perception of performance appraisal as a tool for enhanced productivity and career advancement in...
Post on 16-Nov-2014
3.702 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
PERCEPTION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AS A TOOL FOR
ENHANCED PRODUCTIVITY AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT IN
THREE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES IN OGUN STATE, NIGERIA
ONUOHA, ULOMA DORIS
BABCOCK UNIVERSITY,
ILISHAN REMO- OGUN STATE
NIGERIA
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research work was to identify the perception of library staff on the effect of performance appraisal on productivity and career growth in order to enhance the provision of information services through effective performance appraisals. Descriptive analytic approach was adopted for the study. The study population was made up of 92 library employees selected from Babcock University, Ilishan – Remo; Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago - Iwoye; and University of Agriculture, Abeokuta. 92 questionnaires were distributed to all the Professional Librarians, Para professionals and graduates in other fields. 78.2% (85) of the questionnaires distributed were retrieved. Four research questions were tested and the results were analyzed using the percentage method. The results revealed that 32 (27.2%) saw performance appraisal as a routine exercise, 25 (21.25%) saw it as a tool for improving performance, 16 (13.6%) perceived it as a tool for staff compensation while only 5(4.25%) saw it as a tool for favouring a few people on the job. Majority of the respondents felt that performance appraisal has positive influence on job performance and enhances career growth. The study concluded by arguing that performance appraisal can only be meaningful if employees’ job descriptions are reviewed to include job performance. The paper finally recommends that Libraries should carry out internal appraisals apart from the appraisal conducted by the personnel department for the sole purpose of correcting deviations and recommendations for improvement must accompany every identified area of weakness.
INTRODUCTION
Libraries exist with the sole aim of organizing human and material resources to produce
knowledge and services that support man in his attempt to control the universe
(Ologbonsaiye, 1993). While information resources are valuable to the existence of any
library, their selection, acquisition, processing and organization will however remain a
human function, which can only be carried out by the library staff. Library staff provides
access to the information held in a libraries’ collection. The term “performance appraisal”
applies to judgment on individual job performance. Individual job performance on the
other hand is a multidimensional idea consisting of many facets; which range from an
employee’s output (job result) to employee mode of accomplishing his or her task (job
behaviour), and the employee’s attitude towards his or her job (personal traits) (Wallace
& Szilagyi,1982).
While the concept of performance appraisal is not new, the study of employee perception
of the concept is still going on. Mullins (1996) defines perception as “the mental
function of giving significance to stimuli”. The process of perception explains the manner
in which information from the environment is selected and organised to provide meaning
for an individual. People see things in different ways bringing about different reactions to
the same issue. The way the library staff perceives performance appraisal affects the
importance that is attached to it.
Olabisi Onabanjo University library can best be described as a “complex of libraries”. It
is made up of the main library at the mini campus and four branch libraries which include
the law library, faculty of Arts, Social Sciences and Management Sciences libraries all at
the main campus. There is a Medical library situated at Sagamu and the Sopolu library at
Ikenne Remo. College of Agriculture library, College of Engineering and Technology
library at Ibogon, are also part of Olabisi Onabanjo Library. The total collection of the
central library is about 40,000 volumes of books, and journals. Combined with the other
branches; the library is said to posses an estimated 75,000 volumes of textbooks and
2,000 journal titles. The library has total staff strength of 147 which includes 25
professional librarians, 13 Para - professional librarians and 10 graduates in other
professions who are regarded as library assistants.
Babcock University Library is made up of four service points, known as the Main library,
Education and Humanities library, Management and Social Sciences library and Science
and Technology library. As at the time of this study Babcock University library has over
42,692 volumes of books and 450 periodical titles. The library has a staff strength of 44,
which includes 5 professional librarians, 2 Para-professional librarians and 3 graduates in
other fields who are considered as administrative staff.
University of Agriculture, Abeokuta’s library, has a collection of about 16, 000 volumes
of books and 95 periodical titles. The make up of the library staff is unique. It is made up
of 9 professional librarians and 25 Para professional librarians. The library has a staff
strength of 34.
Statement of problem
Organizations stretch scarce resources in preparing and executing performance
appraisals, which will form the basis of most management decisions in matters of salary
reviews and promotions. Considering the budget and importance of appraisals in
management decisions, one wonders why performance appraisal does not always lead to
increase in performance and productivity.
Except administrators understand the subordinates view of the appraisal system, libraries
and indeed their parent institutions, would from year to year spend time and money in
carrying out performance appraisals that would end up at very minimal contribution to
the growth of the library and indeed the parent institution.
Performance appraisal in University libraries
University libraries are libraries in higher institutions of learning. They aid the host
institutions where they are situated to achieve their objectives (Odiase, Unegbu & Haliso,
2001). The University Librarian is responsible for the leadership of a University library
he or she is responsible for all the staff in the library. Performance management in the
library begins with the University Librarian linking the goals of the library to the strategic
goals of the parent institution. Professional librarians working in University libraries are
classified as academic staff in the University system, which means that the mode of
performance appraisal for librarians is based mainly on community service and number
of publications rather than office performance, however librarians in carrying out their
professional duties either as chief catalogers, reference librarians or head of technical
services, find themselves in positions where they are responsible for the allocation,
supervision and evaluation of the work performance of others. Performance appraisal in
academic libraries is therefore a means of control through which library administrators
monitor the job performance of subordinates by observing variances between set goals
and actual performance and taking corrective actions. This view is shared by (Schachter,
2004; Kleiner 2005).
After surveying library literature it is apparent that most academic library administrations
implement some type of performance appraisal. Sometimes disparity may exist regarding
the process itself and the goals sought (Edwards & Williams, 1998). University libraries
perform staff evaluation in line with the rules and procedures mapped out by their parent
institutions (Arnold, 2005). In most cases, it has been observed that performance
appraisal in libraries are conducted following the guidelines set forth by the human
resource department for the host institution. Experience has however shown that centrally
devised appraisal instruments designed by human resource department fail to address
differences in activities from one department to the other. The work performed at the
Bursary department is certainly different from the work performed in the library. Even
within the library, the work performed by readers’ services is different from the work
performed by Technical services. While the readers’ services is service oriented and
difficult to measure, technical services has more quantifiable measures as the number of
books catalogued in a day can be easily ascertained.
Despite the disparity in the various departments within the library, Belcastro (1998)
argues that the evaluation of performance, whether for customer service or any other unit,
must be based on behaviors that are measurable. In order to make the work at readers’
services measurable, Kleiner (2005), addressed seven categories to be considered as:
approachability, patron interaction, question negotiation, consultations and referrals,
familiarity with reference resources, staff interaction and individual attitudes.
Irrespective of what is being measured, evaluation can only be valid if it measures
performance-related behaviours and productivity, and reliable if it provides a consistent
view of work performance (Slough, 2003).
The study on performance appraisal in libraries is not new, for instance Evans (2005)
carried a study on Librarians Perception of Performance Appraisal using 407 librarians.
Out of those interviewed 90.6% agreed that performance appraisal is necessary for good
supervision, 9.4% disagreed. When asked if they feel comfortable in conducting
performance appraisal in libraries, 16.7% said yes while 83.3% said no. When asked “Do
you think that the process has positive influence on the employee performance?” 87.0%
said no. Hansen (1995) also conducted an in-depth study of staff appraisal schemes in
three British University libraries in 1993, the result of the study revealed that the library
using its own appraisal scheme devoted more time and attention to it against those who
applied general appraisal schemes. It also revealed that when recommended follow-up
actions such as enabling attendance at training courses was followed up, staff showed
more interest in appraisals. George (1995) in her study “Performance appraisal in an
Academic library discovered that Librarians dislike the appraisal system because they are
not involved in developing the appraisal instrument.
Despite the use of performance appraisal in libraries, arguments abound on the use of
appraisals. Opponents of performance appraisal such as Deming as cited by Labig &Chye
(1996) is of the view that performance appraisals nourishes short term performance,
builds fear, demolishes team work and nourishes rivalry and politics. Supporters of
performance appraisal such as Casio (1996) and Wilson (2001) are however of the
opinion that Performance appraisal is the logical means to appraise, develop, and
effectively utilize employee’s knowledge and capabilities.
Research methodology
Descriptive survey approach was adopted. In selecting the population for this study,
Professional Librarians, Para professional Librarians and graduates in other fields were
considered. The population is therefore made up of the 34 library staff from the
University of Agriculture Abeokuta, 10 library staff from Babcock University library and
48 library staff of Olabisi Onabanjo library, making the total population 92.
The sampling is enumerative as all members of the population were taken as subjects for
this study. A four point likert type questionnaire was used for data collection. The
questionnaire used was tagged “Perception of Performance Appraisal as a tool for
Productivity and Career Enhancement Questionnaire”. Reactions to each item in the
questionnaire were indicated by ticking one of the options in the category strongly agree,
agree, disagree and strongly disagree. The scales were given values of 4, 3, 2 and 1
respectively, however scoring was reversed for negatively worded items. The scores of
the items were later added up to yield an individual’s attitude score.
The simple percentage method was used for data analysis. A total of 92 questionnaires
were sent out to the respondents, out of which 85 were returned thereby representing a
response rate of 78.2%.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Tables 1-4 present the results of findings. The respondents were asked to agree strongly
(SA), agree (A), disagree (D) or strongly disagree (SD) to the statements in the tables, F
stands for Frequency of response.
In order to find out how library staff understand or perceive the term “performance
appraisal” the question which says “which of the following do you consider as the
appropriate definition of performance appraisal?” was asked.
Table 1 Perception of performance appraisal
S/N Question Response
frequency
%
1 Performance appraisal is the routine evaluation of
work
32 27.2
2 Performance appraisal is a management technique
aimed at gathering feedback
7 5.95
3 Performance appraisal is a management tool for
improving performance
25 21.25
4 Performance appraisal is a tool for staff
compensation
16 13.6
5 Performance appraisal is a management tool used in
favouring a few people on the job
5 4.25
Source: Author’s data presentation, 2007
From the analyses carried out majority of the respondents 32 (27.2%) felt that
performance appraisal is a routine evaluation of work performance. In order words, it is
merely a form filling exercise. 5(4.25%) saw it as a management tool used in favouring a
few people on the job. This finding is in line with the findings of Evans (2005) who
discovered that librarians feel uncomfortable with conducting performance appraisal in
libraries. This implies that library administrators should seek out ways of making
performance appraisal more acceptable to library staff.
.
Table 2 Influence of performance appraisal on job performance
S/N SA A D SD No
response
F % F % F % F % F %
1 Performance appraisal improves
job performance
32 27.2 37 31.4
5
10 8.5 6 5.1 - -
2 The assessment of performance
motivates me to work harder
26 22.1 40 34 11 9.35 8 6.8 - -
3 Performance goals are clearly
defined in the process of appraisal
22 18.7 30 25.5 20 17 5 4.25 8 6.8
4 My performance is adequately
monitored during performance
appraisal
18 15.3 34 28.9 19 16.1
5
8 6.8 6 5.1
5 Performance appraisal does not
contribute to job performance
6 5.1 15 12.7
5
34 28.9 24 20.4 6 5.1
6 Library objectives are not clearly
defined during appraisals
9 7.65 11 9.35 30 25.5 35 29.7
5
- -
7 I do not need feedback to monitor
my performance
25 21.2
5
20 17 13 11.0
5
27 22.9
5
- -
Source: Author’s data presentation, 2007
While responding to the statement that performance appraisal improves job performance,
69(58.65%) agreed while 16(13.6) disagreed. Even when put negatively in number five
(5) “Performance appraisal does not contribute to job performance, only 21(17.85%) of
the respondents agreed while 58. (49.3%) disagreed. This implies that library staff
perceive performance appraisal as having positive effect on job performance. The finding
however disagrees with that of Nelson (2005), whose study showed that performance
appraisal has no positive influence on the employee’s job performance.
Table 3 Perceived effect of performance appraisal on career advancement
S/N SA A D SD No
response
F % F % F % F % F %
1 The appraisal of performance
provides an opportunity for training
22 18.7 35 29.7
5
18 15.3
0
10 8.5 - -
2 I receive coaching during
performance evaluations
9 7.65 24 20.4 31 26.3
5
13 11.0
5
8 6.8
3 I discover some of my weakness
during appraisals
14 11.9 38 32.3 17 14.4
5
10 8.5 6 5.1
4 Appraisals enhances the chances for
promotion
36 30.6 29 24.6
5
12 10.2 8 6.8 - -
5 Performance appraisal provides me
with the opportunity to set personal
goals
19 16.1
5
38 32.3 14 11.9 8 6.8 6 5.1
6 Appraisals encourage career growth 32 27.2 37 31.4
5
10 8.5 6 5.1 - -
7 Performance appraisals do not 5 4.25 8 6.8 37 31.4 29 24.6 6 5.1
encourage career growth 5 5
Source: Author’s data presentation, 2007
Analysis of this table shows that performance appraisal provides an opportunity for
career enhancement as seen in table 4 items 4 and 6. Responding to the statement
“appraisals enhance the chances for promotion”, 55.25% of the total number of
respondents gave positive indications while 17% disagreed. Responses to the statement
“performance appraisal encourages career growth” were also on the positive side with 69
or 58.65% in agreement. This is in agreement with the findings of Hansen (1995)
Table 4 Preparation of performance appraisal instrument
S/N SA A D SD No
response
F % F % F % F % F %
1 Librarians are better equipped than
the human resource department to
organize work oriented appraisals
for the library staff
30 25.5 25 21.2
5
15 12.7
5
9 7.65 6 5.1
2 Librarians lack the necessary
administrative skills for conducting
performance appraisal
8 6.8 20 17 29 24.6
5
22 18.7 6 5.1
3 I will be more committed to
performance appraisals organized
within the library than those of the
personnel department
28 23.8 28 23.8 22 18.7 7 5.95 - -
4 Performance appraisal instrument
drawn out by librarians will be more
task oriented than those handed
28 23.8 33 20.0
5
18 15.3
0
6 5.1 - -
down by the personnel department
5 Librarians will prepare the appraisal
instrument to favour some people
11 9.35 17 14.4
5
37 31.4
5
20 17 - -
6 Librarians should work hand in hand
with the personnel department when
preparing the appraisal instrument
36 30.6 25 21.2
5
16 13.6
0
8 6.8 - -
Source: Author’s data presentation, 2007
The result of the data collected shows that 55 (46.75%) feel that they will be more
committed to performance appraisals organised within the library than those organised by
the personnel department against 29(24.65%) who felt otherwise.55 (46.75%) were of the
opinion that librarians are better equipped to organise work oriented appraisals for the
library staff. 24(20.4%) did not share the same opinion. 6(5.1%) did not respond to that
statement. This finding agrees with the findings of George (1995) Hansen (1995.
Conclusion
As long as appraisal reports continue to form the basis for managerial decisions in
matters affecting staff welfare, organizations must find ways of making them relate to
productivity or scrap them entirely. Failure to find a good appraisal system will affect the
way library employees go about their day to day activities and this will result in poor
services. Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are made;
1 Libraries should carry out internal appraisals apart from the appraisal conducted
by the personnel department for the sole purpose of correcting deviations.
2 Recommendations for improvement must accompany every identified area of
weakness in order to improve performance.
3 The appraisal exercise should be made rewarding for employees by identifying
and making provisions for staff development.
References
Belcastro, P. (1998) Evaluating Library Staff: A Performance Appraisal System
Chicago: American Library Association p7
Casio, W. (1996). Managing for maximum performance. HRMontly, (September),
Pp 10-13
Edward, R. G., & Williams C.J., 91998) Performance appraisal in academic
Libraries: Minor changes or major renovation? Library review vol. 47
No1pp14-19available@ http/www.emeraldlibrary.com accessed on 8/2/05
Evans, E. G. (2005) Another Look at Performance Appraisal in libraries
available @ www.unesco.org/webworld/ramp/html accessed
8/2/05
George, V. E. (1995) Performance appraisal in an academic library: A case study
In Total quality management in academic libraries: Initial implementation
efforts. Proceedings from the 1st International Conference on TQM and
Academic Libraries Washington, D. C. Association of Research Libraries
held April 20 -22, 1994 pp 141 -156
Hansen E. (1995) Staff appraisal in university libraries: three case studies.
Personnel Education & Training, Vol.11 nos 1/2, 1995, p.3-5.
available at www.aslib.co.uk/caa/abstracts/open/95-
1002.html accessed on 19/9/05
Kleiner, P. J (2005) Ensuring quality reference desk service: The introduction of a
peer process availabe @
ala.org/ala/rusa/rusapubs/rusa/specialfeadtures /…/1992/1992.htm accessed on
19/5/05
Mullins, J. L. (1996) Management and Organisational Behaviour 4th
ed.London: Pitman Publishing p 140
Odiase, J.O. U, Unegbu, V.E & Haliso, Y (2001) Introductionto the use of
libraries and information sources Benin City: Nationwide publications p22
Ologbonsaiye, I. R (1994) Resource Management for Librarians Lagos:
Concept Publication Limited P 35-40
Schachter, D. (2004, Sept.) How to set performance goals: Employee reviews are
More critical than annual critiques Information Outlook p2
Slough, M (2003) Personnel evaluation available @
techserv.lib.vt.edu/TechServices/LAMAWeb/Personnel
%20Evaluation.doc accessed on 3/9/05
Wallace, M. & Szilagyi, A. (1982) Managing behaviour in organizations Illinois:
Scot, Foresman & Company pp 246- 268
Wilson, J. (2001). Performance appraisal – An obstacle to training and
development? Career Development International Vol.6 No2 p93
top related