions and objectives.

31
Secondary source was used to support data analyzed from primary sources by the
theoretical and empirical evidences. They were obtained from published and unpublished
materials, articles, text books on practice performance appraisal.

3.5 Data Collection Procedures

The primary data were gathered using structured close-ended questionnaire and semi-
structured interview. The close-ended questionnaires can be administered to groups of
people simultaneously, since they are less costly and less time consuming than other
measuring instruments. The Likert-type scale method was used a range of responses:
‘Strongly Disagree’, ‘Disagree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘Agree’, and ‘Strongly Agree’, with a numeric
value of 1-5, respectively. The usage of this particular scaling method ensures that the
research study illustrates the ability to assess the responses and measure the responses
quantifiably so that a pattern or trend may be produced in order to assess research
questions. According to Neuman, (2003) questionnaire enables asking many people the
same questions and examining their answers. The questionnaire will help to cover larger
target groups than the interview, given the quality and chance of no response. The
researcher has collected data from respondents through questionnaire by drop and pick
approach.

3.6 Ethical consideration

The researcher maintained scientific objectivity throughout the study, recognizing the
limitations of his competence. Every person involved in the study was entitled to the right
of privacy and dignity of treatment, and no personal harm was caused to subjects in the
research. Information obtained was held in strict confidentiality by the researcher. All
assistance, collaboration of others and sources from which information was drawn is
acknowledged.

3.7 Method of Data Analysis

After the data are collected descriptive techniques (mean, standard deviation and
frequencies) were employed to analyze the data. The data was analyzed using SPSS
version 23 computer software. The statistical tools were aligned with the objectives of the
research.

32
3.8 Reliability and validity Test
3.8.1 Validity
The validity of the study was ensured using data collecting tools that are based on sound
theoretical foundations. Therefore; the study has ensured the instruments or procedures
used in the research measured what they were supposed to measure i.e. employee
performance appraisal system by crosschecking different theorists and sources.

3.8.2 Reliability
0.5 is a sufficient value, while 0.7 is a more reasonable value. Scales with coefficient
alpha between 0.8 and 0.95 are considered to have very good quality, scales with
coefficient alpha between 0.7 and 0.8 are considered to have good reliability, and
coefficient alpha between 0.6 and 0.7 indicates fair reliability.

Table 1Reliablity test

Number of Cronbach’s
No Variables
Items Alpha
1 Effectiveness of EPAS 8 0.825
2 Outcomes of EPAS 5 0.819
3 Challenges of EPAS 6 0.820
Entire scale 19 0.910
Source: Survey, 2018

Inter-item reliability coefficient i.e. Cronbach’s alpha for overall questionnaire (19 items)
is 0.910. Cronbach’s alphas for effectiveness of PAS (8 items) is 0.825 and outcome (5
items) of performance appraisal system were 0.819. The Cronbach’s alpha value of
challenges to PAS (6 items) is 0.820. As it is indicated in the table 1,

33
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Introduction
This chapter presents results of data collected and discussions on the results. It includes
demographic information about the respondents, descriptive analysis about the
effectiveness of the appraisal system, its outcome on the employees and challenges to the
appraisal system.

4.1 Response Rate

Table 2 below presents response rate of the study.

Table 2: Response Rate

staffs Distributed Responded Response rate

Administrative 142 125 88.02
Instructors 209 183 87.56
Total 351 308 87.75
Source: Own survey, 2018

The researcher has distributed 351 questionnaires to employees that involve in

performance appraisal in Ambo University. But 308 questionnaires were returned with
response rate of 87.75%. The data was analyzed through descriptive analysis methods.

4.2 Demographic Information

Table 3 below presents demographic information of respondents.

34
Table 3: Demographic information of Respondents

Variable Category Frequency Percent

Gender Male 221 71.8
Female 87 28.2
Age Less than 30 54 17.5
31 to 40 139 45.1
41 to 50 102 33.1
Above 50 13 4.2
Education Diploma 18 5.8
Bachelor Degree 153 49.7
Masters 105 34.1
PhD and above 32 10.4
Experience Less than a year 67 21.8
One year to three years 153 49.7
More than three 88 28.6
Staff Teaching 183 59.4
Administrative 125 40.6
Source: Own Survey, 2018

As indicated in the table 3, 221(71.8%) of the respondents are male and remaining
87(28.2%) of the respondents are females. This indicates that majority of the employees
in the university are males.

Further table 3 presents that 54(17.5%) of the respondents are age of below 30 years. The
majorities (45.1%) of the respondents are at age between 31 to 40 years and followed by
41 to 50 years which is 33.1% of the respondents. but only 13(4.2%) of the respondents
are above 50 years age.

Regarding the education background of the respondents, only 18(5.8%) of the

respondents have educational qualification of diploma. But the majorities (49.7%) of the
respondents have bachelor’s degree. Majority of the administrative staffs have bachelor’s
degree. On the other hand, majority of teaching staffs have master’s degree.

As it is presented in table 3, 67 (21.8%) of the respondents have experience less than a

year in the university. Majorities (49.7%) of the respondents have an experience from one

35
to 3 years. But only 88(28.6%) of the respondents have experience above 3 years. This is
an indication of employee turnover in the university.

This study is stratified into administrative and teaching staffs. 183 (59.4%) of the
respondents involved in the study are teaching staffs and 125 (40.6%) of the respondents
are administrative staffs.

4.3 Effectiveness of the performance appraisal system

Table 4 and 5 show the effectiveness of the performance appraisal system with frequency
and mean respectively.

Table 4Effectiveness of the performance appraisal system

SD D N A SA
Promotion and reward opportunities 171 24 23 49 41
indicated in the performance appraisal
system are fair and satisfactory.
Performance appraisal system recognizes 194 40 29 24 21
the exceptional performances
The performance appraisal system has set 148 29 24 66 41
clear and specific standards for job.
The targets are set based on activities and 24 19 8 176 81
responsibilities of the position.
The performance appraisal system links 145 27 21 75 40
current performance and expected targets.

The performance appraisal system is fair 207 40 21 20 20

and consistent in measuring performance.
The performance evaluators are 198 42 23 24 21
appropriate to rate the performers.
Feedbacks are provided based on the 131 25 20 80 52
performance.
Source: Own Survey, 2018

36
Table 5Mean and standard deviation of effectiveness of PAS

Mean Std. Deviation

Promotion and reward opportunities indicated in the 2.2370 .99461
performance appraisal system are fair and satisfactory.
Performance appraisal system recognizes the exceptional 1.8247 .87404
performances
The performance appraisal system has set clear and 2.4253 .82959
specific standards for job.
The targets are set based on activities and responsibilities 3.8799 .87408
of the position.
The performance appraisal system links current 2.4792 .77625
performance and expected targets.
The performance appraisal system is consistent in 1.7240 .75617
measuring performance.
The performance evaluators are appropriate to rate the 1.7987 .54599
performers.
Feedbacks are provided based on the performance. 2.6656 .74971
Source: Own Survey, 2018

The responses with mean value of 2.237 disagree that promotion and reward
opportunities indicated in the appraisal system is fair and satisfactory. This indicates that
in the performance appraisal system promotion and reward opportunities are not fair and
satisfactory. The interview result indicates that promotion and reward opportunities
indicated in the employee performance appraisal system are higher educational
opportunity for teaching staffs and promotion for administrative staffs. But higher
education opportunities are mainly based on experience and there is biasedness on
selection process. 50% of the evaluation is provided by students that is resulting on high
evaluation bias. According to Boice & Kleiner (1997) effective employee performance
appraisal system includes promotion and reward opportunities that are fair and
satisfactory. Inconsistent to this theory and Longenecker (1997) performance appraisal

37
system of the Ambo University does not include promotion and reward opportunities that
are fair and satisfactory.

Mean value for statement that performance appraisal system recognizes the exceptional
performance is 1.8247 suggesting that the appraisal system has weakness of ignoring
outstanding performers. Standard deviation of 0.87404 indicates that there is very low
variation from mean response indicating that the employees have similar opinion on this
weakness. The interview result subject to this indicates that employees have standards to
meet. But there are no special targets and how to reward them. Both interview result and
response through questionnaire indicates that the appraisal system of the university is
ineffective in recognizing the exceptional performance. Finding of this study is
inconsistent to theoretical expectation of including exceptional performances and
rewarding them and finding of Obisi (2011) that outstanding performers are recognized
for their special contribution for organizational performance.

Mean value for statement that the performance appraisal system has set clear and specific
standards for job is 2.4253 and respective standard deviation is 0.82959. The result
indicates that standards for the job are not clear and specific. This suggests that the
university has ineffective employee performance appraisal system including unclear and
nonspecific standard for the job.

Mean value for responses for statement that the targets are set based on activities and
responsibilities of the position is 3.8799 and its respective standard deviation is 0.87408
suggesting that the employees agree that the targets consider activities and
responsibilities of the position. This indicates that in employee performance appraisal
system of Ambo University, targets are set based on activities and responsibilities of the
position. Therefore, the performance appraisal system is effective in including targets
based on activities and responsibilities of the position.

Mean value of 2.4792 for the statement of performance appraisal system links current
performance and expected targets indicates that employees disagree that the performance
appraisal system does not link current performance with expected targets. The standard
deviation of 0.77625 indicates there is no high variation in opinion for the statement. In
addition to responses from questionnaire, interview results indicate that the appraisal

38
system does not link current performance with expected targets. This is due to evaluation
is conducted at the end of the courses for teaching staffs and the system is not appropriate
to link performance of administrative staffs. The backlogs are not clearly indicated in the
appraisal system. Therefore, the researcher infers that performance appraisal system of
the University is ineffective in linking current performance and expected targets.

The mean value for statement that the performance appraisal system is consistent in
measuring performance is 1.724 showing that the employees disagree about consistency
of the system in measuring performance. This suggests that the appraisal system is
inconsistent in measuring employees’ performance. Standard deviation for the statement
is 0.75617 suggesting that the respondents have similar opinion in inconsistency of
performance appraisal system of the institution.

The respondents disagree that the performance evaluators are appropriate to rate the
performance. It is indicated by mean value of 1.7987 and standard deviation of 0.54599.
According to interview result teaching staffs are evaluated by students and department
heads. Evaluation by students indicates there is negligence in evaluating their teacher and
associates with the grade system of the teacher. Rank given to the students is very high
which is 50% of the evaluation result. Department heads gives similar result to all
students and they have no appropriate information about the performance of the
instructor/lecturers. The interview result indicates teaching staffs by their own ranks their
performance which results on biased results. The finding suggests that the performance
raters are inappropriate. Therefore, the performance appraisal system is ineffective in
selecting the evaluator.

Mean value for statement of feedbacks are provided based on performance is 2.6656 and
its respective standard deviation is 0.7491. This suggests that employees are not getting
feedback for their performance. The lower standard deviation value indicates there is
similar opinion that feedbacks are not provided. Therefore, the researcher infers that the
institution is not giving appropriate attention to appraisal system.

Moats (1999) points out effective systems of appraising performance are pragmatic,
relevant, and uniform. In contrast to Moats (1999) this study has identified that the
appraisal system of the university is not relevant, not pragmatic and non-uniform.

39
4.4 Outcomes of performance appraisal system
Table 6Frequency of Outcomes of PAS

SD D N A SA
The performance appraisal system 148 29 25 66 40
provides improvement in the accuracy of
employee performance
Promotion opportunities indicated in the 123 25 15 80 65
performance appraisal system motivates
to work
Performance appraisal process 122 26 13 81 66
encourages co-operation.
The performance appraisal system 182 26 19 44 37
satisfies and motivates to perform better.
The performance appraisal system is 113 20 11 79 85
consistent to contribution of individual
to business objectives.
Source: Own Survey, 2018

Table 7Mean of Outcomes of PAS

N Mean Std.
Deviation
The performance appraisal system provides improvement 308 2.4188 .71049
in the accuracy of employee performance
Promotion opportunities indicated in the performance 308 2.8019 .78446
appraisal system motivates to work
Performance appraisal process encourages co-operation. 308 2.8149 .89233
The performance appraisal system motivates to perform 308 2.1175 1.01523
better.
The performance appraisal system is consistent to 308 3.0019 .84830
contribution of individual to business objectives.
Source: Own Survey, 2018

40
The mean value for responses about the statement that the performance appraisal system
provides improvement in the accuracy of employee performance is 2.4188 indicating that
employees disagree that the performance appraisal system of the institution improves the
accuracy of employee performance. Lower standard deviation of 0.71049 indicates lower
variation in level of agreement. Based on the result the researcher infers that the
performance appraisal system of the university does not improve accuracy of employee
performance.

The mean value for statement that promotion opportunities indicated in the performance
appraisal system motivates to work is 2.8019 and its standard deviation is 0.78446.
Majority of the respondents disagree that promotion opportunities indicated in the
performance appraisal system motivates to work better. As it is indicated in previous
section, promotion opportunities indicated in the appraisal system are not functional and
that will results on demotivated employees.

The mean value of responses for statement that performance appraisal process
encourages cooperation is 2.8148 suggesting that majority of respondents disagree that
the performance appraisal is not encouraging cooperation. Standard deviation for this
statement is 0.89233 suggesting that there is very low variation from mean response. The
interview result indicated that promotion opportunities stated in the appraisal system are
that discourage team work. The behaviors of the responsibilities in teaching staffs have
no intention for cooperation instead it focuses on own personal performance.

The responses for statement that the performance appraisal system motivates to perform
better has mean value of 2.1175 and standard deviation of 1.01523. This suggests that the
performance appraisal system of the university does not motivate employees to perform
better. The standard deviation value is high indicating that there is variation in agreement
with the statement suggesting that there are some employees that are motivated with
performance appraisal system. Therefore, the researcher infers that the performance
appraisal system of the university is not implemented in the way that it motivates the
employees to perform better.

41
Mean value for the responses about the statement that performance appraisal system is
consistent to contribution of individual to business objective is 3.0019 suggesting that
majority of the respondents are indifferent about the statement.

Palaiologos et al. (2011) state that the performance appraisal system to be successful with
its outcomes it should be correlated with the organizational mission, philosophies and
value system; cover assessment of performance as well as potential for development; take
care of organizational as well as individual needs; help in creating a clean environment;
link rewards with achievements; generate information for the growth of the employee as
well as of the organization and suggests appropriate person-task matching and career
plans. Finding of this study is in contrast to finding of Palaiologos et al. (2011) that the
appraisal system of the university has negative outcomes because it does not provide
improvement in accuracy of performance, demotivating promotion opportunities,
discourages cooperation, and demotivates higher performers.

4.5 Challenges of performance appraisal system

Table 8Frequency of Challenges of PAS

SD D N A SA
The raters are reluctant to offer feedback 5 16 87 103 97
Raters focus on achievement of short term 2 6 87 146 67
goals
The appraisal results are subjective. 5 10 43 152 98
The appraisal is based on a single job 1 39 66 143 59
criterion regardless of number of activities.

Performance appraisals is not based on data 0 30 56 166 56

collected over an entire evaluation period

The supervisor is considers recent 2 40 42 207 17

performance more strongly than performance
behaviors that occurred earlier.
Source: Own survey, 2018

42
Table 9Mean of Challenges of PAS

Mean Std.
Deviation
The raters are reluctant to offer feedback 3.8766 .97076
Raters focus on achievement of short term goals 3.8734 .79095
The appraisal results are subjective. 4.0649 .85553
The appraisal is based on a single job criterion regardless 3.7143 .92883
of number of activities.
Performance appraisals is not based on data collected 3.8084 .84979
over an entire evaluation period
Supervisor considers recent performance more strongly 3.6396 .78876
than performance behaviors that occurred earlier.
Source: own survey, 2018

The mean value of the responses for statement that the raters are reluctant to offer
feedback is 3.8766 and the standard deviation is 0.97076 suggesting that there is
challenge on the system from the side of raters. Response with mean value of 3.8734 and
standard deviation of 0.79095 indicates that raters focus on short term goals achievement.
The lower standard deviation indicates that the employees have similar agreement on the
behavior of the raters. Therefore, the researcher infers that the appraisal system of the
university is challenged by focus of the raters only in short term goals although long tern
goals are included in the appraisal system.

Responses for statement that the appraisal results are subjective have mean value of
4.0649 and standard deviation of 0.85553. The mean value suggests that the respondents
agree that the appraisal results are subjective. Lower standard deviation value indicates
the respondents have similar perception about the subjectivity of the result. The interview
result also indicates that there are completely varying results although the activities are
not that result on such variation. This result variation is due to subjective evaluation.
Therefore, the researcher infers that evaluators are not considering the evaluation criteria
indicated in the appraisal system.

43
Statement of ‘the appraisal is based on a single job criterion regardless of number of
activities’ has a mean value of 3.7143 and standard deviation of 0.92883. The mean value
indicates that employees agree that the appraisal is based on a single job criterion
regardless of number of activities. The standard deviation indicates that there is similar
perception on the focus of single criteria by the evaluator. Therefore, the researcher infers
that the focus of the evaluators is only single criteria although there are different activities
to be evaluated and performance of the employees to be determined.

The mean value for the statement of performance appraisals is not based on data collected
over an entire evaluation period is 3.8084 suggesting that the employees agree that the
performance appraisal is not about the entire evaluation period rather it is about single
period performance. Standard deviation for this statement is 0.84979 suggesting
similarity of responses. Therefore, this implies that the appraisal system is facing
challenge of single period.

Responses with mean value of 3.6396 indicate that supervisor considers recent
performance more strongly than performance behaviors that occurred earlier. Standard
deviation for this statement is 0.78876 suggesting lower variation in agreement about
stronger considerations of supervisors on recent performance. Based on this it is possible
to infer that employee performance appraisers in the university have inefficiency of
focusing on only recent performance.

According to Schraeder & Simpson (2006) problems related to performance appraisal can
be human errors, problems of criteria, and problems of confidentiality. In relation to this
finding this study has identified the challenges associated to the appraisal system are
focus of raters on short term goal, subjective appraisal results, focusing on information of
single period, and focusing on recent periods became challenge to implement effective
performance appraisal system.

44
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 summary of Major Finding
This study is conducted with an objective of assessing employee performance appraisal
system in Ambo University. This general objective has included specific objectives of
identifying effectiveness of the appraisal system, assessing outcome of the system and
finding out challenges to the appraisal system. to this end primary data was collected
through questionnaire and interview from both administrative and teaching staffs. 308
respondents were involved in the study from both groups. 40.6% of the respondents were
administrative staffs and 59.6% of the respondents were teaching staffs. Only 28.2% of
the respondents were females. Respondents on average disagree on the effectiveness
measures of employee performance appraisal system in the university. The responses
indicated that despite the objective of the appraisal system, the appraisal system has
negative outcome on the employees. Finally, the appraisal system is facing different
challenges especially from the raters.

5.2 Conclusions
This study is conducted with an objective of assessing employee performance appraisal
system of Ambo University. For this general objective the researcher has developed three
specific objectives: identifying the effectiveness of performance appraisal system;
identifying the outcomes of the appraisal system; and assessing challenges to the
appraisal system. To reach at these objectives the researcher has used both administrative
and teaching staffs of the university. By using both qualitative and quantitative
approaches the researcher has reached on following conclusions.

 The performance appraisal system of the university is ineffective because

promotion and reward opportunities indicated in the appraisal system are not fair
and satisfactory; it does not recognize the exceptional performances; standards for
job are not clear and specific; current performances and expected targets are not

45
 linked; inconsistent in measuring performance, evaluators are not appropriate and
feedbacks are not provided on the performance.
 The performance appraisal system of the university has negative outcomes
because it does not provide improvement in accuracy of performance,
demotivating promotion opportunities, discourages cooperation, and demotivates
higher performers.
 Focus of raters on short term goal, subjective appraisal results, focusing on
information of single period, and focusing on recent periods became challenge to
implement effective performance appraisal system.

5.3 Recommendations
Based on the conclusion reached the researcher provides following recommendations.

 Making the performance appraisal system effective by fair and satisfactory

promotion and reward opportunities, recognizing exceptional performances,
preparing clear and specific standards, modifying the appraisal system that link
current and expected targets, making the performance measure consistent and
assigning proper evaluators and rate.
 Since the performance appraisal system of the university has negative impacts the
university management is recommend to align the appraisal system in a way that
create positive outcome on both employees and the institution. Therefore, it is
recommended that the appraisal system has to create accuracy in performance of
both administration and teaching staffs, motivate promotion opportunities,
encourage cooperation, and motivates high performers.
 To reduce challenges to effective performance appraisal system the university is
recommended to raters to focus on both long and short term goals, making the
measurement objective, and focusing on entire period evaluation through
trainings.

46
 References
Armstrong, M. (2009). A handbook of personnel management practice. 11th Ed. London:
Kogan Page Ltd.

Bacal, R. (1999). Performance management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Boice, D., & Kleiner, B. (1997). Designing effective performance appraisal systems.
Journal of Work Study, 197-201.

CAROLINE, W. (2011). EFFECT OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL ON EMPLOYEE

JOB SATISFACTION IN KENYA REVENUE AUTHORITY. Unpublished
MBA thesis, 56-72.

Danielle, S., & Buckley, M. (2005). The evaluation of the performance Appraisal
process. Journal of management History, 233-240.

Edmonstone, J. (1996). Appraising the state of performance appraisal. Journal of Health

Manpower Management, 9-13.

Edwards, P., & Wright, M. (2011). High-involvement work systems and performance
Outcomes: The strength of variable, contingent and context bound relationships.
International journal of Human Resource Management, 568-585.

Jafari, M. B., & Amiri, R. (2009 ). A New Framework for Selection of the Best
Performance Appraisal Method. . European Journal of Social Sciences, 92-100.

Katou, A., & Budhwar, P. (2006). Human Resource Management systems on

organizational performance: A test of mediating model in the Greek
manufacturing context. International journal of Human Resource Management,
1223-1253.

Lansbury, R. (1998). Performance Management: A Process Approach. Journal of Human

Resource Management, 46-48.

Lee, C. (2005). Rethinking the goals of your performance-management system. Journal

of Human Resource Management , 211-219.

47
Longenecker, C. (1997). Why managerial performance appraisals are ineffective: Causes
and lessons. Journal of Career Development International, 212-218.

Marangu, K. (2004). A Thesis on Performance Improvement in Kenya Civil Service.

Unpublished MBA research paper, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and
Technology, 78-95.

Marangu, K. (2004). A Thesis on Performance Improvement in Kenya Civil Service.

Unpublished MBA research paper, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and
Technology, 77-89.

Muthuo, A. (2010). Effect of performance appraisal on motivation: A Case Study of the

Ministry of State for Public Service. Unpublished MBA research paper, Jomo
Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, 55-67.

Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

Obisi, C. (2011). Employee Performance Appraisal and Implication for Individual and
Organizational Growth. Australian Journal of Business and Management
Research, 92-97.

Palaiologos, A., Papazekos, P., & Panayotopoulou, L. (2011). Organizational justice and
employee satisfaction in performance appraisal. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 826-830.

Prowse, P., & Prowse, J. (2009). The Dilemma of Performance Appraisal. Journal of
Measuring Business Excellence, 69-77.

Reza, N. (1997). Performance Evaluation & Important Roles it plays. Journal of

Performance Management, 01-09.

Roberts, G. (1996). A Case Study in Performance Appraisal System Development:

Lessons from a Municipal Police Department. American Review of Public
Administration, 361-385.

Schraeder, M., & Simpson, J. (2006). How Similarity and Liking Affect Performance
Appraisals. The Journal for Quality & Participation, 34-40.

48
Yong, F. (1996). Inflation of subordinates‟ performance ratings: Main and interactive
effects of Rater Negative Affectivity, Documentation of Work Behavior, and
Appraisal visibility. Journal of organizational Behavior, 112-121.

49
 Addis Ababa University
School of Commerce

Questionnaire
Dear Sir/Madam;
Request for Participation in a Research Study

I am a Postgraduate student at Addis Ababa university school of commerce in department

of Human Resource Management. As partial fulfillment of Masters of Arts in Logistics
and Supply Chain Management, I am conducting a research study on “An Assessment of
Employee Performance Appraisal System and Its Effectiveness at Ambo University”

Therefore, I would appreciate if you could spare a few minutes of your time to answer the
following questions in regard to practices in your organization. All the information
provided will be purely used for academic purposes and your identity will be treated with
utmost confidentiality.

Your assistance will be highly appreciated and thank you in advance.

Yours faithfully,

Tekabe Getahun

50
Part I: Demographic Information

1. Gender: Male Female

2. Age in years:
Less than 30 31-40 41 – 50 above 50
3. Your department:
Administrative staff Teaching staff
4. For how long have you been working in the university (in years):
Less than 2 2-5 5-10 Above 10
5. Level of Education
Diploma Bachelor Degree Masters PhD and above
Part II: To what extent do you agree with following statements about the effectiveness of
performance appraisal system of the university?
SD D N A SA
7 Promotion and reward opportunities indicated in the performance
appraisal system are fair and satisfactory.
8 Performance appraisal system recognizes the exceptional
performances
9 The performance appraisal system has set clear and specific
standards for job.
10 The targets are set based on activities and responsibilities of the
position.
11 The performance appraisal system links current performance and
expected targets.
12 The performance appraisal system is fair and consistent in
measuring performance.
13 The performance management system of the organization is
participatory.
14 The performance evaluators are appropriate to rate the
performers.
15 Feedbacks are provided based on the performance.

51
Part III: to what extent do you agree on the following statements about the
outcomes of the performance appraisal system of the university?
SD D N A SA

16 The performance appraisal system provides improvement in the

accuracy of employee performance

17 Promotion opportunities indicated in the performance appraisal

system motivates to work

18 Performance appraisal process encourages co-operation.

19 The performance appraisal system satisfies and motivates to

perform better.

20 The performance appraisal system is consistent to contribution

of individual to business objectives.

Part IV: To what extent do you agree on the following statements about the

challenges of the university?

SD D N A SA

21 There are rewards on nonperformance

22 The raters are reluctant to offer feedback

23 Raters focus on achievement of short term goals

24 The appraisal results are subjective.

25 The appraisal is based on a single job criterion regardless of

number of activities.

26 The rater is incapable to rate performance.

27 Performance appraisals is not based on data collected over an

entire evaluation period

52
28 The supervisor is considers recent performance more strongly t
han performance behaviors that occurred earlier.

29 Evaluation on one trait influences evaluation on the other traits.

List of interview questions:

1. How is performance appraisal conducted at the university?
2. How are employees involved in the performance appraisal processes?
3. What are the reasons/Purposes to conduct performance evaluation at the
university?
4. What are the major problems and consequences of performance evaluation?
5. What measurements are taken in order to overcome the problems?

53