Analysis of Performance Appraisal - Coursework Example

Analyzing Data There have been various researches conducted on determining the viability and effectiveness of performance appraisals in organizations. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the data that examines the performance appraisal system of the Ministry of Water and Electricity in Saudi Arabia in terms of evaluating the tabulated results from questionnaire that listed the purpose of performance appraisal as perceived by the employees and by the managers; and through a set of twelve interview questions directed to six managers of the organization. The discourse hereby presents the analysis, as required. 1. The Purpose of the Performance Appraisal The results for the purpose of the PA as perceived by employees and managers were exactly parallel with those perceived by managers. The number one purpose identified by both was to give feedback and the least was to provide a structure of a plan of organizational success. As indicated from Table 1, the number one purpose of the performance appraisal (PA) for employees is to give feedback where 26.7% of the employees strongly agreed and 57.3% agreed. The second purpose was to develop employees’ performance at 25.3% (strongly agreed) and a staggering 61.3% of the employees agreed. The third most important purpose for the employees is to relieve uncertainty among employees where 22.7% and 56% strongly agreed and agreed, respectively. On the other hand, the results from Table 2 revealed that managers perceive giving feedback as its primary purpose where 33.3% of the respondents strongly agreed and 66.7% agreed. This purpose was seconded by developing employees’ performance at 16.7% (strongly agreed) and 83.3% of the managers agreed. However, second rank for both was to develop employees’ performance. It should be noted that managers also ranked “to improve communication among employees” as a second most important purpose for PA, where 50% strongly agreed and 33.3% agreed. The third most important purpose for PA, as perceived by managers, is actually three: to allocate financial rewards, to determine promotion, and to motivate employees where 50%, 33.3% and 66.7% strongly agreed, respectively. The least perceived purpose for the PA for employees and managers was to provide a structure of a plan of organizational success with only 9.3% of employees and none of the managers strongly agreed on this; 33.3% and 16.7% of employees and managers, respectively, agreed. 2. Problems and Challenges in Implementing Performance Appraisals (PA) There is diversity in response between employees and managers when asked what they think are the problems and challenges associated with PA. Employees ranked not having feedback from managers and identified problem in the PA as number 1. According to Table 3, the most significant challenges and problems associated with PA in the point of view of employees are: “managers do not have a performance feedback during meetings with their employees” (where 26.7% strongly agreed and 38.7% agreed) and “there is a problem in the performance appraisal process in the Ministry” (where 29.3% strongly agreed and 30.7% agreed), both ranking number 1. On the other hand, mangers emphasized problems in design in PA form as the number one, where 16.7% strongly agreed and 50% agreed. There were parallel results in the second rank where personal friendships are viewed as influencing PA results, and therefore, a dilemma with 33.3% of managers strongly agreed and 29.3% of employees strongly agreed and 32% agreed, sharing the same sentiment. The third defined problems and challenges for employees was fear of negative effect on the employees’ position where 20% strongly agreed and 41.3% agreed. On the part of the managers, “employees do not get a copy from their performance appraisal reports” was ranked third with 16.7% and 33.3% strongly agreed and agreed, respectively. There was likewise diversity in the least perceived problem between employees and managers. Employees do not see it a problem that they are not given PA results. The least identified problem and challenge was “employees do not get a copy from their PA reports” for employees with 17.3% strongly agreed and 24% of the employees agreed. On the other hand, managers see PA as part of their job and responsibilities, therefore, the least problem/challenges was that “it is an addition job to be completed by managers” where no respondent strongly agreed nor agreed, respectively. 3. Interview Results a. Summary of Data (1) Main purpose for implementing PA and does it achieve its objectives. Majority of the managers (4 out of 6) revealed that the main purpose of PA is to determine the performance of employees. Only one manager indicated giving feedback as the purpose of PA. Likewise, 3 out of 5 of the respondents viewed that the PA did not achieve its objectives. (2) Training to Conduct an Appraisal. A total of 4 out of 6 managers responded that they were not given any training in conducting a PA because most of them viewed it as unnecessary or they were not given the opportunity to do so. (3) Feedback to Employees after PA A total of three managers did not interview nor give feedback to their employees after the PA; two managers gave feedback and one sometimes did. The reasons for not giving feedback range from deeming it a routinary exercise and seeing the need for feedback only when the results are low. (4) Criteria and Measurement of Performance There were diverse responses with criteria being indicated as unclear and measurement ranges from mistakes in the job, feedback from customers, work behavior, among others. (5) If Saudi culture is compatible to two-way communication There were equal responses ( 3 yes and 3 no) depending on the kind of corporation. As revealed, private organizations are more compatible with using two-way communication while public corporations do not apply this. (6) PA as improving individual performance A total of 5 out of 6 managers responded positively seeing PA as improving individual performance. Only one manager no giving reasons such as it being unclear and providing no incentives for promotion. (7) If the Ministry is capable to implement PA Majority of the managers (4 out of 5) recognized that there has been no training for PA and that 3 out of 4 acknowledged that the Ministry has no capabilities to implement PA in terms of human capacity. (8) Suggestions for Improvement in implementation of PA All respondents felt that there is a need to improve in terms of using KPI, linking pay to performance, raising the accountability of managers, linking performance to goals, using electronic form, and involving managers in the process. (9) PA as linked to salary Only one viewed PA as linked to salary and promotions. The rest indicated that it should actually be linked (4 out of 5) because by linking PA to salary and promotions, employees who are hardworking would be more motivated to perform as good performance would be rewarded more. (10) Appraisal Forms A total of 5 out of 6 managers indicated that the forms are clear and easy to use but needs to be updated, modified and linked to purpose. Only one saw it an unclear. (11) Is it time consuming or worthy? Majority of the managers found it worthy (5 out of 6) and 6 managers said it was not at all time consuming. (12) Assessment of PA in the Ministry and Problems and Challenges A total of 5 out of 6 managers of the managers assessed that the PA was not successful due to the identified problems and challenges, to wit: partiality and lack of clarity, no effect, not an incentive, not properly implemented, among others. b. Data Analysis Interview results were different from those revealed from the questionnaires particularly in areas of purpose of the PA, where managers answered giving feedback as number one. The interview showed that majority of the managers perceived that PAs are used to evaluate the performance of their employees in terms of strengths and weaknesses. However, there are parallel results in the questionnaire and in the interview in terms of managers seeing the worthiness of the PA and indicating that this is part of their job. The problems and challenges as perceived by managers from the questionnaires were different from the interview. The questionnaire emphasized the problem in the design of the form and personal friendships influencing the results of the PA. On the other hand, from the interviews, more details were provided such as the lack of clarity not only in the design but in terms of standards and objectives; as well as its failure to motivate employees towards improved performance. c. Findings From the disparity between the results provided from the questionnaires and those from interviews, it can be deduced that the difference could be accounted for by the manner of presentation. The questionnaires were structured in a way that the purposes were clearly identified and make it easy for the respondents to indicate their choice. From the interview, the answers of the managers would depend of different factors: time of the interview, personal feeling or mental state of mind of the managers, was there any pressure in answering, what were the expectations, among others. Although the questionnaire has many options, the answers were limited to these options. There was an answer leading to some problems in the appraisal process in the Ministry but options for indicating what in particular, was not provided. In this regard, to increase the credibility of the results, it is always most useful to combine both the questionnaire method and interviews to qualify, expound, and determine the details of findings provided in each method. As indicated, there were eminent problems in the design of the PA in the organization that needs to be addressed in terms of updating and modifying it to contemporary applications. Further, objectives for the PA must be clearly and accurately defined and relayed to all employees and managers, as needed. These objectives serve as goals for the PA but some standards or criteria must still be set to determine if employees adhere to these standards. Measuring the level of performance must be structured and designed to incorporate incentives and motivation towards improvement in productivity and performance, as the ultimate purpose of the PA. Read More