Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2017, Vol. 7, No. 4
http://jpag.macrothink.org
24
Performance Appraisal and Employee Productivity in
Plateau State Internal Revenue Service, Nigeria
Solomon Sumumma Zayum (Corresponding author)
Registry Department, University of Agriculture P.M.B. 2373, Makurdi,
Benue State, Nigeria
E-mail: zayumsso@gmail.com
Oravee Aule
E-mail: oraveeaule@gmail.com
A. A. Hangeior
Department of Business Administration,
University of Agriculture P.M.B. 2373, Makurdi, Benue State, Nigeria
E-mail: apilly@gmail.com
Received: August 23, 2017 Accepted: September 12, 2017 Online published: October 9, 2017
doi:10.5296/jpag.v7i4.11973 URL: https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v7i4.11973
Abstract
The study examined the effect of Performance Appraisal on Employee Productivity in Plateau
State Internal Revenue Service. The study was guided by two objectives and two null
hypotheses of no significant relationship. The study adopts survey research design. The
population of the study consists of all 1580 employees of PSIRS. The sample size of the
study was 319; this was determined using Taro Yamane formula. The sample size was
allocated to the population using Bourley’s Proportional formula. The instrument of data
collection was a structured questionnaire. The instrument was subjected to face and content
validity. Cronbach alpha method was used to establish the internal consistency of the
questionnaire items. A reliability coefficient of 0.85 was obtained. Data collected were
analyzed using frequency, percentages and tables. Logit regression model was used to assess
the nature and degree of relationship between dependent variable and independent variables.
Log likelihood ratio Chi-square and Log likelihood estimates were used to test model fit of
Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2017, Vol. 7, No. 4
http://jpag.macrothink.org
25
the 2 hypotheses for the study; the z-statistics test was also used to test the independent
variables influence on the dependent variable. The study revealed that management by
objectives and 360 degree feedback appraisal techniques enhanced employee productivity in
PSIRS. It was recommended that, PSIRS should enforce management by objectives in order
to enable staff participate in organizational goal setting and understand areas of responsibility
so as to further improve productivity. The 360 degree feedback appraisal techniques should
also be encouraged to serve as pre-requisite for supervisors and employees to discuss
organizational weaknesses, productivity standards and areas of improvement.
Keywords: Performance, Appraisal, Employee, Productivity, Organization
1. Introduction
Performance appraisal is a review and discussion of an employee performance of assigned
duties and responsibilities globally. It is based on results obtained by the employee in his or
her job, not on the employee personality characteristics. Performance appraisal is an
important tool for human resource management. It is a means not only for evaluating
performance but also for achieving performance improvement among staff of an organization.
As an administrative activity which improves the chances of attaining organizational goals,
performance appraisal makes it mandatory for members of an organization to know what is
expected of them, and the indicators by which their productivity will be measured in order to
ensure organizational growth, staff progress, and goal attainment.
Performance appraisal is a systematic evaluation of the performance of an employee on his
present job and also in relation to future jobs that he may be required to take up (Hartzell,
2006). It measures and evaluates the results of the performance of workers pointing out their
potentialities and deficiencies so that they can improve over time. A good appraisal system is
so fundamental to the management of people in any organization. The success of the
organization itself depends largely on a good appraisal system. With a good appraisal system
those who contribute more will be adequately rewarded and the right type of people are likely
to be promoted into positions of higher responsibilities (Stonner, Freeman & Gilbert, 2005).
Thus, for any evaluation system to work well, the employees must understand it, must feel it
as fair, and must be work oriented enough to care about the results (Habibu, 1992). One way
to foster this understanding is for the employees to participate in the system design and be
trained to some extent in performance appraisal.
The underlying objective of performance appraisal in any organization is to improve the
productivity of workers. Thus, performance appraisal provides adequate feedback on how
staff are performing, by exposing them to knowledge and the result of their work; clear and
attainable goals of the organization; avenues for involvement in the setting of tasks and goals
(Mullins, 1999). These activities lead to improvement in the performance of personnel, and
higher productivity in the organization.
Plateau State Internal Revenue Service (PSIRS) is a major revenue-generating agency of the
State saddled with the responsibility of collecting all forms of taxes within its jurisdiction.
Just like other organizations in the state, PSIRS also partake in performance appraisal
Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2017, Vol. 7, No. 4
http://jpag.macrothink.org
26
exercises. The extent to which performance appraisal activities have resulted to productivity
of the organization (PSIRS) is the focus of the study.
1.1 Statement of the Problem
Performance appraisal provides a good opportunity to formally recognize employee
achievements and contributions to the organization, and to ensure that a clear link is
established and maintained between productivity and reward. It is necessary in an
organization because it helps in clarifying goals and expectations, and also creates an
environment for open communication. It brings about positive feedback and advice for
improving employee productivity.
However, it has been observed that performance appraisal system in Plateau State Internal
Revenue Service (PSIRS) is suffering some defects such as Lack of employee participation in
organizational goals setting that clarify organizational goals and expectations, and lack of
feedback of performance appraisal result to employee. The study therefore, investigated the
effect of performance appraisal on employee productivity in Plateau State Internal Revenue
Service.
1.2 Objectives of the Study
The main objective of the study is to examine the effect of performance appraisal on
employee productivity in Plateau State Internal Revenue Service. However, the specific
objectives are to:
i. to know if Management by Objectives method of performance appraisal enhanced
employee productivity in Plateau State Internal Revenue Service; and
ii. ascertain if 360 degree Feedback method of performance appraisal enhanced employee
productivity in Plateau State Internal Revenue Service.
1.3 Research Questions
The following research questions were raised and answered by the study;
i. To what extent has Management by Objectives method of performance appraisal
enhanced employee productivity in Plateau State Internal Revenue Service?
ii. To what extent has 360 degree Feedback method of performance appraisal enhanced
employee productivity in Plateau State Internal Revenue Service?
1.4 Statement of Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were formulated and tested by the study.
i. There is no significant relationship between Management by Objectives method of
performance appraisal and employee productivity in Plateau State Internal Revenue
Service; and
ii. There is no significant relationship between 360 degree Feedback method of
performance appraisal and employee productivity in Plateau State Internal Revenue
Service.
Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2017, Vol. 7, No. 4
http://jpag.macrothink.org
27
2. Literature Review
This part of the study examines views and opinions of authors, scholars and practitioners in
administration on performance appraisal and employee productivity. The views dwell on:
meaning of performance appraisal, methods of performance appraisal and employee
productivity.
2.1 Meaning of Performance Appraisal
Performance appraisal can be viewed as the process of assessing and recording employee
performance for the purpose of making judgments about employee that lead to decisions
(Cook & Crossman, 2004). In simple terms, performance appraisal may be understood as the
assessment of an individual’s productivity in a systematic way, the productivity being
measured against such factors as job knowledge, quality and quantity of output, initiative,
leadership abilities, supervision, dependability, cooperation, judgment, versatility, health and
the like (De Waal, 2004).
Performance appraisal is a structured and formal interaction between a subordinate and
supervisor, that usually takes the form of a periodic interview (annual or semi-annual), in
which the work performance of the subordinate is examined and discussed, with a view to
identifying weaknesses and strengths as well as opportunities for improvement and skills
development (Gabris & Ihrke, 2000).
2.1.1 Methods of Performance Appraisal
There are many methods of performance appraisal that have been developed by researchers.
However, the study will discuss here in detail some few methods.
Ranking Method: According to Wayne (1992) under this method, superior ranks his
subordinates in order of their merit, starting from the best to the worst. The relative position
of each employee is expressed in terms of his numerical rank. In this type of appraisal,
individuals are ranked from highest to lowest. It is assumed that the difference between the
first and second employee is equal to difference between 21st and 22nd employee. In this
method, the manager compares each person with others than work standards.
Management by Objectives Method: MBO (or management by objectives) is a technique
credited to management guru Peter Drucker, to describe a method of performance
management that is based on the setting of clear and measurable objectives, and the use of
those objectives to evaluate and review performance. When done correctly, MBO is probably
the best and fairest way to plan for and create effectively performing employees (Drucker,
1954). The principle behind Management by Objectives (MBO) is to make sure that
everybody within the organization participate in goals setting, has a clear understanding of
the aims, or objectives of that organization as well as awareness of their own roles and
responsibilities in achieving those aims. The complete MBO system is to get managers and
empowered employees acting to implement and achieve their plans, which automatically
achieve those of the organization.
MBO Strategy: Three basic parts
Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2017, Vol. 7, No. 4
http://jpag.macrothink.org
28
1. All individuals within an organization are assigned a special set of objectives that
they try to reach during a normal operating period. These objectives are mutually
set and agreed upon by individuals and their managers.
2. Performance reviews are conducted periodically to determine how close
individuals are to attaining their objectives.
3. Rewards are given to individuals on the basis of how close they come to reaching
their goals.
According to McNamara (2000) in MBO, management and employees work together to set
goals with the intent of helping employees to achieve continuous improvement through an
ongoing process of goal setting, feedback and correction. As a result of their input, employees
are much more likely to be motivated to accomplish the goals and to be responsive to
criticism that arises from subsequent objective measurements of performance.
360 degree Feedback Method: According to Ward (1995) 360 degrees feedback is the
systematic collection and feedback of performance data on an individual or group derived
from a number of the stakeholders on their performance. 360 degrees which is also called
multi-source assessment or multi-rater feedback generates its performance data on individual
from their peers (team members or colleagues in other parts of the organization), supervisors
(those one reports to), subordinates (those who report to the individual), customers, self and
team. According to Mathias and Jackson (2004) 360 degrees feedback recognizes that the
manager is no longer the sole source of performance appraisal information. Instead, various
colleagues and constituencies supply feedback about the employee to manager, thus, allowing
the manager to obtain input from a variety of sources.
Mathias and Jackson (2004) again postulate that, the sole purpose of 360 degrees feedback is
not to increase reliability by soliciting like-minded views but rather to capture the various
evaluations of the individual employee’s different roles. According to Lepsinger and Lucia
(1997) employee’s motivation and job satisfaction that enhances productivity increases when
they received timely, fairly and accurate feedback related to their productivity. This is
because, feedback is very essential for employees to identify their strengths and weaknesses
and be better able to improve on their performance. Lepsinger and Lucia (1997) notes that
employees want ongoing performance feedback to reinforce appropriate actions and to be in a
position to make adjustments when their performance needs improvement.
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS) Method: Mani (2002) opined that behaviorally
anchored rating scale was developed as a response to the shortcomings of the graphic scale
approach. According to Harris (1997) the major aim of BARS is to provide a set of scales that
is defined in a precise behavioral manner. According to Wayne (1992) BARS method has
received considerable attention by academicians in recent years. Wayne maintains that, these
scales combine major elements from the critical incident and graphic rating scale approaches
in that the appraiser rates the employee based on items along a continuum but the points are
examples of actual behavior on the job rather than general descriptions or traits.
2.2 Employee Productivity
Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2017, Vol. 7, No. 4
http://jpag.macrothink.org
29
In the organizational context, employee productivity is usually defined as the extent to which
an organizational member contributes to achieving the goals of the organization (Greenberg,
1996). Mathias and John (2003) defined employee productivity as a measure of the quantity
and quality of work done, considering the cost of the resources used. McNamara (2003)
further states that, results are usually the final and specific outputs desired from the employee.
Results are often expressed as products or services for an internal or external customer. They
may be in terms of financial accomplishments, impact on a community; and so whose results
are expressed in terms of cost, quality, quantity or time.
Employee productivity could include: quantity of output, quality of output, timelines of
output, presence at work and cooperativeness (Bernardin, 2007). Employee productivity
could be simply understood as the related activities expected of a worker and how well those
activities were executed.
2.3 Theoretical Framework
The paper adopts the Justice Theory by Rawls (1971) to explain performance appraisal and
employee productivity at the PSIRS. The theory states that organizational justice refers to
perceived fairness in the working place which comprises: Procedural, Distributive,
Interpersonal, and Informational Justice related to performance appraisal exercise in an
organization. The study incorporated all four justice dimensions into one theoretical
framework. The procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice were related
to social relationship, either with the organization (i.e. procedural and distributive justice) or
with the supervisor (i.e. interpersonal and informational justice), whereas distributive justice
is related more to an economic exchange relationship.
The procedural justice concerned with the perceived fairness of the procedure that the PSIRS
and raters use during the appraisal of employees’ productivity. The procedure can be in terms
of involving employees in the process of organizational goals setting, and setting criteria of
measuring employee’s productivity.
Distributive justice deals with the proportional relationship between employee’s inputs in
terms of effort, ability, time and training, and the outcomes they receive e.g payment,
promotion and other rewards that are fair to employees in Plateau State Internal Revenue
Service that motivate them to put their best. Also, interpersonal justice involves perception of
fairness that relate to the way rater treats the person being evaluated; it concerned with the
perceived fairness of interpersonal interaction between superior and subordinate during the
performance appraisal session in the organization, while informational justice concerned with
the perception of fairness in terms of information about procedures in form of honest, sincere
and logical explanations and justifications of any component of the appraisal process.
Within the context of performance appraisal system in Plateau State Internal Revenue Service,
the most common information justice will involve the clarification of goals, productivity
expectation and standards, routine feedback, and explanations during the performance
appraisal period.
Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2017, Vol. 7, No. 4
http://jpag.macrothink.org
30
3. Methodology
The study adopted survey research design. The population of the study was 1,580 consisting
of 1,104 junior employees and 476 senior employees of the Plateau State Internal Revenue
Service. A sample size of 319 was drawn from the population using Taro Yamane (1964)
formula. Sample size of 319 was allocated to the two groups (that is, junior and senior
employees) using Bourley’s proportional allocation formula. The instrument used for data
collection was a structured questionnaire developed from the literature reviewed. The
response for each item in the questionnaire were based on a 5-point Likert scale of strongly
agree, agree, undecided, disagree and strongly disagree with their corresponding value of
5,4,3,2 and 1 respectively. The instrument was subjected to face and content validity by 3
validates. Cronbach Alpha method was used to establish the internal consistency of the
questionnaire items. A reliability coefficient of 0.85 was obtained. The instrument was
administered by the researcher to the respondents with the help of two research assistants.
Three hundred and nineteen questionnaire were administered and all were retrieved from the
respondents and used for data analysis. The data for the study were analyzed using
computer-based programme – STATA 8. Various statistical methods used in analyzing the
data includes: frequency, percentages and tables. Non-linear Regression in the form of Logit
regression model was used to assess the nature and degree of relationship between the
dependent variable and independent variables. Log likelihood ratio Chi-square and Log
likelihood estimates were used to test model fit of the 2 hypotheses for the study; the
z-statistics test was also used to test the independent variables influence on the dependent
variable.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Research Question 1
To what extent has Management by Objectives enhanced Employee Productivity in Plateau
State Internal Revenue Service?
To answer the above question, data on Management by Objectives and Employee
Productivity were collected and subjected to analysis using frequency and percentage as
presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Management by Objectives and Employee Productivity
S/N
Management by Objectives and Employee
Productivity (MBO)
SA
A
U
D
SD
1
Employees Participating in organizational goals
setting helps employees to be committed in
accomplishing responsibilities
261
(81.82)
58
(18.2)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
2
Employees understanding areas of
responsibilities helps employees to be
productive
266
(83.39)
53
(16.61)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
3
Alignment of employees needs with
organizational objectives motivate employees
128
(40.13)
121
(37.93)
54
(16.93)
8
(2.51)
8
(2.51)
Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2017, Vol. 7, No. 4
http://jpag.macrothink.org
31
to be productive
4
Tied goal achieved with reward motivates
employees to be productive
206
(64.58)
98
(30.72)
11
(3.45)
4
(1.25)
0
(0.00)
5
Appraisal based on result achieved motivates
employees to be productive
201
(63.01)
107
(33.54)
7
(2.19)
4
(1.25)
0
(0.00)
Note: 5 = SA (Strongly Agree), 4=A (Agree), 3 = U (Undecided), 2 = D (Disagree), 1 = SD
(Strongly Disagree)
Source: Field survey data, 2017
From table 1 above, 261 (81.2%) respondents strongly agreed, whereas 58 (18.8%) of the
respondents agreed that employees participating in organizational goals setting helps
employees to be committed in accomplishing responsibilities.
Based on the second question which states that employees understanding areas of
responsibilities helps employees to be productive, 266 (83.4%) of the respondents strongly
agreed, whereas 53 (16.6%) of the respondents agreed to this fact.
The third question states that alignment of employees needs with organizational objectives
motivates employees to be productive, 128 (40.1%) strongly agreed, 121 (37.9%) agreed, 54
(16.9%) were undecided, 8 (2.5%) disagreed, whereas 8 (2.5%) of the respondents were
strongly disagreed to this fact.
Based on the fourth question which states that tied goal achieved with reward motivates
employees to be productive, 206 (64.6%) respondents strongly agreed, 98 (30.7%) agreed,
11(3.5%) were undecided, whereas 4 (1.3%) of the respondents disagreed to this fact.
The fifth question states that appraisal based on result achieved motivates employees to be
productive, 201 (63.0%) respondents strongly agreed, 107 (33.5%) agreed, 7 (2.2%) were
undecided, whereas 4 (1.3%) of the respondents disagreed to this fact.
4.2 Research Question 2
To what extent has 360 degree Feedback method of performance appraisal enhanced
Employee Productivity in Plateau State Internal Revenue Service?
To answer the above question, data on 360 degree Feedback and Employee Productivity were
collected and subjected to analysis using frequency and percentage as presented in Table 2
below.
Table 2. 360 degree Feedback and Employee Productivity
S/N
360 Degree Feedback and Employee
Productivity
SA
A
U
D
SD
6
Self-appraisal helps employees to analyze
strength and weakness, productivity standards
and areas of improvement that enhances their
productivity
206
(64.58)
98
(30.72)
15
(4.70)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
7
Colleague’s feedback about employees’
153
112
15
23
16
Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2017, Vol. 7, No. 4
http://jpag.macrothink.org
32
productivity helps strengthen self-development
that enhances productivity
(47.96)
(35.11)
(4.70)
(7.21)
(5.02)
8
Supervisor’s feedback about employees’
productivity helps strengthen self-development
that enhances productivity
220
(68.97)
96
(30.09)
0
(0.00)
3
(0.94)
0
(0.00)
9
Customer’s feedback about employees’
productivity helps strengthen self-development
that enhances productivity
158
(49.53)
106
(33.23)
20
(6.27)
12
(3.76)
23
(7.21)
Note: 5 = SA (Strongly Agree), 4 =A (Agree), 3 = U (Undecided), 2 = D (Disagree), 1 = SD
(Strongly Disagree)
Source: Field survey data, 2017.
From table 2, question sixth states that Self-appraisal helps employees to analyze strength and
weakness, productivity standards and areas of improvement that enhances their productivity,
206 (64.6%) respondents strongly agreed, 98 (30.7%) agreed, whereas 15 (4.7%) of the
respondents were undecided to this fact.
Based on the seventh question which states that colleague’s feedback about employee’s
productivity helps strengthen self-development that enhances productivity, 153 (48.0)
respondents strongly agreed, 112 (35.1%) agreed, 15 (4.7%) were undecided, 23 (7.2%)
disagreed, whereas 16 (5.0%) of the respondents were strongly disagreed to the fact.
The eighth question which states that supervisor’s feedback about employees’ productivity
helps strengthen self-development that enhances productivity, 220 (68.97%) respondents
strongly agreed, 96 (30.09%) agreed, whereas 3 (0.94) of the respondents were disagreed to
the fact.
Based on the ninth question that states customer’s feedback about employees’ productivity
helps strengthen self-development that enhances productivity, 158 (49.5%) respondents
strongly agreed, 106 (33.2%) agreed, 20 (6.3%) were undecided, 12 (3.8) disagreed, whereas
23 (6.3%) of the respondents were strongly disagreed to this fact.
4.3 Testing of Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
There is no significant relationship between Management by Objectives and Employee
Productivity in Plateau State Internal Revenue Service.
Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2017, Vol. 7, No. 4
http://jpag.macrothink.org
33
Table 3. Relationship between management by objectives and employee productivity
Note: Number of obs = 319; LR Chi2 (5) = 60.04; Prob > Chi2 = 0.0000; Log likelihood =
-44.730531; Pseudo R2 = 0.4016; *,** = significant at 10% and 5% respectively
Bi1=Employees participating in organizational goals setting helps employees to be committed in
accomplishing responsibilities
Bi2=Employees understanding areas of responsibilities helps employees to be productive
Bi3=Alignment of employees needs with organizational objectives motivate employees to be
productive
Bi4=Tied goal achieved with reward motivated employees to be productive
BI5=Appraisal based on result achieved motivate employees to be productive
Employee prod=employee productivity (logit regression definition; low employee productivity
[0] and improved employee productivity [1].
Source: STATA 8
Table 3 showed the iteration log, indicating how quickly the model converged. The log
likelihood (-44.730531) was obtained. Also, all 319 observations in our data set were used in
the analysis (fewer observations would have been used if any of our variables had missing
values). The Log likelihood ratio chi-square of 60.04 with a p-value of 0.0000 tells us that the
model does fit significantly. In the Table 3, we see the coefficients, their standard errors, the
z-statistic, associated p-values, and the 95% confidence interval of the coefficients. Only the
following MBO variables; Bi1, Bi2, Bi3 and Bi5 are statistically significant. The logistic
regression coefficients give the change in the log odds of the outcome for a one-unit increase
in the independent variable. For every one-unit change in Bi1, the log odds of employee
productivity increase by 3.566. The null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative
hypothesis (H11) was accepted, which states that, “there is significant relationship between
Management by Objectives and employee productivity in Plateau State Internal Revenue
Service”.
Hypothesis 2
There is no significant relationship between 360 degree Feedback and Employee Productivity
Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2017, Vol. 7, No. 4
http://jpag.macrothink.org
34
in Plateau State Internal Revenue Service.
Table 4. Relationship between 360 degree feedback and employee productivity
Note: Number of obs = 319; LR Chi2 (4) = 57.26; Prob > Chi2 = 0.0000; Log likelihood =
-46.120714; Pseudo R2 = 0.3830; *,** = significant at 10% and 5% respectively
Bii6=Self-appraisal helps employees to analyze strength and weakness, productivity standards
and areas of improvement that enhances their productivity
Bii7=Colleague’s feedback about employees productivity helps strengthen self-development that
enhances productivity
Bii8=Supervisor’s feedback about employees productivity helps strengthen self-development
that enhances productivity
Bii9=Customer’s feedback about employees productivity helps strengthen self-development that
enhances productivity
Employee prod=employee productivity (logit regression definition; low employee
productivity [0] and improved employee productivity [1].
Source: STATA 8
Table 4 showed the iteration log indicates how quickly the model converged. The log
likelihood (-46.120714) was obtained. All 319 observations in the data set were used in the
analysis. The Log likelihood ratio chi-square of 57.26 with a p-value of 0.0000 tells us that
our model as a whole does fit significantly. In the Table 4, we see the coefficients, their
standard errors, the z-statistic, associated p-values, and the 95% confidence interval of the
coefficients. The 360 degree feedback variables of; Bii6, Bii7, Bii8 and Bii9 are statistically
significant. The logistic regression coefficients give the change in the log odds of the
outcome for a one-unit increase in the independent variable. For every one-unit change in
bii9, the log odds of employee productivity increase by 2.148. The null hypothesis was
rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H12) was accepted, which states that, “there is
significant relationship between 360 degree Feedback and employee productivity in Plateau
State Internal Revenue Service”.
5. Discussion of Findings
The findings of the study were discussed as follows:
Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2017, Vol. 7, No. 4
http://jpag.macrothink.org
35
The findings from research question 1 in Table 1 revealed that 5 variables of management by
objectives enhanced employee productivity in Plateau State Internal Revenue Service. These
variables were: participating in organizational goal setting, understanding areas of
responsibilities, alignment of employees needs with organizational objectives, tied goal
achieved with reward and appraisal based on result achieved. The findings from research
question 1 in Table 1 were further supported by findings from hypothesis 1 in Table 3 which
revealed that there is statistical significant relationship between management by objectives
and employees productivity in Plateau State Internal Revenue Service.
This finding was in conformity with Omboi (2011) who found that management by objectives
had an effect on employee productivity. This finding also agreed with the view of Drucker
(1954) who stated that the principle behind management by objectives is to make sure that
everybody within the organization has a clear understanding of the aims, or objectives of the
organization as well as awareness of their own role and responsibilities in achieving those
objectives.
The findings was also in line with the view of McNamara (2000) who opines that in MBO,
management and employees work together to set goals with the intent of helping employees
to achieve continuous improvement through an ongoing process of goal setting, feedback,
and correction. As a result of their input, employees are much more likely to be motivated to
accomplish the goals and to be responsive to criticism that arises from subsequent objective
measurements of performance. The report and opinion of the authors cited above helped to
justify the findings of this study in Table 1.
The findings from research question 2 on Table 2 revealed that 4 variables of 360 degree
feedback in questions enhanced employee productivity in Plateau State Internal Revenue
Service. The variables were: self-appraisal, colleague’s feedback about employee productivity,
supervisor’s feedback about employee productivity, customer’s feedback about employee
productivity. The findings from research question 2 on Table 2 was further supported by
findings from hypothesis 2 on Table 4 which revealed that there is statistical significant
relationship between 360 degree feedback and employee productivity in Plateau State Internal
Revenue Service.
The findings of the study, collaborates with the work of Gichuhi, Abaja and Ochieng (2015)
who found that performance appraisal criteria, feedback and frequency significantly
influenced employee productivity. The findings of the study were also in agreement with the
findings of KE-Lithakong (2014) who affirmed that 360 degree feedback and feedback
system improves employee productivity. The findings of the study also agreed with the view
of Lepsinger and Lucia (1997) that employee’s motivation and job satisfaction that enhances
productivity increases when they received timely, fairly and accurate feedback related to their
productivity. They note that employees want ongoing performance feedback to reinforce
appropriate actions and to be in a position to make adjustments when their performance needs
improvement. This is because, feedback is very essential for employees to identify their
strengths and weaknesses and be better able to improve on their productivity.
Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2017, Vol. 7, No. 4
http://jpag.macrothink.org
36
6. Conclusion
Based on the findings of the study, it was concluded that;
i. Management by Objectives enhanced employee productivity in Plateau State Internal
Revenue Service during the period under study.
ii. 360 degree Feedback enhanced employee productivity in Plateau State Internal Revenue
Service during the period under study.
iii. There is statistically significant relationship between Management by Objectives and
employee productivity in Plateau State Internal Revenue Service.
iv. There is statistically significant relationship between 360 degree Feedback and employee
productivity in Plateau State Internal Revenue Service.
7. Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations have been proffered.
i. Management by Objectives method of performance appraisal should be enforced by the
management of Plateau State Internal Revenue Service to enable staff participate in
organizational goal setting and understand areas of responsibility so as to further
improve productivity in the organization;
ii. 360 degree Feedback method of performance appraisal should be a pre-requisite for the
Management of Plateau State Internal Revenue Service as this will assist supervisors
and employees to discuss weakness, productivity standards and areas of improvement
that enhances productivity; and timely, fairly and accurate performance appraisal
feedback should be given to employees.
References
Bernardin, H. J. (2007). Human Resource Management: An Experiential Approach. Tata:
McGraw-Hill Publishers.
Cook, J., & Crossman, A. (2004). Satisfaction with performance appraisal systems. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 54(2), 26-30. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940410543605
De Waal, M. P. (2004). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 17(1), 3- 32.
Drucker, P. F. (1954). The Practice of Management. New-York: McGraw-Hill Publishers.
Gichuhi, A. W., Abaja, P. O., & Ochieng, I. (2015). Effect of Performance Appraisal on
Employee Productivity. Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 44(8), 435-438.
Greenberg, J. (1996). Quest for Justice on the Job: Essays and Experiments. California: Sage
Publishers.
Gabris, G. D. A., & Ihrle, Q. J. (2000). Does wage rank affect employees’ well-being. Journal
of Industrial Relations, 29(3), 305-307.
Harris, M. (1997). Human Resource Management: A Practical Approach. London: Dryden Press.
Habibu, S. (1992). Job Evaluation in Nigeria. Ilorin: Ilorin University Press.
Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2017, Vol. 7, No. 4
http://jpag.macrothink.org
37
Hartzell, D. (2006). Dictionary of Management. New Delhi: Academic Publishers.
John, R. (1971). The Role of Justice in Organization: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Organizational and Human Decision Processes, 86(10), 278-301.
KE, Lithakong. (2014). Evaluating the Effectiveness of a 360 degree Performance Appraisal
and Feedback in a Selected Steel Organization. (M.Sc dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertation and Theses- UK & Ireland.
Lepsinger, R., & Lucia, A.D. (1997). The Art and Science of 360-Degree Feedback. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mani, B. (2002). Performance appraisal systems, productivity and motivation. Journal of
Public Personnel Management, 36(3), 378-397.
Mathias, R. L., & Jackson, J. H. (2003). Human Resource Management. Thomson,
South-Western: Mason Publishers.
Mathias, R. L., & Johnson, J. H. (2004). Human Resource Management. Thomson,
South-Western: Mason Publishers.
McNamara, C. (2003). Field Guide to Leadership and Supervision for Non-profit Staff.
Amazon: McGraw-Hill Publishers.
McNamara, C. (2000). Performance measurement and management: Some insights from
practice. Australian Accounting Review, 15(35), 14-28.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2005.tb00248.x
Mullins, L. J. (1999). Management and Organizational Behaviour. Harlow: Prentice-Hall
Publishers.
Omboi, B. M. (2011). The Effect of Performance Appraisal Systems on Employees in Kenya
Tea Development Agency. Journal of Finance and Accounting, 35(2), 205–223.
Stoner, J. A. F., Freeman, R. E., & Gilbert, D. R. (2005). Management. India: Prentice-Hall
Publishers.
Taro, Y. (1964). Statistics and Measurement in the Classroom. Lowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub.
Com.
Wayne, F. C. (1992). Managing Human Resources: Productivity, Quality of work life, Profits.
Amazon: McGraw-Hill Publishers.
Ward, T. S. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement,
and validation. Journal of Academy of Management, 14(8), 51-69.
Copyright Disclaimer
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to
the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative
Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
