impactof performance appraisal

Impact of performance appraisal on employee performance BRP- I / Fall-07

Abstract

As we know that Candy land is a know company in the field of confectionary sweets its not too much large

or small company it’s a medium company acquiring few departments. This is a case study of candy land

company . in this research I have try to find out the impact of performance appraisal on employee

performance

As in candy land I have conducted a research to know the problem in their performance appraisal

system whether their system having a positive or negative impact on the employee job performance and

the relationship of the performance appraisal method to the job performance at candy Land Company.

The methods candy land company uses for performance appraisal system are effective or ineffective.

The purpose of conducting this research is to know whether performance appraisal system increases or

decreases the performance of the employee at candy land company ltd. Relationship between the

performance appraisal and the job performance of the employee. Impact of performance appraisal on

employee performance

This research is quantitative and qualitative due to which I have used various techniques to gather data

and software SPSS to analyze data, and for this I have used variables independent and dependent

(manager biasness, interpersonal affect, manager feedback ) and dependent is (employee performance)

and on the basis of this I have made questionnaire on likert scale . In candy land there are about 100

employee out of which I have randomly selected 20 employee to know the impact of performance

appraisal on employee and I strongly found that feedback and employee performance is strongly

positively correlated , but manager biasness and interpersonal affect does not show strong correlation .

In the end of the research I have found out that there is positive correlation between manager feedback

and job performance and the relationship between manager biasness and interpersonal affect has a

negative relationship .Due to which I prefer that candy land should take steps to change their

performance appraisal methods which may helps them to enhance job performance of the employee

Keywords: Performance appraisal, job performance, manager biasness, manager feed back, Interpersonal Affect, Productivity, Evaluation, Correlation.

HIMS 1


HIMS 2


Table Of Content1. Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

1.1.Background Study----------------------------------------------------------------------1

1.2.Problem Statement---------------------------------------------------------------------1

1.3.Research Objective--------------------------------------------------------------------2

1.4.Significance of Problem---------------------------------------------------------------2

1.5.Scope Of Research--------------------------------------------------------------------2

1.6.Limitation---------------------------------------------------------------------------------3

1.7.Report Structure------------------------------------------------------------------------4

2. Literature Review----------------------------------------------------------------------------5

3. Conceptual Framework-------------------------------------------------------------------12

4. Research Methodology-------------------------------------------------------------------13

4.1.Sampling Techniques----------------------------------------------------------------13

4.2.Sample Size----------------------------------------------------------------------------13

4.3.Research Type------------------------------------------------------------------------13

4.4.Hypothesis-----------------------------------------------------------------------------14

4.5.Questionnaire--------------------------------------------------------------------------14

5. Data Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------15

5.1.Demographic Analysis---------------------------------------------------------------15

5.2.Proportional Analysis----------------------------------------------------------------18

5.3.Co relational and Regression------------------------------------------------------30

5.4.Findings --------------------------------------------------------------------------------38

6. Conclusion-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------39

7. Recommendation--------------------------------------------------------------------------41

8. Areas of Further Research--------------------------------------------------------------42

Reference and Bibliography-------------------------------------------------------------43

Appendix-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------45

HIMS 3


9. Introduction:

9.1. Background Study:

In many organizations the job performance of employee are not satisfactory and

they are not satisfied by jobs but in some organization employees are satisfied

and they are achieving their goals and satisfied, The point which I want to know

that what’s the impact of performance appraisal on employee performance if their

performance appraisal system is up to the mark or not .

The company which I choose has a respectable image in our society which

creates incredible products ,so my research is to know is the performance

appraisal system really impacts their employees performance in a positive and

negative way.

As this research is about the impact of performance appraisal on employee

performance at candy land company but the secondary which I have collected

from previous researches as Gomez Mejia (1993) argued that the performance

appraisal increases the employee performance as they may receives rewards

according to their performance .Furthermore there are like many researches

who deeply conducted research about the performance appraisal and their

impact whether in a form of teacher ,police or employees .Similar to that this

research is also a case study about impact of performance appraisal and various

factors may helps to increase or decease employee performance . Helen S.

Timperley(1999) argued that perception o teachers of about performance

appraisal is threatening until they understands its values that it may helps to

actually enhances their job performance.

9.2. Problem Statement:

Is the performance appraisal system having the positive or negative impact on

the employee job performance and the relationship of the performance appraisal

HIMS 4


method to the job performance at candy Land Company. The methods candy

land company uses for performance appraisal system are effective or ineffective

9.3. Research Objective:

The purpose of the research study to know weather performance appraisal

system increases or decreases the performance of the employee at candy land

company ltd.

Relationship between the performance appraisal and the job performance of

the employee.

Impact of performance appraisal on employee performance.

9.4. Significance of Study:

The importance of the this research will helps candy land company , to made

further improvements at their company which leads them to do further effective

performance appraisal system for the sake of employee performance and

ultimately may able to achieve organizations goals .As Candy Land already has

renowned image in the society

This study will helps organization for focus more on the methods they use to

motivate employee and ,provide proper feedback so the employee may able to

further achieve their standards which are set with their manager

9.5. Scope Of Research:

Geographic: The scope of this research would be limited to Head-office of Candy land at Shahra e Faisal (Karachi).

Time horizon: the time consumed in this research is about 3 and half month from October to January from 2010 to 2011.

HIMS 5


9.6. Limitation:

In this research I have got the limited permission from the HR manager of

their company they doesn’t allow me to make fill questionnaire from more

than 20 employee other than that the time required for the research is also

tight in which I may not able to reach other departments of Candy land .

As budget was also a major issue which creates hurdles for me to

continuously reach at candy land main office.

Transportation and other miscellaneous expensive enforces me to behave in

a very control and reach at specific place.

Another was the major limitation was about timings as am university student

and office hours also approximately same of offices due to that I have to

face lot of constraint in order to meet their employees and manager .

HIMS 6


9.7. Report Structure:

In this research there is about separate chapters for each of the section of the

report which differently represent the report in Chapter 1 there is introduction

about the research and about the company for which am conducting research

there is also included problem statement, background study, research objective,

significance of study limitations are included in this chapter which gives a brief

introduction about the report basics. Now Chapter 2 starts its about literature

review and conceptual framework in the is part I have mention the statements of

other authors who previously conducted research about performance

appraisal ,furthermore from the literature review and from that the variables I

have found are incorporated in the conceptual framework. While in Chapter 3

Research methodology are covered in this part sampling techniques are

described and reason for which type of research it is ,questionnaire are also

discuss in this part .The kind of questionnaire are made reason for choosing

questionnaire at likert scale. In Chapter 4 data analysis and finding which reports

the descriptive statistics ,proportional statistic and the correlation and regression

methods which are used to analyze this research. further more in Chapter 5 its

about conclusion and findings in this part the result is defined with the support of

previous researchers are mentioned . Chapter 6 and 7 is about area of research

and reference and bibliography are added in the research. In the end there is

Chapter 8 which is about Appendix which will represents the questionnaire

which actually made and on the basis of it whole data is analyzed.

HIMS 7


10. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework:

10.1. Literature Review:

Introduction:

Performance Appraisal and employee performance:

William B & Keith Davis (1992) argued that Performance appraisal is the

procedure by which organization may able to assess individual’s job performance

.Basically performance appraisal is all about the evaluation of employee

performance .Further more Gary Dressler (1999) said that performance appraisal

is an evaluating an employee current and past performance relative to his or her

performance standards .

Performance management (2007) states that performance appraisal system a

top secret document which includes the expectation of employee’s performance,

which is set by employer , employee’s actual performance which is relative to his

or her expectations, in general rating of the employee’s performance, and the

supervisor’s and employee’s signatures are present.

Murphy & Cleveland(1991)Performance appraisal is the periodic assessment of

an employee’s performance measured in opposition to the job’s stated

requirements. Furthermore there is only one way to evaluate the performance

and potential of the staff is through a system of performance appraisal. It is

significant that members of the organization should know exactly what is

expected from them, and at what standards their performance will be measured.

HIMS 8


Purpose of Performance Appraisal :

John Edmonston(1996) argued that the main purpose of the performance

appraisal in an organization is the improvement in the communication which

takes place between supervisor and the subordinates with the help of feedback

between ,performance improvement and the way to achieve their goals, the kind

of individual training and development needs, classification of the potential of

individuals for promotion.

Goff & Longenecker (1990) argued that the performance appraisal major aspect

is to develop an effective performance appraisal system which help the individual

to receive training according to their which exploit from rating .

Crane (1991) stated that purpose of having effective performance appraisal is

keeping and maintaining exact records of employee’s performance.

Bernardin & Beatty (1984) argued that the fundamental objective of performance

appraisal is to smooth the progress of management in carrying out managerial

decisions concerning to firings, promotions, lay offs and pay increases. For

example, the present job performance of an employee is usually the most

significant reflection for determining whether to promote the person or not.

Therefore Managers should recognize that a development of employee in a

continuous sequence of setting performance goals, by providing training which is

necessary to achieve the goals, assessing performance as to the completion of

the goals and then setting new , higher goals.

Austin, Villanova, Kane, & Bernardin (1991) argued that a purpose of conducting

a performance appraisal is modify the work of the employees

(Campbel l & Pritchard, 1976; Lewin, 1938)had also state that even though

some of the theorists thought that an individual behavior should be highly

monotonous and inflexible from the outside pressure.

HIMS 9


Nathan, Mohr man, and Milliman ( 1991)basic to any performance appraisalis

the kind of process which assumes that an accurate and appropriate feedback

can change behavior of the employees

Methods Of performance appraisal:

1. Behaviorally anchored rating scales.

William B 1992) argued that in behavioral anchored rating scale manager used

to by give reference points to the employee behavior in order to evaluate them .

The two main scales are used one is Behavioral expectation scale and the other

one is behavioral observation scale. In behavioral expectation scale the

manager gave the rating from poor to good performance along with the feedback

given in a form of statements . While in Behavioral observation scale the

manager used to rate the frequency of those behaviors which are performed by

the employee.

Mondy (2008) argued that this method is less time consuming in order to

conduct quantitative analysis and comparison because it consist of a scale in

which some character tics and performance attitudes of employees are written

so due to which employee are rated according to given statements in order to

show employee job performance level.

2. Rating Scale :

William B (1992) argued that the manager requires to rate the job performance of

the employee by rating from low to high which is also a subjective form of

evaluation.

3. Checklists:

William B (1992) argued that the manager used to rate the the employee by

selecting a descriptive statement which may behavior towards their job .

HIMS 10


Decenzo (2002).In weighted checklist method, the manager has a list of

conditions and statements through which it compares employees. Furthermore

checklist is a presents employee’s characteristics and job performance.

4. Critical incident method:

William B (1992) Argued that the supervisor rate the employee performance by

recording the negative and positive behavior of the employee throughout the

period in which the employee performs the job. Monday (2008) had argued that

critical incident method totally focuses on the key factor through which job may

performed in an efficient way. Furthermore this method is directly related to job

performance of the individual rather than based on individual characteristics.

Manager records positive and negative behavior of the employee job

performance.

5. 360 degree performance appraisal

William B (1992)Argued that in management by objective the goals can be

objectively measurable and both the manager and the employee are mutually

agreed on it hence the employee gets the chance to participate to set his or her

own goals ,furthermore employee may able to evaluate their performance and

may able to reward themselves according to the outcomes by their goals they

have set .and also receives feedback from his or her surroundings.

6. Forced ranking (forced distribution).

William B (1992) Argued that the forced ranking is a method of performance

appraisal to rank employee in which the manager is forced to choose the most

descriptive statement which helps to reduce biasness of the rater .

HIMS 11


Performance Appraisal and Motivation:

Lee Rasch (2004) argued that its good to rate employee performance but he also

states that its more effective to provide intrinsic reward to the employee for their

performance in order to motivate them to achieve organizational goals and to

receive feedback by the performance appraisal. Further more he also state that to

conduct performance appraisal effective manager needs to focus on their employee

success , leadership training should be provided to the manager , through the help

of performance appraisal try to target those employee who need feedback.

Impact of Performance Appraisal:

1) Effectiveness of Performance Appraisal:

Teseema & Soeter (2006) argued that develop a performance appraisal system

in an efficient way that may improve the performance of the employee and also

their productivity may also be enhanced.

On the other hand Brown and benson (2003 ) state that effective performance

appraisal system may also improves the employee commitment towards their

organization.

Rahman (2006) argued that by giving appropriated feedback and explanation

about employee performance leads to commitment and higher job satisfaction

among teachers because as performance appraisal system is ineffective so the

commitment of the teachers also low. Heywood (2005) also give his views about

the performance appraisal is that , appraisal actually enhances the human

resource practices training the incentive received by the employees which may

also leads to greater productivity of employees.

In this study Resch Lee( 2004) argued that performance appraisal system

provide an useful information about how well employee has been performed and

this information impact negatively and positively on employee performance .

While at the time of rating employee by supervisor , the employee seems to

know ,how his supervisor perceives about him. There would be a two kind of

impact on employee productivity :

HIMS 12


Negative Impact: in negative impact if the supervisor give poor rating on his or

her appraisal , then employee feel de motivated as a result of which his or her

productivity declines.

Positive Impact while in positive impact if supervisor gave good rating on his or

her appraisal then employee become motivated and to this positive feedback

given by supervisor employee job performance increases.

Beer (1981)argued that the effective performance appraisal has its common

outcomes which impacts employees , they may able to learn about themselves

further more their knowledge also increase about them that how they are

performing at their jobs and also able to learn their management values.

Common outcomes of an effective performance appraisal process are

employees’ learning about themselves, employees’ knowledge about how they

are doing, employees’ learning about ‘what management values’

2) Effectiveness of performance appraisal on employee performance:

Murphy & Cleveland(1991)argued that conducting performance appraisal is very

important for the employee itself because employee may able to know about his

work performance that how he is performing on job , at which area he is lacking

or need improvement and may able to meet the organization expectations.

Furthermore through performance appraisal manager may also able to know

about employee skill and interest that they may also suitable for other jobs for the

organization. so by finding strengths and weakness through appraisal , employee

job performance may get polishes. And good for employee and organization also.

Guinn and Corona, (1991) it has been found that through interview that the from

the yearly separation from performance appraisal and result of performance

appraisal may blur the perceived link between organization and employee

performance

HIMS 13


Factors Effects performance appraisal system:

1) Central Tendency:

William B (1992) argued that in many organizations the raters just like to rate

each and every employee on the average scale by ignoring their effective and

ineffective behavior. The biasness are high in this factor of the rater.

2) Halo Effect:

William B(1992) argued that when the manger conducting the performance

appraisal ,so rater may rates the employee on the basis of his own likeness and

dislikes or consider his or her own opinion about the employee.

3) Leniency and strictness bias:

William B (1992) argued that when manager rates the employee so may be he

rates the every employee very good in a lenient way or being rate to strictly so

that everyone rate to harshly.

4) Cross Cultural Biases:

William B(1992) argued that when manger starts rating the employee so the

manager rates the employee according to expecting his own culture behavior

from that employee who belongs to different culture.

HIMS 14


2.2 Conceptual Framework:

Conceptual Frame Work:

HIMS 15

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Manager Biasness

Feedback Employee PerformanceEffectiveness of

Performance Appraisal

Interpersonal Affect


11. Research Methodology:

This research is quantitative due to which I have used various techniques to gather

data and software to analyze data on measurement scale. A record of questionnaire

has been maintained for accurate measurement and analysis of data. I will explain

that how main topic was selected, how I formulated the research questions.

I will explain the way that how I have collected the data concerning my business

project. I will also describe the theoretical frame work which I have followed during

my research and analysis.

11.1. Sampling technique :

The sampling is used in this research is random sampling from the current

employee of Candy land. The 20 questionnaire were distributed to the

employees of the Candy land at random basis which were collected hand to

hand at the same time.

11.2. Sample Size:

The total population at candy Land Company is 100 and I will choose 20

employee to fill the questionnaire. Sampling would be done at basis of random

sampling .so that every employee independently have the chance to be selected.

11.3. Research Type:

This is and qualitative and quantitative research and descriptive statistics are

used in this research to analyze the data . As in this research am correlating the

impact of performance appraisal on the job performance of the employees due

HIMS 16


to that this research must be quantitative in order to get the level of

measurement of increases and decreases in the job performance of the

employee by the influence of the factors job performance . SPSS program is

used to analyze the quantitative data which helps to correlate the variables.

Further more in qualitative research, descriptive statistics are used to describe

the percentages of people agreeing or disagreeing from the statements which

evaluates their perception about their performance appraisal impact.

11.4. Hypothesis:

Ho: Feedback has no impact on employee performance

H1: Whether manager feedback impacts on employee performance

Ho: Whether manager biasness during performance appraisal impact employee performance

H1: manager biasness has no impact on employee performance

Ho: Does interpersonal relationship between manager and employee during performance appraisal impacts employee performance

H1: interpersonal relationship has no impact on employee performance

11.5. Questionnaire:

The questionnaire I have made to conduct the quantitative research is on likert

scale which is used to measure the responses made by employee and through

their marked rating puts into the SPSS program . This likert scale questions are

based on the independent and dependent variables . The questions I have made

on likert were 12 out of 15 questions the remaining questions were on the

demographic basis(age ,gender and working experience).

The questionnaire was kept in a simple language so that a layman also

understands the wordings of the questionnaire. The scaling were used from 1 to

HIMS 17


5 which is from strongly disagree to strongly agree and on the basis of

employee responses their analysis made on the SPSS through which I have

found the correlation and regression between the independent and dependent

variables.

12. Data Analysis and Findings:

12.1. Demographic Analysis:

1.Age of the employees

6

7

5

2

Age

upto 20 year20-30year30-40yearabove40yeas

As you have seen in the above chart that out of 20 there were 6 employee

whose age is up to 20 years . Other than that there were 7 employees whose

age is between 20 to 30 year , 5 employees whose age is between 30-40 year

HIMS 18

up to 20 year 20-30year 30-40year above40yeas

6 7 5 2


and in the end there were 2 employees whose age is above 40 whose been

working at candy land for a years .

2. Gender

Males Females0

2

4

6

8

10

12 11

9

Gender

Series1

As you have seen in the above graph that in my sample there were 11 males and 9

females which are totally selected at random basis.

HIMS 19

Males Females

11 9


3. Years of working at Candy Land.

upto 2 year 2-6 year 6-10year abbove10 years0123456789

10

3

9

5

3

Year of Working At Candy Land

Series1

Up to 2 year 20-30 years 30-40 years Above 40 years

3 9 5 3

As you have seen in the above graph that the number years employee working at

Candy land is about 3 employees working there up to 2 years , while 9 employees

which are included in my sample size are working till 20 to 30 years ,other than that 5

employees working from 30 to 40 years and the remaining working at candy land above

40 years

HIMS 20


12.2. Proportional Analysis:

4. Perception about employee job performance in comparison with other employees

7%

20%

40%46%

20%

Empolyee Performance

Strongly DisagreeDisagreeMay BeAgreeStrongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree Disagree May Be Agree Strongly Disagree

6.6% 20% 40% 46% 20%

As you have seen in the above pie chart that 6.6% employee disagree about their job

performance is good in comparison with other employee while 20% employee is totally

disagreeing about their own performance in comparison with other employee.

Furthermore 40% are not sure about their job performance whether good or

HIMS 21


bad .Although 46% are agree that they are satisfied from their job performance in

comparison with other employee.

5. Level of satisfaction of employees about their own performance

6.60%6.60%

13.00%

66.00%

40.00%


Strongly DisagreeDisagreeMay beAgreeStrongly Agree

Strongly Disagree Disagree May be Agree Strongly Agree

6.60% 6.60% 13% 66% 40%

As you have seen in the above chart that 6.6% employee are strongly disagree that

they are not satisfied about their own job performance, again 6.6%empolyee are just

disagree about their level of satisfaction about their own job performance, while 13%

are not sure or don’t know whether they are satisfied or not about their job performance

other than that 66% are agreeing that they are satisfied about their job performance and

HIMS 22


the reaming 40% are strongly agree that they are fully satisfied with their job

performance.

6. Perception of employee about having a effective performance appraisal system in organization

26%

60%

46%




0% 0% 26% 60% 46%

As you have seen in the above paragraph that 46% employee are strongly agree that

organization must have effective performance appraisal in their organization while 60%

are just agree that presence of effective performance appraisal must be in their

organization and left employee are not sure whether they should have effective

performance appraisal in their organization or not .

HIMS 23


7. Employees performance gets better if peer group are involved in performance appraisal.

7%

46%

33%

26%

13%

Feed Back



6.60% 46% 33% 26% 13%

As you have seen that 46% employee are totally disagree about the involvement of

peer group in evaluation of their job performance while 6.6% are strongly disagree

about the involvement of their peer group in performance appraisal. Other than that

33% are not agree or agree or they no problem if peer group are also involved in their

rating of job performance in the end 26% and 13% are strongly agree and just agree if

their peer group are also involved in their job performance evaluation.

HIMS 24


8. Do they receive feedback from manager about their performance.

12%

46%

40%

Feed Back


As you have seen that 46% employee agree that they properly receive feedback about

their job performance from their manager , while 26% are strongly agree that they

receive feedback from their manager but 12% employee are disagree that they won’t

receive feedback about their job performance from their manager they are been

ignored.

HIMS 25


0% 12% 0% 46% 40%


9. Presence of stress during performance appraisal assessment.

6.60%6.60%

26.00%

46.00%

46.00%

Stress on empolyees



6.60% 6.60% 26% 46% 46%

As you have seen t hat the pre chart represent that 46% employee are strongly agree

that they become stressed when performance appraisal process going on, while 46%

are also agree with it and only 26%said that may be they do get stress or not when their

rating process is going on and only 6% are disagree about getting stress while their

assessment going on .

HIMS 26


10.Performance appraisal enhances employee performance as compared to previous year performance.

33%

33%

33%

26%

Manager Biasness



0% 33% 33% 33% 26%

As you have seen that 33% employee said that performance appraisal process doesn’t

helps them to increase their job performance as compared to previous year, other than

that 33% are not sure about their performance whether performance appraisal actually

increases their performance or decreases as compared to previous year .Furthermore

33% and 26% are strongly agree and agree that performance appraisal actually helps

them to increase their job performance as compared to previous year.

HIMS 27


11. Interpersonal relationship between employee and manager help to achieve goals

20%

13%

33%20%

40%



As you have seen in the above paragraph that 20% are strongly disagree that

interpersonal relationship between manager and employee doesn’t help them to

achieve their standard goals and 13% employee are also disagreeing that interpersonal

relationship doesn’t not help tem to achieve organizational goals while 33% are not

sure whether this actually help them or not but 20% and 40% employee are strongly

agree and just agree that there is rise in their job performance if there is interpersonal

relationship between manager and employee

HIMS 28


20% 13% 33% 20% 40%


12.Feedback from manager really stimulates job performance of employee

20%

40%

33%

40%

Feed Back



0% 20% 40% 33% 40%

As you have seen in the above paragraph that 20% employee are disagree that

feedback from manager does not stimulates them to perform better at their job while 40

% are not sure whether feedback from manager impact their job performance but 33%

and 40% are strongly agree that feedback form manager actually stimulates them to

increase their job performance.

HIMS 29


13.Observation by colleagues at your work really helps to enhance employees job performance

13%

33%

66%

7%

13%

Feed Back



13% 33% 66% 6.60% 13%

As you have seen in the above pie chart that 13% employee are strongly disagree that

there is no kind of enhancement in their job performance if they continuously been

observed by their colleagues at work, while 33% are disagree from this statement that

its not helpful for them if their performance observed by their colleagues at their work

and may not able to enhance their job performance. Furthermore only 6.6% and 13%

are agree and strongly agree that their job performance increase as their job

continuously been observed by their colleagues and their performance also enhanced.

HIMS 30


14.Manager Biasness during performance appraisal.

26%

33%

46%

26%

Manager Biasness



0% 26% 33% 46% 26%

As you have seen that 26% employees are strongly agreeing of facing manager

biasness during their performance appraisal and it really impacts their job

performance .furthermore 46% employee are also agreeing that manager biasness

really impact their job performance the kind of favoritism they have to face. Furthermore

33% employee may not able to answer authentically whether their manager shows

biasness or not during their rating their performance and 26% are disagreeing that their

manager do not show biasness while evaluating their job performance

HIMS 31


15. Impact of interpersonal affect on employee performance

26%

53%

40%

13%




0% 26% 53% 40% 13%

As you have see that 26% employee said that the interpersonal relationship between

employee and manager does not affect the performance appraisal process, while 53%

are not sure whether interpersonal really impact employee job performance or not while

40% and 13 % are agree and strongly agree that the interpersonal relationship between

manager and employee really impact employee job performance because this is also

another source of biasness

HIMS 32


12.3. Co relational and Regression:

As this research is quantitative so I have used SPSS software in order to analyze data , through which I may able to reject or accept the hypothesis.

Correlation between feedback and employee performance

Correlations

feedbac percvperf

feedbac Pearson Correlation 1 .574**

Sig. (2-tailed) .008

N 20 20

percvperf Pearson Correlation .574** 1


N 20 20

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

As the correlation coefficient =r , which ranges from -1 to +1 , that is r=.574* which means that this relationship is significant and this is positive relationship as manager feedback increases so employee performance also increases . And on the second line p value is p < .001 which is p=.008 means that relationship is significant and we can reject the Ho .

HIMS 33


Correlation between interpersonal affect and employee performance:

Correlations

interperafft percvperf

interperafft Pearson Correlation 1 -.330


N 20 20

percvperf Pearson Correlation -.330 1


N 20 20

As the above relationship between interpersonal affect and employee performance is moderate correlation as r=-.33 to+.33 and here p- value is not below the .05 so we cant reject the null hypothesis , we have to retain the the Ho means that we are not confident whether there is correlation between interpersonal affect and employee performance yes or no.

HIMS 34


Correlation ship between manager biasness and employee performance:

Correlations

managrbias percvperf

managrbias Pearson Correlation 1 -.172


N 20 20

percvperf Pearson Correlation -.172 1


N 20 20

As in the above relationship between manager biasness ans employee performance

is moderate correlation as r = -.172 to +1.72 and p- value is also not below than

p<.05 so we cant reject the null hypothesis we have to kept remain with it , we are

not sure about manager biasness and employee performance correlation.

Graphs:

HIMS 35


Feed Back and Job Performance Graph:

Interpretation:

As you have seen in the above graph the positive correlation has been seen

which is significant and strongly shows that as feedback increases so employee

perceived performance also increases. Which means that at candy land

employees receives feedback which may helps them to increase their job

performance .As R2 =32% which means that employee performance in actual fits

with e manager feedback shows 32% of variance on perceived performance of

employee

Interpersonal Affect and Job Performance:

HIMS 36


Interpretation:

As you have seen in the above graph the negative and moderate correlation has

been seen which is significant and shows that as interpersonal affect increases

so employee perceived performance decreases. .As R2 =10% which means that

employee performance in actual fits with manager interpersonal affect shows

10% of variance on perceived performance of employee

Manager Biasness and job performance:

HIMS 37


Interpretation:

As you have seen in the above graph the negative and moderate correlation,

which shows that as manager biasness increases so employee perceived

performance decreases. .As R2 =29% which means that employee performance

in actual fits with manager biasness shows 29% of variance on perceived

performance of employee.

Regression:

HIMS 38


Model Summary

Model R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square

Change F Change df1 df2

Sig. F

Change

1 .668a .446 .343 .52246 .446 4.300 3 16 .021

a. Predictors: (Constant), interperafft, feedbac, managrbias

Interpretation:

This table represent that as R2 =.446 which means that the predictors which are

independent variables are are just bringing 44% variation into dependent variable

bcause R square is above than .250.

ANOVAb

Model

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 3.521 3 1.174 4.300 .021a

Residual 4.367 16 .273

Total 7.889 19

a. Predictors: (Constant), interperafft, feedbac, managrbias

b. Dependent Variable: percvperf

Interpretation:

This table represents that as regression 3.521 and residual is 4.367 the independent

variables really contributing in the variation of employee job performance. the main thing

is that the relationship is significant about .021 .

HIMS 39


Interpretation:

This table represents that manager feedback , manager biasness and interpersonal

affect are correlating with employee job performance and especially as the feedback

value is significant which .728 are positively correlating with job performance as

feedback increases so job performance also increase. Furthermore manager

biasness and interpersonal affect are not shown as significant which means it is

negatively correlating as manager biasness as -.058 and interpersonal affect as

-.235 increase in relative to that employee job performance will automatically may

decreases.

Findings:

HIMS 40

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 2.395 1.047 2.288 .036

feedbac .728 .239 .568 3.043 .008

managrbias -.058 .139 -.079 -.417 .682

interperafft -.235 .136 -.323 -1.724 .104

a. Dependent Variable: percvperf


Through the above analysis its been clear that manager feedback has positive

correlation r=.574** with the job performance of employee as manager feedback

increases so job performance also increases which means that Ho and accepts

the alternative hypothesis which is Whether manager feedback impacts on

employee performance is been rejected as there is significant correlation shown

in the SPSS analysis as p value is also above than .05 so we cant reject that

hypothesis

Furthermore its also been find out that manager biasness and employee job

performance has a negative correlation which clears that as manager biasness

r=-.172 increases so job performance decrease due to that we have to retain with

the Ho which is Whether manager biasness during performance appraisal impact

.

After that the third hypothesis which is about interpersonal affect r=-.330 on job

performance also have a negative correlation with the job performance and the

correlation is moderately negative so again we have to accept the Ho which is

Does interpersonal relationship between manager and employee during

performance appraisal impacts employee performance

All these independent factors which are find out from the literature review are

producing variation in the job performance of the employee for about .021 and

these factors are contributing in the increases and decreases of the job

performance of the employee

5.Conclusion and Recommendation:

HIMS 41


5.1. Conclusion:

This research is based on the performance appraisal impacts on the job

performance of the employees , as in the above data analysis I have found that

the variables which is takes by different journals and the previous authors

conducted their research on the basis of it .Arup Varma(2005)argued that

interpersonal relationship between manager and employees is another form of

biasness which impacts the process of job performance actually supporting my

finding that its about B= -.235 which means that in this research interpersonal

relationship between manager and the employee during the assessment of their

performance actually impacts negatively as per researched by Arup Varma.

After than Mark R. Edwards(1996) argued that there would be rise in the

employee productivity if the 360 degree feedback used for the employees and

involve their colleagues also. Similar to that as I conducted research in Candy

land company this statement support my result as its significant as B=.728

represent that 72% variation shown by feedback in the job performance of the

employees if a proper feedback with 360 degree is been used by organization.

Furthermore the Deborah F. Boice (1997) argued that in order to increases

employee job performance for the achievement for organizational the rater which

manager must effectively rate the performance of the employees with being

showing biasness in terms of personal likeliness and dislikes . At candy Land

there is about B=-.058 variation shown by manager biasness in terms of rating

employee performance which distracts the focus of employees due to that that

main not able to receive rewards on the basis of their job performance .As

manager biasness increases so job performance of the employees may also get

decreases

HIMS 42


Muhammad Zahid Iqbal (2009) argued that effectiveness of performance is

necessary for the employees productivity and the determinants which damages

the effectiveness of the process of performance appraisal .Outcomes of effective

performance appraisal are also necessary for the Pakistani organization

otherwise there are various actors which harms the productivity of the employee

in the organization . Relative to that employee performance and effectiveness of

performance appraisal system plays a vital role in the organization at Candy land

that employees continuously become and remain motivated to about there job

performance .

Its been apparent from the previous researches that there are various factors

which directly and indirectly influences the employee job performance although in

this research I have been just focusing on the performance appraisal but in

actually there also other factors in the organization or example stress , salary ,

coworker negligence has been also responsible for the declining in the

productivity of the employee.

Luis R. Gomez-Mejia, (1993) Conducted a research on the performance

appraisal and role of reward and incentive in increasing the performance of the

employee .There are set standards which should be achieved by the continuous

feedback to the employee about their performance ,that how are they are to

achieve their standards ,which provide a clear vision about employee level of

performance.

Helen S. Timperley School of Education, University of Auckland, Auckland, New

Zealand This research is counted about school teachers performance

appraisal, the way they are treated at schools and to know the perspective of the

teacher about the effective performance appraisal system in order to manage

their staff and appraising them.

HIMS 43


5.2. Recommendation:

I would like to recommend that to the candy land company that they should better

focus on giving continuously providing feedback to their employee about their

performance, and the above relationship shows that there is no such manager

biasness and interpersonal affect found that candy land which is good for their

employee.

Candy land company should make changes in their performance appraisal

process, in order to make it more effective and see the see the outcomes

and determinants which may effects their performance appraisal process

The methods which I have find out they commonly use are checklist and

rating scale, I should prefer they also use MOB and critical incident rating

which help there manager to evaluate employee performance on time .

Furthermore the manager should focus on other aspects of the employee

rather than just focusing on their job performance they should see what

other problems their employees are facing in term of delivering their

potentials.

Through the response of employees at Candy land its found that their

employees do not feel free if their performance is being also evaluated by

their colleagues they doesn’t feel comfortable, so I have prefer that

organization should take steps to produce team works spirit between their

employees by organizing mini projects , group discussion which may helps

employee to increases their interaction with other employees and their

their job performance main automatically may get increases.

HIMS 44


Areas of Further Research:

The further areas of the study about performance appraisal may go very in-depth as

to critically evaluate the whole process of performance appraisal in multi

organization. A kind of compassion research may also be done as comparing the

performance appraisal system of multi organization and small organization and the

level of affect it produces on both the organizations employees. Other aspects which

brings hurdle in the rating of employee may also research at Pakistani Organization

which are political background and extreme favoritism towards employees and

extreme ignorance towards other employee and the impact of it on the whole

organization.

HIMS 45


Reference and Bibliography:

Helen S. Timperley 1990 “Performance appraisal: Principals’ perspectives and some

implications”, University of Auckland Auckland, New Zealand.

Laurence S. Fink 1998 “Training as a performance appraisal improvement

Strategy” The College of Business Administration, University of Toledo, Ohio, USA

Luis R. Gomez-Mejia, 1993 "Increasing Productivity: Performance Appraisal and

Reward Systems", Personnel Review, New York

Gray Dessler 1999, Human Resource Management ,10th ed, International University

,Florida

William B &Keith Davis 1999, Human Resource and personal Management, 5th edn,

International University ,Florida.

Lee Rasch 2004, ‘Employee Performance appraisal and the 95/5 RULE‘ Community

College Journal of Research and Practice, vol 28,no.407 pages 409

John Edmonstone 1996, ‘Appraising the state of performance appraisal ‘ Health

Manpower Management journal, vol 22 , no.6

Aastha Dogra, PJ 2010, Performance Appraisal Strengths and Weaknesses', The New

York Times15 March. Available from <http://www.buzzle.com/articles/performance-

appraisal-strengths-and-weaknesses.html. [15 March 2010].

Ayaz Khan , ‘Performance Appraisal’s Relation with Productivity and Job Satisfaction ‘

Journal of Managerial Science, vol 1,no.103

HIMS 46


Deborah F. Boice and Brian H. Kleiner1997, ‘Designing effective performance appraisal

systems, vol 46 , no.6

Sahl, R.J. (1990), “Design effective performance appraisals”, Personnel Journal,

October, pp. 53-60.

Mostafa Jafari 2009, A New Framework for Selection of the Best Performance Appraisal

Method ,European Journal of Social Sciences – vol 7, no 3

Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq 2009, Effectiveness of Performance Appraisal: Its Outcomes

and Detriments in Pakistani Organizations ,European Journal of Social Sciences – vol

10, no 3

Helen S. Timperley 1998, Performance appraisal: principals’ perspectives and some

implications , Journal of Educational Administration, vol. 36 No. 1

The Effect of HRM Practices and R&D Investment on Worker Productivity, 2005.

Available from: < The Effect of HRM Practices and R&D Investment on Worker

Productivity Fredrik >. [23 May 2005].

Dexture A. Hansen 1984, developmental performance appraisal : An analysis of the

literature review ,report presented in business administration personnel [May 1984]

State personal Manual 2007, Performance Management Policy, Government of

Australia, Available from:< http://www.osp.state.nc.us/manuals/manual99/pms.pdf>. [1

September 2007].

HIMS 47


Appendix:

Questionnaire

1. Age----------------------------o Up to 20 years o 20 – 30 years o 30 – 40 years o above 40 years

2. Gender------------------------o Maleo Female

3. Since ------------- I am working at candy lando Up to 2 years o 2 -6 yearso 6 -10 years o above 10 years

4. My performance is better than that of my colleagues with similar qualifications

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly

agree

5. I am satisfied with my performance because it is mostly good.


agree

6. Is it necessary to have effective performance appraisal system in an organization?


agree

7. Performance of employees would be better if colleagues or peer group are used in employee evaluation


agree

8. Do you receive feedback on performance from manager on a regular basis?

Strongly

disagre

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly agree

HIMS 48

1. Strongly disagree

2. Disagree

3. Neither agrees nor disagrees

4. Agree

5. Strongly agree


e

9. Isn’t it stressful when assessment going on during performance appraisal process?

Strongly

disagree

1 2 3 4 5Strongly agree

10. Have you ever found that effective performance appraisal method actually enhances your job performance in the last previous years?

Strongly

disagree


11. Interpersonal relationship between employee and manager help to achieve goals ?

Strongly

disagree


12. Is it really stimulates you to receive feedback about your performance from manager?

Strongly

disagree


13. Is it helpful to being observed by everyone your work in order to enhance job performance?

Strongly

disagree


HIMS 49


14. Do you think while conducting performance appraisal manager shows biasness towards employee performance?

Strongly

disagree


15. Is interpersonal relationship between manager and employee affects performance appraisal rating?

Strongly

disagree


HIMS 50

impactof performance appraisal

Documents

employee job performance

job performance of employee

employee performance

performance appraisal

performance appraisal

employee keywords

research objective

scope of research