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: