PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY(A CASE STUDY OF KEN POLY BORI)

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The performance appraisal is the periodic evaluation of an employee’s performance measured against the job’s stated or presumed requirements (Terry and Franklin, 2003). Mullins (1999) substantiates the necessity of an effective appraisal scheme by saying that it can identify an individual’s strengths and weaknesses and indicate how such strengths may best be utilized and weaknesses overcome. A generation ago, appraisal systems tended to emphasize employee traits, deficiencies and abilities. With the development of the employee/organization relations modern appraisal philosophy emphasizes on the present performance and future goals. Modern philosophy also stresses on employee participation in mutually set goals with the supervisor. The underlying philosophy behind mutual setting of goals is that people will work harder for goals or objectives that they have participated in setting. The assumption is that people want to satisfy some of their needs through performing work activities that provide them with a supportive environment. They also need to perform meaningful tasks, share the objectives setting, share the rewards of their efforts and continued personal growth (Dechev, 2010).

The evaluation job performance has been called by many different names throughout the years – a tool of management, a control process, a critical element in human resource allocation and many others. The first appraisal systems have been just methods for determining whether the salary of the employees in the organizations was fair or not. Later, some empirical studies have shown that reduction or future pay were not the main effects of the process. Performance appraisal was recognized as a tool for motivation and development in the United States in the 1950s (Cardy& Dobbins, 1994).

Many researchers and reputable sources criticize the importance of the performance appraisal process. They have expressed debates about the authenticity of the process. Some of them, such as (Daniels 1999), even called it useless and evil. He couldn’t see how the appraisal improves performance and characterizes it as a step of firing process. He suggests that “the best performance appraisal is one that is done every day”. Another critic, (Derven1990), explains that if the manager or supervisor is unskilled or couldn’t give accurate feedback, then the appraisal process will have only a negative effect.   Because of this every organization has to make carefully structured process and have to develop managers to focus activities and efforts and enhance business performance. On the other side, some of the defenders, such as (Lawrie1990), describe the process as “the most crucial aspect of organizational life”.

Most public sector businesses have failed because of ineffective and inefficient performance appraisal system (Esu and Inyang, 2009). In most of the public sector, the performance of staff of executing agencies or public enterprises is limited to budget monitoring and annual performance evaluation (Idemobi and Onyeizugbe, 2011).

According to Mathis and John (2003), productivity is a measure of the quantity and quality of work done, considering the cost of the resources used.   The more productive an organization, the better its competitive advantage, because the costs to produce its goods and services are lower.  Better productivity does not necessarily mean more is produced; perhaps fewer people (or less money or time) was used to produce the same amount. McNamara (2003) further states that, results are usually the final and specific outputs desired from the employee.   Results are often expressed as products or services for an internal or external customer, but not always.

From the foregoing therefore, the study examines the relationship between performance evaluation and employee productivity in the in Ken Poly Bori. This formed the main concern of the study.

1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS

This brings us to those problems that are associated with conducting performance evaluation. The process usually starts at the middle management level where it is the job of a middle manager to appraise his subordinates or employees who are under him (Rao, 2005).  In fact, every successive hierarchical level, the superiors are asked to evaluate the employees who are working under them (Rao, 2005) This can give rise to many issues that make performance appraisals an unpleasant task. As a result, many managers view the process of evaluation as time consuming and burdensome. To begin with performance appraisals can cause friction, resentment and the consequent low morale. Since appraisals are rather subjective in nature, they can also be disputed in case of negative ones (Rao, 2005).

The performance evaluation systems tend to have several problems. Raters‟ evaluations are often subjectively biased by their cognitive and motivational states (Pulakos, 2009), and supervisors   often   apply different   standards   with   different   employees   which   results   in inconsistent, unreliable, and invalid evaluations (Folger 1992). In order to create better systems, researchers have traditionally focused on validity and reliability (Bretz   1992) by designing newer “forms” of performance appraisals (e.g., behavioural-based systems that better define specific essential job functions of employees or 360-degree feedback mechanisms that allow for cross-validation via multiple raters).  However, despite these recent advances  in  evaluation design, critics continue to argue that performance appraisal systems are not consistently effective (Atkins & Wood, 2002; DeNisi & Kluger, 2000).This study sought to examine performance evaluation and employee productivity. In the next segment objective of the study will be discussed.

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The main objective of the study is to examine the relationship between performance evaluation and employee productivity. The following objectives are to be achieved according:

1. To examine the relationship between rating method and employee productivity.
2. To examine the relationship between ranking method and employee productivity.

iii. To examine the relationship between management by objective and employee productivity.

1. To ascertain the relationship between organizational culture and employee productivity. In the next segment research questions will be discussed.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The following research questions will be used to guide the study.

1. To what extent does rating method associated employee productivity?
2. To what extent does ranking method associated with employee productivity?

iii. What is the extent to which management by objective influence employee productivity?

1. What is the relationship between organizational culture and employee productivity?

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study is significant in the following ways;

Firstly, it will assist the organization to continually plan for the good of their employee’s and also make use of skilled manpower for the good of the organization.

Others who will benefit from this study include, managers, business organizations, higher institutions and the society in general. In the next segment scope and limitation of the study will be discussed.

1.6 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study is delimited under the following heading: content scope, geographical scope and unit of analysis.

1. Content Scope: The content scope of this study involves on investigation to ascertain the relationship between performance evaluation and employee productivity. The dependent variable is employee productivity, measures by Goal Achievement, Effectiveness and Efficiency. While independent variable is Performance Appraisal measure by Rating method, Ranking Method and Management by Objective.
2. Geographical Scope: This study is delimited in Port Harcourt Metropolis with special reference to some selected commercial Banks which include First Bank, Guarantee Trust Bank and Union Bank PLC Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
3. Unit of Analysis: The unit of analysis in this research involves the individuals at the time of carrying out the study. The scope of this study is to ascertain the relationship between performance appraisal and employee job performance.

1.7 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

In carrying out an investigation of this native the researcher must of necessity be faced the following constraint.

Firstly, the time constraint’s the time frame provision for this study was short.

Secondly, financial constraints. Usually, a study of this nature involved some level of expenditure therefore, finance was also a limiting factor.

Thirdly, poor response from the respondent and inability to access the entire population of the study. In the next segment significance of the study will be discussed. Lastly, poor measurement instrument. In the next segment, definition of terms will be discussed.

1.8 DEFINITION OF TERMS

EMPLOYEE: A person employed for wages or salary, especially at non-executive level.

EVALUATION:     An act of assessing something or someone.

JOB PERFORMANCE: Assesses whether a person performs a job well.

JOB:        A paid position of regular employment.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS: It is a method by which the job performance of an employee is documented and evaluated.

PRODUCTIVITY: An act of presenting a play, concert, or other form of entertainment.