THE ACCEPATIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN THE ORGANIZATION

ATTENTION:

BEFORE YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPICS BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!

INFORMATION:

YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COST N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR

YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08137701720, 09070569307, 08154275408

WHATSAPP US ON: 08137701720

THE ACCEPATIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN THE ORGANIZATION

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background of the study

To appraise is to judge the worth, quality or condition of something or to find the value. Therefore, to appraise performance is to assess and determine the quality of contribution and possible worth of potentials pigors and myers (1985).

Donnely defined performance appraisals as the “formal evaluation of an individual’s job performance

It has been established that a manager’s job is to achieved results through people i.e. manager motivates his men to work in order to be able to achiever the predetermined results.

The individual opinion of himself and how he is performing may not always be right, yet the employee wants to know how his performing on the job from his manager, hence the need for performance is based on agreed targeted.

More so, from the performance appraisal process, it will definitely emerge the strengths and weaknesses of the employee and on this basis, appropriate remedial action such as training can be undertaken. Also, the employees performance on the job will be systematically analyzed and determine how such employee should be rewarded either in terms of money or promotion.

Laurie (1989), defined performance appraisals as the “improvement of the performance of individual leading to the improvement in the performance of organization as a whole”.

According to Oladosu. He defined performance appraisals to be “an assessment and determination of the quality of contributions and the possible worth of potentials”

Debra (1998) defined performance appraisals as the “evaluation of a person’s performance”. From the above definitions, performance appraisals includes feed back to the individual and determination whether and how the performance can be improved.

According to Lathan (1998) and Wesley, performance appraisal is “any personnel decision that affects the status of employees regarding their retention, termination, promotion, demotion, transfer, salary increment or decrease or admission into training programs.

Franch (2004) on the other hands, define performance appraisals “as the way or methods used for the continuous evaluation of the contribution of individual and group’s within the organization”. To him (French), such techniques evaluations are made for varieties of purposes which may include selection, correction, training, pay increases, promotion, discipline and transfers.

Performance appraisal technique system began as a simple method of incoming justification.

It was used to decide whether or not the salary or wages of an individual employee was justified.

The process was firmly linked to material outcomes. If an employee’s performance was found to be less than ideal, a cut-in pay would follow on the other hand, if their performance was better. Than the supervisor expected a pay rise in order.

Many studies have explored performance measurement initiatives. These studies have examined the promises of performance management (Ingraham, 2005; Yang and Holzer 2006), antecedents to promoting the use of performance information or effectiveness of performance management (Julnes and Holzer 2001; Yang and Hsieh 2007), and the effect of job-related attitude on organizational performance (Crewson

1997; Bright 2007; Walker, Damanpour and Devece 2011; Moynihan, Pandey and Wright 2012). Although these prior studies have played a critical role in enhancing our understanding of performance measurement initiatives, most of them approached this issue from the perspective of top-level management (e.g., monitoring performance, formulating strategy, making better decisions, allocating resources in an efficient manner) and little research has examined the front-line employee’s perspective, or those who perform the main tasks inherent in performance measurement (Roberts 1994). That is, relatively few existing studies have explored the ways to help employees make sense of performance measurement. Most of the prior studies were done from the top-management perspective except for some anecdotal observations or case studies (Donahue et al. 2000; Behn 2002). Those studies have observed that many public employees view performance measurement system as a main cause of rule proliferation and also as an administrative burden and exhibit legitimate fear with the perception that “result-based accountability means punishment” (Behn 2002, 12; see also Julnes and Holzer 2001 and Moynihan

2008).

Once a performance management system is implemented in any organizations, the required procedures to measure and to evaluate performance can be perceived by employees as a control mechanism or an unnecessary bureaucratic burden. Moreover, employees fear having poor performance if the performance measurement system is operated as a punitive tool as Behn (2002:8) noted;

“[T]he explicit use of performance measures which is inherent to almost all forms of performance management creates some valid fears: “If my organization starts measuring performance, what might happen?” Many of the possible consequences of attempting to measure performance are not positive (Smith, 1995). The repercussions of any effort to measure performance are not necessarily positive for the individuals in the organization or for the organization itself. Little wonder that many public employees harbor some very legitimate fears of performance measurement”.

Statement of the problem

Negative perceptions, or cynicism, of public performance measurement of frontline employees have often been noted, but relatively few existing studies have considered these to be a major underlying cause for the under-fulfillment of promises when it comes to performance measurement. This issue is worthy of more attention because when employees have limited buy-in to performance measurement in terms of its purpose and its value, the performance measurement system will be ineffective both at the department and individual level. This study argues that dealing with these cynicisms by fostering employee acceptance of performance measurement system should be considered critical to building a successful and useful performance measurement system. Moreover, most of the earlier public sector literature has paid insufficient attention to the distinction between the management and measurement of employee job performance and that of agency program performance and, in some studies, those two have been used interchangeably. In the context of performance management, there are four sub-management systems including financial management, human resource management, capital management, and information technology management (Donahue et al. 2000, 386). These sub-management systems can be further summarized into three: one for managing organizational performance; one for managing individual performance; and one for integrating both

(Fletcher 2001).

HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL (S)

After paying the appropriate amount (#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to any of the numbers below

08068231953, 08137701720, 09070569307, 08154275408 (1) Your project topics

(2) Email Address

(3) Payment Name

OR you drop them on our WhatsApp, 08137701720

We will send your material(s) after we receive bank alert

BANK ACCOUNTS

Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI

Account Number: 0046579864

Bank: GTBank.