Performance Appraisal Policies and the Employees Engagement in Hail University - Thesis Proposal Example

The Effect of performance appraisal policies on the Level of the Employees Engagement in Hail Saudi Arabia (Women Branch) Employee engagement is an important factor in determining employee outcomes in the workplace. Employees who are engaged are likely to be more productive since they are more absorbed in their work and enjoy their work more. However, for employees to be engaged in their work there are a number of conditions which are affected by the prevailing conditions at the workplace. In this research, the role of performance appraisal policies in facilitating employee engagement is investigated. To achieve this objective, the role of performance appraisal policies as independent variables in affecting mediating variables of peer pressure is investigated and this is then weighed against the outcome of dependent variables pertaining to employee engagement levels.After postulating the problem statement and indicating the purpose of the research, the research questions of the study are then posited. This is followed by the framework of the research and a discussion of the various variables. This is followed by a research methodology section which indicates how data is to be collected. This will be by conducting a qualitative and quantitative study of employee engagement levels in Hail University, Saudi Arabia women’s branch, by collecting and reviewing both primary and secondary sources of data. Introduction Employee engagement is affected by a number of factors. Bakker and Demerouti (2008) indicate a variety of factors such as job resources, the salience of such resources and personal resources as some of such factors that affect employee engagement. The importance of employee engagement is underscored by the associated benefits of this engagement. Such benefits include improved performance and a willingness on the part of the employee to go the extra mileBakker and Demerouti (2008). Other surveys have found such employee engagement to be positively related in-role performance. These are just some of the benefits that are expected when employees are engaged in their work. One of the many factors that can be expected to affect employee engagement levels is performance appraisal policies of an organization. This is because performance appraisal policies are policies, and like any other policy; they are bound to affect the relationship that exists between the employee and the organization. Performance appraisal is usually targeted at assessing employees’ productivity and determining whether they are working in accordance to the company’s goals and objectives. Moreover, such appraisal is then used to determine appropriate rewards and/or punishments to mete out against employees, based on their outcomes. Accordingly, performance appraisal is used as a tool in determining for example, if an employee qualifies for a promotion or a salary raise. Problem Statement While there has been research into some of the factors that contribute to employee engagement, there has been no such research into the effect of performance appraisal on employee engagement. This research therefore attempts to answer the question of how does performance appraisal policies affect the engagement levels of employees by studying a cohort population of Hail University women’s branch. The Purpose of the Proposed Research The proposed research aims to establish the effect of performance appraisal on employee engagement levels in Hail University Saudi Arabia, women’s division. Performance appraisal policies usually have an effect on employees. Performance appraisal policies can be thought of as the set of established procedures which govern the evaluation of employees in an organization. Such procedures are bound to affect employees. The purpose of such policies is to ensure that there is a standardized approach which can be pursued in the evaluation of employees. This is important for a number of reasons. For example, according to DelPo, proper evaluation procedure can provide an important legal defense especially where there may be an absolute need for employee termination. Proper appraisal policies affect employees in that where employees are aware of such procedures, they know what is expected of them and they are able to work towards it. DelPo indicates that proper policies enhance predictability at the workplace and therefore reduce chances of employee disgruntlement. In the absence of such procedures, employees are likely to be frustrated since they are not aware of what is expected of them. In this respect, the purpose of this research is to investigate how performance appraisal policies affect employee engagement. Framework Moderating Variables Research Questions What are the performance appraisal policies affecting peer pressure. What is the difference in positive and negative peer pressure as expounded under meditating variables? What are the common levels of employee engagement? Which are the moderating variables that affect employee performance and how do they do so? Variables Dependent Variables Level of Employee Engagement Employee engagement generally refers to a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterized by displays of vigor, dedication, and absorptions of the employee in their job tasks. Engaged employees do not feel emptiness or burnout while doing their jobs. While vigor refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience during work, dedication is strong involvement in one’s work and the experience of enthusiasm and fulfillment. Engaged An engaged employee is one who has total commitment and dedication to his or her duties and responsibilities within the company. Such an employee takes active steps to ensure that he or she undertakes all their duties and responsibilities diligently, and as instructed by their supervisors. Unengaged This refers to an employee who does not have focus and commitment to his or her work, or lacks the necessary motivation to undertake their duties and responsibilities within the organization. Such an employee has low productivity and zero efficiency in their undertaking of duties within the company. Actively Disengaged An actively disengaged employee is one who totally has nothing to do with the duties and responsibilities assigned to them by the company. This means that they are not doing anything active to the company despite their employment status. Independent Variables Performance Appraisal Performance appraisal is a strategic goal that enables the organization to assess its workers and appraise them according to their performance, by recognizing hard work and success, while punishing laziness and laxity at the work place. Through performance appraisal, an organization gets to know the level of performance of its workers, evaluate their input towards productivity and reward them for their good work. Developmental Performance appraisal is a development-oriented goal because it enables the organization to analyze the performance strategies of the employees, and as such, determine the productivity of the organization. By enhancing the performance of each employee in the organization, analyzed through appropriate performance appraisals, the organization is keen to achieve its projected goals and objectives, thereby making the tool an appropriate concept for development-oriented goals of the organization. Managerial Consequently, it also enables the organization to recognize employees who are working hard in the institution and promote, give them a salary raise, or other bonuses. This also encourages employees to work much harder since they get the attention of the management. It reduces peer pressure, as employees will want to stand out of a group rather than belong to a certain group so that they can get recognition from the organizations, such as standing out of the ordinary. Moderating Variables Supervisory Assistance This is assistance from a person with a higher authority within the organization, which enables and encourages an individual employee to overcome their problems and fears, as concerning issues related to pressure from peers. Personality (Self-Efficiency Personal self-efficiency refers to the ability of an individual employee to be efficient in his or her own capacity. This means that they are able to take initiative while undertaking their duties and jurisdictions within the company, as well as ensure maximum efficiency in operations in order to guarantee maximum productivity. This concept relies on a number of aspects that either promote or reduce its effectiveness in the performance of employees, such as their mood or affect, and mental strength. Affect is very strong in determining the effect of peer pressure within an organization. An employee will want to stay where their emotions and moods get the necessary accommodation as deserved, and as such, will either join groups or stay out of groups depending on their emotions and their personal moods. Emotional stability creates an enabling environment for employees to discharge their duties diligently and as such in an effort to enhance the productivity of the organization. Employees with a positive mood towards their work and the organization perform their duties more diligently as opposed to employees who have negative moods. This will also have a great effect on the effect of peer pressure within the organization Mental strength refers to the collection of attributes within and individual that allows the person to persevere through difficult times or circumstances without losing confidence, such as standing against peer pressure and upholding their own morals and beliefs. Control Variables Education of Employee Optimism Autonomy Organizational Culture Mediating Variables Mediating variables help to explain how or why the independent variables affect the dependent variables the way they do. For example, in this case, Performance Appraisal (Mediating variable) can be the reason why peer pressure (Independent variable) causes employee engagement (Dependent variable) to vary from one employee to another. In this study, the mediating variables may include: Positive Peer Pressure Peer influence refers to the level of influence that a peer group, observers, as well as other individuals exert on another individual or group in order to encourage others to change their values, attitudes, or behaviors so that they may be in conformity with the norms and practices of the group. Positive peer pressure encourages an employee to do the right things, as well as motivate them to join the right groups in order to foster personal development and increased productivity within the company. As such, active peer pressure refers to the explicit offer from an external force to join or be part of a group and verbal criticism following in the event of refusal to join the group. Active peer pressure affects employee engagement by forcing these employees to be part of a group, and as such, create an atmosphere that develops social cohesion and appropriate employee engagement. Positive peer pressure encourages active employee engagement whilst negative peer pressure discourages active employee engagement. Negative Peer Pressure Negative peer pressure makes an employee to be unruly and disloyal to the organization, and in some cases, disobedient. In turn, this leads to low employee engagement and reduced productivity within the organization. Passive peer pressure capitalizes on the independent personal desires of an individual or an employee to fit into a given group, or to adopt both the values and practices of other groups or members of the organization. Passive peer pressure may either encourage or discourage employee engagement depending on its nature. For instance, an employee who wants to be part of the executive team may adopt that peer pressure to grow and develop him or herself through active employee engagement in order to get recognition from the management, and as such, create a good name for a promotion to the executive team. Theory Suggestions Social Learning Theory This theory originated from Albert Bandura while he was researching modeling and limitation (Fedman, 1993). The theory postulates that behavior learnable at the cognitive level by observation of what people around a person are doing. According to Bandura, people can imagine themselves in the same situations as other, working in the same way and achieving the same outcomes. Once the individual learns the behavior, then he or she can take different actions depending on the outcomes of the behavior. Forinstance, it is possible to reinforce theoutcomes if they are desirable or it to punish these outcomes if they turn out to be undesirable. Social leaning theory is a psychological theory largely developed from the operant conditioning theory. The later theory bases on the concepts of motivation, reinforcement and punishment. In Bandura’s explanation of self-learning theory, self-reinforcement or external reinforcement influence motivation. In this study, the theory is applicable in the discussion of the effect of peer pressure on employee engagement on the same principles laid down by Bandura. Employees in all organizations learn from others by observing their actions and asking questions among other things. Some of the things they learn from others may be helpful towards improving work engagement while others may not. It is therefore imperative to reinforce the traits that are good for work engagement among the employees through different types of motivation, either from fellow employees or from the organization. On the other hand, traits negative to motivation are punishable. Research Hypotheses In this research, it is expected that a relationship will be established between performance appraisal policies and employee engagement levels. The following are the hypothesized outcomes of the study 1. Hypothesis 1 (Null hypothesis) There is no significant relationship between performance appraisal policies and engagement levels among employees 2. Hypothesis 2 – The presence of properly structured and clearly outlined performance appraisal policies increases the engagement levels among employees. Under this hypothesis, it is expected that a significant positive relationship will be established between the clearly outlined appraisal policies and employee engagement levels. This is based on the premise that clearly defined policies lead to a more predictable work environment. This in turn leads to employees being more receptive of their workplace and therefore being more engaged. Moreover, clearly defined appraisal policies ensure that employees are aware of what is expected of them. Such policies also lead to increased employee motivation and the overall effect is that they increase employee engagement in their jobs. 3. Hypothesis 3 – the presence of properly structured and clearly outlined performance appraisal policies does not increaser engagement levels among employees This hypothesis attempts to establish that while clearly defined appraisal policies increase employee engagement, the absence of such appraisal policies does not necessarily affect employee engagement levels. The implication would be that job engagement levels re not reduced by the absence of proper appraisal policies. This premise builds on Herzberg’s two-factor theory, which established motivators versus satisfiers. In his model, motivators increase job satisfaction but do not affect dissatisfaction. Similarly, properly structured policies can be considered to increase engagement levels, but their absence not to affect initial engagement levels. Research Methodology Qualitative and quantitative research methods will be used to explore the research questions. Both primary and secondary sources of data will be used and reviewed. Primary sources of data will be used both qualitatively and quantitatively to establish variables. Qualitatively, primary data will be used to capture employee engagement levels through interviews and observation of employees as they work. A five-point Likert scale will be used to evaluate employee engagement with responses ranging from very engaged to very disengaged. Data on employee engagement levels will then be evaluated against performance appraisal awareness of the respective employees as well as performance appraisal techniques and outcomes. Primary data will also be used quantitatively to determine correlations and patterns between outcomes of different employees. Secondary data to be reviewed will include work that has been done on employee engagement, as well as that on the effect of performance appraisal policies on employees. The data will then be used to validate the outcomes of the primary research data collected. Moreover, secondary data will also be important in establishing the performance appraisal policies at the university. Secondary data will mainly serve qualitative purposes of validating the data and establishing generalizability of the study. Other qualitative purposes will include establishing how sound the appraisal policies at the university are. Relevant Background Literature Employee engagement can broadly be thought of as the extent to which an employee is submerged and absorbed into their work duties in an organization. Bakker and Demeroutidefine work engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (2008, p. 209). They go on to define vigor as the presence of high levels of energy and mental resilience during work; dedication as the strong involvement in work, accompanied with a sense of enthusiasm significance and challenge; and absorption as strong attachment to one’s work resulting in full concentration and high levels of engrossment. Engaged employees are usually in control of their life events and provide their own positive feedback. They report high levels of energy and self-efficacy (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). They further derive pleasure in feeling tired after a long day’s work, and this pleasure is attributed to feelings of positive accomplishment. Most importantly, work engagement does not imply work addiction, since most of these individuals also enjoy other activities outside of their work. Work engagement is measurable in different ways. The most common way is using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) which usually measures three engagement variables: vigor, dedication and absorption(Schaufeli and Bakker, 2003). Another tool that may be used to measure work engagement is the OLBI tool, which is short for Oldenburg Burnout Inventory(Bakker and Demerouti, 2008). This tool is appropriate for use by recoding negatively framed items. Work engagement is important because it has been shown to offer a number of benefits. For example, according to Bakker, et al., (2007) daily work engagement levels in a weekly diary study of 54 starting teachers was shown to be predictive of class performance. Moreover, in a study of Finnish educational staff by Hakanen, their self-rated health and working abilities was positively related to their work engagement. Another study by Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) reported a positive relation between employee engagement levels and business-unit performance (Bakker, et al., 2007). This clearly indicates that there are positive outcomes that can be expected when there is a high level of employee engagement. There are several drivers of work engagement. Such drivers include job resources, which are physical, social or organizational aspects of a job. According to (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008), such resources can serve either intrinsic motivation purposes or extrinsic ones. Intrinsic purposes arise because such resources allow the employee to grow or develop, while extrinsic functions occur since such resources allow for achievement of work goals. Another factor that affects employee engagement is personal resources, which pertain to the ability of individuals to control and have an impact on their environment. They are linked to resiliency. They facilitate work engagement by improving an individual’s self-regard and increasing the goal self-accordance of the individual. Clearly then, there are several drivers of work engagement. Performance appraisal by virtual of originating from the organization, can be considered a job resource. Nonetheless, it may also be considered to be a personal resource, because it allows the individual to evaluate their own personal progress. In the first instance, as a job resource, performance appraisal policies serve an extrinsic motivational role as well as an intrinsic one. Xanthopoulou et al., indicate that extrinsically, job resources provide instrumental assistance or information that may be required to achieve particular goals (2009).Performance appraisals provide benchmarks which employees can use to achieve their work goals, thereby serving up his extrinsic purpose. Thus, the characteristics of such policies determine how they affect job engagement. Where such policies are elaborate and clearly outlined, then employees know what is expected of them and they are therefore better placed to achieve their goals. In this sense, the appraisal policy plays a supportive role. Intrinsically, job resources serve fulfill needs such as autonomy, competence and relatedness. Performance feedback has indeed been shown to be positively related to work engagement (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009).Performance appraisal processes can provide feedback for employees and can therefore serve the purpose of intrinsic motivation that job resources serve. However, the capacity of performance appraisal procedures to achieve these goals is dependent on the performance appraisal policies of the organizations in question. References Amy DelPo Attorney. (2007). Performance Appraisal Handbook. Nolo Amy. (2013).Personal Hygiene Issues Stump Workers.The Chicago Tribune. February 24, 2013. Retrieved from: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-24/features/ct-sun-0224-amy-20130224_1_hygiene-retainer-placement-agency Bakker, A. B. &Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources Model: State of the Art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328. Bakker, A. B. &Demerouti, E. (2008).Towards A Model of Work Engagement. Career Development International, 13, 209–223. Bakker, A. B., &Xanthopoulou, D. (2009). The Crossover of Daily Work Engagement: Test of an Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1562–1571. Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., &Xan-thopoulou, D. (2007). Job Resources Boost Work Engagement Particularly When Job Demands Are High. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 274–284 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182 Barsade, S. (2002). The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and Its Influence on Group Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644–677 Brian, T. (2012). Six Time Management Tips to Increase Productivity and Improve Your Organizational Skills. Brian Tracy’s Blog, June 7, 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.briantracy.com/blog/time-management/6-time-management-tips-to-increase-productivity-organizational-skills/ Chidambaram, V. &Ramachandran, A. (2012). A Study on Efficiency of Employee Training Review of Literature.Business Theory & Practice, 13(3), 275-282. Chowhan, J., Cooke, G., Karlene, H. &Zeutinoglu, I. (2008). Low-Paid Workers and On-The-Job Training in Canada. Relations Industrielles, 63(1), -29. Collings, D. & Wood, G. (2009). Human Resource Management: A Critical Approach. London: Routledge Publishers. Digital Landfill. (2010). Eight Ways Your Organization Can Improve Efficiency, Increase Productivity, and Reduce Risk. Digital Landfill, January 06, 2010. Retrieved from: http://aiim.typepad.com/aiim_blog/2010/01/ecmseminar.html Dyck, B. &Neubert, M. (2008), Management: Current Practices and New Directions. Boston: Houghton Miffl in Harcourt Publishing Company. Eduardo, S. & Rebecca, G. (2011). The Transfer of Training: What Really Matters. International Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103-120. Feldman, P. (1993). The Psychology of Crime A Social Science Textbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gibb, S. (2003). “Line Manager Involvement in Learning and Development: Small Beer or Big Deal?” Employee Relations, 25(3), 281-293. Halbesleben, J.B., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The Relative Roles of Engagement and Embeddedness in Predicting Job Performance and Intention to Leave.Work& Stress, 22, 242–256. Hamlet, C. & Demand Media. (n.d). How to Improve Productivity in an Organization.The Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/improve-productivity-organization-10619.html Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-Unit-Level Relationships between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279. Heinrich, C., Hill, C. & Lynn, L., 2002, Improving Governance: A New Logic for Empirical Research, Georgetown University Press, Georgetown. Hitt, M., Hoskisson, R. & Ireland, D. (2012). Strategic Management Cases: Competitiveness and Globalization, Stamford, Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Jackson, S., Schuler, R. & Werner, S. (2012). Human Resource Management. Stamford, Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Jean-Francois, C. (2011). Does National Culture Affect Firm Investment in Training and Development? Academy Of Management Perspectives, 25(4), 85-87. King, M. (2011). HR: Your Friend Or Your Foe? The Guardian. May 28, 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/may/28/hr-friend-or-foe-human-resources Lawler E. E. (1973). Motivation in Work Organization. Monterey: Brookes-Cole Publishing, P. 61-87 Leist, L. (2011). Eliminate the Chaos at Work: 25 Techniques to Increase Productivity. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Lohr, S. (2013).Big Data, Trying To Build Better Workers.The New York Times. April 20, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/technology/big-data-trying-to-build-better-workers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., &Avolio, B. J. (2007).Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row. Menon, R. (2010). Employees’ Emotional Satisfaction. Gulf News. April 18, 2010. Retrieved from: http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/education/employees-emotional-satisfaction-1.613704 Parker, S. K., &Ohly, S. (2008). Designing Motivating Jobs. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. Pritchard (Eds.), Work Motivation: Past, Present, and Future. SIOP Organizational Frontiers Series. Perlow, L. (2012). Why ‘Work-Life Balance’ does not Work. The Washington Post. July 11, 2012. Retrieved from: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-07-11/national/35486239_1_work-life-balance-values-personal-time Rothmann, S., & Storm, K. (2003). Work Engagement in the South African Police Service. Paper Presented At The 11th European Congress Of Work And Organizational Psychology, 14–17 May 2003, Lisbon, Portugal. Salanova, M., Agut, S., &Peiro, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1217–1227. Sandra, S. (2011). Improved Management Productivity and Control. Improved Productivity, September 19, 2011. Retrieved from: http://impac.org.au/ Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job Demands, Job Resources, And Their Relationship With Burnout And Engagement: A Multi-Sample Study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. Schaufeli, W. B., &Salanova, M. (2007).Work Engagement: An Emerging Psychological Concept and Its Implications for Organizations. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research In Social Issues In Management (Volume 5): Managing Social And Ethical Issues In Organizations. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers Simons, R. (2011). Human Resource Management: Issues Challenges and Opportunities. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., &Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 235-244 Zajac, E. &Shortell, M. 1990. Perceptual and Archival Measures of Miles and Snows Strategic Types: A Comprehensive Assessment of Reliability and Validity. Academy of Management Journal, 33:817-32. Read More