AN EVALUATION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IN KWARA STATE

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SYSTEM (1988-2011) A PAPER PRESENTED BY ALAO

OLADIMEJI DAVID Ph.D, NWOGWUGWU, NGOZI, ALOFE, VIVIAN ADEBOLA Ph.D AND

ALAO, ESTHER MONISOLA.

ABSTRACT

Various studies on local government have revealed that productivity was

generally low while this runs contrary

to staff performance rating within the same system. This motivated the study

to examine the staff perception

of the current personnel performance appraisal management, the elusive gap

between staff performance rating

and the general performance in the Local Government system and to identify

the challenges of current

open reporting system. The study was descriptive and data obtained from

primary and secondary sources.

Simple random method was adopted to select the five hundred respondents to

who copies of questionnaire

were administered, cutting across the sixteen local government of Kwara

State. The results of the three

hundred and six copies of questionnaire returned were presented in form of

tables, the analysis

was descriptive using simple percentage. The study found that there was

preference for the open reporting

system, while the management goal for appraisal was directed to achieving

efficiency, that of the employees

was largely towards enhancing their chances of getting promoted. It was

equally found and post

evaluation interview was deficient. The study concludes that the

institutional mechanism for

managing appraisal was defective, it measured input rather than the

contribution to the system at large. It is

therefore recommended the institutional mechanism for managing performance

appraisal should be

re-engineered. The reporting and counter-signing officers must develop

higher sense of integrity, fairness

and honesty by ensuring that the appraisal correctly reflect staff

performances and tied to the

overall objectives of the system.

INTRODUCTION

Performance appraisal is a formal and consistent process undertaken by the

management within an

organization aimed at providing systematic and reliable information to

assess to employee productivity and for

them to know their rating and what could be done to improve them as well as

to provide a basis for training

or redeployment. Clark (2005) defines performance management “Establishing a

framework in

which performance by human resources can be directed, monitored and refined, and that the links in

the circle

can be audited ”. Since independence in Nigeria, attempts in general to

appraise the performance of personnel

in the public sector have not recorded a high degree of success as it has

been largely observed that such

efforts ended up with evaluation of individuals rather than the overall

objectives for which they were set up.

This informs Cleg (2004) to observe that the appraisal largely concentrated

on managing inputs such as the

time an individual spent on his or her desk. Therefore, it is expected that

when the performance ratings

of significant majority of employees are adjudged excellent, all other

things being equal, and the overall

objectives of the organization ought to be achieved. Significantly, this is

not case in the public sector as

the appraisal is more or less a function of the criteria adopted for

measurement and the purpose it was designed

to achieve, as well as the perception of the operators of the system

concerning the need for

performance management. In the Kwara State Local Government system, since

the adoption of the enacted

Civil Service (Re-organization) Decree No. 43 of 1988, a system referred to

as the New Performance

Evaluation Scheme has been put in place. The arrangement is an open system

of reporting as against

the confidential reporting system previously in use. The adoption was to

correct the observable weakness

of confidential reporting system as a means of ensuring transparency and

integrity as to enhance efficiency

and effectiveness in service delivery as well as removing every element of

victimization within the

system (Agboola, 1999). It is against this background that this study

examines the management of

performance appraisal in Kwara State Local Government System since 1988.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The broad objective of this study is to evaluate the administration of

performance evaluation within

the Local Government system and to recommend ways to make it goal oriented.

Other objectives stemming

from the main one are as stated below:

1. To examine Kwara State Local Government staff perception of the

current personnel performance

appraisal management.

2. To evaluate the elusive gap between staff performance rating and

the general performance in the

Local Government system.

3 To identify the challenges of current open reporting system with a

view of strengthening

performance appraisal management.

METHODOLOGY

The study was descriptive and the population of the study area was fourteen

thousand, two hundred and two

as at July, 2011. The study combined primary and secondary sources of data

collection. The primary method

was through the use of structured questionnaire with fixed alternative and

unstructured interview. The

secondary sources included relevant textbooks, journal, government documents

and Internet. The sample

size for the structure interview was five hundred. The study area was

stratified based on the existing three

senatorial districts while simple random was adopted in selecting two Local

Governments each out of the

sixteen Local government areas in Kwara State and staff of Local Government

Service Commission.

The data collected was processed through SSPS software and result was

presented as table with

frequency distribution. The analysis was descriptive while quantitative and

qualitative methods based on

simple percentage were used on the basis of which conclusions and

recommendations were made.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The study adopted systemic model to examine the management of performance

appraisal in the

public sector. System theory was originally based on the writings of Ludwig

Von Bertallanty, a biologist

before the anthropologist adopted it in the works of Bronislaw Malinowksy

and Badcliffe Brown. This theory

was later adopted by other fields of study such as sociology and political

science. It is noteworthy that

Thomas Hobbes equally used the notion ‘System’ to explain human relations

(Varman, 1982 in Olaniyi, 2001).

The theory notes that a system is a ‘Whole’ ths is composed of many parts.

In effect, the relationship

between the constituent parts and the whole and their contribution towards

the survival of the whole system

is of utmost importance.

Applying this to the public sector or different segment within it, it could

be seen as a system or

sub-system composing of individuals and groups whose effective performance

or contribution lead to the

attainment of the organizational goals. To follow this line of thought, the

management of performance will

direct attention to factors that enhance performance or discourage it. It

goes further to examine through the

adoption of performance appraisal, the contribution of individuals to the

attainment of organizational goal, or maintenance or sustenance of the

system. In this sense, the theory postulates harmony rather than

conflict between management and employees, integration as against

competition (Anifowose, 2006).

The theory has been criticized to be too abstract, pre-occupied with

stability and categorized all variables into

input, processing, output and feedback; this does not significantly

diminish the adoption of the theory in

human relations to understand performance appraisal system in public

sector.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Performance is a two dimensional concept and these are input and output.

Input has to do with the act of

doing things while output is the end result. From this perspective, it

describes behavior as a function of

a person and the environment in which he operates. Performance can still be

seen as a function of ability

and motivation (Newstrom, 2011:143-147).Appraisal or evaluation carries the

notion of judging and very

useful for feedback into future occurrence and it has the attributes of

repetitiveness. Target setting which is an integral part of performance

appraisal. It is the establishment of mile stone or a measure of a set of

activities

within a given period of time. The chartered Institute of Personnel and

Development (CIPD:2008) presents an

apt description of what performance evaluation is all about by stating that:

it is about establishing a culture in which individuals and groups take responsibility for the continuous improvement of business processes and their own skills, behavior and contributions.It is about sharing expectation. Managers can clarify what they expect individuals to do:(target setting) likewise individuals and teams can communicate their expectations of howthey should be managed and what they need to do their jobs.

The description above agrees with Eichel and Bender (1984), Eneanya (2009)

that view performance

appraisal/evaluation as the systematic, periodic and objective rating of

employee’s excellence on his job

and his potentials for a better and higher productivity. Hachett (1985)

observes that there are two basic

approaches in general use in performance evaluation or appraisal. These are

the traits-oriented approach

and the result –oriented approach. The trait oriented approach involves the

assessment of personal qualities

such as appearance, punctuality and loyalty to the superior officers. On the

other hand, the result-oriented

approach revolves around the outcomes or results achieved by job-holders

that form the basis of their

assessment.

Performance appraisal is generally accepted as one of the basic management

functions and a very difficult

and technical task particularly in the public sector. In the context of

Human Resource management,

after an employee has been selected and placed on a job, and has worked for

a period of time, there is the

need to determine how well or otherwise the employee is doing on that job

and how useful is such an

individual. This study agrees with Caulkin, (2011) that though performance

research largely focused on

the individual, but organizations should develop the capability to focus on

organization as a whole, thereby

combine input and output approaches.

Newstrom (2011) classified performance appraisal broadly into five basic

components. These are

performance orientation, focus on goals or objectives, mutual goal setting

between superior. Others

are employee clarification of behavioral expectations and extensive feedback

system. Extant literature agrees

that when performance evaluation are poorly done or even well under

unsatisfactory conditions it may

lead to increasing employee anxiety and hostility that may in-turn lead to

poor use of both human and

non-human resources. This explains why Kinnie et al (2005) observes that

that “Employees are not influenced so much by the way the policies are

intended to operate but by the way they are actually implemented as

Hutchinson and Purcell (2003) note that this affects their behavior and

performance.

Among the problems associated with performance appraisal is that it can be

confrontational, emotional,

judgmental and complex. However, Rove (1964) while surveying the

performance appraisal of five

companies observes that managers were reluctant to discuss appraisal with

their subordinate. The above

position is further strengthened by Cannon and Witherspoon (2008) that most

managers’ hates giving

critical feedback, and most employees detest receiving it.

In addition, Longennecker (1997) reported that in a large-scale survey and

focus groups conducted in US, the

failure of an appraisal system were attributable to unclear performance

criteria or ineffective rating instrument,

poor working relationships with the boss and lack of information on the

staff actual performance. Also, he notes

lack of focus on management development and improvement, lack of appraisal

skill and ineffective

performance feedback. This could have led William (1976) to conclude with

specific reference to

performance appraisal management in the public sector that despite many

apparent advantages of what should

be an intrinsic and critical part of management control, there is much

evidence both in the United Kingdom

and abroad to suggest that many appraisal are largely a waste of time. The

result of Price (1975) study in

Ghana demonstrated that promotion in the Public Service of Ghana and even up

till present day in Nigeria

depended hardly at all on staff performance. Even if William position above

is to the extreme, it is observed that

the performance management particularly in the public sector is confronted

with huge challenges that informed the need for this study.

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

TABLE I. Educational Background

Frequency

Percent

First SchoolLeavingCertificate

16 5.2

WASC and itsequivalent 44 14.4

NCE / FirstDegree 206 67.3

Post Graduate 38 12.4Illiterate 2 .7Total 306 100.0

Source: Researcher’s fieldwork, 2011

The table 1 above shows the educational background of the

respondents revealing that only .7% of the respondents were

illiterates while 12.4% possessed postgraduates certificate and

67.3% possessed National Certificate of Education or First

Degree. The relevance of this analysis is to debunk the negative

assumption in respect of the academic status of staff of the

Local Government. This is in effect an indication that if

performance is low in the system, the argument in respect low

calibre of

Staff may no longer be tenable.

TABLE 3: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ON L. G. BASIS

Frequency

Percent

LocalGovt Commission 18 5.9

Kaiama 51 16.7Ilorin West 51 16.7Moro 47 15.4Asa 46 15.0Ifelodun 44 14.4Isin 49 16.0Total 306 100.0

Source: Researcher’s fieldwork, 2011

A total of 500 copies of questionnaire were administered among

the staff in all the 16 Local Government Areas of Kwara State. 60

copies of questionnaire were administered in each of the 6

sampled Local Governments Areas while 20 at the Local Government

Service Commission, Ilorin. The result indicated that 61.2% of

the copies of questionnaire sent out were returned, with Ilorin

West and Kaima Local Government recording the highest return rate

of 85% each and Irepodun Local Government with the lowest return

rate of 73.3%.

TABLE 4. RESPONDENTS LENGTH OF SERVICE

Source: Researcher’s fieldwork,

2011

The table 4 above presents the

length of service of the respondents. More than 58% of the

respondents had served more than ten years. The implication is

that such staff had been involved in the evaluation process and

that they had knowledge of the management of the process as to

make their responses relatively reliable.

Question 1. Do you understand the content of the new performance

appraisal form?

TABLE 5. UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONTENT OF THE APER FORMAT

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Yes 270 88.2

No 36 11.8Total 306 100.0

Source: Researcher’s fieldwork, 2011

Frequency

Percent

Valid

1-10yrs 127 41.5

11-20yrs 117 38.221-30yrs 43 14.130yrs andabove 19 6.2

Total 306 100.0

The question 1 sought the respondents’ view regarding their

understanding of the new appraisal system. 88.2% indicted their

understanding while 11.8 did not. The unstructured interview

conducted by the researcher with the Director of Administration

and the Director of Training at the Local Government Commission

Ilorin revealed that with the introduction of the new system,

extensive training programmes were conducted to keep the staff

abreast of the new development.. this could have accounted for

the response to the question.

Question 2. Do you regularly discuss and agree with your

subordinate or boss the contents of the job you are doing?

TABLE

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Yes 273 89.2

No 33 10.8Total 306 100.0

Source: Researcher’s fieldwork, 2011

The table 4 above reveals that 89.2% of the respondents stated

that there were regular discussions with their subordinates or

superior officers concerning the content of job performed by the

officer. This implies there was no excuse for none performance on

account of periodic review of the contents of job executed but

that does not translate to actual effective execution of such

duties.

Question 3. Are you provided with necessary tools and equipment

to carry out your duty?

TABLE 6 PROVISION OF TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT

Frequen

cy

Perce

nt

Val

id

Yes197 64.4

No 109 35.6

Tot

al306 100.0

Source: Researcher’s fieldwork, 2011

35.6% of the respondents to question 3 were of the opinion there

was lack of provision of adequate tools and equipment as this has

the tendency of negatively affecting the performances of such

staff while poor performance could not be blamed on them.

Question 4. Do you understand the way the appraisal is

conducted?

TABLE 7 RESPONDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAY THE APPRAISAL WAS

CONDUCTED.

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Yes 257 84.0

No 49 16.0Total 306 100.0

Source: Researcher’s fieldwork, 2011

In response to question 4 above, table 7 reveals that 84% of the

respondents were conversant with the manner the appraisal was

conducted, apart from understanding the content of the appraisal

form. The implication therefore is that significant majority of

staff cannot plead ignorance with respect to the way the

appraisal was conducted

Question 5. Are you satisfied with your appraisal within the

last five years?

Table 8. RESPONDENTS’ SATISFACTION WITH THEIR APPRAISAL

Frequency

Percent

Yes 231 75.5No 75 24.5Tot 306 100.0

alSource: Researcher’s fieldwork, 2011

The table 8 above in response to question 5 revealed that 75.5%

of the respondents expressed satisfaction with their appraisal

within the last five years. The implication therefore is that the

appraisal was a reflection of staff expectation. However, it may

not translate to efficient and effective service delivery.

Question 7. Will you regularly fill the performance appraisal

form if it is not associated with confirmation of appointment or

Promotion?

TABLE 9: RESPONDENTS’ REACTION TO FILLING THE EVALUATION REPORT.

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Yes 198 64.7

No 108 35.3Total 306 100.0

Source: Researcher’s fieldwork, 2011

64.7% of the respondents as contained on table 9 stated that the

would fill the evaluation report whether or not it was associated

with promotion or confirmation. On the other hand, 35.3%

indicated otherwise. The response revealed that more that 30% of

the respondents would not complete the evaluation report form if

not associated with promotion and confirmation. This implies that

there is a gap of the management understanding of the evaluation

reports as compared with that of the staff.

Question 8. Do you prefer the current system of appraisal?

TABLE 10: RESPONDENTS’ PREFERENCE FOR THE NEW OPEN REPORTING

SYSTEM

Frequency

Percent

Yes 235 76.8No 71 23.2Total 306 100.0

Source : Researcher’s fieldwork, 2011

The table above revealed that 76.8% of the respondents preferred

the new open reporting system as compared with the secret

reporting system. This is a reflection of the fact that staff in

the Local Government system preferred to know how they were

rated.

Question 9. Have you ever being invited to post appraisal

discussion by your boss?

TABLE 11: RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO POST APPRAISAL DISCUSSION

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Yes 127 41.5

No 179 58.5Total 306 100.0

Source: Researcher’s fieldwork, 2011

The result as contained on table 11 revealed that 58.5% of the

respondents have never been involved in post appraisal discussion

as this implies that a high percentage of staff were not allowed

to get a feedback in respect of their performance as this could

have helped to correct or encourage such staff.

PERFORMANCEAPPRAISAL ADMINISTRATION IN KWARA STATE LOCAL

GOVERNMENT SYSTEM.

Prior to the acceptance and implementation Udoji Report of 1975 by the

Federal Government, and its adoption

by the State and Local Governments in Nigeria, performance appraisal in the

public sector was conducted

through the use of the Annual Confidential Reporting system inherited from

the colonial master. As a result

of the observable weakness of the confidential system, the Open Reporting

system was adopted in 1974.

The goal was to stress the ability and achievement of individuals in an

organization based on agreed targets

rather than the personal traits. This arrangement was not adopted in the

Local Government system till 1977.

Aina (1992) notes that the new system was predicated on clear definition of

the objective of each

ministry, department or organization in order to derive the target of

individuals to enhance coordination.

In addition, it sustains effort to appraise individual performance and

identify potentials for growth and

development and aid goal setting, reviews, appraisal, and the training

needs. Lastly, it aids optimum

utilization of human resources by identifying long term potential. The

reporting period for confirmed officers

was from 1st January-December 31 of each year while twice a year for

unconfirmed officers. The appraisal

in line with the established rules must be completed before March 31. In

practice, the procedure was

grossly violated as it was often delayed till when the officer was ripe

enough for promotion.

The study agrees with Jolaoso (1976) that while the system of the then open

reporting substantially reduced

the possibility of victimization of innocent officers, it increased the

temptation of being subjective as nearly all officers including mediocre had

outstanding reports as supervisors wanted to be seen by their subordinates

as

being kind.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

OBJECTIVE ONE: To examine Kwara State Local Government staff perception of

the current

personnel performance appraisal management.

The perception of staff to the need for and the administration of

performance evaluation system will

largely determine whether it is going to be goal oriented or otherwise. The

Open Reporting system that

was adopted in 1974 has as its goal the need to stress the ability and

achievement of individuals in an

organization based on agreed targets rather than the personal traits. This

agreed with Aina (1992)

that the new system was predicated on clear definition of the objective of

each ministry, department or

organization in order to derive the target of individuals to enhance

coordinated. The result of the unstructured

interview with the Director of Administration, Kwara State Local Government

Service Commission revealed

that since the introduction of the New Annual Performance Evaluation, goal

setting has been given

adequate attention in all the Local Government Areas of the state. This

position was corroborated by three of

the Directors of Administration in the Local Government system interviewed

in the course of this study.

However, the result of the field exercise revealed that 88.3% of the

respondents understood the contents

of the evaluation form, 89.25 often discussed the contents of their job or

duty with their superior or

subordinate staff, while 84% understood the way the evaluation was

conducted. In addition, 75.5%

of the respondents expressed satisfaction with their appraisal, while 35.3%

said they would not complete

the evaluation form given that it was not associated with confirmation of

appointment or promotion.

The implication therefore is that the perception of the management and the

staff concerning performance

Appraisal was not the same and might accounted for why Egan (1995) argued

that the problem of appraisal

was not only relating to poor design or implementation, but is rooted

deeply in the basic reaction of

organizational members to such a concept. This might have informed a

situation whereby good reports on

officials generally

Within the Local Government system did not manifest in improved service

delivery and there was no

effective means of relating individual performance to the overall objectives

of the organization. The finding

agrees with Kinnie et al (2005) that that employees are not influenced so

much by the way the policies are

intended to operate but by the way they are actually implemented as

Hutchinson and Purcell (2003) note that

this affect their behavior and performance. In effect the implementation of

the policy on performance appraisal

reflected a gap in the way it was perceived by the management and the

employees.

OBJECTIVE TWO: To evaluate the elusive gap between staff performance rating

and the general performance of the Local Government system.

There is a consensus of opinion among scholars that productivity is

generally low in the public sector,

the constituency that this study area belongs. The interview conducted with

the Permanent Member in the

Local Government Service Commission, Ilorin revealed that there was an

elusive gap between staff rating

and the general performance in the Local Government. It was found that a

significant majority always ended

up with high ratings indicating high or exceptional performance that did not

translate to enhanced service

delivery.

The study conducted revealed a wide time lag between the period covered by

the reports and when the

appraisal reports were conducted. It was revealed based on unstructured

interview conducted in the Ilorin East,

Isin, Irepodun and Moro Local Governments areas that completion of

evaluation forms were usually delayed

till the time of promotion and confirmation and the actual knowledge of

performance might have been lost or forgotten by the reporting officer.

Also, the perception that government job is nobody’s work was identified as

a factor as this agreed with the position of Aluko (2006) and Oladimeji and

Ikotun (2006). The implication

in essence is that the evaluation was conducted with the mindset of “Let my

people go syndrome”, as not one

will be willing to serve as obstacle to the progress of any officer who

might be seen as failing in its statutory

duties except for widely publicized cases of corruption or other criminal

actions. This explains why

Abia (2006) noted that there was lack of accountability and the problem has

been so pervasive and

became institutionalized norms of behaviour in the public sector. The

observed trend in the administration

of performance appraisal could have informed Cannon and Witherspoon (2008)

to state that most managers

hate giving critical feedback, and most employees detest receiving it as

this impact negatively on relying

on such evaluation to determine individual performance that could have given

correct position that

will represent organizational performance.

Objective three: To identify the challenges of current open reporting system

with a view of strengthening

Performance.

The study, based on question 8 revealed that 78.6% of the respondents prefer

the current open reporting

system as compared with the former secret reporting system. While 75.5%

expressed satisfaction with

their ratings. This preference cannot be unconnected with the observation

of Jolaoso (1976) that the

open reporting substantially reduced the possibility of victimization of

innocent officers. The challenges

of the open reporting system included the temptation of being subjective as

nearly all officers including

mediocre had outstanding reports as this might not be unconnected with the

fact that supervisors often wanted

to be seen by their subordinates as being kind. This position agrees with

the study conducted by Armstrong

and Baron (1998:202) that over half of their respondents felt that managers

gave their best ratings to people

that they like while the current system aimed at overcoming subjective

evaluation.

In addition, the study found that was a weak institution for managing the

appraisal system. The study

noted unnecessary delay in completing the form as against the stipulated

period. Hence backlog of appraisal

forms appeared as soon as the Junior and Senior Management Committee

meetings were schedule for

promotion and confirmation of appointment.

Furthermore, inadequate feedback mechanism was a serious constraint to the

current appraisal system.

The study revealed 58.5% of the respondents claimed that they had never been

invited for

post-evaluation interview so that they could know or address areas that

changes could be made.

Moreover, bloated service was an hindrance to effective performance

evaluation as schedule of duties

were not clearly spelt out. For instance, prior to 1994, that is before the

creation of additional Local

Government Areas in Nigeria, there was no Local Government in Kwara State

with up to six Administrative

Officers or Personnel Officer. A sample of Ifelodun, Isin, and Moro Local

Government Areas in the course

Of this study revealed that there were 54, 17 and 15 of these officers

respectively. In a situation whereby

no clear cut schedule of duty is assigned to officer, evaluation will be a

mirage.

Lastly, the study found that there was no conscious effort to relate

individual performance with the overall

objectives or goals of the Local government system, particularly as extant

literature agrees that

general productivity is unacceptably low. These challenges fit in perfectly

into the study conducted by

Longenecker (1977) cited in Newstrom (2011)

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The study concludes that the open reporting system is found to be

preferable and acceptable than the secret reporting system, while

the institutional mechanism for managing the appraisal is grossly

inadequate and inefficient. The elusive gap between management

motivation for appraisal and employees’ perception of the system

did not provide an effective means of using performance

appraisal as a means of measurement of individual performance and

the ability to relate it to the

broad organizational goal.

To overcome the challenges, the study recommends institutional

re-engineering to monitor and compel the administration of

performance evaluation in line with established rules and

regulations. In addition, while it is the responsibility of

government to create enabling environment for

citizenry to be gainfully employed, governments should not make

establishments the dumping ground for political loyalists and

cronies who might not have positive things to contribute the

establishment goals. Moreover, local government administration

need to move from the era of local workshop and seminars to

formal training of personnel to cope with the challenges of

twenty first century as organization cannot continue to do the

same thing the same way and expect different result. The

knowledge acquired will be able to integrate performance planning

with performance delivery and assessment whereby successful

performance is rewarded and reinforced. The administration should

therefore look into the area of providing employees with working

tools and equipment on the basis of which assessment could be

efficiently carried out. Lastly, for the current performance

evaluation mechanism to achieve its stated objectives, it places

moral burden on supervisor and other relevant officer to develop

high level of integrity and honesty by correctly assessing the

performances of their subordinates without fear and favour while

post–evaluation interview or feedback as is indispensable as

Edwards and Ewen (1996:4) maintain that no organizational action has

more power for motivating employee behaviour change than feedback from credible

work associate.

REFERENCES

Agboola, S.O.B. (1999) “Target Setting and PerformanceEvaluation” An Unpublished Paper

Presented at the Management Appreciation Seminar held atStaff Development College, Tanke, Ilorin in July.

Alarape, J.(1999) An Address on Target Setting and Open Reporting Systemat Staff Development College, Ilorin in July.

Anifowose, R. (2006). Challenges of Sustainable Democracy in Nigeria, Ibadan: John Archers Publishers.

Anjorin, O (1995). Lecture on Performance Evaluation for TopManagement of Local Government at the Administrative Staff development Collegeof Nigeria (ASCON, Badagry).

Armstrong, M. and Baron, A. (1998) Performance Management- The New

Realities. London: IPD

Cannon, M. D and Witherspoon, R. (2008). “Actionable feedback:Unlocking the Power of Learning and Performance Improvement,” Academy of managementExecutive, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 120. CIPD (2008), “Personnel Management : AN Overview”, Factsheet,

February.

Civil Service (Re-Organization) decree No. 43, 1988.

Clark, G. (2005). ‘Performance Management Strategies’, inSalaman, G., Storey, J. and Billsberry, J.(eds), Strategic Human Resources Management: Theory and Practice.London: the Open University in Association with Sage.

Cleg, B. (2004). ‘Making the Most of Time’, Professional Manager,Vol. 13, no. 1, January, pp. 20-1 in Mullins, L. J (2010) Management & OrganizationalBehaviour. New York:: Pearson.

Coy, C. (2008). “The Road to Total Compensation”, Special Supplementto Workforce Management in Newstrom, J.W (2011), Organizational Behaviour, 13th

eds. Boston: McGraw-Hill International Edition.

Edwards, M. R. and Ewen, A. J (1996:4). 360 Degree Feedback. NewYork: Amacom, American Management Association.

Egan, G. (1995). ‘A Clear Path of Peak Performance’, People

Management, May 18, pp. 34-7

Landy, F.J. (1980.). “Performance Rating”, Psychological Bulleting, No. 87.

Longennecker, C. (1997). ‘Why Managerial Performance Appraisal are Ineffective:Causes and Lessons’, Career Development International, Vol. 5, No. 5

Jolaoso, A. (1982). An Address Delivered at the Management Course on TargetSetting and the Open Reporting System at Ibadan.

Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Rayton, B. and Swart, J. (2005)’Satisfaction with HR Practices and Commitment to the Organization: Why One Size Does not Fit all’,Human Resources Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 9-29

Rowe, K. (1962) “An Appraisal of Appraisals” Journal of Management Studies, No. 1

Price, R.M. (1975). Surety and Bureaucracy in Contemporary Ghana. Berkeley:

University of Calfornia.

Sani, H. A. (1992). Job Evaluation in Nigeria, A Case Study of Ilorin, Ilorin: University

of Ilorin Press.