Employee reactions to performance appraisal system in Indian banks.
Jain, Sheelam ; Jain, Ravindra
Introduction
Performance appraisal system (PAS) has been a key organizational
process for the management and the development of personnel (Lee, 1985;
Eberhardt & Pooyan, 1988; Baruch & Harel, 1993; Fletcher, 2001;
Tizner et al., 2001; Levy & Williams, 2004; Ferris et al., 2008).
Fletcher (2001) defines performance appraisal (PA) more broadly as
"activities through which organizations seek to assess employees
and develop their competence, enhance performance and distribute
rewards". Performance appraisals are considered to be the most
essential element in creating a positive work environment and involve a
range of attributes such as reward, communication, feedback, employee
reactions, equity and fairness, trust and acceptance, attitudes towards
conflict, and social context (Brown & Heywood, 2005; Elenkov, 1998;
Erdogan et al., 2001; Fulk et al., 1985; Lawler, 2003; Levy &
Williams, 2004). Keeping & Levy (2000) argued that it is necessary
to address employees' reactions toward their performance appraisal
for many reasons, including (a) the notion that reactions represent a
criterion of great interest to practitioners and (b) the fact that
reactions have been theoretically linked to determinants of appraisal
acceptance and success but have been relatively ignored in research.
Earlier researchers have claimed that in order for performance appraisal
to positively influence employee behavior and future development,
employees must experience positive appraisal reactions to important
aspects of the appraisal process (Bernardin & Beatty, 1984; Cardy
& Dobbins, 1994; Kuvaas, 2006; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995).
Appraisal reactions such as satisfaction, acceptability, and motivation
to use feedback, are cited as an important trend in the appraisal
research during the past ten years (Levy & Williams, 2004).
The domino effect of Liberalization-Privatization-Globalization and
the advances in information and communication technology have major HR
implications for Indian banking sector as well. This scenario has forced
the banking industry in India, which is largely in public sector, to
compete with not only the indigenous private banks but also with the
foreign banks operating in India. Simultaneously, it is not an easy ride
for private sector and foreign banks to challenge the prima donna status
of public sector banks in India. How well these challenges are met will
mainly depend on the extent to which banks leverage their human
resources in the context of changing economic and business environment.
Erdogan (2002) suggested that performance appraisal can make important
contribution to effective human resource management, and eventually
organizational performance. Employee performance has, therefore, been
identified as a crucial determinant of success in the banking sector and
hence there is a growing interest in the effective management of
employee performance. A number of observations have been made in earlier
research (e.g., Shrivastava & Purang, 2012; 2011; Juneja, Shankar
& Bhattacharya, 2007; Priyadarshini & Venkatapathy, 2003, etc.)
as regards the performance appraisal practice in the banking industry,
but there is dearth of studies which addressed assessment and comparison
of PA reactions among public and private sector banks and also foreign
banks operating in India. The present study has been an endeavor to
address this research gap.
Review of Literature
Extant literature has shown that there is a critical link between
satisfaction with appraisal processes and appraisal effectiveness
(Bernardin & Beatty, 1984; Dobbins, Cardy & Platz-Vieno, 1990).
Dipboye & de Pontbriand (1981) showed that employees were more
satisfied and had greater acceptance of PA when employee development and
performance improvement were emphasized in it. Jain & Kamble (2005)
pointed out that the effectiveness of performance appraisal system is
based on the extent to which the system is HRD oriented. Well structured
appraisals should directly relate to noted improvements in any weak
areas (Broady-Preston & Steel, 2002). The benefits of an effective
appraisal scheme lie in the fact that it leads to improved performance
throughout the organizations (Fisher, 1996). Studies on employee's
reactions to appraisals and feedback (e.g., Taylor, Masterson, Renard,
& Tracy, 1998) suggested the outcome of appraisal in improving
employee performance. The perceptions of fairness influence the way
people think, feel, and act on the job (Bies & Shapiro, 1987),
thereby influencing positive affective reactions like performance
appraisal satisfaction (Thurston, 2001; Cook & Crossman, 2004).
Feedback from the performance review should be used as a basis for
development and improvement. Research has shown that effective feedback
does improve employee performance (Latting, 1992). Further, if
participants do not perceive the system to be fair, the feedback to be
accurate, or sources to be credible, then they are more likely to ignore
and not use the feedback they receive (Facteau et al., 1998). In an
empirical study of 163 BPO employees, Monis & Shreedhara (2010)
found that objectivity in the appraisals, accuracy of the previous
appraisals and viewing appraisals as a motivating tool have emerged as
the significant variables and all these three variables are positively
associated with the satisfaction of the respondents towards the
performance appraisal system. Employees demonstrate higher level of
commitment when they perceive that performance appraisal is associated
with employee development (Lee & Bruvold, 2003). In their recent
review of PA research, Levy & Williams (2004) called for more field
research on the relationship between PA reactions and employee attitudes
and behavior. They claimed that an appraisal system will be ineffective
if ratees (and raters) do not see it as fair, useful, valid, accurate,
etc. If ratees are dissatisfied or perceive a system as unfair, they
will be less likely to use evaluations as feedback to improve their
performance (Ilgen, Fisher & Taylor, 1979). Jawahar (2006)
investigated the potential predictors and consequences of satisfaction
with performance appraisal feedback and found that satisfaction with
rater and previous performance ratings influence employees'
satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback. Shrivastava &
Purang (2012) found that older employees have performance expectations
that are well set, better clarified, have greater confidence in their
raters and feel they are provided more feedback, rating decision are
explained in a fair manner and are treated in a respectable way whereas
in the case of private sector bank employees, as age increases they do
not feel their expectations are well set and clarified. Measuring
appraisal effectiveness involves, among other things, assessing
perceptions of or actual rater errors and biases, rating accuracy and
reactions of raters and ratees about the PA system in place (Keeping
& Levy, 2000). They further claimed that satisfaction with
performance appraisal is the most frequently measured appraisal
reaction.
The Study
Based on the review of extant literature, the present study
assesses employee reactions to Performance Appraisal System (PAS), with
respect to: a) outcomes in terms of performance improvement and employee
development; b) fairness of PA rating; c) accuracy of PA rating; d)
providing feedback; e) explaining rating decisions; and f) overall
satisfaction with appraisal system. Therefore, the main objectives of
the study are: first, to measure the levels of employee's reactions
to performance appraisal system, and second, to make a comparison
between the levels of PA reactions of managers belonging to public
sector, private sector and foreign banks operating in India. The field
survey for the study was carried out through a period of six months from
April to September 2013.
The Sample &Data Collection
The study was carried out with a sample survey of 318 managers
belonging to public sector, private sector and foreign banks operating
in India. For the purpose, State Bank of India (SBI), Bank of India
(BOI), ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank, Axis Bank, Yes Bank, Standard Chartered
Bank, and Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) have been
selected. The first two banks represent Indian public sector banks, next
four banks represent Indian private sector banks and remaining two banks
represent foreign banks operating in India. The selection of branches/
administrative offices for the survey was based on convenience sampling.
For the purpose, three cities, viz., Bhopal, Indore and Ujjain from the
state of Madhya Pradesh have been selected. The three levels of bank
managers, viz., senior managers, middle-level managers, and junior
managers working in various administrative offices as well as branches
of the chosen banks were selected for the purpose of the survey. Out of
the 318 participant managers, one hundred and thirty six (42.7%) were
from public sector banks, one hundred and twenty five (39.3%) were from
private sector banks and fifty seven (18%) from foreign banks operating
in India. The sample included 12.3% senior level managers, 36.8% middle
level managers and 50.9% junior level managers. The coverage of sectors
and managers are presented in Table 1.
Respondents of the survey represented different age groups,
educational and professional qualifications and experience levels. The
average age of the members of the final sample was 35 years and these
respondents had total experience for an average of 11 years.
Seventy-five percent of the selected managers were male and twenty five
percent were female managers. Eighty one percent of managers were
married and nineteen percent were unmarried. Thirty two percent of the
respondents in the final sample indicated a graduate degree, majority of
them (sixty six percent) were holding a post graduate degree and two
percent were having a doctoral degree. Out of the total respondents,
around sixty five percent were holding some or other professional degree
which includes, thirty eight percent MBA, three percent CA/CS/ ICWA,
five percent engineers, nineteen percent other qualifications such as
law, CAIIB, etc. The demographic characteristics of the respondents are
given in Table 2.
A five-point Likert scale has been administered to three hundred
and eighteen managers of the selected banks for the purpose of
collecting primary data. The scale consists of nine items that measure
employee reactions to PA system and has been developed by the
researchers specifically for the purpose of this study. The reliability
coefficient, that is, Cronbach's alpha (a) score was found to be
0.91 which indicates the overall reliability of the scale. Statistical
tools such as mean, standard deviation, correlation analysis, t- test
and ANOVA test have been used for the purpose of analysis and inference.
Key Variables
Performance Improvement indicates improvement in an employee's
job performance. Employee Development refers to employee competence
development in terms of development of knowledge, skills and attitudes
to enable him/ her for performing better not only in existing job but
also for future tasks and assignments. Fairness in PA Rating: When the
rating provided after the completion of PA process is devoid of any bias
and subjectivity, it is said to be fair rating. It indicates that the
procedure used to evaluate an employee's performance is fair.
Accuracy of PA Rating indicates that the rating given to employees is
actually based on their efforts, abilities and performance during the
appraisal period rather than any bias, favoritism or rating error (such
as halo effect, central tendency error, recent-incident effect, leniency
or strictness effect, etc.). It also indicates that an employee's
performance rating is based on some preset standards of performance.
Providing Feedback refers to providing information about the level of
achievement in relation to pre-defined performance standards and
behavior of employees during the performance period and to prescribe the
ways for taking appropriate actions in the future. Such information
helps to review past performance of employees, rectifying performance
deficiencies and to set new standards of work, if required. Explaining
Rating Decisions refers to clear communication and justification of
rating decisions made as a result of PA process. It involves open
discussions between the appraiser and employee about the reasons of
positive or negative deviations from the preset objectives. Overall
Satisfaction with PA system indicates overall satisfaction with
performance appraisal system being practiced and includes its factors
viz., policy, design, development, implementation and use of appraisal
outcomes.
Data Analysis & Findings
The following findings (based on the analysis of data given in
Tables 3-7) have emerged.
1. The seven dimensions of performance appraisal system that have
been assessed are: Performance Improvement, Employee Development,
Fairness in PA Rating, Accuracy of PA Rating, Providing Feedback,
Explaining Rating Decisions and Overall Satisfaction with PA system. All
these factors have been found at moderate levels across the banking
sectors. This indicates that managers agree to a moderate extent on the
above aspects of PA system implementation and its outcomes in the
selected banks (Table 3).
2. Analysis through Karl Pearson's coefficient of correlation
(r) indicates that a high degree of positive correlation exists between
all the study variables viz., Performance Improvement, Employee
Development, Fairness in PA Rating, Accuracy of PA Rating, Providing
Feedback, Explaining Rating Decisions and Overall Satisfaction with PA
system. It means that all the variables of performance appraisal
reactions are positively and strongly related with one another (Table
4).
3. It was found that all the dimensions of Performance Appraisal
(PA) reactions viz., Performance Improvement, Employee Development,
Fairness in PA Rating, Accuracy of PA Rating, Providing Feedback,
Explaining Rating Decisions and Overall Satisfaction have been perceived
at moderate levels across both the groups (males and females) that too
without any variation at 0.05 level of significance. It indicates that
reactions to performance appraisal system in the selected banks are not
gender biased (Table 5).
4. Performance Improvement was perceived at high levels by the
managers of public sector banks but the same was perceived at moderate
levels by the managers of both private sector as well as foreign banks
but such a variation among various sectors was not found significant at
0.05 level of significance. The study variable viz., Employee
Development, Fairness in PA Rating, Accuracy of PA Rating and Overall
Satisfaction with PA system were perceived at moderate levels among the
managers of public sector, private sector and foreign banks and there is
no significant variation between the perceptions of managers of the
various banking sectors. However, two variables viz., Providing Feedback
and Explaining Rating Decisions have been perceived at moderate levels
by the managers of the three sectors but with significant variation
among various banking sectors at 0.05 level of significance. These
variables were comparatively at higher levels in foreign banks as
compared to public sector and private sector banks (Table 6).
5. The study variables viz., Performance Improvement, Employee
Development and Accuracy of PA Rating have been perceived at high levels
by senior managers and at moderate levels by both junior and middle
level managers. While Performance Improvement and Employee Development
have been found without any significant variation between the three
managerial levels at 0.05 level of significance Accuracy of PA Rating
was found with significant variation between the thee levels. It was
found at comparatively higher level among senior managers. Similarly,
the other three variables viz., Fairness in PA Rating, Explaining Rating
Decisions, Providing Feedback and Overall Satisfaction with PA system
have been perceived at moderate level by all the three managerial levels
and without any significant variation at 0.05 levels of significance.
Thus, senior level managers strongly believed that PA system has helped
them to improve their job performance, competence development as well as
their self development as compared to the middle level and junior level
managers. At the same time senior level managers found the PA system in
their banks as more accurate than the middle level and junior level
managers (Table 7).
Discussion & Implication
In the present study all the dimensions of employee reactions
towards the Performance Appraisal system such as Performance
Improvement, Employee Development, Fairness in PA Rating, Accuracy of PA
Rating, Providing Feedback, Explaining Rating Decisions and Overall
Satisfaction with PA system were found at moderate levels. Thus in the
Indian banking sector, most of the managers believe that performance
appraisal process has helped them to improve their job performance,
competence development and their self development. These managers found
the PA rating as fair and accurate and timely feedback was provided to
them after the PA process. The rating decisions were also clearly
explained and overall the managers were satisfied with the present
appraisal system being practiced in the Indian banking sector.
Substantiating the claim of earlier researchers (Dipboye & de
Pontbriand, 1981; Siegal, 1984; Fisher, 1996) regarding Performance
Improvement and Development as the key objectives of Performance
Appraisal, our study revealed that Performance Improvement (mean value:
3.95) and Employee Self-development (mean value: 3.89) are the key
outcomes of Performance Appraisal practice in the banks. This finding is
consistent with the survey results of Cleveland et al. (1989) who found
that appraisals have the greatest impact on performance feedback and
identification of strengths and weaknesses in addition to salary
administration. Levy and Williams (2004) argued that effectiveness of PA
can be judged by its fairness, accuracy, usefulness, etc. The present
study has further validated this argument revealing the effectiveness of
appraisal system in Indian banks in terms of favorable employee
reactions on fairness and accuracy of appraisals. The mean values
indicate that managers were quite satisfied with overall appraisal
process which is the most frequently measured appraisal reaction
(Keeping & Levy, 2000) thus, indicating further effectiveness of PA
System in Indian banks.
In an empirical study of middle level managers of Indian banks,
Shrivastava and Purang (2011) found that employees' perception of
fairness of their appraisal system is significantly different between
the public sector and private sector banks. Private sector bank
employees perceive performance appraisal factors, namely, Setting
Performance Expectations, Rater's Confidence, Clarifying
Expectations, Providing Feedback, Accuracy of Rating, Seeking Appeals,
and Explaining Rating Decisions to be fairer as compared to public
sector bank employees. Our study also found that the perceptions of
private sector managers were at higher levels as compared to public
sector managers in terms of providing feedback and explaining rating
decisions. However, the public sector managers found their appraisal
system as more accurate than private sector managers. A fresh insight
from the present study is the findings as regards the perceptions of
managers of foreign banks in India which were not studied so far in
earlier researches.
Our study revealed that PA factors such as providing feedback and
explaining rating decisions are perceived at significantly higher levels
by the managers of foreign banks as compared to those in public sector
and private sector banks. The reason for such differences could be
attributed to the fact that the performance appraisal process may be
inclined more towards learning and development in foreign banks as
against its use primarily for administrative purposes in public sector
banks. Challenges before Indian banks is to help people feel being
treated fairly and satisfied; as a satisfied employee is a pre-requisite
for a satisfied customer (Bhatt, 2012). The most astonishing finding in
the present study is the comparatively low scores in the case of private
sector banks as regards Performance Improvement, Fairness and Accuracy
in PA Rating and Satisfaction with PA System. Such revelations may pose
an alarming signal for private banks and could be detrimental to their
expansive growth plans in the country. A comparatively better score of
foreign banks operating in India on Overall Satisfaction of employees
with the appraisal system indicates better PA effectiveness in such
banks. The effectiveness of any HRD effort like Performance Appraisal
system depends to a large extent on how such effort is being perceived
by the employees. Furthermore, employees with a positive view of
performance appraisal are more likely to embrace the process, be better
motivated and improve their performance overall (Lovegrove & Zhang,
2009). The revelations in the present research indicate a moderate level
of employee reactions towards performance appraisal, thus pointing to
further scope of improvement in performance appraisal as a key HRD
practice in Indian banks. Indian banking is under revision and in such
times of change and challenge, it has become imperative for their HR
department to effectively manage the performance and development of
human resources for the achievement of competitive advantage.
Future research should focus on broadening the study on employee
reactions to PA system to embrace a wider population covering more
geographic locations within the Indian banking environment and
addressing more number of PA reaction variables. Further investigation
is also needed on understanding and comparing the design, development
and implementation of the appraisal system among public sector, private
sector and foreign banks operating in India.
References
Baruch, Y & G. Harel. (1993), "Combining Multi-source
Performance Appraisal: An Empirical and Methodological Note",
Public Administration Quarterly. 17: 96-111.
Bernardin, H.J., & Beatty R.W. (1984), Performance Appraisal:
Assessing Human Performance at Work. Boston: Kent.
Bhatt, Prachi (2012). "HRD in Emerging Economies--Research
Perspectives in Indian Banking", Indian Journal of Industrial
Relations 47 (4): 665-72.
Bies R.J. & Shapiro D.L. (1987), "Voice and Justification:
Their Influence on Procedural Fairness Judgements", Academy of
Management Journal. 31(3): 576-665.
Brown, M. & Hey wood, J. S. (2005), "Performance Appraisal
Systems: Determinants and Change". British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 43: 659-79.
Cardy, R.L.& Dobbins, G.H. (1994), Performance Appraisal:
Alternative Perspectives. Cincinatti, OH: South-Western Publishing.
Cleveland, J.N., Murphy, K.R. & Williams, R.E. (1989),
"Multiple Uses of Performance Appraisal: Prevalence and
Correlates". Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 130-35.
Cook, J. & Crossman, A. (2004), "Satisfaction with
Performance Appraisal Systems". Journal of Managerial Psychology,
19 (5): 526-41.
Dipboye, R.L. & de Pontbriand, R. (1981), "Correlates of
Employee Reactions to Performance Appraisals and Appraisal
Systems", Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 248-51
Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L. & Platz-Vieno, S. J. (1990),"
A Contingency Approach to Appraisal Satisfaction: An Initial
Investigation of the Joint Effects of Organizational Variables and
Appraisal Characteristics", Journal of Management, 16: 619-32.
Eberhardt, B. J.& A. Pooyan (1988), "The Effects of
Appraisal System Redesign on Perceptions of and Satisfaction with
Performance Appraisal: A Quasiexperiment". Journal of Business and
Psychology. 32: 230-41.
Elenkov, S. F. (1998), "Can American Management Concepts Work
in Russia? A Cross Cultural Comparative Study", California
Management Review, 40: 133-56.
Erdogan, B. (2002), "Antecedents and Consequences of Justice
Perceptions in Performance Appraisals", Human Resource Management
Review, 12 (4): 555-78.
Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L. & Liden, R. C. (2001),
"Procedural Justice as a Two Dimensional Construct", Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science. 37: 205-22.
Facteau, C.L., Facteau, J.D., Schoel, L.C., Russel, J.E.A. &
Poteet, M.L. (1998),"Reactions of Leaders to 360-Degree Feedback
from Subordinates and Peers", Leadership Quarterly. 9: 427-48.
Ferris, G. R., P. M. Timothy, K. Basok & M. R. Buckley (2008),
"The Performance Evaluation Context: Social, Emotional, Cognitive,
Political and Relationship Components". Human Resource Management
Review. 18: 146-63.
Fisher, M. (1996), Performance Appraisal Building Your Team: The
Sunday Times Business Skills Series, Kogan: 15-17.
Fletcher, C. (2001), "Performance Appraisal and Management:
The Developing Research Agenda", Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology. 74: 473-87.
Fulk, J., Brief, A. P. & Barr, S. H. (1985),
"Trust-in-Supervisor and Perceived Fairness and Accuracy of
Performance Evaluations". Journal of Business Research,. 13:
301-13.
Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, CD. & Taylor, M.S. (1979),
"Consequences of Individual Feedback on Behavior in
Organizations", Journal of Applied Psychology, 64: 349-71
Jain, Ravindra & Kamble' Sachin (2005), "An
Assessment of Effectiveness of Performance Appraisal System in Selected
Large and Medium Size Manufacturing Organizations". Abhigyan.
22(4): 28-39
Jawahar (2006), "Correlates of Satisfaction with Performance
Appraisal Feedback",. Journal of Labour Research, XXVII (2):
213-36.
Judith Broady-Preston & Lucy Steel (2002), "Employees,
Customers and Internal Marketing Strategies in LIS, Library
Management", Library Management, 23 (8/9): 384-93.
Juneja, R., Shankar, A., & Bhattacharya, B. (2007),
"Performance Appraisal Systems in Indian Banks", Bank Quest,
78 (1): 37-42.
Keeping, L.M. & Levy, PE. (2000), "Performance Appraisal
Reactions: Measurement, Modeling, and Method Bias", Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85: 708-23.
Kuvaas, Bard (2006). "Performance Appraisal Satisfaction and
Employee Outcomes: Mediating and Moderating Roles of Work
Motivation", International Journal of Human Resource Management,
17(3): 504-22.
Latting, J. K. (1992), "Giving Corrective Feedback: a
Decisional Analysis", Social Work. 37(5): 424-31.
Lawler, E. E. (2003), "Reward Practices and Performance
Management System Effectiveness," Organizational Dynamics, 32:
396-404
Lee, C. (1985). "Increasing Performance Appraisal
Effectiveness: Matching Task Types, Appraisal Process, and Rater
Training". Academy of Management Review, 10: 322-31.
Lee, C. H. & Bruvold, N. T. (2003), "Creating Value for
Employees: Investment in Employee Development, The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 14(6): 981-1000.
Levy, P.E.& Williams, J.R. (2004). "The Social Context of
Performance Appraisal: A Review and Framework for the Future",
Journal of Management, 30: 881-905
Lovegrove, I., & Zhang, Y. (2009), "Performance appraisal
for Chinese state-owned banking industry", Journal of
Organizational Transformation and Social Change, 6 (3): 189-200,
Monis, H. & Sreedhara, T.N. (2010), "Correlates of
Employee Satisfaction with Performance Appraisal System in Foreign MNC
BPOs Operating in India", Annals of the University of Petroani,
Economics, 10 (4): 215-24.
Murphy, K. R. & Cleveland, J. N. (1991) Performance Appraisal:
An Organizational Perspective, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Priyadarshini, R. & Venkatapathy, R. (2003), "Impact of
HRD on Organizational Effectiveness in the Banking Industry",
Prajnan. 32(2): 125-47.
Sheelam Jain (E-mail: sheelam@rediffmail.com) is Research Scholar
& Ravindra Jain (E-mail: jainravindrak@rediffmail.com) is Professor,
Faculty of Management Studies, Vikram University, Ujjain 456010
Table 1 Sector-wise and Level-wise Distribution of Managers in the
Sample Survey
Managerial Public Sector (N=136) Private Sector (N=125)
Levels
Covered in the
Sample Survey No. Sampling % No. Sampling %
Corresponding to Corresponding to
the No. of public the No. of public
sector managers sector managers
in the Sample in the Sample
Senior Level 22 16.2 10 8
Managers
Middle Level 55 40.4 40 32
Managers
Junior Level 59 43.4 75 60
Managers
Total 136 100 125 100
Sampling 42.7 39.3
Percentage
Corresponding
Number in the
Sample
Managerial Foreign Banks(N=57) Total(N=318)
Levels
Covered in the
Sample Survey No. Sampling % No. Sampling %
Corresponding to Corresponding to
the No. of public the No. of public
sector managers sector managers
in the Sample in the Sample
Senior Level 7 12.3 39 12.3
Managers
Middle Level 22 38.6\ 117 36.8
Managers
Junior Level 28 49.1 162 50.9
Managers
Total 57 100 318 100
Sampling 18.0 100
Percentage
Corresponding
Number in the
Sample
Table 2 Demographic Statistics of the Sample
No. of Sampling %
Respondents Corresponding
(N = 318) to Total Number
in the Sample
City
Bhopal 114 36
Indore 125 39
Ujjain 79 25
Gender
Male 237 75
Female 81 25
Marital Status
Married 256 81
Unmarried 62
Highest Qualification 19
Doctoral 7 2
Post-Graduate 209 66
Graduate 102 32
Professional Qualification
MBA or Equivalent 121 38
CA/ CS/ ICWA * 11 3
Engineering/ Technical 14 5
Others 61 19
No Professional Qualification 111 35
Age Group
< = 30 years 144 45
31-40 years 93 30
41-50 years 39 12
51-60 years 42 13
Experience as a Bank employee
< = 03 years 84 26
04-10 years 135 42
11-20 years 34 11
21-30 years 40 13
31-40 years 25 8
Source: Authors' research work
Note: * CA: Member of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India;
CS: Member of Institute of Company Secretaries of India; ICWA:
Member of Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India
Table 3 Assessment of Performance Appraisal Reactions of Managers of
Selected Banks Operating in India
Reactions to Mean SD Level of PA
Performance (N = 318) Reaction
Appraisal (PA)
System
Performance Improvement 3.95 .737 Moderate
Employee Development 3.89 .777 Moderate
Fairness in PA Rating 3.77 .947 Moderate
Accuracy of PA Rating 3.72 .941 Moderate
Providing Feedback 3.75 .870 Moderate
Explaining Rating Decisions 3.65 .966 Moderate
Overall Satisfaction 3.67 .979 Moderate
with PA system
Note: Standards for analysis: If mean value of the specific PAS
reaction is above 4.0, it has been regarded as 'High'; if the mean
value is between 3 and 4, it has been considered as 'Moderate'; and,
if the mean value is less than 3, it has been regarded as 'Low'.
Table 4 Inter-correlation among the Various Dimensions of
Performance Appraisal Reactions in the Selected Banks [Karl
Pearson's Coefficient of Correlation (r)]
Performance Employee Fairness in
Improvement Development PA Rating
1 2 3
Performance 1
Improvement
Employee .671 ** 1
Development
Fairness in .472 ** .602 ** 1
PA Rating
Accuracy of .499 ** .612 ** .743 **
PA Rating
Providing .409 ** .536 ** .573 **
Feedback
Explaining Rating .400 ** .482 ** .503 **
Decisions
Overall Satisfaction 524 ** .579 ** .609 **
with PA system
Accuracy of Providing Explaining
PA Rating Feedback Rating
4 5 6
Performance
Improvement
Employee
Development
Fairness in
PA Rating
Accuracy of 1
PA Rating
Providing .644 ** 1
Feedback
Explaining Rating .522 ** .647 ** 1
Decisions
Overall Satisfaction .687 ** .681 ** .597 **
with PA system
Overall
Satisfaction
with PA
system
7
Performance
Improvement
Employee
Development
Fairness in
PA Rating
Accuracy of
PA Rating
Providing
Feedback
Explaining Rating
Decisions
Overall Satisfaction 1
with PA system
Notes: (i) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
(2-tailed). (ii) N = 318
Correlation coefficient of 0.5 or even 0.4 is considered to be
a fairly high degree of correlation. A correlation coefficient
of 0.5 means 25% of the variation and a correlation coefficient
of 0.4 means only 16% of variation. In view of these standard
interpretations, the researchers considered correlation coefficient
of 0.5 or higher as a fairly high degree of correlation and
correlation coefficient less than 0.3 as negligible or ignorable
degree of correlation.
Table 5 Comparative Study of Performance Appraisal Reactions of Male
& Female Managers in Selected Banks
(Results of t-test)
Performance Males Females T Sig. *
(N = 237) (N = 81)
Appraisal Reactions Mean SD Mean SD
Performance 3.97 .71 3.88 .79 .969 .333
Improvement
Employee 3.91 .76 3.83 .80 .800 .424
Development
Fairness in 3.76 .98 3.81 .83 -.488 .626
PA Rating
Accuracy of 3.74 .96 3.64 .86 .863 .389
PA Rating
Providing 3.73 .90 3.80 .74 -.647 .518
Feedback
Explaining 3.65 .98 3.65 .92 -.003 .898
Rating
Decisions
Overall 3.68 .97 3.64 1.0 .329 .742
Satisfaction
with
PA system.
Note: * Significant at .05 level of significance (Table Value = 1.96)
Standards for analysis: If mean value of the specific PAS reaction
is above 4.0, it has been regarded as 'High'; if the mean value is
between 3 and 4, it has been considered as 'Moderate'; and, if the
mean value is less than 3, it has been regarded as 'Low'
Table 6 Comparative Study of Performance Appraisal Reactions of
Managers in Public Sector Banks, Private Sector Banks and Foreign
Banks operating in India
Performance Appraisal Public Sector Private Sector
Perceptions Banks(N = 136) Banks(N = 125)
Mean SD Mean SD
Performance Improvement 4.02 .60 3.87 .79
Employee Development 3.87 .71 3.90 .82
Fairness in PA Rating 3.88 .80 3.67 1.0
Accuracy of PA Rating 3.82 .80 3.57 1.0
Providing Feedback 3.62 .78 3.78 .90
Explaining Rating Decisions 3.43 .93 3.75 .99
Overall Satisfaction with PA system 3.63 .87 3.59 1.0
(Results of ANOVA)
Performance Appraisal Foreign Banks F P(Sig.)
Perceptions (N = 57)
Mean SD
Performance Improvement 3.94 .86 1.28 .279
Employee Development 3.92 .83 .12 .886
Fairness in PA Rating 3.74 1.0 1.54 .215
Accuracy of PA Rating 3.79 .92 2.60 .076
Providing Feedback 3.96 .94 3.28 .039 *
Explaining Rating Decisions 3.43 3.98 .85 8.05 .000 *
Overall Satisfaction with PA system 3.95 .91 2.81 .061
Note: * Significant at .05 level of significance (Table Value of F
= 2.6049)
Standards for analysis: If mean value of the specific PAS
perception is above 4.0, it has been regarded
as 'High'; if the mean value is between 3 and 4, it has
been considered as 'Moderate'; and, if the mean
value is less than 3, it has been regarded as 'Low'
Table 7 Comparative Study of Performance Appraisal Reactions of
Senior, Middle and Junior Level Managers in Selected Banks
Performance Appraisal Senior Level Middle Level
Perceptions (N = 39) (N = 117)
Mean SD Mean SD
Performance Improvement 4.17 .71 3.92 .73
Employee Development 4.13 .71 3.82 .82
Fairness in PA Rating 3.89 1.07 3.73 .73
Accuracy of PA Rating 4.05 .81 3.72 .91
Providing Feedback 3.81 .87 3.74 .88
Explaining Rating Decisions 3.57 1.01 3.61 .97
Overall Satisfaction with PA system 3.92 .82 3.55 1.01
(Results of ANOVA)
Performance Appraisal Junior Level F P(Sig.)
Perceptions (N = 162)
Mean SD
Performance Improvement 3.92 .73 1.949 .144
Employee Development 3.88 .75 2.296 .102
Fairness in PA Rating 3.77 .93 .405 .667
Accuracy of PA Rating 3.64 .97 2.981 .050 *
Providing Feedback 3.74 .85 .107 .898
Explaining Rating Decisions 3.70 .95 .502 .606
Overall Satisfaction with PA system 3.70 .97 2.211 .111
Note: * Significant at .05 level of significance
(Table Value of F = 2.6049)
Standards for analysis: If mean value of the specific PAS reaction
is above 4.0, it has been regarded as 'High'; if the mean value is
between 3 and 4, it has been considered as 'Moderate'; and, if the
mean value is less than 3, it has been regarded as 'Low'
