Dedication

This work is dedicated to my Dad whose values of discipline, integrity, respect and hard
work will always be my inspiration.





















iv
Acknowledgements
I sincerely acknowledge the invaluable, continuous and tireless support and encouragement from
my supervisor Professor J .C. Munene. I have gained a lot from his wealth of experience, especially
in the field of Human Resources. I'm proud to be counted among the few who have been
transformed into real "people-people" students.
I'm grateful to my friends at the Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda, whose names I
cannot mention here, for their assistance in availing me with the necessary data as well as
information, which made it possible to accomplish this work.
My gratitude will not be complete without thanking the Board of Directors, Uganda Development
Gateway who assisted me in various ways during this study. Special gratitude goes to the
Chairman - Dr. F.F. Tusubira and Vice- Chairperson - Mrs. Nora Mulira, for granting me time off
to accomplish this mission.
Finally, my gratitude goes to my wife, Morley, who had to bear with my coming home late in the
night for two whole years.
FREDRICK T. MUKHOLI

v




Abstracts
This paper discusses the trait-based performance appraisal model used at the
Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda (ECOTRUST), its weaknesses, shortcomings
and effects that it has had on the staff. The paper also reviews the employee performance
appraisal that has just been carried out to assess staff performance at ECOTRUST. It
concludes with a recommendation that an improvement in staff performance appraisal
system at ECOTRUST can be achieved through the introduction of an in-built performance
management system and specifically using a competence-based performance appraisal
system. Competence-based performance appraisal systems, which incorporate job relevant
factors and discussion plans of the performance appraisal process, are preferred to those
that use personality traits (Oipboye and Pontbriand, 1981). Competence-based
performance appraisal facilitates the development of behaviorally anchored rating scales - a
prerequisite for accurate performance measurement (Sparrow, 1994).
x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study is based on a qualitative review of the secondary data provided by the
Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda (ECOTRUST) as well as discussions held with
the employees, on their staff performance appraisal system.
The study reveals that the performance appraisal model used to assess staff performance at
the Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda is based on an individual's personal
characteristics - trait-based. It assesses the employee's past and current performance but fails
to identify the employee's potential for handling any future challenges. The study also reveals
that the system does not allow for the employee's active participation in the performance
appraisal process. This, the study further reveals, has led to the performance appraisal system
failing to meet its objectives of assessing employees and developing their competences,
enhancing their performance and equitably distributing rewards. The study recommends that in
order to have the performance appraisal meet its objectives, ECOTRUST has to introduce an
in-built performance management system in its staff performance assessment, and specifically
use a competence- based performance appraisal system. In this way, a proper staff
assessment will be done, their competences identified and developed, staff performance
enhanced and rewards equitably distributed.

xi


CHAPTER ONE



INTRODUCTION

This chapter is divided into nine sections; Section 1 gives a Background to the study, Section 2 is
the Statement of the problem, Section 3 is the Purpose of the Study and Section 4 is the
Conceptual Framework. Section 5 gives the Objectives of the Study, Section 6 defines the
Research question, Section 7 is the Scope of Study, while Section 8 gives the Methodology and
Section 9 gives the justification and significance of the Study
1.0: BACKGROUND:
The Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda, ECOTRUST, was established as a sustainable
funding institution to support the conservation of biological diversity and alleviate poverty through
sustainable economic development activities in Uganda.
Incorporated as a Trust in August 1999, ECOTRUST operates as a private not-for-profit trust fund
managed by an autonomous Board of Trustees, with no government affiliation but working with the
government of Uganda and private organizations in fostering and supporting biological conservation
and environmentally sound development.

1


ECOTRUST's human resources management practice is to improve staff performance through
development schemes rather than hiring new staff. The staff training and development needs are to
be identified through the outcome of the performance appraisals (PA). The PA is, as such, meant to
serve as a development tool rather than a tool to determine increments in remuneration or to
terminate employee contracts.
The PA process at ECOTRUST, which is conducted annually, is based on an individual's personality
and does not provide for comments from employees concerning their satisfaction with the reports
written about them. The process begins with the appraisal forms being sent out to a" staff, with
instructions on how to fill them. After filling them, they are then sent to the supervisors for rating;
comments on the employee's weak and strong areas of performance; and suitability for promotion,
training, confirmation, extension of contract and salary upgrade. A" this is done in
confidence (in the absence of the employee).
The results of the PA are then sent back to the employee for information and signature.
One of the longest serving ECOTRUST employees commented; ...... 1 have been filling these PA
forms every end of the year, but I have neither been sent for any training nor been assisted to do
any of my duties differently!
2.0: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The performance appraisal system that is used to assess the staff at ECOTRUST is
2

2. To identify the weaknesses, shortcomings and the effects that the PA model has had on staff
at ECOTRUST.
3. To outline the activities to be carried out in a PA process that would lead to an
improvement in staff performance through development schemes.
6.0: RESEARCH QUESTIONS
4. What is the Performance Appraisal system that is used to assess staff at
ECOTRUST?
5. How is staff performance at ECOTRUST assessed?
6. What rating system is used when assessing staff performance at ECOTRUST?
7.0: SCOPE OF THE WORK
Sampli ng scope
This study is confined to the staff of the Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda, ECOTRUST.
Conceptual scope
This study describes the performance appraisal model that is used to assess staff performance
at ECOTRUST.
4
8.0: METHODOLOGY
This is a case study that cuts across all the members of staff at ECOTRUST. The case study will be
descriptive in nature, pointing out the PA process, its weaknesses, shortcomings and the effects that
it has had on staff. Quotations from staff will form part of the case. An alternative PA process that
could be used at ECOTRUST in order to improve staff performance through development schemes
will then be proposed.
9.0: JUSTIFICATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda (ECOTRUST) is a legally registered institution in
Uganda with a mandate to mobilize and provide funding to government, Non Governmental
Organizations (NGO) and Community Based Organizations (CBOs) to execute natural resource
management and livelihood improvement initiatives in Uganda. ECOTRUST has focused its support
to piloting the implementation of District/Sub Parish and Parish Environment Plans and Uganda
Wildlife Authority's General Management Plan for the Queen Elizabeth Protected area, funding
several other innovative community conservation projects, supporting generation of new knowledge
in environment through graduate research studies as well as establishing a land trust program. In
addition, ECOTRUST has rendered technical support to several USAID funded projects targeting
conservation of biodiversity and increasing economic opportunities for the rural poor. In order to
better perform these tasks, ECOTRUST has

5
to properly assess its employees and develop their competences, enhance their performance and
fairly distribute rewards. This can only be done through a properly designed performance appraisal
system. This study will help ECOTRUST to improve on its PA system and ensure the system meets
its intended objectives. Other non profit organizations that are involved in the poverty alleviation and
sustainable development in Uganda will utilize the findings of this study to improve on their staff
appraisal systems, hence meeting the objectives of the PA.
6


CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents a review of related literature to the study. The review is made in relation to the
purpose of the study, which is a description of a trait-based performance appraisal format. The
chapter is divided into several sections and these are: introduction to the study; need for and
importance of performance appraisal; types of performance appraisal i.e. trait-based performance
appraisal and competence-based performance appraisal; competency analysis and other
approaches to performance assessments.
1.0 Introduction:
The history of performance appraisal has its roots in the early zo
th
century, and can be traced to
Taylor's pioneering Time and Motion studies. As a distinct and formal management procedure used
in the evaluation of work performance, appraisal really dates from the time of Second World War
(Dulewicz, 1989).
There is, says Dulewicz (1989), a basic human tendency to make judgments about those one is
working with, as well as about oneself. Appraisal is both inevitable and universal. In the absence of a
carefully structured system of appraisal, people will tend to judge the work performance of others,
including subordinates, naturally, informally and arbitrarily (Dulewicz, 1989).



7
The human inclination to judge can create serious motivational, ethical and legal problems in the
workplace. Without a structured appraisal system, there is little chance of ensuring that the
judgments made will be lawful, fair, defensible and accurate (Dulewicz, 1989).
Performance appraisal systems began as simple methods of income justification, that is, appraisal
was used to decide whether or not the salary or wage of an individual employee was justified. The
process was firmly linked to material outcomes. If an employee's performance were found to be less
than ideal, a cut in pay would follow. On the other hand, if their performance was better than the
supervisor expected, a pay rise was in order (Dulewicz, 1989). Little consideration, if any, was given
to the developmental possibilities of appraisal. It was felt that a cut in pay, or a rise, should provide
the only required impetus for an employee to either improve or continue to perform well (Dulewicz,
1989). Sometimes this basic system succeeded in getting the results that were intended; but more
often than not, it failed. It was found that other issues, such as morale and self-esteem, could also
have a major influence.
There are many reputable sources - researchers, management commentators, psychometricians -
who have expressed doubts about the validity and reliability of the performance appraisal process.
According to Derven (1990), performance appraisal process is so inherently flawed that it may be
impossible to perfect it. At the other extreme, however, there are strong advocates of performance
appraisal. According to Lawrie (1990), performance appraisal process is the most crucial aspect of

8

organizational life. Performance appraisal - whatever its practical flaws - is the only process
available to help achieve fair, decent and consistent reward outcomes. According to Bannister &
Balkin (1990), appraisees seem to have greater acceptance of the appraisal process, and feel more
satisfied with it, when the process is directly linked to rewards.
Performance appraisal has now changed from the basic process of a line manager completing an
annual report on a subordinate's performance and discussing it with him/her in an appraisal
interview. It has become a general heading for a variety of activities through which organizations
seek to assess employees and develop their competence, enhance performance and distribute
rewards (Fletcher, 2001; Hersey and Blanchard, 1988; and Thronton and Zorich, 1980).
Performance appraisal sometimes becomes part of a wider approach to integrating human resource
management strategies known as performance management (PM). Performance management is a
means of getting results from the organization, teams and individuals by understanding and
managing performance within an agreed framework of planned goals, standards and
attribute/competence requirements (Armstrong, 1994). It is a process of establishing shared
understanding about what is to be achieved, and an approach to managing and developing people in
a way which increases the probability that it will be achieved in the short and longer term
(Armstrong, 1984). The potential benefits of PM include creation of a greater clarity of role and
objectives; providing encouragement and support to perform well; providing guidance and helping to
develop abilities and potential; bringing about an objective and fair basis for assessing performance;
and

9
providing an opportunity to be involved in the process with advance information and time for
preparation (Armstrong, 1994).
The performance appraisal feedback processes have generally been consistent in helping to
improve performance (K-huger and De Nisi, 1996).
In terms of performance appraisal practice in organizations, focus of the content of appraisal
continues to be centred on achievement against goals or objectives and on assessment of
competences (Mitchell, Thompson, and Favy, 2000). The goal orientation is defined as an
orientation toward developing or demonstrating one's ability (VandeWalle, 1997). According to
Dweck and Leggett (1988), goal orientation can either be learning goal orientation (LGO) or
performance goal orientation (PGO). The LGO involves developing competence by acquiring new
skills and mastering new problems and tasks, while the PGO is concerned with an orientation to
demonstrate and prove the adequacy of one's competence by seeking favorable assessments and
avoiding criticism. The LGO is positively related to feedback seeking while PGO is negatively related
to feedback seeking (VandeWalle and Cummings, 1997).
2.0 Need for and Importance of Performance Appraisal
Performance appraisal is a systematic measurement of individual or group job-relevant strengths
and weaknesses for purposes of evaluating behavior and assessing how behavior matches task
expectations (Cascio, 1998; Miner, 1992). Performance
10

appraisal is an aspect of performance management based on the premise that when employees
know and understand task expectations, they willingly perform to meet them (Armstrong, 1994).

Literature reviewed indicates that the performance appraisal process has various descriptions.
Thronton and Zorich (1980), state that performance appraisal comprises two processes -
observation and judgment rating. Observation processes include detecting, discernment and
recognition of specific job behaviors; while judgment processes of performance appraisal includes
classifying, integrating and evaluating information about job behavior (Thronton and Zorich, 1980).
However, there is need to set criteria and standards for observing and judging human performance
(Petterson, 1987).

Performance appraisal in an organization has a number of functions and these are to: provide an
opportunity for employees to express their concerns about work and to receive feedback from
supervisors; provide a basis for fairly, decently and consistently rewarding employees; and to focus
attention on the required personnel attributes and competences (Armstrong, 1994; Lewis, 1999).
Further studies indicate that the importance of PA is two fold and these are administrative purposes
and employee development (Murphy and Cleveland, 1995; Cummings, Schwab and Rosen, 1971;
Bernadin and Beatty, 1984). The administrative purposes include reward allocation and task
allocation decisions. Competence-based performance appraisal facilitates the development of
behaviorally anchored rating scales - a prerequisite for accurate







11

performance measurement (Sparrow, 1994). It is the behavioral standards of excellent performers,
argues Klein (1996) that becomes the foundation of recruitment, selection and promotions. This
precondition justifies the need for this study.

Performance appraisal can be done using trait-based or competence-based performance
appraisal/rating system (Cascio, 1998; Cook, 1995).

3.0 Types of Performance Appraisal

The types of performance appraisal systems discussed here are two and these are:
Trait-based performance appraisal system and competence-based performance appraisal system.

4.0 Trait-based Performance Appraisal System

Traits are the qualities of employees that are associated with role accomplishment, while motives
are a drive or thought that a person consistently wants to use for meeting a desired action (sparrow,
1994). The traits, motives, social roles, and social skills - as personal dispositions described by
(Ellstrom, 1997; Sparrow, 1994) are relevant for workers to relate with each other at work
(Goodstein & Davidson, 1998).







12
In a trait-based performance appraisal system, graphic-rating scales (GRS) are used to compare
employee performance on certain criteria unsatisfactory, good, exceptional (Giegold, 1978). The
raters evaluate ratees' performance in specific areas using traits like innovativeness, friendliness
(Brannick & Prince, 1997). The trait based PA systems use rater judgments about the degree to
which the employee possesses certain desired personal characteristics to perform a job (Bowman,
1999). Studies also indicate that trait-based PA systems are used following employee motives and
social roles.

Researchers have developed the Five-Factor Model - key characteristics of personality the human
resource specialists can use to evaluate performance. There are five primary dimensions, in the Big
Five model, and these are; Conscientiousness, likeability, undogmatic thinking, extroversion and
emotional stability (Goodstein & Davidson, 1998).

Conscientiousness refers to the extent to which a person is organized, plans, meticulous,
responsible, careful, hardworking, persevering, achievement-oriented and thorough. An employee
requires such characteristics in order to attain an outstanding performance. Conscientious people
have well developed sense of ethics and integrity, and are able to develop action plans that are
realistic, time and resource-bound (Goodstein and Davidson, 1998). However, conscientiousness
lies on a continuum, such that at the extreme end, you find Zealous and self-driven people who are
moralistic, especially about work - while at the lower end of the continuum you find people who are
carefree and irresponsible (Goodstein & Davidson, 1998).





13
Nevertheless, conscientiousness is significantly related to successful job performance, regardless of
the nature of the job (Goodstein & Davidson, 1998).

Likeability is the degree to which a person is agreeable, cooperative, forgiving, caring, trusting, and
tolerant. The individuals who are unlikeable, on the other hand, are intolerant, unpleasant, tough,
abrasively critical and cynical. In organizations, there are certain jobs that require a high degree of
likeability such as front desk officers and customer care/services related jobs.

Undogmatic thinking describes people who are willing to learn new ideas, curious, broad-minded,
and creative although they have high tolerance for ambiguity. Dogmatic thinking people, on the other
hand, are unimaginative and narrow-minded. The PA should help people to think undogmatically,
and this can be achieved through on-job coaching. All organizations should aim at having employees
who are undogmatic thinkers.

Extroversion refers to the degree to which a person is outgoing, active, sociable and talkative. The
opposite would be the introverts, who prefer solitary activities, tend to be isolated, shy, reserved, and
reluctant to engage others and quiet. In organizations, such employees like front desk officers need
to have a high degree of extroversion.

Emotional stability refers to a situation of how a person responds to stress. People who are
emotionally stable are sensitive; exhibit a sense of maturity and problem-solving


14
attitude while dealing with a wide range of stress conditions such as interpersonal conflict, hostility
and time pressures. Emotionally unstable people, on the other hand, breakdown under low stressful
circumstances, becoming upset, tearful, anxious, self- doubting and unable to handle ordinary task
demands.

Goodstein and Davidson (1998) state that it is imperative to identify, for every job, the level of
dimensions mentioned in each of the five factors. However, these researchers do not present a
framework for identifying the big five dimensions. This needs to be investigated further by
researchers, so as to come up with the means for managers to identify the required traits - the big
five dimensions.

The performance appraisals that have a high degree of subjectivity and largely use personality traits
have been termed trait-based PA systems .. They are not anchored to actual work behaviors
(Bowman, 1999; Hedge & Teachout, 2000). The graphic rating scales that are used in trait-based
performance appraisals use trait indicators such as innovativeness, friendliness, and ability to work
with other people. These trait indicators are not job-related but commonly used in employees'
performance appraisal (Gabris & Ihrke, 2000). A particular problem identified in this approach is the
"Halo" and "Horn" effects (Philip, 1990). Studies show that graphic rating scales are not designed to
include narrative essays that can describe and justify the employee's rating (Stone, 1998). The criteria
used in graphic rating scales makes them difficult to measure performance (Stone, 1998), and such
criteria is subjective (Bowman, 1999) hence unreliable. The trait-based performance appraisals are,
however, important in giving a


15
feedback to the employee regarding how s/he is perceived as an organizational citizen (Gabris &
Ihrke, 2000

Researchers agree that technical competencies, and the skills needed to accomplish tasks that the
job requires, are easy to understand and assess than personal/interpersonal traits (Dingle, 1995;
Goodstein & Davidson, 1998).

This study, however, also examined the competence-based performance appraisal system.

5.0Competence-Based Performance Appraisal system

The competence-based performance appraisal system requires the identification of competences
though competence analysis.

5.1The Concept of Competence and Competence Anal ysis

The meaning of competence has received different definitions from different scholars. Boyatzis
(1982) defines competence as an underlying characteristic of a person, which results in effective,
and or superior performance of a job. This characteristic may be a motive, skill, social role, or body
of knowledge that the employee possesses (Boyatzis, 1982).






16
Hornby and Thomas (1989) agree with Boyatzis (1982) that competences are knowledge, skills
and qualities of an effective employee. Competences refer to the employee's attributes that serve
as inputs for job performance (Boyatzis, 1982; Hornby and Thomas, 1989; Hunt & Meech, 1991).

The term competence can also refer to a combination of elements, namely; knowledge, skill and
attitude that an employee has (Simpson, 1999; Dingle, 1995; Dunn, 1982), motives, and social
roles (Sparrow, 1994).

Knowledge refers to the understanding of concepts and principles required to do work, that is what
the employee needs to know in order to achieve the key result areas in a role (Dingle, 1995).
Employees may be required to know accounting and financial procedures, knowledge of Acts and
regulations, including administrative procedures. While skill refers to the application of knowledge in
performing a task, which is the ability to perform a physical or mental task and demonstrate
behaviors related to the achievement of key result areas (Sparrow, 1994; Dingle, 1995). For instance
a project manager should be able to develop a strategic plan, design a project, monitor and evaluate
project implementation, write project implementation reports, and raise funds necessary for project
implementation. The attitude refers to the proper application of skill e.g. in accordance with
professional and corporate ethics (Dingle, 1995). As such it is unavoidable that the competence-
based performance appraisal system uses both sets of competencies. According to Hoffman (1999)
competences are observable input-based behaviors exhibited by employees on the job. There must
be




17


Performance standards that serve as a benchmark for employees to display their

Different stakeholders use competence in different ways e.g. competence according to psychologists
is a measure of ability and whether the person's observable performance represents their underlying
traits or capacity (Sternberg and Kolligan, 1990). To management theorists, its application was to
define how organizational goals were to be best achieved through improved individual performance
(Burgoyne, 1993). Human resource managers viewed competence as a technical tool to implement
strategic direction through recruitment, placement, training, assessment, promotion, reward systems
and personnel planning (Burgoyne, 1993).

The concept of competence ranges from behaviour (Dulewicz, 1989), cognition, (Kanungo & Miscra,
1992), and skills (O'Reilly & Chattman, 1994; Barret and Depinet, 1991; Boyatzis, 1982; McClelland,
1973) necessary for task performance. Competence can be defined as the ability to put knowledge
and skills into action (Day, 1989). Woodruffe (1998) states that competence is the set of behaviors
that an individual should practice in order to perform the roles of a job, i.e. what people need to know
and be able to do, to perform their jobs effectively (Armstrong, 1994).

According to pierce (1994), the term competence is concerned with the performance of work in a
manner that shows management ability and behavior required for competent

18






performance- hence, a job consists of a set of deliverable outputs which require associated abilities.

Competences are used to integrate human resource functions in the organization. Competence-
based human resource processes are based on the assumption that it is possible to identify the
behaviors exhibited consistently by excellent and average performers. Once identified, it is possible
to use competences to improve employee performance through training and coaching interventions
(Hefferman & Flood, 2000).

Competences in the work place are used to perform a variety of activities - the competence model
can integrate all human resource systems using behavioral standards (Pickett, 1998; Klein, 1996).
According to Goodstein and Davidson (1998), identifying the particular technical competences
required for success on the job and their levels, is a first critical step in developing the performance
appraisal format, and that it is only when there is a match between competences and the job, that an
employee can be successful on the job. Thus it is important that the competence-based
performance appraisal format correctly identifies the required competence.

This then calls for a clear process of competence analysis.



19

5.2 The process of competence analysis

Competence analysis is the systematic procedure of obtaining detailed and objective information
about a role that will be performed or is currently being performed (Armstrong & Baron, 1995; Pearn
& Kandola, 1993). Role is a description of the part played by individuals in fulfilling their job
requirements (Armstrong & Baron, 1995). Competence analysis compiles competence profiles
comprising of the types of knowledge, skill, personal attributes and knowledge required for a job.
The profiles serve as a basis for performance management and control (Armstrong & Baron, 1995;
Woodruffe, 1998). Competence analysis is concerned with functional and behavioral analysis.
Functional analysis determines work-based competence while behavioral analysis establishes the
behavioral dimensions that affect job performance (Armstrong & Baron, 1995).

The process of analyzing competences involves the use of expert opinion and structured interviews
(Armstrong & Baron, 1995). According to Armstrong and Baron (1995), expert opinion uses experts'
understanding of the core, generic and individual role competencies to draw a list of relevant roles
and competences. Structured interviews on the other hand, aid the identification of key result areas
of the role and analysis of the behavioral characteristics that distinguish performers at different levels
of competence.







20
The process involves identifying the organization; the department or section that the jobholder belongs
to; the mission of the organization; the role of the job-holder in the organization; the key result areas
that reveal the working environment in terms of who Ole job-holder interacts with, the content of the
interaction, the different decisions that Ole job-holder has to make, problems frequently encountered
& solved, and the level of flexibility that the job-holder enjoys. The analysis further reveals the
knowledge that the jobholder requires, that is what s/he needs to know; the skills required, that is
what s/he needs to be able to do; and the expected critical outputs (Armstrong & Baron, 1995).

Key result areas are areas of work roles at which a person is competent (Woodruffe, 1998), that is
statements of outputs required of the role and specify the main areas in which role incumbents must
get results to achieve the purpose of the role (Armstrong & Baron, 1995). Key result areas are
specific, distinct from each other and, focus on
outputs/results that a role-holder should produce (Wood ruffe , 1998). These areas of the role
describe role actions that lead to the achievement of results, that is clearly indicate performance
measures while highlighting performance standards for results achievement (Armstrong, & Baron,
1995). The presentation of key result areas involves using an active verb such as maintain, develop,
prepare, and schedule (Armstrong & Baron, 1995). The active verb enables the manager to
specifically measure the achievement of key result areas. For example a manager can clearly
measure the degree to which an accountant has been auditing the books of accounts belonging to
projects funded by the organization.






21

After analysis the competences, a performance appraisal that follows is competence-

5.3 Competence-based performance appraisal systems
These are systems that use actual work behaviors to evaluate employee performance (Cascio,
1995; Stone, 1998; Bowman, 1999). The competence-based performance appraisal systems involve
evaluating employees on job-related behaviors associated The raters evaluate the frequency of
specific job-related exhibits (Brannick & Prince, 1997). Competence-based performance appraisal
systems, which incorporate job relevant factors and discussion plans of the performance appraisal
process, are preferred to those that use personality traits (Oipboye and Pontbriand, 1981). This
preference could be as a result of the use of actual job behaviors that are acceptable to the ratees.

According to Cascio (1998) and Bowman (1999) emphasis of the performance appraisal should be
on job-related performance measures derived from a competence analysis rather than personality.
In the competence-based appraisal systems, critical outputs are used to develop a list of the desired
behaviors needed to successfully perform a specific job (Giegold, 1978). Critical outputs can be
derived from critical incidents (Bowman, 1999).













22
Critical incidents are the shared, observed or reliably reported occurrences of the employee's
behavior in the work situation that significantly affect that person's performance (Giegold, 1978).
They can be obtained by the immediate supervisor who observes and analyses the employee's job
behavior, and highlights good or bad performance - the critical incidents, which are then recorded as
soon as they occur. The supervisor then uses the record of critical incidents to evaluate the
employee's performance during the performance appraisal period. The use of critical incidents in PA
is, however, limited by the long time it takes to collect significant job behaviors and the restricted
generalizability of critical incidents across a job family (Stone, 1998).

In the competence-based appraisal system, behavior observation scales (BaS) are used by
evaluators to measure specific job-related behaviors, frequency of occurrence and then immediately
recorded (Brannick & Prince, 1997). This evaluation involves appraising employees on job-related
behaviors associated with a specific position. The frequency with which the employee demonstrates
such behavior on the job can be determined using a 5-point scale which ranges from "almost never"
(1) to "almost always" (5). The rater then calculates an overall rating by adding up all the scores on
each behavioral item (Stone, 1998).

A competence-based performance appraisal system facilitates the development of behaviorally
anchored rating scales, which is a prerequisite for accurate performance measurement (Sparrow,
1994). It is the behavioral standards of excellent performers,




23

argues Klein(1996) that becomes the foundation of recruitment, selection and promotions

This study also examined other approaches to performance assessments.

6.0: Other approaches to performance assessments:


The other approaches to performance assessment include: self-assessment; upward assessment;
peer assessments and multi-assessments (Armstrong, 1994) .

6.1 Self assessment.

This is where individuals review their own performance, using a structured approach, as the basis
for discussions with their managers in the review meeting .

6. 2 Upward assessment

This provides for subordinates to assess or comment on particular aspects of their manager's
performance. This helps to make managers more aware of issues relating to their performance from
the perspective of their subordinates (Armstrong, 1994). According to Pollack and Pollack (1996),
managers value upward feedback for development purposes but do not see it appropriate for pay
and promotion decisions.













24
Bettenhausen and Fedor (1997) also agree that there is a more positive response for the
developmental use of upward assessment. Theseare reviews made by fellow team members or
colleagues who are in the same network. Here individuals are asked to rate each of their other team.
According to Bettenhausen and Fedor (1997), there is a more positive response for the
developmental use of peer assessment. Pollack and Pollack (1996) concluded from their review of
previous research that peer ratings when used for appraisal rather than development are more
lenient, less reliable and less valid (Bettenhausen and Fedor,

6.4 Multiassessments

This could involve the use of upward as well as peer assessments as well as assessments by the
line manager. One of the main aims of this assessment is to increase target employee's levels of
self-awareness; that is, to produce greater congruence between their self-assessment of their
performance and the way it is viewed by bosses, peers, subordinates and customers (London &
Smither, 1995). Higher self-awareness is associated with better performance (Metcalfe, 1998; Bass
& Yammarino, 1991; Furnham & Stringfield, 1994).
















25
CHAPTER THREE
Methodology and Analysis
This chapter provides the findings of a qualitative review of the secondary data provided
by the Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda (ECOTRUST) as well as discussions
held with employees on their staff performance appraisal system.
1.0 Methodology
The Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda (ECOTRUST) conducts staff
performance appraisals once every year, during the month of November. This study aims
at using the process of the staff performance appraisal system used at ECOTRUST (see
PA format - appendix /) to develop case studies in order to carry out the following tasks:
Task 1: Review and analyze information obtained from employees in part A, sections
1, 2A, 2B and 2C of the PA format.
Task 2: Review and analyze information obtained from employees in sections 3, 4 and
5 of the PA format.
Task 3: Review and analyze information obtained from employees in sections 6A, 6B,
6C and 60 of the PA format.
Task 4: Review and analyze information provided by the employee's appraiser in part
B of the PA format.

26
Task 5: Review and analyze information provided by the appraiser's supervisor in part
C of the PA format.
Task 6: Identify the weaknesses, shortcomings and the effects that the PA system
may have had on employees at ECOTRUST.
2.0 Findings, Analysi s and Interpretation
This section provides the findings and subsequent analysis and interpretation for each of the above
tasks based on the information obtained from the PA process used at ECOTRUST.
27
Findings, Analysis and Interpretation:
While the information sought from the employee at this initial stage seems to indicate that s/he is
clear of his/her job performance, the process fails to provide for the following items: It fails to
create for a greater clarity of the objective of the performance appraisal. There is evidence to this
failure. For example, the secretary/receptionist sees the PA as a remuneration review process
and in her PA form, requests management to review her salary. She stated that "------1 realize that
the drivers are compensated well, as opposed to the way that I am. From their usual travels, they
earn more money than the secretary. According to the current inflation rate, I find it difficult to
meet my basic needs". This statement shows that the employee takes the PA to be synonymous
with remuneration and does not seem to focus on the required personnel attributes and
competences for her job. The employee is not clear about the objective of the performance
appraisal. There is need for the employee to appreciate that PA is a means through which an
organization can assess its employees and develop their competence, enhance their performance
and distribute rewards. The format/system does not show that PA is so far the only process
available to help achieve fair, decent and consistent reward outcomes. The employee filling in the
PA form is likely to view the process as a mere management routine that has to be carried out by
the organization once a year, in the month of November with nothing to contribute towards
improvement in performance.

29

The process also fails to provide for a carefully structured system of performance appraisal. There is
evidence to show that the PA system is not structured. For example, an office attendant, when
asked how she has been utilized, states that "---I have tried my level best to achieve the targets in
my job description". However, the format of the PA form does not provide for any set targets, neither
does the PA process provide for it either. The question is: How will the judgment be made? The
information that is provided by the employees is not be systematic. The judgment that will be made
by the appraiser, based on the information provided by the employee, is likely to create motivational,
ethical and legal problems at the workplace. As stated by Dulewicz (1989), without a structured
appraisal system there is little chance of ensuring that the judgments made will be lawful, fair,
defensible and accurate. The process fails to create a greater clarity of the role of the employee in
his/her job. Evidence to this failure is where a program officer stated thus "---responsible for
fostering conservation and improved resources management program, proposal screening and
ensuring environmental compliance----". More evidence is where the executive director stated that "-
--- responsible for managing funds, people and entire business of ECOTRUST and efficient
operation of the secretariat". These statements do not smell and besides, they do not bring out the
description of the part played by the individuals in fulfilling their job requirements. The system falls
short of assisting the employee to understand his/her role in the organization, and assumes that by
the employee describing his/her job is enough to start off the performance appraisal
process. According to Armstrong & Baron (1995), role is a description of the part

30
played by individuals in fulfilling their job requirements. The PA process should provide for this
information right from the beginning of the process. The process does not provide for the employee
to state if s/he knows the types of knowledge, skills and personal attributes that are required in order
to perform the job, which makes the appraisal fall short of achieving the intended purpose. The
process fails to create for a greater clarity of the employee's task expectations/key result areas. The
evidence to lack of this clarity is where one employee's response to how she has been utilized,
relating to tasks was "----1 have been given a chance to do most of the responsibilities in my job
description and facilitated to perform, together with guidance where I did not perform to the required
level". More evidence is where the executive director, responding to how she had been utilized,
stated that "----- steering and managing the secretariat efficiently and effectively as well as
negotiating with ECOTRUST's main donor, USAID to respond positively during a critical phase of
ECOTRUST'S establishment. Forged useful partnerships that add value and target, responding to
critical funding gaps". These statements do not clearly spell out the employee's working
environment, as well as the knowledge that his /her requires, what she needs to know, skills required
and the expected outputs. The system fails to provide for the employee to spell out or show that s/he
understands his/her task expectations or key result areas, and yet the PA is based on the premise
that employees willingly perform to meet their task expectations when they understand them
(Armstrong, 1994). This shortfall is likely to affect the employee performance. The information that is
likely to be provided by the employee regarding the extent to which they are utilized, that is whether
they are fully utilized or not; if not, how they think


31

they could be fully utilized; and if yes, how they have been utilized may be more of guess work.
Besides the information collected may not contribute positively towards the objectives of the PA,
which according to Cascio (1998) & Miner (1992), is a systematic measurement of the employee
job-relevant strengths and weaknesses for the purpose of evaluating behavior and assessing how
behavior matches task expectations. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the
employee does not have an established or agreed upon measure/benchmark against which s/he
can conduct a self-evaluation.
The process also fails to provide an opportunity for the employee to get involved in the process with
advance information and time to prepare. A driver at ECOTRUST made a comment on the PA forms
that "--- we still need to build ourselves into teams/workgroups especially when it comes to field
work---". A program officer also had this to say "---- the formatting of this appraisal form does not
reflect on enabling staff to improve. Sections like integrity, conceptual ability, analytical skills,
decision making, initiative etc are not catered for and yet they are very crucial for focusing on helping
staff to improve----". These statements imply that the employees are not involved in the process right
from the start otherwise these concerns would have been addressed.
Finally the process neither guides nor helps to develop abilities and potential of the employee. The
PA does not provide for identification of the necessary skills that the employee requires in tackling
any future challenges, and hence developing a training plan to develop him/her. It mainly
concentrates on the past and current performance forgetting identification of the employee's
potential.


32

Through a continuous management of performance throughout the year, the employee needs to be
given information about his/her performance. This is the advance information that the employee
needs to be armed with in order to prepare for and fill in the PA form. This information would better
guide the employee in assessing whether he/she is fully utilized or not. It would also form a guide to
help the employee develop the abilities and potential to perform better.
Summary and Conclusion:
The objectives of the PA are not clear to the employees and thus not met. The employees are not
clear about their respective roles, tasks and expectations or Key Result Areas within the
organization. There are no targets that are set for the employees right from the beginning of the
year. The process is likely to create motivational, ethical and legal problems at ECOTRUST.
Employee performance and morale is low. The information collected is not relevant to the objectives
of the PA system.
33

gained experience from the nature of the ECOTRUST project---"; while another said "--- - I have
gained by socializing and learning as to when and how judjrnent or justification is done towards
organizational matters----". The two statements are quite diverse and give an indication that there
was no agreement on what the drivers were to achieve during the period. More evidence is where an
Office Administrator stated that "---- I have been able to understand my job better. I have supported
my subordinates in their endeavors to accomplish their tasks----". This statement shows that the
employee is not clear about what he was supposed to achieve during the period. In all the above
cases the supervisor would just have to believe what has been stated since there is no reference
point. Failure to do so would result into conflicts. To make matters worse, the statements are vague.
The PA format also fails to provide for planned goals to be achieved during the period, yet these are
supposed to have been agreed upon right from the start. Because no goals are set, the section for
self evaluation is done haphazardly and the supervisor again has no basis for disagreeing. Evidence
to this is where one employee stated "---- --- I do rate myself at the score of 8 (maximum is 10)
because I do perform my duties at the best of my knowledge for ECOTRUST to meet its targets and
goals towards the
Aims and Objectives ". Another employee rated himself at "--- 7/10, because I have
not performed at my best neither did I perform at my worst---". But no targets are
stated!!
The format also fails to provide for a performance agreement, and development &
training plan developed between the employee and the supervisor. In the absence of
35



the two items it becomes difficult for the employee to determine his/her achievements for the
period. There is evidence that the two items are lacking, as can be seen from the employee's
responses to the factors that hindered their performance. For example the finance controller stated
that u still understanding the system and reporting requirements. Require training in donor
reporting requirements and their fund management----". The executive director stated that u need
to reduce the routine secretariat management support roles ------". The ideal would have been
where the two agree on the accountabilities, tasks, work & developmental objectives, and
knowledge, skill and competence requirements for the job. In addition, work plans and personal
development and performance improvement action plans would be clearly spelt out. Basing on this,
the employee would find it easy to spell out his/her achievements during the period of review. The
appraiser would also find it easy to evaluate the employee against a set of agreed benchmarks. It is
only when this is spelt out in the beginning that the employee can then be able to state what s/he
has achieved and what has not been achieved.
It also fails to provide for any continuous management of performance and development needs to
be done throughout the year. In its absence then the employee may fail to improve on his/her
performance hence a problem when it comes to stating the achievements. There is evidence that
management at ECOTRUST did not provide employees with any continuous management of
performance throughout the year. For example, a program officer stated that u I have been
involved in activities that are not directly related to my job description-------- there is too much work
and strict deadlines-----". More evidence is where the secretary/receptionist stated that ..I find

36
it difficult to attend to calls from the gate, incoming calls as well as visitors at the same time. This
hinders my performance in other related duties. I request management to find an alternative ------".
The PA format requires that a continuous management of performance is done throughout the
year. A record of the mid term reviews of the performance and development needs would form an
input into the final PA. The employee rating his/her performance for the period offers a good
opportunity as far as self-evaluation is concerned. However the rating will be subjective and has no
uniformity since there is no benchmark against which the rating is to be made. It will depend upon
the ability of the employee to decide on the format to use in evaluating him/herself. One may
decide to do so using the tasks that are spelt out in the job description while others may decide to
choose any area of interest that is not necessarily related to job performance. This then breeds the
problem of subjectivity. A particular problem that will also come out, especially at the time of
supervisor rating, will be the "Halo" and "Horn" effects (Philip, 1990). As confirmed by Stone
(1998), the rating in the PA format here does not provide for narrative essays that would describe
and justify the employee's rating. This then renders the system difficult to measure performance,
and as such subjective (Bowman, 1999) and unreliable. For the employee to give reasons why
s/he has rated himself/herself so, more so against no originally set standards, will tantamount to
guess work. The PA format requires that the employee states factors that s/he thinks hinders
his/her performance, and suggest ways that management can assist in improving his/her work.
However it is not clear as to whether this is work related, personal; development or any

37

other. This would require further guidance to the employee to consider areas that are relevant to
improved performance at the job. The result is that different employees will come up with varying
information and this will lead to subjective judgment by their appraisers.
Finally, the format does not provide for a general framework that spells out the way in which the
employee and the supervisor can best work together and enhance chances of the employee
achieving what is expected of him/her. There is evidence of lack of such a framework. For
example, the executive director when commenting on factors that hindered her performance stated
that members of Board of Trustees are not freely available for meetings and follow up on
decisions that require their input. I suggest that the Board of Trustees address the issue". The
performance appraisal, which forms part of performance management, is a means of getting
results from an individual by understanding and managing performance within an agreed
framework of planned goals, standards and attribute requirements (Armstrong, 1994). The format
used here does not give guidance on the framework within which the employee and the supervisor
are supposed to work together.
Summary and Conclusion:
The achievements stated by the employees cannot be verified, given that no shared
understanding was provided for from the beginning. Worse still the achievements stated may not
be true. There is no basis upon which the achievements can be evaluated or gauged, as the


38

employees themselves are not clear about what they are supposed to achieve. The employees
are not clear about what the organization expects of them, and the achievements that they state
may not be relate to the job requirements. The factors that are supposed to have hindered the
employee's achievements are not easy to address since most of them may not relate to
performance, hence falling outside the ability of the organization to address.
39



employee and the supervisor at the beginning of the year. The evidence to this is the response that
came from the program manager as to whether he required any training or not, which was in the
affirmative for two consecutive years. The previous year he had stated "---- training in professional
presentation skills using power point and environmental impact assessment". The following year he
stated "--------training in conflict resolution, public presentation using power point, and financial
management for non financial managers---". If there had been a training plan, then a repetition of
similar areas like "presentation skills", to overlap with new areas would not have arisen or else
reasons would have been stated as to why the training was not conducted. The predecessor to the
program manager, given the title of general manager, stated "---1 require training in time
management for a hectic work schedule----". This shows that no training plan was thought through
otherwise the issue of a hectic work schedule would not arise. Besides, in all cases no schedules of
the training are stated hence reflecting no organized plan. The PA form requires that the employee
states whether s/he thinks s/he requires any training. Basically all employees did state in the
affirmative. However, the training that the PA should be looking for should be in line with improving
the employee performance. Unfortunately the PA format does not provide for the development and
agreement on the training plan, which could be used as a reference point. In addition there is no
provision for identifying employee performance gaps, which would give a clear guide as to what sort
of training to target. Besides the form does not spell out whether the training that the employee is
being asked about should result from the PA process, either in relation to the job at hand, for
personal development or just as training for the sake of it. Without this base then the training


41
that the employee may ask for will not necessarily be relevant to the objectives of the
PA. Employees mentioned that offers for training depend on the innovativeness of an employee,
that is if one is able to search for and identify any available training opportunities in his/her area of
specialty, then s/he is likely to be sent for the training, which is also funded by the organization.
For example, the executive director searched for and identified budgeting and cash flow
development; strategic planning; and business plan development and management. Her
supervisor's approval in regard to suitability for training was "----- deserves the specialist training
needed to enhance performance, recommended -----". In a properly designed PA, these would
have been the identified performance gaps and would have been stated so in the supervisor's
recommendation. Instead the approval here is based on "deserving specialist training". Most of
the training opportunities that come up at ECOTRUST, it was again reported, are dished out by
the executive director, based on the personal relationship that exists with the employee. In
addition to this, the employee who constantly searches for training opportunities is likely to be
offered the training, not because such an employee is the most deserving but because the system
operates like so.
The discussions held with the employees revealed that at the time of budgeting, the amount of funds
earmarked for training does not depend on the any activities at all since none is planned for, but
instead it is a gut-feeling amount coming from the finance and administration manager, endorsed by
the executive director. With this type of budgeting it would be difficult to fulfill any training
requirements that may genuinely arise from the identified performance gaps. As required by the PA
format, previous PAs


42
have led some employees into stating and recording the type of training that they require but
unfortunately most of these trainings have never been honored. This has made the employees to
believe that this is just a formality and never take the requirement to have any significant meaning
to them, let alone the organization. It was also found out that the type of training that the
organization is willing to fund is not clear to the employees. This is evident from the diverse areas
of training that are requested for by the employees, irrespective of the required competences for
the job. For example, a driver identified the training that he needs and stated that: " __ - the reason
that we have got an ECOTRUST website, I need more skills in how I can give a hand in updating
the website contents, and also handle queries from clients. I also need training in the use of power
point, as well as in other relevant courses that can be of great help to ECOTRUST as well as to
myself, whenever need arises". The format itself is also silent on the type of training that the
organization is willing to support, which de-links the training from the PA, hence losing its meaning.
The reasons that the employee is supposed to give for the training that s/he requires further de-link
the training from the PA process. The necessary training in the PA process is supposed to result
from the identified performance gaps and not just any open-ended training. In summary the PA
form fails to help in identifying the necessary training that would
enhance performance.
Summary and Conclusion:
The training needs that are identified do not result from performance gaps; hence do not
necessarily assist the employee to improve his/her performance on the job.


43
Besides, the needs are not jointly agreed upon but instead just endorsed by the
supervisor. There is no training plan developed for employees. Needs once identified,
mayor may not be fulfilled. The organization has no obligation or commitment to the training
so identified. The information collected in this section does not meet the primary objective of
the PA. The training that ECOTRUST approves and eventually pays for, is not in line with
the objectives of the PA, and does not necessarily help the employee to improve in his/her
job related performance. Employees are not clear about the type of training that the
organization is ready and willing to fund. Training and development opportunities are dished
out haphazardly, based on personal relationship between the employee and the executive
director, at times disregarding the employee's immediate supervisor. Training offers are
made depending on the availability of funds in the training budget during the financial year,
as opposed to budgeting for the training, based on the identified areas of performance
deficiencies.
44





Findings, Analysis and Interpretation:
The information that the employee's supervisor gathers and provides, to form the basis
for rating, involves: Conducting the rating of employee performance in confidence and the results
are sent back to him/her for information and signature. There is evidence that the employees are
rated in confidence and only asked to sign off the PA forms. For example the program manager,
before signing the PA form, stated "------- I have been unfairly judged. Without my leadership role
there wouldn't have been the success in the program department that ECOTRUST is now enjoying
-------". More evidence is where the office administrator, after signing the PA form, had the following
comment added on the PA form by his appraiser's supervisor "----- he has not shown tendencies to
change his attitude towards improving his performance. The three months contract has not been
used to demonstrate his willingness to exert effort in addressing his weaknesses
with his job. To ensure the organization does not suffer further, his contract will not be renewed-----
".
What has happened in certain cases is that the employees have been innovative and raised their
"voices", though to no benefit, by adding some extra comments in the space provided for the
signature, about the unfairness of the PA process. The process also involves using a graphic-rating
scale to compare employee performance on criteria like excellent, very good, good, fair and poor
(A,B, C, D and E respectively). The rates/scores that are tagged to each scale are as follows:

46



A =Excellent: - 75-100%
B =Very Good: - 65-74%
C =Good : - 50-64%
D=Fair: - 35-49%
E =Poor: - 0-34%
In addition to this, the supervisor evaluates the employee performance in specific areas using traits
like attendance and punctuality, interest in work, initiative, interpersonal relations, leadership,
reliability, and meeting set work targets. There is evidence to show that evaluation of employee
performance is done using traits, For example the finance and administration manager, who has
served the same organization for the past five years, without clear justification and supporting
evidence was evaluated as
follows:
Attendance and punctuality = 0
Interest in work = 0
Initiative = E
Interpersonal relations = 0
Leadership = E
Reliability = 0
Meeting set work targets = 0
More findings from the PA format are that the process does not involve the active participation of the
employee, and it is a trait-based approach. It compares employee performance on criteria like
excellent, very good, good, fair and poor, which are given ratings ranging from 0 to 100%. This is
confirmed by Giegold (1978), who states that in
47

a trait-based performance appraisal system, graphic-rating scales are used to compare employee
performance on certain criteria such as unsatisfactory, poor, satisfactory, good and exceptional. The
same format shows that the supervisor, in the course of evaluating the employee performance, uses
employee traits. In this case the traits used are attendance and punctuality, interest in work,
initiative, interpersonal relations, leadership, reliability, and meeting set work targets. This is also
confirmed by Brannick & Prince (1997), who state that in a trait-based PA system the raters evaluate
ratees' performance in specific areas using traits like innovativeness and friendliness.
The supervisor uses his/her own judgments to comment on the employee's weak and strong areas
of performance. For example the comment that was made on the general manager's weak area(s)
(evaluation that was based on one month's performance), was; "---- needs prioritizing and refining
time management -----". The comment on strong areas was that: u she is a team builder and
consults always. She is transparent and invests heavily in team building. She is very practical and
has a wealth of knowledge in administration and project implementation-----". However, the general
manager had requested for training in public administration yet the supervisor, in her own judgment
thinks that she has a wealth experience in this field! More evidence can be drawn from the
comments that were made on the office administrator's weak areas as: requires
reminders on logistic processing -----". Comments that were made on the finance and administration
manager's weak areas were that; ------ lacks initiative drive and supervisory functions----". The
comments on the strong areas were "--- reviews of financial reports and requests----". These
comments are de-linked from the
48

objectives of the PA, and would not help the employee to improve his/her performance as it is more
of criticism than encouragement! Besides they are one's own judgments! Again, the supervisor uses
his/her judgment to make an approval on the employee's suitability for promotion, training,
confirmation, extension of contract, salary upgrade, etc , which is subjective. This is a one person
decision that cannot be challenged by the employee, not even any provision for an appeal against
an unfair judgment. There is evidence to this effect, for example a driver's approval was stated as "--
----- given his performance, I have no objection of his contract being renewed for another one year---
- -". More evidence is an approval made on the one month old general manager's performance as: "-
----- extension of contract is justified. ECOTRUST will benefit from the training specified. The need
to revisit the current remuneration also justified -----". More evidence is the comment made on the
finance and administration manager's PA forms that: "---- contract not to be renewed to enable a
thorough review of the structure below the executive director ------". More evidence is the comment
on a program officers PA forms that: "------ is recommended for training and salary upgrade. Training
needs as highlighted should be considered in the coming year as well as renewal of his contract-----
". The evidence provided above reflects subjectivity in the approvals that are made and are heavily
dependent on the personal relationship that exists between the supervisor and the employee being
appraised.

The approach used is not systematic and cannot be uniformly applied across the board. It varies
from one supervisor to another and is quite subjective. The above evidence reflects diversity in the
evaluation process. This process is likely to result into a high degree of subjectivity, without any
uniformity at all. The outcome of the supervisor's


49
rating is likely to be determined by the personal relationship that exists between him/her and the
employee, which brings out the problem of "Halo" and "Horn" effects (Philip, 1990). This type of
rating is not anchored to actual work behavior displayed by the employee, as confirmed by Bowman
(1999) and Hedge & Teachout (2000). The trait based indicators that are used here, such as
initiative, interpersonal relations, reliability and leadership are not job-related and yet they are being
used in employee's performance appraisal. This may not be helpful as regards assessing the
employee and developing his/her competence, enhancing performance and distributing rewards,
which is meant to be achieved by the PA. The format does not also provide for narrative essays that
would save the situation by ensuring the supervisor describes and justifies the employee's rating.
The format that is used here in the rating makes it difficult to measure the employee performance,
is subjective and hence unreliable. This is confirmed by Stone (1998) who states that the criteria
used in graphic rating scales makes them difficult to measure performance (Stone, 1998), and
such criteria is subjective (Bowman, 1999) hence unreliable. In summary, the system that is used
for rating the employee in the PA form is not uniform across the board, varies from one supervisor
to another, is subjective and unreliable.
Summary and Conclusion:
The system lacks transparency and the assessment is done in confidence. The
system lacks active participation of employees.


50
The process misses out on work related behaviors of the employee, but instead applies trait-
based indicators that are not job related. The system does not identify employee
competences. The assessment has a high degree of subjectivity and in many cases has no
justification. The process is not standard but varies from one appraiser to another.
The process is trait-based, using a graphic-rating scale to compare employee performance. It also
uses traits like attendance & punctuality, interest in work, initiative, interpersonal relations, reliability,
and meeting set work targets (incidentally none is set) to assess staff performance. It compares
employee performance on criteria like excellent, very good, good, fair and poor.
The format fails to measure employee performance and is unreliable.















51

The comments that are made by the appraiser's supervisor do not necessarily have a linkage to the
employee's performance - they are vague and hardly contribute to the objectives of the PA. There is
evidence to show that the comments made do not have a linkage to the employee's performance.
For example comments on a driver's PA form were that: "---- works hard. However his close
association with some staff members sometimes interferes with his duties. Contract to be renewed
on condition of commitment-----. This comment makes one wonder whether there exist some
cliques in the organization, and how this comment contributes to the objectives of the PA. More
evidence is the comment made on the program officer's PA form that: "------ is a talented and
innovative, skilled worker. His interest and determination cannot be doubted. He however must be
bold to take risky steps. His contract to be renewed -----. Yet another example is the comment
made on another driver's PA form that: "------- is very hard working and committed to his job. He is
particularly a non conflict driver. Contract to be renewed ". Another comment on the finance
and administration manager's PA form was that: "----- contract not extended beyond 31/12/02---
lJ
.
As a follow up from the previous comment made on the finance and administration manager's PA
form, one would conclude that the decision not to renew the contract is not necessarily performance
related, but just to give the executive director a free hand to review the structure below her!
The process used is such that the person making the comments (appraiser's supervisor) has no
reference point to base on his/her comments, except what the appraiser has put down on the PA
form. Besides, there is no independent assessment of the employee's performance by the
appraiser's supervisor. The evidence to this is


53
The comment made on the accountant's PA form that "--- contract extension if funds available.
Relevant training endorsed ----". Another example is the comment on a program officer's PA
forms that: "----- is thorough in her work. Her commitment and interest drive her to great heights.
ECOTRUST to support her to sharpen her skills to perform her duties with firmness. Contract to
be renewed ------". Another example is the case of the office attendant where comments made
were that: "----- I have no objection with regard to renewal of her contract for the remaining part of
2003. Like I mentioned in her previous appraisal, she needs an upward revision of her pay ------".
Another example is the comment on the executive director's PA form that stated "--- needs some
short courses in administration and financial management. Current contract should be renewed --
---". Most of the comments made above have no any other basis except what the appraiser had
already stated before. The process fails to provide for a useful independent discussion of the
contents of the appraisal between the appraise, appraiser and the appraiser's supervisor
(executive director). There is evidence to this effect. For example, the comments made on the
program manager and finance & administration manager's PA forms were that: "---------- - contract
not to be extended beyond 31/12/03, to allow for restructuring of positions below executive
director -----". If these contents had been independently discussed with the appraises, then there
wouldn't have been additional comments made by, for example the program manager, who
stated that "---- I have been unfairly judged -------". Overall, the PA system that is used here does
not cater for getting results from the employee by understanding and managing performance
within an agreed framework of planned goals, standards and attribute/competence requirements.
This is confirmed by







54
Armstrong (1994) who states that PA is a means of getting results from the organization, teams and
individuals by understanding and managing performance within an agreed framework of planned
goals, standards and attribute/competence requirements (Armstrong, 1994). The PA system does
not provide for a shared understanding about what is to be achieved, and an approach to managing
and developing the employee in a way which increases the probability that it will be achieved in a
short and longer term, as confirmed by Armstrong (1984). With the absence of this, then the
comments that are made by the appraiser's supervisor are likely to be vague, with no direct linkage
to the employee's performance, which loses out on the objective of the PA. Besides there is no basis
upon which the comments are made, but instead it is the appraiser's rating that influences and
determines the type of comments that the appraiser's supervisor will record on the PA form. As
should be the case, the appraiser's supervisor is supposed to form an independent view and make
his/her comments from a vantage point of view. This is where some neutrality would be met but
instead this is lacking and the PA process becomes lop- sided. The appraiser's supervisor makes
comments with no performance agreements to refer to yet these ought to have been made between
the employee and his/her supervisor (appraiser) right from the beginning of the year. In addition,
there are no previous reviews that may have been made in the course of the year as part of a
continuous performance management. The issues that would have been picked out from here would
guide the appraiser's supervisor in making his/her independent comments. However in the absence
of all the above, then the actions and or recommendations that may be made are not likely to
contribute positively to the


55

objectives of the performance appraisal. The PA system used here is such that there are many gaps
right from the beginning and the recommendations that will be made, which will mark the end of the
PA, are likely to be irrelevant to the objectives of the PA. There is a statement on the form that says
that "after completion of the PA form, the executive director (appraiser's supervisor) and immediate
supervisor will transparently discuss the contents with each individual appraisee". However most
employees stated that what normally follows is that either the temper is flaring up after the employee
reads unfavorable comments on the PA form, or s/he is happy with the favorable comments on the
PA form. As a result, the employee may not find it helpful to discuss the comments, and hence this
marks the end of the appraisal process, which misses out the main objective of the PA.
Summary and Conclusion:
The comments made by the appraiser's supervisor are not made from his/her own advantage point
of view. It fails to provide for a neutral and independent evaluation of the employee's performance.
The recommendations made by the appraiser's supervisor are guided by the appraiser's
comments and many times do not help to improve the employee's performance. They are
de-linked from the objectives of the PA. The appraiser's supervisor has no reference point
except what the appraiser has already stated.

56


not only in the current job but also to be able to take on wider responsibilities, and extend his/her
capacity to undertake a broader role. Instead the PA process, many times, ends up with the PA
forms being filed and the subject closed till the following year during the month of November
when new forms are distributed and the process repeated.
The system lacks an inbuilt mechanism for providing continuous performance management
review, as well as a less formal development that would be provided to the employee. No
measures are provided for monitoring, reviewing, and assessing performance, and worse still no
work and development objectives to be assessed are agreed upon in the beginning. No regular
meetings occur between employees and their supervisors to give and receive feedback, and no
formal interim reviews at predetermined points in the year exist in the ECOTRUST PA process.
Employees are thus not aware of the ratings concerning their performance, except for extreme
cases of poor performance. The process also fails to provide for less formal development throughout
the year by encouraging coaching, counseling and on-the-job training.
No formal preparation for the appraisal process by the appraiser and appraisee (employee) is
provided for. The process does not provide for ample preparation by the appraiser and the
appriasee (employee) prior to the formal review. No informal environment is created that would allow
for a frank and friendly exchange of views. A good performance appraisal requires preparation on
the part of the supervisor and the employee (Armstrong, 1994). An appointment between the
supervisor and the employee has to be set up in advance and the process should be a two-way
process.


58

The appraisers do not receive any form of training in the performance appraisal process and or
performance management methods/approach. It also requires that the raters have been trained not
only in the rating process, but the entire performance management process (Armstrong, 1994). At
ECOTRUST employees are not trained in the performance management process, let alone the PA
system but instead it is assumed that they have had an exposure from their previous employment
since they are said to be highly experienced! The supervisors are, as such, asked to follow the
instructions on the appraisal form and go ahead with appraising their supervisees.
The rating of employees' performance is based only on the personality traits, is subjective and lacks
uniformity. The performance ratings that the process provides for are based on an employee's
personality traits such as energy, willingness and determination, which are not linked to the actual
behavior relevant to job performance. The process thus fails to improve the employee's performance
yet it is meant to be a performance improvement tool. The judgment made by supervisors on
employees is subjective, and hence vary from one supervisor to another, that is there is no
uniformity.
The outcome of the performance appraisal is based on only one person's decision (executive
director), which is also final with no appeal provided for. The decision to reward, renew or terminate
an employee's contract at ECOTRUST is a one-person decision, and is not necessarily based on
the outcome/results of the PA, but instead on the employee's personality. The one person to make
the final decision is the appraiser's supervisor that is the executive director. The assessment is
based on the employee's past and current performance and not on


59
possible future challenges. The PA attempts to assess the past and current performance of the
employee in a particular job, rather than improvement for the future. This leads to criticism rather
than giving credit or recognition or meaningful support for the performance improvement.
Assessment of the performance of employees by their supervisors is subjective and lacks
uniformity. An employee's good performance may be jeopardized by a single bad incident that may
have occurred towards the end of the year. The PA approach does not incorporate the strategic
needs of the job. The PA is not seen as a normal and continuous management process as the case
is meant to be. Instead, it is portrayed as a once-a-year formal review, which is used as an
administrative core for whipping employees. In the absence of continuous management of
performance, mistakes or failures by employees to deliver are not pointed out immediately they
occur, but instead wait till the end of the year at the time of the formal PA meeting, when surprises
come up. This does not follow Handy (1989) recommendation of "applaud success and forgive
failure" so that mistakes are used as learning opportunities.
In certain cases employees have, during the previous performance appraisals, stated the training
that they would require in order to improve their performance but none was provided, making them
believe that it is just a formality. The office attendant, in justifying the need for training, had this to
say; "----- I require training in front desk management, as it is indicated in the contract under my job
description that I'm supposed to answer calls and take messages during the absence of
secretary/receptionists-------". This implies that she had asked for this type of training



60

before, just as the supervisor ought to have also realized it from her job requirements. The
employees point out that training and development opportunities for employees are dished out
haphazardly, based on personal relationship between the employee and the supervisor, as well as
the availability of funds in the training budget as opposed to budgeting for them. In other cases,
employees said, the executive director hand picks any favorable employee and sends him/her on
any available training course so long as it falls within the employee's area of specialty and funds are
available for spending. This makes the PA lose its main objective since the training opportunity is not
based on the identified performance gaps. The PA approach used also tends not to incorporate the
strategic needs of the job, corporate goals or the personal aspirations of employees and their future
development needs.
The effects that the PA system may have had on ECOTRUST employees all point at de-motivation.
The PA system used describes an employee's characteristics and approach to work, and what the
employee does at the job. It is a tightly controlled and formal procedure that has minimal level of
discussion of activities between the appraisee and the appraiser. It does not necessarily predict or
reflect the outcome or results of the employee's work. This has resulted into demoralized staff to
such an extent that some of them had this to say: " .... imagine Catherine has been told that her
contract will not be renewed and the reasons given are that she is not performing. Yet no targets
were set for her at the beginning of the year, and even the results from her last year's PA form
rated her highly".
Catherine herself had this to say:


61

... 1 have all along been doing my best and nobody told me I was not performing! I have now been
told that my contract will not be renewed due to poor performance! I don't understand what
management here is up to, but I now believe it is high time I quit this organization before I collapsed
due to stress ...
Another member of staff complained:
... 1 have been denied my end-of-year bonus and reasons given are that I have not performed
to expectations! How would I have known? I think my supervisor just doesn't like me.
Most of the employees at ECOTRUST feel that there is need for management to fully
involve them in the PA process/system right from the start.
Summary and Conclusion:
The PA system used at ECOTRUST has several gaps that make it fail to meet the objective of
the PA. It, for example, does not provide for performance plans, agreements and reviews.
Appraisers do not receive any formal training in the PA process but are instead assumed to
know. The rating of employee performance is only based on the personality traits and is
subjective. Generally it fails to improve the employee's performance.
Assessment is based on the past and current performance and not on possible future challenges.



62
The approach does not incorporate the strategic needs of an employee's job.











































63
CHAPTER FOUR


Conclusion and Recommendations
This chapter has two sections; section 1 outlines the conclusions from the study and section 2
are the recommendations derived from the case study.

1.0 Conclusions:

The following conclusions are drawn from the study:

1. The Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda (ECOTRUST) does not have an in-
built performance management plan. In the absence of a performance management
plan, its employees have not been taken through the PM process which would have
helped them to appreciate the mission and value statements of ECOTRUST. They are
also not likely to appreciate the strategies and objectives of ECOTRUST. It follows that
the employees have not had the opportunity to develop their own performance
agreements and plans, which they believe in and would endeavor to accomplish.
Management at ECOTRUST, thus, has not planned for and conducted continuous
management of its employees' performance throughout the year, as well as carrying out
formal reviews of the performance mid-way. With all this missed out, then the appropriate
employee performance gaps may not be easy to identify. It is these gaps that would help
management to determine and plan for the


64
necessary development and training, which would in turn enhance employee performance.
ECOTRUST is then likely to fail to conclude the performance appraisals with objective and
appropriate ranking, and no design of new performance agreements and plans will be done. The
result of all this is that ECOTRUST has failed to create a greater clarity of its employee roles and
objectives. It thus has not been able to provide its employees with encouragement and support so as
to perform better. It has also failed to provide guidance and help for employees to develop their
abilities and potential. The implications here are that the employee performance, instead of being
enhanced, is likely to decline. An employee who is not clear about his/her roles and objectives is
likely to perform poorly, and the interest in the job as well as the morale to perform is likely to decline
too. Eventually the performance of ECOTRUST as a whole may begin to decline. This is a situation
where employees are likely to leave the organization in search of better and satisfying jobs.
ECOTRUST on the other hand is likely to die a natural death unless management styles change.
This is where "Process Consultation" for performance appraisals in organizational development
comes in handy. This is where skills would be developed within ECOTRUST such that the PAs are
eventually carried out by management itself and the process owned. There would be partnership
between the consultant offering the skills and management at ECOTRUST such that PM is
institutionalized into the system.




65


2. The assessment of employee performance at the Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda
(ECOTRUST) is based on an individual's personal characteristics - trait-based. As already
mentioned graphic rating scales (GRS) are used to compare employee performance on criteria
like excellent, very good, good, fair and poor. ECOTRUST also evaluates its employees'
performance in specific areas using trait indicators such as attendance and punctuality, interest
in work, initiative, interpersonal relations, leadership, reliability and meeting set work targets.
Unfortunately these trait indicators are not related to the job being performed by the employee,
which has resulted into the "halo" and "horn" effects. The employee's relationship with the
appraiser has certainly determined the outcome of the appraisal. Appraisers at ECOTRUST
have ended up compromising the assessment in situations where they do not want to spoil the
good relationship that exists between them and the appraisees. On the other hand, appraisees
who are not in good books with their appraisers have ended up with bad appraisal results, not
necessarily because they have not performed well but due to malice and yet there is no room for
crosschecking the outcome. Besides the appraisal form does not provide for the narrative essays
that would have improved the situation by ensuring the appraiser describes and justifies the
employee rating. The implication is that ECOTRUST has ended up failing to measure staff
performance. The process is subjective




66
and unreliable. The consequences that it has had on employees are that the appraisal system has
been used to whip them and in certain cases used to throw them out of their jobs. Employment
contracts for some of them have not been renewed, in which case the PA has been used for firing
as opposed to improving the performance.
3. The performance appraisal system used at the Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda
does not take into consideration an active participation of employees in the process. As
mentioned earlier, it lacks transparency as the appraiser takes upon him/herself to fill in what
she/he thinks the employee deserves, and then passes on the PA form to the employee to
study and sign. The whole assessment is done in confidence. The implication is that
employees at ECOTRUST view the performance appraisal interview with apprehension, and
at times judge the process as a waste of time. They do not look forward to the time when PA
is conducted since they see it as a mere fulfillment of the organizations obligations. The
employees have not realized he benefits
of the PA.
4. At the Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda, the objectives of the performance
appraisal have not been met. The organization has failed to properly assess its employees
and develop their competences. The judgment is made of the past and current performance,
with criticisms being made as opposed to encouragement. The potential that the



67
employees have to tackle or handle any future challenges is not investigated and
developed. As a result ECOTRUST has not helped to enhance its employees'
performance. The judgment that is made has fallen short of being fair and the distribution
of rewards too is not fair.
2.0 Recommendations:
Following this study, the following recommendations are being made to improve the
performance appraisal system at ECOTRUST.
2.1 Introduce an in-built Performance Management System
The Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda (ECOTRUST) should introduce a performance
management (PM) system. This will provide the means of getting results from the organization,
teams and individuals through understanding and managing performance within an agreed
framework of planned goals, standards and attribute/competence requirements (Armstrong, 1994).
This will help management at ECOTRUST to establish a shared understanding about what is to be
achieved from the PA, as well as managing and developing its employees in a way that increases
the probability that it will be achieved in the short and longer term (Armstrong, 1984). This will in turn
establish a culture in which employees, either as individuals or as a group, take responsibility for the
continuous improvement of business processes at ECOTRUST, as well as their skills and
contributions.
68

The direct benefits that ECOTRUST management will reap from the PM process include the
following:
1. A greater clarity of the employees' roles and objectives will be created.
2. It will provide encouragement and support for employees to perform well.
3. It will provide guidance, and help employees to develop their abilities and potential.
4. It will lead to an objective and fair basis for assessing employee performance.
5. It will provide an opportunity for employees to get involved in the PA process with
advance information and time for preparation.
The PM system introduced at ECOTRUST should be as much about developing employees as
rewarding them (Armstrong, 1994). Each aspect of the PM should provide learning opportunities for
ECORTRUST, starting with performance agreements, then regular reviews, and completing the
cycle with a general review of performance and then developing the needs of the employees before
starting the next cycle with a revised performance agreement. The specific activities to be
undertaken in developing PM at ECOTRUST are as follows:
2.1.1 Corporate strategies and objectives
This is where ECOTRUST shares out with its employees the organizations business
strategy, as well as the corporate and functional or departmental objectives. Then
follows the performance agreements and plans.
69

2.1.2 Performance agreements and plans
The managers make agreements with their employees of their accountabilities, tasks, work &
developmental objectives, and knowledge, skill and competence requirements for their jobs. Work
plans and personal development and performance improvement action plans are also made. Then
follows the continuous management of the employee's performance.
2.1.3 Continuous management of performance throughout the year
Employees 'performance is monitored throughout the year by their managers, given regular
feedback on their performance and corrective action taken in the process. This is reinforced by
immediately discussing any mistakes made by the employee or failure to deliver on the performance
agreement and plan. All this should be done constructively so that learning takes place and
improvement plans agreed upon. Success should be applauded and failure forgiven. This should
then be followed by a formal PA at the end of the year.
2.1.4 Formal PA
This should involve managers and individual employees preparing adequately for the PA. Each one
makes individual notes on performance throughout the year, and forms views about reasons for
success or failure. A right atmosphere that is informal and provides for a frank but friendly exchange
of views should be created. In the process of conducting the PA, the manager should praise the
employee for specific achievements. The employees should be allowed to do most of the talking and
get things off their chest which helps them to feel that



70

they are getting a fair hearing, and then invited to make a self-assessment. Discussion should
centre on performance and not on personalities, and based on facts not opinion. This should end
up with an agreement on measurable objectives and a new performance agreement made. A
development and training plan is then made/developed.
2.1.5 Development and training
A formal development and training program should then be formulated from the outcome of the PA,
based on identified performance gaps. A less formal development throughout the year should take
place in form of coaching, on-the- job training and self-development activities. This should be
followed with rating or ranking performance.
2.1.6 Rating or Ranking performance
This should involve making an overall performance rating of the employee.
2.2 Use a competence-based PA system
ECOTRUST should use a competence-based performance appraisal system, which is participatory
in nature, involving the employees in the process right from the start. According to Boyatzis (1982)
competence is defined as underlying characteristics of a person which results in effective, and, or
superior performance of a job. The proposed competence-based PA should involve competence
analysis to obtain detailed and objective information about each employee's role. A compilation
should then be made of competence profiles of each employee, comprising of the types of
knowledge, skill,

71

personal attributes and knowledge required for the job. The work-based competences as well as
behavioral dimensions that affect job performance should be determined. It should be based on key
result areas in the job (Tziner, J oanis, & Murphy, 2000; Armstrong, 1994).
The PA system will use actual work behaviors to evaluate employee performance (Bowman, 1999;
Stone, 1998; Cascio, 1995). This approach evaluates the employees on job-related behaviors
associated with a specific position. The appraiser evaluates the frequency of specific job-related
behaviors that an employee exhibits (Brannick & Prince, 1997). It also incorporates job relevant
factors and discussion plans of the PA process.
At ECOTRUST it will also involve assessing an employee's "applied" knowledge or the
behavior application of knowledge that produces success. It, in addition, will also assess an
employee's manifestation of skills that produce success. Competences are not work motives but
include observable behaviors related to motives. This form of assessment differs from some other
assessment systems, which only measure knowledge and not the application of that knowledge.
This model recognizes that learning can come from a variety of sources, both on the job and off the
job, formal and informal. Recognition is given for prior learning and for skills and knowledge that can
already be shown. This approach would provide a "road map" at ECOTRUST for the range of
behaviors that produce excellent performance. Each employee would then understand how to
achieve what is expected of him or her.

72


REFERENCES
1. U. Sekaram, Research Methods for Business, Third Edition, A Skill-Building Approach, 200.
2. Adams, J .S (1963). Towards an Understanding of Equity, J ournal of Social Psychology, 67,
422-436
3. Adams, J .S. (1965) Inequity in Social Exchange, In Berkowitz, L (Ed), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology. 2, 267-299 New York, Academic Press
4. Armstrong. M & Baron. A (1995), Role and Competence analysis, The job Evaluation
Handbook; London, IPD House, Camp Road; P. 131-145.
5. Armstrong, M (1994), Performance Management. London, Koogan, page limited, Pp 65
6. R. Beckhard and R.T Harris, Organisational Transitions - Second Edition, Managing Complex
Change,Addison Wesley Publishing Co (1978), Reading Massachusetts-USA.
7. Beer. M. (1980), Organizational Change and Development; Scott, Foremen and Company, USA.
8. Cummings G.T and Christopher G.W. (1993), Organizational Development and Change, West
Publishing Co.
9. W.L. French and Bell C.H. J r, Organizational Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for
Organizational Improvement,4th Edition, Prentice Hall International Inc.
10. Cummings TC. & Christopher G.W. (1993), Organizational Development and Change, Fifth
Edition, West Publishing Company, USA.




73

3.Beer. M. (1981), Organization Change and Development, Scott, Foreman and Company, USA.
4. French & Bell (2001), Organizational Development.
5. E.H. Schein, Process Consultation: Lessons for Managers and Consultants: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company
14. Lippit. G. and Lippit. R. (1978), The Consulting Process in Action, Published by University
Association Inc, 1978.
15. Barret, G.v. & Depinet, R.L. (1991), A reconsideration of testing for competence rather that
intelligence, American Psychologist,46, 1012-1024.
16. Bernadin. M. & Beatty. T. (1984) HRM: A Key to Competitiveness, Management Decision,32, 10
16
17. Bowman. J . S. (1999), Performance Appraisal: Verisimilitude trumps veracity, Public
personnel management,28, 557-576.
18. Boyatzi. R. (1982), The competent Manager, New York, Wiley
19. Brannick. M.T. & Prince. C. (1997), An overview of performance & measurement: Theory,
Methods and Applications, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Cascio. W.F. (1995), Managing Human Resources;(4
th
Ed.), Chicago, Irwin, Pp. 274-275.
21. Cascio. W. F. (1998); Performance Appraisal, Applied Psychology in Human Resource
managements" Ed. London, Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd. P 58-79

74

22. Cook. M. (1995), Performance appraisal and true performance, J ournal of managerial
psychology,10, p3.
23. Cummings. H. G, Schwa. D.P, Rosen. B. (1971), Personnel/Human Resource Management,
New Delhi, Universal Book Stall.
24. Day. M. (1989), Management competence and the character initiative, Personnel Management,
21,30-34.
25. Dickson. L. (1992), Competences and managerial effectiveness: putting competence to work,
Public Personnel Management J ournal.27 (1), 103-115.
26. Dingle. J . (1995); Analysing the competence requirements of managers, Management
Development Review, 8, (internet publication).
27. Dipboye. G. & Pontbriand. A. (1981); Human resources decisions: a walk on the dark side,
Organizational Dynamics,21, 59-71.
28. Dulewicz. V. (1989), Assessment centres as the route to competence,
PersonnelManagement,21 (11),56-59.
29. Dunn. B.D. (1982), The skills inventory: Second Generation, Personnel. September-October, 40-
44.
30. Ellstrom. F.H. (1997), Human Resources as the wealth of nations, J ournal of Human
Resource Management,33, (2), 213-33.
31. Gabris. F. & Ihrke (2000) Three Approaches to the investigation of Subgroup bias in
Performance Measurement; Personnel Psychology,20, 51-64.
32. Giegold. C.W. (1978), Management by objectives: A self-instructional approach, Performance
Appraisal and the MBO process,NY, McGraw Hill Book Company, 35-157.
75
6. Goodstein. L.D & Davidson. A.D. (1998), Hiring the right staff; using competence-based
selection, J ournal of Compensation & Benefits Management, 14(3),1-10
7. Greenberg. J . (1990), Organizational justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow, J ournal of
management,16, 399-432.
8. Greenberg. J . (1986), determinants of Procedural fairness of performance Evaluation,
J ournal of Applied Psychology,71, 191-196.
9. Greenberg. J . (1987), Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means
justify the ends? J ournal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55-61.
37. Hedge. J . w. (1983), Pay and Organization development,p.94. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
38. Hedge. J . W. & Teachout. M. S. (2000), Exploring the concept of acceptability as a criterion for
evaluating performance measures, Group and Organization Management,25, 22-44.
39. Heffernan. M. M. & Flood. P. C (2000) An exploration of the relationships between the
adoption of managerial competences, organizational characteristics, human resource
sophistication and performance in Irish organizations, J ournal of European Industrial
Training,24, 128-136.
40. Hersey. P & Blanchard. K. (1988), Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human
Resources,USA, Prentice-Hall International Editions.
41. Hoffman. T. (1999), The meanings of competence, J ournal of European Industrial
Training, 23, 6.

76
42. Hornby. D. & Thomas. R. (1989); Towards a better standard of management, Personnel
management.21 (1), 52-55.
43. Hunt. C. & Meech. L. (1991), Competences and Human Resource Management in the
Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, Australian J ournal of Public
Administration,115 (5), 444-47.
44. J ones. V. G., Ledvinka. J . & Bergman. T. J . (1999), Human Resource
Management.(2
nd
Ed.), Ohio, South Western Cincinnati, Pp 608.
45. Kanungo. R. N. & Misra. S. (1992), Managerial Resourcefulness: a reconceptualization of
management skills, Human Relations,45, 1311-1332.
46. Klein. A. (1996), Validity and Reliability of competence-based systems: reducing litigation risks,
Compensation and Benefits Review, J uly/August, 31-37.
47. Landy Arnold, J ., Cooper. C. L. & Robertson I. T. (1998), Personnel selection and processes:
validation and utility, Work Psychology: Understanding Human Behavior in the Workplace,
Great Britain pitman, 162-189.
48. Landy. J , Barnes. C. L. & Murphy. K. R. (1978), Personnel selection and processes:
validation and utility, Work Psychology: Understanding Human Behavior in the Workplace,
Great Britain, Pitman, 172-199.
49. Lewis. K. (1999), Performance appraisal: Concepts, blueprints, and case studies, P.T:
Magazine of Physical Therapy; Alexandria, 7, 62-65.
50. Lind. N. and Tyler. T. (1988) Increasing Productivity Through Performance Appraisal,
London Addison-Wesley.
51. Lind. N., Tyler. T. & Holliman. R. W. (1990); Gauging Performance objectively, Personnel
Administrator,32, 78. London, Addison-Wesley.
77

22. McClelland. D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than intelligence, American
Psychologist,28, 1-14.
23. Miles and Huberman (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis, London.
54. Miner. J . B. (1992), Industrial-Organizational Psychology, New York, McGraw Hill, Inc. 377-
442.
55. Murphy. K. R. & Cleveland. N. (1995), Multiple Uses of Performance Appraisal: Correlates and
Prevalence, J ournal of Applied Psychology,72, 130-138.
56. O'Reilly. C. A. & Chatman. J . A. (1994), Working smatter and harder: a longitudinal study
managerial success, Administrative Science Quarterly,39, 603-627.
57. Organ. D. W. & Ryan. K. (1995), A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior, Personnel Psychology,48, 19-59.
58. Patterson. T. (1987), A look at Performance Appraisal, Harvard Business Review 35,89-94.
59. Pearn. M. & Kandola. R. (1993); J ob Analysis interviews, J ob Analysis: A Manger's
Guide,a=Ed., IPM.
60. Petit. A. A. & Haines. M. C. (1994); Human Resource Systems and Sustained competitive
advantage: a competence- based perspective, Academy of Management Review,19,699-727.
61. Pickett. L. (1998), Competences and managerial effectiveness: putting competences to work,
Public Personnel Management J ournal,27 (1), 103-115.

78


10.Pierce. C. (1994). Executive competences research issues, activities and responses,
Executive Development,7, 9-32.
11.Pontbriand. A. (1981). The criteria method of performance appraisal, Human Resource
Management, Australia, 17, (21).
12.Sparrow. P. (1994), Organizational Competences: creating strategic behavioral framework
forselection and assessment, in Anderson. N. and Herriot. P. (Eds.), Handbook of Assessment and
Appraisal, London, Wiley.
13.Stone. R. J . (1998), Human Resource Management (3
rd
Ed.), J acaranda, Wiley Ltd, Singapore,
262-302.
14.Taylor. M. S, Matterson. S. S., Renard. M. K. & Tracy. K. B. (1998). Manager's reactions to
procedurally just performance management systems. Academy of Management J ournal,41, 568-
579.
15.Thornton. G. C. & Zorich. S. (1980). Training to improve observer accuracy, J ournal ofApplied
Psychology,65, 351-354.
16.Tyler. T. (1987), The procedural fairness of selection systems: An organizational ustice
perspective, Personnel Management Review,18,694-734.
17.Tziner. A., J oanis. C, & Murphy. K. R. (2000). A comparison of three methods of performance
appraisal with regard to goal properties, goal perception and rate satisfaction. Group and
Organization Management,25, 175-190.
18.Wierma. P. & Latham. M. (1996), User Acceptance of peer Appraisals in an Industrial
Setting, Personnel Psychology, 39, 85-97.
19.Williams. H. (1999), The Pay-for-Performance Dilemma. OrganizationalDynamics pp 49-
62.
79

24. Woodruffe. C. (1998). The Competence Analysis, Assessment Centres: Identifying and
Developing Competence, 2
nd
Ed. London, IPD House, Camp Road, 63-92.
73. Woodruffe. C. (1993). What is meant by a competence? Leadership and Organizational
Development J ournal, 14, pp 28-36.























80